the . LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, N. J. it re A ae j\A a8 v yy Division.nrm2r7'hN\DO f | cave HEY A Fe Se chon:... ble saat RL CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. BY CHARLES J. ELLICOTT, D.D. BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. j ) G : Vy " Vos “ ES yr Andover: PUBLISHED BY W. F. DRAPER. 1889. PRE ACE, AFTER many years, numerous suspensions of the work, and countless interruptions while actually engaged on it, I have at length, by the mercy of God, completed the Commentary which I now bring before the Christian reader. As it is in continuation of Commentaries that have now passed through several editions, it will not be necessary for me to detain the reader by many prefatory comments. Still, as ‘more than a generation has passed away since those Com- mentaries were published, the very lapse of time and the accumulation of fresh materials have imported certain changes into the present work on which it will be necessary for me briefly to speak. : The general plan remains precisely the same. The reader has before him an effort to ascertain, as far as possible, by means of a close and persistent consideration of the grammat- ical form and logical connection of the language of the original, what the inspired writer exactly desired to convey to the Church of Corinth, and to all readers of this profoundly interesting Kpistle. Where gtammatical and logical analysis might seem to prove insufficient, or leave open to us two or more possible interpretations, then, as in the earlier volumes of this series, careful use has been made of the best ancient Versions, and of the writings of the early expositors who used, and who wrote in, the language of the original. Where further aid has still been required, then the judgment of the best interpreters, of all periods, and especially of later times, has been systemati- 4 PREFACE. cally referred to, preference being given to those who, like Cal- vin, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and others, whether of earlier or more recent times, had more particularly devoted themselves to the interpretation of God’s Holy Word, and had acquired that true exegetical instinct which is more especially developed by practice and experience. ; Such was the general plan of the earlier Commentaries of this series, and such it remains in the present case. It differs from them perhaps only in this respect, that long experience may have brought with it a better mastery over materials, and may have led the writer of this Commentary respectfully to criticise rather than simply to follow any one of the many emi- nent expositors who, as it will be seen on every page, have been persistently consulted in the construction of this work. Whatever else this Commentary may be, it certainly expresses a judgment, formed in every case independently on gram- matical and contextual considerations, though constantly cor- rected, supplemented, and enhanced by the labors of eminent and helpful predecessors. Such is the general plan. But it will now be necessary to speak a little in detail, and here, in the very first place, on the Text. The Text has been formed after a wholly independent con- sideration of the critical material supplied by Tischendorf, and especially by Tregelles, — long experience having led me to fix attention more closely on the selected witnesses that appear in the pages of the latter critic than on the more collective tes- timonies that are found in the pages of the former. To Tischendorf every New Testament critic owes the deepest debt of gratitude. His last edition is a monument of faithful labor that will be honored as long as critical stvtdies remain, but it cannot be denied that some of the material, though of indis- putable importance in elucidating the evolution of the text, does sometimes confuse the student when desiring to form a sound critical judgment on a debatable passage. Here, tested witnesses, and mostly early witnesses, are increasingly ac knowledged by all unprejudiced minds to occupy and to hold a prerogative place. Such labors as those of my highly-esteemed PREFACE. 5 friends, Professors Westcott and Hort, whatever be the judg- ment we may here and there form on some of their decisions, must be admitted by every fair-judging scholar to have at length placed New Testament criticism on a rational basis, and to have demonstrated to us with singular force and cogency the true critical value of the numerous witnesses that appear before us in the pages of the editions to which I have referred. On these tested witnesses, then, I have, nearly in every case, more especially relied. But I have only now and then enume- rated them. It is really very undesirable to bewilder the in- experienced student by long lists of authorities, avowedly taken bodily from Tregelles or Tischendorf, when really all he wants is an intelligent and impartial judgment formed on them by the expositor whom he is consulting. He is also thankful to know what judgment has been arrived at by the few professed critics that have given us editions of the sacred text. These two most reasonable needs on the part of the student I have endeavored to meet in the following way. In the first place, I have expressed my judgment on each passage under consideration, using systematically certain forms of expression which appear correctly to represent the actual facts of the case,—and thus. The term ‘ preponderating au- thority ’ has been applied generally to all those cases in which external evidence (in some cases supported also by internal considerations) is in favor of any given reading. That general term, which when used alone simply implies the dip of the critical balance, is qualified by the following adverbs — appar- ently, slightly, clearly, very clearly, greatly, very greatly, and in a very few instances, vast/y,— according to the state of the evidence under consideration. Great care has been taken in each case to choose the adverb consistently, but, in a matter so delicate and difficult as textual criticism, it is excessively hard, even for the same mind, so to weigh external evidence, modi- fied as that evidence often is by internal arguments, as to remain always true to itself. Still it is hoped that the cases of inconsistency will not be found to be more than, in an under- taking so very arduous as that of expressing critical judgments 6 PREFACE. relatively to each other, may charitably be allowed for. The attempt, at any rate, has been made, for the assistance as well as for the information of the general student, and will perhaps not be found wholly useless or unprofitable. In the second place, I have endeavored to meet the natural desire to know what judgment has been arrived at by the pro- fessed critical editors of highest repute on each case under consideration. The decisions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tre- gelles, and of Westcott and Hort have consequently been speci- fied in every case. In addition to these, the decision of the Revised Version has also always been specified. For though the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers does not claim, and has never claimed, to be, strictly speaking, a critically edited text, it still does represent the collective judgment of twenty or more competent scholars, among whom were critics of high eminence and experience, as well as of different schools of critical thought.! What has thus been said will sufficiently explain the critical notes. It remains only to be said, that, for convenience, the third edition of Stephens, as still widely in use, and familiarly known (though not with technical accuracy) as the Received Text, has been regarded throughout as the text which has, so to say, been worked upon in the construction of the text which appears in the pages of this volume. The notes under the text thus indicate all departures from the text of Stephens, and the general grounds on which they have been made. But besides . these critical notes, there will be found, interspersed through- out the Commentary, short notices of further departures from the Received Text which are found in the critical editions cited in these pages, but which do not find a place in the text adopted in this volume. The only further remark that may be neces- sary relates to the very debatable subject of orthography. Here 1 Jt is right to say that the plan here adopted was commenced several years ago, and long prior to the appearance of the singularly useful and carefully prepared ‘Resultant Greek Testament’ of Dr. R. F. Weymouth, which was published last year. So far as I have used it I have found it very accurate but my notes were all constructed before, by the kindness of the comoiler, this volume came into my hands. iis ACE. v4 I have not been careful to specify every minor difference of spelling between the text adopted and the Received Text. The text adopted presents, on the whole, those forms of spelling which will be not unfamiliar to the student, and for which there is sufficient external authority. . In regard of the Commentary only a few remarks seem nec- essary, as the particulars in which it differs from the former volumes of this series are really very few. In matters of gram- matical detail, I may mention that reference is now made to Dr. Moulton’s excellent translation of Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament’ rather than to editions in the original language, which were used in my former Commentaries. Continual ref- erence is also made to the enlarged and now very complete general Greek Grammar of Dr. Raphael Kihner, which had not appeared in its present form when my former Commen- taries were written. Nearly all the other grammatical authori- ties have been long before the world, and will not be unfamiliar to the readers of my former volumes, almost the only new name being that of the small, carefully written, treatise on the principal Greek Particles by Baumlein, a book which I am afraid it is now not very easy to procure. But I need not dwell longer on these particulars, as the pages that follow will speak for themselves. To many those pages may secm too full of technical matter, and too persistent in their grammatical references and details. I will ask, however, all who may take this view kindly to remember that this professes to be, and is, a grammatical Commentary, and must be borne with as such. Next I will presume to say this,— that if the student will patiently wade through these details of grammar he will be rewarded by a real knowledge of the mind of the original, which, so far as I know, cannot certainly be acquired any other way. Iam well aware that this is a sentiment which may not be quite in harmony with the tone of the hurried days in which we are living, and with the obvious tendency to escape, as far as possible, the trammels of laborious scholarship. Still, I. must be permitted to say, it is true. In regard of the ancient Versions and the Greek expositors, 1 See note on page 12. 8 PREFACE. it will be seen that the attention paid to them has been increas- ingly close and systematic. They really form the backbone of this Commentary. To the Versions I have attended most carefully, and, it may be added, at a very great expenditure of time. Of some there are either no translations, or translations so very untrustworthy that anything like a proper knowledge of these early documents can only be acquired by hard personal work. This has been freely given, for in these Versions we have often the voice and traditional interpretations of ancient Churches, and are learning not merely the mind of the unknown early translator, but, to a large extent, of those among whom he was living, and by whose general persuasions, in regard of many a debatable passage, his own opinions were largely influ- enced. Theonly Version which I have comparatively neglected is the Athiopic. It so often degenerates into loose, if not erroneous, paraphrase, that it has seemed excusable to save the time which old experience has taught me this not very inviting language does always most certainly absorb. It has not, how- ever, by any means been left wholly unnoticed. In regard of the extracts made from these Versions, no good end would be obtained by printing the original, even in a transliterated form. Very few could profit by it. The citations have been given, then, nearly in all cases, in Latin,—that language admitting of more compression than our own, and being the language in which trustworthy translations of one or two of these Versions have already been made. The Gothic has commonly been | printed in the original language, as, in many cases, being intel- ligible almost to the general reader. The assistance derived from the patristic writers has been, in this Epistle, very great, and, as will be seen, has been very largely and thankfully made use of. Independently of the four regularly used expositors (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy- lact, and Gicumenius), the citations from several other writers, as given in Cramer’s Catene, have been found to be of great value. The only difficulty is in the ascription of authorship, comments bearing one name being, from time to time, found really to belong to another. For this, however, these Cutene PREFACE. 9 are held responsible, and,in most cases, a brief indication is given of the quotation having been made from them. The Latin Fathers have been much more sparingly used, as their judgment in matters of linguistic detail could never be placed on a level with that of men who spoke the language which they were interpreting. The more recent interpreters, as already has been indicated, are those whom previous experience, as well as the general consent of modern interpreters and divines, has proved to be the most trustworthy. Selection is here absolutely necessary, and it has been made in these pages on settled principles, and with due regard to the limitations of space. No Commentary of any value has been overlooked, and where anything has been derived from it, reference and acknowledgment have been made. The absence of names must not, then, suggest that the labors of others have been in any degree overlooked. They have simply not been selected for that continuous reference which careful consideration has shown, in a work of this particular character, to be more profitably restricted to those that have been systematically referred to. To speak more in detail is un- necessary. The names of the expositors principally made use of are well known, and their merits and characteristics by no means unfamiliar, even to general readers. The only name that may not be quite so well known is that of Hofmann, to whose acute commentary I have never failed to give the attention it deserves. It has, however, two faults, which in my judgment, greatly interfere with its usefulness. It is too fine drawn in many of its interpretations, and it is far too much given to ingenious dissent from distinguished contemporaries, where the amount of exegetical difference is to a plain mind provokingly slight. However, the careful reader who follows up my references will hardly ever regret the pains he may have to bestow on this singularly quick-sighted, but confessedly somewhat difficult, interpreter. The great use I have have found in him is that of precluding over-hasty acceptance of current and plausible interpretations. Of living commentators it is obviously not desirable for me 2 10 PREFACE. to say more than to express my respectful recognition of labors that have been well bestowed, and work that has been well done. There are two English Commentaries, however, to which I may be permitted very briefly to refer, as I have re- ceived from both much that has reassured me in my own judg- ment in difficult passages, and much that has led me to test my results when I have not found myself in agreement with them. The works to which I refer are the singularly attrac- tive Commentary of Canon Evans, and the full, careful, and comprehensive Commentary of Principal Edwards. They have been used but little directly in the construction of this Com- mentary, as the Jez operis is of a different nature, and its general character settled long before I had the pleasure of seeing either of these agreeable volumes. Their influence, if any, has been indirect, but I desire not the less gratefully to mention it. There is, I think, nothing further in this Commentary that requires to be alluded to. Systematic reference will be found, ~ as before, to our best Anglican divines, and particularly to their sermons. For this feature of my Commentaries I have often received thanks and acknowledgments, and I have been very careful to maintain it in the present work. I have added largely references to distinguished German divines whose works were either not written when the former volumes of this series were publisned, or not accessible, as they now are, to the general reaaer through the media of the translations that have appeared in the ‘Theological Library’ of Messrs Clark of Edinburgh. To these, rather than to the volumes in the original German, I have, for the sake of the student, been careful, where possi- ble, to refer. Attention has been especially directed to some of the best recent treatises on Christian Ethics; this First Epistle to the Corinthians being pre-eminently that portion of Holy Scripture in which such references will be most useful and seasonable. It is to be regretted that the study of Chris- tian Ethics, especially at the present time, has received but little attention from writers of our own Church. Few of us could fail largely to profit by a careful perusal of the three volumes PREFACE. 11 on Christian Ethics by that great and sober thinker, the late Bishop Martensen, to whom, in Christian Dogmatics, we have already owed so much. In conclusion, it is my duty to account for the absence in this volume of the translation that has been appended to the preceding volumes of this series. The reason why it has been omitted is the very simple one, that a far better translation than any one that I could produce is now in the hands of the Christian reader. My former translations, and the notes that were appended to them, were designed to be humble contri- butions to that which has rendered their further continuance unnecessary, —the Revised Version of the New Testament. When that which is complete has appeared, that which is in part may disappear. In taking this course, however, I have in no degree sought to spare myself either responsibility or labor. The reader has still from me, almost in a continuous form, a translation, framed on the principles of my former translations; but instead of being printed at the end of the volume it now will be found in the body of it, running on continuously with the notes. This arrangment, it is hoped, will be found not only more natural under the circumstances, but also really more convenient to the reader. Of the Version itself to which I thus gladly give place, I do not, from the nature of my connection with it, feel it either necessary or desirable to say more than this,— First, that I have gone over it in this Epistle in the closest manner, as a fair and unbiassed critic, and as one who has allowed no predilections or reminiscences of the past in any degree to influence his present judgment. Secondly, that the sum and substance of this review of it has led me conscientiously to regard it as the most accurate version of this Epistle that has ever yet appeared in any language. That I have ventured to differ from it in a few passing details will be seen in the notes, but these differences are neither so many nor of such a char- acter as to lead me to do other than I now do,— and that is to refer the student for a continuous translation of this Epistle, with all possible confidence, to the Revised Version. 12 PREFACE. I now close these labors with one heartfelt expression of thankfulness to Almighty God that I have been permitted to continue and complete them. They have at times, owing to the ceaseless interruptions that have broken their course, seemed more than I could ever hope to carry through. Often has it been painfully brought home to me that work such as this, to be well done, requires serene spaces of time, and the continuity of persistent effort. Still I have done all that I could do, consistently with the great duties in which I have been, now for nearly a quarter of a century, engaged. For the health and power to do this, again, with all solemnity, I return my deepest and adoring thanks to Almighty God. May He vouchsafe to grant, for Jesus Christ’s sake, that this hum- ble effort of waning life to set forth more clearly to the stu- dent the meaning of one of the most varied and most profoundly interesting portions of the Book of Life, may receive some measure of the Divine blessing, and not only may help, but encourage, others to study more closely the light-giving and life-giving Word of God. I conclude with words that, from time to time, have been similiarly used by me before, but never more deeply felt than now,— TPIAS, MONAS, ‘EAEHSON. Nots. — The references to Winer’s New Testament Grammar found in this Commentary correspond section for section, etc., to Professor Thayer’s edition of that Grammar: W. F. Draper, Publisher, Andover, Mass. INTRODUCTION. The ancient and famous city which bore the name, first of Kphyra, and then of Corinth, was not the Corinth, to the Chris- tian inhabitants of which St. Paul wrote this Epistle. The ancient city was taken, pillaged, and given to the flames by L. Mummius in the year B.c. 146. For 100 years it lay in utter ruins; all the works of art that could be moved, were carried away, and the greater parteven of the temples over- thrown and destroyed. Thus it remained till the year 46 B.c., when, for political reasons, Julius Cesar determined to rebuild the ruined city. A large number of Roman colonists, princi- pally veteran soldiers and freedmen, were sent there. Inhabi- tants from the neighboring territories, heretofore forbidden to settle there, speedily flocked in; the relics of the ancient city were conserved; what remained of the public buildings were restored ; and Roman Corinth, the Corinth of this Epistle, rap- idly rose to eminence and prosperity, and by the time St. Paul visited it was probably a busy city of 100,000 souls.1 The institutions were Roman, and, according to some writers, the language also,? but, however this may have been in the courts or in public documents, it is not very easily conceivable that the current language of the city was other than that in which St. Paul addressed his Christian converts. Indeed it may probably be correctly said that Greek art, Greek culture, and, 1The exaggerated estimates that have been formed of its population appear to rest upon a wholly incredible statement of Athenzus; see Smith, Décz. of Greek and Roman Geography, Vol. . p. 679. 2 See Finlay, Aistory of Greece, Vol. I. p. 59. 14 INTRODUCTION: alas, Greek licence and sensuality, were now predominant in the restored city ; and that Roman Corinth had in many things reverted to the usages of the Corinth of the past. Though all the revolting immorality to which Strabo alludes? must have belonged to an earlier period, yet it is perfectly clear from this Epistle that much of it had revived, and that the worship of Aphrodite, to whom the whole mountain against which the city rested was dedicated,? was among the most baneful of the idolatries of the restored city. The study of philosophy had also obviously revived. It was in no way likely that the now prosperous Corinth would not, to some considerable extent, have sought to maintain that cul- ture which still kept up the neighboring city of Athens as the sort of University of the ancient world. The very position also of Corinth largely contributed to the intellectual develop- ment of its inhabitants, and made it the cosmopolitan city of which we find so many indirect traces in the Epistle, and so many passing notices elsewhere. That such a city should be selected by the Apostle as one of the most hopeful places for the foundation of a Christian Church, is only another proof of that direct guidance of the Holy Spirit of which we find such frequent mention in the Acts of the Apostles. At this city, probably in the autumn of the year 52 or 53 A.D., some fifteen years after his conversion, the Apostle ar- rived from Athens, at the close of his second great missionary journey. He was alone, as he had been at Athens (1 Thess. iii. 1), Timothy and Silas having remained behind in Macedonia (Acts xvii. 14). He was alone, and, as he tells us in this Epistle (ch. ii. 3), not unnaturally in weakness and anxiety. He appears soon to have met with, and probably converted, Aquila and Priscilla, who with other Jews had been recently expelled from Rome; and with whom, as being of the same 1 Strabo, Geog. vill. 6. 20 (ed. Kramer). 2 Pausanias, Grec. Descr. I. 4, 6, 7. 8 Dio. Chrysostom (Ovraz¢. XXVII. p. 463; cited for Wetstein), writing probably about fifty years later, speaks of it as méAts Tév obcdv Te Kal yeyevnucvwy emappo- diroraérm. The new Corinth soon became as profligate as the Corinth of the past. INTRODUCTION. 15 trade, he at first abode, preaching and reasoning sabbath after sabbath in the Jewish synagogue (as was his regular practice ; see Acts xvii. 2), and not without some distinct measure of success. ‘The success was probably much greater in the case of the devout heathen, who as proselytes of the gate, were now readily admitted into the synagogues.? On the arrival of Silas and Timothy, a distinct change took place. The Apostle made still more energetic efforts, and especially endeavored to bring home to his Jewish hearers that Jesus was the true Messiah (Acts xviii. 5). This called forth such strong and even violent opposition that the Apostle sol- emnly and deliberately left the synagogue, and henceforth made the house of a proselyte of the name of Titus Justus, which closely abutted on the synagogue, the place in which he taught and preached. Great success followed. Crispus the ruler of the synagogue became a believer, and was baptized by the Apos- tle (ch. i. 14), and with him Gaius, probably a wealthy Corin- thian,? and many others. The Apostle received special divine encouragement (Acts xviii. 9),and great spiritual success was vouchsafed to him. At present, however, the converts mainly belonged to the less educated and humbler classes (ch. i. 26 sq.) and, even after the preaching of the eloquent Apollos, do not appear to have been joined by many from the higher class. The Lord, however, even in these early days ‘had much people’ in Corinth (Acts xviii. 10). After a stay of eighteen months (ver. 12)’, an organized attempt was made by the Jews; the Apostle was brought before the newly-come Proconsul, Gallio, and was charged with teach- ing the worship of God in a manner contrary to the law. The mild, and so far equitable, brother of Seneca at once dismissed 1See Ewald, History of Zsrael, Vol. vu. p. 310 (Transl.). 2 When St. Paul visited Corinth five years afterwards he appears to have stayed in the house of this Gaius,—the house being one of the places where either a regular Christian assembly was held, or where Christians were freely entertained : see Rom. xvi. 23, and Meyer zz Joc. 3 See Meyer zz loc. as to the terminus ad quem of this period. Wieseler (Chronol. Apost. p. 45) makes the eighteen months extend to the time of the Apostle’s departure. 16 INTRODUCTION. the case, and the Apostle stayed some time longer (Acts xviii. 18) preaching and teaching, it would seem, without any further hinderance. After a time, we cannot say how long, the Apostle left Corinth for Ephesus, with Aquila and Priscilla, and, leay- ing them in that city, set sail for Caesarea, and passed onward to Jerusalem, returning shortly afterwards to Antioch. After some stay at Antioch, he went through Galatia and Phrygia, and finally returned to Ephesus, where he remained three years, and from which city, towards the close of his stay there, prob- ably in the spring of 57 or 58 A.D., he wrote this Epistle to the Corinthian Church. We now have to notice an event which had a great influence on the development of Christianity in Corinth. Before St. Paul had reached Ephesus, the eloquent Jew of Alexandria, Apollos, had been there, and had preached boldly in the syna- gogue. As yet be knew only the baptism of John, but after further teaching by Aquila and Priscilla, who were remaining at Ephesus, and probably gave encouragement to their earnest and eloquent pupil, he went to Corinth, and greatly aided the progress of Christianity. That which the Apostle had planted, he faithfully watered (ch. iii. 6), being especially successful, as it would seem, in some manner even more public than the synagogue, in convincing the Jews that Jesus was the Christ (Act xviii. 28). Apollos returned to Ephesus probably after no long stay at Corinth, and was with the Apostle when he was writing this Epistle (ch. xvi. 12). Serious consequenses, however, followed this visit. The substance of the preaching and teaching of Apollos, though beyond all doubt the same as that of St. Paul, was as certainly different in form and manner. The speech and preaching of the Apostle were, as he himself tells us, studiedly simple and fundamental (ch. ii. 2), and, as befitted such teach- ing, were set forth neither with excellency of speech nor with persuasive words of merely human wisdom (ver. 4). The preaching of Apollos, on the other hand, was marked by elo- quence and power, and, as we know, was especially helpful, not only in attracting new converts, but in confirming those INTRODUCTION. 17 that already believed (Acts xviii. 27), and in confuting Jewish opponents. The result might easily have been foreseen. Two parties began silently to show themselves in the Church, — those who adhered to the founder and his well-remembered plain, Spirit-moved form of teaching (ch. ii. 4), and those who were carried away by the energy and persuasiveness of the eloquent Alexandrian. The evil was greatly augmented by the arrival, most probably after the departure of Apollos, of teachers, perhaps from Jerusalem or perhaps from some of the Asiatic Churches, who claimed for their opinions the author- ity of St. Peter, and gradually assumed in many particulars (questions connected with marriage, distinctions of meats, and other minor features of Judaistic Christianity) an attitude of opposition alike to the supporters of St. Paul and Apollos. It is not difficult to conceive that the growing troubles and incon- veniences arising from the opposition, one to another, of these three parties called out a fourth party, which, in disavowing all party, and especially all human leaders, became, probably, in the sequel the most intolerant of all,— the sacred name of Christ being used as the designation of this fourth portion of the divided Church. Such were the parties at Corinth, of comparatively sudden and not unnatural emergence, injurious to the peace and growth of the Church, but, as it would seem, not of any lasting influ- ence. By the grace of God, and through the appeal of the Apostle, they appear to have so comparatively soon died out, that Clement of Rome, writing to the Corinthian Church only a generation afterwards, speaks of them as movements belong- ing wholly to the past, and much less injurious in their effects than the troubles and contentions of his own times.! We can- not, then, agree with those writers who represent these parties as actually defined factions, and who elaborately seek for traces of their respective opinions and influence in the various and broad questions that are treated of in this Epistle. e . That they would, however, have greatly endangered the progress of Christianity in the early development of the Corin- 1 See Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. 1. cap. 47. 3 18 INTRODUCTION. thian Church, may be confidently inferred from the firm manner in which they were dealt with by the Apostle. He had now returned (54 or 55 a.p) to Ephesus, and, as we know, remained there for three years (Acts xx. 30). In the early part of his stay, the parties at Corinth were only in the process of formation. His attention was then more particularly directed, by the tidings from time to time brought to him, to the traditional sin of Corinth, which was showing itself even within the Church (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 21). He appears to have written a letter (ch. v. 9), now lost, which probably was mainly on this subject, and on the associated evils of the temple-feasts. Somewhat later in the Apostle’s stay, the circumstances of the now more fuily developed parties among the Corinthian Chris- tians were mentioned to him by members of the household of Chloe (ch. i. 11), and also the movements against his own Apostolic authority. Of these parties in the Church, and the disorders which they appear indirectly to have caused even in the public worship (consider ch. xi. 18 sqq.), the Apostle con- tinued to hear (see notes on ch. xi. 18) till the very time of his writing this Epistle. The opening chapters show how seri- ously the Apostle dealt with the movement, and how his own son in the faith, Timothy, was despatched to follow up by his personal counsels the Epistle that we know preceded him (ch. ives, xvi, 10); The subject of the party divisions thus called out the earlier chapters of the Epistle. There was, however, much beside | that required to be noticed. It is not improbable that the Apostle was informed by the members of the household of Chloe of the grievous case of incest, and of the litigations before heathen courts, and perhaps also of the disorders that had shown themselves in the administration of the Lord’s Supper. A letter also had come from the Church of Corinth, apparently brought by Stephanas and others (ch. xvi. 17), asking ques- tions relative to marriage and virginity (ch. vii.), the eating of offerings made to idols (ch. vili.), and, as also seems probable, spiritual gifts (ch. xii.), and especially the speaking with tongues (ch. xiv.), which many members of the Church were disposed INTRODUCTION. 19 greatly to over-value. To this letter it was urgently necessary that an answer should be returned; and that, more especially, as the Apostle’s words in his former letter had, at least in one case, been misunderstood (ch. v. 9,10), and in some others (consider ch. vi. 12, x. 28), not improbably, misinterpreted. Beside these subjects of the letter, it does not seem improbable, from the position of the chapter, that the doubts that were entertained by some members of the Corinthian Church on the resurrection of the body were mentioned by Stephanas and his companions, and that thus additional reason of the gravest kind existed for the Apostle’s writing to the Corinthian Church, and at once. The letter was probably written in the conluding period of the Apostle’s stay at Ephesus, in the spring of the year 57 or 58 A.D., close about the time of the Passover, and was, most | likely, entrusted to Stephanas and his companions to be deliy- | ered to the Corinthian Church. We have now, lastly, to notice a little more precisely the structure and contents of the Epistle, to which allusion has already been made. The Epistle consists of a short Introduction and seven well- defined sections, succeeding each other in the order which we have already sketched out, and closing with an additional sec- tion of final directions and communications. On each of these divisions it may be convenient to make a few introductory comments. The Salutation and opening words only take up nine verses (ch. i. 1-9), but are of considerable importance as showing that the Church of Corinth, though disturbed by party spirit and even stained by some grievous sins, was making great spiritual progress. The language of thanksgiving which the Apostle uses is strong and unqualified. Great spiritual gifts had been bestowed on the Church. The members of it were manifesting that clearest token of true life-— they were watch- ing and waiting for the coming of the Lord ; and they receive the solemn assurance that the Lord for whom they were wait- ing will strengthen and confirm them unto the end. Such 20) INTRODUCTION. words should be well borne in mind. They were not the words of mere conventional courtesy, but convey the truth which the reader should well bear in mind, that the Church of Corinth, in spite of its many shortcomings, was a true and living Church, and that the very strife that unhappily had shown itself was a token of earnestness and life. Corinth was no Laodicea. The first portion of the Epistle (ch. i. 10-iv. 21) deals with that strife seriously and fully. It discloses, plainly enough, how much of the existing state of things was due to spiritual vanity, and to seeking after a pretentious wisdom of the world instead of humbly and thankfully accepting the simple and fundamental truths of the Gospel. This aspect of the subject naturally leads the Apostle to speak very fully of the nature of his own teaching and preaching among them,and enables us to realize how completely it was under the special guidance of the Holy Ghost (ch. ii. 4, 10, 18, al.) that he preached as he did preach in worldly-intellectual Corinth. That the Apostle should pass from his teaching to his close relations with them as their spiritual father and founder (ch. iv.), and even con- clude with the words of implied threatening (ch. iv. 21), as well as of censure and rebuke, is only consonant with the whole tenor of one of the most pathetically, as well as indignantly, earnest remonstrances ever addressed by a Christian teacher and preacher to a Christian Church. The tone becomes even deeper and stronger in the portion of the Epistle which follows (ch. v. vi.), in which the Apostle deals with the revolting sin of the incestuous member of the Corinthian Church, and with the startling fact that the case was regarded by many with comparative indifference,— possibly as a phenomenon, more or less repulsive, with which they, the illuminated, had but little todo. This grievous sin, their appeal. to heathen tribunals, and the excuses (involving even misuse of St. Paul’s own words) which they were actually finding for the prevalent fornication which the Apostle had already re- buked in a former letter (ch. v. 9), form the substance of this second portion of the Epistle, and are dealt with in language of great power and persuasiveness. INTRODUCTION. 21 What might be considered the first great division of the Epistle, here closes, as the Apostle, in the third portion (ch. vii.), and indeed in the fourth (ch. viii. 1, xi. 1) and sixth (ch. xii.—xiv.) portions, passes to the questions which had been put to him in the letter brought by Stephanas and his friends. ’ In this third portion the Apostle answers the questions relative to marriage and virginity. Some reactionary feeling against the prevalent licentiousness in Corinth may have led many of the more earnest members of the Church to advocate an asceti- cism which required to be discussed with the utmost circum- spection and prudence. The Apostle thus enters into many details, leaving apparently no single question unanswered that had been either raised or suggested in the Corinthian letter. In all these details he refers everything to the highest princi- ples, and solves the varied moral problems which the chapter suggests in a manner that must have brought home the truth of the last words of this section to every thoughtful Christian in whose ears this marvellous chapter was read. In the fourth portion (ch. viii. 1-xi. 1) the Apostle deals at considerable length, and in a very varied manner, with the subject of eating meats offered to idols, and taking part in feasts made in their honor. In dealing with the complicated questions connected with this subject, the same lofty tone that we have already observed will at once be recognized by every careful reader. Everything is referred at once to principles of the loftiest strain, and sometimes of the deepest suggestive- ness. Digressive statements are made as to his own freedom, rights, and course of action (ch. ix. 1-23), all marked by the highest tone ; the significance of ancient history is demonstrated (ch. x. 1-13); momentous truths are revealed (ch. x. 19 sq.), and the frightful perils that lurk, in what might at first sight seem merely debatable questions, disclosed with a startling _ force and cogency. This portion of the Epistle concludes with the same precept with which, pratically, the first portion con- cludes; the Corinthian Christian was to imitate him who first brought Christianity to Coyinth, and whose principle was,— consideration toward all, that, by so showing it, al] might be saved (ch. x. 83). 22 INTRODUCTION. In the fifth portion, the Apostle pauses in his answers to the questions of the Corinthian letter to notice two grave matters which had been probably mentioned to him by his informants from Chloe’s household,— the disorderly habit of women pub- licly praying with uncovered heads, and the serious irreverence that was shown in connection with the Lord’s Supper. These particulars, belonging more especially to Christian order and worship, he may have felt it desirable to dispose of before he entered into the larger and more complicated subject of the Spiritual Gifts, and the concluding doctrinal subject of the Resurrection of the body. In both the particulars noticed in this section the same mode of treatment may be observed which we have already referred to,— the appeal to first and highest principles in reference to practices that might have been thourht simply to belong to general order and discipline. The woman’s covered head is shown to depend, on the one hand, on principles connected with the very creation of man, and, on the other, upon the mysterious presence of unseen beings at prayers and prophesyings (ch. xi. 10), when none save mortal worshippers could have been deemed to be present. The irreverent par- ticipation in the Lord’s Supper is shown to involve a sin so grave that in some cases death was its ordained chastisement (ch xi. 30). Such revelations must have produced a profound effect, even on the self-satisfied Corinthian, and restored that ‘sober and decorous piety ’ which Clement of Rome mentions as having been one of the earlier characteristics of the Corin- thian Church. The sixth portion (ch. xii.xiv.), from the form of words with which it opens, was probably in answer to questions rela- tive to the special gifts which had been bestowed by the Spirit upon the Corinthians. The questions most probably turned mainly upon the mysterious gift of tongues, and the relation in which it stood to prophesyings and other supernatural gifts. The whole subject is discussed with great fulness. The obvious tendency to over-value speaking with tongues is corrected, and that principle on which every gift really and truly depends for 1 See Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. cap. I. INTRODUCTION. 23 its proper exercise,— the principle of Christian love, set forth and glorified in the sublime chapter (ch. xiii.) which speaks not only of Love’s present characteristics, but of its enduring nature when all other gifts and graces will have either changed their nature, or passed finally away. The careful directions which follow in regard of speaking with tongues and prophe- sying (ch. xiv.) serve very suitably to remind us of the large outpouring of the Spirit that had plainly been bestowed on the Church of Corinth. The seventh portion, on the Resurrection of the body, must therefore not be regarded as an indication that the Church of Corinth had, in any general manner, fallen away from the faith in regard of this vital doctrine. Even the ‘some among them’ (ch. xv. 12) that doubted or denied the resurrection of the dead, did not so much deny the fact of existence after death, as the possibility of a resurrection of that body which seemed, by its very constitution and dissolution, to belong to the heritage of corruption. It was the mystery of the future body, and the form and manner in which the dead were again to appear on, so to say, the theatre of being (ch. xv. 85), that constituted the real difficulty, and is, consequently, dwelt upon more especially in this great doctrinal chapter. The difficulties that were felt were exactly the difficulties that we might have expected would have been felt in a city like Corinth. And these difficulties to some extent lingered, as thirty years after- wards we find Clement of Rome still dwelling upon the subject, and seeking to rekindle a faith 1 which still seemed to be feeble and languishing. The concluding portion of the Epistle contains instructions as to the collection for the poorer brethren in the Mother-Church of Jerusalem, and the many directions and words of encourage- ment which the circumstances of such a Church as that of Corinth would be sure to call forth. One flash of vivid warning (ch. xvi. 22) lights up even the closing salutation, but fades away again in the words of deepest affection,—1 ayamn pou peTa TavtTav wuav ev Xpiot@ “Inood (ver. 24),— with which 1 See Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. cap. 27; comp. cap. 24 sqq. 24 INTRODUCTION. this varied and noble Epistle comes, appropriately, to its close. On the genuineness and authenticity of the Epistle no reason- able doubt has ever been entertained. The earliest references to it are,— Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. capp. 47, 49; Polycarp, ad Phil. cap.11; Ignatius, ad Eph. cap. 2; Epist. ad Diogn. (ap. Just. M. Opp.), p. 502 c (Colon. 1686) ; Ireneus, Heer. m1. 11 9, iv. 27.3; Athenagoras, de Resurr. p.61 c (Colon. 1686); Clem.-Alex. Pedag.i.33; Tertull. de Prescr. cap 33, and the Muratorian Fragment, in which this Epistle holds the first place in the enumeration of the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. CHAPTER I. Grace and Peace to the Church of God in Corinth. AYAOZ, kdrnris aroator0s Xpictob *Inood bia OeAjpatos Ocod, kai Swaévns 1. Xpicred *Incod] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. on apparently preponderating authority; Rec. Rev., Westc. and Hort,’ Incot Xpiorov. INTRODUCTORY (ch. i. I-9.) 1-3. Opening address. 1 K«dnTds amdoroXos] ‘called as an Apostle, i.e. an Apostle, not by the appointment of man, but by the special calling of God, ‘vocatione Apostolus,’ Beza: designa- tion of himself in his most solemn offi- cial character, not without some oblique reference to those who were under- valuing his Apostolical authority ; xapat epupe macav avtav otnow, KAnToy éavTdv | acpévos ev Xpiot@ ‘Inoovd, Kryrois ayious, cuv Taw Tots ETt- Bengel: local specification, following, with a studied fulness of language (oon is not redundant; the Church was existing and flourishing), the gen- eral expression which has just pre- ceded: so 2 Cor. i. 13; comp. Rom. i. 7, Eph.i. 1, Phil. i. 1, where the parti- ciple is similarly inserted. Zachm. and Treg. place this clause after jyacuévors k T.A., with good, but insufficiently sup- ported, authorities. TYLacpevous év Xpiora “Incot] ‘men sanctified in Christ Jesus ;? appositional clause de- fining the éxkA. Tov @eod in its spiritual relations and characteristics, and, by its transition into the plural, marking still more clearly the collective idea involved in the term; comp. Winer, Gr.§ 58. 4, Kiihner, Gr. § 359, 2. The sanctification is studiedly specified as being év Xpior@ *Incod; it was zx Him, in the sphere of His holy influence, and of His redeeming love, that alone the ayiacuds could be realized. The Holy Spirit is the source (2 Thess. ii. 13), Christ Jesus the sphere (Eph. i. 4), and his propitiatory sacrifice the me- dium of its existence and operation; comp. Heb. x. Io. KAnTots a ylous] ‘called as saints ;’ almost saints by vo- cation, ‘per vocationem sancti,’ Bengel on Rom.i. 7; concluding clause speci- fying, with some little emphasis, the fact of their KAjots ( od yap mpoonrAdere Tp@Tol, GAA” éexahOnre, Chrys.), and the results it involved and implied. The kAjjois was from God the Father (comp. Usteri, Lehrd. Il. 2. 2, p. 269, and see notes oz Gal. i. 6), and what it involved was the holiness of those to whom it was vouchsafed; comp. I Pet. i. 15. It is perhaps slightly doubtful (see Cal- vin 2 loc.) whether the words imply that the being @y.o: is involved in the calling (‘ causa sanctificationis vocatio ’) ’ or is the object and design of it (‘ sanc- titas vocationis scopus’). Practically, as Calvin has remarked, the two views become coincident; the former, how- ever, seems most in accordance both with the context and with the preceding kAntos améaroAos. They were ‘holy because called’ (August.). In both passages the uy atdaipetos Hxwv (Suidas, Lex. S. v.) seems the idea which the verbal xAnrés is mainly designed to convey. The observation of Usteri (Zehré. p. 279) that St. Paul makes no difference between «xAnrot and éxAextol is apparently not perfectly correct. Though there is not that sharp distinc- tion which we recognize in Matt. xxii. 14, still the characteristic difference between the terms may usually be rec- ognized, kAntés seeming to mark the more external and inclusive, éxAexrés the more internal and privileged; con- sider Rom. viii. 33, Tit. i. 1. Both terms are united in Rev, xvii. 14, cAnrTol kat exAeKTol kal moral. ov Ta- ow «T.X. ‘together with all that are calling upon ;’ further specification of those who are included by the Apostle in his opening words of address; viz. all that call upon the name of our Lord, wheresoever they may be; mdy- Twy Tay ev TdON TH yh weuvntat mio av, Chrys. The connection and reference of these words must fairly be pro- nounced very doubtful. We may (a) connect the clause closely with what precedes (so Lachm., Treg., De Wette, al.); or, retaining the punctuation of the text, we may (4) connect the clause with the leading words rH ékkAnota (Syr., AEth.), but “mt the wayr) témw to the regions with which the Church of Corinth was geographically con- nected, ze. to dAn TH *Axala, as defi- nitely specified in 2 Cor. i. 1 (Meyer, 28 1 CORINTHIANS. [Cuapr, I, 2, 3. Kadoupévois TO Ovoua ToD Kupiov tyav "Incod Xpiotod év rravtl TOT®, avT@Y Kal uav* ® ydpis bpiy Kai elpnvn ao Ocod TaTpos nav Kal Kupiov ’Incod Xpictod. 2. avrayv kat nuav] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, or. very clearly preponderating authority; Rec., adra@y Te kal juar. al.); or we may (c) adopt the wider reference as stated at the beginning of this note. The objections to (2) seem to be well founded. The parallelism of clauses is lost; the sort of natural pause after the second specification, kAnrtois ayiors, disappears ; the emphatic, and sufficiently independent, statement (comp. Rom. i. 7) is clogged by an un- looked for addition, and the simple sequence of clauses (contrast Phil. i. 1) needlessly disturbed. To (4) the ob- jections are less strong, as a species of justification for the limitation is cer- tainly suggested by 2 Cor. i. 1. But the rejoinder seems clearly valid, viz. that if any such local limitation had been intended the Apostle could hardly have failed, With such inclusive words as év mavt) témm at the end of the clause, very clearly to have specified it. We therefore, with the Greek ex- positors (see Cramer, Caten. in loc.), adopt (c), and regard the clause as a kind of echo of the opening words tH éxkAnoig Tov Ocod, which, though limited in the words that follow, seem to have given a tone of catholicity to this im- pressive address. The use of ody rather than of the simple «af seems worthy of notice. It does not merely append the mévrTas Tovs émikad. k.T.A to those already addressed, but implies also the closeness of their association; cuvdmre: Tots Kata Thy oikoupevny wemiotevxdot, Theodoret. 7d dvopa K.T.r.] ‘the name of our Lord Jesus Christ:’ sc. as that of their Sa- viour and God; with a plain and direct reference to the Divinity of our Lord: ‘nota etiam quod Christum dicit invo- cari a fidelibus, quo ejus divinitas com- probatur,’ Calv.; compare Acts ii. 21, 1X.\0A, 20, XXL 10, ROM: x.) 02, Lhe formula émikadcio Oat 7d dvoua is derived from the LXX, where the verb is found similarly in connection with dvoua Ku- piov as the translation of DW NP, and in three different constructions,— with simple acc. (Gen. xiii. 4), with ézi and dat. (Gen. xii. 8), and with éy (Psalm cxv. 8). That the phrase either here or elsewhere in the N.T. expresses the idea of ‘calling to aid’ (Stanley) cannot be clearly substantiated. The verb not uncommonly involves this meaning when with a defining infin. (Herod. v. 80) or with an accus. of the person (Thucyd. I. ror), but, when in combinations like the present, is ob- viously restricted to the invocation of prayer and adoration. The real force of the éwt is in fact directive (Rost u. Palm., Zex s.v. érl, C. b.): the prep. marks the direction of the address, the appended words or immediate context the nature and character of it; comp. Fritz. Rom. vol. I. p. 31. aiTav Kal pov] ‘ their and ours, i.e. ‘belong- ing to them and—to us,’ ‘ipsorum et nostro,’ Vulg.; comp. Rom. xvi. 13, Thy untépa avtod kal éuod. It is some- what doubtful whether these words are to be conneted (a) with the more remote Kuplov juav Ino. Xp. (Chrys., Theod., al.), as slightly correcting and enhan- cing the preceding jar (iva deltn Kowdy deométyy Bvra, Theoph. 1); or (b) with the immediately preceding mavr) tém@ Cuap. I. 3, 4. I thank God for your spiritual progress. Christ will strengthen you to the end, (Vulg., apparently Copt. and Arm., Cyril ap. Cramer Cat., Theoph. 2, al.), as carrying on the idea of catholic unity which seems to pervade the whole address. Most of the Greek commen- tators are in favor of (2), —a consid- eration of some moment, as showing the impression produced by the words on readers who spoke the language: the exegetical considerations, however, founded on the obviously unemphatic character of the first jua@yv, and the great awkwardness of the resumed con- nection after the intercalated words, are so strong that, with Cyril (see above), Estius, and most modern ex- positors, we adopt (4), and understand the words, not simply and frigidly as defining the locality, scil. ‘where they may be, and we may be’ (Theoph. 2), but as implying that every place that was locally theirs (comp. Zeph. ii. 11), was spiritually that of the Apostle and his helpers; ‘quod omnium una sit ecclesia,’ Estius. Any indirect refer- ence of -the words to the state of di- vision in the Church of Corinth (Phot., Vitringa, al.) does not seem probable. Though the Apostle, not uncommonly, uses expressions at the commencement of his Epistles which seem designed to indicate the purport and substance of the whole (see Wilke, Rhetorzk, § 146. d), he gives them in all cases a clear prominence (comp. Gal. i. 1), and not, as here, a subordinate and unemphatic position. 3. Xdpus bpiv K7.A.] ‘ Grace be to you and peace ;’ ordinary form of salutation in St. Paul’s Epp., including both the xatpew of the Greek ) Acts xv. 23, James i, 1), and the pide (2 Sam. xviii. 28, 1 Chron. xii. 18) of Oriental greeting, but each of these in its deepest and 1 CORINTHIANS. 29 4 Et bed re 3) a , \Wp.e ia uxXaploTw TO Eo OU TTQVTOTE TrEPL ULV most spiritual sense, xdpis being the divine grace vouchsafed to man (see notes oz Col. i. 2), eiphyn the holy and blessed state that results from it. On this and. other forms of salutation in the N.T., see notes oz Zph. i. 2, Koch on 1 Thessal. p. 60, and especially the interesting treatise of Otto in Jahrd. fiir Deutsche Theol. (for 1867), Vol. XI. p- 678 sqq., where the formula is fully discussed, and referred for its origin to Num. vi. 25, 26. Kal Kuvptov K.T.A.] scil. kal ard Kuplov x.7.A. So expressly Syr., Arm., both of which repeat the preposition. The union of the two genitives under the vinculum of a common preposition is one of the numberless hints we find scattered throughout St. Paul’s Epistles of the consciously felt and recognized co- ordination (opp. to Reuss, 7%éo/. Chrét. v. 8, Vol. 11. p. 77) of the First and Second Persons of the blessed Trinity ; Tov Tarps kat Tov Tiod Semvis thy iod- tnta, Theod. As here, a prep. usually associated with the causa principalis, so, in Gal. i. I, a prep. usually asso- ciated with the causa medians, is used in common reference to both substan- tives; comp. notes oz Gal. /.c., and in regard of inferences, in this subject, from the use of prepositions, Water- land, Works, Vol. 1. p. 51 (ed. 2). 4-9. Hopeful thanksgiving for the Spiritual state of the Corinthian Church. 4. Hixapioras tO Ow pov] ‘7 thank my God;’ so Rom. i. 8, Phil. i. 3; comp. Phil. iv. 19, Philem. 4, and, as a good commentary on the pronoun, Acts xxvii. 23, 08 eiut, @ kad Aarpetw. The expression t¢ @eg wou probably marks that feeling of vivid love and devotion which, on every recital and 30 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. I. 4; 5. éml TH xapiTt TOD Ocod 7H Sobcion iwiv ev Xprot@ *Inood, Ul \ 56ru év mavti émAouticOnte ev aiT@, ev TavTl hoyw Kai Taoy remembrance of the blessings of the present, seems ever to have been freshly called up into the heart of the thank- ful Apostle; amd moAAjs aydarns Tov kowbdy mdvtwy Ocdv idtomoetrat, Theoph. The pov is omitted by Westc. and Hort on important, but apparently insuffi- cient, authority. On the present use of evxapioreiv (‘quod pro gratias agere ante Polybium usurpavit nemo,’ Lo- beck, Piryn. p. 18), see notes oz Phil. i. 3, and on its four meanings, see notes on Col. i. 12. tmepl tpov] ‘con- cerning you,’ ‘de vobis,’ Beza. Though it may be admitted that the distinction between the use of wept and bmép (ch. x. 30, Eph. i. 16, v. 20) in the present and similar expressions is scarcely ap- preciable (see notes oz Gal. i. 4, and oz Thess. i. 1), still there is a shade of dis- tinction which it may be desirable to attempt to maintain in translation (as here: so Rev.), and which was prob- ably fe/t by the writer. The distinction of Weber (cited in note oz Phil. i. 7), viz. —‘ ep! solam mentis circumspec- tionem, drép simul animi propensionem significat ’ is sometimes clearly recogniz- able. On the primary meaning and ety- mological affinities of rep{, see Donalds. Crat. § 177 sq. éml TH Xapete] ‘for thé grace ;’ ground and basis of the thankfulness, the prep. with the dative marking as usual that on which the action rested as its foundation; see Winer, Gr. § 48. b., and notes oz Phil. i. 13, iii. 9. This foundation was God’s grace, ze. His gifts of grace to the Corinthian converts (ai S00cioa av- tois Swpeal, Theod.), more distinctly specified in ver. 5 sqq. év Xpirra *Inoot] ‘22 Christ Jesus, i.e. in mem- bership and vital union with Him: He, and He alone, was the blessed sphere in which the gift of grace was bestowed ; see notes oz Gal. v. 6, Hooker, Serm. 1. Vol. 111. p. 763 (ed. Keble), and the valuable comments of Plitt, G/au- benslehre, § 55, Vol. 11. p. 76. The assumed equivalence, in the present case, of the expression to 6: Xp. ’Ine., though sustained by the high authority of Chrysostom (see his note zz Zoc.), is clearly to be rejected. All that can properly be said is, that the form of expression may perhaps be chosen to remind the reader that, outside that blessed sphere, and so apart from the ‘meritum Jesu Christi’ (Est.), the grace here spoken of could not have been imparted to the Church of Corinth. 5. Stu év wavtl K.7.r.] ‘that in every- thing ye were made rich in Him ;” ex- planation of the foregoing emi rH xaputi, and more detailed statement of the ground of the evxapioria. The mAoivros was from God (Chrys.), without any limitation (2 Cor. ix. 11; comp. I Tim. vi. 18), and in the same blessed sphere (€v adr@): ‘ditamur zz Christo eo'quod simus Corporis ejus membra,’ Calvin. ev tavtl Adyw Kal maon yao] ‘27 every form of utterance and every form of knowledge, scil. ‘in every power of outward expression and every form of inward knowledge; specific illustration of the preceding év mayri; God’s gifts had been so richly bestowed that they had both knowledge (of divine truth; comp. Clem.-Rom. 1 Cor. i.) in the heart, and power to express it with the lips, kat vojoa kai cireiv ixavol, Chrys. The meaning of Adyos is some- what doubtful, as it may mean, either (z) the word spoken to the Corinthians, and so ‘preaching or teaching’ (De Wette, Maier, al.), or (4) the word they spoke, scil. ‘utterance’ Auth., Rev., Cuap,. I.'s, 6. 1 CORINTHIANS. 31 yvoce, ®xalas To waptipiov Tod Xpictov éBeBawwOn ev vipiv, ‘verbo’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Arm. The latter meaning seems substantiated by the closely parallel passage, 2 Cor. viii. 7, where the associated substan- tives mlotis, yvaots, orovdh, being all subjective, render it highly probable that the remaining Adyos is also to be taken in a similarly subjective sense; 6 Adyos ka) Tb eyywopevov Epunvevet, Orig. ; comp. 2 Cor. xi.6. So Meyer, Neander, al., and appy. all the Greek expositors. 6. Kaas according as,’ ‘sicut’ Vulg., Clarom.; reference of the émAour. «.7.A. mentioned in the preceding verse to the cause, owing to which, and in accordance with which, it took place ; see’ Eph. i. 4, Phil. i. 7, al. In cases like the present the particle has some what of a causal reference (7d kads, avt) tod 8’ av, Theoph.—but too strongly), the primary idea of accord- ance with (‘even as’) passing into that of cause or reason (‘inasmuch as’), but yet not being wholly obliterated; see notes oz ph. i. 4, and on the particle generally, notes oz Gal. iii. 6. 7) paptiproy tod Xpiorot] ‘che testi- mony of Christ ;’ gen. objecti (Winer, Gr. § 30. 1. a); the witness concerning the Lord delivered by St. Paul and his fellow-teachers, the Gospel-message generally ; 7b Knhpvyya tod Xpiotod, Theoph. ‘testimonium Christi, vel de Christo, Evangelium vocat,’ Calvin; see 2 Tim. i. 8, and notes 27 /oc., and comp. ‘Acts 1.8. Origen appears mainly (see, however, the whole passage) to have regarded the gen. as a gen. sudjecti, ‘6 Xpiords, tv obtws dvoudow, apxiuaptup éorl, ap. Cramer, Caten. Vol. v. p. 123; so teo Hofmann zz /oc., comparing 7d paptuptoy tov @eov, ch. ii. I.; but, as Neander rightly observes, such an ex- pression as ‘the testimony given by Christ, or emanating from Christ’ (gen. originis) is unusual, and indeed, in a general context like the present, un- precedented. €BeBarwH9n év dpiv] ‘was confirmed among you,’ scil. by the gifts of the Holy Ghost vouchsafed to you (comp. xapfouat:, ver. 7), whether in the form of inward graces and deep- ened faith, or of outwardly manifested powers; ia onuelwy kad xapiros, Chrys., ‘per concomitantia charismata et mi- racula,’ Bengel. The bulk of the older commentators regard the BeBatwos as more exclusively rising from wzzraculous gifts (Theod., Theoph., al.); Meyer and most later expositors, following Calvin and Calov., urge the preceding ka@ds and the use of BeBaodv in ver. 8 as limiting the reference to the deepened conviction arising from faith, and from the ‘interna Spiritus virtus,’ Calvin. Neither restriction here seems desir- able: the Apostle says that the spir- itual enrichment of his converts is due to, and in accordance with, the con- firmation of the Gospel by the Spirit ; this may in some cases have been of an outward, and in others more of an inward nature ; woAA@y Oaupdtwr, apdrou xdpiros, Chrysostom. The é byiv is thus more naturally ‘among you’ than ‘in animis vestris;’ it was the general state of the Corinthian Church (observe the suas in the words immediately following), the grace of God bestowed generally among them, that called forth the edxapiotia; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 13, and for a discussion on the whole subject, Vitringa (‘de testimonio Christi in credentibus confirmato’), Oés. Sacr. 111.1. Some difficulty may be felt, and has been felt, in regard of the state- ments of this verse and of the para- graph generally, when contrasted with the general tenor of the Epistle The natural solution appears to be this, 32 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP: Va a lal ’ ‘dare twas wn voTepeioOar év pmdev’ yapioparti, amreKdeyopuévous THY aroKdduyw tod Kupiov jyav “Incood Xpuctod: 8d5 Kab that the Apostle is here speaking of the Church of Corinth as a whole, and @ potiorz parte (consider Acts xviii. 10), but that elsewhere, when compelled to reprove and to censure, he is dealing with sections and portions of the gen- eral whole that unhappily deserved the altered tone. 7. dore bpas K.7.A.] ‘50 that ye do not fall short in any spiritual gift, ‘are as richly endowed with all spiritual blessings as any other Christian commu- nity;’ result of the BeBalwois, and so, statement on the negative side of what in ver. 5 was expressed on the positive side. Some expositors make the éore dependent on ver. 5 (comp. Chrys., Bengel), but it seems much more in accordance with St. Paul’s closely linked style to adopt the more imme- diate connection with what precedes: that the members of the Corinthian Church did not suffer want (sorepetoOat is passive, not middle: comp. Phil. iv. 12, and émAovtic@nte, ver. 5) in any spiritual gift was a consequence (&oTe) of the confirmation above specified. On the use of dete (‘consecutionem alicujus rei ex antecedentibus signi- ficat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 771) see notes oz Gal. ii. 13. Xaplopari] ‘97/t of grace ;’ in its widest sense, as including on the one hand, in accordance with ver. 5, inwardly working gifts of the Spirit, and on the other—in accordance with the use of the word in passages of apparently similar import (Rom. xii. 6,1 Pet. iv. 10 sq., and, probably, 1 Tim. iv. 14; see notes) and its prevailing reference in this Epistle (cap. xii—xiv.),— specially given powers (kal yap mpopntikis je- réAaxov xdpitos, Kal yAdrTas Siapdpors €AdAour, Theod.), and manifestations of them. Most of the older expositors limit the meaning to the latter sense; modern expositors mainly adopt the former. In a passage of this general nature it seems best to include both. Under any circumstances it is certainly not to be limited ‘to gifts of insight into the unseen world’ (Stanley),— an interpretation obviously narrow and insufficient. On the term xdpicua (exc. I Pet. iv. 10, only used by St. Paul), see Cremer, L70/.- Theol. Woérterb.s.v.p. 581. GrexScxopévous] ‘patiently waiting for,’ while thus blessed and endowed; anar- throus participial clause, defining the present spiritual state and, so to say, spi- ritual attitude of the Corinthian Church. While thus enjoying once promised and now present blessings they were patiently and earnestly waiting for the greater promise of the unfolding future; TovTwy S& amndatoate iva thy Sevtépay emipdveray Tod Swripos mpoouelyyre, Theod. It is certainly worthy of no- tice how, even in that one community in which we might have expected to find it otherwise, the deep and uni- versal feeling of the whole early church (comp. Phil. iii. 20, 1 Thess. i. 10, 2 Tim. iv. 8, Tit. ii. 13, Heb. ix. 9) was in no sensible degree modified: though indi- viduals might doubt (I Cor. xv. 12), yet, in the Corinthian Church generally, the watchword, the ‘tessera’ of love and hope, was ever the same — uapav a0d, I Cor. xvi. 22. On these words see an eloquent sermon by Archer Butler, Sermons, Series I. 1. On the nature of the sv called ‘tertiary’ pred- ication involved in the participial clause (‘awaiting as ye are’), see Donalds. Gv. § 489, and on the meaning (‘studiose constanter expectare’) of the significant double compound éer- Cuap. I. 8. 1 CORINTHIANS. 33 BeBaiwoet twas Ews TéXoUS avEyKAHTOUS ev TH TpuEépa TOV Kupiov déxeoOu, Fritz. Lritssch. Opusc. p. 150 seq., notes oz Gal. v. 5, and on Phil. iii. 20. viv arokdduy K.T.A.] ‘ the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; here not merely the ‘ manifestation ’ (I Tim. vi. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8, al.), but, with more distinct reference to its supernatural character (Neander) and to the holy mystery that still sur- rounded it, the ‘revelation,’ 2 Thess. i. 7, I Pet. i. 7; daroxdAvpuw Aéyel, Setxvds or wav wh Sparat, Origen (Cramer Caz), and, in words nearly identical, Chrys., and Theoph. zz /oc.; compare Plitt, Glaubenslehre, § 79, Vol. 11. p. 390. 8. 8s kal BeBardoe tpas] ‘wo shall also confirm you’ consolatory mention of the blessing that would be vouch- safed to the patient waiting specified in ver. 7, the és referring to the nearer and now more prominent subject *Inoods Xpiords (tis BeBaice; *Ino. Xp., 6 Adyos, 7 copia, Origen), and the kal pointing out the correspondence (see notes oz Phil. iv. 12) of the BeBaiwous with the amexdox7. Bengel and many recent expositors (e,7. De Wette, Osi- ander, Hofm., al.) refer the $s to the preceding @edés, ver. 4, but a reference so distant is here especially harsh and forced, and, it may also be added, not in harmony with the Apostle’s usual mode of connection; this use of the relative pronoun in linking verses to- gether by a continuous reference to the leading word that has zmmediately pre- ceded being a distinct characteristic of the Apostle’s style ; comp., for example, Eph. 1..6 sq., Col. 1, ¥5;, 18,/27 sq., and see the .remarks on this passage in Winer, G7aiS. ecinn. It is the remark of Chrysostom zz Joc. that in no other Epistle do we find the name of our Lord so frequently reiterated as in the present group of verses. In accor- 5 dance with this studied accumulation, the title rather than the pronoun (comp. Alf., Hofm.) recurs after the év 77 nuépa below, and gives to the whole clause a solemn and appropriate emphasis; comp: Eph. iv. 12, Col. ai. 11, and Winer, Gr. § 22.2, p.130. The BeBalw- ois here alluded to is the confirmation in hope, faith, love, and holiness which the Lord will vouchsafe to all that patiently wait for them ; compare Rom. xvi. 25, 1 Thess. iii. 13. éws téAovs] ‘unto the end ;’ not merely of life, but, as the context obviously suggests, Tod aid@vos TovTov ; compare 2 Cor. i. 13, and the use of the cognate term ouyréAeia in Matt. xiii. 39, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20. It is not justly to be inferred from expres- sions like the present that the Apostie was deliberately of opinion that the mapovola was near at hand (Mey., Maier, al., comp. Usteri, Zehré. p. 342, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. v. 19, Vol. I. p. 211 sq.); the utmost that can be said is, that such expressions are but reflections of that vivid hope and longing for the Lord’s speedy return (Heb. x. 37) which was the very life-current of the early Church. Love (2 Tim. iv. 8) may at times have made what it hoped for seem near, and, in passages of a purely practical nature, may have imparted a hue to words and thoughts; but, when- soever it was necessary to speak with precision, love merged into émyvéats, and revelation became distinct and explicit ; consider 2 Thess. ii. 1 sq., see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 15, and compare (with some reservations) Messner, Lehre der Apost. p. 281 sq. aveykAnTous] ‘50 as to be blameless, un- accused,’ [ut absque accusatione sitis] Syr., proleptic use of the adjective, introducing a separate and further (tertiary) predication; comp. Matt. xii. 34 npav “Incod Xpiotod. i CORINTHIANS. Cuap. I. 8, 9. %aruatos 6 Oeos, ds od ExANOnTE eis Kowwviav Tod Tiod avtod Incoov Xpictov tov Kupiov jpyov. 13, I Thess. iii. 13, and (according to the true reading) Phil. iii. 21. On this usage, in which the adjective expresses the effect of the main verb, and so approximates to the consecutive sen- tence, sc. dare aveyka. eivat, see Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, p. 550, notes oz 1 Thess. Z. c..and Donalds. Gr. § 497 compared with § 442 dd. Meyer rightly observes that this blamelessness in the day of Christ is due to the power of faith and the consequent sanctification of the Spirit; the évéyxAntos will not appear in the last day as an avaudprntos, but aS aKkawhkKriows ev Xpiot@ (2 Cor. v. 17), preserved in that blest state to the end by the enduring efficacy of faith and the lastingly sanctifying power of God, comp. 1 Thess. v. 23. a] hepa tod Kup.] ‘the day of the Lord,’ scil. of His mapovola and subsequent judgment of the quick and the dead; time when the 7d avéyxanrov will be specially manifested ; comp. Winer, G7. § 50, 5. The expression jjuépa Kupfov seems to be strictly parallel to the mn Eyppot the O. 2. (Joelle. us. /al.); but, in its exact reference and ampli- tude, varies according to the context; contrast 1 Thess. i. 10, in which the reference is more immediately restricted to the simple mapovota and the present passage, ch. v. 5, 2 Cor. i. 14, al., where the reference seems more especially limited to the final judgment; comp. Reuss, Zhéo/. Chrét. v. 19, Vol. I. p. 223, but, in reference to the somewhat precarious deduction that these dif- ferent applications of the term imply a strict contemporaneity in the events specified, see the more sober comments of Messner, Lehre der Apost. p. 287, and the remarks of Plitt, Glaudbens/. § 79, Vol. Il. p. 390 sq.; see also Dorner, Chr. Doctr. Vol. iv. p. 387 sq. (Transl.). g. murrds 6 Ocds] ‘ Haithful is God ;’ ground of this hope and confidence, —the faithfulness of God, and His trueness to His nature and promises ; év TE Torety & emaryyéAAeTat TioTds eoTt Aad@y, Athan. contr. Arian Il. 10, Vol. I. p. 478 (ed. Bened.) comp. ch. x. 13, 1 Thess. v. 24, 2 Thess. iii. 3, and, on the relation of this to the other attri- butes of God, Plitt, Zvang. Glaubensl. § 24, Vol. I. p. 180 sq. On the true objective significance of these attri- butes, see Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 46, p- 91 sqq. (Transl.), Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 15, Vol. I. p. 200 sqq. (Transl). 8 od ~eKAnOnTe] ‘by whom ye were called ;’ specification of that which more particularly showed God’s faithfulness — His having calied them into com- munion with Him from whom was to come their BeBaiwors (ver. 8): if Christ was not thus to confirm them, God, in calling them into communion with Christ, would have called them to no purpose, and would be mordés no longer ; comp. Meyer zz /oc On the present use of Sia in connection with the causa principalis, —‘usus ibi tantum admis- sus ubi nullam sententiz ambiguitatem crearet,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. I. p. 15,— see the careful comments of Winer, Gr. § 47. i, and comp. Rom. xi. 36, Gal. i. 2, and notes 27 /oc. In such cases the prep. is not simply equivalent to id [Phot.; D!FG actually read 5¢’ of], z.e. it does not definitely mark the act as proceeding directly from the subject, comp. Donalds. Craz¢. § 179) and the result of his immediate power, but» rather as generally brought about by him,—the nature of the agency, whether mediate or immediate, being left out CuaP. I. 9, 10. Be united. I am told there are divisions among you. To give no cause for this I rare- ly baptized, of consideration; comp. Plato, Sym. p. 186 , # Te iatpieh, domep Aeyw, Taca dia ToD Ocovd TovTOV KuBeovaTra, and see Bernhardy, Syzt. p. 235 sq. The par- allelism of this use with the instru- mental, or as it is sometimes called, the ‘dynamic’ dative, is noticed by Kriiger, Sprach/. § 48.15.1. On the regular ascription of the KAjois of Christians to God the Father, see notes on Gal. i.6. Kowvwviay Tod viod avrod] ‘fellowship of His Son,’ scil. ‘in Him and with Him;’ ge. object, the verbal gen.(comp. Kriiger, Sprachl.§ 47. 25.2) marking with its fullest and most inclusive force both the object shared in and the object with whom there was the rowwvla; see 2 Cor. xiii. 13, Phil. li. tr, and notes zz Zoc., and, on the varied and inclusive uses of the so- called gen. object?, the comments and illustrative list of examples in Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 215 sq. This kowwvrta is not only the fellowship resulting from adoption (Gal. iii. 26; Theod.) and spiritual union with Christ (comp. Mess- ner, Lehre der Afost. p. 264) in this life, but also and more especially, as the Greek commentators rightly ob- serve, that fellowship with our Lord in his glory (comp. Rom. viii. 21) which will be vouchsafed to His faithful ser- vants in the world to come; «i drowévo- uev Kat cuuBactAcvoouev, 2 Tim. ii. 12; see also 2 Thess. ii. 14. The viodecia ever involves the kAnpovouia; when that inheritance is vouchsafed in its most full and blessed measures, the roivwvla with our Lord is realized and complete ; comp. Rom. viii. 17, and see especially Usteri, Zehré. 11. 1. 2, p. 186 sq. I, THE PARTIES IN THE CHURCH AND Tr CORINTHIANS. 85 10 TIapaxanr® Sé buds, adedpol, dia Tod dvop- atos Tov Kupiov nuav ‘Incood Xpictov, va THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLE (ver. 1o-ch. iv. 21). 10-16. Lxhortation to unity, and censure of party spirit. 10. IIapakade St «.t.A.] ‘But L exhort you, brethren ;’ transition by means of the slightly oppositive and contrasting d¢€ (‘novam rem cum aliqua oppositione infert), Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 336), from the introductory edxapioria and the accompanying assurance to the subsequent warning: ‘it is true you have been thus called, dzz, that you may not fall short of that calling, I exhort and warn you;’ ‘severius eos tractare incipit,’ Calvin. The appended ade qot somewhat softens the address, but at the same time gives it an individualizing earnestness; comp. ch. vil. 29, x. I, Psy Om Caley Wise TiGanive el 2yealey elie verb mapakadeiv is very frequently used in the N. T. (more than a hundred times), and with all gradations of meaning, from that of eztreaty and consolation to that of exhortation and admonition ; here the verbseems clearly used in its latter and more austere sense, not ‘obsecro,’ Vulg., Clarom., fEeth., or ‘rogo,’ Syr., Copt. (comp. Chrys., Theoph., al.), but ‘hortor,’ Bengel, Neander, Hofm.; see notes ov Eph. iv. 1, and on Thess. v. 11. Sid Tod Svdpatos K.T.A.] ‘dy the name of our Lord Jesus Christ ;’ ‘using His name as the medium of my exhorta- tion;” see Rom. xii. 1, xv. 30, 2 Cor. x. 1. The name of the common Lord is in itself a call to unity (comp. Hofm.), and a protest against unchristian di- vision ; see Eph. iv. 5, and comp. Wilke, Rhetorik, § 146, p. 472. tva Td avrd «.7.A.] ‘that ye all speak the same thing ;’ purport of the exhortation 36 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. I. to. \ > \ “¢ / \ \ in > id n / R \ TO QUTO REYHTE TWAVTES, KAL MN TD EV UUW TYLOMATA, NTE oe blended with the purpose of making it: tl eotw d Tapakadr@; iva, pyot, cvp- povire mdvres kal wh oxi(nobe, Theoph. On this use of fva, which may be called its subfinal use, see notes ox Eph. i. 17, Phil. i. 9, Winer, Gr. § 44.8, and comp. Wilke, het. § 79, p. 273. The exhor- tation of the Apostle is, first, that there should be a consensus oris in their out- ward profession of religious belief (con- trast ver. 12), and secondly (ire 5é& K.T.A.), a consensus animorum in respect of their inward feelings and persua- sions; comp. Polyb. A//st. v. 104. 1, Aéyew &v kal ravrd, Aristot. Pol. Il. 3, mavras 79 avTd Aé€yel wd pev KUAdy. There is not necessarily involved in the expression any assumption of in- ward community of sentiments (comp. Est.): this, as Chrys. and the Greek expositors rightly observe, appears af- terwards. What the Apostle is now speaking of is the wexp: pnudtwv dudvoa, Chrys. As it was, ‘diversa dicebant,’ Bengel; comp. ver.12. Kalpa)q.t.A, ‘and that there be not divisions among you ;’ substantially the same thought expressed negatively (comp. Rom. xii. 14), but with a further and more inclu- sive reference to sentiments and feel- ings; ‘schisma, discidium animorum,’ Bengel; see notes on ch. xi. 18. The antithesis in what follows thus _be- comes much clearer; ‘tribus loquendi formulis eos ad concordiam hortatur Primo talem consensum inter eos re- quirit, ut una sit vox omnium; deinde malum tollit quo unitas scinditur et dissipatur; tertio rationem exprimit vere concordiz, ut scilicet mentibus et voluntatibus inter se conveniant,’ Calv. The term oxiouara (‘ rents,’ ‘ divisions’) is here, by the év, buiv, clearly limited to divisions within the Church, —di- visions arising from the diversity of sentiments and persuasions: comp. John xii. 40-43, which is a good com- mentary on this place. fre Se Katnpticpévor] ‘but rather that ye be made perfect ;’? statement ‘e contrario,’ and on the positive side, of the essen- tial purport of the exhortation, and of that which ought to take the place of the state of things forbidden in the preceding negative clause. The exact distinction between this use of 5é after a negative and the more usual ovx—aAAd has not always been stated with com- plete precision; comp. é.g. Wilke, Rez. § 83, p. 271, Delitzsch on fed. ii. 4. It may be observed, then, that in ovh.— G@AAd, the aAAd calls attention to the preceding negative, and so sharpens the form of the antithesis; but that in ob followed by 6¢, the dé does not point back to the negative, but, with some- what of its primary force (see Donalds. Crat. § 155), simply places in juxtapo- sition to the negative clause an affirm- ative clause, which may limit conditions, or totally reverse the substance of what has preceded, according to the context; comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p- 360, Hartung, Partzk. Vol. I. p. 171. In other words, o#«—daAAd marks simple and formal antithesis between contigu- ' ous words and clauses; ov—5é, op- position arising from sentiments and contrasted context; compare ch. ii. Io: see also Heb. ii. 6, iv. 13, ix. 12, X. 27, xii. 13,—an Epistle in which this form of antithesis is apparently more common than elsewhere in the N.T. The fuller formula od povov—dé is found in Plato; see the examples in Stallbaum’s note, de Legg. I. p. 666 E, —a treatise where it occurs several times. The exact meaning of katnpticpévor is perhaps here slightly doubtful. The question is whether the Cuap. I. 10, 11. 1 CORINTHIANS. 37 , > A > Lal a. 2 A > A , 11 > , KATATLOMEVOL EV TO AUT@ vol Kal év TH AUTH yvoun. | ednroOn predominant meaning is (a) s¢mply eth- ical, scil. ‘brought to completeness,’ ‘made perfect,’ ‘perfecti, ’ Vulg., Cla- rom., TéAeiot, CEcum. (Suid. katapri¢w TeAel@), or (6) metaphorical, scil. ‘coag- mentati,’ Bengel, ‘apte cohzerentes,’ Calvin. — with reference to the quasi- physical meaning of the preceding oxic- pata; comp. Matt. iv. 21, Mark i. 19. The prevailing use of the word in the N.T. (comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Gal. vi. 1, I Thess. iii. 10, Heb. xiii. 11, 1 Pet. v. 10), and the fact that oxiouara, in pas- sages like the present (see John vii. Mow tka xy TO) ti © Ole) Xt, 1S, Xi.) 25)) does not seem to present any concep- tion based on the physical aspect of the word (‘scissure,’ Clarom.) seems to warrant our deciding in favor of (a): so Syr., Copt. (sebz02, ‘ parati’), and ap- parently all the Greek commentators ; comp. notes oz Gal. vi. 1, and the good collection of exx.in Steph. Zhesaur. (ed. Dindorf and Hase) s.v. The remark of Hofmann is just,—the Apostle does not exhort that the oxicuata should be repaired, but that there should be none at all. év TO atte vot «.T.A.] ‘in the same mind and in the same judgment ;’ sphere in which the rardp- Tots was to take place, and the com- pleteness to be shown; comp. Heb. xiii. 21. The Corinthians were to be united and made perfect in the same mind and realm of thoughts (comp. Rom. viii. 23, Eph. iv. 17), scil. they were to think the same things, — and in the same judgment and application of those thoughts (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 40), scil. they were to arrive at the same mental decisions in reference to the subjects to which thought was directed ; see Hofmann zz doc., who has well unfolded the meaning of this clause. The reference of vots more to the ¢he- oretical (kata thy wiorw, Theoph.), and of yvéun more to the practical (kata Thy aydmnv, Theoph.), though derived from Chrysostom, is not in harmony with the prevailing meaning (‘senten- tia,’ ‘judicium,’ Meyer) of yvéun in the Neila Seer Nets xx) Cor vile 215540; 2 Cor. viii. 10, Philem. 14, Rev. xvii. 13, 17, and notes oz Philem. l.c. On the meaning of vos, see Cremer, Bzd/.- Theol. Worterb. p. 439, Weiss, £207. Theol. § 86 b., and notes oz Phil. iv. 7, and oz I 712. vi. 5. Some good com- ments also will be found in Delitzsch, and in B76. Psychol., p. 212 (Transl.). II. €5ndoOyn yap k.t.A.] ‘For it was declared, or made clear, to me,—not simply ‘significatum est,’ Vulg., but ‘made d7Aov,’ ch. iii. 13, Col. i. 8, — explanatory confirmation of ver. Io, and grounds for the foregoing exhorta- tion ; va wy apvhowvTar udptupas Tapd-yet, Theoph.; comp. Chrys. adepot pov] Not without full pertinence. The soothing and kindly address shows the real spirit in which the charge (ét: pides K.T.A.: ‘rem suo nomine appellat,’ Bengel) is preferred, which the Apostle now feels compelled to specify, and the true tenor of the implied rebukes that follow; wdAw ddeAgods avtovs dvo- pacer Kay yap 7 SjAoy 7d Gudptnua ovdey KwAvet adeAovs KaAety ér1, Chrys. tmd tov Xddys] ‘by those of Chloe's household ;’ whether children (Grot., Bengel), members of thefamily (Theod., al.), or slaves (Stanley), we cannot say; comp. Winer, Gr. § 30.3. Itis equally doubtful whether Chloe was a Corin- thian (comp. Syr. ‘miserunt’), or a member of the Church of Ephesus, known to the Corinthians, and speci- fied as one who, it would be felt, could be thoroughly relied on. The former opinion is, perhaps, s/ightly 38 r CORINTHIANS. GHAP: 11,42. yap pou trepi tuav, adeApou pov, UTO THY Xrons OTe Epides ev upiv eiow. more probable; the members of the household might have come over, not necessarily to give the information, but for purposes of trade, etc., and they might have used the opportunity to disclose (dnAody; comp. Bengel) the state of things in Corinth. The name, as Meyer observes, was a surname of Demeter (Anuttmp evxAoos, Soph. Ed. Col. 1600); comp. Pausan. Gr. Descr. 22, dtu epiBes ev tpiv cior] ‘that there are contentions among you.’ The use of the term épides (comp. Titus iii. 9, where the plural appears under the later form @pets) seems clearly to show that the divisions in the Church had not as yet gone beyond internal con- tention and dissension. As, however, the next verse shows, these contentions were displaying themselves in a practical way, and party divisions were now ac- tually in existence (#, ver. 10; not yevnta): the oxicuata were the mani- festations of the @pides, and are eluci- dated in the following verse. 12. Aéyw St todro] ‘7 mean this ;’ cadnvelas éverev, CEcum.,—the 65€ introducing, with that s/ight form of antithesis (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 361) which in English is often best preserved by the omission of all particles, a further specification of the %pides, and the rodro, as in uses of this formula similar to the present (ch. vii. 35, Col. ii. 4, are obviously different), directing the attention to what is to follow; see Gal. iii. 17, Eph. iv. 17, and notes 77 Joc., and comp. Todro 5é gnu, 1 Cor. vil. 29, xv. 50. ékacros tpeov] ‘each one of you, ‘each one among you;’ the evil was general and prevailing; ov yap mépos GAAd Td Tay émevéueto Tis exkAnoias 7 pbopd, Chrys. éy pév elt Tlatdov] ‘7 for my partam 2éyw 6€ TovTO, STL ExaoTos tuov réyers “Ey@ of Paul,’ sc..* belong to the party that specially claims him as the exponent of their views, adopt the principles of his teaching;’ the mwéy preparing the reader for further assertions of party differences which follow (each 6¢ marking difference not only from the first member, but from the rest; see Biumlein, Parték. p. 164), and the idiomatic gen. after the auxiliary verb (see Winer, Gr. § 30. 5) purposely leaving the exact nature of the relation undefined. On the wide variety of meaning in the genitive when thus associated with the auxiliary verb, see esp. Rumpel, Caszslehre, p. 227 sq. A full description of the various opinions that have been entertained on the debated subject of the Parties at Corinth does not fall within the scope of this commentary. It may be observed however, by way of a general summary, — (a) that they seem to have been real parties, not yet necessarily very sharply defined, but still plainly distinguishable, and self-distinguishing ; consider Clem. Rom. Cor. 1. 47, where the language seems to imply the former existence of defined party ; tpooexaAl@nre GmrootéAols pewaptupnuevais. (4) that it seems probable that the Corinthian Church was broken up into four loosely defined parties, these four declarations including all such declarations as were then put forth among them (see Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, g, rem.), and that the names were not merely assumed names (Chrys. and the Greek exposi- tors), — with this the Xpiorod would be inconsistent, — but really as here speci- fied; (c) that the order is probably designed, not, however, as expressive of the apostle’s consciously felt humil- ity (‘gradatio, qua Paulus se infimo Cuap. I. 12. 1 CORINTHIANS. 39 pev eipe Ilavnov, "Ey dé ’Arod\\o, ’Eya dé Kyda,’Eyo 5é loco ponit,’ Bengel), but as reughly marking the successive emergence of the parties which are specified. First, by the nature of the case, came the Paul-party; then the Apollos-party (comp. Acts xix. 27); then, probably by the evil working of emissaries from Je- rusalem, the Cephas-party (see below) ; then a body of Christians, who, in disavowing and setting themselves against all other parties, themselves lapsed into a party, and became guilty of using the very name of the Lord as a party-name; (d@) that this last-named was really a party, and, as such, merited the same censure as the rest. In claiming the Lord’s name as belonging more especially to themselves (comp. 2 Cor. x. 7), and as marking their independence of human teachers, they became, in effect, as sectarian as those from whom they separated themselves : ‘illi qui a Christo Christianos se dice- bant, quatenus ab aliis sese per schisma separabant, illo nomine sibi solum appropriato, schismatis rei erant,’ Calov.; comp. Hofm. 27 doc. The copious literature on this subject, and the many theories that have been advanced will be found very fully discussed in the last edition of Meyer’s Commentary on this verse, and sum- marized in his /ztroduction (§ 1). The difference of opinion is most marked in reference to the ‘Christ-party’ and its relation to the others. On this last-mentioned party the reader will find a careful, exhaustive, but not con- vincing, treatise, by Beyschlag, Stzd. 2. Krit. for 1865, Part 11. p. 217 sqq) A few comments may now be made on the remaining details of the verse. * ArroNAS] ‘ of Apollos ;’ gen. of "AmoAAGs, Acts xviii. 24; comp. notes ov Zi7tzs iii. 13. Immediately after the name of the Apostle is that of one with whom his own name would naturally have come into immediate connection and contrast. The eloquent Alexandrian arrived at Corinth afew months after the Apostle had left it, and was permitted to water what St. Paul had planted (1 Cor. iii. 9). The teaching of the pupil of Aquila and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 26) was undoubtedly identical in substance with that of St. Paul (consider 1 Cor. iii. 6, and comp. Acts xviii. 4 with xviii. 28), but it is scarcely doubtful that in man- ner it was different. The eloquence of the fervid Alexandrian was soon favora- bly contrasted with thestudied plainness (1 Cor. ii. 1; comp. 2 Cor. x. Io) of the teaching of St. Paul. What was felt to be so different in manner was soon assumed to be so in matter; preference readily passed into partisanship, and partisanship into the sectarian divisions which are here condemned. It does not seem unlikely that the distinct un- willingness of Apollos to return soon to Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 12) was due to his knowledge of all this, and was a practical protest against it: BAémwy otdow Kal tapaxhy év tH bm’ avtod exkAnala, ovk émedina (eto TOU Témov, GAAS mapexepnoev, Origen, ap. Cramer, Cat. Vol. v. p. 340. Knoa] ‘of Cephas;’ Jewish designation of St. Peter (Aram. x5"5 usually adopted in St. Paul’s Epp. (1 Cor. iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5, Gal. i. 18, ii. 9; the more familiar Tlérpos occurs only Gal. ii. 7, 8), and here repeated without any studied significance (opp. to Estius). Those who made use of this name were probably Judaizing teachers who, ar- riving at Corinth soon after the return of Apollos to Ephesus, might have readily availed themselves of the growing spirit of division to put for- 40 Xpiotov. ward the higher authority of the Apostle of the circumcision (Gal. ii. 7, 9), and to introduce with a factious nationality (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22) obser- vances in non-essentials (comp. ch. viii.) which were alien to the freedom of the Gospel. It would seem from the tenor of this Ep. and especially of 2 Cor. (see Chex "5; Xi. 11, 12, al.) that their teaching involved more of personal opposition to St. Paul than of that deliberate advocacy of Judaism (Gal. iv. 10, 21, vi. 12) which marks the false teachers of Galatia; comp. Meyer, Einleit. § 1, p. 3- eyo 8 Xpicrod] ‘and I of Christ;’ spiritually proud utterance of yet a fourth party (as- suredly not of the Apostle, Est., al.), who in their recoil from what they might have justly deemed sectarian adherence to humaz leaders, evinced even a worse than sectarian spirit, by claiming to stand pre-eminently in the same relation to Christ, the common Lord, in which the others claimed to stand to Paul, Apollos, or Cephas: év Yon tdée Kal roy Acomdrnvy kal Tods dovaAous éridecav, Theod.; see Hofmann in loc..p.17 sq. The ultimate tendency of the first three parties was, by parti- sanship, to place each one of their human leaders on a level with the Lord their master; that of the fourth party, by their spiritually-proud claim of the common Lord as more especially their own leader, not only so to lower Him, but, by the very nature of their claim, to rend His unity. Each evil tendency is rebuked in the questions that follow ; the second mainly in the first question ; the first, in the questions that follow. 13. pepépirtat & Xpiords] ‘ Hath Christ been divided?’ Emphatic and even indignant question (Chrys.), im- mediately suggested by the éyd 5& 1 CORINTHIANS. CHap. I. 2, 33. 18 Meuépiotat 6 Xpiotos; py Iladros éotavpdOn Xpiorod, but still, as its very form seems to hint (contrast the more answer- requiring mw? «.7.A. below), so far gen- eral, as in fact to amount to a state- ment of the only hypothesis on which the above-mentioned state of things could be supposed to exist : épwtd pdvor, @s @uodoynuévov Tov atémov, Chrys. As the exact force of the words has been somewhat differently estimated, it may be well to narrow discussion by laying down the following preliminary posi- tions: (1) the whole tenor of the verse seems to show that the present clause is not assertory (Meyer; Zachm., Westc. and /fort.), but interrogative; so ap- parently all the Vv. (Goth., ed. de Gabel., may seem doubtful), and all the Greek expositors (Theod. notices, but does not adopt the former view), and the majority of the best modern commentators. The assertory form, as Hofmann well says, is a ‘rhetorical impossibility.’ weueprorar cannot mean ‘hath been apportioned,’ scil. to one party (see Wordsw. 27 /oc., who urges Rom. xi. 3, © Corniwils 7.2) Cots xis but not conclusively; the idea of dis- partition lies in all the passages), but, in accordance with its usual and lexical meaning (diavewew pepic@s, Hesych.), ‘hath been divided, portioned out,’ ‘divisus est,’ Vulg., Clarom., Syr., Goth., Copt., Arm.; comp. Mark vi. 41, Luke xii. 13. (3) Xpio7dés must have the same meaning here as in ver: 12. In both it means, not the ‘mystical body of Christ’ (Est., al.), nor the ‘ Evan- gelium Christi’ (Grot.), but simply the historical and personal Christ. Upon these premises the meaning of the clause would seem to be ‘ Hath Christ been divided?’ ‘Hath he been so portioned up (kateréuere troy Xpiordy, Chrys.) that one party can claim Him Cnap. I. 13, 14. 1 CORINTHIANS 41 imép ipav, 4 eis 7 Svowa Ilavdov éBarticOnte ; 4 evyapioTa A an ¢ IQs € a > / > \ / \ fu TO Oc Ori ovdéva tuov eBartica et wn Kpiorov kai Iaiov, 14. T@ @cG] These words are omitted by Westcott and Hort, with BN, but retained in the other edd on what would here seem to be preponderating evidence. more especially as their leader, and so put themselves in contrast with others that claim Him only mediately and and indirectly ?’ The fourth party did not probably deny that the others had Christ kata wépos, and mediately ; but for themselves they claimed to have Him directly and exclusively. See Hofmann 7z /oc., who has investigated this difficult clause with much care. The fault of Meyer’s interpretation (independently of the maintenance of the assertory form),—‘ Christ is thus divided into sect-Redeemers,’? would seem to be this, that the case would then be not a pepiouds of one Christ into parts, some claiming to have Him exclusively, and implying that others only had Him in part (consider 2 Cor. x. 7), but really a multiplication of independent Christs, to which neither the text nor the circumstances of the case appear to point. The Corinthian dissensions, though grievous, did not involve such a disruption of Christian unity as must have followed a setting forth of ‘sect-Redeemers;’ contrast I Cor. xi. 18, xiv. 23. pi) Ilatdos KTA.| ‘ Was Paul crucified for you?’ rebuke, by means of a question very clearly involving a prompt negative, of the first three parties specified in ver. 12; ef €repos Toy bréep Hua averAn oTaupdr avtod Kal Acydueda, Cyril. ap. Cramer Caten. On the subjective question ui «.T.A. (reference to the opinion or knowledge of the person interrogated), see Donalds. Craty/. § 190, Kiihner, Gr. § 512. 4, and, on the meaning of imép in passages of this nature (primarily 6 ‘in commodum’ and thence with the more special idea of redemption ; see Tit. ii. 14), notes o7 Gal. iit 1 3.. Lachm. reads mept, but with insufficient evidence (BD!; Goth., Syr. apparently, Copt. apparently), and in opp. to the general usages of dmdp in reference to Christ’s death; consider, however, 1 Thess. v. 10, where the enhanced uncial evidence makes the decision more difficult. 4H eis TO Svopa K.T.A.] Sor were ye bap- tized into the name of Paul? scil. as that of him whom ye were to confess and believe in; comp. Matt. xxviii. 19: & hv Tay moray ekaipera wdvov Kal TOAATS Kndeuovias, TadTa TlOnot Toy oTavpoy Kab 70 Banticua, Chrys. ; ‘crux et baptismus nos Christo asserit,’ Bengel. On the meaning of Bamri(ew «is, See notes on Gal. iii. 27, and Hofmann, Schriftd. Vol. II. 2, p. 163. 14. edXaptora To Ocd] ‘ Z give thanks to God ;’ ‘Dei providentia factum esse agnoscit, ne inde arriperent occasionem in se gloriandi,’ Calvin. The Apostle recalls with thankfulness the fact that he had not personally baptized at Corinth; he does not specify this as the result of design on his own part (see below), but as providentially so ordered. We may apparently infer from the passage that there were some at Corinth who dd lay a stress (comp. Theod.) on the person of the baptizer (some of the leaders of the Cephas- party mzght have boasted of such a relation to St. Peter), and that their number would have been increased if St. Paul had baptized many with his own hands; see Hofmann zz Joc. p. 22. 42 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. I. 15, 16. ' b / 1 fya pa) Tus elrn OTe eis TO ewov dvoua éBamticOnze. 1° éBar- la > \y.2 U Yi Tica 8é Kal Tov Srehava oixov: Aovrrdv ovK oida et Twa addov éBartica: I was sent to preach, and that not in the Od yap améorerev pe Xprotos Barrivew, language of an earthly wisdom that comes to nought, but simply, Christ crucified. 15. €Bamric@nte] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. éBdrrica. Kplorov kal Taiov] ‘Crispus and Gaius;’ the former the ruler of the synagogue contiguous to the house of Justus, Acts xviii. 7, 8; the latter, the hospitable man mentioned by the Apostle in Rom. xvi. 23 as 6 Eévos pov, Kal bAns Tis éxkaAnotas. The prominent position of the former, and the close connection of the latter with the Apostle, may account for his having personally bap- tized them; ‘viros amplissimos Paulus suaé manu baptizavit,’ Bengel. Crispus is said (Const. Afost. vii. 46) to have been afterwards Bishop of A®gina. 15. tva, poy Tus etary] ‘27 order that no one might say ;’ not exactly the definite purpose of the Apostle (Aéye: 5& kad Thy aitiav 6? hv moAAovs ovK eBarticer, Theod.), but, as the context seems to suggest, that involved in his providen- tially directed course; comp. 2 Cor. i.9. This is one of those numberless cases in the N.T. in which the exact shade of meaning of iva must be fixed by the context; see notes ox Eph. edie eis TO Epov Svopa ‘ zz7Z0 my own name ;’ scil. with any implied or included reference to my ownname; not, however, as marking any antithesis to the use of the name of Christ (De Wette), —for Christian baptism could only have been in His name, — but as hinting at the personal relation which might have thereby been contracted with the baptizer; see Hofmann zz loc., and Schriftb. Vol. I. 2, p. 163. 16. €Bamroa 8€] ‘7 baptized too;’ the dé here appending with a slightly corrective force (see Winer, Gr. § 53: 7,6) another exceptional case, which had just come into the Apostle’s mem- ory. The oppositve and copulative here approach very near to each other, the oppositive, however (almost ‘yes, I baptized’), perceptibly predominat- ing; see Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2. Kal Tov Lrehava otkov] ‘the household of Stephanas as well ;’ a household af- terwards mentioned in terms of so much respect (ch. xvi. 15, 17, amapxy Tis *Axatas) that we may suppose it to have been from the very first of a tone and character that deserved the excep- tional act on the part of the Apostle: ‘Stephanas quis fuerit non constat,’ Est. Aoutrov] ‘ further,’ ‘ ceeterum,’ Vulg.; in reference to what remained to be added to complete the foregoing statement. On the use of the word (Acts xxvii. 20, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, 2 Tim. iv. 8), and its distinction from the more definitive 7d Aourdv (Eph. vi. 10, Phil. ili. I, iv. 8, 2 Thess. iii. 1), see note ov 1 Thess.iv. 1,and oz2 7im.iv.8, and for similar instances of its use, especially in later Greek, Schweigh, Polyd Lex. s.v.,and the examples in Steph. Zhe- saur s.v. (ed. Dindorf and Hase). 17-25. ‘ The nature of the Apostle’s teaching and the justification of it.’ 17. Ob yap «t.X.] ‘For Christ sent me not to baptize ;’ emphatic and par- tially abrupt confirmation of the prin- ciples on which he thus providentially acted (871 .. ueta Heidovs kal oravias Cuap. I. 17, 18. : CORINTHIANS. 43 > >? & hs ivf lal GAA evaryyednifecPar, ovk ev copia doyou, va pn KevoOn o \ a axe la) 18 c Xo \ c lo) a Ta) \ oTavUpOS TOU ploTou. Oo AOYOS yap O TOU OTavpov TOLS EV éBartioa, Phot.), and specification of the nature of his teaching (ver. 17-31) ; this paragraph, with the greater part of what follows (to ch. iv. 21), being directed against those who possibly in- juriously contrasted the plainness of speech of the Apostle with the elo- quence and rhetorical power of Apollos (Mey., Hofm., al.). The statement in the text is not to be explained away (‘com- parate dictum,’ Phot.; Severian zz Zoc.). Teaching and preaching were the du- ties primarily and even pre-eminently enjoined on the Apostles generally (Mark xvi. 15, Luke xxiv. 47; observe the subordination of the participial clause in Matt. xxviii. 19, and most certainly so in the special case of St. aul; comp. Acts ix. 15, Xxil. 15, 21, XXvi. 16 sq., and on the form of oix— G@AAd, notes on ver. 10, and the good remarks of Winer, Gr. § 55. 8. ovKkev cola, Adyou] ‘ 20t 72 wisdom of speech ;’ clearly not ‘wisdom which consists in mere words’ (Stanley), but as Origen, ev tpavdoet A€tews : negative clause dependent on the preceding evayyeaA., and defining, distinctly and objectively (ov«), that element or form in which the preaching was zo¢ to be manifested. It may be doubted whether the codia refers principally to the form or to the swbstance of the teaching. The tenor of the immediate context (ver. 19, contrast uwpla, ver. 18) does not seem to warrant an exclusive reference to the former (comp. DeWette zx Zoc.), but the mode of expression (év copia Adyov) and general purport of this por- tion of the Epistle (see Calvin 77 Joc.) seem certainly to justify our deeming this to be the primary and principal reference; so rightly Theodorus-Mops. (kaAAtActia), Theodoret (evyAwttla), and apparently the great majority of the Greek commentators. It need hardly be said that the expression copia Ad you is not to be confused with Adyos copias (Grot., comparing 2 Pet. i. 16): the cogia has the emphatic position, and is prominently specified, as, so to speak, the element appertaining to the Adyos in which the preaching was not to exist. On such forms of expression, comp. Winer, G7. § 34. 3. tva pi K-t.A.], ‘272 order that the cross of Christ might not be made void ;’ scil. emptied and deprived (Rom. iv. 14) of its proper and inherent efficacy; pur- pose of the preceding negative limita- tion; el yap orwpvaAla Kai devdrntt Adywv expauny, ovr by edelxOn Tod oTavpwHEvTos 7 Svvauis, Theod. The cross of Christ was the substance and purport of all Apostolic teaching; if this were put forth év copia Adyou its holy power would become weakened and its heart- reaching energy (comp. Origen 77 Zoc.) perilously impaired. Origen gives a short but good hint to all preachers when he says, — xpela ov ToaovTov Adyou dcov Svvduews (Cramer, Cazen. p. 19). 18. 6 Adyos yap K.T.d.] ‘ Hor the word (preaching) of the cross,’ —not so much the ‘narratio,’ Grot., or the ‘report concerning,’ Barrow (Creed, Serm. 25), as, more precisely (comp. evaryyeAl Ceo Oat, ver. 17), the ‘preaching and teaching,’ ‘pradicatio de Christo crucifixo,’ Beza; confirmation of the preceding definition of purpose fva wh «.7.A. If the cross of Christ, the substance of Apostolical preaching, had no vital power, of which, under the above-named circumstances it would run the risk of being emptied, the teaching of the cross would not be what experience shows it to be (comp. DeWette) both to the a&moAAtuevo: and ow(duevot. The genitival relation is slightly, doubtful: rod oravpod may be 44 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. I. 18, 19. drrodrvpévars popia éotw, Tois 6€ cwlopévors july Svvapus Ocod €oriv. yéyparras yap Amox® THv copia THY copay, Kat THY regarded as implying the ethical content ‘the teaching of which the substance and purport is, etc.’ (see notes on ch. xii. 8, and oz 1 Thess. ii. 5), or, more simply, as an ordinary vez. objecti, rd mept Tod oravpov khpuyua, Theod., sim. Phot.; see Winer, Gv. § 30. 1, Kriig. Sprachl. § 47.7. On the emphasizing article before rod otavpov (Titus ii. 10, al.) see Winer, Gr. § 20, 1, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 463. 3. Tots atroddvpévors] ‘Zo those that are perishing,’ to those that are on the broad way leading to eternal améAewa; see 2 Cor. ii. 15, iv. 3, 2 Thess. ii. 10, and notes 7 Joc. The dative is not so much a dative judiczi (De Wette ; voulCoyres, Chrys.) as of zzterest (‘com- modi’ or ‘incommodi,’ as the case may be); the teaching not only seemed, but proved to be (‘rem denotavit ex ef- fectu,’ Grot.), both to the one class and to the other, what the Apostle here specifies; see Winer, G7. § 31. 4, Kriiger, Spvachl. § 48. 5, compared with § 48. 3. 3. The two classes are roughly, but with substantial correctness, de- fined by Theodoret (amd tod réAous Tas mpoonyopias tiOeis), the former as of amotoortes, the latter as of miotevorTes. The one class is, by faith, on the way to eternal life; the other, owing to deepening unbelief, is on the way to eternal death; comp. John iii. 18. The tense has thus not its ethical, but its simple temporal force: it does not here mark that which is sure to happen (Wilke, Rez. I. 10), but simply that which is taking place at the time speci- fied; see the present writer’s Broad and Narrow Way, ~. 44, and comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 88, Vol. 1. p. 8, § 96, p. 54 (Transl.). On the relation between the divine and human activity in the work of salvation, see the lucid comments of Dorner, Chr. Theol. § 130. 2. 3, Vol. Iv. p. 183 sq. (Transl.). pwpla] ‘folly,’ something that not only seems but proves to be to them, — to their inner life and conscience, — fool- ish, weak (comp. ver. 25), and unsatis- fying; wwpla Te kal GAayla, Plato, pin. p- 983 E (cited by Meyer): the gospel is hid from them in its real saving sig- nificance; see 2 Cor. iv. 3, and comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 88, Vol. I. p. 10 (Transl.). The reason why it proves so is specified ver. 22. fpiv] not placed after rots cw(ouevos to modify the sharpness of the contrast that might otherwise have seemed to exist between the jets and the amoAAvuévas, but to leave the emphasis resting where it is designed to rest, and to preserve the real antithesis between the participles in all its distinctness. Sivapis cod] ‘the power of God’ (article elided by the predicative éeoriv, comp. Green, Gr. of V.T. p. 35; Middleton, Gr. Art. 3. 3. 2, and notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 3); not merely ‘illud zz gwo Deus vim de- clarat,’ Beza (comp. Grot., Meyer), but, as in Rom. i. 16, the power directly and essentially. The Adyos rod oravpod is in itself the power of God; it not only includes the power, but itself ‘is that power to every believing soul; comp. Severian 27 Zoc. 19. yéypamra: yap] confirmation from Scripture, not of the assertion ov ey copla Adyou (Alf.), but of the truth of the preceding statement; cira delxvuat 7d Ths mpopphaews apevdes, Theodoret. The declaration that the preaching of the Cross is verily the Svvauis @cod is substantiated by God’s own prophesied exemplification of that power. The passage is from Isaiah xxix. 14, mainly according to the LXX (a@erjew substi- tuted for xpiw, as expressing more distinctly and immediately the divine Cuap. I. 19, 20. cuvecw TaV cuveTav abeTHCw. 1 CORINTHIANS. 45. 20 a) }s i. a , Tov coos ; Tov ypaupatevs ; Tov acuventnt)s Tod ai@vos TOvVTOV; OvY! Eu@pavey Oo Oeds THY agency). What is there said more especially of God’s dealings with ref- erence to Israel is universally true of all His dealings with men, and rightly so cited by the Apostle; see the good comments of Hofmann 27 Zoc. Tiv codplay tTav copy, kal Thy k.T.A.] ‘the wisdom of the wise and the under- standing of the understanding ones.’ On the distinction between godia (kowds amdvrwy ud@nors, Suid.), and odbveais (rept Gy amopfoeev ty tis, Aristotle), see notes 07 Col.i.g; and on derety (‘ad nihilum redigere,’ Vatabl.) notes oz Gal. ii. 21. 20. TOU odhos where is the wise man?’ not necessarily ‘a wise man’ (Copt., Ewald, al.), the article being practically elided by the negative char- acter of the sentence: abrupt question (katapopikmtepoy Kéxpnta Tots Adyo.s, Chrys.), — based on the foregoing quo- tation, —implying the complete exclu- sion from all connection with the sub- ject involved in what precedes (salva- tion by the preaching of the Cross; tis +. €owoe Ka) Thy GANOeLay eyvdpioev ; OK €or ovdels, Chrys.) of those here speci- fied; comp. ch. xv. 55, Rom. iii. 27: Grotius is apparently right in deeming these clauses a reminiscence of Isa. XXxili. 18, rod ciow of ypaypatixot ; mov ciowy vi cuuBovaAevoytes ; k.T.A.; Comp. ib. xix. 12. The assumption of Ewald (Comm. p. 136) that the words are a quotation from some lost work seems wholly uncalled for. Whether there is any national distinction hinted at in the substantives, or whether copés is general and ypaumatets and ovv¢nt. special, but not national, exem- plifications (comp. Hofm.) is perhaps doubtful, The subsequent national references (ver. 22 sq.) seem rather in favor of the former, and also their order, the reference of ypayu. being to the Jew, and of ouv(yr. to the Greek (comp. Acts ix. 29), —not of copds to the Greek and ypayuu. to the Jew (Chrys., Theod.), while copds precedes as a general term: so DeWette, Meyer, and most modern commentators. ouvinryris] ‘disputer;’ not simply ‘conquisitor,’ Vulg., Copt., Goth. (sékareis), Arm., but, in accor- dance with the prevailing use both of the verb (Mark viii. 11, ix. 14, Luke xxiv. 15, Acts vi. 9, ix. 29) and the sub- stantive (Acts xv. 7, xxviii. 29 is doubt- ful) in the N.T., ‘disputator,’ Syriac, Erasm., al.,— the argumentative skill of the Gentile (Weiss, £767. Theol. § 102 a) being that to which the Apostle is par- ticularly pointing. The substantive is only found here and in Ignat. Zp. cap. 18,—an adaptation of this pas- sage. Tod alavos ToiTov ‘ of this world,’ ‘ of this present evil age’ (comp. notes oz Lh. ii. 2), to which all such worldly disputants belong, but from and out of which Christians have been taken by the redeeming power of Christ; see Gal, i. 4, and comp. Rom. xii. 2. The genitive is to be referred to all the preceding substantives, being that which specially qualifies and char- acterizes them. ovXL épmpavev K.t.A.] ‘Did not God make foolish ;’ not merely show and prove it to be such (uwpay etev otcayC hrys.), but, with some reference to the judicial power of God, render it and make it such, ‘stultificavit,’ Erasm.; comp. Rom. i. 22. The suffix -x: probably strengthens the form of the negative as in vatx, hxt; Kiihner, Gr. § 512. 1. Tov Kéopov / the world, ze. ‘of the profane non-Christian world; kécpos, without any adjunct, having frequently in the N.T. (more especially in St. John) this or some similar shade of 46 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. I. 20, 21. codiav Tov Kdcpov; 7 éreidy yap €v TH copia Tod Ocod ovK éyvw 6 Kocpos bia THS codias Tov Oedv, evdoxncev 6 Oeds dia 20. kdouov] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg, Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very dis- tinctly preponderating authority: Rec. adds rovrov. ethical meaning; see Cremer, Worterd. S.V. p. 308, notes oz Gal. iv. 3, and comp. Reuss, 7héol. Chrét. v. 18, Vol. II. p. 208, note. 21. émedih yap] ‘ For szzce’ or ‘seeing that;’ confirmatory explanation of the foregoing éudpavey 56 Ocds «.7.A., the former clause specifying the reason, the latter the manner of the uepaiverv. On the force of éreidH (‘that of éet qualified by 8%,’ Klotz) see notes ox Phil. ii. 26, and comp. Hartung Partik. Vol. 11. p. 259. The ydp is apparently here used more in its explanatory than in its directly confirmatory force; the Apostle explains the foregoing words, but also slightly roves the wisdom of the act specified. On this mixed force of the particle, see Kihner, Gr. § 544, I, notes ov Gal. iv. 22, and oz 1 Thess. ii. 1, and, generally, on the uses of the particle, the good dissertation of Klotz, Devar. Vol. i. p. 234 sq. év TH codla tod cod] ‘77 the wisdom of God;’ not that, owing to or by which (Riick.; comp. Alf.),—for ev when thus used in reference to agency or instrumen- tality necessarily marks the substantive with which it is associated as that which is employed by the agent (see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 18), but the sphere zz which the ov« @yyw was manifested; see Hofm. zz /oc. Even in the clear light of that cogia, as evinced and displayed by God’s works (4 8a tay Epywv pawouéevn, Chrys., Theod.; ‘sa- pientiam relucentem in opificio mundi,’ Est.) the world (Jew and Gentile alike, though in different degrees) failed to arrive at the knowledge of God; comp. Acts xiv. 17, Rom. i. 19. De Wette and others include in the godia the revelation of God as made to the Jews in the O.T., as well as the revelation in the natural world to the Gentiles, on the ground that «écues must include both. This, however, as Neander rightly observes, seems out of harmony with the context. The statement is broad and general; in the light that God vouchsafed (‘in media luce,’ Calvin), though sufficient for the purpose, man failed to come to the knowledge of his Maker: comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 69. (a), (6), Vol. 1. p. 354 sq. (Transl.), and on the general subject of heathenism and its consciousness of God, the admirable comments of Dorner, Chr. Doctr. §§ 65, 66, Vol. 11. Pp. 235 sqq. (Transl.). Sua. Tijs codlas] ‘by means of its wisdom ;’ means, which when used led only to the ov. éyvw. The means failed to secure the desired end; see Winer, Gr. § 47, i. The cogia here, it need hardly be said, has a different meaning to that which it has just above, the subjects to which the copia appertains being so widely different. evddnnoev & Ocds] ‘ God was pleased,’ ‘ placuit Deo,’ Vulg.; comp. Luke x. 41, and on the use and four constructions (with éy and dat.,— eis and accus.,—simple accus.,—and, as here, infin.) of the late, and probably, Macedonian-Greek verb, cddoxety, notes on Col. i. 19, and Fritz. Rom. x. 1. Sia «THs pwplas Tod Knpvyparos] through the foolishness of preaching,’ the foolishness (obx) Tis ovens GAAG Tis elvat Soxovons, Origen) which was the substance and chief element of the preaching ; xnptyuaros being, not a gen. Cuap. I. 21, 22. THS pwpias ToD KnpvyuaTos THcaL TOvS TLaTEVOVTAS. 1 CORINTHIANS. AT 22 earetd7) kat ‘Iovoaiotr onpueta aitodow Kai “Eddnves codpiav fntodow: 22. onucia] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly pre- ponderating authority: ec. onuetov. of apposition (De Wette, Alf., comp. Hofm.), but a form of the possessive genitive (gen. continentis), as in the expression T7s aAnOelas Tov evaryyeAlou, Col. i. 5; where see note. These geni- tives, of what perhaps may be inclu- sively termed genitives of zxner reference, are found in the N. T. under various but very commonly self-ex- planatory forms: see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 30. 2. B. The khpuyya, as the termination plainly shows, ‘is the matter preached’ (Hooker),— the mes- sage, not the delivery of it: in 2 Tim. iv. 17, Tit. i. 3, sometimes cited as ex- ceptions, the meaning seems to be substantially the same. TovS Tis- tevovtas] ‘them that believe ;’ slightly emphatic, and explanatory of .the seeming enigma: the objects of the saving evdoxia were not the collective members of a xéouos which relied on its own fruitless wisdom, but those out of it who put their trust in the gospel, and simply believe that which God was pleased to reveal; see the good comments of Chrys. zz Joc. on reasoning and faith, and for a sermon on the whole verse, Sherlock, Works, Vol. I. p. 93 sqq. (ed. Hughes). The aorist o@oa: is apparently due to the law of parity of tenses (Winer, Gr. § 44. 7); it makes an act immediately dependent on and due to the eddoxla (‘quod statim et e vestigio fit, ideoque etiam certo futurum est,’ Stalb. Plato, Euthyd. p. 140), but is silent as to the duration of the action; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 53. 6. 9. 22. émeady‘ Since’ or ‘ Seeing that ;’ explanatory elucidation of the first statement in the preceding verse év rf copig— bv @cdy, the following verse elucidating the second statement. Hofmann, who has very carefully con- sidered the sequence of thought in the somewhat difficult connection of this passage, appears to regard this clause as elucidating the second member of the foregoing verse «v5.— o@aa Tois motevovtas, and especially the limi- tation involved in the slightly emphatic The drift of the verse would then be that Jews and Greeks, the two component parts of the «éouos, when invited to accept the kKnpuywa asked respectively for some- thing that might convince them, whether miracles or rhetorical logic: see Chrys., zz Joc. This is plausible, but not in true harmony with the tenor of the passage: the Apostle does not here appear to be, as often, substan- tiating each clause as he passes on, but rather making broad and general statements which he elucidates by an appeal to actual facts and circum- stances : non argumentatur Apostolus, sed jam dicta explicat,’ Grot. Kal "IovSator k.t.d.] ‘doth Jews ask for signs and Greeks seek after wisdom ;’ the one have such a practical ayvwota of the God they worship, that even when His Son was appealing to them, they ask for s¢gzs and wonders attesting the truth of His person and mission (comp. Matt. xvi. 4, John iv. 48); the other, with a similar a@yvwola, refuse to accept what is not intellectually brought home to them. On the connection xal—rxal, here serving to place both parties practically on the same level, as both alike evincing their éyvwola, though the manner in which Tovs mlioTevovTas. 48 ee 1 CORINTHIANS. [Cuap. I. 23, 24. pels O€ Knptcoouev Xpictov éeotavpwpévov, "Iovdaious pév oxdvoarov éOverw bé pwpiav, * adtois Sé Tois KANTO, ’Iovdalous 23. €@veow] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec.”“EAAnot they do it is different, see Winer, Gv. § 53. 4, Kiihner, Gr. § 522. 1, Baéumlein, Partik. p. 148, and comp. notes 07 1 Zim. iv. 10. DeWette compares Mark. ix. 13, but, as the order of the words appears to indicate, not correctly; the first kai is there ascensive, the second copula- ative. *Tov8ato.—" EAAnves without the article; not, ‘the Jews, . the Greeks,’ Copt., Auth., viewed as communities of which every member acted as specified (Middleton, 47#. iii. 2. 2), but, ‘ Jews,’ ... ‘Greeks,’ as gene- ral classes, without special reference to the individuals composing them; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 30. 3. 6 sq. 23. hpets S€] ‘ While we ;’ appended clause (still partially under the vincu- lum of the é7ed), contrasting the jets and their principles of feeling and action with the two classes and their characterizing principles just specified in the preceding verse; jets 5€ av7) Meyer makes this verse the distinct apodosis émeid}) —8€) to ver. 22. This is gram- matically admissible (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 371, Hartung, Partzk. Vol. I. p. 184), but exegetically unsatisfac- tory: Apostolic preaching of Christ crucified did not depend as a sort of logical consequence on what preceded, but is specified as forming a clear and instructive contrast to it; ‘opponit Apostolus przedicationem Christi cru- cifixi sapientiz szeculari,’ Est., see Hofmann 27 loc. érravpwpévov] ‘as crucified ;’ so the very reverse of a displayer of signs, or founder of a system of philosophy. To the Jewsa Xpirrds eoravp. was a oxdvdador, ‘quia crucis opprobrium eos turbavit et im- TovTwy Th Aéyouev; Chrys. pedivit,’ Est., comp. Gal. v. 11: to the Gentiles, ‘mera stultitia erat hominem crucifixum aut preedicare aut credere mundi salvatorem,’ Estius. On the axdvbadov of Christ crucified to the Jews, see the reff. and comments of Wordsw. zz loc. The miracles of our Lord’s ministry were to them negatived by his crucifixion: the crucified One could not be their Messiah; comp. Matt. xxvii. 42, 63 sqq. This verse forms the text for the first discourse of Abp. Magee, Works, Vol. I. I. 24. avtots St trois KAnTois] ‘but Zo them the called, ‘ipsis autem vocatis,’ Vulg.; the avrots marking off, as it were, those alluded to from the classes to which they nationally belonged, but with which they had no personal and spiritual affinities; ‘es verstirkt den Begriff der Personlichkeit,’ Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 10. a. p. 287; see also Kiihner, Gr. § 468. 2. It may be observed that the Apostle does not here use iv (which perhaps, at first sight, might have seemed more natural), owing to the preceding xnptooouey which must obviously be supplied in the present verse. *Tovd. re kal “EAA.] ‘doth Jews and Greeks ;’ not only the former but the latter, the te—xal marking the addition of the “EAA. to the ’Iovd. already specified, and the gracious extension of the divine xAjjots to those afar off as well as to those nigh. On te—kat (closest form of copulative connection), see Winer, Gr. § 53. 4, Kiihner, Gr. § 522. 2, and the brief but exact comments of Donaldson, G7. § 549 sq. Xprorov k.t.d.] ‘ Christ, God’s power and God’s wisdom ;’ ex- planatory apposition to the preceding Cuap. I. 24, 25. 1 CORINTHIANS. 49 Te kat “Eddnow, Xpiorov Ocovd Sivaww Kai Ocod codiav. * bru \ \ a a) hi ca) 2 , >? / \ \ TO w@pov Tod Ocod copwtepoy Tov avOpwTwv éoTiv, Kat TO > \ a a > f a ? / aa Qeves TOU Ocod tao YUpOTEpoV TOV avOperrov. 25. avOpmmwv 2°24] So Tisch. Treg. Westc. and Hort, on preponderating authority, enhanced by internal considerations arising from the differently assigned position of éetiv: Rec., Lachm., Rev. add éotiv. Xpiordy éotavpwuevoy, the repetition of Xpicrév not being so much by way either of solemn (Alf.), or of trium- phant utterance (Meyer), as designed still more sharply and clearly to iden- tify Him that was to the Jews a oxdp- dadov and to the Greeks a pwpla, with Him that was to the called God’s power and God’s wisdom. To the called Christ crzczfied was both all that the Jew asked for,—God’s power in its truest conception (contrast ver. 22), and all that the Greek sought after, — God’s wisdom in its purest manifes- tation: copiay kal divamty ov Thy BedrynTA TOD fovoyevous mpoonydpevoey 6 Oeios améoroAos, GAAX Td Tep) Tod oTavpod Khpvyua, Theod. 25. Stu x.T.A.] Reason for the fore- going appositional predication, Xpiorby @cod x.7.A., the cod codpiay being sub- stantiated by the first clause, the @cov dbrauiv by the second. Augustine has a few comments on this verse, de Docty. Ghr, IW. 13, Td pwpdv Tod Ocod] ‘the foolishness of God, or, alittle more exactly, the foolish dealing of God, ‘quod stultum est,’ Vulg., the foolish thing (kata thy T&v avontwy Sdtav, Theod.), which comes from and is brought about by God, —the gen. being apparently a gen. of the ‘originating cause’ (see notes oz Col. i. 23, and on 1. Zhess. i. 6), and the reference being both here and in the following clause to Christ’s atoning death on the cross; zeph Tov oTavpod Acywy Td pwpdy Kal 7d GoGevés, Chrys.» Td pwpdy is here not simply equivalent to the abstract uwpla 7 (Kriiger, Sprach/. § 43. 27: Bernhardy. Synt. vi. 27.2; comp. Rom. ii. 4), but seems chosen as more suggestively marking the specific and concrete fact (Xpiordv eotavpwuevov) which the Apos- tle has in his thoughts; see Meyer zz loc, note. Tov avOparev] ‘thax men are ;’ not here, by any ‘ compara- tio compendiaria,’ for tod copod Tar avOpamwy (Grot.; so De Wette, Maier, al.), but simply with inclusive reference to men viewed as a totality (ravytwy Tav avOpamwv, Chrys.; comp. Syr. [2d tv avOp.], ‘filiis hominis’), and perhaps with some faintly implied depreciatory tinge; see Bernhardy, Syzzz. I1. 5, p. 61. To avoid this seeming logical diffi- culty of a comparison between things and persons, Hofmann makes the pre- ceding 7d pwpdy tod Ocod a kind of periphrasis for ‘God in His (seeming) foolishness,’ and compares Rom. i. 109, ii. 4, viii. 3, and 2 Cor. iv. 17. This, however, seems plainly inadmissible, Ist, as not properly substantiated by the examples cited, and 2dly, as not consistent with the subordinated rela- tion in which (in such cases) the gen. appears commonly to stand to the governing noun; see esp. Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 225, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. The difficulty is more ap- parent than real, as the plural seems to carry with it so much of acollective, and thus partially abstract, reference, as to be very nearly equivalent to ‘men and all their works;’ comp. Ne- ander 77 doc, 7d aoQevés ToD Ocod] ‘the weakness of God, or, as above, by 50 Consider your calling; how God has chosen the foolish and weak things of the earth that all glorying should be in Him. the weak dealing of God, ‘ quod infirmum est,’ Vulg. [Clarom. omits the ‘ quod’ and ‘est’]; in reference to the seeming weakness (mpbs thy éxelyny imdAnbw, Origen) of the agency by which God was pleased to save sinners and redeem the world; nad toiro Se Sivauis Tod oiKovo- Khoavros Kal KatopOdcaytos év TS under Téoavtos Tovs avOpmmous, Kal eis Thy eis auTov tot ayaryovtos, Severian iz doc. (Cramer, Catez.). 26-31. Confirmation of the forego- ing by a reference to the worldly position of the called. 26. Bhdémere yap] ‘For consider ;’ émokévacGe, Chrys.; imperative, ch. x. 18, Phil. iii. 2: so rightly Vulg., Syr., Copt., Heth., the confirmatory appeal to experience obviously requiring the more emphatic imperative; kal todtov Mdptupas avrovs Kade, Chrys. The ob- jection of Erasmus, repeated also by Beza, ‘nec enim admonet ut videant quod sciebant, sed quod perspicuum erat trahit in argumentum,’ is really of no force. The ydép, which Beza and Bengel somewhat singularly urge as in favor of the indic.) seems clearly to refer to the verse immediately, not to the preceding group of verses (De- Wette): the general statement (ver. 27) is now confirmed by the special in- stance. Ti KAAoWw bpov] ‘your calling ;’? not ‘your condition of life’ (‘vite genus’), Olsh., but, in accord- ance with the regular usage of the word in the N. T. (ch. vii. 30 forms no exception ; see notes 77 Joc.), simply ‘your calling,’ scil. by God,—here with reference to the individuals who received it, ob yap pdvov diSacKkddous iSi@ras GAAG Kal wadnTas éemnrctaro To.0l- b 1 CORINTHIANS Cuap. I. 25, 26. 26 Bnérete yap Thy Know tpav, adeddoi, OTL OV ToAAOL Gopol KATA TapKa, Ov TrONAOL tous, Chrys. The metonymy of Beza 2, ‘ vocatio’ pro ‘vocatis’ is unneces- sary, and indeed untenable; compare Wilke, Rhetorik, p. 33- bri] ‘zat, introducirg the objective sentence dependent on the foregoing BaAémere, and specifying appositionally what it was, in reference to this calling, that they were to consider and to ob- serve; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 584, and Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 7. 12. cool kata wdpKa] ‘wse according to the flesh ;’ scil. kata thy mapéyta Blov, Kata thy ekwOev maldevow, Chrys.; or perhaps better and more inclusively, ‘according to all that is of imparted by the Spirit;’ of wév eiot copol Kata odpka, of 5¢ kata Tvedua, Origen; see Est. zz loc., and comp. copia capkiKh 2 Cor. i. 12, on the true meaning of odpé (‘the whole of man standing in opposition to the Spirit,’ Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 73, Vol. 1. p. 319; ‘that which is characteristic of the earthly man as such,’ Weiss, 2267. Theol. § 68 4, Vol. I. p- 343), and the latent antithesis (in passages like the present) which it commonly involves to 7d Ivedua, see notes and reff. o7 Gal. v. 16, and comp. Delitzsch, 47d. Psychol. 5. 6, p. 439) (Transl.), Plitt, Zvang. Glaubensl. § 33, Vol. I. p. 280 sq. Itis doubtful whether (a) we are to regard gogo k.T.A. aS a predicate to the preceding ov moAAoi,’ ‘not many are wise, etc.,’ Meyer, De Wette, al., or whether (8) we are to supply éxAnénoay, suggested by the preceding «Ajow, and only not inserted because the change to the following éfeActaro was already emer- ging from ‘the inspired Apostle’s thoughts. The extreme flatness of (a), and the absence of the almost neces- Cuap. I. 26-28. 1 CORINTHIANS. 51 Suvatot, ov modXol evyevetss 27 GAAA TA wpa ToD KOcpou é&e , c L4 if he \ 4 \ \ > an a néEato 6 Oeds, Wa Kataxivyn Tos copovs, Kal Ta aobevi TOD Koopou é&eréEato 0 Ocds, Wa Katacyivy Ta ioyupa, * Kai Ta 27. Katacxivyn Tovs copois] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec., rots copobs karacxbvy, but only with cursive mss. sary dua (in such a case) after moAAol, may perhaps rightly incline us to (8); so apparently Gicum. év 77 eAnoe TavTn kal 7H mioret ov HAGov moAAol cool. The Apostle passes almost instinc- tively from the passive into the .active form of sentence, and from the idea of the more restricted xAjors to that of the wholly unconditioned éxaoyh (1 Thess. i. 4), as thereby setting forth more fully and clearly (in harmony with the context) the wisdom and power of God. The «Ajots was ina certain sense dependent on the agency of man, the éxAoyn depended on God alone; comp. Hofmann 7x /oc. Suvarol] ‘mighty,’ ‘in dignitatibus positi,’ Grot. It is not necessary to supply kata odpxa (Est.), durarés needing no qualifying term. evyevets] ‘7z00/e,’ scil. ‘ genere nobiles, quales [olim] Corinthi Cypselidae et Bacchiadez,’ Grot.; comp. Luke xix. 12. The Corinth of the Apostle’s time had ceased to be the Corinth of the past; its old races had been destroyed (Pausanias, Grec. Descr. cap. 118, ed. Siebel.) and supplied in the time of Julius Cesar by Romans, mainly of freedman extraction (rod dmeAcvbepixod yéevous tAclorous, Strabo, Geogr. VIII. 6. 63, ed. Kramer); see Finlay, /ist. of Gr. Vol. I. p. 66 sq. 27. GAA TA Pwpa Tod Kdopov] ‘dat the foolish things of the world ;’ regularly contrasted statement on the positive side, and in a more inclusive form, of what God was pleased to choose,— the neuter marking the general cate- gory (Winer, Gr. § 27. 5; comp. notes AFG al. omit (accidentally ?) tva—é Oeéds (ver 28). on Gal. iii. 22), and the genitive that to which the 7a wwpd appertained and belonged (‘quz stulta sunt in mundo,’ Beza),—and out of which they were chosen; comp. John xv. 19. To take Tod kécuou as a gen. judicii (as mpds Tov Kécmov, Origen; Kata Thy TaY avOpe- mov ddéav, Theodoret, al.) weakens the whole force of the declaration: what God was pleased to choose was really pwpov, aobevés, and ayeves. eEeheEato] ‘chosen out, made ékdrexTol ; comp. Eph. i. 4, 2; Thess. 11.13. The studied repetition of the eeadtato 6 @cdés with each of the three clauses marks the deliberate nature of the divine choice, and has, as Meyer observes, a kind of triumphant empha- sis. Wa katarX vvy K.T.A.] ‘that fe might put the wise to shame ;’ pur- pose of the éxaoyy. The choice of the foolish rather than the wise was a veritable putting to shame of the wise; peylorn Tay copay aicxivn Tape idiwraev qttac@a, CXcumenius. The Apostle passes in this clause into the masculine (rov’s copods), as thus marking the practically masculine reference of the contrasted Td uwpd Tod Kéopmov, but again reverts to the neuter as thus passing more easily into the climactic r& uh dvta of the last clause. On the general subject suggested by this verse (faith in relation to religion), see Newman, Univ. Serm. p. 194. 28. Ta Gyevi TOD Kdopou] ‘Zhe base things of the world ;? direct and more immediate antithesis to the foregoing evyeveis, but enhanced by the following, 52 r CORINTHIANS: Cuap. I. 28-30. ayevh TOU Koopou Kal Ta éEovOevnpeva e€eXEEaTO Oo Oeds, Ta 1) ” 7 ee , 29 iid \ , lal m OVTa, Wa TA OVTA KaTapyno7 * OTT@S [47) KQVUYNONTAL TACa oapé . , nr ~ é€vwotriov Tov Meov. 30 €E avtov be tpeis eore &v Xpiota "Inood, 28. Ta wh dvta] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., on apparently preponderating authority: Rec., Rev. [Westc. and fort], prefix kat. Decision is here very difficult, as nal has critically important support. 29. év@miov tov Oeov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., év@moy adtod. étovServnuéeva, and still more by the con- cluding and climactic 74 wh dvra. Te ph Ovra] ‘ (yea) things thatare not, counted and conceived of as not existing (5a Thy moAAHY ovdéveravy, Chrys.), or perhaps better as Hofmann, ‘ not really but only conceivably existing,’ the un giving its usual subjective tinge; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 5, but remember that as uf with the participle is the more usual Hellenic usage, it cannot always safely be pressed; see notes ox 1 Thess. ii. 15. Origen (Cramer, Cat.) refers the 7a mi) dvta to all the preceding neuters, uwpd, aobev7, ayevn, and efoube- vnwéva, but, as the very structure of the clauses seems to show, not correctly : the studiously unconnected T& wh évta ob- viously stands simply in apposition and climax to the two adjectives which precede. Ta dvta] ‘which are,’ exist, and are really so to be recog- nized. Meyer very appositely quotes Pflugk on Eurip, ec. 284,— ‘ipsum verbum eivat eam vim habet ut signifi- cet 77 aliguo numero esse, rebus secundis florere, katapynon] ‘driug to nought ;’ the stronger and more appro- priate word karapyjon (katapy. axvpacat, Hesych.) naturally taking the place of kataoxvvy in the present climactic clause. Katapyeiy (as remarked ox Gal. v. 4) is a favorite word with the Apostle, by whom it is used 25 times, with several and varying shades of meaning. It occurs Luke xiii. 7, and Heb. ii. 14, but only 4 times in the LXX (Ezra iv. 21, 23, v. 5, vi. 8) and rarely in common Greek. 29. 8trws k.t.d] ‘22 order that no flesh should glory ;’ final clause, gathering up the three preceding and more limited wva-clauses into one general enunciation of ultimate purpose. On the essential meaning of émws (here clearly to be recognized), and its distinction from tva, see notes oz 2 Thess. i. 12. pi) kavX. aca odpé] ‘ Hebraistic form of expression; the correct analysis of which seems to be érws maca capt uh xavx., the negation being closely united with the verb, and (so to speak) non- boasting being predicated of all flesh; see Winer, Gr. § 26. 1, and notes and reff. on Gal. ii. 16. Add also Fritz. Dissert. in 2 Cor. p. 24 sq. évatiov tod Oeod] ‘before God,’ ‘in conspectu,’ Vulg.,—standing, as it were, in His holy presence; comp. evérriov Tay avOpomwv, Luke xvi. 15, and, with very distinct local reference, Luke i.17. The expression occurs very fre- quently in the N.T. ; the nearly synony- mous évaytiov Tov @eov only once, Luke xxiv. 19; comp. Luke i. 8. 30. €& atrod St «.7..] ‘But (to pass to what may indeed warrant Christian boasting) zt zs of Him that ye are in (in vital union with) Christ Jesus ;’ the verse not merely exhibiting on the positive side what had been previously exhibited on the negative (DeWette), but further, and by way of contrast, introducing the real ground and prin- Cuap. I. 30. r CORINTHIANS. 53 ds eyevnOn copia juiv aro Ocod, Sixasootvn Te Kal aryvacpos Kal 30. copia juiv] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., quiv copia. ciples of the true kavxnots specified in ver. 31; see Hofmann zz Joc. The et avtov, as its position clearly shows, is emphatic, and serves to mark, not their spiritual origin (réxkva Qcod éyeveoOe, Theoph.; so also Chrys., Theod., and several modern expositors ; comp. Gal. iii. 7), but, as the general tenor of the context (God’s sovereign power and wisdom) and the subsequent am @eov seem both to suggest,—the causal source (see Winer, Gr. § 47, b.), of their union in Christ. The éoré is thus not strongly predicative, and in effect isolated (maides abrod éoré, 514 ToD Xpiorod todTo yevduevot, Chrys.), but as the familiar eivat év Xp. (Rom. xvi. II, za@or, Vv. 07, Gal. comp. Rom. xvi. 7), and the insertion of dpets (as drawing rather to itself the emphasis) both seem to suggest, in close union with é€v XpiorG. On the formula civa év Xp., see Plitt, Avang. Glaubensl. § 55, Vol. 11. p. 77, and comp. Hooker, Serm. itt. Vol. 11. p. 763 (ed. Keble). bs éyevyOn K.7.A.] ‘who became wisdom to us from God,’ scil. displayed to us God’s wisdom (codia yéyovev eis Beoyvw- alav, Sever.; comp. Col. ii. 3) in His whole manifestation, His whole life and works; more exact specification of the mercy and grace involved in the preceding declaration (7d SaaAés évder- Kvopevos THs Swpeds, Chrys.), the ds hav- ing a partially explanatory and slightly argumentative force (see notes oz Col. i. 18, and comp. Col. i. 25, ii. 10, 1 Tim. ii. 4, al.), and the amb Ocod (dependent, as the order shows, on éyevf@y), echo- ing the preceding é£ aidrod, and pointing to God as the ultimate origin of the gracious working: see Kiihner, G7. § 430, where this distinction between j. 22: aay amé and é« is briefly but accurately specified; comp., however, notes oz 1 Thess. ii. 6. On the passive form éyevnGnre, see notes on Eph. iii. 7. Sikartorivn te Kal ayacpds] ‘ doth righteousness and sanctification,’ —where righteousness, there sanctification, — the te kat binding the two present substantives closely together (Hofmann very improbably connects dtxkatoo. with copia), and making them parts of a common predication; see especially Donalds. Craty/. § 189, 195, Wilke, Ret. § 43, p. 160, and the copious list of exx. there collected, Winer, Gr. § 53. 4, p. 389, and, for the distinction between this expression and kal—xal, notes oz 1 Zim. iv. 10. The two substantives thus—by their theological affinity — closely associated, serve, with the azo- Au’tpwors that follows, to illustrate and exemplify the foregoing copia. Our Lord, the Apostle says, became to us wisdom, yea, verily, both righteousness and sanctification, —and redemption ; righteousness (comp. Jer. Xxxiii. 16), in- asmuch as through faith in Him we were made righteous before God by His merits and death (see Rom. iii. 17, and comp. Usteri, Zehrd. i. I. I, p. 89); and not only righteousness, but, in close union therewith, sazctification, inasmuch as, by the indwelling of His Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 11), He leads us into abiding holiness and newness of . life ; comp. dixasoodyn eis ayiacudy, Rom. vi. 19, and see Messner, Lehre d. Apost. p- 239. On this text, see Butler (W. A.), Serm. 1. Vol. II. p. 1 sq., and the brief but clear summary of Hooker, Serm. WU. 2; and on the two united aspects of the work of Christ, see Messner, Lehre d. Apost. l.c.; comp. 54 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. I. 30-II. 1. amodvtpwots, * iva Kalws yéypartat “O xavydpevos év Kupio / Kavyacbw. So I came to you pro- Il. claiming in my weak- ness Christ crucified, et not with words of uman wisdom, but in the power of God. also Reuss, 7/éol. Chrét. Vv. 14, Vol. I. Pp. 144, 174. kal arokttpacts] ‘and (a third particular being added to the two closely associated foregoing particulars; comp. Hartung, Partik., Vol. I. p. 98 sq.) vedemption ;’ not merely from past sins and present suf- ferings (comp. Heb. ii. 15, 1 Pet. i. 17), but also, with a more inclusive reference to the final and complete redemption (TeAclay amaddAayhv, Theoph.), from sin, Satan, and death eternal; comp. Rom. viii. 23, and notes oz Zph. i.14. The comment of Calvin is just and perti- nent, ‘redemptio primum Christi do- num est quod inchoatur in nobis, et ultimum perficitur.’ On this verse as setting forth a summary of Christian privileges, see Leighton, Works, Vol. III. p. 347 sqq- 31. tva Kabds yéypamrar] ‘7272 order that, as it 7s written ;’ final purpose of God in thus graciously being the orig- inating cause of the union with Christ, and of the blessings that flow from it: ‘En finis, cur omnia nobis largiatur Deus in Christo, nempe ut ne quid arrogemus nobis, sed illi omnia defera- mus,’ Calvin. The quotation that fol- lows is a free and shortened citation of Jer. ix. 24. & KavXopevos «7.X.] ‘He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord;’ not, in Christ (Kuply, Rickert), nor even with any latent reference to Him (Stanley), but, as the whole context (consider é& atrov, amd ‘@eod) evidently requires, in God. The construction is unsyntactic, and prob- ably studiously so; the imperatival form being that of the original passage, and also more telling and forcible; Kayo €dOav mpos tpas, aderdoi, 7rOov ov Kal’ wrepoynvy Aoyou % codias comp. ch. ii. 9, Rom. xv. 3, and see Winer, Gr. § 64. 7. b. Wordsworth notices that the same text is used by Clement (Z/. i. 13), as a ‘brief senten- tious antidote’ against the vain glory and worldly wisdom of this Corinthian Church. A short sermon on this text will be found in Augustine, Serm. CLX. Vol. vil. p. 70 (ed. Bened.). II. 1-5, Zhe accordance of the Apostle’s Preaching with the nature of the Gospel as above specified. 1. Kayo] ‘And J too,’ in accordance with the precept, and as a true preacher of Christ crucified (ch. i. 23); the in- troductory kaf being not only connec- tive but emphasizing, and apparently here requiring in English the fuller translation given above; comp. Copt., 4Eth., and see Baiimlein, Partzk. ral, 2, p-150sq. His coming to Corinth (ver. 1-2), and his abode there (3-5), alike exemplified the accordance of his prac- tice with the principles he had enun- ciated (ch. i. 17-31); comp. Hofmann im loc. &8eApot] not without force: mdAw 7d tay adeApay TlOnow dvoua Katadealywy Tod Adyou Thy Tpaxv- tnta, Chrys. od Kad” drepoxiv K.T.r.] ‘ot with excellency | pre-emti- nence) of speech or wisdom ;’ modal portion of the clause qualifying, and, as the very position of the negative seems to imply, to be connected with, not the preceding #A@ov (Riick., Hofm.), but the succeeding katayyéAAwy; so Syr., Zerhaps Chrys., and the majority of recent expositors. The Apostle did not seek to define the manner of his coming, but the manner of his teaching Cuap II. 1, 2. 1 CORINTHIANS. 59 ft {PRETO \ rs an (2) Ce 2 > x ” - KaTayyé\Nwyv viv To waptuplov Tou Oeov* “ou yap expiva TEL > / > ey 3 | > A oie fa) Us \ a > / eldevae ev bpiv ei pt) Inoovv Xpictov, kat ToUTOV EaTaupwpEvov. II. 1. waptdpiov] It is hard to decide between this and the alternative reading pvorhpiov (Rev., Westc. and Hort). The diplomatic preponderance one way or other is scarcely appreciable. The scale seems turned by the less usual character of the expression apt. Tod Oeod (contrast ch. i. 6) and by the possi- bility of zverjpiov having been suggested by ch. ii. 7. 2. &xpwa tt cidéva] So Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort: Rec. adds rod after éxpiva against very greatly preponderating authority (ZLachm., Tisch. also omit) and places rf after eidévat (so Lachm., Tisch.) with good, but still apparently not preponderating authority. The divided nature of the evidence makes decision very difficult, and the more so, as Versions are claimed in the matter of the order of the words, and perhaps doubtfully. when he did come: Adyos pointing to the rhetorical, copia to the philosoph- ical, element of the xatayyeAla (Ne- ander). The objection of Hofmann that od Kaé bmep. «.7-A. canot logically qualify katayy. does not seem valid; the «ard here points to the manner (comp. Phil. ii. 3, iii, 6; Winer, G7. § 49, d), just as, in ch. i. 17, év pointed to the element of the preaching. The word tmepox7; (Hesych. ekoxh tmepBoan) is a dis Aeydu. in the N.T., here, and (without a dependent gen.) 1 Tim. ii. 2; see also 2 Macc. xiii. 6, Polyb. /zs¢. 