THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 M5?k5EU 
 
 lfe8 4- 
 
 TTTTTTTTTTrTTTTTTTTTTTTT T TTT 
 
Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 JriH Z'J 
 
 APR 1 ~i 
 
 APR 1 2 ' 
 
 ftPR i 4 v 
 
 JUL 1 i 
 
 f'H r r- 
 
 1 vj u u 
 
 '079 
 
 m 
 
 r 
 
 2006 
 
 > * 
 
 L161—H41 
 


 
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 
 jt jr- _ ’ \ ^ J y * 
 
 f U;. |; / i.V l*l I HI 
 
 HAND-BOOK IV ' 
 
 ■ 1 ■ . f j; <; (] [)I 11U K, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Epistles to the Corinthians 
 
 BY 
 
 HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Th.D. 
 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
 
 Rev. D. 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. 
 
 UIV/V 
 
 MBE 
 
 ^ ! MRARY gp ju£ 
 
 may 
 
 ***«»<« W 
 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 FUNK & WAGNALLS, Publishers, 
 
 10 AND 12 Dey Stiieet. 
 
 1884. 
 

 0I I /, | ;i f)r; / 
 
 
 y 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, 
 
 By FUNK & WAGNALLS, 
 
 In (he Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C. 
 
za.'l. z 
 
 IT) €7&5 E b 
 
 )9t*h 
 
 PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 
 N 
 
 -4 
 
 ¥ 
 
 7 : 
 
 tit 
 
 >a 
 
 T 
 
 KJ 
 
 W. 
 
 0< 
 
 "i 
 
 n 
 
 The 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 Soteriologv, 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, Ehilippians and Golossians, reasseit 
 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 
 
 833564 
 
IV 
 
 PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITIONS’. 
 
 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. 
 11 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. ” 1 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 a similar 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 a man of mere secular impulses and without divine 
 
 1 Schaff. 
 
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN - EDITION". 
 
 y 
 
 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, 
 lienee 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 a far 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 
 
VI 
 
 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. Ilis 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 waiting 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 
 Demosthenic 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 oXfiia aopiv - 
 Oog. Ah, her true 6Xf3o(f)6pog was the very man whom the people of 
 the Areopagus disdained and the philosophers of Athens derided as a 
 CTTeppokoyog. ’ ’ 
 
 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 iva 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. 
 
 VII 
 
 ill following a critic who is so keen and incisive, is so thoroughly ac¬ 
 quainted witli 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 clauses, 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 
 
 O O 
 
 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. 
 
 New Yoke, April 28 Ih, 1884 . 
 
 T. W. CHAMBERS. 
 
•* 
 
 r 
 
 ' 
 
 * 
 
 » 
 
 
 ‘ 
 
 ■ 
 
 . 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 , 
 
 • • 
 
 * 
 
 . 
 
 * . 
 
 . : ;-■• • ■ 
 - «> ' 
 
 i 
 
 
 • • 
 
 ■ 
 
 ' 
 
 ' 
 
 • 1 
 
 - 
 
 
 • 1 
 
 - 
 
 ' 
 
 ■ ■ ■ , 
 
 
 •* 
 
 . .. 
 
 , - 
 
 X 
 
 ' ' 
 
 R . 
 
 t 
 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 After 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 if.), 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 Tridentinum 
 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 with a 
 renouncing of all invention of our own, with simplicity , truth , and clear¬ 
 ness , without being prejudiced by, and independent of, dogmatic a 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 tbe present day in tlie 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 1 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. 2 While 
 thus engaged, I have very frequently, to my regret, found myself unable 
 
 1 A 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 the minds most conversant wdth 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 Klopper’s Exeg-kritische Untersuchungen uber den zweiten. Eorintherbrief, 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 Beysclilag, 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. 
 
Xll 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 to agree with von Hofmann’s work : Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments 
 zusammenhangend untersucht . 1 I 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, 3 Oth November, 1869. 
 
