FIRST ; THANKS AND HOPE IN TO THEIR STATE IN GENERAL I. Greeting 1 Corinthians 1:1-31 Paul, called to be an apostle [a chosen apostle] of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our [the] brother, 2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be [chosen] saints, with all that in every place [om. in every place] call upon the name of Jesus Christ 3our Lord, [in every place] both theirs and ours: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. AND 1 Corinthians 1:1-3. These opening verses, according to ancient custom, combine to present in advance the address and greeting; that is, the designation of the parties concerned in their mutual relations, and likewise the benediction. 1 Corinthians 1:1. Paul.—Concerning his person and history, his importance to the Church and his labors, consult the general introduction to these Epistles [also Herzog’s Real. Ency. art. Paul. Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, do. Kitto’s Bible Ency. do. Besser, “Paul the Apostle.” Eadie, “Paul the Preacher.” Howson, “Hulsean Lectures,” for 1862. A. Monod, “Five Discourses on St. Paul.” Ld. Lyttleton, “On the Conversion of St. Paul.” Neander, “Planting and Training,” etc.] A chosen Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God.—The ordinary rendering, “called to be an Apostle,” does not give sufficient prominence to the leading thought here, which is shown by the order of the words to lie in ‘Apostle.’ The sense is,—an Apostle by virtue of his calling; and this calling was that given him by Christ (Acts 9:22-26), having for its deeper ground the will of God (comp. Galatians 1:15 ff.). Hence, neither of these designations is superfluous. The fact of “being called” is insisted on in contrariety to everything like arbitrary assumption of honor, or unwarrantable, intrusion into office. “Καλεἶν: to call, like χָ ?μָ ?ΰ is used to denote the way in which God specially appoints men to any particular end.” Neander. And this was a matter which, in view of the parties at Corinth who refused to acknowledge Paul’s apostleship, and sought to put him below the twelve, directly called by Christ when on earth, it was in point to bring prominently forward; and no less important was it to show that this calling came through (διἀ) the Supreme Will. And there was the greater necessity for this, inasmuch as the office of which he claimed to be the bearer was highest in the divine economy. It was that of an ambassador of Jesus Christ, whose business it was to represent his Master, whose words and acts were to be regarded as Christ’s words and acts, the honoring or contemning of whom was to be looked upon as the honoring or contemning of Christ, who, as Christ’s commissioner, appointed to organize and govern the Church throughout the world, wielded an all-embracing power, and exercised a far-reaching authority, and who agreeably with such an appointment and such plenitude of authority was endowed with a “wealth of spiritual gifts, such as is ordinarily distributed among several persons in a less degree.And Sosthenes the brother.—Although conscious of his high and well established position, he nevertheless does not present himself before the Church alone; but he takes into company one who officially stood far below him. Him, however, he designates as an equal—as a brother both to himself and the Church, in the unity of Christian faith and hope. “The disposition on the part of Paul to send out his Epistles in the name of one or more of the brethren happening to be with him (Galatians 1:2), may be taken either to imply that the persons mentioned had aided in the upbuilding of the churches concerned, or as an expression of their perfect agreement with what he wrote. It certainly is, at any rate, a testimony to that fellowship in the Spirit, which Paul so often inculcated, and which he was ever diligent both to cultivate in himself and to inculcate upon his readers.” Burger. Whether this Sosthenes was the ruler of the synagogue mentioned in Acts 18:17,—supposing him to be then already inclined to the cause of Christ, in case it was by the Jews that he was beaten, or that he was violently opposed to this cause, in case he was beaten by Greeks, (the readings which indicate the one or the other are neither of them original),—cannot be accurately ascertained. In any case, he must have been known and esteemed in the Church, so that it was not without its influence with them that he expressed his assent to the contents of the letter, and represented them before Paul. That he must have written the letter himself under Paul’s dictation, as some suppose (Billroth, Hodge) (comp. 1 Corinthians 16:21), does not necessarily follow from this connection. Perhaps we might infer that he had been an official assistant of Paul; but even this is not expressly denoted by the term ‘brother.’ 1 Corinthians 1:2. Names and characterizes the party written to.—Unto the Church of God.—‘The congregation,’ or, ‘the Church of God’ is the Old Testament designation of Israel as a divinely gathered people. It means a people assembled before God and for God. The derivation of the word ecclesia points out the mode of its gathering. It was by means of a ‘calling,’—a spiritual instrumentality. Hence its members are designated as “the called.” In this a personal independence is presupposed. Salvation is offered, not enforced, and it is shared only by those who voluntarily accept and enter into it. Τοῦθεοῦ: of God—Gen. of possession. The Corinthian Church is hereby emphatically declared to belong not to any human leader, but to God alone. The Church is His.—Which is at Corinth [The local designation of the Church. Geographical divisions are in the Church the only ones recognized in the New Testament, and the Church in one place or city is always spoken of as a unit. Though consisting of one or more distinct congregations, it was regarded as an organic whole under one general superintendency. It was otherwise when a province was in view, e. g., the churches of Asia.—“Church at Corinth! that wicked city! what a joyful and striking paradox.” Bengel.]—to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus.—By this the Church of God is distinctly characterized in its members as Christian. It is composed of persons who are sanctified, i. e., separated from the mass of sinful humanity, the world, and devoted to the exclusive service of the true God [and whose guilt has been expiated by an atonement. Both ideas, those of consecration and expiation, are included in the word ἁγιάζειν: to sanctify]. This is not to be understood in a simply legal or theocratic sense (as in the case of the Jews, who were termed a holy nation because of their descent from Abraham and their divine government); nor yet in a purely objective sense, as implying the mere imputation of holiness; but in a real sense, as being the result of the operation of the Holy Ghost (comp. 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Peter 1:2). Yet this inward appropriation of salvation is not on this account to be considered as complete, but only as begun in its informing principle, and as existing in a germ which may be developed in various degrees. In Christ Jesus.—These words denote the ground or soil whereon those who are sanctified stand, and from which they derive the power of sanctification. It is Jesus Christ, into whose fellowship they have entered by faith and baptism (comp. Galatians 3:26 ff.; Romans 6:3), [and who is the only centre and bond of union for the Church]—called or chosen saints. This implies that they are consecrated to God and numbered among His peculiar people by virtue of a divine call, [“effectual call as distinguished from a merely external invitation.” Hodge] (comp. Romans 10:14; Romans 9:24, etc.); hence, that they, as well as the Apostle on his part (1 Corinthians 1:1), were also indebted for their high position to the Divine Will, which was made known to them in their call through the Gospel (Romans 10:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:14). “Paul here may have reminded them of their ‘calling’ as something which was alike for all, having in view already the parties whom he was soon to rebuke for giving undue prominence to the human instrumentality, and for insisting upon subjective diversities in a schismatic way.” Neander. [“It is not to be inferred from this that the Corinthian professors were all true believers, or that these terms express nothing more than external consecration. Men are uniformly addressed in Scripture according to their profession.” Hodge]. With all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place.—There is a difference of opinion as to the connection of these words. They might be joined to those just preceding, e.g., ‘who are called holy, as are all who, etc.’ So taken, they would serve to remind the Corinthian converts of their fellowship with Christians in all places. So Bengel. Or they may be construed as enlarging the circle of those whom Paul intends to address. The former construction would not be unsuitable, since it would furnish a fit antidote to the narrow-minded tendency to division which showed itself in the church. But the latter is favored by the similar passage in 2 Corinthians 1:1, which at the same time more exactly defines and explains the general statement we have here: ‘in every place.’ Then we should have immediately joined to this, as belonging to it, the closing words—both theirs and ours.—To connect these [as the E. V. does] with “our Lord,” q. d. “their Lord and ours,” is hardly admissible from the order of the Greek text, and is also unsuitable, because in that case the word “our” as connected with “Lord” would be understood not simply of Paul or Sosthenes, but also of the recipients of the letter included with them as well. (Comp. 2 Corinthians 13:13).—Referred to the daughter churches of Corinth in Achaia, as suggested by 2 Corinthians 1:1, these words yield the sense: “in every place which belongs as well to them—the Corinthians as the mother church—as also to us, the Apostle and his companions.” So construed, the Apostle will here be understood as, on the one hand, conceding to them the right of the mother church, and impressing upon them the duty of taking a deeper interest in the daughter churches, and, on the other hand, as indicating his interest in these, and so winning them also to the reception of his doctrine and exhortation. [But is it not more natural to refer “theirs” to “those who call upon, etc.,” and to include under “ours” both the parties writing and the parties written to? So Alford. Another interpretation has been proposed. “The Epistle is addressed to all Christians in Corinth and Achaia, wherever they might be. Every place is at once theirs and ours—their place of abode and my place of labor.” See Hodge. “These words form a weighty and precious addition—made here doubtless to show the Corinthians that membership of God’s Holy Catholic Church consisted not in being planted or presided over by Paul or Apollos or Cephas (or their successors), but in calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Alf.]. Who call upon the name, etc.—ἐπικαλεῖσθαιτὸὄνομα. By this is denoted, not the being called by the name of the Lord, as if the Greek verb were in the Passive, but, as every where in the Old and New Testament, the calling upon the name of the Lord, especially the invocation of His help as Lord. It is, accordingly, an act of divine worship, [and in a more extended sense, denotes a life of reverence towards God, and of habitual religious faith]. The term Lord, answering to the Hebrew ιְ ?δεָֹ ?δ or ΰֲ ?γεֹ ?πָ ?ι: Jehovah or Adonai, here applied to Christ, indicates His plenipotence and truth, which is more fully set forth in Matthew 11:27; Matthew 28:18; John 18:2; and which rests partly upon His original sonship and His mediatorial agency in the creation (1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16 ff.; Hebrews 1:2 ff.), and partly upon His redemptive office (1 Corinthians 7:22 ff.; Acts 20:28; Titus 2:14).—The name indicates the being as revealed and known; hence the invocation presupposes faith—faith, preaching—and preaching, the word of God (Romans 10:14 ff.). Those who called upon the name of Christ formed a contrast with those who blasphemed this name among the Jews. (Luke 23:39; 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 26:9; comp. Acts 22:16). This same thought lies at the foundation even in places where instead of a name we have a mere description. The name of Jesus Christ expresses what He is, His entire personality together with His office and work. [On the import of names, especially as belonging to Deity: see Bush, Com. Exodus 3:13.; Hengst. Com. Psalms 8:2; Psalms 9:12; Whately, Serm. Matthew 1:23]. 1 Corinthians 1:3. The benediction, which elsewhere among the Greeks, and twice also in the New Testament (James 1:1; Acts 15:23) is woven with the address into one sentence, is here peculiarly extended.—Grace and peace constitute the sum total of Gospel blessings, the former being the ground and source of the latter. Χάρις properly denotes that which begets joy, viz. favor, grace, kindly feeling. It may be regarded either as a quiescent trait, the mere outshining of an inward goodness or amiability; or as an energy put in active exercise for the welfare of others. Among the Greeks the word was used also in connections which we should deem immoral. But in the language of revelation it denotes that supreme love and self-devotion which was manifested in its most perfect form by the Son of God. It is what we, in respect of the unworthiness of the object, denominate grace, by which is meant sometimes the mere feeling of kindness in the heart, and sometimes the beneficent act which is its result. Here, indeed, it means the peace of forgiveness and reconciliation, corresponding to the Hebrew ωָ ?μεֹ ?ν which includes the entire welfare of the individual both spiritual and physical, and the root of which is inward peace, the repose of the spirit in the sweet consciousness of being reconciled to God, and in the blessed assurance that we have God for our friend and have to expect from Him good alone. (Comp. Romans 8:1; Romans 8:31-39). [“The wish of peace has a peculiar bearing here in view of the (dissensions at Corinth.” Ols.]. From God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.—That this clause is not to be translated “from God the Father of us, and of the Lord Jesus Christ,” is clear from Galatians 1:3; not to say any thing of the impropriety of thus putting Jesus Christ in a subordinate position.—The co-ordination of Jesus with the Father is to be explained on the ground that the office of mediating grace and peace rests upon His divine sonship, and so upon His equality with God.—This is a truth already indicated in the appellation “Lord,” and which is inferred from 1 Corinthians 8:6, and from the whole Pauline system of doctrine. [“Here it is to be remarked, that God is called our Father and Christ our Lord. God, as God, has not only created us, but renewed and adopted us. God in Christ has redeemed us. He is our owner and sovereign, to whom our allegiance is immediately due; who reigns in us, and rules over us, defending us from all our enemies. This is the peculiar form which piety assumes under the Gospel. All Christians regard God as their Father and Christ as their Lord.” Hodge]. AND ETHICAL1. From the fact that God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are exhibited to us as the common source or sum total of all the blessings of salvation, it is to be seen that the Apostle, even while subordinating Christ to God (1 Corinthians 3:23; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 15:28), yet maintains such a mediation through Christ of the Divine grace, and of the blessings flowing from it, as presupposes in Christ the Mediator a divine nature. How the two things, subordination and equality of substance, agree, is a problem for the science of Christology. This is the mystery of love, which in the Father flows out in the fulness of the divine perfections; which in the Son keeps itself evermore as consciously dependent and recipient, and, accordingly, both thinks, purposes and does every thing with sole reference to the Father. 2. The equality of Christ with God is also indicated by the calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Both this invocation and that derivation of all the blessings of salvation from the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ conjointly, can be made consistent with the Old Testament teaching respecting God, only on the supposition of the essential divinity of Jesus Christ and His true equality with the Father. AND 1. The consciousness of being called to the ministry through the will of God (1 Corinthians 1:1) is: 1. the ground of our confidence in appearing before a Christian congregation to instruct, exhort, reprove and comfort (comp. 2 Corinthians 3:4 ff.); 2. the spring of humble devotion to the service of the Lord, a. devoid of all arbitrary and self-willed activity, b. and in every thing observant of the Master’s eye, and subject to His word; [3. an example for all engaged in any lawful vocation. The consciousness of being called to our work in the providence of God is necessary for the sanctification of our labors, by imparting to them a noble aim, a right impulse, and a true courage to do and endure valiantly for God, our true Master, in all things appointed unto us. After Robertson]. 2. The main features of a true church (1 Corinthians 1:2) are, 1. that it is an assemblage before and for God; 2. that it consists of such as are consecrated to God in Jesus Christ; 3. that it is thus consecrated through the mighty creative will of God; 4. that its members are such as call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; [5. that these things may exist in connection with many glaring faults in true professing believers, and with many false professions of faith, which yet do not necessarily vitiate the claim to be called a true church]. 3. The proper fellowship between the office and the church rests, 1. in that the former works out for the latter the benefits of salvation which come from God and Jesus Christ in the way of blessing; 2. in that the latter receives these benefits from the ministration of blessing with earnest and hearty desires. 4. 1 Corinthians 1:2-3 : Besser:—How must the Apostolic greeting shame many congregations who assemble to hear this Epistle read, and yet come there with discordant sentiments and divided tongues! “The name ἐκκλησία: church,” says Chrysostom, “is a name not of separation, but of union and harmony.” [5. 1 Corinthians 1:2 : Bengel:—The consideration of the church universal frees the mind from party bias, and sways it to obedience.] Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 1:1.—Κλητός: called or chosen is wanting in many good authorities (A. D. E. etc.) These, however, are not sufficient to warrant its omission, since it is more likely that the word was omitted as superfluous, in consequence of διὰθελήματοςθεοῦ (as it is not found in like connection in 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1), than that it should have been inserted from Romans 1:1. [Cod. Sin. has it. In the text we follow the version of our author and translate κλητος as a verbal adjective “chosen.” This is the nearest equivalent in English. “Called” would be more correct; but this word is appropriated to another meaning, and would therefore be ambiguous.] 1 Corinthians 1:2.—[Our author inserts the clause “which is at Corinth” after “Christ Jesus,” an unnatural order, authorized by B. D. E. F. G. It. and which he vindicates on the ground that it were more natural to suppose that the order of the Received Text was a supposed improvement by transcribers, than that the clause in question should have been placed by design or error in those manuscripts after “sanctified in Christ Jesus.” The valuable Cod. Sin., however, agrees with the Received Text, and we adhere to this against the decision of Alford, Stanley or others.] [We here conform to the unquestioned order of the Greek text, which alone yields the true meaning.—See below.] [On the nature and extent of the apostolic office, consult articles under the word “Apostle,” in Kitto’s Enc., 2d ed.; Smith’s Bib. Diet.; Herzog’s Real. Enc.; also, Owen’s Works, vol. iv. p. 433–445; Schaff, Hist. of Ap. Ch., Book iii. chap. 2; Conybeare and Howson, Life of St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 13; Litton, The Church of Christ, Book ii., Part ii. 1 Corinthians 1. II. Gratitude and hope in respect to their Christian state in general 1 Corinthians 1:4-94I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is [was] given you by [in: ἐν] Jesus Christ; 5That in everything ye are [were] enriched by [in] him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; 6Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: 7So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: 8Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day 9of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by [through] whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. AND This opening, in which the Apostle expresses his thanks to God for the abundance of spiritual gifts possessed by the Corinthian Church, and his hope in their steadfastness and further prosperity in all good, should by no means be regarded as a simple rhetorical captatio benevolentiζ, as a mere bit of flattery designed to win his readers, so that they might the better accept his subsequent exhortations and rebukes, and keep themselves well disposed in spite of the unpleasant things he had to say, and submit to be the more readily guided to the ends he had in view. What Paul here says is preλminently the truth. It comes from his heart. He does feel a sincere joy that so much good exists in the church and that it affords such ground of hope for the future. It is a conviction which proceeds from his fatherly disposition (comp. 1 Corinthians 4:15). Nor are we to regard it as any self-deception or fond fancy of his. For however great may have been the faults of individuals, the work of Divine grace had nevertheless been begun in all the plenitude of spiritual gifts, and his confidence in the continued operation of the Lord confirming their hearts, and in the faithfulness of God towards them, was verily well grounded. Both these things are presupposed in his exhortation and rebuke. First, objectively: in so far as the expectation of any good results from his efforts rested only upon the existence of some good already in the church and upon God’s faithfulness and coφperation. Again, subjectively: in so far as the acknowledgment of previous successes and the hope of yet greater ones, generally inspire confidence and render persons favorably disposed to receive exhortation and rebuke as given kindly and intelligently, and infuse into them courage to undertake the work of reform; and this courage is of the right kind since it refers all good back to God as the source. And in this style of address there is something more than cool human calculation. It is acting in perfect conformity with the true laws of the mind, and above all with the law of that love “which believeth all things and hopeth all things,” but which nevertheless secures the same results that worldly prudence is wont to calculate for in a selfish way. “The Corinthian Church was well trained and instructed and established in the faith; but it was not yet entirely simple-minded and pure in heart; there was much worldly vanity and party spirit still among them. So in every church there is to be found a mixture of what is praiseworthy and blameworthy. The praise of the better class piques even the worse, and is a means of inciting them to merit that praise, too. And the reproof of the bad ought to affect the better class likewise, awakening in them regrets that there are such persons by their side and in their communion as deserve reproof, and it should prompt them to remove the evil. Every church is one organic whole, by reason of which the several members exert an influence upon each other and share in that which others have and are.” Heubner, p. 213. “This introduction, breathing blessing and praise, gratitude and confidence, exhibits the spiritual shepherd in apostolic simplicity and truth. All goodness in the church he denominates a work of grace, and he sets in prospect the consummation of the salvation begun as only grace likewise, and he does it in a manner at once humbling and animating. He looks at the church in its germ, in the strength of its better elements which may be rendered a source of blessing to others, and so, wisely preparing the way, he passes over from the bright to the darker side.” Osiander. 1 Corinthians 1:4. I thank.—An expression of acknowledgment and joy towards God as the Author of all good.—My God.—As in Romans 1:8 and elsewhere,—of course not in an exclusive sense, but as an avowal of his own personal communion with God and direct interest in Him; a personal attestation of his religious position, without any sinister design, but yet in a manner calculated to elicit respect and confidence in what he is about to say.—Always.—This cannot mean that he was always engaged in audible thanksgiving, or that this feeling of gratitude was also definitely present in his consciousness; but only that he bore this church perpetually upon his heart with grateful emotions to God—a meaning which the word in the Greek also carries.—On your behalf for the grace of God.—The personal object for whom and the reason on account of which the thanks were given. [χάρις: grace, the disposition in God, for χαρίσματα: the blessings flowing from it—“a metonymy which has passed so completely into our common parlance, as to be almost lost sight of as such.”—Alf. Wordsworth, however, distinguishes here, χάρισμα is a special gift to be used for general edification. χάρις is grace generally for personal sanctification. Tongues, miracles, healing are χαρίσματα. χάρις is given in order that χαρίσματα may be rightly used.”].—Which was given you in Jesus Christ.—Comp. also 1 Corinthians 1:2.—Christ is here regarded, in a sort, as the place, where the grace of God is manifested (comp. 2 Corinthians 5:19) so that he who enters there becomes partaker of it. But this entrance is faith, by which the believer is in Christ and comes into vital communion with Him. 1 Corinthians 1:5. Extends the thought and shows wherein the manifested grace consists.—That ye were enriched in him—i. e., as being in Christ and having constant communion with Him; and this enriching is the work of God’s grace.—In every thing.—A general statement, which is at once more particularly defined and limited.—In all doctrine.—Thus ought λόγος to be translated with Luther [in which Calvin, Alf., de Wette, Billroth, Meyer concur, understanding by it: doctrine preached to the Corinthians], and not: “utterance,” as though the reference were to powers of eloquence or the gift of tongues [so Bengel, Stanley and Wordsworth; “and which interpretation,” Hodge says, “gives good sense and is the one generally adopted.” Meyer: “All manner of external endowments for speaking;” excluding however any allusion to gift of tongues, as inconsistent with the subordinate value attached to this in chap. 14. This view is sustained by 1 Corinthians 12:8; 2 Corinthians 8:7; 2 Corinthians 11:6, In this case γνώσις; knowledge, would denote the inward endowment. The order of the words appears to support Kling’s view. “Truth preached, (i.e.) ‘doctrine,’ must precede ‘truth apprehended,’ i. e. ‘knowledge.’ ” But the analogous passages in the two Epistles go to prove Meyer’s view and the correctness of the English version also].—In all knowledge.—By this he means: the general acceptance of the doctrines that had been communicated to them on every side, and a comprehensive insight into their truth. This statement does not conflict with the fact of peculiar defects in individuals. 1 Corinthians 1:6. Further confirms and illustrates the foregoing. Inasmuch as—καθώς: [not correlation: “according as,” but as in appended clauses denoting explanation, quoniam, si quidem, since. Winer’s Gr. LIII. 8].—The testimony of Christ.—Christ may here be taken either as the subject, the one testifying, or as the object, the one testified of. The one does not exclude the other. In the former case the phrase would mean, the proclamation of the Divine plan of salvation in all its parts (its grounds, aims and relations; its beginning, mediation, execution and consummation), obtained by a direct insight into the heart of God, into His inmost thought and purpose (comp. John 1:18; John 6:46). But in this testimony of Christ, which sounded forth from the Apostles also, and so included their preaching, there is involved also the other idea, Christ’s own personal testimony, and the testimony of His Apostles likewise, to His divine Sonship and His mediatoral office. It makes little difference whether we construe it in the one way or the other. [“The former is the higher and therefore the better sense. It is good to contemplate the Gospel as that system of truth which the Eternal Logos or Revealer has made known.” Hodge. Yet, it must be said, usage favors the latter acceptation. “The testimony of Christ” is the witness borne concerning Christ by His Apostles of which the New Testament is the record, and in this instance by Paul. So Calv., Alf., Stan., Meyer]. “That the word μαρτύριον, testimony, and not διδασκαλία, instruction, is here chosen, does not rest upon a simple Hebraism, but is well explained on the ground that the gospel has not to do first and primarily with a system of ideas, but with an announcement of facts, the power of which a person must experience in himself.” Neander. The same expression occurs in 2 Timothy 1:18.—was confirmed in you.—Others render: ‘was established among you’ (Mark 16:20; Romans 15:8; Hebrews 2:4), whether it be by signs and miracles or by extraordinary operations of the Gospel.—Rόckert: ‘by its effects on you.’ But this neither suits the connection with what precedes, nor what is afterwards (1 Corinthians 1:7) mentioned as the result of it. The former indicates that the testimony of Christ was confirmed in their hearts, inwardly rooted there. And this happens partly through a comprehensive knowledge, so that thus the words “in all knowledge” would be further illustrated, and partly as its presupposed condition, inasmuch as it is effected by faith, which is the root of all knowledge, and is to be regarded as a becoming fixed and remaining steadfast in the truth. Respecting their steadfastness in this respect see 1 Corinthians 16:1; 2 Corinthians 1:24. 1 Corinthians 1:7. The consequence.—So that ye come behind in no gift.—The deep and fixed rooting of the gospel in the soul results in a rich unfolding of spiritual life, of which he now proceeds to speak. By “gift” we are to understand a result of the operation of divine grace. Romans 5:16 expresses by it the work of grace as a whole. Here we are to understand it of the particular operations by which the members of the Church were variously qualified to labor for the edification of the body of Christ, either by instruction, or exhortation, or rule, or service, inasmuch as the native talents of individuals requisite for such labors are awakened and sanctified by divine grace (comp. 12). When such talents fall within the sphere of moral effort, and are exercised in furthering the welfare of the Church and in glorifying God, they acquire an ethical character, and the gifts appear as Christian virtues. That such were the gifts alluded to seems to be intimated in what follows—Waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.—This constant expectation of our Lord’s second coming (Romans 8:19 etc.), when He shall be revealed in his glory unto all (Colossians 3:4), is one of the characteristic features of primitive Christianity (comp. Philippians 3:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:10 : Titus 2:13; 2 Timothy 4:8). Hence the clause has been taken as a simple paraphrase of the word: Christians. But this is by no means allowable here.—The connection of this participial clause with the preceding one has been variously interpreted. Luther somewhat loosely: “And are waiting,” “only waiting” in the sense, that they were all ready; in which sense we might translate it: “And can wait” or: “can comfortably wait;” But this would conflict with the entire contents of the Epistle. To take it as ironical, (Mosheim) in the way of a slant at their self-sufficiency, would be inconsistent with the friendly winning style of the introduction. And no less so, to suppose that he intended to alarm, by the suggestion of a coming judgment (Chrysostom), or to rebuke the sceptics of whom mention is made in chap. 15. More correct it would be, undoubtedly, to adopt the closer connection and translate: “while ye are waiting,” or, “ye who are expecting,” etc. The train of thought is this, that they, in this state of waiting, did not cease to make advances in every Christian qualification. So considered, the fact of “not coming behind” obtains the sense of: not falling short from any lack of earnest moral endeavor. There was a self-cultivation on the part of the spiritually quickened in consequence of their establishment in the faith (1 Corinthians 1:6). [But it must be added also that in the very mention of their waiting attitude, a commendation is intended. For this very “waiting,” as Alford well says, was “the greatest proof of maturity and richness of the spiritual life; implying the coλxistence and coφperation of faith, whereby they believed the promise of Christ—hope, whereby they looked on to its fulfilment, and love, whereby that anticipation was lit up with earnest desire.” But it may be asked, Were the Corinthians looking for Christ’s second advent as an event likely to occur in their day, and which some of them might expect to witness? This question must be answered in the affirmative. As Trench has well remarked, “It is a necessary element of the doctrine concerning the second coming of Christ, that it should be possible at any time.” And all the hints given us throughout the Epistles (comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:13 to 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Philippians 3:20; Titus 2:13; 2 Timothy 4:8) show that the hope of seeing Christ appear, while yet in the flesh, was an influential and inspiring sentiment, pervading the whole early Church. It was a powerful motive to watchfulness and patient endurance. And that it should so operate was one design of the secrecy which veiled it. “Latet ultimus dies, ut observetur omnes dies” (Aug.). That such was the case with the Corinthians seems to be intimated in the use of the word expressive of their mental attitude, ἀπεκδεχομένους: waiting it out, as persons expecting to see what they are waiting for].The earnest endeavor of the Church (or at least its better portion, its kernel) just recognized, leads the Apostle, in spite of all existing defects in individuals, to cherish the hope which he expresses in. 1 Corinthians 1:8. Who shall also confirm you.—To whom does the relative “who” refer? Most naturally to Christ, mentioned just before in 1 Corinthians 1:7. But in this case it is remarkable that in the next clause instead of saying “in His day,” he uses again the whole name and title of Christ. Hence the “who” might be referred back to “God” (1 Corinthians 1:9), whose gracious doings are spoken of in 1 Corinthians 1:5-6, and to whom the confirmation in the faith is ascribed (2 Corinthians 1:21; Romans 16:25). The effect then of the Divine confirmation of the testimony of Christ in them would be regarded as awakening the hope also that God would establish them still further. The reference however to Christ must still be maintained. The use of the full phrase “in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,” must be regarded only as the adoption of a solemn formula, elsewhere also employed, to designate the time of the second advent (comp. 2 Timothy 1:8). In 2 Thessalonians 3:3 we have likewise the work of confirming believers ascribed to Christ. And this is mentioned here in correspondence with what is said of their not coming behind in any gift and of their patient waiting. It involves also what follows.—Unto the end.—i. e., as the connection requires, not the end of the present life of individuals, but the end of the present dispensation, which terminates at the second advent, when the new era (αἰὼυμέλλων) will come in.—“Blameless.”—A short constructio prζgnans—εἰςτὸεἶναιὑμᾶς: that ye may be, [which is supplied in the E. V. “Compare the expressions διδάσκεινσοφὸν, αὐξάνεινμέγαν, to teach a man so as to become wise, to increase him so as to be great; Kόhner, § 417, 3. This is called by grammarians a proleptic use of the adjective.” Words. See Winer, Gram. Part iii. § lxvi. 3. g.]. By the term ‘blameless’ we understand such as are liable to no accusation; and this not simply putatively, but, since he is speaking of their condition at the appearing of Christ, in the sense of an actual or perfected holiness, so that the All-seeing Judge Himself will have nothing to lay to their charge (comp. Ephesians 5:27). Meyer. “This blamelessness is conditioned upon perseverance in the faith by which our justification is appropriated, and therefore is imputed; nevertheless by virtue of the moral nature and power of faith, as well as by virtue of the sanctification through the Holy Ghost, it is entirely of a moral nature (Romans 6:1 ff; Romans 8:1 ff.). Hence the person who is ἀνέγκλητος: blameless, appears at the revelation of Christ not indeed as ἀναμάρτητος: sinless, but as a “new creature in Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:17) who having been Divinely restored (Ephesians 2:10) and progressively sanctified (1 Thessalonians 5:23) has worked out his own salvation in the moral power of a new life (Philippians 2:12). [But here a question arises. Is this promise absolute or conditional? Conybeare and Howson add the gloss, “He will do His part to confirm you.” Hammond puts in the qualification, “God will make good His promise if you do not fail yourselves.” A. Clark inquires “But can it be said that God will keep what is either not intrusted to Him? or, after being intrusted, is taken away?” But such limitations seem to take from the promise its blessedness and comfort, for if this promise be of any value, it is the fact that it furnishes a guarantee against that greatest of dangers, the fickleness of the human will. It is in view of this danger, so manifest in the Corinthians, that Paul expresses his assurance of their steadfastness as grounded in the confirming grace of God. It were better therefore to take the promise absolutely. “Those to whom God gives the renewing influence of the Spirit, He thereby pledges himself to save; for the ‘first fruits of the spirit’ are of the nature of a pledge.” Hodge.] 1 Corinthians 1:9. Refers the hope expressed in 1 Corinthians 1:8 to its deepest ground.—God is faithful.—He will not drop the work He has begun after the fashion of weak inconstant men; but persevering in love He will carry out that which was commenced in love, even unto its goal. (Comp. Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:24; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; Romans 11:29)—[“Here, on this fidelity of God, and not on the strength of the believers’ purpose to persevere, nor on any assumption that the principle of religion in their hearts was indestructible, was the confidence of the Apostle in their steadfastness grounded.” Hodge. This faithfulness of God is pledged in three directions: 1. to Himself in the purpose formed; 2. to Christ in the covenant made with Him, Isaiah 53; Isaiah , 3. to believers].—Through whom.—δἰοὗ: a popular expression. We can speak of God as a mediating as well as a principal cause. (Romans 11:36). His Providence it is that through a great variety of arrangements and coφperating circumstances mediates the call, viz., the presentation of the Gospel to them, and also its effect in their hearts.—Ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son, &c.—This calling of God is the commencement of His work. Its goal is a participation as a son in the glory of his Lord (Comp. Romans 8:21; Romans 8:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:14). The fellowship with Jesus Christ embraces our entire condition, into which we are transferred through the power of the word when heard and received, and through the sacraments, extending from childhood on until we come into the inheritance of the glory which is to be revealed in Him and in us also.” Burger. But does not 1 Corinthians 1:9 compel us to take God as the subject in 1 Corinthians 1:8? [Certainly; one would suppose so]. By no means [!]. The truth of God is a pledge that Christ will confirm us. For it is precisely because we have been called through the unchangeable loving will of the Father to have part in Him, the glorified Son of God, and therefore to be made conformable unto Him that He whose will is ever one with the Father can do no other than confirm us. [Rather far fetched]. AND ETHICAL1. That Jesus Christ is the living sanctuary, whence all the manifestations of Divine grace are made, and all gifts are imparted, rests upon the character of His person. In Him it pleased God that all fulness should dwell—yea, that the fulness of the Godhead should dwell in Him bodily (Colossians 1:19; Colossians 2:9). From this it follows that believers are complete in Him. (Colossians 2:10). 2. The actual participation in this fulness is conditioned on the confirmation of this “testimony of Christ” in the heart through a lively faith, which involves a union with Christ and results in energetic endeavors, awakened in prospect of Christ’s glorious advent, to be behind in no gift, in order that the Church of Christ may become a well-equipped organic whole, and so ripen on to perfection. 3. To this actual confirmation of the truth in the heart there corresponds the work of Christ, resting upon the faithfulness of God who has called us unto the fellowship of His Son, for the confirmation of His own unto the end that they may be found blameless at His appearing, and prepared to participate in His glory as a bride adorned for the bridegroom (Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:9; comp. 2 Corinthians 11:2; Colossians 1:12). [4. The nature of the believers’ calling: 1. As to its condition. It is a fellowship with Christ through faith in character, in sufferings, and in glory. 2. As to its permanence, endurance unto the end; kept by the power of a faithful God. 3. As to its activity, a cultivation of Divine gifts in the service of Christ.] [5. The second advent of Christ is possible for any generation, and ought constantly to be looked for, desired and prayed for.] AND 1. A proper joy at the prosperity of a church: a. expresses itself in thanks to God, (1 Corinthians 1:4); b. is occasioned by the grace of God manifested to it in Jesus Christ; [c. and should fill every minister’s heart even as it did Paul’s, compensating him for all the toil and suffering of his ministry]. 2. The wealth of a church in doctrine, [or utterance] and knowledge, a. has its ground in Christ, (1 Corinthians 1:5); b. is obtained through the confirmation of his testimony in it. 3. The right waiting for the coming of Christ allows us to remain neither idle nor unfruitful, but inspires us with an earnest zeal constantly to appropriate and improve every spiritual gift. 4. Our hope for the perfection of Christians is our confidence in Christ [or God], who will confirm them blameless unto the end, and it is founded upon the faithfulness of God who has called us to the fellowship of His Son. (1 Corinthians 1:9.) [5. The test of a true or false Christian is his waiting for or dreading the revelation of Christ. Bengel]. Heubner: 1 Corinthians 1:4 : 1. Gratitude is something more than prayer. He who does nothing but always pray, is and appears ever unsatisfied. 2. God must become our God, i. e., we should not only acknowledge Him as God in general, but we should also recognize Him as our own God from all the experiences of life. This is true egotism. 3. A teacher has no blessing except what comes from God. 1 Corinthians 1:5 : 1. Wealth in that which is needful for salvation is true permanent wealth. 2. The amount the Apostles accomplished in their churches ought to shame us. They were obliged to quarry their churches out of the rough rock. We find Christians ready made to our hand, yet how little we achieve. 1 Corinthians 1:7 : Christian life in a church is to be known by the awakening of all good Christian energies. Every one should be ready to serve the holy cause of Christ with his gift. 1 Corinthians 1:8 : Unblamableness at Christ’s judgment should be the goal of a Christian. [1 Corinthians 1:4. There is a bright side even to the most disheartening circumstances of the church. It is our duty to consider these first and take courage]. [1 Corinthians 1:4-9. The rebukes of a minister, when steeped in love and prefaced by commendation descend like an excellent oil that doth not break the head]. Footnotes: [1 Corinthians 1:4. δοθείσῃ: was given, viz., at the time of conversion]. [Neander believed that in the minds of the Apostles, especially in Paul, a progressive development in Eschatology took place. The second advent at first seemed close at hand and possible in their day, but as they became more enlightened as to the future by the illuminations of the Spirit, it stood at a farther remove. Neander “Plant and Train, of the Christian Church,” p. 484. [The reasons for referring “Who” to God, 1 Corinthians 1:4, are well given by Stanley “1. καὶβεβαιώσει: also confirm, evidently refers back to ἐβεβαιώθη: was confirmed, in ver.6.” 2. “In the day of the Lord Jesus Christ,” would else be: “in His day.” 3. ὁθεός; God is the general subject of the whole sentence, and therefore repeated in 1 Corinthians 1:9. “God is faithful. For the sense comp. Philippians 1:6.” To these may be added a 4. from Hodge: “vocation and perseverance are in the work of redemption specially referred to the Father.” The same position is taken by Calvin, Alford, Billroth, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander and others.] SECOND OF DEFECTS AND FAULTS I. Exhortation to unity and rebuke of party spirit 1 Corinthians 1:10-1710 Now [But] I beseech [exhort] you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but [rather] that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind [γνώμῃ sentiment] and in the same judgment. 11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which [who] are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in [into: εἰς] the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized 15none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any [In order that no one] should say that I had baptized in [ye were baptized into] mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: AND The connection may be understood thus: I thank my God for his work of grace among you, and in view of his faithfulness am confident that the work, Christ [or God’s] has begun, he will perfect. You, nevertheless, I exhort, that ye consider carefully what is required for the fulfilment of this work, and remove whatsoever shall hinder it. 1 Corinthians 1:10. The Exhortation.—I exhort you brethren.—A friendly, winning address, which, as an evidence of his fellowship in the faith and his equality with them in it, imparts to his exhortation the character of an entreaty. This is also implied, in the Greek παρακαλῶ. “Paul often adds the term: brother, when he has an earnest word to utter.” (1 Corinthians 7:29; 1 Corinthians 10:1; 1 Corinthians 14:20). Meyer. The δε: but, introduces the transition from his exhibition of the bright side of the church to the reproof of its dark side. It is as if he said: “For much in you I have to thank God, but there is much in you which I have to censure.” Neander.—By the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.—It is thus he strengthens his exhortation and presents a motive for compliance.—[“The name of Christ was the bond of union and the most holy thing by which they could be adjured.” Stanley.]. The force of it lay in this, that they all acknowledged Jesus Christ to be their Lord, and so professed themselves to belong to one and the same Master; and in this the obligation to unity was unmistakably indicated. Similar instances are found in Romans 15:30; Romans 12:1; 2 Corinthians 10:1.—The contents and aim of the exhortation are expressed in the several clauses which set forth the same leading thoughts in several relations [and they are introduced by ἵνα: in order that, which points not only to the import but also to the intent of the exhortation. See Winer, LIII. 6.—That ye all speak the same thing.—By this he means: give expression to their inward accord and harmony of sentiment. It is precisely the opposite of the conduct mentioned in v. 12. They were with one voice to avow their allegiance to the one Lord, to the exclusion of all divisive party-watchwords. This is obvious from the following negative clause—that there be no divisions among you.—Inasmuch as he is not treating here of “dissentions in doctrine, but of divisions arising from adherence to different leaders, and from peculiar modes of apprehending and applying doctrine,” we are not to regard him as insisting upon “an exact uniformity of profession in the essential points of doctrine and life.” [The word used for divisions is σχίσματα, lit.: schisms. These, “in their ecclesiastical sense, are unauthorized separations from the church. But those which existed at Corinth were not of the nature of hostile sects refusing communion with each other, but such as may exist in the bosom of the same church, consisting in alienation of feeling and party strifes.” Hodge.]—But rather that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.—The inward positive side implied in the previous negative one. [The original word for “joined together” is from καταρτίζειν: to repair, to mend, to reunite and make perfect what has been broken. It were natural therefore to suppose an allusion here to the broken condition of the church which needed to be reunited and to translate the word as in the text literally. So Alf. and Hodge and Stanley, who says that “καταρτιστήρ was the acknowledged phrase in classical Greek for a reconciler of factions.” Calvin takes the word to signify: “fitly joined together, just as the members of the human body are joined in most admirable symmetry,” thus furnishing a picture of what the church should be. Kling however, following the Vulgate and Theoph. prefers the derivative sense of: perfect, and makes it=τέλειοι.] That wherein they were to be united is given in two words νοῦς and γνώμη. The former “embraces that peculiar mode of thought and of viewing life which lays the foundations for the moral judgment and moral self-determination. So in 1 Timothy 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:8. Comp. Beck, Bibl. Seelenlehre, § 51; Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. § 139. The latter is power of knowledge, understanding, spirit, also sense, disposition, as well as insight obtained, view, opinion, conviction, also resolve, design, aim; view expressed=counsel, proposition. The two must here be distinguished. Only it cannot be readily decided which denotes the side of thought and judgment, and which that of will and disposition. Since, however, γνώμη is used elsewhere in this Epistle to signify view, and counsel (see 1 Corinthians 7:25; 1 Corinthians 7:40, also 2 Corinthians 8:10), perhaps it would be best to take it here also in a theoretic acceptation=view, conviction. [“In the New Testament it always means judgment and opinion. When the two words are used together, the former is most naturally understood of feeling, a sense in which the word mind is often used by us.” Hodge. “Disposition and opinion.” Alford]. 1 Corinthians 1:11. Explains the occasion and motives for the exhortation, while the disgrace of it is softened by the fraternal address.—For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them of Chloe.—Sad reports had reached him, and he names his authorities in advance. What relation these persons sustained to Chloe, whether children, or servants, or other members of her household, cannot be ascertained from the text, “Paul names his informants without reserve in order to obviate suspicion.” Besser. “Concealment and mystery sow distrust and destroy love.” Burger. This Chloe must at all events have been a woman well known to the Corinthian brethren, either as a resident at Corinth, so that her people had come from thence to Corinth, or as a resident at Ephesus, so that these persons had learned of the state of things at Corinth during a visit there.—that there are contentions among you.—ἔριδες; discords, wranglings, which would inevitably lead to separations, to a rent in the Church, if not arrested in season. [Here he sets forth in severer phrase what he had more gently intimated in the word “schisms” above, and shows its evil and bitter character.] 1 Corinthians 1:12. Fuller explanation. Now this I mean.—τοῦτο: this, as commonly, points to what follows (1 Corinthians 7:29; 1 Corinthians 15:50), not to what precedes. That every one of you saith: (i.e.) has one or other of the following speeches in his mouth. Alike use of ἕκαστος; every one, appears in 1 Corinthians 14:26. [Winer says, “There is no brachilogy here. In these four statements Paul intended to comprehend all the declarations current in the chapter regarding religious partisanship. Each adherent of the respective sections used one of the following expressions”]. “Saith boastfully.” Bengel. He here vividly sets before us the several partisans, as they step out side by side, or in opposing ranks, each announcing the name of the leader he followed. It is as if he saw or heard them thus arraying themselves “As they were wont to do at the school, so here they acted in the Church.” Besser.—I am of Paul,—(i.e.) I belong to him as my head or spiritual father. The Genitive of ownership or dependence. The order of mention is most readily explained by supposing it to correspond with that of the rise of the parties. According to Neander, Paul follows the order of particular relationship, since the Apollos-party was only a fraction of the Pauline. The idea of a climax (Bengel), Paul in his humiliation putting himself at the bottom, is superfluous and improbable. Altogether groundless, however, and without any indication in its favor, yea, directly contrary to 1 Corinthians 1:14, is the opinion of the old expositors, that Paul used these names at random by way of a cover to the real leaders whom he had in mind. See the statement made respecting these parties and their rise in § 2 of the Introduction. The Pauline party naturally stands first, since the Church depended on Paul as its founder, and that portion which clave to Paul land his ways, (after a fraction had defected to Apollos), must beregarded as the original party.—I of Apollos,—(a shortened form for Apollonius). He was just as little disposed to act the part of leader, as was Paul. This may be seen from the fact that notwithstanding the urgent solicitation of Paul, he positively declined to visit Corinth at that time. This was no doubt with a view to avoid giving any fresh fuel to the strife which had already sprung up. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Corinthians 16:12). Respecting him see Acts 18:24 etc.; Acts 19:1; also Osiander on our passage [and Smith, Bible Dict.]. That he was a humble man, one who did not pride himself upon his culture, one of the few “wise after the flesh,” who had been early called (1 Corinthians 1:26) and “had sanctified their science by faith in Christ, to whom they made it subservient,” is clear from his willingness to be instructed by those simple mechanics, Aquila and Priscilla. Far from wishing to outbid Paul for influence and popularity, he labored only to confirm believers by a cautious reference to the Prophecies of the Old Testament. We find him once more mentioned commendatorily in Titus 3:13. Highly probable is the suggestion, first made by Luther, and afterwards ably advocated by Bleek, that he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Osiander calls this Epistle a most noble monument, both of his genius, which harmoniously combined human culture and Divine illumination, and of his style of doctrine, which was directed mainly to the work of atonement, and to the illustration of the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in the New, &c.—I of Cephas,—(i. e.) Peter, without doubt. It was his Aramean name, found also at ix. 5; xv. 5; Gal. ii. 9. Whether the party following him adopted this name, because they derived it through Jewish emissaries out of Syria, or be cause it seemed to them, more sacred as coming from the mouth of our Lord (John 1:42), or because the Shibboleth of a vernacular word sounded more imposingly, we are not able to decide. It is more probable that the Jewish name was the more common one with Paul. Only once in Galatians 2:7 ff, do we find him using the Greek name: Peter.—I of Christ.—As a supplement to what was said in the Introduction on this point, see Meyer in loco. We here give the main particulars. First, according to a fair exegesis it must be maintained that the parties were four in number. A like needless and inadmissible is the attempt to resolve them, either into two essentially identical pairs (as Baur does, who distinguishes between that “of Paul” and that “of Apollos” only in form, and takes that “of Christ” to be the same as that “of Peter,” which only assumed this cognomen because it deemed a genuine Apostleship dependent on personal connection with Christ, or which, as Beeker thinks, consisted of native Jewish converts connected with the Petrinists that had come in from abroad, but had Called themselves Christians because they had been converted by Paul and Apollos); or into two main parties: that of the Apostles and that of Christ, the three first adhering to Apostles or Apostolic teachers, and the fourth going back immediately to Christ (as Neander and others do); or into three parties, in such a way as either to set that “of Christ” as the only rightly disposed one, in contrast with the others as sectarian, see iii. 23, (as Schott and the Greek expositors); or to assign the designation “of Christ” to the three parties in.common who all professed themselves Christ’s, but who desired to have their participation in him regarded as dependent on their connection with this or that teacher (as Rδbiger: “I belong indeed to Christ, but it is as a Pauliner and am nevertheless a true Christian”). But Calovοus hit the truth long ago, when he said “even those who called themselves Christians from Christ were guilty of schism, since they separated themselves from the rest in a schismatic spirit and insisted on appropriating this term to themselves alone.” To this we may add what Flacius writes, “Under the pretext of Christ’s name they scorned all teachers and would have, nothing to do with them, pretending that they were wise enough for themselves without the aid of other instructors. For there was sin on both sides, either by exalting Church teachers too much or by appreciating them too little.” As soon as the knowledge of Christ came to be established in the Church, there may have been persons, who, in opposition to an over-estimate of all human instrumentalities, held to an independent Christianity, and so were easily brought to look away from these instrumentalities altogether, and with utter contempt of their worth and authority, fell into the way of asserting their exclusive dependence upon Christ, and so, priding themselves on this point, got to regard themselves as his sole genuine disciples, and tried to pass for such. To seek for this class exclusively among Jewish or among Gentile converts (“the philosophically educated to whom Christ appeared like a second perhaps higher Socrates, and who, despising the Apostolic form of the doctrine of Christ, sought to refine it by philosophical criticism.” Neander) is altogether unwarranted. The few philosophically educated Gentile converts could easily have satisfied themselves with the tendencies of the Apollos party. Nor are we justified in tracing to these the beginning of Gnosticism or Ebionitism, or in charging upon them a looseness in morals and a denial of the doctrine of the resurrection. According to Roman Catholic expositors, the party “of Apollos” were in danger of falling into a false spiritualism which volatilized the positive contents of Christianity; the party “of Peter” contained the germs of the later sect of Ebionites; and the type of the party of Christ was an ecclesiastical liberalism. 1 Corinthians 1:13. The reproof, in the form of questions which expose the absurdity of the partisanship just charged.—Is Christ divided ?—There is a doubt whether this should be read as a question or as a simple declaration. Meyer and others [likewise Stanley following Lachmann] take it as an emphatic assertion of the lamentable results of the aforenamed divisions: “Christ has been divided! torn up into various sect-Christs instead of being, entirely and undividedly the Christ common to all!” Since each of the exclusive parties claimed to have him, their conduct was virtually a rending of Christ. But ever since Chrysostom, commentators have generally regarded the words as a question. This would be more conformable to the analogy of the other clauses, and be just as forcible. Besides the subsequent question is of different import, so that it is not to be expected he would connect the second to the first with an or, as in the case of the third which is but a correlate to the second. This is what Bengel means. “The cross and baptism claim us for Christ. The correlatives are, redemption and self consecration.”—To the sound consciousness of a true Christian who knows but one Christ, the bond of universal fellowship, such partisanship is a contradiction. It involves a division of Christ against himself, since the parties, who exclude each other, all think to have him. Hence the question, “Is Christ divided? Is there a Pauline, an Apollonian, a Petrine, a Christian Christ?” Thus we apply the question to all parties alike; and not, merely to the fourth, as Baur does, who takes Paul to imply, that the name of Christ employed as a party designation was the most significant evidence, that they by their sectarianism, had rent Christ in pieces. Every party, he says, must still, as a Christian party, have thought to have Christ. If then there were but one proper Christ-party, it followed that the one Christ, in whom all distinctions ought to vanish, was rent asunder (Tόb. Zeitschrift, 1836, s. 4). It is clear in this case that the clause is not to be taken as a question. Under the term Christ, we are to undertsand not the Church as a mystical body of Christ (Estius, Olsh.), still less Christian doctrine, the Gospel (Grotius), but the Person of Christ, as the Head of the Church, in opposition to all party leaders. This is evident from the following questions, in which the exclusive right of Christ as Lord over His redeemed ones, and their obligations to Him as having been baptized into His name, are set forth: Was Paul crucified for you?—Lit: Paul surely was not crucified for you; was He? [The question is introduced here with the negative Particle μή. Meyer adduces this as an argument to prove that the previous clause which is without μή, is consequently to be read differently, as a declaration. To this Alford replies, “that the μή introduces a new form of interrogation respecting a new person, viz. Paul; and that it was natural for solemnity’s sake to express the other question differently. In μεμέρισταιὁχριστός the majesty of Christ’s person is set against the unworthy insinuation conveyed in: “is divided”—in μήΠαῦλοςἐσταυρώθηὑπερὑμῶν, the meanness of the individual Paul is set against the triumph of Divine love implied in “was crucified for you.”] With the strictest impartiality, which here appears as the truest prudence, he rebukes first the partisan attachment to his own person, and makes those, who set him up as their leader, to feel his painful disapproval of their course. Such persons while boasting of their connection with him, were as assigning to him a position which belonged to Christ alone. They were acting on the supposition that he had suffered for them, an act which was the ground of their belonging to Christ, who through His sacrifice for sinners had acquired the right to their undivided devotion (comp. 2 Corinthians 5:15). [If (as Socinianism alleges) the sufferings of Christ were merely exemplary, there would be no such absurdity or simplicity, as St. Paul here assumes to exist, in comparing the sufferings of Christ to the sufferings of Paul” Words]. To this ground of claim there corresponds the question expressing and confirming their personal objection.—Or were ye baptized unto the name of Paul?—That is: was the name of Paul called over you at your baptism, as though he were the person to whom you pledged yourselves, and in whom ye believed and whom you professed as your Lord and Saviour? This is certainly the sense, although “the baptism into the name” may be regarded primarily as submersion into it as a person’s life element; so also as an introduction into fellowship with the party named as into an essential ground of salvation; or as immersion in reference to him, so that the obligation to profess faith in that which is expressed by the name is indicated (comp. on Matthew 28:19). “The fact that Paul puts his name for all the rest proves how ingenuously he was opposed to all this party spirit, and how humbly he was anxious that Christ’s name should not be prejudiced through his own” Neander.1 Corinthians 1:14-16. I thank God that I baptized none of you.—The Apostle recognizes as a thank worthy Providence that he had been kept, for the most part, from administering baptism, since he had thereby obviated all appearance of intention to bind the baptized to his own person, an appearance which certainly would have arisen had he here acted contrary to his usual custom elsewhere;—but Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, converted through Paul (Acts 18:8),—and Gaius, certainly not the one of Derby (Acts 20:4), but the same as that Gaius mentioned in Romans 15:23, a man of distinction, who entertained Paul, and with him the Church, either by furnishing his house as a place for meeting, or by receiving there such of the Church as wished to visit Paul—in order that no one should say—By this is expressed not the design of the Apostle, but the Divine intention in ordering his conduct in such a way.—While writing he recalls another exception, “perhaps from information derived from Stephanas himself, who was with him.”—And I baptized also the household of Stephanas—the family whom in 1 Corinthians 16:15 he calls “the first fruits of Achaia.” οἶκος includes also the domestics. [“Under the old dispensation, whenever any one professed Judaism, or entered into covenant with God, as one of his people, all his children and dependents, that is, all to whom he stood in a representative relation, were included in the covenant, and received its sign. In like manner, under the Gospel, when a Jew or Gentile joined the Church, his children received baptism and were recognized as members of the Christian Church” Hodge]. In order to avoid all blame for want of frankness he adds, besides I know not whether I baptized any other.—[“Inspiration, although it rendered him infallible, did not make him omniscient”]. It will be seen that he baptized only the first converts, afterwards, when these multiplied, he transferred the business to helpers, possibly also to deacons, to whose functions this in course belonged. In like manner Peter (Acts 10:48). On this point he next proceeds to explain himself more fully by stating the veiw he took of his office. 1 Corinthians 1:17.a For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel.—Sent: ἀπέστειλεν a plain allusion here to his office as ἀπόστολος The appointment to this office did indeed include the work of baptizing (Matthew 28:19). But in Mark 16:15, as well as in Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8, and John 15:27, the work of preaching, of bearing testimony concerning Christ, appears to be the chief calling of an Apostle. And so it was in the calling of Paul (Acts 9:15; Acts 22:15; Acts 26:16-18 comp. Galatians 1:16). The preaching which awakened faith, was the proper entrance upon the work of Christ, who indeed never Himself baptized but only through His disciples (John 4:2). [“The main thing in the commission was to make disciples. To recognize them as such by baptism, was subordinate, though commanded, and not to be safely neglected. In the Apostolic form of religion, truth stood immeasurably above external rites. The Apostasy of the Church consisted in making rites more important than the truth Hodge].—Whether we are to assume here, as Calvin does, an ironical hit intended at the opposers, who employed the easier function to gain adherents, may be doubted. The supposition that they did so, is, at least, uncertain. The word εὐαγγελίζεσθαι: to evangelize, in classic usage, and commonly in the Old Testament, like αִּ ?ωֵּ ?ψ employed to denote the announcement of all sorts of good news, is in the New Testament used solely in regard to “the good tidings,” by way of preλminence, the proclamation of salvation in Christ, and the fulfilment of the promises and the perfect revelation of divine grace before prepared (Isaiah 40:9; Isaiah 52:7; Isaiah 60:6; Isaiah 61:1, &c.—The contrast in “not,”—“but,” is not to be weakened into a comparative, “not so much as.” Baptism was not the object of his commission, although it was allowed to him. (Acts 9:15; Acts 9:20; Acts 22:15; Acts 26:16-18.) AND ETHICAL1. The Church is essentially one, as a body subject to Jesus Christ, the one perfect Lord and Head, who has an absolute right over all its members by virtue of His complete self-offering in their behalf, and to whom they are absolutely bound by being taken up into fellowship with Him, as the element of their life and the sole ground of their salvation. It can properly be divided no more than Christ Himself can be divided. [This unity consists of onenesss of sentiment, of conviction and of speech. That is, there must be an inward and an outward unity, an invisible and a visible unity; the former manifesting itself in the later, the latter sustained by the former. The pretence of the one is not sufficient without the other.—See this. whole matter exhaustively discussed by Baxter on “Catholic Unity,” “Reasons for Christian Unity and Concord,” “The Catholic Church Described,” Practical Works, vol. 4.; Litton On the Church of Christ,” B. 2. part 2. chap. 1; John M. Mason, Complete Works, vol. 2. p. 265; Emmon’s Works, vol. 2. sec. 13]. 2. All sectarianism arising out of an inordinate preference for favorite teachers is a sin. It raptures this unity by limiting Christ’s right over us and our subjection to Him. It concedes to a mere man, to his peculiar opinions and ways and doctrines, something of that power and importance which belong to Christ alone; inasmuch as it binds men, and would fain bind all, to these objects, as if on these our whole salvation depended; causes them to move in these as the very element of their existence; draws to these their entire devotion, and so makes a human personality with all its individuality and singularity an essential mediator of spiritual life, which comes alone by truth and grace. 3. The proper view of Christ and of the instrumentalities He employs in their relation to Him is the true antidote against schismatical tendencies. Christ is the fountain-head of truth and grace, in whom all fulness dwells, and from whom all believers, whether teachers or taught, derive their spiritual excellencies; Where this truth is recognized, there there can be no inordinate devotion to human agencies. These agencies can be regarded only as the various imperfect rays of the One Light, which, so far from detaining us by themselves, should conduct us up to the source from whence they stream. Yet just as little does it become us to despise these human agencies, and withdraw into our own particular knowledge and experience of Christ, as though we were sufficient unto ourselves. Rather it must appear to us that, the more superabundant and glorious the fulness of Christ is, the greater must be the necessity for numerous and manifold vessels to take it up, from various sides and according to their several capacities, and to present it to others in ways suited to their manifold necessities, so that persons shall be most easily led, one through one and another through another, into a participation of the riches of Christ, according to their several aptitudes and needs. But the more this is done in truth the more open does a person gradually become to other aspects of Christ and to other organs of His, And this will lead us, on the one hand, to a just estimate of these organs themselves, and, on the other hand, to modesty of deportment and to a loving regard for such as were first led to Christ and edified by this or that teacher. And while the interested adherence to one particular aspect of Christ leads to a division of the one Christ in our feelings, and then to a rupture of the Church into parties, which deny to each other the full and proper enjoyment of salvation, and shut themselves up against each other in those aspects of the life and character of Christ which have been exhibited to them through the several organs they have chosen, the procedure we have been advocating conducts at last to a perfect unity of conviction and sentiment, which, precluding all division, makes itself known in unity of speech, wherein the manifold voices confessing the one all-embracing, all-suffering Christ, blend in harmony. This is a catholicity which is to be found as little in Romish Christianity as in the coagulations of a Lutheran or Calvanistic specialty. 4. [Sectarianism; its nature and origin; a historical survey of it in its existing aspects]. “The tendency to sectarianism lies in human selfishness and stubbornness of opinion, in conceit and egoism. Sectarianism does not consist in holding fast to our profession for conscience sake, but in using our own form of doctrine or religion as a means for exalting ourselves and for ruling over or opposing others. And this is not confined to leaders alone. That sectary who does not feel strong or courageous enough to take the lead, will at least join himself with ambitious devotion to some other person better able to do it, in whose honor and glory he may share. But Christianity refuses to be sectarian at all. How then, it may be asked, do existing divisions comport with it? They arise, under the Providence of God, out of the diversity of human opinions. Only, these denominations ought not to hate one another, but they ought to plant themselves on the one common ground, Christ, and recognize each other there.—The one Christ can have but one doctrine and one church. But under the hands of men Christianity disintegrates into parties. From this arises a necessity for our choosing that party which seems to us the purest and most Christian. Parties were unavoidable. God suffered them that they might become instrumental in exciting Christians to greater zeal, to mutual purification, and to the exercise of kindly forbearance towards each other. Toleration is a word which should not be spoken among Christians; for toleration is a very proud, intolerant word.” Heubner. Our confessions (Greek, Romish, Evangelical, with all their divisions) are, on the one hand, historical necessities; they resulted from the gradual working out of Christian ideas or principles, such as the Theocratic, the Hierarchical, and the Protestant, which is the principle of freedom, subject only to the word of God. On the other hand, they result from the disturbance occasioned by sin in the development of Christian truth and life. This is true even in respect to their national forms: the Greek, the Roman, the German, and the mixture of the latter with Roman and other elements. Hence the petrifaction of the first principle (theocratic) in the Oriental Greek Church; of the second (the hierarchical) in the Occidental Romish Church, so that the third (the Protestant) came to an independent form in the sphere of German life, diiferencing itself only according to national peculiarities. In one place there was a rigid adherence to the letter, accompanied with great intellectual acumen and force of will; and in another larger freedom prevailed, associated with greater breadth and depth of spirit and sentiment. But on the part of both (the Reformed and the Lutheran) communions, the influence of the two first principles was again felt, and the result was a stiffening of life and form, which showed itself in the former case in an ever-increasingly superficial adherence to the letter of the Bible, and in the latter case in an external induration of a form of doctrine,—which was originally free, and which asserted the freedom of the religious personality (justification by faith),—until at last in both spheres a false freedom usurped the throne, a subjectivity emancipated from all obligations to the word of God; in other words, rationalism. And now the only proper return to unity can be effected by attaining unto the knowledge of the truth of the several principles above mentioned, and by fusing down in our living consciousness the stiff forms of the past, and with these the truth of all that has been transmitted to us, through a deeper penetration into the word, or rather into Christ Himself, who is the kernel and substance of the written Word; and through a more humble, self-denying appropriation of Him in our lives. Such a return is at the same time an advance towards the true union, which the spirit of God will create by the harmonious combination of diversities. AND 1. The Apostolic exhortation to unity, addressed to a church torn by factions, and suited to Christendom at the present time. 1. Its matter: a. To speak the same thing, unity of confession; b. on the ground of unity of sentiment and views. 2. The motive of such unity: the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; a due regard for the interest all have in Him according as He has given Himself to be known, experienced and enjoyed by them (1 Corinthians 1:10-13). 2. The wrong of parties in Christendom; a, so far as they subordinate Christ to human leaders or put these literally into His place; b. so far as they are servilely dependent on such leaders and take pride in them; c. so far as they exclude, scorn and hate each other: d. so far as they boast of their partisanship in vain self sufficiency, and seek to glorify themselves and their leaders in it (1 Corinthians 1:12-13). 3. The proper conduct of a teacher towards such as are devoted to him: a. that he perpetually points them away from himself to Christ (1 Corinthians 1:10), while he never forgets that he and they alike are indebted to Christ for everything (1 Corinthians 1:13); b. that he ever keeps in view the main object of his calling, to preach Christ (1 Corinthians 1:17). 1 Corinthians 1:13-14. As the Corinthians made it a matter of great moment by whom they were baptized, instead of considering into whom they had been baptized, so now multitudes put a greater stress upon the party by whom they are confirmed, that into what and to what they are confirmed (Bibl. Wφrterb., II. § 79.) Starke: 1 Corinthians 1:10. The noblest virtue which can befit Christians is brotherly union through the bond of love (Colossians 3:14), and this because of Christ’s command (John 13:34) and of his prayer (John 17:11), after the example of the Apostolic Church (Acts 4:32) and the manifold exhortations of the Apostles (Philippians 2:1; 1 Peter 3:8; Ephesians 4:2). Lange:—The unity of the church is certainly much insisted on and very important. Yet we must take care not to prescribe one for another a form or a name according to our own opinions, especially in incidentals which do not belong to the fundamentals of faith. In these respects there must be variety of judgment. It is enough if we agree in all matters essential to salvation. Hed. (1 Corinthians 1:11):—What a shame! Rending asunder the body of Christ! Who perpetrates the mischief? Not the peacemakers, not the confessors and friends of Christ, but the zealots without knowledge; those who love profane and vain babblings; impure spirits who preach Christ of contention. O man, study the precept which inculcates the restoration of the erring in a spirit of meekness (Galatians 6:1) and exercise thyself therein. 1 Corinthians 1:11.—Teachers should not believe every report, but should ascertain facts before they reprove. To give information at proper quarters from a desire to effect reform is no sin; only let care be taken not to exaggerate. 1 Corinthians 1:12.—Honor is due to ministers, but they must not be served as lords. To call oneself Lutheran by way of distinction from the Papists or those belonging to other denominations, without adhering to Luther as authority, is not improper; but to do this in a sectarian spirit is just as wrong as it was for the Corinthians to say, “I am of Paul.” 1 Corinthians 1:13.—The death of Christ is alone meritorious; no saint can merit anything for himself, much less have his merits imputed to others. 1 Corinthians 1:14-15.—The care of God’s Providence over us can best be recognized in the issues of events, which is then to be acknowledged with reverence and gratitude even in the smallest particulars. 1 Corinthians 1:10. Burger: “Speak the same thing;” unnecessary, capricious deviation from the established forms of doctrine is a violation of the spirit of unity and love. [“There are many sore divisions at this day in the world among and between the professors of the Christian religion, both about the doctrine and worship of the Gospel, as also the discipline thereof. That these divisions are evil in themselves and the cause of great evils, hinderances of the Gospel, and all the effects thereof in the world, is acknowledged by all; and it is doubtless a thing to be greatly lamented that the generality of those who are called Christians are departed from the great rule of ‘keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.’ He who doth not pray always, who is not ready with his utmost endeavor to remedy this evil, to remove this great obstruction of the benefit of the Gospel is scarce worthy the name of a Christian.” John Owen.] [1 Corinthians 1:13. Calvin: “Paul crucified for you!”—This passage militates against the wicked contrivance of Papists by which they attempt to bolster up their system of indulgences. For it is from the blood of Christ and the martyrs that they make up that imaginary treasure of the church which they pretend is dealt out by means of indulgences. Here, however, Paul in strong terms denies that any one but Christ has been crucified for us. The martyrs, it is true, died for our benefit, but (as Leo observes) it was to furnish an example of perseverance, not to procure for us gifts of righteousness.”] 1 Corinthians 1:14-17. [If the doctrine of baptismal regeneration be correct, Paul was instrumental in saving but few souls. Certainly the commission of modern Romish missionary seems to read the reverse of St. Paul’s. He is sent to baptize, not to preach the Gospel.] Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 1:10.—[“δέ: but, introduces a contrast to the thankful assurance just expressed.”—Alf.] 1 Corinthians 1:10.—[παρακαλῶ; “obsecro—a mixture of entreaty and command.”—Stanley.] 1 Corinthians 1:10.—[δὲ: but rather.—Hartung, Parlikellcher, 1:171. 1 Corinthians 1:13.—[“Instead of ὑπὲρ some MSS. B. D.* have περὶ, but ὑπὲρ is in A. C. D.***E. F. G. L. and also in Cod. Sin.”—Words.] 1 Corinthians 1:15.—[ϊναμήτιςεἴπῃ; ἵνα carries here a telic force.] 1 Corinthians 1:15.—Instead of ἐβάπτισα, which is to he accounted for from its occurring in the next verse, Lachmann and Tischendorf [and Alford and Wordsworth] in accordance with the best authorities read ἐβαπτίσθητε. Leo the great ad Palζstinos, Ep. 31. See the passage cited in full, Calvin’s Inst. (Lib. 3. cap. 5. §10. II. THE TRUE METHOD OF A. Repugnant to the predelictions of both Greeks and Jews 1 Corinthians 1:17-2517 Not with [in ἐν] wisdom of words, [discourse] lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18For the preaching [discourse] of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God. 19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of 20the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world [the world]? 21For after that [since] in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased 22God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For [since both] 23the [om. the] Jews require a sign, [signs] and the [om. the] Greeks seek after wisdom: But we [on the contrary] preach Christ crucified, unto the [om. the] Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the [om. the] Greeks [Gentiles ἔθνεσι] foolishness; 24But unto them which are called, [these, the called] both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. AND [The connection.—from the mention of his commission, especially to preach the Gospel, the Apostle takes occasion, as it were incidentally, to set forth the manner in which this work was to be done. The topic thus introduced has however a direct bearing upon the previous one, for he handles it in a way both to vindicate his own course to which some had taken exception, and also to rebuke those tendencies, which, in their antagonism to a pure Gospel, had engendered contention and schism. Of the mode of transition to this theme Bengel remarks: “I doubt whether it would be approved by the rules of Corinthian eloquence. Therefore the Apostle in this very passage is furnishing a specimen, so to speak, of apostolic folly, and yet the whole is arranged with the greatest wisdom.”] 1 Corinthians 1:17 b–21. [The proper mode of preaching described first negatively].—Not in wisdom of speech.—οὐκἐνσοφίᾳλόγου. It is better to join this clause to the word “preach” just preceding, than to the main statement “Christ sent me.” [As to the meaning there are three distinct interpretations. 1. That of Calvin and others, who place the stress on “speech,” and understand by the phrase ornate and artificial discourse in contrast with plain homely speech. The objection to this is that it fails to give due weight to the word “wisdom,” which is used by the Apostle in a strict sense throughout the chapter, and is the special object of his animad version. 2. That of Olshausen, who takes it to denote “word-wisdom,” i.e., “a wisdom in appearance and not in reality,” an interpretation which de Wette justly styles “sonderbar.” 3. That of Storr and Flatt, de Wette and Hodge, who, taking the emphasis to be on “wisdom,” and understanding it of the subject-matter, suppose the Apostle to be repudiating here all connection with heathen philosophy. But to this it may be replied that such repudiation was wholly gratuitous, for no one would imagine that in preaching the Gospel he would be likely to employ the speculations of a secular Wisdom 4. That of Meyer and Kling, who while emphasizing “wisdom,” understand it as referring to the form of discourse. According to this, what the Apostle asserts is that he was not to preach the Gospel in a philosophical manner, making it a matter of science rather than a vital power for the heart and conscience. In such a case the Genitive would be used analogously to the Hebrew construction, where the first noun in construction qualifies the second. Hence “wisdom of discourse” would be=philosophic discourse. See Nordheimer Heb. Grammar B. III. 1 Corinthians 5. § 801. 2. So Neander “Σοφίαλόγου=σοφίαἐν̓τῷλέγειν, not wisdom absolutely, but the wisdom of dialectic demonstration.” Indeed it is not to be denied that in the course of this paragraph both σοφία and λόγος are used also in relation to the subject matter, and that this is always more or less affected by the mode of exposition. Unquestionably it makes a difference whether the subject matter is first vitally apprehended by the spirit and then creates its own form of expression for itself, or whether a form foreign and unsuitable is forced upon it, drawn from other spheres of life and thought; in other words whether the Gospel is proclaimed naturally in its divine excellence and simplicity, or whether, taken up under the conceptions of an alien philosophy, and arrayed in the rhetoric and dialectics of a people still unsanctified (like the Greeks for example), it be thus presented to the mind. An instance of the latter kind occurred not only in the Gnosis of the heretics, but also to a certain degree in that of the Alexandrian Church of a later period. And probably it was with an eye to the beginning of such a tendency in the party of Apollos that the Apostle affirmed that, according to the will of the Great Commissioner, it devolved on him not to preach the Gospel “in wisdom of speech.” And the expression means nothing else than: not in the style of a philosopher trained in the rhetoric and dialectics of the schools, [but in that of a witness, bearing testimony to the great facts in and through which God had chosen to reveal himself. The reason for this was], lest the Cross of Christ be made of none effect.—Κενωθῇ, become empty, void; here according to the connection: be robbed of its power and influence. By “the Cross of Christ” we understand that death of Christ upon the cross by which we are redeemed and reconciled to God. This is the centre and kernel of all Gospel preaching, by the power of which sinners are delivered from the tyranny of sin, and restored to a new and divine life. And this cross, he says, would be bereft of all efficiency for such results were it set forth in the forms of philosophy, inasmuch as in this way it would serve only to call out the assent of the intellect or awaken an aesthetic pleasure, while the flesh, that is, the corrupt natural life of the selfish heart, would remain unaffected. But let the cross only be held up before that heart in its divine simplicity, and it would then display an energy destructive of this life. Through it the flesh with its affections and lusts would be crucified. (Galatians 5:24). But although this blessed result is obtained by means of preaching or doctrine, yet it does not follow from this that we are to make “the cross” here equivalent to “the doctrine of the cross, or to the doctrine of Christ crucified.” Rather the relation which this clause sustains to the foregoing implies that here we are to understand the simple fact itself held up in its own native majesty and power. [Whatever obscures or diverts attention from this deprives, it to that extent of its power]. 1 Corinthians 1:18. [The position thus taken he proceeds to explain and substantiate from obvious facts.—For the preaching (lit: word λόγος) of the cross is to them that perish folly, but to those that are saved, ourselves, it is the power of God.—Here the force of the argument is to be found in the second member of the antithesis. The first is introduced merely as a concession to a supposed objection. The Corinthians might retort, “The cross of Christ rendered without effect by wisdom of speech! Why, your method of preaching is not half so taking and effectual as the one you denounce.” This the Apostle concedes, but limits its applicability only to a certain class, to those who are in the way of sin and are going to destruction. ‘These,’ he says, ‘are blind. They have no sense of sin, and gee not therefore the wisdom of the cross. To them it is folly. But while to them I acknowledged it is such as you say, yet to those who are in the way of salvation, the cross is a thing of power. They see its meaning. They feel its disenthralling and life-giving influences. And it is by what you see of its effect among these that you must judge of it”]. Accordingly that to which this divine power is ascribed, “the word of the cross,” must be regarded as Gospel-preaching in its simplest and most unadorned style, the earnest exhibition of the great act of redeeming love directly to the heart, without human accessories. It is not the doctrine about the cross, but the word which presents the cross itself in its concrete form and in its plain and pungent application to human conditions. It is of this he predicates a divine power. But this power is manifested only among such as are saved—a thought which is brightened by the foregoing contrast. In both clauses the sign of the Dative “to” means “in their judgment.” But in the one case it is a judgment proceeding from a blinded mind, in the other a judgment founded upon blessed experience. In reference to the first see 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; to both 2 Corinthians 2:15-16. To the former it seems absurd to have the fact of Christ’s death nakedly held before them as the ground of all salvation—to hear a voice from the cross calling unto them “Look unto me and be saved,” because they see no rational connection between cause and effect here. These are “the lost,” i.e., they are excluded from all participation in the blessedness and glory of God’s kingdom, and are doomed to bitter anguish and disgrace. (See 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15; Mark 9:43). In contrast with this appears the state of salvation, that is, a deliverance from this doom, (see Luke 6:9; Matthew 18:11; James 4:12) which includes also a share in the blessedness and glory of God’s kingdom. (Comp. 2 Timothy 4:18; Romans 5:10; Romans 8:21). There are here, then, two classes of persons contrasted in relation to their final lot. For the purpose of designating them uses P. the present participles (ἀπολλυμένοις—σωζομένοις) as the ones best suited, since time is not taken into account. It is therefore not “the present for the future” for the purpose of indicating the certainty of the lot contemplated, nor yet does the present denote the progressive development in the condition of the parties. Nor yet would it be in place here to introduce the idea of predestination, as Rόckert does, taking the terms to denote the divinely appointed destiny of two classes, for with Paul this idea never occurs in any such way as to exclude the idea of a free self-determination, (comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:10; Acts 13:46) since to all pro founder contemplation the work of God and the act of man in the genesis and development of faith are inseparably one. “This only must be conceded that the Apostle’s mode of expression is grounded upon a τρόποςπαιδείας; a mode of teaching peculiar to him. Paul delights to refer back everything at once to the divine superintendence. Only in this reference the human receptivity or non-receptivity is at the same time included.” Neander. On “the power of God” see Romans 1:6 where the Gospel is said to be “the power of God to every one that believeth.” The contrast between “folly” and “power” is certainly not a strict one, but nevertheless a true one. As the former implies that the Gospel is, according to the judgment of those that perish, a weak thing, so does the latter imply that it is to the others, a manifestation of divine wisdom; or, as the idea of folly excludes that of power, so does the idea of power presuppose that of wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1:19. Confirmation adduced from Scripture. “For it is written [“This formula with its following citations is found only in those Epistles of Paul which were addressed to churches in which there was a large admixture of Jewish converts. It does not occur in those written to the Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, which were composed almost entirely of Gentile converts. This coincidence between the History in Acts and the character of the Epistles is evidence of the genuineness of both.” Words.] I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to naught the prudence of the prudent.”—This Divine declaration is taken from a prophecy of Isaiah, which culminates in an announcement of salvation through the Messiah. (Isaiah 29:14, comp. 1 Corinthians 1:17 ff.), and, as the result and penalty of the hypocritical conduct of the Jewish people, proclaims the downfall of the wisdom of their wise ones and the vanishing of the understanding of the prudent, so that this wisdom and understanding should contribute nothing towards their deliverance in the day of evil. This judicial threatening on the part of God was incontrovertibly fulfilled in the times of the New Testament. The wisdom of the ungodly proves unfit for apprehending the Gospel salvation. In reference to this it loses all its availability and appears as nothing worth. The citation is not literal, though, according to the sense, exact. [It is taken from LXX. with slight variation: ἀθετήσα for κρύψω, and αὐτοῦ omitted twice. “The prophet makes use of neuter verbs, while Paul turns them into the active form by making them have a reference to God. They are however perfectly the same in meaning. “Wisdom perishes,” but it is by the Lord’s destroying it. “Prudence vanishes,” but it is by the Lord’s covering it over and effacing it.—The application of this to the subject in hand is this: The Lord has been wont to punish the arrogance of those who, depending on their own judgment, think to be leaders to themselves and others; and if this happened among a people whose wisdom the other nations had occasion to admire, what will become of others?” Calvin]. In reference to this subject see the words of Christ: Matthew 11:25 ss.; also 1 Corinthians 15:7-8. 1 Corinthians 1:20. [The Apostle’s triumphant challenge for disproof of this declaration.—Where is a wise? where is a scribe? where is a disputer of this world?—The designations here are all anarthrous, and Meyer, de Wette, Kling, all translate as above. Alford, Stanley, Hodge, Barnes, insert the article. The difference in meaning is plain, though not important. In the one case the inquiry is after the person mentioned, q. d., ‘Where is a wise man to be found?’ as though he were not. In the other the question is, ‘What has become of him conceding that he exists?’ The latter better suits the drift of the text.—There is a question also as to whether these words likewise are cited from the Old Testament. There is something like them to be found in Isaiah 33:18, uttered “in a burst of triumph over the defeat of Sennacherib,” and Stanley considers them as taken from thence. But as the Apostle is here evidently speaking in his own name, we can regard his language as no more than an undesigned imitation of that of the Prophet—a lingering echo of it freely reproduced to suit a present purpose. He is here appealing in his own name to existing facts by way of confirmation. Where is the wise? etc. So Calvin]. They have vanished. They pass for nothing in the Divine economy. So far as it is concerned, they are as if they had never been. His mode of challenge occurs also elsewhere with Paul (1 Corinthians 15:55; Romans 3:27; Romans 3:29; Romans 3:31.)—The last attributive: “of this world,” belongs, although not grammatically, (since the questions are rapid and abrupt), yet logically, to all the three terms, and describes those mentioned as belonging to the lower stage of human development, the Prζ Messianic period. This old world, so far as it seeks to maintain itself still, even after that which is perfect has come in Christ, shows itself to be perverse and at enmity with God; yea, as in itself evil, because pervaded with error and sin. Comp. Galatians 1:4, “from the present evil world.” Here the term rendered “world” is a αἰών and more properly denotes a period of time, an age of the world. The antithesis to this is αἰὼνἐκεῖνος or μέλλων: that age, or: the coming age. (δַ ?αָּ ?ΰςεֹ ?μָ ?ν). This is a course of existence founded on the redemptive work of Christ, and includes in itself all the impulsive forces and power of the new life. Until the end of “this age,” the “coming age,” will be in a germinal state, enclosed and restricted within the envelope of the present; but then it will burst into open manifestation as the sole reality. The αἰὼνοὗτος: present age, is identical with ὁκόσμος: this world. The only distinction is that the latter designates the sphere of life itself as one essentially godless and corrupt in its on-goings, especially the human race as alienated from the life of God, while the former indicates the period of time through which it continues. Hence in Ephesians 2:2 we see the two united in one phrase. αἰὼντοῦκόσμουτούτου: the course of this world. The present age, as the period of the rule of sin and error, has for its god or governing principle the devil, as in 2 Corinthians 4:4 he is denominated ‘the god of this world,’ and in John 12:31 ‘the archor or ruler of this world.’ In so far now as the Jews also in their hostility to the perfect revelation of God in Christ, by which they became blinded to the nature of earlier revelations, also (2 Corinthians 3:14 ff.) belonged to this corrupt age, and inasmuch as in the progress of this discussion the Jewish element also is brought up to view, we shall be obliged to understand by the “wise” here mentioned, Jewish as well as Pagan sages, (not the one or the other exclusively); and since the Apostle afterwards speaks of wisdom only, it may be well perhaps to take the term “wise” in a general sense as denoting all those who were devoted to the higher science, or at least pretended to be such; and the other two terms as specific, “the scribe” denoting the wisdom-seekers among the Jews—and “the disputer,” the like among the Greeks. Such appropriation of the terms is supported by the fact that according to the uniform usage of the New Testament (Acts 19:35 alone excepted) “scribe” is the designation of the Jewish learned class. But the other term, συζητητής, which is best translated: “disputer” (comp. συζητεῖν Mark 8:11 ff.; συζήτησις Acts 15:2; Acts 15:7; Acts 28:29), and hence denotes a class of persons who make disputing their business and have facility in it, can be only incidentally applied to the Sophists then widely spread throughout the Hellenic world. So Meyer. But would it not be more suited to the rhetorical character of the passage to make no such disposition of terms, but merely to abide by the general fact that the Apostle had in his eye men who boasted of their learning and science and ready abilities, and as masters of the truth looked down contemptuously upon the masses—men who were to be found among the Jews as well as among the Greeks,—and that only in the word “scribe” there is a prevailing reference to the Jew? [Stanley, who takes 1 Corinthians 1:20 as a modified citation from Isaiah 33:18, says “These expressions acquire additional force by a comparison with the Rabbinical belief that the cessation of Rabbinical wisdom was to be one of the signs of the Messiah’s coming ‘see the quotations from the Mishna in Wetstein ad loc.), and that this was expressly foretold in Isaiah 33:18. Analogous to this was the belief of Christians that the oracles of the heathen world ceased on the birth of Christ”]. The challenge is strengthened by a further question—hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?—i.e. actually demonstrated that it is not what it professes to be; but rather, folly—unreason, stupidity, incapacity for knowledge in relation to the highest matters. [“We must here carefully notice these two things that the knowledge of all the sciences is mere smoke, where the heavenly science is wanting; and man with all his acuteness is as stupid for obtaining of himself a knowledge of the mysteries of God as an ass is unqualified for understanding musical harmonies.—Paul (however) does not expressly condemn either man’s natural perspicuity, or wisdom acquired from practice and experience, or the cultivation of mind obtained by learning; but only declares that all this is of no avail for acquiring spiritual wisdom.—We must restrict what he here teaches to the specialties of the case in hand.” Calvin]. 1 Corinthians 1:21.—Shows why and how it was that God had made foolish the wisdom of this world.—For since in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching [κήρνγμα, not κήρυξις, not so much the preaching as the thing preached, though not without an implication of the former] to save them that believe.—The relation of the premise to the conclusion is that of a sequence, divinely ordained in the way of punishment [rather of mercy], so that in the first man’s guilt [rather guilty impotence, see below], is assigned as the ground of what is stated in the other. From this we perceive the incorrectness of Rόckert’s view, who, snuffing predestination everywhere, explains the phrase “in the wisdom of God” to mean: “in virtue of God’s wisdom, its leading and appointment.” Neither does it consist with the relation of the two clauses to explain it of the wisdom of God’s plan of salvation in the Gospel (Mosheim and others); for the refusal to recognize this wisdom was not anything to which the divine determination spoken of in the second clause could be referred, as to something definitely concluded upon. To this it must be added that from the very beginning, before the disposition of men in relation to it could be ascertained, the preaching of the Gospel had for the world the appearance of folly. The case is entirely different in 1 Corinthians 2:6. Rather we must here understand a reference to something prior to Christ, to certain exhibitions of Divine wisdom previous to the revelation made in Christ, in and through which man could or ought to have discerned God,—to its sway in nature and history, and indeed not merely to that revelation alluded to in Romans 1:18 ff; Acts 14:17; Acts 17:24 ff, but also to the ordinances of this wisdom in the guidance of the covenant-people, who, because of their unbelief (with the exception of the “election,” Romans 11:7), belonged together with the world. Neander, on the contrary, discovers here only a contrast instituted between revelation and the religion of reason, and regards the wisdom of the Greeks as the particular object of whose relation to Christianity the Apostle is treating. But this interpretation is opposed by the fact that in the 1 Corinthians 1:22-24 closely connected by ἐπειδή: since, with v. 21, Paul three times expressly states that by “the world,” in v. 21, not only the heathen but also the Jews are intended. But does not the declaration in reference to the heathen that, they “did not know God” conflict with Romans 1:21 where it said that ‘when they knew God they glorified him not as God?’ We must here distinguish between that sense of a God forced upon the mind by a revelation of God, a merely passive religious notion, the ineffectualness of which is set forth even in the passage above referred to, and that living knowledge of God, which involves communion with Him, and which is the thing here denied of the world and which, had the world possessed, it would have qualified the world for the comprehension of that more perfect revelation in Christ which was to be the fulfilment and consummation of all that had gone before, so that had this knowledge existed such a decree of God as is affirmed in the second clause would not have been made, nor would the preaching of the Gospel have been to them foolishness. The “wisdom” then, “through” which the world knew not God (διὰτῆςσοφίας), denotes that intelligence by means of which the knowledge of God ought to have been attained, but was not. It is the appropriate organ of the human mind, sharpened by culture, through which God is perceived and recognized as He displays Himself in His wisdom; in other words, the eye for discerning God’s light. But this proved itself disqualified for its proper end, since the world, the possessor of this wisdom, had become alienated from the truth and love of God, and hence perverted and darkened by error and sin. The translation, “on account of their wisdom,” as though this was the cause of their not perceiving God would require the accusative (διὰτὴνσοφαν). It might still be questioned whether the phrase “through wisdom” does not refer like the previous one to the wisdom of God, so that it has its corresponding antithesis in the phrase, “through the foolishness of preaching.” This is Bengel’s view. “In the wisdom of God, i.e. because the wisdom of God was so great. By wisdom, namely, that of preaching, as is evident from the antithesis, by the foolishness of preaching.” So, too, Fritsche (Hall, Lit. Zeit. 1840). “After that, in the wisdom of God, i.e. while God allowed His wisdom to shine forth, the world did not recognize God, through the wisdom made available for them by God, then God resolved to choose means of directly the opposite kind. In setting forth the antithesis here, it occurred to him to emphasize strongly the wisdom of God, which failed of attaining its end.” But all things considered, the view carried out by us merits the preference, and the repetition of “the wisdom of God” must always appear somewhat artificial.The judgment [rather the merciful pleasure] of God towards a world not recognizing Him in consequence of its own sin, is introduced by the phrase εὐδόκησενὁθεός,—God was pleased—hence “concluded,” “determined.” It indicates here not so much the freedom or pure favor, from which the resolve proceeded, as the suitableness of his proceeding to the end contemplated, or to the circumstances of the case. We find it first among the later Scripture writers, and most commonly in the Sept. In the New Testament it occurs chiefly in Paul (Romans 15:26; Galatians 1:15 ff.). In reference to the expression and thought comp. Luke 10:21. The world had shown itself incapable of discerning God in His wisdom through its wisdom. Therefore God found it good no more to appeal to human wisdom by the manifestations of His wisdom, but by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,—i.e., by a proclamation, the contents of which carried the impress of folly, or must need appear foolish to the world as it was. This was to deliver from sin and wrath, and introduce to everlasting blessedness those who should believe in what was declared. In other words, the determination was, to appeal to faith instead of to reason. [So Hodge: “The foolishness of preaching means the preaching of foolisness, i.e., the cross.” But is there not an allusion to the nature of the preaching itself as being distinct from philosophical disquisition in the simplicity of its method. Preaching is heralding, proclaiming facts and messages, a foolish matter for those who delight in the subtleties and arguments of philosophy.] From this it is clear [?] that the phrase “through foolishness of preaching” does not furnish, as might appear to be the case at first sight, the contrast to the phrase “this wisdom,” but to the other, “in the wisdom of God;” and the antithesis to “this wisdom” is to be sought in “them that believe.” Faith is pure receptivity, and as such is directly the opposite of all endeavors after knowledge by the unaided powers of the intellect, such as are peculiar to human wisdom. It is the humble acceptance and appropriation of the testimony concerning Christ crucified, in spite of all the objections which the understanding of the natural man may urge against the doctrine of salvation, and in the utter renunciation of one’s own opinions, and in the entire repudiation of predominant theories. In the act of believing there are united, therefore, both humility and courage. Finally, there is still another correspondence in the words “know” and “save.” Knowledge ought to lead to salvation (comp. John 17:3). Not knowing, therefore, hindered the obtaining of salvation. 1 Corinthians 1:22-24. Modein which the Apostle fulfilled the good pleasure of God expressed in 1 Corinthians 1:21.—Since both Jews require signs and Greeks seek after wisdom, we therefore on the contrary preach Christ crucified.—[So Kling translates the passage. But there is a question here as to the construction. This verse, like the previous one, begins with ἐπειδή. It may therefore be taken as a parallel to that, (so Hodge, Meyer), resuming the thought and amplifying it (so Stanley), and like the preceding having a protasis and apodosis (as Kling); or it may be joined by ἐπειδή directly to the previous clause, and regarded as explanatory of what is said of the “foolishness of preaching” being the means of saving believers (so Alford, Calvin, Rόckert, de Wette). In this case the second clause instead of being an apodosis would be directly dependent on ἐπειδή, and the rendering would be:—Since, or seeing that, while both Jews require signs and Greeks seek after wisdom, we on the other hand preach Christ, etc.—This seems to us the most natural rendering. See Winer, P. 3 § 65: 6. But Kling rejects it as “the less suitable.” According to his view], what the protasis states is the result of “not knowing God” (1 Corinthians 1:21); what the apodosis states is the judicial procedure corresponding to it as carried out in “the foolishness of preaching,” viz., a refusal to yield to vain demands for wisdom, and the counter preaching which appears to those making these demands as absurd, but which to believers proves to be the power of God and the wisdom of God. The ἐπειδή introduces a case well known and made out: since indeed; the δέ (after ἡμεῖς) is used also elsewhere in the apodosis after ἐπεί and ἐπειδή to make the antithetic relation of this clause the more prominent: therefore, on the contrary (comp. Meyer on this passage). This construction is favored by the parallelism between the protasis and apodosis in 1 Corinthians 1:21, and those here found. The και,—και: both,—and, unite here classes alike in one respect, i.e., in the unwarrantableness of their demands, but otherwise diverse, and they belong not exclusively to the subjects mentioned (Jews and Greeks), but serve to connect the two clauses in one whole: “since it is so, that both Jews require signs and Greeks seek wisdom.” Jews and Greeks here represent two classes of men according to their peculiar characteristics. Hence they are mentioned without the article. It is as if he said “since people like the Jews seek, etc.” The Greeks here as in Romans 1:16, and elsewhere, stand as pars pro toto, for the Gentiles generally, who, according to the most probable reading, are mentioned afterwards in 1 Corinthians 1:23. They are the people who best represent the whole multitude of nations (έθνη) found outside of the covenant relation with God, and who, in respect of culture and language, prepared the whole civilized world for Christianity; just as the Jews, scattered among them all, did the same thing in respect of religion, being freighted with the promise which was to be fulfilled in Christ. It was among these two nations that Christianity had its first sphere of operations,—the Jews, who had the first claim to announce the fulfilment of that promise which had been preserved, and of that hope which had been awakened by them (comp. Acts 13:46; Acts 3:25; Romans 1:16; Romans 15:8), and the Greeks, who had carried out the work of human culture in science and art, and had, as it were, taken the whole civilized world in possession, and so had furnished the most perfect form for the human appropriation of the truth of revelation, and so the richest receptivity for the life and truth which were in Christ, and which were fitted to ensure them the most perfect satisfaction. But in both alike did Christianity encounter peculiar obstructions. The Jews clave to the external form of revelation, the miracle; and they did this to such a degree as to insist on having it before their eyes in its most striking, dazzling form, as the condition of their acceptance of the truth. They thus betrayed their fundamental unbelief and disaffection for the truth which rebuked their sin, humbled their pride, and demanded of them entire self-denial. This is what is meant by their “seeking after a sign,” or, according to another reading, “signs.” (Comp. John 4:48; and Matthew 12:38; Matthew 16:4; Luke 11:16; John 2:18; John 6:30). (Meyer, Ed. 3.) “Signs, that is, miraculous tokens, by which Jesus, whom the Apostles asserted to be risen from the dead and ascended on high, should prove Himself to be the Messiah. These they still called for, inasmuch as the miracles of His earthly career had lost for them all evidencing power, in consequence of His crucifixion”). The Greeks, on their part, had been captivated by the outward show and glitter of their civilization. Whatever did not appear before them under the name of a new philosophy (comp. Acts 17:19 ff.), or was not sustained by philosophic proof, or was not set forth with logical and rhetorical art, this they refused to accredit; and by insisting on wisdom only in a form agreeable to them, they likewise betrayed their unbelief and their aversion to that Divine truth which required a mortification of their vain self, with all its pride of science and art, and which demanded a humble surrender to a revelation in Christ that infinitely surpassed all their attainments. Thus on both sides, in modes diverse and conditioned by their peculiar histories, did the same opposition arise to the preaching of the Gospel which held up to their faith the one Christ, who was declared to have secured the salvation of mankind, and built up the way to regal glory, not through wondrous miracles, according to the demand of the Jew, nor through such wisdom as wisdom-seekers sought, but by suffering the shameful death of a malefactor. Thus did the preaching of the Apostles and their associates (ἡμεῖς) concerning a crucified Messiah, their public proclamation of this fact and its significance in all simplicity, prove for the Jews a stumbling block, i.e., an offence, a hinderance to faith, the occasion of a fall, something causing them to err (comp. πρόσκομμα Romans 9:32 ff.). A person hanging on the accursed tree presented such a contrast to all their desires for some glorious exhibition of power (such as destruction to their enemies, etc.), that they could do no otherwise than reject Him. [“They could have tolerated Christ on the mount, but not Christ on the cross.”—A. Butler].—For the Greeks (Gentiles) foolishness.—That salvation could come to the world through a crucified Jew appeared to them plainly absurd. It was an instrumentality utterly inadequate to the end proposed. Thus while to the Jews such a person was an object of horror, as one accursed of God, to the Gentiles he was an object only for scorn and contempt. (Comp. Acts 23:18-32; Luke 23:36-41). To this, however, there is a noble contrast. But unto these—the called—Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.—This clause might be taken to depend on “we preach,” so that this would be repeated in thought, and “Christ the wisdom of God” form an antithesis to “Christ crucified” with its adjuncts: We preach Christ as crucified, who for the Jew is a stumbling block, etc., but to those who are called we preach Christ as the power of God. Bengel appears to suggest this, when to “Christ” he adds “with his cross, death, life, kingdom,” and says further, “When the offence of the cross is overcome, the whole mystery of Christ lies open.”—But the course of thought would be more simple if we put “Christ crucified” directly in opposition with what precedes: “We preach a crucified Messiah who to the Jews is a stumbling block, etc.—but to them who are called, Christ—the power of God.” By it then is signified, that He, the crucified one, at whom the Jews stumble, is to the called, the Anointed of God, (Messiah, Christ),—the One in whom the promise of a heavenly king is fulfilled, the Power of God, etc. This corresponds also to the expression respecting the “word of the cross” in 1 Corinthians 1:18. The αὐτοῖς: to these serves to give prominence to “the called” as the chief persons in the case, who occupy a positive relation to “the crucified,” and enjoy an experience corresponding to it. It points at the same time to those already mentioned, to “them that believe,” 1 Corinthians 1:21, and to the “saved,” 1 Corinthians 1:18; and while the first of these terms designates their subjective position towards the Gospel, the second shows the advantage they derive from it. The term “called” indicates the Divine ground on which they stand. (On κλητόι: called, comp. 1 Corinthians 1:2). By the addition of: both Jews and Greeks he gives us to understand that in the purpose of grace denoted in their calling the separation hitherto existing between these parties had been removed. (Comp. Romans 9:24; Romans 10:12).—the power of God and the wisdom of God.—Here we have the antithesis to “stumbling block” and “foolishness.” While the Jews were asking how a person crucified and accursed could possibly be the Saviour of Israel, how one so utterly devoid of strength could be able to overthrow all hostile power, and the Greeks were deeming it absurd to expect salvation from one who came to so miserable an end, the chosen of God were, on the contrary, experiencing and confessing that from this very crucified Redeemer there issued a Divine power, the power of a heavenly life and peace, a renewing, sanctifying, beatific power, such as could be found in nothing creaturely, and that accordingly Christ was the possessor of such a Divine power, that in Him there existed a Divine wisdom that was capable of solving the hardest problems, of lighting up the darkness that rested on the ways of God, of fulfilling God’s noblest purposes of bringing men back from all their wanderings into the path of life and of introducing them at last to their final destination. 1 Corinthians 1:25. A general proposition, substantiating what has just been said.—Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God mightier than men.—The phrase “foolishness of God” is not to be taken too abstractly, as if it meant the Divine folly. The Apostle is evidently here speaking from a human point of view and implies merely that which appears foolishness in God. He here has in mind God’s dealings with men in the Gospel, such as the procuring of salvation through the crucifixion of Christ, and other things connected therewith, which in the judgment of self-styled wise men of this world, who measure every thing by the measure of their fancied wisdom, appeared contrary to reason. Now of this apparent foolishness of God he affirms that it surpassed in real wisdom all men however wise they seemed to be in their own sight, or were held to be by others, or whatever they might be able to reason out or imagine. In a similar manner we must interpret the following expressson, the weakness of God—By this he means a Divine scheme which seemed weak to those who held merely to physical force and boasted in that (for instance, the, procuring of redemption through one subjecting himself to the humiliation of death on the cross), but which in fact is stronger than men, i.e., exerts a mightier power than they with all their imagined strength and prowess. Bengel adds: “Although they may appear to themselves both wise and strong, and wish to be the standards of wisdom and strength.” Thus interpreted, it would be needless to construe the words “than men” as involving a figure of speech in which a comparison instituted with a person or thing as a whole, properly applies only to a part of it, or to some quality in it, as though they meant: “than the wisdom of men,” or “than the strength of men.” Both interpretations, however, amount to the same thing.—There is still another construction suggested by what follows, viz.: that by the foolishness and the weakness of God are meant the persons themselves who are “called” (1 Corinthians 1:24), who experience Christ crucified as “the wisdom of God and the power of God,” so that they in consequence become Divinely wise and strong, and are thus enabled as the foolishness and weakness belonging to God to surpass men, i.e. that portion of the race who remain out of Christ in wisdom and power. “The thought is this—Human nature delights in doing great things. God, on the contrary, in His earthly dispensations always appears weak and small at the first, and not until afterwards reveals the overwhelming power that is concealed in His instrumentalities.” Neander. AND ETHICAL1. Christ and His cross—Christ crucified.—This is the clear light from Heaven, which comes to scatter all the darkness of man’s sinful life. This is the key to all the riddles of a history that has been deranged and confused by falsehood and sin. All God’s revelations in the Old Testament, his ordinances, institutions, promises, judgments and blessings here reach their fulfilment and find their real explanation. All the hints of truth current among heathen nations—all their sighing and striving after the knowledge of God and communion with Him, all attempts to get rid of the consciousness of guilt, to atone for sin and to effect a perfect restoration to Divine favor—all the labor of the wise to discover a clue for the great labyrinth of human life—in short every thing which glimmered as a ray of light here and there in this darkness, obtains in Christ its proper goal; and in so far as it at last leads to the apprehension of this perfect light and salvation, it has been not in vain. Here is the “power of God” which in place of a thousand-fold yet vain endeavor on the part of man is able to insure a true Divine life, an undisturbed peace, an all pervading sanctification—spreading from the inmost centre of a heart that embraces the holy, forgiving love of God,—and an invincible patience and steadfastness combined with the serenest tranquillity amid all the plagues, diseases, adversities and conflicts which may assail us from within and without. Here, too, is the wisdom of God. From this the deepest problems of human knowledge and human activity receive light, so that they can be recognized in their truth and in the goal to which they tend; and right methods of solution for them may be attained. Here the eternal thoughts of God, and the thoughts of man which spring up responsive to these out of the inmost truth of the human heart through the operation of the all-enlightening Logos, encounter each other. Here redeeming love with its wondrous plan of forgiveness and regeneration meets the manifold devices and strivings of man for the removal of guilt and, the acquisition of the chief good, and gives them a perfect satisfaction. 2. Christ and His cross—as confronting the world.—But the more this revelation of God in a crucified Saviour surpasses all the doings of man hitherto, the less can it be measured by the standard of truth and goodness existing among men, the less can it come within the scope of their ordinary conceptions. Where, therefore, the heart has not been renewed by a surrender to the truth foreshadowed by its mysterious need and corresponding to it, and so no change has been wrought in the whole course of thought, there this revelation remains an incomprehensible mystery; and where to the indolence, which refuses to stir out of the old beaten track, there is added an arrogant pride, which, with arbitrary exaggeration and embellishments insists on making what already exists the measure of the new and rejects whatever does not suit the demands thug originated, there, it is certain, that the revelation of God will be violently opposed. And this will be so much the more sure to occur, when, for the sake of presenting a contrast with the vain parade of carnal self in adhering to what is externally imposing and brilliant, and in cleaving to its own productions which seem so beautiful and fair, the revealed truth and grace are constrained to show themselves in an unpretending form, putting contempt upon the proud display of might by assuming a lowly aspect of weakness and setting at naught a lofty pretentious wisdom by wearing the guise of foolishness in order to lift humanity thereby out of the vanity of its conceited claims, and out of the arbitrariness of its own devices and endeavors, into the experience of a true divine power and wisdom.—But the cross and its preaching, which prove such a stumbling block and foolishness to those who are bound up in their vain conceit becomes to those who obey the heavenly calling in faith and who in the mortification of self with all its foolish conceits and pretensions yield themselves to the influences of the grace and truth in Christ, and in so doing experience its enlightening, sanctifying and beatific power, the wisdom of God and the power of God. Thus it happens that men with all their wisdom and power remain far inferior to what belongeth unto God, however foolish and weak it may seem. 3. “1 Col 1:22-24 afford us a point of observation which enables us to survey Church History in clearest light. The Apostles found two distinct tendencies setting in in strong hostility to the Gospel, the desire for miracles, and the conceit of wisdom. These two tendencies show themselves repeatedly through all times. A false, one-sided supernaturalism and a false one-sided rationalism are ever in rivalry with each other either to resist the Gospel in open enmity or to disturb and corrupt it by secretly insinuating themselves into it. It may be said that all external opposition and all internal peril to the Gospel resolve themselves at last into these two opposite principles. So long as a pure Gospel withstands and excludes these it will succeed in satisfying the genuine human needs lying at their foundation and in thus quieting them on both sides. This proves itself to be the true wonder-working power before which all other miracles must pale, and the true wisdom of God before which all other wisdom must be put to shame, and thus does it exhibit itself in both ways as the absolute Religion.” Neander.4. [Since it is “to the called” that the Gospel proves “the power of God and the wisdom of God,” by bringing them at last to believe and be saved, it follows that the difference in the effects produced by the Gospel, so that on the one hand it appears to some as an offence and to others as foolishness, but to others still as a means of salvation, is all owing to the calling of God—his effectual calling.] AND 1. The cross of Christ is made of none effect by cunning words or the wisdom of speech.—For the wisdom of speech Isaiah 1, on the one hand scholastic wisdom which a. culminates only in knowledge, not in reformation; b. gives no satisfaction on the chief point, Religion; c. being in constant strife with itself evermore corrupts rather than improves; 2. On the other hand an artificial rhetoric, which springs not from the heart or from zeal for a cause known to be true, but aims only to dazzle and please, and by this means to persuade. But a mode of proceeding so altogether unworthy of heavenly truth robs the cross of Christ of its peculiar power; since a. the attention is turned away from the subject to the speaker, and so the heart is diverted and betrayed into vanity; b. and everything is viewed according to its fitness to delight; c. and the effect is ascribed not to the power of the truth presented but to the eloquence displayed. After Heubner.2. The preaching of the cross. 1, is foolishness for those who are lost. a. Who are these? They are such as are hardened in their own guilt—such as follow their own perverted sense and will not accept of truth or consent to self-humiliation, so that humanly judging there is nothing to be hoped for from them. b. Why is the preaching of the cross foolishness for them? Because to the world, which insists on its own importance, everything appears absurd which fells its pride, destroys its meritoriousness and conflicts with its wisdom and righteousness. 2, is a wisdom of God unto us who are called.—The believer who permits himself to be saved, awakened and enlightened by the spirit of God, finds in the cross a divinely derived and divinely operating power, which draws the heart into peace with itself and with God, fills it with holy love, and strengthens it with a new power of life; and he recognizes therein a wisdom far surpassing all human thought and sense. After Heubner.3. The vanity of scholastic wisdom or the judgment of God upon conceited worldly wisdom.—1. It effects nothing, because it aims only at show and not at improvement. 2. God allows it to be betrayed into folly and shame, because it seeks to be wise and strong without God, without prayer and piety. 3. Christianity exposes it in all its barrenness, since, while Christianity renews humanity, worldly wisdom perishes in its own schools, and is unable to maintain its own progress. After Heubner.4. The causes of the rejection of the Crucified.—1. The Jewish desire for whatever was striking, imposing and externally mighty; 2. The Gentile conceit of wisdom and a vain misculture; 3. The pride of both which sought to comprehend God, but which would not enter into the apparently weak and foolish ways and means of his economy. After Heubner.5. The preaching of the cross has with those who are saved a threefold effect. 1. It shames, inasmuch as man crucified Christ with his sins; for a long time did not recognize him; did not honor or thank him; and was willing so long to tolerate the sins which nailed Him to the cross. 2. It humbles, by reminding us of Christ’s own love, in that He, the Great God, died for us poor worms, and did so much for us when we were utterly worthless. It inclines us also to benevolence towards all men who differ from us only in this, that we are sinners saved, while they can and may yet be saved. 3. It awakens, gives power and life, so that we not only are ready and inclined, but also are enabled to love God, and to prove our love by works. 6. The Cross of Christ is an offence to all men who think that a good life will ensure them a happy end. These are the enemies of the Cross in the midst of Christendom. They worship it externally; they take pride in it, but in fact they hate the doctrine of the Cross. They cannot accept the truth that Christ has become our Redeemer and that we are saved out of sheer mercy, so that the holiest, the most pious, the most liberal, the most upright man is just as far from Heaven as the most miserable sinner, and that there is but one way for all. To the wise and prudent the cross of Christ is foolishness. The truth that Christ died for us they regard as a fable. There are persons even among [nominal] believers who take it as a compliment if they are said not to believe. Yet should one accuse them of holding the truth, and yet of living in untruthfulness, disobedience and ingratitude towards God, it would be the same as if he pronounced them deliberate villains. Oh! could they but once hear the Gospel in a way to pierce their hearts they would certainly ask, What shall we do? Let the doctrine of the Cross be once made vital in the soul, then would there be no need of exhortation, alarm and threatening in view of this or that judgment. It would be sufficient to say, “The Saviour died for me.” If we are in trouble for our sins, and the hope of salvation vanishes, and the voice comes, “Christ has died and earned salvation for us,” how the heart not only seizes but holds fast to the declaration! How the truth penetrates like a divine power into the soul which can never be lost or forgotten! Then are our sins buried in the depths of the sea; they can no more tyrannize over us. Then we need sin no more. Such is the effect of the Word of the Cross in them that believe. Gossner.Hedinger:—Power, wit, all human work and counsel corrupts faith, misleads in the church, and hinders the efficacy of the means of grace. In divine things, the more foolish anything seems to the world, the better it is. “Wisdom, wisdom, ready understanding, science, learning out of a thousand books!” Such is the cry of the world. An evil sound is it in the churches and in the schools. One thing is needful—one book, one Christ. Starke:—The Gospel has a differencing effect according to the character of the persons who hear and use it. Mankind are divided into two classes: 1. Unbelievers; they are such as live on, without caring for their salvation, either in security or hypocrisy; each word and work of theirs is a step toward Hell. 2. Believers; they are those who are in daily concern about their salvation; and this is with them so vital a point that even when unmoved by efforts from abroad, while in the midst of their labors or talk, they are not easily repelled from it (1 Corinthians 1:18). Wisdom is in itself something divine, and before the fall the image of God in man consisted in it (Colossians 3:10); and even now the inclination to know and learn something is a remnant in us of this divine image. But if our natural wisdom profits us but little now, and is every where scandalized, this is the fault, not of wisdom, but of our corrupted reason and understanding. None of the loftiest and most learned of this world ought to be ashamed of the simplicity of the Gospel, for God Himself, the, highest and wisest of all, let Himself down to it. Sufficient is it for us that an infinite power resides in the Cross to deliver us out of all our deep depravity, (1 Corinthians 1:21).—God can never suit people. One will have it this way and another that. Shame on you! God does as it pleases Him (Matthew 11:16 ff.). Men always delight in what is strange, lofty, conspicuous. Instead of desiring that God’s name alone should be praised they seek themselves in every thing. They look either at power, wealth, faculty, or at learning, prudence, dexterity. Both are means to greatness, but they prove hinderances in the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:22).—God will remain unsurpassed in His words and works (Psalms 78:41), but their wisdom and strength are vain. The world makes wisdom to consist in much learning which secures honor and regard. But a believer considers it the height of wisdom to know that he is a poor sinner, becomes justified and saved only in deepest humility. The greatest power consists in being able to overcome ourselves and the kingdom of Satan. God can put to shame all the devices of the craftiest and all the might of the greatest in this world. Why wilt thou fear? Look to God! He can and will give thee enough for all things (1 Corinthians 1:25). H. Rieger:—Let him who would even now, by the preaching of the Cross, awaken a sense of the Cross in the hearts of men, and thereby coφperate for their salvation, not seek for assistance from the fickle arts of worldly wisdom, but let him observe what renders himself humble, and subdued, and what he can thus convey with a tender spirit to others, and let him shun every thing which on the contrary tends to puff himself up and wherewith he is tempted to court the favor of men. [Spencer: (1 Corinthians 1:21).—“Some Christian ministers sometimes think to do Christianity a very good service by philosophizing it to make it keep up with the times. In all this they do Christianity no other service than rob it of its power by robbing it of its peculiarity, and do no other service to the ‘philosophic minds’ which they say they would influence, than just to mislead them and keep them away from true faith in Christ and reliance on his great atonement. Every thing is coming to be philosophized. Many a minister in the pulpit—shame on him—betrays his trust to the Bible and his God by teaching religion very much as if it were a new matter of reason, and human progress, and human discovery, instead of taking God’s Word as his authority and instructor, and uttering in the ears of the people like the old prophets, Thus saith the Lord God. Beware of such proceedings. They tend to infidelity. Learn duty from God. The Bible is safe. Philosophy is blind.”] [Robertson:—“Men bow before talent even if unassociated with goodness, but between these two we must make an everlasting distinction. When once the idolatry of talent enters, then farewell to spirituality; when men ask their teachers, not for that which will make them more humble and God-like, but for the excitement of an intellectual banquet, then farewell to Christian progress. Here also St. Paul again stood firm. Not Wisdom, but Christ crucified. St. Paul might have complied with these requirements of his converts, and then he would have gained admiration and love, he would have been the leader of a party, but then he would have been false to his Master—he would have been preferring self to Christ.”] Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 1:17.—[ἐνσόφίᾳλόγου might be rendered: in philosophic discourse.] 1 Corinthians 1:20.—The τούτου of the received text is undoubtedly transferred from the preceding. Lachmann and Tischendorf reject it according to the best authorities. 1 Corinthians 1:21.—[ἐπειδή is not temporal but illative.—Alf.] 1 Corinthians 1:21.—[κηρύγματις: passive noun, the thing preached both in contents and in form.] 1 Corinthians 1:22.—ἐ ?͂πειδηκαι. it may be rendered: “For both,” but Kling translates as above.] 1 Corinthians 1:22.—The plural σημεῖα is better attested: whether it is internally the more probable may be doubted. 1 Corinthians 1:23.—[δὲ after ἐπειδή expresses contrariety.] 1 Corinthians 1:23.—ἔθνεσι is decidedly better attested than the received ’Ελλησι which arose out of 1 Corinthians 1:22; 1 Corinthians 1:24. 1 Corinthians 1:24.—[“αὐτοιςδὲτοῖςκλητοῖς; the αὐτοῖς serves to identify the called with the believers, 1 Corinthians 1:21.”—Alf.] [Kling has hardly done justice to the view which he calls Rόckerts, and stigmatizes as Predestianationism. There certainly is no little plausibility, and much fair ground in Scripture for interpreting. “in the wisdom of God” All the movements of the ante-Christian period were unquestionably so disposed by Providence as to prepare the way for the coming, and the reception of Christ. And why may it not have been a part of the Divine plan to allow the world to try its own wisdom, and test its capacities to the utmost, in order that its utter inefficiency for discovering God, and finding out a means of salvation, might be fully proved and thus that consciousness of ignorance and inability be awakened, which is one of the first conditions of simple faith in revelation? Paul hinted at this very truth in his speech at Athens (Acts 17:26-27). “And hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth; and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if happily they might feel after Him and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us.” This interpretation carries therefore a legitimate and Scriptural sense, and it is preferred by Alf., Barnes, Poole, and most American sermonizers. But there is still another interpretation, worthy of consideration, as having the advantage of giving to the important word “wisdom” a uniformity of meaning throughout the entire passage. What Paul is here controverting is the fondness for philosophic speculation so characteristic of the Greeks, and which in the Corinthian Church was threatening to destroy the practical nature of Christianity, and turn it into another scheme of philosophy. This tendency, or rather its products, the Apostle calls “wisdom” (σοφία), and it is, as he says, something he would not indulge in, however pleasing to the Corinthian temper. One reason for this was, the utter inefficiency of all philosophy in the matter of religion. He does not condemn it absolutely, but relatively to the ends in view. This, therefore, it became him distinctly to state, which he does in 1 Corinthians 1:20-21, may be paraphrased thus: “For since in its speculations concerning God, the word through speculation and philosophy did not know God, it pleased God through “the announcement of the simple facts of the Gospel, which to a speculative mind seems like folly; to save those who accept them in mere faith.” We thus take σοφία=φιλοσοφία, make τοῦθεοῦ the objective Genitive, and interpret the whole phrase “in the wisdom of God,” as denoting the sphere of thought in reference to which the Apostle was speaking. This was in fact theosophy, a word compounded of just the ones here associated. The antithesis then in the two clauses would be between philosophy and preaching, between scientific knowledge and faith, accepting the simple proclamation of the Gospel ]. [One would suppose that the naturalness and indeed inevitableness of this contrast would have shown the incorrectness of Kling’s interpretation. (See Winer, part 3 sect. 47. d.) Paul means here to set the simple “testimony of Jesus” over against “philosophy” or “wisdom,” and the method of faith over against the method of reason. In all that follows he is correct.] [Rob. in Lex. observes that ἐπειδή is never used in the protasis.] THE TRUE METHOD OF (Continued) B. As suited to the character of the called and the ends contemplated 1 Corinthians 1:26-3126 For ye [om. ye] see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and [om. yea, and] things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence [the presence of God]. 30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God [om. of God], is [has been] made unto us wisdom, [from God, ἀπὸθεοῦ ?] and [both] 31righteousness and sanctification, and redemption: That according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. AND [The connection. Kling here, as usual, follows Meyer in considering these verses as confirmatory of what immediately precedes 1 Corinthians 1:24. It were better, however, with de Wette and Hodge, to regard the Apostle as introducing here a new argument in support of the general position taken in the previous section. It is an argument drawn from facts directly under their eye. In proof of what he had said of the true method of preaching and the utter vanity of the worldly wisdom they were tempted to prize, they could see for themselves what course the Gospel had in the main actually taken among them who were its converts and what were the ends subserved by this. Accordingly he begins by directing attention to the character of the called, first described negatively]. 1 Corinthians 1:26. For look at your calling, brethren.—The verb βλέπετε may be taken in the Indicative [as in the E. V.]; but the Imperative corresponds better with the animated style of the Apostle (see 1 Corinthians 10:18; Philippians 3:2). [“And is required by the emphatic position which the verb occupies in the sentence” Alf. So also Words., Wickliffe, Tyndale, and the Rheims version]. Nor is this at all inconsistent, as Bengel asserts, with the use of the “for,” since this is to be found elsewhere also in imperative clauses. [Βλέπειν: “to consider, take to heart, is employed to express a more intent, earnest, spiritual contemplation than ὀρᾶν. The one denotes mental vision, the other bodily sight.” W. Webster]. (Hebrews 12:3). The “calling” which they are requested to observe is not their secular vocation, or their external circumstances [Olshausen], in which they were found when called of the Lord. Nothing is said of this in the subsequent context. Nor yet can we admit Bengel’s explanation: “the state in which the heavenly calling proves an offence to you.” This anticipates a thought which is not mentioned till afterwards. It is more correct to understand it of the Divine call, both as to the act itself, and the method God pursued in calling them, especially in respect to the persons whom he had chosen and their condition. [This is seen in the very use of terms. “He does not say τὴνκλῆσινὑμετέραν, nor τὴνὑμῶνκλῆσιν but τὴνκλῆσινὑμῶν; the calling of you.” Words.]. What this was he proceeds to state—how that not many wise men after the flesh.—The “flesh” here denotes the purely human state or course of action, as utterly devoid of Divine influence or coφperation. It is the sensuous and selfish life, possessed by sin. Hence a wisdom which is suited to this life, which moves according to its ways instead of after the methods of that Divine spiritual principle from which all true higher knowledge springs, is “a wisdom of this age,” “of the world” (1 Corinthians 1:20), earthly, godless, and hostile to God. Such is its essential character. Yet without pushing the matter so far, we might simply abide by the idea of what is purely human. (Comp. Herzog’s Theol. Real. Ency. under the word “Fleisch”).—To attach this qualification to the remaining predicates, would be superfluous. These of themselves indicate what is external, worldly, and belonging to the lower extra-christian life.—not many mighty, δυνατοι: persons of consequence in civil life, influential, powerful, whether it be by wealth or any other means,—not many noble, εὐγενεῖς: of distinguished descent, well-born. In highly-civilized, aristocratic Corinth, all this was regarded of great importance.—are called.—There is no verb in the original with which the above nominatives can agree, and it is best to supply the defect [as in the E. V.] “are called” from the word “calling” in the first clause. Others prefer “are,” and take it either as the sole predicate of the clause: “There are not many wise, etc., among you;” or they unite with it the adjectives as predicates: “Many are not wise, etc.” [Some of the Fathers thought that the persons employed to dispense this calling were here meant. So Theodoret. “God endorsed the nations in the evangelical net of Galilean fishermen.” Also Augustine. “Christ caught orators by fishermen, not fishermen by orators.” Wordsworth]. The supplying of “are called,” suits as well with the preceding words, “your calling,” as with the following, “hath chosen.” “In the early centuries it was often flung at Christianity (by Celsus and others) that its converts were, for the most part, common people, women and slaves.” Paul here not only confesses the fact, but also discovers in it one cause of glory for the Gospel; for it is precisely in this that the Gospel displays itself to be the power of God and the wisdom of God, that starting from such humble beginnings it had nevertheless both outwardly and inwardly overcome the world. 1 Corinthians 1:27-28. The positive aspect of the case. But the foolish things of this world.—Luther translates “in the eyes of the world,” as though the Genitive in the original were that of estitmaion. But Paul is here speaking of things not as they seem, but as they are; and here, as well as in the subsequent Epistles, we have the actual quality indicated. “The foolish things” (τὰμωρά), the neuter for the sake of greater generalization. We have here a strong contrast to “the wise,” i. e. whatever is lacking in higher cultivation and insight, including, too, the additional thought of being deemed foolish, contracted and simple.—hath God chosen, an expression which is repeated three times with great emphasis. It denotes the Divine purpose which is made known in the calling; or that Divine decision in virtue of which a separation is effected among fallen mankind, and certain individuals are selected out of it to become a possession of God in Christ, and are so made blessed (comp. ἐκλέγεσθαι Ephesians 1:4; Is. 15:19). The expression belongs to the Theocratic language of the Old Testament (comp. αָ ?ηַ ?ψ Deuteronomy 14:2 ff.). “Foreknowledge” and “Predestination “are cognate terms, Romans 8:29; 2 Timothy 1:9, yet so, however, that the word “choose” here designates the free, eternal gracious will of God, as carried out in time, and therefore includes the “calling” in itself.—The object of such a choice is to confound the wise i.e., the wise after the flesh. By the fact that He selected the “foolish,” persons destitute of superior culture, to enjoy holy and blessed communion with Him, the wisdom in which “the wise” boasted, is exposed in all its insufficiency and worthlessness. Or we may say with de Wette, “the wise were put to shame by being compelled to see the foolish obtaining that which was denied to them.” In the latter case, it is implied that “the wise” are conscious of the preference made, “and so were stung to reform” (Osiander). But this is not sustained by the context as the parallel expression “bring to nought” shows. The jubilant contrast proceeds.—and the weak things of this world, i. e. the weak of every kind, bodily, mentally, politically.—God hath chosen to confound the things which are mighty.—The antithesis here is introduced by the neuter: τὰίσχυρά, denoting the category in general, although persons are meant. That any thing contemptuous was intended by this use of the neuter, is not probable, since he just before spoke of a kindred class, “the wise,” in the masculine. The “confounding” is seen in the fact that “the weak things,” by virtue of the indwelling “power of God,” evince an energy and an overcoming power which is denied to the strong of this world.—In the third set of contrasts there appears an expansion of thought on the one side, with which there is nothing to correspond on the other.—And the base things of the world, and the despised things hath God chosen—the things which are as good as not, in order that He may bring to nought the things that are.—Here we have the antithesis only to the last expression of the first series: “the things that are” (τὰὄντα). [This is readily accounted for, if the omission of the καί as sustained by the best authorities (see critical notes) be correct. In that case the τὰμὴὄντα: the things which are not instead of being an addition to the previous specifications, would stand in opposition with them, as a sort of summary of their meaning, and so be the main word requiring the offset on the other side]. Observe also the order of thought in the specifications, “base things,”—ἀγενῆ: of low origin. To this is added as a natural consequence: “despised things”—τὰἐξουθενηένα: regarded as nothing. Then below both, as putting the matter in its strongest possible aspect, there comes the τὰμὴὄντα (to be distinguished from τὰοὐκὅντα inasmuch as the μὴ is not an absolute, but a subjective negative. Winer, § 59, 3): that which in the opinion of men is as good as nonexistent.—In the antithetic τὰὄντα, some would insert a τί, making it read: things that are somewhat, of some importance. But this we are as little warranted in doing as in making τὰμὴὄντα=τὰμηθὲνὄντα: things which are of no account, are nothing. What Paul here sets in contrast with the former are things which have being, are real, which are regarded as existing, and “which continue to make themselves pass for sole realities.” And for these things the verb “confound” would no longer suit. So we have another “bring to naught:” καταργήσῃ make null, deprive of all validity. This is a much stronger expression, and it puts its object, relatively to the highest good to be enjoyed, out of existence. The truth of the assertion has been well brought out by Neander: “In its scorned professors, the Gospel has in fact displayed a power of action and endurance, which far transcends the measure of the natural man. They alone never bowed to the despotism of the Roman Emperor. To them also the Gospel has imparted a steadfastness of conviction, which the proud philosophy of the Greeks never possessed; and a Christian mechanic, as Justin Martyr and Tertullian have affirmed, was able to answer questions which the Greek philosopher asked in vain.” 1 Corinthians 1:29. The reason of the above mentioned peculiarity of God’s procedure in “calling” men.—that no flesh should boast in the presence of God.—μῃκαυχήσεταιπὰσασάρξ, lit.: that all flesh should not boast. A Hebraism. The negative belongs to the verb, and=that all flesh should give up their boasting. The sense is: “no man should boast that he, out of his own endeavors, or position, or worth, had contributed any thing to the great achievements of the Gospel.” Neander. It is a question whether we are to take the word “flesh” as simply denoting humanity in general, or are to associate with this the ideas of guilt and transientness which are also conveyed by it. As a general rule the expression occurs in this way only when the one or the other of these ideas is implied in the context. “Flesh beautiful, yet frail” says Bengel.—[“Here then we see that God by confounding the mighty, and the wise, and the great, does not design to elate with pride the weak, the illiterate, and the abject, but brings down all of them together to one level.” Calvin]. 1 Corinthians 1:30. The ground in the Divine economy on which this end is obtained and the glory of salvation secured to God alone.—But of him ye are in Christ Jesus.—A two-fold construction and exposition is here possible. Either the first five words may be taken as a sentence by itself, stating the fact of their origin in God: “Of him are ye.” The subsequent words, “in Christ Jesus,” would then assert the ground of their being from God—of their Divine Sonship, and this too in such a manner as to carry the emphasis. Such a construction is supported by the fact that the important relative clause which follows is joined directly to it. Or the words “ye are in Christ Jesus” may be taken together as denoting their being in fellowship with Christ, and then “of Him” assigns the cause of this fact,—shows how they came to be in Christ. The latter construction is not contrary to usage, and at least is not more forced than to suppose the word “are” to be employed as a pregnant construction for ‘have sprung’ or ‘been born,’ as Osiander does. We might compare with this Ephesians 2:8, “And that,” to wit, being saved, “not of yourselves,” which is the same as ‘and ye are not saved of yourselves,’—stated in the positive form, ‘ye are saved of God,’ i. e. He is the author of your salvation. So here: He is the author of your being in Christ Jesus. This is sustained also by the “from God” (ἀπὸθεοῦ) in the relative clause which evidently refers back to “of Him” (ἐξαὐτοῦτοῦ) and imparts to the thought additional emphasis by repetition. In relation to the truth conveyed see John 6:44; John 6:37; John 6:65. The preference accordingly is to be given to the second construction. In this way, on the one hand, we preserve the Pauline expression “to be in Christ,” and avoid one which never elsewhere occurs—ἐκθεοῦεἶναι: “to be from God.” By this explanation we would be compelled to refer ἐνκυρίῳ: “in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:31), to God and not to Christ, contrary to Pauline usage. But this need present no difficulty, singe these words in 1 Corinthians 1:31 are not Paul’s, but a citation from the Old Testament.—Who was made wisdom unto us from God, both righteousness and sanctification and redemption.—Here we have the rich treasure of blessings contained for us in Christ all laid open, revealing the largeness of our indebtedness to God, for what of real worth we have and are. “From God” is not to be connected with “wisdom” as indicating the source whence it came, but with “was made” as showing the author of the act. (ἐγενήθη, a later Doric form for ἐγένετο, not passive). This is the order of thought presented in the German [as well as in the English] version. The fact that Christ has been made to us “wisdom” depends on God; and not only “wisdom,” but also the other particulars specified. Observe, too, he here passes over into the first person plural, “unto us,” including therein himself as he frequently does elsewhere when specially moved by a sense of his fellowship with his readers in the salvation of Christ. The position of “wisdom,” coming in as it does before the words “unto us from God,” and thus separated from the remaining predicates, is not to be explained on the ground that “wisdom” is the leading thought to which the others are subordinated. Such a construction is neither called for by the τεκαί, which only serves to connect “righteousness” and “sanctification” a little more closely, nor by the nature of the conceptions expressed by the other terms, which designate rather coφrdinate aspects of the one great scheme of salvation entirely distinct from wisdom, and therefore not capable of being included under it. Rather we may say that in consequence of the course of thought thus far pursued, the idea of “wisdom” pressed foremost upon his mind, and so came in where it did; or that he put the qualifying word common to the several members of the sentence right in among them as a word of connection (Osiander.) It is natural to look for some antithesis to what precedes in these four specifications, “wisdom,” etc. But it can only be called a mistake in Bengel when he attempts to find a contrast, as in “wisdom” to “the foolish things;” so also in “righteousness” to “the weak things,” in “sanctification” to “the base things,” and in “redemption” to “the despised things.”—When it is affirmed that “Christ was made to us wisdom,” by this we are to understand that in Him, in His person, the fulness of which was unfolded in His history, the mystery of the Divine plan of salvation has been disclosed, and with this an insight been afforded us into the dispensations and judgments of God, and we are enabled to recognize and lay hold upon that which shall conduct us to the goal of our noblest longings (comp. 1 Corinthians 2:7 ff.; Colossians 1:9 ff.; Colossians 1:26 ff.; Colossians 3:2; Colossians 3:10; Philippians 1:9 ff.; Ephesians 5:8 ff. etc.). As closely related ideas, “righeousness” and “sanctification” are so joined as to form a distinct whole: δικαιοσύνητεκαὶἁγιασμός. The first reminds us of 2 Corinthians 5:21—“that we might be made the righteousness of God in him;” and of Jer 23:5—“The Lord our righteousness;” and also of the saying of Christ himself in Matthew 3:15, as well as of Act 13:38; Isaiah 53:11; Galatians 2:16-17; Romans 1:17; Romans 3:21 ff. In the language of Holy Writ righteousness denotes that conduct which comports with the law of God or the disposition suitable to it. This existed in Christ in absolute perfection; and it existed in Him as the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:4; 1 Corinthians 15:7), the son of man, the head representing the whole body, and in behalf of the entire sinful race, whose obligations to the law He had fulfilled by a life of perfect obedience, and whose debt to justice He has cancelled by submiting to the penalty threatened upon sin in a voluntary sacrifice of Himself even unto death, thereby complying with the behests of the Father and revealing His holy and compassionate love towards the fallen. In this way has He become righteousness for us, that we may be counted righteous before God and enter into the possession of the rights and privileges which belong to this state of righteousness—that is, be adopted into the Divine family. This, regarded as an act of God, is expressed by the terms δικαιοῦνδικαίωσις: to justify, justification; and the pardon of sin, as the negative side of justification, includes also, for its corresponding positive side, God’s cordial acceptance of us as pleasing in His sight. But in this judicial portion of Christ’s redeeming work there lies also, at the same time, an element of moral change—of sanctification (ἁγιαςμός), and the intimate connection between these two things is expressed by the τεκαί. (“In this conjunction there is implied at once distinction and equality, an intimation of similarity, as though the one were consequent upon the other.” Osiander. In order that the relation to God, in which our justification places us, may be subjectively sustained, so that we may say “the judgment of God is according to truth,” there must be an inward connection between the Head and the members who participated in the righteousness of their Head. This connection is effected by the love of Christ awakening faith in us. This love at once destroys in the subject of it all disposition to live for himself, as the moving spring of his existence, all ambitious aspiring, and transports him into a state of mind that leads him to live and to become every thing in Christ alone. And this is faith, humble, earnest faith, that works in us repentance as its result. In this emancipation of the individual from the thraldom of selfishness (an emancipation which is at the same time a deliverance from every thing to which selfishness binds us, even the idols of flesh and sense, and the world), and in this union to Christ as the sole worthy and worth-giving Saviour, lies the germ of our “sanctification.” By this we understand becoming godly-minded—the consecration of our whole life in all its elements unto God—the offering up of self unto the Most High, so that all labor becomes a Divine service, the springs of which are joy in the Lord and the witness of the Spirit to our adoption and final salvation. This ἁγιασμόζ: holiness, may be regarded either as progressive—sanctification, or as a fixed quality—sanctity. The latter is the prevailing usage in the New Testament (Romans 6:19-22; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4; 1 Thessalonians 4:7; 1 Timothy 2:15; Hebrews 12:14 etc.). It is to be so taken here. In reference to the thing itself see John 17:19, and the juxtaposition of “ye are justified” and “ye are sanctified” in 1 Corinthians 6:11. But while all are agreed as to the meaning of these foregoing terms as a whole, it is not so in regard to the last one, “and redemption” (ἀπολύτρωσις). Are we (with Meyer) to take this as denoting the work of Christ through which our salvation is achieved (as in Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7), so that it is for us an object of faith? or (according to the Catholic expositors) as our final deliverance from death and all the evils and temptations of sin (as in Romans 8:23; Ephesians 1:14), and so as an object of hope? The latter interpretation corresponds better with the position of the word, since it will hardly do, after having mentioned “righteousness and sanctification,” to go back again to the negative idea of deliverance from guilt, which is already involved in the term righteousness. On the other hand, its position renders the addition of any explanatory term like that found in Romans 8:23; Ephesians 1:14; Ephesians 4:30, unnecessary. Comp. for a fuller development of the thought Romans 8:10-11; Romans 8:21-24.—Here then is the final stage of our salvation a deliverance from the bondage of corruption unto the glorious liberty of the sons of God. That in this, as well as in the foregoing instances, Christ exhibits himself as the “power of God” victorious over the power of sin and its terrible consequence, death, is a proximate thought, so that here again those two chief predicates, “wisdom and power,” recur to view, only the second with greater prominence. But in the case of “sanctification,” as well as of “redemption,” it is implied that Christ is in Himself what He has become for us; that He in all His life and walk was entirely severed from all fellowship with sin and wholly consecrated to God, i.e. holy, and as such was the principle of our sanctification; that He arose victorious from the grave and the whole realm of sin, and at once ascended up on high, exalted over all, and as such carries in Himself the power by which our redemption is to be achieved. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:26; 1 Corinthians 15:55; Ephesians 2:6). 1 Corinthians 1:31. The final cause of the peculiar method of God’s call and the plan of His salvation by the free gift of an all-sufficient Saviour.—In order that, according as it is written, he that boasteth, in the Lord let him boast.—Here is where the argument conducts us. There must be a boasting, a glorying; not, however, in oneself before God, but in God as the author of all our advantages and blessings. And this boasting is the expression of a lofty emotion of joy and confidence. If by the term “Lord” Christ were meant, it should be explained as an exultation in His fellowship, in possessing a share in His salvation. But the relation to 1 Corinthians 1:29 points rather to God, the original source of all salvation. And such an application would not militate against Paul’s usage, because, as has already been remarked, the passage is a citation from the Old Testament (Jeremiah 9:23), particular prominence being given to the chief thought by holding fast to the original form. Hence the anacoluthon, ἵνα—καυχάθω, instead of καυχᾶται. If anything were to be supplied it would be γένηται. For a similar case see Romans 15:3. AND ETHICAL 1. God’s thoughts and ways entirely unlike those of the natural man.—What is great and glorious in the sight of men, God sets at naught. What men slight as mean and contemptible, God prizes, or makes it precious. Man’s propensity is to exalt himself, and hold in honor whatever is the product of his own powers and bears the mark of mental or physical superiority, or can be used to personal advantage, or is of noble origin, while he treats all that is crude and powerless and vulgar, just as if it had no existence. God, on the other hand, in His work of redeeming vain man, especially at its very commencement, proceeds on methods quite the reverse. Here we see the Son of the Highest, who is in the form of God, the Fulness of Divine life and wisdom and power, and, as the perfect image of the Father, is infinitely exalted above the most eminent of created beings, yea, is the very substance and vital principle of all the excellence and power which these beings possess—we see Him emptying Himself of His glory, entering into a state of creaturely dependence, assuming the form of a servant, coming into association with a sinful race although Himself sinless, bearing in holy sympathy all their burdens and trials on His own heart, and sharing in their condemnation and suffering and death, even to the ignominious death of the cross. Thus, at the very start, did Divine Power and Wisdom and Holiness exhibit themselves as weakness, foolishness and sin; Life and Light, as death and darkness; Riches inexhaustible, as deepest poverty; the All in All, as nothing; Essential Being, as not being. Thus in His fundamental act did God confront and confound the vain conceit of men who aspired to resemble Him in power, wisdom and blessedness. And this initial procedure has shaped the whole method of salvation ordained in the Gospel. As the condition of pardon and acceptance God requires of men the absolute renunciation of their own wisdom, power and sufficiency, and a disposition to ascribe all honor and glory unto God, who has thus manifested Himself to them in Christ, and to regard His workmanship in them as alone possessing worth. But since this requirement is exceedingly difficult for such as have distinction in this world, it happens that among the saved there are found not many wise, mighty and noble; but the Divine calling proves effectual rather in the sphere of the rude, the weak, the ignoble and the lowly, inasmuch as it is among these that the disposition to accept salvation exists in the highest degree or is most readily awakened. Thus it cometh to pass that while the wise and the noble and the mighty of earth are passed by and deemed unfit for heavenly honors, the foolish are lifted up into the light of Divine wisdom, the weak are clothed with Divine power, the ignoble are invested with the highest nobility, those who are as if they were not, attain consideration as the only real personages, and by the contrast the pomp and pride of earth are put to shame. The reason of this is that there may be no boasting before God. To this there is the opposite. 2. Unto God the Lord be all glory—He is the author of all benefits which come to us through Christ, and as He is the author so is He their final cause. Of Him and to Him are all things. And these benefits appertain to all the aspects and relations of man’s being and life as connected with God and His kingdom, viz. the intellectual, the legal, the moral and the physical. First, Wisdom. This in its highest form is the knowledge of God, and such a knowledge we have imparted in the revelation of His Gospel—a knowledge of His character, His works and ways, of the economy of His kingdom in its preparation, establishment, spread and final consummation, by means of which the thoughtful spirit may be led to choose the way of life, and to advance from the first appropriation of salvation in faith on to its full fruition in glory. Of this wisdom Christ is made to us the substance and the illuminating principle. The second is Righteousness, i. e., restoration of fellowship with God by the satisfaction of all the law’s demand, and the cancelling of all obligations incurred, so that the sinner can on this ground, be accounted righteous in the sight of God, and be reinstated in his forfeited rights, and have free access to the Father as one of His family. This righteousness Christ has been made unto us by His having fulfilled all the claims of the law, both in doing and in suffering, both by yielding a perfect obedience and by assuming the curse out of His free, infinite love, so that we, being found in Him, may be made partakers of His merits. The third, inseparably connected with the preceding, is the Sanctification of human life in all its inward and outward movements so far as they are determined by man’s own will. This is effected by the shedding abroad of the love of God in the heart through the indwelling Spirit, who, consequent upon the work of Christ, comes to appropriate to us His righteousness and to assure us of his pardoning grace. And when, notwithstanding all past sins, we become thoroughly conscious of this love to us, there is awakened in our souls a love in return which shows itself in perfect confidence and in entire devotion to God, and in the utter renunciation of all selfish and worldly affections. And this is holiness. But this holiness perfects itself gradually, in the daily exercise of repentance and faith, and love more and more takes possession of the whole life to the complete regulation of all our faculties and relations, so far as they can be determined by it. And this Christ is made, unto us by virtue of His holiness passing over into our hearts through the Holy Ghost, whom He hath given unto us, and who transforms us into a likeness to His all-perfect character. Finally, Redemption.—This is the destruction of all our enemies, even to the last, which is death, so that not only is the spirit life because of righteousness, but God, who hath raised from the dead the Lord Jesus Christ, will quicken our mortal bodies through the Spirit that dwelleth in us. Thus is man, in respect to his entire organism, delivered from the bondage of corruption, and introduced into the glorious liberty of the children of God. And all this is done through the power and after the type of Christ, who, Himself victor over death, has become the principle of life eternal for all who believe in Him. As they die with Him, so also will they reign with Him. In this that profound saying is fulfilled, that corporeity is the end of the ways of God; in other words, that the deliverance of our whole organization from the ban of death, and our introduction into the fulness and power of an indestructible life is the consummation of God’s work of restoring fallen man; a work which was begun in his deliverance from the Condemnation of sin. Short and good, Olearius: Christus est sapientia in verbo, quoad doctrinam, justibia in merito, quoad fidem; sanctificatio in spiritu, quoad vitam; redemptio in novissimo adventu, quoad salutem ζternam.3. [The efficiency of faith in the matter of salvation.—This consists not in any virtue or meritoriousness of the act itself but in the fulness of blessings contained in the Being whom it appropriates or to whom it unites us. It enlightens because it lets in the light of Christ’s wisdom; it justifies because it appropriates the righteousness of Christ; it sanctifies because it puts us into fellowship with Christ’s holy life, and it proves our victory over death and the grave by associating us with Him who, as the Captain of our salvation, has proved himself the mighty conqueror. Thus while the wisdom and the power of this world are limited by the weakness and imperfection of human faculties, faith proves its superiority over both by taking to itself the fulness of Him who filleth all in all.] 4. [Christ cannot be divided in the benefits accruing from Him. We cannot have Him for our wisdom or for our righteousness without at the same time having Him for our sanctification and our redemption. The lack of any one of these benefits proves the absence of them all.—Christ is a perfect whole, and His work a perfect whole, and to be accepted at all He must be accepted as a whole.] 5. [The surpassing excellence of God’s method of salvation is seen in the fact that he presents to us not a dead system of doctrines nor lifeless instrumentalities to be acquired and improved by us, but a living agency, a person, infinite, ever-present, ever-active, all-wise, all-powerful, all-good, who acts upon us while we act on Him, and saves us by an efficiency of his own.] AND 1. [The method of preaching the Gospel must be adapted to the nature of the Divine calling.—1. As to the subjects thereof. The preaching should be of such a kind, and be set forth in such a manner, as to reach the poor, the illiterate and the weak. One sign that the kingdom of God has come is that the poor have the Gospel preached unto them. As it was in the beginning so must it still be. God’s calling has not changed its nature. But in thus suiting the Gospel to the humble, we are not to set aside the noble and learned as though excluded from salvation. At the manger in Bethlehem the worship of the shepherds was followed by the worship of the wise men from the East; among the disciples there was a Joseph of Arimathea; the vacancy in the Apostleship made by the fall of Judas was filled by a Paul; among the converts at Corinth, was Erastus the chamberlain and the wealthy Gaius. 2. As to the ends it has in view, viz: the humbling of man’s pride and the promoting of God’s glory.—The aim at such an end must be seen in the style and manner of the preacher himself and in the effects which he seeks to produce. 3. As to its contents.—This must be Christ in all His fulness and in His manifold adaptations to the wants of the sinner; Christ Himself, not a system of doctrines, nor a code of precepts, but the living person.] 2. The reason why not many wise are called. 1. Not because God puts contempt on human wisdom, on rank or fortune, or upon man’s natural faculties and powers, for these are His gifts and were designed for good, 2, but on account of men’s guilt. They abuse these gifts into an occasion for withdrawing themselves from the grace of God, and setting up for themselves to the darkening of their own understandings and the ruin of all their own interests through their weakness and insufficiency. Spener in Starke.3. Three classes of persons, the wise, the strong and the noble, are the special foes of God’s kingdom, partly because they think that God’s grace detracts from their power and consequence, and partly because they imagine themselves to be already in a blessed condition (John 9:39-41). Starke.4. The fact that a majority of its professors at first were of humble rank redounds to the honor of Christianity. From this it is seen: 1. That it esteems all men alike. 2. That it owes its rise and spread not to human might and art, but to God. 3. That it requires not learning but an honest heart that is anxious for its own salvation.—A miserable hull often conceals a precious kernel. Heubner.5. The obligations which spring from these truths.—The poor and needy owe Christianity their profoundest gratitude for being so honored by it. [At the same time they must be careful not to arrogate any superiority in the sight of God over those who are above them in learning or birth or ability. Pride in ignorance and meanness is no less abominable in the sight of God than pride in greatness, wealth and learning.] On the contrary, the rich and the noble have occasion to humble themselves. Christianity owes them nothing, and they should be mindful of the danger of being beguiled from it. 6. The proud and self-sufficient must be humbled.—The Saviour did not become the Son of David until the princely glory of David’s house had departed and his descendants had come to the saw-horse. This was to show that the loftiness of this world must be brought low, if it would enter the kingdom of God. [The heights of earthly promotion and glory lift us no whit nearer Heaven.—It is easier to step there from the lowly vale of humiliation and sorrow.] God’s kingdom is a cross-kingdom. Gossner.7. Cheer for the lowly.—What the world rejects that God lifts up and transforms into a sanctuary. Art thou small and despicable in the sight of men, rejoice at it and consider that God looks down especially upon thee (Psalms 113:6-8; Psalms 138:6). 8. Instruction for the high.—To God belongs all the glory. If then God is to display his power in thee and make something out of thee, thou must consent to become as nothing. Everything in Christianity turns upon this one quality of humility. The blessedness of the children of God is that they possess nothing, the glory of which does not belong to God. 9. What incomparable riches in Christ!—Believest thou in Him? Then thou possessest Him. Let earth’s trifles pass. Thou hast Christ, and with Him thou hast all things.—He is thine in all his offices.—As a Prophet, he is our wisdom; as High-Priest, he is our righteousness; as King, he is our sanctification; and in all three offices, he is our complete redemption. Hedieger.10. J. Spencer. 1 Corinthians 1:21. The superiority of Christianity over human science, on the subject of religion. I. Demonstrated as to a. a future state; b. Human duty; c. The character of God; d. The pardon of the sinners. II. Application; a. Guard against a so-called philosophical style of reasoning; b. Cling to the great distinctive doctrines of the Gospel; c. Prize the pure Gospel; d. Heedlessness of sinners, strange. J. Barrow. 1 Corinthians 1:23. The doctrine of the Gospel—the doctrine of the cross. 1. As a suffering—in appearance criminal. 2. As most bitter and painful. 3. As most ignominious and shameful. 4. As agreeable and advantageous to the intents of the passion. 5. As completory of ancient significations and predictions. 6. As apt to excite devotion, and enforce the practice of duty. H. Bushnell. 1 Corinthians 1:23. The power of God in self-sacrifice. I. God is morally passible; a part of His glory is to be compassionate. II. This compassion exhibited in Christ’s passion on the cross. III. The power of it as seen in the effect it has to subdue enmity. It conquers evil by enduring evil.—C. H. Spurgeon. 1 Corinthians 1:23-24. Christ crucified. I. The Gospel rejected. II. The Gospel accepted. III. The Gospel admired. Anonymous. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29. The Christian calling. I. Its nature; a. Not many mighty, wise and noble; but b. The foolish, the weak, the base, are called. II. The reason: a. Not that God is unwilling that the great, and wise, and noble should be saved; but b. Because the foolish, the weak, the base, are more ready to feel their need and accept grace; and c. that the glory of God may be the more signalized. III. In its bearings; a. Shows us the perilous position of the mighty, and noble, and wise; they are in danger of being passed by and confounded; b. Teaches us not to disparage the foolish, the weak and the base; c. The foolish, the weak and the base are not to be proud against the opposite class, as though any better in God’s sight; d. The true preparation for God’s kingdom is an entire emptying of self; e. The purport of the calling, the glory of God.—Jon. Edwards. 1 Corinthians 1:29-31. God glorified in man’s dependence. I. This dependence absolute and universal; a. As they have all their good of God; a. of his grace; ί. of his power; b. As they have all through God; c. As they have all in God both their objective good and their subjective good. II. God is glorified in it. a. In that it affords greater occasion and obligation to take notice of and acknowledge God’s perfections and all-sufficiency; b. In that it is hereby demonstrated how great God’s glory is as compared with the creature’s. III. Use of the doctrine; a. It shows us God’s marvellous wisdom in the work of redemption; b. Those systems of doctrine, that are opposed to this absolute and universal dependence on God, do derogate from God’s glory, and so thwart the design of the contrivance for our redemption; c. We learn the efficiency of faith; d. Our duty is to exalt God above, and ascribe to Him all the glory of redemption. A. Butler, 1 Corinthians 1:30. Christ the source of all blessings.Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 1:28.—The καὶ before τὰμὴὄντα is not original. [“A mistaken supplement of the sense.”—Alf.] 1 Corinthians 1:29.—Instead of the rec. αὐτοῦ the best authorities read τοῦθεοῦ which is repeated by way of emphasis. 1 Corinthians 1:30.—The best attested order of words is σοφίαἡμῖνἀπὸθεοῦ. That in the Rec. ἡμῖνσοφία is to be explained from the tendency to take σοφίαἀπὸθεου together in relation (Meyer). [See below]. [See also for a masterly analysis of the Ethical import of this word. Mόller on Sin. 2 Book, 2 Chap. Also Sartorius, “Von der heiligen Liebe.”] Whitby discovers an allusion in the above designations to the Jews and Gentiles. His observations are valuable. “The Jews looked upon themselves as the only ἐυγενεῖς, persons of true nobility, as being of the stock of Abraham. ‘Even the poorest Israelite,’ saith R. Akibah, ‘is to be looked upon as a gentleman, as being the son of Abraham, &c.;’ but the Gentiles they horribly despised, as the base people of the earth, not fit to be conversed with, they being styled in their law, οὐκἔδνος: not a nation; λαὸςὁτεχθήσομενος, a people that shall be born, Psalms 22:31; ὁκτιζόμενος, that should be created in the generation to come, Psalms 102:19, and so yet had no being, Deuteronomy 31:21. οὑλαὸς, not a people, Hosea 1:10; and it being said by the prophet, that all the Heathens are as nothing, and were accounted as nothing. Isaiah 40:17, they still account them as such. Hence, Mordecai prays, Lord, give not thy sceptre τοῖςμὴοὖσι, to them that are not, Esther 4:11; and Esdras. As for the people which also came of Adam, thou hast said they are nothing. And now, O Lord, these Heathens who have ever been reputed as nothing, have begun to be lords over us. 2Es 6:56-57. Thus Abraham is said to be the father of the Gentiles, before that God who calleth things which are not as if they were, Romans 4:17 : and Clemens Rom. saith of the Gentiles, “He called us who were not, and would that of no being we should have a being.” So filthy are the Gentiles represented here by things that are not, things base, things accounted as nothing. See also 1 Corinthians 6:4. And this is the ancient exposition of Origen, who, speaking of the rejection of the Jews, or the calling of the Gentiles, and God’s provoking the Jews to jealousy by them that were not a nation, he confirms this from these words: “God hath chosen the base things of the world, and things which are not, that he might abolish the things which were before, that Israel, according to the flesh, might glory before God.” Phil�al c.p. 3. Now, however much we may feel constrained to take these designations in question in their more natural and broader acceptation as above, it is very evident that they were derived from the Theocratic usus loquendi.] A question might then arise: why ἐξ was not repeated and instead we have ἀπὸ. See below]. We have here given the exact order of the Greek in order to render the exposition more intelligible.] We here insert the arguments in favor of the interpretation which Kling has simply set aside without refuting, and which seems worthy of consideration as best fitted to dispose of some of the difficulties under which his view labors—and also as fraught with valuable suggestions. This other interpretation has in its favor, that it takes in the thought as it flows upon the mind in the order of the words, “who is made unto us a wisdom from God—both righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” In a collocation of words so peculiar, it were natural to take the last three terms as an after thought exegetical of the main one—and such an addition was needed. Wisdom was what Paul had been disparaging throughout this section. But it was the wisdom of man. Now he glories in Christ as having been made unto us wisdom. It was necessary therefore to difference this from what he had been condemning. So he adds ἀπόθεοῦ ?—not ἐξ, as in the previous clause where he wishes to express the cause of an act; but ἀπό: from, denoting derivation, showing whence this wisdom came. It is no objection to this that the article τή is not mentioned before ἀπό, since the omission is quite in Paul’s style. Ephesians 3:13. (See Alf.: also 15). Then to characterize this wisdom, to exhibit its distinguishing peculiarities as practical and suited for man’s deepest deeds, instead of being merely speculative, he subjoins the three great points it contemplated. And here is where wisdom of the Gospel far surpasses that of secular philosophy. It gives him in Christ pardon, holiness, triumphant deliverance from woe to glory. Here then we find 1, an adequate reason for the order of the words; 2, not a repetition but a distinct thought in ἀπὸθεοῦ, and so a reason for the change of preposition: 3, not a digression from the main course of thought as must be supposed in the other interpretation, which Stanley admits, but a glorious consummation of it, displaying the infinite superiority of the wisdom from God over all human Wisdom 4, an epexegesis quite in the manner of Paul. Romans 1:12. Since writing the above I see that the view above given is adopted, though not argued out, by Butler in his sermons on our text. It is substantiated also by the Syriac, Vul., and Rheims versions. Neander’s testimony may be added: “In these last three conceptions (righteousness, sanctification and redemption), there are presented to us the practical contents of the wisdom (from God), by which it is distinguished from the wisdom of to is world.”] C. As Illustrated by the Apostle’s Example1 Corinthians 2:1-51 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s [om. man’s] wisdom, but in demonstration of theSpirit and of power: 5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. AND The connection.—Paul here affirms his own conduct to have been in strict accordance with the nature of the Divine calling. [His views were sustained by his practice and at the same time justified that practice.] “As the Lord chose no one among you on account of his wisdom, so I did not come to you with wisdom.”—Burger.1 Corinthians 2:1. And I.—κᾀγω: “I also.” So God has dealt with you, and I have conformed to his method. [Or: “I also, like all true Christian preachers.”—De Wette. Or: “I accordingly,” consistently with the revealed purpose of God just mentioned.”—Hodge.] The connection with the preceding paragraph is close and direct, though a remoter reference to 1:17, 23 is not thereby excluded.—on coming to you, brethren, came not.—He has in view here his first long residence at Corinth, although a second shorter visit had been paid them just before writing this Epistle. The repetition “coming,” “I came,” as not foreign to classic usage, nor is it mere tautology. The former expresses the fact of his appearing among them [or the occasion of which he was about to speak,] while the second with its qualifying adjuncts states the way and mode of his appearance.—with excellency of speech and of wisdom.—[“As speech and wisdom (λόγος and σοφία) are here distinguished, the former probably refers to the manner or form, and the latter to the matter of his preaching. It was neither as a rhetorician nor as a philosopher that he appeared before them.”—Hodge. In 1:17 what he disavowed was wisdom of speech (σοφίᾳλόγου), the emphasis being on “wisdom.” Here, the two are distinguished as separate elements, and the idea of rhetoric is added to that of philosophy.] This clause some make the sole adjunct to “I came,” leaving the rest of the sentence distinct, as adducing the proof of his appearing as he did, q. d., ‘I came to you thus and so, inasmuch as I proclaimed,’ etc. [“This mode is generally preferred not only because of the position of the words, but also because of the sense.”—Hodge; and so Alford, Stanley and others.] But the whole clause is to be taken together, and the adjunct before us to be connected with—proclaiming to you the testimony of God.—The sense is ‘I did not come preaching with highly wrought eloquence and philosophic subtilities.’ To take the present participle here in a future sense is neither necessary nor suitable, since he is here speaking not of intention but simply of his mode of conduct. The matter of his preaching is “the testimony of God.” This is essentially the same as “the testimony of Christ,” 1:6, and what was there said holds good also here. It is the testimony which God bears concerning Christ (1 John 5:9), or the revelation of his plan of salvation which He makes out of His own consciousness, originally through Christ, and then through the Apostles. This is what it is incumbent on the servant of God simply to proclaim. In this work there is no need of rhetorical ornament and philosophic art. The very object of the proclamation itself precludes the applicability of eloquence and wisdom. (Comp. Osi.) [“The Gospel is in its essence not a theory, or an abstraction, or a comment, or an image of the fancy, but it is history, and indeed, Divine history. The preaching of the Gospel is therefore a proclamation of the doings of God, and especially of that one great act of love, viz., the sending of His own Son to die for the sins of the world. This may become a matter for theory and science in the bosom of the Church after faith in it has become established, but even then it is only as a development from faith. Science can never beget faith. Faith comes only through the regenerating power of God’s Spirit, who reveals Himself efficiently and in the most direct manner through the proclamation of the Gospel story.” Olshausen.] 1 Corinthians 2:2. His conduct in the particular above-mentioned shown to be deliberate—the result of a settled purpose. For—confirmatory—I did not determine.—[The negative particle, by its position here, is more naturally connected with the main verb. So Alf., who interprets: “the only thing that I made it definitely my business to know, was;” and Meyer says that the common connection of the “not” with “any thing” (τι), as in our E. V., is contrary to the phraseology. But Stanley translates: “I determined to know nothing,” making οὐκἕκρινα like οὓφημι. The difference of import is somewhat. In the one case, Paul tells us how far his mind was made up, that his determination did not go beyond one point; in the other case, his determination was a positive one, covering the whole ground and excluding from that all but one thing.] κρίνειν with the inf.=to conclude upon, resolved, decide, as in 2 Corinthians 2:1; 2 Corinthians 1 Rom 14:13.—to know any thing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified—i.e. to mingle any other sort of knowledge with the preaching of Christ. His one sole aim was to portray before their eyes this one person, and that too in His deepest humiliation, as He had suffered for them the shameful death of the cross. [So far from seeking to conceal his ignominy, so offensive to the worldly spirit, he would make it prominent and glory in it.] Hence it was that he would not indulge in any rhetorical or dialectic arts, in any high-flown discourse or philosophic argumentation. In this way certainly he might fail to attract the educated classes, so called, but he would be the better able to bring to light men’s actual religious needs and satisfaction. And this, with him, was the great point, for which he was willing to renounce every attainment in which he excelled, for he knew that those who wilfully neglected the revelation he brought could be gained by no reasonings from the light of nature. (See Bengel in loco.) [Furthermore, it must be observed, that it would be to mistake entirely the drift of the Apostle’s discourse, were we to take the name of Christ here, according to the fashion of many divines, as put by metonymy for the whole system of divinity, or for the doctrine of the Atonement. The purpose of Paul here is to avoid theorizing of all kinds, and to adhere rigidly to Christianity in its most concrete form as seen in the person and work of its founder. In his view, preaching was to act the part of a herald, to proclaim, not opinions, but the facts and messages as intrusted to him, and to let them speak for themselves. Hence we are here to take his language most literally. What he resolved on proclaiming to the Corinthians was Christ in His person and work, as the living revelation of the Father, as the Truth and the Life, as the One in whom were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, as the source of all salvation and blessing, whom to believe in, love and serve was life eternal. His Gospel was not theory or science, but history, and the glory of this history is, to use the words of Olshausen, that “it lives and repeats itself in the Church as a whole and in every member of the Church. It therefore never grows old any more than God himself can become antiquated; and it maintains itself to this day in all that fulness of power which it manifested in the first establishment of the Church.”—“To know any thing.” There is a force in the use of the word “know,” instead of “preach,” or “teach,” which is not to be overlooked. It shows that his determination covered not only the range of his words and acts, but also of his thoughts. He meant that Christ should fill his consciousness.]. 1 Corinthians 2:3. “Describes the preacher, as the former verse did his theme.” Bengel.—And I was with you, ἐγενόμηνπρὸςὑμᾶς. This might be rendered: I came to you, as 2 John 1:12. (according to the better reading). But Paul is here speaking not of his coming, but of his residence among them (1 Corinthians 2:4). In like manner γενέσθαιπρός occurs also in 16:10. (πρός: before, in presence of, 16:6, 7; Galatians 1:18; John 1:1.) How he was with them he proceeds to state in three substantives. a. in weakness. Since he is here speaking of his personal bearing, we are not to understand by this any physical infirmity, such as weak organs, or feeble chest, or ungainliness of form [as Stanley]; nor yet any sickness, or feebleness, bringing with it depression of spirits [as Rόckert and Stier], though this would be more plausible; and, least of all, any thing happening from without, like persecutions, and sufferings inflicted by others [as Chrysostom], which would be inconsistent with the use of the singular number. In view of the expressions of Paul himself (2 Corinthians 10:1; 2 Corinthians 10:10; 2 Corinthians 12:10; 2 Corinthians 4:7-12) it were better to refer this to inward weakness, but not so much to any sense of defect in science and education (so de Wette, Osi.), as to a feeling of utter inadequacy for the greatness of the work and for the resistance he would have to encounter (see Acts 18:9, ff.). [Bengel says: “opposed to power (1 Corinthians 2:4). We must not suppose that the Apostles were always in an agreeable frame of mind or quite free from perturbations.] b. in fear and c. in great trembling.—Terms expressive of great timidity as contrasted with a bold and confident demeanor maintained by the overweening consciousness of his own abilities, “such as appeared in the eyes of ancient Paganism to be the highest morality.” Neander. It has been justly observed that such anxiety, arising from a sense of insufficiency for the work on hand, is a marked characteristic of the most distinguished servants of God (see Osiander). The interpretation of Olshausen and others is less consistent with the idea expressed in the foregoing term (“in weakness.”) They understand Paul as intimating a modest fear lest he should corrupt the Divine truth with a mixture of human elements, and fail in the proper discharge of his duty. The sense of the phrase, “in fear and trembling,” which is a proverbial one (Genesis 9:2; Exodus 15:16; Isaiah 19:16) is determined by the connection. Elsewhere, as in Ephesians 6:5; 2 Corinthians 7:15, it denotes: sollicita reverentia; or, as Bengel: “A fear which abounds so as to effect even the body in its gestures and movements.” 1 Corinthians 2:4. Describes the mode of preaching.—And my speech and my preaching.—The “and” in 1 Corinthians 2:3 and the “and” in 1 Corinthians 2:4 are not so related as to be rendered: “As well I myself—as also my speech.” But the first of these conjunctions simply joins 1 Corinthians 2:3 to the preceding, and the second, 1 Corinthians 2:4 to 1 Corinthians 2:3, putting the matters stated in harmonious connection. On account of the repetition of “my,” we are not at liberty to take the two words here as identical, nor yet are they so related as to indicate the first the form and the second the substance of his preaching [so Stanley]. It were better to distinguish them as denoting, the first (λόγος), his private discourse, and the second (κήρυγμα), his public discourse [so Olsh., Rόck., and most others]; or, the first, discourse in general, and the second, discourse in particular, viz., the proclamation of the Gospel [so Hodge]. Less probable is the opinion of de Wette [adopted by Alf.], who takes the two words as designating the same thing but in distinct aspects; the former his style and course of argument, the latter his announcement of Gospel facts and conviction of their certainty.—was not.—The verb here has to be supplied; either ἐγένετο for 1 Corinthians 2:3, or ἧν, meaning: was not furnished with (Luke 4:32); or: did not consist in. The character of his speech and preaching is described, 1, negatively—not in the persuasive words of wisdom, οὐκἐνπειθοῖςσοφίαςλόγοις.—[ἀνθρωπίνης man’s, is a gloss, inserted most probably through a failure to perceive that the word thus far has been used in a strict and single sense, and from the consequent opinion that it needed some qualification. “Wisdom” is, all through, “synonymous with philosophy.”] The adjective πειθοῖς has, from the earliest times, proved a stumbling block. It is found no where else in all Greek literature, though its use is warranted by analogous forms, as φειδός from φείδομαι. But the explanation, which would take πειθοῖς as a substantive, in the sense of: persuasions, and put σόφίαςλόγοις in apposition, is inadmissible, if only for this reason, that the plural of πειθώ no where occurs. Hence have arisen manifold conjectures for changing the ordinary reading, none of which are well grounded, not even the suggestion so acutely maintained by Semler, Rincke, Fritzche, that the original read thus: οὐκἐνπειθοῖσοφίας in fitting antithesis to ἐνἀποδείξειπνεύματος, since it is decisive against this, that this reading no where appears alone without λόγοις or λόγων. Even in the ordinary reading, “wisdom” may be regarded as expressing the main idea, inasmuch as 1 Corinthians 2:5 demands this. πειθός, otherwise πιθανός [and as Meyer suggests, “probably a word in common, oral use.”]=convincing, winning, enticing, comp. πιθανογογία, Colossians 2:4. [Corinthia verba, pro exquisitis, et magnopere elaboratis et ad ostentationem nitidis. Wetstein ad loc.] 2, positively—but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.—“Demonstration” stands in strong contrast with “persuasive words,” since the word is often used elsewhere also to denote strong, cogent proof in opposition to winning speech. The way in which it is to be taken here, depends upon the manner in which we construe the associated genatives. These express either the object of the demonstration or its subject. In the former case the phrase would mean the practical exhibition of the spirit, as the source of spiritual life, renewing, enlightening and sanctifying, and of the power which resides in this spirit and which it imparts to man. In the latter case, the Spirit must be regarded as dwelling in the Apostle himself, and working through him, displaying His power in the facts he proclaimed, by rendering them effective to salvation. What ability he had to convince and convert would thus be ascribed to the living energy of the Spirit whose minister he was. In this way, as Neander says, “the demonstration furnished by the Spirit would be in contrast with that presented through words, and the demonstration of power with that of logical argumentation. It is the testimony of the Spirit which alone Paul admits as valid.” This interpretation is to be preferred, since in the antithetic clause “wisdom” is to be regarded as the subject or source whence the persuasive words originate, or which begets and presents them. Hardly deserving of more than mention are expositions like that which takes “Spirit and power” as equivalent to: powerful spirit, or which explains the “demonstration of the Spirit” to consist in the proof afforded by prophecies, and that “of power” in the miracles Paul wrought (Origen and Grotius). Even were prophecy and miracle to be thought of in this connection still they could not by any means have been exclusively intended. In any case, the reference must primarily have been to that moral power from above which ever accompanied the preaching of the Apostle, and which acted upon the hearts and consciences of his hearers, awakening, agitating and quickening them to a new life. In all this there was a demonstration of a higher sort, more influential for faith than the strongest arguments of philosophy. 1 Corinthians 2:5. Expressive of ultimate intent both of God in sending Him to preach as He did, and of Himself acting in compliance with it,—that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.—The end of preaching is faith in Christ. But if this faith was grounded upon human wisdom and its arguments and persuasions, which were only a superficial assent, then would the foundation be loose. It could remain only until assailed by strong arguments of a contrary sort. But if, on the other hand, faith rested upon a Divine demonstration, which while it convinced, converted also, and so took possession of the whole man, it was then fixed and immovable, and could victoriously withstand all the assaults of human power and art. [“Longinus alludes to the abrupt and unsystematic style on which the Apostle prides himself. ‘Paul of Tarsus was the first who maintained positive assertion without elaborate proof.’ ”—Stanley]. AND ETHICAL1. The nature of faith in Christ.—It is a trustful surrender of soul to Him; a conviction concerning Him, which involves at the same time a union with His person, even as He is offered unto us for our salvation—hence, with Him as “the crucified.” It is a reception of Him in such a way that He dwells in us and we in Him. But this pre-supposes a renunciation of all self-confidence, and of all trust in any thing creaturely and human, whether it be in the line of action, or permission, or of suffering, as available before God for working out or earning salvation, or for establishing and restoring our fellowship with God. It is an act which can proceed only from a mind renewed and strengthened by the might of Divine love, since God’s Spirit and power are operative in it, showing and convincing the sinner on the one hand of his own guilt and insufficiency for himself, and on the other hand of the holy and compassionate love of God, His saving righteousness and His almighty grace in Christ; and this, too, in a way to take down all boasting, and beget an implicit reliance upon God alone. 2. The sole means to produce faith.—This is a style of preaching which presents the great facts of redemption directly to the heart in their simple Divine energy, without the accessories of human science and art. In such preaching, God’s Spirit and power can bear testimony, and glorify Christ, and bring to man’s consciousness the greatness, and holiness, and wisdom, and glory of His redeeming love in such a manner as to qualify the heart for an exercise of faith. Wheresoever, on the contrary, human rhetoric with its artifices, and human philosophy with its speculations, are mingled up with Gospel truth, there offered some obstruction is to the operation of the Divine power; there some purely human influence, such as the charm of style or of fine reasoning, it may be, supersedes the Divine influence, and we fail of being drawn into the sphere of the truth itself, “as it is in Jesus;” there human selfishness and pride still have free scope. As the result, we have instead of a firm and lasting faith, only a feeble, sickly opinion, which is ever ready to yield to counter-influences, or to changed humors, or to new systems of thought; which does not carry in itself the life of man in Christ, or of Christ in man; which is not heavenly, but earthly, not deeply rooted, but superficial, and ever ready to vanish away. 3. The mood and attitude of the Christian preacher. He who clearly perceives what faith is, and what is requisite for it, and what depends on it; who sees what barriers of every kind, especially of false culture and foolish pride, oppose themselves to it; who understands how the pure and artless preaching of Christ alone has power to awaken faith, and yet what prejudices there are against such preaching, and how little it is acceptable to men, especially to the highly educated classes, and to those who either practise or tolerate the grosser or more refined forms of wickedness, and how the whole life and being of a man strives against the truth which seeks to slay their selfishness and their sensuality,—a person who comprehends all this as he ought, will recognize and feel it to be a task transcending all human ability, and too difficult for him in the imperfection of his spiritual life, to go abroad into the world, especially into the circle of the refined and learned, as a simple preacher of Christ crucified, and there maintain his stand. The persons he there meets, seek their satisfaction in art, and science, and learning; they take delight in luxury and sensual enjoyment; and the knowledge of this fact abates confidence, takes away boasting, begets timidity, awakens anxiety, yea bows a man to the very dust with a sense of his own weakness. But for this very reason does he become all the more suitable an instrument for Christ. The more emptied he is of self, the more can God impart to him of His spirit and power, and work in him and through him, the more will he be disposed to cherish a holy courage and confidence in God. With “the foolishness of preaching” he will be ready to encounter a world full of obstacles, and find himself strong enough to overthrow all its bulwarks, while he will feel ashamed to resort to secular arts for gaining an entrance for himself. And the earnest endeavor of every one, through whom God achieves exploits, is to become just such a simple instrument of the Spirit in subduing the hearts of men through the word of truth, and winning them to Christ. AND [1. Paul the pattern of an Evangelical preacher. On entering Corinth Paul was confronting his severest task. He had just left Athens, where, notwithstanding his brilliant audience and great speech on Mars Hill, he had met with comparatively small success. We read of no Church having been found there. And now he is to offer the Gospel in a city that presented in many respects far greater obstacles than Athens did. In addition to the pride of philosophy there was to be encountered here a degree of luxury and vice no where else to be found. And if there was failure at Athens, how much more the likelihood of failure at Corinth? It is in view of these discouragements, that the picture which the Apostle has given us of himself obtains its peculiar interest. The main features of it are 1. His inward feelings. He is not bold, defiant, self-assured, as an earthly warrior pushing up to an assault. On the contrary, he is much cast down, conscious of weakness, full of fear. To the outward sight, there is every thing against him. But while the flesh trembles, the spirit has courage to go on, being trustful in God. 2. His determination as to the course to be pursued. a. He will not cater to the tastes of the Corinthians, and think to win them by gratifying these. Fine oratory and subtle philosophy, however capable of these, he lays aside. They are not the means for winning faith, for saving souls. b. He will simply proclaim the testimony of God, holding up Christ in all His glory, and in all His shame, as the only means which God hath appointed to make man wise and holy, believing that however much this might scandalize the natural heart, it was the demonstration of God’s spirit and power which would alone prove mighty for the overthrow of Satan, and the setting up of God’s kingdom. 3. His aim. The faith he might awaken should rest in nothing he might say or do of himself, but solely in the exhibition which God should make of Himself through the Son whom He had set forth, and whom Paul was intent on holding up before the minds of men even to the utter hiding of himself from view]. 2. Heubner:—The Christian must first unlearn in order to learn. To preach Christ the Crucified is to put Him and His atoning work at the top, to set all truth in connection with these, and to derive all good from these (1 Corinthians 2:2). Self-diffidence in a preacher helps more than self-confidence. It is a great thing to stand in place of God and proclaim His word in presence of angels and men (1 Corinthians 2:3). Christianity is sufficient for itself and needs no adventitious aids. No preacher should so far humble himself as to seek these, nor should the people expect them. What is the demonstration of the Spirit and of power? (1 Corinthians 2:4). It is the conviction of sin and of the need of a Saviour, which the Spirit works in the heart through the Gospel. This is something which no man can effect of himself. Hence what the preacher has preλminently to strive for, is that the Spirit may operate through his word; and the hearers, that they may experience this heavenly power. In order that the preacher may make “demonstration of the Spirit,” he must have the Spirit. A faith which rests upon regard for a philosopher Isaiah 1, impure—a man’s name is put for Christ’s; 2, unsafe and fickle—human systems crowd each other out; 3, inoperative—the Spirit of God is not its source; 4, not genuine—science has no faith-begetting power. Therefore a Christian’s faith should not rest upon scholastic wisdom, but on the power of God renewing the heart. What a person has experienced within cannot be argued out. Hedinger:—Christ Crucified the preacher’s Alpha and Omega. Away with finery and feathers! Let the Spirit of God speak in thee. He knows how to hit the heart (1 Corinthians 2:2). Those conductors to salvation who have been proved in the furnace of affliction are the best approved. To the mariner on a wild sea, experience is every thing. To have only studied maps at school will prove of little account (1 Corinthians 2:3). Gossner:—The death of Christ must be recognized and credited. This is what captivates the heart, and kindles the fire that burns. Faith in the Son of God is the greatest miracle of grace. It is a great consolation that here and there one soul that hears us is made to experience the power of Christ’s blood for the forgiveness of sins. He who preaches Christ crucified must himself be ready for a crucifixion. Paul trembled while preaching that which blessed the world. Many false teachers, who betray the world and lull it into a death sleep, speak with bold front and without sense of danger. Rieger:—It is a question whether ministers do not try too much to conceal their weakness and fear, and are not too assiduous in filling up the gaps and pauses with artificial efforts; whether they do not shrink too much from the criticism of the world, when it insists so strenuously upon calmness, fluency and ease in a speaker. But where there is life, there will be fluctuations. Living growth has to break through obstructions. [Chalmers:—A minister has no ground to hope for fruit from his exertions until in himself he has no hope; until he has learned to put no faith in the point and energy of his sentences—until he feel that a man may be mighty to compel the attention, and mighty to regale the imagination, and mighty to silence the gainsayers, and yet not mighty to the pulling down of strong holds]. [Tholuck. 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. Paul a type of the true preacher. 1. Contents of his sermon, 1 Corinthians 2:2. II. Tone of the preacher. Theremin, 1 Corinthians 2:2. The knowledge of Christ the crucified. It includes a threefold knowledge. I. What man is. II. What God is. III. What man should be. Chalmers. 1 Corinthians 2:4-5. The necessity of the Spirit to give effect to the preaching of the Gospel. I. Success of the teacher dependent on God in the ordinary branches of learning. II. The specialty in the work of the Christian teacher.] Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 2:1.—Instead of μαρτν́ριον. others, according to good and ancient authorities [A. C. Cod. Sin. Syr.], read μνστήριον. But it is more probable that this arose from a gloss suited to 1 Corinthians 2:7, than that μαρτν́ριον could have crept in here from 1:6; at the same time only a few authorities read μαρτν́ριοντον͂χριστον͂ ?. 