they one anaes ae Prevent si ἊΝ hy le yA ἣν ὙΠ aut ὟΝ Vita rh exe vv Py) en aan rit padi fist Ph i Hi hi iy in) Ὶ et tat teh j 4 ΤῸΝ Tash wi Asta 4 y AS i] 4 δ. ΑΝ ἘΝ ἢ Waite fet) Stitee oe urs LY] ma πᾳ ΣΝ μετ. ᾿ ee Com it) niall edtesou laut vats sata ΓΝ iit WN ere Ibe Dale ' eta Vas} rite ial Patt Te ΓΝ Gli falas ni Ye yy tae Saye) ) ἡ ἢ Las ehhh SOLE UE Wit ale uA γ nas “ee Aer ek ἀν fatty ye ΠΩΣ peberiie un? 4 γε as) af pices ΤΩΝ aa ΑΝ Th} ἘΝ) δ τη 1) (achive 4 ΠῚ a) εν aheyat ‘ ΠΣ" i ? " ane iy Ta ghar swat) owe ity ἮΝ a ae ἮΝ ἢ ΤΑΝ ei ἘΠῚ ley sane ire sect uid τὴς we 6 Hide 40}. ayes CU Lal HK ὙΦΎΝΗΝ wer | ΠῚ shy sony Levee Φ ὙΜ ate ΠῚ Mis ΔΝ; it ΤῊΣ ΡΥ εν srl Pe aoe Weer {τ εὐ Φ ΠΝ) be ΠΝ Δ A Attell ἀ 4} τ eae fay ΜΝ Pa A SU asta Mi fists rans ΩΝ ᾿ heat ΑΝ tal) We ily J ἀφῶ A μόν tnt we ΜΝ 4: ἀνὰ Φεῦ vary nas ἢ ΜΙ i ΝΗ ADM ἐν alo) Ani ἡ(4ν 1 δ) ae Δ ΝΎ δι} δι}. 11} ek Le ‘a piston Ἢ ἐμά τι ΠΗ Pn ἐγ μα elo) ease erie te? bie an iat ΠῚ A iG i ΠῚ ΗΝ ΤΠ Le i by oe thee pt i; aes ΠΝ ἥν τὸ rine) ay ad re] Meh ne tats BY Nat i ᾿ ἜΜ ἐφ inti }}} get aie ἜΠΗ ΜΝ ἘΠῚ Prantl i we ANE ΗΝ ΕῚ ie ‘ ΗΝ ΠΝ ΤΗΝ: ἢ Ἢ) ᾿ ΤῊΝ ὑπ ηην ΠΥ eke Le LET ΗΝ AT UL ἜΗΝ ἯΙ ¥ NTRS) Lie a tt Outs ti ΠΟΥ AG) “ La Nab be ee ORR bay "ἢ a A TS Wisbhen Gk i} yh Ψ Ἵ } Vig beveal At ae hi) ti wy ne 5] ist AS AqAY) voy ithe Tha afte yy {2} ἜΣ Sy ΠΝ Hari ΜΔ τ ) i ἡ Hey ) + ΥΩ of ii th ΔῊ πᾷ. SS: i ἮΝ hae Al ἐν i ΜΙ Υ̓ δ ip 7 τὸ ΜΗ} ὙΠ ΠῚ ΣΉΜ με ΕΝ ἣν ΠΝ mel " ARE ΠΝ HORA ΜΆ ΠΤ ΝΣ ἮΝ otis rie) if CAML A ope ayulsn any Per ΠΝ hoy Part ΠΗ bration ΠῚ vig) PEE Nay ἢ nual hve ΜΗ ΜΠ i Ses psy a at ἢ ΠΩ ἀἀ 0 Ὁ} ΤΗ͂Ι Hearty ΠΡ Waleed ΥΥ ΕΝ, 4 ΗΝ ΠΗ SS iri 2 Ὁ} it Ἧ aged sare wl ε) ἡ φΦ vine si {SRO ΝΜ ty Hadi ap ΠΗ nO) L} ἦν ὙΠ ay ΡΟΝ sites VE ak Cx Φδα Ἦν . a eae fehl δ ἘΔ Υ Ο κΘΟΝη. i hte ip 7 yaryiels ate, nee yi Ἷ ἜΠΗ Hb ttt ay ν᾿ nv uiees i SA AMEE re ΔΗ κτλ Ιμ gt Κη Has ay ον ndial ery Ὁ) pe), ᾿" ἀρ ων [03 Mas sia wt A ethene ΠΗ thet Whaat τ Patty ΟΝ ἘΝ ἡ ives 6 ἜΗΝ i}! ὄν. at ἢ Δ heath 4 tied: ! Ὶ hath ἌΝ ν ΝῊ ΤῊ ΤΠ ΠΝ, ΔῊΝ ΜῊ ΜῊ Ἢ ΩΝ elite fae Bae { iat ἜΝ Τρ γα Le ᾿ δ it Hi ἘΝ mee 4 JA CAS, " ὙΠ ἢ Bay ἮΝ Gihtet heater (tows ΓΕ ἢ ἮΝ “τὴν SA aime sent Hees feet Ay bond Ἷ ane ΝΣ een ᾿ et 440 te i { ia Pos Fey's bite st ena Dearadyistay Ti Py ta Saeed ne A Ὁ ΠΥ ΚΗ ΜΉ Pigyetys yi ῃ FOOT μη δ ἡ hid 07) if’ Biel ttle ite ae τη ᾿ τον Δ ΗΝ ¥ Hie sui a se mit aan ital) A? Wan 2 ANS 4 erin) ἢ ΑΔ ΜΝ eer) hue) Tisha ἢ ῃ i ant ἬΝ) ἌΝ. 4 ths) i ‘yf ti vayts Ay at p LARA UCU ES IAEE Lat id VER ΠΝ 4 ΓΝ ἼΩΝ PN A ΡΠΉ ΉΡΟ ayy ifn Pav later ἐν revs ΧΡ A ry if AAT, FO COE ABA ἢ τ νι" Pr: ess) ar ΘΝ iats [ Ra | ΠΝ ἀν ΙΗ ἢ ὙΠ ὅ + δ ἮΝ " hae anklet ΠῚ Lyidiad Nie hatin: ἜΡΙΝ bide xi th ἭΒΗ ae ΤῊ Oy iat le ay sy ibditaie fore wets Medi) ᾿ ΜΡ. γ᾿ ἦν “ἢ At stay} 1 ae ati) ἢ ᾿ ἀγα ty (goa ee ii ai ἡ Hane ian ANA Ἅ 5 Ὲ} Nay) ἡμὴ: Ὁ ὯΙ Lith ΤῊ ΠΡ ΤΙΝ Cnt ΤΗΝ ἡ a aes yD Ἢ ἽΝ, estat ϑ ἡ ᾿ (4 ae fae WRN ny Hh) Pte Psi W is ἵ Mea satis) hil wii ἡ δι iH tet rT by) te Bon Tye Re hyae if " “ ΗΝ yey Hols AME A HIAEE Welty ΠΗ ἨΝ ΠΗ Η aye HF δ δύ έν With Pantani ’ ΟΣ ἩΥΔΊΝ By dat ΟΝ Δαν Η ὙΠ ΔΕΝ Ὑ Ὁ Ὁ deeb at Leela det ΜΗ ἜΦΠΨΥΝ ᾿ ἐφολρ νὰ" Ha neg abet tt πὰ tyles oeehel rere iad Ἰλία gal ἜΗΝ ἢ ny Νὴ sh τ sae 43 tte) ἣν a ΜΗ ᾿ ἘΠ ἢ iad ἣ ἘΝ Ν᾿ ΓΗ Ἐν ὍΝ ἐδ} 4 ἂν ἐδ} ιν fo ἴον, ΤῊΣ is ἡ τ νην} 4 pA bath 09 its 4 ΠΎΘΩΝ ΠΑΆΜΗ ἢ ΟΥΤΩΣ ΔΈΝ Ὰ ἩΡΗΣΙ et tt ryt Neri he Series parker a the Hw ΔΎ Ὁ vahara wigs ΕἾ nies saa Pores meee She pial CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HAN D-BOOK TO THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. BY - HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, 1η.}. OBERCONSISTORIALKATH, HANNOVER. TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY Rev. Ὁ. DOUGLAS BANNERMAN, M.A. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D. PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES BY TALBOT W. CHAMBERS, D.D. FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY. NEW YORK AND LONDON. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1 By FUNK & WAGNALLS, m the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washingto PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Tue Epistles to the Corinthians stand almost alone in character and aim among the writings of the great Apostle. They are not didactic, like Ro- mans and Galatians : the former a profound discussion of the principles of Anthropology and Soteriology, the latter an indignant protest against opinions and practices which threatened to subvert the very foundation of the Gospel. Nor do they resemble the Epistles written from the im- prisonment at Rome, two of which, Philippians and Colossians, reassert a Christology as lofty and far-reaching as John’s, while the other two, Philippians and Philemon, are the outpouring of a heart filled with Christian love, and yearning for the spiritual welfare of the parties ad- dressed. Still less are they like the Apostle’s first written utterances of which we have record, those to the Thessalonians, bearing in every page traces of the trials through which these believers had passed, and animating them to renewed constancy; or his last Epistles, those to Timothy and Titus, in which he sets forth the qualifications of church officers. In the Corinthians, on the contrary, we are introduced into a variety of the phases of ordinary life in an Apostolic church, and a series of questions is taken up and discussed, not abstractly, but in im- mediate application to the circumstances of the people at the time. Doc- trinal themes, with a single important exception, the general resurrec- tion (I. xv.), are not handled at length, although the existence and va- lidity of the cardinal features of the system are presupposed throughout, and upon occasion briefly touched upon with great vigour. The First Epistle gives us a very clear conception of the actual state of the ancient churches, their excellences and their defects, the rela- tions in which their members stood to the unbelievers among whom they lived, the errors in practice to which they were exposed, their use and abuse of extraordinary gifts, their methods in worship, their appli- cation of Christian principles in the affairs of ordinary life, and the whole movement of events as a society of believers grew and developed in the midst of a great commercial city which was wealthy and refined, but at the same time unusually depraved. The conflict between light and darkness, right and wrong, truth and error, was of course much the lv PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. same in all parts of the Roman world where the standard of the cross was raised and its adherents were gathered into a community, but no-. where was it carried on so intensely or at so many different points as in Corinth. Hence we are enabled to see here what was the true life of an apostolic church, to catch the spirit of its important movements and ap- prehend its mingled good and evil. The many questions of morality and casuistry which arose in this lively and intelligent population afford us a very clear insight into the feelings and opinions of the early Christians. The solution of these questions discloses the extraordinary versatility of the Apostle’s mind, and his power of dealing with diffi- cult and complicated matters as well as with unscrupulous opponents. ‘«For every aberration he has a word of severe censure, for every dan- ger a word of warning, for every weakness a word of cheer and sym- pathy, for every returning offender a word of pardon and encourage- ment.’’’ Nor does he ever seem at a loss. Whatever the case, he is able to meet it. No point is evaded. He solves all questions by an appeal to Scripture, or to the words of Christ, or to his own immedi- ate inspiration as an organ of the Holy Ghost. And he solves them for all places and ages. It is not by expedients or make-shifts, but by going to first principles, that he settles difficulties about ministerial sup- port, or a litigious spirit, marriage rights and duties, fellowship with unbelievers, and the like. So that the directions apply not only to the specific circumstances that called them forth, but to innumerable others of asimilar kind. Thus what at first sight is only a book of details, becomes in fact a book of principles. The Second Epistle, while partaking in part of the character of the First, is chiefly remarkable for the degree in which it discloses to us the personal character and experience of its author. In many parts it is like an autobiography. A Judaizing party had been at work in Corinth sowing dissension and undermining the Gospel by impeaching the credentials, the claims, and the conduct of the Apostle. This puts him on his defence. He was compelled to vindicate himself, for he was a witness of the res- urrection, a founder of churches, a channel of inspiration, a chosen ves- sel to bear the gospel to the Gentiles. Now if in the chief city of Greece, one connected closely by arts and trade with the East and the West, Paul’s authority was struck down, and he was shown to be a man of words and not of deeds, a boaster, an intruder, vacillating in his pur- poses and selfish in his aims, the consequences could not fail to be disas- trous. Here the character of the message was bound up with that of the messenger, If he were aman of mere secular impulses and without divine τ Schaff. PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Υ͂ authority, all the churches from Antioch to Philippi would be sorely embarrassed. It was necessary then for the Apostle to discuss the mat- ter fully and plainly, and establish beyond controversy the soundness of his claims as a representative of Christ and an organ of the Spirit. Hence the seemingly petty personal details, to which he refers so often and at so much length, are by no means to be attributed to an excess of egotism or self-consciousness, or even to be considered as pardonable flaws in what otherwise was a career of very great excellence, but are rather themselves to be highly prized, not simply as illustrations of character, but as valid proofs of that which is as important to-day as it was in the years 57, 58 of our era,—viz. the plenary authority of Paul as a penman of holy Scripture. Our Lord told the Twelve that he had much to say to them, but they were not able to bear it then (John xvi. 12) ; and he would therefore send a heavenly Paraclete, who would guide them into ‘‘all the truth,’’ so that the revelation of God’s mind and will for human salvation should be complete. It appears that the greater part of this supplementary disclosure came through Paul. So the New Testament represents the case. But if he were not what he professed to be, but were either an impostor or a self-deceiver, then the thirteen Epistles which bear his name are no guide in doctrine or duty, and the space they hold in the Scripture is a mere blank or worse. It is right then that the truth in this respect should be set forth, and the ex- hibition of it be preserved to our own day as a testimony that our faith is not in vain, nor are we following a cunningly devised fable. The Epistle is a portrait of the Apostle, drawn unconsciously by his own hand. He opens his whole heart, relating his joys and his sorrows, his fears and his hopes, his labors, his trials, his anxieties, his steadfast faith and holy love, his disinterestedness, his self-sacrifice, his fidelity, and his courage. He refers or alludes to much of which we find no record in the Acts of the Apostles, and hence we get afar more vivid conception of his character than would otherwise be possible. He was a great man, measured by any standard we may choose to apply—great in intellect, in resources, in versatility, in application, in administrative faculty—but without the least tinge either of pride or vanity. He could not, of course, be unconscious of his gifts or of the work he was enabled to perform, but the thought of these things led him only to magnify the grace by which he came to be what he was. He was a man of energy and decision, who, if need were, could come with a rod and not spare, but the element of harshness so conspicuous in his course before conver- sion was wholly wanting. He pronounced a prompt judgment upon one who had erred, yet when discipline had wrought its destined pur- pose, he was urgent that the penitent offender should be restored, lest he vl PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. His zeal glowed like a torch through life, yet it never consumed the tenderness which is needed to make one mindful of the feelings of others. His sympathy was wide and deep and constant. It took in all classes and conditions and races of his fellow-men. Carried out as it was in word and act, as we see in the development of these Epistles, it entitles him justly to be called the benefactor of our kind, the foremost philanthropist of all time. Here appropriately may be added a paragraph from Dr. Meyer’s Pref- ace to the fourth edition of his comment on the First Epistle, for some reason omitted in the fifth: ‘‘ No apostolic writing transports us so directly and in such a lively manner into the varied concrete relations of the Church, as does this Epistle. It represents the peculiar development of the Christian Church life in one of the most brilliant seats of Grecian culture and heathen corruption, a development in which the victory of the cross over men’s wickedness and their folly was more endangered, and the fulfilment of the apostolic entreaty, Be ye reconciled unto God, was encumbered with greater difficulties than anywhere else. But all the serious obstacles with which the world-subduing divine life had there to contend were met by the Apostle, who was the Lord’s chosen instrument to convey this divine life, with a clearness and cer- tainty of judgment, with a humility and elevation of consciousness, with a tenderness and boldness of utterance, with a never-failing tact, that make us follow him through the entire letter with a constantly increas- ing astonishment. And when one considers the Attic elegance, the Demosthenice force, the almost lyric elevation of his speech in which yet is heard the beating of the heart of Christ, we feel in truth at each step, how much more than Demosthenes is here, how much more than Homer and Pindar who have sung so highly the praises of 6AGia κόριν- 6oc. Ah, her true ὀλβοφόρος was the very man whom the people of the Areopagus disdained and the philosophers of Athens derided as a σπερμολόγος." Dr. Meyer’s treatment of these Epistles resembles his general style when handling other portions of the New Testament. He shows the same independence, research, insight, and careful study of the original text, which have given him his deserved pre-eminence among expositors of the Word. There appear also his two leading imperfections—viz. what is called purism, in adhering in all cases to strict grammatical forms, even when the sense seems to require another view, as for example in insisting that va always and everywhere is to be considered as having a telic force, and again in finding a reference to the Parousia in very many cases where such a reference is not obvious, and tends rather to perplex than to elucidate the connection. Still there is great satisfaction PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. vil in following a critic who is so keen and incisive, is so thoroughly ac- quainted with all the literature, both preceding and contemporary, con- nected with the matters in hand, and is so honest and fearless in stating the conclusions to which he has come and the grounds upon which they rest. The notes appended to each chapter by the editor have been intended in a few cases to indicate dissent from the views of the author, but in the main to present such suggestions concerning the scope and applica- tion of the Apostle’s words as have been derived from the labors of other writers. As Dr. Meyer in common with nearly all German critics omits to refer to English commentators, the editor has taken occasion to cite at times the opinions of such scholars as Stanley, Hodge, Poor, Principal Brown, Beet, and others who have given attention to these Epistles. The English translation has been revised throughout, but it was so carefully executed as very rarely to need correction. One of the features of the original work, the frequent and copious citation of Greek words and ciauses, may render it less acceptable to lay readers, but ought to enhance its value to clerical students, since the careful study of these extracts will tend to increase their familiarity with the original tongue as well as to render them more intelligent and more competent judges of the merits of the author’s opinions. And there are few authors in the whole domain of New Testament exegesis whose writings are so worthy of patient and prolonged study as those of the Obercon- sistorialrath of Hannover who through a long life steadily grew step by step with his work, and by his profound study of the divine word obtained a more perfect experience of the saving grace and truth of the gospel. The Topical Index at the end of the volume has been prepared by the Rev. G. F. Behringer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., who has kindly exercised a general supervision cf the work while passing through the press. T. W. CHAMBERS. New Yors, April 28th, 1884. ΙΝ ms 4 ΓΝ ie ‘ PEA arene ‘Ne ih. δναν αν κω atin tr τὴν ΝΣ Ἰὼ eerie ἤν. ΜΉΝ ΑΝ ΚΩ͂Ν μον πον espe ase mat, τὸ ἡ νην de Saal Ase ese ΤῊ ΠΗ tgliwice εγε ih ee ᾿μδδμην ας th οὐδ os Matciodie. ἐν δρον ἐνὶ ποθ Meibnlenes ue οὐ λενεμέ rior ἀμνόν besiege mend: abc ΘΜ ΕΝ wen! Zh Pee ων eT ee ee ea be Bitte μὴ Ato Ge Sepa gee La nC iC fii) pelea με μα λαμ, aaah ei ΒΕ ΣΉΝ, δ ia i bids aL, ba) Ὁ, alibi! ἐς 9) ἢ lath ite gy ener patio ule να Led ina ae € "1 hiuaey tai wT, ; νι wae itt MM Bet + +2. Stee es ἡ oat ἀπ ϊῊ ον ΔΝ Ania eM ‘ait "“ ; hoes καρ i ] Pe ate! Mees “δ ΠΝ τ weed) ca γύνν ee Δ. ἡ nal Sie eae ἢ wiles thar ἐμῶν mie ὦ whi Oe. ΡΝ De ἀν ν. εὐῤι ρον Θὰ dpe otha Ἢ ἜΣ ΤΥ ΝΣ bangs χὰ δὰ πὰ by νυ ἡ σαν αν coer thd i , a τ; ᾿ ay os hy ) ‘ + 7 Bt: ¥ "ΓΝ νι mer suiilal Aye ho δέ avbbadgen aban thay — vhs >: σιν CGE snp PQ eee ae te wealediaied i neal ἶ 1 ον ἡ Nive re ty aan PREFACE. Arter having been mainly occupied of late years with the historical books of the New Testament, I have now to turn to the Epistles of Paul, and to devote renewed labour to their exposition. In the present sadly distracted age of the church I feel the deep gravity and responsibility of the task which I have to face all the more strongly, because I cannot but bear in mind that among all the sacred writings, it was those very Epistles of Paul which were pre-eminently to the Reformers the con- quering sword of the Spirit, and which exercised the most powerful influence in moulding the doctrinal system of our church. The charac- ters of Paul and Luther form a historical parallel, to which nothing sim- ilar can be found in the whole series of God’s chosen instruments for the furtherance of evangelical truth. We possess the divine light which Paul bore through the world, and in whose radiance the Reformers did their work ; the whole Scripture, with all its treasures, becomes day by day more richly opened up to us by the labours of science ; but every- where, from the extreme right to the extreme left, there is party-strife ; and, amid the knowledge that puffeth up, the unity of the Spirit is broken, faith languishes, and love grows cold. It is, in truth, as though we were giving all diligence to afford the confirmation of increasing ex- perience to the malicious assertion of the Romanists, that Protestantism is already in full course of decomposition. Our wounds will not be healed, but only deepened and widened, by arrogant boasting about our Confessions, which are after all but the works of men. Much less will the end be attained by a wanton attenu- ating, explaining away, or setting aside of the positive teachings of the N. T., and of the miraculous facts in the history of redemption ; for these have subdued the world, and must continue to subdue it. Only in that which is and remains the ‘‘ norma normans’’ for all faith and all . teaching, and for the Confessions themselves,—only in the living word of revelation resides the God-given power to heal, which will promote the restoration to health, and the union of the body of the church, with surer and more lasting effect, just in proportion as the word is more clearly and fully understood and more truly and energetically appropri- x PREFACE. ated, and as, through such understanding and appropriation of it, the supremacy of the word and of its high moral forces becomes more abso- lute and all-controlling. To this sacred supremacy the church herself with her doctrine must bow as well as the individual. For in laying down her principle of appeal to Scripture, the church assumed not only the possibility and allowableness, but also the necessity of a further development and—where need should be shown—rectification of her doctrine in accordance with Scripture. In this way the Confession points to an authority transcending its own ; and the church, built as she is immovably upon the everlasting Rock, has placed herself under the law of growth, thereby giving augury of a future, which, according to the apostle’s promise (Eph. iv. 13 ff.), despite all the sorrows of the present, will not fail to be realized. To aid in preparing for this bright future, is what all exposition of Scripture should recognize as its appointed task, being mindful at the same time that the steps in the development of the divine kingdom are centuries, and that the ways of Him who rules over it are not our ways. If, therefore, a thorough and conscien- tious searching of the Scriptures should arrive, as regards this or that point of doctrine, at results which are at variance with confessional defi-- nitions, its duty, at the bidding of the exegetical conscience, is not in an un-Lutheran and unprincipled fashion to disguise such results or to cloak them with a misty phraseology, but, trusting to the sifting and con- quering power of divine truth, openly and honestly to hand them over to the judgment of science and the church. To science and the church, I repeat ; for it is one of the follies of the day to seek to set these at variance—to impose limits upon the former which are opposed to its es- sential nature, and to set aside its voice and relegate it to silence under an imaginary belief that a service is thereby rendered to the church, Such a piece of folly is unevangelical, and fit only for the Zridentinum and the Syllabus of the Bishop of Rome. Now, if nothing save the pure word of God may or ought to prepare the way towards a better future for the church, then all expounders of that word have but one common aim placed before them,—namely, just to ascertain its pure contents, without addition or subtraction and witha renouncing of all invention of our own, with simplicity, truth, and clear- ness, without being prejudiced by, and independent of, dogmatic & priori postulates, with philological precision, and in strict objectivity as historical fact. Anything more than this they ought not as expositors to attempt ; but in this —and it is much—it is required of them that they be found faithful. The plan of procedure adopted may vary ; one may prefer the glossematic, another the inductive, method. I attach but little weight to this question of method in itself, although I cannot ignore the fact, PREFACE. xi attested by various works appearing at the present day in the region of Old and New Testament exegesis, that the inductive mode runs more risk of giving to subjective exegesis a free play which should be rigor- ously denied to it. One is very apt, under the influence of this method, to give something more or less, or other than, the pure contents of the sacred text. The ingenuity, which in this way has ampler room for manip- ulating the premisses—how often with the aid of refining sophistry ! —and thinks itself justified in so doing, always miscarries in spite of all its plausibility and confidence, when it gives to the world expositions that offend against grammar and linguistic usage, or against the general and special connection, or against both. Often in such cases the doubtful recommendation of novelty ' is purchased only by strange strainings of the text and other violent expedients, while clearness has not unfre- quently to be sought for beneath the cloak of a laboriously involved phraseology, which itself in its turn seems to require a commentary. In preparing this fifth edition, which was preceded by the fourth in 1861, I have not neglected to give due attention to what has since been done for the criticism and exposition of the apostolic Epistle.* While thus engaged, I have very frequently, to my regret, found myself unable 1A great many entirely novel expositions of individual passages make their appearance nowadays, of which I apprehend that hardly a single one will on trial prove itself correct. Not that I am unduly attached to the traditions of exege- sis ; but long experience and observation in this field of scientific inquiry have taught me that—after there have been expended upon the N. T., in far greater measure even than upon the O. T., the labours of the learning, the acuteness, the mastery of Scripture, and the pious insight of eighteen centuries—new in- terpretations, undiscerned hitherto by theminds most conversant with such studies, are destined as a rule speedily to perish and be deservedly forgotten. I am distrustful of such exegetical discoveries ; and those of the present day are not of a kind to lessen my distrust. Apart from these there remain difficulty and reward enough for the labours of exegesis. 2 Klépper’s Exeg-kritische Untersuchungen tber den zweiten. Korintherbrief, Got- ting. 1869, with the accompanying dissertation on the “ Christ-party,”’ ap- peared too late to be taken into consideration along with the other literature of the subject. But the dissertation in question belongs for the most part to the sphere of the second Epistle. It is from the second Epistle that it draws, more thoroughly and consistently than is done by Beyschlag, the characteristics of the Christ-party, combining these in such a way as to represent it as in funda- . mental opposition to the apostle’s views and teaching with respect to Christol- ogy and Soteriology. I cannot, however, but continue to regard the process, which takes the traits for the delineation of the ‘‘Christ-party’’ from the second Epistle, as an unwarrantable one.—It was likewise impossible to include in my examination the just published book of Richard Schmidt, die Paulinische Christologie in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der Heilslehre des Apostels, Gotting. 1870. * <1 PREFACE. to agree with von Hofmann’s work : Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht.1 1 have nowhere sought this antagonism, but it was as little my duty to evade or conceal it. Our exegetical natures are very differently constituted ; our paths diverge widely from each other, and the means which we have at our disposal, and which we deem it right to employ, are dissimilar, Possibly out of this very antagonism some advantage may accrue to the understanding of the New Testa- ment. Hannover, 30th November, 1869. A 1 This work is, for the sake of brevity, referred to merely by ‘‘Hofmann,” other works of the author being more precisely designated by their title. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, [For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole New Testa- tament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew ; for those which treat of the Pauline or Apostolic Epistles generally, see Preface to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The following list includes only those which relate to the Epistles to the Corinthians (together or sepa- rately), or in which one of these Epistles holds the first place on the title-page. Works mainly of a popular and practical character have, with a few exceptions, been excluded, as, however valuable they may be in themselves, they have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the present work. Mon- ographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended denotes that the book has been more or less frequently reprinted ; + marks the date of the author's death ; ο. circa.] Axerstoor (Theodorus), Reformed Minister in Holland: D’eerste Sendbrief van Paulus aan die van Korinthen, kortelyk in haar t’samenhang uytgelegt. 40, Lugd. Bat. 1707. AupHEN (Hieronymus Simon van), + 1742, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Ontlee- dende verklaaring van Paullus tweden brief aan die Corinther. 49, Amst. 1708, al. AmprosrasTER. See Romans. BaumMearten (Sigmund Jakob), + 1757, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung der beiden Briefe Pauli an die Corinther. 4°, Halle, 1761. Buz0Ts (Johann Gustav Friedrich), + 1836, Prof. at Halle: Commentar zu den Briefen des Paulus an die Korinther. 8°, Leip. 1833. [Translated by William Lindsay Alexander, D.D., 2 vols. 12°, Edin. 1837-8. ] Burcer (Karl Heinrich August von), Oberconsistorialrath at Munich: Der erste [und der zweite] Brief Pauli an die Korinther deutsch ausgelegt, 2 Bande. 8°, Erlangen, 1859-60. Coccrrus [Kocu] (Johann), + 1669, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius in in Epistolas I. et II. ad Corinthios [Opera]. Contzen (Adam), + 1635, Jesuit at Mentz : Commentaria in Epistolas 5. Pauli ad Corinthios et ad Galatas. 2°, Colon. 1631. Crett (Johann), + 1633, Socinian teacher at Racow : Commentarius in priorem Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam [Opera]. 8°, Racov. 1635. Emmuertine (Christian August Gottfried), + 1827, Pastor at Probsthaida : Epis- tola Pauli ad Corinthios posterior, Graece, perpetuo commentario il- lustrata. 8° Lips. 1823. Fuarr (Johann Friedrich von), + 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Vorlesungen iiber die Briefe an die Corinther, herausgegeben von C. D. F. ΠΟΙ͂. mann. 80, Tiibing. 1827. Frirzscue (Karl Friedrich August), + 1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : De non- nullis posterioris Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolae locis dissertationes duae, 8°, Lips. 1824. Gratama (Janus Aafeo): Commentatio in Paulinae Epistolae prioris ad Co- rinthios caput vii. 8°, Groning. 1846. xiv EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. Heypenretcn (August Ludwig Christian), + c. 1856, Prof. at Herborn; Com- mentarius in priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam, 2 voll. 8°, Marb. 1825-7. Hopes (Charles), D.D., Prof. Theol. at Princeton: An exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 8°, Lond. 1857. An exposition of the Second Epistle. 8°, Lond. 1860. Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht (II. 2, 3 Briefe an die Korinther), 8°, Nordlingen, 1864-6, al. JaEGER (C. F. Heinrich): Erkliirung der beiden Briefe des Apostel Paulus nach Corinth, aus dem Gesichtspunkte der vier Partheien daselbst. 8°, Tibing. 1838. Kune (Christian Friedrich), Dean of Marbach on the Neckar: Die Korinther- briefe theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet [Lange’s Bibelwerk, Theil. VELA 8°, Bielefeld, 1861, al. [Translated with additions by Daniel W. Poor, D.D., and Conway B. ‘Wing, D.D. 8°, New York [and Edin. ], 1869, al.] Kiopper (Albrecht), Tutor at Konigsberg : Exegetisch-kritische Untersuchun- gen tiber den zweiten Brief des Paulus an die Gemeinde zu Korinth. 8°, Gotting. 1869. Commentar tiber das zweite Sendschreiben. 8°, Berl. 1874. KravsE (Friedrich August Wilhelm), + 1827, Private Tutor at Vienna: Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolae Graece. Perpetua annotatione illustravit F. A. W. Krause. Vol. i. complectens ep. priorem. 8°, Francof. 1791. ΤΕῸΝ (Johann Georg Friedrich), { 1823, Pastor at Butzbach in Hesse : Pauli ad Corinthios Epistola secunda Graece perpetua annotatione illustrata. 8°, Lemg. 1804. Licutroot (John), D.D., Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge : Horae Hebrai- cae et Talmudicae in Epistolam priorem ad Corinthios. 4°, Cantab. 1664. Mater (Adalbert), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg : Commentar tiber den ersten Brief Pauli an die Korinther. 8°, Freiburg, 1857. Masor [Mayer] (Georg), { 1574, Prof. Theol. at Wittenburg : Enarratio Epis- tolarum Pauli ad Corinthios. 8°, Viteb. 1558, al. Martyr (Peter) [Vermieiri], { 1562, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: In priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam commentarii. 2°, Tiguri, 1551, al. MELANCHTHON (Philipp), { 1560, Reformer: Brevis et utilis commentarius in priorem Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios et in aliquot capita secundae. 8°, Vitemb. 1561, al. MoLpENHAUER (Johann Heinrich, Daniel), + 1790, Pastor at Hamburg: Erster und zweiter Brief an die Corinther nach dem Grundtext iibersetzt mit Erklarungen. 8°, Hamb. 1771-2. Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Erkla- rung der beiden Briefe an die Corinther. 8°, Leip. 1794. Mosuem (Johann Lorenz von), + 1755, Chancellor and Professor Theol. at Got- tingen : Erklirung des ersten Briefes Pauli an die gemeine zu Corin- thus. 4°, Altona, 1741. Neue Ausgabe, nebst der Erklirung des zweiten Briefes herausgegeben von C. E. von Windheim, 2 Binde. 4°, Altona u. Flensburg, 1762. Muscutus [MeEussiin] (Wolfgang), + 1563, Prof. Theol. at Bonn : Commentarius in utramque Epistolam ad Corinthios. 2°, Basil, 1559, al. NEANDER (Johann August Wilhelm), + 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Auslegung der beiden Briefe an die Corinther. Herausgegeben von Willib. Bey- schlag. 8°, Berl. 1859. OsIANDER (J. Ernst), Dean at Géppingen in Wiirtemberg : Commentar iiber den ersten Brief Pauli an die Korinthier. 8°, Stuttgart, 1849. Commentar iiber den zweiten Brief. 8°, Stuttg. 1858. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xv Porr (David Julius), + 1838, Prof. Theol. at Gottingen: Pauli Epistolae ad Corinthios Graece perpetua annotatione illustratae. [Novum Testa- mentum Koppianum, V. 1.] 8°, Gotting. 1826. Rouuock (Robert), + 1598, Principal of University of Edinburgh : Commentarius in utramque Epistolam ad Corinthios, cum notis Jo. Piscatoris. 8°, Herborn. 1600, al. Rucxert (Leopold Immannuel), + c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Commentar iiber die Briefe an die Corinther. 2 Binde. 8°, Lips. 1836-7. Sanu (Laurids), + 1805, Prof. of Greek at Copenhagen ; Paraphrasis in priorem Epistolam ad Corinthios. ... 4°, Hafn. 1778. ScHARLING (Carl Emil), Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen : Epistolam Pauli ad Corin- thios posteriorem annotationibus in usum juvenum theolog. studioso- rum illustravit C. E. Scharling. 8°, Kopenh, 1840. ScumiD (Sebastian). See Romans. ScuuuzE (Johann Christoph Friedrich), + 1806, Prof. Theol. at Giessen: Pauli erster Brief an die Korinther herausgegeben und erklart.—Zweiter Brief erklart .. . 8°, Halle, 1784-5. Scuater (William), D.D., + 1626, Vicar of Pitminster : Utriusque Epistolae ad Corinthios explicatio analyticae, una cum scholiis 49, Oxon. 1633. SEMLER (Johann Salomon), { 1791, Prof. Theol. at Halle : Paraphrasis in primam Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam cum notis et Latinarum translationum excerptis. Et in secundam Epistolam .. . 12°, Hal. 1770-6. Srantey (Arthur Penrhyn), D.D., Dean of Westminster: The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians ; with critical notes and dissertations. In two volumes. 8°, Lond. 1855, al. Srrvart (Peter), + 1621, Prof. Theol. at Ingolstadt : Commentaria in utramque Epistolam ad Corinthios, 4°, Ingolstad. 1608. Srorr (Gottlob Christian), { 1805, Consistorialrath at Stuttgart : Notitiae his- toricae Epistolarum Pauli ad Corinthios interpretationi servientes. 4°, Tiibing. 1788. Trt (Salomon van), + 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden ; Kortbondige verklaaring ouer den eersten Brief van Paulus aan die van Korinthen. 40. Amst. 1731. [See also Romans. ] Virrinca (Kempe), + 1722, Prof. Theol. at Franeker : Exercitationes in diffi- ciliora loca prioris Epistolae Pauli ad Corinthios. 4°, Franeq. 1784-9. WinpHeErm (Christian Ernst von). See Mosnrerm (Johann Lorenz). Zacwartak (Gotthilf Trangott), + 1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Paraphrastische Erklarung der beiden Briefe an die Corinther, mit vielen Ammerkun- gen herausgegeben von J. K. Vollborth. 2 Bande. 8°, Gétting. 1784-5, To the foregoing list may be added : D. W. Poor, Translation and Enlargement of Kling’s Exposition of the First Ep., in Lange’s Com. New York, 1868. C. P. Wine, Translation and Enlargement of Kling’s Exposition of the Second Ep., in Lange’s Com. Ibid. Canon Evans, Com. on First Ep. in Bible Com. Lond, 1881. JosEPH WartTE, Com. on Second Ep. in Bible Com. Lond. 1881. T. Τὶ SHorg, on First Ep. in Ellicott’s Com. . Lond. 1880. E. H. Prumprre, on Second in Ellicott’s Com. Lond. 1880. Davip Brown, on both Epistles in Schaff’s Popular Com. on N. T. New York, 1882. JosrrH AGAR Bret, Com. on both Epistles. Lond. 1882. ABBREVIATIONS. al, eal, = and others ; and other passages ; and other editions. ad. or in loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage. comp. = compare. ‘‘Comp. on Matt. iii. 5” refers to Dr. Meyer’s own com- mentary on the passage. So also ‘‘See on Matt. iii. 5.”’ codd. = codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by ὃ. : min. = codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89. Rec, or Recepta = Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir). l.c. = loco citato or laudato. ver. = verse, vv. = verses. f. ff. = and following. Ver. 16f. means verses 16 and 17. vv. 16 ff. means verses 16 and two or more following. vss. = versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms. Z.g. Syr. = Peshitto Syriac ; Syr. p. = Philox- enian Syriac. p. pp. = page, pages. e.g. = exempli gratia. sc. = scilicet. N. T. = New Testament. O. T. = Old Testament. K.T.A.= καὶ τὰ λοιπά. The colon (:) is largely employed, as in the German, to mark the point at which a translation or paraphrase of a passage is introduced, or the transi- - tion to the statement of another’s opinions. . . . . indicates that words are omitted. The books of Scripture and of the Apocrypha are generally quoted by their usual English names and abbreviations. Ecclus. = Ecclesiasticus. 3 Esd., 4 Esd. (or Esr.) == the books usually termed 1st and 2d Esdras. The classical authors are quoted in the usual abridged forms by book, chapter, etc. (as Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 12) or by the paging of the edition generally used for that purpose (as Plat. Pol. p. 291 B. of the edition of H. Stephanus). The names of the works quoted are printed in Italics. Roman numerals in small letters are used to denote books or other internal divisions (as Thue. iv.) ; Roman numerals in capitals denote volumes (as Kiihner, IT.). The references to Winer’s or to Buttmann’s Grammar, given in brackets thus [E. T. 152], apply to the corresponding pages of Dr. Moulton’s and Prof. Thayer’s English translations respectively. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS. INTRODUCTION. SEC. 1.—THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT CORINTH. SN Corinth (bimaris Corinthus), which, after its destruction by Ὁ Mummius (146 B.c.), had been rebuilt by Julius Caesar, made a Roman colony (Pausan. ii. 1. 2), and under the fostering care of the first emperors had been speedily restored to its an- cient (see Hom. 71. ii. 570, and especially Pindar, Οἱ. xiii.) glory and voluptuous luxury (hence the expressions κορινθιάζεσθαι, κορινθιαστής, and Kopivfia κόρῃ ; see also Dissen, ad Pind. Fragm. p. 640 f.; Ast, ad Plat. Rep. p. 404 D),—in that great “Ἑλλαδὸς ἄστρον (Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 223), that rich commercial city, the seat of the Roman proconsulate, of the Isthmian games, of the fine arts, and of the learning of the Sophists, but also of the most shameless worship of Aphrodite carried on by a thousand consecrated courtesans,—the world-conquering faith of Christ had been planted by Paul himself (iii. 6). He came thither on his second missionary journey from Athens, and spent upwards of a year and a half there (see on Acts xviii. 1-17). He lodged with his fellow-craftsman Aquila, who was converted by him here (see on Acts xviii. 1, 2), and subsequently with the proselyte Justus (Acts xviii. 2-7), after his friends Silas and Timotheus had arrived (Acts xviii. 5), and Jewish opposition had caused him to separate from the synagogue and turn to the Gentiles (Acts xviii. 6 ff.). This had the wholesome result of rendering the church, from the very first, a mixed (though with a majority of Gentile Christians, Acts xii. 2) and avery nu- merous one (Acts xviii. 4, 8, 10), the most important in Greece, the mother- church of the province (i. 2), although only a few of the upper and more cultivated classes (1 Cor. i. 26 ff.) embraced the faith (such as, on the Jew- ish side, the president of the synagogue, Crispus ; see Acts xviii. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 14),—a natural effect, not so much of the simplicity of Paul’s preaching’ 1 Riickert, following Neander (comp. also it with Hellenic forms (Acts xvii.), had led Osiander, p. 6), thinks that the failure of | him to the resolution of giving up every the apostle’s attempt at Athens to gain en- such attempt, and of proclaiming the gos- trance for evangelical truth by associating pel among the Greeks also in its entire sim- % PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (for Apollos also failed to win over the higher classes), as of the intrinsic character of the gospel itself (i. 22, 23), which, with its preaching of the cross, did not suit the pretensions of the presumed higher culture among Jews and Gentiles, especially of their fancied philosophy and of their moral laxity.’ Some considerable time after the total failure of a public accusation brought by the Jews against Paul before the mild proconsul Gallio (see on Acts xviii. 12-17), the apostle departed from Corinth with Aquila and Priscilla (whom he left in Ephesus), and proceeded to Jerusalem, and thence through Galatia and Phrygia (Acts xviii. 18-23). While he, however, was traversing these countries, Apollos—an eloquent and fervid Jew of Alexan- dria, who, hitherto merely a disciple of John the Baptist, had completed his Christian training with Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 24 ff., and the commentary thereon)—betook himself to Corinth (Acts xix. 1), where he, as a Pauline Christian, preached no other than Pauline Chris- tianity (1 Cor. iii. 6), yet presented it in a different form, deviating with the art of his Alexandrian eloquence and with his employment of Alexan- drian (Philonian) speculation, from the simple manner of the apostle (i. 17, ii.), probably also entering further than Paul had done (iii. 1) into several of the higher doctrines of Christianity. Now, it is easy to understand how this difference, although certainly not based upon any divergence in doctrine (iii. 5 f., iv. 6, xvi. 12), nevertheless, from the variety of individual tenden- cies among the Corinthians, and from the personal respect and love with which men clung to the old or the new teacher respectively, came to have the hurtful result that some, amidst mutual jealousy, assigned the higher place to the former and some to the latter, and that it gradually became a point of partisanship with them to call themselves adherents of Paul or of Apollos (i. 12),—which was not carried out without engendering pride and irritation, to the prejudice of the two teachers in question. But the matter did not end with this division into two parties. There arrived at Corinth—taking advantage, perhaps, of the very time of Apollos’ return to Ephesus—Judaizing teachers, Petrine Christians of anti-Pauline one. Before his mixed audience in Corinth (and he could not regulate his course by plicity. But the fact is, that in Athens Paul was in the quite peculiar position of having to speak in presence of philosophers by pro- fession, and, in the first instance, to them exclusively. In Corinth, on the other hand, in the house of the proselyte Justus, it was at all events a very mixed audience (made up also of Jews and Gentiles, comp. Acts xviii. 8) that he had before him, one entirely different from those Stoics and Epicureans who laid hold of himin the ἀγορά at Athens. The Athenian address is therefore to be re- garded as an exception from his usual mode of teaching, demanded by the special cir- cumstances of the case. These circum- stances, however, did not exist at Corinth, and accordingly he had no occasion there to teach in any other way than his ordinary the possible presence of individual philos- ophers among them) his preaching, simple, but full of power and fervour, was thor- oughly fitted to make converts in numbers, as the result proved. And if these were for the most part from the humbler ranks, Paul was the last man to be led by that cir- cumstance to adopt a higher tone; for he knew from long experience among what classes in society Christianity was wont everywhere to strike its first and firmest roots. 1 Comp. generally, Semisch, Pawus in Corinth, in the Jahrb. fiir Deutsche Theol. 1867, p. 198 ff. INTRODUCTION. 3 leanings, provided with letters of recommendation (2 Cor. iii. 1), perhaps from Peter himself among others, labouring to lower the authority of Paul (ix. 2), into whose field of work they intruded, and to exalt the’ authority of Peter (2 Cor. xi. 5). They seem, indeed, not to have come forward with any opposition to Paul’s doctrine, for otherwise the apostle would, as in his Epistle to the Galatians, have controverted their doctrinal errors ; in par- ticular, they did not insist upon circumcision. But it was natural that, with their Judaizing tendencies generally, with their legal prejudice re- garding the use of meats, with their stringency as to the moral law, and with their exaltation of Peter at the expense of Paul, they should find ac- ceptance with the Jewish-Christian part of the community, since they were not slaek in vainglorious assertion of the national privileges (2 Cor. v. 12, xi, 22, xii. 11), and that against the very man from whom the hereditary pride of the Jews had everywhere suffered blows which it felt most keenly. Equally natural was it that their appearance and operations should not in- duce a union between the two sections that professed Pauline Christianity, —the adherents of Paul and of Apollos,—seeing that they had to wage war only against Paul, and not against Apollos, in so far, namely, as apostolic authority was claimed for the former only, and not for the latter. The de- clared adherents, whom they met with, named as their head Peter, who, for that matter, had never himself been in Corinth ; for the statement of Dionysius of Corinth in Euseb. ii. 25, is either to be referred to a much later period (Ewald, Gesch. der apost. Zeit. p. 609, 3d ed.), or, as is most probable, to be regarded simply as an erroneous inference drawn from 1 Cor. i. 19. See Pott, Proleg. p. 20 f. ; Baur in the Tiibing. Zeitschr. 1831, 4, p. 152 ff. The addition of a third party to the two already existing aroused a deeper feeling of the need for wholly disregarding that which had brought about and kept up all this division into parties,—the authority of men,—and for returning to Him alone who is the Master of all, namely, to Christ.’ ἐς We belong to Christ” became accordingly the watchword, unhappily, however, not of all, nor yet in its right sense and application, but, on the contrary, of a section only ; and these followed out their idea,—which was in itself right, but which should have been combined with the recognition of the human instruments of Christ (Paul, etc.),—not in the way of them- selves keeping clear of schismatic proceedings and acknowledging all as, like themselves, disciples of Christ, but in such a manner that in their pro- fessed sanctity and lofty abstinence from partisanship they became them- selves a party (i. 12), and instead of including the whole community— without prejudice to the estimation due to such servants of Christ as Paul and others—in their idea, they shut out from it the Pauline, Apollonian, and Petrine sections. The Christian community at Corinth, then, was in this state of fourfold division when Paul wrote to them our first Epistle ; yet it is to be assumed, from xi. 18, xiv. 23, that the evil had not reached 1 Augustine aptly says, De verb. Dom., Pauli, ete. Et alii, qui nolebant aedificari Serm. 13: ‘‘ Volentes homines aedificari su- super Petrum, sed super petram : Ego au- per homines, dicebant: Ego quidem sum tem sum, Christi.” 4 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. such a height of schism that the church no longer assembled at one place (in opposition to Vitringa, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Ewald, and others ; see on i. 2). What further knowledge we have regarding the condition of the church at that time, especially as to the moral and ecclesiastical evils that prevailed, is derived from the contents of the Epistle itself. See § 2. Remark 1.—For views differing from the above representation of the parties at Corinth, see oni. 12. To the more recent literature of the subject, besides the works on Introduction, belong the following: Neander, Ki. Schrift. p. 68 ff., and Gesch. d. Pflanzung, ete., I. p. 360 ff., 4th ed. ; Baur in the Tiib. Zeitschr. 1831, p. 61 ff., 1836, 4, p. 1 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 290 ff., 2d ed. ; Schar- ling, De Paulo apost. ejusque adversariis, Kopenh. 1836 ; Jaeger, Erkl. d. Briefe P. nach Kor. aus d. Gesichtsp. d. vier Parth. ΓᾺΡ. 1838 ; Schenkel, De eccles. Cor. primaeva factionibus turbata, Basil. 1838 ; Goldhorn in Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1840, 2, p. 121 ff. ; Dahne, d. Christus-parthei in d. apost. Kirche 2. Kor., Halle 1842 (previously in the Journ. f. Pred. 1841); Kniewel, Ecclesiae Cor. vetustiss. dissensiones et turbae, Gedan. 1841 ; Becker, d. Partheiungen in d. Gem. z. Kor., Altona 1842; Riabiger, krit. Untersuchungen ib. d. Inhalt d. beid. Br. and. Kor., Bresl. 1847 ; Lutterbeck, neutest. Lehrbegr. II. p. 45 ff. ; Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 217 ff. ; Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 241 ff. ; Holtzmann in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. p. 730 ff. ; comp. also Ewald, Gesch. d. apost. Zeit. p. 505 ff., 3d ed. Among the latest commentaries, see especially those of Osiander, Stuttg. 1847, Introd. ὃ 4 ; Ewald, p. 102 f. ; Hofmann, 1864. Remark 2.—Care should be taken not to push the conception of this divi- sion into parties too far. As it had only recently arisen, it had not yet made itself felt to such an extent as to induce the church in their letter to Paul (see § 2) to write specifically about it (see i. 11). Nor can the dissensions have been of long continuance ; at least in Clem. 1 Cor. 47, they appear as something long past and gone, with which Clement compares later quarrels as something worse. Remark 3.—Only the first part of our Epistle, down to iv. 21, relates to the topic of the parties as such. Hence it is ἃ very hazardous course, and one that requires great caution, to refer the further points discussed by Paul to the different parties respectively, and to characterize these accordingly, as Jaeger and Rabiger more especially, but also Baur, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Beyschlag, and others have done to an extent which cannot be made good on historical grounds. It is purely and grossly arbitrary to trace all the evils combated in both Epistles to the existence of the party divisions, and to depict these, and more particularly the Christine section, accordingly. The latter is not once men- tioned by Clement,—a circumstance which does not tell in favour of the hy- pothesis that lays so much mischief to its charge. SEC. 2.—OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. Before the date of our first Epistle there had been a letter—not now extant —sent from the apostle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9) ; but when 1 The two quite short Epistles extant in Phil. Massonin Joh. Masson, Hisfoire crit. Armenian, from the Corinthians to Pauland de la républ. des lettres, vol. X., 1714; then from Paul to the Corinthians, are wretched by David Wilkins, 1715; by Whiston, 1727, apocryphal productions (first published by and his sons, 1736; by Carpzov, Lips. 1776; INTRODUCTION. 5 he wrote it, the party-divisions were not yet known to the apostle. He received tidings regarding them from ‘‘ those of the household of Chloe” (i, 11), and on this account commissioned Timothy to visit Corinth (iv. 17), although our Epistle was to anticipate his arrival there (xvi. 10), since he had first to journey through Macedonia with Erastus (Acts xix. 22). That Apollos also (1 Cor. xvi. 12) had brought Paul information about the divi- sions is—judging from i. 11—not to be assumed ; on the contrary, it seems probable that they had not perceptibly developed themselves so long as Apollos himself remained in Corinth. Next to the vexatious party-divi- sions, however, what gave occasion for the apostle’s letter was the un- chastity in the church, already spoken of by him in the lost Epistle, and which had now manifested itself even in a case of incest (v. 1 ff.). Besides this and other evils that called for his intervention, there was quite a special and direct occasion for his writing in a letter of the church (vii. 1), brought to Paul by deputies from Corinth (xvi, 17), and containing various questions (such as with respect to celibacy, vii. 1 ff., and the eating of flesh offered in sacrifice, viii. 1 ff.), which demanded an answer from him,‘ so that he made the messengers—Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus—on their return the bearers of his own Epistle in reply (xvi. 12, 17). In accordance with these circumstances giving occasion to the letter, it was the aim of Paul, first, to counteract the party-divisions and uphoid his apostolic authority ; secondly, to remove the unchastity which had gained ground ; thirdly, to give instruction upon the points regarding which queries had been put to him ; and finally, to communicate various other instructions, which, in view of the state of things among the Corinthians which had come to his knowledge, and partly also in view of the express contents of their letter, seemed to him necessary and useful, such as with respect to disorder in the public assemblies, with respect to gifts of the Spirit, with respect to the resurrection, and with respect to a collection that was to be set on foot.? The contents of the Epistle are accordingly very diversified. After saluta- tion and exordium (i. 1-9), the first main section enlarges upon and against and in Armenian and English by Aucher, p. 287 ff. Regarding the date of the com- Armenian Grammar, ete., Venet. 1819; position of the lost Epistle, see Wieseler, see also Fabric. Cod. Apocr. III. p. 667 ff.). Chronologie des apost. Zeitalt. p. 318. Rinck, indeed, has recently (in opposi- 1 That this letter from the church was tion to the earlier defence by Whiston, see marked by atone of confidence and pride the objections urged by Carpzov) sought of knowledge (Hofmann) cannot, with any to maintain the genuineness of both certainty, be inferred from our Epistle, the Epistles (das Sendschr. d. Kor. an d. Apost. many humbling rebukes in which bear up- Paul, u. das adritte Sendschr. Pauli an die on the evils themselves, not upon that letter Kor.in Armen. Uebersetzung, neu verdeutscht, and its character. etc., Heidelb. 1823), and that on the footing 2 Observe that, in connection with these of holding the apostle’s letter not to be different topics, Paul never makes the the one mentioned in v. 9, but a later third teachers as such responsible, or gives direc- Epistle. But against this utterly fruitless tions to them,—a proof that he was far from attempt, see Ullmann, ziber den durch Rinck cherishing the idea of a divinely instituted bekannt gemachten dritten Brief an d. Kor. order of teachers. Comp. Hofling, Grund und das kurze Sendschreiben der Kor. in the sitze d, Kirchenverf. p. 279 f., ed. 3. Tleidelb. Jahrb. 1823; Bengel, Archiv. 1825, ¥ 6 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the party-divisions, with a detailed justification of the apostle’s mode of teaching (i. 10-iv. 21). Then Paul writes regarding the unchastity in the church (v.), and regarding the bad habit of having their disputes decided before heathen tribunals, thereafter once more warning them against impu- rity (vi.). Next he replies to the questions about marriage which had been sent to him (vii.), and to the inquiry regarding meat used in sacrifice (viii.— xi. 1), making in connection with his instructions as to the latter point a digression regarding the unselfish way in which he had discharged his apos- tolic office (ix.). Then follow censure and admonition as to disorders in the assemblies of the church, partly with reference to the head-covering of the women, partly in regard of the love-feasts (xi.) ; then the detailed sec- tions respecting spiritual gifts (xii.-xiv.), with the magnificent eulogy on love (xiii.), and respecting the resurrection of the dead (xv.). Lastly: injunctions about the collection for Jerusalem, miscellaneous remarks, and greetings (Xvi.). It is manifest from the salutation, when rightly understood, that the Hpis- tle was destined for the whole church at Corinth, without excepting any party whatsoever, but including the rest of the Christians of Achaia. SEC. 3.—PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION—GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. From xvi. 8, 19 it is certain that Paul wrote in Hphesus,' and that towards the end of his stay in that place, which did not last quite three years (see on Acts xix. 10), after he had despatched (Acts xix. 22 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17) Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia (the former to Corinth as well), and had already resolved to journey through Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21; 1 Cor. xvi. 3 ff.). The time at which he wrote may be gathered from xvi. 8 (some time before Pentecost) and v. 6-8, from which latter passage it may be with reason inferred that, when Paul was writing, the feast of the Passover was nigh at hand. Consequently : a little before Easter in the year 58 (see Introd. to Acts, § 4). Remark 1.—The statement in the common subscription ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Φιλίππων is an old (already in Syr.) and widespread error, arising from xvi. 5. In reply to the quite untenable grounds urged by Kohler (Abfassungszeil der epistol. Schriften, p. 74 ff.), who accepts it, and puts the date of composition after the (errone- ously assumed) liberation from imprisonment at Rome, see Anger, temp. rat. p. 53 ff. Comp. Riickert, p. 12 ff.; Wurm in the Tib. Zeitschr. 1838, I. p. 63 ff. The correct subscription is found in B**, Copt. Chrys. Euthal. Theodoret, al. : πρὸς Kop. a ἐγράφη ἀπὸ ᾿Εφέσου. Remark 2.—The decision of the question, whether Paul, previous to the writing of our two Epistles, had been only once, or whether he had been twice, 1 Mill and Haenlein strangely took it p. 30) avails himself of this circumstance in to mean : not in, but near Ephesus, because support of his hypothesis, that the Epistle Paul, in xvi. 8, did not write ὧδε in place of was written in Southern Achaia. See, év’Ed.! Béttger also (Beitrdge zur hist. against this, Riickert, Magaz. f. χορ. Τ. p. krit. Einl. in die Paul. Br., G6tting. 1837, ITT. 132 ff. INTRODUCTION. γὲ in Corinth (so rightly Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 614 ff., and in his In- troduction ; Schrader, I. p. 95 ff. ; Neander, Billroth, Riickert, Anger, Credner, Schott, Wurm, Olshausen, Wieseler, Reuss, Ewald, and many others, following Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Baronius, ef al.), as also whether we must assume a second visit between our first and second Epistles, depends on 2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2. See the particulars in the Introd. to 2 Cor. § 2, As to the genwineness, there is no room for doubt in view of the external evidences (Polyc. ad Philipp. 11 ; Ignat. ad Eph. 2 ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. 1. 47, 49, Epist. ad Diogn. 12—Justin M. ὁ. Tryph. pp. 253, 258, 338, Apol. I. p. 29 are uncertain—Iren. Haer. iii. 11. 9, iv, 27. 3; Athenag. de resurr. Ὁ. 61, ed. Colon. ; Clem. Al. Paedag. p. 96, ed. Sylb. ; Canon Murator. ; Ter- tull. de praescrip. 33, al.), and from the whole character of the Epistle (see especially Paley, Horae Paulinae), which, with all the variety of its subject- matter, bears the most definite impress of the peculiar spirit and tact of Paul, and displays the full power, art, and subtlety of his eloquence. Bruno Bauer alone in his wanton fashion has sought to dispute it (Avritik der Paulin. Briefe, 11., Berl. 1851). 8 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Παύλου πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολὴ πρώτη. The simplest and probably oldest superscription is that of ἃ Β C D&S, min. : πρὸς Κορινθίους πρώτη. CHAPTER I. Ver. 1. κλητός] is wanting, indeed, in A D E, Clar. Germ. Cyr. (suspected by Mill and Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Riickert), but was easily overlooked by those to whom the fact was known and familiar, that Paul in tha beginning of his Epistles almost invariably styles himself ἀπόστ. "I. X. διὰ θεῖ, Θεοῦ without κλητός ; 866 2 Cor.i. 1; Eph. 1. 1 ; Col. 1. 1; 2 Tim.i.1. Comp. also Gal. 1. 1; 1 Tim. 1. 1; Tit. i. 1; only in Rom.i.1 we find κλητός. --- Instead of *Inoov Χριστοῦ, read, on preponderant evidence, with Lachm. and Tisch. Χριστοῦ "Inoov. — Ver. 2 τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Kop.] is placed by Β D* E FG, It. after "Inood ; so Lachm. and Tisch. No doubt rightly, since the common arrangement of the words is plainly open to the suspicion of transposition on grounds of grammar, whereas there is no reason why, if it stood so originally, it should have under- gone alteration. The hypothesis of Fritzsche, de conformal, N. T. Lachm. 1841, p. 44, that ἡγιασμ. ἐν X. "I. had been left out, and then reinserted in the wrong place, is an arbitrary one, considering the weight of evidence on Lachmann’s side and seeing that the right place for the reinsertion would have been so un- mistakable. — τε καὶ Lachm.: καί, according to BD GS&. But how easily re might be dropped without its being noticed !— Ver. 14. Riickert has μου after Θεῷ, in accordance with A, 17, 57, al. and several vss. and Fathers. An addition from ver. 4. — Ver. 15. ἐβάπτισα] A Β ΟἿ δὲ, min. and several vss. and Fathers have ἐβαπτίσθητε ; so Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; the immediate con- text in vv. 14, 16 led to the introduction of the active at a very early date (Syr. Tert.). — Ver. 20. τούτου after κόσμου is wanting in very important witnesses. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riickert. A mechanical addition from the forego- ing. — Ver. 22. σημεῖον] σημεῖα, adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Scholz. is so decisively attested by ABCDEFG δὲ, min. and many vss. and Fathers, that we must regard the singular as introduced through the recollection of Matt. xii. 38 f., xvi. 4, al. The reading ἐπιζήτουσιν in A points in the same di- rection. See the detailed justification of the plur. in Reiche, Commentar. crit. I, p, 121 ff. — Ver. 23. ἔθνεσι] Elz. : “Ἕλλησι, against decisive evidence, Noted on margin, and then adopted in accordance with what goes before and follows, —Ver. 28. Before ra μὴ ὄντα Elz. has καί, against preponderant testimony, Sus- pected by Griesb. ; deleted by Lachm, Scholz, Riick. and Tisch. Mechanical connection. — Ver, 29. roi Θεοῦ] So Griesb. and all later editors, following de- cisive evidence, Αὐτοῦ in Elz. is an over-hasty correction, due to a failure to recognize the design of the repetition of τ. Θεοῦ, --- Ver, 30. σοφία ἡμῖν] Approved by Griesb, adopted also by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Elz, and Scholz, however, have ἡμῖν σοφία. For the former order are AC DER, min. Vulg. ms. It. CHAP. τς 9 Harl.** Or, Eus. al., further, B, which has σοφ. ἡμῶν, and F G, which have 7 σοφία ἡμῖν. Ἡμῖν was put first, in order to join σοφία closely to ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ; while others marked the conception of the true wisdom by the article (F G), Vv. 1-3. Apostolic address and greeting. Ver. 1. Κλητὸς ardor. See on Rom. i. 1. A polemical reference (Chrys- ostom, Theophylact, and many others, including Flatt, Riickert, Olshausen, Osiander), which would be foreign to the winning tone of the whole exor- dium, would have been quite otherwise expressed by one so decided as Paul (comp. Gal. i. 1). — διὰ θελ. Θεοῦ] That his position as an apostle called by Christ was brought about by the will of God, was a truth so vividly and firmly implanted in his consciousness, that he commonly includes an expres- sion of it in the beginning of his Epistles.. See 2 Cor. i. 1; Gal. i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1; Col.i. 1; 1Tim.i.1; 2 Tim.i.1. ‘Sua ipsius voluntate P. nunquam factus esset apostolus,” Bengel. Regarding διά, see on ver. 9 and Gal. 1. 1. — καὶ Σωσθένης] Modern interpreters reckon him the amanuensis of the Epistle (see xvi. 21). But the mere amanuensis as swch has no share in the Epistle itself, which must, however, be the case with one who holds a place in the intro- ductory salutation. Since, moreover, in 1 and 2 Thess. we find two others besides Paul named with him in the superscription (who therefore could hardly both be mentioned as amanuenses), and even an indefinite number of ‘‘ brethren” in the Epistle to the Galatians, whereas in that to the Ro- mans the amanuensis—who is known from xvi. 22—does not appear as in- cluded in the superscription, we must rather suppose that Paul made his Epistle run not only in his own name, but also (although, of course, in a sub- ordinate sense) in the name of Sosthenes, so that the Corinthians were to re- gard the letter of the apostle as at the same time a letter of Sosthenes, who thereby signified his desire to impress upon them the same doctrines, admo- nitions, etc. This presupposes that Paul had previously considered and discussed with this friend of his the contents of the letter to be issued. Comp. on Phil. i. 1. Sosthenes himself accordingly appears as a teacher then present with the apostle and enjoying his confidence, but known to, and respected among, the Corinthians. There remains, indeed, the possi- bility that he may have also written the Epistle, but only in so far as we are in utter ignorance of who the amanuensis was at all. Had Timothy not al- ready started on his journey (iv. 17, xvi. 10), he would have had a place along with, or instead of, Sosthenes in the salutation of the Epistle ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 1. —Theodoret and most commentators, including Flatt, Billroth, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, indentify Sosthenes with the person so named in Acts xviii. 17 ; but this is rightly denied by Michaelis, Pott, Riickert, and de Wette. See on Acts, 7.c. Without due ground, Riickert concludes that he was a young man trained up by Paul—a view least of all to be-deduced from the assumption that he was the amanuensis of the letter. The very absence of any definite information whatever as to Sosthenes shows how utterly arbitrary is the remark of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, and Estius, that it was a great proof of modesty in the apostle to name him along with himself. — ὁ ἀδελφός} denotes nothing more special than Chris 10 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. tian brotherhood (so also 2 Cor. i. 1; Col. i. 1, a/.), not fellowship in the office of teacher. The particulars of the position of Sosthenes were well known to the readers. 1 Ver. 2. Ty ἐκκλ. 7. Θεοῦ] Θεοῦ is genitive of the owner. Comp. 17% Sap, Num. xvi. 3, xx. 4. The expression is with Paul the standing theocratic designation of the Christian community, in which the theocratic idea of the Old Testament Sap presents itself as realized ; it is the πλήρωσις of this ΠΡ. Comp. x. 32, xi. 16, 22, xv. 9; 2Cor. i. 1; Gal. i. 18, al. — ἡγιασμ. ἐν X. 1.7 adds at once a distinctive definition of quality to τ. ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ (see the critical remarks), and thereupon follows the local specification of r. ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ. ‘* To the church of God, men sanctified in Christ Jesus, which is in Corinth.” How common it is to find a participle in the plural standing in an attributive relation to a collective singular, may be seen in Kiihner, Il. p. 43; Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 39. Τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Kop., however, is purposely placed after ἡγιασμ. «.t.4., because the thought is, that the church of God addressed does in itself and as such (not as Corinthian) consist of those sanctified in Christ. The ἁγιασμός is to be conceived as consecration to God in the Christian church (see above, τ. ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ). Comp. on Rom. i. 7. This belonging to God as His own has its causal ground not out of, but in Christ—namely, in His redemptive work, of which the Christians have be- come, and continue to be, partakers (perfect) by means of justifying faith (Eph. i. 4 ff. ; Heb. x. 10). Comp. Phil. i. 1. Ἔν X. ’I. gives to the #yacu. its distinctively Christian character.’ ---- κλητοῖς ἁγίοις] added, in order to a properly exhaustive description of that experienced benefit of God’s grace of which the readers, as Christians, were assumed to be conscious ; the new ele- ment introduced here lies in κλητοῖς. The call to the Messianic kingdom (con- ceived as issued effectually, comp. on Rom. viii. 28, and see Lamping, Pauli de praedestin. decreta, Leovard. 1858, p. 32 f.) is, according to the constant conception of the N. T. (Rom. i. 6 ; Gal. i. 6 not excepted), given by “God (ver. 9, Rom. viii. 30, ix. 24, al. ; Usteri, Lehrbegr. Ὁ. 281) through the preachers of the gospel (Rom. x. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 14) ; see Weiss, didi. Theol. p. 386 f. — σὺν πᾶσι x.7.A.] does not belong to κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, so that the readers were to be made sensible of the greatness of the fellowship in which they, as called saints, stood (Grotius, Bengel, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Neander, Becker, Hofmann). But it belongs, as necessarily follows from 2 Cor. i. 1, to the superseription as part of it (on σύν, comp. Phil. i. 1) ; yet neither so as to mark the Epistle as ὦ catholic one (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and others ; comp. Schrader) ; nor so that Paul shall be held, while greeting the Corin- thians, as greeting in spirit also the universal church (Osiander, comp. Chrys- ostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Billroth, Heydenreich, and others) ; nor yet so that by the ἐπικαλ. τ. ὄν. τ. Kup. were meant the separatists, in contrast to those disposed to adhere to the church (Vitringa, Michaelis), or as if σὺν πᾶσι x.T.A. were meant to comprehend all Corinthian Christians without dis- 1 [It also shows that the sanctification cording to the standing force of the phrase comes by virtue of union with Christ, ac- in Christ as used by Paul.—T. W. C.] CHAP. I.,. 2. Lt tinction (Eichhorn, Hinleit. III. 1, p. 110, Pott) ; but so that the sense is in substance just that expressed in 2 Cor. 1. 1 : σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ. " See below on αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν. The Epistle is primarily addressed to the Christians in Corinth ; not, however, to them merely, but at the same time also to the other Achaean Christians, and the latter are de- noted by πᾶσι... ἡμῶν. A comma is to be put after ἁγίοις. --- τοῖς ἐπικαλ. τ. ὄν τ. Kup.| confessional designation of the Christians, Rom. x. 12f. ; Acts ii, 21. Respecting the N. T. idea of the invocation of Christ, which is not to be held as absolute, but as relative worship ' (of Him as the Mediator and Lord over all, but under God, Phil. ii. 10 f.), see on Rom. x. 12. — αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν] is joined with τοῦ Κυρίου by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, YTheophylact, Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Erasmus Schmid, Valckenaer, and others, including Billroth, Olshausen, Liicke (de invocat. Chr., Gotting. 1843), Wieseler (Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 324), in such a way as to make it an epanorthosis or (see Wieseler) epexegesis of the foregoing ἡμῶν. But apart from the fact that this ἡμῶν in the habitually used Κύριος ἡμῶν em- braces all Christians, and consequently αὐτῶν te καὶ ἡμῶν (ἡμῶν being re- ferred to Paul and Sosthenes) would express something quite self-evident, and that, too, without any special significance of bearing,’ the position of the words is decisive against this view, and in favour of attaching them to παντὶ τόπῳ, to which they necessarily belong as a more precise definition. Comp. Vulg. : ‘‘In omni loco ipsorwm et nostro.” Tf, namely, σὺν πᾶσι... ἡμῶν must denote the Achaean Christians out of Corinth (see above), then παντὶ τόπῳ requires a limitation to the geographical district which is intend- ed. Now, this limitation is not already laid down by ἐν Κορίνθῳ (Liicke, Wieseler), since it was precisely in the superscription that the need of defi- _ niteness in designating the readers was obvious, but it is expressly given by αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν, in such a way, namely, that αὐτῶν refers to the Corinthians, who, however, are indicated not by ὑμῶν, but by αὐτῶν, because from the point where the widening of the address (σὺν πᾶσι x...) comes in, the Co- rinthians appear as third parties. Accordingly the Epistle is addressed : To the Corinthian Christians, and to all who, in every place that belongs to them (the Corinthians) and to us as well (Paul and Sosthenes), call upon the name of Christ. Every place in the province, namely, where Christians lived or a church existed (as e.g. in Cenchree, Rom. xvi. 1), was a place which be- longed to the Corinthians, a τόπος αὐτῶν, in so far as the church at Corinth was the mother-church of the Christian body in Achaia ; but each such place belonged also to Paul (and Sosthenes), in so far as he was the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and all Achaia. It is quite in accordance with the ingenious subtlety of the apostle to give the designa- tion of the provincials in such a form, as to make his own authority felt over against the prerogative of those Jiving in the capital (αὐτῶν). As in 1 [The New Testament knows nothing of αὐτῶν applies to the Corinthians. But in two kinds of worship.—T. W. C.] fact, according to the view of Liicke and 2 ΤΆ is supposed to conveya polemical Wieseler (see below), it cannot do so, but reference to the party-divisions. See Wie- must apply to the other Achaeans. seler, 1.9, This can only be the case if 12 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Rom. xvi. 13 αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμοῦ Aelicately expresses the community of love (comp. also 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Philem. 11 ; Soph. ΚΕἸ. 417 f.: πατρὸς τοῦ σοῦ τε κἀμοῦ), so here αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν the community of right. The objection that the sense in which they belonged to the Corinthians was different from that in which they belonged to Paul and Sosthenes (de Wette), fails to appreciate the point of the words. The offence which Hofm. takes at the reading re καί (as though it must be equivalent to εἴτε) arises from a misunderstand- ing ; it is the usual co-ordinating re καί, which here has not even the appear- ance (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 100) of standing in place of εἴτε. Comp., on the contrary, Hartung, p. 101 ; Baeuml., Partik. p. 225. Observe, besides, that re καί gives more rhetorical emphasis to the association of the two gen- itives than the simple «ai ; see Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 165. Riibiger, krit. Unters. Ὁ. 62 f., has assented to our view.’ Comp. also Maier. Those who join σὺν πᾶσι x.t.A. to κλητοῖς ay. (see above) usually take αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμ. as an analysis of the idea παντί : in every place, where they and where we (Paul and Sosthenes) are, i.e. elsewhere and here in Ephesus. See Calovius, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander. But how meaningless this more precise ex- planation of παντί would be! In fact, it would be absurd ; for, since the subject is all (πᾶσι «.7.A.), in which the ἡμεῖς are thus already included, an analysis of it into αὐτοί (which the πάντες are surely already) and ἡμεῖς is utterly illogical. This applies also in opposition to Becker, by whom the τόπος ἡμῶν is held to be Corinth, and to refer to the strangers who come to Corinth. Others have, following Ambrosiaster, referred αὐτῶν to the heathen lands, and ἡμῶν to Judaea (Erasmus, Semler, Bolten ; similarly Schrader). Contrary to the text, as is also Wetstein’s opinion : ‘‘ P. swum locum vocat, ubi ipse per praedicationem evangelii ecclesiam fundaverat. Tacite se at- que Sosthenem . . . opponit peregrino falso doctori, qui in loewm non swum irrepserat.” Others refer ἐν ravti . . . ἡμῶν to the different meeting-places of the parties (Vitringa, Mosheim, Eichhorn, Krause, Pott, Ewald), so that the τόπος ἡμῶν would be the house of Justus (Acts xviii. 7), or, generally, " the place where the church had statedly assembled at first under Paul (Ewald) ; and the τόπ. αὐτῶν the meeting-house of the Petrine party, per- haps the Jewish synagogue (Pott), or, in general, the other places of assem- bly of the new sections (Ewald). But the presupposition that the church was broken up into parties locally separated from each other (see, on the contrary, xiv. 23, xi. 17 ff.) has not a single passage in the Epistle to justi- fy it. Béttger, 1.6. p. 25, holds, strangely, that αὐτῶν applies to the Corin- thian Christians, and ἡμῶν to those of Lower Achaia (among whom Paul is supposed to have written ; see Introd. ὃ 8) ; and Ziegler, that αὐτῶν applies to those in Corinth, ἡμῶν to those staying with Paul in Ephesus, Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus (xvi. 17), and others. Hofmann propounds the pe- culiar view that καὶ ἡμῶν betokens that Paul was at home, and felt himself to be so, wherever Christ was invoked. Asif the reader would have been capable of deducing any such ubiquity of spiritual domicile from the sim- 1 Also Burger in his (popular) Awslegung, Erl. 1859, and Holtzmann, Judenthum κι. Chris- tenth. p. 749. OHAP. I., 3-5. 13 ple pronoun, and that, too, in the very address of the Epistle, without the slightest hint from the connection. Ver. 3. See on Rom. i. 7.’ Vv. 4-9. Conciliatory preamble, by no means without real praise (Hofmann), assuredly not ironical (Semler, comp. Mosheim), which would be unwise and wrong ; and not addressed merely to the party of Paul and that of Apollos (Flatt), which is at variance with ver. 2 ; but, as is alone in accord- ance with the character of Paul and with the words themselves, directed tothe church as a whole under a persuasion of the truth of its contents, — bringing forward first of all with true affection what was laudable, so faras it existed, and lovingly leaving out of view for a time what was blame- worthy, but withal soberly keeping within the bounds of truth and tracirg all up to God. Vv. 4, 5. Mov]? asin Rom. i. 8. --- πάντοτε] always, to be measured not strictly by the literal import of the word, but by the fervour of his constant love. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 2 f.; 2 Thess. i. 8. --- ἐπί] ground of the thanks, Phil. i. 5 ; Polyb. xviii. 26.4; Valck. in loc. The grace of God, which had been bestowed on them, is described more precisely in ver. 5 according to its effects. — ἐν X. ’I.] 1.6. in your fellowship with Christ. By this is denoted the specifically Christian nature of the gift, in so far, namely, as it is not attained apart from Christ, but—otherwise it were a worldly gift—has in Christ, as the life-element of those who are its subjects, the distinctive sphere of its manifestation. Just in the same way ver. 5. -- ὅτι) that you, namely, etc., epexegesis of ἐπὶ τῇ χάρ. K.7.A. — ἐν παντί] without limitation : in all, in every point ; comp. 2 Cor. ix. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 18 ; Eph. ii. 4; Jas. ii. 5. To this Paul forthwith, and again with év (comp. 2 Cor. vi. 4), adds the more precise definition chosen in reference to the state of things at Corinth : ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ k. πάσῃ γνώσει : in all discourse and all knowledge—that is to say, so that no kind of Christian aptitude of speech, or of Christian intelligence, is wanting among you, but both--the former outwardly com- municative aptitude, in virtue of which aman is δυνατὸς γνῶσιν ἐξειπεῖν (Clem. Cor. I. 48); and the latter, the inward endowment—are to be found with you richly in every form. This view, according to which λόγος is sermo, occurs in substance in the Greek commentators, in Calovius, Riickert, Neander, Hofmann, and many others, and is confirmed beyond a doubt by 2 Cor. viii. 7, xi. 6. As to the different hinds of Christian utterance, comp. 1 Cor. xii. 8. Λόγος is not therefore to be understood, with Billroth, de Wette, and Maier, of the doctrine preached to the Corinthians. Beza, Gro- 1 See also the elaborate dissertation on the apost. benedictory greeting by Otto in the Jahrb. fiir D. Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff. The origin of that greeting, however, is hardly to be traced back, as the author holds, to the Aaronic blessing, Num. vi. 25f. Otherwise it would always be tripartite, and, in par- ticular, would mot omit the characteristic ἔλεος. Now, the only Epistles in which it certainly occurs as t7ipartite, and with ἔλεος, are the (post-Pauline) ones, 1 and 2 Tim. and 2John 3; also Jude 2(but with a pecul- iar variation). It wasonlyata later date that the Aaronic blessing passed over into Christian liturgic use Constitf. ap. ii. 57. 13) ; but a free reminiscence of that blessing may already be contained in the greetings of those late Epistles. 2 [Westcott & Hort omit this word, but apparently without reason.—T. W. C.] 14 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. tius, and others take λόγος to be specially the donum linguarum, and γνῶσις the donum prophetiae, which, however, is not conveyed either in the words themselves or in the connection, and is, moreover, at variance with the sub- ordinate importance attached to the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν (chap. xiv.). Lastly, as to the running together of the two: ἐν πάσῃ γνώσει τοῦ λόγου (Schulz, Morus, Rosenmiiller), the very repetition of the πάσῃ, and the difference in point of idea between the two words, should have dissuaded its supporters from such a view ; for Ady. and γνώσ. can as little be synonyms (Clericus, Pott) as 137 and Nyt. Clement also, 1 Cor. 1, praises the former condition of the church with respect to τὴν τελείαν καὶ ἀσφαλῆ γνῶσιν. Ver. 6. Καθώς] According.as, introduces the relation of that happy condi- tion of things (ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσθητε. . . γνώσει) to its cause. See on John xiii, 94, xvil. 2; 1 Cor. v.73 Eph. i. 4; Phil. 1. 7%; Matt. wi, 19)> 9 μαρτύριον τοῦ Χ.} characteristic designation of the Gospel, the publishers of which bear witness of Christ. Comp. 2 Tim.i. 8; Acts i. 8, iii. 15, al.; 2 Thess. 1. 10 ; 1 Pet. v. 1. Comp. apr. τοῦ Θεοῦ, 11. 1. — ἐβεβαιώθη] is ren- dered by most : is confirmed,’ has been accredited (Mark xvi. 20 ; Rom. xv. 8 ; Heb. ii. 3, al.); comp. also Riickert : ‘‘evinced as true by its effect on you ;” and Ewald : ‘‘ guaranteed among you by signs of the power of the Holy Spirit.” So, too, in substance, Hofmann. It is more in keeping, how- ever, with the logical relation of καθὼς κ.τ.λ. to the foregoing, as well as with the βεβαιώσει of ver. 8 (comp. 2 Cor. i. 21 ; Col. ii. 7), to explain it of the gospel becoming firmly established in their souls (by stedfast faith), so that the opposite is expressed by the Johannine τὸν λόγον οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν (John v. 38). Comp. Billroth and de Wette. — ἐν ὑμῖν] in animis vestris. Ver. 7. Result of τὸ μαρτ. τ. X. ἐβεβ. ἐν ὑμῖν, consequently parallel to ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτ. ἐν ato. The negative expression μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν is conceived quite after the analogy of the positive πλουτίζ. ἐν (see on ver. 5), so that ἐν denotes that in which one is behind (defectively constituted). Hence : 80 that ye in no gift of grace are behind (i.e. less rich than other churches.) Comp. Plat. Pol. vi. p. 484 D: μηδ᾽ ἐν ἄλλῳ μηδενὶ μέρει ἀρετῆς ὑστηροῦντας. Ecclus. li. 24. The sense would be different, if the words were μηδενὸς χαρίσματος (so that no gift of grace is lacking to you.) See Rom. iii. 22 ; Luke xxii. 35 ; John ii. 38. Ruhnk. ad Tim. p.51. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 237 ; ad Soph. Aj. 782. Χάρισμα is here to be taken (with Calvin and others, in- cluding Rosenmiiller, Pott, de Wette, Maier) in the wider sense of the spirit- ual blessings of Christianity generally, in so far as believers are made partakers of them by the divine grace through the πνεῦμα ἅγιον (Rom. i. 11 ; 1 Cor. vii. 7) ; not, with most of the older expositors, as well as Billroth, Rickert, Olshausen, Hofmann, in the narrower sense of the extraordinary gifts (chap. xii. ff.). The proof of this is, first, that the immediately following ἀπεκδε- xou. k.7.2. makes the μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι appear as an ethical endowment ; second, that the significant retrospective reference of the ἀνεγκλήτους in ver. 8 does not suit the γαρίσματα in the narrower sense, 1“Non de confirmatione externa verbi, Calovius. Chrysostom understood it of quae fit per miracula, sed de confirmatione doth ; Theodoret, Theophylact, and others, interna quae fit per testimonium Sp. St.,”’ of the miracles only. GCHAR? E508: 15 but does suit all the more strikingly the moral character of the Christian gifts of the Spirit in general. The form of expression in the singular here stands as little in the way of this view (in opposition to Hofmann) as at Rom. i. 11, and is, in fact, necessitated by the negative form of the dis- course. Riickert, indeed, objects: ‘‘ that Paul could not at all mean here those purely moral blessings, seeing that the Corinthians did not possess them.” The apostle, however, is not speaking of every individual, but of the church taken as a whole (comp. already Chrysostom and Theophylact) ; and, moreover, expresses himself with much caution in a negative way, so that he only needs to answer for the presence of a sufficienter praeditum esse to stand comparison with other churches. — a7exde you. x.7.2.] 15. ἃ significant accompanying definition to what has gone before : as persons, who are not in any wise afraid of the revelation of Christ (1 Pet. i. 7 ; Col. ili. 3 f.) and wish it away, but who are waiting for it. This waiting and that afflux of ‘ grace stand in a mutual relation of action and reaction. Bengel says rightly : ‘‘ Character Christiani veri vel falsi, revelationem Christi vel ex- pectare vel horrere.” The fact that there were among the Corinthians deniers of the resurrection (and consequently of the Parousia in its full idea)—which, we may add, might naturally enough cause this hope to become all the more vividly prominent in the case of the rest—does not take away from the truth of the words, which hold good of the church ὦ potiori. Just as little can they (contrary to the winning tone of the whole preamble) have it as their design to terrify with the thought of the day of judgment (Chrysostom), or to censwre the doubters (Grotius, Riickert), or even to make ironical reference to the fancied perfection of the Corinthians (Mosheim). The participial clause, which needed neither ὡς nor the article, is not merely a temporal definition—consequently ‘‘ for the time” of the waiting (Hofmann)—any more than at Tit. ii. 13; Rom. viii. 23 ; Jude 21. —arexd.] denotes the persevering expectation. See on Rom. viii. 19 ; Fritzsche in Friteschior. Opusc. Ὁ. 150 ff. The word does not indicate the element of longing (de Wette). See Rom. viii. 25 ; 1 Pet. iii. 20. For the subject-matter, comp. Phil. iii. 20 ; Tit. ii. 13 ;2 Tim. iv. 8 ; Luke xii. 36. Ver. 8. Ὅς] refers to "Ijoov X., not, as Flatt, Pott, Billroth, Schrader, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann, with the majority of in- terpreters, assume, to the far-distant Θεός, ver. 4,—a view to which we are not compelled either by the Ἰησ. Χριστοῦ which follows (see below), or by ver. 9, seeing that the working of the exalted Christ is in fact subordinated to the will of God (iii. 23, xi. 3 ; Rom. viii. 34, a/.). Comp. Winer, p. 149 [E. T. 196]. The apostle, however, is so full of Christ, as he addresses himself to his Epistle, that throughout the preamble he names Him in almost every verse, sometimes even twice. Comp. Rom. i. 1-7. — καί] also, denotes that which corresponds to the ἀπεκδέχεσθαι «.7.2.. What Christ will do. — βεβαιώσει] στηρίξει, Rom. xvi. 25 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; 2Cor.i. 21. The future stands here not optatively (Pott), but as expressive of a confident hope in the gracious working of Christ.’ —éw¢ τέλους] applies not to the end of life 1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, rect censure ; asa hint that they were oa- and others, find in this expression an indi- λευόμενοι and ἐγκλημασι viv ὑποκείμενοι. A 16 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (Calovius, Flatt, and others), but, as the foregoing τ. ἀποκάλ. x.r.2. and the following ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ «7.2. clearly show, to the end of the pre-Messianic period of the world’s history (the αἰὼν οὗτος, see on Matt. xiii. 32), which is to be ushered in by the now nearly approaching (vii. 29, xv. 51) Parousia. Comp. x. 11; 2 Cor. i. 13. It is the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος, Matt. xiii. 39 f., xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20; comp. Heb. ix. 26. — ἀνεγκλήτους x.7.4.] result of the strengthening : so that ye shall be free from reproach in the day, etc. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 13. See respecting this proleptic usage generally, on Matt. xii. 13 ; Phil. 111. 21, and Jacob, Quaest. epic. ii. 4, p. 136 ff. Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 560 Ὁ. --- τοῦ Κυρίου «.7.2.] The repetition of the noun in- stead of the mere pronoun is common in the classics also (Ellendt, ad Arrian. Exp, Al. i. 55 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 1), and elsewhere in the N. T. (Winer, 1.6. and p. 186 [E. T. 180]). Here (as at 2 Cor. i. 5; Eph. i. 13 ; Col. i. 13 f., αἴ.) it has solemn emphasis. Comp. ver. 21. — It is to be noted, moreover, that the blamelessness in the day of Christ (comp. Rom. viii. 338) is conditioned (2 Tim. iv. 7) by perseverance in the faith (through which justification is appropriated) and consequently rests on the imputation of faith (Rom. iv. 4 f.) ; but is nevertheless, in virtue of the moral character and power of faith, as also in virtue of sanctification through the Spirit, of a thoroughly moral nature (Rom. vi. 1 ff., viii. 1 ff.), so that the ἀνέγκλητος at the Parousia appears not, indeed, as ἀναμάρτητος, but as καινὴ κτίσις ἐν Χριστῷ (2 Cor. v. 17), who, being divinely restored (Eph. ii. 10 ; Col. iii. 10) and progressively sanctified (1 Thess. v. 23), has worked out his own salvation (Phil. ii. 12) in the consecration of the moral power of the new spiritual life (Rom. viii. 2f. ; Phil. i. 10 f., and now receives the βρα- βεῖον of his calling (Phil. iii. 14), the στέφανος of the δικαιοσύνη (2 Tim. iv. 8), in the δόξα of everlasting life. Ver. 9. Ground of this confident hope. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 13 ; 1 Thess. v. 24 ;-2 Thess. 111. 3 ; Phil. i. 6 ; Rom. xi. 29. Were the βεβαίωσις on the part of Christ (ver. 8) not to take place, the divine call to the κοινωνία τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Would remain without effect, which would not be compatible with the faithfulness of God, from whom the call comes, and who, by His call- ing, gives pledge to us of eternal salvation (Rom. viii. 30).—Riickert finds in δύ οὗ, because God Himself is the caller, a veritable misuse of the prep- osition ; and others, as Beza and Rosenmiiller, explain it without cere- mony by ὑφ᾽ oi, which D* F G in fact read. But Paul is thinking here in a popular way of the call as mediated through God. It is true, of course, that God is the causa principalis, but the mediating agency is also God’s, ἐξ οὗ καὶ δι οὗ τὰ πάντα (Rom. xi. 36) ; hence both modes of representation may oc- cur, and διά may be used as wellas ὑπό, wherever the context does not make it of importance to have a definite designation of the primary cause as such. Comp. Gal. i. 1 ; Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, Pol. ii. p. 379 E. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 15 ; Bernhardy, p. 235 f.—The κοινωνία τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ is the fel- lowship with the Son of God (genitive, as in 2 Cor, xi. 13 ; Phil. ii. 1 ; 2 Pet. i. 4), 1.6. the participation in the filial relation of Christ, which, however, view the more inappropriate, when wecon- _ tle was the thought expressed with respect sider how natural and familiar to the apos- ὀἴο all his churches. CHAE STs, 10: Lvs is not to be understood of the temporal relation of sonship, Gal. iii. 26 f. . (κοινωνίαν yap viov τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἐκάλεσε, Theodoret), nor of ethical fel- lowship (Grotius, Hofmann, and many others), but, in accordance with the idea of the καλεῖν which always refers to the Messianic kingdom, of .fellow- ship of the glory of the Son of God in the eternal Messianic life,'—a fellowship which will be the glorious completion of the state of υἱοθεσία (Gal. iv. 7). It is the δόξα τῶν τέκνων τοῦ Θεοῦ (Rom. vili. 21), when they shall be συγκληρονό- μοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, σύμμορφοι Of His image, συμβασιλεύοντες and συνδοξασθέντες, Rom. viii. 17 ; comp. vv. 23, 29; 2 Thess. ii. 14 ; Col. iii. 4: Phil. iii. 20 fon eecor, xv. 48 f.;°2 Tim. ii. 12. Ver. 10-iv. 21. First section of the Epistle: respecting the parties, with a defence of the apostle’s way of teaching. Vv. 10-16. Exhortation to unity (ver. 10), statement of the character of their party-division (vv. 11, 12), and how wrong it was (vv. 18-16). Ver. 10. ‘‘ Exhortation, however, lest ye miss this end of your calling, exhortation I give to you,” etc. — ἀδελφοί] winning and tender form of ad- dress, often introduced by Paul just at the point where he has a serious word to speak. Ver. 11, vii. 29, x. 1, xiv. 20, al. — διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος κ.τ.}.} by means of the name, etc., while I point you to the name of Christ, which, in truth, constitutes the one confession of all His disciples, and thereby βού before you the motive to follow my exhortation. Comp. Rom. xii. 1, xv. 30 ; 2 Cor. x. 1 ; 2 Thess. iii. 12. Were the meaning ex mandato Christi (Heu- mann, Semler, Ernesti, and Rosenmiiller), it would be expressed by ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. (v. 4 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6, al.).—iva] design, and in this form of concep- tion, contents of the παρακαλῶ, as in xvi. 12, 153; 2 Cor. viii. 6, ix. 5; 2 Thess. 11. 17, and often in the Synoptic Gospels. — τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε] agreement of confessional utterance, as opposed to the party-confessions of faith, at vari- ance with each other, ver. 12. Luther renders it appropriately : ‘‘ einerlei Rede fiihret.” The consensus animorum is only expressed in the sequel (ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισμ. k.T.A.) ; in the first instance it is the outstanding manifestation of the evil that Paul has in view. This in opposition to Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, and many others, including Heydenreich and Billroth, who explain the phrase of thisinward agreement, which Paul would have known well how to express by τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν (Rom. xv. 5; Phil. ii. 2 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11), or in some similar correct way, and which, even in such passages as Thue. v. 31. 5, Polyb. ii. 62, is not expressed, but presupposed. More expres- sive still is Polyb. v. 104. 1 : λέγειν ἕν καὶ ταὐτό, to speak one and the same thing. — καὶ μὴ ἢ ἐν ὑμ. σχίσματα] the same thought in prohibitive form (comp. Rom. xii. 14, a/.), but designating the evil forbidden more generally, accord- ing to its category. — ἦτε δὲ κιτ.λ.] δέ, but rather, but onthe contrary (see Har- tung, Partikell. I. p. 171 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 360; Baeuml. Partik. p. 95), introduces what ought to be the case instead of the forbidden καὶ μὴ k.T.A. —Katnptiopévor| fully adjusted, established in the right frame (Vulg. perfecti ; Theophyl. τέλειοι). Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Gal. vi. 1; Heb. xiii. 11; 1 Pet. v. 10 ; Luke vi. 40. When there are divisions in a society, the 1 Comp. Weiss, Diblische Theol. Ὁ. 310, 18 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. κατάρτισις is wanting (2 Cor. xiii. 9 ; comp. καταρτισμός, Eph. iv. 12) ; hence Greek writers also use καταρτίζειν in speaking of the establishment of right relations by the removal of disunion (as here), sedition, or the like, Herod. v. 28. 106 ; Dion. Hal. Antt. 111. 10. Whether any jigurative reference, however, of κατηρτ. to the original sense of σχίσματα, fissurae, be intended (to make whole and good again what was broken or rent, comp. Matt. iv. 21; Mark i. 19; Esdr. iv. 12, 13, 16; Herod. v. 106), as Bos, Elsner, Valckenaer, Pott, Heydenreich, and others think, and as Luther, Calvin (‘‘ apte cohaereatis”), and Beza, (‘‘coagmentati”) express by their render- ings, may be doubted, because Paul does not more precisely and definitely indicate such a conception ; while, on the other hand, it was exceedingly common to use σχίσμα absolutely, and without special thought of its origi- nal material reference (Matt. ix. 16), to denote dissidium (John vii. 43, ix. 16, x. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 18, and even xii. 25). — ἐν τᾷ αὐτῷ voix.r.2.] the sphere, in which they were to be κατηρτ. Comp. Heb. xiii. 21. Νοῦς and γνώμη differ as understanding and opinion. Through the fact, namely, that Chris- tians in Corinth thought differently (νοῦς) on important matters, and in con- sequence of this difference of thinking, formed in a partisan spirit different opinions and judgments (γνώμη), and fought for these against each other, the τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν Was wanting-and σχίσματα prevailed. In opposition to this, the Corinthians were to agree together in Christian thinking ἡ and judging ; the right state of things was to establish itself among them in ὁμονοεῖν and ὁμογνωμονεῖν (Thuc. ii. 97 ; Dem. 281. 21; Polyb. xxviii. 6. 2). In ἔριδες, ver. 11, we have the manifestation of the opposite of both of these, of Christian sameness of thought and opinion. That sameness, therefore, does not preclude the friendly discussion of points of difference in thought and judgment, with a view to mutual better understanding and the promotion of harmony, but it doubtless does preclude party differences and hostility. ᾿Αμφισβητοῦσι μὲν yap καὶ δι’ εὔνοιαν οἱ φίλοι τοῖς φίλοις, ἐρίζουσι δὲ οἱ διαφοροί τε καὶ ἐχθροὶ ἀλλήλοις, Plat. Prot. p. 337 B. Many other interpreters take γνώμη as referring to the practical disposition (to Jove); whereas νοῦς denotes the theoretical understanding. See Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, who says : ὅταν yap τὴν αὐτὴν πίστιν ἔχωμεν, μὴ συναπτώμεθα δὲ κατὰ THY ἀγάπην, τὰ μὲν αὐτὰ νοοῦμεν, διϊστάμεθα δὲ κατὰ τὴν γνώμην. But this separation between theory and practice is quite arbitrary ; and γνώμη never means in the N. T. ‘‘ disposition,” but always (even in Rev. xvii. 13, 17) sententia, judicium. Comp. the classical τῆς αὐτῆς γνώμης εἶναι, to have one and the same view, Thuc. i. 113, iii. 70. Eur. Hee. 127 : ἐκ μιᾶς γνώμης, Dem. 147. 1 : διὰ μιᾶς γνώμης γίνεσθαι, Isocr. Paneg. 38 : τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν γνώμην, Plat. Ale. 2, p. 189 A. The converse : ἐγένοντο δίχα ai γνῶμαι, Herod. vi. 109. Ver. 11. Motive for the foregoing exhortation. — ὑπὸ τῶν X2éy¢] comp. Rom. xvi. 10; Winer, p. 179 [E. T. 238]. What persons belonging to Chloe are meant, was as well known to the readers as it is unknown to us, Grotius and Valckenaer understood ‘‘ mortuae Chloes liberos ;” others gen- 1 The sense of ‘‘ disposition” is wrongly Maier). This is not the case evenin Rom. attributed to νοῦς (Riickert, Neander, i. 28, xii. 2; Eph. iv. 17; see in loc. CHAPS I... 1°2. 19 erally, ‘‘ those of her household ;” others, again, ‘‘ slaves,” as undoubtedly such genitives are sometimes to be explained by δοῦλος (Schaef. ad Bos, Hill. p- 117 f.) ; comp. Plat. Phaed. p.60 A. Chloe herself is commonly held to be a Corinthian Christian, members of whose household had come to Eph- esus. It seems, however, more in accordance with apostolic discretion to suppose (with Michaelis) that she was an Hphesian well known to the Co- rinthians, members of whose household had been in Corinth and returned thence.—The name (familiar as a surname of Demeter) occurs also elsewhere ; Hor. Od. i. 23, iii. 9. 6 ; Long. Past. 7. We may add that Bengel remarks well on ἐδηλώθη (comp. Col. i. 8) : ‘‘exemplum delationis bonae nec sine causa celandae.” It was in fact the fulfilment of a duty of love. Ver. 12. Now what I mean (by this ἔριδες ἐν ὑμῖν εἰσι) is this (which fol- lows), that, etc. Regarding the explicative λέγω, common also in Greek writers, comp. Gal. iii. 17; Rom. xv. 8. Calvin and Beza understand it, making τοῦτο retrospective : I say this, because, etc. But, not to speak of the less suitable meaning thus attained, τοῦτο in all parallel passages points invariably forward (Gal. iii. 17; Eph. iv. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 29, xv. 50), ex- cept when, as in vii. 35, Col. 11. 4, a clause expressive of design follows. — éxaotoc] Hach of you speaks in one of the forms following. Comp. xiv. 26. Chrysostom says aptly : ob γὰρ μέρος, ἀλλὰ τὸ πᾶν ἐπενέμετο τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ φθορά. — Nothing is to be supplied with the genitive Παύλου κ.τ.}., for εἷναί τινος means to belong to any one, addictum esse. See Seidl. ad Hur. El. 1098 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 621 ; Winer, p. 184 [E. T. 243 f.]. —Kyga] The Jewish name (892) is so usual with Paul (iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5, and see the critical remarks on Gal. i. 18) that it is only in Gal. ii. 7, 8 that we find Πέτρος em- ployed by him ; hence the less may we regard Κηφᾶ here as taken directly from the lips of the Jewish Petrine party (Estius).—The order of the four names is historical, following that in which the parties successively arose.— For a connected review of them and the relative literature, see Introd. § 1. The following remarks may be added from the exegetical standpoint: (1) The Χριστοῦ and ver. 14 ff. invalidate at once the theory held by the Fathers (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, see Riibi- ger, krit. Unters. p. 9) and many of the older commentators, including Michaelis, and based principally on iv. 6, that the three first names were fictitious merely, and used in order to avoid bringing forward by name the real heads of the parties. (2) There can be no reduction of the number of the parties below four, although many attempts have been made to bring to- gether not only the partisans of Paul and of Apollos (as having but a formal difference), but also the Petrine and the Christine parties (J. E. Chr. Schmidt, Bibl. f. Krit. u. Hxeg. I. p. 91; Baur in the Tiib. Zeitschr. 