THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE — — — — 1:1-3. THE Paul, a divinely chosen Apostle, and Sosthenes our brother, give Christian greeting to the Corinthian Church, itself also divinely called. 1 Paul, an Apostle called by divine summons equally with the Twelve, and Sosthenes whom ye know, 2 give greeting to the body of Corinthian Christians, who have been consecrated to God in Christ, called out of the mass of mankind into the inner society of the Church to which so many other Christian worshippers belong. 3 May the free and unmerited favour of God, and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him, be yours! May God Himself, our Heavenly Father, and the Lord Jesus Messiah, grant them to you! The Salutation is in the usual three parts: the sender (v. 1), the addressees (v. 2), and the greeting (v. 3). 1. κλητός . Elsewhere only Romans 1:1. As all are called to be ἅγιοι , so Paul is called to be an Apostle: see on v. 2, and note the same parallelism, Romans 1:1, Romans 1:6. In O.T. the idea of κλῆσις is often connected with prophets.* διὰθελήματοςΘεοῦ . As in 2 Cor., Eph., Col., 2 Tim.; expanded, with emphasis on his divine call to the exclusion of any human source or channel, in Galatians 1:1. Sua ipsius voluntate nunquam P. factus esset apostolus (Beng.). Per quod tangit etiam illos, quos neque Christus miserat, neque Per voluntatem Dei praedicabant (Herveius Burgidolensis), viz., the self-constituted teachers, the false apostles. Σωσθένης . He was not necessarily the amanuensis, for Tertius (Romans 16:22) does not appear in the Salutation. In Galatians 1:1, a number of unnamed persons are associated with the Apostle. Nor need this Sosthenes be the Corinthian Jew (Acts 18:17) who was the chief of the synagogue (superseding Crispus the convert?) and perhaps leader of the complaint before Gallio.* If the two are identical, S. himself had (1) subsequently become a Christian, (2) migrated from Corinth to Ephesus. ὁἀδεηφός . A Christian: 16:12; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1:1; Romans 16:23; Hebrews 13:23. The article implies that he was well known to some Corinthians. Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 87, 142) has shown that ἀδελφοί was used of members of religious bodies long before Christians adopted it in this sense. It is remarkable that Apollos is not named as joining in sending the letter (16:12). A D E omit κλητός . ΧριστοῦἸησοῦ (B D E F G 17, Am.) is to be preferred to ἸησοῦΧρ . (א A L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.); see note on Romans 1:1 contrast vv. 1, 2, 4 with 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, where Κύριος is added. 2. τῇἐκκλησίατοῦΘεοῦ . The genitive is possessive: 10:32, 11:16, 22, 15:9; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:13; etc. Cf. Deuteronomy 18:16, 23:1; etc. As Chrysostom remarks, the expression is at once a protest against party-spirit; ‘ the Church of God,’ not of any one individual. τῇοὔσῃ . See Acts 13:1. ἡγιασμένοιςἐνΧρ . Ἰ . The plural in apposition to the collective singular throws a passing emphasis upon the individual responsibility of those who had been consecrated in baptism (6:11) as members of Christ. The perfect participle indicates a fixed state. κλητοῖςἁγίοις . Called by God (Galatians 1:6; Romans 8:30, Romans 8:9:24; etc.) to the Christian society through the preaching of the Gospel (Romans 10:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:14). See note on Romans 1:7 and separate note on ἅγιοι ; also Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching, pp. 96, 98. The active καλεῖν is never used of the human instrument, but only of God or Christ. Admonet Corinthios majestatis ipsorum (Beng.). σὺνπᾶσι . This is generally connected simply with τῆἐκκλησίᾳ , as if St Paul were addressing the Corinthian Church along with all other Christians. But this little suits the individual character of this Epistle, which (much more than Romans, for example) deals with the special circumstances of one particular Church. It is therefore better, with Heinrici, to connect the words with κλητοῖςἁγίοις (contrast 2 Corinthians 1:1). Euthymius Zigabenus takes it so. St Paul is not making his Epistle ‘ Catholic,’ nor is he “ greeting the whole Church in Spirit,” but he is commending to the Corinthians the fact that their call is not for themselves alone, but into the unity of the Christian brotherhood, a thought specially necessary for them. See 14:36. Throughout the Epistles it is the Corinthians alone that are addressed, not all Christendom. τοῖςἐπικαλουμένοις . This goes back to Joe 2:32, and involves the thought of faith, the common bond of all. See Romans 10:12, Romans 10:13. Here, as there, St Paul significantly brings in the worship of Christ under the O.T. formula for worship addressed to the Lord God of Israel. To be a believer is to worship Christ. ἐνπαντὶτόπῳ . Cf. 2 Corinthians 1:1b; but it is hardly possible to read into the present expression the limitation to Achaia. This consideration confirms the view taken above of the force of σὺνπᾶσικ .τ .λ ., in spite of the parallels given by Lightfoot of Clem. ad Cor. 65, and the Ep. of the Church of Smyrna on the death of Polycarp, καὶπάσαιςταῖςκατὰπάντατόποντῆςἁγίαςκαὶκαθολικῆςἐκκλησίαςπαροικίαις . Cf. 2 Corinthians 2:14; 1 Thessalonians 1:8. αὐτῶνκαὶἡμῶν . Connected either with τόπῳ or with Κυρίου . The latter (AV., RV.) would be by way of epanorthosis; ‘ our Lord’ — rather ‘ theirs and ours.’ In itself ἡμῶν is general enough to need no such epanorthosis: but the thought of the claim (v. 13) of some, to possess Christ for themselves alone, might explain this addition. The connexion with τόπῳ (Vulg. in omni loco ipsorum et nostro) is somewhat pointless, in spite of the various attempts to supply a point by referring it either to Achaia and Corinth, or to Ephesus and Corinth, or to Corinth and the whole world, or to the Petrine and the Pauline Churches, etc. etc. He may mean that the home of his converts is his home; cf. Romans 16:13. B D E F G place τῇοὔσῃἐνΚορίνθῳ after ἡγιασμένοιςἐνΧρἸησοῦ . א A D 2 L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. place it before. A omits Χριστοῦ . א 3 A D 3 E L P, Arm. Aeth. insert τε after αὐτῶν , probably for the sake of smoothness. Such insertions are frequent both in MSS. and versions. 3. χάριςὑμῖνκαὶεἰρήνη . This is St Paul’ s usual greeting, the Greek χαίρειν combined with the Hebrew Shalom, and both with a deepened meaning. In 1 and 2 Tim., and in 2 John 1:3, ἔλεος is added after χάρις . St James has the laconic and secular χαίρειν (cf. Acts 15:23). St Jude has ἔλεοςὑμνκαὶεἰρήνηκαὶἀγάπη . In 1 and 2 Pet. we have χάριςὑμῖνκαὶεἰρήνη , as here. The fact that ‘ grace and peace’ or ‘ grace, mercy, and peace’ is found in St Paul, St Peter, and St John, is some evidence “ that we have here the earliest Christian password or symbolum. Grace is the source, peace the consummation” (Edwards). The favour of God leads naturally to peace of mind. Enmity to God has ceased, and reconciliation has followed. Quae gratia a non ofenso? Quae pax a non rebellato? asks Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 5:5). See on Romans 1:5 and 7. In Dan. 3:31 [98] we have as a salutation, εἰρήνηὑμῖνπληθυνθείη . See J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 221-226. In 2 Macc. 1:1 we have χαίρειν … είρήνηνἀγαθήν , and in the Apoc. of Baruch 78:2, “ mercy and peace.” Such greetings are not primarily christian. 1:4-9. OF AND HOPE I thank God continually for your present spiritual condition. Christ will strengthen you to the end according to Divine assurance. 4 I never cease thanking God, because of the favours which He bestowed upon you through your union with Christ Jesus, 5 whereby as immanent in Him ye received riches of every kind, in every form of inspired utterance and every form of spiritual illumination, for the giving and receiving of instruction. 6 These gifts ye received in exact proportion to the completeness with which our testimony to the Messiah was brought home to your hearts and firmly established there; 7 so that (as we may hope from this guarantee) there is not a single gift of grace in which you find yourselves to be behind other Churches, while you are loyally and patiently waiting for the hour when our Lord Jesus Christ shall be revealed. 8 And this hour you need not dread, for our Lord Himself, who has done so much for you hitherto, will also unto the very end keep you secure against such accusations as would be fatal in the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 This is a sure and certain hope: for it was God, who cannot prove false, who Himself called you into fellowship with His Son and in His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord; and God will assuredly do His part to make this calling effective. This Thanksgiving is a conciliatory prelude to the whole Epistle, not directed to a section only (v. 12), nor ironical (1), nor studiously indefinite (Hofm.), but a measured and earnest encomium of their general state of grace (Acts 18:10), with special stress on their intellectual gifts, and preparing the way for candid dealing with their inconsistencies. 4. εὐχαριστῶ . Sosthenes seems to be at once forgotten; this important letter is the Apostle’ s own, and his alone: contrast εὐχαριστοῦμεν , 1 Thessalonians 1:2; ὥσπεροὖνπατὴρἐπὶυἱοῖςεὐχαριστεῖὅτ ʼ ἂνὑγιαίνωσιντὸναὐτὸντρόπονὅτ ʼ ἂνβλέπῃδιδάσκαλοςτοὺςἀκροατὰςπλουτοῦνταςλόγῳσοφίας , εὐχαριστεῖπάντοτεπερὶαὐτῶν (Orig.). With this Thanksgiving compare that in 2 Macc. 9:20 (AV.). See also Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 168. St Paul’ s εὐχαριστῶ is uttered in full earnest: there is no irony, as some think. In the sense of thanksgiving, the verb belongs to Hellenistic rather than to class. Grk. (Lightfoot on 1 Thessalonians 1:2): πάντοτε as in 1 Thessalonians 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 1:3. τῇχάριτιτ . Θ . τ . δοθείσῃ . Special gifts of grace are viewed as incidental to, or presupposing, a state of grace, i.e., the state of one living under the influence of, and governed by, the redemption and reconciliation of man effected by Jesus Christ; more briefly, ‘ the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (2 Corinthians 8:9; cf. ὑπὸχάριν , Romans 6:14). The aorists sum up their history as a Christian community from their baptism to the time of his writing. τῷΘεῷμου (א 1 A C D E F G L P, Latt. Syr. Copt. Arm.); א B. Aeth. omit μου . A and some other authorities omit τοῦΘεοῦ after χάριτι . 5. ὅτιἐνπαντί . Cf. 2 Corinthians 8:7, ὥσπερἐνπαντὶπερισσεύετεπίστεικαὶλόγῳκαὶγνώσει . The two passages, though doubtless addressed to different situations, bring out strikingly by their common points the stronger side of Corinthian Christianity, λόγος and γνῶσις , both true gifts of the Spirit (12:8), although each has its abuse or caricature (1:17-4:20. and 8:1 f.)*. Λόγος is the gift of speech, not chiefly, nor specially, as manifested in the Tongues (which are quite distinct in 12:8 f.), but closely related to the teacher’ s work. It was the gift of Apollos (Acts 18:24). The λόγοςσοφίας is the gift of the Spirit, while σοφίαλόγου — cultivating expression at the expense of matter (v. 17)— is the gift of the mere rhetorician, courting the applause (vanum et inane σοφῶς !) of the ordinary Greek audience. St Paul, according to his chief opponent at Corinth, was wanting in this gift : his oratorical power was founded in deep conviction (v. 18, 2:4, 4:20). St Paul “ loses sight for a moment of the irregularities which had disfigured the church at Corinth, while he remembers the spiritual blessings which they had enjoyed. After all deductions made for these irregularities, the Christian community at Corinth must have presented as a whole a marvellous contrast to their heathen fellow-citizens,— a contrast which might fairly be represented as one of light and darkness” (Lightfoot). This Epistle contains no indication of the disloyalty to the Apostle which we trace in 2 Cor., especially in 10-13. πάσῃγνώσει . See 2 Corinthians 11:6, where St Paul claims for himself eminence in the true γνῶσις , and also 1 Corinthians 8:1 f. 6. καθώς . It introduces, not a mere parallel or illustration, but rather an explanation of what precedes: ‘ inasmuch as’ ; v. 7; John 13:34, John 17:2. But 1 Thessalonians 1:5 (quoted by Lightfoot) is less strong. τὸμαρτύριοντοῦΧρ . ‘ The witness borne [by our preaching] to Christ’ ; genitivus objecti. Cf. 15:15. Origen takes it of the witness borne by the Scriptures to Christ, and also of the witness borne by Christ, who is the ἀρχίμαρτυς through His death. ἐβεβαιώθη . Either (1) was established durably (βεβαιώσει , v. 8) in or among you (Meyer); or (2) was verified and established by its influence on your character (2 Corinthians 3:2); or (3) was brought home to your deepest conviction as true by the witness of the Spirit (2:4.)*. This last is the best sense. B* F G, Arm. have τοῦΘεοῦ for τοῦΧριστοῦ . 7. ὥστεὑμᾶςμὴὑστερεῖσθαι . With the infin., ὥστε points to a contemplated result; with the indic., to the result as a fact (2 Corinthians 5:16; Galatians 2:13). What follows, then, is a statement of what was to be looked for in the Corinthians as the effect of the grace (v. 4) of God given to them in Christ; and there was evidently much in their spiritual condition which corresponded to this (11:2; Acts 18:10). ὑστερεῖσθαι . ‘ Feel yourselves inferior’ ; middle, as in 12:24. The active or passive is more suitable for expressing the bare fact (2 Corinthians 11:5), or physical want (2 Corinthians 11:9; Philippians 4:12); while the middle, more passive than the active and more active than the passive, is applicable to persons rather than things, and to feelings rather than to external facts. The prodigal began to realize his state of want (ὑστερεῖσθαι , Luke 15:14), while the young questioner appealed to an external standard (τίἔτιὑστερῶ ; Matthew 19:20). χαρίσματι . Cf. Romans 1:11, where it is in context with στηριχθῆναι , as here with βεβαιωθῆναι . Philo uses the word of divine gifts (De alleg. leg. iii. 24), and in N.T., excepting 1 Peter 4:10, it is peculiar to Paul. It is used by him (1) of God’ s gift of salvation through Christ, Romans 5:15, Romans 5:6:23; (2) of any special grace or mercy, 7:7; 2 Corinthians 1:11; and (3) of special equipments or miraculous gifts, as that of healing, 12:9; cf. 12:4; Romans 12:6. Here it is by no means to be restricted to (3), but includes (2), for the immediate context, especially v. 8, dwells on gifts flowing from a state of grace. ἀπεκδεχομένους . As in Romans 8:19. For the sense cf. Colossians 3:3 f.; 1 Peter 1:7; 1 John 3:2, 1 John 3:3; and see Μαρὰνἀθά , 16:22. In this reference, of waiting for the Advent, the word is always used of faithful Christians (Galatians 5:5; Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 9:28)* Character Christiani veri vel falsi revelationem Christi vel expectare vel horrere (Beng.). ἀποκάλυψιν . See Romans 8:19; 1 Peter 1:13. Quite needlessly, Michelsen suspects the verse of being a gloss. 8. ὃςκαὶβεβαιώσει . Origen asks, τίςβεβαιοῖ ; and answers, ΧριστὸςἸησοῦς . the ὅς refers to τοῦΚυρίουἡμ . Ἰ . Χρ .; certainly not, as Beng. and others, to Θεός in v. 4. This remote reference is not made probable by the words ἐντῇἡμέρᾳτ . Κ . ἡμ . Ἰ . Χρ . instead of simply ἐντῇἡμ . αὐτοῦ . We have christ’ s name ten times in the first ten verses, and the solemn repetition of the sacred name, instead of the simple pronoun, is quite in St Paul’ s manner; 5:3, 4: 2 Corinthians 1:5; 2 Timothy 1:18. Cf. Genesis 19:24, which is sometimes wrongly interpreted as implying a distinction of Persons. The καί points to correspondence ‘ on His part,’ answering to ἐβεβαιώθη , ἀπεκδεχομένους , in vv. 6, 7. βεβαιώσει . Cf. 2 Corinthians 1:21, and, for the thought, Romans 16:25; 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 1 Thessalonians 5:24. If they fail, it will not be His fault. ἕωςτέλους . The sense is intenser than in 2 Corinthians 1:13; cf. εἰςἐκείνηντὴνἡμέραν (2 Timothy 1:12). Mortis dies est unicuique dies adventus Domini (Herv.).† ἀνεγκλήτους . ‘ Unimpeachable’ for none will have the right to impeach (Romans 8:33; Colossians 1:22, Colossians 1:28). The word implies, not actual freedom from sins, but yet a state of spiritual renewal (2:12 f.; Philippians 1:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 8:1). This proleptic construction of the accusative is found in 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 1 Thessalonians 3:5:23; Philippians 3:21. connect ἐντῇἡμέρᾳ with ἀνεγκλήτους . ἐντῇἡμέρᾳ א A B C L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) rather than ἐντῇπαρουσία (D E F G, Ambrst.), B omits Χριστοῦ . 9. The confident hope expressed in v. 8 rests upon the faithfulness of God (10:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:24; Romans 8:30; Philippians 1:6) who had been the agent, as well as the source, of their call. With δι ʼ οὗ cf. Hebrews 2:10, and also ἐξαὐτοῦκαὶδι ʼ αὐτοῦκαὶεἰςαὐτὸντὰπάντα , Romans 11:36. Διά with genitive can be applied either to Christ or to the Father,* but ἐξοὗ would not be applied by St Paul to Christ. “ Wherever God the Father and Christ are mentioned together, origination is ascribed to the Father and mediation to Christ” (Lightfoot, who refers especially to 8:6). By St Paul, as by St John (6:44), the calling is specifically ascribed to the Father. εἰςκοινωνίαν . This fellowship (Romans 8:17; Philippians 3:10 f.) exists now and extends to eternity: it is effected by and in the Spirit (Romans 8:9 f.); hence κοινωνίαπνεύματος (2 Corinthians 13:13; Philippians 2:1). Vocati estis in societatem non modo apostolorum vel angelorum, sed etiam Filii ejus J. C. Domini nostri (Herv.). The genitive τοῦυἱοῦ is objective, and “ the κοινωνίατοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ is co-extensive with the βασιλείατοῦΘεοῦ ” (Lightcoot). D*F G (not d f g) have ὑφ ʼ οὖ instead of δι ʼ οὖ . After this preamble, in which the true keynote of St Paul’ s feeling towards his Corinthian readers is once for all struck, he goes on at once to the main matters of censure, arising, not from their letter to him (7:1), but from what he has heard from other sources. In the preamble we have to notice the solemn impression which is made by the frequent repetition of ‘ Christ Jesus’ or ‘ our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Only once (v. 5) have we αὐτός instead of the Name. And in the beginning of the next section the Apostle repeats the full title once more, as if he could not repeat it too often (Bachmann). 1:10-6:20. URGENT MATTERS FOR CENSURE 1:10-4:21. THE 10-17. Do be united. I have been informed that there are contentions among you productive of party spirit. It was against this very thing that I so rarely baptised. 10 But I entreat you, Brothers, by the dear name of our Lord Jesus Christ, into fellowship with whom you were called by God Himself, do be unanimous in professing your beliefs, and do not be split up into parties. Let complete unity be restored both in your ways of thinking and in your ultimate convictions, so that all have one creed. 11 I do not say this without good reason: for it is quite clear to me, from what I was told by members of Chloe’ s household, that there are contentions and wranglings among you. 12 What I mean is this; that there is hardly one among you who has not got some party-cry of his own; such as, “ I for my part stand by Paul,” “ And I for my part stand by Kephas,” “ And I stand by Apollos,” “ And I stand by Christ.” 13 Do you really think that Christ has been given to any party as its separate share? was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or was it to allegiance to Paul that you pledged yourselves when you were baptized? 14 Seeing that you thus misuse my name, I thank God that not one of you was baptized by me, excepting Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and my personal friend Gaius. 15 So that God has prevented any one from saying that it was to allegiance to me that you were pledged in baptism. 16 Yes, I did baptize the household of Stephanas, my first converts in Achaia. Besides these, to the best of my knowledge, I baptized no one. 17 For Christ did not make me His Apostle to baptize, but to proclaim His Glad-tidings:— and I did this with no studied rhetoric, so that the Cross of Christ might prevail by its own inherent power. In these verses (10-17) we have the facts of the case. The Apostle begins with an exhortation to avoid dissensions (v. 10), then proceeds to describe (11, 12) and to show the impropriety of (13-17) their actual dissensions. Quorum prius salutem narraverat, postmodum vulnera patefecit (Herv.). 10. παρακαλῶδέ . ‘ But (in contrast to what I wish to think, and do think, of you) I earnestly beg.’ Παρακαλεῖν , like παραιτέομαι (Acts 25:11), suggests an aim at changing the mind, whether from sorrow to joy (consolation), or severity to mercy (entreaty), or wrong desire to right (admonition or exhortation). The last is the sense here. The word is used more than a hundred times in N.T. ἀδελφοί . Used in affectionate earnestness, especially when something painful has to be said (7:29, 10:1, 14:20, etc.). It probably implies personal acquaintance with many of those who are thus addressed: hence its absence from Ephesians and Colossians. διὰτοῦὀνόματος . We should have expected the accusative, ‘ for the sake of the Name.’ The genitive makes the Name the instrument of the appeal (Romans 12:1, Romans 12:15:30; 2 Corinthians 10:1): cf. ἐνὀνόματι , 2 Thessalonians 3:6. It is not an adjuration, but is similar to διὰτ . κυρίονἸησοῦ (1 Thessalonians 4:2). This appeal to the one Name is an indirect condemnation of the various partynames. ἵνα . This defines the purport rather than the purpose of the command or request, as in Matthew 4:3, εἰπὸνἵναοἱλίθοιοὗτοιἄρτοιγένωνται . τὸαὐτὸλέγητε . The expression is taken from Greek political life, meaning ‘ be at peace’ or (as here) ‘ make up differences.’ So Arist. Pol. III. iii. 3, ΒοιωτοὶδὲκαὶΜεγαρῆςτὸαὐτὸλέγοντεςἡσύχαζον , and other examples given by Lightfoot ad loc. Cf. τὸαὐτὸφρονεῖν (Romans 15:15; Philippians 2:2), and see Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 256. The πάντες comes last with emphasis. St Paul is urging, not unison, but harmony. For his knowledge of Greek writers see 15:34; Romans 2:14; Acts 17:28. μὴᾖ . ‘ That there may not be,’ as there actually are: he does not say γένηται . σχίσματα . Not ‘ schisms,’ but ‘ dissensions’ (John 7:43, John 9:16), ‘ clefts,’ ‘ splits’ ; the opposite of τὸαὐτὸλέγητεπάντες . κατηρτισμένοι . The word is suggestive of fitting together what is broken or rent (Matthew 4:21). It is used in surgery for setting a joint (Galen), and in Greek politics for composing factions (Hdt. 5:28). See reff. in Lightfoot on 1 Thessalonians 3:10. cf. 2 Corinthians 13:11; Galatians 6:1; Hebrews 13:21; apte et congruenterinter se compingere (Calv.). νοΐ … γνώμῃ . Νοῦς is ‘ temper’ or ‘ frame of mind,’ which is changed in μετάνοια and is kindly in εὔνοια , while γνώμη is ‘ judgment’ on this or that point. He is urging them to give up, not erroneous beliefs, but party-spirit. 11. ἐδηλώθη . Not ‘ was reported,’ but ‘ was made (only too) evident.’ The verb implies that he was unable to doubt the unwelcome statement. In papyri it is used of official evidence. For ἀδελφοί see on v. 10. ὑπὸτῶνΧλόης . This probably means ‘ by slaves belonging to Chloe’ s household.’ She may have been an Ephesian lady with some Christian slaves who had visited Corinth. Had they belonged to Corinth, to mention them as St Paul’ s informants might have made mischief (Heinrici). The name Chloe was an epithet of Demeter, and probably (like Phoebe, Hermes, Nereus, Romans 16:1, Romans 16:14, Romans 16:15) she was of the freedman class (see Lightfoot, ad loc.). She is mentioned as a person known to the Corinthians. There is no reason to suppose that she was herself a Christian, or that the persons named in 16:17 were members of her household. Evidence is wanting. ἔριδες . More unseemly than σχίσματα , although not necessarily so serious. Nevertheless, not σχίσματα , unless crystallized into αἱρέσεις , but ἔριδες , are named as ‘ works of the flesh’ in Galatians 5:19, Galatians 5:20, or in the catalogues of vices, Romans 1:29-31; 2 Corinthians 12:20; 1 Timothy 6:4. The divisions became noisy. 12. λέγωδὲτοῦτο ‘ Now I mean this’ : but perhaps the force of the δέ is best given by having no conjunction in English; ‘ I mean this.’ The τοῦτο refers to what follows, as in 7:29, 15:50, whereas in 7:35 it refers to what precedes, like αὕτη in 9:3. ἕκαστος . This must not be pressed, any more than in 14:26, to mean that there were no exceptions. No doubt there were Corinthians who joined none of the four parties. It is to be remembered that all these party watchwords are on one level, and all are in the same category of blame. Championship for any one leader against another leader was wrong. St Paul has no partiality for those who claim himself, nor any respect for those who claim Christ, as their special leader. Indeed, he seems to condemn these two classes with special severity. The former exalt Paul too highly, the latter bring Christ too low: but all four are alike wrong. That, if such a spirit showed itself in Corinth at all, Paul, the planter, builder, and father of the community, would have a following, would be inevitable. And Apollos had watered (Acts 18:27, Acts 18:28), and had tutored Paul’ s children in Christ. His brilliancy and Alexandrian modes of thought and expression readily lent themselves to any tendency to form a party, who would exalt these gifts at the expense of Paul’ s studied plainness. “ The difference between Apollos and St Paul seems to be not so much a difference of views as in the mode of stating those views: the eloquence of St Paul was rough and burning; that of Apollos was more refined and polished” (F. W. Robertson)*. Κηφᾶ . Excepting Galatians 2:7, Galatians 2:8, St Paul always speaks of Κηφᾶς , never of Πέτρος . He was unquestionably friendly to St Paul (Galatians 2:7-9; and vv. 11-14 reveal no difference of doctrine between them). But among the Jewish or ‘ devout Greek’ converts at Corinth there might well be some who would willingly defer to any who professed, with however little authority (Acts 15:24), to speak in the name of the leader of the Twelve. “ His conduct at Antioch had given them all the handle that they needed to pit Peter against Paul” (A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul, p. 187). There is no evidence, not even in 9:5, that Peter had ever visited Corinth. It is remarkable that, even among Jewish Christians, the Greek ‘ Peter’ seems to have driven the original ‘ Kephas’ (John 1:43) out of use. Χριστοῦ . The ‘ Christ’ party may be explained in the light of 2 Corinthians 10:7, 2 Corinthians 10:10, 2 Corinthians 10:11, and possibly 11:4, 23 (compare 11:4 with Galatians 1:6), where there seems to be a reference to a prominent opponent of St Paul, whose activity belongs to the situation which is distinctive of 2 Cor. From these passages we gather that, when 2 Cor. was written, there was a section at Corinth, following a leader who was, at least for a time, in actual rebellion against St Paul. This section claimed, in contrast to him, to belong to Christ, which was virtually a claim that Christ belonged to them and not to him; and this claim seems to have been connected with a criterion of genuine Apostleship, namely, to have known Christ in the flesh, i.e. during His life on earth. Doubtless the situation in 2 Cor. goes beyond that which is presupposed in this Epistle. But ἐγὼδὲΧριστοῦ here must not be divorced from the clearer indications there. Those who used the watchword ‘ of Christ’ were probably more advanced Judaizers than those who used the name of Kephas, to whom they stood related, as did the anti-Pauline Palestinian party (Acts 21:20, Acts 21:21) to Kephas himself. The ‘ parties’ at Corinth, therefore, are the local results of streams of influence which show themselves at work elsewhere in the N.T. We may distinguish them respectively as St Paul and his Gospel, Hellenistic intellectualism (Apollos), conciliatory conservatism, or ‘ the Gospel of the circumcision’ (Kephas), and ‘ zealots for the Law,’ hostile to the Apostleship of St. Paul. These last were the exclusive party.* See Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 382. We need not, therefore, consider seriously such considerations as that ἐγὼδὲΧριστοῦ was the cry of all three parties ; or that St Paul approves this cry (Chrysostom, appealing to 3:22, 23); or that it is St Paul’ s own reply to the others; or that it represents a ‘ James’ party (in which case, why is James not mentioned?); or that it marks those who carried protest against party so far as to form a party on that basis. In 3:23 St Paul says ὑμεῖςδὲΧριστοῦ most truly and from his heart; that is true of all: what he censures here is its exclusive appropriation by some, To say, with special emphasis, ‘ I am of Christ,’ is virtually to say that Christ is mine and not yours. In Acts 18:24 and 19:1, א , Copt. have ‘ Apelles,’ while D in 18:24 has ‘ Apollonius.’ The reading ‘ Apelles’ seems to be Egyptian, and goes back to Origen, who asks whether Apollos can be the same as the Apelles of Rom 16:10. For a history of the controversies about the four parties, see Bachmann, pp. 58-63. 13. μεμέρισται . The clauses are all interrogative, and are meant for the refutation of all. ‘ Does Christ belong to a section? Is Paul your saviour? Was it in his name that you were admitted into the Church?’ The probable meaning of μεμέρισται is ‘ has been apportioned,’ i.e. given to some one as his separate share (7:17; Romans 12:3; Hebrews 7:2). This suggestion has been brilliantly supported by Evans. To say, ‘ Is Christ divided?’ implying a negative answer, gives very little point. Lightfoot suggests that an affirmative answer is implied; ‘ Christ has been and is divided only too truly.’ But this impairs the spring and homogeneity of the three questions, giving the first an affirmative, and the other two a negative answer. It amounts to making the first clause a plain statement; ‘ In that case the Body of Christ has been divided.’ Dividitur corpus, cum membra dissentiunt (Primasius). Si membra divisa sunt, et totum corpus (Atto Vercellensis). This meaning is hardly so good as the other. μὴΠαῦλοςἐσταυρώθηκ .τ .λ . To say ἐγὼΠαύλου would imply this. To be a slave is ἄλλουεἶναι , another person’ s property (Arist. Pol. I.). A Christian belongs to Christ (3:23), and he therefore may call himself δοῦλοςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , as St Paul often does (Romans 1:1, etc.): but he may not be the δοῦλος of any human leader (7:23; cf. 3:21; 2 Corinthians 11:20). St Paul shows his characteristic tact in taking himself, rather than Apollos or Kephas, to illustrate the Corinthian error. Cf. 9:8, 9, 12:29, 30. εἰςτὸὄνομα . He takes the strongest of the three expressions: the εἰς (Matthew 28:19; Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5) is stronger than ἐπί (Acts 2:38, v.l.) or ἐν (Acts 10:48). ‘ Into the name’ implies entrance into fellowship and allegiance, such as exists between the Redeemer and the redeemed. Cf. the figure in 10:2, and see note there. St Paul deeply resents modes of expression which seem to make him the rival of Christ. Non vult a sponsa amari pro sponso (Herv.). At the Crucifixion we were bought by Christ; in baptism we accepted Him as Lord and Master: crux et baptismus nos Christo asserit (Beng.). “ The guilt of these partizans did not lie in holding views differing from each other: it was not so much in saying ‘ this is the truth,’ as it was in saying ‘ this is not the truth.’ The guilt of schism is when each party, instead of expressing fully his own truth, attacks others, and denies that others are in the Truth at all” (F. W. Robertson). See Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 146, 196; Light from the Anc. East, p. 123. It is difficult to decide between ὑπὲρὑμῶν (א A C D2 E F G L P, provobis Vulg.) and περὶὑμῶν (B D*). The former would be more likely to be substituted for the latter, as most usual, than vice versa. But περί is quite in place, in view of its sacrifical associations. See note on Romans 8:3. 14. εὐχαριστῶ . A quasi-ironical turn; ‘ What difficulties I have unconsciously escaped.’ Κρίσπον . One of the first converts (Acts 18:8).* Ruler of the synagogue. Γαῖον . Probably the host of St Paul ‘ and of the whole Church’ at Corinth (Romans 16:23), but probably not the hospitable Gaius of 3 John 1:5, 3 John 1:6. This common Roman praenomen belongs probably to five distinct persons in the N.T. The Greek preserves the correct Latin form, which is sometimes written Caius, because the same character originally stood in Latin for both G and C. Crispus, ‘ curly,’ is a cognomen. After εὐχαριστῶ , א 3 A C D E F G L P, Vulg. add τῷΘεῷ , while A 17, Syrr. Copt. Arm. add τῷΘεῷμου — a very natural gloss. א * B 67, Chrys. omit. 15. ἵναμήτιςεἴπῃ . The ἵνα points to the tendency of such an action on the Apostle’ s part among those who had roved themselves capable of such low views: compare ἵνα in Romans 11:11; John 9:2. Their making such a statement was “ a result viewed as possible by St Paul” . Thus the sense comes very near to that of ὥστε with the infinitive (v. 7). In N.T., ἵνα never introduces a result as an objective fact, but its strictly final or telic force shows signs of giving way (v. 10),— a first step towards its vague use in mod. Grk. as a mere sign of the infinitive. Those who strive to preserve its strictly telic sense in passages like this (as Winer, Meyer, and others) have recourse to the so-called Hebraic teleological instinct of referring everything, however mechanically, to over-ruling Providence. In 7:29, if “ the time is cut short,” this was done with the providential intention ‘ that those who have wives should be as those who have none’ : and in John 9:2 the sense would be that ‘ if this man sinned or his parents,’ the reason was that Providence purposed that he should be born blind. While refusing to follow such artificial paradoxes of exegesis, we may fully admit that Providentia Dei regnat saepe in rebus quarum ratio postea cognoscitur. ἐβαπτίσθητε (א A B C*, Vulg. Copt. Arm.) rather than ἐβάπτισα (C3 D E F G L P). RV. corrects AV. 16. ἐβάπτισαδὲκαί . A correction which came into his mind as he dictated:— on reflexion, he can remember no other case. Possibly his amanuensis reminded him of Stephanas. Στεφανᾶ . The name is a syncopated form, like Apollos, Demas, Lucas, Hermas, etc. It would seem that Stephanas was an earlier convert even than Crispus (16:15). ‘ Achaia’ technically included Athens, and Stephanas may himself have been converted there with the ἕτεροι of Acts 17:34; but his household clearly belongs to Corinth, and they, not the head only, are the ‘ first-fruits of Achaia,’ which may therefore be used in a narrower sense. λοιπόν . The neut. sing. acc. (of respect) used adverbially; quod superest (Vulg. caeterum) : τὸλοιπόν is slightly stronger. See Lightfoot on Philippians 3:1 and on 1 Thessalonians 4:1. Cf. 4:2; 2 Corinthians 13:11. St Paul forestalls possible objection. 17. οὐγὰρἀπέστειλένμε . This verse marks the transition to the discussion of principle which lies at the root of these σχίςματα , viz. the false idea of σοφία entertained by the Corinthians. The Apostle did not as a rule baptize by his own hand, but by ὑπηρέται .. Perhaps other Apostles did the same (Acts 10:48). See John 4:1, John 4:2 for our Lord’ s practice. Baptizing required no special, personal gifts, as preaching did. Baptism is not disparaged by this; but baptism presupposes that the great charge, to preach the Gospel, * has been fulfilled; Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:47; [Mark] 16:15: and, with special reference to St Paul, 9:16, 17; Acts 9:15, Acts 9:20, Acts 9:22:15, Acts 9:21, Acts 9:26:16. Ἀπέστειλεν =‘ sent as His ἀπόστολος .’ οὐκἐνσοφιᾳλόγου . See note on v. 5. Preaching was St Paul’ s great work, but his aim was not that of the professional rhetorician. Here he rejects the standard by which an age of rhetoric judged a speaker. The Corinthians were judging by externals. The fault would conspicuously apply, no doubt, to those who ‘ ran after’ Apollos. But the indictment is not limited to that party. All alike were externalists, lacking a sense for depth in simplicity, and thus easily failing a prey to superficialities both in the matter and in the manner of teaching. L’ é vangile n’ est pas une sagesse, c’ dest un salut (Godet). ἵναμὴκενωθῇ . To clothe the Gospel in σοφίαλόγου was to impair its substance: κενοῦν , cf. 9:15; Romans 4:14; 2 Corinthians 9:3, and εἰςκενόν , Galatians 2:2; Philippians 2:16. In this he glances at the Apollos party. 1:18-3:4. THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE (I) 1:15-2:5. The False Wisdom 18-31. The message of the Cross is foolishness to the wonder-seeking Jew and to the wisdom-seeking Greek: but to us, who have tried it, it is God’ s power and God’ s wisdom. Consider your own case, how God has chosen the simple and weak in preference to the wise and strong, that all glorying might be in Him alone. 18 To those who are on the broad way that leadeth to destruction, the message of the Cross of course is foolishness; but to those who are in the way of salvation, as we feel that we are, it manifests the power of God. 19 For it stands written in Scripture, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will set at nought. 20 What, in God’ s sight, is the Greek philosopher? What, in God’ s sight, is the Jewish Rabbi? What, be he Jew or Gentile, is the skilful disputer of this evil age? Did not God make foolish and futile the profane wisdom of the non-Christian world? 21 For when, in the providence of God, the world, in spite of all its boasted intellect and philosophy, failed to attain to a real knowledge of God, it was God’ s good pleasure, by means of the proclaimed Glad-tidings, which the world regarded as foolishness, to save those who have faith in Him. 22 The truth of this is evident. Jews have no real knowledge of the God whom they worship, for they are always asking for miracles; nor Greeks either, for they ask for a philosophy of religion: 23 but we proclaim a Messiah who has been crucified, to Jews a revolting idea, and to Greeks an absurd one. 24 But to those who really accept God’ s call, both Jews and Greeks, this crucified Messiah is the supreme manifestation of God’ s power and God’ s wisdom. 25 For what the Greek regards as the unwisdom of God is wiser than mankind, and what the Jew regards as the impotency of God is stronger than mankind. 26 For consider, Brothers, the circumstances of your own call. Very few of you were wise, as men count wisdom, very few were of great influence, very few were of high birth. 27 Quite the contrary. It was the unwisdom of the world which God specially selected, in order to put the wise people to shame by succeeding where they had failed; and it was the uninfluential agencies of the world which God specially selected, in order to put its strength to shame, by triumphing where that strength had been vanquished; 28 and it was the low-born and despised agencies which God specially selected, yes, actual nonentities, in order to bring to nought things that are real enough. 29 He thus secured that no human being should have anything to boast of before God. 30 But as regards you, on the other hand, it is by His will and bounty that ye have your being by adoption in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom manifested from God,— wisdom which stands for both righteousness and sanctification, yes, and redemption as well. 31 God did all this, in order that each might take as his guiding principle what stands written in Scripture, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. The Gospel in its essence makes no appeal to appreciation based on mere externalism. Divine Wisdom is not to be gauged by human cleverness (18-25). The history and composition of the Corinthian Church is a refutation of human pretensions by Divine Power (26-29), which, in the Person of Christ, satisfies the deeper needs and capacities of man (30, 31). 18. ὁλόγος . In contrast, not to λόγοςσοφίας (v. 5, 2:6), but to σοφιάλόγου (v. 17); the preaching of a crucified Saviour. The AV. spoils the contrast by rendering ‘ the wisdom of words’ and ‘ the preaching of the Cross.’ The use of σοφία in these two chapters should be compared with the ἅγιονπνεῦμα in the Book of Wisdom (1:5, 9:17), πνεῦμασοφίας (7:7), etc. St Paul had possibly read the book. We have in Wisdom the opposition between the σῶμα and the πνεῦμα or ψυχή or σοφία (1:4, 2:3, 9:15). τοῦσταυροῦ . “ This expression shows clearly the stress which St Paul laid on the death of Christ, not merely as a great moral spectacle, and so the crowning point of a life of self-renunciation, but as in itself the ordained instrument of salvation” (Lightfoot). Cf. Ign. Eph. 18. τοῖςμὲνἀπολλυμένοις . ‘ For them who are perishing’ (dativus commodi), not ‘ In the opinion of those who are perishing’ (Chrys.). Compare carefully 2 Corinthians 2:16, 2 Corinthians 2:4:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:10. The verb (John 3:16) is St Paul’ s standing expression for the destiny of the wicked (15:18). The force of the present tense is ‘ axiomatic,’ of that which is certain, whether past, present, or future: ἀπὸτοῦτέλουςτὰςκατηγορίαςτιθείς (Theodoret). The idea of predestination to destruction is quite remote from this context: St Paul simply assigns those who reject and those who receive ‘ the Word of the Cross’ to the two classes corresponding to the issues of faith and unbelief; and he does not define ‘ perishing.’ It is rash to say that he means annihilation; still more rash to say that he means endless torment. Eternal loss or exclusion may be meant. μωρία . See on v. 21 and 2 Corinthians 4:3. τοῖςδὲσωζομένοις . It is not quite adequate to render this ‘ to those who are in course of being saved.’ Salvation is the certain result (15:2) of a certain relation to God, which relation is a thing of the present. This relation had a beginning (Romans 8:24), is a fact now (Ephesians 2:5, Ephesians 2:8), and characterizes our present state (Acts 2:47); but its inalienable confirmation belongs to the final adoption or ἀπολύτρωσις (Romans 8:23; cf. Ephesians 4:30). Meanwhile there is great need for watchful steadfastness, lest, by falling away, we lose our filial relation to God. Consider 10:12, 9:27; Galatians 5:4; Matthew 24:13. ἡμῖν . ‘ As we have good cause to know.’ The addition of the pronoun throws a touch of personal warmth into this side of the statement: ‘ you and I can witness to that.’ * δύναμιςΘεοῦἐστίν . See Romans 1:16. Not merely ‘ a demonstration of God’ s power,’ nor ‘ a power of God,’ but ‘ God’ s power.’ The contrast between δύναμιςΘεοῦ and μωρια belongs to the very core of St Paul’ s teaching (2:4; cf. 4:20). Wisdom can carry conviction, but to save, — to give illumination, penitence, sanctification, love, peace, and hope to a human soul,— needs power, and divine power. 19. γέγραπταιγάρ . Proof of what is stated in v. 18, i.e. as regards the failure of worldly cleverness in dealing with the things of God. By γέγραπται , used absolutely, St Paul always means the O.T. Scriptures; v. 31, 2:9, 3:19, 10:7, 15:45; Romans 1:17, Romans 1:2:24, Romans 1:3:4, Romans 1:10, etc. ἀπολῶτὴνσοφίαν . From Isaiah 29:14 (LXX), substituting ἀθετήσω for κρύψω , in accordance with St Paul’ s usual freedom of citation.* The Prophet, referring to the failure of worldly statesmanship in Judah in face of the judgment of the Assyrian invasion, states a principle which the Apostle seizes and applies. Possibly ἀθετήσω comes from Psalms 33:10. σύνεσιν . Worldly common sense (Matthew 11:25). It has its place in the mind that is informed by the Spirit of God (Colossians 1:9), and the absence of it is a calamity (Romans 1:21, Romans 1:31). On σύνεσις and σοφία see Arist. Eth. Nic. VI. vii. 10. ἀθετήσω . The verb is post-classical, frequent in Polybius and LXX. Its etymological sense is not ‘ destroy,’ but ‘ set aside’ or ‘ set at nought,’ and this meaning satisfies the present passage and the use in N.T. generally. 20. ποῦσοφός ; A very free citation from the general sense of Isa 33:18 (cf. 19:12): St Paul adapts the wording to his immediate purpose. The original passage refers to the time following on the disappearance of the Assyrian conqueror, with his staff of clerks, accountants, and takers of inventories, who registered the details of the spoil of a captured city. On the tablet of Shalmaneser in the Assyrian Gallery of the British Museum there is a surprisingly exact picture of the scene described by Isaiah. The marvellous disappearance of the invading host was to Isaiah a signal vindication of Jehovah’ s power and care, and also a refutation, not so much of the conqueror’ s ‘ scribes,’ as of the worldly counsellors at Jerusalem, who had first thought to meet the invader by an alliance with Egypt, or other methods of statecraft, and had then relapsed into demoralized despair. St Paul’ s use of the passage, therefore, although very free, is not alien to its historical setting. See further on 2:9 respecting examples of free quotation. For ποῦ ; see 15:55; Romans 3:27. The question is asked in a triumphant tone.† The ‘ wise’ is a category more suitable to the Gentile (v. 22), the ‘ scribe’ to the Jew, while the ‘ disputer’ no doubt suits Greeks, but suits Jews equally well (Acts 6:9, Acts 9:29, Acts 28:29). This allotment of the terms is adopted by Clement of Alexandria and by Theodoret, and is more probable than that of Meyer and Ellicott, which makes σοφός generic, while γραμματεύς is applied to the Jew, and σύζητητής to the Greek. But it is unlikely that St Paul is here making an exact classification, or means any one of the terms to be applied to Jew or Gentile exclusively. συνζητητής . A ἅπαξλεγόμενον , excepting Ign. Eph. 18, from this passage. τοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου . This is certainly applicable to Jews (see on 2:8), but not to them exclusively (Galatians 1:4; Romans 12:2). The phrase is rabbinical, denoting the time before the Messianic age or ‘ age to come’ (Luke 18:30, Luke 20:35). This αἰών , the state of things now present, including the ethical and social conditions which are as yet unchanged by the coming of Christ, is fleeting (7:31), and is saturated with low motives and irreligion (2:6; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2). As αἰών , “ by metonymy of the container for the contained,” denotes the things existing in time, in short the world, ὁαἰὼνοὗτος may be rendered ‘ this world’ ; hujus saeculi quod totum est extra sphaeram verbi crucis (Beng.). See Grimm-Thayer s.v. αἰών , and the references at the end of the article; also Trench, Syn. § lix. The genitive belongs to all three nouns. οὐχὶἐμώρανεν ; Nonne stultam fecit (Vulg.), infatuavit (Tertull. and Beza). Cf. Romans 1:22, Romans 1:23, and Isaiah 19:11, 44:25, 33. The passage in Romans is an expansion of the thought here. God not only showed the futility of the world’ s wisdom, but frustrated it by leaving it to work out its own results, and still more by the power of the Cross, effecting what human wisdom could not do,— not even under the Law (Romans 8:3). τοῦκόσμου . Practically synonymous with τοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου (2:12, 3:18, 19): but we do not find ὁκόσμοςὁμέλλων , for κόσμος is simply the existing universe, and is not always referred to with censure (5:10; John 3:16).* After κόσμου , א 3 C3 E F G L, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. add τούτου . א A B C D* P 17, Orig. omit. It is doubtless an insertion from the previous clause. 21. ἐπειδὴγάρ . Introduces, as the main thought, God’ s refutation of the world’ s wisdom by means of what the world holds to be folly, viz. the word of the Cross, thus explaining what was stated in vv. 19, 20. But this main thought presupposes the self-stultification of the world’ s wisdom in the providence of God. ἐντῇσοφίᾳτοῦΘεοῦ . This is taken by Chrysostom and others (e.g. Edwards, Ellicott) as God’ s wisdom displayed in His works (Romans 1:20; Acts 14:17), by which (ἐν quasi-instrumental) the world ought to have attained to a knowledge of Him. But this sense of σοφία would be harsh and abrupt; and the order of the words is against this interpretation, as is also the context . ‘ The wisdom of God’ is here God’ s wise dealing with mankind in the history of religion, especially in permitting them to be ignorant (Acts 17:30; Romans 11:32; cf. Acts 14:16; Romans 1:24). So Alford, Findlay, Evans, Lightfoot. οὐκἔγνω . This applies to Jew as well as to Greek, although not in the same manner and degree. “ The Pharisee, no less than the Greek philosopher, had a σοφία of his own, which stood between his heart and the knowledge of God” (Lightfoot). See Romans 10:2. The world’ s wisdom failed, the Divine ‘ foolishness’ succeeded. εὐδόκησεν . Connects directly with γάρ . The word belongs to late Greek: Romans 15:26; Galatians 1:15; Colossians 1:19. διὰτῆςμωρίαςτοῦκηρύγματος . Cf. Isaiah 28:9-13. Κήρυγμα (Matthew 12:41) differs from κήρυξις as the aorist does from the present or imperfect: it denotes the action, not in process, but completed, or viewed as a whole. It denotes, not ‘ the thing preached’ (RV. marg.), but ‘ the proclamation’ itself (2:4; 2 Timothy 4:17); and here it stands practically for ‘ the word of the Cross’ (v. 18), or the Gospel, but with a slight emphasis upon the presentation. Κηρύσσειν , which in earlier Greek meant ‘ to herald,’ passes into its N.T. and Christian use by the fact that the ‘ Good-tidings’ proclaimed by Christ and His Apostles was the germ of all Christian teaching (Matthew 3:1, Matthew 4:17). ‘ The foolishness of preaching’ is a bold oxymoron (cf. v. 25), presupposing and interpreting v. 18. In N.T., μωρία is peculiar to 1 Cor. (18, 23, 2:14, 3:19). τοὺςπιστεύοντας . With emphasis at the end of the sentence, solving the paradox of God’ s will to work salvation for man through ‘ foolishness.’ The habit of faith (pres. part.), and not cleverness, is the power by which salvation is appropriated (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:25). He does not say τοὺςπιστεύσαντας , which might mean that to have once believed was enough. 22. ἐπειδή . This looks forward to v. 23, to which v. 22 is a kind of protasis : ‘ Since— while Jews and Gentiles alike demand something which suits their unsympathetic limitations— we, on the other hand, preach,’ etc. The two verses explain, with reference to the psychology of the religious world at that time, what has been said generally in vv. 18, 21. The repeated καί brackets (Romans 3:9) the typical Greek with the typical Jew, as the leading examples, in the world in which St Paul’ s readers lived, of the ἀπολλύμενοι , the κόσμος and its wisdom. In a similar way the opposed sects of Epicureans and Stoics are bracketed by St Luke (Act_17.) as belonging, for his purpose, to one category. By the absence of the article (not ‘ the Jews,’ ‘ the Greeks,’ as in AV.) the terms connote characteristic attributes rather than denote the individuals. There were many exceptions, as the N.T. shows. σημεῖααἰτοῦσιν . Matthew 12:38, Matthew 12:16:4; John 4:48. The Jewish mind was matter-of-fact and crudely concrete. “ Hebrew idiom makes everything as concrete as possible” (R. H. Kennett). There were certain wonders specified as to be worked by the Messiah when He came, and these they ‘ asked for’ importunately and precisely. The Greek restlessly felt after something which could dazzle his ingenious speculative turn, and he passed by anything which failed to satisfy intellectual curiosity (Acts 17:18, Acts 17:21, Acts 17:32).* Lightfoot points to the difference between the arguments used by Justin in his Apologies addressed to Gentiles, and those used by him in his controversy with Trypho the Jew.† See Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 393. The AV. has ‘ require a sign.’ L, Arm. have σημεῖον . Beyond question σημεῖα (א A B C D, etc.) must be read: ‘ ask for signs’ is right. B. Weiss prefers σημεῖον ‡ 23. Χριστὸνἐσταυρωμένον . ‘ A crucified Messiah’ (2:2; Galatians 3:1). ‘ We preach a Christ crucified’ (RV. marg.), the very point at which the argument with a Jew encountered a wall of prejudice (Acts 26:23, εἰπαφητὸςὁΧριστός . Cf. Galatians 2:21, Galatians 5:11). The Jews demanded a victorious Christ, heralded by σημεῖα , who would restore the glories of the kingdom of David and Solomon. To the Jew the Cross was the sufficient and decisive refutation (Matthew 27:42; cf. Luke 24:21) of the claim that Jesus was the Christ. To the first preachers of Christ, the Cross was the atonement for sin (15:3, 11). On this subject the Jew had to unlearn before he could learn; and so also, in a different way, had the Greek. Both had to learn the divine character of humility. Christ was not preached as a conqueror to please the one, nor as a philosopher to please the other: He was preached as the crucified Nazarene. ἔφνεσινδὲμερίαν . The heathen, prepared to weight the ‘ pros and cons’ of a new system,’ lacked the presuppositions which might have prepared the Jew for simple faith in the Christ. To him, the Gospel presented no prima facie case; it was unmeaning not even plausible: he was not, like the Jew, bent on righteousness (Romans 9:30-3). Compare Cicero’ s horror of crucifixion (Pro Rabir. 5), Lucian’ s reference to our Saviour (De mort. Peregr. 13) as τὸνἀνεσκολοπισμένονἐκεῖνονσοφιστήν , and the well-known caricature, found on the Palatine, of a slave bowing down to a crucified figure with an ass’ s head, inscribed Αλεξαμενοςθεονσεβεται . A few authorities (C3 D3, Clem-Alex.) have Ἕλλησι instead of ἔθνεσιν . Orig. seems to have both readings. 24. αὐτοῖς corresponds to ἡμῖν in v. 18, as τοῖςκλητοῖς to τοῖςσωζομένοις : ‘ to the actual believers’ in contrast to other Jews and Gentiles. The pronoun is an appeal to personal experience, as against objections ab extra. Χριστόν . This implies the repetition of ἐσταυρωμένον . It is in the Cross that God’ s power (Romans 1:16) and wisdom (v. 30, below) come into operation for the salvation of man. God’ s power and wisdom show themselves in a way which is not in accordance with men’ s a priori standards: they altogether transcend such standards. Whether St. Paul is here touching directly the line of thought which is expressed in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel is very doubtful. He may be said to do so indirectly, in so far as the doctrine of the work of Christ involves that of His Person (Colossians 1:17-20, Colossians 2:9)* 25. τὸμωρὸντοῦΘεοῦ . Either, ‘ a foolish thing on God’ s part’ (such as a crucified Messiah), or, better, ‘ the foolishness of God’ (AV.), in a somewhat rhetorical sense, not to be pressed. God’ s wisdom, at its lowest, is wiser than men, and God’ s power, at its weakest, is stronger than men. It is quite possible to treat the construction as a condensed comparison; ‘ than men’ s wisdom,’ ‘ than men’ s power’ (Matthew 5:20; John 5:36). So Lightfoot, Conbeare and Howson, etc. Infirmitas Christi magna victoria est (Primasius). Victus visit mortem, quam nullus gigas evasit (Herv.). Mortem quam reges, gigantes, et principes superare non poterant, ipse moriendo vicit (Atto). Throughout the above passage (17-25) we may note the close sequence of explanatory conjunctions, γάρ (18, 19, 21), ἐπειδή (22), ὅτι (25). Without pretending to seize every nuance of transition, or to call the Apostle to stringent account for every conjunction that he uses, the connexion of the successive clauses may be made fairly plain by following it in the order of thought. The γάρ and ὅτι going from effect to cause, present the sequence in reverse order. In following the order of thought, however, we must not forget that proof is sometimes from broad principles, sometimes from particular facts. The order works out somewhat as follows:— The Divine Power and Wisdom, at their seeming lowest, are far above man’ s highest (25); for this reason (22-24) our Gospel — a poor thing in the eyes of men, is, to those who know it, the Power and Wisdom of God. This exemplifies (21) the truth underlying the history of the world, that man’ s wisdom is convicted of failure by the simplicity of the truth as declared by God. This is how God, now as of old, turns to folly the wisdom of the wise (19, 20), a principle which explains the opposite look which the ‘ word of the Cross’ has to the ἀπολλύμενοι and the σωζόμενοι (18): and that is why (17) my mission is to preach οὐκἐνσοφίᾳλόγου . As a chain of explanatory statements, the argument might have gone straight from v. 18 to v. 22; but St Paul would not omit a twofold appeal, most characteristic of his mind, to Scripture (19, 20), and to the religious history of mankind (21), the latter being exhibited as a verification of the other. Texts vary considerably as to the position of ἐσγίν in the first clause of v. 25, and also in the second clause. In the second, א * B 17 omit έσΤίν , and it is probably an interpolation from the first. 26. βλέπετεγάρ . An unanswerable argumentum ad hominem, clinching the result of the above passage, especially the comprehensive principle of v. 25. The verb is imperative (RV.), not indicative (AV.), and governs τὴνκλῆσιν directly. It is needless subtlety to make τ . κλ . an accusative of respect, ‘ Behold— with reference to your call— how that not many,’ etc. τὴνκλῆσινὑμῶν . ‘ Summon before your mind’ s eye what took place then; not the ranks from which one by one you were summoned into the society of God’ s people; very few come from the educated, influential, or well-connected class.’ With κλῆσις compare κλητοί , vv. 2, 24: it refers, not so much to the external call, or even to the internal call of God, as to the conversion which presupposes the latter: πάντωνἀνθρώπωνκεκλημένωνοἰὐπακοῦσαιβουληθέντεςκλητοὶὠνομάσθηαν (Clem. Alex. Strom. I.P. 314). See on 7:20, and Westcott on Ephesians 1:18. ἀδελφοί . As in v. 10, the affectionate address softens what might give pain. ὅτιοὐπολλοί . A substantival clause, in apposition to κλῆσιν as the part to the whole: they are to ‘ behold their calling,’ specially noting these facts which characterized it. From ‘ not many’ we may assume that in each case there were some: but 10:5 warns us against interpreting οὐπολλοί as meaning more than ‘ very few.’ κατὰσἀρκα . This applies to δυνατοί and εὐγενεῖς as well as to σοφοί . Each of the three terms is capable of a higher sense, as εὐγενεῖς in Acts 17:11; each may be taken either (1) as a predicate, ‘ not many of the called were wise,’ etc.; or (2) as belonging to the subject, the predicate being understood, ‘ not many wise had part therein’ ; or (3) like (2), but with a different predicate, ‘ not many wise were called’ (AV., RV.). The last is best. Some of the converts were persons of culture and position; Dionysius at Athens (Acts 17:34), Erastus at Corinth (Romans 16:23), the ladies at Thessalonica and Beroea (Acts 17:4, Acts 17:12). But the names known to us (16:17; Rom_16.) are mostly suggestive of slaves or freedmen. Lightfoot refers to Just. Revelation 2:9; Orig. Cels. 2:79.* 27. τὰμωρά . Cf Matthew 11:25. The gender lends force to the paradox: τοὺςσοφούς leads us to expect τοὺςἰσχυρούς , κ .τ .λ ., but the contrast of genders is not kept up in the other cases. έζελέξατο . The verb is the correlative of κλῆσις (26), but here, as in many other places, it brings in the idea of choice for a particular end. Thus, of the choosing of Matthias, of Stephen, of St Paul as a σκεῦοςἐκλογῆς , of St Peter to admit the first Gentiles (Acts 15:7). The emphatic threefold ἐξελέξατοὁΘεός prepares the way for v. 31. See 4:7 and Ephesians 2:8. The Church, like the Apostle (2 Corinthians 12:10), was strong in weakness. 28. ἐξουφενημένα . See on 6:4; also 2 Corinthians 10:10. Ἀγενής here only. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 2:1-5. The False Wisdom (Continued) So I came to you and preached, not a beautiful philosophy, but a crucified Christ. I was a feeble, timid speaker; and it was not my eloquence, but the power of God, that converted you. 1 And (in accordance with this principle of glory only in the Lord) when I first came to Corinth, Brothers, it was as quite an ordinary person (so far as any pre-eminence in speech or wisdom is concerned) that I proclaimed to you the testimony of God’ s love for you. 2 For I did not care to know, still less to preach, anything whatever beyond Jesus Christ; and what I preached about Him was that He was crucified. 3 And, as I say, it was in weakness and timidity and painful nervousness that I paid my visit to you: 4 and my speech to you and my message to you were not conveyed in the persuasive words which earthly wisdom adopts. No, their cogency came from God’ s Spirit and God’ s power; 5 for God intended that your faith should rest on His power, and not on the wisdom of man. 1. κἀγώ . ‘ And I, accordingly.’ The καί emphasizes the Apostle’ s consistency with the principles and facts laid down in 1:8-31, especially in 27-31. His first preaching at Corinth eschewed the false σοφία , and conformed to the essential character of the Gospel. The negative side comes first (vv. 1, 2). ἐλθών . At the time of his first visit (Acts 18:1 f.). We have an analogous reference, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, 1 Thessalonians 2:1. ἀδελφοί . The rebuke latent in this reminder, and the affectionate memories of his first ministry to souls at Corinth (4:15), combine to explain this address (1:10, 26). ἧλθον . The repetition, ἐλθὼνπρὸςὑμᾶς … ἦλθον , instead of ἦλθονπρὸςὑμᾶς , is not a case of broken construction, still less a Hebraism. It gives solemn clearness and directness to St Paul’ s appeal to their beginnings as a Christian body. καθ ʼ ὑπεροχήν . Most commentators connect the words with καταγγέλλων rather than ἦλθον . Compare κατὰκράτος (Acts 19:20), καθ ʼ ὑπερβολήν (1 Corinthians 12:31). Elsewhere in N.T. ὑπεροχή occurs only 1 Timothy 2:2; cf. ὑπερέχειν , Romans 13:1 etc. ‘ Preeminence’ is an exact equivalent. λόγουἢσοφίας . See on 1:5, 17. καταγγέλλων . The tense marks, not the purpose of the visit, for which the future would be suitable, but the way in which the visit was occupied. The aorists sum it up as a whole. Lightfoot suggests that ἀγγέλλειν after verbs of mission or arrival (Acts 15:27) is commonly in the present participle, as meaning ‘ to bear, rather than to deliver, tidings.’ But this does not always suit καταγγέλλειν in N.T.; see 11:26; Acts 4:2; Romans 1:8; Philippians 1:17; and ἀγγέλλειν , uncompounded, occurs only John 20:18, with ἀπαγγ . as v.l. μαρτύριον . ‘ He spoke in plain and simple language, as became a witness’ (Lightfoot). Testimonium simpliciter dicendum est: nec eloquentia nec subtilitate ingenii opus est, quae testem suspectum potius reddit (Wetstein). Cf. 15:15; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Timothy 1:8. The first reference is decisive as to the meaning here. τοῦθεοῦ . genitivus objecti as in 1:6. The testimony is the message of God’ s love to mankind declared in the saving work of Christ (Romans 5:8; John 3:16); it is therefore a μαρτύριοντ . Θεοῦ as well as a μαρτ . τ . Χριστοῦ . There is, of course, a withness from God (1 John 5:9), but the present connexion is with the Apostolic message about God and His Christ. μαρτύριον (א 3 B D E F G L P, Vulg. Sah. Aeth. Arm. AV. RV. marg.) is probably to be preferred to μυσγήριον (א * A C, Copt. RV.). WH. prefer the latter; but it may owe its origin to v. 7. On the other hand, μαρτ . may come from 1:6. 2. οὐγὰρἔκρινατιεἰδέναι . ‘ Not only did I not speak of, but I had no thought for, anything else.’ Cf. Acts 18:5, συνείχετοτῷλόγῳ , ‘ he became engrossed in the word.’ For κρίνειν of a personal resolve see 7:37; Romans 14:13; 2 Corinthians 2:1. Does the οὐ connect directly with ἔκρινα or with τιεἰδέναι , as in AV., RV.? The latter is attractive on account of its incisiveness; ‘ I deliberately refused to know anything.’ But it assumes that οὐκἔκρινα = ἔκριναοὐ , on the familiar analogy of οὐφημί . Apparently there is no authority for this use of οὐκἔκρινα : οὐκεῶ , as Lightfoot points out, is not strictly analogous. Accordingly, we must preserve the connexion suitable to the order of the words; ‘ I did not think fit to know anything.’ He did not regard it as his business to know more. Ellicott remarks that “ the meaning is practically the same” : but we must not give to a satisfactory meaning the support of unsatisfactory grammar. τιεἰδέναι . Not quite in the sense of ἐγνωκέναιτι (8:2), ‘ to know something,’ as Evans here. In that case εἰμή would mean ‘ but only.’ But τι simply means ‘ anything’ whatever. ἸησοῦνΧριστόν . As in 1:1; contrast 1:23. In the Epistles of this date, Χριστός still designates primarily the Office; ‘ Jesus, the Anointed One, and that (not as King in His glory, but)— crucified.’ καὶτοῦτονἐσταυρωμένον . The force of καὶτοῦτον is definitely to specify the point on which, in preaching Jesus Christ, stres was laid (ὁλόγοςτ . σταυροῦ , 1:18), the effect being that of a climax. The Apostle regards the Person and Work of Jesus the Messiah as comprising in essence the whole Gospel, and the Crucifixion, which him involves the Resurrection, as the turning-point of any preaching of his work. This most vital point must not be forgotten when considering vv. 6 f. below. τιεἰδέναι (B C P 17) is to be preferred to εἰδέναιτι (א A D2 F G L), D2 L ins. τοῦ before εἰδέναιτι . 3. κἀγώ . He now gives the positive side— in what fashion he did come (3-5). As in v. 1, the ἐγώ is emphatic; but here the emphasis is one of contrast. ‘ Although I was the vehicle of God’ s power (1:18, 2:4, 5), I not only eschewed all affectation of cleverness or grandiloquence, but I went to the opposite extreme of diffidence and nervous self-effacement. Others in my place might have been bolder, but I personally was as I say.’ Or else we may take v. 3 as beginning again at the same point as v. 1; as if the Apostle had been interrupted after dictating v. 2, and had then begun afresh. Lightfoot regards κἀγώ as simply an emphatic repetition, citing Juvenal 1:15, 16, Et nos ergo manum ferulae subduximus, et nos Consilium dedimus Sullae. ἐνἀσθενείᾳ . Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:29, 2 Corinthians 12:10. The sense is general, but may included his unimpressive presentce (2 Corinthians 10:10) and shyness in venturing unaccompanied into strange surroundings (cf. Acts 17:15, Acts 18:5), coupled with anxiety as to the tidings which Timothy and Silvanus might bring (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:13). There was also the thought of the appalling wickedness of Corinth, of his poor success at Athens, and of the deadly hostility of the Jews to the infant Church of Thessalonica (Acts 17:5, Acts 17:13). Possibly the malady which had led to his first preaching in Galatia (Galatians 4:13) was upon him once more. If this was epilepsy, or malarial fever (Ramsay), it might well be the recurrent trouble which he calls a ‘ thorn for the flesh’ (2 Corinthians 12:7). ἐνφόβῳκαὶἐντρόμῳπολλῷ . We have φόβος and τρόμος combined in 2 Corinthians 7:15; Philippians 2:12; Ephesians 6:5. The physical manifestation of distress is a climax. St Paul rarely broke new ground without companions, and to face new hearers required an effort for which he had to brace himself. But it was not the Gospel which he had to preach that made him tremble: he was ‘ not ashamed’ of that (Romans 1:16). Nor was it fear of personal danger. It was rather “ a trembling anxiety to perform a duty.” In Ephesians 6:5, slaves are told to obey their masters μετὰφόβουκ .τρόμου , which means with that conscientious anxiety that is opposed to ὀφθαλμοδουλία (Conybeare and Howson).*, No other N.T. writer has this combination of φόβος and τρόμος . Some MSS. omit the second ἐν . ἐγενόμηνπρὸςὑμᾶς . These words are probably to be taken together, exactly as in 16:10; ‘ I was with you.’ The sense of becoming in the verb, and of movement in the preposition, is attenuated. ‘ My visit to you was in weakness,’ preserves both the shade of meaning and the force of the tense. Cf. 2 John 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:7, 1 Thessalonians 1:10. 4. καὶὁλόγοςμον . See on 1:5, 17. Various explanations have been given of the difference between λόγος and κήρυγμα , and it is clear that to snake the former ‘ private conversation,’ and the latter ‘ public preaching,’ is not satisfactory. Nor is the one the delivery of the message and the other the substance of it: see on 1:21. More probably, ὁλόγος looks back to 1:18, and means the Gospel which the Apostle preached, while κήρυγμα is the act of proclamation, viewed, not as a process , but as a whole. Cf. 2 Timothy 4:17. οὐκἐνπιθοῖςσοφίαςλόγοις . The singular word πιθός or πειθός , which is found nowhere else, is the equivalent of the classical πιθανός . which Josephus (Ant. VIII. ix. I) uses of the plausible words of the lying prophet of 1Ki_13. The only exact parallel to πιθός or πειθός from πείθω is φιδός or φειδός form φείδομαι , and in both cases the spelling with a diphthong seems to be incorrect (WH. App. p. 153). The rarity of the word has produced confusion in the text. Some cursives and Latin witnesses support a reading which is found in Origen and in Eus. Praep. Evang. i. 3., ἐνπειθοῖ [ανθρωπίνης ] σοφίαςλόγων , in persuasione sapientiae [humanae] verbi, or sermones for sermonis; where πειθοῖ is the dat. of πειθώ . From this, ἐνπειθοῖσοφίας has been conjectured as the original reading; but the evidence of א A B C D E L P for ἐνπιθοῖς or πειθοῖς is decisive;† and while σοφίαςλόγοις almost certainly is genuine, ἀνθρωπίνης almost certainly is not, except as interpretation. The meaning is that the false σοφία , the cleverness of the rhetorician, which the Apostle is disclaiming and combating throughout this passage, was specially directed to the art of persuasion: cf. πιθανολογία (Colossians 2:4). ἀποδείξει . Not elsewhere in N.T. It has two very different meanings: (1) ‘ display’ or ‘ showing off’ (cf. 4:9 and Luke 1:80), and (2) ‘ demonstration’ in the sense of ‘ stringent proof.’ The latter is the meaning here. Aristotle distinguishes it from συλλογισμός . The latter proves that a certain conclusion follows from given premises, which may or may not be true. In ἀπόδειξις the premises are known to be true, and therefore the conclusion is not only logical, but certainly true. In Eth. Nic. I. iii. 4 we are told that to demand rigid demonstrations from a rhetorician is as unreasonable as to allow a mathematician to deal in mere plausibilities. Cf. Plato Phaed. 77 C, Theaet. 162 E.* St Paul is not dealing with scientific certainty: but he claims that the certitude of religious truth to the believer in the Gospel is as complete and as ‘ objective’ — equal in degree, though different in kind— as the certitude of scientific truth to the scientific mind. Mere human σοφία may dazzle and overwhelm and seem to be unanswerable, but assensum constringit non res; it does not penetrate to those depths of the soul which are the seat of the decisions of a lifetime. The Stoics used ἀπόδειξις in this sense. πνεύματοςκαὶδυνάμεως . See on 1:18. The demonstration is that which is wrought by God’ s power, especially His power to save man and give a new direction to his life. As it is all from God, why make a party-hero of the human instrument? Some Greek Fathers suppose that miracle-working power is meant, which is an idea remote from the context. Origen refers πνεύματος to the O.T. prophecies, and δυνάμεως to the N.T. miracles, thus approximating to the merely philosophic sense of ἀπόδειξις . And if δυνάμεως means God’ s power, πνεύματος will mean His Spirit, the Holy Spirit. The article is omitted as in v. 13 (cf. Galatians 5:16 and Philippians 2:1 with 2 Corinthians 13:13). See Ellicott ad loc. The genitives are either subjective, ‘ demonstration proceeding from and wrought by the Spirit and power of God,’ or qualifying, ‘ demonstration consisting in the spirit and power of God,’ as distinct from persuasion produced by mere cleverness. The sense of πνεύματος is well given by Theophylact: ἀρρήτῳτινιτρόπῳπίστινἐνεποίειτοῖςἀκούουσιν . For the general sense see 1 Thessalonians 1:5 and 2:13; ‘ our Gospel came not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit’ ; and ‘ ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe.’ St Paul’ s appeal is to the strong conviction and deep practical power of the Gospel. Not that strong conviction is incompatible with error: there is such a thing as ἐνέγειαπλάνης , causing men to believe what is false (2 Thessalonians 2:11); but the false σοφία engenders on depth of conviction. Lightfoot quotes Longinus, who describes St Paul as πρῶτον … προΐστάμενονδόγματος — meaning philosophic proof, whereas St Paul is asserting a proof different in kind. “ It was moral, not verbal [nor scientific] demonstration at which he aimed.” This epistle is proof of that. ἀνθρωπίνης (א cA C L P, Copt. AV.) before σοφίας is rejected by all editors. 5. ἵνα . This expresses, either the purpose of God, in so ordering the Apostle’ s preaching (Theodoret), or that of the Apostle himself. The latter suits the ἔκρινα of v. 2; but the former best matches the thought of v. 4, and may be preferred (Meyer, Ellicott). The verse is co-ordinate with 1:31, but rises to a higher plane, for πίστις is more intimately Christian than the καύχησις of the O.T. quotation. μὴᾖἐνσοφίᾳἀνθρώπων . The preposition marks the medium or sphere in which faith has its root: cf. ἐντούτῳπιστεύομεν (John 16:30). We often express the same idea by ‘ depend on’ rather than by ‘ rooted in’ ; ‘ that your faith may not depend upon wisdom of men, but upon power of God.’ What depends upon a clever argument is at the mercy of a cleverer argument. Faith, which is at its root personal trust, springs from the vital contact of human personality with divine. Its affirmations are no mere abstract statements, but comprise the experience of personal deliverance; οἶδαγὰρὧπεπίστευκα (2 Timothy 1:12). Here the negative statement is emphasized. (II.) 2:6-3:4. The True Wisdom 2:6-13. The True Wisdom Described To mature Christians we Apostles preach the Divine Wisdom, which God has revealed to us by His Spirit. 6 Not that as preachers of the Gospel we ignore wisdom. when we are among those whose faith is ripe, we impart it. But it is not a wisdom that is possessed by this age; no, nor yet by the leaders of this age, whose influence is destined soon to decline. 7 On the contrary, what we impart is the Wisdom of God, a mystery hitherto kept secret, which God ordained from before all time for our eternal salvation. 8 of this wisdom no one of the leaders of this age has ever acquired knowledge, for if any had done so, they would never have crucified the Lord whose essential attribute is glory. 9 But, so far from any of them knowing this wisdom, what stands written in Scripture is exactly true about them, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man,— whatsoever things God prepared for them that love Him. 10 But to us, who are preachers of His Gospel, God has unveiled these mysteries through the operation of His Spirit; for His Spirit can explore all things, even the deep mysteries of the Divine Nature and Will. 11 We can understand this a little from our own experience. What human being knows the inmost thoughts of a man, except the man’ s own spirit within him? Just so no one has attained to knowledge of the inmost thoughts of God, except God’ s own Spirit. 12 Yet what we received was not the spirit which animates and guides the non-Christian world, but its opposite, the Spirit which proceeds from God, given to us that we may appreciate the benefits lavished upon us by God. 13 And what He has revealed to us we teach, not in choice words taught by the rhetoric of the schools, but in words taught by the Spirit, matching spiritual truth with spiritual language. 6. Σοφίανδὲλαλοῦμεν . The germ of the following passage is in 1:24, 30: Christ crucified is to the κλητοί the wisdom of God. This is the guiding thought to be borne in mind in discussing St Paul’ s conception of the true wisdom.* There are two points respecting λαλοῦμεν . Firstly, St Paul includes others with himself, not only his immediate fellow-workers, but the Apostolic body as a whole (15:11). Secondly, the verb means simply ‘ utter’ : it must not be pressed to denote a kind of utterance distinct from λόγος and κήρυγμα (v. 4), such as private conversation. ἐντοῖςτελείοις . It is just possible that there is here an allusion to the technical language of mystical initiation; but, if so, it is quite subordinate. By τέλειοι St Paul means the mature or full-grown Christians, as contrasted with νήπιοι (3:1).† The word is used again 14:20; Philippians 3:15; Ephesians 4:13. Those who had attained to the fulness of Christian experience would know that his teaching was really philosophy of the highest kind. The ἐν means, not merely ‘ in the opinion of,’ but literally ‘ among,’ in consessu; ‘ in such a circle’ the Apostle utters true wisdom. It is quite clear that St Paul distinguishes two classes of hearers, and that both of them are distinct from the ἀπολλύμενοι of 1:18, or the Jews and Greeks of 1:22, 23. On the one hand, there are the τέλειοι , whom he calls lower down πνευματικοί (v. 13-3:1); on the other hand, there is the anomalous class of σάρκινοι , who are babes in Christ. Ideally, all Christians, as such, are πνευματικοί (12:31; Galatians 3:2, Galatians 3:5; Romans 8:9, Romans 8:15, Romans 8:26). But practically, many Christians need to be treated as (ὡς , 3:1), and to all intents are, σάρκινοι , νήπιοι , ψυχικοί (v. 14), even σαρκικοί (3:3). The work of the Apostle has as its aim the raising of all such imperfect Christians to the normal and ideal standard; ἵναπαρυστήσωμενπάνταἄνθρω . ποντέλειονἐνΧριστῷ (Colossians 1:28, where see Lightfoot). St Paul’ s thought, therefore, seems to be radically different from that which is ascribed to Pythagoras, who is said to have divided his disciples into τέλειοι and νήπιοι . It is certainly different from that of the Gnostics, who erected a strong barrier between the initiated and the average Christians . There are clear traces of this Gnostic distinction between esoteric and exoteric Christians in the school of Alexandria (Eus. H.E. 5:11.), and a residual distinction survives in the ecclesiastical instinct of later times (Ritschl, Fides Implicita). The vital difference is this: St Paul, with all true teachers, recognizes the principle of gradations. He does not expect the beginner at once to equal the Christian of ripe experience; nor does he expect the Gospel to level all the innumerable diversities of mental and moral capacity (8:7, 12:12-27; Rom_14.). But, although gradations of classes among Christians must be allowed, there must be no differences of caste. The ‘ wisdom’ is open to all; and all, in their several ways, are capable of it, and are to be trained to receive it. So far as the Church, in any region or in any age, is content to leave any class in permanent nonage, reserving spiritual understanding for any caste, learned, or official, or other,— so far the Apostolic charge has been left unfulfilled and the Apostolic ideal has been abandoned. The δέ is explanatory and corrective; ‘ Now by wisdom I mean, not,’ etc. τοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου . See on 1:20. αὐδὲτῶνἀρχόντων . It is quite evident from v. 8 that the ἄρχοντες are those who took part in the Crucifixion of the Lord of Glory. They, therefore, primarily include the rulers of the Jews. Peter says, καὶνῦν , ἀδελφοί , οἶδαὅτικατὰἄγνοιανἐπράξατε , ὥσπερκαὶοἱἄρχοντεςὑμῶν (Acts 3:17); and if St Luke is responsible for the form in which this speech is reported, the words may be regarded as the earliest commentary on our passage. But Pilate also was a party to the crime: and ‘ the rulers of this dispensation’ includes all, as well ecclesiastical as civil. Some Fathers and early writers, from Marcion (Tert. Marc. v. 6) downwards, understand the ἄρχοντεςτοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου to mean demons: Cf. κοσμοκράτοραςτοῦσκότουςτοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου (Ephesians 6:12). Perhaps this idea exists already in Ignatius; ἔλαθεντὸνἄρχοντα [τ . αἰῶνος ] τούτου … ὁθάνατοςτοῦΚυρίου . See Thackeray, The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 156 f., 230 n. But this interpretation is wholly incompatible with v. 8, as also is the very perverse suggestion of Schmiedel that St Paul refers to Angels, whose rule over certain departments in God’ s government of the world belongs only to this dispensation, and ceases with it , and who are unable to see into the mysteries of redemption (Galatians 3:19; 1 Peter 1:12). See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 5. τῶνκαταργουμένων . See on 1:28. The force of the present tense is ‘ axiomatic.’ These rulers and their function belong to the sphere of πρόσκαιρα (7:31; 2 Corinthians 4:18), and are destined to vanish in the dawn of the Kingdom of God. So far as the Kingdom is come, they are gone. Yet they have their place and function in relation to the world in which we have our present station and duties (7:20, 24, 31), until all ‘ pass away into nothingness.’ 7. ἀλλὰλαλοῦμεν . The verb is repeated for emphasis with the fully adversative ἀλλά (Romans 8:15; Philippians 4:17); ‘ But what we do utter is,’ etc. θεοῦσοφίαν . The Θεοῦ is very emphatic, as the context demands, and nearly every uncial has the words in this order. To read σοφίανΘεοῦ (L) mars the sense. ἐνμυστηριῳ . We may connect this with λαλοῦμεν , to characterize the manner of communication, as we say, ‘ to speak in a whisper,’ or to characterize its effect— ‘ while declaring a mystery.’ Or we may connect with σοφίαν : and this is better, in spite of the absence of τήν before ἐνμυστηρίῳ (see Lightfoot on 1 Thessalonians 1:1). The ‘ wisdom’ is ἐνμυστηρίῳ , because it has been for so long a secret, although now made known to all who can receive it, the ἅγιοι (Colossians 1:26) and κλητοί . Assuming that μαρτύριον is the right reading in v. 1, we have here almost the earliest use of μυστήριον in N.T. (2 Thessalonians 2:7 is the earliest). See J.A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 234-240, for a full discussion of the use of the word in N.T., also Westcott, Ephesians, pp. 180-182. τὴνἀποκεκρυμμένην . For the sense see Ephesians 3:5; Colossians 1:26; Romans 16:25. The words are explanatory of ἐνμυστηρίῳ . The wisdom of God had been hidden even from prophets and saints (Luke 10:24), until the fulness of time: now it is made manifest. But it remains hidden from those who are not prepared to receive it; e.g. from Jews (2 Corinthians 3:14) and the ἀπολλύμενοι generally (2 Corinthians 4:3-6). This contrast is followed up in vv. 8-16. ἣνπροώρισενὁΘεός . To be taken directly with the words that follow, without supplying ἀποκαλύψαι or any similar link. The ‘ wisdom’ is ‘ Christ crucified’ (1:18-24), fore-ordained by God (Acts 4:28; Ephesians 3:11) for the salvation of men. It was no afterthought or change of plan, as Theodoret remarks, but was fore-ordained ἄνωθενκαὶἐξἀρχῆς . εἰςδόξανἡμῶν . Our eternal glory, or complete salvation (2 Corinthians 4:17; Romans 8:18, Romans 8:21, etc.). From meaning ‘ opinion,’ and hence ‘ public repute,’ ‘ praise,’ or ‘ honour,’ δόξα acquires in many passages the peculiarly Biblical sense of ‘ splendour,’ ‘ brightness,’ ‘ glory.’ This ‘ glory’ is used sometimes of physical splendour, sometimes of special ‘ excellence’ and ‘ pre-eminency’ ; or again of ‘ majesty,’ denoting the unique glory of God, the sum-total either of His incommunicable attributes, or of those which belong to Christ. In reference to Christ, the glory may be either that of His pre-incarnate existence in the Godhead, or of His exaltation through Death and Resurrection, at God’ s right hand. It is on this sense of the word that is based its eschatological sense, denoting the final state of the redeemed. Excepting Hebrews 2:10 and 1 Peter 5:1, this eschatological sense is almost peculiar to St Paul and is characteristic of him (15:43; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:14; Romans 5:2; Philippians 3:21, etc.). This state of the redeemed, closely corresponding to ‘ the Kingdom of God,’ is called ‘ the glory of God,’ because as God’ s adopted sons they share in the glory of the exalted Christ, which consists in fellowship with God. This ‘ glory’ maybe said to be enjoyed in this life in so far as we are partakers of the Spirit who is the ‘ earnest’ of our full inheritance (2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 1:5:5; Ephesians 1:14; cf. Romans 8:23). But the eschatological sense is primary and determinant in the class of passages to which the present text belongs, and this fact is of importance. What is the wisdom of which the Apostle is speaking? Does he mean a special and esoteric doctrine reserved for a select body of the initiated ? Or does he mean the Gospel, ‘ the word of the Cross,’ as it is apprehended, not by babes in Christ, but by Christians of full growth? Some weighty considerations suggest the former view, which is adopted by Clement, Origen, Meyer, and others; especially the clear distinction made in 3:1, 2 between the γάλα and the βρῶμα , coupled with the right meaning of ἐν in v. 6. On the other hand, the frequent assertions (1:18, 24, 30) that Christ crucified is the Power and Wisdom of God, coupled with the fact that this Wisdom was ‘ fore-ordained for our salvation’ (see also σῶσαι in 1:21), seem to demand the equation of the wisdom uttered by the Apostle with the μωρίατοῦκηρύματος , and the equation of Θεοῦσοφίαν in 2:7 with Θεοῦσοφίαν in 1:24 (cf. 1:30). These considerations seem to be decisive. With Heinrici, Edwards, and others, we conclude that St Paul’ s ‘ wisdom’ is the Gospel, simply. With this Chrysostom agrees; σοφίανλέγειτὸκήρυγμακαὶτὸντρόποντῆςσωτηρίας , τὸδιὰτοῦσταυροῦσωθῆναι · τελείοῦςδὲτοῦςπεπιστευκότος . But the γάλα and the βρῶμα of 3:2, and the distinction between τέλειοι and νήπιοιἐνΧριστῷ , must be satisfied. The τέλειοι are able to follow the ‘ unsearchable riches of Christ’ and ‘ manifold wisdom of God’ (Ephesians 3:8, Ephesians 3:10) into regions of spiritual insight, and into questions of practical import, to which νήπιοι cannot at present rise. But they may rise, and with proper nurture and experience will rise. There is no bar to their progress. The ‘ wisdom of God,’ therefore, comprises primarily Christ and Him crucified; the preparation for Christ as regards Jew and Gentile; the great mystery of the call of the Gentiles and the apparent rejection of the Jews; the justification of man and the principles of the Christian life; and (the thought dominant in the immediate context) the consummation of Christ’ s work in the δόξαἡμῶν . The Epistle to the Romans, which is an unfolding of the thought of 1 Corinthians 1:24-31, is St Paul’ s completest utterance of this wisdom. It is βρῶμα , while our Epistle is occupied with things answering to γάλα , although we see how the latter naturally leads on into the range of deeper problems (13., 15). But there is no thought here, or in Romans, or anywhere in St Paul’ s writings, of a disciplina arcani or body of esoteric doctrine. The βρῶμα is meant for all, and all are expected to grow into fitness for it (see Lightfoot on Colossians 1:26 f.); and the form of the Gospel (2:2) contains the whole of it in germ. 8. ἣνοὐδεὶς … ἔγνωκεν . The ἥν must refer to σοφίαν , ‘ which wisdom none of the rulers of this world hath discerned.’ εἰγάρ . Parenthetical confirmation of the previous statement. ‘ Had they discerned, as they did not, they would not have crucified, as they did.’ It is manifest from this that the ἄρχοντες are neither demons nor angels, but the rulers who took part in crucifying the Christ. τὸνΚύριοντῆςδοξῆς . Cf. James 2:1; Ephesians 1:17; Acts 7:2; also Psalms 24:7; Hebrews 9:5. The genitive is qualifying, but the attributive force is strongly emphatic, bringing out the contrast between the indignity of the Cross (Hebrews 12:2) and the majesty of the Victim (Luke 22:69, Luke 23:43).* 9. ἀλλά . ‘ On the contrary (so far from any, even among the great ones of this world, knowing this wisdom, the event was) just as it stands written.’ There is no difficulty in understanding γέγονεν , or some such word, with καθὼςγέγραπται . But the construction can be explained otherwise, and perhaps better. See below, and on 1:19. ἃὀφθαλμὸςοὐκεἶδεν . The relative is co-ordinate with ἥν in v. 8, refers to σοφία , and therefore is indirectly governed by λαλοῦμεν in v. 7 (so Heinrici, Meyer, Schmiedel). It might (so Evans) be governed by ἀπεκάλυψεν , if we read ἡμῖνδέ and take v. 10 as an apodosis. But this is awkward, especially as ἅ does not precede καθῶςγέγραπται . The only grammatical irregularity which it is necessary to acknowledge is that ἅ serves first as an accusative governed by εἶδεν and ἤκουσεν , then as nominative to ἀνέβη , and once more in apposition to ὅσα in the accusative. Such an anacoluthon is not at all violent. ἐπὶκαρδίαν … οὑκἀνέβη . Cf. Acts 7:23; Isaiah 65:17; Jeremiah 3:16, etc. ‘ Heart’ in the Bible includes the mind, as here, Romans 1:21, Romans 10:6, etc. ὅσα . In richness and scale they exceed sense and thought (John 14:2). ἡτοίμασεν . Here only does St Paul use the verb of God. When it is so used, it refers to the blessings of final glory, with (Luke 2:31) or without (Matthew 20:23, Matthew 20:25:34; Mark 10:40; Hebrews 11:16) including present grace; or else to the miseries of final punishment (Matthew 25:41). See note on δόξα , v. 7. The analogy of N.T. language, and the dominant thought of the context here, compel us to find the primary reference in the consummation of final blessedness. See Aug. De catech. rud. 27; Const. Apost. VII. xxxii. 2; with Irenaeus, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. This does not exclude, but rather carries with it, the thought of ‘ present insight into Divine things’ (Edwards). See on v. 10, and last note on v. 7. τοῖςἀγαπῶσιναὐτόν . See Romans 8:28-30. Clement of Rome (Cor. 34), in quoting this passage, restores τοῖςὑπομένουσιν from Isaiah 64:4 in place of τοῖςἀγαπῶσιν . This seems to show that he regards the καθὼςγέγραπται is introducing a quotation from Isaiah. We ought possibly to read ὃσαἡτοίμασεν with A B C, Clem-Rom. But ἅἡτοίμασεν is strongly supported (א D E F G L P, Clem-Alex. Orig. Polyc-Mart.). Vulg. has quae with d e f g r. The much debated question of the source of St Paul’ s quotation must be solved within the limits imposed by his use of καθὼςγέγραπται . See on 1:19 and 31. The Apostle unquestionably intends to quote Canonical Scripture. Either, then, he actually does so, or he unintentionally (Meyer) slips into a citation from some other source. The only passages of the O.T. which come into consideration are three from Isaiah. (1) 54:4, ἀπὸτοῦαἰῶνοςοὐκἡκούσαμενοὐδὲοἱὀφθαλμοὶἡμῶνεἶδονΘεὸνπλὴνσοῦκαὶτὰἔργασοῦ , ἅποιήσειςτοῖςὑπομένουσινἔλεον (Heb. ‘ From eternity they have not heard, they have not hearkened, neither bath eye seen, a God save Thee, who shall do gloriously for him that awaiteth Him’ ). (2) 65:17, καὶοὐμὴἐπέλθῃαὐτῶνἐπὶτὴνκαρδίαν (observe the context). Also (3) 52:15, as quoted Romans 15:21, a passage very slightly to the purpose. The first of these three passages is the one that is nearest to the present quotation. Its general sense is, ‘ The only living God, who, from the beginning of the world, has proved Himself to be such by helping all who trust in His mercy, is Jehovah’ ; and it must be admitted that, although germane, it is not very close to St Paul’ s meaning here. But we must remember that St Paul quotes with great freedom, often compounding different passages and altering words to suit his purpose. Consider the quotations in 1:19, 20, 31, and in Romans 9:27, Romans 9:29, and especially in Romans 9:33, Romans 9:10:6, Romans 9:8, Romans 9:15. Freedom of quotation is a vera causa; and if there are degrees of freedom, an extreme point will be found somewhere. With the possible exception of the doubtful case in Ephesians 5:14, it is probable that we reach an extreme point here. This view is confirmed by the fact that Clement of Rome, in the earliest extant quotation from our present passage, goes back to the LXX of Isa 64:4, which is evidence that he regarded that to be the source of St Paul’ s quotation. At the very least, it proves that Clement felt that there was resemblance between 1 Corinthians 2:9 and Isaiah 64:4. Of other solutions, the most popular has been that of Origen (in Matthew 27:9); in nullo regulari libro hoc positum invenitur, nisi in Secretis Eliae Prophetae. Origen was followed by others, but was warmly contradicted by Jerome (in Esai. lxiv. 4: see also Prol. in Gen. ix. and Ep. lvii. [ci.] 7), who nevertheless allows that the passage occurs not only in the Apocalypse of Elias, but also in the Ascension of Esaias. This, however, by no means proves that the Apostle quotes from either book; for the writers of those books may both of them be quoting from him. Indeed, it is fairly certain that this is true of the Apocalypse of Elias; unless we reject the testimony of Epiphanius (Haer. xlii.), who says that this Apocalypse also contains the passage in Ephesians 5:14, which (if St Paul quotes it without adaptation) is certainly from a Christian source. And there is no good reason for doubting the statement of Epiphanius. The Apocalypse of Elias, if it existed at all before St Paul’ s time, would be sure to be edited by Christian copyists, who, as in the case of many other apocalyptic writings, inserted quotations from N.T. books, especially from passages like the present one. The Ascension of Esaias, as quoted by Epiphanius (67:3), was certainly Christianized, for it contained allusions to the Holy Trinity. It is probably identical with the Ascension and Vision of Isaiah, published by Laurence in an Ethiopic, and by Gieseler in a Latin, version. The latter (11:34) contains our passage, and was doubtless the one known to Jerome; the Ethiopic, though Christian, does not contain it. See Tisserant, Ascension d’ Isaie, p. 211. On the whole, therefore, we have decisive ground for regarding our passage as the source whence these Christian or Christianized apocrypha derived their quotation, and not vice versa. Still more strongly does this hold good of the paradox of “ oversanguine liturgiologists” (Lightfoot), who would see in our passage a quotation from the Liturgy of St James, a document of the Gentile Church of Aelia far later than Hadrian, and full of quotations from the N.T.* Resch, also over-sanguine, claims the passage for his collection of Agrapha, or lost Sayings of our Lord, but on no grounds which call for discussion here. Without, therefore, denying that St Paul, like other N.T. writers, might quote a non-canonical book, we conclude with Clement of Rome and Jerome, that he meant to quote, and actually does quote— very freely and with reminiscence of 65:17— from Isaiah 64:4. He may, as Origen saw, be quoting from a lost Greek version which was textually nearer to our passage than the Septuagint is, but such an hypothesis is at best only a guess, and, in view of St Paul’ s habitual freedom, it is not a very helpful guess. The above view, which is substantially that of the majority of modern commentators, including Ellicott, Edwards, and Lightfoot (to whose note this discussion has special obligations) is rejected by Meyer-Heinr, Schmiedel, and some others, who think that St Paul, perhaps per incuriam, quotes one of the apocryphal writings referred to above. It has been shown already that this hypothesis is untenable. For further discussion, see Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome, I. p. 390, and on Clem. Rom. Cor. 34; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 102, 154, 281; Thackeray, St Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 240 f. On the seemingly hostile reference of Hegesippus to this verse, see Lightfoot’ s last note in loc. These two verses (9, 10) give a far higher idea of the future revelation than is found in Jewish apocalyptic writings, which deal rather with marvels than with the unveiling of spiritual truth. See Hastings, DB. iv. pp. 186, 187; Schü rer, J.P., II. iii. pp. 129-132; Ency. Bib. i:210. 10. ἡμῖνγάρ . Reason why we can utter things hidden from eye, ear, and mind of man: ‘ Because to us God, through the Spirit, unveiled them,’ or, ‘ For to us they were revealed by God through the Spirit.’ The ἡμῖν follows hard upon and interprets τοῖςἀγαπῶσιναὐτόν , just as ἡμῖν on τοῖςσωζομένοις (1:18): cf. ἡμῖν in 1:30 and ἡμῶν in 2:7. The ἡμῖν is in emphatic contrast to ‘ the rulers of this world’ who do not know (v. 8). God reveals His glory, through His Spirit, to those for whom it is prepared. See note on v. 7; also Ephesians 1:14, Ephesians 1:17; 2 Corinthians 1:22. If δέ be read instead of γάρ , we must either adopt the awkward construction of ἃὀφθλμόςκ .τ .λ . advocated by Evans and rejected above, or else, with Ellicott, make δέ introduce a second and supplementary contrast (co-ordinate with, but more general than, that introduced by ἀλλά in v. 9) to the ignorance of the ἄρχοντες in v. 8. On the whole, the “ latent inferiority” of the reading δέ is fairly clear. ἀπεκάλυψεν . The aorist points to a definite time when the revelation took place, viz. to the entry of the Gospel into the world.* Compare the aorists in Colossians 1:26; Ephesians 3:5. τὸγὰρπνεῦμα . Explanatory of διὰτοῦπνεύματος . The σωζόμενοι and the ἀγαπῶντεςτὸνΘεόν possess the Spirit, who has, and gives access to, the secrets of God. ἐραυνᾷ . The Alexandrian form of ἐρευνᾷ (T.R.). The word does not here mean ‘ searcheth in order to know,’ any more than it means this when it is said that God searches the heart of man (Romans 8:27; Revelation 2:23; Psalms 139:1). It expresses “ the activity of divine knowledge” (Edwards); or rather, it expresses the activity of the Spirit in throwing His light upon the deep things of God, for those in whom He dwells. Scrutatur omnia, non quia nescit, ut inveniat, sed quia nihil relinquit quod nesciat (Atto). For the form see Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch., p. 81. τὰβάφη . Cf. ὨβάθοςπλούτουκαὶσοφίαςκαὶγνώσεωςΘεοῦ (Romans 11:33), and contrast τὰβαθέατοῦΣατανᾶ , ὡςλέγουσιν (Revelation 2:24).* ἡμῖνγάρ (B and several cursives, Sah. Copt., Clem-Alex. Bas.) seems to be preferable to ἡμῖνδέ (א A C D E F G L P, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth., Orig.), but the external evidence for the latter is very strong. Certainly ἀκπεκάλυψενὁΘεός (א A B C D E F G P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is preferable to ὁΘεὸςἀπ . (L, Sah. Orig.). After πνεύματος . א 3 D E G F L, Vulg. Syrr. Sah. Arm. Aeth. AV. add αὐτοῦ . א * A B C, Copt. RV. omit. 11. τίςγὰροἶδενἀνθρώπεν . This verse, taken as a whole, confirms the second clause of v. 10, and thereby further explains the words διὰτοῦπνεύματος , The words ἀνθρώπων and ἀνθρώπον , repeated, are emphatic, the argument being a minori ad majus. Even a human being has within him secrets of his own, which no human being whatever can penetrate, but only his own spirit. How much more is this true of God! The language here recalls Proverbs 20:27, φῶςΚυρίουπνοὴἀνθρώπων , ὃςἐραυνᾷταμεῖακοιλίας . Cf. Jeremiah 17:9, Jeremiah 17:10. The question does not mean that nothing about God can be known; it means that what is known is known through His Spirit (v. 10). τὰτοῦἀνθρώπον . The personal memories, reflexions, motives, etc., of any individual human being; all the thoughts of which he is conscious (4:4). ταὸπνεῦματοῦἀνθρ . τὸἐναὐτῷ . The word πνεῦμα is here used, as in 5:5, 7:34; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:23, in the purely psychological sense, to denote an element in the natural constitution of every human being. This sense, if we carefully separate all passages where it may stand for the spirit of man as touched by the Spirit of God, is not very frequent in Paul. See below on v. 14 for the relation of πνεῦμα to ψυχή . οὕτωςκαὶκ .τ .λ . It is here that the whole weight of the statement lies. ἔγνωκεν . This seems to be purposely substituted for the weaker and more general οἶδεν . For the contrast between the two see 2 Corinthians 5:16; 1 John 2:29. “ The ἔγνωκεν seems to place τὰτοῦΘεοῦ a degree more out of reach than οἶδεν does τὰτοῦἀνθρώπου ” (Lightfoot, whose note, with its illustrations from 1 John, should be consulted). This passage is a locus classicus for the Divinity, as Romans 8:26, Romans 8:27 is for the Personality, of the Holy Spirit. εἰμή . ‘ But only,’ as in Galatians 1:7, and (probably) 1:19; cf. 2:16. τὸπνεῦματοῦΘεοῦ . St Paul does not add τὸἐναὐτῷ . which would have suggested a closer analogy between the relation of man’ s spirit to man and that of God’ s Spirit to God than the argument requires, and than the Apostle would hold to exist. A 17, Ath. Cyr-Alex. omit ἀνθρώπων . F G omit second τοῦἀνθρώπον . F G have ἔγνω , while L has οἶδεν , for ἔγνωκεν (א A B C D E P, Vulg. cognovit). 12. ήμεῖςδέ . See on ἠμῖν in v. 10: ‘ we Christians.’ οὐτὸπνεῦματοῦκόμου … ἀλλά . An interjected negative clause, added to give more force to the positive statement that follows, as in Romans 8:15. What does St Paul mean by ‘ the spirit of the world’ ? (1) Meyer, Evans, Edwards, and others understand it of Satan, or the spirit of Satan, the κόσμος being “ a system of organized evil, with its own principles and its own laws” (Evans): see Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 2:6:11; John 12:31; 1 John 4:3, 1 John 4:5:19; and possibly 2 Corinthians 4:4. But this goes beyond the requirements of the passage: indeed, it seems to go beyond the analogy of N.T. language, in which κόσμος has not per se a bad sense. Nor is ‘ the wisdom of the world’ Satanical. It is human, not divine; but it is evil only in so far as ‘ the flesh’ is sinful: i.e. it is not inherently evil, but only when ruled by sin, instead of being subjected to the Spirit. See Gifford’ s discussion of the subject in his Comm. on Romans, viii. 15. (2) Heinrici, Lightfoot, and others understand of the temper of the world, “ the spirit of human wisdom, of the world as alienated from God” : non sumus instituli sapientia mundi (Est.). On this view it is practically identical with the ἀνθρωπίνησοφία of v. 13, and homogeneous with the φρόνηματῆςσαρκός of Romans 8:6, Romans 8:7: indeed, it may be said to be identical with it in substance, though not in aspect. In both places in this verse, therefore, πνεῦμα would be impersonal, and almost attributive, as in Romans 8:15; but there the absence of the article makes a difference. Compare the πνεῦμαἕτερονὃαὐκἐλάβετε in 2 Corinthians 11:4. On the whole, this second explanation of ‘ the spirit of the world’ seems to be the better. ἐλάβομεν . Like ἀπεκάλυψεν (v. 10), this aorist refers to a definite time when the gift was received. “ St Paul regards the gift as ideally summed up when he and they were ideally included in the Christian church, though it is true that the Spirit is received constantly” (Lightfoot). Cf. 12:13. τὸπνεῦματὸἐκτοῦΘεοῦ . The gift rather than the Person of the Spirit, although here, as not infrequently in Paul, the distinction between the Personal Spirit of God (v. 11), dwelling in man (Romans 8:11), and the spirit (in the sense of the higher element of man’ s nature), inhabited and quickened by the Holy Spirit, is subtle and difficult to fix with accuracy. The Person is in the gift, and the activity of the recipient is the work of the Divine Indweller. ἵναεἰδῶμεν . This is the result to which vv. 10-12 lead up. The words reproduce, under a different aspect, the thought in ἠμῖνἀπεκάλυψενὁΘεος , and give the foundation for v. 13, ἃκαὶλαλοῦμεν . τὰ … χαρισφένταἠμῖν . The same blessings appear successively as δόξανἡμῶν (v. 7), ὅσαἡτοίμασενκ .τ .λ . (v. 9), and τὰΧαρισθέντα (v. 12). The last perhaps includes “ a little more of present reference” (Ellicott). The connexion of thought in the passage may be shown by treating vv. 11 and 12 as expanding the thought of v. 10 into a kind of syllogism;— major premiss, None knows the things of God, but only the Spirit of God; minor premiss, We received the Spirit which is of God; conclusion, So that we know what is given us by God. The possession of the gift of the Spirit of God is a sort of middle term which enables the Apostle to claim the power to know, and to utter, the deep things of God. After τοῦκόσμον , D E F G, Vulg. Copt. Arm. add τούτου . א A B C L P, Syrr. Aeth. omit. 13. ὃκαὶλαλοῦμεν . This is the dominant verb of the whole passage (vv. 6, 7: see notes on ἥν , v. 8, ἅ and ὅσα , v. 9). The καί emphasizes the justification, furnished by the preceding verses, for the claim made; ‘ Which are the very things that we do utter.’ The present passage is the personal application of the foregoing, as vv. 1-5 are of 1:18-31. διδακτοῖςἀνθρωπίνηςσοφίας . ‘ Taught by man’ s wisdom.’ We have similar genitives in John 6:45, διδακτοὶΘεοῦ , and in Matthew 25:34, εὐλογημένοιτοῦπατρός . In class. Grk. the construction is found only in poets; κείνηςδιδακτά (Soph. Elect. 343), διδακταῖςἀνθρώπωνἀρεταῖς (Pind. Ol. 9:152). Cf. 1:17. διδακτοῖςπνεύματος . See on v. 4, where, as here and 1 Thessalonians 1:5, πνεῦμα has no article. The Apostle is not claiming verbal inspiration; but verba rem sequuntur (Wetstein). Cf. Luke 21:15; Jeremiah 1:9. Sapientia est scaturigo sermonum (Beng.). Bentley, Kuenen, etc. conjecture ἐνἀδιδάκτοιςπνεύματος . πνευματικοῖςπνευματικὰσυνκρίνοντες . Two questions arise here, on the answer to which the interpretation of the words depends,— the gender of πνευματικοῖς , and the meaning of συνκρίνειν . The latter is used by St Paul only here and 2 Corinthians 10:12, where it means ‘ to compare.’ This is a late use, frequent from Aristotle onwards, but out of place here, although adopted in both AV. and RV. text. Its classical meaning is ‘ to join fitly,’ ‘ compound,’ ‘ combine’ (RV. marg.). In the LXX it has the meaning ‘ to interpret,’ but only in the case of dreams (Genesis 40:8, Genesis 40:16, Genesis 40:22, 41:12, Genesis 40:15; Judges 7:15; Daniel 5:12, Daniel 5:7:15, Daniel 5:16). We have, therefore, the following possibilities to consider:— (1). Taking πνευματικοῖς as neuter;— either, Combining spiritual things (the words) with spiritual things (the subject matter); or, Interpreting (explaining) spiritual things by spiritual things. This may be understood in a variety of ways— Interpreting O.T. types by N.T. doctrines. Interpreting spiritual truths by spiritual language. Interpreting spiritual truths by spiritual faculties. Of these three, the first is very improbable; the third is substantially the explanation adopted by Luther; und richten geistliche Sachen geistlich. (2). Taking πνευματικοῖς as masculine;— either, Suiting (matching) spiritual matter to spiritual hearers; or, Interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual hearers. In favour of taking πνευματικοῖς as neuter may be urged the superior epigrammatic point of keeping the same gender for both terms, and the naturalness of πνευματικοῖς being brought into close relation with the συν - in συνκρίνοντες . These considerations are of weight, and the resultant sense is good and relevant, whether we adopt or the third form of . As Theodore of Mopsuestia puts it, διὰτῶντοῦπνεύματοςἀποδείξεωντὴντοῦπνεύματοςδιδακαλίανπιστούμεθα . On the other hand, in favour of taking πνευματικοῖς as masculine, there is its markedly emphatic position, as if to prepare the way for the contrast with ψυχικός which immediately follows, and which now becomes the Apostle’ s main thought. This consideration perhaps turns the scale in favour of taking πνευματικοῖς as ‘ spiritual persons.’ Of the two explanations under this head, one would unhesitatingly prefer , were not the use of συνκρίνειν in the sense of ‘ interpret’ confined elsewhere to the case of dreams. This objection is not fatal, but it is enough to leave us in doubt whether St Paul had this meaning in his mind. The other alternative has the advantage of being a little less remote from the Apostle’ s only other use of the word. In either case, taking πν , as masculine, we have the Apostle coming back “ full circle” to the thought of v. 6, ἐντοῖςτελείοις , which now receives its necessary justification. Before concluding the discussion of the true wisdom, the Apostle glances at those who are, and those who are not, fitted to receive it. After πνεύματος , D 3 E L P, Aeth. AV. add ἁγίου . א A B C D* F G 17, Vulg. RV. omit. 2:14-3:4. THE AND THE ANIMAL Only the spiritual man can receive the true wisdom. You Corinthians cannot receive it, for your dissensions show that you are not spiritual. 14 Now the man whose interests are purely material has no mind to receive what the Spirit of God has to impart to him: it is all foolishness to him, and he is incapable of understanding it, because it requires a spiritual eye to see its true value. 15 But the spiritual man sees the true value of everything, yet his own true value is seen by no one who is not spiritual like himself. 16 For what human being ever knew the thoughts of the Lord God, so as to be able to instruct and guide Him? But those of us who are spiritual do share the thoughts of Christ. 3. 1 And I, Brothers, acting on this principle, have not been able to treat you as spiritual persons, but as mere creatures of flesh and blood, as still only babes in the Christian course. 2 I gave you quite elementary teaching, and not the more solid truths of the Gospel, for these ye were not yet strong enough to digest. 3 So far from being so then, not even now are ye strong enough, for ye are still mere beginners. For so long as jealousy and contention prevail among you, are you not mere tyros, behaving no better than the mass of mankind? 4 For when one cries, I for my part stand by Paul, and another, I by Apollos, are you anything better than men who are still uninfluenced by the Spirit of God? 14. ψυχικὸςδὲἄνθρωπος . This is in sharpest contrast to πνευματικοῖς (v. 13), for ψυχικός means ‘ animal’ (animalis homo, Vulg.) in the etymological sense, and nearly so in the ordinary sense: see 15:44, 46; James 3:15; Jude 1:19 .* The term is not necessarily based upon a supposed ‘ trichotomous’ psychology, as inferred by Apollinaris and others from τὸπνεῦμακαὶἡψεχὴκαὶτὸσῶμα in Thess. 