1 Corinthians 2:2.—The received τον͂είδεναιτι is not well authenticated, and the order τίεἰδέναι is confirmed by B. C. D. E. Δ.and many other decisive authorities. [Wordsworth says: “τὶ, which is emphatic, is rightly placed before είδέναι by B. C. D. E. and by Griesbach, Scholz., Lach., Alf., Meyer. Indeed είδέναιτὶἐνν̔μῖν would have been liable to an inconvenient interpretation: to know what is in you.”] 1 Corinthians 2:4.—The received ανθρωπίνης has the balance of authorities against it [and is omitted by Griesb., Scholz. Lach., Tisch., Meyer.] Other variations in this ver. (e. g.) πιθανοῖς for πειθοῖς etc., can hardly be regarded as any thing more than conjectures of an older or a later date, (See below.) [Why de Wette’s view should be termed “less probable,” when it is in perfect consistency with the use of the terms thus far, it is difficult to see.] III.—THE GOSPEL, WHICH ABJURES HUMAN WISDOM, HAS A WISDOM OF ITS OWN 2:6–166 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom [a wisdom not] of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught: 7But we speak the wisdom of God [God’s wisdom] in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; 8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11For what man knoweth (οῖ ?̓δεν) the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth [ἔγνωχεν] no man, but the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost [the Spirit] teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned [judged of]. 15But he that is spiritual judgeth [of] all things, yet he himself is judged of [by] no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. AND [In this section we have the other side of the matter under discussion. In view of Paul’s repudiation of “wisdom,” it might be inferred by the Corinthians that Christianity was a narrow, partial, one-sided religion, suited only to one particular portion of human nature; that while it professed to be the friend of true piety and sound morals, it was at the same time a foe to science and free thought; yea, that it stood in entire antagonism to that which both universal opinion and the declarations of the Old Testament esteemed “more precious than rubies,” and was the ally of ignorance and barbarism. Such inferences it was important to obviate for the credit of Christianity, and in the interest of truth. Hence the Apostle goes on to state that the Gospel, which ignored human wisdom, and in some of its aspects carried the appearance of folly, did not abjure all pretense to wisdom, nor put contempt on the human intellect. He shows furthermore that while he deemed it expedient to confine himself when with the Corinthians to simple preaching, there was a sermonizing which went beyond this, and before fit audience could expatiate largely on the deep things of God]. 1 Corinthians 2:6. Wisdom however we do speak.—[The δέ here as is in the E. V. is to be taken as strongly antithetic]. Σοφίαν—the higher religious wisdom of Christianity. By this we are to understand not what merely concerns the form of discourse, such as an inspired way of speaking; nor yet what concerns its subject matter, such as the future relations and events of the Kingdom of the Messiah, to which the immediate context is said to point. (Meyer). The correct view has been given by Osiander, and Bengel says: “Wisdom here denotes not all Christian doctrine, but its sublime and secret principles (capita sublimia et arcana);” he also puts λαλεῖν to speak, in antithesis with κηρύσσειν to preach, making the former to mean private instruction and the latter public speaking. But his interpretation of the word “wisdom” is too atomistic, and of the word “speak” too restricted. There is no reference here to any system of secret doctrine. [What he does mean will be more fully considered hereafter, when all the characteristics given of it have been surveyed]. But traces of this true wisdom are to be seen in several of Paul’s Epistles, especially in those to the Romans, Ephesians and Colossians, also in 1 Corinthians 15. Its foundation is Christ (1:30; comp. Colossians 2:3).—among them that are perfect, ἐντοῖςτελείοις—the audience for this wisdom. The “perfect” stand opposed to the beginners, “the babes in Christ” (3:1), and are identical with “the spiritual.” He means that what he had not been able to deliver to the Corinthians in the immaturity of their Christian life, because they could not as yet apprehend it, he did announce among those of riper Christian experience. Thus we see that wisdom is the same as that which he calls “meat” (3:2) as contrasted with “milk.” The same antithesis appears in 14:20; Ephesians 4:13 ff.; Hebrews 5:11-14. To the Corinthians, as they were, he could only communicate what was suited to their yet weak powers of apprehension, viz., the great facts of redemption, with their immediate practical consequences, with their christological presuppositions and their theological foundations. And this was done in the simple form of preaching, or of bare statement that the things were so, or had been so, or would be so as declared, accompanied by Scripture proofs, such as are found in the book of Acts, and with applications to the inner and outward life of the hearers. But where, on the other hand, a greater maturity of Christian life and a capacity for the deeper comprehension of truth existed, there he was able to set all this forth in their fundamental proofs and in their intimate connections. There he was able to unfold the whole Divine economy in accordance with its eternal principles and its progress through time and its fixed laws and in relation to its final consummation, so that that which Grecian wisdom was in search of within its own sphere was actually attained in a way that was incomparably higher and Divine, and better fitted to satisfy the deepest needs of a thoughtful spirit. The interpretation we have here given, which would seem to be decisively confirmed by what follows, is opposed by another on the ground, 1, that it is one entirely foreign to the Apostle, since he nowhere in his Epistle contemplated “the perfect” as his readers (but how of Php 3:15 : Let us therefore as many as be perfect, etc)? 2, that it is in contradiction with 1 Corinthians 2:2, (where, however, he is only speaking of the first proclamation of the Gospel); and the sense given is this: that the simple, scandalizing doctrine of Christ crucified contains in itself the profoundest wisdom, encloses a Divine mystery which is intelligible only to the perfect. But this explanation, which is conveyed also in Luther’s translation, 1, has no sure grammatical support, since the preposition ἐν carries the idea of “in the judgment of,” only when the persons are mentioned, who appear to decide a ease by their own opinions (comp. Passow Wφrterbuch, 1:2, p. 910), and especially in connection with, such verbs as denote to be and to appear; 2, it does not correspond with usage elsewhere to understand “the perfect” to mean true Christians who seek true wisdom in Christ, or as Calvin does: “those who possess a sound and unbiased judgment.”—[The view just given is in the main that which is advocated by Calvin, Olsh. and Hodge, who in favor of it argues, “1. that those who regarded Paul’s doctrine as foolishness were not the babes in Christ, but the unrenewed, “the wise of this world;” consequently those to whom it was wisdom were not advanced Christians, but believers as such. Throughout the whole context the opposition is between “the called,” or converted, and the unconverted, and not between one class of believers and another class. 2. If “the perfect” here means advanced Christians, as distinguished from babes in Christ, then the wisdom which Paul preached was not the Gospel as such, but its higher doctrines. But this cannot be, because it is the doctrine of the cross, of Christ crucified, which he declares to be the power of God and the wisdom of God, 1:24. And the description given in the following part of this chapter of the wisdom here intended, refers not to the higher doctrine of the Gospel, but to the Gospel itself. The contrast is between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, and not between the rudiment and the higher doctrines of the Gospel. Besides, what are these higher doctrines which Paul preached only to the elite of the Church? No one knows. Some say one thing and some another. But there are no higher doctrines than those taught in this Epistle and in those to the Romans and Ephesians, all addressed to the mass of the people. The New Testament makes no distinction between (πίστις and γνῶσις) higher and lower doctrines. It does indeed speak of a distinction between milk and strong meat, but that is a distinction, not between kinds of doctrine, but between one mode of instruction and another. In catechisms designed for children the Church pours out all the treasures of her knowledge, but in the form of milk, i.e., in a form adapted to the weakest capacities. For all these reasons, we conclude that by “the perfect” the Apostle means the competent, the people of God as distinguished from the men of the world; and by wisdom, not any higher doctrines, but the simple Gospel, which is the wisdom of God as distinguished from the wisdom of men.” The argument is not convincing. It seems obvious on the very face of his exposition, that the Apostle is here making a distinction between that simple “preaching” of Gospel facts which he had been adhering to among the Corinthians, and what he calls “wisdom” which he had thus far held in reserve at Corinth by reason of the incapacity of the converts there to apprehend it. And surely the distinction is one which is practically observed by all preachers. There is a Christianity embodied in facts which a child may learn and profit by; and there is a philosophy of Christianity, a system of doctrine, a theology, which is dispensed only to those of mature intellect and experience. And so far from admitting the custom of the Church in teaching children the Assembly’s Catechism, which surely cannot be called “milk,” as a valid argument in support of the exposition, it may be a question whether the custom itself does not fall under condemnation through the Apostle’s argument. The contrast is indeed between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God; but there is also another contrast indicated by the “however” with which the verse is introduced—a contrast between κήρυγμα and σοφία, preaching and wisdom]. Accordingly we hold to the first exposition as the only one well established: “In order to obviate all misapprehension of his language, Paul here asserts that the Gospel does include in itself the true wisdom. It is altogether foreign to his intent to set up an opposition here between reason and revelation. On the contrary he here distinctly expresses the validity of a demand for a science that is to be unfolded out of Christianity; a science which must be the sole, true and all-satisfying science.” Neander.—but a wisdom not of this world.—He here distinguishes that profounder development of the fulness of Christian truth designated as “wisdom” from all that which passes for such in the world without. It was not anything which sprang up in the natural progress of the race, either before or apart from Christ. The δέ as in Romans 3:22. “Like the German aber, it is used in particular when something is annexed in illustration as the complement of a sentence. Thai by “this world,” he does not mean simply the great mass of mankind, the commonality only, but has in mind especially its leaders as those to whom this Christian wisdom was utterly foreign, is shown in the added words—nor of the prince of this world.—Does he mean by this the demons mentioned in Ephesians 6:12, as κοσμοκράτορας? Hardly ̓ ?́Αρχων with this sense appears only in the Sing, John 12:31; Ephesians 2:2. And in any ease these are not intended in 1 Corinthians 2:8. According to Bengel the expression embraces the leaders both of the Jews and of the Greeks. Not simply influential, learned men, philosophers; also not merely the members of the Jewish Sanhedrim, but all those of high station in general, the multitude of those who bear sway either by their authority or by the respect which they command. These are described as persons who come to naught.—That is, they are bereft of all authority and consideration in the kingdom of God, in the world to come. He is not speaking here of their being overcome by the higher wisdom and power of Christianity, but of the utter destruction of their importance as leaders in that higher economy, at the institution of which everything which springs out of this lower order of things is done away, however respectable it may appear. 1 Corinthians 2:7. Now comes the positive part of the description, which is introduced by an emphatic repetition.—But we speak God’s wisdom, i.e., a wisdom which He has, and which He has imparted to us.—in a mystery.—It is doubtful with what this should be connected. Certainly not with the following participle, “hidden,” which would be hardly grammatical and also tautological, but rather either with “we speak” or with “wisdom.” The first is to be preferred, because in connecting it with “wisdom” the article in the Greek should be put before it for the sake of distinctness; and then the sense would be: we speak the wisdom of God as a mystery, i.e., as “something which does not proceed from the human understanding, but from the Divine revelation.”—Neander. Or “handling it as a mystery.”—Meyer. Not however in the sense of any esoteric communications analagous to the Grecian mysteries to which neither here nor yet in the expression “perfect” (=initiated) is any allusion to be sought. But does not the explanatory participle following, viz., “the hidden,” which certainly relates to wisdom, require us to connect the words “in a mystery” with “wisdom?” The article after the anarthrous σοφίαν is neither necessary nor admissible if we translate it: “a wisdom consisting in mystery” [although, as Meyer says, “its omission would be at the cost of perspicuity.” Paul would, in that case, have expressed himself ambiguously which he might easily have avoided by the use of the article.” But, it may be asked, whether it is not quite in the Apostle’s style to put nouns in relation through a preposition in this way? Is not the σοφίανἐνμυστήρῳ exactly analogous with σοφίαἀπὸθεοῦ in 1:30. What is meant by “speaking a thing in a mystery,” we cannot comprehend, unless it is speaking it secretly or in a dark and obscure manner. Such must be the meaning of the term when made to qualify a verb. But certainly this was not what Paul intended to say, nor is it in accordance with the use of the term in the N. T. Here “mystery” denotes not a quality or condition of obscurity but a fact or truth which is made known by revelation. Hence it would exactly express the very thing in which Paul’s mission consisted, and instead of being connected with “speak” seems to us most naturally associated by the preposition “in” with “wisdom.” This view would seem to follow from Kling’s definition of the word “mystery.”] This in the N. T., and especially in Paul’s phraseology denotes something unknown to man—shut out from his comprehension, and which is made known only through Divine revelation. It is used in particular of the Divine purpose of redemption, especially in respect to the participation of the Gentiles in the salvation wrought by Christ (Ephesians 3:3 ff.; Colossians 1:26 ff.) of the final restoration of Israel (Romans 11:24), and of the physical change which is to take place at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:51).—the hidden means either that which was concealed or is concealed. It is the first, when a statement is added of the thing having been made known as in Romans 16:25; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:28. But it is the second, when it is meant, that the thing in question is withdrawn from human knowledge. In our passage, where the fact of concealment is first enlarged upon (1 Corinthians 2:8), and then afterwards a revelation to the elect of God is spoken of in contrast with a concealment from others, the latter meaning is to be preferred.—which God ordained.—This expression shows still more conclusively that “wisdom” is to be understood in an objective sense, not of the knowledge of the enlightened and of the doctrine flowing from it as such, but of its subject matter, that which elsewhere is called “a mystery;” the Divine plan of salvation itself, in reference to the wisdom revealed therein; or we may say, the work of redemption including in itself its chief end and the sure means of accomplishing it.—before the ages.—He here goes back to the original ground of this redemptive scheme in the eternal purpose of God formed before the world was (comp. Romans 8:29 ff; and Ephesians 1:5). The supplying of “to make known,” or “to reveal,” for the purpose of filling out a supposed elipsis, is not necessary. On the expression, “before the ages,” compare the similar expressions in (Romans 16:25; Ephesians 1:4; Ephesians 3:9-10; Colossians 1:26; 2 Timothy 1:9). “God determined on redemption before creation, i.e., already at the very foundation of creation there existed a Divine purpose to establish a kingdom of God in the world and therefore He made it.” Neander.—unto our glory.—From the eternal ground of salvation he here turns to its final end, which also stretches forward into eternity. The glory he here speaks of is not the glory of the Church of the New Testament as compared with the Old, but as everywhere with Paul, when discoursing of believers, it denotes their full restoration to the Divine image. It is the state of redemption completed, wherein the spiritual life shines out in the effulgence of an incorruptible state. (Comp. Romans 5:2; Romans 8:18; Romans 8:21; Romans 9:23; Colossians 1:27; Colossians 3:4; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Timothy 2:10.) What is said in 2 Corinthians 3:18 does not justify us in including here that inward glorifying of the soul which is involved in our regeneration, and which takes place in this life. If, with Meyer, we interpret the wisdom of God to mean “His spiritual philosophy which He has revealed to His ministers,” then we must understand this clause thus: which God has fore-ordained so that it should redound to our glory. This glory, which stands in contrast with the utter evanishment of this world’s princes, is supposed by some to be that destined to be revealed at the coming of Christ in which Christians are to be partakers through that Divine wisdom. But is this thought Pauline? It may be doubtful. Unquestionably, however, this thought is, that God’s eternal purpose, which comprises His plan of salvation, or in other words His wisdom, which proposes salvation for its object and devises the best means for its accomplishment, has for its final end our glorification. (Com. Romans 8:29 ff.) 1 Corinthians 2:8, Shows more fully how thoroughly hidden this wisdom was—which none of the princes of this world (or age) knew.—[The relative “which” is taken by Billroth and Stanley and others to refer to “glory.” “That which belonged to eternity and was before the ages, was not likely to be known to those who lived in time or in this age,” and this is still further justified by supposing an allusion to this in the expression “Lord of glory.”] But we are neither compelled nor justified in adopting this construction. The main thought of the passage is “God’s wisdom,” and it is to this that the relatives refer both in this and in the previous verse. What the Apostle here brings to view is the concealment in which God’s wisdom was kept, by showing how entirely it remained unknown and unsuspected by even the leaders of this world, who were deemed persons of keen insight and took the management of affairs, and the argument for this was,—they would not otherwise have crucified the Lord of glory.—For it was through Him that this Divine wisdom, which devised the plan of salvation and aimed at the glorification of believers, was made known and carried out. And this, it were fair to suppose, they would not have done could they have seen the fulness of Divine wisdom and power which shone in him and which was flowing out upon others. “Paul here contemplates those who directly took part in the crucifixion as the representatives of that worldly spirit which was exhibited in the Greek philosophy. They acted in the name and in the entire spirit of the ancient world.”—Neander. “The Lord of glory.”—So also in James 2:1. This expression is not to be taken as equivalent to ‘glorious Lord,’ but, as in the analogous expressions, “Father of glory” (Ephesians 1:17); “The God of glory” (Acts 7:2), “The Lord is the possessor of glory.” The genitive case used here in the Greek is the genitive of possession. “Lord of glory” is a title of Divinity. It means possessor of Divine excellence. “Who is the King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory” (Psalms 24:10; Acts 7:2; James 2:1; Ephesians 1:17). The person crucified, therefore, was a Divine person. Hence the deed was evidence of inconceivable blindness and wickedness. It was one that could only have been done through ignorance. “And now, brethren,” said the Apostle Peter to the Jews, “I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers,” Acts 3:17. The fact, that the princes of this world were so blind as not to see that Christ was the Lord of glory, Paul cites as proof of their ignorance of the wisdom of God. Had they known the one, they would have known the other. This passage illustrates a very important principle or usage of Scripture. We see that the person of Christ may be designated from his Divine nature, when what is affirmed of Him is true only of his human nature. The Lord of glory was crucified; the Son of God was born of a woman; He who was equal with God humbled Himself to be obedient unto death. In like manner we speak of the birth or death of a man without meaning that the soul is born or dies, and the Scriptures speak of the birth and death of the Son of God without meaning that the Divine nature is subject to these changes. It is also plain that to predicate ignorance, subjection, suffering, death, or any other limitation of the Son of God, is no more inconsistent with the Divinity of the person so designated, than to predicate birth and death of a man is inconsistent with the immateriality and immortality of the human soul. Whatever is true either of the soul or body may be predicated of a man as a person, and whatever is true of either the Divine or human nature of Christ may be predicated of Christ as a person. We need not hesitate therefore to say with Paul, the Lord of glory was crucified; or even in accordance with the received text in Acts 20:28, “God purchased the Church with His blood.” The person who died was truly God, although the Divine nature no more died than the soul of man does when the breath leaves his body.”—Hodge] 1 Corinthians 2:9. Confirmatory citation.—But, as it has been written, what things eye hath not seen, and ear hath not beard, and into the heart of man have not entered, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him.”—[We have here given a literal translation of this passage as nearly as possible in the order of the Greek text]. The first point to be considered here is the connection both logical and grammatical. This has been attempted in various ways. One is, by supplying a supposed ellipsis after “but,” either by inserting the words “it has happened,” be as to make it read, “but it has happened as is written” (Bengel); in which case a demonstrative clause would have been required after the relative clause; or by inserting “we speak,” taken from 1 Corinthians 2:7. It would be more correct, however, without supplying any thing, to go back directly to 1 Corinthians 2:7, and connect there, and to find in 1 Corinthians 2:9 an expansion and enhancement of what is said in 1 Corinthians 2:8. “which none of the princes knew,” so that ἀλλά instead of being translated “but” might be rendered “yea, rather.” [This rendering is adopted by Stanley], The reading would then be, “we speak God’s wisdom, which none of the princes knew, yea, which no eye hath seen.” In this case the clause, “for if they had known they would not have crucified, etc.” would be taken as a sort of parenthesis, in order to facilitate the connection with what precedes. We would then connect 1 Corinthians 2:10, “but God hath revealed them to us” directly with the previons words, “what things he hath prepared,” inserting only a comma after “him.” In this case, only, the repetition of the name “God” would appear strange, and would have to be regarded as done for the sake of emphasis. If this does not suit, then we may either assume an anacoluthon, so that in this break the sentence would seem to lose itself in mystery and distance inaudible (so de Wette and Osi.), or we may find the sentence completed in 1 Corinthians 2:10, the proper antecedent being introduced with δέ, but, as in 1 Corinthians 1:23, to signify the antithesis there to 1 Corinthians 2:8. It would then read “but what eye hath not seen, etc.;” these, “on the contrary, God hath revealed to us” (so Meyer and Alford).—Since the last mentioned mode of connection seems forced, and the reason assigned for the anacoluthon is not very clear, we prefer to assume a climax as above stated, introduced by “yea, rather,” without joining 1 Corinthians 2:10 directly to the preceding clause. [Hodge prefers the anacoluthon, and very justly Bays, in reference to this citation and to that in 1 Corinthians 1:31, “in quoting the Old Testament the Apostle frequently cites the words as they stand, without so modifying them as to make them grammatically cohere with the context.”].—There is yet another difficulty to be considered. Whence is the citation taken? Since no passage in the Old Testament is found exactly corresponding to it, the patristic expositors supposed that the words were taken, either from some Old Testament Scripture now entirely lost, or from some apocryphal prophecy; and Z. Chrys. asserts that he had read these words in the apocalypse of Esaias. Grotius, however, supposes that they were taken from the writings of the Rabbis who had preserved them out of an old tradition. But in opposition to these opinions it must be regarded as settled that Paul uses the formula “as it is written” only in introducing citations from the Old Testament. Accordingly Meyer has adopted the solution that Paul quoted an apocryphal passage under the idea that the words were in the Old Testament. But before we resort to any such explanation, it is to be seen whether the dissimilarity between our passage and the Old Testament texts in question is so great, as to prevent us from supposing that he quoted freely here, as he has also done elsewhere, and as other New Testament writers have also occasionally done. Certainly Paul could hardly have had in mind Isaiah 52:15. “For that which hath not been told them should they see, and that which they had not heard, should they consider;” nor yet 65:17; “For behold I create new heavens, and a new earth, and the former should not be remembered nor come into mind,” unless perhaps the last clause, in the ring of the expression. But he may have had in mind Isaiah 64:4, according to the original text: “For since the world have men not heard, nor perceived, nor hath an eye seen, O God, besides Thee; he will do it for him who waits upon Him”—here there is a transition from the second person to the third, as is frequently the case in prophetic diction—since the formula, “as it is written,” admits of a free quotation, and Paul is not always precise in adhering to the words (1:19, 31; 14:21; Romans 9:33). We therefore unhesitatingly accord with Osiander in maintaining a reference here to Isaiah 64:4. The sense common to both passages is, that God has prepared for His people who wait for Him, things far exceeding all human experince or observation. ἐπὶκαρδίανἀναβαίνειν Heb. ςָ ?μָ ?δςַ ?μμֵ ?α lit. to come upon the heart, to become a matter of experience and thought.—In the word, “prepare” we have the carrying out of the “fore-ordination” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 2:7.—But what does the Apostle mean by “the things prepared?” Meyer says the salvation of the Messianic kingdom (comp. Matthew 25:34.) Very well, but not simply in its future glories. What is intended is the whole work of redemption in all its essential particulars, from the foundation laid for it in Christ, on unto its final consummation. They are the benefits never before known or imagined, and far transcending all conception and surmise which are contained in God’s revelation, and the glory aimed at and procured by it. “They are the gracious gifts and disclosures of blessedness, an insight into which, and an enjoyment of which are afforded us even here in faith, whose full fruition is reserved for a higher world.” Osiander. That deliverance from exile to which the passage in Isaiah primarily refers, is in truth only a faint image of that which is to be considered as the literal fulfilment of all such expression (comp. also Matthew 13:17). 1 Corinthians 2:10-12. The revelation of this wisdom and its means.—But to us God bath revealed them through His Spirit.—“To us,” that is, Paul himself and his fellow-Apostles; for of Christians in general he is not speaking. See 1 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 2:16—also 3:1. [So Hodge; Stanley, however, says “believers generally, but with a special reference to himself”]. The communication here is not of an external, but of an internal sort. (Comp. the expression, “to reveal in me,” Galatians 1:15). This is clear also from the agency employed. This agency is the Spirit, who executes God’s purposes of redemption and is the means of enlightening them in the knowledge of their nature. He does this work so far as He is “freely given of God,” 1 Corinthians 2:12. The possibility of this revelation by the Spirit is shown in the following words—for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.—“The Spirit” here is evidently, by reason of the connection, the same as “His Spirit” in the previous clause. Only there He is introduced as proceeding outwards and working ad extra, but here and in what follows as imminent or existing within the Godhead. An analogous expression occurs respecting the Son of God in John 1:18, where the phrase “who is in the bosom of the Father” corresponds with “the Spirit searcheth all things,” etc.; and the word “declare” with “hath revealed by His Spirit.” The ability to make known the thoughts of God unto the Apostles is here grounded upon the knowledge the Spirit has of these things in their inmost source and profoundest depths. This is expressed by ἐρευνᾷν: lit. to explore, to search through and through; but here, and wherever else it is used of Divine knowledge, it denotes the result of that exploring, i.e. a complete and thorough knowledge (comp. 139:1; Romans 8:27=καρδιογνώστης of Acts 1:24; Acts 15:8 and Revelation 2:23. Chrys. ἀκριβὴςγνῶσιςκατάληψις.) Βάθηθεοῦ: inmost recesses of God, the otherwise unexplorable depths where His thoughts and volitions have free play, the hidden mystery of His personality which correspond to those mysteries of His kingdom and of all His works and ways which the Spirit reveals. The image is drawn from the sea, whose depths are supposed to be unfathomable and bottomless. (Psalms 36:7; Psalms 92:6; Job 11:8). Meyer says: “The entire abounding fulness which God has in Himself, every thing which goes to make up His being, His attributes, thoughts, plans, decrees.” (Not the latter exclusively). See also the phrase “depths of Satan,” Revelation 2:24. That such must be the office of the Spirit, and of Him alone, is now illustrated by an analogy. 1 Corinthians 2:11. For who of men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God no one knoweth save the Spirit of God.—The logic is this: “The Spirit and only He can know the depths of God. For as the spirit of man which is in him can alone know what is of him, so only the Spirit of God can know what is of God.” The Apostle puts the first member of the comparison in the form of a question. “Who of men knoweth, etc.?” Here the gen., ανθρώπων, of men, is not superfluous. The ignorance here implied is not an absolute one, inasmuch as God is to be excepted from it (Osi.); or, we may say, it carries a prominent emphasis: “no man knows what is of man” (Meyer)—τὰτοῦἀνθρώπου not βάθη : “the things of a man” in general; not his “depths.” According to the context, the things alluded to must be limited to those of his inner life, his secret thoughts and purposes. The “spirit” of man is the breath of God in him, “the candle of the Lord searching all the inward parts of his belly” (Proverbs 20:27), the inner eye or light (Matthew 6:23), that whereby he becomes evident to himself, recognizes his own distinct individuality, is conscious of himself, and of his thoughts and acts as belonging to himself, the Divine image in man, the principle of his personality. (See Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychologie, S. 116 ff.; Beck, Bibl. Seelenlehre, S. 947). By the words “which is in him,” the spirit, as the principle of self-consciousness, is distinguished from the spirit in others, as the principle of objective knowledge. A like additional qualification to “the Spirit of God” would be out of place, either because God is absolutely one, or because His Spirit is also dispensed to others, as seen in the next verse: “which is from God” (Meyer). De Wette says: “Paul conceives of the Spirit not as being in God, as though He were the principle of God’s self-consciousness; but he very wisely says merely “the Spirit of God” in order that he might thus hold the way open for saying afterwards “the Spirit from God.” The substance of the comparison is this: as the knowledge of the inward man is possible only through self-consciousness, so is the knowledge of God possible only through the consciousness of God obtained by means of the Holy Spirit. De Wette, however, overlooks an important element in the Apostle’s course of thought, in that the Apostle makes the immanent beholding of the depths of God on the part of the Spirit the ground of his function as a revealer. But the Spirit of God (in accordance with the analogy of the human spirit which is derived from Him and is his image) is the principle of the Divine self-knowledge, the ground of God’s life as a self-conscious existence—that whereby God is personal life, is the One who is eternally and absolutely cognizant of Himself in all His thoughts, volitions and decrees, in His doing and working,—the One who is revealed unto Himself and then reveals Him abroad to others—the One who sees through Himself and also shines through the human spirit and so qualifies it for looking into the work of God. [“The analogies of Scripture, however, are not to be pressed beyond the point they are intended to illustrate. The point here is the knowledge of the Spirit. He knows what is in God as we know what is in ourselves. It is not to be inferred from this that the Spirit of God bears in other points the same relation to God that our spirits do to us.” Hodge.] Having thus shown the ability of the Spirit to reveal the things of God, he reaffirms and corroborates the declaration of 1 Corinthians 2:10.—Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God.—The expression is antithetic. But what are we to understand by “the spirit of the world?” Certainly not any mental peculiarity; as most imagine, (Beza: ingenium humanum, [Barnes and others]: doctrina humana; [de Wette and Stanley: spirit of human wisdom; Hodge: a paraphrase for human reason]), since the thing contrasted with it cannot be explained in this manner. Neither can it be construed ironically, as denoting an utter want of that which is spiritual, or that show of spirit which the world calls spirit (see Osi.), nor yet as the finite spirit, in so far as it sets up independently for itself (Billroth). But it means that principle which controls the world in its thought and volition, and which is elsewhere termed “the prince of this world (John 12:31); also “the god of this world” (comp. Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 6:11 ff.; 1 John 4:3; 1 John 5:19), Meyer says: “The diabolic spirit under whose control the world is held, and which profane humanity possesses.” Osiander discovers in it “a demonic element, blending in with, however, and manifesting itself in connection with splendid natural powers—a principle of selfish curiosity which excites and stimulates the mental faculties to knowledge, but does not overcome their weakness, and which, while alienated from God, ever remains involved, not merely in weakness and ignorance, but also in perverseness and error.”—but—Inasmuch as he is treating no more of operations imminent in the Godhead, but of acts of external revelation, the subject in contrast is denominated—the Spirit which is from God.—“He brings to view the spirit as having been already bestowed.” Neander. This spirit, coming as it does from God, and the bestowment of which conditions the knowledge of Divine things, and which belongs only to the children of God (comp. Romans 5:5; Romans 8:9 ff; Romans 14 ff.; John 15:26), is to be entirely distinguished from the “spirit of man” which belongs to us as men, and makes us akin to God (Acts 17:29), and which constitutes our personality (1 Corinthians 2:11), and which is the immediate organ of the Spirit of God, needing, however to be renewed, and, because of its weakness, requiring to be strengthened. (Ephesians 4:23; Romans 7:22 ff.; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; comp. Matthew 2:15-16). The object of the bestowment of the Spirit is—that we might know the things which are freely given to us by God.—These things are the same as those spoken of in 1 Corinthians 2:9 as having been “prepared” for us (comp. 1:30; Romans 8:24; Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9). τὰχαρισθέντα, (from χαρίζεσθσι as Romans 8:32)=gifts of free grace. By these are meant the blessings of God’s kingdom which Christians already possess in faith and hope, but which they will enjoy in full perfection when the kingdom of God has been set up in glory. [Hodge very singularly says: “not so. The connection is with 1 Corinthians 2:10, and the subject is the wisdom of God, the Gospel as distinguished from the wisdom of this world.” But what are the topics of this Gospel but the spiritual blessings here seen and known in part, but afterwards to be known as we also are known? A distinction here is untenable]. The persons to whom they are given (ἡμῖν) are Christians generally, as must appear from the very nature of the case [and the knowledge they obtain is “the assurance of confidence.” Calvin. Those who receive the Spirit not only have a clear apprehension of the blessings God hath provided, but discern them as “freely given unto them.” This must be so, as knowledge in the Scriptures is one with experience. There is no real perception without possession]. 1 Corinthians 2:13. Having indicated the source of Gospel-wisdom, Paul proceeds to show how he proclaimed it, taking up the thought of 1 Corinthians 2:4.—Which things we also speak.—That the speaking here is directly connected with the fact of having received of the spirit from the purpose of knowing and declaring, and proceeds from it, and is of a sort corresponding to the nature of the objects received, is shown by word, καί: “also.” How he spake is exhibited antithetically.—Not in words taught of human wisdom, οὐκἐνδιδακτοῖςανθρωπινηςσοφίαςλόγοις—The Gen. here is governed not by λόγοις but by διδακτοῖς. (Comp. διδακτοὶθεοῦ taught of God, John 6:45). [Most of the older English versions and Calvin construe the other way. Wiclif: not in wise wordes of mannes wisdom. Tyndale: not in the connyuge wordes of mannes wysdome. Rheims: not in learned wordes of humane wisedom. Cranmer and Geneva translate very nearly as the authorized version]. He means not in an artificial style of discourse, fashioned after the rules of scholastic rhetoric and dialetics, but in those taught of Spirit.—Πνεύματος without the article as in 1 Corinthians 2:4, because it is to be taken qualitatively as denoting a principle higher than that of human wisdom. We are not here to suppose that any actual dictation of the language is intended, but only an operation of the Spirit upon the mind, “which strongly pervades and controls even the speech and modes of exhibition:” in short a simple discourse which proceeds directly from a heart possessed by the Spirit of God. [Hodge says: “This is verbal inspiration, or the doctrine that the writers of the Scriptures were controlled by the Spirit of God in the choice of the words which they employed in communicating divine truth. This has been stigmatized as the mechanical theory of inspiration. It is objected to this, that it leaves the diversity of style which marks the different portions of the Bible, unaccounted for. But if God can control the thoughts of a man without making him a machine, why not also his language?—rendering every writer infallible in the use of his characteristic style? If the language of the Bible be not inspired, then we have the truth communicated through the discoloring and distorting medium of human imperfection. Paul’s direct assertion is that the words he used were taught by the Holy Ghost.” Wordsworth adds: “Here is a sufficient reply to the assertions of those who allege that the inspiration vouchsafed to St. Paul was limited to a general perception of divine truth and that he was left himself without divine guidance as to the form in which that truth was to be expressed. A caution also is thus supplied against the notion that there are verbal inaccuracies, and blemishes, and defects in St. Paul’s representations of the supernatural truths which he was commissioned to deliver. Comp. Hooker, II. 8:6, and Serm. 5:4; also Routh, Relequiζ Sacrζ, Vol. V. pp. 336–341”]. This is clear from the explanatory clause [which we render—Combining spiritual things with spiritual.]—πνευματικοῖςπνευματικὰσυγκρίνοντες. The interpretation of this depends on the explanation we give to συγκρίνοντες. This signifies originally, to combine together with judicious selection, then to unite in general, to join, the opposite of διακρίνειν; with this then comes the idea to hold together, i. e., by way of comparison (2 Corinthians 10:12), [this is the meaning adopted in the E. V.]; out of this there follows the idea of measuring, estimating according to something; and then of interpreting or expounding, as it is used in Genesis 40:8 and Daniel 5:12 in reference to dreams, in which cases the signification to judge must be referred back to the idea of holding together the various elements of the process so as to get a proper view of them. At any rate there is nothing in these last passages to justify our taking the word in the text to mean unqualifiedly to explain [as Stanley does] whether we take πνευματικοῖς as Masculine [rendering as Bengel, Rόckert, Stanley: “to spiritual men”] (which is by no means required by the 1 Corinthians 2:14, since a new paragraph opens there), or as Neuter; rendering it “by spiritual things,” meaning thereby either the Old Testament types used to explain the New Testament (as Chrysostom and others), or the testimonies of the Prophets, which, being inspired by the Spirit, are the fit illustrations of the things which Christ has revealed, by His Spirit (as Grotius and others), both which ideas are remote from the connection, or “with spiritual words” (as Elsner and others). [Wordsworth interprets this clause comprehensively. “Blending spiritual things with spiritual,” i.e., not adulterating them with foreign admixtures (2 Corinthians 2:17; 1 Peter 2:2) also “combining.” for the purpose of comparing and explaining, e.g., the things of the New Testament by the Old Testament, or one spiritual truth by another]. Nor yet do we agree with Neander’s view, “that which has been communicated to us by the Divine Spirit we explain in a form which is suited to that communication.” The only correct interpretation is to take συγκρίνειν in its original import, and πνευματικοῖς as Neuter, and to render as above, carrying the meaning: uniting the spiritual matters which are the subject of our discourse (λαλοῦμεν 1 Corinthians 2:12) with words and forms that are taught of the Spirit. So Castalio, Calvin, Osiander, Meyer. [Hodge and Barnes]. Thus understood the clause serves to illustrate still further the suitableness of the style of discourse just before advocated, and as Osiander rightly observes, contains no tautology, since rather “the thought is here stated in the form of a fundamental principle, and is taken up and set forth with stronger emphasis.”1 Corinthians 2:14. [Explains the reason why this higher spiritual wisdom is not indiscriminately imparted, but “spoken only to the perfect.” It is seen in the incapacity of multitudes to apprehend it, and to discern “the Divine impress it bears both on its contents and style of delivery.” It is an inability arising from “their essential character, which is as opposed to the Gospel as it is in every respect harmoniously consistent with itself.”].—But the natural (or psychical) man.—ψυχικὸςδὲἄνθρωπος. Here we have the character described. Luther explains it thus: “the natural man is one who, though he stands apart from grace, is still endowed to the fullest degree with understanding, sense, capacity and art.” He is the opposite of “the spiritual man,” see Jude 1:19. ψυχικοί, πνεῦμαμὴἔχοντες lit.: “psychical, not having the spirit.” ψυχή: Psyche, soul, Latin, anima, is the intermediate between πνευμα spirit, and σωμα body (1 Thessalonians 5:23). It is the personal life of the individual (Ichleben) arising from the entrance of the spirit into the earthly organ of the body as its breath of life, in which personal life the spiritual and the sensuous elements are combined, the one entering into the other. The spiritual element, by becoming psychical or natural, forms a power of consciousness and volition, sinks into the life of sensation and impulse and embodies itself in the man and becomes organic. The sensuous element on the other hand (which taken out of the world of sense the soul fills with its life of sensation and impulse), being possessed by the spiritual power, becomes itself spiritualized in conscious self-directed activity and made capable of intelligent knowledge and volition. By reason of this its double nature, the soul becomes dependent on springs of life that belong as well to the world of sense as to the spiritual world. But, with particular individuals, the soul exercises a free choice in regard to the degree and order in which from time to time these influences from above and below shall be appropriated and employed. It depends on its pleasure whether it shall isolate itself, and, with this, sever its own spiritual part from the Divine life of the Spirit, or whether it shall receive this life into itself. Now in separating from the life of the spirit, man, as a natural or psychical creature, gets divested of his spiritual character and becomes fleshly. There is, indeed, in him still a spiritual element but then it no longer rules as a controlling principle, regulating his impulses and desires. On the contrary, being in subjection to the soul (ψυχή), the spirit becomes more and more subservient to the soul’s perverse and carnal tendencies, from whence there springs deceit, falsehood, defilement in spirit, through contact with corresponding evil, and also that earthly and worldly wisdom spoken of in James 3:15. The soul, in itself robbed of the spiritual element, as a personal life (as spirit), is also unable to work out the spiritual things into a clear, intelligent apprehension by a free conscious effort of its own. Hence the mere soul-man, in other words the psychical or natural man, has neither inclination nor eye for the spiritual. He is closed up against all higher wisdom as if it were but folly. (Comp. Beck, Bibl. Seelenlehre, § 14 ff, 33 ff; Lehrwiss, §§ 207 and 213. From all this it will be seen that the translation “sensuous,” “sinnlich,” is not exhaustive. With this there is included also the idea of the selfish. Besides, both the intellectual and ethical aspects are also to be taken into account. See Osiander, de Wette, Meyer.—The ethical side of “the psychical man,” viz., his disinclination towards the higher sphere of life, appears in what is affirmed of him.—receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.—For δέχεσθαι here is not=to understand, which thought is afterwards expressed by γνῶναι but it means: to accept, to receive, as always in the N. T. (Luke 8:13; Acts 8:13; Acts 11:1; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13, etc.). οὐδέχεται=ἀπωθεῖται Acts 13:46. “He will not accept them, although they are offered.”—Bengel. The phrase, “the things of the Spirit of God,” combines what was distinguished in 1 Corinthians 2:13, the Divinely spiritual both in form and substance. The reason of this rejection is explained,—because they are foolishness unto him.—“Whereas,” adds Bengel, “he is seeking after wisdom.” And these things seem foolish, because they conflict with his narrow, foregone conclusions and prejudices.—and he is not able to know them.—This clause is either to be joined to the previous one, as assigning an additional reason for the natural man’s not receiving spiritual things, q. d., “he considers it absurd, without being able to understand it” (Meyer, [Alford, Stanley, Tischendorf]); or to be taken as parallel to the clause, “he receiveth it not,” and expressing the intellectual side of the case in an independent manner, so that the following words stand related to it alone ([Calvin, Hodge, Barnes, and others, in accordance with 1 e. v.]). The first is the more correct. The natural man contemns spiritual things through prejudice and lack of apprehension,—because they are spiritually judged of.—The reason here assigned bears upon both the previous clauses which together explain why the Gospel is rejected. It appears all foolish and incomprehensible, alike from the fact that it requires to be looked at in a way for which the natural man in unfitted. ἀνακρίνειν, to judge of, as in 4:3; 9:3; 14:24. It denotes the result of investigation and proof, which it primarily in fact signifies (Acts 17:11; Acts 4:9; Acts 12:19.) πνενματικῶς: spiritually (i.e.) either by the spirit of man (not soul: ψνχή) quickened and filled by the Spirit of God, or in a spiritual manner, so that the Holy Spirit, whose are the things to be judged of, both as to form and substance, directs likewise in the judgment of them by His illuminating grace. In either case, the sense is essentially the same, although the latter comports better with the use of the word “spirit” in the context. [While it is the office of the Spirit to take of the things of Christ and show them unto us, it is His also to purge the mental vision so that it can see the objects presented, for the eye of the natural man is blinded by the god of this world, and to him, however presented, the Gospel is hidden. Hence the manifestation towards the man must be supplemented by a change in him, rendering him spiritually minded, and so producing “a congeniality between the perceiver and the thing perceived.”] 1 Corinthians 2:15. Presents a contrast.—But the spiritual man. i.e. he who, in conformity with the image of God (Colossians 3:10), has been renewed to an existence in the Spirit, Who, in turn lives in him as his life and to a constant exercise of his power in the strength of the Spirit; in other words, he who has the Spirit as rule, guidance and might (Beck, Seelenl. S. 35 ff.);—judgeth of all the things—τὰπάντα [see Crit. obs.] all the things. By these we are to understand in accordance with the context, at least for the most part, or preeminently the things of the Spirit which the natural man is not in a condition to judge of. This reference is indicated yet more distinctly by the article τά: the [if genuine]. Besides the saying of Beck (Lehrwiss S. 210) here holds good. “Only by being made spiritual is a man capacitated for the apprehension of spiritual objects. Such as God and Divine things, and only by the energy thus obtained is he able critically to test, and spiritually to govern all the remaining portion of his being as something inferior and subservient to the Spirit.” So also Meyer (ed. 3) [only giving the passage a much broader scope, since he refers the “all things” not simply to those of the Spirit, but includes under it “all objects which come within the sphere of his judgment”]. “On all this can the spiritual man pass a correct estimate by means of a judgment enlightened and controlled by the Holy Ghost.” [In illustration of this, Meyer alludes to instances of Paul’s nice spiritual discrimination, exhibited “in matters not belonging to doctrine, and under the most varied conditions, e. g. in his wise improvement of circumstances amid persecutions and prosecutions, and during his last voyage, etc.; also in his judgments respecting marriage cases, judicial causes, slavery, and the like; in all which he understood how to place every thing under the level of a higher spiritual point of view with wonderful clearness, certainty and impartiality; also in his estimate of different personages, etc.” But it may be fairly questioned whether Meyer does not here go beyond the proper scope of the passage. The object in view throughout the whole of it is a Divinely revealed spiritual “wisdom,” which transcended the apprehension of “the natural man;” and it is not easy to see how affairs altogether prudential could be brought into the account]. The acceptation of παντα as Acc. Sing. Masc. is against the previous context (see Meyer).—But he himself is judged of by no man.—The previous clause leads us to supply here, “who is not spiritual.” For such as these the position of the spiritual man is too high. They cannot comprehend the inner life, or pronounce suitable judgment upon it. “Undoubtedly Paul said this with special allusion to such in the Corinthian Church as took the liberty of criticising him.” Neander. Of course what is affirmed in this verse of the spiritual in general, must in particular cases be limited according to the measure and degree of perfection attained in the spiritual life (comp. Calvin and Osiander). One proof of the sense perverting exegesis of the Romish Church may be seen in their reference of this passage to the hierarchy and its judicial office in doubtful questions (Corn. a Lapide, Estius). 1 Corinthians 2:16. Proof of the foregoing.—For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?—The question is taken from Isaiah 40:13; according to the LXX, with the omission of the words καὶτίςσύμβουλοςαὐτοῦἐγένετο “and who hath become his counsellor,” which come in between the words “Lord” and “that.” The “mind of the Lord” is here identical with “the mind of Christ” in the following clause. We might, indeed, on looking at the passage in Isaiah, refer it to God; but since the words are introduced freely without a formula of citation, there is no necessity for this, and the identification of them with “the mind of Christ,” is more in accordance with the course of thought. The νοῦς, mind, is the spirit as the source of thoughts, counsels, plans. The spirit, not however, as shut up within itself, but, so far as what is contained therein, is imparted and operates abroad. Hence it is not absolutely the same as πνεῦμα spirit (as Billroth and Neander). [“This is rather the substratum of the νοῦς,—mind, and which being imparted to the man, makes his mind one with the mind of Christ.” Meyer]. Ὃςσυμβιβάσει=ὥστεσυμβιβάζειν [Buttmann, § 143, I., or Kόhner § 334, 2]. Συμβιβάζειν, to bring together, metaphorically, to put one’s self to rights, to make oneself intelligible; and hence transitively, to prove, to instruct; elsewhere, with τι, in the Hellenic idiom, also with a personal object; io teach some one. [This use of the word, Alford says belongs to the lxx; in the New Testament it means to conclude, to prove, to confirm]. The object in this case is not any spiritual truth, but the Lord,—but we have the mind of Christ.—[“We,” the Apostles, himself included, and in the view of his issue with the Church, perhaps emphasized. Of course other spiritual persons are not excluded, but they are not now brought into the account]. Hence, ἔχομεν, not=perspectum habemus. The word denotes that inward possession which is founded upon communion with Christ, upon having “put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27).—The thought now brought out is this, the judgment of the spiritual man on the part of him who is not spiritual, would require such a knowledge of the mind of the Lord as would qualify a person to instruct the Lord Himself, since the persons who are to be judged are such as have the mind of Christ, inasmuch as His Spirit dwelling in them, and directing their thought, fashions them to His mind, and identifies their thinking with His thinking. [“Syllogistically stated, the argument would stand thus: no one can instruct the Lord. We have the mind of the Lord. Therefore no one can instruct and judge us.” Hodge.] [Obs. We are now prepared to consider what this wisdom is, that is spoken of in this passage, according to the characteristics given by the Apostle. 1. It is a system of objective truth analogous to that taught by the Greek philosophers, and destined to supplant it: the true σοφία sent to supersede the false. 2. It is one that can be advantageously taught only to persons who by a practical faith in the rudimental facts of Christianity, have made some advances in the Divine life. 3. It is a wisdom beyond the reach of human reason or conjecture to discover—a veritable mystery preserved in God’s keeping until He should choose to make it known. 4. It is one which has been revealed By the Holy Spirit out of the depths of the Godhead; hence 5. It must comprise such things as are found there, and carry the mark of the Divine personality, viz.: the nature, attributes, and constitution of the Divine Being, His plans and purposes as Creator, His laws as the Supreme Ruler, His aims and methods, and decrees, and works as Redeemer; all these more particularly as bearing upon man, and shedding light upon his condition and destiny. And these are truths both ontological and ethical; truths for the intellect and moral sense at once; truths spiritual and eternal in their highest and broadest sense. 6. The forms in which this wisdom is communicated, are also Divinely cast. They are they the words and illustrations suggested to the minds of the Apostles by the Holy Ghost, who inspired them, and which must ever constitute the best statements of this wisdom. It is a wisdom whose truth and excellence are not directly obvious to the natural man. In order to discern intuitively its force and beauty, and to perceive its Divine character, there is required the spiritual eye that is conformed to the light of the glory of God as it shines in the face of Jesus Christ, and can by direct vision recognize its truth and heavenly source.] AND ETHICAL[1. There is and must be a Divine philosophy in Christianity. The historical facts on which the Gospel rests embody living and eternal truths, which it is the life and joy of the spiritual man to contemplate and explore. In Jesus, the Son of man, there is incarnated the Word of God the Logos, from whom emanate all those Divine archetypal ideas which inform and regulate the whole created universe. By Him all things consist. His province it is also, as the Son of God, the Father’s express image, to reveal that Father in the glory of His perfections, in His laws, purposes and workings, and thus to exhibit the principles on which the world is governed. Moreover, as the Son of Man, it is His office to show what man properly is in his true ideal, and what are the problems of his destiny. Still further, as the Son of God and the Son of man combined to constitute the mediatorial King, He becomes the centre of all human history, the Head of that kingdom with reference to which all things in the world are controlled and governed. Christianity, therefore, carries in itself the substance of all sound theology, and anthropology, and ethics, and historical science. Jesus Himself being the absolute Truth and Life, in Him there must be hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and these treasures it will be the province of an enlightened intelligence to explore, and bring forth, and make known to the apprehension of mankind as that which is alone worthy of study and fitted to nourish alike the mind and heart. Thus it will be found in the end that the researches of right reason are directly in the line of faith’s leading—that the scheme of Christianity as set forth in the doctrines of the Gospel is in accordance with true science—yea, its very substance—and that “religion passes out of the ken of reason only when the eye of reason has reached its horizon, and that faith is but its continuation,” revealing to the devout worshipper the things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of man to conceive]. [2. This Divine philosophy is distinctly apprehended only by a renewed sanctified intelligence. Here life and light coincide. We believe in order that we may understand, and experience becomes the only fit guide and teacher. Sin and the remains of sin prove a disqualification for knowledge and beget folly. Hence it is that the communication of this Divine wisdom is suited only to such as have made attainments in piety, and must be measured out in proportion to their attainments by a wise economy. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ IV. THE OF THE TO RECEIVE TRUE WISDOM 1 Corinthians 3:1-41 And I, [I also] brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [fleshy] even as unto babes in Christ. 2I have fed you with milk, and [om. and] not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither [nay, not even] yet now are ye able. 3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, [om. divisions] are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal [men]? AND 1 Corinthians 3:1. As in 1 Corinthians 2:1, so here Paul turns from his more general exposition to the consideration of his own ministry at Corinth. The points of connection are furnished in 1 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 14. The communication of wisdom on the part of the Apostles belonged only to the sphere of the perfect, of the spiritual; it could not be extended to those who were natural psychical (Seelische) and unreceptive of that which was of the Spirit. As every other person must have done therefore, I also was obliged to treat you as persons of the latter class.—was not able to speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto (merely) fleshy (persons), as unto babes in Christ.—Instead of ψυχικός, natural, lit. psychical, Ger. seelisch, he now uses σάρκινος and σαρκικός, fleshy and fleshly or carnal, the ordinary antithesis to πνευματικός, spiritual. The sense, however, is not changed by this, for the natural or psychical man is also at the same time a “fleshy” and “carnal” man (comp. 1 Corinthians 2:14), and we can neither say, with Bengel, that these latter expressions are milder, nor with Rόckert, that they denote simple weakness, while the former implies hostile opposition; nor with Theophy. that they are stronger epithets than “psychical,” nor that the latter refers to the intelligence, while the former apply to the moral side of human nature, such as the desire and passions. Meyer 2d ed., “ψυχικός denotes the category to which σαρκινός and σαρκικός belong.” 3d ed., “ψυχικός: one who stands outside of the influence of the Spirit, who either has not received Him at all, or has been again deserted by Him.” Such a person is also σαρκικός. But not every σαρκικός as such is still a ψυχικός, because a σαρκικός may be also one who experienced the influences of the Spirit, but is not sufficiently actuated by his enlightening and sanctifying power to overcome the hostile power of the flesh; he still thinks, feels, judges, acts , κατὰσάρκα (according to the flesh). “He is here not speaking of Christians as distinguished from the world, but of one class of Christians as distinguished from another.” Hodge.—Again it is a question how σάρκιυος, fleshy, and σαρκικός, fleshly, stand related to each other. The former elsewhere is used to denote made of the flesh, carneous. [Barytones in ινος denote the material of which a, λιθινος of stone, ξύλινος of wood, etc.]. The LXX. employs it to signify partly the earthliness and weakness of man in contrast with God (2 Chronicles 32:8), and partly what is tender and easily impressed in contrast with what is hard and stony (Ezekiel 11:19; Ezekiel 36:26. In like manner it occurs in 2 Corinthians 3:3). But σαρκικός is used in the New Testament, and afterwards by the church fathers, to designate the disposition and character as contrasted with πνευματικός. [Denominatives in κός express that which pertains to the noun from which they are derived, and are like our adjectives ending in ly]. Bleek in Hebrews 7:16 is of the opinion that in the first introduction of these terms they were used alike, and that it was hot until later that the ordinary ethical signification was limited to the form σαρκικός which occurs but rarely in the classics. Meyer on the contrary sharply distinguishes. According to him σάρκινος designates the unspiritual state of nature which the Corinthians still had in their early Christian minority, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit had as yet changed their character so slightly that they appeared as if consisting of men flesh still. But σαρκικός expresses a later ascendancy of the hostile material nature over the divine principle of which they had been made partakers by progressive instruction. And it is the latter which, as he thinks, the Apostle makes the ground of his rebuke. In so far, however, as both epithets are of kindred signification, he could, notwithstanding the distinction between them, affirm, “for ye are yet carnal.” So Meyer. The distinction between an intellectual weakness and narrow-mindedness in the first beginnings of Christianity (to which also the parallel expression νηπίοις, babes, refers), and a moral impurity and perverseness manifesting itself in the progress of Christian development, and involving also an intellectual incapacity for a true heavenly wisdom, is a distinction fully justifiable and consonant with the use of the terms σαρκικός and σάρκινος by the Apostle elsewhere. But that the term σαρκίνοιζ is to be here understood relatively, and as not denoting an entire lack of the πνεῦμα is clearly indicated by the phrase “as unto babes in Christ.” The time here referred to is that when they had just begun to receive Christian instruction, and were but recently admitted into fellowship with Christ by faith and baptism, and so become the children of God. They were of course then wholly immature and spiritually dependent, so that their conduct did not indicate the full impress of the Spirit. Their conscious will, the I, was still fettered by carnal and selfish habits, and their ability to comprehend the deeper grounds and relations of Christian truth was yet undeveloped. In short the allusion is to that crudeness which is seen in children. [And does not the word “fleshy,” seeing that the Apostle had in mind the image of babyhood, also clearly refer to the appearance of the babe also—a little lump seemingly of mere flesh, as yet evincing but little signs of mind or conscience, although containing these elements in the germ? One can hardly avoid discovering here one reason of the use of the word “fleshy” instead of fleshly, which is an opprobious epithet, applicable only to later years. That mere animalness, which is one of the beauties of the babe, becomes deformity and a disgrace in an adult. Hence the change of terms when the Apostle comes to speak of their after condition. They were σάρκινοι at first, but not developing their spirituality they become σαρκικόι]. That fondness for showy eloquence which was natural at the first passed over into the vanity and corruption of an egotistical partisanship, and so instead of attaining progressively a confirmed Christian character, they become carnal. In like manner the Rabbins also speak of little ones and sucklings. Schoettgen in loco. Wetstein 1 Peter 2:2; Matthew 10:42. On νηπίοις. comp. 1 Corinthians 14:20; Hebrews 5:13; otherwise Matthew 11:25. 1 Corinthians 3:2. The figure introduced in the previous verse is still further carried out.—I gave you milk to drink.—That is, he gave them nourishment suited to their age. To the beginners in the Divine life, He imparted such instruction as was easy to be understood, the rudiments of Christian knowledge (Hebrews 6:1), not strong meat such as adults only could digest, not the deeper truths of wisdom, which only those who had advanced in religious experience could properly receive, 1 Corinthians 2:6 ff.—not meat.—This is connected to the foregoing in the way of a zeugma. [Winer, § 66.100.. Instead of ἐπότισα, have given to drink, which can only be asserted of the “milk,” and not of the “meat,” some other verb, such as ἔδωκα, have given, is to be supplied. “The distinction between ‘milk’ and ‘meat’ can lie only in the formal treatment of the same fundamental truth.” Neander. “To refer the distinction here to the subject-matter of the preaching, is required neither by the figure used, nor by the connection.” Burger. [“The same truth in one form is milk, in another form, strong meat.” Hodge. “Christ is milk for babes, and strong meat for men.” Calvin]. The reason of the above precedence was,—for ye were not as yet able to bear it.—The time here referred to was the commencement of his ministry, and that of their first conversion, and the verb ἐδύνασθε, able is to be taken in an absolute sense, as it is used also in the classics, “ye were not strong or capable enough.” Meyer.—nay, nor yet now are ye able.—The ἀλλά. [which we render “nay”], is climacteric: not only were ye unable, but indeed ye are so still.” It might appear inconsistent with this declaration that Paul proceeded in the 15 to expound to them the doctrine of the resurrection which certainly is strong meat rather than milk; but there was a special demand for such an exposition, which saved him from the charge of contradicting himself. 1 Corinthians 3:3. [Assigns the reason of the inability.—For ye are yet carnal—here we have σαρκικόι—not σάρκινοι, as the word of censure applicable only to their advanced stage, and showing that though they had been Christians for a long time, they had yet the fleshiness of children upon them, now become fleshliness. The proof of this]—for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions [?], are ye not carnal, and walk according to man?—Here he refers back to what was said in 1 Corinthians 1:10, ff. In Galatians 5:20 he also counts these same things as among the works of the flesh, comp. likewise Romans 13:13. Ζῆλος, envying; in classic as well as in Hellenic usage, this word occurs in a good sense, zeal, emulation, and in a bad one, jealousy, envy. Here it signifies partisan rivalry. Out of this arose ἔρις strife, i.e. verbal disputation. If διχοστασίαι, divisions (see Crit. notes) were genuine, we should have in this a climax, indicating the schisms before referred to. ̔ ?́Οπου, whereas, occurs in the classics, also in a causal sense, because, in so far as, since. Passow. According to de Wette, it is like εἰ, a conditional designation of the reason, “if there be,” etc. According to Meyer it implies a local conception of the conditional relation: “where there is” (comp. Hebrews 9:16; Hebrews 10:18).—Κατὰἄνθρωπον (also Romans 3:5)=σαρκικῶς. It is the opposite to “walking in the Spirit,” Galatians 5:25. What he means to say is, ‘your conduct conforms to the ways of men as they ordinarily are in their apostate and irreligious condition.’ 1 Corinthians 3:4. A further confirmation.—“For when one says, ‘I am of Paul;” and another, ‘I am of Apollos.’—The allusion to the parties is not as full as in 1 Corinthians 1:12, inasmuch as he has in this paragraph only to do with that of Apollos, or rather with the opposition existing between this and that called after himself.” Meyer. “These were at the same time the most important parties at Corinth.” Osiander. Here likewise the distinction is not stated according to grammatical rules. The ἐγὼμέν, however, brings out the contrast with emphasis: “I, on my part;” or, “I, at all events.” (Comp. Passow μέν, A. I., II. 7; vol. II. 1. p. 175 and 177),—are ye not men.—The same usage as in 1 Corinthians 3:3 : κατ̓ἄνθρωπον “after man’s fashion.” It was natural for the Jews to see in man (ΰָ ?γָ ?ν), the earthly, an implication of what was defective, imperfect, indeed the exact antithesis to God, and whatever was godlike. Hence the expression in the Old Testament: “the children of men,” and especially “the daughters of men” (Genesis 5), in opposition to “the sons of God.” (This is, according to the only interpretation suited to the connection and the spirit of the Old Testament, which sets the sanctified portion of the race over against those who represent men, human nature severed from God). The expression as here used, is certainly unique, but entirely in accordance with the analogy of Scripture. “It means people who have not been lifted above human infirmity, and in whom the Divine element is utterly wanting.” Meyer. AND ETHICALComp. on 1 Corinthians 1:12 ff.; 1 Corinthians 2:6 ff.; 1 Corinthians 2:1 ff. 1. [Christian truth is of different grades, and suited to different capacities. It has rudiments for the simplest child, and profundities which the angels desire to look into, and can never fully penetrate. It begins with the plainest facts of history, furnishing in these the foundation of a saving faith, but every one of these facts conduct us down into the deep things of God. Thus the Gospel is adapted to all classes of mankind. Its storehouse is furnished with all kinds of provisions, from the milk for babes to the strong meat for adults. In this we have one token of its Divine wisdom, and of its celestial origin and eternal destiny. Infinitude lies back of all its lowliest approaches to man in his fallen state, and in all it presents to faith, it furnishes that on which mind and heart shall feed for evermore]. 2. The vanity of man apart from God. Human nature, originally so exalted in its likeness to God, so glorious in knowledge and voluntary power, has sunk so low by reason of sin, that God’s word, uttering ever the language of truth, associates with man (when regarded apart from the person of Jesus, and from what may be realized through Him) the conception of something small, weak, incapable, transient, vain, false; in short, of such imperfection and depravity as results from a rupture of our communion with God. Hence the inquiry, “who art thou, O man?” (Romans 9:20; comp. 1 Corinthians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 2:3); and, “what is man?” Psalms 8:4; Psalms 144:3, ff.; and the saying, “all men are liars.” Romans 3:4. Indeed, as used in common parlance, the term is often one of contempt. Luke 22:60 : “Man, I know not what thou sayest.” Matthew 26:72 : “I do not know the man.” On the contrary, in Christ everything wins a different aspect. While in the Old Testament the term, “children of men,” is a disparaging epithet, Christ on the other hand, as “the son of man,” wears the honors of One, who, though He entered into all the weakness of human nature, and incurred its worst ills, yet rose again, and on this very account became the Mediator of a perfect communion with God, and the vehicle of all its consequent blessedness to the human race. By His righteousness He counterbalanced the sin of the old Adamic nature, and averts all its bitter results. He becomes also the sole Mediator between God and man, and appears as the One who from the lowest depths of humiliation, has been raised to utmost height of majesty. Comp. Matthew 20:18; Matthew 24:27, Matthew 25:31; Matthew 26:64, etc. All this was foreshadowed in the vision of Daniel, where the Son of man is seen to come in the clouds of heaven, and to whom is given eternal power and a kingdom without end (1 Corinthians 7:13), and where human nature thus honored by God, is contrasted with the brute nature, the beast, which develops itself in the kingdoms of this world. The oft-repeated title conferred on Ezekiel, αֶּ ?οΰָ ?γָ ?ν: thou Son of man, may also be regarded as typical of this One who is preλminently the Son of man. It was bestowed on the prophet as the receiver of the Divine communications, and was as honorable as it was humiliating (comp. Gerlach on Ezekiel 2:1). Of the same sort was the epithet, “Man of God,” which was conferred on the prophets and other messengers of God, and passed out from the Old Testament into the New Testament. In fine, it may be affirmed generally that wherever, and to the degree in which communion with God is in any way predicable, the designation “man” at once obtains a higher signification, and becomes one of honor, and is prophetic of exaltation. Elsewhere it carries the opposite import. AND Heubner:—1. The wisdom of the Christian teacher is shown in knowing how to adapt himself to different ages, and to regard the necessities of his congregation; and to build up beginners unto perfection (1 Corinthians 3:1). 2. To the carnal nature belong self-love, vanity, ambition; these traits are exhibited in strife and partizanship. There is a zeal which is nothing more than an eagerness to maintain our own opinion, cause, or party, simply because it is ours, and we expect to stand or fall with it, and not because conscience bids. From this comes strife, contention about points of difference. The issue is division. Since neither will yield, they separate. This accords with man’s fashion. Just as if Christianity were an affair of schools and sects, or as if one could act in the Church just as he does in the political world where factions and jealousies abound (1 Corinthians 3:2). Rieger:—1. God’s method of instruction requires that we do not overload. Novices are to be treated as children. We are to be considerate of their weaknesses, and not to crowd upon them those deeper doctrines which can be properly judged of only by such as are spiritual and strong. 2. In regard to “milk” and “strong meat” let us not err. “Milk “is a designation not of cheapness and meanness, but of what is most truthful and most nourishing to the spiritual life.—“Strong meat” signifies not every thing which our intellectual curiosity may lust after, but the deeper disclosures of the fundamental verities of God’s kingdom, the knowledge of which promotes growth in grace. 3. The carnal mind, suspicious, opinionated, and thus divisive, not only begets oppositions in doctrine, but also diversities in practice, which end in schism. Starke:—1. Cr: to become a believer is not the result of a fit of enthusiasm, as if the wind were to blow upon a person and he straightway became perfect; but we must hear, learn, pray, read, inquire until we are transformed from one degree of conviction unto another. 2. Hed: God’s children often have gross and unacknowledged faults which linger in them until they have waxed in faith and grown strong to overcome. 3. To discourse to young converts of the deeper mysteries of Christian doctrine were as irrational as to give strong meat to babes. And since with the majority growth is slow and difficult, we must often continue longer to deal out to them “the sincere milk of the Word.” Gossner:—Every one thinks his party has the kernel and others only the shell. Whereas they all are apt to let the kernel alone and dispute about the shell, as if that were the kernel (1 Corinthians 3:4). So is it with those who, having begun in spirit, go back to the flesh. Mistaking incidentals for essentials, they grow weak in the inward man and are soon puffed up (1 Corinthians 3:1; 1 Corinthians 3:21). W. F. Besser:—The mind of Christ tolerates no party-spirit, and no love of divisions. The conscience of many in this day is not sufficiently tender on this point. Indeed there are numbers who consider their Christianity so much the purer in proportion as they disregard the visible exhibition of Church unity, and are reckless in breaking the bond of peace which outwardly unites companions in one faith. [R. W. Robertson:—“Strong meat” does not mean high doctrine such as Election, Regeneration, Justification by faith, but “Perfection,” strong demands on Self, a severe and noble Life. The danger of extreme demands made on hearts unprepared for such is seen in the case of Ananias.] [N. Emmons. 1 Corinthians 3:2. Doctrines of the Gospel food for Christians. I. What doctrines the Apostle did preach to the Corinthians: a. Depravity; b. Regeneration; c. Love; d. Faith; e. Sanctification; f. Final Perseverance; g. Divine Sovereignty; h. Election. II. Why these are called milk: a. Because they are easy to be understood; b. Because they are highly pleasing to the pious heart; c. Because they are nourishing. III. Why the Apostle preached these rather than others to the Corinthians: a. Their internal state required such preaching; b. Their external state required it. Improvement. 1. If these doctrines are milk, what is meat? a. The rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic Law; b. The types and predictions of the Old Testament; c. The predictions of the New Testament. 2. The doctrines which Paul preached to the Corinthians, as shown above, have been misrepresented. 3. We have a criterion to determine who are the plainest preachers. 4. No people are incapable of hearing the doctrines Paul preached to the Corinthians]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 3:1.—The Rec. has καὶἐγώ, but with the far better and preponderant authorities A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Cod. Sin. Lach. and Tisch. read κᾀγώ [which, as Words says, “gives less prominence to the I, and accords more with the Apostle’s humility”]. 1 Corinthians 3:1.—The Rec. has σαρκικοῖς according to 1 Corinthians 3:3, where a preponderance of authorities declares for σαρκικοί, and only a few, governed by the original reading in 1 Corinthians 3:1, have σάρκινοι, Here as in Romans 7:14; Hebrews 7:16 we must read according to best authorities σαρκίνοις. [So A. B. C. D. Cod. Sin.—followed by Gries., Lach., Tisch., Words.. Alf., etc.]. 1 Corinthians 3:2.—The καὶ, according to the best manuscripts [A. B. C. Cod. Sin.], is rejected by the great majority of translators and by the old church fathers. 1 Corinthians 3:2.—The Rec. ον̓τε instead of ον̓δέ is feebly supported and verbally incorrect. 1 Corinthians 3:3.—Καὶδιχοστασἰαι is wanting in good authorities, A. B. [C. Cod. Sin.] and in the majority of versions and church fathers. Its omission is not to be explained. Probably inserted as a gloss from Galatians 5:20. [Wordsworth retains it]. 1 Corinthians 3:4.—Rec. ον̓χὶσαρκικοὶἐστε. [Instead read ον̓κἄνθρωποίἐστε. So A. B. C. Cod. Sin. Alf.. Stanley, Lach., Tisch., etc.] ονκ is better attested than ον̓χὶ and ἄνθρωποι still better. The Rec. reading is probably taken from 1 Corinthians 3:3. One would suppose the aforementioned doctrines to be the strongest kind of meat. The sermon is interesting as a specimen.] V. THE TO BE PUT ON AND THEIR WORK. THEIR VALUE TO BE PROVED IN THE DAY OF TRIAL 1 Corinthians 3:5-155 Who then is Paul, who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as 6the Lord gave to every man? I have [om. have] planted, Apollos watered; but God gave [was giving] the increase. 7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 8Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man [each one] shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 9For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. 10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have [om. have] laid the foundation, and another 11buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire [itself: αὐτό] shall try every man’s work of what sort it Isaiah 14 If any man’s work [shall] abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. AND “From this point onward to 1 Corinthians 3:23, Paul proceeds to explain in what light the Corinthians were to regard their spiritual teachers, and the work which these performed among them. And first, from 1 Corinthians 3:5-9, he deals with the relation which the human instrumentalities sustain to the Lord who employs them; then, from 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, with the responsibility which they have for their work and the decision to which it is liable; and, finally, from 1 Corinthians 3:16-23, with the position which the Church holds and ought to pursue towards them.”—Burger. 1 Corinthians 3:5.—Who then is Apollos? and who is Paul?—The reading τί: what, is at least as easily explainable on the ground that the answer given appears to point rather to “what?” than to “who?” as the reading τίς is capable of being accounted for from the effort to assimilate the genders.—[“οὖν: then, follows on the assumption of the truth of their divided state.”—Alford.] The question here put is not to be regarded as coming from the readers (Rόckert) q. d. “Who are Apollos and Paul, if we may not have them as our leaders?” This thought would have been expressed in quite a different manner—more his own.—(Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:34; Romans 9:19 ff.). It is simpler to understand the connection thus: “You call yourselves after Apollos and Paul. Who are these persons, then? From the answer given, it is clearly implied that the partizanship of their followers does not accord with the spirit of the leaders they have chosen, and is condemned as a carnality.—Ministers, through whom ye believed.—Were ἀλλ̓ἤ: but, to be taken as genuine (see under the text), then we should have here an emphatic implication that Apollos and Paul were nothing else than mere ministers. There is in these words a mixture of two constructions: οὐδὲνἄλλο, ἀλλά: nothing else but; and οὐδὲνἄλλοἤ: nothing else that. So Meyer on 2 Corinthians 1:13. Fritzsche, according to Hermann on Viger, construes it otherwise: “but either—or I know not what.” The phrase is to be found in Luke 12:15, where its correctness is undisputed. It was plainly, therefore, not rejected because of its objectionableness. διάκονοι: deacons, ministers, is here to be understood in its broadest sense, as contrasted with leaders. We may supplement “of your Church,” comp. 1 Corinthians 3:21, and Matthew 20:28; or “of God,” or “of Christ,” comp. 1 Corinthians 3:6 ff; 2 Corinthians 6:4, etc. The words following would favor the one as well as the other, or perhaps hint at a combination of the two=“ministers of Christ in your behalf.” (Colossians 1:7.)—through whom ye believed.—Bengel says briefly and forcibly; “Through whom, not in whom” (James 1:7). They are thereby designated as instruments in God’s hand for the production of faith. And such they were in their function as preachers and teachers of truth. But this instrumentality was of different kinds; that of Paul, for the exercise of the faith, of Apollos, for its further development. This process is expressed in the aorist tense, as in Romans 13:11 : Galatians 2:16.—even as, the Lord gave to each one.—This statement is made to bring forward prominently the fact of the dependence of the ministers on the Lord, both for their gifts and their ministry, and so to dampen the disposition “to boast in men.” καὶἑκάστωὡσὁκώριοςἔδωκεν, not an instance of attraction, as if ἔκαστος sc. διάκονοςἐστιν, ὠς—ἔδωκεναὐτῷ. But ἐκαστῷ stands first by way of emphasis, as in Romans 12:3, because having spoken of them in general, he wishes next to designate what is peculiar to each one. There is no need of taking “the Lord” to mean God, instead of Christ [so Hodge], contrary to the usage of Paul, nor are we compelled to this by 1 Corinthians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 3:9-10. The endowment of ministers with manifold gifts is also ascribed to Christ in Ephesians 4:7 ff. In what follows, when “God” is introduced, the Apostle is speaking of something else, viz. of the Divine blessing, and of the dependence on God for desired results. 1 Corinthians 3:6. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was giving the increase.—Under these figures Paul exhibits partly the diversity of operation between him and Apollos, and partly their equal dependence on Divine favor for success. Paul labored for the founding of the Church, for the planting of the spiritual crop; Apollos for the further development of the life of faith thus begun, for the edification of the Church; he watered and helped to mature the growing crop. But after all it was to God, as the efficient cause, that both owed the results obtained. It was His power, working in them and through them, that caused the faith to strike root, and spring up, and bring forth fruit. “Αὐξάνειν: to increase, a designation of the attainment of an object which had been furthered by the Divine powers at work in the instruments, and by divers other auxiliary operations of grace which accompanied or prepared the way for them. [“ηὔξανεν: was giving. Observe the force of the Imperfect, intimating a continued bestowal of Divine grace as distinguished from the transitory acts of His ministers whose operations are described by aorists.”—Words.]. 1 Corinthians 3:7. So then [“ὤστε: an illative particle of frequent occurrence” Words.] neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth, but He that giveth the increase, even God.—The inference here drawn goes to the discrediting of all human organs taken by themselves, and to the rebuking of all partisanship, ἔστιτι: is any thing, either in numero est: in account (comp. Acts 3:36) or yet more strongly, is absolutely any thing. On the other hand, to the last clause we naturally supplement τὰπάνταἕστίν: is all (1 Corinthians 15:28; Colossians 3:11). Bengel: “is something, and, because He is alone, all things.” What is here viewed separately for the purpose of counteracting the tendency to unduly exalt the instrument is elsewhere taken together; the agency of the instrument and the agency of God in their concrete unity (Romans 11:14; 1 Timothy 4:16). [“In this passage ministers are brought into comparison with the Lord, and the reason of this comparison is, that mankind, while estimating grudgingly the grace of God, are too lavish in their commendation of ministers, and in this manner they snatch away what is God’s, with a view of transferring it to themselves.” Calvin.]. 1 Corinthians 3:8. Now He that planteth and He that watereth are one.—[“ἕν; one thing neuter. God is ὁεἱς, mas. He is the one agent; they are an instrument in His hands; and they are one as united together in Christ. But they are not what you would make them by your party factions to be, separate persons and rival heads and leaders of opposing sects.” Words.]. Paul does not here intend to deny the different merits of ministers or their separate worth, as though they all stood at par (Bengel, Billroth); he is referring only to their office and services. They are alike ministers. And in so saying he means to counteract all rivalry and all exaltation of one over another. The unity and mutual connection, which he asserts, do not, however, exclude diversities both in their labors and in the recognition of these labors, on the part of the Lord, in ways corresponding thereto.—And each one shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.—The words “his own”—“his own” stand in contrast with “are one.” Bengel styles it “an appropriate repetition antithetic to the “one.” κόπος. denotes not the result, but the labor, the effort put forth. This, however unsuccessful, involves a fidelity and devotion which can be estimated by God alone. κατά indicates also the qualitative, and not merely the quantitative relation—ἴσιον: own, that which especially belongs to each one, both in the labor expended and in the reward. The μισθός, as the context shows, signifies the Divine recompense. The full λήψεται (λήυψεται, Altic Ionic form) points to the reward which will be conferred at the coming of Christ. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 4:5; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 2 Timothy 4:8; Daniel 12:3; Matthew 25:20 ff.; 1 Peter 5:4). This reward is praise bestowed for the labor done. According to Bengel, “Something more than salvation.” It is an addition to the blessedness common to all the subjects of grace, which, as Osiander observes, consists in the various degrees of glory (δόξα) conferred on them (comp. Luke 19:17 ff.); moreover it is a reward of grace, since the whole thing rests upon the plan and promise and operation of grace. Yet it is apportioned in righteousness, “to each one his own.” “Relatively to redemption nothing can be said of desert. But within the sphere of redemption, the question comes up, ‘how faithfully has a person employed the grace received and wrought with it. Here it can be asserted ‘To him that hath shall be given.’ This is what Paul means by reward.” Neander. That such a reward is to be expected appears from what follows:— 1 Corinthians 3:9. For we are God’s fellow-laborers, God’s husbandry, God’s building are ye.—The emphatic word here is θεοῦ, God’s. Since it is God’s work to which we devote our labor, each in his own part, we are therefore to expect it from His truthfulness that He will not refuse to us the corresponding reward. This reference to what precedes (Meyer) has a decided advantage over that interpretation which regards these words as a comprehensive exposition of the calling of spiritual teachers, and their debt of service to the congregation (1 Corinthians 3:5 ff.), and especially of their oneness in it (1 Corinthians 3:8). In this case the γάρ, for, in relation to the first clause, would be explanatory and in reference to the second, causal (Osiander). “It is also preferable to that interpretation which, in order to make out here a rebuke of party spirit, takes the sense to be: Every thing is to be ascribed to God; therefore to God be all the glory.” Burger. Inasmuch as the idea of a reward recurs also in what follows, it perhaps would be more proper to regard these sentences only as confirmatory of what was said respecting the reward. [Stanley takes the “for” as giving the reason for the oneness among the teachers. “Their object is the same (though their modes of working are different), for it is God who is our fellow-laborer, etc.; therefore they cannot be set against each other.” Hodge combines the two ideas]. Θεοῦσυνεργοί=God’s helpers, who work with God,—not: “who do God’s work associatedly” [as Olshausen], for this would be etymologically inadmissible. Even so συνεργὸνἡμῶν, 1 Thessalonians 3:2. Although God works all in all, yet He works through His servants, whom He recognizes as helpers in His work, and whom he suffers to work, each one in his own peculiar way. Calvin: Eximium elogium ministerii, quod, quum per se agere possit Deus, nos homunciones tanquam adjutores adsiscat, per quos ita solus agit, ut tamen vicissim cum eo laborent (cf. Osiander in loco). Here we have a hint of the dignity of the ministerial office, and of our obligation to keep in view God’s objects in it. [Though, indeed, it must be said that the design of the argument is not to dignify the teachers, but to abate the excessive estimate put upon them]. Θεοῦγεώργιον, a field belonging to God; so also θεοῦοἰκοδομή], God’s building. The Genitive of cause (=it is God who built you) [so Alford] is less fitting here, since Paul is speaking in the context concerning the performance and the reward of teachers, and in these statements he is establishing the expectation that God will grant to them their reward on the ground that that on which they are at work, belongs to Him. Γεώργιον (also in Proverbs 24:30; Proverbs 31:16)= tilled land, a field, a garden, a vineyard; οἰκοδουή, a word of the later Greek οἰκοδομια=οἰκοδόμημα. Both indicate the kind of labor pursued by God’s co-workers: the cultivation of a field, the rearing of a building. But in making God (θεοῦ) prominent, the subjects on both sides retire into the background in a corresponding degree. Hence neither “we” (ἡμεῖς) nor “you” (ὐμεῖς) is expressed. Taking the whole context in its broader scope, and considering the aim of the whole paragraph, we might suppose with Chrysostom, that in the repeated mention of God in the last clause there was an implied rebuke of the tendency in the Church to call themselves after men [so Words.] (1 Corinthians 3:4) (cf. Osiander). The figure in οἰκοδομη (building), analogous to that in the “temple of God” (1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21) is carried out still further in what follows. 1 Corinthians 3:10. Paul here proceeds to state what he himself had done towards erecting God’s building.—According unto the grace of God, which was given unto me.—By “grace” he means not the Apostolic office as such, but those peculiar endowments which qualified him for laying the foundation (comp. 1 Corinthians 1:3-4). Lit. ‘by virtue of the favor shown unto me.’ And this favor was manifest both in the call to office and in the bestowment of those gifts which enabled him to become a co-worker with God. By this acknowledgment of his indebtedness in advance, he obviates all misconception with a wise humility, and avoids all appearance of arrogance. The same expression occurs in Romans 15:15; Romans 12:3; Galatians 2:9; Ephesians 3:2.—as a wise master master-builder I laid the foundation.—This was done in that preaching of Christ crucified, which had first elicited their faith (1 Corinthians 3:11; 1 Corinthians 2:2). [“θεμέλιον, a foundation. St. Paul uses the masculine form, 1 Corinthians 3:11, and 2 Timothy 2:19. St. Luke the neuter (Acts 16:26); which is Attic. The masculine is very appropriate here, because the foundation is Christ.” Words. In saying that he laid this “as” a wise masterbuilder, “he does not vaunt himself, but propounds himself as an example,” Chrysostom]. The wisdom he claims, might be regarded as that betokened in the act of laying a foundation, since the attempt to build without such preliminary work would indicate a lack of sense. Yet 1 Corinthians 3:11 seems to imply that he had reference to the nature of the foundation, in that it was the only one suited for a “building of God,” and such a one as a wise builder would alone lay. [Why not both?]. Σοφός, wise, skilful—thoroughly understanding his art. The same usage occurs in the classics. The claim here made, tells against the partisan disparagement of his labors.—and another buildeth thereon.—ἄλλος another, not merely Apollos, but also every person who had engaged in the work of the ministry at Corinth, “more especially those successors of his who were still laboring in the Church.” Osiander. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 4:15). To such, he, as the Apostolic “masterbuilder,” gives the caution.—But let each one look how he buildeth thereon.—“How,” i.e. in what way, and with what material. He thus warns them of the greatness of their responsibility, and of the importance of making the edifice correspond with the foundation. On this point he explains himself further by showing what is the only proper foundation of a church. 1 Corinthians 3:11. For other foundation can no man lay besides that lying there.—He here explains why he speaks simply of building the superstructure, and says nothing in regard to the foundation. This had been already laid, and was confessedly all right. There could possibly be no idea of changing or modifying that. [“In taking this for granted, he implies the strongest possible caution against attempting to lay any other.” Alf.]. The emphasis here rests on “foundation,” which is accordingly put first in the sentence, δύναται, not may, but can. Paul here wishes to express the absolute impossibility of change, without entirely destroying the character of the building. And hence there naturally follows the utter inadmissibleness of attempting to lay any other foundation. The thing is so contrary to the nature of the case, that no Christian teacher can be supposed willing to undertake it. παρά, alongside of, and yet not touching; hence, besides, beyond, contrary to. In regard to κείμενον, lying there it may be asked, whether the idea involved in τέθεικα, I laid, of 1 Corinthians 3:10, is here resumed, so that it refers to what Paul had done [“in which case it would have been τεθέντα.” Words.], or whether it implies what had been done by God in sending His Son to be our Redeemer, and laying him as the precious cornerstone of His Church [or whether it is with Words, to be taken in the middle sense as lying there “by His own free will and act.”]. Adopting the second of the above interpretations, the verb “I laid,” in 1 Corinthians 3:10, would indicate Paul’s accordance with the Divine procedure. He had laid in its place at Corinth that foundation which God had provided for the Church universal, by proclaiming Christ there as the only proper object of faith. This would accord better with the more general form κείμενον, and also establish the impossibility declared in the words, “can no man.” ‘If God has laid a foundation, then surely no Christian teacher will think of laying any other. Accordingly, I also have made this the basis of the Church at Corinth, and could do no otherwise.’ [“This Word, κεῖται, from which κείμενον comes, descriptive of Christ’s character as the one foundation of His Church, is applied to Him in His first presentation in the material temple at Jerusalem. Luke 2:34, οῦ ?̔τοςκεῖταιεἰςποῶσιν. It is observable also that the man of sin, who places himself as a foundation of the Church, in the room of Christ, is called ὁἀντικείμενυς. 2 Thessalonians 2:4.” Words.]. What this foundation is, is expressed in the relative clause,—which is Christ Jesus.—By this he means Christ in His own person, not simply the doctrine of Christ as being a fundamental doctrine. [“The former interpretation which is adopted by many distinguished commentators (de Wette, Alf., Stanley), is more in accordance with the common representations of scripture, and perhaps also with the form of expression here used. The second, however, is certainly more consistent with the context. In saying that he had laid the foundation, Paul could only mean that he had in Corinth taught the doctrine concerning the person and work of Christ.” Hodge. But surely it was not the doctrine as such that was the foundation. The doctrine availed only as it brought Christ directly and personally present to the mind of the Church, and induced them to build on Him. The distinction Kling maintains is a very important one. There is constant danger of persons mistaking the doctrine of Christ for the person of Christ. The former is the foundation of a theology, the latter of a life.] 1 Corinthians 3:12. The nature of the foundation being settled, he now proceeds to consider the several ways in which superstructure might be carried up.—But—[“The δέ implies that though there can be but one foundation, there are many ways of building upon it.” Alf.]—if any man build upon the foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble.—He here illustrates the various kinds of material that might be employed in the edifice, either worthy and durable, that could stand the test of fire, or worthless and incapable of passing the ordeal. Both sorts are mentioned in lively succession, without any express exhibition of the diversities implied. According to the best and largest number of commentators, from Clem., Alex., down to Osiander and Meyer, Paul here intends to denote by this building material, not persons, but doctrines, such as when joined with faith in Christ may or may not suit the foundation; such as in worth and durability do or do not correspond with the precious indestructible corner-stone. That the wood, hay and stubble were designed in general to signify such teachings as mingled the weak and disfiguring products of human wisdom, art, philosophy and Jewish traditions with the truth of God, is very evident. But any attempts to particularize, either as to the dogmas referred to, or as to the parts of the building they were intended for, would be futile and out of taste. Moreover, we are to hold fast to the idea of but one building contemplated, into which all the different kinds of material specified are worked, and not to imagine [as Wetst., Billr., Stanley] that two sorts of building are had in view, such as a palace and a hut; or that a whole city was intended, “the city of God,” for instance. We might also very appropriately, but rather by way of accommodation, bring under consideration here the distinctive practical fruits produced under the different kinds of teaching and the different sorts of church members brought in and trained under the same. [So Theodoret adopted by Stanley, who deems the practical fruits the main thing referred to, and adds, “He is here preparing the way for the accusation of the incestuous person.”]. To suppose, however, with Olsh., that there is any allusion to the private work of personal sanctification, would be untenable, inasmuch as the entire context treats solely of ministerial functions. Rόckert’s interpretation is too abstract and general. Proceeding on the ground that “work” (ἔργον) with Paul signifies the entire business of life, he takes the sense to be: “only he who builds upon the true foundation in a right manner, so that his work will abide the test, is entitled to a reward. He who builds on it unsuitably, can expect none. This only, however, can be said for his comfort, that he will not forfeit his salvation since it was his will at least to further the work of the Lord.” On this whole subject, consult Osiander and Meyer. [“Precious stone” here means stones valuable for building, such as granite and marble. “Gold and silver,” were extensively employed in adorning ancient temples, and are therefore appropriately used as symbols of pure doctrine, “Wood, hay and stubble.” are the perishable materials out of which ordinary houses were built. Wood for the doors and posts, hay mixed with mud for the walls, and straw for the roof. These materials, unsuited for the temple of God, are the appropriate symbols of false doctrines.” Hodge]. 1 Corinthians 3:13. Every man’s work will be made manifest.—The worth or worthlessness, the durability or perishableness of what a man has wrought is not to remain concealed.—For the day will declare it.—i. e., will make evident what is genuine or not genuine, what is truth and what mere show. This is a matter which often remains for a long time uncertain. But what are we to understand by this day of revelation? Not certainly the time of Jerusalem’s overthrow [as Starke], for the Apostle is not speaking here of Jewish traditions, the vanity of which would then be exposed. Nor yet time in general, or any prolonged lapse of time, for the term “day” is never used in this sense by the New Testament writers, nor would it suit the following context. Ever since the period of the Reformation, Calvin’s view has widely prevailed, that the allusion here is to the time when the pure knowledge of the Gospel should spread over the earth. So others also. But the apostolic usage and modes of thought warrant our understanding it only of the day of Christ’s second coming (comp. 1 Corinthians 4:5; Romans 2:16; 2 Corinthians 5:10). This is the period of that searching, sifting trial which is to begin at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17), and which after manifold preludes will reach its consummation in the appearance of our Lord. In this sense the word “day” stands without any explanatory term in Hebrews 10:25; 1 Thessalonians 5:4 ss.—Because it is revealed in fire.—What is revealed? The work of which he has just said “it shall be made manifest.” To this it is objected that the sentence would in that case be tautological. But a repetition of this prominent thought will appear less strange in view of the fact that it is more distinctly defined by the additional words, “by fire,” and that the following clause appears to be a fitting further development of them. It would indeed be most natural to regard “day” as the thing revealed. [So Alf., Stanley, Words., Hodge]. But nowhere is it said that the day of the Lord is revealed. Such a mode of speech would be unusual. It were better, with Bengel, to supply “the Lord” as the nominative, since indeed it is the day of the Lord that is referred to, and this construction would have its parallel in 2 Thessalonians 1:7 : “When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire.” Here lire is represented as accompanying the manifestation of Jesus, (not, however, as a means of vengeance). But such a supplying of a word is warranted only in case no other suitable explanation can be found. If then “work” be the proper subject, “the fire” must be taken to denote that by which the work is tested. The relation of this clause to the foregoing then would be this: because fire is the agency by which the work is tried, therefore will the day of the Lord, who is to appear in flaming fire (2 Thessalonians 1), the day which is to burn as an oven (Matthew 4:1), make this work manifest. [“To show the certainty and perpetual imminence of that fiery trial of the Last Day, Paul uses the present tense (ἀποκαλύπτεταἐ) is revealed!” Words.]—And each one’s work, what sort it is this fire itself shall prove.—This clause stands independently of ὅτι, because, and sums up the whole truth, stating once more the ordeal contemplated and the peculiar means of its accomplishment. It is the fire that is to try the work, and demonstrate its quality—τὸπῦραὐτό, the fire itself, by its own specific action. That this means neither the Holy Spirit nor yet persecutions of any sort is evident from the interpretation given to the word “day.” Still less tenable is the Roman Catholic interpretation, which discovers herein an allusion to purgatory. (Council of Florence). [“The fire of which St. Paul speaks is the Fire of the Great Day; not a Fire of any intermediate state. And the Fire which he describes does not cleanse, as that intermediate fire is feigned to do, but tried and destroy. It is not a Purgatorial but a Probationary Fire.” Words. Besides “Paul is here speaking of ministers and their doctrines, and not of believers in general.” Hodge, 9, 1 Corinthians 5:1]. “We deny not that anticipations of the judicial fire of the Last Day may be traced in the fiery trials with which God will visit His own house (1 Peter 4:12-17); but the fire by which Christians will be refined and purged before the end comes will burn not on the other side but this side of death.” W. F. Besser. Neander on the contrary says: “The fire is an image of the progressive purifying process which goes on along the course of the development of the Church. This process will allow only what is genuine and Divine to stand.” It is, however, the outward and substantial manifestation of the judicial energy of the Lord, who will work as a purifying flame, so that everything in the labors of those who have been endeavoring to build up the Church, that does not carry the Divine impress, but is the vain and perishable invention of man, will be brought to nought. Of this manifestation we have a prelude now in the continuous judgment of the Holy Ghost, and in the persecutions which the Church here suffers. The effect of it is exhibited antithetically in 1 Corinthians 3:14-15. If any one ‘s work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward.—This is the positive side. Μενεῖ, shall abide (the future corresponds with κατακαήσεται), shall stand the fire which is to consume all that is unworthy. “Reward,” as in 1 Corinthians 3:8. By this we may understand on the one hand, a presentation before Christ as a faithful and true workman, whose work is honorable to the Master (1 Thessalonians 2:19 ff.; Philippians 2:15 ff.); and on the other hand, an appointment to higher trusts in the kingdom of God (Daniel 12:3; Matthew 19:28; 2 Timothy 4:8; Matthew 25:21-23). “The abiding of his edifice will be itself his great reward, just as Paul terms the fruit of his labor, and of his founding the Church his boasting and his crown in the day of the Lord (2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 2:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:19). Still we do not in this completely gauge the reward of a true builder.” W. F. Besser.—Next comes the negative side.—If any one’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss.—The omission of the conjunction is owing to the rapid rush of the thought, and renders the style more vivid. The “loss” spoken of is not of “the work,” but “the reward.” True, the judicial fire, which consumes all impure and untenable doctrines, will also consume his whole performance; but the consequence will be that he will forfeit his reward, and so incur damage (comp. ζημιοῦσθαι, 2 Corinthians 7:7-9; Philippians 3:8; Matthew 16:26). [“It is possible that this whole image, as addressed to the Corinthians, may have been suggested or at least illustrated by the conflagration of Corinth under Mummius; the stately temples (one of them remaining to this day) standing amidst the universal destruction of the meaner buildings.” Stanley].—But he himself shall be saved;—αὐτόςδὲ, he himself, as contrasted with the reward [and also with the work]. Here it is presupposed that the individual has been building indeed upon the true foundation, Christ, but has failed only in respect to the manner of his building (from infirmity of the flesh or from ignorance, as Calvin suggests). Altogether superfluous and incorrect would it be to translate it ‘he can be saved.’ To supply the condition, ‘if it be possible,’ is wholly arbitrary; and still more so to assume that by ‘work’ is meant the scholars of a good teacher who perish without his fault. Many of the Fathers interpret σωθήσεται, be saved, in the sense of τηρηθήσεται, should be preserved, as if it meant: shall be not annihilated but kept alive in eternal torments and in fire. But this, apart from all other objections, is contrary to the usage of the word in the New Testament. It can only mean: he shall obtain salvation in Christ. “Here we have one clear evidence that salvation is not a reward, but is freely given to us through the merits of Christ.” W. F. Besser.—Yet so as through fire.—(διὰπυρός). Herein is expressed the narrowness of the person’s escape. He will be snatched as a brand from the burning, saving nothing but his bare life (comp. Zechariah 3:2; Amos 4:11; Jude 23). The image is not that of a man living in a house, but of one occupied with the building of it, and who just delivers himself with great effort from the conflagration that has caught his work, and sees in sadness and anxiety the loss of all he has done, to the marring of his blessedness. And such a person attains only to a lower stage of bliss (comp. Matthew 20:16; Mark 10:31, last clause). So Meyer, rejecting however, the idea that words embody anything of the nature of a proverb, since Paul is here speaking literally of a consuming fire. But nevertheless the use of the word ώς, as, constrains us to regard it as such. For although we should interpret “as” in the same manner as we do in John 1:14, and render, ‘just as one would expect in the case of a conflagration,’ still it would amount to about the same thing. Only we might say it is not to be understood as a proverb merely (comp. Osiander, p. 174 f). AND ETHICAL1. Ministers are co-workers with God.—It is in this that the highest dignity of the Christian teacher consists. To wish to be nothing but an instrument for performing the Divine will, to aim at nothing but the fulfilment of God’s designs, to desire to have and to exercise no power save what this line of action includes, to covet no reward, no honor, no enjoyment, excepting what comes from such labor, and helps to the more complete discharge of this calling, this is the characteristic of a servant of God, who follows Christ in self-denial and love, and purposes only to save souls for God and consecrates to this all his faculties, and is diligent to present to God a work pleasing to Him and honorable to His holy Son, and neither seeks nor strives after any glory for himself, but is content that God be exalted Supreme over all, and that His will alone should prevail. To such a person, nothing is too insignificant to be undertaken, provided it serves this end. No work will he be ashamed of or shun, even though it be among those who are low, or despised, or degraded, provided the gracious designs of God may be accomplished thereby. Such servants are, in truth, co-workers with God. He takes them into a fellowship of labor with Himself. He shares with them His exalted work of renewing, blessing, sanctifying and glorifying lost creatures. He shares with them also His authority, His power, His honor, His joy in this work. And this He is able to do because they have entered into a fellowship with Him in His thoughts and intentions by the operation of the Holy Ghost; because the spirit of Christ, God’s perfect servant, animates them; because His mind is also their mind; and because the holy will of a self-denying, self-devoted love is alive and strong in their hearts. For this reason, they will have nothing to do with partizanship. It sickens them to see poor lost souls clinging to them and wishing to make them masters alongside of Christ, or in His place; to see people following their directions, and exalting their merely human and personal peculiarities into a standard of authority by which to regulate their conduct. Such proceedings they repel, and they strive with all their might instead to fasten souls upon Christ as their only master. The higher God places them, the more intent are they on being nothing, and passing for nothing, in themselves. Then and thus the Church of God is built up in truth. 2. This Church is God’s field.—This truth controverts all party action in the same way that the view just given, of teachers being God’s servants and co-laborers, controverts it. The Church belongs to God; He it is who tills the field—externally, by the preaching of the Word—internally, by His Spirit. What teachers do is to plant and to water. But the word sown is His seed; all the ability employed in its first planting and after culture is His gift; on Him depends all success. Without His blessing, all planting and all watering, however skilful and careful, amount to nothing. What thus belongs to God is a sacred possession, which must be secured for Him. To wish to introduce another there as co-possessor is a wicked ignoring and contemning of God’s right. Indeed, not to acknowledge this right in its entireness, is virtually to deny it altogether. And such denial takes place when we adopt human teachers as our masters, and follow them, and call ourselves by their names. Then God is robbed of what is His (Romans 2:22). 3. The Church is God’s house.—Christ the foundation-stone, laid by Him.—This is the ground and measure of all sound teaching. The foundation is of Divine worth and of lasting duration. To build anything on this, which is not according to the mind of Christ, which does not carry the impress of His Spirit, which does not spring from Him, but which originates in a foreign spirit, and is the product of human art, or science, or opinion—this is to introduce into God’s building something, which, however highly it may be estimated by man, is in truth worthless. It cannot stand in the day of God’s judicial purgation, however skillfully we may be able to vindicate it on human grounds. When Christ reveals Himself as the One to whom all judgment is given, when, by his majesty as Judge, he sifts out and destroys everything that is not His, then will this be found not proof. The fire of His judgement will annihilate it. Thus will the work of such a person come to naught. He can not be honored as one who has assisted in God’s building. He cannot confront the Lord his judge with joy,—beholding in Him the Rewarder of his fidelity. On the contrary, he will shrink back in sorrow, pained at the thought of having wrought foolishly and to no purpose. Yet with all this, he will still have reason to congratulate himself that he may nevertheless snatch his soul from the flame which devours his unprofitable work. Thus it happens that the person himself may be saved, while all his doings prove worthless. From the common salvation, indeed, he may not be excluded, since he held fast to the foundation; but he forfeits the glory of being accounted a co-worker with God. [4. Every believer’s work in life awaits a searching ordeal, which is to prove its genuineness. The times of such ordeal are called in Scripture “days of the Lord.” They occur for individuals and for communities all along the course of human history, and are the preludes to a final “day” when the Judge in person shall appear to purge His Church—the living temple—of all that is corrupt, and to set it up complete in the perfection of its beauty. Then will the value of each one’s labor be fully manifest. But what the specific means of this ordeal will be is a matter of question. Whether it will be by literal fire or by some other more spiritual instrumentality, of which fire is but a symbol, it were hard to determine. The latter seems the more probable in view of the declaration of the Baptist that Christ would “baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Such a baptism of purification is observable even in this age to some degree; yet it is not by material fire. We see the chaff of false doctrine and hypocritical performances, consuming and passing out of sight, as if perishing in consuming flames, while the golden truths of God, wrought out in the experiences and doings of the true believer, grow brighter, and live on to be a blessing to subsequent ages; and who can tell in what way the precious shall be taken from the vile at the last day? Sufficient to be assured that the ordeal will be applied in the most searching manner, and that it awaits every member of the Church. Judgment is to begin at the House of God.] AND Rieger: 1. Mischievous zeal. a. How kindled? By making too much of diversities of gifts in ministers. Here one is blamed if the Church be not edified, and there another is extolled, if by his preaching the light begins to burn more brightly, and people consider not that with the one as well as with the other, “the increase” depends on God, and that the inequality of results, so far as it lies with men, may be attributed not so much to the preacher as to the peculiarity of times and circumstances. b. How shall such evils be guarded against? Safety will be found just in proportion as the minister follows the simple word of God, and resolves to be nothing, and seek nothing for himself; just in proportion as he endeavors to improve impartially every thing that God sends, without attempting to determine prematurely to his own injury what the distinctive importance of it is in the sight of God. 2. Co-workers with God.—God has chosen laborers, a. not because he needs assistance, but b. out of his own good pleasure, inasmuch as he desires to work on men through men, so that each person’s love for the truth, and readiness to obey may be more signally manifested. 3. Caution in building.—a. In building each one must take heed not only that he builds on the foundation, but that he uses good material and builds well. He must speak the truth in love, bring sound doctrines into their proper connection, employ suitable aids to discourse, and learn the art of seizing upon the hearts and consciences of men. b. The hearers, too, have need of care rightly to improve their advantages, since much of the preacher’s success depends upon their fidelity in receiving and practising what they hear. 4. Differences in the superstructure, though resting upon the right foundation, are found according as a person a. either adheres to that which is closely akin to the foundation, selecting that which promotes the salvation and edification of souls, b. or prefers what is alien in character, resorting to what pleases men, or promotes his renown, or gratifies a vain curiosity, rather than to what is of solid worth and promotes vital godliness. 5. [Preparation for the final ordeal. If there is to be a day of visitation and trial, how important to be examining our own work in advance and subjecting it to the most rigid tests, lest we be overwhelmed at last with utter dismay at our loss, and have the mortification of discovering too late that we spent our strength for naught, and have only our souls for a prey. 1 Corinthians 3:13 ff.]. Starke:—All good comes from God and must be ascribed to him. No boasting. No exaltation of one at the expense of another (10, 11). Not wrong to prefer listening to enlightened and regenerated preachers, rather than to such as are carnally minded. Wrong comes when amid diversified gifts in genuine ministers we cleave to one and contemn the rest. This is to sin not only against those contemned, but also against God. This is to evince a lack of just spiritual taste, and to bring to the sermon, the ear rather than the heart. The preachers office an effective instrumentality for saving souls. The gifts and labors of the ministry diversified yet inseparable. One plays into the hands of the other. Preaching must be followed up. Instrumentalities are needed in the spiritual as much as in the temporal husbandry. Their efficient power, however, comes from God. It lies in the word as it lies in the seed. God works through the word on the heart. (1 Corinthians 3:6-7). Be satisfied with planting and watering. Should no crop ripen accept it as God’s will. Let not those more richly endowed and occupying more elevated positions exalt themselves above those holding a lower station. Nor let those below be troubled because they are there. All alike are servants of God (2 Corinthians 12:11) (1 Corinthians 3:8). Ministers labor with God, not as though associating their power with His, but as having His power working in them, (by the grace granted them of God, 1 Corinthians 15:10; 2 Corinthians 3:5 ff.); yet according to the degree of culture enjoyed by each one, and also according to the native talents possessed which the Lord sanctifies (Hedinger). He who wishes to have part in the heavenly paradise, must first consent to form a part of God’s earthly farm, and suffer himself to be ploughed, and sowed, and reaped (1 Corinthians 3:9). As a house is not built in a day, so neither is the Church. It rises gradually (1 Corinthians 3:9). Christ is the foundation, 1. in His Person, as God (Colossians 1:17), and man, (Acts 4:12), and in both his natures; the whole Church (Ephesians 2:20) and each believer is firm only when resting on Christ. Yea, since believers are “lively stones” (1 Peter 2:8) and Christ a living foundation, all the stones must be supposed to derive their life from Him. 2. in doctrine, by means of which we are brought to Him as the sole Life-giver (John 14:6), and by faith are justified, sanctified and glorified. They who would build a church for Christ by insisting only upon a reputable conduct, erect a structure without a foundation. It musty therefore, fall of itself (Ver.13). Better erect no superstructure and stop with the foundation, than to go on piling wood and stubble. Better simplicity in Christ with a little knowledge, than much learning without Christ, and a brain full of the fine spun cobwebs of worldly wisdom (Hedinger) (1 Corinthians 3:11). Fire tests and destroys. By the cross, by persecutions, by death through the judgment it will be shown what is wheat and what chaff, what is a pithy saying and what the dry lifeless conception of some subtle logician or wrangler of the schools (Hedinger) (1 Corinthians 3:13). Heubner:—The Christian Church is a garden; ministers the gardeners. The analogy may be carried out to the full, both as to labor and dependence (1 Corinthians 3:6). God’s Spirit has his times and seasons for operation (1 Corinthians 3:7). Ministers, however various in character and office, have one problem to work out, and therefore should be harmonious. Hereafter all will enjoy the work of all (1 Corinthians 3:8). What an honor to assist the Almighty! God’s part in the work, however, is the chief thing. If He leaves the field—the human heart, waste, it lies eternally waste. But He does work on us. And how faithfully oftentimes on one single soul! Ministers come in as instruments. They work under Him upon the field, which has to be broken up by the ploughshare of the Law, sown with the seed of the Gospel, warmed by the influences of the Holy Spirit, and fructified by the dew and rain of divine grace (1 Corinthians 3:9). An ordeal is coming. Anticipate it. Examine thyself in all that thou thinkest, teachest, preachest. Inquire whether thou art trusting to thyself for vindication at the bar of God (1 Corinthians 3:13). Gossner:—The love we show to ministers should be very different from that we show to Christ, They only proclaim grace; He bestows it. Hence while they are welcomed, He should be beloved. With them it is an honor if they may only preach, but He saves at the cost of His own blood (1 Corinthians 3:5.) God is so gracious that although He is the source of all goodness, yet He rewards His servants as if they had done it all (1 Corinthians 3:14). [F. W. Robertson:—The preaching of Christ means simply the preaching of Christ. Recollect what Paul’s Christianity was—how he sums all up. “That I might know Him and the power of His resurrection,” etc. Settle it in your hearts; Christianity is Christ; understand Him, breathe His Spirit, comprehend His mind. Christianity is a life—a Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:11). There is a distinction between the truth of work and its sincerity. In that day nothing shall stand but what is true; but the sincere worker, even of untrue work, shall be saved. Sincerity shall save him in that day, but it cannot accredit his work (1 Corinthians 3:15). M. Henry:—The ministry is a very useful and a very gracious institution; and faithful ministers are a great blessing to any people; yet the folly and weakness of people may do much mischief by what is in itself a blessing]. [1 Corinthians 3:5. If Paul and Apollos were nothing but servants, and refused the position of party leaders, how much more should this modesty appear in their successors. Who will arrogate the honors in a church which a Paul declines?] [J. Saurin.11–15:—The different methods of preachers. I. The occasion of these words, as shown in the Epistle. II. The design of the Apostle,—to rectify our judgments in regard to three different classes of preachers; a. such as preach the word of man not only different from, but directly opposite to the word of God (1 Corinthians 3:11); b. such as preach the pure word of God free from human admixtures (1 Corinthians 3:12); c. such as indeed make the word of God the ground of their preaching, but mix with it the explications and traditions of men (1 Corinthians 3:12). III. Explain the metaphors, a. Christ, the foundation, b. Gold, silver, and precious stones—doctrines sublime, excellent, demonstrable, c. Wood, hay and stubble—doctrines less considerable, uncertain, unimportant, d. The revelation by fire—the examination and disclosures of the last judgment, not the destruction of Jerusalem, nor the fire of purgatory. IV. Application—in what manner we are to regard the three classes of ministers]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 3:5.—The Rec τίς, instead of which Lach. and Meyer read τί [following A. B. Cod. Sin. and others] is sustained by nearly the same preponderance of authorities as declare for the mention of Apollos first. The received text, which puts Paul first, is to be explained from 1 Corinthians 3:4; 1 Corinthians 3:6. The repetition of ἐστίν is also established by the better authorities. 1 Corinthians 3:5.—Before διάκονοι the Rec. which Tisch., 6th ed., follows, has ἀλλ̓ἤ. This makes the question continue to ἐπιστεν́σατε. But the best authorities are against this reading, and it is therefore rejected by Lach. Tisch. and others. [For the true rendering see the Exegetical comment.] 1 Corinthians 3:10.—The Rec. τέθεικα is retained by Tisch. ed. 6 [also Alf., Words.]. But Lach. following A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.] reads ἔθηκα. 1 Corinthians 3:11.—The Rec. Ἰησον͂ςὁΧριστός is feebly supported. BetterἸησον͂ςΧριστός. Tisch., ed 6, Χριστός̓Ιησον͂ς. 1 Corinthians 3:12.—τοντο͂ν is rejected by Lach. according to A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.] but is retained by Tisch. in accordance with many weighty authorities [so too by Wordsworth, Alford]. 1 Corinthians 3:13.—αν̓τό is inserted after πν͂ρ by Lachmann, Meyer, Tisch. [Alford, Wordsworth, Stanley] according to the beet authorities. [A. B. C. Cod. Sin. Origen, Chry. Eus., etc.] 1 Corinthians 3:14. μενεῖ, future, is better authenticated [Latin version]. Received μένει [see note]. VI—THE RUPTURE OF THE CHURCH BY PARTY SPIRIT HEAVY . THE OF OUR OWN WISDOM THE OF TRUE WISDOM. THE LOFTY TITLE OF TO ALL THE AND MEANS OF 1 Corinthians 3:16-2316 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, [God’s temple] and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17If any man defile [destroy] the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are [of which sort are ye]. 18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be [become] wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness 20with God: for it is written, He [that] taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21Therefore let no man glory in men: for all things are yours; 22Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are [om. are] yours; 23And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s. AND [“He passes to another argument against the sin of ranging themselves in opposite factions under human leaders, particularly such as corrupt the essential purity and fundamental soundness of the spiritual fabric of the Church.” Words.]. 1 Corinthians 3:16. Know ye not that ye are God’s temple?—It will hardly do to connect these words directly with the preceding—if for no other reason than simply because the threat of destruction made in the following verse stands in direct contradiction to the promise of salvation there held forth, showing that Paul has a new case in mind. [Olshausen, however, regards the Apostle as simply intensifying and carrying out still further his previous figure. The edifice is now spoken of as God’s temple, and the guilt of desecrating or injuring the building by introducing incoherent materials into its structure is enhanced in proportion. And still further, the taught as well as the teachers are also here brought into view. So substantially Hodge, Alf., Stanley; Calvin says more correctly: “Having admonished the teachers as to their duty, he now addresses himself to the pupils”]. Οὐκοἴδατε: know ye not? This phrase is not to be confounded with ἤοὐκοἴδατε: or know ye not?—and it might very well serve to introduce a new turn of thought, indirectly suggested by what precedes. Thus far, Paul has contemplated the Church as a building belonging to God, and has exhibited the great responsibility attendant on the work of erecting it, after the only proper foundation has been laid. Now he describes its sacred character more fully by likening it to a temple inhabited by God’s Spirit, the violation of which incurs condign punishment. By the question: Know ye not? he appeals directly to the consciousness of Christians and intimates to his readers that in that spirit of partisanship which they cherished and which was so destructive to the integrity of the Church, there was a strange and criminal obscuration of true Christian feeling, inasmuch as they were conducting themselves just as if they possessed it not, and knew not what belonged to their profession. In the objective clause the emphasis lies on temple (ναός), marking an advance upon the more indefinite term, building, used before. ναός, according to its derivation, (ναίω) means indeed a building in general. But the Greeks used the word only to denote the dwellings of gods, and especially that room where the image stood. [“ναὸς is more holy than ἱερόν.” Words.]. Here it denotes the spiritual sanctuary, the place where the true God reveals His presence, and bestows blessings, and is worshipped, forming one complete whole, and consisting of all such as carry in themselves the Spirit of God. This appears from the explanatory clause following—and (km explicative) that the Spirit of God dwells in you.—Hence Christians are called “a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:5), also “a habitation of God through the Spirit” (Ephesians 2:22); comp. also 2 Corinthians 6:16 ff.; Romans 8:9; Romans 8:11; 2 Timothy 1:14; Ezekiel 37:27, etc. οἰκεῖν, to reside permanently (comp. John 14:23.) The words ἐνὐμῖν, in you (not, ‘among you’), refers, like the statement: ‘ye are the temple,’ to the Church, or to individual believers, not, however in their separate capacity, but in their organic connection. Here the law of all organization obtains, that every organ is a complete whole in itself. As Christendom unitedly is a “temple of God,” so is also every Christian congregation and every individual Christian. But as the whole is to be understood and apprehended only in its parts, so are the parts to be understood only as connected in the whole. The translation: ‘the temple of God’ is by no means needed for the Bake of setting aside the idea of a plurality of temples. We can employ the rendering: ‘a temple of God,’ simply as signifying the kind of building implied. [Meyer on the contrary more justly says: “ναὸςθεου is the temple of God, not a temple, for Paul does not conceive of the various churches as various temples of God, which would be inconsistent with the Jew’s conception of God’s temple; but of each Christian church as in a mystic sense the temple of Jehovah. So there are not many temples, but one only, and many churches, each one of which is ideally the same temple of God.” So Stanley and Alford]. 1 Corinthians 3:17. If any one destroy the temple of God, him will God destroy.—This is the first clause in an inference which rests upon the undoubted recognition of the inviolability of the temple of God, as maintained also in the Jewish Scriptures. All injuring, or desecrating, or even disturbing the sanctuary of God’s manifested presence, was deemed a sacrilege, which incurred the Divine vengeance. This is strongly indicated by the immediate succession of the same word in the two forms, φθείρει and φθερεῖ. “If any the temple of God destroyeth, destroy him shall God.” See a like case in Revelation 22:18. The punishment here implied as related to the old temple was that of temporal death. Used, however, in relation to the spiritual temple, the word, in the first instance, signifies the rupturing of the Church by violent partisanship, which must finally end in its entire dissolution; and in the second instance, as indicating the consequent punishment, it denotes exclusion from salvation (απώλεια), [Stanley says that “φθείρειν, in the LXX. and in the New Testament, seems to have lost the sense of ‘defile,’ and merely to retain that of ‘mar’ or ‘destroy.’ ” And so Hodge, who says “the passage may be rendered ‘If any man injure the temple of God, him will God injure.’ “Olshausen goes still further: “The connection shows that the word cannot be understood of absolute destruction. Probably the Apostle chose the strong word only on account of its having been used just before for the purpose of intimating that God would requite like with like.” But such modification of its plain meaning is certainly contrary to the parallel which the Apostle introduces. The violater of the sanctuary of the ancient temple was unquestionably punished with death. And to preserve the analogy, we ought to maintain the word φθείρειν in its original signification]. Next follows the proof with the application of the penal principle just stated to the case in hand.—For the temple of God is holy.—It lies in the very idea of a temple that it is holy and inviolable, and that therefore all injury done to it is a crime.—And of this sort are ye—οἵτινέςἐστεὐμεῖςὅστίς refers to the object generally as one of a class, and not definitely, thus serving to render a proposition general; here it means: of which sort, viz., “holy.” The antecedent here is not “temple,” but the adjective “holy.” That they were the temple of God he had already asserted in 1 Corinthians 3:16. “Recurring to 1 Corinthians 1:1 he hereby awakens a feeling of reverence and a holy communion of Spirit in opposition to that unworthy servility engendered by a divisive regard for human authorities.” Osiander. [“Meyer well remarks that this clause is the minor proposition of a syllogism: Whoever mars the temple of God, him will God destroy, because His temple is holy: but ye are are also holy as His spiritual temple: therefore whoever mars you shall be destroyed by God.” Alford]. 1 Corinthians 3:18. The Apostle now proceeds to point out the real source of the mischief he rebukes. The rupture of the unity of the Church by a party spirit, sprang from a pride of knowledge, and a vain conceit of that wisdom which belonged to and this world, and not to God’s kingdom. This was especially the case with the party of Apollos, which the Apostle seems chiefly to have in his eye, throughout this chapter. As it took pride in Apollos, because of his dialectic and rhetorical skill and learning, and clung to these qualities in him, so also did it seek to imitate his manner, and signalized itself for laying a great stress upon secular wisdom, and for no little conceit in that respect. This tendency Paul denounces as unfounded in truth, and unsuited to such as strive for the kingdom of God. In his view it involves a self-deception, more or less gross, against which he felt constrained to warn them.—Let no one deceive himself.—The deception here consisted in a person’s imagining himself to possess a profound insight into the truth and ways of God, when in fact he was utterly devoid of it, yea, was involved in entire misapprehension and gross blindness in reference to it. Such delusion passes away only when all conceit of wisdom is given up, and a person is willing to be regarded a fool, or consents to renounce all secular wisdom in the exercise of that simple faith which he before had regarded as folly, and which passes for folly with the world. And this is what the Apostle requires when he says:—If any one thinketh to be wise among you in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise.—Δοκεῖν may mean either: to think, or to appear; hence the clause may here be translated, “if any one passes for a wise man, either in his own estimation,” or “in others’ estimation.” The former rendering is best sustained by what has been said before. Hence the exhoration, “let him become a fool,” must be understood as relating to his own, and not to others’ judgment, and in such a way that either the words παῤἑαυτῷ, in his own esteem, shall besupplied; or that the person be regarded as passing over to a standpoint, which had until then appeared to him and to others like-minded as folly. The latter sense best suits the word. [And here it must be borne in mind that this renunciation of our own wisdom, or of the world’s wisdom, is required because all such wisdom is one only in appearance, and not in reality. It is its intrinsic worthlessness that renders it discreditable]. The phrase “in this world,” lit. “in this age,” is not to be united with the clause following, [as Origen, Chrysostom, Luther, Rosenmuller] as though it meant, “let him become a fool in this world;” the order of the words forbids this. But it belongs to ‘wise,’ as designating the sphere where this wisdom prevails; q. d. ‘wise in this world’ (comp. 1 Corinthians 3:19). [Alf. following Meyer says: “it belongs not simply to ‘wise,’ but to the whole clause going before; to the whole assumption of wisdom made by the man, which as made in this present world, must be false; “for,” adds Meyer, “those very persons who thought to become eminent among Christians through their wisdom in this premessianic period, when the knowledge of Divine things is yet in its infancy, and exceedingly limited, were not really wise, but were ensnared by their own self-decit.” Such a limitation, however, of the meaning of the word αἰων, age, here is very questionable. It is plain from the following verse, that “this age” is to be interpreted not temporally, but qualitatively, as synonymous with “this world” (κόσμος)]. Ἐνὑμῖν, among you, designates the sphere in which the person supposed hopes to shine by his wisdom. 1 Corinthians 3:19-20. Sustain the previous exhortation, and shows that in becoming a fool a person but coincides with God’s judgment—For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God—As such, therefore, it deserves to be cast aside. “Wisdom of this world” (κόσμος), comp. 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 2:6. “It is a wisdom ruled by the spirit of this world that oversteps its proper bounds, seeks to satisfy itself about divine and human things, is tainted with error, and therefore stands in direct opposition alike to the highest reason, and to God, and to great objects for which the world and man were created (μωρία).” Osiander. [παρὰτῷθεῷ ?—παρά is used with the Dative “to express standing before a person as a judge, and submitting to his decision or sentence.” Hence the expression ‘before God’ carries a deeper meaning than simply ‘in his sight.’ God has passed upon it and condemned it.]—The proof of this.—For it is written, “He taking the wise in their own craftiness.”—This passage is cited from Job 5:13, and is a part of the speech of Eliphas. It accords with the original text, and agrees in sense with the Septuagint. [The phraseology of the latter, however, is changed for stronger terms, δρασσόμενος, catching for καταλαμβάνων, taking and πανουργίᾳ, craftiness for φρονήσει, prudence]. The sentence is incomplete, since Paul quotes only the words suited to his purpose, omitting those on which these grammatically depend. Hence they need no supplement. Human wisdom, art, cunning are here stated to be incapable of standing before the wisdom of God, since God catches those who rely on these aids, in their own craftiness, and the very excellencies on which they pride themselves, are turned into a snare through which they are entrapped. By thus causing them to be destroyed by their own devices, God shows them up to be nothing less than the veriest fools. This citation, the only one in the New Testament, taken from the book of Job, like much which Eliphas spoke, belongs to that wisdom which uttereth her voice in the streets, and is marked as here with the stamp of Divine truth.—And again.—‘The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain.’—This second passage, taken from Psalms 94:11, was originally directed against those proud contemners of God, who acted as if there were no God above, observing and noting down all their unrighteous deeds. In accordance with the object he has in view, Paul here employs the word “the wise,” instead of “men,” as it stands both in the original Heb. and in the Sept. But this is no arbitrary alteration, since the whole Psalm treats of those vain sophists, who pride themselves on their perverse and groundless notions respecting God. Διαλογισμοί in Hellenic speech, was used to denote all those capricious reasonings and reflections which either opposed Divine truth or tended to render it doubtful, comp. Romans 1:21; Ephesians 4:17. Μάταιοι, groundless, void of truth, therefore, counter to wisdom, and belonging to folly. Whether this word in the original belongs to the wise themselves, or to their reasonings, is questionable. The essential meaning is the same in either case. [“It appears from these two verses thus placed in juxtaposition, that St. Paul followed the LXX., but uses his own discretion in doing so, and sometimes substitutes for it a translation approaching more nearly the original.” Words.]. 1 Corinthians 3:21-23. From all this a warning is derived.—So then—ὥστε.—[“This word is used by St. Paul to introduce the summing up and conclusion of his argument here and elsewhere in this Epistle, 1 Corinthians 3:7; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 8:33; 1 Corinthians 11:33; 1 Corinthians 14:39; 1 Corinthians 15:58.”—Words.] It serves even in classical writers to introduce an imperative clause when this follows upon another which contains the reason why such command is given. (Comp. Passow, ii. 2.) [Also Winer, N. T., Gr. Pt. 1 Corinthians 3:5, note 1; also Jelf. Gr. Gram. , § 867, 1].—Let no one glory in men.—That is, so far as they set up for themselves, and rely on their natural powers—not as possessed of spiritual gifts and because of such. In the latter case the boasting would be in the Lord. The caution is addressed to those who are inclined to make much of men in consequence of their education or supposed wisdom, cleaving to them in partisan attachment, and disparaging other servants of Christ in comparison, to the overlooking of the unity of the Church. Such persons are guilty of putting the highest value on what is merely a natural advantage. And all such should be avoided by reflecting, that the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For this there was an additional reason:—For all things are yours.—Here he exhibits to us the dignity of Christians, [in contrast with the World and its folly], as persons who, by virtue of their union with Christ and, through Him, with God, are precluded from dependence on men, and have a direct claim on every thing Which belongs to God and Christ, so that all things serve their advantage and promote their exalted destiny (Romans 8:28)—even as all things are compelled to serve Christ (Matthew 21:3; Matthew 27:60; Matthew 11:27). As Neander well says: “The sovereignty over the world was indeed conferred on man in his original estate. But this, being lost through sin, was restored again by redemption. The spirit which is bestowed on Christians, carries in itself a principle which every thing must eventually obey, and which will subjugate the world ever more and more, until at last the promise, that ‘the meek shall inherit the earth,’ is fulfilled, and the world has become the theatre of the Divine kingdom.” From the drift of the passage we may see the utter groundlessness of Billroth’s view, who supposes the warning here to be addressed to teachers, cautioning them against boasting on account of their partisans. In such a case, we should be obliged to interpret ‘yours’ of the teachers, which would be impossible. It is to the Church in general that Paul is here speaking. Instead of glorying with a one-sided partiality, in the fact that, this or that person belonged to them as their master, he would have them maintain a blessed consciousness of the privilege, that all things and persons belonged to them alike. What in particular these things were, he goes on to specify, beginning with the teachers whom they had made the occasion of their strifes.—Whether Paul, or Apollos or Cephas.—(Comp. 2 Corinthians 4:5.) Each one of these they were all to turn to their own advantage, instead of adhering to any one exclusively. Here he could not add, “or Christ,” for this would be to reduce Christ to the same footing with his servants. The Christ-party do not come into view here, and could hot, “since their relation to the Apostles was only a negative one “(comp. on 1 Corinthians 1:12).—or the world.—“This leap from Peter to the whole world gives a sudden breadth to the discourse, as if he were borne on with a sort of impatience to set forth his theme in its fullest scope.”—Bengel. Comp. Romans 8:38. There is here neither a climax, as if he were proceeding upward from the lowest point, nor an argument from the less to the greater, [as Calvin, when he says: “If Christ has subjected to you also the world and life and death, how much more men, so that they should serve rather than rule you?”] Nor is the term ‘world’ to be understood as denoting: ‘the university of the learned;’ nor yet: ‘the knowledge of all natural things’ wherein the learned boast; nor: ‘unbelieving teachers as contrasted with the aforementioned believing ones;’ nor: ‘all the rest of mankind.’ But the word is to be taken in its most comprehensive sense; Christians, who are the destined “heirs of the world” (Rom. 4:38), have even now a claim upon the world. It belongs to them. It must serve them. Yet in order not to make the term synonymous with the expression: “all things” (1 Corinthians 3:21) we shall have to limit it (with Osiander) to mean the visible world, with a special reference to mankind dwelling in it. [“The present order of things,” says Hodge, “is maintained and directed to the promotion of the great work of redemption.” And Barnes well expands the thought, ‘the world is yours,’ under four particulars: (1) The world was made by the common Father, and all His children have an interest in it as His work. (2) The frame of the universe is sustained and upheld for their sake. (3) The course of providential events is ordered for their welfare. (4) They have the promise of as much of this world as is needful for them (Matthew 6:33; Mark 10:29-30; 1 Timothy 4:8)]. With this view the following members of the sentence best accord.—There we have indicated the most momentous states and changes belonging to this visible sphere.—or life, or death.—The former expresses the fullest exercise of all our vital energies in all its varied influence and bearings; the latter denotes the entire suppression of this activity. And both these must promote the advantage of believers and help onward their salvation. [“They are dispensed and administered so as best to fulfil the designs of God in reference to the Church. The greatest men of the world, kings, statesmen and heroes, ministers, individual believers and unbelievers, live and die just as best subserves the interest of Christ’s kingdom.”—Hodge. “ ‘Life is yours’: (1) Because believers enjoy it. It is a real life, not vain show. (2) Because its various events tend to promote their welfare and work together for their good.” “ ‘Death is yours’: (1) Because believers have peace and support in their dying hour. (2) Because it is the avenue which leads to their rest. (3) Because they should triumph over it, in that it will be swallowed up in the glory of a higher life, releasing us from what is mortal to put on immortality.”—Barnes.]—Or things present or things to come.—These terms alike refer to the present life, and include all its vicissitudes from the passing moment onward, whether joyful or sorrowful.—All are yours.—A summing up and emphatic reassertion of what he opened with. And from this he passes on to state the ground on which Christians possess such wealth; But ye are Christ’s.—[“Here the category changes; Christ is not yours in the sense in which ‘all things’ are—not made for and subserving you—but (δέ) you are His.”—Alford]. It is this fact which gives to believers their royal power over all creaturely existences. By partaking in Christ’s redemption, they once more attain unto a dignity which originally belonged to man (Genesis 1:26; Psalms 8:6) and which is promised God’s people (Exodus 19:6). And this is a dignity far transcending all that ever was surmised by Pagans or is expressed in their most famous sayings—such as: ‘the wise alone are kings—are rich—are free, “The analogousness of such language to that of the New Testament indicates the remaining traces of the nobility of human nature; but without Gospel redemption the dignity of man thus set forth would be wholly unrealized. Antiquity planted itself upon self-exaltation, Christianity on self-humiliation.”—Neander. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 2:15; 1 John 5:1; Revelation 3:21; 1 Peter 2:9). By belonging to Christ, the Church and all its true members become partakers of his glory as the One to whom all things have been given by the Father. In their fellowship with Him—a fellowship involving entire dependence on their park—they are made independent of all else, and all else stands at their service. By the fact expressed in: “ye are Christ’s,” all partizanship is cut off, all generic differences are dissolved, and a proper relation to all teachers established. Meyer says finely that the active relation of possession mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3:22 (‘all things are yours’) and the passive relation of being possessed here brought out (‘ye are Christ’s’) are both alike opposed to the disorders arising from subservience to human authorities. We may, perhaps, detect here a slight intimation intended for the Christ party, that in their partisan appeal to Christ there was an ignoring of that connection which all alike sustained to Him, and a disparaging levelling of their Lord to an equality with human leaders.—But Christ is God’s.—[“And even being Christ’s does not reach the highest possession: He possesses you not for Himself, but (δέ, again) the head of Christ is God,” (1 Corinthians 11:3).—Alford.] Thus it is shown that by belonging to Christ we indirectly belong to God, and are planted upon an immovable basis of independence and power (comp. John 10:28-30). And so, on the one hand, we see our union to God to be mediated by Christ, and, on the other, that Christ is subordinated to the Father, as shown in 1 Corinthians 11:3. To consider this subordination however as belonging solely to His human nature, would not accord with a correct view of the whole subject. It is the whole Christ that is here spoken of, and that too not simply as in His state of humiliation, but also in His state of glory (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:28; Philippians 2:9). In His essential equality with God, He is at the same time subordinated to God (comp. John 5:23-26; John 14:28; John 17:8). [“There is,” says Alford, “a striking similarity in the argument in this last verse to that in our Lord’s prohibition, Matthew 23:8-10, ‘But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ; and call no man your father upon earth, for one is your Father, who is in heaven.’ ”]. “This last clause gives to the whole course of thought a most exalted close, and to the argument presented its strongest and noblest foundation, and rounds off the whole paragraph by a most fitting allusion to the idea of the one holy temple of God with which it opened (1 Corinthians 3:16, comp. 1 Corinthians 3:9), in order to show Christians that by virtue of their union to God through Christ they are really taught of God.”—Osiander. AND ETHICAL1. The sacredness and inviolability of the Church. It is God’s temple. If so, then it is the place of His gracious presence—His sanctuary, to be treated with tender reverence and awe. To introduce strange fire (Leviticus 10:1-2) into it is a sacrilege which incurs the heaviest judgment, even an exclusion from the communion of saints. Of this crime they are guilty who bring into the Church some other authority than that of God’s word, and pin their faith to something else than that which God has given, and prize another wisdom beside that which is in Christ. By such conduct the Church is desecrated, and robbed of its true character as the temple of God. In fact it is as such destroyed. And this occurs whenever party spirit prevails. In such a case man’s word and wisdom usurp the place of God’s word and wisdom. Then adhesion to some particular human leader is made a test of Christianity and a condition of brotherhood. Then Christ, “who of God is made unto us wisdom,” etc., (1 Corinthians 1:30), is crowded out of His supremacy. In place of this one holy image of God, the only proper pattern for believers, there comes in the idol of some human personality to be copied as the true standard of character, and this not for the sake of any resemblance it may bear to Christ, but for the sake of some natural peculiarities it may happen to possess. Instead of the flame of a holy love kindled by the Spirit and warming toward all, there burns the Are of human partialities, which begets alienation and hostility towards all who do not cherish like preferences; and when such are the results of party spirit, it must be seen that he who engenders or furthers this spirit mars the work of God, and desecrates His sanctuary. And can such a person hope to escape condign punishment from Him who is thus insulted in His own temple? 2. The Christian’s regal glory in its nature and grounds. “All things are yours and ye are Christ’s, and Christ’s is God’s.” Since God is love itself, He keeps nothing for Himself, but imparts to others all—yea, His very Being in the fulness of its perfections and blessedness. This He does in an original and eternal way within the sphere of the Godhead, to his only-begotten Son, who, by virtue of this communication, is, has, and can do every thing the same as the Father. He does it also in an indirect manner towards all creatures made in His image, according to their measure. Hence the appointment of man to lordship in his own province. [This lordship he indeed lost by reason of sin, and became the slave of the circumstances which he ought to have ruled. But in the work of redemption it has been restored to him through the interposition of this Son, who became the second Adam, and, in His assumed humanity, reestablished this supremacy for all who should believe on Him. “Fear not,” He says to His own, “for I have overcome the world.” Hence it is] in Christ that we see this appointment to Lordship actually fulfilled; and how it was fulfilled may be seen, both during His life of humiliation, when He controlled all things by the word of His power, and in His exaltation to universal power and authority at the right hand of God. In this power believers are now invited to share by union with Him. Through Him the whole creation stands subject to their disposal. Every thing He has is made to subserve the purposes of His love in them and promote their sanctification and glory. But since now, for a period, their life is, to a certain degree, hid with Christ in God, so also is their power. Nevertheless this power is to be experienced even here in striking ways, and ever more and more through the prevalence of their prayers. And the terms on which they receive it show the ground on which it rests, viz.: the fellowship had with Christ, and through Him with God. Prevailing prayers are such as are offered in the name of Christ or according to the will of God (John 14:13 f.;John 17:23; 1 John 2:14), or as are presented in faith (Matthew 17:20). In them there is an identifying of ourselves with God through Christ, so that all private preferences are given up, and we keep ourselves in exclusive dependence on Him. Besides, as in Christ Himself there was manifested this same demeanor towards the Father; as He, the Divinely equal Son, kept Himself in perfect dependence on God, and determined to be nothing else but the revealer and executor of the Father’s will; as He, the first man, was obliged to qualify Himself for the exercise of Divine power in the way of obedience,—just so it is with believers. Their voluntary and complete dependence on Christ and through Him on God is the condition and source of their all embracing power. The fact that they belong to Him is the ground that all things belong to them. [3. All sound title and right to use the creatures of God, together with the ability to use them to advantage, are conditioned on faith in Christ. He, having by His obedience recovered for man his lost sovereignty, makes those who believe on Him joint heirs with Him to this inheritance. And He also imparts to them that purity by which all things are pure to them. Hence to them every creature of God is good, when received with thanksgiving and sanctified with the word of God and prayer. And in the ordering of His providence all things are made to work together for their good. Not so is it with the wicked. A kind of natural right to possession and use they may indeed have in the present condition of things; but—it is under God’s toleration and only for a time. If they continue unbelieving to the last, they are finally despoiled of all. While even in this life the good they seem to have is no real good, and “nothing is pure, since even their very mind and conscience is defiled.” This is what Origen seems to teach. “All things belong to the saint. The whole world is the possession of faith. But the unbeliever has no claim to even an obolus; for the goods which he has he holds as a robber, since he knows neither how to use them nor yet the God that made them.” (Taken in substance from Wordsworth)]. 4. [Christ is God’s. On the subordination of Christ to the Father, see on 1 Corinthians 8:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:3]. AND Starke:—To be “the temple of God,” inhabited by the Holy Spirit, is the highest dignity of Christians. It ennobles the humblest to a greatness that far surpasses all secular honor and glory. The Spirit dwells in us: 1, through faith in Christ; 2, through peace with God; 3, through hope; 4, through love; 5, through special gifts and powers; 6, through comfort, cheer, patience, joy in the cross; 7, through true life in the soul, continuing even when it passes out of the body; which itself also partakes of this life, whether it be in this or in the future state, (Selnecker) 1 Corinthians 3:16.—How fearful the woe which awaits those who mislead and destroy souls, either by false doctrines or by an ungodly life (1 Corinthians 3:17).—“Let him become a fool.” What a paradox! A fool first—then wise! The world seeks to be wise and then becomes foolish. But what is this “becoming a fool?” Not the losing of our understanding and will, [but the confession of ignorance, the avowal of our knowing nothing, that we may be willing to be taught, so as truly to know every thing] (1 Corinthians 3:18).—God sometimes lets “the wise” run their course, accumulate their knowledge, construct their cunning systems, so as at last to be caught as in a snare by their own devices, and be the more thoroughly convinced of their folly. [Few are so profoundly sensible of the incompetency of the human intellect and the meagreness of human attainments as those who have most profoundly and honestly explored and discussed the great problems of nature, humanity and God] (1 Corinthians 3:19). The Church is not for the teachers, that it should be subject to them and called by their names; but they are for it, to serve its welfare and build it up. Hence no man or set of men has power over Christians to prescribe laws for them and bind their consciences. Let no one therefore choose a mere man for his guiding star unconditionally, or follow his lead blindly; much less should any one count himself blessed in having adopted this one rather than that as the controller of his life and conscience. Nor yet let him provoke dissensions and divide the Church by asserting his partialities to an undue extent (1 Corinthians 3:21).—“All things are yours”—[all true Christian teachers of every name, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or Calvin, or Wesley, or Leighton, or Fuller. Every faithful minister profits the whole Church; and every member of the Church may and ought to derive benefit from the teachings of all. It is thus the mind is expanded beyond party limits into a true Catholicity]. And “this world,”—sun, air, water, fire, earth, all stand at your service, and ye can use them and praise the Creator for them. Your natural “life,” too, preserved by this world’s goods, [is, while preserved, for your advantage, even though it may be passed amid pains, and privations, and disabilities, that seem worse thin death]. Finally, “death” is yours, as it opens an entrance into eternal blessedness and glory (1 Corinthians 3:22).—‘Ye are Christ’s.’ He has bought you with His blood, and is your proper Lord and Master. He is the Head—you, the members. Hence cleave to Him only. Be called after him only. “Christ is God’s,” as the appointed Mediator and Ambassador of God to men. Likewise, as Head of the Church, He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, and acted ever in the Father’s service and to His glory (1 Corinthians 3:23). Heubner:—The indwelling of the Spirit is opposed to all party strife. Hence in moments of holy inspiration, [in times of religious awakening], sectarianism melts, [and the hearts of believers of every name flow together], 1 Corinthians 3:16.—The conceit of our own unimpeachable wisdom is self-deceit or self-betrayal (1 Corinthians 3:18).—The wisdom which would know nothing of God and would discard a Saviour, will be finally exposed by God in all its nakedness, and all its aims baffled and punished (1 Corinthians 3:19).—To be proud of our own denomination or of our own leaders is nothing but a concealed self-love, which seeks to shine in the glory of another. And this is derogatory to the Christian name, for the believer is servant to no man (1 Corinthians 3:21).—Since all things are ours through Christ, all things should conduct the Christian to Christ. [Failing in this, their use and enjoyment become so far prejudicial and unlawful. They are then not properly “ours”]. (1 Corinthians 3:22).—“Ye are Christ’s,” then ye should serve Him, even as He, the image of God, served God in all things and conducted all to God (1 Corinthians 3:23.) W. F. Besser: 1 Corinthians 3:18. “Be not deceived.” Self-deception is an injurious thing; it renders much labor useless, and despoils us of our reward. But worst of all is that self-betrayal which hardens the heart against brotherly admonition.—“Let him become a fool.” Such is the power and wonder working of God’s word, that it moves me to become an enemy to myself; and to empty myself of all that which best pleases my flesh; and to become a fool in this world, to give up the reputation of being a sagacious man, who moves on with the party of progress, and stands upon the apex of the civilization of the time; and so to pass into obscurity and contempt.—(1 Corinthians 3:19). God weaves a snare for the wise out of their own craftiness, wherein he catches them while they think to slip from Him by their arts: e. g., explaining away His miracles through their rationalism.—(1 Corinthians 3:21). The building here does not belong to the builders but the builders to the building. 1 Corinthians 3:22 as compared with 1 Corinthians 1:12. Christ does not stand in the second rank with His servants. He is the Lord of Glory. The declaration “all is yours” promises the world to Christians preλminently in this sense, that all secular art and service help to furnish mortar for building the temple of God. Christians are called not to curse the world, but to overcome and rule it for God. The world is nothing but a scaffolding that will be broken up when it has served its end in assisting to construct God’s house. But this house, which is destined to be eternal, are we.—All this world’s wisdom is folly with God, if it insists in playing the mistress in His house; but if it act the part of handmaid, it is in its place.—(1 Corinthians 3:23). Though Christ may employ His servants for bringing all those who have been purchased by His blood to become His by faith; still the saints thus called hang upon Christ, independently of any man, just as needles are drawn and held by the power of the magnet, even though some other needle, which had been first attracted, should sustain them by virtue of the magnetic power streaming through it. [Barnes: 1 Corinthians 3:20. “Words of the wise, vain.” This admonition especially applicable to ministers. They are in peculiar danger on this subject, and it has been by their yielding themselves so much to the power of speculative philosophy that parties have been formed in the Church, and that the Gospel has been so much corrupted]. [J. Barrow: 1 Corinthians 3:16. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost. I. His nature and original—the Spirit of God. II. His personality—He dwelleth in us. III. His Divinity—Christians are called the temple of God because He dwelleth in them. IV. His sanctifying virtue—in that he constitutes us temples by His presence in us. Application. 1. We are obliged to render all adoration to the majesty of the Divine Spirit. 2. The consideration of His presence and work should awaken devoutest gratitude. 3. We should desire and pray for God’s Spirit. 4. We should demean ourselves worthily toward the Spirit. 5. The doctrine full of comfort and encouragement.—J. Howe: 1 Corinthians 3:16. The Christian a living temple, I. built, and II. inhabited, by the Holy Ghost.—See this whole subject largely discussed in Howe’s works, pp. 77–113.—R. South: 1 Corinthians 3:19. Worldly wisdom. I. Principles: a. Dissimulation in concealment or false pretences; b. Self-interest as opposed to conscience or religion; c. Self, the chief end; d. All its beneficence and gratitude are practiced with an eye to advantage. II. The folly and absurdity of these principles: a. The end pitched upon not suited to man’s condition, either as to duration or rational nature; b. The means pitched upon are unsuited to his end, inasmuch as they are insufficient and often contrary to it]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 3:16.—[“God’s” should stand first as in the Gr. to mark the emphasis]. 1 Corinthians 3:17.—Τοῦτον. Lach., Tisch., and others read αν̓τόν according to many and in part weighty authorities [A. D. F. Syr.]. Meyer: τοῦτον, because after εἴτις in the protasis αὐτόν is most usually employed, and it was corrected to this as more usual.” [So Alf., Words., and others following B. C. L. Cod. Sin.]. 1 Corinthians 3:18.—[The proper order is, “If any one thinketh to be wise among you in this world.” See exegesis]. 1 Corinthians 3:17.—ἐστιν is to be omitted according to preponderant authorities [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.]. Hodge prefers the rendering of the E. V. which follows that of all the previous English versions, as well as the Syriac, Vulgate and Lather’s. And this rendering is sustained by Jelf. Gr. Gram. § 816. 7, § 821. 3. The plural in οἵτινες is to be explained on the principle of attraction.] VII.—THE TRUE FOR . THEIR WORTH TO BE MADE KNOWN IN DUE TIME. OUR TO BE TILL THEN 1 Corinthians 4:1-51 Let a man so [So let a man] account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards 2of the mysteries of God. Moreover [Here ὤ ?Deuteronomy 1] it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of [by] you, or of [by] man’s judgment [lit. day]: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4For I know nothing by [against] myself; yet am I not hereby [not by this am I] justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man [each one] have [from ἀτιὸ ?] praise of [his ὁ ?] God. AND 1 Corinthians 4:1. [Having thus exhibited the regal title of Christians to all things, to the benefits to be derived from all Christian ministers, and from all objects and events in this world, he now turns to present, as a corollary from this, the view which they ought to take of ministers, and the manner in which they are to treat them; and thus, as it were, to remind them of certain limitations in the prerogatives of those whom they were disposed unduly to honor].—So let a man account of us.—οὕτως, so. This does not serve to connect the following with what precedes, as Meyer (3d Ed., but not 2d Ed.) supposes, rendering it: so then, or, accordingly. No such connection is here implied. Rather Paul here intends to hold up the proper mode of estimating teachers in contrast with that “boasting” in them reprobated in 1 Corinthians 3:21; and the “so” here refers to what follows.—“So as servants ‘of Christ.’—not as leaders taking His place. Ἠμᾶς, us, primarily or chiefly, Paul and Apollos, as 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Corinthians 3:4, show. Λογίζέσθαι, to bring to account, to reckon, to estimate, as in Romans 8:36 (ηָ ?ωַ ?α). “It implies the formation of a sound, well-weighed estimate, as contrasted with the partisan judgments which the Corinthians formed respecting their teachers.” Osiander. Ἄνθρωπος =not, every man, but, man generally, according to the Hellenic and Hebrew usage. Ὑπηρέτας as διάκονοι, 1 Corinthians 3:5. The word properly denotes a servant of subordinate rank, an understrapper. In patristic parlance it was used of sub-deacons. The New Testament employs it for helpers and attendants. Luke 4:20; Acts 13:5. The verb from which it comes, occurs in Acts 26:16, to signify David’s working for the fulfilment of God’s purposes. In the text the word carries the idea of one laboring for the cause of Christ. To adopt its fundamental meaning, that of a rower [as Valck.: “Christ is Pilot of the vessel of the Church, we are rowers under His command.” Words.], would be just as appropriate as to render it: adjutants or orderlies, according to the precedent in Xenophon. If not precisely equivalent to “deacon, ” yet it certainly is brought in here to indicate a very subordinate position under Christ, in contrast with the leadership ascribed by the Corinthian partisans. Nevertheless the idea of honor is not excluded, since this comes from being connected with Christ, whose work is performed. The dignity of the office is, however, more prominently exhibited in the second designation—and stewards of the mysteries of God—οἱκονόμουςμυστηρίωνθεοῦ. Romans 16:23; 1 Peter 4:10. The article is not prefixed, because the word stands qualitively, to indicate that what has been entrusted to their charge is something very important and weighty. And by these “mysteries” we are not to understand the sacraments, thereby following patristic usage. [In which case Paul could hardly have been a steward, for he was sent not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel]. Rather they are “the mystery of God” in its manifold variety and fulness; or as Luke 8:10 : “the mysteries of the kingdom of God;” in other words, the revelations of God, as matters which could be known only by Divine communication. [Such is the meaning of the word “mystery” in the New Testament—not, as in common parlance: something uncomprehensible; but: something which, being beyond the reach of man’s intelligence, has been made known to him in some special Divine way]. The “stewardship” consists in [preserving and administering the truth revealed through] preaching and teaching,—no less in properly didactic instruction than in prophecy. The “steward” belonged among the “servants,” and his business was, not to manage one particular branch of the household economy, but to take the whole in charge. He was therefore put over the rest of the servants. The stress here, however, is not to be laid upon the preλminence enjoyed by the steward, but upon the responsibility accompanying the goods entrusted.” Neander. To suppose that the Apostle used the term “stewards,” with some vague idea of provisions floating before his mind, to which he would liken the truth,—as if the persons thus denominated were regarded by him in the light of family providers, would be rather far fetched, and Luke 12:42 gives no countenance for such a thought in our passage. “Between the father of the household and the stewards, there stood the son, who had from the father a power of control, so that the stewards were in fact his servants likewise.” Meyer. 1 Corinthians 4:2. Here, moreover.—We must first consider what the true reading is here. Res. has ὅδὲλοιπόν. But this is not by any means so well supported as ῶ ?̓δελοιπόν, which is the reading that prevails throughout the codices, versions, and church fathers in equal degree. If it be not the original reading, then it must have come in either by mistake, or by intentional correction, since the phrase ὅδὲλοιπόν nowhere else occurs. But neither case is probable, considering the numerous, and at least partially independent authorities which attest it. The Rec. text, apart from its unusualness, is evidently the easier reading, [and therefore may be the more readily accounted for as an intended emendation]. It would be rendered, but finally; lit. as for what remains: i. e. after setting aside all your unsuitable claims. But ῶ ?̓δε, which occurs nowhere else in Paul, save in Colossians 4:9, though very common in other parts of the New Testament, means, here; i. e., in this connection, or in this matter, where we are treating of the administration of the mysteries of God, comp. Revelation 13:10; Revelation 13:18; Revelation 14:12; Revelation 17:9. [Alf. translates it locally: here, on this earth, “It is,” he says, “emphatic, and points to what follows, that though in the case of stewards inquiry was necessarily made here below, yet he, God’s steward, awaited no such inquiry, ὑπὸἀνθρωπίνηςἡμέρας: by man’s judgment, but one at the coming of the Lord.” Stanley follows Lachmann in connecting ῶ ?̓δε with the previous words, “stewards of the mysteries of God here,’ ” and makes it mean, in this matter (as in the references above given). Wordsworth adheres to the Rec. He considers ῶ ?̓δε as harsh, and accounts for it as arising from the confusion of ο and ω, than which, he says, nothing is more common in the best Mss. Hodge, on the contrary, says it yields good sense]. Λοιπόν might serve for making the transition, like ceterum, moreover, and belong primarily to ῶ ?̓δε. Or it may be joined to “is required,” (which is favored by the order of the words), and so as to imply, that with this consideration the whole matter is wound up; or to express something further in relation to that mentioned in ver.1, which was specially worthy of consideration.—it is required that.—ἵνα has a telic sense, and shows that the purport of the requirement is at the same time its purpose. The investigations in regard to such persons, aims at this, that one be found faithful.—This is why great trusts are reposed in a person, that he might conduct himself in the management of them according to the mind and will of God, who has committed them to Him, for the glory of His name and the welfare of His Church, and not for the legatee’s own benefit (comp. Luke 12:42). Εὑρεθῇ, be found by the result as shown at the time of trial Osiander. Τὶς, according to Meyer, every one [“Faithful,” emphatic. “The great requisite for the office of a steward is fidelity. As a servant he must be faithful to his master. As a disciple, he must be faithful to those under his oversight. He must not neglect to dispense to them their food, nor adulterate it, nor substitute any thing in place of that given to be distributed. So in regard to ministers.” Hodge]. 1 Corinthians 4:3. Having stated the point of view from which alone a proper judgment could be formed in regard to him and his associates, Paul next proceeds to state his own feelings as to the judgment that might be formed of him by men. [Alford adds, “in contrast to the case of the stewards, into whose faithfulness enquiry is made ‘here’ on earth.”] Very naturally the Corinthians would think that a good deal of weight attached to their judgment.—But [δέ indicates a transition to the application of what was said in general to his own particular case] for me it amounts to the very least thing.—εἰςελάχιστόνἐστιν. The εἱς here, according to Greek usage, shows the result to which the thing comes—that I be judged by you.—ἵναἅνακριθῶ. The objective clause in telic form. It certainly is not equivalent to ὅτανἀνακριθῶ: when I am judged; nor perhaps precisely the same as τὸἀνακριθῆναι, to be judged. [“Here and always ἴνα is more or less the conj. of purpose.” Alford]. A weakness of its force in the later Greek is not to be denied; but here the idea of intention or tendency lies in this, that something is about to happen or impends: ‘I am not at all disturbed that I shall be judged by you as to my merits.’ [Stanley, on the other hand, says that “the substitution of ἴνα with the subjunctive for the indicative is in the modern Romaic,” and seems to take it so here]—or by man’s judgment—lit.: ‘by human day. ’ Thisis neither to be taken as a Cilicism nor as a Hebraism. It designates a day of judgment, analogously with the phrase dicem dicere, and here comes in correspondingly with the expression: “day of the Lord.” We are not to understand by it a private decision (“by you”) in contrast with a public one. But it is a generalization of the phrase: ‘by you,’ and by an obvious transition, the day of the act is put for the act itself, and the judgment as a whole for the judges themselves; or as Meyer: the day is personified, and hence ὑπό is used in accordance with ὑφ̓ὑμῶν, by you. There is something of solemnity in this phraseology; nor is it without a slight touch of irony or rebuke at their presumption in being supposed to fix upon a day of trial, and to sit upon a judgment-seat in order to pronounce upon Paul’s merits or demerits. All appearance of haughtiness in this disparagement of other’s opinions is removed by what follows.—Yea, I judge not of mine own self. Lit.: ‘But neither do I judge myself.’ The ἀλλά here is like that in 1 Corinthians 3:2. Before ἐμαυτον we would naturally look for an οὐτός. But this is not necessary. The judgment on himself, which he here disavows, is a final decision as to his own merits, such as he is willing to abide by. [“Paul is here speaking not of the actions of men whether good or bad, but of the eminence of each individual, which ought not to be estimated by men’s humors.” Calvin]. 1 Corinthians 4:4. Instead of the expected antithesis, there follows first a confirmation of what precedes, in the way of a parenthesis.—For I know nothing with myself.—This first clause is concessive, [the force of for, as Winer says, falling upon the subsequent clause]: q. d. ‘For although I know,” etc. So also Meyer, [who says, however, that the force of the proof does not lie in the second clause, so that the first would be only concessive, but in the antithetic relation of both clauses. He yet gives the sense thus]: “The clearness of my conscience as to my official duties is nevertheless (doch) not the ground on which my justification rests.” [The phraseology here is peculiar, but thoroughly idiomatic, both in the Greek (ον̓δένἐμαντῳσύνοιδα) and in our E. V., which almost literally translates it:—“I know nothing by myself.” So also the Latin—nil conscire sibi. All expressions alike mean: I am conscious of no wrong. (See Jelf, Gr. Gram., § 682, 2). The English phrase is to be found in the early writers, and Stanley asserts: ‘it is still a provincial form of speech for the same thought’]. ‘Know nothing,’ i.e., so far as my official conduct is concerned. [“Elsewhere he speaks of himself as the ‘chief of sinners,’ which is perfectly consistent with his saying, that his conscience acquitted himself of failure as a Christian minister.” Hodge.]—Yet not in this am I justified—i.e., before God. It is a question, however, whether this justification is to be understood in the dogmatic sense, [of imputed righteousness], as Meyer, and Billr., and others maintain, or in the legal, ethical sense [as the early fathers, Calvin, Hodge, Alford, and others assert]. If the former, then the meaning is: that since his justification did not depend on the verdict of his own conscience but upon Christ, therefore his conscience could not furnish the ground on which he was to judge himself. If the latter, then the sense would be: that his acquittal of all blame does not rest on the fact that his conscience charged him with no official derelictions; since conscience pronounced only in regard to particular actions and not to the whole moral character as it appears in God’s sight, so that of course a clean conscience could afford no certain basis of estimating the real worth of any person. Of these interpretations the latter is to be preferred, since there is no allusion in the context to the Gospel doctrine of justification by faith.—but he that judgeth me.—[Observe, not: “that justifieth me,” which language would have been the term employed, had Paul here had in mind the matter of his general Christian estate, but: “judgeth” (ἀνακρίνων), i.e., holds an inquest and decides on the merits of the case which may be brought into issue.]—is the Lord.—i.e., Christ, [who looked deeper than conscience; and of course deeper than all outside observers], and who alone could comprehend all the data by which his official conduct was to be estimated. [“This inward allegiance of the conscience is the highest form of worship. The Lord Jesus was to the Apostle the object of all those sentiments and feelings which terminate on God. And He must be so to us, or we are not Christians. What makes a man a Christian is to feel and act towards Christ as God.” Hodge.]. 1 Corinthians 4:5. Practical inference from the foregoing. So then (ὥστε), judge nothing.—μὴτικρίνετε. is not the object of judgment but its contents. It is equivalent to κρίσιντινά. Hence the meaning is: “do not judge any judgment.” The logic may be presented thus: “Since my judgment belongs to the Lord, therefore refrain from all premature decisions respecting me.” Billroth, with less simplicity, says: “Since I do not even judge myself, therefore follow my example, and do not yourselves judge.” He alludes here not to the mutually disparaging censures cast upon each other by the several factions (Billr.), but to the judgment of the Corinthian brotherhood upon himself.—before the time,—which is more fully explained in,—until the Lord shall come.—The time of His advent to judgment—His “appearing,” or “epiphany” (2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:7). The ἕωςἅν is used with the subjunctive ἕλθῃ, because an end to be reached is fixed upon from the standpoint of the present, but the reaching of which (here in respect of time), is still undecided. Or, according to Meyer: “The coming is thereby designated as problematical, and dependent on circumstances; not indeed, as it is doubted; also not, as it is dependent upon subjective determination, but, as it is an object of expectant faith.” [The uncertainty indicated by ἄν is not as to the fact of Christ’s coming, but as to the time when He shall come: q. d., “until the Lord shall come, whenever that may be.” (See Jelf., Gr. Gram., § 846, 2.)] (Comp. Matthew 16:28; Luke 13:35).—That a correct judgment will then, for the first time, be possible is shown from what follows.—who also.—The καί here is neither to be taken in connection with the καί in following clause, as if it were et, et, both, and: nor has it a mere strengthening force, even; but it serves to single out from among the functions of the Lord, as He comes to judgment, that one with which he is here concerned: [“also,’ inter alia, as part of the proceedings of that Day.” Alford.]—will bring to light.—φωτιζειν, with the accusative, to enlighten, illuminate, as the sun does the world, and hence to disclose, bring to light (comp. 2 Timothy 1:10),—the hidden things of darkness:—i.e., such as belong to darkness, or which darkness vails. (In Romans 2:16, we have simply: “the hidden things.”) [“This includes acts now unknown, and those principles of action which lie concealed in the heart where no [human] eye can reach them. This is all that the context requires. In other connections, the secret things, or the works of darkness, means wicked works, works done in the dark to avoid detection. But the Apostle is here speaking of the reason why judgment should be deferred until the coming of Christ. The reason is that He alone can bring to light the secret acts and motives of men.” Hodge.]—and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts.—Epexegetical of the former, or a specification under the general head just mentioned. One function of the Judge will be to lay open the inner determinations of the will—the motives and purposes by which men are governed, and which are withdrawn from human sight. It is on these that the decision respecting our merits and our fidelity must at last turn. All depends upon the simplicity of our temper—upon such a service of the Lord as excludes all by-ends, and is upright and sincere. “The thought here is this: In this life our inward character can only be inferred from our acts; at the judgment it will be directly laid open by the Lord.” Neander.—and then,—as contrasted with the present, when so much is vailed, and when men are disposed to exercise a premature judgment—shall each one have his praise:—ἐκάστῳὁἔπαὶνος. Literally: “to each one the praise,” i.e., the praise which is his due, according to its various measures and degrees, corresponding to his worth. He here speaks of praise only, since he has in view primarily Apollos and himself, and not any Judaizing opposers. Hence there is no necessity of taking ἔπαινος as vox media, contrary to all usage, or even to regard it as an euphemism (with Theophylact). Paul’s statement here, as Calvin says, “arises from the assurance of a good conscience.” He knew there was laid up for him a crown of righteousness (2 Timothy 4:8).—from God.—This stands emphatically at the close. By this he gives us to understand that the judgment of the Lord, which would be pronounced upon his servants, was the judgment of God himself. Thus does he appeal from those partizan judgments, which exalt one at the expense of another, to the absolute and impartial judgment of God, who will give to each one his due. On the adjudication of Christ in its relations to God see Romans 2:16; Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31. On “the praise from God” see Matthew 25:21. [“The command not to anticipate the judgment of the Lord is consistent with Paul’s frequent recognition of the right and duty of the Church to sit in judgment on the qualifications of her own members. He is here speaking of the heart. The Church cannot judge the heart. Whether a man is sincere or insincere in his professions, whether his experience is genuine or spurious, God only can decide. The Church can only judge of what is outward. If any man profess to be holy, and yet is immoral the Church is bound to eject him, as Paul clearly teaches in the following chapter. Or if he profess to be a Christian, and yet rejects Christianity, or any of its essential doctrines, he cannot be received, Titus 3:10. But ‘the counsels of the heart’ only the Searcher of hearts can judge.” Hodge.] AND ETHICAL1. Christ’s ministers stewards of the mysteries of God.—In this we see the high significance and solemn responsibility of the ministerial office. In a preλminent sense, Christ is the servant of God. It is through His hand that the pleasure of the Lord prospers; and on Him has God poured His Spirit without measure, and to His control given all things, and on Him conferred power over all flesh that He should give eternal life to as many as God has given Him. Subordinate to Him in this work are Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, acting the part, so to speak, of handworkmen (ν̓πηρἐται). They labor under His direction, undertaking and executing all those various offices by which the redemption and the guidance of souls are accomplished. The more completely they put themselves under Him, preferring His will and His plans to their own, seeking no glory but His, asserting His authority as the only rule—the more exalted will they appear in God’s sight, as persons who are worthy to coφperate with “His Servant” in this, the most important of all concerns, and to become the organs of his gracious purposes. The lofty significance of their office appears enhanced by the fact, that in this service they are made “stewards of the mysteries of God.” To them has been committed the wondrous plan of salvation—a plan which from all eternity had been hid in God, and was concealed from the researches of the wisest in this world, and was at last revealed in Jesus Christ, and hence is well termed a mystery—even this plan, with all the means requisite for its execution, in reconciling sinners to God, and awaking the spiritually dead, and enlightening the benighted, and originating, preserving, confirming, and perfecting the life of faith in God’s dear children. Their business it is, therefore, to employ this wealth of Divine instrumentalities for the extension of the kingdom of God on earth, and in behalf of each and all of God’s people; and to discharge this trust publicly and privately, towards all classes and conditions in society without partiality:—to inquire out the ways through which God leads souls to the truth, and to construct such ways, by examining into the tendencies and characteristics and wants of individuals and communities, and by investigating their circumstances and inward conditions in life; and then to urge men to enter them:—to be unwearied in beseeching men in Christ’s stead to become reconciled to God, warning, exhorting, rebuking, reproving, in the consciousness that God is acting in them and through them and in the exercise of something of His holy earnestness and pitying love. This, this is to act the part of a faithful steward; this is to fulfil the obligation which rests upon the office-bearers of a Christian church. In order to be thus faithful they must be instructed by the Spirit, and follow in the footsteps of Him who, as the Son of God, was faithful in all His house, and who said of Himself that He could do nothing except what He saw the Father do. But if, instead of this, they go their own ways, employ methods to their own liking, conduct themselves so that the mind and counsel of God are not to be discerned in them—if they allow themselves to be carried away by carnal zeal and impatience, or yield to disgust and slothfulness, or suffer sensual gratifications, whether refined or gross, or a love of honors and authority and applause to slip in and betray them into unhallowed courses,—then are they chargeable with a faithlessness which incurs a fearful accountability. 2. The Lord is Judge.—This truth is, on the one hand, a source of comfort to all true servants of God, amid the various criticisms and censures passed upon them; and, on the other hand, it serves to abate the confidence of their own self-estimation. In the great day of account the Searcher of hearts will bring to light all that has been stirring within them, their longings and strivings, their secret motives and inward struggles, their inarticulate sighs as well as their uttered prayers; and in view of these things, all unknown to men, will He judge them. However others, who judge according to appearance, may find occasions for censure, or may misconstrue their doings and omissions, they can accept it all in peace and look away in calm assurance from these hasty decisions to the righteous sentence of an All-seeing Judge.—Yet, with all this, there is at the same time something very subduing in the anticipation of this only valid adjudication. However unconscious of blame they may be in the discharge of their duties, still this can afford them no certain ground for hoping to be acquitted before their Lord. His all-piercing eye detects faults that are hidden from their own consciences; and in His all-illuminating light much may appear unclean which to their clouded vision seems stainless. Hence it becometh them to be modest and leave to Him the final award.—Yet from him, who has been diligent in his endeavors to be faithful, the due praise will not be withheld,—however much men might criticize. From the mouth of his Lord he will receive the sentence: “Well done thou good and faithful servant, thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.”—But even as when on earth every tribute of honor had the effect only to humble him the more, by bringing out in contrast a sense of his own unworthiness; so, too, will he receive this approval of his gracious Chief Shepherd in utmost lowliness. The crown of glory will ever be cast at his feet. AND Starke:—Christ’s servants should perform their service, not so as to please men, but as the Lord requires. As stewards of the Gospel treasures, they have the right to open these treasures, and to close them against the wicked (Matthew 16:19). The higher the Lord, the higher the servant; yet the latter is ever subordinate.—Ministers are servants, not lords, of men’s faith. One is our Master, even Christ. Both pastors and flock are brethren (2 Corinthians 1:24), (Hed.), 1 Corinthians 4:1.—A minister must be faithful: 1, to God, in looking to Him with single eye, seeking His honor, acting according to His will and maintaining His rights; 2, to the Church, in withholding from it nothing essential to its welfare, and in declaring the whole counsel of God, so that no person shall suffer or perish through his fault or neglect; 3, to his own office in not acting the part of a lord, but of a servant who is ready to listen and labor. Fidelity in office grows out of fidelity to one’s self. A true preacher preaches Christ not only with the mouth but from the heart. He speaks from experience and confirms his doctrine by his conduct, 1 Corinthians 4:2.—A minister of God must be deaf, alike to the praise and the blame of men. His rule is the will of his Master, not the opinion of men. If he follows the latter he will never be faithful in his office, 1 Corinthians 4:3.—It is one thing to have a good conscience before God for our consolation (1 John 3:21) and another thing to have it for our self-justification. The one requires a sincerity and diligence such as David could claim, the other a faultless perfection such as neither David nor Paul dare arrogate (Psalms 19:13; Philippians 3:12).—Blessed state, to be conscious of no wrong, and yet not to be disposed to justify oneself, 1 Corinthians 4:4.—How unlike the judgment of God and the judgment of man. The former comes at the end of probation, is impartial, comprehensive in its data; the latter is ordinarily premature, rash, and grounded only on the outward appearance.—What must be the disclosures of the last day! God holds the key to the inmost thoughts of all men; and when they are all open to inspection, how fearful will then be the outcry! Take heed, O hypocrite; the Lord knows thee. Rejoice, thou sincere heart; the Lord will come and be thy witness (Job 34:21), 1 Corinthians 4:5. Rieger:—The office of the preacher springs out of Christ.—As the Father sent Him, so He sends forth His ministers in order to proclaim the power which has been committed to Him in heaven and earth. This is their service and stewardship, 1 Corinthians 4:1.—If distinctions are to be made among ministers, better look to their fidelity than to their gifts or reputation; and in judging of fidelity, that must often be taken into account which is least apt to strike the notice of men. Heubner, A.:—The worth of true evangelical ministers consists: 1, in the purpose of their office; a, to serve Christ and be wholly dependent on His word; and hence, b, to promote the salvation of the congregation as stewards of God, 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, In their fidelity, which is seen; a, in the actual discharge of their duties; b, in a sincerity of spirit which ever stands as in God’s sight and cares to be approved by Him alone, ver 2.–3, In the humility, which; a, refuses to justify self, 1 Corinthians 4:3 ff., and, b, awaits in confidence the Divine award, 1 Corinthians 4:4-5.—B. Ministers and congregations will one day together stand at the bar of God:—1. They will so stand, for; a, Paul implies this; b, it is necessary to the revelation of the Divine righteousness. 2. The fact is a momentous one; a, for ministers—it ought to shame them of their unfaithfulness, prompt them to walk conscientiously, and lift them above the opinions of the world; b, for the congregation—it should keep them from judging before the time, and cause them to take need rather that the Word of God brings forth fruit among them; c, for both—they ought to conduct themselves as if already before the judgment seat.—Man is often unconscious of the deepest motives which actuate him; hence he can give himself no assurance that he has omitted nothing due, or done nothing sinful, 1 Corinthians 4:4.—So act always that thou canst at any moment have thy heart exposed, 1 Corinthians 4:5. Gossner:—As a general thing, the natural man loves to hear what people think of him. It is harder to despise praise than blame. [Hodge:—“1 Col 4:1 contains two important truths: ministers have no arbitrary or discretionary authority in the Church; neither have they any supernatural power such as is attributed to them in the Romish Church. Their authority is merely ministerial, and therefore to be judged by the standard of those commands which are known to the whole Church. And, secondly, they are not, like Aristotle or Plato, the originators of their own doctrines, or the teachers of the doctrines of other men, but simply the dispensers of the truths which God has revealed.”] W. F. Besser: 1 Corinthians 4:2. It is a comfort that nothing but fidelity is required of stewards, not talents, nor inventive powers, nor manifold activity, nor success. The daintiness and fanciful taste of the vain and luxurious Corinthians, in whose sight fidelity seemed a small virtue, are no rarity in these times. But worse still is the rebellion shown by many congregations, who style themselves churches of Christ, against the fidelity of their pastors and teachers. [G. C. A. Harless: 1 Corinthians 4:2. What is here asserted of ministers holds good also of all Christians. Compare the parable of our Lord on “The talents,” Matthew 25:14 ff. The peculiar nature of the fidelity demanded is determined by the peculiar character of the blessing of salvation intrusted. It is not fidelity to a duty outwardly imposed, to a precept, rule, maxim or the like, but fidelity to an inwardly active vital principle—personal fidelity to a personal fellowship with God, wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is the fidelity of a new-born child of God in whom the Spirit testifies to what the word promises]. [Calvin: 1 Corinthians 4:4. Conscious of no wrong, and yet not justified. “Papists abuse this passage for the purpose of shaking the assurance of faith; and truly I confess that if their doctrine were admitted, we could do nothing but tremble in wretchedness during our whole life. For what tranquillity could our minds enjoy if it were to be determined from our works whether we are well-pleasing to God. I confess, therefore, that from the main foundation of Papists there follows nothing but continual disquietude for consciences; and accordingly we teach that we must have recourse to the free promise of mercy which is offered to us in Christ, that we may be fully assured that we are accounted righteous by God”]. [A. Tholuck: 1 Corinthians 4:1-5. The characteristics of a faithful steward.—I. All he has he regards as belonging to his Lord. II. He is as faithful in small things as in great things. III. The source of his fidelity is his love for his Lord.—Th. Chalmers: 1 Corinthians 4:3-4. The judgment of men compared with the judgment of God.—I. God has a right to prefer greater claims against us, than men can. II. God has a clearer and more elevated sense of moral worth and holiness than men have]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 4:2.—ὦδε is supported by a great preponderance of authorities [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.] and preferred by Lach. Meyer [Alf. Stanley], to the Rec. ὅδέ. See under “Exegetical and Critical.” 1 Corinthians 4:2.—ζητεῖται is sustained mainly by the old versions, and is decidedly preferable to ζητεῖτε [which is found in A. C. D. Cod. Sin. and others.] Stanley remarks that the confusion arises from the similarity of sound in Romaic between ε and αι. The Cod. Sin. inserts τί before ζητεῖτε, and would be rendered, “Moreover what do you here seek in stewards? That a man,” etc. [This is not so clear. Ον̔ ?́τως does often have reference to what precedes. And here certainly Paul seems to be applying the principle, he had just been laying down in general, to himself and his associates in particular. The very position of ον̔ ?́τωςἠμᾶς so us, too, seems to require this. As they were Christ’s, so it was to be borne in mind that he and Apollos were also Christ’s, and that, too, in their official capacity. They were Christ’s servants—stewards of God’s mysteries, and were to be respected accordingly. Ον̓ ?́τως, so, therefore points back to what has been said, and also forwards to ὡς, as, which resumes and makes the implication more definite]. [But in thus putting the emphasis on their official capacity, rather than on the fact of their belonging to Christ, the way does not seem to be prepared for what follows. There may, indeed, be an implication here of a subordinate position, which contradicted their partisan estimates; but this evidently retires before the rising thought just about to find expression]. But Jelf in Gr. Gram. § 803, obs. 1, shows in full argument the gradual modification of meaning until it cornea to have the force only of the accusatival infinitive. And this, he says, is frequent in the New Testament: There seems to be a great effort among some critics to avoid the admission of this, and to show the telic force of ἵνα in every instance]. VIII.— OF THE BETWEEN THE SELF- OF THE AND THE ACTUAL AND OF THE 1 Corinthians 4:6-136 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men [om. to think of men] above that which [the things which] is [are] written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. 7For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? 8Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God [om. to God, and insert indeed, etc.] ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. 9For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle 10unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honorable, but we are despised. 11Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, 12and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; and labor, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 13Being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day. AND 1 Corinthians 4:6. [Having laid down certain principles in regard to the Church and its relations to its teachers, and illustrated them in the case of Apollos and himself, Paul now proceeds to show their more general scope and bearing].—And.—δέ, [in the sense of now], indicates that he is approaching the close of what he has to say on party strifes.—these things.—ταῦτα, refers back to 1 Corinthians 3:5.—It is from that point that he has spoken of himself and Apollos. [So Hodge, de Wette, Meyer and others. But Alford says: “There is surely no reason for limiting its reference within that point.” He accordingly extends the reference back to 1 Corinthians 1:12, and infers that all the names mentioned there were only used “as samples,” behind which the real persons intended were hid].—brethren,—addressed to the Church as a whole, but primarily (de Wette) to the party leaders and their followers. “By this title he lays hearty hold upon the Corinthians, who had been showing themselves very un-brotherly.” Besser.—I have transferred in a figure,—μετεθχημάτισα. There is some difficulty in determining the sense of this word. It elsewhere appears with the meaning: to transform, to change, Philippians 3:21. The simple σχηματιζειν is used to denote that form of speech, where a person, instead of saying directly what he means, hints it in ways for his hearers to reflect upon and puzzle out the meaning of—allegorizes. It is used also of transformations, false movements, feint attacks, disguises (comp. 2 Corinthians 11:13). Neander explains it: “to transfer something to any one by a figure of speech. The μετεσχηματισμός here consists in this, that Paul develops in reference to himself and Apollos what holds good also of all the Corinthian teachers.” Hence arose the old interpretation, that Paul had only by supposition represented in himself and Apollos what really belonged to others who were the actual party leaders, putting his own name and that of his friend for theirs. But this is a groundless assumption, irreconcilable with i. 12.—Still less admissible is the idea that the word refers to the figures of “planting” and “watering,” under which he had exhibited the nature of his work (1 Corinthians 3:6); for these were used only for vividly illustrating his point, and had nothing to do with the main object in hand.—Undoubtedly he means “a transfer” of such a sort,—that, what was true of teachers in general, and so was calculated to bring down the pride of the party leaders at Corinth, he had applied especially to Apollos and himself. It was in fact a transforming of the general into the specific, the relation of which to the parties concerned is expressed by εἰς.—unto myself and Apollos, for your sakes,—Why he did this is at once explained,—in order that in us ye may learn.—By exhibiting himself and Apollos of so small account (suitably no doubt to the feelings of the latter also), he would by example teach them that modesty which does not seek to exalt itself.—not above what is written.—τὸμὴὑπὲρἅγέγραπται. Were φρονεῖν genuine [see under the text], then it would read: “not to think of yourselves above,” etc. But, as it is, the brief clause, converted into a substantive by the article τό, is very forcible, and is to be rendered imperatively: “not beyond what is written;” i.e., exceed not this measure, hold to the Scripture rule both in your inward judgments and in your pretensions. Thus this short expression, so abruptly brought in, conveys more than the gloss, “to think.” [“The ellipsis of the verb is significant as giving greater largeness and general comprehensiveness to the proverb, which would be limited by the insertion of a particular verb with a special idea. Compare a similar ellipse in Terence, ut nequid nimis, and in Milton: ‘Observe the rule of, not too much, by Temperance taught.’ ” Words.].—But what does he mean by ἅγέγραπται: “what things are or have been written?” Does he allude here to his own previous declarations? [as Luther and Calov. assert, and Calvin allows]. Hardly; for then it would have been προέγραψα, I have before written (comp. Ephesians 3:3). According to Paul’s usage, the formula: “it is written,” refers to the Holy Scriptures, especially to the Old Testament: since we find no allusion to any New Testament, or to any life of Christ in any of Paul’s writings, [“though indeed, as Chrysostom supposes, St. Matthew’s Gospel had been written at this time, and there the Corinthians would find cautions from Christ himself against the sin of calling and being called, Rabbi.” Words.]. Undoubtedly Paul here has in mind, not individual expressions of Holy Writ, but its collective tenor, which all points to this truth: that all honor belongs to God; and that all self-boasting, all cleaving to men, and priding oneself in men, must be given up. This doctrine we find summed up in apophthegms like Jeremiah 9:23, to which reference has already been made. The sense, therefore, cannot be doubtful. This is exhibited more clearly in what follows:—that ye be not puffed up one for one against another.—The Ind. φυσιοῦσθε after ἵνα occasions no little difficulty. The Ind. after ἵνα first appears in the later Greek, nowhere else in the New Testament. [Winer, however, adopts the view that it is the Ind. and is to be regarded as an impropriety of the later Greek, § 41:1. b.; and so does Jelf, Gr. Gram., § 806, 4:2. Some (Bengel, Osiander) assume here a peculiar or mistaken form of contraction for φυσιῶσθε (as in ζηλοῦε, Galatians 4:17); others (Fritzche [Origen and Theod.] change ἵνα into ἕνα; others give to ἵνα a local signification: where, whereby, under which circumstances, and render the clause: “in which case, i.e., while acting according to Scripture rule, ye are not puffed up,” (present for the future). So Meyer. Since the correction, which was designed to restore the supposed original text, is untenable,—for the reason that the change of ἕνα into ἵνα would have drawn the subjective after it (but which nowhere appears, save in one MS. of Chrysostom); and since the use of ἵνα, in the sense proposed by Meyer, does not reach back to the prose of this period, we must in consequence decide for Bengel’s view, and all the more, for the reason, that ἵνα stands just before in its telic sense. The second clause with ἵνα stands either coφrdinate with the first, or subordinate to it. The latter can be understood as denoting, equally with the former, the purpose of the Apostle, yet so as to be included in it—defining the point more exactly. [To avoid the appearance of solecism, Wordsworth suggests that φυσιοῦσθε be taken as imperative, thus involving a change from the indirect to the direct style. Examples of this sudden transition he finds in Acts 1:4; Acts 22:3; Acts 23:32; Luke 5:14; Mark 6:9; also in this very Epistle, 1 Corinthians 1:31.