1. Serv. As. 1; al. karayyevov] ‘declaring, proclaiming ;’ present part., marking thus not merely that the KaTayyéeAA. was the purpose of the HaGev (fut.), but that, in effect, it com- menced with, and was contemporaneous with, the whole action of the verb; comp. Plato, Phed. p. 116 C, HAdey ayyeAAwy, and see Winer, Gr. § 45. I, Bernhardy, Syzz. X. I, p. 370. Td papt. Tod Oecod] the testimony of God,’ scil. ‘as to what He had vouch- safed to do for man’s salvation in Christ Jesus,’ 1 John iv. 9, al.; not gen. subjecti, ‘quod a Deo profectum est,’ Calvin, comp. 1 John v. 9,—but, in accordance with ch. i. 6 (comp. 2 Tim. i. 8). gen. objecti, ‘ concerning Go d, thy rep) rijs oixovoutas didacKkaAlay Theod.; so Beza 1, DeWette, Meyer, al. The gloss of Theoph., al., 7d wapr. TovTedTe Tov Odvatov Tov Xpiorod, implies the same construction, though some- what too curtly expressed. 2. od yap ekpiwa] ‘For J did not de- termine, ‘it was not my resolve; ’ con- firmation of what precedes by a refer- ence to his foregoing state of mind and feeling. The negative, as the order clearly shows, belongs to the verb, not to the following ti (Riickert, Osiand., al.). In each case the meaning is practically the same, but, in respect of mental habitus, the distinction between the more active state in which a reso- lution is formed to know no other sub- ject save one, and the more passive and absorbed state in which no resolu. tion is formed to know any other subject, seems fairly appreciable. The reasoning of Hofmann is artificial and unsatisfactory, as also his narrowing of the meaning of @pwa: it certainly does not amount to ‘eximium duxi,’ Calvin, comp. Grot., but may still cor- rectly be translated ‘statui,’ Beza; comp. ch, vii. 37, 2 Cor, ii, 1, Titus iii. 12, al. The Apostle might have de- cided otherwise, but did not; see Theod, 7¢ doc, TL eiSévai] ‘Zo 56 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. II. 2, 3. 3 , 3 xay@ év adobeveia Kal ev PoBw Kal ev Tpdy@ TOAAM éyevounv N e n 4 A, Ue , \ \ Lj / > > fA] lal Tpos vas, * Kal O NOYOS fou Kal TO KNpUY"a pou OUK EV TrEeLGOtS know anything ;’ not merely to preach, but even to bear in conscious knowl- edge. The idea of implied duty (‘that I ought to know’), though occasionally to be recognized in the use of the in- finitive after verbs of command, coun- selling, etc. (see Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p. 288, Lobeck, Phry2. p. 753, Bernhardy, Synut. p. 371), would be here out of place: it was a [non-] determination pure and simple, — todro BovAoua dep kal 6 Xpiords, Chrys. That ri is ‘ali- quid magni,’ Bretschn. Zex. (‘some- thing,’ Evans: comp. Gal. ii. 6), is very improbable ; it involves a Azatus in the sequence ei my «.T.A.. and mars the simplicity of the sentence: ovde &AAo Tt Acywy ev Suiv, #) bTt 6 Xpiotds eorav- p#0n, Chrys. kal TodTov éoravp. | ‘and Him crucified ;’ definite specifica- tion of the office (Casaub.), or, rather, of the aspects under which the Apostle preached his Master, —not as the glo- rified One, but as the suffering One, "Tovdalois ev oxdvdadov COveoi dé wwplav, ch. i. 23. The inference that the Lord had not generally been so preached by the Apostle’s opponents (De Wette) seems just, — but that the Apostle had not as yet so preached elsewhere (Ne- ander, al.), eminently the reverse; the Apostle preached Jesus at Athens, as well as at Corinth; see Acts xvii. 18. On the force of kat, here adding the special and the enhancing (‘facit ad avténow,’ Calvin ; ‘und zwar,’ Meyer) to the more general and unqualified, see Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, and notes on Col. ii. 5, PAzl. iv. 12. 3. Kayo] ‘And Z,—I1 personally, apart from the consideration of my teaching’ (ver. 4); continuation of ver. I after the intercalated confirmatory sentence forming ver. 2: ‘describit rem (ver. I, 2), praeeconem (ver. 3), orationem (ver. 4),’ Bengel. év aoGevela] ‘in weakness, scil. ‘in consciously-felt weakness suggested by the mightiness of the work;’ ‘perpensa magnitudine negotii quod sustinebat, Calvin 1; comp. Acts xviii. 9 sq. It does not seem necessary to refer ao@. to any definite want of resolution on the part of the Apostle (Hofmann; compare Howson in Joc.), still less to physical weakness resulting from persecutions (7TH amd Tov Siwynav, Severian; comp. Chrys., Theod., al.): the word naturally re- ceives its tinge of meaning from the terms which follow, and marks the spirit in which the Apostle preached among his converts; mdvra juny tarei- vés, Severian. kal év 6éBw k.7.A.] ‘and in fear and in much trembling, the woAA@ structurally referring only to the preceding tpéuw, but guoad sensum to the two (hardly to the three [Hof- mann]) substantives that stand before it. The expression éBos kal tpduos (2 Cor. vii. 15, Eph. vi. 5, Phil. ii. 12) seem always used by the Apostle to mark that anxious solicitude that feels it can never do enough; see notes oz Lph. lc. and on Phil. l.c., and comp. Ps. ii. 11, SovAedoate TH Kuplw ev pdBw, Kal dyardaobe adt@ ev Ttpduw. éyevopnv mpds tpas] ‘was with you,’ ‘fui apud vos,’ Vulg., scil. in the state -above mentioned, —not, ‘came to you’ (comp. 2 John 12), this having been already specified in ver.1. On this use of mpés (‘apud i.g. mapdé cum dativo,’ Fritz.), see notes ov Gal. i. 18, and for examples of yiyveoOa év (‘versari in’) with abstract substantives (e.g. Plato, Legg. 1. p. 635 C, yryvduevor ev tais ndovais), denoting, as here, entrance into, and existence in, any given state, see note oz 1 Zim. ii. 14, Steph. Zhe- saur. Vol. Il. pp. 624, 625 (ed. Hase Cuap. II. 4. r CORINTHIANS. 57 copias Aoyos, GAN év atrodei& TIvetpatos cai Suvapews, * iva 4. coplas] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very distinctly preponderating authority; ec. prefixes av@pwmivns. and Dind.), Ast, in Plato, Zoc. czt., and the references of Stallb. z7 Zoc., Vol. x. p. 68.! 4. kal o Adyos pov K.T.d.] Sard (as an illustration of this) my speech and my preaching ;’ the ral being consecutive (comp. notes oz Phil. iv. 12), and, of the two substantives, the former (Adyos) referring not so much to ‘course of argument’ (Alf.) or ‘form as opposed to substance of preaching’ (Stanley), as simply to oral address generally (compare 2 Cor. x. 10),—the latter (khpuyua), to the same in its more special and studied form; comp. Hof- mann 27 Joc. tmeBois codpias Adyous] ‘persuasive words of wisdom ;’ scil. words arranged with logical or rhetori- cal skill, and so designed to persuade ; the gopias being the gen. of the prin- cipal constituent (Bernh. Syz¢. 11. 44, p- 161), or perhaps, more probably, of the characterizing quality or attribute (Scheuerl. Syzzt, § 16. 3, p. 115, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 5. 13), and the epithet metois marking that which the codla principally had in view. Hofmann seems to regard gopias as a gen. of the origz- nating cause (see notes oz 1 Thess. i. 6), and so more exactly parallel to the genitives in the following clause,— but, owing to the difference in the governing substantives, less simply and naturally than as above. The adjective ze.@ds (=mOavds) is not found elsewhere. It is, however, not formed without anal- ogy (e.g. peidds) ; and may perhaps, as Meyer supposes, have been in common oral use at the time, though as yet no example has been adduced of its written use; see Reiche zz Joc., and compare Steph. Zhesaur. s. v., ed. Hase and Dindorf. amodelEer 8 TIvetp. kal Suvdp.] ‘demonstration of the Spirit and power;’ in direct anti- thesis to the preceding ; not meio) Adyar, but dmddeztis. The genitive may be either (a) gen. subjectt,—‘demonstra- tion wrought by or emanating from the Spirit, etc.’ Theod., GEcum., al., or (2) ger. olject?,— ‘showing forth of the Spirit and power within,’ amddekiv Zxov avtd 7d Tvedua Td &yiov, Theoph., comp. Eth. (‘in ostendendo spiritum’), al. In either case the Mveduais the Holy Spirit, the article being omitted, either by the law of correlation (Middleton, Art. 3. 3. 6), or by its having the character and linguistic latitude of a proper name (netes o7 Gal.v.5). Of the two interpretations of the genitive, the former is distinctly to be preferred as most in harmony with the active amddeikis (a Gr. Acydu. in N.T.), with the general context, and especially with the last clause of ver. 5; comp. Acts. vii. 10; so clearly Origen zz doc. (Cramer, Cat.), and equally distinctly, Didymus, de Sf. Sancto, cap. 31, where this passage is briefly noticed. On these genitives, see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, Schirlitz, Veutest. Griic. § 43. 2, p. 246 sq.’ and the large collection of varied examples of this case in Wilke, Pez. § 35, p- 137 Sq. The reference of Sivamis is thus not to miracles (4 Oavparoupyia Tod Tvevuaros, Theod.; so also Origen, al.) but to the inward power vouchsafed by God (comp. ver. 5, 2Cor.iv.7); from which the amddekis emanated, ‘ Dei arte subnixus,’ Didym. loc. cit.; see also Hofmann zz Zoc., who has very elaborately discussed the whole clause. On the preaching of St. Paul, as illustrated by this verse, see Hooker, Zcc?. Pol. 111. 8. 9, 10. 58 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. II. 5, 6. a iA ig n ys ee I > 3 > 1 aes / a h wists bwav pr H ev copia avOpwrrwv adr’ év duvaper Ocod. What we preach is God’s wisdom, inward- 6 Sopiav 5 Nadoduev €v Tois TEdELoLs, copiay ly revealed by the Spirit, and discerned only by the spiritual. 5. Wva K.t.A.] £272 order that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men, butin the power of God ;’ design and purpose, not of the Apostle (Hofm.), but, as the tenor of the whole passage seems to indicate, of God, who so conditioned and so foreordered the Apostle’s preaching; comp. ch. i. 17}; TovTov xdpw ork clacey mas evyAwrTig xphoacba 6 Acondtns Wa bua 7 lors avimorros galynra, ov SewdrnTt Adywv braxOcioa, GAA TH Suvvduer modnynGeioa Tod Vvetuaros, Theodoret. For exx. of elva % tim (‘consistere, contineri in’), in which the prep. marks some- times the ‘sphere or domain of,’ some- times, but more rarely, the ‘accom- paniments’ (see notes o” Col. ii. 7), sometimes, as perhaps here (comp. ch. iv. 20), the ‘causal foundation or substratum,’— the shade of meaning varying with the context, see Luke iv. 32, Eph. vi. 2, 2 Thess. ii. 9, 1 Tim. iv. 15, 1 John iv. 10, al.: comp. Bernhardy, Synt.v. 7, p. 210, Harrison, Gr. Prep. p- 246 sq. 6-16. Zhe true wisdom, its nature how revealed, and for whom designed. The Apostle having already vindi- cated the simple and non-philosophical preaching of the Gospel (ch. i. 17-31), and having further illustrated the same by his own practice at Corinth (ch. ii. I-5), now goes on to show that there is, nevertheless, a Christian wisdom, far beyond the wisdom of this world, revealed by the Spirit and designed for the perfect; avamrdccouey obv Thy codtay Tov @cod, Origen. codpiav St k.t.A.] 6 Vet we speak a wis- dom among the perfect ;’ the 8é not being transitional (‘now,’ Stanley) but contrasting and appositive (iva wh evra Tis ... OUK Elxev codiay ovdeulay .. . emipéper kal Adyer coplay SE «.7.A. Origen), and the plural form including with the Apostle Christian teachers generally; contrast ch. iii. 1. There is some little doubt as to the exact meaning (a) of the preposition, and (8) of the term redcefois. In regard of (a) it seems clear that évy can only mean ‘among,’ sc. ‘in the presence and hearing of’ (‘inter’ Vulg.); the use of év as a mere ‘nota dativi’ being dis- tinctly untenable (see Winer, Gr. § 31. 8), and the ethical ref. to judgment, opinion, etc. (‘ que plena esse sapientiz judicabunt veri et probi Christiani,’ Grot.) being apparently confined to a few well-known Aroxominal forms, év éuol, év ool, «.7.A.; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. p. 211, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 12. 6. In regard of (8) it seems equally clear that reAclos is not neuter, and that it is in contrast with vnmios év Xpior@, ch. iii. 1; comp. Eph. iv. 13 and notes zz loc. It would seem to follow, then, that the Apostle is here referring, not to any special esoteric teaching (disciplina arcani), but simply, as the contrasts in ch. ili. 1 sq. distinctly sug- gest, to those higher subjects of Gospel-teaching (Tad wvorhpia tis Bact- Aclas tév obpav@y, Matt. xiii. 11) which might profitably be brought before the thoughts of the more advanced Chris- tian, but were not fitted for the newly converted or imperfectly instructed; &AAo yap eat cioayayeiv Tivas eis Thy miotw, &AAO THY coplay Tod Ocod amoxa- A’mrewv, Origen. What the exact substance and content of this teaching might have been cannot be safely defined. DeWette and others (see esp. Estius 7 doc.) apparently in- clude a// the Apostle’s deeper teaching Cuap. II. 6, 7. 1 CORINTHIANS. 59 88 od Tod aidvos TovTOV Ode TOY apYovTwY TOD aid@vos TovTOU Tov KaTapyounévov* 7 aArA Nadoduev Ocod codpiav ev mvarnpic, (‘que continet secretiora et altiora nostre religionis mysteria,’ Estius) : Meyer and others more naturally re- strict it to the principal subject-matter of the context, viz. God’s eternal coun- sels of redemption and love in Christ crucified (ch. i. 23), and in Christ glorified (ch. ii. 8, 9); comp. Eph. ili. t,t Pim. ii. 15, 16, 1 Pet. 1. 11, al. On this clause as suggesting the ex- cellency of the Christian religion, see Barrow, Oz the Creed, Serm. XVI. Vol. v. p. 60 sqq. copiay 8& od Tod alavos TrovTou] ‘a wisdom however not of this world ;’ the 8€ repeating with a contrasting explanatory force (Klotz, Devar. Vol. U. p. 361, Hartung, Partzk. Vol. 1. p. 168, Winer, Gr. § 53. 7; 4) the previous substantive; comp. Rom. iii. 22, Phil. ii. 8, and notes zz Joc. The wisdom which the Apostle spoke did not belong to the passing age or fleeting course of things (comp. notes on Eph. ii. 2), but related to what was enduring and eternal; it was 7 copia tywev Karepxouevn, James iii. 15. TOY apX. TOD aiaves TovTouv] ‘of ¢he (earthly) rulers of this world ;’ ‘prin- cipum hujus szculi,’ Vulg.: it was not the wisdom of the duvarol or the evyeveis (ch. I. 26), whether among the Greeks © or the Jews. The expression has been referred by some of the early commen- tators (Origen, al.; comp. Estius, Aquinas) to spiritual powers (compare Eph. vi. 12), by others to the philoso- phers and leaders of thought (coguords Aéyet, Theod.), but in both cases clearly in opposition to the gloss afforded by ver. 8. TOV KaTapyoupévav] ‘who are being brought to nought;’ the present here having apparently its simple temporal force (opp. to Meyer, who advocates the ethical use; comp. Schmalfeld, Syzz. § 54.2), and marking the process already referred to (ch. i. 28), which was persistently going on. The kardpynots is very differently ex- plained. The older commentators refer it to the simple temporal passing away C&cum.) and éaryoxpédvots apx7 of the ru- lers; many of the later to definite epochs, such as the destruction of Jerusalem (Rosenm.), or the future coming of Christ (Meyer). The most natural reference seems that suggested by ch. i. 28, viz. to that gradual nullification of all real and enduring potency on their part which was brought about by the Gospel; see Hofm. and especially Neander 27 Joc. 7. GAG Aadotpev] ‘but we speak ;’ the aaa having its full adversative force (‘aliud jam hoc esse de quo dicturi sumus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p- 2), and the AaAoduey by its very iteration adding weight and emphasis to the declaration; comp. Rom. viii. 15, Phil. iv. 17. Ocod codiay] ‘ God’s wisdom ;’ with full emphasis on the genitive, as the collocation indi- cates;see Winer, Gr. § 30. 3.4. The gen. seems here simply possessive ; the wisdom which God has and which He vouchsafed to reveal to His servants; comp. ver. 10. év puoryplo] ‘in a mystery, sc. in the substance and under a form of teaching hidden to man but revealed to us His Apostles and preachers ; the prep. here marking, not so much the means employed (comp. Meyer, and notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 18), as the ideal substance in which, as it were, the Aadecivy was embodied, and so, indirectly, the form and manner in which it took place (comp. ch. xiii. 12, and see notes oz Philem. 6),—and the subst. retaining its usual meaning in St. Paul’s Epp., of something ‘not / ~ sf (cuumavovta: Te TapdvT: Big, 60 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap, 11. 7, 8. THY ATOKEKPULMEVHY, Hv Tpowpicev 0 Oeos TPO TOV aidvey eis Py 4 ¢€ [al 8a a) \ fa) b) ' fa) an / ” ofav nav: ® hp ovdeis TOY APXOVTWY TOD alaVOS TOUTOU EyVwKEV, el yap éyvacay, ov« dv Tov Kipuoyv tis dofns éotavpwoav: * adda 7. @c0d aoplay] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority; Rec., copiay Oeov. comprehensible by unassisted human reason ;’ see notes oz Zph. v. 32. The connection of év pwvor. with thy aroKexp. (Theod.) is out of harmony with the order of the words and the position of the article; the connection with coplay (Meyer, al.), though grammatically permissible (compare Winer, Gr. § 20. 2), is inconsistent with ordinary pers- picuity ; comp. Hofmann 77z Joc. Tiv &roKxexpuppévyv] ‘the hidden (wis- dom) ;’ ‘the wisdom that lies in con- cealment,’ Martensen (Chr. * Ethics, Part I1.§ 71); not simply in reference to the present (BAémouey yap upte ev écémTpw, Theoph. ; Gicum.), nor simply in ref. to the past (Grot.), but, as the tense, the defining relative clause, and general context (comp. ver. 9, 10), all clearly suggest, alike to the past (comp. Rom. xvi. 25, Eph. iii. 9) and to the present; ‘est occulta antequam expro- mitur; et quum expromitur tamen occulta manet multis, imperfectis,’ Bengel. On the mysterious character of Christianity, see South, Servm. Vol. 1. p- 489 sqq. iV mpodpicev K.T.A. ] ‘which (wisdom) God foreordained before the ages unto our glory ;’ relative clause defining more fully the foregoing participle, and specifying the involved issues; the gopfa was to prove and issue forth in our S5éf. Hofmann seems right in saying that the els détav does not mark the definite purpose of the mpoopiozés (comp. Alf.), as in such a case we must have had some other object-accus. (‘einen Willensbegriff wie Bovajy, Akt. ii. 23, nicht aber einen Wissenbegriff’), but rather that which the godia was to introduce and to result in. The doctrinal comment of Theodoret is very suggestive ; od udvnv cwrnplay. GAAG Kat Sdtav Xopnyet Tots LOT EVOUCLY. 8. iv odSels K.T.A.] ‘which (wisdom) no one of the rulers of this world know- eth ;’ parallel to the preceding relative clause, and obviously referring to the same subject, copfav. The reference to dotav (Tertull, AZarc. v. 6), alluded to, but not adopted by Est., is wholly out of harmony with the context; it was not an ignorance of the ddta of the Christian, but of the gogia of God, that led the &pxovtes to act as they did act; Tovrous Aéye: Td Oeiov jryvonkevat pvorhpiov, Theod. et yap K.T.d.] ‘for if they had known it ;’ parenthet- ical confirmation by the appeal to com- mon experience; ‘non credibile est eos cruci addicturos fuisse (aut instigatione sua ut Sacerdotes, aut decreto ut Pila- tus, aut consensu ut Herodes) eum quem Deus esse vult omnium judicem,’ Grot. The crucifiers of the Lord are here viewed under the corporate term &pxovtes TOV ai@vos TovTov: Jews con- demned the Lord to death (Matt. xxvi. 66); Romans confirmed the condemna- tion, and drove in the nails; comp. Acts ii. 36, iv. Io. tov Kiupuov Tis S6Eys] ‘the Lord of glory,’ scil. the Lord whose essential attribute is glory; the genitival relation not being that of possession, in the sense of Christ being ‘princeps, auctor, et consummator glo- rificationis suorum,’ Est., — but simply that of the characterizing quality ; see notes oz 2 Thess. ii. 7, and compare, Cuap. II. 8, 9. 1 CORINTHIANS. 61 Kabas yéyparta, “A opOarpos ov eidev Kal ods ovK HKovoEv \ > A rd > , > > / va ¢e / € \ Kai emt Kapdiav avOpwrov ovx avéBn, dca nToiwacev 0 Oeos g. daa] So Lachm., Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on apparently prepon- derating authority: Rec., Zisch., &. The authorities are very evenly balanced, but the scale seems turned by the greater probability of the change of dca into the relative than the reverse. as to the expression, Acts vii. 2, Eph. i.17, Heb. ix. 5, James ii. 1, and, as to the spiritual truth, Luke ix. 26, John i. 14, Xvii. 5, Phil. iii. 21,al. In examples of this form of genitive there may commonly be discerned some trace of a rhetorical or semi-poetical force. In earlier Greek this is more clearly marked (comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 402. c, Scheuerl. Syzz. § 16.3); in the later wri- ters, where there is an obvious tendency to rhetorical form without a specially intended increase of meaning (comp. notes oz Phil. iii. 11), and in the N. T., where the parallel Hebrew usage had obviously much influence, the rhetorical emphasis is less distinctly to be traced ; see the numerous examples in Wilke, Rhetorik, § 35, p.137- Here, however, the expression is designedly chosen, and in studied antithesis to the mention of the crucifixion; ddotia édéce: 6 orav- pés, Theoph. Had the &pxovres known the wisdom of God they would not have acted in reference to our Lord kat’ ®yvoay (Acts iii. 17) as they did act, but instead of crucifying would have acknowledged and honored Him ; see above. Q. GANA Kabds yéyparrar] ‘ ut as it hath been written ;’ adversative clause corresponding to the fy ovdels «.7.A., the @aad, with its normal usage (ob«h— GAAd), introducing the antithesis to the involved ov.» The quotation here in- troduced by the formal ra6dis yéypamrat cannot very readily be verified. Origen (x Matt. p. 916 B, ed. Delarue) and others deem the passage a citation from the ‘Apocalypsis Eliz’ (comp. Coteler, Cozst Apost. vi. 16); Theod- oret, Chrys. 2, al., more plausibly, a citation from some lost prophetical writing. It seems, however, more natural and more consistent with the Apostle’s established use of the formal Kadas yeyp. (thus far rightly, Theodoret, apkel 7 makapla yA@TTa, phoaca, kabws vy éyp.) to regard the words as a free citation of a passage in a canonical book (Isa. lxiv. 4), with which it is quite possible memory might have com- bined other and similar passages (Isa. lii. 15, Ixv. 17); so Jerome, Zfzst. (ad Pammach.) tot, and following him the majority of recent expositors; comp. Surenhus. Kataaa. p. 527, Riggenbach, Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 596. The way in which Clem. Rom. (ad Cor. i. 34) reproduces the passage (icq éroiwacey Tos UTOMEevOUVGLY avTdy, as in Isa. lxiv. 4), seems fairly to disclose Clement’s opinion of the source of the quotation. To regard the passage as really from an apocryphal book, but quoted by failure of memory as from a canonical book (Meyer, Weiss, 2z0/. Theol. § 74. 4, note, Vol. 1. p. 383, Transl.), must be pronounced, on the evidence before us, as by no means demonstrable. & dpOarpds «.7.A.] ‘things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man, (even) as many things as God hath prepared jor them that love him ;’ loosely de- pendent on the preceding Aadodyer, and added to define more fully the substance of the cogiav. So rightly, Meyer, in his last ed.; the connection with the first clause of ver. 10 (revived 62 Tols ayaT@ow avrov. fal \ m, nn n ITvetpatos, 70 yap Iveta ravra épavva, Kai ta 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. II. 9, 10. 10 juiv dé amexadruev 6 Oeds bia Tod \ \ Ba0n Tod 10. a&mexddvpev 5 Ocds] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: ec., 6 @cds dmexdavile. Tod mvebuatos] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds airod. The same uncial authorities as in the last-mentioned case read the Alexandrian form épavv@ in place of the more usual épeurg. by Hofmann), though grammatically defensible (on such use of 5€ in an apodosis, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 374 sq-), being deficient in simplicity and perspicuity, and tending, as De- Wette has rightly observed, to suggest a contrast (which could not have been in the Apostle’s thoughts) between the jeev and the preceding rots dyaraow autor. On the meaning of kapdla, which is here used, with some latitude, to indicate the seat of thinking and understanding, as well as of feeling, see the excellent article of Cremer, Worterb. s.v. p. 347 sq. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. iv. 11, p. 203 sq., Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 68. d. note, Vol. I. p. 349 (Transl.), and notes oz Phzl. iv. 8, and on i Tim.i. 5. The form avéBn ém kapdiay is obviously only the grecized ad by m3: comp. Jer. iii. 16, Acts vii. 23. Tois dyaTrecw aitév] The Tois Umouevovow €Acov of the LXX and of the O.T. here suitably and perti- nently passes into the evangelical rots ayar@ow avtdy of the N. T.: ofdauev dru Tos ayamaow Thy @cby TavtTa cuvepyet eis @ya0dv, Rom. viii. 28. As Aquinas well observes, ‘essentiale premium zeternze gloriz charitati debetur; ’ comp. John xiv. 21. 10. piv 8€] ‘ But to us,’ —teachers and preachers of the Gospel; the d¢ putting the jets in general and re- capitulatory contrast with those in- cluded in the first clause of ver. 8. The negation in the first part of ver. 8 thus stands in antithesis to 5€ as well as to @AAd (ver. 9). The distinction, however, between the cases is clear. The @AdAd introduces the special and immediate adversative relation; the dé places before the reader the more gen- eral contrast; see above, notes on ch. i. I0, where the distinction between the common ovx—aAdAd, and the less usual ob (uy) followed by 6€ is briefly investigated. Westc. and Hort. read yép; but on insufficient authority, and in the face of the apparently greater probability of the 5é here being changed into yap than the reverse. 7d yap IIvetpa x.t.d.] ‘for the Spirit searches all things ;’ scil. the personal Holy Spirit; comp. ver. 11, 12. The present clause confirms more imme- diately the latter part of the preceding verse; the amoxdAviis verily so comes to us (8a Tod TMyv.), for the Holy Spirit investigates, accurately searches into, all things. The verb épavygy (probably ' connected with ép@), though not neces- sarily and Zer se indicating more than ‘tracking out’ (?yv1a, Homer, //. XVIII. 321, Odyss. XIX. 436), ‘search’ (Hesych. épeuvay- (nretv comp. Schleusn. Lex. s.v.) appears always used in the N. T. of active, accurate, and carefulsearch; ak- piBods yvdoews évtaiOa Td epevvdy evderk- tixdv, Chrys., comp. Theod., Severian, al.; see John v. 39, vii. 52, Rom. viii. 27, 1 Pet. i. 13, Rev. ii. 23, and comp. Suicer, 7hesaurv. s.v. Vol. I. p. 1211 sq., and the examples in Steph. 7hesaur. s.v. Vol. Il. p. 2005, especially Anti- phon, p. 133. I. Kal ta Bd0n CHxPOT. 10, 11. Ocov. 1 CORINTHIANS. 63 11 / \ io > 0 , + x lal he 0 , > \ X TLS Yap OlOEY AVUPWTT@V TA TOV AVUPWTOU EL (1) TO la) a > / “ > > lel ee \ x a A TVEULQ TOU avOpetrov TO €V GUT@M; OUTWS KAL TA TOU Ocod Tov Ocod] ‘even the deep things of God,’ ‘profunda Dei,’ Vulg.; not only the eternal counsels of God, but all the blessed mysteries of his essence and attributes,—‘ etiam nature divine, non modo regni ejus,’ Bengel; comp. Rom. xi. 33, and contrast Ta Badéa Tod Sarava, Rev. ii. 24. This clause is one of car- dinal importance in reference to the Scripture doctrine of the Holy Ghost. As Severian (Cramer, Catez.) rightly says, 6” dAov Tov xwptov [the passage before us] 7d Tvedua 7d Gyo SelxvuTa. To dilute this plain reference to the personal Holy Spirit into a mere refer- ence to the self-consciousness of God (Weiss, 8767. Theol. § 84. 6, Vol. 1. p. 456 note [Transl.]), is to traverse other and similar texts (Gal. iv. 6, Rom. viii. Q, II, 26, 34), which cannot, with com- mon fairness, be explained away, — to confuse in what follows the recog- nized principles of St. Paul’s psychol- ogy in regard of the human mvedua (see notes oz 1 Thess. v. 23),—and to mar the whole illustrative reasoning of the passage. The mvedua in ver. II is not the human self-consciousness, but the third and highest part of our composite nature, and so a kind of feeble similitude of the Third Person of the blessed immanent Trinity. On this vital passage, see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 28, Vol. 1. p. 359 sq. (Transl.), and on the profound question of the relation of the Third to the First and Second Persons, Dorner, 7d. § 31. 0, p. 425, and comp. Martensen, Chr. Dogm. §§ 56, 181. 11. tls yap K.7.A.] ‘ For who of men knoweth the things of a man,’ or, more exactly, the man, scil. the man specified by the ris: amplification, and confirm- atory explanation, of the latter part of the preceding verse; ta@v avOpémwv being emphatic and in studied juxta- position to T& Tod avOpémov: ‘notat similitudinem nature,’ Bengel. It is from the analogy of man’s nature and man’s self-knowledge that the Apostle illustrates, almost @ fortior7, the truth in the conclusion of ver. to. As the spirit of a man alone knows the things of the man in question (generaliter dictum, —not merely T& BdOy Tod dv- Opémrov), even though man is the like of his fellow-men, so verily is it the Holy Spirit that searches the depths of God,—and He alone; comp. Hof- mann zz J/oc., who, though here rather diffusely argumentative, appears to have caught rightly the general current of the passage. Swhich is tn him; To év atta] closer specification of the mvevua, giving also indirectly a proof of the assertion; ‘criterium veri, natura conscia,’ Bengel: it is because it is in him that it knows as it does know. It is not the ~uxf of man, but the mvevua that is in him, the third and highest part of his composite nature (7d cuuTAnpwpaTiKdy Tod BAov avOperov, Severian), that is the true self-knowing subject: see Delitzsch, Bzb/. Psychol. p- 155, and on the general distinction, the comments in the present writer’s Destiny of Creature, Serm. V., and notes on Phil. i. 27 and ont Thess.v. 23. tyvoxev] ‘kxoweth,’ ‘cognovit,’ Vulg., or, possibly here more exactly, cometh to know, ‘cognita habet,’ De Wette. It is not easy, either here or in other passages of the N. T. (comp. John xxi. 17) to draw the exact distinction be- tween ofda and éyvwxa. Without over- pressing, or limiting the reference of the former to the senses, and the latter to the mind (comp. Stanley 2 Zoc.), it seems correct to say that ofa is the more inclusive term, and points to ’ 64 ovoels éyvaxev ef py TO IIvedua tod Ocod. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cnap. II. 11, 12. 12 Hues b€ ov TO TVEv LA TOV KOToU EAaBouev, GAAaA TO IIvedua TO Ex TOD Ocod i >) ’ iva ciSdpev Ta tO TOD Ocod yapicOévta Huiv: *% & Kai Nadod- 11. &yvwxev] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: 7ec. older. knowledge generally, however arrived at, éyywka to knowledge as acquired and arrived at by the reference of the subject to some object which supplies it (emiorhunv mov AaGew, Plato, Theet. p. 209 E): see Cremer, L7d/.-Theol. Weorterb. s.v. oi8a, p. 230. otTws Kal ta Tod Ocod «.t.A.] ‘50 also the things of God knoweth no one save the Spirit of God ;’ completion of the pro- found statement, and application of the suggestive, but imperfect human analogue. This verse is used by Bp. Sanderson, in his treatise de Obligatione Conscientig@, as his text to Praelect. I. 12. hpets 8 xt. ] Application of the general statement to the particular case, and further elucidation of the nature and the reality of the éroxdaAufis (ver. 10); the jets corresponding to the juiv above, and the two opposed members illustrating and expanding the 8:4 trod Mveduaros: ‘amplificat a comparatione contrariorum certitudi- nem illam cujus, meminerat,’ Calvin. Td tTrvetpa Tod Kécpor] ‘the spirit of the world, scil. its present animating and directive principle. There is some little difficulty in settling the exact meaning of this expression. On the one hand, to make it simply equivalent (a) to ‘sapientia mundana et szcularis’ (Estius ; comp. Theoph., DeWette, al.) is to mar the balance of the antithesis, which certainly seems to imply some- thing more substantive and objective. On the other hand to make it equiv- alent (4) to the ‘spirit of the Devil’ (Meyer ; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4, Eph. vi. 11, 12, John xii. 31, al.) is to bring out more fully the moral element than the context seems to suggest ; see Hofmann in loc. It seems best, then, to take the words in the more general sense above specified: comp. Eph. ii. 2; and, on the meaning of the word kécpos, consider the thoughtful remarks of Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 96, 97; comp. notes oz Gail. iv. 3. Td éx TOD Oeod] ‘which is from God ;’ not merely ‘Spiritum Dei,’ Clarom., but ‘qui ex Deo est,’ Vulg.,—and is directly vouchsafed to us from Him (‘antitheton év, ver. 11,’ Bengel): adrd 7d é€x Tov Tlarpbs exmopevducvoy Mvedua edldatey judas, Theod. Being so, our knowledge will indeed be sure and complete; ‘Spiritus est a Deo, ac proinde supra omnem dubitationis aleam positus,’ Calvin. tva elSapev k.7.A.] ‘that we might know the things which have been freely given to us by God;’ divine purpose in the vouchsafed reception of the Spirit, the imd Tod cov echoing, as it were, the é« tov @e0d; God’s Spirit has enabled us to know and realize God’s gifts. These gifts are not merely ‘beneficia quz ex ejus [Christi] morte et resurrectione consequimur’ (Calvin— who seems to read Xpiorod, though without any grounds), but, generally and compre- hensively, the blessings of the Gospel dispensation (T& Kata Thy oikovoulav yeyoveta Tod Xpiotod, CEcum.), whether present (comp. Eph. i. 14) or future. The ra imd tod Ocod xapiobevra are in effect the same as & 7Toluacev 6 Oeds (ver. 9), though perhaps including a little more of present reference; comp. Cuap. II. 12, 13. 1 CORINTHIANS. 65 ev ovk ev Sidaxtois avOpwrivyns codias Aoyois, GAN’ ev SidaKTols TIvevpatos, mvevpartixois Tvevpatica ovvKpivovTes. 14 buytKos 13. Mveduaros] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds ayiov. Estius and Hofmann zz Joc. The polemical applications of the passage. (de fidelium hzesitatione) will be found in Calvin and Estius. In reference to these, itis only necessary to remark that the meaning ‘cero scire’ Calvin.), ‘certo noscere’ (Grot.), is not necessa- rily or logically involved in the verb eidévaz. The degree of such knowledge will always be modified by the degree of faith. 13. Akal Aadotpev] ‘which also we speak ;’ the manner in which God made the revelation (ver. 10) being now set forth and elucidated, the Apostle passes to the manner in which the substance of the revelation was orally delivered; ‘not only do we thus mercifully acquire the knowledge of 7a brd Tov Ocod x.7.A.. but we also speak them to you and to others;’ the «af slightly accentuating the AaAoduev, and implying the accordance of the act with the previously specified revelation, ver, 1osq. On this common, but delicately expressive use of kal, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 635. avOperivys codias] ‘human wisdom ;’ gen. dependent on the verbal d:danrds (comp. John vi. 45, Isaiah liv. 13, 1 Macc. iv. 7, and see Winer, Gr. § 30. 4), and defining the agency by which the teaching was not, and was, imparted. To make the genitive dependent on Adyors is obviously negatived by the second member of the sentence; and to give the verbal d:daxrés its,prevalent classical meaning ‘qui doceri potest’ (Plato, Protag. p. 328 Cc, Xenoph. Zon. Cap, 12. 10) is out of harmony with the general context. The Apostle is not speaking of what cou/d be taught, but 9 what was taught. On the nature of the genitival relation in cases such as the present, and its essentially synthetic character, see the excellent comments of Rumpel, Casuslehre, pp. 237, 242 sq. The reading &:dax7 preferred by Bengel, rests on no critical authority worthy of consideration. aTrveEv- Patukots mvevpatiua cvvKplvovtes] ‘combining spiritual things with spir- tual ;’ participial clause defining the associated acts and circumstances; comp. I Thess. ili. 10, and notes 27 doc. In cases like the present, which are by no means uncommon in the N.T., the use of the participle is not so much modal as supplemental; it serves to define the action more clearly by specifying in the form of a secondary predication (Donalds. Gr. § 442 sq.) the accompaniments or associated circumstances; comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 2, Kiihner, Gr. § 486. 6, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 9.1 sq.; and for a list of the various uses of the participle, see Bernhardy, Syzt. xiv. 13, p- 475, Schmalfeld, Syzz. § 207, and especially the elaborate synopsis of Kiihner Gr. § 480, prefixed to his full and thorough discussions of this most characteristic element of the Greek sentence. The exact meaning of the clause is some- what doubtful, as (1) mvevpatiots may be masc. (Est., Bengel, Riick., al.,) or neuter, and (2) ovykpivew admits several varieties of interpretation. As regards /1) the decision is not difficult (notwithstanding the able comments of Hofmann zz /oc.), as not only the prom- inent position of mvevuaricois and its apparently studied juxtaposition to the preceding S:5acrois Mvedparos, but also 66 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. II. 13, 14. 5¢ avOpwrros od Séyetar Ta Tod IIvetpatos Tod Ocod, wwpia yap the clear reference of the context to the things taught (& kal Aadovduer) rather than to the persons taught (this idea comes in afterwards) seem very decidedly in favor of the neuter: so DeWette, Meyer, Ewald, and the majority of the best commentators ancient and modern. In_ regard, however, of (2) the difficulty of de- cision is very great, there being at least three meanings which may plaus- ibly be assigned to ovyxpivey, viz. (a) to combine (opp. to diakp.; comp. Plato, Zim. Locr. p. 101 C, Td AevKdv diaxpiver thy dw, Td Se weAay ovykplve ; comp. Valck. Scho/. Vol. I) 135), as Calvin, Beza, DeWette, Meyer, pie (4) to compare (‘comparare,’ Vulg., Syr., Arm.), as in 2 Cor. x. 12, and very fre- quently later writers, e.g. Polyb. Ast. vl. 47. 9 (cuvéxpwe Kal Sinpetva Ta Aeydueva), XII. 10. 1, al., Diod. Sic. Bibl. Hist. wv. 14, al.; comp. Lobeck., Phryn. p. 278,—and thence deriva- tively, (c) to explain or interpret (sc. ‘comparando explicare,’ Valck.), as apparently in the LXX, e.g. Gen. xl. 8 (Aq. émaAvew), 16, 22, Dan. v. 12, al.: so Chrys. (amb Trav mvevmariKay Tas paprupias &yew), -Theod.-Mops. (amodeur- viva), and most of the ancient expos- itors. Of these (c) is lexically doubtful, as the idea of ‘interpretation’ rather comes from the context (évimmov ovy- xplveww) than from the essential meaning of the word (opp. to Hofmann), which apparently does not go beyond the idea of ‘judging of ’ or ‘estimating ;’ see Palm. u. Rost, Zex. s. v., and Meyer in loc. Itis also contextually unsatis- factory, as the verse seems clearly to refer, not to any comparison or eluci- dation by comparison of spiritual things with each other, but to the form (oik év diSaxrois x.7.A.) in which they were conveyed. As the last objection ap- plies with equal force to (4) we seem justified in deciding in favor of (qa), which is not only lexically certain, but also fully in harmony with the context, —the meaning being that the Apostle clothed his Spirit-revealed truths in Spirit-taught language, and thus com- bined what was spiritual in substance with what was spiritual in form: for further details see De Wette and Meyer in loc., and Kling, Stud. u. Krit. for 1839, P- 437- 14. uxucds 8¢ &vOpwrros] ‘Vow a natural man,’ or, in our idiom, ‘ ¢he natural man,’ ‘animalis homo,’ Vulg., scil. one in whom the wWux7f is the pre- dominating element, 6 xaTa ocdpxa (av kal uymw Toy voov pwricGels 51a Tov TMvev- patos, Cyril (Cramer, Ca¢ez.): transi- tion from the form and substance of the message to the hearers and re- ceivers of it, the dé here being slightly wetaBatixndy (Hartung, Partik. Vol. I. p- 165), and serving to prepare the way for the contrast which immediately follows, and the Apostle’s own diffi- culties in connection with it, ch. iii. 1 sq. The pvxeeds (contrasted generally with the receivers of the Spirit, ver. 12, and directly with the mvevuarids, ver. 15) here specified, is the man whose soul, with its merely human longings and affections (‘vis inferior quz agitur, movetur, in imperio tenetur,’ Olsh. Opusc. p. 154), unhallowed and unil- lumined, and, so to speak, despiritu- alized (comp. Jude 19, WuxiKot, mvedua wh €xovres), is to him the all in all, — ‘man devoted in his thoughts and strivings to the phenomenal world [in effect, capxicds, ch. iii. 1], and lost in it,’ Miiller, Chr. Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 11. p- 298 (Transl.); see also Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. p. 398 sq. (Transl.), Beck, Seelenl. 1. 8.p. 17 sq. The puxixés has practically no mvedua; it indeed latently Cuap. II. 14, 15. t CORINTHIANS. 67 avT@ éotw, Kal ov StvaTat yvovat, OTL TVEVpATLKaS avaKpiveTaL. 15 c St ‘\ > tZ A > \ de e ’ a) \ ’ 1) be TTVEULATLKOS AVAKPLVEL TAVTA, AUTOS OE UT OVOEVOS ava- 15. avaxpiver mavra] The reading here presents some difficulties. After ava- kpiver Rec., [Treg.], Rev., Westc. and Hort, add pwév: Lachm., Tisch., omit on apparently preponderating authority. The insertion of ra before ravru [Lachm.] is well supported (hence Westc. and Hort place it as a bracketed alternative reading to pév), but the omission (Rec., Zisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort) rests on preponderating authority. exists, and, it may be, after death will make itself fearfully recognized, but having lost all its blessed and quick- ening communication with 7d Tvedua 7 ayy, it is as though it were not; see Heard, 7ripartite Nature of Man, p. 81 sq. On the whole subject see notes and reff. oz 1 Thess. v. 23, and Destiny of Creature, Serm. V. p. 99 sq. ov Séxerar] ‘vecezveth not,’ scil. ‘non vultadmittere,’ Bengel. The meaning ‘non percipit’ (Vulg., Clarom. ; comp. Grotius, Calvin, al.) is lexically admissible, but not in accordance with the prevailing use of the word in the N.T. in reference to teaching, etc.; see Luke viii. 13, Acts viii. 14, xi. I, al., 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 13, James i. 21, where d¢xeoOa refers, not to the understand- ing, but to the reception in the heart; so rightly Syr., Copt., ith. Arm. (Theod. d:dackaArtay wh mpooteuevoy), and the majority of modern commentators. On the appropriation of Christianity, see Martensen, Chr. £thics, Part 1. § 92. popla yap KT.A.] * for they are foolishness unto him, not merely ‘seem to be’ (De Wette), but, as in ch. i. 18, actually are, the negative clause that follows (comp. Luke 1. 20) substantially repeating the same idea: the object is foolishness to the subject (‘quasi stultorum voces nihil significan- tes,’ Grot.), and (not ‘neither can he,’ Auth., which would imply od5é, comp. Rom. viii. 7) the subject cannot under- stand the nature of the object; see Hofmann 77 /oc. Stu mvevparuKas avakplverat] ‘because they are spiritu- ally judged of ;’ and only so, —‘non- nisi spiritualiter,’ Bengel. The adverb, as Meyer rightly remarks, refers not to the man’s spirit, but to the Holy Spirit (comp. ver. 13), which enlightens the human spirit, and gives the needed power of discernment; 6 tis Tod Tlvev- patos xdpitos Hkwuévos, altos mev ikavds érépous diSdkat, Tis 5¢ éErépwy Sidackaadlas ovx evdens, Theod. The verb avaxpivew is only used by St. Paul in this Epistle: it occurs in its forensic sense Luke xxii. “FS, Acts ivo 0) ail 19, xxiv. 9, xxviii. 18, and once, Acts xvii. 11, as here, in the general sense of ‘ proving,’ ‘coming to a judgment on:’ dvaxpivdue- vos: ékera(duevos, Hesychius ; avaxpivew kat eAeyxew eotiv, Chrys. 77 loc. 15. 6 8 mvevparicds] ‘But the spir- ztual man,’ whether hearer or other- wise: ‘pulchre additur hic articulus; uxinds sine articulo,’ Bengel. The mvevuatikds (opp. to the Wuxucds, comp. ver. 14) is the man whose human mvedua, is illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and in whom it is the predominant influence ; see above on ver. 14. The existence of the mvedua as distinct from the wuxh is denied by Hofmann, zz doc. and Schriftbeweis, Vol. 1. 294, Rothe, Dag- matik, Part I. § 62, and by a few recent writers ; but without sufficient grounds. It may be admitted that man’s nature is often referred to in Scripture xara dixotoulay, viz. as composed of a ma- terial and an immaterial part, but it is always equally true that this immaterial 68 KpiVETat. ¢ al \ lel an nets dé voov Xpiotov Exopev. part is regarded, especially in the N.T., as composed of two elements, soul and spirit, which are not merely nominally, but actually and essentially, distinct: see the short but careful treatise in Olsh. Ofuscula, pp. 143-163, Schubert, Gesch. der Seele, Vol. 1. pp. 495-516, Plitt, Evang. Glaubensl. Vol. 1. pp. 212- 210. mavra] ‘all things, whether personal or impersonal, spiritual or natural: ‘the divinely illuminated man has the appropriate standard for every- thing,’ Neander. Whatsoever things fall within the scope-of the judgment are judged of by the mvevyarinds, the illumination of the Holy Ghost supply- ing him with the necessary power. No better illustration of the truth of this can be supplied than that which is furnished by the Apostle himself (Meyer), and by the marvellous force and clearness of his own judgments on the various matters (as for example in this very Epistle) that came before him,—lawsuits of Christians, ch. vi. I-4; marriage and its various aspects, ch. vii. 1 sq.; slavery, ch. vii. 20 sq., woman’s position, ch. xi. 3 sq., Xiv. 34 sq.; speaking with tongues, ch. xiv. 6 sq. In all these things we see the wide scope of the dvdxpiors. According to Aristotle (Zthzc, 3. 4) it is the orovdaios who Exacta Kplvet 6p0ds ; but how is the omovéatos to be defined? comp. Est. 27 loc. avros St K.7.A.] ‘but he himself is judged of by no one,’ scil. who is not mvevpatinéds (comp. ch. xiv. 29), this limitation being really involved in the first and affirmative clause of the verse. The stand-point of the spiritual man is too high for any- one not similarly placed to pass a judgment upon him; comp. 1 John iv. I, where a power of testing and judging 1 CORINTHIANS. [Cuap. II. 15, 16. ris yap éyvw voov Kupiov, 0s cupBiBace avrov ; is assumed on the part of those ad- dressed, and rules given for rightly exercising it. 16. tls yap «.t.A.] ‘Hor who hath known,’ or,—to preserve the aoristic form,— ‘who ever knew ;’ confirmation (ydp) of the clause immediately pre- ceding by a quotation from Isaiah, ch. xl. 13, comp. Rom. xi. 34; to be able to judge of the mvevyarixéds, a man must not only have, as we have, the mind of Christ, but must even be able to in- struct Him. The complete syllogism would be as follows: ‘no one (scil. ‘qui merus homo sit,’ Bengel) knows the mind of the Lord, and can thus be able to instruct Him; but we who are mvevparicot have the mind of Christ ; it follows then that we cannot be known, and so be judged of or instructed by anyone who is not a mvevyarixds as we are.’ In the quotation Képtos obviously refers to God; here however, as used by St. Paul, it refers as obviously to Christ, otherwise the minor of the syllogism would have no logical force. Such interchanges are evidences of no slight weight of St. Paul’s innermost conviction of the Godhead of Christ. vovv Kuplov the mind of the Lord; not, ‘the spirit of the Lord’ (Neander), and hardly so little as ‘the intent and disposition of the Lord’ (Alf.), but, generally, His mnd,— alike the willing and the thinking faculty: see especially the clear and thoughtful comments of Delitzsch, B7b/. Psychol. iv. 5, p. 212 sq. (Transl.). The omission of the article is probably due to the principle of correlation: the gen. Kuplov is, as not unfrequently in that case (Winer, Gr. § 19, I, s. v.), used here without the article; being absent from the governed noun it is absent also from the govern- Cuap. II. 16.-III. 1. 1 CORINTHIANS. 69 I have been constrained, phave been constrained, IIT. Kayo, adedpoi, ove 7dvv7iOnv radjoar among you, to treat you as men of carnal minds. III. 1. Kay] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., kad éyd. gapkivas] So the above critical editions, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. capkixois The reading of Rec. is defended by Reiche, Comment. Crit. Part 1. p. 138, with con- siderable plausibility: the critical evidence, however, seems conclusive for the less usual form. ing noun; see notesoz Zph. v.8. The word vois is etymologically connected with T'NQ, Sancr. ga, and primarily involves the ideas of perception and knowledge; see Curtius, Griech. Etym. p- 163 (ed. 2), Pott, Ztym. Forsch. Vol. I. p. 182 sq. (ed. 1), Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 143. On the distinction be- tween vods and mvedua, see notes oz Phil, iv. 7, and on 1 Tim. vi. 5. 8s cupBiBacer] ‘ who shall instruct, i.e. ‘so as to instruct, Syr., al.— the relative sentence here approximating to the final, and the és having something of the force of &ore: see Kriger, Sprachl. § 51. 13. 10, Jelf, Gr. § 836. 4. The meaning of ovpBi8. is properly ‘to put together’ (comp. Eph. iv. 16, Col. ii. 2, 19, and notes zz /occ.), but, in later Greek, as here, has the naturally derived meaning ‘izstruere, scil. ‘docere;’ Hesych. cupBiBa- diddonw; Suid. cupBiBd wr diddonwy : see exx. in Wetst. Zest. Vol. 11. p. 109. It only occurs in two other passages, viz. Acts ix. 22, where the meaning is ‘to prove or demonstrate’ (comp. Syr. 27 /oc.) and in Acts xvi. 10, where it implies to ‘conclude’ or ‘ draw a clear inference ;’ ‘certi facti,’ Vulg., erorxaCduevor, Chrys. Hpets 88 «.t.A.] ‘det we have the mind of Christ, scil. we who are mvevyatikol. So close is the union of Christ with the true believer, so truly does Christ dwell in him (Rom. viii. 10, Gal. ii. 20, Eph. iii. 17), and he in Christ (John xv. 4 sq.), that not merely @cidés tis vods (Cyril, ap. Cramer, Ca/.) but the very mind of Christ is vouchsafed to him by the Holy Ghost. On this ‘unio mys- tica,’ and the sanctification which is its immediate consequence, see Rothe, Dogmatik, Ul. 2, § 71, p. 250, Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 1. p. 133, Hutter Redi- vivus, § 116, p. 287, and comp. Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. 2. 3. The reading Kuplov (for Xpicrod) is well supported (Zachm., with BD'FG; Aug., Boern., al. ; Lat. Ff), but the probability of a conformation to the preceding Kuplov is so great that we seem fully justified, with Zisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and fort, in retaining the Received Text. Ill. 1-4. Lxemplification of the Soregoing principles in the labors of the Apostle at Corinth. 1. Kaya] ‘And J too, acted on the principle above specified; the rai sug- gesting that the Apostle was con- strained to regard the Corinthians as Wuxucol, and to act as any other mvevua- tixds must have acted towards them. The 7duvndnv skilfully mitigates the feelings which might have been called Out: Kad@s 5é elie, 7d, ovK HOUYHOnY, iva Bh Bdkn 5d POdvov adrois rd TeAeidTepov Kh eimetv, Theoph.; see also Chrys. cz :; loc. GAN ds capklvors] ‘but (vas compelled to speak to you) as unto fleshly men ;’ the affirmative sentence natu- rally emerging out of the preceding negative one; see Jelf, Gr. § 896. 9. The exact meaning of the term capki- vos is slightly doubtful. Besides this 70 ‘ 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap! TE. "1,2; € lal € a > ’ rR ul ig / > Lal bpivy WS TVEvpATLKOIS GAN @S capkivols, WS VnTloWs ev XpioTe. 2ydha was erotica, ov Bpdua, ovTw yap edvvacbe: * adn’ ovdé 2. The Received Text must be changed in this verse in three particulars, with Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev. [in 1st and 3rd] Westc. and Hort. (1) The kai must be omitted before ov, on very clearly preponderating authority; (2) édvvacbe must be read instead of 7ddvacGe, on greatly preponderating authority ; and (3) ovdé instead of ore, on very greatly preponderating authority. Lachm., and Westc. and Hort place ér in brackets, but on the sole uncial authority of B. passage it is found (without any varia- tion of reading) in 2 Cor. iii. 3, and (according to the best text) in Rom. vii. 14 and Heb. vii. 16. In these two latter passages and in the present verse it is deemed by Fritz (Rom. Z.c.) and others as only a transcriber’s mistake for capxiuds. Others, admitting the reading, deny any real distinction be- tween the adjectives. This, however, does not seem lexically correct. Here, as usually, the termination in -wos marks the fuller presence of the ele- ment or quality of the substantive (see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 41. II. 19, and comp. Lobeck, Pathol. p. 200), and is apparently deliberately chosen. The Corinthians were regarded by the Apostle @s odpkiwor,—as, and as in the light of (on this use of s, see note on Eph. v. 22), men of flesh: not merely men ethically influenced by it (carnales), but wholly composed of it (carnei): see Trench, Syzon. § 72, p. 257. sq. (ed. 7), and also Hofmann zz loc. (who regards caprixés as equivalent to eivat kaT& odpKa, and cdpkuvos to eivat év oapki), and Delitzsch, oz Hed. vii. 16. On the distinction between capxixéds and uxinds, see notes on ver. 3. as vaio év Xpirra] ‘as unto babes in Christ, opp. to reAetots év Xp. (Col. i. 28): further specification of the spiritual state of the Corinthians ; they were, in relation to Christ, at the very commencement of spiritual life. Par- allel ermressions are cited from Rab- binical writers by Schoettg. 2 Zoc., and by Lightfoot. “or. Hebr. (in Loc.); comp. Buxtorf, Zex. Talm. p. 962. The ev Xpior@, as usually, denotes the sphere in which they were vjmot: they had been baptized and so were in Christ, but in reference to their prog- ress (comp. Grot.) they were very babes. On the expression év Xp., see notes oz Gala. 17, v.10, p72. 4.) 0, d.1O,ale, ane see Hooker, Serm. 111. Vol. III. p. 763, Martensen, Dogm. § 176, p. 325 (Transl.). 2. yada twas émdética] ‘7 gave you milk to drink,’ — scil. elementary teach- ing (amAovotépa didacKadAla, Theoph.), or, in other words, tov tis apxis Tov Xpiocrod Adyov, Heb. vi. 1; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 2. The contrast is Bp@ua (oreped tpopy, Origen), which suitably repre- sents the teAesorépa SidacKadrla (The- oph.) and deeper teaching of evangel- ical truths. On the very intelligible zeugma (érética ... Bp@ua) see Winer, Gr. § 66. 2, Wilke, WV. Z. Rhet, § 33. dd, p- 130; and on the meanings and con- struction of morfw, the elaborate note of Valcken. Scho/. Vol. I. p. 140. © otra yap ivacbe] ‘for ye were not yet strong enough ;’? the verb being here used absolutely, as in earlier Greek (Plato, AZen0, p. 77 B, Xenoph. Azad. IV. 5. 11, al.), and not uncommonly in later Greek (1 Mace. v. 41, Polyb. 2st. II. 49. 1), and marking generally their state of spiritual powerlessness; 5a TovTo ov Svivavtat, didTs ov OéAovcrt mvev- Cuap. III. 2-3. x a Uy ” \ tLe ) ére vov Svvacbe* étt yap capKixol éaTe. 1 CORINTHIANS. 1 4 \ > C2 ~ O7rou yap ev wutv Eros Kal Epis, ovyl capKixol éote Kai Kata avOpwirov TepiTatéite ; 3. Epis, ovxi K.T.A.] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on what must be deemed clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds nal Sixooracta after Eps. It may be admitted that it is not exactly easy to see how the words kal dixooractat came to be inserted, unless we are to suppose that the insertion arose from some remembrance of Gal v. 20. parttKol eivat, Theoph. : apparently Copt., fith., Arm., and most modern com- mentators. GAN’ ob8é ert viv Sv- vac-Qe] ‘zay, nor even now are ye strong enough.’ Yet, as Meyer observes, we have in ch. xv. a clear case of Bpdua. This, however, may be accounted for, not by the apologetic aspects of the chapter (ver. 12), but simply by the fact that Christ’s resurrection and, consequently, our resurrection, was really an elementary truth; the Apostle preached rdy “Ingobdy kal thy avdotacw (Acts xvii. 13; see Meyer 7 Joc.) to men that were even more vfmo than the Corinthians. On the formula &Av’ avdé (‘at ne—guidem, or. ‘gquin ne— guidem,’ Fritz. Marc. p. 157), see notes on Gal. ii. 3, where the expression is shortly discussed. It may be observed that Westc. and Hort make these words commence anew paragraph. The sort of rhetorical link between the édtvace and the SivacGe that fol- lows it seems to be too strong thus to be broken. 3. wapKkikol] ‘carzal.’ The Apostle now passes to the more ethically dis- tinctive and more really reproachful word. The distinction in meaning between this word and gdpkwos has already been noticed on ver. 1; it re- mains only to notice how it differs from yvuyxinds, this being the epithet that would naturally have suggested itself from the closing verses of the last chapter. The difference would seem to be this. The wuxinds is the natural man, and who, as such, is xwpls Xpicrod (Eph. ii. 12), and has never experienced the regenerating influences of the Holy Ghost. The capxikés, however, is one who has received the ordinary gifts of the Spirit, but who, nevertheless, has yielded to the power of the odpé, in the great struggle (Gal. v. 17), and has become a kata odpka On the true meaning of odpé, and so of capkikds, see notes and references on ch. i. 26, oz Gal. v. 16, and oz Col. ii. II. Srrov yap] ‘for where,’ — hardly so much as ‘ whereas,’ Auth. (‘cum enim,’ Vulg.), the local idea still being distinctly traceable, both here and even 2 Pet. ii. 11, and the meaning being ‘in cases where;’ so rightly, Bengel, ‘ubi.’ That the particle may sometimes have an ap- proximately causal sense cannot per- haps be denied (see exx. in Palm. u Rost, Zex. s.v.); where, however, the proper meaning caz be maintained it seems our duty to maintain it. tAdos Kat epis] ‘envy and contention ;’ ‘specified in equally close connection, but in a different order, among the works of the flesh, in Gal. v. 20. The present order is perhaps the more exact; mathp yap 6 (ijAos ths epidos, Theoph. kata d&vOpwtrov treputra- tetre] ‘walk after the manner of men ;’ ‘sequuntur naturz ductum,’ Calvin. On the various meanings of kara &vOpw- mov (‘humano more,’ Bengel), see Fritz Rom. iil. 5, Vol. I. p. 160; and on the metaphorical meaning of mepimrareiv (‘course of life in its practical aspects and manifestations ’) see notes on Phil. TEpLTAT OV. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. III. 3-5. 72 *orav yap réyn Tis “Eyo pév eis Tlavnov, érepos 8é “Eyo "ATrorrd, otk avOpwtroi éoTe ; I and Apollos are but Jaborers 5'J'/ pry 2 is Pos bet Yeo rede Rene ee Ti otv éotw ’AtroAXws ; Ti bé eotw foundation. What is built thereon will be sharply tested at the last day. 4. ovk &vOpwrol éore ] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, the ove resting on clearly, and the-&6pwmo: on greatly, preponderating authority: Rec., ovx) capkixot éore. 5. Ti—t] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on prepon- derating authority, correction being here especially probable: Rec., Tls —ris. The order ’AmoAAés —TadAos is also adopted in the above-mentioned edd. on very greatly preponderating authority: ec. inverts, and omits the second éoriv, on clearly insufficient authority. Lastly @Aa’ # is found in Rec. before didkovo, but rejected by the above-mentioned edd. on very greatly preponder- ating authority. iii. 18, and oz 1 Thess. iv. 12; comp. also Suicer, Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. Il. p. 679. The gloss of Estius is thus per- fectly correct, ‘affectus humanos et carnales in vita et actionibus suis os- tendere:’ the true idea being not merely capkixd kal avOpémiva kal mpdovyera gpovety (Theoph.), but the manifestation of the same in the ‘agendi vivendique ratio.’ 4. 8rav yap Aéyy Tis] ‘for when one saith ;’ confirmation of the statement involved in the preceding question. The 8ray is obviously not ‘while’ (Auth.), but, as always in the N.T., retains its conditioned temporal sense; ‘in each case when such party spirit is shown are ye not verily men?’ comp. Hofmann 77 Zoc. eyo pev «tA, ‘IT am of Paul, and another, I am of Afolios.’ The Apostle here only speci- fies two parties (contrast ch. i. 12), not perhaps from any studied refer- ence in what immediately follows to the differences between those who claimed to be of the Apollos party and himself (Meyer), but, most probably, simply from the fact that he and Apol- los had personally most to do with the Corinthian Church, and were thus the two names that it was most natural for him to use in illustration of the ¢jjAos and épis specified in ver. 3; comp. ch. iv. 6. ovk dvOpwrol éore] ‘are ye not mere men ?’?— walkers kata &vOpwrov, ver. 3? That &@pwro here involves no depreciatory meaning (Hofmann) can- not be maintained in the face of the context. It is of course admitted that the word does not necessarily imply any depreciatory meaning, even when closely associated with the expression kata &vOpwrov (compare Gal. iii. 15); but when the meaning of the kara &vOpwrov, as here, is clearly specified by the context, and &@pwro, in a somewhat unusual question, imme- diately follows, all sound principles of interpretation appear to justify our as- signing to the word in the second case the same meaning that it has in the first. In all such cases the shade of meaning is to be sought for, not in the word, but in the context: comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. VI. 2. 4, émelmep tvOpw- mol éouev auddrepot. 5-15. Specification of the relation be- tween Apollos and himself, and thence of the duties and responsibilities of Christian teachers generally. 5. Tt obv «.r.X.] ‘ What then is Apollos ? and what is Paul?’ the rl conveying Cuap. III. 5, 6. tT CORINTHIANS: 73 lol 3 > @ > LA x € , id id ¢ TIadnos ; Sidxovor 60 av emictevoate, Kat ExdoT@ ws 6 Kupsos EOWKED. more broadly and generally than the masc. (comp. Winer, Gr. § 27. 5, Bern- hardy, Syzz. VII. 4, p. 336) the abstract idea of the subject referred to, ‘What is there really in either one or the other?’ comp. notes oz Gad. iii. 19. The exact reference of oy is perhaps slightly doubtful. It certainly might be referred to the clause immediately preceding (Hofmann), and so be held to justify Hofmann’s rendering of the &vOpwro. (‘Menschen, und nicht ge- ringeres’) in ver. 4, but is much more naturally taken, in its common re¢ro- spective sense (‘redit ad institutum,’ Bengel), in reference to the whole tenor of the preceding verse, — ‘ there being such party-spirit, and so openly dis- played, I must ask the question :’ (see Donalds. Gr. § 548, Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 717 sq. and the notes and reff. GeeG eis by £27070. atl. Te Sidkovor] ‘ mzz7sters, — and so not heads of sects or parties; ‘non autores fidei vestree, sed ministri duntaxat,’ Erasmus 77 Joc. On the meaning and true derivation of Sidkovos, see notes on Eph. iii. 7. SU dv émoretoate] ‘through whom ye believed :’ ‘per quos, non zz guos, Bengel, The general term émotevoate refers primarily to the first introduction into the faith (Rom. xiii. 11), but, as the context seems to suggest, may also refer to subsequent stages. It is proper, how- ever, to say that if this had been in- tended by the Apostle to be very dis- tinctly marked, he would have used the perfect remoredeare: comp. I John Venlo; 2 Wim. i. 02,-aly, Kal éxdorTe k.t.A] ‘and as the Lord gave unto each ;’ the «af having its fullest force (‘et quidem,’ Kiihner, Gr. § 521. 2), and adding a further detail to what was already specified; see in reference to 10 Séym éputevoa, “AToANwS EroTIcEeV, GANA O Oeos this and other uses of kat, the notes on Phil. iv. 12, and comp. also notes on Gal. vi. 16. For’examples of a similar position of the éxdorw, comp. ch. vii. 17, and Rom. xii. 3: it is ob- viously due to the stress which the Apostle wished to lay on the added fact that each of these didcovo: had his specially given powers; ‘ministri Dei sunt, iique diversa habentes ministeria,’ Est. ; o05€ abd Td wikpdy 7d Tis Siakovias Tapa éavtay Exouev, GAA Kal TOTO Tapa Tov Kuplou eiAnpauey &AAOS BAAW LETpY, Theoph. To refer éxdotw to the hearers, sc. each one of those who believed (see Alf.), is out of harmony with the context, which clearly only refers to the teachers, —the ‘doctores de quibus hic agitur,’ Vorst. The exact reference of 6 Kupios is perhaps slightly doubtful: the context (ver.6, 9, 10), however, seems to decide in favor of the reference being to God (Chrys., al.), rather than to Christ, as Theoph., Maier, al.; comp. 2 Cor. vi. 4. 6. épirevora] ‘ planted,’ scil. the faith of Christ in the Corinthian Church; mp@tos KatéBadoy toy Adyov, Chrys. The faith of the Corinthians is regarded as a plant which the Apostle placed in the earth, and which was watered by Apollos. Hofmann (zz Zoc.) objects to this separation between the acts, but certaimly without sufficient reason: in the inspired narrative (Acts xviii. 27- xix. I) differences of agency seem clearly implied; see ver. 27 (d.c.), cuveBdAeTo TOAY Tots TemorTevKdoW did Ths xapitos, where the latter verb and tense is certainly noticeable. éméticev] ‘watered:’ ‘rigare est doc- trine Christiane jam plantate et fundate superaddere preecepta, quibus conservetur et augeatur,’ Menoch. zz loc. nitavev] ‘was giving the 74 nuéaver. 7 6 avEavwv Ocos. dé tov iSvov pucOov Anprperar Kata Tov idiov KoTroY. growth: imperfect; the acts of the ministers are expressed by aorists, the continued gracious power of God by the more suitable tense; comp. Wordsw. zz foc. The distinction is not marked in any of the Vv. and is even obliterated by Theoph., 6 eds niinoey buas. 7. wore] ‘So then,’— consequence immediately flowing from the preceding statement, the particle, as usual, de- noting, ‘consecutionem ‘alicujus rei ex antecedentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p- 771. On the difference between éore with indic., as here, and with the infin., see Donalds. Gr. § 596, Kiihner. Gr. § 586. 1, and notes o Gai. ii. 13. éorty ti] ‘2s anything (whatever) ;’ not merely ‘anything of importance’ (comp. Acts v. 36, Gal. ii. 6, and notes im @oc.), but really ‘anything at all,’ when compared with 6 avdidvwy Ocds: so rightly Chrys., ovdév éoruv. GAN 6 avé&dvev Oeds] ‘but God that giveth the growth,’ sc. ‘is everything,’— the grammatical supplement being éoti tt, but the obvious contextual supple- ment being T4 mdyta, ‘adeo, quia solus, omnia,’ Bengel; comp. ch. vii. 19, and for examples of this very intelligible brachylogy, see Jelf. MG § 893, Wilke. Rhetorik, § 32. a, p. 12 8, 6 dutedwv 8 x. oe ] ‘Now oe that planteth and he that watereth are one,— scil. in reference to their ministeria duty (kara thy droupyiay, Theod.), and the oneness of spirit (Hofmann) which a faithful discharge of it necessarily implied: transition from the workers and their work to the consideration of their relations to each other, and, subse- quently, of their recompense. The first clause of the verse states that though different in the external form 1 CORINTHIANS. CuapP. III. 6-9. wate ovTe 6 huTevwv éotiv TL ovTE 6 TroTifwy, GAN 8 € (A \ 0 WI 4 tf iA > isa 6 putevov Sé Kai 0 TOTiSwY Ev Elow, EXaTTOS 9 Mcod of their working they are one in the inward principle of it (comp. Theod.) : the second clause adds the further statement, that though thus one, yet that they will have rewards propor- tioned to the nature and amount of individual labor. éxacros 8 K.T.A.] ‘yet each one shall receive his own reward according to his own toil :’ Hh poBod, tt eimov, Br ev ciot.... emet mévwv €vekev OUK Elolv, GAAG ExaoTos ToY YWiov micddyv Ahera, Chrys. The em- phasis obviously rests on the twice repeated Y.ov: individuality in toil will have individuality in reward. On the meaning and derivation of kézos (‘molestus labor’), see notes on I Thess. i. 3, ii. 9. It is probably here used in preference to épyov for the reason alluded to by Theophylact,— rt yap ei Epyov ovn éréAccev ; exotiage 5é: comp. Bengel. 9g. Ocod yap «t.A.] ‘For we are Goa’s fellow-laborers,— God’s, and so certain of a reward according to our works and deservings, comp. Rom. ii. 659: confirmation, not of the whole preceding verse (Osiand.), but of the assertion immediately preceding, the emphasis obviously resting on the word @cod, both in this and in the succeeding clauses. DeWette regards the present verse rather as a summary of what had preceded, but thus obscures the force of the yap, which here certainly seems to be coxjirmatory rather than explana- tory. On this latter use see notes ov Gal. ii. 6. It is hardly necessary to add that the elevating statement @Qeov cuvepyot cannot here possibly mean ‘fellow-laborers for, or, in reference to, God,’ but, in accordance with regular and grammatical usage, simply ‘ Dei adjutores,’ Vulg., Copt. (‘socii opera- Cuap. III. 9. to. TC Om PNiivE lr AUNTS... 15 / > / . lal , lal 3 / ’ yap éopev avvepyoi: Ocov yewpy.ov, Ocov oiKooouN éaTe. 0 Kata tv yapw Tod Ocod tiv Soleicdy por ws copos apyt- TéextT@v Oewerdov €Onka, aGAXdos Sé éerrovKodoUE?. éxaotos 6€ Bre- 10. 2@nxa] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., Té@eKa,—a correction perhaps designed to mark more precisely the time of the act referred to. tores’), Aith., al.; comp. 1 Thess. iii. 2, Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21, Phil. ii. 25, al.. and see Bernhardy, Syzt. Ill. 49, p- 171, Jelf, Gr. § 519. The expression is well elucidated by Mark xvi. 20; comp. Estius zz Joc. Ocod yedpyrov KTA.] ‘ye are God's field, God’s building, scil. His field in which we labor, His building which we strive to raise; the first metaphor being in accordance with the foregoing imagery (ver. 6-8), the latter serving to intro- duce that which follows. The word yewpytov (‘verbum late pateng, agrum, hortum, vineam complectens,’ Bengel) is here obviovsly in its concrete sense,— not ‘agricolatio, Erasmus (comp. Clarom., Vulg., Copt., Arm., al.; see Ecclus. xxvii. 6), but ‘ager’ (&ypos, Chrys.), in accordance with the asso- ciated concrete subst. oirodouh: comp. Prov. xxiv. 30, xxxi. 6, and see the examples in Steph. Zesazz.s. v. Vol. II. p. 602 (ed. Hase and Dindorf.) The general drift of the verse is rightly explained by Chrys. as a further implied argument for unity; ‘if ye are God’s field and building there ought to be unity, and not parties and factions ; ‘ see also Hofmann 27 oc. IO. KaTa Tiv KXapwv K.T.A.] § According to the grace which was given unto me, generally as an Apostle, and specially as a founder of the Corinthian Church ;’ see Hofmann zz /oc., and comp. Rom. xv. 20. The Apostle desires promi- nently to mark that all his wisdom and power came from God (‘refert ad Deum omnia,’ Calvin), and that it was owing to that alone that he was enabled to do the work of the codbds apxitextwy ; see Chrys. and Theoph. zz loc. @s gods apXitéxrav] ‘as a skilful master builder, acting in such a character; the @s marking the aspect under which he sought to do his work (see notes oz Eph. v. 22, Col. iii. 23), and the co@és having here its derivative, but by no means uncommon, meaning, ‘peritus,’ Bengel, al.,; iAdrexvos, Hesych.; comp. Isaiah iii. 5, Exod. xxxv. 10, and the exx. collected by Wetst. 7 loc. Oepédvov eOnka] ‘I lad the foundation ;’ comp. Acts xviii. I sq. The word @eueédios is properly an adjective (OewéAror AiOo1, Aristoph. Av. 1137), but is used most commonly absolutely, not only in the plural, Thucyd. 77st. 1. 93, but, as here, in the singular; see Eph. ii. 20, 1 Tim. vi. 19. The gender (@euéAsos or @eucAtov) is often indeterminate; here, however, it is clearly masculine; see ver. 11. The @euéduos is here, as the context shows, Jesus Christ (ver. 11): on Him, preached objectively and historically, and accepted in the heart subjectively, rested in security the Corinthian Church. dos Sé érrokodopet] ‘ard (the copulative ele- ment in this particle here predominat- ing; see Kiihner, Gr. § 532. 1) another builds thereupon ;’ this ‘other’ being any teacher who followed the Apostle and essayed to build up the Corinthian Church. The reference is not specially to Apollos, but is’ studiously left un- defined and general; ‘alius, quisquis est,’ Bengel. TOS errorkodopet] ‘how he builds thereupon ;’ not ‘quam 76 TETO TOS €TrOLKOOOMEL. 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAPA IIT, 12. 1 Meuédvov yap addov ovdes SvvaTau 6 ~ \ \ / ov b im al x , 12 .? dé elvat Tapa TOV KELMLEVOV, OS EOTLV NOOVUS PloTos. €l O€ TLS ind ‘x ies} \ \ UA / ? , / s €rroLKodopmel emt TOV Oeuéduov, Ypolov, apyupLor, NiBovs Tiptous, Il. "Ingods Xpiotds] So Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponder- ating authority; Zachm., Xpirtbds "Inoods: Rec. "Incods 6 Xpiotds, but on the authority of only a few cursive mss. 12 Toy OewéArov So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds rodrov. xpuciov, apytpiov]. So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderant authority: Rec., Lachm., xpuady, &pyupov. sapienter ; quam affabre’ (Bengel), but simply, with what materials, ‘qualem doctrinam fidei in fundamento posite superaddat,’ Estius ; see ver. 12, where the materials are specified. ‘Ostendit rem esse periculi plenam,’ Grotius. 11. OcpéAvov yap «.t.A.] ‘or other foundation can no man lay:’ reason for the foregoing warning and the reference simply to the émorxodouobyTes ; it was because there could not be any other foundation than one, that atten- tion has to be directed exclusively to the superstructure. De Wette regards the ydp as suggestive of the reference of més (ver. 10), not so much to the materials (see above), as to the idea of a possible alteration of the founda- tion: ‘in building thereupon let him not alter the foundation, for etc.’ This, however, does not seem in har- mony with what follows; in ver. 12 it is simply the materials built upon the foundation that form the special sub- ject of consideration; see Maier and Hofmann zz Joc. Tapa Tov kelwevov] ‘beside that (already) laid ;’ not by the Apostle in this particular case (De Wette, al.), but, as the whole context seems to suggest, by Him who has laid it for every case, scil. by God. The change to the neutral term kelwevov seems clearly to confirm this reference : the one foundation was ever lying ready, and it was used by each founder of a Church in each individual case. When St. Paul preached Christ crucified and risen to the Corinthians, he used for them the one foundation on which alone their Church, or any other Church, could safely rest. On this use of mapé after &AAos, comp. Winer, Gr. 36. 2, and the exx. collected by Stalbaum on Plato, Przled. 51 D. *Invots Xpiords] ‘Jesus Christ ;’ the personal, Christ, who died, rose, and ascended into heaven, and who is in Himself the substance and summary of all teaching; comp. Weiss, 4702. Theol. § 32. 6, Vol. 11. p. 32 (Transl.). 12. eb 8 «t.A.] ‘But if any man buildeth ;’ continuation of the com- parison and contrast between the work of the builder and that of the layer of the foundation, the 5¢ retaining some tinge of its primary etymological force (‘further,’ ‘in the second place’), and | marking more specifically the transition of thought to the émonoddunois: see Donalds. Craz. § 155, and notes oz Gal. iii. 23. In reference to the general tenor of the verse it may be said that most expositors seem now agreed in considering that the reference is not to different buildings, but to a single building of which the different portions consist of different work and materials, some valuable and lasting (xpvuatov, «.7.A.), some but of little value and perishable (fdAa, «.7.A.); see Meyer zx loc, De Wette, al. Secondly, the materials must apparently refer, not to Cuap. III. 12, 13. 1 CORINTHIANS. TT /- , / 138 > /, x vy XN , Eva, yopTov, Kadapnv, ¥ éxaoTov TO Epyov pavepov yevnocetat: e \ co & wo er > aS Xv p NSE A n yap NEPA On O€l, OTL EV TrUPL QTTOKANUTTTETAL* KAL EKAD TOV the persons taught (Severian, al. ; comp. Hofmann, and even, to some extent, Bengel), which seems to confuse the imagery, but to the matter and sub- stance of the different teachings,— here roughly grouped into the two classes— whether ‘doctrina solida, sincera’ (Est.), on the one hand, or ‘falsa et sublesta’ (Bengel), on the other. The reference of Chrys., Theod., and most of the patristic commentators to the moral fruits of the hearers (a&per Blov, Chrys.) is plausible, but open to this grave objection—that the context seems exclusively to direct attention to the moral worth of something apper- taining to the teachers, and not to that of something appertaining to the taught. We, therefore, with some of the older (Theodorus, al.) and most modern ex- positors (Calvin, Neander, De Wette, al.) refer the materials to the doctrines and teachings of the spiritual builders : see the short but clear comment of Theodorus (Cramer, Catez.p, 61), and a sensible sermon by Saurin, Sermons, Vol. vil. p. 336 sq. (Paris, 1835). AlWovus Tiplous] ‘costly stones,’ scil. mar- ble, ‘lapides nobiles,’ Bengel, not ‘gems’ (Copt., al. ; comp. Isaiah liv. 11, 12, and Rev. xxii. 19 sq., to which Origen 77 /oc. here refers), the reference being more naturally to the usual materials of a building ; comp. Grot. 2 Zoc., who, however, goes unnecessarily into detail. 13. €xaorou] ‘ cach man’s,’—not with- out distinct emphasis. The Apostle marks the individual responsibility at- taching itself to each teacher; comp. ver. 10, €kaoTos 5¢ BAewéTw THs érrotko- Boue?; see also ver. 8. 4 yap Hpépa Syrdorer] ‘for the day shall de- clare it ;’ scil. the day of judgment, 7 ais Kolcews, Theod., ‘ universalis judicii,’ Est.; comp. Heb. x. 25, 2 Tim. i. 18, al. Other references that have been suggested, viz. — (a) the destruction of Jerusalem (Hamm, Lightf., Schoettg.), — (6) the special time when the truth will become apparent (Calvin, al.),— (c) time, in its course [Grotius, al.), or lastly, (¢) ‘dies tribulationis’ (Augus- tine, al.),—all distinctly fall short of the solemn reference to the true time of recompense (Seamdtov davévtos Ku- piov, Theodorus), and day of final man- ifestation and award. Even Hofmann, who seems often to be biassed against generally received exegesis, here adopts the current interpretation. bru év wupl aroxahimrerat] ‘because it is reveated in fire, scil. ‘in it,’ as the allsurrounding element (Bernhardy, Synt. p. 209; comp. 2 Thess. i. 8, é& doy mupds) ; reason why the day will so declare the work and teaching. To refer the verb either to 7b épyov in the first clause of the verse (Theoph., Ne- ander 2), or to Kupios, mentally sug- gested by 7 muépa (Bengel), seems distinctly inadmissible. The former reference would be tautologous; the second would import an idea not patent in the context. The mip thus cannot be any antecedent purgatorial fire (comp. Neand.), nor any metaphorical fire (‘Spiritus Domini, qui examine suo probat,’ Calvin, — who has thoroughly failed in this passage), but, simply and contextually, that associated with the hmépa (2 Thess. /.c.), sc. ‘ignis confla- grationis,’ Estius. This fire will be, by the nature of the case, ‘probatorius,’ (comp August. Exchirid. cap. 68); it will try (Soxudoe), as the natural fire tries, and will consume whatever can- not stand the test; see Saurin, Serm. Vol. vu. p. 348, and compare the cu- rious and suggestive comments of Bur- 78 ; 1 CORINTHIANS. \ ” c ar bl X\ nr TO €pyov omrolovy €oTLY TO TUp Epyov pevel 6 éerrm@Kodounoer, pucOov AjpabeTac: 13. Td wip avtd] So Lachm., Tisch., Cuap. III. 13-15. ee 5 ‘ 1427 x QUTO OOKLLACEL. €l TLWOS TO ef Tivos TO Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on pre- ponderating authority, the omission being much more likely than the insertion : Rec. omits avr. net, State of Departed, ch. VI. p. 147 sqq. The present aroxad. is what is called the ‘ethical’ present, and marks the solemn certainty of the issue; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, Schmalfeld, Syzz. § 54. 2, p. 91, and notes oz Eph. v. 5. Kal éxdorov K.t.A.] ‘and each man’s work, of what sort it ts, the fire itself shall try ;’ the éxdorov, as above, main- taining its prominence, and the clause itself carrying out further the statement in the first member of the verse, —‘ the work shall become manifest, and the fire shall test.’ It is doubtful whether épyov is to be considered as a nom. (Meyer, al.), or accus. (Syr., Copt., al.). The latter seems simpler, and is in closer harmony with the connection of the opening clause. The airéd marks that the fire by its own proper action, apart from all other agencies, will apply the test. That this test will involve something of a furifying character (contrast Bengel) can hardly be denied (consider 1 Pet. i. 6, 7, and comp. Teaching of Apostles, 16), but that it is ‘ purgatorial ’ in the commonly received sense (Est.) is inconsistent with the reference of the épyoy, and with the whole tenor of the context. 14. e& twos K.t.d.] ‘Jf any man’s work shall abide ;’ the issues of the Soxtacta and its results in each case. The future peve? (not péver, Rec.) with ei marks the issue as something re- garded purely conditional (‘ef cum indic. nihil significat praeter conditio- nem,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. U. p. 455); — if it shallso happen, be the cases many or few, likely to happen or the reverse; comp. Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, and notes oz Gala. 1: The construction of ei with a future often approximates very closely to that of édy with the subj., but still in most cases seems to present some slight shade of difference. Perhaps the following distinctions will be found in practice to be correct. When the hypoth. is connected simply with that which is predicated by the verb, —then é is used with pres. indic. ; when, however, the idea of futurity, or of the fossibility of that which is predi- cated, is also involved, —then, in the former case ef is used with the future indic.; in the latter, édy with the sub- junctive; see the comments and exx. in Kriiger, Sprach/. § 54. 9. proOdy Anprberar] ‘he shall receive wages, scil. for his work, as an up- building teacher. This sio6ds shall come from God (Meyer), as it is God’s oikodouh (ver. 9) on which the labor has been bestowed. The word pio@ds has here, in accordance with the context,’ not the more general and derivative meaning of ‘reward’ (Auth.), but its primary meaning of ‘merces;’ Phot. éyévov. The word is apparently con- nected with the Zend. mizdha (pay) and the Goth. mzzdé ; comp. Fick, Ver- gleichendes Worterb. Part I. p. 155. I5. Katakanoerat] ‘shall be burnt up, scil. by the wip which shall accom- pany the Lord’s presence (2 Thess. i. 7) and try each man’s work (ver. 13); ov oloet TOU Tupds Thy piuny, Chrys. On the form katakahoeta (Attice, Kara- kavOqoerat, comp. Thomas Mag. p. 511. The same form occurs 2 Pet. iii. 10. HAP. III. 15, 16. 1 CORINTHIANS. 79 4 , fA) , Fc de 0 , 4 €pyov Katakancetat, EnurwOynoetar, avtos d€ cwOnceTar, ovTwS \ e \ , O€ @s Ova mupos. Destroy not the temple lo God through your \contentiousness and vain-glory. {ypraOyoerar] ‘he will suffer loss ;’ simply and generally, —‘ detrimentum patieter,’ Vulg., Copt.; comp. Syr. The accus. micOdy is supplied by De- Wette, Meyer, (so also Aith., Theod.), in accordance with the prevailing struc- ture of the verb (comp. Matt. xvi. 26, Mark viii. 36, Phil. iii. 8, and exx. in Steph. Zhesaur. s.v., ed. Hase and Dind.), but here, as it would seem, un- necessarily; see Hofmann zz /oc. ‘It is not so much the loss of the pods that the Apostle wishes to mark, as the fact of loss and detriment generally, ‘damno afficietur,’) Erasmus; comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8. The contrasted relation with ow0joera is also thus better pre- served; comp. Chrys. zz oc. who para- phrases the word by yuurds elvar aoga- Aclas. avros St cwOqoerat] ‘ det he himself will be saved:’ though his work will be burnt up, and he himself left naked and lacking, he will still per- sonally be saved, as being one who had built on the only true foundation ; comp. Bengel. The reference of the verb o#(eo6a is here obviously to final salvation (cwTypia uxe@y, I Pet. i. 5), THs owrnplas atiwOnoetat, Theod. The interpretation of Chrys. and some of the Greek expositors (not, however, Theodorus, Theodoret, or Severian) aos TypnOncerat, scil. B®rTe év TH Tuph kataxaieoOa:, Theoph., is obviously out of all harmony with the context, and, as Meyer zz Joc. rightly observes, at variance both with the present re- stricted reference of mip, and with the prevailing meaning of oé{eo@a: in pas- sages such as the present ; comp. Rom. v.g. It is hardly necessary to add that the tense does not here impart any 16 QOvx« oldate OTL \ fal b \ \ A vaos Ocod é€ote Kal TO Remember your heritage, idea of mere possibility (Theod.-Mops., Grot., al.: comp. Winer, Gr. § 40. 6), but, as above, simply states what, on the given hypothesis, will be the issue; comp. Wilke, het. § 80. a, p. 257. otras St ds 81a trupds] ‘yet so as through Jire, — as through surrounding and en- circling flames, ‘eritsicut adustus igne,’ f&th.; the structure will be cuasumed, but the builder will be saved, — yet only through the flames which are consuming that which he has built; comp. Wilke, Rez. § 26. a, p. 110. So Bengel, who rightly illustrates the tenor of the clause, though by a dif- ferent image, — ut mercator naufragus, amissa merce et lucro, servatur per undas.’ The o¥tws—ds specifies, with studied exactness, how, and how only, the escape will be effected; see ch. iv. I, ix. 26, Eph. v. 33, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 60. 5. It does not seem neces- sary, with Hofmann, al., to regard the mvp in this verse as different from that specified in ver. 13. In both cases it is the fire of the last day, alike testing and judicial, ‘ignis diei novissimi et judicii divini,’ Bengel. The whole passage, as Alford rightly suggests, should be compared with Mal. iii. 1 sqq. and iv. I sq. 16-23. Warning against the destruc- tive nature of their contentions and the vain-glory from which they sprang. 16. Ovw ot8are k.t.A.[ ‘Know ye not that ye are the temple of God ;’ appeal to a well-known, though forgotten, truth (Rom. vi. 16, 1 Cor. v. 6, vi. 16, ix. 13, 24; ‘subindicat de re comperta se apud eos loqui,’ Calvin), suggested by, and resting upon, the tenor of the 80 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. III. 16, 17 la) la] Lal lal \ \ a aA IIvetua tod Ocod oixed ev twiv; “el tus Tov vaov Tod Ocod foregoing declarations ; they were the oikodouy Oeod (ver. 9), — was such an oikodoun to be marred and destroyed by the wwpia and party spirit of sectarian teachers? The reference is thus, not to the subject which immediately pre- cedes (Hofmann, al.), still less to the subject of the incestuous person (Chrys., Theod.), but to the subject and tenor of the early part of the chapter. The verses immediately preceding _ are -2 partial exransion of the latter part of ver.g: this being concluded, the Apostle appears to revert to his pri- mary and leading thought; ‘redit ad comparationem cceptam supra, a qua ad alia quedam, affinia tamen, deflex- erat,’ Grotius. So rightly De Wette, Meyer, and apparently the majority of modern expositors. vaos Ocod] Not ‘a temple of God’ (Copt., al.; compare Hofmann), but, in accordance with the tenor of the context, and of the Apostle’s im- agery elsewhere (Eph. ii. 21, comp. 2 Cor. vi. 16),— ‘¢he temple of God;’ the idea not being that of several dif- ferent vaoi, but of one ideal temple, of which each individual Church is a type and adumbration. So rightly Origen, éopmev vads of mdytes eis: Exdorou quar AlOov twds bytos amd Tod vaod: comp. De Wette and Meyer zz /oc. In cases like the present grammatical consid- erations cannot be safely pressed. Though the article is not expressed, it may be deemed latent, either (a) be- cause @eov the associated gen. is anar- throus (comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 1), or (4) because a predicative, auxiliary, or similar verb precedes (comp. Apollon. de Synt, i. 31, p. 64, ed. Bekk.), which, though not by any means necessarily involving the omission of the article, is certainly often followed, in general passages like the present, by an anar- { throus though contextually definite substantive; see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 3. Where the definiteness of the su’,_ stantive is designed to be sect ally marked, then the article is inserter] , see exx. in Winer, Gv. § 18. 7. xal 7d IIvetpo «.t.d.] ‘and that ‘as a further and illustrative fact) 72 spirit of God dwelleth in you 5 ot necessarily here, ‘in you’ as individuals (though that is a biesséd’and undoubted truth ; ; comp. Rom. viii. 9, 11, 26, 1 Cor. vi. 19, al. and see Rothe, Daogmatik, 1. § 69 sq., II. § 107), but, in accordance with the more general reference of the context, ‘among you,’ ‘in your midst ;’ comp. Ezek. xxxvii. 27, kal @o7at 4 KatacKh- vwols gov ev aitois,—a passage not improbably in the thoughts of the Apostle while writing these words. The Holy Ghost is ever the indwelling Schechinah in the Christian Church; see Herzog, Zzcycl. Vol. xu. p. 478, and comp. Martensen, Dogm. § 183, p 333 (Transl.). For a valuable sermon on this verse, see Barrow, ov the Creed. Serm. XxXxIv. Vol. VI. p. I sqq., and, on the work of the Holy Spirit, Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 129, Vol. Iv. p. 159 sqq. On this adjunctive use of kat, by which a further fact is added to enhance or illustrate what precedes, comp. notes on ver. 5, and Winer Gr. § 53. 3. The order ev duty oixe? is adopted by Westc. and “ort (7reg. marg.), on the author- ity of BP and some good cursives, and is certainly worthy of consideration, as the more emphatic position of év syiy may have been here designed and original, but corrected by copyists. 17. el tis K.T.A.] ‘ Lf any one destroys the temple of God,’ scil. by polluting it, defiling it, or in any way injuring it; comp. Deyling, Ods. Sacr. Vol. I. p. 505 sq. The verb here has thus not merely an ethical (Severian, Bengel, Cuap. IIT. 17, 18. 1 CORINTHIANS. 81 Peiper, POcpet tovTov 6 Oeos: Oo yap vaos Tov Peod ayios EoTLD, EP hg ” Y Press erin OLTLVES EOTE UMELS. 1 Mnoets éavtov e€atratatw: et tis Soxet \ L > Ora) bp] fal IA \ X f A copes civas ev viv ev TO aloe TOVTM, LwposS yevérOw, iva ainsecomp.n2 Cor. x3) Rev. xix. /2). but a physical and material sense. Outward and actual injury, however brought about, will be punished by what is no less real and outward: see below. PPepet] ‘well destroy, — emphatic (as its position shows), and predicative; ‘disperdet,’ Vulg., ‘de- struet,’ Syr., ‘perdet,’ Copt., amore Chrys. The exact meaning of the verb is slightly doubtful. It may here have a spiritual reference; but, in a sort of ‘locus communis’ like the present, seems more naturally to maintain its primary and physical sense; comp. Grotius, zz loc. The whole verse obviously has a spiritual application ; the words, however, taken fer se have in both clauses only their physical meaning. Under any circumstances, such glosses as ‘gravissime puniet,’ Schleusn., are distinctly inadmissible. The reading avréy (Zachm.) is fairly supported, but very clearly inferior in external authority to the text. &ytos] ‘Zo/y,— and so not to be pro- faned without punishment falling on the profaner. The epithet (almost an ‘epitheton solemne,’ comp. LXX, Psalm v. 7, x. 5, Hab. ii. 20) supplies the reason on which the declaration in the first member of the clause is based. The supplement 6 5€ memopyevpevos BeéBnaos (Chrys.), is in accordance with the view taken of those verses by most of the Greek expositors, but is incon- sistent with that adopted above. oitivés éore tpets] ‘the which [sc. holy] are ye,’ not ‘quod,’ Vulg., but ‘ quales,’ Maier,— the quantitative pronoun hay- . ing here its properand primary meaning; see Kriiger, Sprach/. 51. 8, and notes on Gal. iv. 23. The reasoning then II will be: God destroys the destroyer of His temple because the temple is holy ;. but ye are holy; therefore whosoever destroys you (‘ per schismata, ex mundi: sapientia,’ Bengel), him will God de- stroy. The pronoun may grammati- cally be referred to vads (see Winer, Gr. § 24. 3), but such a connection would simply be a reiteration of ver. 16, and would also hint at a plurality of temples, unless the pronoun be re- ferred to the whole clause,—‘ which kind of holy temple are ye,-—a pos- sible, but certainly less simple, view of the passage than that which would simply limit the pronoun to the fore- going emphatic epithet. 18. pydels eavrov «.7.A.] ‘ Let 20 man deceive himself, — by any false estimate of himself (r@ S5oxetv copds eivat): ex- hortation suggested by the implied reference to the false teachers in the preceding verse. The two prevailing errors were self-conceit (ver. 18-20), and party confidence (ver. 21 sq.); against both of these the Apostle now warns his readers. On the form etamatay, comp. notes oz I Zim. ii. 14. et tis Soxet K.t.A.] ‘2f any man thinks that he is wise ;’ not ‘ videtur,’ Vulg., Auth., but ‘putat,’ Syr. Copt., comp. Arm.,—the point of this ad- monitory exhortation being against the moral danger, not of a man seeming to be wise, but of his deeming that he was so; comp. Gal. vi. 3, and below, ch. viii. 2, xiv. 37, where the verb has the same subjective reference; see Bengel zz loc. év bpiv] ‘among you ;? not connected immediately with doxe? (Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm.), but with copds elvat (Clarom.), it being among his fellows that his self-esteem ’ 82 yévntas copes. 1%) yap copia lel a > / TO Ocd éotiv: yéypartar yap sought especially to show itself; SteoretAaro cimdév, év duty, Severian. The following words, év 76 alavi ToiTe, are then added to the whole clause, as defining the general sphere in which the supposed self-conceit was dis- played,— ‘in this world,’ and so under transitory and imperfect circumstances (comp. ch. i. 20, ii. 6 sq.) which mark the 8Sd«nois as additionally idle and mistaken. Two other constructions have been suggested,—(a) with codds (Grot. al.; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 17), and (2) with the words that follow (Chrys., al.; see Hofmann 27 Joc.); but the order of words is obviously against the former, and the natural antithesis (copds —pwpéds) and balance of clauses against the latter. On the meaning of aiéy, as partially distinguishable from xécos, see notes o7 Eph. i. 21. popos yevéo Ow] ‘let him become a fool,’ ‘stultus fiat,’ Vulg.; let him get rid of his false conception of himself, and receive the preaching of Christ cru- cified (ch. i. 18, 23) in its simplicity, that so he may veritably become wise; Thy %w copiay atiunodtw, va Krhonrat Thy Oeiay, Theoph. 19. H yap cola K.t.d.] ‘Hor the wis- dom of this world ts foolishness ;’ reason for the foregoing exhortation. Such wisdom ov pdvoy ovdév cuvTeAct, GAAG kat éeumodi¢e, Chrys. This copia rod KOcpou TovTou is that specified in ch. is 20, the so-called wisdom and philosophy of the then non-Christian world. mapa To Oca] ‘22 the sight or judgment of God, ‘apud Deum,’ Vulg.; comp. Rom. ii. 13, xii. 16, Acts xxvi. 8,.al., and see Winer, Gr. § 48. d, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 35. The general idea of nearness, closeness to (comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 177, Pott, Etym. Forsch., 1°*CORINTHIANS. Cuap. III. 18, 19. Tov KOGuOUV TOUTOV wwpla Tapa ‘O Spaccopevos Tovs coords év Part I. p. 463, ed. 2), seems to pass naturally into that of mental closeness, and thence of cognisance of that which is thus in juxta-position. On the local meaning of mapdé with the dative, see also notes on ch. xvi. 2, and on the subject generally (‘the wisdom of this world ’), a sermon by South, Servm. Vol. I. p. "13708daq- yéypatrra. yap] Confirmation of the foregoing clause from Scripture. The passage which follows is from Job v. 13. It differs from the LXX (6 katadapBdvev tods copots ev TH ppovnoe avTav), but ex- presses with equal, if not greater, verbal accuracy the meaning of the Hebrew pe sa 01230 AS), especially in re- gard "of the verb: see below. ) Spacadpevos] ‘he that catcheth or who catcheth,—an imperfect construction, the words in the original being part of asentence. Hence the participle; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 6, and comp. Heb. i. 7. The passage confirms the truth of the foregoing declaration, by showing how truly such wisdom must be folly, when God uses it as a very snare (see Gesen. Zhesaur. s. v. “2>) to catch those who display it; rots oikelors SmAous avtovs xetpovmevos, Chrysostom. The meaning of the verb (very rare in the active) is ‘prehendere,’ ‘manu corripere’ (Hesychius, xpareiv: see the numerous examples in Steph. Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. II. p. 1671), and appears to to be con- nected with a stem dragh [hold fast]: see Fick, Vergleich. Woérterb. Part I. p- 369. It is commonly joined with the gen., but -occasionally (Herod. II. 13; comp. Suid. s.v.) with the accusa- tive. mavoupyia] ‘ craftiness,’ ‘astutia,’ Vulg., Syr., al. Meyer appo- sitely cites Plato, MWenex. p. 247, as marking the difference between mavoup- CuarP. ITI. 19-22. DeCORINTHEAN'S: 83 fal al / A TH Tavoupyia aitav: ™ Kal madw Kupios ywowoKer tods dvado- lal a ¢ SSN / yiopovs TOY copay, OTL Elol paTaLoL. 4A" Date unoets Kavyacbw lal la , év avOparros* Travta yap tuov éotw, ™ eite IladXos cite ’Arron- yla and aodia, viz. wacd te emorhun xwpiCouevn Sixacoovyns Kal tis &AAnS apeTis mavoupyia, ov aodia, paivera. The word is scarcely a ‘vox media’ (Grot.; ‘ Allbetriebsamkeit,’ Ewald) ; at any rate here, as elsewhere in the N.T., ‘in deteriorem partem accipitur,’ Schleusn.; see Luke xx. 23, 2 Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3, Eph. iv. 14, and comp, Aristot. L£thic. Vi. 12, where it is said, in refer- ence to Sewdrns, &v uty 6 cxomds 7} Kadds, emawveTh eottv, dy 5¢ patdos tmavoupyla. 20. Kal madw] ‘And again,’ —to cite another confirmatory passage: comp. Matt. iv. 7, Rom. xv. Io, 11, Heb. i. 5, ii. 13, x. 30, al. The quota- tion is from Ps. xciv. 11, where, how- ever, the LXX has dv@pdérwv. The context is still not the less in harmony with the present adaptation ; see Hof- mann 77 doc., who has briefly noticed and explained the original passage. Staroyro pods] ‘~easonings,’—not merely ‘cogitationes,’ Vulg., the stronger sense being that in which the word is more commonly found, at any rate in the N.T. It is here the translation of the Hebrew minwmy (counsels, purposes) : comp. Wisd. vii. 20, and the numerous examples in Steph. 7hesaur. s.v. Vol. II. p. 1223, in some of which (Plato, Axioch. p. 367 A) it is associated with gpovtis; comp. also Suicer, Zhesaur. Sve VOleiap: 2795 cin Phil 14; 1 Tim. ii. 8, the meaning is somewhat different, as it apparently takes its hue from the context; see notes 27 doc. 21. “Oere] ‘ Consequently, so then ;’ admonition flowing from the general tenor of the statements of the pre- ceding section; ‘epilogus quo redit ad primam propositionem, non esse in magistris gloriandum,’ Est. The ref- erence may be to what immediately precedes (Meyer, see Phot. 7 /oc.), but seems here to involve a wider retro- spect; see Hofmann 77 /Zoc. On the present use of the particle with the imperative, in which the idea of logical consequence becomes merged in that of monition (‘itaque,’ Vulg.), see note on Phil. ii. 12, where this use of the particle is fully discussed. év avOpdrois] ‘among men,’ —shown to be thus weak and untrustworthy ; ‘[nemo] letetur quod hunc aut illum doctorem habuerit,’ Grot.; see ch. iv. ‘6, where the nature of the boasting is more exactly defined. yap tpov éoriy] ‘for all things are yours ;’ confirmation of the foregoing admonition, by showing how opposed all such sectarian boasting is to the universality of the Christian’s heritage ; comp. Rom. viii. 25 sq. As Meyer rightly observes, the apothegm of heathen philosophy (‘omnia sapientis esse’) is here presented under its higher and Christian aspects. The more specific application (‘non vos doctorum causa estis, sed illi vestri causa,’ Grotius) follows in the next verse. 22. etre Ilatdos, «.t.A.] The names that they put forward in their sectarian boastings: comp. ch. i. 12. Kéopos] ‘(¢ie) world,’ —not in its eth- ical sense (ver. 19), but, as the whole broad tenor of this noble passage in- dicates, the world in its most inclusive sense, and as that which will hereafter be included in the general KAnpovouta ; comp. Rom. iv. 13, viii. 17, 1 Cor. vi. 2. On the various meanings of the word, comp. notes oz Gal. iv. 3. and on the general sentiment conveyed by TAaVTO 84 1 CORINTHIANS. CuaP. III. 22, 23, \ ” la] ” lg ” x ” 0 / ” b] a Aas elte Kndas, elite koopos elite wn ete Cavatos, eite eveoTaTa elte péAXNovTa, TravtTa vwuov, 8 tywels d€ Xpiotov, Xpiotos 4 ’ lad p ies is Ocod. 22. mavta tuav]) So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds éoriv. the verse, Herzog, Zzcycf. Vol. Il. p. 680. elite Lot elte Sdvaros] ‘whether life or death ;’ inclusive specification in its widest aspect of the two {polar) con- ditions of everything in the kéopos. Even death itself has its aspects and purposes in this Kowh wpéAeia (Phot., comp. Theod.) of all things; comp. Phil. i. 21, Rom. xiv. 8. Any artificial limitation of the words (7 (wh, noty, tay didacKddwy, Theoph., al.) are clearly out of harmony with the tenor of this inclusive and almost impassioned ut- terance; comp. Rom. viii. 38. elre évertata elte pé\dovta] ‘whether things present, or things to come,’ sive preesentia sive futura,’ Vulg.: similarly inclusive specification of all things, whether as in being now, or to come into being hereafter. On the meaning of éveor, see notes o7 Gal.i. 4, and oz 2 Thess. ii. 2. The specification is closed with the repeated mavta tuar, which in its turn suggests the still wider and partially contrasted clauses of the following verse. 23. dpets 8& Xpiotod] ‘ But ye are Christ’s ;’? scil. belong to him, as ir avtovd KatacKkevacbevtes, Chrys., &s KTH- pata Kal moijuata, Phot.; slightly an- tithetical specification of the relation of the Spezs to Christ, —‘ but you, who thus have all things, belong to Christ, and not to men (comp. ver. 21) and their parties,’ — the 6¢ pointing, not to a latent wey in the preceding verse (‘all things indeed are thus yours,’ Riick.), but to the general tenor of the exhorta- tion, date pndels. «.7.A.; see Hofmann in loc., who has very carefully analyzed the drift of this concluding verse. Xprrrds S¢ Ocod] ‘but Christ is God's,’ — ds vids yvhaws, ek avTod yeyevynuevos, Theod., as airdv atriov exwy kata Td mateépa eivat, Chrys.; see ch. viii. 6, xi. 3, and comp. Luke ix. 20. The deep truth contained in these words is not to be limited to our Lord’s human nature (‘haec subjectio ad Christi hu- manitatem refertur,’ Calvin, compare De Wette), but to be extended gene- rally to his divine nature and Sonship. The Eternal Son ‘is from the Father, as receiving His subsistence by generation from Him’ (Pearson, Creed, Vol. I. p. 63, Oxf. 1820; comp. Jackson, Creed, Vol. vil. 222), and so bears to the Father a willing relation of holy sub- ordination in love (see especially Plitt, Lvang. Glaubenstl. Vol. 1. § 20, p. 142 sq.), without any difference or ine- quality whatever in reference to His eternal and ever-blessed Godhead; see especially Pearson, /. c., the well-known section in Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. (Works, Vol. v. p. 685 sq.), and comp. Waterl. Works, Vol. 111. p. 486 (Oxf. 1823), Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 28. 3, Vol. I. p. 357 (Transl.), Martensen, Dagm. § 56, p- 109. (Transl.), Herzog, Real-Encycl. XVI. 484 sq. and the full, but not completely satisfactory, discussion of Rothe, Dogmatik, Part I. § 21, p. 117. This is the truth which Origen felt, but could not properly express; see Dorner, Pers. of Christ, Vol. I. p. 117 sq. Chr. Doctr. § 92 6, 3, Vol. III. p. 209 sq. (Transl.) The exact purpose of this concluding clause has been differently estimated. That there may be some passing reminiscence in this . Cuap. III. 23-IV. 1. Regard us in our true light as men bound to be faithful in our office. Pass no prematurejudg- ments. verse of ch. i. 12 may perhaps be con- ceded (see Meyer, z7 /oc.), but that the present clause has a sub-polemical reference to it seems very doubtful. The Apostle seems rather to be simply borne onward to the mention of the God and Father of all (‘ad quem ut finem omnia reducuntur,’ Est.) by the natural rise of his inspired and ascend- ing thoughts; compare De Wette and Hofmann zz /oc., and see Rabiger, /- halt, der Br. an d. Kor. p. 56. IV. 1-5. Zhe right pomt of view under which Christian teachers are to be regarded, and the duty of suspending all premature judgments. I. odtws] ‘ Thus ;’ with reference to what follows, &s imnpéeras x.T-A., comp. ch. ii. 15, ix. 26, Eph. iii. 33, al. Meyer, not with- out some plausibility, refers the particle to what has just preceded (‘ex pre- cedentibus repetit,’ Bengel; comp. Wilke, 2hetorik, § 33. e, p. 134, and notes oz Lph. v. 28), but as the last verse of the preceding chapter seems climactic, and as closing the paragraph, and as there is nothing in what pre- cedes that prepares the way for the two definitions (as twnp. kad oixov.) that here follow, the asyndeton and simpler reference is to be preferred; so Vulg., Copt., and apparently ®th., Arm., Theod., al., but in such cases, owing to a similar flexibility of meaning in the particles, the view taken by some of the Vv. can scarcely be pronounced certain. &vOpwtros] ‘a man ;’ scil. ‘anyone,’ as ch. xi. 28, Gal. vi. 1, al. The use is not Hebraistic (Grot.), but is occasionally found in classical Greek (see exx. in Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. I. p. 786, ed. Hase and Dind.), and apparently in those cases where a ‘sravior dicendi formula’ than the 1 CORINTHIANS. 85 IV. Odtws judas rAoyilécPw avOpwros ws brnpétras Xpiotod Kal oikovopwovs pvotnpiov ordinary tts is required by the context. In the jas that follows, the context (ver. 6) seems to suggest a reference to the Apostle and Apollos ; comp. ch. iii. Ge tmnpétas] ‘ vz272sters,’ ‘min- istros,’ Vulg. The word is a Gat Aeydu. in St. Paul’s Epp., and is here used in its general sense (‘minister vel adjutor,’ Steph.), its distinction in meaning from didkovos being scarcely perceptible; comp. notes oz Eph. iii. 7. Any reference to the primary meaning of the word (‘subremiges,’ Wordsw.) seems completely out of the question. oixovépous K.T.A.] ‘stewards of God’s mysteries ;’ scil. of the deep truths of the Gospel dispensation, formerly un- revealed to man, but now made mani- fest by Christ Jesus; comp. Matt. xiii. 11, Rom. xi. 25, al. These holy truths (yvoo8évra wvoThpia, Origen, ‘dogmata evangelica,’ Grotius) are dispensed by the teachers and preachers of the Gospel as the goods of an earthly lord are dispensed by the steward; see Luke xii. 42, and comp. Tit. i. 7, 1 Pet. iv. 10, where, however, the use of the word is apparently rather wider and more general. On the meaning of the word pvorhpiov, see notes oz Eph. v. 32, from which it would seem that reference to the sacraments (Osiand. ; comp. the priest’s commission in the Ordination Service) cannot here be safely maintained; see Maier zz /oc., and comp. Origen (Cramer, Cutev.), where the meaning of the expression . oikov. wvor.) is very fully illustrated. 2. &8¢ Noumdv] ‘ Here furthermore, — in this position of drnpeoia and oikovopta; the particle not referring so much to physical (‘here on earth,’ Alf. ; comp. Heb. xiii. 14) as ethical locality (‘in hac rerum conditione,’ Schleusner; ‘cum eo statu res nostre sint,’ Ellendt) ; 86 1 CORINTHIANS. Ocod. evpeOy. Cuap. IV, 2, 3. 9 + \ a > a ’ , 7 r @oe Aowtrov EnTretTar év Tois olKOVOm“OLS iva TLaTOS TIS 82 \ / ? > , , 3 es ee J ead la > A A €wol O€ eis EAdxLoTOY eat iva bP Dud avaKpLOa 4) 2. Ge] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Pec., 6 dé. The reading (yrTe?re is strongly supported (Westc. and “fort, marg.) but seems to be an old correction. comp. Rom. xiii. 10, 18, xiv. 12, xvii. 9. The adverbial adjective Aordy is used as in ch. i. 16 (see notes) to mark what remained to be added to the statement of the preceding clause, and has thus somewhat of a mixed inferential and consequential force (‘ proinde igitur’), especially at the beginning of sen- tences ; see notes o7 2 77m. iv. 8. {ynretrat év Tots oikov.] ‘ 7¢ 25 sought for, or required, in stewards ;’ it is looked for in their case; oikovduov yap Td Sioixeity TA eyxetpicbevTa Kad@s, Chrys. The exx. in Wetst. are hardly pertinent, as in them (yte?ra: appears rather to have its semi-philosophical meaning of ‘in quzestione est;’ see exx. in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol. tv. p. 34 (ed. Hase and Dind.). tva morés Tis ebpeOy] ‘that a man should be found faithful, ‘ut fidelis quis inveniatur,’ Vulg.; general object of the (Arnos, the ta having here, as the context seems to require, not its primary telic force (‘in order that,’ Meyer, Alf.), but that secondary force in which design and result are somewhat blended; see Winer, Gr. § 44.8 sq., Wilke, Rhetorih, § 70. a, p. 253, notes 07 Pz/.i.0, 1 Thess. vy. 4, and (for the three uses of iva in the N. T.) notes oz Eph. i. 17. The indefinite pronoun is here used in its not uncommon sense of ‘a man,’ sc. ‘any man seeking such an office’ (‘einer,’ De Wette.; ‘ jedwelcher,’ Meyer) ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51. 16. 7, Matth. Gr. § 487.2. On the deriva- tion of this word and its connection with Sanscr. 42, Zend. czs, see Donald- son, Crat. § 149, Fick, Vergleich. Worterd. Part I. p. 42. 3. mol 8 K.7.d.] ‘ But to me it is a very small matter ;’ contrasted refer- ence to his own case, the thought im- mediately flowing from the preceding (‘so you will have to inquire about me’) being left unexpressed; comp. DeWette zz loc. In the formula eis éAdx.cTov (‘pro minimo est,’ Vulgate), the preposition is not used Hebraisti- cally (Grotius), but simply marks the result (‘it amounts to’), or the condi- tion ultimately arrzved at; see Winer, § 29. 2, and comp. Acts xix. 27, eis ovdéy Aoyio Ova. iva tp’ tpov avakpi0a] ‘that L should be judged of by you,’ the iva here again having its weakened telic force (see above, ver. 2), and being no stronger in meaning than our simple ‘that;’ comp. Matt. X. 25, xviii. 6. The meaning in fact seems to lie between the simple infin. (comp. Osiand.) and the infin. with the article (infin. ‘of design’), which last form of expression is scarcely practi- cally distinguishable from {a (in its primary telic meaning) with the sub- junctive; comp. notes oz Phil. iii. 10. avOpwrivyns tpépas] ‘ day of man’s judgment, —in antithesis to the day cf the Lord’s judgment alluded to in ver. 5; €¢ dvaxpiverOat weAAw, ev TH Tov Kuplov juepa avaxpiOjooua, Origen (Cramer, Catez.). It is really hardly necessary to add that this is neither a so-called ‘Cilicism’ (Jerome), nor a Hebraism (Schoettg.), but is simply a formula which derives its meaning very obviously from the context, and may possibly have been (see De Wette) a current expression in the time of St. Paul. The interpretation of Theodoret Cuap. IV. 3-5. 1 CORINTHIANS 87 vTo avOpwrivns nuépas* GAN ovde euavTov avaxpivw: 4 ovdév ap €uavT® cvvolda, GAN ovK év TOUTw SediKalwuaLt* oO Se ava- afy P # c t , Ru , 5) 5 oO \ S a D KPLV@V KE uptos €OTLV. OTE {7) TPO Katpouv TL KPLVETE, (avOpwmrivny 5 tucpay exdreoe 7d Tis ploews dAvyéBiov) is mistaken, and that of Theoph. (im &AAou twos avOpeérov), insufficient. GAN’ odSe epavrdv avakp.] ‘Vay, J judge not even mine own self;’ ‘the @dAdA& marking the strong contrast (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2) between the passively expressed statement in the foregoing clause and the actively expressed state- ment in the present clause, and the ovdé emphasizing the pronoun, —‘ not even in a case where avdkpiois might certainly seem to be natural and per- missible ;’ comp. Theod., ti ydp, ono, Aéyw Tovs HAAous; eyo Ta Kat’ euavTdy axptBas €uauT@, ovte abgov eyavTdy amopjvat erioTamevos ovTE Kpivat avetouat. 4. ot8tv yap ep. oivo8a] ‘for J am conscious of nothing against myself ;’ ‘nullius rei mihi conscius sum.’ Syr. ; parenthetical confirmation, or rather elucidation (ydép being here mainly in its explanatory sense; see notes on Gal. ii. 6, and Winer, Gr. § 53. 8) of the foregoing declaration that he did not judge even himself (in his minis- terial and official relations); ‘non in mentem mihi venit me in ministerio mihi credito secus quicquam fecisse,’ Grot. The phrase éuaur@ ctvoida (comp. ‘conscire mihi,’ Hor. £f7st. 1. 1. 61) is not wholly uncommon in earlier Greek (see Plato, Ago/. p. 21 B), and, in later Greek, is even of frequent occurrence; see the numerous examples cited by Wetzt. zz loc. GAN’ ovdK év Tovtw Sedux.] ‘howdeit, not in this, or hereby, am I justified ;’ contrasted, and so, rectifying statement in reference to the words immediately preceding, ‘non inde sequitur me plane ab omni culpa esse liberum,’ Grot. The negative is studiously separated from the verb with which it is, ‘quoad sensum,’ con- nected, so as to gain, by prominence in the sentence, the emphasis (‘sed non in hoc,’ Vulg.) which the preceding words naturally tend to call out. Meyer, resting on this order, presses the tech- nical meaning of ‘justified, scil. by faith: such a meaning, however, ap- pears completely alien to the context, in which moral circumstances and gen- eral accountableness seem alone before the mind of the inspired writer: comp. Hofmann and Osiander zz Joc. So rightly Estius (‘conscientia me non ac- cusans non certo me jzustum arguit’), Calvin, De Wette, and the majority of modern expositors. 6 8 avakpiveyv pe] * bat he that judges me ;’ antithetical statement of who it is that does’really judge him; the 6¢ referring to the foregoing ovd€ éuavt., avaxp., and the ovdéy—dediue. being parenthetical. The reference throughout the passage, and especially in the clause oddev euavTtg kK.T.A., is not to an avdxpiois in regard of purely spiritual and subjective mat- ters, but, as the whole tenor of the context suggests, to the Apostle’s of- ficial and ministerial position; ‘note- mus FPaulum hic non de tot& sud vita, sed tantum de Apostolatus functione loqui,’ Calvin. Kipids éoriv] ‘is the Lord ;’ scil. Christ, as shown by the immediate context; see ver. 5, éws hv &AOn 6 Kupwos. 5. “Qore pi k.7.d.] ‘So then pass no judgment’ (uh kplvere kpiow tTwd, comp. John vii. 24) either on me or on others; consequence (‘itaque,’ Vulgate, —not ‘proinde,’ Calvin, Beza, which less pre- 88 1 CORINTHIANS. ([Cuap. IV. 5. €ws dv On 6 Kuptos, 6s kal hwtices Ta KpuTTAa TOU oKOTOUS fal lal \ / e bad kai havepwoer tas BovrAas THY Kapdiav* Kai TOTE 6 Emawwos , ls 4 > \ nr la yevnoetas ExdoT@ ato ToD Ocod cisely marks the blended consequence and retrospect included in the particle) immediately flowing from the preceding clause; ‘as it is Christ that judgeth me (‘dijudicat’), wait till He comes, and do not pass any judgment (‘fillet ein Urtheil,’ De Wette; comp. Syr. ‘sitis judices’) on me before ‘the time.’ The exhortation is thus not merely general (see Est. zz /oc.), but special in its reference to the Apostle, und to the particular circumstances to which he is here alluding. On the force of éore with imperatival clauses, see notes on ch. iii. 21, and comp. Wilke, “et. § 81, p. 265. mpd Ka.pod] ‘before the time,’ scil. the right and proper time, mpooykovtos Kcipov, Chrys.; comp. Matt. viii. 29. The exact meaning is added epexegetically in the words that follow. twos av UOy 6 Kipros] ‘until the Lord shall have come ;° ex- planation of the mpd kaipot. The &p marks the coming, not in any way as contingent or doubtful, but as undefined as to the exact period of its happening (‘when the Lord shall come. — when- ever that may be’); comp. Matt. xvi. 28, Mark ix. 2, Luke ix. 27, al., and see Herm. de Part. tw, p. 65 sq., Har- tung, Partik. Vol. Il. p. 291, Winer, Gr. § 42. 5. 8s kal hotioe K.t.d.] ‘who shall also bring to light (‘lucem inferet in,’ Bengel) the hidden thing: of darkness :’ not only shall He come to judge, but in that coming and judging He shall also make manifest all that is secret and hidden ; d:atewe? 7d vedos, Chrys. The gen. Tod oxérous is apparently a so-called gen. of fossession,— the hidden things that are surrounded by and enveloped in darkness, ‘ tenebris implicita,’ Calvin, ‘in tenebris gesta aut reposita,’ Est.; comp. (with a personal genitive) Rom. ii. £6; Hicclus. 1.30, al. Por exx Jof gwtifew with an accus. vez (eis as &yew, Suid., ets weoov &yew, Chrys.), see 2 Tim. i. 10, Ecclus. xxiv. 32, and the good collection in Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. vill. p. 1208 (ed. Hase and Dindorf). Kal havepdoet k.T.A.] ‘and shall make manifest the counsels of the hearts ;’ closer specification of the foregoing general expression : ‘sane cor hominis crypta est,’ Bengel; comp. Rom. ii. 16. The true character and motives, not only of the Apostle but of the other teachers, will thex be made manifest, and the due praise (6 émaivos) will be awarded to each from God (emphatic; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 606. 3),— through Christ as the judge; comp. John v. 27, Acts x. 42, Rom. ii. 16, al. The Corinthians, then, were to wait, and not to pass judgments which belonged only to 6 Tas rapdias épevyay, Chrys. : comp. Calvin and Hofmann zz loc. 6 trawos] ‘ the due or fitting praise ;’ comp. Rom. ii. 29, xiii. 3, I Pet. i. 7, ii. 14, al., in all which passages the usual and primary meaning of the word (not ‘merces,’ 4ith., but ‘laus,’ Vulg., Syr., Arm.) is distinctly to be maintained ; praise and approbation at the hands of men was that which was (comp. ch. ili. 21) sought after in Corinth ; what was humbly to be waited for was the ed dodAce dyad kal more (Matt. xxv. 21) from God. There is no necessity for regarding the term émawvos as here correlatively including its contrary (‘nominata laude relinqui- tur intelligendum vituperium,’ Est.; comp. Bengel, Olsh., al.), as the whole context turns only upon the former b Cuap. IV. 5. 6. The form in which I have spoken is to cor- rect party spirit and pride. The best correc- tive is to consider the lot of us the Apostles. €uavuTov Kal 1 CORINTHIANS. 89 - STadta 5é, adeddpol, petecynudtica eis "Amrodrov bv’ twas, va év jyiv / \ \ > \ a / vA ‘sh is pdOnre To Mi vrrép & yéyparrrat, iva pun els 6. *AmoAA@v] So Tisch., Treg., Westc.and Hort, on preponderating authority : Rec., Lachm., ?AwonNA@. on clearly preponderating authority. &] So all the above-mentioned edd. and Rev., yéypamrat, tva] So all the critical edd. on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds ppovety after yéeypamrat. idea; to each of God’s ministers, by His grace, there will be, not simply émawos, but 6 émawos, praise in such proportion and amount as is due to him; comp. 6 wicOds, Rom. iv. 4. 6-13. The purpose of the reference to himself and Apollos, and to the Apostles generally. Tadra, S€] ‘ Vow these things, ‘these comments ;’ viz. from ch. iii. 5, where the reference to him- self and Apollos more distinctly begins, the 8€ (weraBatixéy, Hartung, Parti. Vol. I. p. 165): marking the transition to this and the concluding paragraphs of the present (the first) portion of the Epistle. To extend the reference of the tatra to the whole of this first portion or to all that has preceded from ch. i. 12 (Theoph., Bengel, al.) is not satisfactory; the natural reference is to the two paragraphs, the first terminating with Sore undels x.7.A. (ch. iii. 21), and the second with éare wh mpd kaipov (ver. 5), in which the relation of the Church to its teachers is more particularly specified ; see Hofmann zz loc. ( pererXnpdrioa K.7.A.] ‘7 have transferred to (‘applied to the person of,’ Syr.) myselfand Apollos ;’ the aorist (not ‘ epistolary,’ Alf.) point- ing to the mention already made of himself and Apollos, in which the transference was made, and the eis marking the reference and (logical) direction of the action ; compare Winer, Gr. § 49. a. The verb occurs five times in the N.T., here, 2 Cor. xi. 13, 12 14, 15, and Phil. iii. 21, and in all in- volves the idea of a change or trans- ference of oxfua, the nature of the oxjua being defined by the context; see exx. in Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. v. p- 899 (ed. Hase). The oxjjua here is the general form in which the Apostle has expressed himself; this he changes by giving it a concrete reference to himself and Apollos. The view of Chrys., Phot., al. that the wererxnua- tiouds was the reference to himself and Apollos of what really referred to, and was meant to refer to, the party- leaders (ct én éxeivwy thy Adyov mpoh- yay ok by eéiavto Thy didpOwou, Chrysostom; see Phot. ap. Cramer, Caten.), is inconsistent with the ap- parently limited reference of taira (see above), and out of harmony with the general tenor of the context. On the form of the accus. ’AmoAAdy, or (as Lachm. with some amount of good critical authority) "AmoAAd, see Winer, Gr. § 8. 2, Kiihner, Gr. 124. SU bpas] ‘for your sakes,—not our own; ovx iva mept TavAov kal’AmoAAY TadTa yivéokepev pdvov, Origen. How it was so, is explained in the clause that follows. Wa év tiv «t.d.] ‘that ine us (and by us) ye may learn ;? purpose of the perecxnuatiouds, and further ex- planation of the preceding 6? dnyas. The prep. év here, as not uncommonly, serves to mark the suéstratum of the action; see notes oz Gal. i. 24, and Winer, Gr.-§ 48. a. vo M2 irép & yéypamrar] ‘the (Zesson), Gonot beyond 90 1 CORINTHIANS. e ‘ a Bi Vf, lal \ lal eeu vmep Tod évos hvawiobe Kata Tov éTéEpov. the things that are written ;’ substan- tival object of the udénre; the 7é giving the character of a neuter substantive to the words that follow it (Kiihner. Gr. § 461. 7), and the emphatic ph carrying with it a latent and easily sup- plied verb; see Klotz, Devar. Vol It. p. 667, Winer, Gr. § 64. 4, Buttm. Gramm. NV. TJ. p. 338, but observe that it seems more in accordance with this use of un to consider the present rather a case of what is called ‘ aposi- opesis’ than of ellipse,—7¢. e. that an imper. (comp. ‘ne quid nimis’) rather than an infin. (Winer) is to be supplied ; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 598. The yéypor- tat has received several different references,—to the commands of cur Lord in the N.T. (Chrys., al.) ; to the foregoing directions in this Epistle (Neander, al.); to a generally pre- scribed principle (Hofmann, comp. Pind. Vem. vi. 7); to the pecepts of the (O.T.) Scripture generally, some of which (e.g. Jer. ix. 23) have been al- ready cited (ch. i. 31). Of these the Jast is, almost obviously, the most probable; the impersonal yéyparrat being nearly always thus used with reference to Scripture (see Grot. 72 Zoc.), and Scripture having already been thus referred to three or four times in this Epistle; see above, ch. i. 19, 31, ii. 8, iil. 19. tva pa) «.7.A.] ‘that ye be not puffed up, one in favor of the one against the other, scil. ‘one in fa- vor of the one teacher whom he may choose, as against the other teacher whom he may reject;’ second and derivative purpose resulting from the first, —the avoidance of sectarian dis- sensions; ‘eis dtp tov évds, definitio secte, ubi singuli singulos mirantur et sequuntur,’ Bengel. The toi évds seems naturally to specify the eis as the head of a party (Reiche ; ‘ discipu- Cuap. IV. 6. “ris yap o¢ Sia lus pro magistro qualicunque,’ Est. comp. Theod.), just as Tod Er€pov seems to mark the head of the party to which the eis in question (see ch. i. 12) is opposed ; the two teachers mentioned in the verse being thus indicated with- out being again more particularly spec- ified. Some intepreters (Meyer, al.) pressing the close connection of the eis bwep Tov évds, and its separation by the verb from the kata Tov érépou, re- gard it as in fact equivalent to bmép GAAHAwy (see 1 Thess. v. 11, and notes in loc. and comp. Ecclus. xlii. 24, 1 Macc. xiii. 28), the rod érepov thus referring toa third party, against whom the @vorotoOa of the cis trép rod évds, (‘one on behalf of one, and another of another’) was directed. Thisis certainly grammatically admissible, and certainly serves to accentuate the individualisms of. faction; but it is deficient in sim- plicity and directness, and obscures the significance of the tod évés and tod étépov, and the clearness of their an- tithesis. It is remarkable that Winer (Gr. § 47. 1) should have here taken émép in its semi-local meaning ‘above,’ such a meaning (with the gen.) not being found in the N.T., and in this passage marring the obvious antithesis between imép and card; comp. Mark ix. 40, Rom. viii. 31. The only remaining difficulty is the mood of the verb gvawvcbe. This may be either an incorrectly contracted subj. (Bengel; see Reiche, p. 152), or a sole- cistically used indicative. The former is perhaps slightly more probable; comp. Gal. iv. 17, and see notes 77 doc. Meyer urges strongly that ta is here local (‘wobei,’ ‘in which case’), but the plain sequence of thought, and, it may be added, all the ancient Vv. and expositors are in favor of the easier and (especially with a preceding ia) Cuap. IV. 7, 8. 1 CORINTHIANS. 91 kpiver; ti de eyers 6 ovK eraBes; ef S€ Kal édaBes, Ti Kav- Kaoa, ws un AaBov ; °Hdn KeKxopecpévar éoré, On errAOUTHGATE, more usual telic force; comp. Rom. vil. 13, Gal. iii. 14, Eph, vi. 19, 20, and notes oz Gal. iv. 5, where the conjugate tva is similarly used. 7. tls yap oe Staxplve] ‘ For who is it that distinguisheth thee’ (only one of the duets above alluded to: aé rdv Bov- Aduevov amd Tovde Kadrcicba Tdvde kaTaAiumavelv, Severian), i.e. draws any distinction between thee and any one else?’ confirmation of the justice and reasonableness of the ta ph x.7.A. First, the didkpiots was a_ self-made one; and, secondly, any quality or natural gift which, for the moment, might seem to justify it, was vouch- safed and received from above: ovdév otkobey €xets GAAG Tapa TOD Ocod AaBar, Chrys. There is some little doubt as to the meaning of Siakpiver. It may have, through the context, the deriva- tive sense ‘eximze distinguit’ Bengel; eynpicato &tioy tov emoavetcOa, The- oph.), but is more naturally taken in its simple and indeterminate meaning, ‘discernit,’ Vulgate, Syr. (‘examinat,’ fEth., Arm.); comp. Herod. III. 39, Hye Tavtas, Siaxpivwv ovdeva. wl & exes] ‘and what hast thou?’ second confirmatory reason for the tva wh k.7T-A., the 6€ in accordance with its primitive meaning (Donalds. Crat. § 155) adding a second emphatic ques- tion (Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2, who notices the sort of medial position 5¢ some- times holds between kai and aAAd) with just that tinge of opposition which a new question brings with it ; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 10. 2, comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 361. cl Se kal aes K.T.A.] ‘ dat if thou didst receive it, why boastest thou as tf thou receivedst it not?’ antithetic concession, ef «af marking ‘rem ita esse, ut dicitur’ (Herm. Viger, No. 307), and «ai coalescing with and adding emphasis to the ¢AaBes; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 3, and, on the distinction between ef cai and kat ei, notes oz Phil. ii. 17; see also Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p- 519, Kihner, Gr. § 578. 2. 8. 45 Kexoperpévor eoré] ‘ Already are ye filled full:’ ‘ironia longia et gravis’ (Grot.), perhaps suggested by the €daBes and AaBav, —‘if thou re- ceivedst, did I say; Oh yes! ye are filled full, and that too even now be- fore the BaoiAcia is come; ottw TaXEws mpos To TéAos epOdcate, Chrys. To make this and the following clauses interrogative (Westc. and Hort) mars the irony of the assumed concession and the natural transition in such a passage from sharp question to the half answer of derisive assertion. It is somewhat doubtful as to what this and the climactic words émAourhoate and éBaowwWevoate (‘gradatio: saturz, divites, reges, Bengel) are specially to be referred. They may refer to self- supposed spiritual progress (rdv mAoDd- Tov TayTa Tis Te yyooews Kal TaY Kapio- udtwv, Theoph.), but, as the concluding portion of the verse seems to suggest, more naturally to point to the Mes- sianic kingdom, which these Corin- thians regarded as now verily their own; comp. Origen 727 J/oc. (Cramer, Caten.). 45y éwAoutHoate] ‘ a/- ready are ye rich, ‘divites facti estis’ Vulg.; the tense comp. éBaciAcvoare below) marking the entrance into the state (see especially Kriiger, Sprachi. § 53- 5. 1), and being, as usual, simply silent as to the permanence of it; contrast Hos. xii. 8, mwemAo’ryKa, €v- pnka avotuxhv éeuavt@, where the con- tinuance is specified: see Kiihner, Gr. §9386.)"5,) Hritz.) de Aer Mzeapal7e Donalds. Gr. § 427. aa. The assertion that wAouvteiy and BactAevew are here 99 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. IV. 8, 9. xopis nuav éBacievoate: Kal Gdedov ye EBacievoaTe, iva \ e tal (Be if. Kal nweis viv ocvvBacirevowper. %don@ yap, 0 Oeds mas Q. 50xn@ yap] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev. Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds 8rt. simply inchoative (Maier) is very clearly incorrect: comp. Wilke, Ret. p. 42. Xopls juov eBac.] ‘ve have become kings without us,—without us (em- phatic), scil. Apollos and me, without whom ye never would have become Christians at all; 17d oddpa avdnrov deixvutat, Chrys. On the union of the aorist with a particle involving present time, see notes oz Col. i. 21. kal deddv ye eBaoidedoate] ‘Aye, would that ye did reign ;’ ‘in spite of this reigning without us, I wish that verily ye did reign,’ the yé sharpening and giving emphasis to the dpeAor : see Hartung, Partik. Vol. Il. p. 372 sq-, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 281, and, on the two seemingly opposed meanings of yé (‘aut ut minimum, aut ut maximum commemoretur;’ but see also Kriiger, Sprach/. § 69. 15), the comments and examples in Herm. Wacer,.9 No. (2065 b, “where)) this particle is very carefully illustrated. The primary sense is that of enhance- ment of an zz¢ensive character (just as mép usually marks the enhancement of an extensive character), and so, gen- erally, emphasis and accentuation; the secondary and more derivative sense is that of segregation from all else (Baum- lein, Partik. s. v. p. 54 sq.; where, how- ever, this seems regarded as the pri- mary conception), and so restriction and specification; see Kiihner, G7. § 511, and comp. Donalds. Craz. § 203. On the use of épeAov, which in the N. T. is purely that of a particle, see notes oz Gal. v. 12. tv Kal tpets K.T.A.] ‘that we also might reign with you:’ subjunctive-—as the purpose is re- garded as dependent on a state which, as far as the wish went, had been already entered into, and is now re- garded as present ; see Winer, G7. § 41. 1. b, and the good notes of Stallbaum on Plato, Crzt. 43 B, compared with note on Afol. 17 A. In such cases, as Stallb. rightly says, ‘mentis cogitatio a preterito tempore ad prasens deduci- tur :’ see also Herm, de Emend. Gram. p- 212, and the good collection of exx. in Kihner, Gr. § 553. 3 b. If the imperf. or aorist zzdéc. had been used (as usually in cases of what is impossible or unattainable, Kriger, Sprachl. § 54. 8. 8, Kiihner, Gr. 553. 7; compare Plato, Crit. § 44 D), the purpose would then have been con- nected with the past (‘that we might then be reigning’ or, if aor., ‘that we might have reigned’) and the thought would have become retrospective: comp. Donalds. Gr. § 614, and the clear remarks and distinctions of Schmalfield, Gr. Verd. § 143, p. 295. g. Soca yap] ‘Zor J suppose, me- thinks ;’ confirmation of the preceding wish and its purpose ; ‘I may well wish that we were reigning with you, for our real state is strikingly the reverse.’ the verb Sox@ (ov Siotayuod GAA’ HOous éugarixdy, Phot.) serves to mark ‘sensu quodam demisso’ (comp. Bengel), and not without some tinge of irony (Grot.), the inference which the facts of the case appeared to suggest ; ds épa, nat, kat e& Gv iuets pare, Chrys. ; comp. ch. vii. 40. For exx. of this absolute use of S0xa, see Kiihner, Gr. § 548. 1. pas Tos amoot.| ‘ws the Apostles’— who might justly claim such a very different position. The reference is here general (himself and the other a Cuap. IV. 9. 1 CORINTHIANS. 93 \ 5) r 2 t ata, e 5) / e TOUS @TOCTONOUS EOXATOUS amédevEev, @S émrlavatious, OTt Oéatpov éyevnOnuey TO KOTUM Kai ayyéAols Kal avOpwrraL P YEVHNON G BG vy p S. Apostles), but passes, not unnaturally, ver. II sq., into a reference to himself, and to the verifying circumstances of his own case. éoxarovs amedeécv] ‘set forth as last ;’ ‘extremos et secun- dum szculum vilissimos,’ Estius. The éoxatous, it need hardly be said, is a predicate dependent on the améde:ter, and specifying what the Apostles were shown to be,—‘ collocati infimo loco,’ Grot.; compare Aristot. Pol. Ill. 4, érxaros Siuos, and Mark ix. 35. To connect it with a&mroordAous as referring to date of calling (see Calvin, al.), or with ém@avariovs (‘last appointed to death,’ Stanley), is not grammatically defensible. as émulavarious] ‘as sentenced to death,—men whose cir- cumstances make them seem to be such; katadixous, mpbs TOav arovobat mapeckevaruevous, Theoph. The inter- pretation of Tertullian, de Pudic. cap. 14. ‘ veluti bestiarios,’ certainly derives some support from what follows, but is, perhaps, ‘argutius quam verius dic- tum.’ The form isa dak Aeyou. in the N. T., and only occasionally found in later writers ;see exx.in Steph, Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. IIL. p. 1597 (ed. Hase). bru Oedrpov éyevy.] ‘for, or seeing that, we are become a spectacle ;’ explanation of the amddeitev &s émiBavatious, the dre having here, as often in the N. T., more of an explanatory (Donalds. Gr. § 549) than of a purely causal meaning; see Schmalfeld, Syzt. § 165, 169 4, where this sort of transitional form of the expositive sentence is briefly but clearly noticed; comp. also exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 569. 2. As a general rule, yép confirms, 87: gives the reason ; but in translation the more distinctly causal rendering (‘because’) will often be found inadmissible; comp. Bain, Engl. Gr. p. 69. To take the particle as a relative (6 71, and as connected with @¢arpov, Hofmann), is harsh and unnatural. The verbal subst. @éarpov is here, as Meyer rightly observes, nearly equivalent to @éa or @éaua (He- sych.; els @ewplay, Theodoret), as in ABSch ale Socr. Uli 120) ales so rightly Theoph., @e@vrat &vOpwmrot udvot, GAAG Kab wyyeAot ; Comp. Heb. x. 33. On the meaning of eyern@nuev, which is probably only passive in form, see notes oz Zph. ili. 7. kal dyyéAots Kal avOpdrrois] ‘both to angels and to men;’ speci- fication of the preceding kéou, the two anarthrous substantives (comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 3. obs.) defining the general term; ‘exponit Apostolus divi- dendo, quod dixerat mundo, Estius. The &yyedor here specified are probably good angels (oi &yyedot Tod Ocod, Origen; ai kyw Tay ayyéAwy Takes, Phot.), not, of both kinds (Aquin., Bengel),— the remark of Meyer appearing to be just, that when &yyeAo is used in reference to evil angels, there is always some- thing in the context that indicates the limitation: comp. Matt. xxv. 41, 2 Cor. xii. 7, 2 Pet. ii. 4, Jude 6, and see Meyer 2 doc. and oz Rom. viii. 38. On the uses of the word in the N. T., see the good article in Cremer, 476/.- Theol. Wérterb. p. 18 sq. (comp. Rothe, Dogmatik, Part I. § 54, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, Vol. 1. p. 274 sq.): and, on the question of the reality of the existence of these blessed beings (the association with dv@p. is itself an evi- dence of the distinctness of the Apostle’s belief), see Philippi. A7zrc/. Glaubenslehve, Part 11. p. 287 sq., Van Costerzee, Chr. Dogmatics, § 57, p. 310 sq., the comprehensive article of Bohmer, in Herzog, Real-Encycl. Vol. Iv. p. 18 sq., and especially Bp. Bull, nuds ovK 94 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. IV. 10, 11. "npets popol Sia Xprorov, tyeis Se ppovimor ev Xpuord* *hyeis >’ a € tal \ > / aoOeveis, ipeis 5é ioyupol: vuets EvdoEo, nucis Se aTipor. Daypt Ths pte dpas Kal mewapev Kal Sipawev Kat yuprirevojev II. yuurrredouev] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. yuuvnredouer. Serm. XI. p. 194 sq. (Eng. Works), and Dorner, Chr. Doctr. §§ 44, 45, Vol. 11. p: 96 sqq. (Transl.). Io. Hpeis] ‘ We,’ not without some degree of ironical emphasis (apod-ye: Tov Adyov Kar’ cipwyelavy, Chrys.); we the lowly and foolish, in contrast with yoz the wise and illuminated: ‘hzc an- tithesis tota est ironica et plena aculeis,’ Calvin 2 Joc. Sia Xprorrdv] ‘on account of Christ, ‘propter Chris- tum,’ Vulg. It was owing to preaching Christ, even as Christ himself sent the Apostle forth to preach, —ovx év cola Adyou (ch. i. 17), that St. Paul and his fellow-preachers studiedly were, so far as this world’s wisdom was concerned, pwpot, —‘um Christi Willen beschrin- ken wir uns nur auf Christus,’ Meyer; see ch. ii. 2. év Xpurra] ‘27 Christ,” and in your connection with Him; ‘Christum et prudentiam carnis simul miscere volebant,’ Calvin. In both clauses the auxiliary verb (éopéy, éoré) is all that has to be supplied; the context clearly points to what each party was, not merely what they ap- peared to be. ao Beveis—ioryx vpol] ‘weak—strong ;’ weak,—not merely in reference to sufferings and trials (Theoph.), nor, even exclusively, in reference to special extraneous aids, such as eloquence and wisdom (De- Wette), but simply and generally : they were weak in regard of all human powers and agencies, and relied simply on Christ and His word; see ch. ii. 3, and comp. 2 Cor. x. 10, xiii. 3sq. The Corinthians, on the contrary, were strong (mpowyet Tov Adyor Kar’ cipwrelay, Chrys.) —in pretension, self-assump- b tion, and the estimation of their fol- lowers. The last idea is more dis- tinctly brought out in the évdogu (‘high in honor,’ ‘ vulthagai,’ Goth., — almost ‘glorified,’ comp. Syr.) that follows, the antithesis being between the glory that the one received and the dishonor that was the lot of the other; evdotds éoTw 6 éxfonuos, Ammon, de Diff. Voc. S.v.; comp. I Sam. ix. 6, xxii. 14, Isa. xxiii. 8, Ecclus. xi. 6, al. II. &Xpe tis dpte spas[ ‘UP fo this present hour ;’ not merely ‘ generaliter dictum’ ( Alf.), but definitely specifying the state in which St. Paul himself or others actually may have been at the time of writing; comp. ews &pru. ver. 13. In the preceding clause the order of the pronouns is changed that the transition to the specification of the circumstances of the juets might follow more easily. These he specifies under the three heads of bodily sufferings (& pi—xep- civ), ill treatment and their conduct towards those who ill-treated them Ao.dop.—apakadodmev), and, lastly, gen- eral contempt and disesteem (s repixad. éws &pti); comp. Hofmann zz Joc. ; sim. Aquinas. On the distinction be- tween & xpi and peéxpi, see notes on 1 Zim. ii. 9. yupvirevopmev, ‘are without needful clothing, ‘have not enough to cover ourselves with ;’ comp. 2 Cor. xi. 27, év Woxe Kal yupydrnrt. The use of the word in the current Greek of the time (so in Dio Cass. and Plutarch) appears to have been con- fined to yuuvdrns in respect of armor; ‘velitem agere,’ Grot. The subst. ynuvntia (‘levis armatura,’ Livy; abstr. for concr.) is found in Thucyd. //7s¢. Cuap. IV. 11-13. 1 CORINTHIANS. 95 \ / 4) x ? a 12 \ lal 5) , Kat Koradifoucla Kal aotatodmev @ Kat KoTimpev Eépyalopevor a ES/ Pcs were , aN, ‘ 13 § 4 } j TALS LOLALS XEPow Ob Opoupevot EVAOYOULED, b@KO{LEVOL aveyxo- 13. dvapnuoduevar] So Zisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on slightly preponder- ating authority: Rec., Lachm., Treg., BAaopnuoduevat. The evidence is nearly evenly balanced. The internal argument, however, that the less usual form (Sucp.) was more likely to have been changed into the more usual (BAac®.) than Baaod. changed as too strong a word for the context (for see ch. x. 30, Rom. iii. 8, Tit. iii. 2, al.), seems perfectly valid, and strengthens the decision. VII. 37. Kodadi{opeda] ‘are buffeted, ‘struck with fists;’see Matt. xxvi. 67, Mark xiv. 65, 2 Cor xii. 7; 1 Pet. ii. 20: ‘colaphis cedimur, — velut servi: adeo non regnamus,’ Beng. This, however, may be a little too re- fined; ‘contumeliosa tractatio, maxime que sit inflictis verberibus’ (Est.), or rough treatment generally, is probably all that is here implied by the word. aoratotpev] ‘have no abiding place,’ ‘domum perstantem non habemus,’ Syr., ‘incertis sedibus erramus,’ Vulg. ‘inquieti facti sumus,’ Armen.; éAauvé- feOu yap, Chrys. The word (a &aé. Aeydu. in N. T.) marks inferentially the persecuted (aoTarotuer> touréott SiwKd- peOa, Phavor.), and so unresting (a0Ta- Tovons Xela THs Oaddooes, Appian) nature of the life of St. Paul and the Apostles. 12. Kal Komidpev K.T.A.] Sand coil working with our own hands;’ the participial clause defining the manner and the accompaniments of the «émos ; comp. Col. i. 28, ii. 5, 13, al., and on the use generally of the appended par- ticiple, the brief but clear comments of Scheuerlein, Sytax, § 46. 2, p. 485. Here the Apostle primarily specifies his own case (Acts xviii. 3, xx. 34, 1 Thess. ii. 9, 2 Thess. iii. 8), but, very probably, includes in it that of others. On the meaning of komdw, which al- ways seems to involve some associated idea of toilsomeness or suffering, comp. notes oz 1 Zim.iv.9, and ox 1 Thess. ii. 9. AovSopodpevor edrAoyodpev] ‘being reviled we bless ;? second aspect (see above) of the position and circum- stances of St. Paul and his brother Apostles ; Seixyvairhy eoxdtny edt éAciav, Theodoret. Not only were they with- out honor, persecuted, and toil worn, and endurers of all in patience, but they even requited it with blessing and gentle words; ‘id mundus spretum putat,’ Bengel. Our Lord’s command (Matt. v. 44, Luke vi. 27) may not here be definitely referred to (Meyer), but it may well have been in the Apostle’s thoughts, and its tenor was certainly acted on. On the subject generally, see Rothe, Zheol. Ethik, § 1055, Vol. IV. p. 333 (ed. 2), and comp. § 936, Vol. IV. p. 71 sq. 13. Svodnpotpevor tapaxadotpev] ‘being defamed we intreat ;’ nriws Tots SiaBdAAovor Siurcyducba, Theod., mpao- Tépois Adyois Kal wadraKTiKots GuetBducba, Theoph. The meaning of tapakaaAeciy is here obviously not ‘hortari’ (Stanley), —which would be inappropriate, nor ‘precari (pro ipsis),’ Syr., comp. Grot., — which, though not without example (Josephus, Azz7g. vi. 2. 2), is contrary to St. Paul’s usage, — but ‘obsecrare’ (Vulg., or more fully, ‘humiliter loqui obsecrantium more,’ Est., ‘ gute Worte ‘geben,’ Grimm. On the varied mean- ings of this frequently used word (St. Paul uses it more than fifty times) see notes on ch. i. 10, and oz ph. iv. I. As Grimm. (Ze. s.v.) rightly observes, the leading and general meaning is ‘alloquio adire aliquem,’ but as this 96 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. IV. 13, 14. beGa, Svodnuovpevor mapaxadoduev’ ws mepikabdpyata Tod Koopou éyevnOnuev, TavT@v Tepipnua, Ews apTt. This is spoken as by a father whose ways ye ought to imitate. Iam certainly coming. Is it to be in mildness or the contrary ? 1 OvK évtpétr@v vuas ypadw tadta, avr ¢ , > \ 6 Anh ee SN \ @S TEKVA (LOU AYATTNTA VOUVVUETWY E€avV yap 14. vovBerav] So Tisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on slightly preponderating authority: Rec., Lachm., Treg., vovbeta. The critical balance is nearly exactly the same as in ver. 13, and the probability of a correction on the part of the transcriber very nearly as great. ‘alloquium’ may be hortatory, con- solatory, precatory, or otherwise, the context alone can settle the exact shade of meaning in any given pas- sage; see notes o7 I Thess. v. Il. as tmepuxaldppata K.T.A.] ‘we are be- come as the filth, or refuse, of the world ;’ ‘purgamenta mundi,’ Vulg., Syr., al. The word mepixa@dpu. has two meanings, both of late lexical authority, — the simple form (xa@dpyara) in each case being the more usual, — viz. (a) ‘quisquiliz,’ 7a év rats oikias &s wepiTTa amopimtoueva, Theod.; so in Arrian, Diss. Epict. W. 22 (speaking of Priam’s children): (8) ‘piacula,’ ‘lustramina’ (Prov, xxi. 18, "DR, ‘expiationis pre- tium’), in reference to victims, etc., sacrificed to avert a great public ca- lamity (ka@dépuara) : so Olsh., Osiander, al. The associated mepinua, as well as the whole tenor of the passage (see Hofmann), obviously points to (a) as the true meaning in the present case; so Vulg., Syr., and all the versions ex- cept Arm., where the derivative mean- ing of ‘ludibrium’ (&imot kad peverol, Cicumenius) is apparently adopted. For further details, see Wolf zz Zoc. Cure Philol. Vol. 111. p. 358. mwévtav mepiinpa] ‘ the offscouring of all things,’ ‘res circumquaque abrasa,’ Valckenaer (Scholia, Vol. I. p. 170), mepikatduaypya, Hesych. The word ap- pears to have the secondary meaning of ‘piaculum’ (comp. Syr., Aith., and see Tobit v. 18) ; see, however, the good note of Fritzsche, Handb. z. der Apokr. Part II. p. 50, and comp. Wolf zz Zoc. The emphatic words €ws &pre (con- nected with éyevf@nuev) very appro- priately close the vigorous paragraph; comp. ver. Il: e¥tovoy Thy mAnyhy ewe mpdos TS TéAEL, Chrys. 14-21. Epilogue to this portion of the Epistle. True character and spirit of the foregoing admonition. 