5:23 (see Lightfoot’ s note). It is based rather upon the conception of ψυχή as the mere correlative of organic life. Aristotle defines it as πρώτηἐντελέχειασώματοςφυσικοῦὁργανικοῦ . In man, this comprises πνεῦμα in the merely psychological sense (note on v. 2), but not necessarily in the sense referred to above (note on v. 12). See, however, 5:5; Philippians 1:27; Ephesians 6:17; Colossians 3:23; 1 Peter 4:6. In Luke 1:46, ψυχή and πνεῦμα seem to be synonymous. The ψυχή ranges with νοῦς (Romans 7:23, 35; Colossians 2:18), in one sense contrasted with σάρξ , but like σάρξ in its inability to rise to practical godliness, unless aided by the πνεῦμα . We may say that ψυχή is the ‘ energy’ or correlative of σάρξ . Although, therefore, ψυχή is not used in N.T. in a bad sense, to distinguish the animal from the spiritual principle in the human soul, yet ψυχικός is used of a man whose motives do not rise above the level of merely human needs and aspirations. The ψυχικός is the ‘ unrenewed’ man, the ‘ natural’ man (AV., RV.), as distinct from the man who is actuated by the Spirit. The word is thus practically another name for the σαρκικός (3:1, 3). See J. A. F. Gregg on Wisd. 9:15. οὐδέχεται . Not ‘ is incapable of receiving,’ but ‘ does not accept,’ i.e. he rejects, refuses. Δέχεσθαι = ‘ to accept,’ ‘ to take willingly’ (2 Corinthians 8:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:6, etc.). ὅτιπνευματικῶςἀνακρίνεται . The nature of the process is beyond him; it requires characteristics which he does not possess. The verb is used frequently by St Paul in this Epistle, but not elsewhere. It is one of the 103 N.T. words which are found only in Paul and Luke (Hawkins, Hor. Syn. p. 190). Here it means ‘ judge of,’ ‘ sift,’ as in Acts 17:11 of the liberal-minded Beroeans, who sifted the Scriptures, to get at the truth: Dan. Sus. 13, 48, 51. 15. ὁδὲπνευματικός . The man in whom πνεῦμα has its rightful predominance, which it gains by being informed by, and united with, the Spirit of God, and in no other way. Man as man is a spiritual being, but only some men are actually spiritual; just as man is a rational being, but only some men are actually rational. Natural capacity and actual realization are not the same thing. ἀνακρίνειμὲνπάντα . ‘ He judges of everything’ ‘ sifts every thing,’ 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Philippians 1:10; contrast Romans 2:18. The whole Epistle exemplifies this principle in St Paul’ s person (7:25, 8:1, 10:14, 11:1, etc.). Aristotle, in defining virtue, comes back to the judgment formed by the mature character: ὡςἂνὁφρόνιμοςὁρίσειεν (Eth. Nic. 11. 6:15). ‘ Judgeth’ (AV., RV.) does not quite give the meaning of what is expressed here: ‘ examines’ is nearer to it. αὐτὸςδὲὑπ ʼ οὐδενὸςἀνακρίνεται . This perhaps means ‘ by no non-spiritual person’ (cf. 1 John 4:1). It does not mean that the spiritual man is above criticism (4:3, 4, 14:32; Romans 14:4). St Paul is not asserting the principle of Protagoras, that the individual judgment is for each man the criterion of truth; πάντωνμέτρονἄνθρωπος , τῶνμὲνὄντωνὡςἑστίτῶνδὲμὴὄντοωνὡςοὐκἐστί . He is asserting, with Bishop Butler, the supremacy of conscience, and the right and duty of personal judgment. But it is the spiritual man who has this vantageground. The text has been perverted in more than one direction; on the one hand, as an excuse for the licence of persons whose conduct has stamped them as unspiritual, e.g. the Anabaptists of Mü nster; on the other, as a ground for the irresponsibility of ecclesiastical despotism in the mediæ val Papacy, e.g. by Boniface viii. in the Bull Unam sanctam, and by Cornelius à Lapide on this passage. The principle laid down by St Paul gives no support to either anarchy or tyranny; it is the very basis of lawful authority, both civil and religious; all the more so, because it supplies the principle of authority with the necessary corrective. ἀνακρίνεται . ‘ Is judged of,’ ‘ subjected to examination.’ See on 4:3, 4, 5, 9:3, 10:25, 27; also on Luke 23:14. Ἀνάκρισις (Acts 25:26) was a legal term at Athens for a preliminary investigation, preparatory to the actual κρίσις , which for St Paul would have its analogue in ‘ the day’ (4:5). Lightfoot gives examples of the way in which the Apostle delights to accumulate compounds of κρίνω (4:3, 6:1-6, 11:29-32; 2 Corinthians 10:12; Romans 2:1). By playing on words he sometimes illuminates great truths or important personal experiences. א omits the whole of this verse. A C D F G omit μέν after ἀνακρίνειπάντα (א 1 B D2 E F G L) is to be preferred to τὰπάντα (A C D* P). 16. τίςγὰρἔγνω . Proof of what has just been claimed for the πνεμυατικός : he has direct converse with a source of light which is not to be superseded by any merely external norm. The quotation is from the LXX of Isa 40:13, adapted by the omission of the middle clause, καὶτίςαὐτοῦσύνβουλοςἐγένετο ; This clause is retained in Romans 11:34, while ὃςσυνβιβάσειαὐτόν is omitted. The aorist belongs to the quotation, and must not be pressed as having any special force here; ‘ hath known’ (AV., RV.). On the other hand, the immediate transition from νοῦνΚυρίου to νοῦνΧριστοῦ as equivalent is full of deep significance. Cf. Wisd. 9:13; Ecclus. 1:6; Job 36:22, Job 36:23, Job 36:26; and see on Romans 10:12, Romans 10:13. νοῦνΚυρίου . The νοῦν (LXX) corresponds to the Hebrew for πνεῦμα in the original. In God, νοῦς and πνεῦμα are identical (see, as to man, on v. 14), but not in aspect, νοῦς being suitable to denote the Divine knowledge or counsel, πνεῦμα the Divine action, either in creation or in grace. ὃςσυνβιβάσειαὐτόν . The relative refers to σύνβουλος in Isaiah 40:13. As St Paul omits the clause containing σύνβουλος , the ὅς is left without any proper construction. But it finds a kind of antecedent in τίς ; ‘ Who hath known … that he should instruct’ (RV.). Συνβιβάχειν occurs several times in N.T. in its classical meanings of ‘ join together,’ ‘ conclude,’ ‘ prove’ ; but in Biblical Greek, though not in classical, it has also the meaning of ‘ instruct.’ Thus in Acts 19:33, where the true reading (א A B E) seems to be συνεβίβασανἈλέξανδρον , Alexander is ‘ primed’ with a defence of the Jews, for which he cannot get a hearing. This meaning of ‘ instruct’ is frequent in LXX. In class. Grk. we should have ἐνβιβάζειν . ἡμεῖςδὲνοῦνΧριστοῦἔχομεν . We have this by the agency of the Spirit of God; and the mind of the Spirit of God is known to the Searcher of hearts (Romans 8:27). The mind of Christ is the correlative of His Spirit, which is the Spirit of God (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6), and this mind belongs to those who are His by virtue of their vital union with Him (Galatians 2:20, Galatians 2:21, Galatians 2:3:27; Philippians 1:8; Romans 13:14). The thought is that of v. 12 in another form: see also 7:40; and 2 Corinthians 13:3, τοῦἐνἐμοὶλαλοῦντοςΧριστοῦ . The emphatic ἡμεῖς (see on 1:18, 23, 30, 2:10, 12) serves to associate all πνευματικοί with the Apostle, and also all his readers, so far as they are, as they ought to be, among οἱσωζόμενοι (1:18). We ought probably to prefer Χριστοῦ (א A C D3 E L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm., Orig.) to Κυριον (B D* F G, Aug. Ambrst.). Χριστοῦ would be likely to be altered to conform with the previous Κυρίου . א Ԡ א (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T. B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS. D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 διο͂ὁλαλῶν -22 σημεῖονἐστίν is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422). E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 3:1-4. In following to its application his contrast between the spiritual and the animal character, the Apostle is led back to his main subject, the σχίσματα . These dissensions show which type of character predominates among his readers. The passage corresponds to 2:13 (see note there), and forms its negative counterpart, prepared for by the contrast (2:13-16) between the spiritual and the animal man. Κἀγώ , ἀδελφοί . See on 1:10 and 2:1. ὡςπνευματικοῖς . Ideally, all Christians are πνευματικοί (12:3, 13; Galatians 4:3-7): but by no means all the Corinthians were such in fact.* Along with the heathen, they are in the category of ψυχικοί or σαρκικοί , but they are not on a level with the heathen. They are babes in character, but ‘ babes in Christ’ ; and, apart from the special matters for blame, there are many healthy features in their condition (1:4-9, 11:2). ἀλλ ʼ ὡςσαρκίνοις . The word is chosen deliberately, and it expresses a shade of meaning different from σαρκικός , placing the state of the Corinthians under a distinct aspect. The termination -ινος denotes a material relation, while -ικος denotes an ethical or dynamic relation, to the idea involved in the root. In 2 Corinthians 3:3 the tables are made of stone, the hearts are made of flesh (see note on ἀνθρώπινος , 4:3). Accordingly, σαρκίνος means ‘ of flesh and blood,’ , what a man cannot help being, but a state to be subordinated to the higher law of the Spirit, and enriched and elevated by it. We are all σαρκίνοι (ζῶἐνσαρκί , Galatians 2:20), but we are not to live κατὰσάρκα (15:50; Romans 8:12; 2 Corinthians 10:2, 2 Corinthians 10:3). The state of the νήπιος is not culpable in itself, but it becomes culpable if unduly prolonged (13:11, 14:20). There are two other views respecting σαρκίνος which may be mentioned, but seem to be alien to the sense. Meyer holds that the word means ‘ wholly of flesh,’ without any influence of the spirit (John 3:6). In the σαρκικός , although the flesh still has the upper hand, yet there is some counteracting influence of the spirit. This view makes the state of the σαρκικός an advance upon that of the σαρκίνός , and is really an inversion of the true sense. Evans regards σαρκικός as a term free from any reproach. It is “ the first moral state after conversion, in a figure borrowed from an infant, which to outward view is little more than a living lump of dimpled flesh, with few signs of intelligence.” This is an exaggeration of the true sense. Cf. Arist. Eth. Nic. III. ix. 2. σαρκίνοις (א A B C D 17) is the original reading, of which σαρκικοῖς (D3 E F G L P) is obviously a correction. 2. γάλαὑμᾶςἐπότισα , οὐΒρῶμα . Cf. Hebrews 5:12, where στερεὰτροφή takes the place of βρῶμα . The verb governs both substantives by a very natural zeugma: it takes a double accusative, and the passive has the accusative of the thing (12:13). The γάλα is described 2:2, the βρῶμα , 2:6-13, and the distinction corresponds to the method necessarily adopted by every skilful teacher. The wise teacher proves himself to be such by his ability to impart, in the most elementary grade, what is really fundamental and educative— what is simple, and yet gives insight into the full instruction that is to follow. The ‘ milk,’ or ὁτῆςἀρχῆςτοῦΧριστοῦλόγος (Hebrews 4:1), would be more practical than doctrinal (as 2:2), and would tell of ‘ temperance and righteousness and judgment to come’ before communicating the foundation-truths as to the person and work of Christ. Christ Himself begins in this way; ‘ Thou knowest the commandments’ ; ‘ Repent ye, for the kingdom of God is at hand.’ The metaphor was current among the Rabbis, and occurs in Philo (see Lightfoot’ s note). The aorist ἐπότισα refers to a definite period, evidently that which began with the ἦλθον of 2:1, viz. the eighteen months of Act 18:11. οὔπωγὰρἐδύνασθε . ‘ For ye had not yet the power.’ The verb is used absolutely, as in 10:13.*. This use is not rare in LXX, and is found in Plato, Xenophon, etc. The tense indicates a process. This process was one of growth, but the growth was too slow. D E F G L, Arm. Aeth. AV. insert καί before οὐβρῶμα . א A B C P, Vulg. Copt. RV. omit. 3. ἀλλ ʼ οὐδὲἔτινῦνδύνασθε . The new verse (but hardly a new paragraph) should begin here (WH.). B omits ἔτι , but the omission may be accidental. It adds force to the rebuke, but for that reason might have been inserted. The external evidence justifies its retention. The ἀλλά has its strongest ‘ ascensive’ force; ‘ Nay, but not yet even now have ye the power’ (6:8; 2 Corinthians 1:9; Galatians 2:3). The impression made by this passage, especially when combined with vv. 6, 10, 2:1, and ἀκούεται in 5:1, is that St Paul had as yet paid only one visit to Corinth. The ἄρτι in 16:7 does not necessarily suggest a hasty visit already paid. The second visit of a painful character, which seems to be implied in 2 Cor. 13., may have been paid after this letter was written. Those who think it was paid before this letter, explain the silence about it throughout this letter by supposing that it was not only painful, but very short. ὃπουγὰρἐνὑμῖν . The adverb of place acquires the force of a conditional particle in classical authors as here: cf. Clem. Rom. Cor. 43. In Tudor English, ‘ where’ is sometimes used for ‘ whereas.’ But here the notion of place, corresponding to ἐνὑμῖν , is not quite lost; ‘ seeing that envy and strife find place among you.’ Cf. ἔνι in Galatians 3:28. ζῆλοςκαὶἔρις . Strife is the outward result of envious feeling: Galatians 5:20; Clem. Rom. Cor. 3. There is place in Christian ethics for honourable emulation (Galatians 4:18), but ζῆλος without qualification, though ranked high by Aristotle* (Rhet. ii. 11), is placed by the Apostle among ‘ works of the flesh.’ Lightfoot gives other instances of differences in estimation between heathen and Christian ethics. οὐξὶσαρκικοίἐστε ; See above on σαρκινοι , and cf. 9:11; Romans 15:27. Here, as in 2 Corinthians 1:12, σαρκικοί means ‘ conformable to and governed by the flesh,’ actuated by low motives, above which they ought by this time to have risen. κατὰἄνθρωπονπεριπατεῖτε . ‘ Walk on a merely human level’ (15:32; Galatians 1:11, Galatians 1:3:15; Romans 3:5): contrast κατὰΘεόν (2 Corinthians 7:9-11; Romans 8:27). This level cannot be distinguished from that of the ψυχικὸςἄνθρωπος (2:14). Περιπατεῖν , of manner of life, is frequent in Paul and 2 and 3 John, while other writers more often have ἀναστρέφειν and ἀναστροφή : cf. ὀρθοδοποῦν (Galatians 2:14), πορεύεσθαι (Luke 1:6, Luke 8:14) and see 7:17. Cf. John 12:35. D* F G have σαρκίνοι for σαρκικοί . D E F G L, Syrr. AV. add καὶδιχοστασίαι after ἔρις . א A B C P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. RV. omit. See Iren. IV. xxxviii. 2. 4. ὅτανγὰρλέγῃτις . ‘ For whenever one saith’ : each such utterance is one more verification of the indictment.† Cf. the construction in 15:27. ἐλὼμέν … ἕτεροςδέ . The μέν and the δέ correspond logically, although not grammatically. St Paul mentions only himself and Apollos by name (cf. 4:6), because he can less invidiously use these names as the point of departure for the coming analysis of the conception of the Christian Pastorate (3:5-4:5). οὐκἄνθρωποίἐστε ; ‘ Are ye not mere human creatures?’ They did not rise above a purely human level. The expression is the negative equivalent of σαρκικοί in the parallel clause,— negative, because implying the lack, not only of spirituality, but even of manliness. The lack of spirituality is implied in the whole context, the lack of manliness in the word itself, which classical writers contrast with ἀνήρ . In 16:13 this contrast is implied in ἀνδρίζεσθε . See Psalms 69:2 and Isaiah 2:9 for a similar contrast in Hebrew. The Corinthians were ἄνθρωποι in failing to rise to the higher range of motives; and they were σαρκικοί in allowing themselves to be swayed by the lower range, a range which they ought to have left behind as a relic of heathenism (6:11, 12:2). “ In all periods of great social activity, when society becomes observant of its own progress, there is a tendency to exalt the persons and means by which it progresses. Hence, in turn, kings, statesmen, parliaments, and then education, science, machinery and the press, have had their hero-worship. Here, at Corinth, was a new phase, ‘ minister-worship.’ No marvel, in an age when the mere political progress of the Race was felt to be inferior to the spiritual salvation of the Individual, and to the purification of the Society, that ministers, the particular organs by which this was carried on, should assume to men’ s eyes peculiar importance, and the special gifts of Paul or Apollos be extravagantly honoured. No marvel either, that round the more prominent of these, partizans should gather” (F. W. Robertson). Origen says that, if the partizans of Paul or Apollos are mere ἄνθρωποι , then, if you are a partizan of some vastly inferior person, δῆλονὃτιοὐκέτιοὐδὲἄνθρωποςεἶ , ἀλλὰκαὶχεῖρονἤἄνθρωπος . You may perhaps be addressed as γεννήματαἐχιδνῶν , if you have such base preferences. Bachmann remarks that, although the present generation has centuries of Christian experience behind it, it can often be as capricious, one-sided, wrong-headed, and petty as any Corinthians in its judgments on its spiritual teachers and their utterances. We should read οὐκ (א A B C 17) rather than the more emphatic, and in this Epistle specially common οὐχιν (D E F G L P), which is genuine in v. 3, 1:20, 5:12, 6:7, etc. And we should read ἄνθρωποι (א A B C D E F G 17, Vulg. Copt. Aeth. RV.) rather than σαρκικοί (א 3 LP, Syrr. AV.). ἀνθρώπινοι (4:3, 10:13) is pure conjecture. We now reach another main section of this sub-division (1:10-4:21) of the First Part (1:10-4:20) of the Epistle. St Paul has hitherto (1:17-3:4) been dealing with the false and the true conception of σοφία , in relation to Christian Teaching. He now passes to the Teacher. 3:5-4:21. THE TRUE OF THE (i.) General Definition (3:5-9). (ii.) The Builders (3:10-15). (iii.) The Temple (3:16, 17). (iv.) Warning against a ‘ mere human’ estimate of the Pastoral Office (3:18-4:5). Personal Application of the foregoing, and Conclusion of the subject of the Dissensions (4:6-21). 3:5-9. General Definition of the Christian Pastorate Teachers are mere instruments in the hands of God, who alone produces the good results. 5 What is there really in either Apollos or me? We are not heads of parties, and we are not the authors or the objects of your faith. We are just servants, through whose instrumentality you received the faith, according to the grace which the Lord gave to each of you. 6 It was my work to plant the faith in you, Apollos nourished it; but it was God who, all the time, was causing it to grow. 7 So then, neither the planter counts for anything at all, nor the nourisher, but only He who caused it to grow, viz. God. 8 Now the planter and the nourisher are in one class, equals in aim and spirit; and yet each will receive his own special wage according to his own special responsibility and toil. 9 God is the other class; for it is God who allows us a share in His work; it is God’ s field (as we have seen) that ye are; it is God’ s building (as we shall now see) that ye are. The Apostle has shown that the dissensions are rooted, firstly, in a misconception of the Gospel message, akin, in most cases, to that of the Greeks, who seek wisdom in the low sense of cleverness, and akin, in other cases, to that of the Jews, who are ever seeking for a sign. He goes on to trace the dissensions to a second cause, viz. a perverted view of the office and function of the Christian ministry. First, however, he lays down the true character of that ministry. 5. τίοὖνἐστίν ; A question, Socratic in form, leading up naturally to a definition, and thus checking shallow conceit (v. 18, 4:6) by probing the idea underlying its glib use of words. ‘ What is Apollos? i.e. What is his essential office and function? How is he to be ‘ accounted of’ ? (4:1). The two names are mentioned three times, and each time the order is changed, perhaps intentionally, to lead up to ἕνεἰσιν (v. 8). The οὖν follows naturally upon the mention of Apollos in v. 4, but marks also a transition to a question raised by the whole matter under discussion,— a new question, and a question of the first rank. διάκονοι . The word is used here in its primary and general sense of ‘ servant.’ * It connotes active service (see note on ὑπηρέτης in 4:1) and is probably from a root akin to διώκω . See Hort, Christian Ecclesia, pp. 202 f. δι ʼ ὧνἐπιστεύσατε . Per quos, non in quos (Beng.). The aorist points back to the time of their conversion (cf. 15:2; Romans 13:11), but it sums up their whole career as Christians. καὶἑκάστῳὡςὁΚύριοςἔδωκεν . As in 7:17; Romans 12:3. The construction is condensed for ἕκαστοςὡςὁΚ . ἔδωκεναὐτῷ . It may be understood either of the measure of faith given by the Lord to each believer, or of the measure of success granted by Him to each διάκονος . Romans 12:3 favours the former, but perhaps ὁΘεὸςηὔξανεν favours the latter. We have ἕκαστος five times in vv. 5-13. God deals separately with each individual soul: cf. 4:5, 7:17, 20, 24, 12:7, 11. And whatever success there is to receive a reward (v. 8) is really His; Deus coronat dona sua, non merita nostra (Augustine). It is clear from the frequent mention of Θεός in what follows that ὁΚύριος means God, and it seems to be in marked antithesis to διάκονοι . We should read τί in both places (א A B 17, Vulg. d e f g Aeth. RV.), rather than τίς (C D E F G L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. AV.). D2 L, Syrr. Arm. Aeth. place Παῦλος first and Ἀπολλῶς second, an obvious correction, to agree with vv. 4 and 6. D E F G L, Vulg. Arm. Copt. Omit ἐστιν after τ .δέ . D2; L P, Syrr. AV. insert ἀλλ ʼ ἤ before διάκονοι . א A B C D E F G, Vulg. Copt. Arm. RV. omit. 6. ἐλὼἐφύτενσακ .τ .λ . St Paul expands the previous statement. Faith, whether initial or progressive, is the work of God alone, although He uses men as His instruments. Note the significant change from aorists to imperfect. The aorists sum up, as wholes, the initial work of Paul (Acts 18:1-18) and the fostering ministry of Apollos (Acts 18:24-1): the imperfect indicates what was going on throughout; God was all along causing the increase (Acts 14:27, Acts 16:14).† Sine hoc incremento granum a primo sationis momento esset instar lapilli: ex incremento statim fides germinat (Beng.). See Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching, p. 183. 7. ἐστιντί . ‘ Is something,’ est aliquid, Vulg. (cf. Acts 5:36; Galatians 2:6, Galatians 6:3); so Evans; quiddam, atque adeo, quia solus, omnia (Berng.). Or, ἐστίντι , ‘ is anything’ (AV., RV.). Nos mercenarii sumus, alienis ferramentis operamur, nihil debetur nobis, nisi merces laboris nostri, quia de accepto talento operamur (Primasius). ἀλλͅὁαὐξάνωνΘεός . The strongly adversative ἀλλά implies the opposite of what has just been stated; ‘ but God who giveth the increase is everything.’ See on 7:19, and cf. Galatians 6:15. To refer ἐπότισεν and ὁποτίζων to Baptism, as some of the Fathers do, is to exhibit a strange misappreciation of the context. See Lightfoot’ s note. Θεός is placed last with emphasis; ‘ but the giver of the increase— God.’ ἕνεἰσιν . Are in one category, as fellow-workers; consequently it is monstrous to set them against one another as rivals. As contrasted with God, they are all of one value, just nothing. But that does not mean that each, when compared with the other, is exactly equal in His sight. The other side of the truth is introduced with δέ . ἕκαστοςδέ . ‘ Yet each has his own responsibility and work, and each shall receive his proper reward.’ The repeated ἴδιον marks the separate responsibility, correcting a possible misapprehension of the meaning of ἕν : congruens iteratio, antitheton ad ‘ unum’ (Beng.). The latter point is drawn out more fully in vv. 10 f. 9. Θεοῦγάρ . The γάρ refers to the first half, not the second, of v. 8. The workers are in one category, because they are Θεοῦσυνεργοί . The verse contains the dominant thought of the whole passage, gathering up the gist of vv. 5-7. Hence the emphatic threefold Θεοῦ . The Gospel is the power of God (1:18), and those who are entrusted with it are to be thought of, not as rival members of a rhetorical profession, but as bearers of a divine message charged with divine power. Θεοῦσυνεργοί . This remarkable expression occurs nowhere else: the nearest to it 2 Corinthians 6:1; the true text of 1 Thessalonians 3:2 is probably διάκονον , not συνεργόν .* It is not quite clear what it means. Either, ‘ fellow-workers with one another in God’ s service’ ; or, ‘ fellow-workers with God.’ Evans decides for the former, because “ the logic of the sentence loudly demands it.” So also Heinrici and others. But although God does all, yet human instrumentality in a sense co-operates (ὅσαἐποίησενὁΘεὸςμετ ʼ αὐτῶν , Acts 14:27), and St Paul admits this aspect of the matter in ἡχάριςτοῦΘεοῦσὺνἐμοί , 15:10, and in συνεργοῦντες , 2 Corinthians 6:1. This seems to turn the scale in favour of the more simple and natural translation, ‘ fellow-workers with God.’ † Compare τοὺςσυνεργούςμουἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ (Romans 16:3), which appears to show how St Paul would have expressed the former meaning, had he meant it. Θεοῦγεώργιον , Θεοῦοἰκοδομή . The one metaphor has been employed in vv. 6-8, the other is to be developed in vv. 10 f. St Paul uses three metaphors to express the respective relations of himself and of other teachers to the Corinthian Church. He is planter (6), founder (10), and father (4:15). Apollos and the rest are waterers, after-builders, and tutors. The metaphor of building is a favourite one with the Apostle. On the different meanings of οἰκοδομή , which correspond fairly closely to the different meanings of ‘ building’ , see J.A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 70, 164: it occurs often in the Pauline Epistles, especially in the sense of ‘ edification,’ a sense which Lightfoot traces to the Apostle’ s metaphor of the building of the Church. Here it is fairly certain that γεώργιον does not mean the ‘ tilled land’ (RV. marg.), but the ‘ husbandry’ (AV., RV.) or ‘ tillage’ (AV. marg.) that results in tilled land, and that therefore οἰκοδομή does not mean the edifice, but the building-process which results in an edifice. The word γεώργιον is rather frequent in Proverbs; elsewhere in LXX it is rare, and it is found nowhere else in N.T. In the Greek addition to what is said about the ant (Proverbs 6:7) we are told that it is without its knowing anything of tillage that it provides its food in summer. Again, in the Greek addition to the aphorisms on a foolish man (Proverbs 9:12), we are told that he wanders from the tracks of his own husbandry In Ecclus. 27:6 it is said that the ‘ cultivation of a tree’ is shown by its fruit. The meaning here, therefore, is that the Corinthians exhibit God’ s operations in spiritual husbandry and spiritual architecture; Dei agricultura estis, Dei aedificatio estis (Vulg.).* It is chiefly in 1 and 2 Cor., Rom., and Eph. that the metaphor of building is found. See also Acts 9:31, Acts 9:20:32; Jude 1:20; 1 Peter 2:5, with Hort’ s note on the last passage. In Jeremiah 18:9, Jeremiah 24:6, and Ezekiel 34:9, Ezekiel 34:10 we have the metaphors of building and planting combined. 3:10-15. The Builders I have laid the only possible foundation. Let those who build on it remember that their work will be severely tested at the Last Day. 10 As to the grace which God gave me to found Churches, I have, with the aims of an expert master-builder, laid a foundation for the edifice; it is for some one else to build upon it. But, whoever he may be, let him be careful as to the materials with which he builds thereon. 11 For, as regards the foundation, there is no room for question: no one can lay any other beside the one which is already laid, which of course is Jesus Christ. 12 But those who build upon this foundation may use either good or bad material; they may use gold, silver, and sumptuous stones, or they may use wood, hay, and straw. But each builder’ s good or bad work is certain to be made manifest in the end. For the Day of Judgment will disclose it, because that Day is revealed in fire; and the fire is the thing that will assuredly test each builder’ s work and will show of what character it Isa_14 If any man’ s work— the superstructure which he has erected— shall stand the ordeal, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’ s work shall be burnt to the ground, he will lose it, though he himself shall be saved from destruction, but like one who has passed through fire. St Paul follows up the building-metaphor, first (v. 10) distinguishing his part from that of others, and then (11-15) dwelling on the responsibility of those who build after him. 10. Κατὰτὴνχάρινκ .τ .λ . The necessary prelude to a reference to his own distinctive work (cf. 7:25). The ‘ grace’ is not that of Apostleship in general, but that specially granted to St Paul, which led him to the particular work of founding new Churches, and not building on another man’ s foundation (Romans 15:19, Romans 15:20). ὡςσοφὸςἀρχιτέκτων . The same expression is found in LXX of Isa 3:3, and σόφος is frequent of the skilled workmen who erected and adorned the Tabernacle (Exodus 35:10, Exodus 35:25, 36:1, Exodus 35:4, Exodus 35:8). It means peritus. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. VI. vii. 1) says that the first notion of σοφία is, that, when applied to each particular art, it is skill; Phidias is a skilled sculptor.* See Lightfoot ad loc. Ἀρχιτέκτων occurs nowhere else in N.T. θεμέλιονἔθηκα . The aorist, like ἐφύτενσα (v. 6), refers to the time of his visit (ἦλθον , ii. 1): θεμέλιον is an adjective , but becomes a neuter substantive in late Greek. In the plural we may have either gender; οἱθεμέλιοι (Hebrews 11:10, Revelation 21:14, Revelation 21:19), or τὰθεμέλια (Acts 16:26 and often in LXX). No architect can build without some foundation, and no expert will build without a sure foundation. Cf. Ephesians 2:20. ἄλλοςδέ . The reference is not specially to Apollos: ‘ The superstructure I leave to others.’ But they all must build, according to the rule that follows, thoughtfully, not according to individual caprice. πῶςἐποικοδομεῖ . Refers specially, although not exclusively, to the choice of materials (vv. 12, 13). The edifice, throughout, is the Church, not the fabric of doctrine; but ἐποἰοδομεῖν refers to the teaching— both form and substance— which forms the Church, or rather forms the character of its members (Galatians 4:19). ἔθηκα (א A B C 17) is to be preferred to τἐθεικα (א 3 C3 D E) or τεθηκα (L P). D omits the second δέ . There is no need to conjecture ἐποικοδόμῃ for the second ἐποικοδομεῖ (all MSS). In 7:32 the balance of evidence is strongly in favour of πῶςἀρέσῃ . 11. θεμέλιονγάρ . A cautionary premiss to v. 12, which continues the thought of the previous clause: ‘ Let each man look to it how he builds upon this foundation, because, although (I grant, nay, I insist) none can lay any foundation παρὰτὸνκείμενον , yet the superstructure is a matter of separate and grave responsibility.’ Θεμέλιον stands first for emphasis. There can be but one fundamental Gospel (Galatians 1:6, Galatians 1:7), the foundation lies there, and the site is already occupied. By whom is the foundation laid? Obviously (v. 10), by St Paul, when he preached Christ at Corinth (2:2). This is the historical reference of the words; but behind the laying of the stone at Corinth, or wherever else the Church may be founded, there is the eternal laying of the foundation-stone by God, the ‘ only wise’ architect of the Church. See Evans. Compare the use of κειμένη of the city that is already there, and τιθέασιν of the lamp which has to be placed (Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15). ὄςἐστινἸησοῦςΧριστός . Both name and title are in place, and neither of them alone would have seemed quite satisfying: see on 2:2. He is the foundation of all Christian life, faith, and hope.* In Ephesians 2:20 He is the chief corner-stone, ἀκρογωνιαῖος , the basis of unity: cf. Acts 4:11. It is only by admitting some inconsistency of language that the truth can be at all adequately expressed. There is inconsistency even if we leave Ephesians 2:20 out of account. He has just said that he laid the foundation in a skilful way. Now he says that it was lying there ready for him, and that no other foundation is possible. Each statement, in its own proper sense, is true; and we need both in order to get near to the truth. As in Galatians 1:8, παρά means ‘ besides,’ not ‘ contrary to,’ ‘ at variance with.’ ἹησοῦςΧριστός (א A B L P Sah. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) rather than ΧριστόςἸησοῦς (C3 D E, Vulg.). Several cursives have ἹησοῦςὁΧρ . 12. εἰδέτιςκ .τ .λ . The various kinds of superstructure represent various degrees of inferiority in the ministry of the ‘ after-builders,’ i.e. according as they make, or fail to make, a lasting contribution to the structure. With regard to the whole passage, three things are to be noted. (1) The metaphor is not to be pressed too rigidly by seeking to identify each term with some detail in the building. This Grotius does in the following way: proponit ergo nobis domum cujus parietes sunt ex marmore, columnae partim ex auro partim ex argento, trabes ex ligno, fastigium vero ex stramine et culmo; all which is very frigid.* The materials are enumerated with a rapid and vivid asyndeton, which drives each point sharply and firmly home. (2) The ‘ wood, hay, stubble’ do not represent teaching that is intentionally disloyal or false , but such as is merely inferior. (3) The imagery alternates between the suggestion of teaching as moulding persons, and the suggestion of persons as moulded by teaching (Evans), so that it is irrelevant to ask whether the materials enumerated are to be understood of the fruits of doctrine, such as different moral qualities (Theodoret), or of worthy and unworthy Christians. The two meanings run into one another, for the qualities must be exhibited in the lives of persons. We have a similar combination of two lines of thought in the interpretation of the parable of the Sower. There the seed is said to be sown, and the soil is said to be sown, and in the interpretation these two meanings are mingled. Yet the interpretation is clear enough. χρυσίον , ἀργύριον . As distinct from χρυσός and ἄργυρος , which indicate the metals in any condition, these diminutives are commonly used of gold and silver made into something, such as money or utensils; as when by ‘ gold’ we mean gold coins, or by ‘ silver’ mean silver coins or plate (Acts 3:6, Acts 20:33). But this is not a fixed rule. See Matthew 23:16 and Genesis 2:11. λίθουςτιμίους . Either ‘ costly stones,’ such as marble or granite, suitable for building, or ‘ precious stones,’ suitable for ornamentation. Isaiah 54:11, Isaiah 54:12 and Revelation 21:18, Revelation 21:19, combined with the immediate context , point to the latter meaning. It is internal decoration that is indicated. χόρτον , καλάμην . Either of these might mean straw or dried grass for mixing with clay, as in Exodus 5:12, καλάμηνεἰςἄχυρα , ‘ stubble instead of straw’ ; and either might mean material for thatching. Romu leoque recens horrebat regia culmo (Virg. Aen. viii. 654). Luther’ s contemptuous expression respecting the Epistle of St James as a ‘ strawy epistle’ was made in allusion to this passage. Nowhere else in N.T. does καλάμη occur. After ἐπὶτ . θεμέλιον , א 3 C 3 D E L P,; Vulg. AV. add τοῦτον . א A B C Sah. Aeth. RV. omit. We ought probably to read χρυσίον (א B) and ἀργύριον (א B C) rather than χρυσόν and ἄργυρον (A D E L P). B, Aeth. insert καί after χρυσίον . 13. ἑκάστουτὸἔργον . These words sum up the alternatives, standing in apposition to the substantival clause, εἰδέτις … καλάμην . Individual responsibility is again insisted upon: we have ἕκαστος four times in vv. 8-13. ἠγὰρἠ̔μέραδηλώσει . ‘ The Day’ (as in 1 Thessalonians 5:4; Romans 13:12; Hebrews 10:25), without the addition of Κυρίου (1 Thessalonians 5:2) or of κρίσεως (Matthew 12:36) or of ἐκείνη (2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Timothy 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:18, 2 Timothy 1:4:8), means the Day of Judgment. This is clear from 4:3, 5, ubi ex intervallo, ut solet, clarius loquitur (Beng.). The expression ‘ Day of the Lord’ comes from the O.T. (Isaiah 2:12; Jeremiah 46:10; Ezekiel 7:10, etc.), and erhaps its original meaning was simply a definite period of time. But with this was often associated the idea of day as opposed to night: ‘ the Day’ would be a time of light, when what had hitherto been hidden or unknown would be revealed. So here. And here the fire which illuminates is also a fire which burns, and thus tests the solidity of that which it touches. What is sound survives, what is worthless is consumed. ἐνπυρὶἀποκαλύπτεται . The nominative is neither τὸἔργον nor ὁΚύριος , but ἡἡμέρα . ‘ The Day’ is (to be) revealed in fire (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 2 Thessalonians 1:2:8; Daniel 7:9f.; Malachi 4:1). This is a common use of the present tense, to indicate that a coming event is so certain that it may be spoken of as already here. The predicted revelation is sure to take place. See on ἀποκαλύπτεται in Luke 17:30, Lightfoot on 1 Thessalonians 5:2, and Hort on 1 Peter 1:7, 1 Peter 1:13. St Paul is not intending to describe the details of Christ’ s Second Coming, but is figuratively stating, what he states without figure in 4:5, that at that crisis the real worth of each man’ s work will be searchingly tested. This test he figures as the fire of the Second Advent, wrapping the whole building round, and reducing all its worthless material to ashes. The fire, therefore, is regarded more as a testing than as an illuminating agent, as tentatio tribulationis (August. Enchir. 68), which by its destructive power makes manifest the enduring power of all that it touches. There is no thought in the passage of a penal, or disciplinary, or purgative purpose; nor again is there the remotest reference to the state of the soul between death and judgment. Hic locus ignem purgatorium non modo non fovet sed plane extinguit, nam in novissimo demum die ignis probabit. … Ergo ignis purgatorius non praecedit (Beng.). The ἐν suggests that fire is the element in which the revelation takes place. At the Parousia Christ is to appear ἐνπυρὶφλογός (2 Thessalonians 1:8) or ἐνφλογὶπυρός (Isaiah 66:15). In the Apocalypse of Baruch (48:39) we have, “ A fire will consume their thoughts, and in flame will the meditations of their reins be tried; for the Judge will come and will not tarry.” But elsewhere in that book (44:15, 59:2, etc.) the fire is to consume the wicked, a thought of which there is no trace here. There are no wicked, but only unskilful builders; all build, although some build unwisely, upon Christ. καὶἑκάστου . Still under the ὅτι . It is better to regard τὸἔργον as the acc. governed by δοκιμάσει , with αὐτό as pleonastic, than as the nom. to ἐστιν . A pleonastic pronoun is found with good authority in Matthew 9:27; Luke 17:7; and elsewhere; but the readings are sometimes uncertain. To take αὐτό with πῦρ , ‘ the fire itself,’ has not much point. In all three verses (13, 14, 15), τὸἔργον refers, not to a man’ s personal character, good or bad, but simply to his work as a builder (12). א D E L, Vulg. Sah. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit αὐτό , but we ought probably to read it with A B C P 17 and other cursives. 14. μενεῖ . It is doubtful, and not very important, whether we should accent this word as a future, to agree with κατακαήσεται and other verbs which are future, or μένει , as a present, which harmonizes better with the idea of permanence: cf. μένει in 13:13. μισθόν . Compare v. 8 and Matthew 20:8: in 9:17, 18 the reference is quite different. The nature of the reward is not stated, but it is certainly not eternal salvation, which may be won by those whose work perishes (v. 15). Something corresponding to the ‘ ten cities’ and ‘ five cities’ in the parable may be meant; opportunities of higher service. 15. κατακαήσεται . This later form is found as a v.l. (AL) in 2 Peter 3:10, where it is probably a correction of the puzzling εὑρεθήσεται (א B K P). In Revelation 18:8 the more classical κατακαυθήσεται is found. The burning of Corinth by Mummius may have suggested this metaphor. ζημιωθήσεται . It does not much matter whether we regard this as indefinite, ‘ He shall suffer loss’ (AV., RV.), detrimentum patietur (Vulg.), damnum faciet (Beza), or understand τὸνμισθόν from v. 14, ‘ He shall be mulcted of the expected reward.’ In Exodus 21:22 we have ἐπιζήμιονζημιωθήσεται . The αὐτός is in favour of the latter. αὐτὸςδὲσωθήσεται . The αὐτός is in contrast to the μισθός : the reward will be lost, but the worker himself will be saved. If ζημιωθήσεται is regarded as indefinite, then αὐτός may be in contrast to the ἔργον : the man’ s bad work will perish, but that does not involve his perdition. The σωθήσεται can hardly refer to anything else than eternal salvation, which he has not forfeited by his bad workmanship: he has built on the true foundation. Salvation is not the μισθός , and so it may be gained when all μισθός is lost. But it may also be lost as well as the μισθός . The Apostle does not mean that every teacher who takes Christ as the basis of his teaching will necessarily be saved: his meaning is that a very faulty teacher may be saved, and ‘ will be saved, if at all, so as through fire.’ See Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xxi. 21, 26. οὕτωςδὲὡςδιὰπυρός . ‘ But only as one passing through fire is saved’ : a quasi-proverbial expression, indicative of a narrow escape from a great peril, as ‘ a firebrand pluckt out of the fire’ (Amos 4:11; Zechariah 3:2). It is used here with special reference to the fire which tests the whole work (v. 13). The διά is local rather than instrumental. The fire is so rapid in its effects that the workman has to rush through it to reach safety: cf. δι ʼ ὕδατος (1 Peter 3:20), and διήλθομενδιὰπυρὸςκαὶὕδατος (Psalms 66:12). To explain σωθήσεταιδιὰπυρός as meaning ‘ shall be kept alive in the midst of hell-fire’ is untenable translation and monstrous exegesis. Such a sense is quite inadmissible for σωθήσεται and incompatible with οὕτωςὡς . Moreover, the fire in v. 13 is the fire alluded to, and that fire cannot be Gehenna. Atto of Vercelli thinks that this passage is one of the ‘ things hard to be understood’ alluded to in 2 Peter 3:16. Augustine (Enchir. 68) says that the Christian who ‘ cares for the things of the Lord’ (7:32) is the man who builds with ‘ gold, silver, and precious stones,’ while he who ‘ cares for the things of the world, how he may please his wife’ (7:33), builds with ‘ wood, hay, stubble.’ 3:16-17. The Temple St Paul now passes away from the builders to the Temple. The section is linked with vv. 10-15 both by the opening words, which imply some connexion, and by the word ναός , which is doubtless suggested by the ‘ building’ of vv. 9 f. (cf. Ephesians 2:20-22). On the other hand, it is quite certain that there is a change of subject: αὐτὸςσωθήσεται (v. 15) and φθερεῖτοῦτονὁΘεός are contradictory propositions, and they cannot be made to apply to the same person, for φθείρειν cannot be attenuated to an equivalent for ζημιοῦν (v. 15). The subject of the σχίσματα still occupies the Apostle’ s mind, and he seems to be thinking of their ultimate tendency. By giving rein to the flesh (v. 3) they tend to banish the Holy Spirit, and so to destroy the Temple constituted by His presence. 16. Οὐκοἴδατε ; Frequent in this Epistle, and twice in Romans; also James 4:4. As in 5:6, 6:16, 19, the question implies a rebuke. The Corinthians are so carnal that they have never grasped, or have failed to retain, so fundamental a doctrine as that of the indwelling of the Spirit. * ναὸςΘεοῦἐστε . Not ‘ a temple of God,’ but ‘ God’ s Temple.’ There is but one Temple, embodied equally truly in the whole Church, in the local Church, and in the individual Christian; the local Church is meant here. As a metaphor for the Divine indwelling, the ναός , which contained the Holy of Holies, is more suitable than ἱερόν , which included the whole of the sacred enclosure (6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21). To converts from heathenism the ναός might suggest the cella in which the image of the god was placed. It is one of the paradoxes of the Christian Church that there is only one ναὸςΘεοῦ and yet each Christian is a ναός : simul omnes unum templum et singula templa sumus, quia non est Deus in omnibus quam in singulis major (Herv.). Ναός is from ναίειν , ‘ to dwell.’ καὶτὸπνεῦμα . The καί is epexegetic. Both Gentile and Jew might speak of their ναὸςΘεοῦ , but, while the pagan temple was inhabited by an image of a god, and the Jewish by a symbol of the Divine Presence (Shekinah), the Christian temple is inhabited by the Spirit of God Himself. ἐνὑμῖνοἰκεῖ . ‘ In you hath His dwelling-place.’ In Luke 11:51 we have οἶκος , where, in the parallel passage in Matthew 23:35, we have ναός . ΤότεοὖνμάλισταἐσόμεθαναὸςΘεοῦ , ἐὰνχωρητικοὺςἐαυτοὺςκατασκευάσωμεντοῦΠνεύματοςτοῦΘεοῦ (Orig.). It is not easy to decide between ἐνὑμῖνοἰκεῖ (B P 17) and οἰκεῖἐνὑμῖν (א A C D E F G L, Vulg.). The former is more forcible, placing the ‘ permanent dwelling’ last, with emphasis. 17. εἴτις … φθείρει … φθερεῖ . The AV. greatly mars the effect by translating the verb first ‘ defile’ and then ‘ destroy.’ The same verb is purposely used to show the just working of the lex talionis in this case: one destruction is requited by another destruction. The destroyers of the Temple are those who banish the Spirit, an issue to which the dissensions were at least tending. Here the reference is to unchristian faction, which destroyed, by dividing, the unity of the Church: a building shattered into separate parts is a ruin. In 6:19 the thought is of uncleanness in the strict sense. But all sin is a defiling of the Temple and is destructive of its consecrated state.* We have a similar play on words to express a similar resemblance between sin and its punishment in Romans 1:28; καθὼςοὐκἐδοκίμασαντὸνΘεὸνἔχεινἐνἐπιγνώσει , παρέδωκεναὐτοὺςὁΘεὸςεἰςἀδόκιμοννοῦν . And there is a still closer parallel in Revelation 11:18; διαφθεῖραιτοὺςδιαφθείρονταςτὴνγῆν . Neither φθείρειν nor διαφθείρειν are commonly used of God’ s judgments, for which the more usual verb is ἀπολλύειν or ἀπολλύναι : but both here and in Revelation 11:18 φθείρειν or διαφθείρειν is preferred, because of its double meaning, ‘ corrupt’ and ‘ destroy.’ The sinner destroys by corrupting what is holy and good, and for this God destroys him. We have φθείρειν in the sense of corrupt, 15:33; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 19:2. φθερεῖτοῦτονὁΘεός . The Vulgate, like the AV., ignores the telling repetition of the same verb: si quis autem templum Dei violaverit, disperdet illum Deus. Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 6) preserves it: si templum Dei quis vitiaverit, vitiabitur, utique a Deo templi; and more literally (De Pudic. 16, 18) vitiabit illum Deus. But neither φθερεῖ here, nor ὄλεθρος in 1 Thessalonians 5:3, nor ὄλεθροναἰώνιον in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, must be pressed to mean annihilation (see on v. 5). Nor, on the other hand, must it be watered down to mean mere physical punishment (cf. 11:30). The exact meaning is nowhere revealed in Scripture; but terrible ruin and eternal loss of some kind seems to be meant. See Beet’ s careful examination of these and kindred words, The Last Things, pp. 122 f. ἅγιόςἐστιν . It is ‘ holy,’ and therefore not to be tampered with without grave danger. Both the Tabernacle and the Temple are frequently called ἅγιος , and in the instinct of archaic religion in the O.T. the idea of danger was included in that of ‘ holiness.’ See Gray on Numbers 4:5, Numbers 4:15, Numbers 4:19, Numbers 4:20, and Kirkpatrick on 1 Samuel 6:20 and 2 Samuel 6:7; and cf. Leviticus 10:6, Leviticus 10:16:2, Leviticus 10:13. οἵτινέςἐστεὑμεῖς . It has been doubted whether ναός or ἅγιος is the antecedent of οἵτινες , but the former is probably right: ‘ which temple ye are’ (AV., RV.).* The relative is attracted into the plural of ὑμεῖς . Edwards quotes, τὸνοὐρανόν , οὓςδὴπόλουςκαλοῦσιν (Plato, Crat. 405). The meaning seems to be, ‘ The temple of God is holy; ye are the temple of God; therefore ye must guard against what violates your consecration.’ As distinct from the simple relative, οἵτινες commonly carries with it the idea of category, of belonging to a class; ‘ and this is what ye are,’ ‘ and such are ye’ : cf. Galatians 5:19, where the construction is parallel. Φθερεῖ (א A B C, d e f g Vulg.) rather than φθείρει (D E F G L P,; Am.) where the difference between Greek and Latin in bilingual MSS. is remarkable: see on v.2. τοῦτον (א B C L P) rather than αὐτόν (A D E F G). 3:18-4:5. Warning Against a More ‘ Human’ Estimate Of the Pastoral Office Let no one profane God’ s Temple by taking on himself to set up party teachers in it. Regard us teachers as simply Christ’ s stewards. 18 I am not raising baseless alarms; the danger of a false estimate of oneself is grave. It may easily happen that a man imagines that he is wise in his intercourse with you, with the wisdom of the non-Christian world. Let him become simple enough to accept Christ crucified, which is the way to become really wise. 19 For this world’ s wisdom is foolishness in God’ s sight, as it stands written in Scripture, Who taketh the wise in their own craftiness; 20 and in another passage, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain. 21 If this is so, it is quite wrong for any one to plume himself on the men whom he sets up as leaders. For yours is no party-heritage; it is universal. 22 Paul, Apollos, Kephas, the world, life, death, whatever is, and whatever is to be, all of it belongs to you; 25 but you— you belong to no human leader; you belong to Christ, and Christ to God. Between you and God there is no human leader. 4. 1 The right way of regarding Apollos, myself, and other teachers, is that we are officers under Christ, commissioned to dispense the truths which His Father has revealed to us in Him, just as stewards dispense their masters’ goods. 2 Here, furthermore, you must notice that all stewards are required to prove their fidelity. 3 But, as regards myself, it is a matter of small moment that my fidelity should be scrutinized and judged by you or by any human court. Yet that does not mean that I constitute myself as my own Jdg_4 My judgments on myself would be inconclusive. For it may be the case that I have no consciousness of wrong-doing, and yet that this does not prove that I am guiltless. My conscience may be at fault. The only competent judge of my fidelity is the Lord Christ. 5 That being so, cease to anticipate His decision with your own premature judgments. Wait for the Coming of the Judge. It is He who will both illumine the facts that are now hidden in darkness, and also make manifest the real motives of human conduct: and then whatever praise is due will come to each faithful steward direct from God. That will be absolutely final. The Apostle sums up his ‘ case’ against the σχίσματα , combining the results of his exposure of the false ‘ wisdom,’ with its correlative conceit, and of his exposition of the Pastoral Office (18-23). He concludes by a warning against their readiness to form judgments, from a mundane standpoint, upon those whose function makes them amenable only to the judgment of the Day of the Lord. 18. Μηδεὶςἑαυτὸνἐξαπατάτω . A solemn rebuke, similar to that of μὴπλανᾶσθε in 6:9, 15:33, and Galatians 6:7, and even more emphatic than that which is implied in οὐκοἴδατε (v. 16). He intimates that the danger of sacrilege and of its heavy penalty (vv. 16, 17) is not so remote as some of the Corinthians may think. Shallow conceit may lead to disloyal tampering with the people of Christ. That there is a sacrilegious tendency in faction is illustrated by Galatians 5:7-12, Galatians 5:6:12, Galatians 5:13; 2 Corinthians 11:3, 2 Corinthians 11:4, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, 2 Corinthians 11:20; and the situation alluded to in Galatians may have been in the Apostle’ s mind when he wrote the words that are before us— words which have a double connexion, viz. with vv. 16, 17, and with the following section. St Paul is fond of compounds with ἐκ : 5:7, 13, 6:14, 15:34. εἴτιςδοκεῖσοφὸςεἷναι . Not, ‘ seemeth to be wise’ (AV.), videtur sapiens esse (Vulg.); but, ‘ thinketh that he is wise’ (RV.), sibi videtur esse sapiens (Beza). He considers himself an acute man of the world, quite able to decide for himself whether Paul, or Apollos, or Kephas is the right person to follow in matters of religion. We have the same use of δοκεῖ in 8:2, 10:12, 15:37. Excepting James 1:26, εἴτιςδοκεῖ is peculiar to Paul; and there the AV. makes the same mistake as here, in translating ‘ seem’ instead of ‘ think.’ Here ἐξαπατάτω , and there ἀπατῶν , may be regarded as decisive. It is the man’ s self-deceit that is criticized in both cases: his estimate is all wrong. See J. B. Mayor on James 1:26. It is perhaps not accidental that the Apostle says εἴτις … ἐνὑμῖν , and not εἴτιςὑμῶν . The warning suggests that the self-styled σοφός is among them, but not that he is one of themselves: the wrong-headed teacher has come from elsewhere. ἐνὑμῖνἐντῷαἰῶνιτούτῳ . We might put a comma after ἐνὑμῖν , for the two expressions are in contrast; ‘ in your circle,’ which has the heavenly wisdom and ought to be quite different from what is ‘ in this world’ and has only mundane wisdom. The latter is out of place in a Christian society (1:20, 22, 2:6, 8). Epictetus (Enchir. 18) warns us against thinking ourselves wise when others think us to such; μηδὲνβούλουδοκεῖνἐπίστασθαι · κᾄνδόξῃςτισινεἷναίτις , ἀπίστεισεαυτῷ . Cyprian (Test. iii. 69, De bono patient, 2) takes ἐντῷαἰῶνιτούτῳ with μωρὸςγενέσθω : mundo huic stultus fiat. So also does Origen (Cels.: i. 13; Philoc. 18); and also Luther: der werde ein Narr in dieser Welt. This makes good sense; ‘ If any man thinks himself wise in relation to you Christians, let him become a fool in relation to this world’ : but it is not the right sence. It is σοφός , not μωρό , that is qualified by ἐντῷαἰῶνιτ .: ‘ If any man thinks himself wise in your circle— I mean, of course, with this world’ s wisdom.’ From ἐνὑμῖν , ‘ in a Christian Church,’ it might have been supposed that he meant the true wisdom, and he adds ἐντ . αἰ . τ . to avoid misunderstanding. μωρὸςγενέσθω . ‘ Let him drop his false wisdom,’ the conceit that he has about himself: 1:18-20, 23, 2:14. ἵναγένηταισοφός . So as to be brought ‘ unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, unto full knowledge of the mystery of God, even Christ’ (Colossians 2:3).* 19. He explains the paradox of the last verse by stating the principle already established, 1:21, 2:6. παρὰτῷΘεῷ . ‘ Before God’ as judge; Romans 2:13, Romans 2:12:16; Acts 26:8. Although μωρός is common in N.T. and LXX, μωρία occurs, in N.T., only in these three chapters; and, in LXX, only in Ecclus. 20:31, 41:15. ὁδρασσόμενοςκ .τ .λ . From Job 5:13; a quotation independent of the LXX, and perhaps somewhat nearer to the original Hebrew. Job is quoted rarely in N.T., and chiefly by St Paul; and both here and in Romans 11:35, and in no other quotation, he varies considerably from the LXX. Like ὁποιῶν in Hebrews 1:7, ὁδρασσόμενος here is left without any verb. It expresses the strong grasp or ‘ grip’ which God has upon the slippery cleverness of the wicked: cf. Ecclus. 26:7, where it is said of an evil wife, ὁκρατῶναὐτῆςὡςὁδρασσόμενοςσκορπίου : and Ecclus. 34(31):2), the man who has his mind upon dreams is ὡςδρασσόμενοςκιᾶς . The words in Psalms 2:12 which are mistranslated ‘ Kiss the Son’ are rendered in the LXX, δράξασθεπαιδείας , ‘ Lay hold on instruction.’ The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., and in the LXX of Job 5:13 we have ὁκαταλαμβάνων . πανουργίᾳ . ‘ Versatile cleverness,’ ‘ readiness for anything’ in order to gain one’ s own ends. ‘ Craftiness,’ like astutia (Vulg.), emphasizes the cunning which πανουργία often implies. The LXX has ἐνφρονήσει , a word which commonly has a good meaning, while πανουργία almost always has a bad one, although not always in the LXX, e.g. Proverbs 1:4, Proverbs 8:5. The adjective πανοῦργος is more often used in a better sense, and in the LXX is used with φρόνιμος to translate the same Hebrew word. Perhaps ‘ cleverness’ would be better here than ‘ craftiness’ (AV., RV.). See notes on Luke 20:23; Ephesians 4:14. 20. Κύριοςγινώσκει . From Psalms 94:11, and another instance (1:20) of St Paul’ s freedom in quoting: the LXX, following the Hebrew, has ἀνθρώπων , where he (to make the citation more in point) has σοφῶν . But the Psalm contrasts the designs of men with the designs of God, and therefore the idea of σοφός is in the context. διαλογισμούς . In the LXX the word is used of the thoughts of God (Psalms 40:6, Psalms 92:5). When used of men, the word often, but not always, has a bad sense, as here, especially of questioning or opposing the ways of God (Psalms 56:5; Luke 5:22, Luke 5:6:8; Romans 1:21; James 2:4). 21. ὥστεμηδεὶςκαυχάσθω . Conclusion from vv. 18-20. The connexion presupposes an affinity between conceit in one’ s own wisdom and a readiness to make over much of a human leader. The latter implies much confidence in one’ s own estimate of the leader. Consequently, the spirit of party has in it a subtle element of shallow arrogance. We have ὥστε , ‘ so then,’ with an imperative, 4:5, 10:12, 11:33, 14:39, 15:58. Outside this argumentative and practical Epistle the combination is not very common; very rare, except in Paul. It seems to involve an abrupt change from the oratio obliqua into the oratio recta. It marks the transition from explanation to exhortation. ἐνἀνθρώποις . To ‘ glory in men’ is the opposite of ‘ glorying in the Lord’ (1:31). The Apostle is referring to their wrong-headed estimation of himself, Apollos, and others (as in 4:6), not to party-leaders boasting of their large following. Leaders might glory in the patience and faith of their disciples (2 Thessalonians 1:4), but not in that as any credit to the leaders themselves. All partizan laudation is wrong. πάνταγὰρὑμῶνἐστίν . ‘ You say, I belong to Paul, or, I belong to Apollos. So far from that being true, it is Paul and Apollos who belong to you, for all things belong to you.’ Instead of contenting himself with saying ‘ We are yours,’ he asserts that and a very great deal more; not merely πάντες , ‘ all servants of God,’ but πάντα , ‘ all God’ s creatures,’ belong to them. Yet his aim is, not merely to proclaim how wide their heritage is, but to show them that they have got the facts by the wrong end. They want to make him a chieftain; he is really their servant. The Church is not the property of Apostles; Apostles are ministers of the Church. Quia omnia vestra sunt, nolite in singulis gloriari; nolite speciales vobis magistros defendere, quoniam omnibus utimini (Atto). Omnia propter sanctos creata sunt, tanquam nihil habentes et omnia possidentes (Primasius). The thought is profound and far-reaching. The believer in God through Christ is a member of Christ and shares in His universal lordship, all things being subservient to the Kingdom of God, and therefore to his eternal welfare (7:31; Romans 8:28; John 16:33; 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:5), as means to an end. The Christian loses this birthright by treating the world or its interests as ends in themselves, i.e. by becoming enslaved to persons (7:23; 2 Corinthians 11:20) or things (6:12; Philippians 3:19). Without God, we should be the sport of circumstances, and ‘ the world’ would crush us, if not in ‘ life,’ at least in ‘ death.’ As it is, all these things alike ‘ are ours.’ We meet them as members of Christ, rooted in God’ s love (Romans 8:37). The Corinthians, by boasting in men, were forgetting, and thereby imperilling, their prerogative in Christ. There is perhaps a touch of Stoic language in these verses; see on 4:8. Origen points out that the Greeks had a saying, Πάντατοῦσοφοῦἐστίν , but St Paul was the first to say, Πάντατοῦἁγίουἐστίν . 22. εἴτε … εἴτε … εἴτε . The enumeration, rising in a climax, is characteristic of St Paul (Romans 8:38): the πάντα is first expanded and then repeated. We might have expected a third triplet, past, present, and future; but the past is not ours in the sense in which the present and future are. We had no part in shaping it, and cannot change it. In the first triplet, he places himself, first, i.e. at the bottom of the climax. εἴτεκόσμος . The transition from Kephas to the κόσμος is, as Bengel remarks, rather repentinus saltus, and made, he thinks, with a touch of impatience, lest the enumeration should become too extended. But perhaps alliteration has something to do with it. This Bengel spoils, by substituting ‘ Peter’ for ‘ Kephas.’ The ‘ world’ is here used in a neutral sense, without ethical significance, the world we live in, the physical universe. εἲτεζωὴεἴτεθάνατος . If κόσμος is the physical universe, it is probable that ζωή and θάνατος mean physical life and death. They sum up all that man instinctively clings to or instinctively dreads. From life and death in this general sense we pass easily to ἐνεστῶτα . It is by life in the world that eternal life can be won, and death is the portal to eternal life. In Romans 8:38 death is mentioned before life, and ἐνεστῶτα and μέλλοντα do not close the series. εἴτεἐνεστῶταεἴτεμέλλοντα . These also ought probably to be confined in meaning to the things of this life. They include the whole of existing circumstances and all that lies before us to the moment of death. All these things ‘ are yours,’ i.e. work together for your good. It is possible that μέλλοντα includes the life beyond the grave; but the series, as a whole, reads more consistently, if each member of it is regarded as referring to human experience in this world. For ὑμῶν , ὑμεῖς , B and one or two cursives read ἡμῶν , ἡμεῖς . After ὑμῶν , D2 E L, f g Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. add ἐστίν . 23. ὑμεῖςδὲΧριστοῦ . These words complete the rebuke of those who said that they belonged to Paul, etc. They belonged to no one but Christ, and they all alike belonged to Him. While all things were theirs, they were not their own (6:20, 7:23), and none of them had any greater share in Christ than the rest (1:13). Christians, with all their immense privileges, are not the ultimate owners of anything. There is only one real Owner, God. On the analogy between Χριστοῦ here and Καίσαρος = “ belonging to the Emperor” in papyri see Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 382. Cf. 15:23; Galatians 3:29, Galatians 5:24. ΧριστὸςδὲΘεοῦ . Not quite the same in meaning as Luke 9:20, Luke 9:23:35; Acts 3:18; Revelation 12:10. In all those passages we have ὁΧριστὸςτοῦΘεοῦ or αὐτοῦ . Here Χριστός is more of a proper name. The thought of the Christian’ s lordship over the world has all its meaning in that of his being a son of God through Christ (Romans 8:16, Romans 8:17). This passage is one of the few in which St Paul expresses his conception of the relation of Christ to God (see on 2:16). Christ, although ἐνμορθῇΘεοῦὑπάρχων (Philippians 2:6, where see Lightfoot and Vincent), is so derivatively (Colossians 1:15, where see Lightfoot and Abbott): His glory in His risen and exalted state is given by God (Philippians 2:9; cf. Romans 6:10), and in the end is to be merged in God (see on 15:28). Theodoret says here, οὐχὡςκτίσμαΘεοῦ , ἀλλ ʼ ὡςυἱὸςτοῦΘεοῦς . There is no need to suppose, with some of the Fathers and later writers, that St Paul is here speaking of our Lord’ s human nature exclusively; there is no thought of separating the two natures; he is speaking of ‘ Christ,’ the Divine Mediator in His relation to His Father and to His ‘ many brethren.’ See many admirable remarks in Sanday, Ancient and Modern Christologies, on the doctrine of Two Natures in Christ, pp. 37, 50, 52, 90, 165, and especially p. 173; see also Edwards’ and Stanley’ s notes ad loc. * Cf. γενώμεθαπνευματικοί , γενώμεθαναὸςτέλειοςτῷφεῷ (Ep. of Barn. iv. 11), a possible reminiscence of this and v. 16. א Ԡ א (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T. A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum. B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS. C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 ἐνἀκροβυστίᾳ -9:6 τοῦμὴἐργάζεσθαι : 13:8 παύσονται -14:40 ἀλλὰἕτερα . D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 διο͂ὁλαλῶν -22 σημεῖονἐστίν is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422). E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429). G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1 Corinthians 3:8-16, 1 Corinthians 6:7-14 (F). L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome. P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 ὑμᾶςὁθεός -17 περιπάτει : 12:23 τοῦσώματος -13:5 οὐλογί -: 14:23 τὸλαλεῖνμή . A good type of text in St Paul’ s Epistles. * Irenaeus (IV. xxxviii. 2) has οὐδὲγὰρἠδύνασθεβαστάζειν (from John 16:12), and his translator has nondum enim poteratis escam percipere. * He contrasts it with envy, which is always bad and springs from a mean character; whereas the man who is moved by emulation is conscious of being capable of higher things. Wetstein distinguishes thus; ζῆλος cogitatione, ἕρις uerbis, διχοστασίας opere. † Abbott renders, ‘ In the very moment of saying’ ; by uttering a partycry he stamps himself as carnal; so also in 14:26 (Johan. Gr. 2534). There is here nothing inconsistent with 1:5-7. There he thanks God for the gifts with which He had enriched the Corinthians. Here he blames them for the poor results. 17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. § § 211, 212. * ‘ There is no evidence that at this time διακονία or διακονεῖν had an exclusively official sense” (Westcott on Ephesians 4:12); cf. Hebrews 6:10. d d The Latin text of D e e The Latin text of E f f The Latin text of F g g The Latin text of G † Latin and English Versions ignore the change of tense; and the difference between human activities, which come and go, and divine action, which goes on for ever, is lost. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 4:1. Οὕτωςἡμᾶςλογιζέσθω . The thought of 3:5 is resumed, and the reproof of the tendency to ‘ glory in men’ is completed by a positive direction as to the right attitude towards the pastors of the Church. The Corinthians must regard them ut ministros Christi, non ut aequales Christo (Primasius). The οὕτως probably refers to what follows, as in 3:15, 9:26. The ἡμᾶς certainly refers to all who are charged with the ministry of the New Testament or Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6). But we get good sense if we make οὕτως refer to what precedes; ‘ Remembering that we and everything else are yours, as you are Christ’ s, let a man take account of us as men who are ministers of Christ.’ This throws a certain amount of emphasis on ἡμᾶς , the emphasis being removed from οὕτως : but ἡμᾶς may receive emphasis, for it is the attitude of the Corinthians towards the Apostle and other teachers that is in question. ἄνθρωπος . Almost equivalent to τις (11:28), but a gravior dicendi formula. This use is rare in class. Grk. ὑπηρέτας . Substituted for διάκονοι in 3:5. The word originally denoted those who row in the lower tier of a trireme, and then came to mean those who do anything under another, and hence simply ‘ underlings.’ * In the Church, St Luke (1:2) applies it to any service of the word; later it was used almost technically of sub-deacons. See on Luke 4:20, and Suicer, s.v. St Paul uses the word nowhere else. οἰκονόμους . The οἰκονόμος was the responsible head of the establishment, assigning to each slave his duties and entrusted with the administration of the stores. He was a slave in relation to his master (Luke 12:42), but the ἐπίτροπος or overseer (Matthew 20:8) in relation to the workmen (see on Luke 12:42 and 16:1; in the latter place, the οἰκονόμος seems to be a freeman). God is the Master (3:23) of the Christian household (1 Timothy 3:15), and the stores entrusted to His stewards are the ‘ mysteries of God.’ These mysteries are the truths which the stewards are commissioned to teach (see on 2:7). Between the Master and the stewards stands the Son (15:25; Hebrews 3:6), whose underlings the stewards are. See on οἰκονομίαν in Ephesians 1:10 and Colossians 1:25. 2. ὧδε . ‘ Here,’ i.e. ‘ on earth and in human life,’ or perhaps ‘ in these circumstances.’ See on 1:16 for λοιπόν . ζητεῖταικ .τ .λ . The AV. cannot be improved upon; ‘ It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.’ See on 1:10 for this use of ἵνα : the attempts to maintain its full ‘ telic’ force here are too clumsy to deserve discussion: see further on v. 2, and compare εὑρεθῇ in 1 Peter 1:7. πιστός . Cf. Luke 12:42, Luke 12:16:10; Numbers 12:7; 1 Samuel 22:14: the meaning is ‘ trustworthy.’ To be an οἰκονόμος is not enough.* ὧδε (א A B C D* F G P 17, e Vulg.) rather than ὃδέ (D3 E L). In Luke 16:25 there is a similar corruption in some texts. ζητεῖται (B L, d e f g Vulg. Copt. Syrr.) rather than ζητεῖτε . Here, as in φθερεῖ (3:17), d e f g support the better reading against D E F G. Lachmann takes ωδε at the end of v. 1, — an improbable arrangement. 3. ἐμοιδέ . The δέ implies contrast to something understood, such as ‘ I do not claim to be irresponsible; inquiry will have to be made as to whether I am faithful; but the authority to which I bow is not yours, nor that of any human tribunal, but God’ s.’ εἰςἐλάχιστόνἐστιν . ‘ It amounts to very little,’ ‘ it counts for a very small matter.’ Cf. εἰςοὐδὲνλογισθῆναι (Acts 19:27). He does not say that it counts for nothing. “ I have often wondered how it is that every man sets less value on his own opinion of himself than on the opinion of others. So much more respect have we to what our neighbours think of us than to what we think of ourselves” (M. Aurelius, 12:4). ἵναἀνακριθῶ . ‘ To be judged of,’ or ‘ to be put on my trial,’ or ‘ to pass your tribunal’ (see on 2:14, 15). The verb is neutral, and suggests neither a favourable nor an unfavourable verdict. The dominant thought here, as in 2:14, 15, is the competency of the tribunal. The clause is almost equivalent to a simple infinitive, the ἵνα defining the purport of a possible volition, whether of, for, or against what is named. He does not mean that the Corinthians had thought of formally trying him, but that he cares little for what public opinion may decide about him. ἢὐπὸἀνθρωπίνηςἡμέρας . The phrase is in contrast to ἡἡμέρα (3:13), which means the Day of the Lord, the Lord’ s Judgment-Day. That is the tribunal which the Apostle recognizes; a human tribunal he does not care to satisfy. He may have had in his mind the use of a word equivalent to ‘ day’ in the sense of a ‘ court,’ which is found in Hebrew and in other languages.* ‘ Daysman’ in Job 9:33 means ‘ arbitrator’ or ‘ umpire’ : compare diem dicere alicui. From dies comes dieta = ‘ diet’ ; and hence, in German, Tag = ‘ diet,’ as in Reichstag, Landtag. ‘ Man’ s judgment’ (AV., RV.) gives the sense sufficiently. Jerome is probably wrong in suggesting that the expression is a ‘ Cilicism,’ one of St Paul’ s provincialisms. Humanus dies dicitur in quo judicant homines, quia erit et dies Domini, in quo judicabit et Dominus (Herv.). Atto says much the same. ἀλλ ʼ οὐδὲἐμαυτὸνἀνακρίνω . ‘ Nay, even my own verdict upon my conduct, with the knowledge which I have of its motives, is but a human judgment, incompetent definitely to condemn (1 John 3:20), and still more incompetent to acquit.’ † “ We cannot fail to mark the contrast between this avowal of inability to judge oneself and the claim made in ch. 2. on behalf of the spiritual man, who judges all things Self-knowledge is more difficult than revealed truth” (Edwards): Psalms 19:12. 4. οὐδὲνγάρἐμαυτῷσύνοιδα . ‘ For (supposing that) I know nothing against myself,’ ‘ Suppose that I am not conscious of any wrong-doing on my part.’ The Apostle is not stating a fact, but an hypothesis; he was conscious of many faults; yet, even if he were not aware of any, that would not acquit him. Nowhere else in N.T. is the verb used in this sense (see Acts 5:2, Acts 12:12, Acts 14:6): It means to ‘ share knowledge,’ and here to ‘ know about oneself’ what is unknown to others. It expresses conscience in the recording sense. As conscience can condemn more surely than it can acquit, the word, when used absolutely, has more frequently a bad sense, and hence comes to mean to ‘ be conscious of guilt’ : nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa (Hor. Ephesians 1:1:61) illustrates the same kind of meaning in the Latin equivalent. See on ἢκαί , Romans 2:15. The archaic ‘ I know nothing by myself’ (AV.) has caused the words to be seriously misunderstood. In sixteenth-century English ‘ by’ might mean ‘ against,’ and means ‘ against’ here. Latimer says, “ Sometimes I say more by him than I am able to prove; this is slandering” (i. 518). Jonson, in the Silent Woman, “ An intelligent woman, if she know by herself the least defect, will be most curious to hide it” (4:1), which is close to the use here. T. L. O. Davies (Bible Words, p. 81) gives these and other examples.* ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἐντούτῳ . ‘ Nevertheless, not hereby,’ ‘ But yet not in this fact,’ ‘ not therefore.’ This ἐντούτῳ is frequent in St John, especially in the First Epistle and in connexion with γινώσκειν (John 13:35; 1 John 2:3, 1 John 2:5, 1 John 2:3:16, 1 John 2:19, 1 John 2:24, 1 John 2:4:2, 1 John 2:13, 1 John 2:5:2), but also with other verbs (John 15:8, John 16:30). The οὐκ is placed away from its verb with special emphasis; sed non in hoc (Vulg.), non per hoc (Beza). Without difference of meaning, Ignatius (Rom_5) has ἀλλ ʼ οὐπραὰτοῦτοδεδικαίωμαι . δεδικαίωμαι . ‘ Am I acquitted.’ The word is used in a general sense, not in its technical theological sense. To introduce the latter here (Meyer, Beet, etc.) is to miss the drift of the passage, which deals, not with the question as to how man is justified in God’ s sight, but with the question as to who is competent to sit in judgment on a man’ s work or life. St Paul is not dealing with the question of his own personal ‘ justification by faith,’ as though he said ‘ I am justified not by this, but in some other way’ : he is saying in the first person, what would apply equally to any one else, that an unaccusing conscience does not per se mean absence of guilt. ὁδὲἀνακρίνωνμεΚύριόςἐστιν . ‘ But he that judgeth me is the Lord,’ i.e. Christ, as the next verse shows. The δέ goes back to οὺδὲἐμαυτὸνἀνακρίνω , what intervenes being a parenthesis; ‘ not I myself, but our Lord, is the judge.’ 5. ὥστε . With the imperative (see on 3:21), ‘ So then.’ μήτικρίνετε . ‘ Cease to pass any judgment,’ or ‘ Make a practice of passing no judgement’ (pres. imper.). The τι is a cognate accusative, such as we have in John 7:24. ‘ As far as I am concerned, you may judge as you please, it is indifferent to me; but, as Christians, you should beware of passing any judgment on any one, until the Judge of all has made all things clear. All anticipation is vain.’ πρὸκαιροῦ . ‘ Before the fitting time,’ or ‘ the appointed time,’ when οἰἅγιοιτὸνκόσμονκρινοῦσιν (6:2). Καιρός has no exact equivalent in English, French, or German. Cf. Matthew 8:29. ἕωςἄνἔλθῃ . The addition or omission of ἄν after ἕως in the N.T. is somewhat irregular, and this fact precludes any sure generalization as to particular shades of meaning. In later Greek the force of ἄν is weakened, and therefore the difference between its presence and absence is lessened. Here, not the coming, but the time of it, is doubtful; ‘ till the Advent, whenever that may be.’ See Milligan on 2 Thessalonians 2:7, where there is no ἄν , and Edwards here. In Revelation 2:25, ἄχριοὗἂνἥξω , it is doubtful whether ἥξω is fut. indic. or aor. subj. At the Day of Judgment they will take part in judging (6:2, 3), with all the facts before them. ὅςκαὶφωτίσει . ‘ Who shall both throw light upon,’ ‘ shall illumine,’ lucem inferet in (Beng.). But the difference between ‘ bringing light to’ and ‘ bringing to light’ is not great. The καί is probably ‘ both,’ not ‘ also’ ; but if ‘ also,’ the meaning is, ‘ will come to judge and also will illumine,’ which is less probable. Φωτίζω points to the source of the revelation. τὰκρυπτὰτοῦσκότους . Abscondita tenebrarum (Vulg.); occulta tenebrarum = res tenebris occultatas (Beza). The genitive may be possessive or characterizing, ‘ the hidden things which darkness holds,’ or ‘ the hidden things whose nature is dark.’ The point is, not that what will be revealed is morally bad, although that may be suggested, but that hitherto they have been quite secret, hidden, it may be, from the person’ s own conscience. καὶφανερώσει . Two things are necessary for an unerring judgment of human actions,— a complete knowledge of the facts, and full insight into the motives. These the Lord will apply when He comes; and to attempt to judge men without these indispensable qualifications is futile arrogance. Φανερόω points to the result of the revelation. καὶτότεὁἔπαινος . ‘ And then, and not till then, the measure of praise that is due will come to each from God.’ ‘ He will have his praise’ (RV.), what rightly belongs to him, which may be little or none, and will be very different from the praise of partizans here. We have the same thought in 2 Corinthians 10:18; Romans 2:29; and Clem. Rom reproduces it, Cor. 30. Compare μισθός , 3:14, and ὁμισθός , Romans 4:4, and see Hort on 1 Peter 1:7, p. 43. ἀπὸτοῦΘεοῦ . At the end, with emphasis; the award is final, as ἀπό intimates; there is not further court of appeal: and it is from God that Christ has authority to judge the world (John 5:27). Cf. 2 Esdr. 16:62-65. With ἑκάστῳ compare the fivefold ἕκαστος in 3:5-13. D E F G, Aug. omit the ὅς before καί . D omits the τοῦ before Θεοῦ . The conjecture of ὑπό for ἀπό before τοῦΘεοῦ has no probability of being right. Christ is the ὡρισμένοςὑπὸτοῦΘεοῦκριτής (Acts 10:42): cf. μέλλεικρίνειντὴνοἰκουμένηνἐνἀνδρὶᾧὤρισεν (Acts 17:31): so that the judgments pronounced by Christ are ἀπὸτοῦΘεοῦ . 4:6-21. Personal Application of the Foregoing Passage (3:5-4:5), and Close of the Subject of the Dissensions My aim in all this is to correct party-spirit and conceit. Do compare your self-glorification with the humiliations of your teachers. This admonition comes from a father whom you ought to imitate. I really am coming to you. Is it to be in severity or in gentleness? 6 These comments I have modified in form, so as to apply to myself and Apollos, without including others, for you certainly have made party-leaders of him and me. And I have done this for your sakes, not ours, in order that by us as examples you may learn the meaning of the words, Go not beyond what is written; in short, to keep any one of you from speaking boastfully in favour of the one teacher to the disparagement of the other. 7 For, my friend, who gives you the right to prefer one man to another and proclaim Paul and Apollos as leaders? And what ability do you possess that was not given to you by God? You must allow that you had it as a gift from Him. Then why do you boast as if you had the credit of acquiring it? 8 No doubt you Corinthians are already in perfect felicity; already you are quite rich; without waiting for us poor teachers, you have come to your kingdom! And I would to God that you had come to the Kingdom, that we also might be there with you! But we are far from that happy condition. For it seems to me that God has exhibited us His Apostles last of all, as men doomed to death are the last spectacle in a triumphal procession: for a spectacle we are become to the universe, to the whole amphitheatre of angels and men. 10 We poor simpletons go on with the foolishness of preaching Christ, while you in your relation to Him are men of sagacity. We feel our weakness; you are so strong as to stand alone. You have the glory, and we the contempt. 11 Up to this very moment we go hungry, thirsty, and scantily clothed; we get plenty of hard blows and have no proper home; 12 and we have to work hard with our hands to earn our daily bread. Men revile us, and we bless them; they persecute us, and we are patient; they slander us, and we merely deprecate. 13 We have been treated as the scum of the earth, the refuse of society, and are treated so still. 14 I am not writing in this tone to put you to shame: you are my dearly loved children, and I am showing you where you are wrong. 15 For you may have any number of instructors in Christ, yet you have not more than one father: for in Christ Jesus it was I, and no one else, who begat you through the Glad-tidings which I brought you. 16 I have, therefore, the right to beseech you to follow my steps. 17 And because I wish you to follow my example, I have sent Timothy to you; for he also is a child of mine, dearly loved as you are, loyal and trusty in the Lord, and he will bring back to your remembrance the simple and lowly ways which I have as a Christian teacher, not only at Corinth, but everywhere and in every Church. 18 Some of you boastfully declared that my sending Timothy meant that I did not dare to come myself; so they would do as they pleased. 19 But I do mean to come, and that soon, to you, if the Lord pleases; and I will then take cognizance, not of what these inflated boasters say, but of what they can do. Have they any spiritual power? 20 For the Kingdom of God is not a thing of words, but of spiritual power. 21 Which is it to be then? Am I to come to you rod in hand, or in love and a spirit of gentleness? After a brief, plain statement of his purpose (6, 7) in the preceding exposition of the Pastoral Office, the Apostle severely rebukes the inflated glorying of his readers (8-13), and then, in a more tender strain (14-16), but still not without sternness (17-21), explains the mission of Timothy, the precursor of his own intended visit. 6. Ταῦταδέ . ‘ Now these things,’ viz. the whole of the remarks from 3:5 onwards, the δέ introducing the conclusion and application of the whole. ἀδελφοί . As in 1:10, 3:1. μετεσχημάτισα . ‘ I put differently,’ ‘ transferred by a figure’ ; lit. ‘ altered the arrangement’ . The Apostle means that he used the names of Apollos and himself to illustrate a principle which might, but for reasons of tact, have been more obviously illustrated by other names. In LXX the verb is found once (4 Mac. 9:22), in N.T. in Paul only; of false apostles fashioning themselves into Apostles of Christ, like Satan fashioning himself into an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:13-15); and of the glorious change of our body of humiliation (Philippians 3:21). The meaning here is different from both these, and the difference of meaning in the three passages turns upon the implied sense of σχῆμα in each case. See Lightfoot ad loc. and also on Philippians 2:7 and 3:21; Trench, Syn. § lxx.; Hastings, DB. 11. p. 7. In the present passage there seems to be a reference to the rhetorical sense of σχῆμα (= figura) to denote a veiled allusion. The meaning here will be, ‘ I have transferred these warnings to myself and Apollos for the purpose of a covert allusion, and that for your sakes, that in our persons you may get instruction.’ The μετασχηματισμός , therefore, consists in putting forward the names of those not really responsible for the στάσεις instead of the names of others who were more to blame.* ἐνἡμῖνμάθητε . ‘ May learn in us as an object-lesson,’ ‘ in our case may learn.’ They could read between the lines. τὸμὴὑπὲρἃγέγραπται . The article, as often, has almost the effect of inverted commas; ‘ the principle’ or ‘ the lesson’ — “ Never go beyond,” etc. The maxim is given in an elliptical form without any verb, as in ne sutor ultra crepidam: cf. 5:1, 11:24; 2 Peter 2:22. Here, as elsewhere, some texts insert a verb in order to smooth the ellipse. By ἃγέγραπται the Apostle means passages of Scripture such as those which he has quoted, 1:19, 31, 3:19, 20. It is possible that there was a maxim of this kind current among the Jews, like μηδὲνἄγαν among the Greeks. It is strange that any one should suppose that ἃγέγραπται can refer to what St Paul himself has written or intends to write, or to the commands of our Lord.† It was perhaps a Rabbinical maxim. ἵναμὴκ .τ .λ . This second ἵνα introduces the consequence expected from μάθητε , and so the ultimate purpose of μετεσχημάτισα , viz. to avoid all sectarian divisions. The proposal to take ἵνα in the local sense of ‘ where,’ ‘ in which case,’ ‘ wobei,’ may be safely dismissed. Even in class. Grk. this sense of ἵνα is chiefly poetical, and it is quite out of keeping with N.T. usage and with the context here. It is less easy to be certain whether φυσιοῦσθε is the present indicative, which would be very irregular after ἵνα , or an irregularly contracted subjunctive. Galatians 4:17 is the only certain instance in N.T. of ἵνα with the present indicative; but some of the best editors admit it in John 17:3; Titus 2:4; 1 John 5:20. The double ἵνα is Pauline; Galatians 3:14, Galatians 4:5. The sense is an expansion of ‘ glorying in men’ (3:21): party-spirit, essentially egoist, cries up one leader at the expense of another leader. Some take ἑνός and ἑτέρου not as leaders, but as members, of the respective parties. This is not the probable meaning. To cry up a favourite leader of your own choosing is to betray an inflated self-conceit. See on v. 18. With εἷςὑπὲρτοῦἑνός may be contrasted οἰκοδομεῖτεεἷςτὸνἕνα (1 Thessalonians 5:11), where the opposite cause and effect are indicated, the union, which results from mutual edification. Here ὑπέρ means ‘ on behalf of’ or ‘ in favour of.’ We have a similar use of ὑπέρ and κατά in Romans 8:31. See Blass, § 45. 2. For ἐνἡμῖν , D 17, Copt. read ἐνὑμῖν . ὑπὲρἅ (א A B C P 17) is to be preferred to ὑπὲρὅ (D E F G L). After γέγραπται , א 3 D3 L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. AV. insert φρονεῖν to avoid the elipse: א A B D E F G, Vulg. RV. omit. Some efitors propose to omit τὸμὴὑπὲρἃγέγραπται as a marginal gloss. The sentence is intelligible without these words, but a gloss would have taken some other form. The φρονεῖν may come from Romans 12:3. 7. τίςγάρσεδιακρίνει ; The γάρ introduces a reason why such conceit is out of place; ‘ For who sees anything special in you?’ The verb has a variety of meanings (see Acts 15:9 and on συνκρίνειν in 2:13), and these meanings are linked by the idea of ‘ separate’ in one sense or another: here it means to distinguish favourably from others. ‘ Who gives you the right to exalt one and depress another? No one has given you such a right: then do you claim it is an inherent right?’ Tu, qui amplius to accepisse gloriaris, quis to ab eo qui minus accepit separavit, nisi is qui tibi dedit quod alteri non dedit? (Atto). τίδὲἔχειςὃοὐκἔλαβες . The δέ adds another home-thrust, another searching question. ‘ Let us grant that you have some superiority. Is it inherent? You know that you have nothing but what you have received. Your good things were all of them given to you.’ Origen suggests that the question may mean, ‘ Why do you pretend to have a gift which you have not received from God?’ But he prefers the usual interpretation. The question is a favourite one with Cyril of Alexandria, who quotes it nine times in his commentary on St John. εἰδὲκαὶἔλαβες . ‘ But if thou didst receive it.’ The καί throws an emphasis on ἔλαβες , and εἰκαί represents the insistence on what is fact (2 Corinthians 4:3, 2 Corinthians 5:16, 2 Corinthians 12:11), while καὶεἰ represents an assumed possibility; but it is not certain that this distinction always holds good in Paul. It has been urged that the usual interpretation of ἔλαβες as ‘ received from God, the Giver of all good gifts’ is not suitable to the context; and that the Apostle means that such Christian wisdom as the Corinthians possessed was not their own making, but came to them through ministry of their teachers. But, after 3:5-7, 21 (cf. 12:6, 15:10), St Paul would not be likely to make any such claim. The main point is, ‘ whatever superiority you may have is not your own product, it was a gift’ ; and St Paul was much more likely to mean that it was God’ s gift, than anything derived from himself and Apollos. The question which he asks strikes deeper than the immediate purpose of this passage. It is memorable in the history of theology for the revolution which it brought about in the doctrine of Grace. In a.d. 396, in the first work which he wrote as a bishop, Augustine, tells us: “ To solve this question we laboured hard in the cause of the freedom of man’ s will, but the Grace of God won the day,” and he adds that this text was decisive (Retract. II. i. 1; see also De divers. quaest. ad Simplicianum, i.). Ten years before the challenge of Pelagius, the study of St Paul’ s writings, and especially of this verse and of Rom 9:16, had crystallized in his mind the distinctively Augustinian doctrines of man’ s total depravity, of irresistible grace, and of absolute predestination. The fundamental thought here is that the teachers, about whom the Corinthians ‘ gloried,’ were but ministers of what was the gift of God. The boasting temper implied forgetfulness of this fact. It treated the teachers as exhibitors of rhetorical skill, and as ministering to the taste of a critical audience, which was entitled to class the teachers according to the preferences of this or that hearer. Ἔλαβες here coincides with ἐπιστεύσατε in 3:5. 8. The Apostle now directly attacks the self-esteem of his readers in atone of grave irony. ‘ You may well sit in judgment upon us, from your position of advanced perfection, whence you can watch us struggling painfully to the heights which you have already scaled.’ Haec verba per ironiam dicta sunt: non enim sunt affirmantis, sed indignantis, et commoti animi. Illos quippe regnare, saturatos et divites factos, in quibus superius diversa vitia et plures errores redarguit (Atto). It spoils the irony of the assumed concession to take the three clauses which follow as questions (WH.). That the three argumentative questions should be followed by three satirical affirmations is full of point. Six consecutive questions would be wearisome and somewhat flat. ἤδηκεκορεσμένοιἐστέ , ἤδηἐπλουτήσατε , χωρὶςἡμῶνἐβασιλεύσατε . The RV. might have given each of the three clauses a note of exclamation. The Vulg. gives one to the last, and it covers the other two. It is evident that the three verbs form a climax, and the last gives the key to the allusion. These highly blessed Corinthians are already in the Kingdom of God, enjoying its banquets, its treasures, and its thrones. The verbs stand for the satisfaction of all desires in the Messianic Kingdom (Luke 22:29, Luke 22:30; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Timothy 2:12). The attitude of the πεφυσωμένοι amounted to a claim to be already in possession of all that this Kingdom was to bring. They have got a private millennium of their own. Like the ἤδη in the two first clauses, χωρὶςἡμῶν is emphatic. ‘ Without us, who taught you all that you know of the Gospel, and who are still labouring to enter the Kingdom, you are as Kings in the Kingdom.’ ‘ Without us’ does not mean ‘ without our aid,’ but ‘ without our company.’ The contrast is between the fancied beatitude of the Corinthians and the actual condition of the Apostles. The Corinthians pose as perfected saints; their teachers are still very far indeed from perfection.* In πλουτεῖν and βασιλεύειν we have a coincidence with the language of the Stoics, as in 3:21. There πάνταὑμῶνἐστίν has parallels in Zeno and Seneca; emittere hanc dei vocem, Haec omnia mea sunt (De Benef. vii. ii. 3). But, whether or no St Paul is consciously using Stoic expressions, there is no resemblance in meaning. The thought of victory over the world by incorporation into Christ is far removed from that of independence of the world through personal αὐτάρκεια . Here again we have the difference between the true and the false σοφία . καὶὄφελόνγεἐβασιλεύσατε . In this late Greek this unaugmented second aorist has become a mere particle, an exclamation to express a wish as to what might have happened, but has not, or what might happen, but is not expected. Hence it is followed by the indicative without ἄν . In LXX it is often followed by the aorist, as here, especially in the phrase ὄφελονἀπεθάνομεν . In 2 Corinthians 11:1 and Galatians 5:12, as here, the wish has a touch of irony. The γέ emphasizes the wish; ‘ As far as my feelings are concerned, would that your imaginary royalty were real, for then our hard lot would be at an end.’ ἵνα … συνβασιλεύσωμεν . In ironical contrast to χωρὶςἡμῶν . ‘ You seem to have arrived at the goal far in front of us poor teachers: indeed I wish that it were so, so that we might hope to follow and share your triumph.’ The only other place in N.T. in which συνβασιλεύειν occurs 2 Timothy 2:12, where it is used of reigning with Christ. 9. δοκῶγάρ , ὁΘεος … ἀπέδειξεν . ‘ For it seems to me, God has set forth us, the Apostles, as last.’ There is a great pageant in which the Apostles form the ignominious finale, consisting of doomed men, who will have to fight in the arena till they are killed. St Paul is thinking chiefly of himself; but, to avoid the appearance of egoism, he associates himself with other Apostles. Perhaps ἀπέδειξεν is used in a technical sense; ‘ placed upon the scene,’ ‘ made a show of,’ ‘ exhibited’ ; or, possibly, ‘ nominated,’ ‘ proclaimed,’ as if being doomed men was an office or distinction: cf. ἐδέοντοἀποδεῖξαιτινααὐτῶνβασιλέα (Joseph. Ant. VI. iii. 3). This latter meaning increases the irony of the passage. In 2 Thessalonians 2:4, ἁποδεικνύντα seems to be used in this sense. ὡςἐπιθανατίους . The adjective occurs nowhere else in N.T.; but in LXX of Bel and the Dragon 31 it is used of the condemned conspirators who were thrown to the lions, two at a time, daily; τῶνἐπιθανατίωνσώματαδύο . Dionysius of Halicarnassus (A.R. vii. 35), about b.c. 8, uses it of those who were thrown from the Tarpeian rock. Tertullian (De Pudic. 14) translates it here, veluti bestiarios, which is giving it too limited a meaning. Cf. ἐθηριομάχησα , 15:32. Spectandos proposuit, ut morti addictos (Beza).* ὅτιθέατρονἐγενήθημεν . ‘ Seeing that we are become a spectacle’ ; explaining ‘ exhibited us as doomed men.’ Here θέατρον =θέαμα : the place of seeing easily comes to be substituted for what is seen there, and also for οἱθεαταί , as we say ‘ the house’ for the audience or spectators. Cf. θεατριζόμενοι , spectaculum facti (Vulg. both there and here), Hebrews 10:33. τῷκόσμῳ . ‘ The intelligent universe,’ which is immediately specified by the two anarthrous substantives which follow: angels and men make up the κόσμος to which the Apostles are a spectacle. See on 13:1. It is perhaps true to say that, wherever angels are mentioned in N.T., good angels are always meant, unless something is added in the context to intimate the contrary, as in Matthew 24:41; 2 Corinthians 12:7; Revelation 12:7, Revelation 12:9, etc. Godet remarks here that of course les mauvais ne sont pas exclus, and this is also the opinion of Augustine and Herveius. Strangely enough, Atto supposes that St Paul means evil angels only. The Apostle thinks of the ἄγγελοι as wondering spectators of the vicissitudes of the Church militant here on earth (cf. Ephesians 3:19; 1 Peter 1:12). Origen thinks of them as drawn to the strange sight of a man still clothed in flesh wrestling with principalities and powers, etc. After δοκῶγάρ , א 3 B2 D E L P add ὅτι : א A B C D* F G omit. 10. ἡμεῖςμωροὶ … ὑμεῖςδὲφρόνιμοι . Est increpatio cum ironia (Herv.). The three antitheses refer respectively to teaching, demeanour, and worldly position. The Apostles were ‘ fools on account of Christ’ (2 Corinthians 4:2; Philippians 3:7), because it was owing to their preaching Christ that the world regarded them as crazy (1:23; Acts 26:24). The Corinthians were ‘ wise in Christ,’ because they maintained that as Christians they had great powers of discernment and possessed the true wisdom; διά in servos, ἐν in consortes convenit (Beng.): ταῦταλέγωνεἰρωνικῶςπροέτρεπεναὐτοὺςγενέσθαιφρονίμουςἐνΧριστῷ (Orig.). Cf. 10:15. ὑμεῖςἔνδοξοι , ἡμεῖςδὲἄτιμοι . The order is here inverted, not merely to avoid monotony, but in order to append to ἡμεῖςἄτιμοι the clauses which expand it. Chiasmus is common in these Epistles (3:17, 8:13, 13:2; 2 Corinthians 4:3, 2 Corinthians 6:8, 2 Corinthians 9:6, 2 Corinthians 10:12, etc.). Ἔνδοξος is one of the 103 words which are found only in Paul and Luke in N.T. (Hawkins, Hort. Syn. p. 191). 11. ἄχριτῆςἄρτιὥρας . Their ἀτιμία is without respite, and is unbroken, up to the moment of writing. This is emphatically restated at the end of v. 13: privation, humiliation, and utter contempt is their continual lot. γυμνιτεύομεν . ‘ We are scantily clothed’ ; ἑνψύχεικαὶγυμνότητι (2 Corinthians 11:27). The word generally means ‘ to go light-armed’ (Plut., Dio. Cass.); it occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX, Cf. James 2:15, where γυμνός means ‘ scantily clad.’ κολαφιζόμεθα . ‘ We are buffeted,’ ‘ are struck with the fist.’ The verb is late, and probably colloquial (1 Peter 2:20; Mark 14:65; Matthew 26:67). The substantive κόλαφος is said to be Doric = Attic κόνδυλος . The verb is possibly chosen rather than δέρειν (9:26; 2 Corinthians 11:20), or τύπτειν (Acts 23:2), or ὑπωπιάζειν (9:26, 27), or κονδυλιζειν (Amos 2:7; Malachi 3:5), to mark the treatment of a slave: velut servi; adeo non regnamus (Beng.). Seneca, in the last section of the Apocolocyntosis, says that Caesar successfully claimed a man as his slave after producing witnesses who had seen the man beaten by Caesar flagris, ferulis, colaphis. In 2 Corinthians 12:7 the verb is used of the ἄγγελοςΣατανᾶ , ‘ buffeting’ the Apostle. ἀστατοῦμεν , ‘ Are homeless,’ ‘ have not where to lay our head’ (Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58). The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX, but is used by Aquila for ἄστεγος in Isaiah 58:7. It certainly does not mean instabiles sumus (Vulg.), but nusquam habemus sedem (Primasius). The Apostles fiegabantur ab infidelibus de loco in locum (Atto); ἐλαυνόμεθαγάρ (Chrys.). Their life had no repose; they were vagrants, and were stigmatized as such. γυμνιτεύομεν is accepted by all editors, L alone reading γυμνητεύομεν . Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch., p. 81. 12. κοπιῶμενἐργ . τ . ἰδίαιςχερσίν . Again and again he mentions this (9:6; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8; cf. Acts 18:3, Acts 20:34). See Knowling on Acts 18:3, Deissmann, Light, p. 317, and Ramsay, St Paul, pp. 34-36. He had worked for his own living when he was at Corinth, and he was doing this at Ephesus at the time of writing. He must maintain his independence. Graviter peccat, et libertatem arguendi amittit, qui ab eo aliquid accipit, qui propterea tribuit ne redarguat (Atto). The plural may be rhetorical, but it probably includes other teachers who did the like. Greeks despised manual labour; St Paul glories in it. λοιδορούμενοιεὐλογοῦμεν , διωκόμενοιἀνεχόμεθα . He is perhaps not definitely alluding to the Lord’ s commands (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27), but he is under their influence. Here again, Greek prejudice would be against him. In the preliminary induction which Aristotle (Anal. Post. II. xii. 21) makes for the definition of μεγαλόψυχία , he asks what it is that such μεγαλόψυχοι as Achilles, Ajax, and Alcibiades have in common, and answers, τὸμὴἀνέχεσθαιὑβριζόμενοι . In his full description (Eth. Nic. IV. iii. 17, 30), of the high-minded man, he says that he πάμπανὀιγωρήσει the contempt of others, and that he is not μνησίκακος ; but this is because he is conscious that he never deserves ill, and because he does not care to bear anything, good or ill (and least of all ill), long in mind. Just as the Greek would think that the Apostle’ s working with his own hands stamped him as βάναυσος , so he would regard his manner of receiving abuse and injury as fatal to his being accounted μεγαλόψυχος ; he must be an abject person. 13. δυσφημούμενοι . In 1 Mac. 7:41 the verb is used of the insults of Rabshakeh as the envoy of Sennacherib, but it is not found elsewhere in N.T. παρακαλοῦμεν . ‘ We deprecate,’ obsecramur (Vulg.). The verb is very frequent in N.T., with many shades of meaning, radiating from the idea of ‘ calling to one’ s side’ in order to speak privately, to gain support. Hence such meanings as ‘ exhort.’ ‘ entreat,’ ‘ instruct,’ ‘ comfort.’ ‘ Exhort’ is certainly not the meaning here, as if insulting language was requited with a sermon; yet Origen and Basil seem to take it so. To give the soft answer that turns away wrath (Proverbs 15:1) may be right, but it is not a common meaning of παρακαλεῖν . Tyndale and other early versions have ‘ we pray,’ which again is not the meaning, if ‘ pray’ means ‘ pray to God.’ * ὡςπερικαθάρματα . The uncompounded κάθαρμα is more common in both the senses which the two forms of the word have in common. These are (1) ‘ sweepings,’ rubbish, and, (2) as in Proverbs 21:18, ‘ scapegoats,’ i.e. victims, piacula, lustramina, used as expiationis pretium, to avert the wrath of the gods. At Athens, in times of plague or similar visitations, certain outcasts were flung into the sea with the formula, περίψημαἡμῶνγένου (Suidas), to expiate the pollution of the community. These were worthless persons, and hence the close connexion between the two meanings. Demosthenes, in the De Corona, addresses Aeschines, ὦκάθαρμα , as a term of the deepest insult. It is not quite certain which of the two meanings is right here; nor does the coupling with περίψημα settle the matter, for that word also is used in two similar senses. Godet distinguishes the two words by saying that περικαθάρματα are the dust that is swept up from a floor and περίψημα the dirt that is rubbed or scraped off an object. Neither word occurs elsewhere in N.T. On the whole, it is probable that neither word has here the meaning of ‘ scapegoat’ or ‘ ransom’ : and in Tobit 5:18 περίψημα is probably ‘ refuse’ (AV., RV.). See Lightfoot on περίψημα (Ign. Eph. 8), and Heinichen on Eus. HE. VII. xxii. 7, Melet. XV. p. 710, who shows that in the third century περίψημάσου had become a term of formal compliment, ‘ your humble and devoted servant.’ See Ep. Barn. 4, 6. τοῦκόσμου … πάντων . Whatever the meaning of the two words, these genitives give them the widest sweep, and πάντων is neuter (AV., RV.), unless the meaning of ‘ scapegoat’ is given to περίψημα .† δυσφημούμενοι (א * A C P 17) rather than βλασφημούμενοι (א B D E F G L). The internal evidence turns the scale. It is more probable that the unusual δυσφ . would be changed to the common βλασφ . than vice versa. 14. οὐκἐντρέπωνὑμᾶς . The severity of tone ends as abruptly as it began (v. 8). Aspera blandis mitigat, ut salutaris medicus. These sudden changes of tone are much more common in Paul than in other N.T. writers. The section that follows (14-21), with its mingled tenderness and sternness— both alike truly paternal, forms a worthy colophon to the whole discussion of the σχίσματα . The root-meaning of ἐντρέπειν is perhaps ‘ to turn in,’ and so to make a person ‘ hang his head,’ as a sign, either of reverence (Matthew 21:37; Luke 18:2, Luke 18:4; Hebrews 12:9) or of shame, as here (cf. ἐντροπή , 6:5, 15:34). In these senses it is frequent in late writers, in LXX, and in Paul. The participle expresses the spirit in which the Apostle writes; ‘ not as shaming you,’ ‘ not as making you abashed.’ What he had written might well ‘ make them hang their heads,’ but to effect that was not his purpose in writing; he wrote to bring home to their hearts a solemn fatherly warning. νουθετῶν . The duty of a parent, as appears from Ephesians 6:4.* Excepting in a speech of St Paul (Acts 20:31), νουθετεῖν and νουθεσῖα do not occur in N.T. outside the Epistles of St Paul, and they cover all four groups. Νουθετεῖν ‘ to put in mind,’ has always a touch of sternness, if not of blame; ‘ to admonish,’ or ‘ warn.’ We have νουθετεῖντοὺςκακῶςπράσοντας (Aesch. Pr. 264), and νουθετεῖνκονδύλοις (Aristoph. Vesp 254). Plato (Gorg. 479 a) combines it with κολάζειν . See Abbott on Ephesians 6:4 and Colossians 1:28. νουθετῶν (א A C P 17, RV.) rather than νουθετῶ (B D E F G L, Vulg. AV.); but the evidence is not decisive. Lachm. and Treg. prefer νουθετῶ . 15. ἐὰνγάρ . The reason for his taking on himself this duty; ‘ If, as time goes on, ye should have in turn an indefinite number of tutors in Christ, yet ye will never have had but one father.’ The conditional clause, with a pres. subjunct. and ἄν , in the protasis implies futurity as regards the apodosis. As there is but one planting and one laying of the foundation-stone (3:6, 10), so the child can have but one father. παιδαγωγοὺς … ἐνΧριστῷ . The words are closely connected. Without ἐνΧριστῷ to qualify it, παιδαγωγούς would have been too abrupt, if not too disparaging. There is no hint that they have already had too many. The παιδαγωγός (Galatians 3:24) was not a teacher, but the trusty slave who acted as tutor or guardian and escorted them to and from school, and in general took care of those whom the father had begotten.† He might be more capable, and even more affectionate, than the father, but he could never become father. The frequent ἐνΧριστῷ gives “ the ideal sphere of action” (Ellicott).* ἀλλ ʼ οὐπολλοὺςπατέρας . ‘ Still (8:7) not many fathers.’ The verb to be understood must be future, for the possibility of μυρίοιπαιδαγωγοί of is future: ‘ however many these may be, yet ye will not have (or, have had) many fathers.’ ἐνγὰρΧριστῷἸ . The whole process, first and last, is ἐνΧριστῷ .† That was the sphere, while the Gospel was the means (διὰτοῦεὐαγγ .). The two pronouns, ἐγὼὑμᾶς , are in emphatic proximity; ‘ whoever may have been the parent of other Churches, it was I who in Christ begat you.’ The thought is that of ἐλὼἐφύτευσα (3:6) and of θεμέλειονἔθηκα (3:10), while the παιδαγωγοί are those who water the plant, or build the superstructure. 16. παρακαλῶοὖν . ‘ Therefore, as having the right to do so, I call upon my children to take after their father.’ Si fili estis, debitum honorem debetis impendere patri, et imitatores existere (Atto). Cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:6, 1 Thessalonians 1:7, 1 Thessalonians 1:2:7, 11. μιμηταίμονγίνεσθε . ‘ Show yourselves imitators of me’ ; ‘ by your conduct prove your parentage.’ Here and 11:1 (see note there), ‘ imitators’ rather than ‘ followers’ (AV.). The context shows the special points of assimilation, viz. humility and self-sacrifice (vv. 10-13). In Philippians 3:17 we have συνμιμητής . The charge is not given in a spirit of self-confidence. He has received the charge to lead them, and he is bound to set an example for them to follow, but he takes no credit for the pattern (11:1). 17. Διὰτοῦτο . ‘ Because I desire you to prove imitators of me, I sent Timothy, a real son of mine in the Lord, to allay the contrary spirit among you.’ Timothy had probably already left Ephesus Acts 19:22), but was at work in Macedonia, and would arrive at Corinth later than this letter (Hastings, DB. I. P. 483). It is not stated in Acts that Corinth was Timothy’ s ultimate destination, but we are told that the Corinthian Erastus (Romans 16:23) was his companion on the mission. It is not clear whether ἔπεμψα is the ordinary aorist, ‘ I sent’ or ‘ have sent,’ or the epistolary aorist, ‘ I send.’ Deissmann, Light, p. 157. τέκνον . ‘ Child’ in the same sense as ἐγέννησα (v. 15). St Paul had converted him (Acts 16:1), on his visit to Lystra (Acts 14:7 cf. 1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 1:2). This ἀγαπητὸνκαὶπιστόντέκνον Was fittingly sent to remind children who were equally beloved, but were not equally faithful, of their duties towards the Apostle who was the parent of both. The first ὄς gives the relation of Timothy to the Apostle, the second his relation to the Corinthians; ὁἀδελφός (2 Corinthians 1:1) gives his relation to all Christians. His sparing this beloved child was proof of his love for them; 1 Thessalonians 3:1, 1 Thessalonians 3:2. ἀναμνήσει . λήθηνδὲαὐτῶνὁλόγοςκατηγορεῖ (orig.). They had forgotten much of what St Paul had taught them in person εἰκατέχετε (15:2). τὰςὁδούςμου . The real Apostle had been superseded in their imagination by an imaginary Paul, the leader of a party. His ‘ ways’ are indicated 1:17, 2:1-5, 4:11-13, 9:15, 22, 27. καθὼςπανταχοῦἐνπάσῃἐκ . ‘ Exactly as everywhere in every Church.’ There is a general consistency in the Apostle’ s teaching, and Timothy will not impose any special demands upon the Corinthians, but will only bring them into line with what St Paul teaches everywhere. This is one of several passages which remind the Corinthians that they are only members of a much greater whole (see on 1:2). They are not the whole Church, and they are not the most perfect members. On the other hand, no more is required of them than is required of other Christians. After διὰτοῦτο , א A P 17 add αὐτό :א B C D E F G L omit. μουτέκνον (א A B C P 17) rather than τέκνονμου (D E F G L). After ὲνΧριστῷ , D F G add Ἰησοῦ : A B D 3 E L P omit. 18. Ὡςμὴἐρχομένουδέμου . Some of them boastfully gave out; ’ Timothy is coming to his place; Paul himself will not come.’ The δέ marks the contrast between this false report and the true purpose of Timothy’ s mission. ἐφυσιώθησάντινες . Vitium Corinthiis frequens, inflatio (Beng.); v. 6, 19, 5:2, 8:1.* The tense is the natural one to use, for St Paul is speaking of definite facts that had been reported to him. He cannot use the present tense, for he is ignorant of the state of things at the time of writing. But by using the aorist he does not imply that the evil is a thing of the past, and therefore ‘ are puffed up’ (AV., RV.), inflati sunt (Vulg.), may be justified. There is nothing to show whether he knew who the τινες were (cf. 15:12; Galatians 1:7). Origen suggests that ὁθεσπέσιοςΠαῦλος does not mention any one, because he foresaw that the offenders would repent, and there was therefore no need to expose them. They are probably connected with the more definite and acrimonious opponents of 2 Corinthians 10:1, 2 Corinthians 10:7, 2 Corinthians 10:10, 2 Corinthians 10:11:4, where a leader, who is not in view in this Epistle, has come on the scene. 19. ἐλεύσομαιδὲταχέως . He intends remaining at Ephesus till Pentecost (16:8). His plans, and changes of plan, and the charges made against him about his proposed visit, are discussed in 2 Corinthians 1:15, 2 Corinthians 1:16, 2 Corinthians 1:23. ἐὰνὁΚύριοςθελήσῃ . A solemn touch; cf. 16:7; James 4:15. It is impossible, and not very important, to decide whether ὁΚύριος means our Lord or the Father. Our Lord has just been mentioned; on the other hand, in connexion with θέλειν or θέλημα , God is commonly meant. We have a similar doubt 1 Thessalonians 3:12. γνώσομαιοὐτ . λόγον … ἀλλὰτ . δύναμιν . ‘ Their words I shall ignore; they proceed from persons whose heads are turned with conceit; but their power I shall put to the proof.’ This, as Godet remarks, is the language of a judge who is about to conduct a trial. ‘ The power’ certainly does not mean that of working miracles (Chrys.); but rather that of winning men over to a Christian life. In 2:4, 5 we had the antithesis between λόγος and δύναμις in a different form. For τῶνπεφυσιωμένων , L has τὸνπεφυσιόμενον : some cursives and Origen support the reading, but no editors adopt it. Before these words F inserts αὐτῶν . 