—Accordingly he would translate: “in order that—(you may practice this precept)—be not ye puffed up.” This is ingenious, but harsh, especially as we have ἵνα with the subj. in the clause immediately preceding, and we would naturally look for the same construction here. Instead of “liveliness,” we should have “raggedness,” of style as the result.] The meaning, however, is plain. We have here a striking exhibition of the partisan spirit. “It is the definition of a sect, where individuals admire individuals.” Bengel. The adherents of one party are here represented as seeking mutually to exalt each other to the prejudice of those of another party (comp. ὐπὲρἀλλήλων, 1 Thessalonians 5:11). ὐπέρ: to the advantage of, in favor of (not [as Winer] “above the one,” both on account of the Gen. and of the contrast in Κατὰ, against). Τοῦἑνός, the one, denotes a person belonging to the same party; τοῦἑτέρον, the other, a person belonging to another party. Interpreting, however, in the light of facts, we must suppose that the leaders and not private members are particularly intended. Ὑπέρ then would stand as in 2 Corinthians 7:4. It implies that party pride which would prompt a person to puff his own chief and look down with contempt upon the chief of another party. De Wette, without sufficient grounds, insists on referring this to the Christ-party, who also had exalted their leaders above the others. 1 Corinthians 4:7. For.—Paul goes on to give the reason for his protest against their emulation, in the most energetic style, addressing a series of questions to those who were “puffed up.” The first,—Who maketh thee to differ?—“This has been commonly taken to imply distinction of some sort; either actual distinction, by office and the like, in which case the answer would be: ‘not thyself, but the Lord;’ or assumed distinction by a claim to preλminence, in which case he would imply: ‘no one does this, but thyself; it is an arbitrary self-promotion;’ or at least: ‘there is no judge qualified for doing this.’ But thus interpreted, the Apostle would be regarded as addressing properly the party leaders [so Words.], while it is clear that he was just before addressing the partisan followers. Besides, in the construction, first suggested above, the second question would be already anticipated. Finally, these interpretations would transcend the demonstrable use of διακρίνειν, whether in the New Testament or elsewhere. The rendering best suited to usage and to the connection is: ‘Who separates you?’ This, then, would refer to the party position which the person spoken to assumed, and in which he proudly stood aloof from other parties and their leaders. What the Apostle means to ask is: ‘What is the reason you say’—or ‘Who justifies you in saying: “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos,” and in priding yourself in such partisanship? This party separation, in which you boast, is altogether arbitrary and unwarrantable.’ [Bengel, Words., Alf., Calv. give the meaning: ‘Who distinguisheth thee,’ as if by reason of some excellence which is supposed to exist. And for this use of διακρίνω Words, refers to Acts 15:9. The propriety of this, also, Hodge concedes. And it was the construction on which Augustine proceeded in his argument with Pelagius, and in his maintenance of the doctrine of sovereign grace. It seems better, therefore, to abide by the ordinary interpretation given in the text].—In the second question,—What hast thou which thou didst not receive?—he alludes to the advantages which a person might possess, and which stood connected in some way with the quickening and informing influence of this or that teacher. [But is not this limiting the scope of the question too much? which plainly bears upon the leaders also]. ‘These advantages,’ he implies, ‘could only be the ground of pride in case they had been self-attained. But thou hast only what thou didst receive. All thine insight, thy gifts for speaking, etc., are a bestowment from God, even though imparted through human instrumentalities.’—To this question the next directly joins, since it presupposes that something has been received; and this not problematically, but as actually existing,—and yet it designates the boasting as something contradictory to this supposition, and therefore wholly unsuitable. Its import is,—if—as I grant—thou really didst receive—something—why dost thou boast, as if thou hadst not received it?—but all were due to thine own exertions or to thy connection with this or that teacher?’ The καί here belongs, as usual (Passow II p. 1540), not to the entire hypothetical clause, but to ἕλαβες, and may be translated, actually, indeed, really.—But may we not obtain a fuller meaning, and one more comporting with the words and aim of the Apostle, if we suppose the Apostle to imply in the second question that nothing had been received, by punctuating it, either so that τιδὲἕχεις shall be taken alone: ‘and what hast thou?’—or so that τίδὲ shall stand separately: ‘how now?’ or: ‘what then? hast thou that which thou didst not receive?’ He would thus be pointing to their vain conceit, their empty boasting, their pride in the gifts of their teachers, in which they had no part themselves. The third question would then first treat of a case wherein they were supposed to have received something, and which as such excluded boasting. So Bengel: “There are many things, which thou has not received, and therefore thou hast not these things, and canst not boast of them; either thou hast received, or hast not received; if thou hast not received, thou possessest not; if thou hast received, thou possessest it not, except as received, and so without cause for glorying. The latter sense renders the meaning of καί, even, which immediately follows, more expressive, and shows the antanaclasis (repetition in a modified form) in the clauses: ‘thou hast not received’ and ‘hadst not received.’ ” 1 Corinthians 4:8. Already ye are full, already ye are rich; ye have reigned as kings without us.—[Having before rebuked, he here proceeds to deride, as Calvin says,] their false contentment, vain self-sufficiency and lofty bearing, as if they had already reached the goal of all Christian hope and effort. Especially has he in mind certain persons who always aspired to pitch the tune, and the parasites, who were ever ready to strike in. The clauses here are not questions, but declarations charged with keenest irony. Only when so understood do the words carry their proper emphasis. To deny him the right to use such irony, and to impute lordly desires to Paul in consequence, is one of Rόckert’s false assumptions. And to this Meyer fairly replies, that the Apostle must have been the best judge as to the mode in which it was necessary to discipline the Corinthians, and that it was precisely because of his very purity of conscience that he was able to yield to his justly roused feelings without rendering himself liable to suspicion. Neander says: “The conceit of a narrow-minded bigotry can best be attacked with irony and sarcasm;” and Besser: “The servant of Christ need not be ashamed of any outburst of indignation that springs from a hearty love, and the biting salt of derision, which spices his language, does not detract from his amiability;” [and Hodge: “The prophets especially employ these weapons freely in their endeavors to convince the people of the folly of idols”]: In what precedes, Paul has just exhorted them to modesty in accordance with the pattern set by himself and Apollos, and reminded them of their dependence on God for all their endowments—a dependence which excluded boasting. Now he reminds them, not only that they were unmindful of this dependence, but that they were also cradling themselves in the vain conceit of their own perfection—they, the very persons whom he had just before convicted of great imperfection and moral perversity.—Ἤδη, already, i. e., so long before the proper time for it. It points to a goal remote, and hints that all true satisfaction, and true riches, and true kingship, belonged not to the present period of the world; and hence it implies that they were vainly anticipating the glory which was to come hereafter. The word is put first for the sake of the emphasis. The three verbs following form a climax: “ye have enough;” “ye enjoy a superfluity;” “you have attained to lordship.” κεκορεσμένοιἐστέ=ἐπλουήσατε (comp. Revelation 3:17); the former implies the full possession and enjoyment of salvation; the latter, that they had this in superabundance. We have here a picture of that self-conceit, that sense of sufficiency and fulness which the sectarian spirit generally engenders, and by which all disposition to receive spiritual good from any quarter outside of the party circle, is entirely destroyed. The sectarian always feels himself perfectly supplied in all respects, and in no time or way needful of any thing further.—It must be acknowledged, indeed, that the Corinthians were enriched by God’s grace, “in all knowledge and in all spiritual gifts” (1 Corinthians 1:5-7), yet the consciousness of this fact was disfigured by their pride; and that sense of their poverty in themselves, and of their manifold defects, which ought to have kept them humble, was in like manner suppressed.—In the verbs επλουτήσατε and εβασιλεύσατε, the Aorist form leads us out of the idea of simple being into that of becoming (having become) comp. 2 Corinthians 8:9. By the word “reign” we are not to understand either the enjoyment of any high degree of knowledge, authority, safety and happiness [as Calvin and Barnes]; nor yet the supremacy attained by party leaders [as Billroth]; nor yet the preλminence of one party over another. Paul here refers to that regal state which Christians were to enjoy under the future reign of the Messiah, and which is alluded to in 2 Timothy 2:12; Romans 8:17; John 17:24; Revelation 5:10; Revelation 20:4;—a state in which they should be delivered from all the restraints of this life, and introduced into the full possession of all the gifts and powers of the heavenly kingdom. This it is which he says the Corinthians had begun to assume already, so prematurely. [So Alf., Stanley, Words., Hodge]. “That which afterwards developed itself in the Papacy on the one side, and in the fanatical sects, like that of the Anabaptists, on the other, had already begun to prevail in the Corinthian Church. When both the bottomless depths of sin and the glory of divine grace are alike uncomprehended, then people dream themselves into a supremacy, whose kingdom, with all its show of spirituality, is of this world, and where the holy Apostles enter not.” Besser.There remains to be considered the cutting expression—without us—i.e. without our presence or coφperation. He does not here mean to charge them with having given him any personal affront; but he only states with emphasis the fact as it was, viz., that in all their boasting, and in all their supposed attainment of their goal, himself and associates, [“who had been looking forward to present them on that day as their glory and joy” Alf.], had no part, and were not needed. From this point he turns to speak in another tone [“and with solemnity” Alf.].—I would—ὄφελον, according to later usage, a particle with the Indicative. [The addition “to God” found in our version, is not authorized, or at least not demanded by the original. The Scriptures do not authorize such appeals to God as seem to be in common, when our version was made” Hodge].—indeed;—γε strengthens the wish—that ye did reign.—The irony can hardly be supposed to continue here, as if he insinuated as the object of his wish: “that you might give us some share in your kingdom, [and that we might be of some account among you.” So Lightfoot, who interprets this as a “bitter taunt”]. This would have been indeed too bitter. Bather we must take it as the expression of a glorious and sincere wish, that they had already reached the goal; so that the Apostles, their teachers, might enjoy their glory with them, inasmuch as both parties were inseparable in their final fruition of glory when this was actually obtained. “When you shall be perfected, then we shall have ease, and the end of Apostolic trouble.” Bengel. This is implied in the clause—that we might reign with you.—In thus speaking of them as the original possessors of glory, and of the Apostles as only partners with them, he adopts a humble phraseology, which at the same time conveys an indirect rebuke at their pride (comp. Osiander in loco). 1 Corinthians 4:9. For.—He here proceeds to state what reason he had for the wish just expressed, and how closely it lay on his heart. This reason might be seen in the miserable condition which he and his fellow Apostles were in. The connection may be stated thus: ‘for we, the Apostles, (“founders of churches, which these high-swelling pseudo-apostles are not,” Osi.), are so persecuted and afflicted, that this fellowship in the kingdom cannot but be greatly desired by us.’ This is a more simple interpretation than to insert a parenthesis here, implying: ‘but this cannot happen until the kingdom of God is revealed; for I think,’ etc. Ruckert is mistaken in supposing that the irony is still continued, as if it meant: ‘very probably God has appointed us last; you naturally go in first, then, after all the rest, we follow suit.’ This interpretation (which supposes that what immediately precedes is ironical likewise) presents the Apostle in a too ignoble aspect for even the utmost candor to admit. There is no implication of this sort in the opening word:—I think—δοκῶ ?—God has exhibited.—ἀπέδειξεν, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, comp. θέατρον—us.—To interpret this of Paul alone [as Calvin, Beza] is forbidden by the article before ἀποστόλους—the Apostles.—And in case any would wish to translate: ‘God has appointed us, the last Apostles, unto death [as Calvin, Chrys.], an objection arises to this, apart from all other reasons, in the fact, that then the article would have been put before ἐσχάτους:—last.—In this word [which is here a predicate, attached to the verb defining its operation] there is expressed in a general manner what is after-wards stated more definitely—last, not in point of time, but in grade of society (homines infirnζ sortis).—as appointed unto death.—ὠςἐπιθανατίους , Chrys.: καταδίκους; Suid.: προσδοκίμουςτοῦἀποθανεῖν, comp. 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. No allusion is here made to bestiarii, or to gladiators [as Stanley after Tertullian, Chrys., Calvin and others]. That they, as malefactors condemned to death, were also exposed to public contempt, is still further set forth in a causal sentence—for we are become a spectacle.—θέατρον, which is elsewhere called θέαμα. So θεατριζεσθαι, Hebrews 10:33—to the world.—[“not to a single city, but to the whole world” Chrys.],—corresponding to the range of the Apostles’ labors, which embraced all nations and lands (see Colossians 1:6; Colossians 1:23; Romans 10:18).—But this general term is so specialized as to include also the dwellers in heaven, the angels; and so he seems here to pass, in thought, beyond the direct sphere of his personal activity.—As well to angels as to men.—By “angels” does he mean good or evil angels? Undoubtedly the former, since no epithet is applied; and, according to New Testament usage (with but one exception—1 Corinthians 6:3), the term denotes good angels, never the bad only, nor yet the two classes together. Only in case we take the word “spectacle” in a bad sense, indicating an object for mocking and malicious enjoyment, can we suppose bad angels to be intended. We should then be compelled to take the term “world” as a designation of the entire realm of beings hostile to tie Gospel. This, however, would be an arbitrary interpretation (see Meyer). While then by “men” we understand all on earth, of every sort, who observe the Apostles’ wants and suffering, the “angels” can only mean those who from above look down in loving sympathy and wonder at the Apostles’ steadfastness. Such are the cloud of witnesses in the midst of which Paul feels that he and his associates are exhibited for a spectacle. Comp. Osi., and passages like Luke 22:43; Matthew 4:11; Hebrews 12:22; 1 Peter 1:12. On the contrary, Luther, Neander, Bisping, Besser, interpret the word, of angels and men, both good and evil. Besser says: “So the world, both angels and men, are divided in respect to the Apostles and their ministry. It is a spiritual battle, to which the Gospel trumpet summons the hosts in heaven and on earth, in the atmosphere and the whole visible circuit. The scene presented to the eyes of men, is but an image of that which goes on behind the curtain.” 1 Corinthians 4:10. [“Again the bitterest irony: ‘how different our lot from yours! How are you to be envied—we to be pitied!’ Alford]. He begins with a contrast lying nearest his thought.—We, fools for Christ’s sake.—“Are” is understood. He means: ‘we pass for fools, because we preach Christ crucified, and propose to know nothing else.’ Osiander’s explanation transcends the simple meaning of the words: ‘I am content out of love for Christ and his cause to pass for a fool.’—but ye, wise in Christ,—i.e., they, in their union with Christ (not, “in the Church,” nor, “in the doctrine” of Christ), are very knowing, full of insight. This is ironical. They fancy themselves such, and seek to pass for such, in their efforts to combine Christianity and secular wisdom.—we, weak,—ἀσθενεῖς signifies a lack of energy, which any superficial observer might suppose to characterize the Apostle, by reason of his modest reserve on the one hand, and of his suffering condition on the other. (Comp. 2 Corinthians 13:4; 2 Corinthians 10:10). “The word expresses the prevailing tone of the Apostle’s mind—a consciousness of weakness, by virtue of which he was the better able to receive strength from God.” Neander. (See 1 Corinthians 2:3).—but ye, strong.—Ἰσχυροι suggests the idea of a bold, energetic forth-putting, which carried the appearance of assumption, and “a proud parade of abilities that were derived from the Lord.” With this, there is closely connected the condition, which, by reversing the order of the contrast, is presented first.—ye, glorious,—Ἔνδοξοι i.e., in honor and authority, by reason of your wisdom and power.—but we, despised.—Ἅτιμοι, i.e., void of esteem, in disgrace, as seen in the shameful treatment received. To supply the words: “on account of Christ,” and: “in Christ,” in the second and third antithesis, is unnecessary, although it would yield fitting sense. 1 Corinthians 4:11-13.—He here leaves the antithesis, and goes on to enlarge upon the destitution and ignominy endured by the Apostles. [His irony, too, gives way to deep, earnest feeling, awakened in view of all he had encountered for Christ and for the Church; and his spirit mellows to the kindlier mood which speaks in 1 Corinthians 4:14].—unto this present hour.—The designation stands in contrast with the “already” of 1 Corinthians 4:8. [While they seemed to have got through trials into triumphs, he was still in the midst of trouble].—we both hunger and thirst and are in want of clothing.—Γυμνιτεύειν, 2 Corinthians 11:27; Matthew 25:36; James 2:15; Isaiah 58:7. [On the form of this verb see Winer, § xvi. “From γυμνός one would expect γυμνίτης and accordingly the best codd. have in this place, γυμνίτευομεν, which we must not, with Fr. and Meyer, take for an orthographical error.”]:—and are buffetted.—Κολαφιζεσθαι, to be beaten with fists (comp. Matthew 26:67; 1 Peter 2:20.—and have no certain dwelling place.—ἀστατοῦμεν. The word occurs only here,—lit., are without fixed abode—and points to flights amid persecutions [such as Paul often was obliged to make; and why not also to his perpetual journeyings, having given up home to be the continual missionary that he was?]—and we labor,—From pains he turns to toils. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 9:6; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; Acts 18:3).—working,—i.e., as a hired person,—with our own hands.—According to Greek notions, this involved a sort of disgrace (ἀτιμία).—Being reviled we bless.—He here goes on to exhibit his self-denial in still other forms, as shown in his deportment under ill usage. ‘In requital for wicked words of execration (λοιδορεῖν), we give good words of benediction (εὐλογεῖν).’—Being persecuted we suffer it.—i.e., under a persistent and active hostility (διωκειν) we exhibit a patience, which refrains from retaliation or resistence, and lets all pass (ἀνεχἐσθαι).—being defamed, we entreat.—For slanderous speeches (δυσφημεῖν) we return dissuasions (παρακαλεῖν), entreaties that such things may not happen, not intercessions before God [as Calvin; but Stanley says: (1) ‘we offer consolation,’ or (2) as in 1 Corinthians 4:16, ‘we entreat men to follow our example,’ comp. 2 Corinthians 1:3]. The reading βλασφημούμενοι, is indeed well supported [see under the text], and it means essentially the same thing.—Whether godless cursings are also therein implied, is at least doubtful, since this idea comes in only when God is the object of the blasphemy. [But why should not this idea enter here as well, when Paul carried on himself the name of Christ which was blasphemed in him? This was the sorest spot on which a true Apostle could be attacked. Hence in this word his statements reach a climax]. In these declarations Paul gives us to understand, not (as Meyer) that the Apostles were so very destitute of honor among men, that they did not care to vindicate themselves against their villifiers (as persons do who have honor to maintain), but that they sought honor itself by thus requiting and overcoming evil with good. (Comp. Matthew 5:44; Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60; Romans 7:14; Romans 7:17; 1 Peter 3:9). Finally, he returns to the simple exhibition of the dishonor into which they were cast, and seta it forth in deepest colors and at the extremest point.—as the refuse of the world have we become.—Mey.: ‘It is as if we were the scum, the vilest dregs of mankind.’ This idea, however, would not be lost if, with Luther and others, we were to translate the word περικαθάρματα: sin offerings, in allusion to an ancient custom (the continuance of which, however, to the time of the Apostle cannot be confidently asserted, or that it was so far held in popular remembrance that the expression would be readily understood in this sense), viz., that of devoting to death the vilest men, such as slaves and malefactors, in seasons of public calamity, for the purpose of conducting off from the rest the wrath of the Deity. These homines piaculares were indeed designated by the simpler word κάθαρμα; but in Proverbs 21:18, the LXX. gives περικάθαρμα for the Hebrew λֹּ ?τֶ ?ψ; sin offering. It denotes purification, remotely, expiation; but also, that which is purged away, filth, refuse, offal; in Arrian, a reprobate man, an outcast. [Calvin says that “Paul, in adding the preposition περὶ, seems to have had an eye to the expiatory rite itself, inasmuch as those unhappy men, who were devoted to execrations, were led around through the streets, that they might carry away with them whatever there was of evil in any corner, that the cleansing might be more complete.” Hodge thinks any such allusion improbable, in consequence of the uncommonness of the custom. “Paul,” he says, “certainly did not consider himself or his sufferings as a propitiation for other men. The point of comparison, if there be any allusion to the custom in question, is to the vileness of the victims which were always chosen from the worthless and the despised.”] Luther’s interpretation, given above, accords well with what follows.—and of all things the off-scouring unto this day.—περίψημα, that which is wiped off (περιψᾷν) in cleansing, scrapings and filings. This word also occurs in the formula with which the human victims, who were put under the curse, were ordinarily consecrated: περίψημαἡμωνγίνου.—ἥτοισωτηρίακαὶἀπολύτρωσις: be thou our expiation, that which by us is set apart for the purification of the rest (Suidas). Meyer’s objection that in this case the plural, περιψήματα, would be required, because each individual would be regarded as a separate sin-offering, hardly suffices to set aside this objection, since all the Apostles may be taken collectively as composing one such offering. The Genitives, κόσμου,—πάνοων: the world’s,—of all (which stand first as emphatic) by this explanation, denote those whose curse lights on them, and in behalf of whom they are sacrificed. [In the second edition, which is posthumous, the editor adds], nevertheless without the περι, in περικάθαρμα, having anything to do with this (analogously with the phrase περὶτῆςἀμαρτίας), or without any support being given to the assumption of any expiatory virtue in the Apostle’s sufferings. But although the idea of expiation and deliverance through another’s sufferings, especially of the guilty party, comes elsewhere prominently forward, and this is the strongest designation of fellowship in the sufferings of Christ, who was reckoned among the transgressors; and although the Apostle speaks of his official sufferings in images drawn from the sacrificial phraseology, in order to express the greatness and sanctity of the end they furthered, viz., blessing for the Church and the world: yet this thought is foreign to our context, and, all things considered, the explanation given in the translation deserves the preference.—Here we have a description of the deepest disgrace. [Wordsworth ingeniously argues for the sacrificial idea]. AND ETHICAL[1. The promised glory of believers not to be realized here on earth, as the Corinthians seemed to imply by their conduct]. The true view of Christ and of Christianity combines an Idealism and a Realism. On the one hand, in Christ old things have passed away and all things become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17). He who believes in Christ has eternal life (John 3:36); God has quickened us in Christ, and has raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 2:5 ff.). But on the other hand, it doth not yet appear what we shall be (1 John 3:2); our life is hid with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3); we here walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7); we are indeed saved, but it is in hope (Romans 8:24).—This latter side of Christianity, which is betokened in the very cross-bearing character of Christ’s kingdom, is utterly, misapprehended by a false idealism, which would anticipate in this life the glory of Christ’s kingdom, shrinks from all manner of sufferings and trials, loves to luxuriate in self-satisfaction and in the enjoyment of the riches and the glory which are in Christ, and seeks to make an impression abroad with the show of higher learning and science, so that Christianity shall attain to honor and authority and influence in the world, in accordance with the truth that Christ is the Lord to whom all power in heaven and upon earth belongs—a truth, which it is claimed, must manifest itself more and more in the outward condition of those who are his. This idealism is the fruitful source of various forms of fanaticism, from the anticipation of the regal glory of Christ by the Romish hierarchy, and from the grossest Chiliasm which aims to set up a sort of secularized kingdom of God (as seen in the Anabaptists of the 16th century), down to the most refined theories of a progressive spiritual transformation, according to which Christianity is gradually to pervade the whole human race in all spheres of life, and to overcome all opposition, until at last it get possession of, and assimilate to itself, all governments and social customs, and art and science, and thus appear in full glory. In all this we see a Pelagianizing ignoring of the sharp contrast, which exists between the present condition of the world, rooted as it is the life of nature, and the spirit of Christ; also, a vain self-sufficiency, which hopes to find in the attainment of certain results, in the relative improvement of our earthly conditions, in the glow which the sun of truth and righteousness may cast over human affairs, in the reformation effected by the Gospel in all departments of human society,—in short, in the modification of the natural by the spiritual, a form of life springing out of, and developing itself from the spiritual unto the natural, and so dreams of a progressive realization of the kingdom of God on earth. Of an apostasy, of a fearful catastrophe, of antichrist and his overthrow, of a new heavens and a new earth following upon the destruction of the old, it evinces no knowledge. All this it quietly ignores. Hence all that glory which the promises of God’s Word exhibit to our hope, and reserve for a future age altogether different from the present, it assumes to have already in this, by a gradual, ceaseless, progressive development. The beginnings of such notions were already discernible in the Corinthian Church during the life of Paul, and with great soberness he encounters it by an exhibition of the actual state of things with the Apostles themselves—a state of things which was of a far different sort. According to the mind and precedent of Christ, he shows them that the passage to glory lies through sufferings. (Luke 14:27; Acts 14:22; John 12:24). But this the worldly-minded would fain overleap, passing round the vale of humiliation, trouble, persecution and self-denial, to enter at once into the full possession of glory. They shrink from the cross. Hence when it comes to hard conflicts and severe tests, they are readily shaken, and are scandalized, and seduced into error, and exposed to apostasy. 2. A spectacle to angels. An encouraging thought, rooted in the idea of a one all-embracing kingdom of God. As in Christ and through Him and to Him all things were created, which are in heaven and on earth (Colossians 1:16 ff.), so has it pleased God to gather together in Him all things, which are in heaven and upon earth (Ephesians 1:10),—in Him, through whom the angelic as well as the human world shall be restored to their original harmony with God (comp. Meyer on Colossians 1:20),—and through whose church unto principalities and powers in heaven shall be made known the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:8; comp. 1 Peter 1:12). Hence these heavenly spirits are full of liveliest interest in God’s redemptive work on earth. Those very beings, who have by God’s grace, been set in such close relations with earth’s little ones as to be called “their angels,” who have been sent “to minister for them who should be heirs of salvation,” and who “rejoice over the sinner that repenteth,” are also sympa thizing witnesses of the conflicts and sufferings of God’s co-laborers in the work of redemption. And while human observers are differently impressed with these same scenes, yet in this heavenly host there is felt nothing but astonishment and joy in view of the steadfastness and patience exhibited. Moreover, as an angel from heaven was seen to strengthen our Lord in the hour of His agony, so in the darkest hour of the conflict will angels be near to quicken and strengthen the soldiers of the cross. The encouragement and confirmation accruing to these oppressed sufferers and fighters of the good fight, from the consciousness of sympathy from such witnesses, corresponds to that which is said in Hebrews 12:1, in reference to the great cloud of witnesses, composed of the ancient heroes of the faith, and of the believers looking to Jesus the author and finisher of our faith. AND [1. Spiritual pride, self-sufficiency, vain-glorying, assumption of superiority, are so unbecoming and absurd as to be the: fit objects not only of severe rebuke, but also of ridicule; for: 1. they are contrary to a Christian’s dependence on God for what he is and has (1 Corinthians 4:7); 2. they proceed upon the false assumption, that the glory and the crown belong to the present age, whereas they are only to be enjoyed after Christ comes, and the whole church can possess them together (1 Corinthians 4:8); 3. they are contrary to apostolic example. The Apostles were cross-bearers all their lives through, and looked for the crown hereafter. (1 Corinthians 4:9-13)]. [2. Indignant reproof, irony, sarcasm, satire, are legitimate means for correction and discipline. But like the instruments of a surgeon, they are as dangerous as they are keen and useful, and can be safely employed only by skilful hands and loving hearts. When badly managed they kill rather than cure. Let none attempt to handle them, unless like Paul they are conscious only of the sincerest paternal affection towards those on whom they are used. Malice in the heart is sure to poison their edge, while love conveys healing balm through the wounds they make]. Starke:1 Corinthians 4:7. Whose is the fine plumage? Hast thou borrowed it? How then, supposing the wind should carry it away? Where is thy boasting then? Give then to God his own, and do not serve either thyself or the devil with thy gifts. (Hed.). 1 Corinthians 4:8. Desire not here in time what is only to be had yonder in Eternity. Here is strife; there alone is perfect rest and glory. 1 Corinthians 4:9. They who are adorned with greatest gifts, have the greatest trials for their humiliation. 1 Corinthians 4:10. External influence, happiness, glory, are no signs of a true Church. Who are the best Christians? The wise, the strong, the lordly? No. They are the weak, the despised, those who for Christ’s sake are willing to be as fools. 1 Corinthians 4:11. Thou complainest of persecution in thy office? Consider, has it come to hunger, thirst, nakedness, blows? Hast thou “resisted unto blood?” The crown is given to the soldier who has ‘endured hardness.’ 1 Corinthians 4:12. A person is not required to preach without pay. Yet be content. Do not desert thy office because of a small salary. To do good and to suffer evil are the peculiar tokens of a true servant of Christ. The Christian’s proper weapons in persecution are patience and prayer. 1 Corinthians 4:13. The true children of God understand well the greatness of their spiritual nobility, and that this, so far from being sullied by the base treatment of the world, is only made more illustrious thereby. Rieger:—Instead of courting admiration for Christianity, and admiring in turn those who admire us and our cause, it becomes us to root ourselves more deeply in a self-denying spirit. One chief characteristic of godlessness is lowliness of mind, which gives to God all the praise, and counts men for nothing.—When we are willing to rend the bond of peace for the sake of aught we prize, we act not as if we had received it from the Lord whose gifts are to be appropriated in love, but as if we were at liberty to turn it all to our own selfish uses and advantage.—Where danger is greatest, there oftentimes presumption and self-confidence are at the height. The faithful performance of duty in the midst of shame, and detraction, and persecution, is a spectacle which angels cannot but admire, and men regard with honor. How many are disposed to leave cross-bearing to the Apostles and early Christians, and to maintain a Christianity in which the world will find nothing to hate. Heubner:1 Corinthians 4:7. True humility springs from a sense of our absolute dependence on God. This guards from pride. With this there belongs also a clear recognition of God’s greatness and glory; we must feel that God is every thing, and we nothing. Only an exalted nature can be truly humble. How foolish our pride over advantages that we did not procure. The more gifts received from God, the greater the cause to be humble. Pride is not mere folly; it is wickedness also, because it robs God of His glory. 1 Corinthians 4:8. Judging from their outward condition, God appears often to treat believers, not as if they were His children, but as if they were the vilest of the race. But the more He puts on us, the more we are observed. The holy angels, unseen, rejoice when they see us victorious. Devils look on, hoping that we may succumb. 1 Corinthians 4:10. Christians, when most deserving, are often the most derided. The dishonor put upon the primitive believers is a mortifying rebuke to our pride. What a contrast between the cross-bearing Apostles and the later clergy, with their costly tables, splendid array, their pomp, and retinues, and palaces! 1 Corinthians 4:12. Paul an example of noble independence. He earned his own bread. Gossner:1 Corinthians 4:6. We were made to be humble, and should be kept short. Too much honor should not be shown us in this life. If you see a person exalting himself above others, look for no further evidence of his folly. 1 Corinthians 4:8. Even in our time, there are among the awakened some, who feel already perfect, and satisfied, and rich, from mere knowledge, while their fellowship with the Saviour and love for Him has grown cold. 1 Corinthians 4:11. The disciple of Jesus moves through this world always a stranger, nowhere tolerated, nowhere at home; and even should he settle any where, it is uncertain how long the world and his foes would allow him to remain. In such a case comfort comes from Christ. 1 Corinthians 4:13. It is better to be the offscouring, than the honored of the world; better a castaway, than the bosom-child of a wicked race. The Saviour chose shame, the Apostles also, and we should arm ourselves with the same mind. W. T. Besser:1 Corinthians 4:7. Nothing is mine but my sin; nothing, not saving knowledge and sanctifying wisdom, not repentance, not faith, nor love; in short, nothing Christian, have I from myself. It is all grace received—a gift from God (James 1:17). To have received and then to boast is a hateful inconsistency. Gratitude and praise alone are becoming to recipients—accordant praise from all recipients of the manifold grace of God. In scorning thy brother less gifted, take heed that thou findest not fault with God. 1 Corinthians 4:8. What, already satisfied! This is self-deception. Satisfaction, without hungering and thirsting, comes only when we behold God’s face in righteousness and awake in His likeness (Psalms 17:15). 1 Corinthians 4:11. Christian fasting is of two kinds—one when a person fasts voluntarily for the sake of serving the Lord with lighter spirit; the other when one is compelled to it as a Christian for Christ’s sake (2 Corinthians 11:27). 1 Corinthians 4:12. If we cannot stop the mouths of our defamers with soft words of entreaty, we have still one resort: we can pray that God will ‘not lay the sin to their charge.’ The prosperity which the Corinthians sought upon earth was then, and is now, to be had only at the cost of separating from the Apostles and from the true Gospel.—While all the Corinthian glory is but as stubble, the crown of honor will rest ever fresh and green upon the heads of the despised Apostles, both in Heaven and upon earth. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 4:6.—The φρονεῖν of the received text is an old supplement, which is not to be found in good authorities [A. E. D. E. F. G. Cod. Sin., nor in the Vulgate, and is omitted by Lach., Tisch, Mey., Alf., Words, and Stanley]. 1 Corinthians 4:6.—The Rec. has ὅ [according to D. F. L.]. The better authorities [A. B. C. Cod. Sin.] have ἄ, which reading is adopted by Lach. Tisch. [Words. Alf.]. Mey. thinks that ἄ is a correction to suit the ταν͂τα preceding. 1 Corinthians 4:11.—[The Rec. has γυμνητεύομεν, with B.2 but A2. C. D. F. Cod. Sin. all have γυμνιτεν́ομεν. And this is the reading of all good editions now. See note]. IX.— AND A. The grounds, spirit and intent of his severity. As their spiritual father, he would have them imitate him 1 Corinthians 4:14-1714    I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn [admonish] you. 15For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten [begot] you through the gospel. 16Wherefore I beseech you, be [become] ye followers [imitators] of me. 17For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. AND 1 Corinthians 4:14. Sinking now into a milder tone, ‘not from motives of prudence, but in accordance with his own natural disposition,’ (Neander), and in order to observe his own precept, ‘not to provoke children to wrath,’ (Besser), he here goes on to explain the ground and intent of the severity he had used. He had rebuked them, as a father would his children, out of paternal love, and as he had a right to do.—Not shaming you,—ἐντρέπων. The participle here does not necessarily involve the idea of intention or design, as if it meant: ‘not for the purpose of shaming you;’ although the present part. may denote a purpose which one is already on the point of realizing. Meyer: ‘I do not shame you by that which I now write,’ (i. e., from 1 Corinthians 4:8-13). Ruckert’s idea, that Paul alludes here to his charges for not being properly supported (1 Corinthians 4:11-12) is too restricted, and unsustained by the context. Alike needless, also, is his explanation of ἐντρέπειν, to cast down, to shatter, as it occurs in Aelian. And at all events, the word cannot mean, as elsewhere in Greek, to restore to a right mind, to cause a person to come to himself. The Apostle commonly uses it in the sense in which it usually occurs in the LXX. for ηֵ ?τִ ?ψ, to shame, in connection with αἰσχύνεσθαι (see Frommii Concord.) (comp. 2 Thessalonians 3:14; Titus 2:8; also the subst. ἐςτροπή 1 Corinthians 6:5; 1 Corinthians 15:34).—do I write these things—ταῦτα, i. e., the things written from the eighth to the thirteenth verse,—but as my beloved children.—A tender and winning word, designed to remind them that, with all his severity toward their pride and false security, he yet regarded them with paternal affection, and was only seeking their restoration to a right mind.—I admonish you.—Νουθετεῖν, to bring to mind, to warn.—It may imply severe rebuke or friendly admonition. Here it is evidently the latter. [See more fully on this word Trench Syn. N. T. sub voce, and Wm. Webster, Syntax and Synonymns of the Gr. T.]. 1 Corinthians 4:15. He justifies his right to admonish on the ground of the paternal relation he sustains to them. This he exhibits in contrast with the mere preceptorship held by their other teachers. To the latter they were indebted only for discipline, but to him they owed their spiritual existence.—For even though.—By virtue of the relation of the two clauses indicated by ἀλλ̓ἐάν, carries the significance of κᾄν, even though—ye have ten thousand.—Μυρίους implies only an indefinitely large number, as in 1 Corinthians 14:19. Bisp.: ‘never so many,’—a hint, perhaps, that there were too many teachers there,—instructors—παιδαγωγούς. This word among the Greeks designated those who were employed to look after, and train little children; and these were commonly slaves. Paul here applies it to the teachers who succeeded him (1 Corinthians 3:10 ff.), but without any bad implication [such as Calvin, Beza and de Wette suppose], since this would not befit Apollos and others like him. Nor can we well conceive the term to imply that those whom it designated were holding the Corinthians back in rudimental knowledge [Calvin] (Galatians 4:2), or were acting upon a stand-point that sought to unite legal and evangelical elements. All he means is that his right over them was higher, his relation to them more intimate than that of any other could be; and that these allowed him the privilege of supervising their education in their new Christian life.—in Christ.—This adjunct shows the sphere in which these instructors were supposed to labor, that of the Christian life. [Hodge says, that “the words in the original show that they belong to the verb, ‘Though ye may have in Christ, i. e. in reference to Christ, or as Christians, many instructors yet have ye not many fathers.” ̓ ?]—yet not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus.—Here again, as before, the words “in Christ Jesus,” denote the element in which Paul labored.—I begot you.—i. e. as Christians. On γεννᾷν comp. Phil. 10; Galatians 4:19. Others connect the words ‘in Christ Jesus’ with ‘I,’ and make it mean: ‘I in Christ,’ i. e. as ‘an Apostle in Christ.’ But as this designation in the foregoing clause does not belong to ‘instructors’ in any such way as to mean, that they instructed by virtue of their fellowship with Christ, so here it is not to be similarly connected with Paul, although it was in itself true, that those labors of his, which begot in them the new life, and developed it afterwards, could have proved successful only so far as they had been wrought in Christ—through the Gospel.—Here we have the instrumentality employed. It was the proclamation of those good tidings which are briefly summed up in John 3:16; 1 Timothy 1:15, and elsewhere. The Gospel is ‘the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth’ (Romans 1:16); ‘the word of the cross;’ ‘the word of truth,’ by which God begets us (James 1:18); ‘the living,’ the undestructible seed of the new birth (1 Peter 1:23). And the essential substance of this Gospel, that which gives it its quickening and nourishing power, is Christ Himself [the Word in the word.] The claim to paternity here put forth, is in no way prejudicial to the fatherhood of God, or the Lordship of Christ, since Paul is here speaking of the relation which the Church sustained to the different teachers in respect to the origin and growth of their spiritual life. The higher absolute relation to God is here presupposed, and even intimated by the phrases “in Christ” and “through the Gospel.” The simple instrumentality, alluded to in the whole case, is evident of itself; just as in 1 Timothy 4:16. 1 Corinthians 4:17. Therefore:—i. e. because I am to you as a father, and it accords with the analogy of nature, that children should resemble their parents.—I beseech you.—An affectionate entreaty to heed one brief request.—be ye imitators of me.—But how far? Not in general; but in those particulars which he has just been enumerating, wherein he stood in such striking contrast with them, viz., in humility and self-resignation; “in the renouncement of all ambition and conceit” Meyer; we might also add with Osiander, ‘in that self-devoted heroism with which he sealed his faith.’ [“Nor these only,” says Alf., “but also, as in 1 Corinthians 4:17, in his manner of life and teaching”]. 1 Corinthians 4:18. For this cause.—This is to be referred back either to 1 Corinthians 4:15, as expressing the motive of his sending Timothy: ‘because I am your father, and feel towards you like one’ [as Chrys., Theoph. and others]; or to 1 Corinthians 4:16, as indicating the purpose of his sending him: to promote your imitation of me. The latter reference is to be preferred, otherwise 1 Corinthians 4:16 must be taken parenthetically. Osiander combines both, and justly, in so far as what is said in 1 Corinthians 4:16, rests upon the paternal relationship asserted in 1 Corinthians 4:15. The meaning is: ‘since I, as a father, must insist on your imitating my example, I have sent unto you my dear Timothy, who will aid you in this respect.’—I have sent to you Timothy—not as though Timothy was to be the bearer of the Epistle (comp. Acts 16:10), since he came later, being obliged to go through Macedonia on his way to Corinth (Acts 19:22).—who is my son.—Timothy is here represented as one who, equally with the Corinthians, was converted by Paul, and had derived through him his spiritual life, and so held the same relations to Paul that they did. And the Apostle testifies to his tender care over them in the fact, that he sends to them this their brother, who was especially dear to him, and enjoyed his fullest confidence; one, therefore, whom they had peculiar reason to welcome cordially, as a person able to exhibit to them the mind of their common father in a most reliable manner. [It must be remembered also that Timothy was with Paul during his first visit to Corinth, and must therefore have been personally known to a large portion of the Church]. To explain the epithet ‘my son,’ on the ground that Timothy had been educated to his office by Paul, after the manner that the Rabbis called their scholars ‘sons,’ is not sufficiently sustained by the consideration that we have no further information of his conversion by Paul. Rather the intimacy of the relation between the two expressions in Tim. 1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Timothy 1:2, and also the application to him of the same title, ‘beloved son,’ which had just been applied to the Corinthians, would seem to confirm the opinion that Paul had also ‘begotten him through the Gospel.’—beloved and faithful in the Lord.—The phrase ‘in the Lord’ belongs not merely to ‘faithful,’ (i. e. devoted to me, true to his calling, and therefore reliable) but also to all that is said of Timothy. The praise bestowed on Timothy appears also to have the incidental purpose of impressing upon the Corinthians, in a tender. manner, the kind of conduct which they owed to their spiritual fathers. Timothy’s errand is expressed in the words:—who shall remind you of my ways in the Lord.—The ἀναμιμνήσκειν: to remind, presupposes the existence of a knowledge which has been repressed by adverse influences, so that it needs to be called up again and refreshed. “There is a slight implication here “(Osiander), and Chrysostom remarks that ‘the word is finely chosen to quiet the pride of the Corinthians which might be aroused at the idea of being taught by a youth.’ What he means by ‘his ways in Christ’ he goes on to explain.—as I teach every where in every church.—It was his mode of conduct as a Christian teacher; and this, as it regarded, not so much the subject of his teaching, or its manner, as his demeanor while doing it,—the humility and self-denial with which he discharged his calling. This is implied by the connection. The use of καθώς here, as employed to introduce a defining clause, in the sense of: how, is somewhat remarkable. See Acts 15:14; 3 John 1:3 [where the word is clearly used in this sense, and where Alford somewhat arbitrarily asserts that it is alone thus used]. Hence Billr. joins it to the verb ‘remind,’ as if Paul meant: ‘he will remind you, etc., just as I myself, teach.’ But from this 1, no good sense can be obtained, and 2, ‘myself is arbitrary. Osiander’s explanation, though suitable in sense, is yet somewhat forced: ‘who will remind you of my walk (my course of life), agreeably to which I teach everywhere.’ The first explanation has the most in its favor, in spite of its grammatical difficulties. The ‘reminding’ could however refer to his activity in other churches also, since they undoubtedly had knowledge of this, from information which had been given by brethren on their travels. The reference to this uniformity of his conduct generally, strengthened the motive for their imitating him. AND ETHICAL1. Spiritual paternity.—The awakening of the spiritual life in man is a Divine act. It originates in God’s purpose of salvation, formed in reference to the individual (James 1:18; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). Its ground is Christ, in His complex divine-human life as carried out in the work of redemption, which was effected through His death and resurrection and final glorification (John 7:39). Its immediate cause is the Holy Spirit, who imparts to the redeemed the new life of Christ, proceeding from his death; or, in other words, reproduces in us individually the new man of righteousness, born in Christ through a judicial process of death passed upon the old man or the flesh. The organ of this Spirit is the Word, viz., the testimony of Christ, and concerning Christ, which proceeds from Him; and the object and substantial contents of which He Himself is. By bringing this living Word forcibly to bear upon the heart, the Spirit opens the heart. Testifying to sinners of the love of God cherished towards them individually in Christ, he regains their lost confidence; and starts the fountains of all godly life, of all holy conduct towards God,—in obedience and patience; and puts an end to the old distrust, that was the source of all rebellion and sin. And he does this in a way to magnify God and belittle man, and to convert the sinner’s pride to humility. But inasmuch as in this process of renewal God employs human instrumentalities, he confers on these also the dignity of a spiritual fatherhood, and so takes them into a sort of fellowship with Himself. This holds good, however, not of those who have become, so to speak, the accidental instruments in this work, i. e., who have in some way brought about the conversion of souls either by speaking or writing saving truths, the force of which they have not practically felt, but only of those who have the life of Christ in them as an energizing power, and who can, out of their own personal experiences, testify of Him, and of His enlightening and regenerating grace, and who are therefore in a condition to beget a kindred life in others. Standing in Christ as the ground of their life, and moving ever in Him, such persons are enabled to introduce others into the same communion, by presenting to them, in quickening power through the Gospel, Jesus Christ in the fulness of His holy love and in His redeeming work, and by thus inducing them to come out from themselves and give themselves up to Him who has given and will yet give Himself for them. In this way they become spiritual fathers; for it is by virtue of the living power of Christ dwelling in them that they are capable of engendering life in others, just as in the sphere of the physical life, the natural creative power, resident in the individual as a personal property, involves in its generative exercise the character and dignity of the paternal relation. But the more clearly and simply this spiritual paternity is recognized and maintained upon its Divine ground, the more decisively will all further educational efforts on the part of the earthly parent result in bringing these spiritual children out from their first dependence on him (a dependence which often involves an unworthy attachment to his personal idiosyncracies), and fastening them more exclusively upon Him, who is the eternal and absolute ground of this relation, even God in Christ. The children are thus liberated from all that is limited and imperfect in the human parent, to enter upon a freer and more independent development in Christ, and thus to make purer advances in knowledge and holiness. But this spiritual paternity carries with it a high authority, a holy right to discipline, to rebuke, to exhort, to purify, with severity or mildness, or both commingled, as circumstances may demand. And this right is exercised as one of love, and under love’s strong impulses, and with that ingenuous wisdom which is peculiar to lore, and with which it devises all sorts of methods for alluring, urging, restraining, arousing, and softening children, restoring their disturbed confidence and reλstablishing over them a weakened authority. [“A father never is afraid Of speaking angrily to any child Since love he knows is justified of love.”] All this is illustrated for us in the Apostle Paul. 2. [Apostolic piety is the standard for the whole Church, even to the end of time. The Romish theory, which distinguishes between the clergy and laity, and imposes on the former a degree of sanctity and a mode of life not exacted of the latter, is here plainly condemned in advance. Paul puts all believers on the same footing with himself. He lays claim to no special grace, and recognizes no obligation to self-denial and sacrifice which does not equally rest on the whole Church. In his office as an Apostle, he became indeed a spiritual father; but in point of that Christian character, which underlay his Apostleship, he would have his children resemble him. Here we learn that the Spirit of Christ aims to pervade His entire body, and seeks to mould all, pastors and people alike, to a common type. And this spirit is a cross-bearing spirit. It is a spirit; which it devolves on every minister to exemplify and enforce, and on every Church to imbibe and cultivate. There will be no abatement of this requisition until Christ shall come]. 3. [Christian example is an important means for instructing and edifying the Church. Its uses are: 1. For illustration. It is the living Epistle, accompanying the written Epistle, in the way of comment and explanation. The truth stated in doctrine, example embodies in solid substantial forms, that are more fraught with meaning, and more vivid in expression than words can be. The duty enforced in the precept, it exhibits in the operations of a holy life, that teach the true method of its performance. Thus the understanding is helped to right conceptions of the Word; and the life of God in the Church proves the light of the world. 2. For persuasion. “Words teach, but examples draw.” So says the proverb, and the reason is, that that inward conviction and force of will, which are the secret of personal influence, express themselves most significantly in the conduct. It is through this, therefore, that man acts most powerfully on man. 3. For encouragement. The lives of eminent believers show the possibility of high attainment, and a certainty of the divine promises; and by the shout of “victory at last” animate the spirits of observers to enter the fight of faith, and to do and endure in like manner, with the full assurance of like results. 4. For rebuke. The zeal, energy, courage, patience, self-denial and sufferings of every devoted believer, presents a disparaging and mortifying contrast with the conduct of those who, while professing a like devotion, evince only an easy idle, self-indulgent, self-satisfied spirit, or aspire only after honors and applause. To set a worthy example is the duty not only of Apostles and ministers, but of all Christians alike. As Paul called upon the early converts to ‘imitate him,’ so were they instructed to live so as to extend the same call to others coming after them. The guiding word which ought to be continually heard passing down the ever lengthening ranks of the Church, as it moves onward through darkness and through light, treading in the footsteps of its great leader, should be: ‘Follow me, even as I also follow Christ’]. AND 1. [Church founders and all who have been instrumental in converting souls should: 1. love the subjects of their labors with a paternal affection, even as they stand towards them in the peculiar relation of spiritual fathers (1 Corinthians 4:15); 2. aim in their reproof, however sharp, α. not to mortify and disgrace their spiritual offspring, but, b. to admonish and so restore them to duty (1 Corinthians 4:14); 3. see an example of the Christian life which they shall be able to call on their children to imitate (1 Corinthians 4:16); 4. take pains to show them how they live in all their ways, so that there shall be no excuse for ignorance or mistake, (1 Corinthians 4:17)]. Starke: Nothing is sharper and more penetrating than the rebukes of love, (1 Corinthians 4:14). Hedinger: 1 Corinthians 4:15.—It is the duty and the characteristic of a true minister to beget children through the Gospel, or to lead those, who have been thus begotten, to a further knowledge of Christ. No less is it the token of a right-minded hearer to suffer himself to be thus begotten through the Word, and be trained to maturity in Christ. (1 Thessalonians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:10; 1 Peter 2:2). A preacher must build not only with words but also with his life, and so as it were with both hands, that he may be an example to believers both in word and conversation. It is a shame for children to run in strange paths and thus degenerate, (1 Corinthians 4:16). The visitation of churches by suitable persons is a useful and highly necessary practice (1 Corinthians 4:17). Berl. Bib.:—It is no small thing to be a spiritual father and teacher. Only those who are mature in Christ are suited for such an office; for only according to the measure of our attainments in the divine life shall we be able to beget and fashion other souls. It is, therefore, a presumption in those, who are as yet but children, to wish to become fathers and teachers, before they themselves have rightly learned (1 Corinthians 4:15). Who would wish to exhibit himself as a pattern for others, before he has himself patterned after Christ? (1 Corinthians 4:16). Heubner:—Fathers, who carry their children, on their hearts, mourn over the transgressions of their children, long for their reformation, and strive to make them blessed. Yea, they would be willing to pluck out their own hearts for their sake, if so be they might in this way do them any good (1 Corinthians 4:15). What joyousness of spirit is required to warrant a person in holding himself up as a pattern for others (1 Corinthians 4:16). [Calvin:—The first token of return to a right state of mind is the shame which the son begins to feel on being reproached for his fault. Yet he who admonishes in a friendly spirit will make it his particular care that whatever there is of shame, may remain with the individual admonished, and may in this manner be buried. In reproofs use moderation, mixing honey and oil with the vinegar. Let it be understood that nothing is sought but the welfare of those reproved (1 Corinthians 4:14).—How few there are that love the Churches with a fatherly affection and lay themselves out to promote their welfare. Mean while there are many pedagogues who hire out their services as it were to discharge a mere temporary office, and hold the people in subjection, and admiration. When I say pedagogues, I do not refer to Popish priests, for I would not do them the honor of reckoning them in that number (1 Corinthians 4:15).—Uniformity and steadfastness of conduct “in every place,” most important for a minister, so that no objection can be brought against him, as though he conducted himself differently in different places. (Ad sensum) (1 Corinthians 4:17)]. Footnotes: This section has been divided on account of the manifest difference between the two parts]. 1 Corinthians 4:14.—The variation νουθετὥν [found in A. Cod. Sin.] is a supposed improvement, made for the purpose of uniformity with ἐντρἑπων. 1 Corinthians 4:17.—Instead of the Rec. τέκνονμου. Tischendorf [Alf., Stanley] read μουτέκνον according to A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.] and others. [“The Rec. is a correction to the more usual order.” Alf.]. 1 Corinthians 4:17.—Lach. reads ΧριστῷἸησοῦ [after C. D2. Cod. Sin. Vulg. etc.]. Others, κνρίᾠΙησον͂ ? [after D1. F.]. But the Rec. Χριστῷ is best supported [being found in A. B. D3. L. and in most citations of the Fathers]. B. Anticipation of misconception as to his motives in sending Timothy and of consequent arrogance, on the part of some. Such to be tested in point of power. The kingdom of God a thing of power 1 Corinthians 4:18-2118 Now some are [have been] puffed up, as though I would not come [were not coming] to you. 19But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. 20For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. 21What will ye? shall I come unto you with [ἐν] a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? AND 1 Corinthians 4:18. He here obviates an inference which might be drawn [and, it would seem from the Apostle’s language, had actually been drawn], from his sending Timothy to Corinth. It was, that he was not coming there himself. And some were elated, in consequence, with the idea, that it was because he dared not come.—Some have been puffed up.—By ἐφυσιώθησαν, puffed up, we are not to understand that conceit of wisdom, spoken of before, which lifted certain of them high in their own esteem, above the simplicity of the Apostle. He alludes rather to that arrogant manner, that overweening insolence, which is a common feature of party spirit. Whether any declarations of theirs, respecting his not coming to Corinth, had been communicated to Paul; or whether he only inferred from their conduct that they must be indulging in such expectations; or whether he only intended to say that they were puffed up, as though he were not to be present among them again, may be left undecided. Bengel’s idea, ‘that a Divine inspiration discovered to him the thoughts which would arise in their minds on reading his letter,’ is ingenious, but hardly suitable.—as though I also were not coming.—ὡςμὴἐρχομένουδέμου—The δέ relates to the sending of Timothy, and puts μου in conjunction with him. [“ὡς expresses the assumption in their minds: the present participle ἐρχομένου refers to their saying—οὐκἐρχεται: ‘he is not coming.’ And, inasmuch as ἔρχ forms one idea, the δέ is placed after it all. See Hart. Partikellehre 1, p. 190.” Alf.]. 1 Corinthians 4:19. Counter-statements.—But I will come to you shortly.—Paul’s courage here speaks out resolutely in an emphatic, ‘I will come’ (ἐλεύσομαι), which is put first. The ‘shortly’ (comp. 1 Corinthians 16:6), [but why not also the entire fact of his coming also?], he makes dependent on the will of the Lord (1 Corinthians 16:7), whose servant he is, and who might appoint him tasks, the discharge of which would prevent him from executing his purpose,—if the Lord will.—Thus courage and assurance are coupled with a humble consciousness of dependence, and with submission to the control of a higher power. [“So constantly did Paul live in communion with Christ as his God, submitting to Him and trusting to Him at all times.” Hodge].—and I will know, γνώσομαι.—This denotes, not a judicial finding upon I a previous trial, nor yet a simple taking knowledge of by observation (Meyer), but a consciousness attained by experience, and by tests applied. It implies that Apostolic discernment, which penetrates through all outward shows into the very essence of things, which does not suffer itself to be deceived by lofty phrase, or high sounding threats (1 Corinthians 1:17; 1 Corinthians 3:4), but which accurately detects the presence or absence of a true capacity for energetic and successful labors in the kingdom of God (comp. 1 Corinthians 4:20).—not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power.—There is the same contrast between λόγος and δυν́αμις here, that we have 1 Thessalonians 1:5; comp. 2 Timothy 3:5, where instead of “speech” we have “the form of godliness” contrasted with “power.” “Δύναμις is the essential power, or true nature and efficacy of a thing in opposition to mere external show.” Neander. To explain it of the power to work miracles [Chrys., Grotius], or of moral virtue [Theod., Pelagius], or of the influences of doctrine upon life [Calvin], would not suit the context. [“It is power to work for the furtherance of God’s kingdom—a power conditioned on the possession of true inward spiritual energy (which de Wette makes it to mean). Examples of this are seen in Paul himself, in Luther and in others.” Meyer. It was such power as the Apostles were commanded to wait for at Jerusalem, ere they went forth to be witnesses for their Lord, and which was exhibited so wonderfully at the day of Pentecost; such power as Paul speaks of, when to the Thessalonians he said: ‘Our Gospel came not unto you, in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost’ (where we see that the antithesis in the text is not to be taken absolutely but relatively); such power as is mentioned in Romans 15:18, “the Gentiles being made obedient by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” It was an essential attribute of the Church, and especially of the ministry of the Church, as energized for the conquest of the world by the indwelling spirit of God, and so made mighty to the pulling down of strongholds. The lack of power, therefore, indicated an absence of the spirit,—the want of a Divine commission and of a heavenly unction]. 1 Corinthians 4:20. Reason for the foregoing. The eye of an Apostle must be directed to the kingdom of God, and to whatever promotes its advancement. And this kingdom is not built up by beautiful and high-sounding speeches, but by that spiritual energy which awakens and develops the inward life of the spirit.—For the kingdom of God.—By this is meant the Divine kingdom of the Messiah as a life in communion with God, or as a social state pervaded and regulated by the Divine will. It must, therefore, bear upon itself the signature of righteousness, holiness and blessedness. Or, as the Old Testament describes it (e. g. Psalms 72), it is a ‘kingdom of righteousness and peace; in which character it is! spoken of again in Romans 14:17. This is also the ruling idea in historical Christianity, whose primitive form is the Church. Its full realization, however, where the living law penetrates and pervades all that is phenomenal, or, in other words, where the archetypal idea and the fact wholly correspond, belongs to the future age. To exclude the ethical element from the conception, is just as incorrect as to hold by it altogether. In the New Testament both are united, prominence being given, sometimes to one, and sometimes to the other, in different passages. But that only the truly pious and believing can properly be members of this kingdom (Colossians 3:3; Philippians 4:21; Ephesians 5:5), is seen in the fact, that it is a fellowship in holiness. [For a good exposition of this important term, see Fairbairn’s Herm. Man. p. 56. Olsh. Com. on Matt. 3:21].—is, ἐστίν—is to be understood and associated with ἐν, in, and is to be taken as in 1 Corinthians 2:5, to mean, consists in, stands in.—not in word, but in power.—From this it is evident that the ethical element of God’s kingdom is mainly considered. But whether the Apostle is here speaking of the ground or condition upon which a person participates in this kingdom, or of its direct active advancement, may be questioned. In the former case the sense would be: that, whereon participation in God’s kingdom is conditioned, viz., faith and love, is not brought about through word, but through the power that is at work in its behalf, i. e. of the minister or teacher (Meyer); in the latter ease it would mean: he only is able truly to advance God’s kingdom, in whom this power exists. The latter interpretation, which includes also the idea, that such a person alone can be regarded as rightly belonging to God’s kingdom, is simpler and more suited to the context. “It must be said, however, that the distinction here made between word and power, is not for the purpose of separating the latter from the former, and attributing to it an operation that manifests itself apart form and independent of the word, as fanatics teach; but in order to contrast with the empty declamation of false teachers that true preaching which is filled with the spirit,—to oppose to their mere artificial rhetoric the power of God which resides in the simplicity of the Gospel.” Burger. 1 Corinthians 4:21. Having expressed his determination to go to Corinth, he here leaves it for them to decide in what form his authority shall be exercised (2 Corinthians 10:6; 2 Corinthians 13:2 ff.). This verse some commentators [Calvin, Beza, Lachmann, Stanley Words.,] connect with the following chapter as opening a new topic for rebuke. But, as no allusion is there made to his coming to Corinth, and there is no particle to connect it with what follows, it is better to take it as concluding this chapter. [So Meyer, Alf., Hodge],—What—τί=πότερον, but is more forcible, inasmuch as the alternative presented does not appear at once.—will ye?—[“As Chrys. strikingly says, ‘The whole thing lies with you.’ ” Meyer].—Shall I come.—The verb έ̓λθω is not dependent on θέλετε—to you with a rod, ἐνράβδῳ ?—[The use of ἐν to express the relation of accompaniment or instrumentality, is not a Hebraism, but a genuine Geek idiom. So Meyer. But Winer,§ 48. d. says, it is also used like the Hebrew λְּ in cases where Greek authors employ the Dative alone. Its significance in the text is well given by Alf. “not only with a rod, but in such purpose as to use it. The preposition here gives the idea of the element in which, much as ἐνδόξη̣ ?”]. Here also he presents to view his paternal relation. The rod is the symbol of fatherly severity. [It means the rod of His mouth. For the word of God, spoken by such as Paul, was sharp and powerful. There is an intimation here of Paul’s consciousness of power]. In contrast with this, and as the alternative before them, love is mentioned—or in love.—This indeed is not excluded from severity; but it forms an antithesis to it, inasmuch as in severity the natural expression of love is kept in abeyance, and it is compelled to manifest itself in ways alien to itself. This idea is more fully brought out in the associated clause—and (in) the spirit of meekness.—Luther says: “with tenderness of spirit,” so that πνεῦηα would then mean the subjective disposition. But Meyer, following the analogy of such passages as John 15:26; Romans 8:15; 2 Corinthians 4:13; Ephesians 1:17; Romans 1:4; [where, as here, πνεῦμα is followed by the abstract genitive and evidently denotes the Holy Spirit, whose specific working is expressed by the noun in connection], interprets the word here in like manner. [But, as Alf. shows, Meyer is mistaken when he affirms, that this meaning attaches to πνεῦμα in all kindred passages of the New Testament. There is plainly no fixed usage compelling this interpretation here. It were better, therefore, with Calvin, de Wette, Stanley and others, to understand by the phrase: a meek, gentle spirit. See Winer § 34:3 b]. ΙΙραῦτης denotes sparing, forgiving mildness. In this winning way he gives them to understand that he would much rather be spared the necessity of discipline. [“It is plain from this, as from numerous other passages, that the Apostles exercised the, right of discipline over all the churches. They could receive into the communion of the Church, or excommunicate from it at discretion. This prerogative was unseparable from their infallibility as the messengers of Christ, sent to establish and administer his kingdom.” Hodge. “For nerve and vigor, for dignity and composed confidence, this passage cannot be easily paralleled even in Demosthenes himself.” Bloomfield]. AND ETHICAL The kingdom of God, a thing of power. This kingdom, formerly typified in shadowy outlines (σκιά) through the promise and the law, and through a series of special providences, and prepared through miracles and signs, and through the gracious, wise and holy guidance and training of a chosen people, was first exhibited in its original principles, and perfectly realized as the kingdom of heaven upon earth, in the person of the Son of man, come from Heaven (comp. Luke 2:14; Matthew 12:28). He was the first to fulfil all righteousness, always doing that which was well pleasing to the Father (John 8:29; Matthew 3:15). In the plenitude of the Spirit’s might, which rested on Him, (John 1:32), He exercised a constraining and subduing power over the hearts of men, and in word and deed evinced a Divine puissance of love, that overcame the hostile spirits of darkness, proved invincible to Satanic assaults, loosed all manner of bonds, and removed evil of every kind. Though externally weak and depressed, we find Him emerging victorious out of that judgment and death, to which He had freely subjected Himself, and, as the one to whom all power in Heaven and upon earth had been given, rising far above all creaturely limitations into the right hand of the Majesty on High. Having thus in His own person and history laid the foundations of the Kingdom of God, and illustrated its character and career and triumphs, we behold Him gathering a Church, through the dispensation of the Spirit, out of that apostate race, (whose nature He had assumed and had, essentially as well as morally, united to God), and exhibiting in it, as in a germ, the kingdom of righteousness and peace, in the exercise of a lofty power over the hearts of men and in the manifestation of ability to redeem and save. This Church, which, from its unseen beginnings, has, after a lapse of ages, spread out into a mighty tree, continues to exist now, precisely as it originated, only through the might of the Divine Spirit, who works in its members—especially in those who are active in its cause—for the continued illumination and sanctification of mankind. And only by the same Divine agency is the kingdom of God, which is enclosed in the Church, advanced, and that period hastened, when it shall be made manifest in all its glorious reality, and when the Lord shall reign King over all the nations. (Zechariah 14:9). The powers which rule in the Church are, in fact, the powers of ‘the world to come,’ the αἰωνμέλλων (Hebrews 6:5); and while these powers display their Divine energy, in cleansing the heart more and more from the filthiness of the flesh and the spirit, in promoting knowledge and sanctification, and in strengthening the will to endure under all assaults of temptation and persecution, the Church is ripening towards that glorious epoch when, in the union of all the holy in Heaven and upon earth, it will appear supreme in Christ, over all things, as the true Kingdom of God, wherein God shall be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28). AND [1. The carnal-minded in the Church, 1, are apt to gather presumption, and take courage for self-display, during the absence of their Divinely appointed guides, 1 Corinthians 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2, need to be thoroughly tested as to their really spiritual qualities, and exposed, 1 Corinthians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 3, are deserving of rebuke and discipline, 1 Corinthians 4:21. 2. Since the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power, its ministers must be, 1, full of courage and fearless of opposition, 1 Corinthians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 2, dependent on the Lord, from whom their power comes, for direction in all their movements, 1 Corinthians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 3, capable of testing human pretensions, 1 Corinthians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 4, prepared for severe or lenient dealing, as circumstances may require, yet disposed in spirit to the latter, rather than the former, 1 Corinthians 4:21. 3. In the truth, that the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power—the power of the Holy Ghost, we have, 1, A lesson of instruction. It shows us to what source ministers and all Christian laborers are indebted for the success of their words and efforts; 2, A criterion for judgment. We can ascertain whether the kingdom of God is present in any person, or church, which claims to possess it, by the ability shown to achieve those results for which the Divine power is given; 3, A ground of encouragement. Weak as believers are in themselves, and great as is the work to be accomplished, the kingdom of God in them can strengthen them to do all things; 4, A lesson of duty. If we would do great things for God, we must trust, a. not to our own skill in persuasion, but b. in the power which the Holy Ghost imparts; 5, A rebuke. Lack of achievement for the kingdom of God cannot be charged upon a lack of power in it, but upon a lack of faith in Christians to use the power given]. Luther: 1 Corinthians 4:20. Faith is a living, essential thing; it makes a man entirely new, changes his disposition, and turns him completely about. Wilt thou continue to remain in thy pride and immodesty, in avarice and anger, and wilt thou boast and prate much of faith ? then comes Paul to thee and says, ‘Listen, good friend; the kingdom of God does not consist in words, but in power and in deeds.’ Starke:—The point to be looked at is not how a person talks about religion, but whether the essentials of Christianity—truth, experience, action—are in him (1 Corinthians 4:19). O, precious declaration! It is power—power—not prating and show that makes the Christian.—Hed. Where the kingdom of God is, there Christ is, and the Holy Spirit also, who regenerates men (1 Corinthians 4:20).—If soft words won’t serve, then the minister must rebuke sharply.—Love remains the same when it is severe, as when it is mild, provided it only leads to God. Its various arts of regulation must first be thoroughly learned and then practised when needful.—Righteousness, holiness and love exist in God combined; and as both Law and Gospel have alike issued therefrom, so should every evangelical minister rightly employ both. 2 Timothy 2:15 (1 Corinthians 4:21). Berl. Bible:—The whole kingdom of our God is pervaded with Divine and heavenly powers. And although indeed He utters words from thence, yet these words are spirit and life, yea, the words of eternal life (John 6:63; John 6:68). Hence words, fraught with the spirit and quickening in their influence, are also a fruit of the kingdom of God, which consists in power. In short, every thing which God speaks, works and does, in and through his Son, carries in itself a kind of power, and manifests this power wherever it is not hindered (1 Corinthians 2:5; Romans 1:16), (1 Corinthians 4:20). People say sometimes: ‘Where is love? More is accomplished by love than by severity.’ True, provided we are not compelled to use severity. Then severity itself is also an effect of love (1 Corinthians 4:21). Heubner:—The “puffed up” are mighty in words, but weak in deeds. Inward spiritual power lies in humility. The Church of Christ does not need braggarts, but true workers (1 Corinthians 4:19).—The unction of the true preacher is detected in the power he exerts upon the hearts of men (1 Corinthians 4:20).—Man determines for himself the treatment he shall receive, whether it shall be severity or mildness. Well for him, who is still enjoying the gracious period of discipline. He is better than one altogether. reprobate. God has a two fold staff, the staff of mildness and the staff of woe (Zechariah 11:7-14) (1 Corinthians 4:2). Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 4:21.—The Rec. has πραότητος [with D. F. L. Cod. Sin.]; but Tisch. [according to A. B. C., or 2] reads πραν̓τητος [so Words., Alf., Stanley]. X—A SECOND OF .— OF .—NEED OF CHURCH IN [A case of incest stated.—Call for Excommunication.—Its form and intent] 1 Corinthians 5:1-51 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named [is not even] among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. 2And ye are puffed up, [?] and have not [did not] rather mourned, [mourn], that he that hath done this deed might he taken away [om. away] from among you [?]. 3For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning [om. concerning] him that hath so done3 this deed, 4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ [om. Christ], when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, [om. Christ5]. 5To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. AND Paul here turns to a second topic for animadversion, and what follows might well serve to take down still further the self-conceit of the Corinthians. [“This, practically speaking, forms the crisis of the whole Epistle. It is, as it were, the burst of the storm, the mutterings of which, as Chrysostom observes, had already been heard in the earlier chapters, and of which the echoes are still discernible, not only in this Epistle, but also in the second Epistle, the first half of which is nothing less than an endeavor to allay the excitement and confusion created by this severe remonstrance.” Stanley]. The passage is introduced abruptly without any conjunctive particle. 1 Corinthians 5:1. States the specific ground of complaint.—Commonly ὅλως: not indeed, nor, at all, as it can mean only in negative clauses; [nor “absolutely, as simply adding force to the assertion.” Stanley; nor, in short (Clericus), which Ols. says is the only second meaning that can be justified]; but, as in 1 Corinthians 6:7; 1 Corinthians 15:29 : Matthew 5:34, in general. It belongs not to πορνεία, fornication, but as an adverb to ακούεαι, is heard, and so to the whole clause. [“It implies, however, the general prevalence of the practice spoken of.” Olshausen. So Meyer, de Wette; and Hodge allows it. “The signification, certainly, implying that the matter was no doubtful rumor, but an evident fact (as Calvin, Beza and others), is contrary to the meaning of the word.” Meyer]—there is heard among you, ακούεταιἐνὑμῖν.—By this it is not simply meant, that there was some talk of the subject mentioned in their circles generally, but that the thing, of which the talk was, prevailed there; although this is only to be inferred from the context, and is not directly expressed. (It would then mean: ἐνὑμῖνοὖσαεἶναι; the former, in case it was a correct report; the latter, if it were only a vague rumor). [The names of the informants are not specified, as in the former instance. It was a case of public rumor, and the sin so notorious as to need no vouchers. See Words.].—fornication, πορνεία.—[“The word is used in a comprehensive sense, including all violations of the seventh commandment.” Hodge]. Of these one in particular was singled out, of the grossest and most astounding sort, viz., of incest. This is introduced byκαί, which points to something special under a general head, and brings it in as a climax,—and indeed, or yea even,—with the repetition of the general term for the sake of emphasis,—such fornification, as not even among the Gentiles.—The ellipsis might be filled up most readily by: ‘is heard,’ or simply by: ‘is.’ [The Rec. text has ‘is named,’ which Alf. calls “a clumsy gloss taken from Ephesians 5:3.”] Paul here sets forth the unparalleled nature of the crime he was about to speak of, and the greatness of the disgrace which thereby fell upon the Christian Church—‘a holy people.’—That one has his father’s wife, i.e., his step-mother (μητρυιά)—comp. Leviticus 18:7-8—and this either as wife, or concubine. The word ἔχειν, to have, is used of both relations, as is seen by such passages as 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:29; Matthew 14:4; Matthew 22:28; John 4:18. In this case it most probably stands for an illegitimate concubinal relation (comp. Osiander), which was also a ‘having,’ inasmuch as it was a habitual thing, as well as an act consummated (πράξας: having done, 1 Corinthians 5:2; and κατεργασάμενος: having perpetrated, 1 Corinthians 5:3). By the expression—‘his father’s wife,’ the wicked violation of the relation sustained to the father, is brought out more conspiculously than if he said simply ‘step-mother.’ The father, moreover, is to be considered as still living, (against Besser), and as a Christian. See 2 Corinthians 7:12, where the father is spoken of as one ‘that had suffered wrong’ (ἀδικηθείς), and where Paul says ‘he did not write on his account.’ The son, at all events, must have been a member of the church; the woman, however, not, since he, and not she, is made the subject of censure. Further questions, e. g., as to whether the man was a proselyte, and had proceeded on the Jewish maxim, that a person who had become “a new creature,” had severed himself from all former connections, and was at liberty to enter into new relations otherwise forbidden? may be suffered to rest. In speaking of the crime here mentioned as something not existing among the Gentiles, Paul does not mean to say that it never occurred in their history. Cases of this sort are indeed recorded, and tragedies have been founded upon them; but they are always spoken of as rare exceptions, that excited the utmost public horror. Cicero pro Cluentio: “Scelus incredibile, et prζter hanc unam in omni vita inauditum.” (comp. Wetstein and others on this passage). 1 Corinthians 5:2. Expressions of astonishment at their conduct in view of the above fact.—And ye are puffed up?—[This and the following clause should be read as questions. So Calvin, Meyer, Alf., Words., et al.]. The ὑμεῖς, ye is emphatic, and points back to ἐνὑμῖν, among you, q. d. ‘such a thing has occurred among you, and you are, etc. Questions of this sort are often introduced by καί, and, which here does not take the emphasis as though equivalent to: ‘and yet,’ but throws it forward on the word following. The assertion that they were puffed up, refers, not to 1 Corinthians 4:18, where this is affirmed only of some, but to 1 Corinthians 4:8, where he describes the whole Church as filled with the conceit of their spiritual perfection. A great mistake it would be to suppose (with Chrys., Theod., Grot.) that the incestuous person himself was the subject of their pride, on the ground that he was some distinguished teacher among them; or that Paul here alludes to the boasting of other parties over that to which the incestuous belonged.—The proper state of feeling which they ought to have manifested, is expressed in the negative question.—And did not—when ye first knew of the crime—rather mourn—i.e. mourn, that a member of theirbody had sunk so low, and the Church of the Lord, which ought to have been kept holy, had been thus defiled and dishonored. (The Aorist ἐπενθήσατε indicates the act, expressed by the present, as past and finished, as in ἐπιστεύσατε 1 Corinthians 3:5). This mourning, which has its source in a lively sense of the common interest which all have in what affects all, implied also a combined and energetic movement for the removal of the evil deplored,—in order that he who had done this deed might be removed from among you? ἵναἀρθῇ.—The ἵνα here is not ecbatic, but retains its proper telic force, “unto the end that he,” etc. The removal pointed to, must not be regarded as implying any Divine visitation, a cutting off by death for example, or the like; since it is clear from 1 Corinthians 5:13, that he only contemplated the excommunication of the guilty party by an act of the Church itself—an act to which their sorrow should have prompted them. Bengel says: “Ye had no sorrow to stir you up for the removal,” etc. The manner in which the party under censure is designated, carries force: “he that hath done this deed”—έ̔ργον, facinus, this wicked deed.1 Corinthians 5:3-5. That such sorrow, leading to such results, should have prevailed in the Church, he confirms by stating the decision, which he, on his part, had reached in the case. [“There is something in the involved structure of this sentence, which gives a strong impression of the emotion, anguish, and indignation with which it was written, and which vented itself in broken and disturbed periods, as it were per singultus.”—Words].—For I, for my part, ἐγὼμἒν.—The μὲν puts Paul in strong contrast with the Corinthians, who were so indifferent and remiss in the case. If we are to retainὡςof, as, it must be regarded as embracing in its force the two following participles, and belonging especially to the latter, ‘though absent in body, yet as present in spirit.’ This then reappears in the next clause without any qualifying term, and as carrying the emphasis: κέκρικαὡςπαρών. The same contrast occurs in Colossians 2:5 : “For though I am absent from you in the flesh, yet in spirit I am present with you.” [Meyer, Words., Alf. omit the ὡς, as unauthorized. The sense is clearer without it—‘for I being absent in body, yet present in spirit.’ The participles state the facts in the case, and require no as implying similitude. This appears only in the next clause, where it properly belongs].—Absent in body, yet present in the spirit.—By ‘in the spirit’ we are not to understand the Holy Ghost (as Chrys. and others), but his own spirit, as contrasted with his body. Yet the spirit of the Apostle must not be thought of apart from the Divine illumination and energy which he enjoyed, and by means of which, even in his absence, he looked into and influenced the state of the Corinthian Church; although the τὸπνεῦμα, the spirit designates even his spiritual nature in contrast with his physical. A similar case occurs in 2 Kings 5:26, where Elisha says to Gehazi: “Went not my spirit with thee ?”—have already judged, ή̓δηκέκρικα.—(comp. on 1 Corinthians 2:2). “Already,”—this energetic and prompt conduct on the part of an absent person forms a contrast all the more striking with the slackness of those among whom the shameful scandal had occurred,—as present,—[Not, in spirit, for he was there already in spirit, but in body; ‘as though he were visibly among them to control and direct in the matter.’ So Meyer, Alf., Hodge]. [As the words which follow are brought under discussion as to their grammatical construction, it seems best, for the sake of perspicuity, to give them in full and translate them as they stand:—τὸνὅυτωτοῦτοκατεργασάμενονἐντῷὀνόματιτοῦκνρίουἡμῶν ’Ιησοῦσυναχθέντωνὑμῶνκαὶτοῦἐμοῦπνεύματοςσὺντῆδυνάμειτοῦκυρίουἡμῶν ’Ιησοῦπαραδοῦναιτὸντοιοῦτοντῷσατανᾷ. lit,—him so having perpetrated this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus being gathered together, you and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to give such a one to Satan.—The first question is as to the proper connection of the first clause here: “him having perpetrated this thing.” In the E. V. this is taken as governed by some preposition understood, e. g., κατα, concerning—so Words. Others (Stanley) construe it as the direct object of the verb κέκρικα, judge]. In this case the sentence would read: ‘I have judged or passed sentence on him who has,’ etc. The best way, however, would be to regard it as the object of παραδοῦναι in 1 Corinthians 5:5, so that the τὸντοιοῦτον, such a one, would then be merely the resumption of the same object under another form. [We should then translate, putting a colon after κέκρικα, ‘I have judged, that the person who has perpetrated this thing, ye in the name of the Lord Jesus, etc., do deliver such a one,’ etc.]. The reason for putting this objective clause first is to give it the emphasis, as bringing the guilty party more prominently in front. And the word ‘so’ is inserted for the sake of intensifying the enormity of the guilt incurred; and it points to certain aggravating circumstances well known to his readers,—“So shamefully, while called a brother.”—Bengel. We might also (with Osiander) here take in view both, the man’s shamlessness in perpetrating his crime and his utter disregard of his Christian obligations. The next question is about the proper connection of the subordinate clauses. These may be combined in four different ways. Either they may all be united with the principal verb παραδοῦναι, to deliver [Mosheim, Schrader and others], to which Bengel and others also join ὡςπαρών, as present; or with the participial clause συναχθέντων, being assembled [Chrys., Theoph, Calvin]; or they may be connected partly with this and partly with the other, so that either ἐντῷὀνόμ, in the name, etc., shall be joined to συναχθέντων, being assembled, and σὺντῇδυνάμει, with the power, to παραδοῦναι, to deliver [so Beza, Calov., Billr., Olsh.]; or precisely the reverse [Luther, Bengel, de Wette, Meyer, Alf., Hodge]. The last method seems the most suitable, viz: to unite the clause, “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (which stands first by way of emphasis, and which otherwise the analogy of Mat 18:20 would lead us to join with the participle, ‘being assembled’) with the main verb, as expressing the ground of the chief transaction, so that the act spoken of shall appear to rest on Jesus, the acknowledged Head of the Church, and upon His authority, and so pass for His act. (Com. 2 Thessalonians 3:6; Acts 3:6-16; and respecting the word ‘name,’ 1 Corinthians 1:2). As for the clause, “with the power of the Lord Jesus,” the very position of it makes it probable that this is to be connected with the participle, ‘being assembled’ and its adjuncts, since otherwise this participle would, in a most remarkable manner, be made to separate the more strictly qualifying terms of the main sentence. Besides it must be said that the phrase, “in the name of our Lord Jesus,” better serves to qualify the act of ‘delivering over to Satan,’ and includes also the force of the other phrase, “with the power of our Lord,” letting alone the fact, that in this way we avoid the accumulation of qualifying terms for the main verb (as well as for the participial clause, if both should be joined to this). Nevertheless, it is not to be overlooked that the phrase, “with the power of our Lord,” also serves to qualify the act of “delivering over;” yet not directly, but only as a component part of the clause where it occurs. The entire parenthesis will then mean, that the whole case should be decided in an assembly of the Church, where he would also be present in spirit; and that in this gathering they would, moreover, be accompanied by the power of the Lord Jesus for their assistance, (Σύν, with, designates association, where, however, the co-worker is not a simple instrumentality in the hand of the other; and δύναμις, power, denotes not merely: ‘disposing influence,’ as Meyer supposes, but: force, might, capability).But what are we to understand by ‘the delivering of such a one to Satan?’ That by this phrase excommunication is intended, is evident from 1 Corinthians 5:2 (“that he might be taken away from among you.”) and from 1 Corinthians 5:13 (“Wherefore put away, etc.). But that this is all the expression involves, is improbable from the fact that it is not elsewhere used in this sense. We meet it again only in 1 Timothy 1:20, where it appears, as here, to imply something more. Rather it would seem to convey the additional thought that those, who were ejected from the Church of God—a realm which, as such, is exempt from the dominion of Satan,—were given over again into Satan’s power, and unto his destructive influences; and that hence a certain control over these persons is granted him, viz., in so far as it may please the Lord, who ordains this lot for them through His Church and through the Apostolic office (Meyer). [But the question is, whether this was a miraculous subjection to the power of Satan, such as involved special evils and could be effected only by Apostolic authority, and so was peculiar to that age alone; or, whether it had regard to Satan only as the common source of the manifold miseries by Which men are scourged, and as the unwilling instrument of a Divine discipline over God’s children universally, and hence was something possible for all time, and takes place whenever a man is given over to suffer the bitter consequences of his vices, uncheered by the grace of God’s kingdom? The former is the view which has prevailed in the Romish Church from the earliest times, and it was much used to enhance the terrors of priestly excommunication and justify the deliverance of ecclesiastical offenders into the hands of secular authorities for punishment. It is still advocated by many Protestant commentators, among whom are Meyer, Alford, Barnes, Hodge. The latter thus sums up the reasons in its support: 1. “It is clearly revealed in Scripture that bodily evils are often inflicted by the agency of Satan. 2. The Apostles were invested with the power of miraculously inflicting such evils, Acts 5:1-11; Acts 13:9-11; 2 Corinthians 10:8; 2 Corinthians 13:10. 3. In 1 Timothy 1:20 the same formula occurs probably in the same sense. 4. There is no evidence that the Jews of that age ever expressed excommunication by this phrase, and therefore it would not, in all probability, be understood by Pauls readers in that sense. 5. Excommunication would not have the effect of destroying the flesh, in the sense in which that expression is used in the following clause. ”The consequence of this view is to exhibit the act under consideration as one done solely by Apostolic authority and power, and therefore as an exceptional case of discipline, which can afford no precedent for after times. The opposite view is the one maintained by Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Owen, Poole, and many others. They regard the formula, ‘to deliver a person to Satan,’ only as a more solemn mode of stating the fact of excommunication as expressed by our Lord in Matthew 18:17,—one designed to exhibit more vividly the sad condition of him who has been cast out from the kingdom of God and so consigned into the hands of his great enemy, uncheered by the light and comforts of the Saviour. This seems the more rational interpretation, only that it does not take sufficient account of the malign agency ascribed to Satan in the Scriptures. For, 1, it accords precisely with the view of the Apostle, that outside the kingdom of God, Satan reigned as “the prince of the power of the air”—as the one that “had the power of death”—as the one who was the source of bodily inflictions, and had sent ‘a messenger to buffet him,’—even as he had “bound the woman who had the spirit of infirmity,” whom our Lord cured—and so was ever working in various ways to afflict mankind. And surely there is nothing in Scripture to warrant our believing that his agency in this respect has been restrained as yet. His power to tempt to sin implies a power also to inflict the evils which sin engenders. 2. The power of Satan, we are also taught, is subordinate to the power of God. He may be suffered to work an utter destruction, or be used as the unwilling instrument of a Divine discipline. Job and Paul are illustrations of the latter case. And we have every reason to believe, that Satan is still employed in God’s hands for this very work of discipline or destruction. Now if this be true, there is nothing miraculous or extraordinary in the case under review, even though we may suppose that physical evils are understood. The instances of Annanias and Sapphira, and of Elymas the sorcerer are not parallel with it. It is no objection that this formula of excommunication has never been found to have been used by the Jews, for it is in keeping with the whole tenor of Paul’s doctrine. Moreover, the results anticipated would be directly conducive to the end proposed, if, as was hoped for, the culprit was no reprobate, but one who promised recovery under this most humbling and chastening discipline].—The end to be subserved by this ‘deliverance unto Satan’ was,—for the destruction of the flesh—εἰςὅλεθροντῆςσαρκός.—That by this no mere moral effect is indicated, such as the mortification of the selfish and sensuous propensities of our nature, is evident both from the connection with what precedes, which points to an operation of Satan, and from the use of the word ὅλεθρος, which nowhere occurs in the above sense (for which rather the terms θανατοῦν., νεκροῦν, σταυροῦν, and the like, are used), and from the antithesis made here between “flesh” and “spirit.” Σάρξ here denotes the physical life in its depraved state, as an organism where sin is seated, and which serves sin. Now this, which had been used in so shameless a manner by the incestuous person as the instrument of sin, Paul wishes to have given over as a prey to Satan, that he might execute upon it a corresponding disorder, and so fulfil the Divine judgment. [And it must be added that there is no vice so fearfully avenged in that which is its seat and source, as this very one under consideration. Its legitimate consequences, so terrible as to carry in them the aspect of Satanic malignity, are, in fact, a ‘destruction of the flesh’].—But the ruin, thus to be wrought in the outer man, was not to be an utter and final one. There was in it a merciful design,—that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.—The idea is, that through the penalties inflicted upon his body the offender might be brought to repentance, so that although the former might perish, yet his spirit—the centre of his personality—being still receptive of Divine impressions, might be snatched from destruction, and be found at last within the circle of the ransomed at the day of final separation and decision. That the Apostle here contemplated something more than a bare possibility, is apparent from the whole tenor of this passage; and he might express such hope without presupposing any irresistible operation of Divine grace. [On the general subject of Satan—the nature and extent of his agency, and his relation to the kingdom of God, see the able articles in Kitto’s Enc. 2d ed.; Smith’s Bib. Diet., under the word “Satan,” and the one in Hertzog’s Re. Ency. Teufel; also an article by Moses Stuart in the Bib. Sac. for 1843, p. 117]. AND ETHICAL [Excommunication: its right, occasions, grounds, form, intent and results. 1. The right to excommunicate is both a natural and a delegated right. The right of any community to exist, involves also the right to eject from itself all elements that are inconsistent with its character and integrity and well being. This belongs, therefore, to the Church. But above and beyond this, the injunction of Christ (Matthew 18:17), and the example of the Apostles make it an imperative duty, for the preservation of the Church as a holy body, bearing witness for God and truth and righteousness. 2. The occasion which calls for the act must be some flagrant and habitual offence. Spiritual perfection is not to be looked for in the Church. The tares, which in outward appearance resemble the wheat, must be allowed to remain to the end. Hence many faults in doctrine and practice in the Church at Corinth, Paul was content with rebuking. But the incestuous person was to be cast out. In this forbearance of his towards the one, and severity towards the other, an example is set for all time. To distinguish when the one should end and the other should begin, belongs to the gift of wise government. 3. Its grounds]. The soul of a true evangelical discipline is Christ, His name and power—Christ dwelling in the hearts of believers by faith, and especially present with those whom he has made shepherds in it, with His living, powerful, all-enlightening, penetrating, sifting and dividing word, and hence with the energy of His Spirit operating therein. It is in the light of this word, that sin must be recognized as a reproach and a desecration of His name, and therefore as something which evokes a reaction against it from this Name—a reaction which is nothing else than a manifestation of the might of a holy, divine love.—[4. Its form]. The constraining power of this reaction must be felt and exhibited in the Church, which is Christ’s body, and especially in those who are the stewards of the Divine mysteries, and ambassadors speaking in His name, urging them as by an irresistible impulse, and arousing them to a strong determination to make it effective upon the offender. And the Church in assembling for this purpose when occasion calls, should come together solemnly, attended by the presence and power of the Lord. Thus and thus only, in a manner truly valid, and with unfailing results, can he, who has desecrated the name of Christ, and has proved unworthy of fellowship in His body, be cast out from the sphere of life in Christ, and from a participation in His protecting grace, and given over into the power of Satan to suffer the merited penalties of his sins. [5. The intent of this act is not punitive, but remedial, in consistency with the design of the whole Gospel dispensation, which was “to save and not to destroy;” and with the object of the power intrusted to the Apostle, and so to their successors, “which was for edification and not for destruction.” And this intent must be displayed in the manner in which the act is performed, and in the hopes and prayers with which it is accompanied. For though the act of excommunication is in one sense a cutting off from the means of grace, in another it may itself be made a means of grace through the blessing of God which may follow the offender in his exclusion and turn the very severity of his sufferings into a glorious benefit. And where this result is not hindered by the obduracy of the guilty party, and he has not sinned past forbearance, we may expect 6. as the result, repentance and restoration. Nor is this surprising]. In bringing about such issues Satan, the arch enemy of Christ, is employed as his servant, even while he, on his part, seeks only to gratify his own love of corrupting, plaguing and destroying men. Our sinful nature, the organ of sin and the seat of its impure impulses, is given over into his power to be wasted and destroyed. And while in doing, this, his intention is utterly to ruin, Christ aims at the ultimate deliverance of the spirit, which, having been enthralled by the flesh, is to be liberated through its weakening and destruction. He who inflicts the judgment, prescribes the limits beyond which the Evil One may not pass; yea, compels him to subserve the purposes of his holy love. This is one truth taught us in the Book of Job, although the author there is speaking not of punishment but of proof and trial. The results of such discipline will be brought to light on that day when all things shall be revealed. And they will be brought to light in such a way that Satan will be put to shame, while God will be glorified in the midst of His own, even among those who have deeply fallen, as One who is wonderful in counsel and glorious in execution. [On this subject it will be profitable to consult Owen. Works, 16 p. 151–183. Edwards Serm. on Excom. Hooker Ec. Pol. Book vi]. AND [As before we had the picture of a Church imperfectly united—still divided by the prevalence of ambition and conflicting opinions, so here we have a picture of one imperfectly purified, still carrying in itself the corruptions and spots of an earlier depravity. And here we see: 1. How sin may convert the very grace of God into a warrant for a lasciviousness even grosser than any which may be practised without, 1 Corinthians 5:1.—How it shows more flagrant and abominable when seen in a body professing holiness, than elsewhere, 1 Corinthians 5:1-3. The melancholy aspect of a Church unconscious of its defilements, and flaunting in the conceit of its own perfection and beauty; and 4. in contrast with this, the proper attitude of humiliation and sorrow that it ought to assume, 1 Corinthians 5:2-5. The duty of observant and faithful ministers in the premises—to reprove remissness, and exhort the Church to self purgation, 1 Corinthians 5:3-6. The duty of the Church made alive to its disgrace—to cast out the evil it cannot cure, and consign the obdurate offender to the master he serves, a. with united action; b. in the name of the Lord; c. evincing a holy abhorence of sin; d. yet a love for the offender that shows itself in the desires and prayers for his recovery, 1 Corinthians 5:5]. Starke:—Since the scandal of crimes committed in the Church is greater than that of those committed in the world, we should avoid them the more carefully, lament over them the more deeply, and punish them the more scrupulously. The Church must tolerate the public rebuke of open offences, 1 Corinthians 5:1.—Christians should mourn over the sins of their brethren as if these were personal afflictions (Psalms 119:136; Ezekiel 9:4) 1 Corinthians 5:2.—It is possible for us to promote the welfare of a Church even when absent, by prayer and by power [?] by writing and giving counsel, 1 Corinthians 5:3.—Hed.: ‘How glorious the uses of excommunication!’ By it many an offender, who would otherwise continue in sin, and have part with the devil, is saved; by it the Church evinces its abhorence of evil, and shuns disgrace; by it she keeps from participating in others’ sins, which, through connivance, would involve a whole people in guilt and punishment; and finally, by it she prevents the spread of iniquity, 1 Corinthians 5:5. Berlen. Bib.:—Merely formal assemblies profit nothing; the spirits must be present, and they must first be united by the power of Christ, 1 Corinthians 5:4.—A true church-censure flows from love. Its aim is the preservation of the spirit. It has ever been God’s method to destroy a part, and that the least part, rather than to lose the whole. So the Gospel still keeps the preponderance. And though the act wears a legal aspect, it is evangelical in intent, aiming to save what belongs to Christ.—We shall obtain salvation at the appearing of our Lord, provided we first awake from sleep, arise from the dead, and let Christ give us light, 1 Corinthians 5:5. The toleration of even small things, which originate from impure sources, endangers the whole obedience of faith, 1 Corinthians 5:6. Rieger:—Conceit and self satisfaction, whether in individuals or communities, open the way for carnal license.—A person must have dug deep in poverty of spirit, if he takes not occasion from others’ trespasses to enhance his own reputation.—He who spares the rod hates his child. The omission of a lesser discipline only exposes the guilty one to greater judgments. Heubner:—The abominableness of incest, from which even the heathen shrank with horror, must have a deep foundation in the nature of things, even in God, and not be sought for in the consequences alone, 1 Corinthians 5:1. Public offences, when tolerated, involve the whole Church in guilt, even the better portion, partly because all are members of one body; and partly, because their toleration is a token of a want in the Church of zeal and watchfulness and care, for its order and welfare, 1 Corinthians 5:2.—This power of censure i.e. of delivering over to Satan, which is now conceded to no one [?], is still invisibly exercised by Christ and His Apostles, over every Church, so that in their sight all unworthy persons are already excommunicated. Oh that we could ever bear in mind this scrutiny and judgment that is exercised over us from above!—The Christian Church is holy. It is a city set upon a hill, whose light shines far. Through offences and crimes its crown is trampled under foot. They are violations of the majesty of Christ.—The stringency of primitive Church discipline is no longer maintained. In congregations so mixed as ours, the consciousness of Christian communion has vanished, and public censure would be deemed a libel, and would fail of its end. Hence it only remains for the better members to withdraw their fellowship from every person who dishonors the Church, and refuses to reform, and so make manifest their displeasure at his conduct (Matthew 18:17). This would be a voluntary discipline wholly within the power of Christians, of which even the guilty party cannot complain, 1 Corinthians 5:5.Neander:—It is well for the soul if it can be saved, even at the cost of bodily sufferings, 1 Corinthians 5:5. [W. F. Besser:—It is not indeed granted the Church to know, or to determine what sort of evil Satan will inflict on one given over into His power. That he will not, however, slip the man on from one sin to another (Psalms 69:28; Romans 1:24), but will, on the contrary, sensibly touch him with this or that external evil or misfortune, this the Church knows, because it recognizes Satan as the personal power of evil, and it purposes in Christ that the strokes of the destroyer shall smite the flesh of the condemned party, whether it be to the destruction of his bodily life, or to the loss of his earthly prosperity, in order that the spirit of the returning penitent (and so his body too at last) shall be saved in the day of the Lord]. [F. W. Robertson:—The Church excommunicates in a representative capacity. Man is the image of God, and man is the medium through which God’s absolution and God’s punishment are given and inflicted. Man is the mediator, because he represents God. His acts in this sense are, however, necessarily imperfect. There is but One in whom humanity was completely restored to the Divine Image, whose forgiveness and condemnation are exactly commensurate with God’s. Nevertheless, the Church here is the representation of that ideal man which Christ realized, and hence in a representative capacity condemns and forgives.—The indignation of society is properly representative of the indignation of God. God is angry at sin, and when our hearts are sound and healthy, and our view of moral evil not morbid and sentimental, we feel it too. And in expressing this we represent and make credible God’s wrath. When the offender hears the voice of condemnation and feels himself every where shunned, then conscience, which before had slumbered, begins to do its dreadful work, and the anger incurred becomes a type of coming doom. Thus is there lodged in Humanity a power to bind; and only so far as man is Christ-like can he exercise this power in an entirely true and perfect manner. (Abbreviated)]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 5:1.—The addition of ὀνομάζεται in the Rec. has the best authorities [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.] against it, and is perhaps a supplement according to Ephesians 5:3. 1 Corinthians 5:2.—It is doubtful whether we ought to read ποήσας with Griesbach, Meyer [Alford, Words.], or πράξας with Bόckert, Tischendorf. Both are equally suited to the sense, and are about equally supported. 1 Corinthians 5:2.—The Rec. εξαρθῇ is still less authorized than ὀνομάζεται 1 Corinthians 5:1, and no doubt originated out of 1 Corinthians 5:13. 1 Corinthians 5:3.—The Rec. ὡς as, before ἀπών, absent, has indeed the oldest MSS. [A. B. C. D.1 Cod. Sin.] against it, and hence is rejected by Lachmann, Meyer [Alf. Words.]. But there are also many and good authorities in its favor. (D.2 F. L. Syr. and many of the Greek Fathers]. And it might as easily have been omitted for the sake of avoiding the repetition (παρών), or, as not suited to ἀπών, as admarginated, and then afterwards inserted according to the analogy of ὡςπαρών. We retain it with Tischendorf. [We, on the contrary, omit it as badly supported and wholly needless, and wait for Tischendorf's last Ed. See comments below.] 1 Corinthians 5:4.—The χριστοῦ of the Rec. was probably added later, because of the solemnity of the title. [it is found in D3. F. L. Cod. Sin. omitted in A. B. D1. 1 Corinthians 5:5.—This reading (Rec). is the most probable. Both the omission of ̓Ιησον͂ ? (Tisch.) as well as the addition ἡμῶν after κνρίον and of χριστοῦ after ̓Ιησοῦ are not sufficiently accredited. [It is not credible that the Corinthian congregation, would have endured that one of their body should live with a harlot, especially his mother-in-law. But because this illicit connection had been palliated by the name of matrimony, therefore they might connive at it, especially if there were any who were the man’s zealous friends, and endeavored to soften the baseness of the thing.” Crellius. And this is the view of Meyer, whose arguments Kling does not seem to have thought it worth while to refute, and which undoubtedly ought to be admitted]. The feeling of absolute control in the matter, which finds expression in 1 Corinthians 5:3, the Apostle softens first by the use of ‘in the name of our Lord Jesus,’ and then by associating with himself, in the republican spirit of primitive Christianity, the whole Church, where he presides in spirit.”—de Wette.] The Apostle translates himself in spirit to the Church in Corinth, and expresses his decision as if in midst of them.”—Berger.] Meyer, do Wette and Alford agree in taking the words, “with the power of our Lord Jesus,” not as a third element in the proposed assembly, nor yet as something resident in the whole Church, but as belonging exclusively to Paul, and so connect it directly to “my spirit.” But this seems arbitrary. If the act of ‘delivering over’ was to be the act of the whole Church and not one of independent apostolic authority, we must suppose that it, too, was fully empowered for the purpose by the Lord who had promised to be in it, when assembled in His name, to the end of time, giving force to its decisions. The grammatical question here will be apt to be determined very much in accordance with the preconceived theories of church government entertained by the interpreter. Hodge (e.g.) regards the Church as convened not for the purpose of voting and acting in the premises, but “as mere spectators,” to impart “solemnity to the judicial proceeding.” So he takes the words in question as connected directly either with “my spirit,” or with ‘to deliver’—the sense in either case being substantially the same. Wordsworth goes still farther, and regards the excommunication as not only “promulgated in the presence of the Church,” but also as having “been done without taking council with them,” and “probably against their inclination.” And so the Rheims version:—“Though the act was done in the face of the Church, yet the judgment and authority of giving sentence was in himself and not in the whole multitude, as the Protestant and popular sectaries affirm.” Owen, on the other hand, analyses the matter thus:—1. The supreme efficient cause of the excision is the power and authority of Jesus Christ. 2. The declarative cause of the equity of this sentence, the spirit of tho Apostle. 3. The instrumental, ministerial cause, the Church. They were to “do it in the name of the Lord,” and thereby “purge out the old leaven;” whence the punishment is said in 2 Corinthians 2:6 to be “inflicted by many.” (See a full discussion of this in Owen’s Works, vol. 16 p. 160). And Neander forcibly observes: “The Epistles of Paul, which treat of various controverted ecclesiastical matters, are addressed to whole churches, and he assumes that the decision belonged to the whole body. Had it been otherwise he would have addressed his instructions principally at least to the overseers. When a licentious member of the Church at Corinth was to be excommunicated the Apostlo considered it a measure that ought to proceed from the whole society, and placed himself therefore in spirit among them, to unite with tham in passing judgment.” Furthermore it might be asked, if the Church had no power to act in the premises, where was the ground for Paul to complain of their conduct, in not securing the expulsion of the guilty parties? Plainly his purpose here, in decreeing as he did, was to supplement their lack of duty; and we are not to construe his procedure as pro formβ, but as extraordinary, and based upon that plenitude of power which he had as an Apostle.] Kling’s refutation of Rόckert’s charge of “hasty and indiscreet zeal” on the part of Paul, we venture to omit as unnecessary. No one in this country would think of entertaining it for a moment]. These remarks apply only to churches united with the state; and they bring to view one great evil of the state-church system, and afford evidence of its utter inconsistency with the whole idea of Christianity, and of its incompatibility with the Gospel requirements]. See his striking views on this subject more fully exhibited in his serm, on Absolution in the 3d Vol. of his series.] X—[B. The duty of Church purification in general. Its motives, grounds, and limitations. Rectification of misconceptions as to his meaning in an earlier Epistle] 1 Corinthians 5:6-136 Your glorying [That in which you glory] is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7Purge out therefore [omit therefore] the old leaven, that ye may he a new lump, as ye are unleavened. ] For even Christ our pass over is sacrificed for us [omit for us]: 8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; hut with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with for 10nicators: Yet [omit Yet2] not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or [and] extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out 11of the world. But now I have written [I wrote] unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat. 12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without ? do not ye judge them that are within ? 13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore [omit therefore] put away from among yourselves that wicked person [τὸνπονηρὸν, the wicked one]. AND [In this section the specific duty of excommunicating an incestuous church member is expanded into the broader one of individual and social purification in general. And this is exhibited under a familiar metaphor, and enforced by reasons drawn from it. In entering upon it Paul starts with alluding to that state of mind which presented so strange a contrast to their actual condition.] 1 Corinthians 5:6. That in which you boast is not good.—In view of the word here rendered, ‘boasting’ (καύχημα), the question arises, whether it is the act, or the ground of boasting that is intended. The latter meaning is certainly the one which prevails in the New Testament, even 2 Corinthians 9:3, [and this is in accordance with the passive form of the noun]. Then we should render it: ‘that of which you boast;’ and while with the other signification οὐκαλόν would mean: ‘it does not become you,’ etc., it would in the other case be rendered: ‘is not seemly or beautiful,’ implying that it is, rather, hateful. It is not, however, the incestuous person that is meant [as Hammond and Whitby singularly suggest, supposing him to have been a man of some reputation for wisdom and eloquence], but the whole condition of the Church, the complete corruption of which he proceeds to illustrate by a familiar comparison.—Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?—In like manner, he implies, that the whole Church was infected by one crime, tolerated in the midst of it. The “little leaven” here refers not so much to the person in question, as to the vice of fornication, which had broken out upon him in its worst form. “It denotes some impurity of the former state, not yet purged out,—a little remnant of which, if allowed, was sufficient to corrupt again the salvation already obtained, and render it ineffective.” Burger. [It is not, however, says Alford, the “danger of corruption hereafter” by the future spread of the tolerated evil, that he here speaks of, but “the character already tainted” by its presence among them in this one instance.” But are not the consequences merely anticipated in their certainty, and the future and present all included under one view? The leaven and is working must here be taken together]. The same comparison, used to illustrate a corrupting influence, occurs in Galatians 5:9, and Matthew 16:6, and the parallel passages. On the other hand, it appears in Matthew 13:33, and in the parallel passages, to illustrate the penetrating and pervading power of Divine grace. In consequence of the contagious effects of tolerated evil, Paul gives the following exhortation:—Purge out.—’Εκκαθαίρειν sometimes is followed by the Accus. of the thing cleansed, and sometimes, as here, with that of the thing removed. [Stanley calls it “a strong expression,” and remarks that the duty it enjoins was “carried out in later times with such extreme punctiliousness, that on the fourteenth day they searched with candles into the darkest holes and corners to see whether any leaven remained.”]—The old leaven.—This, in accordance with what has been said, does not indicate the incestuous person, so that the command would only be a repetition of that in 1 Corinthians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 5:13, but the moral evil which was defiling the Church. This he calls ‘old,’ because it was the remains of their former unregenerate state which, like leaven, was still at work vitiating their character.—That ye may be a fresh lump, νέονφύραμα,—wherein there is no leaven, hence a complete whole, morally renewed by purification—a Church holy and free from sin, evincing its early love and zeal. (Starke). (Νέος, fresh differs from καινός, which means new, entirely different from what it was before).—What follows clearly shows that the Apostle had in mind the practice of the Israelites removing leaven from their houses before the Passover began.—As ye are unleavened.—Thus he designates the Church ideally considered, and as it can become only through the power of Divine grace, and shows the divinely postulated character of its member ship; and hence it presents an argument for removing the existing evil, as he enjoins them to do. They are to come up to their true ideal. [Conybeare and Howson, however, interpret this clause literally, as alluding to the condition in which the Jewish portion of the Church were at that moment, it being the time of Passover: “Even as ye, at this Paschal season, are without the taint of leaven.” This view Alf. combats at length. His strongest argument, and one which must be deemed conclusive, is that it is “wholly alien from the habit and spirit of the Apostle. “The ordinances of the Old Law,” he says, “are to Paul not points, on whose actual observance to ground spiritual lessons, but things passed away in their literal acceptance, and become spiritual verities in Christ.” Kling’s view is the one generally adopted, and in refutation of the one above suggested, he adds further]. It would evidently transcend the meaning of the term, ἄζυμοι to make it mean those who eat no leaven, or observe the festival of unleavened bread, i.e., the Jews, nor would such a meaning be applicable to the case of a Church composed mainly of heathen converts. But it may be fitly used of all professing Christians, inasmuch as they are themselves supposed to be free from those sinful corruptions which prevail without in the world, and which are here denoted by the leaven. And such an interpretation accords with the previous phrase “a fresh lump.” The translation of ἐστε by: ‘ye ought to be,’ instead of by: ‘ye are’ [as Chrysostom, Theoph., and after them Billroth, Flatt and Pott, and many others suggest], though in itself incorrect, would point to the ideal view of Christians expressed in the word ‘unleavened.’ [But the strongest argument for the interpretation given, above of the clause before us, is in what follows, where we see that the Apostle’s mind was moving not in the sphere of Jewish carnal ordinances, but among the higher verities which they typified].—For our Passover also has been sacrificed even Christ.—[Such can only be rendering of the words, καὶγὰρτὸπάσχαἡμῶνἐτύθηΧριστός. The main subject is evidently to τὸπάσχα; and the intent of the Apostle is to show the propriety of speaking of Christians as unleavened, since they, too, had a paschal offering, which was Christ. Kling, however, goes on to raise the question]. Does this declaration furnish the ground of what Immediately precedes ? or is it a further argument for the whole exhortation? In the former case, the sense would be: ye are free from that corruption by virtue of that redemption achieved by Christ. But such connection would suit, provided only, that we took the term “unleavened” In the sense rejected above. [But why so ? Why not consider it as justifying the application of the term to Christians also, on the ground that they likewise had a passover which obliged them to be free from the corruption which the leaven symbolized?] We, therefore, refer the clause to the whole exhortation, as furnishing an argument for that. [And such, no doubt, is the more extended bearing of it.] As among the Israelites from the first day of the feast to the slaying of the Paschal lamb, it was the rule to put away all leaven and all unleavened bread from their houses, so likewise were Christians under obligation to put away all former sinful practices—the leaven of wickedness—inasmuch as their Paschal lamb, even Christ, had been slain. And here we have an evidence that the ancient Paschal lamb was a type of Christ. And to this also John 19:36, plainly conducts us. The point of comparison is, primarily, the redeeming power of the blood of the victim. It was with this that at the time of their departure from Egypt, the lintels and doorposts of the Israelites were sprinkled, and by reason of this that those within were preserved from the destroying sword, while the Egyptians fell under its stroke. In like manner under the new dispensation, which fulfils the old, it is said the hearts of believers are sprinkled by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22; Hebrews 12:24; 1 Peter 1:12), and thus saved from destruction. The slaying of the Paschal lamb accordingly obtains the character of a sacrifice (θύειν), and indeed of an expiatory, covenant kind, forming a distinction between the members of the covenant, whose sins are covered with its blood, and the others who are left to their doom. Worthy of consideration, though somewhat problematical, is Lόcke’s and Meyer’s observation, that this designation of Christ accords with John’s account of the crucifixion which places it on the day of the slaying of the Paschal lamb (contrary to the account of the Synoptists), and can only be explained on this ground. But, however this may be, a powerful motive is found in this fact for moral purification. (comp. 1 Peter 2:24).—This is further carried out in 1 Corinthians 5:8. Let us therefore keep the feast.—The previous command in a milder form—that of an exhortation to a social solemnity, for which the expression, “our Pass-over,” forms a fit transition. The whole context alludes to the Easter festival; and it is highly probable that the Apostle wrote the Epistle at or near the approach of Easter (comp. 1 Corinthians 16:8), and, being full of the idea, gave to his exhortation a corresponding form. That the Christian festival of Easter, commemorating the resurrection of our Lord, had already been established, can hardly be affirmed. But that Gentile converts united with the Jewish, to celebrate the Passover in commemoration of its fulfilment through Christ, is too probable to be denied. In any case, it is safe to assert with Osiander, that it was solemnized in spirit. As for the rest, the language is figurative. The duty indicated is not the outward, but the inward spiritual observance, namely, the united offering of praise to God for His redeeming grace, through the maintenance of a Christian conversation (comp. Osiander). [Hodge, Alf., Stanley, agree in the opinion that there is no reference here to the keeping of the Passover festival, nor yet to the observance of the Lord’s Supper (though Wordsworth regards “the text as specially applicable to a consideration of the privileges and duties” connected with this), but, as Kling, to that “continued Passover feast,” that “sacred festival” of a consecrated life, which should follow upon our union to Christ in His death, even as a feast, professedly of holy joy and gladness, protracted through seven days always followed upon the observance of the Pass over among the Jews]. How the feast was to be kept is explained still further; first, negatively.—not with old leaven,—which he had just told them to purge out. (1 Corinthians 5:7), and which he goes on further to describe in words which are to be understood, not as introducing a new thought, but as explanatory of the former.—neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness.—What, in point of fact is one, is here formally distinguished; or we may say with Meyer, that of the kind in general one particular is selected and made prominent. The preposition ἐν with, indicates that with which the feast was accompanied, or in which its character was violated. [The Genitives are those of apposition, ‘the leaven which is,’ &c. See Winer, § 59, 8, a], Κακία denotes the opposite of that love which seeks the welfare of another—a desire and effort to injure a neighbor (Ephesians 4:31); πονηρία [“is a still stronger word” Hodge], and denotes wickedness, villany [“the performance of evil with persistency and delight. Hence Satan is called ὁπονηρός”—Hodge]. In contrast with these we have the true method expressed.—but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.—Εἰλικρίνεια is purity—the quality of having been proved in the sunlight (εί̔λη) and found (κρίνεται) genuine; ἀλήθεια, the harmony of man with himself, and with Divine truth, which is made known in the uprightness of conduct. To distinguish these terms as indicating, the one the substance, the other the manifestation of goodness, and thus as expressing the opposite to κακία, the substance, and πονηρία, the manifestation of evil would be too abstract. Bengel’s distinction: “κακία is vice, as contrary to virtue, and that virtue unalloyed, or insincerity, and πονηρία, wickedness, as in those who strenuously defend and retain κακίαν, and is opposed to the truth”—is very uncertain. We can better accept the distinction he makes between εἰλικρίν and ἀλήθεια—“the former takes care not to admit evil with the good, the latter not to admit evil instead of good.” For other attempts to discriminate between these words, see Starke in loco. [Also Trench “Syn. of the New Testament.” § 11, and W. Webster “Syntax and Syn. of the New Testament,” pp. 194, 195]. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. We here have an episode to the proper subject of this paragraph, which is resumed again in 1 Corinthians 5:13 The exhortation given above suggests the correction of a misunderstanding in regard to the meaning of a certain passage in a previous letter, which he had written to them about holding intercourse with fornicators.—I wrote to you in the Epistle.—The stringency of theological dogmatism, which refuses to admit the loss of any Apostolic writing, insists that the reference here is to a previous passage in this Epistle, viz., 1 Corinthians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 5:6. But such reference neither suits the expression “in the Epistle,” nor yet the contents of the verses cited. The allusion must therefore be to some earlier letter now lost. [This is the conclusion of Calvin, Beza, Bengel, de Wette, Meyer, Wordsworth, Alford, Hodge, Barnes, and most other modern commentators, and as Words. argues, “is perfectly consistent with the position, ‘that no Canonical Book of Holy Scripture has been lost.’ ” Stanley, however, ingeniously argues for the other view, advocated mainly by the Greek Fathers, also by Hammond and Whitby, and asks whether there are not indications that the whole passage from 1 Corinthians 5:9 to 1 Corinthians 6:8 is, in some sense, a distinct note, a postscript not merely to 5 :6–8, but also to 1 Corinthians 6:9-20? This he says has been already conjectured by two Englishmen, J. Edwards and Dr. Thos. Arnold, and he alludes in the way of comparison to a remarkable passage in Livy. 1 Corinthians 4:20, called by Niebuhr, the only instance of a note in any ancient author. Similar digressions he thinks he finds elsewhere, also in Paul’s Epistles. To say the least, he makes a very plausible case, and his arguments, if not convincing, are very interesting].—not to keep company with fornicators.—Συναναμίγνεσθαι, to mingle oneself up with, as in 2 Thessalonians 3:14; the Inf. after verbs of counselling, or commanding. The warning thus conveyed they had interpreted to mean, that they should hold no intercourse at all with persons of the sort mentioned; and they did this perhaps from a secret disinclination to follow Paul’s instruction, and in their letter had pointed out the utter impracticability of the thing. He therefore goes on now to explain himself more exactly upon the subject. 1 Corinthians 5:10. Not altogether with the fornicators of this world.—The ellipsis here is certainly to be supplied from the foregoing—‘I wrote not to mingle with.’ But the question is, whether these words are to be inserted after ‘not,’ so as to separate it from ‘altogether’ (πάντως), or whether these two words are to be taken together; and then, in the latter case, whether the two are to be joined with ‘I wrote,’ or with the nouns following. In our opinion, the separation of ‘not altogether’ (οὐπάντως), ought, if possible, to be avoided. But if we connect the words unitedly, to ‘I wrote,’ and render the clause: ‘I did by no means write to you not to associate with the wicked,’ then it has the appearance of promoting directly such intercourse. [“And this, although perhaps the more common explanation, does not give so good sense.” Hodge]. They had better therefore be joined with what follows, in the way of limitation; ‘not entirely and under all circumstances’ with the fornicators of this world. By the epithet, ‘of this world,’ the persons alluded to are distinguished from those of the same class found in the Church.—Since he is treating, in this paragraph, of moral purification in general, he adds yet other sorts of persons who presented a decided contrast to the Christian character, and with whom it was unbecoming in them to associate—persons whom he had already spoken of in his previous letter.—or with the converts and extortioners.—These two classes go together, as may be seen by the καὶ and, which connect them—a reading better supported than ἤ, or of the Rec. The πλεονέκτης is one who means to have more than his neighbors, or, more than belongs to him, and who therefore indulges in frauds, and over-reaching, and oppression. This trait is more prominently brought out in the second term, ἅρπαξ, which denotes one who manifests his greed of gain in robbery and plunder. [Conybeare renders the former of these words: ‘lascivious person,’ and says that “πλέονεξία in St. Paul almost invariably means impurity.” And Stanley advocates this interpretation as being more in accordance with the drift of discourse. And there is not a little to justify the view taken. Sensuality and rapine most frequently go together as branches from the same root of covetousness, and stand in close connection with idolatry. The same view is also maintained by Hammond, who explain πλεον́κταις to mean ‘men of inordinate lusts;’ and in consistency with this, supported by no small show of classic authorities, translates ἅρπαγες, ravishers. But there is no special reason why “the extraordinary sense” should be adopted here; and the conjunction ‘and’ seems to affiliate the words in meaning with the other to which it is thus connected. See Trench, N. T. Syn. § 24]—or with idolaters.—To those who violate the rights of neighbors, he joins such as violate the highest right—that of God. And in this religious aberration is found the source of all moral aberration. [“This is said to be the earliest known instance of the use of the word εἰδωλολάτρης; it is never used in the LXX., although εἴδωλον is constantly employed in that version to denote ‘false gods.’ ” Hodge]. That the prohibition which he had formerly given could not have been meant in the broad sense supposed by his readers, he now shows apagogically by exhibiting the absurdity of the thing.—Since, indeed, ye must then have gone out of the world.—The ἄρα, in that case, following upon ἐπεὶ, since, shows yet more definitely the consequence which would ensue upon the interpretation put on his language. Properly a protasis is here to be supplied. ‘If it were so as you say, why then in that case,’ etc. [For the force of ἄρα, see Winer § LIII. a], Κόσμος, world, in this last clause, is to be taken in its physical, not, as in the first clause, in its ethical sense. The world is full of bad people, with whom we are compelled to deal, in some form, in business or traffic, by the very exigencies of our earthly lot; and if we would avoid them altogether, we can only do it by quitting the world altogether. 1 Corinthians 5:11. But now I wrote to you.—He cannot here be repeating what was in the former Epistle, for had the words which follow been there, the misunderstanding could not have arisen. Νῦνδὲἔγραψα must accordingly imply: ‘but now my meaning was,’ νῦν being taken in its logical sense, as referring back to the previous statement (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 12:18; 1 Corinthians 19:6). In like manner λέγω and ἔεγον often stand for: ‘this is what I mean, or meant, by what I say, or said.’ Son 1:12 and elsewhere. This interpretation is better suited to the context. We have here the positive explanation of a former declaration, following upon the negative one in 1 Corinthians 5:10,—and not a new declaration made ‘now’ (νῦν), differing from that made “in the Epistle,” 1 Corinthians 5:10; in which case the aorist ἔγραψα: I wrote, must be taken after the old epistolary style as referring to what was said in process of writing (see Meyer in loco). [“Thus by the right rendering, we escape the awkward inference deducible from the ordinary interpretation, that the Apostle had previously given a command and now retracted it.” Alf.].—not to keep company, if any one called a brother be a fornicator.—The participle ὀνομαζόμενος, called, forms an antithesis to ῇ, is, as contrasting profession with reality. To connect the participle with the following noun [as Augustine, Ambrose, Estius, and others], so as to read: ‘be a reputed, or notorious fornicator,’ would be alike opposed to the drift of the passage, and to the usage of language. ’Ονομάζεσθαι can mean only: to be called, or, to be honorably mentioned. Besides in this case the text would have been: ἀδελφόςτις,—or a covetous, or an idolater.—The term idolater, as applied to one called a brother, must denote, [not an open worshipper of idols, for such a person would hardly have been found among the brethren], but one who ate of the heathen sacrifices, and participated in the heathenish customs connected therewith—a practice alluded to in 1 Corinthians 10:14. Then enlarging his catalogue beyond that of 1 Corinthians 5:10, he adds,—or a railer, or a drunkard,—μέθυσος, a term which in old Greek was used of women only,—or an extortioner; with such a one neither to eat.—This does not refer to communion at love-feasts, or at the Lord’s Supper; but to association at ordinary meals, a practice which would indicate intimate companionship. The characters described, they were not to entertain as guests, nor visit as hosts, nor unite with them at a party in the house of a common acquaintance; but they were to cut them off from their society and give it to be understood that they would have nothing in common with them. “Here we learn what sins justify excommunication. We must also suppose that among the converts at Corinth, here and there, a reaction towards their former state had already taken place.” Neander.1 Corinthians 5:12-13. A further reason why he could have designed his exhortation only in a limited sense. The contrary would have been an assumption of authority over those not Christians, an application of discipline to them which was not allowed him.—For what have I to do,—τίγάρμοι.—The expression is pure Greek. It means, ‘what concern is it of mine? It does not belong to my office.’—to judge also those Without.—Οἱἔξω, was a designation applied by the Jews to the heathen, and by Christians to unbelievers. The latter are without, because they are outside the pale of God’s Church—not to be found among His people. In like manner Colossians 4:5, 1 Thessalonians 4:12. His refusal to judge such he sustains by a reference to their own procedure.—do not ye judge them that are within?—The τοῦςἔσω, holding the emphatic place, forms the antithesis to τοῦςἔξω, and ὑμεῖς to μοι. Then the argument is: ‘since you yourselves confine your jurisdiction to those within the Church, you had no reason to ascribe to me advice which went beyond this limit.’ It would be clearly wrong to separate, as some [Theoph. Hammond, Michaelis, Rosenmuller] do, ὂυχί from what follows, and then take the verb in the Imper. q. d., ‘No, judge ye,’ etc. It would then have read, οὐδέν, nothing, as the reply to the previous question; and ἀλλἀ, but, would have appeared after it. In saying ‘ye,’ Paul does not mean to exclude himself. This would be contrary to what he had just enjoined in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5.—But those without God will judge, or judgeth.—This clause is best taken by itself, affirmatively, and not as continuing the previous question: ‘The right to judge unbelievers belongs solely to God, not to you or me.’ Whether the verb here is to be taken in the present or future is doubtful, for the accentuation is uncertain—whether κρίνειͅ ? or κρινεῖ. If the latter—the future, the reference is to the last judgment. But this is not what Paul has exclusively in mind. Taken in the present, it corresponds best with the previous clauses. [“These remarks about judging form a transition point to the subject of the next chapter. But having now furnished his explanation of the prohibition formerly given, and with this subject of the fornicator among them, he gives, before passing on, a plain command in terms for the excommunication (but no more) of the offender. And this he does in the very words of Deu 24:7, from which the reading καὶἐξαρεῖτε has come.” Alf. and this he does without any connecting word, the abruptness being characteristic].—Put away the wicked one from among your own selves.—In this he but resumes the chief topic of this section, which had not been altogether abandoned. Even during the seeming digression, Paul clinches it. There is no sign of that momentary passionate outburst which Rόckert detects. The reference in τὸνπονηρόν: that wicked one, is to fornicator, not to the devil, as Calvin supposes, whose power was to be averted by the removal of what was evil and impure. Such a reference is disproved by the plain citation here from Deuteronomy 26 ’Εξὑμῶν is emphatic: ‘from out of the midst of yourselves.’ AND ETHICAL[1. Christ the antitype of the Paschal Lamb. Thus the Old Testament pours light upon the New, and reveals to us the meaning of Christ’s mission. As the Paschal Lamb saved the Israelites from destruction through the sprinkling of its blood upon their habitations, so Christ saves His people, not by instruction, not by example, not by the converting grace of His Spirit, though these means are included in His work—but primarily, by giving His blood for their ransom. He is our Redeemer in virtue of His having made Himself a sacrifice for us. This truth is involved in the very word employed to designate the nature of His death, ἐτύθη—a word appropriated to denote the slaying of victims at an altar. And should it be objected that the Paschal Lamb was not, properly speaking, a sacrifice, it not having been offered at an altar, nor through a priest, nor in a consecrated place, thus answering to the requisitions of a sacrifice, it is enough to reply that it is so called in Scripture in various places (Exodus 12:27; Exodus 23:18; Exodus 34:25; Deuteronomy 16:2; Deuteronomy 16:4-6), and had all the effect of an expiatory offering. Indeed, it seems to have been the root out of which the whole sacrificial system grew. And as its offering was the very condition on which the Israelites escaped the doom of Egypt which set them free, and as its observance was the condition of continued membership in the ransomed nation, so is the death of Christ the ground of the sinner’s exemption from the condemnation and curse resting upon the world, and the continued commemoration of that death is a duty imposed on all that would be numbered among His saints]. [2. Both the sanctification of the individual believer, and the purification of the Church as a body, necessarily follow from the fact of our redemption through the sacrifice of Christ. As the Israelites were redeemed to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 30:6), so is the Church redeemed to be “a royal priesthood and a holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9). And this purpose is realized under the inspiring motive of grateful joy for the deliverance vouchsafed. Hence the whole of every truly Christian life becomes a holy festival, an offering of praise to God for the glorious works He hath done for us through Christ. His redemption was nothing less than the achievement of a Divine love that condescended to take upon itself the doom of the sinner, and expiate his guilt by the sacrifice of a life assumed in his nature 1. Now where this fact is known and felt, there the sin thus atoned for can no longer be tolerated in its selfishness and lovelessness. He who truly believes that Christ died for him in love, himself becomes “dead unto sin” (Romans 6:11). In him the body of sin with all its affections and lusts is nailed upon the cross of his Lord, and the life he henceforth leads, is maintained in fellowship with that Saviour who loved him and gave Himself for him. Thus it is that malice and wickedness are purged away, and instead thereof we see a life of simplicity and truth manifesting itself in word and deed; and this, not under the constraints of legal obligation and fear, but under the actuating power of devout gratitude and joyful devotion. Such is the ideal of a Christian life. And so far as this ideal is realized, both the Church as a whole, and every individual in the Church becomes a temple of God where He is perpetually worshipped and where a true and lasting festival goes on]. 3. It follows from the above that wherever the Christian life is in full and vigorous exercise, there the Church will, as far as possible, maintain a discipline, which shall separate between the holy and the profane, and preserve its own consistency and integrity; there Christians will withhold the title of ‘brother’ from every professor that walketh disorderly, and will take heed how they countenance by their friendlysociety those who openly dishonor the name after which they are called; there the vices which stain the Christian character will be regarded with greater abhorrence and put under severer censure than those which are openly practised by the world. And this discipline will be the natural operation of that holy love which the death of Christ enkindles, manifesting itself both in the ordinary intercourse of life, and through official acts. Without this vital power, Church discipline, however exercised, may indeed succeed in maintaining a creditable external order, and in carrying on a creditable conflict with public immoralities, but it never can accomplish an inward renovation, or bring to pass deep and lasting results. AND [1. The Church of God, as a body redeemed from condemnation by the death of Christ, is thereby put under obligations to purge itself from all sin and immoralities, and to preserve a saintly character and appearance. The inflation of vanity is one evidence of the working of the leaven of wickedness, and should excite suspicion of its presence 1 Corinthians 5:6.—No immoralities should be tolerated under the pretext that they are small, because—1, the toleration of them indicates a general laxity of principle; and 2, endangers the purity of the whole body by a vicious infection 1 Corinthians 5:6; 1 Corinthians , 3, is contrary to the ideal character of the Church 1 Corinthians 5:7. The sins of our former state are especially to be guarded against, and the remains of them to be searched for and cast out. They both desecrate the purity and mar the joy of what should be the Christian’s life-long feast 1 Corinthians 5:7. The Church, though separate from the world, is yet to exist in the world; and one of the problems it must solve is so to mingle with the ungodly and profane as not to compromise its character or countenance iniquity, and yet so as to maintain peace with all men and win the worst to Christ. The principles which should regulate its intercourse with the world are thus given by Barnes: ‘a. The Church is not to be compared to the world in any of its peculiar and distinguishing features; b. It must treat all men justly and righteously; c. Its members must discharge all obligations and duties belonging to the social relations; d. They must do good to all men; e. They must so associate with sinners as to be able to work for their salvation’ (1 Corinthians 5:9-10).—Those that are justly liable to church censure, and must be excommunicated, are the openly immoral and profane. But while these characters in the Church are to be judged by the Church, the world without is to be left to the judgment of God. And this judgment is to be exercised in the Church in order that those who are judged by it may, if possible, escape the condemnation awaiting the world (1 Corinthians 5:12).] Starke:—If evil be allowed free course, the result will be a settled wantonness of character, leading the person to commit iniquity without reserve—yea, even with pleasure and determination; and then to ignore guilt, or so to varnish it over that the villain beneath shall not be suspected under the fair outside. Sin has its lurking holes, and must be hunted out through them all. Alas, for the few genuine Easter days which Christians enjoy, 1 Corinthians 5:8.—Of what profit is it to leave the world and skulk away in the mountains and clefts of the wilderness? The old Adam will skulk with thee even there. Drive him out, and then will thy heart itself be a blessed solitude, where Christ will come and converse with thee. So associate with open sinners as to teach, not learn—warn, not confirm—help to life, not hasten to death (1 Corinthians 5:9-10).—Look out for home; God will take care of things abroad.—In order to effective Church discipline, the majority of the Church must themselves be sound 1 Corinthians 5:13. Berlen. Bibel:—If thy wrong is made public and judged, count it not as an injury; for a genuine purification requires that we do not withdraw our iniquity from condemnation and destruction. Now that Christ has died for our justification, and sent us His Spirit for our sanctification, this personal purification may be justly required. We ought to do it, because now we can do it—not, however, in our own strength, but in that of our risen Saviour (1 Corinthians 5:7).—The true Passover festival of Christians is followed by a constant succession of Sabbaths, wherein they daily rise with Christ to newness of life. He who has learned this, keeps Easter all the time, Christ’s life is his life; and this life is peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. His festival will terminate only when Christ ceases to be 1 Corinthians 5:8.—If we must be surrounded by the world, let us take care to abide with ourselves through a constant inward intercourse with God. In such a case the world will not harm us. Heubner:—The Pericope on Easter. To the worthy celebration of Easter there belongs—1, repentance 1 Corinthians 5:6-7; 1 Corinthians 2, faith and joy, because of redemption 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Corinthians 3, new resolves for greater sanctification (1 Corinthians 5:8).—The life of a Christian is a continuous Easter—1, in ceaseless repentance and sorrow for man’s fall; 2, in constant looking to Christ, the risen, reigning Lord.—Easter as the festival of a spiritual resurrection—1. Its necessity as a memorial of the Apostacy, since from one sin the whole race has been corrupted 1 Corinthians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 7:2. It shows the possibility of redemption. Only One, Christ, can raise us from our fall 1 Corinthians 5:7. 3. It is a general demand to walk in newness of life, in order to become fit for eternal life through sanctification (1 Corinthians 5:8). Heubner. F. W. Besser:—We, too, have a Paschal Lamb. It was a gift from God. What has God from us in return? We have the true-Paschal Lamb. God requires of us the true Easter-cake. What vile ingratitude, if we are disobedient! (1 Corinthians 5:7). Daily would we celebrate Easter in spirit, provided we daily acknowledge, enjoy and praise our Paschal Lamb, ‘who was slain for us once for all’ (Hebrews 10:10). “The time of the N. T. is a perpetual festal period,” says Augustine. God’s word exhorts you to purge out the old leaven, and if you refuse, you make your natural- sourness altogether sourer through the vinegar and the gall of your opposition; weakness turns to stiff-neckedness and malice, and indolence, to spite and wickedness. But if, on the contrary, our old leaven is sweetened:—if, we admit the purifying influence of the Spirit, then instead of wicked resistance we show honest repentance; instead of cherishing malice, we accept the truth in love. In the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth we celebrate our Easter by allowing ourselves to be reproved by the light (Ephesians 5:13), and by giving honor to the truth. [F. W. Robertson:—’Ye are unleavened.’ Here is the true conception of the Church: regenerated humanity—new life without the leaven of old evil. The Church visible and invisible, however, to be distinguished; the former composed of the men who in this age or that profess Christ, the latter such as every Church is only potentially and conceivably, according to its idea. For want of keeping these distinct, two grand errors arise: 1. Undue severity towards the lapsed. 2. Wrong purism in the matter of association with the world, its people, its business, its amusements. Under, 1. The attempt to make the Church entirely pure must ever fail. Only as a Church visible she must separate from her all visible evil; she must sever from herself all such foreign elements as bear unmistakable marks of their alien birth. Her purity must be visible purity, not ideal; representative, not perfect. Under, 2. We are not to go out of the world, but only to take care, in associating with sinners, not to recognize them as brothers, or as fulfilling in any degree the Christian idea]. [J. Edwards: 1 Corinthians 5:11. The Nature and End of Excommunication. I. The nature of excommunication: 1. Wherein it consists: a. It is privative of the charity of the Church, of brotherly society with its members, of its fellowship, and of its internal privileges; b. Positively it is a deliverance unto the calamities to which those are subject who belong to the visible kingdom of the devil, and into the special power of Satan, who may be employed by God for the infliction of such chastisement, as their apostacy deserves. 2. By whom inflicted: a. Primarily, by Christ; b. Ministerially, by the Church. II. The proper subjects for excommunication. 1. Those visibly wicked by gross sin. 2. The obdurately impenitent. III. The ends of excommunication. 1. That the Church may be kept pure, and its ordinances undefiled. 2. That others may be deterred from wickedness. 3. That the guilty parties may be reclaimed. IV. Motives to the duty. 1. The honor of Jesus, and of His religion, and His Church. 2. Our own good. 3. The good of those who are without. 4. Benevolence towards offending brethren. 5. The absolute authority of Christ]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 5:6.—The variations δολοῖ and φθείρει are glosses. 1 Corinthians 5:7.—The οὖν of the Rec. as well as the καί before οὐ, 1 Corinthians 5:10, and the καί before ἐξάρατε, 1 Corinthians 5:13, are connective particles that are feebly supported. [They are not found in A. B. D. P. Cod. Sin.] 1 Corinthians 5:7.—ὐπὲρἡμῶν after ἡμῶν is a dogmatic gloss, which has all the most important authorities against it. [This sentence ought to be rendered: ‘For our passover has been sacrificed, even Christ.’] 1 Corinthians 5:8.—[“εορτάζομεν, A. D., but εορτάζωμεν, B. C. F L. Cod. Sin.” Alf.] 1 Corinthians 5:10.—The Rec. ἤ is feebly supported and is an alteration to conform to the general context. [A. B. C. D1. F. Cod. Sin. all have καί.] 1 Corinthians 5:10.—[The Rec. has ὀφείλετε with B3., which Alf. calls “a correction from misunderstanding.” Wordsworth and Meyer retain it. A. B1. C. D. F. L. Cod. Sin. have ὠφείλετε. It would then read: ‘Ye ought to have gone.’ “The necessity would long ago have occurred and the act passed. And this Lachmann, Tisch., Rόckert, approve.] 1 Corinthians 5:11.—[The Rec. has νυνὶ with C. D. Cod. Sin1.; and so Meyer, Words. But A. B. F. L. Cod. Sin3., have all νῦν, which Alf. adopts.] 1 Corinthians 5:11.—The Rec. ἤ is accented according to the analogy of what follows. But ἥ is best authorized [being supported by nearly all the ancient versions.] 1 Corinthians 5:12.—The καί has indeed many important authorities against it. [A. B. C. F. Cod. Sin.] But it might very easily have been omitted as dispensable, and ought to be retained with Meyer arid Tischendorf. [Alf. omits it.] 1 Corinthians 5:13.—The Rec. καὶἐξάρεῖτε arose from Deuteronomy 24:7. Ἐξάράτε is decidedly better supported. A. B. C. D1. F. Cod. Sin.] See this disproved, and the whole chronology of our Lord’s last acts fully discussed in Andrew’s “Life of our Lord,” pp. 423–460: also Lange on Matth. pp. 456 and 468]. And yet Calvin’s interpretation is more in accordance with the enlarged course of thought pursued in the latter part of the chapter, and carries with it greater force. It also explains the abruptness with which the injunction is introduced. The grand finale of the whole matter is: ‘Put the wicked one away from tho midst of you—the wicked one and all that belongs to him.’ This seems more natural than to suppose a recurrence to a matter already settled]. See Archb. Magee’s conclusive argument on this subject in his “Atonement and Sacrifice,” Note 35 Kurtz Sacrificial Worship, § 180, and articles on “Passover” in Kitto Bib. Ency., and Smith’s Bible Dict. Also Bahr Symbolik, Vol. II., p. 627 ff., Lange Life of Christ, Edinburgh. Tran., IV., p. 149, and Lange Matthew 26:1-5]. XI.—A LACK OF PROPER CHURCH SPIRIT IN THE OF THE CIVIL OF THE CHURCH-MEMBERS AMONG . BEFORE HEATHEN 1 Corinthians 6:1-111 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to the law before the unjust, 2and not before the saints? Do [Or do] ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more [to say nothing of] things that pertain to this life? 4If then ye have judgments of things 5pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Isaiah 3 it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, [a loss to you] because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not 8rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, 9[On the contrary, ἀλλά] ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. [Or ἢ ?] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor [not, ου] drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. AND [“The connection of this paragraph with the preceding, seems to be, ‘As we have nothing to do with judging the heathen, so we ought not to go to law before them, or suffer them to judge us.’ This question was not new. It was held unlawful among the Jews for any Jew to bring a lawsuit against his countrymen before a Gentile judge, on the ground that in Exodus 21:1, it is commanded: ‘These are the judgments which thou shalt set before’—not the Gentiles, but ‘them—the Jews.’ ‘If any one brings the judgments of Israel before the Gentiles, he profanes the name of God, and honors the name of an idol. They who so do give occasion to the strangers to say, ‘See how harmonious they are who worship one God.’ This right of settling their own disputes, was conceded to them by the Romans; and hence the speech of Gallio to the Jews who attacked St. Paul. In the first beginning of Christianity, the same rule would be naturally held to apply. The existence of separate courts for the disputes of Christians among themselves, is implied [?] in this passage. The Apostolic Constitutions (II: 4, 5, 46, 47) and the Clementines, in language evidently founded upon this text, imply the existence of such courts at the time when those works were compiled, i. e. , apparently about A. D. 150. When one of the parties was a heathen, then it was thought lawful to prosecute before a heathen tribunal. Under these circumstances, it was natural that the same controversy, which in a mixed society of Jewish and Gentile Christians ran through be many other departments of human life, should se felt here also; and that the Gentile Christians should still wish to carry on their litigations in the same courts to which they had been previously accustomed, and to indulge the same litigious spirit which had characterized the Greek nation from the time of Aristophanes downward. But in whatever way this tendency originated, the Apostle [here] treats it altogether irrespectively of any Jewish or Gentile custom, and condemns it solely on the ground of the low views which it implied of the greatness of a Christian’s privileges, and the closeness of the bond of Christian brotherhood.” Stanley.] 1 Corinthians 6:1. Here also, as in chap, 5, there is indicated a lack of true Christian spirit in the failure to maintain the honor of the Church. In the former case it arose from a want of moral earnestness, here from an earthly temper, and from stubbornness of opinion. The tone of address is sharp.—Dare any of you.—This is not ironical, as Schrader imagines; but it is the direct outburst of indignation at the unworthy conduct, manifested [and also at the risk run], “The injured majesty of Christians,” says Bengel, “is here noted by a grand word.” Τολμᾷν, sustinere, to have the heart to do that from which a just sense of the Christian dignity should have restrained them. Here the culpable party must be regarded, as consisting mainly of Gentile converts, since it was already a custom among the Jews to choose their own umpires—having a matter.—ΙΙρᾶγμαἔχειν is a phrase denoting civil suits, especially in matters of money and possessions.—against another—of course, a fellow church-member—go to law,—κρίνεσθαι, to separate oneself, to part from, then to contend, to strive, also to debate, and that before a tribunal. “This love of litigation—a remnant of the old leaven which abounded among the traffickers of Corinth—must have derived abundant nourishment from the divisions existing in the Church.”Besser.—before—ἐπί, as in Acts 23:30—the unjust—τῶνἀδίκων. These are the heathen. So in Matthew 26:45, they are called ἁμαρτωλοί, sinners; while the Israelites, on the contrary, are termed δίκαιοι, just; Wis 18:20; Wis 16:17; Wis 11:15. The designation ‘unjust’ is employed to bring out more prominently the absurdity [and the peril] of seeking for justice in such a quarter. It exhibits those to whom it is applied as devoid of that true righteousness which is found alone in God’s kingdom, as withholding from God His due, and therefore as unqualified to administer justice among His people. On ἁγίων (=οἱἕσω 1 Corinthians 5:12) comp. 1 Corinthians 1:2.—[“Paul does not here condemn those who from necessity have a cause before unbelieving judges, as when a person is summoned to court; but those who of their own accord bring their brethren into this situation, and harass them, as it were, through means of unbelievers, while it is in their power to employ another remedy.” Calvin. “And besides the scandal of such a proceeding, as exposing their internal differences to the eyes of the heathen, there were certain formularies to be gone through in the heathen Law Courts, such as adjuration by heathen Deities, which would involve them in idolatrous practices.” Words.] 1 Corinthians 6:2. He here goes on to show still further what an entire disregard of the true dignity of the Christian state was evinced in their conduct.—Or do ye not know.—The ‘or’ presents an alternative, suggesting some other cause for their conduct, viz., that of ignorance; and the interrogative form used intimates that it was a culpable ignorance of an indubitable and plain truth. [“ This question,” says Words., “occurs no less than ten times in this Epistle, and only twice in all the rest. It was a very fit mode of remonstrance with those who vaunted themselves most on their knowledge.”]—that the saints shall judge the world?—“This is the only clear, direct enunciation we have of the truth here expressed, though it is in perfect harmony with conclusions elsewhere furnished.” Burger. The words imply more than an indirect participation in the judgment of the world, such as is brought to view in Matthew 12:41, where it is said: “The men of Nineveh shall rise up in judgment against this generation,” etc., viz., that in contrast with the conduct, or faith exhibited by them, the guilt of the world will be set forth in clearer light, [so Chrys. and most of the Greek fathers, Erasmus, Words.]. Nor is it meant that the saints will simply unite in assenting to the sentence pronounced by Christ as assessors on his judgment seat [Barnes, et al.]; nor that they in some general way will be glorified with Him, [Schleus., Heyden., Barnes.]. Still less do they refer to any future judicial functions, which saints are to possess in this world as its princes and rulers, [Lightfoot, Whitby]; nor to any peculiar ability to estimate the value of the world’s opinions and doings, [Mosh. Rosen.] (1 Corinthians 2:15, comp. 1 Corinthians 6:3). And least of all are they to be interpreters of the church as the perpetual judge of the world, in so far as it carries the light which ever separates the darkness of the world from itself. (Cath.). But they refer to that reigning with Christ which is elsewhere promised to the faithful, (Romans 8:17; 2 Timothy 2:12), and serve to define more exactly the import of the expression: ‘glorified with Him.’ What was said especially of the Apostles, that they should “sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28), is here extended, in general, to all the true followers of Christ—His royal people, in relation to that portion of the race which shall persist in its opposition to the Gospel, viz. , the world. In short, Paul here asserts the active participation by the saints in the judicial work of Christ, such as is ascribed to them in Daniel 7:22 : “Until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” [The same prediction reappears again in the Apocryphal Book, Wisdom III: 1 Corinthians 8 : “They (the righteous) shall judge the nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord shall reign forever”]; also Revelation 2:26-27; Revelation 20:4-6. That this is the element in their glory which the Apostle alludes to, the context clearly shows. [Such is the interpretation also of Calvin, Beza, Alf., Stanley, and others. And it is plainly the only tenable one. The others are either too far fetched, or imply a more general acquaintance with the New Testament, in its present form, than could have been possible for the Corinthians; and we cannot suppose that the Apostle would be likely to consider their ignorance of the matters suggested a fit ground for rebuke. But the prophecy of Daniel was in their hands; and the anticipations of the final triumph and glory of the righteous during the reign of the Messiah, were current among believers; and the ignoring or over-looking of these matters might well have been reproved. In fact the final and complete supremacy of Christ’s kingdom was already assured in the very character of its head, and the former could not be disavowed without offence done to the latter. As to the character of the functions which the saints were to fulfil, opinions will vary according to the views adopted in respect to the nature of the millennial glory, and of the relation which the church will sustain to the world at that time. But whatever these functions may be, the language which describes them plainly implies the exercise of an active supremacy in the affairs of the world. That which saints are expected to do then, must, in some way, be analogous to the duties which the Apostle urges upon the church-members to discharge for themselves in the present age. For this reason the view of Hodge and Barnes and others, who suppose a reference in the text “to the future and final judgment” (with a somewhat uncertain allusion to Daniel 7:22, as though the event pointed to here were the same as the other), must be set aside. On that occasion the saints appear only as the retinue of the Judge, and are nowhere represented as taking an active part in the trial. The idea of Barnes that the saints are to judge the world by simply ‘encompassing the throne,’ and ‘assenting to Christ’s judgment,’ and occupying “a post of honor As If they were associated with him in judgment,” hardly suits the style of the Apostle’s reasoning]. The natural conclusion from all this, viz., that persons destined to so lofty an office, ought also to be deemed worthy of passing judgment on the trifling matters of this life, is put in the form of a question, expressive of astonishment. This, as is often the case, is introduced with an ‘and.’ The question, however, is not thereby made dependent on the previous one, ‘Know ye not?’ but it stands by itself.—And if among you the world is to be judged.—The judges are here conceived of as constituting one vast assembly, in the midst of which the adjudication proceeds. The ἕνὐμῖν is not precisely equivalent to: ‘through you,’ as in Acts 17:31; nor to: ὑφ’ ὑμῶν, by you, though the sense is about the same; nor: ‘in you,’ i. e., by your example; but properly: in the midst of you, and so; before you: (coram). [Winer § XL.VIII., etc. “Hence,” says Meyer, “it is evident that the saints themselves are to be the judges sitting in judgment. And ἐν is employed in view of the following κριτηρίων, since the Christians judging therein, are conceived of as one judicial concourse, for the sake of representing the idea more vividly”]. The εἰ if, in εἰκρίνεται, as the context shows, is not meant to exhibit the judgment as at all problematical, but only states it as indubitably presupposed in what follows. The notion of futurity here retires into the background.—Are ye unworthy of the smallest judgments?—Κριτήρια is a word used to denote both places or courts of trials, and also the trials themselves which are there held. Here it means the latter, and the whole clause is to be taken in an active sense, q. d., are ye unworthy of holding trial in the smallest matters? [Many, like de Wette, Olsh., Hodge, Words., understand by κριτήρια, the matters in trial, as better suited to the context, 1 Corinthians 6:4; 1 Corinthians 6:7, but Meyer says that this is contrary to all usage]. The adjective here (ἐλαχίστων) refers to the matters brought to trial, and which are here designated as of the most trifling sort, having to do simply with the earthly ‘mine and thine,’ Luke 16:10. 1 Corinthians 6:3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? to say nothing of things that pertain to this life?—[A still wider contrast.] But are there here two questions, or only one or are we to take the second clause as a corollary? Since μήτιγε in the first instance means, not at all (Passow ΙΙΙ. p. 230. [Rob. Gr. Lex.]), and then: yet much less, it would seem to indicate that there is also a second question here. The sense then would be: ‘Our judicial power, as ye ought to know, extends even beyond, even unto celestial beings; should it not then be now first applied to terrestrial matters’? i. e., how much more now ought it to be applied to these?—In respect to the fact first alluded to, ‘the judging of angels’, we must at the outset put aside every explanation, which makes the phrase expressive of something inferior to the work of judging the world, instead of something which is an advance upon it—whether this be done by taking ‘angels’ to mean church officers, or priests, or teachers distinguished for devilish cunning; and by supposing the judgment spoken of to be of a spiritual kind, as relating to the errors of these parties, or to be even a mere ability to judge, (Galatians 1:8). The only point in doubt is, whether angels in general are referred to, or merely good angels, or merely bad ones. Besser says: ‘both classes; to the damnation of the bad, but on the good, to pronounce a judgment of blessing, since they will be united with us under one Head in Christ’. (Ephesians 1:10). Since, however, the idea that good angels are meant, finds support only in that relation which they sustain to believers, hinted at in Hebrews 1:14, and in the hypothetical expression found in Galatians 1:8, and inasmuch as good angels are represented as furnishing a part of Christ’s retinue in judgment, and as acting the part of organs and witnesses of His judicial work, (Matthew 13:39; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 24:31; Matthew 25:31, 2 Thessalonians 1:7, Revelation 20:1 ff.), we are constrained to adopt the explanation, which supposes evil angels to be referred to, as the only correct one. [So Chrys. and most of the Greek fathers, and Calvin and Beza, and Bengel, Poole, and most of commentators. Whitby, with the same reference understands the judgment to denote that expulsion of the devils from their dominion over the world by the power of the Gospel, of which our Saviour speaks in John 12:31; John 16:11. On the contrary, Meyer, Alf. and Hodge, following the usage of the N. T., where the word αγγελοι, without any qualifying epithet always means good angels, interpret it so here. But they do not profess to explain how these are to be judged, or they give to the word, ‘judge’, a very comprehensive meaning, implying only superiority of a general sort. Billr., de Wette, Stanley, leave the matter undecided. See Pool and Whitby.] At the same time it must be said that the unqualified term ‘angels’ indicates the superhuman nature of the beings contemplated, and puts them in contrast with the world; [and ‘the argument will be not less conclusive in this way.” Calvin;] while the position they are in, so analogous to that of the world, marks them as standing in an abnormal relation to God, and implies that the judgment spoken of will be one of condemnation, the same as in 1 Corinthians 6:2, and not one that merely decides upon honors and rewards.—Βιωτικά=things serviceable for this life (Luke 8:43), which belong to bodily sustenance, and are therefore of an earthly, temporal sort, as is every thing which forms a ground for suits respecting property, debts or inheritance. [“The Latin translation of this word by sζcularia, is probably one of the first instances of the use of that word, in its modern sense of ‘worldly’ as opposed to spiritual, instead of its ancient sense, ‘belonging to a cycle of a hundred years’; and from this has sprung the signification of the word ‘secular’ in modern European languages”. Stanley]. 1 Corinthians 6:4. Secular trials indeed then would ye have.—[Βιωτικά is repeated with emphasis, and so stands first, and] κριτήρια is to be construed as in 1 Corinthians 6:2, not as equivalent to πράγματα, matters to be judged, for this rendering is void of support. ̔Ἔχειν might denote in this connection: to have on hand; or, to have a just comprehension of; consequently: to be in a condition to manage (as in the phrases, ἔχεινεπιστήμην, τέχνας, τὴνἰατρκήν, etc.), and this would fit well with what precedes. The μέν, introducing a clause correlative to the one following, might remain untranslated, and οὖν be rendered by, then, accordingly, or by some word of transition, which would indicate that the point mentioned has been established, and that the clause where it occurs also stands in inward connection with some previous expression. Properly: ‘Have ye then indeed such trials? but ye by no means proceed in a manner suitable to this fact!’ This thought would then be expressed by a protasis and apodosis, of which the latter is to be regarded as a question of astonishment at such procedure. An interrogation similar to this we have in John 10:36 (comp. John 6:35), “how happens it that ye do this?” But such an explanation would necessitate our taking ἐάν as equivalent to εἰ, which could only be justified on the score of the laxity of the later Greek in this respect, and provided another interpretation were inadmissible. But we may interpret the ἐὰνκριτήριαἔχητε, of the actual existence of such trials among them; in which case ἐάν would mean, if, in case that, and we should interpret the clause thus: ‘if now it should happen that trials, involving secular matters, are held among you,—those despised in the church these do ye set up?—i. e. as judges. By ‘the despised,’ he means the unjust or the unbelievers, before spoken of, who, as such, pass for nothing in the Church, and enjoy no confidence or authority there. [“This translation,” Hodge says, “is generally preferred as best in keeping with the context,” and Wordsworth adopts it also. See, however, the note below]. But if any do not choose to construe it as a question of astonishment, it may be taken as a simple affirmation, stating once more what was actually occurring among them. [“So in the main, Luther, Calvin, Rόckert, Olsh., de Wette, Neander, and otters]. The οὖν would then be an ecbatic particle. Yet the form of the question would in any case, be the more emphatic. The use of καθιζετε is also a remarkable way of expressing an appeal to heathen judges on the part of Christians, for it implies that such judges were formally set up in office by the Christians themselves, when they could have had no hand in their appointment, and only seemed to do so by appealing to them for decision in cases over which they ought to have no adjudication.—Τούτους, these, an emphatic repetition of the persons alluded to [involving also contempt]. Others, objecting partly to the use of καθίζειν in relation to heathen authorities, who are supposed to be already existing, and partly to the application of τοὺςεξουθενημένους to the heathen as unsuitable [and inconsistent with the respect which Paul inculcates toward heathen magistrates], understand the latter to denote church members, and construe the whole in the Imp. as an injunction [of rather an ironical sort]: ‘If you must have trials, those least esteemed in the Church, these set up rather as judges.’ But in such a case the text ought to read: τοὺςἐντηἐκκλησίᾳἐξοθεν, and the word ‘rather,’ would be an arbitrary insertion. This insertion would, however, be necessary, if we understood the Apostle to mean such persons as might be suitable for the office in question, but who, for some reason, were of little repute. But, however this may be, still our first interpretation is favored by what follows.1 Corinthians 6:5-6.—To your shame I speak.—Comp. on 1 Corinthians 4:14. The expression applies, as in 1 Corinthians 15:34, to what precedes; and what follows, in part, explains more fully how far that spoken of in 1 Corinthians 6:4 is disgraceful to them, and, in part, repeats emphatically the case as it stood.—So is there not among you not even one wise man.—The οὔτως is either climacteric, meaning: ‘so completely are ye wanting in wise men,’ which rendering does not well suit a strong negation [but is adopted by Chrys., Luther, Billr., Calvin, Alf., Olsh., Rόckert]; or it is: ‘in this way,’ ‘under these circumstances,’ referring back to 1 Corinthians 6:4 : ‘seeing that ye set up those persons despised in the Church for judges.’ [So Meyer. The rendering here must be determined by the view taken of the import of 1 Corinthians 6:4. If that last advocated be the correct one, it would be more natural to understand οὔτως in the former sense. King James’ translation places the stress of the interrogation here, deviating in this respect from the previous versions which translate it, “utterly,” “at all,” and supposes an ellipsis: “Is it so that there is not?”]. ̔ ?́Ενι is for ἕνεστι, an adverbial use of the ἔν without the copula=‘is there,’ ‘does there exist.’.—Ον̓δὲ ?—εἷς, a strong expression, like non ullus, nemo unus, ‘not even one.’ Considering how wise they were in their own conceit, the question here is a very cutting one. At the same time it suggests a strong reason for their altering their conduct. By it he would urge them to the practical exercise of their vaunted wisdom—a matter in which they sadly failed. Σοφός, skilful, expert in resources, experienced, discreet.—who shall be able—i. e., when a cause comes up—to decide. διακρῖναι—to arbitrate in a formal manner—between his brother, ἀνὰμέσοντοῦἀδελφοῦαὑτοῦ,—a wise expression, where a person understanding himself to be meant, supplies in thought: ‘and a brother.’ Meyer regards the party distinctly mentioned as the complainant (the defendant he understood as a matter of course, who is specified by way of distinction, as the party in fault). Had the plural been used, the two litigants would then have been equally brought to view. In the use of the term ‘brother,’ a rebuke is intended which is still further enlarged upon—but brother goeth to law with brother.—This is not a question, whether considered independently, or as continuing the previous one; but it is an affirmation full of severe reproof. [“’Αλλά, after a question, passes rapidly on to the other alternative, the particle, which negatives the question being supressed, q. d., ‘nay; but.’ ” Alf.]. Κρίνεται, goeth to law, stands opposed to διακρίνειν, to arbitrate. Then, by way of contrast with the “wise man among you,” before whom they ought to have settled their difficulties, we have the sad opposite:—and that before unbelievers.—[“and that,” a form of expression used when particular stress is to be laid on the circumstance indicated.” Hodge]. 1 Corinthians 6:7-8. Looking away now from the point last mentioned, i. e., going to law before unbelievers, he here passes to rebuke the entire practice of litigation among Christians as in itself wrong.—indeed therefore—ἥδημὲνοὖν. The μέν gives a peculiar prominence to the point to be mentioned as being the worst of all; οὗν is simply transitional and conjunctive; but ἥδη (see Passow ΙΙ.1326ff.) is a determinative particle, which serves, in part, to strengthen the whole clause, and, in part, to call particular attention to certain thoughts about to be presented.—it is in any case a loss for you.—̔ ?́Ολωςpresents the aspect of the case generally, without reference to any peculiar, aggravating circumstances, such as going to law “before unbelievers.” [Stanley renders it: “certainly”] ̔ ?́Ηττημα. lit.: a falling short; it is used, partly, of failings and imperfections (hence the var. ἐνὑμῖν), and, partly, of injuries, or damage, whether it be in an ethical sense, as caused by the outbreak of sin and the violence of passion (comp: ἡττασθαι, 2 Peter 2:20; νικᾶσθαι, Romans 12:21), or as some evil consequence upon these outbreaks, such as hinderance to our salvation, and to our participation in God’s kingdom. It is here undoubtedly the latter, and points to what is more fully stated in 1 Corinthians 6:9. This is undoubtedly the more correct interpretation, and it forms an implied contrast to any supposed temporal advantage they might gain by any legal process. [So Meyer, de Wette, Words., Alf., Hodge. But Calvin, Beng., Billr., Stanley, Rόckert, Olsh., all prefer the meaning: ‘fault,’ ‘imperfection,’ ‘weakness.’ And there is strong ground for their interpretation]. Neander: “A backsliding of the Church, and sinking down from the high standard of pure Christian feeling.” ὑμῖν, Dative of interest—that ye have lawsuits with yourselves.—Κρίμα elsewhere means, judicial decision, sentence, also judgment. With this rendering the sense would be: ‘that it comes to this, that ye have legal decisions,’ etc. The same sense substantially is obtained if we adopt the meaning which attaches to κρίνεσθαι, and which does not elsewhere appear, viz.: lawsuits. [So Rob. Lex. sub. voce; but Alf. says: ‘matters of dispute’]. Μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν: ‘with yourselves;’ more expressive than ἀλλήλων: one another. [It suggests the unity of the Christian body, so in contrast with the segregated condition of the world].—How Christians ought to conduct themselves in cases affecting the ‘mine and thine,’ he states in the more striking form of a question.—Why do ye not rather take injustice? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?—The verbs ἀδικεῖσθε—ἀποστερεῖσθε are both middle and to be rendered as above. They imply the suffering of a ‘loss.’ It is one, however, only in appearance, being a victory in fact (Osi.). Comp. Matthew 5:39 ff. What follows may be taken as a strong assertion, or as a question, which either stands independently, or is depending still on ‘why,’ since the question ‘or do you not know,’ of 1 Corinthians 6:9, has also its logical relations in the ‘why’ (so Meyer, ed. 2). But the former construction, which makes the sentence direct and independent, would be more expressive, and it is supported by καὶτοῦτοἀδελφος. The ἀλλά a then will have its proper force.—But ye (ὕμεῖς. emphatic, ye Christians) do injustice and defraud—[the same verbs as in the previous clause, but active transitive] and that brethren.—[“This passage is remarkable as being founded on the spirit of Mat 5:40.” Stanley]. [On the nature of ecclesiastical jurisdiction maintained by the early Church in secular affairs, its relation to that of the State, and the evils resulting from it, see Neander’s Church History, Vol. II. p. 139ff., Torrey’s Translation]. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Or know ye not.—The question presupposes a self-evident answer respecting the conduct spoken of. ‘Such proceedings should not hate been allowed by you, a people whose hope takes hold on God’s kingdom, and who profess to be the children, and so the heirs of the Most High. “Or,” etc., i. e, your conduct can only be explained on the supposition of such ignorance.’—that the unjust God’s kingdom shall not inherit?—Here (ἄδικοι) the idea I involved in ἀδικεῖν, to do injustice, must be kept in view, yet looking away from the point wherein they as members of the Church were especially guilty. The ‘unjust’ (“a term used of the heathen in 1 Corinthians 6:1, and here designedly brought in for the purpose of putting all who were unjust on a par with the heathen” Neander) are properly those among whom the practice of injustice has become habitual, who persist in wrong without repenting.—But here the word denotes the immoral generally, those who offend God and man by iniquities of every kind, such as are specified in the following context.—In reference to ‘God’s kingdom,’ see on 1 Corinthians 4:20. Considered in its perfection, as the object of Christian hope, the kingdom of God is the blessed state, wherein the will of a holy, loving, all-restoring, beatific God is fully realized; or, in other words, a condition wherein men and angels are unitedly and perfectly controlled by the Divine will, lead a life of righteousness and peace, and together with this, possess the highest good which it is desirable for men to participate in. And this participation is expressed by the word ‘inherit’ (κληρονομειν). It is something that properly belongs to the believer as a child of God (Romans 8:17; Galatians 4:7), and involves a gracious right and an enduring possession. The expression, meaning literally, to obtain by lot, and then, to receive as an inheritance, belongs to the language of the Theocracy, and is used in the Old Testament to denote the entrance into the promised land, and into the society of those who are governed by the will of God. And this was but the type or shadow (σκία) of the kingdom, of God that was to be set up on a renovated earth (2 Peter 3:13; Matthew 5:5). (That the verb takes after it the Accusative instead of the Genitive, belongs to the later Hellenic usage). The ‘not inheriting,’ implying an exclusion from the possession of the highest good, explains what is meant by κατακρίνεσθαι. and ἀπόλλυσθαι.—That all conduct, which contravenes the justice of God, or the ordering of holy love, should cause a forfeiture of this inheritance, lies in the very nature of the case. In the Corinthian Church, however, there appear to have been some light-minded people who sought to persuade themselves and others that God did not mean exactly what he said, that this inheritance could never be withheld from any who had joined the Church. [“Such a divorce of morality from religion has been manifested in all ages, and under all forms of religion. The pagan, the Jew, the Mohammedan, the nominal Christian, have all been exact in the performance of religious services, while unrestrained in the indulgence, of every evil passion. This arises from looking on religion as an outward service, and God as a being to be feared and propitiated, not loved and served.” Hodge]. Against all such false conceptions and vain words (Ephesians 5:6), Paul here warns the Church with his oft-recurring—Be not deceived (1 Corinthians 15:33; Galatians 6:7, etc.)—To this he appends a full catalogue of such immoralities as exclude from God’s kingdom:—neither fornicators.—This indicates the vice prevalent in Corinth, and points back to chap. 5. To this he annexes, that wherewith fornication was closely connected in Heathendom, and which I when practised by God’s people, was termed both ‘fornication’ and ‘adultery:’—nor idolaters.—Then comes that inordinate indulgence of the sexual passion which violated alike the Divine ordinance of marriage, and the rights of the married parties:—nor adulterers.—The series of this class ends with the mention of that unnatural gratification of lust indicated in the words:—nor effeminate, nor Sodomites.—These express correlative ideas. The former denotes those who allowed themselves to be used as women (qui muliebria patiuntur); the latter, such as used the former in this unnatural way—a wide-spread vice in that period (comp. Wetstein on this passage, and on Romans 1:27). Next follow classes of the ‘unjust,’ in the more restricted sense, such as violently seized upon others’ possessions, or more indirectly sought for them:—nor thieves, nor covetous,—(comp. on 1 Corinthians 5:10 ff.).—In like manner in regard to the following—nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners.—The enumeration is not strictly logical, since those last mentioned would naturally come in after the ‘covetous.’ But drunkards and revilers naturally go together, since the vice of the latter commonly results from that of the former. After asserting solemnly that such—shall not inherit the kingdom of God,—he goes on to remind the Corinthians that for them these trials belonged to the past, and that indulgence in such vices was for them a backsliding into their old heathenish state, which utterly contradicted their high Christian experience. 1 Corinthians 6:11. And these things some (of you) were.—The neuter ταῦτα carries a contemptuous implication, q. d., ‘such a set,’ ‘such stuff’ (Meyer). Τινὲς: ‘some, not all. What otherwise would be a too sweeping and severe imputation is thus limited in its application and softened in tone. [Calvin and Hodge regard the τινὲς as redundant or as distributive, q. d., some were one thing and some another]. The simple ἧτε, or ὑμεῖςἧτε, would imply too much, since all the Corinthian converts, without exception, had not been addicted to either one or all the immoralities specified; yet, on the other hand, τινὲςὑμῶνἧτε would have implied too little. “It would bring the whole body prominently to notice, and intimate that only a part would agree with the description.” Osiander. The change which, however, had passed over them, is indicated by three expressions introduced with the emphatic repetition of ‘but,’ designed to set forth the contrast more strongly.—But ye were washed clean.—απελούσασθε—[ἀπό; off, all off, clean, intensive. This refers to their joining the Church in baptism. Comp. Titus 3:5. In like manner Acts 22:16, where the verb is aor. mid., and signifies, baptize thyself, or, cause thyself to be baptized, not, ‘be baptized,’ as ‘though it were passive. And so the verb here is middle, and must be taken in a reflexive sense, though it is difficult to translate it thus in English]. The term ‘wash,’ points to the defilement incurred by the sins before spoken of, and to the purification effected through the forgiveness obtained in baptism, or the removal of guilt then pledged (Acts 22:16). It is analogous to καθαρίσας (Ephesians 5:26). The moral purification, by the doing away of all that is sinful (Rόckert), we cannot therefore take to be here meant: although repentance and faith are presupposed in baptism. In this washing of baptism, however, the cleansing through the blood of Christ (Revelation 1:5; 1 John 1:7) must be considered as included.—Ye sanctified yourselves, ἡλιάσθητε—This, too, is middle. It cannot therefore be supposed to denote the inward, progressive sanctification accomplished by the Spirit; but, as in 1 Corinthians 1:2, the act of personal consecration to God, of separation from the world and translation into fellowship with God; yet this, not putatively, nor externally merely, but as involving also some operation of the Divine Spirit on the heart (comp. Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2).—Ye were justified, ἐδικαιώθητε.—This, in accordance with the usage of Paul and of the Bible generally, is to be construed, not after Augustine and the Council of Trent, as if it meant: ‘made righteous’ inwardly. This is contradicted by the aorist tense of the verb. But it implies an introduction into the state of the ‘just,’ admission to a participation in the salvation of God—to a place in His kingdom and a share in His blessings. This exhibits the positive side of God’s salvation (the removal of guilt being the negative side), and is the result of consecration to God. Hence it fitly concludes the series. All three taken together denote an entrance into the state of grace [“ and refer to the first conversion.” Stanley. The view given by Kling is substantially that of Calvin, Hodge, Alf., Words. But the words also carry a further implication in the way of contrast. ‘Having become thus, ye are not to defile and pollute yourselves afresh and incur, renewed condemnation’].—in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God.—These qualifying phrases are by some referred to all three of the foregoing verbs, and by others to the last alone. Others still make a division, referring the words, ‘in the name’ to ‘justified,’ or to this and ‘washed;’ but the words, ‘in the Spirit’ to ‘sanctified.’ These attempts are a failure; although it is indeed true that the ‘washing’ and the ‘justification’ are grounded upon the name of Christ. ‘Even as, on the other hand, sanctification comes through the Spirit. Again the reference of these phrases to all three of the verbs appears to be opposed by the separation of the verbs effected by ‘but,’ as well as by the unsuitableness of connecting the fact of the washing with the Spirit, since according to the rule (to which Acts 4:7 is no exception) the reception of the Spirit is consequent on baptism (Meyer). But the first reason given cannot be decisive; and so far as the second goes, we find that in Titus 3:5, the ‘renewal of the spirit’ is connected directly with baptism, as epexegetical of παλιγγενεσίας. And as the phrase ‘in the name of Christ,’ indicates the objective ground on which the washing rests, so does the phrase, ‘in the Spirit,’ indicate the subjective ground of the same, that is, the principle which inwardly imparts and applies the absolution implied in the washing. On the name of Christ comp. on 1 Corinthians 1:2. The entire personality of Jesus, so far as it is made known to us in the work of redemption and indicated in the name, is the objective ground both of the pardon granted in baptism and of our justification and sanctification, according to the sense of the terms above given. But the Spirit of God applies to each individual what is offered to us in that name. He brings it directly to our consciousness, insures and imparts it to us, and enables us to realize it all within our own hearts. [“By the ἡμῶν: our, added to ‘God,’ he binds the Corinthians and himself together in the glorious blessings of the Gospel state, and mingles the oil of joy with the mourning which by his reproof he is reluctantly creating.” Alford], [Obs. This whole passage 1 Corinthians 6:1-9, is memorable as laying the foundation for that ecclesiastical jurisdiction in civil affairs which in the lapse of centuries grew to such mighty proportions as to overshadow for a time the temporal sovereignty, and even threaten to subjugate it altogether. There are traces of the existence of church-courts for civil causes among Christians as early as the middle of the second century, and in the Apost. Const. , II. 47, the rule for the regulation of their proceedings is laid down. Ordinarily, however, the bishop became the referee in such disputes, and his office as umpire contributed largely to the increase of his importance and authority, and also greatly endangered his spirituality. When the State became Christian, this jurisdiction was conferred by law, and made binding on all parties that appealed to it. The custom once established, gradually extended itself with the increase of ecclesiastical pretensions, and the decay of secular power, until the Church assumed the form of a political association, with a well defined system of ecclesiastical polity that divided the control with the State both over the laity and the clergy, even in temporal matters, and aimed steadily at exempting the latter in particular from all amenability to the State. The history of this wonderful and yet perverse development of authority from the positions laid down in the text, furnishes a most instructive commentary on its meaning, and shows us the necessity of correctly interpreting it. The limitations by which the precept is beset are as follows: 1. The litigants must be both church-members. Redress from wrongs inflicted from without may be sought at civil tribunals when public justice seems to require it—Paul, e. g., appealed to Cζsar. 2. The causes, comparatively trivial, the minor matters of property, for example, in relation to which it were better that covetousness be mortified by quietly enduring the wrong, than indulged by the enforcement of rights. 3. The tribunals, heathen, or of a heathenish kind. The case may be altered when the judges are Christians. Yet even under such circumstances litigation between “brethren” ought, if possible, to be avoided. 4. The nature of the adjudication, informal—that of umpires chosen for the purpose by the contestants, and not of regular church courts. Paul’s aim was to preserve the peace and spirituality of the Church by the avoidance of litigation, not to convert the Church into an arena for conflicts, and thus to secularize it. The Church was never constituted to be “a ruler and a divider” among men. 5. The evil condemned is not the practice of going to law, as though this were wrong in itself, for the magistrate, too, is a “member of God for good,” but the litigious spirit so contrary to the Christian temper. There are instances when it would be a manifest sin not to seek justice. But in doing so, a Christian should take care to show that he was actuated, not by feelings of revenge, but by a supreme regard to law and order, and by a desire that even the wrong-doer may be reconciled to Him.] AND ETHICAL1. [The judicial function of the Saints in the age to come]. Those are mighty words, “the saints shall judge the world,” “we shall judge angels.” Through them we catch a glimpse into the mysteries of the Heavenly kingdom, especially into the fundamental mystery of the creating and judging Word, and into the vital fellowship which believers have with their Lord, likewise also into the mystery of the future, when the inward life of the saints, which is now hid with Christ in glory, will be made manifest as a life of Divine power and holiness. Those of whom Christ said, “I in them and they in me,” of whom it is grandly sung, “ Devoid of strength they are guardians for all; Poor, yet they win, let the worst befall,”— who here on earth have shared with their Redeemer in His sufferings and shame, these very ones will share with Him hereafter in the manifestations of His glory. “When Christ, who is their life, shall appear, exhibiting Himself as He really is, then will they also appear with Him as gods of earth, to the astonishment of the world. They will reign and flourish eternally, shining as stars in the firmament of God.” But by virtue of this union with Christ in glory, they become partners also in His judicial authority. Having been exempted from judgment through faith in their Lord, they will join with Him in executing judgment over all, whether men or angels, who amid the exhibitions of Divine love and wisdom and power and righteousness have continued hostile to God’s truth, disregardful of His grace, contemptuous toward His salvation, and opposed to all the ways of His kingdom—hardening themselves evermore in their enmity, until past hope. And this judgment will be an act both of deepest insight,—piercing through to the very centre of the heart, and detecting there the inexcusableness of sin, and of highest moral power—exhibiting a righteousness full of decision and vigor—allowing of no further protests—exposing the fallacy of excuses, and annihilating them all as false and untenable through the might of an all-enlightening truth. And this power to discern and judge at that period, is a living principle imparted to Christians now, through the indwelling life of Christ, and it unfolds itself onward unto perfection with the growth of their spiritual life, until it reaches its highest state of exercise in the future kingdom of glory. There is always implied in it a demonstration of the mind of Christ, as well in that pitying love which goes out after the lost, tracks them in their wanderings, and wisely and patiently applies the means of their restoration, as in that holiness which should keep them from all fellowship with sin, consecrate them entirely to God, and maintain them in the obedience of faith amid manifold temptations from within and from without, in joy and sorrow, in honor and dishonor, in abundance and want, in health and sickness, even unto death; so that, as the instruments of Christ’s truth and love, they shall have done what they could towards awakening, convincing and converting those who still walk in darkness—thus proving themselves fit and warranted to act the part of judges with their Lord at the last. But as their authority is also to be exercised over the world of spirits, these too must in some way be regarded as coming under this saving influence. For is not the blood of Christ’s cross said to be God’s means for reconciling all things unto Himself, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven? (Colossians 1:20). And is not the manifold wisdom of God to be proclaimed by means of the Church, even unto principalities and powers in heavenly places? (Ephesians 3:10). Shall we then mistake if we imagine that even in the extra mundane sphere there are also fallen beings, yet capable of salvation; and that into this sphere, whence came temptation and ruin unto our race, there shall in return go forth blessed agencies of deliverance from this very race, according to the wonderful council of God, and by virtue of the advent of His Son, through whom every thing above and beneath has been created? This is indeed an operation which, like that of the operation of this spirit-world upon us, comes not within the direct consciousness of believers; yet this fact does not militate against its reality, and like much that is now concealed, it will be made known to believers, as they enter upon their heavenly state. And if it be true, this circumstance will the more qualify believers for sitting in judgment over those bad spirits who obstinately close themselves against all such gracious influences, and scorn the salvation offered in Christ. These are conjectures indeed, and they might be carried out still further into the consideration of the particular duties in which the departed saints might engage in the other world. But it will not do to reject them as idle dreams, since they are in accordance with the analogy of Scripture, and are supported by the essential connection which exists between the judgment, and prevenient efforts directed to the recovery of the fallen. Since the judicial work of the saints is not simply a corroboration of the sentence pronounced by Christ, but also an active participation in the judgment carried on by Him, as the organs of His office, a training preparatory to this high function will naturally be required of them. To this there belongs—1, a learning to speak what is true and right, not only in public, but also in private stations, so that a readiness may be acquired in distinguishing between right and wrong, and there shall be no danger of being misled, either through the purblindness of the foolish, or by the corrupt sophistries and wretched infatuation of the self-opinionated and dogmatic (analogous with Luke 16:10 ff; Luke 19:17 ff.); 2, a calm, self-denying willingness to accept justice as set forth in the sentence rendered, whether it come from a judge or an umpire; for here the rule holds good, that obedience to authority is the best qualification for exercising authority; 3, the still loftier self-denial shown in a readiness to suffer wrong rather than to gain aught by going to law at the expense of love and unity. On the other hand, the habit of over-reaching and defrauding, originating in a spirit of selfish greed, as it disqualifies for admission into God’s kingdom, so does it in an especial manner unfit a person to exercise judgment. And this is true also of every act which violates the rights either of God or man; for all such acts virtually disown and entirely neutralize that state of grace into which a person has been brought through the name of Christ and by the Spirit of God. The persons who practise them have washed and consecrated themselves, and been justified (in baptism) to no purpose. [2. The natural condition of man, depraved and lost (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). When unchecked, the original sin of our constitution breaks out into the most flagrant vices and crimes, which reveal the inherent corruption. The most refined Pagan civilization has no power to restrain and cure it. Rather it serves to intensify the evil. The most demoralized society in the old world was to be found in the most refined of its cities. And the character, thus vitiated, forever excludes from a state of glory. It shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The strong negation here precludes all hope for such as possess it, and together with this puts the stamp of falsehood upon the figment of a universal salvation. No statement could be more explicit and conclusive] [3. The change which fits the sinner for heaven is a radical one, wrought in Christ and through the Spirit, yet not independently of human volition. “Ye have washed yourselves clean, ye have sanctified yourselves, ye are justified.” The filth of sin is voluntarily removed. From being his own, the person consecrates himself to God, and becomes forgiven and reconciled to God through faith in the work of Christ, and by the influence of the Spirit. Thus old things pass away, and all things become new, under the operation of Divine grace, and through the consent of the individual. There is, therefore, in renewal a voluntary assumption of the weightiest obligation to keep one’s self unspotted from the world]. AND [Litigation on the part of Christians—1, involves great risk, and betokens a corresponding ‘daring,’ for it is a seeking for justice before the avowedly unjust, 1 Corinthians 6:1 a; 2 is a repudiation of their proper society, and of the advantages its saintly character holds out, 1 Corinthians 6:1 b; 3, is derogatory to the dignity of the litigants themselves, who are, by their profession, destined to be hereafter judges of the world and of angels, 1 Corinthians 6:2-3; 1 Corinthians 4, is an imputation upon the ability of their brethren to decide in the matters of lesser moment here, 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 6:5; 1 Corinthians 5, should be superseded by the selection of umpires in the Church, and the small matters it involves treated as they deserve, 1 Corinthians 6:4; 1 Corinthians 6, is a disgrace to the Church and a cause of scandal, as it opens the faults of Christians to the observation and sneers of the world; 7, iscontrary to the spirit of Christ, “who, when He was reviled, reviled not again, and when He suffered, threatened not, but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously,” 1 Corinthians 6:7; 1 Corinthians 8, implies wrong doing on the part of Christians, provoking litigation by their conduct towards each other, 1 Corinthians 6:8; 1 Corinthians 9, those who by their offences provoke litigation are in danger of losing their inheritance in God’s kingdom and becoming outcasts with the vicious of every class, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Corinthians 10, the offences which cause it, and the spirit in which it is often done, are contrary to the change which believers profess to have passed through, 1 Corinthians 6:11]. Starke: 1 Corinthians 6:1. It is not in itself wrong to seek justice before earthly tribunals, since government, too, is a Divine ordinance, designed for protection and order; and Paul himself appealed to unbelieving magistrates against the persecution of the Jews (Acts 22:25; Acts 25:10). But in all law-suits let every one take care wherefore, and before whom, and how he litigates. Otherwise his action may prove both a disgrace and a sin. 1 Corinthians 6:2. In the coming judgment of the saints there is great comfort for those who have lost a righteous cause. Let corrupt judges mark well. Against whatsoever righteous ones they have declared unrighteous judgment, by these will they be righteously judged at the last day. 1 Corinthians 6:3. To be associated with Christ in judgment is one of the loftiest honors promised to believers, 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:5-6; Revelation 3:21. The dignity thus conferred should be displayed even in this life by the control which they maintain not only over themselves and the world, but also over the Devil, and so in their conquest over all their spiritual enemies. It should be shown also in the way they judge and condemn the world in and through their life and doctrine. 1 Corinthians 6:4. Those who know and enjoy God ought to be held in higher esteem, and deemed more worthy of confidence, than those in whom such knowledge is wanting. 1 Corinthians 6:6. Earthly goods are the means of separating the most united, heavenly goods can unite the most hostile. 1 Corinthians 6:7. Christians ought to hold temporal possessions of such small account that the prime question with them should not be whether they have, or have not; and they should be so affectionate toward each other, that in case of dissension about “the mine and thine” the temporal good should seem so small and the brother so important, that ere they would disquiet their spirits by litigation, and unfit themselves for religious duties, and cause offence to their neighbors, they would let the whole thing go and suffer the loss. 1 Corinthians 6:8. (Hed.). If an intelligent person is guilty of the wrong, then he commits the greater sin in putting the innocent person to so much cost and trouble with his lies; if the wrong-doer is ignorant, then it is not right, 1, to pursue the most stringent course with him and practise no forbearance; 2, to go to law in envious, avaricious, or ugly temper; 3, besides, the thing does not pay. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Those who needlessly go to law are classed with thieves and licentious persons, etc., and incur a like condemnation. The world evidently judges very different from the Holy Spirit. Nothing is more common than to excuse sin because of its commonness. If all on this catalogue are lost, you can count the saved, almost all. Ye unrighteous litigants, fornicators, small and great thieves, sly and open thieves, be alarmed! 1 Corinthians 6:11. (Hed.): “Such were some,” etc., sweet word ‘were.’ To be and to be willing to remain such—that were the pity. Those who have escaped from the snares of the Devil should bear the past in mind continually, as a motive to avoid sin and foster gratitude. Berlen. Bib.:1 Corinthians 6:1. The reason why the righteous are often passed by, and the unrighteous are chosen as judges, is because people hope to make something out of the latter. 1 Corinthians 6:2. Judicial honors hereafter await those only who have acted justly here, and allowed themselves to be judged. 1 Corinthians 6:7. So completely does the Holy Spirit drive nature from her supposed rights, and subject it to patient suffering, yea, to death, that we are not at liberty to maintain our rights arbitrarily, but are bound, everywhere and at all times, to have regard to the jewel of our peace, and see that it be neither injured nor destroyed. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. The unrighteous are all the unregenerate, 1 John 3:7; John 3:3. There are many kinds of sins. Hence, if thou seest another sin, point not thy finger at him. Perhaps thou art implicated in another sin more deeply than he is in this. Remembrance of the past ought to cause perpetual humiliation. To this end we ought to think of our old sins, but for other reasons we ought to forget them. “But,”—“but,”—“but.” O the importance and the preciousness of the change. Gracious acts all go together, though they are distinguishable. If we pray, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner,’ that implies, ‘create within me a clean heart.’ What God hath joined let no man put asunder. Salvation comprises forgiveness, sanctification, redemption, and we can get it in no other way than through the name of Jesus and the power of the Holy Ghost. Reiger: 1 Corinthians 6:2-3.—We must improve the glimpses here allowed into the grander future, in such a way, that even here, amid our small engagements, we may as far as possible be lifted into higher moods. Through selfishness, impatience, anger, greed, the complainant often incurs as much guilt afterwards as the man has who injured him. Heubner: 1 Corinthians 6:1. Every true Christian ought to be a sort of a justice of the peace. 1 Corinthians 6:3. It is very natural that the betrayed should judge the betrayer. From a presentiment of this springs the hatred of evil angels against Christians. 1 Corinthians 6:5. The lack of wise men in a church is great disgrace. 1 Corinthians 6:6. That justice should be enforced by the secular power between those who profess to be governed by law is also a disgrace. Besser:—If we kept in mind what glory awaits us in the Church, it would prove a sad thing for us to strive with our brethren about mine and thine, and if we were drawn into strife then would the judges find in us peaceable people who respected the decision of the saints. 1 Corinthians 6:7-8. Paul says “ye.” Mark then, a little leaven leavens the whole lump! The flagrant immoralities of some did not constrain the Church to mourning, did not move them to the exercise of discipline. A Christian Church, however, is not a mere aggregate of names, but it is the body of one Spirit, composed of many members. Hence the declaration of the Apostle, “ye do wrong,” struck at the whole Church, and stuck in it like an arrow until it acknowledged its own disgrace in bitter repentance. 1 Corinthians 6:11. Whatever has been done for us and is to be found in the name of Jesus, that is appropriated to us through the Spirit of our God—that God, who is our God and highest Good in Jesus Christ our Lord. [F. W. Robertson:—Let us guard against a natural misconception of the Apostle’s meaning. You might think that he meant to say, that the Corinthians should have ecclesiastical instead of civil courts; and for this reason, that churchmen and clergy will decide rightly by a special promise of guidance, and heathen and laymer wrongly. But this has not to do with the case. It is not a question here between ecclesiastical and civil courts, but between law and equity, between litigation and arbitration. The remedy [for offences] is, not more elaborate law, nor cheaper law, nor greater facility for law, but more Christianity, less loud cries about “Rights,” more earnest anxiety on both and all sides to do no wrong]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 6:2.—The omission of ἤ in the Rec. is feebly sustained. [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin. and several versions insert it.] 1 Corinthians 6:5.—Lachmann reads λαλῶ instead of λέγω after B. 1 Corinthians 6:5.—̓ ?́Ενι [according to B. C. L. Cod. Sin.]. The Rec. has ἔστιν which is less authorized [being found only in D. F. though more commonly substituted]. 1 Corinthians 6:5.—Οὐδὲεἶς probably genuine. [It is found in D.3 L. Syr. Vulg. and maintained by Wordsworth. The omission of it [in B. C. Cod. Sin.] is to be attributed to oversight, the transcriber passing directly from σοφός to ὅς. The ον̓δείς or ος̓δὲεἶς before σοφός are critical attempts to restore the text.] [The former is found in B. C. L. Cod. Sin. and the latter in F.] 1 Corinthians 6:7.—The Rec. has ἐνὐμἱν. The ἐν was probably inserted to accord with the meaning: fault, given to ἥττημα [A. B. C. D. L. Cod. Sin. all omit it and it is rejected by Meyer, Alf; Words. Stanley, however, retains it.] 1 Corinthians 6:8.—The Rec. has ταν͂τα, which is not by any means so well authorized as τον͂το [which is found in A. B. C. D. Cod. Sin.] It was changed for the plural probably to conform to the two verbs preceding. 1 Corinthians 6:8.—The Rec. has the more common order βασιλεὶαν before θεοῦ. as in 1 Corinthians 6:10. [The reverse order is found in A. B. C. D. Cod. Sin.] 1 Corinthians 6:10.—[The order of these two is reversed in D. L., a large number of the cursive MSS. and in the Greek fathers. πλεονέκταιοὔτεκλεπται]. 1 Corinthians 6:10.—The Rec. with Lach. has οὐτε [according to B. D.3 L. But οὔ is found in A. C. Cod. Sin.] But the authorities for οὔτε have the same also before the following words. A. C. Cod. Sin. and the best critical edition, however, read οὐ there likewise.] 1 Corinthians 6:10.—The Rec. has οὐ before κληρον which was, perhaps, inserted in accordance with the same in 1 Corinthians 6:9. 1 Corinthians 6:11.—The variations of ἡμῶν after κνρ and of χριστοῦ after Ἰησοῦ are undoubtedly insertions. [Yet the interpretation which Kling sets aside appears in all the six earlier English versions. Wicklif: “Ordeyne ye the contemptible men that ben in the chirche to deme.” Tyndale: “Take them which are despised in the congregacion, and make them judges.” Cranmer, the same. Geneva: “Them which are least esteemed in the Churche, them I say set in judgment.” Rheims: “The contemptible in the Church set them to judge.” In like manner the Ree version. Conant adopts it also. So, too, Syr. Vulg., most of the Greek Fathers, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Hammond, Stanley, Alford. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ XII.—AN TO , AND A OF ALL . THE WHICH THE BODY TO CHRIST; ITS AS THE -PLACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THE GREAT PRICE PAID FOR ITS RANSOM, DO NOT ALLOW OF OUR SUCH A OF CARNAL MORALLY , LIKE THE OF FOOD 12All things are lawful unto me, [are in my power], but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me [are in my power], but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now [But] the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up usby his own power. 15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take [away (ἄιρας)] the members of Christ, and make them the members 16of a harlot? God forbid. What! [omit what, and read, Or] know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for, two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19What! [omit what, and read, Or] know ye not that your body is the temple of theHoly Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, [omit all that follows], and in your spirit, which are God’s. AND 1 Corinthians 6:12. [‘After speaking of the sin of covetousness, which had produced litigiousness,—and having reminded the Corinthians of what privileges they had received, and what sins renounced,—he now proceeds to examine and confute an argument raised by some of the Gentile Christians at Corinth, who in the presumptuous spirit of Greek Philosophy, pleaded, in behalf of fornication and of eating meats offered in sacrifice to idols, that man is the measure of all things (πάντωνμέτρονἄνθρωπος),—a principle in which both the greatest schools of Greek Philosophy, with which St. Paul had disputed at Athens, agreed, though they applied it in different ways; and that all the creatures were his, and that all things were lawful to him—a tenet which they imagined had received some countenance from the Gospel itself, which promised to them universal liberty, and even universal dominion in Christ, a doctrine which, when properly stated, and understood, with due conditions, is productive of that genuine independence which is the best security for self-control, and had therefore been placed in its proper light by St. Paul in the earlier part of his Epistle (1 Corinthians 3:21-23). This principle he here adopts with true oratorical skill, and proceeds to examine it, showing at once its truth and the falseness of its application by them.’ After Words.]. All things are in my power.—Paul here has in view that easy, tolerant view of fornication which was so common among the heathen, and to which he has already repeatedly alluded (1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 6:9). This view was still further vindicated on the grounds of that Christian liberty which was supposed to countenance this gratification of a natural appetite as no less proper in itself than the eating of food was to satiate hunger. But the words with which the discussion begins are not to be regarded as the objection of an opposer, here cited for the purpose of refutation [Calvin and Barnes]. Had this been so, the fact would have been indicated by some formula like ἀλλ̓ἐρεῖς: but you say. They are rather the statement of a fundamental principle of Christianity, resting upon its own grounds, yet with a suitable limitation of its application to the actual life of a Christian (μοι, i.e., for me, as a Christian). Accordingly we are not to interpret these, 1 Corinthians 6:12-13, as giving us a sort of dialogue maintained between some imaginary opponent and the Apostle (Pott). The context indeed shows that the fundamental principle here laid down was actually adduced in support of fornication; but there is no ground for supposing that the Corinthian converts generally advocated this practice on such a basis, or that they so argued in their letter to him. It were better to assume this only of a few individuals, and that the Apostle had been privily informed of the fact, as intimated in the case mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:1. Some suppose the maxim here to have a close reference to what just precedes in 1 Corinthians 6:11, q. d., ‘I being now in a state of grace, and free from all Jewish restrictions, and all outward ordinances, and being no longer in bondage to an accusing conscience and to fear of sin, have right to the largest liberty.’ But such a connection is by no means probable, since the verbs introduced by ‘but’ are chiefly designed to warn his readers against relapsing into their earlier immoralities. It were better to connect with 1 Corinthians 6:9, and to suppose that out of the catalogue of sins there mentioned, he selected the first, and referred to the efforts made for justifying it. Besser regards the phrase as one of Paul’s proverbs, [and Bengel says: “Paul often uses the first person to express those thoughts which have the force of maxims, especially in this Epistle, 1 Corinthians 6:15; 1 Corinthians 7:7; 1 Corinthians 8:13; 1 Corinthians 10:23; 1 Corinthians 10:29-30; 1 Corinthians 14:11”]. The term “all things” must of course be limited to such as were indifferent (ἀδιάφορα), i.e., to such acts as were not in themselves wrong, but only under certain circumstances and connections seemed to conflict with Chiristian morality. “All things are lawful for me which may be lawful” Bengel. [So also Hodge; but Words., well styles this explanation weak and tautological, and hardly justified by the original, and prefers Theodoret’s view: “all things are in my power, by reason of my free will; but it is not expedient in all things to use this freedom, for in doing that which is sinful thou losest thy freedom.” But is it not plain, after all, that Paul here has in view not actions, but external objects, the things in the world which were all given for man’s use, and over which he held dominion, and which, under the Christian dispensation, were all restored to him unrestricted by carnal ordinances? (The Syriac version evidently so takes it; Tyndale, on the contrary, renders “I maye do all thinges: but I will be brought under no man’s power.” So Cranmer and the Geneva Bible). In this sense it may be said with the broadest scope “all things are in my power” (Psalms 8:6; Hebrews 2:6-11). And to this the antinomian would add ‘and I have the right to use them as I please, according to the cravings of my nature, and according as they contribute to my enjoyment.’ And it is upon this lawless inference that the Apostle proceeds to put limitations]. “The abrupt commencement of 1 Corinthians 6:12 is perhaps to be accounted for on the supposition that it alludes to a passage in their Epistle to him, and the words before us might have been used there even in reference to things indifferent; but without the proper limitations which the Apostle here supplies.” Neander.The first of these is—but all things are not expedient.—By this he means as in 1 Corinthians 10:23, not materially advantageous, but morally fitting and useful, especially, perhaps, in its bearing upon others. [It were better, however, to take the verb συμφέρει in its broadest acceptation and bearings—conduce to profit, whether to the person who uses them, or to others with whom he is connected, and whose welfare he is bound to consult. Every finite good has a special end, and must be wisely used with reference to that end, and not being absolute, is dependent on times and circumstances for the benefit it is to confer]. The second limitation is—but not will I be brought under bondage by any thing.—’Εξουσιασθήσομαι and ἔξεστι are kindred words (the former being formed from εξουσία, which is derived from ἔξεστι), and they involve a paranomasia, which serves to bring out the contradiction, caused by the misuse of liberty, in a more forcible light. [We give the play on the words in English thus: ‘All things are in my power, but I will not come under power to any thing’]. “Not I” is emphatic. It exhibits the moral self of the individual (not simply that of Paul, but of Christians generally), in sharp contrast with everything, which, if yielded to passionately, or enjoyed with an accusing conscience, or fondly clung to as indispensable, acquires a despotic control over us. [The lord must preserve his lordship, and take heed that he become not the slave of any thing which is properly subject to him. Freedom must not commit suicide. The body was designed to be the organ of the Spirit for ruling over nature, not the organ of nature for ruling over the Spirit] ’Εξουσιάζειν to be master of and it is here put in the future to express the firm inward resolve not to be mastered by any thing. Τινός is neuter corresponding to πάντα. 1 Corinthians 6:13-14. Meats for the belly and the belly for meats, etc.—Here we have a contrast drawn between what is in itself indifferent, and the view which cannot be brought under this category. From the fact that a mutual relation has been established between meats and the belly by an ordinance of the Creator, the former being made to be received and digested by the latter, and the latter being formed to receive the former, and from the fact that both are alike transient, being designed only for this present life, it followed, as a matter of course, that eating was a thing morally indifferent, and was allowable, in so far as it neither proved inconvenient, or brought a person under bondage. Very different, however, was it with the act of fornication, since the body, standing as it did in direct relations with the Lord, and having been received by Him into the fellowship of an immortal life, does not in such practices fulfil any Divine destination, [but is rather alienated from its proper functions, and degraded by them]. After the nominatives, ἐστίν is to be supplied. It is altogether needless to suppose that the meats here spoken of had any special connection with the altar-feasts that were so closely associated with licentious practices. By such a supposition the force of the argument is rather hindered than helped.—And God shall destroy both it and them.—Paul refers here to that great change which is to take place in the condition of mankind at the coming of Christ—a transformation which will preclude alt need of physical nourishment, and dispense with the organs for its reception. Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:44; 1 Corinthians 15:51; and Matthew 22:30. In the words, “and them,” we have the hint of a time that reaches far beyond the death of the individual—a time when the world and all things therein shall be burned up. [Comp. 2 Peter 3:11. In contrast with the foregoing, there is presented to us, first, that truth in a negative form, the analogy of which to the eating of food it is the aim of the Apostle to dispute.—But the body is not for fornication.—That is, fornication is not the natural function of a perishable organ, but it is the perversion to illegitimate uses of the entire body—that body which belongs to the Lord, and is with him, destined to an imperishable life. And in this also there are two elements involved; 1, a connection with the Lord;—but for the Lord.—And this relation is a mutual one, since the body is destined for the Lord, to be one of His members, and His exclusive possession; and on the other hand—the Lord is for the body,—to rule it, and to use it; yea, to appropriate and assimilate it to Himself; and, as others add, to nourish it with his life. (Comp. John 6:33; John 6:53, and also 1 Corinthians 6:15, μέλη). 2. The destination of the body to an immortal life, grounded on its connection with the Lord—a destination that stands in striking contrast with the destruction above alluded to, which awaits the purely material world.—And God both raised up the Lord, and will raise up us also by His strength.—This resurrection is an introduction into a life that is no more subject to death. Comp. Romans 6:9 ff. The καί—καί, both—and, binds the two clauses together. In the second clause, however, the reading is contested, and Meyer (ed. 2d) considers ἐξήγειρε has raised, as the only right reading, although not so well attested. Paul, he says, never asserts the ἐγείρειν and ἐξεγεριν that is, a restoration to life after death, of himself and of his cotemporaries (2 Corinthians 4:14 is to be understood spiritually); rather, in anticipation of the speedy advent of Christ, he was looking to be changed without dying (1 Corinthians 15:51 f.; 1 Thessalonians 4:16 f.); so that if he had been speaking of the future, he would have been more likely to have used the word ζωοποιήσει shall make alive, than ἐξεγειρεῖ, shall raise up. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 8:11). He interprets the word, however, not of the spiritual resurrection, that is, the new birth, but as in Ephesians 2:6; Colossians 2:12 f., where Christ’s resurrection is spoken of as the fact in which that of the believer is already involved, although the connection first becomes realized at the second advent, through the actual resurrection of the dead, and the transformation of the living. But if, according to this interpretation, both these ideas can be considered as included in the verb in its past tense (ἐξήγειρε), why not assume the same in its future form? In so doing, we should abide by the reading best attested—a reading which puts the verb in the same tense with καταργήσει shall destroy—and would construe the verb ἐξεγειρεῖ in its more comprehensive signification, as denoting the change which is to take place in the living, as well as in the dead. 2 Corinthians 4:14 might also be interpreted in the same manner. The distinctive changes awaiting the quick and the dead, although elsewhere made prominent, did not require to be alluded to here. (With this Meyer in his 3d ed. also agrees). It is hardly allowable to distinguish here between ἐγείρειν and ἐξεγείρειν (Bengel and Osiander), as though the former referred to the first fruits of the resurrection in Christ, and the latter to the work consummated at the end. The reason why he uses the word “us,” instead of ‘our bodies,’ is that he had used the personal form just before, ‘in the Lord.’ The context, in this case, allows of no misapprehension. “The body,” says Osiander, “is the vessel of our personality.” The clause, ‘by his power,’ it were better to connect with the latter verb, if by ‘his’ we understand, not Christ’s, but God’s, which is to be preferred, as God is the subject of ‘shall raise.’ Comp. 1 Corinthians 15:38; Matthew 22:29; Ephesians 1:19. Διά here expresses the internal instrumentality. 1 Corinthians 6:15-17. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?—Here he amplifies what is said in 1 Corinthians 6:13, and “upon the ground there adduced of the immorality of fornication, he brings to their distinct consciousness the abominable character of the vice in question.” So Meyer rebuts Baur’s assertion, that Paul here makes a petitio principii. Elsewhere Christians themselves are called members of Christ’s body—the Church in its totality, the head of which is Christ. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 5:30). But here their bodies are spoken of as essential parts (the vehicles) of his personality. And this, not so much on account of his incarnation, and of His so sharing with us our nature, as on account of the indwelling of His Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). Whether the Apostle had in mind the figure of the marital relationship (comp. 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:26 f.; Romans 7:4) is less certain. The incongruity of making Christ the antithesis to a harlot (Meyer), would not stand in the way of our supposing this, since it makes no difference whether the other party be male or female, for Paul is here speaking of the essential contradiction which exists between a person’s belonging to Christ, and so holding vital fellowship with the Holy and Pure One, and his having intercourse with an individual who was addicted to impurity, such as a common prostitute—an intercourse which involved the surrender of the entire person to her. It was only the impure conscience of a heathen that could be blind to the immorality of such fornication. But to the Christian’s conscience this should be evident at once, and we should denounce it as a crime perpetrated against Christ—as an abominable violation of his sacred rights. Hence the Apostle directly proceeds to ask—Shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot?—Αἵρειν means not simply, to take, but, to take away, to alienate from the proper owner. Οὖν then, or, therefore, introduces the inference: “since this is so, I will not so far forget myself, as to,’ etc. ΙΙοιήσω may be either, Aorist subj., as in 1 Corinthians 11:22, meaning, should I; or, have I any right to make; or it may be future, shall I make? The sense will be about the same. [Jelf says that “the second and third persons of the Future often express necessity or propriety, shall, must.” Gr. Gram. § 406 3]. This query he answers with an emphatic negative—μὴγένοιτο, let it never be,—an expression by which in Romans 6:2, and elsewhere, he repels all unhallowed inferences and suggestions and declarations. In order to prove that fornication involves all he has stated, he next goes on to show the nature of the connection it effects between the parties concerned, and sets over against this, the nature of the union believers have with Christ, so that the utter incompatibility of the two may be the more clearly felt—Or know ye not;—q. d., ‘or if this at least, appear doubtful to you, then it must be because of your ignorance’ (Meyer). that he who is joined to the harlot is one body?—Κολλᾶθαι, to be most intimately joined with. In this connection it denotes the sexual union, which involves the most intimate conjunction of the physical powers of life. The consequence of such a union is stated in a citation from Genesis 2:24, found also in Matthew 19:51, and this he introduces as a Divine declaration.—For he saith—‘He,’ i. e. God, since Scripture is the oracle of God, even though communicated through human organs (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:27; Ephesians 5:8; Hebrews 8:5). To suppose God to be the subject is better than to supply either the words ‘Scripture’ or ‘Spirit,’ though the meaning would still be the same. But most unsuitable of all would it be to construe it as impersonal: it is said.—they two shall be into one flesh.—This, which was originally affirmed of the marriage union, is here applied to illicit intercourse, it being the same thing, physically considered. Secundum speciem naturζ non differunt (Thom. a. q.). And by this application of the statement he shows that the act in question is not a mere momentary enjoyment with which the whole affair is concluded, but that it involves a real union of the natural powers of life in one complex personality. The term “flesh” here denotes simply man’s physical nature, without the accessory idea of corruption. The words “they two” are not found in the Hebrew text. They occur in the LXX., and in all the quotations of this passage, even in those of the Rabbis. (Is this in the interest of monogamy?). “Into,” εἰς Hebr. , even in classic Greek, implies a transition into a particular state [Jelf, Gr. Gram., § 625, Obs. 4].—But he who is joined to the Lord is one Spirit.—Here we have the contrast: κολλᾶθαιτῷκυρίῳ, a phrase which occurs also in Deuteronomy 10:20; 2 Kings 18:6. As the result we have, not ‘one body,’ but ‘one spirit,’ denoting the element wherein this union takes place. But this unity is not a merely idea one. It is one in essential reality, the indwelling of Christ in the believer, so that His Spirit and our spirit become one. Comp. 1 Corinthians 14:23. This clause stands independently. 1 Corinthians 6:18-20. The warning implied in what precedes is now expressly given, and, although clearly an inference, is introduced abruptly without any connecting particle—Flee fornication.—Φεύγετε, flee—a striking expression. Anselm says, Alia vitia pugnando libido fugiendo-vincitur. “Other vices are conquered by fighting, lust by flying.” What follows substantiates this warning, by showing the characteristic peculiarity of that sin, which distinguishes it from every other. And this is exhibited antithetically. —Every sin which a man might commit—[ὅἐὰνποιήσηἂνθρωπος. The ἄν here belongs to the relative and not to the verb, and gives an indefiniteness to it, annexing the notion, ‘whatsoever it may be.’ Jelf, Gr. Gram. § 829, 1].—is without the body.—But how can he say this, when drunkenness and such like vices also involve an injury to the body, and indeed cannot be practised at all outside of the bodily sphere? There have been several modes of answering this question. We may either suppose that the word “every” (πᾶν) is to be taken in a popular sense for ‘nearly all,’ which is arbitrary; or we may consider the whole clause hypothetical, q. d., ‘Although all other sins were without the body, yet this,’ etc. (Flatt)—which is inadmissible; others [Jerome, Origen, Aug., Bengel, Words.] take it to mean that fornication pollutes the whole body as no other vice does,—but this is not stated in the words; and others still, that no vices sever the body of the Christian from that of Christ as this does (Fritzsche), a thought neither expressed in the text, nor consistent with the view of Paul in chap. 9 f.; Romans 8:9); others again take the idea to be, that no sin imparts to the flesh such tyranny over the spirit as fornication, an idea plainly foisted into the language of Paul; others suppose that drunkenness and gluttony are here included in with fornication [Macknight]—a supposition not sufficiently established by the fact that these vices are frequently associated together. We would rather say, that all other sins affect and injure only the transient, perishable organs of the body, or that they require for their commission some means that are derived from without, and are foreign to the body.[“Drunkenness and gluttony, e. g., are sins done in and by the body, and are sins by abuse of the body; but they are still introduced from without, sinful not in their act, but in their effect, which effect it is each man’s duty to foresee and avoid. But fornication is alienating that body which is the Lord’s, and making it a harlot’s body—it is a sin against a man’s own body from its very nature, against the verity and nature of his body; not an effect on the body from participation of things without, out a contradiction of the truth of the body wrought within itself.” Alford].—but he that committeth fornication sins against his own body.—The scope of the argument is this: On the one hand the Apostle brings to view the fact that the fornicator by his sin surrenders his body to the harlot, and commingles his life with hers in such a manner that he loses the power to dispose of his body as he will, as it were yielding to another’s nature the right he has to himself, and so coming in bondage to that (analogously to 1 Corinthians 7:4); and on the other hand, he considers how the body of the Christian (who is the only one here contemplated) is desecrated by fornication as it can be desecrated by no other sin. In both these respects this vice is a sin against one’s own body in a prλminent sense. The truth, that the sin of πορνεύωνεἰςτὸἲδιονσῶμα fornicating against one’s own body, is chargeable upon Christians, the only persons with whom he has to do, he exhibits still more clearly by referring them to the well-known dignity which the body of the believer, as such, possessed.—Or know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you?—As in 1 Corinthians 6:15 he ascribed to the bodies of believers what he elsewhere has predicated of believers themselves, so he does the same thing here in respect of their character as “the temple of God.” This designation, before applied to the Church as a whole (1 Corinthians 3:16; also 2 Corinthians 6:16), he here applies to the bodies of Christians. Primarily, the Holy Spirit dwells in the “inward man,” in the πνεῦμα, or spirit; but the body is its vehicle, or tabernacle, and inseparable organ. If we adopt the reading to τὸσῶμαὑμῶν, then it would mean: the body of each one of you. The same sense is yielded by the other reading, σώματα, bodies. To this thought, but especially to the clause—which ye have from God.—(ἀπό, the same as in John 15:26), showing how dependent they were on him, he adds this further truth—and ye are not your own.—From this it followed that they had no power over themselves, or over their own bodies, and therefore could not properly dispose of them to another, or use them for the gratification of unhallowed lusts, but were bound to employ them only in executing the holy will of God. And how they came not to be their own, he proves by referring to their redemption—for ye were bought.—viz: for God, to be His peculiar possession (comp. Acts 5:9, and περιποιεῖσθαι Acts 20:28). The figure involved is that of a slave or body servant, over whom his master holds exclusive control. The purchase was from the servitude of sin, and from the curse of the law, and from the power of Satan (comp. Romans 6:17 ff.; Galatians 3:13; Colossians 1:13; Acts 26:18). And this purchase was—with a price—and this price was nothing less than Christ Himself, His “soul,” His “blood” (see Matthew 20:28; 1 Peter 1:18). Passing beyond the mere significance of the word, yet observing its import, we come to the important thought that it was a high price, and the purchase, dear. [To this Winer objects, LXIV. 5]. This expression occurs in 8:23, but where, as in Acts 20:28; Titus 2:14, Christ is represented as the possessor. The practical inference from all this is—Now then, glorify God in your body.—Δοξάζειν here denotes the exhibition of the Divine holiness (or of God’s sacred presence, as in a temple) through a chaste, modest deportment. The praise is to be celebrated through deeds, as: ‘do all to the glory of God,’ 1 Corinthians 10:31; comp. also John 21:19; John 12:28; John 13:31. ‘Ev, in, to suit the figure of the temple, or, on, specifying that whereon the conduct which is to glorify God should exhibit itself. Δὴ serves to make the exhortation more pressing. ‘Act rightly, so that it shall be apparent to all that ye do it.’ See Passow 1. p. 612. [Obs.: “It is very remarkable how these verses contain the germ of three weighty sections of the Epistle about to follow, and doubtless in the Apostle’s mind when he wrote them: 1, the relation between the sexes; 2, the question of meats offered to idols; 3, the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.” Alford]. AND ETHICAL1. [Christian liberty, its nature and limitations. 1. Its nature. Through the redemption effected by Christ, the believer is restored to that supremacy over the world, which Adam had forfeited, and has a free right and title to use it and all things in it according to his ability and pleasure. No longer is he fettered by the restrictions which the elder economy imposed. To him now “every creature of God is good,” and he is at liberty to make all things in their way tributary to his interests. In the person of his Lord they are all “put under his feet,” and with his emancipation from the bondage of sin, and the restoration of his inward freedom, his lordship over himself, he is at the same time restored to his proper sovereignty over the external world, and qualified to maintain it. But 2. This liberty has its limitations, [first, by the law of expediency; secondly, by the law of self-preservation; and thirdly, by the law of duty. All things, e. g., though in our power, do not prove in their use alike, and at all times equally, beneficial, either to ourselves or to others. Again, the use of some things in certain ways and degrees, may destroy the liberty which claims the right to use them. And, finally, we must yield to God and man what properly belongs to each, robbing neither of their rights. The liberty of the Christian is therefore not an absolute, but a restricted liberty.] Fundamentally, however, this restriction is a self-imposed restraint, an act of perfect freedom, nothing but the fulfilling of our appointed course in love. Though the Christian is made free through faith, free from all which the law imposed from without, and enforced by penalties, yet it does not follow from this that he is at liberty to assert his own sinful self-will in opposition to the revealed will of God. Rather this very freedom becomes the means of entirely cutting off all arbitrariness of conduct. For that faith, through which the believer has been liberated, is in fact an entrance into the very life of Christ. It implies such an apprehension of Christ, that the believer can say: ‘It is no more I that live, but Christ that liveth in me.’ But in taking Christ he takes into himself all that holy love of God which embraces both him and all his fellow-believers in one blessed union. Possessing this love, then, he comes to hate and shun everything which conflicts with the Divine will, everything which either tends to interrupt his fellowship with his Lord, or acts prejudicially upon his neighbors and associates in the churches; everything, also, which is calculated to weaken his power over the world, the flesh, and the devil, and bring him again under bondage. That alone he allows himself to use, in suitable modes and measures, which operates beneficially on himself and others, and advances the Gospel of Christ and promotes spiritual life, that alone which leaves his liberty perfect, and his mastery over self and the world undamaged. Thus does the truth and reality of our freedom rest in Christ, and prove to be nothing less than love freely and intelligently seeking its own proper ends. [See this whole subject of man’s freedom and dominion discussed in Wuttke’s Handbuch der Christlichen Sittenlehre, I , p. 349, 403 f., 431 f.: “Man may and can perfect his rule over nature only when he has fully subjected himself to be ruled by the holy author and Lord of nature.”] 2. The power to purify the soul and keep one’s self from all manner of fornication and uncleanness, is to be found in Christ alone. The simple sense of shame or of self-respect, or the mere dread of weakening or deranging our physical nature, is not sufficient of itself to counteract the strong temptation to this sin, and quell the might of this the strongest of our carnal passions. The enjoyment is instant and sensitive, the injury is remote, and perchance may never be felt; and so the weak will give way.—But in our fellowship with Christ, in the clear living consciousness of His presence, we have the power to overcome the very strongest of our carnal impulses, and to resist the most seductive enticements. While He dwells in us with His holy love, He becomes the quickening power which animates and controls our whole constitution. Through this love, which consented to suffer the bitterest of deaths for our sins, sinful lust is essentially slain, and the Christian resolves that he, with his body and its members, shall belong to none other than his Lord. His body he henceforth regards as a member of Christ, an organ of His holy life. No more can he prostitute it to the control of another, or become bound in vital union to a harlot. The remembrance of Christ’s presence within him causes him to shrink with horror from everything which might defile that which has become a sanctuary consecrated to His glory. Mindful of his being purchased to God at the cost of the precious blood of His Son, he feels the weight of the mighty obligation, and is neither able nor willing to use that body, which is now God’s property, for any other purpose than for his service and glory. Being now joined to Christ in one spirit, he resolves never more to hold carnal intercourse with any, apart from the Divine ordinance of marriage (which is to be consummated in the Lord, and for the Lord), or to be guilty of aught whereby the body, which is destined to partake of the imperishable life of Christ, shall be unfitted for the heavenly communion. [3. The true position and dignity of the body. In its doctrine concerning the body, Christianity avoids two opposite extremes. It neither disparages it as worthless and contemptible, after the fashion of some ancient philosophers, and the Manicheans; nor does idolize it into an object of supreme regard and care, as the Epicureans, ancient and modern, do. Regarding it as essential to the perfection of our humanity, and as a needful organ of the Spirit, Christianity gives, the body likewise a share in Christ’s redemption, and unites it to Him for sanctification here and for glorification hereafter. It thus makes it a member of Christ’s mystical body, to be controlled and regulated by His Spirit. At the same time it imparts to it the character of a Divine temple, and requires that we keep it from all defilement, and preserve it in a condition suited for the service and worship of God. So far, therefore, from being at liberty to despise or abuse the body, or to set up its welfare and claims in antagonism with those of the Spirit, or to make our care for it a distinct, though even a subordinate interest, our obligations to Christ demand that we unite it with the soul in one general system of spiritual edification and culture, yield its members as instruments of righteousness, and glorify God in it no less than in the spirit]. [4. The Church is God’s purchased possession. He has redeemed it unto Himself by giving His own Son as a ransom for it, thereby delivering it from the tyranny of Satan and from the merited penalties of the law, to be His in love and devotion for evermore. Not that His hold upon the persons thus ransomed had ever been lost by their sin. God’s property in man is absolute and inalienable, and His title to dispose of him according to His own pleasure and unto His glory remains unaffected, let man do what he may. But, if we may so speak, His right to love and favor them, and to treat them as His children, had been destroyed by the forfeit of sin, and instead thereof there rested on God the obligation to wrath and punishment. And this was the right which had been recovered by the purchase effected by the blood of Christ. Thus a new ground of dominion and rule has been laid, superadded to the former one, and with this a new mode of government devised, and new obligations imposed on the parties redeemed. God as Father holds the Church not only by the right of creation, but also by the right of redemption. He enforces His claims to obedience by pointing to the blood of His Son, which was shed for us: and the strongest incentive to devotion and praise on the part of the believer, both here and in eternity, is—“For Thou hast redeemed us unto God by Thy blood”]. AND [1. In the exercise of his power and liberty a Christian is bound to consult not simply the scope of his own rights and privileges, but also, 1, the bearing of his conduct upon, a. his own best interests, and b. the interests of others, 1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 2, its effect upon his own spiritual freedom, 1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 3, the intrinsic fitness of things for their special ends, 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 4, the worth of objects as determined by their durability, 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 5, the rights and claims of others, both God and man, 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 5, the particular honor which God hath put upon the objects under our control, being careful not to desecrate what he hath taken into fellowship with Himself, 1 Corinthians 6:14-17]. [2. The sin of fornication consists, 1, in its being a violation of the Divine interest of the body, 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 2, in that it is an alienation from Christ of what belongs to Him, and an appropriation of it to another, 1 Corinthians 6:15-17; 1 Corinthians 3, in that it is an abridgement of our own liberty, 1 Corinthians 6:17; 1 Corinthians 4, in that it brings a person into intimate connection and union with the vilest of characters; 6, in that it is preλminently a sin against the body, being committed in and through it, in the perverted use of the highest functions of physical life, which were designed for the purpose of raising up a holy seed that should serve God; 6, in that it is sacrilege, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20]. Luther:1 Corinthians 6:19. A Christian may be compared with the tripartite temple of Solomon. His spirit is the Holy of holies, God’s dwelling amid the darkness of faith (he believes what he neither sees, nor feels, nor grasps); his soul is the Holy place, where are the seven lights of the golden candlesticks; his body is the forecourt, exposed to the general view, where every one can observe how he lives, and what he does. Deep within the heart is the consecration made which unites him to the Church; in the secret recesses within does the Holy Ghost affiance itself to the believing soul; but the nuptial song rings throughout the entire man, and he becomes a spiritual temple of the Lord; and in the forecourt stands the altar of burnt offerings, whereon we are to lay our bodies as living sacrifices unto God (Romans 12:1). Starke:1 Corinthians 6:14. Our resurrection is founded upon the resurrection of Christ; and the thought of it should restrain us from all impurity; for although the impure also will rise again at the resurrection, yet it will not be to the glorification of their bodies. 1 Corinthians 6:17. Christ and believers are united together in one mystical person; but from such union lawful marriage does not hinder believers, [for if he marries aright, he marries “in the Lord”]. Marriage is, in fact, a type of the heavenly wedlock (Hosea 2:19; Ecclesiastes 4:9; Ephesians 5:30). 1 Corinthians 6:18. Hedinger:—Fornication is the only sin which involves the whole body in disgrace, and so defiles it more than all other sins. Drunkenness and gluttony do not affect all the members of the body; neither are the meats and drinks, wherewith a person offends, members of the body. Other sins are committed against a neighbor’s body (murder), his goods (stealing), his honor (bearing false witness), but fornication is a sin against ourselves, with our own bodies. 1 Corinthians 6:19. The inward glory of believers consists in this, that God Himself dwells in them and walks in them (Psalms 132:14). 1 Corinthians 6:20 The precious and imperishable ransom paid by Christ for the human race, deserves entire consecration of body and soul to His holy service. Berlinburger Bible: 1 Corinthians 6:12. People are apt to inquire only whether a thing is allowable, but not whether it is fitting or obligatory. Christians are allowed greater privileges than many think, but they always take themselves into consideration. Christians are not blind; they see, indeed, that in Christ they are exalted above all things, but they bear in mind also how they are to use all things, and in their dove-like simplicity are as cunning as serpents. Freedom is a Divine endowment, but it cannot be preserved without Divine art. We have power over creatures only in God, and Christians are the only kings. If thou art in bondage to nothing, then hast thou all power. Freedom is a Divine jewel, but it must remain freedom, and keep clear of all snares and entanglements. Man boasts, saying: “I am lord of the creation.” Yes, but let it only be so in fact, and become not a slave over it. We may, indeed, assert of any thing that it is good; but how art thou? May it not be holding thee in bondage? 1 Corinthians 6:13. In this statement, ‘The Lord is for the body,’ we have a noble proof that Christ has verily given Himself to us. He, therefore, who now rightly honors his own body, is joined by the Lord unto Himself. He who sunders the bonds of the Divine order, abuses his own body. Originally the body was not intended for impurity, but now, and as it is now, it beguiles. It does not, however, follow that I, like an ox, must yield to that which impels me. 1 Corinthians 6:14. Can he who expects in faith this glorification of his body at the resurrection, endanger his hope by impure lusts? 1 Corinthians 6:15. Believers themselves are Christ’s members; therefore every thing which is theirs also belongs to Him. Universally is it true that if a Christian surrenders himself to the world and to the creature, he withdraws himself from his Lord Jesus. He who sins takes that power which God has given him and offers it up to another. 1 Corinthians 6:17. One Spirit. To will what God wills, this is to be a partaker of the Divine Nature. With God, being and willing are one and the same thing (St. Bernard). This union to Christ is learned and attained in the inmost depths of the soul alone. If we delight to be with Christ, let us then cleave to the Lord and not to a harlot. Let us walk with God and follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth. Let us abide in God, so that heart, disposition, sense, and all our powers, shall enter into God and come out of their selfish isolation and false freedom, and be God’s possession. In this way doth God recover the man who has forsaken Him, and dwells in him as in His own temple 1 Corinthians 6:18. This passage instructs us also how we may deliver ourselves. It is by avoiding opportunities; by not running into danger, and thinking ourselves strong; tearing ourselves loose and fleeing as Joseph did. 1 Corinthians 6:19. A believer is not his own, but is the servant of God, who looks at and executes his Lord’s behests. Where can a greater happiness be enjoyed in this life, than in the feeling that we are entirely and altogether God’s? God, as it were, is under obligation to care for, and to protect those who belong to Him and are no more their own. Be then in no respect your own, in order that God may be entirely yours. 1 Corinthians 6:20. Christ has purchased the whole man. Through His spotless offering we are enabled to sanctify the body. Originally man was the dwelling-place and peculiar possession of the Godhead, and after his fall he was purchased anew for the same purpose by the redemption of Christ so precious; therefore ought men to consecrate themselves to God; and to this end should we purify ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit. 2 Corinthians 7:1. Rieger: 1 Corinthians 6:12 : By our misuse of freedom we are, for the most part, brought into bondage. Freedom is a condition wherein I am able both to use and also to misuse objects with ease. 1 Corinthians 6:13. He who with every morsel he eats takes into himself something of that condemnation of death under which all things lie, will deem the pleasure to be enjoyed in eating as the least possible, and will be as little inclined to boast therein as a criminal would boast over his parting meal. Through the sense of shame imprinted by the finger of God upon the human heart, and by our longing after our primeval innocence, we are powerfully admonished to employ the power furnished by Christ’s grace, for the proper preservation of the body and its members, and to bring them by means of it to the service of righteousness and fruits of sanctification; and for this reason also to rejoice that the Lord also belongs to the body, that the protection, love, and grace of God in Jesus Christ extends also over this, and works out its sanctification through His Spirit; yea, also its glorification at the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 6:14. The liberty of giving one’s body to fornication, and the hope of resurrection to life eternal, cannot co-exist in the heart. Those thorns choke this seed, and by the gross abuse of the body do we forfeit the enjoyment of the hidden manna, which is intended also for the nourishment of the bodies of the saints in eternal life. 1 Corinthians 6:15-16. Our bodies are Christ’s members, since from Christ, the Head, there flows down upon them also both life and pleasure, and power to serve God and His righteousness, and also the control of His Spirit, together with the hope and desire of making manifest the mind of Christ also in our daily walk and conversation. But when a person withdraws his members from their proper Lord and Head, and in this way interrupts that enjoyment which flows from such communion, and destroys his peace and joy in the Holy Ghost; and besides this becomes joined to a harlot or a debauchee; then does such conduct bring with it such servitude of the whole man as compels a participation of all the other members likewise, or at least infects them with its own impurities, as if these were their own. What ought to happen according to God’s ordinance only in lawful marriage, this happens also through commerce with a harlot; but it happens in such a way as to leave traces in the body and its members, which shall follow the guilty one even unto the resurrection of damnation. 1 Corinthians 6:17. By idolizing the creature and by the pleasure sought therein, man becomes carnal; by cleaving to the Creator he becomes spiritual. 1 Corinthians 6:18. The deeper the fire of lust lies in any individual, and the more the example of others and the hope that it will remain concealed and unpunished and the excuses furnished for it by man’s wit, blow upon it to inflame it, the more need have we of the faithful watchman’s alarm: “Flee fornication.” Ver.19. A temple is consecrated to God and to His service; it is also decorated by God with many tokens of His grace. What a comfort then is it believingly to regard our body as built and furnished by God’s hand, bought by Christ’s blood, and consecrated in baptism to be a possession of God in Christ! Assaulted, indeed, and alas! too often overcome through the jealousy of the Devil, by all manner of alien powers, yet rescued again by the might of grace, and made meet to be the dwelling-place of God’s Spirit! Ah, what a glorious thing it will be to carry a celestial body in which evil lusts no more dwell! Heubner:1 Corinthians 6:12. The doctrine of Christian freedom cannot be more basely perverted than when employed to the gratification of fleshly lusts. The rule of its use is a consistent regard for self and for neighbor. The Christian should allow himself to be fettered by nothing. True freedom is to be bound by no lusts. 1 Corinthians 6:13. God has given us the body for holy purposes, its members and powers are, as it were, an image of the Divine Creative Power. Everything in us should be consecrated to the service of God. The Lord has become also the Saviour of the body, in that He has freed it from eternal death, and has earned for it its resurrection. 1 Corinthians 6:14. The resurrection of the body should awaken in us a certain respect for our body, constraining us to use it in a worthy manner. 1 Corinthians 6:15. Every Christian is a member of Christ. This holy union strengthens the sense of shame at all impurity. 1 Corinthians 6:16. Fornication is union with a harlot, with something impure, therefore separation from Christ. The man becomes that wherewith he unites, by assimilation. 1 Corinthians 6:18. Fornication is a direct sin against ourselves, for we desecrate our personality by it. 1 Corinthians 6:19. The body inhabited by the Spirit of God should be used in a holy manner. Christianity sanctifies even our physical life. 1 Corinthians 6:20. God has given His own Son as a ransom for us. Meditation upon the greatness of His sufferings should fill us with gratitude. Earnestness in the work of sanctification flows from a living faith in the work of redemption, alike in its precious foundation and in its importance to us. Besser:1 Corinthians 6:12. There is something great in the power of a Christian freeman, which Paul has so celebrated in word and deed; but no where does the devil build his little chapels more cunningly than right by the side of the temple of Christian liberty. Because Christians are in some respects yet carnal, and are in danger of being biased by the flesh (1 Corinthians 3:3), they always need the rule of the Holy Spirit to enable them to distinguish between what is spiritual and what is carnal. Paul himself is an illustrious example of a noble independence of all external things. He knows how to abound and to suffer need, being careful for nothing and in everything giving thanks. 1 Corinthians 6:20. He who depends on the Lord knows the meaning of that declaration (Psalms 84:2), My flesh and my heart crieth out for the living God. Footnotes: [1 Corinthians 6:14.—The verb ἐξεγεὶρειν appears in different codices under three forms—present, future and aorist. Tischendorf prefers the future, after C. D.3 L. Cod. Sin. Syr. Copt. Meyer prefers the aorist, which is the most feebly supported, found in B. 672. (See Exegetical and Critical). Lachmann reads ἐξεγείρει from A. D1. It is best to take it as future.] 1 Corinthians 6:14.—The Rec. has ὑμᾶς, which is feebly attested, and Meyer thinks an error from Romans 8:11. 1 Corinthians 6:16.—The Rec. and Lachmann [with all the critical editions] read ἢοὐκ according to A. B. C. F. Cod. Sin.] 1 Corinthians 6:19.—The Rec. and Lach. following good authorities [nearly all: A. B. C. D. F. K. Cod. Sin.] read τὸσῶμα [and go also Alt, Stanley, Hodge.] But this is perhaps a correction occasioned by the singular predicate ναός. The clause καὶἐντῷ, etc., is an addition apparently with a view to make the exhortation complete. The most important MSS. and other old and good authorities omit it [and so do Alf., Stanley, Words.] [It can hardly be supposed that Paul meant to lay any such stress on the word ‘me,’ as though he meant to assert a distinction between believers and unbelievers in this respect, claiming a liberty for the former which did not belong to the latter. This would lead to some pretty dangerous inferences.] [But have we not here the evidence that in the “all things” Paul had reference not to actions, but, to external objects? Out of these he selects one class, and shows what they were designed for, and how far they are good or expedient. But the like adaptation and utility and propriety he denies to exist in the indiscriminate use of woman, since the body of both was destined for higher uses, in the sexual relation, than mere enjoyment; and the purposes of God in reference to it, were violated by that use. The logic of the Apostle is obscured, if we consider him as having the action primarily in view. It proceeds wholly upon the rule of adaptation of things to ends]. [This is Neander’s view. He supposes that Paul “at first meant to speak only of partaking of meats offered to idols,” and “then was prompted to leave the topic and speak against those excesses at Corinth of which he had not thought at first.” The topic thus left, he supposes to be resumed again at the beginning of chap 8, but approached from a different point; and after several digressions and expositions of it, to be taken up in the same form as here in 1 Corinthians 10:23. This view, though at first seeming to involve the course of thought in needless intricacy, grows more plausible the more we meditate upon the logic of the whole section; and it is not surprising that Neander says that neither Billroth’s arguments, nor de Wette’s have sufficed to convince him of its erroneousness. The case had better he left without arguing to each person’s reflection—taking into account all the while the fact that here among the Corinthians there was probably the same connection between the eating of things offered to idols, and the sin of fornication that we find afterwards spoken of in the heresy of the Nicolaitans, Revelation 2:14-15, and that consequently the two stood very closely associated in the Apostle’s mind.] XIII.— IN REGARD TO A.—The propriety of marriage, and the duties involved 1 Corinthians 7:1-111    Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not 2to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication [But on account of the fornications], let every man have his own [ἑαυτοῦ ?] wife, and let every woman have her own 3[ἴδίον] husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence [her due] and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and [om. fasting and] prayer; and come [be] together again, that Satan tempt you not for [through, διὰ ?] your incontinency. 6But I speak this by [as a, κατὰ ?] permission, and not of [as a, κατὰ ?] commandment 7For [But, δὲ ?] I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one6after this manner, and another after that 8I say therefore 9to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. AND Here we enter upon the second portion of this Epistle. Having first treated of those evils in the Church which he had learned by report, he, from chap. 7. and onwards, proceeds to give his opinion on those topics in regard to which the Corinthians had questioned him in their letter. This letter being lost, we can only infer what these questions were from the nature of the answers given. One was in relation to the propriety of marriage, and the performance of the duties it involved. This topic he treats of first, since it was closely connected with his earnest warning against fornication (1 Corinthians 6:12 ff.); for not only did it embrace the subject of the sexual relations; but that very depreciation of marriage also, which had begun to prevail in the Church, under the supposition that it was a sinful connection, which ought to be avoided, and, if possible, broken up when formed, was to be regarded as a reaction against the abounding licentiousness of the place. This undervaluation of marriage, however, is by no means to be attributed (as by Grotius) [Whitby, A. Clark, Barnes] to the philosophic views current at that period; since these affected not so much the morality of the thing, as the cares and dangers which belonged to the marriage institution. It were better to infer here an inference—though only a subordinate one—of that aversion to marriage which was just then springing up (so Osiander). But whether, and how far this difference of sentiment was connected with the party divisions in the Church, is a matter of doubt. Yet, if there were such a connection, still we are neither to suppose, (with Gold-horn and others,) that it was with the Christian party in particular, whose alleged theosophic, ascetic character is altogether problematical; nor yet (with Schwegler) that it was with the Essenic Ebionite Christians, whose presence at Corinth cannot be certainly ascertained; nor yet with the Petrine party, who, rather in view of the example of their leader (1 Corinthians 9:5; Matthew 13:14), and of the Jewish, Old Testament standpoint on the subject, must have held marriage in special honor. These questions must rather have originated with the Paulinists, who, through the precedent of their assumed leader, and by reason of such expressions of his as appear here, and were misunderstood by them, might have been led into an inordinate admiration of celibacy and disparagement of marriage, in opposition both to heathen immoralities, and to Jewish sensualism in this respect. With what modesty and wisdom Paul handles his subject will appear as we proceed. [“The whole is written,” says Alford, “under the strong impression of the near approach of the end of the present state of things (1 Corinthians 7:29-31), and as advising the Corinthians under circumstances in which persecution, and family division for the Gospel’s sake might at any time break up the relations of life. The precepts and recommendations of this chapter are therefore to be weighed as those in 8. al., with reference to change of circumstances; and the meaning of God’s Spirit in them with respect to the subsequent ages of the Church, to be sought by careful comparison and inference not rashly assumed and misapplied. I may also premise that in hardly any portion of the Epistles has the hand of correctors and interpolators been busier than here. The absence of all ascetic tendency from the Apostle’s advice, on the point where asceticism was busiest and most mischievous, was too strong a testimony to be left in its original clearness.” 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote to me.—[“Each of his replies is introduced by the preposition περί, as here.” Words.].—it is good.—There is here a Brachylogy, as in 1 Corinthians 11:16; Romans 11:18. We might insert: ‘I say,’ or: ‘it is my opinion.’ [Some suppose that the Apostle is here taking up the language of the Epistle addressed to him and affirming it: ‘It is good, as you say, or inquire.’ And this is very possible, and may account for the use of the strong word καλόν here. It is adopted concessively.] The question is, however, whether by it the Apostle means to express the idea of suitableness, or allowableness, in consideration of the superior advantage of celibacy by reason of the religious opportunities it gave (comp. 1 Corinthians 7:26); or whether he here has in view the moral beauty of continence. If we understand it relatively, then it cannot be inferred, as by Jerome, that the opposite is wrong, “malum est tangere;” and so the value and dignity of marriage as set forth in the context, will remain unaffected. “This agrees with the feeling in the previous chapter. Comp. below 1 Corinthians 7:7-8; 1 Corinthians 7:26; 1 Corinthians 7:34 (mid.), 35 (end), 40. ‘Good,’ i. e., becoming, suitable for liberty and exemption from the marriage due, 1 Corinthians 7:3, and for entire power over oneself, 1 Corinthians 7:4; [good, not in view of marriage as originally designed; for in that case it was not good for a man to be alone; but good in view of the evils which sin had engendered, and by which it had marred that which was designed to be one of man’s chief blessings]; though, on the other hand, the act of ‘touching,’ mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:1, is always accompanied with modesty among the chaste. [“Much ingenuity,” says Stanley, “has been employed by the advocates of celibacy in making this word (καλόν) mean ‘lofty’ or ‘noble,’ and by the advocates of marriage in depreciating it to mean ‘convenient for existing circumstances.’ The obvious meaning is the true one. It is used as in Aristotle and the Greek moral writers generally) for ‘good,’ like ‘pulchrum’ in Latin, opposed to ‘turpe,’=αἰσχρόν, ‘bad;’ and the only limitation to be put upon it is that supplied by the context.” It means, beautiful, praiseworthy, yet only under certain circumstances, and in view of the traits thus exhibited. And so all must admit it to be, as e. g., when practised by Paul. But not universally, for certainly he cannot be supposed to contradict intentionally what he says elsewhere of marriage, as “honorable in all;” or as a type of the union of the Church with Christ (Ephesians 5:23-32); or as a thing, which to forbid was one of the signs of the great apostacy].—for a man;—’Αυθρώπῳ does not stand precisely for ἀνδρί, although, of course, as the context shows, the man is here meant; [“and that, as Meyer remarks, not merely in his sexual, but in his human capacity. Thus in its deeper reference it would include the other sex also.” Alf.].—Not to touch a woman.—This phrase the author formerly understood, with Rόckert, to denote continence in the marriage state. In which case, then, the words in 1 Corinthians 7:2 : ‘to have his own wife,’ would mean sexual intercourse in the marriage state; and 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 would only be a carrying out of the same idea; and, καλόν would be equivalent to ‘morally beautiful,’ in correspondence with the tender feeling implied. But, apart from all other grounds, both the whole context as well as the usage of language (ἔχειν), leads me to abide by the common interpretation, which takes the words to mean sexual connection in general (as in Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29) of which that occurring in marriage is one species. And this first comes to view prominently in 1 Corinthians 7:2. [So Alf., Meyer, de Wette. And undoubtedly they are correct. But Hammond, Whitby, Henry, Hodge, Barnes and others, take the phrase as meaning marriage, directly and primarily, finding support in this from certain supposed classical analogies. But this is certainly a perplexing and needless limitation. Paul here evidently starts with a broad, and surely very credible proposition. ‘There is, he would say, ‘nothing wrong, as the Jews argued, but rather something very proper, nay, very honorable, in having nothing at all to do with women carnally,’ as there certainly was in Paul’s case, and in that of many others who for wise reasons have given themselves up to a life of chaste celibacy.] In 1 Corinthians 7:2 he presents to us in contrast with the ideal καλόν the real practical need.—But on account of [“διά with the Ace. indicates the ground (ratio), not the aim (not even here), and it is only by implication that the notion of design can be brought in. Fornications are the reason for which the injunction is given, in order thus to prevent them.” Winer, § XLIX.100] fornications.—The plural points to the manifold and irregular sexual vices which prevailed in Corinth (Bengel: vagas libidines), in consequence of the multitude of courtezans to be found there. Now to ward off the temptations thus offered to the unmarried, by the enjoyment of legitimate intercourse in the marriage state he says,—let every one have his own (ἑαυτοῦ) wife, and let every woman have her own (ἴδιον) husband.—The ἑαυτοῦ and ἴδιον point to the established relation of the monogamy. [The contrast between τὴνἑαυτοῦχυναῖκα and τοὺἲδιονἂνδρα is a difference of idiom which runs all through the New Testament. ̓ ?́Ιδιος is never used for γυνή, nor ἑαυτοῦ for ἂνήρ, in speaking of husband and wife; perhaps from the seeming inappropriateness of using ἑαυτοῦ, except in the relation when the one party is, as it were, the property of another; perhaps from the importance of pointing out that the husband is the natural adviser of the wife.” Stanley. See Winer, XXII.] [The Imp. ἐχέτω, let have, is not to be construed as permissive only, but it carries the force of a command [Jelf, Gr. Gram. § 420, Obs. 1 Corinthians 1 : “The Imperative is used when something of decision or authority is wanted, so that the more civil form of the Optative would be out of place”], as is evident from the analogy of the subsequent imperatives, and from the reason by which it is sustained. But, if a command, then of course we must limit the ‘each one,’ both of man and woman, to such as have not the gift of continence (comp. 1 Corinthians 7:3; 1 Corinthians 7:7; 1 Corinthians 7:36-37). Here then we have a view of marriage in its lower aspects and bearings, as a safeguard against incontinence. But this pedagogical or practical view of marriage, as meeting a contemplated necessity, by no means excludes the ideal view given in Ephesians 5:29 ff. For, as Neander says, “we must not overlook the fact that Paul is here not treating of marriage in general, but only in its relation to the condition of things at Corinth, where he feared the effect of moral prejudices concerning celibacy.” [Besides, it must be remembered that marital intercourse is not the same in kind with the illegitimate connection, but is refined and elevated by the pure love which binds the parties in life-long and absolute union for the very noblest ends, and of which it is the bodily expression. Hence the Apostle is here prescribing a veritable cure for the evil passion, and not simply allowing it indulgence within a certain sphere]. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. In order that the direction given in 1 Corinthians 7:2 may attain its purpose, he goes on to insist upon the full consummation of the marital relationship, being prompted to this perhaps by the representations made in the letter of the Church, of a tendency towards a false asceticism in this respect, or of the actual practice of it among them.—Let the husband render unto the wife her due, and likewise also the wife to her husband.—’Οφειλήν cannot therefore mean simply ὀφειλομένηεὔνοια, due benevolence, as the Rec. Text has it [which was either substituted as an expository gloss on the supposition that ‘the due’ was one of affection merely, or as an euphemism], but it refers to the due of marriage, debitum tori. That marital intercourse should here be set forth as a matter of duty, belongs to the higher ethical aspects of the case. [See Harless, Christ. Ethik. § 52, A. a., Wuttke Sittenlehre, § 15, 3]. This he proceeds to establish more fully in the next sentence, omitting to connect it with any causal particle (for).—The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife.—Here he shows that it is implied in the very nature of marriage, that the granting or withholding be not at the caprice of either party, but that each possesses a legitimate claim upon the body of the other, and has a right to its enjoyment. This is a reciprocity whereby alone marriage receives and maintains its monogamous character. The ellipsis at the close of each of these clauses is evident, and the nominatives must have their verbs supplied from what precedes. In the expression: the wife hath not power over her own, and: the husband hath not power over his own, Bengel detects an “elegant paradox.” [“The ground of this being another’s, while they are their own, is to be found in the oneness of body in which the marriage state places them.” Alf.]. It is to this ‘power’ that the next injunction refers: Defraud not one another. At any rate, it amounts to the same thing, whether we say, ‘of this power,’ or, ‘of your body,’ or, ‘of the due.’ What he forbids is the arbitrary refusal of intercourse when the other party desires it. Except it be, εἰμήτιἂν. [The ἂν belongs to τι. On the attachment of this particle to other than verbs, see Jelf, § 430, Obs. a.]. There is here a limitation upon the above prohibition [which is elliptical in form; and, though it would naturally be supposed from the preceding verb, plainly implies a modification in meaning. It is not ‘defrauding’ that he allows, but ‘abstaining,’ as is evident from the appended condition], that both parties are agreed upon it, so that the rights of both parties are preserved: from mutual agreement, ἐκσυμφώνου. But even then the arrangement must only be for a time, πρὸςκαιρν. This might indeed denote some particular, suitable occasion that might occur, calling for Such abstinence. But, according to later usage, it must be understood of some fixed definite period [Jelf, § 38, 2, b] And this meaning is sustained by the purpose expressed, in its whole extent. First, he mentions religious exercises, for which they might wish to have time and rest.—that ye may give yourselves to prayer,—undisturbed by the excitements of this mighty passion. Such extraordinary and protracted devotional exercises were, in later times, enjoined for particular festival seasons, connected with fastings (hence the addition in the Rec. Text of τῇνηστείᾳκαὶ). And it is possible that the beginnings of this custom are to be found in this period, though such seasons were evidently of a purely voluntary character. That indulgence in sexual intercourse did not comport with holy solemnities, was a point assumed alike in the Old Testament (Exodus 19:15) and among pagan nations. [Yet, as Harless well says, Christliche Ethik, § 44, c., “we are not to suppose that the Apostle meant to say that such abstinence was a necessary condition to a spirit of prayer in general, but only that it was a suitable and necessary result of these peculiar circumstances in which the soul felt moved to special devotion toward God. To the Apostle who regarded the Christian’s entire life as one continuous and perpetual prayer, it was impossible that such abstinence should appear as an absolute requisite to prayer, from the simple fact that he allowed of no enjoyment whatever which was not accompanied with prayer and thanksgiving,” 1 Timothy 4:4].—And be together again.—This indicates euphemistically the resumption of marital intercourse. ’Επὶτὸαὐτὸ, a constructio pregnans=‘come together and remain together.’ The dependence of ἦτε upon ἵνα is somewhat remarkable: hence the reading χεσθε (Imp.). It nevertheless rests on good grounds. The limitation of their abstinence to a definite period, includes two objects, that they might have leisure for prayer, and might be united again. The reason for this is—that Satan may not tempt you through your incontinency.—By this he means a betrayal into that against which marriage was designed to be a safeguard, viz., those fornications which were caused by incontinence. That such incontinence existed among them was to be inferred, not only from their peculiar circumstances, but also from the fact of their being married, which showed that they had not the gift of continence (comp. 1 Corinthians 7:7). The betrayal through incontinence the Apostle ascribes to Satan. This is no mere form of speech, grounded on the supposition that all evil is to be attributed to Satan. Neither does it refer simply to seductions practised on them by the heathen, as though Satan were but another name for ‘heathen,’ the enemies of the Gospel. But it strictly accords with the whole doctrine of Scripture, and especially with Paul’s teachings, that there is such a hostile evil spirit existing, whose business it is to seduce the people of God, and who, on this account, is styled prλminently “the tempter” (ὁπειράζων) (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5). But the act of temptation (πειράζειν), in so far as it proceeds from this spirit of evil, is virtually a putting to the proof, since it presupposes some impurity or moral weakness in the parties operated on; or implies the hope of some pernicious result to them, on the ground of some suspected vitiosity of temper. In any case, it aims to demonstrate their impurity and impiety, and to effect their fall, and so to bring shame upon God and Christ, and to cause scandal in the Church, and involve it in disgrace, and hinder its spread, and weaken it in inward power and extent (comp. Job 1:2; 2 Corinthians 2:11, etc.).—ΙΙειράζειν means, to entice, to sin, and that, too, with the intention of betraying (comp. Jas. 13ff.; Galatians 6:1; Revelation 2:10; Revelation 3:10). But to derive ἀκρασία from κεράννυμι, as though it meant not mingling, i. e., in sexual intercourse, is a philological fiction of Rόckert’s [one, also, which Words, adopts], which is untenable, if for no other reason than this, that κεράννυμι never appears as=μίγνυμι in this signification. The subst. ἀκρασία from κεράννυμι denotes bad mixture, such as that of insalubrious air. But the ἀκρασία of the text is that which comes from ἀκρατής and is=ἀκράτεια, the opposite of ἐγκράτεια [So Alford and Meyer. The latter takes the ‘your’ (ὐμῶν) as an emphatic allusion to the prevailing fault of the Corinthians. This Alford questions, but on hardly sufficient grounds.] 1 Corinthians 7:6. But this I speak as a permission, and not as a commandment.—[‘This’ (τοῦτο). What? The thing is variously argued]. It refers neither to what follows in 1 Corinthians 7:8 [as Rosen., Macknight] because of what intervenes in 1 Corinthians 7:7; nor to 1 Corinthians 7:2 ff. [as Beza, Grotius, de Wette, Hodge], since the command there given, that each man have his own wife, etc., must in that case be taken concessively contrary to the direct obligation imposed in 1 Corinthians 7:3; nor yet simply to the clause preceding: “and be together again,” [“as the ascetics Orig., Tert., Jerome, Estius, and also Calvin, because this is but a subordinate member of the preceding sentence.” Alford: “and the sense thus given to the passage is not consistent with the context” Hodge]; but to 1 Corinthians 7:5, as a whole [so Alford, Meyer, Barnes]. The limitation imposed in regard to defrauding one another, he would not have taken as a command, as though persons were under obligation to practise longer or shorter abstinence by agreement. ‘By permission’ (κατὰσυγγνώμην)=as an allowance or concession to your weakness. [‘Not as a command.’ “A proof of St. Paul’s authority. He is empowered to give a precept (ἐπιταγή) or to bestow an indulgence” (συγγνώμη) Words.]. 1 Corinthians 7:7. I wish rather (δὲ) that all men were as also myself.—The reason why he does not wish to impose that restriction as a command, he here proceeds to state by pointing [to the different temperaments of individuals in respect to continence,] primarily to his own peculiarity. [That continence is the particularity in his condition which he refers to is assumed by Chrysostom, and is most probable. So de Wette, Meyer, Barnes. But Words, understands it of his unmarried state.] The above construction of the connection occasioned, no doubt, the reading γάρ; for, instead of δὲ; but it comports equally well with the latter (which is better attested), if, with Meyer, we interpret thus: ‘I do not say this by way of command. I rather wish that all men might have the gift of perfect continence, as I myself have, so that marriage were unnecessary.’—To limit the expression ‘all men’ to Christians, is inadmissible. This comprehensive wish he utters in view of the near approach of Christ’s second coming, when humanity would be made like unto the angels, and all marrying and giving in marriage would cease. But each one has his own gift from God.—He here explains what he meant in 1 Corinthians 7:6, when he said, ‘by permission,’ stating, on the other hand (αλλά), what hindered the realization of his wish. It was individual peculiarities, God had not given to every one alike the ability to practise continence. But whether by the word ‘gift’ (χάρισμα) he means an endowment of nature, or of grace, may be doubted. In view of the words ‘all men’ in the previous clause we might infer that he intended the former; a natural aptitude which existed as a Providential favor outside the sphere of redemption. But the uniform use of the word in this Epistle and in the New Testament generally inclines us to the opinion that it is the latter—a capacity granted by God within the Church, and therefore a proper gift of grace, grounded on an actual participation in Christ’s redeeming power,—attached it may be, however, to a person’s original disposition and temperament. Though the words ‘all men’ are indeed to be construed universally, yet the Apostle has here to do only with converts, and it is these that he has in his eye when he says, ‘each one’ and ‘gift.’ As Bengel observes, “that which in the natural man is a natural habit, becomes in the saints a gift of grace.” The gift here is the entire habit of mind and body in the Christian, in so far, e. g., as marriage or celibacy is better suited to him, along with the actions suited to each state, according to God’s commandments. But in a state not voluntarily assumed, the assistance of grace is more secure to the godly.” Comp. the words in Matthew 19:11 : “To whom it is given.” The epithet ἴδιον, his own, is further explained;—one, so, and another, so.—This can either be construed generally, or applied strictly to the two subjects in discussion, viz., to continence and celibacy, on the one hand, and to the marriage state, on the other. The context inclines to the stricter construction. In this case, the second ‘so’ would refer to the fitness of the Christian of the marriage state, for forming and governing the family life. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. A special application of the foregoing in the way of advice.—I say then to the unmarried, and to widows,—καὶταῖςχήραις, especially to widows; [so the καὶ must be interpreted, for widows being also unmarried cannot be regarded as a separate class.]—These, therefore, must be regarded as the parties singled out to be particularly addressed; while by the term, unmarried, single persons of both sexes are meant. And the emphasis is not to be placed on the latter, as though Paul were passing here to the consideration of a new topic—from the married to the unmarried; but it rests upon ‘I say,’ [“which is but a resumption of the ‘I say’ in 1 Corinthians 7:6, and brings this advice under the same category as 1 Corinthians 7:7.” Alford]. It is otherwise in 1 Corinthians 7:10, as may be seen from the position of the words: it is good, καλον, as in 1 Corinthians 7:1, for them, αὐτοῖς, masculine, if they should remain as I also am, i. e., unmarried. We are not to infer from this that Paul was a widower, as Clemens, Alex., Grotius [Luther, Ewald, Selden, Conybeare and Howson] suppose, for this is in no wise here intimated [so Alf., Meyer, Bengel and others. Words, leaves the case doubtful]. In view of his own gift (1 Corinthians 7:7), however, he wishes this advice to be taken conditionally. But if they are incontinent, let them marry.’ ’Εγκρατεύιν=εγκρατήεἴναι, to be master of one’s self—especially as it regards the sexual passions; a word of the later Greek. For it is better to marry than to burn. ΙΙυροῦσθαι denotes the painful excitement of unsatisfied desire, which burns like a fire within, and inwardly overcomes the man, or at least disturbs and weakens the moral powers. Comp. Colossians 3:5; Sir 23:22-24. In saying ‘it is better,’ he intends no disparagement of marriage as being a lesser evil; but only contrasts a relation which, in this case, is morally allowable and sinless, with a state that is immoral, or at least troublesome to the moral life. “A second marriage among Christians is therefore not in itself unlawful; not a grievous transgression, as the Montanists and Novatians asserted; nevertheless the Church has always regarded second marriages with dislike, if only because the single marriage corresponds better with the idea of true Christian wedlock, which is a type of the union of Christ with His Church.” Bisping]. [Bisping, it must be remembered, is a Romanist]. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. And to the married.—This is connected directly, to the foregoing, meaning those who are enjoined to marry—hence, to Christians. To limit this to such as were newly married, or to some particular parties had in mind (Rόckert), is warranted neither by the expression itself, nor by the context.—I command; παραγγέλλω.—Here comes in the ἐπιταγή of 1 Corinthians 7:6. It implies a stringent order, an injunction to do something (comp. Luke 5:14) 1 Timothy 6:13. And this he exhibits as a command of the Lord Himself, i. e., of Christ, the Head of the Church.—not I, but the Lord.—Here he has in mind the words of Christ in Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:12, communicated to him by a reliable tradition. To suppose that he had received a special revelation on the subject, is altogether gratuitous. [Nor are we to imagine that Paul here intends to draw a contrast between what he himself commands and what the Lord had commanded, as to the degree of authority involved in each. For as he himself states in 1 Corinthians 7:40, ‘He had the mind of Christ;’ and what is spoken under the inspiration of the Spirit, is no less valid than that which proceeded from the lips of Jesus. And what he intends here is not to draw a contrast, but merely to assert the distinction just alluded to. ‘He is simply telling the Corinthians, that, so far as what he was about to say was concerned, they had no need to come to him to learn it.’ He was merely repeating what had already been enjoined by Christ Himself. ] The exception “except it be for fornication,” which does not appear in Luke 16:18, nor in Mark, is here dropped out, either because the tradition which came to him did not have the words, or because an instance of this sort had not occurred in Corinth (comp., however, 1 Corinthians 5:1), or because the matter was self-evident, fornication being itself a dissolution of the marriage bond.—that the wife.—The prominence given to the wife is not to be explained by supposing any reference to some existing case; but it may be accounted for on the ground of the greater inclination of the wife to obtain divorce; since she, as the weaker party, was more liable to suffer oppression, or was more naturally disposed to asceticism.—do not separate herself from her husband.—[“Χωρισθῆναι, the natural expression for the wife as not having power to dismiss her husband; ἂφιέναι, the milder form for the husband (see last clause), although it is in 1 Corinthians 7:13 used also for the wife. The words are taken from the phraseology of legal divorce; but the cases here spoken of are not so much regular divorces as accidental separations.” Stanley].’—but and if she should be separated.—This and the dependent clauses are a parenthesis, so that what follows is in direct connection with what precedes. The words ἐὰνδὲκαὶχωρισθῆ point to some possible case of divorce occurring hereafter contrary to the command of Christ, and not to any supposed actual separation which might have taken place before the latter should have reached them. The καὶ does not belong to the whole clause, making it equivalent to ‘even if,’ etc., but simply to the verb, and may be translated by ‘actually,’ or ‘in fact.’ [“This is not intended as an exception to the law, but it contemplates a case which may occur in spite of the law.—There are cases undoubtedly which justify a woman in leaving her husband, which do not justify divorce.” Hodge.]—On the injunction—let her remain unmarried—See Matthew 10:12.—or let her be reconciled to her husband.—The verb καταλλαγήτω had best be taken like χωρισθῆ in a reflexive, sense, ‘reconcile herself.’ This does not, however, exclude the mediation of others. He means that she should do her part towards becoming united to her husband; to secure his love and devote to him her love again.—The injunction on the man is very short.—And that the man put not away his wife.—From the similarity of instruction given to both, we may infer that what was said to the woman in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, applied also to the man (Osiander). AND ETHICAL1. Marriage, its nature and obligations. In the Apostle’s view, marriage is a vital and life-long communion between man and woman, involving an equality of claims on the part of both. As a living fellowship, it extends over the entire personality, embracing also our physical nature. And this is precisely the peculiarity of marriage, distinguishing it from all other kinds of friendly connexion. While it involves the element of friendship—as a union of hearts mutually completing each other—it has, likewise, besides this, a mutually supplementing bodily union, viz., the sexual. This has, indeed, its psychical side; yet it comes to its full expression and consummation in the bodily life. Both are in this respect adjusted to each other, and each party needs the other for the proper fulfilment of its position in the sexual relations. The man requires the woman in order to the exercise of his procreative power, in which respect he is “the image of God” (1 Corinthians 11:7) the Creator; and the woman requires the man in order that her capacity for receiving may become an actual conception, and her constitutional fitness for being a mother may attain to its proper development and exercise. These mutual needs, so divinely ordained, lead to reciprocal obligations and claims in their relations to each other. Each has a right in the body of the other, and each is bound to yield to the other for sexual intercourse, so that no capricious one-sided refusal is allowable. Only an occasional abstinence by mutual consent for higher moral and religious ends is permitted. But another consideration comes in here. Men are sinful. All their sensual impulses, especially the sexual instincts—the strongest of them all—have escaped from the control of the Spirit, from which they ought to receive their first motion. Instead of being the pure expression and exercise of love—free surrender of oneself for the pleasure and gratification of another—sexual commerce has become one of the worst forms in which a degrading selfishness manifests itself—a selfishness which prompts persons to seek others only to use them for their own gratification. Among mankind thus corrupted, marriage, therefore, appears as providentially designed to guard against the inordinate and irregular satisfaction of sexual passion, so that it shall not be indulged in promiscuously, as opportunity might be afforded; but that two persons bound together during their whole life, and in their entire personality, shall devote themselves to each other even in reference to this particular, [that so, if possible, mere passion may be refined through the power of a purer affection and the discipline of domestic life]. The less now the virtue of continence—that is, the power of the spirit over the animal passions—is cultivated and trained in full strength, the more needful will it be to take care that the abstinence agreed upon for special reasons, be not too long extended, lest either party be exposed to temptation for unlawful indulgence. [See Whewell’s “Elements of Morality,” B. IV. chap. 7., Art. 630. Baxter’s “Christian Ethics,” Pt. 2 Chap. 1 and 7. “Harless, Christ. Elhik,”§ 52 A. a.; also “Wuttke Sittenlehre, § 152, 153]. 2. Celibacy, its occasion, and how far praiseworthy. This stringency of the marriage obligation, which indeed, carries with it a wealth of moral and religious elements, is apt to evoke a reaction through the natural effort of the Christian after liberty and holiness—after an un-trammeled and undivided devotion to his Lord—after a perfect consecration of soul and body to his service, and after an undisturbed enjoyment of fellowship with Him. This effort resulting in celibacy, is morally justifiable only on certain conditions. These are: 1, Provided that it is not prompted by a carnal love of ease, and by a dread of domestic crosses, and is likewise free from all spiritual pride and ambition, which, by refraining from marriage, aspires to possess a special sanctity, and to merit a higher degree of blessedness and glory. 2, Provided it is not tinctured with mere caprice, or will-worship, or prudery, or vanity, or any such moral perverse-ness. 3, Provided it is prompted by a consciousness—not, indeed, of an incapacity for marriage, which would render the act morally reprehensible—but of a peculiar fitness for a single life vouchsafed by the Lord, and of a Divine call to some sphere of labor in God’s kingdom, to which the married state would offer impediments; or occasioned by providential obstructions put in the way of some desired and sought for marriage connections, and by the quiet pondering of the Divine will as indicated in such occurrences; and, 4, provided, in general, a lack of inclination for marriage—which, on looking up to God and invoking His direction in the matter, comes to be regarded as a Divine hint as to duty—leads a person to remain unmarried. [When these conditions exist, celibacy and widowhood are states wherein some of the noblest traits of the Christian life may be displayed, and are no less honorable than that of wedlock. To disparage them in any way, is to put contempt on the plain doctrine of the Gospel. But no less un-Christian, not to say unnatural, is it to ascribe any inherent superior excellence to these states, and to make them the essential conditions of superior sanctity, and to impose them by authority upon any class of persons in the Church, as, e. g., on the clergy. The Romish doctrine on this point is not merely utterly groundless, but contrary to the express teachings of Scripture, and to the example of most of the Apostles. Paul himself specifies “the forbidding to marry” among the doctrines of devils, and when we would expect him to counsel virginity according to Romish teaching, he says rather (1 Timothy 2:15) “the woman shall be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in faith and charity.”] Hence, where the above-mentioned conditions do not exist, and there appears to be a demand for marriage, and a well-grounded hope that it will be a fellowship in the Lord, and for the furtherance of his kingdom, and it appears to be the will of God, then does an obligation arise to enter into it [both for the good of the parties concerned, and] for the propagation of the race, and the rearing of future generations morally, socially and religiously in this relation. The Apostolic counsels in regard to celibacy, given as they were in anticipation of Christ’s speedy coming, in which case the obligation to marriage is lessened by reason of the impending dissolution of all earthly things, acquire new force whenever sure signs lead us to expect this catastrophe as at hand. [See on this subject Baxter “Christian Ethics” Book 2 chap. 1; Wuttke “Sittenlehre” § 295; Schaff Hist. Ap. Ch., § 112. 3. Divorce, its wrong and its right. The voluntary dissolution of a Christian marriage is a departure from a state ordained by God,—the rupture of a covenant with which members of His Church have entered with each other, in His name, and in which they have thus obligated themselves to live together as husband and wife, even under the most severe and trying circumstances, faithful unto death. A separation can properly take place only under the conditions appointed by God Himself, through Christ, viz., the actual dissolution of the marriage bond by the other party in adultery or fornication, which is in fact a surrender of one’s self to a third party in such wise as is allowable only in marriage, and is reserved by the ordinance of God exclusively for those thus allied. Should any one wish to separate from his consort out of disinclination to marital intercourse, or from a dread of it, under the idea that it involved defilement, or through a general desire for liberty in this respect, he would, in so doing, be guilty of violating the most solemn obligations, and become chargeable with immorality. When conscientious scruples arise in these respects, it becomes a Christian to consult his pastor, or some experienced Christian friend, and above all to lay the matter in prayer before God, that he may be enlightened and instructed from on high, and that his partner might be induced to enter into some agreement that would not infringe on his conscience. Even though marriage has become burdensome, a person must still bear it from a sense of duty, in obedience to the Divine ordinance, and in conformity with the claims of the institution.—Mere aversion on the part of the one or the other, or of both, mortifications, maltreatment, sickness however incurable, whether of body or mind, furnish no warrant for divorce. A temporary separation, accompanied with a readiness for reunion, may, under certain circumstances, be allowed as the only means for restoring again the disturbed relations, and causing a return to a right tone of feeling, and effecting a lasting improvement. If anything else, however, can be accepted as a ground for divorce, subsumed as it were under the head of adultery, it is malicious desertion. This means, the deliberate forsaking of the one party by the other, with the unmistakable or declared design of abandoning the marriage connection altogether. And this is nothing less than the actual dissolution of the bond, by which the obligation of the other party to fidelity is annulled. Yet, in this case, no right-minded person will be in haste to obtain a formal divorce. Rather he will be inclined to wait as long as possible, in the hope of seeing some change occur in the temper of the other party, which will lead to reconciliation and cohabitation once more. And such forbearance will show itself, even in the case of adultery, for even in such circumstances may the spirit of Christian faith signalize its patience.—And then, in reference to the forming of a new connection; after so severe a chastisement, which not unfrequently wears the character of a judgment on the conduct of him who suffers it—it may be for the manner in which he contracted the marriage, or for the manner in which he has maintained it—a true Christian will be naturally disposed to consider with great care, whether he ought to enter into a new relation; and with prayer for heavenly instruction he will seek to ascertain what is God’s will in the matter, and whether it be not a mere selfish inclination (which we are very apt to take for God’s will) that is moving him to marry again. And the whole issue of things he will leave to God, in humble resignation to His decision. And should God’s providence seem to enjoin self-denial for a longer or shorter period, he will entreat Him day by day for the supplies of that grace which shall strengthen him to endure in all patience and purity. But here a new point comes up. If the adultery committed, whether it be in the form of fornication or of malicious desertion, be not a momentary lapse not likely to be repeated, but is a settled thing, which no patience, or gentleness, or efforts at conciliation can overcome, then it will be right to infer that the Christian character of the guilty party is in such a case entirely renounced, and to treat him as standing in the relation of an unbeliever, or, still worse, of a heathen. Here, then, we would have, to all intents, an instance of mixed marriage, such as that spoken of in the next section. It would be in vain, then to look for the hallowing of one party by the other; and all continuance in a connection, which only obstructs the purpose of the Divine calling, and mars our peace, for some vague hope of recovering the lost, would be wholly unwarranted; and contrary to the Divine will. From that which, according to the rule of Scripture, is right for the individual believer, we may infer the duty of the Church and the State in reference to marriage. First of all, the Church acknowledges itself as bound to the work of the Lord, and can, with good conscience, sanction no divorce and marriage of the separated parties again in other connections, contrary to His expressed will. The State, as an institution, which with its enactments and executive acts is rooted in the principles of Christianity, must aim to conform its marriage legislation to these. But inasmuch as strict conformity is not possible for it, the State must at least grant the Church the liberty of abiding by the decisions of her Lord, and protect it in the maintenance of its right. It must not require the Church to bless those un-Christian marriages which it may feel constrained to allow; nor must it hinder the Church from enforcing its discipline upon those who form permanent connections after a manner ordained by it, when not accordant with the Divine rule. Such is the position to be clearly and distinctly taken in the case. But it is a question whether our mixed congregations do not admit, or even require some modification of such proceedings?—whether an extension of the principle of analogy already employed in granting divorces for malicious desertion, is not proper and necessary in other cases also, which may in like manner be regarded as a dissolution of the marriage tie. This is one of the pressing questions of the day, a further investigation of which would, however, lead us too far. Much that is not good has place under the forbearance of our Heavenly Father. And it is a question whether the Church ought not to exercise a maternal patience towards much which she cannot sanction? This, in fact, no one will deny. Nevertheless she must hold by the authority of God’s word, and try to enforce it. And her wisdom will show itself in wise endeavors to combine the two in a befitting manner. Consult on this question Ev. Kirch. Zeit. and Neue Ev. Kirch. Zeit. for 1859 [also Whewell, Elements of Morality, § 633–635 and § 1027–1037; Neander., Life of Christ, § 155, note, and § 224; Herzog, Enc. Art. Ehe., Bax. Ch. Eth. B. 11, 1 Corinthians 9]. AND [I. Celibacy or the single state, when maintained for worthy ends, being good, and in accordance with Apostolic example: 1, instead of encountering ridicule, or held in reproach, should beheld in highest honor, 1 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Corinthians 2, ought not to be preferred voluntarily, unless in accordance with the clear will of God, as intimated in the gift of continence, 1 Corinthians 7:7; 1 Corinthians 3, should not be enforced by commandment upon any class of persons, 1 Corinthians 7:6; 1 Corinthians 4, when thus enforced it is apt to lead to gross immoralities, 1 Corinthians 7:2]. [II. Marriage, too, so far from involving spiritual contamination, as ascetics pretend, is: 1, good, as a safeguard against licentiousness and a help to purity, 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Corinthians 2, should be entered into with full consent to all its obligations, 1 Corinthians 7:3; 1 Corinthians 3, involves entire self-denial in affectionate regard each for the other, 1 Corinthians 7:4; 1 Corinthians , 4, can be suspended long only at a hazard to morals, 1 Corinthians 7:5; though, 5, a temporary suspension, like fasting, may occasionally be advisable, as furnishing greater freedom to devotion, 1 Corinthians 7:5. 6, Being a union for life, neither party is at liberty to move for its dissolution, and one can be released from the obligation only by the infidelity or death of the other, 1 Corinthians 7:10]. Starke:—In view of the race, it was not good for the first man to be alone; in view of special circumstances and gifts it may be good for particular individuals to abide alone, 1 Corinthians 7:1.—Spener.:—Marriage is an antidote to the poison of sensuality.—Hed.:—Marriage intercourse is not sinful lewdness—not a mere licensed fornication, 1 Corinthians 7:3.—Crusius:—In marriage a person parts with his liberty, and binds his entire person to another, 1 Corinthians 7:4.—Marriage pleasures, like all others, may be suspended awhile for purposes of more concentrated devotion, 1 Corinthians 7:5.—Hed.:—Abstinence is not commanded, only allowed—hence not to practise it is not sinful. Yet even here there must be moderation and self-discipline. All immodest indulgence and abuse of this holy state is an abomination in the sight of a holy God, 1 Corinthians 7:6.—Hed.:—Without the Divine gift of continence, it were better to marry. Yet even with this a person is at liberty to marry, for thus he is better able to preserve the purity of his married life, especially if he have a partner like-minded, 1 Corinthians 7:9.—Ibid:—The desire for marriage is divinely implanted like hunger for food. But alas for the heathenish dishonor and scorn—the hypocritical contempt—the un-Christian prohibition put upon this sacred institution by priests and soldiers!—Hed.:—Marriage is no exchange bank. Love must here rule. But what the devil unites, and fleshly lust knits, and avarice and ambition couples, has poor luck and little blessing or aid. Pious people endure, and are silent, and shun evil occasions, and seek peace, 1 Corinthians 7:10.—In the married state it often happens that one is not content with the other. But the only remedy in such cases is patience. It is no longer a question, what sort of a wife a man shall have, but how he shall best adapt himself to the one in possession. Berl. Bib.: 1 Corinthians 7:2. A well-regulated marriage opposes a dam to a large current of scandals. 1 Corinthians 7:4. Many pretend that the man is not bound. But he is. He himself has concluded the bond and given the pledge, and both parties must recognize the debt. 1 Corinthians 7:5. In making vows a person must take himself into careful consideration. Few know the depths of corruption in them and the power of Satan. We must be humble. The agreement to abstain must arise from faith, and faith is humble. Earnest progress in the Divine life requires of them who marry, because of incontinence, that they cherish a constant, heartfelt confidence in God, and devote time and energy to the mortification of the body and to prayer. But since this cannot be properly done, avoid fleshly excitements; occasional abstinence becomes needful and obligatory. Yet nature must maintain its original rights; for it is not sin, but only tainted with sin. When purged by the blood of Christ, it resumes its prerogatives. It is God’s work, not the devil’s. In attempting to destroy the latter, I must not assail the former. Yea, the flesh often gains the more power by too much tampering with the body. In attempting more than we can carry out, we fall back sadly, and then the world taunts and vilifies. 1 Corinthians 7:7. Diversity of character gives rise to a variety of conditions, which must be harmonized by the unific power of Divine grace. 1 Corinthians 7:8. Every mode of life has its advantages and disadvantages, and a Christian must learn to strike the balance. 1 Corinthians 7:10. Marriage should be held sacred. The difficulties which attend it, God must be trusted to remove. If the law of Christianity be regarded as a law, it will, indeed, press hard; but there is mercy under such constraints, and every trouble should be considered an opportunity for the exercise of faith, hope, patience and love. Man is fickle and changeable. If now the marriage relation could be readily altered, this would serve greatly to foster this fickleness and levity, and so increase the evil. Hence, we see the holiness of the Divine ordinance even in respect to its apparent severity. Adultery alone is allowed as cause for divorce, and this because it breaks the bond. All other causes originate in a dread of the cross, and against this we must ever strive. Instead of following our natural inclinations when, e. g., a man has an invalid wife, he should reflect: ‘so must I remain; here is my opportunity to exercise love; here I ought to be gladly; here is a Lazarus. God is now putting me to the proof.’ 1 Corinthians 7:11. “Let her remain unmarried,” and so let another burden press her, because she has wished to escape the burden of God’s law. “Or let her become reconciled,” this were better done. But it will cost more than a couple of words to do it. There will be needed earnest effort, a disposition to renew her covenant and begin it afresh in quite a different spirit from before. Heubner: 1 Corinthians 7:1. A single life is commendable for a man only when it is maintained for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake. The worth of celibacy is conditioned on personal relations and the period in which a person lives. 1 Corinthians 7:4. Man and wife belong to each other—body and soul. There must be a corresponding surrender on the part of each. 1 Corinthians 7:5. It is our duty to put limits on the charm of marital intercourse, in order to have time and inclination for religious exercises. There is danger of clogging from too much indulgence. Hours of solitude and prayer preserve the sweetness and purity of marriage. Christianity hits the golden mean. 1 Corinthians 7:7. It is the token of a holy heart when a person can wish that all were like him. 1 Corinthians 7:8. A false asceticism comes not within the scope of the Apostle. 1. What he gives is advice, and that, 2. suited to the times. 3. Elsewhere he gives marriage the preference (Ephesians 5:2 f.), and reckons the prohibition of marriage among the doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:3); 4, and ascribes no merit to celibacy, which state has worth only when the heart is pure. 1 Corinthians 7:10. According to God’s law marriages are as indissoluble as is the union of Christ with His Church. [Olshausen: 1 Corinthians 7:2. An apparently low view of marriage; but only its negative side here presented in view of particular circumstances. There is implied here an indirect exhortation to proud Christians not to sink into the slough of sin by a contempt of marriage. 1 Corinthians 7:3. The begetting of children, not the only legitimate end of marital intercourse. It is the outward expression of a true spiritual union]. [Calvin: 1 Corinthians 7:5. The importance of abstinence in marriage for the purpose of prayer, no more proves the evil of the thing than the importance of fasting for the same purposes proves the evil of eating and drinking. But it is the part of believers to consider wisely when to eat and drink, and when to fast. So in the other case. 1 Corinthians 7:6. A false estimate of virginity led to three errors: 1, pronouncing it the most excellent of virtues, and the very worship of God; 2, adoption of it by numbers who had not the gift; 3, the enforcement of it on the ministry, and their consequent awful corruption—while many prudent and pious men were kept from the sacred calling, refusing to ensnare themselves in this way. See Inst. B. IV chap, XII, § 23–28]. Footnotes: I have taken the liberty of altering Dr. Kling’s arrangement. He has treated this whole chapter connectedly, and divided the text into four subjects—1 Corinthians 7:1-40—with captions accordingly. The divisions I have adopted seem more natural, and I have treated them separately for convenience’ sake.—Tr.]. 1 Corinthians 7:1.—Μοι is stricken out by Tischendorf [Alf] according to B. C. Cod. Sin., [but is retained by nearly all the critical editions according to A. D. F. K. L. Syn.]. Ὀφειλήν according to by far the most weighty authorities [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.1]. The Rec. has ὀφειλομένηνεὔνοιαν, an old gloss [found in L. and the Syriac and certain fathers], and an incorrect one arising from a mistaken interpretation of the nature of the due spoken of; [or perhaps it was a Euphemism]. 1 Corinthians 7:5.—Τῇνηστείακαί is an ascetic appendage, [not found in A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.1 It appears in K. L. Cod. Sin.3 in the Syriac vers and in some of the fathers]. 1 Corinthians 7:5.—The Rec. has συνέρχεσθε or συνέρχησθε—a gloss. [The true reading is ἦτε, as found in A. B. C. D. F. 1 Corinthians 7:7. The Rec. has γάρ. This suits the sense, but is feebly supported. [It is found in B. D.2 K. L. Cod. Sin.3 Syr.; while δὲ is found in A. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.1]. 1 Corinthians 7:7.—The Rec.ὅςμὲν—ὅςδὲ, which belongs to the later Greek, ὁ ?—ὁ is better supported. 1 Corinthians 7:10.—χωρισθῆναι [so A. B. C. K. L. Cod. Sin.], Lachmann [whom Stanley generally follows] reads χωρὶςεσθαι [found in A. D. F.] Menander: “If a man consider marriage in a proper point of view, it is an evil; but then it is a necessary evil.” Metellus Numidicus: “If we could live unmarried, we should be saved from a great deal of trouble; but seeing that nature has so ordered it, that we cannot live very comfortably with wives, and without them cannot live at all, marriage should be adopted not for the sake of the short-lived pleasure it has, but rather for the perpetual safety.” But this was not the general opinion. From A. Clark]. “On these words was afterwards founded the practice of married persons living apart through the season of Lent.” Stanley.] See this point discussed by William Lee: The Inspiration of Scripture, Sect, 4, Am. Ed. p. 272, and Townsend, hoc loco.] B.—Mixed marriages. The course to be pursued by the believer in different circumstances. The general principles involved, stated and illustrated in parallel cases 1 Corinthians 7:12-2412 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13And the woman which [who] hath a husband that believeth not, and if he2 be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him [her husband]. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by [in, ἐν] the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by [in, ἐν] the husband [the brother]: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us [you] to [in, ἐν] peace. 16For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 17But as God [the Lord] hath distributed [allotted] to every man, as the Lord [God6] hath called every one, so let him walk. 18And so ordain I in all churches. Is [Was] any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any [Has any been] called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20Let every man abide in the same 21calling wherein he was called. Art [Wert] thou called being a servant [slave]? care 22not for it: but [even] if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he [the slave] that is called in the Lord, being a servant [om. being a servant] is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also [om. also] he [the freeman] that is called, being free [om. being free], is Christ’s servant. 23Ye are bought with a price: be [become] not ye the ser vants of men. 24Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. AND 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. But to the rest.—By these he evidently means those living in mixed marriage, haying been converted in wedlock. From this it is plain, that in what he has been saying he has had to do solely with parties who were both Christian. But now he comes to consider a relation to which the command of our Lord does not absolutely apply. That was a command for disciples alone; but here those were involved who did not acknowledge subjection to him; and the continuance of the connection depended largely on their own free will. In this case now, the Spirit of the Lord, dwelling in the Apostle, and developing more fully and completely the injunctions given by him on earth, was called to make known what was right, in accordance with the mind of Christ. And it is to this he points when he premises—say I, not the Lord.—[The distinction here made, is simply one of fact as to the form—not one of authority]. His injunction is still an expression of the Lord’s will—if any brother has an unbelieving wife, let him not put her away.—Yet this is conditioned on the pleasure of the wife—if she be pleased to dwell with him.—And this presupposes, on the one hand, that the husband, by reason of his higher love, and of his conviction of the sanctity of marriage, had an inclination to abide with his wife; and, on the other hand, that the wife had some respect for Christianity, and presented no obstacle to the practice of it. [“We see from this how despised the Christians were at that time by the heathen, since even wives would leave their husbands because they had been converted to Christianity.” Billroth. And the threat of this is one great obstacle to the conversion of men in heathendom at this day].—Οἰκεῖν is used in the classics the same as here, and in this connection means, to house with. [Here Chrys. says: “He that putteth away his wife for fornication is not condemned, because he that is one body with her that is a harlot, is polluted; and the marriage bond is broken by fornication, but not by unbelief. Therefore it is lawful to put away a wife for the former sin, but not for the latter. But is not he who is joined with an idolatress one body? Yes, but not polluted by her. The holiness of the faithful husband prevails over the unholiness of the unbelieving wife. They are joined together in that respect in which she is not unholy. But not so in the case of an adulteress.” Words.].—And whatever woman have an unbelieving husband, and this one be pleased to dwell with her.—In καὶοὖτος there is a change of construction, which appears also often among the Greeks. It is the introduction of a demonstrative in an accessory clause. Otherwise it would be καὶαὐτος, which the Rec. has. [On this oratio variata see Winer §LXII. 2, 1; also on the use of ὄστις for εἴτις see Jelf, §816, 3, 7].—Let her not repudiate her husband.—The use of ἀφιέναι in reference to the wife is somewhat remarkable. It means [properly, to put away, and is the same word as that used in the case of the man; but] here, to have, to give up; [and so the E. V. renders it, making a distinction in the rendering by reason of the diversity of the subject. Alford well says, “this is unfortunate;” and there seems no adequate reason for it, as may be seen from what follows. Robinson translates alike in both cases]. Elsewhere, Mark 10:11, απολύειν is predicated as well of the wife as of the husband. Bengel, whom Meyer follows, says, “the nobler part dismisses,” and this, in this instance, is the Christian party. According to Greek, as well as Roman law, the wife also had the liberty of obtaining divorce; among the Jews, too, the law in this respect was somewhat modified by Rabbinical definitions. Light. II:191. [Hence, there is good ground for affirming that it is not simple abandonment, but formal divorce that the Apostle here prohibits. So Hodge]. The above injunction he next proceeds to establish; and opposes the tendency to desertion arising from the dread of contamination through intimate communion with an unbeliever, by pointing to the fact, that in this case [the grace of Christianity triumphs over the disparity, and] the unbelieving party, [so far from desecrating the other, is himself sanctified by connection with the believing one.]—For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother.—The verb ἡγίασται, is sanctified, is not to be construed subjectively; since the supposition is, that the sanctifying principle—even faith, is here wanting. Neither does it point to a future conversion anticipated, (candidatus fidei); still less does it imply the sanctification of the marriage intercourse through the prayer of the believing party; but it denotes the Christian theocratic consecration. The unchristian partner standing, as he does, in vital union with a believer (one flesh), participates in his or her consecration, and is not to be regarded as profane, but as connected by this link to the Church of God, and to God’s people. The phrases, ἐντῇγυναικὶ ?—τῷἀδελφῷ, in the wife—in the brother, denote that the sanctification here comes through the Christian partner, whose character, as holy, passes over and is imputed to the unchristian partner. Hence, it followed that the marriage was still to be regarded as one acceptable to God, and that, therefore, the Christian party was to continue therein, so far as it was possible for him or her to do so. True enough it was, indeed, that the unbelieving party, by his consent to remain in such relation to the Christian community, afforded some ground for hope that he would, in the end, prove altogether acceptable to the Church, under whose spiritual influence he was thus brought; but this fact is not here distinctly expressed. To prove, this relative sanctification of the unbelieving party, through connection with the believing one, he introduces the following apagogic statement.—Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.—’Επεὶαρὰ; since then, i. e., in case this sanctification did not exist (comp. 1 Corinthians 5:10). His meaning is this: if that vital communion which existed between the married parties, of which one was a believer and another not, imparted to the latter no sacredness, then it would follow that the like vital union between Christian parents and their children, would not impart to the latter any sacredness,—that the children of Christians themselves must be regarded as impure and profane, like the heathen. But to such an inference he opposes the views already held among them, that these children were holy,—that they, by virtue of their vital connection with Christian parents, were to be regarded as properly belonging to God’s holy people. And if such a view were tenable, he argues a like result in favor of the unbelieving married parties; that they were similarly sanctified by a collateral union. [Hodge, however, with more correctness, states the argument differently. He says: “The most natural, and hence the most generally adopted view, is this: ‘The children of these mixed marriages are universally acknowledged as holy; that is, as belonging to the Church. If this be correct, as no one disputes, the marriages themselves must be consistent with the laws of God. The unbelieving must be sanctified by the believing partner, otherwise your children would be unclean, i.e., born out of the pale of the Church.’—The principle in question was not a new one, to be then first determined by Christian usage. It was, at least, as old as the Jewish economy, and familiar wherever Jewish laws and the facts of Jewish history were known. Paul circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek, while his mother was a Jewess, because he knew that his countrymen regarded circumcision in such cases as obligatory.” Acts 16:1-3. Barnes most unaccountably interprets “unclean” to mean “illegitimate.” Then “holy,” of course, must mean legitimate, contrary to all usage.]—This whole argument militates against, rather than favors the existence of the practice of Infant Baptism at that period. (Comp. Meyer and de Wette, Stud. and Krit., 1830, p. 669ff.; [also Neander, Stanley and Alford in loco). Had such a practice existed, it would be fair to presume, that the Apostle would have alluded to it specifically, in confirmation of his position. Here, most of all, would have been the place to have mentioned it by name, as furnishing ecclesiastical authority for the view he had taken. The fact that he did not mention it, therefore, affords some reason for concluding that the rite did not exist.]—It is another question, however, whether this passage does not furnish an important ground on which to establish the rite of Infant Baptism. According to Jewish notions, the baptism of a female proselyte sufficed for that of her child, which was afterwards born of her, so that this did not then need to be baptized. But so far as baptism is a means of grace, we may infer from this statement of the Apostle, that there was a claim for it on the part of the child, who had been already consecrated to God by virtue of his having been born of Christian parents. That relation to the kingdom of God which is founded on parentage, is sealed through baptism; and the child is set apart in a solemn manner as a partaker of the fulness of grace imparted to the Church. [On the whole subject see John M. Mason’s Works, Vol. IV., pp 373–382, who takes this in direct evidence of Infant Baptism; and also Hodge’s note, who says: “Some modern German writers find in this passage a proof that Infant Baptism was unknown in the Apostolic Church. They say that Paul does not attribute the holiness of children to their parentage; if they were baptized—because their consecration would then be due to that rite, and not to their descent. This is strange reasoning. The truth is, they were baptized, not to make them holy, but because they were holy. The Jewish child was circumcised because he was a Jew, and not to make him one. So Christian children are not made holy by baptism, but they are baptized because they are holy.” See also Hooker, Ec. Pol. Ch. LX.]. Ὑμῶν refers to the Christian parents generally, who in mixed marriages were not excluded. Νῦνδὲ, but now, logical, as in 1 Corinthians 5:11. On ἅγια compare Bengel and Osiander. 1 Corinthians 7:15-16. He here considers the possible alternative.—But if the unbelieving depart—How then?—let him depart.—‘That is his affair; he must be allowed to decide it for himself.’ And in such a case “let the brother or sister be patient, nor let him think that anything ought to be changed which cannot be changed.” Bengel. That which follows, annexed by no connecting particle, confirms this advice.—The brother or the sister is not bound in such cases.—He here assigns the reasons why a divorce should be allowed on the part of the Christian; and the words cannot simply mean: ‘he is not bound to crowd himself upon the other,’ [to insist upon the connection, as in the case where both are Christians (as Photius, Alford, Billroth)]; but they carry the further implication: ‘is not unconditionally bound to the marriage relationship like a slave,’—‘is free.’ Δέδεται, as in 1 Corinthians 7:39 (comp. Osiander). The words ἐντοῖςτοιοίτοις are either Masc. by such (not, to such) as separate themselves; or which is better, Neut.; under such circumstances (comp. Philippians 4:11; Romans 8:37; John 4:37). “The Apostle only means, that in matters of religious conviction, one person cannot be the slave of another, [that a married Christian person cannot be forced to remain with a heathen consort, if the latter will not allow the exercise of his own religious views. Under such circumstances separation should be allowed; but concerning liberty to marry again, nothing is here said.” Neander.]—But in peace God hath called us.—This is directly connected with the foregoing, and confirms still further the propriety of the injunction: “let him depart.”—The determination to continue in marriage against the will of the other party, would lead to hatred and strife; and this would be contrary to the peaceful character of the Christian calling.—Ἐνεἰρήνῃ, in peace, i.e., either: ‘to this end, that we may live in peace;’ in which case it would be equivalent to: unto peace [according to our English version] denoting the object of the call; or: ‘since he has proclaimed to us the Gospel of peace, the essential effect of which is peace,’—denoting the way and mode of the calling (comp. Ephesians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:7; Luke 11:11). Fundamentally, both constructions amount to the same thing; and imply that any separation would contravene the spirit of the Divine calling, inasmuch as it would increase existing estrangement and cause new outbreaks. [“Hence it is that the Rabbins, and Maimonides famous among the rest, in a book of his, set forth by Buxtorfius, tells us that ‘divorce was permitted by Moses to preserve peace in marriage, and quiet in the family.’ Milton.] This view corresponds to the whole train of thought, and agrees well with what follows. On the other hand, that view which regards the Apostle as here putting a limitation on the injunction: ‘let him depart,’ introduced adversatively by the particle, δέ, as if he meant to say: ‘a separation, however, ought, if possible, to be avoided,’ is at variance with his line of argument [see below]. The Apostle yet further confirms his advice by obviating a doubt which contained a strong motive for resisting separation in the case supposed, viz.: whether the salvation of the unbelieving party, which might be secured by a continuance of the connection, would not hereby be cut off. This he meets by pointing to the utter uncertainty of the results of any efforts directed to this end.—For what knowest thou, O! woman, whether thou shalt save thy husband.—The meaning is, thou canst have no assurance that thou wilt be the means of saving him. [On the force of the εἰ, see Jelf Vol. II., § 877 B.].—Σώζειν, to save, as in 1 Corinthians 1:18, is used here in a relative sense, q. d., to be the instrument of saving, as 1 Corinthians 9:22; Romans 11:14; 1 Timothy 4:10.—[“This verse is generally understood as stating a ground for remaining united, as 1 Corinthians 7:13, in hope that conversion of the unbelieving party may follow. Thus 1 Corinthians 7:15 is regarded as altogether parenthetical. But 1, this interpretation is harsh, as regards the context, for 1 Corinthians 7:15 is evidently not parenthetical,—and 2, it is hardly admissible grammatically, for, it makes εἰ ?=εἰμή,—‘What knowest thou, whether thou shalt not save?’ Lyra seems first to have proposed the true rendering, which was afterwards adopted hesitatingly by Estius, and of late decidedly by Meyer, de Wette, and Bisping; viz., that the verse is not a ground for remaining united, in hope, etc., but a ground for consummating a separation, and not marring the Christian’s peace for so uncertain a prospect as that of converting the unbelieving party. Τίοὔδαςεἰ thus preserves its strict sense: what knowest thou (about the question) whether, etc.? and the verse coheres with the words immediately preceding, ἐνεἰρήνῃκἔκληκενἡμᾶςὁθέος. Those who take εἰ for εἰμή, attempt to justify it by referring to 2 Samuel 12:22; Joe 2:14; Jonah 3:9, where the LXX. have for Heb. νִ ?ιιεֹ ?ψֵ ?ςַ, τίςοἶδενεἰ to express hope: but in every one of these passages the verb stands in the emphatic position, and the LXX. used this very expression to signify uncertainty.” Alford. These arguments seem conclusive. They are received also by Billr. and Neander, and are virtually advanced by Kling, in the 1st Ed. President Wolsey, in his very carefully digested articles on Divorce, in the New Englander for Jan., Ap. and July, 1867, which are well worthy of study on this whole subject, says of the attempt to make this a dissuasive against separation: “Logic will not bend to this meaning.” Words., Barnes and Hodge, however, do not admit their force. The latter says, “it is contrary to the whole animus of the Apostle. He is evidently laboring throughout these verses to prevent all unnecessary disruptions of social ties.” No such special pleading, however, is apparent. If there be a point aimed at, it would seem rather to be to put the believer in the highest spiritual condition preparatory to the coming of Christ, that his obligations previously incurred would admit of. And this liberation from the bondage of a heathen partner, ‘who has departed,’ is one of the blessings he secures. Yet it must be added, that while the grammatical argument, and some of the logical bearings, support Kling’s view, the sentiment involved in the other interpretation is thoroughly Scriptural (1 Peter 3:1-2), and is favored by most interpreters because of its gracious tone. Most of the Homiletical and Practical remarks cited in this section proceed upon it.] Obs. 1. Our passage, especially 1 Corinthians 7:15, forms, as is well known, the Scripture ground for divorce on account of malicious desertion. But the support given is not direct or absolutely reliable. The Apostle is here speaking only of mixed marriages, in which the will of the unbelieving party is the chief thing under consideration. But for purely Christian marriages there is no other ground allowed in Scripture for divorce but adultery or fornication, which is an actual rupture of the marriage tie. The only question therefore is, whether the language of Christ is to be interpreted as giving a law literally and universally obligatory, or only laying down a principle which admits of being applied analogically, so that other circumstances also that are in fact a breaking of the bond, may be taken as furnishing good ground for divorce. In the latter case, malicious desertion would very properly be regarded as one of these circumstances. Obs. 2. In regard to the phrase, ‘is not under bondage’ (1 Corinthians 7:15), the question arises, whether, according to the intent of the Apostle, a second marriage is allowed or forbidden. The words themselves express neither the one nor the other, and it is altogether arbitrary to supply the clause: ‘but let her remain unmarried,’ from 1 Corinthians 7:11. Rather we may say with Meyer: “Because Paul does not apply our Lord’s prohibition of divorce to mixed marriages, he does not intend also to apply his prohibition of a second marriage in Matthew 5:22 to such cases.” [“Although a Christian may not put away his wife, being an unbeliever, yet if the wife desert her husband, he may contract a second marriage. Hence even Romish divines declare that in this case marriage is not indissoluble. Thus A. Lapide says here: ‘Observe that the Apostle in this case not only permits divorce of bed (thori divortium), but also of matrimony; so that the believing spouse is at liberty to contract a second marriage. Otherwise a brother or sister would be subject to servitude. And it is a great servitude to be held fast in matrimony, bound to an unbeliever; so that even though the latter desert you, you are not able to marry again, but must contain yourself and lead a single life.’ And in support of this opinion he refers to St. Augustine, de Adulterinis Conjugiis, c. 13 and 19. St. Thomas and Ambrosiast., who says: ‘The respect of a spouse is not due to him who contemns the Author of marriage, but a person is at liberty to unite himself to another.’ ” Words., who singularly contradicts this view in his comments on the next verse]. 1 Corinthians 7:17. If not to each one as the Lord hath distributed, each one, as God hath called, so let him walk.—There are two points here in regard to which commentators differ: 1. The connection with what precedes, formed by εἰμή; 2. The relation of the parallel clauses, beginning with ὡς: as,—whether they express essentially the same idea or different ideas. As it respects the second point, it is clear from what is specified in 1 Corinthians 7:18 ff., that Paul is here speaking of that position in life in which each one finds himself when called to be a Christian. The first of these clauses, then, designates this position as a lot appointed to each one by the Lord [“it is a dramatic metaphor, which will bring to mind a celebrated passage in Hamlet.” Bloomfield]; the second, as a position in which he received his call to salvation. It is to this position that the particles “as” and “so” refer. The two clauses, then, are not tautological. The use of the title ‘Lord,’ in connection with ‘distributeth’ (ἐμέρισε) is somewhat remarkable, since Paul generally employs this title of Christ. From this fact we are to explain the change of place between the two words, ‘the Lord’ and ‘God’ in the received text; since the former would rather be regarded as the subject of the verb ‘call,’ although the act of calling is also frequently referred back to God. This difficulty has led some to regard ‘gifts’ as the implied object of ‘distributed,’ i.e., the higher and Divinely-conferred qualifications for the state and calling of individuals (comp. 1 Corinthians 7:7). Thus Osiander, Bengel, and others. But in 1 Corinthians 7:7, the gift, which would then be treated of here, is referred back to God; and in the exposition which follows, so far from there being any hint of this, one would rather suppose that ‘Lord’ was to be taken as synonymous with ‘God.’ This might be explained on the score of a wish merely to change the form of expression, and of the fact that Paul was here speaking of the act of Lordship. The explanation of Reiche, who refers the words, “as the Lord hath distributed,” to the beneficence of Christ (comp. Meyer, ed. 3), is neither supported by the context nor warranted by the position they occupy before the words, ‘as God hath called.’ In respect to the first point, however, viz: the connection of this verse with the preceding by εἰμή, it must be confessed that an explanation altogether satisfactory does not exist. If we supply χωρίζεται from 1 Corinthians 7:15, or σώαεις from 1 Corinthians 7:16, then it would have read: εἰδὲμή, or εἰδὲκαὶμή, and this would be a decided objection, apart from all other considerations arising from the unsuitableness of the idea obtained, viz: ‘but if she should not depart,’ or: ‘if thou dost not save her.’—If, again, we join εἰμη to what directly precedes, making it mean, or not, this would be both ungrammatical (hence the variation ἤμή), and would only weaken the force of the question.—If, moreover, we should refer the clause εἰμή—ὁκύριος to the preceding words, this would be to rend asunder parallel clauses most unjustifiably, and the consequent explanation, nisi prout guemque Dominus adjuverit, would be both flat and inconsistent with the meaning of the words themselves. To take εἰμή as equivalent to ἀλλά, is contrary to usage.—If we render the words by: ‘only,’ then there is no suitable connection with the foregoing sentence; for to go back, as de Wette does, to ‘is not bound’ would be a very questionable overleaping of what intervened. But, not to say anything of the fact that it does indeed serve for the confirmation of οὐδεδούλωται, yet it does not suit, inasmuch as the contents of 1 Corinthians 7:17 would then be put in entire contradiction to the above statement (ουδεδού.). We should then be obliged to supply some phrase like this: ‘in case that condition, viz: the departure of the unbelieving party, does not occur.’ It still remains for us, with Grotius and Meyer, to attach εἰμή to 1 Corinthians 7:16, in the sense of except, or unless, and to supply οἴδατε, you know, from 1 Corinthians 16 : ‘unless ye (know this, your obligation), let every one walk, etc.’ How hard this construction is, every one can perceive; where, instead of going straight on with the words: ‘that it is necessary for us so to walk as God hath called each one,’ we have the abrupt introduction of the imperative form. Besides, there arises also an incongruity between the contents of 1 Corinthians 7:16 and 1 Corinthians 7:17. (See what has been observed above). We prefer here to allow a (philological) non-liquet, and accept Bengel’s translation, which is most in accordance with the course of thought: ‘if this be not so, otherwise (ceteroquin).’ We might, perhaps, take εἰμή in the sense of if not, and understand it to imply: ‘provided no element comes in to destroy the purpose of the Divine calling’ (1 Corinthians 7:15), as in the case mentioned,—the desertion of the unbelieving party. [Is it not, after all, the simplest method to consider this as resuming the implication of the previous question, and making it the basis of the following injunction, q. d. ‘How knowest thou whether thou wilt convert thy husband? If not, if thou canst not know this fact, then let each one go quietly on his course, as the Lord has marked it out for him in his Providence. If it be to be deserted and left alone, let him accept that destiny, and not fight against it to the aggravation of all difficulties.’ In such a view of the words we have no need of inserting a δέ. We would no more need it in Greek than in English. The argument is here on the rapids, and its flow is far from smooth]. [As to the two clauses, they are, as Kling asserts, by no means tautological, but seem to imply more than he states. In the first, Paul confines himself to the allotment of Providence in the case of desertion. But he at once recollects himself, as standing upon a broad principle, applicable not only to the parties directly in view, and their particular allotments (ἐμέρισεν), but also to all conditions and callings in life (κέκληκε). And here we see the reason why, in the first instance, he uses the term ὁκύριος, the Lord, evidently referring to Christ. To the deserted one he intimates that it is the dear Saviour after all that rules in the lot, and it is not contrary to his or her salvation. It is a touch of tenderness. But when at once his view expands to all vocations and conditions of humanity, he uses the more seemingly universal epithet, God (ὀθέος). And then it was natural for him to add]—and so I ordain in all churches.—He here shows the great breadth of the principle he enjoined, and the emphasis he put upon it. It was nothing framed for the case of the Corinthians alone, but ran through all his teachings. Hence, they were the more bound to abide by it. Each one every where was to continue walking (περιπατεῖν) in that course of life, and in that outward state, where Christianity found him. This thought afterwards is more definitely expressed by μένειν. “Here we learn the general fact that Christianity does not disturb existing relations, so far as they are not sinful, but only aims to infuse into them a new spirit. Hence, it opposes every thing revolutionary.” Neander.1 Corinthians 7:18-19. Has any man been called who has been circumcised?—In illustrating his general precept, he takes into consideration, first, the religious position of the individual, with its outward token showing whether he was a Jew or not when making a profession of Christianity. In the one case, as little as in the other, does he approve of a change being attempted; because nothing at all depended upon these external signs, but every thing (comp. 1 Corinthians 3:7) upon the keeping of God’s commandments (comp. Romans 2:25 ff.),—upon the faith which works by love (Galatians 5:6). In opposition to the externality of such self-chosen God-service he insists upon the moral character—the obedience that involves faith (comp. 1 John 3:23) as that which alone has or imparts value for the kingdom of God (comp. Calvin and Osiander). In 1 Corinthians 7:18, as also afterwards in 1 Corinthians 7:21, some take the clauses to be questions; others as hypothetical statements. The latter is the more emphatic. Yet we might also regard them as direct assertions, as for example: “There is one who has been called, etc., let him not become uncircumcised.” The word ἐπισπᾶσθαι denotes the drawing of the prepuce again over the glands—its artificial restoration which was effected by a surgical operation. This was often practised by the Jews of a later time, both when they lapsed into paganism, and when, from shame or fear of the heathen, in times of persecution, they wished to hide their nationality, and, also, when they appeared naked as combatants in public sports (comp. 1Ma 1:15; Josephus Antiq. xii. 5, 1; and Sόbkert Stud. and Crit., 1835, p. 657 ff.). Such were called ρְ ?ωׁ ?ψּ λִ ?ιν, recutiti. A like measure must have been resorted to by the Corinthian Jewish converts, who wished not to be behind the converts from heathenism in their entire abandonment of the law, and who, therefore, wished to wipe out all trace of Judaism from their persons.—Was any one called in uncircumcision—ἐνἀκροβυστία, as in Romans 4:10 (comp. Acts 15:1). The desire of the heathen converts to become circumcised we are to regard as a Jewish reaction against all such Hellenism. Both 1 Corinthians 7:18-19 are asyndetic by way of giving life and emphasis to the style.—Let him not be circumcised. The circumcision is nothing, and the uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping of the commandments of God.—[Supply: ‘that, indeed, is something, yea, everything.’ “In this, as in the two exactly parallel passages, Galatians 5:6; Galatians 6:15, the first clause is the same. ‘Circumcision availeth nothing, nor uncircumcision;’ thus asserting the two sides of the Apostle’s principle of indifference to the greatest of the Jewish ceremonies, exemplified in his conduct by the circumcision of Timotheus on the one hand, and by the refusal to circumcise Titus on the other. 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. In contradistinction to this positive or negative ceremonialism, he gives, in the several clauses of each of these texts, his description of what he maintains to be really essential. The variation of the three passages thus become valuable, as exhibiting in their several forms the Apostle’s view of the essentials of Christianity—‘Keeping the commandments of God,’ ‘Faith working by love,’ ‘A new creature.’ These describe the same threefold aspect of Christianity with regard to man, which, in speaking of God, is described under the names of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. In this passage, where man is viewed chiefly in his relation to the natural order of the world, the point which the Apostle wished to impress upon his hearers was, that in whatever station of life they were, it was still possible to observe the ‘commandments of God’ (perhaps with an implied reference to the two great commandments, Matthew 22:36-39). In the two passages in the Epistle to the Galatians (1 Corinthians 7:6; 1 Corinthians 6:15), the more distinct reference to faith in Christ, and to the new creation wrought by His Spirit, is brought out by the more earnest and impassioned character of the argument.” Stanley]. 1 Corinthians 7:20-22. Each one in the calling in which he is called, in this let him abide.—Paul here goes back to his general rule, thus finishing up the special application in 1 Corinthians 7:18, and introducing another illustration. The demonstrative, ‘in this,’ comes in by way of emphasis. The κλῆσις, however, does not denote vocation, a position in life determined by the Divine Providence; for it nowhere else occurs with this meaning. (In Dion. H. the word κλήσεις is used to denote the distinctions among the citizens at Rome, i. e., classes, which, however, does not mean the same thing). Rather we might say, with Bengel, that it denotes “the state in which the Divine calling finds one, which is instar vocationis: as a calling.” [“As he was called, so let him remain.” Robinson]. But as applied, usage is against it. In the New Testament κλῆσις is uniformly used to denote the calling or invitation unto God’s Kingdom. This goes out broadly to all men, of every condition in life, addressing them as they are. It says, ‘thou circumcised one, thou uncircumcised, thou slave, thou freeman, believe on the Lord Jesus!’ It takes the man, therefore, as he is, in his own peculiar position in society, and in this way designates this position as compatible with Christianity, and capable of being sanctified by it. Hence, no surrender of it is required. On the contrary, the injunction is to abide therein. So we at last reach the above-mentioned sense of the word, but not in such a way as to imply that κλῆσις carries in itself this signification of a peculiar vocation. [Of course the injunction here given is supposed to be limited by the obvious consideration that there is nothing in the person’s condition which is inconsistent with the Divine vocation. If there be, a change will be necessitated.]—As a slave art thou called.—After specifying in 1 Corinthians 7:18 the religious distinction, which divided the entire human race at that time in respect to its outward token, and pronouncing it indifferent in relation to the kingdom of God, he comes now to the great distinction that existed in social life,—that between slaves and freemen, and affirms that a position of servitude even is by no means inconsistent with that of a Christian, and, therefore, that the slave, who becomes a believer, need not be troubled about changing his outward state.—Let it not concern you—i.e., as though you, in this external bondage, could not, as a Christian, and as a freeman, pray or serve God; and must be curtailed of your Christian rights.—But if also thou art able to become free, use it rather,—ἀλλἀεἰκαὶδύνασαιελεύθεροςγενέσθαι, μᾶλλονχρῆσαι. The meaning here is much disputed. Some supplement χρῆσαι with τῇἐλευθερία, from ελεύθερος, take ἀλλά as equivalent to: ‘but’ (aber), and attach καὶ, not to the whole sentence, but to ελεύθερος, and translate: ‘but if thou mayest in any way also become free, use this freedom rather.’ But against this it is justly objected: 1. that καὶ ought in that case to stand before ελεύθερος, and 2. that what immediately precedes and what follows (1 Corinthians 7:22), as well as the scope of the whole clause, does not indicate that he is exhorting the slave to seek a change in condition. Rather the whole drift of the argument is the other way—to make men content with their lot, and so favors the other explanation, that which regards ἀλλά as equivalent to: sondern, on the contrary, and εἰκαί to mean: even though, and makes the being called as a slave, the object of χρῆσαι; and then translates: ‘but even though thou mayest be made free, use your servitude rather, [as a means of discipline, and an opportunity for glorifying God by showing fidelity therein]. It may be said, indeed, that this conflicts with the general spirit of the Apostle. But in opposition to this Meyer justly observes: that the advice to improve opportunities for becoming free, which was rendered unimportant and trivial by the anticipation of the speedy advent of Christ, was, on the other hand, by no means incompatible with the exalted idea of Paul, that all men were one in Christ (Galatians 3:28), and that in Christ the slave was free, and the freeman was a slave (1 Corinthians 7:22). Compare also Bengel (who adds explanatorily: for he, who might become free, has a kind master, whom it were better to serve than to seek other avocations, 1 Timothy 6:2, comp. 1 Corinthians 7:22 : and sets aside the apparent contradiction between this and 1 Corinthians 7:23, by saying: it is not said then, ‘be not,’ but ‘become not the servants of men’), and Osiander, who, in the end, observes, that the severity of the advice becomes moderated by the consideration of the very tolerable condition of slaves in the civilized States of Greece, where, in many respects, they enjoyed the protection of law, and the masters did not have the power of life and death over them. “The question assumes a different aspect altogether in the slave States of North America; for there the slaves are prevented from becoming Christians, and in this way good care is taken that the fundamental principles respecting the position of Christian slaves cannot come into application. And this is one of the most frightful violations of Christian principle.” Burger. [Thank God! we can put this into the past tense now].for the slave who was called in the Lord is a freeman of the Lord, in like manner he who was called as a freeman is a slave of Christ.—The advice just given, is here sustained by a general truth, and the person who was called as a slave is comforted in respect to his condition. The Apostle shows how the converted slave must estimate his relation to Christ, viz., as swallowing up all the evils of his earthly lot, and conferring on him a blessed emancipation; and how the freeman has to regard his relation to Christ, viz., as one that puts him under obligations to obey. Mark the connection between the phrases ‘in the Lord’ and ‘of the Lord.’—By ‘called in the Lord,’ he signifies either, that which the calling involves, i.e., to be in Christ; or, what is simpler, the Being in whom the call is grounded. Or it may even denote the sphere in which the calling is to be fulfilled—the element in which the person called is to live. Hence it may be equivalent to: has become a Christian.—In the expression: ‘the Lord’s freeman,’ the Lord will, of course, not be understood as the person who had liberated the individual in question from His own service; since it was in Satan’s service that he was previously bound, but as the one to whom he belonged in consequence of his liberation from the yoke of the other, and for which he was under deep obligations to his deliverer. Yet he belongs to Christ, not as a slave, but as a freeman, since in the sphere of Christ there is liberty (comp. 2 Corinthians 3:17; John 8:32; John 8:36); there all slavery is done away, and the persons so liberated become His possession.—Of course the freedom here spoken of is moral and religious freedom—deliverance from the bonds of guilt, and from the power of sin; just as in the antithesis, the servitude meant is a state of moral and religious obligation to Christ—of absolute inward dependence on His grace and will. The points here contrasted belong together, as complements of each other (comp. Romans 6:16 if.). “Hence the distinction between master and slave is here virtually obliterated. To be the Lord’s freeman, and to be the Lord’s slave, are the same thing. The Lord’s freeman is one whom the Lord has redeemed from Satan, and made His own; and the Lord’s slave is also one whom Christ has purchased for Himself. So that master and slave stand on the same level before Christ. Comp. Ephesians 6:9.” Hodge.] 1 Corinthians 7:23-24. Ye were bought with a price.—The thought of belonging to Christ leads to the ground of this relation, viz., the purchase of the believer by Him (comp. 1 Corinthians 6:20).—From this the exhortation follows, not to be faithless to the obligation thus imposed, by coming under servitude to men.—become not the servants of men.—As the transition to the plural shows, he is here addressing the Corinthians at large. What he dissuades them from, is not simply men-pleasing in general, and compliance with their immoral demands; nor yet undue attachment to human guides; but rather such a subserviency to popular opinion as would cause them to seek a change in their external social position (so Fritzsche and Meyer). Paul is here showing the Christian slaves a trace of freedom, even under their outward yoke. The slaves who are obedient to their masters for the Lord’s sake (1 Peter 2:13, belong in truth to no man. Hence, no Christian, dearly purchased and called from sin, death and the devil, to true liberty, should make himself so dependent on man, as to imagine that he was not really free, even though he had a master over him (Besser).—Less in accordance with the immediate connection Osiander says: “No one should abrogate his true freedom, or his true subjection, by sacrificing his faith to unbelieving masters or companions.” To suppose a reference here to slaves, implying that they should not serve men merely (Ephesians 6:6); or to freemen, that they should not dispose of their liberty; or, which would be better, that they should not become morally subject to men, is unwarranted.—The whole digression from 1 Corinthians 7:17 [entered upon by way of illustration], he concludes with an exhortation essentially the same as in 1 Corinthians 7:20.—Wherein each one was called, brethren, in that let him remain with God,—Here also the emphasis is on the words “in that” (ἐντούτω); and its antecedent denotes that relation in life which a person occupied when called. The adjunct ‘with God’ (παρὰθεῷ) is somewhat peculiar. It may mean: directing his mind towards God as in His presence (=ἐνώπιοντοῦθεον͂ ?); or: as in God’s sight, tanquam in spectante Deo, (Grotius); (comp. Psalms 23:2; Ephesians 6:6), or: in communion with God. The injunction would then be: ‘let every one continue in his original condition and relations; and yet so conduct his affairs as not to disturb his fellowship with God in them.’ The last interpretation is undoubtedly to be preferred as introducing a new thought more definitely, and such a one too as refers that which is hinted at in 1 Corinthians 7:23, to its proper connection with the absolute principle of Christian life. [“To live near to God is, therefore, the Apostle’s prescription both for peace and holiness.” Hodge.] AND ETHICAL1. Christianity as the absolute religion is distinguished by the fact, that it takes up into its own sphere every legitimate occupation or function in life; and either ennobles it by its sanctifying power, or allows it as something indifferent, so far as its spiritual work is concerned. The contrasts in religion between Jews and Heathen, externally symbolized by circumcision and uncircumcision, vanish in the Christian sphere; there the only thing which is held valid and imparts value, is the entering of man, with his entire personality, into holy covenant with God. This takes place by faith—faith which works by love; so that the uncircumcised, who is thus found in faith, is like to the circumcised, who in like manner believes. Hence, neither the one nor the other has any reason for passing out from his own state into that of the other; as though circumcision, the token of bondage to the law, were unworthy of a Christian who has been freed from the law; or as though uncircumcision, the sign of a position outside the covenant and promise, were a hinderance to a participation in the same.—The contrasts also of civil life, such as those which exist between the slave and the free, likewise vanish, so far as it respects the inward life. The slave, as be longing to Christ, is a freeman, bound only inwardly to Christ, whom he serves in everything which he has either to do or suffer in his position; since he does and suffers everything for His sake, or because it is the will of his Lord that he should do and suffer that which his position involves, and thus should honor Him, and prove that communion with Christ makes a servant faithful and zealous. On the other hand, the freeman, as a Christian, is bound to Christ; his acts proceed not from caprice, but in constant subjection to Christ’s will. As a person who is outwardly dependent on another, is a freeman when in communion with Christ, since in his devotion to Christ, all dependence upon other men is done away; so is the person who is outwardly independent of another, made a servant by his connection with Christ, since in his entire dependence on Christ, all arbitrariness, arising from his outward independence, is removed. Thus are both essentially alike; and the slave has no reason to strive after a change of his external position, as if his dignity as a free Christian man were conditioned upon it. It is altogether another thing, however, when within the limits of Christendom a mighty irrepressible reaction arises against slaveholding, on the part of such as wish to be Christians, and to be counted a part of Christendom. For men who are destined one day to have part in Christ, the Son of Man, the Saviour of all (even though they have not as yet any actual part in Him), are even, on this account, bound to have their personality respected, and are not to be treated always as chattels. It is inconsistent, therefore, with the spirit of Christianity, for such as pass for Christians, to presume on perpetuating bondage; and Christendom ought not to rest until it has wiped out this stain. For such has been the tendency of the Gospel from the beginning. Ever since the first centuries, in proportion as Christianity has gained the ascendency, has it operated more and more to put an end to slavery. 2. Christian Freedom.—There is something great in the freedom of a Christian, into which he has been lifted by faith—a freedom wherein he is freed from all things, and is independent of all, and yet, through love, is the servant of all. (See Luther’s remarkable treatise, which has this title). In that faith, which apprehends the eternal word of God, and beholds the unseen and future world disclosed therein, he acquires the pilgrim sense, which looks on the fashion of this world as passing away, and keeps from all entanglement in its business, in its connections and possessions, in its use and enjoyment; nor allows himself to be captivated by it. Yet, on the other hand, so long as he is outwardly occupied with it, he overlooks or neglects nothing; but rather bestows upon it all requisite duty, care, and oversight; attending to it, while he stands inwardly about it. His chief occupation, viz: his care for the kingdom of God and for a participation in it, he in no way suffers to be disturbed; and, for the sake of the highest good, he is always ready to sacrifice everything else, however dear; indeed, in all his having, and holding, and using, he is intent only upon how he can serve the Lord, further His ends, prove himself to be His follower, and do every thing in His name and to his honor (1 Corinthians 10:31. Colossians 3:17).—So also in marriage he aims at the same thing, by his tender solicitude for his wife, by pious domestic discipline, by acquisition of a livelihood, by skill and fidelity in the use and enjoyment of temporal goods, by moderation, beneficence, etc. The same holds good, also, of joy and sorrow, and of the various experiences arising from the vicissitudes of life. In this also does the Christian maintain his inward freedom. Not that he is devoid of feeling—not that he affects a stoical apathy; rather, in the midst of deep emotions, his aim is to preserve a mastery over self, and keep composed in God; so that joy ever resolves itself into filial gratitude; and pain, into filial resignation; he is enthralled by no affections, he is carried away by no passionate desires. [3. Importance of unity of religious faith in married life.—According to its true ideal, marriage is the union of a man and woman in their entire personalities, and for their entire earthly existence. Being mutual complements of each other, they combine to form a larger and complex whole; “for they are no more twain but one flesh.” But in order to the perfection and harmony of this union, and for the fulfilment of ends for which it was instituted, it is necessary that there be a prevailing fellowship in thought and feeling, in ends and aims, in interests and pursuits, not only in respect to their natural, but also in respect to their spiritual life. Thus only can their influence on each other be kindly, and they prove mutual helpers in joy and sorrow, in cares and labors; thus only can they properly contribute to the happy development of each other’s character, and suitably coφperate for the training of their children and management of their household; thus only can that good be realized, in all its fulness, which was contemplated when it was ordained that ‘man should not live alone.’ It follows, therefore, that precisely to the extent that the fellowship above spoken of fails, there will be a lack of sympathy and coφperation, and occasion furnished for alienation, strife and separation. The perfect oneness of the flesh is in danger of being interrupted and broken, when there is not also oneness of spirit. And to such evil and bitter consequences do those Christians expose themselves who become voluntarily allied in marriage to the children of this world. Supposing their faith sincere, the bond which unites them to their partners can only be the lower one of the natural life. In all their deeper experiences, in all their more important hopes and aims, there is essential and irreconcilable antagonism. “For what fellowship hath ighteousness with unrighteousness? and what Communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?” Harmony, in such cases, can be preserved only by “agreement to disagree,” or by an inconsistent and irksome compliance of each with the wishes of the other in the greater part of those pursuits and pleasures which involve their common action. And when there is not in the worldling a conviction of the superior worth of religion, and a considerate affection, which tolerates what it cannot share in, the effect upon the religious life of the other can only be disastrous. Instead of that kindly sympathy and furtherance so needful to the cultivation of piety, there is perpetual obstruction interposed in the way of every higher duty. Household religion becomes impossible. And so also the religious instruction and training which the Christian parent would exercise upon the children, is neutralized by the irreligious example of the other. For such evil results there can be no responsibility incurred when conversion has taken place after marriage. But those who have voluntarily hazarded them under earthly inducements must bear the burden of the blame and take the consequences, as the penalty for consenting to be unequally yoked, contrary to the very nature of the marriage rite. For the Christian the condition of a blessed marriage is, “in the Lord.” This is at once highest reason and Divine precept]. AND [1 Corinthians 7:12-24. This section shows 1. the method in which Christianity entered into, and revolutionized human society. 1. It assailed no existing social institutions from without; marriages, callings, conditions were to remain as they were. 2. It wrought from within, sanctifying and ennobling the individual character. 3. It employed the existing bonds of society, as conductors through which to diffuse its saving power—sanctifying wives through husbands, and husbands through wives; children through parents, and parents through children, and even servants through masters, and masters through servants. 4. It aimed at the preservation of peace, as far as possible, in consistency with being in God. 5. It ignored outward distinctions—counting the external condition as of little moment, in comparison with the inward state. 7. It begot contentment with the outward estate, by imparting a blessing which more than counterbalanced all earthly ill. 8. It reconciled the opposite poles of human condition, freedom and obligation in the love it engendered, making the slave a freeman, and putting the freeman under obligations to serve, and making all alike free, and alike obligated. And 9. It placed all in the presence of God, in whose sight it constrained believers to live; whose honor it urged all to subserve; and from whom it invited all to derive their chief good. II. The true mode of preaching the Gospel. It Isaiah 1, to bring the individual to believe in, love and serve the Lord; 2, to teach him how to improve the circumstances of his condition to the discipline and improvement of his character; 3, to show him how he is to make the very evils that press upon him a means for illustrating the greater power of the Gospel, and for promoting the glory of God.] Starke (Hedinger):—1. To the pure all things are pure (Titus 1:15). As it does not injure a pious man to dwell under godless rulers, so also does it not injure a believer to dwell with a heathen wife, [i.e., in case he finds himself living with her when called, and she consent to dwell with him without interfering with his religious oligations], 2. Where married people profess one Christ and one Gospel, and yet, one party, if not both, cleave to the world, there is then certainly an occasion for exercising patience and charity, 1 Corinthians 7:12-13. And 3. If one of the married parties is a believer, then is the other party sanctified by the communion of the marriage state, and the children are holy in virtue of that gracious covenant which God has instituted with believers and their seed. Genesis 12:7. 4. A pious partner may be able to win and convert his irreligious companion, by means of the word, prayer, and Christian conversation. (1 Peter 3:14). 5. If one of the married parties becomes faithless, and withdraws from his covenant, and can be recovered by no instrumentality, then is the other party free, and the Church authorities themselves declare him free, 1 Corinthians 7:15. 6. It is not enough that married, people should hold together in friendship and in earthly communion, but each ought to assist in promoting the salvation of the other, 1 Corinthians 7:16. Starke:—Since one condition and calling is in itself the same as another before God, it becomes every one to be content with ‘whatsoever state he is in.’ 1 Corinthians 7:17.—We must forget what we were before we belonged to Jesus, and think only of how we may sanctify our hearts for Him now.—In Christ no regard is paid to external conditions, whether it be for honor or contempt. Outward circumstances pass for nothing before God; they neither hinder nor help in the matter of our eternal salvation. Acts 10:34. God is no respecter of persons. 1 Corinthians 7:18-19. It is a glorious proof of the prλeminence of Christianity, that it adapts itself to all nations, communities, ages and conditions in life, and is to them what salt and seasoning is to our food. 1 Corinthians 7:20.—Thou poor man! art thou doomed to live in servitude and oppression; be of good comfort! Thou mayest yet please God, and attain to everlasting liberty (Ephesians 6:8). 1 Corinthians 7:21.—To be a servant in the eyes of the world, and a freeman in Christ before God, is honor, comfort, and blessedness enough. Galatians 3:26; Galatians 3:28. Hast thou been made free, abuse not thy freedom for a cover to iniquity. (1 Peter 2:16); but serve thy Lord, Christ, in righteousness and true holiness (Titus 2:14). 1 Corinthians 7:22.—Away with all lords and masters, who are opposed to Christ,—Gratefully should we estimate the great benefit of freedom of conscience which we have in the Evangelical Church, and improve it all the more worthily, Philippians 1:27. 1 Corinthians 7:23.—Although one vocation in life may be subject to more temptations than another, yet every one nevertheless stands under the providence of God; and if sufficient care be taken, we can remain with God in all. So, then, this remaining with God in every calling should be the first thing sought for and practised. 1 Peter 1:15, 1 Corinthians 7:24. Berlenb. Bib.:—When married to a heathen, or an infidel, a Christian ought simply and earnestly to consider the providence of God herein, and not cut himself loose arbitrarily. Rather he should regard and improve such a state as a happy opportunity for exercising the spirit of Christ; and to this end he should pray for this spirit, and endeavor to convince and win the unconverted spouse at least by his good conduct alone, if by nothing else.—Thou art not at liberty to refrain from any possible means for effecting, at least preparatorily or initiatively, the conversion of thy associate. Since we all belong to each other, God uses all conditions and occasions for sanctifying one person through another. God desires, therefore, that we all aim at this point. This is a sacred thing in His sight. Therefore our conditions and circumstances are wisely ordered with reference to this end.—The children are holy. By prayer they are taken from Satan and consecrated to God as their rightful Lord. 1 Corinthians 7:12-14.—Liberty should be enjoyed with a readiness to suffer if need be; then it is good, and one can accept it. This is better than arbitrarily to consent to be a slave.—God does not begrudge us peace. But, at all events, we are not to think of our own trials, but to look to the sanctification of the other.—Suffering comes from sin. If a way, however, is open to a better condition, let a person improve it. Not that we should shrink from necessity and privation; but if God shows a way of escape, let us escape; and then be prepared to suffer again, if God will.—Where God appoints, there I abide in peace. But peace is often lost, simply because people are not prepared for all circumstances. 1 Corinthians 7:16.—Each one has his own duties. Hence we are not to look upon others. Be thou only true on thy part. God wills not that any should perish; but, in the apportionment of other matters, we must concede to Him His absolute right.—Each one stands under the providence of God, and as that eye leads, so let each one walk suitably to his calling, and do nothing in and of himself. Let no one undertake anything which he is not certain in his own conscience that God would have him do. Only on such terms can a man be sure of God’s blessing.—In spiritual matters we should faithfully follow the promptings of the Spirit of God. But in externals, the Gospel as little requires us to imitate the ways of others, however innocent, as it allows others to enforce their ways upon us. All arbitrariness is hereby cut off; and our conduct exhibits all suitable obedience to God, industry and fidelity, submission and patience,—in short the whole round of Christian duty towards God, our neighbor and ourselves.—On such righteous behaviour in our calling, our well-being for time and eternity depends. Not that we become blessed through such external performances, but our mode of life is so closely connected with the spiritual state of our souls, that the one cannot exist aright without the other. He, who in external matters lives disorderly, falsely and iniquitously, cannot possibly remain sound and honest within. He who, on the contrary, is in heart well ordered, governed and protected by God, can also conduct himself rightly in external things.—Inward perfection consists in following one’s gifts.—Outward perfection consists in discharging one’s own obligations in such conditions and callings as God has placed us in. 1 Corinthians 7:17.—Men often gladly pass by the essential commands of God, and take up some incidental matters as the main objects of their regard (comp. Matthew 23:23); but Paul says: ‘nothing is as you, apprehend it.’—But to perform the will of God—to be obedient to His light, and Spirit, and word—this is of consequence; and the new creature in Jesus Christ is every thing (Galatians 6:15), 1 Corinthians 7:11.—Most men make themselves servants to each other; but O! let each man recognize the greatness of his own soul, and what it has cost. It has cost the blood and life of God, which is more than all the world,—yea, hundred thousand worlds. And yet, oftentimes, this soul, so great, so noble, is sold for a trilling enjoyment—a little piece of foolery,—All those, who in any respect act upon Christ, their true pattern, have passed into the imagination and thoughts of men, and so have become their servants. But so far as thou art a servant of men in any other sense, thou withholdest from God His due. The Lord tolerates no rivals: He also needs no vicegerent, nor anything of the sort. He is alone, and there is no second. His honor He will give to no other. (Is. 12:8). He is the bridegroom, and to Him only the bride shall listen. He is the Lord, and to Him only shall men hearken, 1 Corinthians 7:23.—So great is the value put upon the immortal soul, that God takes upon Himself the labor and the care of it, calls each one especially out of His own free grace, and appoints certain ways and methods, in which each one may and should pass his life on earth beneficially and well. For this also he furnishes all the means requisite, and wisely ordains the result; and everything which He gives into our hands, He sanctifies to our use, if we will but follow Him. But each one must be certain of his calling; and in this calling let him remain and improve his gifts to the general good. Let us adorn the place to which God has appointed us, so that everything may stand and go on well in His house.—Our calling and its use must be sanctified by remaining with God and in His presence. Apart from this, our calling is subject to a curse, although in itself it were never so proper and promising. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C.—Apostolic counsel in reference to remaining single; a. for the unmarried generally, b. for maidens and their fathers, c. for widows 1 Corinthians 7:25-4025 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 26I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man [person, ἀνθρωπῳ,] so to be. 27Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28But and if thou marry, [But if also thou mayest have married] thou best not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Neverthe less such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 29But this I say, brethren, the time [henceforth] is short [narrowed down]: it remaineth, [omit, it remaineth, insert, in order] that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 30And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; 31and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing [overusing] it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, and how he may please the Lord: 33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, and how he may please4 his wife. 34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. 36But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep [in order to keep] his virgin, doeth well. 38So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth10 better. 39The wife is bound by the law [omit, the law] as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, [sleep, κοιμηθῇ ?] she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 40But she is happier [more blessed] if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also [om. also] hat I [also] have the Spirit of God. AND 1 Corinthians 7:25-28. But now concerning virgins.—In what follows Paul speaks indeed of unmarried men also, but it by no means follows from this that the word παρθένος, virgin, should be extended to both sexes. This would not suit with New Testament usage, for in Revelation 14:4, it stands only as a predicate, and describes a state; [Hodge, on the contrary.].—Virgins, properly so-called, are the ones to whom his counsel here applies. Yet a reference to other unmarried persons is also involved. Schott (in his studies upon the Epistles to the Corinthians, Luth. Zeit. 1861–4) supposes him to denote such single persons of both sexes as had chosen the celibate state to serve the Lord in, whether as Deacons or Deaconesses, or in the free exercise of their gifts; [similarly Bengel, Olsh. But Meyer, et al., limit the designation to the female sex.] The δέ indicates an advance in the discussion, which now returns from its digression to its proper theme, and contemplates the same in a new aspect.—I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give my judgment.—Ἐπιταγή, commandment, just as in 1 Corinthians 7:10. “We see here how important it was, in the view of the Apostle, to distinguish the positive commands of the Lord, from all others. This care of his presupposes with great probability the existence at that time of not merely an oral, but also a written tradition of the discourses of our Lord. Hero we have a sure fixed point against the theory of the mythical origin of the Gospels.” Neander. [“This passage has furnished the two words γνώμη and επιταγη, which the Vulgate translates “consilium” and “prζceptum,” advice and command—the origin of the famous distinction of later times, between ‘counsels of perfection’ and ‘precepts.’ In this passage the distinction lies only in the fact that one was a command of Christ, and the other his own opinion, although pronounced with Apostolical authority.” Stanley.] Respecting γνώμη consult on 1 Corinthians 1:10. Here it means, best judgment, advice, counsel, (as in 1 Corinthians 7:6, συχγνώμη). But this advice he presents as something important and worthy of consideration, by adding—as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.—In this he, on the one hand, brings to view his Apostolic authority, showing that he is worthy of reliance, and that what he advised was something which ought to be accepted as agreeable to the mind of the Lord, even though it may not have been credibly handed down in any express precept of His, according to the saying of Christ, “Whosoever heareth you heareth me.” But, on the other hand, he speaks as in 2 Corinthians 4:1, in all humility giving honor to the grace of Christ, who had lifted him out of the depths of misery into this Apostolic office, and had given him the Spirit of truth, and had so revealed to him his own mind, that the advice he gave should merit perfect confidence (comp. 1 Corinthians 7:40).—Πιστός, as in 1 Timothy 1:12; 1 Timothy 1:15, Revelation 1:5, not exactly in the sense of believing. (Olst., Meyer, de Wette), nor yet precisely as true (Billr. and Rόckert), but, faithful [as a steward, and dispenser of the hidden things of God. Winer, sec. 1 Corinthians 4:2; and so Stanley. Bloom field says: “as one worthy of credit,” referring to 1 Thessalonians 2:4. “Faith makes a true casuist.” Bengel].—In 1 Corinthians 7:26 ff., he gives his advice, first, in reference to the unmarried in general, and comes to speak of virgins in particular, not until 1 Corinthians 7:36. The judgment is then introduced with a modest νομίζω [“which seldom, if ever, denotes in Scripture an absolute authority or decree, but a matter of opinion or private judgment, Matthew 5:17; Matthew 10:34; Matthew 20:10; Luke 2:44; 1 Timothy 6:5, etc.” Bloomfield].—I suppose, therefore, this to be good on account of the present distress, that it is good for a person so to be.—i.e., unmarried. [Perhaps better, οὕτως, so i.e., as he is, married or single. This better suits the context; and the other is too far-fetched]. From the infinitive construction, he passes over into that, with ὁίυ, to which he might have been prompted by the subject of the clause, τὸοὕτωςεῖναι, so that we need not assume, with Meyer and others, an anacoluthon here. [Yet it is very like one, and is so regarded by Alford and Stanley]. De Wette renders ὅτι, because, and τοῦτο, as referring to the being unmarried; and makes the sense: ‘because it is, in general, good for men to be unmarried;’ but here, he inserts the words: ‘in general,’ and his explanation by no means tallies with the clause: ‘on account of the present distress:’—Κάλλον here designates that which is fitting, or advantageous, as may be seen in the ground alleged. [Ανθῤώπῳ ?—general term, including females, and might be rendered person]. By “the present distress,” he means either some then urgent necessity,—according to some, the famine under Claudius, according to others, marital cares and sufferings (?), and, according to others, the oppressions and persecutions of Christians, according to M�hler, the eradication of the sexual impulse in marriage; or it were better to understand by it some impending catastrophe just on the point of occurring,—it may be the fearful crisis and bitter conflicts just preceding the coming, of Christ (dolores Messiζ) which was anticipated as near. [So Alford and Stanley (comp. Matthew 24:8; Matthew 24:19; Matthew 24:21). At all events, the reference must be to something extraordinary. This is implied in the epithet ‘present.’ And it is nothing more than “a Popish perversion,” as Bloomfield says, “to change this from a special to a general admonition”]. This ground avails naturally also for the explanatory clause,—Hast thou been bound to a wife? do not seek a separation. Hast thou been loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.—In the latter clause, his advice to single persons already introduced by ἀνθρώπω, in a general way, is more plainly brought out. This appears in the form of a contrast, as repeating the injunction of 1 Corinthians 7:11, evidently for the sake of avoiding a misconstruction by opposers, of what had been previously said. [So Meyer and de Wette; but Alford more plausibly questions this, and takes the conjunction to be simply explanatory of his ‘so to be’]. Here also, as in 1 Corinthians 7:18; 1 Corinthians 7:21, various grammatical constructions are possible. It is best to regard the introductory clauses as either hypothetical or declarative: “If thou art bound, then,” etc.; or: “Thou art bound, seek not,” etc., the sense is the same. The γυναικί stands as in Romans 7:2, ἀνδρί: Dative of communion.—Δέλυσαί, ‘hast thou been loosed?’ implies primarily the dissolution of a connection before existing, whether by death, or otherwise. [If this be insisted on, the subsequent injunction of the Apostle must then be interpreted of a second marriage]. But in this connection the simple fact of being free or unmarried, in general is meant; and the expression is introduced simply for the sake of harmonizing with δέδεσαι, hast thou been bound? [so Alford; and Bengel, who says “that the latent participle here has the force of a noun.” ‘It is also remarked by Grotius and others, that passives in Heb. and Gr. are often used as neuters’]. That the injunction: “do not seek a wife,” is to be taken merely as advice, is plain from what follows.—but even if thou shouldest have married, thou hast not sinned.—Not so, however, would it be in the other case. There would be sin in a married person seeking to be loosed. Hence it was only the last clause that was advice. [‘From these words it has been rightly inferred that there were among the Corinthians persons, like those spoken of (1 Timothy 4:3) forbidding marriage, as if it were sinful.’ Bloomfield]. Γαμήσῃς lit.: ‘If thou shouldest have married.’ In like manner γήμῃ. The word γαμείν can be predicated also of the woman, if no accusative is appended. Otherwise the phrase is γαμεῖσθαίτινι, to be married to some one.—After quieting all doubts of conscience in the matter, he points to another consideration which was closely connected with the present distress.—Tribulation in the flesh, however, will such people have.—If with Calvin and others we here conceive an allusion to domestic troubles, these must be understood as intensified by the ‘distress,’ since the relations entered into by the married people (their cares for husband, wife and children, and bodily needs) involve peculiar perplexity in times of persecution and of other troubles (comp. Luke 23:28; Matthew 24:19). The words: ‘in the flesh,’ are to be connected either with ‘tribulation,’ or with ‘shall have;’ the sense is the same. Σάρξ, flesh, denotes the lower sensuous life, with all its interests; here it refers to the domestic life, with its manifold solicitudes about food, and clothing, and the preservation of things appertaining to it from all injury, etc. Οἱτοιοῦτοι, such people, i.e., such as marry—But I spare you.—Paul here expresses his paternal benevolence; q. d., ‘in giving you such advice, I would fain obviate all your troubles.’ Φέιδομαι stands here for φειδοίμηνἅν, I desire to spare you. Paul is not here ascribing to the unmarried any greater moral excellence than to the married, as Romanists imagine; but is only contrasting the comparative outward ease of the one, with the burdens which will press on the other by reason of approaching troubles. [Another interpretation given by Augustine and the Latin Fathers, and preferred by Estius, Newemacher, and Bloomfield, is: ‘I spare you the pain of dilating on those evils’—parallel to 2 Corinthians 12:6]. This seems to be confirmed by the following, τοῦτοδὲφημι: ‘but this I do say’]. 1 Corinthians 7:29-31. He now proceeds to confirm the advice above given, and to render his readers more inclined to follow it.—But this I say, brethren.—Τοῦτο, this, might refer to what precedes, provided only the ὅτι, because, were genuine. But now it can serve only to introduce what follows, and that, too, in such a way as to exhibit the importance of this opening—the time henceforth is shortened, in order that.—Here the punctuation and reading are contested. The reading best accredited is ἐστὶντὸλοιπόν. In this case, as in the reading τολοιπόνἐστὶν, τὸλοιπόν may be connected with what precedes, as well as with what follows. On the contrary, were ἐστίν repeated, it could only be joined with the latter; hence, we might suppose that this reading originated in the idea that τὸλοιπόν must be connected with what follows. Then it would mean: ‘it remains that,’ etc. [as in the E. version]. This would be opposed neither by the article, nor by the ἵνα. For even in Plato the article is found in such a mode of speaking: τὸσὲλοιπὸνἥδηἡμῖνἐστισκἑψαοθαι (Passow 2:1, 81). But the ἵνα shows that he is treating here about the solution of a moral problem: ‘what remains is, that they may be,’ etc. But if we connect it with the foregoing, then it must be taken as a more exact qualification of the clause, q. d., ‘henceforth, for the future.’ The decision in regard to this case depends upon which connection yields better sense. [Most commentators decide for the latter view. Among these Meyer, Alford, Bloomfield, Hodge. It certainly yields the best sense.] But what are we to understand by the declaration: ὁκαιρὸςσυνεσταλμένοςἐστίν. Some [Rosen., Rόckert, Olshausen] explain it: ‘the time is full of straits—grievous.’ But in those passages from which this signification is attempted to be proved (Macc. 1 Corinthians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 10:3), the word is used only of persons, and then means humbled, cast down, which terms cannot be predicated of time. There remains, therefore, only the other interpretation, contracted, limited, shortened. [“Συστέλλεσθαι and συστόλη are the regular grammatical words used for the shortening of a syllable in prosody”]. In any case, however, ὁκαιρὸς is not to be taken for the earthly life-time of individuals, [as Calvin and Estius]. The context rather points to the period of time from thence onward, until the second advent. But does it here denote the simple period of time in itself, or does it mean favorable time (opportunity)? i.e., the time in which one can yet ensure his salvation, or prepare himself for that great change concurrent with Christ’s second coming, which is to wind up the entire present condition of the world—the καιρὸςδεκτός: “the time accepted,” (2 Corinthians 6:2; comp. also Galatians 6:10). In this case the predicate would suit still better, and also the adjunct τὸλοιπόν: and we should render: ‘the time (the opportune period) is compressed, or shortened henceforth.’ The final clause—in order that those having wives, etc.—may be either referred to: ‘this I say,’ as if by declaring the time short, he arrived at the thing here stated; or, which is better, it may be taken as assigning the reason why the time is shortened, so that it indicated the Divine purpose in this curtailment. [So Hodge, Alford]. And this is confirmed by the subsequent declaration brought in as proof: ‘for the fashion of this world passeth away,’ 1 Corinthians 7:31. In this way a good meaning is obtained. But the other mode of punctuating yields also good sense: ‘it remains,’ i.e., no other choice is left, but that those having wives, etc. This, however, is somewhat harsh, and the other merits the preference. But, perhaps, a still better one is afforded by the connection of τὸλοιπόν with what follows, maintained by Meyer (3 ed.) in the sense of: henceforth, implying that “henceforth the relations should be regarded differently, from what they had been hitherto.” Ἵνα is postscribed as in Galatians 2:10, and elsewhere.—may be as those not having them, and those weeping as though they wept not, and those rejoicing as though they rejoiced not, and those buying as those that possessed not, and those using the world as not using it.—These clauses denote an internal loosing of the spirit from all bonds (even the closest), and from all circumstances, and from the possession and use of all earthly goods; in short, they enforce the maintenance of a personal independence of all external worldly relations (Meyer), the refusal to be fettered by these things in our communion with God and Christ, so that the sacrifice of all of them could be readily made when called for (comp. Luke 14:20). Accordingly, we are taught that no conjugal love, no sorrows over disasters and losses, no exultation over good fortune, should be allowed to possess the spirit, so as to impair that divine communion. And as Christians must ever be inwardly free from what is transient, in order to maintain that eternal blessing, so it becomes them to hold lightly by the earthly inheritance. They must ever remember that it is no abiding possession, and are not to cleave to it fondly; and finally, in reference to the use of the world, they should use “as using not.” The word ‘buying’ comported well with the circumstances of the Corinthians. Corinth being a great emporium, the people were given to traffic, especially to buying. In regard to καταχρώμενοι, expositors are divided; some take it as equivalent to χρώμενοι, κατά being only intensive; others translate it, abuse; but the latter meaning does not sustain the analogy with the foregoing clauses. [Alford renders it: “ ‘using it in full,’ implying an extreme and greedy use, which turns a legitimate use into a fault”]. The κατά was, perhaps, suggested by that in κατέχοντες just preceding. Χρῆσδαι, to use, takes its object here in the accusative [the only instance of the kind in the New Testament], (comp. Passow No. 1 Corinthians 2:2, p. 2496). The Rec. τῶκοσμῷ is a change made in accordance with the more common construction. By ‘the world,’ we are to understand the totality of the visible creation, of all objects, goods, relations, belonging to the present age. It comprises in one, all the objects expressed or implied in the previous clauses. Hence, the following sentence, also, extends to these,—for the fashion of this world passeth away.—(παράγει–τὸσχῆμα.)—By this we are not to understand a mere change of scene (an image drawn from the theatre)—a daily shifting of events belonging to the present; nor yet the transientness of earthly things in general; but the mighty revolution attendant upon the advent of Christ—the entire vanishing or destruction of the form of this world, its outward appearance and mode of existence, of which mention is made in 1 John 2:17; Revelation 21:1. This great change presents itself to him as one close at hand, and, therefore, he speaks of it in the present. (Meyer: ‘is on the point of passing away’). “The disposition which Paul here inculcates in view of the expected palingenesis of the world, is one demanded at all times. All earthly things are vanishing and in perpetual flux; we are ever approaching a new order of things. The woes which Paul saw, have often repeated themselves, and will often be repeated, until the final catastrophe breaks in.” Neander. Since this sentence does not assign the reason for an exhortation, but is brought in to substantiate that which has been previously set forth as a Divine purpose, we cannot directly annex to it the following verse, putting a comma after τούτου. But we are to regard this (1 Corinthians 7:32) as a new thought introduced—a still further reason assigned for recommending the single state. It is, however, directly joined to what precedes, in so far as Paul’s will and wishes aim at having them free from the care which belongs to the things of this world, which is so fast hastening to its end. 1 Corinthians 7:32-34. But I would that you were without care.—By ἀμέριμνοι, he means, freedom from care about the things of this world, as set forth in the 33d verse; for the care which he first speaks of,—he that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord—can only be something which must command approval. It is perfectly right for a person (with undivided heart) to be solicitous for that which belongs to his Lord. And in what way, he explains further by the expression,—how he may please the Lord.—To the unmarried, i.e., to him who has the gift of continence, and who remains single, in order to devote himself to the interests of God’s kingdom, untrammelled by earthly bonds (comp. Matthew 19:12), it belongs to occupy himself in the concerns of his Lord, and that with the simple desire of pleasing Him.—While the Apostle here has in his mind, those who, like himself, were in the true sense ἄγαμοι, unmarried, in what follows, on the other hand, he exhibits to view the ordinary experience of mankind, [and explains the nature of the care from which he would have them relieved].—But he that is married careth for the things of this world, etc.—Here he shows that on entering the married life, they have at once a divided heart, become entangled in the occupations of the earthly life, and exhibit a tendency to consider how one party may please the other, how the one (even in these worldly interests), may do right by the other, etc.—Yet in this Paul does not intend to set forth the evils which are necessarily involved in the very nature of marriage, but only to state what is usually found to be the case in actual experience. He does not mean to disparage the divine ordinance, as though it was necessarily calculated to promote estrangement from God, (Burger.)—In carrying out of this thought in reference to the wife (1 Corinthians 7:34) Paul continues:—Divided also is the woman and the virgin.—Μεμέρισταικαὶἡχυνὴκαὶἡπαρθένος.—We encounter, first, a great diversity of readings and punctuation. The first consists in the following variations:—1. On good authorities Lachmann reads καὶμεμέρισταικαὶ,—and after this, although on fewer authorities, ἡγυνὴἡἅγαμος. 2. Tischendorf, with Griesbach and Scholz: μεμ. καὶἡγυνὴκαί—supported by authorities, in part equally weighty, and in part more preponderant. 3. The received text drops the καί after μεμ., but without sufficient authority.—The punctuation, apart from the various untenable experiments of Griesb. and Scholz, may be twofold. Lachmann and Rόckert attach the καίμεμ. to what precedes, making ὁγαμήσας the subject of it; and read, ‘he that is married is divided, i.e., distracted with cares.’ Καὶἡγῦνὴ then begins a new sentence, translated thus: ‘both the unmarried wife (=widow) and the unmarried virgin cares,’ etc. On the contrary, Tisch. and Meyer begin a new sentence with μεμ. ‘And there is a difference between the wife and the virgin; the unmarried careth,’ etc. [In his edition of the Codex Sinaiticus, Tisch. follows the punctuation of Lach. and Rόckert, given above, putting a period after καὶμεμ.]. The difference, according to De Wette and Meyer, is to be explained from the fact that μεμ. was not understood (and therefore entirely left out), or was misunderstood (as meaning: ‘distracted with cares,’) and therefore was attached by καί to the foregoing; consequently, γυνή was necessarily taken to denote, a widow (Esth. vidua), and as the result, ἡἅγαμος, the unmarried, was either put before (Vulgate), or inserted after (comp. Reiche. Comm. Crit. Spec. III. Gφtt. 1839). But μεμέρισται, is divided, indicates the diversity between the woman and the virgin, in respect of care (μεριμνᾷν). They are divided, separated, in their interests. (Comp. μερίζεσθαι, Matthew 12:25.) Theoph.: μεμερισμέναιεἰσὶταῖςσπουδαῖς. “The man is divided between the Lord and his wife.” Neander. Luther’s translation: ‘there is a difference,’ is not sufficiently definite. The use of the singular is to be explained from the position of the verb, and because the whole female sex is here embraced as one idea (Meyer.)—The unmarried cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy in both body and spirit.—For ‘virgin,’ he now says the ‘unmarried;’ and instead of ‘how she may please the Lord,’ he now puts, that which leads to this, ‘that she may be holy,’ i.e., entirely devoted to the Lord, to serve Him with her whole person, and all her powers. First, he specifies ‘in body,’ because the marriage state primarily obligates the body in an earthly or worldly relation, and involves power of the man over the body of his wife (1 Corinthians 7:4), and easily occasions a defilement of the physical life. But the sanctity of the body, if it is of the right sort, is rooted in the sanctity of the spirit (comp. Osiander). The καὶ before σώματι has the predominance of authorities in its favor; a few support Lachmann in reading τῷσῴματικαὶτῶπνεύματι. [“The word holy has the sense that it has in 1 Corinthians 7:14, and so often elsewhere. It is not in purity and spirituality that the virgin is said to have advantage of the wife; but in freedom from distracting cares. In 1 Corinthians 7:14, even the unbelieving husband or wife is said to be sanctified, or made holy. And it is in the same general sense of consecration, that holiness is here predicated of virgins, as distinguished from wives. It would be to impugn a divine ordinance, and to contradict all experience, to say that married women, because married, are less holy than the unmarried. Paul advances no such idea.” Hodge.]—But she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.—[This is not charged upon her as sin, but it is a part of her obligation of marriage, and is therefore expected of her. And if she has ‘married in the Lord,’ then even this very effort to please her husband may be a part of the service she renders unto the Lord. Yet while this is so, the obligation to the husband, it must be confessed, not unfrequently presents a temptation to a divided service, and in her endeavors to gratify his wishes, especially if he is of a worldly, or even partially sanctified spirit, is often betrayed into acts which militate against her piety, and interfere with her higher obligations. This is how it happens that many a Christian woman comes to be found absenting herself from the place of prayer, frequenting the ball-room and theatre, giving parties on the Sabbath, and in other ways compromising her conscience to her own spiritual injury and the discredit of her profession. And it is to the danger of such evils, incurred by marriage, that the Apostle points.] 1 Corinthians 7:35. And this I speak for your own profit.—Here he obviates misapprehension, and assures them that his commendation of the single state, did not flow from any selfish motives—out of a desire to rule their conscience, or to obtain honor by enforcing upon them his own celibate condition; but only out of regard to their own advantage, whether it be to spare them trouble (1 Corinthians 7:28), or, as the following context would indicate, to render the maintenance of their Christian profession at that particular crisis a little easier. This is the profit which he now develops antithetically:—not that I may cast a snare over you—(βρόχονἐπιβάλω) [a figure borrowed from hunting, and means lit., to fling a noose]. Here he applies it to mean the ensnaring of their conscience, and binding them to his opinion. In like manner we have the expressions “to put a yoke,” “to lay a burden,” in Acts 15:10; Matthew 23:4. Less plausible is the explanation: ‘to awaken scruples of conscience,’ or, ‘to endanger your purity by withholding you from marriage.’ And just as little may we connect either of these interpretations with the first. The ‘profit’ above spoken of is more fully explained by the phrase—but with a view to seemliness,—ἀλλὰπρὸςτοεὔσχημον. Προς here denotes the final end, as in 1 Corinthians 10:11, etc.,=‘for the furtherance of what is comely; that is, honestum, the worthier, more independent position—the one free from worldly cares (comp. Romans 13:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:12).—As a further definition of this, he proceeds,—and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.—By this he means a perpetual engagedness with him, without being diverted hither and thither by another’s influence. This is “the caring for the things of the Lord,” mentioned above, a life entirely devoted to the Lord and His cause—the opposite of being “troubled about many things” (Luke 10:41)—the practice of holiness (1 Corinthians 7:34). The whole is=εὐσχημονεῖνκαὶεὐπάρεδρονεἶναι (Meyer, Ed. 3. The exhibition of the inner life in its entire outward manifestation in a mode corresponding to this devotion to the Lord; the whole moral consecration and self-discipline, so far as it expresses itself in demeanor, in speech, posture, behavior, as the true outward type of the Christian life). [“The image here conveyed is exactly expressed by the story in Luke, of Mary “sitting by the side of Jesus’ feet” (παρακαθίσασα, comp. εὐπάρεδρον), and Martha, “who was cumbered (Περιεσπᾶτο) with much serving,” and “careful (μεριμνᾷς) about many things.” Stanley]. 1 Corinthians 7:36. But if any man think that he behaveth himself unseemly towards his virgin,—He now comes to speak particularly of virgins [and addresses himself especially to fathers, since, according to the custom of Jews and Greeks, and most oriental nations at this day, the disposal of daughters in marriage rested with them]. The δέ introduces in contrast with the ‘seemliness’ above spoken of, an unseemliness (ἀσχημονεῖν). This word means to act unsuitably, unbecomingly (1 Corinthians 13:5). It may also mean [see Wetstein], ‘to suffer something unbecoming, to be disgraced.’ [And so most of the Gr. fathers, and Grotius interpret the word here. ‘The disgrace, which, according to the opinions of the East, female celibacy involved, extended from the virgin to the father (comp. Sir 13:9).’ Hence their desire to marry their daughters as speedily as possible (Bloomfield)]. But only the former meaning suits with ἐπὶ, which indicates the direction of an action [so Hodge, Robinson], towards, or in respect to [Jelf’s Gr. Gram., § 635, 3, 6, comp. § 905, 3, 6]. If it had the latter signification, we would rather expect ἀσχημονήσειν, that he will suffer disgrace, etc. Both significations, however, lead to the same thing; for he does not here allude to the disgrace of living unmarried, and so becoming an old maid, which would be brought upon the virgin, but to the disgrace of the temptation which would be occasioned by refusing her marriage; [so Alford, Hodge]. ‘His virgin’=his daughter,—if she be of full age.—Παρθένοςὑπέρακμος means one who has passed the years of her youth (according to Plato, the ακμή of a woman was at twenty years of age), an age when, by the refusal of marriage on the part of the father, a surrender to her lover on her part was more to be feared than in earlier years.—and it must needs so be,—καιοὕτωςὀφείλειγίνεσθαι. These words cannot be made dependent (Rόckert) on the ἐάν preceding, on account of the indicative; neither can γένεσθαι ever be=μένειν, q. d., ‘so she should remain single.’ They depend rather on εἱ [understood]; and by οὕτωςγέν. he means that which is expressed in the following clause, viz., the marriage of the daughter. The ὀφεἰλει (=oportet, Passow 1 Corinthians 2:2, p. 1029) implies that the temperament of the daughter, [or some other equally cogent circumstance for the phrase, may include those of every kind, whether existing in the father or in the daughter] makes marriage necessary. It introduces a further objective element, in addition to the subjective one, expressed in νομίζει.—let him do what he wishes—Ὅθέλει denotes not mere caprice, the arbitrary wish of the father, but a purpose grounded upon his best judgment (νομίζει) [and here it will be seen that the whole authority in the premises rested with the father].—let them marry.—The subject of γαμείτωσαν is easily understood, viz., the virgin and her lover. “It can also be the plurality implied in the single subject ‘virgin,’ παρθένος, q. d., ‘let the virgins marry.’ ” Neander. [Freedom of opinion and action is wisely allowed in matters morally indifferent. As to what is the specific duty each person must decide for himself]. 1 Corinthians 7:37. But he who—Here he introduces a case directly the opposite, and with unmistakable approval, as is shown by the last clause. In contrast with the previous one, who has the negative virtue of sinning not, this one ‘doeth well.’ The same may be inferred from the imperatives, which are to be construed as permissive. First, he brings prominently to view the steadfastness and independence of conviction and resolve shown,—hath stood steadfast in his heart,—in contrast with the weakness and dependence of the other, in 1 Corinthians 7:36 (ἑδραῖος, fast grounded, found also in 1 Corinthians 15:58 and in Colossians 1:24). [“This allusion here is to a statue standing firm on its pedestal.” Bloomfield]. The points in which this firmness is shown are more fully defined in the two following clauses, which are to be considered as the positive and negative explanation of the first.—having no necessity,—in contrast with the necessity occasioned by the temperament of the daughter, [or any other constraining circumstances] (1 Corinthians 7:26)—but has power.—There is an anacoluthon here ἔχει (instead of ἔχων)—over his own will—i.e., to do as he chooses. [“Often the will is one thing, and the power is another.” Bengel]. And what this will is he next states,—and has resolved this in his heart.—By ‘this’ (τοὐτο) he means, but doesn’t say: ‘to keep her unmarried.’—in order to preserve his virgin.—τοῦτηρεῖντὴνἐαυτοῦπαρθένον. If it read, τηρεῖν, or, τὸτηρεῖν, then we would simply have here the explanation of what goes before; but since the correct reading, τοῦτηρεῖν is to be regarded as a final clause, this, according to all well established usage, cannot be. We are therefore to take τηρεῖντὴνπαρθένον not as a periphrasis for: ‘to keep her unmarried;’ but it means: ‘to preserve her in her virgin state, so that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.’ [Hence we might render it: ‘in order to keep her as a virgin’]. Not, however, for the sake of his own paternal interests, as Meyer assumes. This by no means follows from the ἑαυτοῦ, and it must be regarded as a selfish motive, altogether inconsistent with the spirit of the Apostle’s exposition. The whole matter rests upon the paternal authority acknowledged not simply among Jews and Greeks, but also in the sphere of Christian life. And to this also the words τὴνπαρθένονεαυτοῦ. refer. But the very manner in which the Apostle treats the affair, indicates that it is not a despotic, reckless rule, but the exercise of an authority which is considerate of the nature, the circumstances and the well being of the daughter, so that the resolve expressed in κέκρικεν is to be regarded as a well considered one. The exclusive action of the father in this case, however, indicates a distinction between the customs of antiquity and those of our modern times (comp. Grot. in hoc loco.)—doeth well.—[An approval which went right in the face of Jewish and Gentile opinions and prejudices—a commendation of a course of conduct, which in view of the exigencies of the times, and probabilities of good it involved, might seem desirable; but yet might not be adopted, because of the prevailing views of marriage; and which therefore required the special sanction of the Apostle to strengthen persons in the adoption of it.] 1 Corinthians 7:38. So then both he that giveth her in marriage doeth well, and he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.—Here he reaches the result of his discussion. The καί—καί, both—and, suit properly only to a repetition of the words, ‘doeth well,’ (hence the var. δέ, in which case the first καί might be translated, also). It appears as if Paul intended originally to repeat the words, ‘doeth well;’ but then found it more suitable to the relation previously expressed (‘he sinneth not’—‘he doeth well’), to put the second clause in the comparative. The former is well done, as being in accordance with the circumstances, and avoiding disgrace; [indeed, the man would have done wrong, had he acted otherwise]; the latter is better, according to what is said in 1 Corinthians 7:34,—[better, not in moral worth, as the Romanists pretend, but in point of advantage, considering the times, and the duties to be performed.] 1 Corinthians 7:39-40. The wife is bound by the law so long as her husband liveth.—That which he has said in reference to the marriage of virgins, he now applies to the remarrying of widows. [“There seems to be no doubt entertained respecting the second marriage of the man, probably because in the case of widowers a new marriage was generally of pressing importance, on account of the motherless children; therefore the question here is only touching the woman. The limitation, ‘only in the Lord,’ moreover, must be regarded as referring also to the man (2 Corinthians 6:14-15.) Olshausen]. After that he has expressed the woman’s release from obligation to her husband in case of his death, and her liberty to marry again according to her pleasure, on the sole condition that it be a Christian union, he points to the higher satisfaction of remaining in widowhood. But he sets this forth as his own view; which, however, is to be regarded as the view of one who has the spirit of the Lord. The word δέδεται, is bound, as in 1 Corinthians 7:29, Romans 7:2, excludes the idea of divorce and marriage with another.—but if her husband ‘sleep,’ i.e., is dead. Romans 7:3. The καί before κοιμηθῇ, which Tischendorf has accepted, is not sufficiently well attested. In that case it would necessarily be translated: “but in case the man should even die.’—only in the Lord.—These words do not simply mean: ‘in a Christian spirit,’ but they teach that the marriage should be in fellowship with the Lord,—hence a marriage with a Christian (1 Corinthians 7:12 ff. refer to marriage before conversion). This only gives to this limitation its proper significance; μονον, as in Galatians 2:10.—But she is more blessed.—He presupposes the possibility of an undisturbed devotion to the Lord and His cause, such as shall insure to a Christian woman higher contentment (comp. 1 Corinthians 7:34); not simply freedom from tribulation, nor yet higher blessedness in heaven.—if she so remain, i.e., unmarried (comp. 1 Corinthians 7:26); “it being supposed that she can preserve herself pure.” Bloomfield.—according to my judgment.—[Is this a modest way of uttering what should be deemed by us authoritative, as coming from one who was inspired by the Spirit; or is it simply the expression of an opinion, which, though coming from an inspired Apostle, was not intended to bind the conscience? In short, is this advice which we are at liberty to set aside, or is it obligatory precept? This question, one would suppose, ought to be decided by the consideration of the source whence it comes. If it proceeds from a person who, however sound in judgment, is still fallible, and has no authority over us, then there would be in us the liberty to differ. But if it comes from the all-wise God, advice at once partakes of the character of a command; for not to follow the best light, not to do the best thing, is certainly sin. Who, then, is the author of the advice—Paul, as a counsellor or friend? or Paul, as an inspired Apostle? This depends on how we interpret the next clause.]—I think also, etc.—There is here a polemic side-glance cast at his opponents, who disparaged him, and refused to recognize him as an Apostle endowed with the Spirit of God equally with the others. Δοκῶ, an ironical Litotes. “The κᾀγω, and I, presents an antagonism against those who ascribed to themselves alone the possession of the Spirit; we detect in these words a side-glance at the Judaizers who refused to acknowledge the authority of the Apostle, and especially contemned the single life so much esteemed by him.” Neander.—[If this construction be correct, then the expression: “I think I have,” is not to be taken as implying any distrust on the Apostle’s part as to his actual possession of the Spirit. On the contrary, there is here, as most commentators concede, “an emphatic meiosis expressive of full persuasion and certainty.” The inference then is, that the “judgment” issuing from this high source, is entitled not only to deference, but to obedience. When it is God that advises, who will venture, or has the liberty to say, Nay?] [Obs.:—“The arguments by which the Apostle here recommended celibacy to the Corinthians, have been urged by the Papists in support of the rulers of their Church, who oblige the clergy and the monastic orders to live unmarried. And it must be acknowledged, that at first sight, these arguments seem to be properly applied by them. Nevertheless, when it is considered, that the Apostle’s advices were suited to Christians in the then persecuted state of the Church, and were addressed only to such as could live chastely unmarried, it may fairly be presumed, that the Papists have stretched his advices farther than the Apostle intended, when they represent them as binding in all ages and countries, on those who wish to live piously.” Macknight.] AND ETHICAL1. Duties of parents towards their children in the matter of marriage. Among the most delicate problems of human life, calling for the exercise of firmness no less than of consideration, of wisdom no less than love, is the right conduct of parents in reference to the marriage of their children—especially of daughters. To insist upon their settlement unconditionally, is, without doubt, unworthy of a Christian, and must be looked upon as the token of a worldly, unbelieving, or, at least, little-believing temper. At all events, regard should be had to this, that a Christian should marry one like-minded. Here, that which is inculcated upon widows in v. 40, holds good absolutely—‘only in the Lord.’ Matrimonial connections between believers and children of this world, entered into out of mere carnal complacency, or with an eye to property and brilliant position in society, and in the hope that some saving influence may at the same time be exerted, are, to say the least, exceedingly hazardous; and they more commonly result in a way directly the opposite of the one counted on—the secularization of the believing party (comp. Genesis 6). All such connections Christian parents should aim to hinder, rather than help; yea, they should endeavor, by all the means in their power, to restrain and hold back their children from them, even though it be at the cost of much pain and bitter struggle. Cases may indeed occur, when yielding will be unavoidable; but, at all events, consent should not be granted without giving earnest warning of the sad mistake committed, and of the great responsibility and danger incurred.—Again, if it be seen that a daughter has little or no inclination to marry, and that she is endowed with special gifts for the service of the Lord in her virgin state, and that she takes delight in such service, then does it become the parent to stand fast against all solicitation on the part of suitors and relatives, and to sustain their child in her endeavors to devote herself to the Divine calling. But the deliberation in the case must be a comprehensive one, weighing well all circumstances, and attended with earnest prayer for that Divine wisdom, which will enable the parents to examine the inward and outward condition of their daughter, and to distinguish clearly between caprice and prudery and carnal desire to consult her own convenience on the one hand, and a true spiritual firmness and proper regard for the service of the Lord on the other; and also for that simplicity of heart which shall exclude all selfish interests, and leave no room for after regrets to come up and harass when it is too late. 2. [Marriage being a Divine institution, and designed to subserve the highest moral and spiritual interests of mankind, and being then most truly blessed when occurring “in the Lord,” it is eminently fitting that the solemnization should be a religious act, performed by a minister, and under the sanction of the Church. “The custom of thus making it an ecclesiastical ceremonial,” says Besser, “is as certainly in harmony with its character as a union in the Lord, as the popular cry for civil marriage accords with the declaration: ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’ ”] 3. [“The practice of the highest duties of Christianity is compatible with every station and condition of life that is not in itself unlawful. If even the degraded state of slavery be consistent with the cultivation of the true spirit of Christian liberty, if even the great religious divisions of Jew and Gentile may be regarded as alike compatible with the service of God, then in all other states in life equally the spirit of the Apostolic injunctions may be observed where, in the letter, they seem most disregarded. Freedom from worldly cares may be maintained in the married as well as in the single state; indifference to worldly gain may exist in riches, no less than in poverty. Our nearness to God depends not on our desertion of one religious community for another, but on our keeping His commandments in whatever religious community His providence has placed us.” Stanley]. 4. [Right and wrong, though absolute in their essential principles, yet, as determinable in the forms of human conduct, can seldom be defined and enforced by specific rules. Much here depends on the peculiarities of personal condition and circumstance. What may be proper and beneficial for one, may prove equally unseemly and hurtful for another. Yea, the particular duty of a person in reference to the same thing, is often modified or even reversed by changes of time and place. Hence, in relation to the details of conduct, the best course to be pursued, is simply to state the general principles which should govern, to prescribe the ultimate ends to be sought, and then leave it for each one to ascertain and decide for himself upon the proper methods to be adopted by him in the discharge of his own specific obligations. To aid in discovering what the specific duty is, the advice of judicious friends and of Gospel ministers may, and ought to be, both sought and given. But when, instead of advice, there are imposed the prescripts of unwarranted authority, then the inevitable result is injury and ruin to the very cause these were unwisely intended to further. Either the morality secured is that of a legal, slavish obedience that crushes out the joy of a true divine service, or the natures thus put under bondage rebel in secret, and thus fall into grosser sins, and incur the greater guilt. An instructive illustration of these disastrous consequences is seen in the history of Romish monasticism. And similar mistakes are constantly made in the measures resorted to for the promotion of temperance, and the maintenance of the Sabbath, and the suppression of many sorts of public amusements, and the regulation of other departments of morals. Too great reliance is placed on law, and too little upon moral religious instruction and advice. Sound morality can only be established and furthered by the enlightenment of the conscience, and the instruction of the understanding as to the best means by which behests of conscience can be fulfilled; and it can coexist only with a degree of liberty of judgment and action in things indifferent. What are the proper functions, bearings, and limitations of law in this direction, is a question too broad to be discussed here]. AND Starke:1 Corinthians 7:25. In all matters and questions which are not expressly decided by the written word, it is the part of a true and well-qualified teacher to understand how to counsel the conscience according to those fundamental principles which are found in the Scriptures. Hence, he must be able to comprehend and apply these principles in a divine light. 1 Corinthians 7:26. Even now, in consequence of the corrupt state of the Church, the domestic peace of Christians is often embittered by the influences of an evil world. Hence, we may infer that Paul would still give many the same advice which he gave of old, provided they were endowed with the gift of continence, and could preserve a virgin modesty by prayer and self-restraint (1 Corinthians 7:7 ff.) (Hed). The constraints arising from persecution are one thing, and the constraints of a cloister entered into by an inconsiderate vow are another thing. 1 Corinthians 7:27 (Spener). He who has received the gift of chastity, may abide by it or not, according as he may judge it serviceable to the greater honor of God and the better performance of that to which he has been called by God. 1 Corinthians 7:28. Marriage is, in itself, a sacred ordinance, and no one must accuse himself of sin in having married, unless he did so from impure motives. Many a person neither learns nor surmises the burden of the married life; experience makes them rue it when too late. Let those who will be married, make up their mind for all chances. But if the married parties are united in love and in fear of God, they will be able to lighten each other’s burdens. 1 Corinthians 7:29. Husbands should, indeed, love their wives with peculiar affection, but this affection should be tempered with self-denial, and not allowed to grow inordinate. Yea, they must hold themselves prepared for, and resigned to, a separation when God calls. 1 Corinthians 7:30. Creature enjoyments should be received as from God. In this way, they may be assimilated to our spiritual enjoyments. The fear of God, and regard for His will, loosens our hold on the earthly, moderates our temporal pleasures, makes us submissive amid losses (Job 1:21), consoles us in trouble, comforts us in our tears, and causes us to cleave lightly to all our possessions. 1 Corinthians 7:31. Believers here are as upon a journey; one is at liberty to use every thing at the inn; but further than this he takes no interest in it, and he is content if he has some good to expect at the end of the journey. Augustine: Boni ad hoc utuntur mundo, ut fruantur Deo; mali contra, ut fruantur mundo, uti volunt Deo.1 Corinthians 7:32 (Hed.). The statement here must be taken generally. Marriage is not absolutely, and without exception, a hinderance to Christianity, nor is a single life equally a help to it. Many a one finds more hinderance to good in a single than in married life; and marriage is, in itself, a God-service, for it is God’s holy ordinance, and the duties therein are commanded by Him, and, therefore, are a holy work, just as much as prayer. Let him who would please God acceptably in a single state, refrain from all self-complacency, and especially from the false notion that he is the more acceptable to God on this account.—Spener:—Marriage furnishes numerous occasions for other exercises of godliness, for the acknowledgment of the Divine goodness, etc. And God often blesses more effectually the few quarters of an hour devoted to Him amid its cares, than whole hours of monastic vigils. Ah! how many persons remain single only that they may serve the world better, and indulge more freely in personal luxuries! 1 Corinthians 7:33. Things of this world, in themselves allowable (1 Timothy 3:4-5; 1 Timothy 3:8), such as nourishment, clothing, habitation, and the like, often so absorb the entire regard, as to keep a person from diligent attention to spiritual things. In this respect the unmarried have less of a hinderance, provided they have the gifts and calling requisite for celibacy. Between the two extremes of excessive severity towards the wife in imposing on her the whole burden of domestic cares, and of excessive indulgence in allowing her to rule, there runs the middle course, that of controlling one’s wife wisely, by a manifestation of affection and the exercise of patience. 1 Corinthians 7:34. Spener:—Even the love which the wife cherishes towards her husband, and the obedience she owes to him, often constrain her, for the sake of avoiding displeasure, and creating disturbance, to interfere in some way, either by commission or omission, with the engagements in which she would otherwise seek to please the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7:35. No preacher is lord over the conscience; but lie should be indulgent and not make a point of conscience where there is none to be made. In single life a person can often devote himself systematically to the study of God’s Word, for his own personal edification, while in married life there is much to prevent this. A mother, for example, having a child either on her bosom or perpetually around her, cannot concentrate her mind in devotion. Yet, what she does is none the less acceptable to God. 1 Corinthians 7:36. Hedinger:—The authority of parents over their children is, indeed, great; but woe to those who would constrain them to an unwilling marriage, only for the sake of money or honor. And woe to those, also, who allow them in all manner of foolery for the sake of catching husbands. But what does watching avail, if the fear of God in the child does not guard the door. 1 Corinthians 7:37. If the child’s desire to remain unmarried agrees with the will of the parents, such a child is blessed in its release from many cares in the life she has chosen. 1 Corinthians 7:39. He who would do or suffer anything for the Lord, must first be in the Lord, and hold communion with Him by faith. 1 Corinthians 7:40. It is not mere solitude that makes the widow blessed; she is so, provided only that she places her hope in God, and continues day and night in prayer and supplication (1 Timothy 5:5). Berlenb. Bibel:1 Corinthians 7:27. Men would often gladly part from that they have, and seek that they have not. Let each one take heed to his own spirit.1 Corinthians 7:28. Great confusions arise from affirming that to be sin which is not. Married people may have more troubles in the flesh; but single people also have their own temptations, which may easily choke the Word. Watchfulness is the best safeguard. A pious man is cautious and self-distrustful. 1 Corinthians 7:29. With Christians of the present day, time often hangs heavy; hence pastimes and amusements are sought for. Let us rather work while the day lasts, ore the night comes, for time is short. Therefore hasten, O Soul! See to it that thou lovest God! We have no hundred years leisure for keeping vigils with God.—Even in marriage we have opportunities for self-denial, and, when occasion calls, we can let all its good things go in obedience to the Divine will. But such self-denial can neither be undertaken arbitrarily, nor for the parade of holiness, nor in self-wrought labor, but only in dependence on the mercy of God, into whose hands alone those should yield themselves, who have long become ashamed, despairing of their own strength, and feel their need of higher aid. And this aid comes with earnest prayer, and strenuous struggles against sin, and with fervent desires for the love of God in Jesus Christ. His urgent entreaties, and winning attractions draw the heart away and beyond itself, to live in the light and under the sight of God, so that all it does, however trivial, shall be done in God. So should it be with all things in this world; we should learn to lay them all down for God, and so restrain ourselves that the heart may be freely lifted heavenward. Even whatsoever is most seemly and innocent, should be held and used as if we had it not. Our aim should be to strengthen the weak senses by becoming earnestness, and in sorrow to be always rejoicing (2 Corinthians 6:10); not to carry out our enjoyments into the flesh, but to rejoice with trembling; and to cleave to nothing which may be taken from us at any hour. In this we can succeed only through prayer. Prayer, while it knits us to God, severs us from self. He who cleaves to himself easily clings to things which may yet enhance his suffering. But he who is free cleaves only to God, and whatever is not in God, appears foreign to him. Ah, then, cast aside everything which hinders communion with Christ. 1 Corinthians 7:31. What is transient is the fashion and the quality, the show and the glitter, the outward form, or, as it now appears, the present quiet peaceful state, of this world which is spared unto Christians. How all this will pass away we need not care to know; but only that we pass not away with it. 1 Corinthians 7:32. God forbids only the care which distracts and torments. It is not His intention that we should be entirely free from all cares. Cares will come; only we must take heed and not be absorbed in them.—The celibacy of such pure souls only as are indifferent, and unconcerned about all events, who have nothing which pleases them aside from Jesus, who entirely renounce the friendships of the world, and everything which is sweet, and dear, and pleasant to the flesh, is properly sanctified; they alone are fit to walk confidingly with God. 1 Corinthians 7:33. A married man often finds himself constrained, or is of himself inclined to consider how he may please his wife, who is frequently exacting even when she has enough. But so is the progress heavenward hindered, if the man becomes ensnared in earthly occupations. Yet God can aid such in other ways; and so also believers when married, can and should attend to Divine things as well even in the midst of their work. 1 Corinthians 7:34. She only is the true virgin who cares solely for the work of the Lord, and does the will of her bridegroom.—A married woman often sticks fast under the burden of worldly things, and is obliged to endeavor to suit her husband. In such a relation what chances may not befall!—Think on this, how thou art pleasing Christ—that husband who has delivered thee from the service of sin; and take heed that thou wanderest not from Him with a roving heart. This heart must be wholly devoted to thy true bridegroom, who would fain possess thee wholly. 1 Corinthians 7:35. Even the best doctrines closely resemble fetters upon the conscience. Conscience is a very tender thing. If a man is to return to God and become one with Him in highest blessedness, he must cleave to God without reserve, and learn to abide in Him with all his powers. Can we enjoy perfect communion if one-half of us clings to the creature? The best and nearest way to perfect blessedness, is to free ourselves, more and more from the stains of our shameful apostacy; and it is a part of this work to withdraw the body also from the filth of the world, that it may be presented as an offering to the eternal Creator, in all holy service. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ THE OF THE STRONG AND LIBERAL-MINDED TOWARDS THE WEAK, IN THINGS 1 Corinthians 8:1-13A.—Not knowledge, but love the rule1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. 2Knowledge puffeth up, but charity [love] edifieth. And [om. And ] if any man think that he knoweth [has known ] anything, he knoweth [has known ] nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5For though there he that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there he gods many, and lords many,) 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom 7are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But meat commendeth [will not affect ] us not to [before] God: for [om. for ] neither, if we eat, are we the better 9[worse]; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse [better ]. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak. 10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened [edified, οἰκοδομηθήσεται] to 11eat those things which are offered to idols; And [For] through thy knowledge shall [om. shall] the weak brother [om. brother ] perish, [perishes—the brother] for whom Christ died? 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. AND The instructions and exhortations contained in this paragraph, relate to a still further question proposed to the Apostle in the letter from Corinth, and to the conflict which had arisen in consequence, between two parties in the Church. On the one side were those who, as they believed in the nothingness of idolatry, and were fully conscious of their Christian liberty in reference to all that which was not in conflict with the nature of their calling, maintained their perfect right to buy and eat the meat offered for sale in the market, which had been sacrificed to idols, and also to partake of that which was set before them at table in the houses of heathen—yea, even to participate at their sacrificial feasts, because, as they affirmed, this flesh was like all other flesh, and that in partaking of it they came into no injurious connection with idols, since idols were nothing in themselves, and so, incapable of harm. On the other side were those who utterly reprobated such conduct, and deemed it pollution; for they still believed idols to be veritable, active agents, that exerted a malign and defiling influence on those who in any way came in contact with them—as, for example, those seemed to, who ate of the flesh of beasts sacrificed to them. That the latter were heathen and not Jewish converts, is to be inferred from 1 Corinthians 8:7 th, where the expression: “unto this hour,” points to the continuance of an earlier state, and implies, that those spoken of had been heathen, and were still held captive by their old heathenish notions about the reality of idol gods whom they had come to regard as subject to the one supreme God. This inference cannot be disputed; although it must be conceded also that even by the Jews (Jewish converts) idols were regarded as demons, that were exerting a veritable power in heathendom, and exercised a baleful and defiling influence upon all those who in any way came in contact with heathen forms of life. [“To offer ‘polluted bread’ upon the altar of the Lord, or to eat the meat of idolatrous princes, had been condemned by the warning of Malachi (1 Corinthians 1:7-12), the good example of Daniel (1 Corinthians 1:8), and Tobit (1 Corinthians 1:10-11), and the evil example of Israel at Baalpeor (Numbers 25:2; Psalms 106:28).” Stanley]. And this class also must be supposed to have felt a holy horror at the polluted meat, and shown no little solicitude as to the manner it was to be dealt with. The dispute which thus originated, we have no reason to believe had anything to do with the party divisions spoken of in chap. 1. There is no propriety, therefore, in supposing that the more stringent, scrupulous ones, belonged to the party calling themselves after Cephas or after Christ; although it were more plausible to regard the more liberal-minded as belonging rather to the Paulinists, or Apollinarians. In his theoretic convictions Paul, as we shall see, sides with the liberals. But he rebukes their reckless application of these principles, and also that pride of knowledge which they manifested; and for the regulation of their conduct in this case, he enjoins the exercise of a self-denying love, that subordinated the use of its liberty, to a regard for weak brethren, and gladly renounced its rights in order to avoid all occasions for scandal. And in support of his injunction he points to his own example as set forth in his official labors, (chap. 9th). [“The importance of the controversy which thus arose is obvious. Closely as the whole social life of the ancient world was interwoven with its religious worship, the decision of this question affected the whole relations of the Christian society with its heathen neighbors; and, in fact, involved all the similar, though more complicated questions, discussed in the first four centuries of the Christian Church, respecting the lawfulness of attending on the spectacles or receiving the honors of the Roman Empire. Accordingly, this, although the chief, is not the only passage in which the point is discussed. See Romans 14:2; Romans 14:21; Revelation 2:14-15; Acts 15:29.” Stanley]. 1 Corinthians 8:1-6. Now concerning.—[Here we have the introduction of a new topic with περὶδὲ, just as in chap. 7],—idol sacrifices,—εἰδωλοθύτων. This is a topic which we see to have already been brought up in discussion, and a decision rendered upon it in the first council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:29). To that decision it is remarkable that Paul makes no allusion. [“Probably this is to be traced to his wish to establish his position as an independent Apostle, endowed with the Holy Spirit sufficiently himself to regulate such matters.” Alford].—We know that we all have knowledge.—[Many commentators regard these words as quoted from the Epistle to the Corinthians, and assented to, at the start, in a general way, and in a conciliatory manner. They are not, therefore, to be interpreted strictly, nor is “all” to be emphasized. Kling questions this view (see below), but hardly on sufficient grounds. It is quite in the spirit of Paul]. From 1 Corinthians 8:1 to 1 Corinthians 8:3, there is a logical parenthesis, as may be seen from the resumption of these words in 1 Corinthians 8:4. Before the contents of the knowledge here alluded to are brought out, he introduces an observation respecting knowledge and love, designed to furnish a rule for the whole subject. This parenthesis some [Luther, Bengel, Griesb., Winer, Bloom., Olsh.], regard as beginning with the words: ὅτιπάντες, which is then construed as a casual sentence, and the meaning would be: “We know,—(because, or for, (ὅτι) we all have knowledge,” [—‘we as well as you’). Olsh.]. But, in such a case, the clause following ought to read: ἡδεγνῶσις, “but knowledge,” etc. It is also opposed by 1 Corinthians 8:4, where the ὅτι following οἴδαμεν, we know, plainly means, as it does here, that. The parenthesis, then, must begin with the clause: “knowledge puffeth up”—a thought suggested by what just precedes. [So Chrys., Beza, Grot.,Calv., Meyer, Alford]. The ‘things offered to idols’ were the remnants of victims, whose bitter portions only had been offered in sacrifice, the rest falling partly to the priests, and partly to the offerer. These were sometimes sent to market for public sale, and sometimes appropriated to festivals, either at the temple, or in private houses. And it was about the propriety of Christians eating of these that the question arose. The knowledge Paul speaks of, must be understood to denote a practical insight into the real nature and effects of the things offered (1 Corinthians 8:4); from which, however, it by no means follows that περί is grammatically dependent on γνῶσινἕχομεν. And certainly it is remarkable that while claiming this knowledge for all in 1 Corinthians 8:1, he says precisely the opposite of this in 1 Corinthians 8:7 : “but all have not this knowledge.” By way of reconciling this contradiction, some suppose that these words, as also the clause beginning at 1 Corinthians 8:4 : “that an idol is nothing”—unto the end of 1 Corinthians 8:6, were taken from the letter of the Corinthian Church, and that Paul contradicts these in 1 Corinthians 8:7. But in this case Paul would not have introduced these words without some formula of citation; [but is this necessary when some sentiment of another is simply re-affirmed?] and he would have included the observation (1 Corinthians 8:1-3) in his counter statement; [not necessarily, for that was directly suggested by the word γνῶσις, and should follow upon it]. Others make a distinction between γνῶσις and ἡγνῶσις, taking the former to mean a certain degree of knowledge in general, and the latter a definite insight into the relation between the form and the influence of idolatry. (Olsh.). But this is arbitrary, since γνῶσις, knowledge, is already defined as to its contents in 1 Corinthians 8:1; 1 Corinthians 8:4. Another supposition is, that the Apostle is speaking generally and theoretically in 1 Corinthians 8:1, and then in 1 Corinthians 8:7, with direct reference to the Corinthians (De Wette [Stanley, Hodge, Alford]). But with this the πάντες in 1 Corinthians 8:1, compared with 1 Corinthians 8:7, does not suit. [But why not? As Alford says: “The common sense view of two such statements would, in ordinary preaching or writing be, that the first was said of what is professed and confessed, the second of what is actually and practically apprehended by each man. Thus we may say of our people in the former sense, ‘all are Christians; all believe in Christ;’ but in the latter, ‘all are not Christians; all do not believe’ ”]. Still again, a fourth device is to apply ἐνπᾶσιν, in all, to strangers coming to Corinth (Schrader); but of this the text gives no hint. Finally, the existence of the “knowledge in all,” is distinguished from the “having knowledge,” as being more thorough-going, while the latter is supposed to imply a more superficial knowledge; but this is arbitrary. The simplest solution of the difficulty is [?], that in 1 Corinthians 8:1 Paul is speaking of himself, together with the more liberal-minded; but in 1 Corinthians 8:7, where he speaks in the third person of all, he takes the word in a wider sense; so Theoph. and Meyer. In this case there would be no necessity for resorting to the supposition of an ironical statement (Grotius), which would be inconsistent with the general tenor of what is said in the following verse. The disposition to pride oneself on this possessionof knowledge, he earnestly opposes, by condemning those aspects in which it showed itself, as among the liberals of the Corinthian Church.—Knowledge puffeth up.—[The parenthesis is introduced without any particle of connection. This abruptness of transition is characteristic of Paul, and indicates the rapid rush of his thought. It makes an impression of force, which must not be weakened by any attempt to supply the lack. “Ἡγνῶσις, knowledge, abstract,—scil, when alone, or improperly predominant, knowledge, barely.” Alford]. This higher insight so much prized—this knowledge which professes to rise superior to all manner of prejudices, wherever it prevails for its own sake alone, proves an element far removed from Christian perfection,—yea, injurious to it through the influence it exerts on the person possessing it. Its effect is to fill the mind with pride, and so to undermine the foundation of that perfection, and disqualify the possessor for furthering the same among others; since for this work there is required, above all things, condescension of spirit,—a disposition to enter humbly into the position and necessities of those whom we would instruct. This, however, is just what love (ἀγάπη) begets,—but love edifieth.—In opposition to the self-exaltation, manifested by those who, with their higher insight, look down upon others as narrow and bigoted, love empties a person of self, and prompts him to enter into another’s condition, and makes him ready for every service, even to the offering up of his own for others’ benefit. Accordingly, while knowledge works injuriously and destructively upon the Christian life of others (comp. 1 Corinthians 8:9-12), love works edifyingly, building up that life either in the salvation of a brother, or in the well-being of the Church (comp. οἰκοδομεῖν, 1 Corinthians 14:24; Romans 14:19; Ephesians 4:12; and Osiander, in hoc loco). “The thought and expression in οἰκοδομεῖ, edifieth, is altogether peculiar to Paul’s mode of looking at and speaking of things. The whole Christian life is contemplated by him as a building, resting on the one foundation, Jesus Christ—a figure which finds a point of connection with our Lord’s statement concerning the house built on the rock and on the sand. The edification here meant combines the theoretical and practical elements, and comprises every thing which serves to advance the Christian life.” Neander. The contrast thus briefly indicated, ̀ ?is now further expanded. While the “knowledge which puffs up” is stigmatized as something purely imaginary, as something which in its very effects shows itself to be wanting in the truth, love, on the other hand, is declared to possess the highest intelligence.—If any one thinks that he has known any thing.—In place of γνῶσις, he here puts, δοκεῖεἰδέναι (ἐγνωκένά) τι; and to a person of this sort he denies any such knowledge of a thing as one ought to possess.—He as yet knows nothing as he ought to know it—(καθὼςδεῖγνῶναι). By this he means that full, deep, penetrating, exhaustive, morally effective knowledge, which, as a moral necessity in the sphere of true religion, exists in Christianity, and to which Christianity, wherever it has its full moral effect, inevitably leads (δεῖ ?—oportet). Some adopting the reading, οὔπωἔγνω, take καθὼςδεῖγνῶναι as the objective clause to ἔγνω: ‘he has not the substance of that knowledge which belongs to it;’ ‘he has not apprehended it;’ but this is contrary to the usage of καθῶς. The full, entire morally effective knowledge, exists only where love is (comp 1 Corinthians 13:2). [Hodge’s comments on the profoundness of this seemingly incidental aphorism of Paul are excellent. He concludes: “The relation between the cognitive and emotional faculties, is one of the most difficult problems in philosophy. In many systems they are regarded as distinct. Paul here teaches that with regard to a large class of objects, knowledge without feeling is nothing; it supposes the most essential characteristics of the object to be unperceived. And in the following verse he teaches that love is the highest form of knowledge. To know God is to love him; and to love him is to know him. love is intelligent, and knowledge is emotional. Hence, the Apostle says, If a man thinketh that he knoweth any thing; that is, if he is proud or conceited, he is ignorant”]. From this we should now expect the statement to follow: ‘but if any one loves, he knows as he ought to know.’ But Paul at once mounts higher. Proceeding from the love of neighbor to its root in the love of God, and from human knowledge to its fountain-head, even Divine knowledge, he says:—But if any man loves God, the same is known by him.—Where love for God exists,—of which love his affection for his neighbor is the essential consequence and expression (comp. 1 John 4:20),—there the individual is known by God. God has, in knowing him, taken him up into Himself, and by this he is translated into the sphere of the spiritual light and life of God, whence there streams into him the very light of knowledge. Thus the being known by God has intelligence for its essential results, even as the love of God begets in us the love of neighbor, (brotherly love). “The active knowledge of God follows the passive knowledge. He was known, and, therefore, he knoweth.” Bengel. (Comp. Osiander: “the assimilation of love and knowledge with their objects”). Without recognizing this inward connection, Meyer says, Ed. 1 Corinthians 3 : “This is a case of pregnant construction. Instead of saying in full:—‘such a person not simply has knowledge of the right sort, but is also himself known of God,’ Paul simply states the latter, the more important thing, from which the former is understood of itself. The fact of being known by God, exhibits the high worth of love, for if God knows a man, there is presupposed in this no indifferent and ineffective relation of God to man, but an activity of God which passes over upon the man, so that he, as the object of the Divine knowledge, experiences also the efficacy of that kindly feeling in which and with which God knows him, and hence becomes a partaker of His love, and of His kindly care, etc. The idea consequently is that of an effective knowledge on the part of God, which becomes an inward experience on the part of man, a knowledge which is causa salutis, so that God in knowing the man, carries out in him that salvation which had been decreed in His own counsels.” That the Divine knowledge includes in itself a loving participation and complacency, is clear also from other passages (John 10:14; 2 Timothy 2:19; Galatians 4:9; Matthew 7:23; Psalms 1:6). This is all evacuated in the explanation: approbatus est (Grot. and others); and that given by Calvin: inter filios censeri, goes beyond the meaning of the word. But the Hophal construction: edoctus est, is taught by Him, adopted by Nφssett and others [Augustine, Beza, Locke, Mackn., Hodge, Bloomf.], and also by the Church fathers, is directly contrary both to the usages of the New Testament and of the classic Greek. [Yet it was very natural to one accustomed to the Hebrew forms of thought and speech, as Paul was]. Billroth hits the truth more nearly when he translates the phrase: ‘God perceives Himself in him;’ but he puts it in a speculative, pantheistic form. The mystical view of Olshausen, that in γινώσκεσθαι, the bridal relation of the soul to God is indicated, goes both too far and not far enough—too far, in as much as the context alone affords the analogy; not far enough, in as much as the relation, not of the bride, but of the bridegroom is indicated by the word γινώσκειν,when taken in a sexual sense. In 1 Corinthians 8:4. the Apostle turns to the exposition of the subject in hand, which is at once denned more particularly—concerning therefore the eating of things offered to idols.—[“The οὑν, therefore is epanaleptic, and simply resumes the thread of discourse”].—And the thing known is,—that no idol exists in the world (ὅτιοὐδενἔιδωλονἐνκόσμῳ).—Judging from the position of the words, and from the parallel clause, we can hardly separate οὐδεν from the subject, and make it a predicate as if it were: ‘is nothing:’ [as in the E. V., comp. 1 Corinthians 10:19; John 21:24; Jeremiah 10:3]. He means that there is no such thing as an idol in the whole world of realities. Of course it will be understood that by the word ‘idol,’ not the image, but the object represented by it—the idol god is meant. To this he denies all reality, within the sphere of existing things. But according to 1 Corinthians 8:5, and 1 Corinthians 10:20, this cannot be taken to mean the veritable non-existence of the objects of heathen worship, but only that they do not actually exist in the form conceived and honored by the heathen, e. g., in the forms of a Jupiter, Apollo, etc.,—that these as divinities dwelling in the images are but heathen fantasies, and that there is no god, but the One. The εἰμή is to be referred simply to οὐδείς. This statement, that there is no other god but One, he at once proceeds to explain and confirm in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6.—For even supposing that.—Εἴπερ, which, when the main clause confirms and intensifies the hypothetical one, means, if indeed, if otherwise, if namely, in those instances where the latter is contrasted with the former, is to be translated, even if, or although indeed (Passow I., 2, 197).—there are.—Εἰσι from its antecedent position, carries the emphasis, and in both clauses denotes not merely ideal existence in the opinion of the heathen, but real existence as is evident from the subsequent confirmatory ὥσπερεἰσί.—those called gods.—By the epithet ‘called’ (λεγόμενοι) he here limits the seeming concession, and brings his statement into harmony with 1 Corinthians 8:4,—they are only called gods, and are not the Divine powers which the heathen imagine.—whether in heaven, or whether upon earth.—The terms embrace the whole sphere of pagan divinities, [who were scattered about, occupying distinct realms above and below, and thus stood in marked contrast with the Christian’s God, who filled all things]. This clause is not to be connected with the following, and so made to imply that by “gods” were meant the good angels resident in heaven, and by “lords” the demons precipitated to earth, as some suppose.—as there are gods many and lords many.—[There is a question as to the real import of this parenthesis. Does it concede the fact that there are supernatural powers that are entitled to the name of “gods” and “lords,” carrying the chief emphasis in the word “are?” or are we to supply the word ‘so called,’ and regard it as merely stating that the imaginary deities of the heathen were many in number? The latter is the more common view, adopted by de Wette, Stanley, Barnes, Scott, etc. But the former is best maintained as being most in accordance with the position of the words, and entirely in harmony with Scripture doctrine. Hodge referring to Deuteronomy 10:17; Joshua 22:22; Daniel 2:47, says: “These passages show that the words god and lord are applied in a wide sense to other beings than to the true God.” And while it must be affirmed that “the whole heathen mythology is a fable—there are demons in abundance, of various ranks and powers, called gods. The two things which the Apostle means to deny are: 1. The existence of such beings as the heathen conceived their gods to be. 2. The real divinity of those supernatural beings, who do really exist, and are called gods; they are mere creatures.” Such is essentially the interpretation of Meyer and Alford. But Kling says]: It might be inferred from 1 Corinthians 10:20, that the beings intended were demons, the κοσμοκράτορες of Ephesians 6:12; comp. 1 Corinthians 2:2. But it is by no means necessary in this verse to look for a declaration respecting the reality of the objects of heathen worship; since, as we have seen the words εἴπερεἰσὶ may also express a hypothetical putting of a case, where the speaker plants himself upon a position of doubt. Neander says: “Εἰσί, are, expresses nothing but a subjective reality. The subjective stand-points of the religious consciousness are merely put into objective statement; q. d.: ‘with the heathen heaven and earth are peopled with divinities; we, however, recognize but one God and Lord;—in general there are many gods, but only for the heathen.’ ”—By not connecting the clause: “whether in heaven or earth,” with this, so as to carry the implication that the term gods referred to the good angels still found above, and the term lords to those who had been precipitated to earth and there become demons, we might be left at liberty to refer both these terms to the angels, who are called gods, on account of their participation in the Divine majesty and worth, as the types and representatives of the same, and lords on account of the influence they exerted in their own spheres and their active relations to each other (in their higher and lower orders), as well to mankind and subordinate creatures (Psalms 109:4; Daniel 10:13). Comp. Osiander, who at the most concedes “a secondary reference to the demons here, in so far as they had an original part with the good, and also a show of divinity with a certain degree of reality still cleaving to them.” 1 Corinthians 8:6 contains now the positive declaration, corresponding to the εἰμὴεἶς. The connection is: ‘although so-called gods exist, yet they have nothing to do with us Christians; they stand in no relation to us, and exert therefore no influence upon us,—are for us, as if they were not.—But for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we unto him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, also we through him.—Since we in faith hold communion with the one God, the Father, who is the source of all things, and on whom all things depend,—yea even those “gods many” whom the heathen worship, and who is the goal of our existence,—for whose glory we live and in whose service we therefore stand; and since we hold communion with the one Lord who mediates the being and condition of all things,—yea, even of the lords many, whom the heathen fear, and who is the mediator of our existence, viz., of that by virtue of which, the one God the Father has become our end, and therefore of our new divinely consecrated life: therefore are we delivered from all the power and all the controlling influences of those gods and lords; and those things, which the heathen suppose to be related to them and to mediate their influence—such as the flesh offered in sacrifice,—have for us none of this significance; they belong to the ‘all things,’ which are from God and through Christ, and can inflict no injury upon our new life, which has God for its object, and is mediated through Christ. The ἀλλά as 1 Corinthians 4:15. The expression “the Father,” indicates that which Christians have in God. “It brings out prominently the contrast between the standpoints of the heathen and the Christian; for the heathen have no father in this sense. God has become a Father to Christians only, by redemption.” Neander. From this proceeds their spiritual childhood; hence it was not necessary to add: ‘and we from Him’ and the statement: ‘we unto Him;’ has its foundation already. By the words, “from Him” (ἐξοὑ) God is set forth as the creative principle; but these are to be no more construed according to the Pantheistic theory of emanation, than the words, “unto Him” (εἰςαὐτόν) can be taken to denote a corresponding absorption of all things in Him. But the “all things,” must in both clauses be alike understood, of the sum total of the universe, and be referred to the natural creation, whose mediator is the Son of God (comp. Colossians 1:16), just as much as He is the Mediator of the new spiritual creation, which is implied in “we through Him” (comp. Ephesians 2:10). In ἡμεῖςεἰςαὐτόν, as well as in ἡμεῖςδἰαὐτοῦ, the phraseology turns into the demonstrative, as in 1 Corinthians 7:13. To take εἰςαὐτόν, unto Him, as equivalent to ἐναὐτῳ, in Him, is by no means required by the relation of the two phrases, and is contrary to usage. It designates here the destination or tendency to communion with God, and with this to the recognition and the honor of God. But by “we” in this connection, we are to understand, not men in general, but believers.—And by the term “lord” as distinguished from “God,” he intends as little to deny the divine equality, or the essential divinity of Jesus, as he does by the phrase “through Him,” as distinguished from “from Him:” since the all-embracing character of His mediatorial work, far more than the title “Lord” (comp. 1 Corinthians 1:2.) points conclusively to this very thing (comp. Osiander h. l. and Gess. pp. 88 and 51). Among the Jews who spoke Greek, κύριος, Lord, was a designation of Jehovah himself. In this text the whole theistic, Christian consciousness is brought out. Billroth and Olshausen here find an exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity; Meyer disputes it. Certainly we do violence to the words if we insist on detecting here an intention to set forth this doctrine; its fundamental relations, however, are all here denoted. “God is the original ground of all existence, Christ is the mediating principle, and God again becomes the final cause of all through the operation of the Holy Spirit.” Neander. In what follows the apostle turns to consider the practical side of the question, in regard to refraining from eating for the sake of the weaker brethren. 1 Corinthians 8:7. From what has been said it is plain that the eating of sacrificial flesh has for Christians, by reason of their higher stand-point of faith, no religious significance whatever, and can be accordingly nothing defiling. But, he continues, this consciousness, this knowledge, is not in all. There are some whose Christian faith is not yet so emancipated from the religious convictions of their old heathen state, and who are still in the bonds of their former conscience, moulded by heathen ideas. This was in fact an infirmity of their new life, and of their Christian conscience,—yet an infirmity which was to be treated with mildness and consideration:—Howbeit there is not in all this knowledge.—In reference to the seeming contradiction between this and 1 Corinthians 8:1, compare what is said on 1 Corinthians 8:1. The article before γνῶσις, knowledge, indicates it as one which has just been spoken of, and is equivalent to this.—The antithetic positive statement is introduced by δέ, and introduced in such a manner that the reason of the weakness of some, perhaps a small portion of the church, conspicuously appears.—But some in conscience of the idol even until now eat as a thing offered to an idol,—therefore, not as common flesh, which “as a creature of God is good ”(1 Timothy 4:4, comp. 1 Corinthians 10:26), but as something that would bring them into real connection with idolatry, (Osiander). According to the order in the received text, the words “until now” belong to the verb “eat;” but for critical reasons, these words ought to be placed before τοῦεἰδώλου, ‘the idol,’ and thus taken to qualify τῆσυνειδήσει, in conscience, to which it is attached without the article, according to classic usage, and as in 2 Corinthians 11:23; Philippians 1:26. (comp. Meyer, [Hodge]).—Συνειδησις does not mean opinion in general, or judgment, or conviction, but, as uniformly in the New Testament, it means conscience, a person’s consciousness in its moral and religious aspect. Συνειδήσιςτουεἰδλου, then, denotes this consciousness as having for its contents or object, an idol, and that too, according to the context, as a real influential power, just as in 1 Peter 2:19, συνειήσιςθεοῦ, means a conscience testifying of God. Here it denotes a conscience possessed with the idea that an idol is a real being; so that this idea influences his judgment in regard to his conduct: and in this case it stamps the eating of that flesh, as an immoral, sinful act, altering the whole religious state and relations of the Christian who eats, because it is the eating of something connected with a veritable idol, and therefore defiling in its nature.—and their conscience being weak.—The weakness is found in the fact that it cannot deliver itself from these false notions; nor assure the person of the entire nullification of his relations to idols and to all their defiling influences by his fellowship with Christ, or of the restoration of his true relations to God, and consequently also to the totality of all things, as dependent on God alone and belonging to Him (πίστις—Romans 14:23). By reason of this, its weakness, it—is defiled—i.e., by eating. The defilement consists in a conviction of guilt, the conscience being troubled by a sense of the Divine displeasure pervading it. “Conscience—the moral sentiment of honor—the watchman of our moral purity, is itself pure so long as it remains true to its own determinations; hence μολύνεσθα, to be defiled, is a striking expression, denoting the desecration of that which according to its nature and intent is holy.” Osiander. If we take the reading συνηδείᾳ,—which may be a correction for συνειδήσει on the ground that it was unsuitable, or else a gloss—the sense would be: ‘by their habitual wontedness to idols, i.e., because they had hitherto accustomed themselves to idols, had held intercourse with them, the idea of their presence, especially in the eating of the sacrificial flesh, was to them a common one.’ In any case the Dative shows the ground on which the defilement takes place.—After this exposition of the real facts in the case, he proceeds to exhort the Corinthians in reference to the conduct which the more liberal-minded among them, ought to adopt. And first of all he points to the utter indifference of the matter of eating or not eating in a religious point of view, and cuts off all pretext for their unwillingness to adapt themselves. to the weak. 1 Corinthians 8:8. But meat will not affect our relations to God; for neither if we eat are we the worse; neither if we eat not are we the better.—It is not to be assumed that Paul is here citing the language of the Corinthians themselves in vindication of their eating of idol sacrifices [Barnes], since there is no formula of citation. Nor does the supposition of Osiander, that he is here obviating the scruples of the narrow-minded agree with Osiander’s own exposition further onward. [Rather, he is laying down a broad principle, applicable to all parties, showing the weak the error of their scruples, and the strong why they ought to accommodate themselves to the weak, and not insist on their rights. This is shown in the selection of words, and in the more critically approved order of the two latter clauses]. The δέ is not adversative, but progressive. By many παραστήσεἵ is construed as precisely equivalent to συνίστημι, to recommend (which also appears in the gloss συνίστησι); but this has no foundation in usage. The idea is not that of a presentment before God as a punitive judge (context), nor that of an offering in sacrifice (on account of the subject βρῶμα, if nothing else), nor yet that of a presentation of one’s self for service (for the sane reason); rather it is that of placing in specific relation, as vox media, so that the two following clauses may be subsumed under it. Accordingly, the meaning is: ‘meat will in no way affect our relations to God; neither so that we shall lose standing with Him in case we eat not, nor so that we shall be better in His sight in case we eat.’ [So Alford; though Olsh., Robinson, Hodge, Bloomf., keep to the common rendering. The one given above has, however, the decided advantage, as it suits with the following clauses alike]. This explanation of παραστήσει, however, may, perhaps, be too abstract, and we might underlay it with a conception of God as Judge, and regard the presentation as taking place before Him in that capacity; yet it must be in such a way as to anticipate alike a favorable as well as an unfavorable judgment. The sense would then be, that meat had no influence upon God’s judgment concerning us, to determine it in one direction or the other (akin to Romans 14:17). So Bengel: “neither to please him in judgment, nor yet to displease him.” “Paul reminds those who ate idol sacrifices out of opposition, in order to demonstrate their liberal-mindedness, that they by this means were not rendered purer and better.” Neander. “1 Corinthians 8:9-13. Here follows the warning itself against all reckless use of the liberty [above asserted], or of superior intelligence [in regard to it], grounded upon the injury which would thereby accrue to the weaker brethren, resulting in great coldness of affection, and in severe offences against Christ Himself.—But.—The δέ is not merely transitional, but also adversative, q. d., ‘eating and not eating are, in themselves, morally indifferent, but,’ etc.—take heed lest your power.—Ἐξουσία=power to do or let alone—liberty of choice springing from the indifferent character of any act in a religious point of view—become a stumbling-block to the weak.—Πρὀσκομμα, any thing over which a person stumbles and falls; here, an occasion to sin by awakening an inclination to imitate conduct that is in conflict with conscience,—[“a practice above all others dangerous to a Christian1.” Alford]. (Com. Romans 14:13; Romans 14:20). This he at once explains more fully.—For if any man,—i.e., any one who is weak in the sense above mentioned.—see thee who hast knowledge (comp. 1 Corinthians 8:4) [“This seems to imply that the weak brother is aware of this, and looks up to thee as such,” Alf.].—sit at meat, [κατακεἰμενον lit. recumbent, the usual posture at meals].—in an idol’s temple.—Εἰδωλεῖον, an idol temple, just as in 1Ma 1:50; 1Ma 10:83. [“This is a term used only by Jewish writers, apparently to avoid designating heathen temples by the sacred word ναός, used to express the temple at Jerusalem. It is a kind of parody on the names of temples as derived from the divinities to which they are dedicated.” Stanley]. This extreme exercise of liberty he here touches upon only in reference to its prejudicial consequences. It is in 1 Corinthians 10:14 that he first comes to oppose it with earnest dissuasions, after he has cast light upon it from another side. Some expositors, for the sake of abating the scandal of such procedures, construe εἰδωλεῖον with a local signification, making it mean only a feast furnished with idol sacrifices; but this is contrary to usage. Others (Osiander) take it to denote a sort of domestic chapel, where sacrificial feasts were held; which is not impossible, but very doubtful. As a rule, the sacrificial festivals were certainly observed in the temple. The consequences of beholding a Christian at such places, are introduced with an earnest interrogative.—Shall not the conscience of him who is weak be edified?—The verb οἰκοδομεῖσθαι is not equivalent to impelli, or confirmari, to be determined thereto, to be betrayed, or, to be strengthened, i.e., in the purpose to do something not allowable; but, as in the New Testament throughout, to be edified,—only that it is here used antiphrastically, in an ironic sense. [So Alf., Stan., Mey., de Wette. But Hodge, without good grounds, says the interpretation “is out of keeping with the whole tone of the passage”]. It is an ζdificatio ruinosa, as Calvin expresses it, a being furthered to something which is destructive to a person that is weak in the faith (comp. 1 Corinthians 8:11)—a bad way of enlarging the spiritual edifice, inasmuch as it comes to the doing of something heretofore avoided, and that, too, without any conviction of its rectitude, but simply after the precedent of another who has no scruples in the matter, by reason of his superior insight, and in comparison with whom one is unwilling to seem contracted. Any conjectural change of reading is needless. Also the surrender of the interrogative form (on account of οὐχι, and because then εἰςτό should be equivalent to ἐντῳ is ungrammatical. The assumption that there is a play upon words in the Epistle to the Corinthians is gratuitous. 1 Corinthians 8:11, whether we read with the Rec. καιἀπολεῖται, or καὶἁπόλλυται, might be construed as continuing the question, [as in the E. V.]. But it would be more emphatic to suppose here a new affirmative sentence,—for there perishes.—But the most probable text is ἀπόλλυταιγάρ, for there perishes. And since the for created difficulty, some put οὖν, therefore, instead of it; others, since they found both γάρ and οὖν in different manuscripts, rejected the one as well as the other, and wrote καί before ἀπόλλ. [so Lach. and Stanley]. The γάρ serves for the solving of the antiphrastic irony involved in οἰκοδομηθήσεται, and that, too, in a fearfully emphatic way, q. d., ‘a fine way of edifying, indeed! for, instead of building up, this is a tumbling to utter ruin.’ The destruction (ἀπώλεια) here meant is the same as in 1 Corinthians 1:18, viz., the forfeiture of salvation, that everlasting destruction which comes from acting without faith and against conscience; not, as Bengel says, the loss of faith itself; and still less, a gradual apostasy or moral depravation, or a loss of inward peace. If the word is taken passively, is ruined, the guilt of the person causing this ruin by the abuse of his liberty, will appear still more prominent—over this thy knowledge.—Whether we read ἐπὶ, or ἐντῇσῇγνώσει, the sense is the same. We have here the cause of the ruin. This is a reckless and unloving use of knowledge. Τῇσῇ, this thy, i. e., ‘which thou hast, and in which thou boastest.’ The guilt involved appears enhanced still further by three particulars, which stand out yet more distinctly in the proper collocation of words now critically verified (ὁἀδελφός after ἐπὶτῇσῃγνώσει).—the weak one,—the one who, of all others, ought to be treated with considerate forbearance, and from whom nothing should be exacted beyond his strength.—the brother,—a person bound to thee by the closest tie, and who ought to look to thee for assistance in the way of salvation, rather than for a stumbling-block over which to fall and perish. [“The isolated and final position thus given to ‘the brother’ gives a pathetic close to the whole sentence.” Stanley].—for whom Christ died.—And this is the most aggravating circumstance of all—‘thy conduct frustrates the purposes of Christ’s atoning death (comp. Romans 14), since thou, in behalf of him, for whom this great sacrifice was made, hast shown thyself unwilling to make the petty sacrifice of surrendering thine own right’ [(comp. Romans 15:1-3). There is a pathos and power in these words not to be overlooked. But mark the possibility implied—that persons, for whom Christ died, may perish. But whether they ever will or not, will be decided by each one according to the type of his theology]. The result of such conduct next follows.—In so sinning against the brethren.—He here passes over into plural, and gives them also to understand that he is now treating of no indifferent matter. [The manner in which they had used their liberty, had rendered the otherwise allowable act positively sinful]. As explanatory of this, he adds:—and wounding their weak consciences.—Τύπτοντες,striking, and thereby painfully affecting, inasmuch as the conscience thereby is rendered evil and impure. [The word is used to exhibit more forcibly the meanness of the conduct in question; for what is meaner than to strike a thing that is weak]?—Ye sin against Christ.—Here is where the act culminates and exhibits its exceeding guiltiness. In what way this is done, is shown in the previous clauses. It thwarts the ends of the Saviour’s death. It is true that Christ, as the head of the body, suffers also in the affliction of his members; but this is not the thought here brought out, (is not even indicated in the words: “the brethren”). “As in the main clause, the third item mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8:11 is again taken up, so are the first two, in the participial clauses.” Osiander. This unloving use of liberty he shames to the very lowest, in expressing, as the result of these deliberations, his own purpose of self-denial.—Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend.—The verb σκανδαλίζειν, found in 2 Corinthians 11:29; Romans 14:21, and frequently in the Gospels, means literally, to cause a person to fall by laying a snare in his path; hence, to seduce or betray into sin, especially by bad example.—I will not eat flesh:—κρέα, the particular food of which he is speaking.—for ever;—εἰςτὸναἰῶνα: “while the world standeth”—a strong hyperbole, intensifying the strong negative οὐμή. “Here, in 1 Corinthians 8:13 the ethical principle for regulating the use of things indifferent, is shown to be love.” Neander. [“The whole argument closely resembles Romans 14:19-22, even to the particular phrases employed.” Stanley]. AND ETHICAL1. Knowledge and love are essentially identical. For all true knowledge implies, above all things, a going out from self, and all selfish aims and selfish isolation, and an entrance into something else, in order to apprehend it, and to unite it with ourselves, and ourselves with it; and to assimilate it to ourselves while we assimilate ourselves to it, or, in other words, penetrate into its essential idea, give ourselves up to it, and then recast it, as it were, within ourselves. This is an act of the Spirit, in which all rigidity of mind is subdued, in which the individual descends from the isolated heights of his own separate individuality, surrenders or annihilates all mere self-serving; and at the same time confesses that he is not sufficient for himself, but stands in need of another, and only in connection with that other can find true satisfaction and the fulfilment of his own destiny. Thus humility appears as an essential element of all true knowledge; and from this it follows, that where there is self-exaltation—where a person means to aggrandize himself by his knowledge, there true knowledge cannot exist. Aside from this also, experience teaches us that those, who have gone down into the profundities of knowledge, are always truly humble; that with them, in presence of the greatness of the object studied (which, the more it is explored, exhibits the more its inexhaustible fulness and depth), their own individuality gradually dwindles and is lost from sight.—But it is precisely in this also that love consists. In its exercises, self passes out of its exclusiveness, and enters into some other object; and for the sake of this, it opens all its inner treasures in order to impart them—to have them no more for itself alone, but to enjoy them in fellowship with it. And this, in the sphere of personal life, by reason of the reciprocity and communion implied in love, is followed by a supplementary action; since the person beloved loves in turn, and requites his lover with all he has. In such self-renunciation, humility is an essential element; it implies a readiness to be abased—a willingness to live for others, for their service and the furtherance of their welfare. And this is so even with the more gifted as well as with those less endowed; as is seen in the simplicity with which the latter accept, and the former impart gifts; and also in the readiness with which the former refuse to avail themselves of their superior insight and larger liberty in the enjoyment of things morally indifferent, and in the assurance which the latter feel that the others may be acting rightly even where they, contemplating the matter from their position, do not feel at liberty to consent to the same, and to imitate them.—Such humble love includes a sound reciprocal knowledge; as, on the other hand, sound knowledge involves such love. But the root of both lies in the knowledge and love of God. The soul that opens itself God ward, that apprehends God’s truth—His living creative thoughts, is thereby made able and willing to search for the imprint of these thoughts in the rational as well as in material creation, to pass out of self into them, to become absorbed in them, and by appropriating them to become itself enlarged, or to fill with them all forms of existence that, by virtue of their resemblance to God, carry in themselves the types of creaturely life.—And this is an activity in which the individual can no longer remain egotistical, self-seeking and self-satisfied. But in carrying it out, he must renounce himself more and more, losing himself, as it were, in the depths of God and His creation, yet by this very means becoming more truly great, and rich, and glorious.—But such an opening of the intelligence towards God is at the same time an opening of the loving heart towards Him, which carries with it an opening of the heart towards all creaturely life that is grounded in the life of God, and is loved and cherished by Him,—especially that personal life which bears God’s image, and was formed for communion with Him; and, consequently, it implies a personal devotion to it for the sake of communicating some good to it in humility and self-denial—But where there is such a love for God, there the person is known of God; and this involves a being loved by Him. And this is the primal source of all human knowing and loving. While God opens Himself lovingly toward the creature which He hath made out of sheer love—for an urgent desire to impart His own fulness to something needing it, He by this means draws it closely to Himself; and the more it follows this Divine attraction in hearty devotion, and thus loves God in return, the more is it recognized by Him as His—as belonging to Him by a voluntary determination, and taken up into the light of His Divine life, and illuminated by this light so that it becomes truly intelligent and knowing. [“For the connection of knowledge and love, see 1 John 4:7-8 : ‘Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God; he that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.’—For the identification of God’s knowledge with His love, comp. Exodus 33:17; ‘Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.” Also John 10:3 : “He calleth His own sheep by name.”—For the identification of God’s knowledge of man with man’s knowledge of God, comp. the similar blending of the spirit of man with the Spirit of God in Romans 8:15-16; 1 Corinthians 2:11; also John 10:15 : “As the Father knoweth me so know I the Father.”—And then for the general turn of the whole expression, as implying that every part of our redemption, but especially our knowledge of God, is more properly His act than ours, see 1 Corinthians 13:12 : “Then I shall know, even as also I am known;” Galatians 4:9 : “Now having known God, or rather having been known by Him;” Philippians 3:12 : “If I may apprehend that for which I am apprehended by Christ.” Stanley]. 2. Christian liberty, its nature and limitations. According to Luther’s spirited exposition in his tract entitled “The freedom of a Christian,” a Christian through faith becomes free from all men, but through love is made the servant of all. This truth finds application also here as well as in 1 Corinthians 7:29 (see “Doctrinal and Ethical” in loco). In the consciousness of his fellowship with God the Father through Jesus Christ the believer knows himself to be exalted above all things. His Father is the one God who is the ground of all things and on whom all things depend; and the mediator of this new life in fellowship with God is the one Lord through whom are all things. In this their relation to God through Christ, then he ought to regard and use all things. However these may be regarded and used by others, to him they are nothing else than the works and gifts of God; through them, the Supporter of their being and existence becomes the Supporter of his life in the family of God; to him are they furnished for free use and enjoyment, entirely apart from all other associations which they may awaken in the consciousness of others. Thus to the Christian the flesh of those beasts, which have been offered to idols, is only the component part of a creature of God, the enjoyment of which is granted him by the Creator; and so far as he partakes of it with thanksgiving for the goodness therein shown, it is to him pure and harmless (comp. 1 Timothy 4:3).—But although free through faith, the believer is, on the other hand, bound through love, and comes into dependence on his brethren. If the use of the creature in question is a matter of indifference as it respects his fellowship with God and his worth in God’s sight, while yet, on the other hand, in the view of his weaker brethren, who have not acquired that fulness of faith, and whose religious convictions on the point are still wavering, such conduct is questionable, by reason of its seeming contact with idolatry, and if they are not yet sufficiently independent to refrain from following the example of a person held in repute for superior discernment, then love demands that we pay regard to such characters, and not set before them an example which will betray them into sin, nor do aught that will prove a stumbling-block in their path. To be reckless on this point and to enjoy our liberty regardless of how we defile the consciences of others, undermine their relation to God, and hazard their eternal salvation, is to evince an utter lack of love by reason of which not only is the weak brother injured, and fraternal obligations violated, but also the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who for the sake of this very brother offered up His own life, is aggrieved in the frustration of the ends for which His sacrifice was made. Hence it follows that the love of Christ—this love which embraces alike the weak and the strong and by faith becomes an indwelling and controlling power in the heart of every true Christian, must prompt the strong to condescend toward the weak, and to become as weak to the weak (1 Corinthians 9:22), and in their conduct relatively to them to seek to avoid whatever for themselves may be of indifferent character whenever there is reason to fear that the religious life of the weak may be endangered. [“This is a principle, however, the application of which must be left to every man’s conscience in the fear of God. No rule of conduct, founded on expediency, can be enforced by church discipline. It was right in Paul to refuse to eat flesh for fear of causing others to offend; but he could not have been justly exposed to discipline had he seen fit to eat it. He circumcised Timothy and refused to circumcise Titus. Whenever a thing is right or wrong according to circumstances, every man must have the right to judge of those circumstances.” Hodge. The same holds good in regard to the drinking of wine, engaging in amusements, observance of the Sabbath and the like]. 3. [The intelligent conviction of right is essential to all right action. The demands of a sound morality are not satisfied by the blind copying of another’s example, however highly the person may be esteemed. As beings endowed with moral discernment, and subjected to conscience, it becomes us to go farther, and endeavor to ascertain the fundamental principles which should rule in the conduct, and which make a thing right in itself, and right for us, and then govern ourselves by these. It is to these principles—enthroned in the conscience, informing and enlightening it—that our prime allegiance is due. The mature will can acknowledge no other sovereignty without being false to itself, and losing its own integrity.—And still less can we go against the dictates of conscience in following some other assumed rule. The authority of conscience is paramount over all other, and its veto is a sufficient interdict upon all differing standards of action. Even that which is right in itself, becomes wrong for any individual when his conscience pronounces it wrong. Yea, paradoxical as it may seem, it must be affirmed that although it may sometimes be sinful for us to obey conscience—since it may sinfully enjoin wrong—it is always sinful for us to disobey it. Accordingly, when it prohibits wine-drinking, and theatre-going, and indulgence in games of chance, and the giving of sumptuous entertainments, and extravagance of attire and the like, then must these things be avoided, even though sanctioned by the practice of thousands of Christians deemed reputable. But while it is our imperative duty to obey conscience as it is, it is our business to do all we can to enlighten and instruct it in the truth. This private monitor, like the watch we carry for our constant convenience, may be inwardly deranged, and go wrong; and, like that, it needs to be regulated by some absolute standard. And this standard is the Sun of righteousness, as it shines upon us through the Divine Word and Spirit. These, therefore, must be consulted more and more, until conscience be purified from all errors, and obedience to it become perfect righteousness]. AND Augustine: 1 Corinthians 8:1. What art thou, O man, thou who art inflated with conceit! Let it suffice thee that thou art full (Ephesians 1:23)! He who is full, is rich; who is puffed up, is empty. Bernhard: 1 Corinthians 8:3. So much as thou lovest, so much thou knowest. Starke: 1 Corinthians 8:1-3 (Hed.). Pride corrupts all, even the best things. Knowledge is good; but with pride, poison; a bubble in its iridescence is beautiful to look upon, yet full of wind. The knowledge even of divine things, not possessed with humility, nor applied to right uses, is vanity in the sight of God.—Love must be the queen of life; heart, of the understanding; aim, of the undertaking. Love is the infallible token of those in favor with God.—1 Corinthians 8:4-6. There is, indeed, only one God. But does not every sinner make to himself as many gods as there are creatures he loves, and so erect idols in his heart? Let each search and see (Colossians 3:5; Philippians 3:19). O joy! many lords, yet only One; they have the title, but the One alone has the right and the might of lordship; and He is Christ unto whom it becomes us to live and to die (Romans 14:8). 1 Corinthians 8:7. Were Christians more clear and settled in divine knowledge, they would drop much which they consider right, and do many things they now condemn as sinful.—As the smallest grain of sand causes to the eye great pain, so does the slightest deviation from God’s law cause to the wakeful conscience great disquiet. 1 Corinthians 8:8. Food belongs to the outer man; therefore, of itself can have no effect on our Christianity.—1 Corinthians 8:9-10. The strong in faith must take heed to his conduct for the sake of the weak, lest they see and hear of something which may cause them to stumble and perish (Matthew 18:6). 1 Corinthians 8:11-13. Even the weakest brother is of great account; since for him Christ died no less than for the strong; and those whom Christ honors are not to be lightly esteemed. The contempt put on such falls on Christ (Matthew 18:10 ff.). All sins against our neighbor are also sins against God, who has commanded us to love our neighbor. And this statement holds good of all such acts which, though not in themselves sins, yet cause others to offend, such as associations, amusements, fashions, and the like. Who says, ‘Why should I care? Let him be scandalized who will? God knows my heart, that I do not cling to these things,’ let such a person understand that he has neither repentance, nor faith, nor love in his heart. God knows that he clings not only to these things, but to the world, and the devil, too. What! Thou wilt not yield a hair, and carest not whether thy neighbor find life or death in thy doings! Berlen. Bible: 1 Corinthians 8:1-3. A great outrage is committed when people say: We have clearer knowledge; we have no scruples; we know the matter is of no consequence. A Christian must do nothing except on good grounds, and for this he himself must be grounded in love. Gospel knowledge consists not in vain, lifeless notions, which inflate the mind, but it is a quickening power [which, while it illumines, also sanctifies. Life is the light of men]. Knowledge alone intoxicates; but love sobers. A sound knowledge is essential to Christianity; and this begins to show itself as soon as one loves the right. For as soon as a person turns to God in penitence, God turns and shines on him. He who desires only to love, and for this will humble himself to the very ground, will be instructed of God. As he unites love with knowledge, God will accept him; and being approved by God in his knowledge, he will then, for the first time, rightly know, viz., in the love and power of God; since he will then have the power of the Spirit in his own soul, and feel and possess the Spirit’s presence and operations. Of this kind of knowledge, humanly taught scholastics know nothing. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. An idol does, indeed, exist only in the fancy of its worshippers, yet we are not on this account to deal with it at random. Often are we obliged to be on our guard, even when we see nothing.—Is God verily to us the sole God? The faith which is held is not sufficient; there must also be a faith which holds. God must be to us the all in all. It is then we honor the Father as the father of all that bear the name of children; and who is also our Father; and to whom we shall again return suitably to the purpose of our creation. Christ has battled for us unto blood; hence, He has become anew our Lord, after the flesh. Apart from this, He was our Lord from all eternity. 1 Corinthians 8:7. What is not done with assurance of faith, is done lightly or wantonly. 1 Corinthians 8:8. Boldness in eating [i. e., in the maintenance of our liberty as to matters indifferent] is no indication of growth in Christianity. 1 Corinthians 8:9-11. It does not follow that because an act is in itself allowable and harmless, it may be done without reflection. Nothing that does not accord with the rules of faith and love ought to be practised. A freedman of the Lord does not seek his enjoyment in a lawless liberty.—Many eagerly long for, and quickly grasp at, liberty. But to be truly free, a person must be able and willing at times to give up his freedom. A love that is free looks not to its own advantage, but to the good of others; especially to those whose spiritual foundations are disturbed by the liberty they see taken by their fellows. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B. An Illustration of Self-denial drawn from the Apostle’s Life, in the Renunciation of his own Rights and Liberties for the Good of others 1 Corinthians 9:1-231. Statement of his own rights as an Apostle1 Corinthians 9:1-141 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? [Am I not free? am I not an apostle?] have I not seen Jesus Christ [om.Christ ] our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 2If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. 3Mine answer to them that do examine 4me is this: Have we not power to eat and to drink? 5Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? 7Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or [om. or] who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is [was] written: that [because] he that plougheth should plough in hope; and that [om. that] he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope [in hope of partaking]. 11If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used [did not use] this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder, the gospel of Christ. 13Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. AND 1 Corinthians 9:1-3. The fundamental principle and purpose of his, having been briefly stated in 1 Corinthians 8:13, he now proceeds to enlarge upon it, by showing how he had, in fact, been practising self-denial out of love to the Lord and his brethren, and how he had, in a far higher manner than he had demanded of them, renounced his own rights and prerogatives for the sake of winning souls and spreading the Gospel,—[“This whole passage, thus incidentally introduced, is one of the most elevated, heavenly, and beautiful discussions in the New Testament, and contains one of the most ennobling descriptions of the virtue of self-denial, and of the principles which should actuate the Christian ministry, any where to be found. All classic writings, and all records of antiquity, would be searched in vain for an instance of such pure and elevated principle as is presented in this chapter.” Barnes].—He begins with four questions [abruptly introduced, which bring to view the position from which he acted, and answer any objections they might be inclined to make against his appealing to his own conduct. “It would almost appear as if he had properly concluded the subject at 1 Corinthians 8:13, and then returned to it from this new point of view on the arrival of fresh tidings from Corinth, informing him of the imputations which he now proceeds to dispel.” Stanley]. In the first question [see critical notes] the asserts his independence,—a circumstance which might appear to exempt him from the need of such circumspection as he above speaks of; in the second, his high function as an Apostle, which fully warranted this independence, and rendered him responsible to Christ alone, whose ambassador he was; in the third, the grounds of his Apostleship in respect of the Lord; and in the fourth, the seal of his office in the Corinthian Church itself, and in his labors there. He thus takes ground from which naturally to pass over and speak of his own right to support—a right, however, of which he had made no use out of regard to higher interests. [And this is the point in his example which he wished to enforce as a lesson upon his readers].—Am I not free?—i. e., independent, [not in a moral sense, as having knowledge, and thus emancipated from foolish prejudices; but in a civil or legal sense, as at liberty to act as he chose, without being accountable to any man]. This point is resumed again in 1 Corinthians 9:19; and the fact that it is not discussed until after the full statement of his Apostolic rights, might have occasioned the transposition of the two questions in the Rec. [“The order here followed is not only that of the most ancient MSS., but is also in conformity with the sense. His freedom, and not his Apostleship, was uppermost in his thoughts, and was the special occasion of the digression.” Stanley.—But still more.—Am I not an Apostle?—and so, placed even in a position of authority over others]? But, because this fact was disputed by his opponents, he is disposed to linger here a little; and, by way of proof, asks still further,—Have I not seen the Lord?—He here implies that his Apostleship rested on the same foundation as that of the other Apostles, viz., the immediate call of Christ and the eye-witness of His glorified life. In this respect, therefore, he was their equal. The sight of Christ he speaks of refers primarily to that first manifestation of the Lord to him which effected his conversion (1 Corinthians 15:3; Acts 9:22-26); yet not exclusive of the later revelations mentioned in Acts 22:17; Acts 18:9, by which he was confirmed in his labors at Corinth. In no case are we to suppose any reference to his having seen Christ during his earthly life; this would have no significance whatever for the Apostleship of a Paul. That he says this with an eye to the Christ-party, as one that laid great stress on having visions, so that this were an argumentum ad hominem, is a very doubtful assumption. In opposition to Rόckert, who supposes that Paul here alludes to his ecstatic vision in the temple, Neander says: “It is impossible that such a vision should legitimate Apostleship.”—Are not ye my work in the Lord?—The designation, “in the Lord,” does not qualify merely “my work,” [q. d., ‘ye are the Lords work, not mine’ (Chrys.)], but it belongs to the whole question. They were his work as an Apostle, and were introduced by him into their new life, and constituted a Church of God, in the Lord, i. e., by virtue of his fellowship in the Lord. The phrase designates the element in which he wrought (comp. 1 Corinthians 3:5 ff., and 1 Corinthians 4:15). This thought he further expands.—If I be not an apostle to others.—By the others he means those coming into the church from abroad, it may be emissaries from Palestine who sought to mislead the Corinthians in regard to his Apostleship. Ἄλλοις is the Dative of judgment: ‘in their view or opinion.’ Οὐκεἰυί expresses the fact as it was; hence, οὐ, not μή.—Yet, doubtless, I am to you.—The γέ strengthens ἀλλά: ‘yet, at least,’ or ‘yet surely.’ More in full: ‘Ye certainly cannot but acknowledge me as an Apostle; for ye yourselves, by the simple fact of your conversion, serve to confirm my claim There is no allusion here to the miracles of the Apostle (Chrys.). These were wrought also by those not Apostles. But that his preaching produced such results as could only be ascribed to the power of Christ, this was the proof of his assertion that he was Christ’s ambassador (comp. 2 Corinthians 3:2).—for the seal of my apostleship are ye in the Lord.—Σφραγίς, seal, that wherewith one concludes, designates, and confirms any thing; then, confirmation, witness, original testimony. The words “in the Lord” belong here, also, to the whole clause, and imply that the fact asserted was of the Lord, inasmuch as it was He that had vouchsafed to the Apostle so glorious a result in setting up a church so richly endowed in one of the chief seats of heathenism. [“This, although valid evidence, and as such adduced by the Apostle, is very liable to be abused. First, because much which passes for evidence is spurious; and, secondly, because the evidence of success is often urged in behalf of the errors of preachers, when that success is due to the truth they preach; thirdly, because small real success may be taken as evidence for more than it will fairly warrant.” “Still, there are cases when the success is of such a character, so undeniable and so great, as to supersede the necessity of any other evidence of a divine call. Such was the case with the Apostles, with the reformers, and with many of our modern missionaries.” Hodge].—These suggestions he concludes with 1 Corinthians 9:3.—This is my answer to them who examine me.—Here the words ἡἐμήἀπολογία stand first by way of emphasis, just as αὕτηἐστιν come last for the same reason. The phraseology is that of the courts,—ἀπολογία, apology, defence, followed by the dative expressing the parties to whom it is made (2 Corinthians 12:19).—ἀνακρίνειν, to judge, investigate, as magistrates at a trial, and here, for the purpose of opposition [“a direct allusion to his antagonists.” Stanley]. Αὕτη, this, is the subject and not the predicate of the sentence (as in John 1:19; John 17:3), and relates to the fact expressed just before, viz., “the seal.” To connect this sentence with what follows, [Chrys. and the E. V.], as introductory to it, is inconsistent with the contents there found; [“for what follows is no answer to those who called his Apostleship in question.” Hodge]. 1 Corinthians 9:4-6. He comes now to the first point touched, viz., to his power, his civil rights which he had voluntarily renounced. The indisputableness of these he indicates by employing the form of a question—Have we not power to eat and drink?—Οὐκἔχομεν, taken together, expresses one idea (comp. 1 Corinthians 11:22, Romans 10:18); [so that “μή asks the question, and οὐκἕχομεν is the thing in question; lit. Is it so that we have not power? Alford]. He here passes over into the plural, because he now takes into view his associates also, or because he desires to be regarded, not in his private capacity, but in that official position which he had in common with all the apostles and servants of God. [This, however, is doubted by Alford, who says that, “at all events, it will not apply to 1 Corinthians 9:12, where the emphatic ἡμεῖς is personal.”] In the matter of ‘eating or drinking,’ he has no reference to the Jewish laws respecting food [as though he were claiming exemption from them (as Billr. and Olsh.)], since this would be remote from the context; nor yet to the flesh offered in sacrifices (as Schrader); but, as is shown in what follows, to his right to live at the expense of the Church, a right which was grounded on his apostolic office. The same principle is applied to his journeying officially in company with a Christian wife; for this is what he means when he says—Have we not power to lead about (with us) a sister wife? (ἄδελφνγυναῖκα).—The allusion here is not to a serving matron [whose business it should be to minister out of her substance to the wants of the apostle as he went from place to place, according to the interpretation of Aug., Jerome, and most of the early fathers, and as is still maintained by the Romish commentators in the interest of celibacy—an interpretation which very early gave rise to great abuses], for the subsequent reference to Peter forbids this (Matthew 8:14), and it is inconsistent also with the qualifying term γυναῖκα (comp. Osiander). Nor is it the right of marriage which is here in debate, for this is simply presupposed. The point made is Paul’s right to have a companion in travel at the cost of the Church, and for this he refers to the precedent set by the rest of the apostles,—as also the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas.—The allusion here is general, and we are not to conclude from it that all these parties were married. But does he here use the word ‘Apostles’ in its broader or strict sense? Osiander infers the former from the mention made of the brethren of our Lord in a way which seems to assert for them a higher position. These did, indeed, occupy a very comprehensive sphere of mission labor and important responsibility (as James, Galatians 1:19); but there is no reason to believe that they stood higher than the twelve. But who are these “brethren of the Lord?” A prevailing dislike, existing even among evangelical churches, of regarding the mother of our Lord, who was conceived in her by the power of the Holy Ghost, as the mother of other children also, born in lawful wedlock, has led to the supposition, either that they were only brothers in a broader sense, being the cousins of Jesus on the mother’s side (since such cases occurred among the Apostles, though never with this designation, see Luke 6:15 ff. and the parables in Matthew 10 and Mark 3), or that they were the sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage. “The statement, ‘born of the Virgin Mary,’ is an article in the Church’s creed; but the question, whether she bore children afterwards involves no point of Christian faith.”—Burger. Both the intimation given in Matthew 1:25, as also the repeated association of these brethren with Mary by the evangelists, which points to a closer relationship with her than that of step-sons (comp. Acts 1:14; Matthew 12:46; Matthew 13:55), render it probable that they were, in a literal sense, the sons of Mary, who at first followed in the train of Jesus with their mother (John 2:12), and later became estranged from Him (John 2:3 ff.; comp. Mark 3:21); but, finally, having rid themselves of their prejudices and unbelief by reason of His resurrection, entered the circle of His disciples (see Acts 1:14, where they are expressly distinguished from the twelve). Among this number James stood preeminent. Him our Lord deemed worthy of a special manifestation of Himself after He was risen (1 Corinthians 15:7); and he was highly esteemed, and exercised great authority in the Church of Jewish converts (comp. Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18; Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9; also see Osiander and Meyer). By referring to the authority of James (in which his brethren shared according to their measure), Paul here puts them next to the Apostles in order to establish his own apostolic rights upon the matter in question more firmly against the opposition of the Judaizers. Osiander’s inference, therefore, in regard to the “rest of the Apostles” is untenable. In further self-justification, he adduces more particularly the example of Peter—and Cephas—who occupied so high a position in the apostolic college (Neander) among the Jewish Christians. The assumption of a climax here, which makes Peter out to be the first of the Apostles (Cath.), is contradicted by 1 Corinthians 9:6—Or I only and Barnabas—Paul here associates with himself his early co-laborer, a man of high apostolic consideration (Acts 4:36; Acts 11:22 ff; Acts 13:14). [“This is the only mention of him in conjunction with St. Paul since the date of the quarrel, in Acts 15:39.” Stanley. “It is not improbable that after his separation from our apostle he may have maintained the same self-denying practice of abstaining from receiving sustenance by those to whom he preached, which he had learned from Paul at the first.” Alford. “Observe his humility of mind, and his soul purified from all envy, how he takes care not to conceal him whom he knew to be a partaker with himself in this perfection.” Chrys.]—Have we not power to forbear working?—The power or right (ἐξουσία) which he here speaks of is not distinct from those above mentioned, but is a consequence of the denial of them, apagogically introduced, q. d. ‘In that case, then, it would appear that Barnabas and I are not at liberty to forbear working.’ By ‘working’ (ἐργάζεσθαι) he means laboring for support (1 Corinthians 4:12; 2 Thessalonians 3:8; Acts 18:5); hence the sense is: ‘are we alone under obligation to work for our livelihood while we preach?’ The Vulgate, by omitting the μή, translates hoc operandi, i. e., according to the Latin expositors, faciendi quod ceteri faciunt, according to Ambrose, ‘of giving instruction for the sake of support at the cost of the churches’)! 1 Corinthians 9:7-14. He next passes to establish the right claimed; and, first, from the analogy of secular laborers who are, at the same time, striking illustrations of the nature of apostolic labor (1 Corinthians 3:6; 2 Timothy 2:4). (1). The soldier.—Who ever goes to war?—Στρατεύεσθαι, means, to march to the field, and is used alike of generals and soldiers, the same as in the active voice. Here it denotes the service of a private (Passow II., p. 1562).—at his own charges?—Ἰδίοιςὀψενίοις, the Dative of ways and means; i. e., so that he bears his own expenses. Ὀψώνια, rations, cost, stipend (Luke 3:14; Romans 6:23), [“pr. ‘whatever is bought to be eaten with bread.’ Hired soldiers were at first paid partly in rations of meat, grain, fruit.” Rob. Lex.]. “Paul here is arguing on the ground of natural right.” Neander.—(2). The husbandman.—who planteth a vineyard, and eats not its fruit.—Τὸνκαρπόν, the accusative, instead of genitive after the εσθίειν, to eat, is to be taken as the simple objective (Kόhner, II. p. 181)]. (3). The shepherd.—who feeds a flock, and eats not of the milk of the flock.—Ἐκτοῦγάλακτος, of the milk [Jelf, § 621, 3, 1]. The wages of the shepherd in the East is, even to this day, a portion of the milk. [And this is partly converted into other articles of food, and also partly sold to obtain other commodities. Hence the case of the prep, ἐκ, with the gen. (Alford)].—From the analogy of human relations and usages, he passes to Scripture for proof, thus sustaining his position by a positive Divine ordinance.—Say I these things as a man?—Κατὰἄνθρωπον, in a different sense from that in 1 Corinthians 3:3; here it stands in contrast with the Law of God, [and means, according to the modes of talking and acting prevalent among men]. “Paul here puts an argument derived from human customs, and one taken from the Law over against each other.” Neander.—Or does the Law, too, (καί) not speak these things?—καί introduces the higher instance as something additional. ̓ ?́Η, or stands apagogically as in 1 Corinthians 9:6 (Meyer), q. d., ‘I would not appeal to human analogies had not the Law also spoken in the matter.’ On account of the καί, which would otherwise be superfluous, it were better to treat this as a question antithetic to the foregoing one, and specifying something in advance=ἤοὐ (οὐχί) λέγειταῦτακαὶὁνόμος. But this would put ὁνόμος first, as the object on which the emphasis lies, as the Rec., making a correct gloss here. Λαλεῖν and λέγειν [the former used by the Apostle of himself, and the latter, of the Law] are to be distinguished as ‘say’ and ‘speak,’ the latter having special reference to the contents (comp. Romans 3:19), (Meyer). [“Λαλεῖν expresses the general idea of talking, whether reasonably or otherwise,—λέγειν implies speaking in a rational, intelligent manner.” W. Webster, Syn. of the Gr. Test. This discriminating use of terms, is an incidental evidence not only of Paul’s accuracy of language, but also of his delicate humility].—The legal statute referred to is introduced with γάρ.—For in the Law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle an ox which treads out the corn.—This law is found in Deuteronomy 25:4. The same allusion occurs in 1 Timothy 5:18, [“from which passage the reading φιμώσειζ probably came.” Alford].—Is it for oxen that God is concerned? or does he say this altogether (πάντες) on our account?—The most direct and natural reason of this command, viz., kindness to brutes, is here left out of view by the Apostle, since he disavows for the great Lawgiver (God) a special care for oxen in this provision, and applies it, not as an inference from the less to the greater, or by way of accommodation, but directly to teachers, as to persons engaged in a higher kind of service, viz., the preparation of spiritual nutriment for the people (not, as Philo does, to men in general, as creatures endowed with reason). This interpretation of the Law rests on the correct presumption that the Law has a typical character, and that its enactments provide for higher relations, of which those specified are but the shadow (Colossians 2:17). In the rapid reasoning of the Apostle the intermediate thoughts are not brought out; but the higher intent of the words is directly exhibited, to the entire omission of the more obvious one, which here seems to be denied, as though God did not care for oxen. The attempt to modify the language by supplying the word ‘only,’ is arbitrary. “We are not to press this language too far. Taken literally, it would appear as if Paul denied a general providence in contradiction to what our Lord says. All ho intends here is to obtain from the particular Mosaic statute a more general ethical principle, applicable to the relations existing between man and man; and in doing this he does not separate between the interpretation and the application.” Neander. And so Meyer says: “This class of creatures were not the object of the Divine solicitude in this statute; that which expresses care for oxen was said not for their sakes, but on our account.” [“Every duty of humanity has for its ultimate ground, not the mere welfare of the animal concerned, but its welfare in that system of which man is the head, and therefore man’s welfare. The good done to man’s immortal spirit by acts of humanity and justice, infinitely outweighs the mere physical comfort of a brute which perishes.” Alford].—Presupposing an assent to the second question, he proceeds to argue in its favor by explaining the statute in its higher sense.—For on our account was it written.—[The γάρ, for, gives the reason for the assertion implied in the previous question].—that,—ὅτι, is neither to be rendered ‘because’ [as, Alford, Hodge, Stanley], since what follows cannot possibly be construed as a possible reason; neither is it intended to introduce a supposed quotation [as Rόckert, who finds here the language of the Apocrypha]; but it is merely explicative, as pointing to the practical result.—he that plougheth should plough in hope, and he that threshes, in the hope of partaking.—[See Critical notes]. The designations ‘plougher’ and ‘sower,’ are not to be taken literally, as denoting either the oxen themselves, or the persons who engage in husbandry, since we are now in the higher range of thought; but they are to be interpreted spiritually, as exhibiting typically the labors of Christian teachers in accordance with the language of the statute and under the forms of agriculture. The emphasis here lies on the words “in hope,” [which accordingly in the Gr. come first]. The obligation to plough rests on hope, viz., the hope of enjoying the products of the field (comp. 2 Timothy 2:6). And so in the matter of threshing. [The language here is elliptical]. As in the first clause we must supply to the word “hope” what is mentioned in the second, viz., “of partaking;” so in the second we must supply the verb ‘to thresh,’ or ‘should thresh,’ as suggested by the first. From ignoring this, persons have been betrayed into attempts at alteration, as is shown in the various readings in different MSS. (comp. Osiander). The meaning is: ‘that the teacher is bound to his office in hope of enjoying its compensations’ (Meyer); or, to express it more generally: the obligation to laborious efforts in our calling as laborers in the field of God (1 Corinthians 3:9), rests upon the hope, etc.—In 1 Corinthians 9:11 he applies what has been said to the particular relation which he and his fellow-laborers sustained to the Corinthian Church in respect of their rights.—If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?—A like antithesis occurs in Romans 15:27. There is no reason for including Barnabas under the strongly prominent ἡμεῖς, we since nothing is known of his labors in Corinth. We may say with Meyer, “that Paul, though speaking categorically, means in fact himself alone. The corresponding collocation in ἡμεῖςὑμῖν—ἡμεῖςὑμῶν—we to you—we yours, is emphatic. But the justification of his claim appears all the stronger, from the fact that the recompense to which the laborers are entitled, involves something far inferior to the blessings they have conferred. “Spiritual things” are the blessings which proceed from the Holy Spirit, the doctrines of revelation through which the germs of a Divine life are implanted in the heart which unfold themselves in knowledge, faith, love and hope; “carnal things” are such as belong to the lower natural life. In the figures of ‘sowing’ and ‘reaping,’ it is implied that the obtaining of the lower good is a natural sequence upon the bestowment of the higher, even as the harvest follows upon seed-time. The question: “is it a great thing?” points, however, to the disproportion which exists between the one and the other, q. d., ‘It is a very small thing.’—The subj. (θερίσωμεν) after εί, occurs commonly both in the more ancient Greek (Homer and the lyric poets), and in the later impure style. According to Osiander, it denotes something midway between definiteness and indefiniteness; a definite assertion of the right, with an indefiniteness in regard to its application. Having thus established his claim to recompense on the ground of having imparted to them an incomparably higher good, he proceeds to set forth his case in still stronger light by comparing himself in this respect with other teachers who, with far less cause, still used their right to support.—If others.—The allusion here is not to false teachers precisely, (as in 2 Corinthians 11:12-20), since he is treating of a veritable right; but only to those whose title to their help stood far below his (μᾶλλον).—be partakers of this power over you.—(τῆςὑμῶνἐξουσίας)—Ὑμῶν is the objective genitive as in Matthew 10:1; John 17:2, power of you, for power over you, viz: in reference to the reaping of carnal things, 1 Corinthians 9:11.—are not we rather.—The ellipsis is easily filled up from the preceding clause.—After this strong assertion and maintenance of his right, he states what his course had actually been, and the reason of his conduct.—nevertheless we did not use this power,—[not because he dared not, as some might suppose, and thus infer a consciousness on his part of lacking apostolical authority].—but we bear all things.—Στέγειν, as also in 1 Corinthians 13:7, and 1 Thessalonians 3:1, lit. to cover, to protect, so that nothing shall penetrate, [used of vessels containing and holding without breaking], hence, to hold off, to hold out, to forbear, to endure in silence. (Passow II. e. p. 1526,)—in order that we may not present any hinderance,—ἐγκοπήν, a cutting into the path, hence, impediment, hinderance. This would arise from charges of covetousness and self-seeking in the work of the ministry, which his independence of them would obviate.—to the Gospel of Christ,—[a prominent statement of that whose claim overrides every other, and in behalf of which it is fitting that one should do, and endure all things].—After this preliminary statement of how he had renounced his own rights, he adds yet another proof of his title, taken from the analogy presented by the Jewish priesthood. Observe, not heathen priests, for there would be no fitness in appealing to the usages of those in support of his position, since they, were not divinely instituted. And to the usages of the Levitical priesthood he refers, as to a matter already familiar to his readers.—Do ye not know, that those performing the things of the temple.—Ὁυτὰἱερὰἐργαζόμενοι, so the priests are first designated.—This may imply the care and ministration of offerings, as ἱερόν often occurs in this sense among classic writers; or the performance of temple services in general. The latter is to be preferred, because the second designation points definitely to the duties at the altar.—live of the temple,—ἐσθίουσιν, lit. eat, i. e., obtain support from the temple, from the tithes, first-fruits, shew-bread, and other gifts brought hither [“Comp. the speech of the Zealots in Jos. B. J. V. 1 Corinthians 13:6, δεῖτούςτῷναῷστρατευομἑνουςἕκτοῦυαοῦτρέφεσθαι,” Stanley].—those waiting at the altar.—παρεδρεύειν comp. 1 Corinthians 7:35. The reference of the first of these designations in this verse to the Levites and the second to the priests, is untenable. Both relate to the latter alone, and these only are analogous in their office to the Christian teachers.—share with the altar. Συμμερίζονται indicates that they received a portion of the sacrifices, and so partook with the altar of what was offered.—even so,—points to 1 Corinthians 9:13. (Pareus on the contrary: “In consistency with all that has hitherto been said”).—the Lord—i. e., Christ, whose language in Matthew 10:10; and Luke 10:7 the Apostle has in mind. “Here we meet with a citation from the sayings of our Lord, which affords fresh proof that Paul must have already had a collection of our Lord’s discourses.” Neander.—also,—καί, in addition to the precepts of the old covenant to which this of our Lord’s corresponds. Were ὁκύριος=ὁθεός it would have read: καὶτοῖς—καταγγέλουσινὁκύριοςδιέταξε (Meyer).—commanded those preaching the Gospel.—[“It was a command to ministers themselves not to seek their support from secular occupations, but,—to live of the Gospel,—as the priests lived of the temple. This law of Christ is obligatory on ministers and people; on the latter to give, and on the former to seek a support from the church, and not for worldly avocations. There are circumstances, as the case of Paul shows, under which this command ceased to be binding upon preachers. These are exceptions, to be justified, each on its own merits; the rule, as a rule, remains in force.”—Hodge. To defraud ministers of their due is to rob God.—Wordsworth].—ζῇνἐκ. i. e., the Gospel should be to them the means of support:—[“Observe, that here the Apostle is establishing an analogy between the rights of the sacrificing priests of the law, and of the preachers of the Gospel. Had those preachers been likewise themselves sacrificing priests, is it possible that all allusion to them in such a character should have been here omitted? But as all such allusion is here omitted, we may fairly infer that no such character of the Christian minister was then known. As Bengel remarks on 1 Corinthians 9:13 :—“If the mass were a sacrifice Paul would certainly have shaped to it the conclusion in the following verse.”—Alford.]. ————— 2. Testimony to his own self-denial in relation to his rights and powers1 Corinthians 9:15-2315 But I have [om. have] used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my [cause for] glorying void. 16For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, [for ]woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 17For if I do this thing willingly, [of my own accord] I have a reward; but if against my will, [obligatorily] a dispensation [stewardship] of the Gospel is committed unto me. 18What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not 19[use not to the full] my power in the Gospel. For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, [ins. although I myself am not under the law] that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ8),that I might gain8 them that are without law. 22To the weak became I as [om. as ]weak, that I might gain the weak: 23I am made all things to all men, that. I might by all means save some. And this [all things]I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. AND 1 Corinthians 9:15-18. After again reminding his readers that he had not made use of his rights, so clearly established, he goes on to protest, in the most positive manner, against the suspicion that he designed to avail himself of these arguments in the future.—But I used none of these things—i. e., not the proofs adduced (Chrys.), but (comp. 1 Corinthians 9:12) the right itself in its several particulars (1 Corinthians 9:4-5).—And I wrote not these things in order that it might be so done,—i. e., as I have written, or “after the examples I have alleged,”—in me,—ἐνἐμοί, as in Matthew 17:12, in my case, and this he confirms with great emphasis.—for good were it for me,—καλόν, suitable, reputable, honorable.—rather to die. There is no need of interpreting ἀποθανεἰν to mean death by hunger [as Chrys., Estius, Billr]. In what follows, the text is much disputed. If, with Lachmann (who, instead of ἤ, supposes νή, comp. 1 Corinthians 15:31), and with Meyer, we read οὐδεὶςκενώσει (according to B. D. [Cod. Sin.], then there is no need of punctuating, as Lachmann, μουοὐδεις; but it were better to assume, with Meyer (2d ed.), an aposiopesis,* so that after ἤ we are to supply something like χρὴσθιτῇἐξουσίαταύτῃ, or μισθὸνλαμβάνειν (which it was incompatible with his feelings to express). Then upon this a new independent sentence would follow. The whole would then be rendered thus: Good were it for me rather to die than (to use this my right, or to receive my reward); my cause for boasting no one shall make void—καύχημα, matter for glorying, not the act of glorying itself; and this, as appears from the context, was the preaching of the Gospel without compensation. “Paul can here mean only a glorying in the presence of men.” Burger—From a failure to perceive the aposiopesis above asserted there have arisen various attempts at amending the text. Because οὐδείς did not suit, τις has been adopted (by others τίς), to which a ἵνα still appeared requisite, making it read: ‘than that any one, etc.;’ and finally the fut. ind. has been changed into the aor. subj. This is the received text. In behalf of οὐδεὶς we have the authority of [Cod. Sin. and] A., which read οὐδεὶςμή. But if the aposiopesis is not allowed, then we must decide for reading of B. ἵνατιςκενώσει: ‘than that any one shall make void.’ Meyer, in Ed. 3. regards the aposiopesis too bold, and takes ἤ as=or, on the other hand, in the sense of, otherwise, in the opposite case. He would then translate: ‘Better for me to die,’ i. e., ‘rather than suffer myself to be supported, I will prefer to die; or, on the other hand, if such a thing need not occur, my boasting none shall make void.’ But this understanding of the passage appears so forced, that we are still disposed to prefer the aposiopesis. [Alford adopts the reading ἵνατίςκενώσει, and translates: ‘than that any one should make void my (matter of) boasting.’ Wordsworth the same, with the exception of κενώσῃ for κενώσει. Stanley puts a colon after μου. and makes ὀυδεὶςκενώσει, a separate clause, rendering the whole thus: ‘It were better for me to die than my boasting: no one shall make it void.’]. In 1 Corinthians 9:16, ff. he assigns the reason for putting so great a stress on discharging his office gratuitously.—For if I preach the Gospel there is for me no matter of boasting.—Καύχημα 1 Corinthians 9:6, (materies gloriandi). He means, the mere proclamation of the Gospel was not, in and of itself, anything in which he could boast, in contrast with his opponents. His advantage lay in renouncing his right and preaching without recompense. To interpret εὐαγγελίζομαι to mean: ‘if I take a reward for preaching, is, at all events, contrary to the New Testament usage, and inconsistent with the use of the word in the context.—Why the mere fact of preaching was no ground of boasting he goes on to explain. It was a duty imposed on him, from which he could not escape.—For a necessity is laid upon me.—[It was a moral necessity, put upon him by the call and commission of Jesus, and by the immeasurable obligations he was under to His pardoning grace]; and how imperative this necessity was he shows by pointing to the effects which his refusal to submit to it would draw down upon him.—For woe is unto me if I should not preach the Gospel.—Οὐαι, properly an interj. is here to be taken substantially, and ἐστίν to be supplied. It refers to the Divine judgments which would fall on him if he ventured to disobey the heavenly call. Hence the fearful nature of the necessity, originating primarily in the Divine will, demanding a punctilious obedience, and also the impossibility of any boast in fulfilling it. In this “necessity” Neander thinks he discovers something which distinguishes Paul from the other Apostles. The others had joined themselves to Christ of their own accord; while he had been, as it were, constrained to enter the service. Accordingly, we discern in this word the sense which Paul had of the overwhelming urgency of his calling.—This last statement (and so also the preceding ones, whether the first or the second, but these not primarily) he illustrates and confirms by a denial of the opposite.—For if I do this voluntarily, i. e., on my own motion, of my own accord, without having been obliged thereto—I have a reward,—i. e., from God,—but if involuntarily [i. e., obligatorily, having been called to it by another, whom I could not disobey],—with a stewardship have I been entrusted,—my position is that of a steward, who, when he has done all that he could, has no more than discharged his obligations, and so has no title to a reward, (comp, Luke 17:10). The first of the above cases, he means to say, does not suit his case [“a hypothetical statement,” de Wette says]; since he was constrained to preach by the obligations put on him by a higher will; hence he was in the condition of a steward, who was absolutely dependent on the will of his master, and who, while expecting no reward for the faithful discharge of duties, might yet look for punishment in case he failed. [Stewards, it must be remembered, were usually selected from among the slaves of the establishment, as was Eleazar by Abraham, and Joseph by Potiphar]. This interpretation of Meyer, and in part that of Osiander [adopted also by Hodge, Alford, de Wette] fully satisfies the words and the context. To translate the words ἐκών and ἄκων, willingly and unwillingly would hardly suit, if we are to understand the last clause as describing Paul’s case, since we can in no wise predicate reluctance or unwillingness of him in the discharge of his ministry.—But if we unite εἰδεἄκωνοικ. πεπίστευμαι in one clause, rendering it: ‘but if I am unwillingly entrusted with the stewardship,’ then the word ‘stewardship’ loses its significance for the argument; and it would be the same if we put: ‘I am entrusted with a stewardship,’ in a parenthesis; and to supply the ellipsis of, “if unwillingly” with the words, “I do this” is in any case simpler than to make an apodosis by the addition of ‘I have no reward.’ But to take the words following as the apodosis would be inadmissible on account of the οὖν, then.—The meaning would be entirely changed if overleaping the two clauses: ‘woe is me, etc.,’ and: ‘a necessity is laid upon me,’ we find here the confirmation or explanation of the beginning of 1 Corinthians 9:16, so that the idea of gratuitousness (gratis) is involved in ἐκών, and that of the opposite in ἄκων, and in the phrase: ‘I have a reward,’ we understand him to speak of his ‘matter of boasting.’ [Billroth, Bloomfield]. The ἐκών would then indicate that he was managing the thing as his own affair, and was omitting nothing which would serve to further it, and produce results happy and honorable for himself, in which ‘he would have his reward;’ but ἄκων would mean that he was discharging his direct obligations, only so far as to escape the penalty of neglect, and so was acting as a steward, i. e., a slave charged with the domestic economy, so that all reward or boasting would be out of the question. But in such an interpretation there would be 1, a foisting into the words ἐκών and ἄκων as well as into οἱκον. πεπίστευμαι of something foreign to them; and 2, he would, in what follows, be designating that as his reward, which, a little before, appears to be the ground of his having a reward. After having substituted the term ‘reward’ for that of ‘boasting,’ in 1 Corinthians 9:17, he retains the expression, and referring back to 1 Corinthians 9:15 (to τὸκαύχημάμου, he asks—what then is my reward?—To take this question as implying a negative answer (Meyer) in immediate connection with what precedes—as though the meaning were: ‘since I am a steward, not acting at my option, no reward can avail me, in order that (in accordance with the end appointed by God) I may preach unsupported’ (which, as lying beyond my obligation now really merits a reward)—is, on the one hand, somewhat forced, and, on the other, leads to that which Dr. Baur (Tub., Theol., Jahrb.) objects to Meyer’s interpretation, that it involves the germ of the doctrine of supererogation, in entire contradiction with Paul’s whole mode of thought, since if Paul regarded the gratuitous proclamation of the Gospel as conducive to its success, he must have recognized such a course as obligatory upon him. As Burger says: “not according to the rights belonging to him, but in accordance with his estimate of his own personal relation to his high office (1 Corinthians 15:8-9; Ephesians 3:8; 1 Timothy 1:15-16), did Paul consider himself bound to do what was not incumbent on the other apostles, and in order that he might demonstrate through his whole life the earnestness and depth of his gratitude for the salvation so undeservedly conferred on him, and the office entrusted to his charge.—[If, however, we regard the first of the two previous clauses as expressing Paul’s case—that in declining support he was showing how freely he accepted the obligation, he was thus rising above the condition of a steward, who was merely discharging his office from necessity, and so was having some occasion for boasting—some reason to look for a reward, we must here regard Paul as proceeding to state what reward he was looking for]. The answer to this question [is variously found; it either] lies in the following words, beginning with ἵναεὐαγγελιζόμενος [and which may be rendered as in the E. V.],—That when I preach I shall make the Gospel without charge.—This was to him remuneration enough, that the Gospel which he proclaimed should prove no burden to the Church, [that he could enjoy the satisfaction of offering salvation without money and without price to all whom he addressed]. The ἵνα would then introduce the object had in view: “Wherein then does my reward consist? Why, in this, that I make, etc.” Thus the original signification of ἵνα is preserved, θήσω, fut. indic., which elsewhere accompanies ἵνα (yet oftener ὅπως) when some continuous act is spoken of. [Or we may, with Alford, consider these words as simply continuing the question and stating the circumstances in which he is looking for his reward.—What then is my reward, that I while preaching shall render the Gospel without charge?—“ἵνα, like ὅπως in classical Greek, with a fut. indic. points to the actual realization of the purpose with more precision than when followed by the subjunctive. The question in other words would be: “What reward have I in prospect that induces me to preach gratuitously?” The answer to the question would in this case be found in the next verse.].—unto the end that, (εἰςτό).—This may denote either the design in view (‘in order that’), or the simple result (‘so that I shall not, etc.’).—Either would consist with the use of language.—I shall not use my power.—Kαταχρῆσθαι [not as in the E. V. abuse, for this would yield no fit sense here], but as in 1 Corinthians 7:31, to use to the full.—in the Gospel,—i. e., in proclaiming the Gospel; [or, still better, “conferred upon me by preaching the Gospel.”—Stanley]. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. For being free from all, I enslaved myself to all.—The “for” indicates a connection between this and the previous words: “that I may not use my power.” This connection may be understood, either as implying only a remote relation between the expressions “power” and “free,” and introducing proof of that self-denial, which prompted him to renounce his right, as shown in other respects (so de Wette; in like manner, Osiander: “With an easy transition from the matter of his self-denial hitherto discussed, he passes rapidly on to show how he had exhibited the same in another and indeed the highest degree”); or, in a stricter manner, as though by the expression “my power,” he designated his Apostolic prerogative in general, and the “freedom” he here speaks of were included under it (1 Corinthians 9:4); (so Meyer). At all events the connection is moderated by the thought that it was, with him, a fundamental principle, to make no use of his right,—only to give and not to take; and so also to devote himself to others instead of subjecting them to himself or making himself dependent on them, rather than make them dependent on him. [Stanley gives yet another view: “In the first instance, the idea of enslavement to all is suggested by the servile labor he had undertaken, as distinct from the free independence which he might have enjoyed as an Apostle; but he rapidly passes from this to his accommodation to the various feelings of all his converts, in the hope that of this mass he might gain the greater part to the cause of Christ. For the same transition from the idea of servile labor to that of serving generally, comp. Philippians 2:7 (δούλου).” Alford here finds the answer to the question: What is my reward? “For (q. d., the reward must have been great and glorious in prospect) being free from,” etc.]. This principle of his he exhibits more fully in connection with the purpose he had in view, wherein at the same time his matter of boasting (καύχημα) in this respect may be seen. First, he mentions in general, how, for the sake of a higher object, he surrendered his independence, since, though as Christ’s Apostle, he was dependent on no man, he had made himself dependent on all, had accommodated himself to their customs and prejudices, and in the plenitude of his Apostolic power, had, for their sakes, descended to the low condition of a slave.—that I might gain, κερδήσω is explained by the concluding σώσω (1 Corinthians 9:22). It means a winning for Christ or for God’s kingdom by conversion (comp. 1 Peter 3:1; Matthew 18:15). This was ever deemed by Paul a ‘reward,’ a ‘cause for boasting’ [1 Thessalonians 2:19-20], although the word in this context is not to be referred precisely to this thought. [Bengel, on the contrary, finely says: “κερδήσω, I may gain, this word well suits with the consideration of a reward.” But Alford adds: “This is not enough; it is actually the answer to the question: “What is my reward?” and it is for this reason that ἵνα—κερδήσω, is three times repeated].—the greater number.—τοὺςπλείονας, as in 1 Corinthians 10:5, the larger portion of this company (not: ‘the more’ [as in the E. V.]; nor: ‘as many as possible;’ not yet, because, of the τούς, with Olsh.: ‘those ordained unto salvation by God’). [Alford says: “the largest number of any: that hereafter Paul’s converts might be found to be οἱπλείονες, the more numerous.” This certainly accords with the ambition of Paul].—The following details point in part to diversities conditioned upon the ante-Christian position of the parties mentioned (Jews, Heathen, 1 Corinthians 9:20 ff.), and in part to weaknesses existing in the pale of the Church, that required consideration (1 Corinthians 9:22), wherein he more nearly approaches his main theme. But because the same purpose is expressed here also as in what precedes, this, too, must be referred to the ante-Christian state, but not to the exclusion, however, of all allusion to that spoken of in the whole paragraph.—and I became to the Jews as a Jew, in order that I might gain Jews.—To interpret τοῖςἸουδαίοις to mean Jewish converts, and the subsequent designation: ‘those under the law,’ of the stricter Pharisaic class among them, is inconsistent with the object in view, viz., that he might gain them, for such were already in a measure gained; and also with the contrast in 1 Corinthians 9:21. [Examples of how he became a Jew may be found in Acts 16:3; Acts 21:26].—to those under the law.—This is only another designation for Jews, describing them according to their peculiar characteristic (Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:13; Galatians 4:21); and it denotes neither Jews of the stricter Pharisaic class, nor proselytes of righteousness, nor Samaritans, nor Sadducees, who only held to the Pentateuch.—as under the law.—The word as denotes only a conformity in respect to customs, modes of life, and methods of instruction. That he preserved his independence in circumstances where Judaism was insisted upon as the condition of salvation, is evident from Galatians 2:3 ff. Besides he asserts the maintenance of his own personal freedom from the law in the following participial clause not parenthetical [which does not appear in the Rec.].—not being myself under the law.—μὴὤναὐτός, etc. Here μή denies the thing as a matter of consciousness, [it being the subjective negative]. That he hereby intended to repel a charge of capricious self-exemption from the law to which he was properly bound, is a doubtful assumption.—to those without law.—By these are not meant proselytes of the gate, as persons who were bound by the law only in part; nor yet such parties as would no more submit themselves to the law’s control; but heathen, properly speaking (comp. Romans 2:12-14), and so designated in contrast with the Jews, since they were not bound by the Mosaic law, and in which respect he conformed to them.—as without law,—in so far as he cast of Jewish ordinances in his intercourse with them (comp. Acts 11:3; Acts 11:7), and presented the truth to them, not in Jewish, but in Hellenic forms of instruction (comp. Acts 17:28; [1 Corinthians 8:1-7; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27]). [“The word by which he here describes himself (ἄνομος) is the expression used to designate him in the forged Epistle of Peter to James (1 Corinthians 2.) in the Clementines; and seems, therefore, to have been a well-known term of reproach against him among the Judaizers.” Stanley]. For the purpose [therefore] of guarding against all mis-application of the term, as well as under the impulses of pious feeling [being “unwilling to appear, even for a moment, independent of God”], he repels all thought of any heathenish lawlessness (ἀνομία) being here intended, and asserts that, so far as this law had been revealed in its perfection through Christ, he both lived and moved in it.—being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.—Ἔννομοςχριστοῦ comp. νόμοςχριστοῦ Galatians 6:2; John 13:34.—θεοῦ and χριστοῦ are genitives of relation and dependence (“Without legal dependence on God, legally dependent on Christ.” Meyer). To be “under law to Christ,” is different from being “under the law,” inasmuch as the consciousness of obligation in one who has become justified in Christ in order to walk worthy of Christ, and to imitate Him in doing the will of God is different from servitude to the law as the means of justification before God (comp. Romans 10:5; Gal. 10:10ff.). [Here again the subjective nature of the assertion as indicated by μή instead of οὐκ must be noted. “Being conscious of not being,—remembering well in the midst of my ‘lawlessness’ (ανομία) that I was not.” Alford. “Paulus non fuit anomus, nedum antinomus.” Bengel].—to the weak.—Under this term he includes those previously mentioned (1 Corinthians 9:20-21), persons Who, lacking the higher power of Christ’s spirit, require considerate treatment—when Jews, a mode of intercourse suiting with their law; when heathen, a freedom from the law [So Stanley. But Alford, on the contrary: “The ἀσθενεῖς here can hardly be the weak Christians of 1 Corinthians 8. and Romans 14., who were already won, but those who had not strength to believe and receive the Gospel” (Romans 5:6). To this Hodge well replies; “The word κερδήσω means merely, to win over, to bring to proper views, and therefore may be used in reference to weak and superstitious believers as well as of unconverted Jews and Gentiles.”]—I became weak,—i.e., I entered into their condition in one way and another. This condescension to their peculiarities was, in appearance, a weakness; but, in truth, it was indicative of the highest moral power. If, with de Wette, we understand by the term “weak,” a lack of ability to apprehend the higher moral truths, then the expression, “I became weak,” would denote an accommodation on Paul’s part in the methods of his instruction of them; but this has little in its favor.—Summing up all he concludes—To all—(i.e., “to those just mentioned.” Osiander; “to the generality of men with whom I had to do.” Meyer).—I became all things.—“Omnibus omnia factus est compassione misericordiζ, non simulatione fallaciζ, non mentientis astu, sed compatientis affectu.” Augustine. It was an all-sided adaptation of himself to others,—within the limits of truth, of course, and in those things which were morally indifferent, according to the rule and direction of a love that was intent upon the salvation of souls. [“There are two things to be carefully observed in all cases of concession to the opinions and practices of others: first, that the point conceded be a matter of indifference; for Paul never yielded in the smallest measure to any thing that was in itself wrong. In this his conduct was directly the opposite to that of those who accommodate themselves to the sins of men, or to the superstitious observances of false religions. And secondly, that the concession does not involve any admission that what is in fact indifferent, is a matter of moral obligation. Paul’s conduct in relation to Timothy and Titus shows the principle on which he acted. The former he circumcised because it was regarded as a concession. The latter he refused to circumcise, because it was demanded as a matter of necessity.” Hodge].—in order that by all means I might save some.—[πάντως omnino, or as Meyer, in all ways. Stanley says: “by all means, with the double meaning as in English”].—and all things I do.—πάνταδὲποιῶ [see Critical notes]. The “all things” do not refer exclusively to what have just been spoken of,—as would be the case with the feebly supported reading τοῦτο this—although these are not to be excluded. The meaning is: ‘all things which I do, I do,’ etc. [“St. Paul did not become totally and at once, but severally and singly, not absolutely, but respectively, all things to all men.” Wordsworth].—The object of this—on account of the Gospel.—(διὰτὸεὐαγγέλιον). It is a question whether we have here an independent thought, or whether it is only a more general expression for that which is stated more fully in the following objective clause,—that I may be a fellow partaker of it (with you).—In the latter case, συγκοινωνός is either taken=to further, i.e., an active participation in the work of spreading the Gospel (which, however, does not accord with usage, and would only be a repetition of what has just been said, while by the connective δέ a progress of thought is indicated); or as denoting a participation in the salvation offered by the Gospel—a thought hinted at in the previous clause. In the former case διὰτόεὐαγγ. must be construed as expressing the object aimed at in spreading the Gospel: “in behalf of the Gospel, for its honor and glory;” but interpreted as expressing the further aim of ‘his doing all things on account of the Gospel,’ the clause ἴνα—γένωμαι must be taken in the sense of becoming a fellow-participant in the salvation of the Gospel. But here again we have the exceptionable repetition (in διὰτὸεὐαγγ.); hence the assumption of an epexegesis, with the above correct rendering of συγκοιν. deserves the preference. The meaning then is, that all he did aim at was to become a partaker with them in the salvation of the Gospel. At the same time, the objective end of that concerning which he had just spoken, is not excluded; but he only brings out now the other side, in order to let them see in his own example how his solicitude for his own salvation in fellowship with others, is something which must lie very near the heart of the Christian in all he does; and that this, in all his varied activity, is not a matter to be presumed upon, but must be striven for with the utmost earnestness.—In this thought we find the point of transition to the subsequent exposition, in which by pointing to his own example he presses on the Corinthians the importance of greater solicitude for their own salvation, and of sparing no pains or sacrifices in the attainment of this end (1 Corinthians 9:24 ff.). [“Here a new thought is introduced. Up to this point he has been speaking of his self-denial for the sake of others; here he begins to speak of it as for his own sake. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C. Exhortation to earnest self-denial as the condition of obtaining an incorruptible crown; and a warning against carnal security 1 Corinthians 9:24 to 1 Corinthians 10:1324 Know ye not that they which run in a race [race-course, σταδίῳ ?] run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain [really lay hold of it, καταλάβητε]. 25And every man that striveth for the mastery [contends for a prize, ὰγωνιζόμενος is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown [chaplet, στέφανον]; but we an incorruptible. 26I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight 27[box, πυκτὲυω] I, not as one that beateth the air; But I keep under [beat black and blue, ὑπωπιάζω] my body, and bring it into subjection [enslave it, δουλαγωγῶ: lest that by any means, when I have preached [been a herald, κηρύξας] to others, I myself should be a castaway [a rejected one, ὰδόκιμος]. 1Moreover [For, γὰρ], brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized [had themselves baptized, ἐβαπτίσαντο] unto Moses in the cloud and 3in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Bock that followed them [out of a spiritual, following Rock, ἐκπνευματικῆςἀκολουθούσηςπέτρας: and that Rock was Christ. 5But with many [most, τοἰςπλείοσιν] of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown [strewed about, κατεστρώθησαν] in the wilderness. 6Now these things were our examples [became types for us, τύποιἡμῶνἐγενήθησαν] to 7the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted; Neither be [become, γίνεσθε] ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9Neither let us tempt [put to the full test, try fully, ἐκπειράζωμεν] Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10Neither murmur ye, as 11some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all [om. all] these things happened unto them for ensamples [typically, τυπικῶς]1Co : and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come [last of the ages have come, τὰτέλητ. αἰώνωνκατήντηκεν]. 12Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 13There hath no temptation taken [trial seized upon, πειρασμὸςἐίληφεν] you but such as is common to man [human, ἀνθρὠπινος]: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with [in the midst of (Tyndale), σύντῷπ.] the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. AND 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. [Having in the last verse (23) of the previous selection mentioned, as the second reason for the renunciation of his rights, his desire that he might thereby become partaker of the Gospel with those he labored for, he next proceeds] to bring home to the consciousness of his readers the extent of that self-denial and earnest endeavor which is requisite for the full attainment of the blessing in question. This he does by a reference to the Grecian games which were celebrated in their vicinity, viz., the Isthmian games. [“It must be remembered in reading the Apostle’s allusions, that from the national character and religion of the Greeks, these games derived an importance which raised them above the degrading associations of modern times. How intense an interest these contests still excited may be seen from Suetonius’ graphic description of the agony of Nero in his desire to succeed; an exaggerated instance, doubtless; but yet illustrative of the general feeling. The stadium, or race-course, of which he speaks, was not a mere resort for public amusements but an almost sacred edifice, under the tutelage of the patron deity of the Ionian tribes, and surrounded by the most solemn recollections of Greece, its white marble seats rising like the foundation of a temple in the grassy slope, where its outline may still be traced, under the shadow of the huge Corinthian citadel, which guards the entrance of the Peloponnesus. The race, in which all run; the pugilistic contests, in which they strove not “to beat the air,” were not merely exhibitions of bodily strength, but solemn trials of the excellence of the competitors in the ‘gymnastic art,’ which was to the Greeks one-half of human education. As the friends and relatives watched with breathless interest the issue of the contest, they knew that the victor would be handed down to posterity by having his name sung in those triumphal odes, of which Pindar’s are the extant model, and his likeness placed in the long line of statues which formed the approach to the adjacent temple. The ‘prize’ which he won from the appointed judges, who sat in state at the end of the course, was such as could awaken no mean or mercenary motives; its very simplicity attested its dignity; it was a garland of the Grecian pine, which still, under its classical name, clothes with its light green foliage the plains of the Isthmus, and which was then consecrated to the sea-god, around whose temple its groves were gathered. (See Conybeare and Howson, 20).—The application of the metaphor of the race to the progress of the Christian, here occurs for the first time. Afterwards, compare Philippians 3:12; Philippians 3:14; 2 Timothy 4:7-8 : Hebrews 12:1. Stanley.].—Know ye not.—[An abrupt and forcible appeal to a familiar fact, analogous to the ease in hand, fraught with obvious lessons]—that those who run in the race-course.—Here is the first illustration—the race (δρόμος)—run all, but one receiveth the prize?—The βραβεῖον is the prize (ᾶθλον) awarded by the arbiter (βραβεύς), [“Lat., bravium, Iren. IV. 7, whence the English, “bravo.” Wordsworth]. The point thus made is stated by Osiander in the practical remarks: “The danger of failing of the end of our faith thro’ a lack of persistent earnestness—the large number of the called, and the few that are chosen; or, as mere running on the course does not ensure the prize, so simple companionship with those who are striving for salvation does not ensure its attainment.”—Hence he briefly and forcibly enjoins.—So run that ye may obtain.—The simplest interpretation here would be to refer οὔτω, so to ἐνα that, in the sense of ῶστε, as: ‘so run as to obtain.’ But it certainly would be more in accordance with usage to make the reference to what precedes: ‘as that one runs who obtains the prize, so run ye in order that ye may obtain.’ [Alford, on the contrary, makes the allusion more general: “after this manner, viz., as they who run all, each endeavoring to be the one who shall receive the prize; for the others strive as earnestly as he.—The οὔτως is presently particularized by one point of the athletes’ preparation being specially alleged for their initiation”]. After “obtain,” the word ‘prize’ must be supplied as the object understood. The use of the καταλαβεῖν suggests the personal effort shown in the matter, literally: ‘that ye may seize, or grasp, the prize;’ as in 1 Timothy 6:12, ἐπιλαβέσθαι, in distinction from which the simple λαμβάνειν would denote the mere receiving, or accepting the thing presented. The recommendation accordingly is to a course of conduct corresponding to the laudable race of him who wins the victor’s wreath, in order that they may obtain possession of salvation, [may ‘work it out’].—That for this an earnest self-denying course was requisite, he shows from the example of the combatants.—now every one.—[“The δέ, now, specifies, referring back to οὕτως. And the emphasis is on πᾶς, every one, thus showing οὕτως, so, to refer to the πάντες, all, who τρέχουσιν, run.” Alford].—that strives.—The general term, ἀγωνίσεσθαι, includes indeed in itself the idea of running in the race; but here the primal reference is to the preparatory training. [“The article (ὁαγωνιζόμενος) brings out the man as an enlisted and professed agonistes (or athlete), and regards him in that capacity. Had it been πᾶςδέἀγωνιζ̈όμενος, the sense would have been, ‘now every one while contending,’ etc., making the discipline to be merely accidental to his contending—which would not suit the original antitype, where we are enlisted for life.” Alford].—is temperate in all things.—To this there belongs self-control in every particular: abstinere venere et vino, and especially a strict diet, to make one light, nimble and fit for the conflict. [“The discipline lasted for ten months preparatory to the contest, and was at this time so severe, as to be confined to the professional athletes. The diet is thus described by Epictetus: ‘Thou must be orderly, living on spare food; abstain from confections; make a point of exercising at the appointed time, in heat and in cold; nor drink cold water or wine at hazard;—in a word, give thyself up to thy training-master as to a physician, and then enter on the contest.” Stanley].—But as the prize set before the Christian agonistes is nobler than that which awaits the earthly athlete, so much the more ready must the former be to practice that self-denial which is the condition of success.—they indeed.—[μὲνοὖν, connects it with the general train of thought, and μεν gives emphasis.” Jelf, § 730, b.].—[The ellipsis here must be supplied from the previous clause: ‘practice temperance’].—in order that they may receive a corruptible crown.—Such was the prize of the racer in the Isthmian games, a mere garland of pine leaves; [and elsewhere, of olive, parsley or bay leaves].—but we—He here includes himself in their ranks as a fellow-contestant. The ellipsis must be again supplied as above—yet carrying the implication of a higher sort of temperance, even a moral one, according to the nature of the contest entered into.—an incorruptible.—i. e., blessedness and glory eternal as the reward of grace (comp. 2 Timothy 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4).—In 1 Corinthians 9:26 f., he turns now to speak of himself particularly, showing his own method of training and striving as an example.—I then.—[Ἐγώ is emphatic,—recalls attention from the incidental exhortation and reminiscence of the Christian state to the main subject, viz., his own abstinence from receiving support and its grounds.’ Alford]. τοίνυν, serves to introduce particulars under a general proposition (Passow). So here where Paul comes to present himself as a specimen of the true athlete, who has put himself through a thorough discipline.—so run as not uncertainly—sc., ‘running.’ Ἀδήλως, either, unobserved, unmarked, in contrast with one who distinguishes himself and makes himself noted, or, which corresponds better with the parallel clause, uncertainly, (1 Timothy 6:17), viz., in reference to the goal, being certain of the issue. “In direct course to the goal.” Meyer. (There are various modifications of this interpretation in relation to the goal itself, or to the reaching it, or to the way thereto, comp. Osiander),—so fight I.—He here passes over to another kind of contest, viz., boxing (πυκτεύω).—as not striking the air.—This refers to those random strokes which instead of hitting the antagonist, spend themselves in the air; and not to the sham fight which is preparatory to the real conflict. He is representing himself as engaged in actual fight, and not in the safe prelude to it, as Chrys., Theoph. and others. The whole verse is a description of one occupied in the very heat of the conflict. In the positive exhibition of his conduct, he abandons the participial construction (as in 1 Corinthians 4:14), which a further explanation renders necessary, because he passes out of the metaphor to the literal fact.—but I bruise my body.—Here we have the adversary mentioned on which he was thus planting his effective blows. It was his body (“the body of the flesh,” Colossians 2:10); the “members,” Romans 7:23, as the seat of sin—that which in its affections and lusts was ever hostile to the inner man—the spirit. His energetic treatment he expresses by a term borrowed from the pugilistic combats: ὐπωωιάζειν, to smite under the eyes, so as to make them black and blue; more generally, to batter, to benumb. According to Osiander, he means by it the mortification of the flesh by privations, labors, sufferings endured in consequence of his devotion to his calling, and, especially, of his renunciation of all right to support. We might also conceive an implication here of ascetic severities, such as fasting and the like,—but not to self-flagellation [the absurd practice of which grew out of an abuse of this expression].—and bring it into subjection.—δουλωγωγεῖν implies a complete conquest, quasi servum trahere—“so as to bring the body under the control of a moral will.” (Meyer, Ed. 3). His motive for this he expresses negatively.—lest somehow, having proclaimed to others.—By κηρύξας, it is questioned whether Paul intended the preaching of the Gospel, which the word elsewhere means in the New Testament; or whether in the prosecution of his metaphor he alludes to the functions of a herald. The latter is the more probable, as the term ἀδόκιμος in the next clause, belongs to the same category. The herald is one who calls the champions into the lists and proclaims the names of the victors. Paul also was a herald, who summoned men to the Christian warfare, announced the terms of the conflict, and was himself also a combatant.—I myself should prove rejected.—ἀδοκιμος [unworthy, disapproved, reprobate]; by this we are not to understand ‘disqualified for the conflict,’ but ‘unsuccessful in the issue.’ [“An examination of the victorious combatants took place after the contest, and if it was found that they had contended unlawfully, or unfairly, they were deprived of the prize and driven with disgrace from the games.” Alford]. Apostolus suo timore nos terruit; quid enim faceit agnus, ubi aries tremuit? “If we compare this passage, in which Paul so earnestly suggests the possibility of his own short-coming below the true standard of a Christian life, with 1 Corinthians 9:18, from which the Romanists would fain draw their doctrine of an opus supererogativum, implying a distinction between consilia evangelica and precepta (general Christian duties), we shall readily see how far removed Paul was from fancying that he could do aught transcending his moral obligations—a notion which stands in direct conflict with the whole ethical view of the Apostle.” Neander. [“What an argument and what a reproof is this! The reckless and listless Corinthians thought they could safely indulge themselves to the very verge of sin, while this devoted Apostle considered himself as engaged in a life-struggle for his salvation. The same Apostle, however, who evidently acted on the principle that the righteous scarcely are saved, and that the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, at other times breaks out in the most joyful assurance of salvation, and was persuaded that nothing in heaven, earth or hell could ever separate him from the love of God. The one State of mind is the necessary condition of the other. It is only those who are conscious of this constant and deadly power of sin, to whom this assurance is given. In the very same breath Paul says, ‘O wretched man that I am!’ and, ‘Thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory,’ Romans 7:24-25. It is the indolent and self-indulgent Christian that is always in doubt.” Hodge]. See 1 Corinthians 10:1 ff for AND ETHICAL and AND .Footnotes: [The Apostle terrifies us with his own fear; for what shall the lamb do when the ram trembles]? See 1 Corinthians 9:23 ff for the passage quote with footnotes. 1 Corinthians 10:1-5. The illustration derived from Grecian life is followed up by one taken from Jewish history. The thought set forth and established is the same just considered, viz., the, necessity of earnest self-denial for a participation in the Gospel salvation. Having expressed his own anxiety lest, with all his labors for others, he himself should fail of approval, he proceeds to substantiate his apprehension by referring to the case of the fathers. The connection is indicated by γάρ [which is the correct reading, and not δέ, as in the Rec. See Crit. notes].—For I would not that ye should be ignorant, brethren.—The logic is: ‘there is reason to fear that I may become a castaway; for the early history of our nation proves that however close may be the relation sustained by men toward God, and however glorious the promises made to them, it is nevertheless possible for such to be rejected at the last.’ In this respect he holds up the people of the ancient covenant as a warning to those of the new, showing, first, the rich experiences of Divine favor enjoyed by the former, in which he beholds a type of those dispensed under the N. T.; and, secondly, how the majority did nevertheless fall at last beneath the Divine judgments, by yielding to temptations, complying with their impious passions, and resisting God. By the expression: ‘I would not that you be ignorant,’ in which he does not so much remind his readers of something well known, as open up before them something new and for them significant (comp. Romans 1:13; Romans 11:25), he calls their attention directly to what he has to say, and presses it on their earnest consideration. Grammatically it points primarily to facts, familiar even to the heathen converts, which he brings out in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4; but, in reality, to the significance of these facts for the case in hand, viz., that of a number (πάντες) participating equally in gracious relations to God, the greater portion (οἱπλείονες) through their misconduct fell short of salvation (comp. 1 Corinthians 9:24, πάντες—εἶς)—that all our fathers.—‘Our fathers’—this is not said from the Jewish stand-point (Meyer), but the expression squares with the true Apostolic view of the relation subsisting between the people of the O. T. and the N. T. The Israelites were the spiritual ancestors of the Christians (comp. Romans 4:12; Romans 11:17).—were under the cloud.—The cloud was the symbol and medium of the Divine presence for Israel (Exodus 3:21), which spread itself over the people, protecting them while on their march; hence the term ὑπό: under (comp. Psalms 105:39). Beneath this marvellous covering and shield the wonderful passage through the Red Sea was effected (Exodus 14).—and all passed through the sea.—Both acts taken together, as accomplishing the critical deliverance of the people from a hostile power, are regarded by the Apostle as a type of baptism.—and all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.—The cloud is, in a measure, taken together with the water (not symbolically of the Spirit) as the element into which they entered, and wherein they became, as it were, submerged, in order thence to emerge again. According to the true reading, he says, ἐβαπτίσαντο (Mid.): they baptized themselves, inasmuch as in the baptism of adults there is a voluntary entering into the Divine bestowments of grace and a free surrender to them. As Melancthon says: fiducia verbi Mosis commiserant se aquis.—The words, ‘unto Moses,’ cannot mean sub auspiciis Mosis, but as always with the verb ‘baptize’ they denote the relation or fellowship into which they entered with Moses, who, as the servant of the Lord, was the mediator of the Divine manifestations. With this there is connected the obligation to follow him faithfully as the leader given unto them by the Lord, and legitimated by Him (Exodus 14:31). From the type of baptism which introduces into a fellowship of the redeemed, he proceeds to the type of the Lord’s Supper, which was the confirmation and seal of the former, viz., the factof the feeding upon the manna miraculously sent, and the drinking of the rock, by which means the preservation of the ransomed people was secured. “This connecting of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the two sacraments in the N.T., whose O. T. analogies Paul here adduces, is exceedingly noteworthy. It is a testimony in favor of the Protestant view of the duality of the sacraments.” Neander.—and did all eat the same spiritual food.—The “spiritual food” or manna (Exodus 16:13 ff.) is distinguished from all earthly food, either because of some supernatural quality in it, or because of its supernatural origin. Here unquestionably we are to suppose the latter. The epithet ‘spiritual’ denotes that the food came from the Spirit—was produced by a Divine miraculous power (comp. Exodus 16:14). [“It is here employed in special reference to its descent from heaven and its designation in Psalms 78:24-25 as “the bread of heaven” and “angels’ food.” Stanley. “Thus, also, Isaac is called, Galatians 4:29, ‘he born after the Spirit,’ in opposition to Ishmael, who is spoken of as ‘born after the flesh.’ ” Alford. Wordsworth, however, quoting from Bp. Fell, says: “the food and drink are called ‘spiritual’ because they are Christ’s body and blood in types.”—Why may not all the significations given be recognized? Scriptural phraseology has a fulness of meaning which ordinary language has not; for there was more “in the mind of the Spirit” who inspired it than the writers themselves even knew]. If we assume a supernatural quality in the “food” and the “drink,” we must also suppose that they were at the same time aliment for the Spirit; but this thought is the less tenable from the fact that we cannot admit the referring of the τοαὐτό to the believers of the N. T., as if it meant, ‘the same with ourselves,’ nor allow the identification of these objects with the elements in the Lord’s Supper, as Calvin does. The expression ‘the same’ is rather to be joined with the word ‘all,’ which accordingly holds the emphatic place, and is five times repeated. They all united in partaking of the same gifts—a fact, however, which did not prevent the majority from incurring a terrible retribution. In the phrase—they did all drink of the same spiritual drink—(to which also most of the above remarks apply), Paul has in mind the occurrence mentioned in Exodus 18:6, also Numbers 20:10. To this an explanation is appended [“and it was needed, because the tradition to which it refers is not found in the O. T.” Stanley].—For they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.—The imp. ἔπινον, were drinking, was intended to denote their continuous drinking all through the entire march in the wilderness. In the previous sentence we have the aor. ἔπιον, signifying the simple fact of drinking.—But what do these statements import? Certainly not that the term ‘rock’ stands for the water flowing from the rock [Lightfoot, Meade], which the Israelites conducted along by their side in channels, or took with them in leathern bags, or which in some way did not further fail them, which water meant Christ; or that the rock was a symbol of Christ, as of one out of whom streams of living water flow. In such a case it would have read, not “was Christ,” but, “is Christ.” According to a Rabbinical tradition, the rock followed the children of Israel throughout their journey. [Stanley says that “this tradition maintained that there was a well formed out of the spring in Horeb, which gathered itself up into a rock, ‘like a swarm of bees,’ and followed the people for forty years, sometimes rolling along of itself, and sometimes carried by Miriam; and always addressed by the elders when they encamped, in the words of Num 21:17 : “Spring up, O well, sing ye unto it”]. Meyer thinks that Paul fastened on this tradition to convey the idea that it was Christ who, in the form or apparition of this wonderful rock followed the host; as indeed also the Targum on Isaiah 16:1, and the Book of Wis 10:15 ff; Wis 11:4, assert that the Messias, the Wisdom, was by the side of the people for a protection in the wilderness. But, however, we may reject some of the absurd details only of that tradition, still it must ever be considered a monstrous supposition—at any rate, one in no wise hinted at in the Scripture, that the Messiah, or the angel Jehovah did in reality accompany the Israelites in the form of a rolling rock. Christ, the preλxistent Messiah, the Lord who went with the people on their march, as the proper source of this wonderful drink, which, according to the bodily sight, streamed out of the natural, rock, is called in contrast with this a spiritual rock—a rock of a supernatural kind, which carried in itself a divine power. “The miracle of bringing water out of the rock, happened not once, but at least twice (Exodus 17:6; Numbers 20:11). It was therefore not one particular rock which was concerned in the miracle; but as often as a like necessity occurred, there on the spot was also the water-yielding rock again.” Now since every rock could render the same service by the same influence, so it appeared as if the rock accompanied the Israelites. The material rock, in this case, is non-essential; the water-giving power is the chief thing. This power was God’s, that same God who has manifested Himself to us in Jesus Christ. And He is called the Rock that followed them, because it was through His agency that the several rocks, one after the other, acquired the same water-yielding power.” Burger. In like manner, substantially, Abarbanel [Wordsworth, Hodge. But Alford detects here a typical allusion to Christ in the sacraments of the New Testament].—Observe also the preposition used; it is not ἁπο, but ἐκ, which is not causal, as if it meant thro’ the operation of, but it denotes the origin and source from which a thing comes. They drank out of a Spiritual Rock, which was Christ [Wordsworth]. Comp. Osiander, who, moreover, in the drink, as well as in the food, assumes the presence of a super senuous element along with the sensuous, by which these objects become so much more real types of that offered in the holy Eucharist. To this we would not object. The analogy abides the same: on both sides there is a food and drink of supernatural origin—a bestowment of divine life, nourishing and refreshing the human life, which, in the agency of the Rock that accompanied Israel in the wilderness, even Christ, ensures refreshment from itself, primarily to theearthly life; a shadow (σκιά) of the refreshment furnished to our spiritual life out of the fulness of the incarnate and now glorified Christ, who has finished the work of a spiritual redemption. We must here hold fast to what our Lord said respecting the contrast between the Old and the New Testament manna (John 6:49 ff.). “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die.” To these lofty experiences of God’s gracious manifestations, of which all were partakers, the following words form a powerful contrast.—but with the greater part of them God was not well pleased.—i.e., they forfeited God’s favor and failed of the promised salvation. The proof of this—for they were overthrown in the wilderness.—On καταστρώθησαν comp. Numbers 14:16. [The identical language of the Septuagint]. (Hebrews 3:17, ἔπεσον). The word πλείονες, the greater part, comprehends more than those who were destroyed by the particular judgments, of which he afterwards speaks. It denotes the entire older generation, who, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, must have died in the wilderness, and thus failed of the promised land. 1 Corinthians 10:6-11. Now.—δέ, transitional. He here begins the application to his readers, by exhibiting the occurrences of the Old Testament in the form of τύποι,—these things.—ταῦτα, i.e., the judgments implied in the word “over-thrown,”—judgments which they incurred in consequence of their God-provoking conduct,—and which he proceeds to illustrate in particular instances.—And these were intended to teach Christians what they would suffer under like circumstances.—happened as figures of us.—The word τύπος, whence our type, in the more definite, theological sense, means not simply an image, in general, to which the antitype (ἀντίυπος) corresponds; but it is used to express any event, institution or person that, by a divine appointment, foreshadows, upon a lower stage of theocratic life, events, institutions or persons belonging to a higher sphere. Here, however, the word is taken in a purely ethical sense, and means example of warning, figures.—The plural εγενήθησαν is here used because τῦποι.—“Figures of us”—i.e., of our lot in like conditions. This construction is analogous to that in 1 Corinthians 10:11; hence it is not to be supposed that the subject of the verb is the ‘the fathers,’ understood, and that we are to take ταῦτα as the accusative, meaning ‘in respect to these things,’ including here the manifestations of divine grace, as well as of judgment.—[A view of which, Alford says, “I know not by whom suggested, but I find it in Dr. Peile’s notes on the Epistles”]. The divine intent in furnishing these examples is thus stated—[“of course an ulterior purpose, for they had their own immediate purpose as regards the literal Israel.” Alford.]—in order that we might not be lusters after evil things.—Here we had better understand all manner of evil lusts, rather than the specific inordinate lust of pleasure (as Grotius). And so the following phrase,—as they lusted,—is not to be explained simply by the event recorded in Numbers 11:4. but by the manifold exhibitions of wicked passions made by Israel at that time. Ἕπιθυμητής means one who is habitually governed by desire. The word occurs also in Numbers 11:34. Under “evil things” we are to include whatever is a violation of duty or a denial of love to the Lord or to the brethren. Of this sort was the eating of things offered unto idols (εἱδωλόθυτὰ) by the Corinthians. “The lusting of the Israelites after flesh was a wicked caprice involving contempt of God’s provisions.” Osiander.—Under this general head he next selects a particular instance, which is introduced by μηδέ—neither—a particle which does not necessarily connect matters coφrdinate.—become ye idolaters, as were some of them.—i.e., by partaking of things sacrificed to idols at the altar feasts, which was a species of idolatry. This is what the record in Exodus 32:6 refers to. There we have an account of the worship of the golden calf, and of the offering of sacrifices, accompanied by sensual indulgences. In this clause, of course, Paul could not include himself; hence the second person, ‘become ye,’ Neander. By “some of them,” Osiander thinks that Paul intended the choristers, perhaps the stiffest of them who lead off in the dance and song, and were afterwards slain by the Levites. It has been finely observed that as the Israelites, so also the Corinthians did not regard their conduct as actual idolatry, but both were on their way to it.—as it is written, The people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.—The word παίζειν, to play, here refers to those lively dances which occurred at heathen festivals (comp. Exodus 32:18 ff.). [And many of these dances, as is well known, were directly designed to provoke the most licentious passions—dances, of which many of those now practiced in fashionable society are the direct lineal descendants. Hence the close connection between idolatry and fornication, which appears all through this epistle. Hammond, however, has a long note, which goes to prove that παιζειν was used to denote not only dances, but all manner of wanton lecherous sport, just as kindred words are used in many modern languages to express the same thing]. Idolatry ought, moreover, to be regarded as more than the fountain, for we may say, with Osiander, that it is the vilest fruit of an intensified sensualism.—Neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed.—Participation in superstitious practices led easily to the commission of that sin, from which he now proceeds to dissuade them—going back to the use of the first person—“let us.” This, indeed, was also a part of heathen worship, especially in the Corinthian temples, devoted to Artemis and Aphrodite; but it might also lead to idolatry, as was the case in the instance just alluded to (Numbers 25), where the Moabitish women enticed the men, whom they had seduced, to idol festivals and so betrayed them into idolatry—a danger to which the Corinthians were much exposed (comp. chap. 5 and 6).—And fell in one day three and twenty thousand.—The number given in Numbers 25:9, and also by Philo, Josephus and Rabbins, is twenty-four thousand. The discrepancy is, perhaps, best accounted for by supposing a failure of memory. Besser says: “Twenty-four thousand, yet not perhaps ‘destroyed in one day.’ ” [Hodge says: “Both statements are equally correct. Nothing depended on the precise number. Any number between the two amounts may, according to common usage, be stated roundly as either the one or the other”]. The feebly authorized τέσσαρες is an emendation; other attempts at harmonizing are arbitrary (comp. Meyer and Osiander).—How indefinite the word τινες, some is, and how it may be used to comprise a great multitude, is shown from this passage.—Neither let us tempt.—ἐκπειράζωμεν; ἐκ is here intensive; it is found also in Matthew 4:7, tempt beyond endurance.—Christ, as some of them also tempted.—The allusion here is to the event recorded in Numbers 21:4, where the people becoming weary of their journey, reproached Moses for bringing them out of Egypt, and expressed disgust at the manna. To tempt God means to put God to the proof to see how far His patience would go, and whether He would suffer men’s unbelief and impatience to pass unpunished; or it may denote an impatient demand on God to help in some extraordinary way, and a conditioning of faith upon the result (comp. πειράζειν, Deuteronomy 6:16; Exodus 17:2; Exodus 17:7; Psalms 78:18 ff.; Acts 5:9; Acts 15:10). According to Meyer, it expresses the discontent of the Israelites at their condition in the wilderness; he takes Paul’s warning as aimed at the dissatisfaction of his readers with their oppressed circumstances during the time of their waiting for the second coming of the Lord. But there is nothing in the context which indicates this; but rather the contrary. Possibly Paul might have had in mind the sacrificial feasts and the desire of the Corinthians for enjoying them, inasmuch as in this there was manifested a disgust at what the Lord had furnished to them in their Christian state, akin to the loathing of the manna by the Israelites. In such conduct he might discover a tempting of the Lord, a trial of His patience. “The Israelites demanded that God should appoint them a mode of life suited to their liking, that He would restore them the flesh pots of Egypt. In like manner the Corinthians seemed to demand of the Lord that He would allow them their old heathenish enjoyments.” Neander. Or, he regards them as putting God’s grace and power to the test, in that they were exposing themselves to the danger of a relapse, and so raised the question, whether He would preserve them by increased bestowments of His grace—in which case then we should find in the Old Testament precedent a challenging of God’s power and goodness, as to whether He could nourish His people with something else besides the manna in the wilderness (Osiander, Stanley). The first of these explanations squares best with the circumstances presented in Numbers 21:4, where the disgust of the Israelites at that which God had provided, was such a ‘temptation’ as the Apostle speaks of. [“It was a daring Him, in trying His patience by rebellious conduct and sin.” Alford; so also Hodge]. Other attempts at explanation need not here to be taken into account, as they are too forced.—The verb ‘tempted’ takes for its object the pronoun ‘Him’ implied—though Winer takes it as absolute—and by this we may very well understand ‘Christ’ (comp. 1 Corinthians 10:4; Exodus 23:20; Isaiah 63:9 ff.). If we adopt the reading κύριον, then still Christ might readily be understood by the term, although the relation to the Old Testament would be satisfied if we took it to mean God. [Hence whichever of the two readings we adopt, we have in this verse strong evidence of the fact that Paul regarded the Jehovah of the Old Testament as none other than Christ Himself, the Eternal Word, who in various ways—in natural phenomena and in the form of an angel, manifested Himself to the Fathers of the ancient dispensations, and was the real Ruler and Guide of Israel].—and perished.—If we adopt the reading ἀπώλλυςτο, then the Imperfect here would denote the progression of the fact: ‘They were being destroyed’ (Meyer). Yet the reading ἀπώλοντο, is more strongly supported [and is adopted in all the later critical editions].—by the serpents,—[i.e., the well-known serpents; “The article is so often omitted after a preposition, that wherever it is expressed we may be sure there was a reason for it.” Alford].—The last warning is against murmuring—a sin of which the Israelites were frequently guilty (Numbers 21:4; Exodus 16:8; Numbers 14:1 ff; Numbers 36 ff; Numbers 16:41).—Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured.—The particular instance here referred to, must be inferred from the judgment pointed to;—and perished by the destroyer.—The ὀλοθρευτής or ὀλοθρεύων, destroyer, appears in Exodus 12:23, and it denotes the organ of the Divine retribution—the angel executing it; but this is not to be regarded as an evil angel (comp. 1Ma 15:22 ff.). Since only some are particularized as murmuring (be the number greater or less), likewise their destruction by an extraordinary judgment, the event alluded to cannot be the one narrated in Numbers 14. In that case the whole congregation rose in rebellion, and the judgment inflicted was the gradual dying out of the whole elder generation (unless we restrict the affair to the ten spies, who were the cause of that uprising, and who died of a plague before the Lord, Numbers 14:36 ff.). More suitable to our text is the circumstance mentioned in Numbers 16, where 14,700 persons were snatched away by a sudden visitation (Numbers 16:49). Primarily the murmuring here was against Moses and Aaron, because of the destruction of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, with their company, which was charged upon these servants of the Lord. But, in fact, it was a murmuring against God from whom the judgment came [a judgment “which though it is not so specified there, was administered on another occasion by a destroying angel, 2 Samuel 24:16-17.” Alford].—In its application to the Corinthians, we are not to suppose that the murmuring they were cautioned against was on account of inferior spiritual gifts, or because of the restriction of their pleasures through the regulations demanded in the Christian life, or at their general condition as Christians; but rather it was the opposition which they were disposed to manifest against the teachers given them by God, and especially against Paul, an opposition which struck directly at the Lord Himself (Osiander and others). To make the parallel perfect, we must suppose the murmuring occasioned by Divine retributions, such as that hinted at in 1 Corinthians 11:30 : “On this account many are weak and sickly, and some sleep.”—These references to the Old Testament he concludes as he began,—Now these things were befalling.—συνέβαινον, [the plural verb, where the Gr. idiom would require the singular, “expresses the plurality of events separately happening”]; and the imperfect (were befalling) hints at the constant repetition of the case (Osiander and Meyer).—them typically,—τυπικῶς as above τύποι, not in the theological sense, but ‘for example,’ i.e., in such a way as by a Divine intent to indicate what would befall God’s people in like circumstances under the new dispensation. This point is more definitely brought out in the following statement.—and are written,—ἐγράφη, singular, expresses the union of these transactions in the record of Scripture as one complete whole.—for our admonition.—Here is the purpose of the sacred narrative as ordained by God (comp. 1 Corinthians 4:14).—unto whom.—The relative refers to ‘our’ (ἡμῶν), and introduces an allusion to the near approach of the great judicial crisis, thus confirming his warning.—have come, or ‘into whose life-time have entered, and even now exist’ (perf.),—the ends of the ages,—τὰτέλητῶναἰώνων. By this phrase the same is meant which is elsewhere termed συντέλειατῶναἰώνων, “the consummation of the ages” (Hebrews 9:26); or τοῦαἰωνος, “of the age” (Matthew 13:39); also briefly τὸτέλος, “the end” (1 Corinthians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Matthew 25:3; et al.); or πάντωντὸτέλος, “the end of all things” (1 Peter 4:7). The “ages” here are the great world-periods preceding the manifestation of Christ, and out-goings of which mark the incoming manifestation. The αἰὼνοὐτος, the present age, is contemplated in its progressive unfolding through manifold periods, whose exit finally leads to the last decisive crisis which passes over to the αίὼνμέλλων, the future age. Now the Apostle regards his time as the time of this grand crisis—accordingly as a time of severe trials for the faithful, in which it became them to be on their guard, and for which it was important for them to prepare with earnest self-denial; and he presses it upon the Corinthians not to expose themselves to the extreme of danger by indulging in a false security. “Paul had always good reason for considering the final catastrophe as near at hand, although he held the last time to be much shorter than it really was to be. Christianity is the goal and end of all earlier revelations, and no new one follows it. Hence the Christian is justified in considering himself as the terminus to which all the earlier developments of revelation point and conduct onwards.” Neander.—Next there follows a caution, to which a word of encouragement is annexed for despairing minds. 1 Corinthians 10:12-13. Wherefore, ὥστε [lit.: so that, is used with the Imp. or Subj. to introduce an inference from what precedes. (Winer P. III, § XLI. 5, note 1)]. Here it fitly leads in the practical exhortation deduced from the foregoing discussion. ‘Since these events which teach us how those who stand in so close a relation to God and partake of such exalted privileges, may incur fearful judgments by their evil conduct, have been recorded in accordance with God’s purposes as warnings for us who live in this last most critical period of trial, and are going on to the final judgment—let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall,—i.e., beware how he indulges in a false security. The verbs ‘to stand’ and ‘to fall,’ taken from the phraseology of the ring, admit of a twofold interpretation. 1. The former: to stand fast in goodness and in faith; and the latter: to be betrayed into sin. 2. The former: to abide in the possession of salvation, to be sure of a gracious state; and the latter: to forfeit salvation. The second interpretation best suits the connection, and it presupposes the first. [Hodge puts the case more forcibly. The security cautioned against “may refer either to security of salvation, or against the power of temptation. The two are very different, and rest generally on very different grounds. False security of salvation commonly rests on the ground of our belonging to a privileged body (the Church), or to a privileged class (the elect). Both are equally fallacious. Neither the members of the Church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot persevere in holiness without continued watchfulness and effort. False security as to our power to resist temptation rests on an overweening self-confidence in our own strength. None so liable to fall as they who, thinking themselves strong, run into temptation. This probably is the kind of false security against which the Apostle warns the Corinthians, as he exhorts them immediately after to avoid temptation”].—Though the Romish interpreters think they find evidence here against Luther’s doctrine of a fides specialis, according to which a Christian can with the greatest assurance be confident of his own justification and of his perseverance in it unto the end, yet they are opposed alike by the experience of Paul himself (2 Timothy 1:12; 2 Timothy 4:8; 2 Timothy 4:18), and of many a Christian after him who has enjoyed that certitudo fidei which, as a general thing, the Corinthians could not possess from want of firmness.—no temptation—πειρασμός; this denotes either an ordeal, especially by means of sufferings and persecutions, to which the verb “to bear” may refer; or, temptation, i. e., enticement to sin, to which the connection with what precedes, and the hortatory intent of the whole paragraph would point. Both meanings coalesce in the thought that their Christian character had been put to the proof by painful circumstances, as well as by sinful enticements, so as to show whether faith was strong; love, of the right kind; and hope, firm.—has taken you but such as is human.—All apology in reference to the temptations they had hitherto experienced, though not now existing, and all despair in regard to the severer trials before them, Paul here meets by the statement that what they had thus far encountered was altogether ‘human’ ἀνθρώπινοι, i.e., either: proceeding from men (such as the fascinations of the surrounding heathen life), in contrast perhaps with the properly demonic temptations of the last evil time which was to precede the revelation of Christ; or: suited to man, to his power of endurance, in contrast with the fascinations of a more dangerous sort, for overcoming which supernatural grace is required. [Hodge prefers the latter as the more natural and so the common interpretation. Ol shausen, the former]. For their encouragement in the future he points to the fidelity of God—but God is faithful—i.e., true to His calling and covenant, consistent in His love and purpose (1 Corinthians 1:9), which would appear wholly-unreliable if he allowed temptations to befall His people that transcended their powers of endurance or resistance,—who,—ὅς for ὅτιου̇ ?͂τος, because He,—will not suffer you to be tempted beyond what ye are able.—This expression seems to sustain the second interpretation given to ‘human’ above,—showing that a moderate temptation is meant by it. Compare the expression, Hosea 11:4; 2 Samuel 7:14. Besides, it must be said that every temptation, though coming primarily from men, is to be ascribed to Satan as the ultimate cause (comp. 1 Corinthians 7:5; Ephesians 6:12), [and men and devils are alike under the control of the Almighty, who permits or restrains at pleasure, and to the degree that He sees fit.] The limit of permission is the ability to endure which God Himself has conferred. And this implies that with the later, severer temptations God will cause the strength of His chosen to increase (Neander). The same is true in respect to the time the temptation will last, of which he finally speaks.—but will with the temptation make also the escape—ἔκβασις literally means escape, the passing out from, the ἀπαλλαγὴτοῦπειρασμοῦ of Theoph.; but here it denotes the way of escape, or the end (=τὸτέλοςκυρίου, James 5:11). The ‘with’ (συν) cannot indicate contemporaneousness; but it implies only that the escape is connected with the temptation, that the latter will never be without the former. The use of the verb “make” in relation to temptation does not conflict with that of “suffer,” inasmuch as the Divine permission involves a direct providence. Even the tempting cause stands under the Divine sovereignty, and in its action is dependent on God. The emphasis lies upon τὴνἔκβασιν.—in order that ye may be able to bear (it),—τοῦδύνασθαιὑπενεγκεῖν.—This clause may be taken either as interpreting “escape,” showing that it will consist in the ability to endure; but this does not comport with the idea of an escape: or it maybe construed as an objective clause as rendered above, intimating that the result would be such as will comport with the designs of a faithful God. The verb ὑπενεγκεῖν, to bear, suggests the idea of a burden carried, and very appropriately, inasmuch as all temptation is for the believer as an oppressive weight, or that of a hostile attack under which one has to hold out, to endure. AND ETHICAL[1. A sound belief in the doctrine of the saints’ perseverance is ever accompanied with a conviction of the possibility of failure and of the absolute necessity of using our utmost endeavor in order to final success. No experiences of Divine favor in the past, no circumstances, however advantageous, furnish such a guarantee of salvation as to warrant spiritual repose. There is no perseverance without conscious and determined persevering, and the requisite effort can be put forth only under the influence alike of hope and fear. And he who apprehends no danger of being ultimately a castaway through neglect or transgression, will lack the motive necessary to urge him triumphantly to the goal]. 2. The spirit of the true Christian agonistes as contrasted with that of the false one. “This poor life entire for an eternal crown,”—so A. Knapp pithily describes L. Hofacker’s spirit; and this is the spirit of every true Christian warrior. In view of the crown of life, he hesitates at no sacrifice, is ready for all self-denial, does violence to his own nature, and never grows weary of mortifying the flesh through the might of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:13; Galatians 5:24; Colossians 3:6). Such as desire to belong to Christ, yet are ever yielding to their natural inclinations, and deal tenderly with the flesh even though the spiritual life may suffer thereby, and they in consequence are detained in the heavenly race, are put to shame by men of this world, who for the sake of temporal gain or renown, willingly strain every nerve and incur the most painful privations, yea, even hold life cheap in order to attain their end (Luke 15:8). Those who do not earnestly contend against whatever endangers their heavenly crown, and strive not with all their might to overcome the obstacles in their way, and so become weak and uncertain in their warfare, or who covertly entertain that which they ought to oppose, opposing it only for the sake of appearances, resemble pugilists who spend their blows in the air. Especially shameful is it for a person who is called to give others direction and encouragement in the holy warfare not to engage earnestly in it himself, and to shrink from the requisite self-denial and to tire in the race and grow lukewarm in the fight, so as to appear like the herald, who, having proclaimed the terms of the conflict to others, has been found himself unworthy of the prize (1 Corinthians 9:24-27). 3. Carnal security, its fatal character. The reason of lukewarmness in temper, of deficiency in self-denying earnestness, of abandonment to all manner of impure inclinations, of entanglement in ungodly objects, and worldly lusts, of idolatrous cleaving to the creature even to the lowest self-debasement, of strife with God and His providence both in disgust at the gifts He sends, and in murmurs at His judgments—the ground of all such bad conduct in those who would still be Christians, lies most frequently in a false security, in the vain conceit that there can be no failure—that the goal of salvation will certainly be reached, because a person has once been received into the fellowship of believers. All such false security in His people, God has taken pains to counteract from the beginning, and in their history He has furnished warnings against it for all time to come. In the judgments which befell that earlier generation, so distinguished for the marvellous bestowments of His grace—judgments inflicted because of repeated offences against their covenant God, a threatening has been issued to the Church of the New Covenant of a similar fate in like circumstances, according to the abiding law of the Divine rule (1 Corinthians 10:1-11). 4. Frowardness and false security readily give place to despair when severe temptations arise. As in opposition to the former, we must point to the Divine retributions in order to awaken a salutary fear; so in opposition to the latter we must point to the truth of God and the steadfastness of His love. God never ceases from His work of grace, and will not fail to furnish needful assistance to honest fighters; and He will moderate the measure and duration of the temptation according to the strength He has afforded; so that at the right moment He puts an end to the trial, in order that those who are tempted may be able to endure in the conflict (1 Corinthians 10:12-13). 5. Burger:—A person may be endowed with all the seals and tokens of Divine grace, and yet through personal infidelity be lost (1 Corinthians 10:15). 6. In Christ all the threads of the history of the Divine revelation run together. He is the true and sole manifestation of the eternal God. In the midst of the ages He entered into the human race, and took upon Himself personally our nature, in order to perfect the work of redemption and carry out the purposes of God’s holy love, and prepare the way for the final judgment of the world, in which He as judge will determine the lot of every man in accordance with the manner in which he has treated the Divine grace proffered him in His word and works. But this whole work He has prepared and foreshadowed under the older dispensation alike in the promise, and in the law, and in the manifoldness of His operations and providences, whereby both are led, established and confirmed in life, and secured against unbelief and disobedience. As the messenger of Jehovah, on whom Jehovah’s name is written, who bears imprinted on Himself the Jehovah-character, and carries the image of the unchangeable, holy, merciful and true covenant God stamped in every word and deed, He is Israel’s deliverer from bondage, his protector and helper in extremest necessities, his wondrous guardian and supporter in want which no natural means may relieve, who out of His own fulness furnishes him the life-sustaining manna, who pours out for him the life-refreshing water, who bears with him in unspeakable patience, but also at the same time exercises toward him a judicial severity. And what He does, ordains, or controls through His own personal manifestation, He has previously indicated both through individuals and their doings, and through manifold ordinances, administrations and judgments, intended for the instruction, for the comfort and warning of us in these last days. AND Starke:1 Corinthians 9:24. The running includes: 1. a turning from sin; 2. a turning to the goal, i.e., God (Acts 26:18); 3. the exercise of the powers of the new man in the obedience of faith and the mortification of the sinful life; 4. the refraining from all hinderances, such as the lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life—and indeed not simply from what is evidently sinful in itself, but also from things otherwise lawful, by which a person may either injure himself or put a stumbling-block in the way of others.—Ordinarily only one person obtains the prize; but in Christianity we can all obtain it, even though one may run faster than the other, provided only that we are steadfast. For as the faith is the same for all, so also is the race; although the degrees of glory attained may be various.—In the race no account is made of what man does in his own strength, or of his own will (Romans 9:16); but if God chooses to draw us by His word, and we resist not, then He grants the ability to come to Christ, and to follow Him, and to run with patience the race set before us (Hebrews 12:1 ff.).—Hed.:—If they who run fail of the prize, what hope can those have who sit still, or fall back, or stop in the way? Ah! the obtaining of salvation is no child’s play. Earned indeed was it without our labor; and now the prize being there, we must strive for it. Earnestness, earnestness, fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12) are necessary to reach the spot where the crown is put on the victor’s brow (2 Timothy 2:5).—Standing and running both belong to the true Christian—standing, as opposed to falling; running, as opposed to idleness and standing still, and to unfaithfulness in falling back (1 Corinthians 16:13; Hebrews 12:1).—We should press to God through all things, and rest in nothing but in God (Matthew 11:29).—With beginners Christianity is only a walk—they go step by step; but with the experienced it is a race. 1 Corinthians 9:25. A Christian is bound to refrain from whatever obstructs his course, and to use all means for increasing his spiritual strength. The particular things to be avoided must be determined by each one for himself.—A person must be converted to God before he can have peace with God, and the pledge of salvation in his own soul, and can with a watchful eye avoid whatever may disturb his peace or injure his neighbor, and therefore ought to be denied.—The hope of an eternal crown keeps us from carnal gratification, and is a great incentive to perseverance (Romans 2:7). 1 Corinthians 10:26-27. Luther:—As a combatant who swerves from his course must fail of his goal, or in fighting makes false strokes, and wastes his strength in the air, so is it with all who would do good works without faith; for they are altogether uncertain as to how they stand with God: hence all their doings are mis-runs, mis-strokes and mis-doings.—The faith which works by love hits the foe squarely; since faith allows not of despair, nor love admits a false security.—He instructs best who teaches by example.—He who is void of spiritual life, runs by his own strength, and so runs into error and sinks at last.—What we venture on in the name of Jesus, and at His bidding, obtains the crown. What we do apart from Him, is lost work.—How many air-strokes and mis-strokes are given by those who have not the mind and weapons of Paul!—air-strokes in preaching, in the supposed vindication of truth, in prayer, and the like, under the idea that the foe has been finely hit or utterly laid low, and that a good work has been well done (1 Timothy 6:3 f.)!—Something of the old Adam still clings to the best of Christians: hence they have to fight with themselves daily, and as Christ did towards Peter (Matthew 16:23) show the devil the door.—The flesh must obey the spirit, and for this, discipline and self-crucifixion are necessary. Woe to those who take the covenant of God into their mouth and hate discipline (Romans 2:17-23)! 1 Corinthians 10:1 : The pillar of cloud is a type of Christ, a token of God’s gracious presence, for in Christ the Father’s glory dwelleth (John 1:14).—The cloudy pillar was to the Egyptians a horror; to the Israelites a comfort: so is Christ to the godless an object of dread: to the faithful a source of consolation. The cloudy pillar departed not from the people day nor night; Christ is with us evermore. 1 Corinthians 10:2; Baptism is a token of God’s grace and beneficence, just as was the passage through the Red Sea; it slays the old man and makes the new man live. Pharaoh dies but Israel survives. As God, by His miraculous favors, assured the Israelites of His gracious presence and aid, so is holy baptism a strong seal of the divine promise, and a sure witness of divine grace. As the Israelites were pledged by their deliverance to believe in Moses’ doctrine, go are we pledged by baptism to believe the word of Christ and follow His commands. 1 Corinthians 10:3. The manna was a type of Christ: 1. as to its source—Christ was the bread from heaven; 2. as to the place where it was given—the wilderness is an image of this troubled life; 3. as to the mode of gathering it—we must seek Him early; 4. as to its enjoyments—the true Israelite enjoying Christ, with all His blessings; 5. as to the taste—Christ, the bread of life, surpasses the most delicious and refreshing food; 6. as to the punishment which follows upon contempt; 7. as to the provision made for remembrance—Christ has ordained a holy supper as His enduring memorial (John 6:31-35). 1 Corinthians 10:4; The rock is a type of Christ, the Rock of our salvation, and the foundation of His Church (1 Peter 2:6), who, smitten by His sufferings, has poured out for us the water of life. 1 Corinthians 10:5. Hed.: The manna, the gushing rock, and the pillar of cloud could not hinder the destruction of Israel. Where was the failure? It was in obedience to the truth, and in that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. So also may those who have been made partakers of God’s grace, in Christ, be finally lost, if they do not remain steadfast in such grace through faith. 1 Corinthians 10:6. Where sin is there punishment ensues; on pleasure follows pain. The terrible histories of Holy Writ ought to serve as the perpetual preachers of repentance, and stand as abiding monuments of the ever-burning wrath of God. If evil lusts were not sin, God never would have said: Thou shalt not covet (Romans 7:7). 1 Corinthians 10:7. It is an abomination to confer on a miserable creature the honor which belongs to God alone.—Most banquets, and especially marriage feasts, among Christians of the present day are a very subtle, yet really wicked idolatry; and an evidence of such an inward apostasy from God as would justify our calling the participants godless, i.e., persons standing in no covenant of faith and love with God (1 Corinthians 10:31; Titus 2:12). 1 Corinthians 10:8. The regenerate do, indeed, at times, feel the excitements of impure lusts; but they allow not themselves to be betrayed thereby; they sigh over the evil, resist it by the grace of God, and try to quench the spark, and pray for forgiveness (Galatians 5:16-24).—Whoredom is a three-fold sin—against God, whose temple is desecrated; against our neighbor, who is partly offended and partly disgraced by it; and against ourselves, by the violation of our conscience and the defilement of our body. 1 Corinthians 10:9. Let us not step out of our calling and scorn the means ordained for our temporal and eternal welfare. For Christ means to rule us, and not to be ruled by us. 1 Corinthians 10:10. Those who murmur against pious government and faithful preachers, sin not against man, but against Christ Himself. What do people mean by complaining that God does not do rightly by them? If they only considered how far they fail of acting in accordance with God’s will, what reason would not every one find to complain of himself! Complain against your own sin, otherwise God will begin to complain of you. What can follow then but ruin and damnation (Lamentations 3:39)! 1 Corinthians 10:11. We are more fortunate than the ancients; for we not only have the same commands of God which they had, but also their examples for our instruction, exhortation, warning and comfort. Many other advantages have we also; they have the shadow, we have the substance (Colossians 2:17); they were servants, we are children (Rom. 13:15); they were under the yoke, we are free (Acts 15:10); they were taught by Moses, we are taught by Christ (Hebrews 1:1 f.). 1 Corinthians 10:12. Hedinger: How easy to fall! Watch, pray, trust neither the foe nor thyself. But many think that they are standing, even though they have not yet arisen, but are lying buried in the filth of sin. Prove thyself!—If we are imagining ourselves firm and strong, then have we the most reason to fear our weakness and our inability. Distrust of one’s self is the ground of the Christian’s strength.—We shun many a fall by lying beautifully low upon the earth (Proverbs 28:26). Shunning all hinderances to good, and all temptations to evil, and industriously using the means which serve for our confirmation. It is a very common temptation with young converts to trust themselves too much and not to be rightly observant; and hence they are easily entrapped by the treacheries of sin, and betrayed into a fall; therefore this warning is very needful for them. 1 Corinthians 10:13. Hed.:—Those temptations are called human which do not require us to resist unto blood (Hebrews 12:4), and which do not yet amount to the fiery darts of the devil (Ephesians 6:16; 2 Corinthians 12:7). Among the temptations of Satan are to be reckoned all those severe trials which believing souls are constrained to endure under the divine permission; although Satan is not altogether quiet in those human temptations which spring from original sin, and from evil examples and seductions. Besides these, there are yet divine temptations, wherein God puts our faith to the proof (Genesis 32), purifies and confirms us through all measures of suffering (1 Peter 1:7; 1 Peter 1:9; 1 Peter 1:12 f.; James 1:3; Hebrews 11:11), and also for our good delivers us to Satan that he may sift us (Luke 22:31), and thereby prove that Satan can avail nothing against us (sixth petition in the Lord’s Prayer). Why do ye then complain, ye tenderlings? The cross is not so great but that the strength to bear it is greater; the cross carries us, and not we the cross; for in the cross there is power, and there is none in us. With the cross comes power, and with the power the cross. Berlenburger Bible. 1 Corinthians 9:24. Genuine Christianity is a real race-course, but the proper running on it is no rambling. If people learn that they can be made happy by the Gospel, and observe that a good thing may be made out of Christ, they will devote themselves to Him outwardly, and run after a certain fashion. Many do this in a more exact sense when they taste the good word of God a little, and submit to repentance, and begin a pious and honorable life. Many continue earnestly in prayer, and in all manner of good practices, their life long; but yet maintain their own secret designs. But because they run in their sinful nature, and not in their divine nature, they never reach the goal. The Lord Jesus Christ, who Himself ran the race, is the Judge and Rewarder of those who run it after Him; and besides, He gives unto them strength and courage for running. All may reach it, provided they are only earnest in their endeavors. Why should we run without such a hope? But the realization of it takes place only in the birth, and in breaking through the strait gate into the new divine life, and this demands the deepest earnestness and death-struggle, in which body and soul may often perish before the gate of life is reached and found open. All power which is capable of furthering our right race towards a sure prize, must be obtained from Christ by the prayer of faith. Ho, by His Spirit, extends to us His hand, and leads us by this secret way. Observe well where your desires run, in order that, under a fair show, you may not after all be seeking your own ends. We must not only run so as merely to imagine that we may succeed; but we must earnestly strive actually to succeed. Spiritual running consists in the eager stretching and straining of the spirit after the promises of God in Christ Jesus; from this there follows an earnest pressing forward to the new birth, together with all needful watchfulness, fidelity and diligence in the daily obedience of faith, and mortification of the sinful man. Above all is it necessary to keep one’s self disentangled. Besides, the soul must abide unwearied in its endeavors to rise to the highest good; and even when it would fain stand still, or sink down, must it rally again in daily repentance, through the power of God, and hasten zealously along its course. It is the selfish and treacherous carnal understanding which often plants itself in the way, and perverts the powers of the soul to such things as not only bring no reward, but also hinder our obtaining one. 1 Corinthians 9:25. He who means to race makes himself light, and lays aside needless incumbrances. If the heart stands open to the Lord, and to His Spirit, free from all inordinate delight in and cleaving to visible, things, and to itself, then it is strong in the Lord and filled by Him; and all powers of darkness, and the hidden might of sin are bound and cast out by Jesus Christ, the Lord of victory.—Not that suffering and striving earn salvation; but the great Awarder of the prizes deems no one worthy who does not value that which is precious and dear to him above everything else.—The prize is Jesus, in His Spirit, the great mystery of godliness. Those who rightly win it have an eternal satisfaction therein. We can only stand before the Father in the Son. But of Him can we become partakers only in the new birth, by which He is formed in the human heart. Therefore must the lovers of Jesus direct their aim and desire only toward Him; in Him will the hungry soul alone delight itself; therefore do all its energies go out after Him, for whom it counts all things but loss, that it may win Christ and be found in Him (Philippians 3:8-9). Draw us and we will run after thee! Confirm those whom Thou hast drawn, and give us ever new power that we may never be weary in pressing forward to this prize until it has been obtained. 1 Corinthians 9:26. Ordinarily there is a lack of clear knowledge and certainty as to what is the true prize, and what the way to it. The path to life is confusedly and wrongly apprehended, and a person’s own choices often get mingled in with it. One falls upon this and that outward duty, engages zealously in prayer his life long, reads all good books he can get, exercises himself outwardly in good works, mortifications, alms-giving, mean clothing, and thinks thus to force salvation by his own running and striving, whether he has Christ already or not; this is to run uncertainly.—Beatings of the air are the strokes which are not given by the Spirit in the soul. Those persons only beat the air who do not hit the foe whom they ought to ward off. They are very zealous about others; but have no just perceptions of themselves; they will engage in outward lip-devotion, and forget at the same time the inward prayer of the Spirit, and earnest striving against all sin; they will busy themselves in studying and speaking about Divine things, or even in disputing about and criticising others, and prefer this to actual fighting themselves; or they will cease from warfare because nature recoils from a complete extermination; or they will devote themselves to the society of other pious persons, and entirely forget their own duties; or they will rest content with keeping up simply fair appearances. And even when one has begun in right earnest, what numerous beatings of the air often take place in the conflicts of the heart, which the Spirit of Wisdom discloses afterwards to each one when ho comes truly to seek God! In general, it may be regarded as an ineffectual warfare when a person is loth to cross his own will and flesh, or does not lose his own life even unto a true self-mortification, but always keeps something secretly in reserve. These the archenemy still holds in a subtle snare of secret lust, just as he may yet hold others through fear that they will not properly deny themselves every thing out of dread of detraction and mockery. Art thou letting go all things seen for the sake of something better? Art thou closing up thy sense and heart against that which wrongly entices thee? And art thou striving earnestly against all uprising lust? Art thou wrestling also earnestly with God, and holding on until He blesseth thee? Art thou risking body and soul, and all things for the sake of winning the pearl? Holdest thou no agreement with Satan and the world, and thine own flesh? And hast thou renounced these things forever? 1 Corinthians 9:27. He whose senses are not yet slain can never become spiritual; but remains always carnal. Each one, according to his own condition and his predominant affections and temperament, is required by God to refrain particularly from that which is most apt to take him captive. We must bring our body into subjection in order that we may not fall into subjection to it. This is the right sort of theology—that the teacher himself hearken to the word of truth, in order that he may appear as an example to the flock, and show that obedience is possible. He who in this respect follows Christ is acceptable to Him and useful to men. 1 Corinthians 10:1 ff. It is possible to effect an entrance, and then to stand still and lose all that has been gained.—In the true baptism we acquire every thing. Therefore it becomes us to enter renewedly every day into the death of Christ, and allow the old false disposition to lie buried in His grave, and also daily to put on the new life in the might of Christ through the prayer of the Spirit.—The true bread from heaven gladly imparts life to the world, provided only that we are eager to partake of its fulness. As Christ gives Himself for our food, so may He also serve as a drink to all who thirst after righteousness by means of His Spirit, which is the true water of life.—Christ is not a remote, but an ever-present Saviour. He ever walks with us. 1 Corinthians 10:5. Many may commit themselves to the protection of God (the cloud) and pass through floods of tribulation (the sea); they may be baptized, and enjoy the Lord’s Supper with great interest and devotion. Yea, they may actually partake of the Lord Jesus in their own souls, and yet, after all, fail of the prize, and apostatize from God, so that He can have no pleasure in them. 1 Corinthians 10:6. A type—a sketch such as shall be preserved for all time. This is grounded on the uniformity of the ways of God.—In all our conflicts and self-restraints we must begin with our desires and lusts, which are the root of all evil. The temptations to sin are to be attacked in the very first motions towards it within us, and suppressed by the Spirit.—Even the best things may be turned into occasions of sin if they are sought with a selfish will. All desires which depart from God and go after the creature are impure and reprobate: for God demands our entire affections for Himself.—Christ is our pattern to be imitated. The example of Israel, on the other hand, is held up for a warning.—Unstable souls are easily seduced to that which is false ere they are aware; hence the importance of shunning promiscuous intercourse and putting a tight rein upon our desires. 1 Corinthians 10:7. How fares it with the Christianity of the time and its festal days? In the morning, if convenient, people perform their intended prayer and worship; then they feast according to their appetites, and finally rise up to play, or to pass time in gossipping, or to indulge in corrupt practices. And is this the service to which the Israel of God is called?—He who will walk surely must beware of devious paths, and, for the sake of his Saviour, avoid the charms of false affections, and all idolatry of the creature, and all sectarianism, which beguiles him from his Lord: then will God also preserve and keep him. 1 Corinthians 10:8. It is the part of true temperance to avoid the occasions of sin and all corrupt conversation, for we can seldom leave such things undefiled. Our fidelity to our proper Bridegroom is manifested by our carefully avoiding all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, and by abstaining from all spiritual adultery through illicit attachment to any creature. Both these sins incur sore judgments. 1 Corinthians 10:9. All discontent and murmuring against God and His gifts is a tempting of Christ—(Since His incarnation it has become far easier for us to assail His Light, His Word, and His Spirit, because He has declared that He is with us every day; especially by doubting whether He will fulfil His office in us, from the fact that we do not as yet experience any victory over sin, or feel the power of His presence and love. He who breaks the law and follows his inordinate affections, and still desires that God should redeem him, is guilty of tempting God. 1 Corinthians 10:10. A fearful commotion often arises in the breast of man if his flesh is not gratified: he blames God for His ways, and murmurs at God’s instruments. In this way the mystery of the Cross is assailed, and the great enemy overpowers the soul and suffers it not to come and bow before God. 1 Corinthians 10:11. Since we have the example of so many centuries before our eyes, the greater watchfulness is demanded of us unto whom these last times have come, inasmuch as the harvest and the sifting is at the door, and Satan rages against all who are hastening out of Egypt, knowing that his time is short. 1 Corinthians 10:12. If a person intends not to fall, he must ground his salvation not upon his own strength, and on the fact that he stands, but he must cleave to God alone. For if by clinging to the Lord we become one spirit with Him, it follows that those who do this can no more fall than He can fall. 1 Corinthians 10:13. Man; because he intends to be on the lookout, feels safe and fears not danger. But when he is assailed, he looks only to the temptation and despairs. The heart is a deceitful and desperate thing (Jeremiah 17:9).—Aside from those human temptations which occur in ordinary life, and spring directly from human corruptions, there are others of a superhuman and spiritual character; these fall upon us like an armed man. Nevertheless they cannot injure the faithful (1 John 5:18).—The faithfulness of God here stands like a pillar, firm and strong, around which all things rage and storm in vain. But it is His own pure, unfalsified inclination and love to the soul which causes Him to deal with it in all respects so prudently and savingly, and which prompts Him to omit nothing which is for its welfare, and to allow nothing which is for its injury. Temptations, so far as they are beneficial to the soul, only reveal God’s holiness and love; and He soon puts an end to the same, so far as their power to overcome is concerned. In the converted man there is a certain degree of ability. It is God’s power bestowed through the Holy Spirit, in which Paul claimed to be able to do all things (Philippians 4:13). Therefore it is the fault of our indolence if we think ourselves incapable of overcoming any temptation. In all truly anointed Christians their ability is equal to their temptations. Let one only learn to pray aright, and to understand what it means when we ask, “Cast us not away from Thy presence!” God knows already how much He will permit; and how to counterbalance it. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ D. A dissuasive from partaking of idol feasts, as involving a fellowship with idolatry, and therefore hostile to all fellowship with Christ in His supper 1 Corinthians 10:14-2214    Wherefore, my dearly [om. dearly] beloved, flee from idolatry. 15I speak as towise men; judge ye what I say. 16The cup of [the, τῆς] blessing which we bless, Isaiah 2 it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, Isaiah 1 it17not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many [Because we, the many, οίπολλοίἐσμεν] are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers ofthat one bread. 18Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of thesacrifices, partakers [common participants, κοινωνοί] of the altar? 19What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing [that that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing, or that the20idol is any thing]? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils [they sacrifice,4 they sacrifice to demons, om. Gentiles] and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship [be communicants, κοινωνοὺςγίνεσθαι with devils. 21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. 22Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? AND 1 Corinthians 10:13. [Having enforced the duty of renouncing their rights and restricting their liberty by a reference to his own example of self-denial and its motives, he now returns to his main subject, from which he digressed at the commencement of chap. 9, viz., participating in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen. “But whereas before he dwelt only on the scandal to others, he now in accordance with the train of thought, begun in 1 Corinthians 9:23, dwells chiefly on the evils to themselves. And the sense of this evil is enhanced by the recollection incidentally introduced in 1 Corinthians 10:3, of the only Christian institution which bore any resemblance to these feasts.” Stanley].—Wherefore,—διόπερ shows that the following exhortation is deduced from what goes before. And this may be either the whole paragraph from 1 Corinthians 10:1, as: ‘in view of the judgments inflicted upon Israel and recorded for your warning, flee,’ etc.; or it may be what directly precedes, as: ‘since the faithfulness of God pledges to you the results of such watchfulness,’ etc.; or: ‘since ye have a God so faithful, therefore shun whatsoever would cut you off from His fellowship.’—What is expressed generally in 1 Corinthians 10:12, is now resumed with particular reference to the case in hand.—flee from idolatry.—By this he enjoins the avoidance of every thing, which, however remotely, would imply participation in idol worship. The preposition ‘from’ (ἀπό) adds force, q. d., ‘keep yourselves aloof from.’ [“The only safety is in keeping at a distance. This includes two things; first, avoiding whatever is questionable; and, secondly, avoiding the occasions and temptations to sin.” Hodge]. The use of the simple accusative as the object of ‘flee,’ would not, however, necessarily indicate that they had been already involved in idolatry (comp. 2 Timothy 2:22). For what follows it appears that he had in mind attendance at idolatrous festivals.—The address—my dearly beloved—imparts to the exhortation an urgent and affectionate tone. 1 Corinthians 10:15-21. As to wise men I speak.—In proof of the fact which occasioned the above exhortation, viz., that they by participating in idolatrous feasts, were taking part in idol worship—a proceeding which was one with the worship of devils, and wholly inconsistent with the Christian profession, he appeals to their own insight and good sense, which placed them in a position to judge for themselves of the correctness of what he was about to say. In so doing he at the same time gives them to perceive his own strong conviction of its truth, which he held to be so palpable that he could safely entrust it with their decision. The ‘as’ merely indicates the point of view from which he considered them.—judge ye—ὑμεῖς, is emphatic: ‘ye yourselves.’ Whether in this winning manner there lurks a delicate slant at their lack of judgment, some touch of sarcasm, is a question which we will not now discuss.—That participation in idol altar-feasts involved participation in idol worship, is shown, first, from the analogy of the Lord’s supper. He starts with the cup, while that which naturally follows is connected with the bread. [‘This mention of the cup first, before the bread, both here and at 1 Corinthians 10:21, is remarkable. Why was this? 1. Perhaps there was more danger of those immoral and lascivious consequences, against which he is writing, from excesses in the wine at the idolatrous feasts, than in the meats. 2. The Apostle has thus shown the essential independence of the cup as a necessary-part of the Holy Communion, and supplies a caution against Romish error. 3. Each of the elements is variously put first in the Holy Scripture, to show their, equal dignity and the equal necessity of receiving each.’ Wordsworth].—The cup—τὸποτήριον is undoubtedly accusative, corresponding to τὸνἄρτον by attraction (comp. Matthew 21:42). Of course the contents are intended.—of blessing;—so called, either from its effects, as it brings a blessing [so Olshausen]; or, preferably, from the act which immediately precedes, so that the words—which we bless—are epexegetical of it. By this we may understand the thanksgiving alluded to in (1 Corinthians 11:24; Matthew 26:27), and interpret: ‘which we receive with thanksgiving’—an interpretation which transcends the meaning of εὐλογοῦμεν; or the consecration (comp. Leviticus 9:16), and then interpret: ‘which we set apart by prayer to a holy use’—an act which certainly included thanksgiving. The expression is derived from the observance of the Passover, when the third cup which went round was called δְ ?αְּ ?ψְ ?λָ ?δ .λּ ?εֹ ?