 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 ; f marks the date of the author’s 
 death ; c. circa.] 
 
 Akeesloot (Theodoras), Reformed Minister in Holland : D’eerste Sendbrief 
 van Paulus aan die van Korinthen, kortelyk in haar t’samenhang 
 uytgelegt. 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1707. 
 
 Alphen (Hieronymus Simon van), \ 1742, Prof. Tlieol. at Utrecht : Ontlee- 
 dende verklaaring van Paullus tweclen brief aan die Corinther. 
 
 4°, Arnst. 1708, al. 
 
 Ambrosiastek. See Romans. 
 
 Baumgarten (Sigmund Jakob), \ 1757, Prof. Tlieol. at Halle : Auslegung der 
 beiden Briefe Pauli an die Corinther. 4°, Halle, 1761. 
 
 Billroth (Johann Gustav Friedrich), + 1836, Prof, at Halle : Commentar zu 
 den Briefen des Paulus an die Korin tlier. 8°, Leip. 1833. 
 
 [Translated by William Lindsay Alexander, D.I)., 2 vols. 
 
 12°, Edin. 1837-8.] 
 
 Burger (Karl Heinrich August von), Oberconsistorialrath at Munich : Her 
 erste [ und der zweite] Brief Pauli an die Rorinther deutsch ausgelegt, 
 2 Bande. 8°, Erlangen, 1859-60. 
 
 Cocceius [Koch] (Johann), f 1669, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Commentarius in 
 in Epistolas I. et II. ad Corinthios [Opera]. 
 
 Contzen (Adam), f 1635, Jesuit at Mentz : Commentaria in Epistolas S. Pauli 
 ad Corinthios et ad Galatas. 2°, Colon. 1631. 
 
 Crell (Johann), f 1633, Socinian teacher at Racow : Commentarius in priorem 
 Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam [Opera]. 8°, Racov. 1635. 
 
 Emmerling (Christian August Gottfried), f 1827, Pastor at Probsthaida : Epis- 
 tola Pauli ad Corinthios posterior, Graece, perpetuo commentario il- 
 lustrata. 8°, Lips. 1823. 
 
 Flatt (Johann Friedrich von), f 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tubingen : Yorlesungen 
 fiber die Briefe an die Corinther, herausgegeben von C. D. F. Hoff¬ 
 mann. 8°, Tfibing. 1827. 
 
 Fritzsche (Karl Friedrich August), f 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. 
 
X1Y 
 
 EXEGET1CAL LITERATURE. 
 
 Heydenreich (August Ludwig Christian), f c. 1856, Prof, at Herhorn: Com- 
 mentarius in priorem D. Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam, 2 voll. 
 
 8°, Marb. 1825-7. 
 
 Hodge (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. 
 
 Hofmann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : Die 
 Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhangend untersucht (II. 
 2, 3 Briefe an die Korinther). 8°, Nordlingen, 1864-6, al. 
 
 Jaeger (C. F. Heinrich) : Erklarung der beiden Briefe des Apostel Paulus 
 nach Corinth, aus dem Gesichtspunkte der vier Partheien daselbst. 
 
 8°, Tubing. 1838. 
 
 Kling (Christian Friedrich), Dean of Marbach on the Neckar : Die Korinther- 
 briefe tlieologisck-komiletisch bearbeitet [Lange’s Bibelwerk, Theil. 
 VII.]. 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.'] 
 
 Klopper (Albrecht), Tutor at Konigsberg : Exegetisch-kritisclie Untersuchun- 
 gen iiber den zweiten Brief des Paulus an die Gemeinde zu Korinth. 
 
 8°, Gotting. 1869. 
 
 Commentar iiber das zweite Sendschreiben. 8°, Berl. 1874. 
 
 Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), f 1827, Private Tutor at Vienna : Pauli ad 
 Corinthios Epistolae Graece. Perpetua annotatione illustravit F. A. 
 W. Krause. Vol. i. complectens ep. priorem. 8°, Erancof. 1791. 
 