20. ἡβασιλείατ . Θεοῦ . This expression has three meanings in the Pauline Epistles: (1) the future Kingdom of God, when God is ‘ all in all’ (15:28); akin to this (2) the mediatorial reign of Christ, which is the Kingdom of God in process of development; and so, as here (and see Romans 14:17), we have (3) the inward reality which underlies the external life, activities, and institutions of the Church, in and through which the Kingdom of Christ is realizing itself. In the externals of Church life, ‘ word’ counts for something, but ‘ power’ alone is of account in the sight of God.* By ‘ power’ is meant spiritual power: see on 2:5. 21. ἐνῥάβδῳ . Exactly as in 1 Samuel 17:43, σὺἔρχῃἐπ ʼ ἐμὲἐνῥάβδῳκαὶλίθοις ; and 2 Samuel 7:14, ἐλέγξωαὐτὸνἐνῥαβδῳκαὶἐνἁφαῖς : where the ἐν means ‘ accompanied by’ or ‘ provided with.’ Cf. Hebrews 9:25, ἐναἵματιἀλλοτρίῳ . ‘ To lift up his hand with a sling-stone,’ ἐπᾶραιχεῖραἐνλίθῳσφενδόνης (Ecclus. 47:5). Abbott (Johan. Gr. 2332) gives examples from papyri. The idea of environment easily passes into that of equipment. Cf. Stat. Theb. iv.221, Gravi metuendus in hasta; and Ennius, levesque sequunfur in hasta. The rod is that of spiritual rebuke and discipline; cf. οὐφείσομαι (2 Corinthians 13:3). It is strange that any one should contend, even for controversial purposes, such as defence of the temporal power, that a literal rod is meant. But cf. Tarquini, Juris eccles. inst. p. 41, 19th ed. An allusion to the lictor’ s rod is not likely.* ἔλθω . Deliberative subjunctive; ‘ Am I to come?’ It is possible to make the verb dependent upon θέλετε , but it is more forcible to keep it independent (AV., RV.). Cf. ἐπιμένωμεντῇἁμαρτίᾳ ; (Romans 6:1). ἐνἀγάπῃ . The preposition here is inevitably ἐν , and it was probably the antithesis with ἐνἀγάπῃ that led to the expression ἐνῥάβδῳ here, just as the bear-skin led to Virgil’ s Horridus in jaculis, the rest of the line being et pelle Libystidis ursae (Aen. v.37). πνεύματίτεπραΰτητος . Either ‘ the Spirit of meekness’ , i.e. the Holy Spirit, manifested in one of His special gifts or fruits (Galatians 5:23), or ‘ a spirit of meekness,’ i.e. a disposition of that character (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:13). The latter would be inspired by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:5). The absence of the article is in favour of the latter here. Contrast τὸπνεῦματῆςἀληθείας (John 14:17, John 16:13) with πνεῦμασοφίας (Ephesians 1:17), and see J.A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 38, 39, and the note on πνεῦμαἁγιωσύνης (Romans 1:4). Had the Apostle meant the Holy Spirit, he would probably have written ἐντῷπν . τῆςπρ . By πραΰτης is meant the opposite of ‘ harshness’ or ‘ rudeness.’ Trench, Syn. § § xlii., xliii., xcii.; Westcott on Ephesians 4:2. πραΰτητος (A B C 17) rather than πραότητος (א D E F G P). In Galatians 5:23, א joins A B C in favour of πραΰτης . In Ephesians 4:2, א B C 17 support πραΰτης , in 2 Corinthians 10:1, א B F G P 17 do so, in Colossians 3:12, א A B C P 17. Lachmann, following Oecumenius and Calvin, makes 4:21 the beginning of a new paragraph: it is a sharp, decisive dismissal of the subject of the σχίσματα . * St Paul is probably not thinking of the derivation; ‘ Christ is the pilot; we are rowers under Him.’ By Χριστοῦ he may mean ‘ not of any earthly master.’ * Chadwick, The Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, p. 164 f. He does not say ‘ be judged trustworthy,’ but ‘ be found actually to be so.’ In 1 Peter 4:10 every Christian is a steward. א Ԡ א (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T. A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum. B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS. C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 ἐνἀκροβυστίᾳ -9:6 τοῦμὴἐργάζεσθαι : 13:8 παύσονται -14:40 ἀλλὰἕτερα . D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 διο͂ὁλαλῶν -22 σημεῖονἐστίν is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422). F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429). G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1 Corinthians 3:8-16, 1 Corinthians 6:7-14 (F). P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 ὑμᾶςὁθεός -17 περιπάτει : 12:23 τοῦσώματος -13:5 οὐλογί -: 14:23 τὸλαλεῖνμή . A good type of text in St Paul’ s Epistles. 17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. § § 211, 212. e e The Latin text of E E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome. d d The Latin text of D f f The Latin text of F g g The Latin text of G * Aesch. in Ctes. p. 587; Είςτρίαμέρηδιαιρεῖταιἡἡμέρα , ἱτανείσίῃγραφὴπαραυόμωνεἰςτὸδικαστήριον , where ἡἡμέρα means the time of the trial. † We might have expected ἀλλ ʼ οὐδὲαὐτὸςἐμαυτὸνἀνακρίνω , but the meaning is clear. He does not base his refusal to pass judgment on himself on the difficulty of being impartial. Such a judgment, however impartial and just, could not be final, and therefore would be futile. * The use is perhaps not yet extinct in Yorkshire. “ I know nothing by him” might still be heard for “ I know nothing against him.” * That there was no jealousy or rivalry between St Paul and Apollos is clear from 3:6, 8-10, 16:12. It is possible that it was the factious conduct of his partizans that drove Apollos from Corinth (Renan, S. Paul, p. 375). † Rudolf Steck would refer this to Romans 12:3; an extraordinary conjecture. * Chrysostom points out that “ piety is insatiable.” A Christian can never be satisfied with his condition; and for those who were as yet scarcely beginners to suppose that they had reached the end, was childish. Bachmann quotes the well-known Logion preserved by Clement of Alexandria (704 ed. Potter, and found in a somewhat different form in Oxyrhynchsu papyri: οὐπαύσεταιὁζητῶνἕωςἃνεὔρῃ , εὑρὼνδὲθαμβήσεται , θαμβηθεὶςδὲβασιλεύσει , βασιλεύσαςδὲἐπαναπαύεται . See Deissmann, Light, p. xiii. * The Epistle contains a number of illustrations taken from heathen life; here and 7:31, the theatre; the idol-feasts, 8:10, 10:20; racing and boxing in the games, with a crown as a prize, 9:24-27; the syssitia, 10:27; the fighting with wild beasts, 15:32. * Plato (Crito 49) puts into the mouth of Socrates; “ We ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to any one, whatever evil we may have suffered from him … Warding off evil by evil is never right.” But returning good for evil goes far beyond that. † Tertullian and the Vulgate transliterate, peripsema; Beza has sordes, Luther Fegopfer (Auswurf). * Cf. τούτουςὡςπατὴρνουθετῶνἐδοκίμασας (Wisd. 11:10), and νουθετήσειδίκαιονὡςυἰὸνἀγαπήσεως (Pss. Sol. 13:8). Excepting Timothy (v. 17; 2 Timothy 1:2), St Paul nowhere else calls any one τέκνονἀγαπητόν . Spiritualis paternitas singutarem necessitudinem et affectionem conjunctam habet, prae omni alia propinquitate (Beng.). † See Ramsay, Galatians, p. 383; Smith, Dict. of Ant. ii. p. 307. The same usage is found in papyri. * Findlay quotes Sanhedrin, f. xix 2; “ Whoever teachers the son of his friend the Law, it is as if he had begotten him.” † See Deissmann, Dis neutestamentliche Formel “ in Christo Jesu.” * The verb is peculiar to Paul in N.T., and (excepting Colossians 2:18) is peculiar to this Epistle. * See Regnum Dei, the Bampton Lectures for 1901, pp. 47-61, in which St Paul’ s views of the Kingdom are examined in detail. * This has been suggested by Dr. E. Hicks, Roman Law in the N.T. p. 182. But the rod as a metaphor for correction is common enough (Job 9:34, Job 9:21:9; Psalms 89:32; Isaiah 10:5, etc.). 5:1-13. ABSENCE OF MORAL There is a case of gross immorality among you, and your attitude towards it is distressing. Have no fellowship with such offenders. 1 It is actually notorious among you that there is a case of unchastity of a revolting character, a character so revolting as not to occur even among the heathen, that a man should have his step-mother as his concubine. 2 And you, with this monstrous crime among you, have gone on in your inflated self-complacency, when you ought rather to have been overwhelmed with grief, that it should have become necessary that the person who was guilty of this dreadful offence should be removed from your midst. 3 As for my view of it, there must be no uncertainty. Although absent in body yet present in spirit, I have already pronounced the sentence, which I should have pronounced had I been present, on the man who has perpetrated this enormity. 4 In the Name of our Lord Jesus, when you are all assembled in solemn congregation and my spirit is with you armed with the effectual power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have given sentence that such an offender is to be handed over to Satan for the destruction by suffering of the flesh in which he has sinned, so that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord. 6 Your glorying is not at all to your credit. Do you really not know that a very little leaven affects the whole lump of dough? 7 You must entirely cleanse away the old leaven, if you are to be (as, of course, as Christians you are) as free from leaven as a new lump of dough. You are bound to make this new start for many reasons; and above all, because Christ, our spotless Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed, and therefore everything which corrupts must be put away. 8 Consequently we should keep our feast, not with leaven from our old lives, nor yet with leaven of vice and wickedness, but with bread free from all leaven, the bread of unsullied innocence and truth. 9 I said to you in my letter that you were not to keep company with fornicators. 10 I did not exactly mean that you were to shun all the fornicators of the non-Christian world, any more than all the cheats, or extortioners, or idolaters. That would mean that you would have to go out of the world altogether. 11 What I meant was, that you were not to keep company with any one who bears the sacred name of Christian and yet is given to fornication, or cheating, or idolatry, or abusive language, or hard drinking, or extortion;— with such a man you must not even share a meal. 12 Of course I did not refer to those who are not Christians; for what right have I to sit in judgment on them? I confine my judgments to those who are in the Church. 13 Do not you do the same? Those who are outside it we leave to God’ s judgment. Only one practical conclusion is possible. Remove the wicked person from among you. The Apostle now comes to the second count of his indictment. It is not merely that a particularly flagrant case of immorality has occurred. That this should happen at all is bad enough. But what makes it far worse is the way in which it is taken by the community. Their morbid and frivolous self-conceit is untroubled. They have shown no sign of proper feeling: still less have they dealt with the case, as they ought to have done, by prompt expulsion (vv. 1-5). In view of the infectiousness of such evil, they ought to eliminate it, as leaven from a Jewish house at the Passover (6, 7); for the life of the Christian community is a spiritual Passover (8). His previous warning has been misunderstood. It means that for grave and scandalous sins a Christian must be made to suffer by isolation; and this, in the case in question, must be drastically enforced (9-13). The passage is linked to the section dealing with the σχίσματα by the spiritual disorder which, according to St Paul’ s diagnosis, lies at the root of both evils. Inordinate attention to external differences, and indifference to vital questions of morality, are both of them the outcome of selfsatisfied frivolity. But the passage is more obviously linked with ch. 6., and especially with the subject of πορνεία which occupies its last portion (6:12-20). This indictment, following upon 4:21 without any connecting particle, bursts upon the readers like a thunder-clap. 1. Ὅλως . Not ‘ commonly’ (AV.), but ‘ actually’ (RV.). The word means ‘ altogether,’ ‘ most assuredly,’ ‘ incontrovertibly’ ; or, with a negative, ‘ at all.’ Such a thing ought not to be heard of at all (exactly as in 6:7; cf. 15:29), and it is matter of common talk: ὅλως nulla debebat in vobis audiri scortatio; at auditur ὅλως (Beng.). ἀκούεταιἐνὕμῖν . The ἐνὑμῖν grammatically localizes the report, but in effect it localizes the offence: it was among them that the rumour was circulating, because in their midst the sin was found: ‘ unchastity is reported [as existing] among you.’ The report may have reached the Apostle through the same channel as that which brought information about the factions (1:11), or through Stephanas (16:17). The weight of the Apostle’ s censure falls, not upon the talk about the crime within the community, but upon its occurrence, and the failure to deal with it. πορνεία . Illicit sexual intercourse in general. In Revelation 19:2, as in class. Grk., it means prostitution: in Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9 it is equivalent to μοιχεία , from which it is distinguished Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21: cf. Hosea 3:3; Ecclus. 23:23, where we have ἐνπορνείᾳἐμοιχεύθη . καὶτοιαύτη . ‘ And of so monstrous a character as does not exist even among the heathen.’ The οὐδέ intensifies ἐντοῖςἔθνεσιν , and ἀκούεται is not to be understood: ‘ is not so much as named among the Gentiles’ (AV.) is wrong, based on a wrong reading. Cf. novum crimen et ante hunc diem inauditum (Cic. Pro Lig. i. 1); and scelus incredibile et praeter hanc unam in hac vita inauditum (In Cluent. 6), of Sassia’ s marriage with her son-in-law, Melinus.* ὥστεγυναῖκάτινατοῦπατρὸςἔχειν . The placing of τινα betwen γυναῖκα and πατρός throws emphasis on to these two words (Blass, Gr. § 80, 2). Chrysostom suggests that St Paul uses γυναῖκατουπατρός rather than μητρυιάν in order to emphasize the enormity. More probably, he chooses the language of Lev 18:8. The Talmud prescribes stoning for this crime. Cf. Amos 2:7; Leviticus 18:8. The woman was clearly not the mother of the offender, and probably (although the use of πορνεία rather than μοιχεία does not prove this) she was not, at the time, the wife of the offender’ s father. She may have been divorced, for divorce was very common, or her husband may have been dead. There is little doubt that 2 Corinthians 7:12 refers to a different matter, and that ὁἀδικηθείς there is not the offender’ s father, but Timothy or the Apostle himself. As St Paul here censures the male offender only, the woman was probably a heathen, upon whom he pronounces no judgment (v. 12). The ἔχειν implies a permanent union of some kind, but perhaps not a formal marriage: cf. John 4:18. Origen speaks of it as a marriage , and ἔχω is used of marriage in 7:2; Matthew 14:4, etc. In the lowest classes of Roman society the legal line between marriage and concubinage was not sharply defined. After ἔθνεσιν , א 3 L P, Syrr. AV. add ὀνομάζεται : א * A B C D E F G 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit. 2. καὶὑμεῖς . The pronoun is emphatic; ‘ you, among whom this enormity has taken place and is notorious, you are puffed up.’ He does not mean that they were puffed up because of this outrage, as if it were a fine assertion of Christian freedom, but in spite of it. It ought to have humbled them to the dust, and yet they still retained their self-satisfied complacency. WH., Tisch., Treg. and RV. marg. make this verse interrogative; ‘ Are ye puffed up? Did ye not rather mourn?’ But the words are more impressive as the statement of an amazing and shocking fact: οὐχί is not always interrogative (10:29; Luke 12:51, Luke 12:13:3, Luke 12:5, Luke 12:16:30; John 9:9, John 9:13:10, John 9:11). Their morbid selfimportance, which made them so intolerant of petty wrongs (6:7), made them very tolerant of deep disgrace. ἐπενθήσατε . ‘ Mourned,’ as if for one who was dead. ἵνααρθῇ . The ἵνα indicates, not the purpose of the mourning, but the result of it, contemplated as its normal effect (see on 1:15). A proper Christian instinct would have led them to have expelled the guilty person in irrepressible horror at his conduct. ὁτὸἔργοντοῦτοπράξας . Qui hoc facinus patravit (Beza). The language is purposely vague, but the context suggests a bad meaning: πράξας indicates a moral point of view. The attitude of the Corinthian Christians towards such conduct is probably to be accounted for by traditional Corinthian laxity.* It is said that the Rabbis evaded the Mosaic prohibitions of such unions (Leviticus 20:11; Deuteronomy 22:30) in the case of proselytes. A proselyte made an entirely new start in life and cut off all his former relationships; therefore incest, in his case, was impossible, for he had no relations, near or distant. It is not likely that this evasion of the Mosaic Law, if already in existence, was known to the Corinthians and had influenced them. L has ἐξαρθῇ for ἄρθῇ (א A B C D E F G P); and B D E F G L P have ποιήσας for πράξας (א A C 17, and other cursives). It is not easy to decide in this latter case, and editors are divided. Compare 2 Corinthians 12:21; Romans 1:32, Romans 2:1-3. 3. ἐγὼμὲνγάρ . ‘ For I, ’ with much emphasis on the pronoun, which is in contrast to the preceding ὑμεῖς : ‘ my feelings about it are very different from yours.’ The γάρ introduces the justification of ἵναἀρθῇ , showing what expulsion involves. St Paul does not mean that, as the Corinthians have not excommunicated the offender, he must inflict a graver penalty: this would be punishing the offender for what was the fault of his fellows. He is explaining what he has just said about their failing to remove the man. No δέ follows the μέν : the contrast which μέν marks is with what goes before (v. 2), not with anything that is to follow. The correlation of μὲν … δέ is much less common in N.T. than in class. Grk. In some books μέν does not occur, and in several cases it has no δέ as here: 1 Thessalonians 2:18; Romans 7:12, Romans 10:1, etc. See Blass, Gr. § 77. 12. ἀπὼντῷσώματι . ‘ Although absent in the body.’ Again a contrast: ‘ you, who are on the spot, do nothing; I, who am far away, and might excuse myself on that account, take very serious action.’ Origen compares Elisha (2 Kings 5:26). τῷπνεύματι . ‘ His own spirit,’ as in v. 4: cf. v. 5 and 2:11. In Colossians 2:5 we have a similar utterance, but there σάρξ takes the place of σῶμα . It is the highest constituent element in man’ s nature, and his point of contact with the Spirit of God. ἤδηκέκρικαὡςπαρὼντὸνκ .τ .λ . Either, ‘ have already, as if I were present, judged the man’ ; or, ‘ have already, as if I were present, decided with regard to the man’ ; or, ‘ have already come to a decision, as if I were present: with regard to the man,’ etc. In the last case, which is perhaps the best, τὸν … κατεργασάμενον is governed by παραδοῦναι and is repeated in τὸντοιοῦτον .* Before ἀπών , D 3 E F G L, AV, insert ὡς : א A B C D* P 17, Vulg. Copt. Aeth. RV. omit. 4. ἐντῷὀνόματικ .τ .λ . Here we have choice of four constructions. Either, take ἐντῷὀνόματι with συναχθέντων and σὺντῇδυνάμει with παραδοῦναι , or both with συναχθέντων , or both with παραδοῦναι , or ἐντῷὀνόμ . with παραδοῦναι , and σὺντῇδυν . with συναχθέντων . If the order of the words is regarded as decisive, the first of these will seem to be most natural, and it yields good sense. Lightfoot adopts it. The Greek commentators mostly prefer the second construction, but neither it nor the third is as probable as the first and the fourth. It is not likely that either συναχθέντων or παραδοῦναι is meant to have both qualifications, while the other has none. The fourth constructicn is the best of the four. The solemn opening, ἐντῷὀνόματιτοῦΚυρίουἸησοῦ , placed first with emphasis, belongs to the main verb, the verb which introduces the sentence that is pronounced upon the offender, while σὺντῇδυνάμειτ . Κ . ἡμῶνἸ . supplies a coefficient that is essential to the competency of the tribunal. The opening words prepare us for a sentence of grave import, but we are kept in suspense as to what the sentence will be, until the conditions which are to give it validity are described. Graviter suspensa mane et vibrat oratio (Beng.). We translate, therefore; ‘ With regard to the man who has thus perpetrated the deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ— you being assembled and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ— to deliver such an one to Satan.’ The τὸντοιοῦτον is not rendered superfluous by the preceding τὸν … κατεργασάμενον : it intimates that the Apostle is prepared to deal in a similar way with any similar offender. After ὀνόματιτ . Κυρίου , B D E F G L P have ἡμῶν , and it is probably genuine, but א A and other witnesses omit, and it might easily be inserted from the next clause. P and some other witnesses omit the second ἡμῶν . After first Ἰησοῦ , א D 3 E F G L P, Vulg. Syrr. add Χριστοῦ : A B D, Am. omit. After second Ἰησοῦ , D 3 F L add Χριστοῦ : א A B D P, Vulg. omit, AV. inserts ‘ Christ’ in both places; RV. omits in both. 5. παραδοῦναιτ . τ . τῷΣατανᾷ . This means solemn expulsion from the Church and relegation of the culprit to the region outside the commonwealth and covenant (Ephesians 2:11, Ephesians 2:12), where Satan holds away. We have the same expression 1 Timothy 1:20. It describes a severer aspect of the punishment which is termed αἴρεινἐκμέσου (v. 2) and ἐξαίρεινἐξὑμῶν (v. 13). Satan is the ἄρχωντοῦκόσμουτούτου (John 12:31, John 16:11), and the offender is sent back to his domain; ut qui auctor fuerat ad vitium nequitiae, ipse flagellum fieret disciplinae (Herv.). St Paul calls Satan ‘ the god of this age’ (2 Corinthians 4:4), an expression which occurs nowhere else; and a Christian, who through his own wickedness forfeits the security of being a member of Christ in His Church, becomes, like the heathen, exposed to the malignity of Satan (1 John 5:19) to an extent that Christians cannot be. εἰςὄλεθροντῆςσαρκός . There is no need to choose between the two interpretations which have been put upon this expression, for they are not mutually exclusive and both are true. The sinner was handed over to Satan for the ‘ mortification of the flesh,’ i.e. to destroy his sinful lusts; τὸφρόνηματῆςσαρκός is Origen’ s interpretation. This meaning is right, for the punishment was inflicted with a remedial purpose, both in this case and in that of 1 Timothy 1:20: and the interpretation is in harmony with the frequent Pauline sense of σάρξ (Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5), as distinct from σῶμα . But so strong a word as ὄλεθρος implies more than this. ‘ Unto destruction of the flesh’ includes physical suffering, such as follows spiritual judgment on sin (11:30; Acts 5:1 f., Acts 13:11).* The Apostle calls his own ‘ thorn for the flesh’ an ἄγγελοςΣατανᾶ (2 Corinthians 12:7; cf. Luke 13:16). We have the same idea in job, where Jehovah says to Satan, Ἰδοὺπαραδίδωμίσοιαὐτόν (2:6). And in the book of Jubilees (10:2) demons first lead astray, and then blind and kill, the grandchildren of Noah. Afterwards Noah is taught by angels how to rescue his offspring from the demons. See Thackeray, St Paul and Contemfiorary Jewish Thought, p. 171. Here the punishment is for the good, not only of the community, but also of the offender, upon whom the suffering inflicted by Satan would have a healing effect. ἵνατὸπνεῦμα . The purpose of the suffering is not mere destruction; it is remedial, ἵνασωθῇ . Cf. αὐτὸςσωθήσεται (3:15). Here τὸπνεῦμα , as the seat of personality, is suggested by the context instead of αὐτός .* As in 2 Corinthians 7:1, τὸπνεῦμα is used in contrast to ἡσάρξ , and as the chief and distinctive factor in the constitution of man, but as not per se distinctive of a state of grace. Strong measures may be needed in order to secure its salvation. See Abbott, The Son of Man, pp. 482, 791. ἐντῇἡμέρᾳτ . Κυρίου . 1:8; 2 Corinthians 1:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:2, etc. It is sometimes assumed that, while the Corinthian Church was competent, by itself, to expel an offender (v. 2), it was by virtue of the extraordinary power given to St Paul as an Apostle that the delivery to Satan was inflicted. There is nothing in the passage to prove this; and the γάρ in v. 3 rather points the other way. Why should St Paul inflict a more severe punishment than that which the Corinthian Church ought to have inflicted?† It is still more often assumed that the sequel of this case is referred to in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11, 2 Corinthians 7:12. It is inferred from these passages that the Corinthian Church held a meeting such as the Apostle prescribes in this chapter, and by a majority (2 Corinthians 2:6) passed the sentence of expulsion, whereupon the offender was led to repentance; and that the Corinthians then awaited the Apostle’ s permission to remit the sentence, which permission he gives (2 Corinthians 2:10). This view, however, is founded on two assumptions, one of which is open to serious question, and the other to question which is so serious as to be almost fatal. The view assumes that 2 Cor. 1-9. was written soon after 1 Cor., which is very doubtful. It also assumes that 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 and 7:12 refer to this case of incest, which is very difficult to believe. 2 Corinthians 7:12 certainly refers to the same case as 2 Corinthians 2:5-11, and the language in 7:12 is so utterly unsuitable to the case of incest that it is scarcely credible that it can refer to it. See Hastings, DB. 1. p. 493, iii. p. 711, and iv. p. 768; G.H. Rendall, The Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 63, 71; Goudge, p. 41; Plummer on 2 Corinthians 7:12. F has αὐτόν for τὸντοιοῦτον . After τοῦΚυρίου , א L add Ἰησοῦ , D adds ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , A F M add ἡμῶνἸησοθΧριστοῦ : B has simply τοῦΚυρίου , which may be the original reading, but τοῦΚυρίουἸησοῦ is not improbable; so AV., RV., WH. marg. 6. Οὐκαλὸντὸκαύχημαὑμῶν . ‘ Not seemly is your boast’ : it is ill-timed, and it is discreditable to all who share in it.* Where a revolting crime is bringing disgrace and peril to the community, there can be no place for boasting. St Paul does not mean that the subject of their glorying, the thing they glory in (e.g. their enlightenment, or their liberty) is not good; but that in such distressing circumstances overt glorying is very unsuitable. As Evans elaborately points out, καύχημα is not materies gloriandi, but gloriatio (Beza, Beng.), or (more accurately) gloriatio facta, boasting uttered.† So also in 2 Corinthians 5:12. μικρὰζύμη . The μικρά comes first with emphasis, and hence implies an argument a fortiori: if even a little leaven is so powerful, if even one unsatisfactory feature may have a septic influence in a community, how much more must a scandal of this magnitude infect the whole life of the Church. The simile of leaven is frequent in the N.T. See Galatians 5:9. Here the stress of the argument lies less in the evil example of the offender than in the fact that toleration of this conduct implies concurrence (Romans 1:32) and debases the standard of moral judgment and instinct. To be indifferent to grave misbehaviour is to become partly responsible for it. A subtle atmosphere, in which evil readily springs up and is diffused, is the result. The leaven that was infecting the Corinthian Church was a vitiated public opinion. Cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:6; also the charge of Germanicus to his soldiers as to their treatment of insubordinate comrades: discedite a contactu, ac dividite turbidos (Tae. Ann. i.43). Both here and in Galatians 5:9 we find the reading δολοῖ for ζυμοῖ in D with corrumpit in Vulg and other Latin texts. 7. ἐκκαθάρατετὴνπ . ζύμην . A sharp, summary appeal: ‘ Rid yourselves of these infected and infectious remains of your unconverted past,’ even as a Jewish household, in preparation for the Passover, purges the house of all leaven (Exodus 12:15 f., Exodus 13:7). This was understood as a symbol of moral purification, and the search for leaven as symbolizing infectious evil was scrupulously minute, e.g. with candles to look into corners and mouse-holes for crumbs of leavened bread. Zephaniah 1:12 was supposed to imply this. The penalty for eating leavened bread during the feast was scourging. On compounds with ἐκ see on 3:18, and cf. 2 Timothy 2:21. τὴνπαλαιὰνζύμην . It was their acquiescing in the scandal which revealed the presence of a remnant of heathen corruption. The summons to thoroughly purge away all sinful taints cuts deep into the corporate and individual conscience. Each knows the plague-spot in himself. The verb occurs again 2 Timothy 2:21, and nowhere else in N.T.; also Deuteronomy 26:13. With παλαιάν here cf. παλαιὸςἄνθρωπος , Romans 6:6; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9. Ignatius (Magn. 10) says, ὑπέρθεσθεοὖντὴνκακὴνζύμηντὴνπαλαιωθεῖσανκαὶἐνοξίσασαν . By the evil leaven which has become stale and sour he means Judaism. Note the οὖν . ἵναἦτενέονφύραμα . ‘ That you may be a new lump of dough,’ i.e. may make a new start in sanctification free from old and evil influence.* Cf. οἶνοννέον (Matthew 9:17), and see Trench, Syn. § lx. There is only one φύραμα , only one body of Christians, just as there is only one loaf (10:17). See on Luke 12:1 for the evil associations connected with leaven: γέγονενἐκφθορᾶςαὐτὴκαὶφθείρειτὸφύραμα (Plutarch). See Hastings, DB. III. p. 90. καθώςἐστεἄζυμοι . This is the proper, the ideal condition of all Christians. ‘ Ye are unleavened, having been baptized and made a καινὴκτίσις in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10), and are becoming in fact what you are in principle and by profession’ (6:11). St Paul habitually idealizes, speaking to Christians as if they were Christians in the fullest sense, thus exemplifying Kant’ s maxim that you should treat a man as if he were what you would wish him to be. It is utterly wrong to take ἄζυμοι literally; ‘ ye are without leaven,’ because (it is assumed) they were at that moment keeping the Passover. (1) In the literal sense, ἄζυμος is used of things, not of persons. (2) The Corinthian Church consisted almost entirely of Gentile Christians. (3) The remark would have no point in this context. But the imagery in this passage suggests, though it does not prove, that St Paul was writing at or near the Passover season (cf. 16:8). See Deissmann, Light, p. 333. καὶγὰρτὸπάσχαἡμῶνἐτύθη . Directly, this is the reason for the preceding statement; ‘ You are ἄζυμοι , purified from the leaven of your old self, by virtue of the death of your Saviour.’ Indirectly and more broadly, this is a reason for the practical summons at the beginning of the verse: ‘ It is high time for you to purge out the old leaven; for the Lamb is already slain and your house is not yet fully cleansed: you are late!’ See Deuteronomy 16:6; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7.* The ἡμῶν serves to link the Christian antitype to the Jewish type. Χριστός . ‘ Even Christ’ ; last for emphasis, like ὁκρίνων (Romans 2:1) and ὀπατριάρχης (Hebrews 7:4). The force of the Apostle’ s appeal is in any case obvious, but it gains somewhat in point if we suppose him to have in mind the tradition which is embodied in the Fourth Gospel, that Christ was crucified on the 14th Nisan, the day appointed for the slaying of the paschal lamb. We may say that the Pauline tradition, like the Johannine, makes the Death of Christ, rather than the Last Supper, the antitype of the Passover, but we can hardly claim St Paul as a definite witness for the 14th Nisan.† On this difficult subject see Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, p. 146; Hastings, DB. 1. p. 411, DCG. II:5; and the literature there quoted. Nor, again, can this passage be claimed as evidence for the Christian observance of Easter, although such observance would probably be coeval with that of the Lord’ s Day. As in Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7, Luke 22:11; John 18:28, πάσχα is here used of the paschal lamb, not, as commonly, of the paschal supper or of the paschal octave. ἐκκαθάρατε without connecting article (א A B D E F G, Vulg. Copt. RV.) rather than ἐκκαθάρατεοὖν (א 3 C L P, Aeth. AV.). On still stronger evidence, ὑπερὑμῶν must be omitted after τὸπάσχαὑμῶν . Cursives have ἑθύθη for ἐτύθη . Did Ignatius (see above) have οὖν in his text? 8. ὥστε . With cohortative subjunctive as with imperative, see on 3:21. ἑορτάζωμεν . “ Our passover-feast is not for a week, but for a life-time” (Godet), ὅτιπᾶςὁχρόνοςἑορτῆςἐστικαιρὸςτοῖςΧριστιανοῖς (Chrys.). The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is frequent in LXX. ἹησοῦςὁΧριστόςἐστινἡνέαζύμη (Orig.). ἐνζύμῃ . See on 4:21 for this use of ἐν . κακίαςκαὶπονηρίας . Trench, Syn. § ii., makes κακία the vicious principle, πονηρία its outward exercise. It is doubtful whether this is correct. In LXX both words are used indifferently to translate the same Hebrew words, which shows that to Hellenists they conveyed ideas not widely distinct. In the Vulgate both malitia and nequitia are used to translate both words, malitia being used most often for κακία , and nequitia for πονηρία , for which iniquitas also is used. ‘ Malice’ may translate κακία in most places in the N.T., but not in Matthew 6:34, where Vulg. has malitia (!), not in Acts 8:22, where it has nequitia. It is noteworthy that pravitas is not used for either word. Luke 11:39 shows that πονηρία may mean thoughts or purposes of wickedness; cf. Mark 7:22. The genitives are genitives of apposition. ἀζύμοις . Perhaps ‘ unleavened bread’ (AV., RV.) is right, with reference to the unleavened cakes eaten at the Passover; ἑπτὰἡμέραςἄζυμαἔδεσθε (Exodus 12:15). But ἄζυμα is very indefinite; ‘ unleavened elements.’ Origen refers this to 1:2. εἰλικρινίας . The word is a crux as regards etymology, but it seems to mean ‘ transparency,’ ‘ limpid purity,’ and hence ‘ ingenuousness.’ ἀληθείας . In its wider sense, ‘ rectitude,’ ‘ integrity’ ; cf. 13:6; Ephesians 5:9; John 3:21.* ἐορτάζωμεν (א B C F G L de Vulg.) rather than ἐορτάζομεν (A D E P). For πονηρίας F has πορνείας . 9. Ἔγραψαὑμῖνἐντῇἐπιστολῇ . Pursuing the main purpose of the passage, viz. to rebuke their indifference respecting moral scandal, the Apostle corrects a possible misapprehension of his former directions; or at any rate he shows how what he said before would apply in cases more likely to occur than the one, which has just been discussed. ‘ I wrote to you in my letter,’ in the letter which was well known to the Corinthians, a letter earlier than our 1 Corinthians and now lost. It is true that ἔλραψα might be an ‘ epistolary aorist’ (Galatians 6:11; 1 John 2:14) referring to the letter then being written. But ἐντῇἐπιστολῇ (cf. 2 Corinthians 7:8) must refer to another letter. Romans 16:22; Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27 are all retrospective, being parts of a postscript. In this letter he has not given any direction about not keeping company with fornicators; for a summons to expel a member who has contracted an incestuous union cannot be regarded as a charge not to associate with fornicators. It is evident that here, as in 2 Corinthians 10:9 f., he is making reference to an earlier letter which has not been preserved. So also Atto; non in hac epistola sed altera: and Herveius; in alia jam epistola. Some think that 2 Corinthians 6:14-1 may be part of the letter in question. See notes there and Introduction to 2 Corinthians in the Cambridge Greek Testament. Stanley gives two spurious letters, one from, the other to, St Paul, which are not of much interest, but which have imposed upon the Armenian Church (Appendix, p. 591 f.). * μὴσυναναμίγνυσθαι . Lit. ‘ not to mix yourselves up together with’ : ne commisceamini (Vulg.). This expressive combination of two prepositions with the verb occurs again in a similar connexion 2 Thessalonians 3:14; also in the A text of Hos 7:8. Cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:6. 10. οὐπάντως . ‘ Not altogether,’ ‘ not absolutely,’ ‘ not in all circumstances.’ It limits the prohibition of intercourse with fornicators, which does not apply in the case of fornicators who are outside the Christian community. The Apostle is not repeating the prohibition in another form, which would have required μή , as before. The οὐ = ‘ not, I mean,’ or ‘ I do not mean.’ The meaning is quite clear. τοῦκόσμουτούτου . ‘ Of the non-Christian world.’ ἢτοῖςπλεονέκταις . ‘ Or’ here is equivalent to our ‘ any more than.’ τοῖςπλεονέκταιςκαὶἅρπαξιν . These form a single class, coupled by the single article and the καί , and separated from each of the other classes by ἤ . This class is that of the absolutely selfish, who covet and sometimes seize more than their just share of things. They exhibit that amor sui which is the note of ‘ this world,’ and which usurps the place of amor Dei, until πλεονεξία becomes a form of idolatry (Ephesians 5:5). εἰδωλολάτραις . In the literal sense; 10:14; 1 John 5:21. This is the first appearance of the word (Revelation 21:8, Revelation 22:15), which may have been coined by St Paul. In Ephesians 5:5 it is used in a figurative sense of a worshipper of Mammon. The triplet of vices here consists of those which characterize non-Christian civilization; lax morality, greed, and superstition. The last, in some form or other, is the inevitable substitute for spiritual religion. ἐπεὶὠφείλετεἄρα . ‘ Since in that case you would have to’ ; cf. 7:14. Ἑπεί implies a protasis, which is suppressed by an easy ellipse; ‘ since, were it not so, then,’ etc. Ἄρα introduces a subjective sequence, while οὖν introduces an objective one. Ωφείλετε is in an apodosis, where the idiomatic imperfect marks the consequence of a state of things that is supposed not to exist; and the ἄν which is usual in such an apodosis is commonly omitted with such verbs as ὠφείλετε , ἔδει , καλὸνἦν , etc. ἐκτοῦκόσμουἐξελθεῖν . This for most people is impossible; but at Corinth in St Paul’ s day it was well for Christians to see as little of the heathen world as was possible. In 10:27 he does not forbid the presence of Christians at private entertainments given by heathen, but he implies that they ought not to wish to go to them. οὐπάντως (א A B C D E F G 17, Vulg.) rather than καὶοὐπάντως א 2 D 3 L P Arm. Aeth.). The ‘ yet’ in AV. seems to represent καί . καὶἃρπαξιν (א A B C D F G P 17, Aeth) rather than ἢἅρπαξιν (א 3 D 3 E L, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm.), an alteration to conform to ἤ on each side. AV. has ‘ or,’ RV. ‘ and.’ ὠφείλετε (א A B* C D E F G L 17, Latt,) rather than ὀφείλετε (B 3 P, Chrys. Thdrt.), another mistaken correction, the force of the imperfect not being seen. 11. νῦνδὲἔγραψα . ‘ But, as it is, I wrote’ (RV. marg.), not ‘ But now I write’ (RV.). The latter is grammatically possible and makes good sense, but it is unlikely that ἔγραψα is in v. 9 historical, of an earlier letter, and here epistolary, of the present letter. The νῦν is logical, not temporal, ‘ now you see,’ ‘ now you understand’ that the earlier letter meant something different. Had the Apostle meant the νῦν to be temporal and the verb to refer to the present letter, he would have written γράφω , as in 4:14. He has stated what the earlier letter did not mean , and he now very naturally states what it did mean.* ἐάν … ᾖ . The form of protasis covers all cases that may come to light: see on 4:15. Almost all editors prefer ᾗ to ἤ to before πόρνος . ὀνομαζόμενος . ‘ Any who bears the name of a brother,’ though he has forfeited the right to it. He is called a brother, but he really is a πόρνος or, etc. Some early interpreters take ὀνομαζόμενος with what follows; ‘ if any brother be called a whoremonger,’ or ‘ be a notorious whoremonger.’ The latter would require ὀνομαστός , and we should have ἀδελφόςτις rather than τιςἀδελφός . Evidently ἀδελφός and ὀνομαζόμενος are to be taken together. He is called a Christian, and he really is a disgrace to the name; that is a reason for shunning him. But if he is a Christian and is called some bad name, that is not a reason for shunning him: the bad name may be a slander. πλεονέκτης . There is no good ground for supposing that, either here, or in v. 10, or anywhere else, πλεονέκτης means ‘ sensual’ (see on Ephesians 4:19). The desire which it implies is the desire for possessions, greed, grasping after what does not belong to one. εἰδωλολάτρης . Stanley would give this word also the meaning of ‘ sensual.’ But there is no improbability in Corinthian converts being tainted with idolatry. Origen says that in his time the plea that idolatry was a matter of indifference was common among Christians serving in the army. Modern experience teaches that it is very difficult to extinguish idolatrous practices among converts, and Chrysostom may be right in suggesting that the Apostle inserts ‘ idolater’ in his list as a preparation for what he is about to say on the subject (8:10, 10:7, 14 f.). The Corinthians were evidently very lax. λοίδορος . Origen notes with what very evil people the λοίδορος is classed: ἡλίκοιςκακοῖςτὸνλοίδορονσυνηρίθμησεν . The word occurs 6:10, and in LXX in Proverbs and Ecclus., but nowhere else. Chrysostom (on 6:10) says that many in his day blamed the Apostle for putting λοίδοροι and μέθυσοι into such company. Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22; 1 Peter 3:9. μέθυσος . Romans 13:13. In Attic writers applied to women, men being called μεθυστικοί , παροινικοί , or παροίνιοι . Cf. ὀργὴμεγάληγυνὴμέθυσος (Ecclus. 26:8); but elsewhere in LXX it is used of men (Ecclus. 21:1; Proverbs 23:21, Proverbs 26:9). It some μέθυσος and the λοίδορος are additions to the first list. μηδὲσυνεσθίειν . An emphatic intimation of what he means by μὴσυναναμίγνυσθαι . Cf. Luke 15:2; Galatians 2:12. The Apostle is not thinking of Holy Communion, in which case the μηδέ would be quite out of place: he is thinking of social meals; ‘ Do not invite him to your house or accept his invitations.’ But, as Theodoret points out, a prohibition of this kind would lead to the exclusion of the offender from the Lord’ s Table. Great caution is required in applying the Apostle’ s prohibition to modern circumstances, which are commonly not parallel. The object here, as in 2 John 1:10, is twofold: to prevent the spread of evil, and to bring offenders to see the error of their ways. In any case, what St Paul adds in giving a similar injunction must not be forgotten; καὶμὴὡςἐχθρὸνἡγεῖσθε , ἀλλὰνουθετεῖτεὡςἀδελφόν (2 Thessalonians 3:15). Clement of Rome (Cor. 14) says of the ringleaders of the schism, χρηστευσώμεθααὐτοῖςκατὰτὴνεὐσπλαγχνίανκαὶγλυκύτητατοῦποιήσαντοςἡμᾶς , perhaps in reference to Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:48. νῦν (א 3 A B D 3 E F G L P) rather than νυνί : the more emphatic form might seem to be more suitable. Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Aeth. Goth. support ᾗ against ἤ before πόρνος . For μηδέ , A has μή and F has μήτε . 12. τίγάρμοιτοὺςἔξωκρίνειν ; ‘ For what business of mine is it to judge those that are outside?’ Quid enim mhi (Vulg.); Ad quid mihi (Tert.); Quid mea interest (Beza). Gives the reason why they ought never to have supposed that he ordered them to shun the company of heathen who were fornicators: the meaning given in v. 11 is the only possible meaning. The phrase τοὺςἔξω (1 Thessalonians 4:12; Colossians 4:5) is of Jewish origin. Jews applied it to Gentiles; our Lord applies it to Jews who are not His disciples (Mark 4:11); St Paul applies it to non-Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles. In 1 Timothy 3:7, where he speaks of non-Christians judging Christians, he uses οἱἔξωθεν . The expression states a fact, without any insinuation of censure. How could they suppose that he claimed jurisdiction over heathen and placed a stigma upon them for heathen behaviour? Epictetus (Enchir. 47) tells those who are continent not to be severe upon those who are not, or to claim any superiority. οὐχὶτοὺςἒσωὑμεῖςκρίνετε ; τοὺςἔσω and ὑμεῖς are in emphatic juxtaposition: ‘ Is it not those that are within that you judge? They are your sphere of jurisdiction.’ The present tense is ‘ axiomatic,’ stating what is normal. The proposal to put a colon at οὐχί and make κρίνετε an imperative is unintelligent. Οὐχί is not an answer to τί ; and the sentence is much less telling as a command than as a question. οὐκί is one of the words which are far more common in Paul and Luke than elsewhere in N.T. 13. ὁΘεὸςκρίνει . The verb is certainly to be accented as a present: it states the normal attribute of God. And the sentence is probably categorical; ‘ But them that are without God judgeth.’ This is more forcible than to bring it under the interrogative οὐχί ; ‘ Is it not the case that you judge those who are within, while God judges those who are without?’ But WH. and Bachmann adopt the latter. ἐξάρατετὸνπονηρόν . A quotation from Deuteronomy 17:7, bringing to a sharp practical conclusion the discussion about the treatment of πορνεία , and at the same time giving a final rebuke to them for their indifference about the case of incest. The offender must be at once expelled. Origen adds that we must not be content with expelling the evil man from our society; we must take care to expel the evil one from our hearts. Note the double ἐξ : the riddance must be complete. See on 3:18. Vulg. Arm. Copt. Aeth. take κρινει as a future. ἐξάρατε (א A B C D* F G P, Vulg.) rather than καὶἐξαρεῖτε (D 3 E L), or καὶἐξάρατε (17). The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is very frequent in LXX. * There is also the case of Callias, who married his wife’ s mother. Andocides (b.c. 400), in his speech on the mysteries, asks whether among the Greeks such a thing had ever been done before. א Ԡ א (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T. L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome. P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 ὑμᾶςὁθεός -17 περιπάτει : 12:23 τοῦσώματος -13:5 οὐλογί -: 14:23 τὸλαλεῖνμή . A good type of text in St Paul’ s Epistles. A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum. B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS. C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 ἐνἀκροβυστίᾳ -9:6 τοῦμὴἐργάζεσθαι : 13:8 παύσονται -14:40 ἀλλὰἕτερα . D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 διο͂ὁλαλῶν -22 σημεῖονἐστίν is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422). E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429). G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1 Corinthians 3:8-16, 1 Corinthians 6:7-14 (F). 17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. § § 211, 212. * What Augustine says of Carthage was still more true of Corinth; circumstrepebal me undique sartago flagiiosorum amorum (Conf. iii.1). * Evans thinks that ὡςπαρών does not mean ‘ as if I were present in the body,’ but ‘ as being really present in the spirit.’ His spirit had at times exceptional power of insight into the state of a church at a distance: οὐκὡςἀπόστολοςἀλλ ʼ ὡςπροφή̔τηςεἶπεν (Orig,). * Renan, Godet, and Goudge regard the expression as meaning sentence of death by a wasting sickness. Espulsion is not mentioned here; hence the sharp command in v. 13. * ἀπὸτοῦκρείττονοςὀνομάσαςὄλουτοῦἀνθρώπονσωτηρίαν (Orig.). There was no need to add the ψυχή and the σῶμα . The penalty is for the good of the community as well as of the offender. A shepherd, says Origen, must drive out a tainted sheep that would infect the flock. † The resemblance of this passage to various forms of magic spells and curses is sometimes pointed out. The fundamental difference is this, that all such spells and curses aim at serious evil to the persons against whom they are directed. The Apostle aims at the rescue of the offender from perdition. Moreover, he desires to rescue the Corinthian Church from grave peril. M M (Ninth century). Harl. 5913 * at the British Museum. Contains 15:52 σαλπίσει to the end of 16. The MS. also contains fragments of 2 Corinthians and (in some leaves now at Hamburg) of Hebrews. * Some Latin texts omit the nagative, making the statement sarcastic (Lucif. Ambrst. and MSS. known to Augustine). The οὐ may easily have been lost owing to the preceding Κυρίου or Χριστοῦ . † If he had meant materies gloriandi, he would probably have said that they had none, οὐκἔχετεκαύχημα . Like οὐκἐπαινῶ (11:17, 22), οὐκαλόν is a reproachful litotes. * The Vulgate has the curious rendering, ut sitis nova conspersio. This rare substantive is found, with the same unexpected meaning, twice in Tertullian (Marcion. iv. 24, Valent. 31), in the sense of a lump of dough, and once in Irenaeus (v. 14:2), probably as a translation of φύραμα . * In Mark 14:12 the AV. has ‘ kill the Passover,’ with ‘ sacrifice’ in the margin; in Luke 22:7, ‘ kill,’ without any alternative; here ‘ sacrifice,’ with ‘ slay’ in the margin: the R.V. has ‘ sacrifice in all three places. † On the general relation between the two traditions see J. Kaftan, Jesus u.Paulus, pp. 59-69. * It is possible that these two words are meant to prepare for what follows. Perhaps the Apostle saw that there had been some shuffling and evasion about the injunction in the former letter. They said that they did not understand it, and made that an excuse for ignoring it. How St Paul heard of the misinterpretation of his earlier letter we are not told. Zahn suggests the Corinthians’ letter, of which he finds traces even before 7:1 (Introd. to N.T. p. 261). * There is little doubt that a number of the Apostle’ s letters have perished, especially those which he wrote in the early part of his career, when his authority was less clearly established, and the value of his words less understood; 2 Thessalonians 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:17. See Renan, S. Paul, p. 234. Ramsay points out the resemblance between this passage (9-13) and 2 Thessalonians, which guards against misconception of his teaching that had arisen owing to the strong emphasis which he had laid on the coming of the Kingdom (Pauline Studies, p. 36). * Abbott, Johan. Gr. 2691, gives other examples. 6:1-11. BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS The Apostle passes on to a third matter for censure, and in discussing it he first treats of the evil and its evil occasion (1-8), and then, in preparation for what is to follow, points out that all unrighteousness is a survival from a bad past which the Corinthians ought to have left behind them (9-11). 1-8. The Evil and Its Evil Occasion How can you dare to go to law with one another in heathen caurts? If there must be suits, let Christian judge Christian. 1 The subject of judging brings me to another matter. Is it possible that, when one of you has a dispute with a fellow-Christian, he takes upon himself to bring the dispute before a heathen tribunal, instead of bringing it before believers. Or is it that you do not know that, at the Last Day, believers will sit with Christ to judge the world? And if the world is to be judged hereafter at your bar, are you incompetent to serve in the pettiest tribunals? Do not you know that we are to sit in judgment on angels? After that, one need hardly mention things of daily life. If, then, you have questions of daily life to be decided, do you really take heathens, who are of no account to those who are in the Church, and set them to judge you? 5 It is to move you to shame that I am speaking like this. Have things come to such a pass that, among the whole of you, there is not a single person who is competent to arbitrate between one Christian and another, but that, on the contrary, Christian goes to law with Christian, and that too before unbelievers? 7 Nay, at the very outset, there is a terrible defect in your Christianity that you have lawsuits at all with one another. Why not rather accept injury? Why not rather submit to being deprived? But, so far from enduring wrong, what you do is this; you wrong and deprive other people, and those people your fellow-Christians. The subject of going to law before heathen tribunals is linked to the subject discussed in the previous chapter by the reference to the question of judgment (5:12, 13).* The moral sense of a Christian community, which ought to make itself felt in judging offenders within its own circle, ought still more to suffice for settling disputes among its members, without recourse to heathen courts, whose judges stand presumably on a lower ethical level than Christians. But there is no real argumentative connexion with the preceding section. The Apostle has finished two points in his indictment, and he now passes on to another. The Apostle’ s principles with regard to secular and heathen magistrates are perfectly consistent. In Rom_13 he inculcates the attitude of a good citizen, which is not only obedience to law, but the recognition of the magistrate as God’ s minister. This carries with it submission to the law as administered by the courts, and acceptance of the authority of the courts in criminal cases. St Paul had had experience of the protection of Roman Justice (Acts 18:12 f., Acts 25:16), and he himself appealed to Caesar. But to invoke the courts to decide disputes between Christians was quite another matter; and he lays it down here that to do so is a confession of the failure of that justice which ought to reign in the Christian Society. ‘ Obey the criminal courts, but do not go out of your way to invoke the civil courts,’ is a fair, if rough, summary of his teaching. 1. Τολμᾷτιςὑμῶν . We know nothing of the facts, but it is clear from v. 8 that the Apostle has no merely isolated case in view: τολμᾷ grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum (Beng.); Romans 15:18. The word is an argument in itself; ‘ How can you dare, endure, bring yourself to?’ πρᾶγμα . In the forensic sense; ‘ a cause for trial,’ ‘ a case,’ Joseph. Ant. xiv. x. 7. τὸνἕτερον . Not ‘ another’ (AV.), but ‘ his neighbour’ (RV.), ‘ his fellow’ (10:24, 14:17; Romans 2:1; Galatians 6:4). κρίνεσθαι . Middle; ‘ go to law,’ ‘ seek for judgment.’ Cf. κριθῆναι (Matthew 5:40; Ecclesiastes 6:10). The question comes with increased force after 5:12, 13. ‘ It is no business of ours to judge the heathen: and are we to ask them to judge us?’ ἐπὶτῶνἀδίκων . ‘ Before the unrighteous’ . The term is not meant to imply that there was small chance of getting justice in a heathen court; St Paul’ s own experience had taught him otherwise. The term reflects, not on Roman tribunals, but on the pagan world to which they belonged. He perhaps chose the word rather than ἀπίστων , in order to suggest the paradox of seeking justice among the unjust. The Rabbis taught that Jews must not carry their cases before Gentiles, and we may be sure that it was in the Greek majority at Corinth, and not in the Jewish minority, that this evil prevailed. Greeks were fond of litigation, φιλοδικοί (Arist. Rhet. II. xxiii. 23), and as there were no Christian courts they must enter heathen tribunals if they wanted to go to law. See Edwards. For ἐπί see 2 Corinthians 7:14; Mark 13:9; Acts 25:9. καὶοὐχὶἐπὶτῶνἀγίων . He does not mean that Christian courts ought to be instituted, but that Christian disputants should submit to Christian arbitration. 2. ἢοὐκοἴδατε . Such conduct was incompatible with principles which ought to be familiar to them. He first asks, ‘ How can you be so presumptuous?’ Then, on the supposition that this is not the cause of their error, he asks, ‘ How can you be so ignorant?’ The ἤ introduces an alternative explanation. The formula οὐκοἴδατε occurs five times in this chapter (2, 3, 9, 16, 19; cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5, etc.). οἱἅγιοιτὸνκόσμονκρινοῦσιν . Here, no doubt, the verb should be accented as a future; contrast 5:13. It is in the Messianic Kingdom that the saints will share in Christ’ s reign over the created universe. ‘ Judge’ does not here mean ‘ condemn,’ and ‘ the world’ does not mean ‘ the evil world.’ It is only from the context, as in Acts 13:27, that κρίνειν sometimes becomes equivalent to κατακρίνειν , and ὁκόσμος frequently is used without any idea of moral, i.e. immoral quality; cf. 3:22. Indeed, it is not clear that κρινοῦσιν here means ‘ will pronounce judgment upon’ ; it is perhaps used in the Hebraic sense of ‘ ruling.’ So also in Matthew 19:28. This sense is frequent in Judges (3:10, 10:2, 3, 12:9, 11, 13, 14, etc.).Wisd. 3:8 is parallel; ‘ They shall judge the nations and have dominion over the peoples’ ; also Ecclus. 4:15. St Paul may have known the Book of Wisdom. Cf. the Book of Enoch (108:12), “ I will bring forth clad in shining light those who have loved My holy Name, and I will seat each on the throne of his honour.” The saints are to share in the final perfection of the Messianic reign of Christ. They themselves are to appear before the Judge (Romans 14:10; 2 Timothy 4:1) and are then to share His glory (4:8; Romans 8:17; Daniel 7:22; Revelation 2:26, Revelation 2:27, Revelation 2:3:21, Revelation 2:20:4). The Apostle’ s eschatology (15:21-24) supplies him with the thought of these verses. He is certainly not thinking of the time when earthly tribunals will be filled with Christian judges.† καὶεἰἐνὑμῖνκρίνεταιὁκ . The καί adds a further question, and presses home the bearing of the preceding question. The ἐνὑμῖν is less easy to explain; ‘ among you,’ ‘ in your court,’ ‘ in your jurisdiction,’ may be the meaning. Or we may fall back on the instrumental use of ἐν . Like κρίνετε in v. 12, κρίνεται expresses what is normal. ‘ The heathen are to be judged by you; they are in your jurisdiction. How incongruous that you should ask to be judged by them!’ ἀνάξιοίἐστεκριτηρίωνἐλαχίστων . ‘ Are ye unworthy of the smallest tribunals?’ So in RV. marg. Cf. James 2:6; Judges 5:10; Daniel 7:10, Daniel 7:26; Susann. 49: also μὴἐρχέσθωἐπὶκριτήριονἐθνικόν (Apost. Const. ii:45). In papyri, οἱἐπὶτῶνκριτηρίων means those who preside in tribunals. The meaning ‘ case’ or ‘ cause’ is insufficiently supported. Ἀνάξιος is found nowhere else in N.T. D3 E L, AV. omit ἤ before οὐκοἴδατε . 3. The thought of v. 2 is repeated and expanded. To say that Christians will judge angels restates ‘ will judge the world’ in an extreme form, for the sake of sharpening the contrast. Ἄγγελοι are the highest order of beings under God, yet they are creatures and are part of the κόσμος . But the members of Christ are to be crowned with glory and honour (Psalms 8:6), and are to share in His regal exaltation, which exceeds any angelic dignity. He ‘ judges,’ i.e. rules over, angels, and the saints share to that rule. The words may mean that the saints are to be His assessors in the Day of Judgment, that angels will then be judged, and that the saints will take part in sentencing them. If so, this must refer to fallen angels, for it is difficult to believe that St Paul held that all angels, good and bad, will be judged hereafter. But he gives no epithet to angels here, because it is not needed for his argument; indeed, to have said ‘ fallen angels,’ or ‘ evil angels,’ would rather have marred his argument. As Evans rightly insists, it is the exalted nature of angels that is the Apostle’ s point. ‘ You are to judge the world. Nay, you are to judge, not only men, but angels. Are you unable to settle petty disputes among yourselves?’ St Paul’ s purpose is to emphasize the augustness of the ‘ judging’ to which members of Christ are called.* To press the statement in such a way as to raise the question of the exact nature, scope, or details, of the judgment of angels, is to go altogether beyond the Apostle’ s purpose. Thackeray (St Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 152 f.) has shown from Jude 1:6, Wisd. 3:8, and Enoch 13-16 that there is nothing in this unique statement to which a Jew of that day would not have subscribed. See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 213. μήτιγεβιωτικά . The γε strengthens the force of the μήτι , which is that of a condensed question; ‘ need I so much as mention?’ Nedum quae ad hujus vitae usum pertinent (Beza): quanto magis saecularia. The clause may be regarded as part of the preceding question (WH.), or as a separate question (AV., RV.), or as an appended remark, ‘ to say nothing at all of things of this life’ (Ellicott). The adjective occurs Luke 21:34, but is not found in LXX, nor earlier than Aristotle. Following the well-known difference in N.T. between βίος and ζωή (see on Luke 8:43), βιωτικά means questions relating to our life on earth on its merely human side, or to the resources of life, such as food, clothing, property, etc. Philo (Vit. Mos. iii.18), πρὸςτὰὶςβιωτικὰςχρείαςὑπηρετεῖν . See Trench, Syn. § xxvii.; Cremer, Lex. p. 272; Lightfoot on Ign. Romans 7:3. Μήτιγε is written by different editors as one word, or as two , or as three. Tregelles is perhaps alone in writing μήτιγε . 4. βιωτικὰκριτήρια . ‘ Tribunals dealing with worldly matters.’ The adj. is repeated with emphasis, which is increased by its being placed first. That is the surprising thing, that Christians should have βιωτικά that require litigation. μὲνοὐν . ‘ Nay but,’ or ‘ Nay rather.’ The force of the words is either to emphasize the cumulative scandal of having such cases at all and of bringing them ἐπὶτῶνἀδίκων , or (if καθίζετε is imperative) to advise an alternative course to that described in v. 2. ἐὰνἔχητε . This form of protasis (cf. 4:15) requires a future or its equivalent in the apodosis. Here we have an equivalent, whether we take καθίζετε as imperative or interrogative. ‘ If you must have such things as courts to deal with these petty matters, then set,’ etc.; or ‘ do you set?’ — ‘ Is that your way of dealing with the matter?’ It is intolerably forced to put a comma after κριτήρια , make it an accus. pendens, and take ἐὰνἔχητε with τοὺςἐξουθενημέους . τοὺςἐξουθενημένουςἐντῇἐκκλησίᾳ . If καθιζετε is imperative, then these words mean ‘ those in the Church who are held of no account,’ i.e. the least esteemed of the Christians. The Apostle sarcastically tells them that, so far from there being any excuse for resorting to heathen tribunals, any selection of the simplest among themselves would be competent to settle their disputes about trifles. Let the insignificant decide what is insignificant. If καθίζετε is indicative and the sentence interrogative, then these words mean, ‘ those who, in the Church, are held of no account,’ viz. the ἄδικοι of v. 1. The meaning is the same if the sentence is categorical. Both constructions are possible, and both make good sense. Alford, Edwards, Ellicott, Evans, and Lightfoot give strong reasons for preferring the imperative, as AV. In this they follow a strong body of authorities; the Vulgate, Peshito, Coptic, and Armenian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Bengel, and Wetstein. To mention only one of the arguments used;— it does seem improbable that St Paul would call heathen magistrates ‘ those who, in the Church, are held of no account.’ He has, it is true, spoken of the heathen in general (not the magistrates in particular) as ἄδικοι : but here he is speaking of those who preside in the heathen tribunals. And if he wanted to speak disparagingly of them, is ‘ those whom Christians despise’ a likely phrase for him to use? The Vulgate renders, contemptibiles qui sunt in ecclesia, illos constituite ad judicandum; but the Greek means contemptos rather than contemptibiles. Augustine also has contemptibiles, but he renders τούτουςκαθίζετε , hos collocate.* Nevertheless, Tischendorf, WH. and the Revisers support a considerable number of commentators, from Luther to Schmiedel, in punctuating the sentence as a question. It is urged that the Apostle, after the reminder of vv. 2, 3, returns to the question of v. 1; ‘ Will they, by going outside their own body for justice, confess themselves, the appointed judges of angels, to be unfit to decide the pettiest arbitrations?’  * We must be content to leave the question open. The general sense is clear. The Corinthians were doing a shameful thing in going to heathen civil courts to settle disputes between Christians. πρὸςἐντροπὴνὑμῖνλέγω . ‘ I say this to move you to shame’ ; see on 4:14. As to 15:34, the words refer to what precedes, and they suit either of the interpretations given above, either the sarcastic command or the reproachful question; but they suit the latter somewhat better. Only here, and 15:34 does ἐντροπή occur in. N.T., but it is not rare in the Psalms. 5. οὑτωςοὐκἔνικ .τ .λ . ‘ Is there such a total lack among you of any wise person’ that you are thus obliged to go outside? Or, ‘ So is there not found among you one wise person?’ The οὕτως refers to the condition of things in the Corinthian Church: Chrys., τοσαύτησπάνιςἀνδρῶνσυνετῶνπαρ ʼ ὑμῖν ; it is now commonly admitted that ἔνι “ is not a contraction from ἔνεστι , but the preposition ἐν or ἐνί , strengthened by a vigorous accent, like ἔπι , πάρα , and used with an ellipse of the substantive verb” (Lightfoot on Galatians 3:28; J. B. Mayor on James 1:17): translate, therefore, ‘ is not found.’ διακρῖναιἀνὰμέσοντοῦἀδελφοῦαὐτοῦ . A highly condensed sentence; ‘ to decide between his fellow-Christian’ meaning ‘ to act as arbitrator between one fellow-Christian and another.’ We want ἀνὰμέσονἀδελφοῦκαὶτοῦἀδ . αὐτοῦ , like ἀνὰμέσονἐμοῦκαὶσοῦ (Genesis 23:15). J. H. Moulton (Gr. p. 99) suspects a corruption in the text, but dictation may account for the abbreviation: τῶνἀδελφῶναὐτοῦ is the simplest conjecture. The compound preposition ἀνὰμέσον is frequent in papyri. As the Lord had directed (Matthew 18:17), the aggrieved brother ought to ‘ tell it to the Church.’ * Both here and in 15:34 there is difference of reading between λέγω and λαλῶ . Here λέγω (א D E F G L P) is to be preferred to λαλῶ (B, with C doubtful). ἔνι (א B C L P) rather than ἐστιν (D E F G). οὐδεὶςσοφός (א B C 17, Copt.) rather than οὐδὲεῖςσοφός (F G P) or (F G P) or σοφὸςοὐδὲεῖς (D 3 L) or σοφός without οὐδὲεῖς or οὐδείς (D* E, Aeth.). For τοῦἀδελφοῦ some editors conjecture τῶνἀδελφῶν . 6. ἀλλὰἀδελφὸςκ .τ .λ . We have the same doubt as that respecting μήτιγεβιωτικά (v. 3). This verse may be a continuation of the preceding question (WH. RV.), or a separate question (AV.), or an appended statement (Ellicott). In the last case, ἀλλά is ‘ Nay,’ ‘ On the contrary’ . καὶτοῦτο . This is the climax. That there should be disputes about βιωτικά is bad; that Christian should go to law with Christian is worse; that Christians should do this before unbelievers is worst of all. It is a scandal before the heathen world. Cf. καὶτοῦτο (Romans 13:11; 3 John 1:5) and the more classical καὶταῦτα (Hebrews 11:12), of which Wetstein gives numerous examples. 7. ἤδημὲνοὖν . ‘ Nay, verily there is at once,’ ‘ there is to begin with, without going any further’ : μὲνοὖν , separate, as in v. 4, and with no δέ to answer to the μέν . ὅλως . ‘ Altogether,’ i.e. no matter what the tribunal may be: or ‘ generally,’ ‘ under any circumstances,’ i.e. no matter what the result may be. ἥττημα . ‘ A falling short’ of spiritual attainment, or of Christian blessings, ‘ a defect’ (RV.), or possibly ‘ a defeat.’ They have been worsted in the spiritual fight. Origen here contrasts ἡττᾶσθαι with νικᾶν . Cf. Isaiah 31:8, οἱδὲνεανίσκοιἔσονταιεἰςἡττημα  * . In Romans 11:12 the meaning seems to be ‘ defeat’ (see note there), and these are the only passages in the Bible in which the word occurs. See Field, Otium Norvic. 3:97. κρίματα . Elsewhere in N.T. the word means ‘ decrees’ or ‘ judgments,’ but here it is almost equivalent to κριτήρια (v. 4) ‘ matters for judgment,’ ‘ lawsuits.’ μεθ ʼ ἑαυτῶν . Literally, ‘ with your own selves.’ It is possible that this use of μεθ ʼ ἑαυτῶν for μετ ʼ ἀλλήλων is deliberate, in order to show that in bringing a suit against a fellow-Christian they were bringing a suit against themselves, so close was the relationship. The solidarity of the Church made such conduct suicidal. But the substitution occurs where no such idea can be understood (Mark 16:3). There are passages in M. Aurelius which are very much in harmony with these verses. He argues that men are kinsmen, and that all wrong-doing is the result of ignorance. Those who know better must be patient with those who know not what they do in being insolent and malicious. “ But I, who have seen the nature of the good that it is beautiful, and of the bad that it is base , and the nature of him that does the wrong, that it is akin to me, not so much by community of blood and seed as by community of intelligence and divine endowment,— I can neither be injured by any of them, for no one can fix on me what is base; nor can I be angry with one who is my kinsman, nor feel hatred against him” (2:1). “ On every occasion a man should say, This comes from God: this is from one of the same tribe and family and society, but from one who does not know what befits his nature. But I know; therefore I treat him according to the natural law of fellowship with kindness and justice” (3:11). “ With what are you so displeased? with the badness of men? Consider the decision, that rational beings exist for one another, and that to be patient is a part of righteousness, and that men do wrong against their will” (4:3). ἀδικεῖσθε , ἀπουτερεῖσθε . ‘ Endure wrong,’ ‘ endure deprivation.’ The verbs are middle, not passive. ἤδημἑνοὖν (א 3 A B C D3 E L P, Aeth.); omit οὖν (א D. 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm.). The οὖν is probably genuine. A omits ὅλως . The ἐν before ὑμῖν has very little authority; est in vobis (Vulg.). 8. ἀλλὰὑμεῖς . ‘ Whereas you, on the contrary.’ The emphatic pronoun contrasts their conduct with what is fitting. ‘ Not content with refusing to endure wrong (and as Christians you ought to be ready to endure it), you yourselves inflict it, and that on fellow-Christians’ ;— a climax of unchristian conduct. Matthew 5:39-41 teaches far otherwise; and the substance of the Sermon on the Mount would be known to them. The sentence is not part of the preceding question.* D transposes ἀδικεῖτε and ἀποστερεῖτε . For τοῦτο , L, Arm., Chrys., Thdrt. have παῦτα , perhaps to cover the two verbs. 9-11. Unrighteousness in All Its Forms is a Survival from a Bad Past, Which the Corinthians Ought to Have Left Behind Them Evil-doers, such as some of you were, cannot enter the Kingdom. 9 Is this wilfulness on your part, or is it that you do not know that wrong-doers will have no share in the Kingdom? Do not be led astray by false teachers. No fornicator, idolater, adulterer, sensualist, sodomite, 10 thief, cheat, drunkard, reviler, or extortioner will have any share in God’ s Kingdom. 11 And of such vile sort some of you once were. But you washed your pollutions away, you were made holy, you were made righteous, by sharing in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the gift of the Spirit of God. These three verses conclude the subject of vv. 1-8 by an appeal to wider principles, and thus prepare the way for the fourth matter of censure (12-20). The connexion with vv. 1-8 is definite, although not close. The Corinthians have shown themselves ἄδικοι , in the narrower sense of ‘ unjust,’ by their conduct to one another (ἀδικεῖτε , v. 8). They need, however, to be reminded that ἀδικία in any sense (see note below) excludes a man from the heritage of God’ s Kingdom. The Apostle goes on to specify several forms of ἀδικία which they ought to have abandoned, and finally returns to the subject of πορνεία . 9. ἢοὐκοἴδατε . See vv. 2 and 19. There is an alternative implied. ‘ [Is it from a reckless determination to do as they please regardless of the consequences,] or is it from real ignorance of the consequences?’ In either case their error is disastrous. ἄδικοι . The word is suggested by the previous ἀδικεῖτε , and this should be marked in translation; ‘ ye do wrong’ … ‘ wrongdoers shall not inherit.’ No English version preserves the connexion; nor does the Vulgate, injuriam facitis … iniqui: but Beza does so, injuriam facitis … injustos. Now the word takes a wider meaning; it is wrongdoing of any kind, and not the special kind of being unjust in matters of personal rights, that is meant; and here the Apostle passes to a more comprehensive survey of the spiritual state of his readers, and also to a sterner tone: εἰςἀπειλὴνκατακλείειτὴνπαραίνεσιν (Chrys.). The evil that he has now to deal with is the danger of Gentile licentiousness. Θεοῦβασιλείαν . When St Paul uses the shorter form, ‘ God’ s Kingdom’ (v. 10, 15:50; Galatians 5:21), instead of the more usual ἡβας . τοῦΘ . (4:20; Romans 14:17; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; cf. Ephesians 5:5), he elsewhere writes βας . Θεοῦ . Here Θεοῦ is placed first, in order to bring ἄδικοι and Θεοῦ into emphatic contrast by juxtaposition: ‘ wrong-doers’ are manifestly out of place in ‘ God’ s Kingdom, Cf. πρόσωπονΘεὸςἀνθρώπουοὐλαμβάνει (Galatians 2:6). ‘ To inherit the Kingdom of God’ s is a Jewish thought, in allusion to the promise given to Abraham; but St Paul, in accordance with his doctrine of grace, enlarges and spiritualizes the idea of inheritance. He reminds the Corinthians that, although all Christians are heirs, yet heirs may be disinherited. They may disqualify themselves. In 4:20, the Kingdom is regarded as present. Here and 15:50 it is regarded as future. It is both: see J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus, p. 24; Dalman, Words, p. 125; Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 576. Μὴπλανᾶσθε . See on Luke 21:8. The verb is passive, ‘ Do not be led astray’ , and implies fundamental error.* The revisers sometimes correct the ‘ deceived’ of AV. to ‘ led astray,’ but here and 15:33 they retain ‘ deceived.’ The charge is a sharper repetition of ἤοὐκοἴδατε . Some Jews held that the belief in one God sufficed without holiness of life. Judaizers may have been teaching in Corinth that faith sufficed.† The order of the ten kinds of offenders is unstudied. He enumerates sins which were prevalent at Corinth just as they occur to him. Of the first five, three (and perhaps four) deal with sinners against purity, while the fifth, ‘ idolaters,’ were frequently sinners of the same kind. Of the last five, three are sinners against personal property or rights, such as are censured in v. 8. All of them are in apposition to ἄδικοι , an apposition which would seem quite natural to Greeks, who were accustomed to regard δικαιοσύνη as the sum-total of virtues (Arist. Eth. Nic. v. i:15), and therefore ἀδικία as the sum-total of vices (ibid. § 19: see on Luke 13:27). Several of these forms of evil are dealt with in this Epistle (vv. 13-18, v. 1, 11, 8:10, 10:14, etc.): cf. Romans 1:27 and 3:13; Galatians 5:19, Galatians 5:20; 1 Timothy 1:10 * For Θεοῦβασιλείαν , L d e f Vulg. have the more usual βας . Θεοῦ . D* has οὐδέ throughout vv. 9, 10. οὐμέθυσοι (א A C P 17) rather than οὐτὲμέθ . (B D3 E L). L P insert οὐ before κληρονομἡσονσιν at the end of v. 10. 11. καὶταῦτάτινεςἦτε . ‘ And such dreadful things as these some of you were.’ While the neuter indicates a horror of what has been mentioned, the τινες and the tense lighten the sad statement. Not all of them, not even many, but only some, are said to have been guilty; and it is all a thing of the past. Cf. ἦτε in Romans 6:17. ἀλλά . The threefold ‘ But’ emphasizes strongly the contrast between their present state and their past, and the consequent demand which their changed moral condition makes upon them. ἀπελούσασθε . Neither ‘ ye are washed’ (AV.), nor ‘ ye were washed’ (RV.), nor ‘ ye washed yourselves’ (RV. marg.), but ‘ ye washed them away from you,’ ‘ ye washed away your sins’ ; exactly as in Acts 22:16, the only other place in N.T. in which the compound verb occurs; ἀναστὰςβάπτισαικαὶἀπόλουσαιτὰςἁμαρτίαςσου . Their seeking baptism was their own act, and they entered the water as voluntary agents, just as St Paul did. Cf. 2 Timothy 2:21. ἡγιἀσθητε , ἐδικαιώθητε . The repetitions of the aorist show that these verbs refer to the same event as ἀπελούσασθε . The crisis, of which their baptism was the concrete embodiment, had marked their transition from the rule of self to the service of God (consecration), and from the condition of guilty sinners to that of pardoned children of God (justification). Neither of the verbs here is to be taken in the technical theological sense which each of them sometimes bears: cf. ἅγιοι (1:2) and ἡγίασται (7:14). Here ἐδικαιώθητε forms a kind of climax, completing the contrast with ἄδικοι (v. 9). The new life is viewed here as implicit in the first decisive turn to Christ, which again was inseparably connected with their baptism. Cf. Romans 6:7. ἐντῷὀνόματιτ . κ . Ἰ . Χρ . As in Acts 2:38, Acts 2:10:48; cf. εἰςτὸὀν ., Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5.Matthew 28:19 is the only passage in which the Trinitarian form is found. See Hastings, DB. 1. p. 241 f. This passage is remarkable as being an approach to the Trinitarian form, for ἐντῷΠνεύματι is coupled with ‘ in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ,’ and τοῦΘεοῦ is added; so that God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit are all mentioned. But it is doubtful whether this verse can be taken as evidence of a baptismal formula. Godet certainly goes too far in claiming it as implying the use of the threefold Name (see on Matthew 28:19). But it is right to take ἐντῷὀνόματικ .τ .λ . with all three verbs. Cf. “ saved in His Name” (Enoch, 48:7). B C P 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. insert ἡμῶν after τοῦΚυρίου : א A D E L omit. It is not easy to decide. א B C D* E P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. insert Χριστοῦ after Ἰησοῦ : A D3 L omit. The word is probably genuine. In both cases the evidence of C is not clear: there is space for the word, but it is not legible. 6:12-20. THE SUBJECT OF IN THE LIGHT OF FIRST Christian freedom is not licentiousness. Our bodies were not made for unchastity. The body is a temple of the Spirit. 12 Perhaps I may have said to you at some time; In all things I can do as I like. Very possibly. But not all things that I may do do me good. In all things I can do as I like, but I shall never allow anything to do as it likes with me. 13 I am not going to let myself be the slave of appetite. It is true that the stomach and food were made for one another. Yet they were not made to last for ever: the God who made them will put an end to both. But it is not true that the body was made for fornication. The body is there to serve the Lord, and the Lord is there to have the body for His service: 14 and as God raised Him from the dead, so will He also raise us up by His own power. 15 Is it that you do not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away from Christ members which are His and make them members of a harlot? Away with so dreadful a thought! 16 Or is it that you do not know that the union of a man with his harlot makes the two to be one body? I am not exaggerating; for the Scripture says, The two shall become one flesh. 17 But the union of a man with the Lord makes the two to be one spirit. 18 Do not stop to parley with fornication: turn and fly. In the case of no other sin is such grievous injury done to the body as in this case: the fornicator sins against his own body. 19 Does that statement surprise you? Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who makes His home in you, being sent for that very purpose from God? And, what is more, you are not your own property, but God’ s. He paid a high price for you. Surely you are bound to use to His glory the body which He has bought. 12-20. St Paul now passes to a fourth matter for censure. He has already taken occasion, in connexion with a specially flagrant case of πορνεία , to blame the lack of moral discipline in the community. He now takes up the subject of πορνεία generally, dealing with it in the light of first principles. The sin was prevalent at Corinth (v. 9, 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21), and was virtually condoned by public opinion in Greece and in Rome. Moreover, the Apostle’ s own teaching as to Christian liberty (Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14) had been perverted and caricatured, not only by opponents (Romans 3:8), but also by some ‘ emancipated’ Christians at Corinth itself. The latter had made it an excuse for licence. He proceeds now to show the real meaning and scope of Christian liberty, and in so doing sets forth the Christian doctrine of the body as destined for eternal union with Christ. 12. πάνταμοιἔξεστιν . These are St Paul’ s own words (see on 10:23). They may have been current among the Corinthians as a trite maxim. If so, the Apostle here adopts them as his own, adding the considerations which limit their scope. More probably they were words he had used, which were well known as his, and which had been misused by persons whom he now proceeds to warn. Of course, πάντα is not absolute in extent: no sane person would maintain that it was meant to cover such things as πορνεία and justify πανουργία . It covers, however, a very great deal, viz. the whole of that wide range of things which are not wrong per se. But within this wide range of things which are indifferent, and therefore permissible, there are many things which become wrong, and therefore not permissible, in view of principles which are now to be explained. μοιἔξεστιν . Saepe Paulus prima persona singulari eloquitur, quae vim habent gnomes; in hac praesertim epistola, v. 15, 7:7, 8:13, 10:23, 29, 30, 14:11 (Beng.). The saying applies to all Christians. On its import see J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus, PP. 51, 52. ἀλλ ʼ οὐπάντασυμφέρει . Liberty is limited by the law of the higher expediency, i.e. by reference to the moral or religious life of all those who are concerned, viz. the agent and those whom his conduct may influence. In this first point the Apostle is possibly thinking chiefly of the people influenced.* We have no longer any right to do what in itself is innocent, when our doing it will have a bad effect on others. Our liberty is abused when our use of it causes grave scandal. οὐκἐγὼἐξουσιασθήσομαιὑπότινος . This is the second point; really included in the higher law of expediency, but requiring to be stated separately, in order to show that the agent, quite apart from those whom his conduct may influence, has to be considered. What effect will his action have upon himself? We have no longer any right to do what in itself is innocent, when experience has proved that our doing it has a bad effect on ourselves. Our liberty is abused when our use of it weakens our character and lessens our power of self-control. St Paul says that, for his part, he ‘ will not be brought under the power of anything.’ The οὐκ is emphatic, and the ἐγώ slightly so, but very slightly: the ἐγώ is rendered almost necessary by the preceding μοι . We must beware of using liberty in such a way as to lose it, e.g. in becoming slaves to a habit respecting things which in themselves are lawful. The τινος is neuter, being one of the πάντα . The verb ἐξουσιάζειν is chosen because of its close connexion with ἔξεστι through ἐξουσία : it is frequent in LXX, especially in Ecclesiastes; in N.T., 7:4 and Luke 22:25.† This play on words cannot be reproduced exactly in English; perhaps ‘ I can make free with all things, but I shall not let anything make free with me’ may serve to show the kind of thought: mihi res non me rebus submittere conor. These two verses (12, 13) are a kind of preface to the subject of πορνεία , to show that it is not one of those things which may or may not be lawful according to circumstances. It is in all circumstances wholly outside the scope of Christian liberty, however that liberty may be defined. ‘ While many things are lawful, and become wrong only if indulged (like the appetite for food) to an extent that is harmful to ourselves or to others, fornication is not a legitimate use of the body, but a gross abuse of it, being destructive of the purpose for which the body really exists.’ 13. τὰβρώματα … τοῖςβρώμασιν . It is quite possible that some of the Corinthians confused what the Apostle here so clearly distinguishes, the appetite for food and the craving for sensual indulgence. “ We have traces of this gross moral confusion in the Apostolic Letter (Acts 15:23-29), where things wholly diverse are combined, as directions about meats to be avoided and a prohibition of fornication” (Lightfoot). The Apostles, who framed these regulations, did not regard them as on the same plane, but the heathen, for whom they were framed, did. St Paul makes the distinction luminously clear. Not only are meats made for the belly, but the belly, which is essential to physical existence, is made for meats, and cannot exist without them. There is absolute correlation between the two, as long as earthly life lasts: but no longer, for both of them will eventually be done away. When the σῶμα ceases to be ψυχικόν and becomes πνευματικόν (15:44), neither the βρώματα nor the κοιλία will have any further function, and therefore ‘ God will bring to nought’ both of them. τὸδὲσῶμαοὐτῇπορνείᾳ . No such relation exists between the σῶμα and πορνεία as between the κοιλία and Βρώματα̈ . The supposed parallel breaks down in two essential particulars. (1) The σῶμα was not made for πορνεία , but for the Lord, in order to be a member of Christ, who lived and died to redeem it. (2) The σῶμα is not, like the κοιλία , to be brought to nought, but to be transformed and glorified (Philippians 3:21). ‘ The ‘ body’ is contrasted with ‘ flesh and blood’ (15:37, 50), and the κοιλία belongs to the latter, and has only a temporal purpose, whereas the ‘ body’ has an eternal purpose. So far, therefore, from πορνεία standing to the body in the same relation as meats to the belly, it fatally conflicts with the body’ s essential destiny, which is membership with Christ. It is possible that in selecting the relation between appetite and food as a contrast to πορνεία St Paul is indirectly discouraging Judaistic distinctions of meats, or ascetic prohibitions of flesh and wine. No kind of food is forbidden to the Christian. But even if there had been no Judaizers at work in Corinth, and no tendency towards asceticism, he would probably have selected the relation between βρώματα and κοιλία for his purpose. The argument is still used, “ If I may gratify one bodily appetite, why may I not gratify another? Naturalia non sunt turpia. Omnia munda mundis.” καὶὁΚύριοςτῷσώματι . A startling assertion of perfect correction: quanta dignatio / (Beng.). The Son of God, ‘ sent in the likeness of sinful flesh,’ has His purpose and destiny, viz. to dwell in and glorify the body (Romans 8:23) which is united with Him through the Spirit (v. 17); and it is lawful to say that He is for it as well as it for Him. 14. ὁδὲΘεός . This is parallel to ὁδὲΘεός in v. 13, and puts the contrast between the two cases in a very marked way. In the case of the κοιλία , and the βρώματα to which it is related, God will reduce both of them to nothingness. In the case of the κοιλία , and the Βρώματα to which it is related, God will reduce both of them to nothingness. In the case of the σῶμα , and the Κύριος to which it is related, God has raised the Κύριος , and will raise up the σῶμα of every one who is a member of Him. The contrast between the two cases in complete. On the other hand, the close relationship between the Lord and all true Christians is shown by the doubled conjunction; καὶτὸνΚύριον … καὶἡμᾶς . See Sanday (The Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 132) on the view that it was St Paul who deified Christ. The change from the simple to the compound verb has perhaps little meaning. In late Greek, compounds do not always have any additional force, and the difference is not greater than that between ‘ raise’ and ‘ raise up.’ The compound may be used to mark the future raising as not less sure than the one which is past, and it is well to mark the difference, as RV. does. AV., with ‘ raise up’ for both, ignores the change, as does Vulg., suscitavit … suscitabit, and Iren. int. (5:6:2). The compound occurs only here and Romans 9:17 in N.T.; in LXX it is very frequent. See on ἐξαπατάτω , 3:18. διὰτῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ . This may qualify both verbs, but is more appropriate to ἐξεγερεῖ . There was need to remind the Corinthians of God’ s power, in order to confirm their belief in their own future resurrection (15:12); but no one who believed that Christ had been raised needed to be reminded of that: cf. Matthew 22:29. It is worth observing that St Paul does not take any account of the quick’ who will not need to be raised. Contrast 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:15 f.; Romans 8:11. ἐξεγερεῖ (א C D3 E,KL Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Aeth.) is probably to be preferred to ἐξεγείρει (A Dא Q, d e suscitat), or to ἐξήγειρεν (B, Am. suscitavit). ἐξεγειρεῖ (P) may be regarded as supporting either of the first two, of which ἐξεγείρει may be safely set aside. It is possible that B has preserved the original reading, for no intelligent copyist would alter ἐξεγερεῖ into ἐξήγειρεν , but an unintelligent one might assimilate the second verb to the first. If ἐξήγειρεν is regarded as original it may be explained as referring to spiritual resurrection to newness of life, or possibly as referring to our resurrection as comprised potentially in that of Christ: ‘ God both raised the Lord and (by so doing) raised up us.’ But it is unlikely that the Apostle would have obscured the cetainty of the future resurrection of the body by using language which would have encouraged Hymenæ sus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17, 2 Timothy 2:18). Qui dominum suscitavit, et nos suscitabit (Tert. Marc. v. 7). 15. οὐκοἴδατεκ .τ .λ . He presses home the principle that ‘ the body is for the Lord.’ By virtue of that principle every Christian, and every one of his members, is a member of Christ. The higher heathen view was that man’ s body is in common with the brutes, τὸσῶμακοινὸνπρὸςτὰζῶα , and only his reason and intelligence in common with the gods (Epict. Dissert. 1. iii. 1); but the Christian view is τὸσῶμαμέλοςτοῦΧριστοῦ .*. Epictetus speaks of both God and gods, and in popular language calls God ‘ Zeus.’ In this chapter he speaks of God as the father of men and gods; but, at the best, he falls far short of Christian Theism. The Christian view, which first appears here, is developed in another connexion in 12 and in Rom_12. See also Ephesians 4:15, Ephesians 4:16, Ephesians 4:5:30. ἄραςοὖν . The AV. misses a point in translating, ‘ Shall I then take the members of Christ?’ The RV. has, ‘ Shall I then take away the members of Christ?’ Αἴρειν is not simply, ‘ to take,’ which is λαμβάνειν , but either ‘ to take up,’ ‘ raise’ (Acts 27:17), or ‘ to take away’ (v. 2; Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 2:14; and nowhere else in Paul). The. verb is very common in Gospels and Acts; elsewhere rare in N.T. The Apostle assumes that union with a harlot, unlike union with a lawful wife, robs Christ of members which belong to Him. Union with Christ attaches to our body through the spirit (v. 17), and sin is apostasy from the spiritual union with Christ. This is true of all sin, but πορνεία is a peculiarly direct blow at the principle τὸσῶματῷΚυρίῳ . Quantum flagitium est, corpus nostrum a sacra illa conjunctione abreptum ad res Christo indignas transferri (Calv.). As Augustine remarks (De Civ. Dei xxi. 25), “ they cannot be at once the members of Christ and the members of a harlot.” ποιήσω . It is impossible and unimportant to decide whether ποιήσω is deliberative subjunctive or future indicative (‘ Shall I take away?’ etc.). The two aorists would mark two aspects, simultaneous in effect, of one and the same act. But the future harmonizes better with μὴγένοιτο AV., RV., Alford, Edwards, Ellicott, B. Weiss prefer the future. μὴγένοιτο . Like οὐκοἴδατε , this expression of strong dissent is frequent in this group of the Pauline Epistles (Romans, ten times; Galatians, twice; and here). Elsewhere in N.T., Luke 20:16. It is rare in LXX, and never stands as an independent sentence: Genesis 44:7, Genesis 44:17; Joshua 22:29, Joshua 22:24:16; 1Ki_20:[21] 3. It is one of several translations of the same Hebrew, another of which is ἵλεως (1 Chronicles 11:19; 2 Samuel 20:20; Matthew 16:22). Neither μὴγένοιτο nor ἕλεως is confined to Jewish and Christian writings: the former is frequent in Arrian, the latter is found in inscriptions. In Hom. Od. vii. 316 we have μὴτοῦτοφίλονΔιὶπατρὶγένοιτο , of detaining Ulysses against his wish. Cf. Di meliora. Here it expresses horror. After τὰσώματα there is the common confusion between ὑμῶν (א 3 B C D E F G K L P, Latt.) and ἡμῶν (א * A). ἆρα (P and a few cursives) or ἢἆρα (F G) cannot be regarded as more probable than ἄρας (א A B C D E, etc.); yet Baljon adopts it: ἄρας has much force, not only in marking the grievous wrong done to Christ, but also in showing the voluntary, and even deliberate, character of the act. 16. ἢοὐκοἴδατε . Again (v. 2 we have this reproachful question. The Apostle proceeds to corroborate the ποιήσωπόρνηςμέλη of v. 15. ὁκολλώμενος . The word may come from προσκολλᾶσθαι in Genesis 2:24, as in Ephesians 5:31, or possibly from Ecclus. 19:2, ὁκολλώμενοςπόπναιςτολμηρότεροςἔσται . Both the simple and the compound verb are frequent in LXX; in N.T. the compound is very rare. In both, only the passive, with reflective sense, is found. In N.T. the usual construction is the simple dat., as here. In LXX the constr. varies greatly, and there (2 Kings 18:6; cf. Ecclus. 2:3) we have κολλᾶσθαιτῷΚυρίῳ , as here, to express loyal and permanent adherence, resulting in complete spiritual union. This is placed in marked contrast to the temporary physical union which is so monstrous. The verb is frequent in Ep. Barnabas (ix. 9, x. 11, xix. 2, 6, xx. 2). ἔσονταιγάρ , φησίν , οἱδύοεἰςς . υ . The subject to be understood with φησίν must always depend upon the context. The word may introduce the objection of an opponent (2 Corinthians 10:10). In Hebrews 8:5 we must understand ‘ God.’ Here we may do the same, or (what amounts to the same) supply ἡγραφή . The εἴπῃ in 15:27, and the λέγει in 2 Corinthians 6:2, and Galatians 3:16, and Ephesians 4:8, are similar. In each case there is divine authority for the statement. The quotation is direct from the LXX, which has οἱδύο , as in Matthew 9:5; Mark 10:8; Ephesians 5:31, although it is not in the original. For εἶναιεἰς = γίνεσθαι there is perhaps no exact parallel in N.T., although the expression is frequent; 14:22; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Ephesians 1:12; Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 1:8:10; etc. In most of these cases εἰς may mean ‘ to serve as.’ It is manifest that here no distinction is to be drawn between σῶμα and σάρξ . 18. φεύγετετὴνπορνείαν . ‘ Do not stop to dispute about it: make a practice (pres. imperat.) of flying at once.’ So also of idolatry, which was so closely allied with impurity, 10:14. The asyndeton marks the urgency. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:3. πᾶνἁμάτημακ .τ .λ . The difficulty of this passage lies in the distinction drawn between ἐκτὸςτ . σώματος , the predicate of ‘ every sin that a man doeth,’ and εἰςτ . ἴδιονσῶμα , as marking the distinctive sin of the fornicator. Commentators differ greatly as to the explanation of ἐκτὸςτ . σώματος , which is the specially difficult expression. But the general meaning of vv. 13b-18 is plain. The body has an eternal destiny, τὸσῶματῷΚυρίῳ . Fornication takes the body away from the Lord and robs it of its glorious future, of which the presence of the Spirit is the present guarantee (cf. Romans 8:9-11). In v. 18 we have the sharply cut practical issue, ‘ Flee fornication.’ Clearly the words that follow are meant to strengthen the severitas cum fastidio of the abrupt imperative: they are not an anti-climax. Any exegesis which fails to satisfy this elementary requirement may be set aside; and for this reason the explanations of Evans, Meyer, and Heinrici may be passed over. It is obvious that ἐκτός and εἰς are related as opposites. The meaning of either will help to determine the meaning of the other; and the meaning of εἰςτ . ἴδιονσῶμαἁμαρτάνει is fairly certain. For ἁμαρτάνεινεἰς , by the common usage of secular and Biblical Greek, means ‘ to sin against.’ It cannot mean ‘ sin in,’ or ‘ sin by means of,’ or ‘ involve in sin.’ What then does ‘ to sin against one’ s own body’ mean? The axiom, τὸσῶματῷΚυρίῳ , καὶὁΚύριοςτῷσώματι , answers this question. To sin against one’ s own body is to defraud it of its part in Christ, to cut it off from its eternal destiny. This is what fornication does in a unique degree.* While fornication is εἰςτὸἴδονς ., other sins are ἐκτὸςτοῦς . The one phrase is the opposite of the other. What St Paul asserts of fornication he denies of every other sin. In what sense does he deny of all other sins that they are sins against a man’ s own body? If pressed and made absolute, the denial becomes a paradox. He has just told us (vv. 9, 10) thatthere are many sins which exclude their doer from the Kingdom, and which therefore deprive the body of its future life in Christ. Obviously, he is here speaking relatively, and by way of comparison. All other sins are ἐκτὸςτοῦς ., in the sense that they do not, as directly as fornication does, alienate the body from Christ, its Life and its Goal. This explanation gains in clearness if we compare the words of our Lord (Matthew 12:31), πᾶσαἁμαρτίακαὶβλασφημίαἀφεθήσεταιτοῖςἀνθρώποις · ἡδὲτοῦΠνεύματοςβλασφημίαοὐκἀφεθήσεται , κ .τ .λ . There too the language may be comparative. We know abundantly from Scripture that there is forgiveness for every sin, if rightly sought. In the first clause the Saviour does not proclaim an absolute indiscriminate amnesty for every other sin any sin, unrepented and unabsolved, is an αἰώνιονἀμάρτημα (Mark 3:29). Neither clause is to be pressed beyond its purpose to an absolute sense. But sin against the Spirit is so incomparably less pardonable than any other, that, by comparison with it, they may be regarded as venial. He who sins against the Spirit is erecting a barrier, insuperable to a unique degree, against his own forgiveness. In like manner, the words ἐκτὸςτοῦς . ἐστι are not absolutely nor unconditionally predicated of ‘ every sin which a man doeth’ :* they merely assert that other sins “ stop short of the baleful import of sensual sin” with its direct onslaught on the dominant principle, τὸσῶματῷΚυρίῳ Cf. Hosea 6:6, ‘ I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,’ which does not mean that sacrifice is forbidden, but that mercy is greatly superior. Luke 10:20, Luke 10:14:12, Luke 10:13, Luke 10:23:28 are similar. Cf. 9:10, 10:24, 33. 19. ἢοὐκοἴδατε . ‘ Or, if you cannot see that unchastity is a sin against your own body, are you ignorant that the body of each of you is a sanctuary (John 2:21) of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 2 Timothy 1:14)?’ What in 3:16 he stated of the Christian community as a whole, he here states of every member of it. In each case he appeals to facts which ought to be well known, as in vv. 2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 5:6, 9:13, 24; Romans 6:19, Romans 11:2. Excepting James 4:4, the expression is peculiar to these Epistles. Note the emphatic position of ἁγίου · : it is a Spirit that is holy that is in you.’ In the temple of Aphrodite at Corinth, πορνεία was regarded as consecration: the Corinthians are here told that it is a monstrous desecration (Findlay). Epictetus (Dis. ii. 8) says, “ Wretch, you are carrying God with you, and you know it not. Do you think I mean some god of silver or gold? You carry Him within yourself, and perceive not that you are polluting Him by impure thoughts and dirty deeds.” οὗἔχετεἀπὸΘ . The relative is attracted out of its own case, as often. Not content with emphasizing ‘ holy,’ he gives further emphasis to the preceding plea by pointing out that the indwelling Spirit is a gift direct from God Himself. Such a Spirit cannot dwell in a polluted sanctuary. Ep. of Barnabas iv. 11, vi. 15. For τὸσῶμα , A 2 L 17, Copt. Arm. have τὰσώματα , and Vulg. has membra. καὶοὐκἐστὲἑαυτῶν . ‘ I spoke of your body; but in truth the body is not your own to do as you please with it, any more than the Spirit is your own. You have no right of property in either case. Indeed, your whole personality is not your own property, for God bought you with the life-blood of His Son.’ Acts 20:28; Romans 14:8. Epictetus again has a remarkable parallel; “ If you were a statue of Phidias, you would think both of yourself and of the artist, and you would try to do nothing unworthy of him who made you, or of yourself. But now, because Zeus has made you, for this reason you do not care how you shall appear. And yet, is the artist in the one case like the artist in the other? or the work in the one case like the other?” See Long’ s translation and notes, 1. pp. 156, 157, 288. 20. ἠγοράσθητεγὰρτιμῆς . This ‘ buying with a price,’ which causes a change of ownership, is a different metaphor from ‘ paying a ransom’ , which causes freedom. There is no need to state the price; οὐκἀργυρίῳἢχρυσίῳ , ἀλλὰτιμίῳαἵματι (1 Peter 1:19, where see Hort). The Vulgate has pretio only in 7:23, but here has pretio magno, and the epithet weakens the effect. And there is no person from whom we are ‘ bought’ (Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 702). δοξάσατεδὴτ . Θ . ἐντ . σώματιὑμ . As in v. 18, we have a sharp practical injunction which carries us a great deal further, and this same injunction is given in still more comprehensive terms to close the question about partaking of idol-meats (10:31). Habitually to keep the body free from unchastity is imperative; but we must do more than that. Seeing that we belong, not to ourselves, but to God, we must use the body, in which He has placed His Spirit, to His glory. This verse goes far beyond the negative injunction in v. 18, and hence the δή enforcing the imperative, as in Acts 13:2; Luke 2:15; Judith 13:11, ‘ Ἀνοίξατε , ἀνοίξατεδὴτὴνπύλην : Hom. Od. xx. 18, Τέτλαθιδή , κραδίη . The ‘ Therefore’ of AV. and RV. is not quite right; ‘ therefore’ would be οὖν , as in 10:31: ‘ Be sure to glorify,’ ‘ I urge you to glorify’ is the force of the particle used here. א *, d e Copt. omit δή . Vulg., Tert. Cypr. Lucif. Ambrst. have glorificate (or clarificate) et portate (or tollite) deum (or dominum) in corpore vestro. Lightfoot suggests that portate (or tollite) may have arisen from a reading ἄραγε (Matthew 7:20, Matthew 7:17:26; Acts 17:27?) which was confused with ἄρατε . Marcion read δοξάσατεἄρατετὸνΘεόν , which may be mere dittography, or from ἄραδέ = ἄραδή (Nestle, p. 307). Methodius read ἆράγεδοξάσατε , omitting δή . Chrys, seems to have read δοξάσατεδὴἄρατὸνΘεόν . The addition καὶἐντῷπνεύματιὐμῶνἄτινάἐστιντοῦΘεοῦ (C 3 D 2 D 3 K L P, Syrr. A V.) is rejected by all editors. The words are wanfing in all the best witnesses and are not required for the argument. The Apostle is concerned with the sanctity of the body: the spirit is beside the mark. Lightfoot thinks that this may possibly be a liturgical insertion, like that of the doxology to the Lord’ s Prayer (Matthew 6:13) and the baptismal formula. (Acts 8:37). But the words do not occur in any liturgy that is known to us, and the addition may be due to a wish to make the conclusion less abrupt and more complete. * There may be another link. In 5:10, 11 St Paul twice brackets the πόρνος with the πλεονέκτης , and he now passes from the one to the other. It was desire to have more than one had a right to which led to this litigation in heathen courts. See on Ephesians 4:19. * Augustine (De doct. Christ. iv. 18) seems to have read ὑπὸτ . ἀδ . He has, judicari ab iniquis et non apud sanctos. Vulg. has apud with both words, as also has Augustine, Enchir. ad Laurent. 78. * To bring a lawsuit before a court of idolaters was regarded as blasphemy against the Law. † Polycarp quotes the question, ‘ Know we not that the saints shall judge the world?” as the doctrine of Paul (Phil. 11). D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 διο͂ὁλαλῶν -22 σημεῖονἐστίν is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422). E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome. * Godet remarks that Paul ne veut pas dé signer tels ou tels anges; il veut ré veiller dans Pé glise le sentiment de sa compé tence et de sa dignité , en lui rappelasit que des ê tres dune nature aussi é levé e serout un jour soumis à sa jurisdiction. See also Milligan on 1 Thessalonians 3:13, and Findlay here. * It is evident that καθίζετε is a word which is more suitable for constituting simple Christians as arbitrators than for adopting heathen magistrates, already appointed, as judges of Christians. * There is yet another way, suggested by J. C. K. Hofmann and accepted by Findlay; ‘ Well then, as for secular tribunals— if you have men that are made of no account in the Church, set these on the bench!’ The punctuation does not seem to be very probable. With the use of τούτους here we may compare τοὐτους in 16:3 and τόστον in 2 Thessalonians 3:4. * Cicero (Ad Fam, ix:25) writes to Papirius Paetus, Noli pati litigare fratres, et judiciis turpibus conflictari. א Ԡ א (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T. F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429). G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1 Corinthians 3:8-16, 1 Corinthians 6:7-14 (F). P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 ὑμᾶςὁθεός -17 περιπάτει : 12:23 τοῦσώματος -13:5 οὐλογί -: 14:23 τὸλαλεῖνμή . A good type of text in St Paul’ s Epistles. B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS. C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 ἐνἀκροβυστίᾳ -9:6 τοῦμὴἐργάζεσθαι : 13:8 παύσονται -14:40 ἀλλὰἕτερα . 17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. § § 211, 212. He says that the man who accepts injury without retaliating νενίκηκεν , while the man who brings an action against a fellow-Christian ἡττᾶται . He is worsted, has lost his cause, by the very fact of entering a law-court. Similarly, Clem. Alex. Strom. 7:14, which is a commentary on this section; “ To say then that the wronged man goes to law before the wrong-doers is nothing else than to say that he desires to retaliate and wishes to do wrong to the second in return, which is likewise to do wrong also himself.” A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum. * It is remarkable that in six verses we have four cases in which there is doubt whether the sentence is interrogative or not; vv. 3, 4, 6, 8. In this last case the interrogative is very improbable. See also on v. 13. * Origen illustrates thus; “ Let no one lead you astray with persuasive words, saying that God is merciful, kind, and loving, and ready to forgive sins” . † Duchesne thinks that there is nothing in 1 or 2 Corinthians “ to lead to the conclusion that the Apostle’ s rivals had introduced Judaizing tendencies in Corinth” (Early Hist. of the Chr. Church, p. 23). That can hardly be maintained respecting 2 Corinthians, and is very disputable about this Epistle. There is a manifest reproduction of vv. 9, 10 in Ign. Eph. 16; also in Ep. of Polycarp, 5. On the general sense of the two verses see Sanday on St Paul’ s Equivalent for the Kingdom of Heaven, JTS. July 1900, pp. 481 f. Aristot. (Eth. Nic. 7. 4. 4) says that people are called μαλακοί in reference to the same things as they are called ἀκόλαστο , viz. περὶτἀςσωμαατικαςἀπολαὐσεις : Plato (Rep. 8. 556 B) πρὸςἡδονάςτεκαὶλύπας Origen here gives the word a darker meaning. See Deissmann, Light, p. 150. He gives a striking illustration of the list of vices here and elsewhere, derived from counters in an ancient game. Each counter had the name of a vice or a virtue on it; and in the specimens in museums the vices greatly preponderate (pp. 320f.). d d The Latin text of D e e The Latin text of E f f The Latin text of F * In 10:23 f., where St Paul again twice quotes his own πάνταμοιἔξεστιν , he is certainly thinking chiefly of the people influenced. † Nowhere else does the possive occur. But in late Greek the rule that only verbs which have an accusative can be used in the passive is not observed. See Lightfoot on δογματίζεσθε (Colossians 2:20). K K (Ninth century). Codex S. Synod. xcviii. Lacks 1:1-6:13 ταύτηνκαί : 8:7 τινὲςδὲ — 8:11 ἀπέθανεν . * Origen says, μέλητότεγινεταιΧριστοῦ , ὅτεπάντακατὰτὸναὐτοῦλόγονκινοῦμεν . This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 7:1-40. AND ITS We here begin the second main division of the Epistle, if the Introduction (1:1-9) is not counted. The Apostle, in a preamble (1-7), points out that marriage is a contract, and the normal relations must be maintained, unless both parties agree to suspend them. Ideally, celibacy may be better, but that is not for every one. Then (8-40) he gives advice to different classes. Superius (5, 6) locutus fuerat de illicitis; nunc vero (7) loquitur de licitis (Atto). 7:1-7. Celibacy is Good, But Marriage is Natural As you ask me, I prefer my own unmarried condition; but for most of you it is safer to marry, and let husband and wife observe conjugal duty to one another. 1 But now, as to the questions raised in your letter to me. Continence, as you suggest, is doubtless an excellent thing. 2 But this ideal state is not for every one, and, as temptation is inevitable, and abounds at Corinth, the right remedy is that each man should have a wife of his own, and each woman a husband of her own. 3 And the marriage should be complete, each side always rendering to the other what is due. 4 A married woman cannot do as she likes respecting her own person; it is her husband’ s. And in the same manner his rights are limited by Heb_5 Abandon the attempt to combine celibacybv with matrimony. When both agree to it, continence for a limited time may be a good thing, if you have the intention of devoting yourselves the better to prayer, and then coming together again. If the time is not limited, you will be giving Satan a permanent opportunity of using your incontinence to your ruin. 6 But I give this advice rather by way of permission and indulgence than of injunction and command. 7 Still, my own personal preference would be that all men should remain unmarried, as I do myself. But people differ, and God’ s gifts differ, and each must act as God’ s gift directs him. It is clear from the words with which this section opens that the discussion of the questions which were raised in the letter sent by the Corinthians begins here. In the remaining chapters (7-16) we cannot always be sure whether he is referring to their letter or writing independently of it: but in the first six chapters there are no answers to questions asked by them. With regard to the questions discussed here, it is likely enough that every one of them had been asked in the letter. The Apostle does not write a tract on marriage; it would, no doubt, have been different if he had done so. He takes, without much logical arrangement, and perhaps just in the order in which they had been put to him, certain points which, as we can see, might easily have caused practical difficulty in such a Church as that of Corinth.