ν The subject of the verb ‘we,’ denotes the whole congregation, which unitedly consecrated the cup by prayer and thanksgiving. [“Observe the first person plural is the same throughout; the blessing of the cup and the breaking of the bread—acts of consecration, were not the acts of the minister, as by any authority peculiar to himself, but only as representative of the whole congregation (οἱπάντες). And so even Estius, but evading the legitimate inference. The figment of a sacerdotal consecration of the elements by transmitted power, is as alien from the Apostolic writings as it is from the spirit of the Gospel.” Alford. And Stanley also comments to the same effect.]—is it not the communion.—κοινωνία is not the precise equivalent of ‘communication’ [as the Rheims version translates it, and as some insist on rendering it, in support of a sacramental theory]; even in Hebrews 13:16; Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13, it may denote participation, which, however, is certainly not without communication. But the word here is used by metonymy for the means of communicating or participating (comp. John 11:25). [So Hodge: “The means of participating.” Alford translates “participation.” Calvin: “It is that connection which we have with the blood of Christ, when He ingrafts all of us together into His body, that He may live in us and we in Him.” Tyndale and Cranmer give “partaking.” But the E. V. seems to hit the meaning best: “communion of,” which implies a fellowship, a common sharing in the blood of Christ, according to the meaning of the root, κοινός, common, whence κοινωνέω, to have a thing in common, to have a share of a thing. This derivation shows that the idea of fellowship in the partaking is prominent in the word. It ever denotes a social act. And this idea is essential to the argument of the Apostle.] The strong literal sense of the verb “is,” must also be retained. This is not employed in a symbolic sense, as though it meant signifies; but it simply affirms the fact. The eating of the bread is the communion. This is required by the argument. [“If we render ἐστιν, symbolizes, the argument is made void.” Alford. So Hodge: “He who partakes of the cup, partakes of Christ’s blood.” But it may be asked here: ‘in what sense?’ This, of course, is not here explained. But it is in some real, veritable way predicable of all who partake. Otherwise the parallel with the idolatrous act rebuked, would not be sustained. Paul means to show that as by means of the sacrament we truly come into communion with Christ, so in the idolatrous feasts, whether a person intends it or not, he does worship the idol. Hodge, however, says: “This of course is true only of believers.” But if the fact of communion turned upon the presence or absence of faith, the participant at the idol feast might fairly reply, ‘I am not guilty of idolatry in this, for I eat without faith in the idol.’ And this was precisely what Paul designed to preclude by asserting the veritableness of the communion in drinking of the cup.] But does this view lead to the doctrine of a substantial identification of the wine with the blood of Christ, of a union of the elements with the matter of the sacrament (res sacramenti)? The Apostle is treating primarily of the participation of individuals in that to which the thing they partake of refers; or, in other words, of the fact that they, through that of which they partake, come into fellowship with that particular religious sphere to which the thing partaken of belongs. Here in the instance before us, it is with the blood of Christ, the ground and seal of the New Covenant; in the other case with idols, the sphere of a devilish heathenism; hence with devils themselves. Meanwhile, if nothing else hindered, we might suppose a real communion between the wine and the blood, since κοινωνία may be variously interpreted according to different analogies.—of the blood of Christ.—i.e., the blood shed on the cross, not His bloody death, as may be seen from the parallel term, “the body.” It is the blood of the covenant by which the forgiveness of sins and the whole salvation it includes is purchased (comp. 1 Corinthians 11:25; Matthew 26:28), [the blood which has in itself also the Eternal Life, and to partake of which secures a pardon unto life eternal].—the bread which we break.—[The breaking of the bread was a formal public act, a part of the solemnity of the sacrament, in accordance with the example set by Christ, significant of the breaking of Christ’s body for us. The custom therefore of having the bread ready broken put on the table, as practised in some churches, or that of the Romanists in putting a wafer unbroken on the tongue of the communicant, must be condemned as contrary to the precedent of the early Church.] The consecration is here presupposed.—is it not the communion of the body of Christ?—It is a question here whether the word ‘body’ is used figuratively of the Church, which is the body of Christ, as some would interpret it, both here and in 1 Corinthians 10:16. The parallel with the word ‘blood,’ decides this in the negative, since there is nothing in this connection which the blood can be understood to symbolize; nor is there aught in the context which constrains us to such an interpretation. “It appears from this passage that the Lord’s Supper has been instituted as a real communion, and not as a mere symbol.” Neander.—because one bread, one body we the many are.—ὅτιεἷςἄρτοςἕνσῶμαοἱπολλοίἐσμεν. It would be natural to assume here a protasis and an apodosis, as: ‘because there is one bread, therefore are we the many one body.’ But to this it must be objected, 1. Paul very seldom introduces a protasis with ὅτι (1 Corinthians 12:15 f.; Galatians 4:6, are doubtful cases); 2. the course of thought would in this way be interrupted, and we should have here a logical parenthesis, which is not to be supposed unnecessarily.—The ὅτι, because, evidently introduces an argument for the leading thought in the previous verse, viz., that the bread is the communion of the body of Christ. This is established by the effect produced in the Christian consciousness through partaking of the bread, that is, the union of Christians in one body, as a complex organic whole. This union is grounded in the fact that the bread is the veritable communion (κοινωνία) of the body of Christ. The sacramental bread is such a means of union in so far as it mediates the fellowship with the body of Christ, surrendered to death in behalf of all, and hence, a living fellowship with Christ the Saviour of all. But in educing this argument from the text, we are not to take the expression, “one bread,” as parallel to that of “one body,” making them both alike the nominatives after ‘we are,’ rendering the sentence [as the E. V. does]: “we are one bread and one body,” because, if for no other reason, in the next sentence which adduces a proof of what is here stated, “one bread” stands for the bread of the supper, while it here would be a figurative expression for the unity of believers, just as “body” is. The εἷςἄρτος, one body, must therefore be taken as an independent clause with ἐστίν, is, supplied. The relation of the two clauses then will be either that of a comparison: ‘as there is one bread, so are we one body,’ or they will stand related as cause and effect: ‘since there is one bread, therefore are we, the many, one body.’ [So Meyer and Hodge, also Hammond, Locke, Whitby, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, and the Syriac version; but Alford, Stanley and Wordsworth adhere to the E. V. Alford says: “We are one bread by the assimilation of that one bread partaken.” “But this,” says Hodge, “is to make the Apostle teach modern physiology”].—The above rendering is confirmed by what follows,—for we all partake of that one bread.—(ἐκτοῦἐνὸςἄρτουμετέχ.). This again is variously explained. We may either take ἐκτοῦἑνὸςἄρτου, from that one bread, as the direct object of μετέχομεν, partake, and read [as the E. V. does]: “we all have part or partake of that one bread”—which is contrary to the otherwise uniform construction of μετέχειν (which requires the Gen. or the Accus. after it), and may be accounted for by supposing ἐσθίειν, or κλᾶν, understood. Or we may, as in 1 Corinthians 10:30, make τοῦἑνὸςσὡματος, of the one body, supplied from the context, the object of μετέχομεν, partake, and regard ἐκ as expressing the cause of such partaking, rendering it because of. Then the clause would be an explanation and confirmation of what precedes. [So Meyer; but this seems artificial and far-fetched, and is contrary to all the versions and the majority of the commentators. It is better to adopt the common rendering]. “The ‘body of Christ,’ of course, is to be conceived of spiritually; the idea, therefore, is not the same as in what precedes. The mediating thought between the statement, that the sacrament of the Supper communicates the body and the blood of our Lord, and the statement, that the Church is the body of the Lord, is this, that individuals by celebrating the Supper come into communion with each other. Bread and wine are to the Apostles vehicles through which communion with Christ is realized.” Neander. The declaration, “there is one bread,” obliges us to conceive of the bread at the Supper as one whole, whether it is one loaf that is broken, or several. But this oneness leads us back to the κοινωνία of the body of Christ as its ground.—In 1 Corinthians 10:18 we have a second analogy to prove the unsuitableness of Christians partaking of idolatrous altar feasts. It is drawn from the Jewish feasts following sacrifice.—Behold Israel after the flesh.—’Ισραὴλκατὰσάρκα, one idea; therefore without the article before κατὰσάρκα. The designation is in contrast with that of “Israel after the spirit” (comp. Romans 2:28; Galatians 4:29; 1 Corinthians 6:16); it means the Israel which is so, not by virtue of a Divine spiritual life arising from faith (Galatians 3:7), but by natural descent.—are not those who eat the sacrifices.—[i.e., those parts which are not sacrificed. For the practice of eating the remainder, which was left after the parts specified, Leviticus 3:3, were offered up, see] (Deuteronomy 12:18; Deuteronomy 16:11).—partakers with the altar?—κοινωνοὶτοῦθυσιαστηρίου may be interpreted either, ‘associates of the altar,’ inasmuch as they shared the flesh of the victim offered with the altar (comp. 1 Corinthians 9:13); or: ‘persons standing in communion with the altar,’ i.e., in religious connection with it, inasmuch as the festival acquired a religious significance by its relation to it. Therefore it is he does not say, ‘partakers with God,’ by which only the more general communion would be denoted, but not this stricter one (Meyer). To subjoin therefore “with God,” is needless and unsuitable. [Stanley says the reason why he did not say ‘with God,’ was “chiefly because communion with God was too high a thought to be brought down to the level of the mere outward ceremonial of the fleshly Israel.” But this idea is contradicted by Romans 9:4-5. As Hodge well puts it: “The question is not as to the intention of the actors, but as to the import of the act, and as to the interpretation universally put upon it. To partake of a Jewish sacrifice as a sacrifice, and in a holy place, was an act of Jewish worship. By parity of reasoning to partake of a heathen sacrifice as a sacrifice, and in a holy place, was an act of heathen worship.—It need hardly be remarked, that this passage gives no ground for the opinion that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice. This is not the point of comparison”].—In 1 Corinthians 10:19 he draws the conclusion he has been aiming at in this whole exposition.—What then am I saying?—i.e., ‘what is the result to which I am coming?’ He begins his answer by repudiating an inference which might be drawn in contradiction of his statement in 1 Corinthians 8:4. Is it—that what is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?—i.e., possesses reality, is veritable flesh consecrated to a god?—or that an idol is any thing?—i.e., has being as the very god which the heathen imagine (comp. 1 Corinthians 8:4 ff.); or, changing the accent and reading εἰδωλόθυτον—εἴδωλόντιἔστιν, he would say: ‘that there is any idol-offering, or any idol—namely, of the sort mentioned?’ Both constructions amount to the same thing.—But [i.e., ‘nay, but;’ this ellipsis of the negative taken up by ἀλλα, is found in classical Greek].—And now comes his direct statement—that what things they offer (it is) to devils and not to God, they offer (them).—The text is quoted from the LXX. version of Deu 32:17, which seems to be adduced as authoritative proof of his position. See also Bar 4:7, θύσαντεςδαιμονίοιςκαὶοὺθεῷ. His meaning is: ‘This I say, that ye by partaking at heathenish festivals come into communion with devils; just as we through the bread which we break come into communion with the body of Christ, or as the Israelites through their sacrificial feasts come into communion with the altar, i.e., of God’s sanctuary.’ Before explaining himself, however, on the point that the heathenish sacrifices with which those feasts were connected, were offered, in fact, to devils, and instead of drawing his conclusion directly, he states it in the form of an injunction—and I would not that ye should have communion with devils—the very thing he would convict them of doing—and then he assigns a reason for this in the following, 1 Corinthians 10:21-22.—Such we conceive to be the logic of the Apostle (as Osiander and others). But Meyer understands it differently. He finds in 1 Corinthians 10:16-18, a justification of the warning in 1 Corinthians 10:14 : “Flee from idolatry;” and in 1 Corinthians 10:19 f., a repudiation of an inference which might be drawn from the analogy of the Jewish sacrificial festival (1 Corinthians 10:18); since by this he seemed to acknowledge a veritable communion with the gods in the heathen altar-service, and with this also the actual divinity of the idols worshipped in it.—Since the idea of communion runs through the whole passage to 1 Corinthians 10:21, the first exposition of the order of thought merits the preference.—The δαιμόνια, demons, to whom the heathen sacrificed, are not imaginary gods—sub-deities, as it were; but, as is seen both from the connection and from the uniform usage of the LXX. and the New Testament, they are evil spirits, the chief of whom is διάβολος, diabolus, the devil. The expression in Acts 17:18 : “he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods,” is adapted to the usage of the Greeks [for the word δαιμόνιον was employed by them in a comparatively good sense, to denote the objects of their worship]. “It is probable that in order to exhibit the abominableness of all participation in idol-worship, Paul designedly chose an expression, which indeed among the heathen was used to denote their deities, but which among the Jews always designated evil spirits.” Bengel. To regard heathendom as the devil’s kingdom, was a mode of thought prevailing among the ancient Church, and well founded (comp. Osiander, p. 455 f.). We, therefore, must certainly distinguish, especially in the sphere of the Hellenic religion, between the opinion and intent of idol worshippers, and the objective powers actually operating in heathenism, which obtained Divine honor to themselves by darkening the human mind. But it would be wholly arbitrary, were we to ascribe to the Apostle the idea that the offerings of the heathen were presented to the devils in so far as these persuaded the heathen that there are gods to whom sacrifices must be offered, in order to receive to themselves under the name of gods, Divine worship and sacrifices (Rόckert).—The “fellowship with devils” which he would not have them hold, was not merely a symbolic one, but an actual one, by means of which they would expose themselves to their corrupting influences (comp. Osiander, Bengel).—The wish just expressed he grounds upon the irreconcilableness of a participation in heathenish festivals, which involve communion with devils, with a participation in the Lord’s Supper.—Ye cannot.—The inability here expressed is of a moral kind—a moral impossibility.—drink the cup of the Lord,—that is, the cup of the Lord’s Supper, which belongs to the Lord, has been consecrated to Him, and is the communion of His blood; therefore, brings us into fellowship with Him.—and the cup of devils,—that is, the cup consecrated to demons, which brought a person into actual relations to them, and out of which wine was drunk at the sacrificial feasts, with pre-libations in honor of the gods.—Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils.—The table signifies the entire meal, including the consecrated food. [“From this passage probably, ‘the table of the Lord’ became an expression current in all ages of the Christian Church. See Suicer in voc.” Alford]. In this verse the Romish Church unwarrantably finds evidence for the doctrine that the Lord’s Supper was not simply a sacrament, but also a sacrifice (Cone. Trid., 22, 1). “It is not the Church that offers Christ in communion; but Christ offered Himself up once for all (Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 9:25-26; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 12:14; Hebrews 12:18); and He brings to the Church the bread and wine, not for an offering, but to be eaten and drunk, in order that by this means He may give His own body and blood for their nourishment, according to His promise.” W. F. Besser.1 Corinthians 10:22. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?—This is not to be taken conjunctively,—neither by assuming irregularity of formation, nor yet in accordance with the sense, as if it were deliberate. The indicative is still more emphatic. His meaning is, ‘ye cannot unite the two (1 Corinthians 10:21). Or, are we the persons who by such an attempt will venture to provoke the Lord to jealousy?’ Such would certainly be the result, inasmuch as we would be practicing communion with evil spirits hostile to the Lord, while professing to hold communion with Him who insists on our keeping ourselves exclusively His. The expression, “provoke to jealousy,” is taken from Deuteronomy 32:21, and is taken from the metaphor of a marriage between God and His people, which pervades large portions of the Old Testament, and in accordance with which the Church is represented as the bride of Christ (comp. 2 Corinthians 11:2). It denotes the strong displeasure which arises in consequence of adulterous love, [“and is the fiercest of all human passions. It is therefore employed as an illustration of the hatred of God towards idolatry. It is as when a bride transfers her affections from her lawful husband in every way worthy of her love, to some degraded and offensive object.” Hodge). The jealousy is one which is sure to bring severe punishment; and this is what one seems to challenge upon himself who is not accustomed to fear the might of the Lord. Hence the concluding question—Are we stronger than He?—so that we can avert His retributive power? AND ETHICAL1. Communion with the Lord and in the Lord—such is the fundamental generic idea of the Lord’s Supper. He is in us, and we in Him; and therefore all united together—members of one body, composed of all those who have fellowship with Him. But this communion is not simply one of the Spirit, effected through the word received in faith, by means of which His Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are the children of God; it is not a purely spiritual one in the sense that Jesus, by His Spirit alone, makes His dwelling in the hearts of all who believe. But it is one which is accomplished also through the body, and includes, likewise, the physical life. It is His atoning life offered up for us—His body broken in death for our sakes—His blood shed in our behalf, of which we partake by means of the bread and wine. And this life of Jesus is imparted to us in its totality, as fitted to nourish, strengthen and refresh our life—in short, as food and drink for our life in its totality; that is, for our new life, which is from God which, begun in Christ at the new birth, is perfected at last in the body also, at the resurrection; for He is the Redeemer of the body (comp. John 6:54; Romans 8:11). But how is this nourishment imparted? This is the point on which the various confessions of the Christian Church begin their strife. If we keep in mind Paul’s expression, “the communion of the body and blood of Christ,” it will be seen that we, by no means, do justice to it by holding the extravagant hypothesis (of the Romish Church) that in virtue of the priestly consecrating word the bread and wine are transformed into the veritable body and blood of Christ; for in that case we could not speak of holding communion [inasmuch as eating the material substance would be a mere physical act, which would be perfect without the concurrence of the Spirit].—Neither does it satisfy simply to assume that the elements are mere symbols—that the body and blood of Christ are exhibited and made present to the consciousness of faith through the bread and wine, and that so by means of these, a communion of the believing participant is effected;—whether it be, as Zwingle supposes, that the believer partook of the broken body and blood shed, by being more fully assured thereby of the forgiveness of sins, or, as Calvin supposes, that a mysterious union ensues for the believer with the glorified life of Christ in heaven. The Apostle’s language, “the bread, the wine, is a communion of the body, of the blood of Christ,” means yet more. If the bread and wine are the means of our communion with the body and blood of Christ, it is obvious that there is a participation in these very objects themselves, as, indeed, in the passage, John 11:25 (cited by Meyer), Christ calls Himself the resurrection, and the life, i.e., that very thing by which the life is again restored and imparted, in so far as He is in His own person the life, and the life of humanity again restored.—This brings us, then, to Luther’s view, viz., that of the mysterious union of the elements with the body and blood of Christ, effected through the power of Christ’s Spirit in His Word—a union with His redeeming life, not only as it has been, but as it is now, everywhere present and glorified. It will, indeed, be asked, “how does this hypothesis suit with the original institution of the Supper, when such a union could not have existed? and are we then to distinguish between the first celebration of the Supper and all others that have ensued?” We must, at all events, affirm, with �tinger (“Theology drawn from the idea of life,” translated by Hamburger, p. 244), that, as in the case of baptism, so also here, a gradual progression may be traced. “Before Christ died and rose again, the disciples received the flesh and blood of Christ, efficiently (efficienter), rather than substantially (substantialiter); but after the ascension, both substantially and efficiently.”—Through this union the bread and wine become a spiritual meat and drink, i.e., a nourishment of the new spiritual life, which, however, in the case of those not qualified to enjoy it, serves not to nourish, but to condemn—even as the Gospel is to some a savor of life unto life, and to others a savor of death unto death.—This is not the place to treat more particularly of manducatory participation, and of the participation of the unworthy.2. Inconsistency of attempting to hold fellowship with the world and Christ at the same time.—To sit down at the table of the Lord, and to commune with Him by partaking of His body and blood, and then to convert aught into an idol, or by idolatrous proceedings to devote one’s self to the god of this world and to his spirits, and so to profess them, are intolerable contradictions. He who dares thus, exposes himself to the severest judgments. By such conduct he violates the holy claims of the Lord to his person, which having been redeemed and honored by Him, with all the blessings of His redemption, belongs to Him exclusively—wholly and solely, even as a bride to the bridegroom. And such conduct involves the greater folly from the fact that Christ is one to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, and before whose bar all must stand to receive the final decision affecting their eternal weal or woe. [3. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, a pledge of the resurrection of believers. As the consecrated bread and wine were the authentic symbols of Christ’s body and blood, and were, in construction and certain effect (though not in substance), the same with what they stood for, to all worthy receivers; it is manifest that bodies so incorporated with the body of Christ, must of course be partners with it in a glorious resurrection. Thus was the Eucharist ever considered as a sure and certain pledge to all good men of the future resurrection of then bodies, symbolically fed with the body of Christ. This is the argument which the Christian fathers insisted upon, and with this they prevailed. See Water-land on “The Doctrinal Use of the Sacraments” (Vol. VIII., p. 182). (Wordsworth)]. AND Starke:—1 Corinthians 10:14. A Christian must be very careful how he, in any way, participates in a false worship (2 Corinthians 6:14).—1 Corinthians 10:15. A true minister, who is sure of his doctrine, will urge his hearers freely to test its truth, so that they shall feel that they have to do, not so much with him as with God, whose doctrine he preaches. So, too, a proper hearer will look not so much to the minister as to God in the matter of doctrine (2 Corinthians 1:24; Acts 17:11).—1 Corinthians 10:16 (Spener). The doctrine that the bread and wine are the communion of the body and blood of Christ, is to be taken in its plainest acceptation—they are the very means by which the participants take part in the body and blood of Christ. Accordingly, faith is not made the communion or the means of participation, in which case those who approach the table without faith could not be said, in any sense, to receive such blessings; but the bread and the wine are themselves the things. Hence, he who partakes of these comes also into connection with the blessings themselves.—1 Corinthians 10:17. Where Christ’s body is there is love, 1 Corinthians 12:13.—He who receives the sacrament testifies that he is in the communion of Christ and His Church.—1 Corinthians 10:19. To the pure, all things are pure; yet many things may be rendered impure by circumstances. Hence great circumspection is needful to purity.—1 Corinthians 10:20. All false worship is a worship of the devil, and those who participate in it shall receive the recompense destined for their lord (Revelation 18:4).—1 Corinthians 10:21 (�tinger). There is no profit in serving two masters, and just as little in trying to sponge on them both. If the world’s baits delight, let Christ’s feasts alone (Matthew 6:24; Jeremiah 16:8).—1 Corinthians 10:22. To be obstinate and imagine that we must keep up acquaintances and friendships, and that God will not be very exacting in the matter, is an abominable presumption, calculated to provoke God’s righteous wrath.—How will God let such miserable sophists run their course till they are made aware of His power (Job 9:4; Job 9:19; Job 37:23)? Berlenb. Bible:—1 Corinthians 10:14. If we are attempting to serve God in the spirit of truth, through the proffered grace of Christ, we shall abandon all idolatry, such as consists in serving God through ceremonial practices and works of the flesh. But then we must be careful to drink often and much of the spiritual drink, and eat the spiritual food. Christ Himself is both these. In Him is everything given to us spiritually and divinely; in Him there is everything to be had freely and without price—everything which cannot be found in this world’s wilderness. He will surely care for soul and body. Therefore flee from Babel, the idolatrous land. When it pursues we must run: otherwise its idols will slip into our hearts.—1 Corinthians 10:15. Who has the Spirit of Christ, has also the spirit of a sound judgment. No prudent man will be sure of anything, the ground of whose truth he does not find in himself.—1 Corinthians 10:17. True Christians, as members of Christ, constitute one spiritual body, and are nourished by one meat—the body of Jesus. A sweet communion of sanctified spirits ought, in this way, to be established and fostered. Let us be one, even in this, that we have no fellowship with idols.—1 Corinthians 10:20. Men often trust their fancies rather than God, and regard it as spiritual pride, as it were, to mount up to Him, and will disoblige none. So it goes, although one does not betake himself to the right source (Psalms 36:9; Jeremiah 2:13; Jeremiah 17:13),—1 Corinthians 10:21. What does it mean that a person presents himself occasionally at the Lord’s Table, when throughout his whole life Belial is uppermost in his heart! What a pretence to think of satisfying God with the outward forms and postures of a lifeless worship, while we are sacrificing to our own pleasure, and are intent on gratifying our senses with vanity! All who live after the lusts of the flesh eat of the devil’s table.—Those who tread under foot Christ’s body and blood, drink rather of the wine of His wrath, and eat the bread of His anger. But priests who cause the people to sin by their evil example, or by failing to rebuke sin through shameful weakness, and who do not instruct the people sufficiently will be obliged to give an account, not only for themselves, but also for the people they have had in charge. Heubner:—1 Corinthians 10:16. God’s demands are always endorsed by our own consciences.—1 Corinthians 10:20. To the Christian all evil is an abomination, because it brings him in contact with the kingdom of evil. Do nothing, however indifferent in itself, if according to the intent anything unrighteous or ungodly is indicated by it.—1 Corinthians 10:21. Participation in the Lord’s Supper binds us to strict separation from everything unhallowed, because it implies the most intimate union with Christ. Hence, after communion, a true Christian can hardly divest himself of a certain degree of anxiety.—1 Corinthians 10:22. Communion with the unholy is a challenge to Christ, because it is a contempt of His Majesty. Indeed, the thought of our weakness ought to awaken in us a salutary fear of our Almighty Lord. W. F. Besser:—1 Corinthians 10:13. God will indeed protect us; but we can cherish this consolation only when we flee from every occasion to sin, unensnared by the conceit of our steadfastness.—1 Corinthians 10:21. Greek and Roman pagans were wont to consecrate a crowned beaker to Bacchus. Is it any less idolatrous when apostate Christians now celebrate the name of a man, some hero of the times, with gluttony and wine-bibbing, with impure jests and buffoonery, and with the tacit denial or uttered blasphemy of God? Oh, how does the world laugh when partakers of Christ’s Table run into the web which the devil spins at his banquets of pleasure. Every observance of the Lord’s Supper ought to impress on us the words of Paul, “Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.” Woe to us if we undertake to do what Christians cannot! The Lord is a jealous bridegroom of His bridal Church, and to put contempt on Him, or to provoke Him to jealousy (Deuteronomy 32:21), is to imitate the sin of the children of Israel, who tempted Christ (1 Corinthians 10:9). [Barnes:—1 Corinthians 10:20. The custom of drinking toasts at feasts and celebrations arose from this practice of pouring out wine, or drinking in honor of the heathen gods; and is a practice that partakes still of the nature of heathenism. It was one of the abominations of heathenism to suppose that their gods would be pleased with the intoxicating draught. Such a pouring out of a libation was usually accompanied with a prayer to the idol god, that he would accept the offering; that he would be propitious; and that he would grant the desire of the worshipper. From that custom the habit of expressing a sentiment, or proposing a toast, uttered in drinking wine, has been derived. The toast or sentiment which now usually, accompanies the drinking of a glass in this manner, if it means anything, is now also a prayer: but to whom? to the God of wine? to a heathen deity? Can it be supposed that it is a prayer offered to the true God; the God of purity? Has Jehovah directed that prayer should be offered to Him in such a manner? Can it be acceptable to Him? Either the sentiment is unmeaning, or it is a prayer offered to a heathen god, or it is a mockery of Jehovah; and in either case it is improper and wicked. And it may as truly be said now of Christians as in the time of Paul, ‘Ye cannot consistently drink the cup of the Lord at the communion table, and the cup where a prayer is offered to a false god, or to the dead, or to the air; or when, if it means anything, it is a mockery of Jehovah? Now can a Christian with any more consistency or propriety join in such celebrations, and in such unmeaning or profane libations than his could go into the temple of an idol, and partake of the idolatrous celebrations there? Hodge:—1 Corinthians 10:20. It was of great importance for the Corinthians to know that it did not depend on their intention whether they came into communion with devils. The heathen did not intend to worship devils, and yet they did it; what would it avail, therefore, to the reckless Corinthians, who attended the sacrificial feasts of the heathen, to say that they did not intend to worship idols? The question was not, what they meant to do, but what they did: not, what their intention was, but what was the import and effect of their conduct. A man need not intend to burn himself when he puts his hand into the fire; or to pollute his soul when he frequents the haunts of vice. The effect is altogether independent of his intention. This principle applies with all its force to compliance with the religious services of the heathen at the present day. Those who in pagan countries join in the religious rites of the heathen, are just as much guilty of idolatry, and are just as certainly brought into fellowship with devils, as the nominal Christians of Corinth, who, although they knew that an idol was nothing, and that there is but one God, yet frequented the heathen feasts. The same principle also applies to the compliance of Protestants in the religious observances of Papists. Whatever their intention may be, they worship the host if they bow down to it with the crowd who intend to adore it. By the force of the act we become one with those in whose worship we join. We constitute with them and with the objects of their worship one communion]. E. Concluding admonition to live in such matters so as to profit one another, and to glorify Gods 1 Corinthians 10:23—1 Corinthians 11:1     23All things are lawful for me [om. for me], but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me [om. for me],1 but all things edify not. 24Let no man seek [that which is] his own, but every man [that which is] another’s wealth [om. wealth]. 25Whatsoever is sold in the shambles [meat-market], that eat, asking no questions for conscience’ sake: 26For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. 27If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no questions for conscience’ sake. 28But if any, man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols [om. unto idols], eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience’ sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness 29thereof [om. for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof]: Conscience, I, say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s 30conscience? For [om. for] if I by grace be a partaker [if I partake with, thankfulness εἰἐγῶχάριτιμετέχω], why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do [or do any thing, ἐίτετὶποιῖετε], do all to the glory of God. 32Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor tothe Gentiles [Greeks, Ἕλλήσιν], nor to the church of God: 33Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of [the] many, that they may be saved. 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers [imitators, μιμηταἰ ?] of me, even as I also am of Christ. AND 1 Corinthians 10:23-24. He here anticipates an objection that might be raised against his previous injunctions on the score of Christian liberty, by pointing out the ethical limitations which restrict that liberty.—All things are in my power.—[This is the old statement made in vi. 12, setting forth the broad privileges of the Christian freeman, and to which the Apostle in a measure assents.]—But all things are not expedient.—This is the first limitation of expediency. But expedient for whom? The word συμφέρει might, in view of the previous warning, seem to imply ‘expedient for the subject himself.’ It were better, however, to take the word in its broadest application, ‘advantageous not only to the subject, but also to all others concerned.’—But all things edify not.—The second limitation; since it is the duty of every Christian to make edification a special object. In the verb ‘edify’ the reference to others is more fully brought out, and here it denotes the furtherance of the welfare of the Church.—In the next verse this limitation is more definitely expressed in the form of a maxim inculcating the exercise of an unselfish love. It is a general truth which he by no means intends to limit simply to the case in hand.—Let no man seek his own (wealth), but (every man) that of another.—Here the negation is to be taken absolutely, and not relatively, as though it meant, ‘seek not merely his own wealth, but also that of another.’ The ‘seeking of one’s own’ denotes the selfish attempt to make one’s own enjoyment, one’s own liberty, one’s own rights the sole paramount consideration, regardless of the good of others; and this falls under an absolute prohibition as being a violation of the great law of love. “The idea here is, that even what is indifferent in itself becomes sinful when done to the prejudice of a neighbor.” Neander. From μηδείς we obtain for the nominative in the positive clause an ἔκαστος—a ease of Zeugma. Like expressions occur in 1 Corinthians 13:5; Philippians 2:4; Romans 15:2 f. 1 Corinthians 10:25-26. First he asserts that the eating of flesh exposed for sale in the market, and thus disconnected from idolatrous worship—even though it may have been cut from sacrificial victims, was altogether innocent, since this meat as well as the whole earth and all things in it belonged unto God.—Whatsoever is sold in the meat-market.—μακέλλῳ, a word taken from the Latin and=κρεωπωλίῳ. [The sale of the portion of the sacrificial meat, which fell to the priests, formed a part of their revenue, and was not to be distinguished from ordinary meat, except perhaps by its excellence, as the animals offered at the altar were usually of a superior kind.] that eat, without special inquiry.—μηδὲνἀνακρίνοντες, carefully searching nothing, i. e., as to whether it had been offered in sacrifice or not.—on account of conscience.—διὰτὴνσυνείδησιν. [What is this to be joined with? Some say the previous participle, as setting forth the particular point as to which the inquiry is made, and meaning ‘on the score of conscience;’ others connect it with the whole participial clause, as assigning the ground for not inquiring, being equivalent either to: ‘in order that your conscience may not be disturbed,’ or: ‘because your conscience being well informed as to the real nature of idols needs no inquiry’]; it had best however be joined with the whole previous sentence, and the meaning would then be: ‘eat without inquiry in order that the conscience be not burdened or troubled.’ [Such is the view of Meyer and Alford. Hodge gives another interpretation which he considers the simplest and most natural: “buy what you want and eat, making no matter of conscience in the thing. You need have no conscientious scruples, and, therefore, ask no question as to whether the meat had been offered to idols or not.”—By reason of what is said in 1 Corinthians 10:28, one may be led to suppose that it was the conscience of an observer that was meant, which by that act might become disquieted or sullied, inasmuch as he too might be influenced through the example of one deemed stronger in the faith to eat likewise in spite of his scruples. [So De Wette, Bengel, Rόckert]. And in justification of this, reference is made to 1 Corinthians 10:29, where the conscience of another person is particularly specified. But the cases are not parallel; and in 1 Corinthians 10:29, the reference to others is distinctly denoted through the preliminary clause in 1 Corinthians 10:28, and there being no such reference here, it were far more natural to suppose the conscience of the inquirer to be intended.—The exhortation in our passage applies to all parties, especially to the weak, who would anxiously ask about their duty in the premises. Yet it was also suited for the strong whose freedom of opinion might suffer damage through the inquiry, since their conscience had been quickened by the Apostle’s instruction in reference to this whole matter.—The act of eating he justifies, by a citation from Psalms 24:1, [“which was the common form of Jewish thanksgiving before the meal, and hence probably was the early Eucharistic blessing, and thus alluded to in this place.” Stanley].—for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.—The word πλήρωμα denotes that with which a thing is filled, being passive, as everywhere in the New Testament. That which belongs to God can never pollute, and His children need have no scruple about using and enjoying it freely. [And this meat which had been offered to idols, was in fact no less His than any other meat. An idol being nothing could not vitiate it for its original use], (Comp. on 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Timothy 4:4; also Osiander in hoc loco, and the citations from Calvin and Melancthon by him). 1 Corinthians 10:27-30 : The same maxim is here applied to their conduct at a banquet given at a private house by a heathen to which they might be invited.—If any of the unbelievers invite you.—The invitation here is not to a sacrificial feast, for in such a case the person would not need to be told whether the meat set before him had been offered to idols, [nor yet would it be allowable for a Christian to be present here].—and ye desire to go.—A slight hint that remaining away would be a little better; since heathenish customs were everywhere in vogue, and the temptation to deny their Master on the part of those not firmly established was very strong. He here has in view the more liberal-minded whose liberty he did not wish to retrench, and inasmuch as the case often involved the relations of family and friendship, by means of which the truth might be brought home to those who were still unbelievers.—whatsoever is set before you eat, asking no question on account of conscience.—See comments on 1 Corinthians 10:25.—The case, however, is altered when the attention of the guest has been turned to the sacrificial character of the meat presented.—But if any man say unto you,—not the host, as is clear from the repetition of the τις, and from what is added further, which cannot in any case be referred to an unbeliever. For the same reason, we cannot explain it, of a heathen fellow-guest who might indicate the fact to the Christian, either from love of mischief, or from a wish to test him, or even out of good-will. Only a Christian can here be meant, and that too some weak brother who has discovered the fact pointed out, and now warns his fellow-believer of it. “Not a Jewish Christian, since such a one would not ordinarily accept the invitation of a heathen; but some converted Gentile, infected with Jewish prejudices, who regarded idols as demoniac powers, and in partaking of the sacrificial flesh, felt himself brought into contact with them.” Neander. Even a weak brother might be supposed to partake of such a meal, being influenced by his particular relations, and yet with a determination to refrain from every thing polluting.—This is offered in sacrifice.—ἱερόθοτον. and not εἱδωλόθυτον, see critical notes. The former is a neutral word, and is used advisedly to represent what would be said at a heathen’s table; but the latter is a contemptuous expression, which we could hardly suppose would be employed there.—eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience’ sake.—The latter expression is explanatory of the former, and the connecting καί, and, specifies only the particular point to which the more general statement that precedes applies. If the informant were a heathen, then this expression, “for conscience’ sake,” would be unsuitable, or we should have to regard it as a second reason derived from the weaker brother, whose conscience we must suppose to be meant. Or we must take it to mean that the person must refrain from eating in order not to allow the heathen informer to suppose that the participant still had to do with idols, and in order not to violate the conscience of weak Christians—obviously, a forced interpretation. [Evidently then it is some weaker brother that is here meant, for whose sake it was duty to abstain. “The union of the most enlightened liberality with the humblest concession to the weakness of others here exhibited, may well excite the highest admiration. The most enlightened man of his whole generation was the most yielding and conciliatory in all matters of indifference.” Hodge]. He next explains himself more fully, putting it beyond a doubt whose conscience is referred to.—Conscience I say, not thine own,—τήνεαυτοῦ, i.e., of any one who may come into such circumstances (not=τὴνσεαυτοῦ).—for why is my liberty judged of another’s conscience?—This is not to be taken as expressing the defiant remonstrance of the liberal-minded to his weaker brother, who objected to be governed by his prejudices. Such an interpretation would be unsuitable both by reason of the “for,” which in this case would be inapposite, and also because the following exposition gives no reply to it. Several other interpretations here offer themselves. Rόckert and others think they find here a further reason for the command not to eat (1 Corinthians 10:28), taking the words to moan that the liberal-minded should not by eating give occasion for others to judge and blaspheme. But in this case they arbitrarily insert the thought, “to give occasion,” and entirely pass over what precedes.—To this there is joined another interpretation, which would find in this verse a vindication of the freedom of conscience, which the Apostle maintained in the name of the liberal-minded, q. d., ‘About one’s own conscience I am not now speaking; for it is altogether improper for my liberty to be judged by another’s conscience. If I am blamed for that which I for my part thankfully enjoy, so that by my thanksgiving such enjoyment is sanctified, this unfounded condemnation neither violates nor endangers my own conscience; so that in not eating, my concern is chiefly for the conscience of another—some weak brother which ought to be spared, and not mine own.’ [This is Meyer’s explanation, who finds here the reason asserted why Paul did not mean the person’s own conscience, for the sake of sparing which he enjoined abstinence from eating in the case mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10:28, but the conscience of another. The man’s own conscience, he says, did not need such consideration, for it is not affected by another’s judging and blaspheming, since both are ground-less. The reason therefore for abstaining, could only be found in the conscience of another, and not in the danger done to one’s own conscience; and this also is Bengel’s view].—The. ἵνατι=ἱνατίγένηται, in order that what may happen?—why? a form for introducing a question about something which has no object or ground, as here, and the verb ‘judge’ (κρίνειν) here denotes a disapproving, condemning judgment, as is seen in the parallel verb, βλασφήμειν, in the next clause.—If I with grace do partake.—Here χάριτι corresponds to εὐχαριστῶ in what follows, and is not to be understood of the goodness of God, which allows of such participation, or gives me the light which liberalizes my spirit, and hence is not to be translated ‘through grace’ [or ‘by grace,’ as the E. V. has it], but it means, with thanks, referring to the Eucharistic blessing which accompanied the social meal, as may be seen in the expression still common in many places—“to say grace.” As the object of the verb ‘partake,’ we are to supply ‘meat and drink.’—why am I evil spoken of respecting that for which I give thanks?—βλασφήμειν, lit., to blaspheme, a sharp word, denoting the bitter condemnation pronounced on the liberal-minded, as on one false to his principles. In the use of it there lies a sharp rebuke of the lack of love exhibited by the person judging (comp. Romans 15:3; Romans 14:16). 1 Corinthians 10:31—1 Corinthians 11:1. His exhortation here turns to the Church in general, describing the end and aim which should control the entire conduct of every Christian. And this he connects directly with the last word in the previous verse, εὑχαριστεῖν, which denotes an ascription of honor to God.—Therefore,—q. d., ‘in like manner, as ye thank God for your nourishment, so in all your eating and drinking,’ etc. Or if this mode of connection does not satisfy, we may take the ‘therefore’ to indicate the logical inference of a general truth from the special one,—whether ye eat, whether ye drink, whether any thing ye do.—The first ποιεῖτε may be taken either as generic, including under itself also the eating and drinking, or, it may be taken as expressing action, in contrast to enjoyment. In the first case, the emphasis would lie upon τι, as equivalent to ὁτιοῦν, whatsoever; in the second, it would lie upon the verb,—but this is hardly to be preferred, [though Alford does prefer it]. In like manner, Colossians 3:17. “From what has been said, Paul here deduces a general didactic inference; he exhorts them so to adjust and use every thing, however indifferent, that God’s name may be hallowed.” Neander.—Do all to the glory of God.—[“This may mean either, ‘Do all things with a view to the glory of God;’ Let that be the object constantly aimed at; or, ‘Do all things in such a way that God may be glorified.’ There is little difference between these modes of explanation. God cannot be glorified by our conduct, unless it be our object to act for His glory. The latter interpretation is favored by a comparison with 1 Peter 4:11, “That God in all things may be glorified.” See Colossians 3:17, all the special directions given in the preceding discussion are here summed up. ‘Let self be forgotten. Let your eye be fixed on God. Let the promotion ofHis glory be your object in all ye do. Strive in every thing to act in such a way that men may praise that God whom you profess to serve.’ Hodge]. This thought is further expanded negatively.—Give none offence, neither to Jews, nor to Greeks, nor to the church of God.—He here specially addresses the liberal-minded, as in 1 Corinthians 10:31, who by the reckless use of their liberty were putting a stumbling-block as well in the way of the Jews to whom every approach to heathenism was an abomination, as in the way of the heathen who beheld in their lax conduct a want of fidelity to a religion which professed to separate itself so strictly from heathenism, and would become disgusted at the divisions thus created among Christians; and also in the way of the Church of God, both at Corinth and elsewhere, which would feel injured by conduct so ambiguous and so prejudicial to its unity. And while thus the recognition of the true God in Christ would be obstructed both among Jews and Gentiles, and the Church would be hindered in its happy success, the result would be, in its final bearings, dishonorable to the glory of God. The regard here paid to Jews and heathen, should not so surprise us, as to force us to the supposition that Jewish and heathen converts were meant; for in 1 Corinthians 9:20 also, we find the Apostle laying just as great a stress on the duty of taking pains to win both.—This exhortation he finally strengthens by a reference to his own example.—Even as I please all, in all things.—Comp. 1 Corinthians 9:19 ff.—πάντα, the accusative of more exact definition. The verb ‘please,’ as in Romans 15:2, means to seek to please, try to prove acceptable to, and is to be taken in a good sense, as the subsequent explanations show. It is otherwise in Galatians 1:10.—Not seeking,—[μὴζητ̣ῶν, the use of the subjunctive negative here, shows the implication of a particular affection, which he ascribes to himself, and brings into the supposition, q. d., ‘as one who, as far as I can, am seeking,’ see Winer, p. III. , §55, 5, 13],—mine own profit, but that of the many.—Here he puts in contrast over against his own single self, the vast multitude (as in Romans 5:15) whose interests were the object of his pure and affectionate endeavor. Their profit which he sought, was the highest conceivable,—that they might be saved.—Comp. 1 Corinthians 9:22; 1 Corinthians 1:18.—Assured of this his purpose, he urges them to imitate his example (comp. 1 Corinthians 4:16) even as he himself imitated the example of Christ, in the exercise of a love which renounced all selfish interests.—Be ye imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.—“Only in so far should they imitate him, as he set forth the image of Christ. Of course the whole picture of Christ’s life stood before the eyes of the Apostle. But then Paul must have had a historical portrait of the acts and sufferings of Christ, just as it is exhibited in the traces sketched by the Evangelists, and in this we have an argument against the mythical view of the life of Christ.” Neander. AND ETHICAL1. The Christian’s inheritance in this earth, and the duties consequent upon it. “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” In this one sentence there is opened to the Christian an inexhaustible wealth of joy and satisfaction, as well as a wide sphere of sacred obligations. If the earth, with all that fills and adorns it, belongs to the Lord, because it is His work, then in every earthly good which nourishes and quickens him, which strengthens and delights him, ought the Christian to taste the favor and the goodness of his God (Psalms 136:1; Psalms 34:8), to perceive His power and glory, and to receive it all as the gift of His love. In all his observations and researches, he ought to mark the footsteps of the Divine wisdom and greatness; of the Divine faithfulness and care for His creatures, and above all, for His human creatures made in His own image. Wherever he turns, the thoughts of God which are expressed in the manifold productions of earth, will reveal themselves to his thought. The earth itself, with all its rich and varied life, will become to him a manifestation of the Divine glory and grace; and the more he searches, the more clearly will this open before him. Thus he acquires a large open heart, and becomes ever more capable of enjoyment. Every thing narrow and contracted about him will drop away by degrees. What once seemed strange and mysterious will become known and familiar; he will be able to rejoice in it, freed from all anxious thoughts.—Such results are, however, conditioned on the fact that he walks as in the presence of God, that the earth appears to him as a sanctuary, where he ventures to tread, only after he has taken off his shoes, i. e., only after he has divested himself of the commonness of his earthly sense, of vain and proud thoughts, of selfish and interested projects and endeavors, and after he has become collected in spirit; so that out from the midst of all the manifold phenomena around him, the one Divine ground and aim had in them, the Divine idea in forming, and so richly unfolding itself therein, shall shine out upon his spirit. His God, who furnishes him all this fulness for his use and enjoyment, for his study and comprehension, has by this means put him under obligations also, i. e., inwardly bound him to Himself, so that he shall be dependent on Him, as on the One who is the ground and goal of all things; so that all participation and all joy of discovery shall issue in thanksgiving and praise to His great and good name, and so that he, as the priest of God, shall conduct His creatures to Him in an intelligent, susceptible, and worshipful spirit, moulding and fashioning them out of his own spirit, in such a way as to awaken in them Divine thoughts and endeavors, and to cause the natural to wear the impress more and more of the spiritual. In this is included a tender, delicate, gracious treatment of all creatures, and also a temperance and modesty in their use, to the exclusion alike of all conduct that is crude, severe, arbitrary, reckless and excessive; and of all mismanagement as well through unmercifulness, as through foolish fondling and petting.—Cf. Scriver;—Gotthold’s: “Four hundred occasional prayers;” Paul Gerhard’s: “Go forth, my heart, and seek my joy,” etc.; and much in J. Bφhme, Oetinger, Herder, Schubert, etc. 2. The success, perfection and development of the church of Christ is conditioned on the prevailing power of righteousness, which, on the one hand, takes account of the weakness of unconfirmed and scrupulous natures in considerate, tolerant self-denying love, honors the severity of earnest Christians even though oftentimes abrupt and inordinate, and presents an offering of self-denial to one another with perfect willingness; yet, on the other, injures in no respect the right of evangelical liberty, but avows it and maintains it, and, with all readiness to deny itself of this and that in order to give no occasion of offence, also insists upon the fact that the conscience of a person living in faith is not dependent upon the scruples, and narrow thoughts and judgments of another, but, on the contrary, stands free and far above them, inviolable, in untroubled calmness and clearness. It is thus that, a true advance can be made towards the sound expansion and softening of a narrow and stringent mode of thought, as well as towards the healthy restriction of that which is broad and free; and thus the glory of God be promoted and strengthened in His Church. AND Starke:—1 Corinthians 10:33 (Spener). A God-loving Christian willingly refrains from needlessly doing anything which may awaken doubts as to its propriety. It is not enough to have truth in view, and according to this our rights, and according to our rights our liberty; but the rules of Christian prudence and moderation, directed to general edification, require compliance with love, that true mistress, which, though it often yields its rights, never loses its good conscience.—1 Corinthians 10:24. Since self-love has become so far corrupt as to lift us not only above our neighbor, but also above God, self-denial has come to be the first rule of Christianity, in order that our love may be properly balanced; since there is no danger of our ever absolutely forgetting self. Indeed, the equity of love demands that we, in many circumstances, prefer our neighbor to self, i. e., the profit of his soul to our own bodily convenience.—(Hed.) “Let every one seek what is another’s”—so, in fact, selfishness and avarice say, i. e., “take, rob, get by fraud what is another’s.” But mark what is added: “Let no one seek his own.”—1 Corinthians 10:25. The Christian is free to eat everything, provided no offence is given to his neighbor. Useless inquiries and curious subtleties awaken many scruples. Against all such, simple-mindedness is a sure antidote.—1 Corinthians 10:26 (Luther). Christ is Lord, and free, and so are Christians, in all things.—Oh, man, thou art not lord-proprietor, but only steward in God’s domain! What a rich Father we have if we are God’s children.—1 Corinthians 10:29 (Luther). My conscience shall remain unbound, though I outwardly comply with my neighbor for his good. We may eat what we will, provided we have it righteously, take it as a gift from God, and receive it with thanksgiving.—1 Corinthians 10:31. All acts, however small, are sanctified and ennobled by a single reference to the glory of God; and this is promoted, when we do that which accords with a well ordered love toward ourselves and our neighbor, and abstain from whatever deseorates God’s name.—1 Corinthians 10:32. Believers ought to walk unreprovably, not only among brethren, but also among unbelievers and hypocrites, in order that such may find no occasion for blaspheming Christian doctrine.—All have one common Father; we ought, therefore, to be serviceable to one as well as to another.—1 Corinthians 10:33. Ministers should be an example to their hearers, in order that they may not retract with the left what they give with the right.—1 Corinthians 9:1. Christ is the perfect pattern of a holy life, who, for our sakes, renounced all comfort and personal convenience. To follow in His steps is the preλminent token of a true minister. Such imitation is possible through the privilege we have of drawing from His fulness (John 1:10). Berlenb. Bible:—1 Corinthians 10:23. A soul truly emancipated may, by reason of its innocence and simplicity, do much which is not only not displeasing, but even acceptable to God; nevertheless, it. may not be always advisable to do it Love must be the standard in all things.—1 Corinthians 10:24. Let none say, ‘why must I consult for another? Why must he be so weak?’ Wherefore, then, didst thou wish to become a member of the Church if thou art unwilling to inquire after its members?—In this way thou severest thyself from the Head.—1 Corinthians 10:25. We must deal very tenderly with the conscience on account of our corrupt state. Many are scrupulous where they might be unhesitating, and reckless where they ought to be careful.—1 Corinthians 10:26. What the earth produces is good; the great point is, how is it used?—1 Corinthians 10:27. The liberty which Christ has earned for us should be guarded as a priceless jewel, that Christ may have His own.—1 Corinthians 10:28 ff. A person may possess something and yet refrain from its use, preserving his liberty intact.—1 Corinthians 10:31. A Christian must order his entire life, so as to render it a perpetual God-service. Even our calling is a service of God; therefore refrain not from it. If with singleness of purpose thou dost consecrate all thy labor to God, then does it become a divine service. This rule put in exercise, sanctifies everything, even our natural work; and converts every meal into a sort of sacrament, so that it, in its own way, as if an acted prayer, shall receive its reward. By this means our most general works are hallowed, and without this our costliest works are punishable. Such searching method in the service of the Spirit many call legal. But it is the right method of faith, whereby the Son makes us free from the law of sin and death. The believer does, according to the spirit, nothing but good so far as he is a believer; he pleases God in all things by virtue of the divine life in him, which he has by faith. His doing, thinking, speaking, all transpires in God and before God.—1 Corinthians 10:32. If a person desire to honor God, and yet set his neighbor aside, his eye would be playing the rogue. Be void of offence!— 1 Corinthians 11:1. Christ’s example is both a gift and an influence. If we put on His example, His Spirit, His compassion, He makes out everything which can happen in our outer and inner life. He is the original, according to which all must be fashioned. The Apostles, indeed, referred to themselves; but they had a good conscience. Rieger:—1 Corinthians 11:1. Christ is certainly the most perfect example; yet, since it is difficult for us, in all our varied circumstances, always to track His footsteps, the types of Christ seen in the Old Testament, and the patterns after Him found in the New Testament, serve to present to us His mind in a form adapted to our every day conditions. Bengel: 1 Corinthians 10:30. Giving thanks at meals sanctifies all food, denies the authority of idols, and acknowledges that of God. Heubner: 1 Corinthians 10:24. The Christian pays a tender regard to the conscience of others, without proudly asserting his own rights, and without loftiness of spirit. 1 Corinthians 10:29. In doubtful cases, do not insist upon another’s deciding according to your own conscience. 1 Corinthians 10:30. Since a thankful spirit sanctifies every enjoyment, all that thou canst, with a clear conscience, give thanks for and ask a blessing on, is allowable. 1 Corinthians 10:31. Also in the society of the unholy ought a Christian to keep in view his highest aim, i. e., to glorify God by his life; hence he should join in nothing that dishonors God. 1 Corinthians 10:32. By carefully avoiding offences, a Christian should preserve his own honor and that of his Church. The immoralities of professing converts may prove a cause of stumbling even to unbelievers. 1 Corinthians 10:33. The Christian’s pleasing is a holy pleasing. It aims not at his own enjoyment, but at the spiritual good of others; it proposes to win them, and the agreeable exterior is designed to open a way to the interior—the sanctuary within.—1 Corinthians 11:1. Christ has taken care to provide for us a multitude of examples, in order to show us that we likewise may follow Him. W. F. Besser: 1 Corinthians 10:24. Liberty is given thee in all sorts of things, not to use them for thine own sake at pleasure, but rather to serve thy neighbor therewith, and to seek his prosperity. 1 Corinthians 10:25. There is a hunting after conscientious scruples, in which many persons carry out their whole Christianity, ending, alas! oftentimes, in straining out gnats and swallowing camels. [A. Fuller: 1 Corinthians 10:33. Paul pleased men in all things, and yet he says, if I pleased men I should not be the servant of Christ, Galatians 1:10. From the context in the former case, it appears plain that the things in which the Apostle pleased all men require to be restricted to such things as tend to their “profit, that they may be saved.” Whereas the things in which, according to the latter passage, he could not please men, and “yet be the servant of Christ,” were of a contrary tendency. Such were the objects pursued by the false teachers whom he opposed, and who desired to make a fair show in the flesh, lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ, 1 Corinthians 6:12. The former is that sweet inoffensiveness of spirit which teaches us to lay aside all self-will and self-importance, that charity which “seeketh not her own,” and “is not easily provoked;” it is that spirit, in short, which the same writer elsewhere recommends for the example of Christ Himself: “We, then, who are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.—Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification; for even Christ pleased not Himself; but as it is written, “The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.”—But the latter spirit referred to is that sordid compliance with the corruptions of human nature, of which flatterers and deceivers have always availed themselves, not for the glory of God or the good of men, but for the promotion of their own selfish designs]. [M. Henry: 1 Corinthians 10:23. They who allow themselves in everything not plainly sinful in itself, will often run into what is evil by accident, and do much mischief to others. Circumstances may make that a sin, which in itself is none. 1 Corinthians 10:27. Christianity does by no means bind us up from the common offices of humanity, or allow us an uncourteous behaviour to any of our own kind, however they may differ from us in religious sentiments or practices. 1 Corinthians 10:33. A preacher may press his advice home with boldness and authority, when he can enforce it with his own example. He is most likely to promote a public spirit in others, who can give evidence of it in himself. And it is highly commendable in a minister to neglect his own advantages, that he may promote the salvation of his hearers. This shows that he has a spirit suitable to his function. It is a station for public usefulness, and can never be faithfully discharged by a man of a narrow spirit and selfish principles]. [F. W. Robertson: 1 Corinthians 10:29. The duty of attending to appearances.—Now we may think this time-serving; but the motive made all the difference: “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.” Study appearances, therefore, so far as they are likely to be injurious to others. Here, then, is the principle and the rule; we cannot live in this world indifferent to appearances. Year by year we are more and more taught this truth. It is irksome, no doubt, to be under restraint, to have to ask not only, “Does God permit this?” but, “Will it not be misconstrued by others?” and to a free, open, fiery spirit, such as the Apostle of the Gentiles, doubly irksome, and almost intolerable. Nevertheless, it was to him a most solemn consideration: Why should I make my goodness and my right the occasion of blasphemy? Truly, then, and boldly, and not carelessly, he determined to give no offence to Jews or Gentiles, or to the Church of God, but to please all men. And the measure or restraint of this resolution was, that in carrying it into practice he would seek not his own profit, but the profit of many, that they might be saved]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 10:16.—The verb ἐστίν, is sometimes placed after κοινωνία, and sometimes after Χριστοῦ. The latter position has the best authority in its favor. [Tischendorf, in both questions of this verse, puts ἐστίν immediately after κοινωνία. In the first question he follows A. B. Sahid. Copt. Syr. Cyr. Aug. Beda. Lachmann, Bloomfield, Alford, Stanley and Words., place it at the close of the sentences, not only on account of external evidence (C. D. F. K. L., Sinait., Ital., Goth., Chrys., Theodt., Ambst.), but because the other order seems to be a correction to avoid the harshness of this verb at the end of the sentence, and in such close proximity to the other ἐστίν. In the second question, the Sahid. omits ἐστίν altogether, and B. agrees with those authorities which placed it after Χριστοῦ in the first, in putting it at the end of this sentence; and only A. Copt. Syr. Cyr. Aug. and Bede make it precede τοῦσώματος—C. P. W.]. [1 Corinthians 10:17.—Before μετέχομεν, D. E. F. G., the Ital. and several copies of the Vulg. (not amiat.), Ambrst., Pelag. and Bede insert καὶτοῦἑνὸςποτήριου. D. and E., however, omit ἑνὸς.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 10:19.—In the Rec. the words ἐίδωλόν and ἐίδωλόθυτόν occur in their inverse order, but the authority for such an order is feeble. The second word was probably thrown out by the copyist through mistake, and then was reinserted where it seemed most fitting (the cause before the effect). [The Rec. is sustained by K. L. and most of the cursives, the Syr. and Gothic versions, and Chrys. and Theodt., and is adopted by Bloomfield, Osiander and Reiche. Some MSS., including A.C. (1st hand) Sinait. and Epiph. entirely omit the question relating to ἐίδώλον. In favor of putting ἐίδωλόθυτόν in the former, and ἐίδώλον in the latter question, we have B. C. (2d hand) D. Sinait. (1st hand), Vulg., Copt., Ζth., Aug., Ambrst., Pelag., Bede. and this order is preferred by Tisch., Alford, Stanley and Wordsworth.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 10:20.—Rec. has θύειτὰἔθνῃ, δαιμονίαιςθύει, but it is opposed by decisive authorities. The interpolation of τὰἔθνη made necessary the alteration of θύουσιν into θύει. Lachmann puts the second θύουσιν after θεῷ, in accordance with A. B. C., et al. [In favor of ταἔθνη, we have A.C. K. L. (placing the words after ὅτι), Sinait., el at., Vulg., Goth., Copt., Sahid., Syr. Chrys., Theodt., Orig., Aug., Bede. In favor of θύουσιν (twice) we have A. B. C. D. E. F. G., Sinait. The text as given by Tisch. is: ὅτιἃθύουσινδαιμονἰοιςθύουσινκαὶοὐθεῷ. Alford and Stanley have the same text, only they place the second θεῷ.—C. P. W.]. [‘It is observable that two of the Evangelists, Matthew (Matthew 26:26) and Mark (Mark 14:22), use the word εὐλογήσας, having blessed, in their description of Christ’s action at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, before the consecration of the bread; and Luke (Luke 22:19) and Paul (1 Corinthians 11:24) use the word εὐχαριστήσας, having given thanks; but in the benediction of the cup Matthew (Matthew 26:27) and Mark (Mark 14:23) use the word εὐχαριστήσας, whereas Paul uses the word εὐλογία here. This variety of expression gives us a fuller and clearer view of the nature of the act here spoken of. It was eucharistic and also eulogistic; it was one of thanksgiving and one of benediction, and in the application of each of the terms to each of the elements, we learn more fully and clearly what the true character of the Holy Communion is, and what are our duties in its administration and reception.2Wordsworth (ad sensum)]. [We here give Stanley’s ingenious and valuable note entire. “From this passage his meaning has often been taken to be that, although the particular divinities, as conceived under the names of Jupiter, Venus, etc., were mere fictions, yet there were real evil spirits, who under those names, or in the general system of pagan polytheism, beguiled them away from the true God. (So Psalms 96:5, πάντεςοὶθεοὶτῶνἐθνῶνδαιμόνια). Such certainly was the general belief of the early Christians. But the strong declaration in 1 Corinthians 8:4, reiterated here in 1 Corinthians 10:19, of the utter non-existence of the heathen divinities, renders it safer to understand him as saying that in the mind of the heathen sacrificers, whatever Christians might think, the sacrifices were really made to those whom the Old Testament called δαιμόνια. It is in fact a play on the word δαιμόνιον. The heathen Greeks (as in Acts 17:18, the only passage where it is so used in Biblical Greek) employed it as a general word for ‘Divinity,’ and more especially for those heroes and inferior divinities, to whom alone (according to the belief of this later age), and not to the supreme rulers of the universe, sacrifices as such were due. The writers of the New Testament and the LXX., on the other hand, always use it of ‘evil demons,’ although never, perhaps, strictly speaking, for the author of evil, who is called emphatically ‘Satan,’ or the ‘Devil.’ It is by a union of these two meanings that the sense of the passage is produced. ‘The words of Deu 32:17, truly describe their state, for even according to their own confession, although in a different sense, they sacrifice to demons.’ A similar play on the same word, although for a different object, occurs in the Apology of Socrates, where he defends himself against the charge of atheism, on the ground that he believed in a demon (δαιμόνιον); and that demons (δαιμόνια) being sons of gods (θεῶνπαίδες), he must therefore be acknowledged to believe in the gods themselves”]. [We let our author’s statement of sacramentarian theories, and his expressed preference, pass without debate. The main point of doctrine he has well brought out in the first paragraph; and some will think that the Calvinistic theory of the “Real Presence” will answer all its demands. In the words of the Westminster Catechism, the sacrament of the Supper may be said “to represent, seal, and apply Christ and the benefits of the new covenant to all believers.” And this is done through the Spirit who takes of the things that are Christ’s, and shows them unto us in His ordinances according to their intent. Those interested in the question here mooted, we would refer to the current works on Dogmatic Theology, also to Hooker. Ecc. Pol., B. V., 100:67; Edward Irving, “Homilies on the Lord’s Supper.” Coll. Writings, Vol. II., p. 439 ff. J. M. Mason, “Letters on Frequent Communion.” Works, Vol. I. p. 372 ff.—D. W. P.]. 1 Corinthians 10:23.—The Rec. has μοι after πάντα in each clause, bat it is opposed by the best authorities, and was probably taken from 1 Corinthians 6:12. [As the Apostle was here unquestionably repeating the same expression as was used in 1 Corinthians 6:12, the internal evidence would seem to be in favor of μοι (Bloomfield, Rinck). But the documentary evidence in its favor (H. E. L. Sin. (3d hand), the Syr. both, one copy of the Vulg., Chrys., Theodt., Orig, August, and some inferior MSS., which omit πάνταἔξ., ἀλλ’ οὐπ. οἰκοδ.) is too feeble, and that in opposition to it [A. B. C. (1st hand) D. Sin. (with Clem., Athan., Damasc., Iren., Tert. and many others), too strong to warrant its insertion.—C.P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 10:24.—The Rec. also inserts ἕκαστος after τοῦἑτέρου, but it was perhaps borrowed from a similar passage in Philippians 2:4. [It is not found in A. B. C. D. F. G. H., Sin., six cursives, the Ital, Vulg., Copt., Sahid. and Arm. versions, and some Greek and Latin Fathers. Even Bloomfield, who at first defended it, now brackets it.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 10:27.—The δὲ is wanting after εἰ in some good manuscripts [A. B. D. (1st hand) F. G. Sin, and some cursives, the Ital., Copt, and Vulg. versions, and Antioch., Chrys., Theodt., Aug., Ambrst.], and was probably, inserted because it was supposed to be needed as a connecting particle. [It is retained by Tisch. with C. D. (3d hand) E. H. K. L., some Sahid., Syr., Goth. versions, Theodt., Theophyl. and �cum, but it is cancelled by Lach., Alf., Mey., Stanl. and Wordsworth. D. E. F. G:, the Ital., Vulg. and Copt, versions, and Ambrst., Pelag. and Bede (not the Aug.) insert εἰςδεῖπνον after ἀπίστων.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 10:28.—The Rec. has εἰδωλόθυτον, but it is probably a gloss which has been substituted in the text for the more uncommon ἱερόθυτον. Neither word was common, but ἱερόθ. was of the classical, and εἰδολόθ. of the Hellenistic Greek (Bloomfield). The former had a neutral, and the latter a contemptuous signification (Stanley), and hence some have thought that no one would be likely to use the latter at the table of an unbeliever, unless, as Bloomfield suggests, by a weak fellow-Christian in an under tone, or aside. The former word is not too respectful for the Apostle to use, and it would imply nothing false. It is adopted by Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., Meyer, Alford and Stanley, on the authority of A. B. H. Sin., two cursives adduced by Bloomf.; the Sahid. version and some indirect testimonies produced by Tischendorf. Julian quotes Paul as using this word in this connection, and his opponent Cyril admits the same (Tisch). The Latin versions of D. and F. use the word immolaticium, to which some Vulg. MSS. add idols, one (amiat.) has immolatium (2d cor. has immolativum) idolis, and the Vulg. (ed.) has immolatum idolis. The Rec. is favored by C. D. E. F. G. K. L., Chrys. and Theodt., and it is defended by Scholz, Reiche, Bloomfield and Wordsworth.—C. P.W.]. 1 Corinthians 10:28.—The Rec. after συνείδ. has τοῦγὰρκυρίουἡγῆκαὶτὸπλήρωμααὐτῆς, but these words are not found in the best MSS., and are a repetition of 1 Corinthians 10:26. [They are left out in A. B.C. D. E. F. G. H. (1st hand), Sin., the Ital., Vulg., Copt., Syr., Sahid. and Arm. versions, and Damasc, August., Ambrst., Pelag. and Bede, and are retained in H. (2d hand) K. L., the Goth., Slav., some Syr. and Arm. versions, and Chrys., Theodt., Phot., �cum. and Theophyl.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 10:30.—The Rec. after εἰ inserts δὲ, but it is feebly sustained. 1 Corinthians 10:32.—The Rec. has γίνεσθεκαὶ ’Ιουδ., but καὶ ’Ιουδ. γίνεσθε, is better sustained by the MSS. [The latter has for it A. B. C. Sin., 17, 37, 73, Orig., Didym., Cyr., while D. E. K. L. Sin. (3d hand), some cursives, and Chrys., Theodt. and Damasc. are in favor of the Recep.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 10:33.—The Rec. has συμφέρον, but σύμφορον has better authority. [The former is more usual, and is sustained by D. E. F. G. K. L. Sin. (3d hand), while the latter is sustained by A. B. C. Sin. Comp. on the same variation of reading in 1 Corinthians 7:35.—C. P. W.]. [Kling here hardly does justice to the interpretation he so summarily sets aside, and which is advocated by Chrys. and the Greek commentators, Heyd., Billr.. Olsh., Neand., Hodge, Stanley, and many others. This takes κρίνεται for κατακρίνεται, in the sense of condemn, and finds here a valid reason for enjoining the liberal-minded brother not to eat against the convictions and prejudices of the weaker one, who has pointed out to him the objectionable meat. The reason is that there is no propriety in doing that which seems censurable to another, and gives occasion for observers to blaspheme, even though it may be right in our own esteem, and accompanied with thanksgiving to God. “This.” as Hodge well says, “brings the passage into harmony with the whole context, and connects it with the main idea of the previous verse, and not with an intermediate and subordinate clause”]. XV IN TO THE CONDUCT CHURCH 1 Corinthians 11:2-34A. In respect of apparel; in the covering of the head by the women, and the uncovering of it by the men(1 Corinthians 11:2-16) 2     Now [But, δὲ ?] I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep [firmly hold, κατέχετε] the ordinances [traditions, παραδόσεις], as I delivered them to you. 3But I would have you [I wish you to, θέλω] know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the [om. the] woman is the man; and the head of Christ Isaiah 4 God. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered [anything down, depending from his head, χατὰχεφαλῆςἔχων], dishonoureth his head. 5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her [own, ἑαυτῆς] head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn [let her hair be cut off, χειράσθω]: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: 8but the woman is the glory of the [om. the] man. For the [om. the] man is not [out] of the [om. the] woman; but the [om. the] woman [out] of the [om. the] man. 9Neither was the man [For man was not] created for the woman; but the [om. the] woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man [neither is woman without man, nor man without woman], in the Lord. 12For as the woman is [out] of the man, even so is the man also by 13[means of] the woman; but all things of [are from, ἐκ] God. Judge in yourselves [among your own selves, ἐνὑμῖναὐτοῖς]: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering [an envelopment, περιβολαίου]. 16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such [established, συνἠθειαν] custom, neither the churches of God. AND [“Having corrected the more private abuses that prevailed among the Corinthians, the Apostle begins in this chapter to consider those which relate to the mode of conducting public worship. The first of these is the habit of women appearing in public without a veil. Dress is in a great degree conventional. A costume which would be proper in our country, would be indecorous in another. The principle insisted upon in this paragraph is, that women should conform in matters of dress to all those usages which the public sentiment of the community in which they live demands. The veil in all eastern countries was, and to a great extent still is, the symbol of modesty and. subjection. For a woman, therefore, in Corinth to discard the veil, was to renounce her claim to modesty, and to refuse to recognize her subordination to her husband. It is on the assumption of this significancy in the use of the veil that the Apostle’s whole argument in this paragraph is founded.” Hodge.] 1 Corinthians 11:2. He begins the new lesson he was about to impart with a conciliatory introduction.—Now I praise you.—This might be attached directly to the previous injunction “be ye followers of me,” just as what follows might be subsumed under the one in the 32d verse, “give none offence,” although neither of these connections is by any means certain. At any rate the first clause is not to be taken in the way of a strong contrast with what precedes [taking the δέ in an adversative instead of transitional sense], q. d., ‘though I exhort you to imitate me, yet, nevertheless, I praise you.’ [Hodge is inclined to adopt this method of interpreting the connection, and adds: ‘the Corinthians, although backward in following the self-denying and conciliatory conduct of the Apostle, were, nevertheless, in general mindful of the ordinances or rules which he had delivered to them.’]—That ye remember me in all things.—The μου is not dependent on πάντα, so that the latter becomes the direct object of μέμνησθε, making the rendering (that ye remember all things which proceed from me). Such construction were inadmissible, if for no other reason but this, that the verb μιμνήσκειν in the New Testament never takes the accusative.—This remembrance he designates as one that proved itself in worthy deeds.—That ye keep the traditions even as I delivered (them) to you.—The personal and the official characters are here inseparably united. The traditions (παραδόσεις) he here speaks of, were both of an oral and written kind (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and embraced doctrinal, as well as ritual and practical matters. Here, indeed, he refers primarily to such instructions and ordinances as concerned the order of the church, and of divine worship. The dispute respecting Scripture and tradition obtains no hold here, inasmuch as the distinction between that which was fixed in writing, and that not so fixed did not as yet appear. [“The word translated ‘traditions’ is never used in the New Testament in reference to the rule of faith, except for the immediate instructions of inspired men. When used in the modern sense of the word tradition, it is always in reference to what is human and untrustworthy, Galatians 1:14; Colossians 2:8, and frequently in the gospels of the traditions of the elders.” Hodge.] That the particular point alluded to cannot be that mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:3 ff. (Olsh.), is plain from the formula of introduction there used which hints at something new (comp. Osiander). κατεχέιν, to hold fast, so as to submit to it as authority, and to conduct one’s self accordingly (Meyer: by faith and obedience; Osiander: usu tenere). 1 Corinthians 11:3. But I wish you to know that the head of every man is Christ.—He here assigns the doctrinal ground for the practical instruction which follows. “In the Corinthian Church there was a departure from the prevailing custom of the East (according to which women went veiled), especially on the part of heathen converts, who, even in other respects, rather overstretched the idea of Christian liberty. Since Paul is here discussing a question of merely outward custom, it is interesting to observe how characteristically he surveys the smallest matters in connection with the greatest, and understands how to penetrate to the remotest particulars from the fundamental principles of the Christian life. He begins, not with the custom itself, but with the leading idea that ought to govern it.” Neander. By the opening words of the verse he indicates the importance of the instruction he is about to communicate. What he particularly inculcates, is the subordination of woman to the man; but this he directly connects with higher relations. Before he declares the relation which the wife sustains to the husband as her head, he points to that which the man sustains to Christ as his Head, and concludes with referring all back to God as the Head of Christ. By the term head he expresses the next immediate relation sustained. The man, that is the Christian man, has Christ for his Head to whom he is alone subordinate, while the woman who, as a member of the Church, has indeed Christ in like manner for her Head, is yet primarily subject to her husband, and in him has her support, her destiny, and her dignity.—To extend this relation to men generally, is opposed by the fact that the Apostle is here addressing the Christian Church. Nor yet is he indicating the relation of the two sexes in general, but only as it is definitely realized in marriage. But even here we are to distinguish between the inner life of faith, or in other words, the personal relation to Christ where all other distinctions are entirely swallowed up and lost (Galatians 3:28), and the social position held in the family and in the church where the wife is dependent on the man, is represented by him, and put under his care. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that this power and dignity of the husband is founded on the position he holds toward Christ as his Head, and so the dependence of the wife on him appears as a mediated dependence on Christ.—And the head of Christ is God.—Compare the remarks on 1 Corinthians 3:23; 1 Corinthians 8:6. Although the economic relation is primarily meant, wherein Christ even in His exaltation is dependent on God (1 Corinthians 15:28; Colossians 1:15; Ephesians 3:9); yet this dependence presupposes a sort of dependence also in the immanent relations of the Trinity, which, however, is perfectly consistent with essential equality of being.—[Here, then, we have a view of the unity of the heavenly kingdom in its gradual subordination to the Supreme Authority—God—Christ—Man—Woman. The dependence and submission is one of love yielding to the divinely appointed guardianship and control; the authority is that of love exercised in wisdom, and directed towards the good of the lowest and the glory of the highest. These are the conditions of the divine order in which the relations sustained between the parties are typical of each other. And on this fact is the argument of the Apostle founded. As God is the head of Christ, and as Christ is the head of the Church, so is the man the head of the woman. For a fuller development of this analogy see Ephesians 5:23-33. Let it be here understood that the subordination thus expressed involves no degradation. As the Church is not dishonored by being subject to Christ, so neither is woman dishonored by being subject to man]. 1 Corinthians 11:4. From the doctrine established in 1 Corinthians 11:3, he first draws an inference for the man in the matter of his apparel while at Church.—Every man praying or prophesying,—i. e., speaking in public. And by the former is meant, not exactly the speaking with tongues which certainly occurred while in prayer, but the simple offering of supplication in general; by the latter, such a discourse as set forth the mysteries of the divine counsels or of the human life, under a divine inspiration. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 13:2; 1 Corinthians 14:24 ff.). These were the two main parts of primitive Christian worship. In the first the speaker is the organ of the congregation presenting itself before God in thanksgiving, petition, and intercession; in the second, the organ of the Divine Spirit communicating His lessons to the Church.—Having his head covered.—κατὰκεφαλῆςἔχων, here τι is understood—lit. ‘having aught upon his head.’ According to the usage of the Greeks, men appeared in public religious service with face and head uncovered. The case was otherwise with the Romans, and from later times with the Jews. In the Old Testament period such covering was employed only as a token of deep mourning (2 Samuel 15:30; Jeremiah 14:13).—dishonoreth his head.—Suitably with the context we must here understand, not man’s own head literally, but Christ who is dishonored when the man denying his independence seems to subordinate himself in this way to the dependent wife, or even allows the tokens of human dependence to be seen upon him. Although in 1 Corinthians 11:5, we are to take the expression ‘her head’ literally, yet nothing can be deduced from this as to the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:4, because there the meaning is established by ἑαυτῆς, and the explanation which follows. On the contrary, the relation to 1 Corinthians 11:3 is decisive as to its meaning here. Such was Meyer’s view in ed. 2. On the contrary, in ed. 3 he understands it as in 1 Corinthians 11:5-6; 1 Corinthians 11:14 of the natural head, on which the evidence must be seen that no human person but Christ, and through Christ God is the head of the man, and this evidence is its uncovered state. At any rate the chief stress lies upon the rebuke administered to woman’s wish to become emancipated in this particular, and that said of the man might also serve for illustrating the opposite. 1 Corinthians 11:5-6. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth.—The propriety of women’s praying or prophesying in the Church, is here passed over without comment since he is only treating of apparel; while it is rebuked and interdicted in 1 Corinthians 14:34 ff. Hence the arbitrary assumption that prophesying here means simply chiming in with inspired song is superfluous. [“In here disapproving of the one, says Calvin, he does not approve of the other. Paul attends to one thing at a time”].—with her head unveiled.—The unveiling of the head was an abuse originating in female vanity under the pretexts of Christian freedom and of equality with man; and it was so much the more disturbing to devotion as it was contrary to custom to see women unveiled out of the house.—dishonoreth her own head.—This referred to the man, would yield a good sense even in connection with what follows, inasmuch as the woman by appearing abroad so shamelessly and exposing herself to the gaze of other men might bring a blot upon her husband. But the use of the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτῆς shows clearly that it means the natural head; and this accords with what he says further, inasmuch as a shorn head was with women disgraceful—a symbol of female dishonor—a token of shamelessness,—and, indeed, was made the punishment of an adulteress—at least among the Germans (see Tac., Germ. 19; also see Wetstein in hoc loco), and, indeed, also among the Jews, Numbers 5:18. It was also a token of sorrow. Deuteronomy 21:12. [Stanley again finds in the word ‘head’ a double allusion both to her own head and her husband’s as represented by it. See Smith’s Classical Dictionary, Coma and Vestalis],—for that is one and the same thing;—the neuter is here used because it treats not of personal, but generic identity.—with her being shaven.—That is, she assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman.—This identity he goes on to explain.—Let her be shorn.—This is not said permissively, but it expresses a command setting forth the legitimate consequence of the unsuitableness of her being unveiled, q. d., ‘if she will do the one thing, let her also do the other.’ If she will be so shameless as to appear with her head bare, let her act consistently, and give such a token of her shamelessness as will be seen in stripping her head entirely of its hair.—He then argues.—But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven.—ξυρᾶσθαι, to be shaved—a stronger expression than κείρασθαι, , to be cropped short. αἰσχρόν, shameful, can hardly be taken here to denote the ζsthetic view of the matter as if the meaning were ‘if it, displease her,’ so that we should have here but a sarcastic thrust at woman’s vanity, as Calvin thinks [who says that ‘the conjecture has some appearance of probability that women who had beautiful hair, were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of displaying their beauty, and that Paul here hints to them that so far from appearing the more beautiful by taking off their veils, they looked as badly as if they were all shaven and shorn.’] The Apostle is rather looking at the subject from a moral point of view throughout. 1 Corinthians 11:7-10. He here resumes the argument for the woman’s veiling her head, presented in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Only he drops the relation to Christ, and presents that of the man to the woman, illustrating his point antithetically.—For a man indeed ought not to veil his head.—The expression οὐκὀφείλει means more than ‘he is not obliged,’ it denotes ‘he should not,’ ‘it is unbecoming for him.’ The reason of this is, that—he is the image and glory of God.—By this he indicates the godlike rule and lordly majesty (comp. Genesis 1:26) which the position of the man as the head of the wife involves, or which is in a peculiar manner exhibited in it. By the expression ‘the glory of God’ he means that man carries in himself a likeness to the greatness and majesty of God in so far as he rules in his own sphere with Godlike power and freedom. [“He is created in the image of God, and therefore is the reflex of the divine glory, ‘being crowned with glory and honor,’ and having, therefore, dominion over the works of God. He, therefore, ought to have nothing on a head which represents so Divine a majesty, nothing on a countenance which reflects so Divine a glory.” Stanley].—Such is obviously the point brought out: not that he is set to show forth God’s glory, a thing which does not appertain to man exclusively; not that He is the glory of God in so far that the woman has to veil herself before him, just as the seraphim do before the majesty of Jehovah; nor is δόξα=γְ ?ρεּ ?ϊ for then Paul would have used the term ὁμοίωσις; nor least of all is it to be understood as Fritzsche does on Romans 3:23. Ornamentum Dei quippe quo fingendo Deus, quantum posset, manifestaverit.—But the woman is the glory of man.—This she is in so far as she could be fashioned entirely out of his rib—an evidence quanti vir sit [!] Now, the wife is the glory of the man inasmuch as in her, in her management as a housewife, the exalted position of the man is made manifest; or inasmuch as she develops an independent activity only in subordination to him, and by virtue of his plenary power, or only in connection with him attains to her proper dignity and worth. [“She always assumes his station; becomes a queen, if he is a king; and manifests to others the wealth and honor which belong to her husband.” Hodge.] Paul does not add the word “image,” since it would be unsuitable on account of the diversity of sex; others say because it would otherwise appear as if the Divine image in her were ignored. But Paul is not speaking here in a religious or ethical sense.—The higher position of the man and the dependence of the woman are still further proved from the history of their creation, (their genetic relation. Meyer.).—For man is not from woman, but woman from man.—[Here the emphasis rests on ‘is’ which is equivalent to ‘takes his being.’ The reference is to Genesis 2:23.—ἐκτοῦἀνδρὸςαὐτῆςἐλήφθηαὔτη.].—But this derivation rests again upon the fact that the object of the creation of the woman is in the man—not the reverse. In other words, the dependence of existence rests on the dependence of destination.—For neither was man created on account of the woman, but woman on account of the man.—That the “for” in this clause is to be taken as parallel with the previous one is improbable, because unnecessary. [Alford however disputes the subordination of the latter ‘for’ to the former, and makes the two parallel; but without reason. Certainly the view given above, which is Meyer’s and Stanley’s also, is in better accord with the Greek, καῖγάρ, q. d., ‘and that for this reason, for,’ etc.].—From this relation of woman to man thus proven, he now draws his inferences in regard to her true mode of apparel.—For this cause ought the woman to have power upon her head.—[“There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which has so much taxed the learning and ingenuity of commentators as this.” Hodge. “In the difficulty of its several portions it stands alone in the New Testament, unless, perhaps, we except Revelation 13:18; or Galatians 3:20. Each part has its own particular obscurity.” Stanley]. In the first place, the term “power” (ἔξουσία) is a very remarkable one. Interpreted by the context, this can only mean the veiling of the head, standing by metonymy for that, which was the token of power or authority. So Neander, who adds: “The wife should have upon her head a symbol of the power which the man has over her, i. e., the veil.” The word itself, however, nowhere else occurs in this sense. As somewhat analogous to it, we have the word βασιλεία, which literally means kingdom, used evidently for diadem in Diod. Sic. I. 47 (ἔχουσιντρεῖςβασιλείαςἐπὶτηςκεφαλῆς: ‘they have three kingdoms on the head,’ meaning ‘three crowns’). A number of conjectural readings, and also varied attempts at explanation,—some strange, some arbitrary, may here be passed over. For an account of them, see Meyer, Osiander [and Stanley, whose note on this word is quite elaborate].—As an additional reason why the women should have the symbol of power on their heads, the Apostle subjoins.—on account of the angels.—Here, too, there has been a great elaboration of opinions, partly in the way of conjectural readings, and partly in attempts at explanation. The former deserve no mention [as the present reading is supported by all good authorities; although Neander can hardly help the persuasion that it was a gloss introduced anterior to all the existing manuscripts, and so perpetuated]. As far as the latter are concerned, owing to a disinclination to assume that supernatural existences were meant, it has been thought that the “angels” here spoken of were of a human kind—whether it be officers of the church, which can hardly be the case, from the lack of all qualifying terms (comp. Revelation 1:20 : “unto the angel of the church,” etc.; Malachi 2:7 : “The priest—is the messenger (ἄγγελος) of the Lord of Hosts”); or prophets, of which the same remark holds good; or messengers from other churches, which by no means follows from James 2:25, where Rahab is spoken of as ‘receiving the messengers:’ or whether it be unconverted husbands, or others not Christians, who might come into the congregations to make report. If, however, supernatural beings are understood to be meant, then the question arises whether these are good or bad spirits. If we suppose the latter, then the reference here would be to the danger of temptation through such evil spirits, either through the women’s being betrayed into unhallowed thoughts, or through their tempting men to indulge the same by showing themselves unveiled. But from the lack of any definite limitation of the meaning of the term, or of any hint of the kind in the context, we can hardly suppose this class of spirits to be intended. He must mean therefore the good and holy angels. Yet the phrase is not to be construed as expressing an oath which would be contrary to the usage of the language. Nor yet does it mean that women should veil their faces in presence of men, who are here declared to be the image and glory of God, because angels do this in the Divine presence (Isaiah 6). Nor yet does the phrase denote the purpose not to give offence to their guardian angels by an indecorous appearance; for then would he have added the pronoun ‘their’ to imply this. The most probable opinion is, that he means angels in general, who are regarded as being invisibly present with Christ in the assemblies of the church, and whose displeasure would be awakened by the violation of decency. The first trace of such an idea, which appears also to have been advocated by the early fathers, is to be found in Psalms 138:1. “Also before the angels will I sing praise to Thee.” Traces of the same belief may be found also among the Jews of a later period. (Comp. Grotius on this text). Reverentia geniorum, qui formationis hominum testes et spectatores fuerunt. The origin of the idea that angels were present at the creation of men, may be proved to have come from the rabbinical interpretations of Gen 1:26. [The view just given Hodge declares to be “the common and only satisfactory interpretation of the passage which answers all the demands of the context].” And Alford expresses his belief in it, and adds that the reason of Paul’s thus speaking of the angels was, that he “had before his mind the order of the universal church, and prefers, when speaking of the assemblies of Christians, to adduce those beings who, as not entering into the gradation which he has here described, are conceived [of] as spectators of the whole, delighted with the decency and order of the servants of God.” Such also is Calvin’s view, who says that “this was added by way of amplifying, q. d. ‘If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels, too, will be witnesses of the outrage.’ And this interpretation suits with the Apostle’s design, as he is here treating of different ranks.” Stanley’s note, which is full of interesting information, is too long to be quoted here, and the curious reader can only be referred to it. 1 Corinthians 11:11-12. All proud depreciation of women on the part of men, as well as all disposition to retire on the part of women, Paul now opposes by qualifying his previous expressions and bringing to view the mutual connections of the sexes in the sphere of Christian life. And these he then refers back to their relations grounded in nature.—Nevertheless neither is woman without man, nor man without woman in the Lord.—To explain the word “Lord” of God, as if the phrase “in the Lord” meant on account of ‘God’s will and ordinance,’ would be contrary to Paul’s use of language, and is by no means required by the relation of the two verses [11, 12], by which the harmony of the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of nature is indicated, or that the order of life obligatory in the sphere of redemption is grounded on that which preceded it in the sphere of creation according to the Divinely ordained development of things therein.—But the question still arises whether the expression “in the Lord” is to be taken as a predicate with ‘is’ understood, as if he meant to say that the one is not without the other in communion with the Lord; or as an adverbial expression qualifying the two clauses so as to imply that in the sphere of Christ both are inseparable. The sense is essentially the same in both constructions, and both are logically admissible. But the former better expresses Paul’s thought. He means that while the woman ought in the public assembly to show herself as one subordinated to the man in a dependence which is indicated both in her origin and in her destiny, nevertheless Christianity requires no separation of the sexes. Neither party stands for itself alone. Both belong essentially together, and point to one another. And even in relation to the Christian life there is a mutual dependence, so that the one serves to supplement the other. As Burger says: “In their relation to Christ, in that communion where both alike have the ground and aim of their spiritual life, the distinction of the sexes is resolved into a mutual dependence of love.”—In what follows, Paul points to the fact that this relation in Christ corresponds to the natural relation existing between the sexes, and is demanded by the essential harmony which prevails between the kingdom of nature and the kingdom of grace. “For were this not so, then would Christianity be opposed to the natural order of things.” Meyer.—In contrast with what is said in 1 Corinthians 11:8, and here re-stated, that—the woman is from the man—he says—so also is the man through the woman—As the former declaration refers to the origin of the woman, so does the latter refer to the progressive reproduction of the race, which even in the case of the man is effected through the woman.—And lastly, he sets this natural relation under a religious point of view.—but all things of God—i. e., God is the first principle of all things, of the existence of woman from the man, and of man through the woman. But the logical relation of the two verses does not require that we refer this to what was said in 1 Corinthians 11:11 by the expression “in the Lord.” From this brief digression he returns to his immediate subject. 1 Corinthians 11:13-15. He here appeals once more to their natural sense of propriety.—Judge in yourselves.—i. e., without reference to any external authorities by which their judgment might be biased. We are not to suppose that Paul is here accommodating himself to the fondness for philosophic proof prevalent among the Greeks, as Rόckert imagines. He intends only to bring the matter closer home to their own consciousness, both softening and sharpening his reproof at the same time. [“The Apostle often recognizes the intuitive judgments of the mind as authoritative, Romans 1:32; Romans 3:8. The constitution of our nature being derived from God, the laws which He has impressed upon it, are as much a revelation from Him, as any other possible communications of His will. And to deny this, is to deny the possibility of all knowledge,” Hodge].—Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?—By praying unto God, he does not mean silent participation in public worship, but as in 1 Corinthians 11:5, taking the lead in audible prayer.—If the women, while they were thus putting themselves upon an equality with men, deemed themselves at liberty on this account to appear like the men unveiled, it is so much the more remarkable, that Paul should refer them simply to the uncomeliness of their behavior while holding public intercourse with God, whose ordinance they were violating in so doing. Hence he here says nothing about prophesying.—That the sense of propriety required a woman to be veiled, is shown from the spontaneous teachings of nature.—Doth not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him, but that if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her?—The οὐδέ had best be translated not even, which imparts to the whole question a greater emphasis. In regard to “nature,” the question arises whether the word is to be taken in the objective sense, as denoting the order and laws of nature, or in the subjective sense, as denoting the instinctive feelings and sentiments, the native sense of propriety existing in every individual, and which may have been more or less affected by custom and habit. The latter interpretation cannot be altogether established from the meaning of the word. But the former yields good sense, as we understand by it here to denote the natural constitution of the sexes, and the richer growth of hair in the woman. In observing these constitutional tendencies, a significant hint is derived as to what is befitting in the premises. Accordingly, in contrast with the practices of a cruder heathenism of the earlier time, when long hair prevailed, there has grown up among the most civilized nations, that good taste which declares itself in favor of short hair for men and long hair for women. Among men, the wearing of long hair is now reprobated as a mark of effeminacy and dishonoring to them, inasmuch as it prevents the free exposure of the countenance. [The Nazarites, as a distinction, allowed their hair to grow]. The main stress of the Apostle’s instruction, however, bears upon the duty of woman, and he assigns as one reason for her wearing her hair long, that—her hair is given to her instead of a covering.—From this it follows that the artificial veiling which he has spoken of above, is also an honor to the woman, while going unveiled disgraces her, since nature itself seems to have insisted upon the veiling of her head. [Chardin writes respecting the ladies of Persia: “The head-dress of the women is simple: their hair is drawn behind the head, and divided into several tresses: the beauty of this head-dress consists in the thickness and length of these tresses, which should fall even down to the heels, in default of which, they lengthen them with tresses of silk. The ends of these tresses they decorate with pearls and jewels, or ornaments of gold or silver.”(Barnes). This method of wearing the hair, is common among all Eastern nations, and it shows how woman’s hair was regarded as “a covering.” But the Apostle, it will be observed, makes no allusion to the customs of nations in the matter, nor is even the mention of them relevant. This, it will be important to observe, since many are inclined to construe his instructions as applicable only to those early times, being fashioned in accordance with customs then prevalent. So far is this, however, from being the case, that he appeals for support, solely to the Divine ordinances in nature, and therefore imparts a lesson which is applicable alike for all times]. 1 Corinthians 11:16. He concludes by asserting his own custom and the custom of other Churches, as an answer to those contentious people who might refuse to concede the validity of his arguments.—But if any man seem to be contentious.—δοκεῖ does not mean incline, for this idea is expressed by τινιδοκεῖ. It may be explained as denoting either ‘thinks he is at liberty to be,’ or as a delicate turn after the fashion of the Latin videtur: hence essentially the same as ἐστίν. In the apodosis the expression is elliptical, and we must supply some such phrase as ‘let him understand that,’—we,—that is, himself and his fellow-Apostles, and those of like sentiment.—have no such custom.—It is questionable whether he means here the custom of women’s appearing unveiled, just animadverted upon, or the contentiousness he is anticipating. The latter interpretation suits with the use of the word “we,” which otherwise would suggest the thought of some Jewish custom had in mind, a thing that does not suit here; and also of the Churches of God, he could very properly say that contentious disputing was not allowed among them, and was not their custom. [Such is the view given by Chrysostom, Calvin, Meyer, de Wette, and many of the best modern commentators. But in regard to it Alford well says: “Surely it would be very unlikely that after so long a treatment of a particular subject, the Apostle should wind up all by merely censuring a fault common to their behavior on this and on all the other matters of dispute. Such a rendering seems to me almost to stultify the conclusion. But for the weighty names on the other side, it would seem hardly to admit of a question, that the custom which he here disavows, was the practice of women praying uncovered. He thus cuts off all further disputation on the matter, by appealing to universal Christian usage.” With this view agree Grot., Billroth, Olsh., Hodge, and others]. The allusion to the Churches of God carries great emphasis, as decisive of the point in question, and shutting up all strife. It might be said that here was a genuine Catholic element set in opposition to a self-opinionated particularism. AND ETHICAL1. The unity amid diversity in the Divine economy. The Sovereign of the heavenly kingdom is the Son who is one with the Father, and yet has God for His Head. Yea, as the One who is of the Father, and derives all things from the Father, so as to be able to say, “All Thine are mine,” is He dependent on the Father, and distinguishable from Him both in His unity and in His equality.—The same law reappears in the human sphere. Here man is the chief power, and woman is dependent on him. There is the same humanity in both, and the same Divine life in both. But as the woman originally derived her life from the man, and so is subordinate to him in all the relations of life, being created for him and designed to be his helper; so likewise in the spiritual sphere, in the domain of God’s Church is woman subordinate to man. Here, too, is it the life of the man through which the Lord primarily acts. Men are the bearers of the Divine message; they proclaim the Divine truth, and by virtue of it beget a spiritual life in others; and they are the shepherds who foster the life thus begotten in its onward development. And as in his doings and management the majesty of God is reflected, so is the glory of man reflected in woman, and in her activities in so far as she acts by the authority and power of the man moulding, informing and training the life received from him, and ruling in the household set up by him, to order, counsel and educate within her own sphere. This is a genuine womanliness, which manifests itself in the constant consciousness of such a dependence which every where follows the man, which regards his mind and will as the ground and rule of her action, which is never obtrusive, arrogates no functions belonging to the man, and always wears the appearance of modesty and decorum whatever may be the prevailing fashion of the times. But as in the natural sphere, man with all his freedom and independence, is in turn conditioned upon the woman, deriving his existence through her; and as the man with all his freedom cannot isolate himself from the woman, but is obliged to find in her the complement of his whole being and existence, so is it likewise in the sphere of his Christian life. As the woman ordinarily imparts a salutary and refining influence to man’s moral and social life, tempering his strength with her mildness, and adding her plastic power to his, in the whole business of education; so is it likewise in the spiritual life. As an evidence of what she is and can do here, we can point to the lives of many distinguished men in the kingdom of God, who have owed their greatness to wise and pious mothers. If on the one hand woman, in fellowship with man, obtains through his influence energy and boldness, power and independence, freedom and breadth of character, by means of which she is raised above her natural state without injury to her feminine qualities, and is brought to share in his being without altering, but rather ennobling her womanliness; so on the other hand, through the influence of woman, the angularity and sharpness, the harshness and strength of the masculine nature become softened, and acquire a gentleness and grace, which without injuring his true manliness, adorns and ennobles his whole life. And both these effects are seen in their purest and highest forms within the sphere of Christianity. And in this sphere alone is man able to assert and realize in a truly moral way his proper position and influence, for here he has Christ as his Head. By this means, also, are the relations of the divine and the human spheres properly mediated. In a certain sense, Christ, the Son of God, the First-born of all creatures, in and through whom all things were made, the original image of God after which man was fashioned, the primeval glory of God of which human glory is but a ray, must be considered as the Head of the man, in all the spheres of earthly life, from the beginning to the end; and all true manliness, with its elevating influence upon the character of woman, must be referred back to Him:—just as in like manner the receptivity and formative activity of the woman, and the identity of the two-fold life in marriage, is grounded upon the divine act that made them partakers of one common nature. And both these are truly realized in their mutual influences in Christianity in that sphere of redemption which has been wrought out and perfected by the incarnate Son of God. Here the man depends on Christ by faith, and derives from His fulness power, wisdom and love, which enable him to prove a true support for the woman who has been redeemed by the same Christ, is united with him in faith, and is taken into personal communion with him, imparting to her what he has received from Christ, and in the love of Christ, who gave Himself for them, devotes his strength and all his qualities, and so leads her on under his influence that she is daily strengthened through the divine grace derived through him, and so becomes, in turn for him, just what she, according to her own way and destiny, can be, and ought to be by virtue of this same divine life—a true Christian wife, a veritable help—meet for him in God. [2. Dress is not only an article of comfort and convenience, but also, in its original design and use, is a symbol: 1, Of our fallen state—betokening sin and shame. 2, Of sex—distinguishing between man and woman. 3, Of rank and station—designating by its specific differences the positions which persons hold in life. 4, Of character and sentiment—expressing in its style thepeculiarities, good or bad, of the wearer. In consequence of this, its symbolic character, it becomes every Christian to be particular as to the manner of his dress, and see to it that it properly expresses the position which he occupies in society, and in the Church of God, and that it indicates those qualities of character which it becomes him always to cherish and manifest. This rule applies alike to both sexes, and ought to be fully considered by Christians at this day, when the propensity is so strong for complying with the fashions of a world, which, in forgetting God, is too apt also to ignore and violate the just relations held by men and women in society. Above all things ought “women professing godliness to adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame-facedness and sobriety,” resisting firmly every fashion that may prove either a dishonor to themselves or a temptation to man]. [3. Nature and Christianity. Both originating in the same God, appear in perfect harmony. The laws of nature confirm the dictates of Christianity, and Christianity accepts, authenticates and sanctifies the teachings of nature. In this mutual support we find one evidence of the truth of revelation]. [4. The New Testament confirms the truth of the Old Testament, even in those particulars which it has been too much the fashion to discredit as a mere myth or allegory. In referring for proof to the facts of the history of the creation, Paul here establishes the credibility of the Mosaic narrative in all its literalness. It is impossible, therefore, for any Christian who believes in the inspiration of the Apostles, to doubt the divine authority of the Pentateuch, or to confine the inspiration of the ancient writers to their doctrinal and preceptive statements]. [5. The authority of the Apostles is the end of controversy. To argue against what they have established is, therefore, to show a contentious and rebellious spirit, that, instead of being reasoned with, had best be let alone]. AND Starke:1 Corinthians 11:2. As a father toward his child, so does a faithful minister toward his Church use all means—praise and censure—for urging his hearers to goodness and piety (1 Corinthians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 2:11 ff.).—As faithful ministers remember their people, to pray for, love and serve them, so should the people remember their ministers, to pray for, assist and give heed to their lessons. 1 Corinthians 11:3. For a happy marriage, it is essential, 1, that the husband acknowledge Christ as his head, and rule in his spirit; 2, that he prove the head of the wife in fact, yet not in such a way as to destroy her courage and confidence; 3, that the wife acknowledge her husband as her head—not undertaking to act as master. 1 Corinthians 11:4. In public worship, as also everywhere else, Christians ought to preserve decorum according to established usages (Exodus 19:10-11).—Spener: It is incumbent on Christians in all their religious services to indicate by their appearance and demeanor a reverence for the presence of God—man and woman conducting themselves according to the divine intent in their creation.—Hedinger: As God and nature have distinguished offices and sexes, so have they also appointed distinctions in apparel and demeanor, which should be observed according to public custom, and so as to avoid offence (Deuteronomy 22:5). 1 Corinthians 11:6. None should allow themselves to be forced to do that which is good. Willing obedience is what pleases God. 1 Corinthians 11:8. Behold the wisdom of God in fitting man and woman to the position designed for them severally in marriage. 1 Corinthians 11:9. It is a perversion of God’s ordinance, when a woman usurps authority over her husband, or when a man, from fond affection, becomes the slave of his wife.—Hed.: As the lord of the household, man must keep his place, and he commits a great mistake when from any side considerations he forms a marriage contract that requires him to yield his position. Yet “dwell with your wives according to knowledge” (1 Peter 3:7), and tenderness as “fellow heirs of the grace of life,” on whom God has enjoined obedience as a praiseworthy duty—which has, however, since the fall proved a cross to the weak and a vexation to the unregenerate. 1 Corinthians 11:10. A dress designed for the ball-room is un-suited to the house of God, where it becometh women to assume a modest attire, if not for the sake of man, yet at least for the sake of the angels present there, and for the sake of God, who has promised there to come and bless His people (Exodus 20:24). 1 Corinthians 11:11. Man and woman have an equal right to the kingdom of God; they have been redeemed at an equal cost, and may obtain like blessedness; therefore let not man plume himself on his supremacy, nor woman feel disgraced on account of her subjection. 1 Corinthians 11:12. Christ Himself was born of woman; hence men should honor and love their wives, and wives not begrudge their husbands their lordship. All things are of God—man and woman and the ordinances regulating their relations; hence, to Him belongs the honor due, in all humility and obedience. What is comely should be cultivated, because well pleasing to God no less than to man (Philippians 4:8). 1 Corinthians 11:15. Long hair is an honor to a woman; but she should not proudly parade it; rather it should be to her a sign of subjection, and serve for a covering. 1 Corinthians 11:16. True church members will never compel others to adopt their own opinions, however well grounded, nor wrangle about them; but will quietly let wranglers pass and leave them to their own responsibility. Berlenb. Bible:1 Corinthians 11:2. He who will maintain the spirit of Christianity in its integrity, will show it even in little things. 1 Corinthians 11:3. All true order has its foundations above.—The distinctions which God has made between the sexes cannot be arbitrarily overridden.—Man must conduct himself according to the type set by Christ. If he prides himself on his authority, and is not at the same time obedient to his Lord, nor abides in His Spirit, he is guilty of flagrant folly. His example encourages the wife to be disobedient too. As Christ is submissive to God, and is intimately united to Him, so must man be related to Christ. He must be as a Christian, and act consistently with his profession.—Vv. 7–9. These first principles sound like old tales; but let us keep them fresh by constant application. The order of nature must be held close with the order of creation and Providence, and with the history of Moses. 1 Corinthians 11:10. Christianity consists in a life of subjection; but it is by this means that Satan is overcome.—Vv. 11, 12. Man and wife are united as head and body—the one cannot exist without the other; therefore, each should consent to unite with the other in one understanding, purpose and head. In the kingdom of grace there must be no infraction upon the kingdom of nature. They concur, and have their lesson from the Lord, and their blessing through “the seed of the woman.”—The man, however, cannot abide in the Lord unless he be condescending to his wife. It is a valuable exercise in Christianity to be referring all matters, even the least, to the Lord, whence all things come. God is the source of all things, and if we do not go back to the origin of things as revealed we shall not discover their true law and order. 1 Corinthians 11:13. God has given woman certain signatures, which shall indicate to her how she is to conduct herself outwardly. Prayer begets reverence and docility.—Vv. 14, 15. Nature must not be abandoned in common life, much less in holy services. Rieger:1 Corinthians 11:2 ff. There is something very delicate about our good standing in the kingdom of God, far more than about the most refined court-fashion in the world. If we hesitate to offend against the latter in the slightest particular of dress or deportment, how much more should we hesitate in the case of the former.—The man finds his Head in Christ, from whom he derives grace and gifts not only for himself, but also for his house; but woman is to find her head in man, even aside from the marriage relation, because in the constitution and management of the Church ail depends on men. And this should not appear hard, since in the work of redemption there exists just such a mutual relation between Christ and God. He derives everything from the fulness of the Father, and refers back to Him what He, as the Mediator, brings to us. Heubner:1 Corinthians 11:3. Every regulation should be so referred back to our religious instincts and to fundamental principles, as to be made the standard of decorum for every age. 1 Corinthians 11:7. Man is the Lord of the house—the image and representative of God—the one from whom the majesty of God should be reflected. The wife represents at home the absent man, and should exhibit his image in herself; she has authority only from him [even as she bears his name]. Hence both should so carry themselves in deportment and attire, that the supremacy of the man and the subordination of the woman shall be recognized. 1 Corinthians 11:9. It is a sad perversion of God’s ordinance, when women regard men simply as the means of their convenience, honor, or comfort.—A wife who fails to further the just interests of her husband, contravenes the appointment of God.—Christianity is innocent of that silly worship of ladies which has often been observed in Christian nations. Yet woman is not on this account to be regarded as the mere instrument of the man. 1 Corinthians 11:11. Christianity balances the inequality through the equality, secured in Christ, in whom both ought to be regarded as one. Before God all stand on one footing. 1 Corinthians 11:13. Our moral sentiments often decide a question more correctly than the understanding. Most of all, in our devotions should modesty rule and protect the heart. Can the bold, the shameless, the restless pray? W. F. Besser:1 Corinthians 11:11. The Greeks excluded woman from certain solemnities of their idol-worship; on the contrary, in Christianity married couples walk together to the house of God, sit side by side at the table of the Lord, unite at the morning and evening blessing, and are together in all the observances where life in the Lord is fostered. In Thee, O Lord! the man is not without the woman, and woman is not without the man; but in order that both may remain in Thee, keep Thou them steadfast in obedience to Thy will, that the woman may serve Thee in subjection to the man, and the man may be the head of the house in Thee! 1 Corinthians 11:16. A praiseworthy ordinance which has in it a sound Christian sense, should not be mutilated, deranged, and perverted, through mere love of change or selfish cunning, if for no other reason than this, that unedifying and useless strife is thereby evoked, in which each one deems his own was the best. [Wordsworth:—4–15. St. Paul here teaches the Christian women, who more than any women in the world, needed such instruction, that by obtrusive boldness and wanton effrontery, and by presumptuous shamelessness and flaunting immodesty in public, in the House of God, they gained nothing, but forfeited that dignity, power, and grace, which God had given to women, especially under the Gospel.—Thus the Divine Apostle has left a lesson to women in every age, a lesson which in the present age deserves special attention, when the attire of some among them seems to expose them to that reproof which was spoken through him by the Holy Spirit to the women of Corinth.—Let them learn from him, that the true power of woman is in gentle submission; her most attractive grace and genuine beauty are in modest retirement and delicate reserve; her best ornament, “that of a meek and quiet spirit, which, in the sight of God, is of great price” (1 Peter 3:4)]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 11:2.—In many good MSS, etc., ἀδελφοί is found after ὑμᾶς, but it is doubtful; it is not in A. B, C. [Sinait., 4 cursives, the Copt., Sahid., Athan. (Romaned.), Arm., Athan.,Cyr., Bas., Chrys.]. Its insertion would have been very natural. If this verse were the beginning of a new section, transcribers and commentators would have expected the word, and if it had been in the original, it would not have been easily omitted. It is found in D. E. F. G. K. L., et al., the Ital., Vulg., Goth., Syr. (which, with some others, adds μου), Athan., Theodt., Damasc, Ambrst., Rel. Lachm., Alford, Stanley and Wordsw. cancel it, while Bloomf. And Tisch. (after cancelling it in his 3d edit.) insert it.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 11:3.—The article τοῦ before Χριστοῦ is not very certain. [Lachm., Tisch, and Alford admit it on the authority of A. B. D. Sin. and some Fathers. Bloomfield suggests that in these MSS, “the word, written abbreviatim, may have arisen from the preceding δὲ.” It may, however, have been removed to match the absence of the article before γυναικὸς.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 11:5.—Lachm. has adopted αὐτῆς on very considerable authority [A. C. D. (1st cor.) F. G, L. Sinait., and about a dozen cursives, with Chrys., Theodt., et al.]. This form might have arisen from an attempt to make it conform to the αὐτοῦ of 1 Corinthians 11:4. [Bloomfield thinks the true word may have been αὑτῆς, winch in Hellenistic Greek was often equivalent to εαυτῆς (Fritzsche). Tischendorf, in his early edit., had αυτῆς, but in his 3rd, and later, he has ἑαυτῆς. The latter word would have been needful, if the Apostle had wished to prevent his readers from confounding the κεφαλὴν with ὁἀνήρ, as they would have been likely to do after what he had said in 1 Corinthians 11:3.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 11:7.—The Rec. omits ἡ before γυνή, but the authority for the article is very strong. It was removed so that tho phrase might conform with similar preceding and following phrases. [A. B. D.(lst cor.) F. G. Sinait. (3d cor.) 73,118, Dial., Isador., Theodt. insert it. So Lachm., Tisch., Alford, Meyer and Stanley. Bloomfield receives it, but expresses it in small print. It seems required in the same sense as in 1 Corinthians 11:10, where it is certainly genuine.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 11:11.—The Rec. has an inverted order for these words, but it is not well sustained. Meyer thinks that it was more natural to mention the man first, and that this occasioned the change. [Lachm,, Tisch., Bloomfield and Alford, with A. B. C. D. (1James , 3 d cor.) E. F. G. H. and Sinait., with several cursives, versions and Fathers, have γυνὴχωρίςἀνδρὸςοὔτεἀνὴρ. χωρὶςγυναὶκος.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 11:14.—The Rec. has ἤοὐδὲαὐτήφύσις, but in opposition to decisive authorities. The ἤ was an addition to determine the connection with 1 Corinthians 11:13. [It is wanting in A. B. C. D. (1st cor.) F. G. H. Sinait., et al. Ital., Vnlg.. Copt., Syr., Arm., Tert., Ambr., Ambrst., and has been suspected to be an attempt to point the interrogation. F. G. Arm., Tert., have ἡφύσις without the αὐτή, but against better authorities; but many of the best MSS put αὐτή after φύσις.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 11:15. Lachmann, with the Rec., adds αὐτῆ after δέδοταλ, on some good but not sufficient manuscripts. It is easy to see how it may have been added. [A. B. Sinait., et al., have δέδοταιαὐτῇ; C. H., with some cursives, the Vulg. and Syr. versions, and Damasc. and Ambr. have αὐτῆδέδοται and D. E. F. G. K. L., and many others, with Chrys., Theodt., �cum. and Tert. entirely omit αὐτῇ.—C. P. W.]. [Stanley says that both the literal and the metaphorical sense of the term head are here included. The man dishonors his head by an unseemly effeminate practice, and thereby Christ, who is his spiritual head. Here the head, as being the symbol of Christ, is treated with the same religious reverence as is the body in 1 Corinthians 6:19, as being the temple of the Spirit! Hodge, on the contrary, prefers to take the word ‘head’ in its literal sense. “1. Because in the immediately preceding clause the word is used literally. 2. Because in 1 Corinthians 11:5 the woman who goes unveiled is said to dishonor her own head, i. e., as what follows shows herself and not her husband. 3. It is more obviously true that a man who acts inconsistently with his station disgraces himself, than that he disgraces him who placed him in that station.” The force of the last argument Stanley does not allow, as will be seen above. Stanley’s view seems, all things considered, to merit the preference]. [Wordsworth says, rather “an emblem of authority which she derives through man from God; and by throwing off her covering she throws away her ἐξουσιάν, or the mark of her own authority, which consists in the essential derivation of her being through man from God. She forfeits her own claim to reverence by breaking that link of connection which binds her through man even to the throne of God.” But in opposition to this statement we need but cite a quotation made by Barnes from Chardin. Speaking of the head-covering used by the ladies of Persia, this author says, ‘ ‘only married women wear it; and it is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection”]. [In support of this opinion, see some interesting statements in Thomson’s “ The Land and the Book,” Vol. 1, pp. 34–37]. B. On the contrast between the rich and poor at church-feasts, as inconsistent with the idea of the Lord’s Supper, and provocative of the Divine judgments 1 Corinthians 11:17-34     17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not [But this I command you, not praising you, παραγγέλλωοὐκἐπαινῶν], that ye come together not for thebetter, but for the worse. 18For first of all, when ye come together in the church [a public assembly, ἐνἐκκλησίᾳ ?] I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly19[in some degree, μέροςτι] believe it. For there must be also heresies [sects, αἱρέσεις] among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.20When ye come together therefore into one place, this [it] is not to eat the Lord’s supper. 21For in eating every one taketh before other his own [private, τὸἴδιον] supper:22and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What! [For, γὰρ] have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that havenot? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23For I have [om. have, παρέλαβον] received of the Lord that which also I [have, παρὲδωκα] delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed,took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat [om. Take eat]; this is my body, which is broken [om. broken] for you: this do in remem-brance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament [covenant, διαθήκη] in my blood: this do ye, asoft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this [the] cup, ye do shew [proclaim, καταγγέλλετε] the Lord’s death till hecome. 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and [or, ῆ ?] drink this cup of theLord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and [the] blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine [make trial of, δοκιμαζέτω] himself, and so let him eat of that [theτοῦ ?] bread, and drink of that [the, τοῦ ?] cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, [om. unworthily] aateth and drinketh damnation [judgment, κρῖμα] to him-30self, not discerning the Lord’s [if he does not discern the, μὴδιακρίνων] body. For31this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For [But, δὲ ?] if we would judge [had judged, διεκρίνομεν] ourselves, we should not be [have beenjudged, οὐκἄνἐκρινόμεθα] judged. 32But when we are judged [now that we are judged, κρινόμενοι], we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with theworld. 33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And [om. And] if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not34together unto condemnation [judgment, κρῖμα]. And the rest will I set in order when I come. AND [In order to the right understanding of this section it must be premised: 1. That it was the primitive custom to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in private houses (Acts 2:46); although there is reason to believe, as will soon be seen, that the Corinthians had already a specific place for public worship. Yet, supposing this to have been the case, it would be natural to infer that the habits and sentiments attaching to the observance at the private house, would be transferred to what might be called “ the church.” 2. That the Lord’s Supper was held “daily” (Acts 2:46), and was usually connected with an ordinary meal; although even in this respect the language of the text seems to imply a change to a less frequent observance; perhaps the first day of the week, as was afterwards the custom (Acts 20:7). 3. That this meal was often made up of contributions brought by the communicants, to be enjoyed in common, and which came to be called an Agape (ἀγάπη) or love-feast, where the fellowship of the Christian community was exhibited and cultivated in a social festival. 4. That the custom of enjoying such social repasts existed also among the Greeks. With them these repasts were termed ἔρανοι, club feasts, which were associated with plans of mutual relief or charity toward the poor, where the practice was for each guest to eat that which he brought with him in his own basket. And what an influence this heathen observance, so often attended with disorder and rioting, would have upon the minds of recent converts present at a similar Christian festival, can be readily imagined. Bearing these four facts in mind, we shall be able the more readily to appreciate the nature of the difficulties which had arisen in the church, and the occasion of the Apostolic rebuke and injunction. And in all this we shall see an illustration of the old proverb, that “evil customs give rise to good laws.” See these facts more fully brought out in Stanley’s valuable note, and also in articles under “Lord’s Supper,” in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopζdia, Alexander’s Ed.; and Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible; Riddle’s Christian Antiquities, p. 600; Neander, Plant. and Train. of the Christian Church, pp. 23, 163; Schaff, Hist. of the Apostolic Church, p. 185 ff.]. 1 Corinthians 11:17. Now this I command.—He here refers to the foregoing precept; and through a participial clause expressing a contrast with what he says in 1 Corinthians 11:2, he connects with it a rebuke of further evils in their church assemblies—Not praising (you).—We should have expected to see the sentence here differently constructed, having the main verb in the form of a participle, and the participle in the form of the main verb; since it is on the latter that the emphasis evidently lies. Hence the ordinary reading, which for this very reason is not to be maintained. If, however, with Lachmann [and Stanley], we include 1 Corinthians 11:16 in this paragraph, then the words τοῦτοπαραγγέλλω would point to what follows, and be rendered: ‘Now this I declare unto you’ [as the E. V.], which rendering would be contrary to the New Testament usage. And to this we may add that the previous paragraph requires just such a conclusion as is found in 1 Corinthians 11:16. There is no need whatever of supposing that the strifes and schisms alluded to in 1 Corinthians 11:18 refer to the contentiousness spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11:16. Besides, the reference of τοῦτο, this, to what follows is inadmissible, since no directions do follow immediately; and in order to find any, we must look onward to 1 Corinthians 11:33 ff., which would be too remote. Still further, there is no need of looking for them here, since the close connection with the precepts immediately preceding by means of the participial clause, is sufficiently motived by that which is common to the two paragraphs, viz., disorders in the church assembly; and to this we may add the contrast between the “not praising” and the “I praise” of 1 Corinthians 11:22, q. d. ‘But this precept I give not praising you, as in the former instance, in that,’ etc.—that (ὄτι, not, because, as Alf., Words.] ye come together.—“Hitherto he has been speaking only of the ambitious few; but now he feels obliged to rebuke the whole church for a prevailing evil.” Neander.—Not for the better, but for the worse.—These phrases do not indicate the way and manner of their assembling, but rather its result or fruit, implying that by means of it they were injured rather than improved; and so the issue was not edification, which it was incumbent on all to aim at, but the opposite; instead of furthering, it hindered their communion with their Lord and with each other.1 Corinthians 11:18-19. For first of all.—πρῶτονμέν followed by no ἔπειταδέ, just as is the case in Romans 1:8; Romans 3:2. Accordingly the second matter of rebuke many think they find in 1 Corinthians 11:20, introduced by οὔν, therefore, because this is to be regarded as a result of the “schism” spoken of in the next clause. What, then, does he mean by these “schisms?” Is it what he more fully discussed in chapter 1 Corinthians 1:11 ff.? Were this so, could he have alluded to them here in so incidental a manner? This is hardly possible; for he must then have had in mind certain reports of their schismatic ways in their church assemblies different from that particularly specified in 1 Corinthians 11:20, and which ought to have been more fully detailed. The correct view, therefore, undoubtedly is that the second disorder which he rebukes is not to be found in 1 Corinthians 11:20 ff., and that in the word “schisms” he only indicates generally what he there more fully defines, and to which the words “when ye come together” and the “therefore” which resumes the argument, refer; and that there, for the first time, the proper rebuke follows (1 Corinthians 11:22). The “schisms,” then, denote ruptures, disorders in fellowship of love as they appeared in the church feasts, and which he speaks of more fully in 1 Corinthians 11:21. The second matter, then, which he has to rebuke, we are to look for in chap. 12, viz., the disorders arising in their church assemblies from an unbecoming use of “gifts.” But the connection is loosely indicated, and is to be understood along the more extended exposition which intervenes.—When ye come together in the Church.—ἐνἐκκλησίᾳ shows the form of their coming together, i.e., in a church assembly. To suppose a pregnant construction for εἰςἐκκλησίαν is unnecessary; still less is the word ἐκκλησια, church, to be regarded as denoting the place of assembling; which use of the term did not spring up until later times. Yet perhaps we might say, with Meyer and de Wette, that the congregation is here regarded in the light of a locality.—I hear.—He thus vividly presentiates the whole circumstance, as though what had been communicated to him were still sounding in his ears.—that there are schisms among you.—[These, as intimated above, are specifically those occurring at the love-feasts; but on the mention of them he breaks off to show that such divisions were to be no matters of surprise, but were ordained to test them. The original term is σχίσματα, whence our schisms; but here it designates simply cliques, separated from each other by social distinctions and petty alienations of feeling. Those who were thus divided were outwardly still one body].—and I partly believe it.—The word “partly” has a softening effect, q. d., ‘I think too well of you to believe all that has been reported to me.’ He next proceeds to assign a higher reason for the partial belief which he was constrained to give to what he heard, viz., a Divinely ordained necessity in the circumstances alluded to, as instrumental to a Divine result, “according to that law of Divine administration by which evil, so far from hindering, is made tributary to good.” Burger (Matthew 18:7; Matthew 26:54).—For there must be also heresies among you. In explaining this passage the chief question is, what did Paul mean by αἱρέσεις, lit., heresies? The word occurs elsewhere with Paul only in Galatians 5:20, specifying one of the works of the flesh, and is one of the expressions denoting hostility and division. It occurs besides in Acts 5:17; Acts 15:5; Acts 24:5; Acts 24:14; Acts 28:22, of religious parties or sects; and in Titus 3:10, αἱρέτικος denotes one who occasions divisions in the church by turning aside from sound doctrine (comp. αἱρέσεις, 2 Peter 2:1). “Originally in classic usage αἱρέσεις signifies nothing bad. It implies choice, hence an opinion, then a party, which arises through choice, especially in the schools. It came to possess a bad significance, first in Christian usage; and this is in consequence of our Christian modes of thinking and viewing things. On the stand-point of worldly wisdom, diversity of views and tendencies in regard to religious things is allowable; but on the Christian stand-point it is required that every thing within us be subjected to one Divine principle of life, and be brought into one fellowship of faith and love.” Neander. In our text the current exposition wavers between the identification of the word with σχἱσματα so as to make it imply only the divisions alluded to in the following context, and the later ecclesiastical signification of the word, viz., ‘heresy’—a departure from the fundamental truth of the Gospel, and the divisions arising in consequence; thus distinguishing it from ‘schism,’ which implies a division simply in the matter of discipline. Between these extremes we give the explanation, ecclesiastical divisions, in the broader sense of the word [that is, divisions without any formal separation]. And this explanation is the only correct one, and suited to the character of the clause wherein the word occurs, which is only a digression by way of confirmation (Meyer). In this case the καἱ before αἱρέσεις will mean not even, but also, i. e., among other evils it is necessary that there should be also ‘heresies.’ The main emphasis lies upon “must” (δεῖ), rather than upon “heresies,” as required by the logical relation of this to the preceding verse.—The objective clause, “in order that those who are approved may be made manifest among you,” involves the idea of a sifting process performed on the Church. “The approved” (δὀκιμοι) are the rightly disposed, who devote themselves without reserve to the whole body of Christian truth, and hence to the Spirit of the Lord; and it was necessary that such should be “made manifest,” inasmuch as the impurity and weakness of the Christian life, the yet remaining power of a carnal and selfish nature, often unfolds itself in such a way that many cleave one-sidedly to particular individuals, and to peculiar kinds of talents, and to certain specific tendencies and opinions, without, however, becoming distinctly heretical; although in the Judaistic and anti-judaistic modes of thought, and in the denial of the resurrection of the dead (chap. 15), significant germs and leanings toward heresy might have been formed. The sifting accordingly leads, and was intended to lead, to a higher development of the life of faith and love in the Church, which had been thus obstructed and disturbed. “The Apostle’s view of history thus brought out stands opposed as much to a pantheistic conception of necessity as to an atomistic view of freedom. It recognizes in history room for the play of freedom, yet at the same time asserts the guidance of a higher law.” Neander. [“The Church has been constrained by the rise of heresies to search Scripture more carefully; and thus heresies have served as occasions for bringing forth more fully the articles of faith in her creeds.” Wordsworth. “But the advantage here spoken of we ought not to ascribe to heresies, which, being evil, can produce nothing but what is evil, but to God, who, by His infinite goodness, changes the nature of things, so that those things are salutary to the elect, which Satan had contrived for their ruin. The cause here implied is the secret counsel of God, by which things that are evil are overruled in such a manner as to have a good issue.” Calvin].—Vv. 20,21. In these verses Paul intimates that what transpired in their Church assemblies rendered the celebration of the Lord’s Supper impossible; and then he states more definitely wherein the inconsistency was to be found; so that this appears as explaining and confirming what is before asserted.—When then ye come together.—[“1 Corinthians 11:19 being an interruption, the connection with 1 Corinthians 11:18 is resumed by the particle ου̇ ?͂ν then.”]—into one place.—ἐπὶτὸαὐτὀ is to be construed locally (Acts 7:15; Acts 2:1), and denotes the place where the Church assembled. [From this some have inferred that the Corinthians had already come to have a room or building particularly set apart for religious services].—(it) is not.—Some translate οὐκἔστιν this is not; [referring to what they did on coming together, and which he goes on to specify]; but then τοῦτο should have been expressly given as the subject. Lit.: ‘there is no such thing as your eating,’ i.e., ‘it is impracticable,’ ‘impossible;’ not, however, from lack of bread and wine (Bengel), but because there was a lack of the requisite disposition. An accusative before the infinitive is here not necessary. [Bloomfield detects a sarcastic point in this sentence, q. d. ‘To eat the Lord’s Supper surely is not, cannot be the purpose of your meeting (since that you do not eat): for your meal is not common, but separate; every one eats his own Supper’].—to eat the Lord’s supper.—κυριακὸνδεῖπνον, ‘a feast appertaining to the Lord,’ or as Osiander says, “one consecrated to the Lord and instituted by Him.” (Comp. κνριακἡἡμερα Revelation 1:10). By this the Apostle designates neither the agapae (Judges 12), the so called church feasts, [as Romanists interpret who would thus elude the argument furnished by this passage against their sacrificial theory of the Eucharist]; nor yet, the Holy Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23) by itself; but the combination of the two as it was to be found in Christian Churches, according to the original Apostolic custom, and in accordance with the first institution of the Supper, which, as we know, followed upon a regular meal. The “Supper” spoken of in the text was a festival, to which each one contributed a portion, and which concluded with the Lord’s Supper proper. That, however, which was brought by individuals, was to have been enjoyed in common, so that the fellowship of love, unbroken by social distinctions, might be the more clearly exhibited. Thus was the agape, or love-feast, a suitable preparation for the Lord’s Supper, in its more restricted sense, where all ate of one bread, and drank of one cup. But in Corinth such a meal as this, where all appeared as one family living on a common property, could not take place; since by reason of the cooling of their love, each one kept and enjoyed for himself the portion which he had brought [according to the heathen custom of the ἔρανοι—see above]; so that the distinction between the rich and the poor, which ought to have melted away in Church communion, re-appeared—and this to such a degree that while one class suffered from a sense of want, others were satiated to a degree which, in some cases, amounted even to drunkenness.—For in eating—ἐντῷφαγεῖν is not to be taken as defining more fully the preceding verb, προλαμβάνει; but it is simply a note of time, q. d., ‘while eating.’—every one—viz., who has brought something with him.—takes before other—προλαυβἁνει, a suitable expression for the selfish and hasty appropriation of what had been brought without waiting to put all together and divide it for the common good.—his own supper. [In contrast with the Lord’s Supper, and this in the Lord’s House, and not in his own private house. The abuse seems to have grown out of the primitive practice of sometimes annexing the love-feast to the Holy Communion. And here, in this case the former seems to have crowded the latter almost entirely aside, and the natural want was gratified to the overlooking of the spiritual need].—and one hungers and another is drunken.—μεθὐει. [The use of this word in John 2:10 shows that it need not be always taken to denote intoxication; but this is its natural meaning in most passages, and there is no need of softening it here. As Meyer says, “Paul draws the picture in strong colors and who can say that the reality was less strong?” “It is wonderful and well nigh portentous that Satan could have accomplished so much in so short a time.” Calvin]. 1 Corinthians 11:22. The blame just indicated is here sustained.—For, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?—q. d., ‘if this is what you have to do, viz., to hold your private meals, why, you have your own houses for this object. To use the assembly of the Church for such a purpose is needless.’—Or despise ye the church of God and shame those who have not?—A second reason for the blameworthiness of their conduct—the disparaging of the Church of God, whose meetings were abused to festivities derogatory to its holy character by the introduction of secular distinctions there, and by the contemptuous treatment of the poorer members of the Church—a course of conduct which involved a disparagement of the Church in its members; inasmuch as these were shamefully thrust into the back-ground by reason of a difference which ought to have led only to an equalizing distribution of the good things in the fellowship of a holy love. These two reasons are closely connected.—The term “Church” is not to be interpreted locally, as is plain from the adjunct “of God.” It stands first, because of the emphasis (“the Church of God,” His sanctuary, His temple); on the contrary, in the second clause the stress lies on the verb, “despise ye.” [τοὺςμὴἔχονταδ—those not having. There is a question as to what is the real object of the participle here which must be supplied. Alford, and others, say, “houses to eat and to drink in,” and suppose that in this fact we have the reason ‘for their coming to the love-feast to be fed. But Meyer, Stanley, Hodge, and others, construe the phrase more generally.’ Those “not having” are those who have nothing, and are the poor in contrast with the rich. This is both consistent with Greek usage and gives a better sense].—What am I to say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.—The rebuke here is couched in mild expressions, and its interrogatory form is calculated to awaken reflection. There is, however, a sharp rap in the concluding words, which is, in fact, very severe. In saying “I praise you not,” he refers back to 1 Corinthians 11:17 (comp. Osiander). 1 Corinthians 11:23. The concluding question of the previous verse implies an answer in the negative, and this is now confirmed by a reference to the original institution of the Supper, wherein its character and worth are clearly set forth, even as he himself had received it by reliable tradition, coming directly from the Lord, and had so transmitted it to them.—For I received from the Lord.—παρέλαβονἀπὸτοῦκυρίου. The sense in which these words are to be taken, is very questionable. Are we to understand them as implying a direct, special revelation to Paul of the circumstances of the institution (for the text says nothing of a mere confirmation of testimony otherwise received, or of any special illumination respecting the significance of the circumstances)? if so, was it by means of a vision (as Tholuck, Olshausen, Osiander suppose)? or, as a tradition starting from the Lord, and transmitted to the Apostles? The first supposition is supported, not indeed by the force of the verb παρέλαβον, I received, but by the force of the prep. ἀπό, from, which implies [a remote source,] an indirect derivation; [instead of which παρά would have been more likely to be used, had he intended a direct communication (Winer, P. ΙΙΙ., § 47)]; as well as by the internal probabilities of the case, since he could have resorted to an accurate tradition of the whole circumstance. The second supposition is opposed by the force of the pronoun ἑγώ I, standing out prominently; since indeed, according to this supposition, Paul would only have placed himself on an equality with all others who had, in like manner, received the Apostolic tradition; [whereas he here brings himself specially into view, as one who had derived his knowledge from original sources, and had the right to speak authoritatively in the premises]. We might suppose with Meyer, Ed. 2, that this important circumstance had been accurately communicated to him through Ananias, or some other person, in obedience to a special commission of the Lord, and that this communication was made to him with the understanding that the Lord had given a special commission for him in this particular by means of a vision. This might have been connected in some way with his baptism, or with those special disclosures which he had received in relation to his future calling. Or we may suppose (according to Meyer, Ed. 3), that since, in consequence of its essential connection with the Gospel, and indeed with the fundamental doctrine of Paul concerning the work of atonement, the whole subject excluded human intervention according to Galatians 1:12; Galatians 1:16, the communication was made in some indefinable manner, either through the inspiration of the Spirit, or through the manifestation of angels, or in ecstatic vision. [Hodge argues with great force in favor of a direct derivation, and shows conclusively that this is invalidated neither by the use of ἀπό, nor by the supposition that no special revelation was necessary, on the ground that the facts connected with the institution were generally known; nor yet by the assumption that not historical facts, but only ideas and truths, may be communicated by visions and inward influences; but that, on the contrary, it is required by the context, and is in harmony with what Paul elsewhere claims for himself. He concludes: “It was not only of importance for the Corinthians, but for the whole Church, to be assured that this account of the Lord’s Supper was communicated immediately by Christ to the Apostle. It shows the importance which our Lord attributes to this ordinance”].—what I also delivered unto you,—[i.e., during his ministry among them; so that he is here only reminding them of precious instructions.—On the following words Stanley well remarks: “They form probably the earliest record of the institution of the Eucharist, and they contain also the earliest recorded speech of our Lord. To explain them at any length, or to adjust their relation to the other three verses in St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke, would be to encroach upon questions belonging only to the Gospel narrative; yet those who are familiar with those questions, will observe: 1. That their almost exact coincidence with the account in St. Luke, is important, as confirming the tradition of the author of that Gospel being the same as the companion of St. Paul. 2. That in this, the most ancient record, of certainly one of the most important speeches of our Lord, it is possible to discern elements of the discourses in St. John’s Gospel, viz., John 6:35-58; John 15:1 to John 6:3. That even in the four extant versions of this short passage, there are yet verbal variations of such an extent as to show that it was the substance, rather than the exact words, which the Apostle and the Evangelists aimed at producing. 4. That there is all the appearance of a familiar and fixed formula, especially in the opening words. 5. That it implies on the part of his hearers a full acquaintance with the history of the Betrayal and Passion.”].—What he had received by means of such a revelation, and had also imparted to them, is—that the Lord Jesus—(a solemn expression intimating His supreme dignity, and His character as Saviour)—in the same night in which He was being betrayed.—παρεδίδοτο, Imp., indicating that the scheme of betrayal was still in progress, and not yet fulfilled when He performed this act. By this circumstance the touching and affecting nature of the transaction is more prominently brought to view in contrast with the trifling character exhibited by the Corinthians at their love-feasts. It was the last transaction of our Lord just before encountering death, by means of which He intended to set forth what immediately awaited Him, and also establish a solemn memorial of the sacrifice which He was about to make. [“There is,” says Stanley, “an appearance of fixed order, especially in these opening words, which indicates that this had already become a familiar formula”].—Took bread—ἄρτονα a loaf—the last of the passover meal yet remaining. [“It was the thin passover bread of the Jews. But as no part of the significancy of the rite depends on the kind of bread used, as there is no precept on the subject, and as the apostles, subsequently in the celebration of the ordinance used ordinary bread, it is evidently a matter of indifference what kind of bread is used. It was, however, for a long time a subject of bitter controversy.” Hodge],—And having given thanks.—That this included praise for divine grace manifested in the work of redemption, is to be assumed from the nature of the transaction; and it was naturally suggested by the preceding Passover meal which commemorated the deliverance of Israel. [In Matt, and Mark the expression is, “having blessed it;” but in Luke the same word is used as here. Both expressions mean the same thing, and declare the act of consecration by a grateful acknowledgment of God’s mercy, and invocation of His blessing—as the two are united in the “grace said” before meals]. He brake it.—[“This circumstance is included in all the accounts; in those of Matt., Mark, and Luke, as well as in Paul’s. This is one of the significant parts of the service, and ought not to be omitted as is done by Romanists, by the Greek Church, and by Lutherans.” Hodge].—And said—[“The words uttered by our blessed Lord are differently reported. The proper inference from this diversity is, that the words were uttered; but as the ideas which they express were sufficiently indicated by the gesture of reaching the bread to His disciples, they were omitted by some of the narrators as unnecessary. The idea, however expressed, is of importance. The bread was to be taken and eaten; there must be a distribution of the elements to those participating in the service. Otherwise it is not a communion, as it is not in the Romish Mass where the priest alone eats the consecrated wafer.”—Hodge].—This is my body that for you.—With these words he signifies the act of breaking that had just taken place. “This,” which has just been broken, “is my body;” and the object of this He at once defines—τὸὑπὲρὑμῶν sc . ὄν.,“which is or suffices for your salvation,” namely, by reason of this, that in it is fulfilled what the breaking of the bread indicates, to wit: violent dissolution and breaking up. This thought is expressed in the apparently well-attested, yet undoubtedly interpolated expression ‘broken,’ instead of which some authorities have ‘given,’ borrowed from Luke. Meyer in 3d Edition speaks of it, ‘as the calm utterance of deep earnest feeling excited by the occasion.’ The symbolic character of the words is almost unmistakable, although we are not at liberty to translate ἔςτιν signifies, or yet μουτὸσῶμα the token of my body. He means to say ‘this bread is my body, intended for your salvation, inasmuch as the breaking of it exhibits the slaying of my body which redounds to your salvation.’ That it is not, however, a mere memorial, but a token which offers, imparts, and therefore carries the fact in itself, and so is a means of communicating, and a conveyance of the same cannot be proven from the words of the institution itself. This thought is first obtained through the authentic apostolic exposition in 1 Corinthians 10:16. We recognize in this the interpretation given by the spirit of Christ, which perpetually works in the unfolding thoughts of Christendom, and which has obtained in the substance of the Lutheran article of doctrine an essentially correct expression—while the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation carries the appearance of fancy; and the exposition of the Reformed Church in its various modifications, in part, presses a dry exegesis too far, and, in part, stops with a rationalizing separation of the matters involved, and does not attain to a truly Christianlike intuitive union of them, inasmuch as it produces nothing more than the conception of an ideal or symbolic means of communication, to wit: that the bread presentiates the body of Christ to the believers, and is the pledge of a redemption achieved for them, and so mediates the operation of the Holy Spirit which contemporaneously with their physical participation effects a union with the heavenly life of Christ.—Do this in remembrance of me.—This injunction, on the one hand, exhibits to us the subjective side of the ordinance, to wit, that believers should do this which He was now doing, i, e., should break the bread with thanksgiving and divide it, in order to realize more vividly the sacrifice which He in His own person was about to make for them; on the other hand, it gives us to understand that our Lord wished to have this ordinance continually observed to all future time. That this is the import of the injunction is shown more clearly in 1 Corinthians 11:25, where, in presenting the cup, He says, “this do, as oft as ye drink of it, i.e., as often as ye hold communion with one another through the cup” (Meyer), [showing plainly the perpetuity of the rite]. Others, however, make the words “do this” mean the simple receiving of the elements at the time; which, indeed, both in itself and in relation to what follows, would be suitable enough, but here, where the words “take, eat,” are not to be retained, it is hardly to be supposed. [The import of the command, then, is nothing less than the imposing of a solemn duty upon the church, to be performed until it should meet to drink anew with our Lord in His Father’s kingdom; and the prime object of the observance is remembrance—a remembrance, however, which implies the real representation to their minds and hearts of their risen yet omnipresent Lord. “The bread is His body because it assuredly testifies, that the body which it represents is held forth to us, or because the Lord, by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time His own body; for He is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty presentations.” Calvin.]. Less simple are the words employed in the distribution of the cup which was passed around after the Passover had been concluded. In like manner the cup after He had supped.—[An intimation that the cup ought to be separated from the common meal. (Bengel.)]. Saying, this cup is the new Covenant in my blood.—He does not say merely “this is my blood.” That which in Matthew and Mark is added to the words “my blood” byway of further qualification, viz: “of the new Covenant,” is here joined directly with “this cup” as a predicate—“this cup is the new Covenant;” and as a further qualification there is added “in my blood,” in accordance with Luke’s narrative which almost literally agrees with that of Paul, and was no doubt derived from it. The words “in my blood” are related either to “the new Covenant,” so that the clause shall mean “the Covenant which is established in my blood”—a construction which conflicts with the absence of the article which is here indispensable, especially since ἐστί intervenes: or it may be connected with the whole clause, q. d., “this cup is the New Covenant in virtue of my blood.” In other words, His blood is that whereby the New Covenant was established, in so far as this Covenant, in distinction from the Old Covenant of the law (the institution of which is described in Exodus 24:8 in the very same terms), is the Covenant of grace, i.e., of sin-forgiving love. And this forgiveness was mediated through the shedding of His blood, through His holy self-sacrifice which is at once the sacrifice of the Covenant and of expiation (comp. Osiander, and in reference to the New Covenant Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 8:8; Jeremiah 31:31 ff.).—“Διαθῄκη properly denotes an ordinance or institution in general, then an agreement, a covenant, an institution which establishes a mutual relation between God and men.” Neander.—The cup then, with the wine it contains, symbolizes the New Covenant, and this Covenant is established in the blood of Christ, which the wine, poured into the cup and poured out of it for their participation, sets forth as shed for the expiation of sinful men and to be appropriated by those who drink of the cup. “According to a very common metonymy the cup here stands for the wine—the thing containing for the thing contained.” Steudel. “The wine, as the symbol of the blood of Christ, is the symbol of the New Covenant, and of our participation in it. But this is the more significant as it is a real symbol, i.e., the ‘wine of blessing (1 Corinthians 10:16) is the communion of the blood of Christ,’ as the channel or means by which it is communicated.” Kurtz.—The thing treated of here is a covenant—a relation between God and man resting upon promise, and not simply a fellowship among guests at a table united as brethren in Christ, whose union is symbolized by the wine contained in one cup (Schultheiss); although such a fellowship does indeed result from the Covenant.—The Covenant is called “new,” not merely to indicate a relation of time, but of character also, it being different in kind from the “old” (Jeremiah 31:31 ff.).—The various accounts given by the Evangelists and Paul agree essentially, and supplement each other. It is also conceivable that during the presentation of the bread and distribution of the cup, the Lord in various ways expressed the significance of the act, or the fundamental ideas embodied in the institution. 1 Corinthians 11:26.—Here follow the words not of Jesus, but of Paul, explanatory of the injunction: “do this in remembrance of me,” by a reference to the actual practice of the church which confirmed it.—For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do proclaim the Lord’s death.—In place of the word “remembrance” we have here the word “proclaim” (καταγγέλλετε) representing the Supper as a solemn liturgical exhibition of the fact that the Lord suffered a sacrificial death in behalf of His church, and thereby achieved their redemption—just as there was a proclamation or “showing forth” of the deliverance of Israel at the Passover. [“These words are emphatically introduced in order to introduce the continuance and identity of the original meal through its subsequent celebrations.” Stanley.].—We have here, however, no injunction; hence the verb καταγγέλλετε is not Imperative but Indicative. The “proclamation” is that confession with thanksgiving which is connected with the rite itself, and being made in its very terms and forms, whether it proceed, in individual cases, from a heart penetrated by the love of God or not. The repetition of the words “as often as ye drink”—thus echoing the language of our Lord (1 Corinthians 11:25)—is quite in Paul’s manner. (’Εάν in 1 Corinthians 11:25-26, which is the reading best sustained, is an incidental form of ἄν used by the later inspired writers).—Until He come, ἄχριςου̇ ?͂ἔλθῃ.—The omission of the ἄν here shows the time to be definitely fixed; and this time is the second advent of the Lord, until when this Supper shall continue to be observed as the compensation for His absence and the pledge of His return. [“This remembrance is of the closest and most vivid kind, like the remembrance by children of parents, by a wife of her husband, by a brother of brother, united with faith, love, desire, hope, joy, obedience, and summing up the Christian condition. This relation is in force from the close of the last feast with His disciples till His coming (Matthew 26:29). Thus this mystery unites the extremes of the two periods or dispensations.” Bengel.] 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.—From the fact that the Supper was a proclamation of Christ’s death, He at once deduces an inference (v. 27), followed by an exhortation (v. 29) which is enforced by means of a threat in case of unsuitable deportment.—Wherefore,—since at every celebration of the Supper ye proclaim the death of our Lord.—whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup.—The particle ἤ, or, here connecting the two verbs (which is critically well supported, since καί and, has only few authorities in its favor), has been the theme of no little controversy. The Romanists use it as a sanction for the separation of the elements, and for withholding the cup from the laity; as though the propriety of using the cup alone might not just as well be deduced from it. In order to rebut their inference, however, there is no need of taking the “or” as equivalent to “and.” The two things are thus disjoined for the purpose of setting forth the guilt involved by unworthy conduct, whether it be in eating or drinking; and from this it would seem that in the primitive celebration of the Supper the distribution of the elements did not follow immediately upon each other (comp. Meyer and Osiander).—Unworthily.—ἀναξίες admits of various interpretations—impenitently, unbelievingly, unlovingly. “He partakes unworthily,” says Neander, “who does not keep in view the holy purport and aim of the solemnity; but treats it as an ordinary meal which, in its observance, does not show forth the death of the Lord.” At all events, the unworthiness lies in a lack of living active faith in the atonement which has been achieved by the death of Christ; and this is the source of the various moral disqualifications by which the celebration of the Supper may be dishonored (Meyer Ed. 3). Among these we may mention a selfish, unloving conduct as one of the chief—such conduct as the rich at Corinth manifested towards the poor, and which exhibited a striking contrast with the love of Christ shown in the sacrifice of Himself for all, and set forth in the Holy Supper wherein the benefits of it are extended to every one.—Shall be guilty,—especially in the judicial sense. Elsewhere ἔνοχος is connected with the dative of the words expressing punishment prescribed by the law, and the complaint made, and also the crime committed. But the latter stand at times also in the genitive, and this construction is in the New Testament the prevailing one. Here as in James 2:10, the object against which sin is committed is put in the genitive. Crimini et p�nζ corporis et sanguinis Christi violati obnoxius erit: “shall be liable to the crime and punishment of having violated the body and blood of Christ.” But the idea is not that the unworthy participant is as guilty as if he had taken part in the death of Christ, and is to be regarded as one of His crucifiers. The connection points only to the body and blood of Christ as exhibited in the elements of the Supper, “towards these he will stand in guilty relation from the very moment he partakes unworthily.” Meyer.—This declaration holds good whether we suppose a symbolical or a real presence of the body and blood of the Lord. Irreverent or contemptuous conduct towards the symbol is in fact a desecration of the object symbolized. The guilt, however, appears in a stronger light when that which is unworthily partaken of is regarded as the very vehicle of the body and blood of Christ. The same remark is true of 1 Corinthians 11:29. [“All that is necessary here to observe is, that the warning is directly against the careless and profane, and not against the timid and the doubting. It is not the consciousness of unworthiness that makes a person unworthy, nor yet is it any misgiving in regard to a suitable preparation; for although this may be an evidence of weak faith it certainly indicates a better state of mind than indifference or false security.” Hodge].—In 1 Corinthians 11:28 Paul indicates a way in which this sin and danger are to be guarded against.—But—δἑ, shows the advance in discourse, and turns it into a contrast, q. d., ‘but in order not to incur this guilt’—let a man examine himself,—ἄνθρωπος as in iv. 1, [a general term suited for both sexes]. The expression δοκιμάζεινἑαυτόν cannot mean to make one’s self fit; for it nowhere occurs in this sense not even, in 2 Corinthians 13:5; Galatians 6:4; 1 Thessalonians 2:4; but it means to examine one’s self, and here, as to whether he is morally and religiously qualified for the ordinance. Where such examination is not sincerely made, and is not accompanied with an earnest desire to be in a suitable frame of mind, there a proper self-knowledge will not be likely to exist, nor will a person be likely to avoid that selfish, haughty, unloving temper which is so disturbing to a worthy communion.—and so,—i.e., after having examined himself and discovered some reason humbly to hope that he may partake worthily.—let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.—[“The case in which the self-examination ends in an unfavorable verdict does not come under consideration, because it is assumed that such a verdict will lead to repentance and amendment.” Alford].—The above exhortation he enforces by referring to the penalty incurred by unworthy communion.—For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself,—That participation which ought to be to the communicant the means for appropriating salvation, he converts into the opposite, he makes it a means of destruction, and draws down condemnation therewith upon himself. The word κρίμα does not denote an absolute damnation, but points primarily to those impending Divine judgments which are spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11:26 f.—According to the ordinary text [which inserts the word “unworthily”] he asserts this of unworthy communicants; and then adds as a yet further reason explaining the unworthiness predicated,—not discerning the body.—The verb διακρίνειν is translated either, to distinguish—in this case from ordinary food and drink, or, in order to escape the necessity of adopting a different signification from that in 1 Corinthians 11:31, to judge., i. e., in regard to the body of Christ, whose symbol he receives;—in other words, to make a careful estimate of its sanctity and importance (Meyer). But it may be asked whether the legitimate signification of the word is not here transcended; and whether both the judging of the body of Christ and the judging of one’s self, is not to be explained analogously. In the most important MSS. (A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.)], we find neither ἀναξίως, unworthily, nor τοῦκυρίου the Lord’s. But the latter words are at all events implied, and to be derived from the connection; the former, however, cannot be so readily understood. If we do not choose to suppose(with Meyer) that any abuse is intended in the clause, “he that eateth and drinketh,” and regard the expression as merely designating one who partook of the sacrament simply as an act of eating and drinking (comp. 1 Corinthians 11:22; 1 Corinthians 11:34), then must we translate the participle μὴδακρίνεν, if he does not discern (de Wette), which is better and more expressive than that emphasis put upon the clause, “he that eateth and drinketh,” and it does not suffer from meaningless expansion; rather it is made as terse as possible, since we understand by it eating of the bread and drinking of the cup. “Not to discern the body,” is to fail of the very thing which should be aimed at in examining ourselves, viz., that we possess that frame of mind which belongs to him who has qualified himself, not to partake of ordinary bread, but of that which is the body of the Lord. In this case also we are not compelled to connect, as Osiander does, the words “condemnation to himself,” with the clause, “he that eateth and drinketh,” as if it read, ‘he that eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself;’ in which case we should have to translate μὴδιακρίνων, without discerning, i. e., he that eats and drinks judgment to himself, eats and drinks without discerning the body. Such a rendering would not only be harsh, but also incorrect, for the sense requires that “condemnation” be joined with the predicate. 1 Corinthians 11:30-31. He here applies what has just been said directly to the Corinthians.—Therefore,—i.e., on account of such unworthy communion, or in consequence of the judgments superinduced by it.—many are weak and sickly among you, and many Sleep.—To suppose that the natural results of intemperance are here alluded to, is both absurd and contrary to the immediate context. Neither can we understand him to mean by the word “sleep,” the decay and extinction of the spiritual life, since this word every where denotes natural death; and still less can we suppose him to mean a union of the spiritual and temporal death (as Olsh.). Rather, the Apostle here alludes to some extraordinary wide-spread weakness and disease prevailing at that time in the Church, and often proving fatal, which he regarded as a divinely inflicted punishment on their desecration of the Lord’s Supper (so Calvin, Neander and many others). The word κοιμῶνται. may be rendered, they sleep, i. e., dying as a continual process. But whether this intended a euphonism to denote their entrance into rest with a hope of resurrection to life (Osiander), is at least very doubtful; although from what is said in 1 Corinthians 11:32, we are not obliged to suppose the cutting off of all hope. [Wordsworth says: “He does not say κεκοίμηνται, the term which is used to describe the peace of the saints who have fallen asleep in Jesus (see 1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Thessalonians 4:13) but κοίμῶνται, a tense which is less expressive of a permanent condition of rest than the other]. The words ἀσθένειςκαὶἄῤῤωστοι, weak and sickly, may be distinguished either by taking the former to denote mere indisposition, and the latter severe disease; or the former a chronic, and the latter an acute disease; or, which is indeed more correct, the former denotes those whose very powers fail, i.e., confirmed invalids; and the latter those in whom they are only weakened. Something analogous to these judgments is presented to us in 1 Corinthians 5:5; James 5:15; and also in the O. T. examples mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10:6 ff.—In what follows he next gives them to understand how such judgments might be avoided.—But if we would judge ourselves.—The γάρ, for, of the received text implies another view of the connection, q. d., ‘therefore, in consequence of the Divine judgment, there are many sickly among you; for if we only judged ourselves, then would such judgment not befall us.’ The διακρίνειν, judge, refers back to δοκιμάζειν, prove. It denotes the thorough-going self-condemnation which springs from earnest self-examination—a self-condemnation which involves self-punishment, and a thorough severance of the carnal from the spiritual within us (comp. Osiander). Self-judgment is in fact a diagnosis of one’s own moral state according to the Divine standard of what it should be (Burger).—The transition to the first person serves to soften the exhortation, and is not to be explained (Grotius) on the supposition that the Apostle had church discipline in mind, of which the context gives no hint.—But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord.—The judgment spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11:30 ho here represents in the light of chastisement, i. e., the infliction of pains for the benefit of the individual, so that it shall appear as an exercise of paternal love, and not of exscinding wrath (comp. Hebrews 12:6-11). The words “by the Lord” are not to be interpreted of God, but of Christ, the Lord and Educator of the church, and they are better connected with “chastened” than with “judged,” which, as in 1 Corinthians 11:31, is used without further qualification as being self-evident. The cheering and encouraging tendency of this view of the matter appears yet more definitely in the final clause,—that we should not be condemned with the world.—Through such discipline, aiming at improvement, we are said to be guarded from relapsing into a worldly state whereby we, together with the world, i.e., the mass of humanity, remaining outside of the fellowship of salvation, and abiding in hostility to Christ and God, would incur damnation, i.e., utter exclusion from the kingdom of God. The words διακρίνειν, κρίνειν, κατακρίνειν present a significant paranomasia . In a friendly, winning manner he next follows up his rebuke with a positive exhortation. 1 Corinthians 11:33-34. Wherefore.—ὤστε draws an inference from what precedes.—my brethren, when ye come together.—He here goes back to the point he started from in 1 Corinthians 11:20, “to eat,” i.e., at the church-feast—the agape,—tarry one for another.—ἐκδέχεσθε as the opposite of the reprehended προλαμβάνειν (1 Corinthians 11:21) means, wait, suitably to the N. T. usage elsewhere. [Wordsworth translates it receive, entertain one another, a rendering which is forbidden by the contrast which it forms with προλαμβάνειν, and is not found in any of the versions].—Finally he points to the fact that this Supper was not intended for the satisfaction of bodily wants, and that these ought to be attended to at home. This would serve to guard them against that greedy haste which destroyed the fellowship of the Supper and counteracted its sacred intent.—And if any man hunger, let him eat at home.—This exhortation he strengthens by referring once more to the judgment to which they would expose themselves by an unseemly gathering.—that ye come not together unto condemnation.—Having thus given the necessary directions in reference to the matter most urgent, he postpones all further instructions concerning Divine worship and church usage, to his personal arrival. And the rest will I set in order when I come.—From this passage the Romish theology has sought to find a support for its tradition. “All permanent instructions which are destined to have the character of Divine appointments are always referred back even by the Apostles themselves to the Lord and His Word (1 Corinthians 7:10; 1 Corinthians 9:14); and hence we justify the rule that nothing can stand as a Divine ordinance in the church which is in opposition to the recognized and definite expressions of the Lord and His Apostles.” Burger. AND ETHICAL[1. The Lord’s Supper. 1. Its authenticity. In Paul we have a separate and an independent witness to the genuineness of this institution. It was revealed to him as a part of that Gospel of which he certified that he neither “received it of man, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” And the essential harmony of his account with the narratives found in the synoptical gospels, while it is prior to either of them in the order of composition, puts both the fact and all its particulars beyond reasonable doubt. The mythical theory here finds most effectual refutation. 2. Its distinctive character. It is the Lord’s Supper, and is therefore to be separated from ordinary meals as designed not for the nourishment of the body, but for the soul. It is, therefore, a suitable observance for the Lord’s house, and should there be celebrated with all the solemnity which the great event it commemorates ought to inspire in devout minds. 3. Its import, a. It is a memorial of our Lord’s death. This it exhibits to us as a sacrifice for our sins. The bread betokens the body that was broken in our behalf; the wine calls to mind the blood that was shed for the forgiveness of our sins, and by which the covenant, ensuring to us eternal life, was sealed. These elements are a significant witness, therefore, of the atoning character of our Lord’s sufferings and death, and they can be rightly received only by those who so interpret that wonderful transaction, b. But while it is a memorial, the Lord’s Supper is at the same time a feast to the soul. Our Lord therein presents Himself to the church as the true bread from heaven which giveth life unto the world, and by means of which we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood, so that He shall dwell in us and we in Him. It is, therefore, no empty form, but one filled with richest substance—a substance which is nothing less than the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which it becometh the believer to discern and appropriate by a living faith to the strengthening of his own spiritual life, and that he may be raised up at the last day. c. Besides, it is a festival of social union and communion where, in fellowship with their Head, believers knit the bonds of their common membership. d. It is, moreover, a proclamation of our Lord’s death, a significant exhibition to the world of what He has done and is still ready to do in behalf of all perishing sinners. In celebrating it the church sends forth its invitation to the world bidding every one that hungers and thirsts to come and eat without money and without price. e. It is a pledge of the Lord’s return. As it points backward to His death, so does it also point forward to that Marriage Supper where He, the returning Bridegroom, will entertain His Bride clothed in white array without spot or blemish or any such thing, and destined to go no more out from His presence forever and ever]. 2. The Lord’s Supper. The proper method of its observance. The words “given for you,”—“shed for the remission of sins,”—are associated with the act of eating and drinking the elements as expressing the chief thing in this sacrament; and he who truly believes in these words is a right-worthy and well-qualified communicant. But he who does not accept their truth or doubts them is unworthy and disqualified; for all that the words “for you” require is a sincere believing heart.—Again, where this faith is fervent there the new command of our Lord, John 13:34, is observed by all the members of the New Covenant. The fire of this love, which in Christ devoted itself even unto death in behalf of all mankind, melts down human pride and selfishness. If this love of Christ truly possesses our hearts so that we can appropriate to ourselves the sacrifice it has made as offered for us, then will our natural self and all we have of this world’s advantages and goods become as nothing. Christ and his love will be our all, and in Him will the entire worth of life be included for us. We shall seem to possess worth so far as we are in Him; and everything will possess worth for us so far as it belongs to Him, proceeds from Him, is His work, partakes of His nature, bears His impress, and has Him for it’s end.—Still further, in my associates I behold One who is in them, even as He is in me, who imparts Himself to them as He does to me, who loves them as He does me, and who is beloved by them as He is beloved by me. Thus, all sense of estrangedness is removed, and a feeling of true brotherhood is awakened, and a communion established wherein we freely share with each other what we have received from Christ. When believers celebrate the Lord’s Supper in such a state of mind, then may they be said to partake worthily; then are they in condition to receive through the bread and wine the all-atoning grace of Christ, and together with this, the might of a pure love which gladly forgives; which shrinks at no self-mortification; which embraces all who are in Christ with a pure benevolence and sinks all distinctions of weak and strong, of poor and rich, of little and great, in the one life of Christ which is freely imparted to all, and alone has and gives absolute worth; which accepts with pleasure the little from the little, and rejoices also to give without stint and without selfish intent, in perfect simplicity of heart, so that we receive from our brethren what they have in Christ and what is precious and costly, however small it may appear, and give to them in turn, what we too have derived from Christ, both great and small, counting it a favor if we may but be made the instruments of His love.—When on the contrary the heart is closed against the brotherhood in selfishness and disgust, and cleaves to earthly things of whatever kind, and exalts itself by reason of their possession and looks contemptuously on the rest keeping aloof from them, then faith in the declarations, “given for you”—“shed for you” is utterly impossible; there the person is disqualified for a living union with the Lord in His Supper; then does he eat and drink in an unworthy manner. Here then is the point which every one must carefully look at who wishes to commune at the Supper; and he must examine himself honestly in presence of the great Heart-Searcher in reference to it.—And only after thorough self-examination under the instruction and guidance of Christ’s Spirit must he approach the Holy Supper where the Lord imparts His own offered life to Him being vitally present through the visible symbols.—Holding communion thus he will be greatly strengthened in the participation of Christ’s salvation and be merged more completely in the river of eternal life flowing from Jesus, and his whole nature will be quickened, refreshed and nourished for the more complete development of its spiritual powers.—But when these conditions are wanting and when persons approach the Supper in an unhallowed frame of mind, faithless and loveless, then will the life so freely offered to them, instead of proving a blessing and a nourishment work out for them a greater condemnation. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C. The church in general, and the possessor of spiritual gifts in their right estimate and application1 Corinthians 12-141. These gifts—their ground and aim and hence their unity in manifoldness, suitably to the organic character of the Church 1 Corinthians 121Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not nave you ignorant. Ye know 2that [when, ὅτε] ye were Gentiles, [ye were] carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed [says, ‘Cursed is Jesus:’ ’ΑνάθεμἀΙησοῦς], and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, [say ‘Lord Jesus,’ ΚυρίοσΙησοῦς] but by the Holy Ghost. 4Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are differences of administrations, but [ministries and, διαχονιῶνχαὶ ?] the same Lord. 6And there are diversities of operations, but it is [om. but it is, ins. and] the same God which worketh all in all. 7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal [for some profit, πρὸςτὸσυμφέρον]. 8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge 9by [according to, χατὰ ?] the same spirit; [But, δὲ ?] To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing [healings, ἰαμὰτων] by the same [in the one ἐν 10τῷἑνὶ ?] Spirit; [But, δὲ ?] To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; [but, δὲ ?] to another the interpretation of tongues: 11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. 12For as the body is one, and [yet] hath many members, and [but, δὲ ?] all the members of that one [om. that one, ins. the] 8 body, 13being [although] many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by [in, ἐν] one Spirit are [also were, χαὶ ?-ἐβαπτὶσθημεν] we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles [Greeks, ’Ελληνες] whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into 14[om. into] 9 one spirit. For the body [also, χαὶ ?] is not one member, but many. 15If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it there fore not of the body? [it is not therefore not of the body]. 16And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? [it is not therefore not of the body]. 17If the whole body were an eye, where were the hear ing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18But now hath God set 19the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And [But, ςὲ ?] 20if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they [indeed, μὲν] 21many members, yet [om. yet] but one body. And [But, δὲ ?] the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 22Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more 23feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon [around περιτθεμεν] these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. 24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered [combined, συνεκέρασεν] the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: 25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for 26another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular [severally, ἐχμέρους]. 28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then [after that, επείτα] gifts of healings, helps [helpings, ἀντιλήφεις] governments 29[governings, χυβερνήσεις] diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31But covet earnestly [be zealous for, ζηλο͂υτε] the best [superior, χρείττονα] gifts: and yet [moreover, ἔτι] shew I unto you a more excellent way [way according to excellence, χαθ’ ὑπερβολὴν]. AND [“The ancient prophets had clearly predicted that the Messianic period should be attended by a remarkable effusion of the Holy Spirit (Joe 2:28). Our Lord, before His crucifixion, promised to send the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, to instruct and guide His Church (John 14.). And after His resurrection He said to His disciples, “These signs shall follow them that believe. In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover” (Mark 16:17-18). And immediately before His ascension He said to the disciples, “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence” (Acts 1:5). Accordingly, on the day of Pentecost, these promises and prophecies were literally fulfilled. The peculiarity of the new dispensation consisted, in the first place, in the general diffusion of these gifts. They were not confined to any one class of the people, but extended to all classes—male and female, young and old; and secondly, in the wonderful diversity of these supernatural endowments. Under circumstances so extraordinary, it was unavoidable that many disorders should arise. Some men would claim to be the organs of the Spirit, who were deluded or impostors; some would be dissatisfied with the gifts which they had received, and envy those whom they regarded as more highly favored; others would be inflated, and make an ostentatious display of their extraordinary powers; and in the public assemblies it might be expected that the greatest confusion would arise from so many persons being desirous to exercise their gifts at the same time. To the correction of these evils, all of which had manifested themselves in the church of Corinth, the Apostle devotes this and the two following chapters.” Hodge]. 1 Corinthians 12:1-3. His instructions in regard to spiritual gifts, especially in regard to such discourses as proceeded from the special influence of the Spirit, Paul introduces by a statement of the chief token by which any genuine spiritual utterance may be known, viz., ‘the acknowledgment of Jesus as Lord.’ Whether he had been particularly questioned on this point, as in the instances mentioned 1 Corinthians 7:1 and 1 Corinthians 8:1, [and which are by some supposed to be continued here; or whether this is the second of the points alluded to in 1 Corinthians 11:16, concerning which he had heard,] is uncertain. At any rate, what he is laboring for is the removal of abuses which had crept into the didactical and lyrical portions of Divine worship, occasioned by these extraordinary phenomena (comp. 14.). “The Corinthians having turned aside from a plain, practical Christianity, were employing the gifts of the Spirit without regard to church edification, putting the greatest value on their most striking features, and prizing most such as were best calculated to impress the senses. Hence Paul felt constrained to instruct them in the ‘true end and right use of these gifts, and to warn them against confounding a genuine inspiration with fanatical excitement.’ ” Neander. These abuses have, without good reason, been put in connection with the party divisions at Corinth, mentioned in chap. 1. Baur and Rδbiger reckon those who prophesied among the followers of Paul, and those speaking with tongues among the followers of Peter; while Dδhne regards the latter as Alexandrine fanatics of the Christ-party.—Now concerning spiritual things.—τῶνπνευματικῶν is to be construed as neuter, according to the analogy of 1 Corinthians 14:1; and is not to be interpreted solely of the gift of tongues [as Billr., de Wette, Stanley], concerning which he is not now speaking exclusively; but of spiritual things generally, i.e., of such effects as were wrought by the Holy Ghost, whether ordinary graces and virtues, or supernatural phenomena proceeding from Him and belonging within His sphere. What is said in 1 Corinthians 14:37 [to which Grot., Ham., Locke, allude], might seem to sustain the masculine construction here, making the word apply to inspired persons in general (πνεῦμαἔχοντες), or those speaking with tongues (γλώσσαιςλαλοῦντες), provided the Corinthians had been wont to designate them especially by this term. But the predominant reference is, on the whole, to the phenomenon itself (comp. 1 Corinthians 12:31; 1 Corinthians 14:1; 1 Corinthians 14:39); and to restrict it to one class of persons is demanded neither by the allusion to dumb idols in 1 Corinthians 12:2, nor by the drift of the whole paragraph, which aims to correct the excessive estimation of that gift.—brethren, I would not have you ignorant.—Comp. on 1 Corinthians 10:1. He here gives them to understand both the subject of his instructions, and also that they needed enlightenment respecting the nature, origin, worth and use of these operations of the Spirit. To this necessity he points in the following verse, where he reminds the Corinthian converts (who formed the main body of the Church) of their former heathen state—a state of inexperience in regard to the revelation of the living God and the Spirit’s influences, and of a blind passivity in religious things—a state which disqualified them for an accurate judgment respecting these new experiences, unless carefully instructed. Burger states the connection thus: ‘the power which once influenced you as heathen is now broken; another influence has now poured itself forth upon you, of which you are made aware by these gifts of the Spirit. And now, be it understood, that this Spirit has fixed and uniform purposes and signs, and does not scatter itself in a variety of discordant relations and services such as you were involved in amid the distractions of heathenism. The one abiding centre of all spiritual operations is Jesus.—Ye know that when.—In the best authorities the reading is or ὄτιὄτε, that when. If we adopt this, we must either suppose an anacoluthon here, on the assumption that after writing ὄτε, when, Paul lost sight of the ὄτι, that, and proceeded directly with the following words in connection with ὄτε, when; so that the construction would be—ye know that when ye were Gentiles, carried away to dumb idols as ye were led—(ὡςᾶνἤγεσθε, where the ᾶν indicates what ordinarily happens; comp. Passow I., p. 156). Or, with Bengel, we may construe the ὡςᾶν, as in 2 Corinthians 10:9, by tanquam, quasi, as it were, thus softening the strong expression ἤγεσθε,were led, which would then be taken in connection with ὄτι, that, as the predicate of the main clause; while ἀπαγόμενοι would come in as a side qualification, indicating that they suffered themselves to be thus led. In this case the sentence would read—‘that ye, when ye were Gentiles, were in a manner led away to dumb idols.’—[Alford supposes an ellipsis of τόνχρόνον, the time, while ὄτι virtually drops away as a part of the formula, οἴδατεὄτι, q. d., ‘ye remember the time when ye were’]. At all events, the word ἤγεσθε [which here expresses the main point to which he would call attention] indicates a power foreign to one’s own conscious self-determination, whether it be that of a blind enthusiasm, or of some impulse of nature not as yet overruled by what is truly Divine, or even of demoniac influence. The last agrees well with 1 Corinthians 8:5; 1 Corinthians 10:20; Ephesians 2:2, and can be assumed to co-exist with blind enthusiasm and natural impulse. To imagine any reference to the blinding influence of priestcraft would hardly do, since there was very little of this apparent in the religion of the Greeks. In the expression, ἀπαγόμενοι, being carried away, we are not to suppose any figurative allusion, either as to a criminal led to execution, or to a victim reluctantly dragged to the slaughter, thereby showing the worthlessness or the unluckiness of the sacrifice. It is not to this that the context points, but rather to the readiness with which they allowed themselves to be led aside from the right into the wrong way—a matter which needed not to be directly stated in the context, but which lies in the very nature of the case, as the Apostle regards it, and as he teaches those whom he instructed to regard it. So the term is used also in classic writers (comp. Passow I., p. 292). The idols to whose altars and temples they were led, whether to sacrifice, or to pray, or to consult, are termed ἄφωνα voiceless, dumb (comp. Habakkuk 2:18 f.; Psalms 115:5; Psalms 135:16) in contrast with the living God who reveals Himself by word, and through His Spirit imparts the gift of speaking in prophecy.—Wherefore—i.e., suitably to their necessities. In order that they may form a correct judgment in relation to the Spirit’s operations, especially in relation to utterances proceeding from this source, he gives them the chief token of speaking by the Holy Ghost; and first, negatively,—no man speaking by the Spirit of God saith, ‘cursed is Jesus,’—i.e., speaking in the Spirit excludes all cursing of Jesus; hence, where this takes place, there can be no speaking in the Spirit; next positively,—no man is able to say ‘Lord Jesus,’ save in the Holy Spirit.—The confession of Jesus as Lord is to be attributed to the Holy Spirit as its source, since only in Him is such a thing possible (comp. 1 John 4:2 ff.). The distinction between the text here and that in John, according to Bengel, is that Paul furnishes a token of the true inspiration as against the heathen; but John, as against false prophets. The expression “in the Spirit,” ἐνπνεύματι (comp. Matthew 22:43; Mark 12:36) indicates the conscious exercise of our faculties in the element of the Spirit—a thorough pervading of the soul by the Spirit in the act of speaking. “’Ανάθεμα ’Ιησοῦν, anathema Jesus, is an expression of the fanatical rejection of Christ, such as might occur in moments of devilish excitement in Jews or heathen.’ Ανάθεμα, in its original signification, is the same as ἀνάθημα, any thing devoted; but it is especially used in a bad sense, denoting that which is devoted to destruction by God, just like ηψν in the O. T., and sacer among the Romans. In the synagogue it designated that which was doomed to utter excommunication; hence its meaning is accursed.” Neander. [“He says, not Christ, which term designates the office, and is in some measure the object of faith, but Jesus, the personal name designating the historical person whose life was matter of fact. The curse and the confession are in this way far deeper”]. The idea that in the latter clause it was Paul’s intention to avert contempt from those speaking with tongues, is a groundless assumption, since no trace of such contempt appears; and it belongs with the arbitrary supposition that he here had especially in mind the gift of tongues. In 3 Ed. Meyer says: “It is possible that amid the various forms and even distortions of spiritual discourse at Corinth, public opinion may have varied as to who could be properly regarded as the speaker of the Spirit, and who not. Over against all arbitrary, ambitious and exclusive judgments on this point the Apostle expresses himself the more forcibly the broader he makes the specific sphere of spiritual discourse to appear, and the more simply and definitely he lays down its specific characteristic.” The expression “anathema Jesus” may be taken either as a wish, ‘let him be anathema,’ or as a declaration: ‘he is anathema,’ thus referring to the fact that He suffered death upon the cross as one accursed (comp. Galatians 3:13). Then it would essentially agree with the term “blaspheme” in Acts 26:11. The contrast with this extreme of unbelief is given in the key-word of faith “Jesus is Lord,” wherein the Messiahship of Jesus is acknowledged, and that too as a dignity divine (comp. Romans 10:9). [“The confession includes the acknowledgment that He is truly God and truly man. What the Apostle says is, that no man can make this acknowledgment, but by the Holy Ghost. This of course does not mean that no one can utter these words unless under special Divine influence; but it means that no one can truly believe and openly confess that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, unless he is enlightened by the Spirit of God. This is precisely what our Lord Himself said when Peter confessed Him to be the Son of God. “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven,” Matthew 16:17. Hodge]. 1 Corinthians 12:4-7. He here enters upon the more definite exposition of his subject. After having presented a true test of a genuine utterance by the spirit, he points to the diversity of the spirit’s operations, which yet converge to one end, even as they all have but one actuating principle. The advance in his argument, or perhaps, also, the contrast between the diversity he is about to speak of with the one fundamental characteristic mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:3, is denoted by a δἐ.—But there are distributions.—By διαιρέσεις is meant either distributions (comp. διαιροῦν 1 Corinthians 12:11) which would make this clause imply that one gift was imparted to one person, and another to another; or distinctions, diversities (comp. Romans 12:6, χαρίσματαδιάφορα). Both renderings amount to about the same thing. The former, however, which ought to be preferred on account of 1 Corinthians 12:11, involves the latter. [This expression is repeated three times in connection with three different classes of objects—χαρίσματα, διακονίαι, ενεργν́ματα severally rendered gifts, ministries, operations]. But what are we to understand by these terms? Much the same thing? as though the Christian virtues, of which he speaks afterwards, were contemplated from three different points of view; first, as gifts of divine grace, as elements of the new life which, with all its varied capacities, is mediated by the indwelling Spirit of God; secondly, as ministries,—means or instruments by which one member contributes to the good of another; or, as Meyer says, wherewith Christ is served—“that same Lord to whom service is thus rendered,”—contrary to the analogy of the other clauses; thirdly, as effects in which the gifts manifest their efficiency? Or thus, that the second and third classes are subordinated to the first—“services” and “operations” being the two characteristic forms in which the “gifts” are exercised, and in which these exhibit themselves, viz., as services in their relation to Christ, and as operations in relation to their effects, whether miraculous or not? (Meyer).—Or does the Apostle allude to various sorts of the Spirit’s operations, such are afterwards particularly specified in 1 Corinthians 12:8 ff.—so that by “gifts” we are to understand “the word of wisdom and of knowledge, prophecy, divers kinds of tongues,” and the capabilities belonging thereto, and intended for instruction; and by “services,” “the helps and governments,” &c., appertaining to the management and polity of the’ church (1 Corinthians 12:28); and by “operations,” the miraculous powers mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:10, and the faith of 1 Corinthians 12:9, among which we find the gifts of healing reckoned, but which are expressly referred back to the first class of “gifts,” showing by this very circumstance the arbitrariness of the interpretation? Since the first of these methods of construction has also its difficulties, and “ministries” cannot be included under the head of “gifts,” another mode of interpretation and arrangement is required. The χαρίσματα, gifts are qualifications or capabilities peculiar to Christianity (comp. on 1 Corinthians 1:7)—[“Eminent endowments of individuals in and by which the Spirit dwelling in them manifested Himself:—and these either directly be stowed by the Holy Ghost Himself, as in the case of healing, miracles, tongues, and prophesying, or previously granted them by God in their unconverted state, and now inspired, hallowed, and potentiated for the work of building up the church, as in the case of teaching, exhortation, knowledge. Of all these gifts faith working by love was the necessary substratum or condition.” Alford].