 Leun (Johann Georg Friedrich), f 1823, Pastor at Butzbach in Hesse : Pauli ad 
 Corinthios Epistola secunda Graece perpetua annotatione illustrata. 
 
 8°, Lemg. 1804. 
 
 Lightfoot (John), D.D., Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge : Horae Hebrai- 
 cae et Talmudicae in Epistolam priorem ad Corinthios. 
 
 4°, Cantab. 1664. 
 
 Mater (Adalbert), E. C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg : Commentar iiber den ersten 
 Brief Pauli an die Korinther. 8°, Freiburg, 1857. 
 
 Major [Mayer] (Georg), f 1574, Prof. Theol. at Wittenburg : Enarratio Epis- 
 tolarum Pauli ad Corinthios. 8°, Viteb. 1558, al. 
 
 Martyr (Peter) [Vermigli], f 1562, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg : In priorem 
 D. Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolam commentarii. 2°, Tiguri, 1551, al. 
 
 Melanchthon (Philipp), ,f 1560, Reformer : Brevis et utilis commentarius in 
 priorem Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios et in aliquot capita secundae. 
 
 8°, Vitemb. 1561, al. 
 
 Moldenhauer (Johann Heinrich, Daniel), f 1790, Pastor at Hamburg : Erster 
 und zweiter Brief an die Corinther nach dem Grundtext iibersetzt mit 
 Erkliirungen. 8°, Hamb. 1771-2. 
 
 Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), f 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Erkla¬ 
 rung der beiden Briefe an die Corinther. 8°, Leip. 1794. 
 
 Mosheim (Johann Lorenz von), -J- 1755, Chancellor and Professor Theol. at Got¬ 
 tingen : Erklarung des ersten Briefes Pauli an die gemeine zu Corin- 
 thus. 4°, Altona, 1741. 
 
 Neue Ausgabe, nebst der Erklarung des zweiten Briefes herausgegeben 
 von C. E. von Windheim, 2 B'ande. 4°, Altona u. Flensburg, 1762. 
 
 Musculus [Meussein] (Wolfgang), \ 1563, Prof. Theol. at Bonn : Commentarius 
 in utramque Epistolam ad Corinthios. 2°, Basil, 1559, al. 
 
 Neander (Johann August Wilhelm), f 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 Goppingen in Wurtemberg : Commentar iiber 
 den ersten Brief Pauli an die Korinthier. 8°, Stuttgart, 1849. 
 
 Commentar iiber den zweiten Brief. 8°, Stuttg. 1858. 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 XY 
 
 Pott (David Julius), f 1838, Prof. Theol. at Gottingen : Pauli Epistolae ad 
 Corintliios Graece perpetua annotatione illustratae. [Novum Testa- 
 mentum Koppianum, V. 1.] 8°, Gotting. 1826. 
 
 Pollock (Robert), f 1598, Principal of University of Edinburgh : Commentarius 
 in utramque Epistolam ad Corintliios, cum notis Jo. Piscatoris. 
 
 8°, Herborn. 1600, al. 
 
 Ruckert (Leopold Immannuel), f c. 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Commentar 
 liber die Briefe an die Corinther. 2 Bande. 8°, Lips. 1836-7. 
 
 Sahl (Laurids), f 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. 
 
 Schmid (Sebastian). See Romans. 
 
 Schulze (Johann Christoph Friedrich), | 1806, Prof. Theol. at Giessen : Pauli 
 erster Brief an die Korinther herausgegeben und erklart.—Zweiter 
 Brief erklart ... 8°, Halle, 1784-5. 
 
 Sclater (William), D.D., f 1626, Yicar of Pitminster : Utriusque Epistolae ad 
 Corinthios explicatio analyticae, una cum scholiis 4°, Oxon. 1633. 
 
 Semler (Johann Salomon), f 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. 
 