14. odK évtpérwv] ‘ot as shaming you, o9x os Katacxbvev, Chrys.; the participle here specifying, not the pur- pose (‘ut confundam,’ Vulg., GEcum., al.), but the accompaniments or, per- haps more exactly, the general asfect of the action;—‘ éytporm in animo Apostoli non finis erat, sed medium,’ Bengel. In all such cases the parti- ciple has its complementary character ; it presents in its completeness the character and circumstances of the whole action ; od movnpd kal micovon yraun Taita Aéyw, Theoph.: see Kiihner, Gr. § 481, where this usage of the participle is fully discussed and illus- trated; comp. Bernhardy, Syzt. xiv. 13, p. 475 sq. The negative, as the form of the antithesis suggests (ob«n— aad) does not here, strictly considered, belong simply to the participle, but also, and indeed principally, to the finite verb (‘I do not write as thereby shaming’): the verb and participle form, as it were, a single enunciation over which the negation dominates. Cuap. IV. 14-16. riCORINT BILAN S* 97 puplous Travdaywyous eynte év XptoT@, GAN ov TroAXOvs TaTépas ° Pp Y pi Xn P re) p } \ a) n Xi la > ‘ ? \ ie lal % , ev yap Xpiot@ Inzod bia Tod evayyediov eyo mds eyevvnoa. Werapakadk® ovv twas, pyimtai pov yiveoOe. vovlérwv] ‘admonishing you.’ The word is a ‘vox media.’ The tone and nature of the vov@érno.s, and the gen- eral ‘animus admonentis’ must be col- lected from the associated contrast; comp. with each other Acts xx. 3], Col. iii. 16, and 1 Thess. v.14. Asa general rule, it has a lighter meaning (as here) than either évrpémwew or ém- tyay (voudeTHoas ovK ereioa, emiTiunoas npébioa, Synes., cited in. Steph. Zhesaur. s.v.), and, as its derivation suggests, implies a monitory appeal to the vois rather than a direct rebuke or censure: it passes, however, into this meaning (see 1 Sam. iii. 12, ok evovOeTer avTods, in reference to Eli and his sons; he did appeal to them), and sometimes even involves the idea of deeds; see notes o7 Col. i. 28, 1 Thess. v. 12, and comp. Cremer, Worterb. p. 444, who, however, too much interpolates the ‘animus admonentis.’ I5. €dv yap «.T.r.] ‘For though ye may have ten thousand tutors in Christ;’ ground and justification of the form of the Apostle’s vov8érnors ; ‘spiritualis paternitas singularem necessitudinem et affectionem conjunctam habet, prez omni alia propinquitate,’ Bengel. The distinction between mupion (‘innume- rabiles’) and udpioe (‘decem millia’), though still advocated by Grimm. (Zex. s.v.), and even by Winer (Gy. § 6. 2), is rightly set aside by Meyer as without real foundation. In reference to matda- ywyots (here simply the subsequent ‘eachers ; comp. ch. iii. 6 sq.), see notes on Gail. iii. 24, and on the familiar éy Xpior@ (ideal sphere of the action), notes oz Gal. v.6, Hooker, Serm. il. Vol. 11. p. 763 (Keble), Martensen, Dogmatics, § 176 obs. (Transl.). 13 li Ata Tovto GAN od] ‘yet ye have not 3’ emphatic antithesis, the aAAd idiomatically giv- ing point and emphasis to the nega- tion, — ‘assuredly ye have not:’ ‘sig- nificatur, etiamsi altera res alteram tollere aut minuere videatur, hanc ta- men locum habere et constare,’ Stall- baum, on Plat., Zaches, p. 183 A; comp. Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 40, Klotz, Devar. Vol. il. p. 93. So ‘at certe’ in Latin; comp. Hand, Zzrse/linzs, Vol. I. p. 427. év yap Xp, Ine. «.7.A.] ‘ For in Christ Jesus J (and none other; ‘non illi, non alii,’ Est.) degat you through the Gospel.’ Christ was the sphere in which the action took place (see above), and the Gospel the means (comp. I Pet. i. 23, dia Adyou (@vtos @cov) whereby the spiritual vivi- fication was vouchsafed ; ‘ verbum spir- ituale est semen; eo nostras animas regenerat solus Deus sua virtute, sed ministrorum operam non _ excludit,’ Calvin. 16. twapakaho odv] ‘7 beseech you then.’ —as I stand in this close and tender relation to you; as I am he 6 ™Mp@Tos ckelpas Toy Xpiotiaviopmov ev Wuxi, Origen (Cramer, Cat.) 22 loc. pipntal pou ylverQe] ‘become imitators of me;’ viz., as the whole context clearly suggests, in humility and self- sacrifice ; comp. ver. 6-13, @s metpuddw petpidcere. & mdoxw maoxeTe, Theod- oret. The expression mimntal yiverbe (‘imitatores estote,’ Vulg.; ‘assimilam- ini,’ Aith.) marks the closeness of the following which the Apostle presses on them; they were not merely to be satisfied with saying they were ‘of Paul,’ but to do what Paul did, and bear what he bore; it was to be imi- tation; comp. ch. xi. 1, Phil. iii. 17, al. 98 1 CORINTHIANS. Crap. IV. 16, 17. ” e lal / cd > / , BJ A \ éreua viv Tipodeov, os éotiv pou Téexvoy ayamnTov Kal X 2 / a eon > , \ c , \ 2 TWtOTOV EV Kupio, OS VAS AYALVNOEL TAS od0UsS Mov Tas €&V Xpictd, Kabos ravtayod év maon éxxdrnolg bWacKw. 17. pov réxvov] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. Tékvov wou; see verse 14. The addition of "Inaod to Xpicr@ (Lachm., Tisch., [Westc. and Hort]) has good but insufficient critical support. For a good sermon on this text, see Barrow, Works, Vol. 1. p. 335, and on the imitation of Christ generally, Mar- tensen, Chr. Ethics, § 95 sq. Vol. I. 293 sqq. (Transl.) 17. Ava totto] ‘ Hor this cause,’ viz. for the sake of promoting and helping onward this imitation; the verse logi- cally and naturally depending on the verse immediately preceding. There is no ground whatever (with Beza and others) for regarding this as a new paragraph ; the subject-matter is slightly changed, but the general thought is continuous. The addition of airéd (Tisch. Westc. and Hort marg.) is supported by two first-class MSS., but independently of opposing external authority, has the aspect of an empha- sizing addition. érepmpa dpiv Tuy.] ‘Z have sent to you Timothy.’ Timothy had started prior to the letter, but, having first to go through Mace- donia (Acts xix. 22), would not arrive at Corinth till after the letter (see below ch. xvi. 10). The Apostle first heard of the parties and party-spirit at Corinth from some of the household of Chloe (ch. i. 11); whereupon he sent, as is here specified, his faithful friend and follower. bs éorly pov K.T.A.] ‘who zs my child, beloved and faithful in the Lord ;’ comp. 1 Tim. i. 2, 18, 2 Tim. i. 2. The latter words of this clause seem to form a kind of secondary predication (Donalds. Gr. § 442. b). Timothy was the Apostle’s own child, and so one appropriately sent to those who stood in the same relation to the Apostle, a réxvov to Téxva (ver. 14); and besides this he was beloved (comp. ver. 14) and faithful, and that too in the only sphere in which love and faithfulness attained their true proportions,—éy Kuplo. This we need hardly add is ot év tots kata Kipiov mpdyuaow, Chrys.; comp. notes oz Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1. és tpas dvapv. K.t.A.] ‘who shall put you im remembrance, or bring back to your remembrance, my ways which are in Christ,—and which you would now seem to have forgotten ; An@ny 5& abtav 6 Adyos karnyopet, Theod. In this second member, which, it may be observed, preserves its relatival form instead of lapsing, as more usual, into the demonstrative form (see Kihner. Gr. 561. 1), the relative has perhaps a slight tinge of causality, or rather of that explanatory force which is often to be traced in its use; see ch. i. 30, and notes 77 /oc., and on Col. i. 18, 25, and comp. Ellendt, Zex. Soph. s. v. Il. 3, Vol. 11. p. 371. The ddof of the Apostle further specified as ai év Xpior@ were those courses of faithfulness, simplicity, and self-denial (ch. i. 17, ii. I sq.) which the Apostle followed at Corinth, and especially refers to in this Epistle. Kaas TavTaXxod K.t.A.] ‘as L teach everywhere in everv Church,’—not merely at Corinth, but everywhere else: if «af had been in- serted the contrast would have been brought out more distinctly. The xa0ds does not here simply specify (a) what was expressed generally in the CuHap. IV. 17-20. 1 CORINTHIANS. 99 BS Ds pH épxouevov 5é pou mpos tuas épvowOnoay Twes* WerXevoowar SE Tayéws mpos buds, éav o Kupios Oedrjon, Kab , > \ , a , > \ \ s yVacouat ov TOY AOYoY TaV TEpYTLMMEVOY aNrAA THY S¥VaMLY* ov yap év Koyo 7 Bacirela Tod Oeod ar év duvapen. foregoing words (Alf.), nor (8) the accordance of Timothy’s teaching with that of his spiritual father, (Hofmann), as the «a@#s would thus have to be regarded as more exclusively dependent on a@vauvhoes than the tenor of the passage warrants, but,— in accordance with the normal meaning of the word,— (y) the form and manner (‘according as,’ ‘even as’) of the teaching,—its simplicity, humility, and absence of selfish elements (see last note), as manifested not merely under the pecu- liar circumstances of the Church of Corinth, but, as he says, emphatically, everywhere: ‘nihil peculiare vobis in- jungo,’ Estius. 18. ds pr) EpXopévov S€ pov] ‘ But as though I were not coming ;’ contrast between the mistaken opinion of some at Corinth and the true circumstances of the case, the later position of 5€ being simply caused by the practical union of the first three words ; comp. Klotz, Devar. p. 378 sq.; Kiihner, Gr. § 528. 1. The Apostle precludes the supposition that the sending of Timothy implied any fear on his own part; it was not a case of dmay 5é Oappa, 2 Cor. x. i. On this use of ws, as marking the asfect (and that aspect an erroneous one) under which the case was regarded, see notes oz Col. iii. 23, and compare Donalds. Gr. § 590. eprvo Hdnoay] ‘were puffed up,’ ‘inflati sunt,’ Vulg.: ‘vitium Corinthiis frequens, z/fatio,’ Bengel. For aught the tense says they may be so still (‘are puffed up,’ Auth., Reyv.), but what is here stated is simply an historic fact: see notes oz Phil. i. 29; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 13. 21 ry 1g. taxéws] ‘guickly,,— yet not so quickly as to preclude a stay at Ephe- sus till Pentecost; see below, ch. xvi. 8. éav & Kipios Ocdjoy] ‘if the Lord will ;’ so James iv. 15, and sim. I Cor. xvi. 7. It is very doubtful whether the First or the Second person of the blessed Trinity is here referred to. Meyer (on Rom. xv. 32, critical note) urges that the Apostle, in all references to the divine working, either in the realms of power or of grace, always uses @¢Anua in relation to God the Father; and that where the @éAnua of our Lord is referred to (Eph. v. 17), the reference is to ‘the moral will.’ If this be true, the reference here would be to God the Father. The reference in ver. 17 to our Lord might seem to make it more natural to continue the reference to Him in this verse also (comp. also ch. xvi. 7, where the ref. to our Lord is the more probable); but, as there is a slight break in thought between verses 18 and 19, per- haps the view of Meyer may be ac- cepted. On the force of the tense (@eAjon), comp. notes on ch. vii. 8. viv Sivapuv] ‘Zhe power.’ What power? Certainly not their power in reference to any miraculous manifestations (Chrys.), and scarcely their power in its moral and ethical aspect (Osiander), or in spreading the Gospel (Meyer), but, as ver. 20 seems to suggest, their power in its spiritual character; scil. whether they have, or have not, the only true power, the power of the Spirit ; see ch. ii. 4, 1 Thess i. 5. 20. od yap K.T.A.] ‘For the kingdom of God 7s notin word, but in power ;’ con- firmatory of, and in justification of, 100 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. IV. 20-V. I. Oérere; ev paBdm Ow mpods buds, ) ev ayary mvevparti Te TPAUTNTOS ; There is a case of griev- ous sin among you, V. “Ordws axoverar év vpiv tropveia, Kal which must be punished. Purge out old leaven. the clause which had just preceded, yvdéooua «.7.A.: the kingdom of God is not in, has not as its substratum, Adyos, but ddvauis. On the meaning of the frequently recurring expression BaotAcla Tod cod (the developing kingdom of our Redeemer, the Messianic kingdom: ‘the kingdom indeed is prepared, but the children of it are being prepared,’ Luther), see notes and reff, oz Gal. v. 21, and on the modern meanings of this expression, Harless, Z¢hzcs, § 17. 7, Martensen, £¢/ics, § 45, Rothe, Dogmatik, Part Il. § 2, p. 17. 21. rl OéXere] * What will ye?’ scil. which of the two alternatives? the rf being here, as the context implies, equivalent in meaning to mértepoy or tl éx T&y Svo (Matt. xxi. 31), but sharper and more emphatic. Meyer refers to the note of Stallbaum on Plato, Pizleb. p. 52 D, where this usage is well dis- cussed. It is, however, a case which speaks for itself. év papSwo Ow] ‘am I to come with a rod?’ scil. pro- vided with, accompanied with,—the primary idea of environment passing easily into that of accompaniment (comp. Luke xiv. 31, and notes oz Col. ii. 7), and thence of being provided or supplied with; see Heb. ix. 25, év aluart GAAoTplw, I John v. 6, év tg dart, and comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, and hereon Winer, Gr. § 48. 3. 4; see also Buttm. lV. T. Gr. § 147. 10. The deliberative subjunctive éw may either be regarded as dependent on a latent 6éAere (comp. Winer, Gr. § 41. 4. 6) or, more naturally, as simply independent, and commen- cing a second interrogation; see Mark xii. 14, Rom. vi. 1, and comp. exx. in Kriiger, Sprachi. § 54. 2. 3. Tvevpat. mpairntos) ‘the spirit of meekness;’ the spirit of which the characterizing quality (Kriiger Sprachl. § 47. 5. 13) is mpaiirns, and of which the inworking power is the Holy Spirit. In all these passages where mvedua is thus joined with an abstract genitive, a reference to the Holy Spirit is always involved,—in some cases more directly (compare 2 Tim. i. 7, and notes 7 J/oc.),—in others, as here, more remotely; see notes 07 Gal. vi. 1, andoz Z£ph.i. 17. The meaning of mpaiirns (gentle submissiveness to God as well as to man), one of the true fruits of the Spirit (Gal. v. 23) is discussed in the notes on that passage. It may be noticed that in several older expositors (so also in Lachmann) this verse forms the beginning of a new paragraph. The absence of all con- necting particles at the beginning of ch. v. 1., and the link of thought, as to the Apostle’s coming, between verses 18, 19 and the present verse, point strongly the other way. II. CENSURE OF NOTORIOUS SINS IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH (ch. v. I— ch. vi. 20). 1-8. The case of the incestuous person. 1. “Odws] ‘ Actually, absolutely,— with a very distinct emphasis, to bring out the revolting nature of the case, and to justify the question of the foregoing verse; mAnkrik@s, Chry2.; évépnve thy Ths atomias stmepBodnv, Theod.; see ch. vi. 7, xv. 29, and with a negative, Matt. v. 34. The meaning of this word is slightly under debate. It may sig- nify (2) ‘in summa’ (so apparently Syr.), e.g. Plato, Rep. IV. 3. 437 B, dapiv Pie as! CHARA IV. 1. 1 CORINTHIANS. 101 ia 7 v4 > at hd) Lal yy 4 Lal / A ToLavTn Tropvela HTL ovde ev Tols EOverw, WaTE YyuValKa TLVa TOD TATpOS EXEL. 2 \ e Lal , e) , \ b \ lal Kat vets Tepvov@pevor cate, Kal ovXl “ado 1. év tots Oveow] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds dvoud¢erat. kal mewyv Kal ddws Tas émduuias) ;—a meaning, however, here obviously inap- propriate; or (4) ‘commonly,’ Auth.,— with reference to the general circulation and prevalence of the report;—a meaning of doubtful lexical authority, and certainly exegetically unsatisfac- tory; as the Apostle would not be likely to base what follows on the prevalence of the report, but on the actual facts of the case; or lastly (c) ‘absolutely,’ ‘actually,’ —a meaning of good lexical authority (comp. Plut., Mor. p. 415 F), and certainly in har- mony with the emphatic tenor of the context: so Rev., apparently Arm., and, probably, Vulg., ‘omnino,’— except that this last word admits of even a greater variety of meanings than éaAqs. This last meaning is clearly to be preferred: comp. the paraphrase of Bengel, — ‘dAws nulla debebat in vobis audiriscortatio; at auditur dAws,’ Beng. Gkoverat év tpiv] ‘7s heard of, is re- ported, among you ;’ the év tui being very clearly connected with dkoverat, and marking, not those about whom (‘de vobis,’ Bengel), but among whom, —in the Christian Church of Corinth, —the report was circulating. The Apostle most likely heard the sad story from the same persons who told him of the factions (ch. i. 11) ; it was unhap- pily only too well known; ‘nihil aliud auditur,’ Wetst. Kalrovadry mopveia] ‘and (let me add) fornication of such a kind ;’ the «at having here its ascen- sive, or rather climactic force, and both specifying the nature of the mopveta and marking its revolting character; see notes oz 1 Thess. i. 6, and comp. Buttm. WV. 7. Gr. § 149.8. h. In ref- erence to the statement made in this clause, it may be observed that the fewness of the recorded cases, as well as the horror with which such cases were always regarded, fully justifies the Apostle’s declaration that such a form of mopveia truly did not eyist (axovera is not to be supplied) even among the heathen; see the examples and quotations in Wetstein 27 oc. adore yuvaika K.T.r.] ‘that one should have the wife of his father ;’ the éaTe with its usual and proper force (‘con- secutio alicujus rei ex antecedentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 771) intro- ducing the ‘consecutive’ or illative clause (Donalds. Gr. § 596), and the prominence of the words yur. 0d martpés, as well as the form of expression (not mntpuia), bringing out the shocking nature of the sin; comp. Lev. xviii. 8. Whether we are to suppose that it went to the extent of a marriage is doubtful. A monstrous rule specified by Maimon- ides (see Wetst. 272 Zoc., and comp. Sel- den, de Jure Nat. 1. 4) in reference to proselytes, who, as being new-born and utterly other persons, could contract such marriages, makes it just possible that here such an enormity might have taken place; but it certainly seems more natural (with Hofmann) to regard it as an act of incestuous concubinage. The aor. participles mojoas, ver. 2, and katepyacduevos, ver. 3 (De Wette, Meyer), really do not prove anything, and éxew, though commonly thus used in the N.T. with reference to marriage (ch. vil. 2, 29, Matt. xiv. 4, xxii. 8), is also used otherwise ; comp. John iv. 18. The father of the man was apparently still alive ; see 2 Cor. vii. 12. 102 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP. V..2)°3: b 4 / > a , 2 lal e s y lal 's éerrevOnaate, iva apOn ex pécou tuov 6 TO Epyov ToUTO TroWcas. 3° Eyo pev yao, amrov TO o@ apwov o€ TH TvevpaTL, HON yO pev yap, aToVv TO cHyaTL Trap ( ate, 7 2. ape]. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on vastly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., céap6n. moinoas] So Rec., Lachm., Treg., Rev., on apparently preponderating authority: Zzsch., Westc. and Hort, mpdtas. Decision is here very difficult, internal considerations being really as balanced as the external evidence. 3. ardév] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponder- ating authority: 2ec., as amdy. 2. Kal dpets k.T.A.] * ad ve (emphatic, —ye among whom such a shameful sin finds a place, and perhaps even toleration) are puffed up.’ The major- ity of modern editors (Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort) and commen- tators take this verse interrogatively, — probably on account of the vast pre- ponderance of instances in the N.T. in which ovxi is so used. As, however, there are a few instances of the non- interrogative use (ch. x. 29, Luke xii. 51, xiii. 2, 5, John xiii. 10), in all of which, as here, the negation is strong and emphatic (odx! ‘fortius negat,’ Grimm ; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 512. 1), and as the sudden question seems to weaken rather than strengthen the calm sever- ity of the words, we decide (with Auth., Rev.) against the interrogation. So, as it would seem, Chrys. (contra The- odoret), and Origen (Cramer, Catez.), Thy kaTnyopiay eicpepet. tva ap07 k.T.A.] ‘ that so he that had don: this deed (of shame) might be removed from among you,’ ‘not the direct purpose of the erevOnoate (Meyer; comp. Winer, G7. § 53), which would involve a forced interpretation of the word,—nor, on the other hand, the mere vesz/¢ (‘so that,’ Neander; comp Chrys., Theod., &ore) of the act, but, in that secondary telic force in which wa is, certainly more than occasionally, found in the N.T.,— the contemplated issue of the act; see notes oz 1 Thess. v. 4, and comp. notes 07 Eph. i. 17, and even Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, who, with certain verbs, does not deny the weakened usage. The remark of Haupt is thor- oughly true — that the idea of purpose frequently presents itself in the N.T. where we should more naturally sub- stitute the idea of consequence; see notes o7 1 John i. 9 The term épyov (here, very nearly, ‘facinus’ ; ‘actio prava, citra matrimonium,’ Ben- gel) is used quite generally, the exact shade of meaning being supplied by the context. 3. “Hy pev yap] ‘ For J verily,’ ‘ For L, for my part ;’ confirmation (comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 3) of the va apéj of the preceding verse, the wey solitarium (see Hermann, Viger, No. 336) serving to mark the contrast between the Apostle, in his judgment on the sin, and the Corinthians and their com- parative indifference: see notes ox 1 Thess. ii. 18, where this usage of pév is more fully discussed. array TO oopati] ‘being absent in the (my) body,—qua my body;’ the dative marking the object to which the predi- cation of the verb was to be referred. Such a use of the dative is far from uncommon in the N,T., and may be roughly characterized as marking eth- ical Jocality ; see notes o7 Gal. i. 22, on 1 Zhess. ii. 17, and examples in Winer, Gr. § 31.6. a The dative is essen- tially the case by which the substance of the sentence becomes extended in its reference (see Rumpel, Casuslehre, CuHap. V. 3, 4. tT GOREN TH PANS. 108 KEKPLKA WS TAPWY TOV OUTWS TOUTO KaTEpyacauevov, *év TH dvowatt Tod Kupiov nav Incod, cvvayPévtwy ipav Kai Tod 4. In this verse Xpiorod is added in each place toInaod by Rec., but is omitted in each place by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, in the former case by clearly, and in the latter by greatly, preponderating authority. p- 261), and so practically the case of definition or limitation; see Kihner, Gr. § 423. TO Tvevpatr] ‘the (my) spirit ;’ so very similarly Col. ii. 5, ef yap Kal TH oapKl wre, GAA TH mvevuatt ov vuivy eiut. In both these passages the mvedua is clearly not the Holy Spirit (rvedua 5¢ 7d xdpioua A€yel, Sever.), but the highest part of our composite human nature (‘vis superior imperans, agens in homine,’ Olsh.), and so, that with which man commu- nicates with the Holy Spirit; comp. Rom. viii. 16, and see notes bn Col. Lives and oz 1 Thess. v. 23. In that highest part, that ‘potior pars’ of our common nature (comp. Gal. vi. 18, 2 Tim. iv. 22), the Apostle is present with the Corinthian Church and gives solemnly his judgment. On the subject of Bib- lical psychology generally, a subject often alluded to in these notes, the student may be profitably referred to the smaller treatise in Olshausen, Opus- cula, Art. V1. and the larger and valu- able treatise of Delitzsch, 2767. Psychol. (now translated into English, — Clark, Theol. Libr.) and the older, but very interesting work of Schubert, Ge- schichte der Seele, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1850). yaodp.] ‘touching him that has thus wrought this thing, — probably, ‘thus shamelessly and openly, as you your- selves know only too well.’ The ac- cusative and associated clause loosely hang on «éxpixa (‘graviter suspensa manet et vibrat oratio,’ Bengel), liut structurally belong to mapadotva (Est.) in ver. 5,— the accus. tov ob Tws k.7.A. being resumed by the toy rotodroy Tov oTws TOUTO KaTEp- k.T.A. in ver. 5. That «plvew can be thus used semi-absolutely (the objec- tion of Heinrici) may be confirmed by such passages as ch. ii. 2, Titus iii. 12, al. The force of the verb kartepy. should not be left unnoticed; ‘qui tale ac tantum facinus /erfetravit, Est. The word occurs about twenty times in St. Paul’s Epp., and, in every case, either as here (‘de rebus que fiunt non honeste’), or in the sense of com- pleting or accomplishing (‘notat rem arduam’); épyw éxpicato TG Kakg, Se- verian ; see notes oz Eph. vi. 13. 4. év To évépare «K.7.A.] In this verse and the following we have four possible constructions: (a) the connec- tion of év 7@ évdu. with the participial clause (cuvaxévtwy k.7.A.) and of aby Th Suvduer x.7.A. with the infinitival clause (mapadotvat «.7.A , ver. 5); (4) both with the participial clause; (c) both with the infinitival clause; or lastly (¢d) év 7G Ovdu. x.7.A. with the infinitival, and oty tH Suv. x.7.A. with the participial, clause. The Greek commentators, whose judgment in such a matter may rightly have weight with us, appear to prefer (4); the solemnity, however, of the formula év r@ dévon., and its connection in passages of a somewhat similar authoritative tenor (comp. Acts iii. 6, iv. 10, xvi. 18, 2 Thess. iii. 6) seem to preponderate in favor of (Zz), and the connection with the lead- ing verb. The principle in the early Christian Church was ever, — av 8 tt eay mote ev Adyw A ev Epyw, mavTa év évduatt Kupiov “Ingod, Col. iii. 16, where see notes and references as to the general meaning (‘in the holy and 104 1 CORINTHEANS: CuapP. V. 4, 5- €uov Tvevpatos ovv TH Svvaper ToD Kupiov nuev ‘Incod, * rapa- la x n a a > ” o , ivf \ dodvat Tov TowiTov T® Ratava eis breOpov THs capKos, iva TO spiritual element which his name be- tokens’) of the weighty formula: 7o- covrov Stvata: Td bvoua tov ‘Inood, Origen. Of the Vv., Syr. and /£th. appear to adopt (4), Arm. to adopt (@), —but in such cases Vv. can scarcely be confidently appealed to, the order of the original being always maintained where in any way possible. ov Ty Suvdper] ‘together with the power, — stv, as always, marking the coherence (Kriiger, Sfrachl. § 68. 13. 1) of the duvamis with the spirit of the Apostle, and so with the gathered Church. The ddvamis x.T.A. is not a ¢hivd element or factor, but is that which supports and aids the Apostle, and gives authority and validity to the whole; see Hof- mann 27 Joc. St. Paul’s spirit with the associated power of Christ is pres- ent with the convoked synod, and with that synod passes the authoritative sentence. The gravity of the ‘sus- pensa oratio’ (Bengel) of these verses is greatly enhanced by the sequence, — the determination of the Apostle, the blessed name in which all was done, the convocation of the synod, the Apostle’s spiritual presence at it, and the all-sustaining power of the Lord with which it was associated, and then, lastly, the terrible but necessary sen- tence: gplkns weotdr ovverpdtnge Sikac- tnpiov, Theodoret. 5. Tapadodvar to Darava] ‘40 deliver over to Satan;’ excommunication (atpev ék peoou, ver. 2), accompanied, as the context seems distinctly to imply, with the infliction of bodily,disease or even death; see Waterland, oz Fundam. ch. 4, Vol. 11. p. 460, and see the com- ments and references in notes oz 1 Zim. i. 20, where the formula again occurs: comp. also Weiss, 426/. Theol. § 89. c, Vol. 11. p. 15 note (Transl.). The special apostolic power to which this formula refers appears before us in the case of Ananias (Acts v. I sq.), was dimly dreaded by Simon (Acts vill. 24), and was actually ex- perienced by Elymas (Acts xiii. 9 sq.). This view seems recognized indirectly by the early commentators, but rather as a consequence resulting from Satan’s availing himself of the unprotected state of the (excommunicated) man (€merow 6 didBodos ephuous cipioxwv Tis xdpiros, Theod.), than as the result of direct apostolical discipline. This, however, falls short of the full signifi- cance of the expression, and of the simple and natural meaning of the associated clause. Satan is but the subordinated agent who carries out the disciplinary sentence. On the personality of Satan, see Martensen, Dogm. § 102, p. 193 (Transl.), Dorner, Christian Doctrine, § 86. 3, Vol. 11. p- 108 sqq. (Transl.). els SAeOpov Tis capKds]} ‘for the de- struction of the flesh ;’ for the destruc- tion and complete breaking up of that sensual nature in which and by which he had sinned; proximate purpose of the mapddoo1s. The man was given over to Satan (iva maidev07, Origen ap. Cramer, Cat. ; comp. I Tim. i. 20), that by bodily sufferings or disease the odpt (‘qua peccarat,’ Bengel) might be subdued and indeed destroyed as the ‘fomes peccati.’ The meaning of odpt seems here to occupy a sort of middle ground between its more purely ethical (comp. notes on ch. i. 26, and oz Gal. v. 5) and its more simple and physical meaning. It is here the material odpt considered as the seat, of the sinful mo- tions; comp. notes o7 Cod. ii. 11. Philippi, Glaubenslehre, Vol. 11. p. 231 sq. (ed. 2), and see the useful reff. and comments Cuap. V. 5-7. a A > A e a lo) mvetua own ev TH Hmepa TOV 1 CORINTHIANS. 105 Kupiov *Inaad. ° Ov Kadov Tod Us e n > 7 oe \ / m6 x 7 a Kavynua vuav. ovK oidate OTL pixpa CUpn Odov 70 Hvpawa Cvpor ; 5. Tod Kupiov “Inood] So Rec., Tisch., Treg., Rev., on slightly preponder- ating authority: Zachm. places in brackets juav *"Incod Xpicrod after Kuplov; Westc. and Hort simply read tod Kupiov, but place the added *Inood in the margin. insufficient authority. in Cremer, £72b1.-Theol. Weorterb. p. B20. (va Td mvedpa KT] 272 order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus ;’ further and fuller purpose of the mapddoc1s. It was the design of the judicial act to destroy that which formed, as it were, the substratum of sensual sin, and thus to save that which was the substratum of the higher life and the medium of communication with the Holy Spirit. Satan thus becomes the unconscious and over-ruled agent for good. What is destroyed is not an integral part of man, his o@ua (comp. 1 Thess. v. 23), but that addititious part im which sensual sin made its abode, and which, even in its own simple and material nature, could not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. xv. 50); comp. Chrys- ostom 77 /oc. and Origen (Cramer, Caz.), both of whom rightly explain the tenor of the two clauses. 6. O¥ kaddv «.t.d.] ‘Your matter of glorying ts not good,’ —is not right, or to be commended; kadds here slightly reverting towards its primary idea (Donalds. Craty/. § 334), and indicating not only the intrinsic character of the kavxnua, but the aspect it would .as- sume in the eyes of every right-judging man. On the distinction between kaAds and aya@ds, see notes oz Gal. vi. 10, and comp. Cremer, W%7terb. p. 340 sq. The matter and subject of boasting which the Apostle thus condemns is the state of the Corinthian Church, which many of those to whom the Apostle was writing deemed highly 14 The shorter reading is certainly probable, but rests on apparently satisfactory, but which, by its toleration of the unhappy man, was much other- wise ; ‘superbiebant perinde ac si omnia fuissent apud se aurea, quum tamen tantum flagitii ac dedecoris inter ipsos foret,’ Calvin zz Joc. puke Cipy] ‘a little leaven ;’ almost, ‘a very little’ (kal Bpaxeia otoa, Chrys.), the epithet preceding the substantive, and so being in the position of emphasis; see Winer, Gr. § 61. 1. 6; comp. Madvig, Syzt. § 218. It has been doubted whether the reference is to the sinful man or to his sin in the abstract, and as illustrative of the character of sin generally. Either is tenable ; but the context (ver. 8) seems here in favor of the latter interpreta- tion; in Gal. v. 9 the weight of the argument from the context seems the other way; see notes zz loc. The word, with a similar metaphorical reference, is also found in Matt. xiii. 33 (Luke xiii. 21), xvi. 6 (Mark viii. 15, Luke xii. 1); comp. Ignat. AZagz. to, and Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 1299. 7. exkaddpare K.T.A.] ‘Purge out the old leaven, scil. tbv Tadaidy &vOpwroy ov tails mpdteow avtov, Orizen (ap. Cramer, Catz.), Calvin, al., in accordance with the view taken in the verse above. The reference to the sinful man in question is adopted by Chrys., al.,— but, from the general tenor of the passage (comp. (tun kaktlas kal movnplas, ver. 8), with less probability. The Apostle passes from the specific case to the general exhortation which was naturally suggested by it. It may be 106 1 CORINTH EANS: HAP. Vi 7: wv 3 / \ \ A iv a f J , ‘éxxabdpate Tv Tadalav Copmv, iva Are véov Pipapya, Kabes > ” \ \ \ , con > 50 i "¢ ’ 82 E€OTE atupot* Kab yap TO TAaCNa NLWVY ETUUH PlaTos. WOTE 7. éxxabdpate thy x.7.A.] So Lachm., on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., éxkaddpare ody. Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, The insertion of brtp judy (Lec.) after jua@v, is even more clearly to be rejected. doubted whether there is any special reference to the custom of removing all leaven prior to the Passover (Origen Z.c.). The primary command (Ex. xii. 19, xiii. 7) is, however, clearly in the Apostle’s thoughts: as it was with the children of Israel on leaving the land of Egypt, so, metaphorically, must it ever be with the Christian Church; see Hofmann 77 Zoc. véov dipapa] ‘a new lump, a morally renewed community, a body of Christian men Guryes kaxias, Theoph. On the dis- tinction between (vecens, with reference to aformer state), and rads (2ovus, with reference to the quality of the state), see notes oz Col. ili. 10, Eph. iii. 16, iv. 24, and comp. Trench, Syzzoz. § 60, p. 206 sqq. (Lond. 1871), Titmann, Synon. p. 59,and Cremer, W6rterd. p. 232, 430. The distinction may be succinctly, and with substantial ac- curacy, expressed in the formula, ‘véos ad tempus, kavds ad rem refertur,’ Trench, /oc. cit. p. 214. Kadas éore dLupor] ‘even as ye are unleavened, scil. even as, by principle and profession ye verily are those who have put away the leaven of sin and wickedness; not, Kabws mpémer civar duas, Chrys. (comp. Phot.), but xaOws éoré (the auxiliary verb is somewhat emphatic), ‘as, in your true normal state, ye are.’ The clause, as Bengel rightly observes, depends on the first,»rather than the second, clause of the verse: the com- mand was such as the true idea of Chris- tianity itself suggested. Any reference to an actual celebration of the Passover assumed to be then going on at Corinth (Conyb. and Howson, al.) is s veos neither consistent with the ethical tenor of the context nor in harmony with the ordinary use of &(vuos, which, when having its material reference, is used in reference to things (c.g. &pros, Ex. xxix. 2, Adyavov, 1 Chron. xxiii. 29) rather than to persons. Kal yap K.7.A.] ‘for our passover also has been sacrificed, even Christ, the ydp, as usual, confirming, and the kai marking the actual and existing state of things which adds force to the exhortation: ‘purge out, I say, the leaven, for, in addition to every other reason, Christ our pure and spotless lamb has been slain ; leaven is incompatible with His sacrificial presence.’ On the use of these associated particles, each of which always preserves its distinctive force, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 642, Hartung, Partzk. Vol. I. p. 138, the good comments of Kiihner, Gr. § 544. 3. 2, and the note on Phil. ii. 27. Whether the conjunctive or ascensive force of xat is most in prominence, must be gathered from the context. — The term mdoxa (and so probably ér@n: Hesych. éogdyn) is here used in its more limited sense of ‘agnus paschalis’ (Grimm), as in Mark xiv. 12, Luke Rk. 7) comp, 1x. scl. 29 PASethe blood of the paschal lamb was an ex- piatory offering for the sin of each household (Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of O. T. § 185, p. 367, Transl.), so the blood of Jesus Christ was the expiatory offering for the sins of the whole world : comp. Oehler, Zheology of O. T. § 154, Vol. 11. p. 114 sq., where the sacrificial and expiatory character of the Passover is fully recognized. Cuap. V. 8-9. Eoptalaper, py) ev Con Tarara plas, GAN év abvpous etduxpweias 9” Erypavra Avoid all communication with fornicators, and with all evil livers. 8. wore k.7.A.] ‘ Wherefore’ or ‘ con- sequently, ‘itaque,’ Vulgate; closing and consequential exhortation in ref- erence to the clause immediately pre- ceding. On this use of &ore, the essential idea of which is ‘consecutio alicujus rei ex antecedentibus’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. i. p. 771), see notes oz Phil. ii. 12. Though it cannot be gathered from these words, or from any words in ver. 8 (see above), that any paschal rites were then being observed at Corinth, yet it is quite reasonable to infer, from the expansion of the simple metaphor into the details of this and the foregoing verse, that the Epistle was written not long before the Passover, and that the thoughts of the approaching festival were then in the Apostle’s mind: comp. ch. xvi. 8, erriwev@ O& ev Edéow ews THs TevTNKOOTTS. The exhortation, however, has a perfectly general application: mas 6 xpdvos EopTis cor ikaipds Tots Xpiotiavots, Chrys. kaklas Kal trovnplas] ‘malice and wickedness, the former word marking the inward principle (opp. to dpeth, Plato, Aristot.; trans- lated by Cicero ‘ vitiositas’), the latter the manifestation and outcome of it in action; comp. Rom. i. 29, where the two words are again associated, and see Trench, Syzon. § 11, and Cremer, Weorterb. p. 328. év afipots eiAtkpiv. Kal dAnOelas] ‘772 the un- leavened elements of sincerity and truth.’ The term a(vuos is general,—all un- leavened things, principles, elements. These elements are defined by two " genitives of so-called apposition (Winer, Gr. § 59. 8. a), or, more exactly of definition (see Buttm. Gr. MW. T., p. 68,— the gen. is ever the ‘explanatory 1 CORINTHIANS. 107 pndée ev Coun Kakias Kal Trovn- Kal adneias. by év TH €mricTONH pu) ovuva- background,’ Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 196), the first of which seems to mark the purity (kaapss Bios, Theoph., GHicums;, see 2) Cor. 1. 12; u. 17); the second, the moral reality (comp. John iii. 21, Eph. v. 9) of the principles. On the meaning and derivation of eiAukpivera (freedom from foreign ad- mixture: 7d duryes érépov, Etym. M.) see notes oz Phil. i. 10, and Trench, Synon. § 85. 9-13. Explanation of a former com- mand relative to fornicators. 9. typaipa ev ty émurrody] ‘7 wrote to you in the (former) letter, scil. in a letter now lost; so Meyer, De Wette, Hofmann, and the great majority of modern commentators. Chrysostom and nearly all of the patristic commen- tators refer these words to the present epistle. But (1) the passages (ver. 2, 6) in which the command is said to be given cannot be regarded as containing anything so specific as that here re- capitulated; (2) the reference of the same form of words (év tH émoTtoAn) in 2 Cor. vii. 8 to a former, 2.e. this present epistle, and (3) the continued reference of this epistle to errors.and misconceptions anterior to its being written, leave it scarcely doubtful that the twés mentioned by Origen (Cram. Cat.) were right in referring the words to YAAN Tis emiaTOAY Fris viv ov od Cera. See Wordsw. 27 Zoc., who shows clearly- that the assumption that an epistle of St. Paul has been lost really involves no doctrinal difficulty. Th) cuvavapiyvurGat «.T.A.] ‘ot to keep company with fornicators ;’ ‘fornicariis,’ Vulg.; the word having in the N. T. (comp. Eph. v. 5) this, and not the darker shade of meaning which it has 108 1 CORINTHIANS. [CuHap. V. Io. , a a ’ vaulyvucbat tropvo.s, ob mdavtws Tois TOpvots TOD KOoMoU TOUTOV H Tos mreovéxtas Kal dprrakw 7 cidworadTpars, érrel wpbeideTe 10. ov mdvrws] The omission of kat (Rec.) before these words, the reading kal dpm. instead of # dpm. (Rec.) and of wpeidere instead of dpeiAere, are adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, —all on greatly preponderating uncial authority. in classical writers. On the double compound ovvavaul-yyuc8e, comp. notes on 2 Thess. iii. 14. 10. 08 wdvTws] ‘zot generally, not altogether,” ‘non omnino,’ Erasmus ; limitation of the foregoing negation, the od mdytws coalescing as a single particle and expressing the non-inclu- siveness of the command as regards the mdépvo: tod Kédcuov TovTov; see Winer, Gv. § 61, 5, Buttm. Gr. WV. 7. Pp: 334, and comp. Rom. iii. 9, where, however, the meaning is different, and like that of ob wavy (see Hartung. Partik. Vol. 11. p. 87), conveys a sharp negation, ‘nequaquam,’ Vulg. Here the Apostle simply guards his words against being taken too exclusively ; he explains that he was not alluding to aliens who might be involved in that sin, but to those who were members of the Church. TOU KST OV TOUTOV] ‘of this world, of the non-Christian world, tév GAdAotplwy tis mloTews, Theodoret ; comp. ch. iii. 19, Gal. iv. 3, Eph. u..2, Col. ii. 8, al., where the same ethical tinge is similarly con- veyed by the associated pronoun. Hofmann appears to call this in ques- tion, but with that overdrawn and artificial logic which too often mars his otherwise able and suggestive com-. mentary. Onthe various meanings of Kéapuos, see notes o7 Gal. iv. 3, and the valuable comments of Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 6. 2 sq., p- 33 sq- (Transl.). 4 tots meovéxtats K.T.A.] 607 with the covetous and extortionate ;’ the two being associated together with ral, and under the vinculum of a single article, as making up the full idea of aggres- sive piAavria. On the term mAcovetla, see Trench, Syzon. § 24, and comp. notes oz Lph. iv. 19. émrel acel- Nere K.T.A.] ‘sz2ce in such a case ye would have need to go out of the world ;’ the émei with its usual ratiocinative (‘essentiam rei causam reddit,’ Deva- rius) and retrospective force introdu- cing the logical alternative, and the &pa, with its regular reference to the existing state of things (‘rebus ita | comparatis,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. U. p. 161) marking the difference of the case from our antecedent notion of it. see Donalds. Gr. § 548. 4. On the causal use of éwet as indicated by its probable derivation (émt, ef = ém) rovT@ ei; comp. Curtius, Zzym. p. 239), and its approximation in meaning to dp, see Kiihner., Gr. § 569. 1, Donalds. Gr. § 618. The true distinction, how- ever, between the two particles may always be traced: where the subor- dinate clause is of a coz/irmatory tenor, there ydép is used; where more of an argumentative tenor, there émel is more natural. It is used, for example, by Euclid in the commencement of a demonstration (Book I. 31), or in ref- erence to an obvious or admitted truth: see Book 1.17. The particle is not of very frequent occurrence in the N.T., the passages in which the reading is fairly certain being about twenty-seven in all. On the idiomatic use of the imperfect @pelAere to mark some- thing which, apart from any condition, would certainly have to take place under the circumstances as specified, CuapP. V. 11. 12. 1 CORINTHIANS. 109 ipa éx ToD Kocpou e&eNOciv: " vov bé éyparpa bwiv wy ovvavapi- yvuo0at, eav Tis adeApos dvopwalomevos 7 TOpVOS 7) TAEQvEKTNS ? 4 x / x f AX of n es x H eldwroraTpns % Aoldopos 7) wéOvcos 7) GpTae, TO TowovTH pNdé cuverbiew. ri yap pou Tovs éEa Kpivew ; ovyi Tos ow Kpuels 11. viv] So Lachm., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating au- thority: Rec., Zisch., vuvt, but the probability of a correction in favor of the more emphatic form is not inconsiderable. The form # (rather than 4) is adopted in all the above-mentioned editions, including Z7sch. 12. tovs tw] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: (ec. prefixes rat. see Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, Kithner, Gr. 392. 4, and the good note of Stallbaum on Plato, Sym pos. Pp. 190 C. II. viv 8& ¢ypawa] ‘but, as tt 2s, [ wrote, Kata Taltny eypaya duiv thy ded- voav, Theodoret; the viv having its logical rather than its merely temporal force (see notes 07 1 Thess. iii. 8, Har- tung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 25), and the éypaya its ordinary aoristic force as in ver. 9. The rendering ‘but now I write,’ Rev., al., is grammatically ten- able, but apparently less probable, (1) because the éypaa would hardly be used in two different senses (the first historical, the:second epistolary) in two verses so near and nearly connected ; (2) because it seems more contextually natural that after the Apostle had alluded to what he did not say, he should now specify what he did say. So apparently Syr., Arm., Copt. adeAdds dsvopaldpevos] ‘tearing the name of a brother.” The Corinthians, ° as it would seem, had failed properly to notice that this limitation was to be observed in, or, at any rate, imme- diately inferred from, the command as expressed in the former letter. To refer évoua(éuevos to what follows can hardly be said (with Phot.) ed @xeuw, as regards either order or interpretation. eiSwdatpys] ‘a7 zdolater.’ It is strange that such a sin should have been com- mitted eren by a nominal Christian. Social usages, however, and the idol- feasts to which the Apostle refers in ch. viii. may have led to a superstitious recognition of the beings supposed to be represented by the idols, which constituted the real efSwAoAatpeia. The enumeration of sins, it will be noticed, is somewhat different in ver. 10 and ver. II: it is, however, doubtful whether any exegetical deductions (comp. Hofmann) can very certainly be drawn from it. pede o-v- veoOieav] ‘20t even to cat with him ;’ objective, or as it is sometimes called expository, clause, dependent on the preceding éypaa, and climactic to uh ovvavautyvucbal. In such a case there was to be even a dissolution of the personal relation. On the circum- stances in which such a dissolution is directed in Holy Scripture (comp. 2 Thess. iii. 14, Titus iii. 10, 2 John 10), see the excellent remarks of Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 48. a. p. 391 sq. (Transl.). 12. tl yap «.t.d.] ‘For what have I to do with judging them that are with- out?’ Confirmatory clause, showing that the Apostle’s words were ob- viously to be limited to Christians: he had no disciplinary relations with heathens. On the term robs ew, as designating those who were not ‘do- mestici fidei’ (Col. iv. 5, 1 Thess. iv. 12; €wOev, 1 Tim. iii. 7), see the notes on 1 Tim. iii. 7. The term oi twéev 110 1 CORINTHIANS. kpivete ; rods Sé Ew 6 Ocds xpiver. ¢ nr > fal ULWVY AUTWV. How can you dare to carry your suits before heathens? Let Chris- tian judge Christian, Wrong doers will not enter God’s kingdom, Cuap. V. 12-VI. 1. "E€apatre tov wovnpov é& lol e lal lal vw % VI. Todwa tis tuov mpaypa exw pos Tov €repov KplvecOar eri Tov adiKwr, Kal 13. Efdpare] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. kai é&dperre. is similarly used in Josephus (Be//. Jud. IV. 3), and as in contrast to oiketos see Kypke, Oéss. Vol. 11. p, 198. ovXl Tots tow K.t.A.] ‘Zs 2t not those within that you judge?’ Justification of the foregoing question: ‘just as you (iuets) confine your judgments to your brethren and fellow-Christians, so do I; and, accordingly, so was my judicial command to be limited.’ With- out taking «pivew as ‘pro condemnato habere’ (Erasmus), it is obvious, from the context that xpivei here involves the idea of a judgment, presumably zz malam partem. It is from the context that this otherwise purely neutral word takes its local hue; comp. the examples in Cremer, Worterd. s.v. p. 371. 13. Tovs St tw «.7.d.] ‘ But them that are without God judgeth ;’ ethical pres- ent: so Erasmus, Beza, Rev., Zyreg., Westc. and Hort, al.; not fut. ‘shall judge ’ (xpwe?, Lachm., Tisch.), Vulg., Arm., al., the present marking, with much more force and solemnity, the changeless attribute of God, the true Kpitns mavtwv, Heb. xii. 23. On this pres., aptly termed by Kriiger (Strack. § 53. 1) the ‘allzeitiges Prisens,’ as serving to mark duration without ref- erence to a beginning or ending, and thence, by a natural transition, what is changeless and unalterable, see Winer, Gr.§ 40. 2. a, Schmalfeld, Syzzt. 54. 2, Bernhardy, Syzz. X. 2, p. 371. It does not seem probable that this clause is here to be taken interrogatively (Zach- mann, Rev., Hofmann, al.), the whole tenor of the context seeming to point to two antithetical questions, and then the grave enunciation. *Efdpart<] ‘Put away, Remove ;’ without any connecting particle, and so emphati- cally summing up the command im- plied in ver. 2 sq., and almost exactly in the very words of the old Law, xa} > eEapeis Tov movnpdy e& bua@y adtay, Deut. xxiv. 7. The movnpéds, however, in this last citation, is one found guilty of a great though different sin, — stealing and selling one of his brethren. Hof- mann, somewhat perversely (the ma- jority of expositors taking the more obvious view) regards roy movnpéy as referring not to the incestuous man, but to the offender in each case that came before them. VI. 1-11. Reproof for bringing their differences before heathen courts, and Sor the spirit that led to this course. 1. Todpa tis tpov] ‘ Dare any one of you ;’ tTbdAuns éo7) Td Tpayua Kal Tapavo-' utas, Chrys.; comp. Valck. Scho/. Vol. II. p. 186, who rightly observes that the idea of taking upon oneself (sustinzere) is both by derivation and usage to be traced in the word. On the derivation, see Curtius, Ztym. § 236, p. 199. An- other and more general case now calling for the Apostle’s notice, what follows is not linked with what precedes by any connecting particle. Whether any particular case was in the Apostle’s mind at the time, or whether the tis is used with a merely general reference, cannot be determined from anything in the context. The moral question Cuap. VI. 1, 2. 1 CORINTHIANS. car > \ > \ la) e / 2 A > 1S. v e cA \ ’ ouxl S7Tl TMV AYLOWY ; 4 OVK OLOATE OTL OL AYLOL TOV KOGLLOV 2. h ovx] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly prepond:rating authority: Rec. omits %. under what circumstances a Christian may rigitly appeal to the law, is dis- cussed i1 Rothe, Zheol. Zthik, § 923, Vol. Iv. p. 44 sq. (ed. 2). mpaypna ™pos Tov Erepov] ‘a matter against iis neighbor, ze. ‘alegal matter or case.’ sensu forensi. Grimm ad- duces Xen. AZem. 11. 9. 1, Demosth. p. 1120, and Josephus, Azzzg. XIV. Io. 7s , kplver Oar] ‘vo Zo law ;’ so perhaps ii ge (‘when tiou comest into judgment’)’; comp. Maf\. v. 40, and see Cremer, Weorterb. s.% p. 371. G8ikov K.7.A. fh ‘before the unrighteous, and not nee saints ;’ érl having here the second\of its two primary ideas (‘superposition, combined with the idea of proximity, Donaldson, Crat. § 172; comp. Curtius, Ztym. § 334), as in Mark xiii. 9, Acts xxiv. 19, xxv. 9, Xxvi. 2, I Tim. v. 19, al.; see Harrison, Greek Prepos. p. 272 sq. (Philadelphia, 1860), where this usage of the prep. is very carefully analyzed. The contrast between the two parties before whom the xpivec@a is to take place suggests that the process in the two cases would be different; before the heathen it would be according to the legal forms then prevailing; before the saints it would be in the form of arbitration (comp. ver. 5, and see notes). On the uses of the term &y:o (here, probably, as the use in ver. 2 seems to suggest, members of a spiritual community), see notes oz “ph. i. 1, and comp. Pearson, Creed, Art. 1X. Vol. 1. p. 417 (Oxf. 1843). The question of the law- fulness of going to law, especially in connection with this chapter, is well discussed by Hammond, Practical Cat- echism, I. 9, p. 161 (A.-C. Libr.). On Rom. iii. 4, év T@ xptvecOal éml Tav the propriety of spiritual persons acting as judges, see Hooker, Zcc/. Pol. vu. iy Sh 2. % ovdk oiSare] ‘Or know ye not?’ ‘Are ye so bold, ov, if it be not bold- ness, so ignorant?’ In this formula, which occurs four times in this single chapter (see ver. 9, 16, 19, Rom. ix. 21, xy 2, 2) Cor. xu, 55 Comp, 1; Cor. ix. 8) and always marks an emphatic in- terrogation, sometimes not without a tinge of indignation, each particle has its proper force. The disjunctive 7 refers to some foregoing expression (as here) or to some thought which is con- tained in, and can easily be traced in, the context: ‘rem in vulgus notam, et quam nescire turpe sit afferi indicat,’ Fritzsche, 77 Rom. vi. 3, Vol. 1. p. 357. Tov Kdcpov Kpivotew] ‘shall judge the world ;’ at the last day, and as sitting with their Lord in His judgment; comp. Matt, xix. 28, Luke xxii. 30, where, however, only Jews are referred to. Here it is extended to the whole non-Christian world: comp. Wisdom ili. 8, kpivodor [Sixaiwy Wuxal, ver. 1] €6vn kal Kparhoovot Aa@v; comp. Dan. vii. 22, Kptua €Owkev aytors. The &y.o, after they themselves have risen and been judged (ferhaps at an earlier time; comp. Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 152. I, Vol. Iv. p. 389, note), will sit as the ‘assessores, testes, et comprobatores judicii’ (comp. Grot.): see Platt, Glau- benslehre, § 77, Vol. 1. p. 349, Rothe, Dogmatik, WU. 2.9, Vol. 1. p. 53. The attempt to explain this away by a | reference to Matt. xii. 41, 42 (Chrys., Theodoret, a!.) as a judgment kar mapddeow (Theod.-Mops.), is here in- consistent with the plain tenor of the whole passage, in which all the terms 112 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VI. 2, 3. a lal £ > / / . Kpwovow ; Kal eb év tuiv KpiveTat 0 KOcpos, avaklol éote Kpi- / b / 8 ? ” 24 bd I lo / Tnpiov édhaylotwv ; 2 ovK oldate OTL ayyéhous KpwWovpev ; paTLYE are used in their natural and primary judicial sense: see Calvin 7x doc. Kal ei «1.A.] ‘ And—if the world is judged by (before) you ;’ the kat with its ordinary ascensive force introducing with some emphasis the question, and marking the justness by way of conse- quence, of putting it; see Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 147, Kihner. Gr. § 521. 3. A similar, but not identical use of kai may be observed in Phil. i. 22; see notes zz Joc. It is difficult here to express correctly the exact meaning of évy. It is not simply equiv- alent to 76 (Raphel, Azzot. Vol. 11. p. 325); still less has it any ethical mean- ing (‘by your example,’ Theoph.) ; it appears chosen as marking the ‘con- sessus’ (Kypke) 7 which, and so, in effect, before which, the kpiois took place ; see Winer, Gr. § 48. 1. d, and the examples collected by Kypke, Odss. Vol. II. p. 199; comp. also notes oz COL 1.23, avat.ol éore K.T.A,] ‘are ye unworthy of the smallest courts?’ and so, derivatively, ‘of holding or passing judgment in such.’ The word KpiThpiov, as its termination indicates (Kitihner, Gr. § 330. 5), implies either (az) ‘locus ubi judicium habetur,’ James ii. 6, Susann. 49, or (4) ‘instrumentum quo aliquid exploratur, seu judicatur,’ Diod. Sic. I. 72, «pithpiov 1 av év TG Biw mpaxOevtwy (cited in Cremer, Wérterd. S.v. p. 375). The first meaning seems here the more natural and the most in harmony with ver. 4: so rightly Arm., which in each case adopts a word meaning ‘court’ or ‘tribunal’; comp. Eth. The meaning, at any rate, is quite clear, and is correctly expressed in substance by Vulg., ‘ indigni estis qui de minimetis judicetis,’ Clarom.’ Syr., ‘judiciorum minimorum :’ comp. Copt., Auth., Rev. The translation ‘ causes’ (Wordsw.) is not in accordance with the lexical usage of the word. 3. od« olSarek.e.d.] ‘ Av0w ye not that we shall judge angels ?’ further carrying out of the thought of ver. 2; the elect will hereafter judge not only men but angels. Who theseangels are can only be inferred from the context. Just as in 2 Pet. ii. 4 the anarthrous ayyéAwy receives its proper hue from tae asso- ciated participle (‘when they sinned,’ Rev.), so here the whole ter.or of the passage excludes the idea of those angels, who, we have no occasion what- ever from Scripture to ‘believe, will come under any form of future xpiots, but will themselves rataer take part in it: consider Matt. xii. 41, and comp. xvi. 27, xxv. 31. Vve cannot therefore hesitate, with all the early expositors, to limit the word here to the ev angels,— of some at least of whom it is specially said that they are awaiting their judgment ; see Jude 6. To press kpivew here, as something which, by the circumstances of the case, must only refer to a meum and tuum, and to understand by the mysterious clause some vague reference to future relations between the saints and angels in the Redeemer’s future kingdom (Hof- mann), is to do violence to all sober principles of interpretation. If the whole context does imply a reference to a future judgment on which an @ fortiort argument is founded, then surely that kpiois must be the only xptots about which we have any knowl- edge, the xplots peydAns juepas. In this, to its full extent, whether over angels or men, the saints ‘shall co- operate and take a part,’ Nitzsch. Chr. Doctr. § 219. On this text, see a *‘Concio ad Clerum’ by Lightfoot, Works, Vol. vi. p. 83 sqq., and for —— z= Cuap. VI. 3, 4 1 CORINTHIANS. 118 Buorind. *Buatixd pev odv xpitiypia ay éxnte, Tors eEovOevy- , b] lel > / A = ‘ pévous EV TH EXKANTLA, TOUTOUS Kabifere. references on the subject of angels generally, notes on ch. iv. 9. pirrye Riwtixa] ‘20 say nothing at all of things of this life ;’ concluding clause dependent on, but not included in, the foregoing question; so rightly Zachm., De Wette, Meyer, al. On the com- pound particle wArvye (‘nedum,’ and so, according to the context, ‘multo magis,’ or ‘multo minus’), see Her- mann, Viger, No. 266, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 137, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 155. In this form the ye has its proper force (‘semper aliquid cogita- tione adsumendum est, etiam si id levissuma oppositione et celeri cogita- tione fieri debet,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p- 276) : it sharpens the conclusion (‘to say nothing indeed, when so much might be said,’ ‘nedum quidem’): and enhances the force of the comparison ; see Hartung, Partik, Vol. I. p. 364, and comp. notes on ch. iv. 8. The exact shade of meaning of Biwtikds is slightly doubtful: it may mean in a general sense, xatd rdv Bloy TovTov, Theod.-Mops., comp. Vulg. (‘szcu- laria’), Copt. (‘opera hujus vite’), Eth. (‘hujus mundi’), or, more par- ticularly, ‘ad rem familiarem_perti- nentes,’ Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. vy comp. Luke viii. 43. The use of the word in Luke xxi. 34 (xpaumddn kad BeOn Kad pepiuvas Biwtixais), and the present context, in which the meum and ¢wum idea is obviously predomi- nant, seem in favor of the latter meaning: comp. Polyb. 7st. Iv. 73. 8, Bwwtikal xpeia. The word is used apparently first by Aristotle, but is very common in later Greek: see Lobeck, Piry2. p. 355+ 4. Brorixd piv ody K.t.A.] ‘Uf then ye verily have courts pertaining to this life, ‘if ye are really so circumstanced * 5 Wy > \ ig a“ TpOS EVTPOTIVY ULL as to be obliged to have such tribunals ;’ the word Biwrikd being repeated with emphasis, and the uéy ov, with its continuative and retrospective force (‘cum quadam conclusionis significa- tione, Hermann, Viger, No. 342; compare Biumlein, Partzk. p. 181 sq), carrying out the thought suggested by the last clause.. In this combination the wéy ‘rem prasentem confirmat ;’ the ody ‘conclusionem ex rebus ita comparatis conficit;’ Klotz. Devarius, Vol. 11. p. 663; see notes oz Phil. iii. 8. The corrective force of these particles (Donalds. Gv. § 567) appears in the N. T. more clearly under the longer form pevodvye as in Rom. ix. 20, x. 18. There is here (opp. to Alf.), as the context shows, no corrective force: the command follows on what has been already implied, and is based upon it. tovs eEovlevypévous k.T.A.] ‘set them to judge who are held of no accountin the Church ;’ imperative, and with reference to those who were members of the Church, but of little esteem in it: so Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm., the Greek expositors, and several recent interpreters. The meaning then will be, ‘if you must have these tribunals, appoint as judges men of your own Christian community, and of least account among you; those really of account will have something better to do;’ the reference here being to litigation before a judge, in ver. 6 to wise and peaceful arbitration. Ac- cording to the alternative interpretation, kadiere is taken as indicative, and interrogatively, tods éfovlevnu. being referred to the heathen judges: so Tisch., Westc. and Hort, De Wette, al. To this latter interpretation there are the grave objections,— (1) that ca@i¢ere is a term very inapplicable to judges 114 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VI. 4-6. Aéyw. ofTws ove Eve ev div ovdels codds, bs Suvnoetar Svaxpivas ava pécov Tov adeApod adtod; Sara adeAPes peta adeAod 5. et ev buiv ovdels copes] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort: the é resting on very clearly, and the ovdels on greatly, preponderating au- thority: Rec. @orw év buiv copds ovse eis. already appointed, and actually sitting as such; (2) that rods étouvevnuévous év TH éxkAnola is a harsh term for the Apostle to use in reference to the heathen (contrast ch. v. 12), whereas in the application to Christians the language is that of indignation and wrong (kadamrrduevos avtay, Chrys.), and so not out of place. The heathen were @iwOev, but not éfovbevnucva. It thus seems best to maintain the early and traditional interpretation above specified. The rovrovs, as its position shows, is emphatic, and con- centrates the attention on the foregoing Tous ékovOev.: see Kiihner, Gr. § 460. 4, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51. 7. 5 (comp. § 51. 5. 1), and notes ov Gal. iii. 7. 5: mpdos évtpomiv tpiv éyw] ‘7 say this 4o you to move you to shame ;’ with reference to the foregoing clause, as in ch. xv. 34. To refer this clause to what follows weakens the force of the indignant question, and leaves the somewhat unusual command in ver. 4 without the explanatory comment which this clause seems expressly de- signed to supply: so Theodorus (Cram. Cat.), Cicum., and apparently also Chrys., who prefixes totro. ottws ovK evi K.7.A.] § Zs zt so that there 7s no wise man among you?’ the ottws marking simply the state of things (‘quum he ita sint’) which existed in the Corinthian Church; comp. Hermann, Viger, Append. x. p. 748 (London, 1824). Chrysostom and others regard the o¥rws as intensifying the assumption, and marking the com- pleteness of the lack which the Apostle was forced to believe existed among them, ‘Is there so utterly a lack of wise men,’ etc., Tocaltn omduis avopav ouvetav map juiv; Chrys. (comp. notes on Gal. iii. 1); but the objection seems decisive,— that thus an apodosis would seem to be wanting. It is not so much the degree of the lack, as the fact of it, on which the Apostle bases his ques- tion. 8s Suvqcerar Siakptvar] ‘who shall be able (whenever the case arises) to decide ;’ the reference being here to arditration. Such a mode of deciding questions was not unknown to the Jews (see especially Lightfoot, Hor. fHebr. in loc.), and, if not formally adopted from them by Christians, was, at any rate, such a mode of deciding questions as ought at once to suggest itself to men who, in any true sense, were adeAgol. The use of the singular (‘between his brother ’ and the brother complained of by him), is apparently to mark the individual dealing with each case which was to characterize true Christian arbitration. It was not to be a matter of courts and precedents, but of personal and individual investi- gation. 6. dAAG aBSeAdds k.T.A.] brother goeth to law with brother ;’ sharp antithesis to the thought con- tained in the foregoing question, aAA& having here its fundamental meaning (‘aliud hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz. Devar. Vol. Il. p. 2) sharply enunciated; see Klotz. p. 11, Hartung, Partik. Vol. i. p. 36, Baumlein, Partiz. p- 1osq. The punctuation adopted by some recent editors according to which &AAd would be in its ordinary sequence to the negation in ver. 5, and the ‘Nay,—. if Cuap. VI. 6-7. KpiveTat, Kal TOUTO éTL amioTwV. lal > nr _tpiv eotw OTe Kpipata éxete pel” EavTov. 1 CORINTHIANS. 115 7 Hdn pév odv GAwS HTTHUAa Sia Ti ovyxi wadXov 7. tu] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., ev duiv. question postponed to the end of the present verse (so fev.), is grammati- cally tenable, but less in harmony with the sharp, indignant tone which marks these verses: comp. ver. 8. To make this verse a second question (7Zyeg. al.) is open to the same objection; the question dilutes the force of the directly- enunciated fact and of the involved censure. Kal rotro] ‘and this too,— the kal with its ascensive force (‘et quidem ;’ see notes ov Phil. iv. 12) throwing its emphasis on the retro- spective rovto, and (as in Rom. xiii. II; comp. Eph. ii. 8, Phil. i. 28) adding a further and enhancing particular; compare the more common ka} Tatta (Heb. xi. 12) of the classical writers, and see exx. in notes to Viger, /dot. Iv. 16, p. 176 (Lond. 1824), Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 146. Not only was there direct litigation (instead of brotherly arbitration) but litigation in heathen courts: ei yap kal Ka@ éavTd Td mpayua audprnua Td mpds adeApoy KpiverOa, Td Kad em) ekwrik@y molay exe ovyyveunyv ; Chrys. 27 loc. 7- 45 pev odv K.t.d.] ‘ Verily there is at once quite a falling short in you,’ scil. “you are at once much the worse for it in regard of spiritual blessings’ (see below) ; the #5 here, with its logical, but still definitely underlying temporal force (reference to a result prior to what might have been looked for; see Heller, cited by Kiihner, Gr. § 499. 1, foot-note), sharply directing the thought to the state of things to which the Apostle had just referred (‘brother going to law with brother, and that too before unbelievers,’ ver. 6), and en- hancing the continuative and retro- Idiom requires the prep. in translation. spective uéy ody,—on which see notes on ver. 4. The meaning, especially of H5n, is fairly brought out by Chrys., uy tolvuy A€ye, Tis HOiknoev ; évTEedOev yap 48n oe karaxpivw ard Tod Sind CeoOa. In regard of #5, and its difference from viv (on which see notes oz 2 Zim. iv. 6), it may be remarked that while viv, as its very derivation suggests [véFov; Sanscr. zz], refers primarily and mainly to present time, #6y, ety- mologically considered (Donaldson, Cratyl. § 202; but see also Curtius, Ltym. p. 561), seems to mark ‘ nearness to the ere,’ and thence derivatively, ‘nearness to the zow:’ the further idea of ‘priority to that sow,’ or, generally, ‘priority to what might have been supposed,’ emerges naturally, and seems to constitute the underlying meaning of tuais somewhat difficult particle. It here marks idiomatically logical proximity and immediateness (Vulg., ‘jam’), and may be rendered as above, though with some loss of the exact shade of force which the particle seems here to convey: see Kihner, Gr. § 499. 2, and comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 600 sq., Hartung, Partik. Vol... p. 240 sq., and Biiumlein, Partik. p. 38 sqq., by whom, however, the essential force of the particle seems a little lost sight of. Arrynpa] ‘falling short, ‘ detrimentum,’ Copt., ‘loss,’ Rev. (Marg.); scil. of spiritual fulness, or, more probably, of the blessings of God’s kingdom; comp. ver. 9. The usual rendering ‘fault,’ Auth., ‘delictum,’ Vulg. (comp. Syr., 4ith., Arm.), does not harmonize so well with the context nor with the general meaning of the word, in which 116 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VI. 7-9. abixeiobe ; Sua Ti ovyl paddov arrootepeicbe; ® adda vpels 2 a a > a \ la] ? / aouKelre Kal atrooTeEpElTe, Kat TOUTO adEAPoUs. 9x > 7 OvK oloarte, br. ddvcor Ocod Bacrrelav ov KAnpovoyncovow ; Mn mravace: A Lf a ? id oUTE TropvoL oUTE ElOwAOAATPAL ” \ + \ LA OUTE MOLYOL OUTE MaNAKOL OUTE 8. rovto] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, with very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. tava. Q. @eot Bacirciav] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. BaotAclay Ocod. the idea of ‘ defeat ’ (comp. the classical ftta, opp. to vixn, Plato, Laches, p. 196 A.), without any ethical tinge, ap- pears distinctly predominant: comp. Rom. xi. 12 and the comments of Origen (Caz.) on this passage, where ntTac0u is contrasted with vingv: see Grimm, Lex. s.v. é€auvtwv] ‘lawsuits with each other ;’ literally ‘ your own selves,’ the pronoun being apparently expressly chosen to mark the injurious effects of the liti- gation to each member of the Church ; it was in truthahome injury. On this use of the pronoun, see Kihner, Gr. § 455. 8. &Sixeto Oe — atrowre- pet be] ‘take wrong—suffer yourselves to be defrauded, ‘injuriam accipitis — fraudem patimini,’ Vulg., comp. Syr.; the verbs being not in the passive (comp. Clarom., ‘fraudamini’), but in the middle, as the whole tenor of the question implies that the action of the verb is to be directed not to other ob- jects but to the very subjects of the verb themselves. On the essential meaning of the middle voice (viz. ‘that the subject ‘of the proposition is the object, or local limitation, of the ac- tion’) see the excellent remarks of Donaldson, Gv. 432, and comp. Kihner, Gr. 374. I Sq. 8. GAAG bets] ‘ But you on the con- trary; ’? the pronoun being emphatic, and the clause expressing the sharp contrast between the actual state of things and what it ought to be. Meyer Kpipara, pe0" regards the sentence as a part of what precedes, and so included in the vinculum of the interrogation. This is in itself hard, and contrary to the analogy of ver. 6. aderdors] ‘brethren, —and so, those who ought to be treated in a very different way; Xarerdy wey yap Kal 7d Toy GAASTpiov Gdikeiv, ToAA@ 5€ wA€oy Td Toy oOiKELOY, Theodorus. Q. 4 od« otSare] ‘ Or know ye not:’ ‘is it from wilfulness or a real igno- rance of the consequences?’ comp. ver. 2. The verse thus passes into a warning and minatory tone; eis ame:A}y KaTakAcleL Thy mapaiverw ioxupdrepoy , moa Tov Adyov, Chrys. Ocod Bactrelay] ‘ Goa’s kingdom ;’ scil. that kingdom which, begun and established here, has its fullest development and consummation in the future; hence éa- 0étw 7 BactAcia cov, Matt. vi. 10. On the meaning of this inclusive expression, comprehending as it does both the pres- ent and the future, see the collection of examples and the comments in Cremer, Weorterb. p. 134 sq., and the notes oz Gal. v. 21; comp. also above, notes on ch. iv. 20 (1 Cor.). In the form Baotrcla T&v ovpayay, the term either suggests a contrast to earth and earthly hopes and expectations (‘ preecidebatur spes regni terreni et invitabantur omnes ad cceelestia, Bengel, 2 Jatt. iv. 17), or points more prospectively to the heavenly home of the future. The true BaoiAcla can only be realized ‘ when CuHap. VI. 10, 11. 1 CORINTHIANS. 117 2 a 10 LA / x / > LQ > APC EVOKOLTAL OUTE KAETTAL OUTE TNEOVEKTAL, QU MEeUVUTGOL, OU 1 Kai TaUTa Ties NTE’ GAAA aTreAoVaaTOe, GARG ryLaTOnTe, GANA edu- NoidSopar, oly dptrayes Bactreiav Oeod KAnpovoprjcovow. 10. ob pwéebvoo] So TZisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating au- thority (see below) ; Rec., Lachm., Treg., ovte ué0voo. The best authorities are here divided. The preponderance, however, is in favor of the text, internal evidence being in its favor, and the Vv. (though claimed for ore) really giving no real evidence either way. The omission of od (Rec.) before «Anpo- vounoovow is supported by nearly all the older authorities, and adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. the fragmentary has given place to the perfect,’ Martensen, Chr. Zthics, § 45, p- 149 (Transl.). Mi tAavac be} ‘Be not deceived ;’ passive, as always in this formula, and in reference to the preceding words; comp. notes oz Gal. v. 21. There were only too many in Corinth who were ready to suggest more hopeful views; see Chrys. zz loc. In the enumeration of the vices and sins that occupy the re- mainder of the verse the Apostle un- folds all that is really included in a term (%5:01) to which many might have assigned a far less comprehensive meaning. Of the terms that follow in this and the succeeding verse, three relate to the worst sins of the flesh, with which eiSwAodarpela (including, as it naturally would, revels in heathen temples) and effeminate luxury [in padaxcl, ‘molles,’ Vulg., paraphrastically rendered ‘corruptores,’ Syr., there is not necessarily the darker meaning given to the word by Kypke and others; though it may possibly be involved in it; comp. Arm.] are here not unnatu- rally associated; three relate to sins in reference to meum and ‘uw, including in their sequence sins (ué0n, Aodopia) often, to some extent, mixed up with them. There does not, however, seem to be any very studied order in the enumeration; see Gal. v. 19, and notes in loc. Whether this was designedly to show how all are fundamentally one in principle (Hofmann), may perhaps be considered doubtful. Il. kal tadra] ‘and such,’ scil. ‘of such a class or sort;’ not, however, necessarily with any expression of con- tempt (Meyer), but as conveniently grouping the varied items of the pre- ceding enumeration ; see Ktihner, Gr. § 366, obs. In this formula the context may imply a kind of contemptuous reference (see Bernhardy, Syz¢. vi. 7. p- 28t); but such a reference here would seem alien to the serious,gravity of the passage; comp. Winer, G”. § 23. 5. obs. The Apostle, it will be ob- served, is careful to notice that some only (not necessarily moAAoi, Cicum.) fell under this charge, and, further, that with them it belonged wholly to the past (fre). arehotoac be] ‘ye washed away (your sins) ;’ mid- dle, with reference to their seeking baptism, and submitting themselves to it; see Acts xxii. 16, and comp. 1 Cor. x. 2. The passive translation (Vulg., Auth.) may be retained as a rough approximation to the meaning, but not as implying that there is any real passive meaning implied in the tense; see Winer, Gr. § 38. 4. 4. yao Onre — eSixarsOnre] ‘ye were sanc- tified —ye were justified:’ by baptism the Corinthian converts were incor- porated in the Church of Christ: they received the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts ii. 38), were renewed by it (Tit. 118 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP, VI. 'T2: vd ? a Wee fa) 72 ’ rn ~ ee = xawwoOnre €v TS Ovopats ToD Kupiov “Inood Xpiotov Kai é&v To td nm A © ip IIvetpatt tod Ocod jyov. The body is not for for- nication, nor are our 2 Tlavra wo. feotw, GAN ov TavTa cup- members to be made those of a harlot. The body is a temple of the Spirit. II. "Inood Xpiorod]. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Mec. omits Xpirod. ili. 5), and so were made @yioz ; ‘ sancti- ficatio ad regenerationem pertinet,’ Calvin. And this was not all. They were also accounted righteous before God, and accepted into a state of favor with Him,— justification being closely connected with Holy Baptism (Tit. iii. 7), and being due to the grace of God as dispensed (to the faithful and repentant) in that sacrament; see Barrow, Serm. v. Vol. Iv. p. 386 (Oxf. 1830), Waterland, Justification, Vol. VI. p- 10 (Oxf. 1843), and comp. Jackson, Creed, Iv. 6, Vol. III. p. 297, where it is rightly said that ‘ all persons bap- tized may be accounted justified, in the same sense they are dead to sin.’ Barrow properly calls attention to the aorist (here and Rom. v. 1) as specify- ing a definite time, viz. ‘at their en- trance into Christianity,’ but he is not exact in regarding, either here or Eph. v. 25, 26, sanctification as ‘importing the same thing with justification.’ The true dependence, viz. ‘that the first part of sanctification, the beginning of a new life,’ must precede justifica- tion, is stated with clearness and pre- cision by Hammond, Practical Cate- chism, 1. 4, p. 79 (A.-C. Libr.) ; comp. Messner, Lehre der Apfostel, p. 259. The life of Christians begins with a hallowing movement proceeding from the Spirit (Harless, Chr. Ethics. § 25, p- 226, Clark), and continues as true life only in so far as He vouchsafes to abide in the heart and to develop that movement. In this Epistle, however, the ‘ordo salutis’ is not set forth with any studied precision (comp. Calvin iz Zoc.), its main purpose being corrective rather than soteriological ; see Philippi, Glaubenslehre, Part v. 1, p. 272 sq. The thrice repeated add (‘aliud jam hoc esse, quod sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. Ul. p. 2) enhances and gives rhetorical force to each state- ment in the contrast; see Wilke, Neutest. Rhetorik, § 124, p. 398. év T@ dvépate K.T.r.] ‘22 the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God ;’ clearly to be joined with the three preceding members, the whole clause specifying the holy spheres of divine agency (comp. Mark xvi. 17, Luke x. 17, Acts ii: 16, I0,- iv. 7, 10, and see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 18) with which the washing, sanctifying, and justifying stood in causal connection. There is here no such studied precision of language as to justify our assigning év T@ Ovéuart K.T.A. to one of the pre- ceding verbs and év r@ Mvevuare x.7.A. to another. The spiritual state in which, by God’s grace, the Corinthians now were, is emphatically recited ; then, in a concluding clause, the divine spheres of operation, in which and by which it was brought about. 12—20. Resumption of the subject of Sornication : the false arguments used to excuse it, and the true deadly nature of the sin. 12. Ildvra pow tkerrw] ‘ Al] things are lawful for me,’ or, if it be con- sidered desirable to maintain the Tapovouacia in the second clause of the verse,— ‘all things are in my power ;’ scil. all things that are morally, and on i iy. Cuap. VI. 12-13. WeORIN THEANS:. 119 déper* mavta por eat, GAN ovK éyw é€ovaracOyjcopar bo \ , a 4 \ e / lal / \ twos. Bra Bpwpata TH Koidig, Kal 1) KoLALa Tos Bpwyacw c \ \ \ A \ a / 0 d€ Meds cal TavTnY Kal TaVTa KaTapynoeL. true Christian grounds, to be accounted as Gdidpopa ; see Sanderson (in his ex- cellent sermon on ch. x. 23), Serm. XI. (ad Aulam), p. 508 (Lond. 1686). The principle maintained by the Apostle (see ch. x. 23), and set forth generally in his teaching, had been apparently perverted in its application by members of the Corinthian Church. It has been doubted whether the sentiment is thus to be referred to the Apostle, or whether it may not be considered a sentiment known by the Apostle to have been used and based on the principle that if it be not wrong to gratify one appetite why should it be wrong to gratify another? Such a view is possible, but there is certainly no one of the usual indications that we have here the sentiment of oppo- nents, nor can we, on such an hypothesis, readily explain the aaa’ ob mdvta ouupépe. If we have the Apostle’s words, brought up by him here, because known to have been misused, the limitation is at once intelligible and natural. The Apostle had been misunderstood in reference to a statement he had made (ch. v. 9); here was another and a far graver case, because one of deliberate perversion. The personal pronoun po has here obviously an inclusive reference to Christians generally. It expresses with point and force a statement of general application : comp. ver. 15, viii. 135 235120, 30, AV Tl and isee Sanderson, Zoc. ct. p. 517 (Lond. 1686). GAN od TavTa cupdhéepe] ‘but not all are profitable ;’ scil. morally profitable and advantageous (od AvarreAe?, Theod.), with general reference to all in any way concerned. In ch. x. 23 the 7d \ \ na > TO O€ Gua ov avupepov is more precisely stated under the form of oikodoun. ovK eyo «.T.A.] ‘bet L will NOT be brought under the power of anything ;’ of any practice or anything in which I use my éfousta: ‘tiwds, ulla re. Neutrum, ut mdvra,’ Bengel. There is no strong emphasis on the éyé (‘xox ego! alius audeat per me,’ Bengel): the éyé simply answers to the preceding po: ‘The really em- phatic word is ov«; comp. Acts vii. 48, and see Winer, Gr. § 61. 5. What the Apostle says is, that the efovota of the Christian must never so be used that the matter or practice to which it extends prove in the sequel to be of over-mastering influence; the free, must not become the fettered, will; comp. Martensen, Chr. Ethics, § 31 sq. On the nature of our Christian liberty, see Sanderson, Se. v. (ad Populum), p- 241 (Lond. 1686). 13. Ta Bpdpara «.7.d.] ‘meats are Sor the belly ;’ appertain to, are intended for: the kota is designed to be their brodoxh. The word xoAla has here its ordinary and primary meaning, not yaotpiapyia (Chrys.): see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 119. These things, the xoila and the Bpdéuata, have relation by way of purpose to each other; no such relation exists between the o@ua and ropyefa; compare Origen (Cram. Cat.) 27 loc. 6 8é @cds «.7.d.] ‘duet (in contrast and con tinuation; not ‘eleganter pro evzm,’ Bengel) God will bring to nought both it and them ;’ viz. by death and organic change. The first point in the example before us is, that the two things specified stood in a natural and designed relation to each other; the second, that the things are transitory 120 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap, VI. 13-15. / an Th Topvela, adda TH Kupip, Kai 6 Kvpws 76 copati: “6 &é Oecos Kai tov Kipuov Hryewpev Kai jas eLeyeped S:a THs Suvdwews avuTov. 1 ob« oldate OTL TA CHmAaTA LuUoV wékn XpioTtod éoTwW ; 14. juas] L/z. duds, but only with the support of a few mss. and perishable, and that, by the will and action of their Creator. In the alleged parallel case it was widely different; the o@ua was not designed for mopvela, nor was it created karap- yeto8a, but petacxnuati€ec@a (see Phil. iii, 20). The deduction from this present clause would obviously be, that these perishable things, as having no relation to the moral and enduring personality, might properly be regarded as abdidpopa: ‘que destruentur, per se liberum habeant usum,’ Bengel. 7d 8 capa K.t.d.] ‘but the body is not Sor fornication ;’ contrasted relation of the things now mentioned with what had preceded; 8¢ having its usual antithetical force, and marking the contrast between the oa@ua and the kolAia, between the whole, with all its mysterious future, and the earthly and perishable part. The body is for the Lord; for, as the Apostle says below (ver. 15), our bodies are members of Christ. Kal 6 Kipuos to cdpare] ‘and the Lord for the body ;’ scil. to use as an instrument for His service. He who both sanctifies by His spirit, and, finally glorifies, the body (Phil. iii. 20), vouchsafes to stand to it in such a relation as to be in a certain sense for it, even as it is for Him: ‘quanta dignatio,’ Bengel. 14. 6 8 Oeds K.7.A.] ‘but God both raised up the Lord, and will raise up us (also) by His power ;’ the ral—ral placing the raising up of the Lord and the raising up of us His redeemed, in closest relation and interdependence. This clause stands in parallelism to 6 dé @eds .7.A. in verse 13, and marks by contrast the totally different circum- stances of the mere physical part that was designed to perish, and the mysterious whole that was to be raised up and to be changed (ch. xv. 52). There does not seem to be any very certain distinction between the #yepey and the éfeyepe? (‘de primitiis .... de mass& dormientium,’ Bengel), the tendency to composition without any clear addition of meaning being one of the characteristics of laterGreek. The compound occurs only here and Rom. ix. 17; the simple form (in reference to the resurrection) very frequently, and equally with reference to our Lord and to the dead generally Sua Tis Suvdpews avdtrod] This clause may refer to both verbs, but is more naturally connected only with éeeyepe?. It was to the latter clause rather than to the former that (in Corinth es- pecially) words indirectly confirming the declaration (‘Quis ergo dubitet? Deus est omnipotens,’ Bengel) were instinctively added: 7 Sdvauis rod cod MeydAa KaTopboica Kal todTo morjoe, Theoph. 15. Ovk olSare k.t.d.] ‘Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ ;’ very portions of Him who is the Head, and with whom the whole body of the faithful, and so each true member of that body, is closely and organically united: see Eph. iv. 16. The present verse repeats in another form, and substantiates, the ground-thought, 7d caua TS Kuplw (ver. 13): the heathen and half-heathen view was, 7d ca@ua kowby mpds Ta (Ha (Epict. Dissert. 1. 3. 1); the Christian view, 7d c@ua wédos Tov Xpicrov; comp. Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 44, p. 360 sq. (Transl.). — Cnap. VI. 15, 16. 1 CORINTHIANS. y 4 | ” Lo \ I a nr , i? , X apas ovv Ta méd\n TOV Xpictov Trownow TOpyns MEAN; pn ryéVOLTO. dpas otv «.t.r.) ‘ Having taken away then the members of Christ ;’ circumstan- tial participial clause (see Kiihner, Gr. § 389. ¢), marking by the use of the verb &pas the deliberate and wilful nature of the act, 7d amoomaca Ta MeAn Tod Xpiorov (Theoph.), and the making them péeAn mépyns: ‘summa in hoc participio inest evdpyeim, indignitatem rei quasi depingens,’ Bengel. It may be doubted whether moijow is the de- liberative subj. (Winer, Gv. § 41. 4. 2), or the future of ethical possibility (Winer, Gr. § 40. 6). The latter is perhaps slightly more probable, the distinction, in such ambiguous cases, appearing to turn upon the greater or less tinge of futurity that seems to be involved in the clause. Here the &pas seems to be regarded as prior to the movnow, and so to point rather to the future : consider Eurip. /oz, 771 (quoted by Winer) cfrwpuev, 2} ovyGpev, 4 cl dpacouey ; where the change of mood is perhaps to be explained on the above principle. pH) yévouro] § Fur be z/? On the use of this interjec. formula as rebutting the inference drawn, or the statement made, by an adversary, see notes o7 Gal. ii. 18. 16. 4 ovk olSare] ‘Or know ye not ;’ second proof of the main position — that fornication cannot be regarded, like the use of Bpduara, as something merely a&d5idpopov,— the 7 not referring either to the wh yévorro (Meyer), or to the strong expression mépyns wéAn, (De Wette), but simply serving to introduce a second and even stronger form of argument. The Christian who has thus sinned, not only took the méan Xpiorod and made them wédAn of the mépyn, but became a single c@ua with her. 6 KohAdpevos TH Tépvy] ‘he that cleaveth to the harlot’ (with 16 16 x > wv fig c 7, lal 4 a a / ) ovK oidate OTL O KOANMEVOS TH TOPYN EY CHpd whom for the time he is sinning). The strong word KoAAdo@a (comp. Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 134) is studiously chosen as occurring in its compound form in the passage alluded to (Gen. ii. 24; comp. Ecclus. xix. 2, 6 KoAAéuevos mépvas), and as also adding significance to the frightful statement which follows. They who were two inde- pendent oéuara became by their sin év CHua: ovKert yap aplnow 7 cuvovcla Tovs Svo civat Sto, BAN’ ev auporépous épydCerat, Chrys. trovrat yap K.T.A.] ‘for the two shall be, saith He, one flesh:? proof from Gen. ii. 24 of the strong ex- pression in the preceding clause. The words primarily relate to what is blest and pure, but, in reference to the natural fact, are equally applicable to the case which the Apostle is alluding to: comp. Theod. zz Zoc. In the original Hebrew the of &¥vo is not expressed, but the words occur in all the citations of the passage in the N. T., viz. Matt. xix. 5, Mark x. 8, Eph. v. 31, and in the LXX. The insertion in the Greek probably arose, not from any polemical reason (in favor of monogamy, Meyer) but simply to give an antithetical force to the declaration. gyolv] It may be doubted what nominative is to be supplied to this practically impersonal verb, whether 4 ypaph (comp. John vii. 38, Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, al.), or 6 @eds (comp. Matt. xix. 5, 2 Cor. vi. 2, where this nominative is distinctly suggested by the context) :the latter is perhaps the more natural; comp. Winer, Gr. § 58. 9, and notes oz Zph.iv. 8. Though Adam uttered the words, it was from God that they came: ‘ Deus utique per hominem dixit, quod homo prophetando predixit,’ August. de Vupz¢. I. 4. els cdpka pilav] ‘ove flesh ;’ not ‘joined into,— a more forcible expression than 122 éotw ; “Ecovrar yap, dyoiv, ot dvo eis capKxa pilav. KoAAwpmevos TO Kupiw ev mrvedud 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VI. 17, 18. 16 8é éotw. WDe ) : UYETE THY Tropveray. a ’ , y \ rn ’ ' Tay awapTnua 0 éav Toon avOpwios éxTos TOD G@paTos éoTLV* zz’ (Wordsworth), —but simply the Hebraistic rendering (LXX) of the ‘my Sivad of the original; comp. Guillemard, Lebraisms in N. T. p. 3 (Cambr. 1879). In Attic Greek the meaning would be ‘serve as one flesh’ (comp. Plato, Adcib. 1. p. 126, evBovaia, eis tt eorw;),—a meaning here obviously untenable: comp. Rost u. Palm, Worterd. s.v. eis, Vol. I. p. 790. 17. 0 St koAAdpevos TO Kup.] ‘ But he that cleaveth to the Lord;’ strong antithesis to the 6 KoAA. TH wopvn of the preceding verse. The expression is chosen, in part to sustain the antithesis, and in part to express close and intimate union; comp. 2 Kings xviii. 6, eKoAANOn TH Kupiw, Sir. ii. 3, KoAAHOnTe avte [Kuplm Gee], kal wh amooris, al. The construction of the verb in the LXX is singularly varied; it is used with the genitive (Job xli. 7), dative, ~ and the prepositions eis (Psalm xliii. 26), év(2 Kings v. 27), uerd (Ruth ii. 8), mept (Jer. xiii. 11), mpds (Deut. x. 20), and with émiow (Psalm lIxii. 9). In the N. T. it is only found with a dative and once (Rev. xviii. 5) with &xpu. ey rvetpd gore] ‘Zs ove spirit’ with Christ ~ in the purest earthly union it was but év oSua; with Christ it is €v rvedua. The spirit of the believer so becomes one with the Spirit of the Lord, that the Lord lives in him, and he in the Lord; comp. Gal. ii. 20, and on the blessed nature of this wxio mystica, Hooker, Serm. Ul. £, Vol. 11. p. 764 sq. (ed. Keble), Rothe, Dogmatik, Part u1. § 71: comp. also Weiss, Bz0/. Theol. § 84. 6, Vol. 1. p. 458 (Transl.). Truly it is said by Bp. Martensen, ‘The deepest quietive, the deepest peace and serenity, and at the same time the deepest joy, is to be found only in fellowship with Christ,’ Chr. Ethics, § 110, p. 336 (Clark). 18. Pebyere tiv wopvelav] ‘ Hee Sornication ;’ z.c. ‘don’t argue or parley with this deadly sin;’ sum and sub- stance of the Apostle’s foregoing ex- hortations,— expressed in this single inclusive command, and illustrated by the verses which follow. The absence of connecting particles gives a fuller force to the clause. Tay GudpT7wa K.t.A.] ‘Every sin whicha man may have committed is outside of the body ;’ ‘extra corpus est,’ Vulg. These some- what difficult words have received many interpretations. The common view is that the Apostle is here speak- ing in a general form, and that the exact words (way x.7.A.) are not to be pressed (‘tales sententiz morales non morose urgendz sunt,’ Bengel), there being some sins, ¢.g. intemperance, which can hardly be said to be com- pletely éxrds tod océuaros. The true force of the words and of what the Apostle has already said is, however, thus seriously weakened: there zs no other sin which is évtds tod oéuatos in the frightful form in which zopyela is By it the whole o@ua, inwardly as well as outwardly, is made over to another, and is utterly separated from Christ. Such sins as intemperance or self- murder involve acts injuriously affecting the body, yet done, as it were, from without; but the sin of the 6 mopvedwy (observe the tense as con- trasted with 8 édv morhon) is, so to say, within the body, and using it as a direct agent and implement: see Hof- mann 77 doc. els 7d UStov copa Gpaptave] ‘sinneth against his own Cuap. VI. 18-20. r CORINPHIANS. 12s 6 88 ropvevav eis TO Wiov cHua dwaptdver. 1) ove oidare Ore \ fal ¢ lal \ lal ? eu A e / , 5 e TO OWUA VELWY VaOS TOU €y vupsly aylou IIvevpartos €OTLY, OU 4 > x n \ > > \ ¢ lal 20 ? rd @ x fo éxete arro Oeov ; Kal ovK EaTe EavTwv, “ HYyopacUnTe yap TYUNS * body,’ —not merely by dishonoring or polluting it (Theodorus, Sever.), but by taking it from Christ, making it one body with a harlot, and, especially, by converting it into a direct instrument of sin. It is in the dreadful fact of of the cdpé pia, and all the consequences that flow from it, that the Apostle’s distinction between mopvela and other sins affecting the body is to be fully understood and _ realized: comp. Neander zz Joc. Fornication is a sin against the personality, in a form, and to an extent, far beyond, that of any other sin of sensuality: see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 41. 3, p. 368 (Transl.). 19. 4 od oiSare] ‘ Or know ye not: elucidatory and confirmatory of the serious statement of the last clause; ‘Or, if ye doubt that mupvela verily is a sim against a man’s own body, know ye not what that body really is?’ Though Sov in one sense, it is strongly other- wise in its true sense; ‘suaviter limita- tur 76 proprium v.18. Ita nostrum est corpus ut sit templum Dei,’ Bengel. To copa tpov «.T.r.] ‘your body (ze. ‘the body of each one of you’) zs the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, comp. Rom. viii. 11. On this distributive use of the singular, exx. of which are found in good Attic prose, especially with plural adjectives, see Kiihner, Gr. § 347. 4, Winer, Gr. § 27. 1. The use with a simple associated genitive, as here (Matt. xvii. 6, Luke ii. 31, 2 Cor. viii. 24, comp. Eph. vi. 14), is rare in earlier Greek, except in poetry: comp. Bernhardy, Syzz¢. I. 3, p- 60. A few authorities read ré odéuara; but both external evidence and internal (from probability of a correc- tion) show it to be wholly inadmissible. On the anarthrous, but here no less definite, vads (not ‘a@ temple,’ Rev., Wordsw., but ‘¢e temple’), see notes on ch. iii. 16, and comp. Origen (Cramer, Caz.), who, in commenting on the verse, passes almost naturally into the definite form. ov txere ard Ocod] ‘which ye have from God ;’ en- hancement of the preceding words by a mention of. the giver of the blessed gift— Almighty God: kal 7G meyede THs Swpeds, Kal TH akia Tod Sedwxdros cum. It is hardly necessary to remark that the o# is due to the ordinary rule of attraction; see Winer, Gr. § 24.1. This usage seems to bind the relative clause more closely to what has immediately preceded; comp. Tit. iii. 6, where the 06 almost certainly refers to the nearer, and not the remoter, substantive. Kal ovk éoré Eavtav| ‘and ye are not your ? second reason why mopvela was to be accounted an gmapria against the %.ov cGua, viz. because the true person, body, soul, and spirit, belonged, not to themselves, but to God, On this genitive with the auxiliary verb, and its various uses, see Donalds. Gr. § 452, cc., Kiihner, Gr. § 418, and the ex- cellent remarks of Rumpel, Caszslehre, p- 281 sq. (Halle, 1845). 20. HyopdoOnre yap tists] ‘ For ye were bought for a price;’ viz. the precious blood of Christ, as more ex- pressly stated in Eph. i. 7, 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, Rev. v. 9; comp. Acts xx. 28, 1 John i. 7. The blood of our blessed Lord is the Avtpov: He came, as He Himself says, Sotva: thy Wuxhv adtod A’tpoy avt) moAAGv; see also Mark x. 45, 1 Tim. ii. 6, and the clear state- ments of Usteri, Zehrd. I. 1. 1, p. 107. KaTamTToel, OW? - 124 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VI. 20-VII. 1. 4 \ X \ > fal , e a doEdcare 57 Tov Ocov ev TS TopaTL Lav. It is good to beasI am; but, if otherwise, let VII. Ilepi d€ av éyparpare, Kadov ap husband and wife each observe conjugal duty to the other. 20. odéuatt Suey] The added words, ral év 7H mvetpati buady, Atwd eats TOD @cov (fec.), have greatly preponderant authority against them, and are omitted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort. I. eypawate] Rec., Lachm. [Treg.] add wo with authority of considerable weight. The authority, however, for the omission seems critically preponder- ant. So Zisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort. In regard to the four parts or degrees of redemption (payment of ransom, admission into the Church, exemption from the tyranny of sin, and everlasting salvation), see Jackson, Creed, Book Ix. Vol. vill. p. 219 (Oxf. 1844), and on the ransoming, as distinguished from the atoning, work of Christ, Kreibig, Versthnungslehre (Introd.) p. 1 sqq. (Berlin, 1878): see also two sermons on this passage by Farindon, Servm. Vol. II. p. 495 sqq. The gen. Tiuys (not ‘magno pretio,’ Vulg., but simply ‘pretio,’ Clarom., Syr., Copt., al.) is the so-called genitive of price (Kiihner, § 418. 6), — a genitive perhaps allied to the genitive of amount (see Kriiger, Srachl. § 47. 17), or to the genitive of relation (Donalds. Gr. § 453, @d@), but, more probably, falling under the general idea of causality, as cases occur (¢.¢. Lysias, 27. 6) in which the instrumental dative takes the place of this genitive. It must, how- ever, be remembered that all these definitions of the genitive are only conventional. The true and primary idea of this difficult case would seem to be ‘limitation of the general by the special;’ and this, it is obvious, may appear under varied aspects: see es- pecially, Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 17, and p. 242sq. On the use and meaning of &yopd{w in the N. T., see Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p. 58. Sofdicare 8} k7.A.] ‘glorify then God in your body ;’ not ‘by your body,’ the prepo- sition marking, as usual, the spiere in which, or the substratum on which, the action takes place: see Gal. i. 20, and notes zz Joc. The particle 64 (only used seven or eight times in the N.T.) has here its usual meaning. It gives force to, and emphasizes, the impera- tive; ‘illico rem, de qua przcipimus, transigi jubemus., Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p- 395, Kihner, Gr. § 500. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 69. 17. 2. The primary meaning of the particle appears to be temporal, the derivation ap- parently being from the same root- form as the Latin ‘jam’ (Curtius, Ltym. p. 560: most certainly not from Sanscr. dv. as Hartung, and even Baiumlein, p. 98) : this temporal meaning soon merges into the more usual ethical meaning of retrospect and emphasis generally; see the excellent | section of Kiihner on this somewhat protean particle, Gv. § 500. I sqq. III. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO MARRIED AND SINGLE LIFE (ch. vii.) 1-7. Rules for the married. 1. Ilepl 88 dv x.t.d.] ‘Now concerning the things which ye wrote to me :’ transi- tion, by means of the 6€ wetaBatindy (see notes oz Gal. i. 11), to another of the subjects which had been brought before the Apostle by the Corinthian Church; so ver. 75, viii. 1, xii, 1. On this subject, and the party or parties in the Corinthian Church by whom it ie Cuap. VII. 1, 2. 1 CORINTHIANS. 125 6 , X Nee @ 400} 8 \ ae \ y ? PeT@ YUValKOS MN ATTTETUAL ta@ O€ TAS TTOPVELAS EKATTOS \ e lel fal > he \ id , x ” ” > , THV E€AUTOV YUValKa EX ETO, Kalb EKACTH TOV LOLov avopa EXETO. was brought before the Apostle, much difference of opinion exists. The most reasonable view appears to be this ;— that as there was confessedly in Corinth a party that claimed to be ‘of Paul,’ and another ‘ of Cephas’ (1 Cor. i. 12), and as one of these Apostles was married, and the other was not, so the adherents of, at least, these two parties might, very conceivably, have differed on the subject, not merely of the ex- pediency, but of the actual rightfulness, of marriage (see ver. 28, 36) ; and that* thus the question might naturally form a not unimportant portion of the Cor- inthian letter. It isalsonotimprobable, owing to the ascetic tendencies which early showed themselves in the Church (1 Tim. iv. 3 exhibits this tendency in its distinctly evetical aspects: see notes 272 Zoc.), and which perhaps were additionally called out at Corinth by a reaction from the prevailing licentious- ness of the city, that doubts on the subject of marriage were entertained by some at least of the adherents of all the parties (except perhaps that of Cephas) into which the local Church was unhappily divided. However this may be, the questions addressed to the Apostle on the subject were clearly regarded by him as of great importance, and are answered by him with the greatest circumspection and care. On the subject itself see Rothe, Zheol. Ethik, § 1080, Vol. v. p. 11 sq., Harless, Chr. Eth., § 52. 1, p. 426 sq. (Transl.), and especially Martensen, Chr. Ethics, § 4-7, Part 111. § 6. p. 11 sq. (Transl.) Kahov avOpdatw K.t.d.] ‘2t 2s good for a man not to touch a woman:’ as a general principle it is xaAdy for a man,— not merely profitable or advantageous (Hofmann), but good for him,— simply and morally good (see notes oz 1 Thess. v. 21), not to touch (sexually,—Gen. xx. 4, 6, comp. Ruth ii. 9, Prov. vi. 29; so paveo@a, Philo, de Leg. p. 781, and Latin ‘tangere’: comp. Valcken. Scho. and Kypke zz Zoc.) a woman; as, how- ever, the verses that follow show, it is a principle that is necessarily to be modified and limited by circumstances. While this principle is morally good on the one hand, so, on the other hand, is it right and true to say with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, rfuos 6 yduos év maow, ch. xiii. 4. Marriage, indeed, isso highly favored of God as to signify the mystical union of Christ and His Church: it is to the subject of marriage, then, that the Apostle at once passes. Fi 2. Sia St tas topvelas] ‘ But because of the fornications,’ 7.e. the commissions of mopveta prevalent at Corinth; the plural denoting the concrete form of the sin specified ‘by the abstract sub- stantive; see especially the copious list of examples in Kiihner, Gr § 348. 3. ¢, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 27. 3, and notes oz Gal. v.20. This passage has been urged as an instance of the use of did to denote purpose directly. It may be doubted whether this is the case. In expressions like 6:4 ri, final cause does seem occasionally to be distinctly marked (Aristot. Phys. 11. 3. 3, ib. 7. 1, al.) ; in the present case, however, the purpose is only fer conseguens,—‘ on account of,’ and so inferentially ‘to prevent;’ see Winer, Gr. § 49. b, but also consider the exx. in Kiihner, Gr. § 434. II. 3. ékarros Thy €avTod «T.A.] ‘Let each man have his own wife ;’ not, permissively, ‘he may have’ (see ver. 15, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 397. 2), but, as the preceding clause serves distinctly to show, with the full and proper imperatival force, ‘let him 126 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VII. 2-5. 8 ipl \ ae] \ \ > A > 8 50 € ‘ be \ @ \ TH YUvalKl O avnp THY OpEtAHY ATrOdLOOT@, OMOLWS OE Kal 1) UV TO avopt. 4% yuvn Tov idiov cHmatos ovK é€ovotater, adda O a / € wT, \ uN c - X\ lal O7 yf > od / avnp* omolws de Kal 0 avnp Tod idiov capaTos ovK é£ovorater, GAA 1) yur. 5 ut) GTrooTEpette GANHAOUS, Eb pjTL dv eK TUp- 3. dpeaty] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. dépetAouevny etvoray, — an old (Syrr.), though very obvious, gloss. have,’ z.e. ‘it is morally desirable and right that he should have;’ 6a 5¢ ras mopvelas eimmy eis eykpdrey ovvwOet, Theoph. The distinction between the imperative of direct command and the imperative of permission can only be settled by means of the context; see Winer, Gr. § 43. 1. In this chapter the reader will do well fully to realize the standpoint from which the Apostle speaks, and the circumstances under which he gives his directions. He was addressing the Christian inhabitants of a city notorious for its sensuality and licentiousness ; he was also speaking as one who deeply felt the éveoracay avéyrny (ver. 26) of the times, and the reality of the need for all who were in earnest, to be, as far as possible, G@meéptuvor (ver. 32), and so the more free to serve the Lord amepiordorws ; he was, lastly, answering grave questions under the conviction that the time was shortened (ver. 29), and the fashion of this world fast passing away. Under the influence of all these deep feelings he gives his counsel ; and the summary of this counsel clearly is,—ph (nre? yuvaika. edy 5é Kal yautons ovx huaptes (ver. 28); ‘semel, nec sud sponte, sed interrogatus, ccelibatum suadet, idque lenissime,’ Bengel; see Martensen, Chr. Ethics, Part ul. § 6, p. 14. Meyer rightly calls attention to the clear and emphatic manner in which the verse condemns polygamy and concubinage; comp. Hofmann zz Joc. 3 Thy Sherry] ‘ Ler due,’ sc. ‘debitum conjugale,’ Valck. The word épaan occurs in two other passages in the N. T., Matt. xviii. 32, and Rom. xiii. 7, but is not found elsewhere either in classical or Hellenistic Greek: see Grimm, Lex. s. v., Lobeck, Pzryz. p. 9o, and fora similar use of xdpis, Valck. Schol. Vol. i. p. 204: comp. also Wolf. im loc. What is said in reference to the man is, in the latter portion of the verse, said in reference to the woman; eimev dperdhy dpeiAcoOa amd Tod avdpds, kat TO avSp) dard Tis yuvaikds, Origen ap. Cramer Cat. 4. | youd) «.7.0.] ‘ Zhe wife has no power over her own body,’ scil. in the matter under consideration; and con- versely. Each must render the 6pe:ay when the other asks for it. The repetition of the words in reference to the husband is intended to distinctly mark the principle,—‘ jus utrinque est zquale,’ Bengel ; 7d dé duotws dis refuevov, Bidwor voeiv Bre wh voulérw 6 avnp év Tois Kata Toy yduov Tpdyuaow omepexew Tis yuvaikds: duotdT ys €or) Kal icoTns Tots yeyaunndor mpds &AAhAovs, Origen, ap. Cramer Cat. Theodoret (zz Joc.) notices that in this verse the woman is first spoken of in reference to the subject-matter of the verse, éme1d}) adrau uddioTa mpd Tav ddpar domdCecOa Thy eyKpdreiay. 5: BA] Gtroorepetre GANAOUs] ‘Do not defraud one another ;’ scil. in re- gard of these conjugal rights. The word is chosen (observe also the tense; pres. not aor.) with reference to what eidbacw Cuap. VII. 5. 1 CORINTHIANS. 127 , \ , a a Pwvov mpos Kalpov, iva axYoAdoNTE TH TpocEevy Kal Tad ert uy Bi aN 9S [ra \ / ¢ a e n \ \ b] TO avTO 7Te, Wa pa Treipaty Lwas 6 Zatavas diva THY axpa- 5. exorAdonte — fre] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., cxoAd(nre TH vnorela Kal mpooevx7, kal mad él 7d avTd cuvepxnade. has been already said, and fitly shows that, however plausible might be the arguments of a false asceticism (comp. De Wette), it did amount to a plain withholding of that which was due; ‘congruit hoc verbum cum _ verbo debendi, ver. 3.’ Bengel: see Hofmann in loc. el pate dv KT.A.] ‘ 2e72/ess it should perhaps be by consent ;’ the &v here standing without any verb, and probably to be considered as combined with the preceding restrictive ef wt; see Buttm. Gr. V. 7. p. 219. and comp. Hartung, Partzk. Vol. 11. p. 330, The ef wari, in fact, make up a sort of compound word, into which the pre- ceding ef becomes so far merged that the &y is attached as adding further condition to what was already con- ditioned: so, in earlier Greek, ei is sometimes added to a preceding ei uh (mzsz si); see examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 577. 8, Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. 525. The verb to be supplied would not be in the optative, as in earlier Greek (Kiihner, Gy. § 577. 1), but either the indicative, as in 2 Cor. xiii. 5, or, more probably, the subjunctive, as in Luke ix. 13, ef phte mopevdevres ucts dryopdowpmev. ta oXoddonre] -in order that ye may be free for ;’ purpose of the exception, with its two associated conditions, é« ouupdvou (compare Winer, Gr. § 57. 2) and mpbds kaipév. It might properly be adopted when special circumstances might suggest more special devotions; ‘ inter- dum accidit, ut omnibus aliis omissis jejunandum sit et orandum, ut cum ingruat aliqua calamitas, si appareat judicium ire Dei, vel quum aliquo difficili negotio impedimur, vel quum aliquid agendum est magni momenti, quale est institutio pastorum,’ Calvin. Such a principle was recognized by the Jews (Ex. xix. 15, 1 Sam. xxi. 4), and even, the heathens (see Wetst. 27 /oc.) : see the numerous references on this subject in Fabricius, Bzbdioth. Antig. xx. 8, p. 584. The whole is summed up in the single sentence,— ‘abstinentia previa servit precibus,’ Bengel. Kal mdduv éwt Td add Are] ‘and may again come together ;’ dependent on the preceding iva, though the expression of purpose has really passed into that of a kind of permissive direction : comp. the somewhat similar 2 Cor. viii. 7, where, however, the clause stands more isolated, and is probably dependent on some verb of command; see notes on Eph. v. 33. The expression ém 7d avTd (ch. xi. 20, xiv. 23, Luke xvii. 35, Acts i. 15, ii. 1, ili. 1) expresses the idea of locality (émi tov adtdy témTor, Hesych.), and so, in this particular passage, of the again living together as man and wife. Some examples will be found in Loesner, Odés. p. 165. Wa pa mepdaty K.7.A.] ‘272 order that Satan may not tempt you because of your incontinence ;’ purpose of the implied counsel contained in the kal mdéAw ém 7 avTd jre, and with special reference to the personal Tempter; ‘non facile est tentatio sine Satana prasumenda,’ Bengel. On the form dx«pacta (‘incon- tinentia,’ Vulg., Copt., ‘concupiscentia corporis,’ Syr., ‘ungahdbains,’ Goth. ; comp. Theod.-Mops., [Aéyer] Tov kpareiv ov Suvduevov cis wopvelay KatapeperOat), the earlier form being d«pdrem, see 128 1 CORINTHIANS. ciav vor. [Cuap. VII. 5-7. 6 n \ , \ , , 3 By , TOUTO de ALyW KATA ovYYyVOuNV, ov KaT émiTa@ynv. od , \ ’ Oédw 5: travtas avOpwrrovs eival Os Kal EuavTov’ adda ExacTo; 7. Aw 5] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre ponderating authority. The reading 6éAw ydp (Rec.) is fairly supported, but is apparently an early instance of a correction, the true connection not having been clearly seen. The other changes, éxe: xdpioua for xdpioua exer, and 6—é for 6s—és, are adopted by Zachm. and the other edd., on very greatly prepon- derating authority. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 524. It occurs Matt. xxiii. 25, and occasionally in Polybius, e.g. “ist. 1. 66. 6, Iv. 6. 10, XXXII. 11. 5. The word is not derived from kpaots, kepdvvuut (Wordsw.) but from akpadrns, and has its first syllable short: akpacia (opp. to evxpacia) is a different word; see Rost u. Palm, Zex. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 82. 6. rotro] ‘ 77s,’ scil. all that refers to the natural conjugal relations, ver. 3 sq:, all which being specified per- ceptively in form calls forth from the Apostle the statement that, though in form kar’ émtayhy, it is to be under- stood as really katd ovyyvdéunv. The sentiment thus is, ‘Live together as man and wife, except under special circumstances;’ and amounts to a qualified repetition of verse 2. At first sight it might seem plausible to refer the rovro simply to that verse (De Wette), and to regard the rest as practically parenthetical. The ob- jection, however, that the thought seems to rest not so much on the fact of marriage as on the conjugal relations involved Mm it, seems sufficient to justify the reference, not to ver. 2, but to the verses which follow it. To refer the totro simply to ver. 5 (Meyer) is open to the obvious objection that the wh aroorepetre GAAHAOvs is only the Thy Operdnv amodidétw expressed in another form (see Hofmann 77 /oc.); and to refer it merely to a part of that verse kal mdéAw «.7.A. (Origen, al.) is still less tenable, as that verse obvi- ously forms one connected whole. Kara cvyyvopny] ‘by way of concession,’ ‘secundum indulgentiam,’ Vulg., ‘ tan- quam infirmis,’ Syr. This word only occurs in the N. T. in this passage. It is, however, common both in classical and in later Greek (LXX, Prol. Ecclus, and ch. iii. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 20 Alex., and frequently in Polybius), and in all cases has the meaning either of ‘ venia,’ or (as here) of ‘indulgentia;’ Suid. ovyyvaun cvyxépnois. That it is here used for yvdéun (‘ut significaverit Paulus non esse hoc suum przeceptum, sed amici consilium,’ Valck. z Zoc.), is contrary to the lexical meaning of the word. 7. OAw 8é] ‘Vet JL would;’ ex- pression, with clear antithesis to the foregoing verse, of the Apostle’s per- sonal feeling in the matter; ‘What I have said is kata cuvyyveuny, but my own personal desire in the matter is that all should be as I am.’ The sentiment of the first verse is thus in effect reiterated. In regard of the verb 0éAw, it may be remarked that there is nearly always some degree of will-energy expressed by it, whereas in BovAoua it is rather the direction taken by the will that comes into prominence ; consider Rom. vii. 15, where @éAw and pioS are in a kind of antithesis, and contrast Acts xviii. 15. The two words are in juxtaposition and in a sort of illustrative contrast in Eurip. /p%. zz Aul. 340, TG Soxeiv wey odx) xpi (wr, TS 5t BotAcoba OéAwy; see the careful Cuap. VII. 7. 8. 1 CORINTHIANS. 129 ” ” , 2 Qcod Cig A e e Ss ? tOvov EXEL XAPlLo Ua EK WEOV, O MEV OUTWS, O OE OUTS. It is good for the un- married to remain so. In the case of the mar- ried, separation is to be avoided. 8 Aéyw dé \ > Lal KaXov avTots comments of Cremer, Wurterd. s. v. BovrAoua, p. 142, and notes o7 1 Zim. v. 14. Probably of the many distinctions that have been drawn that of Ellendt will be found to cover the widest area, viz. that 6éAev marks the desire gener- ally, the instinctive will, BovAet@u the desire as founded on some sort of inward deliberation (Zex. Soph. Vol. I. p- 316); comp. Matt. i. 19, Eph. i. 11 and notes 27 oc. TavTas avOpatrous K.T.X.] ‘that all men should be ;’ ex- planatory adjunct to the predication (Donalds. Gr. § 584), specifying the substance and purport of the éAw. On this expansion of what has been, not inappropriately, termed the fara- tactic accus. (/.e. the accus. dependent on, rather than governed by, the in- transitive verb), see the suggestive remarks of Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 186, and comp. Kiihner, Gv. § 473.2. On the word itself it may be said that the state of Corinth and the licence con- nected with the traditional worship of Aphrodite (Strabo, Geogr. viII. 6, 20) might well have called it forth from one who had spent eighteen months in the city, and seen with his own eyes the prevailing sensuality and corruption. On the Apostle’s sentiments and teach- ing on this subject, see Rothe, Z%eol. Ethik. § 1080, Vol. v. p. 12 sq. (ed. 2). as Kal éuavtdy] ‘even as myself ;’ scil. év éyxparela, Chrys., ‘ccelibem,’ Bengel ; the accusative being continued by a kind of intelligible attraction ; contrast Acts xxvi. 29. On this so-called ‘com- parative’ use of kal (comp. notes oz Phil. iv. 12), whereby, in clauses where comparison is expressed or implied, the contrasted member of the comparison 17 Tois aydmow Kal Tals ynpass, 2\ / e > Ud (ee) be €aV KELVMOL WS Kayo. €l O€ It is best for each one to remain in the state in which he was called. is brought into prominence and em- phasis, see notes oz Eph. v. 23. In such cases the particle both co-ordinates and emphasizes. Wrov exeu Xdpirpa] ‘has his own gift of grace ;’ his special gift (in regard of the subject- matter generally,— continence and its degrees) as vouchsafed to him by the Holy Ghost, and flowing forth from God as its source; see notes oz 2 Tim. i. 6, and on the two uses of this word in the N. T., the general and the special, Cremer, Worterd. s. v. p. 581. See also the good article of Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. Il. p. 1500 sq. 6 pev ottas K.T.A.] ‘one in this manner and another in that ;’ not with special reference to Td mapevevey on the one hand, and 76 -yauety on the other (Theophyl ), but simply and generally, the context suggesting and supplying the application. The use of o¥rws in each member rather than of o¥tws in the one and ékefyws in the other (Isocr. Panath. p. 269 B, Tore wey exelyws viv dé o’tws) belongs to later Greek: see 2 Sam. xi. 25, and comp. Judges xviii. 4, 2 Sam. xvii. 15, al. 8-24. Rules for the unmarried; and Jor the married, especially in reference to separation. Christianity in its relation to outward circumstances. 8. A€yw SE Tots Gyapots] ‘7 say also to the unmarried ;’ continuation, in the form of amore distinct direction (Aéyw), of the sentiment of the preceding verse (0éAw 5¢ mdyras «.T.A.), application of it to the cases of the &yauo: and the xiipa. There is thus no specially marked transition (‘Now I say’) from the married to the unmarried, but, as 130 1 CORINTHIANS. Crap. VII. 8, 9. OUK &yKPAaTEVOVTAL, YpaynoaTwoay* KpEiTTOV yap éoTW Yyapnoas 8. abtots] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Pec., avrois éotv. Q. yaujoau] The reading is very doubtful. The present yaneiv is adopted by Zisch., Westc. and Hort (with margin): the aorist yaujjoa by Rec., Lachm. Treg., Rev., with perhaps a slight preponderance of external authority. The internal evidence seems to point the same way, the change to the present being perhaps due to a conformity to the present mupotc@a. the order of the words indicates, a re- iteration, by means of the adjunctive 5é, of the leading sentiment of the chapter (ver. 1) with reference to those who are now coming before the Apostle’s thoughts. It has been thought, from the mention of the xijpat, that &yauor are to be limited to widowers (see Maier zz Joc.): the obviously inclusive tots yeyaunréow (ver. 10) points, however, to a similarly inclusive reference,— unmarried, whether male or female, previously married or not. The xai is thus in its adjunctive, rather than its simply copulative, sense, and adds the special to the general: see notes oz Phil. iv. 12. Widows are naturally specified as probably, even at that time, occupying a distinctive posi- tion in the Christian community ; comp. 2M Veg) SG - éav pelvariy as Kayo] ‘2fthey should abide even as I ;’ scil. &yauo. The xaddy is again re- iterated; see ver. 1. On the kat of comparison (k&yé), see the preceding verse. The aor. subjunct. has here its tinge of the future exact, of which tense (with édy) it is the usual repre- sentative,—‘ if in the sequel they shall remain’ (‘si permanserint,’ Clarom.) : see Kiihner, G7. § 389. 6,7. It should, however, be remembered that édy with the aor. subj. is the more general and asual form, the present being reserved ‘or cases where the duration of a state ‘s more particularly to be marked; compare Kriiger, Sprachl. § 53. 6. 4, Bernhardy, Syzzt. x. 9, p. 382. In regard of the question whether the Apostle had ever been married or not, it seems enough to say that a mistaken interpretation of Phil. iv. 3 (Clem.-Alex.) cannot be accepted as outweighing the tradition of the Church as expressed in Tertull. de Monog. cap. 8, al. g. eb 8 odK eyxpatevovTar] ‘ But if they have not continency, * have not power over themselves’ (middle); the ov here so coalescing with the verb as only to express a single idea (see Winer, Gr. § 55. 2, Kiihner, Gr. § 513. 4, Hermann, Viger, No. 309), but preserving its independent force (comp. John x. 37, where ov mo is more than merely ‘neglect’), though confessedly expending it on the verb with which it is associated. Where a fact has sharply to be brought out, and sharply to be negatived, there ef ob seems to be not only permissible, but logically correct. In regard of the connection of the verse, it may be observed that, as in verse 8 the opening words of the chapter were, in point of fact, reiterated, so here what is said in vex. 2 is prac- tically also repeated. Marriage, in one of its aspects, is the remedy for in- continency: one of the reasons for which it was ordained, as the opening exhortation in our Marriage Service solemnly declares, ‘for a remedy against sin and to avoid fornication ;’ see, however, Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 52, p. 433 (Transl.). The form éyxparever@at, though only found in the LXX and in the N. T., is recognized Cuap. VII. 9, to. mupodvabar. 1 CORINTHIANS. 131 Wroig S€ yeyaunkoow mTapayyé\X\w, ovK ty Yyeyaun payy ) ry Gra 0 Kupwos, yuvaixa aro dvdpos uy xopicOjvar U(édy 8é by the grammarians as a correct form: see Thom. Mag. p. 30 (ed. Bernard), aKpateverOat undauds eimns, GAAQ ovK éyKpareverOu. The condemned word, however, is found in Menander and Aristotle. Kpeitrov] ‘better ;’ not necessarily as the lesser of two evils (see Raphel zz Joc.), but as absolutely better, because involving’no sin (comp. ver. 28). It is still, how- ever, clear that, sofar as the Apostle’s judgment is given, he considers the hévew ws Kayw the best course of all. yopijoat] ‘2o marry,’ ‘to enter into the married state,—aor., in contrast with the present which follows. Two forms of the aorist of this verb occur in the N. T., the earlier éynua (Matt. xxii. 25, Luke xiv. 20) and the later éydunoa (Matt. v. 32, Mark vi. 17, al.): both occur below in ver. 28. The latter form is said to have appeared first in the age of Menander; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 742. tupoto Par} ‘to burn’ (present; to continue in that state), ‘uri,’ Vulg., ‘intundnam,’ Goth., 2.2.5 aS more fully expressed in Syr., Suri concupiscentia’ [b’regto]: évépnvev bon THs emOuulas 7 Tupavvis, Chrys. The word occurs occasionally in the N. T., sometimes in its literal (Eph. vi. Hoye2ebet. il. 12; kev.) i. 05, ii. 18); sometimes in its metaphorical, meaning, as here (in ref. to lust) and 2 Cor. xi. 29 (in ref. to grief : ‘ardere doloribus’) : see also 2 Macc. iv. 38, x. 35, xiv. 45, where it is connected with Tots @upois. The various uses of the word in the LXX and in the eccl. writers will be found in a good article in Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11..p. 894 sq. 10. Tois St yeyapnkdow Trapayyé\rAw] * But to those that have married TI give command ;’ not ‘to the married,’ generally (Arm., Auth.), but ‘to those who have married’ (Copt., which rightly expresses the tense), scil. since they became Christians, and so (in contrast to those who were content to wait for the yaunodrwoav) have acted on their own account: comp. Hofmann iz loc. The Apostle speaks here to those who were on _ both sides Christians, and conveys to them the authoritative command (mapayyéAAw: see 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 10,12, 1 Tim. i. 3, Ve DH, Val, Wi 03 19s) als) Which follows,— yuvaika amd avdpds wh xwpic O7- vat. In ver. 12, 13, he speaks to those who were Christian only on one side, but to them also he gives substantially the same direction, speaking, however, as an inspired Apostle (see below) rather than directly from the Lord. Why the Apostle here speaks primarily of the case of the woman does not seem perfectly clear. It may have been from the obvious fact that the case of a woman separating herself would at once seem incompatible with all deeper Christian life; or that the known license of Hellenic married life, in regard of separation, on the part of the woman as well as of the man (see Hermann, Prvatalter. § 30. 14 sq.), was prevailing even in Christian Corinth; or, less probably, that ascetic practices might have crept into the Church, against which the Apostle desired (especially in such a context as the present) to direct words of implied warning and prohibition. ovK éy® GAG & Kuptos] ‘ot 7, but the Lord:’ corrective clause, ‘I com- mand—yet not I, but etc.,’ the command having been, in effect, given in the express declarations of our Lord Himself in reference to the subject of divorce (Matt. v. 31, 32, xix. 3 sq., Mark 10 2 sq. Luke 132 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VII. 10, 11. kal xwpicOy, pevéT@ ayapwos 7) TO avdpi KataddayyTw), Kal avopa yuvaica un advévar. xvi. 18); émeid) vduor Tov Xpiorod TebevTa avayiwdoKew peAAEL Tept Tod xwpls Topvelas wy arevat yuvaira 81a TovTS pyow, ‘ovK eye,’ Chrys. The same great expositor rightly remarks that the ok éyé implies no more than this : the éyé does not point to St. Paul in his merely uninspired character, but throughout the chapter (so in ver. 12) to the Apostle zz his inspired character, and as having the Spirit of the Lord (ver. 40): comp. Weiss, 420/. Theol. § 89. 6, Vol. I. p. 13.sq. (Transl.). ard avSpds ph Xwpiolivar] ‘do not separate herself Srom her husband’ (‘a viro non dis- cedere,’ Vulg., ‘separate from,’ Goth., Copt.), the passive voice having here, in effect, a reflexive force. On the really close connection between the passive and middle voices, of which passages like the present supply an illustration, see Kiihner, Gr. § 378. 4. Whether it be best to adopt a purely passive translation or, as here, a practically reflexive translation, can only be determined by the context. On the explicit nature of this command, and the question of divorce generally, see Rothe, 7heol. Ethik, § 1081, Vol. v. p- 30 sq. (ed. 2), Martensen, Chr. itnesmbart)| Lil. §%20,) ps “40. sqq. (Transl.). II. édv SE kal XwopioOy] ‘dt if she do separate herself ;’ the nat having here its ‘etiam’ force (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 635), and bringing into emphasis the xwpic6f, ‘etiam separata fuerit [‘discesserit,’ Vulg.], contra pre- ceptum,’ Bengel. On this and other uses of kal, see notes o7 Phil. iv. 12; and on the éay with the subjunctive as generally marking objective possibility, z.€. where experience will prove the truth or otherwise of the supposition, pnTa@s smd 2 Tots 5€ Nowtrois Aéyw eya, see Hermann, Viger, No. 312; but see notes oz Gal. i. 9. We must regard this and the following clause as purely parenthetical, the infinitival construc- tion being again continued as if no break had occurred. kata\\a- yate] ‘be reconciled, ‘reconciliari,’ Vulg., Syr. The passive translation is here more natural than the middle, ‘novum ingenium induere,’ Fritzsche in Rom. v.10: the reconciliation would probably be due, at least to some extent, to the intervention of others; see Rom. v. 10, katnAAdynuev TG Oe, 2 Cor. v. 20, kataAAdynte TS Oca, and comp. Matt. v. 24,'d.aAAdyn&i TH GdeAGG gov. The distinction drawn by Titt- mann (Syvo7. p. 102 sq.) between kataa- Adtrew (‘facere ut alter inimicum animum deponat’) and 8madAdAdtrew (‘ efficere, ut quee fuit inimicitia mutua, ea esse desinat’) is ingenious but doubtful; see the careful note of Fritzsche, Rom. é.c. Vol. 1. p. 276. The 8&4 probably denotes the ‘ transitum ex alia in aliam conditionem;’ see Winer, Verb. Compos. in N. T. v. p. . kal dvdpa K.7.d.] ‘and that the husband do not part from his wife,’ Attention is called by expositors to the omission of the all-important exception, mapexTos Adyou mopyelas (Matt. v. 32, xix. 9). There is, however, no ground whatever for supposing that such an omission was designed. The Apostle is not considering the question of divorce proper, but of separations of a totally different kind: even in Mark. x. 1o and Luke xvi. 18 the exception is not specified. Bengel draws a dis- tinction between the uses here of xwpilocda (‘separatur pars ignobilior, mulier’) and dquévar (‘ d2mittit nobilior, vir’), and maintains it even in ver. 13, on the ground of the believing wife Cuap. VII. 12-14. 1 CORINTHIANS. 133 ovx O Kupios: ev tis adeAghos yuvaica eyes Arictov, Kal avTy) a 3 lal 2, > fa! \ > / > / 18 \ Ve ouvevdokel oikely meT avTOV, wy adieTw adTHy* } Kal yur Aris ” ” ” Ne 5 a = a ? 2A \ EXEL avopa ATLGTOV, KAL OUTOS DUVEVOOKEL OLOELY LET QAUTNS, (7) adiéta Tov avopa. [acre \ eo cos 2 A nylacTat yap oO avynp O aTrloTOS EV T) 12. Aeyw @ys] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., éy® A€éyw. 13. kal ovTos —agietw Tov &vSpa] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and fort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., cad aitds — agiétw aitdv. being really the superior. This is perhaps a little overstrained. The latter verb is certainly more usual in reference to the husband, but is also appropriately used in-reference to the wife in ver. 13, as, infact, taking upon herself the responsibility of the separa- tion; see Hofmann 27 Joc. 12. Tots 8€ owmois] ‘ But to the rest say I, not the Lord, scil. to those not included in the above directions to the Gyduors and the yeyaunrdow. Both these classes were Christians: the Apostle is now about to speak to a mixed class, viz. a class in which either husband or wife remained a heathen. In regard of such cases our Lord had given no command. The Apostle, then, as having the Spirit of God (ver. 40), gives his directions. On éyé, as contrasted with 6 Kupios, see notes on ver. IO. éxev] ‘as ;’ the word being studiously chosen, here and ver. 13, to mark this as a marriage con- tracted prior to the conversion to Christianity : rep) rv mpd Tod knpvyuatos suvapbevtwy évraila pnotv, Theodoret. ovvevdoKel] ‘consents, scil. ‘agrees with the husband on the subject,’ the ovv referring to the mutual nature of the agreement ; comp. 2 Macé. xi. 35, brép dv Avolas 5 ovyyevhs tod Bactréws ouvexapnoev byiv, kal nuts ovvevdoKoumer. The verb occurs (with a dat.) Luke xi. 48, Acts viii. 1, Rom. i. 32, and, without an associated noun, Acts xxii. 20 (according to the best text). 3. kal ovTos K.t.A.] ‘and he con- sents to dwell with her ;’ transition from the relative into the demon- strative. It is of course true that, as Winer says (Gr. § 22. 4), St. Paul might here have written ds cuvevdoxe?; the change into the demonstrative form is, however, far more true to the genius of the language, and to the avoidance of the repetition of the relative in the dependent clause; see Bernhardy, Syz#. vi. 16, p. 304, Kiihner, Gr. § 561.1. #4 acvéro Tov dvSpa] ‘let her not part from her husband ;’ tov &v5pa,— though a heathen, he was her husband. On the use of aqcévae in the case of the wife, see notes on ver. II: itis infact a vox media by means of which the Apostle preserves a strict and literal identity between the rules for the two sexes. *AmoAvew (the regular word in the N. T.; in classical Greek dmoméumrew or éxBddAdAev: see Bremi, Demosth. p. 92) could not have been used in reference to the wife, nor GmroAeimey (the usual word in the case of the wife; see Thomas Mag. s. v. p- 97, ed Bernard) in reference to the husband. Thegeneral , sentiment is clear and emphatic, that the conversion to Christianity does not justify the separation of husband and wife, where the non-Christian, whether husband or wife, was willing to dwell with the other. 14. hylacra, yap K.t.A.] ‘For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified Godley, 134 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VII. 14. ‘ e Z ¢€ \ e 7 > a 16 lel > -\ YUVALKL, Kab NYlaTTAL n YUV n aTrLaTOS Ev TO AdEAPH* Errel y” \ ; ig lal > iA fe > la) \ vf tetas} apa Ta Téxva tuav axdBapta eat, viv Oé ayia éotw. Bef bé 14. TG GdeAbG] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating uncial authority: Rec., 7G avdpt, with nearly all the Vv. The Memph., however, is in favor of the text. in the wife;’ confirmatory of the directions given in the two foregoing verses: ov yiverat axd@aptos [ 6 avhp], GAAG vik | Kabapdrys Tis yuvaikds Thy axabapoiay rod avdpds, kad wuKg 7} Kabapdrns TOU TigTOD avdpbs mdr 7d aKdOapToy THs amiorov yuvads, Chrys. The aydrns thus referred to has of course no personal reference: the husband was not in himself sanctified, but by being closely united to one who was a member of the Church and of the company of the @yo1, was regarded as in a guasi-Christian light ; the conjugal bond through the believing wife had the character of Christian matrimony. so rightly Calvin, ‘nihil prodest hec sanctificatio conjugi infideli: tantum eo valet, ne ejus copula fidelis in- quinetur, et profanetur ipsum matri- monium:’ in a word, matrimony was still ‘ holy matrimony.’ év TH yevaikt] ‘27 the wife:’ she was the substratum or basis of the sanctifying; see Winer, Gr. § 48. 2. a, and comp. notes oz Gal.i.24. So év TG ddeAG in the next clause. The true force of the preposition thus remains; the action being regarded as taking place, not ‘by means of,’ but, so to speak, in the causal sphere of the person or thing with which this preposition is connected: see the good collection of examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 431. 1. 3. Such distinctions may seem finely drawn, but they are real, and in some cases (¢.¢. €v Xpiot@, év Kuplw, al.) of distinct exegetical importance: see notes oz Gal. ii. 17, and oz Eph. ii. 6, iv. 1. éel dpa K.7.X.] 6 stzce it would then follow that your children are unclean,’ ‘alioquin filii vestri immundi essent,’ Vulg.: proof of what was stated, by showing what would clearly follow if the non-Christian parent had not been regarded as thus 7yaopévos. On the use of éei, see notes on ch. v. Io, and on the use and meaning of &pa (‘significatio levioris cujusdam ratio- cinationis, quz indicat rebus ita com- paratis aliquid ita aut esse aut fieri,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 167), Donalds. Gr. § 548. 4, and notes oz Gal. v. II. What is obviously assumed is that the children of Christians generally are &y1a,— not in a personal sense, but as standing in the closest relation to those who, by profession, are @yiot. Even if born only of one Christian parent the child was still the child of a Christian, and as such, owing to the closeness of the union between parent and child, had, so to speak, a &yid7ys shed upon it from its closeness of union with what was Christian: comp. Hooker, Zcc/. Pol. v. 60. 6. The suéy has thus a perfectly general reference, viz. to the Christian hearers or readers of the Epistle, and includes all cases in which a child could claim a Christian parent or parents. The different grounds on which such children could be accounted &yia are well stated by Edwards zx Joc. No inference can possibly be drawn from the passage as to infant baptism. Though children are spoken of as @yia in the sense, and from the circum- stances, already specified, yet that which they are pécee (comp. Eph. ii. 3) remains wholly unaffected and un- changed: the need for Christian baptism remains entirely the same; .=—_ ? Cuap. VII. 14, 15. 1 CORINTHIANS. 135 0 amuotos ywpifeTar, ywpilécOw: ov SedovrAwTar 6 ddeAdos %) GOEAp) ev Tols ToLovTots, ev Sé Eipynvyn KéEKANKEY Huds 0 Beds. 15. nuas] So Rec., Lachm., Treg., and Rev. (with marg.), on slightly prepon- derating authority: Z7%sch., Westc. and Hort (with marg.), duas. It also seems more probable that jua@s was a correction for jas, than conversely. see Miiller, Doctrine of Sin, Vol. 1. p. 305 (Transl.), and Hofmann, Schrz/t- beweis, Part I. p. 454, and the clear note in his Commentary (in loc.). viv S€] ‘dt as itis, the viv having its logicat rather than its temporal meaning ; see notes on ch. v. II. 15. XwplérOw] ‘let him depart ;’ permissive imperative; there need be no hinderance on the part of the Christian wife; comp. ch. xiv. 38, and see Winer, Gr. § 43. 1, Kihner, Gr. § 397. 2. Having given direction in the case of the &moros desiring to remain with his Christian wife (ver. 13), the Apostle now deals with the case of his leaving her. In such a case, he says, the Christian wife, and, in the converse case, the Christian husband, are neither of them bound, in regard of the de- serting husband or wife, as they would each have been, if the one so deserting had been a Christian ; od« €xet dvaryeny 6 TOTS F 4 TioTH ev ToLs AMioT OLS TOLAUTHY, dia alT@ emixerta em Tov motor, Photius. ov SeSovAwrtar év Tots To.ovTrois] ‘7s zot under bondage in such circumstances ;’ apparently a studiously strong word (contrast the lighter d¢derar ver. 39) to enhance indirectly the in- ferential sanction of the Apostle to the regarding of the marriage as dissolved. The interpretation of these words has been the subject of much controversy. That they imply that wilful desertion on the part of the unbelieving husband or wife is to be regarded as having set the believing wife or husband free, cannot reasonably be doubted; comp. Hofmann 7x Joc. Whether one so set free is to be con- sidered as at liberty to marry again (a Christian, see ver. 39) is more open to question. Nothing certainly is ex- pressly said (Neander), but the tenor of the words (ov SedovAwrat k.7.A.) seems in favor of the liberty ; see Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1081, Vol. v. p. 30 (ed. 2), Martensen, Chr. Ethics, Part It. § 19, p. 38 (Transl.). Such too is the ruling of the canon law; see the authorities cited by Wordsworth zz /oc. The only real difficulty is whether such an interpretation can be considered consistent with our Lord’s declaration, Matt. v. 32, xix. 9. The ordinary view seems reasonable; viz. that our Lord’s words must be understood as referring, by the very nature of the case and of the context, to those, and such as those, to whom the words were addressed, and that, in regard of such cases as those now under consideration, nothing further could be deduced from our Lord’s command than this — that the delzeving husband or wife was not at liberty to depart. If deserted by the unbelieving, then fresh considera- tions arose. év eipnyy] ‘7x peace ;’ not ‘in pacem,’ Clarom., but, with the usual and proper force of the preposition, ‘in a sphere of, and with the accompaniments of, peace:’ peace was the moral element in which the kAjots took place; see Winer, Gr. § So. 5, and notes oz Zh. iv. 4; comp. I Thess. iv. 7. The clause is thus to be connected, not directly with the xwpi(écOw (Chrys., De Wette),—for the departing might have been perfectly peaceable, — but with that which pre- cedes: it presents under a slightly 136 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VII. 15-17. x U 5 rf yap oidas, yivat, eb Tov avdpa cawcels; 7) TL oldas, avep, > \ a , 17 3 Saal er ce € ey 4 e Ko EL TIV YUVALKA DWOELS 5 Ei BN €KaACTG) WS EMEPLO EV Oo uptos, 17. éuepicev] So Rec., Lachm., on apparently preponderating external au- thority: Zisch., Treg. (with margin), Rev., Westc. and Hort (with margin), Memepiker. Internal arguments are also in favor of the text; a conformation of the aorist to the following perfect is more likely (the significance of the different aspect (S¢) the same general sentiment; Christianity involves no elements of bondage; it is in peace that we have received our Christian calling from God. The Christian wife, then, need feel no peace-disturbing scruples about the matter, ei 6 &moros xwplerat, xwpiléoOw: see Hofmann zz foc, who has well worked out the thought-connection of this somewhat difficult verse. 16. tl yap otSas «.t.d.] ‘For what knowest thou, O wife, as to whether thou wilt save thy husband :’ confirmation of the reasonableness of the foregoing direction, ei 5¢ 6 &moros k.7T.A.; ‘let the &moros depart, and feel no anxious scruples thereon, for what knowest thou about the matter, whether, if thou strive to keep him, thou wilt convert him?’ There are here two widely different views of the connection of thought of this verse with the fore- going: (a) that of the earlier exposi- tors (Chrys., al.), according to which the present clause is to be referred to the ph adierw of ver. 12 and 13, and ver. 15 regarded as parenthetical; (0) the connection indicated above, and adopted by the majority of modern interpreters. If (z) be adopted, then et will in effect be ‘whether—not;’ and the verse will contain an argument against separation founded on the possibility of the mordv muépos convert- ing the &morov. To this there is no grammatical objection, as the particle ei, which in itself only involves the enquiry ‘ de aliqua re, utrum sit an non sit’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 508), may be rightly rendered with an associated negative, if the same is plainly implied by the context; see Kiihner, Gr. § 587. 21, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 65. 1. 8. No other example, however, has been cited from the N. T. The real objection to (az) is founded on the sequence of the sentences, which appears regular and unbroken, confirmatory reasons here following each statement in a natural and logical order, and apparently pre- cluding the assumption of any paren- thesis. The main thought is ov SeSovAwTa, and this is confirmed by the present verse and limited by that which follows. We maintain there- fore with some confidence (4), and connect the ydép with the principal statement in the foregoing verse. In the question ti oiéas, Meyer (citing Ellendt, Zex. Soph. Vol. U.. p. 823) regards the ri as adverbial, and not as an object-accusative. This seems very doubtful in a context such as the present, where the transitive verb seems naturally to need its supplemental accus.: contrast the examples cited by Ellendt zz doc. That the sentence becomes in point of fact equivalent to ‘How knowest thou, etc.,’ may be conceded, but the ordinary regimen remains. 17. Hi pa éxdorw «.7.A.] ‘Save only as the Lord distributed to each:’ limi- tation of the principal foregoing thought, viz. that there was no (vyov SovAelas in the case of the unbelieving husband (or wife) deliberately de- parting. The Apostle, by way of salutary caution, adds that though, Cuap. VII. 17, 18. ve ¢ , c 4 t exacTov ws KéxKAnKeV 0 Deeds, ovTwS TEPLTTATELT®. Tals éxkAnolas Tacals SvaTadooopmaL. r CORINTHIANS. 137 \ 4 b] Kat OUT@S EV 18 [Ieputetunpuévos tis tense in each case not being perceived) than a change from the less usual form Mewepixey to the more familiar euépier. The order Kipios — eds (Rec., @cds — Kupios) is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority. under the special circumstances, there was no actual Sovaeia, yet that mainte- nance of the position which has been assigned to each one by the Lord is ever to be regarded as the normal Christian principle. Various other inter- pretations have been given of this some- what difficult clause, but they willall be found either to infringe on the true exceptive force of ei uh (see notes ox Gal. 1.7), or to obscure the prominence of the od ded0vAwrat, which (as has been already observed) is the main thought of the foregoing verse. In both this and the following clause the emphasis falls on the &€«aoros (hence the slight inversion of order, éxdorTw as rather than @s éxdor@ ; comp. ch. iii. 5, Rom. xii. 3) ; each individual had his own outward pépos (circumstances of earthly life) assigned to him by the Lord [not the /irst, but the Second Person of the blessed Trinity; see notes oz 1 Thess. iii. 12], and each has his own special kAjjo.s from God. KékAnev] ‘as called:’ with reference to the enduring nature of the initial act of grace, the perfect always indicating ‘actionem plane preteritam, que aut nunc ipsum seu modo finita est, aut per effectus suos durat,’? Poppo, Progr. de emend. Matth. Gramm. p. 6. In the first clause the euépicev simply refers to the past, and is silent as to the present ; see notes oz Gal. v. 24. On the regular reference of the KAjats to God the Father, see notes oz Gal. 1.6. ovtws mepimateitw] ‘so let him walk ;* not merely, ‘so let him remain’ [existat], Eth., but ‘let such be his 18 course,’ ‘ita ambulet,’ Vulg., ‘sva gageai, Goth.,— the verb mepimareiy in passages of this kind always referring to a man’s course of life in its con- tinuous, practical, and outward mani- festations: see Suicer, Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 679, and notes oz Phil. iii. 18, and oz 1 Thess. iv. 12. Kal otras K.t.X.] ‘ Azd so do L ordain in all the Churches:’ not only Sexvis 7d Tod TapayyeAuatos avaykaioy (Theodorus), but with a tone alike of apostolic authority and of conciliatory exhorta- tion ; etiam Corinthii possunt acquiescere,’ Bengel; comp., Gicum zz Joc. 18. ILepurerpnpeévos tis exdnOn] ‘ Was any man called being circumcised ?’ scil. being circumcised at the time he received his calling to Christianity. Application of the general rule just given to two cases of considerable practical importance. Some commen- tators (De Wette, Meyer, al.) adopt here and ver. 27 a non-interrogative punctuation, the aor. indicative being regarded as used _ hypothetically— ‘suppose any one was called, etc.;’ ‘si circumcisus aliquis vocatus sit,’ Syr., sim. Aith., and so apparently Copt., Goth.: comp. James ii. 19, and see Winer, Gr. §§ 25. 1, 60. 4. This is grammatically admissible (see Kiihner, Gr. § 391. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 54. 1. 1), but is here somewhat forced, especially as there are no associated ‘doctrina universalis: in qua particles (e.g. kal 5) or that prominence of the verb (see examples in KUthner) which might seem to suggest this hypothetical sense. We therefore, 138 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VII. 18-20. exAnOn ; pn eriotacbw: év axpoBvoTia KéxAnTAaL TIS; MH mepiTewver Ow. 19 e ‘\ OE > \ ¢e > / TepcToun ovdév eat, Kal 4 aKpoBuvaTia ovdév eat, Gra THPHOLS EvTON@Y Ocod. 7 ExacTOS EV TH KAHoEL 18. KéxAntat tis] So Lachm., Tisch.. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on au- thority, very greatly preponderating for the perfect, and very clearly for the order of the words: Rec., tis éxAhen. with Zachmann and most modern editors, adopt the interrogative. pa) émomac0w] ‘let him not make him- self uncircumcised.’ ‘non adducat pre- putium,’ Vulg.; with reference to a revolting practice, by surgical means (see Celsus, de Med. Vil. 25), of superinducing a state that in appear- ance might be that of a&«poBuvoria: see, if necessary, the reference in Winer, Real-Woérterb. Art. ‘ Beschneidung,’ Vol. I. p. 160 (ed. 3), Wetst. 27 Joc., and the instances alluded to in Light- foot, Hor. Hebr. (in Joc.) Vol. I. p. 899 (Lond. 1686). The apostates and viol mapdvowor mentioned in 1 Mace. i. II sq. émolnoay éavtois &kpoBvotias Kat aréornoay amd Siabhens Gryias (ver. 15) ; on which passage see the notes and references of Grimm (/andb. zu den Apocryphen, Part Ill. p. 14), and comp. Joseph. Aztig. xu. 5.1. The act was either to avoid the risk of being scoffed at (‘Judzi curti,’ Hor.), if seen naked (comp. Joseph. 7Z. c.), or to signify dis- avowal of the warpios @pnoxeia (Joseph.), and adoption of the habits and prin- ciples of heathenism. év GKpo- Bvoria «.t.d.] ‘Has anyone been called in uncircumcision ;’ scil. in the state of uncircumcision, Rom. iv. 10. The perfect serves slightly to mark the calling, not simply as having taken place, but as continuing in its effects: such a one was to give no heed to Judaizing teachers ; comp. Gal. vi. 12. 19. ov8év éoriv] ‘25 nothing,’ i.e. is of no consequence,’ in regard of the spiritual aspects of the question now under consideration; if circumcised, the man was no better; if uncircum- cised, he was no worse; comp. ch. viii. 8. As Calvin rightly observes, ‘utrumque in zquo ponit, ne alterius odio alterum stulte appetatur.’ Cir- cumcision was now a ‘sacramentum mortuum’ (Estius); primarily and generally a sign of dedication to God (see Herzog, Real-Encycl. Vol. 1. p. 109), and to the Jew, of entering into special relations with Him (Gen. xvii. 10; see Kurtz, Old Cov., Vol. 1. § 58, p- 236 sq., Transl.), it lost all its sig- nificance when the better covenant was vouchsafed, and the good things were come of which it was one of the symbols and foreshadowings (comp. Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6); év yap XpioT@ *"Inoovd ovTe mepitoun tt ioxder ovTE &kpoBvotia, GAAd miotis 3° a&ydans evepyounevn, Gal. v. 6; see Rom. ii. 25 sq. GANG THpnots K.T.A.] ‘dt the keeping of the commandments of God,’ scil. verily 7s something; ‘est aliquid, confert ad justitiam et salutem,’ Estius: comp. ch. iii. 7. Circumcision was an évtoAy, but not one of universal obligation: ‘quum hoc unum esset ex mandatis, quamdiu ceremoniis legalibus devincta fuit Ecclesia, videmus pro confesso sumi, adventu Christi aboli- tam fuisse circumcisionem,’ Calvin. 20. €kawros év TH KAHOE K.T.A.] ‘Let each one, in the calling wherewith he was called:’ reiteration, without any connecting particles, and so more emphatic, of the rule given above, in ver. 17, and implied throughout the paragraph. The xAjots must thus be taken, with its usual and theological CuHap. VII. 20, 21. iA 9 €KAHON, ev TAVTN MEVETO. E CORIN PALAN S!. 139 21 Aovros €KAHOns 5 fur} ToL MEAETO* GX ei Kal Svvacat édevOepos yeveoOar, waddoV ypjoar. ™ 6 yap reference (as KéxAnrev 6 Oeds, ver. 17), as marking the generous agency, within the scope and ambit of which each one was to remain. The dative 7 does not involve a silent repetition of the preposition (Matt. xxiv. 50, Acts xiii. 39, al.; comp. Winer, G7. § 50. 7. 6), but is simply instrumental, as in 2 Tim. i. 9, kaAéoavTos KAnoe: ayia; each one was not simply called, but called in conformity with a merciful and divinely ordered procedure; comp. Jackson oz the Creed, Book x11. 7. The rendering ‘vivendi ratio’ (Calvin). or ‘status, in quo aliquem vocatio offendit ’ (Grimm), is lexically doubtful, and certainly inconsistent with the N. T. usage of the word: see Cremer, Worterb. p. 333, and Edwards zz Joc. év TabTy pevérw] ‘772 this let him remain ;’ with distinct emphasis: he was not to with- draw from the providential disposition of God as involved and implied in the eis Thy mliotw mpocaywyn (Theoph.) vouchsafed to him. For examples of this emphatic use of the demonstrative, see Winer, Gr. § 23. 4; comp. ver. 24, ch. vi. 4. 21. Aoddos éxd7Ons ; K.T.A.] 6 Wast thou called, being a bond-servant! let it not be a care to thee;’*do not let the fact of being a bond-servant be a source of spiritual trouble to thee,’ — rijs dov- Actas being in effect latent; see Winer, Gr. § 64.1. 6. There might be much in the state of the slave that might seem to preclude the full realization of Christian blessings: such anxieties, however, were to be cast aside; He who had vouchsafed to take the form of a dSo0vAes had conferred the true freedom (ver. 22). GAN et kal Sivacat «.T.A.] ‘but if thou even canst become free.’ It seems hardly possible to doubt that in these words the a@aad has reference to the preceding nega- tion, and that the kai throws its em- phasis on the dtvacam x.7.A. and en- hances the statement: see Hermann, Viger, No. 307, and the notes oz Phil. ii. 17. Whether the rendering be ‘also,’ (Evans), or, much more appro- priately, ‘even,’ really matters but little, provided the true connection be maintained. In the ordinary rendering “if thou canst even become free’ (‘sed si potes etiam liber fieri,’ Beza), or, dropping the kat altogether, ‘if thou canst become free’ (Copt., al.), the force of the kat becomes, directly or indirectly, transferred to éAevOepos ye- vécOut, and thereby rH éAevOepig sug- gested as the more natural supplement to xpfivat. For such a practical trajec- tion, however, of kal, no satisfactory example has been adduced. We seem bound, therefore, to adopt the natural connection: so Syr., Arm. [Goth. ‘al- though;’ comp. Vulg.], and, very clearly, Phot. (Cramer, Catez.) (ei kat divacat Sid Twos omovdys Kal émipedctas €revOepos yevérGat), anchsthe Greek ex- positors (zz Zoc.) generally. The real difficulty, however, is in the next clause. PaAAov Xpioat] ‘zse zt rather.” But what? tH éAevdepig or TH SovrAelg? The former of these seems at first sight more natural: that the Apostle should sanction the slave’s availing himself of a fairly offered op- portunity is only what we might natu- rally expect; ‘to thee so it would be better,’ Arm. Christianity points up- ward. Moreover, the preceding words éAcvOepos yeveo8at seem to suggest the synonymous substantive, and xpjoa, again, is more applicable to the adop- tion of a new state of things than the maintenance of an old state. These two objections, however, seem to be 140 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VII. 21-23. év Kupio krbels S0dd0s areretOepos Kupiov éoriv: dpolws o edevOepos KrANOels Sods eoTw Xpiotod. ™ typhs yyopacOnre* 22. duotws] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds kal. insuperable: (a) that the supplement of tH éAevOepia is logically inconsistent with the explanation already given of the preceding clause, and leaves the ‘even’ unintelligible; (4) that such a wipplement is clearly not in harmony with the general tenor of the whole passage, which indisputably is & @ €xANOn, ev TovTw peveTw (ver. 24). We therefore adopt the latter supplement, rh dovdeig, and see in it a Christian sentiment of a higher strain than that presented by the first aspect of the words. Though the Apostle does not, even in the most indirect way, forbid the lecitimate use of any providentially offered opportunity, he makes every- thing else subordinate to the great cardinal thought, that in Christ all callings, all conditions, all distinctions, are practically obliterated (Gal. iii. 28, Col. iii. 11, comp 1 Cor. xii. 13), —and the more so, as the time was now ‘shortened’ (ver. 29), and far other thoughts were now in all true hearts than the amelioration of a transitory temporal condition. Thus Syr. (‘elige tibi ut servias;’ translators intercalate ‘potius quam’ before ‘ut,’ but ap- parently without anything to justify it), the Greek expositors, and most modern . writers, except Hofmann, who, though arguing with much force and ingenuity, fails to break down the reasoning founded on the plain grammatical con- siderations above alluded to. The yap in the next vetse then follows natu- rally; elra kal thy aitiay émdyet, Chrys. 22. 6 yip év Kuplw x.t.d.] ‘For he that hath been called in the Lord being a bond-servant is a freedman of the Lord ;’ confirmatory grounds for the foregoing directions; the Christian bond-servant may well remain con- tented with his position, for he is a freedman whose freedom Christ has purchased, and is dvrws édrevOepos; comp. John viii. 36. The gen. Kupiouv, as Meyer rightly remarks, is not de- pendent on amedevOepos as the original manumitting owner, but as the (pres- ent) possessor. The former servitude was not to the Lord, but to sin (Rom. vi. 20, dovAo 7TE Tis Guaptias): from this Christ set us free: Ka0d éxeiOev édcvbepdoas, b1d Thy oikelay Hyayev Bact- Aefay, Photius (Cramer, Caz.). On the significant év Kupiw, see notes oz Lph iv. I. dpolas 6 ehedOepos k.T.A.] ‘in like manner the free man, when called, is a bond-servant of Christ ;’ converse statement; the one who has external freedom, when made a Chris- tian, becomes the dodAos of a redeeming -Lord, and is sometimes permitted to bear the marks of his holy ownership ; see Gal. vi. 17, and notes zz doc. The connection ‘the bond-servant who is called 22)... free’ (Alf.) does not seem to be cor- rect. In the first member. 6 év Kupi KAnOels is the subject, and SodA0s in defining apposition: in the second member the changed position of the participle seems to make it more nat- ural to regard 6 éAed@epos as the subject, in antithesis with the SodAos that fol- lows, and xAnéels the defining or cir- cumstantial participle ; comp. Donald. Gr. § 442. 23. Tints yyopdoOnre] § Ye were bought for a price ;’ scil. by Christ, at the cost of His most precious blood (1 Pet. i. 19); see notes and references ‘he that is called being ~ Cuap. VII. 23-25. pn yivecOe Soddot dvOpétrav. €v TOUT@ peEveTW Tapa O«@. 7 1 CORINTHIANS. 141 4 Exaatos év ® éKAHOn, adeAooi, 24. mapa ©eG] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., rapa TG Oe@. on ch. vii. 20, where the nature of the Ad’rpoy and the grammatical character of the genitive are both discussed. The exact reference of the next clause, py ylver Oe «.7.A., has been very differ- ently explained. It can hardly be a mere general counsel (Chrys., Theod., al.), as both the verse which precedes and the verse which follows have a special reference to the subject under consideration, viz. the patient continu- ance in the state or calling in which each one, by God’s providence, was placed. The words seem more natu- rally to point to advisers and teachers who (under circumstances not known to us) gave a very different counsel to that of the Apostle. They to whom the words were addressed were Christ’s servants: it was to Him alone, and to his Spirit as vouchsafed to His Apostles and true teachers, that they were to look for guidance and direction. There was only too much of this kind of of bondage to men in the Corinthian Church; comp. Hofmann zz /oc., whose own interpretation, however, ‘do not spend your lives in a dependence on men in which your circumstances have not placed you,’ is too vague for the connection. 24. kaoros év & exdTOn «.7.d.] ‘Let each man, brethren, in that state wherein he was called, therein abide.’ Reiterated counsel, closing the digression ver. 17, and repeating the rule of ver. 20 with still higher emphasis and enhancement (apa Oe) : ToUTO kad mpoolmov Ka) erlAo- yov Tis Tapaweoews TéeHeixev, Theod. mapa Oc] ‘wth God,’ ‘apud Deum;’ dependent on the preceding pevéra, and deriving from it its present quasi- local reference: 7d 5¢ apd OeG mpocé- Onkev, va wh wdAw Tod Oeod adicrdueba, Theoph. The words may mean ‘before God,’ i.e. from the point of view of God’s judgment (Winer, Gr. § 48. d) ; comp. ch. iii. 19, Gal. iii. 11, al., and see notes zz Jocc. The local meaning, however, of closeness to (Donaldson, Cratyl. § 177) seems here better to suit the context, and to harmonize with the quasi-local idea which is introduced by the verb. Under either aspect the clause conditions, and gives a new tone and force to the command. It thus suitably closes the period and the digression, and gives, as it were in epitome, the true rationale of all the foregoing advice: it is only from the closer walk with God, and fuller realiza- tion of his presence, that all positions and relations of life can rightfully be maintained. On this text, see a valu- able sermon by Bp. Sanderson, ad Pop. IV. p. 203 sqq. (London, 1689). 25-40. ules relative to virgins and the fathers of such, and to re-marriage. 25. Ileal 8& trav tapQévev] ‘Vow as concerning virgins :’ transition, by means of the usual 5€ wetaBatixdy, to the subject of virgins, about which questions had been addressed to him by members of the Corinthian Church ; 656 Kal rdker mpoBalywy Kal THs mupbevlas pvnuovever Aowwédv, Chrys. The term maodévo. is understood by Theodorus among earlier, and by Bengel and others among later, expositors, to refer to both sexes; comp. Rev. xiv. 4, in which case, however, the use (adjectival and predicative) is clearly different from the present. Such an interpreta- 142 As to virgins, it is better that they should remain so, and be more free to serve the Lord; and so of widows. 12 “ , \ s vmo Kupiov muctos eva. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VII. 25, 26. 5 Tlepi 6€ tov Trapévwr, érutaynv Kupiov ovK exw, yvounv 66 did@pt ws HAENUEVOS Yo, yop ye enye 26 Nopifm odv n \ e / \ > a by / 4 \ TOUTO Kadov UTdpyew Sia THY everT@oaY avayKnY, OTL KaNOV tion may perhaps just be lexically ten- able (see the exx. in Steph. 7hesaur. s.v. Vol. VI. p. 572, ed. Hase and Dind.), and may, at first sight, seem to derive some support from ver. 26, but is clearly out of harmony with ver. 28 and 34, in which the context seems to preclude the wider reference. yournv Si8op.] ‘7 eve my opinion or advice, ‘consilium do,’ Vulg., Clar.; ‘ragin giba,’ Goth., cuyBovAhy mporpepa, Theod.; see 2 Cor. viii. 10, and comp. notes oz Philem.14. It seems scarcely to amount here to ‘judgment’ (Auth., Rey.), but, in accordance with the tenor of the whole passage, to point to the ‘opinion’ which the Apostle had formed on the whole difficult sub- ject (voulfw addy eivat, Chrys.), and which now, not so much in his office as their Apostle, as in his general position as agidmioras eis TO Tapatvety (Phot.), he states as his counsel or advice: note the voulfw with which the next verse begins. motos civat] ‘to de faithful, ie. ‘trustworthy’ (comp. 1 Tim. i. 15 and notes 77 Zoc.), ‘cui fides merito sit habenda,’ Beza; one whose words and advice could fully be relied on: he was an aéidxpews otuBovdos (Theod.), puornd wos moreverOau (Theoph.); see ver. 40. It was through the mercy of the Lord that he was enabled thus faithfully to give the “mind, though not the émtayhv, of his Master. The other renderings that have been adopted, e.g. ‘true’ (Riick., al.), or ‘believing’ (Hofmann), do not appear equally well to bring out the claim that the Apostle here puts for- ward for being attended to, viz. that by the mercy of God he was one whose words deserved attention. 26. vopl{w otv] ‘/ consider there- fore ;’ the verb expressing the formu- lated opinion, and the ody, with its co/- lective force (‘ad ea, que antea revera posita sunt, lectorem revocat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. i. p. 717), basing the ex- pression of that opinion on the latter portion of the preceding verse. The accurate reader will observe in such passages as the present the fine but still perceptible distinction between this use of the particle and that of the more argumentative &pa. If &pa had been used, the present clause would have been more distinctly 2//ative than would be in harmony with the general nature of the context. The collective use of ody just preserves the mean between resumption and direct argu- ment; see, however, notes oz Gal. iii. 5. On the two uses of ody (the reflexive and collective), see Klotz, Devar. /. c., and comp. notes o7 Phi. ii. 1. TovTo Kaddv trdpXew K.T.A.] ‘that this is good by reason of the present neces- sity ;’ the todro pointing forward, and placed prominently in the clause to enhance attention and prepare for the subsequent words 8tz «.7.A., which de- fine and explain it; comp. Winer, Gr. § 23. 5, Kriger, Sprach/. § 51. 7. 3. What the Apostle advised was kaAdés: it was good; not merely in itself, but with due regard to the judgment of all right-minded persons; see notes on ch. v. 6. What especially made it good at the present time was the avdyxn, — the precursory woes and calamities asso- ciated with the Lord’s coming, of which He had distinctly spoken (Matt. xxiv. 8 sq.), and which even now were Cuap. VII. 26, 27. WGOREN TE. HrAN Ss. 143 avOpar@ 7d ottws elvar. 7 SéSecar yuvacki; un Enter Ndow- NéAvoas ard yuvaikes ; uy Enter yuvaixa. * éav Sé Kal yaunons, to be seen and felt everywhere. On the meaning of éveoras, and its refer- ence to something that had already commenced, see notes on Gal.i. 4, and also on 2 Thess. i. 2. &ru Kadov GvOpamw «.7.d.} ‘that it 7s good,I say, for aman thus to be, scil. ‘to be as he is,’ to remain in the state in which he finds himself, — an illustration of which follows in the succeeding verse. The general principle being thus enunciated, or rather reiterated, the application to virgins (about whom questions had apparently more particularly been asked) is easy and natural. It is thus not necessary to stretch the meaning of av@pérw as itself ‘utriusque sexus’ (Bengel) : tainly so in the case of the rap8évos. The construction is slightly irregular, but the meaning perfectly clear. The Apostle apparently feeling (while dic- tating) that the preceding infinitival clause if continued regularly by means of an appositional infinitive (Hofm.), or otherwise (comp. Meyer, 67: &v@pwros ottws éor:), might have left the mean- ing obscure, drops the infinitive and recommences with the more direct ért KaAdy K.T.A.: or, to speak more iech- nically, he begins with one of the three forms of the ‘objective’ or ‘ exponen- tial’ sentence, and, without finishing the sentence, passes over to another; comp. Donaldson, Gr. § 584. In clas- sical Greek two clauses, the one with 8: the other with the infin., are some- times found in dependence on the same verb (see Kriiger, Sprachi. § 59. 2. 10) : here, however, there is only one clause in two forms. To avoid the difficulty some expositors (De Wette, al., comp. Vulg.) take 67: in its causal sense, but fall into the greater difficulty of tau- tology. The article before oitws what is caddy dvOpémw is cer- elvat, though not capable of being ex- pressed in translation, adds force and distinctness; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 2. obs. It calls attention to the general principle on which the Apostle frames his answers to the questions put to him. 27. SéSeoar yuvarkl] ‘Art thou bound toawife?’ Explanation, by means of an interrogative clause, of the true tenor and intention of the foregoing counsel. The Apostle’s advice was to be taken with due regard to existing relations ; émiteive: kad avinow, Origen (Cramer, Caz.). Both words have been pressed by interpreters; 6Sédecau, ac- cording to Theophyl., al. being re- garded as marking the impeding character of marriage (kdkwow émipeper 6 yauos, Theoph., comp. Origen), and yuvaixt, as including the case of a betrothed virgin-daughter (Hofmann). Neither view seems contextually sup- ported. The verb simply marks the marriage-bond (see Rom. vii. 2, T@ (@vtt avdpi vouw), and the substantive, as the subsequent Avouw seems to indicate, a married rather than an espoused woman. The dative yovaixt is the ordinary dative of juxta- position or proximity (Donaldson, Gr. § 456), replaced sometimes in this formula by mpés with the accus., e.g. mpos %vdpa deSeuervny, lambl. Vit. Pythag. II. 56. eAXverar Grd yuvarkds] ‘standest thou free from a wife?’ not ‘hast thou been separated by death or desertion?’ but, more inclusively, ‘art thou free from the matrimonial bond ?’ ‘denotat non solum eum qui uxori desiit esse alligatus, sed etiam eum qui nunquam alligatus fuit,’ Bengel ; comp. Grimm, Zex.s. v. Avw, In each clause the perfect has its full and proper force ; see notes oz Zp. ii. 7. dedeTat 144 / CORINTHIANS: Cuap. VII. 28, 29. > id ‘ 2X / ¢€ / > ce / ovy juaptes* Kal av ynun 7 TapOévos, ovy Hwaptev: OrAbww dé 7 cupKl EEovow oi TovodToL, eyo Sé twov peiSopar. 23 Todo 28. yaunons] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Westc. and Hort, on preponderant authority: Rec., Rev., ynuns. The union of BN, and the likelihood of a correc- tion to harmonize with the subsequent yjun seem to authorize this judgment. The article before map@evos is doubtful, but apparently rightly retained in the text. 28. éav 8 kal yapnons] ‘But if it be that thou shalt have married ;’ the kal, as usual in such collocations, throwing emphasis on the verb, and bringing the alternative into prominence. ‘The student will find a full discussion on the uses of this particle in notes ox Phil. iv. 12. odX fipapres] ‘Zhou didst not siz in that act,’ or, as the sequence of English tenses requires us to translate, ‘thou hast not sinned.’ In all such uses of the aorist this one principle has to be remembered,— that the tense fer se marks an event that belongs to the past, but is silent as to whether it does or does not extend to the present. This latter point must in all cases be settled by the context, and the translation modified accordingly ; see notes oz Gal. v. 24, and on I Thess. ii. 16, and the sensible remarks of A. Buttman, Gramm. WV. T. p. 172. On the aorist in the apodosis after édy with the subj., see Winer, Gr. § 4I. 2. b. 7H wapkl] ‘27 the flesh,’ i.e. in bodily circumstances and relations ; ‘dicit multas molestias conjugio an- nexas esse... Cavo igitur hic pro homine externo capitur,’ Calvin. The order of the words seems to indicate that the (intercalated) dative does not depend directly on the verb, but on the general statement (6Ahbw €fovowv), its use being to specify the sphere, as it were, in which the action takes place; comp. I Cor. xiv. 20, un matdia yivere tats ppeoiv, and see notes ov Gal. i. 22. This form of dative is of frequent occurrence in the N. T., and is quite in harmony with the essential idea of the case; see examples in Winer, G7. § 31. 6, and comp. Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 288 sq. éy> S& tporv delSopar] ‘but I spare you, the éy just marking the Apostolic authority of the writer, and so enhancing the wise counsel of the foregoing verses. The Apostle spares them, not in laying upon them no yoke of celibacy even when the very avdyxn of the times might seem to justify it (see Wordsworth zz Joc.), but in advising a single life in sucha period of trial. The present pe(Souce does not seem specially to mark the time then passing (‘I am sparing you,’ Alf.), still less to have any optative tinge (‘cupio infirmitati vestre con- sultum,’ Beza; see contra, Winer, Gr. § 41. 2. obs.), but rather simply to state the actual and deliberate result; I have ‘well weighed this matter, and, in so speaking, spare you;’ com- pare Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 6. 29. Todro 8é dnp] ‘ Vow this J say ;’ the transitional 5¢ (see notes oz Gal. i. II, iii. 8) introducing fresh considera- tions, or, rather, a new aspect of the subject, designed to add force to the advice previously given: not only were the days full of trial (ver. 26), but the time was shortened; éyyis # ouvtéAcia tov mapdvtos aidvos, Theod.; mpds Te TéAet 6 Kéouos, Sever. ; Hyyucev 7 Baoirela tov Xpiorod, Theoph. The use here of ¢nut rather than of the more usual A€yw (rodro St Aéyw, ch. vii. 6, Gal. iii. 17, Col. ii. 4, al.) seems to mark, as in Cuap. VII. 29, 30. mCORINT HLA Nes: 145 dé dyut, aderol, 6 Kaipos cuvertadpévos éotiv, TO Nourrov iva Kai ol éxovTes yuvaikas ws pn ExXOVTES Bow, 20 Kal ol KAaLoVTES @S 7) KNalovTES, Kal OL YalpovTEs Ws yy YalporTes, Kal oi ayopa- 29. 6 kaipés] £/z. prefixes 871, but with clearly insufficient authority. Z/z. also (with ec.) adopts the order 7d Aomdv éorw, but on still less authority; Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, éotiv, 7d rowdy, but with differ- ences of punctuation; see notes below. ch. xv. 50, the gravity and importance of the statement: it was not intended so much to explain (Bengel, compare Theodorus), as to confirm and enhance, the foregoing counsel. © KaLpos ouvertadpévos éotiv] ‘the time is shortened ;’ the lexical usage of the verb ovoréAAew (‘contrahere,’ ‘ coarc- tare,’ Grimm, Zex. s. v.) clearly pre- cluding any other meaning, especially when thus in connection with aipés. The solemn statement is referred by some expositors (Theod. 1, Estius, Calvin, al.) to the shortness and tran- sitory nature of mortal life; ‘a brevi- tate humane vite ducit argumentum,’ Calvin. This is possible; the solemn form, however, of the Apostle’s words, and the general tenor of ver. 31, seem almost certainly to refer to the longed- for mapovaia of the Lord; see above. On the nature of this expectation on the part of St. Paul and the Apostles, see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 15, 1 Zim. vi. 14. 7) ourov tva K.7.A.] ‘727 order that, henceforth, they also that have wives should be as if they had them not ;’ the kat slightly emphasizing the case of those specially under considera- tion, and the 7d Aoméy marking by its prominence the changed circumstances of the-new dispensation in all its future aspects, and echoing the sentiment of the foregoing clause,— ‘that for the future,—a future that may be of no long duration,’ etc.; ypnyopetre ody Stt ovK ofdate x.7.A.. Matt. xxv. 42. The ta (see a similar position of the particle, Gal. ii. 10) has its proper force: the ne time was shortened that so, im the order of God’s providential govern- ment of the world (comp. Winer, Gr. § 53- 6), the whole relations of the future might be different from those of the past: 61a Thy Tod Katpod Bpaxtrnta mdvTa Te ev oTovdH Tow UTapXoVTa ws ovK dyTA, gnoty, dpetAouev nyetoOa, cum. (Cramer). Most of the early Versions (Syr., Copt. fed. De La G.}, Arm.: contra Vulg., Clarom., ‘reliquum est ut,’) and the Greek expositors. connect 7 Aourdy with the foregoing clause: so Treg.. De Wette, Alf., Wordsw., al. This connection, however, is. contrary to the usual position of 7d Aouwdy in St. Paul’s Epp. (Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 1, Thess. iii. 1; comp. Eph. vi. 10). and seriously dilutes the force of the solemn 6 katpbs ouvectadkuévos éorttp. We seem therefore fully justified (with Auth., Rev., Meyer, Hofmann, al.) in adopting the punctuation of the text, and, as it would seem, the general view of the early Latin Church. 30. @s ph karéxovres] ‘as Zossessing not, scil. as retaining not what they may have bought; an object accusative being mentally supplied in each clause: compare 2 Cor. vi. 10, &s pndév exovtes, kal mdvta karéxovtes. The necessity and trials of the time were to be re- garded as modifying all the ordinary conditions and relations of life ; ‘summa est, Christiani hominis animum rebus terrenis non debere occupari, nec in illis conquiescere: sic enim vivere nos oportet, quasi singulis momentis mi- grandum sit e vita,’ Calvin. On this 146 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VII. 30, 31. . Covres ws qi) Katéxovtes, ®!Kal of ypa@pevor Tov Kdcpov os pH KaTaXpwwevor* Tapdye yap TO oXha Tod Kécpov TovToU. 2 Oédw Sé buds dpepiuvovs elvat. 6 d&yapos Mepyuva Ta TOD 31. toy Kdouov] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. 7d kéopo robrw. subject generally, see the carefully con- sidered comments of Rothe, Z%eol. L£thik. § 928, Vol. Iv. page 57 sq. (ed. 2). 31. Kal of Xpdpevor k.7.d.] ‘and they that use the world as not using it to the full, ‘as if they enjoyed it not,’ Arm.: just as they that bought were not to be over-anxious about retaining what they had bought, so they that used the world were only to use it up to the barest bound of their mere actual needs, and no further; pévny é abtay THY xXpeiav xXaptovicOwoav, Theodoret. The compound kataxpioda: may mark either (a2) ‘ferversitatem usus,’ or (6) ‘abundantiam usus,’ there being lexical authority for each rendering. The Latin Vv. (Copt. only reproduces the Greek words ; Aith. paraphrases) draw no distinction; Syr., and the Greek expositors (silet Chrys.) are in favor of (2); Arm. and the majority of the best modern interpreters adopt (4),— and, as it would seem, rightly; the foregoing clauses seeming to imply in the second member either a simple negation of the verb in the first, or a negation of a further and derivative meaning of it aryopdfew, karéxew]. With this, and with the tenor of the whole exhortation (ver. 29 sq.), (4) is almost obviously more in contextual harmony than (a) : the Apostle did not limit use merely by abuse, but by a form of use that stopped decidedly short of it. The accus. is very unusual after xpic@a, but is occasionally found in later writers ; see Winer, Gr. § 31. I. 2. The suggestion of A. Buttmann is ingenious, and probably true,—that the subsequent xataxpdéuevor reflected, as it were, on the preceding xpéuevos the case with which it is (in that sense; see examples in Steph. 7hesaur. s. v. Vol. v. p. 1305, ed. Hase) found asso- ciated; Gramm. NV. T.p. 157 sq. On the use and abuse of the world see a wise sermon by Jones (of Nayland) Sermons, XXII. p. 244 sqq. (Lond. 1829). Tapayer yap «.7.A.] ‘for the fashion of this world passes away,’ like the changing scene in a play (Eurip. Zo, 166); comp. 1 John ii. 17. The present clause is not a reason for 6 Kkatpds ouveotaduévos éoriv (Alf.), but confirms the sentiment involved in the preceding clauses, and, as the repeti- tion of the word «écyos clearly implies, the words immediately preceding : they were not to take their enjoyment in this world, for its outward form and fashion was only mpéoKatpos, and des- tined to give place to something more true and durable; rawots 5 odpavods kal -yijv kawhy Kata Td émdyyeAua aitod mpoodokapev, év ofs dixaootyn KaToue?. 2 Pet. iii. 13. The present mapdye: has thus more of its ethical than of its purely temporal meaning: it does not so much call attention to the actual present fact (‘is passing away,’ Alf.), as to the inevitable issue: the oxjua of the world, its ‘ habitus’ ‘ qui est nubere, flere, gaudere, emere,’ Bengel), has no enduring character, unity BeBnrds Kab ovo1@des, Theoph. On the deep ethical Significance of the statement, see Martensen, Chr. Z¢h., Part. 1. § 48, p. 140, and on the meaning of ox7jua, and its distinction from soppfh, comp. notes on Phil. ii. 8. Cuap. VII. 32-34. tr CORINTHIANS. 147 K / lal pe an K / ‘ 83 € be , A \ an uplov, TOS apeon TO upl@ O O€ Yapnoas HMEpltLva TQ TOV c la lal > / ipl , 34 K x / \ e \ KOTLOV, TMS APEON TH YvValkt. al MEMEPLOTAL Kal ) YUVA \ e / . + La] \ A / ~ os ig / Kal 7 TapQévos. % ayauos pepiuva Ta TOD Kupiov, iva 7 ayia 32. apeon] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., apéoe. The above-mentioned edd. also adopt the subj. in verses 33 and 34. 34. Kal meuepiora Kal] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort (but with differences of punctuation; see below), on very clearly preponderating authority in reference to the first kal, and very greatly preponderating authority in reference to the second: Rec. omits kai both before and after weudpiorat. In what follows, decision is extremely difficult. The preponderant external evidence seems certainly in favor of the position of # &yauos after 7 yy}: so Treg., Rev. (marg.), Westc. and Hort. As, however, part of this preponderant evidence is weakened by its admitting a second 4 &yauos after mapOévos, and as the above reading would necessitate the connection of kal weuépicra with verse 33, and thus seriously impair the clear and sharp antithesis between the two members of that verse, we adopt with Rec., Rev., on certainly fair external authority, the order in the text; believing that the confusion arose from 7 &yauos having been accidentally inserted in early copies where it was also present in its proper place, and then left out in this second and proper place as seeming to be superfluous after map@évos. TO Ohmart kal TS mvevpart] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., odpatt kad mvevpart. 32. OéAw Se OpasK.7.A.] ‘But [would he may please the Lord ;’ the subj unc- have you to be free from anxieties ;’ in part a resumption of the éy& 5€ buadv gelSoua (ver. 28), in part a statement - of advice under the circumstances just specified,— the changing nature of the oxjua Tod Kéouov TovTov. It was from no ascetic theories, but from a due consideration of the whole circum- stances of mortal life, its rd mpdoxatpor, its cares and anxieties, that the Apostle has given them the counsel already given in the foregoing verses; capas dete Thy THs TapOevias oxordv, Theod- oret. He now adds that he desires them, as far as possible, to stand free of the anxieties, the uépyuvar Tod aidvos (Mark iv. 19), which such a state of things necessarily involved; and of these, as he proceeds to show, married life had, by the nature of the case, its full share. Tas apéoy TO Kvuplw] ‘how tive, as usual in such forms of sentence, here expressing something which may or should take place; (see Winer, Gr. § 41. 4, 4.6. In the case of the future (Rec.) the reference is to that which will take place; but in sentences like the present the distinction is not very sharply marked; comp. notes oz Phil. 15:22. 34. Kat pepéprorat] ‘and there is a division (of interests) also between the wife and the virgin ;’ ‘divisa est,’ Clarom., Copt.; ‘quam maxime diver- sas sibi partes habent,’ Bengel: what is true of the married and unmarried in the one sex, is also true (and even in a greater degree) in the other. The verb weuepictat does not mark, simply and generally, that there was a difference between the two, but that their cares and interests were essentially so differ- 148 1 CORINTHIANS. {[Cuap. VII. 34, 35. i TO ow lL TO UuaTti 1 d€ Yaunocaca pmEepLuva TO. Kal TO cwpaTe Kal TO TvEevp ” yaun Hepa TO. TOD KOcMoUV, TAS apéon TO avopl. 85 al \ x \ e lal TovTo S€ mpos TO wav avTav cvupopov A€yw, ovy iva Bpoyov tiv ériBddrw, adda Tpos 35. avugopov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly, preponderating authority. The reading éumpdcedpov (Zec.) in the last clause (in place of edmdpedpov) has scarcely any external support. ent as practically to divide them from each other; cuvtduws Tis ppovtidos 7d didpopoy eerfe, Theodoret. On the use of the singular weuépiora, though as- sociated with two nouns, see Kihner, Gr. § 370. 2. b. Such a structure, when the predicate precedes, and the subjects are intended to be conceived singly, is by no means uncommon; see examples in Winer, G7. § 58. 6. b. B. Wa 7 ayla K.t.d.] ‘that she may be holy both in her body and in her spirit ;’ purpose and object of her pepmvay 7a tov Kuplov: it was a true and practical éptuva, NO Mere sentiment, but an anxious effort to become holy both in body and in spirit (dative of sphere in which the ayacuds was to take place; see examples in Winer, Gv. § 31. 6. a), even as He was holy; ‘sazctitas hic plus quiddam dicit, quam versu 14,’ Bengel. Here the moral and personal quality (comp. Eph. i. 4, v. 22, Col. i. 22. al.) is more especially marked and emphasized. On this important word (connected with &(oua), which owes all its deeper meaning to the language of Revelation, see the admirable article in Cremer, Worterb. p. 32-50, and comp. also Trench, Syzon, § 88. The ideas of awe and reverence, which seem to predominate in earlier Greek, become suffused in the language of in- spiration with that of love (Cremer, p. 33, 34), and so proportionately quick- ened and elevated into the highest moral conceptions ; see the article on ‘Heiligung’ in Herzog, Real-Encycl. Vol. v. p. 679 sq. 35. Toro St «.t.A.] ‘ But this I say for your own profit ;’ scil. the advice that has been given, directly (ver. 26) and indirectly (ver. 32 sq.), 8ts xaddv avOpémrw Td ottws civaz. The Apostle here distinctly marks, — First, that he is speaking for their sakes, and not for the sake of asserting his own apostolic authority ; secondly, that he is advo- cating celibacy, not in the abstract, but, on the one hand, with reference to the deep needs, and indeed the mys- terious hopes, of the times in which they were living; and, on the other hand, with reference to their greater freedom (especially in such times) from worldly anxieties and distractions : arédwkev Thy aitlay... ov Tapa Thy Kol- THY i) Thy aroxhy THs KolTns, GAAG Tape Td Toy yduov yeuey ppovTidwy, Severian, apud Cramer, Caten. odx tva Bpsxov dpiv éemBdro ‘ ot that J may cast @ noose over you ;’ scil. not that I may impose on you any entangling con- straint, ovx iva avayndow buas, CEcum. : ‘laqueo trahuntur inviti,’ Bengel. The metaphor is from the capture of wild game (Xen. Cyneget. U1. 4, VI. 7, Aris- toph. Aves, 527), and points, not to any snare of conscience which the Apostle might thus be laying for them, but simply to the coercive character which the command might carry with it, but which the Apostle here disa- VOWS; Thy yap avdyKny Bpdxov karei, CEcum.; comp. Hofmann 77 Joc. GANA mpds 7d etoXnpov K.T.A-] ‘but with a view to what is seemly, and to waiting upon the Lord without distrac- tion ;’ statement of the Apostle’s pur- pose on its positive side; he did not Cuap. VII. 35, 36. TO eUoxnmov Kal evrapedpov TS Kupio amepiotraates. 1 CORINTHIANS. 149 36 Ki 6€ a La > fa) > Tis aoxnuwovely ert THY TapUEvoy avTOU vowifeL, Edy 7 UTEpaKpos, Kal ovtws opeider yiverOar, 6 Oérer TroveiTw: ovy dpapTaver: wish to put any constraint on them, but to lead them to that seemly atti- tude and aspect of Christian life (com- pare Rom. xiii. 13, 1 Thess. iv. 12) which the exigencies of the times in which they were living required of all who were in earnest. The words that follow form one compound ex- pression under the vinculum of the foregoing article, the dative being un- der the regimen of the substantive 7d evmdpedpov (Winer, Gr. § 31. 3), and the adverb amepiomdotws (‘sine distrac- tione,’ Est.; comp. Luke x. 40, 7 5 Map0a mepieomato wep) ToAAHY Siakoviav) being closely bound up with and en- hancing the words which precede it. It was to be a genuine mapedpeve TG Kupiw, without any admixture of worldly cares ; ‘non cogitantes de mundo,’ Syr. 36. Hi 8€ rus «.t.d.] ‘ But of any one thinketh that he is acting towards his virgin daughter in a manner not seemly,;’ contrasted (d¢) aspect of the matter: if any one thinks that he is not acting evexnudvws towards his virgin daughter (rhv oikelay maida, Theodorus), but ina contrary manner; mdAw évtaid@a meph Tay undérw Thy TapOeviay eAouevwy Tape- keAevoato, Theodoret. The verb acx7- fovety may mean either (a) to act un- becomingly,’ 1 Cor. xiii. 5, 7 a&ydarn ovK aoxnuovel; or (4) ‘to suffer shame,’ as apparently in Deut. xxv. 3, Ezek. xvi. 39; comp. Vulg. (‘turpem se videri’), Syr. (‘ quod despectus sit’), Eth., Arm., Phot., al., and see Schleusner, Zex. s.v., Wetst. 27 Joc. According to this latter view the doxnuootvn would appear tojbe involved in the fact of a marriageable daughter still remaining single (comp. Theod.): as, however, the general tenor of the passage appears to refer to what is &exnuor in act, as opposed to what is e¥exnuoy in act, and as the use of emt in the prepositional clause (em thy mapOevoy avtod) is much more naturally associated with a verb in an active than in a passive sense, we un- hesitatingly adopt (a), and understand the clause to refer to the aoxnuoctyn involved in throwing temptation in the way of the map@évos or her suitor, by constraining her to remain unmarried. So Chrys. (but ?), ap. Cramer, Caz., and the great majority of modern exposi- tors. A few early interpreters appear to have considered that the reference may be to the man’s own rapevia. This, as Severian rightly observes, is pre- cluded by the terms and tenor of the present and of the following verses. éav trépaxpos] ‘2 she have passed the marriageable prime, —the xpédvov apis (Plato, Rep. VI. p. 460 E; ‘zetas nubilis,’ Calvin) judged customarily as suitable for marriage: clause closely associated with the foregoing (Westc. and /Yort remove the usual comma), and pointing to that which would sug- gest to the father or guardian that he was acting in an unfair and unseemly manner towards his map@évos. While she was under age he was not wrong in keeping her at home. The age referred to would of course vary in different countries: ‘hanc [ztatem nu- bilem] jurisconsulti ab anno duodecimo - ad vicessimum definiunt,’ Calvin. The métpios xpdvos axuys is defined by Plato (Zoc. cet.) as twenty years. Kal ottas ddetrhe ylver Oar] ‘ and zt ought so to be ;’ scil. and the marriage ought (‘debet: eo quod melius consulere filiz nescit,’ Bengel), after due consideration of the circumstances, to take place: 150 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VII. 36, 37. Wy 873 Oe ” 2) n bli > n ES al \ yape:Twoay. Os O€ EOTHKEV EV TH KApOi@ aAvTOU Edpaios, py éyav avayenv, éEovoiay Sé yer mept Tod idiov OeAjparos, Kal TovTO Kéxpixev ev TH idia Kapdia, ThpElv THY éavTOdD TrapOéEvor, 37. €v TH Kapdia adrod ESpaios] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and fort, on greatly preponderating authority in regard of the position of €dpaios, and still greater for the retention of adrov: Rec. omits abrod, and places édpatos before év TH Kapdia. TH idia Kapdia, Tnpev.] So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on preponderating authority: Rec., TH Kapdia abtov rod tnpeiv; Lachm., 7H Kapdia Type. mornoe] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and ffort, on preponderating authority: (ec., more. clause dependent on the foregoing ¢i, and pointing out the other circum- stances, beside the feeling of the father or guardian, which ought in fairness to have weight; see Phot. zz Zoc., who very pertinently remarks éxovo.oy yap The ovtws is regarded by Hofmann as re- ferring to, and serving to introduce the ® O€Aec moreirw, but is much more natu- rally referred to the predominant thought of the whole verse, —mar- riage, as contrasted with celibacy ; ofoy éxdodvat, Phot. 8 Oéder troveirw] Slet him do what he will ;’ i.e. that which he desireth to do; not ‘liberum sit ei elocare filium aut non elocare,’ Est., but ‘let him act in accordance with the opinion he has formed (voui¢er) in reference to the particular case;’ Td doxody mparrérw, Theod. The father or guardian is to be free to follow out the course to which his thoughts have been directing him. yapelraray] ‘let them marry ;’ scil. the daughter and the one who has sought her in marriage. The case, then, contemplated in the verse only occurs when the map0évos has been sought in marriage. To refer the yauelrwoay to mapbéva generally, or to their suitors generally, is obviously forced and unsatisfactory. The whole tenor of the verse implies that there was another in the case be- side the father or guardian and the map0evos. GAN odK Gkovatoy Td Tis TapOevias. 37. 5s Bt Eornuev k.r.d.] ‘But he who standeth firm, or stedfastin his heart ;’ the contrasted case. The epithet com- ing at the close gives an additional force to the clause, —‘standeth, and that éSpaios’ (ch. xv. 58, Col. i. 23): €dpaidy Twa brotibera &vOpwrov: dy ovK trxvoev oadreioat 7 Soxodoa mapa Tots avOporas aoxnnwootyn, emt Tay pvAaTTor- Twv Tapbévous Tas Ouyatépas, CEcum. ap. Cramer, Catez. BH} éXxe@v dvayknv] ‘ot having any necessity ;’ scil. not morally constrained to act otherwise, whether from a fear of the adoxnuoveiy specified in the pre- ceding verse, or from any other reason founded on what was best for the map0évos under the circumstances (kat odtws dpeiAcr yiveoOut, ver. 36). The term dvdyxn and the general tenor of the verses show that the feelings of the map0évos are not alluded to as forming any element in the decision of the father (contra Phot.), except only so far as they might render the dpeiaea still more clear. Duty is the pre- dominating principle. eEourlav St exer «.t.A.] ‘but hath power in regard of his own will :’ clause in antithesis to the foregoing, and so slightly irregular in its relapse to the indicative, though thus better connected with what follows: see examples in Winer, G7. § 63. 2. b, and comp. Buttmann, /Vezfest. Gr. p. 327. The genitive might here have been used without the mepf (as in LY CORIN Til ANS). Cuap. VII. 37, 38. 151 Bote Kat 0 yapitwy thy tapGévoy EéavTod 39 Turvy fal / KaXNWS TrOLNCEL. KAS Trove, Kal 6 wn yaullwv KpEicooY Troijoel. 38. yaulCwv thy mapdévoy avrod] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec. exyaulwv. éavtotd] So Lachm., Treg., Rev., on apparently preponderating authority; Z7sch., Westc. and Hort (with marg.), thy éavtod mapOévoy: Rec. omits the three words. In what follows Rec. reads 6 5¢ wh éxyaui(wy, but with greatly preponderating Thy mapOévov authority against it. Rev., Westc. and Hort adopt mojoe Rec., woes. Matt. x. 1, and elsewhere), but, as Winer correctly observes (Gr. § 30. 3. 5), would not have had the fulness and definiteness which it gains by its union with the preposition. This ought to be marked in translation: contrast Auth., al. Kal TodTo KéKpLKEV K.T.A.] ‘and hath decided this in his own heart, that he keep his own virgin ;’ the explanatory infinitive (Winer, Gv. § 44. 1, Kiihner, Gv. 472. I. c, and notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 3) serving to define more clearly the meaning of the pronoun. This repetition of the ws seems almost designed to mark how com- pletely the matter was left with the father and regarded as dependent on his deliberate judgment. It may be that the virgin’s resolves are blended in one with the parent’s (Wordsw.) ; but this, at any rate, is not in any way specified. The very position of the present clause in its close connection with the Kadés mohoe—not, as it might have been, at the very beginning of the verse,—is not without signifi- cance. The act is praised when it is indisputably the result of a well-con- sidered decision on the part of the parent or guardian: see Hofmann zz loc. Kados toujoe] ‘he will do well ;’ he will not merely stand in the position of one who odx auaprdve: (ver. 36), but will be doing that which (as conditioned by the terms of the fore- going statement) is positively and At the close of the verse Lachm., Tisch., Treg., on slightly preponderating authority: morally right; wéya kar@pOwoev, Phot. ap. Cramer, Cazen. 38. dore] ‘So then, consequently ;’ statement of the substance of, and what fo//ows from, the two verses which have preceded; &ore here, as usual, marking conseguence. In English it is scarcely possible to make a regular dis- tinction in translation between é0Te and Gp ovv. In the Greek, however, the distinction is very clear, the latter particles expressing a strongly drawn inference, the former simply noting the ‘consecutionem alicujus rei ex ante- cedentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 771: comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 586. 3, Wilke, Ret. § 81, p. 265. Kal 6 yopifov... Kal 6 pa) yap. K.7.A.] ‘doth he that giveth his own virgin in mar- riage doeth well, and he that giveth (her) not in marriage will do— better” In this sentence the xa} — ral is apparently correlative (‘both —and’), though the termination of the two clauses is not strictly similar but contrasted; the same idea of radomotla being common to both; compare ch. i. 22, and see Winer, Gr. § 53. 4. rem. ins clear from this passage and from the general tenor of the chapter that St. Paul, speaking from his own convic- tions, deemed that single life was better; but it must not be forgotten that in so speaking he was taking special account of the peculiar trials and exigencies of the times ; see Rothe, 152 1 CORINTHIANS: Cuap. VII. 39, 40. déderas éf’ dcov xpovov Ef 6 avnp adris: éav Sé KoyunOA 6 avijp, e ehevbépa éotiv & Oérer yaunOjvar, wovov év Kupio. waxapio- t \ ef / an Tépa O€ éoTW éay oUTas pEivn, KaTa THY eunv yvounv: S0Kd dé Kayo IIvedpa Ocod éyew. 39. 8€deru] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds véuw, probably from Rom. vii. 2. In the words that follow, aris is added by Rec. to avhp (2d place), but is rejected in the above-mentioned edd. on clearly preponderating authority. Theol. Ethik, § 1080, Vol. Vv. p. 13 (ed. 2). 39. S€éerar] ‘2s bownd,’— obviously, as the context suggests, 7@ dayvdpl: compare Rom. vii. 2. The Apostle had spoken about the remarriage of Xfipa in a previous portion of the chapter (ver. 8) : he here reverts to the subject of remarriage, probably in answer to a question put to him by the Corinthian Church. That question does not seem to have been one on the subject of divorce generally (Wordsw.), but one called out by the known opinions of the Apostle, and was prob- ably to this effect,—‘ Was remarriage, in the case of the death of a husband, to be considered perfectly permissible ?’ This the Apostle answers distinctly in the affirmative (é€Acv0épa éorly & OérAc yaun@jva), but adds a cautionary condition. On the subject of second marriage generally, see Rothe, Zheol. Lthik, § 1082, Vol. v. p. 34 sqq. éav St.7.d.] ‘ bautifher husband be dead;’ literally, ‘have fallen on sleep ’ (fut. exact), an obvious and natural euphem- ism found in writers of all periods (Hom. //. xi. 241, Kotwhoato xdAKeov tmvov; Theocr. /dyl/. 111. 49, &tpomos tmvos; Hor. Carm. I. 24. 5, ‘perpetuus sopor’), but more especially in the writers of the Old and New Testament (Deut. xxxi. 16, 1 Kings ii. Io, al., ‘slept with his fathers ;’ John xi. 11, 2 Pet. iii. 4, al.) ; see notes oz I Thess. iv. 13. povov év Kuplw] ‘only in the Lord ;’ the yaun@jva is to be so conditioned : it is to be an act done, as it were, in that holy element, and as the Lord Himself would direct. It is clearly more than merely peta owhpootvns, Meta Koouidrntos. It distinctly zmplies that it is to be a marriage with a Christian (éuoriorw, Theod. 1; so Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, al.) ; other- wise the expression év Kupi» would be inapplicable, or, at any rate, void of its fuller significance: compare Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 95. 6, Vol. U p. 95 (Transl.). On the expression év Kupi, see Cremer, Worterb. p. 385, and compare notes oz Zh. iv. I, vi. I, al. 40. pakapiwrépa] ‘wore blessed,’ sc. more spiritually happy in such a de- cision, as being more free to serve the Lord continuously and without dis- traction ; comp. ver. 34. The word, as De Wette rightly observes, has in the N. T. always a higher meaning than that of mere happiness. In the earliest Greek the epithet in the shorter form udxap is frequently associated with deol (comp. I Tim. i. 11, vi. 15, and Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. Il. p. 289), the ideas of ‘might’ and ‘greatness’ being those conveyed by the original root (ma): see Curtius, Ztym. No. 90, p. 148 (ed. 2), Fick, Zzdo-Germ. Worterb. p. 144. In regard of the sentiment expressed, it may be said that just as Mary (Luke x. 42) might be regarded as maxapiwtépa in reference to her over-busy sister Martha, so might the widow who re- Cnap. VII. 4o-VIII. t. An idol has no real ex- istence, and so eating what is offered to itis a matter of indifference; 1 CORINTHIANS. 153 VILL. IHepi S€ tev cidwroPdrwv, oldapev éTu TaVTEsS yoaow exapev. ¢ lal a yas pucrot, but, for the sake of the weak, it should be avoided. mains so, in reference to one who marries again and becomes necessarily involved in the anxieties and cares of daily life, at a time, too, marked with avdyxn (ver. 26) and trials. The Apostle conditions this by the kara Thy euny yvounyv (‘my judgment,’ Kara Thy euhv mapatyeow Phot.), but again enhances that yvdun by what follows. SoKa St Kaya] ‘and I think that I also, —TI, as well as other teachers; the 5é€ introducing the enhancing, and so slightly contrasted, clause which marks the real character of the yvéun. In the Sox there is nothing of a rebukeful tone towards any who might doubt the Apostle’s words (Wordsworth): it is simply bmrovo@, 7yovuat (CXcum.); implying, however, in its very reserve the grave claim to attention which the counsel demanded. The kal in the kayé ap- parently does not point to any special class of opponents, but simply con- trasts the speaker with others, whoso- ever they might be, who, not unlikely, claimed to speak with plenary author- ity: comp. Hofmann 27 Joc. In the text Westc. and Hort (Treg. marg.) read Sox@ ydp, but on authority [B; 17; 37; Tol., Syr.-Harcl., al.] which, though of critical importance, can hardly be considered sufficient, even when resting on internal grounds, to justify the change. IIvetpa Ocot] ‘che Spirit of God:’ tadta ék To’ mavaryiov TIveduatos Aadoduev, Phot. The full and obvious meaning of these words is in no way to be dibuted; the Apostle in fact claims to be, and truly claims to be, an dpyavoy (Theod.) of the Holy Spirit. The assertion, often made, and at first sight plausible, that Mvedua without the article marks an opera- 20 kal ouuBovrnhy, tion or gift of the Spirit, rather than the personal Spirit (Westcott, oz John vii. 39) cannot be regarded as of universal application in the N. T. Sometimes [vevua appears distinctly to have the same latitude as a proper name (see Winer, Gr. § 19. I. a); sometimes, as here, it is associated with aeword that is frequently anarthrous, and so, on the principle of correlation (Middleton, Ar¢. 111. 3. 6, Kiihner, Gr. § 462), commonly becomes also anar- throus: see notes oz Gal. v. 5, and consider the examples in Winer, Gr. § 19. I, S. v. eds and Mvedua. Iv. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE EATING OF MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS, AND TO THE TAKING PART IN FEASTS MADE IN THEIR HONOR (ch. viii. I-xi. I.). VIII. 1-13. Zhe right view of idols and things offered to them, with the modifying judgment of charity. 1. [lept 8 trav ciSado8btwy] ‘ Vow con- cerning the things offered to idols ;’ transition, by means of the usual 8& petaBatindy (notes oz Gal. i. 11), to another subject which had been brought before the Apostle by the questions addressed to him. The actual answer is deferred till ver. 4,— when the sub- ject is resumed after the parenthetical comments (7 yv@ots puctot. .. tm’ avrov) suggested by the statement otSauev bTt TdyTes yyaow exouev. To make the parenthesis begin with drt (‘guéa. Declaratur 76 scémus,’ Bengel, al.) is structurally harsh, and exegetic- ally improbable, as otSouey 671 in ver. I and ver. 4 seem corresponsive, and the 811 in doth cases exponential, ‘we know that,’ etc. The sentence is in fact in each an ordinary expository, or, as it is eyvworat 154 FS ee aob a 22 9 O€ AYaTTN OLKOOOLEL. €l TL sometimes called, objective sentence: see Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq. The term elSwAd@uta occurs Acts xv. 20, where it is a sort of compendious mode of expressing the dAiwyhuara Tay eidéAwv mentioned by St. James in ver. 20: comp. Acts xxi. 25, Rev. ii. 14, 20. These cidwAd@uta were the ‘carnes animalium e_ sacrificiis relique’ (Valck.), which, after the priest had taken his portion, were returned to those who had offered them, and were commonly consumed at feasts, either in the temple (comp. ver. Io), or in their own houses (comp. ch. xi. 27), it being the regularly received principle, tTovs ék Oucias idvtas epew ek avTis 6uclas vixelors. Where they were not thus disposed of they were sold in the market: comp. ch. x. 25. On the customs connected with sacrifices, see Hofmann, Lex. Universale, (Contin.), s. v. ‘ Victime,’ Vol. 11. p. 181, Her- mann, Gottesdienstl. Alterth. § 28, and on the absence of all reference to the decision in Acts xv. 20, Bp. Lightfoot, Dissert. on Gal. iii. 2. TAY TES yao exopev] ‘we all have kxowledge,’ scil. in regard of this particular matter, the nature of cidwAd6vta. The exact reference of these words is a little doubtful. It has been urged, on the one hand, that the Apostle is here referring to the more illuminated (pbs Tavs TeActous Siadéyerat, Theoph.), ‘I and all rightly informed persons ;’ so Meyer, al. On the other hand, the statement has been referred generally to all Christians, ‘We ail of us, as Christians and not pagans;’ so De Wette, ai. In the first case, however, the cautionary and corrective clause 7 yvaois uo. «.T.A. seems to have no particular force. In the second case there seems no need whatever for the mdavtes. We, therefore, with Hofmann, 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VIII. 1. Soxel éyvaxévar TL ovTM eyrw al., regard the words as referring to the Corinthians, and perhaps as taken from their very letter. The cautionary clause then comes in with its natural and appropriate force, ‘We know, to use your own words, that, etc. ; remem- ber, however, that it is not on knowl- edge, but on love that everything really turns.’ The apparently converse state- ment which then follows in ver. 7, gaa’ ovk ev mao 7) yv@ous, becomes perfectly intelligible; ‘you may think that all among you have this true knowledge, but it really is not so; there are some whose conscience is greatly exercised in the matter.’ The Apostle, it should be observed, is not so much definitely censuring (Chrys.), or dealing ironically (Theod.), with the Corinthians who put the question (probably in the form ‘are we not perfectly free in the matter?’ nui ovk éoTw cidwdAdOuvtov, Sever.), as bringing home to them the fact that the answer was not quite so easy as they might suppose, as it depended not merely on -yry@ots, but on aydrn. Com- pare Calvin zz /oc., who appears to have rightly caught the general senti- ment of the passage: so too Chrysostom, except that he sees in the words a more direct censure of the Corinthians than the context.seems to imply. q yaois vot «t.A.] ‘Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth ;’ the article giving each noun its most generic meaning and application (Middleton, Greek Art.v. 5.1, p.89) : comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. I. a, note. Knowledge, the Apostle says, regarded in the abstract, tends to puff up with pride: love, on the other hand, builds up alike the individual towards whom it is shown (Rom. xiv. 15), and the Church gene- rally (Eph. iv. 12, 16): comp. Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 38. 1, p- 327 (Transl.), and on the contrast between the knowl- g By Cuap. VIII. 2, 3. 1 CORINTHIANS. 155 be 5 A a Pre aed dé ? A \ a) , ® 4 KaAU@S O€EL yvovat €l O€ TLS ayaTra TOV €0V, OUTOS EYVMOTAL 2. et tis] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- ponderating authority: ec. ei dé Tis. edd., on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., eidévat. éyvwkévat] So the above-named In what follows, ow éyvw is adopted in all the above edd.,—ot#mw on clearly prepon- derating authority, ¢yyw and the omission of od5év on very greatly peponderating authority: Rec., obdémw obdtv &yvwxe. edge which is of faith and the knowledge here referred to, see 2. § 18. 4, p- 159 sq. 2. et tes Soxet K.T.d.] ‘Jf any man thinketh that he knoweth anything ;’ elucidation of the 7 yva@o1s pvouol, the absence of any connecting particle giving the words a fuller didactic force. The Apostle makes it clear in what sense he was using the word yvéots, viz. not as a real and true, but only as a supposed, knowledge; the Sore? (‘ ex- istimat,’ Vulg.) implying some amount of subjective persuasion on the sub- ject : see notes on ch. iii. 18, and comp. Hofm. zz loc. The reading of the text, éyvwrévat, is here, on exegetical as wellas critical grounds, much more consonant with the tenor of the passage than eid¢- vat; the idea of mental attention on the part of the knower (‘cognoscere’), and so, of more inward knowledge, being that which is here involved in the con- text: eid¢va: (‘scire ’) would only imply that the object or fact came within the sphere of observation; see notes on ch. ii. 11. ote eyva k.T.d.] ‘he doth not yet know as he ought to know ;’ not merely ‘he has had no practice in the art of knowing’ (AIf.), but, ‘he has not yet come to the knowledge of the true manner (‘ videli- cet per viam amoris,’ Bengel) in which he ought to know.’ Without love (comp. ch. xiii. 2) his knowledge will never be more than a mere superficial knowledge, —a knowledge of no real use in the practical questions now under consideration. The ovdérw ovdév of Rec. would make the comment more caustic, as it would imply that the 6 dox@y K.7.A., not only had not yet come to know the matter properly, but had not yet even come to know properly anything at all,—not even his own ignorance: comp. Hofmann 7z7z doc. 3. el SE Tis Gyamwdg Tov Ocdv] ‘ But if any man loveth God:’ has love in its highest and fullest degree—for God is love (1 John iv. 17) and love of Him includes all other forms of love; ‘amorem Dei sequitur amor proximi,’ Bengel. otros tyvaotat ba” avtod] ¢izs man’ (emphatic, — he, and not the 6 doxav eéyvwkeva) ‘2s known of Him ;’ scil. is himself the object of the highest conceivable knowledge, — the divine knowledge; see Winer, Gr. § 39, rem. 2, comp. Gal. iv. 9. The interpretations of this clause are very numerous, some intercalating a thought not in the context (kndeuovias ruyxavet, Theod. ; ‘reputatur inter filios,’ Calvin ; ‘precognitus est, praedilectus ac pre- destinatus,’ Est.), others giving the verb a causative sense (‘scire factus est ab eo,’ Beza), for which there is not a shadow of lexical authority. The true and natural interpretation seems perfectly clear: the Apostle, instead of saying, ‘he that loves God has yveois in its truest form,’ drops the lower thought and takes the higher one, ‘is himself the object of God’s knowledge,’ the higher thought here necessarily involving the lower. That he whom God vouchsafes to know has himself true knowledge is a truth that may be regarded as almost self-evi- dent; so rightly, Theophyl.: ywwords 5¢ 156 {fee | > a UT QAUTOU. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VIII. 3-5. 4IIepi tis Bpdcews ody Tov eidwrofuTwy, oldapev \ v \ ‘ ? \ OTL ovdev eldwrov ev KOTU@, Kal OTL ovdels Oeos ei py els. 5 \ \ ” 32% / 6 \ v > > fal ” ai % ro Kat yap ELTTEp ELOLV EryoMEvoL €Ol €LTE EV ovupave ELTE ETTL YS, 4. ovdels Geds] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: ec. adds €repos. YEvouevos TH OCG yvaow wap’ avrov Aap- Bdvee On the deep meaning of the ‘being known of God’ (Ex. xxxiii. 12, 17, Gal. iv. 9, 2 Tim. ii. 19), comp. Se- verian (Cramer, Cate7.), AawBdveta yap To THS yudoews Kal em) oikermoews (he explains the @yywora x.7.A. by the words oiketodrat Tovs ayanayras), domep Td Tis ayvotas ka) ém) GAAOTpidcEws* ody €ort Td) dtd TOU Kuplou pebev Td, amerOeTe, ovdémore éyvwy tuas; see also the valu- able remarks of Hofmann, Schriftbew. Part I. p. 225 (ed. 1), and comp. Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 762+ 4. Ilep tis Bpdoews odv «.T.A.] ‘Concerning then the eating of things offered to idols ;’ ov having here its resumptive force (.ee notes oz Gal. iii. 5, and oz Phil. iii. 1), referring back to ver. 1. On the collective force of this particle, see above, notes on ch. vii. 26. The frequent occurrence of this particle in the N.T. renders it difficult to maintain any rigid rule of transla- tion; but, in cases like the present, the lighter ‘ then’ (‘igitur,’ Beza), seems more exact than the heavier and more illative ‘ therefore’ (Auth., Rev.). The insertion of the words rs Bpdoews de- fines more exactly the more general eldwAoOtTwy in ver. I. ovdiv eiSwdrov év Kdope] ‘Zhere is no idol in the world ;’ no image or likeness— the emphasis slightly resting on e%wAov —to which there is any corresponding reality. Idols there were, but that which they were understood to repre- sent had no existence; an idol was a avtacia Wevdijs, Hab. ii. 18 (LXX),a name only (dvduata bmd pavaAou kad avoh- wov 8dtms memoinueva, Joseph. Axztig. vu. 14. 6), and not a being’s image. So De Wette, Meyer, Hofmann, and most modern expositors. The usual rendering, ‘az idol is nothing in the world, scil. is a ‘non-ens’ (Arm.), and has nothing in the world which answers to it, is supported by Syr., Vulg. (‘nihil est idolum’), Clarom., Copt,, Arm., Theoph. Gécum., Bengel, Auth., al., but is open to the grave exegetical objection that thus, in two contiguous and closely similar clauses the same word (ovde/s) would be used predica- tively in one clause, but attributively in the other ; and further, that év kéouw would thus be unmeaning and otiose. These objections appear to be so valid that, inspite of the almost unanimous authority of the ancient Vv. (except apparently A£th.-Pol.), we.seem justified in regarding ovdty efdwAoy x.7.A. and ovdels @eds x.7.A. as structurally parallel. So apparently Chrys., though usually claimed on the other side. 5. Kal yap elarep «.7.d.] ‘Hor even if : there really exist gods so-called ;’ ex- planation of the two statements in the preceding verse, the «ai annexing closely, and here with some slightly ascensive force, the confirmatory ydp (see notes oz Phil. ii. 27), and the rép the ef%rep (‘si omnino,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 228), as usually, giving point to and enhancing the condition, —‘ if there really are, as is alleged,’ etc.: see notes oz Gai. ili. 4, Kriiger, Sprachi. § 69. 23, and on the use of the wép, the excellent comments of Kiihner, Gv. § 510: see also below. The Apostle does not here assert that these so- called gods exist, but simply puts the Cuap. VIII. 5, 6. 1 CORINTHIANS. Tt @oTrep eialy Oeol moANol Kal KuptoL TOOL, “GAN aHpuiv cis Ocds e 6 / > « \ 4 5, ) a > > / 2 i Ko TaTHpP e& OU TX TTAVTA KAL NMELS ELS GAVUTOV, KAL ELS uptos 5: yns] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly pre- ponderating authority: ec. prefixes rijs. case hypothetically, as an assumed possibility, basing the assumption on the statement in the last clause of the verse; see below. Who the Apostle really deemed these so-called @eoi actu- ally to be, comes out clearly in ch. x. 20; see Weiss, &70/. Theol. § 70. ¢, Vol. 1. p. 360 (Transl.), and comp. Mar- tensen, Chr. Dogm. § 68. obs. p. 129 (Transl.). See below. elre év otpave cite ert yis] ‘whether in heaven or on earth ;’ whether beings supposed to dwell in heaven, like the Olympian deities, or on earth, like the local deities of the woods and rivers. The words serve to explain the Aeydé- evar Ocol which the Apostle then had in his thoughts. domep cioly K.T.A.] ‘7st as there exist gods many and lords many ;’ superhuman beings, angels and powers, to whom these titles are conventionally given (Deut. X. 17; comp. xxxii. 17); the Somep bringing out sharply (wép acuit eam notionem cui subjecta est,’ Klotz, De- var. Vol, Il. p. 724; comp. Donalds. Crat. § 178, and see further references in notes on ver. 13) the statement that follows. The eisiv thus has the same meaning in both clauses— real, not supposed existence (De Wette, al.), the emphatic position of the verb in both clauses appearing distinctly to imply this stronger meaning. The in- terpreters who, like De Wette, con- sider both clauses as spoken ‘from the standpoint of Gentile superstition’ (comp. Theoph., C&cum.), are con- strained not only to give a weaker force to the eioiy than its position would seem to require, but to take e¥mep ina concessive sense (‘etsi,’ Vulg., «i xat eiot Aeyouevor Geol, Theoph.) which it is doubtful whether the particle bears directly in ordinary Greek prose ; comp. Kihner, Gr. § 578. obs. 2, where, it will be observed, all the examples are from Homer. 6. GAN *piv els K.t.d.] ‘ Vet to us there is one God, the Father ;’ apodosis to the efmep k.7.A. of ver. 5, the &Aad having its sharp antithetical force and contrasting what follows with the as- sumption of the preceding verse; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 93, and notes on ch. iv. 15. The words 6 rarnp, like the "Inoods Xpiords in the next clause but one, are in apposition to the pre- ceding noun, the object of the Apostle being so to characterize the e?s Oeds as to make the conception of any real plurality of Gods appear to be still more inadmissible ; comp. Hofmann, Schrz/to. Part I. p. 302 sq. é& ob Ta TavTA K.T.X.] ‘from whom are all things, and we unto Him ;’ God is the causal fount and origin of all things (Rom. xi. 36), and the blessed end and object, the ‘causa finalis’ (comp. Col. i. 16) for which we (‘credentes,’ Beng.) were called into being, the ‘ finis fidelium,‘ as Bengel well expresses it; see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. Vol. 1. § 28, p. 355 (Transl.). On the profound meaning of the é 06 7a Tavta (Thy Snusoupylay A€éyet, Chrys.), by which not merely the existence, but the first origin of the r& mdyta is re- ferred to the working of the Divine Omnipotence, see Van Oosterzee, Chr. Dogm. § 56. 2, p. 301 (Transl.). 8U ot Ta TavTa] ‘through whom are all things,’ scil. through whose blessed instrumentality all things that are, the totality of things (7d mdyta is collec- 158 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VIII. 6, 7. "Inoots Xpictos, 80 ob ta Tavta Kal hyeis 80 adtod. 7’ AAW OvK €v TaoW t yous TwWes bE TH cuVNnOeia Ews Apts TOD cid@dov 7. ovvnPela Ews &%ptt] So, as to words and order, Lachm. Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort ; the first word on preponderating, and the order on greatly preponderating, authority: Rec., cvverdjoe Tod ciddAov ews Uptt. tive), were created and made: see John i. 3, wdvta (all things viewed in their severalty) 8” aitod éyévero, Heb. i. 2, 50 of Kal émolnoe rods aidvas, and comp. Col. i. 15, év abt éexticOn Ta mdvTa, —in which last passage, though the prepo- sition is different, and the reference to the Eternal Son rather as the ‘causa conditionalis’ (see notes z# Zoc.), the dependence of 7a mdvta on Him is equally clearly set forth. All limita- tions of the second 7a mdvta (7d Tay avOpémwy ‘yévos, Chrys., ‘all that needs redemption,’ Baur) are wholly inad- missible: the words must have the same scope and inclusiveness in both clauses. kal iets 8.’ adrod] ‘and we through Him ;’ with reference to the new creation in Christ (awh xtlows, 2 Cor. v.17, Gal. vi. 15; comp. Eph. ii. 10) of which He is equally the ‘causa medians:’ 8” avtod eis Td efvar mapnxOnuer, kad eis Td eb eivat, Theoph. As in the first member of the verse the eis avréy has an ethical reference, so here the 6? airod. It is through Christ that we are called, as His new creation, into that true being and ex- istence which is implied in the fore- going eis adrdv. To refer the words to the Physical creation, or, loosely and vaguely, to the owrnpla which comes from Him (Theodoret), mars the exe- getical parallelism of the clauses. _ Having thus contrasted the God and Lord of the Christian with the mean- ingless idols of the heathen, the Apostle does not pause to draw the obvious inference, — that to eat eiSwAdéuTa is in itself a matter of indifference. 7. “ANN odk é& Tacw f yaors] See above. ‘ Howbeit there is not in all men the knowledge (in question):’ contrasted statement, by means of the stronger adversative aAAd, to the position laid down in ver. 4; ow yvwoav Kabws Sei yvavat (ver. 2). Ty cTvvybela K.t.A.] ‘dy their being accustomed until now to the idol ;’ the dative expressing the ground or subjective cause of the 7d éaBiew ws eidwAdbuTov : see Winer, Gr. § 31. 6. ¢c, notes oz Phil. ii. 3, and the good collection of examples from clas- sical Greek in Kiihner, Gr. § 425. 8. In all such instances of the use of the dative we trace the defining character of the case, and its qualifying relation to the whole sentence; see Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 259 sq. In the expres- sion ovvyGeiq Tod eidmdou (‘the being accustomed to the idol’) the gen. is the ordinary genitive of the ‘object’ after a substantive expressive of in- ternal or external activity: comp. Plato, Zheet. p. 168 B, é« ovvnbeias bnudtwv tre kai dvoudrwv, and see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1.a. The expression is fur- ther defined by the loosely added éws &pts (comp. Gal. i. 13, Thr euhy avaorpo- ony wore, Phil. i. 26, TAs eutjs mapovotas mdédw): long habitude prior to con- version lasted, even after it (uera 7d motedoat, Theoph.), sufficiently to keep up the feeling that the offering was made to something really existent: see Har- less, Chr. Ethics, § 36, p. 319 (Transl.), where the meaning of the clause is well brought out. The reading ouveidnoe is maintained by Reiche, Meyer, Heinrici, al., as being the more difficult reading, but in the face of evi- dence [N! A BP; 17; Memph., al.] Cuap. VIII. 7, 8. ¥ CORINTHIANS. 159 @s elOwrAdOuToV eabiovew, Kal 7) cuvEeldnots a’TaV acbevns odca AV 88 A By: e an > f A 2) fal é »” 7\ MOAUVETAL. p@wa O€ nuas ov TapacgTnce TW Oem: ovTe cay 8. mapacthoe] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on pre- ponderating authority: fec., maplotnot The same edd. on similar authority omit ydp (Zec.) after ore. In what follows, the reading is very doubtful. The reading in the text is supported by Westc. and Hort, and by Treg., Rev. (who, however, adopt mepiocevdpue0a); Lachm. interchanges torepovueda and mepiscevouev: Rec. and Tisch., édv pdywuev Tepiscetouey, ore cay ph pdywuev borepovmeba, with good external authority, but opp. to AB; 17; Memph., Am., al., and with the high probability against it of a correction in favor of the more usual order. which, even if the assertion as to ovveé. being the more difficult reading were admitted, it would seem highly precarious to reverse. It is, however, quite as likely that ovvedqoes (derived from the latter portion of the verse) was a correction of ouvnfele, as vice wer sa. kal 4 ovvelSnots K.T.A.] ‘and their conscience being weak is de- filed ;’ scarcely ‘because it is’ (De- Wette, Meyer ; ‘cum sit infirma,’ Vulg.), which expresses too strongly the simple secondary predication. The participle is here ‘circumstantial,’ rather than ‘causal’ (see notes ov 1 Thess. iii. 10), and is most exactly expressed by the English participle: their conscience was weak, and being such became de- filed. On the meaning of ovvetdnois, see Sanderson, de Od/. Consc. 1. 4 sq. Vol. Iv. p. 3 (ed. Jacobs.), and on its use in the N.T., Harless, Chr. Eth. § 45 sqq. (Transl.), and the valuable article in Cremer, 276/.- Theol. Worterb. p- 233. On the essential nature of the conscience (consciousness of a holy, invisible authority given by the au- thority itself), see especially Marten- sen, Chr. Ethics, Vol. I. § 117 sq. p. 359 (Transl.), and, on its natural su- premacy, Butler, Serm. 2, 3. In the case of the twes before us, the con- science was weak; or, in other words, this natural guide (Butler), from not having been properly instructed, was a hesitating guide: the eféwAdé@uvroy was eaten with a vague feeling that the efwrev really represented something, and the result was a feeling of moral defilement : the weak conscience is de- filed with the consciousness of guilt; see Weiss, 571. Theol. § 93, Vol. 11. p- 40 (Transl.), and comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. § 1. p. 166 (Transl.). For examples of this ethical use of woAvvw [connected with peédAas, from a Sanscrit root mal, Fick, /ido-Germ. Weorterd. p. 151, Curtius, Gr. tym. § 551, p. 332, ed. 2], see Sir. xxi. 28, wordver thy éavtod puxhv 6 WOupi(wy, Plato, Repudl. vit. P- 535 E, ev auadia porddverOar; and comp. 2 Cor, vii. 1, woAvepod capkds Kad TVCUMATOS. 8. Bpopa St «.7.d.] ‘But meat (food, in its most general sense; comp. Rom. xiv.17) w¢ll not present us unto God,’ scil. for approval or disapproval ; state- ment, introduced by means of the sub- explanatory and slightly contrasting 5é (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 362; comp. notes vz Gal. ill. 23), of the true view that ought to be entertained (‘Let it be noted, however, that’), in contra- distinction to what might seem to be suggested by ver. 7, viz. that it was positively right to eat, to show moral strength and the recognition of the principle of ver. 4; comp. Theodoret inloc. The verb mapiornut is designedly chosen rather than ovviornus (Rom. v. 160 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VIII. 8. 9. \ / f , 7 2\ / "g pn paywpev, botepovpefa, ovTe eav Paywpev, TEpiacevoper, 9 / : \ la e > / € Lal v4 f is lal Brérrere S€ wn Tas 7 e£ovola buov avTn TpocKompa yEevnTaL Tots 9. dabevéaow] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and ort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec., aoG€vovow. 8, xvi. I, al.), as a more purely neutral word: food, the Apostle says, does not Zer se ‘bring us before God’ in any moral aspect; it places us in no moral relation with Him, whether in regard of approval or disapproval: ‘usus ciborum nihil facit ad pietatem,’ Estius. The full force of the statement, and the neutral aspect of mapaorjoe is brought out in the double-membered clause that follows. The future seems chosen, rather than the present, as marking something which, it is con- ceivable, might occur, but which, it is here said, will not ever occur: com- pare Rom. v. 7, meats yap brép Sikalov wis a@mobaveirat, and see Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, Kiihner, Gr. § 387. 2. torepotpeda}l ‘do we lack, scil. any- thing in regatd of our relation to God; éAatrovmeba, Theoph. ‘ inopia laboramus,’ Grimm. The verb tovep- etc Oat is thus used both with (Rom. iii. 23) and without (Luke xv. 14, 2 Cor. xi. 8, Heb. xi. 37, and Phil. iv. 12, where it is similarly in opposition to mepiooeverv) a case following it. It is found with a prepositional member, above, ch. i. 7. Whether it be middle or passive, may be considered doubt- ful,—such cases being commonly de- cided by the context (see Winer, G7. § 39. 3. 3), and there being here nothing to guide us. On the whole, the passive seems rather the more prob- able ; see ch. i. 7, Heb. xi. 37. mepircevopev] ‘do we abound, have we overplus, scil. in the way of special approval from God; mepirady tt Exouev Kal evdoximoduey mapa TH OcG, Theoph. The reading mepiocevdueba is supported by Band Origen, but, independently of the amount of evidence for the active form, may have been due to a mechan- ical repetition (in transcription) of the form which just preceded. On the transcriptional errors in B, see Westcott and Hort, JZztrod. to N. T. § 312, p. 233 Sq. g. Brémere 88 «.7.d.] ‘take heed, how- ever, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to the weak:’ caution suggested by the very terms of the preceding verse; ‘if it be true that this eating or not-eating is a matter of complete indifference, yer (5€) beware of any harmful use of your Christian liberty.’ As Severian (Cram. Cat.), rightly observes,—7d wév katop- Oovmevoy tiv ovdév: 7d Se BAdrrov Tovs dobeveotépous weyu. The tudv, as the structure of the verse indicates, is not without its force, ‘quam obnixe tuemini, ver. 11,’ Bengel. On the subject generally of avoidance of offence, see Rothe, Chr. Zth. § 1027, Vol. Iv. p. 263 sqq. (ed. 2), and on the limits of the permissible, Martensen, Chr. Eth. Part I. § 1348q., p. 418 sqq. (Transl.). mpdoKoppal ‘ stwmbling- block,’ ‘offendiculum,’ Vulg.,; scarcely distinguishable in its ethical meaning from oxdvdadov (comp. Rom. xiv. 13, where both words are used), except as perhaps implying more definitely an obstacle, and something standing in the way or placed as such: contrast Matt. xviii. 7, Luke xvii. 1, €A@eiv 7a oxdvdada, where mpogxéumata could scarcely have been,used. Perhaps we may trace this same sort of idea in the LXX associa- tion of Al@os with mpéckoupa (Rom. ix. 32, 33, I Pet. ii. 8), and wérpa with oxdvdadov (Rom. /. c., 1 Pet. 2. c.). On Cnar. VIII. 10-11. > / asbevécw. Y CORINTHIANS. 161 10 2X ¢ ! 18 \ \ yy lal b >? / €av yap TUS lon TE TOV EYOTA YYHoW Ev ElowdELwW KATAKELMEVOY, OVX’ 7) TUVESnTLS avTOD acOevods dvTOS oiKOSomN- Ojoetas eis TO Ta eidwdrAdPvTAa éaOiew; MNamorAdAjquTaL yap 6 oxdvdadoy, see notes oz Gal. v. II. 10. éuv yao Tis K.T.X.] Confirmation (ydp) of what has been just said, and the need shown for the forbearing caution which the Apostle is advising. Tov tXovTa yraow] ‘who hast knowl- edge ;’ certainly not, ‘quippe qui cognitionem habes,’ Meyer,—a render- ing which suggests the absence, not the presence, of the article; comp. Donalds. Craz. § 305, Gramm. § 490. The reading is not perfectly certain. The pronoun ¢¢ is omitted by BF G.; Vulg., Origen (Lat.), al., and is placed in brackets by ZLachm., Westc. and ffort, but is apparently genuine, the authority for its insertion being good, and slightly preponderant. év eidwrelw kaTaKkepevov] ‘ sitting at meat — in an idol’s temple ;’ not only eating eidwAdduta, but so carried away by the inconsiderately used liberty, as to eat them in the very courts of the eiSwAciov : brébete 5é Th wéyebos, Theod. The word cidwAetoy (‘ vocabulum aptum ad deterrendum,’ Bengel.) is not found in ordinary Greek. It occurs, however, mm) the LXX, 1 Macc. i. 47, x.-83, 1 Esdr. ii. 9. This eidwAots (to use the words of Chrys.) though not here directly forbidden, is inferentially so, inthe illustration here supplied of one already ac@evqjs being made still more so by the unseemly and culpable act: comp. Chrys. 77 doc. odxl 4 ovveldgois K.T.A.] Swill not his conscience be edified ?’—literally ‘builded up’ (‘dificabitur,’ Vulg.; ‘timrjada,’ Goth.; sim. Copt., Arm.), with an obvious tinge of irony, the verb retaining its usual ethical sense, but, as the context shows, in an in- verted sense, viz. edified to do,—not 21 Euplthoxwpety Tots that which the conscience approves of ; but that about which it is uneasy and disquieted. The translation ‘be em- boldened,’ Auth., Rev. (‘be confirmed,’ Syr., ‘ be induced,’ Ath.), expresses the general sense, but misses the delicate irony which the word seems chosen to convey: it was an oixodouh that was really a kaaipeois, an ‘adificatio ad ruinam’ (Tertullian, Pr@escr. cap. 8). aolevots SvtTos] ‘zzasmuch as he is weak ;’ participial clause defining and giving point to what follows. It is just because the man has a weak con- science that his so-called edification is really mischievous and ruinous. He doubts; he is led on by the reckless example (avtl mapaivécews Td mparyua 5éxeTa, Chrys.) to do what he inwardly feels to be doubtful, and his whole moral character suffers in consequence. It is not from faith and a true recogni- tion of the principle of ver. 4 that he eats the eiSwAdéuta, but simply from the force of an inconsiderate example. The participle is here not hypothetical (‘if he is weak’), and certainly not predicative (‘who is weak’), but causal; it accounts for the statement that is implied in the words that follow; see Donalds. Gr § 615,,616. els TO To eiSwrdbuTa éoOicw] ‘ wzto the cating of things offered to idols ;’ not simply ‘to eat, etc.,’ with a mere reference to the result,—a meaning doubtful in St. Paul’s Epistles (see notes o7 1 Thess. ii. 12), but with some tinge of the idea of direction, as suggested by the prepo- sition: the eating what was offered to idols is that to which the olkodoun ulti- mately leads: ‘ruunt ad tentandum quod sibi licere non putabant,’ Calvin. II. GédAvtat yap 6 acbevav] ‘Kor 162 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. VIII. 11, 12. acbevav év Th of yvoce, 6 aderpos 0 bv Xpiotds améBaver. 20 Be G s > Nik 59 8 \ / 2 An OUT@S O€ ALAPTAVOVTES ELS TOUS a eXous KQL TUTTTOVTES QUTWY Il. GadéAAvtat ydp] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on pre ponderating authority: Rec., nal dmodetrat. év TH of yuooe, 6 aderApds] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., ddeApos em TH of ywodoe. (thus) he that is weak perishes :’ con- firmatory explanation (ydp, Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 240; comp. notes ox Gal. ii. 6) of the ‘ zdificatio ruinosa,’ (Calvin) implied in the preceding words. The amdaea here referred to is the bAcOpos aidvios (2 Thess. i. 9) which the acting against the dictates of con- science, grieving, and _ ultimately quenching, the Holy Spirit, brings with it in the course of dreadful consequence: ‘meminerimus ergo nos in exitium ruere, quoties adversus conscientiam pergimus,’ Calvin. Observe that, in the case supposed, the man remains éoGevis in his faith (6 as@evav), and so continues to sin against his conscience as often as he acts under the influence of the evilexample. Had the example helped him to see the matter in its true light, it would have been other- wise : comp. Hofmann 77 doc. evry oy yvaoe] ‘through thy know!l- edge ;’ the év here having its instru- mental force: the 7d a&méAAvoOa is re- garded as involved in, and existing in the recklessly displayed yvaois; see Winer, Gr. § 48. 3. d, Kiihner. Gr. § 431. 3, and notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 18. In verse I yv@o1s was spoken of as puffing up; its more dreadful action is here brought out. It not only involves (to use a modern expression) no al- truism, but the very reverse: it is really pucadeApia (Theod.). C) adedhds «.t..] ‘the brother for whom Christ died;’ with great rhetorical force,— not only a Christian brother, but one whom Christ died to save; és abtoy amdAAvobat ueTa Thy TwTnpiay Thy otrTw yevouévny, Chrys. 72 Joc., by whom the force of the verse is well brought out. Compare Rom. xiv. 15, where the command of the Apostle rests upon the same momentous con- sideration: wh TG Bpdyari cov éxeivov amddAve Step ov Xpictds arébavev. It is here 8’ gy (‘cujus causa’); it is there with but a faint shade of difference, brép ob (‘in commodum cujus’). On this last mentioned expression, see notes oz Gal. iii. 13, and the excellent note of Meyer ez Rom. v. 6. 12. obtws St k.7.d.] ‘ But thus sinning (with emphasis) against the brethren ;’ the 3¢, with its sub-explanatory and slightly ratiocinative force (see above, ver. 8, and notes oz Gal. ii. 4) bringing out the true significance of the act and its sequel, and the odtws fixing attention on the manner specified in the preceding verses. Kal ToTTOVTES K.t.d.] ‘and (let me add) wounding their conscience when it 7s weak ;’ the kat introducing an explanation (see notes on Phil. iv. 12) of the more general Guaptavovres, and the appended ao@e- vodoay keeping the attention fixed on the fact (ac0evotcay is a tertiary predi- cate; see Donalds. Gr. § 489 sq.) that the conscience was all the time weak. On the subject of a weak conscience, and the privileges it may justly claim, see South, Serm. XXIX. Vol. I. p. 473 sqq.- The strong word tértovtes (TH eupdoer Tis Ackews Thy wudrnta évdertduevos, Chrys.) designedly marks the amount of the moral injury done to the con- science. It was weak already; the blows given (the participle is in the aes "4 Hu Cuap. VIII. 12-IX. 1. Tv cuveidnow acbevovcar, eis XpioTov dpaptavere. 1 CORINTHIANS. 163 18 Scomrep ei Bp@wa cKxavdanrifer tov adchpov mov, od un haya Kpéa eis TOV aidva, iva wn Tov ddeAdov pov cKxavdaricw. Tam verily an apostle, and assuredly 30 to you. IX. Ovn eipi édevOepos; ovK eiwl aroato- IX. 1. od« eiul erctOepos; ovx eiul amdaroados;] So Lachm., Tisch, Treg., kev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. interchanges present tense) make matters worse, and help soon to destroy all moral sensibility. For examples of this meta- phorical sense of timrw, see Steph. Thesaur. s. Ve Vol. Vil. p. 2592 (ed. Hase and Dindorf). Of those cited the most pertinent seems, Alciph. Zf. Ill. 57, S:aBoAats turels Ta Sta: comp. also 1 Sam. i. 8, Prov. xxvi. 28 (LXX). cis Xptorov Guapravere] ‘ye sin against — Christ ;’ the emphasis is resting on the first words, and marking the true nature of what might otherwise have seemed but a venial sin. How little is it recognized in ordinary Christian practice that hurting a weak brother’s conscience is really—‘aperta in Christum contumelia,’ Calvin. The three aspects of the sin are well set forth by Chrys. zz doc. 13. Sudtep] ‘ Wherefore, For which very reason ;’ vividly expressed con- clusion both in regard of the con- junction (only here and ch. x. 14), and the petecxnuatiouds cis éauvtdoy in the personal form of the statement. In the pronominal conjunction d:drep, the mép gives force and emphasis to the pronominal element (8:6 is simply ‘ on which account,’ see notes oz Gail. iv. 31: didwep is rather ‘on which very account’), and so helps to make the connection between the cause and the action founded on it as logically close as possible. On the meaning of zép (‘ambitum rei majorem vel quamvis maximum,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 772), see above, notes on ver. 5. od pi day «.7.A.] ‘7 will in no wise eat flesh forevermore ;’ the tenor of the passage suggesting the stronger form of translation in the case of the two negatives: see notes 071 Thess. iv. 15 (Transl.), and on the general use of ob uf with subjunctive or future, Winer, Gr. § 56. 3, and notes oz Gal. iv. 30. In regard of the use of xpéa after the foregoing general form of Bpayua, the suggestion of Bengel is plausible that the plural xpéa points to ‘totum genus carnium ;’ it seems, how- ever, more natural to suppose that it refers to the subject-matter, flesh of- fered to idols, and that the verse is a kind of blending of two sentences, viz. (1) ‘if Bpdua cravdari¢er, I will eat no Bpeua,’ and (2), without any hypothet- ical portion, ‘I will eat no kpéa, va ph k.T.A.: see Hofmann zz Joc., who, however, does not seem correct in sep- arating ver. 13 from what precedes. It will be observed that in the repeti- tion of the words cxavd. tov 48., the order is changed, that the emphasis may fall on the right word. On the sentiment generally, and on the ques- tion of accommodation to the weak, see Martensen, Chr. Ethics, Part I. § 135, Pp- 419, Part 11. § 146, p. 342 (Transl.). IX. 1-27. Digressive statement, on the part of the Apostle, of his own free- dom (1-3), his own rights, whether in regard of marriage or maintenance (4— 18), and his own conduct (19-23), and of the duty of his readers to follow his example (24-27). 1, Ovw etpl 164 1 CORINTHIANS: Cuap. IX. 1, 2. + ee a} La} \ 7 € lal | > Fars hos; ovxl ‘Incovv tov Kupuov nav éwpaxa; ov To épyov pou Lal © > , , vpeis ote ev Kupiw; 7 €i dddous ovK eiul amdaTodos, GANA YE the position of éAetvOepos and amdcrodos. Internal arguments (Reiche, Osiander, Hofmann) seem of but little real validity; as good logical reasons can ap- parently be shown both for the one order and for the other. In what follows, the above mentioned edd. read simply "Ingodv, on equally clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds Xpiordv. ehedbepos] ‘Am TJ not free?’ scil. inde- pendent, not under the constraint of others, —a free actor in preaching the gospel and acting as may most conduce to its progress. That the éAevOepia had relation to other men, not to rules of conduct, seems proved by ver. 19. Of the four questions, the first and second bring out, both on general as well as official grounds, the Apostle’s complete moral independence in re- gard of what he says in ch. viii. 13. The third question emphasizes and substantiates the second; the fourth adds the practical proof that, however it might be in regard of others, he certainly was their Apostle; they were Ais work in the Lord. ov *Inootv x.7.d.] ‘Have J not seen Jesus our Lord?’ even as the other Apostles saw Him when He appeared to them after His resurrection; comp. ch. xv. 5 Sq., where, after recounting these appearances, the Apostle specifies with solemn emphasis, 4$6n kduot (ver. 8). This manifestation of the risen, and (in the case of St. Paul) ascended, Lord which was vouchsafed, not only on the way to Damascus (Acts ix. 17), but in visions (Acts xviii. 9, xxii. 17) and Zerhaps still more wonderful cir- cumstances (2 Cor. xii. I sq.), placed St. Paul on a level, in regard of this important particular, with the very Eleven. The deep significance of the words of Ananias, 6 @eds ... mpoexeipt- oatéce... iSeiv Toy Sikatoy (Acts xxii. 14) was never forgotten. The & p67 kauolt was to the Apostle the credential of his apostolate, and, as such, naturally forms a part of passages like the pres- ent; comp. Hofmann 77 J/oc., who, however, unnecessarily limits the scope of the statement. It will be observed that this question has the stronger form of the negative particle (odxt; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 512. 1) prefixed to it, the rest being introduced by the ordinary form. od Td epyov K.T.A.] ‘ Are not ye (Corinthians) my work in the Lord?’ the living and practical proof of my apostolical relation to you and yours; ‘ab effectu probat Aposto- latum.’ Calvin. The év Kupfw marks, as usual, the blessed sphere in which, as it were, the whole had been done, and outside of which it could never have been done; comp. Cremer, 426/.- Theol. Wérterb. p. 385, and notes oz L£ph. iv. 17, vi. 1, al. Itis thus to be connected with the whole of the fore- going words; comp. ch. iv. 15. 2. eb UAdows K.7.A.] ‘Hf to others Lam not an Apostle, yet certainly I am to you ;’ ‘if members of other Churches do not deem me (comp. Winer, Gr. § 31. 4. a) to be an Apostle, you at any rate cannot so regard me;’ abrupt and earnest expansion of the thought called out by the foregoing words. In the GAAd ‘ye, the GAAd, in itself definitely antithetic, especially after the preceding hypothesis (comp. ch. iv. 15 and notes zz loc.), is strengthened by the added vé (‘acuit et intendit’), and a sharper antithesis is thus brought out between the protasis and apodosis; ‘however it may be with others, yet, at any rate’ Cuap. IX. 2-4. rCORINTHIANS. 165 bpiv eiut> 9) yap ofpayis pou THs amoatoNns tyels éote ép Kupio. 8H éus arodoyia, Tois eué avaxpivovaely éotw atrn. 2. pov THs amoctoAns] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating ancient authority: /ec., Tijs euijs amooroAjs. 3. éotly airy] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., arn éori. (‘at certe,’ Beza), ‘I am an apostle to you.’ On the use of the yé, both in regard of ‘quod minimum’ as well as ‘quod maximum,’ see Hermann, Viger, No. 296. 6, and comp. notes on ch. iv. 8, vi. 13. In classical Greek words are usually (always, — according to Stall- baum on Plato, ep. p. 331 B) inter- calated between the two particles ; see examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 511. 9. 4, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 15. On the ei ov in cases like the present, where the emphasis rests on the negative, see Winer, Gr. § 55. 2. 2, and comp. notes on ch. vii. 9. h yep oppayis k.T.A. ] ‘for ye are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord;’ the év Kupl@, as in ver. 1, belonging to the whole clause, and marking the holy sphere in which the Corinthians were the oppayis specified. In oparyis there appears to lie the idea of something that outwardly authenticates ; the Co- rinthian Church was the external and visible token of the Apostle’s mis- sionary labor: comp. Rom. iv. I1, where the onueciov mepitomijs is described as a odparyis Sixaoctvns. On the use of oppayis in ecclesiastical writers to denote Christian baptism, see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 1198. 3. ‘He ep amodoyla] ‘my defence ;’ emphatic summary of the foregoing, connecting particles being studiously omitted ; ape? wor Td buérepor epyov eis paptupiay Trav révwy, Theodoret. Westc. and fort. with Chrys., Ambr., al., con- nect the verse with what follows, and make the slight break at the end of ver. 2. This, however, mars the ap- parently distinct connection between ver. 2 and ver. 3 (observe the pou — €u) — éuh) and makes the questions which follow, not in sequence to the abrupt questions in ver. 1, but de- pendent on ver. 3,— of the tenor of which, however, they form by nu means pertinent illustrations. Tots Epe avaxplvovew] ‘fo them that do examine me,’ scil. rots (nrovow wabeiy md0ev SRAov bre dméorroAds eiut, Theoph., ‘qui am- bigunt de apostolatu meo, Bengel; the word avaxpivew being studiously chosen as a kind of ‘vocabulum forense’ (Beza) to mark the assumptive tone of the Apostle’s opponents ; comp. ch. iv. 3, 4, and for distinct examples of the forensic sense, Luke xxiii. 14, Acts NG Oy ooh Moy o.qibh MIty Sah. GS, Searle 18. éotly atty] ‘2s this’ that I have specified, viz. that you Corinthians are the visible tokens of my apostle- ship: ef Tis Tovs ewovs dvakpivar BovrAeTat mévous buds eis waptupiay KadA@, Theod. It is perhaps slightly doubtful whether airy is the subject or the predicate. The order of the words (contrast John i. 19, Xvii. 3) seems slightly in favor of the latter; so apparently Vulg., Syr., Copt., al., but it is proper to observe that the view taken may have been associated with the belief that the pronoun referred to what follows. Whether, however, it be subject or predicate, the sense is obviously the same; what the Apostle had stated He now proceeds to fresh and independent questions. 4. pi) obk EXopev K.7.A.] ‘ Have we no right to eat and to drink?’ So rightly was his azroAoyia. 166 Have I not an apostle’s rights, whether in re- ed of marriage or of eing maintained, if L 1 CORINTHIANS. Crap. IX. 4, 5. 4 Mn ovx Exopev efovctay hayeiv Kal treetp ; 5 un ovx éxouwev eEovoiay aderAdny yuvaixa had needed it, by those to whom I minister. Rev.; the od in cases of this nature belonging to the verb, and the uf alone expressing the interrogation, — ‘ we are surely not without the right to eat and to drink, are we?’ comp. Rom. x. 18, 1 Cor. xi. 22. See Winer, Gr. § 57. 3.4, and Kiihner, Gr. § 587. 11, where some examples are given, illustrating clearly the principle above specified, viz. that the ov does not coalesce with the uf, but belongs to the verb or to some emphatic word in the sentence. The plural may refer to Barnabas (comp. ver. 6), but, from the general tenor of the passage, seems more probably the “classific’ (‘i and such as 1”; ‘icol- legas includens,’ Bengel) or non-per- sonal plural: the question, however, is contextual rather than grammatical: comp. Winer, Gr. § 58. 4. 2. gayetv kal metv] ‘20 cat and to drink.’ viz. what may have been provided by those to whom the message was brought: comp. Luke x. 7, éa@iovtes Of this right the Apostle did not avail himself (2 Cor. xi. 9), but nevertheless the etovcia remained. To refer the words to the subject-matter of the last chap- ter is clearly out of place. For the time that question is completely dropped. The infinitives belong to the general class of the ‘explanatory ’ infinitive, see notes on Col. iv. 6, I Thess. ii. 2), but, from the simple character of the sentence, almost seem to assume the form of a word in grammatical regi- men: see examples in Winer, Gr. § 44. I, Kiihner, Gr. § 472.1. c. 5. pa ov« eXopev «.t.A.] § Have we no vight to take about a Christian sister as a wife?’ scil. on our missionary journeys (‘secum ducere quoquo quis eat,’ Grot.) ; and with an implied claim, , > > a kal mivovTes TH Tap avTa@r. as husband and wife were one, to be supported by the Churches (Bengel). The translation ‘a Christian woman’ (Est., Wordsw., comp. Vulg.) is gram- matically doubtful (yuvatka being in explanatory apposition to the preceding substantive), and the reference of the werds to ‘mulieres ministrantes,’ such as those who accompanied our blessed Lord (Luke viii. 2, 3; see the passages in Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. I. p. 810), exe- getically improbable. The subsequent mention of St. Peter seems here to restrict the meaning of yuvf as above specified. So distinctly AZth., though in the form of a very loose para- phrase. ds kal ot Aourol amrdo- Todor] ‘as also the rest of the Apostles ;’ scil. as was the case with them in the last-mentioned, and foregoing, particu- lars; the @s probably including a ref- erence to ver. 4 as well as to the clause immediately preceding (comp. Bengel). Though it thus does not follow from the words that all the Apostles were married, it certainly may be inferred from the juxtaposition of clauses that the majority were so. Kal ot aS5cApol tod Kuplov] ‘ and the brethren of the Lord.” ‘Crescit oratio: nam primum Apostolos nominat, deinde fratres, id est cognatos Domini, pos- tremo Cepham ipsum, principem Apos- tolici coetus,’ Grot. On the aero Tov Kuptov (Acts i. 14, Gal. i. 19), see notes oz Gal. /.c. The conclusions there arrived at do not seem to be shaken by any criticism that has since appeared. Both in Gal. /.c. and here St. Paul appears to be using améorodos in its proper sense, and both here and (very clearly) there, to imply that the adeAgpol belonged to that company. The subject is confessedly one of great Cuap. IX. 5-7. meORTN TIAN S. 167 ’ e")3 fal Tepubyew, @s Kal of AoUTFOL amdaTAAOL Kat oi adedoi Tod Kupiov kat Kndas ; °%) wovos éya kai BapvdBas ovx éyowev é€ovolav un 3 , r , 2O/ ? t , / / epyater Oar ; ITs otparevetas idious oyrwvious Tote ; Tis puTEver 6. ekouclay ph épyd(ecOa] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Mec. inserts tod before wh épyd- Ceo Bat. difficulty, and one on which different minds will, to the very end of time, come to different conclusions: it may, how- ver, with all fairness be said, that Bp. Lightfoot’s criticism (02 Ga/. Dissert. 1.) of the theory of Jerome, while showing Jerome’s ignorance of the two particulars which materially strengthen his theory, does not successfully dis- prove them. kal Knoas] Comp. Matt. viii. 14. The fact of the Apostle’s marriage is commented on in Clem.-Alex. Strom. VII. p. 736, Euseb. FHiist. 111. 30; see also Grabe, Spiczd. Patr. I, p- 330: 6. 4) pdovos éy k.7.d.] ‘Or L only and Barnabas, have we not the right of for- The #, as in ch. vi. 2, 9, al., puts the case on the other side,—‘ Or is it so that we have not the right to do otherwise than work?’ Why St. Barnabas is here specially mentioned is somewhat doubt- ful. The conjecture of Hofmann is not improbable,—that, on their first missionary journey (Acts xiii. 3), the two holy men might have agreed together to maintain themselves, and not to be chargeable on any local Church; and that the remembrance of this called up in the mind of St. Paul the name of the fellow-laborer with whom he was then associated: comp. Chrys. dv de Kowwvodvta aiT@ Tis &kpiBelas taitns, ob amréxpupev. The answer of Wordsworth, that the name of St. Barnabas was mentioned because St. Paul and St. Barnabas were specially Apostles to the heathen (Gal. ii. 9), is certainly not sufficient. , -, Old Ad ’ ’ bearing from working ? ph épyater Bar] ‘z0¢t to work, to forbear working ;’ apyodytes Cav, kal rpéperOau mapa Tov pantevoapevwy, Chrys. The word épyd(eoGar, as Meyer remarks, is the regular word for the manual labor here alluded to: comp. Matt. xxi. 28, and especially Acts xviii. 3, where the word is used in reference to the working of the Apostle with Aquila and Priscilla at their common trade of tent-making. For the uses of épyd(eoOa in the N. T., see Cremer, Worterb. p. 259 sq. 7. tls oTpateverat K.T.A.] ‘ Who ever serueth as a soldier at his own charges ? who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who tendeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?’ Three appropriate examples, viz. of the soldier (2 Cor. x. 3 sq.), the vineyard-planter (comp. Matt. xx. 1), and the shepherd (comp. John x. 12), by which the Apostle vindicates the principle already alluded to, and dis- tinctly enunciated in ver. 14, viz. Tots 7d evayyeAloy KaTayyéAAovTas ék TOU evayyseAiou Gv. The word épdénor is a word of later Greek (LXX, Polyb., Dionys.-Hal.; comp. Sturz, de Dial. Mac.p. 187) commonly denoting (a) the rations supplied to the soldier (7 a&pwpicuevn Tpoph, Suidas), and thence, more generally (4) his pay; comp. Polyb. Ast. VI, 3, 12, dpeéviov & of weCol AauBdvover Tis huepas dbo dBodovs. It is used three times elsewhere in the N. T., viz. Luke iii. 14, in the same sense as here, and in a similar but somewhat wider sense, Rom. vi. 23, and 2 Cor. xi.8. The dative is a sub- instrumental dative; the épémea are re- 168 1 CORINTHIANS. [Cuap. IX. 7-9 auTeA@va Kal Tov Kaptrov avTov ovK éoOlea; H Tis Trommawe / » ee | fa] / a / > > ath 8 \ \ TOLLUNY Kal EK TOD YyaNaKTOS THS Troi“uns ovK EcOier ; Mn Kata ” 0 rn fal KA Ae: A n > / 9 b] \ av@pwirrov TavTa AAAW ; 7) KAL O VOMOS TAUTA ov eyel ; ” EV Yap T® Mavoéws vow yeypatrrar Ov Kk pooces Body addowvra t bg 7 YP. i d ) 7. tov kapwov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: /ec., é Tov Kapmod. 8. 4 Kad 6 véuos TadTa ov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., 4 obx! Kal 6 vduos TadTa, 9. knudoe:s] So Zisch., Treg. |Westc. preponderating authority: Rec., Lachm., garded as the means whereby the 7d orpareverba was carried on; see Wi- ner, Gr. 31. 7. d. In the concluding member of the verse the slight change in the construction from the object accus. (after éo@iewv) to the partitive é Tod ydAaxtos has probably no studied significance; the kaprés suggests in itself a kind of partitive idea, which becomes expressed when the more concrete term (ydAa) appears in the clause that follows. 8. Mi xatdé dvOpwrov k.7.d.] ‘Am J speaking these things after the manner of men?’ Transition, by means of a forcible introductory question (kat’ €parnaw mpodye: Toy Adyou dmep em) TaY opdipa wmoroynuevwy yivetot, Chrys.), to scriptural evidence for the principle already laid down; the uf, as usual, ex- pecting a negative answer; see Winer, Gr. § 57. 3. & On the meaning of kata &vOpwrov (‘as man,’ Syr., ‘bi mannan,’ Goth.: é& av@pwrivey pdvov Tapaderyudtwy, Chrys.), see Fritz. oz Rom. iii. 5, and notes on Gal. iii. 15. The formula occurs six times in St. Paul’s Epistle,— ch. iii. 3, xv. 32, Rom. iii. 5, Gal. i. 11, iii. 15, and in all cases with substantially the same meaning. 4 Kal 6 vopos k.7.A.] 6 07 saith not also the law these things?’ The %, as in ver. 6, introducing the other conceivable view (viz. that it was on far higher authority), and the od coalescing with the verb and /Y/ort, margin], and on apparently Rev., Westc. and Hort, pydoeas. The (comp. Winer, Gr. § 57. 3. @.), and suggesting the affirmative answer: ‘ Is it I, as a mere man (‘sola humana auctoritate,’ Grot.), that say these things, or saith not the law also (a far higher authority) these things as well?’ ‘non modo non secundum hominem, sed ipsa lege approbante id dico,’ Bengel. The assumed general distinction between Aad@ (reference to the outward expression) and Aéyw (reference to the substance and pur- port) is here apparently preserved ; the Apostle says that this was no mere human utterance, but was the sub- stance of the teaching of the law: see Rom. iii. 19, where the same distinction may be traced, and compare John viii. 43, but observe that this certainly can- not everywhere be pressed in the N. T. ; comp. notes oz Col. iv. 3. g. év yap TO Mavoéws «.t.d..] ‘ Hor ix the law of Moses it ts written :’ scrip- tural confirmation (not ‘why surely,’ Evans,— a needless departure from the ordinary meaning of the particle) by an actual quotation of the affirmative answer implied in the question im- mediately preceding. This quotation, it will be observed, is specified as coming, not simply, ‘from the law,’ but, with designed emphasis, ‘from the law — of Moses ;’ see Deut. xxv. 4. ov Knpadces Body ddowvTa] ‘thou shalt not muzzle an ox while he treadeth out CuapP. IX. 9, 10. 1 CORINTHIANS. 169 tov Boay meres TO Oc@; 17) Ov’ tyuds TavTws Aeyer; Su’ Huds argument derived from the less usual word, and the likelihood of confor- mation to the LXX seem to turn the scale. The Apostle, quoting from memory, uses a word of similar meaning to that of the LXX, but of a form less familiar to transcribers. the corn ;’ imperatival future, on the uses of which see notes oz Gal. v. 14. The command (for the details of which, see notes oz I Zim. v. 18) was designed to inculcate principles of mercy and consideration for the ani- mals that helped man in his Jabors: they were to enjoy, to a certain extent, the fruit of their toil. Philo (de Hu- manitate, Vol. Il. p. 400, ed. Mang.) speaks of this as an #peuov kad pnrhy (xpnothy?) mpdoraév towards oxen as partners of man’s labors, and as illus- trating the benevolence of the Mosaic law. The form rnudw is found in Xenoph. de Re Lguestri, v. 3, in ref- erence to horses, and is apparently not distinguishable in meaning from gyidw. The substantive kynuds (con- nected with xdBos, Schol. Aristoph. £qg. 1147, and perhaps derived from xdw) is described by Hesych. as a TAeKToOV Gryyetov ev @ AauBdvovor Tas topotipas [purple-fish], and also as what we should term a ‘ nose-bag’ for horses, etc.: its more usual meaning, however, is ‘a muzzle’ (7d Tots trots emit iOeuevor, Suid.; so too Hesych., efdos xadwod ; comp. Ps. xxxi. 9) or means to prevent animals biting or eating: see Steph. Thesaur. s.v. Vol. Iv. p. 1516 sq. (ed. Hase and Dind.). — pa trav Bowv péder To Oco it for the oxen that God careth ?’ scil. in the enactment of this law; brief demonstration of the pro- priety of the application of the passage to the present subject-matter, by a short elucidation of its real purport: the uh, as above, and as usual, ex- pecting a zegative answer. This clause is frequently explained away, but con- 22 trary to the plain meaning of the words and the true drift of the pas- sage. The appearance of this com- mand in the law of Moses was not primarily for oxen, but for the moral good of man. God indeed does care for oxen, as for all the creatures of His hand (Matt. vi. 26, x. 29, Luke xii. 24), ovX oUTw 5é, ws kal vduov Ocivar brep tovTwy, Chrys.: comp. Theoph. and Hofmann 27 Zoc. The question before the Apostle is, In whose interest was this law enacted? and the answer plainly is, odx tmip trav dAdywr, GAr’ bmép Tay vody Kal Adyov éxdvtwv (Philo, cited by Wetst. zz doc.) It is the higher and spiritual significance of the precept which the Apostle is here con- templating : ‘specimen tractandi leges Mosaicas, circa animantia latas,’ Beng. 10. # 8 jas mdvrws A€ya] ‘ Or doth He say it, as He clearly doth, for our sakes?’ the % introducing another and alternative view, the first having been inferentially negatived. There is some doubt whether the jas is to be referred to those for whom the law was enacted (Hofmann), or those who are now specially under consideration, — Christian teachers, ro’s thy kawhv diabnknv wapeAnpdras, Origen (Cramer, Cat.). The latter seems most probable, as in better harmony with the clearly implied spiritual application of the passage, and the use of the pronoun in ver. 11, 12. The mdvrws (‘utique, Vulg., ‘notum est,’ Syr.; comp. Luke iv. 23, Acts xviii. 21, xxii. 2, xxviii. 4) adds force and emphasis to the second alternative, Gre pavepdy dv Kad aibTdsOev d7jAov, Chrys.; there could be no doubt 170 1 CORINTHIANS. CuHap. IX. 10, 11. yap eypadn, dt. ddeires em’ Edmidt 6 apoTpi@y dpoTpLay, Kal o adowy ém’ édmid. TOD peTéexew. 11 ya tal \ Me \ \ Et jpeis viv ta mvevpatina 10. dpetAe: em’ €Atid1k] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Mec., ém éAmld: dpetarct. én éAr(dt Tov meréxev] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Aec., THs éAmidos abrov werexetv em edmidn. that this was the true spiritual refer- ence. On the impersonal Aéye,— which, in passages like the present, where the scope and purport of a com- mand is under consideration, seems most naturally referred to God, the author of the law,—see notes oz Gal. iii. 16. Sv fas yip éypddy] jor it was for our sakes that it was written ;’ the 6? nuads ydp being used, not in its explanatory sense (see notes on Gal, ii. 6), but, as in ver. 9, in its usual confirmatory sense: o« oty 3Y juas ... elpnrat tedra, Origen (Cramer, Cat.). The second alternative, by the very structure of the passage, was clearly to be regarded as the true view: this the Apostle confirms by alluding to the purpose that was involved. ‘The whole passage is well brought out by Theodoret 77 Zoc.: ov TotTo Aéyet STi THY Boay ob wédAec TS OcG. Mera yap aie, GAAG 5.’ Huds mere OC juas yap Kaxel- bre Selrer k.7.A.] ‘to wit that (with the meaning that) the plougher ought in hope to plough; the ér: marking the true meaning and spiritual significance of the command, and having its explanatory, rather than its causal (‘because,’ ‘quoniam,’ Calvin), or mere relatival force (‘ that,’ intro- ducing the substance of the éypdpn) ; purport of the command (ver. 9), rather than the reason of its being given, being more in harmony with the didac- tic tone of the context. On this ex- planatory force of 8r1, see the excellent remarks of Schmalfeld, Syzz. § 168 sq. ; the copious list of examples in Kriiger, Gr. § 550. 3, and comp. notes on ch. vous ednutovpynoe. iv.9. Few particles in the N.T. give greater difficulty to the interpreter in settling the exact shade of meaning than 67: (comp. notes oz 2 Thess. i. 3), this being perhaps due to its relatival origin, and the consequently wide na- ture of the possible reference: Kriiger, Sprachl. § 65. 1. 3- The én’ éAml8e is emphatic; it was that on which the épetAee was based: comp. Rom. viii. 21, Tit. i. 2, and notes zz loc. The subject of the hope was obviously, as the next clause shows, participation in the results of the labor. cs) GpoTpiav ... 6 ddowy] ‘the sower... the thresher, Ut has been doubted whether these words are to be taken in their simple, or in their metaphorical, sense; i.e. whether the Apostle is simply stating, in continuation, the practical purpose of the command re- ferred to (comp. Hofmann), or is re- verting to that which the quotation is intended to illustrate. It can hardly be doubted that the 6? judas eypddn (con- sider also ver, 10) carries us over into the metaphorical, and that ‘ the sower’ and ‘ the thresher’ point to the Chris- tian teacher, viewed as either in the earlier or later stages of his spiritual husbandry. So Chrys., todréctw, 6 diddoKadros dpelrAet Tov Tévev Tas a&morBas Comp. also Origen 77 doc. (Cra- mer, Cazez.), who illustrates the mean- ing by allusion to the work of the Apostle himself; aporpié MladAos 6 ye- wmpyos K.T.A. 11. Hi qpets «.7.A.] 6 Zf we sowed for you (dat. commod?) spiritual things:’ di- rect application of the foregoing verse exeuv. CHAP. IX. 11, 12. 1 CORINTHIANS. p af! eorrelpapey, meya eb welts Dua@v TA capKiKa Depicomev ; ef adrov THs twav eEovaias peTéyovaw, ov paddov Tels ; ar’ ovK exypn- 12. tuay efouvgias] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., efovolas budv. Twa éyKoTny] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., eyxomhy Twa. (without any connecting particles) to the Apostle’s own case (comp. ‘mets ver. 4), and in continuation of his (verun3)- which the Apostle sowed were the germinal principles (e. ¢. miorw, GEcum.) of Gospel teaching, emanating from the Holy Spirit (comp. A&th.), and communicated in words which He vouchsafed to inspire (ch. ii. 13). péya el tpets K.7.A.] ‘25 2¢ @ great matter if we shall reap your carnal things ?’ is it something to be regarded as un- reasonable ? comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15; évraiéa aroAoyia The mvevyarind 7d Bixatov deixvvat Tod mpdyuatos, Theoph. In the future @epicouey the case is regarded as future and possibly im- pending: if @epicwuey be adopted (with good [CDFG, al.], but inferior, author- ity) then the case is put more as depending on the event (‘respectum comprehendit experientiz,’ Hermann de Part. &v, 11.7), ‘if we should, in the sequel, so act,— a thing quite possible :’ see Winer, Gyr. § 41. e. c, Stallbaum on Plato, Lege. p. 958 D (who has carefully analyzed the exact shade of meaning conveyed by this particle with the subj.), and the examples in Klotz, Devar. Vol. ul. p. 500 sq. The capeind, it need scarcely be said, include the tpopyy (Cicum.), and general minis- trations to bodily needs. The studied juxtaposition of the personal pronouns in each clause gives force and sharp- ness, but cannot be expressed in trans- lation. 12. eb dddor k.7.A.] § Hf others partake of this right over you:’ justification of the claim by the example of others. The tuev, though by its position seeming to be a gen. szdjecté (comp. Vulg., Copt., Arm.), must, from the whole tenor of the context (comp. ver. 4), as well as from the peculiar charac- ter of the governing noun (comp. Winer, Gr. § 30. 1. a), be a gen. objectz, ‘the right exercised over you,’ Syr., Clarom., al. (kpatotow study, ekovord- Covow, Chrys., Theoph.; comp. Theod.): comp. Matt. x. 1, éfovclay mvevudtwv axabdptwy, dare exBddAdew avtd: John The meaning ‘eminentia seu abundantia’ (sc. ofzm), referred to, but not adopted by, Wolf zz Zoc., though lexically ten- able, is contrary to the whole usage of the word in the N.T., and is in no way required by the context. GAN’ odk expjodpcOa k.t.A.] ‘ zevertheless we used not this right;’ the addd@ with its full qualifying and contrasting force (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2) marking the different course which the Apostle had adopted in the past from what he might have adopted if he had thought proper. When placed, as here, at the begin- ning of a sentence or clause (no nega- tive having preceded), the particle includes all shades of contrast from simple qualification of what has pre- ceded to complete correction (Gal. iv. 17) (of it; see Kaihner, (G7. § ‘53henas In the next clause the aAadd is in its usual antithesis to a preceding nega- tive. It thus seems better to placea comma after tattn than the usual colon. TdavTa oréyouev] ‘bear all things ;’ ‘sustinemus,’ Vulg.; ‘suf- xvii. 2, éfovolay mdons ocapkds. 172 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. IX. 12, 13. cdpela tH éovola taity, Gd\Aa TaVTA oTéyomev, a pH TWA > \ Lal a > / fa le) eyKoTTY SAmEev TH evayyerim Tov Xpiorov. Wop oldate OTL M es Ae: f > aie ri) 2) / € a Ol TA lepa epyalouevor TA EK TOD lepod éaOHlove.y, of TO Ovat- 13. Ta x TOU iepod] So TZisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponder- ating authority: Zachm. and Rec. omit rd. mapedpevovtes] So Lachm., Tisch.. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., mpooedpevorres. ferimus, Clarom.; and so Syr., Copt. (‘longanimes sumus in’), Aith., al. The verb oréyew only occurs four times in the N.T., viz. ch. xiii. 7, 1 Thess. iii. I, 5, and this present passage. In all it has the later and derivative meaning of dmouevew, Baotd¢ew (Hesych.), and marks the patient and enduring spirit (comp. Copt.) with which the Apostle put up with all the consequences natu- rally resulting from the ove éxpnodueda K.7.A.: Aydy aivirrerat Kad oTevoxwpiay ToAAHY Kal Ta &AAa wdvta, Chrys. The transition in meaning from fegere to continere (Eurip. Zlecty, 1124), and thence to the later meaning sustinere, is easy and natural; comp. Polyb. fst. III. 53. 2, oTeyew Thy émipopdy Tay Bap- Bdpwv, Xvitl. 8. 4, oréyew thy Tis parayyos €podov: see Wetstein zz Zoc., and notes oz 1 T%ess. iii. 1. On the derivation (Sanscrit, sthag; comp. Latin, tegere), see Curtius Gr. Ztym. No. 55, p- 170 (ed. 2), Fick, Worterd. p. 209. ta ph Twa éykorijy K.t.d.] ‘that we may not cause any hinderance to the Gospel of Christ;’ scil. by incurring the suspicion in any form (odx a&mdws éykomhy, GAN eykomhy twa, Chrys.) of self-seeking, or of preaching and teach- ing with an eye to remuneration: ‘ ex- peditiores plus operis faciunt et minus sumptum afferunt,’ Bengel. Ignatius, somewhat similarly, thanked God that no one could say, Sri éBdpnod tia év pukp@ 2 év peydrw, Philad. cap. 6. The word éyxom) (éveSpov, éumddiov He- sych.) is only used in this place in the N.T., but is found in Galen, and in later writers. Properly it denotes ‘zz- cisionem, et eam quidem quz fit in via,’ Grimm; and this may be either in the way of aid (as in the quotation in Suidas, xwpis éyxora@v ka KAimaKThpwv ovK Hv em Piva: Tis TéTpas), or, as com- monly, in the way of hinderance; ava- Bodh eurotjoa, Chrys. 13. ovK otSare] ‘Know ye not?’ Proof of the Apostle’s general prin- ciple by an appeal to the rule of the old covenant, and (ver. 14) to the sanction that rule received in the simi- lar Siudtayua of our Lord. The ov« ofdare gives a kind of reiterative em- phasis to what the Apostle has already said, and brings personally home to the Corinthians their unfairness, ‘ quod patiebantur Christi ministris obtrectari in re tam licita,’ Calvin zz /oc. oi Ta tepa épyatspevor] ‘ Those that are engaged about sacred things ;’ with full inclusiveness, Levites as well as priests, but without any particular classifica- tion (contrast Chrys., Theoph., who refer this clause to the Levites and the following to the priests), as the broad fact that all who ministered in ves sacre (scarcely ‘in sacrario operantur,’ Vulg.; so to Syr., Copt.) had their share in the gifts and offerings, is all that the Apostle is here pressing. Work in what belonged to God re- ceived its appropriate wages: and so too work in regard of that which fur- thered man’s access to God: see Hof- mann zz Joc. Ta €k TOD icpod érOlovory] ‘cat of the things that come out of the temple ;’ with obviously ex- Cuap. IX. 13-15. 1 CORINTHIANS. 173 a U I F © aatnpio mapedpevovTes TH OvovacTypio cuppepiCovtar; \ odTws kal 6 Kipuos diétatev trois 70 evayyéehov Katayyéhdovew ex TOD evayyeriou Civ. 1b b] \ \ > / 1) ‘\ , eyo bé Ov KEV PNMAL QUOEVL TOUTWV. Ov« 15. ov Kéxpnua ovderl] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: 2ec., oddev éxpnodunv. In the con- cluding clause, ovdels Kevdoe (Kec. va tts kevdon) is adopted in all the above mentioned edd. on less decided, but still clearly preponderating authority. clusive reference to the Jewish ritual. The definiteness of the expression, in- dependently of other considerations, is enough to show that the Apostle was not thinking of heathen practice. On the details of the é« Tod iepod ecdetev, see Num. xviii. 8, sqq. ot TH Ouct- acrypiv mapeSpevovres] ‘they who wait upon the altar, or serve at the altar ;’ ‘qui altari adstant [‘assident’],’ Calvin ; second clause, defining more exactly the general expression that had pre- ceded. The distinction between this verb and mpocedpevew (Rec.) appears to be very slight. Both are used in good writers, and both convey the idea of close attendance on anything ; comp. Athen. vil. p. 283 C, of rats Kneis mapedpevoytes, and still more appositely, Protev. Jac. p. 264, wapedpedbw TH vag (cited by Hase in Steph. 7hesaur.s.v.). The more general term mpocéxew is found in the exactly similar passage, Heb. vii. 13, ov5els tpocéoxnkev TH Ovor- acTnplo. TO Ovotactyply cup- pepllovrar] ‘share with the altar ;’ ‘cum altari participantur,’ Vulg., —scil. in the offerings made thereon: kadés Td cuupepi(ov: Ta Mey yap Kal dAdKavTA éylveto, Kal iv povov Tov Bvotacrnpiou kal éx Tov Ovowevwr Se 7d uev aiua mpoce- xet10 TS Ovotacrnplw, Kal Td oTéap eOv- plato TOV de Kpe@y aaipeud Tt eAduBavev 6 icpeds: oiov Toy déktov Bpaxlova Kad Td aTnbtvioyv Kal Td evuerpov, GEcum. 14. ottas kal 6 Kupiosk.t.d.] § Zh2s did also the Long appoint ;’ scil. in accordance with the principles already referred to. The ascensive ral (‘ita et Dominus,’ Vulg.) adduces and empha- sizes the confirmation given to the general principle by our blessed Lord; avTod yap éott pw: ‘ttios yap 6 épyarns THS Tpopyis avtod éotw,’ Theod.: see Matt. x. 10, Luke x.7. The prominence of the xat 6 Kvpios precludes the refer- ence of the clause to God. The point of the whole is that the law was con- firmed by Him who came to fulfil the law, and to set forth its fullest signifi- cance; delxvucr 5¢ TH vduw ovywdd Kar tov Acondtny mpootetaxdta, Theod. (Cramer, Caten.). éx TOU vayycdtov fv] ‘zo live of the Gospel ;’ scil. ‘out of the preaching of it,’ ‘ ex eo quod evangelium praedicant,’ Beza: ex- planatory or objective infinitive (Don- aldson, Gr. § 585), specifying the substance of the didrayua; see the numerous examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 473. It is thus better in translation to maintain the simple infinitive (‘ or- dinavit ... de evangelio vivere,’ Vulg.), there being here no latent Set (comp. Auth.), but a simple order and tapayye- Ata; comp. Matt. x. 5. Foran example (Themistius, Ovaz. 23) of the sufficiently intelligible Gjv ek, see Kypke zz loc. (Vol. 11. p. 214): and for examples of the similar and more familiar Gjv amd, see Steph. Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. IV. p. 11 (ed. Hase). 15. €y> 8 Kt.A.] ‘But L have used none of these things;’ scil. of the éfouvolav-giving arguments and principles just above specified in four forms 174 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. IX. 15. ” \ lS) oe A 4 >’ b] U \ / eyparyva dé tadta va ovTws yévnta év éuol, KaAov yap pot lal > a x \ / 4 PJ ‘ ‘ HadAov arolaveiy 7) TO KavYnud pou ovdels KEVOCL. (paryeiv al meiv, ver. 4; wh epydecba, ver 6; T& capkiKd OepiCev, ver. 11; ek Tov evayyeAlov (Hv, ver. 14), and here gathered up in the generalizing neuter Chrys., Theoph., Gicum., al., make the rovrwy refer to the mapa- Sevyudtwy (the soldier, the husbandman, etc.) already cited, but less probably, as less inclusively. Meyer, resting on ver. 12, refers it to the preceding éfovcia understood in some sort of dis- tributive sense,—a sense which Hof- mann not unreasonably characterizes as ‘schlechterdings unmoglich.’ In ver. 12, the Apostle practically says the same thing, but there, as the con- text shows, mainly with reference to the O.T. Here he refers to the N.T. dispensation as well as to that of the O. T., and uses a tense (contrast éxp7- oduny, ver. 12), which carries his prac- tice down to the very hour when he is writing. The ordinary punctua- tion (Rec., Treg., al.) places only a colon at rotrwy, but thus misses what seems to be the intention of the clause, viz. to close the subject of the course adopted by the Apostle, and to prepare for the change of subject that follows. Oix eypaa St tatrta] ‘Vow J write not (epistolary aorist) these things ;’ viz. the particulars specified from ver. 4 onward. The Apostle now meets an objection that might be urged, passing onward, by the 8¢ of transition (merTa- Barixéy), to his present subject-matter. tva oftws yévnrar év pol] ‘that zt should (hereafter) be so done in my case ;’ Ze. ‘that henceforth I should be supported by you and others (iva AauBdvw, The- oph.), and avail myself of my minis- terial privilege.’ The ev, as usual, marks the sphere or substratum in which, or on which, the action is con- ceived to take place; not ‘unto me,’ TauUTa. 16 egy Auth., but ‘in me,’ Vulg.: comp. Matt. XVil. 14, érotnoay év avT@, and Gal. i. 24, eddtaCov ev éuol rby @edy, and see notes in loc. Kahdv yap por paddov aro8avetv] ‘ for zt were better (far) for me to die ;’ the emphasis resting on the prominently placed kaAév, and thus suggesting the use of the more strong form of comparison; see Kiihner, Gr. § 349°. 3. 3, where the principle of this usage is explained. The Gmo@avety, it need hardly be said, has no reference to a death by hunger (d:apOaphvar Ame, Theoph.), but is simply an earnest and impassioned form of disavowal: dpa Me” Bons cpodpdtntos apvetrat ka) Siaxpi- veTat Td Tpayua, Chrys. 4 7d Kav- XHPa pov K.t.A.] ‘than that any one should make void my glorying, — more exactly, ‘my subject or matter of glo- rying,’ viz. that I preached the Gospel without cost;” comp. ver. 18. The construction is here very difficult to explain grammatically. To take # as equivalent to ‘alioquin ’ (Meyer), seems absolutely impossible if we recognize a periphrasis of the comparative; # thus nearly associated with maAAovy must retain its usual sense when in such a collocation. It seems almost equally difficult either to accept the punctuation of Lachmann (amobavetv, } Th Kadxnua* ovdels kevéoete), Or to Suppose that after % the Apostle abruptly stops (comp. Westc. and Hort), and then proceeds in a new and direct sentence. Such examples have only been found in conditional sentences (comp. Rom. ix. 22,— according to some interpreters), where the reader almost naturally sup- plies the omitted thought. It remains therefore only to translate as above sim. Rev.), and to understand a va as mentally to be supplied, and the ovéels as involving an idiomatically redundant Cuap. IX. 15-17. 1 CORINTHIANS. 175 yap evayyeriopar, ovK EoTL pol KavVYnUAa, avayKn yap pot €mixeitat* oval yap pol éoTw éeay pi) evaryyeMcapar. “ei yap 16. oval ydp| So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Mec. oda) 5é. negative, examples of which will be found in Kiihner, Gr. § 516. 6. A difficulty still remains in the future kev@oet, which here seems unusually out of place, as tending to make the mental insertion of tva more difficult. All that can be said is, that this use of a future after tva does seem fully established in the N.T. (see below, notes on ver. 18), and that, —in a sen- tence like the present, marked with some passionateness of utterance, — it might have been almost unconsciously introduced. Direct negation was latent in the Apostle’s thought. 16. éav yap K.t.d.] ‘Hor tf LT should preach the Gospel I have no glorying, or, as above, ‘no subject or matter of glorying;’ confirmation of the strong asseveration in ver. 15. It was need- ful for the Apostle thus urgently to maintain his present position of inde- pendence, for it was on this alone that the validity of the natxnua depended: preaching the Gospel did nct fer se involve any kabvxnua; ovK ott Kadxnua 7) evayyeAt(ecbat, GAAX 7d GdaTavws knptocew, Theoph. avaycn yap pot érlkerrar] ‘for necessity 7s laid upon me ;’ confirmatory explanation of the preceding clause. It was not a matter of free choice, but of duty to a Master; comp. Acts ix. 15, xiii. 2, xxii. 21, and see Estius zx Joc. oval yap pol éoti] ‘for woe zs zt to me;’ again a ydép confirming, or rather elucidating, what has just been said. In this third case the particle has more of its ex- planatory element; if there was this avdyxn, it must verily needs be that there was a woe to him if he sought to withdraw himself from the duty. On the mixed argumentative and explan- atory use of the particle, see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 1, and on Gal. iv. 22; and on the more purely explanatory use of it, notes oz Gal. ii. 6. In this clause the change to the aor. subj. edayyeAtowuat (good authorities, but not preponderating, support the present) seems intentional, ‘if I shall not have preached:’ the thought of the Apostle glances from the present to that future which in-2 Tim. iv. 7 is contemplated as having then begun to merge into the past. 17. eb yap kav «t.A.] For if 7 do this willingly T have a reward ;’ eluci- dation (‘si enim,’ Vulg.; not ‘nam si,’ Clarom.; comp. Hand, Zwrse//. Vol. Il. p. 374 Sq., with Vol, Iv. p. 1 sq.) of the clause immediately preceding by means of a dilemma purely hypothet- ical (ei, see notes o7 Gal. i. 9), but well calculated to bring out the vdéuos deamo- tiuxés (Theod.) under which he was acting; see Reuss zz Joc. ‘It is verily woe to me; for to take either view, — If it is a free-will acting (which is really not my case), I have a reward, and to miss this would indeed be ovat; if, on the other hand, it is not a free-will acting (which really is my case — for I am a dmnpérys [ch. iv. 1], and appointed to this work by Christ), then a steward- ship is committed to me, and if an oixovduos be not found faithful (ch. iv. 2), then still more would it be ovat.’ The general sentiment of the passage is thus clearly brought out: the Apostle has no kadxnua in regard of his preach- ing the Gospel; for there is an oval for him if he does it not: dmou 5& 7d oval mapdkerra: ev uh Wo, ovK exee 176 CORINTHIANS: Cuap. IX. 17, 18. aa} a , \ ” > eh ? / ! EX@Y TOUTO Tpacow, pc Oov eX@ * eb dé AKWV, OLKOVOLLAY TET I- oTEU Bris ov soTly 0 Gos; fa ) G6 war. Bris ody por éeotiv 0 puabos; iva evayyedcCopevos 18. evayyéAtov] So Lachm., Tisch.. Treg. Rev.. Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: ec. adds tod Xpiotod. kavxnua, Origen. To make this verse elucidatory of the ov« éor: wot Kadxnua of the foregoing verse (Hofmann; so too perhaps Clarom.; see above), dis- sociates the todro from the evayyeAiow- wat, to which it seems clearly to refer, and breaks the continuity of the clauses, each one of which appears to be con- firmed or elucidated (ydp) by the clause which follows. et 5 xy] ‘but if unwillingly ;’ z.e. without free will entering into the matter: the Apostle was not reluctant, but was under the command of a gracious Master; 7d éxav Kal &xwv emt Tod eyxexepioba Kad Bh eyKexeipiobat AauBdvwy, Chrys. oikovoplay memiorevpar] ‘7 have been entrusted with a stewardship ;’ have been made an oikovéuos of the mysteries of God (Rom. iv. 1 comp. Acts xx. 24), and so do but act as every oixovduos ought to act, as bretOuvos dv trois ém- tax@eio. Chrys.; comp. Luke xvii. Io. There is here no fallacy in morals (Wordsw.) The Apostle was a d5odA0s, but he was one who nevertheless did what he bade others do,—é« wWuyxjs epyd¢eoOa: (Col. iii. 23, Eph. vi. 7). His service, though by his call && avdyxns, was, not the less, wer’ edvolas (Eph. vi. 7). On this form of the accusative, see Winer, Gv. § 32. 5, and comp. Rom. iii. 2, Gal. ii. 7, 1 Thess. ii. 4, Tit. i. 3. In all such cases the accusative serves as the defining object, and may not improperly be called (as suggested by Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 157 sq.) the ‘paratactic accusative’; see the large collection of examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 410. 6. 18. tls odv pot éorly 6 prc Ods] ‘what then is the reward that comes to me?’ b ‘If, by what has just been said, I really am only one to whom an oikovopia has been entrusted, and so bound to fulfil it without any question of pic@ds, what is the reward (if any) which falls to my lot?’ The next clause supplies the answer, which in effect is—‘to receive no reward’ Wetst.), and so to have the power of making the cavxnua. This does not confuse the pio@ds and the xavxnua (as urged by Hofmann): the kavxnua was that he preached the Gospel free of cost; the pias, that, by refusing all pic@ds, he could speak as he did to the elders of Eph- esus, Acts xx. 33, 34. So nearly, but not quite exactly, Origen (Cramer, Caten.), odtos otv éeotw 6 pioOds: va érov ekouciay Exw, wh Torhow. So in effect Chrys. The reading is not perfectly certain. 7Zyreg. adopts the gen. wou on good uncial authority; the preponderance, however, seems slightly in favor of the dative. Wa evayyeAt{dépevos K.T.A.] ‘that in preaching the Gosfel (temporal parti- ciple) Z may make the Gospel without charge ;’ the tva here, as often in the N.T., marking the sort of purposive result that was involved in the whole matter. In such cases the primary force of the particle is not wholly lost (see Buttm. Gr. 1.7. p. 204); the idea of purpose shades off into that of eventuality, and the final sentence merges into the objective; see notes on ch. iv. 2 and oz 1 Thess. ii. 16, Vv. 4, and comp. Abt oz 1 Johvi.g. Meyer, for the sake of preserving the fuller force of the particle, supposes that the question implies, and involves, a nega- tive answer, and that the iva depends Cuap. IX. 18, 19. Yr CORINTHIUAN S&S. 177 > / / \ > i > \ x / @ A“ adatravov OQjcw TO evayyédov, eis TO WN KaTaYpjcacbaL TH > / > Lal > / efovoia pou év TO evayyehio. Though thus free, I con- formed myself to the circumstances of those to whom I preached, that if possible, I might save them. onit. The above interpretation, how- ever, is simpler, and, it is believed, more consistent with those traces of later usage which are certainly to be observed in the N.T. in the usage of this particle. On the use of %va with the future see above on ver. 15, and on Gal. ii. 4. It is probable that the idea of duration, or (as in the case of 8rws with a future), perhaps rather of zssue and seguence (‘succeed in making the Gospel, etc.’) is thus more distinctly suggested to the reader: see examples in Kihner, Gv. § 553. 4. d, and Winer, Gr. § 41. 3. 1. b. eis TO #) Kkataxpyoacbar K.7.d.] ‘ that I use not to the full my power ( privilege) in the Gospel, z.e.in preaching the Gospel, —in its sphere or its area of propaga- tion: general dzrection and aim of the addmavoy TiWévar K.T.A.; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, and notes oz 1 Thess. il. II. In cases like the present the idea of direct purpose is a little obscured, but not enough to justify any translation implying mere resz/t, or (still more improbably) mere reference (‘in respect of my not making, etc.,’ Evans) to the action implied by the verb. Without being at all hypercritical we may thus generally distinguish between three usages of the infinitive, in sentences similar to the present, which we meet with not uncommonly in the N.T.,— tov with the infinitive; é0re with the infinitive ; and eis ro (or mpds 76) with the infinitive. Of these, the first seems clearly to mark design or intention ; comp. Luke xxiv. 29, and see notes oz Gal. iii. 10 and Winer, Gr. § 44. 4. 4.; the second, plainly result or conse- 23 19° EevOepos yap av €k TavTwV Tacw euav- Tov edovdkwoa, iva Tovs TAElovas Kepdjow. guence ; comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p- 771, and notes oz Gal. ii. 13; the third, primarily pzrpose, but still, not infrequently as here, a shade of mean- ing that seems to lie between purpose and vesu/t, and even sometimes to ap- proximate to the latter; see notes oz 1 Thess. ii. 12, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 44. 6. Lastly, to complete this sum- mary, it may be noticed that this: pri- mary meaning of eis 7é with the infini- tive may be differentiated from that of apos 76 with the infinitive by observing that in the former the purpose is re- garded more as zmmediate, in the latter more as z/timate ; see notes oz Eph. IVa Tey rand a728 Zid. tends On kaTaxpao@a1, see notes on ch. vii. 31. 19. "HdeiPepos yip dv éx mavtwv] ‘For being free (now, and perma- nently, Winer, Gr. § 45. 2. 4) ofall men;’ appended (1b mAgoy Aéyet, Theoph.) confirmatory explanation (ydp; see notes oz 1 Thess. ii. 1) of the general attitude ef non-dependence on others which was specified in the preceding verses: the very avoidance of using his égovcia enabled him, without risk of imputation of interested motives, to subordinate himself. We have thus, not a confirmation of the clause imme- diately preceding (Meyer), nor a reply to a latent imputation,—that his in- dependence was designed to make his authority more felt (Hofmann), nor, yet again, any enhancement, by way of contrast, of what he had stated as to his independence (Chrys. ; 0d udvoy ovk €AaBov,— GAAa Kal edovAwoa,—a view , “clearly incompatible with the ydp), but an implied statement of the true 178 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. IX. 19, 20. 20 Kal eyevounv Tois "Iovdaiors ws *Iovdatos, va "Iovdaious Kep- Snow: Tois wd vowov ws WTO vomov, “2 @V avTOs UTd vomor, 20. wh dv abrds md vduov] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. omits the clause. rationale of the independent attitude which was the subject of the katxnua, It thus seems desirable to separate the verse slightly from the foregoing (Westc. and Hort; observe the initial capital in 7Z7sch.), and to regard it as an independent and elucidatory state- ment; comp. Reuss zz /oc. It glances, as Beza rightly observes, at the ov eiu) éAevOepos (ver. 1) with which the chap- ter opens, and shows what was the true eAcvbepla. The connection of éAebOepos with éx only occurs here: ard is the more usual (Rom. vii. 3; comp. vi. 18, 22, viii. 2, 21), and the more correct, form, as importing no idea of immer connection (ék): but merely pointing generally to those referred to as a body from which the subject stood free; comp. Kiihner, Gv. § 430 (intro- ductory comment), Harrison, Gr. Prep. S.V. ék, Pp. 230. tva Tovs mAclovas KepShow] 22 order that I might gain (z.e., in effect, ‘save,’ ver. 22) the more ;’ definite statement of the purpose of the rd éavrdv SovAdou1,—Rence the fuller translation. The maAeloves do not imply ‘quam plurimi’ (Est., Beng., Wordsw.),—a very doubtful interpre- tation, but simply ‘the greater number’ of those with whom the Apostle came into relation, the mdvtas above alluded to; see examples of the article in such expressions, in Kithner, Gv. § 465. 11. For similar instances of this use of kepdalvew, see Matt. xviii. 15, 1 Pet. iii. I, in both of which passages the fuller Christian meaning (‘lucrifit enim quod servatur,’ Grot.) is to be distinctly recognized. : 20. Kal éyevouny k.t.X.] And (to give special illustrations) 7 became to the Jews asa Jew ;’ the cat here appending to the general statement of ver. 19 some special examples. On this use of kal, see notes ov Phil. iv. 12, and comp. Eph. v. 18, and notes zz Joc. Examples of this form of the 7d éauvtdv dovAdoat are specified by St. Luke in his notices of the circumcision of Tim- othy (Acts xvi. 3), and of St. Paul’s acquiescence in regard of the request made to him by the elders at Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 26) ; comp. Acts xviii. 18. Tots bd vdpov] ‘to them that are under the law ;’ not, ‘under law,’ with ref- erence to the law as a general principle (Gifford, Zntrod. te Rom. p. 47), which would be plainly alien to this passage, but with reference to the Aosaic law (Est.), as suggested by the preceding clause (Jews), and by the contrasted clause in ver. 21 (Gentiles). Jews and Gentiles appear to be the two broad classes in the Apostle’s mind; between which to intercalate an ‘under law’ (Noachian or otherwise ; comp. Bengel) class, seems at variance with the broad and simple tenor of the passage. The Greek expositors, whose judgment on such a matter must be allowed to have great weight, though differing in de- tails, are unanimous in referring the véuos to the Mosaic law: so apparently also Copt., which inserts the definite article. The rots id vduov is, however, more than a mere éreéfyynots Tod mpore- pov (Chrys.), as it would naturally in- clude all that were bound by the Mosaic law, whether dwelling in Judza or elsewhere (Hofmann), and so gives to the foregoing term “Iovdato its widest significance, — Jews, viewed not merely in their strictly national, but in their Cuap. IX. 20-22. 1 CORINTHIANS. 179 ’ Saag ea , 5 , . 2 ee ey e ” hk iva Tovs wd vopov Kepdyjcw: *! rols avopots @S avo“os, LN wv dvowos cod arAN Evvopos Xpictod, iva Kepdavw tovs avomous* 21. @cod ..... Xptorod] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., Oe@..... Xpior@. In the con- cluding clause the reading Kepddvw (Westc. and Hort, xepdave) is adopted in all the above mentioned edd. on authority very nearly, as conclusive: ec. kepSfjow,—a very natural alteration to conform with verses 19 and 20. Tovs also is prefixed before avduous in all the same edd. on very clearly preponder- ating authority: Zec., omits the article. religious, aspect. On the occasional reference of the anarthrous véuos to the Mosaic law, see Cremer, £70/.- Theol. Worterb. p. 433, and comp. notes on Gal. ii. 19. +) Gv adros bd vopov] ‘ zo0t being myself under the law;’ avrés, in contrast to those who were so. The Apostle had died to the Mosaic law, that he might the more fully live to Christ; see Gal. ii. 19. The clause appears added, not to meet the objections of any opponents, but simply out of that depth of feeling on this subject which, probably not very long before, had found expression in the Epistle to the Galatians: comp. Gal. v. 48qq- 21. Tots dvdpots as Avopos] ‘Zo them that are without law, as without law ;’ ze. to the heathen, as one of them- selves, in the mode of address and in the tenor of arguments, as, to some extent, at Lystra (Acts xiv. 15 sq.), at Athens (Acts xvii.; see Origen in Cramer, Caz.) apparently, in some de- gree, before Felix (Acts xxiv. 25), and, not improbably,in addresses to heathens who, from time to time, came in con- tact with him in Rome (Acts xxviii. 30; comp. Phil. i. 13). The term &vouo: has here no ethical tinge, but simply stands in opposition to the ro?s bd vduor in ver. 20, and includes all who were not bound by the Mosaic law; avouous Aéye Tovs ew moAirevouevous Tod vduov, Theod.; comp. Suicer, 7hesaur. Vol. I. p. 366, Cremer, Worterd. p. 436, and a very pertinent quotation in Add. to Esth. iv. 12, éuionoa ddtav avduwy Kal BdeAvo- gouat Koltny amepituntwy Kal mdvTos &AAoTplov. py Ov K.T.A.] ‘220% being without law in regard of God, but under law in regard of Christ ;’ ex- planatory of the true meaning and ex- tent of the d&voula which the Apostle here alluded to: he was &voyuos, yet evvouos. The genitives fall under the general category of the gen. of relation (see Donalds. Gr. § 453. cc), and the more specific idea of dependence on ; see the numerous examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 421. 4: the Apostle was not without law in his dependence on God, but under law in his dependence on Christ. The meaning with datives (ec.) would practically be very little different, though the cases are funda- mentally opposed (Donalds. Gr. § 455) : the idea of dependence would, how- ever, have been lost in the more vague notion of mere reference ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 31. 6. iva. kepSavw Tods dvop.] ‘22 order that L might gain them that are without law.’ If we here adopt the “accentuation of the text, kepddvw will be the 1 aor. conj. of the older form of aorist éxépdava (Lobeck, Phryn. p. 740): if that of Westc. and Hort (see above, critical note), it will be the future. The former seems more likely, but it is impossible to decide positively either way. 22. éyevopny Tois arbevéowy aobevys] ‘I became weak to the weak. The 180 1 CORINTHIANS: Cnap. IX. 22. 23. 92 r / cal > Q , > fal / ivf \ > fal Lal tf EYEVOMYV TOLS ADUEVEOL ADVEVNS, Wa TOVS AOVEVELS KEponow * e fal ye Tos Tacw Yyeyova TavtTa, iva TavTws TWas coco. 23 crayTa 5€ Trou Sia TO evayyédLov, iva TVYKOLWWWVOS a’TOD yévopat. 22. agderns] So Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderant ancient authority; the internal arguments being also on the same side: Rec. prefixes @s; Zachm. includes it in brackets. The rd before mdvta (Rec.) is rejected by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly prepon- derating authority. 23. mavta] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and ffort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Aec., rovTo. whole tenor of the latter half of ch. viii. serves to define the meaning of aobevhs, as aobevav 7H Tiore: (Rom. xiv. E;COMp. 1D; XV. Tt MeSS, avepe 4) weak and scrupulous in matters re- lating to Christian practice; see notes on 1 Thess. l.c., and comp. Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 546, Cremer, Wor- terbuch, p. 529. To such the Apostle became aoGevtjs ; he viewed matters as from their standpoint, sympathized with their difficulties, and gave his advice accordingly. Origen (Cramer, Caten.) cites in illustration the advice given in ch. vii. 2, 11, and other and similar passages. To such the term kepdfjow is legitimately applicable. Treated without consideration they might become alienated and antago- nized, and at last be verily driven into the sad company of the d&moAAduevor: consider ch. viii. 11, Rom. xiv. 15. Tois Tact K.T.A.] ‘¢o all men have LT become all things;’ the article with mdytes specifying ¢e all with whom he had come in contact, and the perfect yéyova designedly marking the enduring nature of the principle on which he acted. To these mdvtes he was always ready to be mayra, z.e. ‘omnium moribus et affectibus guantum licet se accommo- dare, Est. It was no indifferentism, no compliance with prevailing preju- dices, but a spiritually wise sympathy that guided the Apostle in all his varied relations to those with whom for the time he had to do: see Neander zz loc., whose comments on this clause are just and suggestive. tva TavTws Tas Chow] ‘that by all means L may save some:’ by every manner that from time to time might be avail- able; ‘omni quovis modo,’ Grimm. The meaning ‘utique,’ ‘ profecto’ (comp. Chrys., De Wette), is lexically admissible, but less in harmony with the tenor of the context. It will be observed that in thus closing the noble utterance the Apostle passes from the kepdnow of preceding clauses to the definite and unmistakable oéow of the present; comp. Calvin 77 Joc. 23. wavTa St wow «.7.d.] 6 But all things I do for the Gospel’s sake ;’ closing statement by means of the par- tially adjunctive and partially contras- tive dé, the primary contrastive force of the particle (see Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2) being traceable in the implied state- ment, that not only in reference to what was specified, dz¢ in all matters, there was only one principle of action, — d1a Td evayyéAtov: ‘hactenus ostendit Apostolus, tanto studio se laborasse in Evangelio propter aliorum -salutem : nunc declarat se id faciendo etiam suam ipsius salutem spectasse,’ Estius; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 361 sq., and comp. notes on ch. viii. 8. It was da 7d evayyéAtov, ‘propter Evangelium,’ Vulg., a pregnant expression more fully explained in the following clause. Cuap. IX. 23-25. Run, as men run for a prize; and as I do. CORINTHIANS: 181 4 Ov« oldate Ste of ev atadiw TpéyovTes a ef mavtes pev tpéxovow, eis dé AawPaver 70 BpaPelov; obtas lal € > / / > TpéxeTe, Wva katadaBynte. ™ mas dé 0 aywrifouevos TavTa éyKpa- tva ovykowwwves K.7.A.] 6272 order that I may bea fellow partaker thereof (with others) :’ explanatory statement of the preceding words. The Apostle was thus doing all things that he might become a sharer with others (‘ovv et yiyvouat magnam habent modestiam,’ Bengel) in the Gospel and the salvation that was proclaimed in it; 6 yap rod evayyeAlov okdmos Tov avOparwy 7 Tw- tnpia, Theodoret. This was the Bpa- Betov to which he alludes in the fol- lowing verse. The && 1d evayyéAsov has thus no reference to spreading the Gospel, but to sharing in its blessings: ‘participem evangelii fieri est ejus fructum_percipere,’ Calvin. 