1831, 4, p. 61 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 291 ff., ed. 2; also Billroth, Lechler, and others) ; or else—which, however, is merely a drawing of them together in form—to reduce the four to two main parties, the apostolic and the Chris- tine (Neander, Jaeger, and Schenkel) ; or, lastly, by exegetical expedients (Rabiger), either to get rid of the Christ-party altogether (see below), or at least to take them out, of the list of parties by assuming that they were ap- proved of by the apostle (Schott, with older interpreters). Paul, in fact; 20 ‘ PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. sets forth quite uniformly four definite diversities of confession standing in contrast, and then shows in ver. 13 how sad and how preposterous this state of division was.—In the face of this manifest mode of reckoning and dispos- ing of the parties by the apostle himself in this passage, several theories, respecting more particularly (3) the Christ-party, must be dismissed as un- tenable. Among these is (a) the view repeatedly brought forward from the days of Chrysostom :* ‘‘Mentionem eorum propterea fecit una cum illis, quod, cujusnam generis essent dissidia inter Cor. excitata, perspicue explicare non poterat, nisi ita, ut diceret, alios hunc, alios illum praeferre doctorem, aliis (recte quidem, 1 Cor. iii. 23) se Christi sectatores simpliciter appellan- tibus” (Schott, Zsag. 233). With respect to this, it is to be observed that iii. 23 implies not the justification of those λέγοντες" ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, but the truth of the idea,* from the abuse of which that fourth party arose which in the passage before us appears under a precisely similar condemnation to that of the other three. (0) The theory invented by Baur* in behalf of the antagonism between Paulinism and Petrinism (comp. also Lechler, p. 386) : that the same party called themselves both τοὺς Kya, because Peter had the primacy among the apostles of the Jews, and also τοὺς Χριστυῦ, be- cause they held direct connection with Christ to be the main mark of true apostleship, and therefore counted Paul far behind the other apostles ;* that the Christ-party, in fact, were the most thoroughgoing disciples of Peter (comp. Billroth and Credner, Hinl. sec. 132 ; also Reuss, and especial- ly Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 25 f.). (ce) The opinion of Becker, that the Christine party were Jewish-Christians, who had attached them- selves to the followers of Peter that had come from a distance to Corinth, but, as having been converted by Paul and Apollos, had called themselves not after Peter, but after Christ. (d) Riibiger’s view, according to which the Christ-party is purely a creation of the exegetes, ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ being the ut- terance common to the three parties ; so that all, indeed, professed allegiance 1 He, however, holds that Paul added _ tine party from its non-mention. Origen “ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ"" Kai οἴκοθεν (ὁ.6. ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, as Theophylact has it), βουλόμενον βαρύτερον τὸ ἔγκλημα ποιῆσαι Kat Se ac οὕτω Kai τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς μέρος δοθέντα ἕν, εἰ καὶ μὴ οὕτως ἐποίουν τοῦτο ἐκεῖνοι. Comp. also Theodoret, who lays stress on the special wisdom of this procedure. 2 The rightness of the confession : ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, considered in and by itself’, explains also why Clement, 1 Cor. 47, mentions only the other three parties and not the Christ- party as well. He is speaking against the attachment to human party-leaders. He might indeed, in some way suitable to the connection of his exhortation, have brought in the Christine party (which he doubtless would have done, if they had been as bad as they have been made out to be of late), but there was no necessity for his doing so, Hence it is unwarrantable to infer (with Riibiger) the non-existence of a special Chris- also does no/ quote the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ with the rest of the passage in one instance, al- though he does in another. 3 See Beyschlag, p. 225 ff.—Hilgenfeld (see his Zei/schr. 1865, p. 241) calls Baur’s disser- tation of 1831, “ the ancestral stronghold of our whole criticism.’ If so, it is a win, like so many other ancestral strongholds. It could not so much as stand firm against the simple words ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, into which Baur put a meaning as if Paul had written : The con- fession ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ necessarily transcends all apostolic authority, and excludes it. 4 Comp. Hilgenfeld, who holds that they were immediate disciples of Christ, who sought to establish the exclusive authority of the original apostles, denying to Paul the Χριστοῦ εἶναι. See also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 165 f. ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων Χριστοῦ. CHAP. £., (12: 21 to Christ, but the strife between them consisted in this, ‘‘ that they made participation in Christ dependent on different teachers, each holding that they, inasmuch as they belonged to a particular teacher, had the real and true Christ,—a better Christ than the others.” This explanation, if we judge in accordance with the preceding elements in ver. 12, is an exegetical impossibility. It has been already well said by Calovius : ‘* Et illi, quia Christo Christianos se dicebant, guatenus ab aliis sese per schisma separabant, illo nomine sibi solum appropriato, schismatis rei erant.” Since they are ranked, just as the others, under the category of the σχίσματα and ἔριδες (vv. 10, 11), and their fault is set before them as before the others, ver. 13, by μεμέρ. ὁ Χριστός, we cannot even characterize them, with Eichhorn, as neutrals.—To name Christ as their Head was so extremely natural for a party who, as con- trasted with the others, wished to keep themselves free from all authority of human teachers (see Introd. ὃ 1; also Riickert, Bleek, Hin/., Hofm. 16 f.), that there is no need whatever for any attempt at a different explanation ; such as Eichhorn’s imagination, that they rested upon the sayings of Jesus in the Protevangelium ; or the view of Grotius, Witsius, Wetstein, and Zieg- ler, that they had heard Christ themselves,’ or at least their founder had (if the former, how disproportionately small must their number needs have been ! and if the latter, they would surely have named themselves after their founder, since Peter, too, was a personal disciple of Christ). Equally unde- serving of acceptance is Storr’s view (Opuse. 11. p. 252 ff.), adopted by Rosenmiiller, Krause, Hug, Heydenreich, and Flatt (comp. also Bertholdt, Hinl. VI. p. 3319), that they had called themselves τοῦ Χριστοῦ, as followers of James the brother of Christ. This is an empty conjecture, not to be sup- ported by ix. 5, xv. 9; and it has, besides, especially this against it, that the followers of the venerated James would have had no ground, as distin- guished from the other parties, for not calling themselves οἱ τοῦ ᾿Ιακώβου or οἱ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου, and that James also would have been mentioned with the rest in iii. 22, as well as in Clem. 1 Cor. 47, if the Christ-party had not referred themselves directly to Christ.—This claim, moreover, of a di- rect relation to Christ as regards His exclusive authority, found its sufficient ground and justification in the general acquaintance with the doctrine and work of Christ, which was owing to the living presence of the gospel tid- ings in the churches. There is no evidence in the Epistles themselves of any other and peculiar connection with the Lord being laid claim to by the Christ-party. This holds especially of Schenkel’s view, that the Christ-party, consisting of Jewish-Christians from Asia Minor with theosophic training, had asserted a supernatural connection with Christ through visions and rev- elations, their spiritual condition consequently having its analogues at a later date in Cerinthus, Marcion, the Montanists, and the like ; and that this party had its continuation in those who opposed the presbyters in Clem- 1 This view is taken up again by Thiersch, with Pharisaic views, proud of their Hebrew ἃ. Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, p. 143 ff. He descent and of their haying known Christ regards the Christ-party as personal disciples in the flesh, disputing the apostleship of of Christ, who had come to Corinth from Paul, ete. Jerusalem and probably also from Rome, 22 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ent’s Epistle. Schenkel’s theory (defended also by Grimm in the Jit. Bl. eur allg. Kirchenzeit. 1851, No. 82) bases itself especially on the passages ix. 1; 2 Cor. x. 7, xii. 1. To explain these, however, there is no need to sup- pose any allusion to theosophic opponents, or any reference to the Christ- party at all, since Paul—more especially if they had been a party standing in such (fanatical) antagonism in point of principle to himself—would have combated them directly and in detail, and that in the section of the Epistle which deals expressly with the party-divisions (down to iv. 21).' And to connect them with the opponents of the presbyters in Clement is all the more arbitrary, because that writer, while finding a parallel to the factions which he blames in the parties of Paul, Apollos, and Peter, makes no ref- erence whatsoever to the Christ-party,—a silence which is eloquent enough to make us hesitate in ascribing to them any such extreme and dangerous character as some have lately imputed to them, and to incline us rather to the view of their fundamental principle being one in itself sound, but per- verted in its application by party-spirit. "In addition to de Wette, Lutter- beck, and Maier, Goldhorn and Dihne agree in substance with Schenkel, seeking amidst differences in detail to prove the existence of Jewish-Alex- andrian philosophy in the Christ-party ; just as Kniewel (comp. Grimm) regards them as forerunners of the Gnostics. According to Ewald, they are the adherents of some unknown teacher of Hssene views, who, ‘‘ found- ing, doubtless, on some special evangelic writing, and in accordance there- with exalting the example of Christ personally above all else, disapproved of marriage ;” they were, in truth, the first Christian monks and Jesuits.? But it is very doubtful whether the rejection of marriage in chap. vii. should be traced precisely to the Christ-party ; and, apart from this, there is not in the Epistles to the Corinthians a single vestige of the phenomena of Hssene Christianity, or in particular of Essene asceticism, as at Rome and Colossae ; while, on the other hand, the rejection of marriage does not appear among the Romans and Colossians who held Essene views. Comp. on vii. 1.— Lastly, after this examination of the different views entertained regarding the Christ-party, the question whether they were Jewish (as commonly held) or Gentile Christians answers itself to this effect, that they were composed of both elements, as also were the adherents of Pauland of Apollos. For we have not the slightest ground for assuming that, when the division in the church arose upon matters turning on the respect due to individual men, it was either Jewish Christians alone, or Gentile Christians alone, who gave them- selves to the idea of renouncing the acknowledgment of any human teacher, and seeking instead to be τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 1 The force of this argument is doubtless evaded by the assumption, that the leaders of the party had probably not developed their hurtful influence until after the ar- rivalin Corinth of our first Epistle. But this is simply an unwarranted evasion. 3 According to Ewald’s Gesch. ἃ. apost. Zeit. p. 506 f., ed. 8, they readily allowed themselves to be carried away by the zeal This holds good in particular against for the law of their Pharisaic brethren, and became a support for their position. Those of the Christ-party with Pharisaic tenden- cies were joined, too, by some who boasted that they had once known Christ Himself familiarly, nay, that they had seen Him when risen from the dead, so that they laid claim to apostolic estimation. CHAP. I., 12. 23 Neander, who makes the Christ-party to be Gentile Christians, of a certain philosophic culture and of rationalistic tendency, to whom Christ appeared as a second, perhaps greater, Socrates, but who could not bring themselves to accept the doctrine of Christ in the form given to it by the apostles, and sought rather by philosophic criticism, which they exercised also on the doctrine of the resurrection (chap. xv.), to separate, possibly with the help of a collection of the sayings of the Lord, the pure teaching of Christ from the mass of received material. In how totally different a way must Paul have come forward against any such syncretistic rationalism ! See, besides, in reply to this, Beyschlag, p. 220 ff. Altogether, there were but few men of philosophic training who had come over to Christianity at Corinth (ver. 26) ; and those who had at least a philosophic tendency found the food for which they sought with Apollos. And it isa groundless assumption to maintain that what Paul says against worldly wisdom (chap. i. 2) is spoken with a polemic reference to the Christ-party (this in opposition to Schenkel, Jaeger, Goldhorn, Dihne, Kniewel, and others) ; see, on the contrary, chap. iii. and iv. 6. In like manner, too, it is arbitrary, and in any case unsafe to proceed, from the point at which Paul passes from discussing the state of division in the church to speak of other existing evils (from chap. v. on- wards), to apportion the latter among the several parties, and by this method, as well as by means of expressions and details from the second Epistle, to depict the character more especially of the Christ-party, whom Jaeger ’ makes in this manner to appear in the most damaging light, while Osiander * treats them prejudicially in another way, finding in them the orig- inators of sectarian Ebionitism. Beyschlag, too, in his investigation, pro- ceeds by the same uncertain path, putting together the characteristics of the Christ-party especially from the second Epistle. According to him they were Judaists, although free from Judaistic errors in doctrine, who depre- ciated the apostle Paul, but prided themselves on their Hebrew origin, their labours and sufferings for Christ, their more precise historical acquaintance with and information regarding Christ, whom they had known personally, as also on their visions and revelations of Him. In connection with this view, Beyschlag is forced to assume that it was only in the interval between the first and second Epistle that the Christ-party had developed such keen and personal antagonism to the apostle,—an assumption made also by Hil- genfeld. If, notwithstanding this development of hostility, they are to be taken as Judaists free from Judaistic anti-Pauline doctrine, we stand con- fronted by a complete anomaly in the history of the antagonism between the Judaistic and the Pauline currents in the apostolic church, so far as that _is known to us from other quarters. And it seems the less possible to ex- 1He depicts them as wealthy Jewish Christians, familiar with Greek science, who professed attachment to the spirit of Chris- tianity alone, but concealed under this mask lawlessness and immorality, and were deniers of the resurrection. 3 Originating, according to him, from the Petrine party, they had, while holding fast to the idea of Christ being the Supreme teacher, fallen into a one-sided way of con- sidering only His appearance as a Man on earth, and more especially His teaching, and of allowing the theocratic aspect of the Lord’s life and work to pass more out of sight. 24 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. plain this anomaly by the supposition of a cunning reticence on the part of the persons in question, the more we see how bitter and passionate their opposition to Paul must have been, and the more we find it difficult—con- sidering their cunning—to perceive why they should not have contented themselves with making common cause with the Petrine party, instead of forming a distinct faction of their own. (A) Ver. 18. Μεμέρισται 6 Χριστός) affirmative (with Lachmann and Kniewel ; so τινές as early as Theodoret), not interrogatory (as commonly taken), set- ting forth the tragical result of the aforesaid state of party-division, ver. 12, and that with arresting emphasis from the absence of any connective parti- cle : Christ is divided! i.e. in place of being whole and undivided, the One common Christ of all, He is broken up into different party-Christs! Such, that is to say, is the actual appearance of things when, of several parties mutually exclusive of one another, each seems to have its own separate Christ.1_ The reproach here conveyed suits the Christ-party also (against Ribiger), just as forming a party, but not them alone (Hofmann). The in- terrogatory rendering, common since Chrysostom : Js Christ divided ? taken as a question of surprise, has nothing against it linguistically (see esp. Valckenaer, II. p. 71 f.), but it is liable to the objection that it is only with the following μή that the text gives us to recognize the beginning of the interrogative address.?, Had Paul intended μεμέρ. ὁ X. as a question, it would have been most natural for him in the flow of his discourse to carry on the same form of interrogation, and say : ἢ Παῦλος ἐστ. ix. iu. The text, I may add, gives no warrant for interpreting Χριστός of the corpus Chr. mysticum, i.e. the church (Estius, Olshausen, and others ; τενές in Theodoret), or even of the doctrina Chr., which is not varia et multiplex (Grotius, Mos- heim, Semler, Morus, Rosenmiiller). — μὴ Παῦλος x.7.2.|] Paul surely was not, ete. From this point on to ver. 16 the incongruous nature of the first party- confession of faith is specially exposed. Bengel aptly remarks: ‘‘ Crux et baptismus nos Christo asserit ; relata : redimere, se addicere.” The two questions correspond to the mutual connection between believing and being baptized. — ὑπέρ] on behalf of, in the sense of atonement.’ Comp. on Gal. i. 4; Eph. v. 2. — εἰς τὸ ὄνομα] in reference to the name, as the name of him who is to be henceforth the object of the faith and confession of the indi- vidual baptized. Comp. on Matt. xxviii. 19 and Rom. vi. 3.—There was no need of a single word more regarding the jirst of these two questions ; the 1The conception is not that Christ is broken up into parts or fragments, so that the one party should possess ¢his, the other that, part (see Baur, de Wette, Riickert, Calvin, ete., with Chrysostom and Theo- phylact) ; for each party gave itself out as the possessor of the whole Christ, not simply of a part, He standing to it in the relation of its Lord and Head. To this eonception corresponds, too, the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, instead of which it would not have been necessary that it should run, ἐμοῦ ὁ Χριστός, aS Hofmann objects. 2 [But compare the usage in 2 Cor. iii. 1, where the particle is given only in the second question.—T. W. C.] 3 Lachm. reads περὶ ὑμῶν, instead of ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, following only Β D*; too weakly at- tested, and deserving of rejection also on this ground, that Paul always uses ὑπέρ (even in 1 Thess. v. 10) where the death of Christ is placed in relation to persons, for whom He died. Comp. on xv. 8, which is the only certain passage in Paul’s writings where ὑπέρ occurs with an abstract term. See also Wieseler on Gal. i. 4. CHAP. I., 14-17. 25 answer to it was so self-evident. remarks to make, vv. 14-16. Vv. 14, 15. God be thanked, that I baptized only a very few among you ! Accordingly no room has been left for the reproach being brought against me, as it might otherwise have been, that I had baptized into my own name ! ‘‘Providentia divina regnat saepe in rebus, quarum ratio postea cognosci- tur” (Bengel). Riickert finds fault with the weakness of this proof, since it was surely the same thing whether Paul had baptized personally or through his assistants. But unjustly. For, since Paul was not generally in the habit of baptizing in person, had he himself baptized many in Corinth, this might undoubtedly have been made use of afterwards by perverse minds for the possible slander that there was a specialty in the case, that he had bap- tized with his own hand in Corinth, because he did it into his own name,—a purpose for which, of course, he could not have employed others. Hofmann suggests wrongly : they might have interpreted it, as though he had wished But as to the second, the apostle has some to place the persons concerned ‘‘ in a peculiar relation” to himself. This imported indefiniteness is against the definite sense of the words. Just as he had said before, that it was not he who had been crucified for them in place of Christ, so he says further, that they had not been baptized into his name instead of the name of Christ. But the two points just show how wholly absurd the confession ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου is, because it would have such absurd premisses. — Kpiorov] See Acts xviii. 8. —Tdiov] See on Rom. Xvi. 23. —iva μή] is never elsewhere, and is not here, to be taken as : 80 that not, but it denotes the design, arranged in the divine providential lead- ing, of the οὐδένα iu. ἐβάπτισα (comp. ver. 17 ; 2 Cor. 1. 9, al.). Ver. 16. Another Corinthian family baptized by him occurs to his mind. He adds it conscientiously, and then cuts off any possibility of his being re- proached with untruthful omission by λοιπὸν οὐκ οἶδα «.7.2. Regarding Stephanas, we know nothing save from xvi. 15, 17. — Λοιπόν is the simple ceterum, otherwise, besides that. Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 1 Thess. iv. 1 ; fre- quent in Greek writers also after Polybius. Vv. 17-31. Paul justifies the simplicity of his way of teaching by the contents of the gospel. This, like all that follows on to iv. 21, is directed primarily against the pride of wisdom displayed by the party which certainly threat- ened most danger in the circumstances of the Corinthian church, —the party, namely, of Apollos (not that of Christ) ; see iii. 4, iv. 6. As to the Petrine and the Christine-party, there is no special entering into details ; it is only in passing that the judgment is extended so as to include them also (see iii. 22). Ver. 17. Rapid and skilful transition (comp. Rom. i. 16) to this (ov γὰρ... evayy.),1 and theme of the section (οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ .". . Χριστοῦ). --- οὗ yap k.T.A.] δ Suggested naturally by what had been said in vv. 14, 16, and without any ironical side-glance at those who had prided them- selves on their daptizers (Calovius) ; in par- ticular, not levelled at boastings on this ground on the part of Jewish-Christians who had been baptized by Peter (Hof- mann); nor yet against teachers “ qui prae- textu ceremoniae gloriolam venantur” (Cal- vin and Osiander). Such polemical refer- ences are dragged in without warrant in the text. 26 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. In the assured consciousness that the design of his apostolic mission was teaching, Paul recognized that baptizing, as an external office and one that required no special gift, should as a rule be left to others, the apostoli¢ ὑπη- pérac (Acts xiii. 5), in order to avoid, for his own part, being drawn away from following ont that higher aim, which was his specific calling. A very needful and salutary division of duties, considering the multitude of those converted by him! Peter, too, acted in the same way (Acts x. 48), and perhaps all the apostles. Nor was this contrary to Christ’s command in Matt. xxviii. 19, seeing that, according to it also (comp. Luke xxiv. 47 ; Mark xvi. 15), teaching was the main business of the apostolic office, while the baptismal command was equally fulfilled by baptism performed by means of others authorized by the apostles.'— oi . . . ἀλλ} is not here, any more than elsewhere, to be taken as equivalent to non tam . . . quam (Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Estius, Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, and others ; comp. also Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 785), but absolutely (see Winer, p. 461 ff. [E. T. 621 ff.] ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 9 f.) ; and the absoluteness of the nega- tion is not at all to be set down to the account of the strong rhetorical colouring (Riickert, comp. Buttmann, neuvt. Gr. p. 306 [E. T. 356]). To baptize was really not the purpose for which Christ sent Paul, but to preach (Acts ix. 15, 20, xxii. 15, xxvi. 16-18) ; in saying which it is not implied that he was not authorized to administer baptism (εἰς μὲν yap τὸ μεῖζον ἀπεσ- τάλη, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Kai τὸ ἔλαττον ἐνεργεῖν οὐκ ἐκωλύθη, Theophylact), but sent in order to baptize he was not. Comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophy- lact. —ov« ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου] does not belong to ἀπέστ. (Storr, Flatt), which would be an involved construction, but links itself closely to εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, as telling in what element that does not take place. The negation is objec- tive, attaching to the object (Kiihner, II. ὃ 714. 1; Baeumlein, Purtik. p. 257 ff.), negativing actually the ἐν σοφίᾳ : hence not μή. That σοφία λόγου is not the same as λόγος σόφος, A. σεσοφισμένος (Erasmus, Grotius, and many others, including Flatt and Pott), but emphasizes codia as the main concep- tion, may be seen in Winer, p. 221 f. [E. T. 296 f.] : to preach without wis- dom of speech, without the discourse having a philosophic character,—as de- sired by the Hellenic taste. We are not to apply this, however, to the philosophic contents of the teaching (Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and others), but to the form, which consists in the clothing of the doctrine in philosophic garb, in speculative skill, argumentative reasoning, illustration, elaboration of the matter, and the like, together with the effect which this, from the nature of the case, may have upon the doctrine itself. For it followed as a matter of course from Paul’s being sent by Christ, that he was not to preach a doctrine of this world’s wisdom (as did Plato, Aristotle, the Sophists, etc.) ; what he had to do was to deliver the substance of the ebvayyeAifec#ac—which 1 According to Ritschl, altkath. Kirche,p. the baptism of those three in ἐλαΐ light, 369, baptism was performed on the others Stephanas would not have occurred to him by those three, who themselves had been only by way of afterthought. Besides, there first baptized by Paul, and who had be- must have been baptized converts there be- come overseers. Against this viewit may fore a presbytery could be erected. Comp. be at once urged, thatif he had regarded Acts xiy. 23, CHAP. T., 18. Q7 is in truth given for all cases alike—without casting it in any philosophic mould ; his speech was not to be ἐν σοφίᾳ, lest its substance should lose its essential character. This substance was the crucified Christ, about whom he had to preach, not in the style and mode of presentation used by the wisdom of this world,—not in such a way that his preaching would have been the setting forth of a Christian philosophy of religion. Even the dialectic ele- ment in Paul’s discourses widely differs from anything of this sort. —iva μὴ κενωθῇ «.7.2.] alm of the evayy. οὐκ ἐν ood. λ.: in order that the cross of Ohrist might not be emptied (comp. Rom. iv. 14) of its essence divinely effectual Jor salvation (Rom. i. 16). The eross of Christ—that Christ was crucified (and thereby won salvation for us),—this fact alone was the pure main swb- stance (‘‘nucleus et medulla,” Calovius) of the apostolic preaching, and as such has the essential quality of proving itself in all believers the saving power of God, and of thereby, in the way of inward living experience, bringing to nought all human wisdom (vv. 18, 19 ff.). Now, had the cross of Christ been preached ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, it would have been emptied of its divine and essential power to bless, since it would then have made common cause with man’s wisdom, and therefore, instead of overthrowing the latter, would have exalted it and made it come, totally alien in nature as it was, in place of itself. Bengel says well : ‘‘ Sermo autem crucis nil heterogeneum admittit.””» — With marked emphasis, ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ is put last. Ver. 18. Establishment of the foregoing ἵνα μὴ. . . Χριστοῦ. Were, namely, the doctrine of the cross, although folly to the unbelieving, not a power of God to believers, it would be impossible to speak of ἃ ἵνα μὴ κενωθῇ of its substance, the cross of Christ, as the aim of the evayy. οὐκ ἐν σ. 2. — The ἐστί with the dative expresses the actual relation in which the λόγος stands to both ; it is for them in fact (not, as might be thought, simply in their judgment) the one and the other. — τοῖς ἀπολλυμ.} to those who are sub- ject to (eternal) ἀπώλεια. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 15, iv. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 10. The present participle’ betokens either the certainty of the future destruction (Bern- hardy, p. 371), or it brings the being lost before us as a development which is already taking place in them ; just as τοῖς σωζομ.., those who are saved unto Messianic bliss. (B) From xv. 2, Rom. v. 9, 10, viii. 24, a/., also Eph. ii. 5-8, the former mode of conceiving it seems to be the correct one ; comp. ii. 6. Paul designates in this way the believers and unbelievers, ἀπὸ τοῦ τέλους τὰς προσηγορίας τιθείς, Theodoret. He has certainly (Riickert) conceived of both classes as predestinated (ver. 24 ; Rom. viii. 29, ix. 11, 19, 22 f. ; Eph. i. 4 f. ; 2 Thess. ii. 13, al.) ; but this point remains here out of view. — μωρία] This doctrine is to them (to their conscious experience) an absurdity (μωρία τε kal, ἀλογία, Plat. Hpin. Ὁ. 983 E; Dem. 397, pen.). Why ? see ver. 22. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 8. Billroth’s answer is un-Pauline. — ἡμῖν] is not put last out of modesty (Billroth), but because the emphasis of the contrast lies on the idea of τοῖς σωζομ. Comp. Eur. Phoeniss. 1788. Pors. : ἐλαύνειν τὸν γέροντα μ᾽ ἐκ πάτρας. --- δύναμις Θεοῦ] Comp. on Rom. i. 16. That doctrine is 1Bengel’s ingenious exposition: ‘qui bivio, et nunc aut perit aut salvatur,”’ is evangelium audire coepit, nec ut perditus wrecked on the word ἡμῖν, which the audire nec ut salvus habetur, sed est quasi in coepit does not suit. 28 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. to them (to their conscious experience) God’s power, inasmuch, that is to say, as God works mightily in them through the saving tidings of the Crucified. The contrast is stronger than if it were σοφία Θεοῦ, and is also logically cor- rect ; for δύναμις Θεοῦ necessarily presupposes the opposite of μωρία, because the power of God brings about enlightenment, repentance, sanctification, love, peace, hope, ete. Comp. Ignat. ad Hph. 18, where it is said of the cross, that it is to us σωτηρία κ. ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Ver. 19. Establishment from Scripture of the foregoing τοῖς δὲ σωζομ. K.7.4. : for were the word of the cross not God’s power for the σωζόμενοι, God could not say of it in the Scriptures : ‘‘I will destroy,” etc.—In the passage, Isa. xxix. 14 (a free quotation from the LXX., the difference between which and the original Hebrew is unessential), Paul, in accordance with the typical sig- nificance attendant on the historical sense,’ recognizes a prediction of the powerful working of the doctrine of the cross as that through which God would bring to nought and do away with the wisdom of man, i.e. empty it of its estimation. The justification of this way of viewing it lay in the Messianic character of O. T. prophecy in general, by virtue of which the his- torical sense does not exhaust the design of the utterances, but leaves open higher references to the further development of the theocratic relations, and especially to the Messianic era, which references are to manifest themselves historically by the corresponding facts of later date, and so be recognized from the standpoint of their historical fulfilment. See more in detail, on Matt. i. 22 f. (c) Christ Himself confirms the Messianic reference of the pro- phetic utterance, Matt. xv. 8.—Regarding the distinction between σοφία and σύνεσις (intelligence), see on Col. i. 9. Ver. 20. What this passage of Scripture promises, has occurred : Where is a wise man, etc. The force of these triumphant questions (comp. xv. 55, and see on Rom. ili. 27) is : clean gone are all sages, scribes, and disputers of this world-period (they can no more hold their ground, no longer assert them- selves, have, as it were, vanished) ; God has made the world’s wisdom to be manifest folly! Asthe passages, Isa. xix. 12, xxxiii. 18, were perhaps before the apostle’s mind, the form of expression used rests probably on them. Comp. Rom. iii, 27, where ἐξεκλείσθη is the answer to the ποῦ ; according to classi- cal usage, Valckenaer, ad Hur. Phoen. 1662. Ewald holds ver. 20 to bea citation from a lost book ; but we are not necessarily shut up to this conclu- sion by the γραμματεῖς. although the term does not occur elsewhere in Paul’s writings, for this exclamation might easily have been suggested to him by the γραμματικοί of Isa. xxxiii. 18. The three substantives cannot well be taken as alluding to the synagogal phrases 190 Son and jw (Lightfoot, Vitringa), since Paul was not writing to a purely Jewish-Christian commu- nity. Attempts to explain the distinction between them have been made in a variety of ways. But it is to be noted that in what immediately follows 1 According to which the reference is not judgment under Sennacherib, in which the generally to the final catastrophe of the wisdom of the rulers and false prophets present state of things in Israel before the of Israel was to be confounded and left dawn of the Messianic period (Hofmann), helpless. but, as the context shows, to the penal CHAP, I., -20. 29 τὴν σοφίαν represents all the three ideas put together ; that γραμματεύς, again, is always (excepting Acts xix. 35) used in the N. T. (even in Matt. xiii. 52, xxiii. 34, where the idea is only raised to the Christian sphere) of scribes in the Jewish sense ; that the συζητήτης (Ignat. ad Eph. 18), which is not found in the Greek writers or in the LXX., is most surely interpreted disputant, in accordance with the use of συζητέω (Mark viii. 11, ix. 14; Luke xxiv. 15; Acts vi. 9, ix. 29, al.) and συζήτησις (Acts xv. 2, 7, xxviii. 29) ; and further, that disputing was especially in vogue among the Sophists (οἱ οἰόμενοι πάντ᾽ εἰδέναι, Xen. Mem. i. 4. 1). And on these grounds we conclude that σοφός is to be taken of human wisdom in general, as then pursued on the Jewish side by the scribes, and on the Hellenic side by the sophistical disputers, so that, in this view, γραμμ. and συζητ. are subordinated. to the general σοφός in respect to matters of Jewish and Hellenic pursuit. Many exegetes (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oceumenius, and others, including Storr, Rosen- miller, Flatt, Billroth) depart from the view now stated in this respect, that they would limit σοφός to the heathen philosophers,’ which, however, is pre- cluded by the σοφίαν embracing all the three elements (comp. also ver. 21). This holds at the same time against Riickert, who finds here only the three most outstanding features in the intellectual character of the Hellenes : cley- erness, erudition, and argumentativeness. But ver, 22 shows that Paul is not shutting out the Jewish element ; just as his Jewish-Christian readers could see in γραμμ. nothing else than a name for the σοφοί of their people. Schra- der, with older expositors (see below), understands by συζητ. an inquirer, and in a perfectly arbitrary way makes it refer partly to the pupils of the great training-schools of Alexandria, Athens, Jerusalem, etc. ; partly to the disciples of the apostles and of Jesus Himself. But συζητ. could only denote a fellow-inguirer (comp. συζητεῖν in Plat. Men. p. 90 B, Crat. p. 384C ; Diog. - L. ii. 22), which would be without pertinence here ; while, on the other hand, according to our view, the civ finds its reference in the notion of dis- putare. — τοῦ αἰῶν. τούτου] attaches to all the three subjects : who belong to the pre-Messianic period of the world (‘* quod totum est extra sphaeram verbi crucis,” Bengel), and are not, like the Christians, set apart by God from the υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου to be members of the Messianic kingdom, in virtue whereof they already, ideally considered, belong to the coming αἰών. Comp. ver. 27 ; Gal. i. 4; Col. i. 13; Phil. 111. 20; Rom. xii. 2. Luther and many others take τοῦ αἰῶν. τ. as referring simply to συζητ. ; but wrongly, for it gives an essential characteristic of the first two subjects as well. Of those who think thus, some keep the true meaning of αἰὼν οὗτος (as Riickert and Billroth) ; others render : indagator rerum naturae, physical philosopher (Erasmus, Beza, Drusius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Justiniani, Grotius, Clericus, and Valckenaer), which is quite contrary to the invariable sense of αἰὼν oir. — ἐμώρανεν]) emphatically put first : made foolish, i.e. from the context, not : He has made it into incapacity of knowledge (Hofmann), which would come in the end to the notion of callousness, but ; He has shown it practically to be 1 ΤῊ consequence of this, συζητητής has and heathen dialecticians. See especially been regarded as comprising the Jewish | Theodoret. 30 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Jolly, ‘‘insaniens sapientia” (Hor. Od. i. 34. 2), σοφία ἄσοφος (Clem. Protr. V. p. 56 A), by bringing about, namely, the salvation of believers just through that which to the wise men of this world seemed foolishness, the preaching of the cross. See ver. 21. The more foolish, therefore, this preaching is in their eyes and according to their judgment, the more they themselves are exhibited as fools (as μωρόσοφοι, Lucian, Alex. 40), and put to shame (ver. 27), since the κήρυγμα, held by them to be foolish, is that which brings salvation, not indeed to them, but to those who believe ; ποία yap σοφία, ὅταν τὸ κεφάλαιον τῶν ἀγαθῶν μὴ εὑρίσκῃ ; Chrysostom, Comp. Isa. xliv. 25, where μωραίνων is to be taken in precisely the same way as here. — τοῦ; κόσμου] i.e. of profane non- Christian humanity, the two halves of which are the Jews and the heathen, Vv. 22-24. Ver. 21. More detailed explanation as to this éudpavev ὁ Θεὸς k.7.2., Speci- fying the why in the protasis and the how in the apodosis : since (see Har- tung, Partikell. II. p. 259), that is to say, in the wisdom of God the world knew not God through wisdom, it pleased God to save believers through the fool- ishness of preaching. The wisdom of God was set before the eyes of the world, even of the heathen part of it, in the works of creation (Rom. i. 19 f. ; comp. also Acts xvii. 26 f., xiv. 15 ff.) ; to the Jews it was presented, besides, in the revelation of the O. T. In this His manifested wisdom God might and should have been known by men ; but they did not know Him therein (ἐν τῇ cod. τ. Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμ. τ. Oedv),—did not attain by the means which they employed, by their wisdom, namely (διὰ τῆς σοφίας), to this knowledge ; whereupon God adopted the plan of saving (in the Messi- anic sense) believers through the opposite of wisdom, namely, through the foolishness of the gospel. — ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ τ. Θεοῦ] is put first emphatically, because the whole stress of the antithesis in both protasis and apodosis is meant to fall on the notions of wisdom and folly. By év Paul marks out the sphere, in which the negative fact of the οὐκ ἔγνω (‘tin media luce,” Calvin) took place ; τοῦ Θεοῦ again is genitive swbjecti, denoting, however, not the wisdom shown by God in Christ (Zachariae, Heydenreich, and Maier), nor Christ Himself even (Schrader and older expositors adduced by Estius), both of which would be quite unsuitable to the apodosis, but the wisdom of God manifested before Christianity in nature and Scripture.’ Riickert is wrong in holding that ἐν τ. 09, τ. Θεοῦ is : ‘in virtue of the wisdom of God, i.e. under its guidance and arrangement, the world knew not God through its own wisdom.” Certainly Paul would not be made by this interpreta- tion to say anything which would in itself be at variance with his view of the divine relationship to the matter ; for with him the two factors of human action, the divine causality and the human self-determination, are so associated, that he may bring now the one and now the other into the foreground (comp. on Rom. ix.) ; but against it may be urged, partly the position of the words ἐν. . . Θεοῦ, which on Riickert’s view would lose their weight and convey a thought here unessential, and partly the signifi- 1 Not simply in the natural revelation ver. 22 proves that the Jews, too, are in- (Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and cluded with the rest in the notion of the many others, including Hofmann). For κόσμος. CHAP. I., 22. 91 cant relation between the protasis and apodosis, according to which the measure taken by God (εὐδόκησεν x.7.A.) appears as called forth by men’s lack of knowledge, and hence the οὐκ ἔγνω would in such a passage be most unsuitably referred to the appointment of God, so as to excuse what is de- clared in Rom. i. 20 to be inexcusable. —ov« ἔγνω] Seeing that the Jews also are included, and that anything which would contradict Rom. i. 19-21 is out of the question, this must apply to the true knowledge of God, which was not attained, and which, if the κόσμος had reached it, would have caused the preaching of the cross to appear other than foolishness ; comp. ii. 14. — διὰ τῆς oop. | applies to the heathen world-wisdom and the Jewish school-wisdom, since it is the means of knowledge employed without result (observe that by the οὐκ the whole from ἔγνω to Θεόν inclusive is negatived) by the κόσμος for the knowing God. The prepositional relation cannot differ from that of the correlative διὰ τ. μωρίας which follows. Hence Theophylact interprets wrongly : διὰ τῆς ἐν εὐγλωττίᾳ θεωρουμένης σοφίας ἐμποδιζόμενοι. So, too, Bill- roth : ‘‘their own wisdom was the cause of their not knowing. — ἐυδόκησεν ὁ Θ.] placuit Deo, He pleased, it was His will, as Rom. xv. 26 ; Gal. i. 15 ; Col. i. 19 ; 1 Thess. 11. 8. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. 11. p. 370. — διὰ τῆς μωρίας τοῦ Kypbyu., 1.6. by means of the foolishness which formed the substance of the preaching (of the gospel). That is the doctrine of the cross, ver. 18, which, as compared with the wisdom employed by the κόσμος as a means of knowl- edge, is a foolish doctrine, but in the counsel and work of God the means of salvation, namely, for the πιστεύοντας, which word, as solving the riddle of the divinely applied μωρία, stands emphatically at the end. For to the conscious experience of delievers that resultless wisdom of the world is now Joolishness, and the foolishness of the κήρυγμα the divine saving wisdom. — Notice, in conclusion, how the whole verse is a compact and stately co-or- dination and dovetailing of correlative clauses. Remark, in particular, the repetition of σοφία and Θεός, ‘‘ quasi aliquod telum saepius perveniat in ean- dem partem corporis,” «πο. ad Herenn. iv. 28. Ver. 22 f.? Protasis (ἐπειδὴ) and apodosis (ἡμεῖς dé) parallel to the protasis and apodosis in ver. 21 : since as well Jews desire signs as Hellenes seek after wisdom, we, on theother hand, preach, etc. It is to be observed how exactly the several members of the sentence correspond to what was said in ver. 21; for ᾿Ιουδαῖοι x. "EAAnvec is just the notion of the κόσμος broken up 3 σημεῖα αἰτοῦσι and σοφίαν ζητ. is the practical manifestation of the οὐκ ἔγνω. . . τὸν Θεόν ; and lastly, ἡμεῖς δὲ κηρύσσομεν x.7.A. contains the actual way in which the εὐδόκησεν ὁ Θεός κ.τ.λ. was carried into effect. And to this carrying into effect belongs in substance ᾿Τουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον «.7.A. down to σοφίαν, ver. 24,—a consideration which disposes of the logical difficulty raised by Hof- mann as to the causal relation of protasis and apodosis. — The correlation kat. . . καί includes not only the two subjects 'Τουδαῖοι and "EAAnvec, but the two whole affirmations ; as well the one thing, that the Jews demand a sign, as the other, that the Gentiles desire philosophy, takes place. — ἡμεῖς 1 Ver. 22 f. is the programme of the history dencies of the world’s sensualism and spirit- of the development of Christianity in its, ualism; ver. 24, the programme of its tri- conflict with the perverse fundamental ten- umph over both. 32 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. dé] This dé, on the contrary, on the other hand, is the common classical δέ of the apodosis (Acts xi. 17), which sets it in an antithetic relation correspond- ing to the protasis. See Hartung, Partikell, I. p. 184 f.; Baeumlein, Partih. p. 92 f.; Bornem. Act. αρ. 1. p. 77. Examples of this usage after ἐπεί and ἐπειδή may be seen in Klotz, ad Devar. p. 371 f. The parallel relation, which the eye at once detects, between ver. 21 and ver. 22 (and in which a rhetorical emphasis is given by the repetition of the ἐπειδή used by Paul only in xiv. 16, xv. 21 ; Phil. ii. 26, besides this passage), is opposed not merely to Billroth and Maier’s interpretation, which makes ἐπειδὴ. . . ζητοῦσιν introduce a second protasis after εὐδόκ. ὁ Θεός, but also to Hofmann’s, that vv. 22-24 are meant to explain the emphasis laid on τοὺς πιστεύοντας ; as likewise to the view of Riickert and de Wette, that there is here added an explanation of the διὰ τῆς μωρίας κ.τ.λ., in connection with which Riickert arbitrarily imagines a μέν supplied after ᾿Ιουδαῖοι. --- Τουδαῖοι and “Ἕλληνες without the article, since the statement is regarding what such as are Jews, etc., are wont, as arule, to desire. —onueia] Their desire is, that He on whom they are to believe should manifest Himself by miraculous signs, which would demon- strate His Messiahship (Matt. xvi. 4). They demand these, therefore, as a ground of faith ; comp. John iv. 48. That we are not to understand here miracles of the apostles (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bengel, and others) is clear, both from the nature of the antithesis, and from the consideration that, in point of fact, the apostles did actually perform σημεῖα (Rom. xv. 18 f.; 2 Cor. xii. 12). What the Jews desired in place of these were miraculous signs by which the erweified, but, according to the apostles’ teaching, risen and exalted, Jesus, should evince His being the Messiah, seeing that the miracles of His earthly life had for them lost all probative power through His crucifixion (Matt. xxvii. 41 f., 63 f.). Comp. Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 123 f. To take, with Hofmann, the σημεῖα air. generally, as a universal Jewish characteristic, of the tendency to crave acts of power that should strike the senses and exclude the possibility of doubt, is less suitable to the definite reference of the context to Christ, in whom they were refusing to believe. Were the reading σημεῖον (see the critical remarks) to be adopted, we should have to understand it of some miracle specifically accrediting the Messiahship ; not, with Schulz, Valckenaer, Eichhorn, and Pott, of the illustrious person of an earthly ruler. Any such personal reference would need to be suggested by the connection, as in Luke ii. 34 ; but this is not at all the case in view of the parallel σοφίαν, nor is it soeven by X. éoravp. in ver. 23. See on the latter verse. — αἰτοῦσι] is the demand actually uttered (that there be given); ζητοῦσι the seeking after and desiring, anquirere (correlative : εὑρίσκειν). — Χριστὸν éorarp.| Christ as erneified (ii. 2; Gal. iii. 1), and therefore neither as one who exhibits miraculous signs, nor as the originator of a new philosophy, such, possibly, as Socrates or Pythagoras. — σκάνδαλον) in opposition to X. éoravp. As eru- cified, He is to them an occasion for unbelief and rejection. Gal. v. 11. For His being put to a shameful death conflicts with the demand to have a Messiah glorified by miracles. — μωρίαν] because philosophy is what they desire as a guide to salvation ; therefore to believe in Christ (not as one ο΄ CHAP. 1., 24, 25. 33 the wise of this world, but) as crucified, is to them a folly, an absurdity ; whereby, indeed, their own σοφία becomes μωρία παρὰ τ. Θεῷ, iii. 19. Ver. 24. Along with Χριστόν, which is triumphantly repeated, we are men- tally to supply κηρύσδομεν : but to the called themselves . . . we preach Christ as God’s power and God's wisdom—i.e. our preaching of Christ as crucified makes such an impression upon them,’that they come to know in their experience the manifestation and the whole work of Christ as that whereby God powerfully works out salvation and reveals His counsel full of wisdom : comp. ver. 806. Hofmann’s construction, making Χριστόν to be in apposition to Χριστὸν éoravp., would be logically correct only on one of two suppositions : either if in ver. 23 there stood merely ἐσταυρωμένον without Χριστόν (““ ἃ eruci- Jied one . . . who is to them Christ’); or if, in ver. 24, some more precise definition, such as’ ὄντως or ἀληθῶς, were given along with Χριστόν. --- αὐτοῖς] isnot the iis pointing back to τοὺς πιστεύοντας, so that τοῖς κλητοῖς would be in apposition to it (Hofmann) ; for in that case, notwithstanding the harsh and distant retrospective reference, αὐτοῖς would in fact be entirely superfluous ; but the words αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς KAyroic—the αὐτοῖς being emphatically put first (2 Cor. xi. 14 ; Heb. ix. 23, al., and very often in Greek writers)—go to- gether as closely connected, and mean simply : ipsis autem vocatis (Vulg.), to the called for their part, so far as they are concerned, so that αὐτοῖς denotes the called themselves (Herm. ad Viger. p. 733), in contrast to those round about them still remaining in unbelief (Ιουδαίοις... μωρίαν). Instead of τ. κλητοῖς, we might have had τοῖς πιστεύουσιν» (ver. 21); but how natural it was that the Θεοῦ δύναμιν x.t.A., Which was present to the apostle’s mind, should have led to his designating the subjects of his statement according to the divine qualification which applied to them. Comp. ver. 26. As to κλητός, see on ver. 2." That Paul did not write ἡμῖν, is to be accounted for on the ground of its being unsuitable to the κηρύσσ., which is to be here again understood ; not, as Riickert thinks, because it seemed to him too hard to oppose ἡμ. to Ἰουδ. and ἔθνεσι. --- Θεοῦ div. x. 6. cog.] To all the κλητοί Christ is both. But the words are formally parallel to the two former de- mands in ver. 22 ; hence δύναμιν is put jirst. Respecting σοφίαν, comp. on ver. 30. Ver. 25. Confirmation of the Θεοῦ div. κ. Θεοῦ ood. by a general prop- osition, the first half of which corresponds to the Θεοῦ cogiav, and the sec- ond to the Θεοῦ δύναμιν. --- τὸ μωρὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ] the foolish thing which comes From God,* i.e. what God works and orders, and which appears to men ab- 1¥or the preaching is not twofold, but one and the same, only spoken of in its respective relations to the two opposite classes of men. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 16. That is the crisis, which the gospel brings about, and its influence on the called is to make them free (John viii. 33, 36; Rom. vi. 22). 2Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 314 (ed. Paris. 1641): πάντων ἀνθρώπων κεκλημένων οἱ ὑπακοῦσαι βουληθέντες κλητοὶ ὠνομάσθησαν. These also are the σωζόμενοι, ver. 18; the opposite is the ἀπολλύμενοι. 3 This, according to the well-known use inGreek of the neuter with the genitive (Poppo, ad Thue. VI. p. 168; Kiihner, II. p. 122), might also be taken as abstract: the Joolishness of God—the weakness of God. So τὸ μωρόν, Ear. Hipp. 966. But Paul had the concrete conception in his mind; other- wise he would most nit ucully have used the abstract μωρία employed just before. The meaning of the concrete expression, how- ever, isnot: God Himself, in so far as He is foolish (Hofmann) ; passages such as 2 Cor. 34 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. surd. Comp. τὸ σωτήριον τ. Θεοῦ, Luke ii. 80. — τῶν ἀνθρώπων] We are not to amplify this, with the majority of interpreters (including Beza, Grotius, Valckenaer, Zachariae, Flatt, Pott, Heydenreich, and de Wette), into row σοφοῦ τῶν avOpor., after a well-known abbreviated mode of comparison (sec on Matt. v. 20; John v. 36), which Estius rightly censures here as coactum (comp. Winer, p. 230 [Ε T. 307]), because we should have to supply with τῶν ἀνθρ. not the last named attribute, but its opposite ; the true rendering, in fact, is just the simple one : wiser than men; men pos- sess less wisdom than is contained in the foolish thing of God. — τὸ ἀσθενὲς τοῦ Θεοῦ} whatever in God’s appointments is, to human estimation, power- less and resultless. The concrete instance which Paul has in view when employing the general terms τὸ μωρόν and τὸ ἀσθενὲς τοῦ Θεοῦ, is the death of Christ on the cross, through which God has fulfilled the counsel of His eternal wisdom, wrought out with power the redemption of the world, laid the foundations of everlasting bliss, and overcome all powers antagonistic to Himself. Ver. 26. Confirmation of this general proposition from the experience of the readers. The element of proof lies in the contrast, ver. 27 f. For if the matter were not as stated in ver. 25, then God would not have chosen the foolish of the world to put to shame its wise ones. By so doing He has, indeed, set before your eyes the practical experimental proof, that the μωρὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ transcends men in wisdom. Otherwise He would have acted in the reverse way, and have sought out for Himself the wise of the world, in order, through their wisdom, to help that which now appears as the μωρὸν τ. Θεοῦ to victory over the foolishness of the world. This holds, too, as against de Wette, who (comp. also Hofmann) makes γάρ refer to the whole series of thoughts, vv. 19-25, notwithstanding that the expressions here used attach themselves so distinctly to ver. 25. — βλέπετε) imperative. As such it has with logical correctness its hortatory emphasis ;* but not so, if we take it as indicative (Valla, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Ben- gel, Rosenmiiller, and Schrader). —7v κλῆσιν ὑμῶν] is not to be taken ar- bitrarily, with Beza, Estius, Mosheim, Semler, Rosenmiiller, and Pott, pro concreto, for ὑμᾶς τοὺς κλητούς, but as : your calling (to salvation through the Messiah) ; see, what was the nature of it as regards the persons whom God, the caller, had chosen (ver. 27 ff.). Krause and Olshausen run counter to the specific Christian sense of the word, and even to the general linguistic usage (see on vil. 20), when they make it mean, like the German word κε Beruf” (calling), the vitae genus, the outward circumstances. — ὅτε] equivalent to εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι, in so far, namely, as. Plat. Prot. p. 330 E, Crat. p. 384 Ὁ; al. John ii. 18, ix. 17, xi. 51; 2 Cor. i. 18, xi. 10; Mark xvi. 14 ; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 248 f. — οὐ πολλοὶ σοφοὶ x. o. | that not many (among you) are wise in the eyes of men, etc. Itis enough to supply the simple εἰσί, making ov πολλ., i.e. but few, the subject, and cog. the predicate ; and there is iv. 17, Rom. i. 19, ii. 4, viii. 3, are no proof of 1The yap is not against our taking it as this.—As to the different accentuations of imperative; Greek writers, too, use it with μωρός and μῶρος, see Lipsius, grammat. that mood, as e.g. Soph. Phil. 1043 : ἄφετε yap Unters. Ὁ. 25; Gottling, Accenti. p. 304. αὐτόν. CHWP «I: 21) 20. 35 no need for introducing an ἐκλήθησαν (so commonly), according to which οὐ π. o. together would be the subject. Κατὰ σάρκα, specifying the kind and manner of the σοφία, marks it out as purely human, and distinguishes it from the Christian wisdom which proceeds from the Holy Spirit. For σάρξ comprises the sim- ply human element in man as opposed to the divine principle. Comp. σοφία σαρκική, 2 Cor. i. 12; σοφία ψυχικ, Jas. 111. 15; and see on Rom. iv. 1 ; John iii. 6. Estius aptly remarks: ‘‘ Significari vult sapientiam, quae studio humano absque doctrina Spir. sancti potest acquiri.” In substance, the σοφία τοῦ κόσμου, ver. 20, and the o. τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, li. 6, are the same. — δυνατοί] We are not to supply κατὰ σάρκα here again ; for that was essen- tially requisite only with σοφοί, and Paul otherwise would have coupled it with the third word (comp. ver. 20). That mighty men of this world are meant, is self-evident. — εὐγενεῖς} of high descent. Comp. Luke xix. 12; fre- quent in the classics.—Riickert objects that Paul, instead of proving the phenomenon recorded in ver. 26 to have proceeded from the divine wisdom, uses it as an argument for ver. 25, and so reasons ina circle. But this 1s without foundation. For that the phenomenon in question was a work of the divine wisdom, was to the Christian consciousness (and Paul was, of course, writing to Christians, who looked at it in the same light with him- self) a thing ascertained and settled, which could be employed therefore directly to establish ver. 25 in conformity with experience. Vv. 27, 28. Expanded (see τοῦ κόσμου and πᾶσα σάρξ, ver. 29) statement ot the opposite : No ; the foolish things of the world were what God chose out for Himself, etc. The calling, ver. 26, was in truth just the result and the proof of the election. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 4 f.; 2 Thess. ii. 13f.; Rom. viii. 90, ix. 23 f. —ra μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου] the foolish elements of the world (mankind), i.e. those to whom earthly wisdom was a quite foreign thing, so that they were the simple among men. Comp. Matt. xi. 25. Many exegetes (including Theodoret, Luther, Grotius, Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and Billroth) take the gen- itive as : according to the judgment of theworld. Against this may be urged, partly, the very fact that when God chose to Himself the persons referred to, they too had not yet the higher wisdom, and consequently were not un- wise merely in the eyes of the world ; and partly, as deciding the point, the following dof. and ἀγεν., for they were, it is plain, really (and not merely in the eyes of the world) weak and of mean origin. — The neuters (comp. on the plural, Gal. iii. 22) indicate the category generally, it being evident from the context that what is meant is the persons included under that cate- gory. See generally, Winer, p. 167 [E. T. 222], and the same usage among classical writers in Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 101. —ivar. o. καταισχ. | design. The nothingness and worthlessness of their wisdom were, to their shame, to be brought practically to light (by God’s choosing not them, but the unwise, for honour), no matter whether they themselves were conscious of this putting of them to shame or not. — The thrice-repeated ἐξελ. ὁ Θεός, beside the three contrasts of σοφοί, δυνατοί, and εὐγενεῖς ver. 26), carries with it a triumphant emphasis. — τὰ μὴ ὄντα] The contrast to εὐγενεῖς is brought out by three steps forming ἃ climax. This third phrase is the strongest of all, and sums up powerfully the two foregoing ones by way of apposition 36 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (hence without καί : the non-evistent, i.e. what was as utterly worth nothing as if it had not existed at all (Winer, p. 451 [E. T. 608]). Comp. Eur. Hee. 284 : ἦν πότ᾽, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκ εἴμ’ ἔτι. Dem. 248. 25; Plat. Crit. p. 50 B ; and Stallbaum thereon. The subjective negation μή is quite according to rule (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 296), since the participle with the article expresses a generic notion ; and there is no need of importing the idea of an untrue al- though actual existence (Hofmann). We are not therefore to supply τι to τὰ ὄντα (as if μηδὲν εἶναι had been used before), but to explain it : the exist- ent, what through repute, fortune, etc., is regarded as that which is (κατ᾽ ἐξο- χήν). Comp. Pflugk, ad Hee. 1.6. : ‘‘ipsum verbum εἶναι cam vim habet, ut significet in aliquo numero esse, rebus secundis florere.” — xatnpy.| Not καταισχ. again, because the notions μὴ εἶναι and εἶναι required a stronger word to correspond to them ; one which would convey the idea of bringing to nought (i.e. making worthless, Rom. iii. 31). Ver. 29. Final aim, to which is subordinated the mediate aim expressed by the thrice-repeated iva x.t.2. — ὅπως μὴ Kavy. πᾶσα σάρξ] Hebraistic way of saying : that no man may boast himself. Its explanation lies in the fact that the negation belongs to the verb, not to πᾶσα o. (Οὐ 3 -23): that every man may abstain from boasting himself. Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor, II. p. 24 f. Regarding σάρξ as a designation of man in his weakness and imperfection as contrasted with God, see on Acts iii. 17. — ἐνώπ. τ. Θεοῦ] Rom. 111. 20 ; Luke xvi. 15, al. No one isto come forth before God and boast, I am wise, etc. ; on this account God has, by choosing the unwise, etc., brought to nought the wisdom and loftiness of men, so that the ground for the asser- tion of human excellences before God has been cut away. Ver. 30 f. In contrast (dé) to the ὅπως μὴ Kavy. 7. 6. ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ, We have now the true relation to God and the true and right καυχᾶσθαι arising out of it: But truly it is God’s work, that ye are Christians and so partakers of the greatest divine blessings, that none of you should in any way boast himself save only in God. Comp. Eph. ii. 8 f. —é& αὐτοῦ] has the principal emphasis : From no other than God is derived the fact that you are in Christ (as the element of your life). Ἔξ denotes the causal origination. Comp. Eph. ii. 8: οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον, also in profane writers: ἐκ θεῶν, ἐκ Διός (Valckenaer, ad Herod. ii. 13) ; and generally, Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 460]. While Hofmann here, too, as in ver. 28, introduces into eiva the notion of the true existence, which they have from God ‘in virtue of their being included in Christ,” others again, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, take ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστε by itself in such a way as to make it express sonship with God (comp. Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 553), and regard ἐν as conveying the more precise definition of the mode whereby this sonship is attained : παῖδες αὐτοῦ ἐστε, διὰ To Χριστοῦ τοῦτο γενόμενοι, Chrysostom ; comp. Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Ewald, and others. But wrongly ; for the conception ἐκ Θεοῦ εἶναι in the supposed sense is Johan- nine, but is not in accordance with the Pauline mode of expression (not even in Gal. iv. 4) : ; and εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ was a conception so habitually in use (Rom. xvi. 7, 11 ; 2 Cor. v. 47 ; Gal. i. 22, al.), that it must have occurred ef itself here also τὰ the reader ; ieee the ἀπὸ Θεοῦ which follows answers CHAP. I., 30. 37 to the ἐξ αὐτοῦ. This applies, too, against Osiander, who, after ἐξ αὐτοῦ, mentally supplies γεγενημένοι: ‘‘ being born of God, ye are members of Christ.” —ieic] with emphasis : ye for your part, ye the chosen out of the world. — ὃς ἐγενήθη. . . ἀπολύτρωσις] brings home to the heart the high value of that God-derived εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ : who has become to us from God wisdom, righteousness and holiness, and redemption. ᾿Ἐγενήθη is simply a later (Doric) form for ἐγένετο (Thom. Mag. p. 189 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 108 f.), not, as Riickert makes it (comp. Luther : ‘‘ gemacht ist”), a true passive in sense ; comp. Acts iv. 4 ; Col. iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14 (Eph. iii. 7, Lachm.). Christ became to us wisdom, etc., inasmuch as His manifestation and His whole saving work have procured for believers these blessings ; namely, first of all_—what was of primary importance in the connection of ver. 19 ff., wisdom, for to believers is revealed the counsel of God, in whom are all treasures of wisdom and knowledge (see ii. 7 ff. ; Col. ii. 9) ; righteous- ness, for by means of faith we are through the Lord’s atoning death consti- tuted righteous before God (Rom. iii. 24f., al. ; see on Rom. i. 17 ; holiness (see on Rom. vi. 19, 22), for in those who are justified by faith Christ works continually by His Spirit the new holy life (Rom. viii. 1-11) ; redemp- tion, for Christ has delivered believers, through His blood paid as their ran- som (Rom. ili. 24, vi. 20, vii. 23), from the wrath of God, to which they were subject before the entrance of faith (see on Eph. i. 7, ii. 3). The order in which these predicates stand is not illogical ; for after the first intellectual benefit (σοφία) which we have received in Christ, marked out too from the rest by the position of the word, Paul brings forward the ethical blessedness of the Christian, and that in the firs€ place positively as dixavocivy and ἁγιασμός, but then also—as though in triumph that there was now nothing more to fear from God—megatively as ἀπολύτρωσις, in which is quenched all the wrath of God against former sin (instead of which with the Christian there are now righteousness and holiness). Hence in explaining ἀπολύτρ. we should not (with Chrysostom) abide by the general ἀπήλλαξεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάντων TOV κακῶν, which is already contained in what goes before ; nor again should we, with Grotius, Calovius, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, and others (comp. also Schmid, ib/. Theol. ΤΙ. p. 325 ; and Lipsius, Paulin. Rechtfertigungslehre, p. 8), make it the final redemption from death and all evils, such as is the object of ἐλπίς, the redemption perfecting itself beyond our earthly life (Hofmann), or the definitive acquittal at the last judgment (Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 327). In the passages alleged to support the interpretation in question, this sense is given solely by the accessory defining phrases—namely, in Eph. i. 14 by τῆς περιποιήσεως, in iv. 80 by ἡμέραν, and in Rom. viii. 23 by τοῦ σώματος. Riickert (comp. Neander) is further of opinion that δικαιοσύνη x.7.2. is merely explana- tory of how far Christ is to us copia, namely, as δικαιοσύνη, ἁγιασμός, and aro- λύτρ., and that these three refer to the three essential things in the Christian life, faith, love, and hope : the ré binding together the last three words and separating them from the first. But (1) the τέ links closely together only δικαιοσ. and ἁγίασμ., aid does not include ἀπολ. ; much less does it separate the three last predicates from σοφία ;+ on the contrary, τε καί embraces δὲκ, 1 With σοφία the τέ has nothing whatever to do. Hofmann makes it serve as a link 88. PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. and ay., as it were, in one, so that then ἀπολύτρωσις comes to be added with the adjunctive καί as a separate element, and consequently there results the following division : (#) wisdom, (Ὁ) righteousness and holiness, and (¢) redemption. See as to this use of te καί. . . καί, Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 102 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 878 f. ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 224f. (9) Paul would, on this theory, have left his readers without the slightest hint of the subordinate relation of the three last predicates to the first, although he could so easily have indicated it by a ὡς or a participle. (8) According to the correct interpretation, ἀπολύτρ. is not something yet future, but some- thing which has already taken place in the death of Christ. (Ὁ) Bos (Obs. Mise. p. 1 ff.), Alethius, Clericus, Nésselt (Opuse. II. p. 127 ff.), Valckenaer, and Krause interpret in a still more involved way, holding that only the words from ὃς to Θεοῦ apply to Christ, and these are to be put in a parenthesis ; while δικαιοσύνη κιτ.}. are abstracta pro coneretis (2 Cor. v. 21), and belong to ὑμεῖς ἐστε : ‘‘Ejus bencficio vos estis in Christo Jesu δικαιοσυνὴ x.7.A.,” Valckenaer. How ambiguous and unsuitable would such a statement as d¢ éyev. σοφία k.7.A. be for a mere parenthetical notice !— ἀπὸ Θεοῦ] on God's part, by God as the author of the fact. Comp. Herod. vi. 125: ἀπὸ δὲ ᾿Αλκμαίω- νος. . . ἐγένοντο kai κάρτα λαμπροί. See generally, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 194 ; Winer, p. 348 [E. T. 464] ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 280 [E. T. 325]. That it belongs to ἐγενήθη, and not to σοφία, is proved by the ἡμῖν which stands between. The latter, however, is not to be understood, with Riickert, as though it ran ἡ ἡμετέρα σοφία (‘‘ what to the Hellene his σοφία is, or is merely assumed to be, namely, the ground of confidence,—that Christ is to us”), else Paul must have written®: ὃς ἡμῖν ἐγενήθη ἡ σοφία With the arti- cle, and have placed ἡμῖν first with the emphasis of contrast.—Observe further, that Paul has said ὑμεῖς with his eye still, as in ver. 26, upon the church to which his readers belonged ; but now, in adducing the blessings found in Christ, he extends the range of his view to all Christians ; and hence, instead of the individualizing ὑμεῖς, we have the ἡμῖν including him- self and others. Ver. 31. The fact that God is the author of your connection with Christ, and thereby of the blessings you receive as Christians (ver. 30), should, according to the divine purpose (iva), determine you to comply with that word of Scripture which calls for the true lowly καυχᾶσθαι : he that boasteth himself, let him boast himself in the Lord, praise his own privileges only as God’s work, boast himself only as the object of His grace.—That the Κύριος is not Christ (Riickert) but God, and not Christ and God (Hof- mann), is proved by the emphatic ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ver. 30, and ἐνώπ. τ. Θεοῦ, ver. 29. Comp. on 2 Cor. x. 17.—The apostle quotes Jer. ix. 24, abbreviating quite freely, after the LXX. The construction, however, is anacoluthiec ; for Paul purposely retains the scriptural saying unaltered in its strong impera- tive form, and leaves it to the reader to supply the change from the impera- tive to the subjunctive, which the syntax, properly speaking, would require. Comp. on Rom. xv. 3. of connection to σοφία. In that case, Paul must have written god'a te καὶ δικαιοσ. x. ay. K. ἀπολ. NOTES. 39 Notes py American Eprror, (A) The factions. Vv. 11-13. On the subject contained in these verses Dean Stanley makes the following edifying reflections: ‘‘It is by catching a glimpse, however partial, of the wild dissensions which raged around and beneath the apostolical writings, that we can best appreciate the unity and repose of those writings themselves ; it is by seeing how completely these dissensions have been obliterated, that we can best understand how marked was the difference between their results and those of analogous divisions in other history. We know how the names of Plato and Aristotle, of Francis and Dominic, of Luther and Calvin, have con- tinued as the rallying point of rival schools and systems long after the decease, and contrary even to the intentions of the respective founders, But with regard to the factions of the Apostolic age it was not so. The schools of Paul and Apollos and Kephas, which once waged so bitter a warfare against each other, were extinguished almost before ecclesiastical history had begun ; and the utmost diversity of human character and outward style has been un- able to break the harmony in which their memories are united in the associa- tions of the Christian world. Partly this arose from the nature of the case, The Apostles could not have been the founders of systems, even if they would. Their power was not their own, but another’s : ‘Who made them to differ from another? What had they which they had not received?’ If once they claimed an independent authority, their authority was gone. Great philosophers, great conquerors, great heresiarchs, leave their names even in spite of them- selves. But such the Apostles could not be without ceasing to be what they were ; and the total extinction of the parties which were called after them is in fact a testimony to the divinity of their mission. And it is difficult not to believe that in the great work of reconciliation, of which the outward volume of the Sacred Canon is the chief monument, they were themselves not merely passive instruments, but active agents ; that a lesson is still to be derived from the record they have left of their own resistance to the claims of the factions which vainly endeavoured to divide what God had joined together.” (B) ‘* Being saved.’’ Ver, 18. The English translator rendered the Greek phrase here, ‘those who are being saved.’’ But this is not required by the German original, and be- sides is objectionable in itself. In the first place, it is awkward and to many persons questionable English. In the next place, it is not required by the verbal form. The passive participle of the present tense is often used to ex- press a completed action. (See Acts xx. 9; Heb. vii. 8; 2 Peter ii. 4, and 2 John 7.) In the last mentioned we have the present participle used to express the very same thing that in 1 John iv. 2 is expressed by a perfect participle. It is not denied that the present passive participle often denotes a con- tinued state or a lengthened process (as in the description of the ancient saints, Heb. xi. 37, as “ destitute, afflicted, evil entreated’’), but it is claimed that this is not the habitual or necessary meaning. The context or the general usage of Scripture, or the nature of the subject, must determine the precise 40 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE ἸῸ THE CORINTHIANS. meaning in any given case. In the LXX. the present passive and the perfect passive participle of the verb σῶώζω are used as precisely equivalent. (Compare Jer. xliv. 14 with xlii. 7, and Isaiah xlv. 20 with Ixvi. 19.) But the chief objection to the proposed rendering is that it introduces a con- ception which does not belong to the New Testament, and, so far as it can, ob- literates what is a marked peculiarity of the scriptural mode of conceiving of salvation, viz. that it is at once present and future. Which of these views is ‘intended depends upon the circumstances in each case. On one hand, salva- tion is spoken of as to be realized in the day when Christ shall come. So 1 Peteri. 9, ‘‘ Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls”; Rom. viii. 24, ‘*‘ Weare saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope”; 1 Cor. ν. 5, ‘That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”; Matt. x. 22, ‘«He that endureth to the end shall be sayved.’’ It is therefore quite certain that salvation in its full meaning, as extending to the body as well as the soul, as in- ‘cluding inward holiness as wellas forensic justification, as putting an end to sin and sorrow, vicissitude and temptation, tears and death, is experienced only when Christ shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him unto salvation (Heb. ix. 28). But, on the other hand, it is beyond doubt that the Scripture frequently speaks of salvation as a present possession of the believer. Thus in Luke vii. 50 our Lord is represented as saying to the penitent outcast who bathed his feet with tears and wiped them with the hair of her head, ‘‘ Thy faith hath saved thee.” So Paul says (Titus iii. 5), ** Ac- cording to his mercy he saved us” (cf. 2 Tim. i. 9), And Peter (1, iii. 21) says of baptism, ‘‘ which also after a true likeness doth now save you.” How- ever men muy explain this variant usage of Scripture writers, the fact of the variation should not be elided or obscured. Nor should the plain teaching of the Bible be denied which constantly affirms of men that they are either saved or lost, no third or intermediate condition being conceivable, any more than a departed spirit can be one half in heaven and the other half in hell. There may be gradual approaches to the act of faith, or even along preparation for it, but the act itself is instantaneous. To speak of salvation, therefore, as a process, although the term is susceptible of a meaning which is correct, is to ‘run the risk of misleading persons by inducing them to take up an opinion which is not at all correct, but unscriptural and dangerous. (c) Quotations. Ver. 19. The statement here is certainly correct, and is of great importance in ex- - plaining the method in which the words of the Old Testament are quoted in the New. It is from forgetfulness of the unity of Scripture and the prepara- tory character of the earlier economy that so many have charged the Apostle with wresting the prophetic utterances -—that is, giving them a meaning which was never intended by the original speaker. It is true in several senses that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’’ The Bible’s chief and salient feature is that it is, from first to last, the history of redemption, and all ', 15. parts, however diverse in tone and character, are bound together by their common relation to the one central and controlling thought, the promise of a . world-wide deliverer. One of Meyer's great excellences is that he thoroughly and consistently recognizes this fact. NOTES. 41 (Ὁ) ‘* Christ made unto us wisdom from God.’ Ver. 30, The rendering of this verse to which the author objects may be seen by tak- ing the words of the Revised Version, inserting the margin in the text, thus, “‘Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, both righteousness and sanctification and redemption.’’ Dr. Meyer’s objections certainly have weight, but they do not seem conclusive. The order of the words in the original, the stress which Paul lays on wisdom throughout the chapter, and the striking contrast thus gained, confirm the view that the three latter nouns are epexegetical of the first and are intended to disclose the glorious characteristics of the wisdom which is from Godas distinguished from the wisdom which is of human origin. So Dr. Poor (in Lange), Archer Butler (in Sermons), Canon Evans (in Speaker's Commentary), Principal Brown (in Popular Commentary), Beet (in Com.), and, substantially, Dean Stanley. Dr. Poor justly insists that in a collocation of words so peculiar, it is natural to take the last three words as an afterthought exegetical of the main one — and such an addition was needed. Wisdom was what Paul had been disparaging throughout this sec- tion. Butit was the wisdom of man. Now he glories in Christ as having been made unto us wisdom. It was necessary therefore to difference this from what he had been condemning. So he adds from God, thus showing whence this wisdom came. Then to characterize it, to exhibit its distinguishing peculiari- ties as practical and suited for man’s deepest needs, instead of being merely speculative, he subjoins the three great points it contemplated. And here is where the wisdom of the Gospel far surpasses that of secular philosophy. Here, then, Dr. Poor concludes, we have, 1, an adequate reason for the order of the words ; 2, nota repetition, but a distinct thought in ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, and soa reason for the change of the preposition from the one in the first clause ; 3, not a digres- sion from the main course of thought, as must be supposed in the other interpre- tation, but a glorious consummation of it, displaying the infinite superiority of the wisdom from God over all human wisdom ; 4, an epexegesis quite in the manner of Paul (Rom. i. 12). 42 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. CHAPTER II. Ver. 1. μαρτύριον] A C &*, min. Syr. Copt. and some Fathers : μυστήριον. Ap- proved by Griesb,. and Ewald, adopted also by Riickert. A gloss written on the margin from ver. 7. Had μαρτύριον crept in from i, 6, the witnesses which have it would read also τοῦ Χριστοῦ instead of τ, Θεοῦ ; but this occurs only in very few, some of which, besides, have μυστήριον. --- Ver. 2. τὶ εἰδέναι Elz. τοῦ εἰδέναι τι. But τοῦ is wanting in decisive witnesses; that τὸ should be put first is rendered certain by Β C, min. Bas. Cyr. Isid. Chrys. Hil. Victorin. Aug., also Ὁ Εἰ (which have τὶ ἐν ὑμῖν εἰδέναι) ; and the external attestation must de- cide here, — Ver. 3. kai ἐγώ] Lachm. and Rickert read κἀγώ, with ΑΒΟΝ, min. Or, Bas. al. Taken from ver. 1. -- Ver. 4. After πειθοῖς Elz. has ἀνθρω- πίνης, against preponderating evidence. Addition from vv. 5 and 13. In re- ply to Heydenreich’s unfounded defence of the word, see Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 134. — The readings which alter πειθοὶς (πειθοῖ : 1, 18*, 48, al. Or. Eus. al. ; πειθανοῖς, Macar.), and those which either leave out λόγοις (F G, 74, al. Erp. Boern. Ambrosiast. Sedul.) or alter it (λόγων : Syr. Armen. Or. twice over, and several others : λόγου), are old shifts resorted to on failure to understand πειθοῖς, as also the short reading ἐν πειθο σοφίας must be so accounted. See the exegeti- cal remarks, and Reiche, p. 133. — Ver. 7. The order of the words Θεοῦ σοφίαν (Elz. and Matth. invert it) is decisively attested, as also the order in ver, 10: ἀπεκάλ. ὁ Θεός. --- Ver. 9. In place of the second ἅ, Lachm. and Tisch. have ὅσα. with ABC and some Fathers.' Rightly ; ἅ 15 a mechanical repetition from what goes before. — Ver. 10. Instead of δέ Tisch. reads γάρ, supported only by B, min. Copt. Sahid. Clem. — αὐτοῦ] is wanting in A BC 8, Copt. Clem. Bas. Cyr. It is deleted by Lachm. and Riickert. But considering the independent τὸ yap πνεῦμα Which follows, it would have been more natural to omit αὐτοῦ or to add ἁγίου (so Didym.) than to insert αὐτοῦ. --- Ver. 11. ἔγνωκεν is, in ac- cordance with the vast preponderance of evidence, approved by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riickert. Elz., however, Matth. and Scholz, have οἶδεν, Repetition of the preceding oidev done mechanically or by way of gloss. In favour of ἔγνωκεν there is also the reading ἔγνω in F G, 23, and Fathers, — Ver. 13. πνεύματος] Elz. adds ἁγίου, against decisive evidence to the contrary. A superfluous and weakening definition. — Ver. 15. The μέν after avaxp. in Elz. and Scholz (deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick.) is wanting in A C D* FG, 17, and many vss. and Fathers. It has arisen from the δέ which follows. In &* the whole verse is omitted through Homoioteleuton. S** has μέν. --- τὰ πάντα͵] so also Riick. and Tisch. ; Lachm. brackets ra; Elz. and Scholz have simply πάντα. But τά is attested by A C Ὁ, min. Ir. ms. Or. Nyss. Chrys. ; πάντα is an old correction of the text, with the view of bringing in the mascu- 1 Clement, too, Cor. I. 34, has ὅσα, which mann). A converse proceeding on the part certainly was not first imported from his of the transcribers might rather seem more quotation cote tiet of the apostle (ITof- natural. OMAP: Τα πατῶ: 43 line to correspond with the οὐδενός which comes after ; hence, too, Didym. and Theodoret have πάντας. -- Ver. 16. Χριστοῦ] Lachm. has Κυρίου, with B D* F G, Theophyl. Ambrosiast. Aug. Sedul. Mechanical repetition of the preced- ing Kupiov. Had Κυρίου been the original reading and explained by a gloss, the substitute for it would have been not Χριστοῦ, but Θεοῦ, seeing that every marginal annotator must have been aware from Isa. xl. 13 that the preceding Κυρίου referred to God. Vv. 1-5. Application of the foregoing section (i. 17-31) to the manner in which Paul had come forward as a teacher in Corinth. Ver. 1. Κἀγώ] I too, as is the duty, in accordance with the previous expla- nation (i. 17-31), of every preacher of the gospel. The construction is such, that ka? ὑπεροχὴν x.7.A. belongs to katayy., as indicating the mode adopted in the καταγγέλλειν : I too, when I came to you, brethren, came proclaiming to you, not upon the footing of ὦ pre-eminence of speech (eloquence) or wisdom (phi- losophy), the testimony of God. Against connecting the words in this way,’ it is objected that ἐλθὼν ἦλθον gives an intolerable tautology. But this is of no weight (see the passages in Bernhardy, p. 475 ; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. v. 3. 2; Sauppe, ad Anab. iv. 2. 21 ; comp. on Acts vii. 34), and would, be- sides, apply to the construction ἦλθον ob . . . σοφίας, καταγγέλλων (Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, and others, including Flatt, Riickert, Hofmann) ; further, it is more natural and more in accordance with the sense to think in connection with καθ᾽ ὑπεροχὴν κιτ.2. of the manner of the preaching than of the manner of the coming. For that reason, too, ἦλθον is not placed after σοφίας. The preposition κατά, again, to express mode (Winer, p. 375 [E. T. 501]), is quite according to rule ; comp. καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν, κατὰ κράτος, and the like. — As to ὑπεροχή, eminentia, comp. 1 Tim. 11. 2; Plat. Legg. iv. p. 711 Ὁ ; Def. 416 ; Arist. Pol. iv. 9.5. Also κακῶν ὑπεροχή, 2 Mace. xiii. 6. — καταγγέλλων] Paul might have used the future, but the present participle places the thing more vividly before us as already begun with the ἦλθον. So especially often ἀγγέλλων (Valck. ad Phoen. 1082) ; e.g. Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 29: ἐς τὰς ᾿Αθήνας ἔπλευσεν, ἀγγέλλουσα τὰ yeyovara, Plat. Phaed. p. 116 C, and Stallbaum in loc. See, in general, Winer, p. 320 f. [E. T. 429 f.] ; Dissen, ad Pindar. Ol. vii. 14. — τὸ μαρτύρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] in substance not different from τ. μαρτ. τ. Χριστοῦ, i. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 8. For the preachers of the gospel give testimony of God, as to what He has done, namely, in Christ for the salvation of men. Comp. xv. 15. In accordance with i. 6, the genitive is not, with Calvin, Bengel, Osiander, and Hofmann, to be taken subjectively, as in 1 John v. 9 f. : Ver. 2. For I did not resolve (did not set it before me as part of my under- taking) to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and that the crucified, i.e, to mix up other kinds of knowledge with the proclamation of Jesus Christ, etc.? Had Paul not disdained this and not put aside all other 1 Which is done also by Castalio, Bengel, the officiwm, and ‘“‘in his duobus totum and others, Pott, Heydenreich, Schrader, versatur evangelium.’” But the strong de Wette, Osiander, Ewald. emphasis on the latter point arises from 3 Causaubon remarks well, that "Inc. X. looking back to i. 17-24. refers to the person, and x. τοῦτ. ἐσταυρ. to 44 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. knowledge, his καταγγέλλειν would not have remained free from ὑπεροχὴ λόγου ἣ σοφίας. The ordinary reference of the negation to τὰ : I resolved to know nothing, etc., isin arbitrary opposition to the words (so, however, Pott, _ Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Ewald). In ἔκρινα Calvin and Grotius find too much, since the text does not give it : magnum duai ; Hofmann again, too little, with Luther and others : I judged, was of opinion ; for Paul could indeed discard and negative in his own case the undertaking to know some- thing, but not the judgment that he did know something. His se/f-deter- mination was, not to be directed to know, ete. Comp. vii. 37 ; 2 Cor, ii. 1; Rom, xiv. 18 ; Kpivai τι καὶ προθέσθαι, Polyb. 111. 6. 7 ; Wisd. vill. 9 ; 1 Mace. xi. 33 ; 2 Mace. vi. 14, al. He might have acted otherwise, had he proposed to himself to do so. — ri εἰδέναι] πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τῆς ἔξωθεν εἴρηται σοφίας᾽ ob yap ἦλθον συλλογισμοὺς πλέκων, οὐδὲ σοφίσματα, οὐδ᾽ ἀλλο TL λέγων ὑμῖν, ἢ ore ὁ Χριστὸς ἐσταυρώθη, Chrysostom. But the giving up of everything else is far more powerfully expressed by εἰδέναι (comp. Arrian, Hpict. ii, 1) than if Paul had said λέγειν or λαλεῖν. He was not disposed, when among the Corinthians, to be conscious of anything else but Christ. The notion of per- mission (Riickert), which might be conveyed in the relation of the infinitive to the verb (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 753 ; Kiithner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 1 5 Anab. v. 7. 34), would here only weaken the force of the statement. Were τοῦ εἰδέναι τι the correct reading (but sce the critical remarks), the right ren- dering of the genitive would not be : so that (Billroth), but : I made no resolution, in order to know anything. Comp. on Acts xxvii. 1.—k. τοῦτ. ἐσταυρ.} notwithstanding the offence therein implied for Jew and Gentile, i. 18, 23. Comp. Gal. vi. 14. Vv. 3, 4. After the proof given in ver. 2, Paul takes up again the connec- tion of ver. 1, and that with the simple καί : And I for my part (with others it may have been different !) fell into weakness and into much fear and trem- bling among you (πρὸς ip. ; see on John 1. 1). — γίγνεσθαι ἐν, to fall into a state, etc. (and to be in it) ; so Thue. i. 78. 1 ; Plato, Prot. p. 314 C ; Dem. p- 179, ult. Comp. Luke xxii. 44 ; 1 Macc. i. 27; 2 Macc. vii. 9; Hist. Sus. 8. We might also join πρὸς ὑμᾶς to ἐγενόμην, not, indeed, in the way in which Hofmann interprets it, as if for ἐγενόμην there stood ἤμην (Mark xiv. 49), but in the sense : I arrived among you (2 John 12, and see generally, Fritzsche, Ind. ad Lucian. Dial. Deor. p. 85 : Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 295, ed. 3) ; ver. 4, however, shows that what is here spoken of is not again (ver. 1) the coming thither, but the state when there. — The three phrases, ἀσθ., Φόβος, and τρόμος, depict the great timidity with which Paul was in Corinth, through his humble sense of the disproportion between his own powers and the great enterprise to which his conscientiousness kept him bound. In facing it he felt himself very weak, and was in fear and trem- bling. As for want of natural strength of will and determination, of which Hofmann speaks, there were no signs of anything of the kind in Paul, even judging from his experience at Athens ; and no such weakness betrays itself in Acts xviii. 4-11. The connection forbids us from thinking, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Grotius, and others, of the sufferings and persecutions (ἀσθ.}, and of the apprehen- CHAP. IL, 3, '4. 45 sion of dangers, which he had to undergo in Corinth ; for the text hints nothing of persecutions and dangers, and these would not necessarily fur- nish the motive for simplicity in preaching (vv. 1, 4 f.), nay, might even excite to the greater rhetorical exertion. The weakness, etc., was of a deep ethical nature, being based on the entire renunciation of human wisdom and strength (ver. 5). Other exegetes wrongly understand ἀσθενεία even of bodily weakness, either generally sickliness (Riickert) or more especially weakness in the chest and voice (Storr, comp. Rosenmiiller). — φόβος x. τρόμος] always denote with Paul (comp. also Ps. ii. 11) the deeply vivid and keen apprehension of humility, lest it should be unable to meet the emergency concerned. See 2 Cor. vii. 15; Phil. ii. 12; Epb. vi. 5. —6 λόγος μου x. τ. κήρυγμά μου] are indeed emphatically separated from each other by the repe- tition of the μου ; but it is an arbitrary distinction to make the former of the two refer to the form, the latter to the contents (Heydenreich), or the former to the privata, the latter to the publica institutio (so Riickert and the major- ity of commentators). The former is the more general expression, the latter the particular : my speech generally (comp. 2 Cor. x. 10), and especially my public proclamation. — οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖς ood. λόγοις] 86. ἦν, non versabatur in, did not move in the element of persuasive words of wisdom, such words as are philo- sophically arranged and thereby fitted to persuade. Πειθός is found nowhere else in the whole range of extant Greek literature, πιθανός being the word in use (Xen.! Cyr. vi. 4.5 ; Thue. iv. 21; Dem. 928. 14 ; Josephus, Angtt. viii. 9; and the passages from Plato in Ast, Ler. III. p. 102. Meineke, Menand. p. 222). Πειθός, however, is formed from πείθω by correct analogy as φειδός from φείδομαι, etc. Comp. Salmasius, de ling. Hellenist. Ὁ. 86 ; Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 136 f. It was in all likelihood an adjective belonging only to the colloquial language of common life. Kypke, indeed ( (dss. I. p. 193), would find some trace of itin Plato, Gorg. p. 493 A ; but what we have there is a play on the words τὸ πιθανόν and πίθος, a cask, which has no connec- tion whatever with πειθός. Pasor and Schrader make πειθοῖς to be the dative plural of πειθώ, swada, and what follows to be in apposition to it : in persua- sions, in words of wisdom. But the plural of πειθώ also has no existence ; and how abrupt such an apposition would be, as well as wholly at variance with the parallel in ver. 13! The following are simply conjectures (comp. the critical remarks) : Beza and Erasmus Schmid (after Eusebius), ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας λόγων ; Grotius, ἐν πιστοῖς x.7.A.; Walckenaer, Klose, and Kiihn (Commentat. ad 1 Cor. ii. 1-5, Lips. 1784), ἐν πιθανοῖς or πειθανοῖς x.7.2. (comp. also Alberti, Schediasm. p. 105) ; Alberti, ἐν πειθοῦς (suadae) σ. λόγοις, ΟΥ̓ ἡ ἐν πειθοῖ σοφίας (without λόγοις). -- ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος κ. δυνάμεως] Without there being any necessity for explaining the two genitives by ἃ ἕν διὰ δυοῖν as equivalent to πνεύματος δυνατοῖ; (so still Pott, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Maier, with older expositors), the meaning may, according to our interpretation of ἀπόδειξις and to our taking the genitives in an objective or subjective sense, be either : 80 that I evinced Spirit and power (so Vatablus and others, with Pott and Bill- roth) ; or : so that Spirit and power made themselves known through me ( Calvin : 1 So, too, Semler, Flatt, Rinck, Fritzsche in the Hal. Lit. Zeit. 1840, Nr. 100. 46 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ‘(in Pauli ministerio. . . . quasi nuda Dei manus se proferebat’’) ; or : 80 that Spirit and power gave the proof (Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, and Maier, following older commentators). The last is most in keeping with the purposely chosen expression ἀπόδειξις (found here only in the N. T. ; Dem, 326.4 ; Plato, Phaed. p. 77 C, Theaet. p. 162 E, and often ; 3 Macc. iv. 20), and with the significant relation to οὐκ ἐν πειϑοῖς o. λόγοις. Paul means the Holy Spirit (ver. 10 ff.) and the divine power communicating itself therein, ver. 5 (Rom. i. 16; 2 Cor. iv. 7; 1 Thess. i. 5), which wrought through his preaching upon the minds of men, persuading them of its truth,—the testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum.' At variance with the text is the view of several of the older expositors (following Origen, contra Celsum, 1. Ρ. 5), who refer πνεύματος to the oracles of the O. T., and δυνάμ. to the mir- acles of the apostle ; as well as the view of Grotius, that the former applies to the prophecies, and the latter to the cures, by means of which Paul had given the ἀπόδειξις. 5 Ver. 5. Aim of the divine leading, the organ of which the apostle knew himself to be, in what is set forth in ver. 4 : in order that your faith (in Christ) may be based, have its causal ground (comp. Bernhardy, p. 210), not on man’s wisdom, but on God’s power (which has brought conviction to you through my speech and preaching). That ἵνα introduces not his own (Hof- mann), but the divine purpose, is clear from ἐν ἀποδείξει κιτ.1., in which Paul has stated how God had wrought through him. Comp. iva ini. 31. Vv. 6-16. Wisdom, however, we deliver among the perfect ; but it is a higher wisdom revealed to us by the Spirit, which therefore only those filled with the Spirit, and not the sensuous, apprehend. — Paul having, in i. 17-31, justified the simple and non-philosophical method of proclaiming the gospel from the nature of its contents, and having now, in ii. 1-5, applied this to him- self and his own preaching among the Corinthians, there might be attrib- uted to him the view that what the preachers of the gospel set forth was no σοφία at all,—a supposition which, in writing to the Corinthians above all, he could not safely leave uncontradicted. He now shows, accordingly, that among ripened Christians there is certainly a cogia delivered, but not a philosophy in the common, worldly sense, etc. Ver. 6. Wisdom, nevertheless (unphilosophical as my discourse among you was), we deliver among the perfect. — λαλοῦμεν] we speak it out, hold it not back. That the plural does not refer to Paul alone (so usually), but to the apostolic teachers in general, is clear from the καὶ ἐγώ in iii. 1, which intro- duces the particular application of the plural statement here. — ἐν means nothing else than in, surrounded by, among, coram ; λαλεῖν ἐν corresponds to the λαλεῖν with the dative in iii. 1. We must therefore reject ‘not only the rendering for the perfect (Flatt, with older expositors), which is in itself linguistically untenable (for even in such passages as those cited by Bern- 1Theophylact is right in supposing as ments together, and explains the clause of regards πνεύματος : ἀῤῥήτῳ τινὶ τρόπῳ πίστιν the ϑαυματουργία τοῦ πνεύματος. So, too, in ἐνεποίει τοῖς ἀκούουσι. He makes δυνάμεως, substance, Chrysostom, according to whom however, apply to the miracles, as does it is by πνεύματος that the miracles are Theodoret also, who takes the two e'e- made to appear as ¢rve miracles. CHAP. IT: ,)'6, 47 hardy, p. 212, the local force οἵ ἐν should be retained), but also the expla- nation : according to the judgment of the perfect (Grotius, Tittmann, de Spir. Dei mysterior. div. interprete, Lips. 1814, in the Syn. N. T. p. 285), which would have to be referred, with Billroth, to the conception of among, since the corresponding usage of ἐν ἐμοί, ἐν σοί, in the sense, according to my or thy view, applies exclusively to these particular phrases (Bernhardy, p. 211). — The τέλειοι (comp. on Eph. iv. 13), who stand in contrast to the νήπιοι ἐν Χριστῷ are those who have penetrated beyond the position of beginners in Chris- tian saving knowledge to the higher sphere of thorough and comprehensive insight. The σοφία, which is delivered to these, is the Christian analogue to philoso- phy in the ordinary sense of the word, the higher religious wisdom ‘of Chris- tianity, the presentation of which (xii. 8) is not yet appropriate for the begin- ners in the faith (iii. 1, 2). The form of this instruction was that of spir- itual discourse (ver. 13) framed under the influence of the holy πνεῦμα, but independent of the teachings of philosophic rhetoric ; and its matter was the future relations of the Messianic kingdom (vy. 9, 12) in their connection with the divine counsel of redemption and its fulfilment in Christ, the μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν (Matt. xiii. 11),—that, which no eye hath seen, etc. Comp. Bab. Sanhedr. f. xcix. 1: ‘‘Quod ad mundum futurum : oculus non vidit, O Deus, praeter te.” The definitions now given ' respecting the σοφία Θεοῦ are the only ones that neither go beyond the text, nor are in the least degree arbitrary, while they comprehend also the doctrine of the κτίσις as regards its Messianic final destination, Rom. viii., —that highest analogue to the philosophy of nature. It may be gathered, however, with certainty from iii. 1, 2, that we are not to think here of any disciplina arcani. With the main point in our view as a whole,—namely, that σοφία denotes that high- er religious wisdom, and τέλειοι those already trained in Christian knowledge, grown up, as it were, to manhood,—Erasmus, Castalio, Estius, Bengel, Semler, Stolz, as well as Pott, Usteri, Schrader, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander, Maier, Hofmann, accord. Chrysostom, however, Theophy- lact, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others, in- 1Comp. Riickert, who, as respects the matter, is of opinion that it includes the higher views regarding the divine plan of the world in relation to the development of the kingdom of God, and especially to the providential government of the Jewish peo- ple; regarding the import of the divine ordinances and appointments before Christ, for example, of the law in reference to the highest end contemplated—the kingdom of God; regarding the way and manner in which the death and resurrection of Christ bear upon the salvation of the world; as wellas regarding the changes yet in the womb of the future, and, in particular, the events which are linked with the second coming of the Lord. Similarly, and still ore in detail, Estius. According to de .,ette, portions of this wisdom are to be _cand in the Epistle to the Romans, in the discussions on justification, on the contrast between Christ and Adam, and on predesti- nation ; inthe Epistles to the Zphesians and Colossians, in the indications there given as to the divine plan of redemption and the person of Christ ; in ovr Epistle, chap. Xv. ; views of the same kind in Heb. vii-x., comp. iv. 11 ff. Osiander makes this σοφία to consist in the deeper dogmatic develop- ment of the gospel as regards its historical foundations and its eternal consequences reaching on to the consummation of the kingdom of God. Comp. Ewald, p. 139, according to whom its contents turn upon the gospel as the centre and cardinal point of all divine-human history, and for that very reason touch all the problems both of history as a whole, and of the creation. Hofmann rightly includes also the final glory of believers. 48 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. cluding Tittmann, Flatt, Billroth, and Olshausen, understand by the τέλειοι the Christians generally, or the true Christians, to whom the apostle’s doctrine (σοφίαν λέγει τὸ κήρυγμα Kai τὸν τρόπον τῆς σωτηρίας, τὸ διὰ σταυροῦ σωθῆναι, τελεί- ove δὲ τοὺς πεπιστευκότας, Chrysostom), appeared as wisdom, not as folly. (Ε) ‘‘ Ba dicimus quae plena esse sapientiae judicabunt veri ac probi Christiani,” Grotius. But iii. 2 is decisive against this view ; for there γάλα denotes the instruction of beginners as distinguished from the σοφία (βρῶμα). Comp. the appropriate remarks of Castalio on this passage. — σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τ. αἰῶν. 7.) wis- dom, however, which does not belong to this age (δέ, as in Rom. iii. 22, ix. 80 4 Gal. ii. 2; Phil. ii. 8), which is not, like the Jewish and Hellenic philoso- phy, the product and intellectual property of the pre-Messianic age. Comp. i. 20. Αἰῶνος τούτου σοφίαν ὀνομάζει τὴν ἔξω, ὡς πρόσκαιρον καὶ τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ συγ- καταλυομένην, Theophylact. — οὐδέ] also (in particular) πού. --- τῶν apy. τ. αἰῶν t.] These are the rulers generally (comp. Acts xiii. 27), the dominant powers (proceres) of the pre-Messianic time among Jews and Gentiles. But to say that Paul’s meaning is that he does not teach politics (Grotius), is to limit his words in a way foreign to the connection ; he affirms generally that the σοφία in question is a wisdom to which holders of temporal power are stran- gers. Comp. ver. 8. It is a mistake to explain the apy. τ. aiav. τ. as refer- ring either to influential philosophers and men of learning’ or to the demons, connecting it with 2 Cor. iv. 4, John xii. 31 (Marcion, Origen, some writ- ers referred to by Chrysostom and Theophylact, also Ambrosiaster, Estius, Bertholdt), both of these interpretations being incompatible with the words, and forbidden by ver. 8 ; or lastly, to the Jewish archontes alone (Cameron, Hammond, Vorstius, Lightfoot, Locke, Stolz, Rosenmiiller), which is con- trary to the general character of the expression, and not required by ver. 8 (see on ver. 8). — τῶν katapy.| which are done away with, i.e. cease to sub- sist (i. 28, xv. 24 ; 2 Thess. ii. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. 10 ; Heb. ii. 14), namely, when Christ returning establishes His kingdom. Comp. Rev. xvi.-xix. This reference is implied in the context by the emphatic repetition of τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. The expedient of explaining it into : ‘‘ Whose power and influence are broken and brought to nought by the gospel,” Billroth (comp. Flatt and Riickert), rationalizes the apostle’s conception, and does not even accord with history. —The present participle, as ini, 18. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 7. Ver. 7. Θεοῦ σοφίαν] God’s philosophy, of which God is the possessor, who has made it known to those who proclaim it, ver. 10. This Θεοῦ is with great emphasis prefixed ; the repetition of λαλοῦμεν, too, carries with it a certain solemnity, comp. Rom. viii. 15; Phil. iv. 17. — ἐν μυστηρίῳ] does not belong to τὴν ἀποκεκρ. (with which it was connected expressly as early as Theodoret ; comp. Grotius : ‘‘ quae diu in arcano recondita fuit’’) but to λαλοῦμεν," not, however, in the sense : ‘‘secreto et apud pauciores” (Estius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide), since there is no mention of a disciplina arcani (see on 1 These are not even included (in opposi- phylact, and others, including Pott ; comp. tion to Chrysostom and others, including Neander: ‘‘the intellectual rulers of the Osiander), although the ἄρχοντες may have ancient world.”’) accepted their wisdom, played the part of 3 Erasmus, Estius, Riickert, Schrader, de patrons to them, etc. (Theodoret, Theo- Wette, Osiander, Hofmann. a ΘΈΑ ΡΟ ὙΠ, 8. 49 ver. 6), but rather : by means of ὦ secret, i.e. by our delivering what has been secret (a doctrine hidden from the human understanding, and revealed to us by God, see on Rom. xi. 25). To this is to be referred also the render- ing of Riickert and Neander : as a mystery. Most interpreters, however, join ἐν μυστηρίῳ with σοφίαν, sc. ovcav : God’s secret wisdom (unknown but for revelation). So also Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth, Tittmann, Usteri, Ewald). But the article, although after the anarthrous σοφίαν not in itself absolutely necessary, would be omitted here at the expense of clearness. Paul would have expressed himself with ambiguity, while he might easily have avoided it by τὴν ἐν μυστηρίῳ. On the other hand, if he joined ἐν μυστ. to λαλοῦμεν, he could not, seeing that he wished to prefix Aad. for the sake of emphasis, write otherwise. — τὴν aroxexp.] as respects its nature, by virtue of which it not only had been hidden from all preceding generations, but remained unknown apart from divine revelation. Comp. vv. 9, 10; Rom. xvi. 25. The word, which in itself might be dispensed with, is added in order to introduce the following statement with completeness and solemnity. — ἣν προώρ. ὁ Θεὸς x.t.A.] There is no ground here for supplying (with the major- ity of expositors, including Pott and Heydenreich) ἀποκαλύπτειν, γνωρίσαι, or the like, or (with Olshausen) a dative of the person ; or yet for assum- ing, as do Billroth and Riickert, that Paul meant by ἤν the object of the wis- dom, the salvation obtained through Christ. For προώρ. has its complete and logically correct reference in εἰς δόξαν ju. (comp. Eph. i. 5), so that the thought is : ‘‘to which wisdom God has, before the beginning of the ages of this world (in eternity), given the predestination that by it we should attain to glory.” This εἰς δόξ. yu. corresponds significantly to the τῶν καταργ. of ver. 6, and denotes the Messianic glory of the Christians which is to begin with the Parousia (Rom. viii. 17, 29 f. ; 1 Thess. ii. 12). That wisdom of God is destined in the eternal divine plan of salvation not to become (Hofmann) this glory, but to establish and to realizeit. This destination it attains in virtue of the faith of the subjects (i. 21) ; but the reference to the spiritual ᾿ glorification on earth is not even to be assumed as included with the other (in opposition to de Wette, Osiander, Neander, and many older expositors), as also the correlative τῆς δόξης in ver. 8 applies purely to the heavenly glory. Bengel says well: ‘‘ olim revelandam, tum cum principes mundi destruen- tur.” It reveals itself then as the wisdom that makes blessed, having at- tained in the δόξα of believers the end designed for it by God before the beginning of the world. Ver. 8. Ἤν] Parallel with the preceding ἦν, and referring to Θεοῦ σοφίαν (Calvin, Grotius, and most commentators, including Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), not to δόξ. ἡμῶν (Tertullian contra Mare. v. 6, Camerarius, Pott, Billroth, Maier) ; for the essential point in the whole con- text is the non-recognition of that wisdom.’ — εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν κ.τ.}.] parenthet- 1 The simple uniform continuation of the Gr. p. 243 [E. T. 282]), and as introducing a discourse by ἥν hasa solemn emphasis here, new principal sentence. The asyndetic simi- as in Acts iy. 10, and especially ofteninthe lar co-ordination of several relative clauses Epistle to the Ephesians. Ailthelessreason ἴδ, from Homer onward (see Ameis on the is there for taking it, withHofmann,as equiv- Odyss. xxiii. 299, append.), a very common alent in this verse to ταύτην (Buttmann, neut, usage in the classics also, 50 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ical proof from fact for what has been just asserted ; for the ἀλλά in ver. 9 refers to ἣν οὐδεὶς. . . ἔγνωκεν. The crucifixion of Christ, seeing that it was effected by Jewish and heathen rulers together, is here considered as the act of the ἀρχ. τ. αἰῶν. collectively. — τὸν Κύριον τῆς δόξης] Christ is the Lord, and, inasmuch as His qualitative characteristic condition is that of the divine glory in heaven, from which He came and to which He has returned (John xvii. 5 ; Luke xxiv. 26 ; Phil. iii. 20 ἢ. ; Col. ili. 1-4, a/.), the Lord of glory. Comp. Jas. ii. 1. Ina precisely analogous way God is called, in Eph. i. 17, ὁ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης. Comp. Acts vii. 2; Ps. xxiv. 7; Heb. ix S: In all these passages the expression of the adjectival notion by the genitive has rhetorical emphasis. Comp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887. This designa- tion of Christ, however, is purposely chosen by way of antithesis to ἐσταύρωσαν ; for ὁ σταυρὸς ἀδοξίας εἶναι δοκεῖ, Chrysostom. Had the ἄρχοντες known that σοφία Θεοῦ, then they would also have known Christ as what He is, the Κύριος τῆς δόξης, and would have received and honoured instead of shamefully cruci- fying Him. But what was to them wisdom was simply nothing more than selfish worldiy prudence and spiritual foolishness ; in accordance with :t Annas and Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, acted. Comp., generally, Luke xxiii. 34; Acts iii. 17. Ver. 9. ᾿Αλλά] but, antithesis to ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τ. al. τ. ἔγνωκεν. --- The passage of Scripture, which Paul now adduces, is to be translated : ἐς What an eye hath not seen, nor an ear heard, and (what) hath not risen into the heart of a man (namely :) all that God hath prepared for them that love Him.” In the connection of our passage these words are still dependent upon λαλοῦμεν. Paul, that is to say, instead of affirming something further of the wisdom itself, and so continuing with another ἦν (which none of the rulers have known, but which), describes now the mysterious contents of this wisdom, and expresses himself accordingly in the neuter form (by a), to which he was induced in the flow of his discourse by the similar form of the language of Scripture which floated before his mind. The construction therefore is not anacoluthic: (Riickert hesitatingly ; de Wette and Osiander, both of whom hold that it loses itself in the conception of the mysteries refer- red to) ; neither is it to be supplemented by γέγονε (Theophylact, Grotius). The connection with ver. 10, adopted by Lachmann (in his ed. min.), and in my first and second editions, and again resorted to by Hofmann : what no eye has seen, etc., God, on the other hand (dé, see on i. 23), has revealed to us, etc., is not sufficiently simple, mars the symmetry of the discourse, and is finally set aside by the consideration that, since the quotation manifestly does not go beyond ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν, καθὼς γέγραπται logically would need to stand, not before, but after, ἃ, because in reality this a, and not the καθὼς γέγραπται, would introduce the object of ἀπεκάλυψεν. ---- καθὼς yéyp.| Chrysostom and Theophylact are in doubt as to what passage is meant, whether a lost prophecy (so Theodoret), or Isa. 111, 15. Origen, again, and other Fathers (Fabri- cius, ad Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 342 ; Pseudepigr. N. T. 1. p. 1072 ; Liicke, Finleit. 2. Offend. I. p. 235), with whom Schrader and Ewald agree, assume, amidst vehement opposition on the part of Jerome, that the citation is from the Revelation of Elias, in which Zacharias of Chrysopolis avers (Harmonia CHAP ἘΠ Us 51 Hang. p. 343) that he himself had actually read the words. Grotius re- gards them as ‘‘e scriptis Rabbinorum, qui ea habuerunt ex traditione vet- ere.” Most interpreters, however, including Osiander and Hofmann, agree with Jerome (on Isa. lxiv. and ad Pammach. epist. ci.) in finding here a free quotation from Isa. lxiv. 4 (some holding that there is, besides, a reference to lil. 15, Ixv. 17; see especially Surenhusius, καταλλ. Ὁ. 526 ff., also Rig- genbach in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1855, p. 596 f. But the difference in sense— not to be got over by forced and artificial interpretation of the passage in Isaiah (see especially Hofmann)—and the dissimilarity in expression are too great, hardly presenting even faint resemblances ; which is never elsewhere the case with Paul, however freely he may make his quotations. There seems, therefore, to remain no other escape from the difficulty than to give credit to the assertion—however much repugnance may have been shown to it in a dogmatic interest from Jerome downwards—made by Origen and others, that the words were from the Apocalypsis Eliae. So, too, Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 330. But since it is only passages from the cu- nonical Scriptures that are ever cited by Paul with καθὼς yéyp., we must at the same time assume that he intended to do so here also, but by some confu- sion of memory tock the apocryphal saying for a canonical passage possibly from the prophecies, to which the passages of kindred sound in Isaiah might easily give occasion. (F) Comp. also Weiss, biblische Theol. p. 298. — ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε x.t.2.] For similar designations in the classics and Rabbins of what cannot be apprehended by the senses or intellect, see Wetstein and Light- foot, Horae, p. 162. Comp. Empedocles in Plutarch, Mor. p. 17 E: oi? ἐπιδερκτὰ τάδ᾽ ἀνδράσιν, οὔτ᾽ ἐπακουστὰ, οὔτε νόῳ περιληπτά. With respect to ἀναβ. ἐπὶ Kapo., 9 | ν My, to rise up to the heart, that is, become a con- sciously apprehended object of feeling and thought, so that the thing enters as a conception into the sphere of activity of the inner life, comp. on Acts Vii. 23.— ποῖς ἀγαπ. αὐτόν] i.e. in the apostle’s view : 70) the true Chris- tians.’ See on Rom. viii. 28. What God has prepared for them is the salva- tion of the Messianic kingdom. Comp. Matt. xxv. 34. Constitt. Apost. vii. 82. 2: οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι πορεύσονται εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομοῦντες ἐκεῖνα, ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε κιτ.1Δ. Ὁ Ver. 10. Having thus set forth the hitherto hidden character of the divine σοφία, Paul now turns to its wnveiling, as a result of which it was that that λαλοῦμεν of ver. 6 f. took place. In doing this he puts ἡμῖν emphatically first in the deep consciousness of the distinction implied in so signal a mark of divine favour. The odject of ἀπεκάλ. is the immediately preceding ἃ ἡτοίμασεν x.7.A. -- ἡμῖν] plural, as λαλοῦμεν in ver. 6, and therefore neither to be referred to the apostle alone (Rosenmiiller, Riickert, and others), nor to all Christians (Billroth, etc.). — διὰ τοῦ πνεύμ. αὐτοῦ] The Holy Spirit, pro- 1 Clement, ad Cor. I. 34, in quoting this be canonical, which is explained, however, same passage (with his usual formula for by the fact of his being acquainted with scriptural quotations, λέγει γάρ), has here our Epistle. The Constitt. apost. too, vii. 32. τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτόν, remembering er- 2, have τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. The so-called faps Isa. Ixiv. 4in the LXX. Clement also, second Epistle of Clement, chap. xi., has there can be no doubt, held the passage to _ the passage only as far as ἀνέβη. iy PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ceeding forth from God as the personal principle of Christian enlightenment, of every Christian endowment, and of the Christian life, 7s the medium, in His being communicated to men (ver. 12), of the divine revelation ; He is the bearer of it ; Eph. i. 17, iii. 3,5; 1 Cor. xii, 11, xiv. 6, al. —réd yap πνεῦμα k.T.A.] Herewith begins the adducing of proof’ for that ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλ- vipev κιτ. 1. Which continues on to ver. 12, to this effect, namely: For the Spirit is familiar with the mysteries of God, because He alone stands in that unique relation as respects knowledge to God, which corresponds to the re- lation of the human spirit to man (vv. 10, 11) ; but what we have received is no other than this Spirit of God, in order that we might know the salvation of God (ver. 12), so that no doubt remains that we have actually the azoxa/- υψις in question through the Spirit. That τὸ πνεῦμα means not the human spirit, but the Holy Spirit, is certain from what goes before and from vv. 11, 12. — ἐρευνᾷ] rightly interpreted by Chrysostom : οὐκ ἀγνοίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκριβοῦς γνώσεως ἐνταῦθα τὸ ἐρευνᾷν ἐνδεικτικόν. Comp. Ps. cxxxix. 1 ; Rom. viii. 27 ; Rey. ii. 23. The word expresses the activity of this knowledge. But Paul was not thinking of ‘‘God’s knowing Himself in man” (Billroth, comp. Baur), or of any other such Hegelian views as they would impute to him. — πάντα] all things, without limitation. Comp. Wisd. vii. 23 ; Ps. cxxxix. ἡ. ---- τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ] Comp. Judith viii. 14 : βάθος καρδίας ἀνθρώπου ; see on Rom. xi. 33, also Plato, Theaet. p. 188 E. The expression: ‘‘ depths of God,” denotes the whole rich exhaustless fulness which is hidden in God,— all, therefore, that goes to make up His being, His attributes, His thoughts, plans, decrees, etc. These last (see vv. 9, 12), the βαθύβουλον (Aeschylus, Pers. 148) of the Godhead, are included ; but we are not to suppose that they alone are meant. The opposite is τὰ βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, Rev. ii. 24. The depths of God, unsearchable by the cognitive power of created spirits (comp. Rom. xi. 33), are penetrated by the cognitive activity of His own immanent principle of life and manifestation, so that this, 1.6. the Holy Spirit, is the power [Potenz] of the divine self-knowledge. God is the subject knowing and the object known in the intrinsic divine activity of the Spirit, who is the substratum of the absolute self-consciousness of the Godhead, in like manner as the human spirit is the substratum of the human Ego. Ver. 11 assigns the reason for the καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ just mentioned, and that in such a way as to represent the searching of these βάθη as exclusively pertaining to the Spirit of God, according to the analogy of the relation be- tween the spirit of man and man himself. — ἀνθρώπων] should neither, with Grotius, be held superfluous nor, with Tittmann, be suspected (it is wanting in A, Or. 1, Athan. Cyr. Vigil. taps.) ; on the contrary, it is designed to carry special emphasis, like τοῦ ἀνθρώπου afterwards (which is wanting in F G, and some Fathers), hence also the position chosen for it: ἀνθρώπων Ta τοῦ ἀνθρώπου : no man knows what is man’s, save the spirit of the man which is in him.’ Comp. Prov. xx. 27. Were what is peculiar to him not known 1 The τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ is an argumentative defini- hence τὸ πνεῦμα, not ἡ ψυχή. Comp. De- tion.—In the man the subject knowing is litzsch, biblische Psychologie, p. 198; Krumm, the Ego of the personal self-consciousness, de notionib. psychol. Paul. p. 16 f. CHAP: IL), 12. 53 to the spirit itself of the man (who is made the object of contemplation), in that case no man would have this knowledge of the man ; it would not come within the region of human knowing at all. The man’s own spirit knows it, but no other man.—We are not, with many expositors, including Pott and Flatt, to add βάθη by way of supplement to τὰ τοῦ avOp. or to ra τοῦ Θεοῦ. This would be a purely arbitrary limitation of the universal statement, to which ra βάθη, as a qualitative expression, is subordinated. What are meant are the relations in general of God and of man, more es- pecially, from the context, the inner ones. The illustration adduced by Grotius serves to bring out the sense more clearly : ‘‘ Principum abditos sensus quis novit nisi ipse principis animus ?” — ἔγνωκε] cognita habet. See Bernhardy, p. 378. For the rest, this οὐδεὶς ἔγνωκε is, as a matter of course, said not as in distinction from the Son (Luke x. 22), but from the creatures. Remarx.—The comparison in ver. 11 ought not to be pressed beyond the point compared. We are neither, therefore, to understand it so that the Spirit of God appears as the soul of the divine substance (Hallet ; see, on the other hand, Heilmann, Opusc. II.), nor as if He were not distinct from God (see, on the contrary, ver. 10), but simply so that the Spirit of God, the ground of the divine personal life, appears in His relation to God as the principle of the divine self-knowledge, in the same way as the principle of the human self-knowledge is the πνεῦμα of the man, which constitutes his personal life. Hence God is known only by His Spirit, as the man is only by his spirit, as the vehicle of his own self-consciousness, not by another man. With τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, Paul does not again join τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ, because the man’s spirit indeed is shut up in the man, but not so the Divine Spirit in God ; the latter, on the contrary, goes forth also from Him, is communicated, and is τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. See ver. 12. Ver. 12. Aé] leading on to the second half of the demonstration which began with τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα in ver. 10 (see on ver. 10). ---- ἡμεῖς] as ἡμῖν in ver. 10. --- τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου] i.e. the spirit which unbelieving mankind has. This spirit is the diabolic πνεῦμα, that is, the spirit proceeding forth from the devil, under whose power the κόσμος lies, and whose sphere of action itis. See 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. vi. 11, 12, 11. 2. Comp. John xii. 31; 1 John iv. 3, v. 19. Had we received this spirit,—and here Paul glances back at the ἄρχον- τες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου in vv. 6, 8,—then assuredly the knowledge of the bless- ings of eternity would have remained closed for us, and (see ver. 13) in- stead of utterances taught by the Spirit we should use the language of the human wisdom of the schools, It is indeed the πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης AS CON- trasted with the πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, 1 Johniv. 6. Most commentators take τὸ πνεῦμα in the sense of mode of thought and view, so that the meaning would be: ‘“‘Non sumus instituti sapientia mundana et saeculari,” Estius. So Theophylact, and after him Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and many others, includ- ing Morus, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Heydenreich, de Wette, Maier, and simi- larly Pott.’ But, according to ver. 10, τὸ πνεῦμα must denote, in keeping 1 [So also Stanley and Hodge, but Beet and Principal Brown agree with Meyer, whose view is clearly correct.—T. W. C.] > 54 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. with the context, the objective spirit opposed to the Spirit of God ; and that is, according to the decided dualistic view of the apostle (comp. esp. Eph. ii. 2), the diabolic πνεῦμα, which has blinded the understanding of the un- believers, 2 Cor. iv. 4. Billroth’s explanation : that it is the non-absolute spirit, the finite, in so far as it persists for itself and does not resolve itself into the divine, is a modern un-Pauline importation ; and this holds, too, of Hofmann’s exposition : that it is the spirit, in virtue of which the world is conscious of itself, knowing itself, however, only in that way in which alone its sinful estrangement from God leaves it possible for it to do so, not in God, namely, but out of God. If that is not to be taken as the diabolic spirit, then the conception is simply an un-Pauline fabrication, artificially worded so as to explain away the diabolic character. Lastly, Riickert’s view, that Paul meant: ‘‘ we have received our πνεῦμα not from the world, but from God,” cannot even be reconciled with the words of the passage. — τὸ ἐκ τ. Θεοῦ] The ἐκ is employed by Paul here not in order to avoid the appear- ance of making this πνεῦμα the principle that determines the action of God (so Kling in the Stud. ει. Krit. 1839, p. 485), which were a needless precau- tion, but because this form of expression has a significant adaptation to the iva εἰδῶμεν k.T.A.; there can be do doubt about this knowing, if it proceeds from the Spirit which is from God (which has gone forth upon believers ; comp. ver. 11, τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ), John xv. 26. — iva εἰδῶμεν x... ] the divine pur- pose in imparting the Spirit which proceeded forth from God. Thisclause, expressive of design, containing the object of the ἀπεκάλυψεν in ver. 10, completely winds up the adducing of proof for the ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλ. 6 Θ. διὰ τ. Tv. avt. —Ta ὑπὸ τ. Θεοῦ yap. ἡμῖν] are the blessings of the Messianic king- dom, the possession of which is bestowed by divine grace on the Christians (ἡμῖν), not, indeed, before the Parousia as an actual possession, but as an ideal one to be certainly entered upon hereafter (Rom. viii. 24, 30; Col. iii. 3, 4); comp. Rom. vi. 23; Eph. ii. 8, 9. That to take it ideally in this way is correct (in opposition to Hofmann), is clear from the consideration that τὰ χαρισθέντα must be identical with ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ Θεὸς k.7.2. In ver. 9, and with the δόξα ju. in ver. 7. Ver. 13. Having thus in vv. 10-12 given the proof of that ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλ. k.T.A., the apostle goes on now to the manner in which the things revealed were proclaimed, passing, therefore, from the εἰδέναι τὰ yap. to the λαλεῖν of them. The manner, negative and positive, of this λαλεῖν (comp. ver. 4) he links to what has gone before simply by the relative : which (namely, τὰ. . . χαρισθ. ju.) we also (in accordance with the fact of our having received the Spirit, ver. 12) utter not in words learned of human wisdom (dialectics, rhetoric, etc.), but in those learned of the Spirit. The genitives : ἀνθρωπ. ood. and πνεύματος, are dependent on διδακτοῖς (John vi. 45). See Winer, pp.182, 178 [E. T. 242, 236]. Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 1135. Comp. Pindar, Ol. ix. 153 : πολλοὶ δὲ διδακταῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀρεταῖς κλέος ὥρουσαν ἑλέσθαι" ἄνευ δὲ θεοῦ K.T.A., comp. Nem. iii. 71. Sophocles, 1]. 880 : τἀμὰ νουθετήματα κείνης διδακτά. It istrue that the genitives might also be dependent upon λόγοις (Fritzsche, Diss. 11. in 2 Cor. p. 27); but the context, having διδακτοῖς πνεύματος, is against this. To take διδακτοῖς (with Ewald) as meaning, according to the CHAPS TL, 19. δῦ common ¢lassicai usage, learnable, quae doceri possunt (see especially Demosth, 1413. 24; Plato, Prot. p. 319 Β : οὐ διδακτὸν εἶναι μηδ᾽ ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων παρασκευ- «στὸν ἀνθρώποις), does not agree so well with vv. 4 and 15.—The suggestio verborum, here asserted, is reduced to its right measure by δεδακτοῖς; for that word excludes all idea of anything mechanical, and implies the living self-appropriation of that mode of expression which was specifically suitable both to the divine inspiration and to its contents (‘‘ verba rem sequuntur,”’ Wetstein),—an appropriation capable of being connected in very different forms with different given individualities (Peter, Paul, Apollos, James, etc.), and of presenting itself in each case with a corresponding variety. — πνευμα- τικοῖς πνευματικὰ CVyKpivovtec] connecting’ spiritual things with spiritual, not uniting things unlike in nature, which would be the case, were we to give forth what was revealed by the Holy Spirit in the speech of human wisdom, in philosophic discourse, but joining to the matters revealed by the Spirit (πνευματικοῖς) the speech also taught by the Spirit (avevyatica),—things con- sequently of like nature, ‘‘ spiritualibus spiritualia componentes” (Castalio). So in substance also Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Balduin, Wolf, Baumgarten, Kling in the Stud. und Krit. 1839, p. 437, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, etc., and rightly, since this sense suits the connection singularly well, and does not in any degree clash with the classical use of συγκρίνειν (Valckenaer, p. 134 f.; Porson, ad Med. 136). Plato has it frequently in this meaning, and in contrast to διακρίνειν. See Ast, Lev. Plat. III. p. 290 f. Other commen- tators, while also taking πνευματ. as neuter, make συγκρίνειν, explicare, namely, either : explaining the N. T. doctrine from the types of the O. T. (Chrysostom and his successors”), or: ‘‘exponentes ea, quae prophetae Spiritu Dei acti dixere, per.ea, quae Christus suo Spiritu nobis aperuit” (Grotius, Krebs), or: ‘‘spiritualibus verbis spiritualia interpretantes” (Elsner, Mosheim, Bolten, Neander). But the first two of these renderings are against the context, and all the three are against the wsws loquendi ; for συγκρίνειν is never absolutely interpretari, either in profane Greek (in which, among later writers, as also in2 Cor. x. 12, Wisd. vii. 29, xv. 18, 1 Macc. x. 71, it very often means to compare ; comp. Vulgate : comparantes, and see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 278) or in the LXX. With the latter it is indeed the common word for the interpretation of dreams (109, sce Gen. xl. 8, 16, 22, ΧΙ 12, 15; Dan. v. 12); but in such cases (comp. the passages from Philo, where διακρίνειν occurs, in Loesner, p. 273) we have to trace it back to the literal signification of judging,® namely, as to what was to be indicated by the 1 Not proving, as Theodore of Mopsuestia takes it: διὰ τῶν τοῦ πνεύματος ἀποδείξεων τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος διδασκαλίαν πιστούμεϑα. 3 50, too, Theodoret: ἔχομεν γὰρ τῆς παλ- αιᾶς διαϑήκης τὴν μαρτυρίαν, καὶ δι ἐκείνης τὴν καινὴν βεβαιοῦμεν: πνευματικὴ γὰρ κἀκεϊνη . καὶ διὰ τῶν τύπων δείκνυμεν τὴν ἀλήϑειαν. Several of the older interpreters follow the Greeks in substance, including Calovius, who, on the ground of this passage, declares himself against the explanation of Scripture from profane writers ! 3 Hence, in Dan. v. 16 (in the history of the mysterious writing on the wall, which had to be judged of with respect to its meaning): δύνασαι κρίματα συγκρῖναι, thou canst pronounce utterances of judgment. Comp. the phrase, recurring more than once in that same story of Belshazzar, in Dan. ν. : τὴν σύγκρισιν γνωρίζειν, OF: ἀναγγέλ- dew : to make known or declare the judg- ment (as to what that marvellous writing might signify). 56 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. vision in the dream (comp. κρίνειν τὸ σημαινόμενον τῶν ὀνειράτων in Josephus, Antt. ii. 2. 2, also the Ὀνειροκριτικά of Artemidorus). (6) The meaning, to judge, however, although instances of it may be established in Greek writers also (Anthol. vii. 132 ; Polybius, xiv. 3. 7, xii. 10. 1; Lucian. Soloee. 5), would be unsuitable here, for this reason, that the phrase πνευματικοῖς πνευ- ματικά, both being taken as neuter, manifestly, according to the context, expresses the relation of matter and form, not the judging of the one πνευματικόν by the other (Ewald), notwithstanding that Luther, too, adopts a similar interpretation : ‘‘ and judge spiritual things spiritually.” Lastly, it is incorrect to take πνευματικοῖς as masculine, and render : explaining things revealed by the Spirit to those who are led by the Spirit (the same as τελείοις in ver. 6; comp. Gal. vi. 1).} To the same class belongs the exposition of Hofmann, according to whom what is meant is the solution of the problem as to how the world beyond and hereafter reveals and foreshows itself in what God’s grace has already bestowed upon us (ver. 12) in a predictive sign as it were,—a solution which has spiritual things for its object, and takes place for those who are spiritual. But the text does not contain either a contrast between the world here and that hereafter, or a problematic relation of the one to the other ; the contrast is introduced into ra yapiobévra in ver. 12, and the problem and its predictive sign are imported into συγκρίνοντες. Again, it is by no means required by the connection with ver. 14 ff. that we should take πνευματικοῖς as masculine ; for ver. 14 begins a new part of the discourse, so that ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος only finds its personal contrast in ὁ δὲ πνευματικός in ver. 15. Tittmann’s explanation (Synon. p. 290 f., and comp. Baur) comes back to the sense : conveying (conferentes) spiritual things to spiritual persons, without linguistic precedent for it. — Note the weighty collocation : πνεύματος, πνευματικοῖς, πνευματικά. Ver. 14. To receive such teaching, however, in which πνευματικά are united with πνευματικοῖς, every one has not the capacity ; a psychical man appre- hends not that which is the Spirit of God, etc. — ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος is the opposite of the πνευματικός who has received the Holy Spirit (vv. 12 f., 15) ; he is therefore one πνεῦμα (the Holy Spirit) μὴ ἔχων (Jude 19). Such a man—who is not essentially different from the σαρκικός (see on iii. 1), but the mental side of whose nature is here brought forward by the word ψυχικός ---ἶθ not enlightened and sanctified by the Spirit of God, but is goy- erned by the ψυχή, the principle of life for the σάρξ, so that the sphere in which he works and strives is not that of the divine truth and the divine ζωή, but the purely human activity of the understanding, and, as regards practical things, the interests of the life of sense, the ἐπιθυμίαι ψυχικαί, 4 Mace. i. 32, the ἐπιθυμίαι ἀνθρώπων, not the θέλημα Θεοῦ, 1 Pet. iv. 2. Comp. ~ generally, Weiss, biblische Theol. p. 270 f. The higher principle of life, the 1 This is the view of Pelagius, Sedulius, χαρισϑέντα ἡμῖν, σημεῖα ὄντα τῶν μεὰλ- Theophylact (suggested only), Thomas, λόντων, ἃ καὶ ovyKpivomev... mvev- Estius, Clericus, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Pott, ματικοῖς πνευματικὰ λαλοῦντες. Comp.on Heydenreich, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert. the latter expression, Maximus Tyrius, xxii. ? Hofmann expounds as if Paul had writ- 4: ovrera συνετοῖς λέγων, ten in ver. 12 f.: τὰ ἤδη viv ὑπὸ τι Φ, CHAP. τ. 14. 57 human πνεῦμα," which he has, is not laid hold of and quickened by the Holy Spirit ; the regeneration by the Holy Spirit, who operates upon the human spirit and thereby brings about the renewal of the man (comp. John iii. 6), has not yet taken place with him ; hence the psychical man is really the nat- ural man, i.e. not yet enlightened and sanctified by the Spirit of God, not yet born again,’ although, at the same time, ψυχικός means not naturalis (i.e. φυσικός in contrast to διδακτός, τεχνικός, and the like ; comp. Polyb. vi. 4. 7: φυσικῶς καὶ ἀκατασκεύως), but animalis (Vulgate). Comp. ψυχικὴ σοφία as contrasted with that ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη, Jas, ili. 15. Many have taken up the idea in a one-sided way, either in a merely intellectual reference (τὸν μόνοις τοῖς οἰκείοις ἀρκούμενον λογισμοῖς, Theodoret ; see also Chrysostom, The- ophylact, Beza, Grotius, Heydenreich, Pott ; comp. too, Wieseler on Gal. p. 451), or in a merely ethical one (a man obedient to sensual desires ; so, and in some cases, with an exaggerated stress on the sinfulness involved, it is interpreted by Erasmus, Vitringa, Limborch, Clericus, Rosenmiiller, Valck- enaer, Krause, and others). The two elements cannot be separated from each other without quite an arbitrary act of division. — ov δέχεται] The question whether this means : he is unsusceptible of it, does not understand (Vulgate, Castalio, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Riickert, δέ al.) ; or : he does not accept, respuit (Peshito, Erasmus, and others, including Tittmann, Flatt, Billroth, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier), is decided in favour of the latter 1 The distinction between ψυχή and πνεῦμα, as that which separates from each other the agencies of the lower and the higher life, answers certainly to the Platonic three- fold division of man’s nature into body, soul, and spirit (see, especially, Olshausen, de naturae humanae trichotomia N. T. scrip- toribus recepta, in his Opusc. Berol. 1834, p. 148 ff.; and, on the other side, Hahn, Theol. ad. N. T. 1. p. 391 ff.). Not, however, as if Paul had borrowed this trichotomy (see, especially, 1 Thess. v. 23; comp. also Heb. iv. 12) from the Platonic philosophy, but this Platonic type of anthropology, current also with Philo and the Rabbinical writers, had, like the phrase ὁ ἔσω and ὁ ἔξω ἄνϑρωπος (see on Eph. iii. 16), become popular (comp. Josephus, Antt. i. 1. 2, according to which God breathed τνεῦμα and ψυχήν into man when first formed, and subsisted alongside of the twofold conception and the cor- responding mode of expression (v. 8 f., vii. Ὁ ΟΣ vil. 1° Rom. Vili: 10) f., αἵ): Comp. Liinemann on1 Thess. v. 23. Luther, as early as 1521, has some excellent remarks on the trichotomy (printed also in De- litazsch’s bibl. Psychol. p. 392 f.). He likens the πνεῦμα to the Sanctum sanctorum, the ψυχή to the Sanctum, and the σῶμα to the Atrium. Against Hofmann’s arbitrary ex- plaining away of a real threefold division (in his Schriftbeweis, I. p. 297 f.), see Krumm, de notionibus pyschol. Pauli, p. 1 ff.; De- litzsch, oc. cit. Ὁ. 87 ff. ; Ernesti, Ursprung d. Stinde, II. Ὁ. 76 f. We may add, that Hof- mann is wrong in saying, with respect to this passage, that it has nothing whatever to do with the question about the dichot- omy or trichotomy. It has to do with it, inasmuch as in virtue of the contrast between ψυχικός and πνευματικός, the ψυχή cannot be the seat and sphere of operation of the Divine Spirit, which is to be found rather in the human πνεῦμα, and conse- quently must be conceived as specifically distinct from the latter. 2 Luther’s gloss is: ‘*The na/ural man is as he is apart from grace, albeit decked out as bravely as may be with all the reason, skill, sense, and faculty in the world.” Comp. Caloyius, who insists with justice against Grotius, that ψυχικός and σαρκικός differ only ‘‘ratione jormalis significa- tionis.” Paul might have used σαρκικός here too (see on ili. 1); but ψυχικός nat- urally suggested itself to him as correlative to δέχεσϑαι ; for the ψυχή cannot be the recep- taculum of that which is of the Spirit of God. According to Ewald, the word points to the Greek philosophers, being a gentle way of des- ignating them. But the expression is quite general; and how easy it would have been for Paul to let it be definitely known that the reference was to the philosophers (by σοφός Tov κόσμου. for example, or in some other way) ! 58 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. view by the standing use of δέχεσθαι in the N. T. when referring to doctrine. See Luke viii. 13 ; Acts viii. 14, xi. 1, xvii. 11 ; 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 13. Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 10 ; 2 Cor. viii. 17. —ra τοῦ πν.] what comes from the Spirit. This applies both to the matter and form of the teaching. See ver. 138. — μωρία yap . γνῶναι] ground of this ob δέχεται x.7.2.: It is folly to him, i.e. (as i, 18) it stands to him in the practical relation of being something absurd, and he is not in a position to discern it. The latter clause is not covered by the former (Hofmann), but appends to the relation of the object to the subject the corresponding relation of the subject to the object.— The statement of the reason for both of these connected clauses is: ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται : because they (τὰ τοῦ πνεύμ.) are judged of after a spiritual fashion (iv. 3, xiv. 24), ὁ.6. because the investigative (ava) judgment of them (the searching into and estimating their nature and meaning) is a task which, by reason of the nature of the subject-matter to be dealt with, can be performed in accordance with its own essential character in no other way than by means of a proving and judging empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit (a power which is wanting to the ψυχικός). Πνευματικῶς, that is to say, refers not to the human spirit, but to the Holy Spirit (see ver. 13) who fills the human spirit, and by the hallowing influence of divine enlighten- ment and power capacitates it for the avaxpivew of the doctrines of teachers filled with the Spirit who address it, so that this avaxpivew is an activity which proceeds in a mode empowered and guided by the Spirit. We may add that avaxpiv. does not mean : must be judged of (Luther and many others, among whom are Tittmann, Flatt, and Pott), but it expresses the character- istic relation, which takes place ; they are subject to spiritual judgment. That is an aviom. But this very sort of ἀνάκρισις is what is lacking in the ψυχικός. Ver. 15. He who is spiritual, on the other hand, judges all things, but is for his own part (αὐτός) judged by no one ; so lofty is his pocition, high above all the ψυχικοῖς, to whom he is a riddle, not to be read by their unenlightened powers of judging, to which τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος are folly !— ὁ πνευματικός] he who stands under the influence of the Holy Spirit, enlightened and led by Him. Comp. on πνευματικῶς in ver. 14. — τὰ πάντα] (see the critical remarks)! receives from the context no further limitation than that of the article, which is not wasuitable (Hofmann), but denotes the totality of what presents itself’ to his judging, so that it does not apply merely to τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος (Ewald : ‘‘all the deepest and most salutary divine truths”), the ἀνακρίνειν of which, on the part of the πνευματικός, is a matter of course, but means a7/ 1Jn connection with the reading πάντα, those who take it as masculine explain the clause very variously; either; “ Quando audit alium loquentem vel docentem, illico dignoscere potest et dijudicare, utrum sit ex Deo necne” (Bos, Alberti); ον. “ Ego quidem. . . quemlibet profanum . . . diju- dicare adeoque a πνευματικοῖς 5. vere collus- tratis dignoscere possum” (Pott); or: “Convincere quemlibet profanum erroris potest’ (N6sselt, Rosenmiiller). Were the readin genuine. and πάντα masculine, it is only the first of these renderings that would be admissible; for, according to ver. 14, cannot mean erroris convincere (against Nosselt), and to restrict πάντα to the profane would be entirely unwarranted by the context, as is plain from πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται in ver. 14 (against Nosselt and Pott). Atthe same time, it would also be arbitrary in adopting the first view to refer it only to the dogui or docere, and not also to deeds and other expressions of the life. ἀνακρ. CHAP: 11: 6; 59 objects that come within the sphere of his judgment. To everything that comes before him he can assign the right estimate in virtue of his power of judgment, enlightened and upheld by the Holy Spirit. He has the true critical eye of the δοκιμάζειν (1 Thess. v. 21) for all that offers itself to him to be judged. How often has Paul himself displayed this ἀνάκρισις πνευματική, and that, too, in matters not connected with doctrine, under situations the most varied ! ¢.g. in his wise availing himself of circumstances when perse- cuted and put on trial, during his last voyage, etc.; in his decisions concerning matrimonial questions, contendings at law, slavery, collections, and the like, in regard to which he manages with consummate tact, and with the most wonderful clearness, precision, and impartiality, to subject everything to the standard of a higher spiritual point of view ; in his esti- mate of the different persons with whom he comes into contact ; in the mode in which he adapts himself to given relations ; in his sublime judgments, such as iii. 22 ; in his powerful self-witness, 2 Cor. vi. 4 ff. ; in his noble in- dependence from earthly things, 1 Cor. vii. 29 ff.; Phil. iv. 11 ff.'— ὑπ’ οὐδενός] namely, who is not also πνευματικός. This follows necessarily from the foregoing ὁ πνευματ. ἀνακρίνει τὰ πάντα. Comp. too, 1 Johniv. 1. The standpoint of the psychical man is too low, and his mode of thought too foreign in its presuppositions and principles, for him to be able to under- stand and judge of the pneumatic. In like manner, the blind (see as early as Chrysostom and Theophylact) cannot judge of the painter, nor the deaf of the musician.—How Roman Catholic writers have sought to render ver. 15, standing opposed as it does to the authority claimed by the church, ser- viceable to their own side, may be seen, ¢.g., in Cornelius ἃ Lapide : ‘‘ Sin autem nova oriatur quaestio in fide aut moribus, eaque obscura et dubia, eadem prudentia dictat homini spirituali . . . ejusdem Spiritus judicio recurrendum esse ad superiores, ad doctores, ad eccelesiam Romanam quasi mat- ricem,” ete. Ver. 16. Proof for the αὐτὸς δὲ ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς ἀνάκρινεται. ““ For in order to judge of the πνευματικός, one would need to have known the mind of Christ, which we πνευματικοί are in possession of —to be able to act the part of teacher to Christ.” The form of this proof is an imperfect syllogism, the last proposition in which, as being self-evident, is not expressed.?. The major proposition is clothed in the words of Isa. xl. 13 (substantially after the LXX.), comp. Rom. xi. 84. There, indeed, Κύριος applies to God ; but Paul, appropriat- ing the words freely for the expression of his own thought, applies it here to Christ (against Calvin, Grotius, and most older interpreters, also Flatt, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann), as the minor proposition ἡμεῖς δὲ κ-τ.}. proves.— The νοῦς Κυρίου is the understanding of the Lord, embracing His thoughts, judgments, measures, plans, etc., the νοῦς being the faculty where these 1 [Surely here the author goes beyond — struct Him; but we, we πνευματικοί, are they the scope of the passage, whichis limited who have the mind of Christ, therefore we to the things of the Spirit. So Hodge and are they also whom no one can know 80 as to Poor.—T. W. C.] instruct them, that is, just they who ὑπ᾽ οὐδε: 2 Fully expressed, it would run thus: Vo vos ἀνακρίνονται, ver. 15. one can know the mind of Christ so as to in- 60 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. originate and are elaborated. The conception is not identical with that of the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (against Billroth, Neander, and many others), which rather, when imparted to man, makes his νοῦς the νοῦς Χριστοῦ, not being itself the νοῦς X., but that which constitutes its substratum. — 6¢ συμβιβ. αὐτόν] qui instructurus sit eum, i.e. in order (after thus coming to know him) to instruct Him. See on this use of ὃς, Matthiae, II. p. 1068 ; Kiihner, II. p. 529 ff. Regarding συμβιβάζειν, which is frequent in the LXX. in the sense of instruere, docere, but does not occur with that meaning in Greek writers, see Schleus- ner, Thes. V. p. 164. This ὃς συμβ. αὐτόν is not ‘ rather superfluously” taken in along with the rest of the quotation (Riickert), but is included as essen- tial to the proof of the ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς avaxpivera, since the forming a judgment assumes the capacity to instruct (act as master). This, then, is what he who would judge the πνευματικοί must be capable of doing with respect to Christ, since these have the mind of Christ. Chrysostom says well: ὃς συμβιβάσει αὐτὸν, οὐχ ἁπλῶς προσέθηκεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ὃ εἶπεν ἤδη, ὅτι τὸν πνευματικὸν οὐδεὶς avaxpiver’ εἰ γὰρ εἰδέναι οὐδεὶς δύναται τοῦ Θεοῦ (rather Christ's) τὸν νοῦν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον διδάσκειν καὶ διορθοῦσθαι.---- ΤῸ refer αὐτόν, with Nésselt (Opuse. Il. p. 157 f.), to the πνευματικός (So, too, Rosenmiiller and Tittmann, 1.6. p. 294), is an involved construction rendered necessary only by failure to catch the simple course of proof. — ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν X . Ey. ] the minor proposition, with the emphasis on ἡμεῖς, and the explanatory Χριστοῦ in piace of Κυρίου. Paul includes himself along with the rest among the πνευματικοί. These are the possessors (ἔχομεν) of the mind of Christ. For, since they have the Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 9, 16), and since Christ is in them (Rom. viii. 10 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 5), their νοῦς, too, can be no mental faculty different in kind from the νοῦς Χριστοῦ, but must, on the contrary, be as ideally one with it, as it is true that Christ Himself lives in them (Gal. ii. 20), and the heart of Christ beats in them (Phil. i. 8), and He speaks in them (2 Cor. xiii. 3). Comp. respecting this indwelling of Christ in His believers, the idea in Gal. iii. 27 ; Rom. xiii. 14. Ov yap Πλάτωνος, οὐδὲ Πυθαγόρου, says Chrysostom, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Χριστὸς τὰ ἑαυτοῦ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἐνέθηκε διανοίᾳ. Many commentators (not recog- nizing the process of proof) have interpreted ἔχομεν as perspectam habemus (see Tittmann, /.c.), ase.g. Rosenmiiller and Flatt : ‘‘ We know the mean- ing of the doctrine of Christ ;” or Grotius : ‘‘ Novimus Dei consilia, quae Christo fuere revelata.” Norges py American Eprror. (E) The ‘‘perfect.’’ Ver. 6. Seeing interpreters are so nearly equally divided between the two views which may be taken of this text, it may be well to consider the argument for the opinion which makes ‘‘perfect’’ simply another name for believers, It is thus presented by Dr. Hodge: ‘1. Those who regarded Paul’s doctrine as foolishness were not the babes in Christ, but the unrenewed, ‘ the wise of this world ;’ consequently those to whom it was wisdom were not advanced Chris- tians, but believers as such. Throughout the whole context, the opposition is between ‘the called’ or converted and the unconverted, and not between one NOTES. 61 class of believers and another class. 2. If ‘the perfect’ here means advanced Christians as distinguished from babes in Christ, then the wisdom which Paul preached was not the gospel as such, but its higher doctrines. But this cannot be, because it is the doctrine of the cross, of Christ crucified, which he declares to be the power of God and the wisdom of God, And the description given in the following part of this chapter of the wisdom here intended refers not tothe higher doctrines of the gospel, but to the gospel itself. The contrast is between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, and not between the rudimental and the higher doctrines of the gospel. Besides, what are these higher doctrines which Paul preached only to the élite of the church? No one knows. Some say one thing, and some another. But there are no higher doc- trines than those taught in this Epistle, and in those to the Romans and Ephe- sians, all addressed to the mass of the people. The New Testament makes no distinction between (πίστις and γνῶσις) higher and lower doctrines. It does indeed speak of a distinction between milk and strong meat, but that is a dis- tinction, not between kinds of doctrine, but between one mode of instruction and another. In catechisms designed for children the church pours out all the treasures of her knowledge, but in the form of milk, i.e. in a form adapted to the weakest capacities. For all these reasons we conclude that by ‘the per- fect’ the Apostle means the competent, the people of God as distinguished from the men of the world ; and by wisdom, not any higher doctrines, but the simple gospel, which is the wisdom of God as distinguished from the wisdom of men.’’ (r) No confusion of memory. Ver. 9. It is impossible to accept the author’s hypothesis of a failure or ‘‘ confusion of memory”’ in the Apostle. If inspiration has any meaning at all, it must be supposed sufficient to guard its subjects from such imperfections. Nor is the hypothesis at all necessary, although it is adopted by Weiss (Bib. Theol. I. 989). It is quite easy to suppose that the Apostle used scriptural language without intending to give the sense of the original. This is a very common habit among all believers, and that Paul shared in it is evident from Romans x. 18, where he undeniably takes the words of the nineteenth Psalm simply to express the wide diffusion of the gospel, without any reference to their purport as originally given. Of coutse in this view we must suppose the phrase As itis written not tobe a form of quotation, but rather equivalent to our purpose when we say, “ΤῸ use the language of Scripture.” Or, if this solution be not accept- able, there is another to fall back upon, viz., that which regards the Apostle as not intending to quote any one passage of Holy Writ, but rather appealing to its authority in general to confirm his position that God surpasses His people’s expectations, that He does for them things unheard of before, such indeed as could be known only by revelation. That these things are abundantly taught in the Old Testament requires no argument. (c) ovykpivorvtec. Ver. 13. The author’s objection to the view which renders this important and much- contested word as explaining does not seem to be valid. In all the places in which the verb in the active voice occurs in the LXX. it means, with a single exception, to interpret or explain. (It never occurs in the sense of con- 62 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. nect.) And the fact that it is applied to the interpretation of dreams presents no difficulty, for in any case the Apostle would‘have become familiar with its useinthissense. The sense too is every way appropriate, ‘‘ explaining spiritual things in spiritual words’’ (substantially what Meyer gives, although he reaches it in a different way), and forms a suitable pendant to what precedes. The Apostle had spoken sufficiently of the things of the spirit : here he touches upon the suitable words for conveying them. The passage is one of great importance, as showing the value of a biblical phraseology. The wordingof Holy Writ is not accidental or capricious, but divinely ordered, and it is in all cases to be adhered to. A needless change of expression not infrequently makes the life and efficacy of the things to vanish. Nor is it a valid objection to this view that it makes inspiration mechanical, for, as Dr. Hodge well asks, ‘‘ If God can control the thonghts of a man without making him a machine, why cannot he contro] his language? Why may he not render each writer, polished or rude, infallible in the use of his characteristic style?’ That He does exercise such control assures us that in Scripture we have not only divine truth, but that truth communicated in a form free from the discoloring and distorting in- fluence of human imperfection. CHAP. IIL. 63 CHAPTER III. Ver. 1. καὶ ἐγώ] ABCD EF αὶ δὲ, min. Clem. Or. Chrys. Damase. read κἀγώ, which Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riickert, Tisch. have adopted, and justly, con- sidering the decisive testimony in its favour. --- σαρκικοῖς Griesb. Lachm. Rickert, Tisch. read σαρκίνοις with A Β Οὗ D* δὰ, 67** 71, Clem. Or. Nyss. To be preferred on like grounds as in Rom, vii. 14. Here the interchange was es- pecially aided by ver. 3, where, according to the preponderance of evidence, σαρκικ. is the true reading ; for the fact that D* F G, Or. Nyss. have σάρκιν in ver. 3 also, is simply to be set down as the result of mechanical repetition from ver. 1, the difference in the sense not being recognized.! — Ver. 2. οὐδέ] Elz. has οὔτε, in opposition to all the uncials and most Fathers. The former is neces- sary here (Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 157), but had οὔτε very often substituted for it by the transcribers. — ἔτι] is wanting in B; bracketed by Lachm. But how easily it might fall aside after οὐδέ through similarity in sound, or on the ground that it might be dispensed with when νῦν followed ! — Ver. 3. καὶ διχοσ- racial] omitted in A B C 8, some min. and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Rickert, and Tisch. Were it genuine, why should it have been left out? An addition by way of gloss (even in texts used by Irenaeus and Cyprian) from Gal. v. 20. - Ver. 4. ἄνθρωποι] adopted also by Lachm. Riickert, and Tisch., followed by Ewald, according to almost all the uncials and several vss. and Fathers. The Recepta σαρκικοί, although still defended by Fritzsche and Reiche, is so decidedly condemned by the critical evidence (among the uncials they have only L and §8**), that it must be regarded as derived from ver. ὃ. Οὐχί, too, has flowed from the same source, instead of which, οὐκ is to be re- stored, with Lachm. Riickert, and Tisch., in accordance with ABC &*, 17, Dam. — Ver. 5. τίς] Lachm. and Riickert read τί, with A B δὲ, min. Vulg. It. Aeth. and Latin Fathers. The personal names very naturally suggested the masculine to transcribers.—The order Παῦλος . ᾿Απολλώς (in Elz. and Scholz) arose from ver. 4 ; compare i. 12.—Before διάκονοι, Elz, and Tisch. have ἀλλ᾿ 4, which, however, from the decisive weight of testimony against it, must be regarded as an addition to denote the sense : nil nisi. — Ver. 12. τοῦτον] is 1 Fritzsche, indeed (ad Rom. 11. p. 46, and de conform. N. T. Lachm. Ὁ. 49), holds that the form σάρκινος in this passage, Rom. vii. 14, and Heb. vii. 16, is an offspring of the transcribers. But it was precisely the other form σαρκικός, so well known and familiar to them, which thrust itself upon the copy- ists for involuntary or even deliberate adoption. Reiche, in his Comment. crit. I. p. 138, has made the most elaborate defence of the Recepta, and attempted to weaken the force of the evidence on the other side. See the same author, too, on Heb. vii. 16. The most decisive argument from the exter- nal evidence against the Recepta is, that pre- cisely the weightiest Codices A BC X, are equally unanimous in reading σάρκινος in ver. 1. and σαρκικοί in ver, 3; and we cannot at all see why the hand of an emendator should haveinserted the more classical word only in ver. 1, while leaving the unclassic σαρκικοί in ver. 3. Besides, we have σαρκίναις in 2 Cor. iii. 8, entirely without any various reading σαρκικαῖς, from which we may con- clude that the distinction in meaning be- tween the two words was well known to the transcribers. 64 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. wanting in A Β C* δὲ", Sahid. Ambr. Deleted by Lachm. and Rickert. The omission, however, was easily occasioned by Homoioteleuton, and was aided by the fact that the word could be dispensed with. — Ver. 13. τὸ πῦρ] Lachm. Riick- ert,and Tisch. read τὸ πῦρ αὐτό, with A B C, min. Sahid. and several Fathers. Rightly ; the airé not being in any way essential was easily disregarded. — Ver. 17. τοῦτον] Lachm. and Riickert have αὐτόν, which Griesb. too recom- mended, with AD EF G, min. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. (on the margin) Vulg. and It. (illum), and Latin Fathers. But, after ei τις in the protasis, αὐτόν offered itself in the apodosis as the more common. — Ver. 22. ἐστίν] has pre- ponderant evidence against it. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Riickert, and Tisch. A repetition from ver. 21. Vv. 1-4. Application of the foregoing section (ii. 6-16) to the Apostle’s rela- tion to the Corinthians. Ver. 1. Κἀγώ] I also. This also of comparison has its inner ground in the reproach alluded to, that he ought to have taught in a higher strain, and so ought to have delivered to the Corinthians that Θεοῦ σοφίαν spoken of in ver. 6 f. Even as no other could have done this, so I also could not. There is no reason, therefore, for holding, with de Wette (comp. Billroth), that καὶ ὑμῖν would have been a more stringent way of putting it. — ἀλλ᾽ ὧς σαρ- xivorc] namely, had I to speak to you. See Kihner, II. p. 604. Kriiger on Thue. i, 142. 4, and on Xen. Anab. vii. 2. 28. This brevity of expression is zeugmatic. Σάρκινος (see the critical remarks) is : fleshy (2 Cor. iii. 3), not equivalent to σαρκικός, fleshly. See on Rom. vii. 14. Winer, p. 93 [E. T. 122], and Fritzsche, ad Rom. IIL. p. 46. Here, as in Rom. /.c. and Heb. vii. 16 (see Delitzsch in loc.), the expression is specially chosen in order to denote more strongly the unspiritual nature : as to fleshy persons, as to those who have as yet experienced so little of the influence of the Holy Spirit, that the caps—i.e. the nature of the natural man, which is opposed since the fall to the Spirit of God, and which, as the seat of the sin-princi- ple and of lust, gives rise to the incapacity to recognize the sway of the Divine Spirit (comp. ii. 14) and to follow the drawing of the νοῦς towards the divine will (Rom. vii. 18, 25), by virtue of the Divine Spirit (see on Rom. iv. 1, vi. 19, vii. 14, viii. 5 ff.)—seemed to, make up their whole being. They were still in too great a measure only “flesh born of the flesh” (John iii. 6), and still lay too much, especially in an intellectual re- lation, under the ἀσθενεία τῆς σαρκός (Rom. vi. 19), although they might also be in part φυσιούμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ vode τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτῶν (Col. ii. 18),—so that Paul, in order strongly to express their condition at that time, could call ara Jleshy. By σάρκινος, therefore, he indicates the wnspiritual nature of the Corinthians,—i.e. a nature ruled by the limitations and impulses of the σάρξ, not yet changed by the Holy Spirit,—the nature which they still had when at the stage of their first novitiate in the Christian life. At a later date (see ver. 3) they appear as still at least σαρκικοί (guiding themselves according to the σάρξ, and disobedient to the πνεῦμα) ; for although, in connection with continued Christian instruction, they had become more effectually partakers also of tho influence of the Divine Spirit, nevertheless,—as their sectarian CHAP. Tit. 1. 65 tendencies (see ver. 3) gave proof,—they had not so followed this divine principle as to prevent the sensuous nature opposed to it (the σάρξ) from getting the upper hand with them in a moral and intellectual respect, so that they were consequently still κατὰ σάρκα and ἐν σαρκί (Rom. viii. 5, 8), τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς φρονοῦντες (Rom. Vili. 5), κατὰ σάρκα καυχώμενοι (2 Cor. xi. 18), ἐν σοφίᾳ σαρκικῇ (2 Cor. i. 12), etc. It is therefore with true and delicate acumen that Paul uses in ver. 1 and ver. 3 these two different expressions each in its proper place, wpbraiding his readers, not indeed by the former, but certainly by the latter, with their unspiritual condition.1. The ethical notions conveyed by the two terms are not the same, but of the same hind ; hence ἔτε in ver. 3 is logically correct (against the objection of de Wette and Reiche). : The difference between σαρκικός (also capxevoc) and ψυχικός is simply this : ψυχικός is one who has not the Holy Spirit, and stands wholly outside of the sphere of His influence ; whether it be that he has never yet received Him and is therefore still inthe natural state without Christ (homo naturalis, as in ii. 14), or that he has been forsaken again by the Spirit (as in Jude 19). Σαρκικός, on the other hand, may be affirmed not merely of the ψυχικός, who is indeed necessarily σαρκικός, but also (comp. Hofmann) of one who has, it is true, received the Holy Spirit and experiences His influence, but is not led by His enlightening and sanctifying efficacy in such a measure as to have overcome the power of sin (Gal. v. 17) which dwells in the σάρξ and sets itself against the Spirit ; but, on the contrary, instead of being rvev- ματικός and, in consequence, living ἐν πνεύματι and being disposed κατὰ πνεῦ- ua, he is still ἐν σαρκί, and still thinks, judges, is minded and acts κατὰ σάρκα. The ψυχικός is accordingly as such also σαρκικός, but every σαρκικός is not as such still or once more a ψυχικός, not yet having the Spirit, or having lost Him again. The expositors commonly do not enter upon any distinction between σάρκινος and σαρκικός, either (so the majority) reading σαρκικοῖς in ver. 1 also, or (Riickert, Pott) arbitrarily giving out that the two words are alike in meaning. The distinction between them and ψυχικός also is passed over in utter silence by many (such as Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Billroth), while others, in an arbitrary way, make σάρκεινος and capkix. some- times to be milder than ψν χικός (Bengel, Riickert, holding that in capk. there is more of the weakness, in ψυχ. more of the opposition to what is higher), sometimes to be stronger (Osiander ; while Theophylact holds the former to be παρὰ φύσιν, the latter κατὰ φύσιν, and the pneumatic ὑπὲρ φύσιν), or some- times, lastly, refer the latter to the lower intelligence, and the former to the 1 According to Hofmann,—who, for the rest, defines the two notions with substan- tial correctness,—the distinction between σάρκινος and σαρκικός answers to that be- tween εἶναι ἐν σαρκί and κατὰ σάρκα, Rom. viii. 5,8. But the latter two phrases differ from each other, not in their real meaning, but only in the form of representation.— Holsten, too, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. Ὁ. 397 f., has in substance hit the true distinction between σάρκινος and σαρκικός. 2 Bwald says truly, that the strict distinc- tion between spiritual and fleshly came in first with Christianity itself. But so, too, the sharply-defined notion of the ψυχίκός could only be brought out by the contrast of Christianity, because it is the opposite of the πνευματικός, and cannot therefore oc- cupy a middle place between the two for: mer notions, 66 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. lower moral condition as given up to the desires (Locke, Wolf, and others). — ὡς νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ] statement justifying the foregoing ὡς cap. by setting forth the character of their Christian condition as it had been at that time to which οὐκ ἠδυνήθην κιτ.}. looks back. The phrase denotes those who, in their relation to Christ (in Christianity), are still children under age, i.e. mere beginners. The opposite is τέλειοι. ἐν X., Col. i. 28. See, regarding the analogous use in Rabbinical writers of Mp3) (sugentes), Schoettgen in loc. ; Wetstein on 1 Pet. ii. 2; Lightfoot, Hor. p. 162 ; and for that of DUP, Wetstein on Matt. x. 42. Before baptism a man is yet without con- nection with Christ, but through baptism he enters into this fellowship, and is now, in the first instance, a νήπιος ἐν Χριστῷ, ἴ.6. an infans as yet in re- lation to Christianity, who as such receives the elementary instruction suit- able for him (the γάλα of ver. 2). The εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, on the other hand, which leads on to baptism, is preparatory, giving rise to faith, and forming the medium through which their calling takes place ; and accordingly it has not yet to do with νήπιοι ἐν XpiotH. The inference is a mistaken one, therefore (on the part of Riickert), that Paul has in mind here a second resi- dence in Corinth not recorded in the Acts. His readers could not under- stand this passage, any more than ii. 1, otherwise than of the apostle’s jirst arrival, of the time, consequently, in which he founded the Corinthian church, when he instructed those who gave ear to his εὐαγγελίζεσθαι in the elements of Christianity. — By ἐν Χριστῷ is expressed the specific field to which the notion of νηπιότης is confined ; viewed apart from Christ, he, who as a new convert is yet a νήπιος, may be an adult, or anold man. Comp. on Col. i. 28. Ver. 2. Keeping to the same figure (comp. Heb. v. 12 ; Philo, de agrie. p- 301), he designates as γάλα : τὴν εἰσαγωγικὴν καὶ ἁπλουστέραν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διδασκαλίαν (Basil. Hom. I. p. 403, ed. Paris, 1638), see Heb. v. 12, vi. 1 1.» and as βρῶμα : the further and higher instruction, the σοφία, which, as dis- tinguished from the γνῶσιν τὴν ἐκ κατηχήσεως (Clemens Alexandrinus), is taught among the τέλειοι (ii. 6 ff.). Comp. Suicer, Thes. 1. p. 721, 717. Wetstein in loc.1— ἐδύνασθε] Ye were not yet strong and vigorous. What weakness is meant, the context shows : in the figure, that of the body ; in its application, that of the mind and spirit. Comp. regarding this absolute use of δύναμαι, δυνατός x.7.2. (which makes any supplementing of it by ἐσθίειν βρῶμα and the like quite superfluous), Dem. 484, 25, 1187, 8 ; Aesch. p. 40. 39 ; Plato, Men. p. 77 B, Prot. p. 326 C ; Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 11, vii. 6. 37; 1 Mace. v. 41 ; Schaefer, ad Bos. Hil. p. 267 ff. — ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἔτι νῦν δύν.] ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέ, yea, not even. See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 157. Herm. ad Eurip. Suppl. 121, Add. 975. That Paul, notwithstanding this remark, does give a sec- tion of the higher wisdom in chap. xv., is to be explained from the apolo- getic aim of that chapter (xv. 12), which did not allow him to treat the sub- ject in an elementary style. There is no sclf-contradiction here, but an ex- ception demanded by the circumstances. For the profound development 1 As regards the zeugma (comp. Homer, Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 777]; Kiihner, ad Xen. 11. viii. 546; Odyssey, xx. 312; Hesiod. Theoq. Anab. iv. 5.8; also Nigelsbach on the Ziad, 640), see Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. III. p. 437 f.; p. 179, ed. 3. CHAPS ἀπ πη 1. 6% of the doctrine of the resurrection in chap. xv. belonged really to the βρῶμα (comp. ii. 9), and rises high above that elementary teaching concerning the resurrection, with which every Jew was acquainted, and which Paul προς so often gave without thereby speaking ἐν τελείοις, whence also it is rightly placed in Heb. vi. 1 among the first rudiments of Christian doctrine. Ver. 3. Σαρκικοί] see on ver. Ἷ. --- ὅπου] equivalent seemingly to guando- quidem (see Vigerus, ed. Herm. 431) ; but the conditioning state of things is locally conceived. Comp. Heb. ix. 16, x. 18 ; 4 Mace. ii. 14, vi. 34, xiv. 11; Plato, Tim. p. 86 E; the passages from Xenophon cited by Sturz. Il. p. 307 ; Herod. i. 68 ; Thue. viii. 27. 2, viii. 96. 1 ; Isocrates, Paneg. 186. — CijAoc] Jealousy. — κατὰ ἄνθρ.} after the fashion of men. Comp. on Rom. iii. 5; often, too, in classical writers, e.g. κατ᾽ ἄνθρ. φρονεῖν (Soph. Aj. 747, 764). The contrast here is to the mode of life conformed to the Divine Spirit ; hence not different from κατὰ σάρκα in Rom. viii. 4. — Respecting the relation to each other of the three words ζῆλ., ép., diyoor., see Theophy- Ἰδοῦ : πατὴρ yap ὁ ζῆλος τῆς ἔριδος, αὕτη δὲ τὰς διχοστασίας yevva. — On οἱ; χί, comp. Bengel : ‘‘nam Spiritus non fert studium partium humanarum.” On the contrary, ζῆλος κιτ.λ. are ranked expressly among the ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, Gal. v. 20. Ver. 4. Tap] explanatory by exhibiting the state of contention in conereto. - ἄνθρ.] with a pregnant emphasis : are ye not men? 1.6. according to the context : are ye not persons, who are absorbed in the unspiritual natural ways of men-—in whose thoughts and strivings the divine element of life is awanting ? Comp. Xen. Anab. vi. 1. 26 : ἄνθρωπός εἰμι (I am a weak, fal- lible man). What determines the shade of meaning in such cases is not anything in the word itself, but the connection. Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 2. The specific reference here has its basis in the preceding κατὰ ἄνθρωπον repr πατεῖτε, hence there is no ground for rejecting the reading ἄνθρωποι, with Fritzsche (de conform. N. T. Lachm. p. 48), as a lectio insulsa (comp. also Reiche), or for misinterpreting it, with Hofmann, into ‘‘ that they are surely men at all events and nothing less.” This latter rendering brings in the idea, quite foreign to this passage, of the dignity of man, and that in such a way as if the interrogative apodosis were adversative (ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ or ob μέντοι). ---- Τῦ may be added that Paul names only the two parties: ἐγὼ. . . Παύλου and ἐγὼ ᾿Απολλώ, not giving an imperfect enumeration for the sake of the μετασχημα- τισμός Which follows (iv. 6—so, arbitrarily, de Wette and others), but be- cause in this section of the Epistle he has to do just with the antagonism of the Apollos-party to himself and to those who, against his will, called them- selves after him ; hence also he makes the μετασχηματισμός, in iv. 6, with reference to himself and Apollos alone. — ἐγὼ μέν] This μέν does not stand in a logical relation to the following dé. An inexactitude arising from the lively way in which thought follows thought, just as in classical writers too, from a like reason, there is often a want of exactly adjusted correspondence between μέν and dé (Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. i. 9 ; Baeumlein, Partih. p-. 165 T.). Vv. 5-15. Discussion of the position occupied by the two teachers : The two have no independent merit whatsoever (vv. 5-7 ; each will receive his 68 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. reward according to his own work (vv. 8, 9) ; and, more especially, a definitive recompense in the future, according to the quality of his work, awaits the teacher who carries on the building upon the foundation already laid (vy. 10-15). The aim of this discussion is stated in iv. 6. Ver. 5. Oiv] Now, igitur, introduces the question as an inference from the state of party-division just referred to, so that the latter is seen to be the presupposition on which the question proceeds. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 719: ‘*Such being the state of things, I am forced to propound the question,” etc. Riickert thinks that Paul makes his readers ask : But now, if Paul and Apollos are not our heads, what are they then? Paul, however, is in the habit of indicating counter-questions expressly as such (xv. 35 ; Rom. ix. 19, al.).—ri] more significant than τίς ; comp. ver. ἢ. The question is, what, as respects their position, are they? Comp. Plato, Rep. p- 3832 E, 341 D.— διάκονοι] They are servants, and therefore not fitted and destined to be heads of parties ; ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ δεσπότης, ἡμεῖς ἐκείνου δοῦλοι, Theodoret. —d’ ὧν] ‘per quos, non im quos,” Bengel. Comp. John i, 7. They are but causae ministeriales in the hand of God. — éxcotevo.| as in xv. 2, 11 ; Rom. xiii. 11. ---- καί] and that. καὶ... ἔδωκεν is not to be joined with ver. 6 (Mosheim, Markland, ad Lys. XII. p. 560 f.), seeing that in ver. 7 no regardis paid to this καὶ... ἔδωκεν. --- ἑκάστῳ ὡς] the emphasis is on ἑκάστ., as in vii. 17 and Rom. xii. 3. —6 Κύριος] correla- tive to the διάκονοι, is here God, not Christ (Theophylact ; also Riickert, who appeals to Eph. iv. 7, 11), as what follows—in particular vv. 9, 10— proves. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 4. — As respects the ἀλλ᾽ ἢ of the Textus receptus : nisi (which makes the question continue to the end of the verse ; comp. Ecclus. xxii. 12) see on Luke xii. 51 ; 2 Cor. 1. 13. Vv. 6, 7. Statement of the difference in the διακονία of the two, and of the success of the ministry of both as dependent upon God, so that no one at all had any independent standing, but only God. Therewith Paul proceeds to point out the impropriety of the party-relation which men had taken up towards the two teachers. — ἐφύτευσα k.r.A.] We are not to suppose the object left indefinite (de Wette) ; on the contrary, it emerges out of δ' ὧν ἐπιστεύσατε, ver. 5, namely : the faith of the Corinthian com- munity. This is conceived of as a tree (comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 276 EB) which was planted by Paul, inasmuch as he first brought the Corinthians to believe and founded the church ; but watered* by Apollos, inasmuch as he had subsequently exerted himself in the way of confirming and devel- oping the faith of the church, and for the increase of its numbers ; and lastly, blessed with growth by God, inasmuch as it was under His influence τῆς yap αὐτοῦ χάριτος τὸ κατόρθωμα, Theodoret) that the work of both had suc- cess and prospered. This making it to grow is the effect of grace, without which the ‘‘ granum a primo sationis momento esset instar lapilli,” Bengel. 1 Ye have become believers, which is to be development. Comp. John ii. 11, xi. 15. understood here in a relative sense, both as 2 Augustine, Zp. 48, and several of the respected the beginning and the further- Fathers make ἐπότισεν refer in a totally in- ance of faith. See ver.6. The becoming appropriate way to baptism. a believer comprehends different stages of CHAP. I1I., 8-10. 69 Comp. Acts xvi. 14, xiv. 27; 1 Cor. xv. 10. —éori τι] may be taken to mean : is anything of importance, anything worth speaking of (Acts v. 36 ; Gal. li. 6, vi. 8. Plato. Phaedr. p. 242 E, Gorg. p. 472 A, Symp. p. 173 B ; Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 12). It is more in accordance, however, with the decided tone of hostility to all human estimation which marks the whole context to take τι in quite a general sense (comp. x. 19), so that of both in and by them- selves (in comparison with God) it is said : they are nothing. — ἀλλ᾽ ὁ αὐξ. Θεός] 80. τὰ πάντα ἐστε (1 Cor. xv. 28; Col. 111. 11), which, according to the apostle’s intention, is to be drawn from what has been already said. An abbreviated form of the contrast, with which comp. vii. 19, and see generally Kiihner, II. p. 604 ; Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 366 Ὁ, 561 Β. Theo- phylact says well : διδάξας, ὅτι Oe ᾧ δεῖ μόν ῳ προσέχειν, καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἀνατιθέναι πάντα τὰ συμβαίνοντα ἀγαθά. Vv. 8, 9. The planter, on the other hand, and the waterer are one: each of them, however (and here we pass on to the new point of the recompense of the teachers), will receive his own reward, etc. — ἕν εἰσιν] the one is not some- thing different from the other, that is to say generically, as respects the rela- tion defined (xi. 5 ; John x. 30, xvii. 11, 21) here : in so far both have one and the same official character, namely, as workers in the service of God. Theo- doret : κατὰ τὴν ὑπουργίαν. ----ἕκαστος δὲ κ.τ.}.] πρὸς γὰρ τὸ Tov Θεοῦ ἔργον παραβαλλόμενοι ἔν εἰσιν᾽ ἐπεὶ πόνων ἕνεκεν (i.e. in respect of the pains and labour expended) οὐκ εἰσὶν, ἀλλὰ ἕκαστος «.7.4., Chrysostom. —idiov] both times with emphasis. Bengel puts it happily : ‘‘ congruens iteratio ; anti- theton ad wnwm.” The λήψεται, however, refers to the recompense at the last judgment, ver. 13 ff. — Ver. 9 gives now the proof, not for both halves of ver. 8, of which the first has been already disposéd of in the preceding statement (in opposition to Hofmann), but for the new thought ἕκαστος. . . κόπον introduced by δέ. The emphasis of proof lies wholly on the word thrice put foremost, Θεοῦ. For since it is God whose helpers we are (‘‘ eximium elogium ministerii,” Calvin), God whose tillage-field, God whose building ye are : therefore it cannot be otherwise than that that ἕκαστος... . κόπον must hold good, and none lack his reward according to his labour (‘‘ secundum laborem, non propter laborem,” Calovius). — Θεοῦ συνεργοί] for we, your teachers, labour with God, the supreme Lord and Fosterer of the church, at one work, which is simply the furtherance of the church. The explanation : workers who work with each other for God’s cause (Estius by way of suggestion, Bengel, Flatt, Heydenreich, Olshausen), is linguisti- cally erroneous (see 1 Thess. iii. 2; Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21; Phil. ii. 25, iv. 3; 2 Cor. i. 24 ; 2 Macc. xiv. 5; Plato, Def: p. 414 A; Dem. 68. 27, 884. 2; Plut. Per. 31 ; Bernhardy, p. 171 ; Kiihner, II. p. 172), and fails to appre- ciate that lofty conception of a δοῦλος Θεοῦ. --- Θεοῦ yedpy. and Θεοῦ oix. set be- fore us the Corinthian church, in so far as it is the object of the ministerial service of Christian teachers, under the twofold image of a jield for tillage (yedpy., Strabo, xiv. p. 671 ; Theag. in Schol. on Pind. Nem. 111. 21 ; Prov. xxiv. 30, xxxi. 16), which belongs to God and is cultivated, and asa building belonging to God (Eph. ii. 21), which is being carried up to completion. Ver. 10. The former of these images (yedpy.) has been the underlying 70 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. thought in what has hitherto been said (vv. 6-8) ; the second and new figure (oixod.) is now retained in what follows up to ver. 15, the course of thought being this, that Paul, first of all, states the difference between his own work and that of others at this building, and then passes on to the responsibility which he who would build after him takes upon himself. — The χάρις is not the apostolic office, with which Paul was graced (Rom. xii. 8, xv. 15; Gal. i. 15, al.), for it was not exclusively an apostle who was required for the founder of a church (Rome, Colossae), but the special endow- ment of grace, Which he had received from God to fit him for his calling ; and he wasconscious in himself that he was qualified and destined just for the right laying of the foundation, Rom. xv. 20. — The significant weight of the words κατὰ. . . dof. μοι is to express humility in making the utterance which follows. Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact. — ὡς σοφὸς apyir. | proceeding as such an one would, going to work in this capacity. To it belongs the right laying of the foundation in strict accordance with the design of the build- ing, the reverse of which would be the part of an wnskilful architect. Without a foundation no man builds ; without a proper foundation no σοφός, i.e. no one who understands the art (Ex. xxxv. 10). Comp. Plato, Phil. p. 17 C, de virt. Ὁ. 376 A ; Pind. Pyth. iii. 115, γ΄. 115 ; Soph. Ant. 362. But Paul by the grace of God was a σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων. --- What he understands by such a foundation, he himself tells us in ver. 11, namely, Jesus Christ, without whom (both in an objective sense : without whose appearing and work, and in a subjective: without appropriating whom in conscious faith ; see ver. 11) a Christian society could not come into existence at all. This foundation Paul had laid, inasmuch as he had made Christ to be possessed by the conscious faith of the Corinthian church. Comp. on Eph. ii. 20. — Seuériov] The masculine ὁ θεμέλιος (see ver. 11; hence wrongly held by Ewald to be neuter here), attributed by the old grammarians to the κοινή (see Wetstein on ver. 11), is commonly found only in the plural, and that as early as Thue. i. 98. 1. In the singular, 2 Tim. ii. 19 ; Rev. xxi. 19 ; Machon in Athen. vill. p. 346 A; 8 Esdr. vi. 20. — ἄλλος δὲ ἐποικοῦ. By this is meant not merely Apollos, but any later teacher of the Corinthians whatever (comp. ἕκαστος) : ‘* Not my task, however, but that of another, is the building up, the carrying on the building.” --- πῶς] i.e. here: with what materials.’ See vv. 12, 18. Without figurative language : ‘‘ Let each take heed what sort of doctrine (as regards substance and form) he applies, in order to advance and develop more fully the church, founded upon Jesus Christ, in its saving knowledge and frame of life.” See on ver. 12. The figure is not changed, as has been often thought (‘‘ Ante fideles dixerat aedificium Dei, nunc aedificium vocat ea, quae in ecclesia Christiana a doctoribus docentur,” Grotius ; comp. Rosenmiiller) ; but the οἰκοδομή is, as before, the church, which, being founded upon Christ (see above), is further built up, z.e. devel- oped in the Christian faith and life (which may take place in a right or a ‘1 According to de Wette, the force of the by the opponents of the apostle). But the ms consists primarily in this, ‘hat they sim- carrying on of the building, so far as that ply carry on the building, and do not alter is concerned, is presupposed in πῶς ἐποικο- the foundation (which was probably done Somet, CHAP tt Ei te. 71 wrong way, see vv. 12, 13), by the teachings of the later teachers. In like manner is a house built up by the different building-materials upon the foundation laid for it. Ver. 11. Tap] justifies the foregoing warning, in so far as it is given exclu- sively to the upbuilder : for with the layer of the foundation it is quite differ- ent, he cannot otherwise than, etc. ; but as regards the upbwilder, the case is, as ver. 12 ff. sets forth. We are not to bring in any intermediate thought to explain the γάρ, either with Billroth : ‘‘each, however, must bethink him- self of carrying on the building ;” or, with Hofmann, that in the case of all others the question simply concerns a right building up. Rather we are to note that ver. 11 stands only in a preparatory relation to ver. 12, in which the varying πῶς of the ἐποικοδομεῖν is exhibited. — δύναται] can, not may (Grotius, Glass, and others, including Storr, Rosenmiiller, Pott, Billroth) ; for it is the Christian church that is spoken of, whose structure is incapable of having another foundation. — παρὰ τὸν κείμενον] i.e. different from that, which lies already there. Respecting παρά after ἄλλος in this sense, see Kriiger, ad Dion. p. 9 ; Stallbaum, ad Phileb. p. 51; Ast, Ler. Plat. 111. p. 28. The foundation already lying there, however, is not that which Paul had laid (so most interpreters, resting on ver. 10 ; including de Wette, Neander, Maier, Hofmann) ; for his affirmation is universal, and if no one can lay another foundation than that which lies already there, Paul, of course, could not do so either, and therefore the κείμενος must have been in its place before the apostle himself laid his foundation. Hence the κείμενος θεμέλιος is that laid by God (so, rightly, Riickert and Olshausen), namely, Jesus Christ Himself, the fundamentum essentiale, He whom God sent, delivered up to death, raised again, and exalted, thereby making Him to be for us wisdom, righteousness, etc. (i. 30), or, according to a kindred figure, the corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20 ; Matt. xxi. 42 ; Acts iv. 10 ἢ ; 1 Pet. ii. 6). Comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Thisis the objective foundation, which lies there for the whole of Christendom. But this foundation 7s laid (ver. 10) by the founder of a church, inasmuch as he makes Christ to be appropriated by believers, to be the contents of their con- scious faith, and thereby establishes them in the character of a Christian church ; that is the doctrinal laying of the foundation (fundamentum dog- maticum). — Observe further, that Paul says purposely ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, 80 as emphatically to designate the personal, historically manifested Christ. This ὅς ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός is the sum of the fundamental Christian confession of faith, John xvii. 8; Phil. ii. 11 ; Acts iv. 10 ff. Ver. 12. Aé] continues the subject by contrasting the position of him who builds up with that of him who lays the foundation (ver. 11). It is a mis- take, therefore, to put ver. 11 in parenthesis (Pott, Heydenreich, comp. Billroth). —In connection with this carrying on of the figure, it is to be noted—(1) that Paul is not speaking of several buildings,’ as though the θεμέλιος were that not of a house, but of a city (Billroth) ; against which ver. 16 (see in loc.) is decisive, as is, further, the consideration that the idea of Christ’s being the foundation cf a city of God is foreign to the N. T. (2) 1 So also Wetstein: ‘Duo sunt aedificia, domus regia et casa rustici quae distinguuntur.”’ 72 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. The figure must not be drawn out beyond what the words convey (as Gro. tius, e.g., does: ‘‘ Proponit ergo nobis domum, cujus parietes sint ex mar- more, columnae partim ex auro partim ex argento, trabes ex ligno, fastig- jum vero ex stramine et culmo”). It sets before us, on the contrary, ὦ building rearing itself upon the foundation laid by the master-builder, for the erection of which the different workmen bring their several contributions of building materials, from the most precious and lasting down to the most mean and worthless. The various specimens of building materials, set side by side in vivid asyndeton (Kriiger and Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. ii. 4. 28 ; Winer, p. 484 [E. T. 653]), denote the various matters of doctrine propounded by teach- ers and brought into connection with faith in Christ, in order to develop and complete the Christian training of the church.’ These are either, like gold, silver, and costly stones (marble and the like), of high value and im- perishable duration, or else, like timber, hay, stubble (καλάμη, not equiva- lent to κάλαμος, a reed ; see Wetstein and Schleusner, Thes.), of little worth and perishable,” so that they—instead of, like the former, abiding at the Parousia in their eternal truth—come to nought, 1.6. are shown not to belong to the ever-enduring ἀλήθεια, and form no part of the perfect knowledge (xiii. 12) which shall then emerge.* Two things, however, are to be ob- served in connection with this interpretation—(1) that the several materials are not meant to point to specific dogmas that could be named, although we cannot fail to perceive, generally speaking, the graduated diversity of the constituent elements of the two classes ; (2) that the second class em- braces in it no absolutely anti-Christian doctrines. To deny the first of these positions would but give rise to arbitrary definitions without warrant in the text ; to deny the second would run counter to the fact that the building was upon the foundation, and to the apostle’s affirmation, αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσεται, ver. 15. Billroth makes the strange objection to this interpreta- 1Luther’s gloss is appropriate: ‘ This is said of preaching and teaching, by which faith is either strengthened or weakened.” 2Compare Midr. Tillin, 119. 51, of false teachers: ‘‘ Sicut foenum non durat, ita nec verba eorum stabunt in saeculum.” 3.50, in substance (explaining it of the different doctrines), Clemens Alexandrinus, Ambrosiaster, Sedulius, Lyra, Thomas, Cajetanus, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Piseator, Justiniani, Grotius, Estius, Calo- vius, Lightfoot, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Heydenreich, Neander, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier. Comp. Theodoret: τινὲς περὶ δογμάτων ταῦτα εἰρῆσϑαι τῷ ἀποστόλῳ φασίν, 4 Ἐβία5. characterizes the second class well as ‘‘doctrina minus sincera minusque solida, veluti si sit humanis ac philosophicis aut etiam Judaicis opinionibus admixta plus satis, si curiosa magis quam utilis,” ete. Comp. the Paraphr. of Erasmus, who refers specially to the ‘* humanas constitutiunculas de cultu, de victu, de frigidis ceremoniis.” They are, generally, all doctrinal deyelop- ments, speculations, etc., which, although built into the fabric of doctrine in time, will not approve themselves at the final consummation on the day of the Lord, nor be taken in as elements in the perfect knowledge, but will then—instead of stand- ing out under the test of that great catas- trophe which shall end the history of all things, like the doctrines compared to gold, etc.—be shown to be no part of divine and saving truth, and so will fall away. Such materials, in greater or less degree, every Church will find in the system of doctrine built up for it by human hands. To learn more and more to recognize these, and to separate them from the rest in accordance with Scripture, is the task of that onward development, against which no church ought to close itself up till the day of the final crisis,—least of all the evangelical Lutheran church with its central principle regarding Scripture, a principle which de- termines and regulates its stedfastly Prot- estant character, a CHAP. Ii.,-12. "3 tion as a whole, that χρυσόν x.7.2. cannot apply to the contents of the teach- ing, because Paul calls the latter the foundation. But that is in fact Christ, and not the further doctrinal teaching. In reply to the invalid objections urged by Hollmann (Animadverss. ad cap. 111. et. xiii. Ep. Pauli prim. ad Cor., Lips. 1819) see Heydenreich.and Riickert. Our exposition is, in fact, a necessity, because it alone keeps the whole figure in harmony with itself throughout. For if the fowndation, which is laid, be the contents of the Jirst preaching of the gospel, namely, Christ, then the material wherewith the building is carried on must be the contents of the further instruction given. It is out of keeping, therefore, to explain it, with Origen, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Photius, and more recently, Billroth, ‘‘of the frwits called forth in the church by the exercise among them of the office of teaching” (Billroth), of the morality or immorality of the hearers (Theodoret : gold, etc., denotes τὰ εἴδη τῆς ἀρετῆς ; Wood, ete., τὰ ἐναντία τῆς ἀρετῆς, οἷς ηὐτρέπισται τῆς γεέννης τὸ πῦρ); OY, again, of the worthy or unworthy members of the church themselves, who would be moulded by the teachers (Schott in Réhr’s Magaz. fiir christl. Pred. VIII. 1, p. 8 f., with Pelagius, Bengel, Hollmann, Pott). So, too, Hofmann in loc., and previously in his Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 124. Both of these interpretations have, besides, this further consideration against them, that they do not har- monize in meaning with the figure of the watering formerly employed, whereas our exposition does. Moreover, if the ἔργον, which shall be burned up (ver. 15), be the relative portion of the church, it would not accord there- with that the teacher concerned, who has been the cause of this destruction, is, notwithstanding, to obtain salvation ; this would be at variance with the N. T. severity against all causing of offence, and with the responsibility of the teachers. Riickert gives up the attempt at a definite interpretation, contenting himself with the general truth : Upon the manner and way, in which the office of teaching is discharged, does it depend whether the teacher shall have reward or loss ; he who builds on in right fashion upon a good foundation (? rather : upon the foundation) has reward therefrom ; he who would add what is unsuitable and unenduring, only harm and loss. But by this there is simply nothing explained ; Paul assuredly did not mean anything so vague as this by his sharply outlined figure ; he must have had before his mind, wherein consisted the right carrying on of the building, and what were additions un- suitable and doomed to perish. Olshausen (comp. also Schrader) under- stands the passage not of the efficiency of the teachers, but of the (right or misdirected) individual activity of sanctification on each part of each believer in general. Wrongly so ; because, just as in ver. 6 ff. the planter and waterer, so here the founder and upbuilder must be teachers, and because the build- ing is the church (ver. 9), which is being built (vv. 9, 10). And this concep- tion of the church as a building with a personal foundation (Christ), and consisting of persons (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 20 ; 1 Pet. ii. 4 f.), remains quite unimpaired with our exegesis also (against Hofmann’s objection). For the further building upon the personal foundation laid, partly with gold, etc., partly with wood, etc., is just the labour of teaching, through which the development and enlargement of the church, which is made up of persons, 74 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. receive a character varying in value. The ἐποικοδομεῖν takes place on the persons through doctrines, which are the building materials. Ver. 18. Apodosis : So will what each has done on the building (τὸ ἔργον) not remain hidden (φανερὸν γενήσ.). Then the ground of this assurance is as- signed : ἡ yap ἡμέρα δηλώσει, 86. ἑκάστου τὸ ἔργον. The day 18 κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the day of the Parousia (comp. Heb. x. 24), which is obvious from what follows on to ver. 15. So, rightly, Tertullian, contra Mare. iv. 2 ; Origen, Cyprian, Ep. iv. 2; Lactantius, Jnst. vii. 21; Hilarius, Ambrosiaster, Sedulius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, the Roman Catholics (some of whom, however, in the interests of purgatory, make it out to be the day of death), Bengel, and others, including Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth, Schott, Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann. It is un-Pau- line, and also against the context (for wood, etc., does not apply to the doctrines of the Judaizers alone), to interpret the phrase, with Hammond, Lightfoot, Gusset, Schoettgen, of the destruction of Jerusalem, which should reveal the nullity of the Jewish doctrines. The following expositions are alien to the succeeding context : of time in general (comp. dies docebit : χρόνος δίκαιον ἄνδρα δείκνυσιν μόνος, Sophocles, Oed. Rex, 608 ; Stob. Hel. 1. p. 234,—so Grotius, Wolf, Wetstein, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and others) ; or of the time of clear knowledge of the gospel (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Vors- tius') ; or of the dies tribulationis (Augustine, Calovius, and others). — ὅτι ἐν πυρὶ ἀποκαλ.} We are neither to read here ὅτε" instead of ὅτι (Bos, A!- berti), nor does the latter stand for the former (Pott), but it has a causative force : because it is revealed in Jire,—the day, namely,* not τὸ ἔργον, as Luther and the majority of interpreters (among them Heydenreich, Flatt, Schott, Neander) hold, following Ambrosiaster and Oecumenius ; for this would yield a tautology with what comes next. Bengel, joined by Osiander, im- agines as the subject of the verb ὁ Κύριος, which can be evolved from ἡ ἡμέρα only by a very arbitrary process, since the whole context never speaks of Christ Himself. — ἐν πυρί] i.e. encompassed with fire (see Bernhardy, p. 209 ; Matthiae, p. 1340), so that fire is the element in which the revelation of that day takes place. For Christ, when His Parousia draws nigh, is to ap- pear coming from heaven ἐν πυρὶ φλογός (2 Thess. i. 8 ; comp. Dan. vii. 9, 10 ; Mal. iv. 1), 2.6. surrounded by flaming fire (which is not to be ex- plained away, as is often done : amid lightnings ; rather comp. Ex. iii. 2 ff., xix. 18). This fire, however, is not, as Chrysostom would have it, that of Gehenna (Matt. vi. 22, 29, al.); for it is in it that Christ appears, and it seizes upon every ἔργον, even the golden, etc., and proves each, leaving the one unharmed, but consuming the other. The correct supplying of ἡ ἡμέρα with ἀποκαλ.. supersedes at once the older Roman Catholic interpretation about purgatory (against which see, besides, Scaliger and Calovius), as the correct 1 Were this so, the text would need to 2 As regards the fact of the two words contain an antithetic designation of the being often put the one for the other by present time as night. And in that case, transcribers, see Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor. p. too, it would surely be the clear day of the 491; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 4. 2. Parousia which would be meant, as in Rom. 3 Estius, Pott, Billroth, Riickert, Olshau- xiii. 12. sen, de Wette, Ewald, Hofmann. CHAP, Tit. 1 15. 75 view of ἡ ἡμέρα sets aside the explanations of the wrath of God against the Jews (Lightfoot), of the Holy Spirit, who tries ‘“quae doctrina sit instar auri ct quae instar stipulae” (Calvin), of the fire of trial and persecution (Rosenmiiller, Flatt, following Augustine, de civ. Dei, xxi. 26, Erasmus, and many old commentators ; comp. Isa. xlviii. 10 ; 1 Pet. i. 7, iv. 12 ; Ecclus. ii. 5), and of a progressive process of purifying the mind of the church (Neander). The idea rather is: ‘‘ The decision on the day of the Parousia will show how each has worked as a teacher ; if any one has taught what is excellent and imperishable, that, as belonging to the divine ἀλήθεια, will stand this de- cision and survive ; if any one has taught what is worthless and perishable, that will by the decision of that day cease to have any standing, fall away, and come to nought” (comp. on ver. 12). This idea Paul, in accordance with his figure of a building, clothes in this form: ‘‘ At the Parousia the fire, in which it reveals itself, will seize upon the building ; and then through this fiery ordeal those parts of the fabric which are of gold, silver, and precious stones will pass unharmed ; but those consisting of wood, hay, and stubble will be burnt up.” — ἀποκαλύπτεται)] The result of this act of revelation is the δηλώσει already spoken of. The present marks the event as beyond doubt; the sentence is an axiom. —xai ἑκάστου x.t.A.| not to be connected with ὅτε (Riickert), but with the clause in the future, ἡ yap ju. δηλώσει. Is ἔργον in the nominative (Theophylact, Oecumenius, and many others) or accusative (Billroth, Schott, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald)? The former is more in harmony with the sense of the passage, for so ὁπ. ἐστι is made to appear not as merely inserted, but in its befitting emphasis. For the form of the statement advances from the general to the particular : the day will show it, namely, what each has wrought ; and (now follows the defi- nite specification of the quality) what is the character of the work of each,— the fire itself will test. — τὸ πῦρ αὐτό] ignis ipse (see the critical remarks), 7.e. the fire (in which the ἀποκάλυψις of the day takes place) by its own proper working, without intervention from any other quarter. Respecting the posi- tion of αὐτό after πῦρ, see Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 5. 1. Were we to take it as the object of δοκιμάσει, pointing back to the preceding statement (Hofmann), it would be superfluous in itself, and less in keeping with the terse, succinct mode of expression of this whole passage. — δοκιμάσει] ‘‘ pro- babit, non : purgabit. Hic locus ignem puwrgatorium non modo non fovet, sed plane extinguit,” Bengel. Vv. 14, 15. Manner and result of this δοκιμάσει. - μενεῖ] will remain un- harmed ; not μένει (Text. recept.) for κατακαήσεται, in ver. 15, corresponds to it. — μισθὸν λήψ.} namely, -for his work at the building Gratont figure : teacher's recompense), from God, at whose οἰκοδομῇ he has laboured. Riickert holds that Paul steps decidedly out of his figure here ; for the builder is not paid only after his work has stood the test of fire uninjured. But the building is still being worked at until the Parousia, so that before that event no recompense can be given. The fire of the Parousia seizes upon the build- ing still in process of being completed, and now he alone receives recompense whose work, which has been carried on hitherto, shows itself proof against the fire.—As regards the form κατακαήσεται, shall be burned down (comp. 76 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 2 Pet. iii. 10), instead of the Attic κατακαυθήσεται, see Thom. M. p. 511. — ζημιωθήσεται] 86. τὸν μισθόν, 1.6. frustrabitur praemio, Comp. on ζημιοῦσθαί τι, to suffer loss of anything, Matt. xvi. 26; Luke ix. 25; Phil. iii. 8. See also Valckenaer, ad Herod. vii. 39. The thought is : He will, as a punish- ment, not receive the recompense which he would otherwise have received asa teacher. We are not to think of deposition from office (Grotius), seeing that it is the time of the Parousia that isspoken of. To take the ζημ., with the Vulgate, et al.: without object, so that the sense would be : ‘‘he shall have loss from it” (Hofmann), gives too indefinite a conception, and one which would require first of all to have its meaning defined more precisely from the antithesis of μισθ. λήψεται. ---- αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσεται, οὕτω δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός] In order not to be misunderstood, as if by his ζημιωθήσεται he were denying to such teachers share in the future Messianic salvation at all, whereas he is only refusing to assign to them the higher rank of blessedness, blessed- ness as teachers, Paul adds: Yet he himself shall be saved, but so as through Jire. Αὐτός refers to the τὸν μισθόν, which is to be supplied as the object of Cyu.: although he will lose his recompense, yet he himself, etc. Riickert is wrong in thinking that the builder is now regarded as the inhabitant of the house. Paul does not handle his figure in this confused way, but has before his mind the builder as still busied in the house with the work which he has been carrying on : all at once the fire seizes the house ; he flees and yet finds safety, but not otherwise than as a man is saved through and from the midst of fire. Such an escape is wont to be coupled with fear and painful injury ; hence the idea of this figurative representation is : He himself, how- ever, shall obtain the Messianic σωτηρία," yet still only in such a way that the catastrophe of the Parousia will be fraught with the highest anxiety for him, and will not elapse without sensibly impairing his inheritance of blessing. He shall obtain the σωτηρία, but only a lower grade of it, so that he will belong to those whom Jesus calls ‘‘ the last” (Matt. xx. 16; Mark x. 31). The main point in this interpretation, namely, that σωθήσ. refers to the Messianic σωτηρία, is accepted by most expositors ; but several, such as Rosenmiiller and Flatt, take the future as indicating the possibility (a view which the very fact of the two preceding futures should have sufficed to preclude), and Grotius? has foisted in a problematical sense into the word (equally against the definitely assertive sense of those futures) : ‘‘In summo erit sa- lutis suae periculo. Etsi eam adipiscetur (quod boni ominis causa sperare mavult apostoius) non fiet id sine gravi moestitia ac dolore.” It is acommon mistake to understand ὡς διὰ πυρός in the sense of a proverb (by a hair’s- breadth, see Grotius and Wetstein in loc. ; Valckenaer, p. 157 ; and comp. Amos iy. 11 ; Zech. iii. 2 ; Jude 23), because the passage, looking back to ver. 13, really sets before us a conflagration (ὡς, asin John i. 14). It may be 1 For he has after all held to the founda- grade of blessingin the Messiah’s kingdom, tion. The Messianic salvation is the giftef Comp. Dan. xii. 3; Matt. xix. 28. grace to those who believe in Christ as 2 So before him Theodore of Mopsuestia : such ; while the teacher’s blessedness, as ἀλλὰ καὶ ἂν σώζηται διά τινα ἑτέραν αἰτίαν σώζειν μισϑός (which the general σωτηρία ἴῃ and by αὐτὸν δυναμένην. itself is ποῖ), must be some specially high CHAP. III., 16, 17. rere added that there is no ground for bringing into the conception the fire of the wrath of God (Hofmann), since, according to the text, it is the selfsame fire which seizes upon the work of the one and of the other, in the one case however, proving it to be abiding, and in the other consuming it. histrates the matter well by the instance of a shipwrecked man : ‘‘ut mer- cator naufragus amissa merce et lucro servatur per undas.” Other commen- tators, again (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), understand it to mean : He shall be preserved, but so only as one is preserved through the fire of hell, that is to say, eternally tormented therein. So too of late, in substance, Maier. But the interpretation is decidedly erroneous ; first, because, ac- cording to ver. 13, πῦρ cannot be allowed to have any reference to the fire of hell ; secondly, because σώζεσθαι, which is the standing expression for being saved with the salvation of the Messiah, can least of all be used to denote anything else in a picture representing the decision of the Parousia.! This last consideration tells also against Schott’s explanation (1.6. p. 17) : “ He himself shall indeed not be utterly destroyed on that account ; he remains, but it is as one who has passed through flaming fire (seriously injured),” by which is denoted the divine award of punishment which awaits such a teacher at the day of judgment. It may also be urged against the view in question, that the sentence of punishment, since it dooms to the fire, cannot be depicted in the figure as a having passed through the fire. (H) Vv. 16-28. Warning address to the readers, comprising—(1) preparatory statement reminding them of the guilt of sectarian conduct as a destroying of the temple of God, vv. 16, 17,—-verses which Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others quite mistakenly refer to the incestuous person ; then (2) exhor- tation to put a stop to this conduct at its source by renouncing their fancied wisdom, vy. 18-28, and to give up what formed the most prominent feature of their sectarianism,—the parading of human authorities, which was, in truth, utterly opposed to the Christian standpoint. Vv. 16, 17. Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι κ.τ.}.1 could be regarded as said in proof of ver. 15 (Billroth), only if Chrysostom’s interpretation of σωθήσεται. πυρός, or Schott’s modification of it (see on ver. 15), were correct.? Since this, however, is not the case, and since the notion of σωθήσεται, although limited by οὕτω δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός, cannot for a moment be even relatively included under the φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ Θεός of ver. 17, because the φθορά is the very opposite of the σωτηρία (Gal. vi. 8), this mode of bringing out the connection must be given up. Were we to assume with other expositors that Paul passes on here from the teachers who build upon the foundation to such as are anti- Christian, ‘‘ qui fundamentum evertunt et aedificium destruunt,” * we should in that case feel the want at once of some express indication of the destroy- ing of the foundation,—which, for that matter, did not take place in Bengel 1 Hence, also, it will not do torefer αὐτός, with Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 144 f., to the ϑεμέ- λιος, which will remain safe, but covered over with refuse, ashes, and the like, which he holds to be indicated by ὡς διὰ πυρός. 2 This holds, too, against Ewald’s way of apprehending the connection here: Are any surprised that the lot of such a teacher should be so hard aone! Let them con- sider how sacred is the field in which he works. 3 Estius and others, including Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, Hofmann. 78 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Corinth,—and also, and more especially, of some indication of the relation of antithesis subsisting between this passage and what has gone be- fore. The apostle would have needed at least, in order to be understood, to have proceeded immediately after ver. 15 somewhat in this way: εἰ δέ τις φθείρει κιτ.3. No ; in ver. 16 we have a new part of the argument begun ; and it comes in all the more powerfully without link of connection with the foregoing. Hitherto, that is to say, Paul has been presenting to his readers —that he may make them see the wrong character of their proud partisan- conduct (iv. 6)—the relation of the teachers to the church as an οἰκοδομὴ Θεοῦ. But he has not yet set before their minds what sort of an oixod. Θεοῦ they are, namely, the temple of God (hence ναός is emphatic). This he does now, in order to make them feel yet more deeply the criminality of their sectarian arrogance, when, after ending the foregoing discussion about the teachers, he starts afresh : Is it unknown to you’ what is the nature of this building of God, that ye are God’s temple? etc. The question is one of amazement (for the state of division among the Corinthians seemed to imply ἢ such ignorance, comp. v. 6, vi. 15 f., ix. 13, 24) ; and it contains, along with the next closely connected verse, the sudden, startling preface—arrest- ing the mind of the readers with its holy solemnity—to the exhortation which is to follow, ver. 18 ff. —vad¢ Θεοῦ] not : a temple of God, but the temple of God.2 For Paul’s thought is not (as Theodoret and others hold) that there are several temples of God (which would be quite alien to the time-hallowed idea of the one national temple, which the apostle must haye had, see Philo, de monarch. 2, p. 634), but that each Christian community is in a spiritual way, sensu mystico, the temple of Jehovah, the realized idea of that temple, its ἀληθινόν. There are not, therefore, several temples, but several churches, each one of which is the same true spiritual temple of God. Comp. Eph. ii. 21 ; Ignatius, ad Eph. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 5; Barnab. 4 ; also regarding Christian persons individually, as in vi. 19, see Ignatius, ad Phil. 7. This accordingly is different from the heathen conception of pious men being temples (in the plural). Valer. Max. iv. 7. 1, al., in Elsner and Wetstein. — καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα] appends in how far (kai being the explicative and) they are ναὸς Θεοῦ. God, as He dwelt in the actual temple by the 2°3¥ (Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. p. 2394), dwells in the ideal temple of the Christian church by the gracious presence, working and ruling in it, of His Spirit, in whom God communicates Himself ; for the Spirit dwells and rules in the hearts of believers (Rom. viii. 9,11; 2 Tim. i. 14). But we are not on this ground to make ἐν ὑμῖν refer to the individuals (Riickert and many others) ; for the community as such (ver. 17) is the temple (2 Cor. vi. 16 f. ; Eph. ii. 21f. ; Ezek. xxxvii. 27). — Ναός did not need the article, which comes in only retrospectively in ver. 17, just be- cause there is but one ναὸς Θεοῦ in existence. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. li, 21 ; Wisd. 111. 14 ; 2 Macc. xiv. 85 ; Ecclus, li. 44, 1 This lively interrogative turn of the dis- 2 [Here the Canterbury Revision seems to course, frequent though it is in this Epistle, have erred in using the indefinite article.— occurs only twice in the rest of Paul’s writ- Wie Cd ings, namely, in Rom. vi. 16, xi. 2. CHAP. ΠΤ... 1 7..18. 79 Ver. 17. Ei τις. . . ἀγιός ἐστιν] This is spoken of the real temple ; the application to the church as the ideal one is not made until the οἵτινές ἐστε ὑμεῖς Which follows. It is an anticipation of the course of the argument to understand, as here already meant, the latter New Testament place of the divine presence (Hofmann). — Every Levitical defilement was considered a destroying of the temple, as was every injury to the buildings, and even every act of carelessness in the watching and superintendence of it. See Maimonides, de domo electa, i. 10, vii. 7. Deyling, Odss, II. p. 505 ff. — φθερεῖ) placed immediately after φθείρει at the head of the apodosis, to ex- press with emphasis the adequacy of the recompense. See Kiihner, II. p- 626. What φθερεῖ denotes is the temporal destruction, the punishment of death which God will bring upon the destroyer of His temple, as in the LXX. φθείρω is often used of God as inflicting such destruction. Comp. Gen. vi. 13; Micah ii. 10; 1 Kings ii. 27, αἱ. --- ἅγιος] as the dwelling of God, sacred therefore from all injury, and not to be destroyed without in- curring heavy divine penalty. — oirvvéc ἐστε ὑμεῖς} of which character (namely, ἅγιοι) are ye. In this we have the minor proposition of the syllogism contained in vv. 16 and 17: Him who destroys God’s temple God will destroy, because the temple is holy ; but ye also are holy, as being the spiritual temple ; consequently, he who destroys you will be destroyed of God. Paul leaves it to his readers themselves to infer, for their own behoof, that in this reasoning of his he means by the destruction οὐ the (ideal) temple the deterioration of the church on the part of the sectarians, and by the penal destruction which awaits them, their ἀπώλεια at the Messianic judgment (the φθορά of Gal. vi. 8). It is a mistake (with most commentators, including Luther) to regard οἵτινες as put for οἱ (see the passages where this seems to be the case in Struve, Quaest. Herod. I. p. 2 ff.), and to make it re- fer to ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ : which temple ye are. That would rather yield the inap- propriate (see on ver. 16) plural sense : eujusmodi templa vos estis. See Porson and Schaefer, ad Hurip. Or. 908. Matthiae, p. 977. Ver. 18. Μηδεὶς ἑαυτ. ἐξαπ.1 Emphatic warning, setting the following ex- hortation, as directed against an existing evil which arose out of self-decep- tion, in that point of view ; comp. vi. 9, xv. 33; Gal. vi. 7. Those who were proud of their wisdom did not discern that they were destroying the temple of God with their sectarian proceedings. Theophylact remarks well upon ἐξαπατ. : νομίζων, ὅτι ἄλλως ἔχει TO πρᾶγμα καὶ οὐχ ὡς εἶπον. --- δοκεῖ] believes, is of opinion, not appears (Vulgate, Erasmus) ; for it was the former that was objectionable and dangerous. Comp. viii. 2, xiv. 387 ; Gal. vi. 3. -- σοφὸς εἶναι... τούτῳ] ἐν ὑμῖν belongs to σόφος εἶναι, and ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ defines the σόφος εἶναι ἐν ὑμῖν more precisely, to wit, according to his non- Christian standing and condition (comp. ver. 19) : 17 any one is persuaded that he is wise among you in this age, i.e. if one claims for himself a being wise in your community, which belongs to the sphere of this pre-Messianie period. To the αἰὼν οὗτος, despite of all its philosophy and other wisdom falsely so called (i. 20, ii. 6), the true wisdom, which is only in Christ (Col. ii. 3), is in fact a thing foreign and far off ; this αξών is a sphere essentially alien to the true state of being wise inthe chirc) ; in it aman may have the λόγος σοφίας 80 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (Col. ii. 23), but not the reality. We must not therefore, in defiance of its place in the sentence, link ἐν τῷ al. τ. merely to σόφος (Erasmus, Grotius, Riickert, and many others), in doing which ἐν is often taken as equivalent to κατά. Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Mosheim, Rosen- miiller, and others, join it to what follows, rendering either generally to this effect : ‘is a vulgo hominum pro stulto haberi non recuset ;” or with a more exact development of the meaning, as Hofmann : whoever thinks himself to be wise in the church, ‘‘ he, just on that account, is not wise, but has yet to become so, and must to this end become a fool in this present age of the world, because his wisdom is a wisdom of this world, and as such is fool- ishness in the eyes of God.” But the emphasis does not lie upon the contrast between ἐν ὑμῖν and ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τ., but upon σόφος and μωρός, as is plain from the fact that in the clause expressive of the aim we have the simple σόφος alone without ἐν ὑμῖν. It may be seen, too, from ver. 19 (cog. τοῦ κόσμου) that Paul had included ἐν τ. ai. τ. in the protasis. — μωρός γενέσθω] i.e. let him vid himself of his fancied wisdom, and become (by returning to the pure and simple gospel unalloyed by any sort of philosophy or speculation) such ὦ one as now in relation to that illusory wisdom is ὦ fool. — σοφός] with emphasis : truly wise. See Col. ii. 2, 3. The path of the Christian sapere aude proceeds from becoming a fool to wisdom, as from becom- ing blind to seeing (John ix. 39). Ver. 19. Giving the ground of the μωρὸς γενέσθω demanded in order to the γίνεσθαι σόφον. ---- τοῦ κόσμου τούτου] i.e. such as is peculiar to the pre-Messianic world (humanity), like the Hellenic sophistry, rhetoric, ete. ; comp. i. 21, ii. 6. — παρὰ τ. Θεῷ] judice Deo; Rom. 11. 13 ; Winer, p. 369 [E. T. 493]. How truly that wisdom was its own very opposite, and how utterly to be given up ! —yéyp. γάρ] Job v. 13, not according to the LXX., but express- ing the sense of the Hebrew with quite as great fidelity. The passage, however, serves as proof, not for the warning and admonition in ver. 18 (Hofmann),—to take it thus would be arbitrarily to reach back over what immediately precedes the yap,—but, as ver. 20 also confirms, for the state- ment just made, ἡ yap σοφία x.7.2. If, namely, God did not count that wis- dom to be folly, then He could not be spoken of as He who taketh the wise in their craftiness, i.e. who brings it to pass that the wise, while they cunningly pursue their designs, do not attain them, but rather their craftiness turns to their own destruction. Thus the hand of God comes in upon their doings and takes them in their craftiness, whereby He just practically proclaims His judgment regarding their wisdom, that it is foolishness. As respects zavoup- yia, comp. the Hellenic distinction between it and the true wisdom in Plato, Menex. p. 247 A: πᾶσά τε ἐπιστήμη χωριζομένη δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῆς ἄλλης ἀρετῆς πανουργία, ov σοφία, φαίνεται. --- ὁ δρασσόμ. is not ‘‘ex Hebr. pro finito δράσσε- ται (Pott, following Beza), but the quotation, being taken out of its con- nection, does not form a complete sentence. Comp. Heb. i. 8 ; Winer, p. 330 [E. T. 443] ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 250 [E. T. 291]. — On δράσσεσθαι with the accusative (commonly with the genitive), comp. Herod. iii. 18, LXX. Lev. v. 12, Num. v. 26, Ver. 20. Πάλιν] as in Rom. xv. 10; Matt. iv. 7. The passage quoted is CHAP, LIT, 21. 81 Ps. xciv. 11, and the only variation from the Hebrew and the LXX. is in putting σοφῶν instead of ἀνθρώπων, and that purposely, but with no violence to the connection of the original (the reference being to men of pretended wisdom). — μάταιοι) empty, thoughts (for Paul, at all events, had dvaAoy. not cog. in view) which are without true substance. Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 231 B: περὶ τὴν μάταιον δοξοσοφίαν. , Ver. 21. Ὥστε] Hence, that is to say, because this world’s wisdom, this source of your καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ἀνθρώποις (see ver. 18), is nothing but folly before God, vv. 19, 30. According to Hofmann, ὥστε draws its inference from the whole section, vv. 10-20. But μηδεὶς καυχάσθω κ.τ.}. manifestly corresponds to the warning μηδεὶς ἑαυτ. ἐξαπ. κιτ.}. in ver. 18, from the discussion of which (ver. 19 f.) there is now deduced the parallel warning beginning with ὥστε (ver. 21) ; and this again is finally confirmed by a sublime repre- sentation of the position held by a Christian (ver. 22 f.). — ἐν ἀνθρώποις] ‘id pertinet ad extenuandum,” Bengel ; the opposite of ἐν Κυρίῳ, 1. 81. Hu- man teachers are meant, upon whom the different parties prided themselves against each other (ver. 5, i. 12). Comp. iv. 6. Billroth renders wrongly: on account of men, whom he has subjected to himself and formed into a sect. Hite Παῦλος. . . Κηφᾶς in ver. 22 is decisive against this ; for how strangely forced it is to make μηδείς refer to the teachers, and ὑμῶν to the church !— The imperative after ὥστε (comp. iv. 5, x. 12; Phil. ii. 12) is not governed by that word, but the dependent statement beginning with ὥστε changes to the direct. Sce Hermann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 852 ; Bremi, ad Dem. Phil. II. p. 276 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 776. — πάντα yap ὑμῶν ἐστιν] with the emphasis on πάντα: nothing excepted, all belongs to you as your property ; so that to boast your- selves of men, consequently, who as party leaders are to be your property to the exclusion of others, is something quite foreign to your high position as Christians. Observe that we are not to explain as if it ran : ἡμῶν yap πάντα ἐστιν (‘‘illa vestra sunt, non vos illorum,” Bengel) ; but that the apostle has in view some form of party-confession, as, for example, ‘‘ Paul is mine,” or ‘‘ Gephas is my man,” and the like. It was thus that some boasted them- selves of individual personages as their property, in opposition to the πάντα ig. é. Τὸ may be added that what is conveyed in this πάντα ὑμῶν ἐστιν is not ‘the miraculous nature of the love, which is shed abroad in the hearts of believers by the Spirit, in virtue of which the man embraces the whole world, and enjoys as his own possession whatever in it is beautiful and glo- rious” (πάντα 2), as is the view of Olshausen ; but rather, in accordance with the diverse character of the objects thereafter enumerated, the twofold idea, that all things are destined in reality to serve the best interests of the Chris- tians (comp. Rom. viii. 28 ff.), and consequently to be in an ethical sense their possession,’ and that the actual κληρονομία τοῦ κόσμου (Rom. iv. 13 f.) is allotted to them in the Messianic kingdom. Comp. 4 Esdr. ix. 14. The saying of the philosophers : Omnia sapientis esse” (see Wetstein), is a lower and imperfect analogue of this Christian idea. 1 Hence Luther in his gloss rightly infers: ‘‘ Therefore no man hath power to make laws over Christians to bind their consciences.” 82 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Ver. 22. Detailed explication of the πάντα ; then an emphatic repetition of the great thought πάντα ὑμ., in order to link to it ver. 33. -- Παῦλος. . . Kno. | for they are designed to labour for the furtherance of the Christian weal. Paul does not write éyé ; as forming the subject-matter of a partisan confession, he appears to himself as a third person ; comp. ver. 5. — κόσμος] generally ; for the world, although as yet only in an ideal sense, is by desti- nation your possession, inasmuch as, in the coming αἰών, it is to be subjected to believers by virtue of the participation which they shall then obtain in the kingly office of Christ (Rom. iv. 13, viii. 17; 1 Cor. vi. 2. Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 12). More specific verbal explanations of κόσμος, as it occurs in this full triumphant outpouring—such as religui omnes homines (Rosenmiiller and others), the unbelieving world (comp. also Hofmann), and so forth—are totally unwarranted by the connection. Bengel says aptly : ‘‘ Repentinus hic a Petro ad totum mundum saltus orationem facit amplam cum quadam quasi impatientia enumerandi cetera.” The eye of the apostle thus rises at once from the concrete and empirical to the most general whole, in point of matter (κόσμος), condition (ζωὴ, θάνατος), time (ἐνεστῶτα, μέλλοντα). --- Coy. . . θάνατος] comp. Rom. viii. 38. We are not to refer this, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Grotius, to the teachers: ‘‘si vitam doctoribus protrahit Deus,” and ‘‘si ob evangel. mortem obeunt” (Grotius, comp. too, Michae- lis), nor to transform it with Pott into: things living and lifeless ; nor even is the limitation of it to the readers themselves (‘‘ live ye or die, it is to you for the best,” Flatt) in any way suggested by the text through the analogy of the other points. Both should rather be left without any special reference, life and death being viewed generally as relations occurring in the world. Both of them are, like all else, destined to serve for your good in respect of your attainment of salvation. Comp. Phil. i. 21 ; Rom. xiv. 7 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 19 ff. Theodoret : καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θάνατος τῆς ὑμετέρας ἕνεκεν ὠφελείας ἐπηνέχθη Ty φύσει. --- εἴτε ἐνεστῶτα, εἴτε μέλλοντα) Similarly, we are not to re- strict things existing (what we find to have already entered on a state of sub- sistence ; see on Gal. i. 4) and things to come to the fortunes of the readers (Flatt and many others), but to leave them without more precise definition. Ver. 23. In ver. 22 Paul had stated the active relation of the Christians as regards ownership, all being made to serve them—a relation which, by its universality, must preclude all boasting of human authorities. He now adds to this their passive relation as regards ownership also, which is equally adverse to the same hurtful tendency, namely : but ye belong to Christ,—so that in this respect, too, the καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ἀνθρώποις of ver. 21 cannot but be unseemly. Riickert would make πάντα yap ὑμῶν ἐστι x.7.2. in ver. 22 the protasis and said by way of concession, so that the leading thought would lie in ver, 23: ‘ All indeed ‘is yours ; but ye belong to Christ.” We are, he holds, to supply μέν after πάντα. But, even apart from this erroneous addition, there may be urged against his view, partly the fact that an inde- pendent emphasis is laid upon the thought πάντα ὑμῶν, as is clear at a glance both from its explication in detail and from the repetition of the phrase ; and partly the internal state of the case, that what Riickert takes as a con- cession really contains a very pertinent and solid argument against the xavy. CHAP. III., 23. 83 ἐν ἀνθρώποις. --- Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ] and Christ, again, belongs to God,.is subordi- nated to God, stands in His service. For κεφαλὴ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεός, xi. 8. Comp. Luke ix. 20. The strict monotheism of the N. T. (see on Rom. ix. δ), and the relation of Christ as the Son to the Father, necessarily give the idea of the subordination of Christ under God.' As His equality with God and His divine glory before the incarnation (Phil. ii. 6), although essential, were still derived (εἰκὼν τ. Θεοῦ, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, Col. i. 15), so also the divine glory, which He has obtained by His exaltation after His obedience rendered to God even unto the death of the cross, is again a glory bestowed upon Him (Phil. ii. 9), and His dominion is destined to be given back to God (1 Cor. xv. 28). Since, however, this relation of dependence, affirmed by Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ (comp. on Eph. i. 17), by no means expresses the conception of Arianism, but leaves untouched the essential equality of Christ with God (Theodoret aptly remarks : Χριστὸς yap Θεοῦ οὐχ ὡς κτίσμα Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ), it was all the more a mistake to assume (so Calvin, Estius, Calovius, and many others, including Flatt and Olshausen) that the state- ment here refers only to the human nature. It is precisely on the divine side of His being that Christ is, according to Paul (Rom. i. 4), the Son of God, and therefore as γέννημα γνήσιον. . . ὡς αὐτὸν αἵτιον ἔχων κατὰ TO πατέρα εἶναι (Chrysostom) not subordinate to Him simply in respect of His manhood. But for what reason does Paul add here at all this Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ, seeing it was not needed for the establishment of the prohibition of the καυχᾶσθαι ἐν av- θρώποις ? We answer: Had he ended with ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ, he would then, in appearance, have conceded the claim of the Christ-party, who did not boast themselves ἐν ἀνθρώποις (and hence were not touched by ver. 22), but held to Christ ; and this, in point of fact, is what Pott and Schott make out that the apostle here does. But this was not hisintention ; for the confession of the Christ-party was not, indeed, Ebionitic,—as if the X. δὲ Θεοῦ were aimed against this (Osiander),—but, although right enough in idea, yet practically objectionable on the ground of the schismatic misuse made of it. He rises, therefore, to the highest absolute jurisdiction, that to which even Christ is subject, in order in this passage, where he rejects the three parties who sup- ported themselves on human authorities, to make the Christ-party, too, feel their error : Christ, again, is—not the head of a party, as many among you would make Him, but—telonging to God, and consequently exalted in the highest possible degree above all drawing in of His name into party-conten- tions. In this way, with no little delicacy, Paul sets the relation of the fourth Corinthian party also—of which ver. 22 did not allow the mention— in the light of the true Christian perspective ; to do which by no means lay too far from the path of his exhortation (Hofmann), but was very naturally suggested by the concrete circumstances which he could not but have in his eye. (1) Remarx.—The reference in ver. 22 f. to the party of Peler and of Christ is to be regarded as simply by the way. The whole section fromi. 13 to iv. 21 is di- 1 See also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. 1. p. 120 f. Ursprung der Siinde, I. p. 194 ff. Weiss, bibl. Gess, v. d. Person Chr. p. 157 ff. Ernesti, Theol. p. 306. im 84 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. rected against the antagonism between the Pauline and the Apollonian parties (comp. on ver. 4) ; but the idea πάντα ὑμῶν ἐστιν, which Paul holds up to these two, very naturally leads him to make all the parties sensible of their fault as well, although to enter further upon the Petrine and the Christ-party did not lie in the line of his purpose. The theory, so much in favour of late, which refers the polemic, beginning with i. 17, to the Christ-party (Jaeger, Schenkel, Gold- horn, Kniewel, etc.), has led to acts of great arbitrariness, as is most conspicu- ous in the case of Kniewel, who divides chap. iii. among all the four parties, giving vy. 3-10 to that of Paul and that of Apollos, vv. 12-17 to that of Peter, and ver. 18 f. to that of Christ ; while in the contrasts of ver. 22 (εἴτε κόσμος... μέλλοντα] he finds the Christ-party’s doctrine of the harmony of all contrasts accomplished in Christ as the world-soul. Norrs By AMERICAN EDITOR. (ΒΕ) ““ Saved so as by fire.” Ver. 15. It may well be doubted whether Meyer's view of this clause is correct. He makes it refer to the grade of salvation which the erring builder is to receive, and he gains this by eliding the force of the adverb of comparison. It is far better to retain the full natural meaning of the words, and explain them as = with difficulty. This is in accordance with the Scriptures quoted by the author. The man will just escape with his life, as one is rescued from a burning build- ing. To this, of course, may be added, as a corollary, that his salvation will be attended with loss, i.e. he will occupy a lower place in the kingdom of heaven than he would have done. Notwithstanding that the use of this passage in support of the doctrine of Purgatory has been condemned by the great Roman Catholic commentator, Estius, it is 5011 so applied by the less informed. The violence of such an application is obvious on a moment's reflection. The text does not say that the man is saved by fire as a means of purification, but so as by fire—that is, scarcely or with difficulty. And the fire is not considered as preceding the judgment, but as taking place at the time of the judgment it- self, when the Lord Jesus will appearin His glory. ‘‘The day’’ (ver. 13) can- not, according to usage, denote anything else than the day of the coming of the Lord. It is the more important to resist the tenet of purgatorial fire, because it is the legitimate ontcome of the Romish doctrine of justification, and rests upon the conviction that, the righteousness that justifies being infused and not imput- ed, many will be found at death too good to be sent to hell, but not good enough to enter heaven, and hence there requires to be ἃ state and place in which by disciplinary fires their righteousness may be made complete. (1) No boasting in men. Vv. 21-23. This remarkable passage is an admirable conclusion of the protest against partisan attachment to individual leaders. The church was not made for the teachers, but the teachers for the church. Paul and Apollos and Cephas, how- ever variously gifted and however diverse their spheres or their modes of ac- tion, were yet united by being the common property of all believers. Then, as Stanley says, the Apostle proceeds to dilate upon the whole range of God's gifts to His people. He expands the term world to take in not merely mundane NOTES. 85 greatness, but the whole created universe, and the utmost contrasts which imagi- naiion can suggest, whether in life or in death, in the present or the future. The vast concatenation does not end here. Believers are but part of that golden chain which must be followed up till it unites them to Christ, and even further yet, up to the presence of God Himself. The final touch is worthy of . thegreat Apostle. It represents Christ Himself as subordinate to God, and that, as Meyer justly says, not merely in His human nature, but His divine. The sub- ordination is as to the mode of subsistence and operation, which, however, is entirely consistent with identity of substance and equality in power and glory. 86 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, CHAPTER IV. Ver, 2. ὃ δέ] Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read ὦδε, with A B C D* F G 8, min. Syr. Erp. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Jerome, Aug. Ambr. Pelag. Sedul. Bede. This vast-_ ly preponderating testimony in favour of ὦδε, and its infrequency with Paul (only again in Col. iv. 9), make the Recepta seem the result of change or error on the part of transcribers. — ζητεῖται] A Ο Ὁ E F G8, min. have ζητεῖτε. Recommended by Griesb. But B L and all the vss. and Fathers are against it. A copyist’s error. — Ver. 6, Instead of 6, A B C &, 31, Syr. p. Copt. Athan. Cyril have ἅ ; which is reeommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riickert. The Latin authorities have supra quam, which leaves their read- ing doubtful. The preceding ravra naturally suggested &. — φρονεῖν] is want- ingin AB D* E* FG &, 46, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riickert.' A supplementary addition, in place of which Athanasius has φυσιοῦσθαι. --- Ver. 9. ὅτε after γάρ has preponderant evidence against it, and should be deleted, as is done by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Su- perfluous addition, — Ver. 13, BAacg.] A C δὲ , 17 46, Clem. Origen (twice), Eu- seb. Cyril, Damasc. have δυσφ. Approved by Griesb., accepted by Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; the more familiar (for the verb dvcog. occurs nowhere else in the N. T., comp. 2 Cor. vi. 8), and at the same time stronger word was inserted. — Ver. 14. vovfero] A C δὲ, min. Theophylact have νουθετῶν [which is adopted by Westcott & Hort.—C.]. An assimilation to the foregoing participle. Vv. 1-5. The right point of view from which to regard Christian teachers (vv. 1, 2); Paul, nevertheless, for his own part, does not give heed to human judgment, nay, he does not even judge himself, but his judge is Christ (vv. 3, 4). Therefore his readers should give up their passing of judgments till the decision of the Parousia (ver. 5). Ver. 1. Οὕτως] is commonly taken as preparatory, emphatically paving the way for the ὡς ὑπηρ. which follows. Comp. iii. 15, ix. 26 ; 2 Cor. ix. 5; Eph. v. 33, al., and often in Greek writers. The xavy. ἐν ἀνθρ. before repudiated arose, namely, out of a false mode of regarding the matter ; Paul now states the true mode. Since, however, there is no antithetic particle added here, and since the following epithets : imp. Χριστοῦ and οἶκον. Θεοῦ sound significantly like the ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ, Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ which immediately precede them, οὕτως is rather to be regarded as the sie retrospec- tive (in this way, in such fashion), and ὡς again as stating the objective gual- 1 Φρονεῖν has been defended again by not the case ; and the former consideration Reiche in his Commentar. crit. I. p. 146 ff. He urges that the omission is not attested by the Greek Fathers, and, out of all the versions, only by the Latin ones, and that the word is indispensable. But the latter is cannot turn the scale against the decisive weight of the chief codices, among which only C—and even that not certainly—has φρονεῖν. CHAP, ΤΥ. Ὡς 87 ity, in which the ἡμεῖς have ἃ claim to the οὕτως ἡμᾶς λογιζ. ἄνθρ. which is enjoined. Accordingly, we should explain as follows : Under this point of view, as indicated already in ver. 22 f. (namely, that all is yours ; but that ye are Christ’s ; and that Christ, again, is God’s), let men form their judg- ment of us, as of those who are servants of Christ and stewards of divine mys- teries. Let us but be judged of as servants of Christ, etc., according to the standard of that lofty Christian mode of view (οὕτως) and how con- ciusively shut out from this sphere of vision will be the partisan καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ἀνθρώποις! Men will be lifted high above that. — ἡμᾶς] 1.6. myself and such as I, by which other apostles also and apostolic teachers (like Apollos) aremeant. In view of iii. 22, no narrower limitation is allowable. — ἄνθρω- πος] not a Hebraism (W'S, one; so most interpreters, among whom Luther, Grotius, and others explain it wrongly every one), but in accordance with a pure Greek use of the word in the sense of the indefinite one or a man (Plato, Protag. p. 355 A, Gorg. p. 500 C, al.). So also in xi. 28, Gal. vi. 1. Bengel’s ‘‘homo quivis nostris similis” is an importation. — ὑπηρ. X. x. οἶκον. μυστ. Θεοῦ] They are servants of Christ, and, as such, are at the same time stewards of God (the supreme ruler, iii. 23, the Father and Head of the theocracy, the οἶκος Θεοῦ, 1 Tim. iii. 15), inasmuch as they are entrusted with His secrets, i.e. entrusted and commissioned to communicate by the preaching of the gospel the divine decrees for the redemption of men and their receiving Messianic blessings (see on Rom. xi. 25, xvi. 25 ; Eph. i. 9 ; Matt. xiii. 11),—-decrees in themselves unknown to men, but fulfilled in Christ, and unveiled by means of revelation. They are to do this just as the steward of a household (see on Luke xvi. 1) has to administer his master’s goods. Comp. as regards this idea, ix. 17 ; 1 Tim. i. 4 ; Titus i. 7 ; 1 Pet. iv. 10. There isno reference whatever here to the sacraments, which Olshau- sen and Osiander again desire to include. Seei. 17. The whole notion of a sacrament, as such, was generalized ata later date from the actions to which men restricted it, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a narrower sense. — Observe, moreover : between the Father, the Master of the house, and the οἰκονόμοι there stands the Son, and He has from the Father the power of disposal (comp. on John viii. 35 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 25 ff.), so that the οἰκονόμοι are His servants. Paul uses ὑπηρέτης only in this passage ; but there is no ground for importing any special design into the word (suchas that it is humbler than διάκονος). Comp. on Eph. iii. 7. Ver. 2. If we read ὧδε (see the critical remarks), we must understand the verse thus : Such being the state of the case, it is, for the rest, required of the stewards, etc., so that λοιπόν (i. 16) would express something which, in con- nection with the relationship designed in ver. 1, remained now alone to be mentioned as pertaining thereto, while ὧδε again, quite in accordance with the old classical usage (see Lehrs, Arist. p. 84 ff.), would convey the notion of sic, i.e. ‘‘ eum eo statu res nostrae sint” (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 991). We might paraphrase, therefore, as follows : ‘‘ Such being the nature of our po- 1The word would be singularly super- to treat it as belonging to ver. 1, and te fluous, and would drag behind in the most _— separate it by a point from λοιπόν. awkward way, were we, with Lachmann, 4 88 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. sition as servants, the demand to be made upon the stewards of households * of course takes effect.” If we abide by the Recepta, ὃ δὲ λοιπόν must be render- ed : But as to what remains, i.e. but as respects what else there is which has its place in connection with the relationship of service spoken of in ver. 1, this is the demand, ete.; comp. on Rom. vi. 10. It isa perversion of the passage to make it refer, as Billroth does, to the preceding depreciation of the supposed merits of the teachers : ‘but what still remains for them is, that they can at least strive for the praise of faithfulness.” The rest of the verse says nothing at all about a being able to strive ; for ζητεῖται ἔν means nothing else but : it is sought at their hand (requiritur), i.e. demanded of them. Bee Wetstein, Hofmann’s interpretation, too, is an impossible one. He makes ὁ δὲ λοιπόν down to εὑρεθῇ to be the protasis ; ἐμοὶ δὲ x.7.4., and that running on as far as κύριός ἐστιν in ver. 4, to be the apodosis : As respects that, how- ever, which . . . is further required, namely, that one be found faithful, it is to me, etc. This interpretation gives us, instead of the simple, clearly progressive sentences of the apostle, along, obscurely and clumsily involved period, against which on linguistic grounds there are the two considera- tions—(1) that ὃ δὲ λοιπὸν ζητεῖται Would presuppose some demand already conveyed in ver. 1, to which a new one was now added ; and (2) that the δέ of the apodosis in ver. 3 would require to find its antithetic reference in the alleged protasis in ver. 2 (comp. Acts xi. 17 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 92 f.), namely, to this effect : to me, on the contrary, not concerned about this required faithfulness, it is, etc. Now the first is not the case, and the second would be absurd. Neither the one difficulty nor the other is removed by the arbitrarily inserted thoughts, which Hofmann seeks to read between the lines.?—iva] is sought with the design, that there be found. Hence the object of the seeking is conveyed in the form expressive of design. That εὑρίσκεσθαι is not equivalent to εἶναι (Wolff, Flatt, Pott, and others) is plain here, espe- cially from the correlation in which it stands to ζητεῖται. --- τις] 1.6. any one of them. See Matthiae, p. 1079 ; Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 299, ed. 3. — πιστός Luke xii. 42, xvi. 10 ff.; Matt. xxv. 21 ff.; Eph. vi. 21, al. The summing up of the duties of spiritual service. Ver. 3. I, for my part, however, feel myself in no way made dependent on your judgment by this ζητεῖται x.7.2. — εἰς ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν] εἰς, in the sense of giving the result : it comes to something utterly insignificant, evinces itself as in the highest degree unimportant. Comp. Pindar, OJ. 1. 122: ἐς χάριν τέλλεται, Plato, Ale. I. p. 126 A ; Buttmann, neutest. Gramm. p. 181 [E. T. 150]. —iva] does not stand for ὅταν (Pott), nor does it take the place of the construction with the infinitive (so most interpreters) ; but the conception of design, which is essential to iva, isin the mind of the writer, and has 1 This ἐν τοῖς οἰκονόμ. is not “uncalled for and superfluous” after ὧδε (as Hofmann objects) ; for Paul had, in ver. 1, described the official service of the teachers by fo designations, but now desires to attach what more he has to sayin ver. 2 specially to the second of these designations, and hence > he has again to bring in the οἰκονόμοι. 2In λοιπόν he finds: ‘‘ Besides this, that the stewards act in accordance with their name.’’ By the antithetic ἐμοὶ δέ, again, Paul means: ‘‘in contrast to those who conduct themselves as thovgh he must con- sider it of importance to him.” By inter- polations of this sort, everything may be moulded into what shape one will. CHAP. IV., 4. 89 given birth to the expression. The thought is : I have an exceedingly slight interest in the design of receiving your judgment. — ἀνακριθῶ) ‘‘ fidelisne sim nec ne,” Bengel. — ἢ ὑπὸ ἀνθρ. ἡμ.] or by a human day at all. The day, i.e. the day of judgment, on which a human sentence is to go forth upon me, is personified. It forms a contrast with the ἡμέρα Κυρίου, which Paul pro- ceeds hereafter, not indeed to name, but to describe, see ver. 5. — ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέ] yea, not even, as in 111. 2. — ἐμαυτόν] Billroth and Riickert think that the contrast between the persons properly demanded αὐτὸς éuavr. here, which, however, has been overlooked by Paul. But the active expression ἐμαυτὸν avaxpivw is surely the complete contrast to the passive ὑφ᾽ iu. avaxp.; hence αὐτός might, indeed, have been added to strengthen the statement, but there was no necessity for its being so.—The ἀνακρίνειν in the whole verse is neither to be understood solely of unfavourable, nor solely of favourable judging, but of any sort of judging regarding one’s worth in general. See vv. 4, 5. Ver. 4. Parenthetical statement of the ground of Paul’s not even judging himself (οὐδὲν. . . dedux.), and then the antithesis (dé : but indeed) to the above οὐδὲ ἐμαυτ. avaxpivw. — γάρ] The element of proof lies neither in the first clause alone (Hofmann), nor in the second clause alone, so that the first would be merely concessive (Baumgarten, Winer, Billroth, Riickert, who supplies μέν here again, de Wette, Osiander), but in the antithetic rela- tion of both clauses, wherein ἀλλά has the force of at, not of ‘‘ sondern :” I judge not my own self, because Tam conscious to myself of nothing, but am not thereby justified, i.e. because my pure (official, see ver. 2) self-consciousness (comp. Acts xxiii. 1, xxiv. 16 ; 2 Cor. i. 12) is still not the ground on which my justification rests. As regards the expression, comp. Plato, Apol. p. 21 B: οὔτε μέγα οὔτε σμικρὸν ξύνοιδα ἐμαυτῷ σοφὸς ὦν, Rep. p. 331 A ; and Horace, Hp. 1. 1. 61: ‘‘nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa ;” Job xxvii. 0. --- οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ dedix.| is ordinarily understood wrongly : ‘‘ I do not on that account look upon myself as guiltless.” For the words οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ, negativing justifi- cation by a good conscience, make it clear that δεδικ. expresses the cus- tomary conception of being justified by faith (see on Rom. i. 17 ; so rightly, Calovius, Billroth, Riickert), since, on the view just referred to, we must have had ἐν τούτῳ οὐ. The οὐ isas little in its wrong place here as in xv. 51. Note that the δεδικαίωμαι is to the apostle an undoubted certain fact ;* hence 1 Paul’s thought has run thus :—‘‘ Were I until the judgment. Acdicatwuar, however, justified by my conscience free of reproach, then I should be entitled to pass judgment on myself, namely, just in accordance with the standard of the said conscience. But seeing that I am not justified by this con- science (but by Christ), it cannot even serve me as a standard for self-judgment, and I must refrain therefrom, and leave the judg- ment regarding me to Christ.”” This applies also against de Wette, who holds our exposi- tion to be contrary to the context, because what follows is not ὁ δὲ δικαιῶν, but ὁ δὲ ava- κρίνων. Moreover, the further imputation of moral desert is certainly not done away with by justification, but it remains in force does not refer to the being found righteous at the day of judgment (against Lipsius, Rechtfertiqungsl. p. 48), but,as the perfect shows, to the righteousness obtained by faith, which to the consciousness of the apostle was at all times a present blessing. —Ohbserve, further, how alien to Paul was the conception that the conscience is the expression of the real divine life in the man. Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 141. 2 So precisely Ignatius, ad Rom. 5: ἀλλ᾽ οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο δεδικαίωμαι. The certitudo gratiae is expressed but as not based upon ‘the con- science void of reproach. 90 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. we may not explain it, with Hofmann : Not thereby am I pronounced righteous as respects faithfulness in the fulfilment of my office, but only if (Ὁ) the Lord shall charge me with no neglect of duty. That would plainly make the δεδικαίωμαι problematic.’ — Κύριος] Christ, ver. 5. Ver. 5. Therefore judge nothing before the time, namely, with respect tome ; not as Billroth thinks : one sect regarding another, which is inadmissible in view of the preceding dvaxp. μὲ and of the whole passage, vv. 3, 4, which all applies to Paul. The process of thought from ver. 3 onwards is, namely, this : ‘‘ For my part, you may judge meif you will, I make very little of that ; but (ver. 4) seeing that I do not even judge myself, but that he that judgeth me is Christ, I therefore counsel you (ver. 5) not to pass a judgment upon me pre- maturely.”” —mpd καιροῦ) i.e. before it is the right time, Matt. viii. 29 ; Eccles. xxx. 24, li. 30; Lucian, Jov. Trag. 47. How long such judging would continue to be πρὸ καιροῦ, we learn only from what comes after ; hence we must not by anticipation assign to καιρός the specific sense of tempus reditus Christi. — τι] t.€. κρίσιν τινά, John vii. 24. — κρίνετε] describes the passing of the judgment, the consequence of the avaxp., in a manner accord- ant with the looking forward to the Messianic judgment. Luther, Raphel, and Wolf render: aliwm alii praeferte ; but this runs counter to the context, for it must be analogous to the general avaxp. ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ x.] Epexegesis of πρὸ καιροῦ : judge not before the time (judge not, I say), until the Lord shall have come. Then only is it a καίριον κρίνειν, because then only can the judgment be pronounced rightly according to the Lord’s decision. The av marks out the coming as in 80 far problematical (depending upon circum- stances; see Hartung, Partikell. p. 291), inasmuch as it was not, indeed, doubted, and yet at the same time not dependent upon subjective determi- nation, but an object of expectant faith in the unknown future. Comp. Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27, xiii. 35; Rev. ii. 25. — ὃς καί] καί is the also customary with the relative, the effect of which is to bring into prominence some element in keeping with what has gone before (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152 ; Buttmann, nevt. Gr. p. 243 [E. T. 283]). In His function as Judge, in which He is to come, He will do this also, He will light up, #.e. make manifest, what is hidden in the darkness. Respecting φωτίσει, comp. Eccles. xxiv. 32 ; 2 Tim. i. 10; Plut. Mor. p. 931 C, and the passages in Wetstein. What withdraws itself from the light as its opposite (Hofmann, who takes καὶ. . . καί as meaning as well, as also) is included here, but not that alone. Compare rather the general statement in Luke viii. 17. — καὶ gavep. τ. βουλ. τῶν καρδ.} a special element selected from the foregoing general affirmation. The significant bearing of what Paul here affirms of Christ at His coming is the application which the readers were to make of it to himself and the other teachers ; it was to be understood, namely, that their true character also would only then become manifest, i.e. be laid open as an object of knowledge, but now was not yet submitted to jadgment.— kai τότε... Θεοῦ] so that ye can only then pass judgment on your teachers 1 [Most critics agree that there ishere no question of his fidelity was one not to be reference to the doctrine of justification, decided by his conscience, but by the Lord. and that all the Apostle means is thatthe —T. W. C.] ae OHAP. TV;, 6: 91 with sure (divine) warrant for what ye do. The chief emphasis is upon the ἀπὸ τ. Θεοῦ, which is for that reason put at the end (Kiihner, II. p. 625), and next to it upon what is placed first, ὁ ἔπαινος. This does not mean praemiuwm (so Flatt, with older expositors, citing wrongly in support of it such pus- sages as Rom. ii. 29, xiii. 3; 1 Pet. i. 7, 11. 14; Wisd. xv. 19; Polybius, ii. 58. 11), nor is it a vox media (as, following Casaubon, ad Hpict. 67, Wolf, Rosenmiiller, Pott, and others assume wholly without proof); but it denotes simply the praise, the commendation. The apparent incongruity with ἑκάστῳ is obviated by the article: the praise that appertains to him (Bernhardy, p- 315) shall be given to each,—so that Paul here puts entirely owt of sight those who deserve no praise at all. And rightly so. For his readers were to apply this to him and Apollos ; hence, as Calvin justly remarks : ‘‘haec vox ex bonae conscientiae fiducia nascitur.” See ver. 4. Theophylact’s view, although adopted by many, is an arbitrary one : ‘‘ unde et contrarium datur intelligi, sed mavult εὐφημεῖν," Grotius (so also Bengel, Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen). —az6 τ. Θεοῦ] not from men, as ye now place and praise the one above the other, but on the part on God ; for Christ the Judge is God’s vicegerent and representative, John vy. 27 ff. ; Acts x. 42, xvii. 31; Rom. ii. 16, al. Vv. 6-13. Now, what I have hitherto given utterance to in a manner appli- cable to myself and Apollos, has for its object to wean you from party-pride (ver. 6). Rebuke of this pride (vv. 7-18). Ver. 6. Aé] pursuing the subject ; the apostle turns now to the jinal re- monstrances and rebukes which he has to give in reference to the party- division among them ; in doing so, he addresses his readers generally (not the teachers) as ἀδελφοί with a winning warmth of feeling, as in 1. 11. — ταῦτα] from iii. 5 onwards, where he brings in himself and Apollos specially and by name, assigning to both their true position and its limits to be ob- served by them with all humility, and then appending to this the further instructions which he gives up toiv. 5. Taira isnot to be made to refer back to i. 12, where Paul and Apollos are not named alone (so Baur, following older expositors). — μετεσχήμ. εἰς ἐμαυτ. x. ᾿Απολλώ] I have changed the form of at into myself and Apollos, i.e. I have, instead of directing my discourse to others, upon whom it might properly have been moulded, written in such fashion in an altered form, that what has been said applies now to myself and Apollos. It is on account of the contrast with others which floats before the apostle’s mind, that he writes not simply εἰς ἐμέ, but eic ἐμαυτόν 5 εἰς, again, denotes the reference of this change of form to the parties concerned. Respecting μετασχηματίζειν, to transform, comp. 2 Cor. xi. 14, Phil. iii. 21 ; Symm. 1 Sam. xxviii. 8; 4 Macc. ix. 21 ; Plato, Legg. x. p. 903 E, 906 C (ῥῆμα μετεσχηματισμένον) ; Lucian, Imag. 9, Hale. 5 ; Heliodorus, ii. p. 93. The σχῆμα, to which the word here refers, is the form in which the fore- going statements have been presented, which has been other than the con- crete state of the case at Corinth would properly have involved ; for he has so moulded it as to make that bear upon himself and Apollos, which more properly should have applied to others. Now, who are those others? Not the order of teachers generally (Calovius, Billroth, de Wette, Neander, 92 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. et al., also my own former view), for in that case we should have no change of form, but only a specializing ; but rather: the instigators of parties in Corinth, with their self-exaltation and jealousy, as is clear from the fol- lowing clause stating the design in view, and from ver. 7 ff. It was they who split up the church and infected it with their own evil qualities. But from Paul and Apollos the readers were to learn to give up all such conduct, —from those very men, who had respectively founded and built up the church, but who by these partisans had been stamped with the character of heads of sects and so misused, to the grievous hurt of the Christian com- munity. Baur’s explanation is contrary to the notion of μετεσχημ., but in favour of his own theory about the Christ-party : what has been said of me and Apollos holds also of the other parties ; this not applying, however, to τοὺς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Who are to be regarded as forming a peculiar party by themselves. Lastly, it is also a mistake (see Introd. ὃ 1) to interpret it with Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and others : ‘‘T have put our names as jictitious in place of those of the actual leaders of parties ;’* or to hold, with Pareus and Mosheim, that μετασχ. refers to the homely jigures which Paul has used of himself and Apollos (gardeners, husbandmen, builders, house-stewards), from which the readers were to learn humility. These figures were surely lofty enough, since they repre- sented the teachers as Θεοῦ συνεργοίς | Moreover, the figures in themselves plainly could not teach the Corinthians humility ; the lesson must lie in the intrinsic tenor of the ideas conveyed. —’A7ro/24] the same form of the accusative as in Acts xix. 1. A Β x* have ᾿Απολλών. See regarding both forms, Buttmann’s ausf. Gr. I. p. 207 f. ; Kiihner, § 124, ed. 2. —dv ὑμᾶς] not in any way for our own sakes. — iva ἐν ἡμῖν x.7.2.| more precise explana- tion of the dv’ ὑμᾶς (‘‘ instructionis vestrae causa,” Estius) : in order that ye might learn by us (Winer, p. 361 [E. T. 483]), that is to say, by having us before you as an example of shunning undue self-exaltation, in accordance with what I have stated regarding our official position, duty, responsibility, etc. —r0 μὴ ὑπὲρ ὃ yéyp.| The elliptical : ‘‘ not above what is written,” is made to rank as a substantive by the τό (Matthiae, ὃ 280) ; for φρονεῖν is spurious (see the critical remarks). The suppression of the verb after μή in lively discourse is common in the classics. See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 153 ; Kiihner, II. p. 607 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 607. The short, terse μὴ ὑπὲρ ὃ yéyp. may have been an old and familiar saying of the Rabbins (Ewald) ; only Paul never quotes such elsewhere. —@ yéyp. is by Luther and most ex- positors (including Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Heydenreich, Pott, Billroth, Neander) made to refer to what Paul has written in the preceding section. But Grotius hits the truth in the matter when he says : γέγραπται in his libris semper ad libros VY. T. refertur. Only Grotius should not have re- ferred it to a single passage (Deut. xvii. 20 ; comp. also Olshausen) which the readers could not be expected to divine. It denotes generally the rule 1 Michaelis: “1 know quite well that no fence,” etc. But, as Calovius justly ob- sect among you calls itself after myself or _ serves, the μετασχηματισμός is here not “ per Apollos... ; the true names I ratherre- _fictionis, sed per figurationis modum.”’ frain from giving, in order to avoid of- le ete tis CHAP, TV.,°6: 93 written in the O. T., which is not to be transgressed ; and this means here, according to the context, the rule of humility and modesty, within the bounds of which a man will not be vainly puffed up, nor will presume to claim anything that lies beyond the limits of the ethical canon of the Scriptures. Comp. Riickert, Reiche, Ewald. And Paul could the more readily express himself in this general way, inasmuch as all the quotations hitherto made by him from the O. T. (i. 19, 31, iii. 19) exhorted to humility. It is against the context to suppose, with Cajetanus and Beza, that the reference is to the dogmatic standard of the O. T., which was not to be transcended by pretended wisdom. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact went so far as to refer it to sayings of Christ (such as Mark x. 44 ; Matt. vii. 1; Theodoret even adds to these (1 Cor. vii. 24), which neither Paul nor his readers could think of in connection with the habitually used yéyp.—With- out having the slightest support in the use and wont of the language (for in passages like Pindar, Nem. vi. 13, Eur. Jon. 446 [455], γράφειν has just the ordinary force of to write), and wholly in the face of the N. T. usage of γέγραπται, Hofmann brings in here the general notion of the definite measure which is ascribed, adjusted to each by God (Rom. xii. 3). Nor is any coun- tenance lent to this interpretation by γράμμα in Thue. v. 29. 4 ; for that means a written clause (see Kriiger). What Paul means is the objective sacred rule of the Scriptures, the presumptuous disregard of which was the source of the mischief at Corinth ; ‘‘ulews aperit,” Beza. — iva μὴ εἰς ὑπὲρ k.7.2.] For one another against the other, is a telling description of the parti- san procedure ! The members of a party plumed themselves to such an ex- tent on their own advantages, that one did so in behalf of the other (ὑπέρ, comp. 2 Cor. ix. 2), seeking thereby mutually among themselves to main- tain and exalt their own reputation (εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνός), and that with hostile tendency towards the third person, who belonged to another party (κατὰ τοῦ érépov). Olshausen understands ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνός of their owtbidding each other in pretensions, which, however, would require the accusative with ὑπέρ ; and Winer, p. 358 [E. T. 478], renders : ‘‘so that he deems himself exalted above the other ;” against which—apart from the fact that ὑπέρ with the genitive does not occur in this sense in the N. T. (see, moreover, Matthiae, p. 1360)—the immediate context is conclusive, according to which it is he only who is despised by the φυσιούμενος, who can be the ἕτερος (the different one) ; and just as εἷς stands in antithetie correlation with τοῦ ἑτέρου, 80 ὑπέρ also does with κατά ; comp. Rom. viii. 31 ; Mark ix. 40. The ordinary in- terpretation is: ‘‘ On account of the teacher, whom he has chosen to be his head,” Riickert ; comp. Reiche, Ewald, Hofmann. But like εἷς, so ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνός also must refer to the collective subject of φυσιοῦσθε, and consequently both of them together convey the same sense as ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων, only in a more concrete way. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 11.; Susann. 52 ; Ecclus. xlii. 24 f. ; 1 Mace. xiii. 28; often, too, in Greek writers. — The φυσιοῦσθαι of a εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνός takes place κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου in the jealous wranglings of mutually op- posing parties reciprocally, so that each has always full room for the κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου (against Hofmann’s objection). — φυσιοῦσθε] the present indicative after wa occurs only here and in Gal. iv. 17. The instances of it, wont to be ad- 94 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. duced from classical writers, have been long since given up. See Her- mann, ad Viger. p. 851 f. ; Schneider, ad Xen. Ath. i. 11. The passages, again, in Kypke and Valckenaer, where iva is found with the past indicative, were wholly inapplicable here. Comp. on Gal. iv. 17, note ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 181 E. On these grounds Billroth and Riickert assume that Paul had meant to form the subjunctive, but had formed it wrongly ; so too, before them, Bengel characterized the form as a ‘‘singularis ratio contractionis ;” and Reiche also, in his Comment. crit. I. Ὁ. 152, satisfies himself with the notion of an erroneously formed contraction. As if we were warranted in taking for granted that the most fluent in language of the apostles could not be safely trusted with forming the mood of a verb in ow ! Winer finds here an improper usage of the later Greek.’ But, apart from the absence of all proof for this usage in the apostolic age (it can only be proved in much later writings, as also in modern Greek ; see Winer, p. 272 [E. T. 8027), had Paul adopted it, he would have brought it in oftener, and not have written correctly in every other case ;* least of all, too, would he have put the indicative here, when he had just used the cor- rect subjunctive immediately before it (μάθητε). Fritzsche (ad Matth. p. 836) took iva as ubi, and explained : ‘‘wbi (i.e. gua conditione, quando demisse de vobis statuere nostro exemplo didiceritis) minime alter in alterius detri- mentum extollitur.” At a later date (in Fritzschiorum opuse. p. 186 ff.) he wished to resort to emendation, namely : iva ’ev ἡμῖν μάθητε τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ὃ yéypar- ται φρονεῖν, Eva μὴ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθαι κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου (80, too, very nearly Theodoret). But although it might easily enough have happened that iva μή should be written by mistake in place of ἕνα μῆ, the consequence of that mistake would in that case necessarily have been the alteration of φυσιοῦσθαι," not into φυσιοῦσθε, but into φυσιῶσθε, and the sub- junetive, not the indicative, must therefore have had the preponderance of critical evidence in its favour (but it is found, in point of fact, only in 44, Chrys. ms.). The only explanation of iva which is in accordance with the laws of the language, and therefore the only admissible one, is that given by Fritzsche, ad Matth. 1.6. ; iva cannot be the particle of design, because it is followed by the indicative ; it must, on the contrary, be the local particle, where, and that in the sense of whereby, under which relation, so that it ex- presses the position of the case (Homer, Od. vi. 27; Plato, Gorg. p. 484 E ; Sophocles, Oed. Col. 627, 1239 ; Eur. Hee. ii. 102, 711, Andoc. vi. 9, al. ; 1 So, too, Wieseler on Gal. p. 378; Hof- mann on Gal. p. 138. Barnab. 7: wa. δεῖ, is an earlier example than any adduced by Winer and Wieseler. But how easily δεῖ might have been written here by mistake for δῇ, which is so similarin sound! (comp. Dressel, p. 17). Should δεῖ, however, be the original reading, then iva may just as well be πδὲ, as in our passage. The readings adere and peréxere in Ignatius, ad Eph. 4, are dubious (Dressel, p. 124).—Buttmann’s con- jecture (neut. Gr. Ὁ. 202 [E. T. 235]), that the contracted presents, on account of the final syllable having the circumflex, repre- sent the futures, is totally destitute of proof. 21 Thess. iv. 13 included (against Tischen- dorf).—In Col. iv. 17, 7Anpots is subjunctive. —As respects Lachmann’s erroneous read- ing, 2 Pet. i. 10, Wieseler, p. 379, is right.— In John xvii. 3, Gal. vi. 12, Tit. ii. 4, Rom. xiii. 17, the indicative readings are to be re- jected (in opposition to Tischendorf). 3 The δὲ, too, has φυσιουσϑαι, But how often does that codex interchange a and εἰ Immediately before it has γεγραπτε instead of γεγραπται. CHAP. IY., 7. 95 also Schaefer, ad Soph. O. C. 621 ; and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 143 f.). What Paul says then is this : in order that ye may learn the ne ultra quod scriptum est, whereby (i.e. in the observance of which rule) ye then (φυσιοῦσθε is the future realized as present) do not puff up yourselves, etc. Suitable though it wauld be, and in accordance with the apostle’s style (Rem. vii. 13 ; Gal. iii. 14, iv. 5; 2 Cor. ix. 3), that a second telic iva should follow upon the first, still the linguistic impossibility here must turn the scale against it. To put down the indicative to the account of the transcribers has against it the ‘almost unanimous agreement of the critical evidence in excluding the sub- junctive (which would be inexplicable, on the supposition of the indicative not being the original). Again, to trace it back to the origin of the Epistle by assuming that Paul made a slip in dictating, or his amanuensis in taking down his words, is all the more unwarranted, seeing that the self-same phe- nomenon recurs in Gal. iv. 17, while the clause here, as it stands, admits of a rendering which gives a good sense and is grammatically correct.’ The subjective form of the negation μή, in the relative clause, has arisen from the design cherished by Paul, and floating before his mind. Comp. e.g. Sophocles, Trach. 797: μέθες ἐνταῦθ᾽ ὅπου we μή τις ὄψεται βροτῶν ; and see Baeumlein, wt supra, Ὁ. 290 ; Winer, p. 447 [E. T. 603]. Ver. 7. The words ἵνα μὴ. . . ἑτέρου are now justified by two consider- ations—(1) No one maketh thee to differ; it is an imaginary difference of thine own making, which thou settest between thee and others. (2) What thou possessest thou hast not from thyself, and it is absurd to boast thyself of it as though it were thine own work. Hofmann holds that Paul in his first proposition glances at his own difference from others, and in his second at the gifts of Apollos; but this is neither indicated in the text, nor would it accord with the fact that he and Apollos are to be examples of humility to the readers, but not examples to humble them—namely, by high position and gifts. — σέ] applies to each individual of the preceding ὑμεῖς, not therefore simply to the sectarian teachers (Pott, following Chrysostom and several of the old expositors). — The literal sense of διακρίνει is to be retained. The Vulgate rightly renders : ‘‘ Quis enim te discernit?” Comp. Acts xv. 9; Homer, Od. iv. 179; Plato, Soph. p. 258 E, Charm. p. 171 C. This of course refers, in point of fact, to supposed pre-eminence ; but Paul will not describe it as pre-eminence (contrary to the common rendering : Who maketh thee to differ for the better ?). —ri δὲ ἔχεις x.t.A.] dé, like that which follows, heaps question on question. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 169. To what Paul is pointing in the general : ‘‘ But what possessest thou,” etc., their own conscience told his readers, and it is clear also from the next question, that, namely, of which they boasted, their Christian insight, wisdom, eloquence, and the like. He certainly did not think of himself and the other teachers as the sowrce (ἔλαβες) of the gifts (Semler, Heydenreich, Pott), which would be quite contrary to his humble piety, but : οὐδὲν οἴκοθεν ἔχεις, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λαβών, Chrysostom. Comp. iii. 5, xii. 6, xv. 10. — εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐλ. 1 [Still it is better with most critics to take foot says is not unusual in the later writers. the particle as a conjunction and consider —T. W. C.J the phrase a solecism, which Bishop Light- . 96 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. again, even if thou hast received, even if thou hast been endowed with gifts, which I will by no means deny. Εἰ καί is not meant to represent the pos- session of them as problematical (Riickert), but is concessive. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 8. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 832 ; comp. Hartung, I. p. 140 f. ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519 f. — τί καυχᾶσαι x.t.A.]| οὐδεὶς ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίαις παρακαταθή- Kale μεγαφρονεῖ, ἐπαγρυπνεῖ δὲ ταύταις, iva φυλάξῃ τῷ δεδωκότι, Theodoret. Ver. 8. The discourse, already in ver. 7 roused to a lively pitch, becomes now bitterly ironical, heaping stroke on stroke, even as the proud Corinthi- ans, with their partisan conduct, needed a νουθεσία (ver. 14) to teach them- humility. The transition, too, from the individualizing singular to the plural corresponds to the rising emotion. The interrogative way of taking the passage (Baumgarten) weakens it without reason ; for the disapproval of such bitter derision (Stolz, Riickert) is, in the first place, over-hasty, since Paul could not but know best how he had to chastise the Corinthians; and, in the second, it fails to recognize the fact, that he, just in conse- quence of the purity of his conscience, could give rein to the indignant temper amply warranted in him by the actual position of things, without justifying the suspicion of self-seeking and thirst for power (this in opposi- tion to Riickert). —In κεκορ. ἐστέ, ἐπλουτ., and ἐβασιλ., we have a vehement climax : Already sated are ye, already become rich are ye; without our help y- have attained to dominion! The sarcastic force of this address, which shows the repulsive shape in which the inflated character and demeanour of the Corinthians presented itself, is intensified by the emphatically prefixed ἤδη . ἤδη ANA χωρὶς ἡμῶν : ‘‘ already ye have, what was expected only in the coming αἰών, fulness of satisfaction and of enrichment in Messianic bless- ings ; without our help (mine and that of Apollos, ver. 6) are ye arrived at the highest stage of Messianic power and glory, at the βασιλεία 1” You have already reached such a pitch of Christian perfection, are become without us such mightily exalted and dominant personages, and there is presented in you an anticipation of the future Messianic satisfaction, of the Messianic fulness of possession and dominion. Ordinarily, κεκορ. and ἐπλουτ. (comp. Rev. iii. 17) have been taken as referring specially to Christian knowledge and other endowments (comp. i. 5), and ἐβασιλ. either as referring likewise to knowledge, the highest degree of it being meant (Vater, Heydenreich), or to high prosperity and repute in general (Calvin, Justiniani, Lightfoot, Wetstein, Flatt, Pott), or to the quiet security in which kings live (Grotius), or to the ‘‘dominium et jus statuendi de rebus Christianis” (Semler), or to the domination of the one sect over the other (Estius), or of the teacher over his party (Billroth is undecided between these two views). But all these interpretations fail to do justice to the sarcastic method of expression, although they in part correctly enough describe the state of the case, which is here ironically presented. (s) The right view may be seen in Hofmann also. In connection with the ἐβασιλ. left without being more precisely defined, ncthing came so naturally and at once to the Christian consciousness as the thought of the Messianic βασιλεία. And how well this idea corresponds to the wish ? So rightly also Schrader, Riickert, de mann. Comp. Olshausen (who, however, Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander, Hof- gives a rationalizing view of the ruling). CHAP. IV., 9. oF which follows ! If, however, ἐβασ. applies to the Messianic ruling (see on ili. 22 ; Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 370), and consequently to the συμβασιλεύειν of 2 Tim. ii. 12, comp. Rom. viii. 17, then in that case κεκορ. and ἐπλουτ. also, to preserve the symmetry of this ironical picture, must be understood in the sense of the Messianic consummation of all things, and must denote the being full and rich κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (namely, in the blessings of the Messianic salvation), which for the Christian consciousness did not need to be partic- ularly specified. Comp. Matt. v. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 9. The perfect brings before us the state, the aorists the fact of having entered upon the possession. See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 18. As to ἤδη, ὁ.6. now already, see on John iv. 35. — χωρὶς ἡμῶν] without whose work, in fact, you would not be Chris- tians at all !—xai ὄφελόν ye x.7.A.] and (the thought suddenly striking his mind) would that ye had indeed attained to dominion! In the later Greek writers ὄφελον is used as a particle, and joined with the indicative, 2 Cor. xi. 1; Gal. v. 12. See Matthiae, p. 1162. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 185 [E. T. 214 f.]. Τέ strengthens the force of ὄφελον ; see Hartung, Partikell. I. Ὁ. 372 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 55 f. The thought is: ‘‘ Apart from this, that ye have without us become rulers, would that ye had at least (γέ) become such! Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 281 f. —iva x. ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν συμβασ. Ye would doubtless in that case, Paul deems, suffer us also to have some share (beside you) in your government! The subjunctive is quite according to rule (in opposition to Riickert), seeing that ἐβασιλ. denotes something com- pleted from the speaker’s present point of view (have become rulers), and see- ing that the design appears as one still subsisting in the present. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 617 f. ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Crit. p. 43 B. — Observe, we may add, how the sarcastic climax ends at last with «ai ὄφελόν ye «.7.A. in a way fitted to put the readers deeply to shame. Comp. Chrysostom. Ver. 9. Tép] giving the ground of the foregoing wish : Yor the position of us apostles is to my mind such, that to us the συμβασ. would even be a thing very desirable! It is precisely the reverse of that !— In δοκῶ we have a pal- pable point in the statement. Comp. on vii. 40. Without ὅτι following, see in Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 7. 18. — ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀπ.] does not refer sim- ply to Paul (Calvin and others, including Schrader and Olshausen), which is forbidden by τοὺς ἀπ., but to the apostles generally. The designation τοὺς ἀποστ. is added by way of contrast to their position, in which they, instead of being at all privileged as apostles, were ἔσχατοι. Observe further, how in this passage, on to ver. 13, Paul paints his picture of the apostles in col- ours drawn from his own personal experience. —éoydrovc] Predicate : as homines infimae sortis. Comp. Mark ix. 35 ; Alciphr. iii. 48 ; Dio Cassius, xlii. 5 ; Dem. 346, pen. It is joined with ἀποστ. by Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, and others, including Semler and Pott: ‘‘Deus nos, qui postremi apostoli facti fuimus, tamquam ἐπίθαν. oculis alior. sistit” (Pott). But in that case we should require to have τοὺς ἀπ. τοὺς éox., or at least τοὺς ἐσχ. ἀπ., because ἐσχ. would necessarily be the emphatic word ; and at any rate, looked at generally, this would give us an inappropriate and unhistorical contrast between the experiences of the later apostles and those of the first. -- ἀπέδειξεν] not : fecit, reddidit, but : He has set us forth, presented us as last, 98 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. caused us to appear as such before the eyes of the world (see the following θέατρον x.7.A.). Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 4; Plat. Conv. p. 179 C ; Dem. 687. 11 ; Xen. Oec. v. 10 ; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 72 C. — ὡς ἐπιθανατ. as men condemned to death, so that we appear as such. How true in view of their constant exposure to deadly perils! Comp. xv. 80 f. ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff. Tertullian’s rendering (de pudic. 14): ‘‘veluti bestiarios,” although adopted by Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Michaelis, Schrader, and others, is an arbitrary limitation of the meaning. The correct expla- nation is given by Chrysostom and Theophylact. Comp. Dion. Hal. vii. 35. — bri θέατρον éyev. x.7.4.] serves to make good the statement from δοκῶ to ἐπιθαν. ; hence it isa mistake to write 6, τε and connect it with 6éarp., as Hofmann conjectures should be done (‘‘ which spectacle we have in truth become to the world”). The meaning is: seeing that we have become a spee- tacle, etc. Θέατρον is here like θέα or θέαμα, as Aesch. Dial. Soer. iii. 20 ; Ach. Tat. I. p. ὅδ. Comp. θεατρίζεσθαι, Heb. x. 33 ; ἐκθεατρίζεσθαι, Polyb. iii. 91. 10, v. 15. 2. —xai ayy. x. avOp.] specializes the τῷ κόσμῳ : to the whole world, both angels and men. The inhabitants of heaven and of earth gaze upon our hardships and persecutions as on a spectacle. — The word ἄγγελοι in the N. T., standing absolutely, is never used of the good and bad angels taken together (this against Zeger, Bengel, Olshausen, a/.), nor of the bad alone (this against Vatablus, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others, including Flatt and Neander), but always only of the angels κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, .6. of the good angels (comp. on Rom. viii. 38). Where it refers to the bad angels, it always has some addition defining it so (Matt. xxv. 41 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6). Hahn’s objection is a trifling one (Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 261) : that the angelic world generally is meant ; comp. also Hofmann. Yes, but the evil angels are no longer therein ; see on Eph. ii. 2. Some have thought that we must bring in the dad angels, because θέατρον involves the idea : a subject of mirth and mockery. But this is purely arbitrary. The particular interest felt by the spectators in the drama of the apostolic fort- unes might be very various, and even opposite in its nature ; it is not here taken into consideration at all. Theodoret says well: πᾶσιν εἰς ϑεωρίαν πρόκειται τὰ ἡμέτερα᾽ ἄγγελοι μὲν yap τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀνδρίαν ϑαυμάζουσι, τῶν dé ἀνϑρώπων οἱ μὲν ἐφήδονται τοῖς ἡμετέροις παϑήμασιν, οἱ δὲ συναλγοῦσι μὲν, ἐπαμῦναι δὲ οὐκ ἰσχύουσιν. The way in which the angels come in here, therefore, must not be regarded as simply proverbial and figurative (Baur). (Kk) Ver. 10. What very different sort of people ye are from us / — μωροὶ διὰ X. | for, because we concern ourselves about nothing else save Christ the cruci- fied, are bent on knowing Him only, and on having nothing to do with the world’s wisdom (comp. ii. 2), we are foolish, weak-minded men, for Christ’s sake. Comp. i. 18, 96. --- φρόνιμοι ἐν X.] wise men are ye in your connection with Christ, sagacious, enlightened Christians ! Observe, that Paul could not write again διὰ X. ; the Christian pseudo-wisdom had other motives. The nature of the irony, ‘‘ plena aeculeis” (Calvin), with which he scourges the worldly state of things at Corinth, does not allow us to supply anything else here but ἐσμέν and ἐστέ. ---- ἀσϑενεῖς} weak and powerless. For in trem- bling and humility they came forward, making little of human agency, CHAP. Iv., 11-13. 99 trusting for all success to the simple word of Christ. Ye, on the contrary, are ἰσχυροί, men of power, able to take up an imposing attitude and to carry through great things. Comp. ii. 3 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 2 ff., x. 10. By an arbi- trary limitation, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, and Estius refer ἀσϑ. to their sufferings: ‘‘Quia multa mala patimur, nec resistimus quod est infirmitatis,” and icy. : ‘‘ Mala, si qua occurrunt, facile repellitis,” Estius. -- ἔνδοξοι] celebrated, highly honowred personages ; ἄτιμοι : unhonoured, despised, Matt. xiii. 57; Hom. 11]. i. 516 ; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 774 B, Huthyd. p. 281 C. —In the last clause the jirst person is the subject of the sarcastic an- tithesis, because Paul means now to speak at more length regarding the apostles. Vv. 11-18. Down to the present hour this despised condition of ours continues uninterruptedly, manifesting itself also (xa/) in all manner of pri- vations, sufferings, and humiliations. — The assumption that we are not to understand this ἄχρι τῆς ἄρτι ὥρας, as also ἕως ἄρτι in ver. 13,’ in a strictly literal sense, is rash, seeing that, even apart from the fact that we have no other means of knowing the precise position of Paul at that time (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 27), he is speaking here not of himself alone, but of the position of the apostles in general. — γυμνητεύομεν] i.e. we lack necessary raiment. Comp. on γυμνός in Matt. xxv. 36 ; Jas. ii. 15; and Theile in loc. The verb, as used both in this sense and of being lightly armed, belongs to the later Greek. The form γυμνιτεύομεν (Lachmann and Tischendorf), although vouched for by a majority of the codd., is nothing but an ancient clerical error ; see Fritzsche, de conform. Lahem. p. 21. — κολαφιζ.] quite literally : we are beaten with fists. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 67; 1 Pet. 11. 20; 2 Cor. xii. 7. A concrete representation of rude maltreatment in general. — doraroipev| we are unsettled, have no abiding dwelling-place, Rufinus, Hp. 20. Theo- phylact : ἐλαυνόμεϑα, φεύγομεν. --- κοπιῶμεν x.7.2.] we toil hard, working with our own hands. Comp. as regards Paul, ix. 6 ff. ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ff. ; 1 Thess. ii. 9 ff. ; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; Acts xx. 84; and who is in a position to deny that others of the apostles too acted in the same way ? Paul includes this among the elements of their despised condition, which he adduces ; and he had a right to do so, for it was such in the eyes of the world, which could not and would not recognize and honour so noble a self-denial. — λοιδορ. εὐλογ. k.t-A.] The picture of the ignominious condition of the apos- tles is continued, and its effect heightened by the contrast of their demean- our. We are so utterly empty and void of all honour with others, that as respects those who revile (insult, see Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 294), per- secute, and slander us (δυσφημ., see the critical remarks, and comp. 1 Macc. vii. 41 ; Aesch. Ag. 1078 ; Soph. HZ. 1182; Eur. Heracl. 600), we do not in any wise defend ourselves or seek vengeance against them (as men do who have honour to vindicate and maintain) ; but, on the contrary, wish good to our revilers, remain quiet and patient towards our persecutors, and 1 The two expressions are synonymous ; tained by Tittmann, Synon. p. 38 ff., is hence, too, this passage is a proof that the erroneous. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. distinction between ἄχρι and μέχρι, main- ΞΒ08Β ff. 100 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. give beseeching words to our slanderers.'| Whether Paul says this in remem- brance of the words of Jesus in Matt. v. 44, Luke vi. 27 f., which became known to him by tradition (Riickert and others), is very dubious, consider- ing the difference of expression ; but the disposition required by Jesus lived in him. — ὡς περικαϑάρματα x.7.2.| Delineation, as a whole, of the condition hitherto—from ver. 11 onwards—sketched in single traits : We have become as out-sweepings of the world, i.e. our experience has become such, as though we were the most utterly worthless of existing things, like dirt which men have swept off from the face of the world. The κόσμος is the world of men (Rom. iii. 6, v. 12), corresponding to the πάντων which follows. Περικάϑαρμα (from περικαϑαίρω, to cleanse round about, on every side) means quisquiliae, what one removes by cleansing, both in a literal sense and figuratively, like our offscourings, sewm (Arrian. Diss. Epict. iii. 22. 78). ‘The simple κάϑαρμα is more common ; and it especially is often found in this figurative sense in Demosthenes and later writers (see Wetstein, Loesner, Obss. Ὁ. 276 f. ; comp. also Kiihner, II. .p. 26). With this rendering Erasmus, H. Stephanus, Beza, Estius, and others, including, Riickert, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Hofmann, are content, following Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius. Καϑάρματα, however, is likewise used to denote those who, in times of plague and other public calamities, were offered up to expiate the wrath of the gods (see Schol. ad Arist. Plut. 454 ; Bos, Evercitatt. p. 125 ff. ; Munth. Obss. e Diod. p. 321 f.), and in Prov. xxi. 18, περικάϑαρμα corre- sponds to the Hebrew 193, while περικαϑαρμός, too, in Plato, Legg. vii. p. 815 C, means lustratio, and περικαϑαρτήριον in Hesychius (sub voce ϑεώματα), a sacrifice for purification ; and, on these grounds, Luther and many others (among them Pott, Olshausen, Osiander) assume that Paul refers here to that Greek sacrificial custom (see especially Photius, Quaest. Amphil. 135), and means by περικάϑ. expiatory sacrifices,—the idea of ‘‘ reprobate, utterly worthless men” being at the same time essentially involved, inasmuch as such men were taken for sacrifices of that nature (see Bos and Grotius). According to this view, the sense would be : ‘‘ contemnimur ut homines, qui ad iram Deorum ab omnibus hominibus avertendam sacrificio offerun- tur,” Pott ; and Olshausen asserts, in spite of the oc, that Paul ascribes a certain power even to his sufferings. Now the current and constant word for the expiatory offering is κάϑαρμα (not περικάϑαρμα) ; 5 but, even supposing that Paul had conceived περικαϑάρματα as piacula, he would in that case have again used the plural περιψήματα in the next clause, for περίψημα is sy- nonymous with περικάϑαρμα, and each individual would be a piaculum. Τί, on the other hand, he conceived περικαϑάρματα as offscourings, castings away, he could very suitably interchange this phrase afterwards with the collect- 1 Παρακαλοῦμεν : being slandered, we en- Compare rather 2 Macc. xiii. 23: τοὺς Ἰουδα- treat. See regarding παρακαλ., to entreat, tous παρεκάλεσεν, he gave good words to the Bleek on Heb, II. 1, p. 454 ff. Theophylact Jews. puts it happily : mpaorépots λόγοις καὶ μαλακ- ? Hence Valckenaer holds the reading of τικοῖς ἀμειβόμεϑα. Comp. Acts xvi. 39. Gro- G, min., ὡσπερεὶ καϑάρματα, to be the true tius explains it: Dewm pro ipsis precamur. one, because Paul “‘ ritus Graecos noverat But Deum and pro ipsis are unwarrantably οἵ linguam.” inserted on the ground of Matt. v. 10, 44. CHAP. Iv., 14, 15. . 101 ive singular (rubbish). —rdvrov περίψ.] The refuse of all. The emphasis lies on πάντων, and ὡς is to be supplied again before it. Περίψημα (what is removed by wiping) being substantially the same in meaning with περι- κάϑαρμα (see Photius, s.o., Tob. v. 18, and Fritzsche im loc.), has been as variously interpreted by the commentators. —éw¢ ἄρτι] belongs to ἐγενήϑ.., and repeats with emphatic force at the close of the description the selfsame thought with which it had began in ver. 11.— The torrent is at an end ; now again we have the gentle stream of fatherly kindness, which, however, in ver. 18 once more swells into sternness and threatening. Observe how Paul at this point abandons the comprehensive plural form (ἡμεῖς), in order now at the close of the section to make his readers feel again, in the most impressive way, that personal relation of his to them, which he, as being the founder of the church, was entitled in truth to urge on their attention, despite of all the party-strife which had crept in. Vv. 14-21. Receive this censure (from ver. 7 onwards) not as meant to put you utterly to shame, but as an admonition from your spiritual father, whom ye ought to copy (vv.14-16), for which cause I have also sent Timothy to you (ver. 17). But I—this by way of warning to those who are puffed up !—hope soon to come to you myself ; am Ito come to punish, or in gentleness (vv. 18-21) ? Ver. 14. οὐκ ἐντρέπων] The common interpretation is the correct one : not putting you to shame, not in such a way as to shame you, write I this (vv. 8-13). The participle, however, is not the same as an infinitive, but the meaning is: I shame you not by what Iam now writing to you. See Heind. ad Phaed. p. 249 f. ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 495 Ὁ ; Matthiae, p. 1289. Riickert prefers keeping to the general sense of humbling, moving greatly ; but why should we, when we have in 2 Thess. iii. 14, Titus i.) 8; 1 Cor. vi. 5, xv. 34, the perfectly distinctive Pauline notion of the word ? Comp. also Diog. L. ii. 29; Ael. V. H. iii. 17. And just because Paul feels the shaming element in his rebuke for the Corinthians, does he point out, so as to further the moral effect of his bitter words, what according to his idea his rebuke essentially is, not a putting to shame, but a fatherly ad- monition. Bengel says well : ‘‘ Exquisita érteparcia . . . Saepe quendam quasi leporem apostolus salva gravitate apostolica adhibet.” — νουϑετῶ] The kindly intention of the admonition is not conveyed in the word by itself (see on Eph. vi. 4, and comp. 6.5. Plato, Pol. viii. p. 560 A: νουϑετούντων τε καὶ κακιζόντων, Legg. ix. p. 879 Ὁ ; Dem. 798. 19, al.), but in the context. Comp. Acts xx. 31. Plato, Huthyd. p. 284 E: νουϑετῶ σ᾽ ἑταῖρον. The construction is varied so as to give us not the participle again, but the in- dicative (as the opposite of ἐντρέπων γράφω, taken together), whereby the an- tithesis is made independent and so more emphatic. See Hermann, ad Hymn. Hom. p. 125. Kiihner, II. p. 428. Ver. 15 justifies the ὡς τέκνα μου ἀγαπ. νουθετῶ. --- For suppose ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ. On pvpiove,* compare Matt. xviii. 24 ; 1 Cor. xi v. 19. — Respecting the paedagogi among the Greeks and Romans (comp. {?28, 1 The distinction drawn by the old gram- without foundation. See Buttmann, aus marians between μύριοι (a numeral proper) Sihrl. Sprachl. 1. p. 284; Fllendt, Lex. Soph. and μυρίοι (an indefinitely large number) is II. p. 144. 102 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 2 Chron. xxvii. 32 ; 2 Kings x. 1, 5; Esth. ii. 7; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. Ῥ. 272), who, for the most part slaves, had it in charge to educate and give constant attendance upon boys till they came of age, see Wetstein and Hermann, Privatalterth. § 34. 15 ff. The name is here given figuratively to the later workers in the church, the ποτίζοντες (iii. 6-8), the ἐποικοδομοῦντες (iii. 10 ff.), in respect of their carrying on its further Christian develop- ment, after Paul (its father) had founded it, had given to it Christian life, had begotten it spiritually. Since the essential nature of the delineation here allowed of no other word alongside of πατέρας except waiday., and since, moreover, Apollos also was reckoned among the παιδαγώγοις, we are not warranted in finding here expressed the idea of imperious and arrogant lead- ership on the part of the heads of parties (Beza, Calvin, and others, including Pott, Heydenreich, de Wette, Osiander). Compare, too, Erasmus : ‘‘ paed- agogus saevit pro imperio.” It is not even the inferior love of the later teachers (Chrysostom, Theophylact) that Paul wishes to make his readers sensible of, but only his rights as a father, which can be in no way impaired by all who subsequently entered the same field. — ἀλλ᾽ οὐ x. rar.] 86. ἔχετε. The ἀλλά after a hypothetical protasis is the at of emphatic contrast, on the other hand (Niigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 43, ed. 3 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 11; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 98), and that, too, without a restrictive γέ, in the sense of at certe ; see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. ἢ. 48. —év γὰρ Χριστῷ x.7.2.] 1.6. Sor in the life-fellowship of Jesus Christ no other than I myself has begotten you, through the gospel. Just as ἐν Χριστῷ, in the first half of the verse, conveys the specific distinction of the παιδαγώγους ἔχειν ; so here, and that with the emphatic addition of Ἰησοῦ, it conveys that of the moral generation, which has taken place, not out of Christ, but in Him as the element of its being ; and διὰ τοῦ evayyeA. (comp. 1 Pet. i. 23) is the means whereby this establish- ment of their existence in the Christian sphere of life has been brought about. In both these respects it differs from physical generation. The antithetic emphasis of the ἐγώ forbids us to refer ἐν X. ’I. to the person of the apostle: ‘‘in my fellowship with Christ, i.e. as His apostle” (de Wette, comp. Grotius, Calovius, Flatt, al.). — ἐγέννησα] Comp. ver. 17 ; Philem. 10 ; Gal. iv. 19. Sanhedr. f. 19. 2: ‘‘ Quicunque filium socii sui docet legem, ad eum scriptura refert, tanquam si eum genuisset.” Ver. 16. Οὖν] since I am your father. — pu. μ. yiv.] become imitators of me. Paul does not add any more precise definition as to the matter (‘‘ in ewra tu- tandae in ecclesia tum unitatis tum sanctitatis,” Grotius thinks, but without warrant in the context); but the connection of the passage, after vv. 6-13, leaves no room for doubt that he has in view the discarding of conceit and self-seeking, and the putting on of humility and self-denial. — As regards the phrase pi. yiv., comp. xi. 1 ; 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14 ; Eph. v. 1; Phil. iii. 17 ; and as regards the idea, Xen. Mem. i. 6. 8 : οἱ διδάσκαλοι τοὺς μαθητὰς μιμητὰς ἑαυτῶν ἀποδεικνύουσιν. Ver. 17. Διὰ τοῦτο] namely, in order to further among you this state of things meant by ju. μ. yiv. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Piscator, Riickert, Maier, make it refer to ver. 15: ‘‘on this ground, because I am your father.” But that would convert ver. 16, quite arbitrarily, into a strange OHAP TY. s 19; 103 parenthetical interpolation. — ἔπεμψα iu. Tyu.] See Introd. § 2. He had already started upon his journey, but was not to arrive until after this Epistle had reached Corinth, xvi. 10 ; hence he must not be regarded as the bearer of it (Bleek). —réxvov μου] comp. 1 Tim. i. 2, 18 ; 2 Tim. i. 2. The father sends to his children (ver. 14 f.) their brother, specially dear and faithful to himself, in whom, therefore, they too may have full trust. From the quite definite reference of τέκνα in ver. 14, comp. ver. 15, we are warranted in assuming with confidence that Timothy had been converted by Paul; his conversion, since in all likelihood he was from Lystra (see on Acts xvi. 1), being probably comprised in the statement in Acts xiv. 6, 7; for in Acts xvi. 1 he is already a Christian. —év Κυρίῳ] specifies the character- istic relation in which Timothy is his beloved and faithful child (comp. Eph. vi. 21); for apart from the fellowship in faith and life with Christ, there is no relationship of father and son subsisting between Paul and Tim- othy at all. The expression is therefore not essentially different from ἐν πίστει, 1 Tim. i. 3. Comp. i. 8. --- ἀναμνήσει] for the Corinthians seemed to have forgotten it.1— τὰς ὁδούς μου τὰς ἐν X.] 1.6. the paths, which I tread in Christ (as my sphere of activity), i.e. in the service of Christ. The aim in view (διὰ τοῦτο) is to lead them to imitate the apostle by reminding them of the whole way and manner, in which he conducted himself in his calltmg alike personally and relatively ; for must not the recalling of that conduct vindi- cate his character, so much misunderstood and depreciated in Corinth, and place it in such a light as would show it to be worthy of imitation ? more especially in respect of his self-denial and humility, so far removed from the arrogance and self-seeking of the Corinthians. — καθώς] is commonly taken as defining more precisely what has been already stated in a general way, as ὡς does in Rom. xi. 2, Luke xxiv. 20, Thuc. i. 1, and frequently elsewhere. See Bornemann in Lue. p. 141. But καθώς means sicut (Vulgate), like the classical καθά or καθάπερ : even as, in such fashion, as.2 We must therefore abide by the meaning of the word, and interpret : he will recall to your memories my official conduct in such fashion, as I teach in all places ; i.e. he will represent it to you not otherwise than as it is everywhere exemplified in me by my capacity as a teacher, not otherwise therefore than in correspond- ence with the invariable method in which I discharge the vocation of my life, not otherwise, in short, than as it actually is everywhere. In this way καθώς refers not to the contents of διδάσκω, nor to the mode of preaching (neither of which would stand in a relation of practical significance to mi. μ- yiv.), but to the peculiarity of character as ὦ whole, which distinguished Paul in his work as a teacher. — παντ. ἐν 7. éxxd.] This emphatic state- ment, with its double description, gives additional weight to the example to be imitated. Comp. Acts xvii. 30, xxi. 28. , Vv. 18. As though now I were not coming to you, some are puffed up. Τὺ is 1 That Paul does not use διδάξει, to avoid αὐτόπται yap ἐγεγόνεισαν τῆς ἀποστολικῆς giving offence, because Timothy was still ἀρετῆς. young (Chrysostom, Theophylact), is an 2 Billroth renders it rightly : eodem modo, imagination pure and simple. Theodoret quo, but inserts quite unwarrantably an says aptly: λήϑην δὲ αὐτῶν ὁ λόγος κατηγορεῖ: _—ipse after the quo. 104 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. likely that these boasters, who belonged more probably to the Apollonians than to the Christ-party (ver. 19 f.), believed and affirmed that the apostle had not the courage to appear againin Corinth (2 Cor. x.1); and itis to pre- vent their being strengthened in their delusion by the mission of Timothy that Paul now adds these remarks, vv. 18-20. Hence we are not to make the new section begin here (Tertullian and Theodoret referred ἐφυσ. τινες even to the incestuous person, v. 1, and Theophylact makes it include a reference to him); on the contrary, it breaks upon us suddenly, like a thunderstorm, in v. 1.— Upon δέ as the fourth word in a sentence, see Winer, p. 519 [E. T. 699]. — ὡς, as, denotes : on the assumption that ; see Matthiae, p. 1320. It introduces the ground of the ἐφυσιώθ. from the point of view of those that were puffed up. Comp. Kiihner, II. p. 374 ; Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 281. —épyou.] not for ἐλευσομένου (Flatt), but indicative of the subsisting relation. ‘‘ Paul is not coming” was their conception, and this made them bold and boastful ; φιλαρχίας yap τὸ ἔγκλημα Ty ἐρημίᾳ τοῦ διδασκάλου εἰς ἀπόνοιαν κεχρῆσθαι, Chrysostom. —rivéc] as in xv. 12. Ver. 19. ᾿Ελεύσομαι δὲ] the contrast emphatically put first : come, however, 71 will. —rayéwc| Comp. Phil. ii. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 9. As to how long he thought of still remaining in Ephesus, see xvi. 8. —6é Κύριος] to be under- stood not of Christ, but of God.’ Sce the critical remarks on Rom. xv. 32. Comp. Rom. i. 10; Jas. iv. 15. — γνώσομαι] what and how the boasters speak (τὸν λόγον), Paul will, on his approaching visit, leave wholly without notice ; but as regards the amount of energy put forth by them in producing results for the kingdom of God, of that he will take knowledge. — τὴν δύναμ. namely, their power of working for the advancement of the βασιλ. τ. Θεοῦ, ver. 20. To explain it as referring to the power of miracles (Chrysostom, Theophylact; not Grotius), or to the power of their virtues (Theodoret, Pelagius, Justin), is contrary to the context. Comp. what Paul says of himself in 1 Thess. i. 5. This practically effective might, which has for its primary condition the true power of the Spirit (of which de Wette understands it ; we may recall Paul himself, Luther, etc.), was what the boasters seemed to have, but they let the matter rest at words, which were altogether lacking in the strength to effect anything. How wholly otherwise it was with Paul himself ! Comp. ii. 4 ; 2 Cor. vi. 7. Ver. 20. Justification of the γνώσομαι οὐ τὸν λόγον x.7.A. by an axiom. — ἐν λόγῳ and ἐν δυνάμει describe wherein the βασιλεία has its causal basis ; it has the condition of its existence not in speech, but in power (sce on ver. 19). Comp. on ii. 5. The βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, again, is not here, as it never is else- where (see on Matt. iii. 2, vi. 10), and in particular never in Paul’s writings (neither in this passage nor in Rom. xiv. 7; Col. i. 13, iv. 11 ; see on these verses), the church, or the kingdom of God in the ethical sense (Neander : ‘the fellowship of the divine life, which is brought about by fellowship with the Redeemer”), but the Messianic kingdom, in which, at its expected (speedy) manifestation, those only can become members who are truly 1 [But as the Apostle so constantly uses suppose a reference to the will of Christ.— this word as a distinctive title of theSon TT. W.C.] (cf. vy. 4, 5), it seems more natural here to CHAP. I1V., 21. 105 believing and truly sanctified (Col. iii. 3 f. ; Phil. iv. 18-21 ; Eph. v. 5, al.). (4) But faith and holy living are not established by high-soaring speech (not by τὰ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις φαντάσματα, Plat. Soph. p. 234 E), but by δύναμις, Which is able effectively to procure gain for the kingdom (Col. i. meee 1 Thess, 176 5-1-Cor. 1x. 19 ff. ; 2 Cor. x. 4'f.). Ver. 21. As the conclusion of the entire section, we have here another warning useful for the readers as a whole, indicating to them the practical application which they generally were to make of the assurance of his speedy coming. Lachmann, followed by Hofmann (after Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Beza, Calvin), begins the new section with ver. 21. But this appears hardly admissible, since chap. v. 1 commences without any con- nective particle (such as ἀλλά, or dé, or yap), and since, too, in v. 1 ff. there is no further reference to the speedy arrival of the apostle. —7i] in the sense of πότερον. Comp. Plato, Phil. p. 52D, and Stallbaum in loc. He fears the first, and wishes the second. ‘‘Una quidem charitas est, sed diversa in di- versis operatur,” Augustine. — ἐν ῥάβδῳ] witha rod ; but this is no Hebraism, for ἐν denotes in pure Greek the being provided with. Heb. ix. 25; 1 John v. 6. See Matthiae, p. 1340; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 284 [E. T. 330]. Comp. Ecclus. xlvii. 4: ἐν λίθῳ, armed with astone. Lucian, 7). M. xxiii. 3: καθικόμενος év τῇ ῥάβδῳ. Themeaning of the figurative phrase, borrowed as it is from the relation of father, is: ἐν κολάσει, ἐν τιμωρίᾳ, Chrysostom. — ἔλθω] am I to come? See Winer, p. 268 [E. T. 356]. Chrysostom puts it happily: ἐν ὑμῖν τὸ πρᾶγμα Keita. — πνεῦματί te πραοτ.}] not: with ‘‘ a gentle spirit” (Luther, and most interpreters), so that πνεῦμα would be the subjec- tive principle which should dispose the inner life to this quality ; but: with the Spirit of gentleness, so that πνεῦμα is to be understood, with Chrysostom and Theophylact, of the Holy Spirit ; and zpaor. denotes that specific effect of this πνεῦμα (Gal. v. 22) which from the context is brought peculiarly into view. So in all the passages of the N. T. where πνεῦμα, meaning the Holy Spirit, is joined with the genitive of an abstract noun ; and in each of these cases the connection has indicated which effect of the Spirit was to be named. Hence He is called πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας (John xv. 26, xvi. 13 ; 1 John iv. 6), υἱοθεσίας (Rom. viii. 15), τῆς πίστεως (2 Cor. iv. 13), σοφίας (Eph. i. 17), δυνάμεως κ.τ.λ. (2 Tim. i. 7), just according as the one or other effect of His working is exhibited by the context as characteristic of Him. Re- specting the present passage, comp. vi. 1. It is to be observed, moreover, that the apostolic rod of discipline too is wielded in the power of the Holy Spirit, so that the selfsame Spirit works as a Spirit of gentleness and of corrective severity : ἔστι yap πνεῦμα πραότητος καὶ πνεῦμα αὐστηρότητος, Chrysostom. Comp. on Luke ix. 55. — Instead of the form πραότης, Lach- mann and Tischendorf have, in every passage in which it occurs in Paul’s writings, the later πραύτης (except that in Gal. vi. 1 Lachmann retains πραότης ; see regarding both, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 403 f.). The change is justified by weighty testimony, especially that of A B C (although they are 1 For to regard vy. 1 as an answer which ἴῃ view of τί ϑέλετε alone, is not even logi- Paul gives to himse/f unto his own question, cally practicable. as Hofmann does, is a forced devi@s Which, 106 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. not unanimous in the case of all the passages). In the other places in which it is found, Jas. i. 21, iii. 13, 1 Pet. iii. 15, πραύτης is undoubtedly the true reading. Nores py AMERICAN Eprror. (3) Paul's irony. Ver. 8. The natural force of this verse is not to be denied or evaded, As Calvin says, the Apostle, after seriously and without figures of speech repressing the vain confidence of the Corinthians, proceeds ironically to deride them. Nor is this the only place in Scripture where such language occurs. It is to be found in the Old Testament (1 Kings xviii. 