 Stanley (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. 
 
 Stevart (Peter), f 1621, Prof. Theol. at Ingolstadt : Commentaria in utramque 
 Epistolam ad Corinthios. 4°, Ingolstad. 1608. 
 
 Storr (Gottlob Christian), f 1805, Consistorialrath at Stuttgart : Notitiae his- 
 toricae Epistolarum Pauli ad Corinthios interpretationi servientes. 
 
 4°, Tubing. 1788. 
 
 Til (Salomon van), f 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Kortbondige verklaaring 
 ouer den eersten Brief van Paulus aan die van Korinthen. 
 
 4°, Amst. 1731. 
 
 [See also Romans.] 
 
 Vitringa (Kempe), f 1722, Prof. Theol. at Franeker : Exercitationes in diffi- 
 ciliora loca prioris Epistolae Pauli ad Corinthios. 4°, Franeq. 1784-9. 
 
 Windheim (Christian Ernst Von). See Mosheim (Johann Lorenz). 
 
 Zachariae (Gotthilf Trangott), f 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°, Gotting. 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. Wing, 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 Waite, Com. on Second Ep. in Bible Com. Lond. 1881. 
 
 T. T. Shore, on First Ep. in Ellicott’s Com. Lond. 1880. 
 
 E. H. Plumptre, on Second in Ellicott’s Com. Lond. 1880. 
 
 David Brown, on both Epistles in Schaff’s Popular Com. on N. T. 
 
 New York, 1882. 
 
 Joseph Agar Beet, Com. on both Epistles. Lond. 1882. 
 
ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 al., elal. = 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 K. 
 
 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). 
 
 1. c. = loco citato or laudato. 
 ver. =7 verse, vv. = verses. 
 
 f. IT. = and following. Yer. 16 f. means verses 16 and 17. w. 16 IT. means 
 verses 16 and two or more following. 
 
 vss. = versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the 
 usual abridged forms. E.g. Syr. = Peshitto Syriac ; Syr. p. == Philox- 
 enian Syriac, 
 p. pp. = page, pages. 
 e.g. — exempli gmlia. 
 sc. = scilicet. 
 
 N. T. = New Testament. O. T. = Old Testament. 
 
 k.t.A.= Ka'i rd /loiira. 
 
 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. Anal), 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 Thuc. iv.) ; Roman numerals in capitals denote 
 volumes (as Kuhner, II.). 
 
 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. 
 
 r Corinth ( bimoris Corinthus ), which, after its destruction by 
 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 Horn. II. ii. 570, and especially Pindar, 01. xiii.) 
 glory and voluptuous luxury (hence the expressions nopcvdia^ecdaL, KopivOtaaryg, 
 and KopivOia Koprj \ see also Dissen, ad Pind. Fragm. p. 640 f. ; Ast, ad Plat. 
 Pep. p. 404 D),—in that great "E Habog aarpov (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 if.). 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 a very 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 if.) 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 
 
 1 Ruckert, following Neander (comp, also 
 Osiander, p. 6), thinks that the failure of 
 the apostle’s attempt at Athens to gain en¬ 
 trance for evangelical truth by associating 
 
 it with Hellenic forms (Acts xvii.), had led 
 him to the resolution of giving up every 
 such attempt, and of proclaiming the gos¬ 
 pel among the Greeks also in its entire sim- 
 
2 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corikthians. 
 