—” And here we must distinguish between such gifts as are repeated throughout all time, and such as involved the supernatural also in form according to the peculiarity of the first century. Hence we see the erroneousness of Living’s stand-point by whom the restoration of all the gifts collectively was desired for the regeneration of the church, just as they existed in the apostolic period. But we, at any rate, will recognize in those gifts the types of such as shall exist always in the Christian church, only, indeed, in another form.” Neander. The διακονίαι, ministries, are the manifold offices or functions in the church, (understood in their widest sense) in which these “gifts” were employed, and which indicate a division in the spheres of labor corresponding with these “gifts.” [“These must not be narrowed to the ecclesiastical orders, but kept commensurate in extent with the gifts which are to find scope by these means, see 1 Corinthians 12:7-10.” Alford]. Finally the ἐνεργήματα, operations are the various effects resulting from the exercise of the “gifts” in these particular “ministries.” [“These are not to be limited to miraculous effects, but understood commensurately with the gifts of whose working they are the results.” Alford]. Very instructive is the reference of the first of these classes—the gifts—to the Spirit as the principle which reforms the inward man, and qualifies and disposes our natural endowments for carrying forward the objects of God’s kingdom, awakening, developing, and sanctifying them for their several uses—but the same Spirit,—sc., ὁδιαιρῶν comp. 1 Corinthians 5:11, who distributes them as He will; and so also the reference of the various ministries or offices to Christ as the Head of the Church from whom its organization and regulation proceed (comp. Ephesians 4:11),—but the same Lord,—sc., ὁδιαιρῶν, who appoints and assigns individuals to them as He will; and not less that of the operations to the all-working God,—but the same God.—And He in consistency with the term “operations” (ἐνεργήματα) is represented as the one who worketh (ὁἐνεργῶν) all things in all.—This clause may be taken in its widest sense, as referring to God’s activity in the universe; or it may be interpreted more restrictedly, in relation to the gifts and ministries above specified; or, which might be more correct, in relation solely to the operations spoken of in this clause; since God is the efficient cause of all the effects which are produced by those who, by virtue of the gifts of the Spirit, work in the various offices of the church. What is here affirmed of God is not in conflict with that asserted in 1 Corinthians 12:24, where God is said to be the one who tempers the body together; since it is God who ordains and fixes all things, even what the Spirit inwardly works, and what Christ ordains in the church. Nor, in like manner does that which is said of Christ in Ephesians 4:7., that “grace is given to every one according to the measure of the gift of Christ,” derogate from what is here ascribed to the Spirit. Christ is the one who commissions the Spirit (John 15:26) and all the effects of the Spirit refer back to Him. [“Thus we have God the Father, the First Source and Operator of all spiritual influence in all; God the Son, the Ordainer in His Church, of all ministries by which this influence may be legitimately brought out for edification; God the Holy Ghost, dwelling and working in the Church, and effectuating in each man such measure of His gifts as He sees fit.” Alford. “Once are these Three known thus solemnly to have met, at the creating of the world. Once again, at the Baptism of Christ, the new creating it. And here now the third time, at the Baptism of the Church with the Holy Ghost. Where, as the manner is at all baptisms, each bestoweth a several gift or largess on the party baptized, that is, on the church; for whom and for whose good all this dividing and all this manifesting is. Nay, for whom and for whose good the world itself was created, Christ Himself baptized, and the Holy Ghost visibly sent down.” Wordsworth]. Having thus set forth the diversities and the one fixed ground of these gifts, he proceeds to point out the one chief end of the manifold operations of the Spirit.—But to each one,—i.e. , who is endowed. This stands first by way of emphasis. With this, again, the idea of diversified allotments is again taken up, but only as related to the unity of purpose. That which is given to each one He calls—the manifestation of the Spirit,—by which the unity of the actuating principle is again specified. But it is doubtful whether the Spirit is to be regarded as manifesting Himself, or as being manifested. The latter accords with the use of the word in 2 Corinthians 4:2, the only place where φανέρωσις elsewhere occurs in the New Testament. That in this way too much would be conceded to human self-activity, is a groundless objection, which is already set aside by the use of the verb “is given,” with which also the other construction better suits. What is meant is, that each one manifests the Spirit dwelling and working in him through the exercise of gifts. [Wordsworth unites both ideas. “These spiritual gifts are the manifestations of the Spirit actively, because by these the Spirit manifesteth the will of God unto the church, these being the instruments and means of conveying the knowledge of salvation unto the people of God. And they are the manifestations of the Spirit passively too; because where any of these gifts, especially in any eminent sort, appeared in any person, it was a manifest evidence that the Spirit of God wrought in him. As we read in Acts 10:45-46, They of the circumcision were astonished when they saw that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. If it be demanded. But how did that appear? It followeth in the next verse, For they heard them speak with tongues, etc. The spiritual gift, then, is a manifestation of the Spirit, as every other sensible effect is a manifestation of its proper cause”].—for the common profit.—συμφέρον denotes: the good of the Church, its edification. [“This is the common object of all these gifts. They are not designed exclusively or mainly for the benefit, much less for the gratification of their recipients; but for the good of the Church. Just as the power of vision is not for the benefit of the eye, but for the man. When, therefore, the gifts of God, natural or supernatural, are perverted as means of self-exaltation or aggrandizement, it is a sin against their giver, as well as against those for whose benefit they were intended.”—Hodge]. πρός as in 1 Corinthians 7:35. 1 Corinthians 12:8-11. He here proceeds to unfold in detail what is said in 1 Corinthians 12:7, appealing to facts as they existed in the Church. Hence the γἀρ, which is explanatory.—For to one indeed.—In ᾧμέν=τῷμέν the old demonstrative use of ὁς appears (comp. passow. II, p. 1545). In what follows the expressions denoting the various parties to whom the distribution has been made, occur interchangeably. We have ἐτέρωδέ and ἀλλω̣δὲ. Since the former indicates a stronger difference than the latter, there is a disposition to mark out the chief divisions according to these, so as to make three classes of gifts in the enumeration (see Meyer). [I. Gifts having reference to intellectual power: 1, the “word of wisdom;” 2, “the word of knowledge.” II. Gifts conditioned on an exalted faith: 1, faith itself; 2, practical workings of faith—viz.: a. healings; b. powers; 3, oral working of the same—viz.: prophecy; 4, critical working of the same—viz.: the discernment of Spirits. III. Gifts having reference to tongues: 1, speaking with tongues; 2, interpretation of tongues]. But shall we assign prophecy and the discernment of spirits to that class of gifts which are conditioned on a heroic faith? This will hardly do. We will here state in advance our ideas of whether and how the classification can be made. First, we have two gifts evidently belonging together, or nearly related, viz.: “the word of wisdom” and “the word of knowledge.”—Λόγος thus rendered “word” means lit. discourse; according to the sense here, a capacity for discoursing; and the words in connection denote the subject matter of discourse. But there is a difficulty in distinguishing between wisdom and knowledge. Certainly we cannot admit the view which takes λόγοςσοφίας, the discourse of wisdom, as=to σοφίαλόγου, the wisdom of discourse, 1 Corinthians 1:17, and which interprets λόγοςγνώσεως as meaning knowledge communicated in the simplest style. Rather, we might take the distinction between these two to be that of theoretical and practical knowledge. But then it would be doubtful by which term the one and the other was denoted. Paul’s usage declares for our taking γνώσις, knowledge, theoretically (in opposition to which the practical import is plainly to be assumed in 1 Peter 3:7; 2 Peter 1:5 f.); but σοφία, wisdom, can by no means be understood in a practical sense; in support of which only Colossians 4:5 may possibly be adduced, and also the adjective “wise” (σόφος) in Romans 16:19; 1 Corinthians 3:10; Ephesians 5:15. According to Meyer, σοφία denotes the higher Christian wisdom in and for itself, which is not to cease, even at the coming of our Lord; while γνώσις (1 Corinthians 13:8), knowledge, denotes a speculative insight into truths, their philosophical exposition through the processes of the intellect. According to Osiander, “wisdom” is the apprehension of Divine truth in its totality—of the aims and purposes of God, of the plans and operations of salvation, of the entire scheme of redemption in its inward connection as a well organized Divine system; but “knowledge” is the clear apprehension of particular things Divinely imparted through an inward appropriation and experimental acquaintance (comp. John 6:69; John 17:3; Philippians 3:8)—the former being rather the objective, extensive, all-comprehensive form of knowledge, the latter the subjective, intensive, and special form. Adhering now essentially to both these interpretations, we take “wisdom” to denote the direct intuition into Divine mysteries, and “knowledge” as that kind of apprehension which is gained by reflection, and which therefore belongs only to the present dispensation. [So substantially Hodge and Alford. “According to Neander, ‘wisdom’ is the skill which is able to reduce the whole practical Christian life into its due order, in accordance with its foundation principles (see Plant. and Train., p. 444, 445); ‘knowledge,’ the theoretical insight into Divine things; and similarly Olsh. and Billroth. But Bengel, et al., take them conversely—‘knowledge’ for the practical, ‘wisdom’ for the theoretical. Both, as de Wette remarks, have their grounds in usage. ‘Wisdom’ is practical, Colossians 1:9, as is ‘knowledge’ in Romans 15:14, but they are theoretical respectively in 1 Corinthians 1:17 ff; 1 Corinthians 8:1. Estius explains ‘the discourse of wisdom,’ gratiam de iis quζ ad doctrinam religionis ac pietatis spectant disserendi ex causis supremis,—as 1 Corinthians 2:6 f.;—and ‘the word of knowledge,’ he says, ‘gratia est disserendi de rebus Christians religionis, ex iis quζ sunt humanζ scientiζ vel experientiζ.” Alford].—To another—ἐτερῷδέ—faith.—Not that faith which receives salvation in Christ, i.e., justifying faith, but a strong confidence in the Divine omnipotence, or in the power of Christ, as able to make itself manifest in extraordinary deeds, or to afford and insure help of a supernatural kind; or, in other words, a confidence which shall enable a man to perform these deeds or to afford this help (comp. 1 Corinthians 13:2; Matthew 17:20; Matthew 21:21). Osiander says, “the fides miraculosa, which could display itself in fervent effectual prayer, also in extraordinary joyfulness and confidence amid dangers and sufferings, or in readiness to undergo the same. Bengel defines it as “a very earnest and most present apprehension of God, chiefly in His will as to the effects particularly conspicuous either in the kingdom of nature or of grace.” [Alford says, “a faith enabling a man to place himself beyond the region of mere moral certainty, in the actual realization of things believed, in a high and unusual manner.” Hodge: “A higher measure of the ordinary grace of faith. Such a faith as enabled men to become confessors and martyrs, and which is so fully illustrated in Hebrews 11:33-40. This is something as truly wonderful as the gift of miracles ”].—To another—ἄλλωδὲ ?—the gifts of healings,—i.e. , for healing divers diseases, hence the plural ἰαμάτων, of healings. In one a capacity for healing one class of diseases, and in another for healing another class, by word and prayer, and the laying on of hands (comp. Mark 16:18; Acts 4:18, ἐν).—and to another—ἀλλω̣δὲ ?—the workings of miracles.—ἐνεργήματα a passive noun, which, if construed strictly, would denote the things wrought by miraculous power; Hodge translates the clause, effects which are miraculous, and here the effect is put for the cause, viz., the ability to work miracles]. The miracles here are of a still different kind from those of healing, such as the expulsion of devils, raising the dead, and, according to Calvin and others, judicial inflictions also, as in Acts 5:5; Acts 5:9; according to Olshausen, operations as in Mark 16:18; Acts 28:5 [the safe handling of serpents and deadly things]. Meyer understands it of miraculous effects of all kinds (comp. Acts 4:30), and not simply healings. How a speculative rationalism interprets these charisms or gifts, may be seen from Dr. Baur’s Paulus, p. 559 f. “Faith,” he explains as a peculiarly strong trust in Providence; “gifts of healing” mean no more than the ability to pray with peculiar power and earnestness in behalf of the sick, with more or less assurance of their recovery, if they please God; and the “operations of miracles,” are the proofs of extraordinary strength of soul and vital power in respect to the deeper things of Christianity. The relation of these three charisms to the Spirit is expressed by three different prepositions: διά, through; κατά, according to; ἐν, in. The phrase—through the Spirit—then designates the Spirit as the power which mediates the Divine bestowments,—according to the same spirit—as the power which disposes and regulates them,—in the same spirit—as the power in which the charism is founded.—Distinct from these three Charisms are the two following,—and to another prophecy, and to another discerning of spirits,—the latter corresponding with the former. These cannot in any case be referred, as by Meyer, to a heroic faith; for the prophecy alluded to in Romans 12:6, “whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the analogy of faith,” is of a different sort. Prophecy here (comp. 1 Corinthians 11:3) means the announcement of things hidden by means of a Divine revelation or inspiration—in other words, the ability obtained by the illumination of the Spirit, or through the opening of the spiritual vision by Him, to unfold the onward progress of the kingdom of God,—especially its future developments, or even to open up the mysteries of the inner and outer life. The inspiration in this case is not a blind rhapsodic excitement, but one united with a clear self-consciousness and the free exercise of the faculties (comp. 1 Corinthians 14:32 f.); and the discourse is carried on in an exalted and earnest, yet perfectly intelligible strain. By the side of this enlightening (1 Corinthians 14:24), awakening, invigorating, inspiring operation of the Spirit, there stands a judicial and critical power, “discerning of Spirits,” i. e., an ability to distinguish true prophecy from the false, in the same or in different subjects,—to discern between the pure inspiration of the divine Spirit and the impure excitements either of the natural man or of demoniac agencies—an ability which includes in itself a susceptibility for prophecy and an ability to enter into prophetic ecstasy. The demand for such discrimination is indicated in 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1. “[It appears, especially from the epistles of the Apostle John that pretenders to inspiration were numerous in the apostolic age. He therefore exhorts his readers, “to try the Spirits, whether they be of God; for many false prophets are gone out into the world.” It was therefore of importance to have a class of men with the gift of discernment, who could determine whether a man was really inspired, or spoke only either from the impulse of his own mind or from the dictation of some evil Spirit.” Hodge]. The plural “spirits” is to be referred either to different agencies at work in prophecy, viz., the divine, the human, the demonic; or to the manifold operations of the Spirit and by metonymy, to those inspired by the Spirit. The correct interpretation is problematical. The enumeration concludes,—and to another, divers kinds of tongues and to another the interpretation of tongues.—By γένη, kinds, he indicates the diversity there was in the tongues—a diversity of race, family, species and modes. But what is meant by the word “tongues” (γλῶσσαι) is much disputed. I. The older exposition proceeds from the definition language, and appeals for support to the promise of Christ, Mark 16:17 “they shall speak with now tongues” and to the miracle of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. It understands this gift to be an ability to speak in various unacquired foreign languages under the influence of the Spirit which for the moment dissolved all bounds of language, and transported the subjects of it into a state of ecstasy, thereby symbolizing the universality of the Gospel. This view later commentators have modified; some explaining the circumstance to be a speaking or worshipping in acquired languages, falsely regarded as a charism (Fritzsche); and others asserting that by the power of the Spirit these Christians had been qualified to speak in the original language—a language which contained the elements or rudiments of the various historical languages, and was the type of the broad general character of Christianity (Bilroth).—Others, who reject the older interpretation as not well sustained, partly because of the impossibility of the thing itself, or at least because it was wholly uncalled for by the circumstances of the Corinthians, and partly because irreconcilable with the various expressions and statements of our paragraph (comp. on chap. 14.), have abandoned the meaning language, on the assumption either that the phenomenon at Pentecost was different in kind from that here spoken of [that being evidently a speaking in foreign languages, intelligible to the hearers, while this needed interpretation], or that the account in Acts [being much later than our epistle] was a perverted tradition of the original facts. But these interpreters themselves start from different significations of the word in question. II. Some take it to mean glosses, i.e.., highly poetic words and forms that are obsolete or provincial, [(a sense in which the term is used by the Greek grammarians; see Arist. Rhet. iii. 2. § 14)] (Bleek); or, uncommon and striking expressions, differing from common usage and partly taken from foreign languages, employed to assist the utterance of the Spirit which was struggling for expression under the stress of overflowing feelings (Baur)—an interpretation which is certainly foreign to the New Testament, and which in particular passages is fraught with great difficulties. III. Others, hold fast to the other fundamental meaning of the term, viz., tongue as the organ of speech. In their view the gift implied the special use of this organ for expression, 1. either in its cruder form, as the babbling of inarticulate tones [where the tongue moved and not the lips] (Eichhorn and others); or 2. as an ecstatic speaking in low, scarcely audible, inarticulate words, tones, sounds, whereby the inspired Spirit gave vent to itself (Wieseler)—a view which is decisively opposed by 1 Corinthians 14:18; or 3. as an act of worship by means of ecstatic exclamations, and snatches of hymns of praise and other outbursts of prayer, where the tongue no longer served as an organ of conscious intelligence, but moved independently and involuntarily under the impulse of the Spirit (Dr. Schultz, de Wette, Meyer and others); or 4 as an inspired utterance in which the conscious intellect was held in abeyance and the spirit of the worshipper overpowered and ravished by the might of the Spirit, gushed forth in words and sentences involuntarily forced upon him, which were unintelligible to those of his hearers who were not possessed of the same inspiration. We shall revert to this point hereafter, [see chap. 14]. Since this speaking with tongues was unintelligible to the congregation, it was necessarily supplemented by another gift, viz., “the interpretation of tongues.” This was the ability to translate this unintelligible utterance into a language known to all, and so to explain its meaning—an ability which implied the power of bringing the understanding (υοῦς) to bear upon the meaning of the things wrought by the Spirit, and thus to consciously apprehend them. This charism belonged either to the person himself who spoke with tongues (comp. 1 Corinthians 14:5; 1 Corinthians 14:13), or, as one passage intimates, to a distinct class. Having thus enumerated the several gifts, he once more refers in 1 Corinthians 12:11 to the one original principle from which they proceeded, the oneness of which is brought out emphatically in the expression “the one and the same.”—All these things works one and the same Spirit.—What he asserted of God in 1 Corinthians 12:6, he here ascribes to the Spirit,—ἐνεργεῖ, he works, so that the Spirit here appears as a creative power—as the Spirit of God working divinely. As in this verb we have the import of the prepositions “in” and “through” (1 Corinthians 12:9; 1 Corinthians 12:8) again brought out, so that of the other preposition “according to,” 1 Corinthians 12:8, is again resumed in the participial clause,—distributing, etc.—The Spirit is here represented as a voluntary regulating power, in terms which show Him to be not a blind energy, but a self-conscious, intelligent agent.—As he wills—not arbitrarily, but, in perfect consistency with classic usage, according to a rational and discriminating self-determination which decides its action upon the grounds and purposes of a divine wisdom and love.—to each one severally,—in so far as He imparts to each one something special, so that each one has a charism of his own by which he is distinguished from others with their endowments. This is in accordance with that principle of individualization which pervades the whole economy of creation. The divine idea pours itself forth in a rich variety of forms which again combine to supplement each other in the exercise of that same divine love which ruled in their creation. This is what the apostle further sets forth in an instructive analogy, whereby it would seem he aimed to counteract alike the disparagement as well as the overestimate of particular gifts—shall we add also, the misapprehension of the divine principle therein? At any rate there is no argument here against referring the gifts to a variety of originating causes or principles (Mosheim). 1 Corinthians 12:12-13. He here proceeds to explain or confirm what is stated in 1 Corinthians 12:11. The unity of the in-working Spirit in the variety of His gifts to the Church corresponds to the unity of the Church itself in the variety of its members as typified in our physical organization. [This thought is again further developed in 1 Corinthians 12:14, so as to exhibit the organic character of the spiritual gifts, and their supplementary connection with each other. First, the organic unity of the church is likened to that of the body, showing that the unity is one which does not exclude diversity, and, on the other hand, diversity as not conflicting with unity.—For as the body is one, and yet.—By reason of the contrast between the one and the many the καί should be rendered, and yet,—has many members, and all members of the body.—The word “body” is here repeated by way of emphasis, in order to indicate in advance the unity of the members amid the plurality,—(although) being many—πολλὰὄντα—is to be translated concessively,—are one body.—Short and pregnant is the concluding clause,—so also is Christ,—not Christ in His distinctive personality, but as including the church in Himself as His living organism. As Augustine says, totus Christus caput et corpus est. “The whole Christ includes both head and body.” “What the state is in its own sphere as a moral person possessed of corporate rights, that the church is in its sphere; and the name of its collective personality is Christ.”. W. F. Besser. “In the view of the Apostle, Christ is the archetype of a new and glorified humanity as it is developed in the church. Hence the development of the Christian Church is nothing less than the progressive development of the image of Christ.” Neander. (Comp. Ephesians 1:23; Ephesians 5:30). That here the plurality constitutes a unity is exhibited by a reference to the facts by which a church-life is constituted. The first and foremost of these is baptism (comp. Ephesians 4:5)—a transaction which involves also the dispensation of the Spirit. (Comp. John 1:33; John 3:5; Titus 3:5).—for also—The καί belongs either to the whole clause, or to the words immediately following, q. d., ‘the union is not simply by external bonds, but also through the Spirit.’ (Meyer).—in one Spirit have we all been baptized.—The Spirit is here represented as the element into which the baptized have been transferred, and in which as the result of their baptism they ever after live and move (Acts 2:38; Acts 19:5-6).—A further consequence of this is the formation of one body;—into one body—i.e., ‘so as to become one body;’ or, ‘in order to become one body;’ thus stating the object for which the Spirit wrought in it. The latter is to be preferred as the simpler form.—whether Jews or Greeks, bond or free.—Here the strongest contrasts of national, religious, and social life are specially mentioned as illustrating the mighty unific power of the Spirit in abolishing them.—“The higher unity designated is an all comprehensive one. It does not destroy the distinctions of race and condition, but it assigns to them a suitable order, and overcomes them in their sharp and selfish antagonisms. Jews and Greeks are to remain Jews and Greeks, yet they are to subordinate their national peculiarities to a higher Christian unity.” Neander.—and we all were made to drink one Spirit.—[ε͂νπνεῦμαἐποτίσθημεν, for the construction of the ace, with a passive verb, see Jelf. § 545, 8, or Winer, P. III. § 32, 3; for the omission of the εἰς into, see critical notes]. This statement is parallel to the former. Accordingly some think they discover here a reference to the mystery of the Holy Supper as associated with baptism, [and helping to blend believers into one body], (comp. 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Corinthians 11:2). This reference is to be recognized in the reading εἰςἕνπνε͂μα and ἕνπόμα. The objections to this are: 1, the praeterite ἐποτίσθημεν, were made to drink, [which denotes a past event],—and cannot be regarded as the aorist of custom, since it must be taken analogously with ἕβαπτίσθημεν were baptized; (so Billroth, Olsh. [Hodge]). 2, the contents of the clause itself; since nowhere else do we read of the Lord’s Supper, and still less of the drinking of the cup, as a means of partaking of one Spirit:—But if a union with Christ is effected in the Supper, and if the communion of His bodily life offered up for us cannot be separated from the communion of His divine life, then must there be in it also an imparting of the Spirit as in baptism; and, moreover, since the Spirit is exhibited to us under the figure of a flowing stream, e.g., ‘the outpouring of the Spirit,’ Acts 2; ‘the living water which Christ gives,’ John 7:37, ff. (comp. 1 Corinthians 4:14) it was natural that Paul should select this part of the supper, and not the eating of the bread as specially indicating our participation in the Spirit. If this explanation holds, we must then suppose the aorist ἐποτίσθημεν to have been used in conformity with the parallel ἐβαπτίσθημεν, and because he was speaking of the participation in the Spirit not as a continuous act, but as something which, together with baptism, had already served to found the collective life of the church. Both are completed facts, by means of which the union of the church has been constituted in the Spirit. And here we may also distinguish between the operation of the Spirit laying the foundation of the work in baptism, and the intimate appropriation of the Spirit through the supper (comp. Osiander). If we reject the idea of an allusion to the supper, then we either lose the parallelism with the verb “were baptized,” or we must surrender also the idea of any allusion to the rite of baptism even here, and explain it simply of the copious effusion of the Spirit. But, at any rate, it is strange that after he had spoken of the one Spirit as that on which our being baptized into one body is founded he should again so emphatically speak of participating in the same (as Meyer: “The reception of the one Spirit in baptism is once more emphatically expressed ”). “It is clear from this passage that Paul considers the unity of the church not as something formed from without, but as fashioned from within.” Neander. 1 Corinthians 12:14-26. The proposition that the unity of organization includes, rather than excludes, a plurality of membership, is next carried out in relation to the human body, and that too in a way to suggest practical instructions in respect to the organization of spiritual gifts in the church. The first lesson is a dissuasive against discontent on account of the smallness of the gift, and against a consequent disposition to withdraw from the church either in jealousy or in self-disparagement, as though persons so feebly endowed could do nothing towards integrating the body. The several members are here introduced as holding colloquy to this effect in a highly dramatic style. Something like this is to be found in the apology of Menenius Agrippa; Livy, II. § p. 32.—For the body is not one member, but many.—[“The word ‘member’ means a constituent part, having a function of its own. It is not merely a multiplicity of parts that is necessary to the body; nor a multiplicity of persons that is necessary to the church; but, in both cases, what is required is a multiplicity of members in the sense just stated. No one of these is complete in itself. Each represents something that is not so well represented in the others. Each has its own function to exorcise, and work to perform, which could not so well be accomplished without it. It is only when the hand undertakes to turn the foot out of the body that the foot is bound in self-defence, and for the good of the whole, to defend its rights.” Hodge].—If the foot shall say, Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body. The final clause οὐπαρὰτοῦτοοὐκέ̓στινἐκτοῦσώματος may be either taken as a question [Alford, Hodge]; in which case the double negative would be equivalent to a single one, [Winer § 59, 8 b.], and this would indeed be a more lively way of constructing the sentence; but whether grammatically allowable is doubtful. Or it may be taken as an affirmative clause, in which case, then, the οὐκέ̓στιν would form a distinct idea: ‘it is not on that account not of the body.’ [So Stanley, Lachm., Billr., Rόck.].—παρὰτοῦτο [instead of the more common διὰτοῦτο] on this account, or more literally, ‘alongside of this.’ [Jelf. Greek Gr. , § 637, III. 3, d.]—If the ear shall say because I am not the eye, I am not of the body, it is not therefore not of the body.—As in comparison with the foot the hand is the nobler member, so is the eye in comparison with the ear. It is the hegemonical (ἡγεμόυικοι) or directing part of the body. The hand and foot denote the higher and lower gifts of service; the eye and the ear, the intellectual gifts. Particular explanations here are in any case questionable. [“The obvious duty here inculcated is that of contentment. It is just as unreasonable and absurd for the foot to complain that it is not the hand, as for one member of the church to complain that he is not another; that is, for a teacher to complain that he is not an apostle; or for a deaconess to complain that she is not a presbyter; or for one who had the gift of healing to complain that he had not the gift of tongues. This, as the Apostle shows, would destroy the very idea of the church.” Hodge]. That this undervaluation of the lesser gifts, and this excessive or exclusive estimate of the more notable gifts was altogether improper, is next shown from the fact that were the latter to exist alone, the body of Christ would lack some of its most essential functions.—If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? A gradation is here observed from the higher to the lower. In the terms “hearing” and “smelling” the organs are designated according to their functions; [or perhaps we might better say the functions are specified in order to set forth the importance of the organ through which they are performed. “The application of this idea to the church is plain. It also requires for its existence a diversity of gifts and offices. If all were apostles, where would be the Church?” or where the diaconate, or where the eldership?] In contrast with the condition of things arising from this, one-sided estimate of particular gifts he next exhibits the nature of a true organization as ordained by God.—But now,—i.e., as the case actually stands,—God set—έ̓θετο, not ‘made,’ but set, i.e., gave them a position, and a destination in accordance with it. The divine purpose here presents a silent contrast to the proud and selfish views and wishes of men as being one of perfect love and wisdom.—the members each one of them,—the latter expression is added in order to cut off all thought of exception in any particular.—in the body, as it hath pleased him.—[i.e., it is not man’s fancy that here rules, but the will of Him whose wisdom and right are unquestionable. In rebelling therefore against our place and appointment we are virtually rebelling against the Creator and rightful Disposer of all things].—And if they were all one member, where were the body?—The exclusive maintenance of one organ virtually destroys the whole organism; [and this naturally reacts to the prejudice of the organ itself: for where is the use or even the dignity of the organ without the body to which it is attached?]—But now are they indeed many members, but one body.—This is the character of all proper organization—plurality in unity.—He next in 1 Corinthians 12:21 rebukes the pride of the more highly gifted, and refutes their vain conceit of the dispensableness of the lesser gifts to them.—and the eye cannot.—οὐδύναται, not “may not,” but absolutely cannot, because the hand is really indispensable to the eye,—say to the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you,—[He here exhibits “the mutual dependence of the members of the Church. The most gifted are as much dependent on those less favored as the latter are on the former. Pride, therefore, is as much out of place in the Church as discontent.” Hodge]. In contrast with the negative he next sets forth the positive side of the fact.—Nay, much more, those members of the body, which seem to be weaker, are necessary:—The adverbial phrase “much more” does not belong to the adjective “necessary,” q. d., ‘much more necessary,’ as this would involve an unsuitable thought; but to the whole clause, and carries the logical sense of far rather. The specific class of members here alluded to it is neither possible nor necessary to decide upon. [“They are best left undefined, as the Apostle has left them.” Stanley]. He certainly cannot mean the eye or the head, because of what is said in 1 Corinthians 12:21; neither could he intend to term the hands and the feet as seemingly weaker than the eye or the head. Other suppositions, such as that the brain and vitals were here alluded to [Hodge], are wholly uncertain; [at least, they are not naturally suggested]. To translate ἀσθενέστερα by smaller, is unwarrantable. [Afford understands by the phrase in question, “those members which in each man’s case appear to be the inheritors of disease, or to have incurred weakness. By this very fact their necessity to Him is brought out much more than that of the others.” But whatever may have been the specific thing had in view by the Apostle, the lesson is plain. The very weakliest in the Church—whether it be in body, mind, or estate—have their use, and are not to be despised or overlooked. The sick, if they cannot work, can pray. The poor are needful to the eliciting of charity. And the children, however helpless, cannot be spared from the fold, for they are the hope of the future].—and those members which we think to be more dishonorable.—It would be natural here to think of the arms, feet, and ears which people are wont to adorn with all kinds of ornaments. [But is there not an emphasis laid on the expression ‘we think,’ and a force in the term ἀτιμότερα, which point to other parts of the body which sin only has associated with a sense of shame, and which we are therefore more careful to honor by concealment?]—on them we bestow the more abundant honor,—i.e., by means of clothing or adornment. [“It is observed by Raphelius that τιμὴνπεριτιθέναι signifies in general to give honor; but in this passage by a metonymy, to cover over with a garment that which, if seen, would have a disagreeable and unseemly appearance, and this is a kind of honor put upon them”]. The word περιτιθέναι often denotes dress (Matthew 27:28; Genesis 27:16 ff. [“by which passage τίμην may possibly have been suggested since it is here used by the LXX. for a covering of eyes.” Stanley]).—and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.—What are here meant cannot be doubted. [If the second explanation given above be the true one, we have here simply an expansion of the statement just preceding]. Our uncomely parts receive a more decorous regard than the other members, inasmuch as they are more carefully clothed as a matter of propriety. With all this he gives us to understand that the lesser gifts in the Church are not to be lightly esteemed and neglected; but should be treated with the greater consideration and care, because they are indispensable to the whole body, and the honor of the Church depends no less on the proper care of these than does the honor of the body upon the adorning of the less honorable, or the veiling of the uncomely members. [“It is an instinct of grace to honor most those members of the Church who least attract admiration.” Hodge]. By way of completeness he adds,—For our comely parts have no need:—i.e. , to have such care bestowed on them. [They are in fact in a measure neglected. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 2. The measure of the worth and the rule of the use of the gifts; love, its worth (1 Corinthians 13:1 ff.), nature (1 Corinthians 13:4 ff.), and eternal duration, in contrast with the transient gifts (1 Corinthians 13:8 ff.) 1 Corinthians 13:1-13.1    Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity [love, 2 ἀγάπην], I am become [have become, γέγονα] as sounding brass, or a tinkling [clattering, ἀλαλαζον] cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity [love, ἀγἁπην], I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor [have fed out (in morsels) all my goods, φωμίσωπἁντατὰὑπάρχοντὰ, and though I give [have delivered up, παραδῶ ?] my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself [sheweth not itself περπεπεύεται], is not puffed up, 5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked [whetted up to anger, παροξύνεται], thinketh no evil [makes no account of the evil, λογίζεταιτὺκακόν] 6Rejoiceth not in [at the, ἐπὶτῇ ?] iniquity, but rejoiceth in 7[along with, συγχαίρει] the truth; Beareth [puts up with, στέγει] all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8Charity never faileth [falls away, ἐκπίπτει]: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail [come to nought καταργηθήσονται; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, 9it shall vanish away [come to nought, καταργηθήσεται]. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, then [om. then] that which is in part shall be done away [come to nought, καταργηθήσεται]. 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood [perceived, ἐφρόνουν] as a child, I thought [reasoned, ἐλογιζόμην] as a child: but [om. but] when I became a man, I put away [brought to nought, κατήργηκα] childish things. 12For now we see through a glass-[as by a mirror, δἰἐσύπτρου], darkly [in an enigma, ἐναἰνἱγματι]; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know [fully know, ἐπιγνὠσομαι] even as also I am known 13[was fully known, ἐπεγνὠσθην]. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of [greater among, μείζωντούτων] these is charity. AND [The “supremely excellent way,” by which to ascertain the best gifts and to regulate their use, is the subject which occupies the whole of this chapter. This way is in the original termed ἀγάπη, unhappily translated in our version in accordance with the LXX. by the word charity, which is by no means its English equivalent. The substantive ἀγάπη from the verb ἀγαπαῶ is, as Trench remarks, “a purely Christian word, no example of its use occurring in any heathen writer whatever,” and it was employed by the inspired writers, to denote love in its highest and purest sense—a love which embraced as its proper objects both God and man. And this is the rendering adopted by the translators Tindal and Cranmer as well as in the Geneva version; and it is to be regretted that the precedent, here set has not been followed in the version of King James, inasmuch as the word “charity,” adopted in this connection, has given rise to many errors of thought and practice. Many have in consequence been led to think that alms-giving and kindness to the sick and the poor is the sum total of all religion, because of the superior worth here ascribed to charity, exalting it above both faith and hope. But what the Apostle here speaks of, is not any one particular virtue or grace, but that which is the root and spring of all virtues and graces, and which to possess is to be both like God and in God. In describing and recommending this fundamental grace, therefore the Apostle might well be expected to enlarge most eloquently. Accordingly, we have here presented to us a chapter which, as Hodge well remarks, “for moral elevation, for richness and comprehensiveness, for beauty and felicity of expression, has been the admiration of the Church in all ages.” Paul here exhibits to us love after the manner of a jeweller handling the most precious gem of his cabinet, turning it on every side, shewing it in varied lights, and holding it up to view in a way best fitted to awaken desire for its possession. As Tertullian says, “his description of love is uttered totis Spiritus viribus, with all the strength of the Spirit”]. 1 Corinthians 13:1. The worth of love is first set forth negatively, by the assertion of the utter worthlessness even of the highest endowments and of the greatest self-sacrifices, when not associated with it. [“In this passage there is a climax throughout. He begins with mentioning the gift of tongues, as it was against the exaggerated estimate of this, that he had chiefly to contend.” Stanley.].—Though,—̓Εὰν, supposing that; he here imagines a case which might possibly occur—“a case in the future,” as Meyer says, “the realization of which must be known by the event.”—I speak with the tongues, ταῖζγλώσσαις; the article indicates the thing in general—‘with all possible tongues’. And these he exhibits in their highest conceivable development,—of men and of angels.—If we adopt the rendering languages, we shall have to insist on the idea that there were various classes of angels, and then assume either various modes of spiritual communication among them, or a diversity in the forms of expression used, according to their various orders and ranks without involving, however, any such rupture or disharmony as appears in human languages and dialects. But if we adopt the rendering tongues as meaning organs of speech, then we must suppose a reference here to some mighty jubilation, rung out in all the fullness of tone of which angels and men were capable. Besser says, “with angel tongues whereby the glory of God’s face, as beheld by them, is set forth.” Ewald says, “with tongues far more wonderful and enchanting than those employed on earth by the ordinary speakers with tongues who could not like the angels adopt a purely heavenly strain.” We are at any rate to reject the interpretation of Heydenreich, who takes the expression to denote all sorts of tongues in general, and that of Calvin, who regards this as “a hyperbolical expression to denote what is singular or distinguished; or that of others, who take it simply as implying some eloquence higher than human. [Alford says, “it is hardly possible to understand γλώσσαι here of anything but articulate forms of speech,” and so also Hodge].—and have not love.—ἀγάπη in this connection means that brotherly affection which excludes all self-seeking in the possession and use of gifts, and is directed exclusively to the furtherance of the welfare of the brotherhood. It implies a perfect acceptance of the divine life as the principle of all action—a pervading of the entire disposition by the fundamental moral nature of God, while in the particular gifts the several sides of human life are laid hold of and fashioned by the operations of the divine power; or, in other words, special forms of life and action are combined with divine powers which all necessarily presuppose a perfect union of the human will with the divine will, and that perfection of the divine life which is implied in love. (Comp. also Matthew 7:22). Osiander states the matter somewhat differently, p. 580. Neander well asks here: “how shall we conceive of that which can only proceed from the power of a Christian life as existing, where the very principle of that life, even love, is wanted?” To this he replies: “it may indeed happen that the Christian life actually existed in a man, though in a troubled state, love having departed, while yet the power it gave, continues a while longer, just as a chord continues to vibrate after it has once been smitten. It is possible also that the particular gift itself may lead to the fall, through the selfishness which fastens upon it and perverts it to its own ends.”—I have become, γέγουα, i.e., by the reception of such gifts as that mentioned; [or as Hodge better says, “through the mere want of love which notwithstanding the gift in question would reduce me to a level with—sounding brass.”]—This denotes, not exactly a brazen musical instrument, but any resonant piece of brass. The instrument is first specified in the following—or a clanging cymbal,—an instrument like a hollow basin which struck by another of the same sort emits a shrill, clanging sound (comp. 2 Samuel 6:5). [For a description of the cymbal in its several varieties see Smith’s Dic. of the Bib.]. The verb ἁλαλάζειν is onomatopoetic and was formed to express the loud yell with which an army rushed into battle; and then from this it came to mean the making of any loud noise. The epithet here is certainly suggestive rather of loud and confused exclamation on the part of the speakers with tongues [so Hodge, referring to 1 Corinthians 14:23], than of any such muttering in low and scarcely audible tones as some have ascribed to them. But to suppose an intimation intended of the repulsiveness and annoyance of the din occasioned by them, as Chrysostom does, is hardly warranted. The point of the comparison is, as Meyer states it, that ‘the man who speaks with never so many tongues, and is at the same time devoid of love, becomes but the organ of a foreign impulse, without independent worth,’ and, as Besser adds, “having neither emotion nor consciousness.”—and though I have prophecy,—i.e.., the gift of prophecy. This in Paul’s view was something higher than the former, because it contributed more to the edification, of the Church, and furthermore, because it was combined with a clear self-consciousness which was wanting in the other case. Yet, excellent as this gift was, we see in the instance of Balaam (2 Peter 2:15; Numbers 22) [also of Caiaphas, John 11:49 ff.] how worthless it is when not united with love. But how are we to connect this with that next mentioned?—and know all the mysteries and all knowledge.—Are these particulars only designations of the degrees in which the gift of prophecy was had? or are they special gifts? The former is apparently sustained by the fact that the particles “and though” are not repeated until we come to the next gift, and so the three seem included under one head (so Meyer). But although ‘the knowledge of mysteries,’ as implying a supernatural revelation like that in prophecy, may suit with this construction, yet the other expression “all knowledge” is just as far the other way (see on 1 Corinthians 12:8). [Besides, Paul elsewhere distinguishes between prophecy and knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:8; 1 Corinthians 12:8-10); and to this it may be added that the words ‘mysteries’ and ‘knowledge’ depend not on “I have,” but ‘I know’]. Hence it were better to understand him as speaking of separate gifts proceeding from the divine illumination and serving to enlighten others. The first of these, ‘the knowledge of mysteries’ (which possibly may be the same as “wisdom,” 1 Corinthians 12:8), implies a direct insight into the secret counsels of God as brought out in the great plan of redemption. This, indeed, could not be had without revelation, such as that which forms the basis also of prophecy, from which it is distinguished also by the nature of the objects involved; while it itself forms the basis rather of instruction. But inasmuch as the prophet may be at the same time an earnest inquirer, and through the help of the Spirit, may become a profound explorer into the truth of God’s revelation, there is nothing in the nature of the case to prevent our accepting Meyer’s view as expressed above. The extent of these gifts is represented as the greatest conceivable by the repeated use of the term “all.”—The union of the words “and all knowledge” directly with the verb “I know,” gives rise to the constructio conjugati (Osiander), or a zeugma (Meyer), so that instead of “I know” you must supply some such verb as ‘I have.’—And though I have all faith,—i.e., faith in its whole extent and fullest measure. The word here means a power of will energized by faith (Neander).—so that I could remove mountains,—i.e., so as to be able to accomplish that which transcends our natural powers, and appears impossible. (Comp. Matthew 17:20; Matthew 21:21). The expression can hardly be derived from a supposed tradition of Christ’s speeches, but must rather be taken as a current proverb. [Inasmuch as the term faith is used in a variety of senses, we must be careful to observe the special signification in which it is here employed. Chrysostom calls it “the faith of miracles,” that which apprehends Christ simply in His wonder-working power, and may sometimes exist in an unsanctified person, like Judas. Nothing can be inferred therefore from Paul’s statement here to the disparagement of faith as the fundamental grace of the Christian life (Calvin)].—I am nothing.—A short and expressive statement of the result. Without love, though endowed with these most remarkable gifts which are so highly esteemed and capable of such use, and which seem to indicate a special divine favor, a person is in fact a mere nullity. [“They do not elevate his character, or render him worthy of respect or confidence. Satan may have, and doubtless has, more of intelligence and power than any man ever possessed, and yet he is Satan still. Those, therefore, who seek to exalt men by the mere cultivation of the intellect, are striving to make Satans of them,” Hodge].—He advances in the climax by next mentioning acts which are regarded as the exercises of a love of the most ardent, and self-sacrificing kind, but which are, nevertheless, affirmed to avail nothing when devoid of their proper actuating spirit. Such acts are but the outward forms of love, which may be performed under the promptings of a refined selfishness and vanity; or, as Besser, says, “are the forth-puttings of a self-will, which, being devoid of love, expends itself in empty, fruitless blossoms.” Since he is here speaking of transient acts, he employs the aorist forms ψωμίσω and παραδῶ.—And though I dole out all my goods.—The verb ψωμίζειν, when used primarily with a personal object (Romans 12:20), means to feed as a mother docs her babe, by putting into its mouth little morsels previously chewed; then, to feed in general, to nourish. When used with the accusative of the thing, it means to feed out, to distribute to the poor.—And though I give my body that I may be burned.—The reading ἵυακαυθήσομαι is strongly supported…but καυθήσωμαι is a barbarism, though found in several editions. [See Winer II. § xiii, i.e.]. The burning here may be either a burning to death, or simple torture by fire. Perhaps Paul had in mind such events as are recorded in Daniel 3:19 ff.; 2 Maccabees 7. The history of his time had not yet furnished any instances of martyrdom at the stake; but in accordance with the precedents just alluded to, and through the outlook which he cast into the future, he might here have anticipated something of the sort in spirit.—It is entirely erroneous to suppose that the reference here is to branding, as that of slaves; the usual words for this are στίζειν and στιγματίζειν. And still less can he allude to the casting of one’s self into the fire in presumptuous expectation of Divine deliverance. The parallelism with the first clause naturally suggests the idea of a self-sacrifice for the good of others. [This is the thought which Hodge considers to be presented here]. But this does not exclude the idea of a martyr-death, inasmuch as such a death may serve to manifest both an unwavering confidence in God, and also a readiness to devote one’s self, body and life, for the benefit of others. But if such self-devotion did not spring from love, it is obvious that the martyrdom thus suffered would be only of a kind that often occurred later in the history of the church—[a mere parade of heroic endurance or defiance]. Thus the gloss early arose, ί̓νακαυχήσωμαι, in order that I may boast; which then would have so much the more easily come into the place of the more difficult, and grammatically singular καυθήσωμαι since it would have involved the change of only one letter. This gloss would also, in such a connection, be both flat and disturbing to the sense.—I am profited nothing.—Thus he takes down all conceit about the meritoriousness of such works. The divine reward, i.e., the crown of righteousness (1 Timothy 4:8), can only be given to a humble disinterested love. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. In this paragraph we have a eulogy of love in a description of its qualities, setting forth its superior excellence both positively and negatively. The beauty of the description is heightened by a personification of love, to which those things are ascribed that are found in such as truly love. Throughout the whole there are occasional side-glances at the faults in the Corinthian Church, which stood in contrast with the excellences set forth.—Love suftereth long, and is kind;—Here we have opposite aspects of the same quality. The former expression denotes the withholding of anger, or displeasure at the offences or failings of others, and thus implies the overcoming of a natural indignation; the latter denotes the exhibition of a mild, gracious, tender disposition. The word χρηστεύεται [from χρήστος, useful] occurs only here in all the New Testament; and elsewhere we find it only in the Church Fathers. It primarily means disposed to be useful. Calvin exhibits the contrast thus—in tolerandis malis—in conferendis bonis. Next follows a series of statements in which several bad features are denied to love.—love envieth not;—The word ζηλοῦν, as here used, denotes the exhibition of wrong or unpleasant feelings in view of advantages possessed by others, giving rise to strife and schism; so ζηλος in Romans 13:13, and elsewhere.—love vaunteth not itself,—περπερεύεται is onomatopoetic [“and comes from the old Latin word perperus, a braggart.—See Polybius 32:6, 5; 1 Corinthians 40:6, 2;” Stanley]. It means to show off one’s self—to cut a swell, make a display, especially with false pretences, to talk big, to swagger.Next we have an allusion to the inward ground of all such conduct.—is not puffed up,—i.e., inflated with vanity. As this expresses the subjective state of conceit and self-exaltation, so does the former express the natural manifestation of this in boasts over advantages possessed, and in attempts to get honor for them. [Of course there is a contrast here implied. Through these negatives he would give them to understand that “love is modest and humble; modest because humble.” Or as Chrysostom beautifully says: “He adorns love not only from what she hath, but also from what she hath not. For he saith that she both brings in virtue, and extirpates vice, nay, rather she suffers it not to spring up at all”.]—does not behave itself unseemly,—The word ἀσχημονεῖν does not allude precisely to such conduct as is rebuked in 1 Corinthians 11:5, but rather to an unseemly obtrusiveness in the use of gifts (comp. 1 Corinthians 14:27 ff.; 1 Corinthians 14:39). [Meyer and Hodge interpret the word of unseemly conduct in general, i.e., “love does nothing of which one ought to be ashamed; its whole deportment is decorous and becoming.”]—seeketh not her own,—Here we have the exact opposite of the real nature of love, a selfish seeking after one’s own advantage, honor, and influence as the great thing to be obtained (comp. 1 Corinthians 10:24; 1 Corinthians 10:33).—“Love seeks not its own pleasure, its own enjoyment, its own reputation, its own advantage, its own freedom—yea, not its own blessedness, for, as a general thing, it seeks nothing which it would have alone for itself.” Besser.—is not provoked to anger,—[παροξύνεται; “ the expression is a strong one, and denotes all those feelings of violent irritation, and bitter exacerbation, which are so easily excited in an irritable man.” Bloomfield].—It points back to the long-suffering spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13:4. Osiander distinguishes it from the former (which he explains as shewing meekness under wrong in general) by the explanation ‘love does not allow itself to be aroused even into a transient passion, such as arises from the supposed infringement of one’s own claims and interest.’ Hence this declaration is closely connected with the one immediately preceding; and as much so with what follows.—imputeth not the evil;—οὐλογίζεταιτὸκακόν; this does not refer to the evil which proceeds from one’s-self, as though λογίζεθσαι meant to think upon, to meditate, as in Jeremiah 26:3; Nahum 1:9; and as Luther renders it: “Sie trachtet nicht nach Schaden;” but it refers only to the evil done to it, q. d., ‘love does not charge the evil inflicted,’ ‘does not carry it ever in mind, but forgives it.’ (Comp. the word as used in Romans 4:8; 2 Corinthians 5:19, and elsewhere). The rendering ‘suspect’ [given by Grot., Heyden., and adopted by Jon. Edwards in his celebrated discourses on this chapter] is, to say the least, doubtful. It is opposed by the article before κακόν, ‘the evil,’ [which evidently implies the actual existence of some particular evil that was to be dealt with; so Alford, Hodge].—rejoiceth not at the iniquity,—Here, too, the thing spoken of is found outside of the subject, as may be seen from the positive antithetic clause which follows. [Jon. Edwards takes the opposite view, and understands the passage as affirming that love, so far from delighting in the practice of iniquity, tends towards holiness in the life. This is to overlook the general drift of the passage, which is rather to represent love in its relations to others]. But the iniquity to which he alludes is not iniquity in general—iniquity as it triumphs and spreads, and because it is in the ascendancy [Stanley, Wordsworth]; but, more suitably with the context, iniquity as perpetrated by particular individuals, and rebounding to their own hurt [Alford]. The trait here brought out, is that disposition to rejoice in the downfall or injury of others (Schadenfreude), which springs out of ill-will or jealousy, and which is gladdened when those who are envied for their advantages are compelled through some mis-step to come down from their high position and incur disgrace. This explanation is more natural than to suppose such a love intended as blindly or falsely approves even the errors of others, applaudit male agentibus (Grot.); comp. Romans 1:32; Romans 12:9.—As a contrast with this, he says,—but rejoiceth with the truth;—συγχαίρειδὲτῇἀληθείᾳ, not “at the truth,” thus making the συν in composition only intensive [as do most of the commentators and the E. V., altogether overlooking the force of the verb and the altered construction]; nor as though the persons concerned were also taken into the account as Bengel: gratulatur [justis] justitiam; but, “with the truth,” truth being here personified. It is taken either to denote the absolute truth contained in the Gospel (Colossians 1:5; Colossians 4 Thess. 1 Corinthians 2:12, etc.) the aim of which is to make morality prevalent and which rejoices in the attainment of this end (Meyer); or in an ethical sense, as the good. Burger says : “ the truth in the fullest sense (John 3:21; John 8:32-44) as the ground of true morality;” and Neander: “Paul here traces back the idea of the good to that of the divine truth.” Or it is interpreted subjectively, moral good in the concrete, i.e., men who have been rescued to morality (Rόckert); or the heart filled and sanctified by the truth and by obedience to it (Osiander). The ethical interpretation suits best with the antithesis; to that immorality, which is a violation of the divine righteousness and the divine will, there is here contrasted the harmony of human life in will and act with God and His will, i.e., truth in a moral sense. With this, whereever it appears, love rejoices; it holds fellowship with it, and shares in the joy of its success. [So Hodge, who says: “the sympathy of love with the Gospel, therefore, does not seem to be appropriate in this connection, for it is of love as a virtue of which Paul is speaking”].—The conclusion of this description is made up of four positive statements. The first πάνταστέγει is variously rendered. The verb may be construed either as in 1 Corinthians 9:12, “it suffereth all things,” and so be referred to the pains and privations endured for the benefit of others (Burger), in distinction from the υπομένει,endureth, that follows, which is referred to the trials and persecutions inflicted by others. Or it may be rendered “covers up all things,” i.e., conceals and is silent about those faults of others which a malignant selfishness would gladly expose; as Bengel very finely says: “hides to itself and to others.” So rendered it would stand in easy connection with the “rejoicing not in iniquity” of 1 Corinthians 13:6, and also would suit well with what follows. [Jon. Edwards interprets the clause as denoting a disposition which makes us willing for Christ’s sake to undergo all sufferings to which we may be exposed in the way of duty! But this, however, truly it may be asserted of love, is hardly consistent with the drift of the passage. It is better to adhere to the strict meaning of the verb στὲγειν, to cover, which, as used by Paul, carries with it the idea of covering over and bearing in silence whatever may be put upon one. So Stanley and Wordsworth].—believeth all things,—i.e., shows a trustful disposition which instead of suspiciously and malignantly surmising and exposing faults, is ever inclined to suppose the existence of a good not seen, and in failures to presume the existence of a right intention.—To this then is added,—hopeth all things.—This denotes the disposition to hope for all good by looking unto God (comp. Philippians 1:7); confidently to expect the future victory of good in others, whatever may be the faults and imperfections which for the present bar such hope. [Many commentators are disposed to widen the acceptation of these two last qualities, and to give them a religious significance. So Jon. Edwards who regards the Apostle as here connecting love with faith and hope, thus showing how all the graces of Christianity are connected together in mutual dependence; and De Wette says: “ the religious ideas, faith, hope, patience, are too well known not to be supposed to come into play here. A proper confidence in our neighbor passes over in many respects into the faith we have in the wisdom and goodness of God; the hope, by virtue of which we anticipate good in relation to our fellow-men, mounts up into the hope we have in the final victory of the kingdom of God; and the patience with which we endure opposition for our neighbors’ sake, partakes of our steadfastness in doing battle for the kingdom of God. The true way therefore will be to interpret these statements both morally in relation to our neighbor, and religiously, in relation to God.” But, however true in itself, this expansion of thought may be, it is questionable whether the Apostle intended to give his language this scope].—From this there follows the ability for that which is expressed in the next clause,—endureth all things,—whether it be taken in the sense of expecting in patience, or of calmly enduring everything painful and trying that appears in the object of our hope. [“The verb ὑπομέυειν, as Hodge says, is properly a military word, and means to sustain the assault of an enemy. Hence it is used in the New Testament to express the idea of sustaining the assaults of suffering or persecution, in the sense of bearing up under them, and enduring them patiently (2 Timothy 1:10; Hebrews 10:32; Hebrews 12:2). This clause, therefore, differs from that at the beginning of the verse; as that had reference to annoyances and troubles [or, still better, to faults and offences], this to suffering and persecutions.” Edwards, however, in consistency with his previous exposition interprets this clause as expressing the final perseverance of love, enduring to the end; this likewise must be considered as transcending the Apostle’s line of thought. The union of faith and patience appears also in 2 Thessalonians 1:3, comp. 2 Timothy 2:25. The expression “all things” is of course to be taken with a degree of allowance. In the first instance it im plies ‘all things’ which may be endured or concealed so far as duty and conscience do not require their exposure; in the two following it means ‘all things’ so far as truth allows, so that a person does not impose on himself, nor yield to groundless fancies; and in the last it is to be understood so as not to exclude that earnest reproof which circumstances may demand, [or, taking the second explanation given above, so as not to exclude such a resistance to injury and wrong as the public good or the interests of righteousness may require]. In this way the whole description becomes beautifully consistent. Besides, in this way the first explanation of στέγειν, which has in its favor Pauline usage, is not set aside. To suppose a close connection here with 1 Corinthians 13:6, is by no means necessary; the voluntary enduring of all possible labors and hardships for the good of others, in striving for their salvation, expressed in the first clause of this verse, is naturally joined with the acts expressed in what follows. Besides, we need not understand by the last clause [as Hodge does] the endurance of persecutions and the like, and can hold fast to the second of the explanations given above. Mark the climax of expressions in this beautiful verse. “ Whatever love may encounter from others that is calculated to make it impatient, all this it bears; whatever can make it distrustful, all this it trusts for; whatever might serve to destroy hope in a neighbor, all this it hopes for; whatever might cause it to sink in weakness, beneath all this it holds its ground in firmness and endurance.” Meyer.—After having exhibited the excellence of love by portraying those fundamental features of it which are found also in its divine Archetype (Romans 2:4; 1 Timothy 1:6; 1 Peter 3:20; Titus 3:4; Ephesians 2:7) he proceeds to display its excellence still further by showing the permanence of those things in respect to which it stands preλminent. 1 Corinthians 13:8-13. The main proposition in the following exposition here stands first. As to the original text, critics are not yet agreed as to whether, with the Rec., it is to be read ἐκπίπτει (Tisch. Ed. 7. [Words.]), or with A. B. C. [Alf., Stan.] πίπτει; the sense is the same,—οῦκαταργεῖται, οὐπαύεται (comp. Luke 16:17). It states negatively what is positively asserted in 1 Corinthians 13:13.—Love never faileth;—The compound ἐκπίπτειν is applied to denote the fading of flowers, the falling of trees, the dislocation of the limbs and the like; also displacement from one’s position, becoming void, in Romans 9:6, spoken of the Word of God, corresponding to the Old Testament πָ ?τַ ?μ, (Job 21:43; Job 23:14). “There failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken;” and similarly Job 23:14. The simple form πίπτειν means to fall, as houses, stars and the like fall. Mere continuance in use is not the thing meant; nor yet simply, that love never fails of its object; but, actual existence. As Neander expresses it, “All manifestations of the higher life are transient, save love. It endures for ever.”—Instead of continuing in regular sequence, as might be expected, ‘but the gifts of various kinds will all cease,’ he introduces the mention of particular gilts by εί̓τε—εί̓τε, whether—whether. By this the general idea of gifts is split into its species, followed by distinct assertions respecting each,—but whether (there be) prophecies,—i.e., the gift of prophecy, in all its varied forms.—they shall come to nought;—i.e., when their contents are all fulfilled, when all that was once hidden is clearly revealed, and “every one is taught of the Lord. (Jeremiah 31:34).—whether (there be) tongues, they shall cease;—Not human languages as such, but the special gift of speaking with tongues, whatever it be.—whether (there be) knowledge,—the reading γνώσεις, knowledges, is not sufficiently accredited, and the plural was used perhaps in comformity with the previous word.—it shall come to nought.—On καταργεῖν see 1 Corinthians 1:28. All these gifts belong to the present state of imperfect spiritual operations and will cease when the period of perfection has come. This he fully asserts in relation to those of knowledge and prophecy in 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 ff. For the cessation of the gift of tongues such assurance was unnecessary, since it was evident of itself that this partial ecstatic and unintelligible manifestation of the Spirit was not to be regarded as anything perpetual and destined to continue in a state of perfection. [Chrys. and others, however, understand these futures, of the time when, faith having spread abroad, these special gifts will be no longer needed; hence, as belonging to the present age. And this has been the practical construction put upon them by a large portion of the Protestant church. Whatever may be the exegesis given this passage, the prevailing belief is that these gifts, especially those of a miraculous nature, were destined only for the apostolic period, and have already ceased. But this, certainly, it was not Intention of the Apostle to assert here. The time alluded to is undoubtedly that of ‘the age to come’, ushered, in by the second advent of the Lord]. Since the assertion that these gifts were to terminate, would seem most strange when applied to knowledge, he proceeds to enlarge on this first.—For we know in part and we prophesy in part.—[Here we have the reason why knowledge and prophecy were to cease. As here exercised, they were partial and imperfect, and therefore in their present form must necessarily pass away when the state of perfection arrived. The most that the most enlightened and Inspired seers of the present revelation could boast of, were but momentary glimpses, whether they were into the mysteries of the spiritual world around them, or into the future beyond them].—But when the perfect has come, that in part shall come to nought.—By “the perfect” (τὸτέλειον) he means the consummation of the kingdom of God which is to take place at the appearance of Christ, and not the state of believers after death. See Habakkuk 2:14, “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” [At that time all partial illumination will be quenched by the superior effulgence of the divine revelation then made, just as the light of lamps and stars is all quenched by the shining of the sun].—The relation of our present defective condition to what it will be in this future state, is next set forth by an illustration furnished by comparing the several stages of human development—that of ignorant and inexperienced childhood with that of ripe manhood, which is elsewhere described by the epithet “perfect.” (comp. 1 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 3:1; 1 Corinthians 14:20; Ephesians 4:13 ff.).—When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child;—[“He here once more returns to himself, as the representative of man in general;” and the verbs employed to express the infant condition may be thus defined and distinguished. Λαλεῖν means to use the voice, without any necessary reference to the word spoken, and is as applicable to the prattle of children as to the speech of men; φρονεῖν denotes the internal state of the mind, heart or will, which expresses itself through the former, and means not only to think, but also to feel or to be inclined in any particular direction; and λογίζεσθαι implies a continual process of thought, a course of reasoning, and means to judge, also to purpose; and it may also denote behavior, so far as the result is established and reckoned on]. To refer these three acts of childhood to the three charisms mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:8, viz., of speaking with tongues of prophecy and of knowledge [Beng., Olsh., Stan., and others], is to say the least very problematical; for although the first may allow of this, it is hardly allowable of the other two, even though with Osiander we give to φρονεῖν a merely intellectual significance, sentire, sapere.—We might also be tempted to apply the condition of infancy, in its contentedness with its own prattle and acts and thoughts, to illustrate the self-sufficiency of the Corinthians in the possession and use of their gifts; so that then the Apostle would give us to understand in what follows, how everything of this sort, likewise which belongs to a period of immaturity, must be done away in riper manhood when the state of perfection has come. But the course of thought here forbids such an application of the analogy, and allows only that appertaining to the point in view. Ho means to say, that as one who has become a man has put away the childish character in every respect, so, in the future age, those forms of thinking, feeling and speaking which belong to the present age, will give place to something far better. [The comparison here, it must be observed, is not as between the false and the true, but between the more and the less in regard to what is true. The thoughts and feelings of a child may be correct as far as they go, sufficient for it at its stage, but utterly inadequate when compared with the objects with which it is concerned: all error, if error exists, will be that arising from the limitation of its powers; and this will be gradually removed as its powers expand. Just so our views of divine things at present are not to be suspected and disowned as though they were false because imperfect; but if formed under the guidance of the word and of the Spirit, they are to be relied on as practically sufficient for us in our present condition, even though destined to be greatly modified in the future].—The inadequateness of the present state of knowledge is more fully illustrated in 1 Corinthians 13:12, in two contrasts—one as to tire directness of knowledge, and the other as to its completeness.—For now we see through a mirror in an enigma;—Here knowledge is spoken of under the form of vision (βλἐπειν); but it is not human knowledge in general that is intended, but Christian knowledge as a gift. Whether this “seeing” refers to prophetic vision in distinction from simple knowing, is, to say at least, doubtful. Ἔσοπτρον some interpret to mean a window-pane, whether of isinglass or some other translucent substance. But the word for this is δίοπτρον, never ἔσοπτρον. The latter denotes a mirror which, according to the fashion of the time, consisted of a bright metallic plate, which, however, reflected dimly at the best. The prep. διά, ‘through’ [by which some support the interpretation of a window-pane], is used in accordance with that optical illusion which makes the object reflected seem as if behind the mirror, and so, as if seen through it. The expression ἐναἰνίγματι is not to be construed adverbially [as in the E. V. and by Heyden, Billr. and others] ‘enigmatically,’ ‘darkly’ (ἀμαυρῶς); but here the Apostle passes out of the sphere of seeing into that of hearing, and shows us the nature of that in which the objects alluded to are seen. This he calls an ‘enigma’—a word denoting obscure phraseology, some mode of statement that only hints obscurely what is meant, or propounds a riddle to be solved. And by this term he characterizes the objective medium of Christian knowledge, viz., the revealed word in which divine things are seen reflected as in a mirror. The appropriateness of the designation is seen in the fact that the divine word does not convey to us these things in perfect clearness, but only suggests them, leaving much still problematical. As Melancthon says: “The word, as it were, veils a wonderful fact which in the heavenly state we shall contemplate fully disclosed to our sight.” And Burger: “The revealed word is called an enigma, because it necessarily sets forth divine truth in modes of expression borrowed from human conditions and natural phenomena—consequently in a sort of figurative language, the import of which our minds but partially apprehend. [And Hodge: “We do not see the things themselves, but those things as set forth in symbols and words which but imperfectly express them.”] Delitzsch, also, interprets the phrase in question of the revealed word. Perhaps there was floating before the mind of the Apostle that passage in Numbers 12:8, where the Lord says of Moses: “With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches (δἰαἰνγμάτων, 70.), and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold.” Compare with this Genesis 32:30 : “I have seen God face to face”—where, indeed, we have the expression in the antithetic clause of our text, which designates the immediateness of vision.—but, then face to face:—On this point see 1 John 3:2 : “We know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.” Essentially the same contrast is expressed in 2 Corinthians 5:7.—now I know in part;—[As before, the point of comparison was as to the directness of knowledge, so here it is as to its extent. The imperfectness of knowledge is owing, however, to its indirectness].—but then shall I know—ἐπιγνώσομαι; the ἐπι in composition is intensive, shall I thoroughly know, pernoscam.—even as I also was known.—Here, too, the same verb is employed, ἐπεγνώσθην, was thoroughly known. Supply ‘by God.’ The perfection of human knowledge is compared with that of the Divine knowledge which apprehends its object not from one side or the other, but is central and total. “We should not hesitate to assert the entire fulness of the promise which the Holy Scripture gives to the soul that is related to God. The New Testament occupies the proper mean between deism and pantheism; it never allows us to divest ourselves of the character peculiar to ‘personality, with its limitations; but, at the same time, it points us away to the highest exaltation of the human spirit by virtue of the fellowship it acquires with God. This statement of Paul corresponds with the beatitude of our Lord in Matthew 5:8 : “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Neander. As the object of the verbs “see” and “know,” some supply ‘God’ or ‘Divine things,’ or ‘God in Christ,’ but there is no necessity for such specification. The objects of vision and knowledge are obviously the things contained in the revealed word. The transition from the plural to the singular number is occasioned by the change in the mode of exposition. The aorist ἐπεγνώσθην, I was known, does no prejudice to the eternity of the Divine knowledge. It is employed simply to express the priority of that knowledge in respect to that of man in the future state, as a thing then past (Meyer, Ed. 3). It points back to the time of his conversion, when he became the object of the divine knowledge that then was turned directly on him (1 Corinthians 8:3). Respecting the relation of this passage to others, where the clearness and perfection of the Divine revelation, and of the Christian’s knowledge of God are prominently brought out, comp. Osiander, p. 601.—But what is the meaning of the concluding verse, and in what connection does it stand with the preceding?—And now—νυνὶδὲ. Is this to be taken in its temporal acceptation as equivalent to the “now” (ἄρτι) of the preceding verse, and in contrast with the “then?” If so, to what extent does he emphasize the continuance of the things specified in the present dispensation of the world? Does he intend to put them in contrast with the other gifts which were soon to cease? This can hardly be, for in the Apostle’s view the advent of Christ was ever at hand—so imminent, indeed, that he regards the gifts as continuing until then. And apart from this, in what goes before, he has proved that they would cease then from the fact that they have no place in a state of perfection. We are therefore compelled to take the words “and now” in a logical sense (Burger says, “as an inference from what precedes”)=‘under these circumstances,’ i.e., since these gifts are appropriate only for this dispensation, and must cease with the incoming of the period of perfection.—there (therefore) remains permanently faith, hope, love.—Thus what he has said of love in 1 Corinthians 13:8, he extends now to the other fundamental graces of Christianity that are also elsewhere associated with love (Colossians 1:4 ff.; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:8). The chief objection to this construction arises from the fact that Paul elsewhere exhibits to us faith and hope as belonging to the present life in contrast with the future. So in 2 Corinthians 5:7, where ‘walking by faith’ is opposed to ‘walking by sight;’ and Romans 8:24, where we are said to be “saved by hope,” which was hereafter to be merged in sight. Shall we then put the Apostle in contradiction with himself? Various attempts have been made to obviate this. Some would abstract from faith and hope their results or effects, and take these simply into view as the things which were to remain; but this will not do since they must be construed in the same way that love is, which is here taken in a subjective sense. Others would construe the verb “abide” in other than a temporal sense, q. d., ‘so there is left to us these three fundamental virtues; these three alone have an abiding significance (Burger), are the essential and sufficing elements of the Christian life. But all such interpretations are in this connection arbitrary (comp. on 1 Corinthians 13:8 ff). Others still maintain, indeed, the temporal sense of the verb, but, so far as faith and hope are concerned, only relatively. They abide only until the advent. But here again the old difficulty arising from the gifts occurs. Others still interpret the verb to denote perpetual duration, in contrast with the practical and spasmodic character of the gifts; which is somewhat arbitrary. Others suppose a distinction between the glorified kingdom of Christ upon earth and the absolute perfection of heaven, and refer the verb to the former state; but this cannot be, since the previous verses plainly point to a state of absolute perfection. In our exposition we must settle upon this, that the Apostle ascribes to faith and hope the same permanent character which he ascribes to love. But the faith he speaks of is not opposed to sight, (as in 2 Corinthians 5:7); still less is it the faith mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:2; neither is hope to be taken in contrast with actual possession and enjoyment (as in Romans 8:24). But faith here is the everlasting foundation of the state of blessedness—faith as the trustful apprehension, and fast-holding of Christ, the sole ground of salvation for each and all; and hope is the perpetual expectation of ever new and delightful manifestations of God’s glory, as such expectation must also exist in the future state—a thing impossible only under the supposition that God’s glory was at once enjoyed to the full, and admitted of no further unfolding. But this stage of perfection no more excludes progressive developments in sight and knowledge, than does the maturity of manhood in the natural life. Such mainly is Meyer’s view. He interprets faith as an abiding trust in the atonement effected by Christ, which preserves the glorified in the perpetual enjoyment of salvation, and forms the living bond of an eternal fellowship with their Saviour; and hope he explains of the eternal duration, and progressive unfolding of the glory Conferred upon them; and also from 1 Corinthians 15:24 he seems to find such developments in the future state indicated. And Neander says, “precisely because faith anticipates a higher stage of development in life, is it certain that that which it now has only as an object of faith is not to be had as a perfect possession of knowledge.” Somewhat different is Menken’s view; he assumes the eternal duration of both faith and hope in relation to ever fresh revelations of God, and to ever new degrees of blessedness also in the higher state. Accordingly we need not, with Osiander, refer back simply to the general state of mind underlying both: viz., that of a true and blessed attachment to God in Christ, which is to go on unfolding itself even in yonder world.—these three; but the greater of these.—μείζωντούτων; τουτων, of these, is commonly referred to faith and hope, so that it is translated ‘greater than these.’ But the nearer reference is to the words “these three,” and the proper rendering is as above. Of them all the greater, the one possessing higher worth—is love.—From the fact that love has nothing to do with the justification of the sinner, and that here faith alone comes into the account, no inference can be drawn in respect to the relative worth of faith; hence also the inquiry which Calvin institutes in respect to how far, also, on the other hand, faith is greater than love, is here superfluous. The superior worth of love, which is the sum and substance of all virtues, and is the bond of perfectness (1 Corinthians 13:4 ff.; Colossians 3:14), does not rest on the fact that it includes in itself faith and hope, as one would infer from 1 Corinthians 13:7 [as De Wettk, who beautifully remarks, “we have faith only in one whom we love, we hope only for that which we love”]; but rather on this, that in it the image of God, who is love itself, is most perfectly exhibited, in so far as, unlike the other two, it does not relate to the receiving of our salvation with all its blessings, but is essentially imparting and self-bestowment. It is to this that Bengel finely points: “Love is of more advantage to our neighbor, than mere faith and hope in themselves (comp. “greater,” 1 Corinthians 14:5);—and God is not called faith or hope absolutely, but He is called ‘love;’ ” and Meyer in Ed. 3 says: “Since, in relation to faith, the love by which it works conditions its moral worth as well as the moral fruitfulness of the Christian life, faith without it would be mere show; and hope can spring only from a faith that is active and loving (comp. Matthew 25:35).” And Burger: “Love is the greater because it is the fundamental form of the Divine life itself, which, in us, should be set forth in the ways of faith, and of hope.” [And Hodge: “Throughout this chapter the ground of preference of one gift to others is made to consist in its superior usefulness. This is Paul’s standard; and judged by this rule, love is greater than either faith or hope. Faith saves ourselves, but love benefits others”]. AND ETHICAL1. Love the essential principle of all moral excellence. The personal worth and eternal welfare of an individual consists not in any thing which he may have or be capable of, whether it be called talent, or endowment, or aptitude, or capacity, which may enable him to accomplish any thing of greater or less importance in any sphere of life, in the way either of thought or knowledge, of willing or working. In this matter it makes no difference even though the person may act as an organ of the Spirit of God, who for the time being may take possession of his natural powers and employ them upon Divine things. Let him do, or say, or think, what he will under such circumstances, from this alone no personal worth, no true salvation ensues. This rests solely and alone in an actual likeness to God as evinced in the whole tendency of a person’s life. And this likeness is found in love, by means of which a man patterns after God in his whole inner and outward conduct, becomes fundamentally united with God, thinks and acts like God, and purposes to have and to hold nothing good for himself alone, but to impart it to others also, gives up all exclusiveness, and devotes himself with his utmost energies to works of benevolence, seeking therein not his own advantage, nor honor, nor influence, but his neighbor’s good, and so also the fulfilment of the Divine ends, even the glory of God. So long, then, as Christ, who is the revelation of the Father’s love, is formed in a man, does he possess a worth which nothing else can confer; and in company with Christ is he admitted into the very fulness of the Divine blessings, to share in Christ’s salvation and enter on a life of everlasting blessedness. Has he any particular qualifications, with these he serves the body of Christ, and devotes himself and all he has to promote the welfare of that heavenly communion into which he is incorporated. Thus does he become a veritable member of this holy and blessed society, and participates in the Divine fulness which fills it. But he that is devoid of love, however great his gifts, however superior his knowledge or his performances, is in consequence void of worth. The Spirit of Christ is not the life of his life—not the vital bond of his union with God—not the power which possesses his heart and draws it out from its selfish isolation and sheds abroad in him that love by means of which he in the very image and frame of his mind shall be conformed to the Divine image. In acting upon him the Spirit of God operates from without, and employs his particular powers only as the instruments for the accomplishment of specific objects, and only so long as it may please Him. Remaining fast in his own selfishness, and becoming an end to himself apart from God, he for this reason forfeits all claim to regard, and deserves to be used only as a means by that Being whose honor he has thus violated. All the reward he has is in the pleasure and reputation he may have acquired by his gifts; and shut up in himself he lives and moves untouched by that stream of Divine blessing which flows in upon and fills the body of Christ, and makes every member rich to his profoundest contentment through the interchange of benefits which goes on between the members. The same holds true also in relation to such actions as are supposed to betoken a stronger love, viz., extraordinary sacrifices, both of property and of life itself, and that too amid martyr sufferings. Should these be made in a loveless temper, and in a selfish spirit, though never so refined, they secure no advantage. The person forfeits his crown, because instead of honoring God he sought only to glorify himself. 2. The excellent quality of love. That which thus conditions our personal worth and salvation must in itself be supremely excellent. Accordingly we see that love displays itself in a nobler array of glorious attributes which are but the outgoings of its inmost nature. Indeed, its beauty is seen not only in what it has, but also in what it is devoid of. If with disinterested affection I devote myself to my brother’s highest welfare, then will there be no room in my heart for spite or ill-will, and no relaxation in my labors and prayers in his behalf. Even though his progress be slower than I anticipated, though he exhibits all manner of weakness and imperfection, though he fails and backslides again and again, though he evinces an unteachable or ungrateful disposition, though he causes me weariness and disgust, though he grieves and provokes me, though he betrays my confidence and disappoints my hope often, yet for all this will I not turn from him in indignation. Love teaches me to endure, and to restrain my impatience, and to cherish and manifest my benevolence still, according to the example of my God. It prompts me to go on and bear all things, and endure labors and crosses in His behalf, on the ready supposition that where God’s work has begun, however concealed from me, some good must exist which calls for my persevering effort even when the danger of failure seems most imminent. Again, if in cordial love I have given myself up to the communion of saints in Christ, then I shall feel neither envy nor jealousy in view of the preλminent gifts, or greater influence, or higher honor of others.—So, too, I shall be exempt from pride and boasting on account of my own superior advantages; nor will I unbecomingly obtrude myself on others’ notice; but every where maintain a modest and decorous deportment; neither shall I be seeking mine own honor, or power, or enjoyment, nor give place to bitterness and evil passion when disappointed in such attempts or baffled by rivals. Moving continually in the sphere of that grace which freely and abundantly pardons all sin, I too shall not be ready to impute the injustice I suffer from, but rather shall seek to aid and bless in return, and requite good for evil. Moreover, having been made free by the truth myself, I shall sympathize with truth in every victory it gains, and take no pleasure in unrighteousness, nor feel a malignant satisfaction when others fall, as though their fall redounded in some way to my credit. Thus is love supremely beautiful, both from what it lacks and from what it possesses, shining forth in contrast with the sins and imperfections of the world, like a visitant from heaven. 3. Faith, Hope and Love alone permanent. Particular gifts which afford us only transient glimpses into the depths of the Divine plans and purposes, serve well for the wants of the present life, and satisfy certain needs of the church during its earthly career; but for this reason they are not suited to that state of perfection where the partial gives place to the complete, and where, instead of a knowledge mediated by inadequate words and signs, we enjoy the direct vision of God and of all things in Him. That only can endure which may be regarded as a conclusive union of our renewed nature with the life of God—with eternal grace, and truth, and glory. And such is faith which firmly and trustfully clings to God’s redeeming grace in Christ as the sole foundation of safety both for time and eternity; such is hope, which reaches out joyfully after ever fresh manifestations of the Divine glory; such, too, is love, the union of the regenerate soul with the Triune God, in which the very life of God gushes forth in inexhaustible streams, and which must have the preλminence, even as the Divine principle of distribution and self-bestowment must have the superiority over the earthly principle of receiving and enjoying, because “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” AND Chrys.: 1 Corinthians 13:5. As a spark which falls into the sea hurts not the sea, but is itself extinguished, so let any thing evil befall the loving soul, and it will soon be extinguished without disquietude. Luther: 1 Corinthians 13:3. Giving is indeed a fruit of love, but it is not love itself: love is a spiritual gift which involves the heart and not the hand alone; love denotes not that which the hand does, but which the heart feels. 1 Corinthians 13:5. ‘Not to seek its own;’ behold, this is the nature of love where it is sincere; but it is sincere only where faith is sincere. A Christian lives not in himself alone, but in Christ and in his neighbor—in Christ, through faith; in his neighbor through love. Through faith he passes beyond himself into God, and out of God he passes again below himself through love, and ever abides in God and in Divine love. Starke: 1 Corinthians 13:1. Glorious gifts make no man a Christian, but it is love that makes and proves him such (Galatians 5:6; John 13:35).—What is the knowledge contained in that speech which is not used through love and unto love, but the confusion of Babel. Oftentimes there is great sounding in the ear when there is no profit before God. Many a man speaks to his neighbor in pure angelic words, while his heart is devoid of love; and to God he daily draws near while his heart is far from him. 1 Corinthians 13:2. The knowledge of divine mysteries is a remarkable thing; but take away love and it loses its praise.—A wonder-working faith is not the faith which makes blessed. Though possessing it, we may yet be plunged into the prison-house of unbelieving souls (Matthew 7:22 ff.). Hed.: 1 Corinthians 13:3. Let no one be charmed with giving and suffering. Inquire after the disposition—the ground and the aim. Love gives weight to all.—Though I do all the good a man can, and suffer all a man may; without love it is no good work for which I can hope a gracious reward.—To hazard life rather than the truth is indeed in itself something commendable; but he who might on this account endure the severest martyrdom without love, would nevertheless derive therefrom no profit.—There are true and false martyrs—God’s and the devil’s.—1 Corinthians 13:4-7. As in a crown there are many precious stones, so in the single virtue of love there are imbedded many virtues. But to no wickedness must love be so hostile as to wrath and revenge, which it encounters in the beginning (“long suffering”), middle (“is not easily provoked”), and end (“endures”).—Whom we love, we highly esteem; how then can we exalt ourselves above him?—O, how sadly is the sweet name of love abused in that it is made to serve as a veil for all unchastity and wantonness (ἀσχημονεῖν)!—Love is so far from making unrighteous demands that it rather yields its rights and imparts itself, with all it has and can, unto others. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 3. A comparison of the gifts of prophecy arid of speaking with tongues, in respect to their worth for the edification of the Church. Rules for the right regulation of their use according to their end, and according to the benefit they render to the Church1 Corinthians 141    Follow after charity [love, τὴνἀγάπην], and [but, δὲ ?] desire [the, τὰ ?] spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. 2For he that speaketh in an unknown, tongue [a tongue] speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [hear eth, ἀκούει] him; howbeit in the spirit [Spirit] he speaketh mysteries. 3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to [om. to] edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue [a tongue] edifieth himself; but he that Proverbs 5 phesiethedifieth the church (congregation, ἐκκλ̓ησίαν]. I would that ye all spake [Now I wish you all to speak, θέλωδὲπἀνταςὑμᾶςλαλεῖν] with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied [might prophesy, προφητεύητε]: for [but, δὲ ?] greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church 6[congregation, ἐκκλησία] may receive edifying. [But, δὲ ?] Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine [teaching, 7διδαχῇ ?]? And [om. And] even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, [yet ὅμεςἐὰν] except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be 8known what is piped or harped? For [also, καὶ ?] if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words [a word] easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? 10for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is [none are] without signification. 11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian [foreigner, βάρβαρος], and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian [foreigner] unto me. 12Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts [spirits, πνευμάτων], seek that ye may excel [abound, περισσεύητε] to the edifying of the church [congregation]. 13Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue [a tongue] pray that [in order that, ἵνα] he may interpret. 14For if I pray in an unknown tongue [a tongue], my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and [but, δὲ ?] I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, 16and I will sing with the understanding also. Else, when thou shalt bless with the spirit [shalt have blessed in spirit, εὐλογῆπνεύματι], how shall he that occupieth the room [place] of the unlearned [one not so gifted, ἰδιωτου] say [the, τὸ ?] Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 17For thou verily givest thanks well [verily thou doest well to give thanks, σὺμὲνγὰρκαλῶςεὐχαριστεῖς], but the other is not edified. 18I thank my [om. my] God, I speak with tongues 19[a tongue, γλὠσσῃ ?] more than ye all: Yet in the church [congregation] I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice [orally, κατηχήσω] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue [in a tongue]. 20Brethren, be not children in understanding [minds, ταῖςφρεσίν]: howbeit in malice [wickedness, κακίᾳ ?] be ye children [babes], but in understanding [minds] be men [full grown, τέλειοι], 21In the law it is [has been, γέγραπται] written, With [in, ἐν] men of other tongues and other lips [in lips of others, ἐνχείλεσινξτέροις] will I speak unto this 22people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore [the, αἱ ?] tongues are for a sign, not to [for] them that believe, but to [for] them that believe not: but prophesying serveth [the prophesying is] not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 23If therefore the whole church [congregation] be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned [not specially gifted, ἰδιῶται], or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 24But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned [not miraculously endowed], he is convinced of [by, ὑπὸ ?] all, he is judged of 25[by] all: And thus are [om. And thus are] the secrets of his heart [are] made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth [in truth is in you]. 26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you [each one, ἕκαστος, om. of you] hath a psalm, hath a doctrine [a teaching, διδαχὴν], hath a tongue, hath a revelation [hath a revelation, hath a tongue], hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27If any man speak in an unknown tongue [a tongue, γλώσσῃ ?], let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church [congregation]; and let him speak to himself, and 29to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30[But, δὲ ?] If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31For ye may [can, δύνασθε] all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33For God is not the author of confusion [tumult, ἀκαταστασίας], but of peace, as [peace. 34As], in all churches [the congregations, ταῖςἐκκλησίαις] of the saints. Let your [saints, let, om. your] women keep silence in the churches [congregations]: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience 35[in subjection, ὑποτασσέσθωσαν] as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their [own, ἰδίους] husbands at home: for it is a shame for women 36[a woman, γυναικι] to speak in the church. [congregation] What! came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments [a commandment, ἐστὶνἐντολή] of the Lord. 38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. [But, δὲ ?] 40Let all things be done decently and in order. AND 1 Corinthians 14:1-5. [He now turns from his digression to the main topic on hand, viz., the proper management of spiritual gifts. Before entering on this, however, he presses a final exhortation in regard to that which he had been so warmly eulogizing].—Pursue love,—i.e., use all diligence in obtaining and cultivating it; chase it as a hunter pursues his game; press towards it as your chief good, as men make for the goal in a race; such is the force of διώκειν here (Romans 9:30; Romans 12:13 f., 19; Philippians 3:12; Philippians 3:14). The omission of all inferential particles like οὖν adds to the energy of the injunction.—but be zealous for the spiritual gifts,—the same language as is used in 1 Corinthians 12:31. But it is not simply to resume what was there said, as though all that intervened was but a parenthesis [so Stanley]. Rather, the δέ, but, is designed to set the second clause over against the first, by way of showing that though they were to pursue love, still this was not to prevent their seeking for spiritual gifts also. In urging the former he was not intending to disparage the latter, as they might be disposed to infer. Hence we may render δέ by meantime, however, or nevertheless. Neander takes the second injunction in the light of a permission, rather than of a positive command, and supposes that Paul chose the stronger word in the first instance in order to teach his readers that a Christian’s main endeavor should be to become quickened by love. [“He observes, therefore, an admirable medium by disapproving of nothing that was useful, without at the same time preferring, by an absurd zeal, things of less consequence to what was of primary importance.” Calvin].—In regard to spiritual gifts see on 1 Corinthians 12:1. A more restricted application of the term here, to denote simply ‘the gift of tongues,’ might, indeed, be favored by the contrast implied in the “rather” directly following, and by 1 Corinthians 14:2, and also by 1 Corinthians 14:14 ff., inasmuch as the gift of tongues, because it was a speaking and praying in the spirit, might well be called by way of preeminence ‘spiritual.’ But the plural form, as well as the more extended connection had with the foregoing chapter, declare for the broader interpretation of: gifts in general.—but rather—μᾶλλον is to be construed comparatively and not as=μάλιστα, q. d., ‘more than all the other gifts.’—that ye may prophesy.—Instead of using the noun ‘prophecy,’ he employs the verb with the ἵνα as the object of ζηλοῦτε, be zealous for. In this there was undoubtedly a design; but not such as to warrant Meyer’s rendering, ‘in order that ye may prophesy.’ [Stanley says, that ἵνα is here passing into the Romaic sense, in which it is used as a substitute for the infinitive. Comp. for this use, 1 Corinthians 14:12; Matthew 7:12 : Mark 6:8; Mark 6:25. See also Winer, P. 1, 11. § 63:2, 1], The reason of the preference he next assigns.—For he that speaks with a tongue,—i.e., in some strange language prompted by the spirit. [Bloomfield takes the “speaking” (λάλῶν) to signify preaching, exhorting, and says, ‘the context requires this;’ but it must be the context only as read in the light of a certain theory. There is nothing in the language to warrant it, and to construe it thus would be to make this the only passage where the gift of tongues must be supposed to have been used in addressing others directly].—speaketh not to men,—i.e., not with the design of imparting anything that the hearers can understand and profit by.—but to God:—It is with God that he is in communication, [“according to the proverb: ‘He sings to Himself and the muses’ ”.—Calvin], Of this the proof—first, negatively.—for no one heareth.—By this he does not mean literally ‘heareth not,’ as though the words were inaudible, like those muttered by Hannah, 1 Samuel 1:13; since this would neither suit the expression ‘speaketh;’ nor yet the context, especially of 1 Corinthians 14:7; nor yet the corresponding passage in Acts 2:10; Acts 2:19. The word ἀκούειν rather denotes here the inward hearing, the mental appreciation of what was uttered. [So the word is used in Acts 22:9, where the attendants of Paul are said not to have ‘heard the voice’ which in Acts 9:7 they were said to have heard—an ambiguity which can be explained only by taking the word in the former instance to mean ‘understand.’ See also Mark 4:33. “He spake as they were able to hear;” also Genesis 11:7; Genesis 42:23; Isaiah 36:11 where for ‘understand’ the LXX. has ἀκούειν]. The negative “no one” is not hyperbolical as if signifying ‘very few,’ but absolute; the exception arising from the assistance of some interpreter will of course be understood.—but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.—The ‘but’ is not designed to express a contrast, as though equivalent to sondern (Rόckert); but it is explicative, introducing a further specification, viz., “in the spirit;” while the remaining words alone state the antithesis to what is asserted in the previous clause. The word “mysteries” is not to be understood as in 1 Corinthians 4:1; 1 Corinthians 13:2. [As Stanley, “Here, as elsewhere, it means ‘God’s secrets;’ here, however, not as elsewhere in the sense of secrets revealed, but in the sense (nearly approaching to the modern word mystery) of secrets concealed. The only other instance is Revelation 17:5.” And Alford: “Things which are hidden from the hearers, and sometimes also from the speaker himself”]. So understood, the statement would, as related to the previous one, appear tautological; hence the words “in the spirit” must here be so taken as intended to bring out more fully the characteristic of the gift in question. Accordingly they must be interpreted not simply of the inward man, q. d., ‘he speaks to himself in his own thoughts’ (Le Clerc, Locke, Semler). Still less can πνεύματι be the objective dative either to λαλεῖ, or to μυστήρια. q. d, ‘he speaks things which are mysteries for the spirit of others.’ Rather the expression is used here as in 1 Corinthians 14:14, of the activity of the higher religious consciousness, uninfluenced by reflection (Meyer), [“of the spirit as opposed to the understanding, his spirit as the organ of the Holy Ghost while the understanding is unfruitful” (Alford)], of the inner life as abstracted from the outer world (Beek), “of a state of inspiration only through the medium of the intuitional side of the human spirit directed God-ward—a state in which the self-consciousness is, as it were, suppressed or overpowered by the divine influence completely taking possession of the human soul; in short, of a state of mystic ecstasy which, when partaking of the character of a gift, creates for itself a form of speech in which the soul breaks forth, as it were in holy dithyrambics” (Delitzsch v. § 5). [So also De Wette; πνεύματι he explains by “through the spirit,” i.e., his higher unconscious spiritual faculty which is filled by the Holy Spirit, and is without the νοῦς. Bloom-field and Hodge, however, follow the Greek commentators, and most early modern ones, in taking the word “spirit” to mean, not the higher spiritual powers of our nature, but the Holy Ghost as in 1 Corinthians 8:14. “In favor of this interpretation is: 1. The prevailing use of the word Spirit in reference to the Holy Ghost in all Paul’s epistles and especially in this whole connection. 2. That the expression to “speak in” or “by the Spirit,” is an established Scriptural phrase, meaning to speak under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 3. When spirit is to be distinguished from the understanding, it designates the affections; a sense which would not at all suit this passage. 4. The meaning arrived at by this interpretation is natural and suitable to the connection. “Although he who speaks with tongues is not understood yet guided by the Spirit, he speaks mysteries.” Hodge. To this it may be replied in order 1. That πνεῦμα when used without any qualifying term in Paul’s writings, more commonly denotes the higher nature of man, especially as quickened by the Holy Ghost. 2. In every instance where the idea of speaking “in the Holy Ghost” is intended, it is indicated by the use of the prep. ἐν in, and usually with the addition of the article (as in Romans 1:9; Romans 8:9; Romans 15:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11). Wherever the simple anarthrous dative πνεύματι is found as here, to denote that in reference to which a thing is done, it stands for the spirit of man, as might be expected (John 4:24; Romans 8:13; 1 Corinthians 4:21; 1 Corinthians 7:34; Galatians 5:5; Galatians 5:16). It is in this broader sense that the word is here to be understood. It means not simply the intellect, but the higher nature of man in all its emotions as stirred by the Holy Spirit. 4. While the meaning “in the Holy Spirit” gives good sense even here, still the other meaning is more in accordance both with the usus loquendi, and with the train of argument, and should therefore be adhered to as it is by all English versions, and by nearly all commentators].—The case is otherwise with the prophet.—He that prophesies speaks unto men—In the prophet who is called to be the mediator of divine mysteries in behalf of others, there is united with the state of ecstasy (which however is not the exclusive mode of revelation with him), the ability of reproducing that which he has seen in the spirit, by the aid of his understanding and psychical faculties in adequate and intelligible language (Delitzsch § 5). What the prophet imparts is threefold,—edification, and exhortation, and comfort.—The first of these terms (οἰκοδομή), properly implying a building up of the Christian life in its successive stages, may be taken as expressing the genus of which the other two express the species, though not all the species. By παράκλησις, exhortation, we understand that by which the will is aroused to greater earnestness in self-culture and to greater Christian activity and to more zealous endeavors. [Stanley who unites with exhortation the meaning of consoling or strengthening as in the word παράκλητος, Comforter, says: “how closely connected this gift was with prophesying may be seen in the fact that the name of ‘Barnabas,’ ‘the son of prophesy,’ is rendered in Acts 4:36 υἱὸςπαρακλήσεως, ‘the son of consolation.’ ” By παραμυθέα we understand that by which the spirit is quieted and cheered. Though sharing with the former, the sense of consolation, it implies something more tender and soothing. As to the conjunctions και-και, the first may be taken as annexing to the chief word something further explanatory, like and indeed; or they may be taken as distributive particles, both and. Osiander follows the earlier commentators in coordinating the three particulars, and gives to the first a relation to faith as implying the furtherance and strengthening of the Christian life therein; to the second, a relation to love as implying a stimulus to the cultivation of it, as in the more active duties of Christianity; and to the third, a relation to hope, as the source and effect of all comfort; furthermore, he subordinates the two last to the first as their root.—That a subordination here is intended is sustained by the fact that the word “edification” returns again alone in 1 Corinthians 14:4.—But he that speaks with a tongue edifies himself;—He here refers to the effect of those inward excitements and elevating impressions which a person experiences in this intercourse with God—in this state of prayer and praise, or of mystic ecstasy wherein the operations of the Holy Spirit reach their culminating point (comp. Delitzsch, as above). “This does not imply a benefit derived through a distinct understanding of that which he speaks; but there is left upon the spirit of the speaker an impression made by the whole experience, of a quickening and elevating though mystical kind.” Meyer. And in like manner Osiander: “He could allow the total impression and feeling of his discourse to work on in him.” [“This view is necessary on account of what is said in 1 Corinthians 14:5, that if he can interpret, he can edify not only himself, but the church.” Alford. Hodge, on the contrary, ignoring the fact that any benefit could be derived excepting through a distinct intelligence of what was uttered, says, “this verse proves that the understanding was not in abeyance, and that the speaker was not in an ecstatic state.” But this is a mere assumption, against which might be put the following counter testimony: “The gift might and did contribute to the building up of a man’s own life (1 Corinthians 14:4). This might be the only way in which some natures could be roused out of the apathy of a sensual life, or the dulness of a formal ritual. The ecstasy of adoration which seemed to men madness, might be a refreshment unspeakable to one who was weary with the subtle questionings of the intellect, to whom all familiar and intelligible words were fraught with recollections of controversial bitterness or the wanderings of doubt. (Comp. a passage of wonderful power as to this use of the gift by Edw. Irwing. ‘Morning Watch,’ 5. p. 78.”) See Smith’s Bib. Dict. p. 1558].—but he that prophesies edifies the church.—The article before ἐκκλησιόαν is unnecessary. The church as a collection of individuals is here brought forward in contrast with the speaker himself. [Not so however Alford. “The article,” as he says, “being often omitted, when a noun in government has an emphatic place before the verb; accordingly in 1 Corinthians 14:5 the article reappears”].—Lest any should think that he was here seeking to set aside all speaking with tongues as calculated to provoke envy, he proceeds—I would that ye all spake with tongues,—This must be regarded as a hearty wish and not an unworthy concession to the Corinthians, on the score of their partiality for this gift. This is evident from the fact that he goes on at once to adduce prophecy as the higher and worthier gift which he still more earnestly desires that they should have and exercise.—but rather that ye prophesied.—He here passes over into the telic construction with ἴνα, “indicating a stronger intention towards the higher object” (Osiander). According to the common reading μείζωνγάν, for greater, he adds a reason for what has just been said. But if with some good authority we read δέ, but, instead of γαρ, we must regard him as simply continuing his discourse.—but greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues,—The greatness here consists in usefulness, and hence also in dignity. This however is qualified by the exception,—except—ἐκτὸςεἰμή. The μή here appears pleonastic (1 Corinthians 15:2; 1 Timothy 5:19). [This redundant expression arises from the blending of two constructions, ἐκτὸςεἰ and εἰμή, instances of which are found also in the classics. Hence, not a Hebraism. Winer 3. § 65 3 c.].—he interpret.—The subject of the verb is not any other person, but the speaker himself who could unite the two gifts of speaking with tongues and interpretation in himself. By the exercise of the latter gift for the purpose of edifying the church, he put himself on a par with him that prophesied. In regard to the subjunctive form after εἰ comp. on 1 Corinthians 9:11, (respectum comprehendit experientiae. Meyer). [Hodge says: “this passage proves that the contents of these discourses delivered in an unknown, tongue were edifying; and therefore did not consist in mysteries in the bad sense of that term, i.e., in enigmas and dark sayings. The absence of the gift of interpretation does not prove that the speaker himself in such cases was ignorant of what he uttered. It only proves that he was not inspired to communicate in another language what he had delivered.” The reasoning is not conclusive. It is grounded on the assumption that no benefit could be derived from any experiences that were not distinctly intelligible and capable of being communicated under the ordinary forms of thought and language. And it may be asked if that which was spoken in the unknown tongue was distinctly intelligible to the speaker, what need was there of a special gift of interpretation to enable him to communicate it to the church? The understanding (νοῦς) is the parent of language; and what a person understood he surely could utter. Would this not be in violation of a well known rule, ‘not to introduce a divinity upon the stage unless the occasion required it’]? 1 Corinthians 14:6-11. But now,—νυνὶδέ here also as in 1 Corinthians 13:13 in a logical sense, q. d., ‘since in speaking with tongues the edification of the church depends altogether upon the interpretation which followed, then without this,’—if I come unto you speaking with tongues,—he uses himself as an illustration without laying stress upon his personality, [as Chrys.], in which case αὐτὸςἐγώ, I myself, would be required; or it is a mode of individualizing the case as is found in 1 Corinthians 14:11; 1 Corinthians 14:14; 1 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Corinthians 13:12.—what shall I profit you,—This question here forms the main proposition which (as often happens in the classics) is inserted between the two hypothetical clauses, the second of which stands in contrast with the first, or is its negative parallel (not its subordinate so as to indicate how the speaking with tongues must take place; nor yet does it stand in any closer internal relation to the main proposition).—unless I shall speak unto you either by revelation,—The ἐν in, or, by, denotes as in Matthew 13:3 the form which his discourse might take, or the sphere in which it would move.—or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?—The four things specified may be referred back to two gifts: first, to prophecy, whose ground and contents is revelation; and secondly to doctrine which rests upon knowledge and furnishes its fruit; [as Hodge says, “there are not four, but only two modes of address contemplated in this verse. Revelation and prophecy belong to one, and knowledge and doctrine to the other. He who received revelations, was a prophet; he who had the word of knowledge, was a teacher.” So like wise Calvin. This construction is derived from the sense, and not from the grammar of the text. There the four items stand coφrdinate as though distinct and independent]. Revelation is to be understood as in 1 Corinthians 14:26, subjectively (otherwise in 1 Corinthians 1:7). It signifies occasional disclosures respecting anything which concerns the kingdom of God, or an unveiling of mysteries. As what is thus disclosed is uttered in the ardent and rapt discourse of the prophet, so, that which an enlightened inquiry affords for furthering our insight into divine things, is expressed in the calmer diction of the teacher, and is termed doctrine. As Bengel says: “prophecy relates to particular facts, not well understood before, to mysteries to be known only by revelation.” Doctrine and knowledge are brought from the common storehouse of believers, and refer to obvious things in the matter of our salvation.—He next proceeds to illustrate his point by various analogies; and first from musical instruments. Some difficulty arises as to the proper rendering of what follows, in consequence of the unnatural position of ὄμως. Some take this as equivalent to ὁμοίως, in like manner; but this would be unsuitable and unnecessary. The signification, nevertheless, yet even, would fit better. But still it is questionable whether the word mainly affects or gives prominence to τὰἄψυχα, lifeless things, as its position appears to indicate; so that this drawn out in full would be τὰἄψυχακαίπερἄψυχα, ὄμως ‘lifeless instruments, though lifeless, yet give sound’ (Winer); or whether by it the thing introduced in proof is set up as absolutely valid against all objection, q. d., ‘one cannot yet understand,’ i.e., ‘this must at any rate be conceded, that we cannot understand’ (de Wette); or, whether, by virtue of a transposition which appears also in Galatians 3:15, and elsewhere in the classics, the word is placed first, while it properly belongs before ἐάν, so that the concessive protasis is formed by the words φωνὴνδιδόντα, which then would be equivalent to καίπερφωνήνδιδόντα The last construction is the correct one, being the only one which corresponds to the use of language, and to the course of thought.—Things without life, although yielding sound, whether flute or harp, yet if they do not—Respecting the various positions occupied by ὄμως, how the word or clause limited by it sometimes precedes and sometimes follows it as here, comp. Passow ii. 1 p. 77. By being put first it carries an emphasis. “There is an inference drawn from the less to the greater,” q. d., if, indeed, such is the case with lifeless objects, how much more must it be with men?—give a distinction to the tones,—i.e., by various distinct modulations of high and low, strong and weak.—how shall it be known what is piped or harped?—This refers to the significance of that which is played on each instrument (comp. 1 Corinthians 14:8 ff.): i.e., ‘a person will, in that case, not be able to discern or perceive what tune is played.’ [The article is here repeated to show that two distinct instances are contemplated, not necessarily one tune either piped or harped. Meyer regards this passage as decisive against the opinion that the tongues used in the gift in question were distinctly articulated foreign languages, and that the utterance in this case was a confused jargon of sounds, such as that which would be made through the instruments without observing their proper modulations. But this is pressing the analogy too far. The point made is simply with reference to the unintelligibleness of the things played, unless the well-known laws of the instrument and of the music were observed]. The argument is confirmed by another example of the same kind, which sets the case in a still clearer light.—For also,—[The “for” serves for a climax, the higher confirming the lower].—if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound,—The trumpet, so strong in its tones, and unmistakable in its character, even this requires a certain definite modulation when giving its various signals, if it is to be known whether the signal is one for battle or not. The adjective “uncertain” expresses the antithesis to the previous expression, “give a distinction to the sounds.” [Different sounds of the same trumpet summoned soldiers to different duties, one succession of notes giving the signal for attack, and another for retreat. Hence the question],—who shall prepare himself for the battle?—The application to the point in question he next proceeds to make.—So likewise ye, through the tongue,—These words are put first by way of emphasis, as contrasting the Corinthians in the exercise of their divine gift with the lifeless things which he has just been speaking of.—unless ye give a word easy to be understood,—This clause unquestionably stands opposed to the assumption that inarticulate sounds are implied in the gift, if for no other reason than on account of the use of the term “word,” which denotes a rational, articulate utterance, even though we would wish to take the qualifying expression in with it. Nor is it favored by the other expression “through the tongue,” as though this meant the simple organ of speech; for in that case it would only be used as in contrast with the musical instruments specified.—how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall be (ἒσεσθε so long as ye speak) a speaking into the air.—εἰςἀέραλαλοῦντες; the phrase denotes the uselessness of an unintelligible discourse. It dies away into the atmosphere, reaching not the mind of the hearer.—He next pushes his range of analogy still farther, so as to include the various human languages which can furnish no means of intercourse between man and man, so long as their meaning is not understood.—There are, it may be,—εἰτύχοι, a phrase commonly found with numerical nouns, and never means for example; it only states the number as problematical, or denotes uncertainty in the more definite statement.—so many—τοσαῦτα. [“The word here has the force of a definite number. If men could ever have counted the number, Paul would have set it down here; but he leaves it indefinite.” Bengel].—kinds of voices in the world,—φωνή, voice , here signifies ‘speech,’ or ‘language,’ (as also in Genesis 11:1; Genesis 11:7; and in the classics often, and γένηφωνῶν denotes the ‘various languages,’ of which each one forms a γένος, genus. He does not use the word γλῶσσα, tongue, because in this whole paragraph this is employed to denote the special gift which is under consideration.—and none—οὐδὲν refers to γένη. It does not mean ‘no rational creature;’ but the right relation is expressed by the αὐτῶν of them, of the Rec. which, however, is not original.—is without signification.—ἄφωνον, literally speechless (like βίοςἀβίατος), i.e., ‘without that which is the essential thing in speech,’ ‘unsuited for the purpose of intelligible communication.’ “The Apostle intends to say that every language has its definite signification; inasmuch as it is designed to be the vehicle for communicating thought.” Neander. [Hodge says, “The illustration contained in this verse goes to prove that speaking with tongues was to speak in foreign languages.” If by “foreign languages” is meant languages of other countries on the globe, then spoken, the inference is too broad. It supposes that no other language was possible, save such as were then in vogue. If language is God’s gift, and not a mechanical contrivance of man, why could not the Spirit inspire men to utter their new experiences in a new and “clean speech,” which, though used by none others, was fully entitled to be called a language? And may it not have been one intent of the Spirit in the production of this new language to furnish a sign that the things it reveals were such “as eye had not seen, nor ear heard, nor had entered into the heart of man” to conceive, and such therefore as required to be expressed in forms corresponding? To understand these “tongues” to denote foreign pagan languages, most of which were but the defiled vessels of impurity and falsehood and idolatry, and utterly inadequate to convey spiritual truth, is to miss the import of this remarkable phenomenon].—From the fact that none of the various languages of earth lacked the character of language, viz., the power of communicating thought, he goes on to infer that where one person was incapable of understanding another, there was reason to believe that they stood in the relation of foreigners to each other. This would not be inferred were the “speech” “without speech” (ἄφωνος), i.e., in itself unintelligible, since the speaker in this case could be understood by no one. He might be looked upon as one deranged, but not as a foreigner. The very force (δύναηις) of the language, its sense, its significance, viz., is precisely that thing which would be excluded by its being “without speech” (ἄφωνος).—Therefore, if I know not the force of the language, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian,—Βάρβαρος, the common term to designate one not a Greek, one who stood outside the sphere of the Greek language and culture. Here it is used in no bad sense, but simply to denote a stranger.—and he that speaketh a barbarian in me.—As in the former clause, τᾷλαλοῦντι is the dative of judgment, meaning, ‘in the estimation of him that speaketh;’ so ἐνἐμοὶ , in me, must be construed ‘in my eyes,’ or ‘according to my judgment,’ (comp. Passow i. 2, p. 909.) 1 Corinthians 14:10-19. The connection with the previous verse is more correctly determined by making the conditional clause here refer to what was perverse in their desires and efforts as corresponding with the relation set forth in the previous verse, where it was shown that by reason of not understanding the language spoken, one appeared to the other as a foreigner; and by regarding the injunction which follows as urging them to the adoption of a contrary course,—first, in an indefinite general way; from which he at once proceeds in 1 Corinthians 14:13 to draw the inference in relation-to the matter in question, viz., speaking with tongues.—So also ye,—This expression is used as in 1 Corinthians 14:9; the “so” indicates that which corresponds to the analogy previously introduced, and for this reason it stands at the beginning of the clause to which it belongs, as there. It is as if he had said: ‘in this way, as ye are foreigners to each other from not understanding each other’s language, and no intercourse can take place between you—a condition of things which is palpably wrong,’ etc. So Meyer. Proceeding from this interpretation of the word “so,” some insert a colon or period after “ye,” making the clause mean ‘such barbarians are ye who speak with tongues without interpreting; but this would be to separate unnecessarily matters belonging together. Others construe the clause “so also ye” as an apodosis, implying that the Apostle meant to have them entirely avoid, making each other as barbarians. But in such a construction not only would there be no suitable relation to form the ground of a parallel, but a contrast would be introduced. We should have to insert that in thought to which the “so” should refer, somehow after this fashion—‘in order to avoid coming into the relation of barbarians, it will be necessary to introduce an interpreter, so also should ye endeavor to make yourself plain.’ But where is the necessity of such a subaudition, if another explanation offers itself which is sustained by the analogy in 1 Corinthians 14:9? [Alford and Bloomfield in accordance with the great majority of commentators from Chrys. interpret the connection more simply. They give οὔτως the sense of therefore, i.e., ‘after the lesson conveyed by this example,’ or, ‘to apply this to your case,’ which has the advantage of simplicity].—since ye are zealots of spirits—ζηλωταίπνενμάτων i.e., ‘are ardently devoted to them and admire them;’ so the objective genitive often occurs in classical writers. “Of spirits” is a bold expression, adopted in accordance with the diversity which appeared in the operations of the Spirit. The principle at work is itself spoken of as manifold. As Osiander says: “the individual gifts are designated as active powers, existing independently in those endowed with them.” Or as Meyer: “what were in reality diversities of gifts, and therefore only different manifestations of the Spirit, presented themselves to the popular apprehension as diversities of spirits.” That Paul himself actually believed in a plurality of spirits (Hilgenfeld) is at variance with 1 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Corinthians 12:7. Some, arbitrarily, limit the word to denote simply the gift of tongues. It is here, however, to be taken in its broadest sense as standing by metonymy for spiritual gifts in general.—He now comes for the first time to the practical application of his argument. The duty he urges upon them corresponds to the object for which spiritual gifts were given.—for the edification of the Church,—The end to be aimed at is put first by way of emphasis. But the words are not to be joined simply with the following imperative,—seek,—as though this was to be construed absolutely, and the words after it,—that ye may abound,—were to be construed as a final clause (Meyer), as though the meaning were: strive for the edification of the Church in order that ye may abound!—for the verb ζητεῖν, seek, can hardly be used without an object. This object is rather to be found in the verb following it, which is introduced in accordance with a later lax usage by ἵνα, that,—‘Seek that ye may abound,’ or, ‘seek to abound.’ Then the words,—for the edification of the Church,—would belong to the combined phrase ‘seek that ye may abound,’ and not to the latter verb exclusively, although this conveys the chief idea; at least not so that πρὸς should be made equivalent to εἰς and the sense this, ‘that the blessings of their gifts may be poured out more and more abundantly upon the Church for its edification.’—Next comes the application of this fundamental principle to the matter of speaking with tongues.—Wherefore, let him that speaketh with a tongue, pray that he may interpret.—προσευχέσθω, ἵναδιερμενεύῃ. [This passage, simple as it seems, has caused no little perplexity among commentators. The mode of interpreting it has a decided bearing upon the theory a person may form in regard to the nature of the “gift of tongues;” and it in turn has been determined largely by whatever theory has already been formed. There are three ways of explaining it. 1. To take ἵνα in its laxer sense, and construe the verb διερμενεύῃ with it as the object of προσευχέσθω, q. d., ‘let him pray that he may be able to interpret,’ i.e., for the gift of interpretation. This is the sense given it by all the Greek commentators, and is adopted by most of the modern ones. Among these Grot., Beza, Hamm., and Hodge. Adopting this view, we are at liberty to suppose that the person speaking with a tongue was not necessarily engaged in worship, but was addressing the assembly; and so to infer that this gift was used not only for the purposes of prayer and praise, but also for popular discourse. The objection to this view is, that in the subsequent argument in support of the injunction here given, the act of praying is spoken of absolutely; and standing, as the next verse does, in close logical connection with this by means of the “for,” we are constrained to interpret the praying spoken of in both verses in the same absolute or general sense, and that the use of the gift was in the act of prayer. Hence it will not do to limit the praying in this verse to the object specified in the final words, as though the Apostle meant that the person who was employing the gift, should pray that he might interpret. Besides, it assumes a purely ecbatic signification in ἵνα, which it is questionable whether it ever has in the New Testament. (See Winer, p. III. § 53. 10. 6). 2. To take ἵνα in the sense of ὢστε, so that, q. d., ‘let him so pray, that he may interpret,’ i.e., let him not pray unless he can interpret. So Luther, Rosen., and others. But the propriety of giving this sense to ἲνα is very doubtful. The only way left us then Isaiah 3. to construe ἵναδιερμενεύῃ, that he may interpret, as a final clause. [So Meyer, Winer, Alford, and others]. This would give to the whole injunction a meaning of this sort, ‘In the outgushing of his emotions in prayer and praise let the person who speaks with a tongue, make it a point to edify the Church through interpretation.’ In other words, ‘let him pray, not in order to make a display of his gift, but with the intention of interpreting his prayer.’ This, of course, implies that the person alluded to has already the gift of interpretation, and very rightly, for otherwise he was not at liberty to allow himself to be heard in Church meeting at all (1 Corinthians 14:28).—The reason for this injunction is next more clearly set forth in 1 Corinthians 14:14, where the Apostle, agreeably to the hint already given in 1 Corinthians 14:2, enters more fully upon the inward character of this gift, and from what he says there it is clear that the mere speaking or praying with tongues without interpretation excluded all relation to the external world, and in this case, to the congregation.—For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.—Here the νοῦς denotes that faculty of the soul by which we have to deal with the outer world, [that which reasons, conceives and begets the thought that is coined into words] (Beek, Bibl. Seelenlehre, p. 49). This is said to be unfruitful in that it confers no benefit on others (comp. Ephesians 5:11; Titus 3:14; Matthew 13:22). The passive interpretation, ‘experiences no benefit,’ does not suit the connection. As the words “my understanding,” so must also the words “my spirit” be interpreted of that which belongs to our nature, and not be understood as meaning ‘the spirit of God in me’ [as Hodge]. On the other hand the antithesis with “my spirit” does not allow of our interpreting the word νοῦς to mean sense, that is, of the words. Bengel has already presented the essentially correct view: “The πνεῦμα spirit, is the power of the soul, when it sweetly suffers the Holy Spirit’s operations; but the νοῦς, understanding, is the power of the soul, when it goes abroad, and acts with our neighbor: as also when it attends to external objects, to other things and persons, although its reasonings maybe concealed.” [The distinction is more thoroughly given by Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychologie, iv. § 5. In explaining this passage he says: “The exercise of self-consciousness is here suppressed by the divine influence which entirely takes captive the person speaking with tongues. The thinking power of the νοῦς, as it brings forth fruit in words and thoughts profiting both itself and others without any further intervention, ceases, and the divine influence goes on exercising itself in the human sphere of direct feeling and intuition, and expresses itself also in a language that corresponds to this directness, and is not pervaded by the understanding (νοῦς) of the speaker, and is therefore unintelligible to the understanding (νοῦς) of the hearers. This sphere of direct feeling and intuition the Apostle calls the spirit (πνεῦμα) in distinction from the understanding (νοῦς). It is the spirit in the narrower sense distinguished from the spirit in a wider sense (1 Corinthians 5:3; 1 Corinthians 7:34; 2 Corinthians 7:1), as feeling and especially as directly beholding—a copy as it were of the divine Holy Spirit”].—He next proceeds to draw an inference for the regulation of the conduct of the Corinthians in this matter.—What then is it?—Some supply πρακτέον to be done, which is unnecessary. [He means, ‘what is the practical conclusion at which we arrive?’ This he gives in what follows].—I will pray in the spirit,—[On the reading προσεύξωμαι (subjunctive instead of Ind. fut.) which is strongly attested by A. D. B. F. G. and the Cod. Sin., Alford remarks: that “the use of the subjunctive in this as well as in other places grew out of a tendency in those who transcribed some of our MSS. to give such assertions a hortatory, or where interrrogative a deliberative form.” Meyer calls it “schlechte Besserung.” It is note-worthy that the important Codex Sinaiticus has the subjunctive form here, while in the next clause it has the indicative future. In this case we should take the first as conditional, ‘let me pray,’ or, ‘if I am to pray with my spirit, I will pray also with my understanding.’ The propriety of this is seen in the fact that praying in the spirit was not always optional with the individual, nor a matter of resolve. It came by gift, was the inspiration of the spirit who distributed unto each as He would; whereas the use of the understanding (νοῦς), which combined in itself both intelligence and will, was voluntary. It seems to be with the perception of this fact that Winner, who adopts the future form, says: “this sentence expresses not a resolution, but a Christian maxim which the believer intends to follow.”]—and I will pray with the understanding also;—By this is meant praying with the use of “interpretation” which would make the contents of the prayer intelligible to others, and so edifying. It will be seen from the antithesis that the “understanding” alluded to is that of the person praying and not that of others,—as though the dative were that of the remote object, q. d., ‘to the understanding of others.’—I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.—A proof that the prayer was accompanied with song and harp also (comp. Osiander). “We see here two forms of Glossolaly—prayer and praise; it mounted therefore into the poetic mood; and there was involved in it that which resembled what appeared later in Christian poesy. Neander.—[That these were the main, if not the only forms in which this gift was exercised, and very rarely, if ever, in discourses to the church-assembly, is here pretty clearly proven. Had it been otherwise, as Hodge and others maintain,—had the person ‘who spoke with a tongue’ undertaken, to address the audience in his unintelligible language, how much more pertinent to Paul’s argument would it have been to show the uselessness and absurdity of speaking to others in words unknown, than to instance only the cases of praying and singing in a foreign tongue. Here the words uttered affected the audience only indirectly, and the speaker might plead that he was engaged with God; but in the other case he would profess to be communicating what he could not hope to have reach the hearer’s mind and heart without interpretation. Here therefore was the point where speaking with tongues without interpretation would touch the extreme of inappropriateness, and which in the case supposed Paul would most likely have alluded to. As to the distinction between worshiping “in the spirit” and worshiping “in the understanding,” we must abide by the views already given. The former denotes the state into which the Holy Spirit lifts the person inspired—a state wherein ho sees and feels things which it is impossible for him to utter, inasmuch as they transcend the scope of his understanding; and which break forth in a language that the spirit forms, suited to give them utterance; and which none can understand and interpret save he to whom it is given,—whether it be the person himself or some other one].’—The resolve expressed in 1 Corinthians 14:15, which partakes at the same time of the nature of an exhortation, is next corroborated by a reference to the indecorum that would be occasioned by pursuing the opposite course.—Else,—ἐπεὶ, for then, in that case; [such is the meaning the word takes before questions implying a negative (see Rob. Lex.)]. Here the conditional clause, which in the use of ἐπεὶ is usually omitted (comp. v. 10), is fully stated.—if thou shalt have blessed,—εὐλογεῖν, to bless, (1 Corinthians 10:16) is essentially the same as εὐχαριστεῖν, to give thanks, (v. 17); only here the idea of praise is more prominent.—in spirit,—as in 1 Corinthians 14:15, here with the exclusion of the understanding. [Hodge, to maintain his consistency, interprets this of the Holy Spirit where of all places such an interpretation would appear least appropriate, since the word is evidently used to express an abnormal condition].—how shall he who occupies the place of the private,—τοῦἰδιώτου; some commentators interpret this word as expressing simply an antithesis to him ‘who speaks with a tongue,’ as denoting one who did not come within the sphere of this gift;—just as in other connections, e. g., one not a physician is termed an ἰδιώτης, idiot, in comparison with one who is; or one unacquainted with art in comparison with an artist; or any unskilled ignoramus in comparison with a learned person. If now, with Meyer, we interpret the word “place” in a local sense, then the person in question would be one of the congregation who sits anywhere except in the seat of the speaker. But as the phrase, ‘to fill the place of a friend’ (φίλουτόπονἔχειν) is a common one, it is questionable whether the idea of locality can be well insisted on. More correct perhaps would it be to say that the word was expressive of a distinction quite current at the time, between the active members of the church who engaged in speaking and praying, and the silent recipient members; and that it here stands for the whole multitude of those who did not understand the person who was speaking with a tongue. [So Alford, Stanley, and Hodge who adds, “The context shows that Paul does not refer to laymen in opposition to church officers; for the officers were just as likely to be ἰδιώται, unlearned, as to the language used as others.”]—how shall he say—The question implies the impossibility of the thing.—the Amen,—τὸἀμήν; [the article here is specific and points to a customary use of the word in the church at that time]. “Amen” is a Hebrew adjective, meaning true or faithful, and was employed in the synagogue by the whole assembly in concert to express its ratification of what was said by one in the name of all, or its confidence in being heard if that thing spoken was a prayer. The formula thus used was equivalent to ‘so let it be,’ or ‘so it is.’ [In illustration of the importance attached to it, Stanley gives the following citations from the Rabbins: “He who says Amen is greater than he who blesses.” (Berashoth viii. 8). Whoever says “Amen,” to him the gates of paradise open, according to Isaiah 26:2, ‘open ye the gates that the righteous nation, that which keepeth the Amen, may enter in’ (Wetstein ad. loc.). An “Amen” if not well considered was an ‘Orphan Amen’ (Light-foot ad. loc.). Whoever says an ‘Orphan Amen’ his children shall be orphans; whoever answers ‘Amen’ hastily or shortly, his days shall be shortened; whoever answers “Amen” distinctly and at length, his ‘days shall be lengthened (Berashoth, 47, 1; Schφttgen ad. loc.). So in the early Christian liturgies it was regarded as a marked point in the service; and with this agrees the great solemnity with which Justin speaks of it, as though it were on a level with the thanksgiving: ‘the president having given thanks, and the whole people having shouted their approbation.’ And in later times, the Amen was only repeated once by the congregation, and always after the great thanksgiving, and with a shout like a peal of thunder”].—upon this your thanksgiving,—ἐπὶτῇσῇεὐχαριστία; the ἐπί here denotes immediate sequence. [“Thy” would seem to be emphatic, to make prominent the peculiar manner in which the thanksgiving was pronounced by the one who spoke in an unknown tongue, or perhaps still better, to distinguish between the prayer offered by such a speaker and the regular thanksgiving which was pronounced at the institution of the Supper. If the latter, it would go to show that whatever prayer was offered by those who employed the gift of tongues and interpreted, was responded to by the congregation as offered also in their behalf; or that the Apostle intended to assert that this ought to be the case and that in consequence no one should utter a prayer in presence of the congregation which they could not be made to understand and could not intelligently respond to. It is a question whether with this precedent before us amounting almost to an authoritative precept, so large a portion of the Christian church have not done wrong in entirely omitting so important apart of the public service].—since he knows not what thou sayest?—[Men cannot assent to what they do not understand, because assent implies the affirmation of the truth of that to which we assent. “It is impossible, therefore, to join in prayers uttered in an unknown tongue. The Romish church persists in the use of the Latin language in her public services not only in opposition to the very idea and intent of worship, but also to express prohibition of the Scriptures. For the very thing here prohibited is praying in public in a language which the people do not understand. It is indeed said that words may touch the feelings which do not convey any distinct notions to the mind. But we cannot say “Amen” to such words, any more than we can to a flute. Such blind, emotional worship, if such it can be called, stands at a great remove from the intelligent service demanded by the Apostle.” Hodge].—The question thus asked is still further explained and that too with a concession in reference to the character of the thanksgiving.—For thou indeed givest thanks well,—The καλῶς, well, is not to be taken ironically, but is earnestly meant; since he regards the act as truly an operation of the divine Spirit. The only difficulty in regard to it is expressed in the next clause.—but—Instead of δέ as the antithesis to μέν, we have ἀλλά, which expresses a more emphatic contrast.—the other—i.e., the private person just spoken of,—is not edified.—The thanksgiving not being understood can never promote devotion, nor lift the soul to God; and therefore it cannot prompt to the right utterance of the Amen. The declaration just made he goes on to confirm by his own example; and in so doing he first recognizes the worth of the gift in itself, and magnifies his own distinguished endowment with it. In this way he obviates all misconception as to his own estimate of the gift, or as to any personal jealousy which might be supposed to move him to speak as he did.—I thank God,—He thus renounces all claim to merit in reference to what he is about to assert of himself. The verb here is followed by an objective clause which, according to the original reading, has no conjunction to unite it, as is often the case in the classics. ‘That’ is to be supplied. The readings ὅτιλαλῶ and λαλῶν are merely different attempts to conform the text to grammatical rules. The omission of λαλῶ in Cod. A. is to be explained on the ground that the copyist thought it necessary to continue the use of εὐχαριστῶ in the same absolute sense in which it stands in 1 Corinthians 14:17, [i.e., ‘I utter thanksgiving’ just as the person before spoken of; and in this independent sense some commentators construe the word]. But if this sense had been intended, the Apostle would not have added the word “God.”—I speak with a tongue more than you all:—[It is worthy of note that, according to the correct reading—“a tongue” and not ‘tongues’—both, here and elsewhere, when an individual is spoken of as endowed with this gift, he is said to speak only with a single tongue. This shows that the gift in question did not signify a faculty for speaking in various languages as some suppose—not even in the case of a Paul; but that each one had his own language which constituted his specialty. Have we not here a significant hint in confirmation of the theory that the gift denoted an ability conferred by the Spirit to utter thoughts and feelings awakened by His inspiration in forms peculiar to the individual himself, which might be termed his tongue? Hodge, it must be observed, utterly ignores the more authenticated reading here, and tacitly adopts the received text in proof of the theory that the speaking with tongues meant speaking in foreign languages, in which respect Paul asserts that he surpassed all others. If this were really so, it is very strange that we find not a particle of evidence to prove that he really used any of these languages in his preaching tours, but every-where seems to have spoken and written either in Aramaic or in Greek. The gift appears to have stood him in no service in proclaiming the Gospel. If he spoke with these many tongues at all, it must have been not to man, but to God—where they were the least necessary. For the Apostle’s power of speaking with a tongue compare the description of his visions and revelations in 2 Corinthians 12:1-2].—But—whatever I may do in private—in church I prefer to speak five words—The ‘five’ stands tropically for “a few” (comp. Isaiah 17:6; Isaiah 30:17).—with my understanding,—The reading διὰτοῦνοόςμον may with Meyer be considered as an interpretation of the more strongly attested τῶνοΐμον. On the contrary de Wette deduced it from 1 Corinthians 14:16.—in order that I might teach others also,—κατέχειν, whence our word ‘catechism,’ means to instruct orally, and shows what is meant by ‘speaking with the understanding,’ and what most contributes to edification.—than ten thousand words in a tongue.—As Besser says: “rather half of ten, if of the edifying sort, than a thousand times ten of the other.” 1 Corinthians 14:20-25. In winning style he introduces an earnest admonition in reference to their own estimate of the gift of tongues,—Brethren,—and their high valuation of a gift so fitted to excite great astonishment, but yet so profitless for the church as a whole, he denounces as something childish, as a mark of immature judgment—become not little children in your minds.—ταῖςφρεσίν, [the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament]. φρένες means the outgoings of the mind, the inward movements of thoughts and feelings in their most diversified aspects. Regarded as a whole, the word is nearly synonymous with νοῦς; hence φρέναςἔχειν, to have insight. He here intimates to them that by their conduct they were virtually setting aside that superior intelligence in which they so much gloried, and were descending to the level of childhood; since they were estimating the worth of a thing not by its ends and uses, but by its outward show. The childlike state belonged to the Christian, only in another respect.—howbeit in wickedness,—κακίᾳ is the direct opposite of love, that fountain of all good; and in respect to it babes may be considered most innocent.—be babes,—νηπιάζετε is from νήπιος which denotes a more infantile state than παίδιον, and is used to denote an advance upon the previous expression “children.” Burger explains the whole to mean: “know nothing of the moral corruption that is in the world, to say nothing of an experimental acquaintance with it.”—but in understanding become mature.—τέλειοι, i.e., full-grown men. “To plant and propagate childlike innocence and maturity of understanding both in one—this is the great problem of Christianity. (Comp. Romans 16:19; Matthew 10:6).” Neander.—He next appeals to Scripture by way of teaching them how they ought to regard the gift of tongues.—In the law it is written,—γέγραπται, [lit. has been written, but inasmuch as what has been written is supposed to abide permanently the perfect, is here equivalent to the present]. The term “law” is here to be taken in a broader sense than in John 10:34; Romans 3:19, as including also the prophecies. This use is grounded on the fact that prophecy was but the development of the fundamental revelation both of law and of promise given in Pentateuch.—With (men) of other tongues and with the lips of others will I speak to this people; and neither so will they hearken unto me saith the Lord.—The citation is from Isaiah 28:11; but it accords precisely neither with the LXX. nor with the original text. The original passage is a threatening pronounced upon the children of Israel for their unbelieving and contemptuous treatment of God’s messengers. They had asked derisively, whether it was thought they ought to be treated like little children in that they were perpetually dinned with line upon line and precept upon precept after the fashion in which little children were instructed. In reply God threatens that because they had despised this simple teaching, He would hereafter instruct them through persons of a different language and foreign utterance. The persons here meant were Gentile nations especially the Assyrians, by whom they were to be treated just as contemptuously as they had treated God’s Word.—But how are we to understand the application made by the Apostle to the case in hand? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ XVI OF THE OF THE DEAD A. Refutation of its deniers(1) from the well attested facts of the resurrection of Christ, which with all connected therewith, pre-supposes its possibility, and is the pledge of its actual occurrence 1 Corinthians 15:1-281    Moreover, brethren, I declare [make known, γνωρίζω] unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have [om. have] received, and wherein ye stand [have been standing, ἑστήκατε]; 2By which also ye are [being] saved, if ye keep in memory [hold fast, κατέχετε what [with what discourse, τίνιλόγῳ ?] I preached unto you, unlessye have believed [became believers, ἐπιστεύσατε] in vain. 3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures: 4And that he was buried, and that he rose [has risen, ἐγήγερται] again the third day according to the Scriptures: 5And that he was seen of [appeared to] ὤφθηΚηφᾷ ?] Cephas, then of [to] the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of [appeared to] above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto thispresent, but some are [have also, καὶἐκοιμήθησαν] fallen asleep. And 7after that, he 8was seen of [appeared to] James; then of [after that to, ἔπειτα] all the apostles. And [But, δὲ ?] last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time [as to the untimely-born-one, he appeared to me also, ὡσπερεὶτῷἐκτρώματι, ὤφθηκἀμοί]. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet [sufficient, ἱκανὸς] to be called anapostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon [was towards, εἰς] me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God11which was [om. which was] with me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so wepreach, and so ye believed. 12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen [not even Christ hath risen, οὐδὲχρ. ἐγήγερται]: 14And if Christ be [hath] not risen, then is our preaching vain, and8 your faith is also vain. 15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of [against, κατὰ ?] God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain [fruitless, ματαία]; ye are yet in yoursins. 18Then they also which are fallen asleep [fell asleep, κοιμηθέντες] in Christ are19[om. are] perished. If in this life only we have hope [If only in this life we havebeen hoping] in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20But now is Christ risen [has Christ been raised, ἐγήγερται] from the dead, and become [om. and become] 21the first fruits of them that slept [have been sleeping, κεκοιμημένων]. For sinceby man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adamall die [are dying, ἀποθνήσκουσιν], even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order [orderly rank, τάγματι]: Christ the first fruits; afterward they 24that are Christ’s at his coming [appearing, παρουσίᾳ ?]. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up [he delivereth over, παραδιδῷ ?] the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down [done away with, καταργήσῃ ?] all rule, and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death [Death, the enemy, shall at last be done away with, καταργε͂ιται]. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, All things are [have been, ὑποτέτακται] put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which [it is with the exception of him who, ἐκτὺςτοῦὑποτάξαντος] did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject [subject himself, ὑποταγήσεται] unto him that put all things under him, that God may be [the, τὰ ?] all in all. AND [We now come to what may be called the crowning glory of this Epistle, viz., a demonstration of the truth of a future resurrection. Forming, as it does, a portion of the burial service in nearly every Christian church, it has come to be associates with our tenderest and most hallowed recollections, as affording to us precious consolation in regard to departed friends, and laying the foundation for our own triumph in the hour of death. It is not surprising, therefore, that it should have been made the subject of more earnest study than any other portion of this Epistle, and that every line and word of it has been searched for golden meanings. Happy will it be for us, if we shall be able to set forth its deep significance in any thing of its true light, and so contribute some share towards increasing and strengthening the faith of the Church]. For fuller information respecting the opponents of the doctrine of the resurrection, who are here refuted, see what is said on 1 Corinthians 15:12. [The points of the argument are as follows: 1. Whether there is any resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-34). The affirmative is proven—first, by a reference to the fact that Christ did rise from the dead with the evidence which establishes it (1 Corinthians 15:1-11); secondly, by showing the absurdity of the contrary doctrine in several particulars. 2. What will be the nature of the bodies that shall be raised up (1 Corinthians 15:35-51). This is illustrated by various analogies, and also set forth in direct statement as to some of the peculiar characteristics of the risen body. 3. What will become of those who shall be alive at the second advent (1 Corinthians 15:51-54). 4. The practical consequences of this doctrine]. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Paul here begins to lay the foundation for his demonstration, which rests upon a fact not denied by the opponents of the doctrine of a general resurrection, viz., that of Christ’s resurrection. First of all, he reminds the Corinthians that this doctrine had formed a part of the fundamental contents of that Gospel which he had proclaimed among them from the first.—Moreover,—δέ here indicates an advance in his discourse, a transition to an entirely different subject; for there is no connection between this and the preceding chapter.—brethren, I declare unto you—γνωρίζω; the word is neither equivalent to ὑπομιμνήσκω, I remind you, [Chrys., Bloomf., Billr.]; nor yet to I call your attention to [(Rόck.); both which meanings are inadmissible from the usage of the word, as maybe seen in Rob. Lex.; though Stanley affirms that in all the passages, where it is used in the earlier epistles, it carries these significations]. It means, I make known, I declare. The expression has something of solemnity in it, as though he were about to make a new proclamation. What he intends, however, is to remind them of something already known, about which their recollection needed to be refreshed; [unless there is a latent sarcasm in the word, intimating that though professing Christians—“brethren,” they had so far forgotten one of the fundamental tenets of their faith that they needed to have it proclaimed to them anew].—the Gospel—[Not indeed the whole Gospel (as Alford), but that which so lies at the foundation of the whole Gospel, that which is its main condition and verification to such an extent that by metonymy it might be said to be the Gospel, so that the expression is here used for the purpose of showing the essential importance of the subject of which he was about to treat. And, also, by applying to the doctrine of the resurrection the designation of Gospel he teaches them that it is not a point on which they were at liberty to form any opinion they might choose, without prejudice to their own salvation].—Respecting this he mentions four particulars, in regular climax, by which he exhibits its claim upon their faith.—which I preached unto you,—[i.e., when he first went among them to lay the foundations of the Church].—which also ye received,—[not ‘have received.’ The aorist signification must be adhered to as important, pointing to what took place at the first—their cordial reception of his proclamation].—in which also ye stand;—He here indicates the firm maintenance of what had been accepted as truth on the part of the great majority of the Church (2 Corinthians 1:24; Romans 5:2). [This remark is not intended to flatter them; because all to whom he wrote firmly believed that Christ died and rose again. Were it not for this, he could have built on the fact no argument that was valid for them. But though believing this, all had not drawn the same conclusion in respect to a resurrection as he had; so that he is here pointing to that faith among them to which he was about to appeal in support of what he had to say. And then, to finish his climax by showing the personal importance of that faith, he adds,—through which also ye are saved,—By the use of the present tense the attainment of salvation is here presentiated, as though it were something altogether certain]. Yet that he means hereby an attainment still future, is clear from the conditional clause appended. The repetition of the καὶ, also, serves to introduce the successive particulars which form the climax, [and also to strengthen the assertions].—with what word I preached unto you, if ye hold fast,—There is a question as to the connection in which this clause stands with what precedes. Luther and some after him take this to be a further definition of what is alluded to in the opening clause of the first verse, q. d., ‘I remind you of the gospel, in what form I proclaimed it to you;’ but the conditional words “if ye hold fast” do not suit with the expression “I remind you.” They also contradict the assertion that they were standing still on the doctrine in question, and they furnish no point, of junction with what follows, “unless ye have believed in vain.” We must therefore connect the clause before us with what immediately precedes, recognizing here an inversion of the natural order of words for the sake of emphasis, q. d., “if ye hold fast with what word I preached the gospel unto you.” To be understood, we here see the condition stated upon which their salvation would be secured; [so that it is an argumentum ad hominem, put in advance for the purpose of conciliating their interest in the truth he was about to demonstrate].—By the expression “with what word” (τίνιλόγῳ) he denotes either the contents of what he had delivered to them (Meyer) [so that it is equivalent to “what,” as in the E. V.]; or the grounds out of which (Acts 10:29), or with which he established his argument. So Bengel: “qua ratione, quis argumentis.” The latter is the more correct interpretation; since in what follows he not merely gives the contents of his preaching (the fundamental facts of redemption), but also he brings emphatically to view the grounds of its truth and validity. Luther’s welcher Gestalt may embrace both significations. To, suppose an allusion here to the simplicity of his style, is a little too far fetched. By ‘holding fast’ (κατέχειν) he means, not simply an intellectual retention, a preservation of the thing in the memory, to which the interrogative τίνι appears to point, but a holding fast, in such a manner that a person is certain of the thing. [May it not go still further and point to the practical regard for the truth in their life and conduct, so as to signify their perseverance in saving faith?]—That the fact of their salvation is admissible only on the condition of a steadfast maintenance of this truth, is still further exhibited apagogically.—unless ye believed in vain.—i.e. their failure of salvation was conceivable only on the hardly supposable condition that their exercise of faith was a vain and fruitless thing.—εἰκῇ, in vain (comp. Galatians 4:11; Galatians 3:4). [It may mean either without cause, or without effect, i. e., to no purpose. If the former, then Paul means to say, ‘unless ye believe without evidence’ ‘had no ground for your faith.’ If the latter, the meaning is ‘unless your faith is worthless,’ and this was a thing not to be supposed. The latter best suits the connection]. On ἐκτὸςεἰμὴ see 1 Corinthians 14:5. This clause is more correctly attached to the main proposition contained in the word “ye are saved,” to which that which follows is subordinate, and to be taken as confirming it together with the condition annexed. The act of believing stands in the closest relation to the gospel as the subjective appropriation of its proffered salvation; and to assert its fruitlessness (which from the Christian standpoint is utterly unconceivable) would be equivalent to the denial of all salvation through the gospel. But, if we attach the words before us only to the conditional clause immediately preceding, and that too in relation to the phrase “with what word I preached to you,” then would εἰκῇ be equivalent to rashly, i.e., without sufficient grounds, q. d., ‘if ye hold fast the grounds on which I preach the gospel to you; otherwise it would follow that ye believed without grounds, in a shallow, superficial manner.’ Or, if we connect it with the words “if ye hold fast,” then some such clause must be supplied as ‘but ye do hold it fast altogether,’—which would not suit. Adopting the former reference, the connection is indeed simple, and the sense good and strong, but it is calculated rather to awaken confidence, than to warn against danger (Meyer assumes both?!), or to hinder their abuse of it to a false security (Osiander).—For I delivered to you—The question here arises, first of all, with what is this to be connected? Is that here set forth an explanation of his manner of discourse (τίνιλόγῳ), either as to its contents (Meyer and de Wette), or as to its grounds? or is it to be referred back to the main statement in the first verse, “I declare unto you?” The latter is to be preferred, inasmuch as the manner of discourse is spoken of in a subordinate clause. His meaning is, ‘what I now hold up before you, viz., the truth of Christ’s resurrection in its bearing on our salvation, is only a proclamation of that gospel which I preached unto you at the beginning.’ Here he speaks in relation to the fact itself, and that too in its significance for the faith, according to the Scriptures.—Catholic expositors use the word παρέδωκα support of the legitimacy of tradition.—among the first (things),—in the order of time [Chrys.]; or still better, in importance, in primis, before all, “as belonging to the weightiest articles of faith. Burger: “as one of the first points.” Neander. [Rόckert connects the words directly with “to you,” as though the Corinthians were “among the first” to have the doctrine preached to them; which is not true. The following passages from LXX. may throw some light on the expression: “and he placed the two maid servants and their children first, ἐνπρώτοις (Genesis 33:2); “and David said whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first,” ἐνπρώτοις (2 Samuel 5:8).] He here takes into account, not simply the order of time, but also the momentousness of the thing communicated.—what also I have received,—παρέλαβον, because it stands correllative to παρέδωκα, is to be understood otherwise than in 1 Corinthians 15:2, as denoting the simple reception of a thing imparted; and this, not through human tradition only, but also by special inward revelation from the Lord. The fact itself, i.e., of Christ’s death which he was about to speak of, he had undoubtedly learned before his conversion; but he is here treating not solely of the fact, but likewise of its significance for a life of faith, and this he had to learn by revelation. So too in regard to the resurrection. This he had heard of and flouted as fable; but its verity was at last disclosed to him in such a manner by the glorious appearance of Christ in the way, that all doubt in reference to it as though the death had been only one in appearance, or a deception, was entirely dissipated; and by a subsequent illumination, which explained to him the bearing of Scripture upon these facts, they had obtained his full and firm faith as the fundamental articles of his religious creed. [And in saying that ‘he delivered’ only what ‘he had received,’ he was but asserting the faithful discharge of his duty as an apostle, which was to proclaim at first hand, as it were, the truth of Christ].—that Christ died for our sins,—Here the expiatory power of Christ’s death is clearly indicated as in 1 Corinthians 1:13; Romans 5:8 (by the simple ὑπὲρὑμῶν); comp. Galatians 1:4; 1 Peter 2:24; Romans 3:24 ff; Romans 4:25.—ὑπὲρ=περὶ, for the sake of. [Stanley says, “for our sins,” not merely ‘in our behalf,’ which would have been ὑπὲρἡμῶν, as in Romans 5:8; nor ‘in our place’ which would have been ἀντὶἡμῶν; but ‘as an offering in consequence of our sins,’ ‘to deliver us from our sins.’ “ ‘Υπὲρ has the same ambiquity as the English for, in behalf of; but the idea of service and protection always predominates. Whenever in speaking of Christ’s death the idea of substitution is intended, it is under the figure of a ransom; in which case it is expressed by ἀντὶ (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). Whenever the idea of covering or forgiving sins is intended, it is under the figure of a sin-offering in which case the word used is περὶ, as in Romans 8:3; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10; περὶἁμαπτἰας or ἁμαρτιῶν.—But what connection has this with the doctrine of resurrection? Much every way. Christ’s death could not have availed to expiate sin had he remained under the power of death. In order to prove that He died not for His own sins, but for the sins of others, and to demonstrate this ability and right to confer pardon and blessedness as the Lord of life, it was necessary for Him to rise again. Hence though atonement is secured by His death, yet righteousness comes through His resurrection (Rom. 5:25). To deny his resurrection, therefore, is to annul also the efficacy of His sacrifice, and with this all hope of pardon through Him. And the fatal extent to which the denial of any fact must carry us, should be shown as a part of the argument in its defence].—according to the Scriptures:—He here intimates that Christ’s death for our sins was the fulfilment of the divine counsel foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures. The use of the plural points to the long line of witnesses which runs through the various portions of the sacred record (comp. Matthew 26:54; Luke 24:32). “We must keep in view the manner in which the calling of the Messiah was regarded. It was one towards which the entire development of the theocracy was continually tending, and which therefore might be found indicated in various ways. The apostles do not distinguish between the ideal and the literal reference, as this was not the way of the Holy Spirit, but only of scientific investigation.” Neander. Paul here undoubtedly had in mind, not simply such prophecies as Isaiah 53, but also such types as the offerings and the paschal lamb. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 5:7). [Paul protested before Festus that in preaching the Gospel he had said, “none other things than those which Moses and the prophets had said, should come that Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people and to the Gentiles.” And he assured the Romans that his gospel was “witnessed to by the law and the prophets.” Thus it will be seen that the doctrine of atonement for sin by the death of Christ pervades the entire Word of God. Hence not to believe in it was declared by our Lord to indicate “folly and slowness of heart” (Luke 24:25; Luke 24:27)].—And that he was buried,—[This is an important fact, both as indicating the undoubted truth of His having died, and as the necessary antecedent to the resurrection. In entering the grave our Lord but finished the course appointed for all mankind, and it was the natural fulfilment of His earthly career. The fact, therefore, properly forms a distinct article in our creed].—and that he has been raised on the third day,—ἐγήγερται. The perfect indicates that the fact is not a transient one like that of dying and being buried,—marks the continuation of the state just begun, or of its consequences—‘has been raised and is alive.’—according to the Scriptures:—The testimony here referred to bears primarily on the fact of His having risen (comp. Psalms 16:10; Acts 13:34 ff.; Isaiah 53:8-10 ff.), including also the time of His rising which is hinted at in the type of Jonah (comp. Matthew 12:40; Matthew 16:4). But this type, as well as the prophecy in Isaiah 53:9, allows also of a reference to the burial; but the repetition of ὃτι before ἐγήγερται forms an objection to this reference. Besides, it is only the two essential factors in the work of redemption, viz.: the death and the resurrection of Christ that are sustained upon Scripture testimony. So Meyer Ed. 3. [But how can this be, when Peter referred in his speech at Pentecost to the declaration of David, “thou wilt not leave my soul in hell neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption,” as a prophecy of Christ’s burial and resurrection?] 1 Corinthians 15:5-7. And that he was seen of Cephas,—The ὃτι, that, shows that in grammatical structure the dependance of the clauses upon παρέδωκα, 1 Corinthians 15:3, is still maintained; while the independent statements begin at the next verse. From this, however, it does not follow that he had delivered to them merely that which is asserted in 1 Corinthians 15:5. He undoubtedly is here recapitulating the whole testimony in proof of Christ’s resurrection, as he had often given it to them. That he is following the chronological order of the evidence, is clear from the use of the definite adverbs of sequence, “then,” “after that,” “last of all.”—The appearance of the risen Saviour to Peter, recorded Luke 24:34, ‘is mentioned first, not “because the authority of Peter was the chiefest, as being the prince of the apostles” (Estius), but in accordance with the historical order of occurrences, passing over, however, the manifestation previously made of Himself to Mary Magdalene (John 20:14 f.). “Mary Magdalene was, indeed, a witness to the brethren, but not to the people at large,”—W. F. Besser; [and to have cited her testimony would, with multitudes, at that period, have tended to call out a sneer, rather than strengthen belief].—then of the twelve:—This was the common designation of the smaller circle of disciples, although it was not then complete [“twelve being a name, not of number, but of office”]; and the manifestation here alluded to (Luke 24:36 ff.; John 20:19 ff.) is not to be confounded with that which followed eight days after (John 20:26). Thomas also was not present. The apostles appear also here as witnesses of the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:23; Acts 3:15; Acts 10:40 ff; Acts 13:31). By ὥφθη, was seen, we are to understand a literal perception by the senses, and not a vision. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;—The manifestation here spoken of is nowhere else recorded; in Matthew 28:16 mention is made only of “the eleven.” The expression “at once” implies that the “more than five hundred” saw Him, not separately, but altogether; and this probably took place at a time when numerous Galilean disciples were still at Jerusalem, and therefore before the termination of the festival season. The fact that about the time of Pentecost only about one hundred and twenty disciples are spoken of, does not militate with this supposition. [Hodge says, “This manifestation may have taken place on the occasion when Christ met His disciples in Galilee.” Before His death He told them, “After I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee,” Matthew 26:32. Early in the morning of His resurrection, He met the women who had been at His tomb, and said to them, “Be not afraid; go tell my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me,” Matthew 28:10; and accordingly in 1 Corinthians 15:16 it is said, “Then the eleven went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.” “This, therefore, was a formally appointed meeting, and doubtless made known as extensively as possible to His followers; and it is probable, therefore, that there was a concourse of all who could come, not only from Jerusalem, but from the surrounding country, and from Galilee. Though intended specially for the eleven, it is probable that all attended who knew of the meeting, and could possibly reach the appointed place. Who would willingly be absent on such an occasion?”—Hodge].—of whom the greater part remain until now,—This is added to show that a large number of witnesses of the resurrection could still be called upon for their testimony. [And here we have a most striking proof of the fact before us. Had the resurrection of Christ been only a fiction, “so many false hearts and tongues would never have acted in concert; nor would they all have kept a secret, which remorse, interest, and perhaps often torture, might urge them to divulge—especially as there had been one traitor among the twelve; on account of which, had they been conscious of a fraud, a general suspicion of each other’s secrecy must have arisen.” Doddridge].—Μένειν, as in John 21:22; Philippians 1:25).—but some are fallen asleep.—[The sweet language of the gospel for expressing the nature of the believer’s death—transforming its very terrors into attractions. It carries in itself also the implication of an after-awakening, and hence is the only term that could be used when speaking of death in a discourse on the resurrection].—After that he was seen of James;—This manifestation, which happened to a single individual, is also alluded to only here. This James is undoubtedly the brother of our Lord mentioned Galatians 2:9, as among the “pillars” of the church; he is also introduced in Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18 as a specially important personage, one of “the brethren of the Lord,” 1 Corinthians 9:5. It was this manifestation of the risen Saviour that proved indeed for him and his brethren the turning-point of their lives, so that they at once became His decided followers (Acts 1:14). According to the legend in ‘the gospel of the Hebrews,’ cited by Jerome, James was honored before all others with a manifestation of Christ. This story is a product of the Jewish tendency to hero-worship.—then by all the apostles.—Inasmuch as the twelve have been already mentioned, the disposition with many (Chrys., Calvin, and others) is to take these words in a more comprehensive sense, so as to include James also, and other eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus, It is a question whether this manifestation occurred immediately before the ascension. There is nothing in the narratives of this fact to contradict the supposition. [“The word ‘all’ may be used to indicate that the appearance was to the apostles collectively; and this, from its position, is the most natural explanation. Or the meaning may be, He appeared to James separately, and then to all the apostles, including James. If the James intended was James of Jerusalem; and if that James were a different person from James the son of Alpheus (a disputed point), then the former interpretation should be preferred. For ‘the apostle’ answers to ‘the twelve,’ and if James of Jerusalem was not the son of Alpheus, he was not one of the twelve.” Hodge]. “It was a providential circumstance that Paul was led to adduce these witnesses for the appearance of Christ after the resurrection. Should any one be inclined to doubt the genuineness of the testimonies of the Evangelists on this point, and to assume in these a mythic element, he is here entirely debarred from so doing; since nobody ever has doubted,. or will doubt the genuineness of this epistle, and Paul is here speaking of historical facts throughout. Accordingly, we may say that the resurrection of Christ is a fact as well attested as any in the past. Without it there would be a gap in history unfilled; since the resurrection is essentially presupposed in the very existence of the Church as built up by the Apostle.” Neander. 1 Corinthians 15:8-10. He here mentions himself as the last apostolic witness of the resurrection. In one respect, indeed, he stood after the others; but in respect of that which he had wrought by the power of divine grace, he had become distinguished above them all.—But last of all,—πάντων, of all, is not to be taken as neuter (as de Wette, [Hodge, Alford, who take the whole phrase here as an adverb of order, winding up the whole series]), but as masculine, and is to be referred in accordance with the context to the apostles.—as it were by the untimely born,—ὡσπερεὶ precedes for the sake of modifying the strong and remarkable expression which follows. The τῷ is neither to be taken for τῷ ?=τινί, since this form no where occurs in the New Testament, not even in 1 Thessalonians 4:6; neither is it equivalent to the indefinite article; but it is here emphatic, the, and by it Paul designates himself as preλminently the unworthy one among all the rest, [“the only abortion in the whole company—the one whose relation to the rest in point of worthiness was as that of the immature and deformed child to the rest of the family.” Alford]. The point of comparison is not in the matter of a suitable education, such as was furnished to the other apostles by a longer intercourse with the Lord wherein he lacked [Eustatius, Bloomf., and Macknight]; nor yet in the suddenness and violence of his conversion and appointment to the apostleship (Calvin); and still less his diminutive form (Wetstein); but as 1 Corinthians 15:9 shows, his unworthiness in comparison with the other apostles. [“The corresponding word abortivus in Latin was metaphorically applied as here to such senators as were appointed irregularly. Suet., Oct. c. 35, 2). The word itself is of Macedonian Greek and corresponds to the Attic “ἅμβλωμα”. Stanley].—he was seen also by me.—The seeing here connot be regarded as a mere mental vision, [as some are inclined to interpret the event which took place on the way to Damascus; but in consistency with all the previous manifestations here spoken of, we must regard this appearance] as an actual objective one, just such as we are to anticipate from the glorified Redeemer in His second advent. [There is a meaning not to be overlooked in the order of the words here. “Also by me” forms a sort of climax expressing the great wonder in the condecension of Christ to him in this manifestation of himself. Paul could never advert to the grace of Christ shown towards him without being brought both to feel and express in contrast therewith his own great unworthiness. See Tim. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13. On the subject of “Paul a witness for the resurrection of Jesus,” see an able article by Prof. G. P. Fisher, in the “Bib. Sac.” Vol. XVII. p. 620 ff.] And now comes the reason for this self-disparagement.—For I am the least of the apostles,—(comp. Ephesians 3:8). ‘O ἐλάχιστος, the least, as contrasted with μέγιστος, the greatest; without any reference to the order of time, as though implying ‘the last’; for the word is never used in this sense in connection with persons. It is more fully explained in the following relative clause.—who—ο͂ς=quippe qui, ‘inasmuch as I’—am not fit—ἱκανὸς=ὰξιος, worthy (comp. Matthew 3:11; with John 1:27). lit. sufficiently qualified, fit, suitable, as in 2 Corinthians 3:5.—to be called—καλεῖσθαι here denotes honorable designation ‘to bear the name of ’—an apostle,—The reason of this is—because I persecuted the Church of God.—[This is the sin which Paul never forgave himself, and from it we see that the forgiveness of sin does not obliterate the remembrance of sin, neither does it remove the sense of unworthiness and ill-desert (Hodge)]. Comp. 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 8:3; Acts 9:1; Acts 22:4; Acts 24; Galatians 1:13 ff. [“Paul does not refuse to be the most worthless of all, as next to nothing, provided this contempt does not impede him in any degree in his ministry, or does not at all detract from his doctrine.” Calvin]. But the lower he humbles himself, so that no opponent might see him lower, the more decidedly he brings to view the other side—the glorious operation of divine grace in him or through him. “His apostolic office he will not allow to be contemned inasmuch as God had through him wrought more abundantly. By reason of opposers he feels constrained to array himself in his calling and boast.”—Luther.—But by God’s grace I am what I am:—χάριτι, grace, stands first by way of emphasis. No article is needed. What he means to say is, ‘God’s grace it is which has made me what I am.’ Grace presupposes unworthiness in the recipient. It is unmerited love, favor; here as forgiving, renewing and qualifying for office (comp. 1 Corinthians 3:10). The latter element, grounded upon the two former, appears more prominently in what follows. In “what I am” he refers to his office as an apostle and to his qualification for it; (or as Meyer, Ed. 3, his whole present state and condition as distinguished from what he was before his conversion. This is further developed in the following clauses, where he points to the consequences of the divine favor towards him in fitting him for his work; first, negatively.—and his grace which was (manifested) toward me was not made vain;—i.e., was not void of fruit. But that this negative statement was far below the actual facts of the case, he goes on to show.—but more abundantly than they all did I labor:—And this was precisely the fruit of the operation of the divine grace. And lest this should seem to be regarded by him as an occasion for boasting, he at once repudiates all claim to honor in the most emphatic manner, showing that, after all, the efficient agent in all his labors was not himself, so much as it was the grace of God working in him and through him.—yet not I, but the grace of God with me.—If we read σὺνἑμοί without the article then it must be taken as connected with some words to be supplied as the following: ‘labored more abundantly with me,’ i.e., standing by me, or in active coφperation with me (Meyer). [See the critical notes on this point. Calvin attributes the omission of the ἡ to the blunder of some old translator, and insists on its maintenance to obviate the inference of Semipelagians from this text, who would ascribe half the praise of success to God and half to man as being joint-laborers in the work. But the preponderance of authority is for the omission of the article, it being obviously inserted apparently for the purpose of vindicating the absoluteness of Divine Grace. But it is not needed for this. The language of the Apostle is decisive enough without this—“not I, but the grace of God did it”]. Comp. Mark 16:20. By this antithesis, which is not to be weakened into, ‘not only I, but also,’ or into, ‘as well I, as,’ the entire glory of successful achievement is attributed to Divine Grace (comp. 1 Corinthians 3:5; Philippians 2:13; Matthew 10:20, and elsewhere). περισσότερον, neuter accusative, not to be taken adverbially [(Alford Stanley)].—αὐτῶνπάντων, not, than Any individual of them, but, than all put together. The explanation of this is to be found in his widely extended sphere of labor.—κοπιᾶν properly means to be weary, or, become weary; then, to exhaust one’s self by working, to strain one’s self; but here on account of the contrast, “not in vain,” and because afterwards the Divine Grace is shown to be the real subject, it can only denote the work with its results; while elsewhere it denotes the work as an exhausting effort (comp. 1 Corinthians 4:12; Galatians 4:11).—From this digression, introduced no less by the fervor of his spirit than on account of the condition of affairs in the Corinthian church—a digression, however, not to be construed as a grammatical parenthesis—he now returns to his main theme. 1 Corinthians 15:11; 1 Corinthians 15:13. Whether, therefore,—οὑν as in 1 Corinthians 8:4.—I or they,—i.e., the other apostles with whom he henceforward associates himself. “Such was the perfect agreement among all the apostles in reference to the appearance of the risen Saviour.” Neander. In the expression “I or they,” the Apostle casts a polemic glance at the oppugners of his apostolic office.—so we preach,—The “so” is to be explained from what is said from 1 Corinthians 15:4-12. It refers to the great fact in question and its proofs.—and so ye believed.—The “so” here is equivalent to “thereby,” viz., that such doctrines have been preached to you; [or, it may be like the previous “so,” meaning after this manner, viz., as above stated].—ἐτιστεύσατε, as in 1 Corinthians 15:2. “The accordant and powerful testimony of the apostles is here accredited by its fruits; the Corinthians themselves are here summoned as witnesses through the faith they once exercised.” Osiander. “Faith once accorded often strengthens subsequent faith; and its former strength not only obligates, but often retains the wavering.” Bengel. 1 Corinthians 15:12. Over against the preaching of the eye-witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, and the faith it secured, he now exhibits in contrast the denial of any resurrection from the dead on the part of some in the church. And he mentions it as something in the highest degree strange and incredible that such a denial could be made, when (as he afterwards shows) it involved a denial also of that which was the burden of the apostles’ preaching, and lay at the foundation of their faith.—But if Christ is preached—εἰδὲΧριστὸςκηρύσσεται—not a hypothetical but an actual condition (Passow, εἰ, I. A. 1. a.), q. d., ‘since Christ is preached.’—Christ is mentioned first by way of emphasis; for the contradiction lies here between the preaching of Christ as one risen from the dead, and the denial of any resurrection from the dead.—that he rose from the dead,—Some readings put ἐκνεκρῶν before ό́τι; if this were critically established, the transposition of the natural order would be for the sake of emphasis also; but such a double emphasis is hardly probable.—how say some among you—i.e., how is it possible that they can say? It does not comport with the fact supposed, that in the midst of you, a Christian church, there are any who say—that there is no resurrection from the dead?—οὐκἐ ?̓στι, is not, ‘is not to take place’ (comp. Ephesians 6:9). The whole exposition proceeds on the supposition that the fact of Christ’s resurrection was not a matter of controversy. Hence, the Apostle was able to plant himself on this well-attested theme of Apostolic preaching, and controvert opposers on the ground that their assertions would, by implication, go to undermine the foundations on which both stood, and with it overthrow the whole scheme of salvation by Christ. That these people were Sadducees, is altogether improbable, since this class, by reason of their peculiar views, altogether ignored the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 4:2), and kept far aloof from Christianity. Besides, had they been contemplated, the mode of argument pursued would have been far different. From what is said in 1 Corinthians 15:32, we might suppose them to have been Epicureans; but these persons whose anti-christian tenets would have required a still more definite refutation, remained at as great a remove from Christianity as did the Sadducees; and what is read in 1 Corinthians 15:32, is no more than a practical deduction of the Apostle from the premises assumed, and it naturally follows upon his description of a practical Epicureanism (Isaiah 22:13). So, too, we can hardly look to find in Corinth Jewish Christians of a theosophic class, who denied the doctrine of a re-incorporation of the soul on the grounds of a false spiritualism. “The Essenes certainly may have accepted the doctrine of a personal existence after death, in a form not involving the doctrine of the resurrection; but there is nothing else here which points to the elements of their faith.” Neander. It is more natural to suppose that these opponents were heathen converts of a certain philosophic training, who sought to impose, or taught doctrines that were very seductive to the Corinthians, predisposed as they already were to them. Such would regard, with abhorrence, the idea of a restoration of their material part, and hence for such, an argument like that in 1 Corinthians 15:35 ff. was entirely suitable. Among the philosophically educated of all ages we discover a disinclination for this doctrine; and in this question, to seek out a reference to the several parties that existed in the Christian Church, would be uncertain business. In any case, these opposers could not have belonged to the party of Cephas, or of Paul; and they could be reckoned in the Christ party, only on the doubtful supposition that this was characterized by a theosophic spiritualism. And if we assigned them to the party of Apollos, they could only have been certain individuals of this party who denied the doctrine in question by reason of their philosophical peculiarities, and not the party as a whole. It was, in fact, no party question. Besides, there is no warrant for supposing that, like the false teachers mentioned in 2 Timothy 2:18, they regarded the resurrection as past already. Moreover, we are not to infer from 1 Corinthians 15:19 that, together with the resurrection of the body, they also denied the immortality of the soul. Bather we are to infer from this verse only this, that in the Apostle’s view the immortality of the soul was inconceivable without assuming the possibility of a re-incorporation or of a restoration and glorification of the bodily life, that the continued existence of the simple personality (Ichheit) was no true life. 1 Corinthians 15:13; 1 Corinthians 15:16, That the preaching of Christ’s resurrection was inconsistent with a denial of the resurrection of the dead, the Apostle proceeds to show by a chain of conclusions and consequences connected by δέ—But—[“the but argumentandi frequent in mathematical demonstrations.” Alford.]—if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ is risen:—[First consequence—a palpable absurdity, not only in view of what a being Christ was, but also in view of all the testimony offered to the contrary.] He here argues from the general to the special, since the denial of the former naturally involved that of the latter, it being included under it. ‘If there is no such thing at all as the resurrection from the dead, then must this hold good also of Christ. He also has not risen from the dead.’ The identity of Christ’s nature with that of mankind at large—a fact which underlies this whole argument—is not suspended or dissolved by His Divine Sonship and His sinlessness. For, in that He emptied Himself of His former glory, He became a veritable actual man (σάρξ); and if He died, though sinless, then can the restoration of His body not be affirmed, if such a restoration is impossible for men in general who are dead. Of Christ as the first-fruits (1 Corinthians 15:20) nothing is as yet said, so that an argument can be drawn of this sort: ‘If the effect is done away, then also must the cause go with it.’ The statement, “then is Christ not risen,” is not put forth here as a premise (Osiander); but with the exhibition of the impossible conclusion here set forth his whole series of inferences, as it were, celebrates its first triumph. What consequences must arise if Christ be not risen, if he still remains in the grave, he now goes on to show.—And if Christ has not arisen, vain then is our preaching,—[A second consequence—the absurdity of holding that the Gospel with all its provisions and promises, with all it had done, and yet proposed to effect, was a delusion]. κενὀν, which stands first by way of emphasis, means here groundless, untrue, without reality, not ‘fruitless’—a thought which first appears in 1 Corinthians 15:17. Still less are we to take the two meanings as here combined. The thought is this: since the redemption in Christ is the grand theme of gospel preaching, and has the resurrection of Christ as its essential foundation, therefore, all preaching without this mast be empty, groundless, unreal, ἄρα, then, brings the inference yet more prominently to view. If the καί is genuine, then the meaning is, if the former be not true, then the latter is not true also.’—The same inference holds good also of the subjective reception of the preaching.—vain also is your faith.—The two refer back to what is said in 1 Corinthians 15:11; although the preaching must here be taken in a more comprehensive sense.—ὑμῶν, your is undoubtedly the correct reading; not ἡμῶν our.—To the former clause there is added a third inference, which sets the preachers in a very bad light.—And we are found also false witnesses of God;—From the fact that this again is to be inferred from the supposition that Christ is not risen, it does not follow that this clause belongs in with the previous apodosis, and that simply a comma is to be put after ὑμῶν (Lachmann and Meyer), [or after ‘faith,’ as in our version]. Such punctuation and construction is also inconsistent with the δὲκαὶ; [besides, as Alford says, 1 Corinthians 15:15 does not depend on the condition expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:14, “if Christ be not risen,” but has its reason given below.]—εὐρισκόμεθα is put first for emphasis, and means we are found, or proven, as before a tribunal of investigation.—ψευδομάρτυρεςτοῦθεοῦ, either false witnesses concerning God (gen. obj.,) or false witnesses belonging to God (gen. subj.), i.e., who pretend to be witnesses and are not. The former interpretation is sustained by the following explanatory clause.—[“Observe, false witnesses, not mistaken witnesses. Paul allows no loophole of escape. The resurrection is a fact, or else a falsehood; and it is such persons as Peter, and John, and James, and himself, that are guilty of perpetrating it—a monstrous supposition, when we think of the men, and the truthful ring of their earnest declarations, and the seal they put to them.” Robertson.]—because we testified against God that he raised up Christ:—If a person says of God that He has done something which He has not done, and yet could have done, then is he a false witness in relation to Him, and the false testimony given is a testimony against Him (κατά as in Matthew 26:59-62 not equivalent to περί, in respect of [Alford], nor yet as summoning God for a witness like ὸμόσαικατά Hebrews 6:13). For, knowingly to ascribe to God anything untrue, is a wicked and hostile crime against Him; and this would be a veritable lie, since they had announced something as an act of God actually witnessed by them, which yet never did take place, and indeed was impossible,—whom he did not raise, if in reality (as they assert)—such is the force of εί́περ, the strengthened εἰ; and ἅρα which means accordingly.—the dead are not raised.—The last statement is confirmed in 1 Corinthians 15:16, which is almost a literal repetition of 1 Corinthians 15:13, and is introduced for the sake of precision. [“But why is this? Why may not a man admit that Christ, the incarnate Son of God, arose from the dead, and yet consistently deny that there is to be a general resurrection of the dead? Because the thing denied was that the dead could rise. The denial was placed on ground which embraced the case of Christ.” Hodge]. 1 Corinthians 15:17-19. Here follows a new series of inferences exhibiting the sad result of the doctrine of his opponents upon the salvation of Christians themselves. As before he expressed the groundlessness, and hence the falsity of the faith, on the supposition of these deniers, by the word κενή, empty, idle; so now he expresses its fruitlessness by the word ματαία.—And if Christ is not risen, vain is your faith;—Vain i.e., without any beneficial results (comp. 1 Corinthians 3:20; Titus 3:9; James 1:26), as is clear from the clause which follows.—ye are yet in your sins.—Here we see that his reference is mainly to the matter of justification, which is primarily a remission of sins. All this is frustrated by the denial in question, since, as Paul asserts (Romans 4:25), Christ was raised for our justification. If Christ was still detained in the power of death, then could no pardon be pledged by Him; He could not act the part of Redeemer and Reconciler, but like all other sinners, would appear to have fallen under the doom of sin. Thus that expressed in 11. 1 Corinthians 2 : “Ye are justified in the name of the Lord, and by the Spirit of our God,” is all done away. The ethical side of Christianity, viz., sanctification and liberation from the dominion of sin, does not lie in the context.—The frightful consequences are shown to extend yet farther, affecting not only the living, but also the departed.—Then they also who have fallen asleep in Christ,—i.e., who have died in communion with Him, being united to Him by faith (comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:6; Rev. 4:13). By these he means, not the ancient saints who lived before the time of Christ, but deceased Christians, and these, too, not simply the martyrs (ἐν=διά), but believers in general.—perished.—Perdition, according to the Scripture, is not annihilation, but the state of damnation, remaining in Gehenna; and this is here brought forward as a consequence of being yet in sin. If Christ did not rise for our justification, then those whose death seemed but a blessed sleep to a happy awaking in fellowship with their living and glorified Redeemer, so far from having been received into eternal life, were doomed still to abide under the wretched dominion of death. A consequence like this must have made too profound an impression upon the loving disposition of Christians to be lightly allowed. Whatever doctrine constrained them to regard their beloved associates in the faith as lost, must needs appear to them as in itself highly questionable. [“Here,” says Stanley, “we find the climax of the whole argument. As may be seen from 1 Thessalonians 4:13, one of the most harrowing thoughts to the apostolic Christians was the fear lest their departed brethren should, by a premature death, be debarred from that communion with the Lord which they hoped to enjoy; and in itself nothing could be more disheartening to the Christian’s hope, than to find that Christians had lived and died in vain”]. The method of proof here adopted, though indeed not carrying the force of a mathematical demonstration for unbelievers, is nevertheless fitted to strengthen the hearts of the faithful against the doubts of unbelief. It concludes with an impressive reference to the sad state of those Christians whose hope of eternal life, pledged through the resurrection of Christ, was thus cut off. This touching assertion is introduced without any verbal connective. Comp. 1 Corinthians 7:24 ff—If only in this life we have been hoping in Christ,—And here we must, first of all, take into consideration the correct order of the words. The received text puts ἐνχριστῶ after ἐσμέν. In this arrangement, which is feebly attested, we might be tempted to unite the μόνον with χριστῶ ?̣ ? as if equivalent to ε̇νμόνω̣τῶ ?̣χριστῶ ?̣ ?, q. d., ‘in Christ alone,’ which would be the better expression (Rόckert). But in order to obtain a correct relation of the apodosis to the protasis, we must supply that on which it is properly conditioned, viz., ‘and Christ is not risen.’ But if ἐνχριστῶ ?̣ ? is to be put after ταὑτη, which is the more critically authorized order, then might we dispense with this otherwise not probable explanation. But then the question arises, to what does μόνον, only, belong? Is it to the words: “if we have hope,” so that it serves to express simply a hoping which remains unfulfilled, q. d., ‘if we have hope only?’ or to the words: “in this life,” putting it in contrast with eternal life; q. d., ‘if we have hope in this life only [Hodge]? Or, finally, does it belong to the whole clause; q.d., ‘if we have no more than put our hope on Christ in this life, and do not hope in Him even after having gone to our rest;’ or, as Meyer says, “if the hope of future glory which the Christian grounds upon Christ in his earthly life perishes with this life, inasmuch as death but transfers him to a state where the Christian hope proves but a deception” [Alford, Stanly]? The last interpretation deserves the decided preference. According to the first, it is not easy to perceive why the words: ἐντῆ ?̣ζωῆ ?̣ταύτη̣ ?, “in this life,” are put first. Indeed, they appear to be altogether unnecessary. The second is opposed by the position of μόνον, only. The expression ἐλπίζεινἐν appears also in Ephesians 1:12, (spes reposita in Christo), and is analogous to πιστεύεινἐν. The use of ζωή to denote the present period of existence as distinct from a state of existence, occurs only here and in Luke 16:25. Very short and impressive is the conclusion.—more miserable than all men are we.—i.e., all men, aside from us Christians that still live. In this statement, the Apostle by no means stoops to the level of a common eudemonism, [arguing here from a main reference to happiness as the ultimate end of life]; but his meaning is this: ‘Christians who live as strangers in this world, denying themselves in every way, and bearing life’s heavy load, and enduring all manner of sufferings, and this in the hope of an eternal reward in the kingdom of heaven, are, in case their hope is a vain dream destined to vanish with this life, more miserable than all those who take enjoyment in earthly things: for these things have some sort of reality; while, on the contrary, the salvation for which Christians forego all, and fight, is but a delusion. (Comp. Osiander). [If by ἐλεεινότεροι we understand a positive wretchedness, this declaration must be limited as applicable only to Christians as they were in the times of the apostles—exposed to all manner of privations and sufferings; for it can hardly be affirmed as true of Christians in general, that their faith makes their temporal condition more miserable than that of men of the world. Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, as well as of that which is to come. This is a part of its glory—a glory which is not all eclipsed even amid the greatest tribulations; for martyrs rejoice and triumph even amid tortures and flames, “not accepting deliverance.” The inward happiness they experience is something which no mere outward circumstances, however painful, can wholly overcome. Would it not, therefore, be more appropriate to abide by the original signification of ἐλεεινός, pitiable, and understand it as referring to the delusion under which Christians would live, and the great disappointment they were destined to experience; in case, having given up all for Christ, and exulted in hope of living and reigning with Him after death, they should find at last that He had not risen, and there was no resurrection for them. Taken in this sense the declaration would admit of universal application. Some commentators, like the translators of the E. V., instead of construing the adjective in the comparative as governing the genitive πάντωνἀνθρώπων, suppose a Hebrew idiom here, and take the genitive partitively, and construe the adjective as though superlative—‘of all men most miserable’ (Jelf. Gr. Gram. § 534)]. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22. In contrast with the whole deplorable results which would follow on the supposition involved in the denial of his opponents, Paul now triumphantly sets before them the irrefragable fact of the resurrection as established by the testimony previously adduced (1 Corinthians 15:4 ff.) and also the significance which it has for the faith and hope of Christians—a significance which is itself a refutation of all skepticism. As Neander says: “He passes on to unfold the chain of consequences arising from the resurrection of Christ, and to exhibit it as the beginning of a new creation which is to find its consummation in the life to come. Nor does the rapture of the apostle, borne on as he is by the contemplation of the glorious theme, allow him to stop at the point where the argument first conducts him; but he follows out the truth onward to its final ground and goal.”—But now,—νυνὶδέ, logical as in 1 Corinthians 13:13; 1 Corinthians 14:6; and elsewhere. It suggests the subaudition: ‘If Christ has not risen then does it go ill with us.’ But now, as the matter stands, the case is far otherwise; these sad consequences cannot be admitted; our faith is not vain;—Christ is risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that have slept.—Instead of confronting gainsayers with a negative assertion, he strongly lays down a positive, which involves the denial of all the evil consequences above pointed out. Not only is Christ risen, but, as the risen One, He is the beginning of a whole line of those who are destined to arise out of death’s sleep to life eternal—the first fruits, as it were, of a resurrection harvest. The expression: “first fruits” stands in apposition with the previous clause, and contains the theme of the whole subsequent exposition. Ἀπαρχή as in 1 Corinthians 16:15; Romans 8:23; Romans 11:16; Romans 16:5. The same thought is expressed in Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5, by the words, “first born of the dead,” or, “from the dead” (comp. Acts 26:23).