24. Ovx oldare «.t.d.] Avow ye not that they which run in a course run all ;’ exhortation suggested by the last clause of the preceding verse, and by the remembrance of the great purpose that must needs animate all action; the possibility of running and not _ obtaining (comp. ver. 27) naturally emerges from what has been said, and gives a terse solemnity to the exhorta- tion; mAnkTiK@Tepoy avtois Siadréyera, Theoph. The allusion (see Phil. iii. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 7) is obviously (év oradie TpEXELV, TTEpavos, Ver. 25) to the games, and, as the circumstances of the case indicate, most probably to the Isth- mian games, which, as we know, were continued after the fall of Corinth (Pausan. //7st. 11,2; comp. Suet. Vero, § 24); but it is no more than an allu- sion, and necessitates no pressing of details, e.g. in reference to the orddioy, which is more prominent in connection with the Olympian games, or in refer- ence to the orépavos (ver. 25), which, although equally @uprés (whether a wreath of wild olive or of pine) was dif- ferent at the Olympia and the Isthmia. For a description of the otddioy (in length 203 yards), see Winer, Real- Weorterb. s.v. ‘Stadium,’ and Smith, Dict. of Antig. p. 1055 (ed. 2). els 8 AapBaver rd BpaBetov] ‘ dut one vecetveth the prize ;’ statement (from the known facts of the case) designed to enhance the warning which follows. The BpaBetoy (as in Phil. iii. 14) is the prize given to the victor, — in the case of the Isthmian victor, a pine-wreath, in the case of the Christian, (w) aidvos, I Tim. vi. 12. The derivation of the word is uncertain; see notes oz Phil. ili. 14. Whatever be its derivation, ‘bravo’ (Wordsw., comp. Edwards) is not etymologically connected with it, the basis of our word ‘brave ’ being almost certainly of Ccltic origin: see Skeat, Ztym. Dict. s.v. p. 75, ottws tpéxere K.T.A.] ‘50 ru, in order that ye may attain ;’ scil., ‘run as the successful competitor runs, in order that, etc.,’ the #a having its regular and proper force, and not (as Beza, al.) to be regarded as a mere equivalent of éore. Such a usage is probably only once (Rev. xiii. 13) certainly to be found in the N.T.; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 9.6. On this text see a sound prac- tical sermon by Frank, Serm. xxvu. Vol. I. p. 432 sqq. A.C. Libr.), see also, on the former portion, Newman, Paroch. Serm. Vol. v. p. 289 sqq. 25. was 8 6 dywvildpevos] ‘ But every man that striveth in the games ;’ statement, in the form of a slightly antithetical specification, of the con- dition to which every competitor must conform. The participle with the article is here equivalent to a substan- 182 r CORINTHIANS, Cuap. IX. 25, 26. TeveTal, exeivor ev ovv wa POaptov otéhavov AaBwow, jyueis Sé apOaprov. tive (Winer, Gr. § 45. 7), but has this advantage that it presents to the reader more distinctly the procedure, the element of time not being wholly obliterated. TaYTO éyKpaTeveTar] ‘7s temperate in all things ;’ the mavra being the appended accusative defining the object to which the 7d éyxparever Oat extends: see Kriiger, Sprach/. § 46. 4. 1, notes oz Phil. 1. 6, and on the general principle of this structure, Kiihner, Gy. § 410.1. This accusative is sometimes termed the accus. of ‘ the remoter object’ (see notes oz 1 Zim. vi. 5), sometimes the accus. of the guantitative (see notes oz Phil. iii. 8), or of the gualitative object (Hartung, Casus. p. 55, 61, notes oz Gal. vi. 6), according to the tenor of the word or ‘the context, but is in every place re- ferable to the same principle of the accusative supplying the complementary notion or the explanatory adjunct which is required for fully under- standing the predication; see Kiihner, Gr. § 410. 6, and the full and instruc- tive comments of Rumpel, Casuslehre, p- 161 sqq. The probable origin of the construction is stated in notes oz Tim. vi. 5. éxeivor piv odv k.T.A.] ‘they verily (2.e. the competitors in the games), in order that they may receive a corruptible crown, but we (Christians) an incorruptible ;’ the verb being mentally supplied from the preceding éyxparevera, the wey being antithetical to the succeeding 6é, andso dropped in translation, and the ody, with its usual retrospective reference (Donalds. Gr. § 548. 31), continuing and concluding the subject and the contrast: comp. Phil. ii. 23, and on the associated particles, see Moulton’s note to Winer, Gr. § 52. 8) and comp. notes on ch. vi. 4. It thus seems best with Tisch. and 26 2.,. , ef L ¢ > > 5 ao e ey@® TOWVY OVTWS TPEYW @S OVUK GONADS, OUTWS Westc. and Hort, to place only a comma after éyxpareverat, and not, as in Auth., to break the verse into two semi-independent sentences. On the verse, see Frank, Sevm. xxvill. Vol. Il. p. 1 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.), and on this and the two following verses, Mill, Univ. Serm. XXII. p. 422 sqq. 26. é€y@ tolvuy «.7.A.] ‘LZ then so run as not uncertainly ;’ consequent and concluding statement of the principle on which the Apostle (éyé is emphatic), in accordance with what he had already said, himself regularly acted ; the rofvuy, with its usual modified inferential force (see Kiihner, Gr. § 545. 4, Hartung, Partik, Vol. I. p. 348), marking the consequent nature of the action adopted, the reason why he acted in the manner subsequently mentioned ; see Hofmann iz loc. The particle occurs only in two other passages, Luke xx. 25, and Heb. xiil. 13, and in both (according to the best text) at the beginning of the clause —a position which it hardly ever occupies in classical writers; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 342. It always marks a weak and, so to say, transitory form of conclusion, and thus stands in contrast with the stronger and more prominently placed tolyap: see esp. Baumlein, Partzk. p. 251 sq. In the ds od« GbyAws the ds answers to the preceding oftws and marks the mode or the asfects under which the tpéxew took place (comp. Bernhardy, Synt. p. 333, and notes oz Eph. v. 22, and ov Col. iii. 4), while the ov« adnrAws (scil. tpéxwv) defines more exactly. There was no want of clearness in course or direction; the Apostle xara oxémov édiwxey (Phil. iii. 14), and with no uncertain or unsteady step (‘non quasi in incertum,’ Vulg., Goth., ; sim. Arm.); he knew whither and in whose rt, Cuap. IX. 26, 27. 1 CORINTHIANS. 183 f ¢ > pe A Ld Q7 9 re / an! lal \ TuKTEvw WS OK aépa Sépwv* * ad Hrwmidfo pov TO cHua Kai Sovraywya, 1 Tws ddAXrous KnpvEAas avTOS adoKYLOS YéEVvOpUAL. presence he was running the great race of eternal life. The Syr. (‘in aliquid quod ignotum sit’), Copt. (‘non ad opus’), lose the full force of the graphic adnaAws: the Aith., as only too often, gives a short and unsatisfactory para- phrase. as ovk dépa Sépav] ‘as not smiting the air ;’ the ovk being closely bound up with the words that follow, and, as always with participles in the N. T., negativing distinctly and emphatically the predication of the verb so that the ov« a¢pa S¢pwy becomes a sort of concrete predicate ; see Winer, Gr.§ 55.5.8. The ‘non quasi aerem verberans’ of the Vulgate (compare Auth.) thus misses the exact force of the sharply enunciated ‘ut non aerem cedens’ (Beza), which is conveyed by. the original. Some of the patristic commentators see in the words a tacit reference to the devil,—éxw yap bv TAHEw, TovtéoT1, Tov SidBodroy (Chrys., Theoph.), but miss the true idea, viz. that it is the Gua (Tis capKéds, Col. ii. 11; comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 24) against which the Apostle directs his blows. These blows were not struck against the empty air, but, as the next clause shows, fell firmly on their object. The idea of a oxiapaxia (Bengel, Wordsw., al.) is thus alien to the context: the Apostle is describing not ‘que cer- tamini serio preemitterentur’ (Bengel), but the ‘ certamen’ itself. 27. GAN trwmdto pout copa] ‘det’ (in contrast with the two preceding negative clauses) .‘/ druise my body,’ ‘contundo corpus meum,’ Beza; bruise it black and blue (‘lividum facio,’ Clarom.), each blow striking it. The word, as the derivation indicates (id &), properly means making, by blows, livid marks under the eyes (Arist. Rhet. mi. 11, Plutarch, Mor. p. 921 F), and thence, generally, anywhere on the body. It thence passes naturally into a metephorical meaning; see Luke xviii. 5, and compare Arist. Pax, 541, modes orwmacueva. The wordis fully discussed and illustrated in Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 1400 sq. Some later Mss. (see authorities in 7Z7sch.) read brwmd(w, but the reading, though advocated by Hofmann, is rightly re- jected by all the best critical editors. kal SovAaywyo] ‘and lead it off as a bond-slave ;? as a victor, who having conquered his adversary, leads him off as a captive anda slave: comp. Diodor. fist. XII. 24, mpos tov &pxovta Bov- Aaywyeiv. The completeness of the subjugation of the ‘flesh with its affections and lusts’ is well marked by this emphatic word. On this text see Frank, Serm. xxv. Vol. I. p. 397 sqq.- (A.-C. Libr.), and on the subject of Christian discipline generally, Harless, Chr. Eth. § 44. c, p. 359 sqq. (Transl), Rothe, Zheol. Eth. § 873, Vol. Il. p. 470 sqq. (ed. 2). eh tras &AXots Knpvéas k.T.A.] ‘lest by any means, after having been a herald to others, I myself might be rejected, —‘having declared the conditions and nature of the mighty contest by Christian preaching;’ the verb retaining its primary meaning conformably with the whole foregoing illustration, but also implying the particular means by which the Christian herald performed his great duty. De Wette suggests that if the metaphor had been intended to be maintained the Apostle would have rather written Khpué yevduevos. Possibly; but, in the midst of words so appropriate and pertinent, it seems unlikely that all the primary force of the word is to be obliterated. In the serious words that close the verse, a&déximos seems to be 184 Take warning from our fathers in the wilder- ness; do not as they did; take heed, but vue be trustful. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. IX. 27-X. 2 X. Ov Gér(w yap vas ayvociv, aderpoi, v4 e , id lal 4 ec 5 \ UA OTL Ol TATEPES NUMV TaVTES UTTO THY vepEednv Hoav Kal twavtes Sia THs Oaracons OuAAOov, 2 Kal TavTes eis 1. yap] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating evidence: ec., 5é. also, to some extent, a ‘vocabulum agonisticum’ (Bengel); not so much ‘reprobus,’ Vulg., as ‘rejectaneus,’ Beza, al. ‘uskusans,’ [reprobatus] Goth.,—rejected, sc. as unworthy of the crown and the prize. The doctrinal deduction thus becomes, to some extent, modified; still the serious fact remains that the Apostle had before him the possibility of losing that which he was daily preaching to others. As yet he counted not himself to have attained (Phil. iii. 12); that blessed assurance was for the closing period of a faithful life (2 Tim. iv. 7): comp. Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 235, p- 398 sq. (Transl.), and Chr. £th. Part 11. § 166, p. 403 sq. (Transl.). X. 1-13. Warning, with closing en- couragement, against the sins comnitted by their forefathers in the wilderness. 1. Ov O€Aw yap K.t.r.] ‘For LF would not have you ignorant, brethren,’ solemn confirmation (ydp) of the foregoing im- plied exhortation to self-discipline and self-denial by examples taken from the early history of the Jewish nation. The formula ob @éAw (or OéAomev) ayvo- eiv, occurs six times in St. Paul’s Epp. (Rom. i. 13, xi. 25, 1 Cor. xii. 1, 2 Cor. i. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 13), and in all marks the introduction of a subject of im- portance: what followed was some- thing that was not to be overlooked or ignored, ot marépos Tpav[ ‘or fathers ;? te. our forefathers in the wilderness,’ — not with any reference to spiritual descent, or to the idea of the Christian Church being a continu- ation of the Jewish (Alf.), but simply with a national reference, many — though not the majority — of those ad- dressed, being of Jewish descent ; comp. Rom. iv. 1, where the 7uév is similarly used, and, as far as numbers were concerned, still more appropriately. On the number of the Jews in all parts of the world, see Philo, de Legat. Vol. II. p. 586 (ed. Mangey). Tavres bd THY veheAny Foav] “were all under the cloud, scil. the known cloud (Ex. xiii. 21, xiv. 19) which was the seat of the guiding presence of Jeho- vah among His covenant people: comp. Ps. cv. 39. The host that fol- lowed the mystic cloud may readily be conceived as to a great extent under its surface (76): see Num. x. 34 (Alex.), 7 vepéAn eyevero oxidCovoa én avrois nuepas, and comp. Wisdom xix. 7, Thy mapeuBorAyy oxidCovoa vepedn. All (five times repeated) enjoyed the mercies and privileges mentioned in this and the following verses; but not with all, nay, not with the greater por- tion of them, was God well pleased (ver. 5). 2. es Tov Mavoty eBarrlocavro] ‘ ve- ceived baptism unto Moses ;’ the middle verb here having its not unusual causa- tive sense (Donalds. Gr. § 432. I. ce, Kiihner, Gv. § 374. 7); comp. Gal. v. 3, vi. 13. It may be observed, how- ever, that in the later Greek the dif- ference between the aor. middle and the aor. passive, is, in cases such as the present, practically scarcely appre- ciable; see Kiihner, Gr. § 377. 4. ¢. obs. The strong and significant Bamtt- - Cuap. X. 2-4. Fr €ORINTHIANS. 185 n \ lal tov Mavony éBarticavto év TH vepédyn Kai év 7H Oadraoon, 8xal Tavtes TO a’TO Bpaua TvevpaTiKov Eparyov, * Kal TavTes 2. éBarricayvto] So Rec., Treg. (with margin), Rev., Westc. and Hort (with margin),—still only on the authority of B, the later mss., the great body of mss., and Ff:—Lachm., Tisch., éBartic@noav. Internal evidence, however, so clearly favors the more difficult reading éBamrricuyto, of which éBamrric@ncay would be a very natural correction, that we seem justified in the retention of Rec. (ca8a: cis (see Rom. vi. 3, Gal. iii. 27, and comp. Matt. xxviii. 19, Acts viii. Roy Sy I'Cor. 1. 13) 915, al.) marks the sort of close spiritual union be- tween Moses and the people: he was their pecitns (Gal. iii. 19), and the leader appointed by God (mpwroardtns, CEcum.) in whom they believed: see Ex. xiv. 13. On the meaning of the formula, see notes oz Gal. iii. 27, and comp. Cremer, 476/.-Theol. Worterb. Dp: 127. év TH vedéAy Kal év TH Oardoon] ‘27 the cloud and in the sea.’ They passed through the latter, and were under (id) and overshadowed by the former, so that the sea and the cloud, each, materially as well as lo- cally (the cloud was, as it were, dif- fused and suspended water ; comp. Gen. i. 7, Job xxvi. 8, contrast Jude 12), were the element in which their typical baptism took place. To regard the vepédn as symbolizing the Holy Spirit (Theodoret, Maier) seems inconsistent with the simple and broad character of the passage. Moreover, the cloud- baptism took place first (see Ex. xiii. 21),— an inversion of the doctrinal order (John iii. 5), which, in a passage of this nature, would probably have been avoided, if the vepéAn was in- tended by the Apostle here to symbo- lize the Spirit. Observe, too, the repetition of the preposition, which enhances the difficulty. For a sermon on this verse, see Lightfoot, Works, Vol. vi. p. 412 sqq. (ed. Pitman). 3. TOadTd Boapa mvevpatikdy] ‘¢he 24 same spiritual food ;’ the substantive and adjective coalescing, as it were, to form one compound idea, — ‘the same food, and it was spiritual food:’ see Winer, Gr. § 20. I. a, and comp. Gal. i. 4, and notes zz loc. The spiritual food referred to was, it need hardly be said, that which typified one part of the other sacrament (comp. John vi. 31, 32), the manna (Ex. xvi. 14, 15), which, though not the true &pros ék Tod ovpavod (John vi. 32), very dis- tinctly typified it by its supernatural origin and character. The reading is somewhat doubtful: 1d aird, though bracketed by Westc. and Hort, is supported by an amount of external evidence that cannot be set aside; but the order of the three following words is more open to doubt. Z%sch., Treg., Westc.and ffort adopt the order mvevp. Bp@ua epayov (Lachm., mv. &p. BpGpa, with wholly insufficient author- ity) on good and, externally considered, perhaps slightly preponderant, author- ity: the strong likelihood, however, of correction, on account of grammatical reasons, seems just to turn the scale in favor of the text (Rec., Rev.). 4. To add k.T.A.] ‘the same spiritual drink ;’ as at Rephidim, when the rock in Horeb was smitten (Ex. xvii. 6; comp. Num. xx. 2 sqq.), and the waters came forth so abundantly that both the congregation and their cattle drank of it. That the aorist @mov here means ‘ they drank throughout,’ z.e. from end to end of their wanderings (Evans) cannot be 186 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP. X. 4. y as > a TO QUTO TVEvpAaTLKOY ETLOY Troma’ ETrWoV yap EK TVEVpLATLKHS akorovbovons méTpas, » métpa Se Hv 6 Xpiatos* *adN ov‘ €v 4. 7) avTd mvevpatinoy @mov méua] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and ffort, on clearly preponderating authority: Lec., Rev., 7d abTd méua mvevpaTtiKdy €mtov. This latter reading would be in symmetrical order with the former clause, but is, for that very reason, open to suspicion. In the last clause the preponderance is in favor of the text (so Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Westc. and fort): Rec., Rev., 4 5& wérpa. correctlymaintained. The tense simply implies ‘quod preteriit, sed ita ut non definiatur quam late pateat id quod actum est,’ Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 17: see the valuable remarks of Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 3. 6, and comp. notes oz Gal. v. 24. émwvov yap «.T.A.] ‘for they drank from a spiritual rock accompanying them ;’ semi-parenthet- ical confirmation of the preceding clause by a statement of the actual circumstances; it was verily sfzrztual drink,- for it came from a sfiritual rock, and that rock followed them. The imperfect émvoy marks, with its usual descriptive force, what those re- ferred to did on their journey (see Kiihner, Gr. § 383. 2, Schmalfeld, Syzzz. § 55), the tertiary predicate &koAovbobons Donalds. Gr. § 492) just noting an additional circumstance which makes the passage more intelligible. The exact meaning of the whole clause is, however, doubtful. That there was an old tradition among the Jews that a mysterious well, ‘sicut petra, sicut alveus apum, et globosus’ (Bammidbar, R.S. 1, cited by Wetst.), accompanied the children of Israel during the forty years of their. wanderings, — appears to be certain (see the quotations in Lightfoot, Sch6ttgen, and Wetst.): but it may be reasonably doubted whether St. Paul is here referring to the tra- dition, there being nothing whatever in the words to make such a reference by any means the certainty that it is deemed by Alf. al. The prominent word throughout is mvevpatinds: the food was spiritual, and so too was the drink, for the rock out of which it came (whether at Rephidim or Kadesh, — if the occasions were really different, —or elsewhere) was no earthly rock, but a spiritual rock, a manifestation, on each occasion, of the spiritual and wonder-working presence of Christ, who, as the Adyos &capkos, thus vouch- safed to accompany and to help His people; comp. Wisdom x. 15, and see Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. cap. 1. 11. It was thus the knowledge of the mystery, viz. that the yet unrevealed and not yet incarnate Word was ever present in the Church of the wilderness, and not a grotesque Rabbinical tradition, that suggested to the Apostle this illustration of the spiritual nature of the wéua of the Israelites. The Bpadua spoke for itself: comp. Psalm Ixxviii. 24, 25. % St wérpa k.t.d.] ‘and the rock (the mvevpatikh métpa here spoken of) was Christ ;’ was verily identical with Christ, as the manifestation of His wonder-working presence. So in effect Phot. (Cramer, Catez.), though some- what obliterating the idea of actual identity ; aicOn7 uty jv % wérpa SnAovdte 7 Udwp Tois ‘IopanAltas dvaBAvoaca: GAN OdX? TH oikela Picer TodTO eBAucer, GAAG TH Suvduer THS Kar’ évépyeray Tapov- ons avTh mvevmatinjs wétpas Kal &koAov- Oovons tH xpeia tay Sujdvrwv. The streams of the spiritual rock were to the Israelites what the spiritual food CHap. X. 4-6. 1 CORINTHIANS. 187 n f > lal > f e / Ne) a FOLS TELOTLY AUTWY NuooKna ev 0) Ocos, KATECTPWUTNTAY Yap év TH €pijpo. 6 la) bY: J € Lal > Nel > XN \ Tadta 5€ TvTrot nuav éeyernOnoav, eis TO py 5. nvddcnoev] So Lachm., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, with ABC and a few cursives: Rec., Zisch., evdoxnoev. of the precious blood of Christ is to Christians. In each case we recognize the mystery of a Real Presence: ‘vere presens erat’ (scil. petra spiritualis), Bengel: see Calvin zz Zoc. On this and the preceding verse, see a discourse by Mede, Works, Vol. I. p. 325 sqq. (London, 1664). 5: GAN’ odk év Tots mreloow k.T.A.] ‘ Howbett, with the greater part of them God was not well pleased ;’ the Gard with its proper adversative force (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturiy,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2) calling at- tention to the sad truth, that though all had these mercies vouchsafed to them, the greater part, nay verily all save two, had incurred God’s dis- pleasure, had received them in vain. Long-continued murmurings called forth at last the solemn sentence, ‘ Ye shall not come into the land, concern- ing which I lifted up my hand that I would make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun, ... as for you, your carcasses shall fall in this wilder- ness, Num. xiv. 30, 32 (Rev.). Kateotpobyncav yap] ‘for they were overthrown ;’ not merely ‘ceciderunt,’ Syr., but ‘prostrati sunt,’ Vulg., Copt. : their overthrow (by death) was the judicial act of God; see Num. xiv. 16, katéotpwoev (Heb. ‘mactavit’) abrods év 7H é€pjuw, and comp, Job xii. 23, katactpwyyiwy €dvn. The word occurs both in earlier (Herod. vil. 53, xaré- OTpwrTo mdvTes, IX. 26, KaTéstpwyTo of BdpBapor), and later Greek (2 Macc. v. 26, xl. II, xii. 38, al.), the original meaning of ‘prostration’ or ‘ over- throw’ (from which there is no need here to depart) often passing into the general meaning of ‘slaying’ or ‘destroy- ing;’ comp. Atlian, (7st. Anzm. VII. 2, Aomds .... avTov’s KaTéoTpwoe, and Xen. Cyrop. Wl. 3. 64. of Teépra .. kateotp@vyvucay. In the latest Greek the word is found in the technical meaning of ‘entering in a public docu- ment;’ see Ducang. Gloss.s.v. Fora discourse on this verse, see Mede, Works, Vol. I. p. 333 sqq. (London, 1664). 6. Tatra 8 kK1.A.] ‘Vow these things’ (‘beneficia qua populus ac- cepit; et peccata que idem admisit,’ Bengel) ‘were our examples;’ not ‘examples of us,’ ‘figures of us,’ Wordsw. (‘in figura facta sunt nostri,’ Vulg.), ‘so that we are the avtitumai,’ Meyer, but —‘were (or became) ex- amples for us,’ Arm.; ‘figura nobis erant,’ Syr. Copt. (see the expansion in f&th.), the general history mvolving a typical significance. The jju@v is thus a gen. of the object rather than of the subject (pbs judas, Origen), z.c. ‘types or examples to guide us:’ see Winer, G7. 30. I. a, and compare Donalds. Gr. § 454. aa. The former interpretation is grammatically tenable (comp. Rom. v. 14), and appears in the margin of Rev., but it almost necessitates the awkward- ness of regarding tavra as an accus. of reference, whereas the position of the pronoun is clearly one of emphasis. If tadra be retained as the nominative, the awkwardness is even greater: events would then be regarded as in typical relation to persons. That the Tumot were of a monitory character, naturally follows from the statement in ver. 5, which, as it were, prepares the . TOAAOUS 188 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. X. 6, 7. “ An b] . a \ > a > s clvar pas eriOupntas KaKor, Ka0ws Kakelvor émreOvpnoav. 7 unde eldwrodatpat yiverOe, Kalws TEs avTaV* WaTEp YéyparT- 7. Samep] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, with clearly preponderating authority: Rec., ds. The form re@y (N, wiv is adopted by Z7sch., Westc. and Hort, on good, but apparently not preponderating, authority. reader for the subsequent details: ra map’ éxeivous yevdueva év taker TUTwy Bv- vara Has madevev, Theodorus. The verb is plural, not only by the principle of attraction (Kiihner, Gr. § 369. 3), but in recognition of the different details into which the radta was to be ex- panded. In verse 11 the details are, as it were, again collected together in the raira, and verbs singular follow. In regard of meaning, it may be re- marked that éyevn@yoay is passive only in form: see Thomas Mag. p. 189, Lobeck, Phxyz. p. 108 sq., and notes on Eph. iii. 7, and on Col.iv. 7. The form is a later and Doric form. els TO pi) clvat] ‘40 the intent that we should not be:’ purpose involved in these typical and monitory dispensa- tions. The circumstances of the past did not only admit of an application to the Church of the present, but involved it teleologically ; see Hofmann 77 /oc., and for details of this application (sometimes fanciful) made by early writers, the notes and citations of Wordsw. 77 Joc. érvOupntas Kakov] ‘/usters after evil things, as they also lusted,—scil. in their various de- sires after evil things,— not exclusively in the particular case mentioned, Num. xi. 4; the correlating kai marking that the Corinthians would be like them if they so lusted: each party would alike be émOuuntal; comp. notes oz 1 Thess. ii. 19. The «al disappears in the corre- sponding clauses in the verses that follow; and quite naturally. The present verse is general ; ‘fundamentum malorum concupiscentia,’ Bengel: the succeeding verses deal with the varied exemplifications of the evil principle. To iterate the nai (Rec. inserts the particle in verses 9, 10) would make the verses monotonous, and add nothing to the force of the statements. The gen- eral principle then being laid down, the Apostle proceeds to specify. To de- sire still to ‘continue usages (ch. viii. 1 sq.) which practically involved a dis- tinct contact with the heathenism of the past is the first and worst instance of such an émOuuia. 7. pySé elSododdtpar yiver Ge] ‘zezther become idolaters ;’ transition into the imperatival form, the wndé, as Hofmann rightly observes, preserving its con- nection with the mu in the preceding verse, and indicating that though the émOuuerv is there probably general in its scope, the particular instance of Num. xi. 4 was present in the Apostle’s thoughts. The strong term eidwAo- Adtpa is used as marking quietly but distinctly the danger they incurred in having any contact with eidwAdéuta or feasts in the eidwAecfoy (ch. viii. 10): npeua Tots Ta eldwddbuvTa éaOiovtas aivirrerat, Chrys. (Cramer, Cat.) The garyeiy kad metvy of the citation makes the significance of the warning perfectly clear. The passage referred to is Ex. Xxxii. 6, where the festival is described that was held the day after the altar had been built before the golden calf. It is quoted exactly as in the LXX. matte] ‘zo sfort;’ to take part in sports, probably in honor of the image (Theoph., Calvin), after the festival; dancing (not necessarily ‘lasciva sal- tatio,’ Bengel) forming, as we know it did in this case (Ex. xxxii. 19), a Cuap. X. 7-9. 1 CORINTHIANS. 189 tat ExdOicev 6 dads ghayeiy Kal meiv, Kal avéotnoay trai€ew. 8 undé topvevowev, Kabws Ties avT@Y éTopvevoay, Kal éTrecaV Lal (~ f ” al 4: wid uépa elkoou TpEls yudddes. 9 \ > / \ pndée éxrreipafmpev Tov 8. @recav] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., Rev., érecov. The omission of the ev before mwé nuepa is adopted in all the above mentioned edd., on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. év mid juepa. prominent part. There is no reason for thinking that it here includes any reference to the sin specified in the following verse (comp. Wordsworth). That maifew may have that meaning depends on the context; neither matew nor PMx necessarily involves it. All that is here implied is probably what is expressed by Chrys. (Cramer, Caz.) ; Xopods oThoavtes Tep) Toy udaxov, emaiCov XopevovTes Eumpoabev avrov. 8. pdt tropvedwpev] ‘either let us commit fornication ;’ a second form of émibuula kakav, often found in connection with idolatry, but, as the Epistle implies (comp. ch. v. I sqq., vi. 13 sqq:), and ancient history plainly specifies (comp. Strabo, Geogr. VIII. 6. 20), long connected with the city of Corinth. Bengel calls attention to the change of person. In verses 7 and 10 the second person is adopted; in the first case, the nature of the sin specified seems to preclude the Apostle, even under the form of epistolary comity, there grouping himself with those whom he was addressing ; in the second case, he is condemning a sin which seems to have clung to the Church of Corinth (comp. Clem.-Rom. Cor. cap. 3), and probably showed itself in ref- erence to himself. In each case there is an instinctive propriety which led to the almost unconsciously made change: “utrumque decore,’ Bengel. elkoot tpeis] The number specified in the Old Testament (and so also in Philo, Jose- phus, and Rabbinical writers) ‘ of those that died in the plague’ was 24,000 (Num. xxv. 9). The slight discrepancy has been accounted for in various ways, all more or less artificial,— some inter- preters pressing the wid juépa as con- trasted with the total duration of the plague, others supposing that the exact number (as known by tradition) was really midway between the two round numbers, and that in the O. T. the higher, and by St. Paul the lower, round number was used. Common sense seems to suggest, that the Apostle was citing from memory, and, as the exact number was of no moment, did not deem it necessary to refer to the original narrative. 9. pnSe exrepdfopev tov Kiuprov] ‘neither let us tempt the Lord ;’ scil. God, as evinced by the passage subse- quently referred to, Num. xxi. 4 sqq.; comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 18,19. The stronger form éxmepd(ew (in classical Greek éxmeipac0u) is found in three other passages in the N.T., Matt. iv. 7, Luke iv. 12 (from Deut. vi. 16), and Luke x. 25, in all of which the preposition ap- pears to add emphasis and to mark the determined nature of the act. The meaning here and in Matt. iv. 7 and iv. 12 is rightly expressed by Grimm (Zex. s.v.) as ‘patientiam vel ultricem potestatem explorare.’ It was a sin of mingled unbelief, impatience, and pre- sumptuousness, emanating from the evil heart of man; ééemelpacay tov Ocdy év tats Kkapdias avt@v, Ps. Ixxvii. 18 (LXX); comp. Mark vii. 21. What peculiar manifestation of the sin is here in the Apostle’s thoughts has 190 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. X. 9, 10. Ko 6 / > Lal b] / \ e x a ” uplol', KAU@S TLWES AUTWY ETTELPATAV, KAL VTO THY odpewp > OAR 10 de f. ia) / > Led », / aT@NAUYTO. pode yoyyutete, Kalarrep TWes avT@y eyoyyvaar, 9. Ktpiov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort. on clearly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., Xpuotdv. The same edd. omit kal before rwes, on authority still more preponderant. Some slight doubt might be felt in regard of &médduvto ( Zisch., Treg., Rev., Westc.and Hort); but as the external authority is good, and as it would be far less likely to a correction of &méAovTo (Rec., Lachm.) than vice versd, the less usual amréAAvyTo is to be preferred. 10. KaOdrep] So Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on strong internal as well as good external evidence, the tendency to correct by conforming to the xa0és in the five preceding verses being obviously great: ka0aés, Lachm., Rec. The omission of «ai before twes is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority. been variously stated both by earlier and later commentators. It seems, however, natural to think that he is including all forms of sin prevalent at Corinth that might be deemed more especially to involve presumptuousness and wearying out of God’s patience (comp. especially Isa. vii. 13, where ‘wearying God’ stands in connection with tempting Him;’ ‘est enim ten- tatio patientiz contraria,’ Calvin), and that he is not pointing to any particular form of the sin. If we are to draw our inference solely from the ka@éds «.7.A., then the sin would seem to be a longing for thesensual gratifications of their old heathen life, and a desire to shake off the restraints of Chris- tianity. To regard the sin as pointing toa desire for signs (dt: wep) onuctwy éudxovro, Chrys.), or presumptuous use of the gift of tongues (Theodoret), seems in no degree hinted at in the context. éemre(pacrav] ‘ tempted ;’ absolutely; so Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm. ; see Winer, Gr. § 22.1. A®th., Meyer, De Wette, al., supply a’rdy. The word clearly can be used absolutely, as is shown by the term 6 7reipd(wv, Matt. iv. 5, I Thess. iii. 5, and by instances such as Hom. Odyss. 1X. 281, &s pdto meipd- (wv, ewe © ob AdOev ciddra moAAd. The reading éfemeloacay (Zisch., Lach- mann; Westc. and Hort in margin) has good external support, but strong internal evidence against it. trd tov Shewv araddvTO] ‘perished by the serpents ;’ scil. those mentioned in the well-known narrative, Num. xxi. 6. The imperfect marks the past event in its then course and accomplishment, and, as it were, brings the scene more fully before us; see Kiihner, Gr. § 383. 2, Donalds. Gr. § 426. aa. On the use of tmé with neuter verbs of which the meaning can receive a passive turn (wdoxew, Matt. xvii. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 14, mAnyas AauBdvew, 2 Cor. xi. 24), see Winer, Gr. § 47. s. v. td. The power which produces death is regarded as’ actively efficient. 10. pnde yoyyilere] ‘ zetther mur- muy ;’ manifest a froward and dis- contented spirit, commonly with an associated prepositional clause (ard, Matt. xx. 11, mpds, Luke v. 30, 7epl, John vi. 41, 61, vii. 32) marking against whom the vyoyyvouds was directed. Here, as the reference to the O. T. is clearly to Num. xvi. 41 (no violent death being associated with any other instance of murmuring), the object of the yoyyvouds would seem to be, per- haps in the first place, St. Paul and those associated with him (see notes on ver. 8), just as Moses and Aaron Cuap. X. 10, II. 1 CORINTHIANS. 191 Kal am@dovtTo vTrd Tod dNOOpevTOD. Tadta Sé TUTUKaS cUVE- > / > / \ X\ / ¢ n >] A x v2 Bawev éxeivous, éypadn Sé mpos vovGeciay tudv, eis ods TA TEAN II. taita dé] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on good ex- ternal authority. Internal considerations are also of weight, the addition of mdvra (Rec.) being so much more easily accounted for than its omission. In what follows, rum:x@s is adopted in the edd. above specified for rdmoz (Rec.), on very clearly preponderating authority. There is more doubt about ovveBawev (Zisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort), as it may have been a grammatical correction of the plural ovvéBawov (Lachm., Rev., Rec.). On the other hand, the plural may have been a conformation to vs. 6. The external authority preponderates in favor of the singular. Lastly, for natrhyrnnev (Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort), the evidence is clearly preponderant: Rec., kathyTncer. are the objects in Num. /.c.,— but also, as the word is studiedly left ab- solute, with a further and deeper ref- erence to Him whose servants Paul and his associates really were —to God: comp. ver. 22, Ex. xvi. 7, and see notes oz Pil. ii. 14, where this word is briefly discussed. td Tov ddoOpevtod] ‘by the destroyer ;’ scil. the destroying angel, definitely men- tioned in 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 1 Chron. xxi. 15, and named generally as 6 éAo- Opetwy, Ex. xii. 23, Heb. xi. 28. The form éAo8pedw is Alexandrian, and is of not uncommon occurrence in later writers of that class: comp. Steph. Thesaur. s.v., Schleusner, Lex. Vet. Test. 8. Vv. {1. Tatra 8 «.1.d.] ‘ow these things happened unto them by way of figure ;’ these events specified in the five pre- ceding verses. The earlier events in the history of God’s people had a typical character in relation to the historical circumstances of Christian- ity; év éxelvois yap Ta huctepa ouveypd- geto, Theod. See especially Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 123. p. 233 (Transl.). The imperfect cvvéBawey marks the sequence of the events in the unfolding of the history: see notes on ver. 9. éypadn 8] ‘and they were written ;’ the 5é, in accordance with its common use in Greek, adding, with a faint sub- antithetical force, a new statement to what had preceded; not only did they take place, but they were also recorded: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 361, and comp. notes oz Gal. ii. 20. mpds vovder (av tov] ‘for the admoni- tion of us; ‘ad commonendos nos,’ Tertull. (4Zarc. v.7). The events were recorded with the general purpose (the mpds marking ‘ethical direction to- wards;’ see notes on Col. iv. Bon supplying monitory teaching to us Christians, by reminding us, first, how the relations of Israel to the world at large do truly prefigure the present attitude of Christianity, and so were recorded for our learning (see Hof- mann 77 /oc.); and, further and in detail, how each sin was followed by its chastisement, and that, as it was then, so will it ever be: ‘ut iis lectis vel auditis sapiamus, ne similiter pec- cantes similia patiamur,’ Estius. On the later form vov@eota (for vovdérn- ots), see references in notes oz Eph. vi. 4. ‘els ots Ta TéAN K.T.A,] ‘unto whom the ends of the ages are come down’ (‘devenerunt,’ Vulg.) ; and to whom, consequently, the admonition comes with increased force ; comp. ch. Vii. 9: KaA@s 5€ kal Tod ai@vos Td TéAos mpoor éBeixer, erelywv adrovs Kat Beyelpwv mpos épyactay tis apetjs, Theodoret. The expression T& TéAn TY aidvwy does 192 TOV AlwvOV KATHVTNKEDV. >, f fn) Téon. 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP. X. 11-13. 12" Qote 6 doxav éotavar, BreTréT@ 13 \ Ld X > tr > \ > Q / TELPATHLOS VUasS OUK elANhevy eb pn avUpwrwwos: x Y c f a > ed ig wn ip] € \ a muaTos 6€ 0 Oeds, bs ovK édoe twas TetpacOjvar iép 6 not practically differ from 7 ouvTéAca Tav aidvwy, Heb. ix. 26,—both pas- sages implying that the precursory ai@ves had well nigh passed away (comp. 1 John ii. 18), and that the aiay 6 épxé- pevos (Mark x. 30) was at hand, — but, by the use of the plural (r& 7éAn), it marks, a little more distinctly, the idea of each age of preparation having passed into the age that succeeded it, so that now, as it were, all the réAn had come down to them, and the new aidy was very near: épeotnke Aouwdy Td dixacthpioy Td poBepdy, Chrys. 12. "Qere «.7.d.] ‘So then,’ or * Con- sequently, he that thinketh he standeth ;’ inferential exhortation, flowing from the preceding statement and warnings: KaA@s cimev, 6 ‘Sox@v éotdvat.’ Todto yap ovdé éatdvat eotiv, as Eotdvat xph, On the modi- fication of the normal meaning of éarTe (‘consecutio alicujus rei ex anteceden- tibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 771, Wilke, Pet. § 81, p. 265), and its cor- rect rendering in sentences like the present (not ‘ proinde,’ Calvin, but ‘ ita- que,’ Vulg.; ‘wherefore,’ Auth., is a little too strongly ratiocinative; con- trast didmep k.7.A., ver. 14), see notes on Phil. ii. 12, where the use of the particle (with an imperative) is fully discussed. In all such cases there is a certain rhetorical suddenness which appropriately changes what might have been expressed by some dependent clause into an independent, yet still inferential, exhortation: comp. Kiihner, G7. *§. 586. 5. 2. Breréro pi) téon] ‘let him take heed lest he fail ;’ not, from the conviction ‘Deum nun- quam sibi defuturum,’ Calvin, but simply with reference to, and in con- 7d Oappeiv Eavtg, Chrys. trast with, the preceding éordva:: he that thinks he is standing morally and firmly (whether in regard of the way of dealing with the question of eidwad- @ura, or any other great matter), let him beware lest he morally fall: ebxephs ef amovolas 7 mT@ots, Theoph. The ex- hortation is general, but, as Estius and Hofmann correctly remark, the thought of the particular case of eating things offered to idols is clearly present in the Apostle’s mind, and subsequently emerges, not only in a direct admoni- tion (ver. 14, but in a carefully rea- soned paragraph: ‘ad hoc. [ch. vii. 2 sq-] nunc a digressione revertitur,’ Estius. 13. Tetpacpos dyads K.7.A.] ‘720 cempta- tion has taken you but such as cometh on maz ;’” ‘tentatio... nisi humana,’ Vulg., scil., ‘hhomini superabilis,’ Beng., such as man can bear,’ Rev. : appended reassurance, to remove any undue dis- couragement which the special warn- ing against self-confidence (6 Soxdv éordvat, ver. 12) might bear to the general hearer or reader. The tempta- tion was simply av@pémvos, — not ‘from man,’ Aith., comp. Arm., but such as appertains to, and is generally incident to man, and so, in effect,.commensurate with man’s powers ; ovuuerpos TH picet, Theodoret, avOpwmivws, averta@s, Pollux, Onomast. III. cap. 27), It is of course possible, while retaining this meaning, to understand the clause in a totally contrary sense, and as carrying on the warning of the foregoing verse, — ‘hitherto the temptation has only been avOpémvos, but it will soon assume a much worse form’; so the Greek ex- positors and many modern interpreters. Such a view, however, does not seem oF Cuap. X. 13, 14. 1 CORINTHIANS. 193 Svvacbe, adAXA ToInces oY TO TELipacuUa@ Kal TV EKB D . n ( pacue Kal thy éExBacw, Tod dvvacba wrreveyKetv. 13. Tod divacbat] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds tuas to harmonize with the use of the per- fect efAnpev, which implies a continu- ance of a former state (‘per effectus suos durat,’ Poppo; see notes oz Eph. ii. 8), and would have almost certainly necessitated the use of ovmw rather than ov«; contrast Heb. xii. 4, odrw méexpis aluaros GvtikaréoTyTe. motos 8 6 Oeds] ‘yea, God is faith- ful ;’ the 3é having here not its ordi- nary oppositive force, but carrying on the reassurance, and adding (‘quasi per oppositionem quandam,’ Herm.) the further and deeply consolatory thought that God would ever remain true to His promises: ‘/de/7s est Deus in prestanda ope, quam et verbum ejus et pristina opera follicentur,’ Bengel; see 1 Thess. v. 23, and notes in loc. ; comp. 2 Thess. iii. 3. és otX K.t.A] ‘who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which ye are able (to bear) ;’ the 6s having its ex- planatory, and slightly confirmatory force, ‘seeing that he will not, etc. ;’ see notes o7 Co/.i. 18,25 and oz 1 Tim. ii. 4. This usage often comes out very distinctly after a foregoing ques- tion; see Kiihner, Gr. § 561. 2. a. GAAG Toujoes K.T.A.] ‘but with the temptation will make also the way to escape. God is throughout the actor: He permits the temptation, but so moderates its force as a/so to provide in each case the escape, —not ‘ eva- dendi facultatem,’ Cyprian, but the means and pathway of escape, ‘egres- sum,’ Steph.; comp. Eur. ded. 271, KovK totw &rns evmpdcooros exBaors. The manner in which God delivers us from temptation is fully discussed by South, Serm. vi. Vol. 111. p. 82 sqq. 25 (Lond. 1843). rod Sivacbar breveyketv] ‘so that ye may be able to bear it ;’ genitival infinitive of the pur- pose; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, and notes oz Gal. iii. 10, where this usage is fully discussed. God in each case provides the escape with the merciful design that we may be able to bear that which otherwise would have been ovk avOpHmwoy, and above our human- ity. Origen (de Princip. II. 24) calls attention to the dvvac@a: as implying that God does not give the treveyreiy, but the ddvac@a bmeveyxetvy, —a remark to which Estius takes exception, but not with sufficient reason. What Ori- gen goes on to say is surely quite cor- rect: ‘ed autem virtute quz nobis data est ut vincere possimus, secundum liberi arbitrii facultatem aut industrie utimur, et vincimus, aut segniter, et superamur.’ That his teaching on the will and on liberty was not at all clearly thought out, may be fully ad- mitted (see especially Denis, Phzlos- ophie d’Origéne, p. 249 sqq., Paris, 1884), but does not here seem open to exception. On the divinely appointed probation arising from temptations, see Harless, Chr. Eth. § 28, p. 248 (Transl.), and comp. the remarks of Rothe, Zheol. Eth. § 745. 2, Vol. II. p- 300 (ed. 2). 14-22. The serious bearing of the Lora’s Supper on the question now under consideration, viz. of eating meats offered to idols or taking part in their feasts. 14. Avérep] ‘ Wherefore, On which account;’ naturally consequent warn- ing: ‘seeing that things are so, that temptations are all around you, and 194 The Lord’s Supper sup- plies illustration and warning. ‘To partake of itand of things of- fered to idols, is profanation. that in every case God mercifully pro- vides an &xBaots, avail yourselves of it, and flee from idolatry.’ The relatival particle, especially if taken as intro- ducing a new paragraph, seems to point back not merely to the verse just pre- ceding, whether to its former (Meyer), or to its latter portion (Hofmann), but to the general tenor of the foregoing verses, especially ver. 11-13: d6p&s 87 TdyTA Mpogeipnucva avTg TovTov eveka kateckevatero, Severian. It is quite possible to regard the verse as closing the former paragraph (comp. ch. viii. 13); in which case the connection would seem to be more immediately with the preceding verse: the ayarnrol pov, however (Oepamever Aoumdv, adeApovs [ayarnrovs] avrovs kaA@y, Theoph.), and perhaps also the imperative (contrast ch. viii. 13), seem to decide in favor of the present arrangement. On didmep, see notes onch. viii. 13. gevyere Grd tis eldwr.] ‘fee from idelatry ;” ‘avoid all contact with it:’ the danger was near and pressing. Alford and others draw a distinction between this expression and g¢ed-yew with the accusative (ch. vi. 18, 1 Tim. Vin) C1, 2) Lim. i. 22); but it seems difficult to show that this is a stronger form or appreciably different in sense. It is the more usual form in the N.T.: getyew é« occurs once (Acts Xxvii. 30), in connection with mAotop, the usual distinction in meaning be- tween the prepositions being correctly observed. 15. as hpovipous Aéyw] ‘7 speak as to wise men, to men of good sense,’ ‘a des hommes sensés,’ Reuss,—‘ quibus pauca verba, de hoc arcano, sufficiunt ad judi- candum,’ Bengel: the @s marking the aspects under which he was regarding 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. X. 14-16. 14 A “ 2 / v i. XN iol LoTEp, ayamnTol mov, hevyeTe aTro THs elowdoAaTpelas. Bas dpovimos eyo: Kpl- them,—that which he was presup- posing them to be; comp. ch. iii. 1, és mvevuatikors, and see notes zz Joc. On this use of as, see notes oz EPh. v. 22, and ox Col. iii. 23, and comp. Bernhardy, Synt. vii. 1, Pp. 333, Kithner, Gr. § Sor. 5. Kplvate bpeis 8 yt] ‘judge ye yourselves what I say ;’ the emphatic due’s implying that the Apostle was quite willing to leave it to their own judgment ; ‘vobis relinquo judicandum,’ Bengel. Between the gnut here and the Aéyw in the preceding clause (comp. Rom. iii. 8), it is not perhaps easy to draw any distinction beyond this general one,— that Aéyw (as its derivation suggests, Donalds. Crat. § 453) points to orderly discourse, gnut (from a Sanscr. root d/4, ex- pressive both of ‘speech’ and ‘ light’), to making plain and clear (declaring) what was in the mind of the speaker. The remaining word Aad®@ points to sound and utterance (Trench, Syzoz, § 76), and though widely different in re- gard of derivation, approximates to our word ‘talk.’ On the Lithuanian origin of this last-mentioned word, see Skeat, Etym. Dict. s. v. p. 622. 16. Td mrortpiov tis evAoylas] ‘the cup of the blessing, scil. over which the blessing 1s pronounced, the genitive THs evdoylas being the gen., not of ‘quality’ (Meyer), but of ‘remoter ref- erence’ (Winer, Gy. § 30. 2. 8), and the expression receiving its full elucidation from the clause that follows. The governing words 7d rorfpioy are in the accusative, and bya kind of inverted attraction are regarded as in the same regimen with the relative; see Winer, Gr.§ 24. 2.@. The Apostle now pro- ceeds to bring out clearly the meaning of his solemn warning in ver. 14. Rest- Cuap. X. 16. é “ is vate vueis O dnp. rT CORUN DT MEANS. 195 16 TO croTnpiov Ths evAoyias 6 evNoYyodmuED, See 7 b] \ a (v4 a o4 pais N ” A ovxl KOLW@VLA EOTLY TOV ALLATOS TOU plorou ; TOV @pPTOV OV 16. kowwrla éorw] So Treg., Westc. and Hort: Rec. Lachm., Tisch., Rev., Kolvwvia rod aluatos Tov XowTod éort. the two readings. It is here very difficult to decide between The character of the authorities in favor of the text, coupled with the probability of a conformation (as to the order of the words) with the second clause, seem to preponderate. ing on the usages connected with the Lord’s Supper and the Jewish customs in regard of the eating of the offerings (ver. 18), he shows convincingly that the eating of ef8wAd@ura, permissible as the illuminated Corinthian might think it, really involved a communion with devils. On the ‘cup of blessing’ in its connection with the ceremonies of the Passover feast, see Lightfoot oz Matt. xxvi. 27, but observe that the term rd moThpiov Tis evAoylas is not a term merely derived from the terminology of the Passover, but, as the explanatory ® evAoyoduey seems clearly to indicate, is here used by the Apostle in reference to Christian consecration : see hereon, Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 266, p. 438 (Transl.), and comp. Rickert, Adend- mahl, § 17, p. 219 sq. Whether the mothpioy mentioned in Matt. /.c. is to be understood as referring to the ¢hzrd or the fourth Passover cup is very doubtful. In favor of the latter view (opp. to Lightfoot), see Meyer zz loc. & eddoyotpev] ‘which we bless, 7... aS the nature of the subject implies, consecrate by eucharistic prayer and blessing: comp. Mark viii. 7, Luke ix. 16. The plural cannot safely be pressed, as implying that this was the act of each participant. It simply points to those who customarily per- formed the act, the reference to the Holy Communion not being here, as in ch. xi. 23, ritually descriptive, but referred to only so far as was neces- sary for the general argument: comp. Riickert, Adendmahl, § 17, p. 225, note. ovxl Kowevla éoriv k.T.A.] ‘7s zt not a communion of the blood of Christ?’ Is not a communion with the blood of Christ imparted by it, and, as it were, conveyed by it? No cup, no ckowwvia: ‘innuitur summa re- alitas,’ Bengel. The éorvi thus retains its ordinary and proper meaning: the consecrated cup does not merely sig- nify a kowwvia, but 7s the bearer of it; the expression being concise, but per- fectly intelligible. What the precise nature of the kowwvia is, cannot be determined from this passage, but can only be inferred from the carefully considered tenor of the different por- tions of Scripture which refer to this momentous subject. It seems here sufficient to say that the verity of Scripture seems to preclude our refer- ring the kowwvia to any other body than that which suffered on the cross, or to any other blood than was then shed for us. But (independently of other considerations) as at the first Communion, which we are bound to believe was a true Communion, the body was not yet crucified, nor the blood yet poured out, it is obvious that this participation of the faithful in the body and blood of our Lord becomes at once lifted out of the realm of the natural and the material, and must be regarded as a spiritual participation, and because spiritual, the more deeply and essentially ~ea/ : comp. Waterland, Doctrine of Eucharist, ch. vu., and (on the ‘unio sacramentalis’), the lucid comments of Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 196 rCORINTHIANS: Cuap. X. 16, 17. XO > \ / lal / Lal D4 Lal > 17 e KAW LEV, ouxe KOLV@VLA TOU DWLATOS TOU PLTTOU EOTLV 5; OTt ” aA ~ e / > ° nf / > me ®t els diptos, &v c@pwa oi ToAXNOL eopev* oi yap TavTEs ex TOD EvoS 145. 3, Vol. Iv. p. 326 sqq. (Transl.). bv KAopev] ‘which we break,’ scil. at the celebration of the Holy Com- munion; comp. Acts xx. II, KAdoas Tov %ptov [Rec. erroneously omits rév]. The Apostle does not repeat the men- tion of the regularly accompanying evAoyia, as it would be sufficiently clear from the foregoing clause that the reference is to the Holy Communion, and so to the consecrated bread as well as to the consecrated wine. The bread is similarly the kowwvia of the Lord’s body: ‘ His presence is with the bread, though not 77 it,’ Bp. Patrick, AZensa Mystica, 1. § (Works, Vol. I. p. 151, Oxford, 1858). On the whole subject the student may be profitably referred to the clear treatise of Waterland above referred to, and for a very thor- ough statement of the difficulties con- nected with this profound subject, Dorner, Chr. Doctr. Vol. IV. p. 306-333. The views entertained in the early Church will be found in Waterland, and, very fully, in Ebrard, Adendmahl, 2 Vols. 1845, Kahnis, Adendmahl, 1851, and Riicker:, Adendmahl, 1856: see also generally the articles in Herzog, Real-Encyclopadie, Vol. 1. p. 28-47 (2d ed. 1877). The views of our own leading divines are clearly stated by Canon Trevor, Holy Eucharist (Lond. 1876), and the teaching of all writers on the subject, from the first, by He- bert, Zord’s Supper (2 Vols.; Lond. 1879). 17. Sti els pros «.t.A.] ‘because one éread,— though broken into so many parts, so one body are we the many:’ so apparently, Vulg., ‘quoniam unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus,’ and, still more distinctly, Syr., ‘as then one is that bread, so are we one body,’ and similarly Aith.; so too apparently Theod., and the Greek expositors. This difficult clause may be taken in three ways: (az) as substantiating the inter- rogatively expressed statement of the preceding verse,—‘ for one bread is there, one body are we the many,’ i.e. ‘for as there is one bread in the Lord’s Supper, so we Christians, though we are many, form one body,—a result which could only come from the fact that the bread was the kowwvrla of the body of Christ.’ So Meyer, De Wette, and others. This, however, is a rea- soning ‘ab effectu ad causam,’ which, as Meyer admits, involves a filling up of an asyndeton, and, it may be added, a logical padding that, in a passage of this nature, where the Apostle ob- viously desires to speak out emphati- cally and trenchantly (kpivare iuets 6 nut, ver. 15), seems singularly out of place. We may (4) supply éoueér after &pros, regarding it as a sort of explana- tory clause, ‘seeing that we who are many are one bread, one body, Rev., similarly Auth., and so apparently the Coptic and Armenian versions. To this, however, the objection seems fatal, that in the same verse we must take &pros in practically two different meanings. We therefore (c) fall back on the view first specified in this note, according to which the verse is to be regarded as adding, without any con- necting particle, a further statement of considerable moment for the general argument of the paragraph: comp. Martensen, Cir. Eth. § 84, Part 11. p. 191 (Transl.). “Ov: thus, with its full causal meaning, introduces the protasis in the sentence, vy o@ua x.7.A. forming the apodosis, and the whole becomes an éyylrepdv tt (Chrys.), or a 7d wetov (Theoph.) to the interrogative state- ment which has just preceded: so Cuap. X. 17, 18. GipTou peTeyouen. 1 CORINTHIANS. 197 18 Brerete Tov “IopaidX kata capKa* ovy Ce \ @ / MN la) 6 / ? 19 f ou éoQuovtes Tas vaolas KOLY@VOL TOU USLACTHPLOV €lot ; Tb 18. obx] So Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort (with margin), on clearly preponderant authority: Rec., Treg., Rev., odxt. in verse 16 is also not improbable. Beza, Bengel, Hofmann, and others. The obvious difficulty is the absence of an ody (Syr., as will have been no- ticed, actually inserts it) or of some connecting particle. This absence may, however, in a great degree be accounted for by the sharp, emphatic, and indeed independent, character of each verse in this paragraph. ot yap mavres k.T.A.] ‘for we all have our share from the one bread ;’ confir- mation of the inference drawn in the foregoing clause; the fact that we all partake of that one bread is the con- stitutive principle of our corporate one- ness; if we did not thus partake, the inference would not be correct. The expression is unusual, as petéxew is elsewhere used either with an imme- diately dependent genitive (ver. 21, ch. ieatee PLeO. Il TAs Vv. 13>) Val. 13);) OF absolutely, the genitive being supplied in thought from the context (ver. 30, ch. ix. 10), but never, as here, with an associated preposition. The true con- struction then probably is, that weréxew here has its dependent genitive left un- expressed (‘partake of what we par- take’) and that the é« tod évds &prov points to that from which or out of which what was partaken of was de- rived. Theidea of the oneness of the element is thus a little more distinctly marked. Onthe omission of the object after the verb, see examples in Buttm. 4. T. Gr. p. 138, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 597. 2.6. The distinction drawn by Wordsw. between ueréxew (sharing with those who also have their shares), and kowwvety (partaking with others in ome undivided thing), cannot be sub- A conformation to the ovxt stantiated. Both words are used in the Eccl. writers in reference to the par- taking of the Lord’s Supper; see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. I. p. 126, 363. All that can properly be said is that xowwveiy implies more distinctly the idea of a community with others: see Cremer, 47b/.- Theol. Worterb. p. 363. 18. Bdérere Tov “Iopaid k.7.d.] ‘ de- hold Israel after the flesh ;” i.e. ‘con- sider, as a second illustration, the case of Israel after the flesh.’ The closely appended kat& odpka is designed to divest the illustration of any spiritual significance; the Apostle is referring simply to the nation as such, and to its nationally prescribed ordinances ; con- trast Gal. vi. 16, Toy "IopahA Tov Oecod. ovX ot éoPloytes Tas Ovolas] ‘are nor they that eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar ?’ ‘have not they which eat the sacrifices communion with the altar?’ Rev. The rules connected with this eating of the sacrifices are specified Lev. vii. 15 sq. On the double signifi- cance of this eating, in reference to the thank-offerings, viz. communion with him who gave the feast and with one another, and also festive joy, see Bahr, Mose) Gulia Liaias 35) V Olesen pe37a)Sds5 and, in reference to this custom and its significance with heathen nations, 2d. III. I. 3, p. 234, 250. In the ex- pression Kotvwvol Tod buc.acrnpiov, the point which the Apostle presses in argument would seem to be this,— that the one who ate the sacrifices had thus an actual participation with the altar on which the sacrifices were consumed. The sacrifice was that which mystically united the worshipper and the altar to 198 DT CORUN El Arnis. CHAP. X. 18-20. x otv dnur; Ste eldwA0OvTOV Ti eat, H STL EldwrOv Ti eoTW; / | lel GAN OTe & Ovovew Ta EOvy, Satpovios Kai ov Oe@ Ovovow 19. eiSwAdbvtov —etdwdov] This order is maintained by ZLachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority. The re- versed order, as found in Xec., bears every appearance of having been an early correction. which he brought his offering. Hof- mann urges that all the Apostle wishes to convey is that the eating of offerings implied more than being a member of the nation, and that what it did imply was a community of altar-worship. But this, as the subsequent reasoning seems to show, is clearly insufficient. If it is to be shown that eating eidw- Aé@ura carries with it communion with those to whom the sacrifice is offered, then clearly the statement on which the inference is based must mean that there was a real communion between the eater of the @ucias and the @vara- ornpov. No doubt the reasoning would have been more plain if @cov had been used instead of @vovaernpiov; but as this latter word carries with it, by con- sequence, a reference to Him whose altar it was (Bahr, Mos. Cult. 111. 3. 3. Voi. Il. p. 374), an expression (kowwvol Tot @cov) which would have implied more than could be properly maintained is avoided, and yet the analogy, in point of reasoning, between this clause and the second clause of ver. 20 suffi- ciently preserved. 19. tl otv hyp] ‘What do TJ say then ?’ ‘What is the inference which I am leaving to be drawn from the reference to the elements in the Eu- charist, and to the sacrifices of the old Covenant?’ The Apostle meets a difficulty that might suggest itself, as to the inference from what he had said (ver. 16-18), by stating what the true inference really was. All that follows the 8 @nui (ver. 15) is naturally referred toin this ti od» nut which follows. Meyer and others refer the question to the clause which immediately precedes, but this obscures the reference just stated, and leaves out of sight the inference that might certainly seem capable of being drawn from ver. 16, viz. that the cup and the bread were something more than they seemed to be: see Bengel and Hofmann 7 doc. tl eo] ‘7s something, is really what it is claimed to be, — viz. (in the case of an eidwAd@uTov) an offering made to some being that had a real existence ; or (in the case of an eZéwAov) as repre- senting some actual personality. In neither case was this true: the edwad- @urov was mere flesh offered on an altar raised to a supposed divine being that had no real, existence; the efSwAov was mere wood and stone; really and truly, —nothing. The accentuation adopted by Tisch. (ch. 7), Ore cidwadOurdy te gorw, 7) bt efSwdAdv Tt Ecru, is plausible, as re-introducing the assertion of ch. viii. 4, but does not agree with the context, which clearly turns, not on the question of the existence or non- existence of eiSwAd@utoy or efdwAov, but on the question raised by the argument in ver. 16, whether the one has any icxds (Theod., Phot.) imparted to it, or the other any real personality behind it: see Hofmann zz Joc. 20. GAN’ Sri .7.d.] ‘ But (what J do say is) that the things which the Gen- tiles sacrifice ;’ corrective statement of what it was that was really implied in ver. 16-18, the a@AAd@ not referring to any negation to be supplied after the preceding question (Syr., Calvin, Meyer, Cuap. X. 20. 1 CORINTHIANS. 199 ov Oérw Sé ipas Kowvwvors THY Satmovioy yiverOa. 7 od divacbe 20. In this verse it is very difficult to decide on what would appear to be the true reading and order of the words. On the whole the following changes in Rec. appear to be required by evidence. For @vee in each member of the verse (Rec., Rev.), which would seem to have been a grammatical correction, we read @vovow, with Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on greatly pre- ponderating authority. We retain ra €0vn with Rec., Treg., Rev., on prepon- derating authority, though omitted by Zachm., Tisch., and bracketed by Westc. and fort, and, lastly, we adopt on clearly preponderating authority, the order damoviors kal ov Oeg Pvovow with Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort: Rec, Rev., Samoviows Over kad ov eq. De Wette, al.), as there is reafly no negative necessarily latent in the inter- rogative sentence (contrast Kiihner, Gv. § 535. 4), but simply supplying axother and that the true answer to the ques- tion: ‘ What doIsay?... Well, without entering further into the question of what idol-offering or idol really is, I say that, etc.’ The meaning is prac- tically the same, but the questionable assumption of an ellipsis of a negative which the preceding words do not grammatically involve, is rendered un- necessary. The Apostle drops the wrong answer without comment, and proceeds to the right one. On the true meaning of aAAd (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi’), see Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 2 sq. On the use of the neuter substantive plural with the verb plural, see Winer, Gr. § 38. 3. a. B: vn is used by St. Paul in the same Epistle with both the verb singular (Rom. ix. 30) and the verb plural (Rom. ii. 14, xv. 27), and ap- parently without any very clearly de- finable difference. As a rough and general rule, the verb is more com- monly found in the plural when the neuter plural substantive refers to ani- mate objects, and in the singular when the reference is to what is abstract and inanimate; see Buttm. Gr. V.7. p- 110, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 365. Baipoviors Kal ov Oca] ‘to demons, and not to God ;’ to evil spirits (as always in the N.T., except Acts xvii. 18, where the speakers are heathens ; see Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. p. 170 sq.), and not, under any guise or form, to God (‘to Aloha,’ Syr., ‘Domino,’ Aith.), — the last clause (see Deut. xxii. 17, of which this seems a reminiscence) being added to accentuate the former, and to preclude the supposition that though the offering was made to idols, the worshippers were unconsciously recog- nizing, however dimly, the one God by their acts; comp. Acts xvii. 23 sq. No such charitable construction was to be put on their acts. Though not in- tentionally, yet really and actually, they were sacrificing, in accordance with the fixed belief of the Jewish Church (Deut xx, 175) PS.) Cvi. 37/5 comp: Ps. xcv. 5, LX X, Baruch iv. 7), and, as here St. Paul, speaking under the in- fluence of the Holy Ghost, clearly reveals to us, to—7Ta& mvevpaTiKa THs movnplas (Eph. vi. 12), to spiritual be- ings who formed a part of the kingdom of Satan. As Reuss (27 doc.) truly says, ‘le culte idolatre, en tant que frustrant le vrai Dieu de Vhonneur qui lui est dd est un culte du diable.’ Such was the uniform teaching of the early Christian Church; see Usteri, Paul. Lehrb. p. 401 sq., and on the subject generally, Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 86. 3. Vol. 11. p- 105 sq. (Transl.), Martensen, Chr, 200 1 CORINTHIANS: Cuap. X. 20-22. / , ‘ ‘ / > 4 motnpiov Kupiov mriveu' Kat mornpiov Sayoviwvs ob divacbe tpamétns Kupiov petéyew Kat tparétns daipoviov. “1 mapa- Logm. § 68. p. 129 sq. (Transl.), Ros- koff, Gesch. des Teufels, Vol. 1. p. 223 sq. od Oédw Bt K.7.d.] Sand I would not that ye should have com- munion with devils;’ further state- ment by means of the continuative yet slightly antithetical 5¢ (‘novum quid accedit,’ Herm. Viger, p. 845); after what he has just said, this further statement is almost necessarily called for ; wAclova péBov évri@noww,’ Theodoret. This statement is elucidated by the two negative clauses which follow. On the use of the article (rév daipmoviwv) as marking the class, especially with plural nouns, see Kiihner, Gv. § 461. 1. The Samdéua are here regarded as a community; in the preceding clause they are only alluded to generally, and as individuals of a class; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 3, where this generic use of the article is well dis- cussed. 21. ov SdvacGe K.T.r.] ‘ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils ;’ in emphatic confirmation of the foregoing clause, all particles being omitted to give a greater sharp- ness and force to this and the follow- ing amépacis; amodalveta: Aoiwdy Kah vouobere? Aéywy, Chrys. It was amoral impossibility (w@s oidy te ; Theod.) for them to drink of two cups marked by such infinitely opposed characteristics. The genitival relation may be slightly differently estimated. It may be a simple Zossessive genitive, or a genitive of inner reference of a remoter kind (Winer, Gr. § 30. 3), or even, as Hof- mann suggests, of a partially qualita- tive nature. The more natural view seems to be that it is merely a genitive of relation (Donalds. Gr. § 453), the peculiar nature of the relation being quite clear to the readers of the words, from. their knowledge of the way in which in each case the cup was used. Whether, in the second member, the reference was to the use of the cup in the temple banquets, or in sacrificial libations, cannot be specified with cer- tainty. The Corinthians, at any rate, very well knew what the Apostle meant. tpatrélyns Kuplov] ‘che table of the Lord ;’ with obvious ref- erence to the Lord’s Supper and the elements that were placed thereon to be taken and eaten by the faithful. In the contrasted expression the reference is to the festal table on which the eide- Ad@ura were placed for the guests that were assembled. There is no need for regarding tpdmwe(a as meaning 7T& oirla er avtns tiWéueva (Pollux, cited by Alf.; see Suicer, 7hesaur. s. v. Vol. I. p- 1280) : in each case it was the table with whatsoever was placed thereon ; comp. Isa. Ixv. 11 (LXX). It will be observed that the substantives are all anarthrous (though this cannot read- ily be expressed in translation), the Apostle’s reference being in each case perfectly wide and general: see Kih- ner, Gr. § 452.k. The absence of the article in the first member of each clause may be explained on the prin- ciple of ‘ correlation,’ viz. that as Kuptouv often dispenses with the article (Winer, Gr. § 19. 1), the governing noun will in such cases also be anarthrous; see notes oz Eph. iv. 12, v. 8, and comp. Green, Gr. p. 46. This explanation, however, can hardly be applied to the second clauses; we believe, therefore, that the absence throughout of the article is intentional. 22. wapalnrodpev tov Kipuov] ‘ or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy ;’ monitory alternative, ‘or is it that we are so indifferent to the principle just Mir,’ CaP. X. 22-24. 1 CORINTHIANS. 201 na x / st eo] T > la) » ; Eprovpev tov Kupiov; wn toxupotepoe avtod écpev 5 Consider others, and do not hurt weak con- sciences, but do all to God’s glory. ‘ a \ na 24 undels TO EavToD EyTEelTw, GANA TO TOU ETEpov. 23 TIlavra é&eotw, GAN ov TavTa oupEepe * ’ lal mavta éfeoTW, GX ov TravTA oiKOdopME: 25 TIap To 23. mdvra (bis)] In each member mor is added in Rec., but omitted by Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority. 24. To Tov Etepov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds €xagTos. laid down that we are neglecting it, and braving the Lord’s anger?’ —the present having its usual and proper force, and marking the course which, in this alternative, they would be pur- suing; see Winer, Gr. § 41. 3. 6. The verb mapa(naoby (Suid. rapottvew, Zonar. épeOicew, Theod. mapaxvicew) is only used in the N.T. here and Rom. xi. 11, 14 (LXX, Deut. xxxii. 21, of which this passage seems a reminiscence, 1 Kings xiv. 22, Ecclus. xxx. 3), and properly implies ‘ provocation,’ — ‘ op- posito zmulo et rivali’ (Steph. Z/e- Saur. s.v.), the ‘zemulus’ and ‘rivalis’ being either expressed or implied in the context. The term Kupios, though in Deut. 7.c. and 1 Kings /.c. referring to God, is here, owing to the use in the preceding verse and the general subject-matter, to be referred to our Lord; see Estius 7% doc. Te) loxvupdtepor K.T.A.] ‘are we stronger than He ?’ ‘Can we brave His indig- nation with impunity?’ ‘admonet, quam periculosum sit Deum provo- care,’ Calvin. The interpretation of Hofmann according to which the term would rather refer to moral strength (‘can we regard with indifference, and without any jealous feeling, what He never can?’) seems artificial, and out of harmony wlth the plain, blunt tone of the question: eis &romwoy amdyer Tov Adyov, Theophylact. 23-xi. 1. General principles, followed 26 by directions as to the subject-matter () , \ \ TO Tapatilewevov vpiv éobiere, udev avaxpivovtes Sia THY £ A 98 2\ bé Ca »” 5 A t 50 U 9 \ cuveidnow: Béav Sé tis tpiv eitrn Todto tepo0utov éotw, ji) 26. Tov Kuptov yap] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating evidence: ec., Rev., Tod yap Kupiou. 27. ef tis] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., ef dé rus. 28. iepd@utov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and. Hort, on prepon- derating authority: Mec. eiSwAd@vTov, with good authority, but with the high probability against it that this latter and more familiar word was a correction. The repetition in Rec., after cuveiSnow, of the words of verse 26 is rejected in all the above-named edd. on very greatly preponderating authority. ceding verse,—‘eat and enquire not, for if the earth and all that is therein be the Lord’s, the meat in the meat- market is His, and, being His, may be eaten by His servants without anxiety or doubtfulness ;’ way cricua Ocod addy, kal ovdey amdBAnTrov, meTa evXapioTias AauBavduevov, I Tim. iv. 4. The point of the confirmatory quotation is, that if the earth and its rAnpwpa (all things that it contains,—herbs, fruit, flesh, etc. ; see below) be God’s, there can be no inherent quality in anything that can render enquiry necessary whether it be such as would bring with it de- filement ; «i 5€ avtTod mdyta, ovdeyv aKd- @aprov, Chrys. It may be said (see Meyer) that this rather points to the connection of 8a thy cuvelinow simply with dvaxpivoyres (see above), but the reply seems valid, that the quotation does not merely confirm the last words of ver. 26, but its whole tenor, of which dia thy cuveldnow is but an appended and subordinated thought; see Hof- mann 27 Joc. 7d TAYpOpA airs] ‘the fulness thereof ;’ that which fills it, and without which it would be practi- cally empty : comp. tAfpwpa (Qardoons), Psalm xcv. 11, 1 Chron. xvi. 32 (LXX). The word is here used in its more usual and common sense, zd guo resimpletur ; see notes oz Gal. iv. 4, Eph. i. 23, and the very full and clearly-written note of Fritzsche oz Rom. xi. 12, Vol. Il. p. 469 sq- 27. el tig Kael K.T.A.] ‘Lf any one of them that believe not inviteth you ;’ scil. to a banquet of a general nature (not a temple feast), at which, however, it would be quite possible that eldwAdduta might be on the table: ‘docet qua libertate et cauteld untendum sit in mensis privatis infidelium,’ Estius. kal Oddete tropever Oat] Sand ye wish to go there. In the verb 6éAere there is something more than ovre mpotpeacbau ovtre amotroeWacba nBovaero, Theophylact (see Theod., Chrys.). As Grotius and, in effect, Bengel, observe, there is a hint that they would be wise to keep away from such enter- tainments altogether; ‘non valde pro- bat,’ Bengel. On the meaning of 6é\w (here with its full force, ‘vultis ire,’ Vulg.) see Cremer, Worterd. p. 143, and comp. notes on chap. vii. 7. 28. édv Sé tis bpiv elry] ‘duet zf any- one should say to you ;’ the more genx eral ei of the former verse passing here into the more restricted éay (‘utrum vere futurum sit, necne, id nescio, verum experientia cognoscam,’ Her- mann), and presenting a case of dis- tinctly objective possibility : see Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, and notes oz Gal. i. 8, 9, where the two particles are similarly used, but in a contrary order. The autos 204 1 CORINTHIANS Cuap. X. 28, 29. , ‘ Z > lal \ lA A 4 £3) 99 / eaOieTe bu EKELVOY TOV LNVUVOAVTA KAL TNV DUVELONCLY * OvVVEl- Snow € Aéyw ody! THY EavTOD GAA THY TOU éTépov: iva Ti difficult question of the clause is the person referred to by the tis. At first sight it would seem that, as fepd@u7ov (on this form, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 159) is a more natural expression in the mouth of a heathen than eidwAdéutoy, a fellow-guest amictwy (Chrys., Theoph.) is here referred to. As, how- ever, the 6” éxetvoy k.7.A. is so much more intelligible if referred to a Christian converted from heathenism (Reuss),—as the 6d will thus preserve the same shade of meaning through- out,—and as the term iepé@vroy would be just what would be expected from the mouth of one formerly a heathen at the table of a heathen host, it seems best to regard the speaker as a Chris- tian who gives a warning, either from real or assumed knowledge, to the Christian who is sitting beside him. Sv’ éxeivov Tov pyvicavta K.T.A.] ‘for the sake of him who gave the information and for conscience sake:’ scil. ‘not to shock the brother who made the fact known" (tov unvicayta ; ‘notat indicium rei serlum,’ Bengel; comp. Acts. xxiii. 30, unvubcions 5é wo emBovAjjs), ‘and (to speak more precisely) not to wound conscience ;’ the last words of ver. 25 and ver. 27,—now assuming the char- acter of a kind of formula,—being designedly repeated to make the mean- ing of 8? éxeivoy x.7.A. still more clear. On this sort of explanatory force of kal, see Kiihner, Gr. § 521. 2,and comp. notes oz Phil. iv. 12. The Apostle would seem studiously to have left the ouveldnow without any defining avdrod (opp. to Hofmann), that he might bring out, by means of ver. 29, still more sharply his meaning. On this whole passage, see Reuss iz Joc. (Zpitres Paul. p. 217), who has brought out very clearly the meaning of words TOY that have certainly been somewhat clouded by exposition. 29. cvvelByaow St Aéyw] ‘conscience, Lsay;’ the 6€ being here simply reit- erative, and marking the emphatic repetition of the word: see Klotz. Devar. Vol. il. p, 361, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 168, Kiihner, Gr. § 531. 4. In all such cases the original force of the particle can always be traced; see notes oz Phil. ii. 8. ovxl tiv €avTod K.T.A.] ‘ 2z0t thine own, but that of the other man,’—who gave the in- formation. The €repos (‘is quicum negotium est,’ Grot.) refers clearly to the unvicavra of the preceding verse, —to the Christian fellow-guest who warned his neighbor of the fepééutov that was on the table. The Apostle here practically illustrates the precept he had given in ver. 24. tva rt yap «.t.d.] ‘for why ts my liberty to be judged by another conscience?’ con- firmation, in an interrogative form, of the statement that the ouvelinois was not, aS in verses 25, 27, the conscience of the one (‘velut unum compellans e pluribus scientiam habentibus, ad quos | superiorem direxerat sermonem,’ Est.) to whom the above precept had been given, but the conscience of the other one who had given the warning. If it were his own conscience (‘ex sua per- sona alios docet,’ Est.), then the scruples of another would be depriving him of his own freedom, viz. to eat what was put before him, whether fepd@uroy or not, provided that it was with thanks- giving (ver. 30); ‘conscientia illius in- firma non potest meam conscientiam libertate privare,’ Bengel; see Reuss in loc. The force of the confirmatory question is heightened by the change of expression,—not ‘the conscience of the other,’ but something more defi- Cuap. X. 29-31. 1 CORINTHIANS. 205 yap 7 édevOepia pov Kpivetas bro GANS cuveldijcews ; * et eyo , a , A AEN @) 3 N 5) a xapiTe weTexo, TL BLachnwodpwat vTreép ov eyw EevYapLoTO ; 30. / fal (9) fa) 33 Oe. > \ / lal > la Kal TH ExKANTia TOU Oeov, ” KaAVaS KaYw TaVTa TaclW apEecKo, 32. Kal "Iovdalors yiveobe] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., yiveoOe kat *lovdaias. had formed the substance of the pre- ceding paragraphs: ‘ generalisententia concludit Apostolus superiorem doc- trinam,’ Estius. mavra eis SdEav K.T.4.] ‘do all things to the glory of God:’ kad@s &ravta mepieAaBe, Theod- oret. The Apostle sums up all by specifying the one end and object of all Christian activity,—the glory of God: comp. ch. vi. 20, Matt. v.. 16, 1 Pet. iv. 11, al., see Martensen, Chr. £th. Part 1. § 121, p. 369 (Transl.). As Rothe well says, all our actions should become a veritable divine service: see Theol. Eth. § 986, Vol. Iv. p. 169 (ed. 2). Wordsw. very pertinently cites the wise comments of Hooker on this great command, the sum of which is expressed in the following words: ‘In the least thing done disobediently to- ward God, or offensively against the good of men whose benefit we ought to seek for as our own, we plainly show that we do not acknowledge God to be such as indeed He is, and con- sequently that we glorify Him not. This the blessed Apostle teacheth.’ Piel erpl atl. Xda iKn 32. ampdoKotro. Kal “Lovdalois yi- verGek.t.A.] ‘give no occasion of stum- bling either to Jews or to Greeks or to the Church of God:’ further exhorta- tion as to conduct, suggested by the tenor of the whole passage, and es- pecially of ver. 28; comp. ch. viii. 9. They were to be &mpécxora, — ‘ giving no offence’ (‘sine offensione,’ Vulg.; ‘non sitis offendiculum,’ Copt.); not, intransitively, ‘offendiculo carentes’ (comp. Goth.), as in Acts xxiv. 16, and in Phil. i. 10, where see notes. The form is not found in ordinary Greek. The three towards whom this conduct is to be shown are then specified, Jews, Greeks, and their fellow-Christians : to the of €w (ch. v. 12; comp. Col. iv. 12, 1 Thess. iv. 12), and to the of %w (ch. v. 13) they were to be alike ampdéokora:. 33. Kaas Kayo K.T.A.] ‘even as J also Please all men in all things, as he had already very fully specified, ch. ix. 19 sq. He was not ‘ seeking to please’ (Winer, Gr. § 55. 5. 8, see contra notes on Gal. i. 10), but from his own point of view was doing so. He was doing all that was calculated to bring about that result. The accusative mdvra is the accusative of what is termed the ‘quantitative’ object, and serves to define the measure and extent of the action ; see notes on ch. ix. 25, Kiihner, Gr. § 410. 6. 16, Madvig, Syzz. § 27, and on the connection of this with the double accusative, Winer, Gr. § 32. 4. a. py (ytev «.t.A.] ‘20t seeking mine own profit, but that of the many :’ circumstantial participle defining the principles and spirit of his action; see Kiihner, Gr. § 389. 7. e, and comp. notes on ch. ii. 13, and oz Col. i. 28. Winer (Gr. § 55. 5. 8) appears to regard this as a form of the causal participle (‘inasmuch as I, etc.’), and regards the negative as due to the conception in the mind of the writer which the finite verb involves. This, however, is per- haps over-refinement, as uf with parti- ciples is the prevailing usage in the N.T.; see notes oz Gal. iv. 8, and ox 1 Thess. ii. 15. The exact shade of meaning of participles in this sort of connection is always open to difference Cap. X. 33-XI. 2. 1 CORINTHIANS. 207 pn &yrav to euavtod cvpdopov, GAA TO TAY TOAKwY, iva scwbacw. Women must not pray or prophesy with un- covered heads, as men rightly do. XI. pipnrtai pov yiverOe, xabas xaya Xpictov. 2? Exawa@ 8€é tyas tt Tavta pou péuvncbe \ XN La e A \ 7 kat xabws Tapéiwxa tpiv tas Tapaddces 33- evupopov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on clearly prepon- derating authority: Rec., Rev., cuupépov. 2. iuas|] Rec. adds adeAgpot: Lachm., Tisch, Treg, Rev., Westc. and Hort omit, on very clearly preponderating authority. of opinion, the varied use of the parti- ciple in every form of secondary predi- cation being one of the more marked characteristics of the Greek language: comp. Kriiger, Sprach/. § 56. 10. 1. twa cwlaorww] ‘22 order that they may be saved:’ end and aim of all the Apostle’s work; comp. ch. ix. 22, ba wdvtws Twas cécw. In modern mis- sionary effort this great aim may have been too much obscured: the glory of God should, beyond all doubt, be the motive principle of all effort (see ver. 31), but the bringing souls out of the- kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Christ (Col. i. 13) may mghtly be set forth as the very highest of mo- tives, no human effort tending more directly to the glory of Almighty God: comp. Estius zz Zoc. XL. 1. pepnral pou ylverGe] ‘ Become imitators of mz:’ closing exhortation, fully justified by the tenor of the pre- ceding verse, in which the highest principles of human action were set forth ; ‘nthil prescribit aliis quod non prior observaverit,’ Calvin. This is the second time in the Epistle (ch. iv. 16) that the same exhortation has been given. Any shade of offence that such words could, by any chance, have given is atonce removed by the clause which follows. Kalas kayo Xpirrot] ‘even as I also am of Christ ;’ the comparative wai serving to bring out the fact that he himself was an imi- tator, as he advised them to be,—an imitator of the highest of all examples. On this and other uses of «al, see notes on Phil. iv. 12. Of all that had been said in the last verse Christ was verily and indeed the apxyérurov: kal yap 6 Xpiorbs ovx éautg fpecey, Rom. xv. 3. On the duty of imitating Christ and His followers, see a wise sermon by Farindon, Serm. Vol. Il. p. 205 sqq. (Lond. 1849), and on the duty generally of setting a good example, comp. Rothe, Theol. Eth. § 1027, Vol. tv. p. 258 sq. (ed. 2). V. CENSURES ON DISORDERS IN THEIR CHURCH ASSEMBLIES (ch. xi. 2-34). 2-16. That women ought not to pray or prophesy with uncovered heads. 2. "Emawe 8 «.t.4.] ‘Now J praise you that in all things ye remember ;’ transition, by means of the 8€ yueraBa- tixév (see notes ov Gal.i. 11, iii. 8), from the questions which had now been an- swered, to certain matters connected with their religious service on which it was necessary to animadvert. Winer, Gr. § 53- 2. ¢) regards this verse as in antithetical connection with ver. I (‘ Yet in this exhortation I mean no blame ’) but with detriment to the con- nection of this verse with what follows, and also to the sort of terminating character of the preceding precept: comp. ch. iv. 16. The Apostle, with the thorough knowledge which he had of the human heart, begins with words of praise and conciliation: amd éyxw 208 KATEXETE. 1 CORINTHIANS: [Cuap. XI. 2, 3. 3 Oédrw Sé tuds eidévar St. TavTos avdpos 4 Kepary 6 Xpiotds eau, Kepadrr S€ yuvarkos 6 avnp, KEeparyn SE TOD biwy &pxetat, Chrys. In this praise there was no irony (Lomb., Aquin.), and certainly no want of truth or reality (Theodoret); the Corinthian Church did remember the Apostle, and was also the subject of his thanksgiving to God (ch. i. 4), but some members of that church had, in various ways, lapsed into disorder; see Calvin zz loc. The mdvta is the accusative of the ‘ quanti- tative ’ object (see notes on ch. ix. 25), and is not governed by, but dependent on péuvyobe, the direct construction with the accusative (in which the idea seems that of ‘bearing in mind,’ or ‘keeping in remembrance’; comp. Kihner, Gr. § 417. 6. 12) not being found in the N.T., though not un- commonly found in earlier Greek. Kal KaQas tmapéSaxa K.T.A.] ‘and main- tain the traditions even as I delivered them unto you’: expansion and prac- tical elucidation of the precedmg mem- ber, the caf adding the more distinctive and special (notes oz Col. iv. 12) to the more general pou méurvnobe; they remembered their Apostle, and evinced it by maintaining and holding fast (comp. Luke viii. 15, roy Ad-yor kar éxou- ow, I Thess. v. 21, Td Kadbdy Katéxere, Heb. x. 23, katéxwmev thy dpuodoylar) the instructions which he had left with them. These ‘traditions’ (see notes on 2 Thess. ii. 15) were instructions in relation to the doctrine and discipline which the Apostle, either orally or, possibly, in the letter which has not come down to us (see notes on ch. v. 2), had given to his converts at Cor- inth. The traces of many such deeper mapaddéoes may be observed in this Epistle (comp. vi. 2), and elsewhere in the Apostle’s writings: see 2 Thess. it 1 3. C€Xw SE dpas elSévar] ‘dat J would have you know :’ notwithstanding the general commendation, they needed a clearer knowledge of certain broad principles, upon which what might seem usages of slight moment would be found seriously to depend: mporpe- mbuevos paddov fh amodexduevos AEyel, Severian (Cramer, Caz.). In this for- mula (see Col. ii. 1) the Apostle seems to mark the real necessity he felt (‘ volo, apertam facit professionem animi,’ Bengel) to bring home to them the truth he was about to specify; comp. Cliveecunts éte TavtTds avipds K.t.A.] ‘that the head of every man ts Christ, or more exactly, Christ is the head (h kepadnh being the predi- cate, Buttmann Gram. WV. T. p. 1009, comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 7) of every man ; not merely ‘of every Christian’ (Chrys., Theoph., al.), but, of every man (comp. Estius), of the whole human family (not here to mention the angelical world, Col. ii. 10), Christ, the God-man, is the Head; see Hofmann zz loc. The meaning of kepadf must not be unduly limited or unduly ex- tended. The general idea is that of supremacy or pre-eminence (comp. Eph. v. 23), but the particular character of that supremacy or pre-eminence must, in each case be determined by the con- text, and by the nature of the things specified. Thus, in the first member, the supremacy or pre-eminence is in re- gard of nature and of headship of the whole human family; in the second, in regard of divinely appointed order and authority (Gen. ii. 22, 23, iii. 16: see below, ver. 8, 9) ; in the third, in regard of priority and office,—the pre-emi- nence of the Father, as Bp. Pearson says, ‘undeniably consisting in this that He is God not of any other but of Himself, and that there is no other Cuap. XI. 3, 4. Xpictod 6 Oeos. 3. ToD Xpiatod] So [Lachm.], Tisch., clearly preponderating authority: ec. omits Tod. tT CORENTHIANS. 209 4ards avijp mpocevxopuevos 1) Tpopntevov Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on In the earlier portion of the verse the article before Xpiords is slightly doubtful, but, on the whole, to be retained. person who is God but is God of Him,’ Creed, art. 1. Vol. I. p. 60 (ed. Burton) : see Waterland, Second Def. Vol. Il. p. 397 sq. (Oxford, 1843). Kehadi 5é Tod Xpiorod 6 Oeds] ‘and the head of Christ is God, or more exactly, God zs the head of Christ ;’ the anarthrous Kepadn really being the predicate; see above. This is not said merely kar’ avOpwrétnta (Theod., comp. Cécum.), but, as specified above, in reference to that iSid(ovoa bmepoxh (Chrys.) which belongs to the First Person of the blessed Trinity. Estius here seems to feel some difficulty (‘dure sonat in divinis Patrem dici caput Filii’), but without reason: it is true biblical doc- trine to ascribe this headship to the holy mystery of the eternal generation of the Son, and to the blessed truth, ‘that the Father has that essence [which is common to both] of Him- self; the Son, by communication from the Father’ (Pearson): see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 91, Vol. 111. p. 180 (Clark). The nature of the climactic statement seems designed still more to justify the directions which follow: if the woman stood in a relation of subor- dination to man, and man to Christ, and Christ (in the sense above explained) to God, the ceremonial relation of the wo- man to God in the services of the Church might well be marked by some outward token which indicated her true position in regard of man; whereas, in the case of man, whose repadh was Christ, such a token, as the sequel shows, would violate all edratia ; see Chrys. 27 doc. 4. Tas Gvijp K.T.r.] ‘every man pray- ing or prophesying ;’ temporal parti- 27 ciples specifying the circumstances of the case under consideration; comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 4. obs., here more correct than in § 45. 3. 4, where this secondary predication is translated relatively ‘who prays or prophesies,’ — a distinct inaccuracy, as the participle without the article, whether in a secon- dary or a tertiary predication can never be rightly rendered bya relatival clause which would imply a participle wth the article; see Donalds. Gr. § 492. The Apostle is now proceeding to show the full bearing and significance of the climactic statements in the pre- ceding verse. He does not, however, deal with the case of the men, except as serving to illustrate and enhance what he has to say in regard of the women: it is probable that the men regularly prayed uncovered, and that the dratia was the imitation of this on the part of the women: see Bengel On the meaning of mpopn- tevwy (‘speaking under the more im- mediate influence of the Holy Spirit’), comp. notes oz Efh.iv. 11. This order of men (of Ta mpata pépovtes ev Tors Aerroupyois THs exKAnolas) is mentioned in avery marked manner in the newly found Aidax} tév *"AroordéAwy ; see the note of Bryennius, p. 40, and the ex- cursus of Dean Spence, Zeaching of the Apostles, p. 135 sqq- Kara Kepadis txov] ‘having (anything) hang- ing down from the head,’ scil. ‘velato capite,’ Vulg., ‘gahulidamma haubida,’ Goth., the preposition «card (with a genitive) having its primary meaning of ‘desuper,’ ‘deorsum’ (Kiihner, Gr. § 433. b. 11., Winer, Gr. §'47.k.; comp. im loc. 210 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XI. 4, 5. Kata Keharis éxov Katacytver THY Kepadyy avTov. *® maca dé \ f ED , > ON a rv; yuvn Tpocevxouévn 1) TMpopyTevovca akatakahuTT@ TH Kepani \ \ ¢ ee a) Q f o \ ; rn KaTaloxuver THY Kepadny avTns* Ev yap EoTLW Kal TO avTO TH 5. avris] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort (with margin), on very clearly preponderating authority: (ec., éavrijs. Donalds. Craz. § 182), and conveying the idea of something hanging down from the head, z.e. a veil or similar sort of covering. It appears from the ref- erences supplied by Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. in loc.), and the notes of Grotius and Wetstein, that while the Jews covered the head in prayer, and the Romans while offering sacrifice, the Greeks prayed uncovered, — but, as it is doubtful whether the use of the veil (tallith) in prayer by the Jews is not a comparatively modern usage (Smith, Dict. of Bible, s.v. ‘Veil’) there seems no reason to think that the Apostle was here sanctioning particularly the Greek, as in contradistinction to the Jewish, usage, but was speaking broadly and generally. Hofmann contends that the Apostle is here referring only to domestic prayer; but to this not only the language (mpopntrevwv), but the whole tenor of the passage seems dis- tinctly opposed. KaTaLoX vet viv Kehadiv adrot] ‘dishonoreth his head ;’ not Christ (ver. 3), but ‘his head,’ in the ordinary meaning of the word: the adoption of a usage belong- ing to women, and indicative of subor- dination to men, would certainly in- volve dishonor to the man’s head who adopted it; and the more so in the service of prayer, and in the sight of Him who is his proper and true Head, he would be displaying a token of a human subordination: ‘profitetur se in terris aliquem supra se principem et rectorem habere,’ Estius. It does not appear that this was done in Corinth, but it forms the basis for the argu- ment: ‘conditionate loquitur de viro,’ Bengel. 5. Taca Sé yuvi «.T.A.] ‘Sut (in con- trast to the case of the man) every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered, or (perhaps more exactly, as suggested by the previous Kata Kepadjs), unveiled ;’ second and contrasted conclusion from ver. 3. On the participles, see notes on ver. 4, and on the dative of mode and manner (axar. TH Kkep.), Winer, Gr. § 31. 7. d, Kiihner, Gr. § 425. 11. There is here some little difficulty, owing to the fact that such praying (if aloud) or prophe- sying would seem to have been for- bidden; see ch. xiv. 34, and comp. 1 Tim. ii. 12. Perhaps at first the usage, which probably would not have been common, and confined to devo- tional meetings of a limited and in- formal nature (contrast ch. xiv. 34), was left unnoticed, until brought into prominence by the utter aratia of an uncovered head. The Apostle is not now concerned with the circumstances of their praying or prophesying, but with the manner and guise in which they did so: ‘ quatenus liceat [scil. 7d mporevxerOu 7) 7d mpopnrevew] Paulus differt ad cap. xiv., nempe extra con- ventum,’ Bengel. KATOLOX UveEL viv keh. adris] ‘ dishonoreth her head ;’ Sher head,’ as before, in its natural sense. To put away from it the mark of the divinely constituted relation of the woman to the man, and of natural modesty, is to do dishonor to the part where the 7d mpémor is violated: yuvatki ye why 7d KadvmrecOu Kéopos: Cyril, ap. Cap. XI. 5-7. éEvpnucvy. 1 CORINTHIANS. 211 6 23 \ > , \ , é x € yap ov KATAKANUTTTETAL yur”, Kab Kelpacuw et Se aicypov yuvatkl Td KelpacOas 4 EvpaoOat, kataxaduTrTécOo. Tavnp pev yap ovk odeiher KataxadiTrTecOar Ti Kepadjy, Cramer, Caz. éy ydp éoriv K.T.A.] ‘for she zs one and the same with a woman that is shaven ;’ the subject of the verse being, as above, raga yurh k.7.A. (2.€. every such woman ’), and the generalizing neuter, the predicate cor- responding to it; see Winer, Gr. § 27. 5, Kiihner, Gr. § 360, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 61.7.9. The woman that prayed or prophesied without a cover- ing on her head was on a complete level with one whose head, whether from grief (Deut. xxi. 12) or disgrace, or some form or other of shameless- ness, had been shaven; numerous ex- amples, more or less illustrative, will be found in Wetst. zz Zoc. On the verse generally, see a discourse by Mede, Works, Vol. I. p. 76 sqq. (Lond. 1664). 6. el yap od karakaX. KT.A.] ‘for ifa woman is not veiled, or, perhaps more exactly (the ov practically coalescing with the verb; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 2. b. and notes on ch. vii. 9), wsvezled, let her also cut close her hair ;’ confirmation (ydp) of the last clause of the preceding verse; if the woman is so lost to the feeling of modesty and decorum that she goes about without a veil, why should she not take a step further, cut close her hair, and affect man’s appear- ance in this particular also (Hamm.) ? The imperative expresses logical neces- sity,—let her do what is the natural outcome of going unveiled; see Winer, Gr. § 43. 1. The repdo@w is un- doubtedly middle both in form and meaning (see Kihner, Gr. § 376. 5), but there seems no reason to consider the associated verbs as in the same voice. The transition from the reflexive idea of the middle to the receptive idea of the passive (Kiihner. Gv. § 376. I) is so easy that, in passages such as the present, the association of the two voices is perfectly natural. Hence in the concluding clause of the verse we may regard Evpac@arand katakadv- mrég@w as passive. On the mixing up of the forms of the middle and passive voice, see Winer, Gr. § 38. 4. et 88 aioXpdv k.T.A.] ‘beet of it 7s a shame toa woman to cut close her hair or be shaven (pres. : ‘undergo the operation ;’ compare Kihner, Gr. § 382. 1), det her be veiled :’ the minor and conclusion in the simple syllogism. If that to which being unveiled almost logically leads involves disgrace, then indeed is there a good reason for a return to the usage of modesty and decorum: émméve Seckvds Br 7 avaxdaviis TH Evphoes EorKe - Kal domep exelve aicxpdy, olTw Kal arn, Theoph. 7. Gvijp piv yap «.7.A.] ‘For a man indeed (7.e. a man contrasted with a woman; comp. Kiihner, Gv. § 518. 9) ought not to have his head veiled ;’ con- firmatory (ydp) of the last clause ‘let her (the woman) be veiled,’ and also introductory of a second reason for the monitory direction of the Apostle; mdAw étépa airy aitia. ovde yap dre kepadnv exer Tov Xpiordy pdvoy ovK dpeiAer KaAUTTETOaL ... GAN OTL Kal &pxet THs ‘yuvaxds, Chrys. As this is a second reason, following upon a first (ver. 3) of great weight and importance, the odk dpetAee will naturally carry the stronger meaning ‘ought not;’ it was not a matter of ‘non sit’ (Calvin), but ‘non debet’ (Vulg.) : opp. to Hofmann, who, in arguing for the weaker rendering (‘is not bound’), seems to overlook the weight which the pre- 212 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XI. 7-10. eixov Kal boa Ocod irdpywv: 7 yu Se doa dvdpos éotw. 8 > 4 > > \ > Ld > \ . > > } f 9 \ ov yap €oTW avnp €K yuvaiKos, GAA yuvn €& avdpos: * Kal yap ovk éxticOn dvnp Sia Thy yuvaixa, adrAa yun Sia Tov avopa. 10 61a TovTo odeiher 4 yurn eEovoiav éxew el Tis 7. n yuvh] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: ec. omits the article. ceding airia would mentally have in the Apostle’s thoughts. eikov Kal Sd—a Ocod trdpyxov] ‘seeing that he is (by original constitution) ze zmage and glory of God ;’ causal participial clause (Donalds. Gr. § 615) giving the reason why man’s head ought not to be veiled. He was made in the image of God (Gen. ii. 26, morhowuey GvOpwrov kat’ eixéva juetépav), and, as made in that image and prior to woman’s creation, practically exemplified the sovereignty committed to him (Gen. i. 28) by naming all living creatures (Gen. ii. 19). He was also the ‘glory’ of God as showing forth the glory of his Creator, and being His master-work. As the eixéy and ddéa (both ideas being in close union), he sets forth the sovereign majesty of Him who made him. To give eixéy a wider reference to the moral perfections involved in the idea of the ‘image of God’ (De Wette; comp. Delitzsch, Bzb/. Psych. p- 127, Transl.) would here be alien to the tenor and subject-matter of the paragraph : ‘ vir dicitur imago Dei, quia Deus, in illo representatur;... gloria Dei, quia Deus in illo glorificatur,’ Estius. On the subordination of the wife to the husband, see Rothe, Z%eol. Lthik, §§ 305, 323, Vol. II. p. 271, 2098 (ed. 2). : 8. od yap éoti K.T.A.] ‘for man is not of (out of ) woman, but woman of (out of) man ;’ confirmation of the state- ment that woman is the glory of man by a reference to the origin of woman; Gen. ii. 21 sq. The elva: ée has thus here its primary and proper meaning, —not dependence on (Gal. iii. 10, 1 Cor. xii. 16), but origin from,—‘aus dem Manne stammt,’ Ewald; see notes on Gal. iii. 7, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 47. a. g. Kal yap ovK éxrloOn «.T.A.] ‘for man was also not created because of the woman, but woman because of the man:” further (kat) confirmation (‘e causa finali,’ Estius) of the general position that woman is the glory of man, and in subordination to him; the kat, as often in the formula, marking the addition of a further and enhancing circum- stance, and the ydp standing in co- ordination with the preceding ydp in ver. 8; see especially notes oz 2 Thess. iii. 10, and oz Phil. ii. 27, where the meaning of the two particles when thus in union (often overlooked or mis- understood) is somewhat fully investi- gated; see also Hartung, Partzk. Vol. I. p. 138, Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 642. The article is inserted before yuvaika, as the reference is to ¢e woman alluded to in the text on which the Apostle is basing his statement, viz. Gen. ii. 18; it is omitted in the second clause (a@AAd yuvh «.7.A.), as ‘woman’ generally is there spoken of; but it is inserted before &vdpa, as here the same text equally brings before us ¢#e man, viz. the first man, in regard of whom God’s merciful sympathy was displayed. On this individualizing use of the article, see Kihner, Gr. § 461. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 3. 6. 10. Sia Totro] ‘for this cause,’ viz. — . Cuap. XI. Io. Keparys Sia Tovs aryyédous. because woman is declared by the word of God to derive her origin from man, and to have been created on his account; 8a tadra Ta eipnucva dmayta, Chrys. To refer the 6a rotro to tke last clause of ver. 7 (Estius, De Wette) mars the natural sequence: ver. 7 is illustrated by two scriptural state- ments; from these two statements the 7 OpelAew (See on ver. 7) is naturally deduced. opetrer ¥ yuvi) K.T.A.] ‘the woman (here considered generi- cally,— the command is for all) ought to have (the sign of ) authority resting on her head. The explanations of the use of the abstract term in connection with a purely simple and concrete direction on the part of the Apostle are very numerous. It is, however, wholly unnecessary to discuss them, as the Greek expositors—to whom in such a matter we may rightly defer — unanimously, and apparently without any consciousness of any other inter- pretation, regard éfovciay as Td Tod éEouoid (eo Oat cvuBoroy (Theoph.), or, in other words, as used ‘ permetonymiam;’ the context supplying the obvious and natural interpretation. This efovcla is not the woman’s authority or dignity (Wordsw.),— a very unnatural inter- pretation,— but the man’s, ry Tod avdpds ekovoiay Kal Kupidtnta frep broxerrat (Phot.), that which is the very foundation and basis of the Apostle’s rule and directions. No strictly similar example has been adduced, as the passage in reference to the statue of the mother of Osimanduas, in Diod. Sic. (Bzbl. Hist. 1. 47, @xovoav tpeis Bactrclas ém) ris Kepadys) refers to sovereignties as acquired or possessed by the person specified,— not, as ex- ercised over her. In Tacitus, Ger- mania, Cap. 39, a ‘vinculum’ is spoken of as a ‘postestas numinis.’ The 1 CORINTHIANS 213 arrnv ovTe yuv» ywpis avdpos passage therefore must be left to supply its own interpretation. The ancient Versions give no particular help, as they either translate literally Vuig., Svr., Copt.), or by what is here meant (‘ut veletur caput,’ Aith; comp. Arm.). The simplest form of trans- lation is that of Rev., which (with a slight change) is here adopted. On the meaning of eéovoia (‘rightful authority’), compare Cremer. J£70/.- Theol. Weorterb. s. v. p. 237. Sua toils ayyéAous ‘because of the an- gels ;’ scil. tobs ayyéAous aidouuevn, Theophlact,— having due regard to ‘decency for the Angels’ sake,’ Hooker (Zccl. Pol. V. 25. 2). The interpreta- tions of this obscure expression are again very numerous. The simplest is the view adopted by the majority of the best expositors, viz. that the Apostle is here referring to the holy angels, deemed both by the Jewish Church (comp. Ps. cxxxviii. 1. LXX, Tobit xii. 2, and Philo, de Human. Vol. II. p. 387 ed. Mang. — where, in regard of the song of Moses, it is said, qv katakovovow t&vOpwrot te Kul &yyeAor Aettoupyol ; see Mangey’s note 27 Joc.). and by the early Christian Church (see the quotations from Chrys. cited by Hooker, /.c.; add zz Ascens. § 1, Vol. II. p. 448, ed. Bened.), to be present in the services of the Church: see Bp. Bull, Serm. x11. Vol. I. p. 322 (Oxf. 1827), and the striking narrative in Chrys. de Sacerd. v1. 4, Vol. 1, p. 424 (ed. Bened.), in which the same idea, , as to the liturgic presence of the holy | angels, is distinctly set forth: comp. © also the Liturgy of St. Basil (Swainson, Greek Lit. p. 77), in the fifth prayer of which, called the evx} ris eioddov, the presence of the holy angels is solemnly prayed for (roinooy oby ti ciodde jay elcodov aylwy ayyéAwy ‘yiveo@at) as an 214 1 CORINTHIANS Cuap. XI. 10-12. ” Otek \ \ b] / 12 iA \ € \ I oUTe ainp xXwpis yuvaikos ev Kupip: “a@omep yap 1) yuvn ex n > / e \ e AS. \ a ld 5 DY , Tod avdpos, ovTws Kal 6 avnp Sia THS yuvatKoss Ta O€ TaVTA ~ Il. obte yuv K.t.A.] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev. Weste. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: ec., otre dvyp k.7.A., inverting the two members. accessory to the majesty of the service. Traces of this are to be found in nearly all the ancient Liturgies (comp. Swain- son, p, 205, 385, al.), and remains of it in the ‘Therefore with Angels and Archangels, etc.’ of our own service. To refer this expression to holy men (Clem.-Alex.), or rulers of the Church (Ambr., al.) is inconsistent with the lexical use of &yyeAor in the N.T. (see Cremer, Worterb. p. 17); to limit it to guardian angels (Theodoret), out of harmony with the context; and to re- gard it as initself monitory against tempting the angels (Hofmann), wholly at variance with all our conceptions of these blessed beings as suggested to us by the N.T.; see Estius 27 foc. The early opinion (Tertullian), that evil or fallen angels may be here alluded to, is admissible as far as the lexical use of &yyeAo is concerned (see notes on ch. vi. 3), but inconsistent with that of of &yyeAor, which words were thus used alone (Matt. xiii. 49, xxv. 31, Luke RVi22, Tor Xild, Heb. 1. 4) sal.) always refer to the oly angels. We therefore so understand the words here, and regard the reference to these blessed beings as implying that where they, in all their holy order, were ovAAELTOupyourTes Kal ouvvdotoAoyourTes (Basil), there recognition of a divinely constituted order was verily to be shown by every reverential worshipper : see Hooker, Zec/. Pol. I. 16. 4, and comp. Bull, Serm. XI. 2, Vol. I. p. 318 (Oxford, 1827). An interesting sermon on this text will be found in Bp. Hall, Works, Vol. Vv. p. 461 sqq. (Oxf. 1837). II. wAhy obre yuvi) k.T.A.] 6 weverthe- less, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord:’ appended cautionary comment, the wAfqv, with its practically adversative force, limiting and placing in its true light the import of the pre- ceding verses. On the meaning of mAnv, see notes oz Phil. i. 18, and, on its approximation in meaning to aad, Kiihner, Gr. § 555. 6. 5. If any dis- tinction is to be drawn between the particles d@AAa indicates opposition, owing to something different (&AAo) being alleged, — 7Afv to something ad- ditional (mAéov) being brought into consideration which modifies what has gone before. The two words yuv7 and avho are, as in verses 8 and 9, without the article (see above), though here the idiom hardly allows it to be ex- pressed in translation. év Kuplw] ‘in the Lord ;’ defining clause, com- mon to the two preceding members: ‘in the Lord,’ scil. in the Christian sphere, there was no independence of thesexes ; each depended on the other, and both on Christ. On this familiar formula, see notes oz Eph. iv. 17, Vi. 1, and Cremer, 476/.-Theol. Worterb. p- 385, Hofmann regards the év Kupig as the predication, and the xapls avipes and xwpls yuvaixds as limitations of it; but the relations to each other of the sexes generally is clearly the subject- matter, not their relations to Chris- tianity. 12. dowep yap f yvv?| K.T.A.] ‘for as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by means of the woman ;’ con- firmation of the preceding clause by a reference to the fact of the propagation Cuap. XI. 12-14. 1 CORINTHIANS. 215 > fa) fa} gy 3 lal a a éx tod Oeod. ev tyiv avtois xpivate* mpetrov éotiv yuvaixa > r , a a ’ a a ek le , 1 dkatuKdduTTov TO Oe@ mpocevyerog, ; 4 ovdse>y Pais avTy , CA / IAN \ \ » Siddoxes tus OTL avnp Mev CAV KOUG Atiuia alT@€oTW, Yuri) & 14. ovdé 7 piois ath] So Lachm., Tisch, Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: ‘ec. pretex_#, and adopts the order avTh 7H pvots. of the race by means of the woman: the first woman, it is true, came out of man /Gén. ii. 21), but it was through her, and women generally after her, that men came into existence. It may then be rightly said that each depends upon the other. The articles here again come into play, as the reference in the first member is to the known and historic fact relating to the origin of the woman. 7a, St wavTa ék tod Ocot] ‘but all things are of God;’ the totality of things,—not man only, and (derivatively) woman, but man, woman, and all their relations and interdependences,—come from God as from their true causal fountain and origin. On the 74 mdyra (‘all things collectively’ as distinguished from mavra ‘all things severally’), see Bishop Lightfoot oz Col. i. 16, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 18.8; and on the mean- ing of é« in this formula, (not here ‘ de- pendence on,’ De Wette, but ‘origination from’), see notes on ch. viii. I. 13. év dpiv adrois kplvare] ‘judge ye in your own selves, ‘in suo quisque animo zstimate,’ Est.: appeal to the natural feelings of decorum and pro- priety; ‘naturam illis decori magistram proponit,’ Calvin. Compare the some- what similar appeal in ch. x. 15. 1+ @ew] added to mark, still more dis- tinctly, the irreverence involved in the act. The dative of the person after mpocevxeOat, though common in ordi- nary Greek, is found only occasionally in the N.T., as here and Matt. vi. 6: the prevailing use of the verb is in- transitive ; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 423, 8. ractical?’ wy” TA lise qQ bows KT.A.] ‘doth not even nature itself teach you?’ scil. the appointed order of things, pvois here referring more to the outward than to the inward (‘naturale judicium rectz rationis,’ Pisc., Meyer, al.), the appeal (as the ovdé seems to imply; comp. Hofmann 77 doc.) being to the support given to the inward feeling by the light supplied by the general order of nature (comp. Rom. i. 26, xi. 21, 24, James iii. 7) in this particular, —natura, ejusque de decoro lumen,’ Bengel. For a full discussion of the various meanings that have been assigned to vous, the stu- dent (if necessary) may refer to the long note in Poli. Syzops (iz loc.), and for the more recent and philosophical estimate of the meaning of the word ‘nature,’ Mill, Assays on Religion, p. 15; comp. Mozley, Serm. VI. p. 122 sqq Ste avi piv «.7.A.] ‘that if a man (em- phatic, and in contrast with yuvf in ver. 15) have long hair ;’ the dt here being immediately dependent on diddone, and introducing the objectivesentencewhich follows; see Donalds. Gr. § 584, and comp. notes on ch. vii. 26. In some of the ancient versions (Vulg. [as in Lach- mann], Copt.) the 8t appears to be taken in its causal sense, similarly to its usage in ver. 15 (so too Hofmann) ; but the connection between d:ddones and the words that follow is obviously much more immediate than between the two members of ver. 15, and the objective or exponential sentence much more easy and natural than a causal sentence, which would leave unex- pressed what the teaching of nature 216 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XI. 14-16. a ' fl , \ dé dv Koma, Soka ath eotw; dre Kopn avtl mepiBodaiov déoTat avTn. 8 Wi 8€é tus Soxel Pidoverxos elvar, jets TovadTnv cubevav ovx Exopev, ovSE Wi ExKAnoias TOD Oeod. actually was. On the difficulty of settling the meaning of ~ 1 many passages in the N.T., se _ +s on ch. ix. 10, and on 1 Thess. i. 3. "She word kouay (‘comam nutrire,’ Vulg.) is only used in this passage in the N.T., but is common elsewhere, in both its natural and its metaphorical sense: see ex- amples in Steph. 7zesaur. s.v. Vol. Iv. p- 1773. On the custom of the He- brews (men) in regard of wearing the hair (generally short; but see 2 Sam xiv. 26, Joseph. Avztig. VIII. 7. 3), see Smith, Dict. of Bible, Vol. 1. p. 738; on that of the Greeks (at first long in the case of the Spartans, but afterwards almost universally short), and of the Romans (short, after B.C. 300), Smith, Dict. of Antig. s.v. ‘Coma,’ p. 328. In early Christian days short hair was the mark of the Christian teacher, as con- trasted with the usual long hair of the heathen philosopher: see Smith, Dicz. Chr. Antig. Vol. I. p. 755: 15. Ste q Kony KT.A.] Sdecause her hair has been given to her for a cover- ing;’ reason why (see above ver. 14) long hair, in the case of the woman, is a glory to her, viz. because it serves as a kind of natural veil (cxérn imd tis gicews memopiouévn, Muson. ap. Stob. Floril. 1.84), the general term epi 86- Aaoy (‘quod circumijicitur,’ Grimm ; comp. Heb. i. 12) deriving here its more restricted meaning from the con- text and the general subject-matter of the passage. The prep. avi (properly ‘in the place which is opposite,’ Don- aldson, Gr. § 474. a) is not of very frequent occurrence in St. Paul’s Epp. (Rom. xii. 17, Eph. v. 31, LX X, 1 Thess. v. 15, 2 Thess. ii 10); it is here in its common meaning of ‘ exchange,’ or ‘ in place of’ (one thing being set, as it were, over against another): see _ Winer, Gr. § 47. a, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 14. 1. It is derived from the Sanscrit uw... “T against), and so connected with the Laut te tthe Guess, “wo Gothic ‘and,’ and the German ‘ ant-’ and ‘ ent-;’ see Curtius, Griech. Ztym. § 204, p. 186 (ed. 2), Kihner, Gr. § 42. 1. On the perfect Séd0ra, as pointing to the permanence of the par- ticular order of nature referred to, see Winer, Gr. § 40. 4. 16. Hi 8€ tus Soxet K.7.A.] ‘ But if any one seemeth to be contentious, our an- swer is, etc.:’ closing sentence, adding to the foregoing arguments the weighty practical argument derived from Apos- tolical authority and general ecclesias- tical practice. Lachmann connects this verse with the following paragraph: Tisch. makes it a separate paragraph; Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort (so also De Wette, Meyer, Hofmann) more naturally regard it as the closing words of the preceding subject: ‘ perspicit Paulus nonnulla posse excipi; sed ea reprimit auctoritate,’ Bengel. The meaning of Soxe? is somewhat doubt- ful: it may refer (a) to the opinion of others, — ‘videtur contentiosus esse,’ Vulg. (Syr. omits),—and may point to the case of a man bringing counter- arguments against what has been al- leged (founded, as they might be, upon recognized exceptions, Nazarites, etc. ; see Smith, Dict. of Bible, p. 739), and so having the appearance of being contentious. Or it may refer (4) to the opinion of the subject, ‘thinketh to be’ (Copt.), ‘wishes to be’ (Arm., Aith.), scil. is resolved on being contentious, ‘certare pergit,’ Estius. On the whole, Cuap. XI. 16, 17. There are grave disor- ders in your celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and they bring judg- ments upon you. 17. wapayyéAAwy ove émave@] The reading is somewhat doubtful. 1 CORINTHIANS. 217 U Tovto 5é tapayyéd\wv ovKk érrawe ott > > \ lal > \ ? \ & OUK ELS TO KpPElaocOY GANA ELS TO NooTOV cuV- Lachm. and Zreg. read mapayyéAAw ovK émaivav, with good, but, as it would seem, slightly inferior authority. The uncial evidence is much broken up by cor- rections, and one important witness [B] is practically silent, having the reading TapayyeAAwy ovK emavav, which obviously might be claimed by either side. The internal argument that the indic. rapayyéAAw would seem more likely to be a correction of the participle than conversely (see Zisch.) distinctly adds to the preponderance in favor of the text: so Rec., Tisch., Rev., Westc. and fort (but with margin). when we consider the tone of forbear- ance mingled with Apostolic authority that is clearly to be recognized in so many portions of this Epistle (consider the ov« émaw@ in ver. 17, and comp. ver. 2) we incline to (a) and regard it as KaT& pelwow Aeyduevov; see notes ov Phil. iii. 4. On the slight break be- tween the protasis and apodosis see Winer, Gr. § 66. 1. a, Buttmann, Gramm. N.T. p. 338. hpets Tovattyv cvvyPeav odk eXopev] ‘we have no such custom:? clearly, of allowing women to be uncovered, and especially when praying. The early expositors (Chrys., Ambr., Theoph. 1,— not, however, Theodoret) refer this to iAdveikos elvat, an interpretation that seems singularly improbable, and is in no way required by the jets (Meyer). The pronoun may refer simply to the Apostle himself (De Wette, compare Theoph.) but, more likely, includes other teachers whom the Apostle knew to be of the same mind with himself ; ‘ doctores vestri, ex Hebrezis,’ Bengel, or simply, we Apostles,’ Estius 1, Osiandez, al. However taken, it would be equally strange for the Apostle to state that neither he himself nor he with others had the habit of being contentious. The most factious of Corinthians could hardly have supposed it: comp. Hof- mann iz Joc. This verse is used by 28 Bp. Andrewes as the text for a sermon on the duty of keeping Easter; Sevm. Vol. Il. p. 404 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.). 17-34. Correction of the disorders that had taken place in connection with the Lora’s Supper. 17. Todro 8& Tmapayyc\dov k.7.A.] § Vow in giving you this charge L praise you not :’ transition to the subject that now calls for the Apostle’s especial notice, standing as it does in closest connection with the matter of decorum in their religious assemblies. The rodro will thus refer, not to what follows (Chrys., Bengel, al.), which, in such a transitional clause as the present would hardly be natural, but to what precedes,— ‘in giving you this charge about the veiling of your women, and now passing to another and graver subject, I do not praise you (as in ver. 2), that when you come together, it is for the worse and not for the better.’ The verb mapayyéArew has here, as apparently everywhere else in the N. T., its secondary meaning of ‘jubere,’ the primary and more usual meaning being ‘nuntium perferre’ (Grimm): see examples in Steph. Thesaur. s.v. Vol. V. p. 222 (ed. Hase and Dind.), and comp. notes oz 1 Zim. 3 In regard of the forms kpetooov and focoy there is no doubt, the evidence against the Attic form being here distinctly preponderant ; - 218 épyere. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XI. 17, 18. 18 al \ \ f ¢ a 9 > / TPWTOV MEV Yap TUVEPXOMEVOY UUW EV EKKANTLG axovw oxicpwata év tpiv bmapyew, Kat pépos TL TLoTEVwW. 1° det 18. év ekxanota] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec., ev TH éxkAngia. comp. Winer, Gv. § 5. 1. 16 (Moulton). Sti otk eis Td Kpeiooov K.T.A.] ‘that ye come together not for the better but for the worse;’ not for edification and spiritual improvement, but for the reverse. The 87 is not causal (Hof- mann) but relatival, not, however, with- out some tinge of that explanatory force which we may sometimes observe in its use in the objective sentence ; see notes on ch. ix. 10, and comp. Beza zn loc. 18. mparov piv yap K.T.A.] ‘ Aor first of all when you come together in (the) church :* specially confirmatory illus- tration of the justice of the preceding comment, the mpérov uéy (not followed by any émeira 5¢) being designed to call full attention to the ground which the Apostle had for the ov« émava@ (comp. ver. 22) of ver. 17; mpd yap amdvTwr tu@yv éxeivo aiti@ua, Theodorus. The mp@rov wev will thus really be without any truly defined ‘in the second place,’ except what may be implied in the introduction of the next subject,— the disorders connected with spiritual gifts (ch. xii—xiv.); but such an omis- sion is by no means without precedent (comp. Rom. i. 8, iii. 2; and see Winer, Gr. § 63. e. y), and, in a passage like the present, in which the Apostle is speaking of an abuse of a very serious nature (consider ver. 29, 30), is especially natural. To make ver. 20 the introduction of the second subject (Winer, De Wette, al.) is open to the gravest objections: it not only traverses the almost certainly resumptive (odv) reference of ver. 20 to the present verse, but (as is plainly admitted by De Wette) disposes of a subject (the par- ties and party spirit at Corinth) especially prominent in the Apostle’s thoughts (comp. ch. i. Io sq,) in two short verses, and almost without even implied reproof.. If, however, the party spirit is first mentioned as the root-principle of their various disorders, and then exemplified in the Lord's Supper, the connection is simple and natural, and the relation of ver. 20 to the present verse just what the repeti- tion of the ouvepxouevwy and the re- sumptive nature of the ody would lead us to expect. év éxxAnolg] This expression may be loosely ren- dered, as above, ‘in (the) church,’ but must be understood as implying what, our more familiar ‘in church’ would convey to a modern reader; the omis- sion of the article leaving ékxAnoia with a general, and here semilocal, force (comp. ém 7d adrd, ver. 20): see Bengel zz loc., and comp. Winer, Gy. § 50. a. It is thus not necessary to regard the word as here definitely implying ‘an ' assembly,’ but as retaining its ordinary meaning (Syr., Copt., Ath. [‘domo Christianorum’], Arm.) under the semi- local aspect above alluded to. dxotw oXlopata K.t.r.] ‘/ hear that divisions exist among you:’ principle statement, to which the preceding clause prefixes the defining circum- stances of time and place ; the divisions were shown not only in regard of ex- pressions and sentiments (comp. ch. i. 10), but even in the outward order of their solemn religious assemblies. Of the existeuce of these dissensions the Apostle expresses himself as continuing to hear, the present (akovw) marking ‘a state which commenced at Cuap. XI. 18-20. 1 CORINTHIANS. 219 \ \ Leas > eon (- ef i 80 \ , yap kal alpEecels €V UPLV ELVAL, LYVA Ol OOKLLOL pavepot YEVWVTAL > Lee 2! €v vp. an earlier period but still continues’ (Winer, Gr. § 40. 2. c, Bernhardy, Syzzz. p- 370), and the tmrdpxev the well- defined existence (‘wirklich seyn,’ Kiihner, Gr. § 355) of that which is spoken of. These oxlonata did not involve separations from the Church, but were dissensions that existed within it ; comp. Theodoret. Kal péepos Te murrsio] Sand TL partly believe it ;’ the accus. of the quanti- tative object to which the action ex- tends (see notes on ch. x. 33); ék wepous uikpod motevw, Chrys. The Apostle expresses his general belief in what was told him, otherwise he would not have made the statement in ver. 17; but, whether from the nature of the ac- counts, or the character of the in- formants, he is careful to say that he only believes a part of what he has heard: ‘miti sermone utitur,’ Bengel. 19. Set yap aipéoes K.t.A.] ‘ Hor there must also be parties among you ;’ scil. definite aggregations into factions and parties,— this latter word more exactly defining the results and developments of the oxicwara; see notes oz Gal. v. 20. The kat is thus partly copulative, partly ascensive (see notes o2 Phil. iv. 12); it marks that which, by the very appointed order of things (5e2), will be found with the divisions, and into which they will have insensibly de- veloped; tas [aipéoes] tay ToLotTwy oxicuatwy, Theoph. The word has thus here no dogmatic reference (ov Tas tay Soyudrov, Chrys.) such as would be implied in the ordinary use of the word ‘heresies’ (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 1), but, as in Acts xxviii. 22, T7js aipécews Tavs (in reference to, Christians), points to the parties into which Corinthian Church-life was tending to crystallize: see notes ov Tit. iii. 10. In the de? 20 > L 5 eo es aN \ > \ > ” UVEPKOMEVOV OUV ULWY ETL TO GUTO OUK EOTLI' there is nothing further implied than this,— that, there being such divisions, it is the divine purpose that they should subserve to the end specified in the next clause: Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, II. 4, Vol. I. p. 420 (Transl.). Ya ot Séxuror «.t.A.] ‘chat they that are approved may be made manifest among you ;’ that the nobler spirits may be- come known and recognized among you ; foreordered purpose — not merely the @Baois (Theophyl., comp. Chrys.) —of the existence of the aipéces among the Corinthians. The divine alchemy would disclose what was tested and genuine, what was alloyed and adulterate ; see Wordsw. zz doc. On the deep questions connected with this subject, see Rothe, 7%eol. Ethik, § 479. I sq. Vol. II. p. 35 sq. (ed. 2). Lachm. and Westc. and Hort insert in brackets «at before of Sdxuor. The rat has certainly fair support, but is so likely to have been inserted to bring out and emphasize the associated words, that there seems hardly ground even for the limited recognition of the reading above specified. 20. LvvepXopévav otv tpov «k.t.A.] ‘When then ye (thus) come together to one place ;’ more definite specification ~ by means of the reflexive obv (see notes on Gal. iii. 5, Phzl.ii. 1) of the disorders which took place in their religious assemblies. The ém) 7d avto, as usual, marks the idea of J/ocality, and is in effect almost equivalent to the ev éxxAnola of ver. 18. On the use and meaning of this formula, see notes on ch. vii. 5. ovK tot KUpLaKoy Scirvov dayeiv] ‘zt zs not to eat the Lord’s supper ;’ the emphasis, as the position of the attribute Jdefore the subst. clearly indicates (Winer, Gr. § 59. 2, Kithner, Gr. § 606. 1) resting on 220 1 CORINTHIANS. CuHape. XI. 20-22. \ 5 a mr , 91 isd \ + 18 8 a Kuptakov ELTTVOV haryetv E€KAGTOS yap TO lOoLOV OELTTVOV 7 po- / J a tal AL AapBaver év TO haryely, Kal Os the word xupiaxov: owing to their dis- orderly conduct it was no more than an iSwrixdy detrvov (Chrys.). The verb éstw is thus to be taken in its usual sense, the clause preceding cuvepx. ov juay acting as a quasi-subject, and being in fact equivalent to an expressed tovTo, ‘ hoc non est,’ Beza; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 2. rem.: so in effect, though paraphrastically, Syr. (‘non sicut justum est die Domini nostri come- ditis’), and, as it would seem from the tenor of the sentences which he puts in contrast with it, Chrys. zz Zoc. The other Vv. (except Aith. which has a mere gloss) do not supply any clue to the meaning they ascribed to ov« éorw. The rendering ‘non licet’ (Meyer, Hofmann) is grammatically permis- sible (see examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 473. 3, and in Ast, Lex. Plat. Vol. 1. p. 622), but does not so well harmonize with the confirmatory sentence which follows, the object of which is to show how, by the very nature of the acts and circumstances, it could only be regarded as an idtwtixdy Setrvov. It appears to have been the custom in this early period for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to have followed (after the example of the first institu- tion), and not to have preceded (Chrys.), the Agape, (Jude 12) or Love-Feast: see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. I. p. 24, Bingham, Aztig. xv. 7. 7, Augusti, Handb. d. Arch. Vol. I. p. 499, and Smith, Dict. Chr. Antig. Vol. I. p. 40. A description of the Agape will be found in Tertull. Afo/. cap. 39, but it contains nothing from which we can certainly infer whether, at that time, the Lord’s Supper preceded or tollowed it. 21. tkawros yap k.t.A.] ‘ Hor cach one in his eating taketh before (other) his 22 yo \ a a \ VA pep trewda, os dé peOver. ™ un own supper ;’—his own supper, in contrast to the kupiakdy Setrvoy just specified, which he had professed to come to eat; confirmation of the pre- ceding statement, that it verily was no eating of a xupiaxdy Seirvov, but simply of an idtwrixdy Sefrvov. The proof of this lay in the patent fact that each one (‘de multis dicitur,’ Grot.), whether rich or poor, began eating his own supper, and never waited for the rest (ver. 33). It was thus no xouvdy detrvor, as it ought to have been (Chrys.), but a mere eating, it may be in the same place, but not at the same time, and with those characteristics which marked the blessed supper, of which this had become a travesty. Chrysos- tom, Theophylact, and others appear to limit the é€xaoros to the rich. What follows, in which each class is specified, seems to imply.no such limitation: each one had begun to adopt the bad habit of not waiting for others. kal ds piv mew «.7.d.] ‘and one hungers, and another ts drunken ;’ the natural result; the one who has brought but little, and might, at what ought to have been a common table, have re- ceived somewhat from a better-supplied neighbor, is hungry, while another who has brought much, takes of that abundance, and becomes drunken. The word wedvew has here its regular meaning (Matt. xxiv. 49, Acts ii. 15, 1 Thess. v. 21): with one it was amAnotia and hunger; with the other it was downright drunkenness; eis wéOnv etéBaivov, Chrys. 22. pi) yap oiklas «1.A.] 6 Verily have ye not houses to eat and drink zz ?’ emphatic, and almost indignant, question (‘interrogando urget,’ Bengel), the dp, as always in such cases, losing in the almost indignant question some- Cuap. XI. 22, 23. 1reCORINTHIANS 221 \ o 7 ? ” > Nes 6 \ , pe eA HALO ho > yap ovKias OUK EXETE ELS TO EO LELV KQAL TLVELVY 5 1) TNS EKKANTOLAS a an a ta \ \ 4 / Tod Ocov xatadpoveite, kal KaTaioyvveTe Tos pn ExovTas ; Ti lal ¢ fal > elrrm wiv; érrawéow vas; év ie > > lal 23 > \ \ TOUT@ OUK €TTALVO). ey@ yap 22. elrw tuiv] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: /ec., what of its usual confirmatory or argumentative force, but still retaining clear traces of that ‘sane pro rebus comparatis’ (Klotz) which is the funda- mental meaning of this compound particle; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 8. ¢, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 247, and notes on Phil.i. 18. Were the reference is to the state of things just described, and to the censure implied in it; ‘matters being thus, the question may well be asked whether etc. :’ werd moAAod Aouwdy Tov Ouuod Thy emimantw éemdye, Chrys. In the wy) —ovx« the wh expresses the question, the od« belongs to the verb, and coalesces with it so as to form one idea,—‘surely ye are not without houses etc.,’ the wi as usual pointing to a negative reply: see Winer, Gr. § 57- 3- 4, Kithner, Gr. § 587. 11, and notes on ch. ix. 4. q Tis éxkAnolas «.7.A.] ‘or despise ye the Church of God ;’ alternative supposi- tion, and the true one; they 4ad houses, and yet came to the place where God was worshipped, and behaved in the manner complained of. They despised, and showed their want of reverence for, alike the place set apart for the worship of God (comp. Hooker, Zcc/. Pol. v. 12. 5), and the congregation that assembled there (comp. ver. 18), by not duly sharing in the common meal which was preparatory to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper: omep yap Td Kupiaxdy Setmvoy idiwtikdy moves, obTw Kal thy Témov Madu, ws oikla TH exxAnola Kexpnuevos, Chrys. In the second portion of the two-membered sentence the uh €xovres does not mean ‘those who have not houses to eat and buy etrw. drink in’ (AlIf.),—a_ possible, but singularly flat rendering,— but, in har- mony with the use of of @yortes as designating ‘the wealthy’ (Eurip. Suppl. 240, Alcest. 57; see Steph. Thesaur. s. vV. Vol. II. p. 2625, ed. Hase),—‘the poor (rods mévnras, Theoph.) those who had little or nothing to bring to these common feasts, and who, consequently, hungered (ver. 21): so Winer, Gr. § 64. 5. wi tpiv eltrw 5 K.t.d.] ‘ What am I to say to you? am Ito praise you? In this I praise you not:’ deliberative subjunc- tive,— in the second, as well as in the first clause. It is somewhat difficult to decide whether év tovtw, is to be joined with od« érayvéow, or with what follows. As ver. 2 seems clearly to imply that praise was, in the Apostle’s mind, due generally to the Corinthians, in regard of their observance of Chris- tian usages and mapadéce:s, and as this particular case was. distinctly specified as an exception (ver. 17), that position of év rovrw is to be preferred in which the words would have the greatest emphasis. If this be correct, the connection with the last member rather than with the words which precede is here to be pre- ferred: so Goth., Atth., Arm., and among recent editors, Zisch., Westc. and Hort. The connection with what follows seems also to point the same way; ‘in this certainly I praise you not, for I received of the Lord a very different mapddoats.’ 23. ya yap mwapéAaBov k.t.A.] ‘or 7 received of the Lord ;’ confirmatory reason for the distinct éy tovTw ovk émawva@ just preceding; the éy@ slightly 222 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XI. 23, 24. mapéraBov amo tod Kupiov, 6 Kat mapédwxa tipiv, dre 0 Kupios "Inoots ev TH vuetl 4 mapedidero édaBev aptov, 4 Kat evya- marking the personal element in the solemn statement (comp. notes on ch. vii. 28), and so the authority of the communication (ard rév Kkuptwrépwy Tov Adyov Spaiver, Chrys.), and the amd rod Kuplov specially calling attention to the source from whence the Apostle re- ceived it. St. Paul might have said simply mapéAaBov (ch. xv. 1, 3, Gal. i. 9, Phil. iv. 9), leaving it undefined from whom or under what circumstances he received that which he states. On the other hand, he might have said rapéAa- Bov rapa Tov Kuplov (Gal. i. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. I), in which case he would have specified distinctly that the com- munication came directly from the Lord (‘afud Apostolum a Domino,’ Donaldson, Gr. § 485. a; comp. id. Crat. § 177), that it was, so to say, in His possession (Winer, Gr. § 47. b, mapa), and that He communicated it; see Kihner, Gr. § 440. a. 2. Instead of either of these forms of expression, the Apostle chooses a middle form, viz. amd tov Kupiov, by which he marks quite plainly the whence (comp. Hof- mann 7 Joc.) of the communication, but, in a wider and more general sense (Winer, Gr. § 47. b, amd, Kiihner, Gr. § 430), and without necessarily implying (though it does not exclude it) direct personal communication. On the distinction between amé and apd, see notes oz Col. iii. 24. This is all that strictly grammatical considerations suggest : it is, however, scarcely doubt- ful (1) from the very insertion of the words under consideration, and (2) from the correlating kal in the clause that follows (6 kal wapédwra), that the Apostle distinctly sets forth our Blessed Lord as the source from which the wapdSoo1s emanated which he here communicates : see Hofmann 77 oc. 8 kal mapéSwxa] ‘which J also delivered unto you: ‘not only did I receive it, but I took care to deliver it:’ ‘hoc ipsum quod a Domino accepi,’ Estius. An important sermon on this text by Bishop Jewel will be found in his Works, p. 1 sqq. (Parker Soc.). btu K.7.A.] ‘how that, or to wit that, the Lord Jesus ;’ the 6m: having here a sort of sub-explanatory force, and speci- fying the nature of the action: see notes on ch. ix. 10. The name “Ijaovs (‘considerate additur,’ Bengel) seems here appended in harmony with the historical, and, so to say, documentary, tinge of the clauses which follow. q mapediSero] ‘272 which he was being betrayed ;’ the imperfect marking the action which had in fact practically commenced (comp. Matt. xxvi. 16, Luke xxii. 6), and is here represented as going on up to the time of its actual consummation: see Kihner, Gr. § 383. 1. It was on the night in which His betrayal was being completed that the Lord instituted the feast of His mercy and love: comp. Hofmann 77 doc. The form mapedideto is retained with very greatly preponderating uncial au- thority. A few similar instances are found (Matt. xxi. 33, Mark xii. 1, Luke xx. 9, Acts iv. 35); see Tischendorf, Prolegom. IV. 3, p- 124 (Leipz. 1884). 24. ToOTS pov éotl Td Tapa] ‘ This is my body ;’ ‘this broken bread is (sac- ramentally) my body.’ In these few, simple, and yet almost boundlessly discussed, words, it here seems plain (1) that the todro can refer to nothing else than the bread, or rather small loaf, of which our Lord took, and, after He had given thanks (temporal participle), broke; the neuter pronoun being used (in accordance with the known generalizing character of the i A ee Cuap. XI. 24, 25. 1 CORINTHIANS. 223 / »” \ - fy ey! b) \ \ A A) le ploTynaas ExXNacev Kal €lTrey* OUTO {LOU EGTLY TO DWLA TO UTrEp lal lal r ‘\ > / Uua@v* TOUTO Tro“eiTe Els THY EunV avawvynow. 25 y, \ @MOQAUTWS Kat 24. eimev Totto] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: ec. adds after efrev the words AdBere, pdyere. 7d imp Suav] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev. (with margin), Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds kAduevov. neuter: comp. Winer, Gr. § 27. 5) as best expressing not merely the bread, but the whole antecedent matter and action, the bread taken, and, after thanksgiving, broken; (2) that éorty can mean nothing more or less than ‘7s, the particular nature of the identity depending upon the circumstances and the context. Nowas the blessed body was there present, as yet unbroken, the éorfy could not have been under- stood to refer to material identity, — identity gwd substance, but it may, in part, have been understood then, and certainly is to be understood now, as implying a vea/ sacramental identity, and that the faithful do verily and indeed receive the spiritual food of the broken body and poured-out blood of the Lord; the bread and cup being ‘causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of His body and blood ensueth,’ Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 67. 5: see also the still stronger language of Cyril (Hierosolym.), Catech. XXII. p. 271 (Transl.). Lastly, you, though the position might at first seem to suggest it, is not emphatic, but simply enclitic; the examples in the N.T. being numerous in which the gen. of the personal pronouns is placed before the governing noun without any emphasis being thereby implied: see Winer, Gr. § 22. 7. rem. I. 7d trip tpov] ‘which zs for you;’ ‘for your salvation and spiritual life ;’ ‘ner- vosa sententia,’ Bengel; comp. John vi. 51, where (according to the best reading) imép rijs Tod kécuov (wis stands in similar grammatical and energetic parallelism. This short, but most comprehensive, form of expression draws its full meaning from the éAacev above: it was tmép suay by being broken (on the cross), as the bread was symbolically broken in the sacra- ment. On the use of émép in doctrinal passages, see notes o7 Gal. iii. 13. TovTo Trovcite K.T.A.] ‘do this (present; ze. continually thus take bread, give thanks, and break it) zz remembrance of me ;” the possessive pronoun being here taken objectively, ‘in memoriam mei,’ but without any implied empha- sis (Edwards): comp. ch. xv. 31, Rom. xi. 31, xv. 14, and Winer, Gr. § 22. If any special emphasis had been de- signed, the personal pronoun would obviously have been repeated in its full form, and placed at the end of the clause. These words are found in the holy narrative as given by St. Luke (ch. xxii. 19), but do not appear in St. Matthew and St. Mark. To render the words ‘ sacrifice this,’ in accordance with a Hebraistic use of moe in this sense in the LXX (Ex. xxix. 39, Lev. ix. 7, al.; see Schleusn. Lex. Vet. Test. S.v.), is to violate the regular usage of moetv in the N.T., and to import po- lemical considerations into words which do not in any degree involve or suggest them. On the use of zovoiy in the place of verbs of a more restricted meaning, see Kiihner, on Xenoph. AZem. iii. 8. 2. 25. aravTws Kal Td ToTHpiov K.T.A.] ‘In like manner also the cup, after they had supped ;’ scil. he took, gave thanks, and gave to them, the last-mentioned verb being latent in ver. 24, though ob- 224 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XI. 25. \ / \ \ fol / fal a J e \ TO TOTHpLoy meTa TO SeiTrVATAaL, Neywv TodTO TO ToTHpLOV 7 KaLVi) , > ‘ > A BI lel ~ la) lal 4 UA 7X dvaOnKn ecoOTW EV TM ELM ALMLaTt TOUTO TFOLELTE, OOAKLS EAV 25. doduis edv] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Westc. and Hort, both here and in verse 26, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., dv. viously implied by the context. The words peta 7d Seumvjou (not ‘postquam ‘ceenazz?,’ Vulg., but ‘ ccenaverzzt,’ Syr., fEth., or ‘coenatum est,’ Aug.: ‘after supper,’ Copt., Goth., Arm.), here specially added (‘ facto transitu ad ma- jora et ultima,’ Bengel oz Luke xxii. 20), are only found in St. Luke, but are here studiously reproduced, as it was the especial object of the Apostle to emphasize the distinction between the Lord’s Supper and the ordinary evening meal: comp. ver. 20sq. The eating of the bread originally formed a part of the common meal (consider Matt. xxvi. 26, Mark xiv. 22, éo@tovtwy avrav),and may still have so continued ; but the cup was certainly afterwards. On the 7d morfpiov, see notes on ch. x. 16. H Kawi) SvabqKy éotiy «TA. ]. ‘7s the new covenant (made to be so) in my blood ;’ the écriy, not found in St. Luke, here separating the 7 kawh d1a- @hxn from the év r@ éu@ alwari, and leaving this latter clause as an ap- pended explanation of how the cup was the new covenant; it was so, in and by the Redeemer’s blood, and of that blood the wine in the cup was the sacramental manifestation; see Hof- mann zz doc. That, however, it is the presence of the éoriy, and not the ab- sence of the article (Hofmann) which marks the dissociation of the two members of the clause, may correctly be maintained ; such an expression as diabhkn ev aiuart being possibly, like miatis ev TH Kupiw (see notes o7 Eph. i. 15), not grammatically inadmissible, especially in the N.T.; see Winer, Gr. § 20.2. In regard of the meaning of the éorfy in this and the preceding verse, it seems proper to say, that the contention that the shade of meaning borne by the verb in the former clause must be the same as that borne by it in this clause, is not consistent with accurate principles of interpretation. In each case the shade of meaning must be derived from the associated words. Here it stands in connection with a substantive bearing an abstract meaning; there, with a substantive having a material meaning. Such de- gree of identity as is in each case ad- missible under the specifications of the context is distinctly implied, but neither more nor less. Interpretation must not be warped by controversy. TovTO Toveite K.T.A.] ‘do this, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me:’ pe- culiar to this narrative, the TovTo motetre being used just in the same manner, and with the same reference to the acts performed, as in ver. 24. This tovro the Apostle, repeating the words of his Lord, reminds them was to be done whensoever, after their common meal, they drank of this sacramental cup. To refer dads éa» mivnte to every coming together at a social meeting, of which drinking formed a part (Hof- mann), is a very unnecessary and im- probable extension of the words, and the contention that the mlynre cannot have as its understood object accusa- tive the foregoing 7b morhpiov, wholly undemonstrable; see Kiihner, Gr. § 507- 2. 