27, Job xii. 1, etc.), and also in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (xi. 19, 20). And experience seems to show that there are occasions when no other form of speech will answer, and yet of course this is not to be lightly assumed. The Bible gives no warrant fora continuous or even prevailing tone of irony or satire. As Burke said of another matter, an extreme medicine must not be turned into one’s daily bread. Per- haps the rule laid down by Hodge (in loc.) is sufficient to answer the purpose. ‘If the thing assailed be both wicked and foolish, and if the motive be, not the desire ‘to give pain, but to convince and convert,’’ the use of these danger- ous weapons is justifiable. (K) The spectacle to the universe. Ver. 9. The imagery in this striking verse is evidently drawn from the games in the amphitheatre, so familiar to the Roman world. The phrase ‘appointed to death” seems naturally to suggest the gladiators who came out into the arena and saluted the ruler of the spectacle, calling themselves morituri, about to die. In the writer’s view, he and his fellow-apostles were led forth, not sim- ply before the gaze of the thousands or tens of thousands gathered under the open sky ina huge structure of wood or stone, but upon the world’s broad stage, where all created beings, from men up to angels, gaze with wonder upon the dreadful death-struggle, while the selfish Corinthians sat by, unconcerned and unmoved at the awful spectacle. Stanley quotes Seneca’s description (Provid. iii.) of the wise man struggling with fate : ‘‘ Ecce spectaculum dignum ad quod respiciat intentus operi suo Deus.” But the Apostle represents God as the One who appointed the spectacle, and all other beings as lookers-on in wonder and sympathy. ( The “ Kingdom of God.” Ver. 20. The author’s restriction of this term to the Messianic Parousia is one of the few peculiarities (another is his insisting that iva must always be construed as telic, in order that) which are a drawback to his general excellence. The term here may just as well denote the existing church as its final manifestation in ' the great day ; nay, it should rather have that meaning, to bring out the full force of the Apostle’s argument. The best rebuke of the offensive inflation of his adversaries, who boasted instead of working, was to assure them that the present administration of God’s cause in the earth was not in profession only, but attended with divine power. That such would be the case hereafter they might easily admit, but what was needed was to iender them sensible of its divine efficacy now and here, CHAP. V. 107 CHAPTER: ¥. Ver. 1. After ἔθνεσιν Elz. has ὀνομάζεται, which is defended by Matthaei and Reiche, but in the face of quite decisive evidence. Supplied, perhaps from Eph. v. 3. Equally decisive is the evidence against ἐξαρθῇ, ver. 2 (Elz.). From ver. 13. — Ver. 2. ποιήσας] Riick. and Tisch. read πράξας, which Griesb. too, recommended, with AC δὲ, min. Οὐ. ἢ Manes (in Epiph.), Epiph. Bas. The external evidence is pretty evenly balanced. But at all events the phrase ποιεῖν ἔργον was very familiar to the transcribers from the N. T. ; hence πράξας should have the preference. — Ver. 3. ἀπών] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ὡς ἀπ., against A BC D* &, min. and several vss. and Fathers. According to the analogy of the ὡς παρών which follows, ὡς (as embracing the whole drév . . . πνεύμ.) was first of all written on the margin, and then taken into the text. — Ver. 4. ᾿Ιησοῦ alone (without Χριστοῦ) is the reading in both cases of A Β D, Aeth. Clar. Lucif., and, as regards the second, of several other vss. and Fathers. So also Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; the solemn character of the address gave occasion to the addition of Χριστοῦ. --- Ver. 5. τοῦ Κυρίου ’Iqjaod] So also δὲ. Riickert reads τοῦ Kup. ἡμῶν I, Χριστοῦ, with evidence of considerable weight in favour of it, but probably taken from i. 8. Lachm. brackets ἡμῶν ’I. X.; for B, Or, (thrice) Tert. (twice) Epiph. Aug. (once) Hilar. Pacian, have simply τοῦ Κυρίου. So Tisch. But since ᾿Ιησοῦ occurs in all the other witnesses except those few, and since their discrepancies concern only ἡμῶν and Χριστοῦ, the Rec. τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ should be retained ; for ᾿Ιησοῦ might very easily be overlooked, espe- cially where four words, one after another, end in OY. — Ver. 6. ζυμο!] The various readings δολοῖ (D*, Bas. Hesych., recommended by Griesb.) and φθείρει (Lat. in Cerular. ; corrumpit: Vulg. Clar. and Latin Fathers) are interpretations. — Ver. 7. After ἐκκαθάρ. Elz. has οὖν, against a great preponderance of evidence. A connective addition, as are also καί before ov in ver. 10, and καί before ἐξαρ. in ver. 13. After ἡμῶν Elz. and Scholz read ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, contrary to decisive tes- timony. An inappropriate (for the apostle is speaking only of the death of Christ in itself, see Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 161 ff.) dogmatic gloss. — Ver. 10 ἢ dpr.] ka? ἅρπ. is the reading of almost all the uncials and Clar. Boern. (so Lachm. Riick. and Tisch.) ; 7 was mechanically taken up from the context. — Ver. 11. Instead of ἡ before πόρν. Elz. has #, contrary to Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. Ir. Tert. Chrys. and many other Fathers, also some min. The #, which occurs in B** D δὲ, came in mechanically from the succeeding context. — Ver. 12. καί] is wanting in ABCFG X, min. and several vss. and Fathers (suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Riick.) ; the authorities which omit it are so decisive, that it must be regarded as an addition in favour of the apostolic power of discipline as respects those that are within, — Ver. 13. ἐξαρεῖτε] ἐξάρατε, approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch., has perfectly con clusive evidence in its favour. The former reading has arisen from Deut. xxiv. 7, a passage which has also given origin to the weakly-attested καί before ἐξαρ. in Elz, 108 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Vv. 1-8. Reproof and apostolical judgment respecting an incestuous person in the church. Ver. 1. The censure of the party-divisions is concluded. Without note of transition, but after the closing words of iv. 21 with all the more telling force, the discourse falls with severity at once upon another deep- seated evil in the church. — ὅλως] means simply in general, in universum, as in vi. 7, xv. 29, Matt. v. 34, and in Greek writers ; it belongs to ἀκούεται, so that to the general expression ὅλως ἀκούεται πορν. there corresponds the par- ticular καὶ τοιαύτη πορν.. 86. ἀκούεται. The latter, however, is something worse than the former, hence the καί is intensive (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 147) : One hears generally (speaking broadly) of forni- cation among you, and even of such fornication one hears among you, as is not Sound among the heathen themselves. To render it certainly (so as to indicate that it is no dubius rumor, sed res manifesta ; so Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Elsner, Calovius, Wolf, a/.) or universally (Schrader, Ewald) is against the meaning of the word, which may, indeed, signify prorsus or omnino (Vulgate), but neither wbique nor certainly.’ Riickert thinks that it assigns the ground by means of a generalization for the thought which is to be supplied after iv. 21 : I fear that I shall have to use severity ; and that Paul would more fittingly have written γοῦν. Thisis arbitrary, and even in point of logic doubly incorrect, because ὅλως here introduces the report of a quite special offence, and therefore cannot assign a ground by generalization ; and because, if the restrictive γοῦν would have been better in this passage, Paul in using the generalizing ὅλως must have expressed himself ilogically. — ἐν ὑμῖν] not : as occurring among you (comp. Ewald), for it is a defining state- ment which belongs to ἀκούεται ; but: one hears talk among you of fornica- tion, one comes to hear of it in your community. Paul expresses the state of things as it was perhaps made known to him by Chloe’s people (i. 11) or others who came from Corinth, and spoke to him in some such way as this : In the Corinthian church one learns the existence of fornication, etc. ; such things as these one is forced to hear of there !— ἐν τοῖς ἔθν. ἀεὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνικῶν ὀνειδίζει τοῖς πιστοῖς, Chrysostom. Regarding the prohibition among the Jews: Lev. xviii. 8; Deut. xxii. 30; Philo, de spec. leg. p. 301; Michaelis, Mos. R. II. p. 206 ; Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 766 f. The instances of such incest among the Greeks and Romans (see Maji Obss. I. p. 184) were exceptions contrary to law (see Elsner, p. 90 ; Wetstein and Pott in loc.), and abhorred Pilea l.c.).2 — γυναῖκα τοῦ πατρός] 1.6. IS NWS, stepmother, Ley. xviii. 8, and the Rabbinical authorities in Lightfoot, p. 166. It was, no doubt, in view of the prohibition announced in Lev. xviii. 8 that Paul chose this form of expression (instead of the Greek designation μητρυιά), ὥστε πολλῷ χαλεπώτερον πλῆξαι, Chrysostom. The departure from the usual arrangement of the words, too, γυναῖκά τίνα τοῦ; πατρός, puts an emphasis of ignominy upon γυναῖκα. --- ἔχειν] Many expositors, such as Calvin, Riickert, Neander, leave it undecided whether this refers to having her in marriage 1 [The R. V. gives the sense happilybythe asacrime incredible, and, with the excep term “‘actually.”—T. W. C.] tion of the case he is speaking of, unheard 2 [Cicero (pro Cluentio, 5, 6) mentions it of.—T. W. C.) CHAP. Y., 2. | 109 (Vorstius, Michaelis, Billroth on 2 Cor. vii. 12, Maier) or in concubinage (Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Pott, Olshausen, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann). But in favour of the former there is, first of all, the fact that ἔχω is never used in the N. T. in such a sense as that of the well-known ἔχω Λαΐδα (Diog. Laert. ii. 75 ; Athen. xxii. p. 544 D), or ‘‘ quis heri Chrysi- dem habuit ?” (Terent. Andr. i. 1. 58), but always of possession in marriage! (Matt. xiv. 4, xxii. 28 ; Mark vi. 18 ; 1 Cor. vii. 2, 29. Comp. 1 Macc. xi. 9; Hom. Od. iv. 569 ; Herod, iii, 31 ; Thue. ii. 29.1; Xen. Cyr. i. 5.4; Gregor. Cor. 931, ed. Schaef.; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 121) ; but further, and more especially, the use of the past tenses ποιήσας, ver. 2, and κατεργασά- μενον, ver. 3, to designate the matter, which convey not the conception of illicit intercourse, but that of an incestuous marriage having actually taken place. Paul ranks this case under the head of πορνεία (see on Matt. v. 32) ; because, in the first place, he needed this general notion in order to describe the state of licentiousness subsisting at Corinth generally, and now further intends to designate definitely by x. τοιαύτῃ πορν. x.7.A. the particular occur- rence which is included under this general category. Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, should have sufficed to keep Hofmann from asserting that πορνεία proves the case not to have been one of adultery. The objection, again, that Paul does not insist upon a divorce, is of no weight ; for he does insist upon excom- munication, and, after that had taken place, the criminal marriage—if the offender were not thereby sufficiently humbled to dissolve the connection of his own accord—would no longer concern the Christians (see vv. 12, 18). Another objection: How could the magistrates have tolerated such a marriage ? is obviated, partly by the consideration that in that large and morally corrupt city the magisterial eye was doubtless blind enough, espe- cially on the point of the κορινθιάζεσθαι (see Introd. ὃ 1) ; and partly by re- membering the possibility that the offender, whether previously a Jew or— which is more likely—a heathen, having turned Christian, might put for- ward in his own defence before the tolerant magistracy the Rabbinical axiom that the becoming a proselyte, as a new birth, did away with the restrictions of forbidden degrees (Maimonides, Jebhamoth, f. 982; Michaelis, Hinl. ὃ 178, p. 1221 ; Liibkert in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1835, p. 698 f.). Whether or not he belonged to one of the four parties (as, for example, to that of Apollos), we need not attempt to decide. See remark at the end of this chapter. — As to the wife of the incestuous person, nothing can be affirmed with certainty, and with probability only this, that she was not a Christian, else Paul would have censured her conduct also. Her former husband was still alive (so that she must have been divorced from or have deserted him), and was probably a Christian ; 2 Cor. vii. 12. Ver. 2. A question suddenly introduced with and, laying bare the incon- gruity of this state of things with the attitude previously noticed (see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 146 f.). —tyeic emphatic : Ye, the people among whom so disgraceful a thing can occur ; for κοινὸν πάντων τὸ ἔγκλημα γέγονε, 1 Even in John iy. 18, where, however, longs to the passage, as applied to an irreg- the word must be kept in the peculiar ular, not real or legal marriage. significant mode of expression which be- 110 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Chrysostom. —reguo. ἐστέ] What is meant is the spiritual self-conceit already censured (iv. 6 ff., 18) regarding the lofty degree of Christian wis- dom and perfection in general, which they supposed themselves to have reached ; not pride in the incestuous person himself, who is conceived to have been a highly-esteemed teacher (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius). -- ἐπενθήσ.] are fallen into distress (penitential mourning), for by reason of the fellowship between Christians (comp. xii. 26) ἔδει πενθῆσαι, διότι εἰς τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ διαβολὴ προεχώρησεν, Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom. — iva ἀρθῇ κ.τ.2.1 The design which, according to the apostle’s view, the ἐπενθ. ought to have had, and the attainment of which would have been its result, had it taken place : in order that he might be removed, etc. It intensifies and completes the contrast with their conceited self-assurance, and leads appro- priately to the introduction of his own judicial sentence, which comes in, ver. 8, with ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ κ.τ.λ. ; all the less, therefore, is iva ἀρθῇ x.7.A. to be re- garded as forming such a judicial utterance (Pott, Hofmann) standing forth with imperative independence : Away with him, etc. (see on 2 Cor. viii.7). That does not come in until ver. 13. — ἔργον] facinus, the nature of which is shown by the context. See Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 671.? Ver. 3. ᾿Εγὼ μὲν γάρ] introduces the independent resolution already ar- rived at by himself, and therewith the justification of the iva ἀρθῇ ; for he, Paul, for his part, has resolved already to inflict a yet heavier punishment upon him. Comp. also Winer, p. 422 [E. T. 568] ; the contents of vv. 38-5 corre- spond to the iva ἀρθῇ in itsconnection with kai . . . ἐπενθήσ. The μέν solita- rium must be taken as meaning: J at least. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 841 f. ; Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 159 ; Hartung, Partikell. ΤΙ. p. 413. — τῳ πνεύματι] Comp. ver. 4 : τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος, hence not to be understood, as Chrysostom and others hold,’ of the Holy Spirit, against which τῷ σώματι also militates, comp. vii. 34 ; Rom. viii. 10 ; Col. ii. 5. — ἤδη κέκρ. ὡς παρών] have made up my mind already, as though I were present (personally superin- tending your community).* — τὸν οὕτω τοῦτο katepy. | belongs to rapad. τῷ Σατ., ver. 5, so that, after the intermediate statements which follow, the object of the sentence is taken up again by τὸν τοιοῦτον in ver. 5 (hune talem in- quam), comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2. See Matthiae, p. 1045 ; Schaefer, Melet. p. 84. Bengel says happily : ‘‘Graviter swspensa manet et vibrat oratio usque ad ver. 5.” Not so happy is Hofmann’s view, that rav . . . xatepy. belongs to κέκρικα aS an accusative of the object, whereupon παραδοῦναι x.7.2. is then set down to a mixing up of two constructions, this being coupled with an inap- propriate comparison of Mark xiv. 64. —oirw| after such fashion, in such a way. ‘The way and manner thereby referred to as aggravating the offence were known to the readers, but are unknown to us. Respecting οὕτω in a 1 [This verse is read as a question in the Syriac version and the Greek Fathers, and by Canon Evans in Speaker’s Com. The sense is the same.—T. W. C.] 2 So, too, Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. ing it as such, notwithstanding that cod. &, too, has addedits weight to the side of the overwhelming contrary testimony,—this ὡς might be very simply distinguished from that which stands before παρών in this way, p. 385. 3 Were the ὡς before ἀπών the genuine reading,—and Hofmann persists in retain- that the first ὡς would mean as, and the second as if. CHAP. V., 4. 1 bad sense, see on John xviii. 22, and Bremi, ad Dem. Phil. I. p. 190. Pott and Olshausen explain it wrongly : ‘‘licet Christianus sit,” which is not im- plied in the text, and would state nothing special, for it was a matter of course that the person in question was not a non-Christian. — xarepy. | has per- petrated, more emphatic than ποιήσας, ver. 2. See on Rom. i. 27. Ver. 4. Four different ways of dividing the verse are possible : either ἐν τῷ ovou. belongs to συναχθ. and σὺν τῇ δυν. to παραδοῦναι (Beza, Justiniani, Calovius, Heydenreich, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald, Hofmann), or both be- long to συναχθ. (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, Riickert), or both belong to παραδοῦναι (Mosheim, Pott, Flatt, Schrader, comp. also Osiander) ; 07 ἐν τ. ὀνόμ. belongs to παραδοῦναι, and σὺν τ. δυνάμ. to the participial clause. Against the second and third of these views, there is the fact that the symmetry of the address would be needlessly destroyed by bringing in the authority of Christ twice over in the one division, and not at all in the other ; against the first, again, there is this, that ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. k.T.A., as a solemn formula of apostolic enactment (2 Thess. iii. 6 ; Acts iii. 6, xvi. 18), links itself more suitably to the sense with παραδοῦναι κ.τ.}. than with συνάχθ. «.7.2. (to the latter of which Matt. xviii. 20, εἰς τὸ ὄν., might seem to offer not exactly a parallel, but still a similar representation). There remains therefore, as worthy of preference, the fourth method of con- necting the words (Luther, Castalio, Estius, Bengel, Maier, al. ; Neander with hesitation).’. Against this, Hofmann objects that ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι κ.τ.λ. ought not to have come in until after the participial clause ; but quite under a misapprehension, for it is plainly of set purpose, and with all reason and propriety, that the apostolic sentence bears, so to speak, on its very front the seal of his high and plenary authority. —ovvaxfivtov . . . ᾿Ιησοῦ] after yeare assembled, and my spirit (note the emphatic τ. ἐμοῦ), with the power of Jesus (‘‘qui nostram sententiam sua potentia reddet efficacem,” Erasmus, Par- aphr.). The substance of the thought, namely, which this whole statement sets before us with concrete vividness and solemnity, is the following : I have already resolved that ye hold an assembly of the church, in which ye shall consider me as present furnished with the power of Christ, and in this assembly shall declare: ““ Paul, in the name of Ohrist, with whose power he is here spir- itually in the midst of us, hereby delivers over the incestuous man unto Satan.” Φρίκης μεστὸν συνεκρότησε δικαστήριον, Theodoret. — σύν] denotes in efficient con- nection therewith, that is to say, the spirit of the apostle is present in the as- sembly, not in virtue of his own independent power (comp. Acts iii. 12), but clothed with the authority of Christ, Winer, p. 366 [E. T. 458].* Thus the power of Christ is not conceived as the third party in the assembly, —a view in behalf of which Matt. xviii. 20, xxviii. 20 are cited ; so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Estius, and others, including Riickert and Maier.* For Paul bore this power in himself, being as an apos- 1[So Stanley, Beet, Principal Brown, ee —T. W. C.] al.—T. W. C.] 3 Chrysostom and Theophylact, however, 2 [It is a serious objection to this view leave the choice open between the two that it would naturally require the preposi- renderings: ἣ ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς δύναται τοιαύτην tion before δυνάμει to be not σὺν but ἐν. ὑμῖν χάριν δοῦναι, ὥστε δύνασϑαι τῷ διαβόλῳ 112 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. tle its official possessor and organ, and could not therefore imagine himself meeting with other persons and with it in the third place, but τ as being present in immanent union with it as Christ’s apostle at the eventual act of judgment. It was just as the depositary of this power that he could give over the sinner to Satan in the name of the Lord, and be assured that the sentence would take effect. According to Hofmann, by σὺν τ. δυν. «.7.A. Paul means only to express this, that he would rely upon the aid of the power of Christ. Comp. the classic σὺν θεοῖς, deorum ope (Reisig, Enarr. p. Ixiv. ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 8). But the thought thus yielded, after the ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι x.7.2. Which has gone before it, would be far too weak. Ver. 5. Τὸν τοιοῦτον] the so-constituted, comprises in one word the whole abhorrent character’ of the man. Note.the similar expression in 2 Cor. ii. 7. — παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανᾷ] is—although the phrase may not occur in Jewish formulae of excommunication (Lightfoot, Horae, p. 167 ff., but see Pfaff, Orig. jur. eccles. p. 72 f.)—the characteristic designation of the higher Chris- tian grade of excommunication, with which there was essentially joined the or- daining in the power of the apostolic office (not simply the presupposition, as Billroth’s rationalizing interpretation has it), that Satan should plague the person delivered over to him with corporeal inflictions. Therein consisted the difference between this peculiar species of the DJ which had passed over from the synagogue to the church, and the simple aipew ἐκ μέσου, ver. 2, comp. ver. 18. The latter could be performed by the church itself, whereas the παραδοῦναι τῷ Lar. appears in this passage, as in 1 Tim. i. 20, to be reserved for the plenary authority of an apostle. It pertained to the apos- tolic ἐξουσία, 2 Cor. xiii. 10. Comp. the analogous penal power in the cases of Ananias and Elymas, Acts v. 1 ff., xiii. 9 ff. The simple exclusion be- longed to the church independently, ver. 2; and the apostle calls upon them in ver. 13 to exercise this right of theirs. To himself, again, in the power of Christ, belonged the title and the power to inflict the intensified penalty of excommunication, the delivery to Satan, of which, accordingly, he does not say that the church ought to execute it, but that he has already resolved, etc. Observe, too, that παραδοῦναι is active; he does not say παραδοθῆναι, but he himself will do it. There is no reason to doubt the fact of this power being the prerogative of the apostleship, as the higher authority vested with power to punish? (Lipsius Rechtfertigungsl. p. 181, Hofmann) ; comp. also Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 373. As regards the special assumption, again, that the thought would be complete in itself without τῷ Σατανᾷ (Hofmann), 1 Tim. i. 20 should have been enough, even taken singly, to preclude it ; for, judging from that passage, one might rather say that εἰς ὄλεθρον τ. σαρκός was obvious of itself. The delivery over παραδιδόσαι, 7 OTL Kai αὐτός ped’ ὑμῶν kat’ αὐτοῦ φέρει τὴν ψῆφον. Accord- ing to Theodoret, Christ is viewed as the presiding authority. Wad the apostle, how- ever, represented Christ to himself as form- ing the third in their meeting, he would hardly have used so abstract an expression (Svvauer), but would have written at least σὺν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ Κυρίου. Comp. Acts xy. 28. 1 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Il. p. 843. 2 Even if 1 Tim. is not an apostolic Epistle, 1 Tim. i. 20 is at all events written - in the belief that the delivery to Satan was effected not by the church, but by the apostle. CHAP. V., 5. 113 to Satan can only be viewed as an express and declaratory act of relegation from Christian fellowship into the power of the ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου ; not as if Satan were but he, ‘through whom the evil-doer should come to experience what was destined for him” (Hofmann), which would not imply an exclusion from the church at all. Many other expositors, following Chrysostom and appealing to the case of Job, find here only the handing over to Satan for bodily chastisement,' and not along with that the excommunication (Lightfoot, Bochart, Wolf, a/.). But this is against the connection, according to which (see vv. 2, 13) the rapad. τῷ Σατανᾷ cannot belong toa different category At the same time it is not quite identical with it,? not simply a description of the excommunication (Calvin, Beza, and others, in- cluding Semler, Stolz, Schrader, Maier), seeing that the bodily result is indicated by εἰς ὄλεθρ. τ. σαρκ. as essential and as explaining itself to the reader without further interpretation. — εἰς ὄλεθρ. τ. σαρκ.} is that which is to be effected by Satan on the man delivered over to him : for behoof of destruction of the flesh, i.e. in order that (ἕλκει πονηρῷ ἢ νόσῳ ἑτέρᾳ, Chrysos- tom), his sinful fleshly nature, which is turned to account by the indwelling power of sin as the work-place of his desires and lusts, might be emptied of its energy of sinful life by the pains of bodily sickness, and might in so far perish and come to nought.* It is not his σῶμα that is to die, but his σάρξ (Rom. viii. 13 ; Col. 111. 5). The reason why the word σάρξ is here purposely selected, and not the ethically indifferent σῶμα, was correctly discerned by so early an expositor as Chrysostom, although many more recent interpreters, such as Riickert, have failed to perceive it. Hofmann also takes, in substance, the right view, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 462. To make, however, as he does (p. 105), the ὅλεθρ. τ. σαρκ. the same as διαφθείρεται ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος, 2 Cor. iv. 15, accords neither with the real meaning nor with the ethical relations of the case. As regards the two telic statements : εἰς ὄλεθρ. τ. σ. and iva τὸ πνεῦμα κιτ.2. (Which last expresses the final design of the whole measure of the παραδοῦναι κ.τ.}.), observe that it is with an anti- Christian purpose that Satan smites the man delivered over to him with bodily misery, but that against his own will this purpose of his is made to from the αἴρειν ἐκ μέσου. 1ῷῶ0 also Grotius, who, moreover,—and in this Billroth follows him,—rationalizes παραδοῦναι into precari Deum, ut eum tradat. 3.30, too, Theophylact on 1 Tim. Lc. Comp. Balsamon, ad Can. vii. Basil. p. 938, where itis said that we term subjects of Satan: of χωριζόμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς κοινωνίας τῶν πιστῶν, similarly Theodore of Mopsuestia in Cram. Cat. p. 92, who explains it of the ea- communication (the result of which is the dominion of Satan; and Paul gives the name here from that result, in order the more to overawe), and then ὄλεϑρον σαρκός: τὴν κατὰ Tov παρόντα βίον διὰ τῆς μεταμελείας συντριβήν. Comp. Ambrosiaster, Augustine, contr. Parm. iii. 2; Pelagius, Anselm. 3 The expression: ὄλεϑρ. τ. σαρκ., is too strong and characteristic to allow of its being understood merely of the pains of repentance breaking the sinful impulses. The repentance, too, was, in fact, just as likely to have remained lacking as to have set in, had it not been for these bodily pains intervening after the delivery over to Satan as a means of humiliation and discipline (comp. iva παιδευϑῶσι, 1 Tim. i. 20,and Huther on that verse). Thereby the whole morti- fication of the old man was to be brought about, inasmuch as the σάρξ constitutes the moral essence of the old man in virtue of the power of sin which dwells in it (Rom. vii. 18), and which guides and gov- erns him. The σάρξ is to perish, in order that the δίκη of ὄλεϑρος αἰώνιος may not be inflicted at the day of judgment (2 Thess. 1 9; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 9). 114 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. serve God’s aim of salvation. —iva τὸ πνεῦμα κ.τ.}2.} in order that his spirit, the underlying element of the higher moral life, of the true ζωή, may be saved (with the Messianic salvation) on the day of the (approaching) Parousia. That the σῶμα, again,—in which the σάρξ has lost its life, so that it is no longer the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, Col. ii. 11,—should then be glorified, was a thing which did not need to be expressly stated to the Christian eschatological conscious- ness. See so early an expositor as Chrysostom. Calovius puts it well : ‘‘Non ergo dividit hominem apostolus, quasi eum partim interire, partim servari velit. Nam nec corpus interire potest sine divulsione ab anima, nec anima servari absque corporis salute.” Now this Messianic salvation was to Paul’s mind not merely a possible thing (Olshausen), but he expected it as a result, which, in virtue of the saving power of Christ, could not fail to ensue after the slaying of the sinful impulses by the ὄλεθρος τῆς σαρκός in the case of the man led by this punishment to conviction of sin and true peni- tence. The παραδοῦναι τῷ Yar. was therefore a paedagogic penal arrange- ment, a ‘‘ medicinale remedium” (Calovius), as is shown by the whole scope of this passage and 1 Tim. i. 20 (not by the term παραδοῦναι itself, as Chrys- ostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact maintain, on the ground of Paul’s not having written ἐκδοῦναι), ---ἃ measure, in connection with which the πνεῦμα remained out of Satan’s power and accessible to the gracious influences of Christ, inasmuch as it retained the vital principle of faith, which was to develop its supremacy just in proportion as the σάρξ was destroyed. This may suffice to set aside Riickert’s censure of the apostle’s proceeding, on the ground that the punishment might easily have led to the utter destruc- tion of the sinner, and, moreover, that Paul acted ‘‘ imprudently” (comp. Baur, I. p. 335 f., 2d ed.), since he could not have compelled the Corinthi- ans to obey him in the matter. He does not, in fact, actually ordain’ the παραδοῦναι τῷ Sar., but says merely that he, for his part, has already resolved on this, confining himself, therefore, certainly (against Lipsius and Hof- mann) to the threat? in the meantime ; and what he desires for the present is just the simple αἴρειν ἐκ μέσου (comp. ver. 13), which also was done by the majority, as we learn from 2 Cor. ii. 6, and that with the best results ! Comp. Bengel on ver. 3. Upon the whole, too, we may believe that Paul knew his own powers of apostolic discipline, and may trust him to have been satisfied that, to try milder measures first (the omission of which Riickert blames as arising from passion), would not with the person con- cerned have had the effect aimed at. (m) Ver. 6. In face of the necessity for such measures as these—how odious ap- pears that of which ye make boast! Rather ought ye to consider that a little leaven, etc., and (ver. 7) sweep out the old leaven! Katbynua is not the same as καύχησις, but : materies gloriandi (see on Rom. iv. 2) ; and what is meant 1 Baur, however, is of opinion (Pazdus, 1. Cor; xii, 12; 1 Cor. xii: 10, 99. p. 334) that as it never did come in the in- 2 Hence, too, the idea that the readers stance before us to the working of an ac- were to let him know of the day fixed for tual apostolic miracle, so neither did sucha the meeting in question (Hofmann), is not thing ever take place in any other case. conveyed in the passage, and is, indeed, See, on the other hand, Rom. xv. 19; 2 quite alien to its scope. CHAP, V., 7. 115 by it is not the incestuous person (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius) as a man of high repute for wisdom in Corinth, but the condition of the Corin- thians as a Christian church, inasmuch as they boasted themselves of this so confidently, while morally it was foul enough and full of shameful abuses! αἰσχρὸν κλέος, Eur. Hel. 185. --- οὐκ οἴδατε κ.τ.λ.} Basis of the admonition which follows in ver. 7. The meaning of the proverbial saying (comp. Gal. v. 9, and on the figure of the leaven, which is very frequently used else- where, and that in different senses, Matt. xiii. 33 ; Luke xiii. 21; Matt. xvi. 6 ; Mark viii. 15 ; Luke xii. 1) is ordinarily defined to be this : that a corrupt man corrupts the whole church. But ver. 8 proves that Paul was thinking not of persons, but of abstract qualities in connection with ζύμη and ἄζυμα. The meaning, therefore, must be : Know ye not that one scan- dal in the church robs the whole church of its moral and Christian character ? Comp. also Hofmann. In virtue of their relation as members of a common society, all become chargeable with guilt by the toleration among them of a single scandalous offence, and their ἁγιότης is gone ! Ver. 7. ’ExxaOdpate τὴν rad. ζύμ] From what has been already said, the meaning apart from the figure cannot, it is plain, be : Hxclude from your com- munion the incestuous person * and other notorious offenders (Rosenmiiller), but: Empty your church of the sinful habits, which still remain among you from your pre-Christian condition (as a residuum of the unregenerate παλαιὸς ἄνθρω- πος, Rom. vi. 6 ; Eph. iv. 22; Col. iii. 9).? Flatt, Pott, and Riickert join the two ideas together ; but this is unwarranted and against the unity of sense of the passage.. Respecting τὴν παλαιάν, comp. Ignatius, Magnes. 10 : τὴν κακὴν ζύμην τὴν παλαιωθείσαν καὶ ἐνοξίσασαν. --- ΓΘ expression ἐκκαθάρ. (comp. Plato, Huth. p. 3 A ; LXX. Deut. xxvi. 18) is selected in view of the custom, based on Ex. xii. 15 ff., xiii. 7, and very strictly observed among the Jews, of removing all leaven from the houses on the day before the Passover (see as to this, Schoettgen, Hor. p. 598 ; Lund, Jiid. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 1111 f.), which was meant to be a sign of the moral purification of the house (Ewald, Alterth. p. 475 f.). — νέον φύραμα] a fresh kneaded mass, i.e. figure apart : ὦ morally new church, freshly restored ‘after the separation from it of all immoral fermenting elements, its members being νέοι ἄνθρωποι through Christ (Col. iii. 9, 10). As respects the difference between νέος and καινός, see on Ool. iii. 10. --- καθώς ἐστε ἀζυμοι] in accordance with your unleavened character, i.e. in keeping with the ethical nature of the position of a Chris- tian, which, as such, is separated from sin. For this ἄζυμον εἶναι is the essen- tial characteristic in the Christian,—who is, it is taken for granted, reconciled to God, born again, spiritually dead and risen again with Christ (Rom. vi. 2 ff.), and who as a new κτίσις of God (2 Cor. v. 17; Eph. iv. 24 ; Col. iii. 10) in the καινότης πνεύματος (Rom. vii. 6) is free from the law of sin and death (Rom. viii. 2), and constantly developing the powers of a divine life towards perfect holiness (vi. 11 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14 ff.), being alive unto God as His child in whom Christ lives (Gal. ii. 19, 20)—and sin in such an one (the 1 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cornelius ἃ Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Hof- Lapide, Zeger, Estius, Michaelis. mann. 2Comp. Theodoret, Calvin, de Wette, 116 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. being leavened) is abnormal. Hence Christians are—according to this higher mode of regarding the position of a Christian—aguuo. There is as little warrant for rendering ἐστέ here by esse debetis (Flatt, Pott, Billroth, following Chrysostom, Theophylact, a/.) as in Luke ix. 55. Rosenmiiller holds that ἄζυμ. has here its proper meaning : as ye now ‘‘ vivitis festos dies azymorum.” But ἄζυμος, in fact, does not mean qui abstinet fermento (as Grotius would make out, likening it to ἄσιτος, dowoc), but non fermentatus (comp. ΠῚ. 5). Plato, Tim. p. 74 D ; Athen. iii. p. 109 B; Gen. xix. 3 ; Ezek. xxix. 2, al. Moreover, Paul could not address these words in that proper meaning to the church as a whole, even if the Jewish-Christians among them still kept the Jewish Passover. — καὶ yap τὸ πάσχα x.r.A.] The motive for ἐκκαθάρατε x.7.2. The emphasis ison τὸ πάσχα,᾽ and καὶ γάρ does not mean simply for, etenim, but for also (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 137 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 467 B), the ‘‘ also” introducing the objective relation of things corresponding to the exhortation which had just been given. The paschal lamb slain, and the leaven not purged out—what a contradiction that is! Paul designates Christ as the Christians’ paschal lamb which had been slain (Deut. xvi. 6; Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 7), because He is the antitype of the Passover lamb under the law, inasmuch, namely, as His blood was shed, not by any means merely ‘‘as the beginning of redemption which made it possible” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 11. 1, p. 323), but, accord- ing to the whole N. T., as the atonement for believers, and that, too, on the very same day (the day before the feast of the Passover, see on John xviii. 28) on which, from the earliest times, the blood of the paschal lambs had been shed as an expiation for each family (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 466 f. ; Keil, δ Ixxxi. 11). Comp. also John xix. 36. In connection with this verse it has been justly remarked (comp. on John xviii. 28, and Liicke in the Gétt. gel. Anz. 1834, p. 2020), that Paul could not with propriety have given this title to Christ, if he had followed the Synoptical account of the day of Jesus’ death. Comp. Introd. to John, ὃ 2. In point of fact, had he followed the tradition of the Synoptists, that death-day, as being the 15th Nisan, would, by the mode of conception necessarily arising from his Jewish nationality, have hindered his calling Christ antitypically the slain paschal lamb. For a Passover lamb slain on the first day of the feast would have been, to a Jew- ish mind moulded according to the ancient and venerated appointment of the divine law, a ‘‘ contradictio in adjecto , 5 even supposing that the point of the comparison—which, in accordance with the invariable Pauline mode of regarding the death of Jesus (comp. also on John i. 29), must of necessity 1 Theodoret renders wrongly, for it is against the order of the words (asif it were Kal yap ἡμῶν τ. 7.) : ἔχομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀμνὸν tion also agrees with this. See Gemara Bab. in Sanhedr. vi. 2: ‘‘ Traditio est, ves- pera Paschatis suspensum fuisse Jesum.” Luther and Neander. Erasmus translates correctly : “ Nam et pascha nostrum.” 3 This passage, too, therefore goes to establish the position that Jo/n’s narrative, and not the Synoptic, ig the historically cor- rect one as regards the day of the death of Jesus. Observe how the Rabbinical tradi- It is well known that the 14th Nisan (the Preparation-day) was called MOD I Vy, ves- pera Paschatis. The fabulous circumstances linked with the death of Jesus itself in the passage of the Talmud referred to, do not affect the simple statement as to the time when it took place. CHAP. Y., 8. 117 be His being slain as a ἱλαστήριον, Rom. iii. 25—were the new divine polity of the holy people, to which the death of Jesus ‘stands, it is said, just in the same relation as the slaying of the paschal lamb in Egypt to the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt (as Hofmann objects). Wieseler, in his chronol. Synopse, p. 374f. (comp. also his Beitr. 2. Wiirdigung d. Ev. p. 266), urges as an argument on the other side, that in x. 16, τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας, as a tech- nical phrase for the cup in the Lord’s Supper, shows that this cup was iden- tified with that of the Passover. Assuredly ! but it shows also, in necessary connection therewith, that Christ slain on the 14th Nisan was the Paschal Lamb of believers. The Supper, therefore, which brought them into fellow- ship with the body and blood of Christ, could not but present itself to the Christian consciousness as the paschal meal, corresponding to the eating of the paschal lamb, and so, too, the ewp in the Supper as the antitype of the paschal cup. Consequently chap. x. 16, taken in connection with the pas- sage before us, speaks for and not against the account in John. It is, how- ever, from the view held by the primitive church respecting the Supper as the antitype of the paschal meal, that the origin of.the Synoptical tradition is to be historically understood. See on John xviii. 28. Ver. 8. The paschal lamb having been slain, there follows the keeping of the feast, and that not with leaven, but with what is unleavened. Since, then, Christ has been slain as the Christian’s paschal lamb, they too must keep their feast in an ethical sense, that is to say, by leading a holy life, without sinful admixture, with pure and true Christian virtue. Hence the admonition : let ws therefore keep feast, etc. The ἑορτή implied in ἑορτάζ. is, it is true, the feast of the Passover, but in such a sense that the keeping of the Passover is meant to be a figurative representation of the character of the whole of a Christian’s walk and conversation, because this is to be without moral leaven, etc. Comp. Philo, de congr. er. qu. gr. Ὁ. 447 D. It may be added, that Theodore of Mopsuestia says aptly : ὡς yap παρὼν, οὕτω πρὸς τοὺς παρόντας λοιπὸν διαλέγεται. --- ἐν ζύμῃ παλ.] Precisely asin ver. 7 ; not asa designation of the incestuous person (Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Heydenreich), which would, besides, have required the article. Ἔν is used in the sense of provided with. Comp. on iv. 21. — μηδὲ ἐν ζύμῃ κακ. x. rov.] singles out something special from the general μὴ ἐν ζ. παλ. : and inparticular not with the leaven of maliciousness and wickedness (see on Rom. i. 29). The genitives are genitives appositionis. The apostle must have had ground enough in the condition of the church, even apart from the case of the incestuous man, for laying such peculiar stress in the way of warning upon nequitia and malitia. — ἀζύμοις] from ἄζυμα, what is unleavened, i.e, NS (Ex. xii. 15, 18). There is nothing (such as ἄρτοις) that needs to be supplied. — Εἰλικριν. and ἀληθ. differ from each other only in degree ; the former is moral purity (καϑαρότης δια- νοίας καὶ ἀδολότης οὐδὲν ἔχουσαι συνεσκιασμένον Kai ὕπουλον, Theophylact on 2 Cor. i. 12) ; the latter, moral truth, the essence of actual moral goodness, See on John iii. 21 ; Eph. v. 9 ; Phil. iv. 8. Remarx.—This whole allegory, vv. 6-8, would have been unnatural on Paul’s part, had he been writing this Epistle, which was written before Pentecost 118 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (xvi. 8), after Easter, and so between that feast and Pentecost,—extremely nat- ural, on the other hand, if the Jewish Passover was then in immediate prospect. Were that the case, this very allegory, which is taken up by him in no other place, would offer itself to him unsought, so that the peculiar stamp of his discourse would be accounted for as bearing the impress of the festal thoughts awakened within him by the approach of the Passover. The passage before us, there- fore, compared with xvi. 8, is rightly regarded by Bengel and most of the suc- ceeding commentators (comp. especially Wieseler, Chronologie d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 327 ff.) as giving evidence of the fact that Paul was now writing shortly before Easter. The few expositors who oppose this view (Henke on Paley’s Hor. Paul. p. 413 ff. ; Eichhorn, Hinl. II. p. 198 ; de Wette, Curtius, de temp. quo prior P. ad Tim., ete. p. 43; Schrader, II. p. 132; Hofmann) have only this in their favour, that a demonstrative proof is of course impossible. But it is a misun- derstanding of the passage to find in it an admonition to celebrate properly the approaching feast of Easter (see especially Heydenreich). Considering the figu- rative nature of the expression (see on ver. 8), we must not try to draw any in- ferences from this passage as to the question whether or how Christians kept the feast of Easter in those days (against Weitzel, Passahf. p. 183 ff. ; Lechler, p. 350). Theophylact says well: δείκνυσιν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ χρόνος ἑορτῆς ἐστι καιρὸς τοῖς Χριστιανοῖς διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῶν δοθέντων αὐτοῖς ἀγαθῶν" διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ; ἄνθρωπος γέγονε καὶ ἐτύθη, ἵνα σε ἑορτάζειν ποιήσῃ. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Pas- chastreit, p. 173 f. Vv. 9-13. Citation and fuller explanation of a passage of the former letter which had been misinterpreted in Corinth by his malevolent adversaries, The new section begins without a connective particle, like vi. 1, v. 1. Ver. 9. Sequence of thought: What I have written to you thus far con- cerning the exclusion of the incestuous person, and concerning the purging out of the leaven, leads me now to speak of the passage in my former letter which has been misunderstood among you, etc. — ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ) 1.6. in the letter which I wrote to you, and 50 : in my letter, by which Paul means the letter to the Corinthians, composed before the present one and in the posses- sion of his readers, but not in ours. So rightly Ambrosiaster, and after him Calvin, Beza, Estius, Clarius, Zeger, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, Wetstein, Mosheim, Semler, and many others, including most modern interpreters. Chrysostom, again, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, Fabricius, Wolf, Glass, Baumgarten, Bolten, Stosch (de epp. ap. non deperd. 1753, p. 75 ff.), and Miiller (de trib. Pauli itinerib. Corinth. suscept. de epis- tolisque ad eosd. non deperdit., Basil. 1831), understand it of the present Epis- tle, either supposing that a reference is intended to vv. 2 and 6, or even making éyp. apply to ver. 11. This method of interpretation arises for the most part from dogmatic prejudices,’ and has against it the following con- 1Grotius aptly remarks: ‘Satis Deo which itself owes its origin to a dogmatic debemus, quod tot (epistolae) servatae retrospective inference — between canon sunt, ad quas siet singulorum vita et regi- particularis and universalis, temporalis and men ecclesiae dirigatur, bene erit.’’ Comp. perpetuus. Divine Providence, he holds, did Calvin. Calovius, in order to defend the not design the lost Epistle a7 wswm canoni- integrity of the canon against the Roman cum perpetuum of the whole church, and Catholics, insists upon the distinction— therefore allowed it to perisb. CHAP. γα, 10: 119 siderations : first, the parallel passage in 2 Cor. vii. 8 ; secondly, that ἐν τῇ ἐπ. would in that case be singularly superfluous ; thirdly, the -fact that μὴ συναναμ. πόρν. Occurs neither in ver. 2 nor ver. 6 ; and finally, that no occa- sion at all had been given in the preceding statements for any such misap- prehension as is here corrected. Lange, in his Apostol. Zeitalter, I. p. 205, pronounces in a peculiarly positive way that the hypothesis of a lost Epistle is a ‘‘ fiction ;” Paul means the present letter, but distinguishes it as a letter from the ecstatic act which he had just performed through the medium of this letter, namely, the transference of himself in spirit into the midst of the church ; what he wishes to declare is the permanent epistolary significance of that act. But this itself is quite an empty ‘‘jiction,” since there is not a trace of an ecstasy here, since Paul would, on this theory, have taken the very vaguest way possible of expressing his supposed meaning, and since the parallel statement in 2 Cor. vii. 8 is decisively against any such arbitrary fancies. (N) It may be added that, when Riickert holds that the article here, and the absence of any defining adjective, prove the lost Epistle to have been the only one which Paul had then already sent to Corinth, this, on a com- parison with 2 Cor. vii. 8, appears to be an over-hasty conclusion, although, so far as the fact itself is concerned, it may be regarded as correct, seeing that we have no hint of any other lost letter having also preceded our first Epistle. — συναναμιγν. } to mix oneself up with, have intercourse with, 2 Thess. iii. 14; Athen. vi. p. 256 A; Lucian. Cont. xv. Comp. the affirmative στέλλεσϑαι ἀπό, 2 Thess. iii. 6. — πόρνος, in the N. T. and in Ecclus. xxiii. 16, signifies fornicator.' See also Lennep. Phalar. ep. xi. p. 60. 2. Ver. 10. More precise negative explanation of the rule laid down in the said letter, μὴ συναναμ. πόρν., which had been misinterpreted among the Corinthians (as Paul gathered probably from their letter to him) into a pro- hibition of association with fornicators among those who were not Christians ; perhaps from a disposition to connive at the offenders within the bosom of the church itself. — οὐ πάντως τοῖς πόρν. τ. x. τ.] is dependent on μὴ cvvava- μιγν. 3 it stands in a relation of opposition to the preceding πόρνοις, and ex- plains what that πόρνοις did not mean. ‘‘I wrote to you to refrain from intercourse with fornicators, (i.e.) not absolutely* with the fornicators of this world.” An entire cessation of intercourse with πόρνοις in that sense of the word, it would, of course, be impossible to establish, seeing that you can- not go out of the world ; but what I meant was Christians given to forni- cation, ver. 11. Comp. Plato, Pol. v. p. 454 C : ob πάντως τὴν αὐτὴν κ. τὴν ἑτέραν φύσιν ἐτιθέμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνο τὸ εἶδος μόνον κιτ.Δ. The οὐ instead of μή is correct enough (in opposition to Riickert), because οὐ πάντως τ. πόρν. τ. κ. τ. conveys something which is objectively denied, a definition of the notion of πόρνοις, Which does not occur. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 334 [E. T. 389]. The conception is a different one, e.g., in Plato, Pol. iv. p. 419 A: ἐὰν τίς σε φῇ μὴ πάνυ τι εὐδαίμονας ποιεῖν τούτους. Commentators often supply 1Tn the classics, mostly of wnnatural vice mon with Greek writers (Lobeck, Paral. p. (with males). Becker, Charides, I. p. 346 ff. ; 57), would have been still stronger if used Wermann, Privatalterth. § xxix. 22. in place of πάντως, altogether, absolutely. 2The phrase πάντῃ πάντως, Which iscom- _ See generally on ix. 22. 120 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ἔγραψα after ob ; so, among the rest, Olshausen ; not (wrote I, meant I): with the fornicators of this world in general. But what an arbitrary separation this is of the mutually connected words οὐ πάντως | And the interpretation in question has this, too, against it, that τ. κόσμου τ. does not refer to the world in general, but to those who were non-Christians (see below), so that the ‘in general” would be logically incorrect. Riickert takes οὐ πάντως as an intensified negative like that in Rom. iii. 9 (comp. Luther), and supplies ἔγραψα after it: “By no means did I write ; i.e., the import of my prohi- bition was by no means, to have no intercourse with the fornicators of this world.” But so understood, the words would lend countenance to inter- course with fornicators not Christian, which cannot be Paul’s meaning. His intention is merely to set aside the misinterpretation which had been put upon his words, as if he had meant thereby to enforce an absolute ces- sation of intercourse with unchaste men outside the Christian society. Lastly, Billroth is wrong in rendering, after Chrysostom and Theophylact (τὸ πάντως ὡς ἐπὶ ὡμολογημένου τέθεικε πράγματος) : ‘‘ not, of course, with the fornicators of this world.” In that case, we should have had at least πάντως ov, for the sense would be, as Theophylact himself states : καὶ πάντως ov τοῖς πόρνοις τ. κόσμου συναναμίγνυσθαι ἐκώλυσα, τουτέστι τοῖς τῶν “Ἑλλήνων. ---- τοῦ κόσμου τούτου] who belong to this (ante-Messianic) world, not, like the Christians, to the Messiah’s kingdom as its future members ; hence it is the ἀλλότριοι τῆς πίστεως (Theodoret) who are here denoted, whose opposite is the ἀδελφός in ver. 11. To understand it of mankind in general, Christians and non-Christians together (Pott, Hofmann, al.), is, seeing that τούτου is joined with it, contrary to the apostle’s mode of using language (Gal. iv. 3 ; Col. ii. 8; Eph. ii. 2; 1 Cor. iii. 19, vii. 31; 2 Cor. iv. 4), and contrary also to the context (vv. 11, 12). Afterwards, when Paul is thinking of the world of men in general, he purposely omits the τούτου. ---- ἢ τοῖς πλεονέκταις «.T.2.] We may suppose that Paul, in the passage of his former letter now alluded to, had warned them not merely against πόρνοις, but also against those guilty of the other kinds of vice indicated here, and yet more specifi- cally in ver. 11. Hence: ‘‘with the fornicators of this world, or—not to overlook the others, with whom also I forbade you to hold intercourse— with those greedy of gain, and violently grasping at it.” These two, connected with each other as general, and particular by καί (see the critical remarks), are conceived of as belonging together to one category. It is otherwise in ver. 11, where each of these sins is viewed by itself. As to dpz., the essen- tial characteristic of which is violence, comp. Luke xviii. 11; Soph. Phil. 640 : κλέψαι τε χἀρπάσαι Bia. —T. κόσμου τ. is to be understood again after apr. and εἰδωλ. See ver. 11. —ére? ὀφείλετε x.7.2.] for so, (were you absolutely and entirely to break off from the heathen fornicators, etc.) you must needs go out of the world (ἑτέραν οἰκουμένην ὀφείλετε ζητῆσαι, Theophylact), since no- where could you be perfectly relieved from casual contact with such non- Christians. I should thus have demanded what was impossible. As re- gards the direct ὀφείλετε, comp. vii. 14 ; Rom. iii. 6, xi. 6, 22. It is attested by B, Chrysostom, and Theodoret. In place of it, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Riickert, and Hofmann read ὠφείλετε, which has, indeed, the preponderance CHAP. Vez, 11: 121 of evidence in its favour, but must be considered as an emendation. The strangeness of the conclusion is not conveyed by the ἄρα (Hofmann, following the mistake of Hartung), but by the case itself assumed, in which the apa merely introduces what was indubitably involved in the supposed pro- tasis (comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 19 ff.). See against Hartung, Ellendt, Lex, Soph. 1. p. 214. Ver. 11. Nuvi δέ] But thus (see on Rom. iii. 21), in reality as contrasted with the aforesaid misconstruction, J did write to you. Herewith Paul now introduces the trwe meaning of the passage from his letter quoted above, ver. 9. Other expositors make νυνὶ δέ refer to time: but at present (Caje- tanus, Morus, Pott, Heydenreich). But the whole context is against this ; according to it, Paul’s design is simply to define more precisely the purport of that phrase in his former letters : ‘‘ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι répvoc.” He has done this only negatively in ver. 10, but goes on now to do it positively in ver. 11. Further, were a contrast drawn between the present and the former letter, the present γράφω would have been more natural and more distinct than the epistolary aorist (see on Gal. vi. 11) ; nay, to obviate the misunderstanding, it would have been a thing of necessity, iv. 14. — ἀδελφὸς évouatou.| the most important element in the more definite explanation’ which Paul is giving of his misunderstood prohibition : being called a brother, i.e. bearing the name of Christian. Comp. ὄνομα ἔχειν, Rev. iii. 1. Estius, following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Oecumenius, joins ὀνομαζ. with what comes after, in the sense of: if a brother is a notorious fornicator, having the name of being such. But ὀνομάζεσθαι means always simply to be called, without any such pregnancy of significance either in a good or bad sense (even in Eph. i. 21, v. 3; Rom. xv. 20). Had Paul wished to express the meaning of : bearing the character and repute of a fornicator, he must have used the phrase ὀνομάζεσθαι εἷναι πόρνος (Plato, Pol. iv. p. 428 E ; Prot. p. 811 E). Besides, it is unlikely that he should have expressly limited the prohibition to notorious fornicators alone, and thereby weakened its moral force. — λοίδορος] as in vi. 10 ; comp. on iv. 12. — εἰδωλολάτρης] Estius observes well that this applies to the Christian, who ‘‘sive ex animo, seu metu, seu placendi voluntate, seu quavis alia ratione inductus, infidelium sacris se admiscet, ut vel idolum colat, opere saltem externo, vel de idolo- thytis edat.” Comp. vi. 9, viii. 10, x. 7, xiv. 1; John v. 21; and Diister- diek in loc. Among the frivolous Corinthians, such reversions to the old habits and fellowship might not be uncommon. — μέθυσος] used by old writers only of the female sex ; but of the male also in later Greek, after Menander. See Wetstein ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 151 f. ; Meineke, Menan- der, p. 27. — There are no traces discernible of a logical order in the series of vices here enumerated beyond this, that the three which are of specifi- cally heathen character are put first, and then three others follow, which 1 This more detailed definition, therefore, ναμίγ. πόρνοις as they had actually done. cannot have been given expressly in the For there is no indication in the text that lost Epistle, but must have been taken for the misinterpretation was a wilful and granted as self-evident. Otherwise they malicious one, arising out of κακία «x. πονηρία, could not have so misinterpreted the συνα- ver. 8 (Hofmann). 122 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. destroy the peace of the church-life. —ro τ. μηδὲ συνεσθῆ.} parallel, though by way of climax, to the μὴ συναναμ. ; hence not anacoluthic in point of construction. As regards the meaning, again, we must not limit it to the Agapae (Vorstius, Mosheim, Stolz, Heydenreich), which would suit neither the quite general phrase συνεσῦ. (comp. xi. 20) nor the intensifying μηδέ. It means ; with one so constituted (comp. ver. 5) not even to have fellowship at table (neither to ask him to your table, nor sit with him at his). Comp. Luke xv. 2; Gal. ii. 12. This implies of course of itself, that they ought also to have no fellowship at the Agapae with such persons. Ei dé κοινῆς τροφῆς τοῖς τοιούτοις ov δεῖ κοινωνεῖν, ἤπου γε μυστικῆς Te καὶ ϑείας, Theodoret. Re- specting the distinction between the μὴ συναναμίγν. and excommunication, see 2 Thess. ili. 15. Ver. 12f. The reason for his having spoken in reference to the Christians, and not those without the Christian pale: for it does not at all concern me to be passing disciplinary judgments upon the latter. — τὶ yap μοι] for what concern is it of mine? etc. See Wetstein on the passage, and Schaefer, ad Bos. Hill. p. 598. The emphasis falls so entirely upon τί and τοὺς ἔξω, that we have not ἐμοί, which is not needed even if the reading καὶ (even, besides) τ. ἔξω be adopted. — τοὺς ἔξω] was with the Jews the standing name (ὨΣῚΝ ὙΠ) for the heathen (see Lightfoot, Hor., ad Mare. iv. 11 ; Schoettgen on this verse ; Kypke, II. p. 198); and so, in like manner, with the Christians it was the standing appellation for all who were non-Christians, as being outside the fellowship of the true people of God (Col. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 12; 1 Tim. 111. 7). --- οὐχὶ τοὺς ἔσω ὑμεῖς κρίνετε ;| By this question Paul appeals, in justi- fication of what he has just said: ‘‘what does it concern me,” etc., to the exercise of judicial functions by his readers themselves in the administration of church discipline, in so far, that is to say, as that discipline bore upon their fellow- Christians, and not upon those outside of the Christian society. Riickert thinks that Paul means to say : Judging is not my matter at all (see- ing that the members of the church were judged by their fellow-members themselves ; while those without, again, God would hereafter judge). But judging was doubtless his matter (see vv. 4-6, vv. 11, 13), only not re- specting those ἔξω. What. he means is rather this: “Τὸ judge those who are not Christians is no concern of mine, any more than you take in hand to judge any others except your fellow-believers.” ‘‘Ex eo, quod in ecclesia fieri solet, interpretari debuistis monitum meum, ver. 9: cives judicatis, non alienos,” Bengel. The simple κρίνετε is altered in meaning by Billroth: Isit not enough that ye? ete., as well as by Castalio, Grotius, al. : judicare debetis (we find this interpretation as early as Theophylact). The Corinthi- ans actually judged, every time that they passed a sentence of ecclesiastical discipline. Lastly, it is a mistake to render, as is done by τινές in Theo- phylact, Knatchbull, Hammond, Michaelis, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Heydenreich : No; judge ye your fellow-Christians! Οὐ χί is not a suitable answer to τί, and would, besides, require ἀλλά after it (Rom. iii. 27 ; Luke 1. 60, xii. 51, xiii. 3, 5, xvi. 30), and that with a clause forming a logically correct antithesis to the question put. Ver. 13. But of those that are without Godis judge,—not T and not you. GHAP. V2, 13: 123 This statement appears more weighty and striking when taken -as a sen- tence by itself, than as a continuation of the question (and still in depend- ence upon οὐχί ; so Lachmann, Riickert, Olshausen, Hofmann). The ac- centuation κρινεῖ 15 to be rejected, because it is clear from the context, that so far from there being any necessity for the reference to the last judgment which would give occasion for the future (Rom. iii. 6, 11. 16), on the con- trary the present κρίνει (Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, al., Pott, de Wette) corresponds in much the most natural way to the preceding κρίνειν and κρί- According to this view, then, the future judgment is neither exclu- sively pointed to by κρίνει, nor is it thereby excluded ; but the judgment of those who are non-Christians is described generally as a matter for God, whenever and however it may take place. — Paul has now ended his more definite explanation and correction as regards that misunderstood statement in his letter, ver. 9. But for the Corinthians what more direct inference could be drawn from this explanation, than the duty of expelling the of- fender already spoken of, whom they should indeed have excluded before (ver. 2)? Hence the apostle adds, without further preface (note, too, the aorist), the brief categorical command : ἐξάρατε κ.ιτ.2. This injunction cor- responds so exactly to the LXX. version of Deut. xxiv. 7, that it must be set down as simply arbitrary to deny that the form of expression here was purposely selected from remembrance of that passage. μαρτυρίαν, ϑείῳ νόμῳ βεβαιώσας τὸν λόγον, Theodoret. Hofmann conjectures that Paul wrote καὶ ἐξαρεῖ τε, and that this meant : and no less will He ( God) also take away the wicked one (those who are wicked in general) from the midst of you ;” but this is neither critically established—since the Recepta καὶ ἐξαρεῖτε is on critical grounds to be utterly rejected—nor grammatically ad- missible, for the assumed use of καὶ. . . τέ is foreign both to Attic prose and to the N. T. ;? nor, finally, isit in accordance with the context, for τὸν πονηρόν manifestly refers to the specific malefactor of ver. 2, and to his ex- clusion from church ; comp. Augustine : ‘‘rdv πονηρόν, quod est hune malig- num.” — ὑμῶν αὐτῶν] ismore expressive than the simple ὑμῶν : from the midst of yourselves, in which you have hitherto tolerated him. Bengel’s com- ment hits the mark: ‘‘antitheton ezternos.” VETE. Μωσαϊκὴν τέϑεικε Remarx.—Paul has ended what he had to say against the party-divisions in chap. iv. That the evils censured in chap. v. (and vi.) had any connection in point of principle with the party-divisions, is a view which finds no trace of support in the apostle’s way of speaking of them. Hence, too, it is impossible to prove that the persons at whom Paul’s censures were levelled belonged to 1 Although preferred by Luther, Grotius, Iistius, Wetstein, Bengel, Valckenaer, d., Lachmann, Scholz, Riickert, Olshausen, Tischendorf, Ewald, Hofmann (in accord- ance with Arm. Copt. Vulgate, Chrysostom, al.). 2The apparent proof - passages from Greek writers are either founded on cor- Tupt readings or are deprived of their force when correctly expiained. See especially Bornemann, ad Anab. i. 8. 3; Kiihner, ad Memor. iv. 2.28; Hartung, Par/ikell. 1. p- 113 ff.: also Kriiger on Thue. i. 9. 3. The atque etiam would have been rendered by With respect to the occurrence of καί re and καί... τε, without a corre- sponding καί after it, in Homer, Herodotus, etc., see Niigelsbach on the Ziad, p. 176f., ed. 3; and on the whole subject, comp. Matthiae, § 626, p. 1504 f. kai... dé. 124 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. any one special party, and if so, to which, In particular, we must refrain from attempting to refer the πορνεία in question, and its odious manifestation, to one definite party, and to the principles held by it, whether to the Pauline section (Neander), or the Christ-party (Olshausen, Jaeger, Kniewel), or the Apollonians (Riibiger), This much only may be regarded as certain, that the misuse of Christian freedom, so far as that in principle lay at the root of the mischief (vi. 12), cannot be charged upon the Petrine party. Notrs py AMERICAN EDITOR, (ἡ Church discipline. Ver. 5. The case mentioned here is of importance as settling once for all the duty, the limits, and the object of ecclesiastical discipline. Disorderly conduct is not to be left simply to the action of the ordinary influence of Christian teach- ing, but must be dealt with directly by the church in the way of judicial in- quiry. Immorality is not to be tolerated among the avowed followers of Christ. This, however, does not involve the infliction of temporal pains and penalties. Nothing of this kind is even hinted at in the account of the treatment of the incestuous man. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and neither requires nor admits of the secular arm to enforce its decisions. Its whole action is moral and spiritual, and the extremest infliction it can impose in any case is exclusion from itsfellowship. The reasons for exercising such discipline are— first, the honour of Christ, which is sadly impeached when open sin is allowed among those who confess His name. To make ‘ Christ the minister of sin” is a grievous offence. Secondly, the welfare of the church requires that trans- gressors should be dealt with. For sin is a spreading leprosy. It may begin in a small and obscure place, but unless arrested will increase and diffuse itself till the whole body is infected. A moral gangrene must be cut out. Thirdly, the welfare of the offender himself, which, although it is subordinate to the other considerations mentioned, is never to be lost sight of. The wise, kindly, deliberate action of the church may save the erring member. And hence, how- ever summary the exclusion, the door is always left open for return. No act of excommunication is irrevocable. Its object, so far as the offender is con- cerned, is his recovery, and if he repent and come to a better mind, nothing stands in the way of his readmission to the privileges of Christ’s house. It is obvious, however, that it was the second of these considerations that the Apostle had in mind, as he adds, ‘A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” This does not mean simply that one scandal robs the whole church of its Chris- tian character, but rather suggests the spreading nature of sin alike in indi- viduals and communities. A single cherished sin, however secret, diffuses its corrupting influence over the whole soul ; it depraves the conscience ; it indu- rates the moral sensibilities ; it cuts off from prayer or renders it formal and empty ; it paralyzes the usual means of grace ; and it opens the door for other forms of evil. And all this holds good of a society as well as of a single be- liever. The only safe rule is to resist at the beginning, and continuously to purge out the old leaven, and to make the whole life one of perpetual conse- eration to God. NOTES. 125 (x) Lost epistles. Ver. 9. The majority of interpreters agree with Meyer, that the Apostle here refers to a former epistle which has not been preserved. Some object to this, because they think it would imply that we have an imperfect Bible. But this conclu- sion by no means follows. Nothing is more natural than to suppose that the Apostles wrote many letters, designed simply to serve some local or temporary purpose, and not intended to serve as part of the rule of faith and conduct for allages. If so, it was of no consequence whether such writings were preserved or not. It seems certain that the church has all the inspired epistles which God designed she should have. Nothing that ever was justly in the Canon has been lost from it, so far as any evidence on the subject can be gathered from the records of the early church. 126 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. CHAPTER VI. Ver. 2. 7] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive evidence in its favour. — Ver. 5. λέγω] Lachm, has λαλῶ, on the authority of Balone. In the absence of internal grounds for decision, this is too weakly attested, far weaker than in xv, 34, — ἔνι] so Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch., following BCL 8, min. Chrys. Theodoret, al. How easily the familiar ἐστεν (so Elz.) would creep in !— συφὸς οὐδὲ εἰς] Lachm, and Rick. read οὐδεὶς σοφός, with BC δὲ, min. Copt. Damase. D* E, Clar. Germ. Aeth. Athan. have simply σοφός ; F and G have οὐδὲ εἰς σοφός. In A, the whole passage vv. 3-6 is wanting (from the similarity of the two last syllables ἔστων in vy. 2 and 6). From this it appears that the evidence for οὐδεὶς σοφός certainly preponderates, against which, however, there must be set the difficulty of seeing why this reading should have undergone alteration. Were σοφὸς οὐδὲ εἷς, on the other hand, the original reading (D*** L, most of the min. Vulg., both Syr. Ar. p. and the majority of the Fathers), we have in the first place a very natural explanation of the omission of οὐδὲ εἰς (which Griesb. approves of), inasmuch as copyists went right on from cpgOX to ΟΣ, and the two other variations would then arise from dissimilar critical restorations of the text. — Ver. 7. Elz. has ἐν ὑμῖν against decisive evidence. An interpretation. — Ver. 8. καὶ ταῦτα] Lachm, Riick, and Tisch. have καὶ τοῦτο, following A B C D E δὲ, min. vss. and Fathers, Rightly ; the plural crept in, because two things were mentioned (ἀδικ. and azoor.). — Ver. 9. There is conclusive evidence for reading Θεοῦ Bac. in place of Bac. Θεοῦ. In ver. 10, again, this order is too weak- ly attested to be received. — Ver. 10. The ov before κληρ. is wanting in A BC Ὁ E δὲ, min. Copt. Ignat. Method. Athan. Chrys. al. Deleted by Lachm. and Riick. with justice ; for while the preceding Θεοῦ might in itself just as easily lead to the omission as (by repetition of the last syllable) to the insertion of the οὐ, the latter was favoured by ver. 9. — Ver. 14. ἡμᾶς] Elz, has ὑμᾶς, against decisive tes- timony (perhaps from Rom, viii. 11). — ἐξεγερεῖ] Lachm. and Ewald read é£e- γείρει, with A D*, Band 67** have ἐξήγειρε. ‘The Recepta should be adhered to, with Tisch., following Ο D*** E K L δὲ, min. Vulg., both Syr. Copt. Aeth. Arr. and many Fathers. The connection makes the future necessary as the correlative of καταργήσει in ver. 13, and the evidence in its favour is prepon- derant, in view of the divided state of the codd. for the other readings. As to ἐξήγειρε and ἐξεγείρει, the former looks like a mechanical repetition of the pre- ceding tense, and the latter a slip of the pen. — ἢ οὐκ (not the simple οὐκ) has decisive evidence on its side. — Ver. 19. τὸ σῶμα Matth. and Tisch.‘ read τὰ σώματα upon insufficient evidence, part of which is in favour of the plural in ver, 20 also. The alteration to the plural was naturally suggested by the con- nection. -— Ver. 20. καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ὑμῶν, ἅτινά ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ is deleted by all modern editors (except Matth.) since Mill and Griesh., following A Bb C* D* E FG &, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Method. Didym. Cyr. Maxim. Daniase, Tert. 1 [Tischendorf returns to the singular in his last edition — T, W. C.] CHAPS ΠῚ; 127 _ Cypr. Ir. Ambrosiast, and all the Latin Fathers. An ascetic addition, although a very old one (occurring even in the Syriac), which got into all the wider cir- culation because achurch-lesson begins with δοξάσατε. Comp. Reiche, Comm. crit. I, p. 165 ff. Vv. 1-11. The readers are not to go to law before the heathen (vv. 1-6) ; and generally, they are, instead of contending with one another, rather to suffer wrong than to do it, bearing in mind that the unrighteous shall not become par- takers in the Messianic kingdom (vv. 7-10), and that they, as Christians, have become pure, holy, and righteous (ver. 11). Ver. 1. A new section, not connected with what has gone before. Paul starts at once with a question of lively surprise : Dare’ any one, etc., and so plunges in mediam rem.? The connections of thought, which some have traced out, are arbitrary inventions. This applies not only to Baur’s view (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 10 f.), that it was the damage done to the Chris- tian cause in public opinion, both by the immorality discussed in chap. v. and by the lawsuits carried on before the heathen, that led the apostle thus to pass from the one subject to the other,—but also to the connection which Hofmann seeks to establish between this passage and the censure pronounced upon the insufficient judicial action taken by the church with its members after the occurrence of the case already adverted to. The judicial proceed- ings now referred to are plainly of quite another kind, not in the way of discipline, but of private lawsuits ; and, moreover, as to former judicial action of the church, not merely was it insufficient, but nothing of the sort had taken place at all with respect to the πόρνος. Paul does not employ so much as a dé, or an ἀλλά, or any other form of connection, but goes on with epistolary freedom, leaping, as it were, from one point of censure to another. — tic] any one whatever. The quite general treatment of the subject which follows shows that no specific individual (Semler) is meant, although it must be left undetermined whether some specially striking case, possibly that of a rich and powerful man (Ewald), may not have given occasion for the apostle’s sending these admonitions. — πρᾶγμα] lawsuit, matter of dis- pute. Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 9.1; Demosth. 1120. 26 ; Josephus, Antt. xiv. 10. 7. --- κρίνεσθαι] go to law, litigare; see on Rom. iii. 4; Wetstein, ad Matth. v. 40. — ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων] before (Winer, p. 351 [E. T. 469]) the unright- eous ; a specially significant designation of the heathen (see on Gal. 11. 5), as ver. 1 as affirmative (against Lachmann). Least of all can we agree with Hofmann in 1Bengel says aptly: “grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum.”’ Schrader imports an ironical meaning into the word, which is irrelevant. The right interpretation is given by Chrysostom: τόλμης ἐστι TO πρᾶγμα καὶ παρανομίας. See as to τολμᾶν, sustinere, non erubescere, Stall- baum, ad Plat. Phil. Ὁ. 18 D; Jacobs, ad Athen. addit. p. 309. Comp. the proverbial phrase πᾶν τολμᾶν. 3 Τῷ is out of the harmony with the fervid tone of the whole passage, in which ques- tion is heaped on question, to understand taking the words down to ἀδίκων affirma- tively, and then regarding κ. οὐχὶ ἐπ. τ. ἁγίων asa query that strikes in there: for ἐπὶ τ. ἀδίκων, καὶ οὐχὶ ἐ. τ. &y., iS plainly just the ordinary antithesis of assertion and ne- gation joined together by καὶ ov. To make Hofmann’s rendering logically tenable, it would be needful that Paul should, instead of «. οὐχί, have written : καὶ τὶ οὐχί, and why not before the saints ? 128 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. contrasted with the Christians, who are dy. (see oni, 2). Chrysostom puts it well : οὐκ εἶπεν" ἐπὶ τῶν ἀπίστων (as in ver. 6, where the opposite of ἀδελφός was required), ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων, λέξιν θεὶς ἧς μάλιστα χρείαν εἶχεν εἰς τὴν προκειμένην ὑπόθεσιν, ὥστε ἀποτρέψαι καὶ ἀπαγαγεῖν. There is indeed ἃ contra- dictio in adjecto in the κρίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τ. ἀδίκων ! For the Rabbinical prohibi- tions of going to law before the heathen, see Eisenmenger, Hntdeckt. Judenth. Il. p. 472 ff. (e.g. Tanchwma, f. 92. 2: ‘‘Statutum est, ad quod omnes Isra- elitae obligantur, eum, qui litem cum alio habet, non debere eam tractare coram gentibus”). The tribunal intended by Paul is not merely that of arbitration, which had passed over from Judaism (see Michaelis, Hinl. II. p. 1221 f.; comp. Lightfoot, Hor. on ver. 4; Vitringa, de Synag. p. 816 ff.) to Christianity, but his meaning is : instead of carrying on lawsuits against each other before the heathen, they were to adjust their disputes before Christians, which could of course be done only in the way of arbitration * (comp. ver. 5) ; according to this, therefore, different forms of the κρίνεσθαι are present to the apostle’s mind in speaking of the judgment ἐπὶ τ. ad. and ἐπὶ τ. dy.; in the former case, that by legal process ; in the latter, that by arbitration through means of διαιτηταί. ---- Theodoret remarks justly (on ver. 6), that the prohibition of the κρίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων is not at variance with Rom. xiii. 1 ΕἾ : ob yap ἀντιτείνειν κελεύει τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἠδικημένοις νομοθετεῖ μὴ κεχρῆσθαι τοῖς ἄρχουσι. Τὸ γὰρ αἱρεῖσθαι ἢ ἀδικεῖσθαι ἢ παρὰ τοῖς ὁμοπίστοις δοκιμάζεσθαι τῆς αὐτῶν ἐξηρτᾶτο γνώμης. Ver. 2. Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε κ.τ.λ.} unveils the entire preposterousness of the course with which his readers were reproached in the indignant question of ver. 1 : ‘‘Dare any of you do that,—or know ye not?” etc. Only on the ground of this not knowing could you betake yourselves to such unworthy κρίνεσθαι ! Σὺ τοίνυν ὁ μέλλων κρίνειν ἐκείνους τότε, πῶς ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων ἀνέχῃ κρίνεσθαι viv ; Chry- sostom. — τὸν κόσμον κρινοῦσι] at the last judgment, namely, sitting along with Christ as judges over all who are not Christians (κόσμος). Comp. as early a passage as Wisd. iii. 8. We have here the same conception *—only general- ized with respect to the subjects of judgment—as in Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke xxii. 30. It stands in essential and logical connection with the participa- tion in the glory of Christ (iv. 8 ; Rom. viii. 17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 11 f.), which Christians are to attain after the Parousia, and after they themselves have been judged (Rom. xiv. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ; 2 Tim. iv. 1). We must not, however, refer this (with Hofmann) to the period of the reign of Christ and His people predicted in Rey. xx. 4 (when the κόσμος, too, shall be subjected to their judicial authority), especially seeing that Chiliasm is a specifically Apocalyptic and not a. Pauline conception ; comp. on xv. 24. Chrysostom again, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Schol. ap Matth., Erasmus, and others, explain it of an indirect, not literal judging, namely, either by the faith and life of Christians placing the guilt of the κόσμος in a clearer light in the day of judgment (Matt. xii. 41), or by their approving of the judicial sentence of Christ (Estius, Maier), But this (although as- 1 Hence this passage does not at all run 2 Observe that this view necessarily pre counter to the injunction to obey magis- supposes the resurrection of unbelievers als trates. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 417. (Acts xvii. 81). Comp. on xy. 24. OHAP. VIL, 2. 129 sumed by Billroth as the deal truth which underlay the words of the apostle, unconsciously to himself) is an alteration of the sense which runs counter to the context ; for the whole argument ὦ majori ad minus is destroyed, if κρινοῦσι is to be understood in a one-sided way as equivalent to κατακρ., and if no proper and personal act of judgment is designed.’ It is a mistake also to hold, with Lightfoot, Vitringa, Baumgarten, Bolten, that Paul means quod Christian futuri sint magistratus (Lightfoot), which is at variance with ver. 3, and with the conception of the speedily approaching Parousia. Mosheim, Ernesti, Noésselt, Rosenmiiller, and Stolz turn the ‘shall judge” into ‘‘can judge,” comparing ii. 15, 16. But this, too, is to alter the notion of κρίνειν in a way contrary to the text (judge of) : and the can, since it would have an emphasis of special significance here, and would denote ‘‘ be in a position to,” would require to be expressly inserted. Comp. rather the prophetic basis of the thought in Dan. vil. 22. —xai εἰ ἐν ὑμῖν «.7.4.] The quick striking in of the καί in the very front of the question is as in ver. 2 ; see also Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 123. — εἰ ἐν ὑμ. xp. ὁ Kéou.| repeats with em- phasis, and with an individualizing force (ὑμῖν), the contents of the truth already stated and established to the believing consciousness (hence the present κρίνεται). The ἐν ὑμῖν, here emphatically put first, does not mean, as Chrysostom and Theophylact think,’ in your instance, exemplo vestro (see above), but among you, i.e. in consessu vestro (see Kypke, II. p. 199), so that the essential meaning is not different from coram (Ast, ad Plat. Leg. p. 33. 285) ; comp. ἐν δικασταῖς, Thuc. i. 58. 1, ἐν νομοθέταις x.t.A. See, too, the passages in Wetstein. The ἐν therefore by no means stands for ὑπό (Raphel, Flatt, al.), although we may gather from the context that the ὑμεῖς are them- selves the parties judging (vv. 2,4). Nor hasit the force of through (Grotius, Billroth, a/.), in support of which it is a mistake to appeal to Acts xvii. 31, where, owing to the connection, ἐν stands in a wholly different relation from what it denotes here. Here the word ἐν is selected in view of the following κριτήρια, the Christians, who are in future to judge, being conceived of, in order to the more vivid representation of the idea, as a judicial assembly. — ἀνάξ. ἐστε κριτ. ἐλαχ.] κριτήριον does not mean matter of dispute, case at law, as most expositors (even Pott, Flatt, Rickert, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, Ewald), wish to take it, with no evidence at all from the usage of the lan- guage in their favour, but place of judgment (tribunal, seat of justice, Jas, ii. 6; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 767 B; Susanna, 49), or judicial trial which is held (judicium). Comp. the precept : μὴ ἐρχέσθω ἐπὶ κριτήριον ἐθνικόν, Constitt.. ap. ii. 45. Precisely so with δικαστήριον. The latter sense, judicial trial (Lucian, bis accus. 25 ; Polybius, ix. 33. 12, xvi. 27. 2; Judg. v. 10; Dan. vii. 10, 26), is the true one here, as is evident from ver. 4. We render therefore : Are ye unworthy to hold very trivial trials? i.e. trials in which judgment is to be given upon very insignificant matters (in comparison with the lofty and important functions which are to devolve upon you when the future judgment shall be held). The Vulgate translates freely but correctly 1 Hence, too, it is unsuitable to transform (Flatt, Heydenreich). the concrete meaning of this question into 2 Comp. too, van Hengel, ad Rom. ii. 27: a general participation in the reign of Christ “ vita vestra cum vita eorum comparanda.”’ 130 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTAIANS. as to the sense : ‘‘indigni estis, qui de minimis judicctis ?’ According to Chrysostom and Theophylact, others understand here the heathen courts of justice, either affirmatively (so, as it appears, Chrysostom and Theophylact themselves ; so, too, Valckenaer, a.) or interrogatively (Billroth) : and that it is unworthy of you to be judged before courts of 80 low a kind? Similarly, Olshausen. But ver. 4 is decisive against this ; for we have there the very same thing which in ver. 2 is expressed by κριτηρ. éAay., described as βιωτικὰ κριτήρια. Vy. 8, 4. Climactic parallels to ver. 2, ver. 3 corresponding to the first half of the preceding verse, and ver. 4 to the second ; hence ver. 4 also should be taken as a question. — ἀγγέλους] angels, and that—since no defining epithet is added—in the good sense, not as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus) Beza, Calovius, Bengel, and most commentators make it, demons (Jude 6 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4), nor good and bad angels (so Corne- lius ἃ Lapide, a/.; also, as it would appear, Hofmann). Other expositors, such as Grotius, Billroth, Riickert, de Wette, leave the point undecided. But comp. on iv. 9. That angels themselves shall come within the sphere of the judicial activity of glorified believers, is stated here as a proposition established to the believing consciousness of the readers,—a proposition, the ground for which is to be found in the fact that in Christ, whose glorified saints will reign with Him, is given the absolute truth and the absolute right, and, consequently, the highest judicial court of resort, even as regards the world of angels, from the jurisdiction of which not even the loftiest of created beings can be excepted. There is nothing of a more detailed nature on this subject in the N. T. ; but comp. in general, Heb. i. 14, according to which their service must be one for which they are to render an account ; and Gal. i. 8, according to which, in 9 certain supposed case, they would incur an ἀνάθεμα.) All modes of explaining away the simple meaning of the words are just as inadmissible ar in ver. 2 ; as, for example, Chrysostom : ὅταν γὰρ ai ἀσώματοι δυνάμεις αὗται ἔλαττον Rudi εὑρεϑῶσιν ἔχουσαι τῶν σάρκα περι- βεβλημένων, χαλεπωτέραν δώσουσι δίκην ; Erasmus : ‘‘ vestra pietas illorum im- pietatem, vestra innocentia illorum impuritatem condemnabit ;” Calovius : the judicium is approbativum, making manifest, that is to say, before the whole world the victory of the saints already in this life over the devil ; Lightfoot : what is meant is, that the influence of the kingdom of Satan is to be destroyed by Christianity ; while Nésselt, Ernesti, and Stolz make it ability to judge, if an angel were to preacha false gospel (Gal. i. 8}. --- μήτιγε βιωτικά] is not to be included in the question, so that we should have to put only a comma after κρινοῦμεν (as Tischendorf does). For βιωτικά, things which belong to the necessities of this life, disputes as to the meum and tuum (comp. Polybius, xiii. 1. 3: τῶν βιωτικῶν συναλλαγμάτων), will not be among the subjects of the future judgment, to which κρινοῦμεν refers. We must retain, therefore, the mark of interrogation after κρινοῦμεν (Lachmann), and ὩΣ Observe also the different classes of without e/hical grounds, Moreover, the angels referred to in Rom. viii. 38; Eph. i. angels are not to be regarded as absolutely 21; Col. i.16; 1 Pet. iii. 89. We cannot con- good, Mark x. 18. Comp. on Col. i. 20. (οὐ ceive these distinctions in rank to exist ν᾿. CHAP. VI., 4. 131 put a full stop after βιωτ., so that μήτιγε βιωτ. may be seen to be the con- densed conclusio : to say nothing then of private disputes ! i.e. How far less can it be doubtful that we have to judge Buta! Comp. Dem. Ol. i. (ii.) 23, and Bremi in loc. p. 159. See generally as to μήτιγε (found only here in the N. T.), nedum sc. dicam ; Herm. ad Viger. p. 803 ; Schaefer, Appar. ad Dem. I. p. 265 ; Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 154 f. Regarding the relation of βιωτικός to the later Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 355.—The antithesis of ἀγγέλους and βιωτικά turns on this, that the former belong to the higher superterrestrial sphefe of life (ὡς ἂν ἐκείνων ob κατὰ τὸν βίον τοῦτον ὄντων, Theodore of Mopsuestia). The ἀγγέλ. without the article is qualitative. Ver. 4. Βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν x.7.A.] takes up βίωτ. at once again with emphasis. Comp. Herod. vii. 104 : τὰ ἂν ἐκεῖνος aveyy' ἀνώγει δὲ ταὐτὸ aei.—The sen- tence may be understood as a question (of astonishment), so de Wette, Tischendorf, Ewald, a/.; or as a reproachful statement, so Lachmann. The former, if τ. ἐξουϑ. be correctly explained, corresponds best with the whole structure of this animated address (see on ver. 3). Μὲν οὖν is the simple accordingly, thus.’ Kpitjpra are here also not lawsuits, but judicia, as in ver. 2. The meaning therefore is: {7 ye then have courts of trial as to private matters, i.e. if ye are in such circumstances as to have to hold courts of that kind. Comp. Dem. 1153. 4 : ἐχόντων τὰς δίκας, qui lites habent administran- das. Hofmann’s rendering is a most involved one, making βίωτ. κριτ. predicate to τοὺς ἐξουϑ. ἐν τ. ἐκκλ., and ἐὰν éy. a parenthetical clause, to which we are to supply as its object ἐξουϑενημένους. ---καϑίζετε] do ye—instead of taking some from among yourselves for this purpose—set those down, etc. ? namely, upon the judgment-seat as judges, which follows from κριτήρια. Comp. Plato, Legg. ix. p. 873 E; Dem. 997. 23; Polyb. ix. 33. 12. It is the indicative, and the ἐξουϑενήμ. ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. are the heathen. So in substance Valla, Faber, Castalio, Luther, Calovius, Wolf, a/., including Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Weiss ; Osiander is undecided. To this it is objected that καϑίζ, does not suit heathen magistrates, and that ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. indicates the ἐξουϑ. as members of the church (see especially Kypke, II. p. 201). But neither objection is valid ; for the term καϑίζετε is purposely selected as significant of the strange audacity shown in making the matter in dispute dependent on the decision of a heathen court, and that in special keeping with the contrast (τοὺς ἐξουϑ.), while the text does not give τοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ. More- over, by τ. ἐξουϑ., Paul does not mean to describe the contempt for the hez- then as justifiable (Hofmann’s objection), but simply as evisting, as a fact, however, the universal existence of which made the ubsurdity of the procedure here censured very palpable. Other interpreters make καϑίζ imperative, and the ἐξουϑ. members of the church held in small account : take (rather) minimos de piorum plebe as arbiters.* But not to speak 1 Introducing the more detailed develop- neutest. Stud. p. 127. ment of the thought to which expression 3So the Vulgate, Peshito, Chrysostom, had been given already. See Baeumlein, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Partik. p. 181. Vatablus, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Bengel 2 How meaningless this would be! More- Wetstein, Hofmann, αἰ. over, see below. Comp. also Laurent. 132 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. of the rather generally supplied from imagination, nor of the fact that to designate those less capable of judging as τ. ἐξουϑ. ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. would be far from wise, and likely to lend countenance to the specially Corinthian conceit of knowledge,—if this were the true sense, Paul would have had to lay stress upon the church-membership of the despised persons, and must have written at least τοὺς ἐξουϑ. τοὺς ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. For οἱ ἐξουϑ. ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. are those who are despised in the church, which leaves it altogether to the context to decide whether they themselves belong to the church or not. Now, that the latter is the case here is shown by vv. 1, 2, and» especially by ver. 5: οὐκ ἔνι ἐν ὑμῖν. Arrangements of words like τοὺς ἐξουϑ. ἐν τῇ ἐκκλ. for τοὺς ἐν τ. ἐκκλ. ἐξουϑ. are common enough in classical writers also. See Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab, iv. 2. 18, -- τούτους] with an emphasis of disdain. See Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 111. f., 225 ; Kriiger, Aanbd. i. 6. 9 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 460. Ver. 5. Πρὸς évtp. ὑμῖν λέγω] is to be referred, as is done by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Neander, and Hofmann, to ver. 4, comp. xv. 34 (it is com- monly referred to what comes after), so that the following question wnfolds the humiliating consideration involved in ver. 4. The address thus acquires more point and impressiveness. —oirwc] belongs not to λέγω (Hofmann), but to οὐκ ἔνι «.7.2., and sums up the state of things : sic igitur, rebus ita comparatis, since you τοὺς ἐξουϑενημένους καϑίζετε. See Bornemann in Rosen- miiller’s Repert. II. p. 245 ff.; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 933. C. Fr. Her- mann, ad Lucian. de hist. conser. Ὁ. 161. It is otherwise understood by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, a@/., including Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, Ewald, who make it : so much, so completely is there lacking, etc. But it is only the definition of mode, not of degree, that will suit the absolute negation of this clause, intensified as it is by οὐδὲ cic. — Regarding ἔνι, see on Gal. iii. 28. The σοφός carries point against the Corinthian self- conceit. — οὐδὲ εἰς] ne unus quidem. ‘‘ Quod est vehementius,” as Erasmus well puts it, ‘‘cum sitis tum multi.” See on John i. 3, and Kriiger, Anabd. iii. 1. 3; Bornemann and Poppo, ad Cyrop. ii. 1. 21. Comp. non ullus (Kiihner, ad Cie. Tuse. i. 39. 94) nemo unus (Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 187). Frequent in Isocr., see Bremi, I. Hire. iii. —é¢ δυνήσεται) purely future in force : who (as cases shall occur) will be able. — διακρῖναι] to judge, as arbitra- tor. — ἀνὰ μέσον τ. ad. αὐτοῦ] between (LXX. Gen. xvi. 5; Ex. xi. 7; Ezek. Xxli. 26; Isa. lvii. 11; Matt. xiii, 25 ; Theocr. xxii. 21; Strabo, xi. 5. 1, p. 503; Polyb. x. 48. 1, v. 55. 7) his (Christian) brother. The ex- pression τ. ἀδελφοῦ, is meant to put to shame. The singular is used for this reason, that τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ must mean the plaintiff who brings on the lawsuit (not the defendant, as Ewald would have it), between whom (and, as is obvious, the defendant) the arbitrator, called into requisition by the bringing of the suit, pronounces his decision. Were the plural employed, that would indicate the two litigants generally, but not the party bringing on the suit in particular. Hofmann, contrary to the plain meaning of the words, understands the phrase of the se/f-decision of the individual demand- ing or refusing, namely, as to the point where his right ceased and his wrong began. In that case, Paul, if he wished to be intelligible, would CHAP. VI., 6-8. 133 have required to say something like this : διακρῖναι ἐν ἑαυτῷ πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. Moreover, οὐδὲ εἷς (or οὐδείς as Hofmann reads) would militate against this view, seeing that it contains what would be, according to ver. 1, a disproportionate accusation, if the meaning is not, ‘‘not a single man fitted to be an arbitrator.” — The reading, τ. ἀδελφοῦ x. τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ (Syr. Arr.), is an interpretation, although recommended by Grotius and again by Laurent. Ver. 6. Quick reply to the preceding question: No (see Hartung, Partikell. 11. p. 37; Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 10 1.) brother goes to law with brother, and that (see on Rom. xiii. 11) before unbelievers.’ How then can there be such a wise man among you? He would assuredly, by his inter- vention as arbitrator, keep the matter from coming to a lawsuit, which, as between Christian brethren, and that, too, before a heathen court, is alto- gether unfitting and unworthy ! Kpivera in precisely the same sense as in ver. 1, κρίνεσϑαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων. (P) Ver. 7. Μὲν οὖν] as in ver. 4; it now brings under special consideration the foregoing ἀδελφ. μετὰ ad. kpiverac—namely, as to what the real character of such a proceeding may be in itself viewed generally (ὅλως being taken as inv. 1), apart from the special element unhappily added in Corinth, ἐπὶ ἀπίστων. The μέν corresponds as little (against Hofmann) to the ἀλλά which follows in ver. 8, as the μέν in ver. 4 to the ἀλλά in ver. 6. The ἤδη is the logical already (‘‘ already then, viewed generally”), in reference to something special, by which the case is made yet worse. Comp. Hartung, Partikell, I. Ῥ. 240 1. ---ἤττημα] a defeat (see on Rom. xi. 12), .6. damage, loss, and that, according to the context, not moral decay (so commonly), or hurt to the church (Hofmann), or imperfection (Billroth, Riickert), or weakness (Beza) ; but, it redounds to your coming short of the Messianic salvation (see ver. 9).— ἑαυτῶν] like ἀλλήλων, but giving them to feel, more strongly than the latter would, the impropriety which had a place in their own circle (Kithner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 20). -- κρίματα] as in Rom. v. 16, Wisd. xii. 12, legal judgments, which they had respectively obtained (ἔχετε). --- ἀδικεῖσϑε . . . ἀποστερ.] middles : to allow wrong and loss to be inflicted on themselves. Comp. Vulgate. See Bernhardy, p. 346 f. As to the matter itself, see Matt. v. 39 ff. ; example of Jesus, 1 Pet. ii. 23. Ver. 8. The question beginning with διατί in ver. 7 still continues : Why do ye not rather allow yourselves to suffer wrong, etc., and not, on your part, do wrong, etc.? This view, instead of the ordinary one, which makes yer. 8 an independent sentence like ver. 6, is necessary, because ἢ οὐκ οἵδατε in ver. 9 has its logical reference in δίατι. The reference, namely, is this : ‘ There is no ground conceivable for your not,” ete. (duati.. . ἀδελφοί), ““ unless that ye knew not,” etc. (ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε). --- καὶ τοῦτο ἀδελφούς] to whom nevertheless, as your brethren, the very opposite was due from you ! With respect to the climactic «, τοῦτο, and that, see on Rom, xii. 11, and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 147. 1 To take the sentence as a reproachful sterner and more telling than the common assertion (so Luther, Beza, Lachmann, way of viewing it as a question, which is Osiander, Hofmann), makes the passage adopted also by Tischendorf and Ewald. 134 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Ver. 9. Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε] See on ver. 8. To supply an unexpressed thought here (‘Do not regard the matter lightly,” Billroth ; ‘‘ This is a far greater ἥττημα," Ruckert ; that ἤττημα to the church ‘‘ they could only fail to per- ceive, if they did not know,” etc., Hofmann) is just as arbitfary as to do so in ver. 2 — ἄδικοι] the general conception (under which the preceding ἀδικεῖν and ἀποστ. are included): unrighteous, immoral. See the enumeration which follows. —OQcov βασιλ.} the Θεοῦ coming close after ἄδικοι, and put first for emphasis (see the critical remarks). As to the truth itself, that ἀδικία excludes from the Messiah’s kingdom, see on Gal. v. 21 ; and as regards what is implied in the Messianic κληρονομία, on Gal. iii. 18 ; Eph. i. 11. — μὴ πλανᾶσϑε] for that moral fundamental law was more easily, it is plain, flung to the winds in frivolous Corinth than anywhere else δ Possibly, too, some might even say openly : φιλάνϑρωπος ὧν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ ayadoc, οὐκ ἐπεξέρχεται τοῖς πλη“μελήμασι" μὴ δὴ φοβηϑῶμεν ? Chrysostom. Hence : be not mistaken (πλα- νᾶσϑε, passive, as also inxv. 33 ; Gal. vi. 7; Luke xxi. 8 ; Jas. i. 16; comp. the active form in 1 John iii. 7), followed by the emphatic repetition of that fundamental law with a many-sided breaking up of the notion ἄδικοι into particulars, not, however, arranged systematically, or in couples, nor redu- cible, save by force, to any logical scheme ;? in this enumeration, owing to the state of matters in the place, the sins of sensuality are most amply speci- fied. —xépvo, fornicators in general ; μοιχοί, adulterers, Heb. xiii. 4. — εἰδωλολ.] see on v. 11. — μαλακοί] effeminates, commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur, but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point) ; moreover, such catamites (molles) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι. One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore : effeminate luxurious livers. Comp. Aristotle, Hth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν, Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς, 111. 11. 10: τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλϑακία, Plato, Rep. p. 590 B. — apcevoxoira:| sodomites, who defile themselves with men (1 Tim. i. 10 ; Eusebius, Praep. evang. p. 276 D). Regarding the wide diffusion of this vice, see the passages in Wetstein ; comp. on Rom. i. 27, and Hermann, Privatalterth. § 29, 17 ff. Ver. 11. How unworthy are such of your new Christian relations [ ---- ταῦτα] of persons in a contemptuous sense: such trash, such a set. See Bern- hardy, p. 381. --- τινές] more exact definition of the subject of ἦτε, namely, that all are not meant. It is the well-known σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος (Kiihner, IT. p. 150). Comp. Grotius. Valckenaer says well : ‘‘ vocula τινές dictum paulo durius emollit.” Billroth is wrong in holding (as Vorstius before him) that ταῦτά twee belong to each other, and are equivalent to τοιοῦτοι. In that case ταῦτά τινα would be required, or τοῖοΐ τίνες. See Ast, ad Plat. Legg. p. 71 ; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 1. 2 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 832. — azedotc. x.r.2.] describes from step to step the new relations established by their reception of Christianity. First of all : ye washed your- selves clean, namely, by your immersion in the waters of baptism, from the 1 Comp. Ernesti, Ursprung der Siinde, II. p. 29 f. ORCA 11: 135 moral defilement of the guilt of your sins (you obtained, through means of baptism, the forgiveness of your sins committed before you became Chris- tians). (Q) Comp. Acts xxii. 16, 1. 38; Eph. v. 26; 1 Pet. iii. 21. Ob- serve the use of the middle, arising from the conception of their self-destina- tion for baptism. Comp. ἐβαπτίσαντο, x. 2. We must not take the middle here for the passive, as most expositors do, following the Vulgate (so Flatt, Pott, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald), which in part arose—as in the case of Olshausen—from dogmatical preconceptions ; neither is it to be understood, with Usteri (Lehrbegriff, p. 230) and Riickert (comp. Loesner, p. 278), of moral purification by laying aside everything sinful, of the putting off the old man (comp. Rom. vi. 2 ff.), against which the same phrase in Acts xxii. 16, and the analogous one, καθαρίσας, in Eph. v. 26, militate strongly. This moral regeneration exists in connection with baptism (Tit. iii. 5), but is not designated by ἀπελούσ., although its subjective conditions, μετάνοια and πίστις are presupposed in the latter expression. The producing of regeneration, which is by water and Spirit, is implied in the ἡγεάσθητε which follows : ye became (from being unholy, as ye were before baptism) holy, inasmuch, namely, as by receiving the δωρεὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (Acts ii. 388) ye were translated into that moral frame of life which is Christian and consecrated to God (John iii. 5 ; Tit. iii. 5 ; Eph. v. 25, ἁγιάσῃ). Riickert and Ols- hausen take it in the theocratic sense: ‘‘ye became set apart, numbered among the ayo.” Comp. Osiander, also Hofmann : ‘ incorporated in the holy church.” But the progression of thought here, which marks its advance towards a climax by the repetition of the ἀλλά, requires, not a threefold de- scription of the transaction involved in baptism (Calvin, Hofmann), but three different characteristic points, dating their commencement from bap- tism, and forming, as regards their substance, the new moral condition of life from which those who have become Christians ought not again to fall back. — ἐδικαεώθητε] ye were made righteous. This, however, cannot mean the imputative justification of Rom. iii. 21 (de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann, with older commentators ; because, in the first place, this is already given in the ἀπελούσασθε ; and secondly, because the ἐδικαιώθητε, if used in this sense, would have needed not to follow the ἁγιάσθητε, but to precede it, as in i. 30 ; for to suppose a descending climax (Calovius) is out of the question, if only on account of the ἀπελούσ., which so manifestly indicates the beginning "οἵ the Christian state. What is meant, and that by way of contrast to the notion of ἀδικία which prevails in ver. 9 f., is the actual moral righteousness of life,? which has been brought about as the result of the operation of the Spirit which began with baptism, so that now there is seen in the man the fulfilment of the moral demands or of the δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου (Rom. viii. 4), and he himself, being dead unto sin, δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Rom. vi. 1[Beet says, with justice, ‘‘a solitary instance, probably, in the New Testament of this simplest sense.” — Τὶ W. C.] 2 There is therefore no warrant for ad- ducing this passage, as is done on the Ro- man Catholic side (even by D6llinger), in opposition to the distinction between justi- fication and sanctification. Justification is comprised already in amedovo. Comp. Weiss, vidi. Theol. pp. 342, 345 ff. Its sub- jective basis, however, is one with that of sanctification, namely, faith. 