 (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. 1 
 
 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 tf., 
 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) speculatidn, 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 Avith 
 which men clung to the old or the new teacher respectively, came to ha\ r e 
 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 di\ r ision 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 
 
 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 him in the ayopd 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 
 
 one. Before his mixed audience in Corinth 
 (and he could not regulate his course by 
 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, Paulvs in 
 Corinth , in the Jahrb. fur Deutsche Tlieol. 
 1867, p. 103 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 forw r ard with 
 any opposition to Paul’s doctrine , for otherwise the apostle w r Quld, 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 slack in vainglorious assertion of the national privileges (2 Cor. v. 12, 
 xi. 22, xii. 11), and that against the 'eery 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 wuth, 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. 12. See Pott, Proleg. p. 20 f. ; Baur in the Tubing. 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. 1 
 
 “ We belong to Christ' 1 '' became accordingly the watchword, unhappily, 
 how T ever, 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, Be verb. Bom Pauli, etc. Et alii, qui nolebant aedificari 
 Serrn. 13 : “ Volentes homines aedificari su- super Petrum, sed super petram : Ego su¬ 
 per homines, dicebant: Ego quidem sum tern 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 on i. 12. To the more recent literature of the subject, besides the 
 works on Introduction, belong the following : Neander, Kl. Schrift. p. 68 ff., 
 and Gesch. d. Pflanzung, etc., I. p. 360 ff., 4th ed. ; 33aur in the Tub. ZeUschr. 
 1831, p. 61 ff., 1836, 4, p. 1 ff., and in his Paidus, 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. Tub. 1838 ; Schenkel, Be 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 z. Kor., 
 Halle 1842 (previously in the Journ. f. Pred. 1841) ; Kniewel, Ecclesiae Cor. 
 vetustiss. dissensiones et iurbae, Gedan. 1841 ; Becker, d. Pctriheiungen in d. Gem. 
 z. Kor., Altona 1842 ; Rabiger, lcrit. Untersuchungen ub. d. Inhalt d. beid. Br. 
 an d. Kor., Bresl. 1847 ; Lutterbeck, neuiest. 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. § 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 a 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 1 —sent from the apostle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9) ; but 'when 
 
 1 The two quite short Epistles extant in 
 Armenian, from the Corinthians to Paul and 
 from Paul to the Corinthians, are wretched 
 apocryphal productions (first published by 
 
 Phil. Masson in Job. Masson, Hisfoire crit. 
 de la republ. des Wires , vol. X., 1714 ; then 
 by David Wilkins, 1715; by Whiston, 1727, 
 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 If., and the eating of flesh offered in 
 sacrifice, viii. 1 ff.), which demanded an answer from him, 1 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 uphold 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. 2 
 
 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, 
 Armenian Grammar , etc., Venet. 1819; 
 see also Fabric. Cod. Apocr. III. p. 667 ff.). 
 Rinck, indeed, has recently (in opposi¬ 
 tion to the earlier defence by Whiston, see 
 the objections urged by Carpzov) sought 
 to maintain the genuineness of both 
 Epistles ( das Sendschr. d. Kor. an d. Apost. 
 Paul. u. das dritte Sendschr. Pauli an die 
 Kor. in Armen. TJebersetzung, neu verdeutscht, 
 etc., Heidelb. 1823), and that on the footing 
 of holding the apostle’s letter not to be 
 the one mentioned in v. 9, but a later third 
 Epistle. But against this utterly fruitless 
 attempt, see Ullmann, iiber den durch Pinck 
 bekannt gemachten dritten Brief an d. Kor. 
 und das kurze Sendschreiben der Kor. in the 
 Heidelb. Jalirb. 1823; Bengel, Archiv. 1825, 
 
 p. 287 ff. Regarding the date of the com¬ 
 position of the lost Epistle, see Wieseler, 
 Chronologie des apost. Zeitalt. p. 318. 
 
 1 That this letter from the church was 
 marked by a tone of confidence and pride 
 of knowledge (Hofmann) cannot, with any 
 certainty, be inferred from our Epistle, the 
 many humbling rebukes in which bear up¬ 
 on the evils themselves, not upon that letter 
 and its character. 
 
 2 Observe that, in connection with these 
 different topics, Paul never makes the 
 teachers as such responsible, or gives direc¬ 
 tions to them,—a proof that he was far from 
 cherishing the idea of a divinely instituted 
 order of teachers. Comp. Hofling, Gnind- 
 sdtze d. Kirchenverf. p. 279 f., ed. 3. 
 