6, and the numerous instances there given of this very common form of brachyology. What the Apostle, by the citation of the words, wishes to press upon his Corinthian converts is this, that whenever the common meal Cuap. XI. 25, 26. Tivynre, Els THY eurnvy avayvnow. CORINTHIAN Sk 225 96 c / \ +N ’ ath R OGQaAKLS yap €av e€oUlnTe Tov a fal apTov ToUTOV Kal TO TroTHpioy TWHTEe, Tov Bdvatov tod Kupiov 26. td morhptov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds roito. In the words that follow, axp: (Rec., Lachm., Treg., Rev., &xpis) has preponderating authority; and ob &A@n (Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Westc. and Hort) greatly preponderating authority: Rec., Rev., ob bv eAGp. passed into the sacramental, the Lord’s ordinances which he here recites were to be reverently observed. On the use of éav for &, probably a peculiarity of the later popular language, see Winer, Gr. § 42. 6.rem. For a sermon on the end and object of the Lord’s Supper, see Farindon, Servm. XXVulI. Vol. Il. p. 71 sqq. (Lond. 1840). 26. OwdKis yap Ket.A.] ‘ For as often as ye eat this bread:’ confirmatory clause, characteristically appended by the Apostle, even to his Master’s own words, to bring home to readers that it verily was an avduvnois of the Lord; see Chrys. 77 oc. Whether this confirm atory clause was derived from the rev- elation of the Lord (ver. 23: ccmp. Hofmann) or from the Apostle’s 9wn spiritual reflection, must remain a mat- ter of individual opinion. The &prov tovtov implies the bread, broken, blessed and offered, as indicated in the divine words just recited. The doctrinal im- portance of the kal 7b morhpioy mivyrte, as against communion in one kind, is distinctly felt, and even, to a certain extent, admitted (‘licet expressior sit representatio mortis dominicz in utra- que specie separatim sumpta’), by Es- tius 272 loc. Tov Oavarov K.7.A.] ‘ye do proclaim the Lora’s death ;’ not merely ‘ye show,’ Auth., but, as St. Paul’s use of the word’ seems clearly to imply (Rom. i. 8, 1 Cor. ii. 1, ix. 14, Phil. i. 17, 18, Col. i. 28), £ ye proclaim,’ Rev. (‘annuntiatis,’ Vulg., Copt., Arm. ; ‘commemoratis,’ Syr.), with reference not merely to a making known (‘ gak- 27 annjaith,’ Goth.) by acts and personal manifestation (see Farindon, Sermz. Vol. Il. p. 109 sq.), but by word and utterance. Whether this was by the solemn utterance of some words on the part of the ministrant or recipients, or otherwise, we know not; but the choice of the word seems clearly to imply something more than a mere ‘representatio’ by acts and ceremonial : consider Ex. xiii. 8 (in reference to the Passover), kal dvaryyeAeis TS vid cou év TH huepa exeivy A€ywv, K.T.A., and comp. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in loc. It is scarcely necessary to add that not only the preceding ydp, but the whole tenor of the passage precludes the impera- tival rendering, adopted, or regarded as possible (Neander), by a few ex- positors. &Xpe od EAOn] ‘ zzt7/ He come ;’ until the blessed Advent, when the Lord Himself will be present, and the redeemed will partake with the Lord of the new Supper in the kingdom of the Father ; see Matt. xxvi. 29, and comp. Martensen, Chr. Lthics, Part I. § 84. p. 191 (Transl.). No in- ference can properly be drawn from these words as to any deliberate ex- pectation, on the part of the Apostle, of a speedy return of the Lord. Hope may have often made what was longed for seem nigh, and may have given its tinge to passing expressions ; but when the subject was definitely entertained (2 Thess. ii. 1 sq.), then it becomes clear that the Apostle, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, uses a language perfectly incompatible with 226 KataryyédnreTe, aypr ov ENOn. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XI. 26, 27. i o, 4 2 @ote Os dv éoOin tov aptov a» / \ / a“ / > / ” Vv le) wivy TO TwoTHpiov Tod Kupiov avakiws, evoyos éotar Tov 27. Tov uptov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds rodrov. In the last clause the rod before afuaros is maintained by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and fort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec. omits. any such alleged expectations: see notes oz 1 Zim. vi. 14, and on 1 Zim. iv. 15. The remarks of Messner (Lehre der Apostel, p. 287), though the writer leans to the popular view, are worthy of attention. The insertion of av (Zec.) would tend to represent the éAdei as conditioned and doubtful (‘ & semper, quod esse aut fieri dicatur, id ad aliquam conditionem, a qua hoc pendeat, revocat, Klotz), whereas, in the text, it is regarded as expected and unconditioned: see Hermann, Partik. tv, p. 113 sqq., Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 99, but observe that the particle is not connnected with eiva (Klotz), but with avd; comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 186. On the distinction be- tween &xpi and méxpt, see note on 2 Tim. ii. 9, and on the form with the added s (&xpi’Atrix@s: &xpis EAAQUKGs, Meeris) Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 231. 27. ore] ‘So then, Consequently :’ consequence (‘éore consecutionem alicujus rei ex antecedentibus signifi- cat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 771) flowing from the preceding clause, but stated in the form of a simple logical fact; as we proclaim the death of the Lord when we partake of this Supper, it is clear that he that partakes un- worthily proclaims that death un- worthily, and so becomes guilty in regard of the tokens of that death,— the broken body and poured out blood ; he receives, but so receives that he profanes.- On the use of &éo7e with the indicative, see notes oz Gal. ii. 17, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 586. The dis- tinction between éore and Gp’ ody is noticed above in notes on ch. vii. 38. 4 lyn] ‘or drink ;’ not ‘and drink,’ Syr., Copt., Aith., Auth.,— a translation not only erroneous, but detrimental to the significance of the warning. Unworthy and irreverent partaking, whether of the one element or the other, involved the guilt of which the Apostle is about to speak,—guilt in regard of the whole blessed sacrament : hence 70d oéuaros xa} Tod aluaros in the clause that follows. That no polemical use (comp. Estius) can be made of this #, is perfectly clear: if partaking of either element unworthily involves guilt in regard of both, it cannot be inferred, with any soundness of logic, that worthily partaking of only one element is equivalent to worthily par- taking of both. Unworthy participa- tion in regard of one particularinvolves guilt in regard of the whole: worthy participation in regard of one particular is limited to that particular: it cannot include a proclaiming of the Lord’s body, when such proclaiming is dis- tinctly said to involve two particulars: see also above, notes on ver. 26. avatlws] ‘wzworthily,’ scil. ‘ina man- ner not befitting the solemn nature and significance of the act,’ ‘aliter quam dignum est tanta mysteria tractari,’ Beza: a studiously general form of ex- pression, designed to include not simply the particular form which un- worthy participation now assumed among the Ccrinthians (see ver. 29), but every form in which the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten (see Article XXVIII.), viz. ‘a _ Cuap. XI 27, 28. I CORINTHIANS. 927 —_ THLATOS Kal TOD aiwatos ToD Kupiov. * doximatétrw dé avOpwrros 2 a f a €avTov, Kal oUTws éK TOU apTov éeabLéTw Kal Ex Tod TroTNpiov lively faith in God’s mercy through Christ,’ is not present and operative. The use of this general word rather than of any other more precise term is in itself full of godly admonition. Though it refers primarily to the character of the act (Hofmann) rather than to that of the actor (comp. Syr., ‘and is not worthy of it’), the latter cannot be excluded. The character of the act would certainly reflect to a considerable extent the character of the actor : comp. Calvin 27 Joc. tvoxes éorar K.T.A.] ‘shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord ;’ scil. ‘of profaning the body and the blood,’ ‘violati corporis et sanguinis Domini’ (Jerome),—the ger with évoxos marking, here and James ii. Io, the thing in regard of which, or by the violation of which, the guilt was con- tracted. In the remaining instances in the N. T. this adjective is used with the gen. in reference to (a) that to which, or by which, the subject éevéxe- tat; Heb. ii. 15, SovAelas : (0) the charge; Mark iii. 29, aiwvlov auapthuatos, comp. 2 Mace. xiii. 6; (c) the punishment; Matt. xxvi. 11, Mark xiv. 64, Oavdrov. Of these four usages, viz. that in the text and the three just specified, the first and second are not found in classical Greek, and the third only occasionally,— the dative, in accord- ance with its leading idea of ‘some- thing added to the object’ (Donalds. Gr. § 455: comp. Rumpel, Casuslehre, p- 263), taking the place of the less appropriate case. Inferences drawn from these words as to the nature of the consecrated elements are obviously precarious. Unworthy participation, whether of the bread or of the wine, is what is here specially under considera- tion. Such participation was plainly a misusing and dishonoring of the divinely-appointed media of the com- munion of the body and blood of the Lord (see ch. x. 16), and so, in any case, involved the guilt here specified : see Hofmann 7 doc. 28. Soxipatérm S¢ «.7.A.] ‘But let a man prove himself;’ antithetical ap- pended exhortation, suggested by the tenor of the foregoing clause; ‘ Buz, to avoid the grievous guilt just specified, let a man etc.’ In this case, as indeed constantly, what is appended is con- nected by the antithetical 5¢, ‘ qua non simpliciter nova enuntiatio priori op- poneretur, sed interna sententiarum conjunctio designaretur apertius,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. i. p. 362; comp. notes on ch. 20. The collective oiv (see notes on ch. vii. 26) might have been here used instead of 5é, but it would have given a greater prominence to the exhorta- tion than would be consistent with the context, which deals almost exclusively with the abuses that had taken place and their consequences. On the meaning of Soxiud¢ew (‘ probare,’ Vulg., éferd(ew thy oikelay Sidvoiav, Theod.- Mops.), see notes oz 1 Thess. ii. 4, and Trench, Syzon. § 74, and on the use of &vOpwros as a ‘ gravior dicendiformula’ (it is more than a mere ‘unusquisque,’ Theod.-Mops., Estius, al.), compare notes on ch. iv. I. Kal ovTas] ‘and so,—after he has thus proved himself, asd arrived at a true knowl- edge of his spiritual state ; ‘sic demum,’ Bengel. In what follows, the use of the preposition with éo@iew and mivew seems intended just to mark the more formal and reverential partaking (‘ pre- positio exprimit circumspectum ani- mum,’ Bengel) of the one bread and the one cup; comp. ch x. 17. Fora practical sermon on this text see 228 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XI. 28, 29. L 299 £ 2 Ai \ / D € na 3 ' \ TTLVET@ * Oo yap EOULWY KAL TTLYMV Kplua EAUT@ ea Bleu KQl TiuUel 29. mivwy] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- ponderating authority: Rec. adds avatiws; repeated probably from verse 27. o@ua] So all the above-mentioned edd. on similarly preponderant authority: Rec. adds rod Kupiov. Farindon, Serm. Xxx. Vol. Il. p. 113 sqq- (Lond. 1840), and on the duty of ‘self-proving,’ Rothe, Zheol. Ethik, § 872, Vol. 111. p. 465 sq. (ed. 2). 29. 6 yap éoOiwv K.t.A] ‘ Hor he that eateth and drinketh ;’ the words being repeated with solemnity from ver. 28, to the general tenor of which this present verse forms a confirmatory sequel: ‘such a proving of himself is indeed needful in the case of each one who approaches the Lord’s table, for he that eats and drinks thereat, etc.’ The éo@fe rad avec continue the iteration with deep- ening solemnity. kplya eavTo K.1t.A.] ‘eateth and drinketh judgment to himself ;’ «piua here retaining its simple and proper meaning, — not ‘condemnationem,’ Syr., al., but ‘ju- dicium,’ ‘staua,’ Goth.,—and leaving the context to indicate the character of the judgment, whether favorable or otherwise; see notes oz Gal. v. Io. From the present context it is clear that a condemnatory judgment is im- plied, but it does not follow that it is ‘poena mortis zternz,’ Estius, as the two verses that follow point rather to temporal judgments. The verse, how- ever, loses but little of the gravity that has always rightly been associated with it, and the solemn truth remains, that he who approaches the Lord’s table, and in eating and drinking thereof does not discern and solemnly regard the sacramental body to be ‘meat in- deed’ (John vi. 55), does verily eat and drink to himself the judgment of Al- mighty God. What the nature of that judgment will be will depend upon the nature of that which calls it forth. This «piua, as Chrys. rightly observes, is ob mapa thy avtis [the holy rpame¢a] plow, GAAX Tapa Thy Tod mpoolovros mpoatpeoww : comp. Theoph., Gicum. #1} Staxplvev Ta copa] ‘ot discerning (or, to preserve the connection with ver. 31, and the consequent paronomasia, — rightly judging) the body,’ scil. ‘tf he do not discern (or rightly judge) the body, the participle being here used with a hypothetical or conditional refer- ence; see Kiihner, Gr.§ 486. 3, Schmal- feld, Syzt. § 207. 5. The Greek ex- positors adopt the causal reference (d14 tl, Chrys.), but they adopt the reading dvatiws, with which this latter inter- pretation more naturally coalesces. What is here dwelt upon is the case and circumstances under which he that eats and drinks eats and drinks judg- ment to himself, and this case is when- soever the o@ua is not regarded in its holy and saving nature by him who presumes to receive it. The verb may have here two meanings, either (a) d7s- criminating, viz. between the Lord’s body and earthly and common food (Estius, Hofmann, and apparently Syr. ; comp. Acts xi. 12, xv. 5); or (4) ds- cerning, forming a judgment on, ‘ diju- dicans,’ Vulg,, ‘discernens,’ Clarom.’ ‘démjands,’ Goth.; comp. ch. xiv. 29, Matt. xvi. 3. Of these the latter is to be preferred, as in itself yielding a pertinent sense and in full harmony with the context, nnd especially as sug- gested by ver. 31. — it being improbable that in two sentences bearing on the same subject, and close to each other, the meaning of the word would not be the same: so Chrys. (uh éekerd{wv, uh ie . s nr rad CuapP. XI. 29, 30. un Siaxpivov To caya. did evvoay, &s Xph, Td meyebos THY mpoKermé- vev), Theoph., Gicum., and the majority of modern interpreters. In regard of the serious doctrinal question which this verse raises, viz. what it is that the wicked receive, the answer, in ac- cordance with the whole tenor of the verse (comp. Hofm.), and indeed of the passage, can only be that of our Church (Art. XXIx.): what they outwardly take is the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood, z.e. that which to the faith- ful is verily and indeed the spiritual food of the body and blood of the Lord, but to them (the wicked) is merely the ‘tante rei sacramentum seu symbolum,’ the ‘sacramentum,’ as Augustine (2 Joann. Tract. Xxv. 11) says, being one thing, the ‘virtus sac- ramenti’ another. Thus undiscernedly eating and drinking the ‘sacrament of so great a thing,’ thus manifesting what Martensen (Dogm. § 267) terms ‘the unhallowed sense’ which fails to discern between the holy and the pro- fane, they fall under the heavy judg- ment of ver.27. It is not, however, that the Lord’s body and blood be- comes to them a‘ venenum’ (Grot.), or even, strictly speaking, ‘ the instrument of their punishment’ (Wordsw.; comp. Chrysost., épdd1a koAdcews). They are punished for profanation, and because, to use the words of Augustine (Zac. czt.), ‘bonum male mali accipiunt:’ comp. Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 145. 3, Vol. Iv. Pp: 229 sq. 30 Sa Troiro év tpiv Kr.A.] ‘For this cause many among you are weak and enfeebled ;’ illustrative proof (tatra @s yevevnueva tébexev, Theod.) from the Corinthians themselves (the év dyiy is slightly emphatic, as its position suggests) of the xplua éavrd éo6ler Kad mivet, and of the serious connection between physical disease and profana- 1 CORINTHIANS. 229 TOUTO €y wiv ToANOL aaUeveis tion of the Lord’s Supper. It is. not easy to draw any very clear distinction between aoGeve?s and &ppworor (‘infirmi et imbecilles,’ Vulg., ‘infirmi et morbo languidi,’ Valck.), except perhaps this, that the less frequently used term &ppwora (Matt. xiv. 14, Mark vi. 5, 13, xvi. 18) seems to point to diseases pre- dominantly marked by loss of bodily power (‘diuturno languore teneri,’ Calvin), while the more common do6e- veis is simply used to denote sickness generally. The reference of these words to moral diseases (Valck. zz Joc.) is out of harmony with the context, and not even alluded to by any of the ear- lier expositors. What took place was of a nature that admitted no doubt: Zoya Seixvvot, Kal udptupas a’to’s Ka- Aci, Chrysostom. kowpavrar ixavol] ‘ot a few are sleep- imgi;7?. the (thus felicitously rendered by Rev.) being pehaps in- tended here to mark something less than the moAdAol, though still sufficiently numerous to arouse serious attention. The verb koiuao6a, in accordance with its usage in 1 Thess. iv. 13 (see notes iz loc.) is nor here ‘obdormire’ (Bengel; comp. Winer, Gr. § 4o. 2. ¢.), but simply ‘dormire,’ Vulg..—to be sleeping (the sleep of death), ‘in morte quiescere,’ Estius. It is, however, very probable that the term was chosen as not implying any ‘mortem diram’ (comp. Bengel), such as in Acts v. 5, 10, but the final issue of dc@éverm and Gppwotia that came as warnings, but which came so in vain. In regard of such manifestations of God’s judg- ments, it may be remarked first, that the profanation of the Lord’s Supper may have been, as the ds d¢ wedver (ver. 21) seems to imply, of a very grevious nature; and secondly, that temporal punishments like other miraculous € / tKQaVOL 280 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XI. 30-33. kai dppworot, Kat KowavTat ixavol. “lei d€ éavTods duexpivoper, ob dv éxpwopeba @ xpuvdpevor S€ bd Tob Kupiov mawWevopeba, 31. ef 8€] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating evidence: Rec., ef ydp. 32. rod Kuptov] So Zisch., Treg. Westc. and Hort, on preponderating au- thority: Aec. omits Tov. manifestations, in accordance with the eternal wisdom of God, formed a part of the disciplinary development of the early life of the Christian Church. 31. eb 8& EavTods K.T.A.] ‘But zf (on the contrary) we rightly judged our- selves we should not be judged ;’ not ‘if we had judged ourselves, we should have, etc.,’ Alf. (which would imply an aorist in each member), but, with the proper force of the tense (comp. Gal. i. 10), ‘if we were in the habit of rightly judging, etc.:’ contrasted statement (5€) to the facts mentioned in the fore- going verse, and expressed in the plurale communicativum (Winer, Gr. § 58. 4. rem. 2), so as to generalize the statement and divest it of any apparent severity of tone; tadra 5& Aéyel, duod bev mapapvOodmevos Tovs a&pp@aTous, duov de Tov’s BAAovs arovdaoTépous ToLdy, Chrys. zz/oc. It seems difficult to deny (Hofmann) that the word d:axpivey here was chosen with some reference to its use in ver. 29. The subject-matter on which the judgment is formed is, it is true, different, but the same idea of ‘dijudicatio,’ ‘forming a right estimate of’ (kataywéorwy ws Set, Chrys.; comp. Soximaérw éuvtdv, ver. 28) is clearly to be traced in each passage. On the meaning of the verb, see above, notes on ver. 29. 32. Kpwopevor St K.T.A.] ‘But when we are (thw) judged, we are being chastened by the Lord ;’ continuation of the former statement by the addi- tion of a further comment (dé: ‘novum quid accedit,’ Hermann, Viger) on the true aspect of the xplyec@ar. The rod Kupiov, though, from the tenor of passages such as Heb. xii. 6, al., plaus- ibly referred to God (Chrys., Theoph., Calvin, al.), is more probably to be referred to our Lord (Estius; comp. Syr. and Theod.), in accordance with the general context, and, it may be added, wiih the general usage in St. Paul’s Epistles; see notes oz 1 Thess. iii, 12. On the meaning of madevew ‘per molestias erudire (vov@ecias ydp MaAAdy eoti 2) Karadikns Td yvduevor, Chrys.), see Trench, Syvon. § 32, and notes oz Zh. vi. 4; and on the general use of this word as implying that the one so dealt with is still within the sphere of ‘the fellowship of God’ (punishment being without), see Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 1. 2. 2, Vol. 1. p. 264 (Transl.). Wa pa civ TO Koo po Katakp.] ‘that we should not be con- demned together with the world,’ scil. at the last great day ; merciful purpose of the maidever; God willeth the salvation of all (1 Tim. ii. 4, iv. 10), and chastens in order that his gracious #éAnua should not be hindered by the sinfulness of man. The ody r@ kéopw is added to mark still more clearly the particular katd«piois to which the Apostle is re- ferring : ‘mundo certa est condemnatio,’ Bengel; comp. Calvin zz Joc. On the meanings of xéouos (here, the evil world,— but not necessarily [Estius] ‘propter immensam eorum [infidelium et peccatorum] multitudinem),’ see Cremer, Worterb. p. 367, and notes ox Gal. iv. 4. 33. Wore, ASeApol pov, KT.A.] ‘So then, or Consequently, my brethren, _ 244, al.). Cuap. XI. 33, 34- iva pn ody TO KOoWM KaTaKpLOdpeD. ouvEepyYopevot cis TO Payely GA NAOUS Exdeyveoe. b] ” » / ivf \ > / / ev oikm éoOuéTo, iva pn els Kpiua ouvéepynobe. as av dw, SiataEouas. 1 CORINTHIANS. 231 3 Bore, doehpot pou, “4 e¢ TUS TEA, Ta O€ AOLTTA 34. &f tis] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: ec. inserts 5é between the two words. when ye come together to eat,’ scil. the common meal that terminated with the Lord’s Supper : concluding exhortation based upon the foregoing statements ; the &cre, with the imperative, intro- ducing, with some slight degree of rhetorical force, the inferential direction which the Apostle here gives to his converts ; see notes on ch. x. 12, and on Phil. ti. 12. The eis 7d with the infinitive represents, with studied dis- tinctness, the purpose of the ouvep- xeo8ar ; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, Buttm. Grid. T.. p..227-/sq, a&AHAous exdéxeoOe] ‘wait for one another ;’ ‘invicem expectate,’ Vulg., Clarom., Syr., Copt., Arm.; ‘expectate socios vestros,’ /Eth. The verb éxdéyerOu has two meanings; (a) excipere,— the more common meaning in classical Greek, and indeed in the LXX and Apocrypha (Is. lvii. 1, Ecclus. xviii. 14, al.) ; (2) expectare,— the meaning regu- larly found in the N. T. (ch. xvi. 11, Acts xvii. 16, Heb. x. 13, xi. 10, James v. 17), and occasionally in classical writers (Soph. PAz/. 123, Eurip. Zo. This latter meaning is here rightly maintained by most of the recent expositors, the direction of the Apostle being that it was the duty of all a@vapevery thy Kowny ovvédrcvow, Theoph. Hofmann maintains (a), on the ground that merely waiting for one another would not really remedy the true evil, viz. of making the Lord’s Supper an id:wrixdy Se?mvoy (Phot.), but that the vecezval of each person, and of what he brought, would do this. The argument is plausible, but it involves a greater extension of meaning than the GAAnAous €kdéxeo0e would bear, and an isolated departure from the meaning of the verb in the N. T. If they waited for one another there could not be any mpoadnys of what was brought, and no excuse left for making the supper idwrikdy in the case of any one: ‘quo simplicius, eo melius,’ Bengel. 34 et TIS Tew K.T.A.] 6 Zf any man hungers, let hin eat at home ;’ if the excuse of hunger is made for the ir- regularities, the answer and remedy is easy. The omission of any connecting particle gives the sentence a greater sharpness and emphasis: eédywv a’tovs amd THs éexkAnolas cis thy oikiay mapa- méuret, Theoph. The words that fol- low mark the purpose: it was no mere manifestation of apostolical authority, but was designed to save them from serious consequences: see Chrys. zz loc. va 5 Aouad K.t.A.] ‘ But the rest will I set in order whensoever L may come (lit. shall have come) ;’ state- ment, in the form of a slightly anti- thetical sentence (sub-adversative 6é; comp. notes o7 Gal. ii. 20), of the man- ner in which the remaining matters connected with the irregularities in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper would be dealt with: 7a Aowrd TH Tapovcla tetnpneev, Theod. TheaAomd obviously refer to the matters connected with the subject of the present paragraph, not to other matters therewith (Chrys.), and, as the verb suggests (comp. ch. xvi. I, Acts vii. 44), to questions of 232 The true criterion of spiritual gifts is confes- sion of the Lord Jesus. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XI. 34-XII. 2. XII. epi S€ tav mvevpatixdyv, aderdoi, > I e nr ? lal ov OéX\w was ayvoeir. 2Oléate OTe OTE 2. 6rt te] So Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponder- ating authority: Zachm., encloses the ére in brackets; Mec. omits. ceremonial rather than of doctrine; ‘quz pertinent ad externam eiratlay,’ Vorst. In the concluding words the addition of & to the temporal particle implies the uncertainty when the event specified by the verb subjunct. will take place; see notes oz Phil. ii. 23, and comp. Kthner, Gr. § 566. 1. and § 567. 2. The remarks of Chrysostom (comp. Theoph.) seem rather to imply that he did not feel this shade of un- certainty as to the Apostle’s coming ; at any rate it cannot safely be inferred from these words (Wordsw.) that the Apostle was at this time meditating a visit: he was considering it perhaps likely that he should come, but when that would be was certainly regarded by him as uncertain; comp. Hermann, Paritic. tv, p. 77, Winer, Gr. § 42. 3. d. VI. SPIRITUAL GIFTS, AND MORE PAR- TICULARLY PROPHESYING AND SPEAK- ING WITH TONGUES (ch. xii—xiv.). XII. 1-3. Spiritual gifts, their true and essential character. 1. Tlept 8& trav mvevpaticory] ‘Vow concerning spiritual gifts:’ transition, by means of the 8 uetaBatixdy (see notes oz Gal. i. 11, iii. 8), to another set of circumstances in which disorders and irregularities had shown them- selves in the Corinthian Church. Whether what is here stated is in answer to enquiries (ch. vii. 1), or in consequence of information received (ch. xi. 18), cannot positively be deter- mined: the form of words rep) 8€ x.7.A. seems rather to imply the former. Whether mvevuatindy is here neuter (ch. xiv. 1) or masculine (ch. xiv. 37) is also rather doubtful. The Versions leave it uncertain; so also Theodoret: Chrysostom, Theodorus, and Theoph. distinctly adopt the former, while Origen (Cramer, Catez.) apparently in- clines to the latter view. In this uncertainty, which is equally apparent in later expositors, it is not easy to speak with confidence; still this may be urged, (1) that, in what fellows, the peculiar gifts, rather than the persons who are endowed with the gifts, appear to occupy the prominent place in the Apostle’s thoughts; (2) that in the partially antithetical clause (ver. 4) with which the elucidation of the broad principle laid down in ver. 3 is intro- duced, the use of the term xapiouata does seem to imply that it refers back to, and is practically synonymous with, the term used in ver. 1. We decide therefore in favor of the 1euter render- ing: ‘vocat ea spiritualia ab auctore Spiritu Sancto,’ Estius z Joc. ov Bédw «.7.d.] ‘7 would not have you zgnorant:’ studiedly formal introduc- tion of an important subject: see notes On Ghe at. Le 2. OiSare Stu Ste k.t.d.] 6 Ve know that, when ye were Gentiles, ye were led away, etc.:’ introduction of the sub- ject by a reference to the state in which they were before their conversion (comp. Eph. ii. 11), and so to the need of being instructed in a subject of which they could before have had no experience. The construction of the words is somewhat difficult, and was so regarded by Theodoret and Chrysos- tom, who see in the passage a kind of hurried brevity. In the grammatical analysis of the sentence, however, this CHAP. XII. 2, 3. PCORINT HilA NS. 233 €Ovn Te mpos Ta eidwra Ta adwva ws av ijtyec0e aTrayopevol. would seem clear, that, in so short a sentence, we cannot admit (a) any ex- planation that would treat it as an anacoluthon, and regard the 87m as practically otiose; nor (4) any resump- tion of the ér: in the form of the és that follows (see Kiihner, Gr. § 551. 6), —‘how that, when ye were Gentiles, how (I'say) ye were led to dumb idols,’ —as the participial clause is thus with- out any real force, structurally awk- ward, and contextually almost super- fluous. We are thus left with the only other possible mode of interpreting the words, viz. (c) the intercalation of a second re after the participle. Ac- cording to this view, the 8re €0vn Fre and the &s dy #yec8e are subordinate clauses, the one with a temporal, the other with a sort of modal reference, and we are left only, as regards struc- ture, with the words ofSare dt: mpds 7d eldwra Ta &pwva, dmrayduevot, in the case of which either we may assume an ellipse of the auxiliary verb (Kiihner, Gr. § 354. b, obs. 1. 2), or that sort of association of the participle with the finite verb which is practically equiva- lent to it: comp. examples in Kihner, Gr. § 551. 4, and comp. Stallbaum on Bato; Agel. p37 \B. This last- mentioned interpretation is, on the whole, to be preferred: so Meyer, Evans, and, apparently, also Heinrici, in his recent edition (ed. 6) of Meyer’s Commentary on this Epistle. mods Ta cidwta Ta Udwva) ‘unto the dumb idols’ that ye formerly wor- shipped; the preposition marking with its usual and primary meaning (‘mo- tion toward,’ Donalds. Craty/. § 169) the direction of the amdyeo@a: it was toward these mere dumb ‘simulacra,’ to pay honor and worship to them, that they were carried away, ‘instar pecu- dis,’ Calvin; the amayduevar pointing, 30 not so much to the ‘recta via’ (Grimm) from which they were drawn, as to the forcible and hostile character of the action (rd €Akeo@at, Chrys.), while the &pwva appropriately hints at the abso- lute impotence of that which had ‘no breath at all in the midst of it’ (Hab. il. 19) to call forth utterances in others. Thus each word has its appropriate and suggestive significance. as Qv HyerOe] ‘as (from time to time) ye might be led;’ ‘prout ducebamini,’ Vulg., scil. ‘pro nutu ducentium,’ Est. ; the imperfect with & marking the in- definite recurrence of the act; see Kihner, Gr. § 392%. 5, Winer, Gr. § 42. 3. In passages of this nature (comp. Mark vi. 56, Acts ii. 45, iv. 35) the act itself, as specified by the verb, is not regarded as contingent as to occurrence, but as modified only in regard of the time, manner, or circumstances of taking place, according to the particle with which the & is associated: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 145, and comp. Hermann, Viger, No. 285. In both &yeoOa and amdyeoOu there is a plain reference to the agency of the devil, whether directly, or as manifested in the odpé (Gal. v. 17): the sons of God, on the contrary, are drawn by the blessed and opposing Power; comp. Rom. viii. 14, Gal. v. 18. It has been suggested by Fritzsche and others that &y is not an independent particle, but is a part of the compound anyeode. This is possible, but not probable, as there would be no real contextual sig- nificance in the compound, and the ‘happen to be’ (not without its force) of the &yeo@a necessarily obliterated. 3. 816] ‘ On which account, Wherefore ;? scil. in consequence of your having been, previously to your conversion, thus led away to dumb idols, and so, by the very nature of the case, ignorant 234 1 CORIN TOL ANS. Cuap. XII. 3. 3 O10 yvwpifm viv OTe ovdels ev IIvedpats Ocod Aardav Aéyer *Avddewa “Incovs, Kal ovdels > WV > A . / et un ev IIvevpate ayio. Svvatat eimeiy Kupios *Inoods, 3. "Avdbeua "Inoois ... Kips Inoots] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Weste. and //ort, in each case on nearly the ating, authority: Mec., "Avabeua “Inoody of spiritual gifts and manifestations ; the 6:6 (‘propter quod,’ Clarom.) intro- ducing, with a somewhat close connec- tion (‘aptius duas res conjungit,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 173), the solemn dis- closure that follows, as rendered absolutely necessary from their, so to say, congenital ignorance of td mvevyatixd. On the use of 8&6 in St. Paul’s Epistles, see notes oz Gal. iv. 31. The connection between this verse and the preceding has been very variously stated by different expositors, but too often under the influence of some special interpretation of the ra@v mvevuatin@y of ver.1. To discuss them is profitless. If it be correct that ray myevwatikay is neuter, and that, with the inclusive nature of the neuter plural with the article (‘res spirituales ;’ see Kiihner, Gr. § 403, rem. 2), it refers, not merely to speaking with tongues but to the various spiritual gifts speci- fied in this and the two following chapters, then the general connection cannot correctly be made to involve more than has beenstated. Theodorus (Mops.) has nearly stated the whole matter when he thus simply para- phrases ; 0éAw Suas Kal Tay mvevmariKay Thy Botrouat 1 kad ep) TovTwy eimeiy. tdiw ore If he had added ipiy, Gre pice: ayvovow, he would have covered the whole ground. For a brief statement of the various views of the connections that have been advanced, see De Wette and Meyer 7x oc. év IIvedpare Ocod AaAayv] ‘speaking in the Spirit of God,’ z.c. in the sphere and element, as xapioudtwy eidevan same, and that very clearly preponder- ... Kdpiov ’Inoobr. it were, of the eternal Spirit, and as generally under His influence; comp. Matt. xxii. 43, Rom. viii. 9, 15, Eph. vi. 18, al. On this familiar use of the preposition in the N. T., especially as seen in the forms év Kupiw or év Xpior@, comp. notes oz Efh. iv.1. We may apparently rightly distinguish between passages like the present, where the idea of the surrounding and pervading element is the primary thought, and those in which instrumentality (Rom. vili. 13), or mediating influence (Acts. xxi. 4), or direct agency (Luke ii. 26) is intended to be more particularly brought into prominence. In the two latter cases, as we might expect, the definite article (of which in passages referring to the blessed Spirit due note must be taken) is commonly inserted. On the distinction between Aadrew (‘vocem ore mittere’) and Aéyew (‘dicere,— with reference to the sub- ject-matter), here in juxtaposition (comp. Rom. iii. 19), see notes on Tit. Gem. héyer “Avdbepa "Incods] ‘ Jesus is anathema ;’ the blessed per- son bearing the adorable name of Jesus (Matt. i. 21)—the personal name which the hapless blasphemer would naturally utter—is anathema, ze. accursed; see notes oz Gal. i. 8. This blasphemous utterance would mainly be that of the Jews (comp. Acts xiii. 45, xviii. 6) ; ‘faciebant gentes, sed magis Judzi,’ Bengel. This is the criterion on the one side,— whosoever so speaks, speaks not in the Spirit of God. In the clause that follows, which is a little differently worded, viz. ‘Vo Cuap. XII. 3, 4. There is diversity in gifts, but unity in their source and their purpose. man is able (of himself; it was the voice of faith) fo say Jesus is Lord, the criterion on the other side is given, ‘whosoever so speaks, can only so speak in the Holy Spirit. Hofmann in effect inverts the first clause, re- garding the words rather as supplying a reassurance than merely a criterion,— ‘do not be disquieted about these utterances ; whosoever speaks in the Spirit never utters the first words, and whosoever utters the second can only do so in the Spirit.’ The above expla- nation, however,— that a criterion is given, first on the negative, and then on the positive, side, is simpler and more natural: compare the similar, but more precisely stated criteria in 1 John iv. 2, and the comments of Origen (Cramer, Ca¢ez) on this place. On the teaching of the Spirit of God, see two good sermons by Farindon, Serm. L, LL, Vol. II. p. 525 sqq- (Lond. 1849). 4-11. The variety but real unity of the spiritual gifts, and their true purpose. 4. Araipécers 82 Xapirparwv] ‘7here are, however, divisions of gifts;’ the 5€ not being transitional, as in ver. 1, but slightly antithetical and corrective (‘vero,’ Vulg.), contrasting the d:0ipéoeis x.7.A. with the broad general characteristics above specified. The word 8:alpeois (a drat Acyduevoy in the N. T.) may mean either (a) divisions, distributions, ‘divisiones.’ Vulg. Syr. (comp. Copt.), with reference to the fact of one gift being given to one, and one to another (comp. Aith., which, however, only paraphrases), or, more derivatively, (4) differences, ‘ distinctiones,’ Beza, with reference to the quantitative (Chrys., Theoph.) or qualitative distinctions of the gifts zzter se, and the different 1 CORINTHIANS. 235 4 Avapécets 5€ yapioudtwy ciciv, To 8é classes into which they might be grouped; comp. Ezra vi. 18. Both meanings are lexically tenable (see examples in Steph. 7hesaur. s. v.) : the former, however, is distinctly to be pre- ferred on account of the use of the verb Siaipety in ver. 11: comp. Heb. ii. 4, TIveduaros ayiov pepicuots. The Apostle is not dwelling on the differ- ences of the gifts, but on the varied way in which the Spirit had vouch- safed to distribute them to individuals : ‘summa huc redit, non ita varie di- visas esse fidelibus gratias, ut sint distractz,’ Calvin. The xapiouara, thus distributed, are the gifts ema- nating from the Holy Spirit (ver. 11), vouchsafed to individuals for the fur- therance of the well-being of the Church, and the development of the spiritual life: see Rom. xii. 6, where the Apostle specifies four of these gifts of grace. Inthe early Church, as this and the following chapters very clearly indicate, these blessed gifts appear to have had more of an im- mediate nature and character; in the succeeding ages, including our own, they have assumed more of a mediate nature, and, though not one whit less real, silently disclose themselves in the varied evolutions of the spiritual life ; see Schmid, 3767. Theol. § 47, p. 287 sq. (Transl.), and Weiss, S767. Theol. § 92. 6, Vol. 1. p. 33 (Transl.). On the use of the word in the N. T., see Cremer, Wéorterb. s. v. p. 581, and comp. notes oz 1 Zim. iv. 14. 7d 8¢ abrd [Ivetpa] ‘ dat the same Spirit ;’ ‘unus Spiritus fons omnium donorum,.’ Calvin. That the reference is here to the blessed Person of the Holy Ghost, and, in the verses fo'lowing, to the Son and to the Father, cannot possibly be denied by any consistent interpreter: 1 CORINTHIANS: 936 Cuap. XII. 4-6. avTo IIvedpua: Kat Swarpéces Siaxovidy ciciv, Kal 6 avTos Kupuos: ® Kat diarpécers evepynudtov eiciv, 6 5€ avtos eds 6 6. 6 5& aids @eds] The reading is here not perfectly clear. As regards the insertion of éor: (Rec. only; but with B) between aités and @eds, there does not seem to be any reasonable doubt, the omission resting on very greatly prepon- derating authority. There is, however, some doubt as between the text and the reading of Westc. and Hort (with margin), viz. nad 6 aitds @eds, with BC; 37; Orig. On the whole as 6€ seems to rest on clearly preponderating, though (as to order) divided authority, and as the «af may be due to an assimilation to the coresponding clause in verse 5, we adopt the reading of the text with Lachm., Tisch., Treg. (with margin), and Rev. see the lucid comments of Photius in Cramer, Caten. (in Joc.) p. 229, and compare Cyril (Hieros.), Catech. XVI. p. 203 sqq. In this verse it may be ob- served that we have the antithetical d€ in the second member of the verse rather than the ral of the following verse, the object of the inspired writer being here, where the tenor of the words seems more particularly to re- quire it, to mark the ‘ antitheton inter unum fontem et flumina multa,’ Bengel ; comp. ver. 7. On this and the follow- ing verses see Bp. Andrewes, Sevm. Xv. Vol. 111. p. 377 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.), the Convocation Sermon of Bp. Hall, Works, Vol. XI. p, 7 sqq., South, Serm. III. p. 30 sqq. (Lond. 1843), and on the great dogmatical importance of this and the following verses, Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 28. 2, Vol. 1. p. 354 (Transl.). 5. Statpéoets Staxoviov] ‘divisions of ministrations ;’ the term S:arovia not being here limited to the Ae:roupyla of men specially ordained to it (Theod.; comp. Estius 7 oc., who also includes that of women, such as Phoebe, Rom. xvi. 1), but, as the broad and general nature of the context seems to suggest, including all forms of ministration, of whatever character, that tended to the good of the Christian body, whether regarded individually or collectively. It may be admitted that diaxcovia gene- rally refers in the N.T. to ‘spiritual service of an official nature’ (see notes on Eph. iv. 13), but this would seem to be due more to the context than to the word taken by itself. On the use of the word in the N.T., see Cremer, Weorterb. s.v. p. 179 sq. Kal 6 avtés Kipwos] ‘and the same Lord:’ ‘a quo, ut Deo, et per quem, ut homi- nem, illa omnia conferuntur,’ Estius. In this verse the second member does not stand, as in verses 5 and 7, in any antithetical relation to the first mem- ber, but states a broad spiritual truth, as it were side by side with that enun- ciated in the first member; ‘there is a variety of ministrations, azd (as a further and appended truth) He to- wards whom all these administrations ultimately point, and whom they are 3 all intended to glorify, is truly one and the same Lord:’ see Hofmann 77 doc. 6. Statpéoas evepynpatarv] ‘divisions of workings, ‘divisiones operationum,’ Vulg.; the évepynuata being here the effects (‘effectus,’ Grimm), results, and outward manifestations of the inwork- ing power,—not simply synonymous with the xapiowata (Theod., comp. Chrys.), but the practical exhibitions of that same divine évepyera from which xXapiopara, Siaxovla, and éevepyhuara all alike emanated; comp. ver. 11. The nature of the évepyfjuata has been va- riously specified by expositors (wonder- workings, miraculous healings, etc.), Cuap. XII. 6-8. evepyav TA TavTa év TaoW. lal ’ \ \ / tov IIvevparos mpos To cupéepov. but, as in the case of Siaxoviat, is ob- viously general and inclusive. In regard of the lexical use of the word, Cremer pertinently cites Diod. “st. IV. 51, Tav 8& evepynudtav bmtp thy avOpwrivny piow pavévtav. fC) 8t airds @eds .7.A.] ‘but the same God who works all these (workings) in ail ;’ statement in an antithetical form, as in ver. 5, of the oneness of the blessed Inworker as contrasted with the variety of the operations; the re- lapse into the antithetical form har- monizing with the tenor of the verse in which évepyhuara and 6 évepyor form a kind of natural contrast. The ra mavta refer to the various forms of manifestation, and the maow to those in whom they are displayed. On the instructive aspects of the Trinitarian doctrine which these verses disclose, see Chrys. 77 loc., and Cyril on ver. 7 (Cramer, Catez.). 7. ekdorw St Sorat «.t.d.] ‘ But to each one is given the mantfestation of the Spirit with a view to profiting:’ antithetically appended statement of the ultimate purpose of the distribu- tion; the primary emphasis resting on the mpds 7d cuudépor, and the secondary emphasis on the éxdorw (expanding the maocw of ver. 6) did0Ta, as specifying the manner in which the purpose was worked out. This cupdpepov was not merely in regard of the individual (rd AvoireAovv éxdore, Theod.; compare Chrys., Theoph.), but of the commu- nity; see ch. xiv. 12, and the comments of Bp. Sanderson, Servm. 1. (ad Clerum), p. 54 sq. (Lond. 1686); see also Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 43, p. 354 sq. (Transl.). What was given (the significance of this word must not be left unnoticed ; see Sanderson, /. c.) was | havépwors Tod [Ivedparos, which may 1 CORINTHIANS. 237 Téxact@ 6€ didotas » pavépwors 8 we \ ns \ la) fi @ ev yap Sia tod IIved mean either (az) the manifestation of which the Spirit was the agent (gen. subject) ; see ch. ii. 4, and notes 77 Zoc. ; or (6) the manifestation (in outward act of the inworking Spirit, tod Tvev- patos being the gen. odjectz; see 2 Cor. iv. 2, TH pavepdoe THs aAnOelas, and comp. Winer, Gv. § 30. I. a, Kihner, Gr. § 414.1 sq. In such cases of am- biguity we can only be guided by the context; and this, in the present case (contrast ch. ii. 4), seems in favor of (4), the manifestation outwardly of that which was working within (pavé- pwow de Tveduatos Ta onucia adel, Chrys.) being here the prominent thought: consider also the 6607 a, which seems to favor the same view (comp. Theod.) and certainly obviates the objection that the human actor would thus have too much assigned to him. Tpds TO TuMdepov] ‘wth a view to profiting, ‘ad utilitatem’ Vulg.; the preposition having here its general meaning (when used figuratively) of ‘ethical direction towards’ (Winer, Gr. § 49. h), and marking the design and direction of the will of the actor: see cha x. 19, 2) Cor xto, 0) bet. ive te, and comp. Bernhardy, Syzz. v. 31, p. 265, Rostu balm; eZeceSuive I, 2) Voli: Pp. L0S7- 8. @ piv yap K.t.A.] ‘ or to one as given through the Spirit:’ elucidatory statement of the éxdorw 5¢ Sidora: of the preceding verse, the ydép here having more of its exp/anatory than its purely argumentative force, and serving to introduce the expansion into details which follows. On the pure explana- tory use of ydp, see notes on Gal. ii. 6, and on this more mixed use, notes o# 1 Thess. ii. 1, and o2 Gal. iv. 22. In regard of the enumeration of the Spiritual gifts in this and the two 238 1 CORINTHIANS. CuapP. XII. 8, 9. patos Sidotat Noyos codias, dAXw Sé AOYOs yvooews KaTAa TO avto [Iveipa, ° érépw riotis év TH aitd TIvevpatr, addr 6é 9g. Erépw] So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds 8¢€; Lachm. encloses in brackets. év) TIvevpati] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on good external authority, though small in amount, but on very clear internal considerations: Rec., air@ Tvevuart. following verses, various arrangements have been proposed, the most plausible, perhaps, of which is that of Meyer, al., according to which we should here have three classes marked off by the érép in ver. 9, and the érépw in ver. Io. The intellectual gifts would thus form a first class; gifts depending on faith and its manifestations, a second class; and those connected with tongues, a third. It may be doubted, however, whether this can really be relied on, and whether the first érépw really means more than ‘a third,’ one different (see notes o7 Gal. i. 6) from the other two (Hofmann), and the second érépw, one different from each &AAw of the four that had preceded. If we are to adopt any classification at all, it must be that which is on the very surface,— accord- ing to which the three, partly intellec- tual, partly spiritual, xap{ouara are first mentioned, each being defined by a reference to the eternal Spirit, and next (the #AA@ indicating a fresh start), in two pairs, the four principal (so to say) concrete manifestations of the one thus inworking Spirit; the gifts of tongues and their interpretation being subjoined as a concluding, and some- what more novel form of manifesta- tion. We now proceed to the details. Asyos codplas] ‘the word of wisdom ;* the gen. being the gen. of the (so to say) ethical content; see 2 Cor. vi. 7, Eph. i. 13, 1 Thess. ii. 5, and comp. Scheurlein, Syzfax, 12. 1, Hartung, Casus, p. 21, Kiihner, Gr. § 402. ¢. On the close connection between this gen. and the gen. of the quality, see notes oz 2 Thess. ii. 7. Rumpel in his very interesting and instructive Caszs- lehre (p. 209 sq.) regards all these dis- tinctionsas untenable. That they may be to a certain extent artificial is not denied ; but that they help to clearness and precision of thought is so certain that they are rightly maintained in all the best modern grammars. On the distinction between codia (the more general) and yv@ois (the more re- stricted), see notes oz Col. ii. 3. Aédyos yvadorews) ‘the word of knowledge,’ — the word of which the ethical con- tent is ‘knowledge,’ z.e. that faculty by which the mind takes full and intelligent cognisance of the object presented to it : comp. Hofmann zz Joc. The distinctions between this and the preceding expression, drawn by exposi- tors from Chrysostom downwards, are as varied as they are numerous (for a few of these see De Wette 27 oc.) : this, however, is perhaps all that can be said, that Adyos coguas is the higher gift of the two (it was given through the blessed Spirit as the medium), and as such specified first in the enumeration: comp. Chrys., Theod., al., and the good note of Bengel 27 oc. Kata TO atts IIvetpa] ‘according to the same Spirit, through which the Adyos codias was imparted: the preposition here marking, with its usual and proper force, the accordance with the dis- posing will of the blessed Spirit (Winer, Gr. § 49. d. [a]), and presenting, as it were, another aspect of the divine CuaP. XII. 9, 10. 1 CORINTHIANS. 239 7: \ xaplopata iawatav év TO évi TIvevpati, ddd Sé evepyjwata duvapewv, aAXrRw Tpodyteia, dArAw Siakpicers TVEvWATwY, ETEPH 10. HAAw mpopyTtela, AAW Siaxpicets mv.] So Lachm., Treg., on what seems to be slightly preponderating authority: Rec., Tisch., Rev. add dé after &AAg; Westc. and Hort retain, but in brackets. étépw] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on more clearly preponderating authority: Lec. étépw dé. agency: comp. Rom. xv. 5, 2 Cor. xi. 17, and see Bernhardy, Syzz7t. v. 20. 4, p. 239, 241. Q. érépw trlotis K.T.d.] ‘0 another (a third ; comp. notes on ver. 8) faith in the same Spirit:’ not ‘faith’ in its usual sense (‘fides salvifica’), nor any intense form of such (comp. Meyer), but as the whole context seems to suggest, a ‘ wonder-working faith ’ (ch. Si) 2,. Matt. xvii) 20, xxi. (21); see Theod., Chrys.), a faith, closely allied to the will-power (Hofmann), in God’s merciful pleasure to bring about that to which the movement of the will is, under his guidance, directed; comp. Bengel zz Zoc.— who, however, seems reluctant to admit the partial distinc- tion in kind which the above interpre- tation appears to involve, and Cremer, Weorterb. s.v. p. 488. On the view thus taken of miotis in this passage, see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. Il. p, 727. This faith is évt@ atto IIvedpari, in the sphere of, and with the help of, the Spirit ; see notes on ver. 3; and comp. Winer, Gr. § 50. 6. Xaplopara. taparev] ‘ gifts of healing,’ scil. gifts by which healings are effected (7d @epa- mevely Tagay vocoy Kal Tacay padakiay, Theoph.), the genitive being a kind of genitive of the ‘principal constituent’ (Bernhardy, Syzz. 111. 44, p. 161), and so of the resultant effect. These ef- fects might be of a more directly miraculous (Acts iii. 6, iv. 20, v. 16, comp. Mark xvi. 18), or of a more me- fiately miraculous nature, ze. when natural means received a special and supernatural blessing; comp. James v. 14. The plural marks the different varieties of healings; one having the power of healing one kind of disease, another of another kind. For ex- amples of this use of the plural, see Kiihner, Gr. § 348. 3. ¢. All these gifts were in the sphere of, and by the working of, the one blessed Spirit who is the causal fountain of all. 10. évepynpata Suvdpewv] ‘ workings of miracles ;’ inward workings (ver. 6), of which the outward manifestations (comp. Mark vi. 14) are miracles, the genitive being similar to that in ver. 9, but more distinctly under the general category of gen. odjectz ; comp. Winer, Gr. §30. 1.a. The miracles were not confined to healings, as in the pre- ceding clause, but were of a more in- clusive nature, whether disciplinary (Acts v. I sqq., Vii. 24, xiii. 11), or gen- eral (Acts v. 12, xxviii. 5), extending even to the raising of the dead (Acts ix. 40). The ‘giving over to Satan’ (ch. v. 5, I elim. i. 20) in part belongs to these évepynwara, its true meaning being not only excommunication, but also the supernatural infliction of some bodily disease; see notes oz 1 Zim. Lie tmpodytela] ‘prophecy ;’ not merely in the sense of 4 Tv weAAdrvTwr mpocayédpevots (Theod.), but, as very clearly shown in ch. xiv. 3, 24, 25, 30, inspired utterance, whether for general edification, consolation (ch. xiv. 3), conversion of the unbelieving (ch. xiv. 24), or the unsealing of all the secret fountains of the inner life (ch. xiv. 25) : 240 r CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XII. to. yévn yAwooar, dAdrw Oé Epunveia yAwooav: “tavta Sé TadTa comp. notes on ch. xi. 4, 07 1 Thess. v. 20, Hph. iv. 11, Cremer, Worterd. s. v. mpopnrns, p. 572, and for an early illus- tration of the office and characteristics of the mpophrns, the newly discovered Teaching of the Apostles, ch. XI. sqq.; see also Thorndike, Religious Assem- blzes, ch. V. Vol. 1. p. 382 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.) Staxploes mvevpdtov] ‘discernings of spirits;’ the gift of discerning in each case (hence the plural) the true source whence the spiritual manifestations, as displayed in the foregoing mpopnreia, really ema- nated. It was a grace specially given by the Holy Spirit, which enabled him who had received it at once to discern, not only Tovds bird Tod evayTiov mvevpaTtos évepyouuevovs (Theodoret), but those who spoke from their own human mvevuata, Sixa tod Tvetuaros (Cyril): comp. I Thess. v. 21, and notes zz loc. This gift was not dependent on after- reflection, but showed itself in an in- tuitive and instinctive perception: see Hofmann 27 /oc. yévy yAor aay] ‘ different kinds of tongues ;’ utterances, of various kinds (d:apopal, Theoph.), whether in languages not known to those who spoke in them (érépais yAdéooas, Acts ii. 4; comp. I Cor. xiv. 21, 22), or in ecstatic forms of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving (ch. xiv. 14, 17), so uttered as to need an inter- preter, — such interpreter being some- times the speaker (ch. xiv. 5, 13), sometimes one specially endowed with the gift of understanding the utterances (ch. xiv. 27). The utterances that are almost exclusively referred to in this Epistle appear to have been of the latter kind, viz. either vocal sounds wholly unintelligible to those who had not the gift of interpretation, or inco- herent and unconnected outpourings of the ordinarily known language, which, owing to the absence of the co-ordinating voids (ch. xiv. 14, 19) could not be understood. The tongue, moved by the Spirit, was that which, in such cases, alone was active; comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 92, Vol. 11. p. 34 (Transl.). Of this latter kind we have also ex- amples in the case of those in the house of Cornelius (Acts x. 46), and of the disciples in Ephesus (Acts xix. 6). We thus may clearly recognize in the N.T. two general forms of this mysterious and divine gift, — (1) the higher, that of speaking in languages known to the hearers, but unknown to the speakers, of which the only certainly recorded instance is Acts ii. 4 sqq.; compare, however, the promise in Mark xvi. 17, yAdooats Aa- Afhoovow Kavais; (2) the lowerand more common form, showing itself probably in many different kinds of manifesta- tion, which is mentioned here and elsewhere in the N.T. To deny the reality of the higher form (Meyer), or to explain it away (Cremer, Wérterd. p- 163 sq.), because in this Epistle the lower form is mainly referred to, or, conversely, to maintain that what is spoken of here is simply identical with the higher form (Chrys., Theod., Estius and Wordsworth, al.), is incon- sistent with the plainly different tenor of Acts ii. and 1 Cor. xiv. The literature on the subject is very copious. It may be enough to name the special treatises of Engelmann (1848), Frosch ammer (1850), Rossteucher (1850), ana Maier (1855), and the numerous and sometimes valuable articles in the Studien uw. Kritiken for 1829, 1830 (Bleek), 1838 (Baur, Weeseler), 1839 (Osiander, Kling), 1843, 1844 (Olsh., Bauer), 1849 (Reiche), 1860 (Weiseler). éppnvela yAwooav] ‘interpretation of tongues,’ — the power of conveying to Cuap. XII. 11, 12. 1 CORINTHIANS. 241 > Lal \ a \ X > X lal fal > 4 e / \ évepyel TO év Kai 70 avTo TIvedua, diarpobv idia ExdoT@ Kalas BovreTat. It is with these gifts as with the functions of the natural body. God has placed in his church men variously endowed. 2 Kadarep yap To caya & éotw Kab MEAN TOAAA Exel, TavTAa S€ TA MEAN TOD 12. moAAa exer] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, with very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., 2xet moAAd. The words tod évds are added by fec., after od@uaros, but rejected in all the above-mentioned edd. on greatly preponderating authority. others in intelligible language the meaning of the utterances. The trans- lation of Vulg. ‘interpretatio ser- monum’ (Clarom., ‘linguarum’) may have arisen from a desire to convey the idea that the yAéooa: were foreign languages: comp. ith. ‘linguarum regionum.’ In somecases the gift was possessed by the one who spoke with tongues (ch. xiv. 5, 13), but, as it would seem, less commonly. The patristic expositors, in accordance with their interpretation of yAécoa above, regard the gift as that of interpreting to others words spoken in a foreign language with which neither interpreter (Calvin) nor those to whom he interpreted were acquainted: comp. Wordsworth zz oc. Il. mdvra 8¢ ratta «.t.d.] ‘ But-all these worketh the one and the same Spirit ;’ antithetical transition from the enumeration of the varied gifts to the one blessed Giver, the two expres- sions of verses 8, 9, being here put in The Spirit is not here to be regarded under the aspect of the Ivedua Tod Tiod (Cyril), but, as in verses 4, 7 sqq., the Holy Spirit, in the usual acceptation of the words,— the eternal Spirit as now fully revealed, and as dwelling within both the Church and the individual; see Dorner. Chr. Doctr. § 129, Vol. Iv. p. 160 (Clark). Siatpodv i8lq éexdorw] ‘dividing severally to each man ;’ secon- dary predication (Donalds. Gr. § 441), by means of a participial clause, in 31 one,—7d év kal 7d adTd TMvedua. which the manner of the 7d évepyeiy is defined and elucidated. The blessed Spirit not only works in the Church generally, but in the individual (obs. idig Exdorw), and gives in each case the xdpicua that He willeth to give, and knoweth to be best: comp. Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 269, p. 190 sq. (Transl.). The gift is vouchsafed idiq (‘seorsim,’ Grimm): the Vy. with the exception of Goth. [‘sundr6’] omit the word in translation. The form idfa (scil. 65¢) occurs frequently in classical Greek, but only here in the N. T. (comp. 2 Macc. iv. 34, Joseph. Bed/. Vv. 4. 1), kar’ idiav (sc. 656, or xdépav) being the more usual form of expression. Kalas BovtXerat] ‘according as He willeth ;? — with distinct personal reference ; évepye? éamep kad 6 Marhp, Theoph.: comp. ver. 18. The will of the Holy Spirit is that which determines the gift but as that will is moved by infinite wisdom, the capacity of each one for the particular gift is, by the very nature of the case, involved in the 7d d:aipety: ‘singulis dat singula, vel aliqua, varid mensurA,’ Bengel. There is, therefore, nothing in this verse inconsistent with the (ndotre ta xaplouata Ta pelCova of verse 31. 12-30. L/lustration from the natural body of the spiritual truth that though the gifts may be varied, those endowed with them make up but one spiritual whole. 242 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XII. 12, 13 , ” 4 ’ n A \ c r CMOLATOS TOANA OVTA &Y EoTW THA, OUTWS Kal oO Xpicros Beat yap év évi TIvedpats jets mavtes cis &v cdya éBar- 12. Ka@dtep yap «.1.d.] ‘ Hor even as the body is one ;’ confirmatory illustra- tion (brdderyua eis ueoov péper, Chrys.) of the preceding statement that all the many gifts are bestowed by one in- working Spirit, the «a@dmep marking the thoroughly apposite nature of the com- parison: comp. the clearly similar pas- sage, Rom. xii. 4. On the use of this particle, see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 11, and on the meaning of the extensive mép (a shortened form of zrepi), the use- ful comments of Kiihner, Gr. § 510; comp. also Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 22, and Donalds. Crat. § 178. mavTa Sé K.T.A.] ‘and all the members of the body, though they be many, are one body :’ subjoined statement as to the MéAn modAd regarded in their totality, the € adding, with a slight contrast and antithesis, the further fact that though thus confessedly many they coalesced in making together one body. The participial clause is perhaps slightly concessive (et kal Siapopa exouev meéadn, Theod.), rather than merely circum- stantial (‘being many’), as thus serv- ing better to keep up the slight con- trast between the clauses: comp. I Thess. ii. 6, and notes zz Zoc., and on the varied uses in Greek of the parti- cipial member, Scheuerlein, Syztax, § 46.2, sp: 486. ovTws Kal 6 Xpurrds] ‘so also is Christ,,—in whom all form one mystical Body: comp. ver. 27. The exact meaning of 6 Xpiords is not perfectly certain. The early ex- positors and most modern writers re- gard it as signifying ‘the Christian Church’ (rdv Xpiotdy av) THs exxanolas Té0eixe, Chrys.), as being the body of which He is the unifying Head (Theod.) ; comp. Eph. iv. 16. It would seem, however, in the present case and in the passage generally, that the idea of the head, as the unifying or repre- sentative element of the body, is not the prevailing thought, but even the contrary (for, in the comparison that follows, the head is only regarded as a part and a member; ver. 21), and that thus 6 Xpiords is here probably used in its more mystical sense as He in whom all believers are united,— the unifying personality; compare Bishop Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. 1. 2 The faithful are regarded as united with, and mem- bers of, Christ (ver. 27), and as forming by that union one body, viz. His body, the Church. What then is true of the body and its members, is true of Christ and the members which make up His mystical Body: comp. Rom. xii. 4, Eph. v. 29, and see Hofmann zx Joc. 13. kal yap k.T.r.] ‘for verily in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body ;’ confirmation of the ofrws kal 6 Xpiorés, and of the being in Him one © body, by the patent fact that they had all been baptized into one body: kat having here its ascezsive rather than its conjunctive force, and throwing an em- phasis on the év év) Tveduati; it was in one Spirit that they were baptized, and so incorporated in one body. On the two uses of ka) ydp, see notes on 2 Thess. iii. 10, and the good comments of Kiihner, Gr. § 544. 3. 2. It is almost self-evident that éBarric@nuey is to be taken in its usual and proper sense, and that the év év) Mvetjpar: marks the holy and blessed element, as it were, iz which (not ‘ by which,’ Auth.; comp. Theod.) the outward baptism (comp. év #Sar:, Matt. iii, 11) took place. Without pressing the words as here specifying dogmatically the ‘ materia ceelestis’ (comp. Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 140. 4. obs., Vol. Iv. p. 293, Transl.), we must not fail to recognize the inti- . Cuap. XII. 13, 14. 1 CORINTHIANS, 243 ticOnyev, eite ‘Tovdatou ere “EXXnves, cite Sotdou cite €AedOepor, Kat wavtes év IIvedwa érroticO@nuev. 14 \ \ \ n > Kab yap TO OWUA OVK 13. kal mdyres év Mvedua] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: ec. inserts eis after maytes, conform- ably to the first clause. mate connection of the Holy Spirit with Christian baptism which these words emphatically indicate, and the protest they involve against the mod- ern tendency to merge the initial gift in the supplemental. As Dorner truly says, ‘The gift of the Holy Ghost im- planting a new life, the germ or seed of a new man, is essential to Christian baptism,’ Chr. Doctr. § 138, Vol. Iv. p- 278; comp. Weiss, 426/. Theol. § 34, Vol. I. p. 455 (Transl.), and Newman, Serm. Vol. 111. p. 298 sqq. We may observe, lastly, that eis may here be taken in its ethical sense (颒 6, Chrys., Theod.; ‘ut simus unum corpus,’ Ben- gel), but that it seems more consistent with the usage of Bamri(ec@a «is to maintain the simple and ordinary semi- local sense; they were baptized zzto one body, and so, by the very nature of the case, became one body by the blessed incorporation ; comp. Hofmann in loc. elite “IovSaiou x.7..] whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free ;’ the first and third efre mark- ing the separation of the clauses, the second and fourth, of the members of the clauses (comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 6), —both clauses being dependent on the kal €Bartic@nuev. The Apostle states the great and fundamental truth, spec- ified also in Gal. iii. 28, and Rom. xii. 8, that all distinctions, whether of na- tions or conditions, are done away with in this being baptized év év) Tyved- part : comp. Weiss, 761. Theol. § 92, Vol. 1. p. 31 (Transl.). On the rela- tion of the differences of vocation to this fundamental truth, see especially Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 43, p. 356 (Transl.). Kal mdvres K.T.A.] ‘and were all made to drink of one Spirit ;’ repetition, in a slightly altered and more emphatic form, of the truth specified in the first member of the sentence; the accusative being the accusative of what is now well called by Kdhner, ‘the explanatory object ;’ Gr. § 410. 6; see also notes ox Gal. vi. 6, and Winer, Gr. § 32. 5. There can scarcely be any reasonable doubt that the reference is zof to the Lord’s Sup- per (Augustine, al.), but to that inward reception of the Spirit which was al- ways associated with holy baptism (Chrys. preferentially, and apparently Cyril in Cramer, Catfez., Theoph., al.) : two similitudes being in fact latent in the verse; the one, the outpouring of the Spirit, in which, as in a bath, the recipient is immersed ; the second (comp. John vii. 37 sq., cited by Cyril), in which he drinks of the living water. The use of the aorist, which appears to be very conclusive for the reference to baptism, cannot be explained away (comp. De Wette) as due only to a structural parity of tenses. The ref- erence to baptism is rightly maintained by Weiss, Bzb/. Theol. § 84, Vol. I. p. 455 (Transl.), and is well elucidated by Hofmann. Wordsworth still advocates the reference to the Lord’s Supper, but no such expression as ‘ being made to drink of the Spirit’ is applied in Scripture to the Eucharist. 14. kal yap Td capa K.T.r.] ‘ For the body also 7s not one member, but many ;’ elucidatory confirmation of the unity specified in ver. 13 by a recurrence to the same natural imagery as that in 244 éotuv ev pédAos GANA TOAAG. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XII. 14-16. 16’ Rav elan 6 trovs “Ort ovK etpb n , a ” NElp, OVK Eli EX TOV GwpuaTOS, OV Tapa ToDTO ovK ETL eK TOU TWMATOS. 16 kal éav elmrn TO ods “Ort ovK eit dpOarp0s, ovK cil €K TOU GwpaTOS, Ov Tapa TOUTO OvK éoTW eK TOD oMpaTos. ver. 12. The use of kal ydp is simular to that in ver. 13, except, perhaps, that the ascensive force is not quite so sharply marked. In ver. 12 the Apostle simply touched on the general contrast tetween the one body and the many members. Here he returns to the simile to bring out (ver. 14, 20) the further illustration afforded by the va- varied offices and endowments of these many members. Various illustrations of this simile will be found in Grotius, Wetstein, and others; the most perti- nent are Livy, //zst. II. 32, Seneca, de Si gaey ili Be 15. Srv ovdK eiwl xelp, K.7.A.] ‘because Lam not the hand (more literally, hand without any article) Z am not of the body ;’? demonstration (ver. 15-20), by means of illustrations drawn from the foregoing simile, of the unreasonable- ness, on the part of those less highly endowed, in being discontented with the Spirit’s apportionment of gifts (ver. I1),—in envying or begrudging those similarly (foot and hand, ear and eye, standing respectively on nearly the same level), but more highly, endowed (ver. 15, 16), — and in placing an undue value on some gifts in contradistinction to others, all being alike necessary and in accordance with the divine will (ver. 17-20). The eivar ék tod odpuaros im- plies dependence on, in the sense of forming a constituent part of, the body, and involves the secondary and deriv- ative sense of the preposition; see notes 07 Gal. iii. 10, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 47, s.v. é. ov Tapa ToUTO K.T.A.] ‘7t 2s not, in consequence of this, not of the body,’ scil. this ut- terance on the part of the foot does not carry with it, or necessarily involve, a not belonging to the body; the mapdé marking primarily that which is alongside of, and thence, by an easy transition, that which becomes a concomitant, or even consequence (‘since this is so’), of the fact or principle referred to ; see Donalds. Gr. § 485, Winer, Gr. § 49. g.c, and Hof- mann zz foc. The difference between this expression and 6a rodro, to which it closely approximates in meaning, is perhaps this,—that the latter marks more sharply and directly the ground or motive of the action, the former (wap tovro) more obscurely and in- directly,‘ non frofterea non est,’ Clarom. (Vulg., ‘ideo’). It is some- what doubtful whether this last mem- ber of the verse is to be taken interrog- atively or affirmatively. The interroga- tives of verses 17 and 18 might, at first sight, seem to suggest the former, but, on consideration, would really appear more naturally to follow quietly reasoned and affirmative clauses just preceding; observe verses 18 and 19. The analysis of the two negations (see Bengel 77 Zoc.) is also far more easy and natural in the affirmative, rather than in the interrogative, aspect of the sentence: see Winer, Gr. § 55. 9. a, Hofmann 77 Joc. 16. kal éav K.T.A.] ‘and if the ear should say.’ In the former verse two analogous members were put in con- trast, here two organs of sense; éme:d} yap ov Tois opddpa smepéxovow, GAAG Tots 6Alyov avaBeBnkdot Pboveiv cidbaper, dia TodTo Kal aitds ofrw moreirar Thy Cuap. XII. 16-19. 1 CORINTHIANS. 945 MW ef Gov TO cdua obOarpos, Tov 7 akon; El OdOV akon, Tov % Sodpnots; Bviv d8 0 Oeds ero Ta pwédn, Ev ExacTov avTar, a év TO capatt, Kabws HOEAncev. Mei Sé Hv Ta Tavta év pédos, 18. viv] So Lachm., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort (with margin), on pre- ponderant authority: Rec., Tisch., vuvt. The less frequent use of vuy) dé than viv 5¢é, when the particle is used in logical sense (see Kiihner, Gr. § 498. 3), may be admitted to have some slight weight, as indicating the possibility of a correction (comp. verse 20), but it does not seem sufficient to counterbalance the amount of external preponderance. otyxpiow, Chrys.: so too Bengel zz Zoc., probably derived from the earlier ex- positor. 17. eb Sdov Td copa SpOadpds] ‘/f the whole body were an eye, or, more exactly, eye (see ver. 15); ‘if all were eye. The Apostle now puts forward two hypotheses— each shown to be absurd by the associated question (ver. 17, 19), and practically contravened by the divinely ordered, and actually existing, condition of things (verses 18, 20),—to manifest the unreason- ableness of overvaluing any particular form of gifts, whether as possessed by themselves or as envied in others. The absence of the auxiliary (4v ; comp. ver. 19) gives the words more terseness and force. The term éc¢pyors (‘ odora- tus,’ Vulg.) is frequently used in classical Greek, and of course very commonly in the medical writers. Galen, in his special treatise on this sense, makes the following comment in his opening words; doppnow dvo- pdovew of “EAAnves ov pdvov thy did- yoow Tv douev GAA Kab Thy Sbvapw, Opp. Vol. V. p. 354 (Paris, 1679). The reading is not perfectly certain: Lachm., Treg., Westcott and Hort place 7a in brackets, but the preponderance of authority seems sufficient to warrant our retaining the article without brackets. 18. viv 8 6 Oeds «.7.A.] ‘But, as it is, God set (not ‘hath set,’ Auth., al.) the members, each one of them, in the body ;’ contrasted statement drawn from the actual facts of the case; the voy having here, as in ch. v. II, its logical and argumentative sense (‘rebus sic comparatis,’ ‘ut nunc est’), like the ‘nunc’ in the ‘nunc autem’ (so Vulg., Clarom.) of the Latins; see Kiihner, Gr. § 498. 2, and notes oz 1 Thess. iii. 8. In the aorist ero the reference seems to be to the original and primal constitution of things; hence the de- sirableness of preserving this in the translation. Chrysostom, with his usual acuteness, draws attention to the intercalated @y €xacrov a’tav: Kadas elmev, €kagT OV, em) TdvTwWY Td AUOLTEAES evdexvumevos. It seems best to place the second comma after atray (Westc. and fort), instead of after cduati, as it is usually found. Kalas nbeAnoev] ‘even as He willedit:’ not merely a repetition of the ka@as BotAera of ver. Ir (De Wette, Alf., al.), but with a distinct reference to the divine w7// as originally manifested, and as condition- ing the whole matter. The distinction drawn between @¢Aw and BovAouat in notes on ch. vii. 7 would seem to de- rive some illustration from ver. 11 and the present verse. 19. eb 8& Hv K.t.d.] ‘And if they all were one member ;’ a second and sup- plementary hypothesis shown at once to be absurd by the associated question, and (ver. 20) by the actual facts of the case; the 5¢ adding, with a slight con- trast between what it introduces and 1 CORINTHIANS. CnaP. XII. 19-22. 246 mov To capa; pov dé modAAa pev wérAn, Ev OE cOya. 7 OD Suvarar 5é 0 dfpOarpos eimreiv TH yerpi Xpeiav cov ovK éya, 7 marw % Kepari) toils toc Xpelav tuov ovK éyw* * andra 21. 6 épbaauds] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastiy preponderating evidence: Rec. omits 4. The 5€ that just precedes it is some- what doubtful, as the external authority for its omission is of weight, and the insertion of the particle to facilitate connection not improbable. it is bracketed by Zachm. and Westc. and ort. Hence The nature, however, as well as the clear preponderance of the external evidence, leads us to retain it without brackets. what has just been said, a further demonstration of the unreasonableness of overvaluing any one form of spiritual gifts : see notes on ver. 17. 20. vov StaodAa k.t.A.] ‘ Bri, as it zs, there are many members, yet but one body ;’ antithetical statement of the actual facts of the case, as in ver. 18. There is a little difficulty as to the reading. Lachmann places in brackets, and Westc. and Hort. in margin, the nev following the woAAd, but only with B D!, and some small amount of sup- plementary evidence. The insertion of the wev tosharpen the antithesis, always implied in this familiar form (see Kiihner, Gry. § 527. 3, and comp. Donalds. Crat. § 155), is certainly not improbable, but the external evidence in its favor would seem to be too strong to warrant the rejection of the particle. If retained, the insertion of ‘yet’ in the second member (Auth.) seems called for, so as to preserve, in this short sentence, the distinctiveness of the antithesis. Beza is thus right in changing the ‘unum autem corpus’ of Vulg., into the stronger and more contrastive ‘unum wero corpus:’ see Hand, Zursel/. Vol. I. p. 559, 566. 21. Ov Stvarat kt.A.]‘ And the eye cannoe say to the hand, I have not need of thee:’ transition, by means of the partly connective, partly antithetical 5€ (almost here equivalent to our ‘fur- ther:’ comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 361, Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2), to a new, but not dissimilar, case, viz. that of persons who prided themselves on their supposed higher gifts, and slighted those they deemed to be less highly endowed (ver. 21-26). The two cases in this verse are cases to which the ov duvarat is strictly pertinent: to see, and not to be able to reach what was seen and desired,— to will, and yet to be immovable, is incompatible with the very idea of the body, as implied in the preceding verse, and as a co-opera- tive whole. 4 wédww] ‘or again ;’ to cite another instance of a parallel nature: comp. the similar use of mdAw in making quotations, as in ch. iii. 20, Matt. iv. 7, v. 33, Rom. xv. Io, and, in regard of its use in the N.T., see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 167. The de- rivative meaning, ‘e diverso,’ which it sometimes has in classical writers (see Palm. u. Rost, Lex. s.v. 2, Vol. I. p. 636) is not found in the N.T., 2 Cor. x. 7 being no example of such a usage; see Meyer zz Joc. On the early and primary meaning of the particle (‘non rursus sed retro’), see Ellendt, Zex. Soph. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 485. 22. GAAG TOAAG pGAAov K.7.A.] ‘ Brut, on the contrary, much rather those. members of the body which seem (or, are deemed) to be (originally) more feeble are necessary,—and can never be dispensed with :’ the &AAd with its full separative and adversative force Cuap. XII. 22, 23. 1 CORINTHIANS. 247 TOAD padrAov Ta SoKodvTa pédAn TOU GwpaTos acbevécTepa e , > ns? 93 \ a § A > , 5 A UTTapNELW AVAYKALa EOTLY* KQb © OOKOULLEV aATlLLOTEpa ElLVaL TOU , THLATOS, TOUTOLS TLV TEpLacoTépay TepiTiMEweEV, Kal TA AoXN- (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 2) contrasting the true state of the case with the supposed case as implied in ver. 21, and the 7a doxodyra (comp. Gal. ii. 9) studiously marking that it was so merely in general estimation; Soxoder yap éAdrrova, ovk cio 5é, Theoph.; comp. Chrys. 7 doc. What particular mem- bers are alluded to under the ré& 6o- KodvTa MeAnN TOD gduaTos AobeverTEpa imdpxew, is somewhat doubtful. The MOAA®G paAdAov, independently of the nature of the case, precludes our refer- ring it to the hands or feet mentioned above. Nearly the same might be said of all the organs of sense, eye, ear, etc., the cbvious usefulness of which would hardly have admitted of their being thus classified ; consider, too, in regard of the eye, ver. 21. We must then conclude that these acdevéorepa uéAn refer generally to those more deli- cate portions of our bodily structure, external or internal, which, compared with the more obviously active and energetic members of the body, might seem to be somewhat feeble (observe the ‘comparativus molliens,’ Bengel) and weak; comp. Theodoret 77 Zoc., except that he unecessarily specifies. 3. Kal & Soxotpev «.7.A.] 6 And the parts of the body which we deem to be less honorable ;’ the 5oxodpev, like the 7a Soxotvra in the preceding verse, clearly implying that the distinctions alluded to were not due to anything in the nature of the parts, but simply to the general estimate of those who en- tertained the question: comp. Chrys. in loc. The Apostle here again stu- diously uses the comparative, as im- plying that 7d &rimov was merely rela- tive. The parts to which he was alluding were merely less honorable than other parts, not &tiwa in them- selves; comp. Matt. xi. 11, xviii. 1, Acts xvii. 22, al.. and see Winer, Gr. § 35-4. obs. The parts here referred to must, from the context, be those parts on which clothing was worn, yet other than the Ta aoxnuova (‘ que vel ipso nomine “pudenda” ab omnibus vocari solent,’ Estius), which form an- other class: tpets rdkets év Tots Aeyoue- vois, Theoph. On the subject gene- rally, see the illustrative passage in Cicero, de Offic. I. 35. TOUTOLS Tibi K.T.A.] ‘these we clothe with more abundant honor ;’ the semi-technical verb mepitiBevai, in accordance with its prevailing use (see the numerous exx. in Steph. Zhesaur.s.v. Vol. VI. p. 955); pointing to the clothing customarily worn on these parts: comp. Matt. XXVii. 28, mepieOnkay aitw xAauvda KoKKt- vnv, and, for a similar metaphorical use, Esther i. 20, mepi0z)covor Timdy Tors avipdow éavtav: comp. Thucyd. Hist, IV. 87, tH wérAc Td KdAALOTOY Bvoua Tept- Getva, and the pertinent examples cited by Wetstein 27 /oc, TL ATX HOVa HpOv K.T.A.] Sour uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness ;’ the well- chosen words 7& doxhuova (‘que in- honesta sunt.’ Vulg., ‘quae pudoris sunt,’ Syr,), marking at once what the Apostle is referring to; comp. Rev. xvi. 15. The comment of Theod.- Mops. (Cramer, Cazez.) is worthy of citation: aoxhmova, ds mpos Thy Kowhv ow amongrd. hore tH wey pices ovK eri aoxnuovar eimep mepiccorépay exer Thy evoxnnootynv. The mepiocorépa eiaxn- foovyn points to the careful manner in which, though every other part might 248 1 CORINTHIANS. CuapP. XII. 23, 24. pova nuayv evoxnwootyny Trepacotépay Exel, 4 Ta be evoyjpova nav ov xpeiav eel. G\rAa 6 Oeos cuvexépacey TO cpa, 24. borepouuévw] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., botepovytt. be left bare, these parts would be cov- ered (‘ut membra que turpiter pate- rent, lateant honeste,’ Calvin), and per- haps also ‘non sine ornatu,’ Estius: comp. Chrys. zz /oc. Hofmann some- what singularly connects the pronoun with evoxnuoctvny as an emphatic prefix, the @ye having its derivative meaning of ‘involving,’ or ‘carrying with it’ (Heb. x. 35, 1 John iv. 18), and the juéy in the next verse being similarly connected with what follows. Such a connection has, however, no support whatever in any of the ancient Versions, mars the simplicity of the structure, and secures no exegetical advantage. 24. Ta St evoxtpova K.T.r.] ‘but our comely parts have no need,’ scil. of any adornment (Clarom., Syr.), or, more simply, of anything (‘nullius egent,’ Vulg.), the context easily sug- gesting what is referred to. The punctuation adopted in the text, ac- cording to which the present clause is separated only by a comma from what preceded, but by a full stop from what follows, seems distinctly preferable to placing a heavier stop at the end of ver. 23, and making aAAd x.7.A. answer to the od xpelav €xex which precedes. The present clause completes, as it were, the description of the body and its parts: what follows is a new sen- tence explaining the deep principle that was really underlying the whole. GAAG 6 Ocds x.7.d.] ‘ Vea, God tempered the body together ;’ the addd introduc- ing in the form of a partial contrast, and a kind of fresh element in the case (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz), the true prin- ciple which dominated the whole: comp. Luke xvi. 21, in which the aad appears, somewhat similarly, to intro- duce a fresh picture (‘yea, even the dogs, etc.,’ Rev.), in slight but traceable contrast with what preceded. This usage seems to illustrate the truth of the remark, that GAAd and mAfv are sometimes very nearly allied in mean- ing ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 535. 6. 5, Winer, Gr. § 53; 7. 2, note. The verb ouve- képagey (‘contemperavit,’ Vulg.) occurs in Heb. iv. 2. It is of not unusual occurrence in classical writers (es- pecially in Plato), but more usually in the sense of mixing together specified elements. The idea in this passage is rather that of bringing a variety of parts into a harmonious whole. To torepoupévw K.T.A.] ‘eiving to that which suffereth lack more abundant honor ;’ circumstantial participle, speci- fying that which accompanied and was contemporaneous with the ouverépacer, —‘ giving, while thus tempering, etc. ;’ see Bernhardy, Syzt. p. 383, Hermann, Viger. No. 224, and notes oz Efh. i. 9. In all these cases the participle com- pletes, as it were, the picture, adding the circumstances and details (some- times even the really main matter) necessary for a clear perception of the whole; see Kiihner, Gr. § 490. I, 2. The middle icrepouméevw (though it is often hard to say whether it be a middle or passive; see Donalds. Gr. § 432, Kiihner, Gr. § 376. 4) is perhaps here used, in accordance with the sort of personification running through all this group of verses, as marking the subjective feeling of the part or mem- ber (that not only lacked, but /e// its Cuap. XII. 24-27. 1 CORINTHIANS. 249 el e , / Py \ ty 95 ivf Nos / 3 TO VoTEpOUpEVM TEpLacoTepay Sovs TiunV, * iva ny TXiopa ev T@ TWOLATL, GNA TO AUTO UTép GAAHWY pEPLLVaTLY TA pméEAN. 26 \ ” / A I / 4 \ f 7 Kal €liTe TaoXEL EV pédNOS, GUUTTaTYEL TdVTA Ta ped: ElTE dofuverat péros, cuyxyaipe mavtTa Ta médn. 7 hwels dé eaote 26. Sotd¢erat wedos] So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on authority [A B&*] which, combined with the probability of assimilation to the first member of the verse, seems clearly to preponderate: Rec., Lachm. insert év before méAos. lack) a little more forcibly than the totepodvt: of LRec.; see, on this use, Donalds. Gr. § 432. 2. 66, Kiihner, Gv. § 375, 4. What the mepiocorépa Tinh, here mentioned, is, may be slightly doubtful. It may refer to the share the ta doxhuova had in reference to the primal command of Gen. i. 28 (Hofmann), but much more naturally refers to the details in ver. 23, which are here represented as fore-ordered in the original otykoacis; ‘faciunt enim homines quodam instinctu nature, cujus Deus auctor est,’ Estius ; comp. Calvin 27 loc. 25. tva ph Wy oxlopa «T.A.] ‘that there should be no schism (or disunion) in the body:’ purpose (8:4 ti; Chrys.) of the cuvexépacev x.7.A., viz. that there should be no such want of union as alluded to in ver. 21. Had it been otherwise either in the original consti- tution of the body or the instinctive feelings of man, the dudvo1m among the members never could have been main- tained: comp. Chrys. zz oc. GANG TO adTd K.T.A.] ‘Sut (on the con- trary) should have the same common care one for another ;’ the 7d av’rd, as its position implies, being emphatic, and receiving its illustration from the brép dAAHAwY which follows: the mem- bers were all to have a common inter- est and care, and that 7d ard wepimvay was to be for the good of one another. The verb is here rightly in the plural, as the members are regarded in their 32 plurality and separateness; see Winer, Gr. § 58. 3. a, Kiihner, Gr. § 365. 4. 26. Kal elre mdoXxe «.1.A.] ‘And whether one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or a member receiveth glory, all the members rejoice with it:’ further statement of the per- fect nature of the original evyxpaots; so completely was the divine purpose carried out, that not only was there this common care, one for another, but such a sympathetic interdependence, that what is felt by one member is felt by all. The term Sofdé¢era is appar- ently not to be limited to outward adornment but to be extended to every- thing — whether food, or outward ap- plication, or aught of a similar kind — that promotes and enhances the well- being of the member in question; see De Wette zz Joc. This interdepen- dence of the members is well illus- trated in the familiar parable of Mene- nius Agrippa (Livy, A/7s¢. 11. 32). and the sympathy of the whole body with the ailment of a part by Chrys. 7 Zoc., and, briefly, but pertinently, by Plato, Republ. p. 462, where the sympathy of the whole body with a hurt finger is alluded to: compare also the illustra- tions in Wetst. 27 loc. 27. tpets 8é éore K.t.A.] ‘Vow ye are the body of Christ:’ transitional appli- cation to the readess; verses 28-30 supplying the illustrative details. The words must not be rendered (a) ‘a body of Christ’ (Baur), the idea of a plural- 250 capa Xpiotod Kai pérn &K pépovs. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XII. 27-28. 8 Kat ods ev Octo 6 Oeos 3 lol - / lal > / if / f €v TH EKKANTLA TPWTOV aTrocTOXOUS, SevTepov Tpopytas, TpuTov ity of o@uara, which such a translation would involve, being obviously inad- missible,—nor even (4) a‘ Christ’s body’ (Ewald), as this throws the emphasis where it is not intended, céua and péan being clearly the prominent words,— but, ‘tie body of Christ’ (Copt.), the absence of the article being due either to the predicative form (see notes on ch. iii. 16, Madvig. Gr. § 10. 2), or per- haps, more probably, to the principle of correlation (see notes oz Eph. v. 8), which, especially in the case (as here) of a proper name, seems to account for the anarthrous form of the govern- ing noun: see the notes of Prof, Moulton on Winer, Gy. § 19. 2, and § 20. 4. As a Church, the Corinthians were the body of Christ; as being that local organization under which the spiritual o@ua Xpictod was to find its appointed realization ; comp. the very similar form of words in ch. iii. 16, and notes zz Joc. kal pédy éx pépous] ‘and apportioned members of it ;’ scil. each one accord- ing to his own place and function; ‘membra in loco vestro,’ Syr.; the é« here marking apparently the ideal place from which the matter was looked at, —‘ members from a fart of a whole point of view;’ see Winer, Gr. § 51.1.d. In ch. xiii. 9 the sense is simply ‘ in part ’ (‘ ¢hez/wezse,’ Meyer) ; here, however, the context seems to impart to the words the further idea of accordance with a standard (see examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 430. 3. g) and apportionment: they were not merely members without anything to distinguish one from the other, but had each their allotted place and func- tion in the body corporate. The Greek expositors see in the words a reference to the fact that the Corinthians were only a mépos Tijs mayTaxod Kemmevns ExKAN- otfas: such a reference. however, here has no bearing whatever on the con- text, which relates to the diversities of ministration in the Church generally. Equally remote from the real subject- matter is the thought which Hofmann finds in the words, — that the member- ship of individuals in Christ is only partial, and not completely manifested in any one. It is not the ‘quantum,’ but the ‘quale,’ that is here under consideration. 28. Kal ods piv ero «.7.d.] ‘ And some God appointed in the Church, to wit, jirst apostles, secondly prophets, etc.:’ illustration of the foregoing clause by a reference to the divinely- appointed order in the Church gene- rally (hence the insertion of év 7H ék- kAnoia) the caf having a somewhat full force, —‘and, to make plain what I mean, etc.,’-—and subjoining the special and detailed to the brief and general expression which precedes: comp. notes oz Phil. iv. 12. The ods wep, it will be observed, has no member cor- responding to it, the Apostle (as he dictated) probably intentionally substi- tuting an arrangement in order of dig- nity for the mere enumeration which the first words would lead the hearer or reader to expect: see Winer, Gr. § 63. I. I, where anacolutha of a similarly intelligible nature are specified. The term damoorédaous here, as in the paral- lel passage, Eph. iv. 11, is used in its highest and most special sense, see notes zz Joc. In reference to mpophtas (preachers and expounders who spoke under the more immediate influence of the Holy Spirit), see notes oz Eph. iv. 11, and above, notes on ch. xi. 4. tplrov Si8acKddous] ‘thirdly teachers ;? men who had specially the gift of &- Cuap. XII. 28, 29. 1 CORINTHIANS. 251 / ” / ” ‘ > / > didacKdndovs, éreita Suvapels, ETEITA YaplowaTa laudaTwV, avTI- Anprpes, KuBEepyyjces, yéevn yAwooav. 29 \ / ) , nN TayTes atrocToXo ; 28. Greta xaplouata] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, with very greatly preponderating authority as regards the choice between the particles: Rec. eira; some authorities omit, but with very clearly preponderating authority against them. daxH, but who, probably, had neither the powers of spiritual utterance which distinguished the mpopfra, nor the par- ticular gifts of administration which characterized those afterwards alluded to by the term kuBepyfoes; comp. Acts xiii. 1, and see notes oz Zph. iv. II. éreta Suvdpes «.T.A.] ‘then miraculous powers, then gifts of healing ;’ transition, probably for the sake of rhetorical force and variety, into abstract forms and specifications of the gifts, rather than of the persons who were endowed with them: con- trast Rom. xii. 6 sqq., where the change is exactly ine the converse direction. On the particular gifts here specified, see notes on ver. 9 sq. avtt- Afpes, KuBepvqareas] § helpings, govern- ings ;’ further specifications, but with- out any introducing particles, the strict order according to spiritual eminence probably not really extending beyond the didackdaAous. The term avtiAnuyis (in classical Greek ‘ apprehensio,’ whether with a physical reference,’ as in Xen. £q. 5.7, or a mental reference, as in Timzus Locr. p. too B) has here its post-classical meaning of Bofeta (Zo- nar., Phavor.; see Ecclus. xi. 12, li. 7, 2 Macc, viii. 19, al., and Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 376), and in the plural (as here) denotes ‘helpings’ (‘ opitulationes,’ Vulgate ; adjutoria,’ Clarom.; ‘auxilia,’ Copt.), or, passing into the concrete, ‘helpers’ (Syr.), —of which those connected with the visitation of the sick (Chrysos- tom; the verb is thus used Acts xx. 35), and, perhaps also, deacons (Beza) would furnish obvious illustra- tions. The next term k«vBepyjces in its derivative sense of ‘ governings’ (Pind. Pyth. 10. 112, woAlwy kuBepvdctes), points probably to éricxomwo: and mpec- Bitepot, or, more generally, of mpoiord- Hevot (Rom. xii. 8), — those who were invested with administrative powers and authority : comp. moimeves, Eph. iv. II, and notes zz Joc. yéevn yAworoav] ‘different kinds of tongues :’ see notes on ver. Ic. Those who were endued with the power of speaking with tongues are placed last, —not, probably, with any intention on the part of the Apostle to reverse the judg- ment of the Corinthians in reference to this gift (Est.; see Chrys., Theod., al.), but simply, as in ver. 10, on ac- count of its exceptional character, which here naturally remanded it toa concluding place in the enumeration. 29. p wavTes ArdoroAo K.t.A] ‘ Ave all apostles ? or, more exactly, ‘surely all are not apostles, with the desire of eliciting a negative reply; see Winer, Gr. § 57. 3. 4, Kihner, Gr. § 587. 11. If it cannot be said that this form of question zz al/ cases involves a negative reply (opp. to Hermann, Viger, No. 252), yet, even in those cases where an affirmative reply might, at first sight, seem to be natural, the speaker really appears either to desire a negative an- swer, or to regard such an answer as probable: see Meyer on John iv. 509. In this and the following verse the Apostle confirms the statement of ver. 27, that the Christians at Corinth were, like the members of the natural body, 252 tr CORINTHIANS. CuapP, XII. 29-31. \ / a \ / 4 % U / Li) TavTes TpodHrat; my TwavtTes SidacKaro ; 1) TavTes Suva- pews; un wavtes yaplowata éyovow tawatwy; py TavTes yh@oouts Nadovow; ju) Travtes Steppnvevovow ; *| Emrodte Sé Ta xapicoputa ta uellovas Kal étt Kal imepBomjy odov tu Selxvupe. 31. welCova] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., kpeitrova. members, each in his proper function and place, of the spiritual body. Hof- mann, in accordance with his interpre- tation of the éx uépous, appears to regard ver. 29, 30 as practically supplying the dé element to the uévy element of ver. 28. The view is ingenious, but that on which it depends, —the particular meaning of éx uépovs,—does not seem in harmony with the foregoing context; see notes on ver. 27. py mares Svvdpes] ‘are all miracles?’ . scil. mzracle-workers, the abstract standing for the concrete, as in ver. 28, and in the nominative, as the other substantives in the verse; so Syr., Vulg., and, very clearly Copt. To regard it as in the accusative, and as carrying before it an unexpressed éxou- ow (Meyer) is hard and unnatural. 30. pi) wévres Seppnvetovow] ‘ do all interpret, scil, the utterances of those speaking with tongues. The compound form diepunvede (capnvitery, Hesych.) occurs six times in the N.T. (ch. xiv. 5, 13, 27, Luke xxiv. 27, Acts ix. 36), but without any apparent real distinc- tion in meaning from the simple and more classical form €épunvedew (John i. 43, ix. 7, Heb. vii. 2), unless it be that the compound, at any rate in this Epistle, marks a little more strongly the mental process involved. The ten- dency to compound forms without any apparent accession of meaning is a mark of ‘fatiscens Grecitas ;’ see notes on Gal. iii. 13. 31. tndotre St w.7.X.] ‘But desire earnestly the greater gifts ;’ admonition suggested by, and contrasted with (6é), the tenor of the foregoing ; ‘each, it is true, cannot be all; but, for all that, show a steady (jAos (observe pres. imper.; mévete émOvuodvtes, Chrys.) for the greater gifts.’ The 6é thus ap- proaches somewhat nearly to a&AAd, but is maintained bythe writer, as intro- ducing more easily than the stronger particle the transition to ‘the more excellent way’ on which he is about to speak. On the stronger and weaker forces of this particle, see the good comments of Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2. The verb (mAodv, here and ch. xiv. 1, 39, appears to mark that earnest desire (crovdny amatet, Chrys.) with which each true servant of Christ should seek to qualify himself for receiving still greater gifts than he now may have: see Chrys. and Bengel 77 Zoc. Kal éru Kad’ drrepBoddy K.7.A.] ‘ard (in harmony with this counsel) show you a still more excellent way ;’ concluding ‘words (opp. to Westc. and ort), intro- ducing the next subject; ei dvrws é9i- eobe, éyw judas em) radTa wodnynow mpobv- pws, Theod. The way to all higher gifts is the way of love; gifts, how- ever great, without love are nothing (Chrys.). There is some little dif- ference of opinion as to the grammat- ical connection, ér: being commonly associated with the preceding kai, in the sense of ‘moreover’ (meta TodTwy, Theoph.), and kaé’ tmrepBoany being joined with the verb (Grot.), or with CuapP. XII. 31-XIII. 1. If I lack love I lack eee Love is en- dued with every grace, and endureth forever. 65dy Seixvumt (Hofmann). It can, how- ever, hardly be doubted that the én should be associated with the prac- tically comparative member ka@’ drepBo- Any (so rightly Rev., and apparently, Arm. [avauyel yeus]; see Kiihner, Gr. § 549». 6), and that kaé” smepBoany is to be adjectivally connected with doy, — ‘excellentiorem viam,’ Vulg., Syr. ; ‘viam multo prastantiorem,’ Copt.: so also Chrys., odx a&mrAws 65dv, GAA Kab be dmrepBodrts, Kal Kow mao mpoketpe- vnv, and apparently the other Greek expositors. For this adjectival use of the adverb of degree, both with and without an associated article, see Kiih- ner, Gr. § 461. 6, and § 462.m; comp. also Winer, Gr. § 54. 2. 4, and Bern- hardy, Syzt. p. 338. XIII. Christian love ; its inward presence tnaispensable (1-3) ; tts charac- teristics (4-7); and eternity, while all else passes away (8-13). 1. "Hav tats yAdooats K.t.A.] ‘Zf 7 Should speak with the tongues of men and of angels:’ introduction to the subject by means of vivid assumptions, all opening the way to the declaration that without love all gifts are worth- less. The édv here, as usually, intro- duces an assumption of objective pos- sibility, associated with a reference to the future (Herm. de Partic. tiv, p. 95, Winer, Gr. § 41. 2. 4), thus differing alike from ef with the indic. (where the idea is simple condition), and from e with the optative (where the condition is merely supposed in thought) : see notes oz Gal. i. 8, 9. There is some little difficulty as to the ’ meaning of yAéooats : it may mean ‘ar- ticulate forms of speech,’ ‘languages’ (Origen [Cramer, Cat.], Theoph., al.), but, when taken in connection with 1 CORINTHIANS. 258 XIII. ’Eav tais yreéooas thy avOperrav AAG Kal TOV ayyédwv, ayarny Sé wh exo, the whole subject of the yAwooodadia in the Corinthian Church (see notes on ch.xii. 10), seems more naturally to mean ‘utterances’ (gwvds, Theod.), whether in plain and articulate speech or other- wise,—the tav ayyéAwy being added ka? wmepBodnv,—‘and the utterances of angels, be those utterances what- ever they may :’ compare Hofmann zz Zoc. All the early expositors rightly call attention to the prominence here given to the yAdooais Aadeiv, as being that gift to which the Corinthians assigned the first place. ayamnv] ‘ove,’— as the context shows, —Thv tps tov TAnatov, Chrys. The rendering of the Vulg. is here ‘ caritas,’ though in a similar passage, Rom. xiii. Io, the term ‘dilectio’ is used. The rendering ‘caritas,’ however, occurs at least four times as frequently as that of ‘dilectio.” The term ‘amor’ occurs in 1 Pet. i. 22, and 2 Pet. i. 7, and in each case in connection with ‘fraternitas.’ The original word is not found in earlier Greek, though a@yaradw and its com- pounds are sufficiently common: it ap- pears first in the LXX. On this blessed gift, which, as Dorner well says (Chr. Doctr. § 132, Vol. Iv. p. 237, Transl.), is ‘a law of life in the new creature,’ see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 1. 18, Cremer, Worterb. p. 12 sqq. Harless, Chr. Lthics, § 19, p. 165 sq., Transl.), and Rothe, Theol. LEthik, § 143, Vol. I. p. 515 sqq. (ed. 2). yéyova Xahkds 4xXov] ‘Lam become (mere) sounding brass ;’ sc. ‘on the assumption just specified, I have become and am brass, giving a sound, when struck,— a sound only, and nothing more;’ gwvhy piv aguels, ex 5& Kad udrnv, Chrys. H wipBadrov adaddfov] ‘or a (mere) clanging cymbal, ‘cymbalum concre- pans,’ Jerome (27 Gad. v. 26); as in the 1 CORINTHIANS. 254 Cuap. XIII. 1, 2. yéyova yadkos nyav % KYuBadov dradalov. *Kal cay exw mpopmetav kab €i60 TA pvoTHpia TdavTa Kal Tacay THY YyvaowW, n ov wv , . kai édv exw Tacav thy Tiotw wate dpn peOvaTavaL, ayaTny 2. peOiordvat] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., on clearly preponderating external authority, but with the probability against it of a change from a less common to a more common form: Rec., Rev., Westc. and Hort. webiordvew. The form in -ayw is, however, sufficiently common in the N.T. (see Winer, Gr. § 14. 1, note) to weaken the force of internal considerations, and so to favor the adoption of the better attested reading. The authority for «&y in this verse is fairly good, and in the following verse better, but the authorities on either side so far fluctuate that it does not seem critically incorrect to adopt the form xa) édvy throughout, which, taken on the whole four places, seems to be slightly the better attested form. case of yaAkds,— pdvoy ixov amoredovy, vénua Sé ovdév émdexvimevoy, Severian (Cramer, Caz.) ; ‘sonus merus,’ Bengel. The term daAadrdoy (insufficiently rendered ‘tinniens,’ Vulg.; better, ‘so- num edens,’ Syr.; ‘jubilans,’ Copt.; ‘ringing,’ Arm.) seems used to mark the confused clanging sound of cymbals struck against each other. The verb properly denotes the battle-shout of victory, but is sometimes, though rarely, used of the loud cry of grief (Mark v. 38, Eurip. Zvectr. 843); see examples in Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. I. p. 1393. For an account of the different kinds of cymbals, see Smith, Dict. of Bible, Si ve Vol. I..p. 375. 2. Kal éav exw «.7.A] ‘And if [should have (the gift of) prophecy, and (still further) should know all the mysteries (of God’s counsels) avd all the knowt- edge (thereof),’ zc. ‘if in this high degree I should have prophecy and all that is spiritually associated with it.’ The pvornpia here spoken of are the blessed mysteries of redemption (ch. ii. 7, Rom. xvi. 25, 1 Pet. i. 10 sq.), of the relations of Jew and Gentile (Rom. xi. 25, Eph. iii. 4 sq.), and, in a word, of the kingdom of Christ (7a wvorhpia Tis Bactrcias Tay obpavay, Matt. xiii. 11), past, present, and future,—the things cis & emiBuuodow ByyeAot mapaxiwaz, 1 Pet. i. 12. On the meaning of uvorh- ptov, see Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p. 426 sq.. and comp. notes oz Eph. v. 32. The acav thy yvGow being under the same regimen must naturally be re- ferred to the same subject —‘ possess the spiritual gift of the fullest cogni- zance (wacay thy yv.) of all these Bdén Tov @eov:’ see notes on ch. xii. 8. Tracay Thy wher] ‘all faith,’ scil. faith in its fullest form and nature,—not every form of it (wacav miotww), but all the fulness of it. The faith here speci- fied is not ‘fides salvifica,’ but, as in ch. xii. 9 (where see notes), wonder- working faith, faith of a spiritual potency sufficient to enable him who had it (the latent subject is the speaker, —not miotts, as apparently Evans) to move mountains: comp. Matt. xvii. 20, xxi. 21, Under the two heads, mlotis and mpopnteia, the Apostle substantially includes all the greater gifts; év Bpaxe? mdvTa, meoeAape Ta Xaplouata, moopnTeiav eimay Ka miotw, Chrys. ovbév eipe] ‘Zam nothing ;’ not ‘nullius sum pretii apud Deum,’ Estius, but, as the whole context implies, of no moral worth, utterly nothing: ov« elme 5é, drt Gydmny uh eExwv pixpds elute Kad evTEAhs, GAA’ ovOev eit, Theoph. zz Joc. The Cuap. XIII. 2-4. dé un Exo, ovbev ei. 1 CORINTHIANS. 255 3 IRS J , NE Ch ae? , Kal €av opicw TAVTA TA UTTaPYOVTAa \ 2\ lal \ a / / a) / > / \ pov, Kal €ay Tapad® TO cHud pov iva KavOnoouar, ayarny dé bn exw ovdey wperovpas. form ov6ey is in the text of Steph. 1550, and rests on greatly preponderating authority: Zz., ovdév. 3. Kal édv Woulow Ktr.] ‘And if [ should give away in food all my goods ;’ the verb Pwul(ew having here no accusa- tive of the person (Chrys. supplies tots mevntas, Lheod. tovs Seomevous; So Syr., Vulg.), as the thought turns more upon the doling out, and converting into food, of the mdvra Ta tmdpxovta, than upon the recipients, who would not need to be specified: comp. Winer, Gr. § 32. 4.a, note. The verb is used in Rom. x. 20, and not unfrequently in the LXX: it occurs in the medical writers, in Aristophanes (Zg. 712, Lysistr. 19, Thesm. 692), and in Aris- totle (Z/ist. An. VIII. 3), commonly in the sense of feeding with Pwpot (dw), scil. ‘rei esculentz frusta,’ Steph.: comp. Wetst. zz Joc. tva Kav0yoopat ‘that L might be burned, or rather, to be burned:’ the ta being here used, as often in the N. T., witha predominating idea of result, though not without a clear trace of associated purpose: see notes on ch, ix. 18. On the use of #va with the future, see notes on ch. ix. 15, 18, and ox Gai. ii. 4. The reading is doubtful. As faras the future is concerned, it may be admitted that the external evidence seems less strong than that for the solecistic future conjunctive (see Winer, Gr. $ 13. I. 2), but the improbability that the Apostle could have adopted such a form, and the possibility of itacistic error, preponderate for the future. Whether kavxyfowua (ABN; 17; Memph., Theb.; Orig., al.; Zachm., Westc. and Hort) may not be the true reading may be considered fairly open 4H aydrn paxpoOupei, ypnoteveras * to question. The objection is the flatness of the ‘ut glorier’ in this con- text; but see Westc. and ort, Vol. 11. p- 117. This, with the amount of dis- tinctly good and early external author- ity in favor of kav@jcouor seems to jus- tify us in our retention of the more familiar verb. The Apostle is here referring, not to martyrdom at the stake, which was subsequent to the period now before us, but to cases like that in Dan. iii. (see ver. 28, rapéSa- Kav T2 CouaTa a’tay eis mip) and 2 Mace. vii.5sqq. The cases of Calanus and Peregrinus mentioned by Grotius and others do not seem in point, nor even the ingenious reference of Bp. Lightfoot (0 Col. p. 394) to the tomb of the self-immolated Indian at Athens: the Apostle would much more naturally have in his thoughts examples from the history of his own nation. 4-7. Characteristics of Love. 4. pakpoOupel, Xpnoreverar] ‘2s long suffering, is kind:’ cardinal charac- teristics of love, waxpodvula and xpno- térns ; succeeded by characteristics ex- pressed on the negative side (ver. 5, 6), and followed by further characteristics on the positive side. In pakpoOuueiy the prominent idea is that of gentle and forbearing patience, which épe yevvalws Tov méAas TH éAaTTSuaTa and, as Origen (Cramer, Caz.) truly says, is a veritable kaprbs tod MTyevuaros. Chrysostom misses this tender and gracious aspect of the noble word, con- founding in fact ‘longanimity’ [comp. Brown, Vulg. Errors, 1. 3, ‘the long- animity and lasting sufferance of God’] with ‘magnanimity’ (7d yap pakpdv, Kab peéeya A€yerat): comp. Theoph. 7 Joc. On the meaning of the word generally, 256 1 CORINTHIANS. CuapP. XIII. 4, 5. n ayamn ov (rot: ayamn od meptrepeveTat, ov puatodtat, ® ovK aoxnuovel, ov Enter Ta éavTis, ov tmapokvvetar, ov Aoyilerar TO see Cremer, Worterd. s. v. p. 289, and the notes and references oz 1 Thess. v. 14, and oz Eph. iv. 2. The distinction between pakpobvuia and -paitns is drawn, in the main correctly, by Theoph. on Gal. v. 22, merciful delay in the infliction of the mpoofhkovea Sixn being regarded as the characteristic in the former case (see notes oz Gal. v. 22), complete remission of it, in the latter. In the verb xpnorevecOar the leading idea is gracious kindness and benevolence : comp. Clem.-Rom. ad. Cor, 1. 14, xpnotevodmeba aborts Kate Thy evowrAaxviay Kal yAuKiTHTA Tod Tonouvtos muas. The form is only found here and in the Eccl. writers. On the meaning of xpyordrns, see notes on Gal. v. 22. Gyan od meptrepeverar] ‘love vaunteth not itself, 2s not boastful ;’ this being apparently the original meaning of this late and hybrid word (comp. Lat. ‘ perperus,’ ‘perperam,’) and forming a kind of link between the preceding (Aoi, and the succeeding guwira: envy leads to vaunting and boastfulness, and vaunting to inflation and pride. So rightly, Goth. (‘ni fldéuteith’), Arm. (‘is not haughty’), CEcum., aadadoved- erat. Various other shades of meaning have been here assigned to the word, — ‘agit perperam,’ Vulg. ; tumultuatur, Syr.; mpowereverat, Chrys. (comp. Orig. ap. Cramer, Cat., mokumpaymovet),— its use, however, in Polybius and Epicte- tus (Arrian), by whom it is associated with AdAos and maddAados (see Steph. Thesaur. s. v.) appears decisive in favor of the idea of vaunting and act- ing the part of the braggart; so Hesych., Suidas: see Suicer, 7hesaur. Vol. 11. p. 696 sq. On the force of the middle, as marking the appropriation of the state or condition implied in the active, see Donalds. Gr. § 432. 2. 66%. The reading is not perfectly certain: Lachm. and Treg. bracket aydan in this clause ; Westc. and Hort omit the word, —but on authority which does not seem sufficient. 7Z7sch. retains the word, but connects it with the preced- ing ov (nAot, throwing back the second nh aydan to ov xpnoretera (so also Lachm.),—but certainly notewith any advantage in point of symmetry. 5. OVK GoXypove] ‘doth not behave ztself unseemly ;’ whether in public or in private; ove &oxnudy tt mpdrret, Origen (Cramer, Caz.). The rendering of Vulg., ‘non est ambitiosa,’ is pecu- liar, and apparently suggested by the clause that follows, but lexically un- tenable. The idea conveyed is simply, that Love, not merely ‘non erubescit,’ or ‘pudore afficitur,’ Copt. (a meaning lexically tenable; see notes on ch. vii. 36), but does nothing that involves 7d &oxnuoy in any form; ‘non agit quod pudendum,’ Syr., ‘ni divisk6th,’ Goth. On the meanings of the word, see notes on ch. vii. 36. od {yret Ta éavris] ‘seeketh not its own things,’ scil. its own interest or profit (ch. x. 33); see ch. x. 24, and notes 27 Joc. od Tapott- verat] ‘7s not provoked (to anger),’ the expressive mapottvera: being the direct opposite of the uaxpobuue? in the pre- ceding verse. It is thus more than ‘non facile concitatur ad iram,’ Estius: it implies that it gives way to no provo- cation ; comp. Chrys. 27 Joc. ov Aoyllerar Td Kaxdv] ‘taketh no account of the evil (done to it) ;’ the verb Aoyi- (ec@a being taken in its proper sense of ‘accounting’ or ‘reckoning,’ and the 7d kaxdv referring to the ‘malum ab altero illatum,’ Bengel: comp. 2 Cor. v. 19, uh Aoy:Céuevos adrois Ta Tapam7déyara av’tév, Rom. iv. 4, 6, al. Two other CuaP. XIII. 5-7. yw CORN TALANS). 257 xaxov, “ov xaipe. emi TH adicia, ovyxaiper Sé TH adnOela- - ’ r , WaVTA OTEYEL, TAaVTA TLiaTEVEL, TuVTA éATICEL, TaYTA UTTOMEVEL. interpretations have been assigned to these words; (a) ‘non cogitat malum,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt., Goth., Arm.,— in the sense of not entertaining evil thoughts: comp. Matt. ix. 4, évOvueio@ar wovnpa: (4) ‘non suspicatur malum,’ in the sense of putting the best construction on what might seem to be evil; ‘dubia in partem accipit meliorem,’ Grotius, ovdev Smomreve: Kata Tod pthoupevou, Chrys.; comp. Theod. Of these (a) fails to maintain the full force of the verb and overlooks the 7d «axdv ; while (4) equally misses the force of the verb and the article, and makes a statement, following pertinently the ov mapotivera, merely feeble and general. 6. od Xalpaéml ry adixla] ‘ refoiceth not in unrighteousness ;’ the article giving the abstract noun its mast generic meaning: see Middleton, Gr. Art. v. 5. 1,comp. Kiihner, Gv. § 461. 1. It is thus too narrow an interpretation to refer it to ad:nig of which others are the victims, rots xax@s macxove1, Chrys. ovyxatper 8 ry ddnOela] ‘ dect rejoiceth with the Truth ;’ the abstract sub- stantive being here almost personified ; comp. Rom. vi. 12. It has been doubted whether 7 aAfGea is not to be here understood as a kind of opposition to TH adicia, and so as having a moral meaning, — ouvevppatverat Tots Kadois, Theod.: comp. ch. v. 8, Rom. ii. 8, in which this use of GAfGea is clearly to be recognized. As, however, the structural relation between the clauses is not o’k — aAdd, but ov— dé,—in which the dé has merely that partially connective, and partially oppositive, force which so commonly marks the use of the particle (Winer, Gr. § 53. 7),— it seems better to regard the clause as not involving any direct an- tithesis, but simply as adding a fresh 33 thought —rejoicing w/z almost per- sonified truth. Under this aspect it appears still more natural to regard 7 aAnGea as the Truth, sc. the truth as contained in the Gospel; comp. Eph. i. 13, Col. i.9. Even if the antithesis had been studiously marked (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 12), the latter meaning of nH GAnGea would still seem the more natural; comp. Meyer zz Joc. On the dative, as governed by ovy in suyxaipe, see Winer, Gr. § 52. 15. 7. Teva oréyer] ‘deareth all things ;’ practical manifestation of the inwork- ing of the gospel truth. The wdvta is of course to be understood of all things to which the associated words can in any degree properly apply, here. c&y poptina 7, Kav érax0}, Kav CBpews, kav mAnyal, Kav Odvatos, kv driodv, Chrys.; but there is no need for limiting or over- carefully defining the noble hyperbole. The verb oréyery may mean ‘tegere,’ Bengel, al., but is much more naturally taken in the same sense as in ch. ix. 12 (where see notes), scil. ‘suffere,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt., Goth., Arm., and the Greek expositors: so, in the adumbration of these verses in Clem.-Rom., 1 Cor. cap. 49, wdvta avéxerat. There is thus an ascent, as it were, through faith and hope, from the simpler oréyes to the nobler and more expressive dmropéve:. This and the following terms, as Har- less well observes, all imply that love preserves its peculiar essence in con- stant struggle against what is hostile: see Chr. Ethics, § 47, p. 390 (Transl.). mavTa muorrever] ‘believeth all things ;’ entertains no distrustful feelings ; devdj vouicer tov ayammuevov, Theod. To this the ravra éAm(fle, applicable to the future as well as to the present, naturally and climactically succeeds. On this text, see a good sermon by 258 8°H ayarn ovdémote mimes. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIII. 7-9. elite 5€ mpopnteiar, KatapynOy- GovTaL* ElTe yYAM@oCaL, TAVCOVTAaL* ElTE YVOoLS, KaTapynOnoeTas. %éx épous yap yuv@oKomen Kal Ex mépovs Tpobyntevopev* | dTay 8. wirret] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., éxmimret. Farindon, Sevm. xc. Vol. III. p. 547 sqq. (Lond. 1849). Tavra dropever | endureth all things ;’ with the drave patience which is the essential idea of the N.T. irouovh: see notes 07 1 Thess. i. 3, where the meaning of the substan- tive is fully investigated. The dropéve points more clearly than the oréye: not only to the present, and the trials it may bring with it, but to the future, and to an enduring courage, which, having done all, stands firm to the end (Eph. vi. 13). The Greek expositors seem to refer the different statements in the verse too exclusively to the hu- man object of the love (rdv é&yammuevor, Theod., Chrys. ; tov auapravovra, Phot.); Estius and others (in the case of the last three verbs), too exclusively to the ‘officium charitatis erga Deum.’ As the mayra clearly indicates, both are included. Love to God and our neighbor are closely intertwined ; comp. 1 John iv. 20, 21. 8-13. Zhe ever-abiding nature of Love. 8. ‘H dyarn ovdérore ataret] ‘ Love never falls, scil. remains ever firm, ever holds her place: comp. Luke xvi. 17, Tod pdvov piay Kkepatay meceiyv. The reading exmimre: appears to have somewhat more of an ethical tinge, — ‘never fails,’ ‘never falls away’ from her true attitude and mission ; ov Siadverar, ov diaxdwrerat¢ Oépew, Chrys.; comp. Rom. ix. 6, ovx ofoy 8& br Theodo- ‘ret, however, appears to regard it as little more than synonymous with the true reading mimrei, scil. uéver BeBata Kat aodAevtos, ‘semper locum suum ob- tinet,’ Bengel. The ovdémute may be éxmémtwxev 6 Adyos ToD Oeod. used with some rhetorical force rather than the simpler o¥more or ov... more (2 Pet. i. 21), the ov8érore implying the ‘gar nicht einmal’ of the German (see Kiihner, Gr. § 537. 4); but it must be observed that the omore (in its resolved state) is only used once in the N.T., while ov5émore occurs fifteen or sixteen times. elre 8& mpodnyretar, katapynOycovrat] ‘bat whether there be prophecies they shall be done away with ;’ enumeration, by means of the correlative disjunctive (ef7e... eive... elre: Winer, Gr. § 53. 6), of three of the xapfouata mentioned in ch. xii. 8, 10, which, notwithstanding their great importance, were still only mpécxatpa, and passed away when the need for them in the Church had ceased. On the word karapye (a favorite word with the Apostle, used by him twenty- five times), see notes 07 Gal. iii. 17; on yvGos, see.notes on ch. xii. 8; and on mpopnteia and yA@ooa, notes on ch. xii. 10. 9. ék pépovs yap K.T.A.] ‘For we know (only) in part, and prophesy (only) im part:’ confirmation of the state- ments in the foregoing verse in two of the particulars, the third (yAéoca:) speaking for itself, as by its very nature transitory and partial. Knowledge and prophesy, xapiouara though they be, are, in the present dispensation, é« Mépous, and so must pass away and give place to the 7d TéAesov which the 6 aidy 6 peaAdwy will bring with it; wep) yap MéAAovTos elev xpévov, Origen (Cramer, Cat.). As the order shows, the em- phasis rests on é« wépovs. The expres- sion occurs in ch. xii. 27, but in a Cap. XIII. 9-11. 1 CORINTHIANS. 259 dé EXOn TO TéAEvoOV, TO EK pépous KaTapynOnceTaL. | OTE Humv yHTLos, EXaAOUY wS VITLOS, EppovoLY ws VHTrLOS, EXoyLGouNV ws / i74 / > / La \ nr / 12 / VHTLOS* OTE YEYyOVa avnp, KATNPYNKA TQ TOV VYTLOV. Prétropev 10. TéAewov, TY ex mepous] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. inserts rére before 7d ek uépous. II. éAdAouy &s vhmios, éppdvouy ws vimos, edoyiduny ws vitios] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Fec., &s vimios éAdAouy, as vhmios eppdvovy, @s vimios édoyiCounv. bte yéeyova] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. dre 5€ yéyova. somewhat different sense; see notes. On the meaning of é« uepous as applied to prophecy (its historical limitations), see Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 123, obs., p- 235 (Transl.). 10. Stray St ZOq Td TéAerov K.T.A.] ‘but when that which is perfect shall have come, that which is in part shall be done away with :’ contrasted statement of the future, and of the mighty changes that it will bear with it: when the Lord comes, then 7d é« pepous wil necessarily be done away with. Chrys., followed by Theoph. and CEcum., draws a distinction between mpopnreia: and yA@eou, which, he says, would be su- perfluous when the faith was fully established (rlorews mavtaxod diaomapel- ONS TepiTTH ToUTwY 7% xXpela Aourdv), and yv@e1s, which, so far as it is pepirh, would be done away with at the Lord’s coming. This sort of distinction as to the time of the 7d karapyetoOa is not in any way implied in the present pas- sage, which simply draws a distinction between that which is defore the Lord’s coming and that which is afer it. Af- ter the mapovoia, prophesyings, tongues, and even knowledge itself, all of them really being é uépous, will be done away with ; 6 yap néAAwy Blos ToUTwy avevdens, Theod. zz /oc. Hofmann urges that what is done away with can only be the three gifts as zow exercised, on the ground that in the illustration that follows the speaking, thinking, and reasoning continue, though in changed forms. This is clearly to overpress an illustration, and to introduce consid- erations which are alien to the simple contrasts between the present and the future, and the broad and general tone of the context. Il. 8re tpynv vamos] ‘ When L was a child ;’ illustration, not improbably sug- gested by the use of réAevos in the pre- ceding ver. yhmios and TéAeios being con- trasted terms both in St. Paul’s Epistles (ch. xiv. 20, Eph. iv. 13, 14) and else- where; see the examples in Bleek oz feb. v. 14, and comp. Trench, Syzoz. § 22. On the later form funy, see Winer, Gr. § 14. 2, and notes oz Gad. Tat. €lddovv as viatios k.T-A.] ‘TI spoke as a child, I thought as a child, L reasoned as a child ;’ so Syr. and Arm., the verb ¢povetv here apparently marking simply the exercise of the (developing) phy, and the AoyiterOu, the exercise of the understanding and judgment. In Rev. the reference is made to the feelings, ‘I felt as a child’ (‘videtur referri ad affectus,’ Beza) ; but a more distinctly mental operation seems involved in the word and in its use in the N.T.. ‘significatur judicium mentis de rebus,’ Est. In Aoyi(er@a there is the further idea of calculating (Arm.) and judging; not ‘cogitabam,’ Vulg., but ‘ratiocinabar,’ Beza, Bengel. The reference of these terms to the yAa@oou, Tpopnreiat, and years of ver. 8 260 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIII. 11, 12. \ ” ) > If 3 r pee / 8 \ vf * 2 yap apTt ou €GOoTTTPOU EV aAWlyHaTl, TOTE O€ TPOTWTTOVY TPOsS "4 / Mpocwmov* apTL ywwcke éx pépous, TOTE dé éervyy@cowar Kalas (Theoph., Beng., GEcum., al.) is forced, and in no way suggested by the context. Ste yéyova avip K.t.r.] ‘ow that L have become a man I have done away with the things of the child ;’ the ab- sence of any particle making the con- trast between the ¢/ez and the zow more marked and emphatic. The Apostle passes into the perfect rather than the aorist, as thereby marking not only the state that had succeeded, but was now the continuing and permanent state: the perfect, as Hermann pre- cisely says, ‘tempus significat przeteri- tum terminatum presenti tempore, ita ut res, que perfecto exprimitur, nunc peracta dicatur, illudque jam, peractam rem esse, presens sit,’ de Emend. Rat. p- 186 (cited by Winer); comp. notes on Eph. ii. 8. For a sermon on this text (Christian manhood) see Newman, Serm. Vol. 1. p. 389 sqq. (Lond. 1835). 12. BAéropev yap K.T.A.] ‘For now we see in a mirror, in perplexing form ;’ confirmation (ydp) not of the preceding illustration (fer se), but as elucidating the cardinal statement of ver. 10, by a further statement of the two characteristics of our present knowledge, as 5? éodmrpov and éy ai- viywart. Wesee God in a world which imperfectly reflects Him, and in an enigmatical form,—a form which he only can understand who takes account of this imperfect reflection, and of the necessarily conditioned nature of the self-revelation. The 8v’ éodarrpov may mean ‘by means of a mirror’ (Words- worth, Hofmann), but is more natu- rally taken as referring to the illusion under which what we see appears to be on the other side of the surface, and as it were ¢hrough it: see Winer, Gr. § 47. 1. On the mirror (€corrpoy cannot lexically have any other meaning; see James i. 23) of the ancients, — a highly burnished plate composed of. mixed metal, —see Smith, Dzct. of Bible, Vol. Il. p. 382 g, Winer, &. W. ZB. Part i. p- 476. The év aivlypari is a difficult expression, alvryza meaning properly ‘a riddle’ (ppdors emirndev- peévn eis Godperav, Phavor.),— a meaning strongly maintained by Meyer, both here and in the passage which was cer- tainly in the Apostle’s thoughts (Num. xii. 8, év efSer at ob SP aiviypdtwv), — but, in this particular place, clearly in- volving a somewhat forced interpreta- tion: we can hardly speak of ‘seeing anything in a riddle.’ On the other hand, the current adverbial translation (aiviyparik@s, aiviywatwde@s) practically confuses the thing seen with the mode of seeing it. In this difficulty it seems best to refer atviyua to the puzzling and enigmatical form (comp. Dio Cass. Hist. Rom. Wt. 3 Fragm., té6 tis xolpov alviyua) seen in the mirror, and to take the preposition as marking the sphere to which the BaAerew was limited, — ‘in a mirror, (and) in a form of baffling significance,’ ‘in /rzsahtaz, Goth, ; comp. Hofmann zz Joc. On the mean- ing of &pte (‘just now,’ ‘modo’), see notes oz 1 Thess. iii. 6, and comp- Lo- beck, Phryz. p. 18 sq. Tote Sé mpdcwtov mpos mpdcwroy] ‘but then [when the perfect is come, ver. 10] face to face,—face meeting face, mpé- owmov being nominative in apposition to the subject of BaAémouev (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 57. 10), and the expression itself Hebraistic; comp.: Num. xii. 8, ordua katd otdua AaAnow avtT@ év elder kad od OY aiviyudrov. emrryvaocopar Kalas Kal éreyvaor8nvd ‘7 shall ( fully) know even as Iwas (fully) known ;’ viz. by God (comp. ch. viii. 3), at the time that His saving knowledge Cuap. XIII. 12, 13. \ > , Kal érreyvaoOnv. t CORINTHIANS. 261 Byypyl Sé wéve tiotis, édmis, ayatn, Ta Tola n / \ A a 2 / TavTa* pweilwy O€ TOUT@Y 7 ayaTn. was directed to me, and I was called, and converted ; Me eyvapice, gnotv, Chrys. On this knowledge, see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 18, p. 159 sq. (Transl.), comp. Rothe, Zheol. E£thik, § 458, Vol. 11. p. 484 sq. (ed. 2). Itis quite clear from this passage that the compound émyweonery (Goth., u/kun- nan, as contrasted with the simple witan) is stronger than the simple form (consider Rom. i. 32, 2 Cor. vi. g, al.) and, as such, here studiously used by the Apostle, though in many pas- sages (comp. e.g. Col. i. 6 with 2 Cor. Vili. 9, 2 Pet. ii. 21 with Rom. ili. 17) it can hardly be expressed in English without exaggeration. Here probably zztensive (axpiPerdy twa onual- ve. kal émitacw évepyelas, Eustath.), rather than merely additive or directive, but the shades of meaning between the simple and compound are so delicate that it is not in all cases possible to speak with perfect precision; see es- pecially Cremer, Wé6rterb. p. 158. On the use of xal in comparative sentences like the present, comp. notes oz Gail. iv. 3. 13. vuvi 8& pever k.7.d.] ‘But, as it is, there abideth faith, hope, love ;’ the vuvt being logical (not temporal: comp. ch. xii. 18, 20), and the 6€ contrasting the abiding nature of the three virtues with the transitory character of the gifts (ver. 8 sqq.). The wéve: thus stretches onward into the world beyond the present, and, in accordance with the whole idea of continuity of existence which ver. 10 sqq. indirectly bring home to us, conveys the deep thought that faith, hope (it may be, in some neces- sarily changed aspects), and love, will endure for evermore. Faith will be- come ever more intense, hope ever brighter, and love, the sustainer of Ce autos émt is both, ever more deep and energizing ; ylvetat opodporepa, Chrys. According to the general view of the passage based on Rom. viii. 24, Heb. xi. 1 (Chrys., Theod.; comp. also 2 Cor. v. 7), the vuvi is regarded as temporal, and the wéve: as limited to the present state of being (Wordsw.), but the objec- tion seems conclusive, that, according to this view, there is nothing whatever to show that faith and hope would be more permanent than the xapiouara, for the termination of the xapiouara is in no way implied as prior to the érav €A@n Td TEeActov (ver. 10); and further, on the assumption that the 7d pet(ov of love depends upon its survival in the world to come, péve would really have two meanings, one in reference to faith and hope, and another in reference to love. We can hardly hesitate, there- fore, to adopt the wider and nobler view of the passage above specified, enhanced as it also seems to be by the clause ra rpia Tatra, which, it wouldseem was specially introduced to place on the same separate levelthe three great Christian graces, and almost to obviate the very conception of any difference in the 7d wéve of each. If the view here advocated be correct, it is obvious that mioris and éAmis must be taken, each in its widest scriptural significance (opposed to Meyer, al.), and in its highest conceivable meaning. On the supposition, entertained by many sober thinkers, that there may be spiritual progress in the future world, the 7d peévew, in the case not only of aydrn but 'of miorts and éAmis, will become additionally intelligible ; see Martensen, Dogmatics, § 290. p. 485 (Transl.), Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 155. 3, Vol. Iv. p- 432 sq. (Transl.). pellav Sé TovTev ayamn] ‘and the greatest of 262 Seek to prophesy rath- er than to speak with tongues Tospeak what is not understood does not edify. TVEUMATLKA, these is love ;’ the 6€ appending a new thought, the ro’rwy being the partitive gen., and the comparative used because aydrn is contrasted with miorts and éAmis taken, as it were, together, and forming one category; see Winer, Gr. § 35. 3. The grounds on which this inspired declaration has been supposed to rest have been very differently stated. The most natural explanation would seem to be that as aydn is stated in this very chapter as ‘ dedzeving all things and hoping all things’ (ver. 7), it may be rightly deemed the nutrient and sus- taining principle (if even not the voof, De Wette) of both faith and hope,— that which gives to faith all its energy, and to hope all its vividness of persis- tence. The opinion of Weiss (4720/. Theol. § 93, Vol. 11. p. 37, Transl.), that the rd met(oy depends upon love re- lating to the Church, faith and hope merely to the individual, is plausible, but does not emerge from the actual context. The true explanation may really lie deeper still, and may depend upon considerations in the mind of the Apostle which he has not disclosed. At any rate we cannot forget what another Apostle has twice said,— 6 cds aydrn éotiv, I John iv.8,16. For a sound practical sermon on this sub- ject, see Jones (of Nayland), Serxm. 1. p- 1 sqq. (Lond. 1829). XIV. Resumption of the subject of spiritual gifts, and demonstration that the gift of prophecy is greater than that of speaking with tongues, whether in reference to believers (I-19), or to unbe- lievers (20-25). 1. Avokere tiv ayarrny] ‘ Pursue after love :’ counsel following immediately upon what has been said relative to 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIII. 13-XIV. 1, XIV. Awxere tiv ayarnv, &rovTe 5é Ta padrov bé iva mpodntevyte. love, and in terms (diéxere) perhaps suggested by the @r nae’ bwepBodrhy 65dy buty deikvume of ch. xii. 31. The word is, however, also clearly used as marking the bmirerauévny omovdhy (Theoph.) with which the pursuit must be carried on: comp. Phil. iii. 12, 13. The broad principle being now stated, the Apostle at once passes on to the various details. {mrotre 8 ra mvevpariKd] ‘but desire earnestly spiritual gifts ;’ the 5é€ here marking that though they were to pur- sue after love, they were not the less to do what they had already been in- structed to do (ch. xii. 31), viz. to desire earnestly the xapiouara already spoken of, and especially the great xapiouara, of which two examples are now intro- duced, and compared with one another, —both being connected with speech and utterance. Between (ydodv and didxery there does not appear to be any difference, intensively considered, beyond what is involved in the very nature of the words: dicey marks the persistence, (yAody the energy and earnestness (comp. notes on ch. xii. 31) with which the object was to be sought: comp. Plutarch, J7Zo7. p. 448, 7d mparov €movrat Kal (ndovow, Sortepoy 5é Kal gi- Aovow. In the N.T. (as indeed in clas- sical Greek) both in (jAos and (nAdw the idea of emulation or envy is merged in the really primary idea ((éw) of fervor or earnestness of pursuit : comp. Thucyd. ist, 11. 37, (ndody robs trav méAas vduovs, Eurip, Hec. 255, (naodv Snunydpous Timds. padAov St Wa mpodynredyte] ‘but chiefly (desire earnestly) that ye may prophesy ;’ ‘in carrying out the general precept let it be especially your care (é&aipérws, The- oph.) to do so in reference to prophe- Cuap. XIV. 1-3. 1 CORINTHIANS: 263 26 yap Nadav yAwoon ovK avOpaTros Aare AGArAA OcG, ovdels yap aKover, TrevpwaTe O€ Aare povoTHpLA. 36 5€ mpopntevor 2. @eg] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very distinctly preponderating evidence: Rec., 7G Oc@. sying.’ The ta marks the purpose of the (mAodre, but not without that tinge of result which is so often to be traced in the use of this particle. In such cases the final sentence almost passes into the objective: see notes on ch. iv. 2, ix. 18, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 63. 2.1. 2. 6 yap Aadov K.t.A.] ‘Hor he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not to men, but to God ;’ confirmation of the MaAdov Se tva mpopytednte, by showing the unedifying nature of speaking with tongues, at any rate as far as man was concerned; one so speaking speaks only to God, ‘omnes linguas intelli- genti,’ Bengel. ovdels yap ‘eKover] ‘for 20 one heareth (him) ; con- firmatory of the foregoing, any intel- ligent hearing of what was so spoken being distinctly exceptional. The axevew here clearly involves the idea of ‘understanding,’ but is used rather than any more definite word (oie, ver. 16; cuvinow, Matt. xiii. 15; yuvdorer, Acts viii. 30) as implying sounds heard by the outward ear, though not by the inward ear of the mind. This use of &koveww cannot be called a Hebraism (for see examples in Steph. Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. I. p. 1269, ed. Hase), but is certainly used in the LXX (Gen. xl. 7, xlii. 23), where yayj is similarly used in the original. ~~ Tvevpate Se Aare? puorhpia] ‘bt in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries ;’ the 8é, with an explanatory and faintly ratiocinative force (see notes oz Gal. ii. 4), eluci- dating the ovdels yap axovec and forming with it a sort of compound confirma- tion of the first clause of the verse, each member of the statement being substantiated: ‘he speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands him, the spirit being that in which and with which he speaks, and the tenor of what he speaks, mysteries.’ On this explanatory use of 5, not uncommonly found, as here, after a negative, see Kihner, Gr. § 532. 2, and comp. § 526. The mvetyart (probably instrumental dative, corresponding with the fore- going yAdaon) is here the human spirit, that portion of our composite nature (see notes 07 1 Thess. v. 23) with which the Holy Spirit vouchsafes to commu- nicate, and which in this, as in num- berless similar passages, is regarded as filled by His presence; see notes om Phil. i. 23, 2 Tim. i. 7, and comp. Cremer, Worterb. s.v. p. 509 sq. On the meaning of wuorhpioy in St. Paul’s Epistles (something not fully compre- hensible by unassisted human reason), see notes oz Eph. v. 32, Reuss, 7heéol. Chrét. Iv. 5, Vol. 11. p. 88, and Cremer, Worterb. s.v. p. 427 sq. Both the matter and the manner of the utterance were such as to justify the statement in the first portion of the verse; wuarh- pia pbeyyerat Sia TOY yAwooay, Severian. On the speaking with tongues, see notes on ch. xii. 10, and comp. Marten- sen, Chr. Dogm. § 186, p. 338 (Transl.), but observe that what is here men- tioned, and that which is specified Acts ii. 4 sqq., however spiritually allied, are, as the inspired account clearly shows, in effects and characteristics unmistakably different. 3. 6 8& mpodyredov «.t.A.] ‘But he that prophesieth (exercises the gift of mpopnrela, ch. xii. 10) speuketh to men edification, and exhortation, and conse 264 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIV. 3-5. avOpwrrois adel oiKodopyy Kal tmapdkKnow Kai trapapyvOlav. 46 NaA@Y yA@oon EavTOY oiKodomeEt* Oo Sé TpopyTevwY exKAno lav > a oiKodomed. lation ;’ he builds up the inward life of his fellow-men, gives counsel to the mind and comfort to the heart. The three substantives are independent of each other (according to Bengel, al., the first marks the genus, the second and third the special forms of it), marking the three principal manifesta- tions inwhichthe gift of rpopytela shows itself, — tos dornpiktous oikodomodca, Tovs pabuwotépous Tapakadovoa kal dre- yelpovoa,tovs dAvyoWUXous Tapauvboumern, Theoph. Of these three manifesta- tions, the first seems to refer more particularly to the building up and de- veloping of the spiritual life of the soul (comp. Eph. iv. 16, and see Cremer, Worterb. s.v. oixodouéw, p. 451); the second, mapaxAnois (associated with oi- kodoun, in I Thess. v. II), to all that is covered by the word ‘exhortation’ (scil. ‘ad studium bonorum operum,’ Est.), — not ‘encouragement ’ or ‘ com- fort,’ as this idea appears in the word that follows (comp. notes o7 Pil. ii. 1); the third, wapaduuta (Gr. Aeydu. in N.T.; associated with «fanors, Plato, Rep. V. p. 450 D), to ‘consolation,’ — all that comforts, supports, and cheers ; see Phil. ii. 1, where the similar word mapauvé.oy is joined with é&ydrn, and in parallelism with omAdyxva Ka) oiktipuot. The verb occurs 1 Thess. v. 17, tapapv- Ociabe Tovs GAtyoWdxous. 4. 6 Aadav yAdooy K.T.A.] ‘He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth the Church :? contrast between speaking with tongues and prophesying in re- gard of the first-mentioned and most inclusive of the spiritual elements enu- merated in the foregoing verse. The one who speaks in a tongue ministers 5@érw Sé mavtas buds Aadely yAWooats, Uaddov dé to himself oixodouh,— not necessarily by any knowledge of the purport of what he says, but by the glow of soul associated with the exercise of the xd- pioua. The omission of the article in the case of ékxAnolta (‘a church,’ Copt.; so Meyer) need not be pressed, éxxan- cia being one of the very long list of words in the N.T. in which appellatives, which should naturally have the article as denoting natural objects, are still found without it: see Winer, Gr. § 19. 1, Kiihner, Gr.§ 462. 4. It may,however, be admitted that where, as here, the word in question does appear, by the very tenor of the context, to be used ina clearly general sense, the writer, by a correct literary instinct, drops the ar- ticle. In such cases the true mode of expressing this in English (where idiom may not allow of the omission of the article) is by the often generalizing ‘the,’ rather than by the numerically allied indefinite article : consider Matz- ner, Lngl. Gr. Vol. Il. p. 144, com- pared with p. 176 (Transl.). ; 5. OAw SE mavras K.t.A.] ‘Vow / would that ye all might speak with tongues ;’ the 6€ introducing a thought contrasted with the obvious tenor of what had preceded ; ‘ I have implied that prophesying has a wider influence for good than speaking with tongues; I would, Zowever, that you all had this latter.gift.’. So Chrys., iva uh voulcwow 811 Backalvwv abrots kabatpet Tas yAdooas ... Stopbodmevos aitav Thy bmdvoidy dnote @daAw SE .7.A. pBaAAov S€ tva Tpodytevynte] ‘yet rather that ye should prophesy ;’ the second 6€ introducing and reverting to the original contrast; ‘though I do not seek to depreciate the former gift, but even wish that you Cuap. XIV. 5, 6, tr CORINTHIANS. 265 iva mpodntednte* peitwv dé 6 mpodytevav 7) 0 Nadav yrAwoooass, €xTOs eb pon Sivepunvedy, va % exkAnoia oiKodounv AABN. 8 pov 5. welCov S€] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on distinctly preponderating authority: Rec., peiCwy ydp. 6. viv dé] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Mec., yur) 6é. It may be observed that in the con- cluding clause Z7sch. omits év before 8:8ax7, but on authority which cannot here be regarded as sufficient. had it, I s¢/7 would: rather that you should prophesy.’ The change from the objective or expository form of sen- tence (OéAw . . . Aadezv: comp. Donalds. Gr. § 385) to the fizal (@é\w... va mpopntevnte) is perhaps intended to give some tinge of purpose to the ex- pression of the wish, but we must not forget that @éAw iva certainly does occur in passages in the N. T. (Mark vi. 25, ix. 30, Luke vi. 31, al.) in which it is hard to see that more really is meant than an expression of the olject of the wish (see Winer, Gr. § 44. 8. 4), and that thus we may have here only an example of that ‘oratio variata’ which is to be found in the best writers : see Winer, Gr. § 63. 11.1. On the uses of iva in the N. T., see notes oz Eph. i. 17, and compare Abt oz 1 John i. 9. pellov 8é k.7.X.] Sand greater is he that prophesicth ;’ the &é, as in ver. 2, hav- ing an expositive, and also faintly ratiocinative, force, which may some- times be conveyed in English by passing into the participial construc- tion--‘he that prophesieth being greater than etc.’ In such cases the 5é approaches in meaning to émel, but differs from it in leaving the ratiocina- tive element to be inferred from the tenor of the clause it introduces, whereas, in the case of émet, this ele- ment is definitely conveyed by the par- ticle. The ideaof ‘something further’ is all that we can here properly attri- bute to the particle taken fer se: see Liiumlein, Gr. Partik. p. 89. 34 éxros et pri) Steppnvévg] ‘except zt be that he interpret:’ clearly a pleonastic form of expression compounded of two ex- ceptive formulz; compare ch. xv. 2, 1 Tim. v. 19, and notes zz Zoc.; see also Winer, Gr. § 65. 3. c. On the use of ef with the subjunctive, see notes on ch. ix. 11. Here the true force, as con- trasted with édéy with the subj., is per- fectly clear : ef with the subj. represents simply that the event will decide the point; édy (comp. ver. 6) would intro- duce an element of doubt as to the matter (‘unless possibly he should interpret’) with which the known exis- tence of the gift would obviously be out of harmony; see Winer, Gr. § 41. 2. 6. obs., Stallb. on Plato, Zege. 958 p. The introduction of ‘forte’ in Vulg. (‘nisi forte interpretetur ’) thus exactly gives the turn that is instinctively avoided. 6. viv 8 «.7.X.] ‘ Biz, as ztzs (as there cannot be general oixodouf without épunvela), brethren, if I should come to you speaking with tongues;’? the viv being logical (comp. ch. v. 11, 1 Thess. ili. 8, and see notes 77 Zocc.), and the 8 mainly continuative (comp. x. 20), its slight antithetical force being just traceable in the fresh matter which the illustration of the main thought of ver. 5 (viz. no profitable speaking with tongues without interpretation) here brings with it; comp. notes on ch. xi. 28. The reference of the Apostle to his own case is not intended to dis- close any personal experience, as in 266 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIV. 6,7 dé, adedgol, cay ELOw mpos tuas YAwaoais AaroY, TL Kas agerycw, €av py vpiv Nadjow 1) ev aTroKaier 7) ev yv@oer 7 év mpogpnrteia H) év didayy ; "duos Ta dayvya hori Siddvta, elite such a case an éyé would certainly have been inserted: it simply individ- ualizes, and gives point to the state- ment; comp. ch. xiii. 11, 12. éay pr) dpiv AaAqow k.t.d.] 67f J should not speak to you either in the way of rev- elation, or of knowledge, or of prophecy, or of teaching :’ parallel clause, on the negative side, to the affirmatively ex- pressed édy clause which had preceded, each being similarly dependent on the Ti Huds wpeAhow: ‘what shall I profit you if I should come to you speaking with tongues,— if (having so come) I should not speak to you either in the form of revelation etc.’ At first sight it might seem more natural to con- sider the second clause as limiting the negative answer which the ti spas apedhow might be conceived to sug- gest (‘quid utilitatis spiritualis ex me capietis? Nihil profecto, nisi vobis loquar etc., prout sequitur,’ Estius), but this would imply more than the foregoing verse would justify. Nothing has yet been said sufficient to prove that the answer to the question must necessarily be in the negative. All that has been said is, that 6 mpopnretdwv is greater than 6 Aad@y yAd@ooais, ex- cept the one so speaking interpret. We therefore regard the hypothetical clauses as in parallelism and in similar dependence on the question which they respectively precede and follow: see Fritzsche oz Jatt. iv. 8 [so far as illus- tration goes], Plato, Ped. p. 67 E, and Stallbaum zz Zoc. The grouping of the four substances adopted by Estius, and followed by most modern expositors, appears to be correct; a7o- KdAvyis being that which mpopnreta dis- closes and elucidates (the prophet re- ceives the revelation, and has the gift of conveying its meaning to others), and yvdéors that which is imparted by d:5axh, scil. ‘docendi gratia, per quam, id quod scimus, aliis communicamus,’ Estius: comp. ch. xii. 8, Adyos cooias. On the meaning of &:5ax4, and its dis- tinction from di5acKaAla, see notes o7 2 Tim. iv. 2; and on the use of & in reference to the substance or form (inward in the case of dmordAuviis and yveo.s, and externally disclosed in the case of mpopyreia and d:8axh) in which the Aadciv takes place, see ch. ii. 7, and notes zz doc.; compare also notes o7 I Thess. iv. 15, and Winer, Gr. § 48. 3. 6. 7. Spws Ta dapuxa K.7.A.] © Though it be things without life, if giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, yet if they give no distinction to the sounds, etc.;* scil. ‘do not make one note distinct from another,’ $@dyyors being the ordinary dative ‘of the recipient’ (Donalds. Gr. § 453). The Sus, as in Gal. iii. 15 (see notes), is attracted from its logical position, which really is before édy k.7.A.. to the words 7a &puxa, on which © the emphasis obviously rests, and on which the @ fortiorz of the argument depends: see Winer, Gr. § 61. 