136 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 7), and ἐδουλώθη τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ (Rom. vi. 18), whose instruments his members have now become in the καινότης of the spirit and life (Rom. vi. 13). This δικαιωθῆναι does not stand related to the ἁγιασθῆναι in any sort of tautological sense, but is the effect and outcome of it, and in so far, certainly, is also the moral continuatio justificationis (comp. Calovius), Rev. xxii. 11.—The thrice repeated ἀλλά lays a special emphasis upon each of the three points. Comp. Xenophon, Anab. v. 8. 4; Aristophanes, Acharn. 402 ff. ; 2 Cor. 11. 17, vii. 11; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 142 ; Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp. iv. 53; Buttmann, newt. Gramm. p. 341 [E. T. 398]. —év τῷ ὀνόματι . . ἡμῶν] is by most expositors made to refer to all the three points. But since ἐν τῷ πνεύματι K.T.A. oes not accord with ἀπελούσ. (for the Spirit is only received after baptism, Acts 11. 38, xix. 5, 6 ; Tit. iii. 5, 6 ; the case in Acts x. 47 is exceptional), it is better, with Riickert, to connect ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι. . . ἡμῶν simply with ἐδικαιώθ., which best harmonizes also with the significant importance of the ἐδικαιώθητε as the crowning point of the whole transformation wrought in the Christian. The name of the Lord Jesus, i.e. what pronouncing the name ‘‘ Κύριος Inoovc” (xii. 3) affirms,—this, as the contents of the faith and confession, is that in which the becoming morally righteous had its causal basis (ἐν), and equally had its ground in the Spirit of our God, since it was He who established it by His sanctifying agency ; through that name its origin was subjectively conditioned, and through that Spirit it was objectively realized. Were we, with Hofmann, to bring ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι. . . Θεοῦ ἡμῶν into connection with the πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν Which fol- jows, the latter would at once become limited and defined in a way with which the antitheses ἀλλ᾽ x.r.A. would no longer in that case harmonize. For it is precisely in the absoluteness of the πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν that these an- titheses have their ethical correctness and significance, as being the moral limitation of that axiom, which therefore appears again absolutely in x. 23. — Observe, further, how, notwithstanding the defective condition of the church in point of fact, the aorist ἡγιάσθ. and ἐδικαιώθ. have their warrant as acts of God, and in accordance with the ideal view of what is the specifi- cally Christian condition, however imperfectly as yet this may have been realized, or whatever backsliding may have taken place. The ideal way of speaking, too, corresponds to the design of the apostle, who is seeking to make his readers feel the contradiction between their conduct and the char- acter which as Christians they assumed at conversion ; σφόδρα ἐντρεπτικῶς ἐπήγαγε λέγων: ἐννοήσατε ἡλίκων ὑμᾶς ἐξείλετο κακῶν ὁ Θεός κ.τ.λ., Chrysostom. And thereby he seeks morally to raise them. Vv. 12-20. Correction of the misunderstanding of Christian liberty, as though Sornication, equally with the use of meats, came under the head of things allow- able (vv. 12-17). Admonitions against fornication (vv. 18-20). Vv. 12-14. Connection and sequence of thought. Jn this new condition of life (ver. 11) all things are allowed to us, but they must be for our good,—all things allowed, but we on our part must remain free (ver. 12). Among these allowed things is the use of food, as what is in accordance with nature and ap. pointed by God merely for a time (τὰ βρώματα... Katapy., ver. 13). Wholly otherwise is it with the use of the body for fornication ; that is anti-Christian “~ CHAP. VI., 12—14. 137 (τὸ δὲ σῶμα. . « σώματι, ver. 13), and contrary to the eternal destiny fixed by God for the body (ver. 14). —- Not without reason did Paul, when reckoning up the different forms of ἀδικία in ver. 9, place πορνεία first. Comp. v. 1 ; 2 Cor. xii. 21. But Corinthian Epicureanism, starting from the Hellenic mode of viewing this matter, which was altogether very lax (Herm. Privat- alterth., ὃ 29. 13 ff.), easily found for itself even a certain justification of fornication, namely, in the doctrine of Christian liberty in adiaphoris, the maxim of which is : πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν. Now we may infer from the passage before us that this erroneous justification had actually been brought forward, that more than one voluptuary in the church had, as Paul was informed, actually declared that just as satisfying the desire for food was an adia- phoron, so also was satisfying the desire for sensual pleasure by fornication. Comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, 1 and 3 ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 420 1. Olshausen, indeed, thinks that Paul would have given an absolute command to exclude all such persons from the church, and that therefore it is only the possibility of so gross an abuse of Christian liberty that is implied here. But the former is an arbitrary assumption,’ and the latter has these two considerations against it—first, that in no other Epistle does Paul touch on this possibility, although the opinion that licentious intercourse was allow- able was widely spread among the Greeks and Romans ; and secondly, that the statement of the moral difference between the use of meats and whoredom is of too special.a kind to be naturally accounted for in the absence of act- ual occasion. Neander, whose objections lose their force, if we only do not go the length of assuming that this adiaphoristic view of fornication had become universal in Corinth, or had been formally published and propa- gated there as a doctrinal tenet, is of opinion that Paul meant to begin here upon the theme of meat offered to idols (comp. x. 23), but was led on after the first half of ver. 13 to draw a contrast (perhaps in order to guard against a misunderstanding of his words, perhaps also in opposition to those who denied the resurrection) which conducted him so far away from his theme, that it was only in chap. viii. that he made his way back to it again from another point. But how arbitrary this is! And how entirely unexampled a thing, that the apostle should so far forget himself, and write in a manner so irregular and open to misconception |! Chap. x. 28 lends no support to this exposition, for it is obvious that the same maxim could be made to apply in very many different directions. Rtickert’s exegesis is only a little less violent ; he supposes that, in the question addressed to the apostle about the sacrificial meat, the party eating it had adduced the πάντα ἔξεστιν in their favour, and that Paul had only transferred it here in order to guard against the abuse of it respecting fornication (in substance, therefore, coincid- ing with Olshausen). ΤῸ the ordinary interpretation Riickert objects, that the Corinthians in their letter would certainly not have described the πορνεία 1 Olshausen reasons thus: Since in vi. 9 suffered persons guilty of such abomina- unnatural vices are named with the rest, tions to remain in the church. But in vv. 13 we should have to conclude that the πάντα _— ff. the apostle is speaking quite distinctly μοι ἔξεστι Was applied to these also in Cor- and constantly of the πορνεία alone, not of inth; now Paul would surely never have unnatural sins. 138 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. as prevailing among them, nor would they have undertaken the defence of it to the apostle whom they knew so well. But this objection is unfounded ; for from v. 1 we must assume that Paul had come to know of the state of morals at Corinth through oral reports, and consequently had not learned the abuse there made of the πάντα ἔξεστιν through expressions in the Corin- thian Jetter (this against Hofmann also). According to Ewald, there had been doubts and debates concerning the obligation of the Jewish laws about food and marriage ; Paul therefore lays down in ver. 12 the principle which should decide all such cases, and then at once, in ver. 13, disposes shortly of the first point in dispute, in order, at a later stage (chap. viii.—x.), to speak of it more at length, and hastens on in ver. 15 ff. to the second point. Against this we may urge, first, that the first point was surely too impor- tant to be disposed of by so brief a hint as that in ver. 13 ; secondly, that the two halves of ver. 18 stand in an antithetic relation to each other, which gives the first half merely the position of an awailiary clause ; thirdly, that chap. vili.-x. do not deal with the question of food in general, but with that of eating sacrificial flesh in particular ; and lastly, that ver. 13 ff. have likewise quite as their special subject that of fornication. — πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν] might be regarded as the objection of an opponent (so Pott and Flatt, with older expositors) ; hence also it is understood by Theodoret as a question. But this is unnecessary (for surely it is, in point of fact, a Christian, and in- deed a specially Pauline principle), and arbitrary besides, since there is here no formula of objection (such as ἐρεῖς οὗν, or the like). Comp. on ver. 13. — It would be self-evident to the reader that πάντα meant all that was in itself indifferent (whatever was not anti-Christian). — μοι} spoken in the character of a Christian in general. Comp. ver. 15. Bengel says well : ‘‘ Saepe Paulus prima persona singul. eloquitur, quae vim habent gnomes.” Comp. Gal. ii. 18. — συμφέρει] is profitable. Thismust not be arbitrarily restricted either in the way of taking it as equivalent to οἰκοδομεῖ (Calvin, al., also Billroth after x. 23), or by confining it to one’s own advantage (Grotius, Heumann, Schulz, Olshausen). What is meant is moral profitableness generally in every respect, as.conditioned by the special circumstances of each case as it arises. 80, too, in x. 23. Theodore of Mopsuestia, it may be added, says rightly : ἐπειδὴ yap ov πάντα συμφέρει, δῆλον ὡς ov πᾶσι χρηστέον, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὠφελοῦσι μόνοις. — οὐκ ἐγώ] not I for my part. ὙΠῸ subjection will not be on my side, but the things allowed will be what is brought into subjection. This tacit contrast is indicated both by the position of οὐκ ἐγώ and by ὑπό τινος. The common interpretation : ‘‘ego sub nullius redigar potestatem” (Vulgate), does not correspond to the order of the words. — ἐξουσιασθ. purely future in force : shall be ruled by anything whatever. This result, that on my part moral freedom should be lost through anything, will not ensue! Otherwise the thing would plainly be not allowed. I shall preserve thé power of moral self-determination, so as to do or leave undone, just according to the moral relations constituted by the circumstances of the case, what in itself would be allowed to me. Comp. the great thought in iii. 22, and Paul’s own ex- ample in Phil. iv. 11, 12. Were rivé¢ masculine (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Vatablus, Ewald, a/.), the meaning would then be, that in things indiffer- “7 CHAPS Ving? 1.9. 139 ent a man should not yield himself to be tutored and dictated to by others (Ewald). But, in point of fact, it is neuter, being in contrast to the thrice repeated and emphatic πάντα. --- The paronomasia in ἔξεστιν and ἐξους. was remarked by expositors as early as Chrysostom and Theophylact. A// is in my power, yet it is not I who will be overpowered by anything. Regarding ἐξου- σιάζειν (which is not used in this sense by Greek writers), comp. Eccles. vii. 19, viii. 8, x. 4 f. Ver. 18. Τῇ κοιλίᾳ] 86. ἔστι, belong to, inasmuch, that is to say, as they are destined to be received and digested by the belly (the ὑποδοχῇ τῶν σιτίων, Photius in Oecumenius). Comp. Matt. xv. 17. -- τοῖς βρώμασιν] inasmuch as it is destined to receive and digest the food. — This reciprocal destina- tion according to nature is the jirst element, which, in its relation to the second half of the verse, is intended to call attention to the fact, that the case of fornication is totally different from that of the use of food,—that the latter, being in accordance with its destination, belongs to the category of the adiaphora ; while fornication, on the other hand, which is anti-Chris- tian, 1s contrary to the relation of the body to Christ. The second element (which, however, is very closely connected with the first), by which this is made manifest, consists in what God will hereafter do on the one hand with the κοιλίᾳ and the βρώμασι, and on the other hand (ver. 14) in respect of the body’s relation as pertaining to Christ, which latter relation is imperishable, in contrast to the perishable nature of the things first mentioned. — ὁ δὲ Θεὸς . καταργ.] i.e. God, however, will (at the Parousia) cause such a change to take place in the bodily constitution of man and in the world of sense generally, that neither the organs of digestion as such, nor the meats as such, will then be existent. To such passing away is this relation destined by God! With respect to the glorifying of the body here indicated, comp. Matt. xxii. 30 ; 1 Cor. xv. 44, 51. Melanchthon aptly says : ‘‘ Cibi et ven- ter... sunt res periturae ;.. . ideo sunt adiaphora ;” and’ Bengel: ‘quae destruentur, per se liberum habent usum, Col. ii. 20 ff.” Comp. Castalio, and among more modern expositors, Schulz, Krause, Billroth, Riickert, Schrader, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Hofmann.! Pott, Flatt, and Heydenreich (and see still earlier writers in Wolf) approximate to this view, but take τὰ βρώματα. . . καταργ. as words of an ‘opponent, the premisses of a conclusion as to the allowableness of fornication, which conclusion is impugned by Paul in the τὸ δὲ σῶμα x.t.A. which follows. But the apostle has not given the slight- est hint of this passage being a dialogue ; moreover, had it been so, he would have begun his reply ver. 13 with ἀλλά again (as in ver. 12, ac- cording to this dialogistic view). Other interpreters, following Chrysos- tom and Theophylact, make the design of ὁ δὲ Θεὸς «.7.4. to be a warning against excess. Comp. Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, al. But this, although in harmony with the ἀλλά in ver. 12, would stand in no logical relation to the ὁ δὲ Θεὸς κ.τ.λ. of ver. 14, and thereby the inner connection of the whole address (see above) would be broken up. — καὶ ταύτην καὶ ταῦτα] Regarding 1 Several of them, however, fall into the to be at death, which καὶ ταῦτα alone shows mistake of making the date of thexatapy. to be inadmissible. 140 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the use of the double οὗτος for ἐκεῖνος. . . οὗτος, Which is not common, see Bernhardy, p. 277. Comp. Josh. viii. 22 ; 1 Mace. vii. 46, ix. 17. — τὸ δὲ σῶμα] Paul cannot nameagain here a single organ ; the whole body is the organ of fleshly intercourse :* see ver. 16. — τῇ πορνείᾳ] for fornication (con- ceived of as a personal power), for its disposal and 88. --- τῳ Κυρίῳ] inas- much as the body isa member of Christ.? See ver. 15. —rwodparc} inas- much, namely, as Christ is destined (has it as His function) to rule and use the body as His member. ‘‘ Quanta dignatio !” Bengel. It is a mistake to make the phrase refer to the raising up and glorifying of the body, which it is the part of Christ to effect (Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Thomas, Grotius) ; for this would destroy the unity of mutual reference in the two clauses (comp. above, τὰ βρώματα x.t.A.), and, besides, the resurrection is brought forward afterwards as something separate from the preceding, and that, too, as the work of God (parallel to the ὁ δὲ Θεὸς «.7.A. in ver. 18). Ver. 14. This is parallel in contents and form to the sentence, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς . καταργήσει, in ver. 13: Now God has not only raised up the Lord, but will raise up us also by His power. The body, consequently, has a destiny which stretches on into the future eternal αἰών ; how wholly different therefore from the κοιλία, that organ of temporal nourishment, which will cease to be ! -- καὶ τὸν Kip. ἤγειρε] necessary assurance of what follows. See Rom. viii. 11. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 20; Col. i. 18; 2 Cor. iv. 11, 14. -- καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐξεγερεῖ 3 The bodily change in the case of those still alive at the time of the Parousia (xv. 51; 2 Cor. v. 2-4; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff.) did not need to be specially mentioned, since Paul was not here to enter into detail upon the doctrine of the resurrection. Comp. on Rom. viii. 11. He therefore, in accordance with the τὸν Kip. ἤγειρε, designates here the consummation of all things only a potiori, namely, as a raising up, speaking at the same time in the person of Christians generally (ἡμᾶς), and leaving out of view in this general expres- sion his own personal hope that he might survive to the Parousia, — The in- terchange of yy. and éfey. (out of the grave, comp. ἐξανάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν, Phil. iii. 11) is accidental, without any special design—in opposition to Bengel and Osiander’s arbitrary opinion that the former word denoted the Jirst-fruits, and the latter the ‘‘ massa dormientium.” *— αὐτοῦ ]---ποῦ αὑτοῦ, 1 Neither our text nor Luke xx. 35 gives any support to the assumption that those partaking in the resurrection will be with- out sexual distinction. The doing away of the κοιλία refers simply to the cessation of SIf ἐξεγείρει were the true reading (but see the critical remarks), the tense employ- ed would in that case bring before us as present what was certain in the future. If ἐξήγειρε were correct, we should have to the earthly process of nutrition; it does not affect the identity of the body, which Delitzsch (Psychol. p. 459), without warrant from Scripture, pronounces to be indepen- dent of the external continuance of distinc- tion between the sexes. Such assertions lead to fantastic theories ὑπὲρ ὃ γέγραπται. 2 [‘* Whoever eats food, of whatever kind, puts it to its designed use: whoever com- mits fornication uses his body in a way for which it was never designed." Stanley.— TW. C.} interpret this according to the idea of the resurrection of believers being implied in that of Christ, comp. Col. ii. 12. 4 Against this view may be urged the consideration, in itself decisive, that in the whole of chap. xv. éye(pw is the term con- stantly used both of Christ’s resurrection and that of believers ; whereas ἐξεγείρω oc- curs in all the N. T. only here and Rom. ix. 17 (in the latter passage, however, not of the rising of the dead). CHAP Vie, 1d, Τὸ: | 141 because uttered from the standpoint of the writer—applies to God, not to Jesus (Theodoret) ; and διὰ τῆς δυνάμ. ait. should be referred not to both the clauses in the sentence (Billroth), but, as its position demands, to ἐξεγε- pei ; for to the ground of faith which the latter has in καὶ τὸν Κύριον ἤγειρε, Paul now adds its undoubted possibility (Matt. xxii. 29), perhaps glancing purposely at the deniers of the resurrection, τῇ ἀξιοπιστίᾳ τῆς τοῦ ποιοῦντος ἰσχύος τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐπιστομίζων, Chrysostom. Vv. 15-17. That fornication is not an indifferent thing like the use of meats, but anti-Christian, Paul has already proved in vv. 13, 14, namely, from this, that the body belongs to Christ and is destined by God to be raised up again. How deserving of abhorrence fornication is on that account, he now brings home to the mind of his readers in a striking and concrete way. The immorality of fornication is certainly taken for granted in ver. 15 f., yet not in such a manner as to make Paul guilty of a petitio principti (Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 588 f.), but on the ground of the proof of this immorality already given in vv. 13, 14. In ver. 15 f. the apostle does not seek to prove it over again, but to teach the Corinthians to abhor the sin. — οὐκ οἴδατε κ.τ.2.1 He here takes up once more, and exhibits with greater fulness, the thought in ver. 18, τὸ σῶμα τῷ Κυρίῳ, as the basis for the follow- ing warning : ἄρας οὖν x.7.A. —péAn Χριστοῦ] Inasmuch, that is to say, as Christ, as the Head of the Christian world, stands to it in the closest and most inward fellowship of organic life (see especially Eph. iv. 16), and forms, as it were, one moral Person with it ; the bodies of the individual believers, who in fact belong to the Lord, and He to them for this world and that which is to come (ver. 13 f.), may be conceived as Christ’s members, just as from the same point of view the whole church of Christ is His collective organ, His body (Rom. xii. 5 ; Eph. i. 23 ; Col. i. 18, ii. 19; 1 Cor. xii. 18, αἴ): — ἄρας] Shall I then take away, take off, the members of Christ, and, etc. Billroth sees in ἄρας simply minuteness of description, indicative of deliber- ation, asin NP. But this is to confound it with λαβών. The Vulgate renders rightly : follens ; Luke vi. 29, xi. 22 ; John xi. 48 ; Plato, Pol. ix. Ρ. 578 E, Tim. p. 76 Β ; Sophocles, Trach. 796 ; 1 Mace. viii. 18. What is depicted is daring misappropriation. The plural ra μέλη denotes the cat- egory, for the matter ‘‘non quanta sit numero, sed qualis genere sit, specta- tur,” Reisig, Oonjec. in Aristoph. p. 58. Since the Christian’s body is among the members of Christ, the πορνεύειν is a deed whereby a man takes away the members of Christ fiom Him whose property they are, and makes them a harlot’s members. — ποιήσω] future: Shall this case occur with me? shall I degrade myself to this ? so far forget myself? Rickert and Osiander hold that it is the aorist subjunctive: should J, etc. (see Herm. ad Viger. p. 742). It is impossible to decide the point. Ver. 16. Ἤ οὐκ οἴδατε] ‘‘ Or if this μὴ γένοιτο (conveying, as it does, a negative to that question) still appears to you to admit of doubt, even after the statement of the nature of the case given in ver. 15, then ye must be ignorant that,” etc. This ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε cannot correspond with the οὐκ οἴδατε of ver. 15 (Hofmann: ‘‘either the one or the other they must be ignorant of,” etc.), for ὅτι ὁ κολλώμ. x.7.A. manifestly refers to the conclusion 142 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. from the preceding expressed in ἄρας οὖν, and therefore is subordinated to the question answered shudderingly with μὴ γένοιτο. In ver. 19, too, the ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε refers to what has just before been said. — κολλώμ. who joins him- self to (P23), indicating the union in licentious intercourse. Comp. Ecclus. xix. 2; Gen. ii. 24 ; Ezra iv. 20. —rj πόρνῃ] the harlot with whom he deals (article). — ὃν σῶμά ἐστιν] is a single body ; previous to the κολλᾶσθαι he and the person concerned were two bodies, but he who is joined to the harlot— an united subject—is one body. —éoovra: yap κ.τ.}.} Gen. 11. 24 (quoted from the LXX.) speaks, indeed, of wedded, not unwedded, intercourse ; but Theodoret rightly points out the paritas rationis: ἕν yap καὶ τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο τῇ φύσει τοῦ πράγματος. --- φησίν] Who it is that says it, is self-evident, namely, God ; the utterances of the Scripture being His words, even when they may be spoken through another, as Gen, ii. 24 was through Adam. Comp. on Matt. xix. 5. Similarly Gal. iii. 16 ; Eph. iv. 8; Heb. viii. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 27. ‘H γραφή, which is what is usually supplied here, would need to be suggested by the context, asin Rom. xv. 10. Riickert arbitrarily prefers τὸ πνεῦμα." --- οἱ dio] the two in question. The words are wanting in the Hebrew text, but are always quoted with it in the N. T. (Matt. xix. 5 ; Mark x. 8 ; Eph. v. 31) after the LXX., and also by the Rabbins (e.g. Beresh. Rabb. 18) ; an addition of later date in the interests of monogamy, which, although not expressly enjoined in the law, came by degrees to prevail, in accordance with its adumbration from the first in the history of the creation (Ewald, Alterth. p. 260 f.). —ei¢ σάρκα μίαν] WS 9, See on Matt. xix. 5. Ver. 17. Weighty contrast to ὁ κολλώμ. τῇ πόρνῃ ἕν σῶμά ἐστι, NO longer dependent on ὅτι. --- κολλᾶσθαι τῷ Κυρίῳ, an expression of close attachment to Jehovah, which is very common in the O. T. (Jer. xiii. 11 ; Deut. x. 20, xi. 22 ; 2 Kings xviii. 6 ; Ecclus. ii. 8, a/.). It denotes here, inward union of life with Christ, and is selected to be set against the κολλ. τῇ πόρνῃ in ver. 16, inasmuch as in both cases an intima conjunctio takes place, in the one Jleshly, in the other spiritual. Weare not to assume that Paul was thinking here, as in Eph. v. 23 ff. (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2 ; Rom. v. 4), of the union with Christ as a marriage (Piscator, Olshausen, comp. also Osiander); for in that mystical marriage-union Christ is the Bridegroom, filling the man’s place, and hence the contrast to κολλ. τῇ πόρνῃ would be an unsuitable one. Olshausen’s additional conjecture, that when the apostle spoke of τῇ πόρνῃ there floated before his mind a vision of the great whore who sitteth upon many waters (Rev. xvii. 1), is an empty fancy. —év πνεῦμά ἐστι] conceived of as the analogue to ἔν σῶμα. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 17. This is the same Unio mystica which Jesus Himself so often demands in the Gospel of John, and in which no ethical diversity exists between the πνεῦμα of the believing man and the πνεῦμα of Christ which fills it ; Christ lives in the believer, Gal. ii. 20, as the believer in Christ, Gal. iii. 27, Col. iii. 17, this being brought about by Christ’s communicating Himself to the human spirit through the 1 ΤῸ take it impersonally; ‘it is said,” as quotations from Scripture. Comp. Winer, in 2 Cor. x. 10, according to the well-known Gr. p. 486 [E. T. 656] ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. usage in the classics, would be without p. 117 [E. T. 184]. warrant from any other instance of Paul’s ©HAP. -VI.,- 18. 143 power of the Holy Spirit, Rom. viii. 9-11. Now, be it observed how, by fleshly union with a harlot, this high and holy unity is not simply put in hazard (Hofmann), but excluded altogether as a moral impossibility ! Comp. the idea of the impossibility of serving two masters (Rom. vi. 16), of fellow- ship with Christ and Belial, and the like. It is unnecessary to say that this has no application to union in marriage, seeing that it is ordained of God, ‘ob verbum, quo actus concubialis sanctificatur,” Calovius. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 421. Vv. 18-20. Direct prohibition of fornication, strengthened by description of it asa sin against one’s own body, which is in fact the temple of the Holy Spirit, etc. Ver. 18. Φεύγετε τὴν πορν.} Inferred from the foregoing verses (13-17), but expressed in all the more lively way from not being linked to them by any connective particle. ‘‘ Severitas cum fastidio,” Bengel. — πᾶν ἁμάρτημα k.T.A.] asyndetic corroboration of the preceding prohibition. Paul does not say anything here incapable of being maintained in its full stringency of meaning (Riickert, de Wette), nor is there any reason for taking πᾶν, with Michaelis, Flatt, Pott, and others, in a popular sense, as equivalent to almost all (comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Melanchthon : ‘‘ cum quodam candore accipiatur de iis, quae saepius accidunt”) ; but the truth of his words is based on the fact that every other sinful act (ἁμάρτημα), if it has to do at all with the body, works upon it from without, and consequently holds a position in reference to the body external to the same. The sinner makes that which is not of the body, but outside of it, as e.g. food and drink, to be the instrument of his immoral act, whereby the ἁμάρτημα, viewed in its relation to the body, comes to stand ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος, and has there the sphere of its occurrence and consummation. This holds true even in the case of the suicide, whose act is in fact a sinful use of external things, the instance of a man’s voluntarily starving himself not excepted (against Hofmann’s objection), for this is accomplished by the abuse of abstinence from food (which is equally an external relationship), and therefore ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος. How entirely different from the case of all such other sinful acts stands the state of things with unchasteness, where there is sin, not ἐκτὸς τ. σώματος, but εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα | See below. In connection with this passage, expositors indulge in many arbitrary and sometimes very odd interpretations * The body in its totality, he holds, is meant, inasmuch as it is one body with the harlot, 1 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, @., single out as the characteristic point—con- trary to the literal tenor of the passage— the defilement of the whole body by forni- eation, on which ground a dathis taken subsequently. This latter point Theodoret also lays stress upon, explaining, however, the expression by the fact that the man who commits other sins οὐ τοσαύτην αἴσϑησιν λαμβάνει τῆς ἁμαρτίας, while the profligate, on the other hand, εὐθὺς μετὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν αἰσϑάνεται τοῦ κακοῦ Kal αὐτὸ TO σῶμα βδελύτ- τεται. Chrysostom’s interpretation of the whole body has been taken up again by Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 540 f.). ΄ and in virtue of this unity the fornicator has the object of his sin not without him- self, but in himself, and sins against the body identified with his own self. But all this is not in the text, and no reader could read it into the text. Hofmann, too, im- ports what is’ neither expressed in the words themselves nor suggested by the an- tithesis, the obscure notion, namely, that, as in the case of the glutton, after complet- ing the deed ‘“‘the thing of his sin docs not remain with him” (?). 144 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, and saving clauses. Among these must be reckoned the exposition of Calvin and others, by way of comparison: ‘secundum plus et minus.” Neander, too, imports a meaning which is not in the words, that fornication desecrates the body in its very highest and most enduring significance (namely, as the sum of the personality). According to Chr. F. Fritzsche (Nova Opusce. Ῥ. 249 f.), what is meant is that all other sins do not separate the body of the Christian from the body of Christ, this taking place only through for- nication (ver. 15). But the general and local expression ἐκτὸς τ. σώματός éorw does not correspond with this special and ethical reference, nor are we warranted in attributing to one of such ethical strictness as the apostle the conception that no other sin separates from the body of Christ, ver. 9 f. ; Rom. viii. 9, al. —6 ἐὰν x.t.4.] which in any case whatever (Hermann, ad Viger. p. 819) a man shall have committed. Respecting ἐάν, instead of ἄν, after relatives, see Winer, p. 291 [E. T. 390]. — ἐκτὸς τ. σώμ. ἐστιν] inasmuch as the sinful deed done has been one brought about outside of the body. — εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα] For his own bodily frame is the immediate object which he affects in a sinful way, whose moral purity and honour he hurts and wounds by his action. Comp. on εἰς, Luke xv. 18. He dishonours his own body, which is the organ and object of his sin. Comp. Beza. The apostle says nothing at all here of the weakening effect upon the body itself (Athanasius in Oecumenius, and others). Ver. 19 justifies the ἁμαρτάνει in respect of the specific description of it given by εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα. ““ Commits sin,” I say, against his own body ; or, in case ye doubt that, and think perhaps that it does not matter so much about the body, know ye not that (1) your body (i.e. the body of each one among you, see Bernhardy, p. 60) is the temple (not : ὦ temple, see on iii. 16) of the Holy Spirit which is in you (Rom. viii. 11) ; and that (2) ye belong not to your own selves (see ver. 20)? Fornication, therefore, so far as it affects your own body, is a desecration of what is holy, and a selfish rebellion against God your Lord. — οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ Θεοῦ] gives edge to the proof,’ and leads on to the second point (οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν). Οὗ is under attraction from ay. rv. (Winer, p. 154 [E. T. 203]). — καὶ οὐκ x.7.A.] still dependent upon ὅτι, which is to be supplied again after καί, not an independent statement (Hof- mann, who takes the καί as meaning also), which would needlessly interrupt the flow of the animated address. Ver. 20. For (proof of the οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτ.) ye were bought, i.e. redeemed from the curse of the law, Gal. iii. 13 ; from the wrath of God, Eph. ii. 3 ; from the bond of the guilt of sin, Rom. iii. 19-21 ; and acquired as God’s property (Eph. ii. 19, i. 14), for a price, which was paid to God for your reconciliation with Him, namely, the blood of Christ, Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Rom. iii. 24f. ; 2 Cor. v. 18 ff. ; Eph. i. 7; 1 Pet. i. 18 f. ; Rev. v. 9. We have the same conception in Acts xx. 28, although there, as also in 1 Cor, vii. 23, and Tit. ii. 14, the church is represented as the property of 1 Chrysostom: καὶ τὸν δεδωκότα τέϑεικεν, the idea of the body being the temple of the ὑψηλόν τε ὁμοῦ ποιῶν τὸν ἀκροατὴν, καὶ φοβῶὼν Holy Spirit, in opposition to the abuse of καὶ τῷ μεγέϑει τῆς παρακαταϑήκης καὶ τῇ φιλο- it in debauchery, comp. Herm. Past. Sim. ~ τιμίᾳ τοῦ παρακαταϑεμένου. Further, as to Waris NOTES. 145 Christ ; but see John xvii. 9. --- τιμῆς] strengthens the ἠγοράσθ. as the op- posite of acquiring without an equivalent. Comp. vii. 23. The common exposition (following the Vulgate) : magno pretio, inserts without warrant what is not in the text (so, too, Pott, Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Olshausen, Ewald).! Comp. Herod. vii. 119, and the passages in Wetstein ; and see already Valla. — δοξάσατε δὴ κ.τ.}.} Do but glorify, etc. This is the moral obligation arising out of the two things grasped by faith as certainties, ver. 19. Regarding the 67 of urgency with imperatives, see on Acts xiii. 2. —é τῷ σώμ. ὑμ.] not instrumental, nor asin Phil. i. 20 (comp. Rom. xii. 1), but so expressed, because the exhortation proceeds upon the footing of the whole tenor of ver. 19, in which the body is described as a temple; in your body, namely, practically by chastity, the opposite of which would be an ἀτιμάζειν τὸν Θεόν (Rom. ii. 23) in His own sanctuary ! ΝΟΤΕΒ py AMERICAN Eprror. (0) The Judging of angels. Ver. 3. The author is undoubtedly correct in saying that here, according to the con- stant usage of Scripture, good angels are meant ; but he speaks rashly in hold- ing that the distinctions among them (‘‘ principalities, powers,” etc.) are made upon ethical grounds. Not a hint of this is given in the Bible, where through- out the entire body, when described at all, is noted as holy. It is far more natural to suppose that these creatures of God, like all other intelligent creatures of whom we have knowledge, differ in capacity, and therefore occupy different positions and render different services. The difficulty in the passage which arises to most readers at first blush is obviated by the unity of Christ with his church triumphant—a thought which is ever present to the Apostle’s mind when he thinks of the future, In this sense redeemed humanity will be the judge of the spiritual world and of whatever it contains. This is aided by the consideration Hodge advances, that to rule and to judge are often in Script- ure convertible terms. To rule Israel and to judge Israel mean the same thing. Thus is explained the promise to the apostles in Matt. xix. 18, of ‘sitting upon twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’’ So in the present case, ‘“‘ Know ye not that we shall judge angels?” is equivalent to ‘‘ Know ye not that we are to be exalted above the angels and preside over them ; shall we not then preside over earthly things ?”’ (Ὁ) Going to law before unbelievers, Ver. 6. A litigious spirit is known to have characterized the Greek nation from the time of Aristophanes downwards ; and itis not wonderful that this should have cropped out in the Christians of Corinth. What the Apostle reproves is that be- lievers, instead of settling their disputes among themselves, dragged one another before a heathen tribunal, and so brought discredit upon themselves and the worthy name by which they were called. That this does not teach that believers now are never to appeal to a civil court is obvious, because such courts are in no 1 How high a price it was (1 Pet. i. 19) would suggest itself readily to the readers, but is not implied in the word itself. 146 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. sense heathen, and Paul himself did not hesitate to invoke the protection of the laws of the land against the injustice of his countrymen. But it does teach with emphasis the wrongfulness and the meanness of cherishing a litigious spirit. (Q) ** Ye were washed.” Ver, 11, It does not seem at all necessary to interpret this of baptism, as the author does. It may indeed have an allusion to the rite, but is certainly not formally identified with it. The figure contained in the word is one often occurring in Seripture—Ps, li. 7; Isa. i. 16; Rev. xxii. 14 (true text). All three expressions are to be taken simply as a varied utterance of the same truth, and their force is well given by Stanley thus: ‘‘Ye were washed, and so cannot be again unclean ; consecrated, and so cannot be again polluted ; made righteous, and so cannot be unrighteous.’’ The attempt of Hodge and others to make the last verb mean forensic justification is inconsistent with its position here, for according to the Apostle’s doctrine everywhere, sanctification and moral cleansing follow justi- fication, and are dependent upon it, while here they would be represented as conditioning it, which is simply impossible. CHAP. VII. 147 CHAPTER VII. Ver. 3. ὀφειλήν] Elz. and Matt. read ὀφειλομένην εὔνοιαν, against decisive evi- dence. Erroneous explanation. — Ver. 5. Τῇ νηστείᾳ καί after σχολάσητε (not σχολάζητε, Elz.) is an inappropriate addition in the ascetic interest ; and συνέρχεσθε, in place of ἦτε, is a gloss. — Ver. 7. γάρ] AC D* F α δὲς, min. It. Copt. Goth. and several Fathers have dé. Approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. The ydp was an incorrect gloss upon the dé. — Instead of ὃς... ὃς, read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following the majority of the uncials,o... ὁ. In ver. 10 again, Lachm. and Riick. put χωρίζεσθαι in place of χωρισθῆναι (with A D E F G); but, considering the weight of authority on the other side, ag:évai must dissuade us from the change. — Ver. 13. οὗτος] approved also by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. The evidence against αὐτός (Elz.) is conclusive. But this induces us to read αὕτη in ver. 12 also (with Lachm. Tisch, and Riick.). —avrév] Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. have τὸν ἄνδρα, approved by Griesb. also, and on conclusive grounds. Αὐτόν has crept in from uniformity to ver. 12. Had there been a gloss, we should have found a corresponding variation of αὐτὴν in ver. 12 as well. — Ver. 14. ἀνδρί The uncials from A to G, &*, Copt. Baschm. It. Jerome, and Augustine, read ἀδελφῷ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. ᾿Ανδρί is an explanatory addition. — Ver. 15. ἡμᾶς] Tisch. has ὑμᾶς, but the evi- dence for it is weaker ; and ὑμᾶς would easily come in from ver, 14. — Ver. 17. Κύριος] Elz. and Matt. read Θεός, and, after κέκληκεν : ὁ Κύριος. Against con- clusive testimony ; Κύριος was glossed and dislodged by Θεός, and then after- wards reinserted in the wrong place. Hence in G, Boern. we have ὁ Κύριος . ὁ Κύριος ὁ Θεός. --- Ver. 18. Instead of the second τις ἐκλήθη, Lachm. Tisch, and Riick. read κέκλεταί τις, with A Β δὲ, min., and additional support from D* F and G, which have τις κέκλ. The Recepta is a mechanical repetition from the first clause of the verse. — Ver, 28. γήμῃς] B δὲ have γαμῆσῃς ; and, since in A we have γαμήσῃ, and in Ὁ E F α λάβῃς γυναῖκα, which is plainly a gloss, the evi- dence preponderates in favour of γαμῆσῃς (Lachm. Tisch,) ; γήμῃς arose out of what follows. — Ver. 29.! After ἀδελφοί Elz. has ὅτι, against A B K L δὰ, min. Baschm. Syr. p. Vulg. Eus. Method. Basil, Theodoret, Hierat. al. An exegetical addition. —rd λοιπόν ἐστιν] A B δὲ, min. Copt. Syr. p. Arm. Slav. Eus. Ephr. Basil, Cyr. have ἐστι τὸ λοιπόν. Now, seeing that D* has simply ἐστι λοιπόν, and F G 67** Boern. Vulg. Method. Tert. Jerome, Ambrosiast. al. have ἐστί, λοιπόν ἐστιν, the reading of A, etc., is best accredited. That in the Received text originated in the wish to indicate the fact that τὸ λοιπόν was regarded as belonging to what had gone before,—a connection. which is expressly set forth in several codd. vss. and Fathers (see Tisch. and Reiche). As to whether a comma should be placed between ἐστίν and τὸ λοιπόν, which is done by Lachm. Tisch. Riick, and Scholz, see the exegetical remarks on the verse, — Ver. 31. τῷ 1 Respecting ver. 29, see Reiche, comment. crit. I. p. 178 ff. 148 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. κοσμῳ τούτῳ] Lachm. Tisch. and Riick. read τὸν κόσμον, with A B δὲ, also D* F G 17, which, however, add τοῦτον. The dative was a correction to bring it into accordance with the common usage ; τοῦτον (τούτῳ) again in addition from what follows. — Vv. 32-34. ἀρέσει] Lachm. and Riick. have ἀρέσῃ, with AB DE F G δὲ 21 46, Eus. al. But it was very natural that, in place of the future (K L, almost all the min. Clem. Or. Meth. Ath. Epiph. and many others), the more usual subjunctive should creep into the text. —— Ver. 34.! μεμέρισται κ.τ.λ.} Καὶ μεμέρισται occurs in A Β D* δὲ, min. Syr. p. Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome, and many other Fathers, and is joined to what precedes it by most of the codd. Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome (who expressly states that this connection is according to the original), Pel. Bede, al. On the other hand, it is construed with what follows by Syr. Arr. Arm. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Basil, Oecum. Theophylact, Tert. Ambr, Aug. Sedul. and Latin codices in Jerome. The καί after pepép., which is wanting in Elz., is conclusively attested by A B D*¥** FGKL&, win. Aeth. Vulg. It. Chrys. al. Going on with the verse, we find ἡ ἄγαμος after γυνή in A Β &, some min, Vulg. and several Fathers ; while, on the other hand, there is no ἡ ἄγαμος after παρθένος in Vulg. Jerome, Aug. Euseb. al. We have the choice left us, therefore, between the following two readings (and modes of connecting the words): (1) [καὶ] μεμέρισται καὶ ἣ γυνὴ Kai ἡ παρθένος" dya- μος μεριμνᾷ K.7.A,, and (2) καὶ μεμέρισται. Kai ἣ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος καὶ ἡ παρθένος ἡ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ k.t.2. The latter is adopted by Lachm. and Riick. ; but is not to be preferred, because it offers no difficulty whatever, and, consequently, no occasion for any change. The former, on the contrary (found in D*** F GK L, and many min. It. Slav. Chrys. Theodoret, Dam.), presented a stone of stum- bling in the μεμέρισται, which was either not understood at all, or misunderstood, Where not understood, it was left out altogether (so even Cyprian : ‘ uxori. Sic et mulier et virgo innupta cogitat,’’ etc.); where misunderstood (that μερίζεσθαι must mean curis distrahi, see Jerome, adv. Jovin. i. 7), it was con- nected with the preceding clause by καί (which appears, therefore, to be spuri- ous). This made γυνή be taken as mulier vidua (Aeth.) ; and hence ἡ ἄγαμος was either pushed forward (Vulg.), or else left in connection with παρθένος, and the same word added to γυνή as well (A Β δὲ, Lachm.). Scholz, too, has the words as in our reading,” but spoils it by his quite wrong and abrupt method of punctuation : τῇ γυναικί" μεμέρισται. Kai ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἣ παρθένος ἣ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ .t.A, — Ver. 84. τὰ Tov κόσμου] omitted in B alone, which, however, is approved of by Buttmann (Studien τι. Krit. 1860, p. 370). — Ver. 37. ἑδραῖος" ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ Lachm. reads ἐν τῇ xapd. αὐτοῦ ἑδραῖος, which has conclusive evidence in its favour ; on the other hand, there is no sufficient ground for omitting édp. (as Griesb. does) or αὐτοῦ (deleted by Tisch.). As regards ἑδραῖος in particular, which is omitted only by F G, It. Aeth., it was very likely to be left out as being unessential, so far as the sense was concerned, after ἕστηκεν. --- αὐτοῦ Tov] is deleted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. in accordance with AB δὲ, In place of it, Tisch., following the same authorities, has ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ καρδίᾳ. The evi- dence, however, for αὐτοῦ τοῦ (the uncials DEF GK L) is too weighty and uniform, while τοῦ again was in appearance so cumbrous and superfluous, and such a natural occasion for writing ἰδίᾳ instead of αὐτοῦ presented itself in the 1 Respecting ver. 34, see Reiche, Comment. ed by Tisch. Elz. varies from it only in crit. I. p. 184 ff. omitting the καί after μεμέρισται, Which was 2 It isdefended also by Reiche andretain- justly reinserted by Bengel. CHAP, VII., 1. 149 preceding ἰδίου θελήμ., that our conclusion is to retain the Recepta. — Instead of ποιεῖ, A B δὲ 6 17 87, Copt. have ποιῆσει (as also where it occurs for the sec- ond time in ver. 38), which is adopted by Lachm. and Riick. (B 617 37 have ποιῆσει also the first time in ver. 38). But in default of internal reasons for a change, these witnesses, having no support from the Fathers, and next to none from the vss., are too weak to warrant it. — Ver. 38. ὁ ἐκγαμίζων] Lachm. and Riick. have 6 γωμίζων τὴν παρθένον ἑαυτοῦ. Now it is true that γαμίζων occurs in ABDE 817 23 31 46, Clem. Method. Basil., and τὴν rupf. éavr. (or τ. ἑαυτ. παρῇ., so Riick.) in much the same codices and Syr. Erp. Arm. Baschm. Aeth. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Clem. Basil. al. But the whole reading is manifestly of the nature of a gloss, ἐκγαμίζων, being explained sometimes by γαμίζων τὴν παρθ. ἕαυτ., sometimes by the addition to it of τὴν παρθ. éavr. The latter phrase crept into the text beside éxyau., the former in place of it. — Instead of ὁ de read kai 0; 80 Griesb. Lachm. Schulz, Riick. Tisch., upon conclusive evidence. The antithesis gave rise to the ὁ δέ. — Ver. 39. After δέδεται Elz. has νόμῳ, against A Β D* ἘΠῚ 8**, min. with many vss. and Fathers. Taken from Rom. vii. 2, although Reiche doubts this. — ἐὰν dé] Tisch. has ἐὰν δὲ καί, wpon insufficient evidence ; the «ai might easily come in through writing the next syllable twice over, or by a clerical error such as κεκοιμηθη (so F G). ContEents.—Instructions regarding marriage, matrimonial intercourse, and divorce (vv. 1-17) ; then an excursus upon the theme that the reception of Christianity ought not to alter the outward relations of life (vv. 17-24) ; lastly, about virgins—as to how far celibacy in general is advisable for both sexes (vv. 25-34), and whether a father does better to let his daughter re- main single, or give her away in marriage (vv. 35-38). The same advice, to remain unmarried, is given to widows (ver. 39 f.). Comp. on this chap- ter, Harless, die Hhescheidungsfrage, 1861. Ver. 1. Aé] leads over to the answering of questions put in the letter from Corinth. — ἐγράψατέ μοι] Differences of opinion must have prevailed respecting the points discussed in this chapter, and these had been laid before the apostle by the church. In particular, there must have been at Corinth opponents of marriage. This is wrongly denied by Baur, who imag- ines merely an attempt made among the Corinthians to defend fornication from the analogy of marriage ; of which there is not a trace in the apostle’s words. Whether, now, the doubts in question, more especially as to the lawfulness of marriage,? were mixed up with the subsistence of the parties at Corinth, it is impossible to make out with any certainty, although in itself it seems likely that a matter of opinion so important practically would be turned, with other points, to account in the interest of party. Grotius holds that those who raised such points of debate were ‘‘ sub Christianorum 1 Fragment of a Codex of the 7th century. See Tisch. Monum. sacr. ined. Ὁ. 460. 21f the opinion that fornication was lawful (vi. 12 ff.) arose at Corinth out of an Epicurean libertinism, the doubts regard- ing the lawfulness of marriage must have flowed from the opposite source, to wit, from the perverted moral extravagance of others, who, because of the intercourse of sex involved, counted marriage also an im- pure thing, and would have the maxim: καλὸν ἀνϑρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσϑαι, to be of absolute and universal application. 150 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. nomine philosophi verius quam Christiani.” But such of the Greek philoso- phers as advocated views adverse to marriage did so upon the ground of the cares and dangers connected with marriage (see Grotius in loc.), not from any doubt regarding its morality, as, according to vv. 28, 36, must have been the case among the Corinthians. Further, it is certain that the adversaries of marriage could not be of the Petrine party ; for Peter himself was married (Matt. viii. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5), and the Judaizing tendency, which cannot be proved to have had an Essene-Ebionitic character in Cor- inth (Schwegler, I. p. 163 1.2), could be nothing else but favourable to marriage (see Lightfoot, Horae, Ὁ. 189). Olshausen (comp. also Jaeger, Kniewel, Goldhorn, Ewald) decides for the Christ-party, in whose idealistic tendency he considers there were contained the germs both of moral indif- ference and of false asceticism. But this party’s idealism in general is a pure hypothesis, which is as little established by proof as their Hssenism in particular, to which Ewald traces back the rejection of marriage among the Corinthians.? In the last place, that it was the followers of Paul (Storr, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, Neander, Ribiger, Osiander, Maier, Riickert re- fuses to give a decision), who—in opposition, perhaps, to the Petrine party, and appealing to the celibacy of Paul himself, he never having been mar- ried (see on ver. 8)—overvalued celibacy, and pronounced marriage to stand lower in point of morality and holiness, is the most likely view, for this reason, that the apostle’s sentiments upon this point were in themselves, as we see from the chapter before us, quite of a kind to be readily misunder- stood or misinterpreted by many of his disciples—more especially in parti- san interests—as being unfavourable to marriage.* It merely required that men should overlook or wish to overlook the conditional character of the advantages which he ascribes to single life. The opponents of marriage referred to in 1 Tim. iv. 3 were of a totally different class. Those with whom we are now concerned did not forbid marriage and so endanger Christian liberty (otherwise Paul would have written regarding them in quite another tone), but simply undervalued it, placing it morally below celibacy, and advising against it, hence, too, as respects married persons, favouring a cessation from matrimonial intercourse and even divorce (vv. 3 ff., 10 ff.). — καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ] With respect to what you have written to me (περὶ x.7.A., absolute, as in xvi. 1, 12 ;. Bernhardy, p. 261 ; Bremi, ad De- 1 One section of the Essenes even declared itself against celibacy, Josephus, Bell. ii. 8.13; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 185. * According to Ewald (comp. too, his Gesch. der apost. Zeit. p. 503 f.), the Christ- party appealed to the example of Christ in regard to this point especially. But had that been the case, we should surely have found some traces of it in Paul’s way of discussing the question, whereas, on the contrary, the reference which he deems it due to make is rather to his own example (ver. 7). Looking at the matter as a whole, it is prima facie improbable that any one should have adduced the unwedded life of Christ as an argument against marriage— in the first place, because He, as the incar- nate Son of God, held too lofty a place in the believing consciousness to present a standard for such earthly relationships; and secondly, because He Himself in His teaching had so strongly upheld the sanc- tity of marriage. 3 Just as they were often misinterpreted, as is well known, in after times in the interests of the celibate system, of nunner- ies and monasteries. CHAP. VII.; 2. 151 mosth, Ol. p. 194 ; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 170), it ts good for aman, etc., that is to say : it is morally salutary * for an (anmarried) man not to touch a woman. That, in a general theoretical point of view, is the prevailing axiom, which I hereby enunciate as my decision ; but in a practical point of view, seeing that few have the gift of continence, the precept must come in : because of fornication, etc., ver. 2. In Paul’s eyes, therefore, the γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι is, indeed, something morally salutary in and by itself ; but this affirmation, made from a general point of view, finds its necessary limitation and restric- tion in the actual facts of the case, so that just according to circumstances marriage may be equally a duty. Hence the καλὸν «.7.2. is not appropriate for the defence of celibacy in general (‘‘ si bonwm est mulierem non tangere, malum ergo est tangere,” Jerome, ad Jovin. i. 4, and see especially Cornelius ἃ Lapide in loc.). — ἅπτεσθαι, like tangere in the sense of sexual intercourse (Gen. xx. 16, xxi. 11; Prov. vi. 29). See Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 204 f. Marriage is the particular case coming under this general γυναικὸς ἅπτεσθαι, to be treated of in detail hereafter. Riickert, failing to recognize this progress in the apostle’s argument (so, too, Kling in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1839, p. 444), holds that the reference is to sexual intercourse in marriages already formed (and that nothing is said of entering into matrimonial con- nections). Did Paul, as Kling supposes, here give it as his opinion that ‘‘q@ chaste life, as of brother and sister, was more consonant, on the part of married persons, with delicacy of moral feeling” (καλόν) ; this would be a sentimental error, which ought not to be attributed to him, whether consid- ered in itself, or in view of his high appreciation of marriage as a union of the sexes (2 Cor. xi. 2 ; Rom. vii. 4; Eph. v. 28 ff.). — The axiom is enun- ciated without a μέν, because it is, in the first place, conceived simply in itself ; the limitation which follows is added with dé by way of antithesis. Comp. on Eph. v. 8, and Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 438. Precisely so, too, in ver. 8. Ver. 2. In order, however, that offences in the way of fornication (see on this plural of the abstract, Kithner, II. p. 28 ; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 144 f.) may be avoided in practice, the rule holds good : Let every man have? a wife of his own (properly belonging to himself in marriage), ete. On διά, comp. Winer, p. 372 [E. T. 497]. Riickert, de Wette, and Maier are wrong in maintaining that ἐχέτω is permissive merely,—Riickert, indeed, making it so only to the extent of a man’s retaining his wife. The latter is disproved by vv. 9, 10, and the former by the fact that the immediately following ἀποδι- δότω in ver. 3 is not to be taken as permissive, any more than the γαμησάτωσαν which answers to ἐχέτω in ver. 9. It is opposed, further, by the considera- tion that διὰ τὰς πορνείας is a determining element of a moral kind, which must therefore necessarily lead not to amere permissibility, but to a positive 1That we have in καλὸν x«.7.A. a moral axiom, a statement of what is ethically salutary, not a mere utilitarian principle of practical prudence, is clear, especially from the comparison in the last clause of ver. 9, and from vv. 32-34, where the ethical benefit of it is explained. [See the limitation of καλὸν in ver. 26, where the reason is formal- ly stated.—T. W. C.] 2 This ἔχειν is nothing else but the simple habere (to possess) ; it does not mean iter- tercourse in marriage, which ought to be continued (Kling, Heydenreich, following Cameron and Estius), Paul comes to that only in ver. 3. 152 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. obligation (already noted by Erasmus). This injunction, however, is a moral rule, to which exceptions may occur from higher considerations in cases where no danger of fornication is apprehended and there is the ‘‘ do- num continentiae,” as Paul himself had shown by his own example,—in which, nevertheless, no support whatever is given to any sort of celibacy enforced by law, a thing which, on the contrary, our text decidedly dis- countenances. Riickert thinks further that Paul exhibits here a very poor opinion of marriage ; and Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 15 ff.) has more fully developed this idea so as to assert that the apostle’s view of marriage is at variance with the moral conception of it which now prevails.’ Comp. also Rothe, Hthik, III. p. 614. But can it be true, then, that ie, who looked upon the union with Christ itself as the analogue of wedded life, valued marriage only as a ‘‘ temperamentum contirfentiae” ? No ! what he does is this : out of all the different grounds on which marriage rested in his mind, he selects just that one which, in the first place, specially concerned his readers (remember the κορινθιάζεσθαι), and in the second place, had peculiar weight in connection with the nearness of the Parousia, That approaching catastrophe might furnish him with sufficient reasons for leaving unmentioned those higher ends of marriage which reached forth into a more remote fu- ture, and confining himself to the immediate practical relations of the brief, momentous present. See ver. 26 ff. Keeping in view the present ἀνάγκη, the near approach of the Lord, and the necessity, therefore, of an undivided surrender to Him, Paul had, wnder these given circumstances, recognized in the state of single life what in and by itself was καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ, if only no Sornication and heat were conjoined therewith. It is from this point of view, which was presented to him by the then existing condition of things (and hence without at all contradicting Gen. ii. 18), that the apostle handles the subject, discussing it accordingly in a special aspect and from one particu- lar side, while the wider and higher moral relations of marriage lie beyond the limits of what he has now in hand.—Observe, further, how sharply and decisively the expression in ver. 2 (comp. Eph. v. 22, 25) excludes not only concubinage and sexual intercourse apart from marriage generally, but also all polygamy. Vv. 3, 4. The occasion for this injunction, which otherwise might very well have been dispensed with, must have been given by the statement in the letter from Corinth of scruples having arisen on the point. See on ver. 1.— iv ὀφειλήν] the due in the matter (Rom. xiii. 7), i.e. according to the context, as euphemistically expressed, the debitum tori.2 See ver. 4. The word does not occur at all in Greek writers ; see Lobeck, a@ Phryn. p. 90. Nor does it in the LXX. and the Apocrypha. —} γυνὴ τοῦ ἰδίου σώμ. K.7.A.] 1Comp. in opposition to this, Ernesti, Ethik des Ap. Paulus, Ὁ. 115 f. 2If we adopted the common reading τὴν ὀφειλομ. εὔνοιαν, We should not take it, with Grotius, a., in the same sense as given above, but generally, with Calvin and others, as benevolentiam. For the expression for that special idea is not εὔνοια (not even in Philo, de Abr. p. 584), but φιλότης (Homer). μίξις, συνουσία. The author of the gloss, therefore, must either have misunderstood τὴν ὀφειλήν, Or, understanding it rightly, have used a wrong expression to explain it. The reading ὀφειλομένην τιμήν ἴῃ Chrys- ostom points to the former alternative. OHAP., Vilz,.0,'10. 153 Explanatory of ver. 3. The wife has no power over her own body, namely, as regards cohabitation, but the husband has that power ; likewise (ὁμοίως) also, on the other hand, the converse holds, so that ‘‘ neutri liceat alteri conjugale debitum poscenti denegare,” Estius. Corresponding statements of the Rabbins may be seen in Selden, wxor. Hebr. 111. 6. 7. — Bengel says happily respecting ἰδίου, that it forms with οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει an elegans paradoxon. Ver. 5. Withhold not yourselves from each other, unless it were perhaps (nisi Sorte, comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; Luke ix. 13) that ye did so as occasion emerged (av), by agreement for a time (supply ἀποστερῆτε ἀλλήλ. ; see on Luke ix. 18). The obvious meaning is euphemistically expressed by ἀποστερ. ; ἄγαν τοίνυν ἁρμοδίως τοῦτο τέθεικεν ἐπὶ TOV οὐ συμφώνως τὴν ἐγκράτειαν αἱρουμένων, Theodoret. — iva σχολάσητε k.t.2.| ἵνα introduces the design of the concession just made ἐκ συμφών. πρὸς καιρόν : in order that ye may have free leisure for prayer— may be able to give yourselves to it without being drawn away and dis- tracted by sensual desire and the pleasures of sense. What Paul means is not the ordinary praying of the Christian heart, which ought to ascend ἀδιαλείπτως (1 Thess. v. 17 ; Eph. vi. 18), but such extraordinary exercises in prayer as they might have determined specially to devote themselves to for a longer period (a series of days). We are not to assume that such do- mestic devotions, as the apostle here plainly supposes to be engaged in by husband and wife in common, had been already then connected with Chris- tian festivals ; probably they were still entirely dependent upon the wants and wishes of individuals. But the idea of cohabitation being excluded for a time by religious exercises, is found both among the Jews (Ex. xix. 15 ; 1 Sam. xxi. 4) and the heathen. See Wetstein and Dougt. Anal. II. p. 111 f. Comp. Test. XI. Patr. p. 673: καιρὸς γὰρ συνουσίας γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ καιρὸς ἐγκρατείας εἰς προσευχὴν αὐτοῦ. --- καὶ πάλιν ἦτε] still dependent on iva, indicates σεμνῶς the being together again for matrimonial intercourse. With respect to ἐπὶ τὸ avtd,1 comp. on Acts i. 15. —iva μὴ πειράζῃ K.7.2.] design of the καὶ πάλιν. .. ἦτε : in order that Satan may not tempt you to sin (to breach of the marriage-vow) on account of your incontinency, because ye are incontinent ; for ‘‘ Satanas vitiorum scintillas excitat,” Grotius. ’Axpacia, which occurs again in the N. T. in its older form of ἀκράτεια, Matt. xxiii. 25, comes from ἀκρατής (κρατεῖν), and is the opposite of ἐγκράτεια. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 524 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 461 B. Riickert conjectures that the word means : not mingling in matrimonial intercourse (on account of your non-participation therein). This is quite against usage ; for ἀκρᾶσία (with the a long, from ἄκρατος), in the Ionic form ἀκρησίη, means bad mixture, as opposed to εὐκρασία. See Theophrastus, 6. pi. iii. 2.5 ; Dio Cassius, Ixxvii. 22. Paul had reason enough to affirm incontinency of the Corinthians generally, and to call their attention in warning to this lack of moral strength, on which the devil would base his attempts to find access to them with his temptations. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 11. Ver. 6. Τοῦτο] does not refer to what follows (J. Cappellus, Rosenmiiller), which it does not suit ; nor to ver. 2 (Beza, Grotius, de Wette, Gratama, 1 Hrasmus remarks rightly : ‘‘ut intelligas, eos ante fuisse separatos thalamis.” 154 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Baur, Hofmann) ; nor to all that has been said from ver. 2 onwards (Bengel, Pott, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Osiander), for vv. 2-4 contain precepts actually obligatory ; nor to «. πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ire (Origen, Tertullian, Je- rome, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, a/.), which is but a subordinate portion of the preceding utterance. It is to this utterance : μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε. . . ἀκρ. ὑμῶν, which directly precedes the τοῦτο, that it can alone be made to refer without arbitrariness,—an utterance which might have the appearance of an érirayy, but is not intended to be such. What Paul means is this: Although I say that ye should withhold yourselves from each other by mutual agreement only perhaps for the season of prayer, and then come together again, so as to es- cape the temptations of Satan ; yet that is not to be understood by way of command, as if youmight not be abstinent at other times or for a longer period ἐκ συμφώνου, but by way of indulgence (‘‘ secundum indulgentiam,” Vulgate), so that thereby concession is made to your lack of continency, it is allowed for. Theophylact puts it well : συγκαταθαίνων τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ὑμῶν, and Erasmus : ‘‘ con- sulo vestris periculis.” --- συγγνώμη occurs here only in the N. T. (Ecclus., pref. i. and iii. 18), but very often in Greek writers,—not, however, in the LXX. It means invariably either forgiveness, or, as here, forbearance, indul- gence, γνώμη κριτικὴ τοῦ ἐπιεικοῦς ὀρθή, Aristotle, Hth. vi. 11. Hammond and Pott transgress the laws of the language by making it the same as κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν γνώμην. So even Valckenaer ; comp. Calovius, Flatt, Heydenreich, a. Ewald, too, renders without any support from the usage of the language : “‘apith the best conscience.” Ver. 7. Ido not say by way ef command that you should withhold your- selves only for the time of prayer and then be ‘together again ; but indeed (dé) I wish that every one had the gift of continency, as I myself, and so could restrain himself, not merely at such isolated periods for some particu- lar higher end ; still (and that justifies what I said : κατὰ συγγνώμην) this gift is not vouchsafed to all. There is no more ground for supposing that μέν should be supplied (after λέγω) in connection with this dé, than there is in ver. 2 (against Riickert). — ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν] as also I myself, that is to say, endued with the donum continentiae, ἐν ἐγκρατείᾳ, Chrysostom. See what fol- lows. He does not mean his state of single life, but its charismatic basis. The καί is, as for instance in Acts xxvi. 29, the quite commonly used καί of comparison. — χάρισμα] ὦ special endowment bestowed by divine grace, fitting him for the purposes of the kingdom of God. Comp. on xii. 1-4 ; Rom. xii. 6. It is of course, and necessarily (because communicated through the Spirit), conceived as existing within the church. The words πάντας ἀνθρώ- move do not contradict this ; for Paul could most warrantably wish to ail men that gracious gift, which he as a Christian was conscious that he pos- sessed, and as to which he knew that even within the Christian pale it was vouchsafed to one and withheld from another. — ὁ μὲν οὕτως k.7.2.] is not to be understood as if the first οὕτως meant the gift of continence, and the second a man’s suitableness for wedded life (de Wette, with older commen- tators, beginning with Theodoret and Theophylact), but in a quite general sense : the one has his peculiar gift of grace after this fashion, the other in that ; the one 80, the other so. Under this general statement, the possession 7 CHAP. VIL, 8, ὩΣ 155 of continence, or some other gracious endowment in its place, is included. As to the double οὕτως, comp. LXX. 2 Sam. xi. 25: ποτὲ μὲν οὕτως καὶ ποτὲ οὕτως καταφάγεται ἡ ῥομφαία, also Judg. xviii. 4 ; 2 Kings v. 4 ; 2Sam. xvii. 15. It is not so used in Greek writers. Vv. 8, 9. Λέγω δέ] leads on from what is contained in ver. 7 (from the subjective wish of the apostle and its objective limitation) to the rules flowing therefrom, which he has now to enwnciate. Rickert holds that the transition here made by Paul is from the married to the unmarried. But were that the case, τοῖς δὲ ἀγάμοις would require to stand first (comp. ver. 10) ; the emphasis is on λέγω. --- τοῖς ἀγάμοις] What is meant is the whole category, all without distinction, including both sexes, not simply widowers ;' for the phrase opposed to it, τοῖς γεγαμηκόσι, in ver. 10, embraces both sexes ; and hence aydu. cannot apply to the wnamarried men alone (Riickert). The additional clause, «. ταῖς χήραις, by no means justifies a restrictive rendering ; for in it the καί does not mean also (Hofmann), but, as the connective and, singles out specially from the general expression something already included in it : and in particular the widows. The idiom is an ordinary one both in classical and N. T. Greek (Matt. viii. 33; Mark xvi. 7; and often else- where) ; see Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 11, 713. Comp. here Soph. 0. &. 1502 : χέρσους φθαρῆναι κἀγάμους. It was a special wish of Paul’s, therefore, that the widows should remain unwedded, doubtless in the interests of the church (Rom. xvi. 1 ; 1 Tim. v. 9 1. --- καλὸν (as in ver. 1) αὐτοῖς, 86. ἐστι 3 Comp. ver. 40. — ἐὰν μείνωσιν x.7.A.| if they shall have remained as I also (have remain- ed), i.e. unmarried. The opposite of this is γαμησάτωσαν, ver. 9. The ὡς κἀγώ therefore receives here from the context a different meaning than in ver. 7. Luther, Grotius, and others infer from this passage that Paul was a widower ;? so, too, Ewald. But this conclusion rests upon the assumption, which is linguistically inadmissible, that ἀγάμοις denotes widowers alone (i.e. yapor) ; and, moreover, would not be a safe inference even were the assumption sound. Acts vii, 58, moreover, is against this ; for one could not place Paul’s marriage after the stoning of Stephen. —ovi« ἐγρατεύονται]) to be closely joined together : are incontinent. See Hartung, Partikell. ΤΙ. p- 122; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 267; Ameis on Hom. Od. ii. 274. The verb ἐγκρατεύεσθαι (Ecclus. xix. 6) is foreign to the older Greek, although this precise phrase : οὐκ ἐγκρατ., is sanctioned by Thomas, p. 30, and Phryn. p. 442. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. 1.c. — γαμησάτ. Regarding the later form of the aorist ἐγάμησα, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 742. — πυροῦσθαι] to be in a flame, of vehement emotions (2 Cor. xi. 29 ; 2 Mace. iv. 88, x. 35, xiv. 45 ; of love, Anacreon, x. 13) ; it means here, ‘‘ occulta flamma concupiscentiae vastari,” Augustine, de sancta virginit. 84. Comp. Suicer, Tes. If. p. 899 ; from the Rabbins, the history of Amram in Lightfoot, Horae, p. 190 ; from the classics, Jacobs, Del. Epigr. v. 34. — κρεῖσσον] not because it is the least 1 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Es- the ancient church was that Paul was never tius, a/., including Pott, Heydenreich, Bill- married (Tertullian, Jerome, Chrysostom, roth, Ewald. a.). The contrary is stated in Clem. Alex. 2 The prevalent and correct tradition of (in Eus. H. Z£. iii. 30). 156 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. of two evils (Riickert, Kling ; comp. Estius), but because to marry is no sin (vv. 28, 36), while to burn is sinful (Matt. v. 28). Ver. 10. But to those who have married ; this is opposed to the γαμησάτω- σαν, which referred to futw'e marriages. ‘Accordingly, just as γαμησάτ. ap- plied only to Christians of both sexes leading a single life, so γεγαμηκόσι, too, refers exclusively to married persons both of whom were Christians. It is perfectly correct, therefore, to designate the married persons, where one party in the union was not a Christian, by τοῖς λοιποῖς, ver. 12 ; for, apart from the cases discussed down to ver. 12, there are no others remaining to be spoken of except those living in mixed marriage. Riickert understands τοῖς γεγαμηκόσι to mean specially the newly married people ; Paul, he holds, has a particular case in view, in which a single man perhaps had married a widow, which had been disapproved of by some ; and, because the apostle had given an opinion in ver. 8 unfavourable to such marriages, he must now forbid the dissolution of a union of that sort when once formed. But the fact of the ἀγάμοι and the widows being coupled together in ver. 8 lends no support whatever to this, for ἀγάμοις applies to both sexes. Moreover, were the perfect participle, which is the present of the completed action, meant here to convey the notion of ‘‘newly married,” this would need to be indicated either by some addition (such as νεωστί), or undoubtedly at least by the context. The fact, again, that Paul speaks first and chiefly of the wife (which Riickert explains on the ground of the wife having desired a separation), may very reasonably be accounted for, without supposing any special design, in this way, that the cases in which a wife separated herself from her husband presented to the Christian consciousness the most anoma- lous phenomenon in this sphere, and notwithstanding might not unfrequent- ly occur in the wanton city of Corinth even within the Christian society.’ This is quite sufficient, without there being any need for assuming that the apostle had been questioned about some case of this kind (Hofmann), particu- larly as the passage itself gives no sign of any such interrogation, but simply disposes of the point in the evenly course of the discussion regarding mar- riage, and with a view to its completeness. —oix ἐγὼ, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Κύριος] The negation is absolute. Paul knew from the living voice of tradition what commands Christ had given concerning divorce, Matt. v. 81 {., xix. 3-9 ; Mark x. 9- 12; Luke xvi. 18. Hence ὁ Κύριος, 86. παραγγέλλει, for the authority of Christ lives on in His commands (against Baur, who infers from the pres- ent, which is to be supplied here, that Paul means the will of Christ made 1 That we are to ascribe the tendency to such separation precisely to devoul enthusi- asm on the part of Corinthian wives leading them to shrink from matrimonial inter- course (de Wette, comp. Hofmann, p. 146), is a view which is inadmissible for this reason, that Paul, having before him such a mere error of feeling and judgment, would have made a disproportionate con- cession to it by saying μενέτω ἄγαμος. The state of morals at Corinth is explanation enough, more especially in connection with the easy and frivolous way in which divorces took place in Greek social life generally (Hermann, Privatalterth. ὃ xxx. 14-16), not merely by dismissal on the part of the husband (ἀποπέμπειν), but also by de- sertion on the part of the wife (ἀπολείπειν) ; comp. Bremi, ad Dem. I. p. 92. CHAP. VII., 11. . 157 known to him by inspiration). It is otherwise in 1 Thess. iv. 15. As re- gards the ἐγώ, again, Paul was conscious (ver. 40) that his individuality was under the influence of the Holy Spirit. He distinguishes, therefore, here and in vv. 12, 25, not between Ais own and inspired commands, but between those which proceeded from his own (God-inspired) subjectivity and those which Christ Himself supplied by His objective word. (rR) Since, now, the πνεῦμα Θεοῦ in no way differs from the πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (Rom. viii. 9-11), Κυρίου ἐντολαί (xiv. 87 according to the Tezt. recept.) could be predicated of the former class of precepts also, although neither in the same sense as of the latter, in which Paul’s own subjectivity had no share whatever, nor with the same force of absolute obligation ; but, on the contrary, only in so far as the other party recognizes them as ἐντολὰς Κυρίου (xiv. 37). — μὴ χωρισθῆναι] let her not be separated, which, however, is not purely passive here (as in Polybius xxxii. 12. 7), but means : let her not separate herself. Isae. viii. 36, p. 79. For the rest, vv. 13, 15 prove that this phrase and μὴ ἀφιέναι in ver. 11 are not so different, that the former can be used only of the wife and the latter only of the husband. Ver. 11. From ἐάν to καταλλ. is a parenthesis pure and simple, disjoined from the rest of the sentence which continues with καὶ ἄνδρα. But in case she should perhaps (ἐὰν δέ) even (καί, i.e. in fact, actually ; see Hartung, Par- tikell. I. p. 132 f.) be separated (have separated herself) ; in this Paul is not granting something in the way of exception, as though the preceding in- junction were not to be taken too strictly (which is set aside at once by οὐκ ἐγὼ, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Kip., ver. 10), but he supposes a future case, which will possibly arise notwithstanding the commandment of the Lord’s just adduced. The ἐὰν καί therefore, with the δέ of antithesis, introduces, as in ver. 28, an oc- currence which will possibly be realized in the experience of the future (Her- mann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 834; Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 367]). This in opposition to Riickert, who maintains that the words refer to that specific case (see on ver. 10), and mean : if, however, she should perhaps have already separated herself before receiving this decision ; and likewise to Hofmann, who ren- ders : if such aseparation has actually already taken place within the church, thereby presupposing that such a thing will henceforth never take place there again. — μενέτω ἄγαμος] assumes that her marriage is not to be looked upon as really dissolved ; hence she would be guilty of adultery should she contract another union. Comp. Matt. xix. 9.—%] 07 else ; comp. on ix. 15. —xarudAayfro] passive, leaving it undefined as to who was the active subject in the case (see Buttmann, I. p. 368 ; Winer, p. 245 [E. T. 328]) : let her be reconciled, be friendly again with her husband. The voluntary sep- aration of the wife from her husband is, in fact, just the cancelling of her _ peaceful relation to him, which is to be restored again. — kai ἄνδρα γυν. μὴ ἀφιέναι] and that a husband put not away a wife, send her from him, separate himself from her. Comp. Herod. v. 29: ἀπέντα ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα. This clause added by Christ (in accordance with Schamai’s doctrine) : παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνειάς, Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, does not occur in Luke xvi. 18 or Mark x. 11. We are not warranted in supposing that Paul was not aware of this exception having been recognized by Christ, or that he had perhaps never 158 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. heard of it at all, for the simple reason, that the validity of this ground of divorce was self-evident. Comp. on Matt. v. 32. Ver. 12. The λοιποί are those who, before their conversion, had entered into marriage with a non-believer, so that one of the two had become a Christian and the other not. See on ver. 10.—oiy ὁ Kip.] For, as respect- ed such marriages, Christ had given no command. He had no occasion to do so. Observe how suitably Paul refrains here from again using zapay- γέλλω. — συνευδοκεῖ] approves with him (comp. on Rom. i. 82), joins in ap- proving ; for Paul takes for granted that the Christian partner on his side approves the continuance of the union.’ It is alien to the scope of the pas- sage to hold, with Billroth, that in ovvevd. is implied the contempt of the heathen for the Christians. Regarding οἰκεῖν μετά, to dwell with, of living together in marriage, see Seidler, ad Hur. El. 99 : ἐν γάμοις ζευχθεῖσαν oixeiv, comp. 212.—It may be noted, moreover, that ver. 12 f. does not give per- mission to a Christian to marry a non-believer. ‘‘ Non enim dixit : si quis ducit, sed: si quis habet infidelem,” Pelagius. περὶ τῶν πρὸ κηρύγματος συναφθέντων ἔφη, Theodoret. Ver. 13. Καὶ οὗτος] a common turn of expression (instead of ὃς κ.τ.1.} in connection with καί. See on Luke x. 8 and Kiihner II. p. 526. —- μὴ ἀφιέτω τ. ἄνδρα] let her not put away her husband, not send him from her, ΤῸ trans- late otherwise (let her not Jeave him) is, in view of ver. 12, altogether arbitrary. The Vulgate renders correctly : ‘‘non dimittat virum.” The apparent unsuitableness of the expression is happily explained by Bengel (on ver. 10): ‘‘ Separatur pars ignobilior, mulier ; dimittit nobilior, vir ; inde conversa ratione etiam mulier fidelis dicitur dimittere, et vir infidelis separari, VV. 13, 15.” In the mixed marriage Paul regards the Christian partner, even when it is the wife, as the one who, for the sake of Chris- tianity, would have to send away the non-believer, were this in accordance with Christian principles. But these do not permit of it, and so the Chris- tian wife is not to send away the non-believing husband, if he is willing to dwell with her ; that would be on her part a presumptuous violation of duty. Comp. Harless, Hhescheidungsfr. p. 85. This view of the apostle’s has no connection with the right conceded even to wives among the Greeks and Romans of divorcing themselves from their husbands (loose principles on this subject were held also among the Rabbins ; see Lightfoot, Hor. p. 191). But certainly Paul did not regard the Christian partner in a mixed marriage as the one who was to rule in general (in opposition to Olshausen) ; the head in every marriage, if it was to continue at all, was, in his view, according to Gen. iii. 16, the husband. 1 Cor. xi. 8, xiv. 34; Eph. v. 22; Collin. 18°; 1 Tim. ii. 11 f. Ver. 14.? Hor—this justifies the injunction given in vy. 12, 18—the unholi- ness of the non-believing partner is taken away in virtue of his personal connec- 1 Hence the compound συνευδοκεῖ is used εὐδοκεῖ, according to B (in opposition to rightly and of deliberate purpose in the Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 369). second part of the statement also, although 3 Comp. on this verse, Otto against Abre- there the husband is the subject, and it nunciation, 1864. ought not to be supplanted by the simple CHAP. VIL, 14. 159 tion with the believer ; he is sanctified—this sanctification having its causal basis in the person of the Christian consort with whom he stands in married union, and the possible stumbling-block of self-profanation through con- tinuing in such a marriage being thereby removed. Paul’s judgment, therefore, is that the Christian ἁγιότης, the higher analogue of the Jewish theocratic consecration to God, affects even the non-believing partner in a marriage, and so passes over to him that he does not remain a profane per- son, but through the intimate union of wedded life becomes partaker (as if by a sacred contagion) of the higher divinely consecrated character of his consort, who belongs to the Israel of God, the holy φύραμα (Gal. vi. 16 ; Rom. xi. 16). The clause: ἐπεὶ dpa τὰ τέκνα x.t.4., shows that what the ἄπιστος is here said to have entered upon is not the moral holiness of the new birth (the subjective condition of which is nothing else but faith), but the holy consecration of that bond of Christian fellowship which forms the ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ, of which holiness, as arising out of this fellowship, the non- believing husband, in virtue of the inner union of life in which he stands to his Christian consort, has become a partaker (not, of course, without receiving a blessing morally also). The non-believer is, as it were, affiliated to the holy order of Christians by his union of married life with a Christian person, and, so soon as his spouse is converted to Christ and has thereby become holy, he too on his part participates in his own person (not ‘‘ simply in his married relationship,” to which Hofmann, following older inter- preters, unwarrantably restricts the meaning of the text) in his consort’s holiness, the benefit of which he receives in virtue of his fellowship of life with her, so that he is no longer ἀκάθαρτος as hitherto, but—although mediately after the fashion described—a ἡγεασμένος. The manifold misinter- pretations of the older commentators may be seen in Poole’s Synopsis and Wolf’s Curae. Observe, moreover, in how totally different a way Paul regarded the relation of the Christian who had connected himself with a harlot (vi. 15). In that case the harlot is the preponderating element, and the members of Christ become unholy, members of an harlot. — With ἐν τῇ γυν. and ἐν τῷ avd., comp. ἐν σοὶ πᾶσ᾽ ἔγωγε σώζομαι, Soph. Aj. 519 ; ἐν σοί ἐσμεν, Oed. R. 314, and the like ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 597. --- ἐπεὶ ἄρα k.t.A.] because according to that (if, namely, that ἡγίασται did not hold good ; comp. v. 10), i.e. because otherwise your children are unclean, profane. That Christians’ children are not profane, outside of the theocratic community and the divine covenant, and belonging to the unholy κόσμος, but, on the ‘contrary, holy, is the conceded point from which Paul proves that the non- believing husband is sanctified through his believing wife ; for just as in 1In a mixed marriage, therefore, the Christian ἁγιότης forms, in relation to the non-Christian unholiness, the preponderating element, extending the character of sancti- ty even to what of itself would be profane ; as Chrysostom expressesit : νικᾷ ἡ καϑαρότης τῆς γυναικὸς τὴν ἀκαϑαρσίαν. Comp. the paraphrase of Erasmus: ‘‘ Non inficit dete- rioris impietas alterius pietatem, quin illud potius praeponderat quod melius est et efficacius.”’ 2¢.g. Calovius and others hold that ny. refers to the usus conjugalis as sanctified per preces fidelis conjugis; Tertullian, Jerome, Theodoret, Castalio, Estius, αἱ., think that it points to his being destined to be converted afterwards, so that the meaning would be candidatus fidei est. 160 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the children’s case, that which makes them holy is simply the specific bond of union with Christians (their parents) ; so, too, in the case of the mixed marriage, the same bond of union must have the same influence,’— Had the baptism of Christian children been then in existence, Paul could not have drawn this inference, because in that case the ἁγιότης of such children would have had another basis.? That the passage before us does not even contain an exegetical justification of infant baptism, is shown in the remarks on Acts xvi. 15 (against de Wette in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1830, p. 669 ff., Neander, Olshausen, Osiander, and older expositors). Neither is it the point of departure, from which, almost of necessity, paedobaptism must have developed itself (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 423) ; such a point is rather to be found in the gradual development of the doctrine of original sin (s) — ὑμῶν] should not be restricted, as is done by most expositors, following Chrysos- tom (so recently, Pott, Flatt, Ewald, Harless), to those involved in mixed mar- riages ;* but, as Paul himself makes clear by changing the person, referred to the readers as Christian in general* (de Wette, Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, Osiander, Neander, Maier, Hofmann ; Billroth is undecided), not, however, to the exclusion of the children of a mixed marriage, since it must be logically inferred that these, too, could not fail to have from their Christian father or mother at least ‘‘ quandam sanctitatis adsperginem” (Anselm). In how far the offspring of mixed marriages were counted holy by the Jews, may be seen in Wetstein and Schoettgen in loc. — viv dé] but go, as in ver. 11. Ver. 15. Paul had before enjoined that the Christian partner should not make a separation if the non-Christian consents to remain. But what, if 1 The essence of this bond of 7nion, as regards the children, does not lie in their vital union. It is upon this paritas rationis that the validity of the argument depends. being born or begotten of Christian parents ; for the children, although holy for their parents’ sakes, might be born or begotten before the father or mother had embraced Christianity. Nor are we warranted in saying, with Hofmann, that the child, as the gift of God, is holy, for its relation to its parents, who, so faras that is concerned, do notregard the sin with which itis born. That is arbitrarily to limit the apostle’s thought, and to read all the most essential points of it from between the lines. On the contrary, the relationship which Paul here enunciates simply and without any artificial saving clause is one which consists in the immedi- ate close fellowship of life, by virtue of which the consecration of Christian holiness at- taching to the parents passes over from them to their children also, to whom other- wise, as being still ἀπίστοις, the predicate axadapta would rightly belong. Equally close and cordial is the fellowship of life between husband and wife, while every other kind of mutual connection is less in- timate, and forms a more distant degree of _ 2? Comp. Jebamoth, f. xxviii. 1: “ Si gravi- da fit proselyta, non opus est, ut baptizetur infans quando natus fuerit ; baptismus enim matris ei cedit pro baptismo.” 3 ᾿Ακάϑαρτοι is taken by many as equiva- lent to spuvii. See Melanchthon in partie- ular: ‘“‘Si non placeret consuetudo conju- galis, filii vestri essent spurii et eatenus immundi, ἀκάϑαρτοι. At filii vestrinon sunt spurii; ergo consuetudo conjugalis Deo placet.” He interprets axadapro after TTDI) in Deut. xxiii. sy 4 Comp. Miiller, v. d. Stinde, ΤΙ. p. 388, ed. 5. Our passage, however, ought not to be adduced to prove the universal pollution of men by nature and birth, for axadapra must denote, not moral, but theocratic un- cleanness, like the κοινά of Acts x. 28. This against Ernesti also, Ursprung der Siinde, ΤΙ. p. 162 ff. The children of Chris- tians are, it is plain according to this verse, holy already (without baptism) at a time of life at which it is as yet inconceivable that the uncleanness should be removed throug? Sellowship with the Redeemer by faith. CHAPS ΤΙ £5. 161 the non-Christian partner seeks separation? In that case they were to let such an one go without detention (χωριζέσθω, permissive, see Winer, p. 291 [E. T. 390]) ; ‘‘suas sibi res habeat ; frater sororve sit aequo animo,” Bengel. And the reason for this was: ‘‘ A believer in such circumstances is not enslaved, nay, surely (δέ after the negative clause) it is in peace that God has called us,” so that this our calling forbids such a living together as would be wnpeaceful through constraint. —oi dedobA.] is not enslaved, so, namely, as still to remain bound in marriage to such a ywpitduevoc.! The expressiqn brings out the wnworthy character of such a relationship. Comp. Gal. iv. 3 ; Plato, Pol. ix. p. 589 E; Soph. Trach. 256 ; 4 Macc. iii. 3 f., xiii. 2. See, on the other hand, the simple δέδεται in ver. 39. --- ἐν τοῖς τοιού- τοις] not, as Hofmann takes it : ‘‘ In matters of the natural life,” to which marriage belongs, but in accordance with the context : wnder such cireum- stances, i.e. in such a position of things, where the non-believing consort separates himself. Luther renders well: ‘‘in solehen Féillen.” Comp. ἐν τοῖσδε, Soph. Oed. Tyr. 892. ἐν τούτοις, Plut. Glor, Ath. p. 350 A ; Phil. iv. 11; ἐν οἷς, Antiph. i. 6, and Maetzner in loc., Ὁ. 131. Only a comma should be placed after τοιούτοις. --- ἐν εἰρήνῃ] is not the same as εἰς εἰρήνην (Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Riickert, following older expositors ; comp. also Bill- roth), or iva ὦμεν ἐν eip. (de Wette, Osiander, Gratama, Maier) ; for that which is stated is not to what God has called us (see, on the other hand, ver. 22; 1 Pet. v. 10), but ὧν what ethical form God’s call has taken place. He has so called us, namely, to the Messiah’s kingdom, that He therewith caused peace to be proclaimed to us in respect of our relation to others (Eph. ii. 14 ff.). Analogous to this is the ἐν in Eph. iv. 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 7; comp. also on Gal. i. 6. To understand, however, the εἰρήνη as referring to the peace of the soul with God (Harless, Hofmann) would be possible only if dedobA. were to be referred to binding of the conscience. And even in that case we should expect as correlative rather ἐν or ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίᾳ (Gal. v. 13). Remarx.—Since desertion (χωρίζεται) appears here as an admissible ground for divorce, this has been thought to conflict with Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, and various explanations have been attempted (see Wolf in loc). But the seeming contra- diction vanishes, if we consider ver. 12, according to which Jesus had given no judgment upon mixed marriages ; Matt. v. 32, therefore, can only bind the believing consort, in so far that he may not be the one who leaves. If, however, he is left by the non-believing partner, then, as this case does not fall under the utterance of Christ, the marriage may be looked upon as practically dis- solved, and the believing partner is not bound. ‘But to apply, as is often done, the permissive χωριζέσθω, also to such marriages as are Christian on both sides —the χωριζόμενος, that is to say, being an unchristianly -minded Christian (Harless)—is exegetically inadmissible, seeing that the λοιποί who are here spoken of (see ver. 12) constitute the specific category of mixed marriages, in 1 Weiss, in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1866, p. Hofmann. But had Paul meant this, he 267 (comp. his bid]. Theol. Ὁ. 423), under- must have indicated it more particularly. stands δεδούλ, of the burden of the conscience According to the context, οὐ δεδούλ. is the in view of Christ’s command respecting the opposite of the μὴ ἀφιέτω in vy. 12, 13, denot- indissolubleness of marriage. Precisely so ing legal necessity, like δέδεται in ver. 39. ΄ ᾿ 162 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. which, therefore, the one partner in each case falls to be reckoned among τοὺς ἔξω. So also pref. to 4th ed. p. vii. f. — Our text gives no express information upon the point, whether Paul would allow the Christian partner in such a union to marry again. For what οὐ δεδούλωται negatives is not the constraint ‘ ut caelebs maneat” (Grotius, al.), but the necessity for the marriage being con- tinued.' It may be inferred, however, that as in Paul’s view mixed marriages did not come under Christ’s prohibition of divorce, so neither would he have applied the prohibition of remarriage in Matt. v. 32 to the case of such unions. Olshausen is wrong in holding a second marriage in such cases unlawful, on the ground of its being, according to Matthew, l.c., a μοιχεία. Christ Himself took no account of mixed marriages. Nor would ver. 11, which does not refer to marriages of that kind, be at variance with the remarriage of the believing partner (in opposition to Weiss, bibl. Theol. l.c.). (τ) Ver. 16. Confirmation of the foregoing thought, that the Christian is not bound in such cases, but, on the contrary, ought, in accordance with his vocation, to live in peace ; for neither does the (Christian) wife know whether she, by continuing to live with her (non-believing) husband, shall be the means of his conversion, nor does the (Christian) husband know, etc. This uncertainty cannot be the basis of any constraint to the hurt of their peace.? Most ex- positors, on the other hand, from Chrysostom downwards, take εἰ in the sense of εἰ μή (see also Tholuck, Bergpredig. p. 251 f.), and hold that ver. 16 enunciates a new reason for not breaking up the marriage, namely, the pos- sibility of the conversion of the non-believing husband. ᾿Ανάδεξαί φησιν ἐπὶ χρησταῖς ἐλπίσι τὸν πόνον. ἔχεις τὸν Θεὸν τῆς προθυμίας ἐπίκουρον, Theodoret. That is to say, they find in ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κιτ.. the thought : yet the Christian partner should do everything to maintain peace and bear with the heathen consort,—and either link to this the new reason given in ver. 16 (Flatt, Rickert, Olshausen, following Calvin and others), or else regard ver. 15 as a parenthesis (Grotius, al.). But the parenthetic setting aside of ver. 15 is as arbitrary as the turn given to the idea of ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ x.t.A. is the contrary to context. With respect again to taking εἰ as equivalent to ei μή, it is per- fectly true that εἰ, following upon the notion of uncertainty, may answer in meaning to εἰ μή (Thue. ii. 53. 2 ; Kriiger, ὃ Ixv. 1. 8; Esth. iv. 14; 2 Sam. xii. 22 ; Joel ii. 14 ; Jonah iii. 9) ; but the thought which would thus emerge does not suit the connection here, because in it the point is the οὐ δεδούλωται, to which the proposed rendering of the εἰ would run counter.* Moreover, this use of εἰ is foreign to the N. T., often though it occurs in the classics (see especially Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 8, Anab. iii. 2. 22). —ri] precisely as the German: ‘‘ was weisst du, ob,” etc., so that in sense it is the same as: how, in how far (Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. p. 828) ; it is not 1 Photius, as cited by Oecumenius, says very justly: οὐκ ἔχει ἀνάγκην ὁ πιστὸς ἢ ἡ πιστὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀπίστοις τοιαύτην, οἷα αὐτῷ ἐπίκει- ται ἐπὶ τῶν πιστῶν" ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ παντὶ τρόπῳ, χωρὶς λόγου πορνείας οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων τοὺς συναφϑέντας χωρισϑῆναι' ἐνταῦϑα δὲ, ἂν μὲν συνευδοκῇ τὸ ἄπιστον μέρος τῷ πιστῷ συνοι- κεῖν, δεῖ μὴ λύειν τὸ συνοικέσιον" ἂν δὲ στασιάζῃ καὶ τὴν λύσιν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, οὐ δεδούλωται ὃ πισ- τὺς εἰς τὸ μὴ χωρισϑῆναι. 2 Comp. de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann [Stanley, Alford, Beet]. 3 A limitation of the ov δεδούλωται, and that, too, of a quite general sort, comes in only with the εἰ μή «.7.A. in ver. 17. CHAP. ΤΕΣ 17. 163 therefore the accusative of the object. Comp. τὶ οἴει, τὶ δοκεῖς, Ken. Hier. i. 15. Regarding the future σώσεις comp. Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 249 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 508. Ver. 17. Ei μή] is meant, according to Grotius, to introduce an exception to the τὶ οἶδας : ‘‘Illud quidem, quod dixi, non scis, sed hoe debes scire ;” or, more exactly, since εἰ μῇ is not the same as ἀλλά (see on Gal. i. 7) : Nothing but the duty dost thou know, etc. Comp. my 3d edition. But this mode of joining on the verse is very harsh and forced in itself, and is, besides, unsuitable for this reason, that ver. 16 was only a subordinate thought, to which εἰ μὴ «.r.2. as a newly introduced leading idea stands in no logical nexus. The logical connection of εἰ μή, nisi, etc., is, on the con- trary, to be sought in the leading thought of the foregoing passage, which was ov δεδούλωται k.7.A. This οὐ dedobAwrac . . . Θεός Was enunciated without any limitation being put upon it hitherto. It was further confirmed in ver. 16. Paul desires now, in order to avert all frivolous and reckless procedure, to add to it the necessary limitation in the shape of a general principle of a practical kind, which should never be forgotten in connection with it.! We may paraphrase accordingly somewhat in this fashion : ‘‘ The believer is not in bondage in this matter, having, on the contrary, been called in peace, and not somuch as knowing whether he shall save his non-believing consort ; he is not in bondage, only? he is not to use this freedom in a light and regardless way, but to remember that it is limited by the rule that every one ought to abide in a conserv- ative spirit by the position in which God has placed and called him, and to con- duct himself accordingly, instead of possibly seeking to break it up without any very pressing cause.” Comp. as in substance agreeing with this, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier. Pott holds that χωρίζεται should be supplied after ei μή ; but the antithesis would require εἰ δὲ μή, and the rule which follows would be very superfluous in a case where no separation had taken place, more especially after ver. 12 f. Vater and Riickert supply σώσεις : ‘* But even if thou shouldst not, the general rule applies in every case.” Were that correct, we should of necessity find εἰ δὲ καὶ μή. Lastly, there is the view of those who would join εἰ μή to the preceding clause (τινές in Theophylact, Knatchbull, Homberg, Hammond, Olearius, Morus, and recently Hofmann) : if thou shalt save thy wife, if (or) not?* Now this is not, indeed, excluded by the μή (as Riickert thinks, who requires οὐ ; but see Hartung, Partikell. 11. p. 123) ; still the addition would be quite inap- propriate to the sense of the two questions, for these convey the idea : thow knowest not at all if, etc., with which the alternative neene does not harmon- ize,—on which ground, too, Hofmann makes ver. 16 to be the concluding 1 Paul had doubtless ground enough in here gives expression to in a Christian the rich experience of his career for giving form. this warning. How often in the cases of 2 Respecting εἰ μή in the sense of πλήν, conversion to Christianity must the deep see Poppo, ad Thuc. HI. 1, p. 216; and re- inward change have had linked to it a specting the principal sentence annexed to yearning after some change of outward re- it, Buttmann, newt. Gram p. 308 [E. T. 359]. lationships !—an offence against the practi- 3 Hence the reading ἢ μή in more recent calrule: ‘‘ Qua positus fueris, in statione codd. Severianus in Oecumenius, Chrysos- mane” (Ovid, Fasti, ii. 674), which Paul tom, ms. Syr. p. on the margin. - 104 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. confirmation of the whole admonition beginning with τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς in ver. 12. This, again, is impossible, for this reason, that the jirst part of the counsel given to the λοιποί has already received its confirmation in the γάρ of ver. 14, and in accordance therewith the γάρ of ver. 16 must now refer in the way of confirmation only to the second part of the said counsel, as con- tained in ver. 15. Hofmann’s interpretation is in the most complicated op- position to the plan and development of the apostle’s argument. Rinck, in his Lucubr. crit. p. 142 f. (and so previously Theodoret), connects from ei μή on to Κύρως with the preceding passage : ‘‘nescis enim, an salvum eum fac- turus sis, nisi prout quemque Dominus adjuverit.” But ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρ. ὁ. K. and ἕκαστον ὡς κέκλ. 6. 8. are manifestly parallel, and, as such, contain not a frigid repetition (Rinck), but an earnest exhaustion of the thought. — ἑκάστῳ ὡς] the same as ὡς éx., but with emphasis on the ἑκάστῳ. Comp. 111. 5, x. 16; Rom. xii. 3. As the Lord (God) hath apportioned to each (has bestowed his outward lot), as (i.e. ἡ κλήσει, ver. 20) God hath called each (to the Messiah’s kingdom), so let him walk, i.e. according to the standard of this outward position (without seeking, therefore, to break with it or step out from it, vv. 20, 24) let him regulate his conduct, his course of life. ’Eyépicev, has given his portion (Polybius, xxxi. 18. 8, xi. 28. 9; Eccles. xlv. 20; 2 Macc. viii. 28 ; 4 Macc. xiii. 18), refers to the earthly relations of life, ac- cording to which, e.g., a man may be married to this person or that (and it is to this relationship that the primary application is to be made), may be circumcised or uncircumcised, a slave or free,t etc. See ver. 18 ff. These relationships of life are here regarded as a whole, out of which each indi- vidual has received his μέρος from God (τὸ μεμερισμένον, Lucian, D. D. xxiv. 1), in accordance with the varying modes (ὡς) of the divine apportionment. Comp. the classical ἡ εἱμαρμένη, sors attributa. We have to supply neither περιπατεῖν (Hofmann), nor anything else. What the Lord has apportioned is just the μέρος, which each man has. Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 175 ff., understands μερίζειν in the theocratic-Messianic sense, and makes ὁ Κύριος refer to Christ: ‘‘in qua vitae externae sorte ac statu(déc, conf. ver. 18) cuique Dominus beneficiorum suorum quasi partem tribuit.” According to this, what would be meant would be the μερὶς τοῦ κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων (Col. 1. 