—That the primacy of time includes also a primacy of worth, and a causal relation to all that follows, is clear from the position which Christ holds as the Head of humanity, as well as from what is asserted in 1 Corinthians 15:21 f. But whether there is such a reference here to the waving of the first sheaf on the day after Easter Sabbath by way of consecrating the harvest (Lev. 32:10), is a matter of question. In favor of it there is: 1. The typico-symbolical interpretation which the apostle elsewhere employs (1 Corinthians 10:3 ff.; 1 Corinthians 9:8 ff.); 2. That Christ rose on that very day; 3. The composition of this epistle about the time of Easter (comp. 1 Corinthians 5:8). In this case the statement would involve the idea of a consecration and pledge of the coming harvest. [“The apostle does not mean merely that the resurrection of Christ was to precede that of His people: but, as the first sheaf of the harvest presented to God as a thank-offering, was the pledge and assurance of the ingathering of the whole harvest; so the resurrection of Christ is a pledge and proof of the resurrection of His people.” Hodge.] Neither the resurrections from the dead recorded in the Old and New Testaments, nor yet the instances of Enoch and Elijah are in contradiction with what is here said of Christ as the first fruits. In the case of the former, there was no arising to an immortal life; in the case of the latter, there was no dying, so that a resurrection could occur.—But whom are we to understand by “them that have slept?” believers, or the dead in general? The latter seem to be implied from what is said in 1 Corinthians 15:21; but that the former are meant is evident both from the expression “first fruits,” and also from the designation “sleep,” which is used in the New Testament to denote the death of believers only. The question must be decided by the interpretation we put on the following verses, [where we find the explanation of what is here asserted], in a parallel drawn between Adam and Christ,—first, in the form of a general proposition stating a rule of the divine administration, that what has been taken away from us by man shall be restored to us also by man.—For since—ἐπειδή, a particle of cause, not of time (as in 1 Corinthians 1:21; Acts 13:46); so that here we have a fundamental principle stated, apart from all relations to time, requiring in the following ellipsis only the supply of the ordinary copula.—through man (is) death, also through man (is) the resurrection of the dead.—The antithesis shows that by “death” is here meant only the death of the body. [The underlying truth here is that community of nature is requisite for the transmission of powerful and all-pervading influences. Like can best act on like. The nature of the causal connection is, however, not stated. Meyer thinks that a knowledge of this is presupposed in the readers, as having been imparted to them by oral instructions of which they are here reminded].—The general fact grounded on the organic union of the race, on the one hand, with the head of its natural development, who introduced death into it, and, on the other, with the head of its spiritual development who brought about the destruction of death, he proceeds to exhibit more fully by referring to the actual fulfilment of this law as it took place in the former instance, and as it is to be anticipated in the latter. And here we have the formulas of the comparison,—As-so—The headship in the one case is Adam, in the other is Christ.—in the Adam—Instead of διά we here have ἐν in, denoting that each of these processes of development has its ground, or source, in its peculiar head. Accordingly, “in the Adam” means ‘as partakers of his nature which is doomed to death as united with him.’ The nature of this union as expressed by διά, through, and its consequences are more fully exhibited in Romans 5:12; Romans 5:15; Romans 5:17, “Through one man death passed upon all men.” all are dying,—[In what sense? Hodge extends the meaning of the word so as to include moral death. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B. Refutation of the impugners of the resurrection of the dead (2) from the inconceivableness of certain facts, except on its supposition1 Corinthians 15:29-3429 Else what shall they do which are baptized [have themselves baptized, οἱβαπτίζόμενοι] for the dead, if the dead rise not [are not raised, οὐχἐγείρονται] at all? why are they then baptized [do they have themselves baptized, βαπτιζονται] for the dead? 30[om. the dead. ins. them, αὐτῶν]? And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 31I protest by your rejoicing [by the boasting which I have concerning you,2 brethren, νὴτὴνὑμετέρανκαύχησιν, ἀδειλφοί] which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32If after the manner of men [with the views of common men, κατὰἄνθρωπον] I have [om. have] fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let [me? If the dead rise not, let] us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die. 33Be not deceived: evil communications [associations, ὁμιλίαι] corrupt good manners 34[useful habits, ἤθηχρηστὰ ?] Awake to righteousness [awake at once, as it is right, ἐκνἡφατεδικαίως], and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. AND 1 Corinthians 15:29.—Else what shall they do, —The connection here with what precedes involves some difficulties. [As Stanley remarks: “it is one of the most abrupt to be found in St. Paul’s Epistles. He leaves the new topic just at the moment when he has pursued it, as it were, to the remotest point, and goes back to the general argument as suddenly as if nothing had intervened. The two instances most similar are 1 Corinthians 5:9, 1 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 2:8; 2 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 7:1. Here, as there, the confusion may possibly have arisen from some actual interruption in the writing or the material, of the letter; the main argument proceeding continuously from 1 Corinthians 15:20 to 1 Corinthians 15:29, and the whole intervening passage being analogous to what in modern composition would be called a note”]. Inasmuch as ἑπεί, since, ordinarily indicates a connection with what immediately precedes, Meyer insists upon our interpreting it so here, q. d., ‘for if there is nothing in this development of human history onward to the end, when God shall be all in all, then what shall they do, etc’ Such a construction can be maintained only in so far as we regard the resurrection as the chief event in this final consummation. Neander, on the contrary, says: “We must suppose a digression to begin at 1 Corinthians 15:22, since, at that point, there opened upon the Apostle’s view a prospect of the whole process of the world’s development proceeding from the redemption of Christ. He started with the idea of the necessary connection which the resurrection to eternal life has with Christianity; and with this he now proceeds.” [The ellipsis hero may be thus supplied: ‘The dead are certainly to be raised, else what shall they do, etc.’ (Hodge); or, inserting it after “else,” ‘if it be as the adversaries suppose, what, etc.’ (Alford)].—The question here suggests the utter uselessness of the practice ho is about to adduce in confirmation of his position. “Every baptism that you perform in behalf of the dead, would be without meaning, if those who deny the resurrection were in the right. He indicates the subjective absurdity of the proceeding in this case.” Meyer.—who are baptized for the dead,—How are we to understand these words? The simplest explanation of the act here spoken of is, the suffering of one’s self to be baptized for the benefit of deceased persons, or in their stead, so as to redound to their advantage, i. e., that the salvation mediated by baptism, might fall to their lot, so that those who themselves died unbaptized, might pass for baptized, and thus have part in the resurrection and in the kingdom of Christ. A custom of this sort is discoverable in subsequent times; yet, however, only among heretical sects, such as the Cerinthians and the Marcionites (comp. Epiph. haer. 28, 3; Tertull. de resurr. 48; adv. Marc. 5, 10; Christ, i.h. 1.). The article before νεκῤῶν, dead, points to definite cases (‘for the dead’ in question). “We might imagine that many, having come to the exercise of faith, resolved to receive baptism, but died ere the rite could be performed. This was so much the more likely to have been the case, inasmuch as according to 1 Corinthians 11:30, there was an epidemic prevalent. If, then, a relative had suffered himself to be baptized in the conviction that he was only doing what the deceased would have done had he survived, the proceeding would not have been quite so superstitious.” Neander. But it is probable that this custom could have sprung up so early, and could have been mentioned by the Apostle without disapproval, when it was so inconsistent with his fundamental views of faith and of its efficiency for the attainment of salvation?—The latter, indeed, is perhaps supposable, since he has here primarily to do only with the testimony which might be adduced from an actual occurrence; respecting the relation of which, however, to the truth, there was no need of his explaining himself. Bisping considers the use of the third person (“what shall they do”) as an indirect intimation of disapproval. [And so. Alford: “There is in these words a tacit reprehension of the practice which it is hardly possible altogether to miss. Both by the third person and by the article before βαπτ. he indirectly separates himself and those to whom he is writing from participation in, or approval of the practice.” He translates βαπτιζόμενοι ‘those who are in the habit of being baptized,’ not οἱβαπτίσθεντες. The distinction, he says, is important as affecting the interpretation]. Indeed, that Paul, as well as the other apostles, exercised a counteracting influence upon this custom, may be inferred from the fact that it afterwards vanished out of the orthodox church, and was perpetuated only among heretics. It is by no means improbable, that the high estimation of baptism, at so early a period, had acquired a superstitious taint. Since the deeply-rooted heathenish notion of the magical influence of sacred rites might easily have been preserved, or at least, have re-appeared, among those of whom the Apostle asserts that they were yet carnal, and who took so low a position in their estimate of spiritual gifts. This view is to be maintained all the more decidedly from the circumstance that all other views are, in part, opposed to the ordinary use of terms, and in part, improbable, and arbitrary on other grounds. But what we have adduced cannot well be questioned.—Proceeding from the signification of ὑπέρ here pre-supposed, viz: in behalf of, Olshausen could have interpretated it to imply that it was done for the benefit of the dead, in so far as a definite number (pleroma) must needs be baptized ere the second adventand resurrection could ensue; but this view appears in itself questionable, since there is nothing in the context intimating it, and it inclines to another signification of words, viz: ‘instead of the dead,’ i.e., to fill up the gap made by these deceased. But this interpretation would be devoide of significance, and also, in respect to the use of language, very doubtful. Luther’s translation, “over the dead,” i.e., over their graves, is opposed: 1. by the N. T. use of language which no where takes ὑπέρ with the genitive in a local sense; 2. by a lack of all historical trace of any such burial ceremony in apostolic times. Still less admissible is the explanation that applies it to the baptism of the Clinici, those upon the bed of death, jamjam morituri (Estius), or, quum mortem ante oculos positam hebeant (Bengel); since the words could not mean this, and besides we hear nothing of the baptism of the Clinici at this time. Equally untenable is the reference of the words “in behalf of the dead” to Christ (the plural here being taken in a general sense to designate the category [as Wordsworth,]; since water baptism would require the preposition etc, and to the blood-baptism no allusion whatever can be found in the context, and the word is never used in this sense by Paul. Besser interprets still differently: “Not a few heathen [convinced by the sight of a believer’s triumph over death] would allow themselves to be baptized for the sake of those deceased ones whom they had seen to depart in peace and joy—and before the dying beds and graves over which there seemed to flourish an unfading hope; in order to pass from death into life in company with those who slept in Christ.” Here ὑπέρ is taken in the sense of, on account of, because of, [not, to their advantage, but, out of admiration, or love for them], as in Romans 15:9. “That the Gentiles might glorify God for (ὑπέρ) his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles and sing unto thy name.”[The most favorite interpretation for the last half century is that of Lightfoot and Rosenmόller, adopted by Robinson in his Lexicon, which takes βαπτιζόμενοι in the sense of ‘being immersed in sufferings,’ as parallel to ‘being in jeopardy,’ in the next clause. Referring to Mark 10:33; Mark 10:39, and Luke 12:50, it takes ὑπέρ in the sense of ἕνεκα, and τῶννεκρῶν for death. The complete meaning of the words then would be, ‘those who have been overwhelmed with calamities, trials and sufferings, in the hope of the resurrection or with the expectation that the dead would rise.’ But the objections to this view are that the words are here taken in an unusual and unnatural sense, to which we are not to resort, unless compelled by some most evident reason; and also, the ellipsis implied is much too harsh to be admitted. Bloomfield and Barnes follow the interpretation of Chrys., and the early Greek Fathers, supported by Hammond! and Wetstein, which takes the baptism here alluded to as that which is applied to all believers, who, in receiving the rite, witness to their faith in the resurrection of the dead. Here an ellipsis of the word “resurrection” is presupposed. The great objection to this view is, that in this case the persons alluded to, instead of being, as they obviously are, a distinct class in the church, are the whole body of believers, leaving us nothing special here as the ground of the Apostle’s appeal]. The latest attempt now only remains to be mentioned (Theol. Stud, und Krit. 1860. 1. S. 135 ff.) There we have the interpretation, “why should a person suffer himself to be baptized on account of the dead,” i.e., to belong to! them, to come to them, so as to form a kingdom of the dead? However easy and simple this may I appear, yet such an interpretation of the phrase βαπτ. ὑπέρτῶννεκρῶν is an artificial one, and not sufficiently well grounded. Properly it should read, ‘who are baptized on account of the resurrection and in the hope of the same; because death, or coming into the kingdom of the dead, was the only thing to be anticipated without any further hope for this life. Something similar to this appears in Chrys., Theod. and others. Other interpretations may as well be passed over. [For a full list of these, see Pool’s synopsis and also Notes by Stanley and Barnes on this text].—The correct parallelism requires that the next clause, which in the Rec. is connected with that just considered, should be joined with what follows.—if the dead rise not at all?—ὀλως as in v. 1.—why are they even yet baptized for them?—καί intensive, still, even yet. The meaning is, [if we adopt the explanation first maintained above,] in this case nothing at all could be accomplished for the dead: it is therefore, perfectly useless any longer to submit to baptism in their behalf.’ 1 Corinthians 15:30-34. As a second argument in his apogogical demonstration he refers to the perilous self-devotion and the hazards of martyr-death which were incurred by himself and his associates. The utter uselessness and folly of such conduct, in case the dead rose not, are indicated in the form of a question.—And why also do we stand in jeopardy every hour?—[With baptizing for the dead, he had nothing to do. But he, no less than those before mentioned, were pursuing a most absurd and irrational course, if they could count upon no compensation for the pains of their self-denial in a resurrection state. Here, it will be observed, all the way through, that, in the Apostle’s mind, future existence, apart from the resurrection, was as nothing. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul seems with him to have been identified with that of the restoration of the body. What he looked for was the glorification of his entire constitution, body, soul, and! spirit; and to be bereft of any part, was with him a marring of the whole. He “would not be unclothed, but clothed upon,” with a nobler vesture than that he had here. His reasoning is of force only on this supposition]. Dropping his associates he now passes over to himself individually.—Daily do I die.—As he before speaks of himself and his associates being in hourly jeopardy, so here he expresses the continuance of his own still worse condition, by exhibiting it as a daily death. And this dying may be explained, either of the extreme danger he was ever in, being so much greater than that just spoken of, q.d., ‘I daily hover on the brink of death’ (comp. Romans 8:36; 2 Corinthians 4:10; 2 Corinthians 1:10); or, it may be construed subjectively of his sense of dying (Osiander, according to Luther). Meyer explains it: “I go about dying; I am moribund,’—a vividly symbolic designation of the fatal dangers by which Paul saw himself to be daily threatened.” This explanation also slides over into the subjective, which is supported by the parallels adduced by Wetstein on this passage. This suits well with the adjuration following—(I protest) by your rejoicing,—This is the only place in the New Testament where νή occurs; but we meet with, it frequently in the LXX. It belongs to the Attic style, [and occurs in the celebrated oath of Demosthenes, where he swore by the shades of those who had met death in the field of Marathon, exhorting the Athenians to defend the Republic (Calvin)]. It is here used for strengthening the previous assertion [—“an oath by which he wished to arouse the Corinthians to be more attentive in listening to him as to the matter in hand, q. d. ‘brethren, I am not some philosopher, prattling in the shade. As I expose myself every day to death, it is necessary that I should think in good earnest of the heavenly life. Believe, therefore, a man who is thoroughly experienced.’ ” Calvin. And, in explaining the nature of the oath, Theophylact acutely observes, that, in, swearing by his boast over them, “he meant to remind them that he expects them to maintain with constancy this their faith; q. d. ‘If I boast on account of your improvement, so shall I be ashamed, if, at last, ye so wretchedly act as to disbelieve the resurrection,’ ” (cited by Bloomfield)].—That by which he protests, is the boasting which he had over the Corinthians; for we are here to take ὑμέτεραν, your, as standing in place of the genitive of the object, ὐμῶν, as in Romans 11:31; τὸκαύχημαἡμῶντὸὑπὲρὑμῶν, 2 Corinthians 9:3. In reference to this boasting, comp. 2 Corinthians 3:1; 2 Corinthians 10:15. There is something very touching in this declaration, which is still further enhanced by the affectionate address.—brethren,—[On this see Critical Notes]. This boasting over the Corinthians, over their subjection to the faith, and his great success in establishing a church so renowned and gifted, he says, he holds—in Christ Jesus our Lord.—i.e., in virtue of his fellowship with Christ, as a servant, who had accomplished great things by His power. The meaning then is, ‘as truly as I can boast of you, in Jesus Christ our Lord, do I daily tremble amid the dangers of death.’ Meyer Ed. 3, laying particular emphasis on “you,” explains it somewhat differently: “So truly as ye, yourselves, are the object of my boasting.” “The Corinthians, whose conversion was an apostolic triumph for Him, could themselves bear witness what fatal dangers beset him in his apostolic work” (?). From the general he now passes over into the special.—If after the manner of men—Here is where the emphasis in this clause lies. The meaning is not, ‘if, according to man’s ability, with the exercise of the utmost strength’ (Rόckert); since neither the contrast points to this, nor is the phrase ordinarily used in this sense. Nor yet does it mean ‘to speak after the manner of men,’ for there is no λέγω or λαλῶ connected with it; [nor yet, ‘as far as man was concerned.’ (Wordsworth)]. But it means, ‘according to the ways of common men,’ ‘according to those interests and views by which men are governed,’—aiming, for example, at reward, or glory, and the like; or, as Neander: “with a merely human hope, and without any expectation of eternal life.”—I fought with beasts at Ephesus,—Respecting the allusion here, expositors are divided. Some take the words literally, and understand by them that the apostle, when at Ephesus, had been actually condemned to fight with beasts in the amphitheatre, from which contest he had been marvelously rescued; others, construe metaphorically, understanding the apostle to speak of a conflict with violent and dangerous men, or with strong and embittered foes. Expressions implying the latter are found in Appian (οί́οιςθηρίοιςμαχόμεθα), and in Ignatius Ad. Romans 5. (comp. 2 Timothy 4:17; Titus 1:12; Matthew 7:6). The former interpretation is rendered improbable, not only because of the rights of Roman citizenship, which Paul enjoyed, which precluded such punishment, and to which he would have appealed, in case he had been condemned to it; but also from the fact that no mention of any such extraordinary occurrence is made in the Acts, nor in 2 Corinthians 11:23 ff.—But in adopting the metaphorical explanation, we are not to suppose the allusion here to be to the uproar excited by Demetrius (Acts 19), which did not occur until after this epistle was written, and in which Paul incurred no personal danger; nor yet, perhaps, to any one particular circumstance, but rather to his whole conflict with his Jewish opponents. (Comp. Acts 20:19.) [The arguments for its being taken literally are thus set forth by Stanley, who, however, regards the metaphorical interpretation as the more likely.” 1. The metaphor would be more violent here than in Ignatius, where it is evidently drawn from the actual prospect of the wild beasts in the amphitheatre; 2. The Asiarchs, who are mentioned Acts 19:31 of Acts, as restraining the tumult of Demetrius, appear in Polycarp’s Martyrdom to have had the charge of the wild beasts; 3. Although there are no remains of an amphitheatre at Ephesus, yet traces of a stadium are to be seen; and in the case of Polycarp, wild beasts were used in the stadium at Smyrna; 4. the young men at Ephesus were famous for their bull-fights. Artimedor. 1 Corinthians 1:9 (Wetstein); 5. that ἐνΣφέσω̣ ? seems a forced expression, if the allusion is merely to opponents generally. Whatever be the danger, it must be the same of which he speaks in Romans 16:4; 2 Corinthians 1:8; Acts 20:19.”] what advantageth it me,—a strong way of putting the negative. His conflict was an aimless, useless hazarding of life.—if the dead rise not?—This clause is not to be connected with what precedes [as in the E. V.], as though designed to explain the words “after the manner of men;” or as forming a second condition to the question just put—although according to the sense, it belongs with it; but, because of the concinnity of the clauses, it must be connected with what follows, where it gives a frivolous turn to the question, “What advantageth it me?” in the spirit of a light hearted unbelief, in order to exhibit in its proper light, how unsuitable, even in a moral aspect, that supposition was, and how it involved the most absurd consequences.—let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.—These words are taken literally from Isaiah 22:13, where they occur as the utterance of a God-forgetting light-mindedness. The meaning is ‘He who denies the resurrection of the dead, by thus robbing himself of all the consolations of faith and hope, comes by natural consequence to surrender himself to the constant enjoyment of the present life, since death was soon coming to put an end to all enjoyment. We are not, however, to infer from this that the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection had actually preached such doctrine. All Paul intends is to let them see the consequences of their own position; and he here intimates that this denial was not altogether unconnected with the cultivation of too great intimacy with the profligate society around them. Similar expressions of Epicurean frivolity occur in Isaiah 56:12; Wis 2:1 ff, and in the classics; (Comp. Wetstein 1. h. 1.) The words “rise not,” and “die,” do not necessarily involve annihilation. Even existence in Hades, without the hope of resurrection, was a joyless state. That the frivolous tendency indicated in the foregoing words actually existed among the Corinthian deniers of the resurrection is clear from the warning which follows; for in the “evil communications” he speaks of, he no doubt has these persons in mind, and by reference to a verse of the comedian Menander, expressive of a general truth which perhaps had also taken the form of a proverb among them, he admonishes his readers that they had reason to guard against the influences of such people.—Be not deceived:—The caution implies a strong temptation [inherent in human nature and its social tendencies, by which many are insensibly beguiled into the formation of views and habits from which they would at first have strongly recoiled],—Evil communications corrupt good manners.—’Ομιλία means association, intercourse, and conversation which arises from it; the plural form is found in the New Testament only here. Ηθος, a mode of action, character, disposition, moral quality. Χρηστός elsewhere in the New Testament means kind, mild, good, suitable, etc., here being contrasted with κακαί it implies moral goodness (Plato: χρηστότης=ῆθουςσπονδαιότης). Lachmann gives the reading χρήσθ’. So it reads in the original of Menander ; but it is a question whether the apostle observed the metre. The authorities are not sufficient to decide. [“The quotation shows the apostle’s acquaintance with heathen literature, and to a certain extent his sanction of it, as in his quotation from Aratus in Acts 17:28, and Epimedes in Titus 1:12. Menander was famous for the elegance with which he threw into the form of single verses or short sentences, the maxims of that practical wisdom in the affairs of common life which forms so important a feature in the new comedy. In the sentence cited, each word is emphatic; character (ἠ ?̓θη) may be undermined by talk (ὁμιλίαι): honesty (χρηστά) may be undermined by roguery (κακαί).” Stanley].—To those already contaminated by the treacherous influences of such frivolous men he now calls out abruptly—ἐκνήψατεδικαίως lit:—sober out rightly,—[“An exclamation full of apostolic majesty.” Bengel.] By this he gives them to understand that the susceptibility to such trifling communications lies in a state of spiritual drunkenness, out of which they ought at once to rouse themselves. The same expression is used of drunkards in Joe 1:5. [The aorist form adds force to the imperative, implying that the act must be done instantly.] Δικαίως means as it befits them, in the right way. By this he indicates, not so much the degree as the kind of sobriety he would have them cultivate—in contrast perhaps with the false sobriety of their new light which might appear to them as an emerging from the narrowness of their traditional notions into a state of luminous thought and feeling. Others explain the word of the direction which they were to take; or they refer it to the object to be pursued. So Calvin: ‘Turn your mind to good and holy things.’ But this transcends the simple meaning of the term. [Alford says, however, “The last meaning is well defended by Dr. Peil from Thuc. 1 Corinthians 1 Corinthians 1:21 : ἀπίστωςἐπὶτὸμυθῶδεςἐκνενικηότα,—where the adverb ἀπιστως must be rendered ‘so as to become incredible,’ and seems to be the best”]. and sin not;—The imperative is here in the present, and so implies the continued and perpetual abstaining from all sin. The words convey an exhortation, and not in inference, [as Bengel, who says that the imperative after an imperative has the force of a future (John 7:37. Note)], ‘so ye will not sin.’ Nor are we to understand by ‘sin,’ a mere error of the understanding (Bengel), (this may accord with the classical use of the word ἀμαρτάνειν, but not with its Biblical and Pauline use); but a turning aside from the ways of righteousness, moral error in consequence of unbelief and a denial of the resurrection. “In the apostle’s view, a frivolous mind appeared as something sinful.” Neander.—The reason for this admonition he further assigns by referring that treacherous unbelief which appeared to them as the result of profounder knowledge, to a lack of that true knowledge which is the ground of all other knowledge.—for some have ignorance of God.—As his previous admonition was directed to those in the church who were in danger of being ensnared by the talk of the frivolous deniers of the resur rection, so does this statement here point to the false teachers themselves, setting them in such light as to open the eyes of the others in regard to their true character and to bring them to see the vanity of this unbelief. Accordingly, by the word “some,” we are not to understand another portion of the church, but those mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:12, and of these, not simply a portion, but the whole. “The ignorance of God” which they manifested and which was nothing less than a practical alienation from God, is exhibited as an abiding trait by the use of the word “have,” i. e. they are permanently affected with it. They are thus represented as having settled down upon the platform of heathenism. The thought is essentially the same as in Matthew 22:29. “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” Not knowing God as the Living and Omnipotent One, is the reason why people assert the impossibility of the resurrection.—That such persons should be found in the church of God was a disgrace to the whole church. This he gives them to understand in the words annexed.—To your shame do I speak.—[“boldly—he speaks more severely than at the beginning on another subject.” 1 Corinthians 4:14. Bengel. There is no need of adding “this,” as the E. V., since the language here refers to what is said in the whole passage]. AND ETHICALThe power of the believer’s faith and hope. Faith in a living Saviour, who was dead and rose again, and now lives eternally to take His own into the fellowship of His eternal and perfect life,—and also the root of this faith, even the knowledge of the living God, who is exalted above all changes of life and death, and lifts His kindred creature man out from his transient, mortal state, into His own unchanging felicity, through the redemption of His incarnate Son,—awakens in the believer a lofty, cheerful courage, which shrinks from no danger, which readily exposes itself to the most painful and appalling conflicts, and which is willing to lead a dying life, yea even to lay down body and soul when the Master’s cause requires it. For what is temporal life, with all its joys and pleasures, with all its needs and struggles, in comparison with that eternal life, from whence all that is transient has vanished, and where all that is now upon us and in us worthy of preservation, is insured and perpetuated after having been purified, developed and matured for unspeakable blessedness and glory? Far different is it, where that faith and knowledge are wanting, and where a person is constrained to give up the hope of such blessedness. In such a case all sacrifices of whatever is transient, all hazards and self denials and conflicts, must appear useless and absurd. The sole reasonable course is to seize the passing moment, and enjoy to the full whatever this life may afford, and to use all means for obtaining, preserving and increasing such enjoyment.—Experience teaches, also, that that system of speculation which abandons the true Gospel foundation—a pantheistic gnosis, for example—however spiritual it may appear at the first, and even though asserting an ethical character, sinks at last gradually, if not suddenly, into downright materialism and carnal license. Its earlier aspects and attitude, both in its theoretical and practical bearings, must be ascribed to a previous knowledge, and regarded as the lingering result of the truth which has been essentially abandoned. We may also say, that the higher moral attitude maintained by any system which lacks the true faith and its attendant hope, is owing to a hidden faith and hope, still slumbering in the depths of the spirit, which, however, in consequence of the prevailing views can attain to no settled form in the thoughtful mind. But those who are of a frivolous nature, and who shamelessly proclaim their folly in word and deed, form a dangerous class for the unsteadfast to associate with. Against these it is needful to guard, since by them the fruit of a good education is often destroyed. And these influences are the more dangerous, in proportion as they carry the appearance of a high tone of spirituality, or fall in with the current of the time. In such a case we may well call to mind the language of the apostle where he speaks of Satan as “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” AND Luther: 1 Corinthians 15:34. “He who would recognize God, must learn to know Him through His Word. This they [the worldly-wise] don’t do; but they go directly at the articles of faith with their own understandings, and with their own thoughts, and so presume to judge of God, and of all things concerning Him. Hence they never hit Him.” Starke: 1 Corinthians 15:30. No pains, or labors, or watchings, or strivings, to serve God are lost. As surely as God is a righteous judge will there come a resurrection of the dead. 1 Corinthians 15:31. What is the daily spiritual dying of the faithful, and their constant familiarity with sufferings and persecutions other than a confirmation of the resurrection to a life eternal? 1 Corinthians 15:32. Hostile, dangerous men are worse than wild beasts. If thou hast to deal with such, sigh to God; be watchful, circumspect, and patient.—Unhappy man, who believest not in the resurrection of the dead! For such a one grows secure, falls from one sin to another, and slides on towards damnation. Hed.: 1 Corinthians 15:33. If we flee the plague and contagion, why not also evil companionship? Is temporal life more than the soul? Ordinarily, men guard against disease more than against sin. (2 Timothy 2:17).—There are words and speeches which, under cover of worldly respect and courtesy, conceal a dangerous poison to faith and life. Whoso is wise let him take heed. (James 3:8). 1 Corinthians 15:34. All who have the means for knowing God, and still are blind, are involved in disgrace. Oh! that they may not thereby be brought to shame and everlasting contempt! (Daniel 12:2). Berlenburger Bibel: 1 Corinthians 15:31. Dying means to hate one’s own life in true self denial, and to give it over to death and destruction, with everything which is in and upon man from the fall.—The fact itself is well substantiated, but what a great, deep, rich mystery of God is in it, that faith alone can see. This is already a kind of secret dying, when we dare not even reckon upon our own righteousness before God, but condemn it as a filthy rag. (Philippians 3:8-10). Accordingly, it is a sort of dying when we abandon ourselves in contradiction to, and beyond our own reason, solely to the unseen, and rest upon the simple promise of God, and that, too, after we have been accustomed to stand upon our own gifts and, works. And these secret crucifixions of nature, in its pride and self-willedness, and seeming sanctity, must take place daily, yea, momentarily, in the very best of Christians if they would not backslide. Yea, in all believers there is no surer safeguard against all kinds of pride which may arise easily in connection with much grace, than this daily dying to self, and one’s own life. But traces of this are manifest only in the children of light. Crude and unbroken spirits know as little of this as do hypocrites, who put their Christianity in much outward show. No one can occupy himself in this save he who is trained in conflict against the mysteries of iniquity hidden in himself.—He who does not of his own accord daily die unto the old man and his evil lusts, constrains God to lay hold on him with power and humble him; but he who willingly resolves to follow Christ, and confesses him honestly before men, will not long be exercised with tribulations.—In sum: Every thing with which man has to do, gives a believer cause and opportunity for mortifying his own life, and hastening to a complete separation from the false things of ‘this world. 1 Corinthians 15:32. The Christian’s life-walk, which consists in the constant renouncing of the works of darkness, in the mortification of the flesh and sin, in turning away from the godless; ways of this world, and in the denial of all lusts, desires, and vanities, is an earnest preparation! for the resurrection. Hence Christians prefer the Cross of Christ, and all the shame, and persecution, and contempt which may be heaped I upon them daily by the children of unbelief, to all the treasures, and honors, and enjoyments, and friendships of this present life. And this they could not certainly do, if they believed in no resurrection. The last refuge and comfort of the world is, to take what one can get.—But is there so much depending upon the resurrection? Could not the simple happiness of the soul after death recompense every thing? No. However much of enjoyment it may have, the soul must still always miss something, and through its natural inward longing, must ceaselessly urge God to bestow upon it again a suitable body. 1 Corinthians 15:33. There are many spirits who transform themselves into angels of light, and go about in sheep’s clothing, by whom many persons are befooled into dancing around some Aaron’s calf that has been set up. But if any one imagines that he is fully competent to take care of himself, such a person is altogether too confident, and will be certain not to escape unharmed.—Man has in himself enough which should humble him. But if he insists on spreading his feathers, alas! it is all over with him. The excuse: ‘I was young then, does not exonerate a person. 1 Corinthians 15:34. Ah! what charm is there not for throwing men into a deep sleep? Hence the necessity of holding fast, betimes, to what is fundamental. Wake at once out of such a fool’s sleep! Oh, how willingly does man linger in the haven of carnal security and indifference! From such places of case does He who walks in the midst of His Church summon all to come forth to earnest labor, and to advancement in their holy calling.—People deem it a disgrace if they are told, ‘they know not God,’ but it should only shame them into improvement.—There are two sorts of divine knowledge; the one is external, literal, dead, and unfruitful; the other is internal, spiritual, living, and fruitful. The former is grounded simply in natural knowledge, in learning, or speaking of God, as when one can use the language of Scripture, or repeat it again to others without experiencing its power. But if that which has been externally apprehended is sealed upon the conscience through the Holy Spirit, and if all the testimonies of God awaken in one a new life, so that he is actually changed and improved thereby, then does God appear before the eyes of the heart, and the man becomes inwardly convinced how righteous, true, good, and holy He is; then are the eyes of the understanding widely opened to see what and how much God does for him, and what he is bound to do in return—what God has promised, and what we have to expect of Him. Rieger: 1 Corinthians 15:30 ff. In all the joy won by communion with Christ, there is daily opportunity to bear about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus. Now if, with all this, I could not: set my hope upon the living God who raises the! dead; if I could not regard all the steps I take in the communion of His sufferings and in the likeness of His death as well-measured approaches to the resurrection of the dead; if all this is only for the maintenance of my own opinion,! and only with reference to this short life, what availeth it for me? To suppose that Divine! blessedness and also the sufferings endured in behalf of righteousness should avail nothing, is a thought which destroys all religion and sunders the connection between God and man. If we hold not to the word of promise, and to the hope afforded therein, we have no certainty for eternity, and consequently no assurance that we shall not slide into the old forms of speech, wherein everything runs to the enjoyment of this life, but where death, and its sting are frivolously denied, and all the weighty things which follow thereupon, together with all Christian hope, are thrust out of sight, and all exhortation to diligence in salvation will be heard no more.—That which deserves to be called good morals, and sound knowledge, and correct taste, I should aim at what is unseen and eternal, and be sustained and be kept in exercise by a spirit of faith and self-denial. But how full the world is of such idle talk which turns us away from this, and makes us uncertain and credulous, as if overcome by some magic potion. Error, slumber and in difference towards God and his counsel, and the observance of His ways, are the cause of much sin. Heubner: 1 Corinthians 15:30 ff. Without faith in a future life, many acts of the Christian life, many sacrifices and hazards, would be foolish and purposeless. This faith and steadfast virtue are inseparable. Without this faith that virtue which looks not to the unseen, would be a vain over-straining and fanaticism; and a prudent enjoyment of life would be the highest wisdom. 1 Corinthians 15:34. Sobriety, is the clear consciousness of God and His will. A correct self-knowledge leads to a correct faith. Unbelief comes from thorough self-ignorance, dissipation and unrestrained frivolity. W. F. Besser: 1 Corinthians 15:33. If traitors to God find ready helpers in our own lusts, then is it a Christian duty to avoid all needless intercourse with them, and not allow ourselves to purchase their vain words for the sake of setting forth our own hateful inclinations in a seemly garb (Ephesians 5:6-7). 1 Corinthians 15:34. The poison of all erroneous doctrine is intoxicating; and in imbibing it, we allow ourselves to be intoxicated. Well for us, if we properly awake when the voice of truth arouses us, in order that we may spue out the poison of sin, ere we die therein!—“God is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Matthew 22:32). Hence, he who denies the resurrection of the dead knows not the true God. [Robertson: 1 Corinthians 15:32. “How many of the myriads of the human race would do right for the sake of right, if they were only to live fifty years and then die for ever more? Go to the sensualist, and tell him that a nobler life is better than a base one, even for that time, and he will answer: ‘I like pleasure better than virtue; you can do as you please; for me, I will enjoy my time. It is a matter of taste. By taking away my hope of a resurrection you have dwarfed good and evil, and shortened their consequences. If I am only to live sixty or seventy years, there is no eternal right or wrong. By destroying the thought of immortality, I have lost the sense of the infinitude of evil, and the eternal nature of good.’ Besides, with our hopes of immortality gone, the value of humanity ceases and people become not worth living for. We have not got a motive strong enough to keep us from sin. Tell the sensualist that, though the theory of the life to come be a dream, yet that here the pleasure of doing right is sublimer than that of self indulgence, and he will answer: ‘Yes, but my appetites are strong; the struggle will be painful, and at last, only a few years will be left. The victory is uncertain, the present enjoyment is sure, why should I refrain? Do you think you can arrest that with some fine sentiment about nobler and baser being. No, the instincts of the animal will be more than a match for all the transcendental reasonings of the philosopher” (abbreviated). Hodge: 1 Corinthians 15:33. “It is only when men associate with the wicked with the desire and purpose of doing them good, that they can rely on the protection of God to preserve them from contamination.”] [Sermons.—J. Owen: 1 Corinthians 15:31. The Christian’s work of dying daily. This to be done cheerfully, comfortably, and triumphantly in the Lord. To this three things requisite: 1. The constant exercise of faith as to the resignation of a departing soul unto the hand and sovereign will-of God. 2. A readiness and willingness to part with this body on the grounds: a, That to depart is to be with Christ; b, That the body is dead because of sin. 3. Constant watchfulness against being surprised by death. R. Hall: 1 Corinthians 15:33. Nature and danger of evil communications. 1. What these communications are; a, such as tend to sensualize the mind; b, such as utterly lack a religious spirit; c, such as abound in skeptical objections to Christianity; d, such as are full of hatred to Christianity; e, such as are loose with respects to fundamental moral principles. 2. The way in which they corrupt through the natural suceptibilities of the human mind. 3. The need of the warning, “be not deceived”: a, by the adduction of false precedents; b, by your past experience; c, by any complacent reference to your age and attainments in piety; d, by any supposed strength of resolution]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 15:31.—Others have ἡμετἐραν. Meyer thinks that ὑμετέραν was not understood, and ἡμετέραν seemed demanded by ἥνἕχω. It has however, the weight of evidence against it. 1 Corinthians 15:31.—The Rec. leaves out ἀδελφοί with D. E. F. G. L. several Ital. versions, the later Arm. Orig. Chrys. Theodt. Damasc. Ambrst.; but A. B. K. Siuait. Vulg. Syr. (both) Goth. Basm. Ann. Aeth. Arab. and Slav. Dial. Aug. Pel. Bede insert it. Some of these add μου C. P. W.] [1 Corinthians 15:33.—The Rec. has χρῆσθ̀ ?, Lachmann edits χρῆσθ̀ ? but they have no good MSS to support them. Clemens Alex. and Amphilochius (of Leon.) have the word thus abbreviated to constitute with the previous syllable a spondee; in our passage read as an iambic trimeter acataletic, which the Latins call senarius. Winer, Gram, of the N.T.§ 68.—JC. P.W.] 1 Corinthians 15:34—Lachmann and Tischendorf have λαλῶ. The Rec. gives λώγω on equally good authority. [The former is sustained by B. D. E. Sinait. Dial. Several Latin versions and Armbrst. have loquor. The latter is favored by A. F. G. K. L., Chrys. Theodt. The Vulg. (Flor.) and two Latin and one Vulg. MSS. have dico—C. P. W.] [In similar style Hodge accounts for Paul’s appeal to a wrong custom. “This method of arguing against others from their own concessions, is one which the Apostle frequently employs. When his mind is full of a particular subject, he does not leave it, to pronounce judgment on things incidentally introduced. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 11:5, when treating of women speaking in the church unveiled, he expresses no disapprobation of their speaking in public, although he afterwards condemned it. A still more striking example of the same thing is to he found 1 Corinthians 10:8, where ho speaks of the Corinthians “sitting at meat in an idol’s temple,” without any disapprobation of the thing itself, but only of its influence on the weaker brethren. Yet, in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, he proves that the thing itself was an act of idolatry. The entire disappearance of this custom in the orthodox church, although other superstitious observances, not less objectionable, soon prevailed, is probably to be referred to the practice, having been forbidden by the Apostle as soon as he reached Corinth. This may have been one of the things which he left to be set in order when he came. 1 Corinthians 11:34.”] [See this view wrought out with great originality and convincing argument by the Rev. H. D. Ganse. in the Amer. Pres. and Theo. Review, 1863, p. 83. It merits the preference over all others, because, while answering all the requirements of grammar, and conceding to each word its full and proper meaning, it rests on a natural hypothesis and relieves us of the difficulty of supposing that the Apostle here appeals for support to a practice wholly at variance with his fundamental doctrines. The whole article merits attention as a masterly specimen of exegesis, and as illustrating other points in this chapter with great beauty and force.] [The following instances may be quoted as a specimen: “O beate Sesti! Vitae summa brevis nos vetat inchoare longam, l am te premet nox, fabulaeque Manes Et domus exilis Plutonia: O happy Sestius! the brief span of human life forbids us to indulge a distant hope. Soon will night descend upon thee, and the fabulous Manes, and the shadowy mansion of Pluto.” Hor. Carm. 1 Corinthians 1:4; 1 Corinthians 1:13-17. Sapias, vina liqnes, et spatio brevi Speram longam reseces. Durn loquimur, fugerit invida Aetas. Carpe diem, quam minimuu credula postero. Be wise: rack off your wines; and abridge your distant hopes in adaptation to the brevity of life. While we speak, envious age has been flying. Seize the present day, depending as little as possible on any future one.”—Hor. Carm. 1 Corinthians 1:11; 1 Corinthians 1:6-8. C. Refutation of the denial of the resurrection of the dead, in reference to its mode; and the constitution of the resurrection body 1 Corinthians 15:35-5035 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what [kind of, ποίῶ ?] 36body do they come? Thou [om. Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quick ened, except it die: 37And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain [ of some of the other grains, τινοςτῶνλοιπῶν]: 38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him [he willed, ὴθέλησεν], and to every seed his own body. 39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh [om. kind of flesh] of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes [another flesh of birds], and another of birds [fishes]3.40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial Isaiah 41 one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and 42another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. 43It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: It is sown a natural [an animal, φυχικόν] body, it is raised 44a spiritual body. There Isaiah 34 a natural body, and there is [if there is an animal body, there is also] a spiritual body. 45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made [became, ἑγένετοεἰς] a living soul; the last Adam was made [om. was made] a quickening spirit. 46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural [animal]; and after ward that which is spiritual. 47The first man is [was] of the earth, earthy: the second 48man is the Lord [om. the Lord] from heaven. As is [was] the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49And as we have borne [wore, ἐφορἐςαμεν] the image of the earthy, we shall also bear [we will wear, φορέσομεν, or, let us wear, φορέσωμεν the image of the heavenly. 50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit corruption. AND 1 Corinthians 15:35-38. After having established the belief in the resurrection of the dead, on the ground of Christ’s resurrection—a fact well attested and lying at the foundation of the whole Christian salvation—and, besides, having exhibited the untenableness of the contrast on other grounds, he next proceeds to encounter those objections which related, partly, to the process itself, and, partly, to the result.—But some one will say,—He here introduces his opponents speaking in the character of persons who, not satisfied with the argument hitherto, now, for the first time, come in with their own reasons for doubting. [These persons are not to be confounded with sincere inquirers; rather, they belong to the class of mockers, such as Paul encountered at Athens. As Calvin says, “nothing is more at variance with human reason than this article of faith;” and, hence, there is hardly one which provokes such ridicule and calls out so many cavils].—How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come ?—The present tenses are not to be explained as setting forth the future in the form of the present because of its certainty, [Stanley]; but as exhibiting the case simply as a matter of thought. “Ερχονται=‘Come into manifestation.’ Two distinct objections are here introduced, yet standing in close connection, as is seen from the copula δέ. [The first originates in a sense of the impossibility of the resurrection, and so asks for the “how,” as a demonstration of the possibility of it; and the other seeks to puzzle by asking for the details of new organization, which, when given, it hopes to prove absurd. Alford resolves the two into one, regarding the second as only stating specifically what is involved more generally in the first. But certainly the mode of the Apostle’s reply implies two distinct points here]. The answers to both these questions now follow, so as to illustrate, first, the process of the resurrection by analogies drawn from vegetable life, and, next, the peculiarity of the resurrection body in its distinction from the present, partly, though analogies taken from the several spheres of creation, and, partly, from the difference between the first and the second Adam. He begins with an address to the deniers or the doubters of the resurrection, expressive at once of strong disapprobation and contempt.—Fool!—By this epithet he characterizes as irrational those who are inclined to boast of a high degree of rationality, inasmuch as they ought to have convinced themselves at once respecting the matter in question by an analogy so obvious. [The term does not necessarily express any bitterness of feeling, for our blessed Lord used the like to his doubting disciples (Luke 24:15). It was the senselessness of the objection that is here attacked; for it was folly to say, the body could not live again because it died. The case of the seed showed that disorganization was the necessary condition of organization. If the seed remain a seed, there is an end of it; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (John 12:24. So with the body (Hodge)] What thou sowest—Σὑ, thou, belongs not to fool, as if it were an emphatic addition to the vocative; but it belongs ‘to the relative clause, and it is placed first to show that the readers ought to understand from their own experience the unreasonableness of the objection (Neander). [It is the pointed finger aiming at the objector present to the author‘s mind.—‘Thou.’] The human sowing is here contrasted with that of the divine in the implanting of human bodies in the grave (as Klopstock sings: “The seed by God is sown, To ripen till the harvest day”), but not the work of God in the development of the seed (ζωοποιεῖται)—is not made alive, unless it die:—What he means is, ‘From the fact that the seed sown by man is not made alive without having first passed through a process of death and corruption, thou oughtest to infer that it is just so with the human seed—that dying and corruption furnish no ground for asserting the impossibility of the resurrection.’ By the use of the verb “is made alive,” instead of ‘springs up’ (ἀνατέλλει) the type is brought closer to the antitype.—After this reply to the first question, he turns to a more extended explanation of the nature of the new body, in answer to the second. From the process itself, he passes over to its contents and results by showing that, as in the process, there was a contrast in the development (first, death, and then life); so here there was a contrast, between the seed corn and the plant which sprung from it. The former is brought prominently to view in the construction of the sentence since it is set before us at the first in an absolute clause.—And what thou sowest,—i.e., ‘as to that which thou sowest.’— not that body which is to appear dost thou sow,—In view of the fact of which he is treating, the plant is here designated as a physical organism by the term “body;” and in contrast with this he calls that which is sown as, naked corn;—γυμνὸν,i.e., either undeveloped, or separated from its proper covering and from the life of the plant; the former explanation is better suited to the context,—it may be—ςἰτύχοι. Comp. on 1 Corinthians 14:10.—of wheat or some of the others:—τῶνλοιπῶν, sc., σπερμάτων. In opposition to a gross identification of the present body with the resurrection body which lies at the ground of the objection urged, he here asserts a distinction between the two—a distinction, however, which does not exclude the identity of the fundamental substance or the germ. [That which springs up differs in outward form from that which is sown; yet it is so far the same, that we can say that that which is sown is precisely what springs up. The analogy here, therefore, is sufficient to destroy the force of the objection raised.] Mόller interprets 1 Corinthians 15:37 of the intermediate state between death and the resurrection. He remarks “Just as the old seed corn which is sown into death retains a sort of corporeity in ever changing forms (in the germ, in the blade, in the stalk) all through an intermediate state, until it, as it were, attains to its resurrection and glorification in the fresh, green corn, so also do human souls pass through their intermediate state, not without a certain sort of corporeity. But as the old appears again in a rejuvenated form, only when it has attained to a new and perfected kernel, so also, do those who sleep come to their full and glorified state in the resurrection of the body, which will take place at the end of the world.” he next proceeds to show the divine causation in respect to the future body, thereby showing wherein all development, even the resurrection of the dead included, ultimately rests.—But God giveth it a body—“The Holy Scriptures know nothing of an independent development of nature without God, about which modern philosophy has so much to say.” Bisping.—as he hath pleased,—The past tense here points back to. the original determination of the Creator, in accordance with which He goes on perpetually giving to each seed or germ a body, after its own fixed kind, or conducts it onward to the development of the same. [In all the continued processes of nature, the Creator abides by the primitive constitution of things. The uniformity of His operations should not lead us therefore, to ignore His perpetual free agency, and to regard the universe in the light of a dead mechanism. Nature is a live with an ever-present, ever-active God].—and to each of the seeds—σπερμάτων, lit., sperms, not only of fruits, but also of animals—a gradation to 1 Corinthians 15:39. (Bengel).—its own body.—ἴδιον, own, i.e., suited to the species, peculiar to the individual, produced from the substance of the seed. The argument here is this: that inasmuch as this is the way of God’s working, we may expect something of the like sort in relation to the germ of the human body, and that it is absurd to dispute this. [And still further; inasmuch as we cannot infer from looking at a seed what the plant is to be, so it is very foolish to attempt to determine from our present bodies what is to be the nature of our bodies hereafter. (Hodge)]. 1 Corinthians 15:39-44. The diversities of organization in the several spheres of creation, and also the diversities in their glory, are next exhibited as analogous to the diversity between the present and the resurrection body, as that of a new and higher organization. He starts from the animal life, where man occupies the first position. With the unity of the genus (σάρξ, flesh,) there exists a striking difference in the species.—All flesh is not the same flesh;—[De Wette explains “flesh” as the animal organism].—but one is of men, and another flesh of beasts,—κτῆνος, κτέανον, κτῆμα properly, animals owned by man, such as sheep and oxen; but here in distinction from what follows, the word denotes quadrupeds in general.—and another of birds, and another of fishes.—The difference predicated here is not as to substance, but as to quality (Calvin); and this is manifold and marked. [If, then, we see such a variety in the organization of flesh and blood here, the inference is that we may find a still greater variety of organizations existing in other spheres. God is not limited in His power and wisdom, so that He must make all bodies a lake.]—(There are) also bodies celestial:—It is not agreed whether the apostle here means the bodies of angels, or heavenly bodies, such as the sun, moon and stars. The first interpretation, taking the expression to mean ‘bodies found in heaven,’ is maintained by Meyer and de Wette (comp. Matthew 22:30); the second is the more common one, followed by Osiander and Neander, [Hodge and Alford]. The latter has no support in the usage of antiquity, and is vindicated, partly on the ground that the heavenly bodies were regarded by Plato, Plutarch, Galen, and others, as animated beings; and partly on the ground that in 1 Corinthians 15:38, the term “bodies” is applied to plants; and to this it may yet be added, that not only the clearness and the beauty with which the stars shine, but also the interest attached to this whole treatment of the idea of corporeity, explains this rare use of the word σῶμα, body, as denoting a material whole bound together in unity of being. But it may be asked, whether the contrast between the stars viewed as heavenly bodies and the world of men, animals and plants, viewed as earthly bodies, is a suitable one? Perhaps, indeed, not so suitable as that between the bodies of angels and those of men and beasts. The latter “would also touch and explain far better the distinction between the earthly body of death and the supramundane body of the resurrection” (Osiander); and nothing unsuitable, nothing disturbing to the symmetry of the whole analogy, can be found in it. Moreover, we are led to the supposition that angels have bodies, from what our Lord says in Luke 20:35-36, of the equality between angels and the children of the resurrection in the future world. So far as the unfitness of this analogy to meet the case of the skeptics is concerned, it must be remembered that the apostle has not so much to do with these, as with a congregation established in the faith, to whom such a view of angels would be neither strange nor incredible.—This comparison between the two kinds of bodies is followed by an exhibition of their diversity in respect to glory. In the one case it is a heavenly radiance; Matthew 28:3; and in the other case it is strength, beauty, grace, artificial culture, in their several manifestations (Meyer).—There is one glory of the sun, etc.—Not only do the heavenly bodies differ from the earthly in glory, but there is great diversity among the heavenly bodies themselves. The sun has one degree of lustre, the moon another, and even the stars exhibit a wonderful variety of size and brilliancy among themselves. The allusion here might naturally lead us to think of the various degrees of glory in the resurrection bodies, as compared with each other; but the context does not point to this, and all the allegorical deductions, such as we find in Tertullian and others, must be pronounced erroneous. [So Calvin:—“A mistake is here commonly fallen into in the application; it is supposed that Paul meant that, after the resurrection, the saints will have different degrees of honor and glory. This, indeed, is perfectly true, and is proved by other declarations of Scripture; but it has nothing to do with Paul’s object.” Paul is arguing here from existing diversities in the various organizations found throughout the universe, to prove that there may be still other and greater varieties yet to appear—that neither the wisdom nor power of God has been exhausted in the production of different kinds of bodies, and will be made more signally manifest in providing for saints a vesture suited to the glory of Christ’s coming kingdom]. In the next verse we have the apodosis of the comparison.—So also (is) the resurrection of the dead.—The connection is this: as we see so great a variety of forms above and below, there is abundant room for modifications of every sort in the human body, and it indicates only great narrowness of mind to infer from the condition of the dying human body that it could undergo no transformation. (Burger). The general proposition to which the comparison leads, viz., that there is a distinction between the constitution of the earthly body and that of the heavenly, is now more fully carried out.—(It) is sown in corruption.—The subject of the sentence is indicated by the connection. Instead of saying, ‘it is buried,’ as pertinent to the case of the human body, he borrows his expression from the analogy above employed. [The bodies of the saints are as seed sown in the ground; and, hence, every graveyard or cemetery is most aptly termed, in German, “God’s Acre.” The dissolution that is there quietly going on, out of sight, is but preparing the way for a more glorious appearing, when the winter is past, and the millenial spring breaks upon us.] As the antithesis we have—(it) is raised in incorruption:—’Εγείρεται, is raised,—the expression is not inconsistent with the figure. For we may take it in the middle sense, ‘it raises itself,’ or, ‘it rises,’ just as the plant does out of the seed corn. On account of what is said in 1 Corinthians 15:36, Neander interprets the sowing, not of burial in the grave, but of the development of life upon the earth; [and so Hodge: “it is now a corruptible body, constantly tending to decay, subject to disease and death, and destined to entire dissolution.” In this case the whole earth must be taken for God’s seed field, and our present condition must be regarded as, in some sort, an underground one]. The preposition “in,” in both clauses, expresses the condition in which the body is found in the two stages; in the first, the elements hitherto organically united are dissolving and scattering; and in the second, we are raised above all corruption and harm, above all pain, and disease, and suffering, into a state imperishable and fixed.—It is sown in dishonor,—‘Ατιμία, not simply denotes the unseemliness of the earthly body, and the humiliating infirmities of its corruptible state, by reason of which Paul elsewhere calls it “our vile body” (Philippians 3:21), but also, since he is speaking of burial, the foulness of the corpse, which is a reminder of the disgrace incurred in the penalty inflicted by death.—it is raised in glory:—By this he means the revelation of the dignity of the children of God in the resplendent brightness of their resurrection bodies, pervaded and glorified by the divine life. It is to be fashioned like unto the glorious body of the Son of God.—it is sown in weakness,—’Ασθέυεια does not refer simply to the feebleness of the earthly body when living [Bloomfield], but also to its perfect powerlessness as a corpse, its inability to resist corruption.—it is raised in power:—Δύναμις denotes a fullness of strength, energy and elasticity, which a renewed vitality will confer on the resureection body, enabling it to execute all the purposes and volitions of the spirit with the utmost ease and readiness.—All that is implied in these contrasts is condensed into the final one. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.—Respecting the term “natural,” [or, more properly, ‘animal,’ ‘psychical,’] comp. on 1 Corinthians 2:14. The expression, “natural body” (σῶμαψυχικόν), denotes, in general, an organization that corresponds to the soul (ψύχη); and “spiritual body” (σῶμαπνευματικόν) one that corresponds to the spirit (πνεῦμα). The former is one which carries the impress of the soul; the other, the impress of the spirit. The soul is that by means of which our spiritual part is linked to a physical life—a life of impulse and sensation, dependent for its nourishment upon a world of sense. The corporeity corresponding to this and determined by it, is precisely on this account made dependent upon this outward world, and is affected by it; and by reason of it, it is exposed to all that which has just been expressed by the words “corruption,” “dishonor,” and “weakness,” of which death is the catastrophe. The nature of the spirit is, on the contrary, a free, supermundane life of light and love in God; and the spiritual body is an organization suited to its character, being lifted above all dependence on the outward world, and the consequences following from it, and displays itself in incorruption, glory and power. The antithesis to the animal or natural body forbids our explaining the epithet “spiritual” here, as though it meant ethereal, or refined, [“much less made of spirit, which would be a contradiction.” Hodge].—According to the ordinary reading, the following sentence would be simply a short and emphatic confirmation of what has already been said. But the better authenticated text, which we are by no means justified in setting aside as an easier reading, or as a correction, presents us here with two clauses—the second conditioned upon the first, which is supposed to be conceded.—If there is an animal body,—which the soul has as its corresponding organism—a thing perfectly obvious—there is a spiritual body.—i.e., the same must hold good also of the spirit; this likewise must have its corresponding organ as its means of expression, and as the instrument of its operations, [suited to the new order of things introduced by the coming of Christ], The emphasis here lies upon the word “is.” [If the one exists, so does the other]. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49. According to Ewald, the sense and connection of this passage may be given thus: ‘This order of succession in the whole course of the world’s history, it is impossible should be otherwise. The finer forms always follow the grosser; those more spiritual succeed the more sensuous. Christ could appear only after Adam; and the purely heavenly Christ, as an external manifestation, is yet to be looked for. In like manner, the entire glorified humanity can only follow upon the present.’—And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul,—The citation is from Genesis 2:7, with the addition of the qualifying words “first” and “Adam;” [ἐγέντοεἰςψύχηνζῶσαν, from the LXX, being a literal rendering of the Hebrew μְּ ?πֶ ?τֶ ?ωׁ ηιָּ ?δ, lit., for, or, unto a living soul; and to this the following expression is accommodated: εἰςπνε.ῦμαζωοποιῦν—The expression living soul, as used in Genesis, is often taken to indicate an order of being superior to the brute, and is the text of many an argument to prove the immortality of the soul. The incorrectness of this assumption will be readily seen by referring to Genesis 1:20-21; Genesis 1:24 and elsewhere, in which passages the words translated “living soul” are applied also to the entire lower creation. They are used indifferently of man and beast to express animal life in general; and it is in this light that the apostle uses them as the very course of his argument shows. Adam is spoken of as a living soul, not to prove his immortality, but rather his mortality. It is by means of the soul that he and all descended from Him, are linked to this changing and corruptible world, and so become the heirs of corruption. The only superiority ascribed to man in the history of creation, is found in the fact that ‘God breathed into him the breath of life,’ and in this it is intimated that in the act of becoming a living soul, man at the same time was endowed with higher capacities, which brought him into relationship with God, and made him capable of communing with Him, and so of rising to a spiritual existence. But the possibilities here involved for leading a true, spiritual life, could only be carried out by his abiding in fellowship with God and partaking of the Divine Spirit. And had this been maintained by obedience, there is every reason to believe that the higher life of the spirit would have glorified the lower and made it partaker of immortality without the intervention of death. But by reason of the Fall, this possibility was cut off, and man becoming animal (ψυχικός) or as our version renders it “natural” in the very elements of his character, or in the springs of his existence, became at the same time mortal. Herein lay the necessity for the new creation through the intervention of a Redeemer who shall be nothing less than a quickening spirit]. That the Apostle wished to have the following clause also, regarded as a scripture quotation, is an assumption as groundless as that the whole was taken out of the Apocrypha. That which was affirmed in scripture respecting the first man Adam, suggests to his mind the thought of Christ, the antitype of Adam; the lower plain upon which Adam was said to stand, points to the higher. Already by the addition of the epithets “first” and “Adam,” the apostle gives us to recognize the significance of the scripture language, and introduces the contrast which he wished to set up.—the last Adam, a quickening spirit.—“He attaches his own words directly to the passage from Scripture, as if to intimate, that the latter as necessarily followed from the former, according to its typical significance, as though it had been already spoken. He, therefore, merely gives expression to the inference which is implied in the passage itself, without any intimation that it also did not belong to the language of Scripture—it being a self-evident result plainly contained there. (“Let a person read the first clause,” and man became a “living soul,” dwelling thoughtfully upon the expression “living soul,” and then repeat, “the last Adam, a quickening spirit,” somewhat less slowly and loud,” Meyer, Ed. 3.) The whole sentence, however, is by no means, to be regarded as a logical parenthesis, as though 1 Corinthians 15:46, were to be connected immediately with 1 Corinthians 15:44; but it enters directly into the whole course of thought, and was designed to be a confirmation of the preceding statement (1 Corinthians 15:44) from Scripture, which, by its declaration in regard to the first Man, that he became a living soul, from whence the soul-body or animal organization proceeded, points directly to that higher state which was first realized in the last Adam, viz., to the quickening Spirit on which the spiritual body was founded.—The adverb “so” introduces the scripture text a-corresponding to that which had just been asserted and likewise confirming it. Adam’s becoming “a living soul” is represented as the effect of God’s breathing into him “the breath of lives,” πִ ?ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ϊηַ ?ιιִ ?ν. This is the term used to express the principle of life taken absolutely, which has its source in the divine Spirit, of which the soul of man is the efflux forming the bond or nexus between his body and his spirit, [See Delitzsch, Ed. 2. Part II. Sec. 3, and Heard, Tripartite Nature of Man, p. 36—45]. The man, however, is πֶ ?τֶ ?ωηַ ?ιָּ ?δ, living soul, wherein body and spirit meet in living union. By means of this union is he constituted and made capable of a spiritual life; or in other words, herein consists the foundation of his moral and intellectual culture and final glorification into a divine life (Beck, Seelenl., p. 9.) “This life of the spirit as it increases in intensity is destined to make the soul, and by means of it the body likewise ever more and more, the proper image and exponent of itself, so that the two-fold life of man, as in a natural and necessary way it has the soul for its uniting bond, so also in an ethical and voluntary way it has the spirit as an all-pervading and controlling principle.” [See Delitzsch, Part 2. Sec. 5]. The first man, not as yet having transcended the character of a living soul (with which, however, sin must not as yet be supposed, nor even the necessity of its occurrence, but only the susceptibility for it, Meyer, Ed. 3,) since his personal life, by a free act of his own, had not appropriated as it should the Divine life of the spirit, but had apostatized from it through sin, which ran its fatal course in subjecting man more and more to the power of death, required now a new beginning which should actually lead to that glorification for which he was originally intended. This was to be achieved by such an appropriation of the Divine life of the Spirit that the result should be a quickening spirit. And this is just what we find in the other and second Adam who winds up the history of the race; since soul and body are in Him thoroughly pervaded by the Divine life and He as the perfected and glorified One, has the power continually to beget this same life in others, and so by renewing and transforming them, actually to develop the original capacities and intent of our common nature. “But for the very reason that this quickening Spirit was obliged to assimilate every thing to itself, there arose a necessity for its bursting this earthly covering in order to fashion for itself a new and glorified organ.” Neander.—Now, it is evident, that the point of time from which Christ became this “quickening Spirit” was, not His birth, but His resurrection; for until that moment He was in the likeness of sinful flesh and had an animal body; and it was not until after He had solved the problem of maintaining the original sinlessness of the spirit through all the stages of His natural life in a world of sin, that He, who, by a living resemblance, was the representative of a humanity that had become flesh in all its natural susceptibility to sin and death, became in like manner the representative and head of a humanity spiritually and divinely glorified, by virtue of having glorified human nature through the power of the Spirit, and in the maintenance of a perfect obedience, and of thus having overcome the curse of sin (Beck, Lehrwiss., p. 465 ff. 472), The point of transition from the one to the other stage is His resurrection. Through this, in the very might of that love which led him to incur judgment and lay down His life for the deliverance of the lost, He became henceforth in His newly quickened and glorified corporeity the divine organ for that life-renewal, that quickening of the dead, which reaches its perfect realization at the resurrection, and so, “a quickening spirit” (comp. Romans 8:11). The verb to be supplied is not ἐστίν, is, but ἐγέντο, became. While it belongs to the soul to be only “living,” and that through the spirit; so, on the contrary, does it belong to the Spirit “to make alive,” to impart the divine life-power which it has in itself, or which it is in a personal way (Osiander and Meyer). As the expression, “the first man,” designates the founder of the human race whose type is impressed upon all who spring from him, so does the expression, “the last Adam,” designate Him from whom issues the second final development of humanity that leads on to perfection. And now, since it were natural to wish that the perfect had existed from the beginning, he proceeds to state the law of the divine order.—Howbeit, not first the spiritual, but the animal; afterward the spiritual.—Such is the established order in the development of humanity; and this order he means to set forth as something necessary, [founded in the very plan of the entire creation, the analogies of which were to be seen everywhere. Nature, through all the stages of existence, forms an ever-ascending series. In all the realms of life we mount from the lowest organizations to those more refined and complete. Why this was so ordered the apostle does not pretend to say. The reason for it is deeper than science can go, and is among the hidden things of the Eternal Wisdom. Al i that Paul means to assert here is, that such is the order required by the general constitution of things]. First, the earthly nature must needs manifest itself in Adam, and then only could it attain afterwards to a higher development (Neander). The adjectives, “spiritual” and “animal,” had better be taken here in a general way, as designating different stages of life, without supplying the noun “body.”—That the natural is first, and then the spiritual, is shown in the instances of the two great heads of humanity.—The first man (is) of the earth, earthy;—By the epithet “earthy,” which relates to the body, and not to the whole man as imbued with earthly affections, he designates that physical conformation which corresponds to his origin as taken from the earth. With this is connected the animal state. But the inward quickening of the body, which proceeds primarily from the spirit, does not take place directly; but through the operation of the soul, which, in man, by virtue of the breath of the Creator; is, as it were, formed out of the essence of the spirit in the body (Beck, Seelenl., p. 31). Now, inasmuch as in the creation of the first man there existed, first of all, a body fashioned out of the dust of the earth, this, at the start, could only bear the impress of the soul, which mediated the quickening power of the spirit. And such a body carries in itself the possibility of death, which, however, is only realized through sin (Genesis 3:19; Comp. Romans 5:12 ff.), i.e., the alienation of the soul, which determines the condition of the body, from the Divine Spirit-life. Apart from this, however, it has the possibility also of not dying, which might have been realized through the perpetual appropriation of this spirit-life by means of which, as the soul advanced in spiritual glorification, it would become ever more qualified for the progressive quickening and glorification of the body (comp. Osiander, p. 777). As the antithesis we have—the second man is from heaven.—The fuller reading of the received text, “the Lord from heaven,” is opposed by an overwhelming balance of authorities; and the rejection of the words “the Lord” is not to be explained on the ground that it did not seem to suit as the proper contrast for “earthy.” It is far more likely that some transcribers attempted to fill out what appeared to be an imperfect antithesis, by adding “the Lord” in the margin by way of a gloss, and that this afterwards crept into the text. By the term “Lord”; (which would belong not to the subject, but to the predicate, and as the nobler designation would be put before the other), there would be exhibited the divine glory, the supramundane exaltation and power of the second man coming from heaven, in contrast with the earthly imperfection and weakness of the first man springing from the earth; and this certainly would not simply refer to his bodily life, but to his entire personality, which carries in itself the fulness of the spirit, and of divinely quickening power; from which, then, it might be inferred in regard to the expression “earthy,” that it denoted the earthly constitution and characteristics of the entire person of the first man.—In the case of the shorter reading, however, the question arises whether it means the heavenly origin of the second Man, in relation to His human life; which, then, in case the term “earthy” refers to the body of the first man, might be referred in like to manner to Christ’s corporeity (hence the heretical assumption that Christ’s body was from heaven); or whether it means the final appearing of the second man, His second advent, for the perfection of His work, of which the resurrection of the dead is a part. The whole context appears to imply the latter (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:22-23; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Corinthians 15:49). What is here meant, therefore, is His coming from Heaven at His second Advent, which will take place in celestial, glory and in His transfigured humanity. And this presents to us the real antithesis to the earthiness of the first-man. The following verses express the fact that the peculiar qualities of each of these two heads are reflected in those of the persons who belong to them severally, viz., in respect to the natural body on the one side, and the spiritual body on the other. This is what is meant by ὀ ?̓ιος and τοιοῦτοι.—As the earthy, such they also that are earthy:—By the latter are meant those who have descended from Adam, and like him are of an earthy nature.—and as the heavenly, such they also that are heavenly.—By the latter are meant those belonging to Christ in their state of heavenly perfection, or those who are taken up with Christ, the glorified, in the fellowship of His glorified life in heaven. Comp. Ephesians 2:6, “and hath made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus;” and Philippians 3:20, “Our citizenship is in heaven;” to which may be added still further, 1 Corinthians 15:21. “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body.” The latter is here carried out in 1 Corinthians 15:49, in the same antithesis as in 1 Corinthians 15:48.—And as we bore,—namely, during our earthly life,—the image of the earthy,—i.e, the animal body (Philippians 3:21, “the body of our humiliation”)—we shall bear—namely, at the time of His appearing, from the resurrection onward,—the image of the heavenly.—i.e., the spiritual body which is made like unto His glorious body. In the verbs ἐφορέσαμεν and φορέσομεν, he places himself and his readers at the turning point of the second Advent, when they will have the life which they led in their earthy state behind them, and that of their heavenly state just before them.—Φορεῖν,—an image taken from dress. It means to wear as a garment; it occurs also in tragedy in relation to bodies (φορεῖνδέμας), and particular parts of the body, such as the hair. The more feebly attested reading φορεσομεν, we shall bear, corresponds to the entire connection and force of thought. The other, φορέσωμεν, let us bear, would introduce a. paranesis, which would constrain us to take the word “image” in an ethical sense. So Chrys., and Theoph.: “By the image of the earthy he means evil deeds, and by the image to the heavenly, good deeds.” It is in connection with this reading also that the following verse is interpreted in an ethical sense, which, however, is in contradiction with the uniform usage of the words “flesh and blood.” Perhaps, however, it was the ethical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:50, that gave rise to the reading. [Stanley, in obedience to the preponderance of authority, gives preference to the hortatory form of this sentence, which he acknowledges to be in no connection with the context]. 1 Corinthians 15:50. He here winds up the whole of this exposition respecting the body in which believers should come forth, and confirms the declaration, “we shall bear the image of the heavenly,” by a solemn asseveration.—Now this I say,—It is a formula for emphasizing a subsequent statement, and implies no concession to his opponents. ὀ ?̓τι, as in 1 Corinthians 7:29, not ‘because,’ but,—that1 Corinthians 15:49 rests on 1 Corinthians 15:45, not on that which here follows.—flesh and blood—By these words, according to Theodoret, are intended [not our sinful, fallen nature, as some, like Chrys., understand it construing the words in an ethical sense; but] our mortal nature, which, as such—cannot inherit the kingdom of God;—or, as Lange, “the constitution originating in natural birth.” It is the animal body in its present organization. “Flesh” denotes the earthly substance of the “body and blood,” the animal element in it, according to its corruptible nature. That this corporeal constitution cannot enter the kingdom of God without change, is still further shown from the incompatibility between the two.—neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.—Corruption, not as distinct from flesh and blood, as the dead are distinguished from the living; but the word exhibits to us prominently a characteristic of our present state, which sets it in marked contrast with the constitution of the kingdom of God, as that of an imperishable life—φθόρα is here the abstract for the concrete φθάρτον. The present κληροναμεῖ expresses a constant relation (Meyer), and an established truth. The idea of time is not here taken into account. AND ETHICAL1. Skepticism would fain wear the aspect of an enlightenment that transcended the ordinary scope of faith, of a more comprehensive and loftier view of the world which was justified in looking down upon a belief in the doctrines of revelation as a sign of narrowness and bigotry. But, regarded rightly, the narrowness will be found on its part. It is skepticism that betrays a lack of sound reason, which, at the same time, includes a lack in the higher moral constitution. There lies at the foundation of it a dullness of thought, a dislike for the labor of profound contemplation, a disposition to be readily satisfied with what is most obvious, and to abide within the wonted circle of human notions. Nay, still more there is at the bottom of it a pride of understanding which delights in the supposed discoveries of truth, and is opposed to the acknowledgment of a wisdom surpassing its own range of thought and opinion—even a wisdom to which it is the business and duty of the human under standing to submit, cordially accepting its doctrines and endeavoring to understand them more, and more, if it is ever properly to come to itself, since it here enters upon its own proper ground, the Spirit of God, and in the light of truth is enabled to recognize more and more, on every side, the nature and laws of Divine providence, and the manifold ways of God, and the correspondencies which exist between the natural creation in its varied developments and the kingdom of grace or the work of redemption in all its rich unfolding. 2. The resurrection of the dead, stands in close analogy with various phenomena which constantly present themselves to our notice, and in which the creative omnipotence of God displays itself from year to year. In these death, dissolution, and corruption, are seen to be the conditions of a new life—stages of transition to new forms of existence. The kernel contained in the ripened fruit, conceals a vital germ, which, when the kernel is planted in the soil and there dissolved, bursts forth and springs up into a new growth in conformity with the constitution originally given it by the Creator, and by means of His ever-present, everywhere active, power. Essentially the same process occurs in the resurrection of the dead. Corruption is only the dissolution of that which was the result of a previous vital development, in order that the germ of a new body which was included in the inmost kernel of the old, may break forth and unfold itself into a new and living organism. But the new is not [as some suppose, the restoration of the old, a recomposition of the same particles that existed in the old body,] but of another and nobler quality [and better suited to be the organ of a perfectly sanctified spirit]. In the resurrection body we enter upon a distinct and higher stage of life than that occupied by the body which has been laid in the earth. [The apostle calls it “a building of God, a house not made with hands” in contrast with the former, in which, as the seat of pain, and suffering, and sin, we groaned being burdened. What its particular attributes and peculiarities are, it doth not yet appear. It is sufficient for us to know, that it will be like unto Christ’s glorious body; and from the hints afforded us in the account given of His several appearances to His disciples, we may obtain some idea of its superior adaptation for the service of the spirit]. It must be understood that we are here speaking only of those who have been taken unto a fellowship with the new divine life in Jesus Christ, and have come within the sphere of His redeeming grace; or, in other words, who belong to that new development which proceeds from the last Adam. [What the condition of those will be who are to come forth to the resurrection of damnation, we are not here informed, and on this point to offer conjecture would be to go beyond our province]. This higher stage of corporeal existence has its analogies in the broad range of creation; since here also, we behold manifold distinctions and degrees of organization, as well in the sphere of animal life as among the higher orders of being, including man and angels, and also among the celestial bodies shining with varied glory. Somewhat corresponding to the distinctions here observable, will be the superiority of the resurrection-body in the comparison with the earthly body—a superiority, which viewed in the contrasts presented at the time of death and of resurrection, is expressed in the antithesis between corruption and incorruption, weakness and power, dishonor and glory. 3. The resurrection as illustrated by the account of the divine plan in man’s creation. Much light is cast upon the great distinction between the present and the resurrection-body, by the divinely revealed economy of the Creator, or, in other words, by the divinely ordained development of the human race, as set forth in Scripture. The all-quickening Spirit of God first produced a creature with a living soul. The soul, as the vehicle and instrument of his life-power, by which being quickened, the earthly body prepared for it by God becomes animal or psychical, i.e. conformed to the character of the soul, is the organism of a personal life which is capable either of appropriating to itself ever more and more that divine spiritual life in which it is rooted, or of apostatizing from it. In the case of apostasy, such as actually occurred, instead of a progressive glorification of the earthly, physical body into a heavenly, spiritual one, there would ensue a progressive mortality and corruption. And such man has already incurred. Nevertheless, that condition for which he was originally constituted and destined, was still bound to come to pass. Through a Divine act of love, a new process of development was introduced into the human race, which, as in the first instance, entered into life through the quickening power of the divine Spirit, and in the like manner, involved the possibility of a free self-determination in both directions, i.e., a true human life according to soul and body. But by a style of conduct opposed to that pursued in the first stage of development or by its head, the first Adam—by the perpetual appropriation and maintenance of the divine, spiritual life amid all the temptations of our lower nature, and amid all the difficulties, struggles and necessities which attended upon a loving entrance into the accursed state of the first Adamic humanity, this reached a height upon which the animal nature, glorified into a truly spiritual condition, becomes the principle of a like glorification for the earthly animal race of man (in so far as this enters into the fellowship of the second Adam), so that everything which had been corrupted by means of sin is again restored, and aims at rising to the highest stage of life which had been ordained from the beginning as the proper goal of all human endeavor, but which had become unattainable after the apostasy. Now after that we have become incorporated into the second Adam by faith, by means of which His Spirit as an inwardly sanctifying power takes possession of our personal life, and delivers it from all selfishness, and all entanglement with our earthly sensuous being, and attracts it with all its powers and entire organism into the service of the Divine life, and assimilates it to that; there then follows, as the natural completion of this process, an unfolding of the germ of this Divine spiritual life that has been implanted in this organism (after the process of dying which belonged to the old Adamic state, has been gone through with) into a new organism which corresponds to the glorified body of the second Adam. AND Starke: 1 Corinthians 15:35. Hedinger: Shall I rise again out of the grave, the dust, the fire, the abyss of the sea, and appear in beauty and glory? Reason says, No. Oh, blindness! Ask the beautiful fruit-bearing stalk, what and where it was a short time ago. 1 Corinthians 15:36. “Thou fool.” Paul here calls conceited reason by its right name, in order to rebuke unbelief (Galatians 3:1). To him who believes in the infinite knowledge, wisdom and power of God, and in the creation where God brought all things out of nothing, it will not be hard to believe that God knows where every little particle of dust of this or that body or member is, and how that which has been mingled in with the seeds of other bodies is to be again separated from them, and how each particle is to be brought again to its place, so that each body may be the same body. If it is possible that a corrupted little seed of corn shall spring up to new life and verdure, and bring forth new kernels, although thy reason cannot comprehend how this can happen; then it is not impossible that God should quicken again the bodies that have been dissolved.—There is such a depth and breath in the works of God, that our feeble understanding becomes lost in them, even as a little drop of water is swallowed up in the great sea. 1 Corinthians 15:37 f. That the nature of every plant, with all its peculiarities is included in the little seed-corn, and springs from that, is certainly a work of God’s wisdom and omnipotence. If He now produces from the buried kernel a particular plant which bears upon its stalk many other like kernels, how can we doubt that God would be both able and willing, according to His own infinite power, to bring forth out of the seed of a decaying human body a like result once more? (Luke 18:27.) 1 Corinthians 15:43. The most beautiful of mankind, during their whole life, are but dirt, and are obliged to conceal much that they have both upon and in themselves; but the resurrection will glorify all that, and render our bodies perfectly pure vessels. 1 Corinthians 15:45. We must carry about with us this mortal body in humility, endure it with patience, and let it die with fresh courage. In this way we rightly labor towards transforming it into that glorious and spiritual body which we expect from the second Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:47. Hedinger: Since the earthly Adam, endowed with earthly attributes, came first, and the second spiritual Adam followed after, so must that body which we inherit from Adam first be earthly and born, ere it become spiritual according to the image of the second Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:48. Every thing in its own time—the body must first lay off its earthly qualities through death, and after that spring up anew.—What at last is born anew at the resurrection—should not this be glorious? 1 Corinthians 15:49. Here upon earth the glory of the divine image mirrors itself in believers to some degree; but at the resurrection they will possess all this glory in its perfection. 1 Corinthians 15:50. Perhaps thou wouldst gladly journey on to heaven with thy body and soul without dying, and so inherit its glory (2. Cor. 1 Corinthians 5:4); but that which is to live there must first perish, ere it be made anew. Berlenb. Bibel: 1 Corinthians 15:35 f. Man takes too much upon his phantasy, and means to see every thing thereby. Happily such are first pointed to the operations of Nature. For the lower and the transient world is an image of the higher and the enduring. If such wise spirits would investigate more exactly the operations of Nature, this would enable them to read in living characters, what follies they, with their wisdom perpetrate before God. Even in natural things we do not succeed in understanding how one thing and another transpires; and how much more will this be the case in heavenly mysteries (Wis 9:16).—It is a folly which emanates from the pool of our corrupt hearts to be always inquiring—‘how? how?’ If we take our reason only with us and use it beyond its proper limits, it turns to unreason. We should learn to understand that things come from a higher hand, and abide in the way of faith. 1 Corinthians 15:37. The outer hulls do not germinate, but are sloughed off from the inner germ, decay and mix with earth; but the germ itself springs up again in living green. Accordingly it is not precisely the same body with all its dust that is to rise again. Yea, even during this life, this mortal body is subject to a perpetual change, so that in a short time not one particle of that which we once were, remains in us, [so it is not necessary in maintaining the identity of the body to preserve the same material particles of which it was at any one time composed]. Though our bodies are in continual flux, yet no one says that we become new men every quarter of a year. 1 Corinthians 15:38. The best is concealed in order that we may not confound Nature with God. Nature hides itself. There God alone is master, and has the key. If we do not go to Him we shall bring nothing out. 1 Corinthians 15:44. We must not draw our conclusions from one body to another, and say: A body is a body. No; great distinctions exist among bodies. There is a spiritual body which is through and through like pure spirit, as well as a natural and beastly body. 1 Corinthians 15:45. God has created men not purely spiritual, in order that they may not exalt themselves, but ever be mindful of their dependence. The natural life is, in respect to the other life, only as a field; but in the field a spiritual seed is sown which shall hereafter spring up through the power of the second Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:46. The state of weakness comes first: otherwise, we would not know how to esteem that of highest glory, nor yet to distinguish between the two. Hence, this order is good; and he who takes it into account will avoid the miserable snares which are spread by reason. 1 Corinthians 15:47. The first and the second man—these two are as wide asunder in their nature as heaven and earth, yea, as God and the creature; and yet one has come to the other, so that we have share in both. 1 Corinthians 15:48. We must not become more earthly than Adam was. The Heavenly Adam was provided in order that we may and should again erect ourselves upon Him. In this way, then, do those that are heavenly spring from Him by a new birth and life in Him. But if this is to happen, our old earthly man, must and will, in thought, word, work, become united to Christ, in his sufferings and death, and the new man arise in us.—This is the great mystery, on account of which God became man, and proposes now to exhibit us as the children of God through His incarnation. Rieger: 1 Corinthians 15:35 ff. In inquiring after the exact ground, how any event comes to pass, every thing for the most part turns upon the intention of the inquirer—whether he inquire from a desire of learning, and a delight in the truth, or from doubt and pleasure in mocking; whether he does it from faith and for the sake of advancing in knowledge, or simply to find pretext for unbelief. The difficulty in respect to the resurrection is the dying and the dissolutton; but this, indeed, in a thousand cases, is the only way to new life and verdure, and fruitfulness. This thou wouldst question, if thou hadst not seen it so often.—It is enough that now the way through death to life is so pictured before our eyes. What God does daily and yearly in the realm of Nature, this He does in the kingdom of His Son, for the destruction of the last enemy. Let the change and expansion and manifold increase in the seed that is sown be what it may, yet all this has had its ground and cause in the seed itself. Even so the resurrection is but a quickening and up-springing of that very thing which has died.—What else is the denial of the resurrection but an ignoring of the power of God, which can produce out of its inexhaustible fulness just what it will. 1 Corinthians 15:42 ff. Precious foundation for our patience,—to suffer under the body of this death, because the germ of a future spiritual body exists therein! How deep down into the inheritance of Adam: until thou returnest again to dust! How highly exalted in the inheritance of Christ: until we shall become like unto His glorious body! Lord Jesus, prepare me that I may bear thy heavenly image. 1 Corinthians 15:50. The natural life which we have in common with other living creatures upon the soil of earth, is not fit for the kingdom of God; it would be far too weak to sustain the powers in exercise there. Heubner: 1 Corinthians 15:35. All question after the how in the mysterious doctrines of religion must be asked with modesty, with a recognition of the limits of our knowledge, with the design of warding off unbelief and strengthening faith; and hence, not in those cases where all comprehension on our part is absolutely denied. Close reflection, strictly carried out, will never stumble at revelation. 1 Corinthians 15:37. The present and the future life are related as germ and fruit; hence, the resurrection is not the creation of a new organism. The study of nature should help revelation, and should lead us to the Lord of Nature and the Giver of Revelation Especially does the ever-recurring change from death to life, which we see in nature, assist a Christian’s faith in the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:39 ff. The inexhaustible manifoldness of the kingdom of God opens to our contemplation an unfathomable sea. 1 Corinthians 15:42 ff. The fundamental stuff remains, but development gives it another body. We know nothing of the innermost, finest parts of the body, and it is from these that the main stuff of the future body is formed. Since the heavenly body will not be like the earthly, it will be no burden to man. Finite spirits also must necessarily have an organ (contrary to Kant). 1 Corinthians 15:45 ff. Christ, the Regenerator of man, gives the spiritual life—He creates in us not only the new life of regeneration, but His spirit and His power will directly quicken our bodies. W. F. Besser: 1 Corinthians 15:47. Great is the miracle of creation, by which God called the first man out of the earth into a natural life; but greater still is the miracle of Redemption, by which God has created a spiritual body, of which the sinful, earthly children of the sinful, earthly Adam were utterly destitute. Although now the work of redemption is greater than the work of creation, yet is it not more difficult to believe that the Lord will make our natural body a spiritual body, according to the likeness of His perfected spiritual body, than it is to believe that He made our natural body from a clump of earth? 1 Corinthians 15:49. The true Christophori, or Christ-bearers, are Christians, here, in faith; there, in sight. 1 Corinthians 15:50. The flesh and blood of the lost may and will rise, not to the inheritance of the kingdom, but to suffer the pain of eternal fire. But, in order that flesh and blood may rise to the inheritance of the kingdom, the present form of flesh and blood must be done away; first, through spiritual regeneration in baptism, and then through the physical change in the grave, in order that a spiritual flesh and blood may spring therefrom, according to the fashion of the flesh and blood of Christ.—The Christian burial is the blessing of the body to be redeemed from corruption (Romans 8:23). [Robertson:— 1 Corinthians 15:46-49. The natural precedes the spiritual. I. The universality of this law, as seen: 1. In the order of creation; 2. In the progress of the Jewish nation; 3. In the progress of the human race. II. The spiritual instances of this law: 1. Our natural affections precede our spiritual; 2. The moral precedes the spiritual. III. The stages through which we pass: 1. Through temptation; 2. Through sorrow]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 15:36.—The Rec. has ἀ ?̓φρον instead of ἀ ?̓φρων. It is however feebly attested, and is a correction. [The more infrequent nominative was more likely to be altered, as in several instances it has been, into the vocative. It is however found in A. B. D. E. F. G., Sinait. and some cursives, while the vocative is given only in K. L., many cursives, Orig., Epiph., and some others.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 15:39.—The σάρξ which some [Rec. et al.] have put before ἀνθρώπων is thrown out [by Matth., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, and Bloomfield], on the authority of the best MSS. [A. B. D. E. F. G. K. L. Sinait., 60 cursives, Syr. (later) Copt., Aeth., Greek and Latin Fathers, and indeed is sustained by no important MS.]. The same word before πτηνῶν is better sustained [B. D. E. F. G. Siuait., several copies of the Vulg., Copt., Theophyl., Text., Ambrst.], but it is rejected by Meyer as a mechanical addition. 1 Corinthians 15:39.—The position of ἄλληδὲδὲἰχθυῶν before ἀ ?̓λληδὲσ. πτηνῶν is not so well attested as the reverse order. [It has for it only F. G. K. L., the larger number of cursives, the later Syr., Theodt., Oecum., hut against it A. B. D. E. Sinait, 6 cursives, 3 Latin MSS., the Vulg., Copt., Syr., (Pesch.), Chrys., Dam.. Theophyl., Orig., Tert. The order of the words in this verse appears much deranged in many MSS., though the general sense is not thereby affected.—C. P. W.] 1 Corinthians 15:44.—The Rec. has ἐ ?̓στινσῶμαψυχικόν, καὶἒστισῶμαπνευματικόν, but a better attested reading is ἐιἔστινσῶμ. ψυχ., ἐ ?̓στινκαὶπνευματικόν. [The uncials A. B. C. D. F. G. Sinait., 9 cursives, the Ital., Vulg., Copt., Aeth., Arm., are all in favor of the latter reading, which is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford and Stanley. It was natural from the similarity of the preceding and the commencement of the succeeding clauses that a transcriber should omit εὶ. It must however be conceded that the internal evidence is against Lachmann’s reading, for as Reiche aud Bloomfield remark the sentiment thus becomes jejune and hardly like Paul’s usual style. The whole sentence is omitted in several cursives and Chrys., but Meyer accounts for the omission by the hom�oteleuton.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 15:45.—According to the best MSS. ἀ ?̓νθρωπος is to be retained. Its omission in some [B. K. 3 cursives, Did. Iren., (Lat.) Tert., (once)], may be explained by an attempt to conform to the contrasted ὁἐ ?̓σχ. ̓Αδαμ. 1 Corinthians 15:47.—The Rec. has ὁκύριος, after ὁδεύτ. ἄνθρ., but according to the best MSS. it should be thrown out as a gloss. [It was suspected by Griesbach, and erased by Lachmann, Tischendorf and Alford, following B. C. D. (1st hand) E. F. G., Sinait., (1st hand), 17, the Ital., Vulg., Copt., Aeth.. Arm., and many Greek and Latin writers. In the Dialogue against the Marcionites printed among Origen’s works, and in Tertul. against the same the insertion of ὁκύρ, is ascribed to the heretics. Comp. Tisch. N. T. 7th edit.—C. P. W.]. 1 Corinthians 15:49.—The evidence for φορέσωμεν instead of φορέσομεν is strong, but the word does not seem suitable in this place. See Exegetical Notes. [The documentary authoity for the subjunctive (adopted by Lachmann and Stanley seems absolutely decisive (A. C. D. E. F. G. K. L. Sinait. above 20 cursives, the Ital., Vulg., Copt., Goth., Slav., Theodt., Orig., (de la Rne), Cyr., Macar., Caes., Bas., Meth., Chrys., (in expos.), Max., Epiph., pseud-Athan., Damasc, Iren., (Latin), Tert., Cypr., Hilar., Jerome). The Rec. however has for it, the important testimony of B., a number of cursives, the Syr., (both), Arab., Aeth., Arm., Orig.. (other editions) Cyr., (giaph. and nest.), Theodt., Theophyl., Oecum. These two last especially mention and explain both readings. (See their remarks in Tischendorf’s N. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ D. Conclusion in reference to those who survive at the advent. Final exhortations1 Corinthians 15:51-5851 Behold, I shew [tell, λέγω] you a mystery; We shall not all sleep [We all shall not sleep, πἀντεςοὺκοιμηθ.], but we shall all be changed. 1 52In a moment [an atom, ὰτόμω̣ ?], in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53For this corruptible 54must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So [But, δὲ ?], when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality,3 then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is [was, κατεπόθη] swallowed up in victory. 55O death, where is thy sting? O grave [death, 56θάνατε], where is thy victory?4 [But, δὲ ?] The sting of death is sin; and the strength 57of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory4 through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know [knowing, εἰδότες] that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. AND 1 Corinthians 15:51. He now proceeds to reveal to them something of the process of the resurrection. And what he has to say is introduced in a manner solemn, and calculated to awaken attention.—Behold,—The word points to an object presented for inward contemplation, and at the same time extraordinary, q. d, ‘behold, look my words full in the face—they contain a truth which we are slow to recognize, but which is true notwithstanding.’ The thing to be announced he calls—a mystery—not simply something hitherto unknown to the reader, but something ascertained only through a divine revelation, or the illumination of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 4:1; 1 Corinthians 13:2).—tell I unto you:—This mystery was, that those who are alive at the coming of the Lord will experience a change that shall fit them for participating in the kingdom of God, just as those would who arose from the dead; hence, that that which was said in 1 Corinthians 15:49 was applicable also to them. The same truth is set forth in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-17, save that the idea of a change, which, in the latter text, is only presupposed, is, in our passage, definitely brought to view. In both places he gives his readers to understand that the disclosure made rested upon revelation (1 Thessalonians 4:15, “by the word of the Lord”).—The received text of our passage has, from the earliest time, created difficulty. It seems to assert that the Apostle expected, not death, but a sudden change both for himself and for all his cotemporaries—a thing not reconcilable with actual events. Hence, οὐ has been put after κοιμηθησόμεθα, connecting it with the following verb; [so Stanley, who renders: “we shall all sleep, but we shall not all be changed”] (besides, some put οὖν before κοιμηθ, which is, perhaps, only a trace of the original position of οὐ); but this reading would be unsuitable by reason of the more exactly defining statement of time, immediately following in 1 Corinthians 15:52, which could only be joined to a positive clause. [It would hardly do to say, ‘ we shall not all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,’ etc. It was perhaps with a view of obviating this difficulty that the reading ἀναστησόμεθα, we shall arise, [found in D., and adopted by the vulgate], was introduced; but which even in this way betrays its non-authenticity, and, besides, is less sustained. In the case of the received text, πάντεςμὲνοὐκοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντεςδὲἀλλαχησόμεθα,—there still arises, however, the objection, that the apostle could not assert concerning himself and all his readers, or all Christians of his time that they would not “sleep,” but would rather all “be changed,” [as is implied here by the position of the negative οὐ, which bears directly upon the verb, and not upon the adjective πἀντες all—making it mean, ‘all of us shall not sleep’]. Hence, a trajection of the negative is here assumed, πάντεςον̓ ?, standing for ον̓πάντες, and the clause taken to be equivalent, to οὐπάντεςκοιμηθ., meaning not all of us shall sleep;’ and ἀλλαγησόμεθα is interpreted in a broader sense, as including the idea of rising from the dead, which is opposed by the stricter signification of the term, and by the more exact intimation given in 1 Corinthians 15:52, where it is said that the dead also shall rise. Nor yet can the above-mentioned trajection of the negative be justified on the ground of giving the word πάντες, all, a more emphatic position, or from Numbers 23:13; Joshua 11:13 or Sir 17:30 (where it does not occur); and, besides, the assumption of a various range of meaning for ἀλλαγησόμεθα in such close succession has something arbitrary in it. The same is true also of the expedient of putting οὐκοιμηθ. not sleep, in a parenthesis, q. d., ‘ we all (shall, indeed, not die, but yet) all shall be changed. [So Hodge, who, as above, broadens the scope of the verb rendered ‘changed,’ so as to denote not simply the transformation of the living, but also the reinvestiture of the dead, thus making it apply to all Christians generally. Stanley is singularly confused here, following Lachmann in his text, and rendering “we shall all sleep; but we shall not all be changed;’ yet, in his note, giving a decided preference for the Rec. Text, and rendering it, “We shall, all of us, not die, but be changed.” In the latter he follows Meyer and Winer (Gr. Gram. Pt. 3 § 61, 4 f.) who insist that the only translation consistent with Greek is as Kling gives it in his version—We shall all not sleep, but we shall be changed,—The intention of the apostle is to answer a question, which would naturally occur to some in view of the declaration that “flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom of God.” If this were so, it might be asked, what would become of the living? While the dead would rise with new bodies, what would become of them who were expecting to survive till the advent. These are the parties whom he now has solely in his eye, and since the great crisis was supposed to be near at hand, he speaks here in the first person, and says ‘ we.’]. The difficulty in regard to πάντες, all, is relieved by the supposition that he had in mind the sum total of the survivors (among whom, he also reckoned himself), to whom alone the whole context relates. But that the words μὲνδὲ should stand in connection with the same emphatically repeated word πάντες, all, when they appear to relate to the contrast between ‘not sleeping’ and ‘being changed,’ is entirely in accordance with Greek usage (comp. Passow upon the words 1:176, b, above). They had better remain untranslated.—By ‘being changed’ he indicates the immediate transition from the earthly into the heavenly body, without the intervening process of death and the resurrection. This is to take place—In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,—Both these expressions indicate the same thing, and set forth, in a most striking manner, the instantaneousness of the transition, excluding the possibility of death coming in between, ἄτομον, an indivisible point of time. In this change a prevenient qualification, a preparation for this glorification, by the operation of the Spirit of Christ, is indeed not excluded; it is only asserted that this glorification would take place suddenly.—A second particular relating to the time of this change, is expressed by the words—at the last trump:—ἐντῇἐσχ. σάλπ.ἐν; is used as expressive of the time in which the last trumpet sounds, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where it is said of the Lord that He will descend from Heaven ἐνσαλπιγγιθεοῦ; “in the trumpet of God;” whereupon the dead will rise. [For this use of ἐν, see Jelf. Gr. Gram. § 622, 2. fin.]. The word σαλπίζειν is used to denote the trumpet blast accompanying the Theophanies, and resounding over the whole region of their manifestation, arousing and shaking all things there (comp. Exodus 19:16; Isaiah 27:13; Zechariah 9:14). The last trumpet refers to that great Theophany, or Christophany, by which all the revelations of God in this dispensation will be brought to their close. That this will coincide with the seventh trumpet (Revelation 11:15), is, by no means, improbable; because, there also John is speaking of the end of the world-power, and the coming in of the kingdom of God and of Christ—an event with which that here mentioned must synchronize. From this, however, we are not to conclude that Paul had in mind the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse, of which he supposed this to be the last; “for it is hardly proper to ascribe the peculiarity of John’s vision to the apostle Paul, as though the doctrine of the latter were moulded by the former.” Burger.—But in no case are we to suppose any allusion here to the seven trumpets, according to which the Rabbis were wont to exhibit the seven stages of the resurrection—the last announcing the instant when the dead were to stand upon their feet—since the apostle furnishes not the remotest hint of the kind. Moreover, to interpret the trumpet sound of those commotions and revolutions which were to introduce and accompany the judgment; or, as Olshausen does, of a powerful all-shaking operation of the Spirit; or, of an all-agitating κέλευσμα, command, or νεῦμα, nod, of God (Theoph.); or indefinitely of some sign that the judgment is to be held, is arbitrary. The trumpet blast, elsewhere spoken of as the signal for battle, (comp. 1 Corinthians 14:7), or for assembling, or for judgment, here comes as the signal for the great act of the all-victorious king, who will call his people out from among the quick and the dead into the glory of His heavenly life, and so shall gather them about himself. But Neander says: “We shall not be able to take the statement of the trumpet literally. It denotes the call to the last act of Divine omnipotence.”—for the trumpet shall sound,—σαλπισει is impersonal, it shall sound, like ὕιει, it rains, and the like. It is unnecessary to suppose any definite subject here, whether God, or Christ (comp. “the trump of God,” 1 Thessalonians 4:16; and “the Lord God shall blow the trumpet,” Zechariah 9:14), or an angel (comp. Revelation 8:2).—The events following upon the sound of the trumpet are introduced by καὶ; first, the resurrection of the dead according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, “the dead in Christ shall rise first” (comp. above 1 Corinthians 15:23), and that, too, in a state of incorruption (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:42).—and the dead shall be raised incorruptible;—then, the change of the living, which, as is shown from what follows, is also a transition into a state of incorruption. [This is in exact accordance with 1 Thessalonians 4:15. “Those who are alive when Christ comes shall not prevent,” i. e., take the precedence of, “them which are asleep”]. But to take the term “we” as a sort of generalization, by which he did not intend literally to denote himself and his cotemporaries, but only those living at the time of the Advent, and who belonged to an entirely different period, and so, as equivalent to ‘we Christians,’ i. e., those who shall then be alive [as Hodge and others], is entirely arbitrary. It is unquestionable that the apostle, although opposed to all fanciful expectations and designations of time (2 Thes. 11), regarded the second Advent as near, and hoped to survive to it; nor does what is said in 1 Corinthians 6:14, at all conflict with this (see above).—The event thus predicted is confirmed by a reference to the necessity of this change, pointing back to 1 Corinthians 15:50.—For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.—The epithets “corruptible” and “mortal” relate to the human body in its present state; but they are not to be distinguished, as though the former applied to the dead and the latter to the living (Bengel); for that which he designates as a mystery and has just made known, and that whereupon, therefore, the emphasis lies, is, that “we shall be changed.” Hence, he is speaking mainly of the living. To “put on” (ἐνδύσασθαι) a figure borrowed from clothing (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:49; 2 Corinthians 5:3, “not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon”). The maintenance of a personal identity, with a change in the quality of the vesture, is here unmistakably implied; according to de Wette, the figure is one of an inward purification (Luke 26:49; Romans 13:14; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10); according to Osiander of adornment and manifestation of the change—both doubtful. The aorist infinitive indicates the instantaneousness of the process. The repetition of the verb gives emphasis, and preserves the symmetry of the sentence. 1 Corinthians 15:54-57. He here announces in a solemn manner, enhanced by the literal repetition of what he has just said, that this event will consummate the victory over the last enemy, and in it will be fulfilled the prophecy which predicts the cessation of all death at that time. [“The argument closes in a burst of almost poetical fervor, (as in the corresponding passage, Romans 8:31).” Stanley].—And when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality,—[“a repetition in a triumphant spirit, of the description of the glorious change.” Alford].—then shall come to pass—γενήσεται here expresses the thought elsewhere conveyed by πληροῦσθαι, τελεῖσθαι.—the saying that is written,—The declaration is found in Isaiah 25:8, in a passage announcing the final consummation of God’s kingdom, and is cited, not according to the LXX., but according to the original Hebrew, except that αִּ ?μַ ?ςδַ ?τָּ ?εֶ ?ϊ, he will destroy death, is turned into the passive “is swallowed up;” and μָ ?πֶ ?φַּ ?η is translated as elsewhere in several passages in the LXX., e. g., Amos 1:11; Amos 8:8, εἰςνῖκος, into victory; while it properly means entirely, altogether (comp. Hupfeld on Psalms 13:2), which also suits the passage in Isa. (others: “altogether”)—Death is swallowed up into victory.—κατεπόθη the same idea that is expressed in καταργεῖται (1 Corinthians 15:26). “It is a remarkable expression, denoting the swallowing up of the all-swallower.” (Vitringa).—Εἰςνῖκος can here be interpreted neither as equivalent to ‘forever,’ nor yet to ‘entirely;’ nor can we take it as an adverb, ‘victoriously’ (Flacius); but it indicates the result of being swallowed up—“into victory,” i. e., so that victory is gained, and the enemy is overcome. To this the following triumphal song is well appended. An argument may be urged against Osiander’s local interpretation of εἰς, (by which victory is personified and represented as a ravenous beast, as though the expression meant ‘swallowed up in the jaws of victory’), from the want of the article, as also from to τὸνῖκος of 1 Corinthians 15:55. Inasmuch as in this whole context death must mean physical death, the doctrine of the restoration of all things, as suggested by Olshausen, has here no support.—The reference to the prophecy fulfilled at the resurrection culminates in a triumphal song, in uttering which, the Apostle seems transported in spirit to the moment of that grand consummation.—Where,—ποῦ, 1 Corinthians 1:20; Romans 3:27.—thy sting,—By κέντρον we are not to understand a goad, which death may be supposed to use in tilling his field, since without sin he could have no power over us [Billr. and Scholt.]; nor yet as something which calls out the power of death over us, awakes its slumbering might to tyrannize over us (Olsh.); but death is here figured as a venomous beast, armed with a poisonous, deadly sting—a scorpion, for example, [or a serpent like a viper in allusion to Genesis 3, and Numbers , 21]—O Death!—In this direct address the personification of death comes out more forcibly than in 1 Corinthians 15:54.—Where thy victory, O Death?—In this clause the Rec. Text has ἅφη, Hades, the kingdom of the dead, instead of θάνατε repeated. By “victory,” in this case, we would understand the detention in Hades of those who had departed to it; and this would be destroyed if Hades were compelled to give up the dead in a resurrection. But the reading ᾅδη is perhaps a correction made in accordance with the LXX version of Hos 13:14. This passage undoubtedly floated before the mind of the Apostle, and apparently in the form in which it appears in the LXX in so far as we translate the passage, “From the power of Sheol will I ransom them; from death will I deliver them,” thus: “O death, I will be thy plagues; O Grave, I will be thy destruction.” But ΰֱ ?δִ ?ι [translated I in our version] may be also=ΰַ ?ιֵּ ?δ, as in Hosea 13:10, [where it occurs in the sense of ποῦ, where,] (comp. Fόrst, Handwφrterbuch, s. v., ΰֱ ?δִ ?ι 1 Corinthians 1:30). But instead of γְ ?αָ ?ψֶ ?ικָ thy plagues (plural of γֶּ ?αֶ ?ψ=the mille viζ leti, the thousand ways of death), others appear to have read γָּ ?ψְ ?αָ ?πְ ?κָ ?thy sting, (Fόrst, s. v., γֶּ ?αֶ ?ψ); and χָ ?θָ ?αְ ?κָ may be translated thy overthrow, viz., that which thou workest; in which case it is=τὸνῖκοςσου, thy victory, (comp. Schmieder on Hosea 13:14). This prophecy opens for us a bright view into the last glorious epoch, like as Isaiah 25:8; and the thought mounts from the state of not dying, implied in the loss of death’s sting, to that of resurrection from the dead (Meyer Ed. 3). If we now unite this passage in Isa. to the citation from Hosea, which is not inadmissible, then we have here a combination of texts as in Romans 11:8, and eleswhere. [Hodge says the Apostle does not quote Hosea, but expresses an analogous idea in analogous terms].—To this triumphal song there is appended, first, a short explanation respecting the sting of death, which serves to confirm the statement that death is swallowed up (1 Corinthians 15:56). “It affords,” says Meyer, “a firm doctrinal basis for the certainty of victory over death, furnished in the Gospel system.”—The sting of death is sin;—The parallel here between κέντρον and δύναμις. might seem to indicate the propriety of taking the former in the sense above given, viz., that of a goad, implying that that which set death in motion, and rendered it active, is sin. But there is no necessity for this; and the connection with 1 Corinthians 15:55, where “sting” being parallel with “victory,” cannot denote that by which death is goaded, does not allow of it. The meaning is, rather, that death, like a scorpion, has a sting, a fatal power imparted to it by means of sin (comp. 1 Corinthians 6:23; 1 Corinthians 5:12). But in relation to sin he adds—and the strength of Sin is the law.—This has been understood, either of the sin-awakening, and the sin-strengthening power of the law in the sense of Rom 7:7 if.; or of its condemning power (2 Corinthians 3:6 ff.; chap. 9); or both ideas have here been combined (Osiander). The first interpretation is the correct one. As death has no sting, no fatal power, when sin is done away, and therefore is destroyed, as death; so sin has no power, is become weak and nullified, when the law is removed. The law is indeed the revelation of the Divine will in the form of a command or prohibition, which both presupposes, and calls out the opposition of man against God. So long as this stands in authority, sin, and accordingly death, has power. And here the question arises, Does the Apostle intend to infer from the nullification of the power of death at that period, that then sin and the law are done away? Or does he presuppose this as a matter evident of itself, and from it draw a conclusion in support of the destruction of death, and for the resurrection? Or does he mean to indicate that sin and the law stand in the way of this consummation? The following verse most readily connects itself with the last supposition; since here God is praised as the one who, through Jesus Christ, ensures a victory over every thing which obstructs the grand consummation; or, more exactly, the victory over death, of which mention has been before made; since in communion with Him we are delivered from the law, and, together with this, from the power of sin, and hence also from death (Romans 8:1). Thus is this complete victory exhibited to us in connection with the redemption secured by Christ, which is nothing less than a deliverance from law and sin; and the whole is referred back to God, the Author of our redemption, with ascriptions of thanksgiving.—But thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.—The present participle τῷδιδόντι, he giving us, may be taken as a vivid representation of the future in the form of the present, showing the absolute certainty of the thing; or it may denote the simple fact considered by itself apart from all idea of time; or, finally, it may represent God to us as the One who continually gives us the victory by taking away the condemnation of the law, and so destroying the power of sin in a life of faith, which is nothing less than a fellowship with Christ, who is the end of the law, and the destroyer of sin’s power. [“This He is: 1. Because He has fulfilled the demands of the law. It has no power to condemn those who are clothed in His righteousness. “There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1). Christ, by His death, hath “destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and delivered them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Hebrews 2:14-15). That is, in virtue of the death of Christ, by which the demands of justice are satisfied, Satan, the great executioner of divine justice, has no longer the right or power to detain. If, therefore, it be the law which gives sin its reality and strength, and if sin gives death its sting, He who satisfies the law destroys the strength of sin, and consequently the sting of death. It is thus that Christ deprives death of all its power to injure His people. It is for them disarmed and rendered as harmless as an infant. 2. But Christ not only gives us this victory through His justifying righteousness, but also by His almighty power, He new creates the soul after the image of God; and, what is here principally intended, He repairs all the evils which death had inflicted. He rescues our bodies from the grave, and fashions them like unto His glorious body, even by that “power whereby He is able to subdue all things unto Himself” (Philippians 3:21). Hodge]. 1 Corinthians 15:58. He concludes with an earnest exhortation to stedfastness and to advancement in Christian activity. And this which he introduces with an endearing epithet—My beloved brethren,—he joins first to a thankful allusion to the God who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ; and thus the whole exposition comes at last to its close. This is evident also from the corroborative clause.—wherefore—since God gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.—be ye stedfast unmovable,—suffer not yourselves to be shaken from the foundation of your faith and hope by any person or thing. “Ἐδραῖοι, stedfast,—‘do not turn yourselves from the faith of resurrection;’ ἀμετακίνητοι, unmovable,—‘be not led away by others.’ Bengel.—To this still another quality is annexed.—always abounding in the work of the Lord,—This is not to be taken as subordinating what precedes, as Meyer, who interprets: “so that ye distinguish yourselves in furthering the work of the Lord by your stedfastness in the Christian faith and life;” but it is still another feature of good conduct resulting from the conviction spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:57, viz., excelling in activity for the cause of Christ. By ἔργοντοῦκυρίου we are not to understand, either Christ’s work in a preλminent sense, i.e., the church (as the Romanists); nor yet a divine and blessed life (de Wette); but the work which Christ Himself undertook in obedience to the Father’s commission, and which He has commanded His followers to carry forward. In this are comprised both the proclamation and spread of the Gospel and the furtherance of the common weal by the reformation of individuals and of society. “It is something in which every Christian should coφperate through word and work in his own sphere.” Burger. To such activity he encourages them by a general assurance of success.—knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.—By κόπος he means an activity full of effort, involving burdens and self-denials for the advancement of the Redeemer’s kingdom. All this were vain and fruitless if our salvation were not to be consummated in triumph, if no victory over death and no resurrection were to be hoped for. But since this hope is sure, we know that our efforts will not fail of their goal,—that the glorious end will be reached at last which will compensate us for all our toil. The phrase “in the Lord” belongs, not to the subject (Meyer), but to the predicate, or rather to the whole clause. The profitableness of our labor is established in Christ. In fellowship with Him is its objects surely attained. [Obs. 1. In order to appreciate the force of the Apostle’s reasoning throughout this whole chapter, it will be necessary to connect it with that general scheme of historical development in which his great argument moves. In speaking of the “other world,” or “the world to come,” it is common to understand by these expressions some mysterious realm existing outside of, or apart from the material world into which we are introduced by death, and where departed spirits are supposed to be now living. Not unfrequently are these terms used interchangeably with “eternity.” On such an interpretation, it is not easy to see why the Apostle should make a future happy existence so contingent upon the resurrection; or, indeed, what necessity there is for a new body, if in our disembodied state we are so completely introduced into fellowship with Christ, and the glories of heaven. Nor can we discover a reason why the resurrection should not take place with every individual immediately after death, according to the theory of Bush and the Swedenborgians. To keep the soul, that would “not be unclothed but clothed upon,” waiting for centuries before it can assume its new vesture, seems almost like an arbritrary and needless appointment. But the difficulty here presented is all removed when we come to reflect that the term translated “world” (αἴων) is not a designation of space, denoting any particular realm in which people live, but of time. It properly means an age—a distinct cycle of years through which certain great transactions similar in kind are carried on to their consummation, and which is to be followed by another of a different kind. Now it is through a series of these ages, or aeons, that Paul considers the work of the world’s redemption to be progressively carried on, all separated by certain great crises. The “present age” is that period which dating from the Fall is to last until the second coming of Christ. At this point the “future age” will begin to date, and this will be the age of redemption completed—the age of the Messiah’s Kingdom and Glory. And the expression for ‘eternity’ is generally in the plural—‘ages’, or ‘ages upon ages,’ to signify the ceaseless procession of time, under which conception eternity was ordinarily represented. From this exposition will be seen the impropriety of speaking of souls at death passing at once into “the other” or “future world” or age. That future world or age has not yet come in; and no one can be said to enter it until Christ appears to set up His Kingdom. It is then only that the earth will be in readiness for the reception of the risen saints. And inasmuch as the glory which they are waiting for is to be found here, it will be seen why a resurrection is necessary,—why they want a body at all, and a glorified body, since it is in this as their organ that they will be fitted to dwell in a glorified earth and enjoy the felicity of that age. According to Paul’s theory, man is not to be separated from this lower creation of which he forms a part and of which he is the lord. The world was viewed by him as one complete whole, termed in Romans 8 “the creature” (κτίσις) which as it had been involved in the curse of the Fall was also to be restored in its completeness as the theatre of the Redeemer’s glory. But the time of its restoration could not occur, until all the redeemed of earth were brought in and the number of the elect completed. It is then that the Redeemer will appear to set up His Kingdom and around Him the whole church will be glorified together, none “preventing,” i.e., anticipating the other in the fruition of future glory. On such a scheme we discover a foundation for the Apostle’s argument which identifies a blessed immortality, with the fact of a future resurrection, and seemingly ignores the possibility of an existence in some purely spiritual state, such as Pagan philosophy dreams of. The process of redemption underlying this scheme of history has been well represented by Fairbairn (Hermeneutical Manual, p. 367) under four successive stages and developments indicated by four fundamental gospel terms. “We see it beginning in the region of the inner man—in the awakening of a sense of guilt and danger, with earnest strivings after amendment (μετάνοια, repentance); then, through the operation of the grace of God, it discovers itself in a regenerated frame of spirit, the possession of an essentially new spiritual condition (παλιγγενεσία, regeneration) this once found, proceeds by continual advances, and fresh efforts to higher and higher degrees of spiritual renovation (ἀνακαίνωσις, renewing), while according to the gracious plan and wise disposal of God, the internal links itself to the external, the renovation of soul paves the way for the purification of nature, until, the work of grace being finished, and the number of the elect completed, the bodies also of the saints shall be transformed, and the whole material creation shall become a fit habitation for redeemed and glorified saints (αποκατάστασις, restoration). What a large and divine-like grasp in this regenerative scheme! How unlike the littleness and superficiality of man! How clearly be-speaking the profound insight and far-reaching wisdom of God! And this not merely in its ultimate results, but in the method also and order of its procedure! In beginning with the inner man, and laying the chief stress on a regenerated heart, it takes possession of the fountain head of evil, and rectifies that which most of all requires the operation of renewing agency. As in the moral sphere, the evil had its commencement, so in the same sphere are the roots planted of all the renovation, that is to develop itself in the history of the Kingdom. And the spiritual work once properly accomplished, all that remains to be done shall follow in due time; Satan shall be finally cast out; and on the ruins of his usurped dominion, the glories of the new creation shall shine forth in their eternal lustre.” For a list of works on this whole subject of the nature and destiny of the soul, the reader may consult the appendix to the History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, by Alger, where nearly five thousand works on this engrossing theme are enumerated and described by Ezra Abbot. Among the best of the moderns are Delitzsch, Psychologie, 2. Ed.; Bleek, Seelenlehre; Heard, on the Tripartite nature of man. Consult also articles in Bib. Sacra, 17:303; 13 p. 159]. AND ETHICALThe risen saint’s retrospect and triumph. From the heights of a salvation completed the spirit looks back, in thought, on the dangers and difficulties through which it is to pass, and then, in contrast, to the deliverance provided for it in its several essential particulars; and such a review awakens it anew to the praise of God’s grace which through the power of Christ removed all obstacles, and gave it that victory in which it is to obtain the fulfilment of all the divine promises. But from this also there springs the earnest determination to remain stedfast in the maintenance of the grace conferred, and constantly to excel in furthering the great word of salvation in the joyful confidence that every sincere effort will result in securing at last a perfect communion with Christ who in His own person has overcome all obstacles and invites His followers to share in His victory. The attainment of our salvation proceeds through three inseparably connected stages—the doing away: 1. of the law; 2. of sin; 3. of death. The law is done away (so far as it calls out and intensifies an opposition to God), through the revelation of the perfect love of God, who sent His only-begotten Son, the holy and righteous One, to take upon himself and endure the curse of the law, or to become sin and a curse for us, and so to redeem us from curse and from judgment, and to secure our justification. Thus, sin is forgiven; we are accepted in the beloved; and a loving child-like communion is established which involves a participation in the divine glory. Through the manifestation of this love, the law is changed from being a summary of stringent exactions and prohibitions enforced by fearful threatenings, into a proclamation of the will of a Father now reconciled to us in Christ, and who is thus recognized as meaning kindness in every requirement, who forbids nothing but what is injurious, enjoins nothing but what is necessary and beneficial, obliges us to suffer nothing but what is subservient to our best good, and disciplines us because He loves us.—By this means, also, the power of sin is broken, and instead thereof a disposition to love awakened, which grows ever stronger and stronger, masters more and more perfectly all opposing tendencies and impulses, and brings the whole life with all its organs and powers more resolutely and undividedly, more willingly and joyfully, into the service of God’s holy love, and thus promotes the sanctification of the whole man.—By this same means also death is robbed of its sting. For believers who pursue after holiness, death appears no longer as an extinction of life causing pain and fear, and making us dreary and desolate; but as an entrance into the rest of Christ, which leads to a glorious renewal of life (comp. John 8:51; John 11:25 ff.; Romans 6:8 ff; Romans 8:11; Romans 8:38 ff.), in which our perfect victory over death, and, together with this, the consummation of our redemption, is made gloriously manifest. AND Starke:1 Corinthians 15:51. Hed.: Who then will fear the last great day! To become whole at once, is this a plague? In an instant mortal will be swallowed up of life.—At the resurrection men will have indeed new, yet not other bodies; their own, only changed. 1 Corinthians 15:53. What after all is beauty of body, and the finest garments; all must molder;—the resurrection will, for the first time, clothe us in beautiful and lasting array. 1 Corinthians 15:54 f. There are three it is finished: 1. at the creation,—for then all was very good; 2. at the redemption—achieved through the blood of Christ; and that was better; 3. at our sanctification and the eternal joy and glory which follow thereupon; which is the best of all. Then our mouth will be full of laughter and our tongue full of praise.—Death lies prostrate, and has now no more power. Life leaps aloft and exclaims: ‘Thus subdued, where, O Death, art thou now? and where that sting wherewith thou didst give men their deadly wound?’—Believers are now delivered from all dying.’ Wondrous triumph! 1 Corinthians 15:57. Through His perfect obedience and atoning work Christ has rendered satisfaction for our sins, and conquered death. Of this fact His victorious resurrection is a witness. This victory becomes ours through faith, and gives us the power to overcome sin and death likewise. This will be made manifest when Christ has raised our bodies to glory.—No one can confidently expect this victory but he who can say, ‘my faith also has overcome the world both within and without me’ (1 John 5:4 f.).—What can be more comforting to a Christian than that there should be granted him such a victory over physical death through Christ—that from being the punishment of sin it should become to him a blessing, a happy exit from all misery, and a joyful entrance into glory, and so, a triumph? 1 Corinthians 15:58. So long as we do not seek to become steadfast in Christianity, to be well grounded in faith, upon the Rock Christ, and to be immoveable against all the storms of temptation, so long will all labor in the practice of Christianity be, for the most part, useless. Indeed, not so much as earnest labor, as idleness and sleepy existence. Berlenb. Bibel:—If we do not put on Jesus Christ and the new man from day to day, then the corruptible and the new incorruptible humanity of the glorified Saviour will not be so speedily fused together. He who would share in this much wished for change must have his heart changed here.—The art of transformation God alone understands. What happens now is only preparatory. Hence, no one must regard such divine operations and purifications as a burden. 1 Corinthians 15:54. The victory of Christ will then first be fulfilled in us when the corruptible shall have put on incorruption (regeneration in a complete sense Matthew 19:28). This victory has already taken place; but it must be fulfilled in all for whom it has been achieved separately and actually, both in this world and in the next. It will be actually begun in each one, when, in his soul, sin and its wages, death, have been subdued in victory over sin, through Christ’s new resurrection power, and, on the other hand, an innocent divine life has been begotten in us. 1 Corinthians 15:55. A consolation which is now concealed from our eyes, in order that we may walk by faith. Death must be disarmed of its means of hurt if we can appropriate this language. 1 Corinthians 15:56. This he introduces after his song of triumph in order that we may not jubilate after too wild a sort. If the sting of death is to be entirely renounced, sin itself must be once for all entirely annihilated.—The power of sin shows itself in the torments of conscience and in its urging men against their will and better resolutions to do what they know to be wrong. This power, especially that of accusation and condemnation, which every penitent experiences at his conversion is given to sin by the law, when it shows to him what he has merited from God, in all his thoughts, and words, and deeds. And although now such a person earnestly resolve to deliver himself from sin and begin to guard himself against his old habits, and to strive against his evil inclinations, he will nevertheless not often succeed. The law of sin in the members strives against the spirit, so that we do not that which we gladly would. 1 Corinthians 15:57. God gives us victory, one after the other. If we at any time have already overcome any lust, this happened not from any power of nature, but of grace which has been secured through our Lord Jesus Christ. He who has this grace strong in him may boast in the Lord and in the power of His might.—What boots it, though we daily console ourselves with all these sayings respecting Christ’s victory, and are yet not daily obedient to him?—Our enemies are not overcome for us in any such way that they need not also be overcome in us through the power of Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:58. Firm and immoveable shall we become, if we earnestly hold to the centre.—Striving, watching, praying, the work of faith and the labor of love—this is what will preserve God to us. Let us only be found diligent therein.—The work is ours in respect to its exercises; it is not ours in respect to its origin. Rieger:1 Corinthians 15:51 ff. Every divine truth furnishes its own contribution to faith, partly, in preparing the heart for it; partly, in actually awakening it; partly, in promoting its growth; partly, in furthering its activity and fruitfulness; and partly, in leading it on to its glorious end. 1 Corinthians 15:54 ff. God’s work cannot remain unfinished. The patient waiting of believers, and the sighing of God’s creatures will not remain unheard. But for this, we must give God time.—The power of hope brought to light we have to enjoy in the extremities of death; but the song of victory: O, Death, where is thy sting? will chiefly be sung amid the joys of the resurrection. There is no encouragement in the scriptures for a haughty contempt of death. Even in the New Testament, all comfort in reference to it, is derived from communion with Christ, and from that fellowship in love, in which death can effect no break nor separation. 1 Corinthians 15:56. Faith bows itself beneath the judgment of God; seizes the shield of the hope of salvation; and every where shows that it has more to do with God, and His honor, and the sanctification of His name and the fulfilment of His work, and that it is enough for us that with all this, God has intimately in woven our salvation also. The sting, by which Death can do us the most hurt, is sin, or the sentence, that death through sin has come into this world, and is now its wages. And the law on its awakening in the conscience, first shows this enemy in its full strength. Do not, however, try to avoid it on this account. He who shrinks from entering into the pain and anguish occasioned by the law, will be deficient in consolation and joyful thanksgiving to God. To become free from the fear of death at a bound, would to many a one seem right; but the victory given us through Christ, has its stages. We are called out of sin into grace, die unto the law in its power, come into subjection to Christ Jesus and the rule of His Spirit, learn thereby how there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ, and also what is revealed to our hope even for this mortal body. Therefore (1 Corinthians 15:58), he who has so learned to know sin and grace, death and life, and discovers in himself the germ of eternal life through the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, can stand fast against all inward fickleness, be immovable against external temptations, and avoid all weariness, and instead, rather abound more and more in the work of the Lord, faith in whom is the spring of every thing else. Heubner:1 Corinthians 15:54 f. The Christian experiences indeed the natural dread of death, but not its inward terrors. Through Christ he becomes stronger than nature. Death has for him no more terror, because it brings to him no destruction of being, no judgment, no pain and punishment. Such a song of triumph no wisdom of this world can strike up. Only the fact of redemption tunes us to such peans. 1 Corinthians 15:56. That which makes death so fearful is the consciousness of sin, and the fear of damnation. But sin is terrible on account of the holy law of God. This law shows us at once its guilt and its curse. 1 Corinthians 15:57. With this song of praise the Christian celebrates the victory over these great enemies, Death, Sin and Satan. These enemies Christ has already overcome, and celebrated His triumph in the unseen world (Colossians 2:15). Without his aid, no one could overcome these mighty enemies. This victory is not our merit, but a grace given us by God through Christ. The atonement, and the hope of eternal life are closely connected. Everything which Christ has is ours, and this should be our daily medicine. 1 Corinthians 15:58. The work of our Lord is, a. what works in us; b. what we bring to pass in His strength. No pure, humble work is ever in vain. The Lord’s work succeeds, and he does not suffer his followers’ work to fail. W. F. Besser:1 Corinthians 15:55. For him whom hell no more frights with its torments there is a victory over hell also at the last day, when Christ will be revealed as the Man who has the keys of death and of hell. Whence now have we the right, and derive we the courage to sing such a song of triumph as we feel welling up even in this our mortal body? It stands not in our power to avoid the sting of death; but what is impossible with us has been made possible by God in Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:58. In order to become stedfast through faith in the hope of the Gospel, and to stand immovable in the citadel of Apostolic doctrine we should seek the aid of the Holy Ghost. But in the Christian life there is no firm endurance without constant watchfulness. If we would abound in the work of the Lord, we must allow the work of His great love to operate in us, and stand in faithful co-operation with that love, in order that every one according to his gift and office, may devote himself to the edification of the Church, with the word of truth and with the labor of love (1 Corinthians 12:14). He who works in the Lord, and directs his eye to the day of harvest say’s with Paul: “I die daily,” and quiets his heart in patience, being joyful in hope. Gerock:—Faith’s song of triumph at the grave of the risen: “O, Death, where is thy sting?” Thy sting whereby thou, a. robbest me me of my dearest (1 Corinthians 15:52); b. and threatenest my own body (1 Corinthians 15:51); c. and frightenest my poor soul (1 Corinthians 15:56); d. and destroyest the work of my hands (1 Corinthians 15:58). Luther:—“Thanks be unto God,” etc. This may we also sing, and so keep perpetual Easter, that we may extol and praise God for such a victory, which was not achieved through us, nor won in fight (for it is too high and great), but has been graciously given to us of God—who pitieth our sorrows out of which none could help us, and sent unto us His son, and let Him undertake the conflict. Sin, Death and Hell has He overcome, and given unto us the victory, so that we may say: ‘It is our victory,’ so that we may accept it with earnestness, and not give God the lie, neither be found ungrateful for it, but maintain it with firm faith in our hearts, and strengthen ourselves therein, and always sing of this victory in Christ, and go on, joyful therein until we see Him also in our own body. To this, may God help us through His own dear Son, and to Him be all glory and praise forever and ever. Amen!” [Sermons.—Manning:1 Corinthians 15:51. The Commemoration of the faithful departed.—Newton: 1 Corinthians 15:51. The general resurrection. I. The mystery. 1. Beyond the reach of fallen man to discover without a revelation from God. 2. Still unintelligible without a further revelation through the influence of the Spirit. II. What to be expected—universal changes. III. Suddenness of event—in a moment. IV. The grand preceding signal—the trumpet sound. Improvement. 1. A joyful day to believe 2. In view of it what manner of men ought we to be. 1 Corinthians 15:54. Death swallowed up in victory. How predicable of Christians. I. They were once dead in law—but forgiven. II. Once dead in sin—but quickened. III. Once under the tyranny of Satan—but made conquerors over him. IV. Once subject to woes and sufferings—but sorrow and sighing are turned to joy and gladness. V. Once reaped the bitter fruits of sin—but grace triumphs over every evil.—1 Corinthians 15:55-57.—Triumph over death and the grave. I. Death armed with a powerful sting. 1. What the sting Isaiah 2. How sharpened by the law. II. Death disarmed by the death of Christ. III. The doxology—emphatic in every word. 1. Thanks to God—His work. 2. Who giveth us the victory—a victory indeed. 3. Through Jesus Christ. This song best sung when the whole redeemed are collected together.—Howe:1 Corinthians 15:54. The Christian’s triumph over death. I. The explication of its rational import. 1. The import—God’s general determination to put a perpetual end to death. a. Death as here spoken of supposes a certain limited subject, viz.: such as are Christ’s. b. It extends to the whole of that subject—the inner and the outward man. c. Presupposes a war. d. Where this war ends not in victory on the one side, it ends in victory on the other. 2. The reasonableness of the import. a. God’s glory requires it. b. The felicity of the redeemed requires it. II. The use of the doctrine. 1. If asserted to be believed. 2. Full of comfort; a. in reference to departed friends; b. in reference to our own death. III. A monition to us since spoken only of some and not of all. IV. This doctrine should cause us to abstain from rash censures of providence that God lets death reign over so great a part of His creation for so long a time. John Logan:—1 Corinthians 15:55-57. The Christian’s victory over death. Christ sets us free: I. From the doubts and fears that are apt to perplex the mind from the uncertainty in which a future state is involved. II. From the apprehensions of wrath proceeding from the consciousness of sin. III. From the fears that arise in the mind upon the awful transition from this world to the next. Spurgeon:—1 Corinthians 15:56-57. Thoughts on the last battle. I. The sting of death—Sin. 1. Because it brought death into the world. 2. Because it is that which shall make death most terrible. 3. If sin in the retrospect be the sting of death, what must sin in the prospect be? II. The strength of sin—the Law. 1. In this respect that the law being spiritual it is quite impossible for us to be without sin. 2. It will not abate one tittle of its stern demands. 3. For every transgression it will exact a punishment. III. The victory of faith. 1. Christ has taken away the strength of sin in that He has removed the law. 2. In that, He has completely satisfied it by His perfect obedience. 3. By having brought life and immortality to light through the resurrection. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 15:51.—The Rec. is satisfactorily authenticated, [πάντεςμένοὐκοιμθησόμεθα, πάντεςδὲἀλλαγησόμεθα]. The origin of the other readings is easily explained from the apparent difficulty of this. Lachmann [and Stanley] have πάντες [μὲν] κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐπάντεςδὲἀλλαγ. Others have πάντεςμὲνἀναστησόμεθα, οὐπάντεςδὲἀλλαγ. [The μὲν has in its favor A. C. (2d. hand), D. (2d and 3d hand), E. F. G. K. L. Sinait., Vulg., later Syr., Copt., and a few eccles. writers, hut against it B. C. (1st hand), D. (1st hand), the Syr. (Pesch.), Aeth., and Orig. Jerome testifies that in his day all the Latins had omnes quidem resurgemus, but that the Greeks were divided between omnes dormiemus, and non omnes dormiemus. Augustine also mentions that both Greeks and Latins were divided about it. It was very likely to have originated in an attempted conformity with the subsequent δὲ. For placing the οὐ before κοιμηθ., so that it may qualify that word, and not after, with the comma before it, so that it may quality ἀλλαγ., we have B. D. (2d and 3d hand), E. K. L., almost all the cursives, with the Goth., Syr., (both), Copt., Aeth., Arab. versions, and many of the best Greek and Latin writers. Among the other MSS. there is an almost inextricable confusion, suggesting that they are not reliable. They appear to have sprung from the idea that otherwise Paul would assert (contrary to fact) that he, and those to whom he wrote, were not to die. See all the readings discussed elaborately in Reiche and Tischendorf.—C. P. W.] 1 Corinthians 15:52.—Lachmann has ἀναστήσονται, but the evidence for that reading is not quite convincing. [It is sustained by A. D. E. F. G., 2 cursives, Orig. (one ms.), Chrys. (one ms.), Damasc., Theophyl. (marg.); but B. C. K. L. M., Sinait., several copies of the Latin, Vulg. (resurgunt), Orig. (5 times). Dialog., Chrys. (one ms.), Cyr., Theodt., have ἐγερθήσονται.—C. P. W.] 1 Corinthians 15:54.—The whole sentence τὸφθαρτὸντ. ἐνδύσ. αφθαρσ. και is omitted in C. (1st hand), Sinait., (1st hand), 2 cursives, the Vulg., Goth., Copt., Aeth. (both), Marcion (in Epiph.), Athan., Iren. (Lat.), Hilar., Aug. (once), Ambrst., Fulg., Oros., Bede. By A., the Arm., version, and some unimportant MSS., it is inserted after τὸθνητ. τ. ἐνδύς. ἀθαν.; D. (1st hand, not in the Lat. 1st hand), entirely omits this latter sentence. Doubtless by hom�oteleuton.—C. P. W.] 1 Corinthians 15:55.—The κέντρον and νῖκος are arranged in the reverse order by a number of good MSS. [B. C. J. M. Sinait. (1st hand), Vulg., Copt. Aeth., Arm., Slav., Eus., Athan., Didym., Cyr., Damasc, Iren. (Lat.), Tert., Jer., Ambr.] This was done probably, to make the sentence conform to the Septuagint. Such, too, was doubtless the origin of the substitution of ᾀδη for the second θάνατε [in A. (2d hand), K. L. M. Sinait., (3d hand), several cursives, the Goth., Syr. (both), Orig., Athan. (once), Cyr., Epiph. For θάνατε twice we have B. C. D. E. F. G. I., 2 cursives, the Ital., Vulg., Copt., Aeth., Arm., Euseb., Athan. (once), Nyss., Iren. (Lat.), Tertul., Cypr., Ambr., August. Wordsworth, gives as a reason for the change of ᾅδη into θάνατε, that the primitive Christians, who would not be surprised at a personification of θάνατος, would have been shocked at such a bold apostrophe as the Apostle here derived from his Hebrew Scriptures to Hades, on the ground that it would countenance the heathen notion of a personal deity so named.—C. P. W.] [Calvin remarks: “There is here no difference in the Greek MSS. [which is true, so far as those he had to deal with went], but in the Latin versions there are three different readings. The first is, We shall, indeed, all die, but we shall not all be changed. The second is, We shall, indeed, all rise again, but we shall not all be changed. [This is the reading of the Vulgate followed by Wickliffe and the Rheim’s version.] The third is, We shall not, indeed, all sleep, but we shall all be changed.” This diversity he ascribes to the fact, “that some readers, who are not the most discerning, dissatisfied with the true reading, ventured to conjecture a reading which was more approved by them”]. XVII THE FOR THE SAINTS IN ; OF HIS VISIT AND OF THE DUE TO HIS FRIENDS AND HELPERS; FINALLY AND PARTING WISHES WITH EARNEST 1 Corinthians 161Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to [arranged 2throughout, διέταξα] the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the [every, χατὰμίαν] first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him [whatsoever has gone well with him, ὅτιἅνεὐοδῶται], that there be no gatherings when I come. 3And when I come [am arrived, παραγένωμαι], whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, [om. by your letters] them will I send [with letters] to 4bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And [But, δὲ ?] if it be meet that I go [worth my going, ἅξιοντοῦχἀμὲπορέυεσθαι] also, they shall go with me. 5Now I will come unto you, when I shall pass through Macedonia: For I do pass through Macedonia. 6And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with you [in order, ἴνα], that ye may bring me on my journey [send me forward, προπέμψητε, om. on my journey] whithersoever I go. 7For I will not [I do not wish to, οὐθέλω] see you now by the way; but I trust [for I hope, ἐλπίζωγὰρ] to tarry a while with you, if the Lord permit [shall have permitted me, ἐπιτρέψῃ ?]. 8But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. 9For a great door and effectual is [has been, ἀνέῳγε] opened unto me, and there are 10many adversaries. Now [But, δὲ ?] if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear: for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do. 11Let no man therefore despise him: but conduct him forth [send him forward] in peace, [in order, ἵνα] 12that he may come unto me: for I look for him with the brethren. [But] As touching our [the] brother Apollos, I greatly desired him [besought him much, πολλὰπαρεκάλεσα] to come unto you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time. 13Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. 14Let all your things [every thing you 15do] be done with charity [in love, ἐνὰγάπῃ ?]. [But] I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have 16addicted themselves to the ministry [the service] of the saints,) That ye [also, χαῖ ?] submit yourselves [be subject, ὑποταςςησθε] unto such, and to every oneth at helpeth 17with us, and laboureth. I am glad of the coming [But I rejoice at the presence, χαίρωδὲἐπὶτῃπαρουσίᾳ ?] of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part [the want of you, τὸὑμέτερονὑστέρημα] they have [om. have, ἀνεπλήρωσαν] supplied. 18For they have [om. have, ὰνέπαυσαν] refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge ye them that are such. 19The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla [Prisca, ΙΙρίςχα] salute you much in the Lord, with the church [congregation, ἐχχλησίᾳ ?] that is in their house. 20All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with a holy kiss. 21The salutation of me Paul with my own hand. 22If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ [om. Jesus Christ], let him be Anathema, Maranatha. 23The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. 24My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen [om. Amen].The first epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi by Stephanas, and Fortunatus, and Achaicus, and Timotheus. [om. this whole subscription.] AND 1 Corinthians 16:1-4. [“The conclusion of this Epistle, as of that to the Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Timothy, is taken up with matters more or less personal and secular. Of these the first is the collection amongst the Gentile churches for the poorer Christians in Judea. From whatever cause, there was at this period much poverty in Palestine, compared with the other eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. The chief allusions contained in the apostolical Epistles, to the duties of the rich towards the poor, are those which we find in connection with the contribution here mentioned. And in the Epistle of St. James and that to the Hebrews, both addressed, if not to Judea, at least to Jewish communities. And with this agrees the great stress laid in the Gospels on the duty of alms-giving. We learn also, from the account of the last struggle for independence in Josephus, how deeply the feelings of the poor were embittered against the rich in Jerusalem, so as to give to the intestine factions of that time something of the character of a social war. This was, in part, occasioned by the greater density of population in Palestine, compared with the thinly inhabited tracts of Greece and Asia Minor; in part by the strongly marked distinction of rich and poor, which had been handed down to the Jews from the earlier periods of their history, where we are familiar with it from the denunciations of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Nehemiah. The Christians, besides, were, as a general rule, from the poorer classes (James 2:5), and would be subject to persecutions and difficulties, on account of their religion (Hebrews 10:24). From the mention of the poor as a distinct class in the Christian church, in Acts 9:36, and in the passages relating to the contribution now in question, it would seem that the community of property at Jerusalem must have either declined or failed of its object; and may have even contributed to occasion the great poverty which we thus find prevailing in the period of twenty or thirty years after its first mention. So pressing was the necessity at the time when St. Paul first parted from the church of Jerusalem, that an express stipulation was made in behalf of this very point (Galatians 2:10). ‘To remember the poor,’ was the one link by which the Apostle of the Gentiles was still bound to the churches of Judea. This pledge was given, probably, before his second journey. But it was not till his third and last journey that the preparations were made for the great contribution of which he now speaks. From this passage, confirmed indirectly by Galatians 2:10; Galatians 6:10, it would appear that he had first given orders for the collection in the churches of Galatia. From 2 Corinthians 8:10; 2 Corinthians 9:2, it also appears that the orders here given to the Corinthians had been received by them a year before the time of the Second Epistle, and therefore some months before this Epistle.” Stanley]. Now concerning the collection for the saints,—These words may either be connected with those immediately following, so as to be rendered, ‘as 1 gave order concerning the collection,’ etc. (comp. 12:1; 8:1; 2 Corinthians 9:1); or be taken absolutely, as in 1 Corinthians 16:12; 1 Corinthians 7:1. [“The περἰδὲ, now concerning, rather serves to introduce the new subject than to form any constructional part of the sentence.” Alford. “Observe the beauty of the connection with what has gone before. The Apostle had just been preaching consolation to the faithful, from the certainty of a glorious resurrection of the body; and in accordance with our Lord’s declarations concerning works of mercy (Matthew 25:34-46) he had taken occasion from that doctrine to enforce the duty of laboring sted-fastly in the Lord in deeds of piety and charity, in order to a blessed immortality. He now applies that Christian doctrine and duty to a particular work, in which he himself was then engaged, and in which he desired to engage the Corinthians.” Wordsworth]. The entire form of the introduction, as well as the article before λογίας, the collection, indicates that he had spoken before in regard to the matter, and the Corinthians had, perhaps, inquired how they were to carry it forward. The word λογία no where else occurs in Scripture, [“and seems to have been Hellenistical and idiotical, it being rarely found in the classical writers.” Bloomfield]. The design of the collection is indicated by the preposition εἰς. The saints were the poor Christians in Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:3; Romans 15:26; comp. Acts 24:17). The mother church had been impoverished in part by the community of goods that took place soon after Pentecost, and in part by persecutions, and perhaps also ‘by contributions for the mission work among the dispersed’ (Osiander); and the support of it was an act of filial piety, calculated also to promote a brotherly union between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. The supposition that Paul wished to quiet the opposition of the Jewish Christians, who had been aroused against him, by this work of love (Cath.), is to be rejected as contrary to that simplicity of purpose manifest in this Epistle.—as I gave order to the churches of Galatia,—This order was issued probably during his residence among the Galatians (Acts 18:23); or it may have emanated from him at Ephesus. [Nothing of the sort appears in the Epistle to the Galatians; the allusion to it there (2:10) being only incidental]. The mention here of this order, thereby indicating what the Galatians were doing, was simply for the purpose of stimulating one church by the example of another. As Bengel remarks, “To the Corinthians he proposes the example of the Galatians; to the Macedonians, the example of the Corinthians; to the Romans that of the Corinthians and Macedonians (2 Corinthians 9:2; Romans 15:26). Great is the power of example.”—even so do ye also.—ποιήσατε—The aorist here imparts urgency to the exhortation. The thing is to be done at once; “bis dat, qui cito dat,” who gives quickly, gives twice.—Next comes the specific direction as to what they were to do.—Upon the first (day) of the week—κατὰμίασαββάτον, lit. “upon one of the Sabbath.” σάββατου, a designation for the week, occurring also in Luke 18:12. μία, one, is for πρώτη, first; a Hebraism, ΰֶ ?ηָ ?γαַּ ?ωַּ ?αַּ ?ϊ (Lightfoot on Matthew 28:1). “This passage is important as the first in which there occurs any trace of a distinction put upon the first day of the week, as our Lord’s resurrection day. Certainly we cannot find here any special observance of the day, as Osiander does.” Neander. Inasmuch as he says nothing of laying by in the church assembly, it does not follow from what is here said, that the churches convened on that day. All that can be inferred is that this day of the resurrection of our Lord was for the Christians a holy day, out of which all other observances of the sort naturally develop themselves.—let each one of you lay up by himself,—παῤἑαυτῷ, at home (comp. πρὸςἑαυτόν Luke 24:12); [like the French chez soi (Rob. Lex. under πάρα), or the German bei sich selbst (as Luther’s version gives it). The phrase is therefore conclusive against the prevailing opinion that the collection was taken up in the church. It was an individual and private affair. “This is confirmed by the exhortation in allusion to the same subject, in 2 Corinthians 9:7, ‘Every man, according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver.’ ” Stanley].—treasuring up—From the fact that something was laid aside every Sunday, there would naturally result an accumulation, νησανρός, hence the part. νησαυρίζων, [rendered in the E. V. “in store. ”].—whatever he has been prospered in,—ὅ, τιἅνεὐωδῶται; [ὅ, τι is for καθ’ ὁ ?̓ ?, or καθῶς, according as, or, in respect to whatever. The addition of ἄν gives it a general and potential character; εν̓ωδεῖσθαι, lit. ‘to be set forward on a journey’]; hence, ‘what he has gained by the success of business.’ This he regards as a devine blessing, which he would have redound to the benefit of their needy brethren [as may be seen from the use of the passive implying the reception of some good from a source too obvious to require mention]. The object of this gradual accumulation was, as he says,—in order that there may be no gatherings when I come.—By this preliminary work, the whole business of collection would be lightened, the voluntariness of the contribution be preserved, a greater amount perhaps collected, and time gained. [The order of the Greek would indicate an emphasis not observed in the English translation], ‘in order that when I come, then there may be no collections made,’ as though he wanted the time of his next visit for something more important. The taking up of the collection, though a very important part of his business, was still only incidental to the far greater one of preaching the Gospel. Hodge draws another argument from this, in favor of the position that this passage is proof of an early observance of the Lord’s day for worship. “But if every man had his money laid by at home, the collection would be still to be made. The probability is, therefore, Paul intended to direct the Corinthians to make a collection every Lord’s day for the poor, when they met for worship.” There is some force in this. But must not this be interpreted in consistency with the settled meaning of παῤἑαυτῷ, and it be supposed to mean, as Barnes says, “that there should be no trouble in collecting the small sums; that it should all be prepared; and all persons be ready to hand over to him what he had laid by?” Or, while the “laying by” was to be at home weekly, may not “the treasuring up “refer to the depositing of the sum in the church treasury at some time previous to Paul’s arrival, so that it should be there ready for him. This seems the fairest method of interpretation].—And when I have arrived—He here goes on to mention some further arrangements respecting the guardianship of the collection, [as it were to pledge in advance the utmost care of what might be bestowed, and to preclude any allegations on the part of his enemies of any personal interest in the matter].—whomsoever ye may approve—(οὒςἐάν, 6:18). δοκομάσητε, ‘approve after suitable examination.’ [“The Corinthians themselves were to choose their agents, probably to prevent the possibility of misappropriation, as others had been chosen for a like purpose by the other churches. See 2 Corinthians 8:18-20, ‘And we have sent with him the brother avoiding this that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us.’ ” Stanley]. Thus all suspicion would be obviated.—by letters, them will I send—δἰἐπιστολῶν is not to be joined with what precedes [as in E. V. and by Beza, Calvin, and Chrys.] (quos Hierosolymitanis per epistolas commendaveritis), but with what follows. It is prefixed by way of emphasis; also perhaps in allusion to the other possible alternative mentioned in the next verse, which was already in mind. These letters would be for the purpose of accrediting the messengers, and commending them and their object to friends at Jerusalem. [“Hence, we see how common Paul’s practice was of writing epistles. And who knows how many private letters of his, not addressed to churches, have been lost? The only letter of the kind, which remains to us (except the Pastoral Epistles), viz., that to Philemon, owes its preservation perhaps to the mere circumstance that it is at the same time addressed to the church in the house of Philemon (1 Corinthians 16:2).” Meyer].—to convey your favor.—χάριν, used by metonymy for your ‘charity,’ or ‘token of love.’ (Plato: εὐεργεσίαἑκούσιος); likewise in 2 Corinthians 8:4; 2 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 8:19. To this he adds another proposal, conditioned upon the magnitude of the collection, is making the thing worth while.—But if it should be worth my going also,—i.e., ‘the collection, or its gross amount be large enough to warrant my taking such a journey in person;’ for only this would justify his participating in the thing. He says this from a just sense of his dignity as an apostle; and it by no means conflicts with a real humility. [“A just estimate of one’s self is not pride.” Bengel]. To ascribe his readiness to accompany the gift to a desire, either to look after its distribution, or to secure for himself by means of it a kind reception, is altogether gratuitous. He intimates nothing of the sort. But it were reasonable to suppose that he took this as a delicate way of stimulating them to make the collection as large as possible. That he actually carried out this purpose, may be seen from Romans 15:25; comp. Acts 21 (although nothing is said here of the collection). 1 Corinthians 16:5-9. Taking up his declaration in 1 Corinthians 16:3, about being present with them, he here explains himself more fully in regard to his purpose, especially as to the time of his visit. His earlier plan, which he did not carry out (2 Corinthians 1:23), was, as we see from 2 Corinthians 1:15, a very different one. [It was to go to Macedonia by way of Corinth, and then to return to them at Corinth. This he had made known to them either by the lost Epistle, or by an oral message. But now he tacitly drops this, (thereby exposing himself to a charge of levity of purpose, 2 Corinthians 1:17 ff.), and proceeds to state another, reversing the order of his going, to Corinth round by way of Macedonia]. That here announced he did execute (comp. 2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 8:1; 2 Corinthians 9:2; 2 Corinthians 9:4; 2 Corinthians 2:1; 2 Corinthians 12:14; 2 Corinthians 13:1). [Here we find him already in Macedonia, when the 2 Epistle to them was written; and in Acts 20:1 ff. there is an account of his journey].—Now I will come to you when I have passed through Macedonia;—[And this he was to do without stopping by the way, as may be seen in the next sentence, which is not to be read, as it often is, parenthetically, as though repeating in a positive manner what had been just mentioned as a condition of time].—For I shall pass through Macedonia.—διέρχομαι is here present for the future; [and it must be read in its strictest ‘sense, q. d., I am going right through, as] it stands in contrast with the παραμενῶ of the next clause as indicated by δὲ.—But with you,—[πρὸςὑμᾶς comes first, because designed to express the antithesis to Μακεδονίαν].—it may be,—τυχόν shows his determination was not settled. He takes into account circumstances which might possibly prevent his doing as he desired.—I shall tarry, or even pass the winter,—As his language in speaking of his plan breathes an affectionate and winning spirit, so he goes on in what follows, where the position of the words is expressive of feeling.—in order that ye—in preference to every other church,—may send me forward whithersoever I may go.—In this way he shows how very close to his heart they stood. It was a custom, as may be learned from many passages, (Romans 15:24; Acts 15:3; Acts 17:15; 3 John 1:6), for members of the Church to show their respect and love by accompanying the ministers that went from them, a little way on their journey, probably by a deputation chosen from their number, οὐ [with a verb of motion], for ὅποι, Luke 10:1. [The adverb of rest is joined with a verb of motion in a pregnant way, to signify the place of rest after the motion is accomplished. See Jelf. Gr. Gram., § 647, 6, 3, a. προπέμπειν, to send forward, a common expression for denoting that helpful attendance on departing guests which was wont to be done in token of regard].—For I am not willing at this time to see you by the way;—i.e., ‘only make you a flying visit. Inasmuch as ἄρτι does not stand before οὐθέλω, it is evident, he is not here speaking of any change of plan in regard to his journey, as though his previous wish had been to see them only in passing. And since it reads ἄρτι and not πάλιν, there is nothing to warrant the inference that he made a brief earlier visit. The reason of the determination just expressed he next gives.—for I hope to tarry a while with you,—An expectation which the appearance of things, as they then were, seemed to warrant. πρὸεὑμᾶς=παῤὑμῖν, as in 1 Corinthians 16:6; comp. 11, 3.—if the Lord permit.—An expression of that pious feeling which always led him to realize his dependence on the will of the Lord in whatsoever he undertook. [Comp. James 4:15. “For that ye ought to say, if the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that”—a condition which the early Christians were wont to append to all expressions of their determination in reference to anything future, in the deep consciousness that all events were under the direction of that God to whose will it was their purpose ever to submit. With finite creatures no resolution can or ought to be absolute. Every act is conditioned on Him who is the sole absolute Sovereign]. He now states his plans still further.—But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.—[In this revelation of his intentions Chrysostom detects an indication of his confidence and affection toward the Corinthians]. There is no reason to infer from Acts 20:1, as Osiander does, that he left Ephesus earlier than the time mentioned in consequence of the uproar occasioned by Demetrius. Two reasons are assigned for his tarrying.—For a door has been opened before me,—By the open door (comp. 2 Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 4:3; Revelation 3:8), he signifies the opportunity that was given him for laboring in the cause of Christ.—large—By this he indicates the extent of the opportunity before him. It was a wide field,—and effectual—By this he denotes the intensive aspect of it, or perhaps also the influence which his activity seemed destined to exert (Meyer). He here passes out from the figure to the real aspects of the case, and that, too, not in a logically consistent manner. Hence the reading ἐναργής (also in Philemon 1:6) which appears in the Latin authorities, and so the Vulgate has evidens [and the Rheims version, evident]. The meaning is, that there was a rich opportunity for labor, and that, too, of the most abundant and energetic sort. And is there not an intimation here also of the power of divine grace in opening the door (Osiander)? A second reason for lingering at Ephesus is,—and there (are) many adversaries.—The great success of the Apostle provoked strong opposition against Him. This only stimulated the Apostle, who felt himself strong in the Lord, to remain rather than to leave. [Besides, his presence was the more needful for the strength and support of the infant church, which he had gathered]. Neander, however, thinks that no motive is here assigned for a longer stay, but only that the Apostle intended to have the Corinthians infer from it that matters were not going so very comfortably with him, and that he was obliged to struggle with many obstacles. [“The opponents of the Gospel varied very much in character in different places. Those in Ephesus were principally men interested in the worship of Diana. The pressure of the heathen seemed to have driven the Jews and Christians to make common cause (Acts 19:22). Whereas, in Corinth Paul’s most bitter opposers were judaizers.” Hodge]. 1 Corinthians 16:10-11. Now if Timothy come,—Timothy’s visit to Corinth was to precede his own (comp. 4:17). He, together with Erastus, had contemplated making a visitorial journey first to Macedonia (Acts 19:22). Him, therefore, he here commends to their friendly and re-spectful reception, and to their peaceful furtherance of him on his way. Instead of, “if he come,” he might have written ‘when’ he comes, thereby simply indicating the time of his arrival but in using the conditional form, he expresses some doubt in reference to his coming, in consequence of the uncertainties of the journey [“And though Paul had sent him forward thither, yet he had many churches in Macedonia to visit by the way.” Bloomfield].—see—βλἑπειν, to look to something, is generally followed by ἐις or πρός; but here by a clause beginning with ἵνα, signifying intention.—that he may be with you without fear:—This request refers not to protection from unbelievers, still less is it a warning against hostile attacks from opponents (Mosheim); but it is aimed rather a the haughty, overbearing conduct of proud partisan leaders, and their followers. He may also have had in mind Timothy’s timid nature. This request is supported by a reference to the high calling of Timothy.—for he worketh the I work of the Lord,—ἕργοντοῦκυοίου. as in 15:58; it may mean either the work in which the Lord himself is engaged, or that which He has prescribed.—as I also do.—By this he expresses either a similarity of office, or that Timothy evinced the same zeal and fidelity to the cause of Christ which he also felt (Osiander). The first explanation would perhaps be the more correct. [Hodge combines them both]. Hereupon follows a more definite injunction.—Let no man therefore despise him:—whether it be on account of his youth (Tim. 4:12), or on account of his natural modesty (Burger, refering to 2 Timothy 1:6-7), or out of party zeal because he came from Paul.—but send him on—[In regard to the manner of sending on, see above, 1 Corinthians 16:6],—in peace,—These words are not to be connected with what follows (Flatt). They do not mean, simply, in safety and in good condition, but still more, ‘without annoyance,’ ‘with good understanding and kindly affection.’ And the object of this is,—that he may come to me:—And the reason for his coming to him, and not going elsewhere is,—for I am waiting for him with the brethren.—These brethren were not with the waiting Apostle, but with Timothy, who must have had other companions besides Erastus (comp. 1 Corinthians 16:12). It was common to send several (Meyer). 1 Corinthians 16:12.—As touching our brother Apollos,—περὶἈπολλὡ, stands absolutely as 1 Corinthians 16:1. Each of the new topics of this Epistle being introduced by περί. In reference to Apollos see Int. No. 2; and also, i. 12; iii. 5 ff.; iv. 6 ff. That which he said in regard to the coming of Timothy prompts him to give information now respecting Apollos, because perhaps, of a wish that had been expressed in regard to him by the Corinthians.—I greatly exhorted him to come to you—He here wards off in advance all suspicion in regard to any reluctance of his own about the visit of Apollos at Corinth, and gives them to understand his perfect confidence in him, and the brotherly relations” which they mutually sustained, [notwithstanding the party strife that was waged under their names at Corinth. So far was he from desiring him to stay on this account, that he was urgent he should go; it may be in the hope that he might contribute something towards settling the difficulties. And here we have another illustration of the nobility of Paul’s spirit, his entire freedom from all petty jealousy and the loving confidence which he reposed in his fellow-workers]. Apollos must have been at this time at Ephesus.—ἵνα denotes not only the purport, but also the aim of his exhortation to Apollos. with the brethren:—These brethren are the ones mentioned in 1 Corinthians 16:11. [“Besides the mission of Timothy there was another later mission despatched at the time of his writing this Epistle with the view partly of carrying the Epistle and enforcing the observance of its contents, partly of urging upon the church the necessity of completing their contribution before the Apostle’s arrival (2 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 12:18). This mission was composed of Titus and two other brethren (2 Corinthians 8:18; 2 Corinthians 8:22-23), whose names are not mentioned; Titus having been chosen for this, as Timothy for the other, probably from his greater energy and firmness of character. That the mission thus described is the one to which he here alludes can hardly be doubted. The words “exhort” and “brother” are used in the same emphatic and recognized sense in both passages; and as the mission there spoken of was previous to his writing the second Epistle, it can be referred to no occasion so obviously as that which is here described. These accordingly are “the brethren” who would, as he expected, find or wait for Timothy at Corinth, and return with him. It would seem, however, that the Apostle’s original wish had been, that the head of this mission should have been not Titus, but Apollos. Apollos, since his visit to Corinth (Acts 18:27, comp. with 1 Corinthians 3:6) must have returned to Ephesus; and he, both from the distinction which he enjoyed in the opinion of his fellow Christians, and from his previous acquaintance with the church at Corinth, would have been a natural person to send on such a mission. It is a slight confirmation of the identity of this mission with that of Titus, that the only later occasion on which the name of Apollos occurs in the New Testament is in the Epistle to Titus Titus 3:13, where they are spoken of as living together.” Stanley].—but (his) will was not at all to come at this time;—Some here take the word “will,” which stands without further designation, to mean ‘the will of God,’ appealing for support to the inconvenience mentioned in the next clause, and to the analogy of Rom. 12:28; but the context clearly shows the will of Apollos to have been meant. Here, too, ἵνα is not to be taken in the strict telic sense, but it simply indicates a degree of determination in the resolve taken. The reason of the unwillingness of Apollos to go to Corinth may have lain, partly, in his fear of encouraging the factions at Corinth, and, partly, in other duties which he regarded as more pressing. The latter seems to be indicated in the next clause.—but he will come when he shall have convenient time.—εὐκαιρεῖν, a word of later Greek, meaning to have opportunity, leisure, or occasion, for anything. Here, it refers, not to the removal of difficulties at Corinth, as though it meant, ‘when you have become united again’—but to other circumstances and engagements which were then holding him back. 1 Corinthians 16:13-14.—Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, act like men, be strong.—Hastening now to the close, he aims to impress upon his readers briefly and earnestly the duty of devoting themselves to the service of the Lord—whether he or Apollos were present to observe them, or not. This exhortation—called out; as Burger thinks, by the mention of Apollos, whose name might serve to awaken the recollection of matters already rebuked (1–3)—revolves around two main points, faith and love. Stedfastness in the faith essentially presupposes watchfulness—that Christian circumspection which keeps on the look-out for all attacks of treacherous foes, both from without and from within, abandons itself to no false security, and fortifies itself against temptation from whatsoever source (comp. 10:12). And this watchfulness is even associated with a wakeful, courageous, manly attitude, and with a summoning up of strength to resist the might of every foe. These two qualities are no less anevidence of faith, than they are the conditions of a true steadfastness. The expressions used, all imply the figure of a spiritual combat in which they are supposed to be engaged. The “standing” (στήκειν) here does not denote a standing in readiness for the fight, but a standing firm in it, and not suffering one’s self to be forced aside from that faith which is the basis of the Christian life—the fixed attitude of the warrior in the ranks or at his post (comp. 15:1, 58).—ἀνδριζεσθαι, to be manly, in deportment and action, occurs only here in the New Testament; elsewhere in he Classics and LXX. Josh. 1:21; 1Ma 2:64.—κραταιοῦσθε, be strong (comp. Ephesians 3:16. “Be strong in might through his spirit in the inward man”); in the older Greek, the word for this was κρατύνεσθαι. The word is suggestive of conflicts with open enemies, such as Jews and Heathen and also, of persecutions endured on account of the faith (Osiander).—Let all your things be done in love. After what he has said already, on the duty of love he needed only to express himself briefly on this point in concluding. The allusion is primarily to their divisions and strifes, q. d., ‘in all you do, instead of being governed by a selfish partisanship, suffer yourselves to be actuated by a love which looks to the well being of the brotherhood’ (comp. 13:1, 11; 11:18; 8:1; 10:24, 33). [“He says, ‘watch ye,’ as though they were sleeping; ‘stand fast,’ as though they were wavering; ‘be manly and strong,’ as though they were effeminate and delicate; ‘let all your things be done in love,’ as though they were at strife.” Chrys.] 1 Corinthians 16:15-18. After the above concluding exhortation he turns to speak of some personal matters. And first he enjoins a respectful behavior towards certain prominent members of the church and one in particular.—And I beseech you, brethren,—The particular point of his exhortation is introduced by ἵνα in the 16th verse; and what follows must be treated as a parenthesis, referring to what was already known by them and formed the motive for their complying with his request.—ye know,—οἴδατε; this cannot be a part of his exhortation, for the simple reason that it cannot be shown to be the imperative form for ἴστε.—the house of Stephanas that it is the first fruits of Achaia,—i. e., the first in that province who were brought to the faith (comp. Romans 16:5, where the words “unto Christ” are added). From 1:16 we learn that Paul himself baptized this family, It was the first sheaf of a great spiritual harvest in Corinth, indeed in that whole region; hence a family most readily disposed toward the Gospel, and from which no doubt a saving influence emanated. As it distinguished itself in respect to faith, so also in respect to love.—and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.—The plural here occurs, because the term “house” is a collective noun. By “ministry” we are not to understand any official action such as is carried on in the capacity of a presbyter, for which indeed such first fruits were as a general thing preλminently fitted. There is nothing in the following verb “submit yourselves” to constrain us to this supposition, as though the meaning here were that the Corinthians should subject themselves to these persons just as other churches submit themselves to their rulers; rather the injunction here—That ye submit yourselves unto such—corresponds to what has just been said of the household of Stephanas: ‘as these had addicted themselves unto the ministry for the saints—a thing which involved a sort of submission so also do ye devote yourselves to them.’ In what way this ministry had been exercised is uncertain; probably in services of love to individuals such as the poor, the sick, in hospitality towards brethren visiting from abroad, and in the undertaking of various responsibilities in behalf of the church, as for example, the journey of Stephenas to Ephesus for the purpose of seeing Paul. The word ὑποτάσσεσθαι denotes not simply the showing of respect in general but like obsequi, following a person’s advice or opinion, conducting in accordance with their wishes. [“Nothing is more natural than submission to the good.” Hodge]. By the expression τοῖς, τοιούτοις he brings to view more prominently the excellent qualities of the parties referred to, q. d., ‘to persons of like excellence with these.’ That it does not refer to a class is evident from the clause appended,—and to every one that helpeth with us and laboreth.—It is debated to what the συν, with, in συνεργοῦντι is to be referred. There is nothing in the context to justify our referring it to God. Rather we are led to refer it to the apostle, and, next, to those just mentioned. The participle κωπιῶντι implies that this coφperation was an carnest and laborious one. [“Those who serve should be served.” Hodge]. He enforces his injunction in relation to the family of Stephanas by mentioning what he and the Corinthian brethren with him, Fortunatus and Achaicus, had done for himself, thereby enchancing their respect for these worthy men.—I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus:—These men had been sent as a deputation to him from Corinth, and had brought the letter alluded to in 7:1. In regard to them we can determine nothing more definitely. Whether it was the same Stephanas of whose family he had just spoken (as is probable), or a son of his; and whether the two others belonged to this family or not; and whether this Fortunatus was the same as the one mentioned in the first Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians or another of the same name, is all uncertain. The reason of his joy at their presence was,—because your want they have supplied.—For a like expression see Philippians 2:30. But what are we to understand by the expression to τὸὑμέτερονὑστέρημα, your want? It would be inconsistent with the whole spirit of this paragraph to suppose the Apostle to imply a bitter charge against them by translating the words, [as in the E. V.] “that which was lacking on your part,” as though they had failed in suitable tokens of love, or the like. It is better to take ὑμέτερον as the objective genitive (comp. 15:31), and translate ‘the want of you,’ i. e., your absence. This it is which was in part made up by the presence of these brethren. This is more fully explained in what follows—For they have refreshed my spirit and yours:—ἀναπαύειν, lit. to cause to rest, to relieve from care or trouble, and in general, to refresh (2 Corinthians 7:13; Matthew 11:28; Philemon 1:20). But how far did they refresh his spirit, and that of the Corinthians? The latter certainly, does not refer to any earlier services of love which these men had shown to the Corinthians; and just as little, to the assurances of love from the apostle which they carried back with them; since this was not contemporaneous with their refreshment of his spirit: hence, also, not to the influence which the information and assurances they had conveyed to him had had upon the shaping of this Epistle. The point is best explained upon the ground of a fellowship between the apostle and the church (comp. 2 Corinthians 11, 3), q. d., ‘while they refreshed me, they also refreshed you.’ The quieting of his spirit by the information they had brought and by their personal presence which served to exhibit anew the love of the church toward him and awaken in him the hope of their improvement, must also have been beneficial for them; and the consciousness of a fellowship thereby renewed and strengthened must have proved exceedingly refreshing alike for them and for him (comp. Osiander and Meyer ed. 3, who remarks, “that their interview with the Apostle must have been refreshing to the feelings of the whole church, inasmuch as they had come to him as representatives of the whole church.” As they through their presence had provided for Paul a sweet refreshment they had also done it for the church, which, by their means, had come into communion with him and was indebted to them for this refreshment, which must have been felt by it in the consciousness of this communion. [“However understood it is one of the examples of urbanity with which this Apostle’s writings abound.” Hodge]. To this he adds the exhortation—therefore acknowledge ye them that are such.—ἐπιγινώσκειν does not mean precisely to highly value, but to rightly recognize, viz.: in their true worth and according to their deserts, from which indeed esteem naturally follows. The reason for this is the thing of which he has just spoken—their services and the refreshment which had been administered by them both to himself and the church. 1 Corinthians 16:19-20. He presents a three-fold greeting whereby Christian fellowship is expressed and confirmed.—The churches of Asia salute you.—Asia is here to be understood, either in the narrowest sense as designating Ionia and the region round about Ephesus; or suitably to Roman usage then current, as applying to the whole region of Asia Minor bordering on the western coast, including Caria, Lydia, Mysia (Asia proconsularis). Since a regular intercourse was maintained between Ephesus and those regions, and since the apostle stood in living relations to the churches here planted, both by personal visits and by means of brethren visiting him from thence, it is probable that they sent greetings by him to the Corinthian church on his giving them information respecting it and announcing his intention of writing. Next comes a greeting from that excellent Christian couple who formerly tarried with him at Corinth, and were intimately connected with the Christian church there, but who had left and come to Ephesus (Acts 18:2; Acts 18:26). The greeting here is a hearty one, and founded upon a Christian fellowship.—Aquilla and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord,—As bound together by faith in a common Lord, they here send the benedictions of a fervent love.—and the Church that is in their house,—i. e., not simply their numerous household, but that portion of the Ephesian church which was wont to assemble under their roof. Owing to the lack of accommodations, the larger churches, like those of Ephesus and Rome were obliged to divide, and meet in several rooms furnished by the more wealthy members.—All the brethren greet you.—i. e., the Ephesian Christians collectively, apart from those just mentioned specifically. The fellowship thus extended from church to church, he next insists on their maintaining among themselves.—Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.—[“This was the conventional token of Christian affection. In the East the kiss was a sign either of friendship among equals, or of reverence and submission on the part of an inferior. The people kissed the images of their gods and the hands of princes.” Hodge]. This token the apostle would have them give to each other immediately upon their hearing the Epistle, as a pledge of their freshly awakened brotherly love, and in connection with the assurances of love conveyed to them in the salutations from abroad.—ἀσπάζεσθαι, to manifest a cordial love, especially at times of meeting and parting. “A holy kiss” means the token of Christian fellowship and holy love, as contrasted with that prompted by natural or impure affections. The expression occurs also in Romans 16:16; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Peter 5:14. In the century following Christians were wont to welcome each other after prayers and at the love feasts and before the communion of the Lord’s Supper, men greeting men, and women women, as brethren and sisters. “The kiss which they were to give,” as Bengel observes, “was one in which all discord and dissention must be swallowed up.” 1 Corinthians 16:21-24. The salutation of (me) Paul with mine own hand.—As Paul commonly wrote by an amanuensis, he was accustomed to write with his own hand the concluding sentences of his Epistle by way of authenticating them (2 Thessalonians 3:17; Colossians 4:18). Accordingly he here appends his own greeting with his own hand in token of the genuineness of the Epistle. “The salutation,” as it were the main one—the greeting par eminence. Next follows, in the first place, an earnest word of warning, written still undoubtedly with his own hand.—If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ,—He here excludes all formal Christians from any part in his salutation and blessing. Since his language does not apply to those who are not Christians professedly, and nothing can be said about positive hatred to the Lord among Christians, the expression “love not” cannot be interpreted as equivalent to hate; but it is to be understood of decayed affection, which betrayed itself in party strife, as well as in fostering other carnal tendencies; and in doubting or denying different portions of Christian truth. “Wherefore does the Apostle speak thus here? Because in his view love to Christ is the very soul of the entire Christian life; and the Corinthians needed to be specially reminded of this love; for their divisions originated in the fact that the love of Christ did not sufficiently unite them.” Neander. φιλεῖν means to love with a peculiar intensity of affection, and the word is used by Paul only in this place in relation to Christ. (John designates by it, John 5:20, the love of the Father to the Son, and also the believer’s love to Jesus, 16:27; 21:15, 17). In Ephesians 6:24, Paul employs the word ἀγαπᾶν, which is the term common with him to denote the love of God and Christ, and also our love to God, and to the brethren, and to wives. While the latter word which properly means to highly esteem, is never used to express a sensuous, passionate affection, φιλεῖν is found in this sense, yet rarely however. It here means to value highly, to regard in the light of a dear friend, a token of which regard was a kiss, φίλημα, which probably suggested the use of φιλεῖν. Short and sharp is the denunciation pronounced.—let him be Anathema,—Not simply, ‘let him be expelled from the church, but let him be devoted to God’s wrath and judgment,’—let him become a curse, accursed. The word ἀνάθεμα correspond to the Hebrew ηֵ ?ψֶ ?ν, a ban, i. e.., one put under the ban—irrevocably devoted to destruction—to be given up to God without power of redemption, which, if the thing were animated, involved a putting to death (comp. 12:3; Galatians 1:8, and Meyer on Romans 9:3). This imprecation or malediction is confirmed by an allusion to the judgment which will introduce it.—Maranatha.—Syriac for “our Lord comes (ξָ ?ψָ ?πָ ?ΰΰֲ ?ϊָ ?ΰ); “not, ‘he has come,’ so that obstinate hatred and conflict with him are all useless” (Jerome). Why Paul here employs the Syriac can only be conjectured. It can hardly be said that it was for a stronger confirmation of the genuineness of his Epistle by the use of Hebrew letters; such extraordinary confirmation when his Epistle was to be in charge of trusted friends, is wholly superfluous. Or was it because this formula was one current among the Jews as expressing their strongest ban? Meyer says, “perhaps it conveyed an important reminiscence to his readers from the period of his residence at Corinth; or it was only the thought of the moment to give a more solemn character to his declaration.” Bisping says: “perhaps Maranatha was the mysterious password of the early Christians (comp. Rev. 20:22).” For other improbable conjectures see Meyer and Osiander. Luther’s Maharam Motha, meaning maledictus ad mortem, is a groundless alteration. Heubner says: “that Luther appended this as the Hebrew formula for excommunication.” [By translating the expression into Greek, ὁκύριοςἕρχεται, we are at once reminded of the epithet ὁέρχομένος, coming One, as applied to the Messiah in Matthew 11:3; Luke 17:19-20; John 6:14; John 11:27; and also as constantly recurring in Revelation, where the coming of Christ forms the refrain of the whole book, and where at the close John winds up the canon of Scripture with a reference to the solemn fact, “He that testifieth of these things, saith, Behold I come quickly. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” Here in fact is the key-note of the Apostle’s constant mood. In all the changes of thought and feeling we hear it ever returning; and what is more natural than that in uttering it, he should use the very terms in which the thought was always ringing through his soul? They had acquired with him the character of a solemn formula, for which nothing else could be substituted]. After this severe exclusion of the unworthy there follows a benediction.—The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (be) with you.—As to be anathema from Christ is everlasting perdition so His favor is eternal life. The prayer here is therefore a prayer for all good. To this he adds assurance of his own love as felt toward all in Christ Jesus.—My love be with you all in Christ Jesus.—As in the previous clause εἴη is to be supplied, so here we must insert ἐστίν, is, as a positive declaration of what he actually cherished toward them. Μεθ’ ὑμῶν, with you, a designation of communion with them, or of the presence of his spirit in the midst of them, q. d., ‘is among you all’—a harmonizing, reconciling expression used in view of his strong rebukes and of their partisan distrust. “The expression forms a striking contrast to the strifes and divisions among the Corinthians which the Apostle here is resolved to ignore.” Neander. [The closing word in the Rec., “Amen,” was an after-addition. It being originally a word of response, the Apostle could not well have appended it to his own production. The adoption of it falls in with the current inconsistent usage of closing one’s own prayer with an Amen—a thing which ought to be left to the congregation at large. But though the word forms no part of the Epistle, it still fitly comes in at the end to express the cordial, emphatic assent which every Christian heart must feel constrained to utter as he finishes an epistle so replete with Divine Wisdom and Love issuing from one of the noblest spirits that ever wrought on earth in the cause of Heaven, with whom it has been good to hold communion. Yes, let the Amen stand the abiding testimony of the faith of the Church in the teachings of the greatest of the apostles; and the whole world come at last to say as they read verse after verse, chapter after chapter, epistle after epistle, in accent strong and clear, Amen] The subscription is later. The statement of the letter being sent from Philippi arose from a misunderstanding of what is said in 1 Corinthians 16:5 about his passing through Macedonia. AND ETHICAL1. [Christian Beneficence. 1. Its source. It follows as the natural exercise of that divine love which is shed abroad in the heart by the Spirit, and which likens us to that Redeemer who freely gave Himself up for us all, and demands of us that we give as freely as we have received. 2. Its scope. It goes beyond—yea, ignores—all natural limitations of family, or neighborhood, or country, or nationality, and is governed simply by the providential calls made on it and by the opportunities opened to it. Christianity breaks down all barriers, obliterates all distinctions between Jew and Gentile, and brings the whole race into a sympathy that makes us regardful of the welfare of our fellow-men wherever found. In the text we have the first instance of this broad charity ever known—Gentile Christians in Greece, contributing to supply the destitution of Jewish Christians at Jerusalem. It was the commencement of a work of charity which is destined to spread with the church, and will go on increasing in vigor and intensity, just in proportion as the Spirit of Christ prevails in the hearts of believers. 3. Should do systematic, forming a part of the Christian’s duty as regularly as his prayers and worship. Inasmuch as the demands for it are constant, and the discipline of it is ever needful to the character as a counteractive to our natural selfishness and for the development of charity, it is only by habitual practice that the ends contemplated in it can be properly answered. The time prescribed for it by the apostle is the first day of the week—the day commemorative of our Lord’s resurrection and victory, and the day of the church’s joy, and gladness, and praise. And surely no time can be more fitting for the exercise of our grateful charity than this; for it serves to remind us in an especial manner of God’s redeeming grace, and, so, of the love which we ourselves, have experienced. In fact, alms-giving ought to be made a part of our Sabbath worship, coming in there as a tribute, not so much of kindness towards the needy and the destitute, as of thanksgiving and honor unto the God of our salvation. It thus becomes a matter not of impulse, performed under the influence of emotions excited by special appeals, but of principle, resting upon established grounds, and furnishing a reliable foundation on which to carry forward the great work of the church. 4. Its measure. “According as God hath prospered”—so writes the apostle, prescribing no fixed proportion as under the ancient dispensation, but leaving it with every man to determine with himself what the amount shall be. The right use of the liberty of judgment here granted is a part of the Christian’s probation; and the manner in which he improves it will serve to show his sense of obligation to the God that has prospered him, and the strength of his love. The beauty and the worth of Christian charity are seen in its voluntariness, and also, in its freedom from all parade. Hence, the requisition of the apostle “let each one lay up by himself,” in the privacy of his own home, settling the matter with quiet reflection amid the abundance of those blessings which constitute the sum of his domestic happiness. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/