* In so licentious a city some may easily have urged that the only safe thing to do was to abstain from the company of women altogether, γυναικὸςμὴἅπτεσθαι , like those condemned in 1 Timothy 4:3. Or they may have maintained that at any rate second marriages were wrong, and that separation from a heathen partner was necessary. Our Lord’ s words (Matthew 19:11, Matthew 19:12), if they were known to the Corinthians, might easily give rise to the belief that marriage was to be discouraged. Quite certainly, some forms of heathen philosophy taught this, and asceticism was in the air before the Gospel was preached. In any case, it is unlikely that disparagement of marriage was a special tenet of any one of the four parties at Corinth. No one has conjectured this of the Apollos party: but for different and very unconvincing reasons different commentators have attributed this tenet to one or other of the three parties. Still, some persons at Corinth had raised the question, “ Is marriage to be allowed?” They had not raised the question, “ Is marriage to be obligatory?” See Journ. of Th. St., July 1901, pp. 527-538. 1. Περὶδὲὧνἀγράψατε . An elliptical expression (such as is common enough) for περὶτούτων , ἅ , or περὶτούτων , περὶὧν : cf. Luke 9:36; John 7:31. Bachmann quotes from papyri, περὶὧνἔγραψας , μελήσειμοι . Note that there is no μοι after ἔραψας , and there is probably no μοι here: א B C 17, Am. RV. omit. The δέ is perhaps merely transitional; but it may intimate that the subject now to be discussed is in opposition to the one which has just been dismissed. He is passing from what is always wrong to what is generally lawful. It is putting too much meaning into the plural verb to say that we may infer from it that the letter was written in the name of the whole Church. It is probable that it was so written; but even if it came from only a few of the members, the Apostle would have to use the plural. There is nothing to show that the words which follow are a quotation from the letter, but they express what seems to have been the tone of it. Having in the two previous chapters warned the Corinthians against the danger of Gentile licentiousness, he here makes a stand against a spirit of Gentile asceticism. καλὸνἀνθρώπῳγυναικὸςμὴἅπτεσθαι . ‘ For a man,’ he does not say ‘ for a husband’ . A single life is not wrong; on the contrary, it is laudable, καλόν . This he repeats vv. 8 and 26; cf. 5:6, 9:15; Galatians 4:18. He is not dissuading from marriage or full married life; he is contending that celibacy may be good.* For those who can bear it, it may be a bracing discipline (9:24, 27): but not all can bear it. For ἅπτεσθαι see Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29; and cf. virgo intacta. 2. διὰδὲτὰςπορνείας . The plural (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21) refers to the notoriously frequent cases at Corinth. Atto paraphrases ‘ Neque enim ita volo prohibere licita, ut per illicita errent,’ and adds, Nota quia non dicitur, propter propaginem filiorum, sed propter fornicationem. To Christians who believed that the end of the world was very near, the necessity of preserving the human race from extinction would not have seemed a very strong argument. This passage is sometimes criticized as a very low view of marriage. But the Apostle is not discussing the characteristics of the ideal married life; he is answering questions put to him by Christians who had to live in such a city as Corinth. In a society so full of temptations, he advises marriage, not as the lesser of two evils, but as a necessary safeguard against evil. So far from marriage being wrong, as some Corinthians were thinking, it was for very many people a duty. The man who wrote Ephesians 5:22, Ephesians 5:23, Ephesians 5:32, Ephesians 5:33 had no low view of marriage. ἕκαστος … κ̔κάστη . This forbids polygamy, which was advocated by some Jewish teachers. τὴνὲαυτοῦγυναῖκα … τὸνἴδιονἄνδρα . The Apostle seems always to use ἑαντοῦ , ἑαντῶν , or αὐτοῦ (Ephesians 5:28, Ephesians 5:31, Ephesians 5:33) of a man’ s relation to his wife, but ἴδιος (14:35; Ephesians 5:22; Titus 2:5) of a woman’ s to her husband (1 Thessalonians 4:4 is doubtful). Does this show that he regarded the husband as the owner and the wife as being owned? Romans 14:4 somewhat encourages this. But the difference between ἑαντοῦ and ἴδιος was becoming blurred: see J. H. Moulton, Gr. 1. pp. 87 f.; Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 122 f. A few texts omit καὶἑκάστηκ .τ .λ . ἐχέτω . ‘ Have,’ not ‘ keep,’ as is clear from the use of ἀνθρώπῳ and not ἀνδρί in v. 1, where we should have had τῆςγυναικός and not γυναικός , if married people were under consideration. In vv. 12, 13, ἔχει cannot mean ‘ keeps,’ and ἐχέτω does not mean that married people are to continue to live together, but that unmarried people are to marry. The imperative is hortatory, not merely permissive. 3. τῇγυναικὶὁἀνήρ . Here he is speaking of married persons, and therefore γυναικί has the article, and we have ἀνήρ and not ἄνθρωπος . τὴνὀφειλήν . Not found in LXX, but frequent in papyri in the common sense of debt (Matthew 18:32; Romans 13:7). See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 221. ἀποδιδότω . Present imperative: the mutual recognition of conjugal rights is the normal condition, and it is not the conferring of a favour , but the payment of a debt . Cf. the change from δοῦναι (the questioners’ view) to ἀπόδοτε (Christ’ s correction) in Matthew 22:17, Matthew 22:21. τὴνὀφειλὴν (א A B C D E F G P Q 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is to be preferred to τὴνὀφειλημένηνεὔνοιαν (K L, Syrr.), or τ . ὀφ . τιμήν (Chrys.), or τ . ὀφ . τιμὴνκαὶεὔνοιαν (40), which may have been euphemisms adopted in public reading. Or they may be ascetic periphrases to obscure the plain meaning of τ . ὀφειλήν . Cf. Romans 8:7. A, Copt. Arm. omit δέ before καί . 4. ἡγυνή . It is probably not in order to mark the equality of the sexes that the order is changed: the wife is here mentioned first because she has just been mentioned in the previous verse. Equality between the sexes is indicated by using the same expression respecting both, thus correcting Jewish and Gentile ideas about women. τοῦἰδίουσώματοςοὐκἐξουσιάζει . The words involve, as Bengel points out, elegans paradoxon. How can it be one’ s own if one cannot do as one likes with it? See on 6:12. But in wedlock separate ownership of the person ceases. Neither party can say to the other, ‘ Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?’ (Matthew 20:15). By pointing out that the aim is to be, not self-gratification, but the fulfilment of a duty which each owes to the other, St Paul partly anticipates the criticism mentioned above. He raises the matter from the physical level to the moral. 5. μὴἀποστερεῖτε . After what has been stated it is evident that refusal amounts to fraud, a withholding what is owed. The pres. imperat. may mean that some of the Corinthians, in mistaken zeal, had been doing this; ‘ cease to defraud.’ Three conditions are required for lawful abstention: it must be by mutual consent, for a good object, and temporary. It is analogous to fasting. Even so, the advice is given very tentatively, εἰμήτιἄν . Temporary abstention for a spiritual purpose is advised in O.T.; Ecclesiastes 3:5; Joe 2:16; Zechariah 12:12-14:* but it is an exception for certain circumstances, not a rule for all circumstances: illud sane sciendum quia mundae et sanctae bunt nuptiae, quoniam Dei jussu celebrantur (Atto). For ἐπὶτὸαὐτό cf. 11:20, 14:23; Luke 17:35; Acts 1:15, Acts 1:2:1, 44, 47, Acts 1:4:26; for ἀκρᾰσία , Matthew 23:25. Here διὰτὴνἀκρ . is probably to be taken as co-ordinate with the clause ἵναμὴπειρ ., and as giving a second aspect of the reason for limiting the time of abstention. Aristotle made ἀκρασία a frequent term in Greek philosophy; in the Bible it is very rare. Calvin uses this verse as an argument against monasticism: temere faciunt qui in perpetuum renuntiant. To vow perpetual celibacy, without certainty of having received the necessary χάρισμα , is to court disaster. Forcing it on the clergy prevents good men from taking Orders and causes weak men to break their vow. The ἄν after ἔιμήτι is omitted in B and bracketed by WH. Before τῇπροσευχῇ , KL, Syrr. Goth. Thdrt. insert τῇνηστείᾳκαί ; a manifest interpolation similar to καὶνηστείᾳ in Mark 9:29, and νηστεύωνκαί in Acts 10:30. In all three places ascetic ideas seem to have influenced copyists, but the evidence differs in the three cases. In Mark 9:29 the words in question are omitted in א B K, a very strong combination. In Acts 10:30 the words are wanting in א A B C, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth., a much stronger combination. Here the evidence against τῇν . καί is overwhelming; א A B C D E F G 17, Latt. Copt. Aeth. The case of Mat 17:21 is not parallel to these three. The whole verse is an interpolation from Mark 9:29 after that passage had already been corrupted by the addition of καίνηστείᾳ . The practice of fasting has sufficient sanction in the N.T. (Matthew 4:2, 6:Matthew 4:16-18, Matthew 4:9:15; Mark 2:20; Luke 5:35; Acts 13:2, Acts 13:3, Acts 13:14:23), without introducing it into places where it was not mentioned by the original writers, who, moreover, would not have placed it on the same level with prayer. Fasting is an occasional discipline, prayer an abiding necessity, in the spiritual life. Stanley attributes the readings σχολάζητε (KL) for σχολάσητε (א A B C D, etc,), and συνέρχεσθε or συνέρχησθε (KLP) for ἧτε (א A B C D, etc.) to ascetic influence: σχολάζηνε would refer to general habit, ordinary and not extraordinary prayer, and ἦνε refers to what is usual, not exceptional. In commenting on these words, Origen makes a remark which is of no small liturgical interest. He quotes the case of Ahimelech, who was willing to let David have some of the shew-bread, εἰπεφυλαγμένατὰπαιδάριάἐστινἀπὸγυναικός (LXX of 1 Samuel 21:4). He assumes οὐκοἶονδὲἀπὸἀλλοτρίαςγυναικόςἀλλ ʼ ἀπὸγαμετῆς , and continues, εἴταἴναμένἄρτουςπροθέσεωςλάβῃτις , καθαρὸςεἶναιὀφείλειἀπὸγυναικός · ἴναδὲτοὺςμείζοναςτῆςπροθέσεωςλὰβῃἄρτους , ἐφ ʼ ὦνἐπικέκληταιτὸὄνοματοῦΘεοῦκαὶτοῦΧριστοῦκαὶτοῦἈγίουΠνεύματος , οὐπολλῷπλέονὀφείλειτιςεἶναικαθαρώτερος , ἴναἀληθῶςεἰςσωτηρίανλάβῃτοὺςἄρτουςκαὶμὴεἰςκρίμα . From this it is evident that “ invocation of the name of God and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit” over the elements was regarded by Origen as the essential part of their consecration. This passage is one of the few in N.T. which touch on the private devotions of Christians in the Apostolic age. See Bigg on 1 Peter 3:7, 1 Peter 4:7. 6. τοῦτοδὲλέγω . It is not clear how much the το͂νο covers; probably the whole of vv. 1-5. The least probable suggestion is that it refers solely to the resumption of married life, καὶπάλινκ .τ .λ . συνγνώμην . ‘ Concession,’ or ‘ indulgence,’ or ‘ allowance.’ * The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. and is very rare in LXX. οὐκατ ʼ ἐπιταγήν . ‘ Not by way of command’ (2 Corinthians 8:8). 7. θέλωδὲπάντας . This is in harmony with the καλὸνἀνθρώπῳ from which he started. Surroundings so licentious as the Apostle had at Ephesus and Corinth might well inspire him with a longing for universal celibacy. For a similar wish about his own condition being that of others see Acts 26:29 : in both places we have the comparative use of καί , as again in v. 8 and 10:6. ἀλλά . He admits that his own personal feeling is not decisive; indeed, is not in accordance with conditions of society which have their source in God. Here χάρισμα (see on 1:7) is used in the sense of a special gift of God, a special grace to an individual. Origen points out that if celibacy is a χάρισμα , so also is marriage, and those who forbid marriage forbid what has been given by God. ὁμὲνοὕτως . ‘ One in this direction and one in that.’ The recognition that opposite courses may each of them be right for different individuals is more fully drawn out Romans 14:1-12: and see Romans 12:6; 1 Peter 4:10. We have οὕτως … οὕτως , Judges 18:4; Jdg_2 Sam, 11:25, 17:15: it is not classical. We perphaps understand the Apostle’ s wish better if we assume that it refers, not so much to the fact of remaining unmarried, as to the possession of the gift of continence, without which it was disastrous to remain unmarried. God had given him this gift, and he wishes that all men had it: but it does not follow that every man who has this gift is bound to a life of celibacy. In the Apostle’ s day (v. 26) the χάρισμα of continency was specially valuable. Cf. Matthew 19:11. We must read θέλωδέ (א A C D F G 17, Am. Copt., Orig.) rather than θέλωγάρ (B D2 K L P, Syrr. Arm. Aeth.). The δέ marks a slight opposition to the concession just mentioned. That concession is not his own ideal; ‘ I rather wish that all men were as I myself also am.’ Failure to see this has caused the substitution of γάρ for δέ . K L, Arm. have χάρισμα before ἔχει : ἔχειχάρισμα is doubtless right: so also ὁμὲν … δ̔δέ (א * A B C D F P) rather than ὅςμὲν … ὅςδέ (א 3 K L). 7:8-40. Advice to Different Classes To the unmarried or widowed, to the married where both parties are Christians, to the married where one of the two is a heathen, I would advise, as a rule, that you should remain as you are, or as you were when you became Christians. The same principle would apply to circumcision, and also to slavery; but an opportunity for emancipation may be accepted. 8 To the unmarried and to widows I affirm it to be an excellent thing for them, if they should continue to remain single, as I also remain. 9 If, however, they have not the special gift of self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to be on fire. 10 But to those who have married as Christians I give a charge— and it is really not my charge, but Christ’ s— that a wife is not to seek divorce from her husband. 11 But if unhappily she does do this, she must remain single, or else be reconciled to her husband. In like manner a man is not to divorce his wife. 12 To those whose cases are not covered by these directions I have this to say; and I say it as my own advice, not as Christ’ s command: if any member of the Church has a wife who is not a believer, and she consents to live with him, let him not divorce her; 13 and if a wife has a husband who is not a believer, and he consents to live with her, let her not divorce her husband. 14 And for this reason: the consecration of the believing partner is not cancelled by union with an unbeliever. On the contrary, the unbelieving partner is sanctified through union with a believer. If this were not so, the children would be left in heathen uncleanness; whereas in fact, as the offspring of a Christian parent, they are holy. 15 But if, on the other hand, the unbelieving partner insists on a separation, separation let there be. No servile bondage to a heathen yoke deprives a Christian man or woman of freedom in such cases. There need be no scruples, no prolonged conflict with the unbeliever who demands separation: it is in peace of mind that we have been placed by our calling as Christians. 16 For how can you tell, O wife, whether, by keeping your heathen husband against his wish, you will be able to convert him? Or how can you tell, O husband, whether you will be able to convert your reluctant wife? 17 Still, the general principle is this: In each case let people be content with the lot which God assigned them, and with the condition in which God’ s call has come to them, and let them continue in that course so far as may be. This is the rule that I am laying down in all the Churches. 18 This principle holds good with regard to circumcision. Were you already circumcised at the time of your call? Do not attempt to efface the circumcision. Or have you been called in uncircumcision? Do not seek to be circumcised. 19 Neither the one nor the other is of any consequence. What really matters is keeping God’ s commandments, and that is vital. 20 Each one of you, I say, should be content to remain in the condition in which God called him. 21 And this applies to slavery also. Were you a slave when you were called? Do not be distressed at it; yet, if you can become free, make use of the opportunity. 22 I say that you need not be distressed at being a slave when you became a Christian: every such slave is the Lord’ s freed man. And the converse is true: he who was free when he was called is Christ’ s slave. 23 You were bought with the price of His blood, and to Him, whether you are bond or free, you belong. Cease to regard yourselves as belonging to men in the sense in which you belong to Him. 24 I repeat, Brothers, the general rule. In that state in which each man was called, let him be content to remain, remembering God’ s presence and His protecting care. 8. τοῖςἀγάμοιςκαὶγαῖςχήραις . This includes bachelors, widowers, and widows, but not unmarried girls, whose case is discussed later (25-38), and who would not have much voice in deciding the point in question. The conjecture of τοῖςχήροις for τοῖςχήροις is worth considering. A word not found elsewhere in N.T. might be changed to one that is common. ‘ Even as I’ is more in place, if men only are addressed. Ἄγαμος occurs vv. 11, 32, 34, and nowhere else in N.T. καλόν . As in v. 1, this introduces the Apostle’ s own ideal, as illustrated by his own life. As τοῖςἀγάμοις covers both single men and widowers, this passage does not tell us whether St Paul had ever been married. The very early interpretation of γνήσιεσύνζυγε (Philippians 4:3) as meaning the Apostle’ s wife (Clem. Alex. Strom. 3:6. p. 535, ed. Potter) may safely be set aside, for this passage shows that, if he ever had been married, his wife died before he wrote to the Philippians. And if he had been married then, would he not have written γνησία in addressing his wife. The argument that, as a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 26:10), he must have been a married man and a father, is not strong. This rule (Sanh. fo. 36 b), as a security for clemency, may be of later date, and κατήνεγκαψῆφον may be a figurative expression for approving of the sentence. The probability is that St Paul was never married (Tertull. De Monogam .8; Ad Uxor. 2:1). In all his writings, as also in Acts, there is no trace of wife or child.* The καί in ὡςκἀγώ , as inὡςκαὶἐμαυτόν (v. 7), is the comparative use of καί . He compares his own case with that of those whom he desires to keep unmarried, and emphasizes it. The aorist suggests a life-long and final decision. 9. εἰδὲοὐκἐγκρατεύονται . ‘ But if they have not power over themselves’ (midd.). It is doubtful whether the negative coalesces with the verb so as to express only one idea. In N.T. we more often have εἰοὐ for ‘ if not’ than εἰμή , which means ‘ unless.’ “ Where a fact has sharply to be brought out and sharply to be negatived, there εἰοὐ seems to be not only permissible, but logically correct” (Ellicott). See Burton, Moods and Tenses, § § 242, 261, 469; and compare Romans 8:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:10, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, etc. What is meant by this failure to have power over themselves is partly explained by πυροῦσθαι (present tense in both verbs). A prolonged and painful struggle seems to be intended, a condition quite fatal to spiritual peace and growth: cf. 9:25; Genesis 43:30; 1 Samuel 13:12. Elsewhere we have πυροῦσθαι of burning with grief and indignation (2 Corinthians 11:29).† The advice given here is similar to that given in v. 5, διὰτὴνἀκρασίανὑμῶν , and to the younger widows in 1 Timothy 5:11-15. κρεῖττον (א B D E) is here the better reading, κρεῖσσον in 11:17, where see note. It is not easy to decide between γαμεῖν (א A C 17) and γαμῆσαι (א 3 B C2 D E F, etc.). Editors are divided. Perhaps γαμῆσαι was changed to γαμεῖν to conform to πυροῦσθαι . But the change of tense is intelligible; ‘ better to marry once for all than to go on being on fire.’ In this Epistle, as elsewhere in N.T., the later form of the aor. is more common (vv. 33, 34) than the earlier (ἔγημα ; in v. 28 both forms occur. 10. τοῖςδὲγεγαμηκόσινπαραγγέλλω . He passes from those to whom it is still open to marry or not to marry. ‘ But to those who have already married (since they became Christians) I give command.’ To render, ‘ I pass on the order’ from Christ to you, is giving too much force to the preposition. Christ, does not ‘ pass on’ the order. The meaning is, ‘ I give the order; no, not I, Christ gives it.’ In class. Grk. παραγγέλλω is used of the military word of command: see 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 4:11; often in 2 Thess., 1 Tim., Luke, and Acts. When the Apostle gives directions on his own authority (v. 12), he says ‘ speak,’ not ‘ command.’ οὐκἐγὼ , ἀλλὰὁκύριος . Christ Himself had decided against divorce (Mark 10:9; Luke 16:18), and His Apostle repeats His teaching: see also Malachi 2:16. St Paul is distinguishing between his own inspired utterances (v. 40) and the express commands of Christ, not between his own private views and his inspired utterances. And there is no need to assume (as perhaps in 1 Thessalonians 4:15) that he had received a direct revelation on the subject. Christ’ s decision was well known. See Dobschü tz, Probleme des Ap. Zeitalters, Leipzig, 1904, p. 109; Fletcher, The Conversion of St Paul, Bell, 1910, p. 57. γυναῖκαἀπὸἀνδρός . The fact that he begins with the unusual case of a wife divorcing her husband indicates that such a thing had actually occurred or was mentioned in their letter as likely to occur. Women may have raised the question. χωρισθῆνα (א B C K L P) is certainly to be preferred to χωρίξεσθαι (A D E F G): patristic evidence is divided. 11. ἐάνδέκαὶχωρισθῇ . ‘ But if (in spite of Christ’ s command) she even goes so far as to separate herself,’ she is not to marry any other man. The divorce is her act, not her husband’ s. “ Christianity had powerfully stirred the feminine mind at Corinth (11:5, 14:34). In some cases ascetic aversion caused the wish to separate” (Findlay). With the καί compare εἰδὲκαί in 4:7. Christ had forbidden marriage with a divorced with (Luke 16:18), and His Apostle here takes the same ground. If the wife who has separated from her husband finds that, after all, she cannot live a single life, the only course open to her is to be reconciled to the husband whom she has injured. For the construction (καταλλ . c. dat.) see Romans 5:10. Like εἰδὲὁἄπιστος (v. 15) and ἀλλ ʼ εἰδύνασαι (v. 21), this ἐὰνδὲκαὶκ .τ .λ is a parenthesis to provide for an exceptional case. He then continues the Lord’ s command, that ‘ a husband is not to put away his wife.’ * St Paul, like our Lord, forbids divorce absolutely: πορνεία in the wife is not mentioned here as creating an exception; and it is possible that this exception (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:19:9; see Allen and Plummer ad loc.) was unknown to the Apostle, because it had not been made by Christ. 12. τοῖςδὲλαιποῖς . Having spoken of those converts who were still unmarried, and of those who had married since their conversion, he now treats of those who belonged to neither class. There were some who had married before their conversion and now had a heathen wife or a heathen husband. Were they to continue to live with their heathen partners? Yes, if the heathen partner consents to the arrangement. St Paul elsewhere uses οἱλοιποί of a remainder which is wholly or largely heathen (Ephesians 2:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 1 Thessalonians 5:6). λέγωἐγώ , οὐχὁΚύριος . This is the right order (א A B C P 17), not ἐγὼλέγω (D E F G). He means that he is not now repeating the teaching of Christ, who is not likely to have said anything on the subject. He does not mean that he is speaking now, not with Apostolic authority, but as a private individual. All his directions are given with the inspiration and power of an Apostle, and he speaks with confidence and sureness. He applies Christ’ s ruling as far as it will reach in the case of a mixed union. The Christian party must certainly not dissolve the marriage, if the heathen party does not desire to do so. γυναῖκαἔχειἄπιστον . Here ἔχει must mean ‘ has,’ not ‘ keeps,’ ‘ retains,’ and this shows the meaning of ἐχέτω in v. 2. It is the case of a Christian with a heathen wife whom he married when he himself was an unbeliever. συνευδοκεῖ . ‘ Agrees in being content.’ The compound verb (Romans 1:32) indicates mutual consent, implying that more than one person is satisfied (Acts 22:20); often with a dative of the thing in which agreement is found (Luke 11:48; Acts 8:1; Act_2 Mac. 11:24). μὴἀφιέτωαὐτήν . AV. has ‘ let him not put her away’ here, and ‘ let her not leave him’ in v. 13: RV. has ‘ leave’ in both places. Perhaps ‘ put away’ would be better in both, as St Paul is speaking of divorce. As in v. 11, ἀφιέΝαι = ἀπολύειν , which in class. Grk. would be ἀποπέμπειν . Vulg. has dimittat throughout. 13. καὶοὗτος . The pronoun shows that αὕτη , is the right accentuation in v. 12. Here some inferior texts read αὐτός instead of οὗτος , and αὐτόν instead of τὸνἄνδρα . The latter term has point, because it was a strong measure for a wife to try to divorce her husband. But the Apostle puts both sexes on a level by using ἀφιέτω , which is more commonly used of the husband, of both. 14. ἡγίασται . This refers to the baptismal consecration (1:2, 6:11), in which the unbelieving husband shares through union with a Christian wife. The purity of the believing partner overpowers the impurity of the unbelieving one (Chrys.), so that the union is pure and lawful; there is no profanation of matrimony. The principle εἰςσάρκαμίαν holds good in mixed marriages (6:16), but not to the detriment of the believing partner; as an unlawful union desecrates, so a lawful union consecrates: pluris enim est pietas unius ad conjugium sanctificandum, quam alterius ad inquinandum (Calv.). But he goes beyond what is written when he adds, interea nihil prodest haec sanctificatio conjugi infideli.* Note the ἐν in both cases; the Christian partner is the sphere in which the sanctification takes place, and the heathen partner may be influenced by that sphere. There is no such intolerable difference of sphere as to necessitate dissolution of the marriage. ἐπεὶἄρα . ‘ Since it would then follow,’ i.e. if it was the impurity of the heathen partner which prevailed on the analogy of Hag 2:11-13; there it is uncleanness that is communicated, while consecration is not communicated. The Apostle argues back from the children to the parents. The child of a parent who is ἅγιος must ipso facto be ἅγιος : that he assumes as axiomatic. He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not ἅγιος till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism. He argues from the fact that the Corinthians must admit that a Christian’ s child is ‘ holy.’ Consequently, it was born in wedlock that is ‘ holy.’ Consequently, such wedlock need not be dissolved. But he is not approving such wedlock. Marriages with heathen are wrong (2 Corinthians 6:14). But, where they have come into existence through the conversion of one partner in a heathen marriage, the Christian partner is not to seek divorce. D E F, Latt. add τῇπιστῇ after γυναικί , א A B C K L P omit. ἀδελφῷ (א A B C D E F G P 17, Copt. RV.) is to be preferred to ἀνδρί (א 3 D3 K L, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. AV.), an unintelligent gloss by one who did not see the point of ἀδελφῷ and wanted to make the usual balance to the preceding γυναικί Vulg., Iren. Tert. add τῷπιστῷ to ἀνδρί , making it equivalent to ἀδελφῷ . For νῦνδέ , D E F G have νυνί , which at the beginning of a clause is always in N.T. followed by δέ . With the argumentative use of ἐπεί , ‘ since, if that were so,’ cf. 15:29 and see not on Romans 3:6. In v. 10, 11, we have a similar ἐπεί followed by νῦν , as here. See Burton, Moods and Tenses, § § 229, 230. 15. εἰδὲὁἄπιστοςχωρίζεται . ‘ But if it is the unbeliever that is for separating.’ The emphasis is on ὁἄπιστος , and the present tense indicates the heathen partner’ s state of mind. What follows shows that ὁἄπιστος , covers both sexes, and in such cases the Apostle has no injunction to give to the unbeliever. ‘ For what have I to do with judging them that are without’ ? (5:12); so the responsibility rests with them, and they may do as they please, χωριζέσθω . If, therefore, the heathen partner seeks divorce, the Christian partner may consent. The Christian partner is under no slavish obligation to refuse to be set free. Just to this extent the law against divorce has its limits. Marriages between Jews ought not to be dissolved, and marriages between Christians ought not to be dissolved; but heathen marriages stand on a different basis. These ought to be respected as long as possible, even when one of the parties becomes a Christian. But if the one who remains a heathen demands divorce, the Christian is not bound to oppose divorce. In such matters the Christian οὐδεδούλωται , has not lost all freedom of action; independence still survives. We cannot safely argue with Luther that οὐδεδούλωται implies that the Christian partner, when divorced by the heathen partner, may marry again. And Luther would have it that this implies that the Christian partner, when divorced by “ a false Christian,” may marry again. Who is to decide whether the Christian is “ false” or not? And the principle, which is far older than Luther, that “ reverence for the marriage-tie is not due to one who has no reverence for the Author of the marriage-tie” will carry one to disastrous conclusions. Basil (letter to Amphilochius, Canonica Prima, Ep. clxxxviii. 9) does not write with precision. All that οὐδεδούλωται clearly means is that he or she need not feel so bound by Christ’ s prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathen partner insists on separation. ἐνδὲεἰρήνῃκέκληκενὑμᾶς . ‘ It is in an atmosphere of peace that God has called you.’ This is ambiguous. To what is the ‘ peace’ opposed? If to bondage, which seems natural, then the meaning will be that to feel bound to remain with a heathen partner, who objects to your remaining, would violate the peace in which you were called to be a Christian. If ‘ peace’ is opposed to separation, then the meaning will be that you ought to do your utmost to avoid divorce. The former is probably right: cf. Colossians 3:15. Heathen animus against Christianity would greatly increase the difficulty of insisting upon living with a heathen who was anxious for a divorce. In such a state of things Christian peace would be impossible. With ἐνεἰρήνῃ compare ἐνἁγιασμῷ , 1 Thessalonians 4:7. The δέ supplies the positive complement to the negative οὐδεδούλωται . Editors are much divided as to whether ὑμᾶς (א * A C K, Copt.) or ἡμᾶς (א 3 B D E F, Latt. Syrr. AV. RV.) is the better reading. 16. τίγὰροἶδας , γύναι . As in v. 15, the case of the heathen husband desiring to divorce his Christian wife is uppermost, although the other case is also considered. And this verse is as ambiguous as the concluding part of v. 15. Either, ‘ Do not contend against divorce on the ground that, if you remain, you may convert your heathen partner; for how do you know that you will do that?’ Or (going back to μὴἀφιέτω in 13, 14, and treating 15 as a rare exception to the almost universal rule), ‘ Avoid divorce, for it is possible— you never know— that you will convert your heathen partner.’ This latter interpretation involves the rendering, ‘ How knowest thou whether thou wilt not save?’ See the LXX of Est 4:14; Joe 2:14; Jonah 3:9; 2 Samuel 12:22. On the ground that these four passages express a hope rather than a doubt, Lightfoot prefers the interpretation that the chance of saving the unbelieving partner is “ worth any temporal inconvenience.” So also Findlay. But the other interpretation is probably right. The sequence of thought is then quite clear. ‘ If the unbeliever demands divorce, grant it: you are not bound to refuse. If you refuse, you will have no peace. The chance of converting your heathen spouse is too small a compensation for a strained and disturbed life, in which Christian serenity will be impossible.’ To call the latter “ temporal inconvenience” is a serious understatement. See Stanley. For σώζειν see Romans 11:14; 1 Timothy 4:16; and for the history of the idea, Hastings, DB. IV. pp. 360 f.; DCG. II. P. 556. The εἰμή (v. 17) is almost decisive for this view. 17. This verse may be taken either as a summing up of what has just been stated, or as a fresh starting-point for what is to follow (18-24). It states the general principle which determines these questions about marriage, and this is afterwards illustrated by the cases of circumcision and slavery. Conversion to Christianity must make a radical change in the moral and spiritual life, but it need not make any radical change in our external life, and it is best to abide in the condition in which the call came to us. Therefore the Christian partner must not do anything to bring about a dissolution of marriage, any more than the Christian slave must claim emancipation. But if the heathen party insists on dissolution, or grants emancipation, then the Christian may accept freedom from such galling ties.* Εἰμὴἑκάστῳὡςμεμέρικενὁκύριος , ἕκαστονκ .τ .λ . ‘ Only as our Lord has appointed to each, as God has called each, so let him walk.’ In both clauses ‘ each’ is emphatic; and while the assignment of circumstances to each individual is attributed to Christ, the call to become a believer comes from the Father, as in Romans 8:28. The εἰμή (introducing an exception or correction) defines and limits the somewhat vague ‘ is not under bondage in such cases.’ There remains some obligation, viz. not to seek a rupture. One is not in all cases free to depart, simply because one cannot be compelled to stay. But nothing is here said against the improvement of one’ s circumstances after embracing Christianity. What is laid down is that, unless one’ s external condition of life is a sinful one, no violent change in it should be made, simply because one has become a Christian. One should continue in the same course , glorifying God by a good use of one’ s opportunities; status, in quo vocatio quemque offendit, instar vocationis est (Beng.). This general principle seems to the Apostle so important that he states that he has established it in all the Churches under his care, and then goes on to illustrate it by two frequent examples of its application. On περιπατεῖν and ἀναστρέφειν of daily conduct, see Hort on 1 Peter 1:15 and Lukyn Williams on Galatians 1:13. See on 3:3. The verse reads better as a fresh starting-point (WH., Way, Weymouth, B. Weiss) than as a summary of what precedes (Alford, Ellicott). But even if the latter arrangement be adopted, there is no close connexion between vv. 16 and 17. Some join εἰμή with εἰτὴνγυναῖκασώσεις , ‘ whether thou shalt save thy wife, whether not.’ But that would require ἢοὐ , as in Matthew 22:17. Others understand χωρίζεται after εἰμή , ‘ If he does not depart’ ; others again understand σώσεις , ‘ If thou shalt not save her.’ This makes very bad sense, and would almost certainly require εἰδὲμή . Theodoret runs the two verses into one sentence, ‘ How knowest thou … except in so far as our Lord has apportioned to each?’ This is very awkward, and gives no good sense. ‘ Only’ or ‘ Save only’ is the best translation of εἰμή . It introduces a caution with regard to what precedes, and this forms a preface to what follows. St Paul is opposing the restless spirit and desire for further change which the Gospel had excited in some converts. καὶοὑτως … διατάσσομαι . As in 11:34; Titus 1:5; Acts 24:23, we have the middle; in 9:14, 16:1 he uses the active. This is evidently spoken with Apostolic authority, and it indicates that the restlessness and craving for change, against which he here contends, was common among Christians. He lets the Corinthians know that they receive no exceptional treatment, either in the way of regulations or privileges. This checks rebelliousness on the one hand and conceit on the other. Odiosum fuisset Corinthiis arctiore vinculo quam alios constringi (Calv.). Cf. 4:17. ought we to read μεμέρικεν (א B) or ἐμέρισεν (א 3 A C D, etc.)? Aor. might he changed to perf. to haxmonize with κέκληκεν , and perf. (being less common) might be changed to aor. The perf. is preferable. Certainly ὁΚύριος … ὁΘεός (א A B C D E F) is to be preferred to ὁΘεός … ὁΚύριος (K L). Elsewhere it is God who calls (1 Thessalonians 4:7; Romans 4:17, Romans 4:8:30; 2 Timothy 1:9), while the Lord distributes the gifts (12:5; Ephesians 4:11). D F, Latt. substitute διδάσκω for διατάσσομαι . 18. Περιτετμημένοςτιςἐκλήθη . The sentence is probably interrogative (AV., RV.), not hypothetical (Tyndale). The sense is much the same. A man who was circumcised before conversion is not to efface the signs of his Judaism. Jews did this sometimes to avoid being known as Jews in gymnastic exercises in the palaestra (1 Macc. 1:15; Joseph. Ant. XII. V. I).* And an uncircumcised Gentile is not to seek circumcision; Galatians 5:2, Galatians 5:3; Acts 15:1, Acts 15:5, Acts 15:19, Acts 15:24, Acts 15:28. St Paul, while proclaiming Gentile liberty, acts as a Jew to Jews (9:20). See Dobschü tz, Probleme, p. 84. κέκληταίτις (א A B P), τιςκέκληται (D F G), τιςἐκλήθη (E K L). κέκληταιτις is doubtless right; the perf, may indicate that these cases were generally earlier, Jews converted before Gentiles. 19. ἡπεριτομὴοὐδένἐστιν , καὶἡἀκροβυστίαοὐδένἐστιν . The Apostle repeats this in two somewhat different forms in Galatians 5:6 and 6:15; ἐνγὰρΧριστῷἹ̓ησοῦοὔτεπεριτομήτιἰσχύειοὔτεἀκροβυστία , ἀλλὰπίστιςδι ʼ ἀγάπηςἐνεργουμένη , and οὔτεγὰρπεριτομήτιἐστίνοὔτεἀκροβυστία , ἀλλὰκαινὴκτίσις . Having previously proclaimed the folly of adopting circumcision, when the freedom of the Gospel was open to them, as he has just done here in simpler terms , he points out that the difference between circumcision and uncircumcision is a matter of small moment. Those who have it need not be ashamed of it, and those who have it not certainly need not seek it. “ The peculiar excellence of the maxim is its declaration that those who maintain the absolute necessity of rejecting forms are as much opposed to the freedom of the Gospel as those who maintain the absolute necessity of retaining them” (Stanley). Photius, G. Syncellus, and others say that the maxim is a quotation from an Apocalypse of Moses. It is extremely unlikely that such a principle would be contained in any Jewish book earlier than St Paul. Such a book, however, might afterwards wards be interpolated by a Christian with these words of the Apostle. See Lightfoot on Galatians 6:15; Weinel, St Paul, p. 56; and consider the Apostle’ s action in circumcising Timothy and not circumcising Titus. ἀλλὰτήρησιςκ . τ . λ . ‘ But keeping of the commandments of God is everything.’ As in 3:7 and 10:24, the strongly adversative ἀλλά implies that the opposite of the previous negative is understood. In Galatians 5:6 and 6:15 the ἀλλά introduces two different things (see above), both of them different from this. Of all three of them we may say, in his stat totus Christianismus (Beng).* Τήρησιςἐντολῶν occurs Ecclus. 32:23, τηρ . νοηων , Wisd. 6:18: τηρεῖντὰςἐντολάς , Matthew 19:17; 1 Timothy 6:14; 1 John 2:3, where see Westcott. On ἐντ . Θεοῦ see Deissmann, Light, p. 381. 20. Repetition of the principle laid down; ‘ In the secular surroundings of the calling in which he is called, in these let him, abide’ ; and ἐνταύτῃ emphasizes the charge to make no change of condition.† In N.T., κλῆσις is almost exclusively Pauline, and it means either the act of calling (Philippians 3:14) or the circumstances in which the calling took place (1:26 and here): it does not mean ‘ vocation.’ Lightfoot quotes Epictetus (i. 29 § 46), μάρτυςὑπὸτοῦΘεοῦκεκλημὲνος , and (§ 49) ταῦταμέλλειςμαρτυρεῖνκαὶκαταισχύνειντὴνκλῆσινἣνκέκληκεν [ὁΘεός ]. 21. δοῦλοςἐκλήθης . ‘ Wast thou a slave when thou wast called? Do not mind that.’ A slave can be a good Christian (Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22; Titus 2:9). Thackeray quotes the iambic line in Philo, Quod omn. prob. Liber 7, δοῦλοςπέφυκας ; οὐμέτεστίσοιλόγου . Here again, the clause might be either interrogative or hypothetical. ἀλλ ʼ εἰκαὶ … μᾶλλονχρῆσαι . ‘ But still, if thou canst also become free, rather make use of it than not.’ The καί affects δύνασαι , not εἰ : ‘ if thou art also able to become free as well as to remain a slave’ ; if the one course is as possible as the other; then what? It is remarkable that the Apostle’ s advice is interpreted in opposite ways. He says, ‘ Rather make use of it.’ Make use of what? Surely, τῷδύνασθαιἐλεύθεροςγενέσθαι , the possibility of becoming free. This was the last thing mentioned; and ‘ make use of’ suits a new condition better than the old condition of slavery. Still more decidedly does the aorist. imply a new condition. The advice, thus interpreted; is thoroughly in keeping with the Apostle’ s tenderness of heart and robustness of judgment. ‘ Do not be miserable because you are a slave; yet, if you can just as easily be set free, take advantage of it rather than not.’ He regarded marriage as a hindrance to the perfection of the Christian life (vv. 32-35). Was not slavery, with its hideous temptations, a far greater hindrance?* Nevertheless, various commentators, ancient and modern, insist on going back to δοῦλος for the dat. to be supplied with χρῆσαι and understand τῇδουλείᾳ . Utere servitute quasi re bona et utili: servitus enim valet ad humililatem servandam et ad patientiam exercendam (Herv.) It is urged that in this way the Apostle remains consistent with his rule, ‘ Abide in the calling in which thou wast called.’ But ἀλλ ʼ εἰκαὶ … χρῆσαι is a parenthetic mitigation given in passing; like ἐὰνδὲκαὶ … καταλλαγήτω in v. 11, it mentions a possible exception. The meaning will then be, ‘ Slavery is not intolerable for a Christian, but an opportunity for emancipation need not be refused.’ The Christian slave is not to rebel against a heathen master, any more than a Christian wife against a heathen husband; but if the heathen is ready to grant freedom, the Christian slave, like the Christian wife, may take it without scruple. For this view, which is that of Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, and Beza, see Evans, Lightfoot, and Goudge; for the other, which is that of Bengel, Meyer, De Wette, and Edwards, see Alford, Ellicott and Schmiedel; but Schmiedel admits that χρῆσαι , if τῇδουλείᾳ is to be understood, hat allerdings etwas Seltsames. 22.. ὁγὰρἐνκυρίῳκληθεὶςδοῦλος . ‘ For he who, while in slavery, was called to be in the Lord is the Lord’ s freedman.’ † Or we may take ὁ with δοῦλος , ‘ For the slave who was called in the Lord’ ; but the next clause is against this. A slave ‘ called in the Lord’ is in relation to Christ a freedman: ἀπελεύθερος , like libertus, is a relative term, used c. gen. of the emancipator. Although in his secular condition he remains a slave, in his spiritual condition he has been set free: he is κλητὸςἅγιος (1:1), and is free from the bondage of sin (Romans 6:6). There is no hint here that his master, if he were a Christian, would be sure to set him free; and even Philemon 1:21 does not imply that. See Harnack, Mission and Expansion, 1. pp. 167 f.; Deissmann, Light, PP. 323, 326-333, 382, 392. ‘ In like manner, he that was called being free is Christ’ s slave’ ; or, ‘ the free man by being called is Christ’ s slave,’ he can no longer do as he likes to his own hurt; he is bound to obey his new spiritual Master and Lord. Such a bondservant of Christ was the Apostle himself, and he gloried in the fact (Romans 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:1). Nowhere else in the Bible is ἀπελεύθερος found. K L, Copt. Aeth. Arm. add καί after ὁμοίως : D E F G add δὲκαί : א A B P 17, Vulg. omit. καί or δὲκαὶ is usual after ὁμοίως , and hence the insertion; but here neither is required. 23. τιμῆςἠγοράσθητε . This recalls 6:20 and applies it to both classes. The social slave, who has been set free by Christ, and the social freeman, who has become enslaved to Christ, have alike been bought by God, and are now His property. In one sense Christ’ s death was an act of emanicipation, it set free from the thraldom of sin; in another sense it was a change of ownership.* It is a mistake to suppose that the words are addressed only to those who are socially free, charging them not to lose their freedom. Such a charge would be superfluous. Moreover, the change from the singular to the plural intimates that both classes are now exhorted. See below. In commenting on this verse, Origen lets us know that he was not the first to comment on this Epistle. He speaks of what οἱλοιποὶἑρμηνευταί say on the subject. See on 9:20. μὴγίνεσθεδοῦλοιἀνθρώπων . ‘ Do not become, do not show yourselves to be, bondservants of men.’ The words are obscure. It is very improbable that the prohibition is addressed to those who are free, and that it forbids them to sell themselves into slavery. Such a prohibition could not be needed. Moreover, the change from the and pers. sing. to the and pers. plur. shows that he is now addressing all his converts. Origen strangely interprets the slavery as meaning marriage, in which neither partner τοῦἰδίουώματοςἐξουσιάζει , and from which both partners should seek freedom ἐκσυμφώνου . The bondage must mean ‘ some condition of life which is likely to violate God’ s rights of ownership’ (Leviticus 25:42, Leviticus 25:55). The interpretation, ‘ Do not become enslaved to any party-leader,’ is remote from the context. More probably, ‘ Do not let social relations or public opinion or evil advisers interfere with the absolute service which is due to Him who bought you with His Son’ s blood.’ 24. The general principle is stated once more with the addition of παρὰΘεῷ . This may mean ‘ in the presence of God,’ or ‘ in God’ s household,’ or ‘ on God’ s side.’ The last agrees well with μενέτω , and makes a good antithesis to ἀνθρώπων : ‘ let your attachments be heavenwards, not earthwards.’ With that proviso, all secular conditions, whether of family life, or caste, or service, are capable of being made the expression of a Christian character. Deissmann, Light, p. 330. 7:25-40. Respecting unmarried women, the transitory and trying character of the present world is against a change of condition. The unmarried state leaves people more free for God’ s service. 25 With regard to unmarried daughters, I have no charge from the Lord to pass on to you; but I offer my opinion as that of a man who through the Lord’ s mercy is not unworthy of your confidence, and who perhaps knows Christ’ s mind, although he cannot quote any words of His. 26 Well then, I think that owing to the distressful times that are upon us, it is an excellent thing for people to remain as they are. 27 Are you united to a wife? Do not seek to be freed from the tie. Are you at present free from this tie? Do not seek to be bound by it. But if you do marry, you have committed no sin; 28 and if a maiden marries, she has committed no sin. Yet people who make these ties are sure to have increased affliction in the affairs of this life. But I, as your adviser, would spare you this, if I could. 29 This, however, I do affirm, Brothers. The time allowed before the Advent is now very narrow. This means that henceforth those who have wives should serve as strictly as those who have none, 30 that those who weep should live as though no sorrow disturbed them, those who are enjoying life as not absorbed in their enjoyment, those who buy as not taking full possession, 31 and those who use this world as not eager to use it to the full: for transitory indeed is the outward fashion of this world. 32 Yet I want you to be free from the anxieties which the world produces. When a man is unmarried, he is anxious about our Lord’ s interests, studying how he may please our Lord; 33 but when once he is married, he is anxious about worldly interests, studying how he may please his wife. 34 Parted also by a similar division of interests are the married and the unmarried woman (?). For the unmarried woman is anxious about our Lord’ s interests, striving hard to be holy both in body and in spirit; but when once she is married, she is anxious about worldly interests, studying how she may please her husband. 35 Now I am saying all this simply for your own spiritual profit. I have no wish to throw a halter over you and check Christian liberty. On the contrary, I want you to choose what is seemly, and, like Mary, to wait upon our Lord without Martha’ s distractions. 36 That is my opinion; but there are limitations. If a father think that the way in which he is acting towards his unmarried daughter is not seemly, because she has long since reached a marriageable age and ought now to marry without delay, seeing that her nature seems to require it,— he must do as be thinks best. There is nothing sinful in it; let the marriage take place. 37 But when a father has settled convictions that a single life is best for his daughter, and has no need to surrender these, but has full right to carry out his own wishes, and has decided in his own mind to do so,— he will act rightly if he keeps his daughter free. 38 It comes to this, therefore, that both of them act rightly. The father who gives his child in marriage does well, and he who does not do so will be found to have done still better. 39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if he is dead, she is free to marry any one she pleases, provided it be in holy matrimony with a Christian. 40 But a widow is a happier woman if she abides as she is to the end, according to my judgment. And I believe that I, no less than others, can claim to have the guidance of God’ s Spirit. 25. Περὶδὲτῶνπαρθένων . It is clear from the use of παρθένος in vv. 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, that the word here applies to women only; contrast Revelation 14:4. On this subject no traditional teaching of Christ had reached the Apostle (v. 10); he could not frame a judgment partly based upon His teaching (v. 12); nor did he feel justified in giving an independent Apostolic decision (v. 17), for the responsibility of deciding must rest with the father. He is willing, however, to state his own opinion; and he intimates that his wonderful conversion and call are strong evidence that the opinion of one who has been so divinely favoured is worthy of trust. As in 1 Peter 2:10 (see Hort), ήλεημένος is used “ in reference to the signal mercy of the gift of the Gospel” ; and this in his case included the call to be an Apostle. We have a similar use of ἠλεήθημεν in 2 Corinthians 4:1, and of ἠλεήθην in 1 Timothy 1:13, 1 Timothy 1:16. Here πιστός , ‘ trustworthy,’ is used as in 4:2 and 1 Timothy 1:12; cf. ἡμαρτυρὶαΚυρίουπιστή (Psalms 19:8); not as in 2 Corinthians 6:15 and 1 Timothy 4:10. We have the same contrast between ἐπιταγή and γνώμη in 2 Corinthians 8:8, 2 Corinthians 8:10. Here the Vulgate has Praeceptum and consilium to distinguish the words, which led to the later distinction between ‘ precepts’ and ‘ counsels of perfection’ (Stanley). 26. νομίζωοὖν . ‘ I think therefore.’ He does not mean that he is not sure: what is stated in v. 25 shows that οὖν introduces a decided conviction; and perhaps the use of ὑπάρχειν rather than εἶναι shows that the conviction is of long standing. He holds that this is a sound axiom to start from; it is good in principle. διὰτὴνἐνεστῶσανἀνάγκην . These words are an important qualification. The Apostle’ s opinion is determined by ‘ the present necessity,’ ‘ the straitness now upon us’ (Hebrews 9:9), owing to the disturbances and dangers which he saw; and also by the Advent which he believed to be very near (16:22), although not yet present (2 Thessalonians 2:2). We cannot assume that his opinion would have been the same in a more peaceful period, and after experience had proved that the Advent might be long delayed. For ἀνάγκη of external distress see Luke 21:23, where the meaning is very similar to the meaning here; 2 Corinthians 6:4, 2 Corinthians 6:12:10; 1 Thessalonians 3:7; Ps. Son 5:8; Testament of Joseph ii. 4. Thackeray (St Paul and Jewish Thought, pp. 105 f.) thinks that this passage may reflect Jewish beliefs in the “ Woes of the Messiah,” the birth-pangs which were to precede His Advent (2 Esdr. 5:1-12, 6:18-24, 9:1-9; Jubilees xxiii. 11-25; Assump. of Moses x. 3-6; Apoc. of Baruch xxvii. 1 f., where see Charles, xlviii. 31-39, lxx. 3-10). Lightfoot (on Galatians 1:4) contends that ἐνεστῶσαν means‘ present’ rather than ‘ imminent,’ but the difference is not great. A trouble which is believed to be near and certain is already a present distress. ὂτικαλὸνἀνθρώπῳτὸοὒτωςεἶναι . ‘ That it is good, I say, for a person so to be.’ The construction of the verse is not regular, but quite intelligible: ὅτι is ‘ that,’ not ‘ because,’ and the second καλόν picks up and continues the first. But doubt arises as to the meaning of τὸοὕτωςεἶναι . ‘ To be thus’ is vague, and ‘ thus’ may have three meanings: (1) ‘ as he is,’ i.e. he is to remain without change of condition; (2) ‘ as I am,’ or as αἱπαρθένοι are, i.e. unmarried; (3) ‘ as I now tell you,’ referring to what follows. The first is probably right; it is a repetition of the principle already given in v. 24, of which principle v. 27 is an illustration. The οὕτως in v. 40 and Romans 9:20 is similar. There is not much difference in effect between (1) and (3) Origen prefers (2), and points out that this is the fourth time (vv. 1, 8, 26 bis) that the Apostle has used καλόν of, celibacy, whereas all that he says of marriage is that it is not sin. 27. δέδεσαιγυναικί ; Like vv. 18 and 21, this may be either interrogative or hypothetical. The perfect indicates the settled condition of the marriage-tie, and γυναικί means ‘ wife,’ not ‘ woman’ : betrothal to an unmarried woman is not included. There could be no doubt about this case. The Lord had prohibited divorce; therefore μὴζήτειλύσιν , ‘ never at any time (pres. imperat.) seek freedom.’ The advice is permanent. No where else in N.T. does λύσις occur. In LXX it is used only of the solving of hard sayings (Ecclesiastes 8:1; Daniel 12:8; Wisd. 8:8). See Milligan, Greek Papyri, p. 106. λέλυσαιἀπὸγ . Here again the perfect means, ‘ Art thou in a state of freedom from matrimonial ties?’ It does not mean ‘ Hast thou been freed from a wife by death or divorce?’ The verb is chosen because of the preceding λύσιν , and bachelors as well as widowers are addressed. Here it cannot be assumed that such men are not to marry, because they were unmarried when they were called to be Christians. The Lord had not said this. But in the existing circumstances His Apostle advises this. In neither clause need we translate μὴζήτει ‘ Cease to seek,’ We do not know that any Corinthian Christians had been trying to be divorced from their wives, though probably some were trying to be married. 28. ἐὰνδὲκαὶγαμήσῃς . He at once hastens to assure those who have already done what he now advises them not to do, that they have done nothing wrong: ‘ But if it be that thou do marry.’ The καί , as in v. 11, intensifies the verb; if it has already gone as far as that. See Evans on this aorist. The ‘ and’ in ‘ but and if’ (AV., RV.) is not a translation of the καί , but an archaic reduplication of the ‘ if.’ Perhaps ‘ and if’ is a corruption of ‘ an if,’ for ‘ an’ = ‘ if,’ as in the saying ‘ If ifs and ans were pots and pans,’ In this verse we have both the later and the classical form of the aorist. But some texts (KL, Chrys.) have altered γαμήσῃς to γήμῃς , while D E F G have λάβῃςγυναῖκα , Vulg. acceperis uxorem. In 9:21, 22 we have both κερδανῶ and κερδήσω . οὐχἥμαρτες . The thought goes on to the marriage as a fact; ‘ there was no sin in that.’ This sounds incongruous in English, and we must say ‘ thou hast not sinned.’ Origen remarks that Paul does not say ἐὰνγαμήσῃς , καλόν . ἡπαρθένος . If the article is genuine, it is generic: a reference to some particular case at Corinth is not likely. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 8:1-11:1. FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 8:1-3. General Principles An idol represents nothing which really exists. Consequently, eating what is offered to such a nonentity is a matter of indifference: yet, in tenderness to the scruples of the weak, we ought to abstain from eating. 1 Now, as to the subject of food that has been offered in sacrifice to idols, we are quite aware (as you say) that we all have knowledge; we all are acquainted with the facts and understand them. But do not let us forget that knowledge may breed conceit, while it is love that builds up character. 2 If any one imagines that he has acquired knowledge, he may be sure that he has not yet attained to the knowledge to which he ought to have attained. 3 But if any one has acquired love of God, this is the man who is known by God, and God’ s recognition of him will not breed conceit. 4 Let us return then from these thoughts to the subject of eating the flesh of animals that have been sacrificed to idols. About that we are quite aware that there is no such thing in the world as the being that an idol stands for, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if so-called gods do really exist,— if you like, in heaven, or, if you like, on earth; and, in fact, there are many such gods and many such lords,— 6 nevertheless, for us there is but one God, who is the Source of all things and our Final End, and but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom the whole universe was made and through whom we were made anew. 7 Still, as I have intimated, we do not find in all men the knowledge to which you appeal. On the contrary, some of you, through being accustomed all their lives to look upon an idol as real, partake of sacrificed meat as if it were a real sacrifice to a god, and their conscience, being too weak to guide them aright, is defiled with the consciousness of having done something which they feel to be wrong. 8 But surely it is not food that will affect our relation to God: if we do not eat, we are none the worse in His sight, and if we do eat, we are none the better. 9 Always take care, however, that this freedom of yours to do as you like about eating or not eating does not become an obstacle to the well-being of the weak. 10 For if any such person sees you, who have the necessary knowledge, not only eating this meat, but sitting and eating it in the court of the idol, will not the very fact of his weakness cause his conscience to be hardened— hardened into letting him eat what he still believes to be a sacrifice to an idol? 11 This must be wrong; for it means bringing ruin to the weak man through your knowledge— ruin to the brother for whom Christ died. 12 But in thus sinning against your brethren, and in fact giving their conscience a blow which it is too weak to stand, ye are sinning against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat puts a stumbling-block in my brother’ s way, I will never eat meat again, so long as the world lasts, rather than put a stumbling-block in my brother’ s way. 1. Περὶδὲτῶνεἰδωλοθύτων . St Paul is probably following the order of the Corinthians’ questions, but the connexion between this subject and the advisability of marriage (7:2-5, 9, 36) is close. Impurity and the worship of idols were closely allied (Revelation 2:14, Revelation 2:20), especially at Corinth, and either evil might lead to the other (see Gray on Numbers 25:1, Numbers 25:2). By τὰεἰδωλόθυτα is meant the flesh that was left over from heathen sacrifices. This was either eaten sacrificially, or taken home for private meals, or sold in the markets (4 Macc. 5:2; Acts 15:29, Acts 15:21:25; Revelation 2:14, Revelation 2:20). In 10:28 we have ἱερόθυτον , which, like θεόθυτον , gives the heathen point of view.* οἴδαμεν . See Romans 2:2, Romans 3:19, and Evans on 1 Corinthians 8:1, additional note, p. 299. The expression is frequent in Paul. πάντεςγνῶσινἒχομεν . Perhaps a quotation, made with gentle irony, from the Corinthians’ letter. See Moffatt, Lit. of N.T. p. 112. They had claimed enlightenment— so dear to Greeks— on this subject of the true nature of idol-worship. They knew now that there were no gods; the worship of them was a nullity. The Apostle does not dispute that, but enlightenment is not everything: and in the gift which is better than enlightenment the Corinthians are lacking. Some commentators take πάντες to mean all Christians, which has point. It can hardly mean the Apostle and all who are similarly illuminated: he is urging that knowledge is not the prerogative of a privileged few. ἡγνῶσιςφυσιοῖ . Enlightenment is not merely insufficient for solving these questions; unless it is accompanied by love, it is likely to generate pride. While love builds up, mere knowledge puffs up. Thus in Colossians 2:18 (the only place outside 1 Cor. in which the verb occurs) we have, εἰκῇφυσιούμενοςὑπὸτοῦνοόςτῆςσαρκός : The Apostle once more glances at the inflated self-complacency which was so common at Corinth (4:6, 18, 19, 5:2). ‘ Puffed up’ is just what ἀγάπη is not (13:4). Cf. τνφύομαι , 1 Timothy 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:6:4; 2 Timothy 3:4. Est genus scientiae, quo homines tumescunt; quae quia charitate non est condita, idea inflat. Ille qui putat se scire, propterea quia intelligit omnia licita, et non inquinare quod in nos intrat (Matthew 15:11, Matthew 15:20), dum ad scandalum fratris licita sumit, nondum cognovit quemadmodum oporteat eum scire (Atto). Loving consideration for the weakness of others buttresses them, and strengthens the whole edifice of the Church (Romans 14:15). Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, P. 257. ἡδὲἀγἀπηοἰκοδομεῖ . For the first time in this letter St Paul uses this verb: but οἰκοδομή occurs 3:9 and ἐποικοδομεῖν 3:10. The earliest use of it in his writings 1 Thessalonians 5:11, where he charges the Thessalonians to ‘ build up each the other,’ and it becomes one of his favourite metaphors, especially in this Epistle (v. 10, 10:23, 14:4, 17), with οἰκοδομή still more frequent. It is possible that our Lord’ s use of the metaphor of building up His Church (Matthew 16:18) may have suggested it to the Apostle; but it is a natural metaphor for any one to use. We find it in Acts 9:31, Acts 9:20:32; 1 Peter 2:5; Jude 1:20; cf. Acts 4:11. It is used of building up individuals, building up a society, and building up individuals to form a society (Hart on 1 Peter 2:5).* The metaphor is elaborately worked out Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 2:21; cf. 1 Corinthians 3:10-14. Jeremiah was set apart from his birth ἁνοικοδομεῖνκαὶκαταφυτεύειν (Jeremiah 1:10; cf. 18:9, 24:6; Ecclus. 49:7). in the hymn in praise of ἀγάπη (xiii.) this characteristic is not mentioned. Cf. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 1:3:6), τὸτέλοςἐστὶνοὐγνῶσιςἀλλὰπρᾶξις : (II. ii. I) ἡπαροῦσαπραγματείαοὐθεωρίαςἕνεκάἐστιν … ἀλλ ʼ ἵν ʼ ἀγαθοὶγενώμεθα : also x. ix. I. See Butler’ s “ Thirdly” in the Sermon on the Ignorance of Man. On ἀγάπη see Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 198 f.; Light, p. 18. The punctuation of Griesbach, Bengel, etc., ὂδαμεν · ̔́ὁτι , ‘ Now about things offered we know; because we all have knowledge,’ is intolerably harsh. It would be almost impossible in v. 4, and οἵδαμενὅτι in the two places are evidently parallel. Lachmann conjectured that the original reading was οἵδαμενὅτὶοὑπὰντεςκ .τ .λ . See Alford. St Bernard (In Canlica, xxxvi. 3) quotes Persius (1:27), Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter, in commenting on this passage, and remarks: Sunt qui scire volunt, ut sciantur ipsi; et turpis vanitas est. Et sunt qui scire volunt, ut scientiam suam vendant; et turpis quaestus est. Sed sunt quoque qui scire volunt ut aedificent; et charitas est. 2. ἕιτιςδοκεῖ . ‘ If any one fancies (existimat, Vulg.; sibi videtur, Beza) that he knows anything.’ The Corinthians fancied that they knew; ἐγνωκέναι (perf.) that they had acquired knowledge, and that the knowledge was complete. If they had had more real knowledge they would have been less confident. It is the man of superficial knowledge that is ready to solve all questions; and this readiness is evidence of want of real knowledge, for it shows that he does not know how ignorant he is. Cf. 3:18, 11:16; 1 Timothy 1:7. In οὒπω there is no reference to a future life. 3. εἰδέτιςἀγαπᾷ . This is the sure test, love; and love of the highest of all objects, which is the highest form of love,— the love of Love Itself. This is a very different thing from thinking that one knows something. οὗτοςἔγνωσταιὐπ ʼ αὐτοῦ . The sentence is ambiguous in grammar, for either pronoun may refer to the man, and either to God; but there is no reasonable doubt that οὗτος is the man, who is recognized and acknowledged by God as His. In a special sense, ‘ The Lord knoweth them that are His’ (2 Timothy 2:19; Psalms 1:6; Nahum 1:7; Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 49:1). To Moses He said, ‘ I know thee by name,’ Οἰδάσεπαρὰπάντας (Exodus 33:12, Exodus 33:17). It is in this sense that the man who loves God is known by God. We might have expected the Apostle to say, either, ‘ He who knows God is known by Him’ (Galatians 4:9), or ‘ He who loves God is loved by Him’ (1 John 4:19): but the combination of the two verbs is more telling, and more to his purpose. One who in this special sense is known by God may safely be assumed to possess what may rightly be called γνῶσις and not something which merely generates pride. He has the highest recognition of all in being known by God, and is not eager to show off in order to gain the recognition of men. Ille veram habet scientiam qui Deum diligit; et qui diligit Deum, fratris, at suam, diligit salvationem (Atto). Consequently, the man who loves God is the one who can rightly solve the question about food offered to idols. What effect will his partaking of it have on his fellow-Christian’ s progress in holiness? 4. Περὶτῆςβρώσεωςοὖν . After these preliminary considerations (vv. 1-3), which indicate the direction in which a solution of the question is likely to be found, he returns with a resumptive οὖν (Galatians 3:5) to the question mentioned in v. 1, and states it more definitely. We now learn that it was respecting the lawfulness of eating what had been offered to idols that the Corinthians wanted to have his decision. It was a question of very frequent occurrence. In private sacrifices certain portions of the animal were the perquisite of the priests, but nearly all the rest might be taken away by the offerer, to be eaten at home or sold. In public sacrifices made by the state the skins and carcases, which at Athens sometimes amounted to hundreds, were an important source of revenue and patronage, the skins being sold for the state , and the flesh being distributed to magistrates and others, who would sell what they did not need for home consumption. Smith, Dict. of Grk. and Rom. Ant. 11. p. 585. In the markets and in private houses εἰδωλόθυτα were constantly to be found. οἲδαμεν . Here again he seems to be quoting from the Corinthian letter; ‘ What you say about the nullity of idols is quite true, but it does not settle the matter.’ Cf. 1 Timothy 1:8. ὅτιοὐδὲνἔδωλον … ὅτιοὐδεὶςΘεός . These two clauses are parallel, and they should be translated in a similar way; and, as οὐδείς cannot be the predicate, οὐδέν is not the predicate, although most versions take it so (quia nihil est idolum to mundo, Vulg.; dass ein Gö tze nichis in der Welt sei, Luth.). Either, ‘ that there is no idol in the world, and that there is no God but one,’ or ‘ that nothing in the world is an idol, and that no being is God except one,’ is probably right, and the former is far better: cf. Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19. An idol professes to be an image of a god, not of the only God, and such a thing does not, and cannot, exist, for you cannot represent what has no existence. If there is no Zeus, an ἔδωλον of Zeus is an impossibility. It represents ‘ a no-god’ (see Driver on Deuteronomy 32:17, Deuteronomy 32:21), and the maker of it ἔπλασωναὐτὸεώνευμα , φαντασίανψευδῆ (Habakkuk 2:18). This is what is meant by ‘ they ate the sacrifices of the dead’ (Psalms 106:28; cf. 115:4-8, 135:15-18), deaf and dumb idols (12:2) in contrast to the living God. They are called νεκροί , Wisd. 13:10, 15:17. Jews regarded them as ‘ nothing’ (aven), mere ‘ lies’ (elî lî m). With ἐνκόσμῳ here compare Romans 5:13. In the ordered universe there can be only one God, viz., the God who made it. D3 E 17, Vulg. read περίδὲτῆςβρώσεως without οὖν . D* has περὶδὲτῆςγνὠσεως , and P 121, περὶτῆςγνώσεωςοὖν . After οὐδεὶςΘεός , א 3 K L, Syrr. add ἕτερος , as in AV. None of these readings is likely to be right. 5. καὶγὰρεἴπερκ .τ .λ . ‘ For even granted that there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or upon earth, just as there are gods many and lords many.’ Here εἲπερεἰσέν and ὥσπερεἰσίν are correlative, and εἰσίν must be taken in the same sense in both clauses. If both refer to what really exists, the meaning will be, ‘ If you like to say that, because there are supernatural beings in abundance, as we all believe, therefore the so-called gods of the heathen really exist, nevertheless for us Christians there is only one God.’ * If both refer to heathen superstition, the meaning will be, ‘ Granted that there are so called gods, as there are— plenty of them; still for us,’ etc. He seems to mean that to the worshippers the idol is an object of adoration; so that, while actually they worship a nonentity, ethically they are worshippers of δαιμόνια (10:20). Jehovah is God of gods and Lord of lords (Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalms 136:2, Psalms 136:3), and therefore the second εἰσίν probably refers to actual existence. Moreover, St Paul, while denying that the heathen gods existed (see Lightfoot on Galatians 4:8), yet held that heathen sacrifices were offered to beings that do exist (10:19-21); there were supernatural powers behind the idols, although not the gods which the idols represented. It is perhaps too much to say that εἴπερ , which in N.T. is peculiar to St Paul (2 Thessalonians 1:6; Romans 3:30, Romans 3:8:9, Romans 3:17), is used of what the writer holds to be true or probable, yet it certainly does not imply that the hypothesis is improbable: ‘ granted that’ is the meaning. See Sanday and Headlam, p. 96; Thackeray, p. 144. ‘ Whether in heaven or on earth’ gives the two main divisions of the κόσμος in v. 4. Dicuntur dii in caelo, ut sol, luna et varia sidera; in terra, imago Jovis, Mercurii atque Herculis (Atto). More probably the latter are the heavenly, while the earthly are the nymphs, fauns, etc. See Stanley’ s notes on this verse. 6. ἀλλ ʼ ἡμῖνεἷςΘεὸςὁπατήρ . ‘ Nevertheless (whatever may be the truth about these), for us believers (emphatically) there is one God, the Father, from whom come all things, while we tend towards Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, we also through Him.† There are two parallel triplets; θεοὶπολλοί , εἷςΘεός , τὰπάντα : κύριοιπολλοί , εἷςΚύριος , τὰπάντα . The one God is compared on the one side with many gods, on the other with the sum total of the universe: so also the one Lord. The comparison results in opposition in the one case, in harmony in the other. The πολλοί are intolerable rivals to the εἷςΘεός and εἷςΚύριος · τα : πάντα are welcome creatures. The ἠμεῖς , like the previous ἡμῖν , means ‘ we Christians.’ Bruta animalia et infideles homines in terram curvantur et terrena quaerunt; * nos vero per fidem et desiderium tendimus in eum a quo descendimus (Herv.). God is the central Fount and the central Goal: all beings proceed from the former; only believers consciously work towards the latter. See Resch, Agrapha, p. 129. In the case of Jesus Christ we have the same preposition (διά c. gen.) with both τὰπάντα and ἡμεῖς .† But δι ʼ οὗ does not refer to the same fact as δι ʼ αὐτοῦ . The former points to the Son’ s work in creation, the latter to His work in the new creation of mankind. ‘ If any man is in Christ there is a new creation’ (2 Corinthians 5:17; see Lightfoot on Galatians 6:15). “ This verse contains the earliest statement in the N.T. as to the work of our Lord in creation. This is stated more fully in Colossians 1:16-18. There, as here, the work of our Lord in creation and His work for the Church are spoken of together” (Goudge). Per quem creati sumus ut essemus, per ipsum recreati sumus ut unum Deum intelligeremus, atque idolum nihil esse recognosceremus (Atto). The statement is clear evidence of the Apostle’ s belief in the pre-existence of Christ; see on 10:4, where we have similar evidence. Schmiedel remarks that Paul nowhere else ascribes to Christ a share in the work of creation; but, as he frequently teaches the pre-existence, it is not going much further to ascribe to Him this work. Wace &Schaff, Nicene Library, IV. Athanasius, p. lxxi. n.; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 131; J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus, p. 64; Weinel, St Paul, p. 45. B, Fay. omit ἀλλ ʼ before ἠμῖν . א * omits Θεός . B, Aeth. have δι ʼ ὃν for δι ʼ οὗ . 7. Ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἐνπᾶσινἡγνῶσις . ‘ But not in all people is there the knowledge’ which is necessary for eating idol-meats without harm. They do not know the principle on which the more enlightened do this. Non omnes sciunt quod proptler contemptum hoc faciatis, sed putant vos propter venerationem hoc facere (Primasius); and they know that any veneration of an idol must be wrong. There is perhaps a difference intended between having knowledge (v. 1) and its being in them as an effective and illuminating principle. τινὲςδὲτῇσυνηθείᾳἕωςἄρτιτοῦεἰδώλου . To take ἕωςἄρτι with ἐσθίουσιν , ‘ continue the practice of eating such food even until now,’ simplifies the translation, but it is not correct: τῇς . ἕωςἄρτιτ . εἰδ . is all one expression, in which ἕωςἄρτι (4:13, 15:6) qualifies τῇς . It is the force of habit which lasts even until now. They have been so accustomed to regard an idol as a reality, as representing a god that exists, that even now, in spite of their conversion, they cannot get rid of the feeling that, by eating food which has been offered to an idol, they are taking part in the worship of heathen gods; they cannot eat ἐκπίστεως (Romans 14:23). Consequently, when the example of other Christians encourages them to eat meat of this kind, they do what they feel to be wrong. ‘ But some, through the force of habit which still clings to them respecting the idol, eat the meat as being an idol sacrifice.’ Missionaries at the present day have similar experiences. A belief in witchcraft long continues to lurk in otherwise well-instructed Christians, and (against their reason and their conscience) they allow themselves to be influenced by it. Note the emphasis on τῇσυνηθείᾳἕωςἄρτι , and compare the datives in Galatians 6:12 and Romans 11:31. καὶἡσυνείδησιςαὐτῶνἀσθενὴςοὗσαμολύνεται . ‘ And so their conscience, being weak, is defiled.’ It is defiled, not by the partaking of polluted food, for food cannot pollute (Mark 7:18, Mark 7:19; Luke 11:41), but by the doing of something which the unenlightened conscience does not allow. Cf. 2 Corinthians 7:1. An uninstructed conscience may condemn what is not wrong, or allow what is; but even in such cases it ought to be obeyed. See notes on Romans 14:23. It is not quite clear what is meant by ἀσθενής . It may mean ‘ too weak to resist the temptation of following the example of others,’ or ‘ weak through being unilluminated.’ * In either case it is defiled by a consciousness of guilt. The man feels that he is doing what is wrong; and, until he knows the real merits of the case, he is doing what is wrong. For συνηθεία see 11:16; John 18:39; Joh_4 Malachi 2:12 , 6:13, 13:22, 27; and for συνίδησις see notes on Romans 2:15 and Westcott on Hebrews 9:9, p. 293: συνείδησις is rare in LXX, frequent in the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. See Hastings, DB. 1. pp. 468 f. The ‘ weakness’ consists in giving moral value to things that are morally indifferent. That must lessen the power of conscience. συνηθείᾳ (א * A B P 17, Copt. Aeth.) is to be preferred to συνειδήσει (א 3 D E F G L, Vulg. Arm.), and ἕωςἄρτι shoul precede τοῦείδώλου (א B D E F G, Latt.), not follow it (A L P). ‘ With conscience of the idol’ (AV.) is hardly intelligible, and ‘ with consciousness of the idol’ is not much better. If συνειδὴσει be adopted, we must expand the meaning; ‘ with the scruple of conscience which they feel about the idol’ (Evans). 8. βρῶμαδὲἡμᾶςοὐπαραστήσειτῷΘεῷ . ‘ Commend’ (AV., RV.) is perhaps a trifle too definite for παρίστημι : ‘ present’ is accurate, meaning ‘ present for approbation or condemnation.’ In this passage the Apostle probably had approbation chiefly in his mind, but in what follows both alternatives are given. Food will not bring us into any relation, good or bad, with God: it will have no effect on the estimate which He will form respecting us, or on the judgment which He will pronounce upon us. It is not one of the things which we shall have to answer for (Romans 14:17). It is the clean heart, and not clean food, that will matter; and the weak brother confounds the two. The question of tense (see small print below) is important. The future can hardly refer to anything but the Day of Judgment. For the verb cf. Romans 6:13, Romans 6:14:10; 2 Corinthians 4:14. The translation ‘ commend’ obscures the reference to a judgment to come: ‘ will not affect our standing before God’ ’ is right. οὒτεἐὰνμὴφάγωμεν , ὑστερούμεθα , ‘ If we abstain from eating we are not prejudiced (in God’ s sight), and if we eat we have no advantage.’ We lose nothing by refraining from using our liberty in this matter, and we gain nothing by exercising it. Others explain ὐστερούμεθα of being inferior to the man who does not abstain, and περεσσεύομεν of being superior to the man who does abstain. This explanation is somewhat superficial and loses all connexion with the preceding sentence. Almost certainly τῷΘεῷ is to be understood in both clauses. See Alexander, The Ethics of St Paul, p. 239. For ἡμᾶς the evidence is overwhelming, but א * 17, 37 read ὑμᾶς . The two words are often confused in MSS. παραστἡσει (א A B 17, Copt.) is to be preferred to παρλστησι (א 3 D E L P, Latt.). The γάε after the first οὔτε (D E F G L P, Vulg-Clem.) should be omitted (א A B 17, A m. Copt. Arm. Aeth,). And probably οὔτεἐὰνμὴφ ., ύστ . should precede οὔτεἐἀνφ ., περ . (A*B, Am. Copt. Arm.) rather then vice versa (א D F L P,: Syrr.). The interchange of the verbs, ἐὰνμὴφ ., περ ., οὔτεἐὰνφ ., ὑστ . (A2 17), is not likely to be right, although adopted by Lachm. The interchange os the clauses was a natural correction, in order to put the positive before the negative hypothesis. The Apostle puts the negative first, because that is the course which he recommends; ‘ If we do not eat, although we may, we are in no worse position before God.’ The form περισσεύομεθα (B, Orig.), adopted by the Revisers, is probably a mechanical assimilation to ὑστερούμεθα . 9. Βλέπετεδὲμήπωσἡἐξονσίαὑμῶν . ‘ Take heed, however, lest this liberty of yours prove a stumbling-block to the weak.’ It is lawful for those whose consciences are enlightened to do as they like about it (ἐξουσίαν as in 7:37, 9:4, and as ἔξεστιν in 6:12); their eating will not do them any harm. But it may do harm to others, and thus may bring the eaters into a worse position before God. See notes on Romans 14:13, Romans 14:20: excepting the quotation in 1 Peter 2:8, πρόσκομμα in N.T. is confined to this passage and Romans; in LXX it is not rare. It is that against which the man with weak sight stumbles; it is no obstacle to the man who sees his way; but the weak-sighted must be considered.* ἀσθενέσιν (א A B D E F, etc.), as in v. 7; ἀσθενοῦσιν (L, Chrys. Thdrt.) perhaps from v. 11. P has ἡμῶν . 10. ἐνεἰδῳλίκατακείμενον . In order to show how the of endiculum (Vulg.) arises, he takes an extreme case. A Corinthian, in a spirit of bravado, to show his superior enlightenment and the wide scope of his Christian freedom, not only partakes of idol-meats, but does so at a sacrificial banquet within the precincts of the idol-temple. This was per se idolatrous; but St Paul holds the more severe condemnation in reserve: see on 10:14 f.† The τὸνἔχονταγνῶσιν may mean either that this is the man’ s own belief about himself, or that it is the weak brother’ s opinion of him. Εἰδώλιον , uocabulum aptum ad deterrendum (Beng.), is not classical: in LXX it occurs 1 Esdr. 2:10; Bel 11; 1 Mac. 1:47 , 10:83; and in 1 Samuel 31:10, we have the analogous Ἀσταρτεῖον , like Ἀπολλωνεῖον , Ποσειδωνεῖον , etc.‡ Such words are frequent in papyri. ἀσθενοῦςὂντος . ‘ Seeing that he is weak.’ It is just because he is feeble in insight and character that this following of a questionable example ‘ builds up’ his conscience in a disastrous way. His conscience is not sufficiently instructed to tell him that he may eat without scruple, and yet he eats. Doing violence to scruples is no true edification: it is rather a pulling down of bulwarks. Tertullian seems to have had this passage in his mind when he says of those who are seduced into heresy; Solent quidem isti infirmiores aedificari in ruinam (De Praescr. Haer. 3). Atto paraphrases; provocabitur manducare idolothyta, non tamen ea fide qua tu. It is ruinosa aedificatio, quae in sana doctrina fundata non est (Calv.). The σέ before τὸνἔχοντα is omitted by B F G, Vulg. Some editors bracket it, but it is well attested (א A D E L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm). ὁδοποιηθήσεται is an insipid conjecture for οἰκοδομηθήσεται , which is deliberately chosen with gentle irony, and needs no mending. 11. ἀπόλλυταιγὰρὁἀσθενῶνἐντ . ς . γν . ‘ For it is destruction that he who is weak finds in thy knowledge’ . Ruin, and not building up, is what he is getting by following the example of one who is better instructed than himself. There is the tragedy of it; that the illumination of one Corinthian is precisely the field in which another Corinthian takes the road to ruin. And the tragedy reaches a climax in the fact that the one who is led astray is the brother in Christ of him who leads him astray, and is one whom Christ died to save from ruin. The last clause could hardly be more forcible in its appeal; every word tells; ‘ the brother’ , not a mere stranger; ‘ for the sake of whom’ , precisely to rescue him from destruction; ‘ Christ,’ no less than He; ‘ died’ , no less than that: cf. Romans 14:15. Tu eris occasio mortis ejus propter quem Christus, ut redimeret, mortuus est (Herv.). See Matthew 18:6. ἀπολ . γάρ (א B 17, Copt. Goth.) is to be preferred to καὶἀπολ . (א 3 D, d e) or ἀπολ . οὖν (A P 39). And καίἀπολεῖται , though well supported (D3 E F G L, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.), looks like a correction to assimilate the tense with οἰκοδομηθήσεται and carry on the question through v. 11. The question ends at ἐσθίειν , and what follows is explanation. The emphatic position of ἀπόλλυται , and also the tense, have force; it is no less than destruction that results, and the destruction is already at work. 12. οὕτωςδὲἁμαρτάνοντεςεἰςτοὺςἀδ . ‘ But by sinning against your brothers in such a way as this’ : οὕτως is emphatic. This verse confirms the view that εἰςτ . ἴδ . σῶμαἁμαρτ . (6:18) must mean ‘ sins against his own body.’ καὶτύπτοντες . ‘ And by inflicting blows upon their conscience in its weakness.’ The καί makes the ἁμαρτάνοντες more definite, by showing the kind of injury. The force of the present participles should be noted: the wounding is a continued process, and so also is the weakliness; not ἀσθενῆ , but ἀσθενοῦσαν . Nowhere else in N.T. is τύπτω used in a metaphorical sense: elsewhere only in the Synoptists and Acts. But this sense occurs, in LXX (1 Samuel 1:8; Proverbs 26:22; Daniel 11:20). ‘ Wounding’ and ‘ weakening’ are in emphatic contrast: what requires the tenderest handling is brutally treated, so that its sensibility is numbed. The wounding is not the shock which the weak Christian receives at seeing a fellow-Christian eating idol-meats in an idol-court, but the inducement to do the like, although he believes it to be wrong. His conscience is lamed by being crushed. This is the third metaphor used respecting the weak conscience; it is soiled (v. 7), made to stumble (v. 9), wounded (v. 12). The order of the words is a climax; ‘ inflicting blows, not on the back, but on the conscience, and on the conscience when it is in a weakly state.’ εἰςΧριστὸνἁμ . Like οὕτως and τύπτοντες , εἰςΧρ . is emphatic by position: ‘ it is against Christ that ye are sinning.’ St Paul may have known the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:40, Matthew 25:45), but Christ Himself had taught him that an injury to the brethren was an injury to Himself (Acts 9:4, Acts 9:5). 13. διόπερ . ‘ For this very reason,’ i.e. to avoid sinning against Christ; the πέρ strengthens the διό : here and 10:14 only, in N.T. See 2 Mac. 5:20, 6:27. εἰβρῶμακ .τ .λ . ‘ If food causes my brother to stumble, I will certainly never eat flesh again for evermore, that I may not make my brother to stumble.’ The declaration is conditional. If the Apostle knows of definite cases in which his eating food will lead to others being encouraged to violate the dictates of conscience, then certainly he will never eat meat so long as there is real danger of this (10:28, 29). But if he knows of no such danger, he will use his Christian freedom and eat without scruple (10:25-27). He does not, of course, mean that the whole practice of Christians is to be regulated with a view to the possible scrupulousness of the narrow-minded. That would be to sacrifice our divinely given liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17) to the ignorant pre-judices of bigots. The circumstances of this or that Christian may be such that it is his duty to abstain from intoxicants, although he is never tempted to drink to excess; but Christians in general are bound by no such rule, and it would be tyranny to try to impose such a rule. The change from βρῶμα to κρέα is natural enough. If such a thing as food (which is always a matter of indifference) causes … I will never again eat flesh (which is in question here),’ etc. Note how he harps on ἀδελφός . In dealing with both the question of fornication and that of eating idol-meats, the Apostle brings the solution ultimately from our relation to Christ. Fornication is taking from Christ what is His property and giving it to a harlot. Reckless eating of idol-meats is an injury inflicted on Christ. In neither case does he appeal to the decree of the Apostles at the conference in Jerusalem (Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29). The principles to which he appeals were far more cogent, especially for Greeks.* Compare carefully Romans 14:14, Romans 14:17, Romans 14:21. In his recent (1908) paper on the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20-29), Dr. Sanday says; “ The decree was only addressed in the first instance to a limited area: and I can well believe that it soon fell into comparative disuse even within that area. It is true that, as we read it in the Acts, the decree has the appearance of a very authoritative document. Something of this appearance may be due to a mistaken estimate on the part of St Luke himself. But, even so, we are apt to read into it more than it really means. For the moment the decree had a real significance: it meant a united Christendom, instead of a disunited. Many an official document has had a temporary success of this kind, which the course of events has soon caused to become a dead letter. That was really the fate of the decree. The tide of events ebbed away from it, and it was left on the beach stranded and lifeless— lifeless at least for the larger half of the Church, for that Gentile Church which soon began to advance by leaps and bounds.” “ As to any further difficulty from St Paul’ s treatment of meats offered in sacrifice to idols, I confess that I think little of it. He could upon occasion become a Jew to the Jews. But the decree, we may be sure, made no impression upon his mind. It “ contributed nothing” to his Gospel. It was no outcome of his religious principles. It was just a practical concordat, valid in certain specified regions and under certain definite conditions. But when he was altogether outside these, among his own converts, he dealt with them by his own methods, and without any thought of the authorities at Jerusalem.” The inference, from St Paul’ s silence, that Act_15. belongs to a period later than this Epistle, is quite untenable. * In Aristoph. Aves 1265, mortals are forbidden to send ἱερόθυτονκαπνόν to the gods through the air which belongs to the birds. * In Spencer and other contemporary and earlier writers, ‘ edify’ and ‘ edificatioon’ are used in their original sense of constructing buildings. See Kitchin on Faery Queene, 1:1:34, and Wright, Bible Word-Book, p. 219. It is found as late as 1670, “ the re-edifying Layton Church” (Izaac Walton, Life of G. Herbert, sub fin.). D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 διο͂ὁλαλῶν -22 σημεῖονἐστίν is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422). E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant 17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. § § 211, 212. P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 ὑμᾶςὁθεός -17 περιπάτει : 12:23 τοῦσώματος -13:5 οὐλογί -: 14:23 τὸλαλεῖνμή . A good type of text in St Paul’ s Epistles. א Ԡ א (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T. K K (Ninth century). Codex S. Synod. xcviii. Lacks 1:1-6:13 ταύτηνκαί : 8:7 τινὲςδὲ — 8:11 ἀπέθανεν . L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome. * Quocunque te flexeris, ibi illum videbis occurrentem tibi; nihil ab illo vacat, opus suum ipse implet (Seneca, De Benef. iv. 8; compare M. Aurelius, xii. 28; Xen. Mem. IV. iii. 13). There is a close parallel in 1 Timothy 2:5. † With εἴπερ … ἀλλά here compare ἐὰν … ἀλλά in 4:5. The context implies ‘ only one God.’ See Deissmann, New Light on the N.T. p. 81. * But the unbelieving heathen must not be wholly excluded from the είσαὐτόν . While the Jew was being drawn by a special revelation through the Prophets towards God, the Gentile was groping his way in a general revelation through the order of Nature towards him, till the course of both was completed by the revelation in Christ (Gwatkin, Early Church History, p.15). † The AV. is very inaccurate, translating είς ‘ in’ instead of ‘ unto,’ and διἀ ‘ by’ instead of ‘ through.’ B. W. Bacon regards, vv. 6 and 8 as quotations from the Corinthians’ letter. B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS. * Perhaps 11:30 indicates that ἀσθενής here means ‘ unhealthy,’ ‘ morbid,’ and so ‘ incapable of healthy action’ : cf. Luke 10:9; Acts 5:15. Words signifying weakness of body easily become used of mental an moral weakness. A healthy conscience would not be uneasy about eating such food, and eating would then cause no defilement. In Ecclus, 21:28 the slanderer μολύνειτὴνὲαντοῦψυχἡν : in blackening his neighbour’ s character he violates and blackens his own conscience. A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum. F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429). G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1 Corinthians 3:8-16, 1 Corinthians 6:7-14 (F). 37 37. (Ev. 69, Acts 31, Rev_14. Fifteenth century.) The well-known Leicester codex. Contains a good text. * “ The stronger one can, for the sake of the weaker, refain from using this liberty; but the weaker cannot, on account of his conscience, follow the example of the stronger” (B. Weiss). † Grenfell and Hunt (Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 1. p. 177) give an invitation to sup at the κλινη of the Lord Serapis in the Seraperium. There is another invitation to a meal in honour of Serapis in a private house. See Bachmann, p. 307; also Deissmann, Light, p. 355. ‡ It is possible that St Paul used the unusual word εινδώλιον , because he was unwilling to put words with such sacred associations as ίερόν or ναός to any such use (Edwards). But εἴδωλον (v. 4) suggests είδώλεον , and no other world would have expressed the meaning so clearly. It is also possible that οίκοδομηθήσεται (a strange word in this connexion) is a sarcastic quotation of a Corinthian expression. Perhaps they talked of ‘ edifying’ the weak brethren by showing them to what lengths they could go. This was “ educating their consciences” , but it was a ruinosa aedificatio (calv.). The best MSS. have εἰδωλίῳ , not εἰδωλείῳ : comare δάνιον , Matthew 18:27. In Luke 10:34, πανδόχιον is well attested. d d The Latin text of D e e The Latin text of E * See Gwatkin, Early Church History, i. 57, 63. 9:1-27. THE GREAT OF I have not asked you to forego more rights than I forego myself. For the sake of others I surrender, not only what any Christian may claim, but what I can claim as an Apostle. 1 Can it be denied that I am a free agent, that I have the authority and independence of an Apostle? I have seen our Lord face to face and He made me His Apostle, and you who were won over to Him through me are a standing proof of my Apostleship. 2 It may be possible for other Christians to question whether I am an Apostle or not, but you at least cannot do so, for your very existence as a Christian Church is the seal which authenticates my Apostleship. 3 There you have my answer to those who challenge my claim. 4 Surely we are free to do as we think best about eating and drinking at the cost of the Churches, 5 to do as we think best about taking with us on our journey a Christian sister as a wife, as also the rest of the Apostles do, and the brethren of the Lord, and Peter. 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas that are not free to do as we think best about working no longer for a living? 7 No soldier on service finds his own outfit and rations. If you plant a vineyard, you expect to partake of the produce, and if you tend cattle, you expect to get a share of the milk. 8 I am not saying all this merely from a worldly point of view. 9 The Divine Law assumes just the same principle. In the Law of Moses it stands written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain. Do you think that it was merely out of consideration for the oxen that God caused that to be written? 10 Surely He was looking beyond them, and it is really for us preachers that He says this. No doubt it was in our interest that this law was enacted; because thus the principle is laid down that the plougher ought not to plough, and the thresher ought not to thresh, without a good prospect of sharing in the profit. 11 Well then, if it is we who in your hearts sowed the seeds of spiritual life, is it a very outrageous thing that we out of your purses shall reap some worldly benefit? 12 If others get their share of this right of maintenance from you, have not we who taught you first a still better right? Nevertheless, we did not avail ourselves of this right. On the contrary, we put up with every kind of privation, rather than cause the spread of the Glad-tidings of Christ to be in any way hampered. 13 Of course you know that those who are engaged in the temple-services are maintained out of the temple-funds; those who serve at the altar share the sacrifices with the altar. 14 On the same principle the Lord directed that those who proclaim the Glad-tidings should out of this work get enough to live on. 15 But I have availed myself of none of these pleas. Now do not think that I write all this in order that the maintenance due to preachers should henceforth be granted in my case. Indeed not; for it would be better for me by far to die than submit to that: no one shall make void my glorying in taking nothing for my work. 16 It is quite true that I do preach the Glad-tidings; but there is no glorying about that: it is a duty which I must perform,— must, because it will be the worse for me if I do not perform it. 17 If I did this spontaneously, I should have my pay: but seeing that I do it because I must, it is a stewardship which has been entrusted to me. 18 What pay then do I get? Why, the pleasure of being a preacher who gives the Glad-tidings free of charge, so as not to use to the full a preacher’ s right to maintenance. 19 So far from claiming my full rights, I submit to great curtailments. For, free and independent though I am from all men, yet I made myself all men’ s slave, in order that I might win more of them. 20 Thus to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews. That means that to those under the Mosaic Law I became like one of themselves (although, of course, I am nothing of the kind), that I might win those under the Law. 21 To the Gentiles who are free from the Law I became like one of them (although, of course, I am not free from God’ s law; on the contrary, I am under Christ’ s law), that I might win those who are free from the Law. 22 To the men of tender scruples I became like one of them, that I might win such people as these. In short, to all kinds of men I have assumed all kinds of characters, in order at all costs to save some. 23 But all this variety I practise for one and the same reason, that I may not keep the Gospel to myself but share its blessings with others. 24 You know that the competitors in a race all run, but only one gets the prize. 25 You must run like him, so as to secure it. Now, every one that competes in the games is in all directions temperate. They verily aim at winning a perishable crown, but we one that is imperishable. 26 I accordingly so run as being in no doubt about my aim; I so fight as not wasting blows on the air. 27 Far from it; I direct heavy blows against my body, and force it to be my slave, lest my preaching to others should end in my own rejection. It is a mistake to regard this chapter as an independent section in defence of the writer’ s claim to be an Apostle. It is part of the discussion of the question as to eating food that has been offered to idols, in the midst of which it is inserted. Christians may eat such food, without fear of pollution; but in doing so they may harm other Christians: therefore, where there is risk of harming others, they should forbear. To show that this forbearance ought not to seem hard, he points out that his habitual forbearance is greater than that which he would occasionally claim from them. As in 6:1, he begins with animated questions. The conjecture that 9:1-10:22 is part of the letter mentioned in 5:9 is not probable. 1. Οὐκεἰμὶἐλεύθεροσ ; οὐκεἰμὶἀπόστολος ; This is the order of the questions in the best texts (see below). ‘ Have I not the freedom of a Christian? Have I not the rights of an Apostle?’ Logically, this is the better order; but even if it were not, the evidence for it is too strong to be set aside on such grounds. It is the thought that he forbears to claim, not only what any Christian may claim, but also the exceptional claims of an Apostle, that makes him digress on an explanation of what an Apostle may claim. In v. 19 he glances back at his general independence. Cf. Galatians 2:4, Galatians 2:5. οὐχὶἹ . τ . Κ . ἡμῶνἑώρακα ; This question and the next vindicate the claim made in the second question. He is certainly an Apostle, for he has the essential qualification of having seen the Risen Lord (Acts 1:22, Acts 2:32, Acts 3:15, Acts 4:33, etc.), and his preaching has had the power of an Apostle (2 Corinthians 3:1 f., 2 Corinthians 12:12). The reference is to the Lord’ s appearance to him on the way to Damascus,— ὤφθηκἀμοί (15:8); an appearance which he regarded as similar in kind to the appearances to the Eleven on the Easter Day and afterwards. Whether he is also referring to the experiences mentioned in Acts 18:9, Acts 22:17, and 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 is uncertain. It is a mistake to say that we are not told that he saw the Lord who spoke to him on the way to Damascus. This is expressly stated, Acts 9:17 , 27 , 22:14 .* Note that in this important question we have the stronger form of the negative, which is specially frequent in this argumentative Epistle (1:20, 3:3, 5:12, 6:7, 8:10, 10:16, 18). In the N.T. Epistles it is almost confined to this group of the Pauline Epistles. Nowhere else does St Paul use the expression ‘ I have seen Jesus the Lord’ , and he seldom uses the name ‘ Jesus’ without ‘ Christ’ either before or after. See notes on Romans 1:1, pp. 3 f. When he does use the name ‘ Jesus’ he commonly refers to our Lord’ s life on earth, especially in connexion with His Death or Resurrection (1 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 1:4:14; 2 Corinthians 4:10-14). In Romans 4:24 we have ‘ Jesus our Lord’ as here, and in both cases the reference is to the risen Jesus. The use of ‘ Jesus’ without ‘ Christ’ is very rare in the later Epistles: once in Philippians (2:10), once in Ephesians (4:21), and not at all in Colossians or the Pastoral Epistles. See J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 23, 107; Milligan, Thessalonians, p. 135; Selbie, Aspects of Christ, pp. 71 f., a careful discussion of the question whether it is possible to separate the Christ of St Paul from the Jesus of history. See also the lectures of Dr. Moffatt and Dr. Milligan in Religion and the Modern World, Hodder, 1909, pp. 205-253. The Christ who appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus declared Himself to be the historic Jesus whom Saul was persecuting, and he thus not merely saw Jesus our Lord, but received a ‘ voice from His mouth’ (Acts 22:14). That rested on his own testimony; but the fact of his conversion and the work that he had done since that day was known to all (4:15; 2 Corinthians 12:12). τὸἔργονμου . The founding of the Corinthian Church was a work worthy of an Apostle: ab effectu jam secundo loco probat suum Apostolatum (Calv.). Edwards quotes meum opus es (Seneca, Ep. 34). Lest he should seem to be claiming what he disclaims in 3:5-7, he adds ‘ in the Lord’ : only in that power could such a work have been accomplished (3:9, 4:15). The order of the first two questions adopted above is that of א A B P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth., Orig. Tert. The other is that of D E F G K L, Goth., which with P, Arm. insert Χριστόν either before or after Ἱησοῦν . א A B, Am. and other versions omit Χριστόν . 2. εἰἄλλοιςοὐκεἰμὶἀπόστολος . The emphatic ὑμεῖς of the previous clause leads to an argumentum ad hominem. The Corinthians are the very last people who could reasonably question his claim to be an Apostle: at any rate to them he must be one.*. ‘ For my certificate of Apostleship are ye’ (2 Corinthians 3:2). They themselves are a certificate of the fact, a certificate the validity of which lies in the same sphere as the success of his work; it is ‘ in the Lord.’ Authentication is the idea which is specially indicated by the figurative σφραγίς . Nowhere in N.T. does σφραγίς seem to be used, as often in later writings, with reference to baptism. See notes on Romans 4:11, p. 107; Lightfoot, Epp. of Clem. ii. p. 226; Hastings, DB. Art. ‘ Seal.’ Preachers who were not Apostles might convert many, but the remarkable spiritual gifts which Corinthians possessed were a guarantee that one who was more than a mere preacher had been sent to them. Paulus a fructu colligit se divinitus missum esse (Calv.). The ἄλλοις may allude to the Galatians. μουτῆςἀποστολῆς with א B P 17, Orig., rather than τῆςἐμῆςἀπ . with D E F G K L. A few inferior witnesses have ἐπιστολῆς . 3. ἡἐμὴἀπολογία … ἐστιναὕτη . WH. follow Chrysostom and Ambrose in making this verse refer to what follows; so also AV. and the Revisers. RV. leaves it doubtful. But it is more probable that it refers to what precedes. ‘ That I have seen the Risen Lord, and that you are such a Church as you are,— there you have my defence when people ask me for the evidence of my Apostleship.’ What follows tells us that he refrained from making his converts maintain him, and no one disputed his right to do that: but the Judaizers did dispute his right to be accounted an Apostle. The ἐμή and ἐμέ look back to σφραγίςμουτῆςἀποστολῆς . ‘ My reply to those who examine me is this’ ; ἐμέ , not με . Moreover vv. 4-11 are not so much a defence as a statement of claims. Defence begins in the middle of v. 12; but a superfluous defence. People blamed him for maintaining his independence, but they could not deny his right to do it. See Alford, Findlay, Edwards, and B. Weiss: for the other view see Bachmann. Both ἀπολογία and ἀνακρίνουσιν are forensic expressions, perhaps purposely chosen to indicate the high hand which the Judaizers assumed in challenging St Paul’ s claim. But in its strictly forensic sense, of a judicial investigation, ἀνακρίνω is peculiar to Luke in N.T. See on Luke 23:14, and cf. Acts 4:9, Acts 12:19, etc. It does not much matter whether we take αὕτη as predicate (so better), or subject: in either case it means ‘ just what I have stated.’ Cf. τοῦτο in 7:6 and 11:17, and αὕτη in John 1:19, John 17:3. For the dative cf. Acts 19:33; 2 Corinthians 12:19. 4. Μὴοὐκἔχομενἐξουσιαν ; The μή is the interrogative num; the οὐκ belongs to the verb. ‘ Do you mean to say that we have no right?’ Numquid non habemus potestatem (Vulg.): cf. 11:22; Romans 10:19. Here, as often in the Pauline Epistles, we are in doubt whether the plur. includes others with the Apostle: he may mean himself and Barnabas. Where he means himself exclusively he commonly uses the singular: but it is more certain that the singular is always personal than that the plural commonly includes some one else. See Lightfoot on 1 Thessalonians 2:4. φαγεῖνκαὶπεῖν . ‘ To eat and drink what those to whom we preach provide for us.’ He is not now thinking of eating idol-meats: that subject is for the moment quite in abeyance. Still less is he contending that preachers are not bound to be ascetics. He says that although he personally refuses entertainment at the cost of those to whom he ministers, yet he has a right to it. He can do as he likes about it; he has the privilege of being maintained. See Clem. Hom. iii. 71; Luke 10:7. πεῖν as 2nd aor. inf. of πίνω is well supported here and 10:7 (א B D F G) against πιεῖν (A B3 D3 E K L P), and appears everywhere as a variant, except Matthew 20:22. It is frequent in MSS. of LXX. See WH. 11. Notes, p. 170. 5. ἀδελφὴνγυναῖκαπεριάγειν . ‘ Do you mean to say that we have no right to take about (with us on our missionary journeys) a Christian person as a wife?’ ‘ A sister (= Christian woman) as wife’ is right. Even if γυναῖκα in this construction could mean ‘ woman’ , it would be superfluous. The Vulgate encourages the mistranslation ‘ woman’ with mulierem sororem. The Apostle is not contending that a missionary had a right to take about with him a woman who was not his wife. The fact that a group of women ministered to Christ could not be supposed to justify such indiscretion. But there is an early tradition that very few of the Apostles were married, and hence the temptation to make γυναῖκα mean ‘ woman’ rather than ‘ wife.’ Tertullian (Exhort. Cast. 8) translates rightly, licebat et apostolis nubere et uxores circumducere, and again (Monogam. 8), potestatem uxores circumducendi; but in the latter passage he suggests that only mulieres, such as ministered to the Lord, may be meant. This misinterpretation is followed by Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and others. It led to a great abuse, not confined to the clergy, in the early ages of the Church. Some Christians contracted a sort of spiritual union with unmarried persons, and the two lived together, without marriage, for mutual spiritual benefit. The women in such cases were known as ἀδελφαί , ἀγαπηταί , and συνείσακτοι . Under the last name they are strictly forbidden, in the case of any cleric, by the third Canon of the first Council of Nicaea (Hefele, Councils, p. 379; Suicer, Thesaurus, under all three words and under γυνή ). St Paul is not here claiming that Apostles had a right to marry; no one in that age would be likely to dispute that. He is claiming that they have a right to maintenance at the cost of the Church, and that, if they are married, the wife who travels with them shares this privilege. The whole of this passage (5-18) is concerned with the privilege (of which he refused to make use in his own case) of being maintained at the charges of the congregations. But here, as in Galatians 1:19 and elsewhere, we are left in doubt as to the exact meaning of ἀπόστολοι : see on 15:5, 7. The Sophists blamed Socrates and Plato for teaching gratuitously, thus confessing that their teaching was worth nothing (Xen. Mem. i. 6; Plat. Gorg. 520, Rev_20; Arist. Eth. Nic. ix. i. 5). This kind of charge may have been made by the Judaizers at Corinth. Other Apostles accepted maintenance. Why did Paul refuse it? Because he knew that he was no true Apostle; or, because he set up for being better than the Twelve; or, because he was too proud to accept hospitality.* For περιάγειν transitive see 2 Mac. 6:10. ὡςκαὶοἱλοιποὶἀπόστολοι . It is probably on this that the interpolator of the Ignatian Epistles (Philad. 4) bases his statement that Peter and Paul and οἱἀλλοιἁπόστολοι were married; where the words et Paulus are omitted in some Latin texts. See on 7:8. The only Apostles of whose marriage we have direct evidence on good authority are Peter and Philip (Papias in Eus. H.E. iii. 39): see Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 45. This passage would certainly lead us to suppose that most of the Apostles were married men; it contends that all had the privilege of having themselves and their wives maintained by the Church, and it implies that some used the privilege, and therefore were married. The exact meaning of λοιποί is not clear: it may distinguish those who are included from ‘ the brethren of the Lord and Kephas,’ or from Paul and Barnabas (v. 6). In the former case ‘ the brethren of the Lord’ are Apostles, for the Apostolic body is divided into three parts; ‘ Kephas,’ ‘ the brethren, of the Lord,’ and ‘ the rest of the Apostles.’  * But it is possible that, without any strictly logical arrangement, he is mentioning persons in high position in the Church who availed themselves of the privilege of having their wives maintained as well as themselves, when they were engaged in missionary work. See Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 95. In dictating, he mentions Peter, by himself, at the end, as a specially telling instance; but we cannot safely infer from this that Peter had been in Corinth with his wife. 1:12 does not prove it. See Harnack, Mission and Expansion, i. p. 323, ii. 99. οἱἀδελφοὶτοῦΚυρίου . Here only does St Paul mention them, though he tells us (Galatians 1:19) that James was one. The question of their exact relation to Christ has produced endless discussion, and the question remains undecided. There is nothing in Scripture which forbids the natural interpretation, that they were the children of Joseph and Mary born after the birth of Christ. To some students of the problem, Matthew 1:25 seems to be decisive for this interpretation: see Plummer, S. Matthew, pp. 9, 10, and the literature there cited. There is wide agreement that Jerome’ s theory, that they were our Lord’ s first cousins, children of a Mary who was sister to His Mother, cannot be maintained. But see Chapman, JTS. April 1906, pp. 412 f. The choice lies between the Helvidian and the Epiphanian theories. The decision does not affect the argument here. In any case they were persons whose close relationship to the Lord gave them distinction in the primitive Church: what they did constituted a precedent. Κηφᾶς , as almost always in Paul (1:12, 3:22, 15:5). 6. ἢμόνοςἐγὼκαί . The ἤ , as in 6:2, 9, puts the question from the other point of view; that it adds “ some degree of emotion” is not so clear. ‘ Or is it only I and Barnabas that have not a right to forbear working with our hands for a living?’ The reason for including Barnabas is uncertain, and it seems to be an afterthought; hence the singular μόνος . It implies that Barnabas, like Paul, had refused maintenance; and it is possible that there had been an agreement between them that on their missionary journey (Acts 13:3) they would not cost the Churches anything. It seems also to imply that the practice of Barnabas was well known. ἐργάζεσθαι . Manual labour, to earn a livelihood, is commonly meant by the word, with (4:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:11) or without (Matthew 21:28; Luke 13:14; Acts 18:3) ταῖςχερσίν added. Here again Greek sentiment would be against the Apostle’ s practice. That a teacher who claimed to lead and to rule should work with his hands for a living would be thought most unbecoming: nothing but the direst necessity excused labour in a free citizen (Arist. Pol. 3:5). Contrast 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12. 7. Three illustrations add force to the argument, and they are such as are analogous to the Christian minister, who wages war upon evil, plants churches, and is a shepherd to congregations.* It is perhaps accidental that in each case the status of the worker is different; but this strengthens the argument. The soldier works for pay; the vine-planter is a proprietor; the shepherd is a slave. But to all alike the principle is applicable that labour may claim some kind of return. Cf. 2 Timothy 2:6. ὀψωνίοις . Though applying primarily to the soldier’ s food, it may cover his pay and his outfit generally. Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:8; Romans 6:23; Luke 3:14, where see note. The word is late (1 Esdr. 4:56; 1 Mac. 3:28; 14:32), and is sometimes extended to mean the supplies of an army. See Lightfoot on Romans 6:23; Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 266. τὸνκαρπόν … ἐκτοῦγάλακτος . The change of construction is perhaps intentional. A proprietor disposes of the whole of the produce; a slave gets only a portion of it. Cf. Tobit 1:10. In some texts τὸνκαρπόν has been corrected to ἐκτοῦκαρποῦ (E K L, Latt. Syrr. Copt. Arm.). See Proverbs 27:18. 8. Μὴκατὰἂνθρωπον . ‘ Do you think that I am speaking these things by man’ s rule?’ It is not merely in accordance with human judgment of what is fitting that he lays down the principle that labour has a right to a living wage. There is higher authority than that. The expression κατὰἂνθρωπον occurs thrice in this Epistle (3:3, 15:32) and thrice in the same group (Romans 3:5; Galatians 1:11, Galatians 3:15), with slightly different shades of meaning: ‘ from a human point of view’ is the leading idea. ἢκαὶὁνόμος ‘ Or (v. 6) does the Law also not say these things?’ Perhaps some one had urged that ὁνόμοςταῦταοὐλέγει ‘ is silent on the subject’ : it is not laid down that congregations must maintain Apostles. The change from λαλῶ to λέγει is perhaps intentional, the one referring to mere human expression, the other to the substance of what is said. As in οὐκἕχομεν (v. 4), the negative belongs to the verb. Neither Vulg. (dico … dicit) nor AV. distinguishes the verbs: they apparently follow D E F G in reading λέγω for λαλῶ . K L P have ἢοὐχὶκαιὁνόμοςταῦταλέγει : F G have ἢεὶκαὶὁν .τ .λ . Doubtless ἢκαὶὁν .τ . οὐλ . א A B C D E, Vulg. Copt.) is right. 9. Philo (De Humanitate) quotes this prohibition as evidence of the benevolence of the Law; and Driver (on Deuteronomy 25:4) says that it is “ another example of the humanity which is characteristic of Dt.” Cf. Exodus 20:10, Exodus 20:23:12; Proverbs 12:10. Oxen still, as a rule, thresh unmuzzled in the East. Conder says that exceptions are rare. Near Jericho, Robinson saw the oxen of Christians muzzled, while those belonging to Mahometans were not. Driver quotes these and other instances. Cf. 2 Samuel 24:22; Isaiah 28:27 f.; Micah 4:12. Elsewhere (De Spec. Leg.) Philo says, οὐγὰρὑπὲρἀλόγωνὁνόμος , ἀλλὰτῶνθυόντων . It is not easy to decide between φιμώσεις (א A B3 C D 3 E K L P) and κημώσεις (B D F G). There is the same difference of reading 1 Timothy 5:18, but there φιμώσεις is unquestionably right, as in LXX of Deu 25:4. How could κημώσεις be so well attested, if it were not original? If it were original it would readily be corrected to the LXX, esp. as κημόω is rare: κημός is found in LXX (Psalms 31:9; Ezekiel 19:4, Ezekiel 19:9), but not κημόω . Here Chrys. and Thdrt. support κημώσεις . 10. μὴτῶνβοῶνμέλειτῷΘεῷ ; ‘ Do you suppose that it is for the oxen that God cares?’ St Paul does not mean that God has no care for the brutes (Psalms 104:14, Psalms 104:21, Psalms 104:27, 145:9, Psalms 104:15; Matthew 6:26, Matthew 10:30). Nor does he mean that in forbidding the muzzling, God was not thinking of the oxen at all. He means that the prohibition had a higher significance, in comparison with which the literal purport of it was of small moment. Jewish interpreters sometimes abandoned the literal meaning of Scripture, and turned it entirely into allegory. They not merely allegorized the words, but said that the literal meaning was untrue. In some cases they urged that the literal meaning was incredible, and that therefore the words were intended to be understood symbolically and in no other way. Thus Philo (De Somn. i. 16) says that Exodus 22:27 cannot be supposed to be meant literally, for the Creator would not be interested about such a trifle as a garment: and elsewhere (De Sacrif. 1) he says that the Law was not given for the sake of irrational animals, but for the sake of those who have mind and reason. Cf. Ep. Barn. x. 1, 2, xi. 1. St Paul elsewhere allegorizes the O.T., as Hagar and Sarah (Galatians 4:24), and the fading of the light on Moses’ face (2 Corinthians 3:13), but in neither case does he reject the literal meaning. It is not probable that he does so here; even if πάντως be rendered ‘ entirely,’ it need not be pressed to mean that the oxen were not cared for at all. Weinel, St Paul, p. 59. ἢδι ʼ ἡμᾶςπάντωςλέγει ; ‘ Or is it for our sakes, as doubtless it is, that He saith it?’ See RV. marg. For πάντως Vulg. has utique; Beza, omnino: utique is probably right. It emphasizes the truth of this second suggestion ‘ assuredly’ ; cf. Luke 4:23; Acts 18:21, Acts 21:22, Acts 28:4. In Romans 3:9, οὐπάντως means ‘ entirely not,’ ‘ not at all,’ rather than ‘ not entirely,’ ‘ not altogether.’ See Thackeray, pp. 193 f. The ἡμᾶς probably means Christians;* but it may mean the Jewish nation, or mankind, to teach them to be just and humane. Origen prefers the former interpretation; οὐκοῦνδι ʼ ἡμᾶςτοὺςτὴνκαινὴνδιαθήκηνπαρειληφόταςεἴρηταιταῦτα , καὶπερὶἀνθρώπωνγέγραπται , πνευματικῶςτοῦῥητοῦνοουμένουκατὰτὸνθεῖονἀπόστολον . Among Christians, Christian missionaries are specially meant. We might expect οὐλέγει , as in v. 8. B. Weiss makes the sentence categorical; ‘ Rather for our sakes absolutely (5:10) He says it.’ δἰἡμᾶςγὰρἐγράφη . The γάρ , asin1 Thess. 2:20, implies an affirmative answer to the previous question. ‘ Yes indeed for our sakes it was written.’ It was with an eye to men rather than to oxen that this prohibition was laid down. Weinel, St Paul, P. 53; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 30, 152, 336. ὅτιὀφείλειἐπ ʼ ἐλπίδι . The ὅτι is explanatory: ‘ to show that it is in hope that the plougher ought to plough and the thresher (ought to thresh) in the hope of having a share (of the produce).’ The sentence is condensed, but quite intelligible: ἐπ ʼ ἐλπίδι is emphatic by position, and is then repeated for emphasis when the thing hoped for is stated. RV. renders ὅτι ‘ because,’ as if the meaning were that the prohibition must have an eye to men, because it is in accordance with common notions of what is fair: which is unlikely. The ‘ that’ of AV. is too indefinite. “ Few particles in the N.T. give greater difficulty to the interpreter than ὅτι ” (Ellicott). Retaining ‘ Christian teachers’ or ‘ Apostles’ as the meaning of ἡμᾶς , we must understand the ploughing and threshing as metaphors for different stages of missionary work. Such work, and indeed teaching of any kind, is often compared to agriculture. Some of the processes of agriculture represent mission-work better than others, and St Paul would perhaps have taken reaping rather than threshing, had not the quotation about threshing preceded. But threshing may represent the separation of the true converts from the rest.* To take ἐγράφη as referring to what follows, and introducing another quotation, is a most improbable construction: there is no such Scripture. ὀφείλειἐπ ʼ ἐλπίδιὁἀρ . ἀρ . (א A B C P 17, Vulg., Orig. Eus.) is to be preferred to ἐπ ʼ έλπίδιὀφ . ὁἀρ . ἀρ . (א 3 D 2 K L, Chrys. Thdrt.), where the desire to make ἐπ ʼ έλπίσι still more emphatic has influenced the order. Other texts are much confused. καὶὁἀλοῶνἐπ ʼ ἐλπίδιτοῦμετέχειν (א A B C P 17, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth., Orig. Eus.) is to be preferred to κ . ὁἀλ . τῆςἐλπίδοςαὐτοῦμετέχεινἐπ ʼ ἐλπίδι (א 3 D 3 E K L, Chrys. Thdrt.) and to κ . ὁἀλ . τῆςἐλπίδοςαὐτοῦμετέχειν (D F G, Ambst.). Some scribe did not see that ἀλοᾷν must be understood, and thus took μετέχειν to be the verb after ὀφείλει , making alterations to suit this construction. 11. Εἰἡμεῖςὑμῖν … εἰἡμεῖςὑμῶν . The ἡμεῖς in both places is emphatic and by juxtaposition is brought into contrast with the pronoun which follows. Cf. σύμουνίπτειςτοὺςπόδας (John 13:6). There is possibly a slight vein of banter in the question. ‘ If it is we who in your hearts sowed spiritual blessings, is it an exorbitant thing that we out of your possessions shall reap material blessings?’ What the Apostle gave was incalculable in its richness, what he might have claimed but never took, was a trivial advantage: was it worth disputing about? Was a little bodily sustenance to be compared with the blessings of the Gospel? With μέγαεἰ cf. 2 Corinthians 11:15: with τὰσαρκικά cf. τὰβιωτικά (6:3); ‘ all that is necessary for our bodily sustenance.’ θερισομεν (א A B K) seems preferable to θερίσωμεν (C D E F G L P). The future indicative marks the reaping as more certain to follow, for which reason Evans prefers the subjunctive. The Apostle refused to reap. See Lightfoot on Philippians 3:11: he thinks that there is only one decisive instance of εἰ with subj. in N.T. 12. εἰἄλλοιτῆςὑμῶνἐξουσίαςμετέχουσιν . ‘ If others (the Judaizing teachers) have a share of the privilege which you bestow,’ viz. the privilege of being maintained by the congregation. It seems better to make ὑμῶν the subjective genitive. Yet most commentators make it the objective genitive; ‘ have a share of the right exercised over you’ (Mark 6:7). But throughout the passage the ἐξουσία is looked at from the Apostles’ side, the advantage which rightly belongs to them. This implies power over the Corinthians to make them supply the maintenance; but that is not the side under consideration. And ‘ to have a share in power over people’ is a somewhat strange expression ‘ to have a share of a privilege which people allow’ is natural enough. But the sense is the same, however the genitive is interpreted. ‘ We have a better claim than others to the right of maintenance.’ Some conjecture ἡμῶν for ὑμῶν . ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἐχρησάμεθατῇἐξουσίᾳτ . ‘ Nevertheless,’ he triumphantly exclaims, ‘ we never availed ourselves of this privilege’ ; after elaborately demonstrating his right to the privilege, as if he were about to say, ‘ Therefore I hope that you will recognize the right and give the necessary maintenance for us in future,’ he declares that he has never accepted it and never means to do so.* and he seems to include Silvanus and Timothy. ἀλλὰπάνταστέγομεν . ‘ On the contrary, we endure all things;’ ‘ we bear up under all kinds of privations and deprivations, sooner than make use of this privilege.’ The verb may mean ‘ we are proof against,’ but it may be doubted whether πάντα means “ all pressure of temptation” to avail ourselves of maintenance. See on 13:7, and Milligan on 1 Thessalonians 3:1. Beza needlessly conjectures στέργομεν . ἵναμήτιναἐνκοπὴνδῶμεν . ‘ In order that we may not furnish any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ.’ Neither in LXX nor elsewhere in N.T. does ἐνκοπή occur, and the word is rare in class. Grk. It is literally ‘ an incision,’ and hence an ‘ interruption’ or ‘ violent break,’ as τῆςἁρμονίας . It is perhaps a metaphor from breaking bridges or roads to stop the march of an enemy. The English ‘ hamper’ had a similar origin, of impeding by means of cutting. ‘ That we may not in any way hamper the progress of the Gospel’ is therefore the meaning. Obviously, if he took maintenance, he might be suspected of preaching merely for the sake of what he got by it. Moreover, those who had to maintain him might resent the burden, and be unwilling to listen to him. Chrysostom uses ἀναβολή , ‘ a mound thrown up to stop progress,’ as equivalent to ἐνκοπή . St Paul’ s passionate determination to keep himself independent, especially at Corinth, appears in various places; 2 Corinthians 11:9, 2 Corinthians 11:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8. He must be free to rebuke, and his praise must be above the suspicion of being bought. While labouring at Corinth, he could accept help from Macedonians, but not from Corinthians. When Ignatius (Philad. 6) says that no one can accuse him of having been oppressive , he probably refers to the suppression of opinion rather than the enforcing of maintenance. Cf. ἐνέκοψεν , 1 Thessalonians 2:18. The MSS. vary between ὑμῶνἐξουσίας (א A B C D E F G P) and ἐξ . ῦμῶν : between τιναἐγκ . (א A B C) and ἐγκ . τινα : between ἐγκοπήν (A C D 3 F G K P), ἐνκοπήν (B F G) and ἐκκοπήν (א D L). There is no authority for ἡμῶνἐξουσίας . 13. He has reminded them that he has never in the past taken maintenance. Before stating what he means to do in the future, he strengthens the proof that he has a right to it. There is a higher and closer analogy than that of the soldier or of the different kinds of husbandmen. The other analogies may have escaped their notice, but surely they must be aware of the usages of the Temple, which in this matter did not differ from heathen usage. See Gray on Numbers 28:8-20. οὐκοἲδατε ; ‘ Do you not know that those who perform the temple-rites eat the food that comes out of the temple, those who constantly attend on the altar share with the altar’ what is offered thereon? The second half is not an additional fact; it repeats the first half in a more definite form. See Numbers 18:8-20 of the priest’ s portions, and 21-24 of the Levite’ s tithe, and contrast Deuteronomy 14:23 (see Driver, p. 169). Nowhere else in N.T. does συνμερίζομαι occur. τὰἐκτοῦἱεροῦ (א B D F G, Copt.) is preferable to ἐκτοῦἱεροῦ , without τά (A C D 3 E K L P, Syrr. Arm.): and παρεδρεύοντες (א A B C D E F G P) to προσεδρεύοντες (א 3 K L). Neither verb occurs elsewhere in N.T., and there is little difference of meaning between them. See LXX of Pro 1:21, Proverbs 8:3. 14. Just as God appointed that the priests and Levites should be supported out of what the people offered to Him, so did Christ also appoint that missionaries should be supported out of the proceeds of missions. For the parallel between Christian preachers and Jewish priests see Romans 15:16. It is clear that ὁΚύριος . means Christ; ‘ the Lord also, ’ just as Jehovah had done. St Paul was familiar with what is recorded Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7, Luke 10:8. See on 7:10 and 11:23. 15. οὐκέχρημαιοὐδενὶτούτων . He repeats, in a stronger form, the statement of v. 12. The change of tense brings it down to the present moment: ‘ I did not avail myself,’ οὐκἐχρησάμην , and ‘ I have not availed myself,’ οὐκέχρημαι . Moreover the addition of the pronoun makes the statement more emphatic; ‘ I, however, have not availed myself of any of these advantages.’ Others may have done so, but he has not. He now thinks no longer of Silvanus and Timothy, who were perhaps included in οὐκἐχρησάμεθα . (v. 12), and speaks only of himself. Even the close analogy of the maintenance of the priests has not induced him to do that. He has now completely justified the plea that he is not asking them to forego more than he foregoes himself. Si ego propter aliorum salutem a debitis sumptibus abstinui, saltem vos ab immolatis carnibus abstinete, ne multos fratrum praecipitetis in interitum (Herv.). But v. 13 may possibly have been introduced for the sake of another parallel. ‘ Like the priests who partake of what has been sacrificed, I have a right to partake of offerings, but for the sake of others I forbear. Then may I not ask you, although you have a right to partake of what has been sacrificed, for the sake of others to forbear?’ Having emphatically reminded them of his practice in the past, he now declares that he means to make no change. All this argument is not a prelude to requiring maintenance from them in future. οὐκἔγραψαδὲταῦτα . ‘ Now I did not write all this,’ viz. all the pleas which he has been urging (vv. 4-14). Or δέ may be ‘ yet,’ ‘ however,’ and ἒγραψα may be the epistolary aorist, like ἡγησάμην and ἒπεμψα (Philippians 2:25, Philippians 2:28), ἀνέπεμψα and ἒγραψα (Philemon 1:11, Philemon 1:19, Philemon 1:21); ‘ Yet I am not writing all this’ Winer, P. 347. Deissmann gives examples from papyri, Light, pp. 157, 164. ἵναοὕτωςγένηταιἐνἐμοί . ‘ That it may be so done (for the future) in my case’ : not ‘ unto me’ as A.V. Vulg. has in me rightly, and in eo, Matthew 17:12, where both AV. and RV. have ‘ unto him.’ καλὸνγάρμοι … οὐδεὶςκενώσει . Both reading and construction are doubtful. WH. make a rather violent aposiopesis after μᾶλλονἀποθανεῖνἢ : ‘ For a happy thing (it were) for me rather to die than— No one shall make void my glorying,’ i.e. his repeated declaration that he has never used his privilege of free maintenance. Lachmann’ s punctuation is still more violent; ‘ For a happy thing it were for me rather to die than that my glorying should do so: no one shall make it void.’ * The alternative is mentally to supply ἵνα , which with the fut. indic. is unusual, but not impossible (see v. 18). This difficulty led to the reading ἵνατιςκενώσῃ . It is impossible to get a satisfactory construction out of what seems to be the true text. οὐκέχρημαιοὐδενί (א A B C D E F G P 17) may safely be adopted: other texts vary the order, and some have ἑχρησάμην from v. 12. And οὐδειςκενώσει (א B D 17) is to be preferred to ἵνατιςκενώσῃ or κενώσει (א 3 C D 2 K L P). But whatever text or construction we adopt the sense remains the same; ‘ I would rather die than be deprived of my independence.’ But ‘ rather die of hunger than accept food’ is not the meaning. For καλὸν … ἤ see Swete on Mark 9:43; Winer, p. 302: the construction is not rare in LXX. 16. There must be no misunderstanding as to what he considers a matter for glorying. There can be no glory in doing what one is forced to do; and he is forced to preach the Gospel, because if he refused to do so, God would punish him. But he is not forced to preach the Gospel gratis; and he does preach gratis. In this there is room for glorying. See Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching, pp. 306 f. ἀνάγκηγάρμοιἐπίκειται . He refers to the special commission which he had received on the way to Damascus (Acts 9:6). He was ‘ a chosen vessel to bear Christ’ s name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel’ (Acts 9:15); he was separated for the work to which the Holy Spirit had called him (Acts 13:2); and this commission had been repeated in the Temple (Acts 22:21). It was impossible for him to reject it: Romans 1:14; Galatians 1:15f.; Ezekiel 3:17 f. ‘ Is laid’ (AV., RV.) is not accurate for ἐπίκειται : ‘ lies’ or presses upon me’ is the meaning (Luke 5:1, Luke 5:23:23; Acts 27:20) ἐπίκειταιἡμῖντὰτῆςβασιλείας (1 Mae. 6:57); κρατερὴδ ʼ ἐπεκείσετ ʼ ἀνάγκη (Hom. Il. vi. 458). But St Paul’ s ἀνάγκη is the call of God, not the Greek’ s driving of blind fate. 17, 18. Various explanations have been given of these rather obscure verses, and it is not worth while to discuss them all. The following is close to the Greek and fits the context. ‘ For if by my own choice I make a business of this (as other teachers do), I get a reward (as they do).’ As a matter of fact the Apostle does not do this; he preaches because he must, and does not make a business of it or take any reward. But in order to make the argument complete, he states an alternative which might be a fact. He then states what is a fact. ‘ If, however, it is not of my own choice, then it is a stewardship that has been entrusted to me. What, then, is the reward that comes to me? Why, that in preaching the Gospel I shall render the Gospel free of charge, so as not to use to the uttermost my privilege in the Gospel.’ Or we may explain thus: (1) St Paul had a μισθός (v. 18); therefore εἰγὰρἑκών … is not a rejected alternative; (2) his μισθός is practically the same as his καύχημα (v. 15). Thus the alternatives of v. 17 are both true. He preached of obligation, but also in a way he was not obliged to adopt, i.e. without pay. The latter, not the former, secured him a reward. If he wished to exercise his privilege as an Apostle for all that it was worth , he would insist upon full maintenance as his μισθός . But the μισθός which he prefers and gets is the delight of preaching without pay, of giving the Glad-tidings for nought, and taking no money for them. The idea of his μισθός being the commendation which he will receive at the Day of Judgment is quite foreign to the passage. Some editors carry the interrogation on to εὐαγγελίῳ . This makes a question of awkward length, and leaves the question to answer itself. To put the question at ὁμισθός , and make what follows the answer to it, is more pointed. ‘ What is the pay that I get? Why, the pleasure of refusing pay.’ An οἰκονόμος was often a slave (Luke 12:42). With πεπίστευμαι compare Galatians 2:7 and Lukyn Williams’ note there; also 1 Timothy 1:11; Titus 1:3; and see Deissmann, Light, P. 379. Nowhere else in the Bible does ἀδάπανον occur, and nowhere else in N.T. does ἄκων occur. See on 7:31 for καταχρήσασθαι . μοιἐστίν (א 3 B L P) rather than ἐστίνμοι (D3 E), or μουἐστίν (א A C K), or ἔσταιμοι (D F G). After τὸεὐαγγέλιον , D 2 E F G K L P, Syrr. add τοῦΧριστοῦ : א A B C D, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit. 19.Ἐλεύθεροςγὰρὤν . ‘ For although I am free from all, yet I made myself a bondservant to all, in order that I might gain the more.’ * He is about to show other ways in which he, waives his rights, in order to serve others and help the spread of the Gospel. Others take these verses (19-23) as explaining the ways in which he gets his recompense by refusing recompense. But ἐλεύθεροςὤν seems to look back to v. 1 and to prepare the way for further instances of his forgoing his ἐλευθερία . Note the emphatic juxtaposition of πάντωνπᾶσιν by chiasmus. Both πάντων and πᾶσιν are ambiguous as regards gender; but πᾶσιν is almost certainly masculine, and that makes it almost certain that πάντων is masculine; ‘ all men’ (AV., RV.); jedermann (Luther); so also Calvin, though he regards the neuter as possible. Origen adopts the neuter as if it were certain. “ To be free ἐκπάντων ,” he says, “ is the mark of a perfect Apostle. A man may be free from unchastity but be a slave to anger, free from avarice but a slave to vanity; he may be free from one sin but a slave to another sin. But to say, ‘ Although I am free from all,’ is the mark of a perfect Apostle and such was Paul.” Strange that Origen should suppose that the Apostle would make any such claim. He rightly points out that there was no harm in Paul’ s going to Jewish synagogues and observing Jewish customs, for he did not do this deceitfully, ἀλλὰθηρεύωντινὰςἐξαὐτῶν . In interpreting, Origen inserts the article before νόμον , and each time writes οἱὑπὸτὸννόμον . He says that people asked what was the difference between οἱἸουδαῖοι and οἱὑπὸτὸννόμον , and he thinks that the latter refers to such people as the Samaritans. But, in quoting, he omits the article. He points out that St Paul does not say μὴὢνἸουδαῖος , for he was a Jew, although οὐκέτιἐντῷφανερῷ : but he does say μὴὢνὑπόνόμον , for he was not a Samaritan. The meaning of it all is, that he could find in all men something with which he could sympathize, and he used this to win them. This was hard work for one with so strong and pronounced an individuality as he had. τοὺςπλείονας . He could not expect to win all; but τούςπλείονας does not mean ‘ the majority of mankind,’ nor ‘ more than any other Apostle,’ but ‘ more than I should have gained if I had not made myself a slave to all.’ This is best expressed by ‘ the more’ (AV., RV.). With κερδήσω Cf. Matthew 18:15; 1 Peter 3:1.* 20. He now gives examples of his becoming a slave to all. He is the slave of Christ, and becomes a slave to others, in order, like a faithful οἰκονόμος , to make gains for his Master. An οἰκονόμος (see above) might be a slave. ‘ And (καί epexegetic) I behaved to the Jews as a Jew,’ e.g. in circumcising Timothy at Lystra (Acts 16:3.). Cf. Acts 21:26. τοῖςὑπὸνόμονὡςὑπὸνόμον . ‘ To them that are under Law I behaved as one under Law.’ The context shows clearly that νόμος here means the Mosaic Law as a whole: but the sentence is not a mere explication of the preceding one. The one refers to nationality, the other to religion; and there were some who were under the Mosaic Law who were not Jews by race. The Apostle includes all who are not heathen. μὴὤναὐτὸςὑπὸνόμον . ‘ Though I knew that I was not myself under Law.’ He does not say οὐκὤν , which might refer to a fact of which he was not aware: but οὐ with participles is rare in N.T. The parenthesis is remarkable as showing how completely St Paul had broken with Judaism. See Dobschü itz, Probleme, p. 82. In commenting on this verse Origen indicates that he was not the first to do so; τινὲςἐξήτησαντίςἡδιαφορὰτῶνὑπὸτὸννόμονπαρὰτοὺςἸουδαίους . See on 1:24. This parenthesis is omitted in D3 K, Copt. Aeth. AV., but is clearly to be inserted with א A B C D* E F G P, Vulg. Arm. RV. The omission is probably due to homoeoteleuton, νόμον to νόμον . 21. τοῖςἀνόμοις . He goes a good deal further, and says that he was willing to behave as a heathen to heathen (cf. Galatians 2:19). He did this, as Origen remarks, when he quoted heathen poets, and took as a text the inscription on a heathen altar, ἀνγώστῳΘεῶ . See also Acts 14:15, Acts 24:25, where his arguments are such as a heathen would appreciate. Here ἄνομος does not mean ‘ lawless’ in the sense of disregarding and transgressing law (Luke 22:37; Acts 2:23; 1 Timothy 1:9), but = οἱμὴὑπὸνόμον , ‘ those who were outside Law’ ; Romans 2:14. Evans (following Estius, exlex, inlex) translates, ‘ To God’ s outlaws I behaved as an outlaw, not being (as I well knew) an outlaw of God, but an inlaw of Christ’ ; and Origen explains the latter as meaning τηρῶντὴνπολιτείαντὴνκατὰτὸεὐαγγέλιον . But even ‘ outlaw’ has too much of the idea of lawlessness to be quite satisfactory. The genitives, Θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ mean ‘ in relation to.’ Qui est ἄνομοςΘεῷ est etiam ἄνομοςΧριστῷ : qui est ἔννομοςΧριστῷ est ἔννομοςΘεῷ : and (on Galatians 6:2) lex Christi, lex amoris (Beng.). It was the lex amoris, as followed by himself, that the Apostle would enforce on the Corinthians with regard to eating idol-meats; and this thought brings him to the last illustration of his forbearing conformity, τοῖςἀσθενέσινἀσθενής . The Law of Christ, while freeing him from the Law of Moses, did not leave him free to do as he pleased: it restrained him, and kept him from wandering to other objects than the service of God and man (2 Corinthians 5:14). θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ (א A B C D F G P, Latt. Copt., Orig. Chrys.) rather than θεῷ and Χρισῷ (D3 K L, Arm. Thdrt.): see Blass, § 36. II. κερδάνω or κερδανῶ (א A B C F G P 17) rather than κερδήσω (א * D E K L Orig. Chrys. Thdrt.), which is from vv. 19, 20. τοὺςάνόμους (א A B C D E P 17, Orig.) rather than ἀνόμους (א 3 F G K L, Chrys. Thdrt.), perhaps to conform with Ἰουδαίους , 22. τοῖςἀσθενέσινἀσθενής . ‘ To the weaklings I became a weakling’ . When he had to deal with the over-scrupulous, he sympathized with their scruples, abstaining from things which seemed to them (though not to him) to be wrong. Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:29; Romans 14:1, Romans 15:1. Certainly this is the meaning, not “ those who had not strength to believe the Gospel.” Origen says that he was weak to the weak when he allowed those who burn to marry. He points out that Paul does not say μὴὢναὐτὸςἀσθενής , which would have been ἀλαζονικόν and ὑπερήφανον : Yet surely not so much so as Origen’ s own interpretation of ἐλεύθεροςἐκπάντων (see on v. 19). See Resch, Agrapha, p. 132. τοῖςπᾶσινγέγοναπάντα . ‘ To them all I am become all things’ . The change from aorist to perfect is significant; this is the permanent result of his past action; he is always all-sided in all relations. His accommodation has no limit excepting the one just stated, that he is ἔννομοςΧριστοῦ . See Lightfoot on Galatians 2:5, where we see this limit operating; also On Revision, p. 92. Tarsus taught him to be many-sided. (Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, pp. 346 f.) ἵναπάντωςτινὰςσώσω . Another significant change; from κερδήσω to σώσω . When he sums up the various conciliations and accommodations he states the ultimate aim;— not merely to win this or that class to his side, but, by every method that was admissible, to save their souls. Peter sacrificed a Christian principle to save himself from Jewish criticism (Galatians 2:12-14). Cf. for the πάντως Tobit 14:8; 2 Mal 3:13. See the remarkable comment on vv. 20-22 in Cassian, Conf. xvi. 20. Before ἀσθενής , א 3 C D F G K L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. insert ὡς from vv. 20, 21: א * A B, Latt. Orig. omit. Before πάντα , D2 K L P, Orig. Thdrt. insert τά : א A B C D* F G omit. For πάντωςτινάς some texts (D E F G, Latt.) have πάντας , or (17, Clem-Alex.) τοὺςπάντας . Clem. Alex. (Strom. v. 3) has three variations from the true text; πάνταἐγενόμηνἵνατοὺςπάνταςκερδήσω . Orig, varies between τοὺςπάντας , πάνταςἢτινάς , and πάντα . Calv., rejecting ut omnes facerem salvos (Vulg.) for ut omnino aliquos servem, remarks; quia successu interdum caret indulgentia cujus Paulus meminit, optime convenit haec restrictio: quamvis non proficeret apud omnes, non tamen destitisse, quin paucorum saltem utilitati consuleret. 23. πάνταδὲποιῶδιὰτὸεὐαγγέλιον . ‘ Yet all that I do, I do because of the Gospel.’ * Not, ‘ for the Gospel’ s sake’ , in order to help its progress, but because the Gospel is so precious to himself. He has just been stating how much he does for the salvation of others; he now adds that he is also careful of his own salvation, and thus anticipates the conclusion of v. 27. What follows shows that this is the meaning; he must secure his share in that eternal life which the Gospel offers. ἵνασυνκοινωνὸςαὐτοῦγένωμαι . ‘ In order that I may prove to be a fellow-partaker thereof,’ i.e. not lose his share in the salvation which he tries to bring to others.† Even in speaking of his own salvation he does not regard it as the main thing, or as something apart by itself. Salvation is offered by the Gospel to all; and he must strive to be one of those who receive it. The prize is not yet won: σύν et γίγνομαι magnam habent modestiam (Beng.). 24. The thought of possible failure, where failure would be so disastrous, suggests an exhortation to great exertion, which is illustrated by the practice of runners and boxers in the Isthmian games. These were held once in three years close to Corinth. See Hastings, DB. art. ‘ Games’ ; Smith, D. of Grk, and Rom. Ant. art. ‘ Isthmia’ . The reference to the games is certain; such contests were common everywhere. The reference to the Isthmian games is much less certain. See Ramsay, Pauline Studies, p. 332, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, p. 363. οἱἑνσταδίῳτρέχοντες … βραβεῖον . ‘ The runners in a race-course all of them run, but one taketh the prize.’ * Does that mean, asks Origen, that only one Christian is saved, while the rest of us are lost? Not so, for all who are in the way of salvation are one, ‘ one body.’ It is the Christian Church that runs, and there is a prize for each of its members. But the prize is not in all cases the same: God gives to each according to his merit. The derivation of βραβεῖον (brabeum, brabium, bravium) is unknown. It occurs Philippians 3:14; Clem. Rom. Cor. 5; Tatian, Ad Graec. 33. 25. οὕτωςτρέχετε , ἵνακαταλάβητε . ‘ So run, that ye may secure it.’ The οὕτως may look back to the successful competitor; ‘ run as he does’ : or it may simply anticipate the ἵνα .† The change from λαμβάνει to καταλάβητε marks the difference between mere receiving and securing as one’ s own possession, and this play on words cannot be reproduced in English. Evans suggests ‘ take’ and ‘ overtake.’ This would be excellent, if we had οὕτωςδιώκετε , ἱνακαταλάβητε , for διώκειν and καταλαμβάνειν are common correlatives for ‘ pursue’ and ‘ overtake.’ But here the idea of one Christian overtaking another is alien to the context, and ‘ to overtake a prize’ is not a natural expression. In Philippians 3:12 we have the same play on words, but there we have διώκω , as also in Romans 9:30. πᾶςδὲὁἀλωνιζόμενος . It is easy to talk about securing the prize, ‘ but every one who enters for a contest, in everything practises self-control’ ; he goes into strict training, which for a Greek athlete lasted ten months. Ἐγκρατ . occurs 7:9, and nowhere else in N.T. Cf. Hor. Ars Poet. 412 f. AV. puts a colon, RV. a full stop, here, so that what follows is an independent sentence. More probably, ἐκεῖνοιμέν and ἡμεῖςδέ are two classes which make up the whole company of athletes, πᾶςὁἀγωνιζόμενος . With WH. put only a comma after ἐγκρατεύεται . Emphasis on πᾶς and πάντα . φθαρτὸνστέφανον . In the Isthmian games a pine-wreath: cf. 1 Peter 5:4; Wisd. 4:2. Philo (De Migr. Abr. 6), “ Thou hast proved thyself to me a perfect athlete, and hast been deemed worthy of prizes and wreaths , while Virtue presides over the games and holds forth to thee rewards of victory.” Even Pindar has not succeeded in making the wreath of glory ἄφθαρτος : the victors in the games are not those who are remembered in history. Non solum corona, sed etiam memoria ejus perit (Beng.). The οὖν is independent of the μέν , which anticipates the following δέ (contrast 5:4, 7); ‘ they verily,’ or ‘ they of course, in order to receive a perishable crown.’ ἡμεῖςδὲἄφθαρτον . The exact expression is not found elsewhere in N.T., but we have ἀμαράντινοντῆςδόξηςστέφανον (1 Peter 5:4), where ‘ made of immortelles’ is perhaps the meaning rather than ‘ which fadeth not away’ : see Bigg ad loc. But ‘ amaranth’ and ‘ immortelles’ are flowers that do not fade, so that the meaning is much the same. Elsewhere we have τὸνστέφανοντῆςζωῆς (James 1:12; Revelation 2:10), ὁτῆςδικαιοσύνηςστέφανος (2 Timothy 4:8). In all these places, as here, it is a crown of victory that is meant, rather than a royal crown, διάδημα (Revelation 12:3, 19:12; 62:3, 1 Esdr. 4:30, 1Mac. 8:13, 8:32). The contrast between φθαρτός and ἄφθαρτος occurs in 1 Peter 1:23. In LXX of Zec 6:14 we have ὁδὲστέφανοςἔσταιτοῖςὑπομένουσιν : but more to the point is the description of Virtue in Wisd. 4:2, ἐντῷαἰῶνιστεφανηφοροῦσαπομπεύει , τὸντῶνἀμιάντωνἄθλωνἀγῶνανικήσασα . The figure is frequent in 4 Mac. Lightfoot (St Paul and Seneca) quotes from Seneca (Ep. Mor. lxxviii. 16) a remarkable parallel; “ What blows do athletes receive in their face, what blows all over their body. Yet they bear all the torture from thirst of glory. Let us also overcome all things, for our reward is not a crown or a palm branch or the trumpeter proclaiming silence for the announcement of our name, but virtue and strength of mind and peace acquired ever after.” Epictetus also (Dis. iii. 21) has a fine passage on the qualifications and responsibilities of teachers; “ The thing is great, it is mystical, not a common thing, nor is it given to every man. But not even wisdom perhaps is enough to enables a man to take care of youths: a man must have a certain readiness and fitness for this purpose; and above all things he must have God to advise him to occupy this office (vv. 16, 17; 7:40), as God advised Socrates to occupy the place of one who confutes error. Why then do you act at hazard in things of the greatest importance? Leave it to those who are able to do it, and to do it well.” And again (3:22), “ He who without God attempts so great a matter, is hateful to God.” 26. ἐγὼτοίνυν . Instead of going on with his exhortation to others, he looks to himself. He cannot dispense with painful effort. ‘ I for my part, therefore, am so running, as one with no uncertain course.’ He knew the goal quite well, and he knew the road which led to it (Galatians 2:2). Here οὕτως anticipates ὡς (4:1), which adds weight to the view that in v. 24 οὕτως anticipates ἵνα . But οὕτωςτρέχω does not make it probable that οὕτωςτρέχετε is indicative. To render οὐκἀδήλως ‘ not without certainty of reaching the goal’ makes it almost contradict the fear expressed in μήπωςἀδόκιμοςγένωμαι . Scio quod petam et quomodo (Beng.) is better. In N.T., τοίνυν generally begins a sentence (see on Luke 20:25 and cf. Hebrews 8:13): St Paul has the usual classical order (cf. Wisd. 1:11, 8:9). Nowhere else in the Bible is ἀδήλως found: but see 2 Mac. 7:34; Philippians 3:14. οὕτωςπυκτεύω . ‘ I so box as smiting not the air.’ It is unlikely that he means ‘ I do not smite the air, but I beat my body,’ in which case μουτὸσῶμα would have preceded ὑπωπιάζω , and it is rash to say that οὐκ negatives ἀέρα , because the negative of δέρων would have been μή . We may regard οὐκἀέραδέρων as one term, ‘ no air-smiter’ : he uses his fists as one in deadly earnest, and does not miss: he plants his blow. And οὐ with participles still survives in N.T., where the writer feels “ that the proper negative for a statement of downright fact is οὐ .” There are eleven other instances in Paul: four in 2 Corinthians 4:8, 2 Corinthians 4:9; two in a quotation in Galatians 4:27; one each in Romans 9:25; Galatians 4:8; Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:19; 1 Thessalonians 2:4. See also Matthew 22:11; Luke 6:42; John 10:12; Acts 7:5, Acts 7:26:22, Acts 7:28:17, Acts 7:19; Hebrews 11:1, Hebrews 11:35; Heb_1 Pet, 1:8 (see Hort), and a quotation in 2:10. J. H. Moulton (Gr. i. p. 231) gives numerous illustrations from papyri, and concludes with a remark which applies to this passage. “ The closeness of the participle to the indicative in the kinds of sentence found in this list makes the survival of οὐ natural.” See Blass, § 75.5. ‘ Beating the air,’ whether literally or metaphorically, is common in literature. Virgil’ s Dares (Aen, v. 377), verberat ictibus auras, and Entellus vices in ventum effudit (446) may occur to any one; also ventosque lacessit ictibus (12:105; Geor. iii. 233). Ovid, Met. vii. 786, vacuos exercet in aera morsus. Valerious Flaccus, Arg. iv. 302, vacuas agit inconsulta per auras brachia. Hom. Il. xx. 446, τρὶςδ — ἠέρατύψεβαθεῖαν . Cf. also εἰςἀέραλαλεῖν (14:9). But we are not to understand the Apostle as speaking of practising boxing: both τρέχω and πυκτεύω refer to the actual contest. We see the close of it in 2 Timothy 4:7, 2 Timothy 4:8. 27. ἀλλ ʼ ὑπωπιάζω … δουλαγωγῶ . ‘ But I bruise my body black and blue and lead it along as a bond-servant.’ The renderings of ὑπωπιάζω are various; castigo (Vulg.), lividum facio (d), contundo (Beza), subigo (Calv.). See on Luke 18:5, where Vulg. has sugillo.* It is perhaps too much to say that St Paul regards his body as an antagonist. Rather, it is something which becomes a bad master, if it is not made to be a good servant. It is like the horses in a chariot race, which must be kept well in hand by whip and rein if the prize is to be secured. The Apostle was no Gnostic, regarding the body as incurably evil, and here he says σῶμα not σάρξ . But the body must be made the δοῦλος of the spirit. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 10:1-11:1. THESE APPLIED The fear expressed in 9:27 suggests the case of the Israelites, who, through want of self-control, lost the promised prize. They presumed on their privileges, and fell into idolatry, which they might have resisted (1-13). This shows the danger of idolatry: and idol-feasts are really idolatry, as the parallels of the Christian Eucharist and of the Jewish sacrifices show. Idol-feasts must always be avoided (14-22). Idol-meats need not always be avoided, but only when the fact that they have been sacrificed to idols is pointed out by the scrupulous (23-11:1). 10:1-13. Take warning from the fall of our fathers in the wilderness. Distrust yourselves. Trust in God. 1 The risk of being rejected is real. Our ancestors had extraordinary advantages, such as might seem to ensure success. They were all of them protected by the cloud, and they all passed safely through the sea, 2 and all pledged themselves to trust in Moses by virtue of their trustful following of the cloud and their trustful march in the sea; 3 all ate the same supernatural food, 4 and all drank the same supernatural drink; for they used to drink from a supernatural Rock which attended them, and the Rock was really a manifestation of the Messiah. 5 Yet, in spite of these amazing advantages, the vast majority of them frustrated the good purpose of God who granted these mercies. This is manifest; for they were overthrown by Him in the wilderness. 6 Now all these experiences of theirs happened as examples which we possess for our guidance, to warn us against lusting after evil things, just as those ancestors of ours actually did. 7 And so you must not fall into idolatry, as some of them fell; even as it stands written, The people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to sport. 8 And let us not be led on to commit fornication, as some of them committed, and died in a single day, 23,000 of them. 9 And let us not strain beyond all bounds the Lord’ s forbearance, as some of them strained it, and were destroyed, one after another, by serpents. 10 Nor yet murmur ye, which is just what some of them did, and were destroyed forthwith by the destroying angel. 11 Now all these experiences by way of example occurred one after another to them, and they were recorded with a view to admonishing us, unto whom the ends of the ages, with their weight of authority, have come down. 12 Therefore if, like our forefathers, you think that you are standing securely, beware lest self-confidence cause you, in like manner, to fall. 13 And you can avoid falling. No temptation has taken you other than a man can withstand. Yes, you may trust God; He will not let you be tempted beyond your strength. While He arranges the temptation to brace your character, He will also arrange the necessary way of escape, and the certainty that He will do this will give you strength to endure. 1. οὐθελθ … ἀδελφοί . See on 12:1. The γάρ shows the connexion with what precedes: ‘ Failure through lack of selfdiscipline is not an imaginary peril: if you lack it, your great spiritual gifts will not save you from disaster.’ * οἱπατέρεςἡμῶν . Just as Christ spoke of the ancestors of the Jews as ‘ your fathers’ (Matthew 23:32; Luke 11:47; John 6:49), so the Apostle calls them ‘ our fathers’ : some members of the Church of Corinth were Jews, and the expression, was literally true of them, as of St Paul. But he may mean that the Israelites were the spiritual ancestors of all Christians. In Galatians 6:16 ‘ the Israel of God’ means the whole body of believers. Clem. Rom. (Cor. 60) uses τοῖςπατράσινἡμῶν in the same sense, and speaks to the Corinthians of Jacob (4), and Abraham (31) as ὁπατὴρἡμῶν . See on Romans 4:1. πάντες . The emphatic repetition in each clause marks the contrast with οὐκἐντοῖςπλείοσιν (v. 5). All, without exception, shared these great privileges, but not even a majority (in fact only two) secured the blessing which God offered them. No privilege justifies a sense of security: privilege must be used with fear and trembling. ὑπὸτὴννεφέλην . ‘ Under the cloud’ which every one remembers (Exodus 13:21, Exodus 13:22, Exodus 13:14:19, 24, 40:38; etc.). The acc. perhaps indicates movement. They marched with the cloud above them.* The pillar of fire is not mentioned, as less suitable for the figurative ἑΒαπτίσντο which follows: Wisd. 19:7. 2. εἰςτὸνΜωϋσῆνἐβ . ‘ They received baptism unto Moses,’ as a sign of allegiance to him and trust in him; or ‘ into Moses,’ as a pledge of union with him. Comparison with baptism ‘ into Christ’ (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27) is suggested, and it is implied that the union with Moses which was the saving of the Israelites was in some way analogous to the union with Christ which was the salvation of the Corinthians. Throughout the paragraph, the incidents are chosen from the Pentateuch with a view to parallels with the condition of the Corinthian Christians. The Israelites had had a baptism into Moses, just as the Corinthians had had a baptism into Christ. For a contrast between Christ and Moses, see Hebrews 3:1-6. With the aor. mid. compare ἀπελούσασθε , 6:2; with the είς Acts 19:3. ἐντῇνεφέλῃκαὶἐντῇθαλάσσῃ . Both cloud and sea represent “ the element in which their typical baptism took place.” To make the cloud the Holy Spirit and the sea the water is forced and illogical; both are material and watery elements, and both refer to the water in baptism. In what follows it is the material elements in the Eucharist which are indicated. Editors are divided between ἐβαπτίσαντο (B K L P) and ἐβαπτίσθησαν (א A C D E F G). But the latter looks like a correction to the expression which was generally used of Christian baptism (1:13, 15, 7:13; etc.). Cf. 6:2. 3. τὸαὐτὸβρῶμαπνενματικόν . The manna which typified the bread in the Eucharist (John 6:31, John 6:32) was ‘ spiritual’ as being of supernatural origin, ἄρτοςἀγγέλων (Psalms 78:25), ἀγγέλωντροφή (Wisd. 16:20). In all three passages, as here and Nehemiah 9:15, Nehemiah 9:20, the aorist is used throughout;— quite naturally, of an act which is past, and the repetition of which is not under consideration. It is possible that πνευματικόν also means that “ the immediate relief and continuous supply of their bodily needs tended to have an effect upon their spirit; that is, to strengthen their faith” (Massie). Israelitis, una cum cibo corporis, alimentum animarum datum est (Beng.). Others take it as meaning that the manna and the water had a spiritual or allegorical meaning. It is remarkable that St Paul chooses the manna and the rock, and not any of the Jewish sacrifices, as parallels to the Eucharist. In class. Grk. πῶμα is more common than πόμα . WH. bracket the first τὸαὐτό , which א , Aeth. omit, while A C omit αὐτό : but τὸαὺτό is verystrongly attested (א 3 B C2 D E F G K L P Latt.). MSS. vary between πν . βρ . ἐφ .(א B C2 P), πν . ἐφ .(א D E F G K L), and πν . ἐφ .Βρ . (A 17). A omits the second αὐτό , abd again thers is difference as to the order; πν . ἐπ . πόμα (א A B C P). πόμαπν . ἐπ . (D E F G K L). 4. ἔπινονγὰρἐκπν . ἀκολουθούσηςπέτρας . ‘ For they used to drink from a spiritual rock accompanying them’ , or ‘ from a spiritual accompanying rock.’ The change to the imperfect is here quite intelligible: they habitually made use of a source which was always at hand. It is not so easy to determine the thought which lies at the back of this statement. That the wording of the passage has been influenced by the Jewish legend about a rock following the Israelites in their wanderings and supplying them with water, is hardly doubtful; but that the Apostle believed the legend is very doubtful. In its oldest form, the legend made the well of Beer (Numbers 21:16 f.) follow the Israelites; afterwards it was the rock of Kadesh (Numbers 20:1 f.) which did so, or a stream flowing from the rock. St Paul seems to take up this Rabbinic fancy and give it a spiritual meaning. The origin of the allusion is interesting, but not of great importance: further discussion by Driver (Expositor, 3rd series, ix. pp. 15. f); Thackeray, pp. 195, 204 f.; Selbie ; Abbott (The Son of Man, pp. 648 f., 762). Of much more importance is the unquestionable evidence of the Apostle’ s belief in the pre-existence of Christ. He does not say, ‘ And the rock is Christ,’ which might mean no more than, ‘ And the rock is a type of Christ,’ but, ‘ And the rock was Christ.’ In Galatians 4:24, Galatians 4:25 he uses the present tense, Hagar and Sarah ‘ are two covenants,’ i.e. represent them, are typical of them. Similarly, in the interpretation of parables (Matthew 13:19-23, Matthew 13:37-38) we have ‘ is’ throughout. The ἦν implies that Christ was the source of the water which saved the Israelites from perishing of thirst; there was a real Presence of Christ in the element which revived their bodies and strengthened their faith. The comment of Herveius, Sic solet loqui Scriptura, res significantes tanqam illas quae significantur appellans, is true, but inadequate; it overlooks the difference between ἐστι and ἦν . We have an approach to this in Wisd. 11:4, where the Israelites are represented as calling on the Divine Wisdom in their thirst, and it is Wisdom which grants the water. Philo (Quod deterius potiori, p. 176) speaks of the Divine Wisdom as a solid rock which gives imperishable sustenance to those who desired it; and he then goes on to identify the rock with the manna. The pre-existence of Christ is implied in ἐπτώχευσεν (2 Corinthians 8:9), in ἐξαπέστειλενὁΘεὸςτὸνυἱὸναὐτοῦ (Galatians 4:4), and in ὁΘεὸςτὸνἑαντοῦυἱὸνπέμψας (Romans 8:3). Cf. Philippians 2:5, Philippians 2:6, and see Jü licher, Paulus u. Jesus, p. 31; J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus, p. 64; Walther, Pauli Christentum Jesu Evangelium, p. 24. Justin (Try. 114) probably had this passage in his mind when he wrote of dying for the name τῆςκαλῆςπέτρας , καὶζῶνὕδωρταῖςκαρδίαιςβρυούσης , καὶποτιζούσηςτοὺςβουλομένουςτὸτῆςζωῆςὔδωρπιεῖν . By the statement that the life-saving rock was a manifestation of the power of Christ, present with the Israelites, the Apostle indicates that the legend, at which he seems to glance in ἀκολουθούσης , is not to be believed literally. What clearly emerges is that, as the Israelites had something analogous to Baptism, so also they had something analogous to the Eucharist; and this is the only passage in N.T. in which the two sacraments are mentioned together. MSS. vary between ἡπέτραδεἡδὲπέτρα A C D2 K L P), and πἕτραδέ (F G). 5. ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἐντοῖςπλείοσιναὐτῶνηὐδόκησενὁΘεός . ‘ Howbeit, not with most of them was God well pleased.’ Although all of them had great blessings (and, in particular, those which resembled the two sacraments which the Corinthian Church enjoyed), there were very few in whom God’ s gracious purpose respecting them could be fulfilled. In οὐκἐντοῖςπλείοσιν we have a mournful understatement: only two, Caleb and Joshua, entered the Promised Land (Numbers 14:30-32). All the rest, thousands in number, though they entered the lists, were disqualified, ἀδόκιμοιἐγένοντο (9:27), by their misconduct. In the Epistles, the evidence as to the augment of εὐδοκέω varies greatly; in 1:21, εὐδόκησεν is undisputed; here the balance favours ηύδ . (A B* C): see WH. 11. Notes p. 162. The construction εὐδ . ἔντινι is characteristic of LXX and N.T., while Polybius and others write εὐδ . τινι : but exceptions both ways are found (2 Thessalonians 2:12; 2Th_1 Mac. 1:43). In Matthew 12:18 and Hebrews 10:6 we have the accusative. κατεστρώθησανγὰρἐντῇἐρήμῳ . The γάρ introduces a justification of the previous statement. God cannot have been well pleased with them, for κατέστρωσεναὐτοὺςἐντῇἐρήμῳ (Numbers 14:16). They did not die a natural death; their death was a judicial overthrow. The verb is frequent in judges and 2 Maccabees; cf. Eur. Her. Fur. 1000: nowhere else in N.T. It gives a graphic picture, the desert strewn with dead (Hebrews 3:17). 6. Ταῦταδὲτύποιἡμῶνἐγενήθησαν . ‘ Now these things came to pass as examples for us to possess.’ The examples were of two kinds; beneficia quae populus accepit et peccata quae idem admisit (Beng.). The one kind was being followed; the Corinthians had sacraments and spiritual gifts: they must take care that the other kind was avoided. This is better than understanding τύποι in the sense of types, the Israelites being types and the Corinthians antitypes; in which case ἡμῶν would be the subjective genitive.* Origen understands it in the sense of examples to warn us. The transition from τύπος as ‘ the mark of a blow’ (John 20:25) to ‘ the stamp of a die,’ and thence to any ‘ copy,’ is easy. But a ‘ copy’ may be a thing to be copied, and hence τύπος comes to mean ‘ pattern’ or ‘ example.’ See Milligan on 1 Thessalonians 1:7. Deus, inquit, illos puniendo tanquanm in tabula nobis severitatem suam repraesentavit, ut inde edocti timere discamus (Calv.). Ea potissimum delicta memorantur, quae ad Corinthios admonendos pertinent (Beng.). See Weinel, St Paul, pp. 58, 59. εἰςτὸμὴεἶναι . This confirms the view that τύπος does not mean ‘ types,’ but examples for guidance, ‘ to the intent that we should not be.’ In saying εἶναιἐπιθυμητάς rather than ἐπιθυμεῖν he is probably thinking of ἐκεῖἔθαψαντὸνλαὸντὸνἐπιθυμητήν (Numbers 11:34). The substantive occurs nowhere else in N.T. καθὼςκἀκεῖνοιἐπεθύμησαν . ‘ Even as they also lusted.’ The καί is not logical, and perhaps ought to be omitted in translation; it means ‘ they as well as you,’ which assumes that the Corinthians have done what they are here charged not to do: cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13. Longing for past heathen pleasures may be meant. 7. μηδὲεἰδωλολάτραιγίνεσθε . ‘ Neither become ye idolaters.’ The μηδέ is not logical; it puts a species on a level with its genus. ‘ Lusting after evil things’ is the class, of which idolatry and fornication are instances; and the μηδέ , ‘ nor yet,’ implies that idolatry is a new class. It was, however, the most important of the special instances, because of its close connexion with the Corinthian question. But this is another point in which Greek idiom is sometimes rather illogical. We should say ‘ Therefore do not become.’ The τινες is another understatement, like οὐκἐντοῖςπλείοσιν : the passage quoted shows that the whole people took part in the idolatry. St Paul seems to be glancing at the extreme case in 8:10, of a Christian showing his superior γνῶσις by sitting at an idol-banquet in an idol-temple. Such conduct does amount to taking part in idolatrous rites. The Apostle intimates, more plainly than before, that the danger of actual idolatry is not so imaginary as the Corinthians in their enlightened emancipation supposed. παίζειν . The quotation is the LXX of Exo 32:6, and we know that the ‘ play’ or ‘ sport’ included χοροί , which Moses saw as he drew near.* These dances would be in honour of the golden calf, like those of David in honour of the Ark of God, as he brought it back (2 Samuel 6:14). The quotation, therefore, indicates an idolatrous banquet followed by idolatrous sport. Calvin asks why the Apostle mentions the banquet and the sport, which were mere accessories, and says nothing about the adoration of the image, which was the essence of the idolatry. He replies that it was in these accessories that some Corinthians thought that they might indulge. None of them thought that they might go so far as to join in idolatrous worship. No doubt ὤσπερ א A B D3 L) before γέγραπται is to be preferred to ώς (C D K P), and perhaps πεῖν (B D* F G) to πιεῖν (A B3 C D3 E K L P): πῖν supports πεῖν . See on 9:4. 8. The relationship of idol-worship and fornication is often very close, and was specially so at Corinth (Jowett, ‘ On the Connexion of Immorality and Idolatry,’ Epp. of St Paul, 2. p. 70). Hence fornication is taken as the second instance of lusting after evil things. In the matter of Baal-Peor (Numbers 25:1-9), to which allusion is made here, it was the intimacy with the strange women which led to participation in the idolatrous feasts, not vice versa as the RV. suggests; ‘ the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab: for they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods.’ It is remarkable that precisely at this point the Apostle changes the form of this exhortation and passes from the 2nd pers. to the 1st , thus once more putting himself on a level with his readers. But there is nothing in the brief reference to the sins of the Israelites to show that, when the Moabite women invited the Israelites to the sacrifices of their gods, immoral intercourse had preceded the invitation.† In Wisd. 14:12 the connexion between idolatry and fornication and the consequent destruction are pointed out; Ἀρχὴγὰρπορνείαςἐπίνοιαεἰδώλων , εὐρὲσειςδὲαὐτῶνφθορὰζωῆς , where the rendering ‘ spiritual fornication’ (AV.) is unnecessary, and probably incorrect. ἔπεσανμιᾷἡμέρᾳεἴκοσιτρεῖςχιλιάδες . Here we have, in the most literal sense, φθοραὶ . ζωῆς . In Numbers 25:9 the number Isa_24. St Paul quotes from memory, without verifying, the exact number being unimportant. But harmonizers suggest that 1000 were slain by the judges; or that 23,000 and 24,000 are round numbers for a figure which lay between the two; or that, of the 24,000 who died of the plague, 23,000 died on one day.* All these suggestions are the result of a ‘ weak’ (8:9 f., 9:22) theory of inspiration; and the first does not avoid the charge of error, for we are told that ‘ those that died by the plague were 24,000.’ For ἔπεσαν see 1 Chronicles 21:14. For πορνεύωμεν (א A B D3 E) and ἐπόρνευσαν (ibid. D F G have ἐκπορνεύωμεν and εξεπόρνευσαν from LXX of Num 25:1. Excepting Jude 1:7, the compound is not found in N.T. ἔπεσαν (א A B C D F G P 17) is to be preferred to ἔπεσον (D3 K L): see W. H. 11. Notes p. 164. א 3 A C D2 K L P insert ἐν before μιᾷ : א B D F G, Latt. omit. ‘ In one day’ augments the terror of the punishment. 9. μηδὲἐκπειράζωμεντὸνΚύριον . ‘ Neither let us sorely tempt the Lord,’ try Him out and out, provoke Him to the uttermost, till His longsuffering ceases. This the Israelites did by their frequent rebellion. It is rather fanciful to connect this with v. 8, as v. 8 is connected with v. 7. It is true that “ fornication leads to tempting God” ; but is that the Apostle’ s reason for passing from πορνεύωμεν to ἐκπειράζωμεν The compound occurs (in quotations from LXX of Deu 6:16) Matthew 4:7; Luke 4:12; also Luke 10:25; in LXX, both of man trying God (Psalms 78:18), and of God trying man (Deuteronomy 8:2, Deuteronomy 8:16). It implies prolonged and severe testing. See on 3:18. Here the meaning is that God was put to the proof, as to whether He had the will and the power to punish. In class. Grk. ἐκπειρᾶσθαι is used. It is doubtful whether the Apostle is thinking of anything more definite than the general frailty and faultiness of the Corinthian Christians. Misuse of the gift of tongues (Theodoret) and a craving for miracles (Chrysostom) are not good conjectures. ὑπὸτῶνὄφεωνἀπώλλυντο . ‘ Perished day by day by the serpents.’ The imperfect marks the continual process, and the article points to the well-known story. ‘ Perished’ = ‘ were destroyed,’ and hence ὑπό is admissible. In class. Grk. ὑπό is used of the agent after an intrans. verb, but it is not very frequent in N.T. We have πάσχεινὑπό , Matthew 17:12 and 1 Thessalonians 2:14, where Milligan quotes from papyri, βίανπάσχωνἑκάστοτεὑπὸἙκύσεως . See Winer, p. 462. We may safely prefer τὀνΚύριον (א B C P 17, Aeth. Arm.) to τὸνΧριστόν (D E F G K L, Latt.) or τὸνΘεόν (A). No doubt Χριστόν , if original, might have been changed to Κύροιν or Θεόν because of the difficulty of supposing that the Israelites in the wilderness tempted Christ. On the other hand, either Χριστόν or Θεόν might be a gloss to explain the meaning of Κύριον . Epiphanius says that Marcion substituted Χριστόν for Κύριον , that the Apostle might not appear to assert the lordship of Christ. Whatever may be the truth about this, it is rash to say that ‘ Marcion was right in thinking that the reading Κύριον identifies the Lord Jehovah of the narrative with the historical Jesus Christ’ . It is safer to say with Hort on 1 Peter 2:3, “ No such identification can be clearly made out in the N.T” . But see on Romans 10:12, Romans 10:13. In the N.T. όΚύριος commonly means ‘ our Lord’ ; but this is by no means always the case, and here it almost certainly means Jehovah, as Numbers 21:4-9 and Psalms 78:18 imply. There seems to be no difference in LXX between Κύροις and ὀΚὐριος , and in Nm.T. we can lay down no rule that Κύριος means God and ὀΚύριος Christ. See Bigg on 1 Peter 1:3, 1 Peter 1:25, 1 Peter 1:2:3, 1 Peter 1:3:15; Nestle, Text. Crit. of N.T. p. 307. καθώςτινες (א A B C D F G P 17) rather than καθώςκαίτινες (D2 E K L). ἐπείρασαν (A B D3 K L) rather than ἐξεπείρασαν (א C D F G P 17), the latter being an assimilation to ἐκπειράζωμεν . It is more difficult to decide between ἀπώλλυντο (א A B) and ἀπώλοντο (C D E F G K L P); but ἀπώλλυντο would be more likely to be changed to ἀπώλοντο (v. 10) than vice versa. 10. μηδὲγογγύζετε . Rebellious discontent of any kind is forbidden; and there is nothing said as to the persons against whom, or the things about which, murmuring is likely to take place. But the warning instance can hardly refer to anything but that of the people against. Moses and Aaron for the punishment of Korah and his company (Numbers 16:41 f.), for we know of no other case in which the murmurers were punished with death.* From this, and the return to the 2nd pers. , we may conjecture that the Apostle is warning those who might be disposed to murmur against him for his punishment of the incestuous person, and for his severe rebukes in this letter.† ὑπὸτοῦὀλοθρευτοῦ . Not Satan, but the destroying angel sent by God to smite the people with pestilence. The Apostle ‘ assumes that there was such an agent, as in the slaying of the firstborn (τὸνὀλεθρεύοντα , Exodus 12:23), and in the plague that punished David (2 Samuel 24:16; ἄγγελοςΚυρίουἐξολεθρεύων , 1 Chronicles 21:12), and in the destruction of the Assyrians (2 Chronicles 32:21; Ecclus. 48:21). Cf. Acts 12:23: Hebrews 11:28. Vulg. has ab exterminatore, Calv. a vastatore; in Hebrews 11:28 Vulg. has qui vastabat, in Exodus 12:23 percussor. The angelology and demonology of the Jews was confused and unstable. Satan is sometimes the destroyer (Wisd. 2:24). By introducing sin he brought men under the power of death; Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14; John 8:14. Nowhere else in the Bible does ὀλοθρευτής occur. Assimilation has produced four corruptions of the text in this verse: γογγύζετε (A B C K L P, Vulg. Syrr. Aeth.) has been corrected to γογγύζωμεν (א D E F G): καθάπερ (א B P) has been corrected to καθώς (A C D E F G K L): K L inserts καί before τινες : and A corrects ἀπώλοντο to ἀπώγγυντο . 11. ταῦταδὲτυπικῶςσυνέβαινενἐκείνος . ‘ Now these things by way of lesson happened one after another to them’ : emphasis on ἐκείνοις . The imperfect sets forth the enumerated events as in process of happening; the singular sums them up as one series. In v. 6 we had the plural, ἐγενήθησαν , attention being directed to the separate τύποι in vv. 1-5; moreover, there may be attraction to τύποι , Winer, p. 645. ἐγράφηδὲπ . ν . ἡμ . ‘ And were written for our admonition,’ ne similiter peccantes similia patiamur. The written record was; of no service to those who had been punished; quid enim mortuis prodesset historia? vivis autem quo modo prodesset, nisi aliorum exemplis admoniti resipiscerent? (Calv.). Note the change from imperfect to aorist. εἰςοὓςτὰτέλητῶναἰώνωνκατήντηκεν . ‘ Unto whom the ends of the ages have reached.’ The common meaning of καταντάω in N.T. is ‘ reach one’ s destination’ : see on 14:36. The point of the statement here is obscure. ‘ The ages’ are ‘ the successive periods in the history of humanity, and perhaps also the parallel periods for different nations and parts of the world” (Hort on ἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτουτῶνχρόνων , 1 Peter 1:20).* In what sense have the ends of these ages reached us as their destination? ‘ The ends’ of them implies that each one of them is completed and summed up; and the sum-total has come down to us for whom it was intended. That would seem to mean that we reap the benefit of the experience of all these completed ages. Such an interpretation comes as a fit conclusion to a passage in which the Corinthians are exhorted to take the experiences of the Israelites as lessons for themselves. Pluralis habet vim magnam: omnia concurrunt et ad summain veniunt; beneficia et pericula, poenae et praemia (Beng.). Or it may mean that the ends of the ages have reached us, and therefore we are already in a new age, which is the final one and will be short (7:29: see Westcott on Hebrews 9:26 and 1 John 2:18). The interpretation will then be that “ the last act in the drama of time is begun” (Rutherford), and therefore the warnings contained in these examples ought at once to be laid to heart. The Day of judgment is near and may come at any moment (16:22); it is madness not to be watchful. AV. has ‘ Now all these things’ , and ‘ all’ is well supported; ταῦταδὲπάντα (C K L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm.); πάνταδὲταῦτα (א D E F G, Aeth.) A B 17, Theb. omit πάντα : Orig. and Tert. sometimes omit. The fat that πὰντα is inserted in different positions, and that insertion is more intelligible than omission, justifies exclusion. τυπικῶς (א A B C K P, Vulg. in figura) is to be preferred to τύποι D E F G L), and συνέβαινεν (א B C K L) to συνέβαινον (A D E F G L), which looks like assimilation to v. 6; also κατήντηκεν (א B D* F G) to κατήντησεν (A C D3 K L). 12, 13. The Apostle adds two admonitions: to those who are so self-confident that they think that they have no need to be watchful; and to those that are so despondent that they think that it is useless to struggle with temptation. 12. Ὥστε . See on 3:21. ‘ So then, let him that thinketh that he is standing securely beware lest he fall’ ; i.e. fall from his secure position and become ἀδόκιμος . The Apostle does not question the man’ s opinion of his condition; he takes the security for granted: but there is danger in feeling secure, for this leads to carelessness. Perhaps there is special reference to feeling secure against contamination from idol-feasts. It is less likely that there is a reference to one who “ thinks that through the sacrament he ipso facto possesses eternal life with God.” See Romans 11:20, Romans 14:4. Μὴτοίνυνἐπὶτῇστάσειφρόνειμέγα , ἀλλὰφυλάττουτὴνπτῶσιν (Chrys.). Both AV. and RV. disregard the difference between ὥστε here and διόπερ in v. 14, translating both ‘ wherefore.’ In Philippians 2:12, AV. has ‘ wherefore,’ and RV. ‘ so then,’ for ὥστε . Vulg. rightly distinguishes, with itaque here and propter quod in v. 14. Διόπερ indicates more strongly than ὥστε that what follows is a reasoned result of what precedes. 13. πειρασμὸςὑμᾶςοὐκεἴληφεν . An appeal to their past experience. Hitherto they have had no highly exceptional, superhuman temptations, but only such as commonly assail men, and therefore such as a man can endure. The τύποι just mentioned show that others have had similar temptations. This ought to encourage them with regard to the future, which he goes on to consider. It is reading too much into the verse to suppose that Corinthians had been pleading that they must go to idol-feasts; otherwise they might be persecuted and tempted to apostatize. In three of his letters, however (to the Alexandrians, to the clergy of Samosata, and to Acacius and others), Basil applies this text to persecution (Epp. 139, 219, 256). With εἴληφεν compare Wisd. 11:12; Luke 5:26, Luke 7:16, Luke 9:39. πιστὸςδὲὁΘεός . ‘ On the contrary, God is faithful,’ id est verax in hac promissione, ut sit semper nobiscum (Herv.). Both AV. and RV. have ‘ but’ for δέ . But the opposition is to what is negatived in what precedes; this clause continues the encouragement already given. The perfect tense brings us down to the present moment; there never has been πειρασμὸςμὴἀνθρώπινος . In addition to this there is the certainty that God will never prove faithless: est certus custos suoruym (Calv.). ὃςοὐκἐάσειὑμᾶς . ‘ And therefore He will not suffer you to be tempted beyond what ye are able to endure.’ This follows from His faithfulness, ‘ as being one who will not allow,’ etc. For a similar use of ὅς see 1 Timothy 2:4. ἀλλὰποιήσεικ .τ .λ . ‘ But will provide, with the temptation, the way of escape also.’ ‘ A way to escape’ (AV.) ignores the article before ἔκβασιν , ‘ the necessary way of escape,’ the one suitable for such a difficulty. The σύν and the articles imply that temptations and possibilities of escape always go in pairs there is no πειρασμός without its proper ἔκβασις , for these pairs are arranged by God, who permits no unfairness. He knows the powers with which He has endowed us, and how much pressure they can withstand. He will not leave us to become the victims of circumstances which He has Himself ordered for us, and impossibilia non jubet. For ἔκβασις Vulg. has proventus; Beza and Calv. (better) exitus, which Vulg. has Hebrews 13:7; egresses might be better still. On the history of πειράζειν see Kennedy, Sources, p. 106. As to God’ s part in temptation, see Matthew 6:13; 1 Chronicles 21:1; Job 1:12, Job 1:2:6; Exodus 16:4; Deuteronomy 8:2; and, on the other side, James 1:13. τοῦδύνασθαιὑπενεγκεῖν . This τοῦ with the infinitive to express purpose or result* is very frequent in Luke (1:77, 79, 2:24, where see note) and not rare in Paul (Galatians 3:10; Philippians 3:10; Romans 1:24, Romans 1:6:6, Romans 1:7:3, Romans 1:8:12, Romans 1:11:8, Romans 1:10). Ὑγποφέρειν means ‘ to bear up under,’ ‘ to endure patiently’ (2 Timothy 3:11; 1 Peter 2:19; Proverbs 6:33; Psalms 69:7; Job 2:10). Temptation is probation, and God orders the probation in such a way ‘ that ye may be able to endure it.’ The power to endure is given σὺντῷπειρασμῷ the endurance is not given; that depends on ourselves. On the liturgical addition to the Prayer, ‘ Lead us not into temptation which we are not able to bear, ’ see Resch, Agrapha, pp. 85, 355; Hastings, DB. 3. p. 144. Cassian (Inst. v. 16) says that “ some not understanding this testimony of the Apostle have read the subjunctive instead of the indicative mood: tentatio vos non apprehendat nisi humana” (so Vulg.). The verse is a favourite one with Cassian. A few texts insert οὐ before δύνασθε and ὐπενεγκεῖν after it: a few insert ὑμᾶς before or after ὑπενεγκεῖν : א A B C D F L P 17 omit ὑμᾶς . 14-22. The Lord’ s Supper and the Jewish sacrifices may convince you of the fact that to participate in a sacrificial feast is to participate in worship. Therefore, avoid all idol feasts, which are a worship of demons. 14 Yes, God provides escapes from temptations, and so my affection for you moves me to urge you to escape from temptation to idolatry; avoid all contact with it. 15 I appeal to your good sense; you are capable of judging for yourselves whether my arguments are sound. 16 The cup of the blessing, on which we invoke the benediction of God in the Lord’ s Supper, is it not a means of communion in the Blood-shedding of Christ? The bread which we break there, is it not a means of communion in the Body of Christ? 17 Because the many broken pieces are all one bread, we, the assembled many, are all one body; for we, the whole congregation, have with one another what comes from the one bread. 18 Here is another parallel. Consider the Israelites, as we have them in history with their national ritual. Is it not a fact that those Israelites who eat the prescribed sacrifices enter into fellowship with the altar of sacrifice, and therefore with Him whose altar it is? The altar unites them to one another and to Him. 19 You ask me what I imply by that. Not, of course, that there is any real sacrifice to an idol, or that there is any real idol, such as the heathen believe in. 20 But I do imply that the sacrifices which the heathen offer they offer to demons and to a no-god: and I do not wish you to enter into fellowship with the company of demons. 21 Is my meaning still not plain? It is simply impossible that you should drink of a cup that brings you into communion with the Lord and of a cup that brings you into communion with demons; that you should eat in common with others at the table of the Lord and at the table of demons. 22 Or do we think so lightly of this, that we persist in doing just what the Israelites did in the wilderness,— provoking the Lord to jealousy by putting Him on a level with demons? Are we able, any more than they were, to defy Him with impunity? 14. Διόπερ . Here and 8:13 only ‘ Wherefore, my beloved ones (the affectionate address turns the command into an entreaty), flee right away from idolatry.’ Flight is the sure ἔκβασις in all such temptations, and they have it in their own power: all occasions must be shunned. They must not deliberately go into temptation and then expect deliverance. They must not try how near they can go, but how far they can fly. Fugite idolatriam: omnem utique et totam (Tert. De Cor. 10). This might seem a hard saying to some of them, especially after expecting a wide measure of liberty, and he softens it with ἀγαπητοίμου . It is his love for them that makes him seem to be severe and compels him to lay down this rule. Cf. 15:58; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Philippians 2:12, etc. St Paul more commonly has the simple accusative after φεύγειν (6:18; 1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:22), and it is not clear that φεύγεινἀπό , which is more common in Gospels and Rev., is a stronger expression. The accusative would not have implied that the Corinthians were already involved in idolatry: that would require ἐκ . 15. ὡςφρονίμοις . Cf. 3:1; Ephesians 5:28. There is no sarcasm, as in 2 Corinthians 11:19. They have plenty of intelligence, and can see whether an argument is sound or not, so that pauca verba sufficiunt ad judicandum (Beng.). Yet there is perhaps a gentle rebuke in the compliment. They ought not to need any argument in a matter, de quo judicium ferre non erat difficile (Calv.). Resch, Agrapha, p. 127. κρίνατεὑμεῖςὅφημι . The ὑμεῖς is emphatic, and the change from λέγω to φημί should be marked in translation, although it may be made merely for variety; ‘ Judge for yourselves what 1 declare.’ Vulg. has loquor and dico; in Romans 3:8 aiunt and dicere . 16. Τὸποτήριοντῆςεὐλογίας . ‘ The cup of the blessing,’ i.e. over which a benediction is pronounced by Christian ministers, as by Christ at the Last Supper. It does not mean ‘ the cup which brings a blessing,’ as is clear from what follows. We know too little about the ritual of the Passover at the time of Christ to be certain which of the Paschal cups was the cup of the Institution. There was probably a Paschal ‘ cup of the thanksgiving’ or ‘ blessing,’ and the expression here used may come from that, but the addition of ‘ which we bless’ in our Christian assemblies shows that the phrase is used with a fuller meaning. Cf. ποτήριονσωτηρίον (Psalms 115:4). Εὐλογεῖν and εὐχαριστεῖν express two aspects of the same action: see on 11:24. The plurals, εὐλογοῦμεν and κλῶμεν , do not necessarily mean that the whole congregation took part in saying the benediction or thanksgiving and in breaking the bread, except so far as the minister represented the whole body. The Apostle is speaking of Christian practice generally, without going into details. See notes on 11:23-25, where he does give some details, and cf. Acts 2:42, Acts 2:46. Evans enlarges on the εὖ in εὐλογοῦμεν , ‘ over which we speak the word for good,’ and concludes, “ the bread and wine, after their benediction or consecration, are not indeed changed in their nature, but become in their use and their effects the very body and blood of Christ to the worthy receiver.” οὐχὶκοινωνίαἐστὶντ . αἵμ . τ . Χριστοῦ ; ‘ Is it not communion in the Blood of Christ?’ The RV. margin has ‘ participation in.’ But ‘ partake’ is μετέχειν : κοινωνεῖν is ‘ to have a share in’ ; therefore κοινωνία is ‘ fellowship’ rather than ‘ participation.’ This is clear from what follows respecting the bread. It is better not to put any article before ‘ communion’ or ‘ fellowship.’ AV. has ‘ the,’ which is justifiable, for κοινωνία , being the predicate, does not need the article. RV. has ‘ a,’ which is admissible, but is not needed. Strangely enough, Vulg. varies the translation of this important word; communicatio sanguinis, but participatio corporis: communito (Beza) is better than either. As κοινωνεῖν is ‘ to give a share to’ as well as ‘ to have a share in.’ communicatio is a possible rendering of κοινωνία . The difference between ‘ participation’ and ‘ fellowship’ or ‘ communion’ is the difference between having a share and having the whole. In Holy Communion each recipient has a share of the bread and of the wine, but he has the whole of Christ: οὐγὰρτῷμετέχεινμόνονκαὶμεταλαμβάνεινἀλλὰτῷἑνοῦσθαικοινοῦμεν (Chrys.).* Here, as in Luke 22:17, and in the Didache 9, the cup is mentioned first, and this order is repeated v. 21; but in the account of the Institution (11:23) the usual order is observed. ‘ This may be in order to give prominence to the Blood-shedding, the characteristic act of Christ’ s sacrifice, and also to bring the eating of the bread into immediate juxtaposition with the eating at heathen sacrifices. As regards construction, τὸποτήριον and τὸνἄρτον are attracted to the case of the relatives which follow. ὃνκλῶμεν . It is clear from εὐχαριστήσας (11:24) that St Paul does not mean to limit εὐλογοῦμεν to the cup: there was a benediction or thanksgiving over this also. There is no action with regard to the cup which would be parallel to breaking the bread, and therefore we cannot say that κλῶμεν is equivalent to, or a substitute for, εὐλογοῦμεν . Not would “ πίνομεν correspond to κλῶμεν ” : eating would correspond to drinking, and both are assumed. The transition from the Body of Christ to the Church, which in another sense is His Body, is easily made, but it is not made here: that comes in the next verse. It is evident from 11:18f. that the mention of the cup before the bread here does not imply that in celebrating the rite the cup ever came first. Here he is not describing the rite, but pointing out a certain similarity between the Christian rite and pagan rites. Ramsay (Exp. Times, March 1910, p. 252) thinks that he names the cup first “ partly because the more important part of the pagan ceremony lay in the drinking of the wine, and partly because the common food in the pagan ceremony was not bread, but something eaten out of a dish,” which was one and the same for all. To this we may add that in the heathen rite it seems to have been usual for each worshipper to bring his own loaf. The worshippers drank out of the same cup and took sacrificial meat out of the same dish, but they did not partake of the same bread: εἷςἄρτος was not true of them (Hastings, DB. v. p. 132 b). This is said to be “ the usual practice of simple Oriental meals, in which each guest has his own loaf, though all eat from a common dish.” There was therefore less analogy between the heathen bread and the Christian bread than between the heathen cup and the Christian cup, and for this reason also the cup may have been mentioned first. For this reason again he goes on (v. 17) to point out the unity implied in the bread of the Christian rite. The single loaf is a symbol and an instrument of unity, a unity which obliterates the distinction between Jew and Gentile and all social distinctions. There is only one Body, the Body of Christ, the Body of His Church, of which each Christian is a member. That is the meaning of ‘ This is My Body.’ The main point to which the Apostle is leading his readers, is that to partake ceremonially of the Thing Sacrificed is to become a sharer in the Sacrificial Act, and all that that involves. It is not easy to decide whether the first ἐστιν should follow κοινωνία (A B P, Copt. Arm.) or Χριστοῦ (א C D E F G K L, Latt.). Probably the latter order arose through assimilation to the position of the second ἐστιν . A and a few other authorities put the second ἐστιν after the second κοινωνία , probably for assimilation. א B C D F K L P have the second ἐστιν after Χριστοῦ . For the second Χριστοῦ , D* F, Latt. have Κυρίου . 17. ὅτιεἷςἄρτος , ἓνσῶμαοἱπολλοίἐσμεν . It is not difficult to get good sense out of these ambiguous words, but it is not easy to decide how they should be translated. Fortunately the meaning is much the same, whichever translation is adopted. The ὅτι may = ‘ because’ and introduce the protasis, of which ἓνσῶμα … ἐσμεν is the apodosis; ‘ Because there is one bread, one body are we the many,’ i.e. Because the bread, although broken into many pieces, is yet one bread, we, although we are many, are one body. Vulg. seems to take it in this way; quoniam unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus.* The awkwardness of this is that there is no particle to connect the statement with what precedes. The Syriac inserts a ‘ therefore’ ; ‘ as, therefore, that bread is one, so are we one body.’ Or (better) ὅτι may = ‘ for’ (AV.), or ‘ seeing that’ (RV.), and be the connecting particle that is required; ‘ Seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body’ (RV.). But, however we unravel the construction, we have the parallel between many fragments, yet one bread, and many members, yet one body. See Lightfoot on Ign. Eph. 20, where we have πάντεςσυνέρχεσθεἐνμιᾷπίστεικαὶἑνὶἸησοῦΧριστῷ followed by ἕναἄρτονκλῶντες . See also Philad. 4. The Apostle’ s aim is to show that all who partake of the one bread have fellowship with Christ. This is plain from what follows. See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 496. οἱγὰρπάντεςἐκτοῦἑνὸςἄρτουμετέχομεν . ‘ For we all have our share from the one bread,’ i.e. the bread which is the means of fellowship with Christ. Nowhere else have we μετέχειν with ἐκ : the usual construction is the simple genitive (21, 9:12), which may be understood (30, 9:10); but compare ἐκ in 11:28. The meaning seems to be that we all have a share which is taken from the one bread, and there is possibly a suggestion that the one bread remains after all have received their shares. All have communion with the Body, but the Body is not divided. The idea of Augustine, that the one loaf composed of many grains of corn is analogous to the one body composed of many members, however true in itself, is foreign to this passage. We have the same idea in the Didache 9; “ As this broken bread was scattered (as grain) upon the mountains and gathered together became one, etc.” “ How the sacramental bread becomes in its use and effects the body of Christ, is a thing that passes all understanding: the manner is a mystery” (Evans). He adds that οἱπάντες = ‘ all as one,’ ‘ all the whole congregation.’ It is remarkable how St Paul insists upon the social aspect of both the sacraments; ‘ For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body’ (12:13). 18. The sacrifices of the Jews furnish a similar argument to show that participation in sacrificial feasts is communion with the unseen. βλέπετετὸνἸσραὴλκατὰσάρκα . ‘ Look at Israel after the flesh,’ the actual Israel of history. Christians are a new Israel, Israel after the Spirit, τὸνἸσραὴλτοῦΘεοῦ (Galatians 6:16, Galatians 6:3:29; Philippians 3:3), whether Jews or Gentiles by birth. οὐχοἱἐσθίοντεςκ .τ .λ . ‘ Are not they who eat the sacrifices in fellowship with the altar?’ They are in fellowship with the altar, and therefore with the unseen God, whose altar it is. To swear by the Temple is to swear by Him that dwelleth therein (Matthew 23:21), and to have fellowship with the altar is to have fellowship with Him whose sacrifices are offered thereon. As in the Holy Communion, therefore, so also in the Temple services, participating in sacrificial feasts is sacrificial fellowship with an unseen power, a power that is Divine. There is something analogous to this in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen; but in that case the unseen power is not Divine. See Leviticus 7:6, Leviticus 7:14, Leviticus 7:6:26, and Westcott on Hebrews 13:10. 19. τίοὖνφημι ; ‘ What then do I declare?’ This refers back to the φημί in v. 15 and guards against apparent inconsistency with 8:4. ‘ Do I declare that a thing sacrificed to an idol is something, or that an idol is something?’ In neither case was there reality. The εἰδωλόθυτον professed to be an offering made to a god, and the εἴδωλον professed to represent a god. Both were shams. The εἰδωλόθυτον was just a piece of flesh and nothing more, and its being sacrificed to a being that had no existence did not alter its quality; the meat was neither the better nor the worse for that. The εἴδωλον was just so much metal, or wood, or stone, and its being supposed to represent a being that had no existence did not alter its value; it was neither more nor less useful than before. As a sacrifice to a god, and as the image of a god, the εἰδωλόθυτον and the εἴδωλον had no reality, for there was no such being as Aphrodite or Serapis. Nevertheless, there was something behind both, although not what was believed to be there. AV., following KL, Syrr., has ‘ idol’ first; and, without authority, inserts the article, ‘ the idol.’ א B C D E P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. have ὅτιεἰδωλόθυτον … ὅτιεἴδωλον . The accentuation of Tisch., ὅτιεἰδωλόθυτοντιἔστιν , ἢὅτιεἴδωλόντιἔστιν , is probably wrong: better, τίἐστιν in each case; ‘ that it is something’ (aliquid) is the meaning, not ‘ that any such thing exists.’ The omission of ἢὅτιεἴδωλόντίἐστιν (א A C) is no doubt owing to homoeoteleuton, τίἐστιν to τίἐστιν . 20. ἀλλ ʼ ὅτιἅθύουσιντὰἔθνη . ‘ But (what I do declare is) that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice.’ Here (according to the best texts), as in Romans 2:14, Romans 15:27, ἔθνη has a plural verb: in Romans 9:30 it has the singular. As τὰἔθνη are animate and numerous, the plural is natural. On the history of the term ἔθνος see Kennedy, Sources, p. 98. δαιμονίοιςκαὶοὐθεῷθύουσιν . The Apostle seems to have LXX of Deu 32:17, ἔθυσανδαιμονίοιςκαὶοὐθεῷ , θεοῖςοἷςοὐκᾔδεισαν , ‘ They sacrificed to demons (Shê dim) and to a no-god, to gods whom they knew not,’ in his mind. That καὶοὐθεῷ means ‘ and to a no-god’ rather than ‘ and not to God’ is confirmed by Deuteronomy 32:21; αὐτοὶπαρεζήλωσάνμεἐπ ʼ οὐθεῷ … κἀγὼπαραζηλώσωαὐτοὺςἐπ ʼ οὐκἔθνει , ‘ They have made me jealous with a no-god … and I will make them jealous with a no-people’ ; see Driver’ s notes. In Bar. 4:7 we have the same expression, probably based on Deuteronomy 32:17; θύσαντεςδαιμονίοιςκαὶοὐθεῷ ‘ by sacrificing to demons and no-god.’ The Shê dim are mentioned nowhere else, excepting Psalms 106:37, a late Psalm, possibly of the Greek period: according to it human sacrifices were offered to the Shê dim; see Briggs ad loc. In Psalms 96:5, ‘ All the gods of the nations are idols,’ LXX πάντεςοἱθεοὶτῶνἐθνῶνδαιμόνια , the word rendered ‘ idols’ and δαιμόνια means ‘ things of nought’ (Leviticus 19:4, Leviticus 19:26:1; Psalms 97:7; cf. Isaiah 40:18 f., Isaiah 44:9 f.). Asmodaeus, the evil spirit of Tob. 3:8, 6:14, is called in the Aram. and Heb. versions ‘ king of the Shê dim’ ; and it is possible that St Paul has the Shê dim in his mind here. See Edersheim, Life and Times, 11. pp. 759-763. Here, the translation, ‘ and not to God,’ introduces a thought which is quite superfluous: there was no need to declare that sacrifices to idols are not offered to God. But ‘ to a no-god’ has point, and is probably a reminiscence of O.T. The Apostle is showing that taking part in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen involves two evils,— sharing in the worship of a thing-of-nought, and (what is still worse) having fellowship with demons. This latter point is the main thing, and it is expressly stated in what follows. See Hastings, DB. art. ‘ Demon’ ; Thackeray, p. 144. The primitive and wider-spread idea that there is, in sacrifice, communion between deity and worshippers, and between the different worshippers, greatly aided St Paul in his teaching. The idea that evil spirits are worshipped, when idols which represent non-existent pagan deities are worshipped, was common among the Jews, and passed over from them into the Christian Church, with the support of various passages in both O.T. and N.T. In addition to those quoted above may be mentioned Isaiah 13:21, Isaiah 34:14, where both AV. and RV. have ‘ satyrs’ and LXX δαιμόνια . In Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15, AV. has ‘ devils,’ RV. ‘ he goats,’ RV. marg. ‘ satyrs,’ and LXX μάταια : see Curtis on 2 Chronicles 11:15. In Enoch 99:7, “ Others will make graven images of gold and silver and wood and clay, and others will worship impure sprits and demons and all kinds of superstitions not according to knowledge,” quoted by Tertullian (De Idol. 4). Book of Jubilees 1:11, “ They will worship each his own (image), so as to go astray, and they will sacrifice their children to demons” ; and again, 22:17, “ They offer their sacrifices to the dead and they worship evil spirits.” In Revelation 9:20, ἵναμὴπροσκυνήσουσιντὰδαιμόνιακαὶτὰεἰδωλα . In the Gospels, and probably in the Apocalypse, δαιμόνια seem to be the same as πνεύματαἀκάθαρτα , and that is likely to have been St Paul’ s view. The close connexion between idolatry and impurity would point to this (see Weinel, St Paul, pp. 31-34). By entering into fellowship with demons or unclean spirits, they were exposing themselves to hideous temptations of terrific violence. οὐθέλωδὲκ .τ .λ . ‘ And I do not wish that you should become fellows of the demons’ : ‘ have fellowship with’ (AV.) or ‘ have communion with’ (RV.) does not give the force of γίνεσθαι . The article shows that ‘ the demons’ are regarded here as a society, into which the worshipper of idols is admitted. The text of v. 20 has been much varied by copyists, and some points remain doubtful. θύουσιν (א A B C D E F G P) is to be preferred to θύει (K L), which is a grammatical correction in both places. After the first θύουσιν , א A C K L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. have τὰἔθνη : B D E F omit. WH. bracket. The second θύουσιν follows καὶοὐθεῷ (א A B C P, Arm.), not precedes (D E F G, Vulg. Syrr. Copt.). For κοινωνοὺςτῶνδαιμονίων , D* E F G have δαιμονίωνκοινωνούς . For γίνεσθαι , F, Syrr. Copt. have εἶναι . 21. οὐδύνασθε . Of course it is not meant that there is any impossibility in going to the Lord’ s Supper, and then going to an idol-feast: but it is morally impossible for one who has real fellowship with Christ to consent to have fellowship with demons. For one who does so consent οὐκἔστινκυριακὸνδεῖπνονφαγεῖν . Only those who do not realize what the Supper is, or do not realize what an idol-feast is, could think of taking part in both: cf. 2 Corinthians 6:15; Matthew 6:24. The genitives may be possessive genitives, but the context indicates that they mean ‘ the cup which brings you into fellowship with,’ genitives of relation. τραπέζηςΚυρίου . In Malachi 1:7, Malachi 1:12, ‘ My table,’ i.e. the Lord’ s table, means the altar; see also Ezekiel 41:22, Ezekiel 44:16. Here it can only mean the Lord’ s Supper, ‘ table’ (as often) including what was on it, especially food; hence the expression, τραπέζηςμετέχειν . Wetstein quotes Diod. 4:74, μετασχὼνκοινῆςτραπέζης . Deissmann (New Light on the N.T., p. 83; see also Light, p. 355) quotes the invitation to “ dine at the κλίνη of the Lord Serapis in the house of Cl. Serapion.” Probably from this passage, and perhaps also from Luke 22:30, ‘ the Lord’ s Table’ came to mean the Lord’ s Supper. Augustine calls it ‘ the table of Christ’ and ‘ that great table’ ; Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen, ‘ the mystical table’ ; etc. 22. ἢπαραζηλοῦμεντὸνΚύριον ; A reminiscence of Deu 32:21 quoted above; see on Romans 10:19, Romans 11:11: ‘ Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy?’ ‘ Is that what we are engaged in— trying whether the Lord will suffer Himself to be placed on a level with demons?’ In Deut. ‘ the Lord’ of course means Jehovah, and some understand it so here; but v. 21 almost necessitates a reference to Christ. The ἤ introduces the alternative, ‘ Or (if you think that you can eat of Christ’ s table and of the table of demons) are we going to provoke His jealousy?’ μὴἰσχυρότεροιαὐτοῦἐσμεν ; ‘ Surely we are not stronger than He?’ His anger cannot be braved with impunity; Job 9:32, 37:23; Ecclesiastes 6:10; Isaiah 45:9; Ezekiel 22:14; some of which passages may have been in the Apostle’ s mind when he thus reduced such an argument εἰςἄτοπον . It is as when Jehovah answers Job out of the whirlwind. Cf. 1:13. 10:23-11:1. Idol-meats need not always be avoided, but brotherly love limits Christian freedom. Abstain from idolmeats when an over-scrupulous brother tells you that they have been sacrificed to idols. In this and in all things seek God’ s glory. That is my rule, and it keeps one from injuring others. And it is my rule because it is Christ’ s. 23 As was agreed before, In all things one may do as one likes, but not all things that one may do do good. In all things one may do as one likes, but not all things build up the life of the Church. 24 In all open questions, it is the well-being of the persons concerned, and not one’ s own rights, that should determine one’ s action. 25 See how this works in practice. Anything that is on sale in the meat-market buy and eat, asking for no information that might perplex your conscience; 26 for the meat in the market, like everything else in the world, is the Lord’ s, and His children may eat what is His without scruple. 27 Take another case. If one of the heathen invites some of you to a meal, and you care to go, anything that may be set before you eat, asking for no information, as before. 28 But if one of your fellow-guests should think it his duty to warn you and say, This piece of meat has been offered in sacrifice, then refrain from eating it, so as to avoid shocking your informant and wounding conscience. 29 Of course I do not mean your own conscience, but the conscience of the over-scrupulous brother who warned you. For to what purpose should I, by using my liberty, place myself in a false position, judged by the conscience of another? 30 Fancy ‘ saying grace’ for food which causes offence and involves me in blame! 31 In short, that aim solves all these questions. Whether you are eating or drinking or doing anything else, let your motive always be the promotion of God’ s glory. 32 Beware of putting difficulties in the way of Jews by ill-considered liberty, or of Greeks by narrow-minded scruples, or of the Church of God by unchristian self-seeking. 33 That is just my own principle. I try to win the approval of everybody in everything, not aiming at my own advantage, but at that of the many, that they may be saved from perdition. 1 In this I am only following in the footsteps of Christ. Will not you follow in mine? The whole discussion of εἰδωλόθυτος , accordingly, issues in three distinct classes of cases, for each of which St Paul has a definite solution: (1) Eating at sacrificial feasts. This is idolatry, and absolutely forbidden. (2) Eating food bought in the shops, which may or may not have an idolatrous history. This is unreservedly allowed. There remains (3) the intermediate case of food at nonceremonial feasts in private houses. If no attention is drawn to the “ history” of the food, this class falls into class (2). But if attention is pointedly called to the history of the food, its eating is prohibited, not as per se idolatrous, but because it places the eater in a false position, and confuses the conscience of others. 23. Πάνταἔξεστιν . A return, without special personal reference, to the principle stated (or perhaps quoted) in 6:12; where see notes. Of course he means all things indifferent, with regard to which a Christian has freedom. He repeats this principle, with its limitation, before dealing finally with the question of idol-meats. See Moffatt, Lit. of N.T., p. 112. οὐπάνταοἰκοδομεῖ . This explains οὐπάντασυμφέρει . There are some things which do not build up either the character of the individual, or the faith which he professes, or the society to which he belongs. A liberty which harms others is not likely to benefit oneself, and a liberty which harms oneself is not likely to benefit others. Cf. 14:26; Romans 14:19. Before ἔξεστιν , in both clauses, א 3 H K L, Syrr. AV. insert μοι from 6:12: א A B C D E, Am. Copt. omit. Through homoeoteleuton, πάντα to πάντα , F G omit the first cause and 17 omits the second. 24. μηδεὶςτὸἑαυτοῦζητείτω . This is the practice which really συμφέρει and οἰκοδομεῖ : ‘ Let no one seek his own good.’ The prohibition is, of course, relative: seeking one’ s own good is not always wrong, but it is less important than seeking the good of others; and when the two conflict it is one’ s own good that must give way: cf. v. 33, 6:18; Luke 10:20, Luke 10:14:12, Luke 10:13, Luke 10:23:28. ἀλλὰτὸτοῦἑτέρου . The μηδείς of course is not the subject, but ἕκαστος , understood from the μηδείς . Such ellipses are as common in English as in Greek. Here, as in 3:7 and 7:19, the ἀλλά implies the opposite of the previous negative. Here, D 2 E K L add ἕκαστος after ἑτέρου . The Apostle now returns to 8:1-13 to finish the subject. 25. ἐνμακέλλῳ . The word occurs nowhere else in Biblical, and is rare in classical, Greek; = macellum, which may be derived from macto = ‘ slaughter’ or maceria = ‘ enclosure.’ It means ‘ provision-market,’ and especially ‘ meat-market.’ Probably a great deal of the meat offered for sale came from the sacrifices, especially what was sold to the poor. See Deissmann, Light, p. 274. μηδὲνἀνακρίνοντες . ‘ Making no inquiry’ as to whether the meat had been offered in sacrifice. It is not likely that the meaning is, ‘ not examining any piece of meat,’ because of v. 27. In the market, it might be possible to distinguish sacrificial meat, but not after it had been served at table. διὰτὴνσυνείδησιν . ‘ Out of regard to conscience.’ Is this clause to be taken with μηδὲνἀνακρίνοντες , or with ἀνακρίνοντες only? If the latter, the meaning is ‘ making no conscientious inquiries,’ asking no questions prompted by a scrupulous conscience. Had the order been μηδὲνδιὰτ . συν . ἀνακρ ., this would no doubt be the meaning. As the words stand, the former construction is better; ‘ For the sake of your conscience making no inquiry,’ asking no questions which might trouble conscience. It is not wise to seek difficulties. The connexion with ἐσθίετε , ‘ eat, because your conscience is an enlightened one,’ may safely be rejected. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 11:1. The division of the chapters is unfortunate. This verse clearly belongs to what precedes. He has just stated his own principle of action, and he begs them to follow it, because it is Christ’ s: Hinc apparet, quam ineptae sint capitum sectiones (Calv.). There is no connexion with what follows. μιμηταίμουγίνεσθε . ‘ Become imitators of me.’ Excepting Hebrews 6:12, μιμητής is in N.T. peculiar to Paul (4:16; Ephesians 5:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6, 1 Thessalonians 2:14): not found in LXX. Everywhere it is joined with γίνεσθαι , which indicates moral effort; ‘ Strive to behave as I do.’ Everywhere the more definite ‘ imitator’ (RV.) is to be preferred to ‘ follower’ (AV.): ‘ Be ye followers of me’ is doubly defective. Cf. ὥσπερκαὶτῶνἄλλωνἒργωνοἱδιδάσκαλοιτούςμαθητὰςμιμητὰςἐαυτῶνἀποδεικνύουσιν (Xen. Mem. I. vi. 3). καθὼςκἀγὼΧριστοῦ . This addition dispels the idea that it is in any spirit of arrogance that he asks them to imitate him; once more he is only asking them to do what he does himself, to follow the example of one whom they recognized as their teacher: nihil praescribit aliis quod non prior observaverit; deinde se et alios ad Christum, tanquam unicum recte agendi exemplar revocat (Calv.). It is as an example of self-sacrifice that he takes Christ as his model; the whole context shows this. And it is commonly this aspect of Christ’ s life that is regarded, when He is put before us in N.T. as an example: Romans 15:2, Romans 15:3; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Ephesians 5:2; Philippians 2:4, Philippians 2:5. “ The details of His life are not generally imitable, our calling and circumstances being so different from His. Indeed, the question, ‘ What would Jesus do?’ may be actually misleading” (Goudge). The wiser question is, ‘ Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?’ It is seldom that St Paul mentions any of the details of our Lord’ s life on earth, and it is therefore unlikely that he is thinking of anything but the subject in hand— sacrificing one’ s own rights and pleasures for the good of others. Nevertheless, the knowledge which St Paul displays of details is sufficient to show that he knew a great deal more than he mentions, and exaggerated statements have been made respecting his supposed ignorance. See Knowling, The Testimony of St Paul to Christ, Lect. x.; Jacquier, Histoire des Livres du NT., II. 22-24; The Fifth Gospel, pp. 75, 195 f. On the supposed difference between the teaching of Christ and that of St Paul see Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus, Tü bingen 1906, esp. pp. 24, 32, 58; Walther, Paulf Christentum Jesu Evangelium, Leipzig, 1908, esp. pp. 25-30; Jä licher, Paulus and Jesus, Tü bingen, 1907, esp. pp. 35 f. 11:2-14:40. IN WITH PUBLIC WORSHIP AND THE OF GIFTS This constitutes the third* main division of the Epistle, and it contains three clearly marked sections; respecting (1) the Veiling of Women, 9:2-16; (2) Disorders connected with the Lord’ s Supper, 11:17-34; (3) Spiritual Gifts, especially Prophesying and Tongues, 12:1-14:40. At the outset there is a possible reference to the Corinthians’ letter to the Apostle; but the sections deal with evils which had come to his knowledge in other ways. 11:2-16. The Veiling of Women in Public Worship Although in respect of religion men and women are on an equality, yet the Gospel does not overthrow the natural ordinance, which is really of Divine appointment, that woman is subject to man. To disavow this subjection before the congregation must cause grave scandal; and such shamelessness is condemned by nature, by authority, and by general custom. 2 Now, as to another question, I do commend you for remembering me, as you assure me you do, in all things, and for loyally holding to the traditions just as I transmitted them to you. 3 But I should like you to grasp, what has not previously been mentioned, that of every man, whether married or unmarried, Christ is the head, while a woman’ s head is her husband, and Christ’ s head is God. 4 Every man, whether married or unmarried, who has any covering on his head when he publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours his head: 5 whereas every woman, whether married or unmarried, who has her head uncovered when she publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours her head; for she is then not one whit the better than the wanton whose head is shaven. 6 A woman who persists in being unveiled like a man should go the whole length of cutting her hair short like a man. But seeing that it is a mark of infamy for a woman to have her hair cut off or shorn, let her wear a veil. 7 And man has no right to cover his head; he is by constitution the image of God and reflects God’ s glory: whereas the woman reflects man’ s glory. 8 Man was created first; he does not owe his origin to woman, but woman owes hers to him; 9 and, what is more, she was made for his sake, and not he for Heb_10 For this reason she ought, by covering her head, publicly to acknowledge her subjection. Even if she does not shrink from scandalizing men, she might surely fear to be an offence to angels. 11 Nevertheless, this dependence of the woman has its limits: in the Lord neither sex has any exclusive privileges, but each has an equal share. 12 For as, at the first, the woman came into being from the man, so, ever since then, the man has come into being by means of the woman; and, like everything else, both are from God. 13 Use your own powers of discernment. Is it decent that a woman should have her head uncovered when she publicly offers prayer to God? 14 Surely even nature itself teaches you that for a man to wear his hair long is degrading to him; 15 whereas this is a glory to a woman, because her long hair is God’ s gift to her, to serve her as a covering. 10 Yet, if any one is so contentious as to dispute this conclusion, it will suffice to say that both Christian authority and Christian usage are against him. 2. Ἐπαινῶδὲὑμᾶς . ‘ Now I do praise you that in all things ye remember me and hold fast the delivered instructions exactly as I delivered them to you.’ The verse is introductory to the whole of this division of the letter which treats of public worship. With his usual tact and generosity, the Apostle, before finding fault, mentions things which he can heartily and honestly praise.* The δέ marks the transition to a new topic, and perhaps from topics which the Corinthians had mentioned in their letter to others which he selects for himself. Ἐπαινῶ looks forward to οὐκἐπαινῶ which is coming (v. 17): here he can praise, in some other matters he cannot. He may be referring to his own letter (v. 9); ‘ Now, it is quite true that I praise you.’ Or he may be referring to their letter, ‘ Now, I do praise you that, as you tell me, in all things you remember me’ ; comp. 8:1. Primasius, in any case, gives the right key; Quid erat, quod subito laudat quos ante vituperavit? Ubi legis auctoritatem non habet, blandimentis provocat ad rationem. The translation, ‘ that ye remember everything of mine,’ is possible but not probable: μέμνημαι c. acc. is fairly common in classical Greek, but is not found in N.T. Both πάντα and καθὼςπαρέδωκαὑμῖν are emphatic: their remembrance of him was unfailing, and they observed with loyal precision what he had told them— by word of mouth or in the lost letter. Neither παραδίδωμι (in this sense) nor παράδοσις (Galatians 1:14; Colossians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6) are common in the Pauline Epp. It is possible that in some of these passages, as in v. 23 and 15:3, we have an allusion to some rudimentary creed which was given to missionaries and catechists† comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:5. There had been a Jewish παράδοσις of monstrous growth, and it had done much harm (Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:8; Galatians 1:14). There is now a Christian παράδοσις to supersede it, and it was from the first regarded as precious (1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14). See Mayor, St Jude and 2 Peter, pp. 23, 61; A. E. Burn, Intr. to the Creeds, ch. ii. This παράδοσις contained the leading facts of the Gospel and the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. As yet there were no written Gospels for St Paul to appeal to, although there may have been written collections of the Sayings of our Lord. For κατέχετε cf. 15:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Hebrews 10:23; Luke 8:15; and see Milligan, Thessalonians, p. 155. There may be a reference to v. 1; in this they are imitating him; or a reference to their own letter. The ‘ brethren’ in AV., following D E F G K L, Latt., is an interpolation: א A B C P Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit. 3. θέλωδὲὑμᾶςεἰδέναι . ‘ But I would have you know’ something not previously mentioned, but of more importance than they supposed, because of the principles involved. In Colossians 2:1 we have the same formula, but more often οὐθέλωὑμᾶςἀγνοεῖν (10:1, 12:1; 2 Corinthians 1:8; Romans 1:13, Romans 11:25), which is always accompanied by the affectionate address, ἀδελφοι . He feels bound to insist upon the point in question, and perhaps would hint that the Corinthians do not know everything. παντὸςἀνδρός . ‘ Of every man Christ is the head’ : παντός is emphatic, every male of the human family. He says ἀνδρός rather than ἀνθρώπου (15:45) to mark the constrast with γυνή , and he takes the middle relationship first; ‘ man to Christ’ comes between ‘ woman to man’ and ‘ Christ to God.’ By κεφαλή is meant supremacy, and in each clause it is the predicate; ‘ Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ’ : 3:23; Ephesians 1:22, Ephesians 4:15, Ephesians 5:23, comp. Judges 11:11; 2 Samuel 22:44. God is supreme in reference to the Messiah as having sent Him. This was a favourite Arian text; it is in harmony with 15:24-28, and, like that passage, it implies more than the inferiority of Christ’ s human nature; John 6:57. See Ellicott, 1 Corinthians, pp. 64, 65; H. St J. Thackeray, St Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 49; Godet, ad loc. 4. προσευχόμενοςἢπροφητεύωνκατὰκεφαλῆςἔχων . ‘ When he prays or prophesies having (a veil) down over his head.’ The participles are temporal and give the circumstances of the case. With κατὰκεφ . ἔκων comp. λυπούμενοςκατὰκεφ . of Haman (Esther 6:12), Vulg. operto capite; here velato capite. The ‘ prophesying’ means public teaching, admonishing or comforting; delivering God’ s message to the congregation (13:9, 14:1, 3, 24, 31, 39). Such conduct ‘ dishonours his head’ because covering it is a usage which symbolizes subjection to some visible superior, and in common worship the man has none those who are visibly present are either his equals or his inferiors. There is no reason for supposing that men at Corinth had been making this mistake in the congregation. The conduct which would be improper for men is mentioned in order to give point to the censure on women, who in this matter had been acting as men. It is doubtful whether the Jews used the tallith or veil in prayer as early as this. We need not suppose that the Apostle is advocating the Greek practice of praying bare-headed in opposition to Jewish custom: he is arguing on independent Christian principles. Tertullian’ s protest to the heathen (Apol. 30), that the Christians pray with head uncovered, because they have nothing to be ashamed of, is not quite in point here. If in ‘ dishonoureth his head’ there is any allusion to Christ (v. 3), it is only indirect. The head, as the symbol of Christ, must be treated with reverence; so also the body (6:19), as the temple of the Spirit. And there may be a hint that, in covering his head in public worship, the man would be acknowledging some head other than Christ. See Edwards and Ellicott; also Art. ‘ Schleier’ in Kraus, Real-Ency. d. christ. Alt. 11. p. 735. 5. ‘ Praying or prophesying’ must be understood in the same way in both verses: it is arbitrary to say that the man is supposed to be taking the lead in full public worship, but the woman in mission services or family prayers. Was a woman to be veiled at family prayers? Yet in public worship women were not to speak at all (14:34; 1 Timothy 2:12). Very possibly the women had urged that, if the Spirit moved them to speak, they must speak; and how could they speak if their faces were veiled? In that extreme case, which perhaps would never occur, the Apostle says that they must speak veiled. They must not outrage propriety by coming to public worship unveiled because of the bare possibility that the Spirit may compel them to speak.* Comp. Philip’ s daughters (Acts 21:9), and the quotation from Joel (Acts 2:18). In neither men nor women must prophesying be interpreted as speaking with Tongues. The latter was addressed to God and was unintelligible to most hearers; prophesying was addressed to the congregation. The women perhaps argued that distinctions of sex were done away in Christ (Galatians 3:28), and that it was not seemly that a mark of servitude should be worn in Christian worship; or they may have asked why considerations about the head should lead to women being veiled and men not. And perhaps they expected that the Apostle who preached against the bondage of the Law would be in favour of the emancipation of women. See De Wette, ad loc. The unveiled woman dishonours her head, because that is the part in which the indecency is manifested. Also by claiming equality with the other sex she disgraces the head of her own sex; she is a bare-faced woman, ‘ for she is one and the same thing (neut. Mass, Gr. § B1. 2) with the woman that is shaven,’ either as a disgrace for some scandalous offence, or out of bravado. Aristoph. Thesm. 838; Tac. Germ. 19; and other illustrations in Wetst. The Apostle has married women chiefly in view. In Corinth anything questionable in Christian wives was specially dangerous, and the Gospel had difficulties enough to contend against without shocking people by breaches of usage. Christianity does not cancel the natural ordinances of life; and it is by the original ordinance of God that the husband has control of the wife. Only here and v. 13 does ἀκατακάλυπτος occur in N.T. Having decided the matter in question (vv. 4, 5), St Paul now proceeds (vv. 6-16) to justify his decision. 6. If a woman refuses to be veiled, let her be consistently masculine and cut her hair close; no veil, short hair: the verbs are middle, not passive, and express her own action (Blass, Gr. § 55. 2). If she flings away the covering provided by Divine ordinance, let her also fling away the covering provided by nature (Chrys.). The combination of the aor. mid. with the pres. mid. is so unusual that some editors prefer ξύρασθαι , aor. mid. from ξύρω , a late form found in Plutarch (Veitch, s.v.; Blass, Gr. § 24). 7. The connexion between ὀφείλει (v. 10) and οὐκὀφείλει here must be marked: the woman is morally bound, the man is not morally bound, to veil his head. But ‘ not bound to’ may be an understatement for ‘ bound not to’ ; comp. Acts 17:29: St Paul can hardly mean that the man may please himself, while the woman may not— magis liber est viro habitus capitis quam mulieri (Beng.); for he has just said that the man puts his head to shame by covering it, as a woman puts her head to shame by not doing so. Sicut vir professione libertatis caput suum honorat, ita mulier, subjectionis (Calvin). The man ought not to wear a covering, ‘ since he is by original constitution God’ s image and glory,’ reflecting the Creator’ s will and power, ‘ while the wife is her husband’ s glory.’ This she is as a matter of fact . See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 674. She also was made κατ ʼ εἰκόναΘεοῦ , for in Genesis 1:26 ἄνθρωπον includes both sexes, but this fact is omitted here, because it is the relation of woman to man, not of woman to God, that is under consideration; and, as she has a superior, she does not so well represent Him who has no superior. Moreover, it is the son, rather than the wife, who is the εἰκών of the man. Comp. 1 Timothy 2:13. 8, 9. Parenthetical, to confirm the statement that the woman is man’ s glory by an appeal to both initial and final (διά c. acc.) causes. Woman was created out of man, and moreover for man, not vice versa. The articles in v. 9, τὴνγυναῖκα … τὸνἄνδρα , may mean the woman and the man in Genesis 2:18-22, Eve and Adam. For καὶγάρ see Blass, § 78. 6. 10. διὰτοῦτο . Because* man is a reflexion of the divine glory, while woman is only a reflexion of that reflexion, “ therefore the woman (generic) is morally bound to have [the mark of his] authority upon her head.” The passage is unique, no satisfactory parallel having been found. There is no real doubt as to the meaning, which is clear from the context. The difficulty is to see why the Apostle has expressed himself in this extraordinary manner. That ‘ authority’ is put for ‘ sign of authority’ is not difficult; but why does St Paul say ‘ authority’ when he means ‘ subjection’ ? The man has the symbol of authority, no veil on his head; the woman has the symbol of subjection, a veil on her head. For ἐξουσία we should expect ὑποταγή (1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Timothy 3:4, of the subjection of women), or ὕπειξις (Plut. 2. 751D of the subjection of women; comp. ὑπείκειν , Hebrews 13:17), or ὑπακοή (Romans 5:19, Romans 6:16, Romans 16:19). Is it likely that St Paul would say the exact opposite of what he means? The words put in square brackets can scarcely be the true explanation. For conjectural emendations of ἐξουσίαν (all worthless) see Stanley, ad loc. p. 184. In Revelation 11:6, ἐξουσίανἔχουσινἐπὶτῶνὑδάτων means ‘ have control over the waters’ , 14:18, ἔχωνἐξουσίανἐπὶτοῦπυρός , ‘ having control over fire’ , 20:6, ἐπὶτούτωνὁδεύτεροςθάνατοςοὐκἔχειἐξουσίαν . ‘ over these the second death has no control.’ Comp. Romans 9:21; 1 Corinthians 7:37; the LXX of Dan 3:30 (97). Can the meaning here be, ‘ ought to have control over her head’ , so as not to expose it to indignity? If she unveils it, every one has control over it and can gaze at her so as to put her out of countenance. Her face is no longer under her own control. Ramsay (The Cities of St Paul, pp. 202 ff.) scouts the common explanation that the ‘ authority’ which the woman wears on her head is the authority to which she is subject, “ a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at any where except in the N.T.” Following Thomson (The Land and the Book, p. 31) he explains thus. “ In Oriental lands the veil is the power and the honour and dignity of the woman. With the veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound respect. She is not seen; it is a mark of thoroughly bad manners to observe a veiled woman in the street. She is alone. The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she is to them. She is supreme in the crowd. … But without the veil the woman is a thing of nought, whom any one may insult. … A woman’ s authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards. That is the Oriental view, which Paul learned at Tarsus.” In his preface (vi.) Ramsay adds; “ In the Hebrew marriage ceremony, as it is celebrated in modern Palestine, I am informed that the husband snatches off the bride’ s veil and throws it on his own shoulder, as a sign that he has assumed authority over her” Was Rebekah’ s veiling herself a sign of subjection? Genesis 24:65. See Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Roman World, p. 154. διὰτοὺςἀγγέλους . These words have produced much discussion, but there is not serious doubt as to their meaning. They are not a gloss (Baur), still less is the whole verse an interpolation (Holsten, Baljon). Marcion had the words, and the evidence for them is overwhelming.* An interpolator would have made his meaning clearer. Accepting them, we may safely reject the explanation that ‘ angels’ here mean the bishops (Ambrose) or presbyters (Ephraem) or all the clergy (Primasius). Nor can evil angels be meant (Tert. De Virg. vel. vii., xvii.); the article is against it: οἱἄγγελοι always means good angels (8:1; Matthew 13:49, Matthew 13:25:31; Luke 16:22; Hebrews 1:4, Hebrews 1:5, etc.). And the suggestion that the Apostle is hinting that unveiled women might be a temptation to angels (Genesis 6:1, Genesis 6:2) is somewhat childish It is to be supposed that a veil hides a human face from angels, or that public worship would be the only occasion when an unveiled woman might lead angels into temptation? It is a mistake to quote the Testament of the XII. Patriarchs (Reuben v. 6), or the Book of Jubilees (iv. 15, 22), or Theodotus (Frag. 44; C.R. Gregory, Enleit. in d. N.T. P. 151), in illustration of this passage. The meaning is plain. If a woman thinks lightly of shocking men, she must remember that she will also be shocking the angels, who of course are present at public worship. Compare 4:9, and ἐναντίονἀγγέλωνψαλῶσοι (Psalms 138:1), and ‘ O ye angels of the Lord, Bless ye the Lord’ (Song of the Three Children, 37). Ancient liturgies often bear witness to this belief, as does our own,; “ Therefore with Angels and Archangels” etc., Chrysostom says, “ knowest thou not that thou standest in the midst of the angels? with them thou singest, with them thou chantest, and dost thou stand laughing?” See Luke 15:7, Luke 15:10, Luke 15:12:8, Luke 15:9. One other suggestion is worth considering, viz. that διὰτ . ἀγγέλους might mean ‘ because the angels do so.’ Angels, in the presence of their direct and visible Superior, veil their faces (Isaiah 6:2); a woman, when worshipping in the presence of her direct and visible superior (man), should do the same. Conjectural emendations (all worthless) are quoted by Stanley: see also Expositor, 1st series, xi. p. 20. “ None of the known emendations can possibly be right; and the intrinsic and obvious difficulty is itself enough to set aside the suggestion that the whole verse is an interpolation” (WH. App. p. 116). 11. πλήν . Limitation. Although by original constitution woman is dependent on man, yet he has no right to look down on her. In the Christian sphere each is dependent on the other, and both are dependent on God (8:6; Romans 11:36); and it is only in the Christian sphere that woman’ s rights are duly respected. Each sex is incomplete without the other. ἐνΚυρίῳ . There can be no separation between man and woman when both are members of Christ. Cf. for ἐνΚυρίῳ 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 1Th_2 Thess, 3:4; Galatians 5:10; Ephesians 4:17. א A B C D* D3 E F G H P, RV. have οὔτεγυνὴχ . ἀ . before οὔτεἀνὴρχ .γ . D2 K L, Vulg. AV. transpose the clauses. 12. This mutual dependence of the sexes is shown by the fact that, although originally woman sprang from man, yet ever since then it is through woman that man comes into existence: if he is her initial cause , she is his instrumental cause (διά c. gen). But (another reason why man must not be contemptuous) the whole universe— man and woman and their whole environment— owes its origin to God. Cf. 15:27; Ephesians 5:23; and see Basil, De Spiritu, v. 12, xviii. 46. 13. In conclusion he asks two questions, the second of which clinches the first. He appeals to their general sense of propriety, as sense which is in harmony with the teaching of φύσις and is doubtlness inspired by φύσις . Their ideas of what is πρέπον are in the best sense natural. It should be noted that both in AV. and RV. the second question is brought to a close too soon. The note of interrogation should be placed after ‘ it is a glory to her,’ as in the Vulgate, Luther, Tyndale, and Coverdale. Beza and others make three questions, breaking up the second into two. ἐνὑμῖναὐτῖςκρίνατε . In their own inner judgment (6:2), cannot they decide (10:15)? ‘ Is it becoming that a woman should pray to god unveiled?’ Usually προσεύχομαι has no case after it, but here τῷΘεῷ is added to emphasize the principle that when she is addressing God she ought not to be asserting her equality with men or trying to draw the attention of men: comp. Matthew 6:6. For πρέπον see Westcott on Hebrews 2:10. 14. A further argument, supporting the previous one. Instinctively they must feel the impropriety; and then external nature confirms the instinctive feeling. Even if the internal feeling should not arise, does not even nature by itself show that, while doubtless man, being short-haired, is by Divine order unveiled, woman, being long-haired, is by Divine order veiled? Naturae debet respondere voluntas (Beng.).* While fanaticism defies nature, Christianity respects and refines it; and whatever shocks the common feelings of mankind is not likely to be right. At this period, civilized men, whether Jews, Greeks, or Romans, wore their hair short. ‘ Long hair is a permanent endowment of woman, to serve as an enveloping mantle’ (Hebrews 1:12 from Ps. 101:27; Judges 8:26; Ezekiel 16:13, Ezekiel 16:27:7; Isaiah 59:17). Note the emphasis on ἀνήρ and γυνή , also on the clause introduced by δέ . Nowhere else in Biblical Greek does κομάω occur. Milligan, Grk. Papyri, p. 84. 16. This is best taken as concluding the subject of the veil; it makes a clumsy opening to the next subject. ‘ But if any one seemeth to be (or is minded to be)† contentious, we have no such custom, not yet the Churches of God’ . There are people who are so fond of disputing that they will contest the clearest conclusions, and the Corinthians were fond of disputation. But the Apostle will not encourage them. If such should question the dictates of decorum and of nature in this matter, they may be told that the teachers have no such usage as permitting women to be unveiled,— a thing unheard of in Christian congregations. It is possible that ἡμεῖς means only himself, but he probably means that he knows of no Apostle who allows this.† Throughout the section he appeals to principles. The wearing or not wearing a veil may seem to be a small matter. Everything depends upon what the wearing or not wearing implies, and what kind of sanction the one practice or the other can claim. He does not use δεῖ about the matter; there is no intrinsic necessity (v. 19): but he does use both ὀφείλει (7, 10) and πρέπονἐστί (13); for there is both moral obligation and natural fitness. His final appeal— to the practice of all congregations— would be of special weight in democratic Corinth. For αἱἐκκλησίαιτοῦΘεοῦ comp. 2 Thessalonians 1:4. See Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 108, 117, 120. There is no need to conjecture that v. 16 is an interpolation, or that συνήθεια refers to contentiousness. Would St Paul think it necessary to say that Apostles have no habit of contentiousness? For Greek and Roman customs respecting the hair and veils, see Smith, Dict. of Ant. Artt. ‘ Coma,’ , ‘ Flammeum’ ‘ Vestales.’ . The cases in which males, both Greek and Roman, wore long hair do not interfere with the argument.* Such cases were either exceptional or temporary; and they were temporary because nature taught men otherwise. For men to wear their hair long, and for women to wear it short, for men to veil their heads in public assemblies, and for women not to do so, were alike attempts to obliterate natural distinctions of sex. In the Catacombs the men are represented with short hair. 11:17-34. Disorders Connected with the Lord’ s Supper There are abuses of a grave kind in your public worship; a chronic state of dissension, and gross selfishness and excess in your love feasts and celebrations of the Lord’ s Supper. This profanation brings grievous judgments on you. Avert the judgments by putting a stop to the profanation. 17 Now, in giving you this charge about the veiling of women, I do not commend you that your religious gatherings do you more harm than good. 18 First of all, when you meet as a Christian congregation, you are split into sets:— so I am told, and to some extent I am afraid that it is true. 19 Indeed, party divisions among you can hardly be avoided if men of proved worth are not to be lost in the crowd. 20 Well then, as to your religious gatherings: it cannot be said that it is the Lord’ s Supper that you eat. 21 For everybody’ s first thought is to be beforehand in getting his own supper; and so, while the poor man who brings nothing cannot get enough even to eat, the rich man who brings abundance takes a great deal too much even to drink. 22 Surely you do not mean that you have no homes in which you can satisfy hunger and thirst? Or do you think that you need have no reverence for God’ s congregation; or that because a man is poor you may treat him with contempt? What am I to say to you? Do you expect me to commend you? In this matter that is impossible. 23 Quite impossible; for I know that you know better. I myself received from the Lord that which in turn I transmitted to you, namely, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was being delivered up, took bread: 24 and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, ‘ This is My Body, which is for you. This do ye, in remembrance of Me’ . 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper was over, saying, ‘ This cup is the new covenant in virtue of My Blood. This do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ 26 Yes, He gave this command; for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, it is the death of the Lord that you are proclaiming,— nothing less than that,— until His return. 27 It follows, therefore, that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a way that dishonours Him, shall be held responsible for profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord. 28 But, in order to avoid this profanation, let a man scrutinize his own spiritual condition and his motives; then, and not till then, let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks is thereby eating and drinking a sentence on himself, if he fails to recognize the sanctity of the Body. 30 The proof of this is within your own experience; for it is because people fail to recognize this sanctity that so many of you are sick and ill, while not a few have died. 31 But if we recognized our own condition and motives, we should escape this sentence. 32 Yet, when we are thus sentenced, we are being chastened by the Lord, to save us from being involved in the final condemnation of the world. 33 So then, my brothers, at your religious gatherings for a common meal, wait until all are ready. 34 If any one is too hungry to wait, let him stay at home and eat; so that your gatherings may not have these fatal results. All the other matters in which you need instruction I will regulate whenever I come. The shocking desecration of the Lord’ s Supper by the disorders which St Paul here censures was, no doubt, the primary reason why he is so severe in his condemnation of the conduct of those Corinthians who profaned it by their selfish misbehaviour, but it was not the only reason for distress and indignation. “ In the whole range of history there is no more striking contrast than that of the Apostolic Churches with the heathenism round them. They had shortcomings enough, it is true, and divisions and scandals not a few, for even apostolic times were no golden age of purity and primitive simplicity. Yet we can see that their fulness of life, and hope, and promise for the future was a new power in the world. Within their own limits they had solved almost by the way the social problem which baffled Rome, and baffles Europe still. They had lifted woman to her rightful place, restored the dignity of labour, abolished beggary, and drawn the sting of slavery. The secret of the revolution is that the selfishness of race and class was forgotten in the Supper of the Lord, and a new basis for society found in love of the visible image of God in men for whom Christ died” (Gwatkin, Early Church History, p. 73). The Corinthian offenders were reviving the selfishness of class, were treating with contumely the image of God visible in their fellowmen, and were thus bringing into serious peril the best results of this blessed revolution. The Apostle does not hesitate to declare (vv. 30-32) that this evil work of theirs is bringing upon them the manifest judgments of God. It is worth noting that he appeals to what ‘ the Lord Jesus’ did at the Supper, not to what ‘ Jesus’ did. There is no basis for the hypothesis that St Paul did not regard Jesus as the Son of God until after His Resurrection, comp. v. 4, 5. See Introduction, § ‘ Doctrine.’ 17. τοῦτοδὲπαραγγέλλωνοὐκἐπαινῶ . The reading is somewhat doubtful (see below), as also is the meaning of τοῦτο . If τοῦτο refers to the charge which he gives respecting the Love-feasts (28-34), then the interval between this preface and the words which it anticipates is awkwardly prolonged. It is not impossible that τοῦτο refers to the charge about women wearing veils.* The connexion between the two subjects is close, both being concerned with proper behaviour at public worship. ‘ Now in giving you this charge I do not praise [you], that your religious gatherings do you harm instead of good’ . It is an understatement, purposely made in contrast to v. 2, that he does not praise them. He censures them severely. What was intended for their wealth they had made an occasion of falling. These gatherings, instead of quickening their spiritual life, had led to grievous misconduct and consequent suffering. For εἰς , of result, comp. Colossians 3:10. The evidence for παραγγέλλωνοὐκἐπαινῶ is somewhat stronger than for παραγγέλλωοὐκἐπαινῶν . B is neutral with παραγγέλλωνοὐκἐπαινῶν , and D with παραγγέλλωοὐκἐπαινῶ : Vulg. praecipio non landans. There is no ύμᾶς in the Greek; but neither AV. nor RV. put ‘ you’ in italics. Both the Attic κρεῖττον (7:9) and the un-Attic κρεῖσσον (here and 7:38) are well attested: τὸἧσσον here only; comp. 2 Corinthians 12:15. It is possible that both κρεῖσσον and ἧσσον were pronounced in a similar way (kreesson heesson); if so, we have a play upon sound. 18. ‘ For, to begin with.’ The Apostle hastens to justify his refusal to give praise. The πρῶτονμέν has no δεύτερονδέ or ἔπειταδέ afterwards, and possibly there is no antithesis; but some find it in the section about spiritual gifts (12:1 f.): cf. Romans 1:8, Romans 1:3:2, Romans 1:10:1, Romans 1:11:13; 2 Corinthians 12:12: Blass, Gr. § 77. 12. ἐνἐκκλησίᾳ . ‘ In assembly,’ i.e. in a gathering of the members of the Corinthian Church. “ This use is at once classical and a return to the original force of qā hā l” (Hort, The Chr. Eccles. p. 118): 14:19, 28, 35; comp. 3 John 1:6 and ἐνσυναγωγῇ , John 6:59, John 18:20. ‘ Church’ in the sense of a building for public worship cannot be meant; there were no such buildings. ἀκούωσχίσματαἐνὑμῖνὑπάρχειν ‘ I continually hear (pres.) that dissensions among you prevail’ : these splits are the rule. In the Love-feasts they seem to have been chiefly social, between rich and poor. Possibly what St James condemns (2:1-4) took place; the wealthy got the best places at the tables. Yet neither σχίσματα (see on 1:10) nor αἱρέσεις are separations from the Church, but dissensions within it. Wherever people deliberately choose their own line independently of authority, there is αἵρεσις : Galatians 5:20. μέροςτιπιστεύω . The Apostle has the love which ‘ hopeth all things’ (13:7), and he will not believe that all that he hears to their discredit is true; miti sermone utitur (Beng.). The reading ἐντῇἐκκλ . (Tr., ‘ in the Church’ AV.) is found only in a few cursives. There is no reason for suspecting that ἐνἐκκλ . (all uncials) is an interpolation. μέροςτι is the accusative of the extent to which the action applies: comp. πάνταπᾶσινἀρέσκω (10:33). We might have had ἐκμέρους (13:9, 12). 19. δεῖγὰρκαὶαἱρέσεις . Comp. Matthew 18:7. In the nature of things, if there are splits of any kind, these are sure to settle down into parties,— factions with self-chosen views. Human nature being what it is, and Corinthian love of faction being so great, if a division once became chronic, it was certain to be intensified. But here perhaps there is not much difference between σχίσματα and αἱρέσεις . Justin M. (Try. 35) mixes the words ἔσονταισχίσματακαὶαἱρ . with Matthew 24:5, Matthew 24:11, Matthew 24:24, Matthew 24:7:15, and attributes them to our Lord. Comp. Clem. Hom. xvi. 21, and see Resch, p. 100. For αἵρεσις comp. Acts 5:17, Acts 15:5, Acts 26:5, etc. ἵνα [καὶ ] οἱδόκιμοιφανεροὶγένωνται . Divine Providence turns this evil tendency to good account: it is the means of causing the trusty and true to become recognizable. Either by coming to the front in the interests of unity, or by keeping aloof from all divisions, the more stable characters will become manifest: 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:12. To have religious zeal. without becoming a religious partizan, is a great proof of true devotion. contrast ἀδόκιμος (9:27). D F G Latt. omit ἐνὑμῖν before εἷναι . B D, Latt, insert καί before οἱδόκιμοι : א A C E F G K L P, Syrr . omit. The δόκιμοι ar those who have been ‘ accepted’ after being tested like metals or stones (Genesis 23:16); hence ‘ proved’ and ‘ approved’ (Romans 16:10; 2 Corinthians 10:18, 2 Corinthians 13:7). See Origen, Con. Cels. iii. 13, Philocalia xvi. 2. Quite needlessly, some suspect that ἵνα … ἐνὑμῖν is an interpolation. 20. Συνερχομένωνοὖνὑμῶνἐπὶτὸαὐτό . ‘ When therefore you come together to one place’ (Acts 1:15, Acts 2:1. Acts 2:44, Acts 3:1), ‘ when you are assembled ἐνἐκκλησίᾳ , i.e. for a religious purpose.’ Or ἐπὶτὸαὐτό might (less probably) mean ‘ for the same object.’ The place is not yet a building set apart. In any case, ἐπὶτὸαὐτό emphasizes the contrast between the external union and the internal dissension. Compare 7:5, 14:23. οὐκἔστινκυριακὸνδεῖπνονφαλεῖν . The adjective is emphatic by position: ‘ there is no eating a Lord’ s supper.’ A supper they may eat, but it is not the Lord’ s: οὐκἔστιν , ‘ there is no such thing,’ for such conduct as theirs excludes it. Hence οὐκἔστιν may be rendered ‘ it is not possible,’ non licet (Ecclus. 14:16); but this is not necessary. At first, the Eucharist proper seems to have followed the Agape or Love-feast, being a continuation of it. Later the Eucharist preceded and was transferred from evening to morning. Here, κυριακὸνδεῖπνον probably includes both, the whole re-enactment of the Last Supper including the Eucharist. Placuit Spiritui Sancto ut in honorem tanti sacraments in os Christians prius Dominicum corpus intraret quam exteri cibi (Aug. Ep. cxviii. 6, 7, ad Januar.). See Hastings, DB. III. P. 157; Smith, D. Chr. Ant. 1. P. 40; Ency. bibl ii. 1424. We cannot be sure from the use of κυριακόν instead of τοῦκυρίου that the name κυριακὸνδεῖπνον was already in use. The expression must have had a beginning, and this may be the first use of it. Inscriptions and papyri show that, as early as a.d. 68, κυριακός was in use in the sense of ‘ pertaining to the Emperor,’ ‘ imperial’ (Deissmann, New Light on the N.T. p. 82, Bible Studies, p. 217, Light, p. 361). The word δεῖπνον occurs only here and Revelation 19:9, Revelation 19:17, outside the Gospels; in LXX, only in Daniel and 4 Macc. 21. ἕκαστοςγὰρτὸἴδιονδεῖπνονπρολαμβάνει ‘ For each one takes before the rest (instead of with them) his own supper’ : he anticipates the partaking in common, and thus destroys the whole meaning and beauty of the ordinance. It was thus not even a κοινὸνδεῖπνον , much less κυριακόν . The ἐντῷφαγεῖν is not an otiose addition: it is a mere eating, which he might just as well or better have done elsewhere and elsewhen.* καὶὃςμὲνπεινᾷ . ‘ The consequence is that one man cannot even satisfy his hunger, while another even drinks to excess.’ These are probably respectively the rich and the poor. The poor brought little or nothing to the common meal, and got little or nothing from the rich, who brought plenty; while some of the rich, out of their abundant supplies, became drunk. There is a sharp antithesis between deficiency in necessary food and excess in superfluous drink. There is no need to water down the usual meaning of μεθύειν (Matthew 24:49; John 2:10; Acts 2:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:7). Even in a heathen ἔρανος such selfish and disgusting behaviour would have been considered shameful, as the directions given by Socrates show; they are very similar to those of St Paul (Xen. Mem. III. iv. 1). Certainly such meetings must have been ‘ for the worse’ ; hungry poor meeting intoxicated rich, at what was supposed to be a supper of the Lord! In these gatherings the religious element was far more important than the social; but the Corinthians had destroyed both. For this late use of the relative, ὃςμὲν … ὃςδὲ … comp. Romans 9:21; 2 Timothy 2:20; Matthew 21:35, Matthew 22:5, Matthew 25:15. Coincidence is implied. For προλαμβάνει (א B C D E F G K L P) A and some cursives have προσλαμβάνει , the active of which does not occur in the N.T., except as a variant here and Acts 27:34. 22. μὴγὰροἰκίαςοὐκἔχετε . ‘ for surely you do not mean that you have not got houses to eat and to drink in!’ Comp. μὴοὐκἔχομεν (9:4, 5, 6), and εἰςτὸ … ἐσθίειν (8:10); and see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2702 b. ‘ Well, then, if that is not true (and of course it is not), there is only one alternative,’ which is introduced by ἤ . ‘ Ye despise the congregation that is assembled for the worship of God, and ye put the poor to shame.’ They treated a religious meal as if it were a licentious entertainment, and therein exposed the poverty of those who were in need. There can be little doubt that, as οἱἔχοντες = ‘ the rich,’ οἱμὴἔχοντες = ‘ the poor,’ . Here it might mean ‘ those who have not houses for meals’ (Alford); so also Wiclif, ‘ han noon’ ; but this is very improbable. The τοῦΘεοῦ is added with solemnity (v. 16, 10:32) to give emphasis to the profanity. The addition is frequent in the two earliest groups of the Pauline Epistles (Hort, The Chr. Eccles. pp. 103, 108, 117): καταφρονεῖτε , as Romans 2:4; Matthew 18:10; καταισχύνετε , as Romans 5:5. The majority of the Corinthian Christians would be poor.* τίεἴπωὑμῖν ; ἐπαινέσωὑμᾶς ; Deliberative subjunctives: ‘ What am I to say to you? Am I to praise you?’ The ἐντούτῳ may be taken with what precedes (AV., RV.), or with what follows (Tisch., WH., Ell.). The latter seems to be better, as limiting the censure to this particular, and also as preparing for what follows. 23. ἐγὼγὰρπαρέλαβονἀπὸτοῦκυριου . ‘ I cannot praise you, for what I received from the Lord, and also delivered to you, was this.’ We cannot tell how St Paul received this. Neither does the ἐγώ imply that the communication was direct, nor does the ἀπό that it was not direct, although, if it was direct, we should probably have had παρά (Galatians 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:4:1; etc.). The ἐγώ balances ὑμῖν : the Apostle received and transmitted to them this very thing, so that both know exactly what took place. He was a sure link in a chain which reached from the Lord Himself to them. They did not receive it from the Lord, but they received it from one who had so received it, and therefore they have no excuse. This is one of the παραδόσεις which they professed to be holding fast (v. 2). See Ramsay, Exp. Times, April 1910; Jü licher, Paulus u. Jesus, p.30. It is urged that in a matter of such moment a direct revelation to the Apostle is not incredible. On the other hand, why assume a supernatural communication when a natural one was ready at hand? It would be easy for St Paul to learn everything from some of the Twelve. But what is important is, not the mode of the communication, but the source. In some way or other St Paul received this from Christ, and its authenticity cannot be gainsaid; but his adding ἀπὸταῦΚυρίου is no guide as to the way in which he received it. More important also than the mode are the contents of the communication, and it is to them that παραλαμβάνειν frequently points (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 15:1, 1 Corinthians 15:3): see Lightfoot on Galatians 1:1, Galatians 1:13. It certainly does not point to anything written: St Paul does not say that he had read what he delivered to them. See Knowling, The Testimony of St Paul to Christ, pp. 275 f. Zahn and Schmiedel are here agreed that St Paul is appealing to historical tradition. See also Camb. Bibl. Ess. pp. 336 f.; Mansfield College Essays, pp. 48 f. ὄκαὶπαρέδωκαὑμῖν . ‘ Which I also delivered to you.’ He transmitted to them the very thing which he had received from the Lord, so that they were well aware of what ought to have made these disorders impossible. This would be St Paul’ s own reply to the assertion that he, and not Jesus, is the founder of Christianity. ἐντῇνυκτὶᾗπαρεδίδετο . ‘ In the night in which He was being delivered up.’ St Paul mentions the sad solemnity of the occasion in contrast to the irreverent revelry of the Corinthians. Neither AV. nor RV. keeps the same translations for παραδίδωμι in this verse, nor marks the imperfect. The delivery to His enemies had already begun and was going on at the very time when the Lord instituted the Eucharist. Moreover, to translate ‘ was betrayed’ confines the meaning to the action of Judas; whereas the Father’ s surrender of the Son is included, and perhaps is chiefly meant, and the Son’ s self-sacrifice may also be included (E. A. Abbott, Paradosis, § § 1155, 1202, 1417). It is plain that St Paul assumes that his readers are acquainted with the details of the Passion; and the precision with which he writes here and 15:3-8 is evidence that “ he is drawing from a well-furnished store” (Sanday, DCG. 11. p. 888). He himself is well acquainted with the chief facts in the life of Christ (A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of St Paul, p. 89; Fletcher, The Conversion of St Paul, pp. 55 f.). ἒλαβενἄρτον . ‘ Took a loaf,’ one of the thin cakes of bread used for the Paschal meal. It was perhaps more like our biscuit or oatcake than ordinary loaves. Hastings, DCG. 1. pp. 230 f. 24. εὐχαριστήσαςἒκλασεν . All four accounts of the Institution have ἒκλασεν here, a detail of Divinely-appointed ritual. Luke also has εὐχαριστήσας , for which Mark and Matthew substitute εὐλογήσας . The two words doubtless refer to the same utterance of Christ, in which He gave thanks and blessed God, and both contain the significant εὖ : comp. εὐαγγέλιον , εὐδοκία , and see T. S. Evans ad loc. Mark has these features, which are omitted here; ‘ as they were eating,’ ‘ Take ye,’ ‘ they all drank of it,’ ‘ which is shed for many.’ For the third of these Matthew substitutes ‘ Drink ye all of it’ ; he has the other three. Luke has none of them. Mark, Matthew, and Luke have εὐχαριστήσας , of the cup also, and here ὡσαύτως covers it. The three, moreover, give, what is omitted here, ‘ I say to you I will in no wise drink of the fruit of the vine until’ … ‘ the Kingdom.’ The details which are common to all four accounts are (1) the taking bread, (2) the giving thanks, (3) the breaking, (4) the words, ‘ This is My Body,’ (5) the cup; and, if the disputed passage in Luke be retained, (6) the words ‘ blood’ and ‘ covenant.’ The disputed passage is almost verbatim as vv. 24, 25 here, from τὸὑπὲρὑμῶν … αἵματι . Of the four accounts of the Institution this is the earliest that has come down to us, and the words of our Lord which are contained in it are the earliest record of any of His utterances; for this Epistle was written before any of the Gospels. It is, however, possible that Mark used a document in giving his account, and this document might be earlier than this Epistle. Τοῦτόμουἐστὶντὸσῶματὸὑπὲρὑμῶν . All carnal ideas respecting these much-discussed words are excluded by the fact that the Institution took place before the Passion. Our Lord’ s human Body was present, and His Blood was not yet shed. What is certain is that those who rightly receive the consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist receive spiritually the Body and the Blood of Christ. How this takes place is beyond our comprehension, and it is vain to claim knowledge which cannot be possessed, or to attempt to explain what cannot be explained. “ If there is a point on which the witness of Scripture, of the purest ecclesiastical tradition, and of our own Church, is more express and uniform than another, it is the peculiar and transcendent quality of the blessing which this Sacrament both represents and exhibits, and consequently of the Presence by which that blessing is conferred. How this Presence differs from that of which we are assured by our Lord’ s promise, where two or three are gathered together in His name— whether only in degree or in kind— it is beyond the power of human language to define and of human thought to conceive. It is a subject fit, not for curious speculation, but for the exercise of pious meditation and devotional feeling; and it is one in which there is a certainty that the highest flight of contemplation will always fall short of the Divine reality” (Bishop Thirlwall, Charges, vol. i. p. 278; see also pp. 245, 246). “ I could not consent to make our Church answerable for a dogma committing those who hold it to the belief that, in the institution of the Supper, that which our Lord held in His hand, and gave to His disciples, was nothing less than His own Person, Body, Soul, and Godhead” (Ibid. vol. ii. P. 251; see also the appendix on Transubstantiation, pp. 281 f.). The notes of Ellicott and Evans ad loc., with Gould on Mark 14:22; Westcott on Joh_6 and 18; Gore, Dissertations, pp. 230 f.; Hastings, DB. iii. pp. 148 f., with the bibliography there given, may be consulted. Excellent remarks and summaries of doctrine will be found in Beet, A Manual of Theology, pp. 380-96. Happily, no theory of the manner of Christ’ s Presence in the Eucharist is necessary for the fruitful reception of it, and to have this demonstrated would not make us better Christians, any more than a knowledge of the chemical properties of bread makes us better able to digest it. Stanley, Christian Institutions, ch. vi. τοῦτοποιεῖτεεἰςτὴνἐμὴνἀνάμνησιν . ‘ Perform this action (continue to take bread, give thanks, and break it) in remembrance of Me’ (Numbers 10:10; Psalms 38:1, Psalms 70:1). This implies that hereafter He is to be absent from sight. The words are not in Mark or Matthew, nor in Luke, except in the disputed verses. Therefore the command to continue the celebration of the Lord’ s Supper rests upon the testimony of St Paul. This, however, does not for a moment imply that he was the first to repeat the celebration, or the first to teach Christians to do so. This passage plainly implies that repeated celebrations were already a firmly established practice. The authority of St Paul was quite inadequate to this immense result. Nothing less than the authority of Christ would have sufficed to produce it. See Knowling, pp. 279 f. The proposal to give to τοῦτοποιεῖτε the meaning ‘ sacrifice this’ must be abandoned. As the Romanist commentator Estius says, it is plane praeter mentem Scripturae.* So also Westcott; “ I have not the least doubt that τοῦτοποιεῖτε can mean only do this act (including the whole action of hands and lips), and not sacrifice this; and that the Latin also can have only the same rendering” (in a letter quoted in his Life, II. p. 353): and Bachmann, τοῦτο geht auf die ganze Handlung, wie sie durch das Tun Jesu und seiner Jü nger dargestellt ist: and Herveius; ‘ Hoc facite,’ id est, corpus meum accipite et manducate per successionem temporis usque in finem saeculi, in memoriam passionis meae. See Ellicott and Goudge ad loc.; Expositor, 3rd series, 7:441; T. K. Abbott, Essays on the Original Texts of O. and N.T. p. 110; A Reply to Mr. Supple’ s and other Criticisms; and notes on Luke 22:19 in the Int. Crit. Com. p. 497. Edwards translates τὴνἐμὴνἀνάμνησιν , ‘ My commemoration,’ in contrast to that of Moses (10:2), thus making τὴνἐμήν parallel to καινή (v. 25). See Blass, Gr. § 48. 7. The Eucharist perpetually calls to mind the redemption by Christ from the bondage of sin, as the Passover recalled the redemption from the bondage of Egypt. Christ did not say, ‘ in remembrance of My death.’ The recorded words, ‘ as My memorial,’ are of wider import; they imply ‘ in remembrance of all that I have done for you and all that I am to you.’ The early Christians seem to have regarded the Eucharist as a commemoration of the Resurrection as well as the Death, for they selected the first day of the week for this memorial. Wetstein compares the address of T. Manlius to the troops after his colleague Decius had devoted himself to secure their success; Consurgite nunc, memores consulis pro vestra victoria morte occumbentis (Livy, 8:10). Λάβετε , φάγετε (C3 K L P, Syrr. Aeth.) are an interpolation from Matthew 26:26; א A B C D E F G, Lat-Vet. Aegyptt. Arm. omit. After τὸὑπὲρὑμῶν , א 3 C3 E F G K L P insert κλώμενον D inserts θρυπτόμενον , Vulg. (quod … tradetur) and some other versions have a rendering which implies διδόμενον . א A B C 17 and other witnesses omit. The interpolation of any of these words weakens the neruosa sententia (Beng.), τὸὑπὲρὑμων , which means ‘ for your salvation’ (Mark 10:45). AV. inserts ‘ Take, eat,’ and ‘ broken’ ; RV. gives the latter a place in the margin. 25. ὡσαύτωςτὸποτήριον . He acted with the cup as with the bread: He took it, gave thanks, and administered it to the disciples. ‘ The cup’ means ‘ the usual cup,’ the wellknown one (10:16). The addition of μετὰτὸδειπνῆσαι shows that the bread was distributed during the meal, ἐσθιόντωναὐτῶν (Mark 14:22): but it was after supper was over, postquam caenatum est (Aug.), not postquam coenavit (Vulg.), that the cup was administered. Perhaps the Apostle is pointing out that the cup, against which they had so grievously offended by intoxication, was no part of the meal, but a solemn addition to it. But we must not translate, ‘ the after-supper cup,’ which would require τὸμετὰτὸδ . ποτήριον . Thomas Aquinas would give a meaning to the fact that the bread was distributed during the meal, while the cup was not administered till the meal was over. The one represents the Incarnation, which took place while the observances of the Law still had force; but the other represents the Passion, which put an end to the observances of the Law. And Cornelius à Lapide regards Christ’ s taking the cup into His hands as a token of His voluntarily taking death for us. Such thoughts are admissible, if it is not maintained that they are the meaning which is intended in Scripture*. Τοῦτοτὸποτήριονἡκαινὴδιαθήκηἐστὶνἐντῷἐμῷαἵματι . Hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine. The position of ἐστίν is against combining ἐντῷἐμῷαἵματι with ἡκαινὴδιαθήκη . Rather, ‘ This cup is the new covenant, and it is so in virtue of My Blood.’ ‘ In My Blood’ is an expansion or explanation of the ‘ is,’ and is equivalent to an adverb such as ‘ mystically.’ The cup represents that which it contains, and the wine which it contains represents the Blood which seals the covenant. The Atonement is implied, without which doctrine the Lord’ s Supper is scarcely intelligible. Only St Paul (and Luke?) has the καινή . The covenant is ‘ fresh’ as distinct from the former covenant which is now obsolete. It is καινή in its contents, in the blessings which it secures, viz. forgiveness and grace: and τῷἐμῷαἵμ . is in contrast to the blood with which the old covenant was confirmed (Exodus 24:8). See Jeremiah 31:31, the only place in O.T. in which διαθήκηκαινή occurs. The choice of διαθήκη , rather than συνθήκη , which is the common word for covenant, is no doubt deliberate, for συνθήκη might imply that the parties to the covenant contracted on equal terms. Between God and man that is impossible. When He enters into a contract He disposes everything, as a man disposes of his property by will: hence διαθήκη often means a testament or will. In the LXX συνθήκη is freq.; in the N.T. it does not occur. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 299. On the meaning of ‘ blood,’ ‘ which is the life,’ in connexion with Christ’ s Sacrifice, see Westcott, Hebrews, pp. 293 f.; Epp. of St john, pp. 34 f.; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 89, 91. τοῦτοποιεῖτεκ .τ .λ . St Paul alone has these words of the cup. In the disputed passage in Luke they are wanting. ὁσάκιςἐὰνπίνητε . This makes the command very comprehensive; quotiescunque: comp. ὁσάκιςἐὰνθελήσωσιν (Revelation 11:6). Every time that they partake of the sacramental cup , they are to do as He has done in remembrance of Him. He does not merely give permission; He commands. It is perverse to interpret this as a general command, referring to all meals at which anything is drunk. What precedes and follows limits the meaning to ‘ the cup of blessing.’ The Lord commands that the Supper be often repeated, and His Apostle charges those who repeat it to keep in view Him who instituted it, and who died to give life to them. In liturgies these words are transferred to Christ; ‘ ye proclaim My death till I come.’ With regard to the Lord’ s presence in Holy Communion, Bishop Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of York, 8th Oct. 1900; “ The circumstances of the Institution are, we may say, spiritually reproduced. The Lord Himself offers His Body given and His Blood shed. But these gifts are not either separately (as the Council of Trent) or in combination Himself … I shrink with my whole nature from speaking of such a mystery, but it seems to me to be vital to guard against the thought of the Presence of the Lord ‘ in or under the forms of bread and wine.’ From this the greatest practical errors follow” (Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, II. p. 351). It is very remarkable that “ the words of institution” differ widely in the four accounts. There is substantial agreement in meaning; but the only clause in which all four agree is ‘ This is My Body’ ; and even here there is a difference of order between Τοῦτόμουἐστὶντὸσῶμα (1 Cor.) and Τοῦτόἐστιντὸσῶμάμου (Mark, Matt., Luke). It is quite clear that in all four accounts these words are words of administration, not of consecration. This is specially manifest in Mark, where they are preceded by ‘ Take ye’ , and in Matt., where they are preceded by ‘ Take, eat’ . The same may be said of ‘ This is My Blood’ (Mark, Matt.): they are words of administration, not of consecration. The consecration has preceded, and would seem to be included in εὐχαριστήσας or εὐλογήσας . “ All liturgies of every type agree in bearing witness to the fact that the original form of consecration was a thanksgiving” ; and the form of words in which our Lord gave thanks has not been preserved. In the Eastern liturgies “ the words of institution were not recited as of themselves effecting the consecration, but rather as the authority in obedience to which the rite is performed” (W. C. Bishop, Ch. Quart. Rev., July 1908, pp. 387-92). In the main lines of Eucharistic teaching in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, “ The moment of consecration is associated with the invocation of God the Word (Serapion, 1), or with the invocation of God the Holy Ghost (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. xxi:3), or with the Invocation of the Holy Trinity (Ibid. xix:7),* or with the recital of the words recorded to have been used by our Lord at the institution (Pseudo-Ambrose, De Sacr. 4:21-23)” (Darwell Stone, Ch. Quart. Rev. Oct. 1908, p. 36). Cyril of Jerusalem quotes St Paul as saying (v. 25), “ And having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood,” which is wide of St Paul’ s words, and agrees exactly with none of the other accounts (Cat. xxi:1). It would thus appear that we know the eact words of institution only very imperfectly, and the exact words of consecration not at all. Again, just as we do not know the manner of our Lord’ s Presence in the rite as a whole, so we do not know “ the supreme moment of consecration.” It is lawful to believe that we should not be in a better position for making a good use of this mystery if all these things were known.* This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 12:1-14:40. GIFTS, AND TONGUES This is the third and longest section of the fourth main division of the Epistle; and, as at the beginning of this division (11:2), there is a possible reference to the letter of the Corinthians to the Apostle; but he would no doubt have treated of a number of the topics which are handled, even if they had not mentioned them. In all three of the sections we are reminded that he is dealing with a young Church in which some of the faults of their former state of life are reappearing. This is specially the case with the Corinthian love of faction. There were rivalries, cliques, and splits, hardening sometimes into parties with party-leaders. About the veils, there was the rivalry between men and women. At the love feasts, there was the rivalry between rich and poor. And here we have evidence of rivalries as to the possession of spiritual gifts, and especially as to those which were most demonstrative, and therefore seemed to confer most distinction. The difficulty of this section lies in our ignorance of the condition of things to which it refers. The phenomena which are described, or sometimes only alluded to, were to a large extent abnormal and transitory. They were not part of the regular development of the Christian Church. Even in Chrysostom’ s time there was so much ignorance about them as to cause perplexity. He remarks that the whole of the passage is very obscure, because of our defective information respecting facts, which took place then, but take place no longer. Some members of the Corinthian Church, in the first glow of early enthusiasm, found themselves in possession of exceptional spiritual endowments. These appear to have been either wholly supernatural endowments or natural gifts raised to an extraordinarily high power. It seems to be clear that these endowments, although spiritual, did not of themselves make the possessors of them morally better. In some instances the reverse was the case; for the gifted person was puffed up and looked down on the ungifted. Moreover, the gifts which were most desired and valued were not those which were most useful, but those which made most show. The chapter falls into two clearly marked parts: (1) The Variety, Unity, and true Purpose of Spiritual Gifts, 1-11; (2). Illustration from Man’ s Body of the truth that, though the Gifts may be various, those who possess them are one organic Whole, 12-31. The first three verses are introductory, to supply a test which a Church consisting chiefly of converts from heathenism would be likely to require. Converts from Judaism might know from their own history and previous experience what manifestations of power were divinely inspired, and what not. But converts from idolatry would not be able to distinguish: incantations and spells were all alike to them. Then follows (4-11) the paragraph on the oneness of the origin of all gifts that are beneficial. A sure test of the origin of any spiritual gift is, Does it promote the glory of Jesus Christ? What dishonours Him cannot be from above. The good gifts are very various in their manifestations, but they have only one Source— God’ s Holy Spirit. 1 Now concerning spiritual manifestations, Brethren, I am anxious that you should be under no delusions. 2 You remember that, when you were heathens, you were led away, just as the impulse might take you, to the dumb idols that could tell you nothing. 3 Those experiences do not help you now; and therefore I would impress upon you, this as a sure test. No one who is speaking under the influence of God’ s Spirit ever says, Jesus is anathema; and no one can say, Jesus is Lord, except under the influence of the Holy Spirit. 4 Now there are various distributions of gifts; but it is one and the same Spirit who bestows them. 5 And there are various distributions of ministrations; and it is to one and the same Lord that they are rendered. 6 And there are various distributions of effects; yet it is the same God who causes every one of them in every Christian that manifests them. 7 But to each Christian the manifestation of the Spirit is granted with a view to some beneficent end. 8 For to one man is granted through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom; to another, the utterance of knowledge according to the leading of the same Spirit; 9 to a third, potent faith by means of the same Spirit; and to another, manifold gifts of healings by means of the one Spirit 10 and to another, various miraculous effects; to another, inspired utterance; to another, powers of discriminating between inspirations; to yet another, different kinds of Tongues; and to another,the interpretation of Tongues. 11 But every one of these manifestations of power is caused by one and the same Spirit, who distributes them to each individual singly, exactly as He wills. 1. Περὶδὲτῶνπνευματικῶν . ‘ Now concerning spiritual powers’ or ‘ gifts.’ The περί as in 7:1 and 8:1, probably refers to topics mentioned by them; and the δέ , as in 11:2, marks the transition from one topic to another, and probably from one topic about which they had asked to another about which they had asked. With less probability some make the δέ antithetical, as distinguishing what he deals with at once from what he has decided to postpone; ‘ But, while I postpone τὰλοιπά I must not delay to instruct you about τὰπνευηατικά ’ Some again would make τῶνπνευματικῶν masculine, as in 2:15 and 14:37; but it is certainly neuter, as in 14:1. What follows treats of the spiritual gifts, rather than those who are endowed with them; but the difference is not very important. Spiritualia dona vocat, quia solius Spiritus Sancti opera sunt, industria humana nihil ad hoc conferente (Natalis Alexander): see Denton on the Ep. for 10th Sunday after Trinity. οὐθέλωὑμᾶςἀγνοεῖν . As in 10:1; comp. Romans 1:13, Romans 1:11:25; 2 Corinthians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:13. The formula marks the introduction of an important subject which must not be overlooked, and is always softened by the addition of the affectionate ἀδελφοί : he will not leave his brethren in ignorance. Moreover, this addition reminds them that there ought to be no jealousies between brethren as to the possession of spiritual gifts. 2. οἴδατεὅτιὅτε … ἀπαγόμενοι . The sentence is not grammatical, and the simplest remedy is to understand ἦτε with ἀπαγόμενοι which is not a violent supplement. The main sentence in that case is οἴδατεὅτιπροςτὰεἴδωλαἀπαγόμενοι . ‘ Ye know that, when ye were heathen, ye were led away, as from time to time ye might be led, to worship the idols, the speechless things.’ They were hurried along, like dumb brutes, to pay reverence to the dumb idols,— objects of worship which, so far from inspiring others to speak, could not speak themselves. They had no revelation to give, and could not have communicated it, if they had. ‘ They have mouths and speak not’ (Psalms 115:5; Habakkuk 2:18; Wisd. 13:17-19; Baruch 6:8), and can neither answer questions nor make known their own will coeci ad mutos ibatis, muti ad coecos (Beng.). The insertion of ‘ as at any time ye might be led,’ added to ἀπαγόμενοι emphasizes the idea of senseless, and almost unconscious following. They were led, not by any revelation of Divine will, but by local custom, or by the command of priests or rulers. But ἀπαγόμενοι does not mean ‘ led astray’ : the heathen were not seduced from a better religion to idolatry. Here only is ἀπάγειν found in the N.T., except in the Synoptics and Acts; and there the common meaning is to lead away by force, rather than by seductive guile, to trial, prison, or punishment (Matthew 26:57, Matthew 26:27:2, Matthew 26:31; etc.; Acts 12:19, Acts 24:7). The agent who led them on to the worship of idols is not mentioned; but we are probably to understand the evil one as at the back of custom or command, Satan, “ the wily wire-puller of moral mischief” (Evans). Contrast πνεύματιἄγεσθαι (Galatians 5:18; Romans 8:14), and with ὅτεἔθνηἦτε comp. ὅτεἦμεννήπιοι (Galatians 4:3). On the verse as a whole Calvin rightly remarks, Perturbata est contructio, sed tamen clarus est sensus. We may safely adopt ὡςἂνἤγεσθε rather than ὡςἀνήγεσθε . Other donbts are not so easily settled. Some regard ὡςἂνἤγεσθε as a resumption of the cluase introduced by ὅτι : ‘ Ye know that, when ye were heathen,— how ye were led to those voiceless odols, being carried away.’ This makes the ἀπαγόμενοι come in very awkwardly. Both ὅτι and ὅτε are found in א A B C D E L E P, Vulg. Arm., but some texts omit ὅτι and some omit ὅτι . WH. Suspect a primitive error, and for ὅτιὅτε conjecture ὅτιπότε . The error might easily arise in dictation. This is very attractive; it gets rid of all grammatical diffculty and is in accordance with Paulinie usage; ‘ Yeknow that once ye were heathen, carrried away to those voiceless idols, as on occasions ye might be led.’ St Paul often contrasts his readers’ previous unhappy paganism with their happy condition as belivers : Romans 11:30; Colossians 1:21, Colossians 1:3:8; Ephesians 2:11-13, Ephesians 5:8. But whichever readings or construction we adopt, the import of the verse is clear: it is because they once were idolaters that he is so anxious that they should be properly instructed about τὰπνευματικά . 3. διὸγνωρίζωὑμῖν . ‘ On which account I make known to you’ (15:1; Galatians 1:2). Excepting the Pastoral Epistles, διό is frequent in the Pauline Epp. Seeing that in their heathen state they could know nothing about spiritual gifts, nor how to discern whether a person was speaking by the Spirit or not, he must tell them by what kind of spiritual power God makes revelations to man.† No utterance inspired by Him can be against Christ. Every word for Christ is inspired by Him. ἐνΠνεύματιθεοῦ . The ἐν may express either sphere or instrumentality: comp. Romans 9:1, Romans 9:14:17, Romans 9:15:16; Luke 3:16. Although it is perhaps more common to have the article where direct agency is meant (6:2), yet active influence rather than surrounding element seems to be implied here. See J. A. Robinson on Ephesians 5:18. The difference between λαλεῖν and λέγειν may be noted, the one of uttering sounds, the other of articulately saying something: comp. ch. 14. passim; Acts 2:4, Acts 2:6, Acts 2:7, Acts 2:11. The blasphemous ἈνάθεμαἸησοῦς would be more likely to be uttered by a Jew than a Gentile; faciebant gentes, sed magis Judaei (Beng.). It is possible that it was uttered against Jesus by His bitter enemies even during His life on earth. It is not improbable that Saul himself used it in his persecuting days, and strove to make others do so (Acts 26:11). When the Gospel was preached in the synagogues the fanatical Jews would be likely to use these very words when Jesus was proclaimed as the Messiah (Acts 13:45, Acts 18:6). Unbelievers, whether Jews or Gentiles, were admitted to Christian gatherings (14:24), and therefore one of these might suddenly exclaim in the middle of public worship, ἈνάθεμαἸησοῦς . To the inexperienced Corinthians a mad shout of this kind, reminding them of the shrieks of frenzied worshippers of Dionysus and the Corybantes, might seem to be inspired: see Findlay ad loc. St Paul assures them that this anti-Christian utterance is absolutely decisive: it cannot come from the Spirit. * for ἀνάθεμα comp. 16:22; Galatians 1:8, Galatians 1:9; Trench, Syn. § v.; Cremer, p. 547; Suicer 268. It is one of the 103 words which in N.T. are found only in Paul and Luke (Hawkins, Hor. Syn. p. 190). It is less likely that St Paul is thinking of cases of apostasy. Fifty years later, those who denied that they were Christians were required to blaspheme Christ: this was the crucial test. Qui negabant esse se Christianos aut fuisse, cum praeeunte me deos appellarent et imagini tuae ture ac vino supplicarent, praeterea male dicerent Christo, quorum nihil posse cogs dicuntur qui sent re vera Christiani, dimittendos esse putavi. (Pliny to Trajan, Ep. 10:96). ΚύριοςἸησοῦς . This comprehensive utterance is as wide as Christendom: every loyal Christian is inspired. Those who have received special gifts, such as those which are mentioned below (4-11), must not regard those who have not received them as devoid of the Spirit. This is one of the ways in which the Spirit glorifies Jesus (John 16:14), by enabling many to confess Him as Lord. Comp. the similar double test, negative and positive, given in 1 John 4:2-4; but while St John has in view those who denied the humanity of Christ, St Paul has in view those who denied His Divinity. In Galatians 4:6 we have the parallel cry, ‘ Abba, Father,’ as a mark of Christian adoption; and in Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5 we have the formula, baptized ‘ into the name of the Lord Jesus.’ * 4-6. These verses give the keynote of the passage. Having given the negative and positive criterion of genuine spiritual endowments as manifested in speech, the Apostle goes on to point out the essential oneness of these very varied gifts. In doing so he shows clearly, and perhaps of set purpose, that Trinitarian doctrine is the basis of his thought. We have the three Persons in inverse order, the Fount of Deity being reached last,— Πνεῦμα , ΚύριοςΘεός . We have the same order, and similar thought in Ephesians 4:4-6; one body, quickened by one Spirit, dependent upon one Lord, and having the origin of its being in one God and Father of all. And there, as here, the Trinitarian Unity is at once followed by a statement of the distribution of grace to each separate individual; ἑνὶδὲἑκάστῷἡμῶνἐδόθηἡχάρις . Still more clear is the benediction at the end of 2 Cor. (13:14); see notes in the Camb. Grk. Test. Comp. Clem. Rom. Cor. xlvi. 3; “ one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace” ; and lviii. 2; “ as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit.” See also Sanday in Hastings, DB. 11. p. 213; Goudge, I Corinthians, pp. xxix ff. This language of St Paul, in which the Trinitarian point of view is not paraded, but comes out quite naturally and incidentally, gives confirmation to the authenticity of Mat 28:19. This Epistle was written a dozen years or more before the First Gospel; but St Paul’ s language is all the more intelligible if it was well known that our Lord had spoken as Matt. reports. 4. Διαιρέσειςδὲχαρισμάτωνεἰσίν . Although every one who knows the significance of ‘ Jesus is Lord,’ and can heartily affirm it, is inspired, ‘ yet there are distributions of special gifts’ — divisiones gratiarum (Vulg.). Διαίρεσις occurs nowhere else in the N.T., and it may mean either ‘ differences,’ ‘ distinctions,’ or ‘ distributions,’ ‘ apportionings,’ ‘ dealings out.’ † The use of διαιροῦν in v. 11 seems to decide for the latter. In all three cases here the word refers to the gifts being distributed among different individuals rather than to the distinctions between the gifts themselves. Both meanings are true; but it is the dealing out of the gifts, rather than the variety of them, that is insisted upon here.* Χάρισμα is almost exclusively a N.T. word, and (excepting 1 Peter 4:10) is peculiar to Paul. It is found as a doubtful reading twice in Ecclus.; in 7:33 χάρις is probably right, and in 38:34 (30) χρῖσμα may be right. The word is frequent in 1 Cor. and Rom., and is found once each in 2 Cor. and 1 and 2 Tim. See especially Romans 12:3-8, which was perhaps written when the Apostle had this chapter in his mind. From neither passage can we gather that there were definite ministers, differing in function, and each endowed with special and appropriate χαρίσματα . The impression conveyed is that these gifts were widely diffused, and that perhaps there were not many Christians at Corinth who were not endowed with at least one of them. See P. W. Schmiedel, Ency. Bibl. iv. 4755 f.; Hort, The Chr. Eccles., pp. 153 f.; W. E. Chadwick, The Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, ch. iii.; J. Wilhelm in The Catholic Cyclopaedia, iii. Art. ‘ Charismata’ ; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 358 f.; Cremer, p. 577; Suicer, 1500. The word is sometimes used in a wider sense of any gift of grace, e.g. continence (7:7), or faith (Romans 1:11). τὸδὲαὐτὸΠνεῦμα . The δέ marks the antithesis between the one Fount and the many streams. The Spirit which bestows all these special gifts is the same as that which enables Gentile or Jew to confess Christ; consequently the test given in v. 3 is available in each case. See Dale, Ephesians, pp. 133 ff. 5. διακονιῶν . Like χάρισμα , the word has both a general and a special meaning: (1) any Christian ministration or service (here; Romans 11:13; Ephesians 4:12), whether of an Apostle or of the humblest believer; (2) some special administration, as of alms, or attendance to bodily needs (16:15; 2 Corinthians 8:4). “ Spiritual service of an official kind” is not included in the meaning, but may be implied in the context. See Hort, Christian Ecclesia, pp. 202 f. καὶὁαὐτὸςΚύριος . Here there is no antithesis between the many and the one: the two facts are stated as parallel. On the one side are the apportionments of ministrations; on the other is He who ‘ came not to be ministered to, but to minister’ (Mark 10:45), but who counts all service to others as service done to Himself (Matthew 25:40). ‘ Ye serve the Lord Christ’ (Colossians 3:24): it is He who is glorified by the diverse distribution of ministries. 6. ἐνεργημάτων . These are the results or effects of the ἐνέργεια given by God (Ephesians 3:7; Colossians 1:29, Colossians 2:12), the outward manifestations of His power. Among these ἐνεργ . are certainly χαρίσματαἰαμάτων . The word occurs again v. 10, but nowhere else in Biblical Greek: it is almost co-extensive with χαρίσματα , but it gives prominence to the idea of power rather than that of endowment. Cremer, pp. 262, 713; he quotes Polyb. iv. 8. 7, αἱτῶνἀνθρώπωνφύσειςἔχουσίτιπολυειδές , ὥστετὸναὐτὸνἄνδραμὴμόνονἐντοῖςδιαφέρουσιντῶνἐνεργημάτων : and Diodor. iv. 51, τῶνδὲἐεργημάτωνὑπὲρτὴνἀνθρωπίνηνφύσινφανέτων . ὁδὲαὐτὸςΘεός . If this is the right reading, we again have a contrast between the oneness of the Operator and the multiplicity of the operations, as before in v. 4. The Operator is always God: every one of the gifts in every person that manifests them is bestowed and set in motion by Him. See J. A. Robinson, Eph. p. 241; Westcott, Eph. p. 155. ὀδὲαὐτός is the reading of א A K L P, Latt. Syrr. Arm., and the δέ is supported by the ὁαὐτὸςδέ of D E F G. But καιὀαὐτός is found in B C some cursives, and Origen. If καὶὁαὐτός may be due to assimilation to v. 5, ὁδὲαὐτὸς may be assimilation to v. 4. St Paul would be as likely to respect the καί as to go back to the δέ . 7. The emphasis is on the first word and on the last. One and the same Divine Unity works throughout, as Spirit, Lord, and God: ‘ but to each one is being given the manifestation of the Spirit with a view to profiting.’ purpose of all these various gifts, like their origin, is one and the same— the good of the congregation; they are bestowed to be exercised for the benefit of all: Ephesians 4:7-16. The AV. is unfortunate; ‘ to every man’ is wrong and wrongly placed. In ἡφανέρωσις (2 Corinthians 4:2 only) τοῦΠυεύματος , the genitive is probably objective, ‘ the operation which manifests the Spirit, rather than subjective, ‘ the manifestation which the Spirit produces.’ There are many such doubtful genitives; Moul.-Win. p. 232. πρὸςτὸσυμφέρον . ‘ With a view to advantage,’ i.e. ‘ the profit of all.’ We are probably to understand that it is common weal that is meant, not the advantage of the gifted individual. These charismata are not for self-glorification, nor merely for the spiritual benefit of the recipient, but for that of the whole Church. Here συμφέρον is certainly right; comp. Acts 20:20; Hebrews 12:10: in 7:35 and 10:33 σύφορον is to be preferred, but in 10:33 the Revisers have συμφέρον , as here. The import of vv. 6 and 7 is, that the very various gifts, bestowed not for merit but of free bounty— gratiae gratis datae, are being distributed to each individual according to his capacity; and he must use the new powers, opportunities, and activities for the well-being of the whole. They are talents out of one and the same treasury of love, and must be used for the profit of the one body. What follows is the explanation of ἑκάστῳδίδοται (8-11), and then we have an amplification of πρὸςτὸσυμφέρον (12 ff.). 8-11. The details of the continual giving are now stated. It is by no means certain that St Paul is consciously classifying the nine gifts which he mentions; still less is it certain that the ἑτέρῳ in vv. 9 and 10 marks the beginning of a new class. The change to ἑτέρῳ may be made merely to break the intolerable monotony of ἄλλῳ eight times in succession; and we might render the first ἑτέρῳ ‘ to a third,’ and the second ‘ to an eighth’ . Comp. ἄλλῳ … ἄλλῳ … ἑτέρῳ … ἄλλῳ in Hom. Il. xiii. 730-2. Nevertheless, if we take each ἐτέρῳ as marking a new division, we get an intelligible result. Of the three classes thus made, the first is connected with the intellect, the second with faith, and the third with the Tongues. Note that the Tongues come last. For Origen’ s comment, see JTS. x. 37, p. 31. 8. ᾧμὲν … λόγοςσοφίας , ἄλλῳδὲλόγοςγνώσεως . In each case it is the λόγος which is divinely imparted, the power of communicating to others: the σοφία and the γνῶσις may come from above, or from human study or instruction. The λόγοςσοφίας is discourse which expounds the mysteries of God’ s counsels and makes known the means of salvation. It is a higher gift than λόγοςγνώσεως , and hence is placed first, and is given by the instrumentality of the Spirit, whereas the latter is given in accordance with the Spirit. Commentators differ as to the exact differences between σοφία and γνῶσις ; but ς . is the more comprehensive term. By it we know the true value of things through seeing what they really are; it is spiritual insight and comprehension (Ephesians 1:17; Eph_2 Esdras 14:22, 25). By γν . we have an intelligent grasp of the principles of the Gospel; by ς . a comprehensive survey of their relations to one another and to other things. Contrast the shallow σοφίαλόγου , so valued at Corinth (1:17). In itself, γν . may be the result of instruction guided by reason, and it requires no special illumination; but the use of this knowledge, in accordance with the Spirit, for the edification of others, is a special gift. But our ignorance of the situation makes our distinctions between the two words precarious: to the Corinthians, among whom these two gifts were of common occurrence, the difference between ς . and γν . would be clear enough. 9. ἑτέρῳπίστις . ‘ To a third, faith.’ This cannot mean the first faith of a convert’ s self-surrender to the truth, nor the saving faith which is permanently possessed by every sincere Christian, but the wonder-working faith (13:2; Matthew 17:20) which manifests itself in ἔργα rather than in λόγος ; potent faith; ardentissima et praesentissima apprehensio Dei in ipsius potissimum voluntate (Beng.); πίστινοὐτὴντῶνδογμάτων , ἀλλὰτὴντῶνσημείων (Chrys.); the faith which produces, not only miracles, but martyrs. We are perhaps to understand the next four gifts, or at any rate the next two, as grouped under πίστις . If πίστις is thus regarded as generic, and as including some of the gifts which follow, then the six gifts which follow πίστις , like the two which precede it, fall into pairs; λόγοςς . and λόγοςγν ., χαρίσματαἰαμάτων and ἐνεργήματαδυνάμεων , προφητεία and διακρίσειςπνευμάτων , γένηγλωσσῶν and ἑρμηνείαγλωσσῶν . χαρίσματαἰαμάτων . ‘ Gifts of healings,’ ‘ gifts which result in healings’ : ἴαμα in this chap. only, in the N.T., and always in this phrase (vv. 28, 30), but frequent in the LXX. Cf. Acts 4:30. The plur. seems to imply that different persons each had a disease or group of diseases that they could cure: that any one could cure πᾶσαννόσονκαὶπᾶσανμαλακίαν (Theophyl.) is not stated. The means may have been supernatural, or an exceptionally successful use of natural powers, such as ‘ suggestion’ : see James 5:14. * It is remarkable that although there are allusions to signs and woners in the Apostolic age (2 Corinthians 12:12; Galatians 3:5; Romans 15:19; Hebrews 2:4),there is no allusion to miracles wrought by Christ. It connot be said that in the age in which the Gospels were being framed there was a tendency to glorify Christ by attributing miracles to Him. See L. Ragg, The Book of Books, p. 221. ἐνεργήματαδυνάμεων . This may be added to cover wonderful works which are not healings, such as the exorcizing of demons; and such chastisements as were inflicted on Elymas the sorcerer, or on Hymenaeus and Philetus may be included. Cf. Galatians 3:5; Hebrews 2:4. 10. προφητεία . Not necessarily predicting the future, but preaching the word with power (14:3, 24, 30): comp. Didache 11. This gift implies special insight into revealed truths and a great faculty for making them and their consequences known to others. It was about the two pairs of gifts mentioned in this verse that the Corinthians were specially excited. See Ency. Bibl. III. 3886, IV. 4760. διακρίσειςπνευμάτων . ‘ The gift of discerning in various cases (hence the plur.) whether extraordinary spiritual manifestations were from above or not’ ; they might be purely natural, though strange, or they might be diabolical. An intuitive discernment is implied, without the application of tests. Perhaps the expression chiefly refers to the prophetic gift, which might easily be claimed by vainglorious persons or by those who made a trade of religion. The Didache (xi. 8) says that “ not every one that speaks in the spirit is a prophet, but only if he has the ways of the Lord. By their ways therefore the false prophet and the true shall be known” . The whole chapter should be read in this connexion: but the Didache gives certain external tests, about which St Paul says nothing either here or 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21. He implies that the discrimination between true and false manifestations of power is a purely spiritual act (2:15). Dö llinger (First Age of the Church, p. 312) remarks; “ How St Paul distinguished the gift of wisdom, which he claimed for himself also, from the gift of knowledge, must remain doubtful. The special gift of faith which he mentions can only have consisted in the energetic power and heroic confidence of unlimited trust in God. The gift of discerning spirits enabled its possessor to discriminate true prophets from false, and judge whether what was announced came from God or was an illusion. Such a gift was indispensable to the Church at a time when false prophets abounded, forced their way into congregations, and increased every year in numbers and audacity. There were false teachers, as St John intimates (1 John 4:1 f.), who preached their own doctrine as a revelation imparted to them from above” γένηγλωσσῶν . St Paul places last the gifts on which the Corinthians specially prided themselves, and which they were most eager to possess, because they made most display. Their enthusiasm for the gift of Tongues was exaggerated. The undisciplined spirit which had turned even the name of Christ into a party-cry (1:12), and the Lord’ s Supper into a drunken revel, turned spiritual gifts into food for selfish vanity, instead of means for the good of all. And here again they would not ‘ wait for one another,’ but each was eager to take his turn first, and numbers were speaking all at once (14:27). The γένη indicates that the manifestations of this gift varied much; comp. γέηφωνῶν (14:10): but it seems to be clear that in all cases persons who possessed this gift spoke in ecstasy a language which was intelligible to themselves, but not to their hearers, unless some one was present who had the gift of interpretation. The soul was undergoing experiences which ordinary language could not express, but the Spirit which caused the experiences supplied also a language in which to express them. This ecstatic language was a blissful outlet of blissful emotions, but was of no service to any one but the speaker and those who had the gift of interpretation. The gift of interpreting these ecstatic utterances might be possessed by the person who uttered them (14:5, 13); but this seems to have been exceptional: comp. Acts 10:46, Acts 10:19:6; [Mark] 16:17. From 14:27, 28 it seems to be clear that this ecstatic utterance was not uncontrollable: it was very different from the frenzy of some heathen rites, in which the worshipper parted with both reason and power of will. And whatever may be the relation of this gift to the Tongues at Pentecost, the two are alike in being exceptional and transitory (see below on 14). The conjuctions in these two verses (9, 10) are somewhat uncertain. In v 9 there should probably be no δέ after ἑτέρῳ : א B D* E F G Latt. Arm,. omit. In v 10 there should perhaps be no δέ until the last clause, ἄλλῳδὲἑρμ . γλ . But there is considerable authority for a δέ after the first and the second ἄλλῳ : yet B DE F G, Latt. omit. In v 9, ἐντῷἑνί (A B cursives, Latt.) is to be prefered to ἐντῷαὐτῷ which comes from the previous clause. The temptation to alter ἐνι to αὐτῷ would be great; and v. 11 confirms the ἑνί . In v. 10 διάκρισις (A B K L) is to be preferred to διάκρισς (א C D* F G P). The Plur. would be changed to the sing. to harmonize with προθητεία and ἑρμηνίαἘρμηνία occurs again 14:26, and nowhere else in N.T. 11. πάνταδὲταῦτα . The πάντα is very emphatic, and the δέ marks the contrast of transition from the manifold gifts and powers to the one Source of them all. This Source is the Spirit of God; so that there is no contradiction between v. 6 and v. 10. What God works, the Spirit works. Nor is there any contradiction between v. 10 and v. 31. Our earnest desire for the best gifts is one of the things which fits us to receive them, and each man receives in proportion to this desire, a desire which may be cultivated. The Spirit knows the capacity of each; 3:8, 7:7, 15:23. τὸἓνκαὶτὸαὐτὸΠνεῦμα . This is a combination of τῷἑνίΠν . with τῷαὐτῷΠν . in v. 9, and is so far a confirmation of the reading, τῷἑνί . This one and the same Spirit has already been defined as ‘ God’ s Spirit’ (v. 3), who is here said to do what God does (v. 6). But here there is something added; the Spirit ‘ distinguishes and distributes severally to each, exactly as He willeth.’ Throughout the verse, but especially in the last words , the personality of the Spirit is implied.* It is in the will that personality chiefly consists. The Apostle here teaches the Corinthians that they ought not to plume themselves upon the possession of one or more of these gifts. They may be evidence of capacity, but they are no proof of merit. It is the will of the Spirit that decides, a will which discriminates, but which cannot be compelled by anything which man can do: singulis dat singula, vel aliqua, varia mensura (Beng.). The Church consists of many persons very variously endowed, and the gifts bestowed upon individuals benefit the whole. Διαιρἐω in NT. is found only here and Luke 15:12. The addition of ἰδίᾳ emphasizes the fact the spirit deals with men, not en masse but one by one, ‘ to each according to his several ability’ (Matthew 25:15; Romans 12:6; Ephesians 4:2. In N.T, we commonly have κατ ʼ ἰδιαν in this sense: here only ἰδίᾳ , and 2 Mac. 4:34 only in LXX. But ἰδίᾳ is not rare in class. Grk. 12-31. We pass on to an illustration (taken from the human body) of the truth that, though the gifts of God’ s Spirit may be many and various, yet those who are endowed with them constitute one organic whole. The illustration is a common one, and is used several times by the Apostle: Romans 12:4, Romans 12:5; Ephesians 4:16, Ephesians 4:5:30; Colossians 2:19. See J. A. Robinson on Ephesians 4:16. The difference between the famous parable of Menenius Agrippa (Livy ii. 32) and this simile of St Paul is that the Apostle does not say anything about a centre of nourishment: it is not the feeding of the body, but its unity, and the dependence of the members on one another, that is the lesson to be instilled.*. In the brute creation, as Buckland taught his Oxford pupils, and among brutalized men, it is the stomach that rules the world. The ultimate aim of the violence and cunning of each animal is to feed itself, and often at the cost of the lives of other animals: this determines its activities. The ultimate aim of the Christian is the well-being of the whole body, of which the controlling power is Christ, who is at once the Head and the Body, for every Christian is a member of Him (6:15; Ephesians 5:30), and represents Him (Matthew 25:40, Matthew 25:45). Hence, inter Christianos longe alia est ratio (Calvin). The Church is neither a dead mass of similar particles, like a heap of sand, nor a living swarm of antagonistic individuals, like a cage of wild beasts: it has the unity of a living organism, in which no two parts are exactly alike, but all discharge different functions for the good of the whole. All men are not equal, and no individual can be independent of the rest: everywhere there is subordination and dependence. Some have special gifts, some have none; some have several gifts, some only one; some have higher gifts, some have lower: but every individual has some function to discharge, and all must work together for the common good. This is the all-important point— unity in loving service. The Church is an organic body, an organized society, of which all the parts are moved by a spirit of common interest and mutual affection. Weinel, St Paul, pp. 130-133. In considering these various gifts, remember that there is in the Christian body, just as there is in the frame of the living man, a divinely ordained diversity of members, combined with a oneness in mutual help and in devotion to the whole: so that no member can be despised as useless, either by himself or by other members; for each has his proper function, and all are alike necessary. This unity involves mutual dependence, and therefore it excludes discontent and jealousy on the one hand, arrogance and contempt on the other. 12 Just as the human body is one whole and has many organs, while all the organs, although many, form only one body, so is it with the Christ, in whom all Christians are one. 13 For it was by means of one Spirit, and in order to form one body, that we all of us were baptized— Jews and Greeks, slaves and freemem, without distinction,— and were all made to drink deeply of that one Spirit. 14 For, I repeat, the human body consists, not of one organ, but of many. 15 Suppose the foot were to grumble and say, ‘ As I am not as high up as the hand, I do not count as part of the body, not for all it can say does it cease to belong to the body. 16 And suppose the ear were to grumble and say, ‘ As I am not as well placed as the eye, I do not count as part of the body,’ not for all it can say does it cease to belong to the body. 17 If the whole body were one monstrous eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the smelling be? 18 But, as a matter of fact, God gave every one of the organs its proper place in the body, exactly as He willed. 19 Now, if all made only one organ, where would the body be? 20 But, as it is, although there be many organs, there is only one body. 21 And the eye has no right to look down on the hand and say, ‘ Thou art of no use to me’ ; nor the head to look down on the feet and say, ‘ Ye are of no use to me.’ 22 On the contrary, it is much truer to say that those organs of the body which seem to be somewhat feeble are really as indispensable as any, 23 and the parts of the body which we regard as less honourable are just those which we clothe with more especial care, and in this way our uncomely parts have a special comeliness; 24 whereas our comely parts have all that they need, without special attention. Why, yes; God framed the body on principles of compensation, by giving additional dignity to whatever part showed any deficiency, 25 so as to prevent anything like disunion in the body, and to secure in all organs alike the same anxious care for one another’ s welfare. 26 And, accordingly, if one of them is in pain, all the rest are in pain with it; and honour done to one is a joy to all. 27 Now you are a body— the Body of Christ, and individually you are His members. 28 And God gave each his proper place within the Church,— Apostles first, inspired preachers next, teachers third; besides these, He gave miraculous powers and gifts of healing, powers of succouring, powers of governing, ecstatic utterance. 29 Surely you do not all of you expect to be Apostles, or inspired preachers, or teachers: surely you do not all of you expect to have all these wonderful gifts, and even more than these! 31 What you ought to do is persistently to long for yet greater gifts. And accordingly I go on to show you a still more excellent way by which you may attain to them. 12.πάνταδὲτὰμέλη ‘ While all the members of the body, though they be many, are one body, so also is the Christ,’ in whose Nature they share, in whom they all form one body (v. 27), and whom they all serve (v. 5). From one point of view Christ is the Head, but that is not the thought here. Here He is the whole Body, as being that which unites the members and makes them an organic whole. We might have had οὕτωςκαὶἡἐκκλησία , for Christ or the Church is only one Body with many members. The superfluous τοῦσώματος after τὰμέλη emphasizes the idea of unity; and some texts make this still more emphatic by interpolating τοῦἑνός after τοῦσώματος . The human body is a unique illustration of unity in diversity. Comp. Justin M. Try. 42. In Eph. and Col. σῶμα has become a common designation of the Church. The congregation, having to serve one and the same Lord, must be united. 13. καὶγὰρἐνἑνὶΠνεύματι . The ‘ one body’ suggests the ‘ one Spirit,’ for it is in a body that spirit has a field for its operations. ‘ For in one Spirit also we all were baptized so as to form one body.’ An additional reason (καὶγάρ , 5:7, 11:9) for the oneness of the many. The Spirit is the element in which the baptism takes place, and the one body is the end to which the act is directed: ut simus unum corpus uno Spiritu animatum (Beng.); ἐπὶτούτῷὤστεεἰςἕνσῶματελεῖν (Theod.). St Paul insists here on the social aspect of Baptism, as in 10:17 on the social aspect of the Eucharist. εἴτεἸουδαῖοιεἴτεἛλληνες , εἴτεδοῦλοιεἴτεἐλεύθεροι . The insertion of this parenthetical explanation shows in the clearest way how diverse were to be the members and how close the oneness of the body. The racial difference between Jew and Greek was a fundamental distinction made by nature; the social difference between slave and freeman was a fundamental distinction made by custom and law: and yet both differences were to be done away, when those who were thus separated became members of Christ. In Galatians 3:28 this momentous truth is stated still more broadly, and with more detail in Colossians 3:11. In each case the wording is probably determined by the thought of those to whom the Apostle is writing. See Lightfoot on Colossians 3:11, and cf. 7:22; Romans 10:12; Ephesians 2:14, with J. A. Robinson’ s note. πάντεςἕνπνεῦμαἐποτίσθημεν . ‘ Were all watered, saturated, imbued, with one Spirit.’ The πάντες and the ἕν are placed together in emphatic antithesis. The Christ is the ἕνσῶμα , and this suggests ἕνΠνεῦμα , for in man σῶμα and πνεῦμα are correlatives. Comp. Ἀπολλὼςἐπότισεν . The verse is taken in three different ways. (1) The whole refers to Baptism under two different figures,— being immersed in the Spirit, and being made to drink the Spirit as a new elixir of life. But, as ποτίζειν is used of irrigating lands, there is perhaps not much change of metaphor. (2) The first part refers to Baptism, the second to the outpouring of spiritual gifts after Baptism. (3) The first refers to Baptism, the second to the Eucharist (Aug. Luth. Calv.). This is certainly wrong; the aorists refer to some definite occasion, and ‘ drinking the Spirit’ is not used of the Eucharist. Both parts refer to Baptism. Compare the thought in Galatians 3:26 f., and see JTS., Jan. 1906, p. 198. Before ἓνπν . ἐποτ ., K L, Vulg. A V. insert εἰς , to agree with the first clause: א B C D* F P, Syrr. Aeth. Arm. RV. omit. For ἓνπν . ἐποτ ., A has ἕνσῶμάὲσμεν . For ἐποτίσθημεν , L and some cursives have ἐφωτίσθημεν , a verb which in ecclesiastical Greek is often used of baptism. In the active ποτίζω has two accusatives, γάλαὑμᾶςἐπότισα , and therefore retains one acc. in the passive: comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Luke 12:47, Luke 16:19. 14. καὶγὰρτὸς . Additional confirmation; ‘ For the body also is not one member, but many.’ * 15. ‘ If the foot should say, Because I am not hand, I am not of the body, it is not on’ account of this (discontented grumbling) not of the body.’ The παρὰτοῦτο (‘ all along of this,’ 4 Mac. 10:19) refers to the pettish argument of the foot, rather than to the fact of its not being a hand. In each case it is the inferior limb which grumbles, the hand being of more value than the foot, and the eye than the ear. And Chrysostom remarks that the foot contrasts itself with the hand rather than with the ear, because we do not envy those who are very much higher than ourselves so much as those who have got a little above us; οὐτοῖςσφόδραὑπερέχουσιν , ἀλλὰτοῖςὀλίγονἀναβεβηκόσι . For εἰμὶἐκ , ‘ belong to,’ and so ‘ dependent on,’ see John 4:22; and for the double negative, 2 Thessalonians 3:9. Bengel compares Theoph. Ant. (ad Autol. 3); οὐπαρὰτὸμὴβλέπειντοὺςτυφλοὺςἤδηκαὶοὐκἔστιτὸφῶςτοῦἡλίουφαῖνον : and Origen (con. Cels. vii. 63); οὐδιὰτοῦτοοὐμοιχεύουσιν . Some would take οὐπαρὰτοῦτο in vv. 15, 16 interrogatively, as in the A V. But this would require μή . 17. εἰὅλοντὸσῶμα . “ If the whole body (Luke 11:34) were eye (Numbers 10:31), where were the hearing?’ Each member has a function which it alone can discharge, and no organ ought to think little of its own function, or covet that of another organ. * In class. Grk. ὄσφρησις is common, but it occurs nowhere else in the Bible. 18. νῦνδεὁΘεὸςἔθετο . ‘ But, as it is, God placed the members, each one of them, in the body, even as He willed.’ As we see from manifest facts, God made unity, but not uniformity; He did not level all down to monotonous similarity. The aorists refer to the act of creation, and there is no need to turn either into a perfect (‘ hath set,’ AV., RV.). From the very first it was ordered so, as part of a plan; therefore ‘ placed’ rather than ‘ set.’ Every member cannot have the same function, and therefore there must be higher and lower gifts. But pride and discontent are quite out of place, for they are not only the outcome of selfishness, but also rebellion against God’ s will. This has two points; it was not our fellow-men who placed us in an inferior position, but God; and He did it, not to please us or our fellows, but in accordance with His will, which must be right. Who is so disloyal as to gainsay what God willed to arrange? Romans 9:20. Compare καθὼςβούλεται (v. 11), but the change of verb and of tense should be noted: it is not mere repetition. Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 252) quotes ὡςὁΘεὸςἤθελεν from a private letter of about 200 a.d. 19. ‘ Now, if they all were one member, where were the body?’ This is the second absurdity: the first was ‘ where were the other members?’ The very idea of body implies many members, and if all the members tried to have the honour of the highest member, the body would be lost. Quanta ergo insania erit, si membrum unum, potius quam alteri cedat, in suum et corporis interitum conspiret (Calv.). See Pope, Essay on Man, i. 259 f., “ What if the foot,” etc. 20. ‘ But, as it is (But now you see), there are many members, yet one body.’ Perhaps there was already a proverb— πολλὰμέλη , ἕνσῶμα . St Paul reiterates this truth, for on it everything which he desires to inculcate turns. From the oneness of the whole the mutual dependence of the parts follows of necessity. See M. Aurelius, ii. 3; in the universe, part and whole must co-operate. νῦνδέ is specially frequent in 1 Cor. (5:11, 7:14, 12:20, 14:6); but both here and elsewhere authorities are divided between νῦν and νυνί : in 13:13 and 15:20 νυνί is probably right. In v. 19, B F G omit the τά before πάντα , and in v. 20 the μέν after πόλλα is omitted by B D*, Arm. Goth. If we retain μέν , ‘ yet one body’ or ‘ but one body’ may be strengthened to ‘ yet but one body’ (AV.), unum vero corpus (Beza). 21. Hitherto he has been regarding the inferior organs, who grumbled because they were not superior. Now he takes the superior, who looked down on the inferior. All, of course, with reference to evils at Corinth. ‘ But the eye cannot say to the hand’ — cannot, without stultifying itself: it is manifestly untrue. What would become of the desire of the eyes if there were no hand to grasp it? There is no such thing as independence either in an organism or in society. All parts are not equal, and no one part can isolate itself. From the first there is dependence and subordination. The article before ὀφθαλμός is certainly genuine (א A B C D E F G L P), and the δε before ὁόφθαλμός is probably genuine (א B D E K L, Latt.). Arm. omits both. 22. ‘ Nay, on the contrary , much rather those members of the body which seem to be naturally somewhat feeble, are necessary.’ The humbler parts not only are indispensable, but are as indispensable as the rest. So also in society. It is the humblest workers, the day-labourers in each trade, that are not only as necessary as the higher ones, but are more necessary. We can spare this artizan better than this poet; but we can spare all the poets better than all the artizans. With this use of the comparative to soften the meaning, comp. 2 Timothy 1:8; Acts 17:22. St Paul does not specify the ‘ somewhat feeble’ members, and we need not do so. 23. καὶἃδοκοῦμενἀτιμότερα … περιτίθεμεν . ‘ And the parts of the body which we deem to be less honourable, these we clothe with more abundant honour.’ Elsewhere in the N.T. περιτίθημι occurs only in the Gospels and there only in the literal sense, and generally of clothing (Matthew 27:28), or the crown of thorns (Mark 15:17), or a fence (Matthew 21:33; Mark 12:1), etc.; but in the LXX we have this same metaphor; καὶοὕτωςπᾶσαιαἱγυναῖκεςπεριθήσουσιντιμὴντοῖςἀνδράσινἑαυτῶν (Esther 1:20): τιμὴνἑαυτῷπεριτιθείς (Proverbs 12:9). The division of the verses is unfortunate, and the punctuation of the A V. is wrong, while that of the RV. might be improved. Put a comma at the end of v. 23, and a full stop at the end of the first clause of v. 24. ‘ And so our uncomely parts have a comeliness more exceeding, whereas our comely parts have no need.’ This is the result of giving more abundant honour to the less honourable; acting on that principle, we give most honour to the least honourable. The ‘ more exceeding comeliness’ refers to the abundance of clothing, which, even when other parts are unclothed, τὰἀσχήμονα receive. For these the Vulg. has inhonesta, Beza indecora, Calv. minus honesta. There are three classes; τὰεὐσχήμονα , which have no need of clothing or adornment, and are commonly exposed to view; τὰἀτιμότερα , which are usually clothed and often adorned; and τὰασχήμονα , which are always carefully clothed, ut membra quae furpiter paterent, lateant honeste (Calv.). The least honourable are not only not despised, they are treated with exceptional care.*. There is no doubt that here, as elsewhere, εὐσχημοσύνη refers to external grace, elegance, or decorum. It does not refer to dignity of function. It is true that fatherhood has high responsibility, and that the womb and the breast are sacred, but εὐσχημοσύνη is not the word to express that. Throughout the passage the Apostle is thinking of the members of the Church, and therefore more or less personifies the organs of the body. We might render οὐχρείανἔχει ‘ feels no need,’ no need of anything additional, nullius egent (Vulg.), which is better than the more definite iis decore non est opus (Beza). We do not adorn the eye, or protect the fact as we protect the feet. Ἀσχήμων occurs several times in LXX, but nowhere else in N.T.; εὐσχημοσύνη in 4 Mac. 6:2, but nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. See Abbott, Son of Man, p. 178. 24. ἀλλὰὁΘεὸςσυνεκέρασεντὸσῶμα . The nominative is emphatic. ‘ But the fact is, it was God who compounded (blended) the body together, by giving to that which feeleth lack more abundant honour.’ The two aorists are contemporaneous, δούς with συνεκέρασεν : in giving, or by giving, He tempered; and in tempering, or by tempering, He gave. In the LXX and N.T. συγκεραννύναι is rare (Daniel 2:43; Dan_2 Mac. 15:39; Hebrews 4:2), but it is common in class. Grk. Comp. the speech of Alcibiades (Thuc. vi. xviii. 6); νομίσατενεότηταμὲνκαὶγῆραςἄνευἀλλήλωνμηδὶνδύνασθαι , ὁμοῦδὶτότεφαῦλονκαὶτὸμέσονκαὶτὸπάνυἀκριβὲςἂνξυγκραθὲνμάλιστ ʼ ἂνἰσχύειν : also σύγκρασίςτίςἐστινἐνπᾶσιν (Clem. Rom. Cor. 37). In v. 23 the Apostle shows how men, led by a natural instinct, equalize the dignity of their members. Here he shows that it is in reality God who blends and balances the whole by endowing men with this instinctive sense of propriety. What is in accordance with the common feelings of mankind is evidence of what is right (11:14). We should read τῷὑστερουμένῳ (א A B C) rather than τῷὑστεροῦντι (D E F G K L). The former expresses the member’ s sense of inferiority. 25. ἵναμὴᾖσχίσμαἐ͂ντ . ς . ‘ That there should be no disunion in the body, but that (on the contrary) the members should have the same care one for another’ : τὸαὐτό is emphatic, and μεριμνῶσιν is plural because the argument requires that the members be thought of as many and separate: 1 Timothy 5:25; Revelation 5:14; Luke 24:11. The verb implies anxious care, thoughtful trouble. 26. καί . ‘ And so (as a consequence of the perfect blending), whether one member suffereth, all the members rejoice with it.’ Not only are the members united to one another and careful for one another, but what is felt by one is felt by all. See St Paul’ s own sympathy, 2 Corinthians 11:28, 2 Corinthians 11:29. Plato (Repub. v. 462) points out that when one’ s finger is hurt, one does not say, “ My finger is in pain,” but “ I have a pain in my finger” ; and Chrysostom (ad loc.) graphically describes how the various organs are affected when a thorn runs into the foot, and also when the head is crowned. ‘ Is glorified’ may mean either by adornment, or by healthy action, or by special cultivation. In συγχαίρει the personification of the organs is complete: congaudent (Vulg.), congratulantur (Beza). But Beza, by substituting simul dolent for compatiuntur (Vulg.), makes συμπάσχελ imply as much personification as συγχαίρει . The Christian principle is the law of sympathy. The interests of all individuals, of all classes, and of all nations are really identical, although we are seldom able to take a view sufficiently extended to see that this is so: but we must try to believe it. The benefit of one is the benefit of every one; and a wrong done to one is a wrong done to every one. Salva esse societas, nisi amore et custodia partium, non potest (Seneca).* The verb in N.T. is found only in Paul and Luke. God, in the nature of its being, founds Its proper bliss, and sets its proper bounds: But as He framed a whole the whole to bless, On mutual wants built mutual happiness. Thus God and nature linked the general frame, And bade self-love and social be the same. Pope, Essay on Man, iii. 109, 217. 27. ὑμεῖςδίἐστεσῶμαχριστοῦ . ‘ Now ye are Body of Christ’ : no article. ‘ Body of Christ’ is the quality of the whole which each of them individually helps to constitute. Comp. ὁΘεὸςφῶςἐστι (1 John 1:5), ὁΘεὸςἀγάπηἐστίν (1 John 4:8), πνεῦμαὁΘεὸς (John 4:24), Θεόςἦνὁλόγος (John 1:1); 1 Corinthians 3:9, 1 Corinthians 3:16. It does not mean, “ Ye are the Body of Christ,’ although that translation is admissible, and indicates the truth that each Christian community is the Universal Church in miniature; nor, ‘ Ye are Christ’ s Body,’ which makes ‘ Christ’ s’ emphatic, whereas the emphasis is on σῶμα as the antithesis of μέλη . Least of all does it mean, ‘ Ye are a Body of Christ,’ as if St Paul were insisting that the Corinthians were only a Church and not the Church, a meaning which is quite remote from the passage. Nowwhere in the Pauline Epistles is there the idea that the one Ecclesia is made of many Ecclesiae. “ The members which make up the One Ecclesia are not communities but individual men. The One Ecclesia includes all members of partial Ecclesiae; but its relations to them all are direct, not mediate. … There is no indication that St Paul regarded the conditions of membership in the universal ecclesia as differing from the conditions of membership in the partial local Ecclesiae” (Hort, The Chr. Eccl. pp. 168-9). He means here that the nature of the whole of which the Corinthians are parts is that it is Body of Christ, not any other kind of whole. Consequently, whatever gift each one of them receives is not to be hidden away, or selfishly enjoyed, or exhibited for show, but to be used for the good of the whole community. The δέ marks a return to what was laid down in v. 12. μέληἐκμέρους . membra de membro (Vulg.); membra ex parte (Calv.); membra particulatim (Beza). The meaning is uncertain, but probably, ‘ members each in his assigned part,’ ‘ apportioned members of it.’ Chrysostom and Bengel explain that the Corinthians were not the whole Church, but ‘ members of a part’ of the Universalis Ecclesia. This seems to Calvin to be sensus coactior, and he prefers the other interpretation. Still less satisfactory is the explanation ‘ partial members of it,’ i.e. imperfect members, which does not suit the context at all. Cf. Ephesians 4:16. The Vulgate, with d e f Arm., supports D* in reading μέληἐκμέλους . Origen and Eusebius commonly have μέρους , but once each has μέλους : Theodoret the same. Chrysostom always μέρους . 28. ΚαὶοὕςμὲνἔθετοἑΘεὸςἐντῇἐκκλησίᾳ . The correspondence with v. 18 is manifest, and it must be marked in translation. ‘ And some God placed in the Church,’ or ‘ in His Church’ (1:2, 10:32, 11:16, 22, 15:9). Just as God in the original constitution of the body placed differently endowed members in it, so in the original constitution of the Church He placed (Acts 20:28) differently endowed members in it. The mid. implies that He placed them for His own purpose, καθὼςἠθέλησεν . The Church is the Church Universal, not the Corinthian Church; and this is perhaps the first Epistle in which we find this use: comp. 10:32, 11:22, 15:9; Hort, p. 117. The sentence should have run, οὓςμὲνἀποστόλους , οὓςδὲπροφήτας , but the original construction is abandoned, perhaps intentionally, because an arrangement in order of dignity seemed better than a mere enumeration, the last place being again reserved for the Tongues. Later he drops into a mere enumeration. Moul.-Win. p. 710. πρῶτονἀποστόλους . Not to be restricted to the Twelve. The term included Paul and Barnabas, James the Lord’ s brother (15:7; Galatians 1:19; comp. 9:5), apparently Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), and probably others (15:5, 7). There could not have been false apostles (2 Corinthians 11:13) unless the number of Apostles had been indefinite. From this passage, and from Ephesians 4:11 (comp. 2:20), we learn that Apostles were the first order in the Church; also that St Peter is not an order by himself. Apparently it was essential that an Apostle should have seen the Lord, and especially the risen Lord (9:1, 2; Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8, Acts 1:21-23): he must be a ‘ witness of His resurrection.’ This was true of Matthias, James, and Paul; and may easily have been true of Barnabas, Andronicus, and Junias; but not of Apollos or Timothy. The Apostles were analogous to the Prophets of the O.T., being sent to the new Israel, as the Prophets to the old. They had administrative functions, but no local jurisdiction: they belonged to the whole Church. Nevertheless various ties made local Churches to be more under the control of one Apostle than of others. See Lightfoot, Galatiká ns, pp. 92 f. The ‘ evangelists’ and ‘ pastors’ of Ephesians 4:11 are perhaps included here under ‘ prophets and teachers.’ But evangelists are not ad rem here, because the subject is the spiritual life of members of the Church, and their relations to one another in the Church, rather than their external activity among the heathen. The enumeration here is more concrete than that in vv. 8-10, but less concrete than in Ephesians 4:11. The first three are explicitly in order of eminence; but the ἔπειτα with the next two probably means no more than that these come after the first three. The gifts that follow the first three are not connected with particular persons, but are distributed ‘ at will’ for the profit of the whole congregation; and it is remarkable that δυνάμεις and χαρίσματαἰαμάτων are placed after διδασκάλους . See Dobschü tz, Probleme, p. 105. προφήτας . See on v. 10 and 14:3, 24, 25. They were inspired to utter the deep things of God, for the conviction of sin, for edification, and for comfort; sometimes also for predicting the future, as in the case of Agabus. διδασκάλους . Men whose natural powers and acquired knowledge were augmented by a special gift. It is evident from ‘ Are all teachers?’ (v. 29) that there was a class of teachers to which only some Christians belonged, and the questions which follow show that ‘ teachers,’ like ‘ workers of miracles,’ were distinguished by the possession of some gift.* In Ephesians 4:11 we are not sure whether ‘ pastors and teachers’ means one class or two, but at any rate it is probable that whereas ‘ Apostles,’ ‘ prophets,’ and ‘ evangelists’ instructed both the converted and the unconverted, ‘ pastors and teachers’ ministered to settled congregations. In Acts 13:1 we are equally in doubt whether ‘ prophets and teachers’ means one class or two. St Luke may mean that of the five people mentioned some were prophets and some were teachers, or he may mean that all were both. ‘ Teacher’ might be applied to Apostles, prophets, and evangelists, as well as to the special class of teachers. In 1 Timothy 2:7 St Paul calls himself a ‘ preacher’ , an ‘ Apostle,’ and a ‘ teacher.’ In the Didache the ‘ teacher’ seems to be itinerant like the ‘ prophet’ (13:2). When the ministry became more settled the ‘ bishops’ and ‘ elders’ seem to have become the official teachers; but perhaps not all elders taught (1 Timothy 5:17). In the Shepherd of Hermas the teachers are still distinct from the bishops; “ The stones that are squared and white, and that fit together in their joints, these are the Apostles and bishops and teachers and deacons” (Vis. iii. 5). See Hastings, DB. iv. p. 691; Ency. Bibl. iv. 4917. ἔπειταδυνάμεις , ἔπειταχαρίσματαἰαμάτων . Change from the concrete to the abstract, perhaps for the sake of variety; in Romans 12:7 the converse change is made. We must not count ἔπειτα , ἔπειτα as equivalent to ‘ fourthly, fifthly’ : the classification according to rank ends with ‘ teachers,’ but γένηγλωσσῶν are purposely placed last. ‘ Gifts of healing’ are a special kind of ‘ miraculous powers’ : see on v. 9, where the less comprehensive gift is placed first, while here we descend from the general to the particular. It would be a lesson to the Corinthians to hear these brilliant gifts expressly declared to be inferior to teaching; the ἔπειτα clearly means that. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 13:1-13. A PSALM IN PRAISE OF LOVE The thirteenth chapter stands to the whole discussion on Spiritual Gifts in a relation closely similar to that of the digression on self-limitation (ch. 9.) to the discussion of εἰδωλόθυτα . Either chapter raises the whole subject of its main section to the level of a central principle. The principle is in each case the same in hind, namely, that of subordinating (the lower) self to the good of others; but in this chapter the principle itself is raised to its highest power: from forbearance, or mere self-limitation, we ascend to love. The chapter, although a digression, is yet a step in the treatment of the subject of Spiritual Gifts (12:1-14:40), and forms in itself a complete and beautiful whole. After the promise that he will point out a still more surpassing way, there is, as it were, a moment of suspense; and then jam ardet Paulus et fertur in amorem (Beng.). Stanley imagines “ how the Apostle’ s amanuensis must have paused to look up in his master’ s face at the sudden change in the style of his dictation, and seen his countenance lit up as it had been the face of an angel, as this vision of Divine perfection passed before him” (p. 238). Writer after writer has expatiated upon its literary and rhythmical beauty, which places it among the finest passages in the sacred, or, indeed, in any writings. * We may compare ch. 15, Romans 8:31-39, and— on a much lower plane— the torrent of invective in 2 Corinthians 11:19-29. This chapter is a divine προφητεία , which might have for its title that which distinguishes Ps. 45, — ‘ A Song of Love’ or ‘ of Loves.’ And it is noteworthy that these praises of Love come, not from the Apostle of Love, but from the Apostle of Faith. It is not a fact that the Apostles are one-sided and prejudiced, each seeing only the gift which he specially esteems. Just as it is St John who says, ‘ This is the victory which overcometh the world, even our faith.’ so it is St Paul who declares that greater than all gifts is Love. No distinction is drawn between love to God and love to man. Throughout the chapter it is the root-principle that is meant; ἑγάπη in its most perfect and complete sense. But it is specially in reference to its manifestations to men that it is praised, and most of the features selected as characteristic of it are just those in which the Corinthians had proved defective. And this deficiency is fatal. Christian Love is that something without which everything else is nothing, and which would be all-sufficient, even were it alone. It is not merely an attribute of God, it is His very nature, and no other moral term is thus used of Him (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16). See W. E. Chadwick, The Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, ch. 6; Moffatt, Lit. of N.T., PP. 57, 58). This hymn in praise of love is of importance with regard to the question of St Paul’ s personal knowledge of Jesus Christ. It is too often forgotten that Saul of Tarsus was a contemporary of our Lord, and the tendency of historical criticism at the present time is to place the date of Saul’ s conversion not very long after the Ascension. Furrer and Clemen would argue for this. Saul may not have been in Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion and Resurrection; but he would have abundant means of getting evidence at first hand about both, after the Appearance on the road to Damascus had made it imperative that he should do so; and some have seen evidence of exact knowledge of the life and character of Jesus of Nazareth in this marvellous analysis of the nature and attributes of Love. We have only, it is said, to substitute Jesus for Love throughout the chapter, and St Paul’ s panegyric “ becomes a simple and perfect description of the historic Jesus” (The Fifth Gospel, p. 153). Intellect was worshipped in Greece, and power in Rome; but where did St Paul learn the surpassing beauty of love? “ It was the life of love which Jesus lived which made the psalm of love which Paul wrote possible” (ibid.). In this chapter, as in Rom_12, “ we note that very significant transference of the centre of gravity in morals from justice to the sphere of the affections.” See Inge, in Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 271. Most commentators and translators are agreed that here, as in the writings of St John, ἀγάπη should be rendered ‘ love’ rather than ‘ charity’ ; for the contrary view see Evans, p. 376. In the Vulgate, ἀγάπη is usually translated caritas, but dilectio is fairly common, and to this variation the inconsistencies in the AV. are due. The RV. has abolished them, and the gain is great. ‘ Charity’ has become greatly narrowed in meaning, and now is understood as signifying either ‘ giving to the poor’ or ‘ toleration of differences of opinion.’ In the former and commonest sense it makes v. 3 self-contradictory,— almsgiving without ‘ charity.’ See Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 374; Stanley, Corinthians, p. 240. The chapter falls into three clearly marked parts. (1) The Necessity of possessing Love, 1-3; (2) Its glorious Characteristics, 4-7; Its eternal Durability, 8-13. The one indispensable gift is Love. If one were to have all the special gifts in the highest perfection, without having Love, one would produce nothing, be nothings, and gain nothing. Love includes all the most beautiful features of moral character, and excludes all the offensive ones. Moreover, it is far more durable than even the best of the special gifts. They are of use in this world only; Love, with Faith and Hope, endures both in this world and in the next. 1 I may talk with the tongues of men, yea of angels; yet, if I have no Love, so far from doing any good to a Christian assembly, I am become like the senseless din in heathen worships. 2 And I may have the gift of inspired preaching, and see my way through all the mysteries of the Kingdom of God and all the knowledge that man can attain; and I may have all the fulness of faith, so as to move mountains; yet, if I have no Love, so far from being a Christian of great account, I am nothing. 3 I may even dole out with my own hands everything that I possess,— may even, like the Three Children, surrender my body to the flames; yet, if I have no Love, so far from becoming a saint or a hero, or from winning a rich recompense from Heaven, I am not one whit the better. Love is the one thing that counts. 4 For Love is patient and kind; Love knows no hatred or envy. It is never a braggart in mien, or swells with self-adulation; 5 It never offends good feeling, or insists on all it has claim to; It never blazes with rage, and it stores up no resentment. 6 It delights not over the wrong that men do, But responds with delight to true dealing. 7 Unfailingly tolerant, unfailingly trustful, Unfailingly hopeful, unfailingly strong. 8 The time will never come for Love to die. There will be a time when our prophesyings will be useless; There will be a time when these Tongues will cease; There will be a time when our knowledge will be useless. 9 For our knowledge is but of fragments, And our prophesyings but of fragments. 10 But when absolute completeness shall have come, Then that which is of fragments will have no use. The difference is far greater than that which distinguishes childhood from manhood; and yet, even there, how marked the change! 11 When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child. Since I am become a man, I have done away with childhood’ s ways. 12 In a similar way, what we now see are but reflexions from a mirror which clouds and confuses things, so that we can only guess at the realities; but in the next world we shall have them face to face. The knowledge that I now have is only of fragments; but then I shall know as completely as God from the first knew me. 13 So then, Faith, Hope, and Love last on— just these three but chiefest and best is Love. 1-3. All four classes of gifts (12:28) are included here: the ecstatic in v. 1; the teaching and the wonder-working gifts in v. 2; and the administrative in v. 3. The Apostle takes the lowest of these special gifts first, because the Corinthians specially needed to be set right about them, and also because the least valuable of the special gifts made the strongest contrast to the excellence of Love. Speaking with Tongues and having no Love was only too common at Corinth. There is a climax in the succession, γῶσσαι , προφητεία , πίστις , ψωμίσωκαὶπαραδῶ . To mark this one may perhaps translate καὶἐάν in v. 3 ‘ even if’ ; but in strict grammar καὶἐάν is throughout simply ‘ and if.’ Ἐὰνταῖςγλώσσαις … λαλῶ . A mere objective possibility connected with the future; ‘ If I should speak with the tongues of men and of angels,’ not ‘ Though I speak’ (AV.). The addition of καὶτῶνἀγγέλων gives the supposition about rapturous utterances the widest possible sweep; ‘ Supposing that I had all the powers of earthly and heavenly utterance.’ The reference to the Tongues need not be questioned. For the combination, ‘ angels and men,’ comp. 4:9. The language of angels was a subject which the Jews discussed, some Rabbis maintaining that it was Hebrew. Origen suggests that it is as superior to that of men as that of men is to the inarticulate cries of infants; but χωρὶςἀγάπης , γλῶσσακἂνἀλλέλωνἐνἐνθρώποιςκαθ ʼ ὑπόθεσινῆ , ἀτράνωτόςἐστιν (JTS. x. 37, p. 33), Ambrose (De off. ministr. ii. 27), Si volumus commendare nos Deo, caritatem habeamus. See Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching; p. 245. With the supposition here comp. Οὐδ ʼ εἴμοιδέκαμὲνγλῶσσαιδέκαδὲστόματ ʼ εἶεν , φωνὴδ ʼ ἄρρηκτος , χάλκεονδέμοιἦτορἐνείη . Hom. Il. ii. 489 Non, mihi si linguae centum sint, oraque centum, Ferrea vox. Virg. Georg. ii. 44; Aen. vi. 625. Godet has useful warnings against the “ religious sybaritism” which, especially during the excitement of religious “ revivals,” is apt to turn Christianity into sentiment and fine speaking. The gift of Tongues might lead to this. The Apostle sets an example of love and of humility in taking himself as the illustration of failure. He might have said, ‘ If you should speak,’ or ‘ Although you speak.’ But he remembers his own gift of Tongues (14:18), and gives the warning to himself all through these three verses. ἀγάπηνδὲμὴἔχω , γέγονακ .τ .λ . ‘ And should not have love’ (8:1), or, ‘ while I have not love,’ on that assumption ‘ I am become (Galatians 4:16) sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.’ The χαλκός probably means something of the nature of a gong rather than a trumpet; and ἀλαλάζον imitates loud and prolonged noise, often of the shout of victory (Joshua 6:20; 1 Samuel 17:52), but sometimes of grief (Jeremiah 4:8; Mark 5:38). Cymbals are often mentioned in the O.T., but nowhere else in the N.T.; and in St Paul’ s day they were much used in the worship of Dionysus, Cybele, and the Corybantes. Seeing that he insists so strongly on the unedifying character of the Tongues (14), as being of no service to the congregation without a special interpreter, it is quite possible that he is here comparing unintelligible Tongues in Christian worship with the din of gongs and cymbals in pagan worship. Or he may be pointing out the worthlessness of extravagant manifestations of emotion, which proceed, not from the heart, but from hollowness. Cymbals were hollow, to increase the noise. Or he may be merely saying that Tongues without Christian love are as senseless as the unmusical and distracting noise of a soulless instrument. Δωδωναῖονχαλκεῖον is said to have been a proverbial expression for an empty talker; and it was probably on account of his vainglorious loquacity that Apion the grammarian, against whom Josephus wrote, was called by Tiberius cymbalum mundi: φορτικόςτιςκαὶἐπαχθὴςτοῖςπολλοῖς , as Chrysostom paraphrases here. On ἀγάπη see above; Trench, Syn. § xii.; Cremer, pp. 13. f; Suicer, i. pp. 18 f.; Hastings, DB. 3. p. 156; Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 199, Light, pp. 18, 70, and see 150, 399. Ἠχεῖν is frequent in LXX, but is found nowhere else in N.T. 2. κἄνἔχωπροφητείανκ .τ .λ . ‘ And if I should have the gift of prophesying (preaching with special inspiration), and should know all the mysteries (of God’ s counsels and will), and all possible knowledge about them (12:8), and if I should have all possible faith (12:9), so as to remove mountains, while I have no love, I am nothing’ — spiritually a cipher. Having said that the ecstatic gifts are worthless without love, he now says that the teaching gifts are equally worthless: and perhaps he is here indicating the three kinds of spiritual instructors (12:8, 10, 28), for τὰμυστήριαπάντα may refer to the σοφία of the ἀπόστολοι , and πᾶσαντὴνγνῶσιν to the γνῶσις of the διδάσκλοι . Comp. Romans 11:33, Romans 15:14. By πίστις is meant wonder-working faith, not saving faith, not saving faith; ‘ enough to displace mountains’ : comp. τὰὄρημεταστήσεσθαι (Isa. liv. 10). It is possible that St Paul is alluding to our Lord’ s saying (Mark 11:22; Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21), although of course not to Gospels which were not yet written. But it is quite as probable that both He and the Apostle used a proverbial expression, moving mountains being a common metaphor for a great difficulty. See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 387. In N.T. the verb is found only in Paul and Luke. Balaam and Samson were instances of persons who had supernatural gifts and yet were morally degraded. For the combination of faith and knowledge, comp. 2 Corinthians 8:7, and for the emphatic repetition of πᾶς , 2 Corinthians 9:8. The abruptness of οὐθένἒμι , after the prolonged hypotheses of three clauses, is impressive. In vv. 2 and 3 the MSS. differ considerably between κἄν and καὶἐάν and καὶἄν . But it is proboble that κἄν is right throughout, the evidence for it being stronger in v. 3 than in v. 2, but not decisive. For μεθιστάναι (א B D E F G) the external evidence in stronger than for μεθιστάνειν (A C K L Orig. Chrys.); but, jon the other hand, the unusual μεθιστάνειν would be llikely to be altered to the common form. And σὐθέν (א A B C L) is to be preferred to οὐδέν (D* F G K). 3. We now pass on to the administrative gifts, ἀντιλήμψεις (12:28), ministering to the bodily needs of the brethren, and that in what seems to be a specially self-denying form. κἂνψωμίσωπάντατὰὑπάρχοντάμου . ‘ And if I should give away in doles of food all my possessions.’ There is no need to say anything about the recipients of the bounty, τοὺςπένηρας (Chrys.), pauperum (Vulg.), ‘ the poor’ (AV., RV.): it is the giver, not the recipients, that is in question. The verb implies personal distribution to many, and that the act is done once for all: he could not habitually give away all his goods. The ‘ all’ continues the emphatic repetition of πᾶς : throughout he makes the supposition as strong as possible. We have ψωμίζω in Romans 12:20 and in the LXX (Numbers 11:4, Numbers 11:18; Deuteronomy 8:3, Deuteronomy 8:16 of the manna; and often). In class. Grk. it is used of feeding children and young animals with ψωμοί , ‘ morsels’ (freq. in LXX): ψωμίον , ‘ sop,’ John 13:26. Si distribuero in cibos pauperum (Vulg.), insumam in alimoniam (Calv.), insumam alendis egenis (Beza). κἄνπαραδῶ … ἵνακαυθήσομαι . ‘ And (even) if I deliver up myself to be burned.’ Literally, ‘ deliver up my body, so that I shall be burned.’ In the N.T. ἵνα is often used where result is prominent and purpose in the background. It expresses a “ purposive result,” the subjective intention shading off into the objective effect; and hence the use of the future: 9:18; Galatians 2:4; John 7:3, John 17:2, etc. True love, as he proceeds to show, does not need the supreme crises which call for the sacrifice of all that one possesses or of one’ s life,— a sacrifice which might be made without true love: it manifests itself at all times and in all circumstances. Sacrifices made without love may profit other people, but they do not profit the man himself. Non charitas de martyrio, sed martyrium nascitur ex charitate (Primasius). St Paul is not thinking of burning as a punishment, which it was not, nor of the branding of slaves, but of the most painful death which any one can voluntarily suffer. It was from this text that Dr. Richard Smith, Regius Professor of Divinity, preached at Oxford beforethe burning of Ridley and Latimer, 16th October 1555. Comp. παρέδωκαντὰσώματααὐτῶνεἰςπῦρ (Daniel 3:28, Theod. 95), which may be in the Apostle’ s mind, and πυρὶτὸσῶμαπαραδόντες , of the Indians (Joseph. B.J. VII. viii. 7). In each of the three suppositions we have a different result: ‘ I produce nothing of value’ (v. 1); ‘ I am of no value’ (v. 2); ‘ I gain nothing of value’ (v. 3). The man who possessed all the gifts mentioned might be useful to the Church, but in character he would be worthless, if the one indispensable thing were lacking. The gifts are not valueless, but he is. It is by no means certain that καυθήσομαι (D E F G L Latt. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. Goth., Method. Bas. Tert.), to which καύθήσωμαι (C K , Chrys.) give additional support, is the right reading. The evidence for καυχήσωμαι (א A B 17, Aegyptt., Orig. Lat. MSS. known to Jer.) is very strong, and WH. (App. p. 117) argue strongly in favour of it. Clement of Rome (Cor. lv.) may be referring to the passage with this reading when he says, “ Many gave themselves up to slavery, and receiving the price paid for themselves fed others.” If καυχὴσωμαι be adopted, it belongs to both clauses, not to the second only; ‘ If I should doleaway my goods in alms, and if I should give up my very body, all for the sake of glory, while I have no love, I am not a whit the better. But, as in the case of μεθιστάνειν (v. 2), we must consider more than the external evidence. Which would the Apostle be more likely to write, and which would be more likely to be changed by a copyist? ‘ Surrender my body,’ without saying how or to whom, is and unlikely expression. In the two preceding verses nothing is said about the presence of an unworthy motive, but only the absence of the one indispensable motive. And the introduction of the unworthy motive spoils the all-important ‘ and have no love.’ No need to say that, if the motive is self-glorification. If the thought of Dan_3. might have led a copyist to change καυχήσωμαι into καυθήσωμαι , it might equally well have led the Apostle to write καυθήσωμαι or καυθήσωμαι : comp. ἔσβεσανδύναμινπυρός (Hebrews 11:34). And if the original reading had been καυνχήσωμαι , would not καυθήσωμαι have been a more common reading than καυθήσομαΐ Cyprian twice quotes, si tradidero corpus meum ut ardeam, caritatem kauten non habeam (Tesi. iii. 31 De cath. eccl. unil. 14), and the author of the tract on Re-baptism (13) has etsi corpus meum tradidero, ita ut exurar igni, dilectionem autem non habeam. The attractive suggestion of Stanley (p. 231) and of Lightfoot Colossians, p. 156, ed. 1875; p. 394. ed. 1892) that St Paul is thinking of “ the Indian’ s tomb,” with its boastful inscription, which he may have seen at Athens, confirms the reading κανθ . rather than καυχ ., but it suits either. The tomb was still to be seen in Plutarch’ s time (Alexander 69), and the inscription ran thus; “ Zarmano-chegas, an Indian from Bargosa, according to the traditional customs of Indians, made himself immortal, and lies here” . He had burnt himself alive on the funeral pyre. But it is more likely that St Paul would think of Jewish examples (1 Macc. 2:59). Ψωμίζω (K) for Ψωμίσω (א A B C D, etc.) is the correction of a copyist who did not see the significance of the aorist. With οὐδὲν (B C D F K L, not οὐθέν , א A) ὠφελοῦμαι , comp. Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:7:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:16. Matthew 6:26. 4-7. The Apostle, having shown the moral worthlessness and unproductiveness of the man who has many supernatural gifts and performs seemingly heroic acts without love, now depicts in rapturous praise the character that consists of just this one indispensable virtue. Every one of the moral excellences which he enumerates tells, for they are no mere abstractions, but are based on experience, and are aimed at the special faults exhibited by the Corinthians. And just as he personifies Sin, Death, and the Law in Romans, so here he personifies Love. The rhythm becomes lyrical. We have fourteen descriptive statements in pairs. The first pair of characteristics has both members positive. Four pairs of negative characteristics follow, the last member being stated both negatively and positively (v. 6); and then we have two more pairs of positive characteristics (v. 7). Ἡἀγάπημακροθυμεῖ , χρηστεύεται · Ἡἀλάπηοὐζηλοῖ , οὐπερπερεύεται , οὐφυσιοῦται , οὐκἀσχημονεῖ , οὐζητεῖτὰὲαυτῆς , οὐπαροξύνεται , οὐλογίζεταιτὸκακόν , οὐχαίρειἐπὶτῇἀδικίᾳ , συνχαίρειδὲτῇἀληθείᾳ · πάνταστέγει , πάνταπιστεύει , πάνταὲλπίζει , πάνταὐπομένει . 4. μακροθυμεῖ . ‘ Is long-suffering, long-tempered,’ longanimis (Erasm.): it is slow to anger, slow to take offence or to inflict punishment.* While ὑπομονή (2 Corinthians 1:6, 2 Corinthians 1:6:4, 2 Corinthians 1:12:12; Luke only in the Gospels, etc.) is endurance of suffering without giving way, μακροθυμία (2 Corinthians 6:6; Romans 2:4, Romans 9:22, etc.; not in the Gospels) is patience of injuries without paying back.It is the opposite of ὀξυθυμία , ‘ quick’ or ‘ short temper’ : comp. James 1:19, and the adaptation of these verses in Clem. Rom. Cor. 49. χρηστεύεται . ‘ Is kind in demeanour,’ ‘ plays the gentle part.’ While μακροθ . gives the passive side in reference to injuries received, χρηστ . gives the active side in reference to benefits bestowed. Nowhere else in the Bible is χρηστεύεσθαι found, but χρηστότης and χρηστός are frequent in both the LXX and N.T. See Clem. Rom. Cor. 18. ἡἀγάπηοὐζηλοῖ . Ἡἀγάπη is repeated at the beginning of the negative characteristics; it is to be taken with οὐζηλοῖ , not with χρηστεύεται . ‘ Love knows neither jealousy nor envy.’ The verb covers both vices, and perhaps others; ‘ boil with hatred or jealousy’ is apparently the original meaning (Acts 7:9, Acts 7:17:5; James 4:2). Contrast 12:31, 14:1, 39; 2 Corinthians 11:2. To covet good gifts is right, to envy gifted persons is wrong; for envy and jealousy lead to division and strife (3:1). οὐπερπερεύεται . ‘ Does not play the braggart’ ; late Greek, and not elsewhere in the Bible. Marcus Aurelius couples it with γλισχρεύεσθαι , καὶκολακεύειν , καὶἀρεσκεύεσθαι (v. 5). Ostentation is the chief idea. Clem. Alex. (Paed. 3:1. p. 251) says; Περπερείαγὰρὁκαλλωπισμός , περιττότητοςκαὶἀχρειότητοςἔχωνἔμφασιν . Origen applies it especially to intellectual pride; Cicero (Epp. ad Attic. 1.xiv.4) uses it of rhetorical display. Tert. (De Pat. 12) translates; non protervum sapit, which is not so very different from Chrys. (ad loc.) οὐπροπετεύεται . Hesychius says that the πέρπερος is μετὰβλακείαςἐπαιρόμενος . Evidently the word had various shades of meaning: see Wetstein and Suicer. But the idea of ostentatious boasting leads easily to the next point. οὐφυσιοῦται . ‘ Does not puff itself out’ (4:6, 18, 19, 5:2, 8:1; Colossians 2:18; and not elsewhere in the N.T.). “ He who subjects himself to his neighbour in love can never be humiliated” (Basil to Atarbius, Ep. 65). A third ἡἀγάπη between οὐζηλοῖ and οὐπερπερ . (א A C D E F G K L, Syrr. Goth.) is probably not genuine (om. B 17 and other cursives, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Grk. and Lat. Fathers). Ἡἀγάπη at the beginning of the positive and of the negative characteristic is in place; a third is superfluous. If it be inserted, it belongs, like the other two, to what follows. The punctuation, ἡἀγάπημακροθυμεῖ , χρηστεύεταιἡἀγάπη , οὐζηλοῖἡἀγάπη , is clumsy. 5. οὐκἀσχημονεῖ . Comp. 7:36. In both places ‘ behave unmannerly,’ rather than ‘ suffer shame’ or ‘ seem vile’ (Deuteronomy 25:3), is the meaning. Love is tactful, and does nothing that would raise a blush: non agit indecenter (Calv.), indecore (Beza), rather than non est ambitiosa (Vulg.), fastidiosa (Erasm.). The verb occurs in LXX, but nowhere else in N.T., excepting 6:36. M. Aurelius (xi. 1) assigns properties to the rational soul which remind us of those which the Apostle assigns to ἀγάπη , e.g. τὸφιλεῖντοὺςπλησίον , καὶἀλήθεια , καὶαἰδώς . τὰἑαυτῆς . ‘ Its own interests’ : 10:24, 33. This makes nobler sense than the reading τὸμὴἑαυτῆς (B, Clem-Alex.). That Love does not try to defraud would be bathos here. This statement perhaps looks back to the law-suits in ch. 6. οὐπαροξύνεται . Not merely ‘ does not fly into a rage,’ but ‘ does not yield to provocation’ : it is not embittered by injuries, whether real or supposed. Elsewhere in N.T. only of St Paul’ s spirit being provoked at the numerous idols in Athens (Acts 17:16): in LXX frequent of great anger. The ‘ contention’ between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:39) was a παροξυσμός . see Westcott on Hebrews 10:24. οὐλογίζεταιτὸκακόν . When there is no question that it has received an injury, Love ‘ doth not register the evil’ ; it stores up no resentment, and bears no malice. Comp. τὴνκακίαντοῦπλησίουμὴλογίζεσθεἐνταῖςκαρδίαιςὑμῶν (Zechariah 8:17). For this sense of ‘ reckoning’ see 2 Corinthians 5:19; Romans 4:8; cf. Philemon 1:18. Neither non cogitat malum (Vulg.) nor non suspicatur malum (Grot.) does justice to either the verb or the article: τὸκακόν is ‘ the evil done to it’ . 6. οὐχαίρειἐπὶἀδικίᾳ . ‘ Rejoiceth not over unrighteousness,’ the wrongdoing committed by others (Romans 1:32). It cannot sympathize with what is evil. Chrys. misses the point in saying that Love does not rejoice over those who suffer wrong, τοῖςκακῶςπάσχουσι . It is quite true that there is no Schadenfreude in Love, no gloating over the misfortunes of others; but that is not the meaning here. Love cannot share the glee of the successful transgressor. συνχαὶρειδὲτῇἀληθείᾳ . So far from feeling satisfaction at the misdeeds of others, Love ‘ rejoices with the Truth.’ Here Truth is personified, and Love and Truth rejoice together: comp. 2 Corinthians 13:8; James 3:14; 1 John 5:6. The truth of the Gospel is not meant, but Truth in its widest sense, as opposed to ἀδικία (2 Thessalonians 2:12; Romans 2:8), and therefore equivalent to Goodness. The change of preposition, from ἐπί to συν -, is ignored in the AV. Non gaudet super iniquitatem, congaudet autem veritati (Vulg.). Love sympathizes with all that is really good in others. The seven negatives would become monotonous if they were continued. By giving an affirmative antithesis to the last of them St Paul prepares the way for a return to positive characteristics. 7. πάνταστέγει . The meaning of the verb is somewhat uncertain. It occurs only Ecclus. 8:17 in LXX, of the fool who will not be able to conceal the matter, λόγονστἐξαι : and only here, 9:12, and 1 Thessalonians 3:1, 1 Thessalonians 3:5 in N.T. ‘ Covereth,’ and so ‘ excuseth’ would make sense here, but not such good sense as the other meaning of the verb, ‘ is proof against,’ and so ‘ forbeareth, endureth,’ which seems to be the meaning in all four places in the N.T. The second meaning springs from the first. ‘ To cover’ is ‘ to protect,’ and ‘ to protect’ is ‘ to keep off’ rain, foes, troubles, etc., and therefore to be proof against them or endure them. See Lightfoot on 1 Thessalonians 3:1, where the Vulg. has non sustinentes, v. 5, non sustinens, and in 9:12, omnia sustinemus, while here it has omnia suffert. The root is connected with tegere, ‘ deck,’ ‘ thatch.’ πάνταπιστεύει . This does not mean, as Calvin points out, that a Christian is to allow himself to be fooled by every rogue, or to pretend that he believes that white is black. But in doubtful cases he will prefer being too generous in his conclusions to suspecting another unjustly. While he is patient with the mischief which his neighbour undoubtedly does, he credits him with good intentions, which he perhaps does not possess. This characteristic, with the next pair, forms a climax. When Love has no evidence, it believes the best. When the evidence is adverse, it hopes for the best. And when hopes are repeatedly disappointed, it still courageously waits. The four form a chiasmus, the second being related to the third as the first to the last. While στέγει refers to present trials, ὑπομένει covers the future also. It is that cheerful and loyal fortitude which, having done all without apparent success, still stands and endures, whether the ingratitude of friends or the persecution of foes. Throughout the Pauline Epistles it is assumed that the Christian is likely to be persecuted; 1 Thessalonians 1:6, 1 Thessalonians 1:3:3, 1 Thessalonians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 2 Thessalonians 1:6; Romans 5:3, Romans 8:35, Romans 12:12, etc. One result of all this is closely connected with the subject of the preceding and of the following chapter— the well-being of the Christian body, as a whole consisting of many unequally gifted members: praecipuus scopus est quam sit necessaria caritas ad conservandam ecclesiae unitatem (Calvin). 8-13. Having shown the worthlessness of supernatural gifts, if love is absent, and the supreme excellence of a character in which love is dominant, St Paul now shows that love is superior to all the gifts, because they are for this world only, whereas love is for both time and eternity. “ This is the crowning glory of love, that it is imperishable” (Stanley); it abides until and beyond the supreme crisis of the Last Day. 8. Ἡἀγάπηοὐδέποτεπίπτει . In making this new point the nominative is again repeated, and with good effect. And the new point is reached without difficulty. From ὑπομένει to οὐδ . πίπτει is an easy transition. That which withstands all assaults and is not crushed by either the shortcomings of comrades or the violence of opponents, will stand firm and unshaken. In the N.T., πίπτειν is nearly always literal; but comp. τοῦνόμουμίανκεραίανπεσεῖν (Luke 16:17). In class. Grk., οὐδέποτε is stronger than οὔποτε ; but in late Grk. strong forms lose their strength and become the common forms: οὐδέποτε occurs fifteen or sixteen times in the N.T., οὐ … πότε only 2 Peter 1:21; comp. Ephesians 5:29; 1 Thessalonians 2:5; 2 Peter 1:10. From the statement that ‘ Love never faileth’ but ‘ abideth’ after death, has been inferred the doctrine that the saints at rest pray for those on earth. Calvin vigorously attacks this inference, as if it were harmful to believe in such a result of love. The inference is, no doubt, somewhat remote from the context. The reading πίπτει (א A B C 17, 47, Nyss. Ambrst. Aug.) is to be preferred to ἐκπίπτει (D E F G K L P, Vulg, Tert. Cypr.), which perhaps comes from Romans 9:6. Chrys. reads ἐκπίπτει , and explains that Christians must never hate their persecutors. They hate the evil deeds, which are the devil’ s work, but not the doers, for they are the work of God. But οὐδέποτεπίπτει means more than this, as what follows shows. εἴτεδὲπροφητεῖαι , καταργηθήσονται . St Paul now takes up again the comparison between Love and the special gifts. Tested by the attribute of durability, Love exceeds all these χαρίσματα . And here the AV. improves on the Greek. The varied rendering of καταργεῖσθαι , ‘ fail,’ ‘ vanish away,’ ‘ be done away,’ is more pleasing than the repetition of the same word; and the making the first καταργ . a verbal contradiction of οὐδέποτεπίπτει is effective. The repeated εἴτε is depreciatory; it suggests indifference as to the existence of gifts of which the use was at best temporary. ‘ But as to prophesyings, if there be any, they shall be done away.’ Excepting Luke 13:7 and Hebrews 2:14, καταγεῖν , ‘ to put out of action,’ is wholly Pauline in the N.T. It is found in all four groups, but is specially common in this group of the Pauline Epp. In the LXX, only in Ezra. Three prominent χαρίσματα are taken in illustration of the transitory character of the gifts: to have gone through all would have been tedious. And the γλῶσσαι are dropped in v. 9. Obviously, they will be ‘ rendered idle.’ Tongues were a rapturous mode of addressing God; and no such rapture would be needed when the spirit was in His immediate presence. But Tongues seem to have ceased first of all the gifts. The plur. προφητεῖαι indicates different kinds of inspired preaching; but γνώσεις (א A, etc.) is a corruption to harmonize with the preceding plurals. 9. Again we have a chiasmus: prophesyings, knowledge (v. 8), know, prophesy (9). Both will be done away, for it is from a part only, and not from the whole, that we get to know anything of the truth, and from a part only that we prophesy. We cannot know, and therefore cannot preach, the whole truth, but only fragments. Knowledge and prophecy are useful as lamps in the darkness, but they will be useless when the eternal Day has dawned; ὁγὰρμέλλωνβίοςτούτωνἀνενδεής . In both clauses ἐκμέρους is emphatic. Bishop Butler has shown that here complete knowledge even of a part is impossible, for we cannot have this until we know its full relation to the whole; and, in order to do that, we must have full knowledge of the whole, which is impossible.* 10. ‘ But when there shall have come that which is complete, that which is from a part will be done away’ ; chiasmus again. Ubi perventum ad metam fuerit, tunc cessabunt adjumenta cursus (Calv.). We might have expected St Paul to put it in this way, yet he does not. He does not say, ‘ But when we shall have come to the perfection of the other world,’ etc. He is so full of the thought of the Second Advent, that he represents the perfection as coming to us. ‘ When it shall have come’ ; then, but not till then. The Apostle is saying nothing about the cessation of χαρίσματα in this life: prophesyings and knowledge might always be useful. All that he asserts is, that these things will have no use when completeness is revealed; and therefore they are inferior to Love. Luther renders τὸἐκμέρους , das Stü ckwerk. In order to make the ‘ then and not till then’ clearer, K L, Syrr. Chrys. and some other witnesses insert τότε before τὸἐκμέρους : om. א A B D* F G P, Latt. Arm. Aeth. Goth., etc. Chrys. points out that it is only the partial, fragmentary knowledge that will be done away. 11. Illustration suggested by τὸτέλειον ; it is very inadequate, but it will serve. The difference between a νήπιος and a τέλειος is as nothing compared with the difference between the twilight of this world and the brightness of the perfect Day, but it will help us to understand this. In order to confirm vv. 8-10, the Apostle appeals to personal experience. ‘ When I was a child, I used to talk, think, and reason as a child: now that I am become a man, I have done away with the child’ s ways.’ RV. has ‘ felt’ for ἐφρόνουν , which is no improvement on the ‘ understood’ of AV. A mental process is meant (Romans 12:3, etc.), of which ἐλογιζόμην , ‘ calculated’ (2 Corinthians 5:19, 2 Corinthians 11:5 etc.), is a development. Loquebar, sapiebam, cogitabam (Vulg.); but ratiocinabar (Beza, Beng.) is better than cogitabam. Comp. Numeraannos tuos, et pudebit eadem velle quae volueras puer (Seneca, Ep. 27). The antithesis between τέλειος (2:6) and νήπιος (3:1) is freq. (14:20; Ephesians 4:13, Ephesians 4:14). The mid. imperf. ἤμην is not found, except as a doubtful reading, in class. Grk., but it is not rare in later writers: Galatians 1:10; Matthew 23:30, Matthew 23:25:35, Matthew 23:36, 43; Acts 27:37, and perhaps 11:11. See Veitch, p. 200. The perf. κατήργηκα indicates a change of state which still continues; the emancipation from childish things took place as a matter of course, ultro, libenter, sine labore (Beng.), and it continues. In each case ὡςνήπιος follows the verb (א A B 17, Vulg. Aeth.), and the δέ after ὄτε is an interpolation (om. א A B D); the contrast is more emphatic without it. 12. βλέπομενγὰρἄρτιδι ʼ ἐσόπτρουἐναἰνίγματι . ‘ For we see at present by means of a mirror in a riddle.’ The γάρ confirms the preceding illustration; for as childhood to manhood, so this life to the life to come. The argument is a fortiori. If adults have long since abandoned their playthings and primers, how much more will the reflected glimpses of truth be abandoned, when the whole truth is directly seen. Almost certainly, δι ʼ ἐσόπτρου means ‘ by means of a mirror,’ not ‘ through a mirror.’ Ancient mirrors were of polished metal, and Corinthian mirrors were famous; but the best of them would give an imperfect and somewhat distorted reflexion, and Corinthian Christians would not possess the best (1:26). To see a friend’ s face in a cheap mirror would be very different from looking at the friend. This world reflects God so imperfectly as to perplex us; all that we see is ἐναἰνίγματι . The word occurs nowhere else in the N.T., but is freq. in the LXX. Probably Numbers 12:8 is in St Paul’ s mind: στόμακατὰστόμαλαλήσωαὐτῷ , ἐνεἴδεικαὶοὐδι ʼ αἰνιγμάτων * Other words for ‘ mirror’ are ἔνοπτρον and κάτοπτρον . Comp. 2 Corinthians 3:18. Tertullian wrongly thinks of a window-pane made of horn, which is only semi-transparent; per corneum specular. But a window with horn or lapis specularis would be δίοπτρον , not ἔσοπτρον . See Smith, D. Ant. 1. p. 686. Others explain the διά as meaning that in a mirror one seems to see through the surface to the reflected objects. τότεδὲπρόσωπονπρὸςπρόσωπον . ‘ But then (when τὸτέλειον shall have come) face to face’ ; πρόσωπονπ . πρ being an adverb after βλέπομεν . The expression is Hebraistic; Genesis 32:30: comp. πρ . κατὰπρ . Deuteronomy 34:10. Our knowledge of divine things in this life cannot be direct all comes through the distorting medium of human thought and human language, figures, types, symbols, etc. Even those who are illumined by the Spirit can give only a few rays of the truth, and those not direct, but reflected. Even the Gospel is a riddle, compared with the full light of the life to come. Here our knowledge is mediate, the result of inference and instruction; it is partial and confused; a piecemeal succession of broken lights. There it will be immediate, complete, and clear; a connected and simultaneous illumination. The imperfection of our knowledge, even of revealed truth, is not sufficiently recognized; and hence the rejection of Christianity by so many thoughtful people. Christians often claim to know more than it is possible to know. They forget how much of the Bible is symbolical. See Goudge, p. 122. ἄρτιγινώσκωἐκμέρους . In realizing what is true of all of us, St Paul returns to his own personal experience; ‘ At present I get to know from a part only, but then I shall know in full even as I was known also in full, once for all,’ by God from all eternity. Or the aorist may refer to Christ’ s knowledge of him at his conversion. For ἐπιγινώσκειν , which is very frequent in Luke (1:4, 5:22, etc.) and in St. Paul (Romans 1:32; 2 Corinthians 6:9, etc.), see Lightfoot on Colossians 1:9, and J. A. Robinson on Ephesians 1:17, p. 248. It is difficult to believe that here the compound is not meant to indicate more complete knowledge than the simple verb: but it does not follow from this that the compound always does so. In any case, καθὼςκαὶἐπεγνώσθην is a bold way of expressing the completeness of future illumination; human knowledge is to equal divine. Comp. Philo (De Cherub. § 32, p. 159;) νῦνὅτεζῶμενγνωριζόμεθαμᾶλλονἤγνωρίζομεν . In this verse we have γίνωσκω in all three voices. D* F G, Vulg. Arm. Goth., Tert. Cypr. omit. γάρ , but it is well attested (א A B K L P, Copt.). 13. νυνὶδὲμένει . ‘ So then, when all the other gifts have been reduced to nothing by the glories of the Return, there remain just these three.’ The νυνί is not temporal, but logical, and the δέ expresses the contrast between the transitory gifts just mentioned and those here; ‘ But, as you see, there abideth’ : comp. 12:18, 20; Hebrews 9:26. The singular μένει is not a slip in grammar: the three virtues are a triplet distinguished by a durability which the brilliant χαρίσματα , so coveted by the Corinthians, do not possess; for the triplet will survive the Second Advent.* In the progress which is possible in the other world there will be room for Faith and Hope, but there will be no room for Tongues, prophesyings, healings, or miracles. The character which is built upon those three survives death and abides in eternity. Goodness is far more enduring, because far more akin to God, than the greatest capacities for usefulness. Even in this world these gifts are not indispensable. One can be a good Christian without Tongues or prophesying; but one cannot be a good Christian without Faith, Hope, and Love. μείζωνδὲτούτωνἡἀγάπη . ‘ And out of these (partitive genitive) Love is greater.’ Mentally, perhaps, the Apostle puts Love, about which he has said so much, into one class, and the other two virtues into another. But, however we explain the comparative (cf. Matthew 23:11), and the simplest explanation is that μέγιστος had become almost obsolete (J. H. Moulton, Gr. 1. p. 78), there is no doubt about the meaning; Love is superior to the other two. Why is it superior, seeing that all three are eternal? Not perhaps because Faith and Hope concern the individual, while Love embraces the whole Christian society: sua enim cuique fides ac spes prodest; caritas ad alios diffunditur (Calv.). Rather, Love is the root of the other two; ‘ Love believeth all things, hopeth all things.’ We trust those whom we love, and we hope for what we love. Again, Faith and Hope are purely human; or, at most, angelic; the virtues of creatures. Love is Divine. Deus non dicitur fides aut sees absolute, amor dicitur (Beng.). For the triplet comp. 1 Thessalonians 1:3, 1 Thessalonians 1:5:8; Galatians 5:5, Galatians 5:6; Colossians 1:4, Colossians 1:5; Hebrews 6:10-12; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 155 f. Comp. also St John’ s triplet, Light, Life, and Love. * “ The greatest, strongest, deepest thing Paul ever wrote” (Harnack). “ I never read 1Co_13. without thinking of the description of the virtues in the Nicomchean Ethics. St Paul’ s ethical teaching has quite an Hellenic ring. It is philosophical, as resting on a definite principle, viz, our new life in Christ; and it is logical, as classifying virtues and duties according to some intelligible principle” (E. L. Hicks, Studia Biblica, 4. p. 9. א Ԡ א (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T. B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS. D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 διο͂ὁλαλῶν -22 σημεῖονἐστίν is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422). E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429). G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1 Corinthians 3:8-16, 1 Corinthians 6:7-14 (F). A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum. C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 ἐνἀκροβυστίᾳ -9:6 τοῦμὴἐργάζεσθαι : 13:8 παύσονται -14:40 ἀλλὰἕτερα . K K (Ninth century). Codex S. Synod. xcviii. Lacks 1:1-6:13 ταύτηνκαί : 8:7 τινὲςδὲ — 8:11 ἀπέθανεν . L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome. 17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. § § 211, 212. * Quod si te illud movet, quod solemus eam quam Graeci μακροθυμίαν vocant, longanimitatem interpretari, animadvertere licet a corpore ad animum multa verba transferri, sicut ab animo ad corpus (Aug. De quantitate animae xvii.30) 47 47. Bodleian. Roe 16. (Eleventh century.) P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 ὑμᾶςὁθεός -17 περιπάτει : 12:23 τοῦσώματος -13:5 οὐλογί -: 14:23 τὸλαλεῖνμή . A good type of text in St Paul’ s Epistles. * Ἐκμέρους is fairly common in both LXX and N.T. Other adverbial expressions are ἀπὸμέρους , which marks a contrast with the whole less clearly than ἐκμ . (2 Corinthians 1:14, 2 Corinthians 2:5), ἀνὰμέρος (14:27), and κατὰμέρος (Hebrews 9:5). * This passage led to the Rabbinical tradition that Moses had seen God through a clean window, but the Prophets through a dirty one (Bachmann, ad loc. p. 409 n.). There are two metaphors in Numbers 12:8, which St Paul mixes: βλέπεινἐναἰνίγματι is is somewhat incongruous. But to condemn ἐναίν . as a gloss is a violent expedient. A gloss would have been more harmonious with the text. * But “ when a verb occurs in the 3rd person in an introductory manner it is often used in the singular number, though the subject may be in the plural.” Thus “ what cares these roarers for the name of king” ? Yet, even without this inversion, two or more kindred subjects may have a singular verb (Mark 4:41; Matthew 5:18, Matthew 6:19). J. H. Moulton, Gr. 1. p. 58; Blass, § 11.3, § 44.3. 14:1-40. THE SUBJECT OF GIFTS In ch. 12 the human body was given as an instructive illustration of a Christian Church. In 13 it was shown that the principle which ought to quicken and regulate every member of the Church is love. In 14 the influence of this principle is traced in the selection of the gifts that are most useful to the whole body, and also in the manner of employing them. Following after love does not impede the desire for special gifts, but it regulates it. The love which seeks not its own advantage must prefer a gift which benefits all to one which is a delight and a help to no one but its possessor. Not that the latter is to be despised; God does not bestow worthless gifts: but it is possible to mar any gift by misusing it. The chapter has four divisions: (1) Prophesying or inspired preaching is superior to Tongues, both in reference to believers and to unbelievers, 1-25. (a) Regulations for the orderly exercise of these two gifts in Christian assemblies, 26-33. (3) Regulations respecting women, 34-36. (4) Conclusion of the subject, 37-40. In the first and main portion of the chapter the superiority of inspired preaching to Tongues is stated at once (2-5); and this is supported by two series of arguments (6-11 and 14-19) connected with two exhortations (12, 13). The whole chapter shows that ‘ prophesying’ is not the gift of prediction, but that of preaching; and that ‘ Tongues’ are not foreign languages, but a mode of utterance different from all human language. The main result of the chapter is that, just as it is love which gives value to character and conduct (13.), so it is love which teaches the true value and proper use of the charismata. See Zahn, Introd. to N.T. 1. p. 280. You are right in desiring these supernatural gifts, but take care that you do so from the right motive; and the right motive is love. Those gifts which benefit others are to be preferred to those which glorify ourselves; hence inspired preaching is more to be desired than Tongues. In the congregation, Tongues (unless interpreted at once) are a hindrance to worship. Even the experienced cannot join in devotions which they do not understand, while the inexperienced or the unbelievers, if any be present, are lost in contemptuous amazement. But inspired preaching is a great help to all who hear it, whether believing or unbelieving. Unless an interpreter is present, Tongues should be exercised in private. In public worship, all who are inspired to preach may do so in turn, and the whole Church, including themselves, will be the gainer. This does not apply to women. So far from preaching, they ought not even to ask questions. In all matters of public worship decorum and order must be studied. 1 What you have to do, therefore, is persistently to strive to make this love your own, while you continue to long to have the gifts of the Spirit, and especially to be inspired to preach. 2 For he who speaks in a Tongue is speaking, not to men, but to God, for no man can understand one who in a state of rapture is speaking mystic secrets. 3 It is otherwise with one who is inspired to preach: he does speak to men, and to good purpose,— words of faith to build them up, words of hope to quicken them, words of love to hearten and console. 4 Not that Tongues are useless; one who exercises this gift may build up his own spiritual life by it: but the inspired preacher builds up the spiritual life of the Church. 5 Now I could wish that you should all have the gift of Tongues; but I would greatly prefer that you should be inspired to preach, this being far more important, unless, of course, the Tongues should at once be interpreted, so that the Church may thereby receive spiritual advantage. 6 But, Brethren, seeing that Tongues without explanation are useless, suppose that, when next I visit you, I speak with Tongues, what good shall I do you, if I shall fail to explain to you some glimpse of the unseen or some knowledge of truth, the one to inspire you, the other to instruct you? 7 Why, there are instruments which, although lifeless, make a sound,— a pipe, for instance, or a harp; yet if they make no distinction in the notes, how is one to know the tune which the pipe or the harp is playing? 8 A trumpet-blast is a still stronger instance: if that gives an uncertain sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 It is just the same with you: if with your tongue you do not make intelligible speech, how is one to know what you are saying? For you might as well be saying it to the winds. 11 Well, then, if I show that I do not understand the meaning of the language used, the person who speaks to me will conclude that I talk gibberish, just as from my point of view he is talking gibberish to me; and we both wish that we could talk to some advantage. 12 It is just the same with you: seeing that you are so enthusiastic for inspirations, let it be for the spiritual advantage of the Church that you seek to abound in them. 13 Therefore he that speaks in a Tongue should pray that he may be able to interpret what he utters. 14 For if I am praying in a Tongue, it is quite true that my spirit is praying, but my understanding is doing no good. 15 What does that imply? I must go on praying with the spirit, that, of course, for my own sake: but for the sake of others I must pray with the understanding also. I must sing with the spirit, but I must sing with the understanding also. 16 Else, suppose that you are blessing God in ecstasy, how is he who has no experience of such things to say the Amen at your giving of thanks, seeing that he does not know what you are saying? 17 For although you are giving thanks beautifully, yet the other is getting no spiritual advantage. 18 I thank God I have the gift of Tongues in a higher degree than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in public worship I would rather speak five words with my understanding, and thereby give others also some solid instruction, than thousands and thousands of words in an ecstatic Tongue. 20 My brethren, do not behave as if you were still children in mind: and it is childish to prefer what glitters to what does good. Of course, in jealousy and ill-will be children, nay, be very babes; but in mind behave as full-grown men. 21 In the great Prophet of the old Covenant it stands written that, because Israel would not obey God’ s word spoken in language which they could understand, thay would be punished in being conquered by Assyrians whose language they could not understand, and that even this sign would fail to teach them obedience. 22 This shows us that unintelligible Tongues are a sign, not of course to those who believe, but to those who fail to do so; while inspired preaching is for the benefit, not of those who do not believe, but of those who do. 23 Consequently, if, when you all meet together in one place for public worship, you one after another do nothing but speak with Tongues, and there come in those who have no experience of such things,— and still more so if unbelievers come in,— will they not say that you must be mad? 24 Whereas, if one after another you utter inspired teaching, and there comes in an unbeliever,— and still more so if an inexperienced brother comes in,— by preacher after preacher he is convinced of his sinfulness, his heart is searched, 25 its secret evils are revealed to him, and the blessed result will be that he humbles himself before God and man, and from that moment proclaims that, little as he thought so till then, it is God who is with you. 26 How then does the matter stand, Brethren? Whenever you meet together for worship, each of you is ready to manifest some gift,— to sing a song of praise, to give instruction, to reveal a truth, to utter a Tongue, or to interpret one. By all means exercise the gifts with which you have been endowed, always provided that they are exercised to build up the spiritual life of others and not to glorify yourselves. 27 If those who speak with Tongues are preferred, let only two, or at most three, speak in any one meeting, and one at a time, and let one interpreter serve for each. 28 But if no interpreter be present, let whoever has this gift be silent in public worship, and exercise it in private between himself and God. 29 And of those who are inspired to preach, let two or three speak in each meeting, and let the rest of them exercise the gift of discernment as to what is being spoken. 30 But if a revelation be made to one of those who thus sit listening, let the preacher give place to him. 31 For he can stop and be silent, and in this way it will be in the power of all of the inspired to preach one by one, so that all, whether inspired or not, may learn something and be quickened. 32 Yes, he can stop: an inspired man’ s spirit is under the inspired man’ s control, for the God who inspires him is a God, not of turbulence, but of peace. This holds good of all the assemblies of His people. 34 When I say that all in turn may preach, I do not include your wives. They must keep silence in the assemblies. Utterance, whether in a Tongue or in preaching, is not allowed to them, for this would violate the rule of subjection which has been imposed upon them since the Fall. 35 Even their asking questions, which might seem to be compatible with subjection, cannot be allowed in the assemblies. Let them ask their own husbands at home, and the husbands can ask in the assembly. It is shameful for a woman to speak there. 36 Perhaps you think that you have the right to do as you please in such matters. What? are you the Mother-Church, or the only Church, that you make such claims? 37 If any one claims to be inspired as a preacher or in any other way, let him give evidence of his inspiration by recognizing that what I am writing to you is inspired; it is the Lord’ s command. 38 But it any one fails to recognize this, I have no more to say. God deals with such. 39 So then, my Brethren, the sum of the whole discussion is this. Long earnestly to be inspired to preach, and if any one has the gift of Tongues, do not forbid him to use it. But let everything be done in accordance with natural feelings of propriety as well as established rule. 1. Διώκετετὴνἀγάπην , ζηλοῦτεδὲτὰπνευματικά . This verse looks back to 12:31, and sums up the two preceding chapters. The Corinthians are to follow with persistence (Romans 9:30, Romans 9:31, Romans 9:14:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:15, etc.) ‘ the more excellent way,’ and to desire with intensity (12:31, 14:39; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Galatians 4:17) supernatural gifts; but (more than all the rest) that they may be inspired to preach. The ἵνα is definitive, not telic. For the other meaning of ζηλοῦν , ‘ boil with envy and hatred,’ comp. 13:4. Love is a grace, which all Christians by earnest endeavour can attain. Prophesying, Tongues, etc. are gifts, which may be eagerly desired, but which no amount of effort can secure. Those alone receive them to whom they are given (12:11). The Apostle assures them that his praise of love does not mean that the gifts are to be despised. But no man is made morally the better by a gift, for character depends upon personal effort. Yet the gifts may be instruments of personal improvement, as well as of service to others, although the latter is of higher importance: hence μᾶλλονδὲἵναπροφητεύητε . For ζηλοῦτε see Mayor on James 4:2, p. 128.* 2. ‘ For he who speaketh in a Tongue, not to men doth he speak, but to God, for no man heareth him (to any purpose). This meaning of ἀκούειν comes out clearly in comparing Acts 9:7 and 22:9. In the one place the men hear the voice; in the other they did not hear the voice of Him who was speaking to Saul, i.e. they heard a sound but did not hear it as words addressed to any one. Also in the story of Babel; Συγχέωμενἐκεῖαὐτῶντὴνγλῶσσαν , ἵναμὴἀκούσωσινἕκαστοςτὴνφωνὴντοῦπλησίον (Genesis 11:7; comp. 42:23). Verse after verse shows that speaking in foreign languages cannot be meant. Tongues were used in communing with God, and of course this was good for those who did so (v. 4). Tongues were a sort of spiritual soliloquy addressed partly to self, partly to Heaven. Compare the proverb, Sibi canit et Musis. It is equally clear that οὐδεὶςἀκούει does not mean that Tongues were inaudible, or that no one listened to them, but that no one found them intelligible. One might as well have heard nothing. πνεύματιδὲλαλεῖμυστήρια . ‘ As it is in the spirit that he speaketh what are in effect mysteries.’ Explanatory use of δέ ; not uncommon after a negative, but in v. 4 without a negative. ‘ In the spirit,’ but not ‘ with the understanding’ (v. 14), and therefore unintelligible to others. Μυστήριον in the N.T. commonly means ‘ truth about God, once hidden, but now revealed.’ In this sense it is very common in St Paul: see Lightfoot on Colossians 1:26 and Swete on Mark 4:2; Beet on 1 Corinthians 3:4, p. 40. Mysteries must be revealed to be profitable; but in the case of Tongues without an interpreter there was no revelation, and therefore no advantage to the hearers. See Hatch, Essays in Bibl. Grk. pp. 57 f. 3. ὁδὲπροφητεύων . ‘ Whereas he who exerciseth the gift of prophesying does speak to men, what is in effect edification and exhortation and consolation.’ With λαλεῖοἰκοδομήν comp. κρίμαἐσθίει and τοῦτόμουἐστὶτὸσῶμα (11:24, 29): in each case ‘ what is in effect’ is the meaning. The metaphorical sense of οἰκοδομή , ‘ building up the spiritual life,’ is peculiar to St Paul in the N.T., in Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., and Eph.: elsewhere (Matthew 24:1; Mark 13:1, Mark 13:2) of actual buildings or edifices. Παράκλησις , ‘ a calling near,’ is sometimes ‘ supplication’ (2 Corinthians 8:4), ‘ exhortation’ (Philippians 2:1), ‘ consolation’ (2 Corinthians 1:4-7) or a combination of the last two, ‘ encouragement’ (Hebrews 6:18, Hebrews 12:5). ‘ Exhortation’ or ‘ encouragement’ is right here. ‘ Consolation’ or ‘ comfort’ must be reserved for παραμυθία , which occurs nowhere else in the N.T.; in the LXX, Wisd. 19:12. But in Philippians 2:1 we have παραμύθιον coupled with παράκλησις , and in 1 Thessalonians 2:11 we have παρακαλοῦντεςκαὶπαραμυθούμενοι . Prophesying was the power of seeing and making known the nature and will of God, a gift of insight into truth and of power in imparting it, and hence a capacity for building up men’ s characters, quickening their wills, and encouraging their spirits. The three are co-ordinate: not build up by quickening and encouraging, nor build up and quicken in order to encourage. Compare Barnabas = ‘ son of prophecy’ = υἱὸςπαρακλήσεως (Acts 4:36). Exhortatio tollit tarditatem, adhortatio timiditatem. See W. E. Chadwick, The Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, ch. ix.; Weinel, St Paul, 113 f. 4. ὁλαλῶνγλώσσῃἑαυτὸνοἰκοδομεῖ . By communing with God in supernatural language the man who spoke in a Tongue built up himself. But, as Chrysostom says, What a difference between one person and the Church! Although there is no τήν before ἐκκλησίαν , ‘ the Church’ is nearer the meaning than ‘ a Church’ or ‘ a congregation’ ; yet either of the latter is admissible. See Alford and Ellicott, ad loc. But there is no sarcasm; se ipsum aedificat, ut ipse quidem putat; sibi placet. Revera autem neminem aedificat. In both v. 2 and v. 4, D E with Arm. and other authorities have γλώσσαις for γλώσσῃ . Some (A E K L) insert τῷ before Θεῷ in v. 2, but here none insert τήν before ἐκκλησίαν . 5. θέλωδὲπάνταςὑμᾶςλαλεῖνγλώσσαις , μᾶλλονδὲἵναπροφητεύητε . The change from the infinitive to ἵνα is perhaps meant to make the wish more intense; but this is sufficiently expressed by the μᾶλλον . See J. H. Moulton, Gr. p. 208. Nowhere else does St Paul use θέλωἵνα , but it is not rare (Matthew 7:12; Mark 6:25, Mark 6:9:30; Luke 6:31; John 17:24): in such cases the telic force is lost, and the ἵνα gives the object of the wish. ‘ Now I wish that all of you might speak with Tongues, yet I wish still more that ye should prophesy; as (δέ as in v. 2) greater is he,’ etc. The ‘ for’ of AV. is a little too pronounced, but is defensible, even without γάρ for δέ : see below. The Corinthians are exhorted ne, praepostero zelo, quod praecipuum est minoribus postponant (Calv.). As M. Aurelius (viii. 59) says, “ Men are made for one another.” As for the unsatisfactory ones, “ either teach them better or put up with them.” The apodosis (τίὑμᾶςὠφελήσῶ ;) is placed between two protases, which are co-ordinate, the second, on the negative side, being complementary to the first, on the positive side; ‘ If I come speaking with Tongues, instead of speaking either in the way of revelation,’ etc. ἐκτὸςεἰμὴδιερμηνεύῃ . Pleonastic combination of ἐκτὸςεἰ and εἰμή : ‘ with this exception, unless he interpret’ ; comp. 15:2; 1 Timothy 5:19. The man who spoke in a Tongue might also have the gift of interpreting Tongues, and si accedat interpretatio, jam exit prophetia (Calv.). The δια - in διερμηνεύειν may indicate either ‘ being a go-between’ or ‘ thoroughness.’ One who interprets his own words intervenes between unintelligible utterance and the hearers: comp. 13, 27, 12:30. μείζωνδέ (א A B P, Copt.) is to be prefered to μείζωνγάρ (D F K L, Latt. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.). Nisi forte interpretetur (Vulg.), ‘ unless possibly he should interpret,’ is not exact: this would require ἐάν . Omit forte: the εἰ intimates that his interpreting decides the point. It would be known that he possessed the gift of interpretation. On ἐκτὸςεἰμή see Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 118, and on εἰ with the subjunctive see J. H. Moulton, Gr. i. p. 187, and Ellicott on 1 Corinthians 9:11. where some good texts have θερίσωμεν . This is the only sure instance in the N.T., and it means that his subsequent interpretation is regarded as quite possible. 6. The first of a series of three arguments, drawn from their experience of him as a teacher. They are hoping to see him again. What good would he do them, if all that they got from him was ecstatic language, in which he excelled, but which they would not understand. To do them good he must speak intelligible language, of which he gives four examples in pairs that correspond: revelation is imparted by inspired preaching, and knowledge by doctrine; i.e. ἀποκάλυψις and γνῶσις are the internal gifts of which προφητεία and διδαχή are the external manifestation.* The ἐν expresses the form in which the λαλεῖν takes place. Dionysius of Alexandria seems to have had this passage in his mind in famous criticism of the Johannine writiags (Eus. H.E. VII xxv. 26). ‘ But, as it is (seeing that without interpretation there can be no general edification), if I should come unto you (16:3) speaking in Tongues, what shall I profit you (Galatians 5:2)? What shall I profit you, unless I should speak to you either in the way of revelation?’ etc. See the paraphrase above. νῦν (א A B D* F G P) rather than νυνί (E K L). The νῦν is logical, as in 5:11, 7:14, 12:18, 20, and as νυνί in 13:13, not temporal; and in the construction of the verse τίὑμᾶςὠφ . is virtually repeated. ‘ Teaching,’ the act of giving instruction,’ is better than ‘ doctrine’ (AV.) for διδαχή : ‘ doctrine’ would be διδασκαλία (Ephesians 4:14; Colossians 2:22; 1 Timothy 1:10, etc.). But the distinction is not always observed. 7. Second argument, from the sounds of inanimate instruments. What use would they be, if the notes were indistinguishable? The αὐλός (here only in N.T.) and κιθάρα (Revelation 14:2) are given as representatives of all wind and stringed instruments. They were the commonest in use at banquets, funerals, and religious ceremonies. The music must be different, if it is to guide people to be joyous, or sorrowful, or devout. Soulless instruments can be made to speak a language, but not if all the notes are alike. ‘ Yet things without life giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, if they should give no distinction to the sounds, how shall be known what is piped and what is harped?’ AV. has ‘ sound’ for both φωνή and φθόγγος , and both AV. and RV. ignore the repetition of the τό . Except for Romans 10:18, φθόγγοις might be translated ‘ notes.’ Perhaps, as in Galatians 3:15, the ὅμως is attracted out of its place, and the sentence is meant to run— ‘ Inanimate things, although giving a voice, yet, unless,’ etc. Ἄψυχος occurs Wisd. 13:17, 14:29, but nowhere else in N.T. In Judith 14:9 we have ἔδωκενφωνήν , and in Wisd. 19:18, ὤσπερἐνψαλτηρίῳφθόγγοιτοῦῥυθμοῦτὸὄνομαδιαλλάσσουσιν . For τοῖςφθόγγοις א A D E K L P, Vulg.), B, d e Arm., Ambrst. have φθόγγου , and for δῷ (א A B D*), E F L P have διδῷ . See Matthew 24:31; Revelation 14:2, Revelation 18:22 for φωνή , of musical sound; and Romans 3:22, Romans 10:12 for διαστολή as meaning ‘ distinction’ and not ‘ interval’ . But in music the difference of meaning is not great. 8. Another and stronger illustration. Of all musical sounds the military trumpet is the most potent, and far clearer than pipe or lyre. If sound is to be a signal, it must differ from other sounds. ‘ For if a trumpet also should give an uncertain voice, who will make ready for battle?’ * The context makes ‘ battle’ more probable than ‘ war.’ In Homer and Hesiod the meaning of ‘ battle’ is commonest (Il. 7:174 of a duel), in class. Grk. that of ‘ war.’ Cf. Numbers 10:9; Jeremiah 50:42; Ezekiel 7:14. In the Synoptists, ‘ war’ is the better translation. In James 4:1 πόλεμοικαὶμάχαι means bitter quarrels between individuals. Compare Clem. Rom. Cor. 46. On military signals with trumpets see Smith, Dict. Ant. ‘ Exercitus,’ 1. p. 801; ‘ Tuba,’ 2. p. 901. For ἄδηλος see the unmarked graves, τὰμνημεῖατὰἄδηλα (Luke 11:44): the word is found nowhere else in N.T. and is rare in LXX. Here, ἄδηλονσάλπ . φων . is the right order, and also the most effective. 9. If the military trumpet is more potent than pipe or lyre, still more expressive is the human tongue; but that also can produce sounds which convey no meaning. ‘ So also ye, unless by means of the tongue ye give speech that is distinct, how shall it be known what is spoken?’ The tongue here means the organ of speech, not the ecstatic Tongue, which never gave εὔσημονλόγον , but rather what was ἄσημον , excepting to one who had the gift of interpretation. Εὔσημος (here only, but classical) means ‘ well-marked,’ ‘ definite,’ ‘ significant.’ Origen suggests that this text intimates that the obscure portions of Scripture, such as the account of the sacrifices in Leviticus and of the Tabernacle in Exodus, ought not to be read in public worship, unless some one explains their meaning. ἔσεσθεγὰρεἰςἀέραλαλοῦντες . ‘ For ye will be speaking into the air’ — to the winds. The periphrastic tense indicates the lasting condition to which the unintelligible speaker is reduced. Compare ἀέραδέρων , 9:26; also Wisd. 5:11, 12: except in Wisd., ἀήρ is rare in the LXX.* Tu fac ne ventis verba profundam (Lucr. iv. 932). 10. Third argument, from the sounds of human language. Speech is useless to the hearer, unless he understands it. τοσαῦτα , εἰτύχοι , γένηφωνῶν … καὶοὐδὲνἄφωνον . ‘ There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices (Genesis 11:1, Genesis 11:7) in the world, and no kind (of course) is voiceless’ (12:2; Acts 8:32). But here ἄφωνος does not mean ‘ dumb’ but, what may be worse, ‘ unintelligible.’ Voiceless voice, i.e. meaningless sound, had better be inaudible; it is mere distracting noise. This was just the case with Tongues in a congregation without an interpreter. Wetstein gives many examples of εἰτύχοι , ‘ if it so happens,’ or ‘ I dare say.’ It implies that the number is large, but that the exact number does not matter: ‘ There are, I dare say, ever so many kinds.’ For ἐνκόσμῳ without the article, ‘ in existence,’ comp. 8:4; 2 Corinthians 5:19.† Probably γένος is to be understood with ουδέν : to say that nothing is without a voice of some kind would hardly be true. But the Vulg. takes it so; nihil sine voce est; nihil horum mutum (Calv.); nihil est mutum (Beza); which moreover destroys the oxymoron in φωνὴἄφωνος : comp. χάριςἄχαρις , βίοςἄβιος or ἀβίωτος , γάμοςἄγαμος , πλοῦτοςἄπλουτος . Nullum genus vocum vocis expers is better. Speech without meaning is a contradiction in terms. No doubt ἐστίν (K L Chrys. Thdrt.) is a grammatical correction of εἰσίν (א A B D E F G P); but the plural is deliberate, to emphasize the number of different kinds. A few authorities insert τῷ before κόσμῳ , αὐτῶν after οὐδέν , and ἐστίν after ἄφωνον : in all cases א * A B P with other witnesses omit. 11. All kinds of languages met at commercial Corinth with its harbours on two seas, and difference of language was a frequent barrier to common action. Moreover, it was well known how exasperating it could be for two intelligent persons to be unintelligible to one another. Yet the Corinthians were introducing these barriers and provocations into Christian worship, and all for the sake of display! ἐὰνοὖνμὴεἰδῶ … ἐνἐμοὶβάρβαρος . ‘ Unless, therefore, I know the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him who speaks to me a barbarian, and he who speaks will in my estimation be a barbarian.’ The second result is more obvious than the first; but the Apostle assumes that the foreigner sees quite plainly that his words are not understood. Comp. Romans 1:14; Colossians 3:11; Acts 28:2, Acts 28:4. Βάρβαρος , like ‘ gibberish,’ is probably meant to imitate unintelligible sounds. AV., with D E F G, Latt. Syrr. Copt. Arm., Chrys, omits the ἐν before ἐμοί : ‘ unto me.’ Compare Hdt. ii. 158; Ovid, Trist. v. 10, 11; and see J. H. Moulton, p.103. 12. οὕτωςκαὶὑμεῖς … ἵναπερισσεύητε . ‘ So also ye (v. 9), seeing that ye are earnestly desirous of spiritual manifestations (enthusiastic after spirits), let it be for the edifying of the Church that ye seek to abound.’ The Corinthians were eager for these brilliant charismata. St Paul does not blame them, but charges them to have a right motive for desiring them, viz, the building up of others rather than their own gratification. Origen says that the way to increase one’ s charismata is to use them for the good of others: otherwise the gifts may wane. Cf. Philo, De Decalogo, 105. For οὕτως see 6:5, 8:12; for ζηλωταί , Galatians 1:14; Acts 22:3; for πνευμάτων in this sense, 12:10; for the inversion of order for the sake of emphasis, 3:5, 7:17; Romans 12:3. Some would translate; ‘ For the edifying of the Church seek (them), that ye may abound (in them).’ This is not so probable as the other. There is perhaps a touch of irony or of rebuke in ‘ seeing that ye are so eager for.’ This exhortation closes the first series of arguments. The next verse (13) is a corollary from πρὸςτὴνοἰκοδομὴν … , and leads to the second series. 13. Διὸὁλαλῶνγλώσσῃπροσευχέσθωἵναδιερμηνεύῃ . ‘ It follows from this (12:3; Galatians 4:31, etc.) that he who speaks in a Tongue should pray that he may interpret,’ i.e. have the gift of interpretation also. This prayer might precede or follow the ecstatic speech. The verse does not necessarily mean ‘ Let him in his ecstasy pray that he may be allowed to interpret’ ; still less, ‘ Let him in his ecstasy pray in such a way as to make his utterance intelligible.’ It was characteristic of glossolalia that the speaker could not make his speech intelligible; and apparently he had no control over the sounds that he uttered, although he could abstain from uttering them. It does not follow that, because we have προσεύχωμαιγλώσσῃ in v. 14, therefore γλώσσῃ is to be understood with προσευχέσθω in v. 13: γλώσσῃ is indispensable in v. 14. Διό is found in all groups of the Pauline Epp., except the Pastorals, and is specially frequent in this group. 14. First argument of the second series. The gift of Tongues is inferior to other gifts, because in it the reason has no control; and the Apostle has misgivings about devotions in which the reason has no part (v. 19). Strange that Corinthians should need to be told that intellect is not to be ignored, but ought to be brought to full development (v. 20). “ Feeling is a precious gift; but when men parade it and give way to it, it is weakness instead of strength” (F.W. Robertson, Corinthians, p. 228). ἐὰνγὰρπροσεύχωμαιγλώσσῃ . ‘ For if ever I pray in a Tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful,’ because it does no good to others. There is no οἰκοδομή for the congregation, because what he utters is not framed by his intellect to convey any meaning to them. Hilary says that Latins sometimes sang Greek songs for the mere pleasure of the sound, without understanding what they sang. Note that it is the πνεῦμα , not the ψυχή , that prays; and prayer here includes praise and thanksgiving. The preacher’ s fruit is to be sought in the hearer’ s progress, not in his own delight or in their admiration of his gift. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. iv. iii. 33) speaks of τὰκαλὰκαὶἄκαρπα , objects of beauty which do not pay, though they delight all and dignify the possessor. For νοῦς see Luke 24:45; Revelation 13:18, Revelation 17:9. 15. τίοὖνἐστίν ; ‘ What then is the outcome?’ How do we stand after this discussion (v. 26; Romans 3:9, Romans 3:6:15; Acts 21:22) as to the conditions of being of use to others in one’ s devotions? Unreasoning emotionalism will not do. ‘ I will pray with the spirit (that of course); but I will pray with the understanding also,’ so as to be able to edify others: ‘ I will sing praise with the spirit, but,’ etc. There is no thought here of liturgical music; it is the individual spontaneously using a special gift in the congregation; “ impromptu utterance of sacred song” (Beet). Comp. Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16: ψάλλω originally meant playing on a stringed instrument; then singing to the harp or lyre; finally, singing without accompaniment, especially singing praise— τῷκυρίῳ , τῷὀνόματιαὐτοῦκ .τ .λ . It is possible that the ecstatic utterances sometimes took the form of an inarticulate chant, songs without intelligible words or definite melody. Compare ψάλατεσυνετῶς (Psalms 47:8). 16. Second argument. Tongues are a stumbling-block to the ungifted, for ineffable emotion is a hindrance rather than a help to those who witness it. ‘ For else, if ever thou art blessing God in spirit,’ i.e. thanking Him in ecstasy, ‘ how shall he who occupies the place of the ungifted say the (usual) Amen after thy giving of thanks, seeing that he knows not what thou art saying?’ You may be engaged in the highest kind of devotion, nobilissima species orandi (Beng.), but it conveys no meaning to those who cannot interpret the language used. It is obvious that εὐχαριστία here cannot mean the Eucharist. The minister at that service would not speak in a Tongue. Nor is it probable that in ‘ the Amen’ there is indirect reference to the Eucharist. The use of the responsive Amen at the end of the prayers, and especially of the reader’ s doxology, had long been common in the synagogues (Nehemiah 5:13, Nehemiah 5:8:6; 1 Chronicles 16:36; Psalms 106:48), and had thence passed into the Christian Church, where it at once became a prominent feature (Justin M. Apol. 1. 65; Tertul. De Spectac. 25; Cornelius Bishop of Rome in Eus. H.E. vi. xliii. 19; Chrys. ad loc.), especially at the end of the consecration prayer in the Eucharist. So common did it become at the end of every prayer in Christian worship that the Jews, it is said, began to abandon it; Jerome says that it was like thunder. The Rabbis gave similar instructions about the ἰδιώτης : the language should be such as he can understand. Hastings, DCG. 1. p. 51, DB. 1. p. 80; Dalman, The Words of Jesus, p. 226. In the LXX the Hebrew word is retained in the responsive passages (Nehemiah 5:13, Nehemiah 5:8:6; 1 Chronicles 16:36; 1Ch_1 Esdr. 9:47; Tobit 8:8), but in the Psalms and elsewhere it is translated γένοιτο . The Vulgate has fiat in the Psalms, elsewhere ‘ Amen.’ It is evident from this passage that a great deal of the service was extempore, and both the Didache and Justin show that this continued for some time. Apparently the prophets had more freedom in this respect than others. For ἐπί see Philippians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:7. The precise meaning of both τόπος and ἰδιώτης is uncertain. But it is unlikely that at this early period, when the Christians in each town met for common worship in private houses, there was a portion of the room set apart for the ἰδιῶται , or that these were laymen as distinct from officials. No clearly marked distinctions had as yet been drawn between ministers and laity. In Acts 4:13 (see Knowling’ s note), ‘ without special training,’ ‘ uneducated,’ seems to be the meaning, and in 2 Corinthians 11:6 the Apostle probably means that he was not a trained orator or professional speaker. Here ‘ unlearned’ or ‘ inexperienced’ may be the meaning; but RV. margin is probably right; ‘ without gifts,’ i.e. having no gift of Tongues, or of interpretation, or of prophesying. It would therefore be somewhat like ἀμύητος , ‘ uninitiated.’ Tyndale and Coverdale have ‘ laye people’ in Acts and ‘ unlearned’ here. In any case the Apostle’ s argument is clear. It would be ἄτοπον that one who has a place in public worship should be prevented from joining in it, owing to the language used being unintelligible. Tongues were not given to encourage vanity, or to hinder the devotions of others. Wetstein gives abundant illustrations of the different meanings of ἰδιώτης : see also Suicer on both ἰδιώτης and Ἀμήν . Conybeare, and Howson explain ἰδιώτης as one “ who takes no part in the particular matter in hand” — an outsider, unbetheiligt. εὐλογῇς (א A B D E P) rather than εὐλογήσῃς (F G K L, Latt. benedixeris), and πνεύματι (א * A F G 17, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. rather than ἐνπνεύματι (B D) or τῷπν . (K L, Chrys.), or ἐντῷπν . (P). 17. σὺμὲνγὰρκαλῶςεὐχαριστεῖς . The σύ is emphatic, εὐχαριστεῖς is synonymous with the preceding εὐλογῇς , and there is perhaps a touch of irony in the καλῶς : ‘ Thy beautiful thanksgiving is quite lost on the poor ἰδιώτης .’ Or the καλῶς may mean, ‘ Do not think that I consider Tongues to be worthless; God’ s gifts, if rightly used, are always valuable to the receiver; but Tongues are no good to the ungifted hearer.’ Note ἀλλά instead of δέ after μέν , intensifying the contrast; ‘ but none the less.’ 18. Third argument, from his own case; comp. v. 6, 4:6, 9:1 f., 13:1-3. He, if any one, has a right to speak with Tongues in the congregation, yet he will not. He knows what he is talking about; he is not depreciating a gift of which he has no experience. In 13:1 he spoke hypothetically of possessing this gift. Here he says plainly that he possesses it with greater intensity than all of them, which perhaps implies that the fact was not generally known, because he exercised the gift in private. Here we have strong evidence that Tongues are not foreign languages. He does not say that he speaks ‘ in more tongues’ ; and he could use his understanding in speaking Latin or Syriac just as much as in speaking Greek. In saying that the man who was most richly endowed with this gift was one who abstained from using it in public, he perhaps hints that those who were not greatly endowed were the people who gave themselves most airs about it. εὐχαριστῶτῷΘεῷ . This cannot refer to the Eucharist, and to some extent confirms the view that vv. 16, 17 do not. πάντωνὑμῶνμᾶλλον . The emphatic position of πάντων perhaps means ‘ more than all of you put together’ : but ‘ more than any of you’ is sufficient for the argument. The omission of ὅτι before πάντων raises the second sentence in importance, making it co-ordinate instead of dependent. How “ perfectly sane and sober” the Apostle is in all this is well pointed out by Weinel, St Paul, pp. 142 f. The AV. inserts ‘ my’ before ‘ God,’ with K L, Vulg. But nearly all other authorities omit. It is more difficult to decide between γλώσσῃ (א A D E F G 17, Latt. Arm.) and γλώσσαις (B K L P, Syrr. Copt. Aeth. Chrys. Thdrt.). But λαλῶ (א B D E P 17, Latt. Syrr. Copt. Arm.) is to be preferred to λαλῶν (KL, Chrys. Thdrt.), which is a correction arising from the absence of ὅτι . The omission of μᾶλλον is curious; omnium vestrum lingua loquor (Vulg. d f). A omits λαλῶ ; ‘ I give thanks in a Tongue.’ 19. ἀλλὰἐνἐκκλησίᾳ . ‘ But (whatever I may do in private) in an assembly I had rather speak five words with my understanding.’ For θέλω … ἤ , ‘ I prefer,’ comp. 2 Mac. 14:42; the use is classical (Hom. Il. 1. 117), and is found in papyri (Deissmann, Light, p. 179): and λαλῆσαι rather than λαλεῖν , because of the definite number of words spoken on the contemplated occasion. Κατηχήσω (Romans 2:18; Galatians 6:6; Luke 1:4) implies thorough instruction by word of mouth; of what is sounded down into the ear. The verb in N.T. is found in Paul and Luke only. La Rochefoucauld (Max. 142) contrasts the grands esprits who convey much meaning in few words with those who have le don de beaucoup parler et de rien dire.* 20. This verse is better taken as the beginning of a new portion of the subject rather than as the conclusion of what precedes. It opens affectionately. Comp. 10:14; Romans 10:1; Galatians 3:15, Galatians 3:6:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:25: in each case the opening Ἀδελφοί makes a fresh start. ‘ Brethren, do not prove children in your minds, but in jealousy of one another show yourselves (not merely children but) babes: in your minds (Proverbs 7:7, Proverbs 9:4) prove full-grown men’ ; i.e. ‘ Play the part of babies, if you like, in freedom from malice: but in common sense try to act like grown-up people.’ A severe rebuke to those who prided themselves on their intelligence. Children prefer what glitters and makes a show to what is much more valuable; and it was childish to prefer ecstatic utterance to other and far more useful gifts.† Nowhere else in N.T. does φρένες occur, but in LXX it is frequent in Proverbs in the phrase ἐνδεὴςφρενῶν , which St Paul may have in his mind. AV. and RV. are probably right in translating κακία ‘ malice’ or ‘ maliciousness,’ rather than ‘ wickedness’ or ‘ vice,’ in all the places in which it occurs in St Paul . In 1 Peter 2:1 (see Hort) it is joined with δόλος , φθόνοι , and καταλαλιαί . In class. Grk. κακία in the moral sense is opposed to ἀρετή , and is vice of any kind, but especially cowardice. Later it comes to mean maliciousness and ill-will; often in the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs; Symeon 4:6; Zabulon 8:5; Gad 6:7; and especially Benjamin 8:1; ἀπόδρατετὴνκακίαν , τὸνφθόνονκαὶτὴνμισαδελφίαν . See 2 Mal 4:4. Everywhere in St Paul the Vulgate has malitia, and even in Matthew 6:34; but in Acts 8:22 nequitia. Νηπιάζειν occurs nowhere else in the Bible: comp. 13:11; Romans 16:19. 21. ἐντῷνόμῳγέγραπται . ‘ In the Law it stands written.’ The reference is to Isaiah 28:11, Isaiah 28:12, and ὁνόμος here means Scripture generally; Romans 3:19; John 10:34, John 12:34, John 15:25. See Orig. Philocalia ix. 2; Suicer, 2. p. 416: πᾶσαντὴνπαλαιάν , οὐμόνοντὰΜωσαϊκά (Theoph.). But the connexion of the quotation with the argument here is not easy: perhaps something of this sort; ‘ I have pointed out that Tongues are a blessed experience to the individual believer, and that, if interpreted, they may benefit the believing congregation. Tongues have a further use, as a sign to unbelievers; not a convincing, saving sign, but a judicial sign. Just as the disobedient Jews, who refused to listen to the clear and intelligible message which God frequently sent to them through His Prophets, were chastised by being made to listen to the unintelligible language of foreign invaders, so those who now fail to believe the Gospel are chastised by hearing wonderful sounds which they cannot understand.’ If this is correct, we may compare Christ’ s use of parables to veil His meaning from those who could not or would not receive it. The quotation is very free, and is not from the LXX.* 1 Corinthians 14:21. LXX of Isa 28:11, Isaiah 28:12. Ὅτιἐνἑτερογλώσσοιςκαὶἐνχείλεσινἑτέρωνλαλήσωτῷλαῷτούτῳκαὶοὐδ ʼ οὕτωςεἰσακούσονταίμου , λέγειΚύριος . διὰφαυλισμὸνχειλέων , διὰγλώσσηςἑτέρας · ὅτιλαλήσουσιντῷλαῷτούτῳλέγοντεςαὐτοῖς , Τοῦτοτὸἀνάπαυματῷπεινῶντικαὶτοῦτοτὸσύντριμμα , καὶοὐκὴθέλησανἀκούειν . ‘ For with alien-tongued men and with lips of aliens will I speak to this people, and not even thus will they hearken unto Me, saith the Lord.’ The ὅτι is not recitative, but is part of the quotation, representing what might be rendered ‘ Yea’ or ‘ Truly for.’ In Isaiah the men with alien tongue are the Assyrians. Isaiah’ s opponents are supposed to have jeered at him for repeating the same simple message; “ We are not children, requiring to be told the same thing over and over again.” Then he threatens them with the terrible gibberish (like stammering) of foreign invaders. See W. E. Barnes, ad loc. The main part of the application here is the conclusion, οὐδ ʼ οὕτωςεἰσακούσονταίμου , where the compound is stronger than the simple ἀκούειν , and perhaps represents ‘ willing to listen’ Luke 1:13; Acts 10:31; Hebrews 5:7— of God’ s listening to prayer. ἑτέραιςγλώσσαις F G, Vulg. in aliis linguis, Tert.) for ἑτερογλώσσοις , and ἐτέροις (D E F G K L P, Latt.) for ἑτέρων (א A B 17 and other cursives) are probably corrections of scribes. Ἑτερόγλωσσος is found, in Aquila, but not in LXX. 22. ὥστε . ‘ So then (i.e. in harmony with this passage of Scripture), the Tongues are for a sign to men who do not believe.’ He does not say that they are a sign, but that they are intended to serve as such— εἰςσημεῖον : Genesis 9:13; Numbers 16:38, Numbers 16:17:10; Deuteronomy 6:8, Deuteronomy 11:18, etc. Nor does he say what kind of a sign, but the context shows that it is for judgment rather than for salvation: comp. εἰςμαρτύριον (Mark 1:44, Mark 6:11, etc.), which is equally indefinite. No εἰςση . after προφητεία . 23. But it is obvious that, even for unbelievers, prophesying is more valuable than Tongues. ‘ If, therefore, the whole Church be come together to one place, and all are speaking with Tongues, and there come in ungifted people or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are raving?’ It was strange that what the Corinthians specially prided themselves on was a gift which, if exercised in public, would excite the derision of unbelievers. The Corinthians were crazy, although not exactly as heathen might suppose. Compare the charge of drunkenness at Pentecost; Acts 2:13. If ἐπὶτὸαὐτό means ‘ for the same object,’ the object might be the Tongues: the Corinthians came together to enjoy this spiritual luxury and exhibit it to others: but both here and 11:20 it probably means ‘ to the same place’ (Luke 17:35; Acts 1:15, Acts 2:1, Acts 3:1). In any case, πάντες does not mean that they all spoke at once: πάντες cannot mean that in v. 24, and therefore does not mean it here. It means that one after another they uttered unintelligible language, and no one said anything that ordinary persons could understand; the service consisted of glossolalia. Note the changes of tense; συνέλθῃ and εἰσέλθωσιν of what took place once for all, λαλῶσιν of what continued for some time. Perhaps in both verses (23, 24) he is assuming an extreme case for the sake of argument, that all present have the gift of Tongues, and that all present have the gift of prophesying. The latter would be very much better. Evidently, the heathen sometimes obtained admission to Christian assemblies as to the synagogues. This may have depended upon local custom, or upon the character of the intruders, who might be friends of the family in whose house the assembly was held. See Swete on Revelation 3:8. 24. ἐὰνδὲπάντεςπροφητεύωσιν . ‘ Whereas, if all should be prophesying, and there should come in some unbeliever or ungifted person.’ The change to the singular and the change of order have point. A good effect would be more probable in the case of an individual than of a group; and if the ἄπιστος was deeply moved by what he heard, a fortiori the ἰδιώτης would be. In the former case the argument is the other way: if ἰδιῶται said that they were demented, still more would ἄπιστοι do so. Speaking with Tongues infidelem sibi relinquit; inspired preaching ex infidelibus credentes facit, et fideles pascit (Beng.). ἐλέγχεταιὑπὸπάντων . ‘ He is convicted by all’ ; by all the inspired speakers, whose preaching arouses his conscience (Hebrews 4:12). ‘ He is convinced of all’ (AV.) is ambiguous and misleading. ‘ Convince’ formerly = ‘ convict’ or ‘ refute’ (John 8:46; Job 32:12). For ‘ of’ = ‘ by’ see 11:32; Philippians 3:12; Matthew 6:1; Luke 14:8; and “ may of Thee be plenteously rewarded.” ἀνακρίνεταιὑπὸπάντων . ‘ He is searched into by all’ ; 9:3, 10:25, 27; Luke 23:14, etc. There are three stages in the process of conversion: (1) he is convinced of his sinful condition; (2) he is put upon his trial, and the details of his condition are investigated; (3) the details are made plain to him. On the unsatisfactory renderings of κρίνω and its compounds in the AV. see Lightfoot, On Revision, pp. 69 f. 25. The scrutiny in the court of conscience produces self-revelation, self-condemnation, and submission. ‘ The secrets of his heart become manifest, and thus, falling upon his face, he will worship God.’ A spontaneous expression of submission and thankfulness; but the homage is to God, not to the inspired speaker. The gift of prophesying, however successful, is no glory to the possessor of it. It is the Spirit of God, not the preacher’ s own power, that works the wonderful effect. This verse seems to be at variance with v. 22; ‘ prophesying is not for the unbelieving’ : but the discrepancy is only apparent. The comparison with the disobedient Israelites shows that the ἄπιστοι in v. 22 have heard the word and rejected it. Here the context shows that the ἄπιστος has not previously heard. Comp. Saul and his messengers (1 Samuel 19:20-24). With ‘ fall down on his face’ comp. the Samaritan leper (Luke 17:16). In the Gospels προσκυνεῖν is frequent, but here only in St Paul. The ἰδιώτης is almost forgotten in this stronger instance: if an unbeliever is thus τετραχηλισμένος (Hebrews 4:13), how much more the ungifted or inexperienced Christian. ἀπαγγέλλωνὅτιὄντωςὁΘεὸςἐνὑμῖνἐστίν . ‘ Proclaiming that (so far from your being mad, and little as he had hitherto supposed that you were thus blessed) verily God is among you.’ In ἀπαγγέλλων the sender rather than the destination (ἀνσγγ .) of the message is thought of: he spreads it abroad from (abkü ndigen). This declaration begins there and then, and is continued afterwards: ultro, plane, diserte pronuncians Deum vere esse in vobis et verum Deum esse qui in vobis est (Beng.); ὄντως , in spite of his previous scoffs and denials, there is the Real Presence of the true God. The article before Θεός is doubtless genuine (א 3 B D2 D3 E K L); it has special point in the unbeliever’ s confession. Both ‘ among you’ as a congregation and ‘ in your hearts’ as individuals would be included in ἐνὑμῖν , but the former most strongly. Compare the confession of Alcibiades as to the effect of Socrates upon him; “ I have heard Pericles and other great orators, but I never had any similar feeling; my soul was not stirred by them, nor was I angry at the thought of my slavish state. But Socrates makes me confess that I ought not to live as I do, neglecting the wants of my soul. And he is the only person who ever made me ashamed: for I know that I cannot answer him or say that I ought not to do as he bids,” etc. (Plato, Symposium, 215, 216). For ὄντως , see Galatians 3:21; Mark 11:32. The A V., with some inferior MSS., has ‘ and thus’ at the beginning of the verse (א A B D* F G, Vulg. omit), and repeats ‘ and so’ in the proper place. 26-33. Regulations for the Orderly Exercise of Tongues and Prophesying in the Congregation St Paul has here completed his treatment (12-14.) of πνευματικά . He now gives detailed directions as to their use. 26. Τίοὖνἐστίν , ἀδελφοί ; ‘ What then is the result, brethren,’ of this discussion? Comp. v. 15. In answering his own question he first gives the facts of the case, then states the indispensable principle that all things are to be done unto edifying, and finally gives practical directions for applying this principle. ὅτανσυνέρχησθε . ‘ Whenever ye are coming together (v. 23, 11:17, 18, 20), each has ready (comp. πάντες , vv. 23, 24) a psalm to improvise, a lesson to give, a revelation to make known, a Tongue to utter, an interpretation to explain the Tongue.’ All these gifts are there in the several individuals ready to be manifested. By all means let them be manifested. But never lose sight of the more excellent way of love: let the edification of others be the end ever in view.* The spontaneous character of the manifestations is graphically indicated. There was no lack of persons eager to manifest some gift. But perhaps the Apostle intimates that they do not come to public worship quite in the right spirit. This readiness to come to the front would be sure to lead to abuse unless carefully controlled. What they ought to be eager to do is to use their gifts for the good of all. This is the optima norma. But we cannot safely infer that we have here the order in which the manifestations commonly took place at Corinth,— first a psalm, then instruction, and so on. Compare the account of Christian assemblies in Tertullian (Apol. 39). The account of the Therapeutae ought not to be quoted in illustration, still less as Philo’ s: the περὶβίουθεωρητικοῦ is possibly a Christian fiction, and perhaps wholly imaginative. With ἕκαστοςἔχει compare ἕκαστοςλέγει (1:12), and for improvised psalms see Moses and Miriam (Exo_15.), Balaam (Num. 23., Numbers 23:24.), Deborah (Jdg_5), and the Canticles (Luke 1:2). It is remarkable that there is no προφητείανἔχει . Was that gift so despised at Corinth that those who possessed it did not often come forward? Ψαλμός occurs in N.T. in Paul and Luke only. Ἐρμηνία occurs nowhere else in N.T., excepting 12:10. The ὐμῶν after ἕκαστος (D E F G K L, Vulg. A V.) is probably spurious: א A B 17, Copt. RV. omit. And ἀποκάλυψινἔχει should precede γλῶσσανἔχει (א A B D E F G 17, Latt. Syrr. Copt. Aeth. RV.), not follow it (1, Chrys. Thdrt., AV.). The Tongue and the interpretation would be mentioned together. 27. εἴτεγλώσσῃτιςλαλεῖ . As in 12:28 a construction is begun and left unfinished. This is the first member of a distributive sentence, which ought to have gone on εἴτε … εἴτε . But there. is no second member: at v. 29, where it might have come, a new construction is started, perhaps because the εἴτε is forgotten, or perhaps deliberately, because the presence of prophets in the assembly is assumed as certain. Moreover, there is no verb with κατὰδύοκ .τ .λ ., but λαλείτωσαν is readily understood (1 Peter 4:11). There might be many ready to speak with Tongues, but the number was to be limited down to two, or at most three, who were to speak in turn. The insertion of ἀνὰμέρος perhaps implies that sometimes two tried to speak at once.* One, and one only , was to interpret; there was to be no interpreting in turn, which might lead to profitless discussion. Moreover, this would be a security against two speaking with Tongues at the same time, for one interpreter could not attend to both. Possibly the gift of interpretation was more rare, for the possibility of there being no interpreter present is contemplated. 28. σιγάτωἐνἐκκλησίᾳ . In strict grammar, this should mean that the interpreter must keep silence, but the change of subject is quite intelligible, and indeed necessary. The verb is one of many which in N.T. are found only in Paul and Luke (Hawkins, Hor. Syn. p. 191). ἐαυτῷδὲλαλείτω . The pronoun is emphatic: ‘ to himself let him speak,’ that is, in private, not in the congregation. It cannot mean that he is to ‘ commune with his own heart,’ in public, ‘ and be still.’ † The whole point of λαλεῖν throughout the chapter is that of making audible utterance. If he cannot interpret his Tongue, and there is no interpreter present, he must not exercise his gift until he is alone. The difference between διερμηνευτής (A E K L) and ἑρμηνευτής (B D* F G) is unimportant. The latter occurs Genesis 42:23, the former nowhere else in Biblical Greek. 29. The directions with regard to prophesying are much the same as those with regard to Tongues, but are less explicit. Not more than three are to prophesy on any one occasion, and of course only one at a time; but ἢτὸπλεῖστον is here omitted. Of those who speak with Tongues, three in one assembly, with one interpreter, is an absolute maximum; of those who prophesy, three would generally be a convenient limit. οἱἄλλοιδιακρινέτωσαν . ‘ Let the others discern,’ caeteri dijudicent; let them discriminate whether what is being said is really inspired. This ‘ discerning of spirits,’ διάκρισιςπνευμάτων (12:10), was a gift, and it is assumed that an inspired preacher would possess it. There was the possibility that ἑαντῷτιςλαμβάνειτὴντιμήν of prophesying, without being καλούμενοςὑπὸτοῦΘεοῦ (Hebrews 5:4). The listening prophets are therefore to use this gift: they are etiam tacendo utiles Ecclesiae (Calv.) by preserving the congregation from being misled by one who is not really guided by the Spirit, but “ by some evil spirit fashioning himself into an angel of light,” as Origen puts it. It is a mistake to say that in the Didache a contrary instruction to this is given. There the command is: πάνταπροφήτηνλαλοῦταἐνπνεύματιοὐπειράσετεοὐδὲδιακρινεῖτε · πᾶσαγὰρἁμαρτίαἀφεθήδεται , αὕτηδὲἡἁμαρτίαοὐκἀφεθήδεται (11:7). The prophet has been tested, and found to be a true prophet, and it is expressly stated that he is speaking ἐνπνεύματιͅ : therefore to question his utterances would be ἡτοῦΠνεύματοςβλασφημία (Matthew 12:31). As in Philippians 2:3 and 4:3 , ‘ the other’ (AV.) is here plural: comp. Joshua 8:22; 2 Chronicles 32:32; Job 24:24. But ‘ let the other judge’ now seems to apply to only one of the listening prophets: comp. v.17. οἵἀλλοι (א A B E K, Vulg.) is to be preferred to ἄλλοι (D F G L), and διακρινέτωσαν (א A B E K L) to ἀνακρινέτωσαν (D F G), ‘ examine’ (Arm.). 30. ἐὰνδὲἄλλῳἀποκαλυφθῇκαθημένῳ . ‘ But if a revelation be made to another sitting by.’ As in the synagogue, the congregation sat to listen to reading or preaching, and perhaps we may infer that the reader or preacher stood (Luke 4:16; Acts 13:16). The ἄλλος would no doubt give some sign that he had received a call to speak, and in that case the one who was then speaking was to draw to a close. The Apostle does not say σιγησάτω , ‘ let him at once be silent,’ but σιγάτω , which need not mean that. Those who often addressed the congregation would be open to the temptation of continuing to speak after their message was delivered, and they would certainly need the exhortations and warnings of other inspired preachers. No one was to occupy the whole time to the exclusion of others, and each ought to rejoice that others possessed this gift as well as himself (Numbers 11:28). 31. δύνασθεγὰρκαθ ʼ ἕναπάντεςπροφητεύειν . ‘ For ye have the power, one by one, all of you, to prophesy.’ If each preacher stops when another receives a message, all the prophets, however many there may be, will be able to speak in successive assemblies, three at each meeting. They are capable of making room for one another, and (like the rest of the congregation) they are capable of receiving instruction and encouragement. The congregation would learn more through a change of preachers, and the preachers also would learn more through listening to one another.* 32. καὶπνεύματαπροφητῶνπροφήταιςὑποτάσσεται . ‘ And prophets’ spirits are subject to prophets. The present tense states an established fact or principle. The spirits of sibyls and pythonesses were not under their control; utterance continued till the impulse ceased. But this is not the case with one who is inspired by God; a preacher without self-control is no true prophet: and uncontrolled religious feeling is sure to lead to evil. This therefore is a second justification of ὁπρῶτοςσιγάτω : he can hold his peace, for prophets always have their own spirits under the control of their understanding and their will. Some would make προφητῶν refer to those who speak, and προφήταις to those for whom the speakers have to make room. But the juxtaposition of the two words is against this. Moreover, he does not say ‘ ought to be subject to,’ as a matter of order, but, ‘ are subject to,’ as a matter of fact. Again, why say ‘ spirits of prophets’ instead of ‘ prophets’ ? It would have been much simpler to say ‘ Prophets must be in subjection to one another’ if this had been his meaning. It is probable that πνεύματα means the prophetic charismata rather than the spirits of the persons who possess them, although the interpretation of the sentence is much the same in either case: comp. 12:10 and see Swete on Revelation 22:6. The omission of the article in all three places makes the saying more like a maxim or proverb; comp. ‘ Jews have no dealings with Samaritans’ (John 4:9). πνεύματα (א A B K L, Vulg. Copt.) may safely be preferred to πνεῦμα (D F, Aeth.), which probably was substituted under the influence of 12:4-13. Novatian has spiritus prophetarum prophetis subjectus est (De Trin. 29.). 33. οὐγάρἐστινἀκαταστασίαςὁΘεός . Proof that the prophetic gift is under control, and that therefore an inspired speaker can stop and give place to another. The God who gives the inspiration is not on the side of disorder and turbulence, but on that of peace. He cannot be a promoter of tumult, and therefore cannot inspire two people to speak simultaneously to the same audience. The fact of His inspiring a second speaker is proof that the first can stop and ought to do so. Inspiration is no excuse for conflict and confusion, and jealousies and dissensions are not signs of the presence of God (v. 25); ἡἀγάπηοὐκἀσχημονεῖ . The principle here stated justifies us in maintaining that miracles are not violations of law; God is not on the side of violations of law, but is on the side of peace, which results from preserving law: comp. ὁΘεὸςτῆςεἰρήνης (Romans 16:20). For ἀκαταστασία , which is a strong word— dissensio (Vulg.), seditio (Calv.)— compare 2 Corinthians 12:20; James 3:16; Luke 21:9.* ὡςἐνπάσαιςταῖςἐκκλησίαιςτῶνἁγίων . Added, as in 11:16, as conclusive, and the addition of τῶνἁγίων is made with some severity. Orderly reverence is a characteristic of all the Churches of the saints, a fact which raises doubts as to whether the Church at Corinth is a Church of saints: comp. 4:17, 7:17. Some editors place these words at the beginning of the next paragraph, where ἐνταῖςἐκκλησίαις makes them seem somewhat superfluous. Moreover, it is more probable that St Paul would begin the paragraph with the subject of it, αἱγυναῖκες , as in Ephesians 5:22, Ephesians 5:25, Ephesians 5:6:1, Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:18-22; 1 Peter 3:1, 1 Peter 3:7. Chrysostom mixes this clause with 4:17 and 7:17 and quotes οὕτωγὰρἐνπάσαιςταῖςἐκκλησίαιςτῶνἁγίωνδιδάσκω .† If St Paul had written this, it would of necessity belong to what precedes, and not to v. 34. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 15. THE OF THE OF THE DEAD Having treated of various social, moral, ecclesiastical, and liturgical questions, the Apostle now takes up a doctrinal one, which he has kept to the last because of its vital importance.† The Epistle begins with the subject of Christ Crucified (1:13-2:5); it ends with that of Christ Risen (15). This chapter has been called “ the earliest Christian doctrinal essay,” and it is the only part of the letter which deals directly with doctrine. There is here no trace of a question asked by the Corinthians: this subject St Paul starts himself, in consequence of information which has reached him. Thus the letter begins and ends in a similar way. At the outset he treated of a subject which had been reported to him (1:11), and he closes with one which again was suggested by what he had heard (v. 12),— that there were certain people at Corinth who denied the doctrine of the Resurrection. Who these persons were we do not know; but it is very improbable that they were converts who had originally been Sadducees, and who still retained some of their Sadducean leanings. The Corinthian Church was mainly a Gentile Church; and the errors with which the Apostle has been dealing were of Greek rather than Jewish origin. The Book of Daniel and Isaish 24-27, with other passages in the O.T., had made the Jew familiar with the doctrine of the bodily resurrection of individuals, at any rate of individual Jews; but to the Greeks, even to those who accepted the immortality of the soul, the idea of a bodily resurrection was foolishness.* We shall be safe in concluding that the sceptics alluded to in v. 12 were Greeks and not Jews. The gentleness of tone with which the preceding section closed is continued. The Apostle is anxious not to give offence. With gentle words he goes back to teaching of which they have already experienced the value, and disclaims all originality respecting it. He has merely passed on to them what he himself, on the highest authority, received. “ There is no historical fact more certain,” says Harnack, “ than that the Apostle Paul was not the first to emphasize so prominently the significance of Christ’ s Death and Resurrection, but that in recognizing their meaning he stood exactly on the same ground as the primitive community” (What is Christianity? p. 153). The chapter contains three sections, each of which is capable of subdivision, and perhaps some of these subdivisions are almost as important as the three sections, which are these; (1) The Resurrection of Christ is an Essential Article of the Gospel, 1-11. (2) If Christ is risen, the Dead in Christ will rise, 12-34. (3) Answers to Objections; the Nature of the Body of the Risen, 35-58. The conclusion reached in vv. 1-34 is that Christianity stands or falls with the fact of the Resurrection. The conclusion of the whole is that Victory over Death has been won, and that Christians must live in accordance with this certainty. See Swete, The Ascended Christ, pp. 163 f. 15:1-11. The Resurrection of Chirst is an Essential Article of the Gospel Here we have three subdivisions; (a) The Creed delivered to the Corinthians by St Paul, 1-4; (b) The Official Witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ, 5-8; (c) The Agreement between St Paul and the other Apostles respecting this Creed, 9-11. The substance of my preaching has been and is the historical fact of the Resurrection of Christ, which was predicted in Scripture, and is vouched for by competent witnesses, most of whom are still living. Among these are the other Apostles and myself; and, greatly as they differ from me in calling and work, we are absolutely agreed about this. 1 Now I have to remind you, Brothers, of the purport of the Glad-tidings with which I once gladdened you, which also you then received, in which also you now stand firm, 2 by means of which also you are in the way of salvation, if you are holding fast the Gospel with which I gladdened you,— unless, of course, you became Christians without thinking of the faith which you professed. 3 You remember the purport of my preaching; for I handed on to you in the forefront of everything what was no invention of my own, but what I also received, that Christ died for our sins, as the Scriptures have predicted, 4 and that He was buried, and that He has been raised from the dead— on the third day, as the Scriptures have predicted; 5 and that He appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve. 6 Afterwards He appeared to upwards of five hundred brethren at once, the majority of whom survive to the present day, but some have gone to their rest. 7 Next He appeared to James; then to the Apostles in a body: 8 and last of all, just as if to the untimely-born Apostle, He appeared also to me. 9 For I am the very least of the Apostles, and I am not fit to have the name of an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church, the Church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I have been made equal to being an Apostle; and His grace, which reached even to me, did not prove ineffectual. Quite the contrary; I toiled more effectually than all of them: yet not I, of course; it was the grace of God working with me. 11 Well, it is of no importance whether I or the other Apostles laboured more effectually: what does matter is this, that we all continue to preach the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and it was the Death and Resurrection of Christ that, at your conversion, you accepted and believed. 1, 2. Γνωρίζωδὲὑμῖν . ‘ Now I proceed to make known to you the Good-tidings (Isaiah 52:7) which I once brought to you, the Good-tidings which ye received, the Good-tidings in which ye stand firm, the Good-tidings by which ye are being saved.’ The καὶ … καὶ … καὶ … is a climax, and in English a repetition of the substantive gives the effect better than a repetition of the conjunction. Stanley follows Theodoret in making γνωρίζω = ἀναμιμνήσκω , ‘ I remind you,’ with which Chrysostom seems to agree. They had forgotten their own belief, so he has to call their attention to it. But γνωρίζω is simply ‘ I make known,’ notum facio (Vulg.), and is often used in the N.T. of preaching the Gospel. There is a gentle reproach in the word. He has to begin again and teach them an elementary fact, which they had already accepted. He can claim themselves as witnesses to its truth and efficacy. In the Pauline Epp. both γν . ὑμῖν (12:3; Galatians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 8:1) and εὐαγγέλιονεὐαγγελίζομαι (9:18; Galatians 1:2: 2 Corinthians 11:7) are peculiar to this group. The latter is an attractive expression, emphasizing the goodness and gladness of the message; but the repetition cannot well be reproduced in English: see above. The verses here are badly divided. ὃκαὶπαρελάβετεκ .τ .λ . He adduces three proofs that their own experience has shown to them the value of his doctrine: παρελάβετε looks to the past, ἑστήκατε to the present, σώζεσθε to what is being done for the future. They accepted his teaching; in it they stand with a firm foothold; and they are thus among οἱσωζόμενοι (1:18; Acts 2:47; 2 Corinthians 2:15), those who are in the way of salvation. Compare Ephesians 1:13. Quite incidentally (6:14), the Apostle has previously assumed that the doctrine of Christ’ s Resurrection and our consequent resurrection is admitted. See C.H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, pp. 38 f. and 50 f; F. H. Chase, Cambridge Theological Essays, pp. 391 ff. τίνιλόγῳεὐηγγελισάμηνὑμῖνεἰκατέχετε . ‘ If ye are holding fast with what word I preached it to you.’ Not ᾦ͂λόγῳ , ‘ the word with which,’ but τίνιλ ., ‘ with what word,’ the λόγος covering both the form and the substance of his teaching. Their standing erect in the way of salvation depends upon their keeping a firm hold (11:2) on what he taught and the very expressions which he used: quo sermone (Beza), rather than qua ratione (Vulg.), or quo pacto (Calv.). in 11:2 he affirms that they are holding fast the traditions of doctrine and discipline; here he puts it hypothetically, and εἰκατέχετε is displaced in order to give an emphatic position to τίνιλ . εὐηγγ . Such inversions of order are common. Blass, however, § 80. 6, thinks this very awkward. The RV. takes τίνιλόγῳ differently; ‘ I make known, I say, in what words I preached it unto you, if ye hold it fast.’ But this is scarcely tenable. St Paul’ s making known could not depend on their holding fast: he writes what he pleases, whatever their condition may be.* ἐκτὸςεἰμὴεἰκῇἐπιστεύσατε . ‘ With this proviso— unless ye believed haphazard’ : see on 14:5. There are two defects possible; they may not be holding fast what he taught, or they may have received it so hastily that they do not comprehend it. Belief adopted in a hurry is not likely to be very sure. He begins the discussion with this fear respecting them, and he ends it with a charge to be steadfast and unshifted (v. 58). Εἰκῇ is not ‘ in vain’ (AV., RV.), nor ‘ without cause’ (RV. marg.), but ‘ without consideration,’ ‘ heedlessly,’ ‘ rashly’ ; temere rather than frustra. †  This ἐκτὸςεἰμὴεἰκῇ states a misgiving which lies at the back of the whole chapter. Has the conversion of the Corinthians been superficial and unreal? Was it a shallow enthusiasm, or a passing fancy for some new thing? See Evans and Edwards on εἰκῇ . Ellicott and others prefer ‘ in vain.’ 3. παρέδωκαγὰρὑμῖνἐνπρώτοις . ‘ For I delivered to you (11:2) in the foremost place (Genesis 33:2) what I also received.’ Foremost in importance, not in time; the doctrine of the Resurrection is primary and cardinal, central and indispensable. The γάρ may look back either to γνωρίζωὑμῖν , or (better) to τίνιλόγῳ , ‘ You remember how I preached, for.’ St Paul lingers over this preface, qua eos quasi suspensos tenet (Beng.). What follows is almost a creed; but we need not suppose that it had already been formulated. Rather, this passage supplied material for the formulating of creeds. ὅκαὶπαρέλαβον . ‘ Which also I received.’ Nothing is said as to the source from which he received it, or the way in which the communication was made. It is possible that he received it from Christ by special revelation; but this is even less probable than in 11:23 (see notes there). Here there is neither ἐγώ nor ἀπὸτοῦΚυρίον to emphasize the authority either of the person who made the communication or of the Source from which he derived it. Neither of these is the question here. The point is that St Paul did not invent what he communicated to them; he received just what they received. The καί indicates the exact agreement of what he received with what he passed on to them. He appeals (vv. 5-7) to human testimony prior to his own experience, and it is reasonable to suppose that this is what is implied in παρέλαβον . In any case, it is clear that he does not appeal to documents either here or in 11:23. St Paul knows nothing of written Gospels; and ὅκαὶπαρέλαβον seems to refer to something quite different from ὤφθηκἀμοί (v. 8). And he knows nothing of a formulated Creed, neither in Romans 6:17, ‘ the standard of teaching to which ye were committed,’ nor in 2 Timothy 1:13, ‘ the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me.’ See Dobschü tz, Probleme, pp. 2, 106. He received the facts from the Apostles and others; the import of the facts was made known to him by Christ (Galatians 1:12). ἀπέθανενὑπὲρτῶνἁμαρτιῶνἡμῶν . ‘ He died for our sins,’ i.e. ‘ on account of our sins,’ not ‘ on behalf of them,’ which is hardly sense. One may die on behalf of sinners, but hardly on behalf of sins (2 Corinthians 5:14, 2 Corinthians 5:15; Galatians 3:13). On the whole, περί is used of things, τοῦδόντοςἑαυτὸνπερὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶνἡμῶν (Galatians 1:4, where see Lightfoot), and ὑπέρ of persons, Χριστὸςἅπαξπερὶἁμαρτιῶνἀπέθανεν , δίκαιοςὑπὲρἀδίκων (1 Peter 3:18), but exceptions abound. Neither preposition implies vicarious action, which would require ἄντί , but vicarious action may be implied in the context. Pro peccatis nostris abolendis (Beng.) gives the right meaning. There is a real connexion, beyond our comprehension, between Christ’ s death and the forgiveness of men’ s sins. This is in agreement with the O.T. (Isaiah 53:4-12), and this agreement is part of the εὐαγγέλιον which St Paul proclaimed to them. Nowhere else does he use the expression ὑπὲρτ . ἁμαρτιῶν : comp. Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:2, Ephesians 5:25; Titus 2:14. See Knowling, Messianic Interpretation, pp. 90 f. κατὰτὰςγραφάς . The double appeal to Scripture in so brief a statement is deliberate and important; and the divine prediction of what would take place is appropriately placed before the Apostolic testimony as to what did take place. The agreement of what did take place with what was foretold in Scripture is pointed out with special frequency in the writings of St Luke (22:37, 25-27, 44-46; Acts 2:25-27, Acts 2:3:35, Acts 2:13:34, Acts 2:35, Acts 2:17:3, Acts 2:18:28). See Cyril, Cat. Lect. 14, which is a commentary on these verses. καὶὅτιἐτάφη . The inclusion of this detail in so brief a statement of facts is remarkable. But the burial is carefully recorded in all four Gospels, and was evidently regarded as of importance. The importance there and here is that the burial was evidence of a bodily resurrection. The body was laid in the tomb, and the tomb was afterwards found to be empty.* καὶὅτιἐγήγερται . ‘ And that He hath been raised— on the third day.’ Change from aorists of what took place once for all to the perfect of a result which abides; He remains alive as the Risen One. By death and burial He came down to our level, by Resurrection He raised us to His: mortuus est iste nobiscum, ut nos cum ipso resurgamus (Calv.). ‘ On the third day’ does not harmonize well with a perfect, but it is added as of importance (1) as evidence of a bodily resurrection (comp. Acts 2:24 f.), and (2) to show the exact coincidence with prophecy (Hosea 6:2; comp. Psalms 16:10, Psalms 16:11; 17:15-24). Christ is said to have included ‘ on the third day’ in what was predicted in Scripture (Luke 24:46).† Matthew 12:40 cannot safely be quoted here, for there are strong reasons for believing that there we have the Evangelist’ s misunderstanding of Christ’ s words rather than the words themselves. Christ was not three days and three nights in the grave. See Allen ad loc. “ In any case we have here irresistible evidence that this difficult clause, ‘ raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures’ formed part of the earliest Christian creed; and its difficulty, and its antiquity, justify the conviction that the words proceeded from Christ Himself” (Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 188; see also pp. 186, 200). 5-8. We now have a list of the official Witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ, beginning with the first of the Apostles and ending with ‘ the least’ of them. The form of the sentence shows that at least the first two on the list, St Peter and the Twelve, had been quoted by St Paul to the Corinthians. Very likely the others had been quoted also, although the cessation of the ὅτι after v. 5 (perhaps simply to end a prolix sentence) leaves this doubtful. Of course St Paul had told them of his own experiences respecting the Risen Christ; and he probably knew of other witnesses not mentioned here. See Thorburn, The Resurrection Narratives and Modern Criticism, pp. 86 f. 5. καὶὅτιὤφθηΚηφᾷ . ‘ And that He appeared to Kephas.’ The coincidence with the incidental remark Luke 24:34 (comp. Mark 16:7) is noteworthy. Peter is first in all the four lists of the Apostles, and is expressly designated as πρῶτος in Matthew 10:2. For this reason a special appearance to him would be natural. But we may venture to say that his denial of his Lord and consequent dejection made an appearance to him necessary. He needed to be absolved and restored. When he and John ran to the sepulchre after the tidings brought by Mary Magdalen, John believed, but apparently Peter did not, that the Lord had risen. And then the Lord appeared to him, and the completeness of his restoration was brought home to him by the fact that he was allowed to be the means of convincing the other Apostles (Luke 22:32) that the Lord had risen indeed, because He had appeared to Simon (Luke 24:34). “ The Apostle who had risen from his fall through the words of absolution that came from the Risen Christ was the first to bring the Gospel of the Resurrection home to the hearts of his fellows” (Swete, The Appearances of our Lord after the Passion, p. 16).* St Paul no doubt received this testimony from St Peter himself, when some eight years after the Resurrection he ‘ went up to Jerusalem to make the acquaintance of Kephas’ (ἱστορῆσαιΚηφᾶν , Galatians 1:18), and spent a fortnight with him. Henceforward, ‘ He appeared to Kephas’ was part of St Paul’ s own testimony respecting the Resurrection. It was during the same fortnight that St Paul had also seen ‘ James, the Lord’ s brother,’ and therefore was able to give the testimony which he had received at first hand from him also (v. 7). Both Peter and James had great weight with the party at Corinth which was opposed to St Paul. The Kephas party of course appealed to Kephas (1:12), and it is probable that the Christ party appealed to the Lord’ s brother. Excepting St John (1:43), St Paul is the only N.T. writer who uses the Aramaic name ‘ Kephas’ of the first Apostle, always in this letter (1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5), and usually in Gal. (1:18, 2:9, 11, 14), the only letters in which he mentions Peter, whom he calls ‘ Peter’ twice (Galatians 2:7, Galatians 2:8). The meaning of ὤφθη is determined by the context; either ‘ was seen by,’ or ‘ appeared in a vision to.’ Here ἐγήγερται decides for the former. Moreover, a mere vision would not make our being raised more probable; it was Christ’ s having been raised and having been seen by competent witnesses that did that. The appearances to Mary Magdalen and to the two on the way to Emmaus are not mentioned, as not being official. St John does not count either of them when he counts three manifestations of Jesus to His disciples (21:14), although he himself narrates the manifestation to Mary in much detail (20:11-18). Besides ὤφθη and ἐφανερώθη , we have also ἐφανέρωσενἑαντόν (John 21:1) and ἐφάνη ([Mark] 16:9) used of these appearances of Christ. εἶτατοῖςδώδεκα . ‘ The Twelve’ is here an official name for the Apostolic body: only ten were present, for both Judas and Thomas were away. Similarly, the decemviri and centumviri were so called, whatever the exact number may have been. The name centumviri was retained after the number was increased beyond the hundred. Origen and Chrysostom needlessly conjecture that, after the Ascension, our Lord appeared to Matthias; and even that would not affect this statement. In vv. 5, 6 there is frequent confusion in the MSS. between εἶτα and ἔπειτα . Here, εἶτα (B K L P) is to be preferred to ἔπειτα (א A 17, Eus. Chrys.) or καὶμετὰταῦτα (D F G). ἕνδεκα (D F G, Latt. Goth.) for δώδεκα (א A B K L P, Syrr. Copt. Aeth.) is a manifest correction. St Paul nowhere else speaks of ‘ the Twelve,’ and here he is repeating a traditional formula: Revelation 21:14; Matthew 19:28; Acts 6:2. 6. ἔπειταὤφθνἐπάνωπεντακοσίοιςἀδελφοῖςἐφάπαξ . Illustris apparitio (Beng.). The ὅτι is now dropped, probably to simplify the construction. It is likely that St Paul had previously cited this instance to the Corinthians; it was one which they could easily verify, as so many of the witnesses survived. The occasion of the appearance to the 500 is unknown; but it is probably to be identified with Matthew 28:16, where only the Eleven are mentioned, because only to them was the great commission (18-20) given, although the presence of others seems to be implied in ‘ some doubted.’ St Paul naturally mentions the large number of witnesses. See Swete, Appearances of our Lord, pp. 82, 83; Ellicott, Life of our Lord, Lect. 8. p. 410; Andrews, Life of our Lord, p. 628.* When ἐπάνω qualifies a cardinal number, the cardinal retains its own case: it is not governed by ἐπάνω . In Mark 14:5, τριακοσίωνδηναρίων is the genitive of price. Moul.-Win. p. 313. Chrysostom interprets ἐπάνω as ἄνωἐκτῶνοὐρανῶν . οὐγὰρὲπὶγῆςβαδίζων , αλλ ʼ ἄνω , καὶὑπὲρκεφαλῆςαὐτοῖςὤφθη , which cannot be right. Plus quam (Vulg.) is certainly the meaning. And ἐφάπαξ clearly does not mean ‘ once for all’ (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12), but ‘ at once,’ simul (Vulg.). οἱπλείονεςμένουσινἕωςἄρτι . ‘ The majority survive until now,’ abide upon earth (Philippians 1:25; John 21:22). Those who had seen Christ after the Resurrection would soon become marked men. He had doubtless found most of His disciples among the younger generation; hence the large number who were still living more than twenty-five years after the Ascension, and could be questioned: eo significat, non allegoricam sed veram et naturalem fuisse resurrectionem; nam spiritualis resurrectionis oculi tests esse non possunt (Calv.). τινὲςδὲἐκοιμήθησαν . While he speaks of his own life as a daily dying (v. 31), he speaks of actual death as a sleep. The expression is common both in Jewish and heathen literature, and does not of itself imply any belief in a future life. The resemblance between “ Death and his brother Sleep” (Virg. Aen. vi. 278) is too obvious to escape notice. Nevertheless, it was because the word suggested a future awakening that Christians adopted it, and it has special point here: see on 11:30, and Ellicott and Milligan on 1 Thessalonians 4:13. A poetic euphemism contains a blessed truth. These τινες had seen the Risen One and believed in Him, and had died in this faith. If there was no resurrection in store for them, how strange was their lot! For πλείονες (א A B D E F G) K L P read πλείους . K L P also add καί after τινὲςδέ , and K adds ὲξαὐτῶν . Correctors of א A D ins. the καί , with Orig. Eus. Chrys. and others; but it is not likely to be genuine. On the use of the aorist here, ‘ fell asleep (at various times),’ and therefore ‘ have fallen asleep,’ see J. H. Moulton, p. 136. 7. ἔπειταὤφθηἸακώβῳ . Nothing is known of this appearance, or as to which James is meant. But there is little doubt that the James is the Lord’ s brother, who became president of the Church in Jerusalem, and that he is placed here among the chief witnesses because of his high position at Jerusalem. There may also be another reason, viz. the resemblance between his case and that of St. Paul. Our Lord’ s brethren had refused to believe on Him during His ministry (John 7:5), but are found among believers after the Ascension (Acts 1:14). What converted them? The appearance of the Risen Lord to the eldest of them may have done so, and the appearance may have been granted for this very purpose. In that case St James was converted in the same way as St Paul. Three years after his own conversion St Paul met the Lord’ s brother at Jerusalem, and probably heard of this appearance from St James himself. Each told the other his experiences. But it may be doubted whether either James or Peter (v. 5) told St Paul what the Lord had said to him. In any case, such details are not needed here. What is of importance here is the fact that within ten years of the Resurrection St Paul had the opportunity of talking with St Peter and St James and comparing their experiences of the Risen Lord with his own, and that within thirty years of the Resurrection he records their testimony. For James and Peter see 9:5; Galatians 1:18, Galatians 1:19, 2:Galatians 1:9-12. For the narrative about an appearance to James recorded in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Jerome, De Viris illustr. 2), see Nicholson, pp. 62 f.; Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 265, 274; Swete, Appearances of our Lord, p. 89; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 248 f. The narrative may be mere legend; but if it is historical, it is not likely that St Paul is alluding here to what is there recorded. εἶτατοῖςἀποστόλοιςπᾶσιν . ‘ Then to the whole body of the Apostles.’ There is no emphasis on πᾶσιν , which does not look back to Ἰακώβῳ . The antithesis, ‘ to one, then to all, ’ is false, for the πᾶσιν does not imply that James was an Apostle. He wast not one of the Twelve, and it is unlikely that St Paul here thinks of him as an Apostle in the wider sense, and idea quite foreign to the context. The meaning here is, ‘ then’ to the Apostolic body as a whole,’ Thomas being now present. The addition of πᾶσιν here confirms the view that τοῖςδώδεκα (v. 5) is official and not numerical.* As St Paul at once passes on to the appearance to himself, he evidently means this manifestation to the whole body of the Apostles as the final one to others, viz. at the time of the Ascension. The conjecture of πάλιν for πᾶσιν is unnecessary. Respecting St Paul’ s testimony, Professor Percy Gardner remarks; “ As regards his own life, and the phenomena of Christianity which came under his direct observation, he is as good an authority as we can have in regard to any events in ancient history. … However confused and inconsistent may be the accounts in the Gospels of the appearances of the risen Lord, there can be no doubt that the society believed such appearances to hace taken place. No other cause can be suggested for the sudden change in the minds of the disciples from consternation and terror to confidence and boldness. And the well-known Pauline passage as to the witnesses of the Resurrection is as historic evidence of the belief of the first disciples unimpeachable. Paul himself claims with perfect confidence that he has seen the risen Lord” (Hibbert Journal Supplement, 1909, pp. 49, 51). 8. ἔσχατονδὲπάντωνὡσπερεὶτῷἐκτρώματιὤφθηκἀμοί . ‘ But last of all, as if to the abortion (of the Apostolic family), He appeared also to me.’ As in Mark 12:22, there is a doubt whether πάντων is masc. or neut. After a series of persons (5-7) the masc. is more probable; and ἔσχατον is used adverbially, like ὕστερον . Nowhere else in N.T. or LXX does ὡσπερεί occur: in a few texts it is a v.l. in 4:13. In calling himself the ἔκτρωμα among the Apostles, he refers to the suddenness and violence of the transition , while he was still in a state of immaturity. * The Twelve were disciples of Jesus before He called them to be Apostles, and He trained them for promotion: Saul was suddenly torn from opposition to Jesus to become His Apostle. Theirs was a gradual and normal progress; his was a swift and abnormal change. Possibly his Jewish adversaries had called him an abortion, an insult to which his small stature may have given a handle; but no such hypothesis is needed to account for the use of the expression here. It indicates his intense feeling respecting the errors of his career previous to his conversion. For the word, comp. Numbers 12:12; Job 3:16; Ecclesiastes 6:3; and see Suicer, 1. p. 1073; Lightfoot on Ign. Rom_9. St Paul uses the same word, ὤγθη , of the appearances to himself as he uses of the appearances of the others. He regards it as the same in kind. He saw the Risen Lord as really as they did. The Lord appeared to him at other times (Acts 22:18; comp. 18:9, 27:23; 2 Corinthians 12:2-4), but doubtless it is the appearance on the way to Damascus that is meant here. “ There is no greater life in history than that which S. Paul spent in the service of Christ, and it was what it was because S. Paul believed from the bottom of his heart that Jesus had appeared to him from heaven and sent Him to do His work” (Swete, Appearances, p. 126). On this unique occasion God chose him ‘ to see the Righteous one, and to hear a voice from His mouth’ (Acts 22:14), and his whole work as an Apostle was built upon that.* See Thorburn, pp. 83, 85. The κἀμοί comes at the end with deep humility: ‘ to me also.’ This appearance to the Apostle of the Gentiles completed the official evidence. He evidently knew of no later manifestation, and that to St John in Patmos was after St Paul’ s death. The fact that the manifestations had ended with the one to St Paul is against the theory of hallucinations. If all the appearances had been hallucinations, they would probably have continued, for such things are infectious, because people see what they expect to see. But neither the Twelve nor St Paul expected to see the Risen Lord, and some of them for a time doubted, not only the statements of others, but the evidence of their own eyes, for it seemed to be far too good to be true. It is important to notice that two of the witnesses cited in this list, St James and St Paul himself, had previously been unbelievers. Indeed, St Paul had not only refused to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but had strenuously persecuted those who accepted Him as such. Afterwards, the intensity of his conviction that he ‘ had seen the Lord’ became “ the determining factor in St Paul’ s theology.” See Inge, in Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 267. It is also remarkable that he does not mention the appearance to St Stephen (Acts 7:55, Acts 7:56). It was not “ official.” 9-11. The status of St Paul as one of the Apostles, and their absolute agreement with him with regard to the fundamental doctrine of the Resurrection. Different as they were from him in other things,— they before him in Apostleship, he before them in labours,— they and he were wholly agreed in preaching this, uno ore, omnes Apostoli (Beng.). 9. Ἐγὼγάρεἰμιὁἐλάχιστοςτ . ἀπ . Explanation of the strong word ἔκτρωμα , given with much emphasis. In ἐλάχιστος there is no reference to ‘ Paulus’ = ’ little.’ See Ephesians 3:8; 1 Timothy 1:15. Both names, Saul and Paul, were probably given him by his parents, in accordance with Jewish custom, which still prevails, of giving a child two names, one religious and one secular. Like his namesake he was a Benjamite. Saul the son of Kish was τῆςφυλῆςτῆςἐλαχίστης (1 Samuel 9:21). ὃςοὐκεἰμὶἱκανός . As distinguished from ἄξιος , ἱκανός = ‘ reaching up to,’ ‘ competent,’ ‘ adequate’ (2 Corinthians 2:16) rather than ‘ meriting,’ but when moral sufficiency is meant the difference is not great. Comp. Matthew 3:2 (=Mark 1:7) with John 1:27. This is the argumentative use of the relative; ‘ seeing that I am not fit to be called an Apostle.’ Comp. Romans 9:25; Hebrews 2:2. The violent ἔκτρωσις was rendered necessary by his having been a persecutor. This blot in his past life he never forgot: Galatians 1:13; 1 Timothy 1:12-14; Acts 26:9.* For τὴνἐκκλησίαντοῦΘεοῦ see on 11:22. The addition of τοῦΘεοῦ prepares for what follows. 10. χάριτιδὲΘεοῦεἰμιὅεἰμι . ‘ But by God’ s grace I am what I am’ — an Apostle who has seen the Lord and laboured fruitfully for Him. In spite of his unfitness to bear the name, the grace of God has made him equal to it. The persecutor has been forgiven and the abortion adopted. On the eleventh Sunday after Trinity this humble boast of Paul the Pharisee is placed side by side with the arrogant boast of the typical Pharisee. ἡεἰςἐμὲοὐκενὴἐγενήθη . ‘ Which was manifested towards me’ (or, was extended to me), ‘ did not prove empty,’ i.e. fruitless, without result; or perhaps, ‘ did not turn out to be worthless.’ Comp. vv. 14, 58; εἰςκενόν , Philippians 2:16; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; ματαία , v. 17.† ἀλλά . ‘ So far from that being the case, I laboured more abundantly than they all.’ This may mean either (1) ‘ than all of them together,’ or (2) ‘ than any one of them (14:18).’ Though (1) seems extravagant, it may be the meaning, seeing that God’ s grace is the chief cause of it. Apart from that, his energy and toil would have been without fruit (Romans 15:19). In himself he is greatly inferior to the Twelve; in his work, which is God’ s, greatly superior. His labour means his work as a whole, including his success; and his great success was evidence that he was an Apostle. See on 16:16. Thus his great work was evidence of the Resurrection, for it would never have been undertaken if the Risen Lord had not appeared to him, nor would it have had such results without His help. ἀλλὰἡχάριςτοῦΘεοῦσὺνἐμοί . ‘ So far from its being 1 (alone) who did all this, it was the grace of God with me.’ There were two who laboured, two co-operators, grace with himself (Acts 14:27); but it was grace which made the labour effective (Galatians 2:20). The Apostle’ s satisfaction with his own labours “ from a human point of view is as the joy of a child who gives his father a birthday present out of his father’ s own money” (Weinel, p. 178). Dobschü tz (Probleme, p. 58) shows how true this estimate of his labours is. The reading ἡσὺνἐμοί (see below), which Calvin characteristically adopts, makes grace the sole worker; ‘ not I, but the grace of God which was with me, did the abundant and fruitful work.’ Atto more reasonably says; quibus verbis, ‘ gratia Dei mecum,’ ostendit quia nec gratia sine libero arbitrio, nee liberum arbitrium sine gratia, hominis salutem operatur. So also Augustine; nec gratia Dei sola, nec ipse solus, sed gratia cum illo. For οὐκενὴἐγενήθη , D has πτωχὴοὐκἐγενήθη , while F G have πτωχὴοὐγέγονεν . A E K L P have ἡσὺνἐμοί , but א B D* F G, Latt. Goth. omit ἡ . 11. εἴτεοὖνἐγὼεἴτεἐκεῖνοι , οὕτωςκ .τ .λ . ‘ Whether then it were I or they (who laboured most abundantly after seeing the Risen Christ), so we continually preach (1:23), and so ye once for all believed,’ when ye accepted the preaching. He does not mean that they had ceased to believe, but that there was a definite time when they accepted this belief as the result of Apostolic preaching. The οὖν resumes the main argument (vv. 3-8) after the digression (vv. 9, 10), and οὕτως looks back to τίνιλόγῳ . Evans, somewhat hesitatingly, questions this, and prefers to render οὖν ‘ however.’ Harnack points out that “ legends concerning the appearances of the Risen Christ and the Ascension are difficult to explain, on the assumption that they arose before the destruction of Jerusalem” (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 291). It is quite clear from these verses that appearances of the Risen Christ were firmly believed in long before a.d. 70. Harnack himself places 1 Corinthians in a.d. 52 or 53. The inference is that the reports about the appearances were not “ legends.” There is nothing to show that St Paul meant this list of the appearances to be exhaustive, and that he mentions no others because he knew of no others. He omits five of the appearances which are mentioned in the Gospels: to the women, to Mary Magdalen, to the two on the way to Emmaus, to Thomas with the other Apostles on the second Lord’ s Day, and to certain disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. He probably knew of some of these, if not of all. His reason for confining himself to those which he mentions can be easily conjectured. The witnesses whom he cites were persons well known to the Corinthians as leaders of the Church; Kephas, the Apostolic body, James, and himself; to which he adds a large company, some of whom could be easily found and questioned. The evidence would not have been strengthened by mentioning appearances to persons of whom the Corinthians had never heard. See F. H. Chase and A. J. Mason in Cambridge Theological Essays, pp. 396-401, 424-429; also J. O. F. Murray, pp. 329-332. “ It is curious that, in Paul’ s time, it was the principle of the resurrection which was denied by the Corinthians to whom he is writing, while the actual fact of the resurrection of Jesus was admitted. Now, it is the principle which is admitted, while the actual resurrection of Jesus is denied.” But the life and teaching of St Paul, and the evolution and continued existence of the Christian Church cannot be explained, if the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ was based on hallucination. Can any Christian believe that Christianity is built upon this fundamental error? “ The reality of the resurrection is maintained, so long as the cause of the appearances of Jesus is attributed to Jesus, and not to the imaginations of the disciples. To the twentieth-century mind a spiritual manifestation seems open to less objection than the reanimation of the physical body which had been laid in the grave. We do not know, however, sufficient either of matter or spirit to justify any dogmatism either in the one direction or the other. The narratives will support either theory. The story of the empty tomb, however, certainly implies that the physical body of Jesus disappeared, though what finally became of it is not expressly explained. It must be admitted that the reanimation of the physical body of Jesus presents difficulties to the modern mind in the way of its final disposal which cannot lightly be ignored. The old conception of its literal ascension into heaven is in these days inconceivable. Our ignorance on this matter, however, ought not to invalidate the knowledge we undoubtedly possess of the empty tomb, nor ought we to allow the difficulty of accounting for the final disposal of the body to lead us to reject the plain story of its disappearance. Certainly, on the hypothesis of pure hallucinations, the speedy cessation of the appearances is a difficulty more easily ignored than explained” (The Fifth Gospel, pp. 169, 191-194). 15:12-34. If Christ is Risen, the Dead in Christ Will Rise Here again we have three subdivisions: (a) The Consequences of denying the Doctrine of the Resurrection, 12-19; (b) The Consequences of accepting the Resurrection of Christ 20-28; (c) Arguments from Experience, 29-34. How is it that, in the face of this Apostolic proclamation, some people go about and declare that a resurrection of dead people is impossible; thus making Apostolic preaching to be a lie, and your faith to be a delusion, and the condition of dead Christians to be quite hopeless, and the condition of living Christians to be pitiable in the extreme? But they are quite wrong; for Christ has risen, and therefore resurrection is for us certain. For in this matter Christ is the first sheaf of a vast harvest; and when He has conquered all that opposes Him, including death itself, then, as the Son of God, He will yield up everything to His Father, and God will be supreme. Baptism for the sake of the dead would lose all its meaning, and Christian self-sacrifice would lose most of its inspiration and comfort, if there were no resurrection and no future life. 12 Now, if Apostles are continually proclaiming Christ as having been raised from the dead, how is it that some are declaring among you that there is no such thing as a resurrection of dead people? 13 If there is no such thing, then Christ Himself cannot have been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation of the Gospel is empty verbiage, and your faith in it is empty credulity. 15 And, what is more, we are found guilty of misrepresenting God, because we have represented Him as having raised the Christ, whereas He did nothing of the kind, if as a matter of fact dead people are never raised. 16 For it is quite clear that, if dead people are never raised, Christ Himself has not been raised. 17 And in that case your faith is futile; you are still living in your sins. 18 Yes, and it follows that all those who went to their rest trusting in Christ, forthwith perished utterly and are now lost to Christ! 19 If our case is no better than this, that just in the present life we have had hope in Christ, there are no human beings more truly to be pitied than we are. 20 But this dismal doctrine is not true. Christ has been raised from the dead; and He is no solitary exception, but the first and foremost example of many that are to be awakened. 21 For since it is through a man that we have death, it is through a Man also that we have resurrection from the dead. 22 For as in virtue of our union with Adam we all die, so also in virtue of our union with Christ we shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his proper order; Christ the first sheaf; afterwards Christ’ s own harvest in the Day of His Coming. 24 After that will come the End, when He is to give up His Kingship into the hands of His God and Father; and that will be when He has brought to nought all other rule and all other authority and power. 25 For He must retain His Kingship until God has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last foe to be brought to nought is death. 27 For God has put all things, death included, in subjection under Christ’ s feet. (Now, when it is said that all things have been put in subjection to Christ, it is obvious that God, who put them thus in subjection, is not included.) 28 But when every power has been made subject to the Son, then, but not till then, even the Son Himself will become subject to the Father who put all things under Him, in order that God may be everything in every creature, and the Divine immanence be perfect and complete. 29 Otherwise, what will be the position of those who from time to time are being baptized out of consideration for the dead? If dead men never rise at all, why in the world are people baptized out of consideration for them? 30 And why do so many of us stand in peril every hour? 31 I protest to you, my Brothers, as surely as I glory over you— and you know that I do that in Christ Jesus our Lord, there is not a day that I do not stand face to face with death. 32 If, looking at it from a purely human point of view, I was near being torn in pieces at Ephesus, what did I gain by it? If dead men do not rise, the human point of view gives as a practical inference, ‘ Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.’ 33 Do not make the serious mistake of supposing that there is no risk in being friendly to these views and to those who advocate them. ‘ Fair characters are marred by foul companionships.’ 34 You must rouse yourselves from this paralysing delusion in a right spirit, and cease to persist in culpable error. You pride yourselves upon your religious enlightenment: crass ignorance as to the very meaning of God is what some of you have. It is to make you ashamed of yourselves that I speak like this. 12. ΕἰδὲΧριστὸςκηρύσσεταιὅτιἐκνεκρῶνἐγήγερταικ .τ .λ . ‘ Now if Christ is continually preached that He hath been raised from the dead, how comes it that it is said among you by some persons that resurrection of dead men does not take place?’ * St Paul has just shown how full and unanimous is the testimony to the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, and from that solid basis he now passes on to the main question, using a current sceptical assertion as a text. It is one statement against another. On the one hand the declaration of all the Apostles, from the first to the last of them, and of many other eyewitnesses, that Christ has been raised and abides for ever as the Risen Lord (this is the force of the perfect ἐγήγερται throughout the argument); on the other the a priori dictum of certain cavillers, unsupported by any evidence, that there is no such thing as a resurrection of dead people. The latter position is analogous to the modern one; “ Miracles don’ t happen.” Which will the Corinthians, who long ago accepted Apostolic preaching, hold to now? And a decision is necessary, for the conflict of statement continues. The Apostles continue to preach the Resurrection of Christ , and the sceptics continue to assert that resurrection is impossible. And this is the situation which has to be explained. If resurrection is impossible, how do you account for the large volume of testimony from official and unofficial witnesses, who are still alive to be questioned, that one resurrection has taken place?* It is possible that these teachers did not deny that Christ had risen; and if so, this indicates how strong they felt the evidence for it to be. They may have declared that His case was unique, and proved nothing as to the rest of mankind. But this the Apostle cannot allow. If it is certain that any one man has risen, then the position that resurrection is impossible is untenable. If Christ is risen, others can rise. Indeed, when His relation to mankind is considered, we may say that others will rise. Deny this consequent in either form, “ Others will not rise,” or “ Others cannot rise,” and you thereby deny the antecedent, “ Christ is not risen.” There is no escape from this logic; but some Corinthians did not see it. It has been pointed out already that the τινες were almost certainly Gentiles, brought up under the influence of Greek philosophy, not Jews with Sadducean prejudices. Possibly they held that matter was evil, and that it was incredible that a soul, once set free by death, would return to its unclean prison. Or they may have been influenced by a popular form of Epicurean materialism. They had been brought up in the belief that at death existence either ceases entirely, or becomes so shadowy as to be worthless: in any case the body perishes utterly. The idea of a glorified body, in which the highest part of man’ s nature would be supreme, without opposition or hindrance from any other part, was beyond even Plato’ s vision, and they could not attain to it. Aeschylus (Eum. 647) makes Apollo say, ἀνδρὸςδ ʼ ἐπειδὰναἷμ ʼ ἀνασπάσῃκόνις ἅπαξθανόντος , οὔτιςἔστ ʼ ἀνάστασις . And that is just what these Corinthians declared. See also the view of Cebes (Plato, Phæ do, 70 A). There is no evidence of such theories as those of Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17, 2 Timothy 2:18). St Paul’ s treatment of these dangerous doubters is to be noticed. He does not suggest that they should be excommunicated; he argues with them through those who are in danger of being perverted by them. And in his arguments he is less severe than he is with some other victims of false teaching. The πῶςλέγουσιν here is more gentle than the indignant astonishment of Θαυμάζωὅτιοὕτωςταχέωςμετατίθεσθεκ .τ .λ . and ῏ΩἀνόητοιΓαλάται , τίςὑμᾶςἐβάσκανενκ .τ .λ . (Galatians 1:6, Galatians 3:1). The πῶς reminds us rather of Gal 2:14, Galatians 2:4:9; 1 John 3:17: it expresses surprise at something incongruous. Moreover, he does not name these teachers of error; there is no need to brand them: compare 4:18; 2 Corinthians 10:2; Galatians 1:7, Galatians 1:2:12; Acts 15:24; and it is not likely that they are to be identified with any of the four parties in 1:12. Χριστός is attracted from the dependent clause into the main sentence in order to make the word more prominent. Christ is the sum and substance of the Gospel, the central fact of which is His Resurrection. Throughout the passage νεκροί has no article: it is not ‘ the dead’ as a class that are under consideration, but individuals who are in this condition, ‘ dead persons,’ ‘ dead men.’ ἐνὑμῖντινές (א A B P 17, Syrr., Orig. Chrys.) is to be preferred to τινὲςἐνὑμῖν (D E F G K L, Arm.), and ἐνὑμῖν belongs to λέγουσιν . It is in Christian society (1:11) that this statement is made. 13. These sceptics are supposed to hold to their doctrine: they deny the consequent in the Apostle’ s conditional proposition. If Christ is risen, dead people can rise. Dead people cannot rise. Therefore, Christ is not risen. ‘ But if resurrection of dead men does not take place, Christ also hath not been raised,’ and οὐδέ may be kept in the front place by rendering, ‘ neither hath Christ been raised’ (RV.). But οὐδέ must not be rendered ‘ not even,’ which would rather obscure the line of argument. The fact of the Incarnation involves a difference in kind between the Resurrection of the Son of God and that of His adopted children. The connexion between antecedent and consequent is therefore not logical merely, but causal: the Resurrection of Christ is not viewed by the Apostle as one particular case of a general law, but as the source of Divine Power which effects the Resurrection in store for His members (v. 23). Deny the effect, and you overthrow the cause; accept the cause as a fact, and the effect will certainly follow. 14. The sceptics still persist, and accept the denial of the antecedent: Christ is not risen. St Paul goes on to show what this denial involves, viz. (1) the falsification of Apostolic teaching and of Christian faith (14-17), and (2) the destruction of all Christian hope (18, 19). Thus by a reductio ad impossibile the denial is disproved. In short, the Resurrection of Christ is not an isolated fact or doctrine which can be accepted or rejected independently of other truths: it is the very centre of the Gospel. εἰδὲΧρ . οὐκἐγήγερται . ‘ But if Christ hath not been raised (οὐκ emphatic), void certainly is our preaching, void also is your faith.’ * Τὸκήρυγμα looks back to κηρύσσομεν (v. 11), and means, ‘ what we preach,’ the substance of it (1:21, 2:4); and πίστις looks back to ἐπιστεύσατε (v. 11): ἄρα , ‘ in that case,’ ‘ then,’ as an inevitable result; κενός , inanis (see above on v. 10), ‘ empty,’ ‘ hollow,’ ‘ devoid of reality’ : comp. κενὴἡἐλπὶςαὐτῶν (Wisd. 3:11); κεναὶἐλπίδεςκαὶΨευδεῖς (Ecclus. 31:1). Here κενόν and κενή are emphatic by position. But, as Origen points out, ‘ Seeing that our preaching is not void, and your faith is not void, then Christ has been raised.’ Cf. Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 2:8. 15. εὑρισκόμεθαδὲκαὶψευδομάρτυρεςτοῦΘεοῦ . ‘ And (as a further consequence) we are found to be also false witnesses of God (obj. gen.), because (in preaching) we bore witness respecting God that He raised the Christ, whom He did not raise, if indeed after all dead men are not raised’ ; si videlicet mortui non suscitantur (Beza). AV. has ‘ rise not’ ; but ἐγείρονται is passive, not middle. Εὑρίσκω is often used of moral judgments respecting character, and conveys the idea of discovering or detecting: 4:2; 2 Corinthians 11:12, 2 Corinthians 11:12:20; Galatians 2:17; Philippians 3:9. We may take τοῦΘεοῦ as the subjective genitive, ‘ false witnesses in the service of God,’ ‘ Divine witnesses telling lies,’ but this is less suitable; and ‘ falsely claiming to be God’ s witnesses’ is certainly not the meaning. There is a similar doubt respecting κατὰτοῦΘεοῦ , which would usually mean ‘ against God,’ adversus Deum (Vulg. Luth.), but may mean ‘ about God,’ ‘ of God,’ de Deo (Erasm. Beza), although not a Deo (Calv.). The meaning ‘ respecting’ or ‘ about’ is fairly common in class. Grk., although not in the N.T., and is perhaps to be preferred here (Tyn. Genev. Rhem. AV. RV.). For, although every lie dishonours God, yet there is no special dishonour in saying that He raised Christ, if He did not do so; and if St Paul had meant ‘ against God,’ he would probably have put κατὰτ . Θ . after ψευδομάρτυρες rather than after ἐμαρτυρήσαμεν . Nevertheless, ‘ against God’ (Wic. Cov.) may be justified on the ground that to attribute to a person a good or glorious act, which it is well known that he never performed, is to cause him to be suspected of having prompted the false assertion. The Apostles, if they falsely declared that God had raised Christ, would lead people to think that God had inspired them to tell lies about Him. This, however, is rather far-fetched. St Paul’ s evident horror of being convicted at the bar of Divine justice of bearing false witness in this matter shows his estimate of the importance of the matter. And it is to be noted that the alternative possibility,— that he and the other Apostles were honest, but deluded witnesses, does not occur to him at all. The modern theory, that those who believed that they had seen the Risen Lord were victims of an hallucination, is wholly absent from his thought, even as a possibility. The force of the article before Χριστόν perhaps is ‘ the Christ of whom we have all along been speaking.’ For εἴπερ see on 8:5: here the addition of ἄρα indicates that the hypothesis is not St Paul’ s own. 16. A solemn repetition of the argument in v. 13; sublato effectu, tollitur et causa. Here the form is slightly changed, and additional inferences (17, 18) are drawn from it. 17. A solemn repetition and enlargement of v. 14, showing more clearly what the loss to the Corinthians would be if this theory were true. Both AV. and RV. render κενή in v. 14 and ματαία here ‘ vain,’ and sometimes there is little difference between the two words: but here there is; κενή is ‘ wanting in reality,’ ματαία ‘ wanting in result,’ ‘ fruitless,’ ‘ futile’ (Titus 3:9; 4 Macc. 16:7). In class. Grk. μάταιος is of two terminations (James 1:26); but here and 1 Peter 1:18 the fem. occurs, as often in LXX. ἓτιἐστὲἐνταῖςἁμαρτίαιςὑμῶν . This may mean one of two things. If Christ has not been raised for our justification (Romans 4:25), His death is made a nullity, for there is no redemptive power in it. It does not save us from the guilt and penalty of sin; for how can a dead Christ save others from death, which is the penalty of sin? And how can He secure for others a life beyond the grave which He Himself does not possess? Comp. Romans 6:1-11; Philippians 3:10; Colossians 3:1. Or, the words may be an appeal to their personal experience. If Christ had not risen, they would still be living in their original heathen wickedness, for baseless credulity could never have delivered them. It was faith in a living Christ that had done that. Therefore Christ has been raised. This is a more telling argument than the other, because it is based on what the Corinthians could not help knowing. They were as sure that they were not continuing their old heathen life as the Apostles were that they were not lying witnesses. But the former is closer to the context, and to St Paul’ s doctrinal purpose. 18. ἄρακαὶοἱκοιμηθέντεςἐνΧριστῷἀπώλοντο . ‘ So then, they also who were laid to sleep in Christ have perished’ ; an amazing result! By ἐνΧρ . is meant ‘ believing in Christ, and in communion with Him.’ It is those who are not ἐνΧριστῷ when they die that perish. This denial of the resurrection of the dead throws everything into confusion. The ἀπώλεια is the utter loss consequent upon dying in sin. This meaning is frequent in St Paul (1:18, 8:11; 2 Corinthians 2:15, 2 Corinthians 2:4:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:10). See Cremer, p. 452; also Beet, The Last Things, pp. 122 f., a valuable discussion. They have surrendered everything in order to have eternal life with Christ at His Coming, and they have died. If they are dead beyond possibility of restoration, then death separates us for ever from Christ. Is that credible? This is not an appeal to mere sentiment: it is an appeal to our sense of what is morally fitting, and this is a good supplement to the appeal to fact (v. 17). In class. Grk. ἄρα rarely, if ever, stands first, as here; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Galatians 2:21, Galatians 2:5:11; etc. It is a little doubtful whether οἱκοιμηθέντες is not a true passive, ‘ those who were put to sleep,’ rather than middle, ‘ those who fell asleep,’ both here and 1 Thessalonians 4:14. See J. H. Moulton, Gr. p. 162, and on the other side Milligan on 1 Thessalonians 4:14, a passage which throws much light on this verse. The expression does not imply that the departed are unconscious, but that they are at rest, and may be raised again to full activity. See above on 11:30. 19. εἰἐντῇζωῇταύτῃἐνΧριστῷἠλπικότεςἐσμὲνμόνον . The first and last words, ‘ in this life’ and ‘ only,’ are emphatic; nevertheless, they should not be taken together; ‘ in this life only.’ The μόνον qualifies either ἠλπικότες or the whole clause, and ἐσμέν is the copula, not the auxiliary to the participle to form an analytical tense. ‘ If we are having only hope in Christ in this life’ ; or, ‘ If in this life we are hopers in Christ and have nothing beyond’ ; i.e. If all that Christians have got is hope in Christ, without possibility of life with Him hereafter, what can be more pathetic? See RV. marg. ἐλεεινότεροιπάντωνἀνθρώπωνἐσμέν . ‘ We are more to be pitied than all men’ ; not ‘ more miserable,’ ‘ more wretched,’ but ‘ more deserving of compassion.’ * In that case, Christians would be toiling and suffering here under a great delusion, a hope that has no foundation and will never be fulfilled— and such a glorious hope! For ἐλεεινός see Revelation 3:17 and LXX of Dan 9:23, Daniel 9:10:11, Daniel 9:19. The right order is ἐνΧριστῷἠλπ . ἐσμὲν (א A B D* E F G), not ἠλπ . ἐσμὲνἐνΧρ . (K L P); and πἀντωνἀνθρ . ἐσμέν (א A B E F G K L P), not ἐσμένπ . ἀνθρ . (D, Latt., Orig.). 20-28. The sum of the arguments in vv. 13-19 is that the doctrine maintained by the τινές (v. 12) cannot be true, because it involves such monstrous consequences. And it is not true, so that the consequences are of a wholly different character, and we can rejoice abundantly. Christ has been raised, and His Resurrection carries with it that of all those who are Christ’ s, for the Risen One is the first fruit of a vast harvest (6:14). Apostolic preaching is not void; their faith is neither void nor futile; they are not in their sins; those that are asleep have not perished; Christian hope is not limited to this life; and Christians are not the most pitiable of men (die bedauernswü rdigsten or bejammernswerthesten unter allen Menschen). In these verses the Apostle ceases to argue, and authoritatively declares the truth. Human logic is for the moment dropped, and the inspiration of the Prophet takes its place. Confident in the possession of knowledge which transcends experience and reason, he authoritatively declares what has been revealed to him respecting the relations between mankind and Christ, and between Christ and the Father. See Evans, pp. 354, 361; Schiele, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 1719-1731. 20. Νυνὶδέ . These words begin a joyous outburst in contrast to the dreary pictures which he has been drawing. The denial which produced those pictures is not true; ‘ But, as it is, Christ has been raised from the dead, first of those that are asleep.’ The addition of ἐκνεκρῶν implies a bodily resurrection, for Christ could not be thought of as among the spiritually dead. And ‘ firstfruit’ implies community of nature. The first sheaf offered in the Temple on the morrow of the Passover was the same in kind as the rest of the harvest, and was a sort of consecration of the whole (Leviticus 23:10, Leviticus 23:11).* For ἀπαρχή comp. 16:15; Romans 8:23, Romans 8:11:16, Romans 8:16:5; James 1:18, where see Mayor; Revelation 14:4, where see Swete; Clem. Rom. Cor. 24, 42. Christ is the first instalment, an earnest that many more are to follow. Comp. πρωτότοκοςἐκτῶννεκρῶν (Colossians 1:18), πρ . τ .ν . (Revelation 1:5). The AV. has, ‘ and become the firstfruits of them that slept.’ There is neither ‘ and’ nor ‘ become’ in the true text: ἐγένετο (K L, Syrr. Goth.) is a manifest correction; א A B D* F P 17, Latt. Copt. Arm., Orig. omit. Ἁπαρχή is in apposition with Χριστός , Christus resurrexit, primitiae dormientium (Vulg.). 21. Christ leads the way in resurrection, as Adam did in death. In each case a man was the instrument of a great change in the condition of mankind, the one of a great disaster, the other of a great deliverance. ‘ For since through man (by Adam’ s sin) is death, through man also is resurrection of the dead’ : Romans 5:12, where see Sanday and Headlam. He says διὰἀνθρώπου , not ἐξἀνθρ . The deadly wound came ἐκτοῦπονηροῦ : similarly the cure comes διὰΧριστοῦἐκτοῦΠατρός . How can Adam be said to have led the way in death,— to have been the means of introducing death, where death was previously unknown? Death, as geology teaches us, was in the world long before man existed on the earth. Granted; but death as the penalty of sin could not be in the world, until there was sin. Possibly St Paul believed Gen_2. and 3. to be literally true;† at any rate he regards the narrative as sufficiently true to be made the basis of a lesson. Genesis does not tell us that man was created immortal; it implies the contrary. But man was created with the opportunity of becoming immortal, for he was placed within reach of the tree of life. Because of his sin he was deprived of this opportunity, was driven from the tree of life, and consequently died. In this sense death came to the human race through his instrumentality. The fact that the brutes had been dying for ages before man existed does not affect the question. See Goudge, p. 149. And how can Christ be said to have led the way in resurrection, and to be ἀπαρχὴτῶνκεκοιμημένων Others had been raised from the dead before He was; He had raised some Himself. But only to die again. None of those who had been restored to life remained for ever alive, for death had not yet been conquered. Christ was the first, and thus far is the only human being, who non moriturus surrexit— rose never to die again. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 16. AND : THE The Epistle now rapidly draws to an end with a number of brief directions, communications, salutations, exhortations, and good wishes. It will suffice to make six subdivisions; (a) The Collection for the Poor at Jerusalem, 1-4; (b) St Paul’ s intended Visit to Corinth, 5-9; (c) Timothy and Apollos commended, 10-12; (d) Exhortation interjected, 13, 14; (e) Directions respecting Stephanas and others, 15-18; (f) Concluding Salutations, Warning, and Benediction, 19-24. 1-4. Here, as at 15:49, the Apostle suddenly descends from very lofty heights to matters of ordinary experience. It is as if he had suddenly checked himself in his triumphant rhapsody with the thought that ‘ the work of the Lord’ in this life must be attended to. There is still much labour to be undertaken by those who still remain alive waiting for the final victory, and he must return to business. St Paul had the collection of money for the poorer members of the Church in Jerusalem very much at heart, as is seen from this passage and 2 Corinthians 8:9., with which should be compared Romans 15:26, Galatians 2:10, and Acts 24:17. In “ the ablest and most convincing section of Paley’ s Horae Paulinae” (2. I) it is shown how these four passages, while having each their distinctive features, “ fit and dovetail into one another and thus imply that all are historical.” We thus have “ singular evidence of the genuineness” of the documents which contain these different but thoroughly consistent accounts. See Sanday and Headlam (p. 413), and Jowett (p. 419), on Romans 15:29; also the Camb. Grk. Test. on 2Co_8. and 9. The directions given here are so brief that we may suppose that the Corinthians already knew a good deal about the matter, possibly from Titus, who may have been in Corinth before this. Moreover, Titus may have been the bearer of this letter, and in that case would be able to tell them in detail what the Apostle desired them to do. We know that Titus did organize the collection at Corinth. In 2 Corinthians 9:1, St Paul says that ‘ it is superfluous for him to write’ on the subject. Nevertheless, in his intense anxiety about the fund, he says a great deal more than he says here, supporting the appeal with strong arguments. His anxiety about the collection is very intelligible. The distress at Jerusalem was great and constant. Jews often made collections for impoverished Jews; Christians must do at least as much. It was specially to be wished that Gentile Christians should help Jewish Christians, and thus promote better feeling between the two bodies. Still more was it to be wished that Christians at Corinth, where the Apostle’ s work was regarded with suspicion and dislike by the Jewish, party, should send liberal help to Christians at Jerusalem, where the suspicion and dislike originated. This would prove two things; (1) that his Apostolic authority was effectual in a Gentile Church, and (2) that he had loyal affection for the Church at Jerusalem. Augustine suggests that the poverty at Jerusalem was the result of the community of goods (Acts 4:32), a view that is still held, and is probably part of the explanation: communism without careful organization of labour is sure to end in disaster. But there were other causes. Jerusalem had a pauperized population, dependent on the periodical influx of visitors. The Jewish world, from Cicero’ s time at least, supported the poor of Jerusalem by occasional subventions. As the Christian Jews came to be regarded as a distinct body, they would lose their share in these doles; and the ‘ communism’ of Acts 4:32 was but a temporary remedy. Most of the converts were, therefore, poor at the outset. They were probably ‘ boycotted’ and otherwise persecuted by the unconverted Jews (1 Thessalonians 2:14; James 2:6, James 5:1-6), and their position would be similar to that of Hindoo Christians excluded from their caste, or Protestants in the West of Ireland. And the belief that ‘ the Lord was at hand’ (v. 22) may have checked industry at Jerusalem, as it did at Thessalonica (2 Thessalonians 3:10; Didache 12). See Knowling on Acts 20:4, p. 422; Beet on 2 Corinthians 8:15, pp. 426 f.; Hort, Romans and Ephesians, pp. 39 f., ‘ 173; Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller, 287 f.; Rendall, Expositor, Nov. 1893, p. 321. 1. Περὶδὲτῆςλογίας . The abrupt transition leads us to suppose that the Corinthians had asked about the matter: comp. 7:1, 8:1, 12:1. At any rate the sudden introduction of this topic implies that they were already acquainted with it; comp. the sudden transition to Apollos in v. 12. St Paul uses seven words in speaking of this collection; λογία (v. 1); χάρις (v. 3; 2 Corinthians 8:4); κοινωνία (2 Corinthians 8:4, 2 Corinthians 8:9:13; Romans 15:26); διακονία (2 Corinthians 8:4, 2 Corinthians 8:9:1, 2 Corinthians 8:12, 2 Corinthians 8:13); ἁδρότης (2 Corinthians 8:20); εὐλογία (2 Corinthians 9:5); λειτουργία (2 Corinthians 9:12); to which may be added ἐλεημοσύναι (Acts 24:17, in the report of his speech before Felix) and προσφοραί (ibid). The classical word συλλογή is not found in N.T.; in LXX, only of David’ s scrip (1 Samuel 17:40). It used to be supposed that λογία or λογεία was found only here and in ecclesiastical writers (Ellicott ad loc., Suicer, ii. p. 247); and Edwards thought that St Paul had coined the word. Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 142 f.) shows that it was “ used in Egypt from the 2nd cent. b.c. at the latest,” and gives various examples from papyri: in one, λογεία is associated with λειτουργία . He thinks that in 2 Corinthians 9:5 the first εὐλογίαν may be a corruption of λογείαν . See also Light, pp. 104, 366. εἰςτοὺςἁγίους . He does not mean that the Christians at Jerusalem were in a special sense ‘ holy’ ; he indicates why the Corinthians ought to give. Those in need are their fellow Christians (1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1): sic mavult dicere quam ‘ pauperes’ ; id facit ad impetrandum (Beng.). He perhaps also indicates that those in need were the source and original headquarters of the Corinthians’ Christianity (Romans 15:27). Although he does not say so, we might suppose from this passage that all the Jerusalem Christians were poverty-stricken. Romans 15:26 shows that this was not so: it was εἰςτοὺςπτωχοὺςτῶνἁγίωντῶνἐνἸερ . that the κοινωνία was to be made. With this use of εἰς c. acc. for the dat. commodi comp. 2 Corinthians 8:4, 2 Corinthians 8:9:1, 2 Corinthians 8:13: is found in LXX, and is probably not a Hebraism but an Alexandrian idiom. It is found in papyri; Deissmann, pp. 117 f. ὥσπερδιέταξαταῖςἐκκλ . τ . Γ . ‘ Just as I made arrangements for the Churches of Galatia.’ There is a tone of authority in the verb; as Chrysostom remarks, “ He did not say, ‘ I exhorted and advised,’ but, ‘ I made arrangements,’ as being more absolute; and he does not cite the case of one city, but of a whole nation.” And the compound verb indicates that detailed directions had been given to the Galatians,— possibly by St Paul in person. What follows is no doubt a summary of these directions, to be enlarged by Titus. ‘ The Churches of Galatia’ are mentioned to show the Corinthians that they are not the only Gentiles who are asked to contribute to the support of Jewish Christians, and also to move them to imitate such good examples. Galatarum exemplum Corinthiis, Corinthiorum exemplum Macedonibus (2 Corinthians 9:2), Corinthiorum et Macedonum Romanis (Romans 15:26) proponit (Beng.). οὕτωςκαὶὐμεῖςποιήσατε . ‘ So also do you act.’ He writers with confidence: he has only to give directions, and they are sure to be followed. There is none of the anxious pleading of 2 Cor. 8., 2 Corinthians 8:9. And it was perhaps this apparent peremptoriness which his opponents used as an argument against him. See G. H. Rendall, p. 107. We may infer from this that the plan a dopted in Galatia had not proved unsuccessful. The ὥσπερ … οὕτως implies that the details of that plan are to be exactly followed, and ὑμεῖς is emphatic (Galatians 2:10). We need not infer from Galatians 6:6, Galatians 6:7, that the appeal to the Galatians had failed; the Apostle is writing there respecting the support of teachers in Galatia, not of the poor at Jerusalem. 2. κατὰμίανσαββάτου . ‘ On every first day of the week.’ The expression is Hebraistic; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, John 20:19; Acts 20:7. For the sing. σάββατον = ‘ week,’ Luke 18:12; [Mark 16:9]. This is our earliest evidence respecting the early consecration of the first day of the week by the Apostolic Church. Apparently, the name ‘ Lord’ s Day’ was not yet in use, and the first day of the week is never called ‘ the sabbath’ in Scripture. If it was right to do good on the Jewish sabbath (Matthew 12:12; Mark 3:4), how much more on the Lord’ s Day? καὶγὰρἡἡμέραἱκανὴἦνἀγαγεῖνεἰςἐλεημοσύνην , for it reminded them of the untold blessings which they had received (Chrys.). Hastings, DB. 3. p. 140; D. Chr. Ant. 2. p. 2031; Knowling, Test. of St Paul to Christ, pp. 281 f. ἕκαστοςὑμῶν . It is assumed that every one, however poor, will give something; but the giving is to be neither compulsory nor oppressive. Some of them would be slaves. παρ ʼ ἑαυτῷτιθέτωθησαυρίζων . This cannot mean, ‘ Let him assign a certain sum as he is disposed, and put it into the Church treasury.’ It is improbable that at that time there was any Church treasury, and not until much later was money collected during public worship. Each is to lay by something weekly ‘ in his own house, forming a little hoard, which will become a heavenly treasure’ (Matthew 6:19-21; Luke 12:21). Chrysostom says that the accumulation was to be made in private, because the additions might be so small that the donor would be ashamed to make them in the congregation. The Apostle virtually says, ‘ Become a guardian of holy possessions, a self-elected steward of the poor’ — γενοῦφύλαξχρημάτωνἱερῶν , αὐτοχειροτόνητοςοἰκονόμοςπενήτων .* ὅτιἂνεὐοδῶται . ‘ Whatsoever he may prosper in,’ ‘ whatever success he may have,’ ‘ whereinsoever he is prospered by God’ ; quod pro Dei benignitate licuerit (Beza). The idea of a prosperous journey has dropped out of the word. The verb is frequent in this more general sense in LXX, especially in Chronicles, Daniel, and Tobit: comp. the Testaments, Judah 1:6; Gad. 7:1. It is not certain what tense εὐοδωται is. WH. (ii. App. p. 172) decide for the perfect; either εὐόδωται , perf. indic., or εὐοδῶται , a very rare perf. mid. subjunctive. J. H. Moulton (Gr. 1. p. 54) follows Blass and Findlay in deciding for the pres. subj., which seems to be more probable. In any case, the meaning is that the amount is to be fixed by the giver in proportion to his weekly gains; and there is no dictation as to the right proportion, whether a tenth, or more, or less. A tenth is little for some, impossible for others; but week by week each would see how much or how little he had got, and would act accordingly. ἵναμὴὅτανἔλθωτότελογίαιγίνωνται . ‘ So that, whenever I come, collections may not be going on then.’ † Each will have his contribution ready, instead of having to decide at the last moment how much he ought to give, and how the money is to be found. St Paul does not wish to go round begging, when he comes; he will have other things to do. Moreover, he does not wish to put pressure upon them by asking in person (2 Corinthians 9:7): he desires to leave them quite free. The τότε is emphatic; ‘ then’ would be the worst possible time. σαββάτων (K L M) is an obvious correction of the less usual σαββάτου (A B C D E F G L P): א has σαββατω . For ἄν , B I2 M have ἐάν . εὐοδῶται (א B D E F G L P) is to be preferred to εὐοδωθῇ (A C I2 K M). Vulg. has quod ei bene placuerit, which seems to imply a reading ὅτιἐὰνεὐδοκῇ , and Latin translations of Chrus. have quod sibi videatur or videbitur. ὅτανεὐοδῶται is pure conjecture. 3. ὅτανδὲπαραγένωμαικ .τ .λ . ‘ But whenever I arrive, whomsoever ye may approve, these with letters (commendatory) will I send to take your bounty to Jerusalem.’ He is represented as using the same verb respecting this subject in his speech before Felix (Acts 24:17); ἐλεημοσύναςποιήσωνεἰςτὸἔθνοςμουπαρεγενόμην . AV., RV., and various modern scholars take δι ʼ ἐπιστολῶν with δοκιμάσητε , in which case the letters are written by the Corinthians as credentials for the delegates to be sent to Jerusalem with the money: so also Arm., Calv., Beza. But it is more natural to take the words with πέμψω , in front of which they are placed in emphatic contrast to σὺνἐμοί which is similarly placed before πορεύσονται . He will either write letters with which to send the delegates (2 Corinthians 3:1; Acts 9:2), or he will take the delegates with himself. The delegates were not to be sent off until the Apostle arrived at Corinth. What need, therefore, for the Corinthians to write letters? Syr., Copt., Aeth., Chrys., Tisch., Treg., and others take δι ʼ ἐπ . with πέμψω . ‘ Letters’ is probably a true plural, not the “ plural of category.” The Apostle would write to more than one person at Jerusalem.* In N.T., δοκιμάζειν often implies that what has been tested (3:13) has stood the test and been approved (11:28; Romans 1:28, Romans 1:2:18; Rom_1 Thess, 2:4, where see Milligan), as here. Just as St Paul does not dictate what proportion of their gains they ought to give, so he does not select the bearers of the fund, still less claim to have charge of it himself. In no case will he do that, to avoid all suspicion of enriching himself out of it. Those who find the money are to entrust it to persons tested and approved by themselves, and these persons are to have letters from the Apostle as credentials, unless he goes himself. The two aorists, παραγένωμαι and δοκιμάσητε , indicate that his arrival and the selection of the delegates are regarded as contemporaneous.‡ Very often ἀποφέρειν does not mean ‘ carry away’ so much as ‘ take home, ’ ‘ bring to its destination, ’ and in some cases ‘ bring back.’ It was not the removal of the money from Corinth, but its being conveyed to Jerusalem, that was the important point: comp. Luke 16:22. And he speaks of it as their ‘ gracious gift,’ τὴνχάρινὑμῶν (2 Corinthians 8:4-7, 2 Corinthians 8:19), beneficentiam vestram (Beza), because he would regard it as free bounty, like the graciousness of God. 4. ἐὰνδὲἄξιονᾖτοῦκἀμὲπορεύεσθαι . ‘ But if it be fit that I also should go.’ The ἄξιον is purposely put without a substantive, and πορεύεσθαι is used in its common sense of going on a mission, going with a purpose, with a work to be done: see Westcott on John 7:33. ‘ If the amount collected makes it worth while for me also to go on this business’ is another possible meaning. He could not abandon other work in order to present a paltry sum; and an Apostle could not take the lead in so unworthy a mission. It would look like approving miggardliness. There is no pride of office here, but proper respect for himself and them. It is with consciousness of his authority that he says, ‘ they shall go with me,’ not ‘ I will go with them.’ Were the Corinthians niggardly, or at least somewhat backward in giving? One is inclined to think so by the doubt expressed here: see also 9:11, 12; 2 Corinthians 11:8, 2 Corinthians 11:9, 2 Corinthians 11:12:13. No Corinthian delegates are mentioned Acts 20:4. That might mean that the Corinthians sent their contribution independently. But it might mean that they were not represented because their contribution was so small. St Paul twice went to Jerusalem with money for the poor (Acts 11:29, Acts 11:30, Acts 11:24:17). It was perhaps because he was known to have charge of such funds that he was expected by Felix to pay for his release (24:26). 5-9. He gives further information about the proposed (v. 3) visit to Corinth. He will come, but he must postpone his visit for the present. This postponement will be compensated by the increased length of his visit, when he does come; and they will be able to help him for his next journey. He cannot, however, leave Ephesus just yet, for there is great opportunity for good work, and his presence there is necessary. This will give them all the more time for laying money by for the Jerusalem poor. 5. ὅτανΜ . διέλθω , Μ . γὰρδιέρχομαι . ‘ Whenever I shall have journeyed through Macedonia, for I intend journeying through M.’ In Acts (13:6, 14:24, 15:3, 41, 18:23, 19:1, 21, 20:2), διέρχομαι seems to be almost a technical term for a missionary tour or evangelistic journey, the district traversed being in the accusative without a preposition: Ramsay, St Paul, pp. 72, 384; Knowling on Acts 13:6. In contrast to this tour through Macedonia he intends making a long stay at Corinth. The erroneous note at the end of this Epistle, “ written from Philippi,” is based on a misunderstanding of διέρχομαι : as if it meant ‘ I am at the present moment passing through M.,’ instead of ‘ M. I pass through,’ i.e. ‘ such is my intention; I make no long stay anywhere.’ It is clear from v. 8 that he writes from Ephesus. 6. πρὸςὑμᾶςδὲτυχὸνπαραμενῶ . ‘ But with you (first, in emphatic contrast to Macedonia) perchance I shall stay or even winter.’ With πρὸςὑμᾶς comp. Galatians 2:18; Matthew 13:56; and see Westcott on John 1:1 and 1 John 1:2. The πρός implies more than μετά or σύν , and means ‘ in active intercourse with you.’ The acc. abs. τυχόν is not found elsewhere in Biblical Greek, but it occurs in Plato and Xenophon:* comp. the colloquial “ happen I shall come.” In 14:10, εἰτύχοι . His remaining at Corinth through the winter might be necessary, because navigation then would be perilous or impossible. After 14th Sept. navigation was considered dangerous; after IIth Nov. it ceased till 5th March: see Blass on Acts 27:9; Ramsay, St Paul, p. 322; and Zahn, Introduction to N.T., i. p. 319. Orelli on Hor. Obadiah 1:4:2 quotes Vegetius, De re mil. 5:9, ex die 3. Id. Novembr. usque in diem vi. Id. Mart. maria claudi. ἵναὑμεῖςμεπροπέμψητεκ .τ .λ .. ‘ In order that you may be the people to set me forward on my journey, whithersoever I may go.’ He would rather have his ‘ send-off’ from them. For this, προπέμπειν is the usual verb (2 Corinthians 1:16; Romans 15:24; Acts 15:3, etc.). He is not asking for money or provisions; the verb does not necessarily mean more than good wishes and prayers. The last clause is purposely indefinite (οὗἐὰνπ .). He may go to Jerusalem, but that depends upon various circumstances. With οὗ for οἷ comp. Luke 10:1, Luke 10:24:28; it is freq. in late Greek (Genesis 20:13, 28:15; etc.). WH., following B M 67, prefer καταμενῶ to παραμενῶ (א A C D E F G I2 P). There would be temptation to make the verb similar to παραχειμάσω , all the more so as παραμένειν is more common (Philippians 1:25; Hebrews 7:23; James 1:25) than καταμένειν (Acts 1:13). Nevertheless the balance for παραμενῶ is considerable. 7. οὐθέλωγὰρὑμᾶςἄρτιἐνπαρόδῳἰδεῖν . ‘ For I do not care in you case to get a sight (aor.) just in passing.’ † For the third time in two verses , he lays an affectionate emphasis on the pronoun. In the case of such friends as they are, a mere passing visit would be very unsatisfying; all the more so, because there is much to be arranged at Corinth (11:34). There is no emphasis on ἄρτι , as if he meant, ‘ I paid a passing visit to you once, and it was so painful that I do not mean to repeat the experiment now.’ The ἄρτι fits in well with the hypothesis of a previous short visit (2 Corinthians 12:14, 2 Corinthians 13:1), but it does not imply it: it need not be much stronger than ‘ just’ . But he is thinking less of their need of him to keep them in order (nam et medicus ibi moram habet ubi plures aegrotant), than of his need of them to satisfy his yearning. Lightfoot, who contends for the previous short visit, says that this passage cannot be used as evidence for it (Biblical Essays, p. 275, note). χρόνοντινα . Emphatic: ‘ For I am hoping to stay on in intercourse with you for some little time.’ He is looking forward to living among them. He does not say ‘ to stay on at Corinth’ it is the people, not the place, that he cares about. Excepting 1:2, he never mentions Corinth, and then only as their home. ἐὰνὁΚύριοςἑπιτρέψῃ . It is of no importance whether this means God or Christ. But there may be point in the change from θελήσῃ (4:19), ‘ If the Lord wills me to do this painful thing,’ to ἐπιτρέψῃ , ‘ If He allows me this pleasure’ (Hebrews 6:3). This, however, cannot be pressed: James 4:15; Acts 16:21. St Paul’ s own practice shows that it is not necessary always to express this condition when announcing one’ s plans (v. 5; Romans 15:28; Acts 19:21). Ben Sira is said to have ruled that no one ought to say that he will do anything without first saying, “ If the Lord will” ; and both St Paul and St James may be influenced by a form of Jewish piety which was sure to commend itself to Christians. Mayor on James 4:15 has collected various examples from Greek and Roman writers, but the O.T. does not supply any. Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 252) gives several illustrations from papyri; and see Eur. Ale. 780-5. Hort (Romans and Ephesians, pp. 42 f.) points out how uncertain St Paul’ s future must have seemed to him (Romans 1:10). ‘ For I hope’ (RV.) is to be preferred to ‘ But I trust’ (AV.) : ἐλπιζωγάρ (א A B C D E F G l M P), ἐλπιζωδέ (K L) : ἐπιτρέψῃ (א A B C l M), ἐπιτρέπῃ (D E F G K). 8. ‘ But I propose to stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost.’ Evidently he is writing in or near Ephesus, and probably about Easter (5:7; 15:20). At that time navigation would have begun again, and therefore it would be possible for him to come. It does not much matter whether we read ἐπιμενῶ or ἐπιμένω : in either case he is expressing his intention. WH. prefer ἐπιμένω , ‘ I am staying on.’ Pentecost is probably mentioned as a rough indication of time, a few weeks later. He does not mean that he must keep the Feast of Pentecost at Ephesus. His reasons for staying on are quite different. There is a grand opening for effectual work, and there is a powerful opposition: he must utilize the one and check the other. 9. θύραγάρμοιἀνέῳγενμεγάληκαὶἐνεργῄς . ‘ For a door is standing open for me, great and effective.’ The metaphor of a door for an opportunity is simple enough (2 Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 4:3, where see Lightfoot). In all three places an opening for preaching the Gospel seems to be meant, although in 2 Corinthians 2:12 the meaning might be that Troas was a good avenue for reaching the country beyond (Ramsay in Hastings, DB. 4. p. 814). It is possible that εἴσοδος is used in a similar sense 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Thessalonians 2:1. In Acts 14:27 the ‘ door’ is opened to the hearers, not to the preachers. But it is not quite clear what ἐνεργής means, or in what sense a door can be called ἐνεργής . Probably St Paul is thinking more of the opportunity than of the ‘ door.’ The ‘ door’ means an opportunity, and he applies to it an epithet which suits the fact better than the symbol. It may mean either ‘ effective, influential, productive of good results,’ or ‘ calling for much activity, full of employment’ ; Philemon 1:6; Hebrews 4:12. In Hebrews 4:12, the Vulg. has efficax; in Philemon 1:6 and here, evidens (other Latin texts, manifesta), which is a translation of ἐναργής , a word which is not found in Biblical Greek; nor is ἐνεργής found in LXX. On the ‘ opened door’ given to the Church in Philadelphia (3:8), see Swete ad loc. and Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, p. 404. See also Deissmann, Light, p. 302. ἀντικείμενοιπολλό . ‘ There are many opposing my entrance,’ hindering him from making use of the great opportunity (Philippians 1:20). Among these are the wild beasts of 15:32, and they would include both Jews and heathen. Act_19. shows how true this estimate of the situation proved. “ The superstition of all Asia was concentrated at Ephesus. Throughout the early centuries the city mob, superstitious, frivolous, swayed by the most common-place motives, was everywhere the most dangerous and unfailing enemy of Christianity, and often carried the imperial officials further than they wished in the way of persecution” (Ramsay, St Paul, p. 277). But this determines St Paul, not to fly, but to stay on: quod alios terruisset, Paulum invitat (Grotius). The intransitive ἀνέῳγεν is late Greek for ἀνεῳκται . 10-12. His intended stay at Corinth reminds him of the visit which Timothy is to pay in preparation for his (4:17); and the thought of the helper who has already started reminds him of another helper, Apollos, who refuses to start at present. 10. ἘὰνδὲἔλθῃΤ . Timothy had been sent with Erastus from Ephesus to Corinth; but as he had to go through Macedonia (Acts 19:22), and as his time was limited (v. 11), St Paul did not feel sure that he would reach Corinth; and he possibly did not do so. In 2 Cor. we read a good deal about the visit of Titus to Corinth, but nothing is said about Timothy’ s visit. On the other hand, while the Apostle explains and defends his own changes of plan about visiting Corinth, he says nothing about Timothy’ s having failed to visit them. If Timothy is the ἀδικηθεις of 2 Corinthians 7:12, he must have reached Corinth and have been grossly insulted by some one; but more probably the ἀδικηθείς is St Paul himself. Timothy was in Macedonia when 2 Cor. was written (1:1), and perhaps had never been further.* βλέπετεἵναἀφόΒωςγένηταιπρὸςὑμᾶς . ‘ See that he comes to feel at home with you without fear’ : comp. Colossians 4:17; 2 John 1:8; but βλέπετεμή (8:9; 10:12; Galatians 5:15; Colossians 2:8, etc.) is more common than βλέπετεἵνα . They are to take care that there is no painful awkwardness in Timothy’ s intercourse with them. Was Timothy timid? There are passages which agree with such a supposition, although they do not necessarily imply it (1 Timothy 5:21-23; 2 Timothy 1:6-8, 2 Timothy 1:2:1, 2 Timothy 1:3, 2 Timothy 1:15, 2 Timothy 1:4:1, 2 Timothy 1:2). See Hastings, DB. 4. p. 768). He was certainly young, for some eight years later St Paul still speaks of his νεότης (1 Timothy 4:12); and the Corinthians could certainly be rude, even to the Apostle himself (2 Corinthians 10:10). ‘ For he is working the work of the Lord (15:58), as I also am.’ Therefore, if they put difficulties in Timothy’ s way, they will be hindering the work which God has given to the Apostle to do: 4:17. 2:19-21. κἀγώ (א A C K L P), καὶἐγώ (D E F G), ἐγώ (B M 67). WH. adopt the last, on the same evidence as καταμενῶ (v. 6). In Luke 2:48, Luke 16:9, and Acts 10:26, καὶἐγώ seems to be right; almost everywhere else κἀγώ is the better reading, but the evidence is frequently divided. In the three exceptions the ἐγώ is rather pointedly co-ordinated with some one else. See Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 96. 11. μήτιςοὖναὐτὸνἐξουθενήσῃ . ‘ Let no one therefore set him at nought— treat him as of no account.’ (1:28, 6:4; 2 Corinthians 10:10; Galatians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:20). Except Mark 9:12, the verb is found only in Paul and Luke. It is stronger than καταφρονείτω (1 Timothy 4:12; comp. 11:22). Beng. quotes, νεώτεροςἐγώεἰμικαὶἐξουδενωμένος (Psalms 119:141: adolescentulus sum ego et contemptus; but here the Vulg. has spernat, with contemnere for καταφρονεῖν . ἐνεἰρήῃ . To be taken with προπέμψατε , not with ἵναἔλθῃ , which would have little point. ‘ When he departs, let him see that he has your good will, and that he leaves no bad feeling in any of you.’ ‘ In peace’ at the conclusion of his intercourse with them will be a fitting result of ‘ without fear’ at the beginning of it. The last clause shows why they ought to set Timothy forward on his journey with peace and good will; he will be on his way to the Apostle, who is expecting him. μετὰτῶνἀδελφῶν . Erastus is the only one mentioned in Acts 19:22; but there may have been others, or St Paul may have expected others. The words need not mean more than that Timothy is not likely to come alone. This, however, is so unimportant a meaning that some prefer taking μετὰτ . ἀδ . with ἐκδέχομαι : ‘ I am expecting him and so are the brethren.’ This is an awkward construction, but it has more point. ‘ The brethren’ in this case will be the same as ‘ the brethren’ in v. 12, viz. those who brought the letter from Corinth and are waiting to take back the Apostle’ s reply. The meaning would then be, ‘ Send him back to me in peace, and then the brethren who are waiting for him will be able to start with my answer to you’ . 12. ΠερὶδεἉπολλώ . This looks as if the Corinthians had asked that Apollos should visit them again (5:1. 7:1, 7:25, 8:1, 12:1). At any rate St Paul knew that they would be glad to have Apollos among them once more, and he is anxious to assure them that he is quite willing that Apollos should come. He is not jealous of the able and attractive Alexandrian, and is not at all afraid that he may join the Apollos party (1:12, 3:4-6, 4:6; Titus 3:13). He has urged him strongly to go with the brethren who are to take 1 Cor. to Corinth, and it is not his fault that Apollos does not do so. καὶπάντωςοὐκἦνθέλημαἳναἔλθηκ .τ .λ . ‘ And, in spite of all I could say, he had no wish to come now; but he will come whenever the right time arrives.’ The παρεκάλεσααὐτόν shows whose ‘ will’ is meant; ‘ I exhorted and entreated him, and there was absolutely no wish to come at present.’ Chrysostom assumes that it is the will of Apollos that is the impediment, and points out how St Paul excuses himself without blaming Apollos. To suppose that the will of God is meant (Theoph., Beng., Evans) is at variance with the context. When St Paul means the will of God, which is very frequently, he says so (1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 8:5, etc.).  * In the N.T., πάντως is found only in Paul and Luke (9:10; Luke 4:23; Acts 28:4): it expresses strong affirmation, utique (Vulg.). The νῦν softens the refusal: Apollos has not made up his mind never to visit Corinth again, but he cannot be induced to come now. Although St Paul was not afraid that Apollos would join the Apollos party, Apollos may have been afraid that this party would try to capture him. If this is correct, ὂτανεὐκαιρήσῃ may have special meaning. Just as οὗἐὰνπορεύωμαι (v. 6) suggests, ‘ It depends upon you whether I go to Jerusalem or not,’ so this might suggest, ‘ It depends upon you whether he comes soon or not.’ The proper καιρός rests with the Corinthians; Apollos will not come while there is an Apollos party in opposition to the Apostle. The ἦν implies that Apollos is not with St Paul at the time of writing: ‘ when I spoke to him, there was no wish at all to come now.’ But εὐκαιρήσῃ (Mark 6:31; Acts 17:21; not in LXX) need not imply more than that Apollos was at present not free to come; for which meaning εὔσχολῆςἐχειν would be better Greek. On the work of Apollos at Corinth see Knowling on Acts 18:24, Acts 18:25. Before πολλὰπαρεκάλεσα , א D E F G, Latt. Goth. insert δηλῶὑμῖνὅτι , vobis notum facio quoniam: A B C K L M P, Syrr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. omit. For πολλά , adverbial, comp. v. 19; Romans 16:6, Romans 16:12; it is frequent in Mark (5:10, 23, 38, 43, etc.). 13, 14. There is probably no thought of Apollos in this abrupt transition, such as, ‘ Do not put your trust in any teacher, however competent; you must look to your own conduct.’ St Paul means to bring the letter to a close and begins his final exhortations. In five clear and crisp charges he gathers together the duties which he has been inculcating, the duties of a Christian soldier. Four of these have reference to spiritual foes and perils, while the last sums up their duty to one another. They are an army in the field, and they must be alert, steadfast, courageous, strong; and in all things united. “ The four imperatives are directed respectively against the heedlessness, fickleness, childishness, and moral enervation of the Corinthians” (Findlay). Comp. 7:29-31, 10:12, 13, 15:1, 14:20, 9:24, 13. 13. Γρηγορεῖτε . This charge seems to have been often given by our Lord, especially at the close of His ministry; Mark 13:34, Mark 13:35, Mark 13:37, Mark 13:14:34, Mark 13:37, 38, and parallels; and μακάριοςὁγρηγορῶν is one of the seven Beatitudes in Revelation (16:15; comp. 3:2, 3; Matthew 24:42). For its use as a military charge see 1 Macc. 12:27 of Jonathan the high priest to his men, and for its metaphorical use, as here, γρηγόρει , ἀκόμητονπνεῦμακεκτημένος (Ign. Polyc. 1): comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:6, 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Colossians 4:2; 1 Peter 5:8. The verb is a late formation from ἐγρήγορα , and is found in the later books of the LXX, in the Psalms of Solomon, and in the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs. Watchfulness against various enemies and dangers and watchfulness for the coming of Christ are specially meant here. στήκετεἐντῇπίστει . The warning in 10:12 unites this charge with the preceding one: comp. Romans 5:2, Romans 5:11:20; Ephesians 4:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:15. ‘ The faith’ means belief in the Gospel as a whole, and especially in the atonement won by Christ’ s death on the Cross (1) and in the life guaranteed by His Resurrection (15). There must be no desertion, no λειποταξία , with regard to that. These first two charges have reference to the Christian warrior awaiting attack; the next two refer to the actual combat. ἀνδρίζεσθε . ‘ Play the man,’ ‘ act like men,’ viriliter agite (Vulg.). The verb occurs here only in N.T., but is common in LXX in exhortations; Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:7, Deuteronomy 31:23; Joshua 1:6, Joshua 1:7, Joshua 1:9, Joshua 1:18, etc. In 2 Samuel 10:12 and Psalms 27:14, 31:25, it is combined with κραταιοῦσθαι , as here. Comp. the dying charge of Mattathias to his sons; ‘ And ye, my children, be strong, and show yourselves men in behalf of the law’ (1 Macc. 2:64). Arist. Eth Nic. III:VI. 12 and other illustrations in Wetstein. κραταιοῦσθε . ‘ Be not only manly but mighty; gain the mastery’ (Ephesians 3:16): κραταιός (1 Peter 5:6) and κράτος (Ephesians 1:19, Ephesians 1:6:10; Colossians 1:2; 1 Timothy 6:16) are uniformly used of God. 14. πάνταὑμῶνἐνἀγάπῃγινέσθω . He is glancing back at the party-divisions, at the selfish disorder at the Lord’ s Supper, and at their jealousy in the possession of special charismata, and is recalling 13. Chrysostom has μετὰἀγάπης for ἐνἀγάπῃ , probably through inadvertence; there seems to be no such reading. The change is for the worse.* St Paul says more than that everything they do must be accompanied with love: love must be very atmosphere in which their lives move. This love is the affection which all Christians are bound to cherish for one another and all mankind. The phrase ἐνἀγάπη is specially frequent in Ephesians (1:4, 3:18, 4:2, 15, 16, 5:2) and always in this sense rather than in that of our love to God or of His to us. 15-18. He remembers some other directions which must be given before he concludes: comp. Romans 16:17. He has spoken of his own fellow-workers, Timothy and Apollos, who are to visit them. He now says a word in commendation of some among themselves whose services to the Church ought to command esteem and deference as well as love. Perhaps he had heard that those whom he mentions had been treated with disrespect. Dobschü tz, Probleme, pp. 66, 69. 15. Παρακαλῶδὲὑμᾶς , ἀδελφό . ‘ Now I beseech you, my brothers,’ — and then he breaks off in order to mention something which will induce them to grant his request. Dionysius the Areopagite, Damaris, and possibly others (Acts 17:33) had been won over before Stephanas, but his was the first Christian household, and as such was the foundation of the Church in those parts. It began with ‘ the Church in his house.’ In a similar sense Epaenetus was ἀπαρχὴτῆςἈσίας (Romans 16:5). It was no doubt on account of this important fact that St Paul made an exception in his usual practice and baptized Stephanas and his household (1:16). What follows shows their devotion to the cause. Clement of Rome (Cor. 42), speaking of the Apostles, says: “ So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe” ; where τὰςἀπαρχὰςαὐτῶν seems to mean the firstfruits of the country districts and towns, χώραςκ . πόλεις . But here it is evident that the Apostle had not appointed Stephanas and his household to any διακονία . They had spontaneously taken this service upon themselves. Just as the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas and others should go to Jerusalem about the question of circumcision (Acts 15:2), so Stephanas and his household appointed themselves to the service of their fellow-Christians. It was a self-imposed duty*.‘ The saints’ does not mean the poor at Jerusalem, but believers generally,— the sick and needy, travellers, etc. In class. Grk. τάσσεινἐαυτόν is common. 16. ἳνακαὶὑμεῖςὑποτάσσησθετοῖςτοιούτοις . ‘ That ye also be in subjection to such men as these’ — to such excellent Christians. The AV. ignores the καί , which has special point; ‘ that you also do your duty to them as they do to all.’ And perhaps ὑποτάσσεσθαι is chosen with special reference to ἔταξανἑαυτούς . ‘ They have taken the lead in good works; do you also follow such leadership.’ καὶπαντὶτῷσυνεργοῦντικαὶκοπιῶντι . ‘ And to every fellow-labourer and hard worker.’ *The σύν in συνεργοῦντι is indefinite and comprehensive; neither ‘ with us’ (AV.) in particular, nor ‘ with them,’ but omni co-operanti (Vulg.), omnibus operam suam conferentibus (Beza); every one who lends a helping hand and works hard (Romans 16:6, Romans 16:12). 17. χαίρωδὲἐπὶτῇπαρουσίᾳΣ . κ .τ .λ . ‘ And it is a joy to me to have Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus here.’ They had probably brought the Corinthian letter and were waiting to take this letter in reply to it. They were a little bit of Corinth, and as such a delight to the Apostle. That Fortunatus and Achaicus were members of the οἰκίαΣπεφανᾶ is unlikely; they would have been mentioned in a different way, if they had been; and it is improbable that all the delegates would be taken from one household. Lightfoot thinks that there is no improbability in identifying Fortunatus with the Fortunatus mentioned by Clem. Rom. (Cor. 65): but the identification is precarious, for that Fortunatus may have been a Roman, and the name is not at all rare.† It is possible that the use of παρουσία , implies that the visit of the delegates was official; see on 15:23. τὸὑμέτερονὑστέρημα . Does this mean ‘ my want of you,’ or ‘ your want of me’ ? Both are possible, and each makes good sense. ‘ I am deprived of you; but they compensate for your absence’ ; which is a pleasing way of expressing his affection for the Corinthians and his joy at having some of them with him. On the other hand; ‘ You cannot all of you come to me; but these excellent delegates will do quite as well.’ The latter is perhaps a little more probable. In the other case, would he have said ἀνεπλήρωσαν that these three men quite made up for their absence (Philippians 2:30)? But, as regards answering the Corinthians’ questions, these delegates were an adequate substitute for the whole community; there was no need for the whole community to interview the Apostle. א A K L, Chrys. have ὑμῶντὸὑστέρημα : B C D E F G M P read τὸὑμέτὲρονὑδτξρημα , which is more likely to be right. For οὗτοι (א B C K L P, Copt. Arm. Aeth. Goth.), A D E F G M, Vulg. Syrr. read αὐτό , which Lachmann and Alford uncritically prefer. 18. ἀνἑπαυσανγὰρτὸἐμὸνπνεῦμακαὶτὸὑμῶν . ‘ For they refreshed (2 Corinthians 7:13; Philemon 1:7, Philemon 1:20) my spirit— and yours’ ; explaining how these three men were sufficiently representative of the Corinthian Church. It was a great comfort to him to learn from their delegates how anxious they were for his direction and advice, and to have their assurance about matters which had greatly disturbed him respecting his ‘ brothers’ in Corinth. And it is in the highest element of his being that he has this consolation. He adds καὶτὸὑμῶν with affectionate after-thought: they are sure to feel the same. This may look backward to the relief with which the perplexed Corinthians sent representatives to consult the Apostle, or forward to the time of the representatives’ return, when the Corinthians would be tranquillized by their report and this letter. The latter is better; it will be a great consolation to the Corinthians to learn what a comfort their delegates have been to St Paul. ἐπιγινώσκετεοὖντοὺςτοιούτους . ‘ Acknowledge therefore such men as these’ : cognoscite ergo qui hujusmodi sunt (Vulg.); agnoscite igitur qui sunt hujusmodi (Beza.). ‘ Such services as theirs ought to meet with a generous recognition. They have undertaken a long and perilous journey on your behalf, and they have brought great relief and refreshment to me as well as to you.’ In 1 Thessalonians 5:12, St Paul uses εἰδέναι for ‘ know’ in the sense of ‘ appreciate.’ It would seem from these exhortations (15-18) that the Corinthians were wanting in respect for those whose work or position gave them a claim to reverence and submission. Clement of Rome finds similar fault in them. 19-24. Solemn conclusion to the Epistle with Salutations, Warning, and Benediction. The collective salutations are in three groups. First, those of all the Churches in the proconsular province of Asia, with which St Paul was constantly in touch. Then, from Ephesus in particular, a specially affectionate one from Prisca and Aquila and their household; and finally, a more general one from all the Christians in Ephesus. To these, with his own hand, St Paul adds his own personal salutation, with a farewell warning and blessing.*. 19. Elsewhere the Apostle mentions ‘ Asia’ thrice (2 Corinthians 1:8; Romans 16:5; 2 Timothy 1:15), and in all places it is the Roman province that is meant; but the Roman province was not always accurately defined and was used in more than one sense. Here the district of which Ephesus was the capital is probably intended. See Artt. ‘ Asia’ in DB. and Enc. Bibl.; Knowling on Acts 2:9; Hort on 1 Peter 1:2, pp. 157 f.; Harnaek, Acts of the Apostles, pp. 102 f.; Swete on Revelation 1:4. ἀσπάζεταιὑμᾶςἐνΚυρίῳπολλὰἈκύλαςκαὶΠρίσκα . Both ἐνΚυρίῳ and πολλά add to the impressiveness of the salutation: it is sent in a devout spirit of fellowship in Christ, and in affectionate earnestness. ἘνΚυρίῳ , of the sphere or element in which anything exists or takes place, is frequent in all groups of the Pauline Epistles, except the Pastorals, and is specially frequent in the salutations in Rom_16. (2, 8, 11, 12, 13). It sometimes means ‘ in God’ (1:31; 2 Corinthians 10:17), but generally means ‘ in Christ,’ to which, however, it is not always equivalent; see J. A. Robinson on Ephesians 2:21, p. 72. For the adv. πολλά see on v. 12; also Milligan, Greek Papyri, p. 91. Prisca would hardly be mentioned as well as her husband, if she were not a prominent Christian; and this prominence is still more marked in Romans 16:3 and 2 Timothy 4:19. “ Plainly the woman was the leading figure of the two, so far as regards Christian activity at least. She was a fellow-labourer of St Paul, i.e. a missionary, and she could not take part in missionary work or in teaching, unless she had been inspired and set apart by the Spirit. Otherwise, St Paul would not have recognized her. Shc may be claimed as ἡἀπόστολος , although St Paul has not given her this title” (Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, ii. p. 66). Harnack thinks it probable that either Prisca or Aquila wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews (Ibid. i. p. 79; Zeitschrift fü r die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1900, i. pp. 16 f.). In Acts 18:18, Acts 18:26 the wife is placed first; in Acts 18:2, the husband, as here. In Acts she is always called by the diminutive form of the name, Priscilla, which St Paul, according to the best texts, never uses. They were evidently great travellers, according to the nomadic habits of many of the Jews (Sanday and Headlam on Romans 16:3; Deissmann, Light, pp. 119, 170, 278; Renan, S. Paul, pp. 96, 97; Lightfoot, Biblical Essay, p. 299). σὺντῇκατ ʼ οἶκοναὐτῶνἐκκλησίᾳ . At Rome, as at Ephesus, the house of this devoted pair was a centre of Christian activity (Romans 16:3), and was probably used for common worship (Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2). Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 117, 118 122. We need increased information about this primitive arrangement. A 34 omit this verse, doubtless through homoeoteleuton. After αἰἐκκλησίαι , C P 47, Chrys. insert πᾶσαι . For ἀσπάζεται (א C D E K P, Goth.), B F G L M, Vulg. have ἀσπάζονται , an obvious correction. For Πρίσκα (א B M P 17, Copt. Arm. Goth.), A C D E F G K L Syrr. Aeth. have Πρίσκιλλα , which AV., Lachm. and Alford adopt. 20. ἀσπάζονταιὑμᾶςοἱἀδελφοὶπάντες . ‘ All the brethren salute you,’ with some emphasis on ‘ all’ as in 15:7. He means all the members of the Church in Ephesus. The Corinthians are not to think that only Aquila and Priscilla with their circle take an interest in them. St Paul can answer for every Christian at Ephesus. “ One feels, in reading such salutations, that the history of nations is coming to an end, and that of a new nation of a wholly different kind is beginning” (Godet). Comp. 2 Corinthians 13:13. ἀσπάσασθεὰλλήλουςἐνφιλήματιἁγίῳ . ‘ The affection which the Christians in Ephesus and Asia manifest towards you must kindle in all of you affection for one another, which shouid be expressed by a hallowed use of the common mark of affection.’ Like v.14, this is an exhortation to get rid of their unhappy divisions and jealousies. The solemn kiss was a token of the love for one another which all Christians ought to regard as a debt (Romans 13:8). This φίλημαἅγιον (1 Thessalonians 5:26; Romans 16:16), or ἅγιονφίλημα (2 Corinthians 13:12), or φίλημαἀγάπης (1 Peter 5:14), very soon became part of the ritual of public worship. Justin (Apol. i:65) calls it simply φίλημα . Tertullian (De Orat. 14) calls it osculum pacis, and also signaculum orationis (18), and asks whether any prayer can be complete cim divortio sancti osculi. Later he calls it pax, and in the Church Order known as The Testament of the Lord (1:23, 30; 2:4, 9) it is simply ‘ the Peace.’ But in the East the more common term was ἀσπασμός . Conybeare (Expositor, 1894 i:461) shows that the ‘ kiss of peace’ may have been customary among the Jews. If so, it is unlikely that the kiss was ever promiscuous in Christian worship, for in the synagogue men would kiss men and women women; and this was certainly the custom at a later date in the Church (Const. Apost. ii. 57, vii. 11; Canons of Laodicea, 19; comp. Athenagoras Legat. 32; Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 11, p. 301 ed. Potter). See Suicer, ἀσπασμός and φιλημα ; D. Chr. Ant. p. 902; Kraus, Real-Ency. d. Chr. Alt. i. p. 543. It is said that in some parts of Greece a kiss is still given with the Paschal Salutation, “ Christ is risen.” Chrysostom (on 2 Corinthians 13:13) compares the later custom of kissing the entrances of Churches; “ We are the temple of Christ. We kiss the porch and entrance of the temple in kissing one another” ; and he contrasts the kiss of Judas, which was not ἅγιον . From England the custom spread in the thirteenth century of passing round a tablet (pax, instrumentum paccis, tabella pads, asser ad pacem, oculatorium) to be kissed as a substitute for the kiss of peace. The passing of this through the congregation led to so much confusion that at last it was confined to the clergy (Kraus, 2. p. 602). 21. ὉἀσπασμὸςτῇἐμῆχειρὶΠαύλου . ‘ The salutation with my own hand of me Paul’ The Apostle takes the pen from his amanuensis and himself finishes the letter, to authenticate it as coming from him: it must not be possible for his opponents in Corinth to question whether this letter is really St Paul’ s: 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Colossians 4:18. Up to this point he had been dictating (Romans 16:22), but he finishes the letter himself. In the papyri, the signature is sometimes in quite a different hand from the rest of the writing (Milligan, Thessalonians, p. 125). The Apostle’ s handwriting would be known at Corinth; but we cannot safely infer from Galatians 6:11 that it was unusually large: like other people, he sometimes wrote large, as we use large type, for emphasis (Ramsay, Galatians, p. 466; Deissmann, Light, pp. 153, 158). Παύλου is in apposition with the gen. implied in ἐμῇ .* εἴτιςοὐφιλεῖτὸνΚ ., ἤτωἀνάθεμα . We might have expected ἀγαπᾷ , but the previous φιλήματι may have suggested the lower word. Or St Paul may have purposely chosen it, to indicate the poor character of the love indicated; ‘ If anyone does not have even as much affection as φιλεῖν ’ ; and those who were uncharitable to one another could not have this. For the difference between the two verbs see Trench, Syn. § xii.; Cremer, pp. 9f.; comm. on John 21:15-17; Swete on Revelation 3:19. Nowhere else, excepting the somewhat similar Titus 3:15, does St Paul use φιλεῖν , which is rare in the N.T. outside the Gospels. The negative almost forms one word with φιλεῖ , ‘ if anyone has no affection for Christ,’ is heartless towards Him. As a matter of fact, this was the case with some: comp. 7:9, 11:6. For ἤτω , a later form of ἔστω , see James 5:12; also ἤτωἡδόξαΚυρίουεἰςτὸναἰῶνα , Psalms 104:31; Ἰερουσαλὴμἤτωἁγία , 1 Macc. 10:31. It may have been common in adjurations and curses. J. B. Mayor quotes two inscriptions; εἰδέτιςκακουργήσει , ἤτωἔνοχοςἩλίῳΣελήνῃ , and κατηραμένοςἤτωαὐτὸςκαὶτὰτέκνααὐτοῦ (St James, p. 155). Galatians 1:8, Galatians 1:9, we have ἀνάθεμαἔστω : see on 12:3. See Enc. Bibl. 2. 1432. Μαρὰνἀθά . Perhaps the most curious mistake in the English Versions is that which attaches these words, combined into one, to the preceding ‘ Anathema,’ as if they formed part of a formula of malediction, ‘ be Anathema Maranatha.’ Coverdale has ‘ be Anathema Maharan Matha,’ which has perhaps been influenced by Shammatha, the highest form of Jewish excommunication, like Luther’ s ‘ Maharam Motha.’ The Genevan translates the words; let him be had in execration, yea excommunicate to death’ But the error is far older than any English Version, and perhaps may be traced back to the fifth century. Down to the seventeenth century it was accepted as correct by many scholars; and although abandoned by scholars now, it survives here and there in popular literature, and in the Second Lesson one may still sometimes hear ‘ Anathema Maranatha’ read as one expression. Scholars, however, are not agreed as to the exact meaning of Maranatha; as to whether it means ‘ The Lord has come,’ or ‘ Our Lord has come,’ * or ‘ Our Lord cometh,’ or ‘ Our Lord, come.’ The last would resemble ‘ Amen; come Lord Jesus’ (22:20). Yet another interpretation is, ‘ Our Lord is the sign’ (Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 465; Ency. Bibl. iii:2935, from Klostermann, Probleme im Aposteltexte, pp. 220-246), but it is not likely to be right. With ‘ Our Lord cometh’ compare Philippians 4:5; James 5:8; Revelation 1:7, Revelation 1:3:11; and this agrees with the context and the substance of the Epistle. If it be right, the saying, though in no way a malediction, is monitory in tone. It warns them that at any moment they may have to answer for their shortcomings. Why St Paul gives this warning in Aramaic rather than in Greek, is unknown. The most probable conjecture is that in this language it had become a sort of motto or password, among Christians, and familiar in that shape, like ‘ Alleluia’ with ourselves. See Hastings, DB. iii. pp. 241 f.; Findlay ad loc.; Dalman, Words, p. 328. Zahn thinks that the Apostle uses “ the language of the Palestinian Jews” because “ the persons whom he has in mind are Christians who had come from Palestine” (Introd. to N.T., i. p. 288). א A B C M 17 have τὸνΚύριον , without addition; D E F G K L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Goth., Chrys. add ἡμῶνἸησοῦνχριστόν , as in AV. FG have μαρανναθά , which g renders in adventu domini. 23. ἡχάριςτοῦΚυρίουἸησοῦμεθ ʼ ὑμῶν . The Apostle will not end with a word of warning or severity, but adds the usual benediction. Like a true teacher, as Chrysostom says, he helps not only with counsels, but with prayers. The shortest of the Pauline benedictions is that in Colossians 4:18; 1 Timothy 6:21, ἡχάριςμεθ ʼ ὑμῶν . This one is shorter than usual. Sometimes ἡμῶν is inserted after Κυρίον . This one is shorter than usual. Sometimes ἡμῶν is inserted after Κυρίου (Romans 16:20, Romans 16:24; Galatians 6:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:18), and A L P Vulg. add it here. Sometimes χριστοῦ is inserted after Ἱησοῦ (Romans 16:24; 2 Corinthians 13:13; Galatians 6:18; Philippians 4:23; 1 Thessalonians 5:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:18; Philemon 1:25), and A C D E F G K L M P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. add it here, while א * B 17 Am, Goth omit. Sometimes πάντων (2 Corinthians 13:13; 2 Thessalonians 3:18), sometimes τοῦπνεύματος (Galatians 6:18; Philippians 4:23; Philemon 1:25), is inserted before ὑμῶν . The fullest form of all 2 Corinthians 13:13. In spite of the strong evidence for Χριστοῦ here, it is not to be accepted; the probability of insertion either deliberately or mechanically, is great. The evidence against Χριστόν in v. 22 is stronger, and if that is not genuine, Χριστοῦ is not likely to be genuine here. 24. To make his farewell words still more tender, he adda to the Apostolic Benediction a message of personal affection. The verb to be suplied is probably the same in both cases, εἲη , ‘ be,’ as in AV. and RV.; εἲη must be understood in v. 23, and is more probably than ἐστί in v. 24. He sends his love in the form of a blessing to help them to correct what he has blames, and to prove to them that, as regards his attitude towards them ἡἀγάπηοὐδέποτεπίπτελ . It embraces all of them, even the most faulty, for it is ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ , the ‘ bond of perfectness’ and the ‘ bond of peace,’ * He would not have said πάντων , of ἐστί were understoood, for some offenders were too flagrant to be at present included; but as a wish, an aspiration and a prayer, his message may embrace all. And, being ‘ in Christ Jesus,’ it has nothing of the partiality or fickleness of human affection. It is, as Chrysostom says, πνευματικήτις . διὸκαὶσφόδραγνησία . The final ἀμήν (א A C D K L P, Versions) is as usual, a liturgical, addition: B F M 17 and some Latt. omit. The ἀμήν at the end of galatians, romans, and Jude is genuine; that at the end of 2 Peter is possibly genuine. See Introduction, § ‘ Text’ . As already pointed out on v.5, the note in K L and some Latin texts, stating that the letter was weitten from Philippi, is based on a misapprehesion. P and some other texts say correctly that it was written ‘ from Ephesus’ or “ from Asia,’ while א B C D F 17 make no statement about the place of writing. * Calvin remarks that Christians, who know that they have God for their debtor, ought to feel the blessedness of giving, when even a heathen poet (Mart. 5:42) could write, Quas dederis solas semper habebis opes: and Primasius says that by giving a little at a time they will not feel oppressed, and so can be the cheerful givers who are beloved by God. Compare καὶσυνήγαγονἀργύριονκαθὰἑκάστουἠδύνατοἡχείρ (Bar. 1:6). † It illustrates the caprice of the AV. that in v. 1 λογία is rendered ‘ collection,’ and in v. 2 ‘ gathering.’ Tyndale and the Genevan have ‘ gathering’ in both places, while the Rhemish has ‘ collection’ in both. Contrast the ὅταν in 2, 3, 5 with the ἐάν in 10. K K (Ninth century). Codex S. Synod. xcviii. Lacks 1:1-6:13 ταύτηνκαί : 8:7 τινὲςδὲ — 8:11 ἀπέθανεν . L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome. M M (Ninth century). Harl. 5913 * at the British Museum. Contains 15:52 σαλπίσει to the end of 16. The MS. also contains fragments of 2 Corinthians and (in some leaves now at Hamburg) of Hebrews. A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum. B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS. C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 ἐνἀκροβυστίᾳ -9:6 τοῦμὴἐργάζεσθαι : 13:8 παύσονται -14:40 ἀλλὰἕτερα . D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 διο͂ὁλαλῶν -22 σημεῖονἐστίν is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422). E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429). G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1 Corinthians 3:8-16, 1 Corinthians 6:7-14 (F). P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 ὑμᾶςὁθεός -17 περιπάτει : 12:23 τοῦσώματος -13:5 οὐλογί -: 14:23 τὸλαλεῖνμή . A good type of text in St Paul’ s Epistles. א Ԡ א (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T. I I2 (Fifth century). Codex Muralti vi. At St Petersburg.Contains 15:53 ταῦτο -16:9. * In Galatians, St Paul uses the later Graecized political form Ἰεροσόλυμα of the actual city (1:17, 18, 2:1), and the ancient theocratic Hebrew form Ἰερουσαλήμ of the typical city (4:25, 26; comp. Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 21:2, Revelation 21:10). But here and Romans 15:19, Romans 15:25, Romans 15:26, Romans 15:31 he uses Ἰερουσαλήμ of the actual city, “ lovingly and reverently,” as of the mother Church and the home of suffering saints. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 316. ‡ Papyri seem to show that οὒͅςἐὰνδοκιμάσητε was a phrase in common use. On commendatory letters see Deissmann, Light, p. 158. * It has been found in a letter written a leaden tabler from Athens about B.C. 400 (Deissmann, New Light on the N.T., p. 56). 67 67. (Acts 66, Apoc. 34. Eleventh century.) At Vienna. The marginal corrections (67**) embody very early readings, akin to those of M (supra). See Westcott and Hort, Introd.§ 212. † With this use of πάροδος compare 2 Samuel 12:4, ἧλθεπάροδοςτῷἀνδρὶτῷπλουσίῳ , ‘ there came a visit to the rich man’ ; and Wisd. 2:5, where life is called σκιᾶςπάροδος , the ‘ passing of a shadow.’ In Genesis 38:14, ὲνπαρόδῳ seems to mean ‘ on a by-way’ or ‘ by the wayside’ (see Skinner ad loc.). The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. * Lightfoot, Bibical Essays, p. 276; Zahn, Introd. to N.T., 1. p. 344. * But see Lightfoot, On Revision, p. 118, who quotes Ign. Ephes. 20, Rom_1, Smyr. 1; where, however, the context shows that the Divine will is meant, and where some texts have τοῦΘεοῦ expressed. It is quite clear that St Paul did not regard Apollos as the leader of the Apollos party, any more than he regarded Peter as leader of the Cephas party, or himself as leader of the Paul party. But it is possible that Apollos had some reason, which the Apostle does not care to mention, for not wishing to return to Corinth then. Origen speaks of him as being ἐπίσκοπος at Corinth. * The AV. has the same weak rendering; ‘ with charity,’ following Beza’ s cum charitate. * The AV. is not an improvement on earlier versions, with ‘ They have addicted themselves.’ The Genevan is better, with ‘ They have given themselves’ ; and Tyndale still better, with ‘ They have appoyned them selves’ , For the kind of διακονία see Romans 15:25, Romans 15:31; 2 Corinthians 8:4, 2 Corinthians 8:9:1; Hebrews 6:10; also Hort, Christian Ecclesia, pp. 206 f. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/