12), which, however, refers to the bliss of the futwre αἰών, and would re- quire, therefore, to be understood here proleptically. But there are two con- siderations which put a decided negative upon this view : first, the refer- ence assumed for the absolute ἐμέρ. is not suggested by the context (see, on the contrary, ver. 18 ff.) ; and in the second place, logically the calling must go jirst, since before it there can be no mention of the Messianic μερίζειν (Rom. viii. 30, x. 14; Col. i. 12). This holds also against the essentially similar interpretation of Harless, which co-ordinates ἐμέρ. with the calling. — 1 The call of the individuals to salvation took place in these differently apportioned positions and relationships in life. Hence the ὡς ἐμέρισεν takes precedence of the ὡς κέκληκεν, Hofmann is wrong in holding that the ὡς ἐμέρισεν might lie on this side or on that of the calling, and might consist even ina change of the situation in which they had been when called. This mistake should have been precluded even by what follows, which always starts from those circum- stances alone which subsisted αὖ the tine of the calling ; see vv. 18, 21, 24. CHAP. VIL., 18-20. 165 κέκληκεν] a completed transaction continuing to the present in. its results, hence the perfect ; the aorist éuép., on the other hand, indicated something merely which took place as an act of the past, and this act occurred before the κέκληκεν, at birth, or some other point in life. — καὶ οὕτως κ.τ.λ.} Showing the importance of this rule, which Paul is not by any means laying down simply with a view to the special state of things at Corinth, but, etc., wa τῳ ἔχειν καὶ ἄλλους κοινωνοὺς προθυμότεροι περὶ τὴν ὑπακοὴν διατεθῶσι, Theophylact. — διατάσσ. | I ordain, appoint, xi. 34, xvi. 1. Observe the evidence here of apostolic power over the church. Ver. 18 ff. Further explanation of this injunction by way of example, and not bearing simply on the case of Christians living in mixed marriage.’— The protases do not convey a question either here or in ver. 27, being in the rhe- torically emphatic form of the hypothetic indicative. See Bernhardy, p. 385. Comp. Kiihner, I. p. 561. — μὴ ἐπισπάσθω] ne sibi attrahat, sc. praeputium. A surgical operation frequent among the later Jews (1 Macc. i. 15, and Grimm in loc. ; Josephus, Antt. xii. 5. 1), described in detail by Celsus, vii. 25. 5, or otherwise performed, by which a sort of foreskin was again drawn over the glans—resorted to not only in cases of perversion to heathenism, but also from shame or fear of heathen eyes, before which men sought to avoid appearing (in baths, for example, or otherwise) as circumcised. With Christians this might especially be occasioned by a shrinking from the eyes of Gentile converts. See, besides Wetstein, Groddeck in Schoettgen’s Horae, p. 1159 f. ; Lightfoot, p. 194 ; Liibkert in the Stud. uv. Krit. 1835, p. 657. Such persons were styled Ὁ Ὁ. See Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. p. 1274. — iv axpoB.| Comp. Rom. iv. 10. Ver. 19. Comp. Rom. ii. 25 ff. ; Gal. v. 6. From the Christian point of view it matters nothing whether a man be circumcised or not ; comp. viil. 8. — ada τήρησις ἐντολ. Θεοῦ] but keeping of the commands of God, sc. τὰ πάντα ἐστι, as in iii. 7. According to the Christian idea (Rom. xiii. 8), there is no dif- ference between this and the faith that worketh by love (Gal. v. 6). Bill- roth is wrong in taking it as: ‘‘ In themselves circumcision and uncircumci- sion are alike indifferent ; such things are of importance only iz so far as they are an observing of the commandments of God ;” for ἡ ἀκροβ. cannot be included with the other under rfp. ἐντ. Θεοῦ. Ver. 20. An emphatic repetition of the rule after giving the dlustration of it. Comp. ver. 24.—év τῇ κλήσει ἢ ἐκλήθη] Since Calvin, expositors have often understood κλῆσις of the outward position in life, like our calling | Beruf }, and have supplied ἐν before ἡ in accordance with the pure Attic idiom (Stall- baum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 76 Ὁ ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 32). So, re- cently, Riickert. But although κλῆσις (Dionys. Hal. Antt. iv. 18) does ex- pressly correspond to the Latin classis, a division of the burgesses, according to the true derivation of that technical term from the Greek, yet even pro- fane writers never use κλῆσις in the sense of avocation [6757 (rank, and the like) ; and in the whole N, T. the Christian meaning of καλεῖν and κλῆσις * 1 Theodoret says well: εἶτα συνήϑως ἀπὸ τοῦ προκειμένου ε is ἕτερα μεταβαίνει, πᾶσι νομοϑετῶν τὰ κατάλληλα. 166 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE COKINTHIANS. that in which they are invariably used, and so here also : in the calling (to the Messianic kingdom (through which (ἡ being the dat. instrum., as in 2 Tim. i. 9) he was called. This may have been, that is to say, a κλῆσις going forth from God to a circumcised manor an uncircumcised, to a slave or a free- man, etc. If, now, the man, for example, who was called in circumcision by a vocatio circumeisi thereafter restores the foreskin, so as to give himself out for an uncircumcised person, he does not abide in the calling through which he was called. The right interpretation is already given by Chrysos- tom and Theophylact (ἐν οἵῳ βίῳ καὶ ἐν οἵῳ τάγματι καὶ πολιτεύματι ὧν ἐπίστευσεν, ἐν τούτῳ μενέτω: κλῆσιν γὰρ τὴν εἰς τὴν πίστιν προσαγωγῆν φησὶ). Comp. ver. 17 : ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ Θεός. The emphatic ἐν ταύτῃ (vi. 4) points at the misdirected yearning for another state of matters through which another κλῆσις would present itself, as e.g. through the ἐπισπᾶσθαι a being called ἐν axpo- βυστίᾳ, ete. Ver. 21. Mf σοι μελέτω] let it give thee no concern, let it be all the same to thee. Hom. 77: ii. 338, x. 92; Plato, Phaed. p. 95B; Tim. p. 24 B; Wisd. xii. 13 ; Mark iv. 38, al. What it is that ought to give him no con- cern, is plain from the immediate context, namely, his being called as a slave ; not, as Hofmann would read into the text, his seeming to be doomed to life- long slavery. —aaw εἰ καὶ x.7.2.] but, even if thou art in circumstances to become Sree, use it rather, namely, the having been called asa slave ; make use rather (instead of becoming free) of thy ‘‘ vocatio servi” by remaining true to thy position asa slave. Comp. ver. 20. So, in substance, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact. Camerarius, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and many of the older interpreters ; among more modern expositors, de Wette, Osian- der, Maier, Ewald,’ Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 26 ff.), also Vaihinger in Herzog’s Encykl. XIV. p. 474 f. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 417 f. The ἀλλά is nothing else than the German sondern, corresponding tothe preceding μή σοι wer., and εἰ καί is etsi (Herm. ad Viger. p. 832 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p- 82 A; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 151), so that it conveys the sense: even although, if even ; and in the conditional clause the emphasis is made by καί The Syriac, however (‘‘ elige tibi potius quam ut ser- vias”), and most modern commentators, supply τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ after γρῆσαι, with Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and many others (a view mentioned, too, by Chrysostom). Paul's advice, they hold, is rather to avail oneself of the opportunity of becoming free. But this is grammatically incorrect, because it goes in the face of the καί," and to fall upon δύνασαι. 1 Who, however, expounds χρῆσϑαι as meaning ἐ0 let oneself be used,i.e. to be de- pendent without being able to establish any precedent for such a rendering. Regard- ing χρῆσϑαι without adative of the object, see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. Ὁ. 452 C, 489 B. 2 What devices have been practised of late with this καί! Billroth thinks that it indicates an accessory thought : “this, too, is not to be denied, that if thou canst be free,” etc. Riickert thinks that it denotes a climax and properly (?) belongs to ἐλεύϑ. : “but if thou mayest even be free,” ete. Ols- hausen holds that spiritual freedom is im- plied in καλεῖσϑαι, and that, starting from this idea, Paul goes on: ‘‘ but if in addi- tion to thy spiritual freedom thou canst obtain also bodily liberty, avail thyself of it rather... Even Neander substantially agrees with this. But upon Billroth’s view καί would require to come before εἰ ; upon Riickert’s and Olshausen’s, before ἐλεύϑ. ; and the turn given to the clause by the latter is but one proof out of many that CHAP ΥἹΙ., 20. 16% contrary also to the connection, for Paul would thus be contravening his own thrice-repeated injunction : let each man remain, etc. (vu) The ground spe- cially founded on (in a very unhermeneutical way) by Riickert, that the old interpretation is against the spirit of the apostle, is untenable ; for the ad- vice to use the opportunities of obtaining freedom—an advice comparatively unimportant and paltry in view of the Parousia believed to be at hand—by no means corresponds with the apostle’s lofty idea that all are one in Christ (Gal. 111. 28 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; Col. iii. 11) ; that in Christ the slave is free and the freeman a slave (ver. 22) ; as, indeed, ver. 22 can furnish a confir- mation of ver. 21 only on the ground of the old exposition, descending from Chrysostom, al., of μᾶλλον χρῆσαι. It may be added, that that idea of true Christian equality carries in itself the germ of the abolition of slavery ; the latter is the ripe fruit of the former. The moral consciousness of Christen- dom has not in this respect advanced beyond the standpoint of Paul (Baur) ; it is but a further development of the same principle which he enunciates, the future influence of which, however, upon the removal of slavery the apostle himself was not led to consider more closely from his expectation of the nearness of that great change which was to bring in for all believers the glorious liberty of the children of God. He left slavery, therefore, unas- sailed, as he did civil relations in general, not even asking, in his letter to Philemon, that Onesimus should be set free, but introducing the idea of Christian love, unity, and equality (xii. 13; Gal. iii, 28; Eph. vi. 8; Philem. 16 ; Col. iv. 1),—an idea, the consequence of which is necessarily the cessation of slavery, although just as necessarily it was not natural for the apostle, with his eye turned to the approaching Parousia, to single out this consequence and apply it to an age of the world which, in his view, was on the point of passing away. It maybe further noted that he does not forbid an exchange of slavery for freedom, which was in itself allowable ; but he disswades from it as a trifling way of dealing with the position in question, under the circumstances of the time, when viewed from the height of the Christian standpoint. Ver. 22. For the converted slave is Christ’s freedman ; in like manner, too (ὁμοίως καί introduces the precise reversal of relations which here also takes place), the freeman who becomes a Christian is the slave of Christ. That moral freedom (comp. John viii. 36) and this moral slavery are of course essentially identical (Rom. vi. 16 ff. ; Eph. vi. 6; Col. 111. 24) ; but Paul grounds here his admonition in ver. 21 by showing that the matter may be looked at from a twofold point of view: the Christian slave should recognize his relation to Christ as that of an ἀπελεύθερος Χριστοῦ," and the freeman’s relation as that of a δοῦλος Χριστοῦ. This will serve in his case this end, not by any must have written καὶ εἰ. He might have men may make anything out of every- ; written either, and would, had it been xat thing, if they—wil/d. Hofmann considers that καί lays emphasis on the reality (comp. on ver. 11) as contrasted with the mere wish, which wish, however, is only brought in by an erroneous explanation of μή σοι μελέτω. He even maintains that, according to our understanding of the yerse, Paul εἰ, have meant even in the case that; but he meant εἰ καί (if thou art even in a position to, etc.), and therefore wrote it and nothing else. The latter is as little absurd as the former. 1 So that “ εἰ σῶμα δοῦλον, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ νοῦς ἐλεύ- depos,” Soph. Fragm. 677, Dindorf. 168 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. means (as Hofmann illogically inserts into the text, despite the μένειν again required in ver. 24) that he should count it unnecessary to remain in the position of a slave,’ but, on the contrary, that he should abide content- edly in his station without coveting freedom. — ὁ ἐν Kupiy «A. δοῦλ.} the slave who is called in the Lord, i.e. who has received the Christian calling. That is to say, this κλῆσις has not taken place, as any other might, out of Christ, but in Him, as being the distinctive element in which it has its specific character. The ἐν Κυρίῳ, which might have been understood of it- self, is expressly added here, because it was meant to be an emphatic corre- late to the Κυρίου which follows. It is wholly foreign to the argument to imagine a contrast here with the earthly master (Hofmann), as in Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22, iv. 1. -- ἀπελεύθερος with the genitive is not used here in the common sense of libertus alicujus, some one’s manumitted slave, for the master hitherto had been sin or Satan (see on vi. 20) ; but simply ὦ freed- man belonging to Christ (comp. κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ X., Rom. i. 6), after Christ, namely, has set him free from the service of another (comp. Ignatius, ad Rom. 4). This was self-evident to the consciousness of the reader. Ver. 23. For a price (see on vi. 20) were ye (my readers in general) bought (namely, by Christ to be His slaves) ; become not (therefore) servants of men ; i.e. do not make yourselves dependent upon what men wish and demand of you, instead of allowing your conduct to be moulded by Christ’s will and service. Paul designs that this should be applied to the mistaken submis- sion shown on the part of the church to such as wished that men should break up or alter their civil relationships and other existing situations to please them, and in compliance with their solicitations and deceptive sug- gestions. This more specific reference of the warning, in itself conveyed in general terms, we may naturally gather from ver. 24. Instigations and seductions of this kind, arising partly, perhaps, from fanatical excitement, must plainly have occurred at Corinth in connection with circumstances of the details of which we are ignorant ; for otherwise the whole of the minute instructions from ver. 17 to ver. 24 would lack any concrete basis. The interpretation with which Chrysostom and Theophylact content them- selves is therefore much too vague : that Paul is forbidding men-pleasing generally, and compliance with immoral demands. Sa also Theodoret’s view, that he enjoins μὴ δουλοπρεπὲς ἔχειν φρόνημα. Osiander and Neander’s rendering is too general also (‘‘every kind of wrong dependence”). It is altogether alien to the context, vv. 17-24, to suppose that ἀνθρώπων refers to Paul, Cephas, Apollos, ete. (Riickert), and that the meaning is substantially the same as had been expressed in iii. 21 by μηδεὶς καυχάσθω ἐν ἀνθρώποις (Hofmann). Equally out of accordance with the subject in hand is Billroth’s exposition (given before by Vatablus), that the apostle exhorts the slaves not to do their service for the sake of men, but for the Lord’s sake (Col. iii. 22). Heydenreich, on the other hand, holds (with 1 Paulis, in fact, guarding by this grand tianity side by side with all unjust estima- utterance of hisagainst allunjustcontempt tion of the worth of mere outward free- for the condition of outward slavery.—a dom. feeling which vanishes in the light.of Chris- CHAP. VII., 24, 25. 169 Menochius, Hammond, Knatchbull, Mosheim, Michaelis, Zachariae) that he is admonishing the freemen not to sell themselves into slavery. But, even putting out of account the second person plural, which directs the words to the readers generally, were that the meaning, Paul would undoubtedly have called attention to a new illustration of his rule, as he does in vv. 18, 21. And how unlikely a thing that men went into slavery in those days for the sake of Christianity (for according to the connection it is this motive which must be presupposed, not : for gain’s sake)! Ver. 24. To conclude the whole digression, the weighty rule is once more enunciated (ἐν ᾧ «.7.4. : In whatever relationship, in whatever outward po- sition, etc.), and now with the strengthening clause παρὰ Θεῷ, which de- scribes the ἐν τούτῳ μένειν according to its moral and religious character ; that outward abiding is to be of such a kind that therein the man shall abide inwardly with God (the caller), which moral relation of fellowship is locally represented in a concrete way by παρά (‘‘a Deo non recedens,” Estius). Comp. Theophyiact,—who, however, makes out a special reference to im- moral obedience to masters, —Schrader, Riickert, Neander, Osiander. De Wette limits the meaning to the relation of a Christian slave, as in ver. 22, which, after the general ver. 23, is inadmissible. The common interpretation, ““coram Deo” (Calvin), ‘‘ Deo inspectante’ (Grotius), which would imply: ‘‘nerpetuo memores, vos in ejus conspectu versari’” (Beza, comp. de Wette), would correspond to the current phrase ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ. Hofmann makes ἐν ᾧ and ἐν τούτῳ refer to Christ (comp. ver. 22) ; the call took place in Christ to God, and therefore every one is to have in Christ (on His mediato- rial foundation) his abiding with God. The perfect conformity of ver. 24 with ver. 20 ought, had it stood alone, to have prevented this misinterpre- tation. But besides, the call is given from God, not to God, but to eternal Messianic life (comp. oni. 9). Ver. 25. Aé] indicating the transition to a new section in the discussion on marriage. — παρθένων] virgins. We are not to understand this’ of the un- married of both seves, young men and maidens, which is contrary to the ordi nary usage of the language (see too, vv. 34, 36, 37) ; for in such passagesas Rey. xiv. 4, Oecumenius, Quaest. Amphil. 188 ; Nonnus on John xix. 26 ; Fabricius, Pseudepigr. V. T. Il. pp. 92, 98; also Arist. Hg. 1302, the word is maidenly ; and that it ever with Greek writers means ὦ single man in the proper sense, is at least very doubtful. — γνώμην] view, opinion. As regards γνώμ. δίδωμι (2 Cor. viii. 10), see the examples in Kypke, I. p. 205. — The sense most in accordance with the context for πιστός is that of credible, i.e. trustworthy (1 Tim. iv. 9). The more general faithful (in the service of Christ ; so Billroth, Riickert, Ewald) is less suitable ; and least of all the simple believing, as Hofmann would have it. Paul’s being an ἀξιόχρεως σύμ- Bovaoc (Theodoret) he ascribes to the mercy of Christ : for he knows well in himself that that characteristic would not belong to him without Christ’s gracious call to the apostleship, and without enlightenment and aid from Him. Comp. also ver: 40. Hence ὡς (quippe) éAenuévoc k.T.A. 1 With Theodore of Mopsuestia, Bengel, Semler, Zachariae, Schleusner, Schulz, Rosen- miiller, Flatt, Pott, Olshausen, Ewald. 170 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Ver. 26. In carrying out his theme de virginibus, Paul proceeds as follows: first, in the passage extending to ver. 35 he gives a general recommenda- tion of single life to both seves, and only then deals with the subject of vir- gins exclusively on to ver. 88. — οὖν] therefore, introduces now the γνώμη in accordance with what was said in ver. 25. — ἀνθρώπῳ] refers, as the more detailed remarks in ver. 27 ff. prove, not to virgins alone (Hofmann), as applied to whom, besides, it would be an awkward expression,’ but means: ὦ person, including both sexes. It is otherwise in ver. 1.—oitwe] 80, as he is, i.e. unmarried, which follows from τ. παρθένων, ver. 25. To be so Paul esteems salutary (καλόν, as in ver. 1), not absolutely and in itself, but be- cause the Parousiais near, and still nearer, therefore, must be the general calamities which are to precede it, the dolores Messiae, ΤῊ 2 San (see on Matt. xxiv. 3). These form the instant (111. 23) distress, i.e. a distress which is impending and has already begun to set in. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 19. The persecutions (Pott, Flatt, Hofmann, after older expositors) are only a part of it. Matrimonial cares and sufferings, again (Schulz, follow- ing Theophylact and others), are not meant at all. See ver. 39 ff. — As little are we to understand ‘‘impending constraint through marriage” (Cropp in the Jahrb. 7. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 103), against which θλῖψιν alone, in ver. 28 and ver. 31, testifies with sufficient clearness. Comp. rather τῇ ἐνεστώσῃ ἀνάγκῃ, 3 Mace. i. 16, the distress having set in, and see generally on Gal. 1. 4.—The construction is anacoluthic, so that τοῦτο, which belongs to νομίζω, prepares for the following κακὸν ὑπάρχειν on to οὕτως εἶναι (Comp. on Rom, ii. 3 and Kiihner, ὃ 631. 2); but then ὅτε καλὸν x.T.4., Which states the contents of the νομίζω, instead of ending simply with ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι, begins from the beginning again, and that with a ὅτι, Which comes in in place of the construction with the infinitive (Kiihner, ὃ 771. 5). A manifest confusion of expression, into which in dic- tation Paul might be especially likely to fall by forgetting, after the enuncia- tion of the principal thought διὰ τ. éveor. ἀνάγκ., that he had already said καλὸν ὑπάρχειν. Hence, too, it is more natural to connect διὰ τ. éveor. avayk. with what precedes it than hyperbatically with ὅτι «.7.2. (Ewald, Hofmann).? Translate : My opinion, then, is this, that it is good on account of the impending distress,—that it is good [I think] for a person to be in such a position. Heydenreich holds wrongly—as the fact of there being no αὐταῖς added is enough of itself to show—that 6 τὶ should be read, so that Paul would say that what is good for the man is good for them, namely, single life. De Wette takes τοῦτο as equivalent to παρθένον εἶναι, and then renders ὅτι by because: ‘* because it isin general good for a man to be unmarried.” * But this ‘‘in general” is not in the text, and yet of necessity it would have required to de there, for without it the argument emerges as an idem per 1 ἄνϑρωπος as a feminine usually answers 3 This rendering occurs in substance in in Greek writers, as is well known, to the Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin. Beza, too, German colloquial phrase “ das Mensch.” agrees with it in his explanation of τοῦτο, 3 Ewald, moreover, takes τὸ οὕτως εἶναι (0 but understands ὅτι καλὸν x.7.A. as resump- mean “that it should be so,” referring to the tive. following rule δέδεσαι, «.7.A. CHAP. VII., 27-31. dirs idem ; -and in truth, even were the ‘‘ in general” expressed, the main state- ment would be an inappropriate one, since it would contain nothing to establish the essential element διὰ τ. éveot. ἀνάγκην. The anacoluthon of the passage belongs to those in which ‘‘celeritate quadam abrepti novam enun- tiationem inchoamus priore nondum absoluta,” Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. V. p. 442. Ver. 27. Lest the γνώμη in ver. 26 should be misinterpreted as favouring divorce, he now prefaces his further discussion of the subject with the rule, which is appropriate here only as a caveat: let not the married desire to be loosed. The construction is as in ver. 18. — γυναικί] dativus communionis, as in Rom. vii. 2, and with Greek writers. It is plain, especially from vv. 29 and 34, that déd. γυν. does not mean betrothal (Ewald and Hofmann), but that γυνή denotes a married wife. — λέλυσαι] does not imply: art thou sepa- rated from (Mosheim, Semler), but art thou ree from, unentangled with a wife, single (‘‘ sive uxorem habueris, sive non,” Estius; comp. so early an interpreter as Photius)? See ver. 28, and comp. Xenophon, Cyr. i. 1. 4, where λελύσθαι an’ ἀλλήλων is equivalent to αὐτόνομα εἶναι. Ver. 28. Οὐχ ἥμαρτες] But should it be the case that thou shalt have married, thou hast not sinned therein. Comp. Matthiae, p. 1203; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 172 [E. T. 199]. Hofmann is wrong here also (comp. on ver. 11)in holding that ἐὰν δὲ καί means : but if already actually, etc. —yhuy ἡ map0.| Here as in 1 Tim. v. 11 the term γωμεῖν is applied, indeed, to the woman (see on ver, 39), but without violation of rule, since it is not joined with an accusative. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Mare. Ὁ. 424.— τῇ σαρκί] not in the ethical sense, but (comp. Gal. iv. 13) for the material, animal part of man’s nature. In troublous times the married man is exposed to special anguish from sufferings of this kind (hunger, nakedness, sickness, misusage, banishment, etc.). Whether we have here a dative of appropriation (trouble for the flesh ; see on1 Cor. xii. 7 ; Bernhardy, p. 88), or whether it belongs to the verb, cannot well be determined. — ἐγὼ δὲ iu. φείδομαι) but T, for my part, deal tenderly towards you, in advising you rather to remain unwedded ; for by this advice, if you will follow it, I spare you such θλίψις. Vv. 29-31. This, however, I say, i.e. of what follows I assure you. Comp. xv. 50. Δέ leads over to something wherewith Paul (‘‘as it were prophesy- ing,” Ewald) designs to secwre the more acceptance for the counsel, which he has given with the view of sparing his readers. Pott, Flatt, and others take τοῦτο dé φημι k.T.A. aS a More precise explanation of θλῖψιν... τοιοῦτοι, and then vv. 32-35 asa more precise explanation of ἐγὼ dé ὑμ. geid. Two things militate against this—first, the more emphatic import of φημί (comp. also x. 15, 19 ; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. 11. p. 906), which is stronger than λέγω ; and secondly, the correct view of συνεσταλμ. (see below). Riickert takes it : ‘Happen, however, what may, marry ye or not, this remark I cannot sup- press.” ‘But were that the meaning, τοῦτο δέ φ. would require to follow at once after οὐχ ἥμαρτε. --- ὁ καιρός] the space of time,—subsisting up to the Pa- rousia,—not owr earthly lifetime in general (Calvin, Vorstius, Estius, a.) ; neither is it merely the time yet to elapse ere that ἀνάγκη arrives (Reiche), 172 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. which would be more distinctly indicated than by the simple ὁ καιρός ; be- sides, the ἀνάγκη has already begun to make itself felt, ἐνεστῶσα, ver. 26. — συνεσταλμένος] is taken by most recent expositors (Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Stolz, Pott, Heydenreich, Flatt, Riickert, Olshausen, Neander ; Billroth is unde- cided) as meaning calamitosum. But without warrant of usage ; for in pas- sages such as 1 Mace. iii. 6 (comp. Polyb. v. 15. 8, xxiv. 5. 18 ; Plato, Lys. p- 210 E; Isocrates, p. 176 A ; Philo, Quod omn. prob. liber, p. 609), Vv. 3, 2 Mace. vi. 12, 3 Mace. v. 88, συστέλλω means to humble, to overthrow, which does not suit with καιρός. The correct translation is that of the old inter- preters (so also de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, Weiss) : com- pressed, i.e. brought within narrow limits (Plato, Legg. iii. p. 691 E ; De- mosth. 309. 2; Lucian, Icar. 12 ; comp. συστολή, abbreviation). The space of time remaining is only of brief duration. In connection with this, 7d λοιπόν is generally made to refer to what precedes :' the time is henceforth (in posterum, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 777 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 2. δ) eut short,—a mode of connecting the words, however, which makes τὸ λοιπόν convey asuperfiluous idea. Others hold that it refers to what follows,’ and that in the sense of ‘‘ ergo agendum, quod sequitur,” Estius ; comp. Luther : ‘‘ weiter ist das die Meinung.” But how obscure the expression would thus be! The ¢elic sense of iva, too, would be deprived of its logical reference to what precedes. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Hofmann, adopt- ing the reading which puts ἐστί before τὸ λοιπόν (see the critical remarks), place a comma after the verb: συνεσταλμ. ἐστίν, τὸ λοιπὸν ἵνα K.7.2., ἦ.6. the time is shortened, in order that in future, ete. Comp. as regards this posi- tion for iva, on Eph. 111. 18 ; Gal. ii. 10; Rom. xi. 81. This is preferable, because τὸ λοιπόν is thus put emphatically forward in its essential and im- portant meaning: in order that henceforward these relationships may be dealt with in a wholly different way than hitherto. Comp. upon the sub- ject-matter, Matt. xxiv. 42 ff. —iva introduces the design of συνεσταλμ. ἐστι in the arrangements of God.? Beza, Billroth, Schrader, Hofmann make it refer to τοῦτο dé φημ. But we may see from παράγει γὰρ x.7.A. in ver. 31 that Paul was thinking of so great results as the aim, not of his assertion, but of the thing asserted,—a view which agrees thoroughly with his relig- ious contemplation of the world, Rom. v. 20, vii. 18, viii. 17, xi. 31; 2 Cor. iv. 7, vii. 9, αἱ. He looks upon everything as fitted into the plan of moral redemption under the government of God. —iva καὶ οἱ ἔχ. γυν. κ.τ.1.} The meaning is : In order that each may keep himself inwardly independent of the relations of his earthly life,—that the husband should not by his married state lose the moral freedom of his position of a Christian in heart and life ; that the sorrowful should not do so through his tribulation, nor the joyful through his good fortune, nor the merchantman through his gain, nor he 1Peshito, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theo- and Riickert. phylact, Beza, Grotius, a/., including Bill- 3 There is therefore no ground here for roth, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Reiche, beginning a new sentence with τὸ λοιπὸν Ewald, Maier, Neander. iva, and taking ἵνα in the imperative sense 2 Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Vulgate, (comp. on y. 2). So Laurent, veut. Stud. Ὁ. Erasmus, Calvin, αἷ., including Heydenreich 130. CHAP. VIL., SF, 32. 173 who uses the world through his use of it. We see the reverse of. this inde- pendent attitude in Luke xiv. 18-20. There the heart cleaves to temporal things as its treasure, Matt. vi. 21. By giving iva its proper reference, it is made clear that Paul neither designs to lay down rules here (‘‘ that the mar- ried ought to be as though unmarried,” etc., Riickert, with many others), nor to depict the uncertainty of temporal possessions (Grotius and Pott) ; which latter meaning is what Reiche also brings out : ‘‘ quandoquidem propediem mutata rerum terrestrium facie, laetitiae et tristitiae causis mox evanidis, tempus deficiet malis bonisve sensu percipiendis.” — καὶ οἱ ἔχοντες γυν.] Even the married. This καί singles out the first point for special emphasis, because it was the one on which the discussion chiefly turned ; καί in the instances - which follow is the simple and. —oi ἀγοράζ. ὡς μὴ xatéy.] the buyers as not possessing (2 Cor. vi. 10), that, namely, which they buy. —éc μὴ καταχρ.] may mean, like the Latin abuti, so far as the word in itself is concerned, either : as not abusing it,‘ or: as not using it (Vulgate, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, a@/., including Pott, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander). Comp. ix. 18. So frequently in Greek writers ; see Krebs, p. 291; Loesner, p. 280 f. The latter of the two meanings should have the preference here from the - analogy of the preceding clauses. The compound verb—which ought not to have the sense of at one’s own pleasure (Hofmann) imported into it—serves merely to give greater emphasis to the idea ; see Bremi, ad 7800). Panegyr. § ix. p. 21; Herodian. viii. 4. 22. Translate : Those who use this (pre-Mes- sianic) world as not making use of it.. There is no reason either for taking καταχρ. in the sense of wsing up (Reiche, Ewald), because this meaning, al- though in itself admissible on linguistic grounds (Diog. Laert. v. 69 ; Lys. p. 153. 46 ; Isocr. p. 55 D), only weakens the force of the antithesis in a way contrary to the relation subsisting between all the other antitheses. (v) — χρῆσθαι in the sense of wti with an accusative (see the critical remarks) occurs here only in the N. T. ;? in classic Greek not at all (in Xen. Ages. xi. 11, the true reading is τῷ μεγαλόφρονι), and seldom in later Greek (Schae- fer, ad Gregor. Cor. p. 691). See also Bornemann, Acta apost. I. p. 222. Καταχρῆσθαι, however, often occurs in that sense with the accusative (Lucian, Prom. 4 ; Plut. Demetr. 23), and it may have been occasioned here by the writer’s thinking of the compound verb. Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p- for f. [H. T. 181]. Vv. 31, 32. Lachmann places only a comma after τούτου, in which he is followed by Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, and Maier. From παράγει on to εἶναι would thus form collectively a ground for the preceding καὶ οἱ χρώμενοι x.t.A. This would be correct, if the foregoing words conveyed an exhorta- tion, or if iva in ver. 29 were dependent upon τοῦτο dé φημι. Since, how- ever, what is conveyed in the preceding statement is the design of God, the full stop after τούτου should be retained ; the words from παράγει on to τού- του form thus a confirmatory addition to oi χρώμενοι. . . καταχρώμενοι, While 1 Syriac, Tertullian, Theodoret, Theo- Paul givesus here the explanation of his phylact, Oecumenius, Luther, Beza, Corne- foregoing paradox. lius ἃ Lapide, a/., including Olshausen and 2 Hence Fritzsche (de conform. Lachm. p. Billroth, the latter of whom considers that 31) rejects it as an error of the copyists. 174 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. θέλω δέ, again, marks the advance to something new, to what Parl, in view of this passing away of the fashion of this world, now desires of his readers, namely, that they should be ἀμέρεμνοι, i.e. without worldly cares (see vv. 33, 84). --- παράγει] is passing away, in accordance with the καιρὸς συνεσταλμ. in ver. 29. Τὸ σχῆμα, habitus, i.e. status externus. See Wetstein. It is not the transitory character of earthly things in general that is meant (so most of the older expositors and Billroth ; comp. also Hofmann), but the expiry of the αἰὼν οὗτος, the end of which is the world-embracing catastrophe of the Parousia, the transformation of the form of this world, and therewith of its whole temporal constitution, into the new heaven and the new earth. Comp. 1 John ii. 17 ; Rev. xxi. 1 ; Rom. viii. 19 ff. ; 2 Pet. 11, 10 ; Matt. y. 18. Grotius, Valckenaer, and Flatt are wrong in holding that the mean- ing is: ‘‘non manebunt, quae nunc sunt, res tranquillae, sed mutabuntur in turbidas,” and that the expression is taken from the language of the theatre (changing the scene, Eurip. Jon. 166 ; Lucian, Herm. 86). Our rendering is demanded by vv. 26, 29, and by the eschatological view of the N. T. generally. — θέλω δὲ «.7.2.] Comp. ἐγὼ dé bu. φείδομαι in ver. 28. — τὰ τοῦ Κυρίου (the cause of Christ) is more precisely defined by what follows. — The reading ἀρέσει, how he shall please, and ἀρέσῃ, how he may please (see Stallbaum, ad Sympos. Ὁ. 216 C ; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 350), are equal- ly suitable so far as the sense is concerned. Ver. 34. Taking the reading μεμέρ. x. ἡ γυνὴ x. ἡ παρθένος (see the critical remarks), we have: The wife, too, and the maiden are divided,’ i.e. they are severed from each other as regards their interests, are separate in what they care for, personae quae diversae trahuntur. The way in which μερίζεσθαι is used (see Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 195) to denote division into different tendencies, views, party-positions, is well known (Matt. xii. 25, 26 ; Mark iii. 24-26 ; Polybius, viii. 23. 9 ; Herodian, iii. 10. 6, iv. 3. 3) ; but the expression is selected here in reference to the different kinds of μεριμνᾶν. Theophylact says well : ob τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσι φροντίδα, ἄλλα μεμερισμέναι εἰσὶ ταῖς σπουδαῖς, καὶ ἡ μὲν περὶ ἄλλα σπουδάζει, ἡ δὲ περὶ ἄλλα. Comp. Theodoret. The simple rendering : ‘‘ There is a difference” (Chrysostom, Luther, Gro- tius, Mosheim, Zachariae, Heydenreich, and others), would still conduct one back to the sense divisa est, but would give too general and meaningless an idea, — Meyép. is in the singular, because it stands at the head of the sentence, and ἡ γυνὴ x. ἡ παρθένος embraces the female sex as a whole made up of two halves. Comp. Kiihner, II. p. 58 f.; Bernhardy, p. 416 ; Butt- 1 Tf we adopt Lachmann’s reading (de- betrothed maiden, in his opinion, is no fended especially by Hammond among the longer ἄγαμος. But in the whole context older expositors), which Ewald also follows there is only the simple distinction made (leaving out, however, the second ἡ ἄγαμος) between married and unmarried persons. the meaning will be: The married man Betrothed maidens, too, belong to the lat- cares... how he may please his wife,and is ter class; comp. ver. 36: γαμείτωσαν. [Tre- divided (in hisinterest). And the unmarried gelles and Westcott & Hort follow Lach- wife (widowed or divorced) and the unmar- mann, but Tischendorf and the Canterbury ried maiden cares, etc. Hofmann, too, pre- Revision adhere to the received text.—T. fers this reading, taking the καί, which it W.C.] has before ἡ γυνή, in the sense of also.. The CHAP. VII., 3d. 175 mann, newt. Gr. p. 110 f. [E. T. 126]. —iva 7 ἁγία «.7.A4.] Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 1. This moral consecration to God of her whole personality, which she strives after, is the πῶς ἀρέσει τῷ Κυρίῳ explicated. One can hardly conceive that Paul avoided the latter phrase on the ground of possible misconstruc- tion (Hofmann). This, considering the sacredness of the idea of ἀρέσκειν τῷ Κυρίῳ, would be a piece of prudery, which is unlike him, Norr.—There is no ground for inferring from vy. 32-34 that Paul, himself unwedded, looked ‘‘somewhat askance” upon marriage (Rickert). To assume any such onesidedness of view on his part would be a very hasty proceeding (see on ver. 2). On the contrary, what we have here is not his view of how, from the nature of the case, things must necessarily subsist,! but only his experience of how in point of fact they usually did subsist. This experience he (ὁ ἄγαμος) had ar- rived at, on the one hand, by consideration of his own case and that of many other unmarried persons ; and, on the other, by observing the change of inter- ests which was wont to set in with those who married. We have here, there- fore, a purely empirical support for the preference of celibacy,—a preference, however, which with Paul is simply relative, depending upon the nearness of the Parousia and the end of the world, and also upon the subjective gift of being holy in body and spirit (comp. Acts xiv. 4). The expectation of these events being so near has remained unfulfilled, and thereby is invalidated the Pauline support which has been often found in our text for celibacy, which, as a legal requirement, is in principle thoroughly un-Pauline (comp. ver. 35). The apostle, moreover, is speaking generally, and not to one special class among his readers. Ver. 35. Τοῦτο] refers to the recommendation of single life contained in vv. 26-34. — πρὸς τὸ ὑμ. αὐτῶν συμφ.] for your own advantage. The genitive with συμφέρον used as a substantive, as in x. 33 ; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 338 C. — οὐχ ἵνα κιτ.}.1 explaining more in detail, negatively and positively, the πρὸς... συμφέρον. To cast a noose upon one is a figurative expression, originally borrowed from the chase (less probably, from war- fare), for the idea of depriving of freedom (bringing under binding and lim- iting relations). Comp. Prov. vii. 21, and see Wetstein and Loesner, i loc. The sense of ‘‘ giving occasion to scruples” (Billroth, comp. Bengel) does not correspond so well with the figure and the connection. — ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ evoy. κιτ.}.1 but to promote the habit of comeliness and undivided waiting upon the Lord (in faithfulness to Christ). For this habit prevailed chiefly, accord- ing to the apostle’s experience, on the side of the ayayo ; see vv. 32-34, where, too, he makes it clear beyond doubt what comeliness he means here —namely, such a manifestation of the inner life in all outward embodiment, as corresponds with consecration to the Lord. It is not merely chastity in the narrower sense that is intended, but all moral purity and consecration in so far as these manifest themselves in demeanour, in speech, gesture, bearing, etc., as the comely form of Christian life, as the ethical ‘‘ decorum” 5) 1 Paul himself, it is plain, had intercourse were married. This in opposition to Cropp with numbers of eminent servants and in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 102. handmaids of the Lord (Priscilla, etc.) who 176 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. of the Christian. Its sacred natwre and the foul contrasts to it are set forth in Rom. xiii. 13, i4.—The dative of appropriation, τῷ Κυρίῳ and d7epior., are conjoined with the eizdp., used as a substantive, to make up the unity of the idea. — εὐπάρεδρος does not occur elsewhere. Hesychius explains it by καλῶς παραμένον. --- ἀπερισπ.} ‘‘absque distractione, ἐ.6. ἄνευ τοῦ μεριμνᾶν τὰ τοῦ κόσμου," Kypke, II. p. 307. Comp. περισπᾶσθαι, Luke x. 40. Regarding the connection of the word with the later Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 415. Xenophon, Ages. i. 4, has ἀδιασπάστως. The adverb attaches itself to εὐπάρ. defining its meaning precisely. See on xii. 28." Ver. 86. Aé] introduces something opposed to the εὔσχημον. --- ἀσχημονεῖν] means ἀσχήμονα εἶναι (COMP. εὑὐσχημονεῖν = εὐσχήμονα εἶναι, Plat. Legg. v. p. 732 ΟἿ, and may therefore be explained either in the active sense (to det dis- honourably, conduct oneself in a dishonourable way, Plato, Pol. vi. p. 506 Ὁ, Theaet. p. 165 B ; Xen. de re eg. xi. 6 ; Herodian, v. 8. 16 ; Lucian, de saerif. 7), or in the passive sense (to have dishonour, Eur. Hee. 407 ; Herodian, viii. 3. 21; Deut. xxv. 5 ; Ezek. xvi. 7). The former of the two interpretations is the common and the correct one, namely : if any one thinks that he is acting dishon- ourably towards his virgin (daughter or ward), i.e. if he thinks that he is bring- ing disgrace upon her ; which means, however, not the disgrace of old maid- enhood (see Soph. Ant. 810 ff., O. Rev. 1492 ff. ; Eur. Hel. 291 ; comp. Ecclus. xlii. 9 ; and Lennep, ad Phalar. p. 362), but the dishonour of seduction, which the father or guardian fears he may give occasion to by refusing per- mission to marry ; see the following context (against Theodoret : ὁ dé τὴν ἀγαμίαν ἀκοσμίαν ὑπολαμβάνων, Theophylact, a/.). Taking it in the passive sense, we have : if any one thinks to have disgrace in respect of his virgin (from seduction, or. her being left unwedded). So in substance the Syriac (‘‘despici”), Grotius, Mosheim, Zachariae, Heydenreich, Pott, Neander ; comp. Hofmann, who holds that what is here expressed is the matter of fact of its being the father’s fault that the daughter remains unmarried. But even apart from the consideration that ἀσχημ. is most commonly found in the ac- tive meaning (see also xiii. 5), there is this against the second rendering, that ἐπί with the accusative takes for granted that ἀσχημονεῖν implies activity, since it states the direction in which it is exerted (comp. ἀσχημονεῖν εἷς τινα, Dion. Hal. ii. 26). — νομίζει] ‘‘ Si perspecto filiae suae ingenio judicet, coeliba- tui non esse aptam,” Calvin. —éév ἡ ὑπέρακμ. | is the case, in connection with which that εἰ dé τις ἀσχημονεῖν, κιτ.}. is supposed : in case she pass her time, pass the highest point of her youthful bloom. As regards the ἀκμή itself, see Plato, Rep. p. 460 E: dp’ οὖν σοι ξυνδοκεῖ μέτριος χρόνος ἀκμῆς τὰ εἴκοσιν ἔτη γυναικί, ἀνδρὶ δὲ τὰ τριάκοντα, and Stallbaum, ad hune loe. ; other definitions of the age may be seen in Locella, ad. Xen. Eph. p. 145. Paul’s opinion is, that before the ἀκμή is reached the ἀσχημονεῖν. . . νομίζει is not likely to take place with the father or guardian of the girl ; but, judging from ex- perience, he conceived that the maiden who is ὑπέρακμος would be more ready to yield to a lover, if she is not allowed to marry. Respecting the 1 [The image here and the words are well illustrated by the little narrative Luke x. 39-42 in the original.—T. W. C.] a CHAP: ὙΠ θ΄ 177 word ὑπέρακμ., which is not found in ancient Greek, see Eustath, 17. ἱ, p. 11, 31; Od. p. 1915, 29. The classical writers use instead of it the perfect of παρακμάζειν, as in Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 23; or the adjective παρακμαστικῆ, as in Galen, VI. p. 312, 14. — καὶ οὕτως ὀφείλει γίνεσθαι] depends on the εἰ :! and if so (namely, that the virgin marry), it must be. Thus there is added to the subjective condition of things, expressed in dé τις ἀσχημ. x.t.A., the corre- sponding (not heterogeneous, as Hofmann objects) objective condition on the part of the maiden, whose natural temperament makes marriage needful. It is quite akin to the German phrase : wnd wenn’s nicht anders sein kann [and if it cannot be otherwise] ; the expression has a somewhat euphemis- tic turn, as referring to the daughter’s inclination to marriage, which de- termines the ὀφείλει. According to Riickert, «. οὔτ. og. yiv. depends upon ἐάν : and she must remain so (i.e. unwedded). But the indicative ὀφείλει is decisive against this rendering ; and what an amount of straining is needed to make γίνεσθαι equivalent to remain / for she is unwedded, and, if she so remains, cannot become so. — ὃ θέλει ποιείτω] not : let him do what pleases him (so ordinarily ; but this is contrary to the context ; see what follows, and the preceding ὀφείλει), but : let him do what he intends (to give his virgin in marriage). Theodoret puts it well : τὸ δοκοῦν πραττέτω. --- γαμείτωσαν] name- ly, the virgin and he who wishes to have her. It is arbitrary, considering the general form of the whole discussion (ver. 25), to maintain, as Riickert does, that the plural refers to a particular couple respecting whom the Co- rinthians had asked a question. Wolf, Heydenreich, and others adopt a needlessly harsh assumption, that Paul passes here from the singular to the plural (the virgins). Billroth again propounds the very unlikely view that “ἐ the youths” should be supplied here as the subject, and αὐτήν as the object. Ver. 37. He who, on the other hand, stands stedfast in his heart, is of a stedfast and unchangeable mind, firm in disposition and resolution. Comp. xv. 58; Col. i. 23, iv. 12. — μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην] without having constraint (ob- jective necessity), as he, in ver. 36, whom the natural temperament of his virgin causes to fear the ἀσχημονεῖν before explained. — ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει x... ] contrasted with the μὴ ἔχ. avdyx. (δέ, but rather) as the correlative positive state of free disposal in respect of what he himself wills. Strictly speaking, therefore, we should have the participle here, but instead, there is again a change in the construction. Comp. on iv, 14; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 327 f. [E. T. 3891. --- τοῦτο] is not explained—though this is the common suppo- sition—by the infinitive which follows ; were that the case, we should have τὸ τηρεῖν, or (as in Od. i. 82; 1 Thess. iv. 3; Jas. 1. 27, al.) the simple infin. (comp. the critical remarks). But Paul leaves the reader to gather from the connection what is meant by τοῦτο (namely, not giving the maiden arising from the nature of the case, that he do what he will.’ Laurent also makes καὶ οὕτως op. yiv. the apodosis, expounding it to mean: soit must be in this case also. The 1 Theophylact begins the apodosis with καὶ οὕτως : γενέσϑω, φησὶ, καὶ οὕτω. πῶς ; ὃ ϑέλει ποιείτω. In that case κ. οὕτος op. γίν. would be quite superfluous, the καί deprived of its reference, and οὐχ ἅμαρτ. would not suit the obligatory ὀφείλει. Similarly Hof- mann, who follows the same view, para- phrasing it thus: ‘* 7his too (Ὁ) is a necessity clauses which follow he considers explana- tory ; and xai must go back for its reference all the way to ver. J: not merely in the case of the πυροῦσϑαι. 178 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. in marriage). The design of this τοῦτο κέκρικεν (conclusum habet) is then de- clared by τοῦ τηρεῖν : in order to keep (to preserve in her maidenly state) his own maiden. And this is-not a mere periphrasis for not giving in marriage (as de Wette objects), but rather the design which the father or guardian has in his τοῦτο κέκρικεν, by virtue of his right to dispose of his own child: ob- serve the emphatic τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρϑένον. That the maiden’s will should be left entirely out of account by Paul, can surprise no one who is aware of the power given to fathers among the Jews (comp. Ewald, Alterth. p. 267) and Greeks (Herm. Privatalterth. § 30. 2 ff.). — καλῶς ποιεῖ] in the sense of action, morally right, the positive side of the οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει of ver. 36, and in so far stronger here ; hence, too, it is represented in ver. 28 by κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ in relation to the καλῶς ποιεῖ, which is equivalent to οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει. Ver. 38. Result of vv. 36, 87, cai. . . καί, as well. . . as also. Paul had thought of saying καλῶς ποιεῖ in the second clause also, but thereupon strengthens his expression (κρεῖσσον) so as to correspond with the relations of the two predicates, οὐχ ἁμαρτ. in ver. 36, and καλῶς ποιεῖ in ver. 37.—6 éxyap.| he who marries her (his virgin, ver. 37) out (gives her out of his family in marriage). This going ‘‘out” is not taken into account in the second clause. — κρεῖσσον] for see ver. 34. Regarding ἐκγαμ., comp. Matt. xxiv. 38 ; it is not preserved in Greek writers. Vy. 39, 40. An appended rule respecting second marriage on the part of women, occasioned probably by questions from the Corinthians. — δέδεται] sc. τῷ ἀνδρί ; she may not separate herself from him and marry another. Comp. ver. 27; Rom. vil. 2. — ᾧ ϑέλει γαμηϑῆναι] to whom she desires to be married. Comp. Mark x. 19. Tapei μὲν yap ὁ ἀνὴρ, γαμεῖται δὲ ἡ γυνή, Schol. ad Eur. Med. 593. As regards the later form γαμηϑῆναι, instead of the Attic γαμεϑῆναι, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 742. --- μόνον ἐν Κυρίῳ] only in the Lord, not apart from Christ as the specifically determining element of the new union ; only in a Christian way, i.e. only to a Christian, sc. let her be mar- το." So among the early interpreters, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Theodoret, Grotius (who puts it happily : «intra ecclesiam), Estius, al., also Olshausen and de Wette. This does not run counter to ver. 12 ff., where, in fact, those mixed marriages are meant which date from the pre- Christian period, and in which only one spouse has become Christian. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, and others, includ- ing Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, Billroth, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, Maier, Ewald, all understand the phrase to mean : in ὦ Christian spirit, acting as ὦ Christian should, in the fear of the Lord, etc. (several of the above-named interpreters, as Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, Maier, include also the point that the husband must be a Christian, or lay the chief stress upon this, as Hofmann and Weiss). But what we have here is plainly a limita- tion of the ᾧ ϑέλει so emphatically put first. Moreover, the wider and more general the meaning ascribed to ἐν Κυρίῳ, the more inappropriate it seems in connection with the foregoing definite rules, which all take for granted 1 Paul’s view, therefore, is not in accordance with the legislative permission of marriage between Christians and Jews. NOTES. 179 that the action is Christian. — paxapior.] more blessed, i.e. not merely more spared from troubles (vv. 26, 28), but, in accordance with the higher ref- erence which yaxdp. invariably has in the N. T., enjoying the blessed rela- tion, which arises out of withdrawal from worldly cares and self-surrender to Christ. See vv. 32-34. As to greater blessedness in heaven, which some have dragged in here in the interests of celibacy (Ambrosiaster, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, a/., including Hirscher, Moral, III. p. 502), there is not a word of that in the text, even if we should read ἔσται in place of ἐστίν. --- κατὰ τ. ἐμὴν γνώμην] éugv carries the emphasis of apostolic self-consciousness. — δοκῶ dé κἀγὼ x.T.A.] so that I therefore may expect you to regard my opinion, not as a mere individual judgment, but as arrived at under the influence of the Holy Spirit which is imparted (ἔχειν) to me also, and hence as worthy to be received and followed.-—Respecting δοκῶ, mihi videor, the note of Estius may suffice : ‘‘minus dicit, plus volens intelligi.” Comp. iv. 9. — κἀγώ] like other teachers who have received His gifts.—In the two expressions coming together—of which δοκῶ has a touch of irony (comp. Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 230 f.)—there is implied a side-glance, but whether precisely at the Petrine party (Neander, Riibiger, αἰ.) may be doubted. It is safer to say generally : at opponents of his full standing as an apostle in Corinth. Comp. Calvin. (w) Notes By AMERICAN EDITor. (zn) Paul's command and the Lord's. Ver. 10. It is important to insist upon the author’s explanation of the words, ‘‘ I com- mand ; yet not I, but the Lord.” This is not a distinction between what is in- spired and what isnot. What the Apostle means is simply that the Corinthians had no need to apply to him for instruction on the matter of divorce, because Christ had already taught that the marriage bond could not be dissolved at the option of the parties. (s) ‘* Now are they holy.’’ Ver. 14. Stanley, while agreeing with the opinion that this verse is against the practice of infant baptism in Paul’s time, yet says that it asserts the principle upon which that ordinance is founded, viz. that family ties do in themselves conse- erate those who are bound by them, and that the children of Christian parents may therefore be considered as among the people of God, and that from this would follow the natural consequence that the whole family would participate in the same rites as belonged properly, and in the highest sense, only to those members or that member of it who was strictly a believer. Est matrimonium Christianum est soboles Christiana (Bengel). (2) Desertion a cause of divorce. Ver. 15. Hodge’s explanation of this matter is somewhat different and apparently better: ‘‘Thereis no conflict here’ between Christ’s command and Paul’s in- structions. Both say, a man cannot put away his wife (nor of course a wife her husband) on account of difference of religion, or for any other reason but the one above specified (Matt. ver. 32). The Apostle only adds that if the believ- 180 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ing party be, without just cause, put away, he or she is free.’” The marriage contract thus wilfully broken no longer binds, Hence wilful desertion is judged to be a legitimate ground of divorce, ς (Ὁ) ““ Use itrather.”’ Ver. 21, No question of scholarship has been more vexed in earlier or later times than the one whether the Apostle here recommends the slave to choose liberty or a continuance in bondage. The arguments on both sides are nearly equally balanced. (See a neat summation in Stanley in loco.) Meyer's reference to the καί may be turned in this way: ‘‘ Wert thou called, being a slave? Care not for it; but if also (i.e, in addition to your being called), thou canst become free, prefer to use the opportunity.’’ So Hodge, Speaker’s Com., Principal Brown, Beet. Kling (in Lange) and Ellicott’s Com. take the other view, (v) ““ Using as not abusing.’’ Ver. 30. On the author’s view of these words it is obvious to remark that if the Apos- tle meant the same thing in each clause, it is impossible to conceive why in one case he used the simple verb, and in the other a compound one. The force of the preposition is usually to make the verb mean using to the full or to excess = overusing (compare ix. 18, and for the force of the preposition the origi- nal of xi. 32). The Authorized Version is sufficiently accurate for all practi- cal purposes. The whole clause is, as Bengel says, a true description of Christian self-denial. (w) Celibacy. Ver. 40. On the whole subject of this chapter it may be justly said that while it seems to favor celibacy, yet it does not, upon a closer view ; for the preference for single life is founded expressly upon the impending calamities (26-31), and, in connection with this, on the greater freedom from worldly cares ; and be- sides, here the Apostle is meeting a particular case of a special kind, while, when elsewhere treating largely of relative duties (Eph. vv. 22, 23), so far from speaking of marriage as an inferior state, he makes it represent the high- est and holiest fellowship of which man is capable — that of Christ and His church. There is nothing in all the chapter which indicates or sustains the ascetic views which prevailed a few centuries later. It is also justly remarked that it is not often so expressly stated in the New Testament as it is here, that the practice of the highest duties of Christianity is compatible with every station and condition of life that is not in itself unlaw- ful. If even the degraded state of slavery be consistent with the cultivation of the true spirit of Christian liberty ;if even the great religious divisions of Jew and Gentile may be regarded as alike compatible with the true service of God, then in all other states of life equally the spirit of the Apostolic injunc- tions may be observed where, in the letter, they seem most disregarded. Free- dom from earthly cares may be maintained in the married as well as in the single state ; indifference to worldly gain may exist in riches, no less than in pover- ty ; our nearness to (rod depends not on our desertion of one religious com- munity for another, but on our keeping His commandments in whatever religious community His providence has placed us, whether circumcision or uncireum- cision. CHAP. VIII. 181 OHAPTER. VIII. Ver. 2, δέ] is wanting in A Β &, min. several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch., as Griesb., too, had recommended. Added for the sake of connection, as was also γάρ (after the first οὔτε) in ver. 8, which is omit- ted likewise in A B 817, al. — εἰδέναι] It is true that AB DEFG κα, min. Clem. Nyss. Theodoret, Damasc. have ἐγνωκέναι (recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch.) ; but what goes before it and what fol- lows make it clear that éyv. is a gloss. The reading εἶναι, too, in 39, 91, 109, tells in favour of εἰδέναι. --- οὐδέπω οὐδὲν ἔγνωκε] Lachm. and Riick. have οὔπω ἔγνω, which was recommended by Griesb. in accordance with testimony of very con- siderable weight, in substance the same as that in favour of ἐγνωκέναι instead of εἰδέναι. But the peculiarity of the emphatic Recepta does not show the hand of a gloss-writer, What has taken place has rather been the reduction of the original reading to the simple οὔπω ἔγνω, at first, perhaps, by omitting the su- perfluous οὐδέν, all the more readily that it was preceded by οὐδέπω, whereupon ἔγνωκε became transformed into ἔγνω, either from the next word beginning with K, or by the influence of the inf. γνῶναι which follows, while οὐδέπω was dis- placed, as in many other cases (John vii. 39; Luke xxiii. 53 ; Acts viii. 16), by the more familiar οὔπω. --- Ver. 4. érepoc] is wanting in AB DEF G &* min. with several vss. and Fathers. Condemned by Mill and Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Riick. But why should any one have added ἕτερος ἢ That it should be omitted, on the other hand, was all the more likely, because the word seemed superfluous, and might even appear offensive (‘‘ there is no other God but one”’ might by possibility mean: ‘there is but one other God’’). — Ver. 7. τῇ συνειδήσει] Lachm. and Riick. read τῇ συνηθείᾳ, with A B δὲ, some min. Copt. Bashm. Aeth. Syr. p. (on the margin) Damasc. Approved also by Griesb. and Rinck. τῇ συνειδήσει, however, as the more difficult reading, should be retained. See also Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 200 ff. It was noted on the margin how the ovvei- δησις τοῦ εἰδώλου arose, namely, by τῇ συνηθείᾳ, and then this phrase easily crept into the place of the original τ. cvvesd, — It is preferable, however, to put ἕως ἄρτι before τοῦ εἰδώλου (Lachm. Riick. and Tisch.), with B DE F G & 31, 37, 116, and several vss. and Fathers ; in the Recepta we have transposition in the interest of the construction. — Ver. 8. παρίστησι] A B®, min. Copt. Bashm. Clem. Origen (twice), Athan. Cyr. Damase. have tapaorjce. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Rightly ; the presents which follow gave rise to the same tense here. Συνίστησι, which has but weak sup- port, is a gloss. — There is considerable evidence (especially A B δὰ) in favour of omitting the ydp, and putting the negative clause first in what follows (Lachm. Tisch.). The transcriber would have a mechanical inclination to place the positive half of the statement first. — Ver. 9, There is decisive evidence for reading ἀσθενέσιν instead of the Recepta ἀσθενοῦσιν. -- Ver. 11. καὶ ἀπολεῖται] In place of καί, A has οὖν after the verb (so Riick.), while B &* 17, Copt. Bashm. Goth. Clem. have γάρ, which is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch, The last of the 182 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. three readings is the true one ; γάρ not being understood, was explained in some cases by καί, in others by οὖν. Instead of ἀπολεῖται, read with Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. ἀπόλλυται, on the authority of A B D* δὰ, several min. Copt. Goth, Clem. Bas. Antioch, Chrys. Theodoret, and Damase. The future arises from a mechanical alteration of the text after οἰκοδομηῇ. — ἀδελφός] Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. have ὁ ἀδεὴφός after γνώσει, which has conclusive evidence in its favour. The Recepla originated in ἃ mistaken attempt to help out the con- struction, — ἐπί] Lachm. Riick, and Tisch. read ἐν, which is supported by de- cisive testimony. ContTENnts.—To eat flesh offered to idols is a thing morally indifferent for all who understand rightly what an idol is (vv. 1-6). Still, for the sake of those who are more weak, we should refrain from so eating, if it isa stumbling-block to them (vv. 7-13). Ver. 1. Aé] marks the transition to a new subject, which the queries from Corinth led the apostle to discuss. — περὶ τῶν εἰδωλοϑ.} Since this is taken up again in ver. 4, it is clear that vv. 1-3 cannot form an independent series of thoughts (Hofmann), but that ver. 3 is the close of a logical parenthesis (not a grammatical one, because at what is its true beginning the construc- tion undergoes no interruption). It is not to be made to begin at ὅτε (for) πάντες, a8 is done by Luther, Bos, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Wolf, Bengel, Valck- enaer, and others, among whom are Olshausen and Maier ; for the fact that. ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ stands unconnected with what precedes it, and the sense of ὅτι in ver. 4 (that), are decisive against this. The true commencement is only at ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοὶ (80, With older commentators, Pott, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander ; Billroth is undecided on the point), so that the preceding γνῶσιν ἔχομεν has very naturally given occasion to the warn- ings which begin with ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ. ---- εἰδωλόϑυτα, things offered to idols, κρέα εἰδωλόϑυτα, 4 Macc. v. 1, are those parts of the animals offered in hea- then sacrifices, which remained over after the priests had received their share, and which were either consumed in the temple or at home in connec- tion with sacrificial feasts (Dougt. Anal. I. p. 234 ff.; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § xxviii. 22), or else (by poor or miserly persons) sold in the flesh market. Comp. on Acts xy. 20.’ The Christians might thus easily come to eat such meat, either through being invited to a feast by heathen acquaint- ances (x. 27), or, again, by buying it in the market (x. 25), and thereby offence would be given to scrupulous consciences ; while, on the other hand, those of a freer spirit, and with more of Paul’s own mode of thinking, might be apt to make light of the matter, and withal forget how a Christian ought to spare the weak. To assign the strong and the weak to one or other of the four parties respectively, is, to say the least of it, a very uncertain pro- 1 Paul, however, makes no reference to the decree of the apostles either here or elsewhere, which is in keeping with his con- sciousness of his own direct and indepen- dent apostolic dignity. Comp. on Acts (oc. cit., and on Gal., Introd. §3. Moreover, this very chapter, along with chap. x., shows plainly that, in virtue of his inde- pendent position asan apostle, he had early enough shaken himself clear of all applica- tions of the temporary agreement come to at Jerusalem which might conflict, upon points in themselves indifferent, with the princi- ples elsewhere enunciated by him, although coupling this with a wise forbearance towards those who were weak in the faith. a —" OHA PS) Villages & 183 cess, whether we are disposed to find the former in the Christ-party (Ols- hausen, Jaeger) or in the Apollonians (Riibiger). As regards the weak, see ver. 7, and the remark subjoined to it. —oidayev] should not be joined di- rectly with περὶ x.7.2., but the latter clause is to be taken as in vii. 1: Now, as respects meat offered to idols, we know that, etc. Hofmann, following Semler, but in the face of all the Versions and Fathers, reads οἶδα μέν (1 know, indeed, that), by which he gains nothing but a μέν solitarium, which would be all the more uncalled for, seeing that the corresponding antithetic clause, where he ought to find ἡ δὲ γνῶσις, follows immediately. There is still less reason here for writing it as two words than in Rom. vii. 14, where it is, in point of fact, succeed by a dé. The subject of οἴδαμεν consists of all those, besides the apostle himself, of whom the γνῶσιν ἔχομεν holds good, that is to say, of Paul and the (as regards this point) more enlightened Christians : 1 and those like myself in this. Theophylact puts it rightly (comp. Chrysos- tom); πρὸς τοὺς τελείους διαλέγεται, ἀφεὶς τοὺς ἀτελεστέρους. Since οἴδαμεν and ἔχομεν must have one and the same subject, Riickert is wrong in taking the first indefinitely : it is well known. Olshausen understands it of all Chris- tians, and seeks to remove the contradiction between that and ver. 7 in this way : he distinguishes γνῶσις and ἡ γνῶσις, making the former to be ὦ certain ground of knowledge in general ; the latter, the specific knowledge of how the JSorm and the power of idolatry stand related to each other, But the γνῶσις in ver. 1, although without the article, has been already defined very exactly as regards its contents by περὶ τ. eidwA., and still more by ver. 4, so that ἡ γνῶσις in ver. 7 can mean nothing else but the γνῶσις under discussion ; con- sequently the contradiction would remain. De Wette’s exposition is better ; he holds that in ver. 1 Paul is speaking quite generally, and, as it were, theoretically (comp. also Ewald), while in ver. 7 he refers specially to the Corinthians. But such a theoretic generality would have needed to be ex- pressed by the first person alone without πάντες, if the οὐκ ἐν πᾶσιν in ver. 7 were to have any logical pertinence ; while, on the other hand, if we are to maintain that general meaning in ver. 1 as it stands, we should have ar- bitrarily to insert into the πάντες there the unexpressed idea, ‘‘ properly speaking, all Christians as such” (Ewald), or to give to the ἔχομεν the sense of ‘‘ should have.” Others, following Er. Schmid (‘‘ we at Corinth are all . wise enough”), regard the Corinthians as the subject, and take (Nésselt, Opuscula, II. p. 152, Rosenmiiller, Pott, Heydenreich, Flatt) the words περὶ . . ἔχομεν, and then ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον in ver. 4 on to ver. 6, as quotations from the Corinthian letter, the refutation of which begins with ver. 7. But this is unnatural ; for in that case Paul would have brought the passage ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ K.T.2., On to ver. 8, into his refutation as well. Further, it is contrary to the apostle’s habitual way of writing, for he always marks out the words of an opponent as such by some formula ; and lastly, it is quite unnecessary, seeing that the supposed contradiction between ver. 1 and ver. ἢ vanishes on considering the change of person (from the jirst in ver. 1 to the third in ver. 7). —yvacw] have knowledge ; of what? is plain from the 1 So Elwert, Progr., Quaestiones ad philol. sacram. N. T., Tiibing. 1860, p. 17. 184 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. context, namely, of the way in which flesh offered to idols should be regarded. The contents of the statement are more fully expressed in ver. 4. Vv. 1-3. Now follows the caveat inserted parenthetically with a view to γνῶσιν ἔχομεν. --- The article turns the abstract γνῶσις into a noun appellative. —The knowledge (in and by itself, namely) puffeth up (iv. 6, v. 2); but the love (to the brethren ; comp. Rom. xiv. 14, 15) edifieth (x. 23), furthers the progress of the church (viewed as οἰκοδομὴ Θεοῦ, see iii. 9) towards Christian perfection. It is, indeed, the necessary ἡγεμονικόν to the effectively sympa- thetic and humble application of the knowledge. Comp. chap. xilii., espe- cially ver. 4. — Vv. 2 and 3 explain the preceding statement, both from the wrong nature of the supposed knowledge and from the preciousness of love to God. — Since the γνῶσις in and by itself, divorced from love, is never a real knowledge, but only such as a man fancies himself to have (iii. 18), Paul characterizes here what he before designated by ἡ γνῶσις as a δοκεῖν εἰδέναι te ; and since the love to the brethren does not essentially differ from the love to God, but is simply its expression in the fellowship of believers, he now characterizes the former as ἀγαπᾶν τὸν Θεόν. One can hardly mistake the impress of deep and pregnant meaning in this whole passage, so like the manner of John, especially in his Epistles. — τί] anything whatever, any object of the γνῶσις. Pott and Flatt interpret : something wonderful ; but this does not correspond so well with the sententious character of the verse. — οὐδέπω x.7.2.] he knows nothing at all as yet in such a way as to bring it under the name of knowledge, as that must by moral necessity be constituted from the Christian standpoint. The conceit of knowledge is onesided, superficial, partial, false, unpractical, in its character. In order to the γνῶναι καθὼς dei we must of necessity have love, which regu- lates the knowledge morally, gives it proper depth, and makes it practically salutary. Comp. xiii. 2. As regards the repetition of the negative (Luke xxiii. 53 ; John xix. 41; Acts viii. 16), Schémann, ad Js. p. 469 ; Stall- baum, ad Plat. Crat. p. 398 E). — Ver. 3. οὗτος] with emphasis : he, to the exclusion of the other who prides himself on his knowledge. — ἔγνωσται ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ] This is rationalized by Billroth in his usual fashion into: ‘‘ God recognizes Himself in him ;” but it means simply : thisman is known by Him. The statement 1s a pregnant one. Instead of making it logically complete by saying : ‘‘it holds good of such a man not merely that he knows in the true sense, but also that he is known of God,” the apostle states simply the latter and greater truth, which of itself implies the former. The ἔγνωσται ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ shows the importance and preciousness of the love spoken of, in accord- ance with its holiness; for if God knows a man, that implies a relation between God and him of no indifferent or ineffective kind, but an activity of God, which passes over to the man, so that he as the object of the divine knowledge experiences also the efficacy of the disposition in and with which God knows him, of His love, gracious care, etc. (x) The idea, therefore, is that of the effective divine knowledge, which becomes part of the inner evperience of the man, and which is the causa salutis,' so that God in thus ‘Comp. Constit. ap. ν. 16.3: μὴ γιγνώσκοντες Θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κηρύγματος πιστεύσαντες ἔγνωτε CHAP. VIII., 4,5. 185 knowing the man carries out that saving fellowship with him, which was purposed in His own counsel, Ps. i. 6; Gal. iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 19. Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. Ὁ. 258 ff. See also on xiii. 12. Other inter- preters supply the thought wt swwm discipulum (Erasmus) or inter jilios (Calvin), and the like. Comp. Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 283. But that is to insert a meaning not in the text. Others, again, take it as approbatus est (Piscator, Clericus, Gataker, Grotius, Wolf, Mosheim, Semler, Morus, Vater, al., following Fathers in Suicer, 7768. I. p. 762). But this is as much against linguistic usage (see on Rom. vii. 15) as Augustine’s edoctus est (so, too, Beza, Pareus, Er. Schmid, and others, including Nésselt, Rosenmiiller, Heydenreich, Pott, Flatt), so that the passive would correspond to a Hophal. Olshausen’s mysterious fancy is contrary to the whole context, which demands the simple conception of knowing ; he finds in γινώσκειν (as in YT, see on Matt. i. 25) the bridal (Ὁ) relation of the soul to God. Ver. 4. Oiv] igitur, takes up again the interrupted statement (ver. 1) ; comp. xi. 20, and see on Mark iii. 31, and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 177. — τῆς Bpéo. τ. cid.] More precise definition of the indefinite τῶν εἰδωλοθ., ver. 1. There is no reason any more than formerly for writing οἴδαμεν here as oida μέν with Hofmann. — ὅτι οὐδὲν εἰδωλ. ἐν κόσμῳ] that there is not an idol in the world. TPaul’s meaning here is not: what the heathen adore as gods is some- thing absolutely without existence (see, on the contrary, ver. 5 and x. 20) ; but : no heathen god exists as the being which the heathen supposes him to be ; and so there is no adequate reality, corresponding to the heathen con- ception of a god Jupiter, Apollo, etc. (y) Most of the old interpreters, with the Vulgate, Luther, and Beza (also more recently, Michaelis, Rosen- miiller, Flatt, Heydenreich), took οὐδέν to mean nihil: ‘that an idol is a nonentity.” Comp. Jer. x. 3; Isa. xli. 24, al., Addit. to Esth. iv. 8; Sanhedr. f. 63. 2: ‘‘ Noverant utique Israelitae, idolum nihil esse.” Comp. also Joseph. Antt. viii. 13. 6. But this must be held incorrect, seeing that ἐν τ. κόσμῳ Coes not harmonize with it, and because of the parallel expres- sion οὐδεὶς Θεός. --- καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς K.T.A.| and that there is no other God but one. The εἰ μή refers simply to οὐδεὶς Θεός, not to ἕτερος. See on Gal. i. 19. Vv. 5, 6. Confirmatory elucidation of the preceding statement ὅτι οὐδὲν eldwAov . . « εἰ μὴ εἷς. Ver. 5. For (yap) even (καί) if really (εἴπερ, see Hartung, Partikell. I. Ὁ. 343 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 202) there exist so-called gods, whether in heaven or mearth. Heathenism conceived heaven and earth to be filled with beings whom they called gods (Jupiter, Apollo, and so forth ; gods of the woods and the rivers, etc.). Paul does not admit the existence of such gods,’ but merely supposes it, and that with καὶ εἴπερ, 1.6. even in the case that, if there be in reality, if after all, whereby of course ‘‘ in incerto relinquitur, utrum jure an injuria sumatur” (Hermann, ad Viger. p. 834), this, however, not being implied in εἴπερ by itself, but by the connection in which it stands here. αὐτόν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγνώσθητε ὑ π᾿’ αὐτοῦ low that the gods as such existed at all, but διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος κ. λυτρωτοῦ τῶν held those beings regarded as gods to be ἐλπιζόντων ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν. demons. Comp. Weiss, δὲδὶ, Theol. p. 279. 1 We know from x. 20 that he did not al- 186 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Comp. Rom. viii. 9, 17, ete.; and see Bacumlein, 1.56. The supposed case— the reality of which is still left to stand on its own footing—is then estab- lished, so far as its possibility is concerned, by ὥσπερ x.7.2.: a8 there are, indeed, gods many and lords many. What is conceded here is the premiss from which that possibility may be drawn as aconsequence. If there exist, that is to say, a multitude of superhuman beings, who come under the cate- gory of θεοί (in the wider sense) and κύριοι, then we must admit that it is possible that those whom the heathen call gods-—Jupiter, Apollo, and so - on—have an actual existence.’ The θεοὶ πολλοί and κύριοι πολλοί are, as the connection necessarily leads us to understand, not human rulers, deified kings, and the like, but the superhuman powers (angels), of whom it is said in Deut. x. 17: ὁ yap Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν, οὗτος Θεὸς τῶν θεῶν Kai Κύριος τῶν κυρίων." Comp. Ps. cxxxvi. 2, 8. Most commentators take εἰσί as said ὁ gentilium persuasione (so Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, de Wette, Ewald, Nean- der, Maier), which would give as the sense of the whole: ‘‘if there be in reality so-called gods among the heathen, as, indeed, they speak of many gods and lords” (de Wette). But this explanation runs counter to the fact that εἰσί is put first with emphasis : and the e gentiliwm persuasione is neither express- ed nor hinted at in the text, but is a pure insertion of the commentators, and that with the less warrant, seeing that it is the emphatic ἡμῖν in the apodosis that first introduces a contrast with others. This applies, too, against the arbitrary distinction made by Billroth, who maintains that only the first εἰσί denotes real existence (the λεγόμ. θεοί being demons, x. 20,) while with the second we should supply : ὧν the view of the heathen. Riickert takes both the first and second εἰσί in the right sense, but makes εἴπερ mean,—contrary to the rules of the language,—although it must be conceded that (which is not its meaning even in such passages as those given by Kiihner, IT. §824, note 2), and supposes that the apostle conceived the angels and demons to be the realities answering to the λεγόμ. eoi.3—As regards καὶ ei, etiam, tum, si, which marks the contents of the conditional clause as wncertain, comp. on Mark xiv. 29 ; and see Hermann, ad Viger. p. 832 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 32 A. It is here the ‘‘etiamsi de re in cogitatione posita,” Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 884. Examples of καὶ γὰρ εἰ, Jor even if, may be seen in Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 141. Ver. 6. Apodosis : yet have we Christians but one God, the Father, ete. Therefore : The ἐστίν to be supplied after ἡμῖν is the simple verb substantive. — ἀλ2᾽] as in iv. 15. — Θεὸς ὁ πατήρ] might be taken together here as forming one conception, like ἹΚύριος ὁ Θεός (Fritzsche, ad οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον K.T.A. 1The meaning of the verse, therefore, 3 [Hodge, 27 loco, sustains this view strong- freely rendered, would be: For evenif we suppose that the gods of the heathen mythology have a real existence, which is no such absurd supposition, seeing that there is not merely One God and One Lord (in the wider sense of these words), but gods many and lords many; still for us Christians, ete., ver. 6. Hofmann agrees substantially with our ex- position of the passage. See also his Schrift- bew. I. p. 348. ly.—T. W. C.] 3 There is no ground whatever for bring- ing in the demons here from x. 20 (this in opposition to Olshausen and others). The second part of the verse, which makes no further mention of λεγομένοις θεοῖς, should have sufficed of itself to prevent this; still more the correlation in which the many gods and lords stand to the εἷς Θεός and eis Κύριος in ver. 6. CHAP VG: 187 Matt. p. 168) : it agrees better, however, with the εἷς Κύριος I. X. which follows, to understand ὁ πατήρ as in apposition to Θεός and defining it more precisely. By ὁ πατήρ, and the relative definitions of it which follow, the εἷς Θεός has its specific character assigned to it, and that in such a way as to make the reader feel, from the relation of the One God to the world, and from his own relation to Him, how the Christian, despite that plurality of gods, comes to rest in the thought of the wnity of God, and how idols are with him put out of account altogether. Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 348. —6 πατήρ] in the Christian sense, according to the idea of the viodecia of Christians. Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26. — ἐξ οὗ ra πάντα] as to primary ori- gin. See on Rom. xi. 80. -- καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν] 1.6. and we Christians are destined to serve His purposes: He is our End. Here again, after the καί, we have the deviation from the relative construction, common with the apostle from his preference for direct address. Comp. on vii. 18. Bernhardy, p. 304. It is arbitrary to take εἰς in such a narrow sense as is given to it by Piscator, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, al. ᾿ for God’s honour ; but positively incor- rect to take it for ἐν, with Beza, Calvin, and others ; or for ἐξ, with Schulz, Heydenreich, and Pott. Billroth interprets it in Hegelian fashion : ‘‘ that man should be towards God, should return into Him as his First Cause, not remain for himself.” This has only a seeming likeness to Augustine’s ‘‘ Fe- cisti me ad te, et inquietum est cor ngstrum, donec requiescat in te,” Conf. i. 1. Olshausen, following older expositors (Calovius, Estius, a/.), finds the Trinity here also (comp. on Rom. xi. 36), which is obviously wrong, were it only for this reason, that we have neither one subject alone named in this passage (as at least in Rom. loc. cit.), nor three, but two.’ He holds, with Billroth (comp. also Neander), that the eic refers to the agency of the Holy Spirit in bringing all back to its primary origin. °— δ οὗ τὰ πάντα] does not apply to the new moral creation (Grotius, Stolz, Pott), and consequently cannot include all that is involved in redemption and atonement (Baur, neut. Theol. p. 193), which is clearly against the sense of the preceding τὰ πάντα ; but it means that Jesus Christ, in His premundane existence, as the Son of God (not as the Ideal Man or the like) as πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (in John’s phrase, as Λόγος), was He through whom * God brought about the creation of the world. See on Col. i. 15 ff. Comp. John i. 3. Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 315 ff.; Ribiger, Christol. Paul. p. 29 ff.; Hahn, Theol. d. Ν. T. § 85 ; Lechler, p. 51 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 318. Philo calls the λόγος the ὄργανον, δι’ ob κατεσκευάσϑη (ὁ κόσμος). See de Cherub. I. p. 162. In Rom. xi. 36, δ οὗ is said of God, and the reference is therefore of a different kind to it, and insomuch as it exerts a reflex re- 1 Hence we find, in some of the later codd. storative influence even upon the κτίσις and Fathers, additional clauses respecting the Spirit, namely, καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα κ. ἡμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ, ANA: καὶ Ev πνεῦμα ay. δι’ οὗ πάντα. But soearly an expositor as Chrysostom remarks expressly that the Spirit is not mentioned here. 2 In order to bring out the “ αἰ" (Rom. xi. 36), Olshausen affirms: ‘‘ Insomuch as the church is destined to receive all men in- (Rom. viii. 19 ff.), those who believe are equivalent to things asa whole.” An in- stance—to be taken as a warning—of exe- getical subjectivity in the interest of dog- matic preconception. 3 Not ἐξ οὗ which holds only of the Fa- ther, although eis ov could be said of the Son also (comp. Col. i. 16). 188 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. than here. — καὶ ἡμεῖς δύ αὐτοῦ] is not to be referred to the physical creation (Riickert) ; for the idea thus elicited would not only be tame and obvious of itself, but also out of keeping with what has previously been stated of God, the second clause in which, x. ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, adds a different, namely, an ethical relation. The reference here is to the new creation of believers (Eph. ii. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. vi. 15) ; this is effected by God through Christ, who, as in the physical creation, is the causa medians. Just as we Christians have but one God, the true Creator, whose designs we serve ; so, too, we have but one Lord, the true Mediator, to whom all things owe their being, and we our Christian existence, that which we are as Christians. This ‘‘ one God and one Lord” shuts out all the heathen gods as such, so far as the Christian consciousness is concerned. Ver. 7. ‘‘ We know that there is no idol, etc. ; however, this γνῶσις that we speak of (ἡ) is not in all ; but doubtless (the dé as in vii. 37, and very often —so ver. 9—after a negative clause) there are many who,” etc. — τῇ συνει- δήσει ἕως ἄρτι τοῦ εἰδώλου] in virtue of their conscience till now regarding the idol, i.e. through this, that their moral consciousness is still burdened with the conception of an actual existence of the heathen gods as such. The oppo- site of the συνείδησις τοῦ εἰδώλου is : οἴδαμεν, ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ, Ver. 4. Because those who are weak in the faith have not risen to this conviction, but still remain under the belief that the idols really exist, therefore they eat the meat offered to idols as meat offered to idols, i.e. their conception in eating it is, not that it is the same as other meat, and consequently to be partaken of without scruple and without receiving any idolatrous defilement, but that it is really meat consecrated to an idol which is assumed to exist, and hence that to eat of it is sinful.’ — cuveidyorc?] means simply conscience (neither judicium, as many maintain, nor obsewre conception, as Schulz would have it ; Billroth’s rendering is better, though still inexact : ‘‘ conviction that there are εἴδωλα :) so also Reiche, Maier), and τοῦ εἰδώλου is the object of the moral consciousness, the article indicating the idol in a generic way. As to the gen. with ovveid., comp. Heb. x. 2; 1 Pet. ii. 19; so also frequently in Greek writers. The context shows what the relation is as regards meaning (here it is that which is inherent in the consciousness as its contents). — ἕως ἄρτι] marks off the time more sharply than ‘‘ always as yet” (Hofmann), which would be 7 ; it means, ‘‘ up to this very hour” (iv. 18, xv. 6, and in all other passages). Taking the usual order of the words, it would most naturally attach itself to ἐσθίουσι ; but since the place which on critical grounds must be assigned to it is before εἰδώλου (see the critical remarks), it must be joined to τῇ συνειδήσει. We might have expected τῇ ἕως ἄρτι συνειδήσει Tov εἰδώλου OY τῇ συνειδήσει τοῦ εἰδώλου TH ἕως ἄρτι ; even in Greek authors, however, one finds adverbial attributives used in this loose adjectival way without any connecting article ; and Paul himself in other places employs 1 [The later critical editors all adopt the (Profangrdcit. pp. 52 ff., 75) Kohler, Schrift- other reading συνηθείᾳ = by familiar inter- gemdsse Lehre vom Gew., 1864; Delitzsch, course with, or asthe Revised Version has , Psychol. Ὁ. 133 ff.; Lindes, de vi et ratione it, ‘‘ being used to.”—T. W. C.] συνειδήσεως ex N. T. Lund, 1866; R. Hof- 2See generally, besides yon Zetschwitz mann, Lehre vom Gew., Leipz. 1866. CHAP. VIII., 8. 189 this mode of expression (see on xii. 28 ; 2 Cor. xi. 38 ; Phil. i. 26; Gal. i. 13). —It is an artificial construction, and without sufficient ground, to supply a second συνειδήσει (without the article) after τῇ συνειδ., and connect ἕως ἄρτι τοῦ εἰδώλου With this. — ἀσθενὴς οὖσα] because it is weak ; for were it strong, it would no longer have suffered itself to be morally bound by the conception of idols, and hence would not have been defiled (made conscious of guilt) by eating, because in that case the eating would be ἐκ πίστεως (Rom. xiv. 23). Μολύνειν (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 1), of ethical defilement ; also in Ecclus. xxi. 28 ; Porphyr. de Abstin. i. 42 ; Synesius, Hp. 5. Comp. Titus 1. 1ῦ : μιαίνειν. Observe here the two sides of the conscience : it was weak to begin with, and afterwards it is defiled as well. Norr.—The ἕως ἄρτι, which points back to their state before conversion, puts it beyond question that the weak brethren are not to be conceived of as Jewish- Christians, but as Gentiles, whose conscience was still burdened with the belief, brought with them from the heathen period of their lives, that the idol was a divine reality. They must have supposed the idols to be subordinate divine beings (not demons, as Neander thought, which, according to x. 20, would have been the correct conception), from whose worship they had been brought to that of the one Supreme God ; so that they could not look upon the consump- tion of sacrificial flesh as a mere harmless eating of meat, but had their con- science always hampered with the thought that by so eating they were brought into contact with those idol-deities. Theophylact puts it rightly (comp. Chrys- ostom) : ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ ἐξ εἰδωλολατρίας TH πίστει προσελθόντες οἵ ἕως ἄρτι, τουτέστι καὶ μετὰ τὸ πιστεῦσαι, τὰ εἰδωλόθυτα ἐσθίουσιν ὡς εἰδωλόθυτα. Theodoret says: οὐχ ἡ βρῶσις μολύνει, ἀλλὰ ἡ συνείδησις τὴν τελείαν ov δεξαμένη γνῶσιν, ἔτι δὲ τῇ πλάνῃ τῶν εἰδώλων κατεχομένη. This in opposition to the common view, that the weak brethren are to be sought among the Petrine party. Schenkel even goes the length of explaining the name of that party from the abstinence of the members from sacrificial flesh ; therein they held strictly, he thinks, to the Apostolic Council, whose decree had been arrived at specially through the influence of Peter (?). The correct view, that the weak brethren were (entile-Christians, is advocated also by Hofmann, and finds expression in Lachmann’s reading of συνηθείᾳ. Ver. 8 f. This is not an objection urged by the Corinthians in defence of their eating meat offered to idols, which is then followed, in ver. 9, by the apostle’s reply (Calvin, Pareus, Mosheim, Zachariae, Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth) ; for here, too, we have no formula to mark that an objection is being adduced, and those who ate the sacrificial flesh would in their interest have required to write : οὔτε ἐὰν μὴ φάγωμεν, περισσεύομεν, οὔτε ἐὰν φάγωμεν, ὑστερούμεθα. No, Paul is now going on (the advance being indicated by δέ) to show what regard should be paid to those weaker brethren : ‘‘ Now, food is not the determining element in the Christian's relation to God ; to abstain from it does no harm, and to partake of it gives no advantage (see the critical remarks). Therefore (ver. 9) ye ought not to make yourselves a cause of stumbling to the weak through your liberty to eat sacrificial flesh.” If food were nota thing indifferent,—if abstinence from it brought loss, and partaking of it blessing with God,—then it would be our duty not thus to adapt ourselves 190 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. to the weak. — οὐ παραστήσει] it will not (in any case which may arise ; future) present us to God ; non exhibebit nos Deo, i.e. it will not affect the posi- tion of our moral character in the judgment of God, either for the worse or for the better. We have thus a description of an adiaphoron in its relation to God. Comp. Bengel, Osiander, Hofmann. Most interpreters take the word in the sense of commendabit, or, keeping by the Ree. παρίστησι, commen- dat, as if it were συνιστήσει ΟΥ̓ συνίστησι. This is untenable according to the rules of the language ; and it is illogical besides, for both the cases which follow οὔτε. . . οὔτε are included under the collective conception, οὐ παραστ. τ. Θεῷ. -- ὑστερούμ.] do we come short, do we lack anything in our relation to God. The opposite of this (comp. Phil. iv. 12) is περισσ. : we have an over- flowing abundance, something more than mere sufficiency in our relation to God ; τουτέστιν εὐδοκιμοῦμεν παρὰ TO Θεῷ ὡς ἀγαθόν τι ποιήσαντες καὶ μέγα, Chrys- ostom. — βλέπετε dé] The δέ, now then, introduces what is their positive duty, as contrasted with the foregoing negative state of the case. — πρόσκομμα] stumbling, i.e. occasion to act contrary to conscience. Comp. Rom. xiv. 13. Ver. 10. Tic] any such weak brother, namely. — τὸν ἔχοντα γνῶσιν] quippe qui cognitionem habes, in significant apposition to σέ. It is just this, which the weaker believer knows respecting the stronger, that leads him astray. — ἐν εἰδωλείῳ κατακείμενον] Their liberal-mindedness went, it seems, so far that they even reclined at table in idol-temples with those who held the sacrificial feasts there. The absolute prohibition of this abuse of liberty (which follows afterwards in x. 14-22) would not have come in suitably here, where the connection of itself naturally led the apostle simply to point out in the way of warning the bearing of such conduct upon the weak. — Instances of the use of eidwAciov—which does not occur in profane writers—from the LXX. and the Apocrypha, may be scen in Schleusner, 7168. II. p. 246. See also Eustath. ad Od. vi. p. 263.17. In the Fragm. Soph. 152 (Dind.), the true reading is ἐδώλια. --- οἰκοδομηθήσεται] is neither a vox media (Clericus, Elsner, Wolf, al.), nor does it mean impelletur (Castalio, Kypke, Hermann, Stolz, al.) or confirmabitur (Syr., Grotius, Zachariae, Schulz, Billroth), but as always in the N. T.: will be built up, advanced in a Christian frame of mind, so as to eat (εἰς τὸ ἐσθ.). To be brought to eat sacrificial flesh while one is weak (ἀσθεν. ὄντος, opposite of γνῶσιν ἔχειν), is, as Calvin rightly expresses it, a ruinosa aedificatio, secing that the foundation which it ought to have, the πίστις, is wanting. We have here, therefore, an ironically significant anti- phrasis ; without the ἀσθ. ὄντος it might be a case of a real οἰκοδομεῖσθαι ; things being as they are, however, it can be so only in appearance, and, in reality, it is the very opposite.? Egregie aedificabitur! The hypothesis (Storr. Opuse. II. p. 275 f. ; Rosenmiiller, Flatt, comp. Neander), that Paul borrows the word from the letter of the Corinthians to him (in which they 1 This holds also against the modification 3 Wetstein compares with this the pas- which Valckenaer, Riickert, and de Wette sage in Nedarim, f. 40.1: “51 dixerint tibi have made upon the ordinary view: “ does juniores aedifica, et seniores demolire, audi not bring us near to God, does not put us seniores et non audi juniores, quia aedifi- into a position to appear before Him.” catio juniorum est demolitio, et demolitio Comp. Theophylact : οὐκ οἰκειοῖ ἡμᾶς τῷ Θεῷ. seniorum est aedificatio.” CHAP. Vit, 11 19: 191 had said that by partaking of sacrificial flesh people edify the weak), and gives it back to them in an antiphrastic way, cannot be established, and is unnecessary. Ver 11. ᾿Απόλλυται (‘‘ terrificum verbum,” Clarius) γάρ unfolds the mean- ing of the antiphrastic element of the preceding oixod., the γάρ introducing the answer (Hartung, I. p. 477 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 240 ; Baeumlein, Part. Ῥ. 72), in which the apostle’s irony loses itself in the deep earnestness which underlies it : he is in truth utterly ruined, etc. — ἀπόλλυται is meant here, as in Rom. xiv. 15, of destruction κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the eternal ἀπώλεια to which a man becomes liable when he falls from the life of faith into that of sin through violation of his conscience. See on Rom. xiv. 15. Billroth, indeed, holds the γάρ here to be quite inexplicable, unless we take ἀπόλλ. simply in the sense of is led astray (but see the critical remarks) ; while Riickert declares the γάρ utterly useless. Nevertheless, ἀπόλλυται x.7.A. makes it clear and unmistakable how the case stands with the preceding οἰκοδομηθ., so that γάρ is logically correct. —év τῇ σῇ γνώσει] belongs to ἀπολλ. : by means of thy knowledge, so that it through the use thou hast made of it, has occasioned this destruction. ᾿Επέ (see the critical remarks) would be : upon thy knowledge, so that it was the ground of what took place. — ὁ ἀδελφ. dv ὃν X. ax.]a weighty twofold motive for not bringing about such a result. Comp. Rom. xiv. 15. The dv ὃν X. ἀπ. is frustrated by the ἀπολλ.! Comp. ver. 19. Bengel says well in reference to δ ὅν : ‘‘ut doceamur, quid nos fratrum causa debeamus.” Respecting διά, comp. Rom. iv, 25. Ver. 12. Οὕτω] When ye sin against the brethren in this way, as described in vv. 10, 11. -- καί] and especially. — τύπτοντες] in substance the same thing as μολύνοντες in ver. 7, only expressed by a different metaphor, which makes the cruelty of the procedure more apparent. What befits a weak conscience is forbearance, not that it should morally receive blows, should be smitten through offence done to it as with a wounding weapon (Hom. 7. xix. 125 ; Herod. iii. 64 ; Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 5 ; Prov. xxvi. 22), so that now, instead of being but a weak, it becomes a bad conscience. — αὐτῶν] put first because correlative to the εἰς Χριστόν which follows ; in the latter is finally concen- trated the whole heinousness of the offence. Ver. 13. Comp. Rom. xiv. 21. The classic διόπερ, for that very reason (because the offence in question is such a heinous one), meets us with cer- tainty in the N. T. only here and x. 14. — βρῶμα] any kind of food, indeti- nitely. Instead now of saying in the apodosis : ‘‘ then I will never more eat of it,” ete., he names the special kind of food (κρέα) presenting itself in appli- cation to the subject discussed, by abstaining from which, at any rate, the use of sacrificial flesh and the σκάνδαλον thereby given would be excluded. — ob μὴ φάγω] ““ Accommodat swae personae, ut facilius persuadeat,” Piscator. The expression is not by way of exhortation, but of asswrance, ‘then I will certainly not eat,” ete. Τοῦτο ὡς διδάσκαλος ἄριστος τὸ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ παιδεύειν ἃ λέγει, Chrysostom. — εἰς τ. αἰῶνα] to all eternity, nevermore ; hyperbolical mode of expressing the most thorough readiness. Comp. as regards the idea, Rom. xiv. 21. —iva μὴ «.7.2.] For this is what I should bring about, if he holds the flesh which I eat to be sacrificial flesh (ver. 9). Observe the emphatic repeti- 192 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. tion of the words, and the different order in which σκανδαλ. and τ. ἀδελφ. μ. are placed.—That the maxim here enunciated cannot be an universal rule in adiaphoris, had been pointed out already by Erasmus. Comp. Gal. ii. 5 with 1 Cor, ix. 19 ff. and Acts xvi. 3. It does not hold, when the truth of the gospel comes to be at stake. Comp. Gal. ii. 14. (2) Notes By AMERICAN Eprror. (x) “15 known of Him.”’ Ver. 3. The pregnant meaning of this phrase is well given in Cremer’s Lexicon sub voce. No lower view will adequately meet the demands of the connection,— The ‘* knowledge” spoken of in the first verse is well defined by Stanley as not secular knowledge as distinguished from divine or theological, but knowledge of divine things without love, knowledge by itself as distinguished from knowl- edge of divine things with love. The same writer develops the Apostle’s figure thus : ‘‘ Knowledge may indeed expand and enlarge the mind, but it is by mere inflation, as of a bubble, which bursts and vanishes away. Love alone succeeds in building up an edifice, tier above tier, solid alike in its superstructure and in its basis, so as to last forever. . (x) An idol is nothing. Ver. 4. Stanley, in opposition to the opinion stated in the text, says that as the word idol can hardly be used in an abstract sense in Greek any more than in English, and as in x. 19 it is not somuch the non-existence as the nothingness of the idol which is asserted, it is on the whole better to adopt the more common inter- pretation, viz., that an idol has no strength and no meaning in any part of the universe ; its existence is confined to the mere image in the temple, and has no further influence elsewhere. Hodge, on the other hand, insists that in x. 19 Paul says that the idols are demons, and says that the meaning here is that there are no such beings in the universe as the heathen conceived their gods to be. (So Kling, Principal Brown, Canon Evans, and Beet.) On the next verse he remarks that there are two things which the Apostle means to deny: 1. The existence of such beings as the heathen conceived their gods to be: 2. That the supernatural beings who do really exist, and who are called gods, are really divine. They are mere creatures. (2) The rule of expediency. Ver. 13. It is impossible to state more strongly than does the Apostle the obligation to refrain from indulging in things indifferent when the use of them is an occasion of sin to others. Yet it is never to be forgotten that this by its very nature is a principle the application of which must be left to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. No rule of conduct founded on expediency can be enforced by church discipline. It was right in Paul to refuse to eat flesh for fear of causing others to offend ; but he could not justly have been subjected to censure, had he seen fit to eat it. The same principle is illustrated in reference to circum- cision. The Apostle utterly refused to circumcise Titus, and yet he circumcised NOTES. 193 Timothy, in both cases acting wisely and conscientiously. Whenever a thing is right or wrong, according to circumstances, every man must have the right to judge of those circumstances. Otherwise he is judged of another man’s con- science, a new rule of duty is introduced, and the eategory of adiaphora, which has existed in every system of ethics from the beginning, is simply abol- ished. 194 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLZ Ἰὼ THE CORINTHIANS. CHAPTER IX. Ver. 1. οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος ; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπ. So AB δὲ, min., and most of the vss., with Tertullian, Origen, Ambrosiast. Aug. Pelag. Cassiodorus, Bede, Griesb. Schulz, Lachm. Tisch. Elz. inverts the order of the questions, and is defended by Pott, Rinck, Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 206 ff., Hofmann. But it was very natural to transfer οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπ. to the first place as the more important point, and the one first expounded in detail by the apostle himself (vv. 1-3). — Ver. 2. τῆς ἐμῆς] Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read μου τῆς, with B δὲ, 17, 31, 46, Or. Rightly ; the Recepta is a more precise definition of the meaning inserted in view of ver. 3. Had μου crept in from the τὸ ἔργον pov in ver. 1, it would have been put after ἀποστολῆς. --- Ver. 6. τοῦ] is wanting, it is true,in AB D* FG &, 17, 46, Isidor., and is deleted consequently by Lachm. and Riick. ; but the omission was very naturally suggested by vv. 4, 5.— Ver. 7. ἐκ τοῦ καρποῦ] Lachm. Riick. Tisch. read τὸν καρπόν, with A B Οὗ D* F G δὲ, 17, 46, 137, Sahid. Boern. Tol. Flor. Harl. Vulg. ms. Bede. The Receptu is an alteration in accordance with what follows, made without observing the difference in meaning. — Ver. 8. ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ κιτ.}.1 There is decisive testimony in favour of ἢ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα ov λέγει ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. It was altered because not understood. — Ver, 10. ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τοῦ peré- xewv] So Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch., with A BC &*, 10, 17, 71, Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Or. Eus. Cyr. The Recepta again (defended by Reiche) is: τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι. Since, however, this ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι is omitted also by D* F G, 46, it has such a weight of evidence against it! that it must be rejected at once ; τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν, again, 15 so plain as regards its meaning, that had it been the original reading it could hardly have given rise to any change. If, on the other hand, it was not observed that we have to supply ἀλοᾶν after ἀλοῶν, the én’ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν remained unintelligible, and τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ was put in as a gloss to obviate the difficulty ; then this mistaken gloss in some cases displaced the original words, in others, got mixed up with them (Elz.).