5. f., and comp. § 45. 2. b. The participial clause then follows closely, forming a secondary predication (Donalds. Gr. § 442) of time or condition (‘when giv- ing’ or ‘if giving;’ Winer adopts the concessive form, but less conveniently) relative to the 7a &puxa, and placing the argumentative illustration clearly before the reader. For examples of this use of @wvf in reference to music or musical instruments, see Matt. xxiv. 31, Rev. xiv. 2, xviii. 22, and the in- stances specified by Grimm, Zez. s.v. Cuap. XIV. 7, 8. 1 CORINTHIANS. 267 ainos cite KiOdpa, éav Siactodyv Tois POdyyous ut) 8B, TAS \ x \ yvoobijceras 76 avdovpevoy %) TO KiGapifouevov ; ® Kal yap éav adnrov pov cadtuy— 6@, Tis TapacKevdceta cis TONELOD ; The general term was probably here used that the more distinctive term ~bdyyos (Wisdom xix. 17: comp. Rom. x. 18) might follow in association with diacToAh: pwvh being the sound gene- rally, p@éyyo: (raxets cal Bpadeis ofets Te kal Bapeis, Plato, 7im@us, 80 A), the separate portions of sounds, the waves of the general stream. For an account of the two instruments here mentioned, see Smith, Dict. Antig. p. 720 sq., p. 1130 sq, SiartoAny] ‘distinction, Rom. iii. 22, x. 12 (Hesych. S:dxpiois, Sialpecis) ; Suid. d:aydépnots here apparently not in any technical sense, or equivalent to didornua (Plato, Philebus, 17 Cc), but simply ‘distinctionem,’ Vulg., — ‘ vo- cem ita temperatum ut discerni queat,’ Calvin. The word is of common oc- currence in later Greek writers. In medical writers it is used in reference to the heart, arteries, etc., and is de- fined by Galen as &pots kal ofov émavd- oTacis Kapdias, aptnpi@y x.T.A.. Def. Med. Vol. 11. p. 255 (Paris, 1679). THs yvarOjoeTat K.T.A.] ‘how shall it be known what is piped or what its harped ?’ not ‘or harped,’ Auth., the article being studiously repeated in the original to mark alike in each case, pipe and harp, the avAoduevov or the KiBapi(ouevoy. Meyer calls attention to the unsuitable nature of the illustra- tion if the speaking with tongues had been merely speaking in foreign lan- guages. It is certainly probable that the yA@ooats Aade in this Epistle is commonly used in reference to ecstatic forms of prayer, etc. (see notes on ch. xii. 10); but it would be over-pressing an illustration to use it as helping to settle a question so debatable as that alluded to. Unknown languages, vol- ubly uttered, might be to those who heard them just as bewildering as musical sounds without intervals and proper.articulation. 8. Kal yap édv &SnAov k.t.A.] ‘Aor 77 the trumpet also give an uncertain voice ;’ the yap confirming by the men- tion of a yet further example, and the kal, with a slightly descensive force (see notes oz Phil. iv. 12) marking that example as a still stronger one, the odAmvyé not having, like the aiads or the «:@dpa, a regular succession of mu- sical intervals. For an account of this instrument, see Smith, Dict. Antig. p. 1170. On the use of ral ydp, see notes on ch. xi.9. The order oadAmyé pwvhv (Tisch., Westc. and Hort) seems doubt- ful. The term &inaos (Luke xi. 44, 7 bvnucia Ta &SyAa) marks the want of clearness in the sound, so that when the trumpet ‘spake unto the armed throng’ the hearer could not under- stand the meaning of the call; ‘aliter enim Classicum canitur, aliter Recep- tus,’ Beza. tis TapacKevaoeTaL eis wédepov] ‘who shall prepare himself Jor war, ‘quis parabit se ad bellum,’ Vulg. There does not seem any reason for deviating from the usual meaning of méAeuos; the trumpet-call may just as easily be understood of the summons to war as the 7b mapountikdy pmédos (Elian, Var. Hist. 11. 44) to wdxn and to immediate conflict: see Num. x. 9, éav efeAOnre cis réAcuov ... Kal onuavetTe Tas odAmytt, Ezek. vii. 14, cadmtoate év oaAmiyyt... Kal ovK %ort mopevduevos eis Toy méAeuoy: comp. also ch. xxxiii, 3. The preposition eis marks the di- rection and destination of the Td mapa- oxevd{erda: see Winer, Gr. § 49. a 268 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIV. 9, Io. %ottws Kai dpeis Sia Ths yAwoons éav fi) eVonwov Aoyov dare, Tas yrwoOnoeTta TO NaAOVpmEVOY ; ExecOe yap Eis dépa AadodrTES. 10 a > , L a SEAN ? ’ \ vee TOOQAUTA, €L TUXOL, Ev) pwovav €lolv EV KOOL@, KAL OUOEV 10. elaly] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., éoriv. The a’tav which Rec. inserts after ovdév is rejected by the critical authorities above mentioned, and upon nearly the same preponderance of evidence. c.5,and compare Bernhardy, Syzz. p. 210. g. otrws kal tpeis K.T.A.] 6.50 also ye, if by the tongue ye utter not speech easy to be understood:’ application of the foregoing illustrations to the Corin- thians. the duets and bia THs yAdoons being closely associated (comp. ch. vi. 4), so as to keep up the force and per- tinence of the illustration: ‘so ye too, —just as it has been shown in the case of these lifeless instruments, — if by that which is your organ of utter- ance ye utter not intelligible speech, how, etc.’ The term etonuos (Hesych. ednAos, pavepds, Suid. wepipavys) is a Gm, Aeydu. in the N.T., though of common occurrence from Atschylus downwards : it is here used in reference to the clear (‘manifestum,’ Vulg.) and intelligible nature of the Adyos: comp. Plutarch, J/or. 776 B, where it is asso- ciated with évap8o0s and tpavos. toeoBe yap cis dépa Aadodvres] ‘for ye will be speaking into the air:’ the auxiliary verb with the participle mark- ing the state to which they will have become reduced; see Winer, Gr. § 45.5. This usage is not by any means uncommon in classical Greek: see the ‘numerous examples in Kiihner, Gv. § 353: 4. 3, and comp. Stallb. on Plato, Phed. 100 D, Gorg. 500 Cc. On the ex- pression eis dépa AaAciv, comp. ix. 26, and notes 77 loc. 10. Toradra, el TUXOL, K.T.A.] § There are, it may chance, so many kinds of voices in the world:’ a further and more cogent example of the wholly un- profitable nature of this Adyos &onuos against which the Apostle is contend- ing: from illustrations connected with sounds, he now passes to languages. There is some little doubt as to the exact meaning of the ei rdxor. With numerals, it appears sometimes to answer to our ‘thereabouts’ (dé€ka per, ei tUxX01, Galen), but commonly conveys little more than the familiar acc. absol. tuxév (Kiihner, Gr. § 487. 1), ‘it may chance,’ ‘it may be,’ the ef with the optat. preserving its true idea of subjective possibility (Winer, Gy. § 41. 2): comp. ch. xv. 37, and the long list of examples cited by Wetst. zz doc. The rendering ‘for example’ (comp. Vulg. ‘ut puta’) cannot be lexically substantiated, and appears only to have arisen from the common use of the formula in the mention of matters or details in regard of which the writer did not affect to be accurate; comp. Arrian, ict. Ul. 1, mpds BAAO wey bp&puev Kiva mepundra, mpds AAO 5é tov, mpos &AAO Bé, ei oTW TUXOL, anddva (cited by Wetst.). The Versions all over- look the expression, unless the ‘ecce enim’ of Syr. is intended to represent it. So too Chrys., Theod.: Theoph., al., apparently misunderstand it. The gwvai here referred to are ob- viously languages (Chrys., al.), the term yAdéooa being avoided as in this context likely to be ambiguous. To refer the term to the voices in’ the general realm of nature (‘ voces natu- CHAP. XIV. 10-12. 1 CORINTHIANS. 269 adovov. Uday odv pn ida THY Sdvauw THs Pevijs, Ecouar TO 12 AarodvTt BapBapos Kai 6 Aadrw@Y ev ewol BapBapos. obras RK a > \ i > / \ \ > w A Kal vpels, emrel CndtwrTal €oTe TVEVMATWY, TPOS TIV GiKadOMAY THS rales animalium,’ Calvin) is out of harmony with what foliows. Kal ovdiv &dwvov] ‘and no hind of them zs without its voice,’ scil. without signifi- cation, without its characteristic of intelligibility. Languages are designed to carry meaning to those who use them and hear them. If they were &pwvor they would cease to be dwvat at all: ‘quodvis eorum suam habet otes- tatem, dvvamv,’ Bengel. II. édv obv pi ciSw K.T.A.] ‘Lf then L Should not know the meaning of the voice :’ statement, by means of the collective otv (see notes on ch. vii. 27) of the obvious result as based on the preceding verse, and especially the last clause of it,— the fact that no kind of the many languages in the world is de- void of signification, or fails to convey intelligible meaning. Things being so (otv), what the Apostle states must naturally follow, viz. that if, in any par- ticular case, he did not know the mean- ing thus conceded to exist, he and the one speaking the language, as far as understanding each other, would be BdpBapo, the one to the other; comp. Baiumlein, Gr. Partik. s. v. obv, 3, p. 179, whose discussion of this particle (though his conception of its primary idea seems open to question; comp. Kiihner, G7. § 508, note 3) deserves careful consideration. For ex- amples illustrative of this use of dvvauis (‘v2 atque Potestas, i. q. significatus, sermonis, Grimm), see Ast, Lex. Plat. s. v., and Grimm, Zex. s. v. BdpBapos] ‘a barbarian,’ one speaking another tongue than those with whom he is in contact. In BdpBapos and the apparently stronger term marlyyAwooos (see Pind. /sthm. v. [v1.] 24) there is no idea of non-intelligibility of speech except so far as arises from the one speaking being a foreigner and speaking a foreign language: he was not a éuoyAéooos: compare Herod. flist. U1. 158, BapBdpous S¢ mdvras of Aiyirriot kadéovattovs mh) ior duoyAdo- govs. The word is found in Sanscrit under the form darbara (see Curtius, Ltym. § 273, p. 291) and may be either derived from sound or some primitive word, éarbar or bard, implying stam- mering; see Fick, Jzdo-Germ. Wor- terb. p. 132. év épol] ‘77 me,’ Ze. ‘in my judgment,’ zzzto me, ‘mihi,’ Vulg. The preposition here seems primarily to mark the spehre z which, and thence, by a very natural transi- tion, the sort of tribunal defore which, the judgment was formed: see Winer, Gr. § 48. a. 1. d, and comp. notes on ch. vi. 2. 12. obtws Kal tpets K.7.d.] ‘So also ye, since ye are earnestly desirous of spiritual manifestations ;’ general ap- plication of what has been already urged, the afrws xa) being more inclu- sive in its retrospect than in ver. 9; ‘thus, in accordance with the illustra- tions that have been given (ver. 6-11) of the general principle that what is spoken should be intelligible (compare Hofmann), seek etc.? The clause ézeb K.T.A. specifies why the Corinthians should take the counsel here given es- pecially to heart. The expression mvevuatwy is not identical with tav myeupatix@y (ver. 1; Syr., Copt.) but, as in ch. xii. 10, indicates the varied man- ifestations wrought by the Spirit.— Spirit-workings, which especially were the object (gen. odject?, Winer, Gr. § 30. I. a) of their (7A0s: comp. Hofmann 270 2 / Lal 7 id éxxdnolas Entetre wa mepiocevnte. mpocevyécOw iva dvepunvedy. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIV. 12-14 18 Ai0 6 NaAY YAwoon 4 gay yap Tpocevyopar yrwooon, 13. Aid] So Lachm., Tisch.. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., didmep. zx loc., who, however, finds more in the term (‘spirits,’ rather than the one Spirit) than it is apparently intended to convey. m™pos Tv oikoSopzy K.7.A.] ‘seek unto the edifying of the church, that ye may abound (in them) ;’ the words mpds oikod, Tis éxkA. being studiously put forward as that which was to be regarded as the special ob- ject of the (nretre: mepicceve Suds ev avtois BovAoua, pdvov by eis rd Kown cuupepoy ata weraxerpi(nre, Chrys. In the iva mepicoednte the particle has what may be termed its sub-final, or secondary telic, force, the purpose of the (nre?re being merged in the object to which the action was directed: see notes on ch. iv. 2, ix. 18, al., and in reference to this approximation of the final sentence to the objective or illa- tive sentence, Donalds. Gr. § 605; comp. notes on ver. I. 13. Aw 6 Aad@y K.7.A.] ‘ Wherefore he that speaketh in a tongue let him pray (therein) in order that he may in- terpret ;’ exhortation flowing from what has preceded, and introducing the explanation (vv. 14-19) of how it was that speaking with tongues must be regarded as unfruitful: on the use of 6:4, see notes oz Gal. iw. 31. The difficulty in the present verse lies in the interpretation of fva. At first sight it seems natural to regard it, somewhat like the ta above, as introducing the subject and purport of the prayer (see notes oz Phil.i. 9), and as specifying what the 6 Aad@y yAdéoon ought regu- larly to pray for: atrnoal, dno, Tov dedwxdta gor Td TaY yAwTTaY xdpioua, mpooGeivat kal Td THs Epunvetas, Theod., al. ; ra wap’ Eavrod cioayérw, Chrys. But the objection seems conclusive that mpo- oevxeorOau in this verse must be regarded as exactly used under the same aspect as the mpooedxwuat in the confirmatory verse that follows, and so as indicating prayer in an ecstatic state, praying with tongues. If this be admitted, and it seems difficult to resist the argu- ment, then #va will have its ordinary telic force, and the tenor of the exhor- tation will be that the speaker with tongues is to use his gift, not for dis- play of his powers, but in prayer, in order that he may, so praying, have the gift of interpreting his prayer; ‘innuitur precibus hoc impetratum iri,” Bengel.: compare Winer, G7. § 53. 9. 6, s.v. fva, but observe that the rendering there advocated (‘with the intention, design, of interpreting the prayer’) ovev-presses the force of the conjunction in this particular passage, and misses the fine shade of thought — that it was by prayer rather than by any other spiritual exercise, praising, giving thanks, etc., that he would have the power ot €punveia. The gloss, that there may be an interpreter’ (comp. Ewald) cannot possibly be maintained : the subject of d:epunvedn must be iden- tical with the subject of mpocevxécbw. 14. édv yap mpowedvXopat yAooon] ‘ For if I should pray in a tongue:’ confirmation of the direction given in the preceding verse in the form of an individualizing statement, as in verses 6, 11; ‘loquitur ex sua persona, quo magis persuadeat,’ Estius. The ydp is placed in brackets by Lachm., Westc. and Hort, but appears to have pre- ponderating evidence in its favor. Its omission may have been due to the Cuap. XIV. 14, 15. x A TO TVEbpa ov TpocEvyeTal, O Sé vodS pou aKapTros éoTLV. 1 CORINTHIANS. O71 a 1b of 5 > YS 7 A 4 / \ \ A ovv éotiv; tpocevEouar TH TrvevpuTt, TpocevEouar Sé Kal TO want of clear recognition, on the part of transcribers, of the logical xexus between ver. 13 and ver. 14. 7rd Tveda pov mpomedxerar] ‘my spirit prayeth ;’ scil. the highest element of man’s composite nature (see especially notes oz 1 Thess. v. 23, and the ref- erences there specified), that in which the agency of the Holy Spirit is es- pecially seen and felt ; ‘Spiritus divini operationem suaviter patitur,’ Bengel ; see Delitzsch, B7d/. Psychol. Iv. 5, p. 218 (Transl.),— whose interpretation, however, of this passage, though mainly right, is a little strained, and comp. notes oz Eph. iv. 23. The presence of the pronoun seems distinctly to pre- clude any other interpretation than that of the Auman spirit: the glosses of Chrys., al., according to which the mvedua is to be regarded as the xdpiopa given by ¢he Spirit, are not compat- ible with the use of the plain pos- sessive genitive, verified as it is by the vovs pov of the clause that fol-: lows. 6 8€ vods prov K.T.A.] 6 bzet my understanding is unfruitful ;’ bears no fruit to others; bynow éxetywy ph dexouevwy, Theod. To refer this to the speaker (éaur¢@, Chrys.) is clearly out of harmony with the whole tenor of the passage, in which oixodouy as re- gards others (verses 4, 5, 6, 12) is the prevailing thought. The vois is here, as distinguished from the mvedua, the reflective and so-called discursive fac- ulty, ‘pars intellectiva’ (Estius), the human tvevdua ‘quatenus cogitat et in- telligit’ (Olsh. Opzscula, p. 156), its outcoming in intellectual action, the context here obviously giving it this more limited meaning: comp. Cramer, Worterb. s.v. p. 439. The plain mean- ing of the verse would seem to be this, —‘when my mvedua prays in that ecstatic form of devotion which is implied by praying in a tongue, my mind, in regard of its faculty of making the substance of my prayer intelligible to others, is simply unfruitful, bears to them no edification or spiritual fruit.’ That there is any psychological im- possibility, as Heinriciseems to imply, in such a view of the passage, cannot very reasonably be maintained. For the fuller and more inclusive meaning of the word vois in St. Paul’s Epistles (it only occurs elsewhere in the N. T. in Luke xxiv. 45, Rev. xiii. 18, xvii. 9), see notes o7 Phil. iv. 7, and oz 1 Tim. vi. 5; and in regard of the derivation of the word, above, notes on ch. ii. 16. 15. tlodvv éorly] ‘ How zs it then ?’ ‘how then does the matter stand?’ ‘quid ergo est,’ Vulg.: see ver. 26. The gloss of Syr., Copt., ‘ quid faciam,’ is not correct: this form, like the closely allied rf ody (Rom. iii. 9, vi. 15: very common in classical Greek with an ov following; Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 10), is simply designed to call attention, with some little alacrity, to the upshot of what has been said; comp. Acts xxi. 52, where this formula follows a brief historical preamble. mpomevfopat Ta mvevparte K.T.A.] ‘J wz// pray with the spirit (sc. with my spirit), and J will pray with the understanding also;’ the future here marking not mere futurity, but the principle which the speaker intended to follow (see Winer (Gr. § 40. 6, and comp. Kihner, Gr. § 387. 4), and the second member placing in gentle contrast (5¢) the further principle which the speaker also intended to follow, viz. that of intepreting whatsoever the spirit (in- fluenced by the Spirit) had given him the power of uttering. The datives are the datives of the zzstrument o1 272 voi’ Wao TO TvevpaTi, Ware dé Kal TO voi. b] a 7 fe } la) evAdoyys TVEVMATL, 0 avaTTANPaV 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIV. 15, 16. 16 éqrel ea TOV TOTOY TOU idi@TOU TAS epEl 16. evAoyis mveduari] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, (with [év] before mveduart), on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., ebAoyhons A , TQ TvEvMATL. proximate cause. On the exact dif- ference between this and the genitive with did (ver. 19), see below, notes, and comp. Donalds. Gy. § 457. Wako TO TvebpatiK.T.A. ‘will sing praise with the spirit,and I will sing praise with the understanding also;’ te. *I will not only sing praise with my spirit, but will interpret what I sing.’ The term WaAAew (properly 7d dd daxtdAwy emubavety Tov Kopdav THs Avpas, Ltym. 47.) is here probably used without any reference to any instrument (comp. James v. 13), but as denoting the singing of frazse : so frequently in the Psalms (LXX) ; compare Psalm vii. 18, ix. 11, al., and, with an instrument specified, Psalm lxx. 24, xcvii. 7. The verb is associated with «Oapi(ew (Herod. f7ist. 1. 155), and with dew (Eph. v. 10, Psalm xx. 14, xxvi 11, al.), and is ex- plained by Basil (2 Psalm xxix.) as avaméume wWardpwolas: see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 1569. The 8 in this second member is omitted by Lachmann, and placed in brackets by Tregelles, and by Westc. and Hort. The external evidence may perhaps be considered preponderant. Internal considerations, however, seem to point the other way. 16. émel édv evdoyrys KT.A.] ‘else if thou shouldest bless with the spirit, ‘si id facias solo spiritu.’ Bengel ; justifica- tion of what has preceded by the circumstances that must follow if the course specified were otherwise,— the émel, with its usual causal and retro- spective force, introducing the alterna- tive: see notes on ch. v. I0,° and Kihner, Gr. § 569.1.i. The ‘caterum’ of Clarom., Vulg., is rightly changed by Beza into ‘quandoquidem,’ which again naturally passes into the ‘ alioqui’ which represents the rendering of Syr. It seems clear from the context that but little distinction can here be drawn between evAoyety and edxapioreiy (ver. 11); the former, probably, as Meyer suggests, implies thanksgiving under the form of praise to God, ‘quia maxime laudari solet Deus grata bene- ficiorum ejus commemoratione,’ Estius. To refer this to the celebration of the Holy Communion (Blunt, Wordsw.) does nnt seem suggested by the context, unless we consider the evxapiotia below as more particularly referring to that service, instead of being, as it seems to be, perfectly inclusive and general: éy Tats idSlas ebxapiotiais HToL mpocevxais, Cyril (Cramer, Caz.). 6 dava- TANPoV Tov TéTroV TOD iBLdToU] ‘Le that Jjilleth the place of the unlearned ;’ ‘he that is one of the many present who, as regards spirit-moved utterance, is unlearned, and an idiérns ;’ see Bengel in loc. There is some little doubt as to the meaning of rémov, viz. whether it has a purely local, or a deriva- tive, meaning (‘position,’ ‘situation’); whether, in fact, it is equivalent to édpay or to tdiw. Examples of the use of d&vamAnpody have been cited with regard to each of these last-mentioned words (e.g. Plato, Z7m.79 B, dvamAnpovv thy eSpay, and Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 2. 5) OTpariwrov tdtw avawAnpody), and either view equally suits the tenor of the passage. The latter (rdw) seems, however, more probable, as the Apostle is speaking throughout generally, and CuapP. XIV. 16, 17. tT CORINTHIANS. 273 5 ’ \ Sh n lal ’ / b] \ / > by To “Apny emi TH of evyapiatia ; émevd) TL eyers OVK oideV* 17 \ \ \ a ’ a > Se see. PS > a ov Mev Yap KAAwS EVYapLoTEisS, GAN’ O ETEPOS OK OLKOdOMEtTAL. without any reference to locality: so, —as far as the meaning of rézos is concerned,— distinctly Cyril (Cramer, Cat.), év tater TH Tod Aaikod Keipevos: comp. Theod., tdiTnv Kare? toy év TE Aaik@ tTdyuatt TeTayuevov. The use of idié7ns is copiously illustrated by Wetst. im doc. It may mean either a private person, as opposed to one in office, in a profession, etc., or as distinctly in Acts iv. 13 (aypduparor kad idi@To), an unlearned or ignorant person. The former view is apparently taken by the patristic expositors (idiéTns, Tovréoriy, 6 Aaixés, Theoph.), and, very distinctly, by Wordsw., and by some modern writers: the latter, however, is more probable both here and in ver. 24; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6; see Suicer, Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. I. p. 1438. Sharply-marked distinctions between those in office and those not, do not seem to belong to this period. mos épet Td Auty K.T.A.] ‘how shall he say the Amen at thy giving of thanks?’ ethical use of the future ; see Winer, Gr. § 4o. 6, and comp. note on ver. 15. The expression auhv is the transliterated form of the Hebrew adverb ox, ‘verily,’ ‘truly’ (LXX. yévorre: from yas, ‘was firm ’), which appears to have been used not only in the ratification of solemn oaths (Num. v. 22), after denunciations (Deut: xy. a5: sqq:; Jer. xis'\5);vin public worship (Neh. viii. 6), etc., but also in the general service of the synagogue and of the Temple, after benedictions or otherwise (Buxtorf, Lex. s.v. p. 62 sq. Lips. 1875: comp. also Wetst. zz Jdoc.), from which it passed, at a very early period, into the Christian Church, and formed the customary close (hence the article) of prayer and thanksgiving (Justin. M. Apol. 1. 65, Dionys. of Alex. in Euseb. 35 fiist. Eccl. Vit. 9), of the Lord’s prayer (Cyril-Jer. Catech. xxi. 18), and — what is very noticeable — of the words of consecration in the Eucha- rist: see Swainson, Greek Liturgies, pages 68, 82, 130, 160. 198, al. The prep. éwi with the dat. marks, as usual, the close connection, in regard of position, of the auny with the ei- xapitia: see Donalds. Gr. § 483, Kihner, Gr. § 438. 11. 1, and comp. notes oz Phil. i. 3. érret82} K.T.A.] ‘since or seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest ;’ reason for the foregoing question. On the use and meaning of émeidn, see notes o7 Phil. ii. 26. From this verse it would seem to follow that at least some portions of early Christian worship were extempore in their character; compare Bleek, Stud. u. &rit. for 1829, p. 70. 17. ov piv yap Kadas K.7.d.] ‘For thou verily givest thanks well; the other, however (the idiérns), zs not edified ;’ confirmatory of the preceding question, the ydp having, however, more of its explanatory than its argu- mentative force; see notes oz Gal. ii. 6, and compare Donalds. Gr. § 618. The emphasis rests on the prominently placed pronoun, ‘thou, on thy part, givest thanks well (being under the immediate influence of the Spirit; mvevuare Kivovmevos pbeyyn, Chrys.) ; he, however, who fills the place of the unlearned is in no degree the better for it.’ The skad@s is thus in no respect ironical. The second member, it will be observed, has &AAd answering to the preceding puev (Rom. xiv. 20, al.), in- stead of the more usual 6¢, it being the intention of the Apostle to give the statement it contains greater force and prominence: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 3 sq. 274 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIV. 18-20. Betyapiot® TH Oo, TavTwv tuov paddov Yywoon Aadw* 19 Grr ev exxrAnalia Oérw Trévte Aoyous TO vol pov Aadijoar, wa Kal dAXous KaTHXITw, 7) Lupious Noyous ev YAwoon. Tongues are for the un- believing ; phrophesy- 20° AdeAdol, uy mada yivere tais ppeciv, ing for believers, and even for the unbelieving. 18. r@ Oc] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds mov. In what follows, yAéeon is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg. (with margin), on what seems preponderating authority: Rec., Rev., Westc. and Hort. (with margin), yAdocais. On Aad@ there can be no doubt: Xec. alone adopts AaA@y, but on very patently insuffi- cient authority. 19. TG vol] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., 51a Tod vods. 18. edXxapiord To Ow k.7.d.] ‘Lthank God I speak in a tongue more than you all:’ concluding statement (again in the form of a reference to himself personally) of the general sentiment embodied in the last five verses, viz. the indispensable need of speaking vol, as well as yAdoon. The words mdvtwv buay wadaAov x.7.A., regarded logically, form the objective or expository sen- tence (Donalds. Gr. § 584) dependent on the preceding edxapior&, but, being appended without the usual relative particle ér:, acquire a greater force and directness: see Winer, Gr. § 60. 9, and for examples of this omission with Oimat, oida, Sona, x.7.A. Kiihner, Gr. § 584. I. a. The mardov x.7.A. implies that the Apostle not only had the gift, but had it in a higher degree: kal yap eye KéxTnuat, Kal budv mAéov, Chrys. 19. GAAG év exkAnola K.T.A.] ‘ How- beit in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding :’ aaad having here its full adversative force (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. It. p- 2), and specifying what, in spite of the statement in the foregoing verse, was the real feeling of the Apostle on the subject: see Baumlein, Parti. s.v. Gadd, 3, p. 11. In the expression 0éAw %, the particle is regarded as a particle of proportion or comparison, corre- sponding to the idea of choice, prefer- ence, etc., involved in the verb: see Kihner, Gr. § 542. 1. 2, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 589, and Winer, Gr. § 35. 2. On the meaning of ev ékkAneia, see notes on ch. xi. 18. The Apostle says that he had rather speak wth his un- derstanding, z.e. with the vods as the modifying instrument. The exact shade of difference between this and 4: Tod vods (Rec.) would seem to be this, — that in the latter case any possible idea of causation would be more dis- tinctly excluded: see Donalds. Gr. § 457. Wa kal &dAovs kaTnX how] ‘that I might instruct others also: purpose and object of this @éAev. On the use and meaning of katnxéw, which here, probably from the nature of the context, retains some tinge of its more restricted meaning (‘voce _instituo,’ Beza), see notes oz Gal. vi. 6, and comp. Suicer, 7hesaur. Vol. Il. p. 79. 20-25. Profitless nature of tongues and superiority of prophecy, even in the case of unbelievers. 20. "ASdeAdol, pr wat8la K.7.d.] ‘Breth- ven, be not children in vour minds:’ continued exhortation on the subject CHAP. XIV. 20, 21. 9 \ a , , a \ \ f / adda TH Kakia vytiatete, Tals Oe ppeciv Tédevon yiveoOe. 1 CORINTHIANS. 275 21 gy Lol , , a °E e r Io Kat > € aN e / TO VOM YEYPATTTAL OTL V ETEPOYAWOCOLS EV KELAEOLY ETEPWYV 21. érépwv] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on prepon- derant external, and apparently clear internal, authority: Rec., érépois, —a very obvious correction. of tongues and prophecy, introduced by the conciliatory aeApoi; hence, not a TAnKTIKwTEpos Adyos, Theoph. ; comp. Estius. There is a tone of gentleness in the address, as well as of censure: the Apostle asks his converts not to play the part of children, and ‘ puerili quodam sensu,’ Est.) eagerly seek a gift which amazed rather than edified. The term ¢péves is a drat Aeyduevor in the N.T. It is used appy. equally with the singular (see the numerous exx. in Steph. Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. VIII, p. 1050), to denote the reasoning power, — here more on its reflective and discriminat- tive, than on its perceptive, side. There are no @yaGal diavora (Ammon. cited by Bengel) necessarily implied in the word; all that the Apostle seems to convey is that they were not to judge in this matter like children. They were to be réAcior tats ppeot,—iva fia- kolvwot tiva pwelw Kal wpeAmoTepa TOY xapioudtwy, Theoph. The dative marks the sphere to which the action is lim- ited, and is thus of asemi-local nature: see Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, and compare notes oz Gal. 1. 22. There is some little doubt as to whether this verse should close the paragraph pre- ceding it, or commence that which fol- lows it. The critical edd. nearly all adopt the latter, and rightly, the ad- dress (a5eAgot) and the abruptness of a commencement with a quotation seem to confirm the placing of this verse as the opening of a fresh paragraph. GAAG TH Kakla vymidlere K.7.A.] ‘Low- beit (see on ver. 19) 22 regard of malice be babes, butin your minds be full-grown (men) ;’ ‘do not be children in regard of this speaking with tongues, in regard of malice, however, be very babes.’ The use of the dative kakia is similar to that of ppecivy (see above), but has less of the semi-local character, the present dative having passed by a nat- ural transition into a simple dative of ‘reference:’ comp. Phil. iii. 5, al. The form vynmdew is another dm. Aeydu. in the N.T., and of limited occurrence in general Greek : ynmiaxeveww (ta Tots v7- miois apud(ovtra mpattew, Hesych.) is found in Homer, //. XXII. 503; vnmd- xe, in Apoll. Rhod. and Moschus. On réAeot, comp. Eph. iv. 13 and notes im loc.; and on kakia (‘ malice,’ ‘animi pravitas,’ Calvin; ‘vitiositas,’ Cicero, Tusc. WV. 15), see Cremer, Worterd. p. 328, and notes oz Zh. iv. 316 21. év TO vépnw yéyparrar] ‘Jz the scil. in the O.T., véuos being similarly used in this more inclusive sense in reference to the Psalms; comp. John x. 34, Rom. iii. Q: vowov 5€ Thy mada ypaphy mpoanyd- pevoe, Theod.; see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 11. p. 419. The passage referred to is Isa. xxviii. I1, 12, in which the prophet is censuring the frivolity and perversity of the ruling classes of Ju- dza, and retorting upon them in their own language: they complained of the iterations of the prophet’s com- mands ; they were to hear this mono- tone in the harsh words of the Assyrian invader; see Cheyne zz /oc. The Apostle’s citation is a free, but sub- stantially correct, rendering of the Hebrew: it closely approaches the rendering given in Origen, exafl., in Zoc., with which it is noted that the law it ts written:’ 276 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIV. 21, 22. an fel / / Aadiyjow TO aG TOUT, Kal OVS odTws cicaxotcovTal wou, AéyeL Ko 22 4 e XG , fey > > lal a5 uptos. WOTE UL YAWOOAL ELS ONMELOV ELOLY OV TOLS TrLOTEV version of Aquila mainly accords, viz. €v EtepoyAdoous Kal év xelAcow Erépois Aadfow TH AaG TobTw. The purport of the citation seems to be, that, just as the Jews of old who refused to hear God speaking by the prophet were made to hear Him speaking in the harsh commands of the foreign in- vader, so they who refused to believe now had to hear as their chastisement the (to them) totally unintelligible ut- terances of tongues and ecstasy. Stu év érepoydocots K.T.d.] ‘Fur with men of strange tongues and with the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people ;’ the 81: here apparently not being recitativum, but answering to the "9 of the original (‘yea,’ Cheyne: ‘nay,’ Rev.), and the éy marking the personal sphere in which the action takes place: comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3, Heb. i, 2,and see Winer, Gr.s. v. év, § 48. 3. a The word érepdyAwaoos, taken by itself, simply means ‘qui peregrinA lingua utitur’ (Grimm), and is opposed to éudyAwooos. In the original passage it refers to the Assyrian, whose lan- guage, though allied to the Hebrew, was still sufficiently different to seem a strange tongue to those to whom it was to be spoken: see Cheyne zz Zoc. Both the words, then, and the original context might seem to favor the view of the speaking with tongues being really speaking in foreign languages (comp. notes on ch. xii. 10), and not in ecstatic utterances. This, however, would be clearly to over-press an z//us- tration, which was suggested to the Apostle rather by the analogy of his own vnmd(ere (ver. 20), and by the words of the prophecy (ver. 10) just preceding the citation. The real matter is, —not the peculiar character of the utterances, but the simple fact that that they were unintelligible to those towhom they were spoken; added to which, perhaps, is the further and more latent use of the prophetic illustration that as speech ina strange tongue was a chastisement on unbelief then, so, to a certain extent, it may be regarded as so now: comp. (Hofmann zx Zoc. Kal 008’ ottws k.7.A.] ‘and not even thus will they hearken unto me:’ not even when they have been spoken to in the manner just specified; ikavdv jv abrods exmAjgtat Td Oaidwa, Chrys.: comp. ch. xi. 28. The eicaxodcovra: is no doubt designedly used as a stronger form than the simple verb (comp. LXX, ov« NOéAncay axovev), but it must be re- membered that there is no such stronger meaning conveyed in the original. The compound only occurs in four other passages, viz. Matt. vi. 7, Luke i. 13, Acts x. 31, Heb. v. 7, but in all with a sense Clearly stronger than that of the simple form: comp. Grimm, Zev. s. v. 22. More at yAwooat k.T.A.] ‘So then the tongues are for a sign :’ consequence flowing from the tenor of the preceding citation; the éore, as usual, denoting ‘consecutionem alicujus rei ex antece- dentibus’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 771), and when used, as here, with the indicative, implying that what is stated is a simple unconditioned fact; see Kiihner, Gr. § 586. 3, and notes oz Gal. ii. 13. The Apostle states, as a consequence from what he has alleged, that the yAéoouw, in the forms now under consideration, not merely are a onuetov, but serve as a onueiov, are de- signed to be such (Acts xiii. 47, Heb. viii. 10; see Winer, Gr. § 29. 3 2), without, however, pausing distinctly to specify what peculiar aspect the o7- ueiov was to be supposed to wear. This particular aspect has been very Cuap. XIV. 22, 23. 1 CORINTHIANS. 277 ovow adra Tois atiatots, 9 5é Mpopytera ov TOs aTriaTOLs GAA TOLS TLOTEVOUCLV. 23°Kav obv ovvedOn 7 €xkAnoia Ody eTrl TO avto Kal mdvres NaAdTW YAdooas, eicéOwour, 5é idiaTaL 4 differently estimated. The patristic expositors regard it as involving @aiua (Severian) or ékmAntw (Chrys., Theod., al.); others, as punitive (Beza) and judicial. That there may be this ju- dicial aspect may perhaps be conceded from the tenor of the citation, from the xAevaouds on the part of some at the first manifestation (Acts ii. 13), and from the épotow or: paiveode of ver, 23: still, as the word ompetoy is, as Chrys. rightly observes, of neutral meaning, it seems best to leave it un- defined, and as wearing one aspect to one class of &moro: and another to another. To regard it as practically otiose (DeWette, Hirzell, Stud. u. Krit. for 1840, p. 121 sq.), does not seem consistent with the tenor of the whole context. ov Tois TMoTevovTLW K.t.d.| ‘20t to them that believe, but to the unbelieving :’ studied specification of those for whom the onyetoy was in- tended. The participle is perhaps designedly used, as including those who were morol as well as those who were becoming so. The amoro: are unbelievers generally, the peculiar as- pect of their amoria, whether due to ignorance, stubbornness, or an averted will, being left undefined. In ver. 23 it appears to have one aspect, in ver. 24 another. % St mpodyrela K.T.A.] ‘but prophecy is not for the un- believing, but for them that believe :’ contrasted statement as to prophecy, expressed in a still more general form, and obviously not flowing from the citation. We have no ground for sup- plying eis onueiéy éorw in this second member (Chrys., Theoph., Hofmann, al.), as it could not correctly be said that prophecy (as understood in this context; see notes on ch. xii. 10) was designed to be a onuetoy to believers: it was, and it was designed to be, much more. Nor can the conduct of the amortos specified in ver. 24 be urged against the general statement of the clause: it was due, not to the mpooyrela as such, but to its effects as operative in the congregation, and manifested by its members. 23. "Hav otv ovvédOy] ‘ Zf then the whole Church should come together to one place ;’ confirmatory illustration, flowing logically, by means of the co/- lective obv (see above, notes on ver. II, and on ch. vii. 27), from the preceding verse, —the present verse confirming the first statement in ver. 22, ai yAdéooa els Onuetdv Elo ov ToOls TLgTEVOVTLY GAAG On the ém 7d avrd, see notes on ch. xi. 20, and on ch. vii. 5. Kal waves K.T.A.] ‘ard all should speak with ;? not necessarily, all at the same time, but, in the customary manner, and in all probability, in succession, one after another: comp. ver. 27, which would seem to be, not so much a wholly new regulation, as one confirm- atory of existing practice. cio MOworv St K.7.A.] ‘and there should come in persons unlearned or unbeliev- ing. There is here considerable diffi- culty as to the term (ié:#7Tns, especially in its present connection. It would seem prima facie natural to regard it as identical, in meaning and reference, with idié7ns, ver. 16,—and so, as im- plying a member of the Christian com- munity, though, it may be, not yet baptized : idiérny Aégyer Tov wh Bamric- 6évra, Severian. When, however, it is remembered (1) that while in ver. 16 the particular form of expression rdv Tots amlorots. 278 1 CORINTATAWN Ss: Cuap. XIV. 23, 24. ” ? > Lal id / v2.4 a5 p>) \ / / ATLOTOL, OUK EPOVTLV OTL paiverbe ; €aV OE TTAVTES Tpopnrevwc, ld /, ‘ a ’ elaéhOn SE Tis amriotos 4 idiwTns, EX€yxeTaL bTO TavTwY, ava- 23. AaA@ow yAdoous] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very distinctly preponderating authority: Rec., yAdooas Aadwow. témoyv Tov idimTov, taken in connection with the centext, seems to constrain us to regard the ié:é7ns as in some sense a Christian, here there are no such modifying adjuncts,— nay that the con- text (id@7a: 2 &micto) distinctly points the other way; (2) that as ver. 22 only speaks of two classes morevovtes and &morot, SO, in this verse, which logically depends on ver. 22, only two classes are to be looked for, the é«xAnoia, or believers, on one side, and non-believers on the other,— when all this is remem- bered, we can hardly resist the convic- tion that in this verse and in ver. 23 the i&@ra: are wot Christians, but unlearned persons who belonged to the general ranks of the &moro, and are separately specified as being ignorant non-believers, rather than unbelievers and opponents: see Hofmann 77 /oc., and the suggestive comments of Ulrich, Stud. u. Krit. for 1843, p. 420 sq. ovk épotow Sri palverQe] ‘ will] they not say that ye are mad ;’ comp. Acts xxvi. 24, and, as regards the general impres- sion produced on the &morto, Acts, ii. 13. Though the tongues are a onuetov to the unbelieving (ver. 22), yet here, when numbers are concerned, and no individual application possible, they become only eis onuctoy avTiAeyouevoy (Luke ii. 34), thus verifying the ov® oUt ws.cigakovcovral wou of the prophecy. 24. éav 8¢ mavtes tpod.] ‘But zf all should prophesy,—set forth, under the influence of the Spirit, vital doctrine and heart-searching truth; see notes on ch. xii. 10. On the mdytes, see above, ver. 23, and comp. ver. 31. wis &rirtos 7 uadTns] ‘one unbelieving or unlearned:’ singular, and in a changed order to that in ver. 23, be- cause in this verse it is the case of the &moros, rather than of the more neutral idiérns, that appears to come most into consideration; ‘7zdofa obiter ad- ditur, ob rationem ejus non plane disparem,’ Bengel. In the former case when an influx of several of each class is alluded to, those less opposed are specified first, and those more definitely hostile afterwards: both, however, form the same rough judgment on the manifestations. It is only in the case of individuals that the xdowwpa exer- cises its blessed influence,— but it does so, even though that xdpioue was not specially designed for the class (ver. 22) from which the individual came. The effect, however, on those for whom it was designed would be all the greater, and the correctness of the latter half of ver. 22 the more substan- tiated. éhéyxerat td TavTov] ‘he zs convicted by all:’ each one as he prophesies in order (ver. 31) brings home to him, with accumulating force, all his inward sinfulness, and reveals all the gloomy shadows that rest upon his inner life: compare John iii. 20. The case of Augustine is cited by Edwards zz /oc., but it can hardly be said to be parallel. It was some time (‘gradatim quidem ’) before Augustine’s heart was opened, and before he passed from the words and language of Ambrose to the matter they set forth: see August. Confess. v. 24. dvaxplverat td mavtwv] ‘he is judged by all ;’ dijudicatur ab omnibus,’ Vulg., Clarom. Each inspired speaker in his avdepiots of the human heart, its évOuunoewy Kal évvoi@y (Heb. iv. 12), so Cuap. XIV. 24, 25. tr, CORINTHIANS: 279 Kpivetat id TavT@v, ™ra KpuTTa THS Kapdias avTodD pavepa / , nr A ivetat, Kal oUTws Tec@Vv él TpOcwWTOV TpocKUYnTE TO Oca ? c 4 ? > i e ” e \ b] e an b] , aTayyéArXov Ott dvT@s 0 Oeos ev vpiv EoTiv. 25. Ta Kpurr& tis Kapdias] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. prefixes kal otrw. In what follows, the order Bvtws 6 Oeds is adopted by Lachm., Tisch. (omits 6), Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., 6 Geds dvTws. reveals to the &moros 4 idimtns the inward state of his heart that he feels each utterance to be a very judgment on his own individual case; ‘ audientis conscientia judicium suum ex doctrina concipit,’ Calvin. On dvaxplrera, see notes on ch. ii. 15. 25. Ta KpuTTa THs KapSias k.T.A.] ‘the secrets of his heart are made mant- fest ;’ the inner thoughts, feelings, and movements of his heart are all set forth, so vividly and truly depicted in the addresses of the spirit-moved mpopjta, that the &maros or, it may be, isié7 ns, seems to see, as it|were, all the hidden things of his own heart (‘quz prius in corde ipsius ita latebant ut nec ipse, qualia essent, agnosceret,’ Estius) laid bare to himself and to others. On the meaning of rapdia (the centre of feeling, willing, thinking, and even of moral life), see notes oz Phil. iv. 7, o2 1 Tim. i. 5, and Delitzsch, Biol. Psychol. WW. 1, Pp. 295 sq: (Transl.). kal ottws K.T.A.] Sand thus, falling down on his face he will worship God,’—thus édeyxomevos, avakpt- vouevos, and, as we might say, TeTpa- xndiouévos, (Heb. iv. 13), he will wor- ship God, showing publicly by outward act (weody «.7.A.) the depth and reality of his convictions. The participle meowy is here probably simply zemporal, specifying the act closely preceding the mpooktynots, and practically forming a part of it: see Acts x. 25, and comp. Donalds. Gr. § 577. The construction of mpookuvety with a dat. is peculiar to later Greek ; comp. Lobeck, Pzryz, p. 463. The verb only occurs here in St. Paul’s Epp., but is used frequently by St. Matthew (with dat. except ch. iv. 10) and St. John (with both cases, apparently without distinction ; comp. John iv. 23), twice by St. Mark (with both cases,—according to best reading), and occasionally (with an accusative; more often without any case) by St. Luke: see Winer, Gr. § 31. 1, 2. dmayyé\Awv Ste K.t.A.] ‘proclaiming that verily God is among you:’ the participle here denoting the concomi- tant act (Sia tay epywy mpdrepov duoro- yar, eita kal did Tay fpynudtwy, Chrys.), adding it, as it were, as a further de- tail: comp. Homer, //. 1. 349, "AxtAAeds daxpicas étdpwv &pap ECeTo. . . dpdwy em olvora mévrov, and see Kithner, Gr. § 389. 7. e. This proclaiming would naturally be at the time of the Chris- tian assembly, but might well also be elsewhere; ‘vel in ecclesia, vel etiam foras,’ Bengel. Its tenor would be, that ‘beyond all doubt (the &8rTws being prominent and emphatic; comp. Gal. ili. 21, and notes 77 /oc.), God is in the midst of you:’ the év buiv per- haps pointing more to the divine pres- ence as recognized in the assembled body, than as felt to be in the souls of the mpopntevovres. The év may here obviously have either meaning, 7 (‘in animis vestris’), or among (‘in coetu vestro’): the latter perhaps as a little more in harmony with the de- picted state of the now agitated speaker : his one feeling would be that, verily, ‘Deum adesse suis,’ Calv, #7 doc. 280 In your meetings ob- serve due order, wheth- er in speaking with tongues or prophesying. 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIV. 26, 27. 8 Ti obv éotiv, aderApoil ; Grav cuvépynobe, &xactos wWardwov éxet, Siwdaynv Exel, atro- ‘ x” a v € ! ¥ / ‘ > Karu Exel, YAMTCAY EXEL, EPUNVELAY EXEL* TAVTA TPos oLKo- 26. €xacros] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on prepon- derating authority: Rec. adds bpuar. The same critical authorities adopt the order aroxdaviny %xe1, yA@oou exes (Rec. inverts the order), on very greatly preponderating authority; and, finally, ywéo@w (Rec., yeveoOw), on vastly pre- ponderating authority. 26-33. Regulations for the orderly exercise of spiritual gifts in Christian assemblies, in reference to speaking with tongues and prophesying. 26. Tt otv éorly, adedol] ‘ How zs it then, breth- ven?’ not ‘quid igitur facto opus est,’ Est., but, as in ver. 15, ‘how does the matter stand, after what has been said ?’ the ovv With the full collective force calling the reader’s attention to what has been stated, and what naturally flows from it: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 717 sq. The answer at once follows, beginning with the statement of the facts of the case, and closing with the independent sentence mavta mpods oixodouny ywvéc8w, which serves as a common rule for each specified case, and is practically the real answer: compare ver. 12. érav ouvépXnode «.t.A.] ‘wienever ye come together, each one has a psalm ;’ ‘each one of those specially endowed has ready a psalm,’ the distributive €xaoros (derived from a root €[év], and a Sansc. root a-s, scil. ‘unus quotuscumque ;’ Curtius, Gr. Ztym. No. 631) referring to the mvevuatixol now under considera- tion, and the é@ye: seeming to imply that he had it, as it were, within (‘in promptu habet,’ Estius), ready to be uttered. The waduds here mentioned " was probably a hymn of praise, under the influence of the Spirit, and so ex- temporaneous in its nature, but, as yA@ooat are subsequently specified, intelligible to the hearers: comp. ver. 15, and see Eph. v. 19 and notes zz foc. Tertullian (Afol. cap. 39) in de- scribing the ‘ convivia’ of the early Christians, notices how ‘ ut quisque de scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium canere Deo.’ A sermon on this text will be found in Lightfoot, Works, Vol. vii. p. 29 sqq. (Lond. 1825). Si8axrv exer] ‘Lath a teaching ;’ not so much ‘a doctrine,’ Auth., Evans, which conveys too much the idea of formulated dogma, as ‘an instruction ;’ diddoKew amd xa- plowaros, Chrys.: see ver. 6 and notes arokdhupu exe] ‘hath a revelation ;’ has a divinely inspired communication, which he would most probably deliver in the character of a mpophtns ; see below verses 29, 30. yAdooav tea] ‘hath a tongue ;’ ie. Aare? yA@oon, ver. 27: has within him an utterance which will take the form of ecstatic speech. The épunvela is ap- propriately next specified, and the whole closed by the one great and common principle, which Chrysostom terms Tod Xpiotiavicpod Thy Kpntida Kar Tov Kavéva — Td Tovs TAHCLOY Bid TWavTwY @pedew : comp. Theod. zz Joc. On this rule and principle, and its practical ap- plications, see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 38, p. 327 (Transl.). 27. elre yhoooy k.T.A.] ‘whether it be that anyone speaketh in a tongue ;’ first member of a distributive sentence; to which, however, there is no corre- sponding member, the structural form being gradually lost in the specific in- structions that follow, and never re- zn loc. CuHap. XIV. 27-29. 1 CORINTHIANS. 281 7 al a , x \ a Souiy ywéc0o. "elre ydoon Tis Nadel, KaTa Svo 1) TO TAEloTOV Tpeis, Kal ava mépos, Kal els Stepunvevérw: * cay O€ pur) 7 Sveppae / fal aA veuTns, ouyatwo év éxKAnola, éavT@ Sé AadelTM Kai TO Dew. sumed where it might have been originally intended to reappear, viz. in ver. 29. Various examples of ana- colutha, more or less similar to the present, are noticed in Winer, Gr. § 63.1%, 1. kata Svo 4} K.T.A.] ‘let them speak, to the number of two or, at the most, three ;’ ‘duo aut ad sum- mum tres loquantur, scil. in uno con- ventu,’ Estius, the cara being used in its distributive sense (Winer, Gr. § AO... 40, Astibner, (G7r§. 1433, 1S: bv: kaTd, 3), and implying the limitation as to numbers in regard of the speakers. On this use of xatd as involving the idea of a measure (‘down to’), see the careful comments of Harrison, Greek Prep. p. 326 sq. (Philadelphia, 1860). There might be many desirous to speak, but it was to be kara 5vo 7 7d mAciotov Tpets. The verb Aadeirwoar is to be supplied after the xara dvo, being suggested by, and naturally flowing from, the preceding Aade?: see ex- amples in Kiihner, Gr. § 577. 2. i. Kal ava pcpos] ‘and by turn ;’ ‘unus, unus’ Syr., the preposition here serving to note the manner in which the action was to take place (comp. ava xpdros, ‘intentis viribus’); it was to be on the principle of each having his tum, ‘vicissim,’ Beza. The transition from this sense of the preposition to the purely distributive use (Mark vi. 40) is easy and obvious: comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 433, S.v. avd, 3, and see Harrison. Greek Prep. p. 165 sq. Most of the interpreters call attention to the in- ference that may be naturally drawn from this clause, that the Corinthian speakers with tongues often spoke to- gether and ovyxexupevos. els Sucppnvevérw] ‘let one interpret ;’ one, 36 —not two or more; xp) yap Tovs mapdvTas voc T& Acydueva, Theod. 28. édv St pi} 1] Sueppnveurys] ‘due 7f there should be no interpreter ;’ scil. if neither the speaker should be able to interpret (comp. ver. 13), nor any one of those.sitting by: the words provide equally for either case. ovyato év exxAgola] ‘let him be silent, or (as better preserving the force of the pres. imperative) £eep selence in (the) Church,’ —scil. the speaker with tongues al- luded to in ver. 27. The transition from one nominative to another is per- fectly natural, and by no means un- common in Greek prose: see examples in Winer, Gr. § 67. 1.c. On the ex- pression éy éxxAnaia, see notes on ch. xi. 18. éauro 8 Aadettw K.1.A] ‘and to himself let him speak and to God ;’ the éavtg being emphatic, and standing in contrast to assembled hear- ers (comp. ver. 26) in public. That he was to speak inwardly and inaudibly (‘tacitus et in corde loquatur sibi ipsi,’ Est.,comp.Chrys.) isnot only zo¢ implied in the words, but really contrary to the use of AagAew in this whole passage, where it clearly implies open speech. On the meaning and derivation of Aadety (‘ vocem ore emittere ’), see notes on Tit. ii. 1, and oz Col.iv.3. The 7@ @eg@ directs that the utterance was to be poured forth, whether in ecstatic prayer, praise, thanksgiving, or other- wise, to Him who had given the gift. 29. IIpofrat 8 «.t.A.] ‘ Azd let the prophets speak, two or three ;’ the 6 carrying on the directions to a new (‘novum quid accedit,’ Hermann) but connected class,—the mpopjta. The direction is not so precise as in ver. 27, Kata do) Td) TAcioToy Tpeis. That, 282 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XIV. 29-31. 29 TIpophntar dé dvo 1%) Tpeis NarelTwoay, Kai of Gro SiaKpi- veTWOaD * 30 gay 6€ GAM atroKadupOn KaPnuévw, 6 TpHTOS / 31 60 @ \ (cle (v4 ie if ivf 4 olyaTo. vvacle yap Kal €va TrayvTEs TPOMNTEVELY, Wa TrAVTES Y ? however, it was to be, as in the case of those speaking with tongues, ava pépos, seems clear from the following verse: comp. Bengel. kal ot d&Ador Staxpivérwoav] ‘and let the others dis- cern :’ the other prophets, present but not speaking, were to exercise the gift of didkpiois myvevudtwy (ch. xii. 10; comp. Heb. v. 14) and test the words spoken (‘dijudicent,’ Vulg., Syr.; ‘examine,’ Arm.), whether they really came forth from the Spirit, or were only the imaginings of the speaker’s heart. What might seem a very different di- rection is given in Zhe Teaching of the Apostles, ch. 11, tavtTa mpophtny Aa- AodyTa ev mvebuatt ov TeipdoeTe ovdEe diaxpivetre,— but the circumstances are different, and the spiritual credentials of the mpopftns are tacitly assumed to have been known and recognized. It must clearly follow from this verse that mpopnreta and Sidkpiois mvevudtor were very closely united. The prophets would seem to have had the gift of discerning, though not necessarily ex- clusively. On the nature of the gift, see notes on ch. xii. Io. 30. éabv 8 GAAw «.7.A.] ‘but if a revelation should be made to another sitting by ;’ further direction in the case of a spiritual communication sud- denly made to one of the &AAo mpop7- Tat sitting by as listeners, the tertiary predicate xa@nuévw (Donalds. Gr. § 489 sq.) simply marking the &AAos as, at the time, a listener, and not a speaker. The rule of the early Church, following that of the synagogue (comp. Luke iv. 16 sq.), appears to have been that the reader or preacher should stand, and his hearers sit: comp. Justin Mar- tyr, Aol. 11. p. 98 D, aviotdueba Kowp mdavres Kal evxas méumouev. Prayer, it may be observed, both on the Lord’s Day and during the whole period be- tween Easter and Pentecost, was offered in a standing posture, in mem- ory of the Lord’s resurrection; see Bingham, Chr. Antigq. xiii. 8. 3. © Tpwros oLyaTw] ‘let the first remain silent ;’ scil. the one who was speaking prior to the dwoxdAvyis. There is some little doubt whether this ovydtw (ovyn- odrw would have settled the question) implies that the first speaker should stop at once, and give place to the other, or finish his discourse and then remain silent. The latter seems more natural. Some token, probably, would be given, by motion or gesture, that an amordAvyis had been vouchsafed to another of the mpodjta; this would be a sign to the speaker to close his ad- dress, and to let the newly-illumined succeed to him. The speaker with tongues was not to speak publicly at all if there was no interpreter (ver. 28); the prophet was permitted to speak, but was to prepare to pass into silence, when another had a revelation vouch- safed to him: comp. Chrys. 27 Zoc. 31. Sivacbe yap K.T.A.] ‘For ye can (thus) all prophesy, one by one ;’ eluci- datory confirmation of the preceding direction, the dvvac@e having the prin- cipal, and mdvres the secondary, empha- sis : by one of the mpop7jra thus giving place to another, at the proper time, there would be the possibility of all exercising their xdpioua in orderly suc- cession,— not, of course, in one and the same ravfyupis, but in it and others that might succeed it. The ka@ éva does not here coalesce with adyres, it the sense of ‘ad unum omnes’ (De Cuap. XIV. 31, 32: TY CORINTHIANS: 283 pavOavecw Kal TavTes Tapakad@vTaly ™ Kal TvEevWaTa TpO- dntav mpopyntats vrotaccetas* * ov yap éoTW aKaTacTacias Wette,—a meaning which would ap- parently require the presence of -yevé- Mevot; see examples in Viger, de /diot. IX. 5. 7), but simply specifies the man- ner, in accordance with the ordinary distributive use of the preposition, ‘singulatim’ (Bengel), in which what the Apostle specifies would come true; so Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm. It thus corresponds with the kara dvo in verse 27; see notes zz Joc. The objec- tion of Hofmann, that the person of divacGe precludes its being applied more particularly to the prophets does notseem valid. The Apostle addresses all, ver. 26, implying, however, in the very verse, that he is also addressing them distributively. (va mavres pavOaveow «.T.r.] ‘272 order that all may learn and all may be comforted:’ purpose of the successive utterances, —that all the hearers might have the better opportunity of hearing, in the case of some of these speakers, words that might teach and bear mapdxAnow (ver. 3). The verb mapakadcto@a prob- ably here includes the mapayv@iav as well as the mapdkAnow of ver. 3 (‘consolationem accipiant,’ Syr., Copt., Arm.), and is an expansion, on the practical side, of the foregoing pavéd- ve; but in this verb it is often diffi- cult to decide which of its two mean- ings ‘exhort’ and ‘comfort’ is to be preferred ; the context being frequently the only guide: see notes oz 1 Thess. i wl 32. Kal mvedpata mpopyntav] ‘and the spirits of the prophets:’ further ground for the direction given in ver. 30,— the subordination to the will of the prophet of the spiritual movements of his own soul; as és avrots [rpopntas] bv mote pmey ovyav, wore S& Aéyew, Severian (Cramer, Caz.) There is a considerable difference of opinion as to the precise meaning of the word mvevuata in this verse. The choice seems to lie between (a) the human mvevuara as influenced and filled by the Holy Spirit, Meyer, al., and (4) the movements and manifestations of that blessed Spirit, as in ch. xii. 10. Both interpretations practically lead to the same general meaning; of the two, however, (4), which is the view of Chrys. (mvedua evrat0a tiv évépyemy Aéye:), Theod. (ra xapicuata), Severian, Theoph., al., is to be preferred as most in harmony with the meaning in what may be deemed the primary and regu- lative passage, ch. xii. Io. Tmpopytats bmrotdaccera] ‘are subject to the prophets ;” are in subordination to them in whom they are manifested and operative, the present tense mark- ing what regularly and normally takes place; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, and notes oz Phil. iv. 7. Itcanscarcely be doubted that the mpopfrat in this portion of the verse are identical with the mpopjta in the former part, the substantive being repeated, rather than a pronoun used, to give a rhetorical force to the declaration, ‘the mpopytay and mpopntas standing in studied juxta- position. It has been thought, how- ever (Theod., al.), that what is here referred to is not the self-control in- culcated by the ovydtw (ver. 30), but the fact of the one prophet giving way to another, on which assumption the mpopntav and mpopjrats would refer to different persons,— the yielded-to and the yielder. This is grammatically possible, but logically improbable; the fact of such regular and customary yielding not really supplying any true reason for the direction to exercise self-control involved in the: orydro. 284 1 CORINTHIANS. CuaP. XIV. 32-34 0 Qeds adra eipnuns, as év racais Tals Exxdnoias TOV wyiwv. Women are to be silent in Church assemblies. 34 Ai yuvaines ev Tats éxkAnoiais avyatwoay’ 34. yuvaikes] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds suav. The same edd. adopt émirpérera on very greatly, and troraccée6woay on clearly, preponderating authority: Rec., émrérparra: and brordccec bas. The articles are throughout omitted, as the statement is made in its most general form, and with a kind of epigrammatic terseness; comp. Kiih- ner, Gr. § 462. h, i, Donalds. Gr. § 394: 4. 33- 0b yap éoriv dkatracractas K.T.A.] ‘for God is not (a God) of confusion, but of peace ;’ confirmatory of ver. 32, and resting upon a well-known prin- ciple of the divine government: the nature of God is antithetical to d«ara- otacia, God being essentially, to use the words of Theodoret, rijs eiphyns 6 mpttavis, comp. Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20, Phil. iv. 9, 1 Thess. v. 23; peace is the moral element in which the Christian has received his «Ajous, ch. vii. 15. The term ékatacracia occurs in Luke xxi. 9, where it is associated with méAeuos, 2 Cor. xii. 20, where it fol- lows y0upioueds and puciwois, and James ili. 16, where it is put on a level with Gijdos and épideia. In 2 Cor. vi. 5 the reference is apparently to the ‘tumults’ raised against the Apostle at Ephesus (Acts xix. 29) and elsewhere. The rendering of Vulg. (‘diss. ‘o’), Copt. (‘divisio’) is too weak : the true mean- ing is ‘tumultus,’ as Syr., Aith., or ‘perturbatio,’ Arm. The Apostle de- signedly uses a strong word; there was at this time serious ovyxvo1s and tapaxh within the Corinthian Church. as év macats «.7.A.] ‘as in all the Churches of the saints:’ appended statement, designed tacitly to contrast the examples set by all other Christian Churches in regard of reverence and order; aisxtvOnre ody iets mapa mdoas Tas eKkKAnoias moAdrTevduevoi, Theoph. There is considerable difference of opinion as to the connection of this clause. JLachm., Tisch., Meyer, al., prefix it to the passage that follows: Westc. and Hort attach it to mates pavOdvwow Kal mavtes TapakuAG@vTa, placing in a parenthesis kal mvedu.— eipnvns. To both these arrangements, however, there seem valid objections; (a) to the first, as involving a general reference to the practice of all other Churches, when to some extent Cor- inth was confessedly an exception (ch. xi. 3), and as prominently laying a greater weight on usage than the Apostle, in this Epistle, would have been likely to use: (4) to the second arrangement, as, in a somewhat simple passage, necessitating a suspended thought, which really only weakens the force of the strong final (iva) sentence with which it would thus be associated. We, therefore, with the early exposi- tors, and apparently all the Vv., con- nect the clause with what precedes, and regard it as supplying a sort of concluding semi-argument, somewhat similar to the ovdé ai éxxAnola tov @cod of ch. xi. 16. 34-36. Directions with reference -to women. 34. at yuvatkes k.7.A.] ‘Let the women keep silence in the Churches ;’ scil. in the larger and pub- lic assemblies of the Church, which alone are under consideration in this chapter: comp. verses 4, 5, I2, 16, 19, 23, 26, and see notes on ch. xi. 5. It is probable that the Apostle had here CuHap. XIV. 35, 36. 1 CORINTHIANS. 285 n Lal b) e / \ ov yap emitpémetat avtais Nadeiv, GAA VToTaccécOwaay, Kaas Vie € / Ig KQl O vomos NEYEL. 5 ef O€ Te wabeiv OédXovaw, ev oikw Tovs idious y+ > / ’ XN / A) \ tal > avdpas émepwratwoay* aioypov yap é€oTL yuvaikl rarely év exkKAnola. 4 Upas MOvOUS KATHVTNGED ; 3°H ad vuav 6 Aoyos ToD Ocod é&HdOev, 7 els 35- ‘yuvairl Aadreiv ev éexxAnola] So, as to yuvainl, and as to the order of the words, Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., yuvaitly Aadety ev exxaAnala Aare. especially in his thoughts the office of teaching in public: see 1 Tim. ii. 12, Siddonew 5é yuvaikd ovK emtpérw. This rule was carefully maintained in the early Church: see Const. Afost. 111 6, and Conc. Carthag. Iv. 99. Among the Jews for a woman to read publicly the law involved a dishonor to the Synagogue: see Lightfoot, Hor. ix A. lt. Schoettgen, Hor. p. 658. KaQds Kal 6 vopos Aéye] ‘as the law also says ;’ viz. in the primal declara- tion, Gen. iii. 16, ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’ On this more extended refer- ence of 6 vdéues, see notes on ver. 21. On the form ka@ds, see notes oz Gal. iii. 6. 35. eb S€ re padety BéXovew] ‘ And if they wish to learn anything ;’ further direction, the 5¢ appending slightly fresh matter, viz. that they were to put their questions éy ofem, not & éxxAnoig. The reading is not perfectly certain: Westc. and Hort adopt pavéd- vetv, but on external authority which does not seem diplomatically sufficient, and and with internal evidence ap- parently pointing the other way; the change from the aorist to the present being more likely, owing to the asso- ciated presents, than the converse. The distinction between the present infinitive and the aorist infinitive after 6€Aw and similar verbs would seem to be this: when attention is to be di- rected to the procedure of the action specified by the verb, the present is commonly used; when simply to the action specified by the verb, the aorist is used; see Winer, Gr.§ 44. 7. C. Kiihner, Gr. § 389, rem. 8, and comp. Donalds. Gr. § 427. d. aioxpov yap «.7.d.] ‘for if is a shame for a woman to speak in (the) Church ;? strongly-worded confirmation of the preceding direction, and preparing for the almost indignant question which follows. On the term éyv exxAnoia, see notes on ch. xi. 18. 36. "H ad” tov x.t.d.] ‘Or was it Srom you that the word of God went Sorth ? or came it unto you alone ?’ ‘If customs, otherwise so disgraceful, are to be maintained among you, one can only conclude that you are the primitive fountain of Church teach- ing and Church order, or the only depository of it;’ the general term, 6 Adyos tod Ocod including alike thy &Ah- Oetav kal Toy Kavdéva Toy éxKAno.acTiKdD, Origen. There is some little doubt whether this verse is to be connected with ver. 35, (Zisch., Rev., Westc. and ffort), or with what follows (DeWette, Alf.). On the one hand, it might be thought that the strong tone of the verse could hardly have been called out by the usage just specified: on the other hand, dratia of this kind had a far graver import than might appear on the surface (consider ch. xi. 7 sqq.), and, as we well know, expanded afterwards into very grave 1 CORINTHIANS. 986 Cuap. XIV. 36-38 This is the Lord’s command. eTruywwacKéTo & ypadw tyiv, dtr Kupiov éativ évtorAj: * et 5é 87 Ei tus Soxed mpopyrns elvar 4 mvevpatiKéds, TLS GYVOEL, ayvoEtTaL. 37- Kuplov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., Tod Kuplov. éorly évroAh|] So Lachm., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority as to éotiv, and on clearly preponderating authority as to évroan: Rec., eiolv évroaAal, with internal evidence also against it; Z7sch., éoriv only, but on clearly insufficient authority. 38. ayvoe?trat] So Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort, (with margin), on slightly evils in the early Church, and might thus rightly be put in antithesis, as it were, with Church usage everywhere else (comp. ch. xi. 16) as is in effect done in this verse: 1d aicxpby Tov mpdrywatros edeike, Tas Aowwas exKAnolas eis pecov TéOeikev, Chrys. We adopt, then, with some confidence, the con- nection with what precedes. So ap- parently Copt., Aith., and, as far as can be inferred, the remaining Versions and the early expositors. eis Spas pdvovs] ‘z272¢0 you,’ ‘7x vos solos,’ Vulg., the idea of reaching to and en- tering as it were into them, being thus more fully implied by the preposition eis (with persons) than if the less distinc- tive mpés had been used; see Winer, Gr. § 49. a. a, and on the distinction between eis and mpés, notes oz Philem. 5. 37, 38. Concluding exhortations. 37. Hi ris Soxet «.7.d.] ‘Zf any man thinketh himself to be a prophet ;’ not ‘videtur,’ Vulg., ‘existimatur,’ Arm., Theoph., but ‘putat,’ Syr., Copt., Aith. (in effect), al, —the context seeming clearly to show that the reference here is subjective, and points, not to what the tis may be in the eyes of others, but what he deems himself to be: see notes on ch. iii. 18. q Tvevpate- Kés] ‘or spiritual, scil. ‘one endowed with any spiritual gift,’ the context de- termining the shade of meaning to be ascribed in each case to the somewhat inclusive epithet. Hofmann objects to this sort of generic rendering of mvevuaTikds, aS not in harmony with the common use of the disjunctive 4%, but see Kiihner, Gv. § 540. 1, where this use of the particle is clearly substan- tiated; see also Baumlein, Park. p. 126. émiywackéta & ypadw kK.t..] ‘let him take knowledge of the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment ;’ the compound emywe@oKev having its usual fuller meaning (see notes on ch. xiii. 12), though here somewhat diluted by the attracted form which the sentence has assumed, the meaning being in effect, ‘judicet atque agnoscat, ea, que scribo vobis, esse preecepta Christi Domini,’ Est. On the very intelligible attrac- tion, according to which the & ypdagw' buiv, which logically belongs to the objective or expository member of the sentence, is grammatically associated with the first member, see Winer, Gr. § 66. 5.a, and on the various uses of emvyivwonew, Cremer, Worterd. s.v. p. 158 sq. The Kuplov, as its position in- dicates, is emphatic. The Apostle here speaks with the full spiritual knowledge that the rules given in this chapter are no mere expressions of his own judgment, but are verily a collec- tive évtoAy of the personal Lord, speak- ing as it were by His Apostle as His interpreter: comp. Hofmann 27 doc. 38. el SE Tis ayvoet] ‘but if anyone Cuap. XIV. 38-40. I Desire prophesying and observe order, CORINTHIANS. 287 9 "Date, adehpot wou, %prodte TO mpodr- Tevelv, Kal TO NarEiY pn KwWAUETE Yroooas. * TavTa 5é ebay. fy , poves Kal Kata Takww yivécbo. preponderating authority: Rec., Treg. (with margin), Rev. (with margin), &yvo- e(rw, — a change due perhaps to not understanding the meaning of ayvoeira. 39. adeApoi wov] So [Lachm.], Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc.and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. omits pov. KH KwAVETE yAdooaus] So, in regard of order, Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- ponderating authority: Rec., yAdooats wh KwAvere. 40. mdvta 5¢] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc.and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: “ec. omits 5é. knows not, scil. what & ypdow syiv really are. The idea of wilful igno- rance is not necessarily involved in this verb: it may be latent (‘mavult ignorare,’ Estius), but what is expressed is simply, ‘ignorat,’ Vulg., or, as cor- rected by Beza, ‘ignarus est,’ (‘ignorans est,’ Copt.), is ignorant of the true char- acter and authority of these commands, whether from indifference or otherwise. Gyvoeira] ‘he 7s not known ;’ scil. ‘vicissim ignorabitur [ignoratur] a Domino,’ Estius: he is one of those whom the Lord knows not (contrast John x. 14, 2 Tim. ii. 19), and to whom hereafter, if they persevere in their &yvoia, the dread ov« oida studs (Matt. xxv. 12) will be pronounced, when the Lord comes. If the reading dyvocitw be adopted, the meaning will be ‘let him remain in his ignorance,’ the im- perative being permissive (see ch. vii. 15, and notes zz /oc.), and the general sentiment, that all hope of further successful instruction must be re- nounced : see Winer, Gr. § 43. I. 39, 40. Summary of the whole chap- ter. 39. “orre] ‘So then, Conse- quently :’ introductory of the conclud- ing exhortations (‘ex diverticulo redit ad prius dicta,’ Grot.), and directing at- tention to the whole preceding counsels from which they naturally flow, and on which they are based; comp. ch. xi. 33, and on the meaning of this particle (‘itaque,’ Vulg.), notes on ver. 22. {nrobre 1d mpodyredew k.7.d.] ‘earnestly desire to prophesy, and hinder not the speaking with tongues:’ comprehen- sively expressed summary of the exact tenor of the exhortation (in reference to these two spiritual gifts) as directly given, and as indirectly transpiring throughout the chapter. In all that was said in reference to Td mpopytever, from verse I onward, the tenor is (ndodre : equally also is it, wh xwAvere. No hinderance is offered to this latter gift; nay, when it is manifested, the speaker is bidden to pray for the power of making his utterances profitable to others (ver. 13) ; when confusion might ensue (ver. 27) directions are given to obviate it. 40. mavta S& Kt.A.] ‘But let all things be done, be carried on (ywéo0w, pres.), decently and in order ;’ summary on the practical side, introduced by the connective, yet slightly antithetical, dé (‘novum quid accedit,’ Hermann), of the real purpose which guided and animated all the foregoing directions; — edification (compare ver. 5, 12, 26), of which the necessary basis was 7d ev- oxnuov (ch. vii. 35), and rdéis. eboxnpdvas] ‘decently, decorously ;’ see Rom. xiii. 13, 1 Thess. iv. 12. The word involves the idea, not merely of contrast to ardxtws, but of decorus and 288 The gospel which I preached was, in ac- cordance with facts. Christ’s resurrection. riGORIN TPH A Nts: CHART AV oF, 2. XV. Ivapifo 5€ ipiv, aderdoi, Td evay- yéduov 0 edyyyehucauny dpiv, 6 Kai Trap- edaBete, ev © Kai éotnKate, dv 0b Kal cwlerOe, Tin Koyo seemly deportment. It is the sort of ethical enhancement of the more me- chanical kara tdi which follows: see notes 02 1 Thess. /.c. The short but telling treatise of Hammond, Grounds of Uniformity Vindicated (Lond. 1657), is founded on this text. VII. THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD (ch. xv.). XV. 1-11. Zhe historical fact of Christ's resurrection the substance of the Apostle’s preaching. 1. yuwplto St bpiv] ‘Mow 7 make known unto you ;’ the 6€ indicating the transition (notes oz Gal.i. 11), and the yvwpitw (‘notum facio,’ Syr., Vulg.; ‘manifesto,’ Arm.; not ‘annuncio,’ Copt.,—still less avapuiuyhoxw, Theod., comp. Chrys.), with some tinge of re- proach, marking that the Apostle was forced, as it were, de ovo to make known the tenor and import of the gospel (‘doctrinam de Christo salva- tore hominum,’ Estius) which he had preached among them (ch. ii. 2), of which Jesus and the resurrection (Acts ii. 33, xvii. 18, al.) ever formed the primary doctrines (comp. ver. 3), and the true tenor and substance: comp. John xvii. 26, Rom. ix. 22. The for- mula is the prelude tothe orderly and deliberate statement which follows; comp. 2 Cor. viii. 1, and Gal. i. 11, where see notes 272 loc. 6 Kal maperaBere K.t.A.] ‘which also ye re- ceived, in which also ye stand ;’ each kat marking climactically that which, on their side, was associated with, and resulted from, the preaching: des mas avro’s Kade? pdprupas Tay eipnucvwr, Chrys. First, beside_merely hedring with the outward ear, they received (Gal. i. 9, Phil. iv. 9, Col. ii. 6, 1 Thess. ii. 13); then, further, they so received that they attained init a firm standing- ground (Rom. v. 2; comp. xi. 20, 2 Cor. i. 24), and further still, by means of it, were on the e pathway c of salvation. On the ascensive kal, of which this passage forms a good illustration, see notes oz Phil. iv. 12. This and the three following verses form the text of the fourteenth of the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 165 sq. (Oxf. 1845). 2. 8 od Kal odlere] ‘by which also ye are being saved, are placed among the ow(duevo (ch. i. 18),— not merely as éAmi(ovres am avtod cwrTnpias tuxeiv, Theodorus), but as actually zz the way that leads to salva- tion, and placed there by the gospel- call, salvation having begun _when Christ was believed in; comp. Rom. viii. 24, Eph. ii. 8 : ‘salus Christianorum incipit in hac vita, perficitur in futuro,’ Estius. The very meaning, however, of the verb involves a reference to the future, so that we may rightly say that past, present, and future are ‘each Tespectively referred to in the mape- AaBere, éorhxare, and od(eobe, of this and the two foregoing clauses. rive Adyw ebnyyeiodpny iptv] ‘if you hold fast, with what word 1 preached it unto you:’ scil. with what form of words, and substance of teaching, — aot qui-ratione;”Vule, bat "quenam sermone,’ Syr. (comp. Ath. ‘quidnam dixi vobis’), the mapéwxa of the next verse Clearly pointing more to the what than the ow of the teaching. The connection of this clause is by no means easy to decide upon. We may connect it (z) immediately with the CuaP. XV. 2, 3. mn CORINTHIANS. 289 a \ A eunyyediodunv vuiy eb KaTéyeTE, EKTOS EL Lt) ELK ETLTTEVOATE S qrapcdwxa yap vpiv év mpwrou, 6 Kai TapéraBov, dte Xpiotos foregoing clause 8? 06 xa) ob(er0e, and regard it as specifying the condition under which the hopeful words are spoken; or (4) it may be joined, by a very common principle of attraction (comp. Winer, Gr. § 66. 4), to the rd evayy-d einyy. tui, the relatival clauses being regarded as in effect in a paren- thesis: so apparently ZLachm., Weste. and Hort, and clearly Rev. This latter construction is at first sight plausible, but the logical objection seems fatal, viz. that the condition ef naréxere can- not be very intelligibly associated with the yvwpl(w buiv «.7.A.. which is simply a statement of what the Apostle then was doing, wholly independent of any spiritual attitude on the part of the Corinthians. We therefore adopt (a), and regard the inversion of the two members of the conditional clause as due to the desire to keep in prominence the tit Adyw «.7T.A., on which the em- phasis obviously rests, the tim taking the place of the relative to enhance this emphasis: see Winer, Gr. § 25.1. note, Buttm. V.7. Gr. p. 216. Itwas on holding firmly the substance of the Apostle’s teaching that progress _in salvation depended. For examples of somewhat similar inversions, see Wi- ner, Gr. § 61. 3. éxrds ei ph «.7.d.] ‘except it be that you believed in vain ;’ an assumption not contem- plated as likely to have been verified, but still specified by way of gently implied warning: comp. Chrys. 7 /oc., who, however, emphasizes the warning more than the context seems to re- quire ; so too Severian (Cramer, Caz.). The clause is thus dependent, not on the preceding « karéxere (Theoph., CGé£cum., al.), as one conditional clause would then have another dependent on it—a manifest awkwardness — but 37 on the whole preceding portion of the verse, to which it forms a sort of cau- tionary conclusion. On the pleonastic extTds ef wh, see notes on ch. xiv. 5, and on the reference of the aor. émovet- gate to the period when the Gospel was first received by them, notes on ch. ili. 5; comp. Rom. xiii. 11. The adverb eixj (on the orthography, see Winer, Gr. § 5. 4. c) does not refer to the objective nullity (Alf.) of the faith professed (comp. ver. 11), as this con- ception has not yet been hinted at, but to the fruitless manner (00 BeBaiws, Origen) in which it had been embraced: comp. Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11, and, on the possible derivation of the word, notes on Col. ii. 18. There seems no suf- ficient reason for pressing here the more usual classical meaning ‘sine justa causa,’ ‘temere’ (comp. Rom. xiii. 11, and perhaps Col. ii. 18): the mean- ing ‘frustra’ (Hesych. udrnv) is here rightly maintained by Vulg., Syr., fEth., Arm.; so Grimm, Zex. s. v., and nearly all modern interpreters. 3. TapéSoxa yap K.T.rA.] ‘Hor J de- livered unto you first of all:’ explana- tory comment on the trim Adyw xk.T.A., the yép having here the mixed explan- atory and argumentative force which is often to be recognized in this par- ticle: see Kiihner, Gr. § 544. 1, and notes oz Gal.iv. 2. Hofmann regards the particle as giving the reason for the Apostle’s speaking with the reser- vation specified in the preceding verse: the reasoning, however, does not thus seem perspicuous; whereas an expla- nation of the language just used, and of the contents of the preaching is clear and_natural. The év mpéros (‘inpri- mis,’ Vulg., Goth.) does not here refer to time (€& apxjs, ov viv, Chrys.), but, as the context clearly implies, to im- 290 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XV. 3-4. BJ £0. e \ fal e lal € an \ \ , 4 ae aréOavev oTrép TOV auapTiOV nuaV KaTa Tas ypadds, 4 Kal Ort eradn, Kal OTe eynyeptar TH Huépa TH Tpitn Kata Tas ypadas, 4. TH Huepa tH tTplrn] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., TH tpltn juépa. portance ; as péeya dv 7d mep) THis dvaord- cews Sdéyua, ev mpdtos aitd mwapedwxa, Theoph. 5 Kal mapéhaPov] ‘which I also received ;’ the correla- tive and ascensive kat marking that the Apostle had, like themselves, re- ceived the great truth. Whence he had received it is not stated. The Apostle might have received it by direct revelation (comp. Gal. i. 12), and from Christ Himself (eis roy Xpiordy avdyer, Chrys., Cyril, al.), but, in the absence of any definitive ex- pression (contrast ch. xi. 33), and in connection with the historical details which follow, seems here mainly to have in his thoughts sthe historical communication of the ever-blessed truth. St. Xprords aréOavev k.7.d.] ‘that Christ died for our sins:’ sub- stance of the ’ kal mapéAaBov, intro- duced by the expository 871: comp. Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq. On the im- portant dogmatical expression értp tév Guaptiay (‘pro peccatis nostris abolen- dis,’ Bengel, va ekéAn Tod Kéopov Thy Guaptiavy, Cyril; comp. Heb. v. 1, x. 12), comp. notes oz Gal. i. 4 (where the closely allied wepi is used), and on the probable meaning of brép jay in passages of this nature, notes oz Gal. iii. 13. The remark of Meyer is right and true, that the idea of the ‘satis- factio vicaria’ lies not in the mere preposition, but in the thing itself, and in the whole statement: consider Rom. v. 6, Eph. v. 2, al. KaTa TAs yeas] ‘ according to the Scriptures ;’ studiously appended, to mark that the events of the blessed history were long before foretold in prophecies which could not but have their sure accom- plishment: comp. I Pet. i. 10 sq., and for similar statements as to the close relation of the prophecy with the his- tory, Luke xxii. 37, xxiv. 25 sqq., John xx. 9, Acts viii. 32 sqq., XVil. 3, XXxvi. 22 sqq. For illustrations of the state- mentsee Barrow (Ox the Creed), Serm. XXvil. Vol. v. p. 391 sqq. (Oxf. 1830). 4. Kal Stu éynpyeprar «t.r.] ‘And that he has been raised on the third day ;’ the perfect being studiously adopted, here and elsewhere in this chapter, to mark the continuance of the blessed event (contrast Matt. xxviii. 6, 7, Mark xvi. 6, Luke xxiv. 6, 34, al.) in its effects and conse quences. The tense indicates ‘ac- tionem plane preteritam, que aut nunc ipsum seu modo finita est, aut fer effectus suos durat, Poppo, Progr. de emend. Matth. Gr. p.6: comp. 2 Tim. ii. 8, and, in regard of the general meaning of the tense, notes on ch. xiii. 11. «The tH jucp2z tH Tpitn seems also used to specify with exactness and em- phasis the time, and its coincidence with the foreshadowings of prophecy (comp. Matt. xii. 40), and our Lord’s own declarations; see Mark x. 34,. Luke xviii. 33, John. ii. 19, 21. Kata Tas ypadds thus belongs, as indeed the repetition of the é7: also clearly in- dicates, only to this second clause; comp. Chrys. 2 doc. The burial was an incident of great evidential impor- tance, but it did not need the pro- phetic corroboration (Psalm xvi. 10; comp. Acts ii. 24, xiii. 34) which the simple mention of the great cardinal truth (87: éyhyepra:) seemed at once, almost spontaneously, to cail forth; comp. Luke xxiv. 46, John xx. 9: Cap. XV. 5, 6. 1 CORINTHIANS. 291 5xal Ore P0n Kydd, cita trois dHdexa+ ° érevta WhO eTravw lal & € , i mevtakocios adedpois éebarrak, €E Mv ol mreloves pévovow Ews 6. waefoves] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Westc. and Hort, on greatly prepon- derating authority: Rec. mAclous. twes 5€] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and /fort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds kal. ‘urgendum est pondus de resurrectione,’ Bengel. 5. Stu dyn Knoa] ‘ that he appeared to Cephas:’ see Luke xxiv. 34. The Apostle specifies this appearance rather than the earlier ones of which he no doubt was fully informed, as he de- sired to adduce authority which no one could justly call in question, viz. first that of St. Peter (one of the ariAa, Gal. ii. 9, and even more, Matt. xvi. 17) who, of men, apparently first beheld the risen Lord (afidxpewy cis uaptuplay, Theod.); and next, that of the whole Apostolic company. elra, Tots SuS8exa] ‘then to the twelve, As we know, it was really at first only to ten of the whole number (John xx. 19, 24; comp. Luke xxiv. 36), and, a week afterwards, to eleven (John xx. 26): but the term had already become of- fical, and referred to the collective body rather than to the precise number of which the body, at the time referred to, actually consisted. To suppose that the term implies that our Lord appeared also to St. Matthew (Chrys., al.), is clearly to over-press a very natural form of expression. Most ex- positors rightly call attention to the repetition of the temporal adverbs, and to the éoxatov mdyrwy (ver. 8), as im- plying that the Apostle is here gene- rally following a chronological order: see contra Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 420 sq., who does not appear to have assigned to this passage the importance, considered chronologically, that is due to it. 6. treara dn k.7.d.] ‘after that He appeared to above five hundred brethren at once:’ change of structure, intro- duced by the slightly more accentuated éreita [ém elra, Hartung, Part. Vol. I. p. 302] and carrying on the narrative without necessarily implying that the facts mentioned had been specified to the Corinthians, but certainly without implying anything to the contrary. Whenever the Apostle preached to his converts such a doctrine as the resur- rection of our Lord, common sense says that he would have laid before them all the evidence. On the use of (‘deinde,’ Vulg.; ‘alsdann,’ Ewald), which denotes the speedy fol- lowing upon what had been stated of the event specified, see Bium. Partzh. p. 113, and notes oz I Thess. iv. 17. On the structure of émdvw (‘plus quam,’ Vulg. : certainly not &yw Kal Srép Kedadrs, Chrys.) with cardinal numbers, and the suspension of its usual genitival gov- ernment, the particle being purely adverbial, see Winer, Gr. § 37. 5, and on the later form édmat (not here ‘once for all,’ Rom. vi. 10, Heb. vii. 27, ix. I2, x. 10, but, as the sense obviously requires, ‘simul,’ Vulg., Clar., Copt.; ‘una,’ Syr.: ‘suns,’ Goth.), and the connection of adverb and preposition, Winer, Gr. § 50. 7. rem. 1, Kiihner, Gr. § 446. The occasion here referred to cannot positively be identified with that mentioned in Matt. xxviii. 16, as those who went to the appointed place are specified as of évSexa, but, from a consideration of all the circumstances, such an identification may at least be deemed highly probable; see Zife of our Lord, Lect. VIII. p. 410. pévovcty ews dipti] ‘remain until now,! fret a 292° 1 CORINTHIANS. CuHap. XV. 68. apt, Twes b€ éxoiunOnaav: 7 erecta WhOn “LaxwBo, ita Tots amootonas Tacw: Séryatoyv Sé TavTMY WaOTEPEL TS EKTP@MATL here on earth: comp. Phil. i. 25, John xxi. 22. The Apostle is careful to mention this to show the amount of testimony he had to rely on, and how easily it could be verified : dbvardv, myo, tov BovAduevoy map’ a’tav éxelywy TovTO padeiv, Theod. tives 8 Exoupy- Onoav] ‘but some are fallen asleep ;’ appended and subordinated statement, to cover the probable circumstance that now, twenty-seven years after- wards, some would be no ionger alive; the d€ contrasting the twés with the of mAetoves, the comparatively few that can now bear no testimony on this earth, with the larger portion that can still be appealed to. Theat is rightly omitted: if it were genuine it would just idio- matically accentuate the éxounOncar, and have what may be called its de- scensive force : see notes on Phil. iv. 12. On the term komao@as in its reference to death, and the utterly precarious nature of the doctrinal deductions that have sometimes been drawn from it, see notes and references 0” 1 Thess. iv. 13. 7. dy "IlaxdBw] ‘He appeared to James ;’ an appearance not mentioned in the Gospel narrative. The James here mentioned is regarded by the early expositors, and apparently rightly, as James, the brother of our Lord; see Gal. i. 19, and notes 77 Joc. Without entering further into the controverted question whether this Jacobus Frater was an Apostle in the full meaning of the word, and so to be identified with Jacebus A/phai (see notes on ch. ix. 5), it seems certainly exegetically reason- able to say that the addition of the word maow does seem to suggest that St. James was one of the number: see Hofmann zz oc. It may certainly be said that as the of dé5exna have been mentioned already, the assumption is not unreasonable that the of amdaroAr here mentioned may include the wic circle of the disciples: so Theand Chrys., al. It may be replied, how~ ever, that, in a passage of this kind, where the language is marked by a kind of documentary precision {comp. ver. 8), it is highly improbable that the word should be used in any but its usual and more restricted sense. Why may not this appzarance to St. James have taken place shortly before some appearance to the apostolic company of which we have no specific notice? Consider Acts i. 3, 4. Jerome refers to an appearance vouchsafed to James the Just, as mentioned in the ancient Gospel ‘ quod appellatur secundum He- bros ’ (de Vir. Lllustr. cap. 2), which may have rested on some early tradi- tion, or may have been based on this passage : comp. Hofmann, Zebex Jesu nach den Apocryphen, § 89, p. 393- elta tots dtroorddois Tac] ‘then Lo all the Apostles ;’ not with any par- ticular emphasis, ‘to the Apostles, every one of them,’ the semi-pronom- inal was here simply occupying one of its two normal positions (rots am. raow, or mao. Tois &r.) when the whole is specified as such, and assuming the form of an additive definition. If the order had been tots maow amoorddots (not, however, a very usual order in the N.T.; see notes oz Gal. v. 14), then the whole body would have been regarded as in latent distinction to its parts: see especially Kiihner, Gr. § 465. 6. b, c, and comp. Kriiger, Sprachi. § 50. 11. 7, 12, Winer, Gr. § 61. 2. 3. 8. érXatov 8 mwévrwv] ‘and last of all ;’ comp. Mark xii. 22 (according to the best text), where the same com- bination occurs. In both passages it Se a CuaP. XV. 8, 9. @POn Kapol. r CORINTHIANS. 298 °K \ , ? e ee A > a yo yap Elfl O EAAYIGTOS TWVY ATTOTTFOAWV, OS ovK eiul ixavos KadelcOar amroaToNos, dioTe edimEa THY éxKAM- may be considered doubiful whether mdayvtwy is masculine or neuter. If the former, then the reference is to the améatodat (Meyer), or to all those men- tioned, ‘all of them,’ Syr., Copt., AZth. : if the latter, then éoxaTov mavtwy must be regarded as an adverbial expression like wdytwy uddAiora, al. On the whole, as the context relates entirely to per- sons, the masculine reference is to be preferred, and in its wider application, —all of those referred to (mdvTwy av9pérwv, Theod.), whether amdécrorc or no; ‘universi eorum, quibus visus est,’ Est. For examples of the adver- bial use of exarov, and its connection with a genitive (Deut. xxxi. 27, 29), see Steph. Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. Ill. p. 2113 (ed. Hase). aomepel TO exTpd- pati] ‘as «nto the untimely-born one,’ ‘tanquam abortivo,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt., *suasve ausvarpa [abjectioni],’ Goth. : the strong expression being used to denote the Apostle’s suddenly and ab- normally effected conversion as con-, trasted with the peaceful call and ripening apostolate of those with whom he proceeds to contrast himself. The article adds still further enhancement, ‘the one who, contrasted with the rest, was pre-eminently an éktpwua.’ The word éxtpwua (extitpdcKw) is a later form, synonymous with the more classical &BAwua (Lobeck, Phryx. p. 209), denoting the ‘untimely fruit’ of the womb, &uBAwéptdiov EuBpvoy, Theod., used apparently first in Aristotle (Gez. Anim. 1V. 5, kuhpat exminre: mapamAhowa Tois Kadoupévots extpduacw), and sub- sequently in later writers: see LXX Num. xii. 12, Job iii. 16, Eccl. vi. 3, the examples in Wetst. zz /oc., and the discussion of the word in Fritzsche, Dissert. I. p. 90 Sq. ; comp. also Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. I. p. 1073 sq. The strong expression is studiously softened by the @otmepe:, a form only occurring here in the N.T., but used in classical Greek from Aéschylus onward. Hh0n Kapol] ‘He appeared to me also.’ The Apostle uses the same form of expression, in reference to the appear- ance of the ascended Lord, as pre- viously used in reference to the ap- pearances prior to the Ascension. Christ thus vouchsafed to show Himself, even as He had been seen at, and prior to, that time, — corporaliter, atque oculis corporeis videndum,’ Estius: consider Article I1. g. "Hyd yap «.t.d.[ ‘For L am the least of the Aposties:’ confirmation of the strong expression used in the pre- ceding verse, the éy# having its full emphasis, ‘I, this €xrpwua.’ Chrysostom appears here to take amootéAwy in its wider sense, Tév HAAwy ardvtwv. This does not seem required by the con- text: it seems more probable that in such a passage as this the word would be used in its proper sense; comp. notes on ver. 7. ds ov cipl K.T.A.] ‘who am not meet to be called,’ almost ‘ seeing I am not, etc.,’ the és having here asemi-argumentative force, explaining and, in effect, confirming the foregoing clause. On this use of the relative, which is by no means uncommon (see ch. i. 30, iv. 17), and almost speaks for itself, see notes oz Col. i. 18, and on I Zim. ii. 4. The term ixavds is here used in its partially derivative sense of ‘aptus,’ ‘idoneus’ (scil. ‘ suffictens viribus ;’ 2 Cor. ii. 16, iii. 5), the transition from which to the more distinctly derivative idea of ‘ dig- nus ’ (Vulg., and all the other Versions; comp. Matt. ili. 11, viii. 8, Mark i. 7, Luke iii. 16, vii. 6) is obvious and in- telligible. The idea here, however, 294 clay Tov Oeov: ydpits de Oeod 7 €ls E€ue ov Kevt éyevnOn, adXrAa > / > e) \ \ ? DY e / la) 6 \ > i exoTTlaga, oUK éyw SE GAA yapis TOD Ccod adv éeyoi. 1 CORINTHIANS. CuaP. XV. 9, 10 ’ cca 4 . Se / > al ELL O ELL, Kal 7) YapLs avTOD TEPLOTOTEPOV AVT@V TaVvTw@V ll e/re 10. ody euol] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort (with margin), on‘clearly preponderating authority: Rec., 4 civ éuol. . seems more that of ‘meetness’ and of ‘moral fitness.’ The Apostle regards his early life as disqualifying him, had it not been for God’s mercy, for bearing so high a title. Bidre ediwta K.T.A.] ‘ decause [ persecuted the Church of God ;’ reason why he so speaks of himself, the d:drt (51a rodr0 871) having its usual causal force (‘quoniam,’ Vulg.; ‘propterea quod,’ Beza), and differing very slightly from 871; see notes oz Gal. ii. 16. On this and the following verse, and on the conversion of the Apostle viewed in relation to his office, see Newman, Paroch. Serm. Vol. 1. p- 106 sqq. 10. Xdpute Sé Ocod k.t.d.] ‘but by the grace of God Lam what Lam ;’ contrast- ed sentence recounting how God’s grace made him to be what he now was, scil. ‘apostolus, qui Christum vidi,’ Bengel : - 7% pev eAaTTHuaTa éavT@ Aoyilerar Te St KaTopOwuara xapiTt TOD Ocod dvarlOnor, Theoph. ov Kevi) éyevnOn] ‘ aid not prove vain,’ 7.e. without effect, and adequate results: so eis xevdv, Phil, ii. 16, 1 Thess. ili. 5. The word éyerhOn is passive only in form; hence, ‘ was not found,’ Rev., would appear to be stronger than usage fully justifies ; see notes on ch. viii. 6. GAAG repirodtepov K.T.A.] ‘beet [labored more abundantly than they all ;’ con- trasted statement (a@AAd) to the pre- ceding negative clause, the mepicod- tepov being the accusative of the de- fining or quantitative object, appended to the intransitive éxomiaca, and speci- fying the amount of the 7d Komér: comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 410. 3. rem. 5. There is some little doubt whether aitav mavtwy is to be taken with a collective (‘all of them’), or an indi- vidualizing (‘every one of them ’) force. No inference can safely be drawn from the order of the words, the position of mdvrwy being the prevailing one in pronominal expressions of this nature (comp. Winer, Gr. § 61. 2. 4), but it may perhaps be inferred from the probable meaning of rots dmoordAots mao (ver. 7: see notes) that no par- ticular emphasis is intended to be placed on the dytwy, and so, that the ordinary collective meaning is to be preferred. On the use of kxoméy in reference to ministerial labor (Rom. xvi. 12, Gal. iv. 11, Phil. ii. 16, al.), with allusion to the accompanying toil and suffering, see notes oz 1 Zim. iv. 10. ovk éyd 8 K.7.A.] ‘yet not 1, but the grace of God with me:’ qualification of the mepicodtepov x.7.r., and reference of the spiritual energy he had been permitted to put forth to the true source of all: kal Td KomiGoat SE avTd THs TOU Ocod xdpiros eotiv, Theoph. The antithesis ov« —aAAd is not to be di- luted or explained away (see Winer, Gr. § 55. 8): the Apostle with his characteristic humility, especially with ediwta Thy éxxAnoiay almost still on his lips, ascribes all his «ézos to the grace of God that thus éxorlacey with him, and made him more fruitful in spir- itual labors than all the rest. Had not the grace of God labored with him there would have been no result. If the article (Zec.) had formed a part of the text, the statement would have been sill stronger, ‘not I, but the grace of God which was with me did CHAP. XV. 10-12. 1 CORINTHIANS. 295 lal 4 \ , ovv éy@ elite éxeivor, oUTwWS KNPUTTOMEY Kal OUTWS éTLCTEVTATE. If Christ did not rise we are false teachers, and your hope is vain. 12 Ei 6€ Xpictos Knovocetar OTL €K veKpav Ui] Pp eynyepTat, TOs Aéyovow év tpiy Twes OTL 12. év duiv twés] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on dis- tinctly preponderating authority: Rec., tues év duly. the blessed work;’ ‘gratiam Dei omnium effectricem testatur,’ Calvin. That Estius should labor to explain away such a statement (‘non ego principaliter; aut non tam ego, quam gratia Dei’) is by no means unnatural. The true reading, however, involves no difficulties. Il. elre ody éyd K.t.d.] ‘ Whether then it were I or they ;’ obv having here its vesumptive force (see notes oz Gal. iii. 5, and om Phil. iii. 1), and referring back to ver. 8. The main idea of the verse, however, viz. the testifying what they had been permitted to see (o¥rws Knpvaoouev), really flows from the allusions to ministerial labors in the two digressive verses, —‘whether it were I or they (to whom the mani- festations were vouchsafed, and who, as I have just said, respectively labored as I have stated), so we preach etc.’ The éxetvo: must obviously be those to whom the verses immediately preceding more particularly refer,— ‘alii Apostoli, quibus Christus post resurrectionem visus est,’ Estius. ovTws Kynpiooopev K.T.A.] So we preach, and so ye believed — when the Gospel was first preached to you;’ comp. ver. 2. The first oftws refers to the funda- mental truths delivered (ver. 3) and, as the tenor of the whole passage shows, more especially to dre eyhyeptat K.7.A. (ver. 4); the second to the substance of the khpuyua they had received: ovx elme mioteveTe, GAA® éemiorevoate. ereid) éaadevovTo, 51a TOUTO em) ToOvs yw Xpdvous Gvédpauc, kal Thy Tap’ avtav éxeivwr Aoumdy paptuplay mpootidnaw, Chrys. : comp. Hofmann 7x loc. The émored- cate is used, as in ver. 2 (see notes), with reference to the time when the Gospel was first preached among them. 12-19. Christ’s resurrection is that on which the resurrection of the dead wholly depends. 12. Hi 8 Xpiorrds K.T.A.] ‘Vow if Christ ts preached that He hath been raised from the dead:’ transition, by means of the 8 yera- Batixdv (notes oz Gal. i. 11) to the actual controversy, the particle, how- ever, still retaining its proper oppositive force in the contrast it marks between the truth preached and the false views that were entertained. The order of the words, and the attraction of the substantive from the dependent, to the principal, clause (see Winer, Gr. § 66. 5), arise from the desire to place Xpiords in distinct prominence: Christ’s resurrection forms the nerve of the argument. On the éyfyeptai, see notes on ver. 3. mas héyourw év tpiv tivés] ‘how zs it that some say among you,—not only think, but give expression to their thoughts; the més (‘qui fit ut ;’ comp. Gal. ii. 14, iii. 6, al.) marking the sort of surprise in the Apostle’s mind that it was possible for any of them, among whom Christ’s resurrection had been preached, to affirm what inferentially denied it. Chrysostom rightly calls attention to the use of the twés as marking an unwillingness on the part of the Apostle to specify: some there’ were, probably not many, but the error of these men, whether few or many, was so deadly that it called for immediate refutation. On this use of twés, as implying that / 296 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XV. 12-14. avactacts vexpav ovk Eotw ; * €t dé avactacis vexpav ovK éoTW, ovde Xpioros eynryepTar. the Apostle did not deem specification necessary, whether from the fewness of the Aéyovres, or from any other reason, comp. Hermann, Viger, No. 114. The év juiv, even in the present order, may be joined with tuvés (Syr., Goth., Cyril), but is much more naturally connected with the verb (Vulg.), the twés standing out in its isolation; so Chrys., though adopting the order tivés év duiv. Who these teachers were, and what exactly was the tenor of their teaching, has been very differently estimated. That they were originally heathens, and men of a so-called philosophic tone of mind (comp. ch. i. 20), seems highly probable (consider Acts xvii. 18); and that they denied, not necessarily the existence of the soul after death (comp. Cyril. ap. Cramer, Caz.), but what they would have described as the material- istic conceptions involved in the teaching of the resurrection of the body. The avderacis which they de- nied was an dvdoracis vexp@y (comp. Acts. xvii. 32), an avdoracis such as was preached at Corinth and in the universal Christian Church. That teaching was never favorable to a mere bodiless immortality : see Dorner, Chr. Doctrine, § 153, 111. Vol. Iv. p. 407. otk tot] ’ zs ot, scil. ‘has no exis- tence’; ‘nist,’ Goth., sim. Vulg., Copt. In translation it is difficult to maintain this emphatic position of the negative predication, but in the original it is cleary marked and intentional; comp. Eph. vi. 9, tpoowroAnuvla obk éorw rap’ auTe@. 13. eb 88 dvdoracis K.T.A.] ‘But if there is nu resurrection of the dead,’ Or, more exactly, ‘if a resurrection of the dead has no existence, — the partly continuative, and also partly antithet- ical, 8é (comp. notes on ch. xi. 20) com- Me, b€ Xpiotos ovK eynyeptar, Kevov mencing the argument against the as- sertion of the twés, and reiterating their words: ‘argumentatur a negato consequente ad negationem antece- dentis,’ Estius. On the perfectly nat- ural and indeed proper use of, ed« in this clause, ov« éorw forming as it were a single verb, see Winer, Gr. § 55: 2. 8, but see also notes on ch. vii. 9: ov8t Xpirrds éyfyeprar] ‘ Christ also hath not been raised,’ or, for the sake of keeping the ov8€ in its position of emphasis, ‘neither hath Christ been raised,’ Rev., ‘nih Christus, urrais,’ Goth. The reasoning is here somewhat differently estimated. The Greek expositors (not, however, Theod.) appear to regard the argument as rest- ing on the fact that Christ was raised for the good of the race, and was (ver. 20) the &mrapxn: if there was no resur- rection of the dead, His resurrection would have had no place or purpose; tlvos yap Evexev Gveorn, et wh Euevev Huiv amapx} eivat, Theoph. This is plausible, but what is really thus proved is, not the fact that Christ did not rise (the simple matter with which we are here concerned), but that, if he did, His rising was of no avail,—an aspect of the question not now before us. We adopt, then, the view of Theodoret, that the argument turns on the verity of Christ’s manhood: céua yap kad 6 deomdrns elxe Xpictés, Theod. If there is no such thing as a bodily resurrec- tion, then there can be no such thing as a raising of Christ’s body, as preached everywhere and in every Church; consider Acts ii. 31, 32. This and the preceding verse form the sort of text for a portion of the article on the Resurrection in Jackson Ox the Creed, Vol. X. p. 235 sqq. (Oxf. 1844). 14. eb 8 Xpiorrds odk éyhyeprar] othe Cuap. XV. 14, 15. 1 CORINTHIANS. 297 dpa TO Knpvypa nudv, Kevyn Kal TioTis tuov? © ebpicKdpeOa \ \ , a a e/ > / \ aA dé Kal yevdouaptupes Tod Ocod, btu euaptupyjcayev Kata Tod 14. nev) kat] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating evidence: Rec. kev) 5¢ kal. In the former clause the insertion of «af after %pa has distinctly good support ([Zachm.], Tisch.), but is probably the result of an assimilative correction. In regard also of the last word of the verse the reading is slightly doubtful; Westc. and Hort read fuav on good, but, as it would seem, insufficient authority. preceding pronoun is not unlikely. ‘But of Christ hath not been raised, — the dé, as in the preceding verse, car- rying forward the reasoning, under the same partly continuative, partly anti- thetical sequence, and the ovx, as be- fore, being closely united with the verb, scil. ‘if there has been no raising of Christ ;’ ‘sublato articulo resurrec- tionis Christi, tota spes, quam in Christo habemus, concidit,’ Estius. kevov dpa Td KApVyBa huov] ‘empty certainly, ts our preaching ;’ the revdv being placed in a distinct position of emphasis, and the &pa, with here its ‘levior quedam ratiocinatio’ (Klotz, Devar, Vol. i. p. 160), adding a con- firmatory force to the clause, and im- plying that what is asserted is beyond all reasonable doubt: see Kiihner, Gr. § 549. 2, 3, and the careful investiga- tion of Baumlein, Gr. Partik. p. 21 sq,: see also notes oz Gal. v.11. The kfh- puyua in the assumed case would be kevéy ; it would contain no substantive, no objective truth, nothing to which the preacher could appeal as a ‘ vera res’ (Bengel), and an admitted fact: with the resurrection all other great Christian realities, atonement, redemp- tion, forgiveness, would disappear ; dmavra ofxetat, Chrys. Kev?) kal 4 tlotis tpaov] ‘empty also is your Jaith :’ if the khpvyua is revdy (‘inanis,’ Vulg.), then that which is evoked by it, through hearing (Rom. x. 14),— faith in the Lord Jesus Christ — is empty and unreal also: odx jets 5é wd- 38 Assimilation to the vov keva. exnpttawer, GAG Kad Suets Kevae émorevoate, Chrys. 15. edpiokdpeda St k.t.A.] ‘and (fur ther) we are found,—shown by the circumstances or issue to be etc.;’ the sé having its copulative or rather ad- Junctive force, and introducing a fresh moment of thought (Kiihner, Gr. § 532. I),;— viz. that it was not only a kevov khpvyua but a pevdouaprupla,—and the edpioxdueda preserving its usual and proper distinction from iva, with which, neither here nor elsewhere in the N. T. (Matt. i. 18, Luke xvii. 18, al.), it is in any degree synonymous : see Winer, Gr. § 65. 8, and notes ox Gal. ii. 17. kal irevSoudprupes tod Ocod] ‘ also false witnesses of God ;’ the ascensive nat slightly emphasizing the word it precedes, and bringing out the whole serious aspects of the asser- tion (ver. 12) with which the Apostle is now dealing. It is somewhat doubtful whether the rod @cod is a gen, subjecti (‘false witnesses in God’s service’) or object? (‘false witnesses concerning God’): either gives good sense; the latter, however, seems most in harmony with the context. Soapparently Copt., Cyril (Cramer, Cat.), Bengel (‘de Deo’), al., and Winer, Gr. § 30. I. a. épaprupyoapev Kata Tod Ocod] ‘we bore witness (when we preached the resur- rection) concerning God ;’ not ‘adver- sus Deum,’ Vulg., the common usage (ch. iv. 6, Matt. x. 35, xxvi. 59, 62, Acts vi. 13, Rom. viil. 53, al.), but ‘de Deo,’ 298 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XV. 15-18. (3) a ed ” \ x Ld a > 4 wv a 4 €0V OTL YYELPEV TOV PlLoTOV, OV OUK IYELPEY ELTTED APA VEKPOb ovK éyeipovTaL. 1622 \ \ > Ca sene > 52 b x €l Yap VEKPOL OVK EVYELPOVYTAL, OQVOE ploTos > / 17 > be \ > > / Ul ¢e / e€ lal - eynyeptat* 1 et dé Xpiatos ovK eynyepTat, MATAaLa 1) TLOTLS DLO Erasm., and apparently Syr., Copt., Arm.,—the idea of a hostile intention not apparently lying in the context. In such a case we should have ex- pected Wevdoudprupes kata Tod cod in the preceding clause, as it is actually cited in Cyril. We retain, therefore, under the influence of the context, the neutral rendering, even though no similar instance occurs in the N. T.: comp., however, Plato, Pedr. p. 279, pavrevoucn kat’ avtov, and Kiihner, Gr. § 433. 11. 3. The preachers (on the assumption running through the pas- sage) might have been Wevdoudprupes through mispersuasion, without any designed misrepresentation. elrep dpa. K.t.A.] ‘7fso be that the dead verily are not raised;’ the etmep (‘si omnino,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 528) adding force and amplitude to the con- dition (comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 510. 5), and the &pa, as above, ver. 14 (see notes), giving a further confirmatory emphasis and enhancement; ‘si vide- licet mortuinon excitantur,’ Beza. On the distinction between efrep and evye, see notes oz Gal. vii. 4, and comp. Hermann, }7gev, No. 310. It will be observed that here, and throughout the passage, vexpol is anarthrous. The dead are not regarded as aclass (comp. ver. 52, 2 Cor. i. 9, Col. i. 18), but as individuals in the state described,— ‘dead persons,’ ‘dead men.’ This, however, can hardly be expressed in an ordinary English translation. 16. el yap vexpol x.7.A.] Confirmation of the dv od« Hyepev just preceding by a practical repetition of the statement in verse 13. This verse and the fol- lowing, and ver. 20, form the general text to ch. xvi. (Book x1.) in Jackson On the Creed, Vol. x. p. 305 sqq. (Oxf. 1844). 17. eb 8& Xpiords «.t.d.] Conse- quences of the ovd& Xpiotds eyhyeptat again set forth, as in ver. 14 but, in the present case, with fuller statement of the personal consequences to the Corinthians and to believers generally. If no resurrection of Christ, then a faith, not only without any real sub- stance whereon to rest, but without any fruit or moral results whatever; comp. Hofmann 7x Zoc. parata A wloris bpov] ‘vain ( fruztless) is your faith ;’? the predicate, as in ver. 14, standing prominently forward, and specifying the absence of all saving issues : it was no ‘fides salvifica.’ On the meaning of pdraos, and its dis- tinction from xevés, see notes on Tit. iii. 9. éru €oré év K.T.A.] ‘ye are yet im your sins,—in the sphere of them, and encompassed by them: illus- tration of the pataidrys of their faith, on the assumption of the first clause. If Christ never rose again, the: re- demptive work of Christ was anullity ; there was not, and could not be, any Sixalwois (Rom. iv. 25): ei yap Kal airds KatesxéOn bd Tod Oavatov, Kal ovK ZAvcev avTOU Tas Wdivas, THs TdvTAs TOUS &Aous amndradatey étt avTds Karexduevos ; Chrys. There is a little difference between the present expression and i¢’ Gpaptiav elvat, Rom. iii. 9. 18. dpa Kal x.t.d.] 6 Zhen (in that case) they also that were laid to sleep in Christ :’ a further consequence (&pa,— see notes oz Gal. v. It), emerging through the last clause (@ éoré x.7.A.) from the leading hypothesis, ef Xpiords ovk éyhyeptat, and affecting not only the living, but the dead. The term kommn- Cuap. XV. 18, 19. 1rCORINTHPANS. 299 ” +) \ b] a ig / ( a 18 ” \ € bé 4 > €T E€OTE EV TAL ALAPTLALS ULOV. apa KL OL KOLUNUEVTES €V XpictG ararovto. Mei ev TH bwh tavTy ev Xpiotp NITLKOTES €ouev povov, edeeworepor Travtov avOpwmav eo ue. 19. ev XpiorgG HATudtes eouer] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., namucdstes eouev ev Xpior@. Oévres ev Xpiov@ (‘laid to sleep 7 Christ,’ ze. in faith and communion with Him; 7d év rH tlote: pyoty, Chrys. 1) is studiously chosen, as involving and carrying with it the very persuasion which, on the assumption of ver. 17, would be annihilated. On the term koaca: in reference to death, see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 13; and on the close union of the prepositional clause with the participle, see Winer, G7. § 20. 2. amddovto] ‘have perished, —ihe aorist not necessarily referring to the time when they breathed out their last breath, in which case the verb would simply have a_ physical reference (‘nulli sunt,’ Bengel), but to the a@méAea after this world con- sequent on their dying in their sins: érwrducba, Kal ért oper ev Tals Guaptias, Chrysost. on -ver. 19. Whether that améAea is completed or not the tense does not specify: the assumption being true, it states that itcame. We thus retain in English the ‘have’ as less sharply placing the whole action in the past; the difference between the Greek aorist and the English aorist being ap- parently just this,— that in English the tense remands us so wholly to the past as to imply that the action was com- pleted and done with, whereas in Greek the tense refers us to the past, but is silent as to the completion or non-completion of the action: see Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 3, and notes o7 Phil. i. 29. On the use and meaning of améAAvut in the N.T., see Cremer, Worterb. 8. Ve Pp. 455- 19. ev TH Loy Tabry k.t.A.] ‘Zf we are only having our hope in Christ in this life:’ designedly unconnected sen- tence, expressing with abruptness and pathos the sad lot of the living Chris- tian, as the former verse alluded to that of the departed. The words, though apparently simple in meaning and structure, require some care in their interpretation. The following seem to be the structural and grammatical de- tails on which a correct interpretation must be based. (1) The leading em- phasis rests on the words éy Ti (wf ratty, as calling the hearer’s or reader’s attention to the present as well as future issues of a hope such as that here assumed and implied, viz. an abiding hope during life (perf. part.: see Kiihner, Gr. § 389. 7. e) in a dead Christ. (2) The appended adverb uédvor is also, as its position indicates, distinctly emphatic, and qualifies the whole clause (Rev. marg.),— not merely the ¢v 7H (wf tat’tn from which it really is structurally dissociated. The adverb excludes the conception of the hope, as specified, having any future significance. It begins in this life, closes with this life, and looks for nothing beyond: dorepdvwros Puxh pévet, Chrys. (3) The éopey is not a mere associated auxiliary to the par- ticiple, so that #Am«éres éoper is only a little stronger than 7Amixaev (1 Tim. iv. 10: comp. notes 7 Zoc.), and prac- tically equivalent to it, but is the copula, what precedes being the predicate,— ‘persons having only hope in Christ in this life:’ comp. Vulg., ‘sperantes su- mus,’ and contrast ‘speravimus.’ Erasm., Bengel; ‘speramus,’ Beza. The translation adopted above recog- 300 Christ verily has risen, and in him all will rise. Then will follow the mighty issues of the future. 1 CORINTHIANS. aTrapy? TOY KeKolnuevov. CHAP. XV. 19, 20. 20 Nuvi dé, Xpuotos éyyyeptar éx vexpav, 1 érrevd) yap ov 20. Kekolunuevwy] So, without any addition, Zachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds éyevero. nizes as far as possible these details, but conformably with English empha- sis transposes the position of the em- phatic words. On the force of the év Xpirro@ (‘7 Christ,’— He being the object zz whom the hope was placed), see notes o7 Eph. i. 12. XeevStepor K.T.A.] ‘we are more than all men to be pitied, ‘miserabiliores sumus omnibus hominibus,’ Vulg. ; be- cause we lead self-denying, suffering, and persecuted lives (1 Cor. v. 12 sqq.), and, after all, are only hopers in Christ in this life, with no ray to cheer us in the future: in this world, ma@quara (Rom. viii. 18), in the world to come, améreia. The form édeewds (not from éAeos, but from éAeéw; see Donald. Gr. § 362) is found in Attic Greek: comp. Winer, Gr. § 16. 3. y. For an instruc- tive sermon on this text, see Frank, Serm. 37, Vol. 11. p. 148 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.). 20-28. Christ's resurrection that from which all the issues of the boundless future directly flow. 20. Nuvi Sé«.7.d.] ‘ But, as it is, Christ hath been raised from the dead ;’ con- trasted statement, by means of the logical yuvi (see notes on ch. xiii. 13, and comp. notes on xii. 18), with what has preceded, all the deductions from the contrary hypothesis (ver. 14 sqq.) being inferentially negatived (see Bengel), and the true state of the case, with all its momentous consequences, clearly set forth; Aomdy dmopaytikas Aéyet, Chrys. (Cramer, Caz.) There is some little doubt as to the logical connection of this verse,— whether it is to be considered as be- ginning a new paragraph (Zev. comp. Wetst. and Hort), as concluding the foregoing argument (7Zyeg.), or as forming a kind of link between ver. 19 and ver. 21,—standing in contrast with the former, and calling out the argument that is opened up by the latter (Lachm., Tisch.). On the whole. the first view seems to be the most contextually natural. In what pre- cedes the Apostle shows the effect which the non-resurrection of Christ would have had, first, on Christian preaching, and next on Christian life. In what follows he shows the effect of that which is actually and truly the fact,—Christ’s resurrection: comp. Hofmann zz /oc. arapX? TOv Kexoipnpevov] ‘the first-fruits of them that are fallen asleep ;’ apposition, not simply to the foregoing nominative, but to the nominative as associated with the predication, — the risen Christ being the dmapxf, and the defining partitive gen. specifying those to whom He stood in this relation: comp. Col. i. 18, mpwrdétokos ék Tay vexpav, and Rev. i. 5, mpwrdtoxos Tav vexpav, where the genitive is of a similarly partitive char- acter. The question is very elaborately discussed by Origen (Cramer, Cuz.) whether we are to understand from this passage that our Lord was the arapxn of all, or only of the faithful. That in the resurrection of Christ we have the assurance that all will rise appears to be certain from the general tenor of the chapter, and particularly from ver. 22, but that the gvpaua of which He is here spoken of as the amapxh (Rom. xi. 16) is equally inclu- sive is by no means similarly clear. CHapP. XV. 20-22. 1 CORINTHIANS. 301 > 0 , fa} / \ } 3 >’ 0 , > / lal 99 a QVUPWTOU UaVATOS, Kab OL AVUPWTTOV AVATTAOIS VEKPWV. WO- \ > rn? \ , 2 , o \ 3 a méep yap é€v 76 “Adaw Tavtes atoOvncKovew, ovTws Kal év TO 21. @dvatos] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating evidence: Rec., 6 @dvaros. The expression Tay kekolunevwr, es- pecially with vexp@y in the same verse, appears to point the other way, and to suggest the limitation to the sleeping faithful, to those ‘ qui in spe resurrec- tionis quiescunt,’ Aquin. 21. ered) yap «.T.A.] ‘For since through man cometh death ;’ confirma- tory reason for the foregoing state- ment (efta kad aittoAoye?, Chrys.), the emeion (‘quoniam,’ Vulg., Arm.), with its causal and ratiocinative force (see notes oz Phil. ii. 26), putting forward the reference to the foreordering of divine mercy, and the ydp, with its usual confirmatory reference, substan- tiating the amapx} Tay Kexoyunuevwy of the preceding verse. Christ verily was the first-fruits of the kexoiunuévor; man in His blessed person, was the cazsa medians of avdoTacis, aS man was originally the causa medians of Odvaros ; comp. especially the important parallel statements in Rom. v. 12 sqq., where the manner of the entry of death, viz. did THs Gmaprias (ver. 12; scil. 7G Tod évbs TapamTa@muatt, ver. 15), and the con- verse are both very fully discussed and explained. The ellipsis is to be sup- plied simply by gor, but in a stronger sense than that of the mere copula, scil. ‘exists,’ ‘facta est,’ Copt., Ath.; see Winer, Gr. § 64. 3. b. avacrrtacis vexpav] ‘resurrection of the dead, or, more exactly, of dead men,— the article being “designedly omitted, as in av@pémov and @avatos, that each term might stand forth in its most general form and its unrestricted breadth of meaning; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 462. h. The application of this general statement appears in the fol- lowing verse. 22. domwep yap K.T.A.] ‘For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive ;’ confirmatory explana- tion of the preceding verse, the con- trastive domep (‘wép vim eam [compar- ativam], quam habet és, usitato more auget atque effert,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 768), bringing out the full signifi- cance and contrasted relations of the 5” avOpemov in each member of the foregoing verse. Two points require careful consideration, —the meaning of évy in each member, and the latitude of the meaning of wavres. As regards (1) the meaning of éy, there can be no reason for departing from the prevail- ing reference of the preposition (in the case of persons) to the ‘sphere,’ ‘substratum,’ or ‘ basis’ (see notes ov Gal. i. 24, ii. 17, and comp. above, ch. vii. 24 and notes 27 /oc.), in which, or on which, the action takes place. The preposition will thus in each member of the verse specify the one in whom, as it were, the mavres were included, or (more probably) on whom they de- pended as the basis (comp. Winer, Gr. § 48. a. 3, d,) whether in reference to 7d amoOvjcKely OY to Td Cworroteiobat. All die in Adam; human nature, as Cyril (Cramer, Caz.) says, being condemned in him: all are quickened, or made alive, in Christ, His vivifying power being imparted to all. It is more difficult (2) to decide on the latitude of the reference of the second mdvres, many of the best interpreters (Augustine, Grotius, Bengel, al.) con- sidering that the év Xpior@ and the use of the term (womoetoda, rather than éyelpecOa or dviorac@at, must limit the reference to believers: so also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 99, Vol. U1. p. 72 note 802 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap, XV. 22, 23. Xpiot@ mavres Cworronycovra. ™ xaotos b& ev TH idiw (Transl.). As, however, the first rdvres must, by the nature of the case, include all (‘omnes filii hominum,’ Syr.), and as the second mdyres cannot, on any sound principles of interpretation, be regarded as quantitatively different from the first, especially in a studied antithesis like the present (éomep — oUTws Kat),— we adopt, with the Greek interpreters, the inclusive reference, and regard the €xaoros 8€ «.7.A. in ver. 23 as guarding, and designed to guard, against any misconception of the in- clusiveness: see Theodoret 77 Joc., and comp. Origen (Cramer, Catez.), who appears to have taken the inclu- sive view, though he has failed to make his meaning perfectly clear. Christ will quicken all; all will hear his voice, and will go forth from the grave, but not all to the true avdoracis (wis; see John v. 29. The general truth is well expressed by Bp. Martensen, — ‘ the un- conditioned destiny of all men is immor- tality; but we at the same time teach that mankind.are only saved condition- ally, by being born again and made holy, Chr. Dogm. § 274, p. 454 (Transl.). The use of mdytes in Rom. v. 18 is similarly inchisive ; see Meyer zx Joc. {ootronPirovrat] ‘shall be guickened or made alive.’ There is not in this word any intrinsic ‘sensus beatz resur- rectionis,’ Grot. It simply implies ‘to quicken,’ ‘ vivificare,’ Vulg,, whether in a spiritual (John v. 21, vi. 63, Rom. viii. 11) or in a natural sense (ch. xv. 36, Rom. iv. 17), the context in each case being the guide as to which of the two senses is referred to. It is here used rather than dvacrhoovra, or even éyep@hoovra, as suggesting more distinctly agency and agent, and so the real source of the dvdoracts. The word is occasionally found in classical Greek : see Theophrast. de Causis Plant. Ul. 22, (worroe? mws f Oepudtns cvochmovea thy piCav: see also Aristot. Hist. Anim. Viera 1) 23. tkaoros St «.t.A.] ‘ Bot! cach in his oun band or class ;’ limitation, by means of the antithetical 5¢, of the inclu- sive statement in the preceding clause; tva wy Thy Cworoinow Kowhy akotoas, Kar Tovs GuapTwAovs voulons od (ecOu, érh- yayev Exagros 8€ K.7.A., Chrys.; comp Theod. The word rdyua is here used in its proper and technical sense of ‘band’ or ‘company’ (comp. Arrian, Ars Tact. cap. 9, weweptomevor és Tdyuata, 2 Sam. xxiii. 13, Tdyua Tay GAAOPUAWY,) not ‘order’ in reference to desert or merit (agimuart, Zonaras, Lex. p. 1714, referring to this passage: comp. Ter- tull. De Resurr. cap. 48), or to time: so perhaps Theodoret (who here alludes to ‘the sheep’ and ‘the goats’ of Matt. xxv. 32), but apparently not any of the Vv. or early interpreters, all of whom appear to regard the word as synonymous with tdéis. This latter view is maintained by DeWette, Riick- ert, al., but without any linguistic sup- port, except the singularly precarious assertion, that as rd&s sometimes may bear the proper meaning of tdyua, so Tdyua may sometimes bear the usual meaning of tds. The instinct of Bengel (though he adopts the meaning of ‘ordo’) led him rightly to say, ‘tdés tamen est abstractum, tdyya concre- tum.’ For examples of the correct meaning of the word, see the copious list in Steph. Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. VII. p. 1767 (ed. Hase), where the uses of this word are very fully illustrated. arapx?} Xpiords] ‘as the firstfruits Christ ;’ scil. ‘ vivificatus est’ (Est.), the fact of the case suggesting the tense. To supply the auxiliary verb in this verse (Bengel; comp. Hof- mann) is to mar the natural continuity, Cwap. XV. 23. 1 CORINTHIANS. 303 Taypati* atapyn Xpiortos, érevta of Tov Xpwotov év TH Tap- 23. Tod Xpiorod] The rod is omitted in Rec., apparently from oversight or error. and the almost certain structural con- nection of this verse with the pre- ceding; note, however, the typography of Westc. and Hort, which seems rather to indicate a slight break between the verses. On the contrary, Lachm. sepa- rates the two verses only by a comma. This, however, clearly weakens the independence and force of the first clause of the verse. The most natural typography and punctuation seems to be that of the text: the words €xacrTos K.7.A. enunciate a new but associated fact, which is then illustrated and sub- stantiated by what follows. trea ot Tod Xpiorrod] ‘then they that are Christ’s, ‘qui ad Christum per- tinent,’ Estius, ‘ Christum attinentes,’ fEth.: comp. Gal. v. 24. The idea of proximity in point of time, which is often marked by émeira (see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 17), cannot here be pressed. It marks the next and second act in the mighty drama, but the real epoch of the occurrence to which it refers is defined by the concluding words of the verse. év TH Tapovela avrod] ‘at his coming:’ specification of the time and circumstances in which, and under which, the of rod Xpiorod will be made alive; their (womohois will be involved 27 his mapovata. This mapovota of Christ is not merely, or exclusively, to establish His kingdom (comp. Meyer zz Zoc.), but to judge the quick and the dead: kar& roy Tis ocuvredAclas kaipdv, Theod.; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19, iii. 13, iv. 15, v. 23, al. Whether any, and if any, what interval is to be sup- posed to exist between this mapovota and the 7d réAos of the following verse, —in fact between the ére:ra and the elra,—the sober interpreter cannot presume even to attempt to indicate. This only may be said, that the lan- guage seems to imply a kind of interval ; but that there is nothing in the particles or in the passage to warrant our con- ceiving it to be longer than would include the subjugation of every foe and every power of evil, and all that may be immediately associated with the mighty réAos which is specified in the succeeding verse: comp. Plitt, Glaubenslehre, § 78, Vol. 11. p. 370. It must be carefully remembered that the Apostle is here dealing with a single subject, the resurrection of the dead, and not with the connected de- tails of eschatology. These must be gathered from other passages and other portions of Scripture; comp. notes oz I Thess. iv. 17. The great difficulty in Christian eschatology is the exact position which all that is specified in Rey. xx. 4 is to be supposed to hold in the sequences of the un- folding future. On this profound sub- ject, see the wise and suggestive com- ments of Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 152, Vol. Iv. p. 389 sq. (Transl.). Perhaps all that can safely be said is, that neither here nor in 1 Thess. iv. 16 does the Apostle preclude the conception of a resurrection of the just (comp. Luke xiv. 14) — possibly gradual (Dorner, p. 398, note) — prior to that of the gen- eral resurrection; that in some pas- sages (consider Rom. xi. 12-15) he does seem to have looked for a ‘ flowering- time’ of the Church prior to the close of human history (see Dorner, p. 390, 398); and that here he distinctly im- plies a closing conflict with all the powers of evil (comp. Rev. xx. 7, 15) immediately prior to the end. That the millennial binding of Satan is to be dated from the death and resurrection 304 ovata auTov. 1 CORINTHTPAN'S. Cuap. XV. 23, 24. 4 ira TO Tédos, Stay Tapadioe THY PacvdElav T® Oc Kat Tatpi, dtay KatTapynon Tacay apynv Kai Tacay 24. mapadidé] So Westc. and Hort, with apparently preponderating authority The decision between this and mapadidoi (Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev.) is critically very difficult. It is quite possible that mwapadid0? may really be a subjunctive (see Moulton in Winer, Gy. § 41. 1. a), and mwapadié@ a superfluous correction. On the whole, however, as this form of the subjunctive does not seem certainly made out, and as the diplomatic preponderance is perhaps slightly in favor of mapadid¢, we adopt this latter reading. of our Lord, has been recently urged by Medd, Bampton Lectures (1882), Note 12, p. 524 sqq.,—but to the detriment, as it would seem, of the distinctive idea of the millennium : see Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 281, p. 470 sq. (Transl.). 24. elra Td Tédos] ‘ Then cometh the the end,’ — of all things, of all that God has revealed to man; not merely of the resurrection (Meyer), nor of the last scenes of the world’s history (comp. DeWette), but, as the use of the word in passages of this nature seems always to indicate, of all things in the ordinary and inclusive sense of the words; Ta mpdyuara &ravra Anperat Tédos’ Chrys. : comp, I Pet. iv. 7. The associated circumstances connected with this réAos are then specified. On the Bible se- quence of ‘the last things,’ see Medd, Bampton Lectures, note 17, p. 564. étay tapadiso «t.d.[ ‘when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God and the Father, scil. ‘to God who is also Father (whether of our Lord Jesus or of us Christians, — here, most probably the former: comp. Est. 27 Zoc.): tem- poral clause specifying that which is associated and contemporaneous with the réAos,—the present subjunctive, as usual, denoting simple futurity re- garded as probable or expected (see Kiihner, Gr. § 394. 1, (Donalds. Gr. § 513), and the 8ray the uncertainty of the time when that future will come to pass. The solemn title 6 @eds kal mathp occurs several times in the N.T., more commonly with an appended genitive (Rom. xv. 16, 2 Cor. i. 3, xi 31, Gal. i. 4, Eph. i. 3, Col. i. 3, 1 Thess. i. 3, iii. 11, 13, I Pet.i. 3), but occasion- ally without, as here, Eph. v. 20, James i. 27, and (with Kupioy instead of cer), iii. 9. On the use of the formula with an associated genitive, see notes oz Gal. i. 4, and on the best mode of translation, the notes to Zyvamnsl. of Gal. l.c. The meaning of this mo- mentous clause, and even of individual words about which there can be no possible doubt (e.g. mapadidévar, comp. Chrys., Theoph., al.), has been fre- quently obscured by dogmatical bias. The only expression about which there may reasonably be some doubt is Bact Aefa. That it is more inclusive than the ‘regnum grate,’ in its ordinary ac- ceptance, and that it may have some reference to the millennial kingdom, is probably to be inferred from the wide ho- rizon of thisholyrevelation. This king- dom the Eternal Son at the last delivers up to the Eternal Father, not as though He were Himself thereby yupvodmevos Tis BactAelas (Theod.), but as obv@povos @covd, a sharer in it forevermore (Luke i. 33). As Waterland well says: ‘As all things descend from the Father by the Son, so by the same Son do all things ascend up to the Father,’ Oz Clarke’s Expos. of Catech. ch. I. (Works, Vol. tv. p. 23, ed. 2). As to the new earth and Christ’s abiding (CHAP. XV. 24, 25. reORIN THTEAN's, 305 eEovclav Kai Sivamiv. * det yap avtov Bacirevew ayps od On mavtas Tovs €xOpovs UO Tovs Todas avTOV. éxyatos éyOpos 25. &xpt] So Zisch., Weste. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., Lachm., Treg, Rev., &xpts. The & is omitted after ob by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Zec. inserts &v. presence hereon with His redeemed (Medd, 7.c. p. 365 sq.), no inference can safely be drawn from this pas- sage. étav katapyjoy K.T.A.] ‘when He shall have done away with, or brought to nought, every principality, and every authority and power ; ’ fur- ther elucidation of the whex, by the mention of that which must be prior to the 7d mapadiddvar, the aor. subj. as contrasted with the present subj. mark- ing the act of the 7d katapyety as com- pleted before the delivering up of the kingdom; comp. Kiihner,' Gr. § 388. 2.2. The abstract terms apx7f, etoucta, dvvauis, are used here, as in Rom. viii. ae, Eph. i.\25, i. 16, vi. 13, Col. i, 16, al., to designate spiritual and angelical beings, the context in each case show- ing whether the reference is to good or to evil intelligences, or to both. Here the context clearly implies that powers of evil are alone in the Apostle’s thoughts: contrast Eph. i. 21, and see notes 27 Joc. On katapyeiy (‘evacuere,’ Vulg.; ‘ga-tairan,’ Goth.; ‘abolere,’ Copt., comp. notes oz Gal. v. 4. It does not here imply so much total destruction as absolute subjugation; comp. Pearson, Creed, Art. VI. Vol. 1. p- 332 (ed. Burton). The word, how- ever, even in this single Epistle (where _ it occurs nine times), bears plainly dif- ferent shades of meaning: see Cremer, Werterb. s.v. p. 261 sq. 25. Set yap Kt.A.] ‘For he must r@gn,’ sc. continue to exercise His sovereignty, T& Tod BaciAevovTos Toei, Phot.: confirmatory elucidation of the foregoing statement that the 7d mapad:- 39 ddvat x.7.A. will not take place until the 7) Karapyfjoa «.7.A. has been ac- complished, the Se? solemnly pointing to the ‘zternum et immutabile Dei decretum’ (Estius), as illustrated by the words of Messianic prophecy (Psalm cx. 1; see Matt xxii. 43), to which there is here a probable allusion. &xpe od OF K.7.d.] ‘ wrtil He shall have put all His enemies under His feet,,— without &y, according to the prevailing usage of the N. T. in reference to these temporal compound particles; comp. Winer, Gr. § 41. 3, note. On the dis- tinction between such particles with, and without &, see Hermann, Partic. &, p. 109, and comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 568. The subject of 67 is certainly not God, but, as syntactic clearness obviously requires, the sub- ject of the whole passage, viz. our Lord. Estius (who with Beza, al., re- fers 67 to @eds, ver. 24) here departs from his usual clear and common- sense principle of interpretation, led apparently by a desire to harmonize the present verse with the Psalm, to which, however, it is, at the most, only an allusion. In cases such as the present there is no need whatever for reading atrod, the reference to the true subject of the verse being natural and obvious: see notes oz £Zph. i. 9, and the comments of Winer, Gv. § 22. 5. 4. On the forms &xpu, &xpus, see 2. § 5. 1. é., and on the distinction between &xps and méxpt, notes oz 2 Tim. ii.g. The doctrinal harmony of this passage with Rev. xi. 15 (comp. Luke i. 33), and the eternity of the kingdom of Christ is 806 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XV. 25-27. Katapyettat 6 Oavatos. ™ mdvta yap wrérakev wd Tods Tddas > fal avuTouvu. well set forth by Pearson, Creed, Art. vi. Vol. I. p. 334. sq. (ed. Burton). On the ‘regnum potentiz,’ and the ‘regnum gloriz,’ see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 127. 2, Vol. IV. p. 144 sq. 26. trxaros éXOpds «.T.A.] ‘As the last enemy, Death is brought to nought ;’ the present tense bringing up vividly the solemn and certain future ; Winer, Gr. § 40. 2. a, Kihner, Gr. § 382. 5. Death is here personified (Isaiah xxv. 8, Rev. xx. 14): he is brought to nought, by every being over whom his power had extended being called up to life and to judgment. Death is, at last, cast with Hades into the lake of fire (Rev. xx. 14), but thither also they over whom the dreadful power of 6 Odvaros 6 SevTepos will exercise its ulti- mate energies ; see Pearson, C7ced, Art. vi. Vol. I. p. 333 (ed. Burton). Any doctrinal deductions from this passage in favor of the annihilation of the wicked (Plitt, Zvang. Glaubenslehre, Vol. 11. p. 414, compare Rothe, Theol. Lthik, § 596, Vol. 111. p. 194.sq. ed. 2), —a view to which popular modern thought is to some extent gravitating, —are in the highest degree precarious: see on the contrary, the convincing comments of Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 287, p. 481 (Transl.), and compare Dorner, Chr. Dectr. § 154, Vol. Iv. p. 418 (Transl.). 27. wavTa yap tréragtev «.7.d.] ‘For fe put all things under His feet :’ con- firmation of the truth of the preceding statement, @oxaros éxOpds .T.A.. by the language of Scripture (Psalm viii. 7), to which the Apostle here assigns its fullest and deepest significance, viz. that which the lordship of man over the created things around him was de- signed to foreshadow,—the lordship of the Son »>f Man over all things in drav Se ely, bts mavta brotéraxtat, SHdrov Ot eKTOS their widest amplitude (the emphasis obviously rests on mdvra), and so, over the last enemy. The subject of brératey is thus the subject of the pas- sage alluded to, scil. 6 @eds. For the similarly antitypical application of the words of the Psalm, see Eph. i. 22, Heb. ii. 8. Srav Sé elarn] ‘ Bat when He hath (thus) said:’ scil. God, as speaking by the mouth of the Psalmist, the subject of the efrn being naturally the same as that of the pre- ceding verb: comp. Winer, G7. § 64. 3. 6. The Apostle is now passing onward by means of the continuative and slightly antithetical 5é€ (see notes on ch. x. 20) to the deeper theme of the delivering up of the kingdom to Gcd and all that is implied and involved in it. In regard of the aor. efrn it ap- pears doubtful whether, in this par- ticular formula, the full force of the future exact (‘quando dixerit,’ Iren. v. 36, ‘cum dixerit,’ Hil. Psalm. ix. al.; see the notes of Sabatier, Bzb/. Sacr. Vol. Ill. p. 715) is to be recognized, or only that trace of it which is perhaps just preserved by the ‘thus’ of the above translation. The latter seems most in harmony with the context, in which the moment of thought seems to rest more on the general fact of the declaration than on the more specific fact of its having been made at the réAos. The change to the perf. droréraktat, aS marking the enduring nature of the dmératis, is clearly de- signed. The dé is here objective (‘that :’ comp. Copt., Arm.) rather than merely recitative, as in Vulg., Goth. It is omitted in B; Clarom., Vulg., al.. and some Ff, but is ap- parently genuine. SAAov Sri] ‘7¢ zs manifest that it is so,’ scil. ‘that all things are put in subjection ;’ the mayta Cuap. XV. 27, 28. 1 CORINTHIANS. 307 le] iS / > aA wv / 98 [v4 be e n > lel \ TOU vTotaEayTos QaVT@® TA TTAVTA. OTQAV O€ uTroTayy aVT@ Ta / , \ t Bask: € eN ¢ a A e / > a TTAaVTA, TOTE KAL AVTOS O VLOS UTOTAYNC ETAL To vTroTaéavTe avT@ > a Ta TavTa, va 7 O Ocds TA TavTa év TaoW. 28. mdvra év macw] So Lachm., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on prepon- derant authority: Rec., Tisch., tr mavta év wmaow. It may be observed, in the earlier part of the verse, that the «af before airés is certainly very doubtful. The preponderance of authority, external and internal, seems slightly in its favor. It is omitted by Zreg., bracketed by Zachm., and Westc. and Hort, but brotéraxta: being supplied from the preceding member: see examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 551. 6. rem., and comp. Winer, Gr. § 64. I. a. So apparently Syr. [‘notum est quod preeter illum ’], Goth., Copt., Aith., in all of which d7jAev appears to be taken in its usual sense and the ellipsis supplied by the auxiliary verb understood. It is, how- ever, perfectly possible to take d7Aoy éttas a kind of compound adverb . (Kihner, Gr. 7. c. and § 548. 3), ‘mani- festly,’ ‘obviously,’ and to regard the words from érav to the end of the verse as forming a suspended protasis, resumed and supplied with an apod- osis in ver. 28, ‘when, I say, all things have etc.’ This latter construction is adopted by the Latin interpreter of Trenezus (Her. v. 36, ‘scilicet absque e€0, qui subjecit’), and apparently by Vulg., Clar., Hilary, al., but is frigid and forced, and according to Hofmann, logtcally involves the reference of elrm to Christ,—a reference which, though maintained by Hofmann and Heinrici, supplies in itself a strong argument against the proposed con- struction. In the last words of the verse the reference is of course to God, but the periphrasis makes the reasoning more obvious and the tenor of the sen- tence more reverent: ‘summam rerum omnium ex Psalmo potenter et sapien- ter demonstrat apostolus,’ Bengel. 7a, wavra] ‘ a// things,’ — not apparently here or in ver. 28 with any studied ‘definitely retained by Rec., Zisch., and Rev. change of meaning, as compared with the mdyta above, the intercalation of the article having probably arisen from the previous occurrence of the mdyra; thd alla,’ Goth. —rightly, but too strongly. That there is a difference between the two expressions is, how- ever, not the less true; mdyta ap- parently meaning all things as existing, 7a mdvta allthings in their totality: see Winer, G7. § 18. 8. 28. 8tav 8& troray K.7.A.] ‘And when all things shall have been sub- jected unto Him ;’ further statement, by means of the continuative and slightly antithetical S¢, of the fore- going revelation in its most transcen- dent and ultimate issues. The de- livering up of the kingdom to the Eternal Father, of ver. 24, is developed into the still more sublime mystery which this most blessed verse finally discloses. Weare here at the ultimate bounds of all human thought. tore Kal adrds 6 vids trorayhoerat] ‘then shall even the Son Himself be subjected ;’ the ascensive kal (here better evex than also) marking that even He to whom all things have been placed in subjection will, in His own adorable person, be subjected (we must not, even with Waterland, dare to dilute this passive, or the contextual meaning of the word: ‘Apostolus agit in toto contextu de vera proprieque dicta subjectione,’ Est.) to the God and Father of all. The 808 Else why is there bap- tism for the dead, and why do we apostles daily face death? meaning of this érorayh has been very diversely stated and estimated, and, in only too many instances, without that close regard to the context which must be, and ought to be, our only guide. That the reference throughout this passage is to the Son in His mediato- rial aspect (comp. Bull, Prim. Trad. VI. 9), and that He is here represented ‘in gubernando mundo tanquam Patris vicarius ’ (Calvin ; consider Matt: xxviii. 18), is exegetically certain. In this aspect and capacity, trorayhoetat, His mediatorial work will be concluded ; the eternal purposes of the Incarnation will have been fulfilled ; in abtompnatpe- tos evmelOea (Cyr.-Hieros. Catech. Xv. 30) He will become subject to Him to whom He will have delivered up His kingdom, and God, the eternal and tri- personal, will become all in all. This is the view substantially taken by all the early interpreters, and is consistent alike with impartial exegesis and cath- olic truth: see Waterland oz Clarke’s Expos. of Catech. Vol Iv. p. 24 (ed. 2), Philippi, A7zrchl. Glaubensl. Part Il. p. 205 sq. (ed. 2), and for an oration on this text, Greg.-Nyss. Ofera, Vol. I. p- 6 sq. (Par. 1638), Wa 6 Ocds k.7.d.] ‘272 order that God may be all in all ;’ purpose of the brorayhae- Tat K.T.A., the plenary presence and im- manence of God, Father, Son, and Spirit (comp. Jerome, 27st. 55 [ad Aman- dum]; Hilary, de Trin. XI. 40, appears to limit the @eds to Christ) in all things and in all beings in which, during the existence of the mediatorial kingdom, that plenary immanence could not be fully realized; ‘tunc remoto velo pa- lam cernemus Deum in sua majestate regnantem; neque amplius media erit Christi humanitas, que nos ab ulteriore Dei conspectu cohibeat,’ Calvin. On 1 CORINTHIANS. Cap. XV. 28, 29. 9°’Emel tu toumoovow of Barrifouevor vrrép this the sublimest revelation ever vouchsafed to mortal man, we presume not to make any further comment. We leave the passage in ail the ampli- tude of its universality, regarding the maow as probably the generalizing neu- ter (Winer, Gr. § 27. 5), and as in- cluding all persons and all things; comp. Eph. i. 23: in Col. iii. 11 the the context implies the masculine. While, however, it seems most reverent thus to leave it, we certainly draw from it no inferences in favor of the popular universalism which has been derived from it: comp. De Wette zz loc. God will be all in all, but He will be so in a// His attributes, in His jus- tice and His righteousness, as well as in His mercy and His love. For some sober comments on this profound sub- ject, see Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 283 sqq., p- 474 sqq. (Transl.), Philippi, Kirchl. Glaubenst, Part Il. p. 393 sq. (hardly, however, fair on Martensen), and Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 154, Vol. Iv. p- 419 sqq. (Transl.). 