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 Epis¬ 
 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 Ephesus , 5 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 eypuQrj arro (t>i?u7r7rov is 
 an old (already in Syr.) and widespread error, arising from xvi. 5. In reply to 
 the quite untenable grounds urged by Kohler ( Abfassungszeii der epistol. Schriften, 
 p. 74 ff.), who accepts it, and puts the date of composition after the (errone¬ 
 ously assumed) liberation from imprisonment at Lome, see Anger, temp. rat. 
 p. 53 ff. Comp. Riickert, p. 12 ff. ; Wurm in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1838, I. p. 63 
 ff. The correct subscription is found in B**, Copt. Chrys. Euthal. Theodoret, 
 al. : npog K op. a kypa6r] uno ’E tycoon. 
 
 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 
 to mean : not in, but near Ephesus, because 
 Paul, in xvi. 8, did not write &Se in place of 
 iv ’Ety. ! Bottger also ( Beitrdge zur hist, 
 tcrit. EirU. in die Paul. Br. , Gotting. 1837, III. 
 
 p. 30) avails himself of this circumstance in 
 support of his hypothesis, that the Epistle 
 was written in Southern Achaia. See, 
 against this, Riickert, Magaz.f. Exeg. I. p. 
 132 ff. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 7 
 
 in Corinth (so rightly Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 614 ff., ancl in his Jn- 
 trodudion ; Schrader, I. p. 95 ft. ; Neander, Billroth, Biickert, Anger, Credner, 
 Schott, Wurm, Olshausen, Wieseler, Beuss, Ewald, and many others, following 
 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Baronius, et 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 genuineness , there is no room for doubt in view of the external 
 evidences (Polyc. ad Philipp. 11 ; Ignat, ad Eph. 2 ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. i. 
 47, 49, Epist. ad Biogn. 12—Justin M. e. Tryph. pp. 253, 258, 338, Apol. I. 
 p. 29 are uncertain—Iren. Haer. iii. 11. 9, iv. 27. 3 ; Athenag. deresurr. p. 
 61, ed. Colon. ; Clem. Al. Paedag. p. 96, ed. Sylb. ; Canon Muratov. ; 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 ( Kritik 
 dev Paulin. Brief e, II., Berl. 1851). 
 
 / 
 
8 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE*CORINTHIANS. 
 
 UavXov 7rpo s’ KopivOlovZ eniffTo^r/ npGorrf. 
 