— Ver. 11. Gepicovev] CD EF GL, min. Vulg. It. Theodoret, have Gepicwuev. So Lachm. on the margin. Tischendorf is right in receiving it into the text ; grammarians took offence at the subjunctive after ei.— Ver. 13. There is decisive evidence for reading mapedp. here with Lachm. Riick. Tisch. (approved also by Griesb.), and in ver. 15 οὐ κέχρημαι οὐδενὶ τι, with Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Riick. Tisch. --- Ver. 15. iva τὶς κενώσῃ] There is great diversity here. B D* δέχ, Sahid. Baschm. have οὐδεὶς κενώσει (80 Lachm.). A has οὐδεὶς μὴ κενώσει (so Riick.). F G, 26, give us τις κενώσει. The Recepta, which is specially defended by Reiche, iva τὶς κενώσῃ, has only a partial support from C D*** ἘΠῚ Καὶ &**, the majority of the min. and vss., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl. Oec., because most of these 1 Reiche would attach this addition asstanding first, it would obtrude upon (which quite mars the sense in the Jecepta) the antithesis something quite foreign to it to the next verse ; but there, too, especially and unsuitable. CHAP. Ix, 195 authorities are in favour of κενώσει, which is adopted by Tisch. But the Received reading, as well as the τὶς κενώσει, seems to be an attempt to amend the original—but not understood—text in B (which A only intensifies), so that we ought to read ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου οὐδεὶς κενώσει. See the exeget. remarks on the verse. — Ver. 16. καύχημα] DEF G δ", It. : χάρις. Not strongly enough attested ; an old gloss in accordance with Luke vi. 32-34. Instead of yap after ovai, Elz. has dé, but against conclusive evidence. A false correction. There are decisive grounds for reading, with Lachm. and Tisch., εὐαγγελίσωμαι in place of the second εὐαγγελίζωμαι ; the Recepla is a repetition from the first. — Ver. 18. Elz. and Scholz have τοῦ Χριστοῦ after evayyéA., in opposition to deci- sive evidence. — Ver. 20. μὴ ὧν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον] omitted in Elz., but given by almost all the uncials and many vss, and Fathers. Homoeoteleuton. — Ver. 21. The genitives Θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ (Elz. and Scholz have the datives) have deci- sive testimony in their favour, as κερδάνω τοὺς ἀν. also has (so Lachm. Riick. Tisch.) ; the Recepta κερδήσω ἀνόμους was formed upon the model of ver. 20. — Ver. 22. The ὡς before dof. is wanting in A B δὲν, Vulg. Clar. Germ. Or. Cypr. Ambrosiast. Aug. Ambr. Bede. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was a mechanical addition on the plan of the preceding clauses. — The article before πάντα" (Elz. Scholz) is condemned by a great preponderance of authority. — Ver. 23. τοῦτο] The most and best of the uncials, with the majority of vss. and Fathers, have πάντα ; recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Τοῦτο is a gloss inserted to define the meaning more precisely ; for the same reason Sahid. Arm. read ταῦτα δὲ πάντα. --- Ver. 27. ὑπωπιάζω] So Elz. Lachm. It has such a mass of weighty testimony on its side (A BC D* &, min. Or. Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Oec.) that the other readings, ὑποπιάζω (F GK L min. Fathers) and ὑποπιέζω (D*** E, min. Fathers), must be rejected even on the ground of external evidence alone, all the more that the vss. castigo (Vulg.), subjicio, macero, affligo, domo, do not show clearly which reading they follow. Notwithstanding, ὑποπιάζω has been defended of late, especially by Matth. (““ πιάζειν loco πιέζειν aliquos male habuit’’), Reiche, Hofm., and adopted by Tisch. It appears to have been simply the production of ignorant and mechanical transcribers, who were familiar with πεώζω or πιέζω, but took offence at iw (with Q). Contents.—That principle of loving self-denial which Paul had just laid down for himself in respect of the single point in question (viii. 13), he now confirms by referring to his general demeanour, of which that one resolve was merely a particular expression, and shows, in a frank, deeply impressive, and striking elucidation, how he, notwithstanding that he was free and an apos- tle (vv. 1-3), yet refrained from pressing his well-grounded right to have _ himself (and a consort as well) supported by the churches (vv. 4-18), and adapted himself to the needs of all men (vv. 19-23). His readers, therefore, should be like champions at the games in striving for the everlasting crown, preparing themselves to this end through the exercise of self-control, even as he too sought, by self-renunciation, to become worthy of the prize (vv. 24-27). Not until chap. x. does he come back from this digression to the special topic (of the sacrificial flesh) with which it stands connected, It is not of the nature of an apology as regards its whole plan and design, but only incidentally so in some isolated references (vv. 2, 3, 5, 12). 196 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Ver. 1. The first two questions bring out the fact that he was seemingly exalted far above any such consideration and renunciation on his own part as he had announced in viii. 13 ; the third question corroborates the full purport of the second ; and the fourth represents him as proving the point by a personal appeal to his readers, whom Paul καὶ αὐτοὺς εἰς μαρτυρίαν καλεῖ, Theodoret. — ἐλεύθερος] free, dependent upon no man. Comp. ver. 19. --- Ἰησοῦν. . . ἑώρακα] Observe the solemnity of the phrase ; his readers knew what was implied in it on his lips. The reference here is not to his having seen Christ in His earthly life, which would have had nothing to do with his apostleship, and which, moreover, cannot be proved to have taken place in the case of Paul at all,—certainly not from 2 Cor. v. 16,—but to the sight of the glorified Jesus, which was first vouchsafed near Damascus to call him to be an apostle (Acts ix. 17, xxii. 14 f., xxvi. 16 ; 1 Cor. xv. 8), and was often repeated afterwards, although in different forms (Acts xviii. 9, xxii. 17 f. ; 2 Cor. xii. 1).’ It is an arbitrary thing to exclude those later appear- ances (Estius, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Hofmann), since they, too, were granted to the apostle as such, and in connection with his apostolic rela- tion to Christ ; they could only serve to confirm his position of equality in the apostleship, and in this bearing were doubtless familiar to his readers from Paul’s own lips. — ἐν Κυρίῳ] does not belong to ἔργον ; just as little does it to ὑμεῖς (Pott), or to ὑμεῖς ἐστε alone (Riickert), but is meant to bring out the Christian character of the whole τὸ ἔργον μ. ὑμεῖς ἐστε. For out of Christ, i7 whom (as the object of faith) the Christian lives and moves, out- side of this element of the new life and standing, the Corinthians, who owed their Christian existence to the apostle, were not his work. The rendering : by the help of the Lord, is arbitrary, and does not suit the context. Some of those who adopt it understand Κύριος of God (Beza, Piscator, Flatt, Riick- ert, al., following Chrysostom and Theophylact). Comp. iv. 15. Vv. 2, 3. Not a parenthesis, but a statement interposed in his own de- fence, occasioned by οὐ τὸ ἔργον κ.τ.λ., and flowing from a heart deeply moved. — ἄλλοις] ὁ.6. in relation to others, who, not belonging to your com- munity,do not own my apostleship as valid for them.* ‘‘ We have no Apostle 1 Baur takes advantage of this stress laid on the fact of having seen Christ, to sup- port his hypothesis as to the close connec- tion of the Petrine and the Christ-party. See against this Rabiger, p. 128 f. Accord- ing to Schenkel, the allusion is to the visions of the Christ-party (the existence of which he has first of all to assume). The true view is, that Paul is here indicating how, in respect of this point also, he stands in no whit behind the original apostles. ᾿Ἐπειδὴ μετὰ THY ἀνάληψιν TOD σωτῆρος ἐκλήθη, εἶχον δὲ δόξαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι παρὰ πᾶσι μεγίστην ὡς τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου θεάς ἠξιωμένοι, καὶ τοῦτο προστέθ- ειἰκεν, Theodoret. And it isno lower thing to have seen Christ in His glory than to have seen Him in His humiliation upon the earth. Comp. Calvin. As against the in- terpretations which make this a visionary beholding of Christ (Baur, Holstein, a/.), see Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 220f. How very distinctly Paul himself describes, especially in Acts xxii. 14, a bodily appear- ance! See also Gal. i. 1, comp. with ver. 15. Nothing contrary to this can be proved from the words ἑωρακέναι and ὀφθῆναι (xy. 8), since these-do not determine the kind of seeing and appearing. Comp. 6.0. the use of the latter term in Acts vii. 26 of a bodily appearing. 2It was unquestionably by stranger Pe- trine Christians that the anti-Pauline influ- ence had been exerted upon the Corinthian church. So much is clear, but nothing more. Rabiger thinks that they were the instigators of the Petrine party in Corinth. CHAP. IX., 4. 197 Paul,” say they! Comp. as to the relation of the dative, viii. 6. — οὐκ εἰμί] See Winer, p. 446 [E. T. 601]. ---ἀλλάγε] still at least. See Hermann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 826. The ye intensifies the ἀλλά of the apodosis (see on iv. 15, viii. 6) ; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 24 f. It cannot be said with any critical certainty that ἀλλάγε ever occurs in the classics undivided (without one or more words put between the two particles). See Klotz, lc. p. 15, and Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 86E ; Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 331 B.—Taking the reading ἡ yap σφραγ. μου τ. ἀποστ. (see the critical remarks), the meaning is : my seal of apostleship, with the emphasis on σῴραγ. As to the word itself, see Rom. iv. 11. Theodoret well remarks: ἀπόδειξιν γὰρ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν κατορθωμάτων τὴν ὑμετέραν ἔχω μεταβολήν. --- ἐν Κυρίῳ] as in ver. 1; it belongs to the whole preceding clause : ἡ σφραγίς τ. ἐμ. ἀπ. bu. ἐστε. For out of Christ the Corinthians were no seal of Paul’s apostleship. See on ver. 1. They were this seal to him, inasmuch as they had become Christians through his agency (in general, not through his miracles in particular, as Flatt holds with older expositors). — ἡ ἐμὴ avoAoy. «.t.A.] statement of what the foregoing comes to, added without any connective particle, and so all the more em- phatic; not merely a repetition of the last clause in other words (Hofmann), which would be an admissible interpretation only if αὕτη ἐστι were absent, or if ἐστέ occurred again. — τοῖς ἐμὲ avaxp.] to those who institute an inquiry regarding me (comp. Acts xix. 33 ; 2 Cor. xii. 19), who question my apostle- ship. Both aoa. and ἀνακρ. are purposely-chosen forensic expressions. Comp. as to the latter, Luke xxiii. 14 ; Acts iv. 9, xii. 19, xxiv. 8, xxviii. 18. — αὕτη] this, namely, this fact, that you are the seal of mine ἀποστολή. It does not refer to what follows (Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Grotius, Calovius), for ver. 4 continues the series of questions begun in ver. 1, and what follows does not contain any further defence of his apostleship (which, moreover, would be quite unsuitable here). (a’)—Observe, lastly, the emphasis of ἐμὴ and ἐμέ, expressive of a well-grounded sense of his own position. Ver. 4f. Returning from the digression in vv. 2, 3, Paul begins a new series of questions, with the view of now making good the prerogative arising out of his apostleship, which in point of fact he declined to exercise. — μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν] i.e. we surely are not destitute of the right to lead, etc. ? Comp. Rom. x. 18; 1 Cor. xi. 22. The plural cannot be restricted in its reference to Paul alone, secing that it has just been preceded, and is again followed in ver. 6, by the singular, but must imply that the apostle is thinking both of himself and of whosoever else acts in like manner. More particularly, ver. 6 shows that he has here in his eye, not his companions in labour generally (Hofmann), but Barnabas in particular besides himself (for see the μόνος in ver. 6), and him only. It may be added, that Calovius is right in saying, against the abuse of this passage in the interests of monasticism, that Paul is not speaking here of what ‘‘ semper et ubique vitari oporteat sed de eo tantum Schenkel makes them of the Christ-party. | were notanti-Pauline, and the express con- Hofmann explains the expression from the _ trast here is with the ὑμεῖς, among whom difference between the ἀποστολὴ τῆς περ- must beéncluded the Jewish-Christians who τομῆς and that τῆς ἀκροβυστίας. But that is were in Corinth. going too far; forall circumcised Christians 198 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. quod in casu novii scandali infirmorum fratrum vitandum est.” — φαγεῖν x. πιεῖν] i.e, at the cost of the churches. To understand it of non-observance of the Jewish laws about food (Hunnius, Heydenreich, Billroth, comp. Olshau- sen), or of sacrificial flesh and wine (Schrader), is contrary to the context. See ver. 6 ff. The right of eating and drinking, in the sense in ‘which the reader would naturally understand it as an apostolic prerogative (Luke x. 7), re- quired nothing to be added to define it. The analogy of Matt. xi. 19 (Hof- mann) has no bearing on the clause before us, the point of view there being that of asceticism.—The infinitives are exegetical, and need no τοῦ (Matt. ix. 6; Mark ii. 10, al.). — ἀδελφὴν γυν. περιάγ.] to lead about (along with me on my official journeys) ὦ sister (a female believer) as a wife. The view taken by several of the Fathers (see Aug. de op. Monach. iv. 5, Jerome, τινές in Theodoret, Theophylact ; comp. generally, Suicer, 7168. I. p. 810), that a serviens matrona is meant (so also Erasmus, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and Estius,) is against the plain meaning of the words, without shadow of historical support in the life of the apostle, supposes a somewhat unseemly relation, and is contrary to the example of Peter, Matt. viii. 14.} It has, however, been still defended of late by Roman Catholic writers (Maier) on wholly insufficient grounds. On περιάγειν, comp. Xen. Oyr. 11. 2. 28; it occurs oftener in the middle, as Xen. Mem. i. 7. 2; Polyb. xx. 5. 8. — ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιπ. ἀπ.} It does not follow from this that αὐ the other apostles were mar- ried, but the majority of them must have been so, otherwise the phrase, which must be meant to hold at least a potiori, would be unsuitable. (B') — καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Kupiov]| Now, the brethren of the Lord are in Acts i. 14 ex- pressly distinguished from the Twelve ; further, in Gal. i, 19, James, the Lord’s brother, is equally distinguished from those who were apostles in the narrower and original sense (such as Peter) ; and further still, we have no trace in any of the lists of the apostles (Matt. x. 2 f. ; Mark iii. 16 f. ; Luke vi. 14 f.) that there were ‘‘ brethren of the Lord” among the Twelve, —a supposition which would also be decidedly at variance with John vii. 3; Mark iii. 31. The ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, therefore, should not be put on a level with Cephas (Hofmann), and sought within the number of the Twelve, but are the actual brothers of Jesus, not His half-brothers merely (sons of Joseph by a former marriage), but His wterine brothers, later-born sons of Joseph and Mary (Matt. i. 25 ; Lukeii. 7 ; Matt. xii. 46, xiii. 55), who had become believers and entered upon apostolic work after the resurrection of Jesus (xv. 7; Acts i. 14), and among whom James, in particular, as presi- dent of the church in Jerusalem (Acts xv. 13, xxi. 18), had obtained a high apostolic position (Gal. ii. 9). See on Acts xii. 17; Gal. i. 19. This view? runs counter to what was formerly the common view, namely, that of Je- rome, which still prevails with Roman Catholics, and issupported by Hengs- tenberg and others, that the phrase denotes the sons of Christ’s mother’s sis- 1 Valla perceived rightly ‘‘fuisse aposto- 3 Which is held also by de Wette, Billroth, los suas wxrores comitatas,” but thinks that Riickert, Osiander, Neander, and Ewald, they were called sisters, “quod tanquam among the more recent expositors of the non uxores jam erant.’’ An “ elegans argu- passage before us. tia”’ (Calvin) ! CHAP. TX., 6. 199 ter, so that James, the Lord’s brother, would be identical with the son of Alphaeus (but see on John xix. 25), and would bear the name of ‘‘ brother of the Lord” (ΤΠ in the wider sense) as a title of honour from his near rela- tionship to Jesus. Comp. on Matt. xii. 46. In like manner Lange, in his apost. Zeitalter, p. 189, understands the Alphaeidae to be meant ; they were, he holds, the adopted brothers of Jesus, Joseph having adopted as his own the children of Alphaeus, who was his brother, after the latter’s death. All this is nothing but arbitrary imagination, resting simply upon the false as- sumption that Mary brought forth Jesus, not as her first-born (Matt. 1. 25 ; Luke ii. 7), but as her only child. Lange is wrong here in making the καί a proof that the brethren of the Lord were among the Twelve, and are but singled out from their number in this verse for special mention. What Paul says is rather : ‘‘as also the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord ;” and then, having set before us this august circle formed by the Twelve and those brethren of the Lord closely associated with them since the resurrec- tion of Jesus (Acts 1. 14), in which, too, he himself, as an apostle, had an equal place, he singles out in conclusion the most illustrious of them all, one who was looked upon as the head of the whole circle (Gal. i. 18), by adding : ‘‘and, i.e. and, to mention him in particular by name, Cephas ;” so that it is only the last καί, and not the second as well (as Hofmann, too, maintains), that carries the force of special distinction (Fritzsche, ad Mare. p- 11) ; comp. Mark xvi. 7. — The design of the whole question, μὴ οὐκ éy. ἐξουσ. ἀδελῴ. y. π., has no bearing upon scruples (of the Christ-party) as to marriage being allowed (Olshausen), but is closely connected with the pur- port of the first question, as is plain from περιάγειν : ‘‘ Am 1 denied, then, the right to live at the cost of the churches, and to have, like the other apostles, etc., a consort journeying along with me from place to place ?” in which latter case a similar support from the churches is, from the nature of the circumstances, and from the scope of the context (vv. 4, 6), manifestly assumed as a matter of course.—Peter’s wife is called by tradition some- times Concordia, sometimes Perpetua. See Grabe, Spicil. Patr. 1. p. 330. Ver. 6. Ἤ] 07, i.e. unless it were true that, etc. In that case, indeed, the ἐξουσία, of which I spoke in vv. 4,5, must of course be wanting! We have therefore no third ἐξσυσία introduced here (Pott, Riickert), but 7 conveys an argument, as it usually does. — Βαρνάβας] see on Acts iv. 36. He was for- merly (see on Acts xv. 38) Paul’s companion in his missionary labours, and as such held a high apostolic position (Gal. 11. 9). --- τοῦ μὴ ἐργάζ.1 Have we not the right to cease from working? Paul supported himself by tent- making (Acts xviii. 3) ; in what way Barnabas did so, is unknown. Both of them, very probably, after mutual consultation, had laid it down as a principle to maintain themselves by their own independent labour, and acted upon this rule even when working separately, whereas the rest of the apostolic teachers (see μόνος) claimed support from the resources of the churches. ᾿Βργάζεσθαι isthe word constantly used used for working, 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; Acts xviii. 3; Homer, J/. xviii. 469, Od. xiv. 272 ; Xen. Cyr. i. 6, 11, al. The rendering : hoc operandi (Vulgate and Latin Fathers), arises from a different reading (without the 4). 200 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Ver. 7. Proof of this apostolic right τοῦ μὴ ἐργάζεσθαι from three analogies in common life, by applying which to the preachers of the gospel it is made manifest that these have the right to live from the gospel. ‘‘Pulchre con- fertur minister evangelii cum milite, vinitore, pastore,” Bengel. Comp. 2 Cor. x. 3 ff.; Matt. xx. 1; John x. 12; Acts xx. 28; Eph. iv. 5. — ἰδίοις ὀψ.] 1.6. so that he pays his own wages (Luke iii. 14 ; Rom. vi. 23).—The dif- ference of construction in the two clauses with ἐσθίει (τὸν καρπόν, see the critical remarks, and then ἐκ), is to be regarded as simply an accidental change in the form of conception, without diversity in the substance of the thought. With ἐκ (comp. Ecclus. xi. 17 ; Tob. i. 10, al.) the expression is’ partitive ; in using the acewsative Paul has the fruit (the grapes) in a purely objective way before his mind. See generally, Kiihner, II. p. 181. The wages of shepherds in the East consists to this day in a share of the milk. See Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. p. 97. Ver. 8. Transition to the proof from Scripture of the above ἐξουσία. --- It is not supposed surely that I speak this (namely, what I say of that apostolic prerogative in applying to it the rule of these ordinary analogies) after the manner of aman (according to mere human judgment, as a purely human rule, and not a divinely given one) ? or the law too, does it not say this? Is it silent concerning this principle ? Does it contain no statement of it --- κατὰ avp.| The opposite of this is κατὰ τὸν νόμον τοῦ Θεοῦ. Comp. on Rom. iii. 5 ; Gal. iii. 15. Theodoret gives the idea correctly : εἰ dé τινι ἀνθρώπινος εἶναι ταῦτα δοκεῖ λογισμὸς, ἀκουέτω τοῦ νόμου διαῤῥήδην dtayopebovtoc. — ἢ] aS in ver. 6. ‘I should not speak this after man’s way of thinking, if it were the case that the law contained nothing of it.” This is the affirmative sense of the interrogative phrase. — καί] too ; the law is conceived of as the higher authority coming in over and above the individual λαλῶ. ---- οὐ] negatives the λέγει ; see the critical remarks. Comp. ver. 7.— As to the difference to be noticed between λαλῶ and λέγω, see on Rom. iii. 19 ; John viii. 43. Ver. 9. Tap] introduces the answer which is to prove that the ταῦτα οὐ λέγει does not hold good. —ré6 Μωῦσ. νόμῳ] carries a certain solemnity, as coming after ὁ νόμος in ver. 8. The quotation is from Deut. xxv. 4, given exactly according to the LXX., where it is forbidden to keep the ox that drew the thrashing machine from eating by a muzzle (φιμός, κημός), Which used to be done among heathen nations (Varro, i. 25; Cato, de re rust. 54). See Michaelis, Mos. R. Ill. ὃ 180. The motive of the prohibition, in accord- ance with that spirit of tenderness towards the lower creation which breathes throughout the whole law (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 222), was humanity to the helpful animals. See Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 21 ; Philo, de Carit. p. 711 F. The same citation is made in 1 Tim. v. 18. Comp. also Constitt. ap. ii. 25. 38. — φιμώσεις]--- κημώσεις, Which B* D* F G, Tisch. actually read, and which we should accept as genuine, since the former might easily creep into the text from the LXX. Regarding κημοῦν, to muzzle, comp. Xen. de re eq. ν. 3; Poll. i. 202. As to the future with the force of an imperative (thow wilt—that I expect of thee—not muzzle an ox in the thrashing-floor), see on Matt. i. 21. — Beginning with μὴ τῶν βοῶν, there follows now the inter- pretation of this law, given in the form of a twofold question which runs on CHAP. Ix. 10: 201 to λέγει, first of all, negatively : God does not surely concern Himself about oven? Tomodify this negation by an ‘‘ only” (so Erasmus and many others, among whom is Riickert : ‘‘for nothing further than”) is unwarrantable, although even Tholuck’s view in its latest form still amounts to this (das A. T. im N. T., ed. 6, p. 40). What Paul means is, that this class of creat- ures, the oxen, are not the objects of the divine solicitude in that provision of the law ; what expresses the care to be taken for the oxen, is said not for their sakes, but δ ἡμᾶς. Οὐ yap ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλόγων ὁ νόμος, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν νοῦν kK. λόγον ἐχόντων, Philo, de Sacrif. p. 251. Manifestly in this way the apostle sets aside * the actual historical sense of that prohibition (Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 21) in behalf of an allegorical sense,’ which, from the standpoint of a purely historic interpretation, is nothing but an application made ‘‘a minori ad majus” (comp. Bava Mezia, f. 88). But this need not surprise us, consid- ering the freedom used in the typico-allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, which regarded such an application as the reference of the utter- ance in question designed by God, and which from ¢his standpoint did not take the historical sense into account along with the other at all. The in- terpreter, accordingly, who proceeds upon this method with regard to any particular passage does not call in question its historical meaning as such, considered in itself, but only (as was self-evident to his readers) as regards the higher typical destination of the words, inasmuch as he goes to work not as a historical, but as a typico-allegorical expositor. It is in the typical destination of the law in general (Col. ii. 17), whereby it pointed men above and beyond itself, that such a mode of procedure finds its justification, and on this ground it has both its freedom, according as each special case may require, and at the same time its ethical limit, in the necessity of being in harmony with what befitted God. (c’) Ver. 10. Or—since that cannot be supposed—is this the true state of the case, that He saith it altogether for our sakes ?— πάντως] in the sense of in any case, wholly, absolutely, as in v. 10, ix. 22 ; see the remarks there. Comp. Acts xviii. 21, xxi. 22, xxviii. 4, also Rom. iii. 9. The rendering : of course, certainly, is equally admissible as in Luke iv. 23, but would suit an affirma- tive statement better. Theophylact says well (following Chrysostom) : ὡς ἐπὶ ὁμολογουμένου τέϑεικεν, iva μὴ συγχωρήση μηδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ἀντειπεῖν τῷ ἀκροατῇ. --- δὲ ἡμᾶς} cannot mean men in general (so most expositors, Hofmann, too, con- curring), but must refer to the Christian teachers (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Estius, Riickert, Neander, al.) ; this necessarily follows both from the whole connection of the argument and from the ἡμεῖς in ver. 11, since it isan entire- ly arbitrary assumption to make the latter word have a different subject from our ἡμᾶς. --- λέγει] 86. ὁ Θεός supplied from the foregoing clause, not ἡ γραφῆ (Olshausen). — γάρ] as in ver. 9. --- ἐγράφη] namely, the utterance of the law cited in ver. 9.—ér] cannot have an argumentative force (Luther, Beza, 1 Not simply generalizes (Kling in the Stud. goes astray with a naive simplicity of its u. K7rit. 1839, p. 834 f.; comp. Neander), nor own: ‘‘God cares for all things; but He ** subordinates the one to the other” (Osiander), does not care that anything should be writ- nor the like, which run counter to the plain ten for oxen, seeing that they cannot read.” meaning of the words. Luther’s gloss, too, 2 Comp. also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 296. 202 * PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Calvin, and others, among whom is Neander); nor is it the simple that of quotation (Riickert, who indeed looks upon what follows as cited from some apocryphal book, in which Ewald concurs with him), so that ἐγράφη would refer to the next clause,—but it is explicative merely (Castalio, Pott, de Wette, Osiander, a/., comp. also Hofmann), setting forth the typico-allegor- ical contents of these words of the law in so far as they were written dv ἡμᾶς, that is, for the Christian teachers: namely, that the plougher is bound to plougi. in hope, and the thrasher (is bound to thrash) in hope of having his share. The ἀλοῶν and the ἀροτριῶν is thus no other than the gospel teacher, as necessa- rily follows from δ ἡμᾶς ; the passage of the law now under consideration gives occasion to his being figuratively designated (see as early expositors as Chrysostom and Theophylact) in accordance with the idea of the γεώργιον Θεοῦ (111. 9), without, however, the two words being intended to signify dif- Jerent departments of teaching,—a notion which receives no countenance from the context. It is teaching in general that is here represented by two analogous figures. Figure apart therefore, the meaning is : that the teacher, namely, is bound? to exercise his office of teaching, in hope to have profit there- Jrom,. Οὐδὲν οὖν ἕτερον τὸ στόμα akhuwrov ὃν τοῦ ζώου τούτου Boa ἢ ὅτι τοὺς διδασ- κάλους τοὺς πονοῦντας δεῖ καὶ ἀμοιβῆς ἀπολαύειν, Chrysostom. It is a mistake to apply the words, as is commonly done, to the Jiteral plougher and thrasher. Such a maxim of ordinary life would, it is plain, be wholly foreign to the typico-allegorical character of the argument, and generally to the nature of the mystical interpretation of Scripture, which Paul follows here ; the re- sult would be something unsuitably trivial. Nor is it simply an application of the moral idea of the precept to the spiritual work that the apostle would have his readers make ; there is not the slightest trace of this in his words, but the material work serves directly as the foil to the spiritual. Theophy- lact puts it rightly : 6 διδάσκαλος ὀφείλει ἀροτριᾶν κ. κοπιᾶν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ἀμοιβῆς K. ἀντιμισϑίας. ---- ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι) has the chief emphasis, and belongs to ὀφείλει, being its conditioning basis (as in Rom. iv. 18, viii. 21 ; Titus i. 2). What hope the plougher is to cherish, is self-evident, namely, to enjoy with others the fruits of his ploughing ; the reference of the figure is obvious from the con- text. — τοῦ μετέχειν] to wit, of the grain thrashed. As to the genitive, see Rom. v. 2, al. Ver. 11. Application of ver. 10, and that in such a way as to make the readers feel ὅτι μείζονα λαμβάνουσιν ἢ διδόασιν, Chrysostom ; an argument ὦ majori ad minus. —ijueic| does not include Barnabas, who cannot be proved ever to have joined company again with Paul after the separation recorded . in Acts xv. 39, and who certainly had no share in founding the church at Corinth. The apostle means himself along with his companions of that period, when by casting forth the seed of the gospel he founded the church to which his readers belonged (ἐσπείραμεν), Acts xviii. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 19. — ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν! An emphatic juxtaposition, the emphasis of which is further heightened by the ἡμεῖς ὑμῶν which follows. — τὰ πνευματικά] spiritual things, 1 ᾽Οφείλει debet (Vulgate). Hofmann goes the sense of being entitled, as if he read against linguistic usage in turning it into δίκαιός ἐστι, Or Something to that effect. »" GHAPS Txt 12: 203 Christian knowledge, faith, love, etc., inasmuch as these are the blessings which, proceeding from the Holy Spirit (Gal. v. 22), become the portion of believers through the sower’s work of preaching the gospel (Matt. xiii. 3 ff.). Contrasted with these are τὰ σαρκικά, the things which have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, but belong to the lower sphere of man’s life, to his sensuous, corporeal nature, such as food, clothing, money, etc. Comp. as regards the antithesis, Rom. xv. 97. --- μέγα] res magni momenti, Xen. Cyrop. vil. 5. 52, Anab. vii. 7. 27. It means here, from the connection : some- thing disproportionate. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15. — ϑερίσωμεν] see the critical remarks. The subjunctive after ei ‘‘respectum comprehendit experientiae” (Hermann, de partic. ἄν, p. 97) ; see regarding this idiom on Luke ix. 13, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 831; it occurs in Homer and the lyric poets, and, although no certain instance of it can be given from the Attic prose writers, is frequent again in later Greek. Ver. 12. Confirmation from the example of others. — ἀλλοι] other teachers - generally, who came into the church after the apostle and his associates (comp. iii. 10), and who were still there. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Pott, and others understand them to be false teachers, so as to obviate any appearance of collision between Paul and the apostles. But there was, in fact, no other apostle whatever among the rest of the Corinthian teachérs. — τῆς ὑμῶν ἐξουισ.] the authority over you,’ i.e. according to the context : the right (p’) to claim their support from you. ‘Yyév is thus the genitivus objecti (as in ver. 6, comp. John xvii. 2; Matt. x. 1, a/.), not subjecti, as if it meant : ‘‘ leave, which you give” (Schrader), which does not correspond with the conception that Paul had of the case in vv. 4-11. To understand the word in the sense of means (Schulz, with Castalio, Sal- meron, Zeltner, Ewald), 7.e. resources, which are at your command, may be justified by classical usage (Plato, Legg. viii. p. 828 Ὁ ; Thue. i. 38. 3, vi. 31. 4), but not by that of the N. T., and is excluded here by the scope of what immediately follows. Chrysostom, in accordance with his assumption that false teachers are meant, makes the reference to be to their tyrannical power over the Corinthians. Conjectwres (such as that of Olearius : ἡμῶν, which is actually the reading of 2. 52, and to which Riickert and Neander too are inclined ; or that of Cappellus and Locke : οὐσίας) are quite super- fluous. — The second ἀλλά is opposed to the οὐκ ἐχρης. Comp. Hom. i. i. 26 f. ; Plato, Sympos. p. 211 E, and often elsewhere.—paAdov] potius, we the founders of your church. — πάντα στέγομεν] we endure all things (see Wet- stein and Kypke, II. p. 213), should be left indefinite : labours, privations and the like, arising from our not using the right in question. Comp. xiii. 7. —iva μὴ ἐγκοπ. x.t.2.] For how easily, supposing the apostle’s labours had been less independent, or that some suspicion of self-interest, ambition, or greed of gain had rested upon him and his companions, might hindrances have been put in the way of the gospel as regards its reception, effect, and diffusion ! And how powerfully must that sacred cause have been com- 1 Observe the emphasis conveyed by put- under obligation to me first of all, and not ting the ὑμῶν first : over you, who aresurely to them. 204 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. mended and furthered by such an example of noble self-denial ἢ Respect- ing ἐγκοπή, comp. Dion. Hal. de comp. verb. p. 157, 15. Vv. 18, 14. An additional proof of the above right on the part of the teachers, drawn now from the sphere of the Israelitish theocracy, namely, from the example of the priests and the corresponding command of Christ Himself. Then, in ver. 15, ἐγὼ δὲ. . . τούτων repeats the contrast to this. —The jirst of the two parallel halves of ver. 13,’ which together describe the ἱερατεύειν (Luke i. 7), characterizes the priests generally : oi ra ἱερὰ épyat., who do the holy things i.e., whose work is to perform divine service ; the second clause again is more specific: ‘‘ who are constantly busied at the altar. of sacrifice” (rpocedp. and rapedp., of an official, and especially of a priestly, assidere, Diod. Sic. i. 40; Josephus, cont. Ap. i. 7; Lucian, Asin. 5 ; Kypke, II. p. 213). As regards τὰ ἱερά, res sacrae, i.e. what belongs to the divine cultus, comp. 8 Macc. iii. 21 (according to the true reading) ; Demosth. 1300. 6 ; and often elsewhere in the classics, They eat from the sanctuary, inasmuch as they have their support from what is brought into the temple (sacrifices, shewbread, first-fruits, etc.) ; they have their share with the altar of sacrifice, inasmuch as they take to themselves their part of the offerings which belong to the altar. See Num. xviii. 8 ff. Beza puts it well : ‘Saltaris esse socios in dividenda victima.” It is incorrect to ex- plain the first clause as referring to the Levites and the second to the priests (so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Vitringa, Wolf), for the Levites were not ra ἱερὰ ἐργαζόμενοι, but only ἱερόδουλοι (8 Esdr. i. 3), and therefore, in respect of their occupations, are no fitting analogues to the preachers of the gospel ; see rather Rom. xv. 16 ; Phil. ii. 17. On this ground we must refuse even to inelude the Levites here (against de Wette, Osiander, Maier, a/.). Rickert understands both clauses to refer to the Jewish and heathen cultus and its ministers. But in the mind of the apostle, looking at things from the theo- cratic point of view of his nation, the ἱερόν and the ϑυσίαστ. are simply κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, those of Israel (Rom. ix. 4) ; and how could he otherwise have said οὕτω καὶ x.7.4., ver. 14, seeing that the heathen priestly institute was by no means of divine appointment ? For these reasons we cannot even say, with Ewald, that the words refer primarily indeed to Num. xviii., but are couched in such a general form as to apply also to the priests in the heathen temples. The mention of τῷ ϑυσιαστηρ. is especially opposed to this inter- pretation, since for Paul there can be but the one altar ; comp. x. 18, — οὕτω καὶ ὁ Κύριος x.7.2.] 80, 7.e. in accordance with the relation of things stated in ver. 18, hath the Lord also, etc. Ὁ Κύριος is Christ ; the allusion is to such sayings of His as Matt. x. 10, Luke x. 8, here referred to as handed down by living tradition. By the καί, again, the command of Christ is linked to the foregoing relations under the O. T. economy, with 1The paraphrastic description of the priests from their employments serves to make the representation uniform with that inver. 14. The double designation, however, brings out the analogy with the Christian teachers ina more clear and telling way for the purposes of the argument. The holy thing at which they labour is the gospel (Rom. xv. 16), and the offering which they present is the faith of their converts (Phil. ii. 17), and, consequently, those converts themselves (Rom. /.c.). CHAP. IX.,° 15: 205 which it corresponds (comp. Chrysostom). The order of the words is enough of itself to show that the reference is not to God, for in that case we must have had : οὕτω καὶ τοῖς τὸ evayy. καταγγ. ὁ Κύριος διέταξε. --- For ex- amples of the idiom ζῆν ἐκ, see Kypke. Ver. 15. Ἐγὼ δὲ] Paul now reverts to the individual way of expressing himself (ver. 3), effecting thereby a lively climaz in the representation. From this point onward to the end of the chapter we have a growing torrent of animated appeal ; and in what the apostle now says regarding his mode of acting, his desire is that he alone should stand prominent, without con- cerning himself about others, and how they might act and appear in these respects. —oidevi τούτων] none of these things ; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Riickert, a/., make this refer to the grounds of the ἐξουσία in question which have been hitherto adduced. But there is no reason why we should not refer it simply to the immediately preceding statement as to the ordi- nance of Christ regarding the ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Cav. Of what belongs to that ordinance (food, drink, money, clothing, etc., see Acts xx. 33)—of none of these things (τούτων) had Paul availed himself. How common it is for Greek writers also to use ταῦτα of a single thing, when considered in its dif- ferent component elements, may be seenin Kiihner, § 423, note ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. Soc. p.19 D. Hofmann holds that the ‘‘ facts from the history of redemption,” cited in vv. 13, 14, are meant. But οὐδενί implies that what is referred to is a multitude of things, which is summed up in τούτων. --- Observe the use of the perfect κέχρημ. to describe a continuous course of action. It is different with ἐχρησάμ. in ver. 12.—A full stop should be put after τούτων ; for with οὐκ ἔγραψα δὲ ταῦτα (all from ver. 4 to ver. 15) there begins a new section in the apostle’s address. — iva οὕτω «.t.2..] in order that (for the future) the like (according to what I have written, namely, that the preachers of the gospel should be supported by the churches) showld be done in my case (comp. Luke xxiii. 31 ; Matt. xvii. 12). — μᾶλλον] potius, namely, than let myself be supported (not magis, Vulgate). —7 τὸ καύχημα μοῦ οὐδεὶς κενώσει] (see the critical remarks) expresses what is to take place, if the ἀποϑανεῖν does not ensue. That is to say, the 7 cannot here be the than of comparison,’ as it would be were we to adopt the Recepta, which in fact has just arisen from men failing rightly to understand this 7. It means “‘ aut,” or otherwise (comp. vii. 11; Acts xxiv. 20), equivalent to εἰ dé μή, and so specifying ‘‘what will take place, if the thing before named does not happen” (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 126), so that it is equivalent in sense to alioquin. See Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 12 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 4. 16 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 750 f.; Baeumlein, 1.6.0 What Paul says is: ‘‘ Rather is it although approved by Winer, p. 532 [E. T. %15|—as too bold, being without analogy in 1 My own former view (ed. 2) was to this effect, that instead of saying: ‘“‘ Better for me to die than to take recompense,’ Paul made an aposiopesis at 7, breaking off there to exclaim with triumpkant certainty: My καύχημα no man will make void! According to this, we should have to supply a dash after 7, and take what follows indepen- dently. I now regard this interpretation— the N. T., in which, as with classical writers, the suppression of the apodosis occurs only after conditional clauses (comp. Rom. ix. 22 f.). Maier has followed this view; as does Neander, on the supposition that Lach- mann’s reading were to be adopted. 206 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. good for me to die, i.e. rather is death beneficial for me, or otherwise, if this ἀποϑανεῖν is not to ensue and I therefore am to remain alive, no one is to make my glory void. Comp. as to this asseveration, 2 Cor. xi. 10. — τὸ καύχημά μου x.t.4.] 1.6. No man will ever bring me to give up my principle of preaching without receiving anything in return, so as to produce the result that I can no longer have ground for glorying (καύχημα here too means materies glori- andi, as in ν. 6 and always). Lachmann’s conjecture (Stud. wu. Krit. 1880, p- 839, and Praef. p. xii.), which is adopted by Billroth : νὴ τὸ καύχημά μου" οὐδεὶς κενώσει (Comp. Xv. 31), breaks up the passage unnecessarily ; and the same meaning would be arrived at more easily and simply, were we merely to write ἢ with the circumflex, in the sense of sane, which is so common in the classics (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 119 1.0: in truth, no one will make my glory void. But this use of ἡ does not occur in the N. T. Riickert’s opinion is, that what we find in the old Mss. gives no sense at all ;* we cannot tell what Paul actually wrote ; but that the best [how far ?] of what we have to choose from is the Recepta. Ewald, too, and Hofmann, follow the latter.— It does not follow from ver. 14 that by ἀποϑανεῖν we are to understand pre- cisely death by famine (so Billroth, with Theophylact, Erasmus, Piscator, al.) ; but the thought is generally to this effect : so far from letting myself be supported by the churches, I will rather be kept by death from this dis- grace, by which, while I live, I shall let no one rob me of my glory. The idea is that of ἀντὶ τοῦ ζῇν ἀποϑνήσκειν εὐκλεῶς, Isocr. Hoag. 1. The apostle’s καύχημα would have been made empty (κενώσει), if he had been brought to a course of action whereby that in which he gloried would have appeared to be without reality. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 3. He would thus have been shown to be κενεαυχής (Homer, IZ. viii. 230). (ΕὉ Ver. 16. Why Paul has every reason (γάρ) to hold his καύχημα thus fast. For the preaching of the gospel, taken by itself, does not put him in a position to boast himself. All the less, therefore, can he afford to give up the only thing that does place him in such a position, namely, his preaching without recompense. — ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι évix.] 86. εὐαγγελίζεσϑαι, as is proved by what goes before. Comp. Homer, 17. vi. 458 : κρατερὴ δ᾽ ἐπικεῖσετ᾽ ἀνάγκη, and the common phrase in the classics : ἀνάγκην ἐπιϑεῖναι. --οὐαὶ yap μοι ἐστίν] Comp. LXX. in Hos. ix. 12. Woe betides him, 7.e. God’s threatened judgment will fulfil itself upon him (in the coming day of judgment), if he shall not have preached the gospel (εὐαγγελίσωμαι, see the critical remarks) ; from this is evident (γάρ) how the ἀνάγκη arises, namely, that he must preach ; he can- not give it up, without incurring eternal destruction. Ver. 17 f. The sentence immediately preceding this verse, οὐαὶ yap. . . evayy., Was merely a thought interposed, a logical parenthesis, to the con- tents of which Paul does not again refer in what follows. In ver. 17 f., accordingly, with its γάρ, the reference is not to this preceding sentence οὐαὶ «.7.A., SO as to establish it by way of dilemma (which was my former 1 The readings of Β D* &* and A give the evacuat’’), give the plain and good sense: above sense; F Gagain, with their tts κενώ- 7Ὸ it is better for me to die (than that such a cet, in which it is simplest to take the τις as thing should happen in my case); o7 who an interrogative (comp. Boerner: “quis will bring my glory to nought ? CHAP. .IX., 17. 207 interpretation), but to ἀνάγκη μοι ἐπίκειται, ver. 16 (comp. de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), and that indeed in 80 far as these latter words were set down to confirm the previous assertion, ἐὰν εὐαγγελίζωμαι, οὐκ ἐστί μοι καύχημα. The cor- rectness of this reference of the γάρ which introduces ver. 17 f., is confirmed by the fact that the leading conceptions in the argument of ver. 17 f., to wit, ἑκών and ἄκων, are correlative to the conception of ἀνάγκη in ver. 16. The γάρ in ver. 17 thus serves to justify the second γάρ in ver. 16, as we often find, both in Greek writers and in the N. T., γάρ repeated in such a significant correlation as we find here (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 110 f.). In order to prove that he has rightly established his previous statement ἐὰν .. . καύχημα by adding ἀνάγκῃ yap μοι ἐπίκειται, the apostle argues, starting now from the opposite of that ἀνάγκη, and therefore 6 contrario, as follows : ‘* For supposing that I carry on my preaching (τοῦτο πράσσω) of free self-de- termination, then I have a reward, of which, consequently, I can glory ; but if Ido it not of my own free will (and this, in point of fact, was the case with the apostle), then it is a stewardship with which I am entrusted, which therefore (this is the purport of the interrogatory clause which follows, τίς οὖν k.T.A.) involves no reward for me.”—From this simple course of thought —in which the μισθὸν ἔχω refers to the certain possession hereafter of the Messianic reward,* and is conceived as the more specially defined contents of the xaiynua in ver. 16,—it will be seen that the apodosis of the second half of ver. 17 is οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι, that these words, consequently, should neither be put in a parenthesis nor attached to the protasis (so Knatchbull, Semler, Hofmann—comp. also his Schriftbeweis, 11. 2, p. 332) by reading εἰ δὲ ἄκων οἶκον. πεπίστευμαι together, to which τίς οὖν x.r.2. would then become the apodosis ; *—a view under which the significant bearing of the purpose- ly chosen phrase οἶκον. πεπίστευμαι is entirely lost sight of. Billroth, failing to recognize how essential εἰ δὲ ἄκων, olk. πεπίστ. is to the argument, makes it parenthetical, and understands ἄκων (with Bengel, Zachariae, and Schulz) as meaning non gratis, which is contrary to the signification of the word. Many expositors render ἑκών and ἄκων by ‘‘ with joy and gladness” and ‘‘ with reluctance” (so Calovius, Piscator, Estius, Kypke, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, al. ; comp. also Ewald); but this runs counter to the fact that, as τίς οὖν . . . μισθός shows, the apostle’s own case is not the first, but the last of the two cases supposed by him, and that he found himself indeed in the official position of a preacher without having chosen it of his own free will,—being rather apprehended (Phil. ii. 12), and, through his call (Acts ix. 22, 26), as it were constrained by Christ (ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἄκων, Plato, Legg. v. 784 B),— 1 On μισθὸν ἔχειν, comp. Matt. vi. 1. Itis the opposite of ovat μοι ἐστίν, and hence μισθός cannot mean the reward which lies inthe very action itself, namely, the se/f- satisfaction to which it gives rise (Hof- mann). 2 As regards the οὖν of the apodosis, see on Rom. ii. 17-24. It would have been exceedingly uncalled for after such a short and perfectly simple protasis as that in the text. In Herodotus ix. 48, which Hofmann adduces (also Hartung, Partik. II. p. 22), it is otherwise (oi δ᾽ ὧν «.7.A.). Moreover, itis a special peculiarity of Herodotus to put οὖν before the apodosis; whereas, with Paul, it occurs only in Romans Joc. cit., where it comes in after an accumulated series of protases and, as an epanaledsis, was quite appropriate. 208 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. but, notwithstanding, pursued his work with heart and hand. — οἰκονομίαν πεπίστ.] οἶκον. has significant emphasis ; as to the construction, comp. Rom. iii. 2; Gal. ii. 7. If I preach ἄκων, so Paul holds, then the apostleship, with which I am put in trust, stands in the relation of the stewardship of a household (iv. 1) ; for that, too, a man receives not from his own free choice, but by the master’s will, which he has to obey ; and hence it follows (οὖν) that no reward awaits me (this being the negative sense of τίς. . . μισθός ; comp. Matt. v. 46 ; Rom. vi. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 32) ; for a steward—conceived of as a slave \—can but do his duty (Luke xvii. 10), whereas one who works of his own free will does more than he is bound to do, and so labours in a sense worthy of reward. The meanings which some expositors find in oikx. wer. are inserted by themselves ; thus Pott explains, ‘‘ nihilosecius peragen- dum est,” comp. Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Schrader, Neander, and older interpreters ; while Grotius makes it, ‘‘ratio mihi reddenda est impositi muneris.” The words convey nothing more than just their simple literal meaning. What, again, is inferred from them, Paul himself tells us by be- ginning a new sentence with τίς οὖν. To suppose a middle clause omitted be- fore this sentence (with Neander, who would insert, ‘‘ How am I am now to prove that Ido it of my own free will ?”’) is to make a purely arbitrary interruption in the passage. — ὁ μισϑός] the befitting reward. Neither here nor in the first clause is μισϑός the same as καύχημα (Pott, Riickert, Ewald, al.); but it is viewed as standing in the relation of the inducing cause to that ἐστί μοι καύχημα, Supposing the latter to take place. This also applies against Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 541 ff., who, moreover, pronounces the apostle’s argument an unsound one. The distinction which Paul here makes 15, in his opinion, at variance with the absolute. ground of obligation in the moral consciousness, and is either purely a piece of dialectics, or has for its real basis the idea of the opera supererogationis. In point of fact, nei- ther the one nor the other is the case ; but Paul is speaking of the apostolic reward hereafter, concerning which he was persuaded that it was not to be procured for him by his apostolic labour in itself, seeing that he had not, in truth, come to the apostleship of his own free will ; rather, in his case, must the element of free self-determination come in in another way, namely, by his labouring without receiving anything in return. In so far, accordingly, he must do something more than the other apostles in order that he might receive the reward, He had recognized this to be his peculiar duty of love, incumbent upon him also with a view to avert all ground of offence, but not as implying surplus merit. The latter notion is discovered in the text by Cornelius ἃ Lapide and others, Ver. 18. Ἵνα] is taken by Grotius as meaning if, by Luther and most in- terpreters—among whom are Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald—as used in place of the exegetical infinitive, so that it gives the answer to the foregoing question.? The first of these renderings is linguistically incor- 1 This is not an arbitrary assumption (as 3 Wetstein, with whom Baur agrees, re- Hofmann objects), since it is well enough marks: “ argute dictum, nullum mercedem known that the οἰκονόμοι were, as a rule, accipere, haec mea merces est.’? But had slaves. Paul intended any such point, he must have Va CHAP. IX., 19-22. 209 rect ; the second would have to be referred to the conception : ‘‘ J ought,” etc., but yet does not suit the negation: ‘‘ I have therefore no reward,” which had its animated expression in the question: τίς οὖν x.t.A. It is much better to interpret ἵνα εὐαγγ. «.7.2. as stating the aim, according to God's ordination, of this negative condition of things: in order that I should preach without recompense (which is the: first thing to give me a prospect of reward, as being something which lies beyond my official obligation). Hofmann’s view is, that Paul asks, What reward (viz. none) could induce him to this, to make the gospel message free of cost ? But plainly it was just his supporting himself in the discharge of his vocation, which went beyond the obligation of the οἰκονομία, and consequently made him worthy of reward, which the work of the οἰκονόμος, taken by itself alone, did not do. More- over, this interpretation of Hofmann’s would require an expression, not of the design (iva), but of the inducing ground (such as δ ὄν). The iva is used here, asso often in the N. T., to indicate the divine teleology (Winer, p. 427 [E. T. 6791). ---- εὐαγγελιζ. addr. θήσω τὸ evayy.| ὁ.6. in order that I, by my preaching, may make the gospel something not connected with any outlay (on the part of the receivers). As regards this very common use of τίθημι, facio, see Kypke and Losner in loc. Comp. also on Rom. iv. 17, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 761. There is no need of going out of the way to render it, with Beza: set forth, with Grotius : collocare, like τιθέναι χάριν, or with Pott : to set before them (as spiritual food). “Ἵνα, with the future indicative, conveys the idea of continuance. See Matthiae, p. 1186. Among the older Greek writers ὅπως (also ὄφρα) is ordinarily used in this connection (Matthiae, lc. ; Kiihner, II. p. 490), while this use of iva is, to say the least, very doubtful (see against Elmsley, ad Hur. Bacch. Ὁ. 164, Hermann, ad Soph. Oed. Col. 155 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 629 1.) in the N. T. again, and with later authors it is certain (Winer, p. 271 [E. T. 361] ; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 202 [E. T. 234]). — εἰς τὸ μὴ xatayp.| aim of his ἀδάπ. τιθέναι τὸ evayy.: in order not to make use of. To understand xarayp. as meaning to misuse (comp. on vii. 31), would give a sense much too weak for the connection (against Beza, Calovius, and others, among whom is Ewald). The right rendering already’ appears in the Greek Fathers. —év τῷ ebayy.] 1.6. in do- cendo evangelio.—The ἐξουσία μου is not exclusively that indicated in ver. 4, but the apostolic prerogative Bencrsly; although in application to this par- ticular point. Vv. 19-22. Confirmation of this εἰς τὸ μὴ καταχρ. tT. ἐξ μου by his practical procedure in other matters, which was such, that not to renounce the use of that ἐξουσία would simply be to contradict himself ; it would be a gross inconsistency. — ἐκ πάντων] Mase. It belonged to the apostolic ἐξουσία to put himself in bondage to no man, but to be independent of all (ver. 1 ; comp. Gal. i. 10) ; to hold and to make good this position of freedom towards every one, was a result flowing from, and a constituent part of, his rights as an apostle (in opposition to Hofmann, who asserts that a position precisely expressed it by ἄμισθος or ἀμισθί. He would evayy., or something similar, if he had put possibly have written ἵνα ἄμισθος κηρύξωτο ἵνα αὖ all instead of the infinitive. 210 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the converse of this was the only one logically tenable by the apostle).? Notwithstanding, Paul had made himself a bondsman to a//, accommodat- ing himself to their necessities in self-denial to serve them. It is only here that ἐλεύθερος occurs with ἐκ ; elsewhere (Rom. vii. 3 ; comp. Rom. vi. 18, 22, vill. 2, 21) and in Greek writers with ἀπό. ---- τοὺς πλείονας] ἴ.6. according to the context : the greater part of the πάντες, not : more than are convert- ed by others (Hofmann). (F’) Comp. x. 5. By acting otherwise he would have won, it might be, only individuals here and there. — κερδήσω] namely, Jor Christ and His kingdom, by their conversion. Riickert explains it as meaning : to carry off as an advantage for himself, which Hofmann, too, includes. But the precise sense of the phrase must be determined | by the context, which speaks in reality of the apostle’s official labours, so that in sub- stance the meaning is the same as that of σώσω in ver. 22. Comp. Matt. xviii. 15 ; 1 Pet. iii. 1. Regarding the form éxépdyoa, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 740. Ver. 20. Explanation in detail of the preceding verse (καί epexegetical). — To the Jews Paul became as a Jew, i.e. in his relations to the Jews, whom he sought to convert, he behaved in Jewish fashion, observing e.g. Jewish customs (Acts xvi. 8, xxi. 26), availing himself of Jewish methods of teach- ing, etc., in order to win Jews. Jewish Christians are not included here (Vorstius, Billroth) ; for these were, as such, already won and saved. — τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον] to those under the law ; not really different from τοῖς ᾿Τουδαίοις, save only that they are designated here from their characteristic religious posi- tion, into which Paul entered. The universal nature of the expression is enough of itself to show that Judaizing Christians cannot be intended ; nor proselytes,—although they are by no means to be excluded from either cate- gory,—because they, too, would not have their specific characteristic brought out by ὑπὸ νόμον. The very same reason holds against the supposition that the rigid Jews, the Pharisees, are meant. The first of these three views is taken by Theodoret, the second by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Grotius, Mosheim, ai. ; Theophylact is undecided which of the two to prefer, comp. also Chrysostom ; Lightfoot and Heydenreich adopt the third. — μὴ ὧν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον] although I myself (for my own part) am not, etc., a caveat very naturally arising from his consciousness of the high value of his freedom as regards the law, Gal. ii. 19. There is no proof of any apologetic design here (in reference to such as might have said : Thou must do so and so, Riickert). Paul did not add any remark of this kind in connection with the preceding clause, because in respect of nationality he actually was an "lovdaioc. — τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμ.] The article denotes the class of men in question. Ver. 21. Τοῖς ἀνόμοις] ἐ.6. to the heathen, Rom. ii. 12. Comp. Suicer, Thes. I. p. 866. --- ὡς ἄνομος] by holding intercourse with them, giving up Jewish observances, teaching in Hellenic form (as at Athens, Acts xvii.). Comp. 1 According to Hofmann, Paul establishes ‘| for the same end for which he refrained the negative question τίς οὖν μοι ἐστὶν 6 μισ- from claiming support. This view is con- ϑός by the sentence linked to it with yap, nected with his incorrect rendering of ver. which states that, so far from receiving 18, and falls with it. reward, he had given up his freedom, etc., CHAP. IX., 22. 211 Isidor. Pelus. ed. Paris, 1638, p. 186. — μὴ dv x.7.4.] must similarly be re- garded not exactly as a defence of himself (Grotius, Riickert), but as arising very naturally from the pious feeling of the apostle, who, with all the con- sciousness of his freedom of position towards the Mosaic law, which allowed him to be τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, always recognized his subjection to the divine νόμος revealed in Christ. In spite, therefore, of his thus condescending to the ἀνόμοις, he was by no means one without legal obligation to God (no ἄνομος Θεοῦ"), but one—and this is precisely what brings out the absolute character of the opposite--who stood within the sphere of legal obligation to Christ. And Paul was conscious that he stood thus in virtue of his faith in Christ, who lived in him (Gal. ii. 20), and in conformity with the gospel, which ruled him as the νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος καὶ τῆς χάριτος (Chrysos- tom), and was to him accordingly the higher analogue of the venerated νόμος (Rom, ili. 27), which has its fulfilment in love (Rom. xiii. 10) ; comp. Gal. vi. 2. The two genitives Θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ denote simply in relation to, in my position towards ; they thus give to the two notions ἄνομος and ἔννομος their definite reference. Ver. 22. The ἀσθενεῖς are Christians weak as yet in discernment and moral power (viii. 7 ff.; Rom. xiv. 1, xv. 1; Acts xx. 80 : 1 Thess. v. 14). The terms κερδήσω and σώσω are not inconsistent with this view, for such weak believers would, by an inconsiderate conduct towards them, be made to stumble, and would fall into destruction (viii. 11 ; Rom. xiv. 15). To under- stand the phrase as denoting non-Christians from their lack of the higher powers of Christian life, especially of strength of conscience (Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), is against the formal use of οἱ ἀσθενεῖς, and can- not be justified by Rom. v. 6. Comp. also 2 Cor. xi. 99. -- ὡς ἀσθενής] ‘‘perinde quasi simili tenerer imbecillitate,” Erasmus, Paraphr. — τοῖς πᾶσι κιτ.}.} to all (with whom I had to do) I have become all, have suited myself to them in all ways according to their circumstances. Comp. as regards πάντα γίνεσθαι," the passages cited in Kypke, II. p. 215 f., and observe the perfect here at the close ; comp. Col. i. 15.—Paul did not need to say to his readers that in this whole picture of his συγκατάβασις he is expressing no mere men-pleasing or anti-Christian connivance at sin, but the practical wisdom of the truest Christian love and self-denial in the exercise of his apostolic functions ; he trusts them to understand this from their knowledge of his character. Comp. also Gal. i. 10, ii. 3-5. This practical wisdom must be all the more regarded as a fruit of experience under the discipline of the Spirit, when we consider how fiery and decided his natural temperament was. And who can estimate how much he achieved by this method of working ! Comp. Neander in opposition to Riickert’s unfavourable judg- ment. Augustine puts it well: ‘‘non mentientis actus, sed compatientis 1 Hofmann’s conjecture, that Paul wrote Θεῷ (following it, however, with Χριστοῦ), has virtually no critical foundation, and is wholly devoid of exegetical basis. Hof- mann explains the passage as if he read ἔννομος Χριστοῦ οὐκ ὧν ἄνομος Θεῷ, making Paul say of ‘‘ his being shut upin the law of Christ, that it made him one who was not without law in his relation to God.” 2 Not to be confounded with the expres- sion πάντα γίνεσϑαί τινι, Which means instar omnium fiert alicui, as in Xen. Eph. ii. 13; comp. Locella im /oc., p. 209. 212 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. affectus.”” — πάντως} in any case (comp. on ver. 10, and Plato, Phaedr. p. 266 Ὁ ; 2 Macc. iii. 13 ; 3 Mace. i. 15 ; the reverse of οὐδαμῶς, Plato, Soph. p- 240 E; comp. the frequent phrase πάντῃ πάντως, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 78 Ὁ). Should the apostle in every case, in which he adapted himself as described in vv. 19-22, save some,—that is, in the one case of ac- commodation these, in the other those, but in all some,—there would result the πλείονες of ver. 19, whom it was his design to win as there summarily set forth. — σώσω] make them partakers in the Messianic (salvation, vii. 16, x. 33; Rom. ix. 27, al. Not different in substance from κερδήσω, but strong- er and more specific, as was suitable in expressing the jinal result. Comp. 1 Tim. iv. 16. Ver. 23. Πάντα δὲ ποιῶ] quite general ; now all that I dois done for the gospel’s sake. — iva συγκοιν. αὐτοῦ yev.] Epexegesis of διὰ τὸ ebayy.: in order that I may become a fellow-partaker therein. (G*) Comp. on ovyxow., Rom. Xi. 17. Whoever is included as belonging to those in whom the salvation pro- claimed in the gospel shall be fulfilled (at the day of judgment), enters along with them when this fulfilment is accomplished into the participa- tion of the gospel, to wit, through sharing in the common fruition of that which forms the veal contents of the message of salvation. Hence the mean- ing in substance is : in order to become one of those in whom the gospel will realize itself, through their attaining the Messianic salvation. Note the hu- mility of the expression ; he who laboured more than all others, has yet in view no higher reward for himself than just the salvation common to all believers. Flatt and Billroth make it : in order to take part in the spread- ing of the gospel. But the aim here stated corresponds to the βραβεῖον in ver. 24. The inward salvation of the moral life again (Semler and Pott) is only the ethical path of development, whereby men ultimately reach the συγκοινω- via here intended. Comp. Phil. iii. 10 ff. Ver. 24 ff. Exhortation to his readers to follow his example, clothed in figures borrowed from the relations of athletic competition among the Greeks (comp. Phil. iii. 12 ff.).—Doubtless Paul, writing to the Corinthians, was thinking of the Jsthmian games, which continued to be held even after the destruction of the city by Mummius (Pausanias, ii. 2). There is no sufficient ground for supposing the Olympic games to be meant, as those in which the foot-race formed a peculiarly prominent feature (Spanheim, Wo't, a/.), for running was not excluded at the other places of competition ; and it is not necessary to assume that the apostle had a knowledge enabling him to make nice distinctions between the different kinds of contest at the different games. — τὸ βραβεῖον] λέγεται δὲ οὕτω τὸ διδόμενον γέρας τῷ νικήσαντι ἀθλητῇ, ἀπὸ μὲν τῶν διδόντων αὐτὸ βραβευτῶν βραβεῖον, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀθλούντων ἀθλον, Scholiast on Pindar, Οἱ. 1. ὅ. Στέφος δέ ἐστι τοῦ ἀγῶνος (the Isthmian) πίτυς (pine), τὸ δὲ ἀνέκαθεν σέλινα (not ivy, but parsley) καὶ αὐτοῦ ἦν στέφανος, Scholiast on Pindar, Jsthm. ὑπόϑεσις ; comp. Plutarch, qu. symp. v. 8, ἃπᾷ, see Boeckh and Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. xiii. 33 ; Hermann, gottesdienstl. Al- terth. ὃ 50. 27, ed. 3. In the application (iva καταλ.}, we are to understand the future Messianic salvation which all may reach. Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12. — οὕτω τρέχετε, iva] should not be rendered, as it is by most expositors, ‘‘ 80 CHAP. IX., φῆ. 213 run, that,”—which the iva, as a particle expressive of design, makes inad- missible (comp. vv. 26, 27),—but : in such way run (like the one referred to), in order that. This does away, too, with the awkwardness which would otherwise be involved in εἷς with the plural καταλάβητε. Paul exhorts his readers to run in a way as worthy of the prize (so to shape their inner and outer life), as the one who, by decision of the judge, receives the crown for the foot-race, in order that they may attain to it (i.e. the crown of the Mes- sianic salvation). (u") There is no need for the arbitrary insertion of the idea : ‘‘ as is necessary, in order that,” etc. (Hofmann). Ver. 25. Δέ] marks the transition to the course of conduct observed by any competitor for a prize. —The emphasis is on πᾶς. It is from it that the conclusion is then drawn in ver, 26, ἐγὼ τοίνυν: --- ὁ ἀγωνιζόμ.} used as a sub- stantive. The statement is as to what every competitor does to prepare him- self for his struggle ; in all respects he exercises self-control (ἐγκρατ., see on Vil. 9). The word ἀγωνίζεσϑαι denotes every kind of competition, and includes therefore the more specific τρέχειν (comp. Herod. v. 22 ; Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 27 : ἀγωνίζεσϑαι στάδιον. Regarding the abstinence (especially from wine, sexual intercourse, and all heavy food except a good flesh-diet), by which the competitors had to prepare themselves for the struggle for ten months previously, see Intpp. ad Hor. Art. Poet. 412 ff. ; Valckenaer, p. 251 ; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VI. p. 97 f. ; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 50. 16 f. — πάντα] Accusative of more precise definition. See Lobeck, ad Aj. 1402. Comp. ix. 25. — ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν x...) ili quidem igitur, to wit, the competi- tors proper. — ἡμεῖς] we Christians. The πάντα ἐγκρατεύεσϑαι holds of both the ἀγωνιζομένοι, only with the first it is in the sphere of the body ; with the second, in the moral domain. That the Christians, as striving in the moral field, actually πάντα ἐγκρατεύονται, is assumed by Paul, speaking from his ideal point of view, as a thing of course. Vv. 26, 27. So run I then, seeing that I, for my part, according +o ver. 25, am prepared by such abstinence to strive for the incorruptible crown, in such a way as, etc. The apostle thus sets his own ethical mode of striving (as arunner and combatant) before his readers as a pattern. Respecting the following τοίνυν, which Paul has only in this passage, comp. Luke xx. 25 ; Heb. xiii. 18 ; Hartung, Partik. 11. p. 349 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 251 1. --- οὐκ ἀδήλως] sc. τρέχων. The word means wnapparent, not clear, reverse of πρόδηλος. It may‘ either be applied objectively to an action which is indistinct and not cognizable to others (Luke xi. 44 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 8); or subjectively, so that the mam who acts, hopes, etc., is himself not clear, but wncertain and hesitating as to manner, aim, and result ; comp. 2 Macc. vii. 34; 3 Macc. iv. 4; Thuc. i. 2. 1; Plato, Symp. p. 181 D; Soph. Trach. 667 ; Dem. 416. 4; Polyb. xxx. 4. 17, viii. 3. 2, vi. 56. 11, iii. 54. 5: ἀδῆλος ἐπίβασις ; also in Xenoph., Plutarch, etc. So here ; and hence we should render : not without a clearly conscious assurance and certainty of running so as to reach the goal. Comp. Vulgate, ‘‘non in incertum ;” Chrysostom : πρὸς σκοπόν Twa βλέπων, οὐκ εἰκῇ καὶ μάτην, Phil. iii. 14, κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω ἐπὶ τὸ βραβεῖον, Bengel, ‘‘Scio quod petam et quomodo,” Melanchthon, ‘‘non coeco impetu sine cogitatione finis.” Hofmann takes it otherwise : ‘‘in whose case it is 214 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. quite apparent whither he would go,” thus bringing out the objective sense ; comp. also Grotius. But this would convey too little, for as a matter of course it must be plain in the case of every runner in a race whither he would go. Homberg’s rendering is better : ‘‘ut non in obscuro sim, sed potius inter reliquos emineam.” Comp. Ewald: ‘‘not asin the dark, but as in the sight of all. Still this does not correspond so well with the parallel ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα dépwv, which implies the conception of the end in view. Alex. Morus and Billroth (comp. Olshausen) understand it as meaning, not with- out definite aim (not simply for private exercise). But this runs counter to the whole context, in which Paul is set forth as an actual runner in a race- course, so that the negative thus conveyed would be inappropriate. — οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων] The boxer ought to strike his opponent, and not, missing him, to beat the air, to deal strokes in air. Comp. the German phrase, ‘‘ in’s Blaue hinein.” See Eustath. ad Il. p. 663, 17, and the instances given by Wetstein. Comp. Theophilus, ad Autol. iii. 1. The context (see above on ἀδήλ.) forbids us to render, with Theodoret, Calovius, Bengel, Zachariae, Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, Hofmann, and others : not in imaginary com- bat merely, without a real antagonist (cxcauayia). Respecting the οὐκ in this passage, see Winer, p. 452 [E. T. 6091. --- ἀλλ᾽ ὑπωπιάζω x.7.2.] but I beat my body blue,—alteration of the construction, in order to make the thought stand out in a more independent way ; comp. on vii. 87. The ἀλλά, how- ever, can have the effect only of presenting what is here stated as the oppo- site of ἀέρα dépwv, not as that whereby a man simply prepares himself for the contest (Hofmann, comp. Pott). Paul regards his own body (the σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, Col. 11. 11, the seat of the nature opposed to God, of the law in his members, comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 23) as the adversary (ἀνταγωνιστής), against whom he fights with an energetic and successful vehemence, just as a boxer beats the face of his opponent black and blue (respecting ὑπωπιάζειν, comp. on Luke xviii. 5, and Bos, Hvercitt. p. 140 ff.), so that those lusts (Gal. v. 17), which war against the regenerate inner man, whose new principle of life is the Holy Spirit, lose their power and are not fulfilled. It is in substance the same thing as τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος ϑανατοῦν in Rom. viii. 13 ; comp. Col. iii. 5. The result of the ὑπωπιάζω x.7.2. is, that the body becomes sub- missive to the moral will,’ yea, the members become weapons of righteous- ness (Rom. vi. 13). Hence Paul adds further : x. δουλαγωγῶ, I make it a slave (Diodorus, xii. 24 ; Theophrastus, Zp. 36 ; Theophyl. Simoc. Zp. 4), which also ‘‘a pyctis desumptum est ; nam qui vicerat, victum trahebat ad- versarium quasi servum,” Grotius. Against the abuse of this passage to favour ascetic scourgings of the body, see Deyling, Obss. I. p. 322 ff., ed. 3. — ἄλλοις κηρύξας) after having been a herald to others. The apostle still keeps to the same figure, comparing his preaching, in which he summoned and exhorted men to the Christian life, to the office of the herald who made known the laws of the games and called the champions to the combat. Riickert, who (with Chrysostom, Grotius, al.) regards «yp. as denoting 1 Comp. the weaker analogies in profane writers, as Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 28; Cicero, Off. i. 23. 79. NOTES. 215 preaching without reference to the work of a herald, reminds us, in opposi- tion to the above view (comp. de Wette), that the herald certainly did not himself join in the combat. But this objection does not hold, for with Paul the case stood thus: He, in point of fact, was a herald, who joined personally in the contest ; and he had therefore to carry through his figure upon this footing, even although he thereby departed from the actually subsisting re- lations at the combats in the games.' — ἀδόκιμος] rejectaneus, unapproved, i.e. however, not ‘‘ne dignus quidem, qui ad certamen omnino admittar” (Pott), —for Paul is, from vv. 26, 27, actually in the midst of the contest,—but praemio indignus,—pqy τοὺς ἄλλους τὸ δέον διδάξας αὐτὸς τοῦ τέλους τῶν ἀγώνων παντελῶς διαμάρτω, Theodoret. (1’) ΝΌΤΕΒ py American ΕἸΡΙΤΟΒ. (a!) Paul's defence. Ver. 3. The Revised Version very properly agrees with Meyer in his view of the con- nection, and puts a period at the end of ver. 3. Obviously what the Apostle was defending was the fact of his Apostleship, and not his claim to equal rights with the other apostles. All the recent critics unite in this view. (B!) ‘* Power to lead about a wife.” Ver. 5. Stanley says that two things are implied in this verse, viz. 1. That Paul was unmarried, which agrees with vii. 7; and 2. that the apostles generally were married, which agrees with the common tradition respecting all of them but John. (c!) ““ Doth God care for oxen ?’’ Ver. 9. The author's remarks on this vexed passage are weighty, and yet there seems room for further statement. Stanley says: ‘‘ This is one of the many instances where the lesson which is regarded as subordinate is denied altogether, as in Hosea vi. 6, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice.’ God feeds the young ravens when they cry (Ps. exlvii. 9), and the fowls of the air (Matt. vi. 26), and therefore Paul could not possibly intend to deny that the primary object of the precept was to secure just treatment for the laboring animal. What he means is that it had also a higher reference, viz., to teach the important truth that all labor should have its due compensation, and that they who by their toil obtain food for others ought themselves to share it.’’ (Ὁ) The sense of ἐξουσία. Ver. 12. In this verse is the fifth instance in the present chapter in which this word occurs. It is rendered in the common version power, for which Greeks usually employed another word (dunamis). The Revised Version in every case substi- tutes right (see vv. 4, 5, 6, 12), the sense being not physical, but moral au- thority. ; 1 [Stanley remarks concerning thiscom- and that sometimes, as in the case of Nero, plication of the metaphor,thatitisrendered the victor in the games was also selected less violent by the fact that the office of the as the herald to announce his success. — herald itself was an object of competition, T. W. C.] 216 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (zn!) Paul's glorying. Ver. 15. Both the true reading and the correct rendering of this verse are violently dis- puted, but happily all agree as to its essential meaning, viz. that Paul would rather die than abandon what was the chief boast of his life. In the next verses he declares that the preaching of the Gospel is in itself no merit in him, but an irresistible necessity, a bounden duty. He is simply a servant doing what is commanded him (Luke xvii. 10), or a steward fulfilling his function (1 Cor. iv. i). Still, if he did the service willingly, voluntarily, and not merely out of a sense of obligation, he had a reward. Then in reply to the question, What is this reward? the answer is, ‘‘ My reward is that I have no reward.” To preach the Gospel without pay was what he coveted. To be permitted to serve others gratuitously was an honour and happiness. (6) ‘* That I might gain the more.” Ver. 19. Canon Evans well says: ““ It is the more of comparison between a lesser num- ber gained out of some classes, and a greater number gained out of 811. He would have greater success through gratuitious preaching attracting all, than through paid preaching attracting some but repelling others. (a!) “* That I may become a fellow-partaker.” Ver, 23. A new thought is here introduced. Up to this point he had been speaking of his self-denial for the sake of others ; here he begins to speak of it for his own sake. It is no longer ‘‘that I may save some,” but ‘‘ that I may be partaker of the Gospel with you,” 1.6. as well as you. Do not think that I do not require this for myself. In order to do good, we must be good. To extend our Chris- tian liberty to its utmost range is dangerous, not only for others but for our- selves. This argument is supported, first, by his own example (ix. 24-27); sec- ondly, by the warning of the Israelitish history (x. 1-12) (Stanley). (ΕἸ) “In such way run that ye may obtain.” Ver. 24. The application of the metaphor of the race to the progress of the Christian here occurs for the first time. Afterwards it is found in Philip. iii. 12, 14; 2 Tim. iv. 7,8; Heb. xii.1. The argument is, “It is not enough merely to run— all run ; but as there is only one who is victorious, so you must run, not with the slowness of the many, but with the energy of the one.’’ This imagery, as might be expected from discourses delivered in Palestine, never occurs in the Gospels (Stanley). (1!) ‘* Lest I myself should be rejected.” Ver. 27. What an argument and whata reproof is this! The reckless and listless Co- rinthians thought they could safely indulge themselves to the very verge of sin, while this devoted apostle considered himself as engaged in a life-struggle for his salvation. Yet at other times he breaks out in the most joyful assurance of salvation, and says that he was persuaded that nothing in heaven, earth, or hell could ever separate him from the love of God (Rom. viii. 38, 39). The one state of mind is the necessary condition of the other. It is only those who are con- scious of this constant and deadly struggle with sin to whom this assurance is given. It is the indolent and self-indulgent Christian who is always in doubt (Hodge). be ε.. CHAP. X. 217 CHAPTER X. Ver. 1. γάρ] Elz. has dé, against decisive evidence. An alteration arising from failure to understand the connection. — Ver. 2. ἐβαπτίσαντο] ACD EF GR min. Dial. Bas. Cyr. al. have ἐβαπτίσθησαν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Riickert. It is, however, an alteration to which copyists were induced by being accustomed to the passive of Burr. ; the middle is sufficient- ly attested by BK L, Orig. Chrys. al. —Ver. 9. Κύριον] So BC δὲ, min. and several vss. and Fathers. The readings Θεόν and Χριστόν are interpretations, the first occurring in A, 2, Slav. ms. Bede, the second adopted by Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. on the authority of DEF GK L, min. vss. Fathers ; defended also by Reiche. Epiphanius avers Χριστόν to be a change made by Marcion. — Vy. 9, 10. Elz. adds καί after καθώς ; but this has too powerful testimony against it to be admissible on the ground of ver. 8. It is deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Riickert. — Ver. 9. ἀπώλοντο] Riickert, following A (?) B δὲ, reads ἀπώλλυντο, as he does also in ver. 10 on the authority of A. Rightly in both cases ; the change of tense was overlooked. — Ver, 11. πάντα] is wanting after déin A B17, Sahid. and sev- eral Fathers. It comes before it in Ὁ EF α δὲ, 3, Aeth. and some Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Riick. and Tisch.; an addition naturally sug- gested. —rimo:] Lachm. and Riick. read τυπικῶς, following ABC K δὰ, min. Syr. p. (on the margin), and many Fathers. Rightly ; the Recepta, defended by Reiche, is a repetition from ver. 6. As connected with τυπικῶς, how- ever, and resting on very much the same attestation (including §&), συνέβϑαι- vev Should be adopted in place of συνέβαινον. --- κατήντησεν] Lachm, and Tisch. have κατήντηκεν, on the authority of Β D* E* F G δὰ, 39, 46, and some Fathers. An instance of the frequent transformation of the perfect into the aorist form, with which the transcribers were more familiar. — Ver. 13. Elz. has ὑμᾶς after δύνασθαι ; but this is an addition opposed by decisive evidence.— Ver. 19. Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. invert the order of the two questions, following B C** D E 8**, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. Bede. Rightly. One of the two queries came to be left out, owing to the similarity in sound (so stiil in A C* and 83), and was afterwards restored where it seemed to stand most naturally (according to the order of origin and operation). Reiche, nevertheless, in his Comm. crit. I. p. 240 f., tries to defend the Recepta (K L, with most of the min. Syr. utr. Goth. and Greek Fathers). —Ver. 20. ἃ θύει τὰ ἔθνη] Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. read ἃ θύουσιν, on very preponderant evidence (as also θύουσιν afterwards). The missing subject τὰ ἔθνη was joined on to θύουσιν (so still in AC 8), which thereupon drew after it the change to θύει. --- Ver. 23. Elz. has μοι after πάντα, against decisive evidence. Borrowed from vi. 12. — Ver. 24. After ἑτέρου Elz. has ἕκαστος, in face of decisive testimony. Supplied, perhaps, from remembrance of Phil. 11. 4. — Ver. 27. δέ] is wanting in AB D* FG καὶ and some min. Copt. Vulg. Antioch. Chrys. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. al. tachm, and Riick. are right in rejecting it as a mere connective addition. — Ver. 28. ἱερόθυτον] approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Riick. Tisch. Elz. and 218 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Scholz. again have εἰδωλόθυτον, contrary to AB Η &, Sahid. and the indirect witnesses given by Tisch. The commoner word (which is defended by Reiche) was first written on the margin, and then taken into the text. — After συνείδησιν Elz. has τοῦ, γὰρ Kupiov ἡ γῆ κ. τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς. A repetition of the clause in ver. 26, which crept from the margin into the text ; it is condemned by deci- sive testimony, as is also the δέ which Elz. puts after εἰ in ver. 30. ConTENTS on to xi, 1.—The warnings supplied by the history of our fathers urge us to this self-conquest (vv. 1-11). Beware, therefore, of a fall ; the temptation has not yet gone beyond what you are able to bear, and God’s faithfulness will not suffer it to do so in the future ; flee, then, from idolatry (vv. 12-14). This exhortation is supported, as regards the eating of sacrificial meat, by the analogies of the Lord’s Supper and the Jewish usages in partaking of sacrifices (vv. 15-18). And therewith Paul returns from the long digression, which has occupied him since ix. 1, to his main subject, which he is now in a position to wind up and dispose of with all the more vigour and terseness (vv. 19-xi. 1). Ver. 1. Tap] Paul had already, in ix. 26 f., set himself before his readers as an example of se/f-conquest ; he now justifies his special enforcement of this duty by the warning example of the fathers. Πλεῖον αὐτοὺς δεδίξασθαι βουληθεὶς τῶν Kata τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ ἀναμιμνήσκει, καὶ ὅσων ἀπήλαυσαν ἀγαθῶν καὶ ὅσαις περιέπεσαν τιμωρίαις. καὶ καλεῖ τύπους τούτων ἐκεῖνα, διδάσκων ὡς τὰ ὕμοια πείσον- ται τὴν ὕμοιαν ἀπιστίαν κτησάμενοι, Theodoret. —ov θέλω iu. ayv.| indicating something of importance. See on Rom. xi. 25.—oi πατέρες ἡμ.} i.e. our forefathers at the time of the exodus from Egypt. The apostle says ἡμῶν, speaking, as in Rom. iv."1, from his national consciousness, which was shared in by his Jewish readers, and well understood by his Gentile ones. The idea of the spiritual fatherhood of all believers (Rom. iv. 11 ff., de Wette, al.), or that of the O. T. ancestry of the N. T. church (Hofmann), would suit only with holy ancestors as being the trve Israel (comp. Rom. ix. 5 ff. ; Gal. vi. 16), but does not harmonize with the fact of the fathers here referred to being cited as warnings. — πάντες] has strong emphasis,’ and is four times repeated, the coming contrast of οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν, ver. 5, being already before the apostle’s mind. A// had the blessing of the divine presence (ὑπὸ τ. ved. ἦσαν), all that of the passage through the sea ; all re- ceived the analogue of baptism, a// that of eating, a// that of drinking at the Lord’s Supper ; but with the majority God was not well pleased. — ὑπὸ τ. ved. ] The well-known (τήν) pillar of cloud (Ex. xiii. 21 f.), in which God’s pres- ence was, is conceived as spreading its canopy over (ὑπό) the march of the people that followed it. Comp. Ps. cv. 39; Wisd. x. 17, xix. 7. — διὰ τῆς θαλ.} See Ex. xiv. Ver. 2. The discourse flows on in uninterrupted stream, beginning with the ὅτε in ver. 1, to the end of ver. 5; then follows the application in ver. 6. —ei¢ τὸν Μωϊσῆν] in reference to Moses, so that they thereby devoted themselves to Moses as the deliverer and mediator whom God had sent them. Comp. on Rom. vi. 3; Matt. xxviii. 19.— ἐβαπτίσαντο] they had ' Grotius : “ἢ tam qui sospites fuere, quam qui perierunt.”’ ΘΈΑ, Xo, 4, | 919 themselves baptized, had the same thing, that is to say, done to them in refer- ence to Moses as you had done to you in reference to Christ. The middle, which is not put here for the passive,—comp., on the contrary, what was said regarding ἀπελούσ., vi. 11,—is purposely chosen, as in Acts xxii. 16, to denote the receptive sense (see Kiihner, II. p. 18; Valckenaer, p. 256; Winer, p. 239 [E. T. 319]); foralthough ἐβαπτ., and the subsequent ἔφαγον and ἔπιον, do not represent any apparent merit, yet they certainly assume the reception of those wonderful divine manifestations, which nevertheless could not place the fathers, to whom such high privileges had been vouchsafed, in a position of safety afterwards, etc. — ἐν τῇ ved.] ἐν is local, as in βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι, Matt. iii. 11, a/., indicating the element in which, by immersion and emergence, the baptism was effected. Just as the convert was baptized tn water with reference to Christ, so also that O. T. analogue of baptism, which presents itself in the people of Israel at the passage of the Red Sea with reference to Moses, was effected in the cloud under which they were, and in the sea through which they passed. So far as the sacred cloud, familiar to the readers, is concerned, there is no need for the assumption, based somewhat uncertainly on Ps. Ixviii. 9, of a ‘‘ pluvia ex nube decidua” (Wolf, comp. Pott); neither, again, isit enough to define the point of com- parison simply as Grotius does (comp. de Wette) : ‘‘ Nubes impendebat illorum capiti, sic et aqua iis, qui baptizantur ; mare circumdabat eorum latera, sic et aqua eos, qui baptizantur.” The cloud and the sea, both being taken together as a type of the water of baptism, must be regarded as similar in nature. Comp. Pelagius : ‘‘ Et nubes proprium humo rem portat ;” so also Bengel : ‘‘ Nubes et mare sunt naturae aqueae (quare etiam Paulus de columna ignis silet).” (s’) Theodoret, on the other hand, with several more, among whom are Schrader, Olshausen, and Maier, makes the cloud a symbol of the Spirit (John iii. 5) ; but this would have against it the fact, that the baptism in the cloud (answering, according to this view, to the baptism of the Spirit) had preceded the baptism in the sea (water-baptism) ; so that we should have an incongruous representation of the baptism with water and the Holy Ghost. The cloud and the sea do not represent the tio elements in baptism, the former the heavenly, and the latter the earthly one; but both together form the undivided type of baptism. The type appro- priated the subjects to Moses as his ; the antitype appropriates them to Christ as His redeemed ones ; and in both instances this is done with a view to their salvation, as in the one case from temporal bondage and ruin, so in the other from that which is spiritual and eternal. We may add, that there is room enough for the play of typico-allegorical interpretation, to allow the circumstance to be kept out of account that the Israelites went dry through the sea (Ex. xiv. 16 ff.). The most arbitrary working out of the exposition of details may be seen in Theodoret. Vv. 3, 4. Just as all received the self-same type of baptism (vv. 1, 2), so too all were partakers of one and the same analogue of the Christian ordi- nance of the Supper.?— τὸ αὐτό] so that each one therefore stood on the very 1 Bengel well says: “Si plura essent N. T. sacramenta, ceteris quoque simile quiddam 220 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. same level of apparent certainty ΟἹ not being cast off by God. — The βρῶμα πνευματικόν is the manna (Ex. xvi. 13 ff.), inasmuch as it was not, like com- mon food, a product of nature, but came as bread from heaven (Ps. 1xxviii. 24 f.; Wisd. xvi. 20; John vi. 31 f.), the gift of God, who by His Spirit wrought marvellously for His people. Being vouchsafed by the γάρις πνευ- ματική of Jehovah, it was, although material in itself, a χάρισμα πνευματικόν, a food of supernatural, divine, and spiritual origin. Comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia : πνευματικὸν καλεῖ καὶ τὸ βρῶμα Kai TO πόμα, ὡς av τοῦ πνεύματος ἄμφω διὰ τοῦ Μωῦσέως κατὰ τὴν ἀπόῤῥητον αὐτοῦ παρασχόντος δύναμιν. οὕτω δὲ καὶ πνευματικὴν ἐκάλεσεν τὴν πέτραν, ὡς ἂν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος ἐκδοῦσαν τὰ ὕδατα. What the Rabbins invented about the miraculous qualities of the manna may be seen in von der Hardt, Ephem. phil. pp. 101, 104 ; Eisenmenger’s entdeckt. Judenth. Il. p. 876 f., I. pp. 312, 467. Philo explains it as referring to the Logos, Leg. alleg. ii. p. 82, Quod. deter. pot. insid. sol. p. 213. — πόμα] Ex. xvii. 1-6 ; Num. xx. 2-11. Regarding the forms πόμα and πῶμα, see Lobeck, Paral. p. 425 1. -- ἔπινον. . . Χριστός] a parenthetic explanation in detail as to the quite peculiar and marvellous character of this πόμα. The imper- fect does not, like the preceding aorist, state the drinking absolutely as a historical fact, but is the descriptive imperfect, depicting the process of the ἔπιον according to the peculiar circumstances in which it took place ; it thus has a modal force, showing how things went on with the πάντες. . . ἔπιον, while it was taking place. Bengel remarks rightly on the γάρ : ‘‘ qualis petra, talis aqua.” — ἐκ πνευματ. ἀκολ. πέτρας" ἡ δὲ πέτρα ἣν 6 X.] from a spir- itual rock that followed them ; the Rock, however (which we speak of here), was Christ. Πνευματικῆς has the emphasis ; it corresponds to the preceding πνευματικόν, and is explained more specifically by ἡ δὲ x. ἦν ὁ X. The rela- tion denoted by ἀκολουθούσης, again, is assumed to be self-evident, and therefore no further explanation is given of the word. The thoughts, to which Paul here gives expression, are the following :—(1) To guard and help the Israelites in their journey through the wilderness, Christ accom- panied them, namely, in His pre-existent divine nature, and consequently as the Son of God (=the Λόγος of John), who afterwards appeared as man (comp. Wisd. x. 15 ff.). (2) The rock, from which the water that they drank flowed, was not an ordinary natural rock, but a πέτρα πνευματική ; not the mere appearance or phantasm of a rock, but an actual one, although of supernatural and heavenly origin, inasmuch as it was the real self-revelation and manifestation of the Son of God, who invisibly accompanied the host on its march ; it was, in other words, the very Christ from heaven, as being His own substantial and efficient presentation of Himself fo men (comp. Targ. Isa. xvi. 1, and Philo’s view, p. 1103 A, that the rock was the σοφία). (3) Such being the state of the case as to the rock, it must of necessity be a rock that followed, that accompanied and went with the children of Israel in posuisset Paulus.” At the same time, it nances in question. Both, however, are should be observed that the ecclesiastical equally essential and characteristic ele- notion of a sacrament does not appear in ments in the fellowship of the Christian the N. T., but is an abstraction from the life. Comp. Baur, neut. Theol. p. 200; Weiss. common characteristics of the two ordi- bibl. Theol. p. 353. ᾿ς CHAP. Χο ον: . 221 their way through the desert ; for Christ in His pre-existent candition, the heavenly ‘‘substratum,” so to speak, of this rock, went constantly with them, so that everywhere in the wilderness His essential presence could manifest itself in their actual experience through the rock with its abun: dant water ; and, in point of fact, did so manifest itself itself again and again. In drinking from the rock, they had their thirst quenched by Christ, who, making the rock His form of manifestation, supplied the water from Himself, although this marvellous speciality about the way in which their thirst was met remained hidden from the Israelites. — Since the apostle’s words thus clearly and completely explain themselves, we have no right to ascribe to Paul, what was a later invention of the Rabbins, the notion that the rock rolled along after the marching host (Bammidbar, R. 8. 1; Onkelos on Num. xxi. 18-20 ; and see Wetstein and Schéttgen, also Lund, Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 251) ; such fictions as these, when compared with what the apostle actually says, should certainly be regarded as extravagant after- growths (in opposition to Riickert and de Wette). It is just as unwarrant- able, however, to explain away, by any exegetical expedient, this rock which followed them, and which was Christ. The attempts which have been made with this view run directly counter to the plain meaning of the words ; 6.0. the interpretation of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Drusius, Grotius, Lightfoot, Billroth, αἰ. (which dates from Theodore of Mopsuestia), that the rock means here what came from it, the water (!), which, they hold, followed the people and prefigured Christ (ἦν). That ἦν denotes here significabat (so too Augustine, Vatablus, Salmasius, Bengel, Loesner, a/.), is a purely arbitrary assumption, seeing that Paul neither says ἐστί, nor τύπος ἦν, or the like, nor even indicates in any way in the context a typico-allegorical reference. This applies also against what Ch. F. Fritzsche has in his Nova Opuse. p. 261: ‘¢ The rock in the wilderness was a rock of blessing, strength, and life-giving for the Jews, and thusit prefigures Christ,” etc. Paul does not say anything of the sort ; it is simply his expositors who insert it on their own authority. Baur, too, does violence to the apostle’s words (comp. his newt. Theol. p. 193), by asserting that Paul speaks of Christ as the rvevu. πέτρα only in so far as he saw a type which had reference to Christ in the rock that followed the Israelites, according to the allegoric interpretation which he put upon it.’ See, in opposition to this, Ribiger, Christol. Paul. p. 31 f. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 319. The ordinary exposition comes nearer to the truth, but fails to reach it in this respect, that it does not keep firm enough hold of the statement, that ‘that rock was Christ,” and so of its identity with Him, but takes Christ to be the Rock only in an ideal and figurative sense, regarding Him as different from the rock from which the water flowed, but as the author of its supply. So, in substance, Chrysostom,* Oecumenius, Theophylact, Melanchthon, Cornelius ἃ Lapide, and many others, among 1 Baur is wholly unwarranted in taking φησὶν οὐ yap ἂν καὶ πρὸ τούτου ἀνέβλυξεν, ἀλλ πνευματικός, ver. 8 f., in the sense of typical ἑτέρα τις πέτρα πνευματικὴ τὸ πᾶν εἰργάζετο, or allegorically significant. Wis appeal to τουτέστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὃ παρὼν αὐτοῖς πανταχοῖ Rey. χὶ. 8 and Barnab. 10 is irrelevant. καὶ πάντα ϑαυματουργῶν. 2 οὐ γὰρ ἡ τῆς πέτρας φύσις τὸ ὕδωρ ἠφίει 222 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. whom are Flatt, Kling in the Stud. und Krit. 1839, p. 835 ; Osiander, Neander, Hofmann.? (x’) Ver. 5. Οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν] not with the greater part of them. litotes. Caleb and Joshua alone reached the land of promise. Num. xiv. 80. ---κατεστρώθησαν were struck down. Comp. Num. xiv. 16, 29. Their dying in the wilderness (some by a violent, some by a natural death) is here vividly portrayed, in accordance with Num. xiv., as death by the hand of God (Herod. viii. 53, ix. 76; Xen. Cyr, iii. 8, 64 ; Judith vii. 14 ; 2 Macc. v. 26). Comp. also Heb. iii. 17. Ver. 6. The typical reference of what is adduced in vv. 1-5 to the Chris- tians : These things (while they so fell out) became types of us, i.e. historical transactions of the O. T., guided and shaped by God, and designed by Him figuratively to represent the corresponding relation and experience on the part of Christians. See regarding τύπος, on Rom. v. 14. --- ἐγενήθησαν] The plural is by attraction from the predicate τύποι. See Kihner, II. p. 53 f.; Kriiger, ὃ xiii. 6. Hofmann (comp. vi. 11) takes the Israelites as the sub- ject : ** They became this as types of us ;” but the recurrence of the ταῦτα in ver. 11 should have been enough of itself to preclude such a view. — ἐπὶ θυμητ. κακῶν] quite general in its reference : desirers (Herod. vii. 6 ; Dem. 661 wlt., and often in Plato) of evil things (Rom. i. 30). To restrict it to the ‘* Corinthios epulutores” (Grotius) is arbitrary ; for it is equally so to con- fine the καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθ. which follows solely (Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander), or particularly (Hofmann), to the desire of the Israelites Jor flesh (Num. xi. 4), whereas in truth the words refer generally to the evil lusts which they manifested so often and in so many ways upon their journey, that particular desire not excluded. Ver. 7. There: follows now upon this general warning the first of four special ones against sins, to which the ἐπιθυμεῖν κακῶν might very easily lead. ‘‘Eligit, quod maxime Corinthiis congruebat,” Calvin. — μηδέ] also in par- ticular do not. Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 314 [E. T. 366]. The rep- etitions of μηδέ which follow, too, from ver. 8 to ver. 10 are also negatived, but in continuance of the special prohibitions, — γένεσθε] in the second per- A tragical 1 Comp. his Schriftbew. I. p. 171: ‘‘ The rock from which the water flowed was a natu- cess of thought on the part of the apostle, which, as such, is not to be measured by ral one, and stood fast in its own place ; but the true Rock that really gave the water was the Os ἫΝ (Isa. xxx. 29), was Jehovah, who went with Israel.” By not calling the Rock God, but Christ, the apostle points forward, as it were (accord- ing to Hofmann), to the application which he is about to make of the words, namely, to the cup which Christ gives us to drink. But Paul’s words are so simple, clear, and definite, that it is impossible to get off by any quid pro quo. For the rest, it is to be observed that in this passage, as in the previous one, where the crossing of the sea is taken as a typical prefiguration of bap- tism, we have doubtless a Rabbinical pro- the taste of our day, so that this unvar- nished exegetical, conception of it might be set down as something ‘“ absurd,” as is done by Hofmann. The Rabbinical culture of his time, under which the apostle grew up, was not done away with by the fact of his becoming the vessel of divine grace, revelation, and power. Comp. Gal iy. 22 ff. Our passage has nothing whatever to do with Isa. xxx. 29, where men go up into the temple to Jehovah, the Rock of Israel. It is of importance, however, in connection with Paul’s doctrine regarding the pre-ex- istence of Christ and its accordance with the doctrine of the Logos. 3 (Literally, strewed as corpses.—T. W. C.] CHAP: X., 8,9; 223 son, because of the special danger to which his readers, from their cirewm- stances, were exposed. Comp. on ver. 10. — εἰδωλολάτραι] What Paul means is the indirect idolatry involved in partaking of the heathen sacrificial feasts. Comp. on v. 11. This is clear from the quotation which he goes on to make (φαγεῖν x. πιεῖν). Comp. vv. 14, 20, 21. The passage cited is Ex. xxxil. 6 according to the LXX.; it describes the sacrificial feast after the sacrifice offered to the golden calf. The τινὲς αὐτῶν, four times repeated, certain of them, notwithstanding there were very many (although not all), brings out all the more forcibly the offences over-against, the greatness of the penal judgments. Comp. on Rom. 111. 3. — παίζειν] to be merry. This comprised dancing, as we may gather from Ex. xxxii. 19, and from ancient customs generally at sacrificial feasts ; but to make this the thing specially referred to here (Hom. Od. viii. 251 ; Hesiod, Sewt. 277 ; Pindar, Ol. xiii. 123) does not harmonize with the more general meaning of pny? in the original text. To understand the phrase as indicating wnchastity (Tertull. de jejun. 6) is contrary to Ex. xxxii, 18, 19, and Philo, de vit. Mos. 3, pp. 677 D, 694 A. Ver. 8. ’Exépvevoav] Num. xxv. 1 ff. —eixooe τρεῖς] According to Num. xxv. 9, there were 24,000. So too Philo, de vit. Mos. 1, p. 694 A; de fortit. p. 742 Ὁ ; and the Rabbins in Lightfoot, Horae, p. 205 ; also Jose- phus, Antt. iv. 6. 12.