29-34. further arguments for the reality of the resurrection of the dead. 29. émel tl mowjoovow) ‘ Zlse what shall they do?’ scil. if the development here set forth be an unreality; the retrospective émef (‘ alioquin,’ Vulg.; ‘aiththdu,’ Goth.; ‘autrement,’ Reuss), as usual, referring not to any more remote portion of the argument (e.g. ver. 20, Or ver. 23, d&mapxi Xpiords k.7.A.), but to the clauses immediately preceding, setting forth, as they do, the mighty sequences and issues of the primal truth. The hypothesis involved in the particle is to be drawn from the context: see Buttm. Gr. WV. 7. p. 308, where this use of the particle (Germ. ‘da sonst’) is illustrated by examples. Cuap. XV. 29. 1 CORINTHIANS. 309 A A > \ > > f, / \ / TOV vexp@v ; el GAwWS VEKpOl OvK éyElpovTa, Ti Kal BamriCovTaL On the derivation (émt, sc. ém) roire, and ei), see Curtius, Zzym, p. 265 (ed. 4), and on the distinction between this particle and ydp, notes on ch. v. 4: comp. also notes on ch. xiv. 16. The future morhoovow has here a generalizing character. — what will they do?’ ‘what are they to have recourse to?’ the proper sense of futurity being still conserved in the latent reference to cases that might conceivably hereafter come before them: see Kiihner, G7. § 387. 2. and comp. Kriiger, Sprachi. § 53. 7- 1, Winer, Gv. § 4o. 6, and notes on ch. viii. 8. ot Bamrifdpevor drep Tov vexpav] ‘who are baptized for the dead, scil. ‘receive baptism on their behalf;’ the article with the present participle being here probably substantival, and pointing to a class which adopted the practice; comp. Winer, Gr § 45. 7. Of these obscure and difficult words the inter- pretations are very numerous. Two only, however, appear to deserve serious consideration: (a) that of the Geeek expositors, according to which Tay vexpay is to be regarded as really practically equivalent to ris avarrdcews Tov vekpa@y (‘ut reviviscant ex mortuis,’ fEth.); and baptism as the manifesta- tion of belief in the doctrine ; ém ror» BarriCn, TH Tov vexpod c@paros avacrdcet morevwv br. ovéts wever vexpov, Chrys. ; (2) that of Ambrosiaster, Anselm, and the great majority of modern inter- preters, according to which tar vexpav is to be referred to dead unbaptized believers, for whose assumed spiritual benefit living believers were baptized as proxies. This custom certainly ex- isted at an early period (Tertull. ae Resurr. cap. 48, adv. Marc. v. 10: comp. Epiph. Her. Xxvill. 7), and may have been practised in some instances by Corinthian converts, or at least have been known to them as a prac- tice which was occasionally resorted to. Of these two interpretations the first puts a strain upon the preposition, of which no similar instance exists in St. Paul’s Epp., or indeed in the whole of the New Testament. That the simple trép can be forced into meaning ‘in expectation of the resurrection,’ as re- garded possible by some of the de- fenders of (a), is really inconceivable. It is possible that the whole expression brtp Tév vexpovy might mean ‘in the matter of the dead,’ ‘in regard of the dead’ (comp. 2 Cor. i. 6, and perhaps 2 Thess. ii. I, but see notes 27 Joc.), but to elicit from this what is desired, is to postulate an ellipsis (ris avacrd- oews) which, in a doctrinal passage like the present, could hardly have been left to the ordinary hearer or reader to supply. We decide therefore in favor of (4), not, however, without recogniz- ing that the use of the apparently gen- eric article T@v vexp@y is not what we should here have expected (see Winer, Gr. § 19. 1; it may, however, mean ‘the dead ’ in whom the of Barri(duevor are interested), and that the reference to a custom which, z/ it then existed, must have been condemned, creates a ‘real difficulty. It is to be observed, however, that the Apostle in no way connects himself or his converts with these Bamri(ouevo. (contrast this with the jets in the next member of the verse), but simply alludes to them as practising what he refers to; ‘non factum illorum probat, sed fidem fixam in resurrectione ostendit,’ Ambrosiaster iz loc. Of the various other interpre- tations, the majority eitner endeavor to extort from the words a meaning which the Greek will not bear (‘ jamjam morituri,’ Estius; ‘devenientes ad mortuos,’ Bengel), or assign to them 810 TUG ORIN I tear CHAP. XV. 29-31. fras\ Bi 20 -/ Ny Cry cm § , a ? 31 UTEP AVTWY ; TL KAL NMELS KLYOUVEVOMEVY TTAGAVY WPAV ; Kal Hmépav aroOvncka, vn Tiv bweTépay Kavynow, ddedpol, iv Exo 29. a’taév] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. Trav vexpav. 31. &deApol] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Wieste. and ort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Aec. omits. some forms of private interpretation which are obviously inconsistent either with the tenor of the passage or the principles of a sober exegesis. For a collection of these interpretations, see Wolf, Curae Philol. et Crit. (in toc.), and the long note of Meyer zz doc. el dws K.7.d.] ‘Lf the dead are not raised at all ;’ hypothetical clause cor- responding to the latent hypothesis involved in the preceding ézei,— here expressed, there understood. All the best editors now rightly connect with what follows, rather than with what precedes; so apparently the Greek ex- positors: comp. Theodoret 77 Joc. On the use of éAws (‘omnino,’ Vulg.), see notes on ch. v. I tL kal Bamri- fovra: imp adrav] ‘why are they verily baptized for them?’ the emphatic kat standing in a kind of correlation to the preceding éaws, and qualifying probably the whole sentence, thus marking the profitless character of the whole pro- ceeding: see Baumlein, Partzk. p. 152. 30. thal hpets K7.A.] ‘ Why do we also stand in jeopardy every hour?’ the kat here being associated closely with the jets, and marking the case of the Apostle and the early preachers of the Gospel as a further illustrative argu- ment: ef uh jv avdoraois, tivos evexev éxwdvvetouev, Theoph. 31. Kad’ hepa drobvicKe, vi K.T.A.] ‘I die daily ; yea, Laffirm it, by the glorying in you ;’ expansion of the pre- ceding thought in reference to the Apostle’s own case, and confirmed by a strong asseveration. The damoévhokw obviously refers to the dangers which the Apostle as an émi@avdrios (see ch. iv. 9) encountered daily; not only was he prepared to die (Polycarp, Fragnfent 11), but daily was he in circumstances that menaced life; comp. 2 Cor. iv. II, Rom. viii. 36: Odimvexds euavtdy > / paynoa ev Edéoe, ri poor TO OpeNos ; EL VEKPOL OVK eyEipovTat, pay, has (if we except A) practically no support 32. kata dvOpwrov] ‘after the man- ner of men ;’ under the ordinary cir- cumstances in which men @npiomaxovow (‘humanitus, humano auctoramento, spe vite presentis duntaxat, Bengel: comp. Copt.‘in humanitate’), and so, not under any higher principle; ‘non divino aliquo impulsu, neque in Deum respiciens, sed vel gloria vel temeritate actus, ceterisve ejusmodi causis ad- ductus quarum studio homines in ista pericula precipites ruunt.’ Beza. The clause is put prominently forward, and designed to enhance the force of the question: ‘if I thus, and under no higher principle, went through all these dangers, what is the profit that I get?’ tlva exw Tovde Tod Kivdivov KapTdr ; Theod. Of the various interpretations this clause has received, the above is the only one that appears to be in ac- cordance with the language and the context. On the formula kata &yOpe- mov (which must always be explained from the context) see references in notes on ch. iii. 3, eOnpropd- Xyoa ev “Hdécw] ‘was a fighter with wild beasts at Ephesus ;’ scarcely, ‘ad bestias pugnavi,’ Vulg., or ‘ cum bestiis pugnavi,’ Irenzeus (v. 13), but simply, in accordance with the meaning of compound words of this nature, ‘acted the part of a @ypioudxos ;’ comp. Diod., Fist. V1. 43, mpds &s [rv AedvTwy K.7.A. &yéAas] dvaryKdCovra: Onpiomaxety Satp Opeuudtav: Artemed. Onezrocr. I. 54, Onpiomaxety mévntt a&yabdy. That the word is not to be taken in a literal sense, whether in reference to being cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre (‘ projectus sum feris,’ Syr. ; see Theod., and comp. Ignat. Rom. cap. 5), or hav- ing fought with them as an armed gladiator (‘bestiarius’), but is to be taken in a metaphorical sense (Td mpds Tovs “lovdalovs cxeiv, CEcum.; comp. Tertull. de Resurr. cap. 48), seems now generally maintained by the best inter- preters, it being highly improbable that such a signal danger would have been left unnoticed by St. Luke, especially if the Roman citizenship of the Apostle had failed to protect him. What, however, incident or circumstances are here referred to is by no means clear. Theophylact and others refer to the uproar mentioned Acts xix. 23 sqq.; but it is doubtful whether the Epistle was not prior to it (contrast ch. xvi. 8, 9, and Acts xx. 1), and also whether the Apostle was then in any special and personal danger. We regard, then, the reference as either to some unrecorded incident, or to the state of antagonism with @npla, in the person of human opponents, into which the Apostle was placed by his own earnest- ness and devotion. On this use of the aorist, see Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 5. tl pou rd Sdedos] ‘ What is the profit to me?’ the profit answering to such a perilous condition; the expression ti Td dpeAos OCCurs James ii. 14, 16. el vexpol ov« éye(povra is rightly re- ferred by Chrys., Theoph., and many modern editors and expositors to what follows rather than to what precedes. There is an obvious difficulty in asso- ciating a second conditional member toa short sentence that commences with one; and there is a clear force in the isolated interrogative (comp. ver. 29) which speaks strongly for the punctuation adopted in the text; so Lachm., Tisch. Treg, Rev. Westc. and Hfort, On the ei ov, see notes on ch. vii. 9, and for a sermon on this text (in two parts), Bp. Hall, Works, Vol. v. p. 312 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP. XV. 33, 34- PDayowev kai Tiwpev, avpiov yap amtoOvncKopev. * wn TrAavaCOeE* pOeipovow On ypnora ouiriar xaxat. * éxvippate Sikaiws Kal 33 xpnord] So Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. The form xphaé (Lachm., fec.) really rests on scarcely any authority, but was adopted to maintain a metrical form of the citation. 290 sqq. (Oxf. 1837). dayopev k.t.X.] The words are a citation from the Septuagint version of Isa. xxii. 13, and, as Chrysostom notices, are prob- ably introduced in the language of the prophet as thus marking with deeper solemnity the ethical result of disbelief in the resurrection. Similar sentiments are expressed in Wisdom ii. I sqq.; see also two sermons on these words by Bp. Taylor, Works, Vol. v. p. 217 sqq- (ed. Heber). 33+ pr TAavac Ge] ‘Be not deceived ;’ ‘do not be led astray into these utterly immoral, though possibly natural, atti- tudes of thought.’ The form rAavacde is not middle (‘ne errate,’ Beza, Ben- gel), but, as apparently always in this formula, passive ‘nolite seduci,’ Vulg., Arm.) : see notes on ch. vi. 9. Pbel(povew k.7.A.] ‘evil companionships corrupt good dispositions :’ justification of the foregoing warning: but whether in the form of a citation from Menan- der (Tertull. ad Uxor.1. 8, Jerome zz Gal. iv., Tit. i.; Socrates, Hist. Eccl. III. 16, ascribes it to Euripides), or, more probably (on account of the non- metrical xpnord), as a current proverb -which Menander had also made use of (he certainly alluded to another proverb in the same play; see Atlian, Ast. Azz. XII. 10), cannot positively be decided. The words occur in the play bearing the title of Thais: see Meineke, /ragm. Comic. Grec. Vol. Iv. p. 132. The fa- miliar word 760s (‘ indoles, morum que- dam proprietas,’ Quintil. 7st. VI. 2) is notfound elsewhere in the N.T.; on its meaning, see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 2. 2, p.6 sq.(Transl.). In the plural, 48m commonly signify ‘mores,’ the canon of Phrynicus being, xpnotds TH HON wAnOvyTiKGS PvdAdTTov: of yap Sdkiywor Evik@s aol xpnaotds Td 780s, but where the reference is to several persons the rule does not appear to apply: see Rutherford, Phryzicus, p. 468. In the present case the meaning ‘ dispositions,’ ‘characters,’ seems best to harmonize with the context ; comp. Syr. ‘mentes benignas ;’” Copt., ‘ corda bona:’ so also apparently Aith. The term 6ptAtar must clearly not be re- stricted to ‘colloquia,’ Vulg., Goth., Copt., or ‘narrationes,’ Syr. It points rather to communications in the more general form of intercourse (‘com- mercia,’ Beza) or companionship ; scil. ‘congressus mali,’ Tertull. (ad Uxor. 1.8). The Apostle uses the words as warning his converts against inter- course with men who denied such a fundamental truth as that of the resur- rection; comp. ch. v. 9, and on the influence of companionships, see Rothe, Theol. Eth. § 376, Vol. 1. p. 361 sq., § 1132, Vol. Vv. p. 226 (ed. 2). On the term Xpyords, as marking a certain sweetness (comp. Syr.) of character as well as goodness, comp. notes oz Gad. Ver22s 34. exviare Stxalws] ‘Awake to soberness righteously ;’ &s mpos ueBvovtas kal pavouevous, Chrys. Vivid appeal (observe the aorist) to men who had become besotted with false speculation and error. The Apostle bids them at once éxvfpew, rise out of their spiritu- ally drunken sleep (‘de ebriis dicitur, qui in somno demum_ sunt sobrii,’ Steph. 7hesaur. s. v.; comp. I Sam. xxv. CHaP. XV. 34, 35: #4) dpaptdvete* ayvwoiay yap TpoTnv viv NAO. If it be asked, How are the dead raised? nature, 1 CORINTHIANS. 313 Ocod twes Exovow* pos év- %"AdAa €pet tis Ids éeyelpovtas ot vekpoi, animate and inanimate, gives the answer; and, still more, Scripture. 34. AaAG] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Mec., Aéyw. 35. addd] So Zisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on apparently sufficient au- thority, due regard being had to the prevailing usage in the older manuscripts: Lachm., Ret. Ur. 37), and that Sixatws,—in a rightful manner, with the righteous resolve of breaking with the past, and of not continuing (comp. Winer, G7. § 43. 2) in the sinfulness which is the fatal associate of unbelief ; évred0ev avtois Ta omepuara Ths amorias, Chrys. In the verb éxvqpew (comp. avavhpew, 2 Tim. ii. 26) the two ideas of awakening, and that, out of the stupor of drunkenness, are both to be recognized : comp. Lync. ap. Athen. Iv. p. 130 B, KkapnBapoiytes bd THs méOns...mavres ekevipowev. Con- sequently ‘evigilate,’ Vulg., Copt. (comp. Syr., ‘excitate corda vestra’), on the one side, and ‘sobrii estote,’ Clarom., on the other, are each scarcely sufficient. In Goth. and Arm. the idea is more of resipiscence, and coming back to good sense: comp. Plutarch, Demosth. cap. 20, where it is said of Philip (after the battle of Cheeronea, éxvippas 5é kad 7d wéyebos Tod TepioTavTos avToy ayavos év v@ AaBar. On the derivation, see the notes oz 2 Tim. iv. 5. ayveclav yap K.t-A.] ‘for some have an ignorance of God ;’ have it and hold it,— the ex- pression éyvwolay €xew being studiously chosen as stronger than @yvoeiv or ov eidévat. The doubts and disbelief of these tes (see notes on ver. 12) were due, if not wholly, yet in great meas- ure, to their utter want of knowledge of God whether in regard of His nature, His power (Chrysost.; com- pare Matt. xxii. 29), or His justice 40 =a (Theod.). Agnosticism was the root of the evil. Tpos évtpomty K.T.r.] ‘Z speak thus Zo you to move you to shame:’ ‘ut pudore afficiamini loquor,’ Aith.; the mpds in- dicating the ethical direction and pur- pose of the AaAety (comp. notes on ch. x. II, and oz Col. iv. 5), and the dative tuiv, as in ch. vi. 9 (contrast ch. X. II, where the construction is differ- ent), being connected with the verb, according to the prevailing usage in St. Paul’s Epp. Where the preposition is used, as in i Thess. ii. 2, the expression is designedly more formal and signifi- cant: compare Winer, Gr. § 31. 5. For the Apostle to say that some among them had an é@yvwoiay Ocod, was mpos evtpomny; indeed opddpa atta Kabqparo, Chrys. 35-49. The manner of the resurrec- tion, and the nature of the resurrection- body: illustrative and confirmatory analogies. 35. AdAG épet tis] ‘But some one will say :’ introduction, by means of the words of a supposed objection (comp. Baumlein, Partzk. p. 13 sq.), to the second portion of the great argument,— the manner of the resurrection, and, more particularly, the nature of the future body. The fact of the resurrection was doubted because the manner of it, and particu- larly the mwodrns of the resurrection- body, seemed inconceivable and inex- plicable: ri@nox dvd tas eramophoes, Tod 814 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP. XV. 35-37. mroip 5&€ cwpats épyovtar; “ddpwv, av 6 orreipets ov Sworrol- eitas €av on atro0avn: * Kat 0 omeipels, OV TO HUA TO YyEevnoO- 36. &ppwy] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: 2ec., &ppov. Tpomov Tis avacTacews, Kal THs ToLdTNTOS Tov cwudtwy, Chrys.; comp. Theod. wolw St odpat. tpxovrar] ‘and with what kind of body do they come/—1@ GmrodwAdte ) Erépw tii; Chrys.; the dé reiterating, in a more precise and par- ticular form, the more general difficulty expressed in the first question: see Kiihner, Gr. § 531. 4. a, comp. Klotz, Devaerius, Vol. i. p. 362. In the épxovru the idea is that of an entry into the realm of the living. Ac- cording to Bengel ‘ potius vexzre quam vedive dicuntur, propter summam illam novitatem.’ The present here is not used in a temporal, so much as a logical sense—‘do they come,’ ac- cording to the teaching set forth ; the matter is, so to say, here drought on the scene: see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2. a, Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 6. 36. &ppev] ‘ Foolish one!’ sudden exclamation, called out by the nature of the difficulty involved in the second question; the assumption of the ob- jector being that the risen body must be numerically identical with the buried body. On this use of the nomi- native, in which an ellipse of the auxiliary is to be assumed, and its dis- tinction from a vocative, see Kiihner, Gr. § 356, Winer, Gr. § 29, 2. oi 8 omelpes] ‘what thou sowest ;’ the ot being, as its position shows, dis- tinctly emphatic, and bringing the argument into the very sphere of what might be the act of the ob- jector,—‘in the case of any seed that you the objector sow, how fares it?’ Bengel (‘¢ute, homuncio;’ compare Chrys.) seems here to place the od pro- leptically in contrast with the 6 @eds (ver. 38); the above explanation, how- ever, seems more simple; ‘disce ex rebus, tibi per experientiam notis,’ Estius. od {worroretrar] ‘zs not guickened, ‘has not the principle of life within it called out into opera- tive energy; passive; mdAw rod @cod Thy Sivau mapadauBdver, Chrys. The word is chosen, like the a&ro6drn below, to keep up the close analogy of the circumstances of the sown seed and the buried body: see Chrys. zz doc. The casting in of the seed answers to the burial of the body (tpdérov twa tdow Kadd’treis, Phot.) ; the dmrobave of the seed, to the passage of the body into corruption: ‘putrefactio rei, licet inanimate, mors quedam ejus est,’ Estius ; see John xii. 24. 37. Kal S omelpes] ‘and that which thou sowest ;’ reiteration of the words just preceding to keep the attention fixed to this $ omeipets, and to what is to-be said of it. The grammatical structure is, however, not carried through, but changed for the sake of still keeping the oveipeis (in lieu of a more structurally correct, but less vivid, form of words) in what follows. For examples of this very intelligible break in construction (Matt. xii. 36, Luke Xxi. 39, 1 John ii. 24, 27, al.), see Wi- ner, Gr. § 63.2. d. Meyer cites Matt. vii. 24, but the true reading is duowOh- oetat. In what follows, the céua 7d yevnodpmevoy (‘guod futurum est, non quid, sed quale monstrare,’ Est.) is the analogue of the resurrection- body. The objector’s argument was, erepov cua mire, Kal [according to the Apostle’s teaching] érepoy capa avicrata. mas oy avdoracis by etn; Cuar. XV. 37-39. 1 CORINTHIANS. 815 MEVOV OTTELPELS, GANA YupVoY KOKKOV Ei TUYOL aiTOU 7} TLVOS TOV Aovrrav+ 86 S€ Oeds Sidwow aite cdpwa Kalas 70érycev, kat e / lal / Ae} Lal 89 > lal \ e >’ \ EKAOT@ TOV oTTEpuaToV idiov Hua. od Taca cape } adTi cap&, Gra AAAH pEv avEpwrrwv, GAN Sé capE KTNVOV, GAR 38. didwow aitgG] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort on very clearly preponderating authority: Lec., ait@ Sidwor. The same critical editions omit 7é before %.ov, on authority still more distinct: 2ec. inserts 74. 39. BAAN mev avOpdtwv] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev. Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec. HAAn mev capt avOpérwr. The order KTnVav ... TTHVaV ... ix@twv is adopted by all the above edd., on greatly prepon- derating authority: Rec. ntnvav ... ixObwr ... wrnvar. The above also add odpt after the second &AAn dé, on nearly the same authority: Rec. omits odpé. Chrys. Nature gives an illustrative answer; wimrey pev eis yqv TO cOua old twa Kékkov ovk oftws avaoTnodpuevor, Cyril, ap. Cramer, Caz.). yup- vov KéKkov K.T.A.] ‘a waked grain, it may chance, of wheat, or of some one of the other seeds ;’ a grain not yet clothed with the body which shall be; comp. 2 Cor. v. 3. On the ef réxor (Syr. omits, interpolating, however, ‘ aut hordei’), see notes on ch. xiv. 9. The natural supplement to Aomay is omepudtwy (Syr., Copt., Arm.), as obviously sug- gested by the context and.also ex- pressed in the following verse, éxdorw TOY OTEpUaTwr. 38. 6 St Ocds K.7.A.] ‘but God giveth it a body according as it pleased Him ;’ the ever recurring divine act contrasted with the human sowing; the kaddas HOeEAnoev pointing back to the time when at his bidding the earth brought forth the ‘herb yielding seed after his kind’ (Gen. i. 12), and when each seed and the body into which it was to de- velop were bound by creative wisdom in enduring organic unity. Kal éxdorw K.T.r.[ ‘and (further) to each seed.a body of its own ;’ the kal having here its fullestforce and adding a further detail to what has been already specified. On this use of kat, see notes on ch. iii. 5, and on Phil. iv. 12. The conclusion from the whole is irresistible, and briefly but clearly expressed by Severian (Cramer, Catez); &pa 676 nénnw Sedw- KOS Thy oTepuaTiKhy Siva, ZwKev Kad TOS NMETEPOLS THMaTL THY Tis dvacTdoews ioxdv. 39.. 0d TaGTa cape K.t.A.] ‘Al flesh is not the same flesh :’ ‘hoc universaliter negat,’ Bengel; the negative being put forward strongly and emphatically ; comp. notes oz Gad. ii. 16, where, how- ever, the structure is more distinctly Hebraistic. In this and the following verses the Apostle states the broad and natural fact, viz. the variety of organization manifested by practically the same general substance, whether in the animate or inanimate world, as illustrating the diversity that must be expected to exist between the same body when in its earthly state, and when in its spiritual state: ‘quicquid diversitatis cernimus in quaque specie quoddam est resurrectionis przlu- dium,’ Calvin. To make ov aoa the predicate on account of a supposed difficulty in harmonizing this passage with 2 Cor. v. 4 (Edwards) is struc- turally improbable and _ exegetically harsh. The Apostle is simply diluting the force of a commonplace objection (that the resurrection body is ex con- cesso different from the buried body) by some illustrations from the natural world. KTyVvav] ‘of catdle ;’ not 316 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP. XV. 39-41. dé cap& mrnvaev, GdAn Se iyOvov. ” Kal cdpata €vroupavia, \ vl 3 iy 3 ys ( i \ e a > / f Kal CwpaTa eTiyela* adda ETEPA meV 1 TOV EéTroupaviwy, d0~a, érépa Se 7 tov érvyeiwv. *addrn Soka jAlov, Kal dX bS6£a necessarily ‘jumentorum’ (compare Clarom.; and see Luke x. 34, Acts Xxiil. 24), but simply ‘ pecorum’ (Vulg.; see Rev. xviii. 13),— ‘ of cattle,’ whether for use as ‘jumenta,’ or for any other purpose. The wider rendering ‘ani- malium’ Arm., comp. Syr., A&th.), ‘quadrupedes omnes’ (Bengel), does not seem lexically exact. Had this been intended, the word rertpdmoda (Rom. i. 23) would more likely have been used. 40. Kal oopata érovpavia] ‘ Bodies also heavenly there are,’ ze. ‘bodies which are in, or belong to, the odpavol, comp. Copt. Aith. What oduata are here referred to is not perfectly clear. The somewhat restricted use of the word (cdéuarta), especially in this pas- sage, does not seem in harmony with that expansion of it which would be involved in the expression ‘heavenly bodies,’ in the sense of sun, moon, and -stars (Severian, Bengel, Hofmann), but would appear rather to limit our con- ception to bodily organizations found in the ovpavots; just as oduata émiyera point to organizations found upon the earth. We thus seem referred to an- gels, and to all the dwellers év rots émoupavlois (Eph. iii. 10, vi. 12); there being nothing in Scripture to preclude our thus assigning to them odéuara, but, on the contrary, many allusions that seem to warrant it. The early writers are by no means agreed in de- nying oéuara to the holy angels; see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 1. pp. 36, 37- The patristic expositors (with the exception of Severian) refer the terms to the dikaios on the one hand, and the Gpaprwdof on the other, but with very little probability: the distinctions here under consideration are physical rather than ethical. GAAG érépa k.T.A.] ‘howbeit the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another kind ;’ the stronger GAAd (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2) introducing the statement of the diver- sity of the 8éf. On the distinction between @repos (‘non tantum alium sed diversum significat,’ Tittm. Syzon. p. 155), see notes oz Gal. i. 6. The glory that surrounds the one is widely different. from that which surrounds the other. 41. GAn Sdéa «.7.d.] ‘ There is one glory of the sun ;’ transition, suggested by the last comment, to the distinctive manifestations of another, and very different, class of émovpdua, the Apostle’s object throughout being to press home the distinctions that every- where exist, and so, the reasonableness of the truth that the nature of the resurrection-body is widely different from that of the caua ris Tarevdcews quay (Phil. iii. 21). aorip yap K.t.X.] ‘for star differs from star in glory.’ The studiously chosen plural aorépwy, as marking distinctions be- tween star and star, is further eluci- dated by the statement that there is a diapopd in the Seta which any observant eye can recognize, That diapéper is here ‘ differt’’ (Vulg., Clarom.), and not ‘preestat’ (Syr., Copt., Arm., A&th.), seems clear from the whole tenor of the present context, in which the prom- inent idea is the difference of the various bodies to which the Apostle is here alluding, not the excellence of any one over another. This further idea comes out later. The prep. év is used Cuap. XV. 41-43. wEANVES, Kal GAAN SOfa acTépwv* VES, n P év Od&n. 1 CORINTHIANS. 2 ottws Kal 7) avdoTacis TMV VEKpav. 317 aoTip yap actépos Suadéper oTeipeTat ev POopa, éyeiperar ev apOapcias *ameiperas ev atipia, éyeiperas with ddfa (it might have been omitted) as marking more distinctly the par- ticular element in which the d:agopd is to be recognized. Estius, following the patristic expositors, refers this clause to the ‘magna diversitas gloriz’ that there will be among the saints hereafter. Such a ‘diversitas’ there may be, but it is not here alluded to. 42. ottws Kal «.7.A.] ‘So also zs the resurrection of the dead ;’ thus,—as regards the difference between the body that now is and the resurrection body; the «ai marking the correspon- dence of the resurrection of the dead, in the particular just specified, with the tenor of the illustrations in the six preceding verses. On this use of kat, see notes oz 2 Thess. ii. 11. otrelperar ev pOopa k.t.A.] ‘ Zt 2s sown in corruption ; it is raised in incorruption.’ The 3rd person singular passive may be here used impersonally (‘the sowing is év PO0p4, the raising up is ev apOapata : comp. Winer, Gr. § 58. 9. 4), but is more naturally to be connected with a latent nominative g@ua (compare Theoph.), more clearly to be traced in ver. 44, but suggested by the whole tenor of the passage. The sowing here referred to, as Chrys. rightly ob- serves, is not Thy yéveow quay Thy év uAtpa, but thy raphy thy ev tH yh, and the word is studiously chosen (‘ verbum amcenissimum pro sefzlturd,’ Bengel) as more closely harmonizing with the leading illustration, ver. 36 sq. The particular expression, however, év Oop (‘in the state or sphere,’ as it were, of p@opd) seems specially chosen so as in some measure (see notes on the following verse) to look backward, and to refer, not only and exclusively to the epoch of the dissolution of the cua, but also to the whole prior state to which this d:¢Avots is the conclusion. The same sort of allusion to the whole past as well as to the concluding scene seems to be maintained in the two clauses that follow. 43. é€v arusla] 627 dishonor ;’ not simply with reference to the ‘nuditas’ (Bengel) and undeveloped state (ver. 37), but to the state of p@opd above specified. This atmuta has marked many of the aspects of life, and now finally culminates in the 7d GkadAés (Cyril) connected with sepulture, and, as De Quincey has termed it, ‘the dis- honors of the grave’: ti yap vexpod &tiuwtepov ; Theoph. év doGevelq] ‘272 weakness,’ scil. ina power- less state: tl yap Tod ixdpos exelvou 2 THs Kdvews aobevéotepoy; Theod. As power is naturally associated with life, so powerlessness is equally appropri- ately connected with the state of death and the body that has passed into it. The hopeless weakness of the dead (vexdwr auevnva xdpnva, Homer, Od. x. 521) wasa thought that often presented itself ; comp. Isaiah xiv. 10, Psalm cxv. 17, al. It may be here observed that the prevailing use of the term to mark the weakness of man while living, rather than when dead, has led many expositors to fall back upon a refer- ence of omeipera: in each clause to the beginning, rather than to the close, of man’s existence, and to explain pOopd and atiulaaccordingly. It seems, how- ever, exegetically impossible here to dissociate the omeipera: from the idea of burial (consider ver. 37): we retain it therefore, and see in each clause a primary reference to the grave; though, 318 év 50&n* peTar o@pa r~puyiKov, éyelpeTas coma TvevpwaTiKoy. capa ~uyiKov, éoTw Kal TvEevpaTLKOY. 44. ef oT... ZoTw kal mvevpatidy] preponderating authority: Rec., fom... from the form of the expressions év pope «.7.A., asecondary and, as it were, retrospective allusion to the whole prior state may be intended to be in- cluded. év Suvdper] ‘272 power,’ z.é., ‘ina state or condition of power.’ This state (rd edaOerés, Cyril), ‘in quo perfectus sit vigor omnium poten- tiarum atque membrorum’ (Estius), is what we almost instinctively associate with the resurrection body. According to Aquinas it is the ‘dos agilitatis.’ 44. oapa wWuxukdv] ‘a natural (psychical) body;’ ‘corpus animale,’ Vulg. ; a body in which the Wuxf is the predominating potency (rd tm tijs Wux7s KuBepyeuevov, Theod.), and by which the ux comes into relation with the sensuous and material: see notes son eh chs 4.) her Apostle having specified some of the character- istic and sharply contrasted qualities of the sown body and the raised body, now gathers up in two comprehensive definitions the fundamental qualitative difference. The doubters asked rotw odmatt Epxovra; the answer is given in this and the following clause in the most clear and generic form. On the capability of death in the case of a body as described in this verse, see Miiller, Doctrine of Sin, IV. 2, Vol. Il. p. 323 sq. (Transl.). copa tvevpatikdy] ‘a spiritual body ;’ a body in which the mvedua of man, the element in which the Holy Spirit vouchsafes to operate (Rom. viii. 16), is the predominating influence; 7d id Tov mvevuatos oikovotmevov, Theod. There is here no reference to the quasi-phys- ical nature of the body (koupérepoy kat 1 CORINTHIANS. CuHap. XV. 43-45. t > ) Q ’ a diag 2 5 s 44 / OTTELPETAL EV AT EVELA, EVYELPETAL EV OVVALEL* OTTEl~ DS par €l €oTLWW 45 ef \ , OUTWS Kal YeypaTrTaL So all the five edd., with very greatly kal €o7t OGma TvevpaTiKor. Aemrérepov, Chrys. 2): the reference is simply to the predominating element. On the term mvevpatixds, see notes on ch. ii. 14, and on the mvedua in man, Destiny of Creature, Serm. v., and references in notes oz Phil. i. 27, and on Xi Thessnv. 23. el tori k.t.A.] ‘ Lf there exists a natural body, there exists also a spiritual (body) :’ the existence of the one forms a logical presumption for the existence of the other. The emphasis, as the position of the word indicates, rests in each clause on the éotw: if there does plainly exist a body in which, as all experience shows, the puxf predomi- nates, and if, as has already been shown by various analogies, we must expect a fundamental difference between this present body and 7d capa 7d yevyodue- voy, the existence of a body in which the contrasted principle, the mvedua, will be the predominating influence seems to follow as a necessary infer- ence. The inference the Apostle pro- ceeds to confirm by Scripture. 45. ovTws Kal yéypamrat] ‘ Zhzzs also zt 2s written ;’ in accordance with the tenor of the above inference, — the kat further marking the correspondence be- tween the inferential statements of ver. 44 with the citation azd the clause that follows it: comp. notes on ver. 42. The passage cited is from Gen. ii. 7 (LXX), kad éyévero &vOpwros cis Wuxhv (@oav, and the 6 mparos and *Addu being inserted to make its contrast with the clause appended by the Apostle more clear and appreciable. That the second member is a part of any citation, or in any way intended to be regarded as Cuap. XV. 45, 46. 1 CORINTHIANS. 319 "Eyévero 6 rp&rt0s dvOpwrros Addy eis puynv cav 6 &axaros *Adap eis mredwa Sworroodv. % such, cannot possibly be maintained. The Scriptural yéyparra: terminates with (@cay, but, as expanded by the Apostle, suggests and justifies what follows, the ‘first Adam’ suggesting the reference to the ‘last Adam,’ and the yuxhy (doar calling out the doubly antithetical mvedua (worotodv, see Theod: iz loc. On the is of ‘destination,’ here pressed into purely Hebraistic service, see Winer, Gr. § 32. 4. d. Wuxi Cocay] ‘a Living soul ;’ not ‘ ani- mal vivens,’ Beza, but ‘anima vivens,’ Vulg., —a living soul-endued being; the zeshdma of God (Gen. ii. 7) having converted the as yet dead clay into a living and breathing individual, having a rational soul and organized body. That man did not then receive merely this principle of life, but did also re- ceive the grace of the Spirit, is well set forth by Bull, in his dissertation ‘On the State of Man before the Fall,’ Works, Vol. 11, p. 90 sqq. (Oxf. 1827) ; comp. Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 78, p. 152 (Transl.): this truth, however, is not referred to in the present pas- sage. 6 toxartos “Abdp] ‘the last Adam, ‘the last first-man’ (Hof- mann), the antitypical head of the new creation, — Christ: see Rom. v. 14. The Apostle here speaks of Christ as the ‘last ’ rather than the ‘second’ Adam (comp. ver. 47), so as to preserve in each particular the sharpest form of antithesis. He was truly érxaros; ‘ post eum nemo alius in alterutro genere princeps,’ Est.: comp. Rev. i. 8 [the more apposite words in ver. 11, Rec., are not genuine]. mvedpa Lwo- movtv] ‘a guickéning or life-giving Spirit ;’ not merely (@v but woman : the essential characteristic of the Spirit is to impart life; &pa rod mvedua- tos T) {woroeiv, Chrys. The (wh here > b > lal \ ‘ GX ov TPWTOV TO TVEvMATLKOV referred to must be not generally 4 (wh % aidvios (Theod.), but, more particu- larly, in accordance with the whole context, the resurrection-life : comp. John v. 21, 28, 20, Phil. iii: 21. The real difficulty connected with the clause is in regard of the epoch when Christ thus became a mvedua (womoioidr. The reference to the incarnation (Se- verian, referring to Matt. i. 20) is plausible; but, on the whole, Estius seems right in rejecting it in favor of the epoch of the resurrection. It was through and by the resurrection that Christ éyévero cis mvedua Cworotdr. When He breathed on His disciples and said AdBere Tvedua “Ayiov (John XX. 22; contrast ch. vii. 39), we feel that the transition had begun. After the resurrection the blessed body of the Lord appears to have received new properties and powers (comp. Luke xxiv. 16, 31, John xx. 19) and even glories [consider Matt. xxviii. 17, mpo- aextvnoay), and to have passed in holy mystery more and more into the mvev- patixdv, until, at the ascension, the now wholly spiritual body, —‘ the last particle of earthliness left to this world’s gravitation’ (Smyth), — rose upward to the right hand of God (Mark xvi. 19): see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 126, Vol. Iv. p. 139 (Transl.), and Newman Smyth, Old Faiths, ch. VIII. p. 358 sqq. 46. GAN od Tp@Tov K.T.A.] ‘Howdbeit the spiritual ts not first but the natural.’ statement of the general principle which dominates the whole, the aad introducing, in the form of a general contrast with the foregoing details, the broad statement, and breaking off further reference to the particulars of ver. 45: see the excellent remarks, on this particle, of Baumlein, Partzk. § 5 320 > \ \ f 4 * re GAA TO WuyXLKOV, ETELTA TO TVEVMATLKOV. 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP. XV. 46-48. 47 9 mp@tos avOpwiros > lel ” f € 8 / ” @ > > lel 48 i ¢ ”- , ex yhSs xoiKos, 0 SevTEpos AVOpwrros €E ovpavod. * oios 0 Yoikos, 47. 6 debrepos kvOpwros ef ovpuvov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev. Weste. and /fort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. inserts 6 Kudpios after &vOpwros. sqq., and § 8, p. 15. The primary idea of the particle (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz) is fully preserved, but the contrast involved is less sharply marked than in the more ordinary uses of the particle: comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 535. 8. The 7d mvevpatiucy is thus, in harmony with the generalizing character of the verse, simply substantival, and with no refer- ence to an understood oéua: see VWi- ner, Gr. § 64. 5. On the profound questions connected with man’s de- velopment in reference to creative de- sign, see Rothe, Zheol. Ethik, § 480, Vol. III. p. 47 sq. (ed. 2). 47. © mparos «.t.A.] Illustration of the foregoing general principle, mpé- tos and devrepos being not merely enumerative, but standing in distinct contrast. The éoxaros of ver. 45 is not adopted here, as it would be less in harmony with the ée:ra of verse 46 than the more natural, though here equally contrasted, devrepos. ek yiis Xoikds] ‘of carth, earthy ;’ the ék yiis marking whence man was de- rived, and the xoikdés (Gen. ii. 7, xodv AaBwv amd THs yjs) the matter or sub- stance (‘pulvereus,’ Syr., ‘muldeins,’ Goth.) the ‘fusilis terra’ (Steph. Thesaur. s. V. xovs), of which he was made. The omission of the article with yf and with ovpayds (neither with- out precedent, especially with preposi- tions, Winer, Gr. § 19. I) is due per- haps to the desire to keep the two substantives in sharp contrast,—‘ earth’ and ‘heaven’), and, by abbreviating, practically to make the clauses more adjectival in character: comp. Ecclus. xl. 11, mdvta boa amd vis, eis yi avaorpéepet. € odpavod] ‘ of heaven ;’ ‘e coelo,’ Beza, rather than ‘de ceelo, Vulg.,—as the clause cor- responds to the é« yfs above, and marks alike the divine origin (‘utpote natus ex Deo,’ Estius) and the heavenly nature of the dedrepos %vOpwros. The term ovpavés is thus here used, not so much in a local as in a qualitative sense, placing the celestial nature of the second Adam (perdpotos dAos Kat ovpdvios, Phot.), in contrast with the earthly origin and earthy substance of the first. That our blessed Lord had a o@ua xoikdy like other men (see Miller, Doctr. of Six Iv. 2, Vol. Il. p. 326, Transl.) is indisputable, but that in His blessed earthly body there was ever a concealed heavenly glory (Matt. xvii. 2 sq., Mark ix. 2 sq.; see Miller, 2. ¢. p. 329), which after His resurrec- tion became fully disclosed (see notes on ver. 44) is equally indisputable. The contrast here, however, between the first man and the Second Man is simply broad and general (see Calvin zz loc.), and prepares for the contrasts that follow. 48. olos 6 Xoikds k.t.X.] ‘As ts the earthy, such also are they that are earthy ;’ application of the foregoing to the contrast between the nature and condition of the present body and that of the resurrection body; ‘as is the earthy first man, in regard of his bodily substance, so also are his descendants, in regard of their bodily substance.’ Both are alike xotkoi; both have alike a body formed out of dust, and (‘ratione suz materiz,’ Estius) re- Cuap. XV. 48-49. 1 CORINTHIANS. 391 Lal - nr t TOLOUTOL Kai O14 YyoiKo’, Kal olos Oo émoupdyios, TovodTOL Kal ot Jas! ‘ ? U a ” Ea €mroupaviot* Kat Kalas éepopécapev THY ElKdva TOD oiKOv, a / hopécopev Kat THY ElKOVa TOV émaupaviou. 49. popésouey] So Rec., Rev. (with margin). The reading here presents very great difficulty. It is impossible to deny that the subj. popéowuev (Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Westc. and Hort) is supported by very greatly preponderating authority. At the same time it seems equally impossible to deny that not only the context, and the whole tenor of the argument (throughout of a physi- ological rather than of an ethical character), are in favor of the future, but further, that the perceptive or hortative subjunctive is here singularly out of place and unlooked for. In this great difficulty, and this conflict between external authority and internal probability, we seem reluctantly forced to believe that we have here a very early instance of itacism, and that we may be justified in reading the future, with B; a few mss.; Arm., Aith.; some little patristic testimony, and a distinct statement of Theodoret. A somewhat similar differ- ence of reading occurs in James iv. 15, but there the balance of external autho- tity is very different. solvable into dust again. The ‘potuit non mori’ of the first Adam and his descendants (see Dorner, Christian Doctr. § 39. 4, Vol. 11. p. 71, Transl.), and the ‘natural immortality which the tree of life would have supplied to him and to them if they had remained in innocence (see Bp. Bull’s discourse ‘On the State of Man before the Fall,’ Engl. Theol. Works, p. 446 sq. (Oxford, 1844) ; comp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, Iv. 2, Vol. Il. p. 325, Transl.), is not here touched upon: the Apostle is here simply speaking of the body in regard of its substance and material. Kal olos 6 érroupdvios K.T.A.] ‘and as is the heavenly such also are they that are heavenly :’ ‘as is the ascended Lord, He that sits év rots éwoupaviois (Eph. ii. 20), so also are they that, raised by the power of His resurrection, become the citizens of the ‘IepovoaAtu émovpdvios (Heb. xii. 22), and sit with Him éy rots émovpaviots, not in spirit only (comp., Eph. ii. 6), but in local actuality.’ The spiritual body is to be atuuoppos te oauatt ths Sdks avtod (Phil. iii. 20). Having thus stated the general prin- ciple,—the correlation, in regard of 41 On this latter passage, see Winer, Gr. § 41. 4. 4, corporeal nature, of the 6 xoixés and the of xoixof and of the 6 émovpdvios and the of émovpdvio1,— the Apostle pro- ceeds to apply the statement to him- self and to his readers. 49. Kal Kabads épopécapev K.7.A.] ‘And as we bore the image of the earthy ;’ the aorist referring to the past mortal life, which is contemplated, as it were, in retrospect, and at the epoch of the transition from the earthy to the heavenly: see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. a, note. In this and many similar cases the idiom of our language suggests the use either of a present or perfect: the shade of thought, however, which the Greek aorist carries with it, is in each case obscured : see Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 14, and notes oz Phil. i. 29. The meaning of gopeiy as distinguished from that of oépew.—the latter de- noting ‘actionem simplicem et transi- toriam,’ the former, ‘ actionis ejusdem continuationem,’—is commented on, and illustrated by, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 585, and is fully maintained in the N. T.: see Matt. xi. 8, John xix. 5, Rom. xiii. 4, James ii. 3. We might here not inappropriately translate, 322 Mortal must become immortal, and corrupt- ible, incorruptible. The victory over death will 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP. XV. 49-51. © Tobdro Sé dyus, adeAdol, dtr capE Kal aiwa Bacthelav Ocod KAnpovoyhoas ov Svuva- then, thanks be to God, be complete: so be steadfast. 50. divara] So Zisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on external authority which, with the internal probability of a grammatical correction, apparently preponder- ates: Rec., Lachm., Rev., dSivavrat. ‘wore the image ’ (compare 2 Cor. v. 2 sq.): so Syr., 4th., Arm. The eikav Tod xoiKod (‘ imago terreni Adam,’ Est.), as the context clearly indicates, is the odua Wuxindy ; the eixdv rod émovpaviou (‘imago hominis ccelestis, scilicet Christi,’ Est.), the c@ua mvev- Marikdy : Comp. ver. 44. ; 50-58. Zhe necessity of the final change, and the triumph of final victory: concluding exhortation. 50. Todro 8€ bye] ‘ Wow this J say:’ transition to the concluding portion of the great address; the verse serving alike to enhance and substantiate the statement of ver. 49, and to prepare for the revelation of ver. 51 sq. The Tovro must thus be referred to what follows, and the 67 taken, not aitioAo- yix@s (Beza), but in its ordinary expo- nential sense. Reuss regards it as simply the 8r: recttativum, and omits it in translation. The tenor of the sen- tence is, however, in favor of the ex- pository sense: comp. ch. vii. 29, and see notes 27 Joc. oapé kal aipa] ‘flesh and blood:’ scil. man’s mortal nature; odpt, capt ovoa, ov KAnpovomel. kal aiua, aiua bv, ov KAnpovouet, Severian. On the expression odpt ka) aiua, see notes oz Ga/.i.16. The Apostle pre- cludes all such conceptions by the strong ov 5évara. In the ancient creeds (as in our Baptismal Service) the regu- lar form of expression was ‘the resur- rection of the flesh’ (see Bp. Pearson, Creed, Art. XI.): by the expression, however, nothing further was intended than a profession of belief in the essen- tial identity of the risen body with the former body, and, probably, a protest against the early teaching of the school of Origen : see Delitzsch, Bib/. Psychol. VII. I, p. 541 (Transl.). The specula- tion of Miiller (Doctr. of Sin, Iv. 2, Vol. II. p. 327) as to the possibility of the future body consisting, not of flesh and blood, but of ‘ flesh and bone,’ like to the body of the risen Lord (Luke Xxiv. 39), is suggestive, but precarious. On the nature of the resurrection body, see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 153. Ul. 4, Vol. Iv. p. 413 sq. (Transl.), and on the three views that have been entertained on the difficult question of identity, see Herzog, Real.-Encycl. Art. ‘ Auf- erstehung,’ Vol. I. p. 765 sq. ob8é H pOopa K.t.d.] ‘ard that cov, upiion doth not inherit incorruption ;’ this second member being, in each particu- lar, in exegetical parallelism with the former member, and equally with it de- pendent on the foregoing 87. Meyer rightly calls attention here to the rhetorical force of the abstracts; not 7) pOaprév (ver. 53) and 7d &pOaprtor, but 7 pOepd and 4 apOapota. On the use of the ethical present xAnpovoue?, as marking the fixed and enduring principles of God’s ordering of the world, see notes on ch. v. 13, and ox Eph. v. 5. The future xAnpovouhoe is adopted by Zachm. on good, but in- sufficient authority. 51. 80d puornpiov «.t.d.] ‘ Behold, I tell you a mystery :’ revelation, solemnly and emphatically introduced, of the full meaning of the declarations in the preceding verse,—and, in what fol- Te G.O ROE NYE Eel AUN Si Cuap. XV. 51, 52. 323 Tat, ovde ) POopa tTHv apOapciay Krnypovopet. *| iSod pvartrp.ov buiv Neyo: Tavtes ov KoLunOnooueOa, Tavtes 5é adraynoOMEOa, 2 ey atouw, év pity op0adpod, év TH éoyaTn cddTUyyL* cad- 51. mdévres ov] The reading in this important passage presents some diffi- culties. The best critical opinions, however, seem now clearly settling down in favor of the text. ec. adds mév after mdvres with good critical authority: the preponderance, however, both of external evidence and internal considera- tions is clearly in favor of the text. So Zisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort; Lachm. places wév in brackets. In what follows, Rec., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort adopt ov Koiunoducda, mavtes 5& GAAarynodueda, on clearly pre- ponderating authority, and, it may be added in consonance with St. Paul’s teaching, both in this chapter and in t Thess. iv. 13 sqq.: Lachm., ob mdytes 5€ adAarynodpueba. lows, concluding and conclusive an- swer to the great question of ver. 35: Wuxaywye? aitovs, TA Kexpuupeva dnAar, Theod. On the meaning of uvorhpiov (‘something not cognizable by, or not wholly comprehensible by, unassisted human reason’), comp. notes oz Eph. Wai 32: TAYTES OD KOLULNT pea] ‘We shall not all of us sleep:’ the mavtes being emphatic in each member (‘all of us will not sleep, but all of us will be changed’), and the od being connected, naturally and closely, with the verb. There is thus no trajection of the negative (Chrys., Theoph., ov mdyvtes), but a double declaration in regard of the mdvres, necessitated by the difficulty that would have been felt, if it had simply been said that a// would be changed at the zrapovota (the primary and essential substance of the svorhpiov), and no recognition taken of the possibility that some might be then alive. The ‘all of us’ is thus to be understood as including Christians generally (contrast Winer, Gr. § 61. 5, where, though the writer declares in favor of the narrower view, he seems to feel the difficulty of it; see Prof. Moulton’s note), and not, with Meyer, to be restricted to those alive at the Lord’s coming, the qmets of (Gvres of meotrerméuevor Of I Thess. iv. 17. The See the valuable note of Westc. and Hort, Vol. 1. p. 115 sq. Apostle might have expressed the same sentiment by converting the first member into a concessive clause, — ‘we shall all be changed, even though we shall not all pass through death,’ but the force of the passage would have been impaired, and the substance of the pvorhpiov, which certainly in- cludes the subordinate as well as the primary truth (mdyres dAAaynodpueda) less sharply presented to the reader. The distinct emphasis resting on the mavres alleviates, if it does not wholly remove, the overpressed grammatical difficulty: comp. Buttmann, Gramm. LV. T. p. 106, note. 52. €v arépw] ‘77 a moment:’ the neuter &touoy being here applied to time, which is regarded as ‘ tam breve ut insecabile sit,’ Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. I. p. 2390: compare, or rather con- trast, Aristot. Phys. VIII. 8. 24, ovx ofdv Te eis arduous xpdvous Biaipetoda Toy xpévov. The neuter &kapes (‘too short to be cut’) is similarly used in classical and in later Greek; comp. Aristoph. Plut. 244, ev akapel xpdvov, and év axape? alone in Lucian. Both this term and the év pry dpOadpod (‘in ictu oculi,’ Vulg., ‘in momentaneo oculi motu,’ Tertull. — whether of pupil, as Theod., or of eyelid, as, more probably, Chrys., Theoph.) are appended to the pre- 324 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP. XV. 52, 53- mice. yap, Kal oi veKpol eyepOncovtar apOaprot, Kal Tpets addra- ynoopela. Set yap 70 POaptov Todt évdvcacbat apOapciay ceding clause to mark the instan- taneous nature of the peraoxnuatiouds, and to obviate any conception of a passage through death being regarded as a physical necessity in the process of transformation : see Delitzsch, 276/. Psychol. Vil. 1. p. 538 (Transl.), and comp. notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 17. The term porj is supported by some authority, and may have given rise to the ‘ictu’ (rather than ‘nictu’) of Vulg.: see Jerome, 2. ad Minerv. et Alex. (Opp. Vol. I. p. 902, ed. Vallars). év Tq éoXaty oddmyy] ‘at che last trump ;’ the év here passing, by a very intelligible transition, from a local into a temporal sense, ‘zz the sounding of the last trumpet,’ ze. ‘at the time when the sound is heard,’ éray 7 TeAevTula odAmyt 7xhon, Theod.: see Winer, Gr. § 48, év, 2. There are no sufficient grounds for supposing that there is here any reference to the seventh Apocalyptic trumpet (Rev. xi. 15), or to the seventh and last trumpet which Rabbinical tradition has connected with the end of the world and, especially, with the resurrection of the dead (Eisenmeng. Zztd. Judenth., Vol. I. p. 929), the reference being plainly to that odAmvyyos wy} to which the Lord him- self alludes (Matt. xxiv. 31), and which the Apostle had already specified in his First Epistle to the Thessalonians (ch. iv. 16; see notes zz Joc.). This odAmvyt the Apostle here terms éoxdTn, not with reference to any preceding series (0AAa) gwval cadtlyywv ylyvovrat, Severian), but as connected with the close of this aiév and the last scene of this world’s history; ‘que finem szculi diemque novissimum adesse nuntiat,’ Est. Whether it is to be regarded as announcing the Lord’s presence (comp. Exod. xix. 16), or as awakening the dead and summoning them and the living to the last great cvvaywyh (comp. Num. x. 2), cannot be decided: the latter seems contextually most prob- able; the odAmyt gives 1d rijs dvaord- cews stvOnua, Cyril ap. Cramer, Caz. codtioe yap] ‘for the trumpet will sound ;’ confirmation of the preceding words, as by a known and reiterated truth. The verb is here used im- personally, 6 cadmyxrhs being easily and naturally supplied; compare the similar use of éxnpvée scil. 6 ehpvt (Xen, Anab. U1. 4. 36), éohunve (2d. 111. 4. 4) and also of éodAmiyée (¢b. I. 2. 17), and see Winer, Gr. § 58. 9, Kiihner, Gr. § 352. b. According to Phrynicus, s. v. cadmiyxThs, the correct form would be oadmiyter: see Rutherford, Phryz. p. 279, and Winer, Gr. § 15, s. v. caAmiCo. Kal oi vexpol K.T.A.] ‘ard the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we (the living) shall be changed ;’ clause, ap- pended by the adjunctive kai, solemnly specifying the immediate sequel ; comp. Luke xix. 43, Heb. viii. 8. On this use of xaf, see Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, and comp. Baumlein, Partiz. p. 146. The objection founded on this verse, to the interpretation of ver. 51, viz. that the GAAaynoducba is taken in a different meaning in the two verses (Winer, Gr. § 61. 5), is really superficial. The essence of the change (that corruption should put on incorruption), whether in the case of those who have died before the Lord’s mapovola or those who may be alive at that blessed epoch, remains absolutely the same. On the use of the ques as simply indicating that the Apostle naturally groups him- self with the class to which he then belonged, see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 15. 53: Set yap Td pOaprov K.7.A.] ‘For this corruptible (SentiK@s, Theoph. ; the Cuap. XV. 53, 54- 1 CORINTHIANS. 325 Kat To Ovntov tovto évdvcacOa. alavaciav. * dtav Sé TO \ a >] 4 > / \ \ \ an 3 tA POaprov todto évdvontar apGapciay Kat ro Ovntov TovTo évdv- ontat abavaciay, TOTE yevnoeTaL 6 AOYoS O yeypaupévos Kare- 54. dray d¢ «.7.A.] The reading issomewhat doubtful. The words 7d péaprdv TovTo éviventa apOapotay are omitted by Westc. and Hort (with margin), but are retained by Rec., Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. (with margin), on apparently slightly preponderating authority The decision is difficult, as the external authorities are very nearly balanced, and the internal arguments (probability of conforma- tion on the one side, and at least the possibility of accidental omission by a transcriber on the other) almost similarly in equipoise. The contextual proba- bility of a formal reiteration of the whole of the preceding statement added to the apparently slight diplomatic preponderance, seems fairly to turn the scale. Apostle’s thoughts probably glancing to his own mortal frame), must put on incorruption ;’ confirmation of the preceding aGAAaynodueba, the det de- pending upon the principle enunciated in ver. 50, capt kal aiua Bactdelay cod KAnpovoujoa ov divara. The évivcacbat '(aor.: it was no lingering process; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 389. 7. d) is very fully illustrated in 2 Cor. v. 2 sqq. The ap@apota is regarded as something that clothes the embodied personality, all that was corruptible having disap- peared and passed away. Theophylact draws a distinction between the @@aprdv and the @vnrév, on the ground that the former refers to ra &fuxa (including in it, however, twa apbxots éokdTa, ofov tpixes kab dvuxes), the latter only to 7a éuuxa. It seems more natural to regard the two terms as practically synonymous (‘repetit idem aliis verbis,’ Est.), the former being the more inclu- sive and general; each term, as the context clearly implies, can only be logically referred to of (éyTes ; see Hof- mann 77 loc. 54. TéTe yevtoerar 6 Adyos] ‘then shall come to pass the saying ;’ the tére marking emphatically what will corresponsively follow, and the yerqoe- tat implying that the Adyos will come, _as it were, upon the scene, and will be realized. The Aédyos is the solemn utterance (comp. John xii. 38, x. 25) further specified as 6 yeypaupeévos, the word, not merely as spoken, but as traced on the prophetic scroll; morod- Tat TaUTa ypapiKH uaptupia, Theoph. Kareré0n «.t.d.] ‘death hath swallowed up unto victory ;’ scil. ‘so as to issue in, or result in, victory ;’ the eis vikos being associated with the verb by a kind of constructio pregnans, and representing that which was the resultant issue of the 7d katameiv: see Winer, Gr. § 66. 1. d. The Apostle, in these words, gives a free rendering of the original text (Kata thy ‘EBpaiwy éxdoow, Cyril) of Isaiah (ch. xxv. 8), converting what is expressed actively in the Hebrew (‘ He [Jehovah] hath swallowed up death,’ Rev. ; ‘ He shall annihilate death,’ Cheyne) into the passive, and rendering the mysd (‘for ever,’ Rev., Cheyne; so also the Tar- gum and Symmachus), in accordance with the rendering of the LXX in other passages (2 Sam. ii. 26, Job xxxvi. 7, al.), as if connected with the Aramaic been mMzp (‘overcame ;’ see Furst, Zex.s.v.), | The — and so as equivalent to eis vikos. original meaning of the Adyos is thus fully preserved, viz.’ that, at the last, death will be victoriously annihilated by God. This the Apostle regards as it were completed (Chrys., dpav 73n és yeyernuéva; so Theodoret, Theoph.) ; tah 326 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XV. 54-56. 4,0 c @ / ° Lal 55 lal 6 / \ Lal lal 7009 O UVAVATOS ELS VLKOS. TOU OOU, UaVATE, TO VLIKOS; TOL 0a \ / 56 \ be / a fa} "h ete / aoovu, UAaVAaTE, TO KEVTPOD ; TO € KEVTPOV TOV VAVATOV 7) apapTia, 55. vikos—kévtpov] So, as to order, Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and fort, on clearly preponderating authority; conformation to the order of the LXX not appearing here to be probable, owing to the free nature of the ref- erence: Lec., KévTpovy — vikos. In the second clause @avare is adopted by the same critical authorities, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., d5n. hence the appropriateness of the aor. karewd0n. The rendering of the LXX is Katémev 5 Odvatos icxvoas; that of Theodotion the same rendering as that of the Apostle. The form vikos is late, and apparently of Alexandrian origin; comp. Matt. xii. 20, and see Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. V. p. 1552 (ed. Hase). 55. Tov cov, Odvare, k.t.A.] ‘ Where, O death, is thy victory? Where, O death, is thy sting?’ There is some little doubt whether we are to regard these words as a citation from Hosea (ch. xiii. 14) slightly changed from the LXX, and so definitely a part of the 6 Adyos 6 yeypaumeévos, or as a free use on the Apostle’s part of the words of the prophet, as they appropriately rise in his memory. The latter seems most in harmony with the triumphant tenor of the passage. After having transported himself, as it were, to the time when the great utterance of the prophet Isaiah will be fully realized, the Apostle at once breaks forth (oiovel maavi(wv, Theod.) into words of exul- tation and victory suggested by another prophetic passage of similar force and pertinence. The rendering of the LXX is, rod 4 Sikn cov [the Can of the original may mean ‘thy words,’ though much more probably ‘thy plagues:’ see Keil 7 Joc.], Odvare, mod 7d Kévtpoy gov, 4d; freely changed by the Apostle in accordance with the tenor of the context: vixos being re- peated from the preceding words, and dn changed into @dvare,—as death, and not Hades, was that with which the Apostle’s present teaching was specially concerned. On the use of mov as marking complete exclusion from all association with the subject (otxeTat kal &mroAwAe Kal HpdvicTaL TarTeE- A@s, Chrys.), comp. ch. i. 20, Rom. iii. 27. In regard of the exact meaning of xévtpov (Heb. ap ‘ pesti- lence,’ ‘ destruction ’) it can scarcely be doubted that death is here represented as having ‘a sting’ (‘aculeus,’ Iren., Tertull., Cypr.) like that of a scorpion (see Rev. ix. 10), with which he strikes and slays. The full force of the image is brought out in the following verse. 56. Td 8& Kévrpov K.t.d.] ‘Vow the sting of death is sin ;’ semi-parenthetic explanation of what this xéytpov of death is, what it is that death uses as the chief érAov in his work of destruc- tion; it is from sin, and in sin, that death has his true kevtpov; ‘si pecca- tum non esset, mors nil posset,’ Bengel. As the scorpion has all his ioxds in his sting, so in sin has death all his really malefic power; see Theoph. zz Joc. On the close connection between death and sin, see Dorner. Chr. Doctr. § 87. 2, Wol. 111. p. 116 sq. (Transl.). % St Sivapis K.7.A.] ‘and the power of sin is the law.’ This statement has its full explanation in Rom. viii. 7 sq.; compare also Rom. v. 13, cited by Theodoret. The law, as Dorner clearly states the case, is the objective ground of sin’s possibility; it becomes the power of sin by revealing God’s wrath Cuap. XV. 56-58. 1 CORINTHIANS. 327 % Se Sivas THs duaptias 6 vopos* *7@ dé Oem yapis TH dvdovTe a lal na na ’ lo) al Auiv to viKcos dia Tod Kupiov nuov "Incod Xpictod. ®” Nate, Tal U aderhol pov ayarntoi, édpaio yiverbe, apetaxivyntor, Tepiocev- or displeasure, and thus forcing the evil state to a crisis; Chr. Doctr. § 72. 2, Vol. 11. p. 309 sq. (Transl.). As Harless forcibly expresses it, ‘ the law forces out the disease that is spreading under the skin,’ Chr. Ethics, § 14. 5, p- 114 (Transl.). 57- TS St Oew u.t.d.] ‘But thanks be to God who giveth us.the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ:’ con- trasted statement in the form of a concluding thanksgiving; death has this sting, sin has this power, daz there is One who has done away with death (2 Tim. i. 10), and has condemned sin (Rom. viii. 3): to God, then, be xdpis who giveth us, in Him and through Him, the final victory.- The unusual form vikos is maintained in this verse as in ver. 55: ‘raritas verbi opportuna ad epinikion,’ Bengel. The present part. 5{30v7: marks the sureness of the future issue; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 2, and compare Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 5. 58. “Qerre] ‘So then, or Consequently,’ scil. ‘as the victory is thus assured;’ ‘exhortation flowing from the thankful assurance of the last, and the imme- diately preceding verses, the éare with the imperative closing, with suitably rhetorical force (see notes on ch. x. 12), the triumphant verses with an exhorta- tion of a similarly exalted strain, Similar conclusions occur ch. iii, 21, x. 12, Xi. 33, xiv. 39. The reference here is not to the whole section, but, as the mapaiveois itself, by its reference to «émos, Clearly suggests, to the victorious issue which is promised, and to the assurance thereby implied that the «émos will not be in vain. GdeXkhol pov dyamyrot] is certainly noticeable as showing how deep was the affection of the Apostle for his converts, even while he is thus noticing, in the case of some of them, the gravest possible form of error: comp. ch. iv. 14, X. 14. eSpator ylver Oe, Gperaklyytor] ‘de ye firm (stable), un- moveable:’ the second epithet pre- senting, on the negative side, the idea of stability (édpaiov as KvBos, Plut.) implied in the first; see the closely parallel passage Col. i. 23, and notes in loc. The term duerakivetos is asso- ciated with BéBaws (as here with édpaios) as a complementary idea, Aristot. Z¢hic. 11. 3, Each epithet has, of course, reference to the 7d cadev67- vat (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2) caused by the false teaching relative to the momen- tous doctrine here dwelt upon: as gadevouevas TadTa mapeyyua, Cheodoret. mepromevovTes K.T.A.] ‘ abounding in the work of the Lord alway ;’ participial clause specifying other accompani- ments (comp. Col. i. 28, ii. 5) that were to be present with the 7d édpatov and rd duetaxivatoy: they were not only to be firm and unmoveable in regard of doctrine, but to be fruitful in the Lord’s work; od pdvov avtd épyaCdpuevot, GAAG Kal ex mepiovolas avTd moLodyTes, Theoph. On this use of the participle, see notes and references on ch, ii. 13, and on ch. x. 33. Thesphere zz which (comp. Phil. i. 26, Col. ii. 7, al.) the abounding was to be displayed was 7 Epyov tov Kuplov,—the work be- longing to Him (possessive gen.) and which He has, as it were, ever at hand for His servants épyd(eo@a:; see ch. xvi. 10, What that @pyor is will, in each case, be more nearly defined by the context (comp. ch, xvi. 10, Phil. ii. 30): here it is general and inclusive, — 828 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XV. 58, XVI. 1. ’ fal »” Lal / ' 43S 4 ec , e lal ovtes €v TH Epyw Tod Kupiov travtote, eidotes STL O KOTTOS Lov > ” \ ? / ov éotw Kevos ev Kupio. Make your collections weekly. These I will send, or myself take, to gy ¢ Jerusalem. I hope soon to stay with you. ‘quodcunque fit ad Christi Domini gloriam, quale esse debet omne opus hominis Christiani,’ Estius; compare Chrysostom. elSdres] ‘ zasmuch as we know :’ causal participle specify- ing that which, by the nature of the case, would most quicken the 7d mepio- ceveww —the clear knowledge, brought home to each hearer and reader by the teaching of this chapter and all the inferences which it suggests (comp. ver. 32), that no xémos could be xevds, and without fruit (comp. ver. 10), in Him in whom maytres (womroimOhoovrat (ver. 22), and before whose judgment- seat all will be made manifest and each receive Ta& 6:4 Tod gduatos (2 Cor. v. IO). év Kvplo thus belongs, not to 6 dros jugy (Theoph. 1, Est.) — which the order obviously precludes — nor even exclusively to the ov éorw kevds (Theoph. 2), but to the whole clause 6 kémos x.7.A., to which the vital words form a qualifying conclusion ; comp. ch. ix. 1, and notes iz Joc. This reference to xémos and to épyov tov Kupiov forms a suitable introduc- tion to the practical duty which is specified in the next and concluding chapter. ’ VIII. FINAL DIRECTIONS COMMUNICA- TIONS, AND SALUTATIONS (ch. xvi.). XVI. 1-9. Directions as to the col- lection, and arrangements as to the Afostle’s visit. 1. Ilepl 8% Tis Aoylas K.t.A.] ‘Vow concerning the collection that is being made for the saints ;’ transition, by means of the d€ weraBarixdy (notes oz Gal. i. 11), to a subject on which the Apostle had XVI. Ilepi 5€ tis Aoyias THs eis Tovs ayious, MoTep dvéta~a Tals exKNnolas THS previously communicated with them, the clause standing partially extra structuram (comp. ch. vii. 1, viii. I), and at once bringing the topic before the. reader: comp., however, Winer, Gr. § 47. e, Ss. v. wept, where (less probably) the clause is regarded as under the grammatical vinculum of the domep dieraéa. The unique term Aoyla (4 ovAdoyh Tav xpnudtwy, Theod.), found only here and in ecclesiastical writers (see Suicer, Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. Il. p. 247) is replaced elsewhere by the prac- tically synonymous expressions, or vwvia, Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. viii. 4; xdpts, ver. 3, 2 Cor. viii. 4; evAoyta, 2 Cor. ix. 5; éAenuootva, Acts mKiv. 17; mpoopopal, ib. This Aoyia is specially defined as being .destined for ods Gylous, — the saints about whose needs the Apostle had spoken, and who would be well-known as belonging to the mother Church at Jerusalem; comp. Rom.xy.26. Why the Christians at Jerusalem were so particularly in need cannot certainly be stated. At first the need was so great as ap- parently to have necessitated a com- munity of goods (Acts ii. 44 sq., iv. 32), —all help and employment having probably been withheld from those who had joined the hated and perse- cuted community. When this form of benevolence and @¢iAadeAdia had either partially ceased, or, from the rapid increase of numbers (see Acts vi. 7), failed to supply what was needed, it probably became generally under- stood and even partly arranged (comp. Gal. ii. 10), that efforts must be made for the mother Church by the daughter Cuap. XVI. 1, 2. / WA \ c lal fs Taratias, ovtws Kal vets mroinoare. DCORTNTEVAN'S’ 329 2kaTa piav caBBatov o Chery x, ¢ A / / a a b) A éxaotos tuav tap éavT@ TWWETM Oncavpifwv 6 TL dv evod@rat, 2. oaBBdtov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: ec., Churches outside: see Ewald, “ist. of Isr. Vol. VII. pages 335, 358 (Transl.). On Christian collections, see an in- teresting sermon by Jones (of Nayland), Serm. 5, p- 47 sqq. (Lond. 1829). domep Siérata «.t.A.] ‘as L gave order to the Churches of Galatia ;’ either on the journey mentioned Acts xviii. 23, or, less probably, by a letter (Ewald 2 loc.; covnp. p. 100). As the Apostle stood gladly pledged (Gal. ii. 10) to bring this subject before the Gentile Churches which he founded or visited, it seems most natural to suppose that this order was given orally, and in de- tail. Chrysostom and Theophylact call attention to the d:éraga as carrying with it.a tone of authority. It seems here rather to point to the detailed and explicit character of the directions, which is partly exemplified in what follows: comp. Plato, Phed. p. 115 C, Siadeyduevos kal diardtTwy ekacta Tay Aeyouevwy; Xenoph. Cyr. VII. 5. 15, mpds Td ciumimror de) Siardttwyv. In the correlative é07ep — otrw there is atone of precision: they were to be careful to follow out in detail the orders given to the sister Church. Reference is perhaps made to Galatia rather than to any other Church where a collection might still be going forward, because in the case of the former Church al] details in connection, not only with regard to collecting but to forwarding, had been fully carried out; comp. Hof- ~ mann 77 Joc. 2. kata plav caBBarov] ‘ Lvery first day of the week, ‘primo quoque die hebdomadis,’ Beza; the xard being used in its distributive sense (see notes, ch. xiv. 27), and pointing to each re- 42 caBBarwv. currence of the day (Winer, Gr. § 49. a. 6), and the singular caBBdrov being used in reference to the week (as in Mark xvi. 9, Luke xviii. 12 and not to the day. The use of play rather than mpornvy (Mark JZoc. cit.) is Hebraistic (see Winer, Gr. § 37: 1), the custom being to name the days of the week, ‘one, two, etc. in the sabbath’ (or ‘week’; see Gesen. Zex. s.v. 4): see Smith, Dict. Chr. Antig. s.v. ‘ Week,’ Vol. 11. p. 2050, Lightfoot, oz Matt. (ch. xxviii. 1), Ewald, Aztig. of Lsrael, p- tor (Transl.). It perhaps may be conceded that this passage cannot positively be cited as implying that at this time there was regular divine ser- vice on this day, but it certainly may be said that theré are traces of it in the N.T.: see for example Acts xx. I, and consider the significant fact that the second appearance of our risen Lord to the assembled Apostles was exactly a week after the first appearance (John xx. 26), and so on this first day : comp. Bingham, Aztig. XX. 2. 1. Tapa éavto tilérw | ‘lay by him,’ ‘apud se seponat,’ Vulg.; the prep. with the dative marking the locality, etc., in which the action of the verb takes place, —the idea of closeness, or rela- tion to the Aere, being distinctly trace- able in the preposition generally, and especially when joined with the dative : see Donalds. Crat.§ 177. & tue dv evoSarar] ‘ whatsoever (etre moAv, elte 6Al-yov, Chrysostom) ke may prosper in ;’ scil. ‘pro ratione pros- peritatis quam a Deo obtinuerit,’ Eras- mus. The 7: may here be taken as the subject to the passive edodotcba ; comp. Herod. (ist. VI. 73, edwdeOn 1d 330 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XVI. 2, 3. iva pr Stav @Ow Tore Royiar yivwvta. * bray dé Tapayéevopat, ods édv Soxiyudonte, dV émuctoN@y TovTOUS TréuAyw arreveyKelv 3. Boxiudonre, 3° emistorAav] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg.: Rec, Rev. (with margin), Westc. and Hort, doximdonre d0 émororar, TOUTOUS K.T.A. mpiyyua. So apparently Syr. (‘id quod veniet in manus suas’), Copt. (‘bene ipsi cessit’), Armen. (‘ quodcunque succedet’). The individualizing tenor of the clause, however, seems to render it more probable that the verb has here a personal reference, and that the 8 7 is the accusative of the defining object ; comp. Matt. xix. 20, and see above, notes on ch. ix. 25, where this usage is fully discussed. The form evodovcbu occurs also in Rom. i, 10, and in 3 John 2, and in both cases, as here, in the metaphorical sense ‘ prospero successu gaudere:’ see Meyer oz Rom. i. 10. The purpose of the foregoing command is explained in the clause that follows, —that the collections may not be going on (ylvwyra) when the Apostle shall have come to them. All was then to be ready. The weekly collec- tions were to be amassed, and to be in a state to be transmitted to those in need. The antithetical collocation of the words is designed to throw the emphasis on the tére— zen, when there will be so much else to be attended to; ‘tunc alia agemus,’ Bengel. 3. ots dv Soxipdaonte] whomsocver ye shall (then) approve ;’ the aor. sub- junctive standing in parallelism with the same tense in the preceding clause, and, with the usual force of the mood, contemplating the action as in the fu- ture: see Kiihner, Gr. § 394.1. The Apostle naturally assigns to those who supply the money the further duty of choosing fit persons to be the bearers, of it. On the use of édv for & after relatives, most probably a peculiarity of the later language, see Winer, Gr. § 42.6. Lachmann and Tregelles here adopt the latter form, but on authority apparently insufficient, the tendency to correction being taken into due con- sideration. SU émorrodkov] by means of letters, scil. ‘with letters given to them to attest their missions ;’ comp. Winer, Gr. § 47. i, and § 27. 2. These words must be joined with méuyw (Syr., Copt., Aith.; Chrys., Theoph.) rather than with doxjudonte (Arm., Rev.), as the émioroAat could hardly be the media of the Soxipacia: the ¢esting and consequent approval (comp. notes oz Phil. i. 10) would be brought about by other means; letters would be the means employed to con- vey the result. To regard all this as expressed by Soximd ew &” émoroAdy would certainly be to assume a rather unusual brachyology. In the connec- tion of the clause with meu, the diffi- culty is less, as the use of the preposi- tion with verbs expressive of motion, condition, etc., to denote the circum- stances and relations amid which the action takes place, is certainly far from being unusual: comp. 1 John v. 6, Heb. ix. 12, and see Harrison, Greek Prep. s. v. did, p. 197. The words are placed in a position of prominence (not tov- tous 80 emioToAdy méupw) as marking the contrasted course to that which, under particular circumstances (ver. 4), the Apostle might be led to adopt: ws by ei €Acyev, 71 Kayw ovverouat avTors, kal Kowwvhow THs Aeroupylas dia Tav ypauudtwv, Chrys. The word émorodal may refer to a single letter (Kiihner, Gr. § 348. 2. rem. 2), but more naturally implies that the Apostle would write not merely to one but to several of those to whom the approved messen- Cuap. XVI. 3-6 1 CORINTHIANS. 331 Tv xapw tuav eis ‘Iepovoadjp: *éav dé afvov 7 TOD Kame a 3 mopeverOat, ody Ewoi TopevocovTaL. 5° Erevoouar S€ m1pos be p ipas Stav MaxeSoviav Sé\Ow, Maxedoviav yap Siépyopas, © mpos 4. &kwov 7] So Lachm., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating authority: Rec., Zisch., 7 &ksov. gers were to go; see Winer, Gr. § heey viv Xap tpav] ‘your gracious gift, ‘beneficentiam vestram,’ Beza-mcomp. 2 Cor vill. 4) 6,)/7; 19, The word is associated with Swped, Demosth. Ad. p. 567, Polyb. “ist. I. Bie O: steph. Lex. s:v.. Vol. VIII. p. 1339 (ed. Hase). 4. éav 8& dévov K.7.A.] ‘but zf the matter be worthy of my going also ;’ excepted case, in which the Apostle will not simply send letters, but will go himself. The substantival infinitive is dependent on the &fov (Winer, Gv. § 44. 4. a), and the reference of the &éiov is to the amount of the Aoyia: if the amount were only to prove small it would not be becoming that the Apostle should be the bearer of it; maAw eis Sapideiay avTovs mpoTperet, Chrys. In the xaué and the civ éuol mopevoovtat (not mopevoouat ody avTots ; comp, Acts x. 20) the apostolic dignity is gently, yet distinctly maintained. He will not go unless the gift be worthy of the Church. The derivative meaning ‘meet’ or ‘seemly’ (2 Thess. i. 3) does not seem in harmony with the present use of &1ov with a dependent genitive. That the Apostle dd go to Jerusalem with these offerings would seem to be clear from Acts xx. 3, xxi. 17, compared with Acts xxiv. 17. This was his fifth journey to that city: he had previously borne alms thither on his second jour- ney: see Acts xi. 29 sq. 5: HAetoopat S& «.7.A.] ‘ But J will come to you when T shall have passed through Macedonia.’ From 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, it is clear that the original in- tention of the Apostle was to go from Ephesus to Corinth and thence onward to Macedonia, returning from Mace- donia to Corinth, a devrdépay xdpw éxwow (see 2 Cor. i.15). This inten- tion was not carried out : to spare them (2 Cor. i. 23) he went first to Macedonia (Acts xx. I), and visited Corinth on his return. Makedoviav yap SépXopar] ‘for L pass through Mace- donia, ‘I make there no stay, but per- haps shall do so in your case;’ there being no parenthesis, but a contrasted relation between the 6Siépxoua: and the mapayeva: see Winer, Gr. § 62. I. The present 5:épxouat marks that which was now fixed in the mind of the speaker, and regarded as almost actu- ally an accomplishment; comp. Xen. Cyr. VI. 1. 20, él ye rovrous eye aitos mapépxouat. In &pxouat and its com- pounds, and a few other verbs of similar meaning, the present is often preferentially used where the action is contemplated as near at hand: the future often seems to place the com- mencement of the action too far off, and is thus instinctively avoided by the writer when the matter is near and imminent: see the good comments of Buttm. Gramm. WN. T. p. 176 sq. Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 7. 6. mpds twas Sé k.7.A.] ‘but with you zt may chance that I shall abide or even winter ;’ the mpds buds being studiously put forward and with a slight emphasis, —‘Macedonia I pass through; with you, perhaps, I shall stay ;’ dpa mport- now, Chrys. (Cramer, Ca¢.). In the present use of mpés the essential idea of the eve involved in the root (see Donalds. Crat. § 177) predominates 332 tmas b€ Tuyov Tapayev@ 7) Kal Tapayewmdce, TpoTréuynte ov éav Tropevoua. ‘ov Oédw yap over tha: of motion conveyed by the s, but the true meaning of the prep. with the accus. may be traced in this use (especially when with persons) as de- noting approach and intercourse rather than mere passive locality ; comp. Matt. xiii. 56, John i. 1, 1 Johni. 2. Even in non-personal reference, Mark ii. 2, iv. I, Acts v. 10, al., the appropriateness of the case, and the hint of antecedent motion may easily be traced: comp. Winer, Gr. s. v. mpds (with acc.), § 49. h, Kriiger, Sprachi. § 68 sq. 4, Bern- hardy, Syz¢. p. 202, and notes oz Gal. i. 18. The neuter impersonal partici- ple rvxév does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.: it is properly an accus. ab- solute, but is here used as a simple adverb. On these forms, see Kiihner, Gr. § 487. The Greek expositors re- fer the use of the expression to the uncertainty in the Apostle’s mind as to what might be the Lord’s will (see ver. 7): Bengel, perhaps more naturally, says simply,— ‘ familiarissime loquitur.’ It may be noticed that Westc. and ffort adopt the reading katapeva. Conformation to the tapaxemdow is certainly far from improbable, but the external authority (BM ; 672) does not seem sufficient to turn the scale in favor of the less usual compound. The form karauevey only occurs once in the N. T. (Acts i. 13). The same editors place the «af in the margin, but again on authority that does not seem to be sufficient. tva dpets K.T.d.] ‘that ye may set me forward on my journey whithersoever I may go;’ friendly purpose of the contemplated stay, duets again having emphasis and marking the Apostle’s interested feeling (rhv mpds abrodvs dia0eow, Theoph.) towards his converts. The use of the relative adverb, or (according to 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XVI. 6,7. iva tyels pe bas apte ev Kihner, Gr. § 565) conjunction, of place, of instead of of, is condemned by grammarians, but is the usage of the N. T. (Luke x. 1, xxii. 10, xxiv. 28) and indeed of later Greek generally: see Rutherford, Phrynichus, § 30, p. 114 sq. Whither the Apostle was then earnestly designing to go (ero év TG mvevuatt, Acts xix. 21) was Jerusalem, and then — Rome. 7. 00 OéXw yap K.t..] ‘For J do not wish to see you now (merely) in passing ;” confirmatory of the not improbable stay, the d&pre ev mapddm ideiy (to be con- nected together) certainly appearing to point to the Apostle’s having thus seen them once before, though it cannot positively be maintained from the words (&pt: being apparently un- emphatic) that it was so. The two clearest passages in favor of the Apostle’s having ¢#rice visited Corinth are 2 Cor. xii. 14, and xiii. 1,—but even these cannot be pronounced con- clusive, as, in the first passage, tpitov Tovto may be joined with Eroiuws exw, and, in the second passage, the pxouat (see above, notes on ver. 5) may point to a purpose which, in regard of the assumed second journey, was not actu- ally carried out. We are not, then, exegetically justified in pressing the pri évy mapddw in the contested question above alluded to. On the meaning of &pri and its practical equivalence, in later writers, to viv, see notes ox I Thess. iii. 6. In this later Greek it seems stronger than the mere ‘just’ to which it often exactly corresponds in earlier Greek: comp. Rutherford, Phryn. § 12, p. 70 sq. The term éy mapédw (‘thairhleipands,’ Goth.) occurs only here in the N. T., but is found both in earlier and later Greek writers, — sometimes with év ti mapé5@, Polyb. Cuap. XVI. 7, 9. mGORTINTHLANS 333 16 is a aN 1G \ f \ > a x e lal TApo @ loelVv, € TTLG@ yap XPovov TWA E€ETTLLELVAL Tpos upas, éav 6 Kupuos erutpetry. 8 ériweva Sé ev Edéow ews ths TwevTn- a - 9 @ 7 / > LA aN \ > / \ A KOOTHS upa Yap Mol ave@yey MEyaAN Kal Evepyns, Kat ayTi- KELMmEVOL TTOAAOL. 7. éamilw yp] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., éami(w 5é. In what follows, émitpén is adopted in the above-mentioned edd. on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., émrpérp. Fiist. v. 68. 8), but more commonly without, the article. éXtrlLo yap K.t..] ‘for Lam hoping to tarry some little time with you if the Lord should permit 3’ in confirmatory expla- nation of the ov @édAw «.7.A.; the Apostle’s hope made the desire more distinctly felt not to pay merely a passing visit. The hope is émmeiva (aor., — the whole thought being con- centrated on the action apart from its development; see Kiihner, Gr. § 389. 7. ¢. 8), but the hope is subordi- nated to the Lord’s permission, —the aor. having its tinge of the future exact, and similarly directing all the attention to the action referred to: so ch. vii. 8, where see notes. It is doubtful whether 6 Kupios refers to the First or the Second Person of the blessed Trinity; the latter (comp. ver. 1o) seems the more probable; see, however, notes on ch. iv. 19. 8. émpevo St «1.A.] ‘But L shall tarry in Ephesus until Pentecost ;” statement of his present expectation, founded on the circumstances of the case (hence, perhaps, ‘shall tarry,’ rather than ‘will tarry,’ Auth.; see Maetzner, Zzg/. Gr. Vol. 11. p. 80, 82, Transl.), of remaining where he was, till the season was more fully advanced. It is doubtful whether we are here to adopt the present tense émimévw (Arm., perhaps Goth. [but Gothic has no fu- ture form]; Westc. and Hort), or the future émmev@ (Vulg., Clarom., Copt. ; Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev.); either yielding a contextually appropriate sense. Perhaps the use of the future in ver. 5, and especially in ver. 7, may give the preponderance to the use of that tense in the present verse. Pen- tecost is named as a rough date, — probably at some /tt/e distance from the time when the Apostle was writing (early in the year),— when travelling would be easy and convenient. Q. Opa yap pou K.T.A.] ‘for a door is (xow) standing open to me, great and effectual ;’ confirmatory explanation of the foregoing statement; a @vpa Tov Adryou (Col. iv. 3; see also 2 Cor. ii. 12; Acts xiv. 27 is slightly different) was now standing open, or, in other words, obstacles were removed, and a great opportunity for the preaching of the Gospel was now being offered, and, —it must needs be,— taken. This @vpa is further described as peydAn, in regard of the numbers that were thus able to make use of it (edptywpds por 7 etcodos, Chrys.), and, by a very intelli- gible transference of metaphor, évepyns, in reference to the activity which the opportunity called forth; comp. Philem. 6, and notes zz Joc. The intransitive form avéwyev is condemned by Phryni- chus as a solecism, avéwxrat being the proper form ; see Rutherford zz Joc. p. 247. kal avriKketwevor trodol] ‘and there are many opposing;’ not exactly moAAol of avtitelvoyres, Theod., but, ‘there are many in number en- gaged in opposition, —the participle being anarthrous: comp. Kihner, Gr. 334 Give a true welcome to Timothy. I urged Apollos to go to you, but he waits awhile. 1 CORINTHIANS. CHAP. XVI. g-11. 10°Kav 6€ On Tipodeos, PBrérete iva apoBws yévntat pos twas TO yap épyov Kupiov épyaterat as xaryo* © wn tis obv adtov éLovlevicn. mTpo- 10. kayé] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., nat éyé: Westc. and Hort (with margin), eye. § 462. 1. The clause gives a further reason why the Apostle must stay on, —‘a great opportunity, many ready to enter in, azd many, too, to try and hinder them.’ That «af has thus its proper force, is clear: comp. Winer, Gr. § 53.2. b. For the verification of the statement, see Acts xix. 23 sqq. 10-12. Communications relative to Timothy and Apollos. 10. "Hav 8% tAOy 6 TipdOeos] ‘ Vow zf Timothy should come ;’ transition, by means of the d5€ peraBatixdy, to the the subject of the mission of Timothy ; see ch. iv. 17. Some little difficulty has been felt in this passage, owing to the use of the hypothetical édév, Tim- othy having apparently been sent specially, and with definite instructions. The true explanation seems to be, that as-Timothy was sent by way of Mace- donia (Acts xix. 22) the Apostle felt it to be quite possible that his messen- ger’s arrival might be delayed, and that, as appears really to have been the case, he might not, at that time, reach them at all. Timothy, as we know, was still in Macedonia when the Apostle wrote thence his second Epistle: see 2 Cor. i. 1. Brérrere tva dpdBus K.T.A.] ‘see that he be with you without fear;’ the a marking the intention of the verb (comp. 2 John 8, BAémete Eavtots, va wh amor€eonTe; Col. iv. 17, BAémre Thy Siaxoviay ... iva avthv mwAnpois), and the change from the more usual BAémere wh with a posi- tively expressed predication, to the Baémere iva, with a negatively expressed predication, being designed to give greater force and prominence to the adverb; ‘so receive him that his in- tercourse with you may be free and fearless ;’ ‘secure apud vos agat,’ Est. On this union of modal adverbs with elvat, ylyverOa «.7.A., see Kiihner, Gr. § 353. 4, § 355. a. 1: comp. Thucyd. II. 14, XaAeT@s avTois } avdoracts éyeveTo. Why this direction was given is dif- ferently explained. The direction in the next verse, especially when com- pared with 1 Tim. iv. 12, seems almost certainly to indicate that it was the youth of Timothy (he was now seven or eight years younger than when his vedrns was alluded to in 1 Tim. /.c.: see notes zz Joc.) that suggested the Baémerex.t.A. So rightly Chrys., Theod., al. The inference that Timothy was of a timid disposition (De Wette, Al- ford) cannot be substantiated : comp. notes oz 2 Tim. i. 6. Td yap ¢pyov Kuptov x.t.d.] ‘for he works the work of the Lord ;’ in confirmation of the direction just given; amd 77 diaxo- vias a&idmictoy avtoy moet, Chrys. On the term épyov Kupiov, see notes on ch, xv. 58. II. ph Tis obv K.T.A.] ‘let no mean therefore set him at nought :’ a stronger expression than the katagpoveirw of 1 Tim. iv. 12, and to be translated ac- cordingly; ‘pro nihilo habeat,’ Beza, and so apparently Arm., which adopts a term compounded similarly to the Greek. Bengel very pertinently cites Ps. cxix. 141, vedtepos eyé ciut ad efov- devwuévos. This clause is only to be separated by a colon from what pre. cedes. What follows is matter of a slightly different nature : eis Thy 70d ma- CuHap. XVI. 11, 12. 7 COR TINGE ELAN Ss 335 méurpate Sé adtov év eipnvn, iva ENOn pos pe exdéYowar yap QUTOV META TOV adEeApOv. ~ E [lepi dé’ AtroAXw® Tod adedgod, iA ca) a fal TohAa Tapekdreoa adtov iva éEXOy mpos buds peTa TOV adeApav* Kal TavtTws ovK hv OédAnpa va viv ENOn, EdevoeTas 5é, OTav evKalpnon. 11. mpds we] So Rec., Tisch., Weste Lachm., Treg., mpds eué. Ontod Oepameiay avTovs dieyetper, Theod. mporepare St aitov év eiphry] ‘ But set him on his way in peace ;’ con- trasted statement; ‘far from giving him cause for apprehension and anxi- ety, or setting at nought him and his counsels, show him friendly attention —in peace;’ i.e. in a spirit wholly re- moved from opposition and conten- tion; ‘humanitate prosequimini,’ Est. The words év eiphvn are connected with what follows by Hofmann, on the ground that they form an aimless ad- dition to what precedes. Surely the whole tenor of the context shows that it is to the acts of the Corinthians that attention is directed, and that the mo- dal clause is needed to give the mpo- méeuare its actual, as well as its implied, aspect of true Christian @epamela: eipn- ynv avaraBbytTes mpoTeupare avtoy ey TH nuetépa duovola kad eiphyn, Origen. pera tav a8Sedpav ‘ with the brethren ;’ scil. who are with him; comp. ver. 12. Only one, viz. Erastus (of Corinth) is mentioned by St. Luke as being sent with Timothy (Acts xix. 22); but this by no means excludes the possibility of others having gone with them, or of the Apostle’s expecting that Timo- thy would be joined by others on his return after his mission. 12. ILept 8 “ArrodAAd tod ddeApod] * But concerning Apollos the brother ;’ transition to the subject of Apollos, and to the desire apparently entertained, and perhaps expressed to St. Paul (comp. Ambrost.), on the part of the Corin- . and Hort, on preponderating authority : thians, that the eloquent and persuasive Alexandrian (Acts xix. 24 sqq.) should pay them a second visit. Subjects in which the Corinthians were interested are similarly introduced ver. 1, and ch. Vil. I, 25, Vill. I, xu. 1. On the’ sortiof extra-structural character of this ep K.T.A., see Winer, Gr. § 47. e, and comp. notes onver.1. The Tov adeApod is probably added to show the close relation that existed between St. Paul and Apollos (Est.), and the unreason- ableness of regarding them as repre- sentatives of different parties. TOANG Tapekdreoa K.T.A.] ‘LZ besought him much that he should come unto you with the brethren ;’ the wa denoting alike the subject and the purpose of the entreaty; see 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 12, Col. i. 9, and notes oz Eph.i.17. The brethren here alluded to are certainly not companions of the Apostle’s who are supposed to have joined with him in the request (Hof- mann), but the (Corinthian) brethren who were the bearers back of this Epistle to Corinth. Kal wavTes K.T.A.] ‘and there was not will at all (02 his part) that he should come now ;’ the iva still more distinctly marking the subject of the @éAnua, and propor- tionately obscuring the idea of pur- pose; comp. Matt. xviii. 14, John. vi. 39, 40, and see notes on ch. xiv. 5, Winer, Gyr. § 44. 8. 4, and the sensible remarks of Buttmann, VV. 7. Gramm. p- 204 sq. Apollos was unwilling to go, perhaps from some fear that his 336 Be firm in faith. all things in love. Do 1 CORINTHIANS: Cuap. XVI. 12-15. By, a / > lal ¥ b) r) f PNYOPELTE, ad tas a €v TH TiOTEL, AV pe 6 nr 0 : 14 / ¢€ r rc] > / / 6 2 . Ceo €, KPATALOVIOVE TTAVTA ULWV EV aYaTTH YiwWeoUw presence might call out anew the spirit of faction and party (comp. Origen zz foc. ap. Cramer, Cat.), but more likely from local and temporary circum- stances which, in his judgment, at that time absolutely precluded him. To refer the @éAjua to the will of God (as apparently Theod., Theoph.; comp. Bengel) when nothing to suggest such a reference is found in the context, is, as Estius rightly says, ‘ nimis coactum.’ On maytws ov and its parallelism with the N.T. mas ov, see Buttmann, JV. 7. Gramm. p. 204. brav cdkapyjoy] ‘when he shall have found opportunity,’ “ubi commodum tempus nactus fuerit.’ The form evaipety occurs Mark vi. 31, Acts xvii. 21. It is found in Polybius (Hist. XX. 9. 4) and later writers, but is condemned by the grammarians (Meeris, p. 125, Thomas Mag. p. 829, Ltym. Magn. p. 740, Phrynicus, § 103), the correct expression being ev oXOAHS eeu. The words etaipos (Mark vi. 24, Heb. iv. 16) and edcauipia (Matt. xxvi. 16, Luke xxii. 6), are perfectly good Attic words, but not in the sense of cxoAatos and cxoAf: see Rutherford, Pry. p. 205. 13, 14. LZxhortations. 13. Ipnyopetre «.7.d.] ‘Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, quit yourselves like men, be strong. In these four vigorous exhortations, together with that in verse 14, the Apostle sums up the whole duty of the Corinthian con- vert in the trying times and amid the varied temptations in which this Epistle would find him. That duty is set forth as involving five Christian graces, name- ly, — watchfulness (spiritual brightness and alacrity: opp. to 7d KaOeddev, 1 Thess. v. 6, comp. Matt. xxv. 13; as- sociated with vfpew, 1 Thess. /.c., 1 Pet. v. 8: the form is late, Phrynicus, § 9s), steadfastness in the faith (ever a sure test whether baptismal grace is work- ing within, Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 25. 4, p- 227, Transl.: contrast kAvdwvt- ¢eoOat, Eph. iv. 16, and sadeveorOa, 2 Thess. ii. 2), Christian manliness (‘ viriliter agite,’ Vulg.: dr. Aeydu. in N.T., but of not uncommon occurrence in classical and later writers ; connected with ioxvoare, Macc. ii. 64, and con- trasted with deaAatvew, Plutarch, Wor. p- 1046 F), spiritual strength (comp. Eph. iii. 16 : passive in form, but prob- ably middle in meaning; comp. Luke i. 80, ii. 40; a later form, kparivecOa being the earlier and correct form), and in the following verse, Christian love. The illustrative comment on this verse by Origen (Cramer, Caz.) is too long for citation, but is well worth referring to. 14. wavra dpov K.t.d.] ‘let all your doings be done in love ;’ the pres. imper. marking each action in its evolution. Love is to be the all-embracing sphere in which all is to be done: Chrysostom cites the words under the form, rdyta peta aydans yivecbw, but this is a much weaker form : love would thus only be represented as a concomitant: comp. Eph. vi. 23, and notes zz Joc. On the spiritual significance of the precept, see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 19. 6, p. 173 (Transl.), and comp. Rothe, Chr. Lthik, § 156, Vol. 1. p. 536 (ed. 2). 15-18. Communications relative to the house of Stephanas and others. 15. Ilapaxako 8 x.7.A.] ‘Vow J be- seech you brethren,—ye know the house of Stephanas:’ transition (8& wetaBarixey) to special commendation of Stephanas and his house, and to similar commendatory mention of the Cuap. XVI. 15, 16. Yield respect to the household of Stephanas. He, Fortunatus, and Achaicus refreshed me. 1 CORINTHIANS. 33T 15 Tlapaxar® O€ buds, adedpot> oldate Thy , / an vA oiKiay repava, Ort éotiy atapx? THs a 4 / vA "Axaias Kai eis Svaxoviay tots aylou éra€av éautovs: ' iva Kal Upeis UToTacanabe Tols ToLOUTOLS Kai TaYTi TH GUVEpyoUVTL Kat other Corinthians who had come with him, and were now at Ephesus. The construction is suspended, the tva rai k.T.A. (ver. 16) being dependent upon the mapaxkad@, and the o¥Sare x.7.A. (oféa7re cannot possibly be an impera- tive) a parenthetically appended com- ment designed to enhance the entreaty and to justify the substance of it. The oiate «.T.A. is, however, as De Wette rightly observes, not a pure parenthe- sis: the rots tosovtos in the clause which carries on the suspended struc- ture being really dependent for its ex- planation on the parenthetical portion which has preceded it. Stephanas and his household had been baptized by the Apostle (ch. i. 16), and appear from this passage to have been among the most devoted of the Christian con- verts. Nothing more is known of them. arapx THs Axatas] ‘the firstfruits of Achaia :’ more fully, Rom. xvi. 5, amapxh tis “Agias eis Xpisrdv. There is no reason for modi- fying the meaning of amapxy. Diony- sius, Damaris, and others with them (Acts xvii. 34), might individually have embraced the faith a short time before them, but, as a family, those here mentioned distinctly deserved the title. The province of Achaia included the Peloponnesus, Hellas proper, and the adjacent islands: with Macedonia it represents the whole of Greece : comp. Re Dhesss dec 7.)6. kal éragay K.t.A.] ‘and that they set themselves to minister to the saints;’ the rt ex- tending over both clauses, or rather, being mentally repeated before the ératay: ‘sermo pluralis refertur ad domum Stephanz, quz est collectiva 43 multorum,’ Est. The expression tTdooew éavtovs seems to mark the steady purpose and devotion of these converts: Schleusner (Zex. s. v. rdoow) appositely cites Plato, Republ. p. 371 C, éavtovs ém thy diakovlay rarTovet TauThy: see also Kypke zz doc. Vol. I. p- 234. Whatthe nature of the d:axovla was cannot be determined. It prob- ably included much more than a strong interest in the collections, the &y:o0z being here quite general and inclusive in its reference. The dative is de- pendent on the verbal subst. d:akovia: see Kiihner, Gr. § 424. There is in such a connection a certain amount of harshness; compare Rumpel, Casus- lehre, p. 299. In 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, the expression assumes the easier form Siaxovlas THs eis Tovs Gylous : destination, however, is the prevalent idea in this latter case; denefit, that in the text. 16. tva kal dpets «.7.A.] ‘ that ye also submit yourselves unto such men (as these) ;’? dependent on the mentally repeated mapakad@ ; see above, on ver. 15, and on ver. 12. The «af marks the correspondent relation: as they were so zealous, ye ought to be correspondently subordinate: comp. notes oz Phil. iv. 12. The generalizing tots ro:ovros pre- cludes the assumption that there is here reference to any office which Stephanas might have held. He and his were to be honored and deferred to for their work’s sake. kal mayre k.t.A.] ‘ard to every one that Shareth in the work and toileth ;’ the avy in the verb being probably inclusive (‘vel cum illis vel mecum,’ Estius’ or, perhaps better, ‘cum aliis,’ Bengel), and referring to Christians’ generally ; 338 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XVI. 15-18. komiavtt. ™“ yaipw dé éml th mapovoig Stepava «at Poptov- , \> ” aA x Le f e f Ld > / VaATOU Kal Ayaixod, OTL TO UMETEPOV VO TEPH LA OUTOL aveTAnpacav % 18 ovv TOUS TOLOUTOUS. avéravoay yap TO éuov Tredwa Kal TO Umar. emruywwaakeTe 17. Boprovvdrov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Mec., ovprouvdrov. edd. also adopt suerepoy, on preponderating authority: Rec., tudv. The above-mentioned In what follows, Zachm. adopts avrol, on what is now clearly insufficient authority, so apparently Vulg., ‘ omni cooperanti,’ sim. Arm., Aith., Goth.; Syr., ‘qui laborat nobiscum.’ On the meaning of komidw, which always seems to carry with it some idea of suffering labor, see notes oz 1 7im.iv.9, and om 1 Thess. li. 9. 17. Xalpw St k.t.d.] ‘ And J rejoice at the coming here of etc.;’ the 6€ adding a zew though germane subject,— the Apostle’s gladness that Stephanas and his two comrades are come to Ephesus, and were supplying the place of the absent. On this familiar use of d€, see Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2. Nothing is known of Fortunatus and Achaicus. They might have belonged to the family of Stephanas, but, as being mentioned by name and separately, most likely were unconnected with it. Fortunatus is mentioned by Clem.-Rom. 1 Cor. cap. 59, and in a manner that has been thought to favor his identifi- cation with the Fortunatus here men- tioned; see Smith, Diéct. Chr. Biogr. Vol. I. p. 556. The Epistle of Clement was, however, written probably more than a generation later than this present Epistle. St. Td tpérepov torépnpa K.7.r.] ‘because that which was lacking on your partthese (brethren) supplied ;’ sim. Vulg., ‘id quod vobis deerat ;’ Syr., ‘in quo deficiebatis erga me;’ Goth., ‘izvarana vaninassu’ [de- rived from ‘vans,’ want]; Copt., ‘de- fectum vestrum.’ The words may mean ‘the want of you,’ scil., ‘on my part,’ ‘vestrum omnium presentiam mihi alioqui desideratam,’ Estius, the buérepoy being taken objectively (ch. xv. 31; so Winer, Gr. § 22.7, Meyer, De Wette), but the partially parallel pas- sages 2 Cor. viii. 14, ix. 12, Phil. ii. 30, seem to suggest the simpler, even if it be the less delicately complimentary, ‘your want of access to me;’ see Hof- mann zz Zoc., and comp. Chrys., Theoph. It must not be forgotten that the three here mentioned were probably bearers of a letter to the Apostle and, in a certain measure, were representatives of the absent Corinthian Church. On the meaning of avamAnpody (to ‘make up what is lacking’), see notes ox Phil. ii. 30. 18. avéraveav yap K.t.A.] ‘for they refreshed my spirit, and yours ;” proof of the clause just preceding, ‘they well made up for the torépnua on your part; for by their presence they re- freshed my spirit—and yours (the kat 7d tuay being perhaps added with a tinge of emphazing pause), inasmuch as you were represented by them, and were ministering in their persons;’ are 5? aitav mapaortdyres TH MavAw, Chrys. The refreshment these three men gave to the Apostle must, by the nature of the bond of affection between them, have borne refreshment to the Church which was thus representatively minis- tering to itsfounder. For similar uses of avamavew, see 2 Cor. vii. 13, Philem. 7,20; émvywwaokere ody K.T.A. ] ‘Acknowledge ye then such men (as these) ;’? ‘qui hujusmodi sunt,’ Vulg.; Cuap. XVI. 18, 19. TVECORINTHIANS. 339 The Churches of Asia and others salute you. aotrageta, tuas év Kupim modda “Andras cat IIpicxa ovv tH 19 Aomdfovtas pas ai éxxkAnoia THs Acias. 19. aomdera] So Zisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority, and on internal probability also: Rec., Lachm. (with margin), TZyreg. (with margin), domd(ovra.. In what follows, Mpicxa is adopted by Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort on preponderating authority: Rec., Lachm., TiplokiAAa. the collective oby (see notes on ch. vii. 26) gathering up what has preceded in the form of an appropriate direction, and the tovs toiottovs (as in ver. 16) giving it a generalized aspect. The Corinthians were to recognize such men,—men who had taken a long journey (Chrys.), and faithfully exe- cuted their commission, — and to ac- knowledge them for their work’s sake. On the meaning of émi-ywéoreww, see notes on ch. xiii. 12, and compare eldévat, I Thess. v. 12. The idea of paying honor and reverence (Estius) is not expressed in the direction, but would certainly be the result of fol- lowing it. 19, 20. Salutations. 19. “Aomdfovrat tpas «.t..] ‘ Zhe Churches of Asia salute you. Theterm Asia in the N. T. seems generally to be limited to the Roman Province bearing that name, the area of which, in the time of St. Paul, appears to have been confined to Mysia, Lydia, and Caria: see Wieseler, Chvronol. Apost. p. 32 sq., Smith, Dict. of Bible, s.v. ‘Asia,’ Vol. I. p. 124. The term thus, speaking roughly, includes the countries on the western coast of Asia Minor, but apparently sometimes with a wider, sometimes with a narrower, application: see notes 072 2 Jim. i. 15. domdterar tpas «7.A.] 6 Aguila and Prisca salute you much in the Lord, Aquila was a Jew of Pontus whom, with his wife Priscilla or, as here, Prisca, the Apostle found at Corinth on his arrival there from Athens (Acts xviii. 2.). They had fled from Rome owing to the edict of Claudian. At Corinth they were associated with the Apostle in the trade of making tent-cloth, and they subsequently went with him to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18). They are mentioned as having in- structed Apollos on his arrival in that city (Acts xviii. 24). They probably left Ephesus with the Apostle, and shortly afterwards went to Rome (Rom. xvi. 3), but apparently returned to Ephesus: see 2 Tim. iv. 19, and notes 72 Joc, The greeting of this godly and devoted pair is defined as év Kupiw ‘in the Lord,’ ze. ‘in Christ’ (notes 07 1 Zhess. iii, 12): it was a greeting, given in Christ as its sphere and element, and under the feeling of fellowship in Him and with Him; comp. Rom. xvi. 22, and notes on Eph. iv. 17. On the use of the singular where, as here, the predicate precedes, see Winer, Gr. § 58. 6. B. Husband and wife are regarded as a unity, though in the next clause spoken of in plurality wer airy): see ex- amples from classical writers, in Kiih- ner, Gr. § 370. 2, especially Xen. Azad. II. 4. 16. aviv TY Kat’ olkov K.T.X.] ‘together with the Church that is in their house. Were, at Ephesus, as afterwards in Rome (Rom. xvi. 5), Aquila and Prisca devoted their house to the use of probably one of the several Christian assemblies which must have come into existence during the rapid growth of the Church in 340 ’ S ’ a , ’ KaT oiKOV avT@V éKKANOIA. TAVTES. My own salutation, and benediction. Ephesus (comp. Acts-xix. 10, 18, 20, 26). The several assemblies, or as we might call them, house-churches, made up the local Church. For similar in- stances, see Col. iv. 15, Philem. 2, and notes z7 Jocc.: compare Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 397 (ed. Burton), Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 151, note (Bohn). 20. aomatovrat ipas k.7.A.] ‘All the brethren salute you:’ all the individual members of Churches as well as the Churches into which they are grouped. On the position of mdvres, and the probable absence of any par- ticular emphasis in the position, see notes on ch.xy.7. The order of Vulg., ‘omnes fratres,’ is, however, to be pre- ferred to the unemphatic ‘fratres omnes,’ of Beza; the distinction is real, though hard to be expressed without exaggeration. év budjpate aylo] ‘with a holy kiss ;’ the év marking that iz which and éy which the salutation was expressed, and passing naturally into its instrumental use; see notes ov 1 Thess. iv. 18. This Gy:ov piAnua is also specified on Rom. xvi. 16, 2 Cor. xiii. 12, 1 Thess. v. 26 (where see notes and references), and, under the form pirAnua aydrns, in I Pet. v.14. In all these passages the p/Anua appears as the prescribed manifestation of affec- tion and brotherly love, as ‘symbolum charitatis et dilectionis,’ Suicer. It was, however, not to be merely the ordinary salutation of Oriental life, but a &y:ov gidnua, a formal and solemn expression of the 7d GAAHAous a&yamay which was the quickening principle of Christian life: comp. 1 John iv. 7 sqq. It thus soon assumed a formal place in the services and offices of the Church, — following prayer, and preceding the 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XVI. 19-22. ~ aordfovtar tuas of aderdot "Aotasaacbe addyrous ev firyjpats ayio. 21°Q domacpos TH eun xerpi TIavdov. * ef communion (Justin M. AZo/. 1. 65), — as the ‘signaculum orationis’ (Tertull. de Orat. 18), the ‘osculum pacis’ (ib. 14), and the almost inseparable adjunct to all higher Christian worship. For further details, see Smith and Cheet- ham, Dict. of Chr. Antiqg. Vol. 11. p. 902 sq., Suicer, 7hesaur. Vol. I. p. 1430; and the references in notes oz 1 Thess. v. 26. 21-24. Autographic salutation ana benediction. 21. ‘O doracpos K.t.A.] ‘ Zhe salutation with my own hand of me Paul:’ final and special salutation, traced by the Apostle’s own hand, and followed by a solemn utter- ance of the one principle on which all turned, and of the judgment that awaited him who violated it. This salutation and the words that follow it authenticate the Epistle: comp. Col. iv. 18, 2 Thess. iii. 17. The rest was written by an amanuensis; comp. Rom. xvi. 22. It is not improbable that Rom. xvi. 25-27 is a similar au- tographic conclusion, and it is just possible that Gal. vi. 11-18 may be another example; but in this latter case, there seems good reason for thinking that St. Paul wrote the whole Epistle: see notes oz Gal. vi. 11. The gen. TlavAov is an appositional and epexegetic addition to the éuod involved in the eu: see examples of this idio- matic aad perfectly intelligible usage in Kithner, Gr. § 406. 3, Donalds. Gr. § 407. n, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 59. 7. 22. el Tis ov iret Tov Kuprov] ‘ 7f any one loveth not the Lord,’ ‘has no personal affection for him;’ the em- phasis falling on the negative (see Wi- ner, Gr. § 55.3. d), and the studiously Cuar. XVI. 22, 23. 1 CORINTHIANS. 341 Tis ov direl tov Kupsov, tw avdfeua. Mapav ada. * Yapus 22. Kupiov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Mec. adds Incody Xpiordv. 23. *Inood] So TZisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort: Rec. Lachm., Rev., "Inoov Xpiorov. great weight. Decision here is difficult, as the omitting authorities are few but of On the whole, as the appearance of the words in different order in two short and contiguous verses seems difficult to be accounted for, the shorter reading is apparently to be preferred. chosen Ae? (contrast Eph. vi. 24) marking the lower form of love which was probably openly expressed by many a Corinthian Christian, but was utterly negatived and reversed by the spirit of party and faction. On the distinction between the more personal giAew and the higher and more reverential &yamgv, see Trench, Syzoz. § 12, Cremer, Wor- terb. s.v., and on our love to God as being centred in our love to Christ, Rothe, Chr. Ethik, § 982, Vol. Iv. p. 163 sq. (ed. 2). ro avabena] ‘let him be anathema,’ — accursed, ‘ di- vine ire sacramentum ;’ comp. Rom. ix. 3, and see notes oz Gal.i. 8. There is no ground for taking this declaration in any modified sense in reference to excommunication: it solemnly pro- nounces that which the Lord at His coming will confirm and ratify. Hence the words that follow. On the less usual and later form #7w (James v. 12), see Winer, Gr.§ 14.2. It is found in some manuscripts of Plato, Repud/. 11. p- 361 D, but two good manuscripts give the usual éo7w ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 208. gi Mapav 406] ‘ Our Lord is come,’ Syriac, ‘dominus noster venit.’ There is some doubt whether the ter- minal letter 5 of the transliterated word Mapdy is the pronominal affix,—so making the word equivalent to ‘Our Lord’ (Chrys., ed. Bened.; one ms. omits nu@v), or whether it is the 4 Jormativum, expressive of dignity and pre-eminence, —so making the word more nearly equivalent to ‘#e Lord:’ see Buxtorf, Zex. s.v. 7772. The meaning in either case is so nearly the same (Gesenius, in his Zew. s. v. x, renders the Rabbinic j= by ‘ dominus noster’) that we may retain the ren- dering of Syr. as most probably that which the Apostle intended to convey to his readers. The xm (7A0ev, Chrys.), does not refer to the incarnation, but with the future force of the tense in asseverations and assurances (see Ge- senius, Gramm. § 126. 4), is practically equivalent to the 6 Kupios éyyvts of Phil. iv. 5, and points to the quick coming of Him who will ratify the #rw davd0eua that has just been expressed. Hof- mann divides up the papavald so as to imply ‘thou art the Lord,’ but without any sufficient reason for departing from the traditional rendering of the words. Why the Aramaic language is here used cannot be explained. The most probable supposition would seem to be, that it was a kind of watchword in the early Church, expressive of the hope, and almost conviction, of the Lord’s speedy return: comp, Rev. xxii. 20, where, as here, the benediction im- mediately follows. 23. | Xdpis K.7.A] 6 Zhe grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you ;’ closing blessing, differing from that in Rom. Xvi. 20 (the Xpicrod, as here, is doubt- ful), 1 Thess. v. 28, 2 Thess. iii. 18, by the omission of Xpiorod and by the in. sertion of quay after Kupfov. In Gal. vi. 18, Phil. iv. 13,and Philem. 25, wera Tov mvevuatos is inserted before tuar; 342 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XVI. 23, 24. tod Kupiov “Incod pe? tov. %*% ayamrn mou pera TavTwV ipov év Xpwte *Inood. a 24. év Xpiorg@ "Inood] So, without a terminal duny, Tisch., Treg. Westc. and Hfort. The word appears in Rec., [Lachm.], Rev., on external evidence certainly large in amount, yet apparently not preponderant, the probability of insertion being very great, and the cases in St. Paul’s Epistles in which the auqy is indisputably an insertion several in number. comp. 2 Tim. iv. 22. The shortest form is in Col. iv. 18, 1 Tim. vi. 21, 7 xdpis ue” Su@v: comp. 2 Tim. iv. 22, Tit. iii. 15: notes oz 1 Thess. v. 28, but for wera cod in 1 Tim. vi. 21, read be? duar. 24. Gyan pov KtT.A.] ‘ AZy love be with you all;’ second valedictory blessing, the optative e% being here understood as in the preceding verse: comp. 2 Tim. iv. 22, where there is a similar twofold parting benediction, but addressed to different persons; see notes zz loc. Chrysostom and Theoph. appear to understand éozi, and to take the clause as declaratory and equiva- lent to weTa mdvTwy iuay éyd; so also DeWette and Meyer. For this change of mood, however, there does not seem any sufficient reason. That the Apostle should close with the prayer that the love he has for them may be with them all, heal all divisions, and dissolve all factions, seems both natural and appropriate. This love is év Xpior@ *Inoot, — in Him as its element, and as the sphere of all its true activity. Such a love, as Chrysostom well says, ovdty avOpmmivoy exer ovde capkixdy, GAAL mvevpaTixn Tis eotl 51d kat opddpa yvnola. The Andover Press. ANDOVER PUBLICATIONS, EMBRACING VALUABLE COMMENTARIES AND BIBLICAL WORKS. W. F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER, ANDOVER, MASS. Full descriptive Catalogues free on application. ELLICOTT. Oritical and Grammatical Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles, With Revised Translations. By Rt. Rev. Charles J. Ellicott, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 8vo. Galatians. With an Introductory Notice by Prof. C. E. Stowe, $1.25. Ephesians, $1.25. Thessalonians, $1.25. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, $1.75. Pastoral Epistles, $1.75, The whole Set in Two Volumes, bevelled edges, $6.75. FIRST CORINTHIANS. pp. 342. $2.'75. “It is the crowning excellence of these Commentaries that they are exactly what they profess to be — critical and grammatical, and therefore in the best sense of the term, exegetical. ..... His results are worthy of all confidence. He is more care- ful than Tischendorf, slower and more steadily deliberate than Alford, and more patiently laborious than any other living New Testament critic, with the exception, perhaps, of Tregelles.” — Prof. Stowe in the Introductory Notice. “To Bishop Ellicott must be assigned the first rank, if not the first place in the first rank, of English biblical scholarship. The series of Commentaries on the Pauline Epistle are in the highest style of critical exegesis.” — Methodist Quarterly. ‘‘ His Commentaries are exactly what he styles them, critical and grammatical. His notes are brief, modest, unpretending, faithful, laborious, full of the most accurate and varied learning, without the taints of pedantry, and always expressed in language of the utmost clearness and simplicity.” —Bibliothecs: Sacra. HENDERSON. Commentaries, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical. Translated from the Original Hebrew. By E. Henderson, D.D. 8vo. The Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets. With a Biographical Sketch ot the Author by Professor E. P. Barrows. $3.00. Jeremiah and Lamentations, $2.25. Ezekiel, $1.75, “His Commentaries on the Minor Prophets and on Isaiah, are probably the best specimens of exegetical talent and learning which have ever appeared in England. ae The same diligence, learning, sobriety, and judiciousness appear in Ezekiel as characterize the learned author’s commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Minor Prophets.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. “ The learning, the sound judgment, and the earnest religious spirit of the author stamp a standard value on his commentaries.” — Baptist Quarterly. . “‘ Just such a work as a student needs, to get at the exact sense of the original, without any superfluous matter.’—American Presbyterian Review. “This is probably the best commentary extant on the Minor Prophets.” -- Christian Chronicle. H-9 Books Published by W. F. Draper. LIGHTFOOT. St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 8vo. $3.00 “For a scholar’s use Dr. Lightfoot’s Commentary is invaluable. He and Bishop Ellicott worthily supplement eachother. The revised text is one of the best recent contributions to a complete text of the Greek New Testament, and the criticisms on the text are concise and to the point.” — American Presbyterian Review. “ Among the modern English commentaries on the New Testament Scriptures this appears to us to be the best. The critical dissertations, which form a leading feature of it, are in the highest degree valuable.”— New Englander. MURPHY. Critical and Exegetical Commentaries, with New Translations. By James G. Murphy, LL.D., T. C. D., Professor of Hebrew, Belfast. 8vo. Genesis. With a Preface by J. P. Thompson, D.D., New York. $3.00. Exodus, $2.50. Exodus, crown 8vo., $1.25. Leviticus, $2.25. Daniel, 12mo., $1.25. Psalms, $3.50. ‘“The Commentaries of Murphy have many excellences. They are clear, dis- criminating, and comprehensive.” — Baptist Quarterly. “Thus far nothing has appeared in this country for half a century on the first two books of the Pentateuch so valuable as the present two volumes. [on Genesis and Exodus]. His style is lucid, animated, and often eloquent. His pages afford golden suggestions and key-thoughts.” — Methodist Quarterly. ‘‘ Like the other Commentaries of Dr. Murphy, his Commentary on the Psalms is distinguished by the ease and perspicuity of its style, its freedom from pedantry, and the excellent religious spirit pervading it.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. PEROWNE. The Book of Psalms. A New Translation. With Introductions and Notes Explanatory and Critical. By J. J. Stewart Perowne, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Canon of Llandaff. Reprinted from the Third English Edition. Two Volumes. 8vo. $6.75 ‘Tt comprises in itself more excellences than any other commentary on the Psalms in our language, and we know of no single commentary in the German language which, all things considered, is preferable to it.” — Baptist Quarterly. STUART. Critical and Exegetical Commentaries, with translations of the Text, by Moses Stuart, late Professor of Sacred Literature in Andover Theological Seminary. 12mo Romans, $1.75. Hebrews, $1.75. Proverbs, $1.50. Ecclesiastes, $1.25. The Commentaries on the Romans, Hebrews, and Ecclesiastes are edited and revised by Prof. R. D. C. Robbins. “His Commentary on the Romans is the most elaborate of all his works. .... Regarding it in all its relations, its antecedents and consequents, we pronounce it the most important Commentary which has appeared in this country on this Epistle. .- The Commentary on Proverbs is the last work from the pen of Prof. Stuart. Both this Commentary and the one preceding it, on Ecclesiastes, exhibit a mellow- ness of spirit which savors of the good man ripening for heaven. ..... In learning and critical acumen they are equal to his former works.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. Books Published by W. F. Draper. Buttmann. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. B Alexander Buttmann, Authorized Translation [by Prof. J. Henry Thayer, D.D.]; with numerous additions and corrections by the Author. 8vo. pp. xx and 474, loth. $2.75 From the Translator’s Preface. — “This Grammar is acknowledged to be ‘he most important work which has appeared on N. T. Grammar since Winer’s. .... The Author’s general scheme of constantly comparing New Testament and Classic asage has been facilitated for every student, by giving running references through- ut the book to five or six of the most current grammatical works, among them the Grammars of Hadley, Crosby, Donaldson, and Jelf.” From the New Englander. — “One of the ablest books of its class which have been published. .... In some respects we think the plan adopted gives his work an incidental advantage as compared with Winer’s. It is a thoroughly scientific treatise, and one which will be helpful to students, both in connection with ,Winer’s and as discussing many points from a different or opposite point of view. From the Presbyterian Quarterly. — “Buttmann’s Grammar is more exclusively philological than that of Winer, it has less the character of a concise commentary. It is thoroughly scholarly, lucid, and compact; and admirably adapted to promote a sound knowledge of the Greek New Testament.” From the Baptist Quarterly.— “It is an indispensable, and perhaps the best, grammatical help to the critical student of the New Testament.” “Professor Thayer has performed his task — which has been a great deal more than that of a mere translator — with remarkable fidelity. It is doubtless the best work extant on this subject, and a book which every scholarly pastor will desire te ossess. Its usableness is greatly enhanced by its complete set of Indexes.’”’ — he Advance. Winer. 4 Gramma, of the Idiom of the New Testament: pre- pared as a Solid Basis for the Interpretation of the New Testament. By Dr. George Benedict Winer. Seventh Hdition, enlarged and improved. By Dr. Gottlieb Linemann, Professor of Theology at the University of Gottingen. Revised and Authorized Translation. 8vo. pp. 744. Cloth, $4.00; half goat, $5.75 From the Princeton Review. —“ Prof. Thayer exhibits the most scholarly and pains-taking accuracy in all his work, especial attention being given to refer- ences and indexes, on which the value of such a work so much depends. The indexes alone fill eighty-six pages. The publishers work is handsomely done, and we cannot conceive that a better Winer should be for many years to come accessible to American scholars.” From the Bibliotheca Sacra. —“ Professor Thayer has introduced numer ous and important corrections of Masson’s translation, and has made the present edition of the Grammar decidedly superior to any of the preceding translations. He has made it specially convenient for the uses of an English student by noting on the outer margin of the pages the paging of the sixth and seventh German edi- tions, and also of Prof. Masson’s translation. Thus the reader of a commentary which refers to the pages of either of those volumes may easily find the reference by consulting the margin of this volume.”, From the Baptist Quarterly. — “Persons who have Mr. Masson’s trans- lation ought by all means, we think, to procure this new edition. .... If they make any considerable use of the great grammarian’s work, it will be unjust to him and to themselves if they should be content with slovenly, inadequate, obscure, and often erroneous rendering, where it is now possible to do so much better..... We trust that this admirable edition of a justly famous and surpassingly valuable work will gain extensive circulation, and that the study of it will begin afresh.” “The Seventh Edition of Winer, superintended by Liinemann (Leipz. 1867), we have at last, thanks to Professor Thayer, in a really accurate translation.” — Dr, Ezra Abbot, in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (American ed.). K-4 BOOKS PUBLISHED BY W. F. DRAPER. lO ete 2 Ph a pe FEULING. ®OKYAIAOY IIOIHMA NOY@ETIKON. Phocylidis Poema Admonitorium. Recognovit Brevibusque Notis Instruxit. J. B. Feuling, Ph. D., A.0.8.8., Professor Philologiae Compar. in Univer. Wisconsinensi. EditioPrima Americana. 16mo. pp.32. Paper, 30cts. “ The poem itself is in the original Greek, and is a collection of moral sentences after the manner of Phocylides, in hexameter verse, which was probably compiled some eight centuries after the poet’s death, though nobody knows when..... His Notes are valuable for the citations from Theognis, Epictetus, Simplicius, Sophocles, Euripides, Epicharneus, Terence, Cicero, Sallust, Horace, and Ovid ; some of which are rare, and all apposite.” — Springfield Republican. The same, translated by D. H. Goodwin. Paper, 30 cents. GARDINER. Biblical Works by Frederic Gardiner, D.D., Professor in the Berkeley Divinity School ; viz. A Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek, according to the Text of Tischendorf, with a Collation of the Textus Receptus, and of the Texts of Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tregelles. Revised Edition, with an Appen- dix on the Principles of Textual Criticism. [See full title below]. 8vo. pp: lvi and 268; Appendix, pp. 64. $3.00 The distinct features of the Harmony are: 1. The Critical Text. 2. Quota- tions from the Old Testament given in full. 3. A choice selection of parallel references. 4. Notes relating to harmony. 5. Careful chronological order of the Gospel narrative. 6. Clearness and perspicuity of arrangement. 7. A Synoptical Table of different harmonists, a new feature in this work. 8. The Appendix. (See the following title). From the Bibliotheca Sacra. — “It is an excellence of the work that the Greek is so accurate, evincing the most scrupulous care and thorough scholarship on the part of the editor.” From the Princeton Review. — “ The notes of the author are marked by scholarship and good sense. It is a convenient manual for the study of the Gospels, because upon one and the same page are the readings of the principal editions and manuscripts, together with the quotations made by the evangelists from the O. T.” “This book is the result of great research and utmost painstaking.”— Watchman. The Principles of Textual Criticism ; with a List of all the known Greek Uncials, and a Table representing graphically the Parts of the Text of the New Testament contained in each. [With the Canons of Eusebius added]. 8vo. pp.64, Paper covers, 50 cts.; Cloth, flexible, 75 cts. From the Baptist Quarterly. — “A trustworthy and useful help.” A Harmony of the Four Gospels in English, according to the Authorized Version; corrected by the best Critical Editions of the Orig- inal [Arranged in paragraphs]. 8vo. pp. xlivand 287. Cloth, $2.00 From the Bibliotheca Sacra. —“ The Harmony in English is a reproduc- tion of the Harmony in Greek; no other changes being made than such as were required to fit the work for the use of the English reader.” Diatessaron. The Life of our Lord in the Words of the Gospels. 16mo. pp. viii and 259. $1.00 This work combines in one continuous narrative the events of the Life of Christ as recorded by all the evangelists; and in the foot-notes references are made to passages in the Old Testament relating to Christ or quoted by him. From the Bibliotheca Sacra.— ‘It is well adapted to the convenienze of pastors, to the needs of teachers in the Bible-class and Sabbath-school, to the reli- gious instruction of families.” BOOKS PUBLISHED BY W. Ff. DRAPER. $$ F724 —— HALEY. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. By John W. Haley, M.A. With an Introduction by Alvah Hovey, D.D., Professor in the Newton Theological Institution. 12mo, pp. xii and 478, $1.25 The author discusses nearly nine hundred cases of alleged discrepancies, gathered out of a large number of authors mainly rationalists and infidels. He has classified these as far as possible, set them over against each other that their full force may be seen, and then proposed solutions for them —solutions not always original but gathered from all the critics and commentators of note. It is the only book which covers the whole field, emphatically a commentary on the “hard places” of Scripture. Just the thing for Sunday-school teachers and pupils. From the Presbyterian Quarterly. — “It is very convenient to have all these instances collected in such a condensed way, and presented in so clear a style and so good a method. The book is honest, candid, and painstaking. It will be found useful to all students of the sacred volume.” From Professor Edwards A. Park. — “I do not know any volume which gives to the English reader such a compressed amount of suggestion and instruc- tion on this theme as is given in this volume.” “ A book so costly in great qualities, yet so cheap and accessible to all; one so scholarly and yet so simple and usable ; one so creditable to its author, and yet so modestly set forth, does not every day appear. As an example of thorough and painstaking scholarship, as a serviceable handbook for all Bible students, and as a popular defence of revealed truth, it will take high rank, and fill an important place which up to this time has been conspicuously vacant.” — Congregationalist. HALEY. Supplicium Aeternum: The Hereafier of Sin. What it will be; with answers to certain Questions and Objections. By Rev. John W. Haley, M.A. 16mo, pp, viii and 102, 75 cents. “An able book, containing a clear dispassionate discussion of a momentous subject. It stands unique in a field of its own.” — Independent. “Mr. Haley has set forth the teaching of God’s word in a very clear light, and shows how it harmonizes with the conclusions of experience, science, and philoso- hy.” — National Baptist. py I “ A clear, calm, accurate presentation of the subject.” — The Golden Rule. HALEY. The Bookof Esther. A New Translation, with Critical Notes, Excursuses, Maps and Plans, and Illustrations. By the Lowell Hebrew Club. Edited by Rev. John W. Haley, M.A. 8vo. pp. 200. $1.50 The Lowell Hebrew Club consisted of Revs. Owen Street, J. W. Haley, Wm. P. Alcott and John M. Greene, who were assisted in the preparation of this book on critical points by Prof. G. Frederick Wright, Dr. Selah Merrill and a number of eminent scholars in Great Britain, Germany, and our own country. A general Introduction by Dr. Street, on the date, style, and claims of the Book of Esther, occupies about twenty pages, followed by a wholly new translation and notes of sixty pages, the joint work of the Club, and then the Excursuses occupy about ninety pages, and treat of the following topics; Persian Words and Names. Topography of Buildings. Pavement and Components, Letters and Posts of the Ancients. Early Modes of Execution. The Jews in Exile. Signet Rings and Seals. The Massacre. Fasting. The Golden Sceptre. Fate of Royal Favorites. Couriers. Coursers. Tribute. The Septuagint Esther. Tue I_tusrrations, Maps, etc., number about a dozen. “Tf any one of our readers desire a fresh and exhaustive ‘help’ to the study of the Book of Esther, let him at once obtain a copy of this work.” — Old Test. Student. “A peculiarly valuable addition to our exegetical literature.”— Zion’s Herald. “It is extremely well done, full of learning, and at the same time rich in fruit- ful suggestions.” —New York Observer. “Tr is scholarly, able, and devout. The critical work is thoroughly well performed.” — Indiana Baptist. BOOKS PUBLISHED BY W. F. DRAPER. SAR eg eee eee SHEDD. Works and Translations by William G. T. Shedd, formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Andover Theological Seminary. Discourses and Essays. 12mo. pp. 324, $1.25 Contents. — The Method and Influence of Theological Studies ; The True Nature of the Beautiful, and its Relation to Culture; The Characteristics and Impor- tance of a Natural Rhetoric ; The Nature and Influence of the Historic Spirit ; The Relation of Language and Style to Thought; The Doctrine of Original Sin; The Doctrine of Atonement. From the Presbyterian Quarterly. — “ Papers like these are worthy the deepest study and the warmest admiration of the best minds.” Eloquence a Virtue; or, Outlines of a Systematie Rhetoric. Translated from the German of Dr. Francis Theremin. With an Intro- ductory Essay [by Prof. Shedd]. Revised Edition. 12mo, pp.216. $1.00 From the Princeton Review. — “The doctrine of the treatise is, that elo- quence is distinguished from philosophy, poetry, and all other forms of expressed thought in having for its object to move men to action, and that this is accom- plished by exciting their active, i.e. their moral faculties, etc..... The subject is ably unfolded in this compact yet thorough treatise. From the Bibliotheca Sacra. — “ The Introductory Essay which Professor Shedd has prefixed to this valuable treatise, is elaborate, vigorous, impressive.” A Manual of Church History. By Henry E. F. Guericke, Doctor and Professor of Theology in Halle. Translated by Prof. Shedd. Ancient Church. Comprising the First Six Centuries. [With a Preface by the Translator, a Chronological Table, an Index, anda Series of Questions. } 8vo. pp. xvi and 483, $2.75 From the Evangelical Review. — “ Perhaps it would be difficult in the same space to find so much matter, or so complete a history during the period of which it treats, as is given in this Manual. The volume is one of the most valuable of its kind in the department of Ecclesiastical History.” Medieval Church. (From A.D. 590 to 1078). pp. viii and 160, $1,25 This portion of Guericke’s Church History continues the account down to A.D. 1073, when Hildebrand ascended the Papal chair as Gregory VII. It includes, the spread of Christianity among the Gothic, Scandinavian, and Sclavic races; the distracting controversies respecting the two Wills of Christ, Image Worship, and the Sacrament of the Supper; and the great schism between the East and West. The Confessions of St. Augustine. Edited, with an Introduction, by William GT. Shedd. 12mo. pp. xxxvi and 417, Half turkey or half calf, gilt edges, $2.50; cloth, bevelled edges, $1.25 From the Bibliotheca Sacra.— “A beautiful edition of a precious work.” From the Evangelical Quarterly.— “ This beautiful edition of a theological classic is desirable on account of the careful comparison of the whole work with the Latin text, and the addition of explanatory notes.” “ Prof. Shedd’s Introduction is a masterly essay, which of itself is a volume for attentive reading. It ought to be read before the book is begun. Thorough, searching, and discriminating, beyond the facts it communicates, its instruction and hints are suggestive and invaluable.” — New York Observer. South Church, Andover. See Historicat Manvat. SMITH. Select Sermons of the Rev. Worthington Smith, D.D., Late President of the University of Vermont. With a Memoir of his Life, by Rev. Joseph Torrey, D.D., Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy in Burlington College. 12mo, pp. xi and 368. $1.25 From the Bibliotheca Sacra.—“ They [his Sermons] are specimens of a sermonizing that was uniformly excellent. In this respect they are models for preachers.” BOOKS PUBLISHED BY W. F. DRAPER. —_—_ — __ 18 PARK. Discourses on some Theological Doctrines as related to the Religious Character. By Edwards A Park, D.D. 8vo. $2.50, These discourses (fourteen in number) were preached during the years when the Author was delivering his theological lectures. They were designed to exhibit some practical relations of certain theological doctrines discussed in those lectures, and to show that the doctrines were to be revered for their use in religious expe- rience as well as for their harmony with sound reason and divine inspiration. The discourses were not intended to be theological or doctrinal in the full and distinc- tive meaning of those terms; neither were they designed to be scientific. They avoid the technicalities and logical trains of argument needed in the more formal lectures. They are discourses of great power and richness, and were listened to in the Seminary chapel and elsewhere in the churches with intense interest and delight. They are such sermons as once heard are never forgotten. “* After carefully reading these sermons a second time with increased interest, it does not seem to us an undue estimate of them to say that this volume of discourses holds much the same place in the recent literature of the pulpit that Michael Angelo’s statue of Moses holds in modern sculpture.” — Prof. F. W. Fish in Current Discussions in Theology, Vol. III. p. 309. 1885. “They are strong and fine examples of the most intellectual, the most ‘evan- gelical,’ the most oratorical of American sermons. Pure doctrine in brilliant forms, —this is the essence of pulpit discourse with Professor Park..... The American religious public, whether holliing Professor Park’s points of view or not, cannot be too thankful for this volume.” — The Literary World. “ As an exposition by one of the ablest theologians of the age, and one who has the power of expressing his views in clear and forcible language, they will be read with deep interest throughout the church.” — The Observer. ; From the British Quarterly. — “For the last thirty years the tradition of Dr. Park’s preaching has placed him in the very foremost rank of the preachers of this generation.” “They are unequalled, we think, by any of their kind in “scope and wealth,” in cogency, affluence, beauty, and power..... They are fine specimens of philos- ophy, logic, and rhetoric applied to theology — perhaps the finest ever published in this land.” — Christian Union. “To have had the opportunity to hear discourses like those on the ‘ Eternity of God,’ and ‘I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness,’ was a most memor- able event in some lives.”” — Missionary Herald. *“ As an exposition by one of the ablest theologians of the age, and one who has the power of expressing his views in clear and forcible language, they will be read with deep interest throughout the church.” — N. Y. Observer. “‘ The volume is one of solid value, from the preface to the last note.”— Watchman. Memorial Addresses. By Prof. Edwards A. Park. The Life and Serviccs of Professor SB. B. Edwards, 1852; Samuel Harvey Taylor, LL.D. 1871. Paper, each, 20 cents. Professor Moses Stuart, 1852; Samuel C. Jackson, D.D. 1878. Paper, each, 25 cents, “Professor Park of Andover, publishes nothing that is not worth reading, and re-reading. To no man in America could the saying be more fittingly applied, that he tonches nothing which he does not turn to gold. He illumines and adorns whatever subject he treats. In the intellectual and spiritual analysis and portraiture of a great character, Prof. Park has amazing power, subtilty, and skill.””—Advance. ——— On the Duties of the New England Clergy, delivered before the Mas- sachusetts Pastoral Association. 1834. 15 cents. Phocylidis. See Frevtine. Plutarchus de sera Numinis Vindicta ; Plutarch on the Delay of the Deity in the Punishment of the Wicked. With Notes by H. B. Hackett, Professor of Biblical Literature in Newton Theological Insti- tution. 12mo, pp.172, (Remainder of the edition, covers faded). 60 cts. ANDOVER PUBLICATIONS. Sent by Mail, post-paid, on receipt of the Sums afixed, Angel, The, over the Right Shoulder, #0.40 APPLETON, JESSE, D.D., Works, 2v., 3.00 Augustinism and Pelagianism, 1.25 Bascom, Prof J., Political Economy, 1.50 BATEMAN’S Questions on Kiihner’s Greek Grammar. By S. H. Taylor, .40 Beuttmann’s Grammar of New Test. Greek (Prof. Thayer’s translation), 2.76 CaRLYLgE, T., Latter-Day Pamphlets, 1.00 CARY, Prof.GEO L. An Introduction to the Greek of the New Testament. .75 CHALYBAEUS’S History of Speculative Philosophy, from Kant to Hegel, Classical Study; Its Usefulness, etc. Twenty-two Essays; ed. S. H. Taylor, 1.50 Codex Vaticanus, Mai’s edition, 8.00 DoEDERLEIN’S Latin Synonymes, 1.25 Dorney’s Contemplations and Letters,1.00 Eliicott, Bishop C. J., Commenta- ries, Critical and Grammatical, viz. Galatians, 1.25 | Thessalonians, 1.25 Ephesians, 1.25 | Pastoral Epistles, 1.75 Pealiplana, Colossians, Philemon, 1.75 The Set in 2 vols., 6.75 Lectures on the Life of Our Lord, 1.50 ERSKINE, THomaAs, Internal Evidence for the Truth of Revealed Religion, .60 Gardiner, Prof. EF. A Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek, accord- ing to the Text of Tischendorf, with a collation of other Texts, 8.00 Harmony of the Gospels in English, 2. The Life of our Lord in the Words of the Gospels — collated, 1.00 Principles of Interpretation, 75 GoopDRICcH. HALEY, JOHN W., M.A. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, 1.25 The Hereafter of Sin, Whatit willbe, .75 Tur Book or EsTHER. By a Hebrew Club. Edited by J. W. Haley, M.A., 1.50 Harapzis, Prof. SAMUEL, The Kingdom of Christ on Earth, 1 Haven, Prof. JosrrpH. Studies in Philosophy and Theology, Hebrew-English Psalter, Mienderson,£E.,D D.,Commentaries, 1.00 Minor Prophets, 8.00 | Ezekiel, 1.75 Jeremiah and Lamentations, 2.25 Hitt, THomas, D.D., LL.D. Natural Sources of Theology, paper 60c, cloth .80 Howe, Jonn, Redeemer’s Tears, etc., 1.00 Hymns and Choirs. By Profs. Park and Phelps, and Dr. Furber, 1.25 Inmer, Dr. A. Hermeneutics of the New Testament, Prof. Newman’s tr. 1.50 Jones, A. D. Elements of the Hebrew Language, 1 KELLY, W. B., Proverbs of all Nations, Compared and Illustrated, KENNEDY, W.S., Messianic Prophecy and Life of Christ, 1.25 LIGHTFOOT, J.B., D.D., Commentary onGalatians. With Dissertations,etc. 3.00 McCURDY, Prof. JAMES F. Aryo- Semitic Speech. 2.00 MITCHELL, Prof. E.C., Vrinciples of HebrewGrammar. pap. .15 Send for a Descriptive Catalogue, with special terms to Ministers and Theological Students. Monop, ADOLPHE, Discourses on St. Paul,Translated by J. H. Myers, D.D. .90 MORRISON,C.R. Proofs of Christ’s Res- urrection froma Lawyer’sStandpoint,1.25 Murphy, J.G., Commentaries, Genesis, 3.00 | Leviticus, 2.25 Exodus, 2.50 | Psalms, 38.50 The Book of Daniel. 12mo. 1.25 Park, Prof. E. A., Discourses on some Theological Doc- trines. 8vo. pp. 400. 2.50 Memorial Discourses, on Prof. B. B. Edwards, Dr. S. H. Taylor,each, .20 Prof.M. Stuart, Dr.S.C.Jackson,each, .25 PEROWNE, J. J. STEWART, D.D., The Book of Psalms. 2 vols. PHELPS, Prof. A., The New Birth, Ministerial Culture. paper, 10 Plutarchus de Sera Numinis Vindicta. Prof. Hackett’s ed. 3 PonD, Enocu,D.D., PastoralTheology, 1.50 PUNCHARD’S Congregationalism,2d ed. .60 REUBELT, Person of Christ, 1.50 Riggs, Dr. Elias, Suggested Emen- dations of the Old Testament, 1.00 Sugzested Modifications of the Re- vised Version of the NewTestament, .75 RUSSELL, Prof.Wm., Pulpit Elocution, 1.25 SCHODDE, Rev. GEO. H. The Book of Enoch: From the Ethiopic; Notes, 1.75 Shedd, Prof. W. G.T., Works, viz. Discourses and Essays, ik Guericke’s Ancient Church History, 2.75 Guericke’s Mediaeval Ch. History, 1.25 Theremin’s Rhetoric, 1.00 Augustine’s Confessions, 1.25 SmiTH, WORTHINGTON, D.D., Sermons, and Memoir by Prof. Torrey, 1 SmytTu, Prof. E. C., Value of the Study of Ch. Hist. in Ministerial Ed. paper, .25 Stuart, Moses, Commentaries, Romans, 1.75 | Hebrews, 1.75 Ecclesiastes, 1.25 | Proverbs, 1.50 History and Defence of O.T. Canon, 1.50 Miscellanies: Letters to Dr. Chan- ning, etc., a Swain, LEonaARD, D.D., God’s Owner- ship of the Sea, paper, 25 *TAYLOR, Dr. S. H., A Memorial of, 1.75 THAYER, ALEX. The Hebrews and the Red Sea. [With a Map]. -80 Theologia Germanica,Prof.Stowe’sed., 1.25 Tyrer, Prof. W. S., Theology of the Greek Poets, 1.50 VIBBERT’S Guide to Reading Hebrew, 1.00 Whately, Archbishop, Essays, viz. Difficulties in Writings of St. Paul, 1.60 Peculiarities of Christian Religion, 1.50 Historic Doubts, paper, 25c.; cloth, .40 WINER. GEO. B., D.D., Grammar of Idiom of the New Testament. Prof. Thayer’s translation, with 3 Indexes, 4.00 Wonder-Working Providence, W. F. Poole’sed. [Special Terms.] 10.00 WRIGHT, Prof. G. F. The Logic of Christian Evidences. ; 1. Studies in Science and Religion, 1.50 SwoxtrA3ov TMolnua Novdetixdy, Prof. Feuling’s ed., paper, roe THE BrIBLioTHEOA SacRA, first forty volumes; sets, single volumes, and numbers. r¥—3, W. F. DRAPER. Publisher, Andover, Mass. a a y Mit ’ ry} vu (Arie ¢ we ri) ‘a hy oT het an | MeL ene htt OU ty acts ’ ]