 The simplest and probably oldest superscription is that of AB CDK, min. : 
 Tvpoq K opt-vOiovg Trpury. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Yer. 1. K.?,rjToc] is wanting, indeed, in A D E, Clar. Germ. Cyr. (suspected by 
 Mill and Griesb., bracketed by Laclnn., deleted by Riickert), but was easily 
 overlooked by those to whom the fact was knov/n and familiar, that Paul in the 
 beginning of his Epistles almost invariably styles himself citvoct. ’I. X. tha 6 e1. 
 Qeov without K^yrog ; see 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Eph. i. 1 ; Col. i. 1; 2 Tim. i. 1. Comp, also 
 Gal. i. 1; 1 Tim. i. 1 ; Tit. i. 1 ; only in Rom. i. 1 we find ulyrog. —Instead of 
 ’lyaov Xptarov, read, on preponderant evidence, with Lachm. and Tisch. Xpiorov 
 ’I tjgov. — Ver. 2 ry ovcy ev Kop.] is placed by B D* E F G, It. after ’I yoov ; 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, 
 w r hereas there is no reason why, if it stood so originally, it should have under¬ 
 gone alteration. The hypothesis of Eritzsche, de conformat, N. T. Lachm. 1841, 
 p. 44, that yytaap. h 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. — re kul] Lachm. : nai, according to B D G X. But how easily re 
 might be dropped without its being noticed ! — Yer. 14. Riickert has pov after 
 0£<p, in accordance with A, 17, 57, al. and several vss. and Fathers. An addition 
 from ver. 4. —Ver. 15. efiaTrnoa ] A B C* min. and several vss. and Fathers 
 have kffaTTTiGOrjTE ; so Lachm. Ruck, 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. rovrov after noapov is wanting in very important witnesses. 
 Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Riickert. A mechanical addition from the forego¬ 
 ing. — Ver. 22. aypsiov'] oypeia, adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Ruck. Tisch. Scholz. 
 is so decisively attested by A B GD E F G X, 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 ett Syrova iv 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. eBvegl] Elz. : "E Xkyoi, against decisive evidence. Noted 
 on margin, and then adopted in accordance with what goes before and follows. 
 —Ver. 28. Before rd py ovra Elz. has Kai, against preponderant testimony. Sus¬ 
 pected by Griesb. ; deleted by Lachm. Scholz, Ruck, and Tisch. Mechanical 
 connection. — Ver. 29. tov 0«n>] So Griesb. and all later editors, following de¬ 
 cisive evidence. Avtov in Elz. is an over-hasty correction, due to a failure to 
 recognize the design of the repetition of r. Qeov. —Ver. 30. coQia ypiv\ Approved 
 by Griesb. adopted also by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. Elz. and Scholz, however, 
 have yplv ootyia. For the former order are A C D E K, min. Vulg. ms. It. 
 
CHAP. I., 1. 
 
 9 
 
 Earl.** Or. Eus. al., further, B, which has aotp. tj/icov, and F G, which have 7 / 
 cotyia 7)fj.lv. 'Hfjlv was put first, in order to join cofia closely to ibro 0 tm> ; while 
 others marked the conception of the true wisdom by the article (F G). 
 
 Yv. 1-3. Apostolic address and greeting. 
 
 Yer. 1. K at/toc a-nocr. See on Rom. i. 1. A polemical reference (Chrys¬ 
 ostom, Theophylact, and many others, including Flatt, Ruckert, 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). — 6ta del. 0£oi>] 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 ; Epli. i. 
 
 1 ; Col. i. 1 ; 1 Tim. i. 1 ; 2 Tim. i. 1. “ Sua ipsius voluntate P. nunquam 
 
 factus esset apostolus,” Bengel. Regarding did, see on ver. 9 and Gal. i. 1. — 
 Kal adevTjc] Modern interpreters reckon him the amanuensis of the Epistle (see 
 xvi. 21). But the mere amanuensis as such 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 , hat 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, v T ho 
 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, Ruckert, and 
 de Wette. See on Acts, l.c. Without due ground, Ruckert 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. — 6 adel^dg] denotes nothing more special than Chris- 
 
10 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corixthiahs. 
 
 tian brotherhood (so also 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Col. i. 1, al.), not fellowship in the 
 office of teacher. The 'particulars of the position of Sosthenes were well 
 known to the readers. 
 
 Yer. 2. T ?j kiwi. r. 9 eov) Qeov is genitive of the owner. Comp. HltT 
 Hum. 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 *70p presents itself as realized ; it is the tvI rjpucig of this 
 bnp. Comp. x. 32, xi. 16, 22, xv. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 1; Gal. i. 13, al. — r/yiacy. 
 kv X. T.] adds at once a distinctive definition of quality to r. ekkI. r. Qeov 
 (see the critical remarks), and thereupon follows the local specification of r. 
 had. r. Qeov. u To the church of God, men sanctified in Christ Jesus, which is 
 in Corinth.' 1 ' 1 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, 
 II. p. 43 ; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 39. T y obey kv K op., however, is purposely 
 placed after tfyiacju. k.t.1., 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 dyiaaydg is to be conceived as consecration to God 
 in the Christian church (see above, r. ekkI. t. Qeov). Comp, on Rom. i. 7. 
 This belonging to God as Ills 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 (j •perfect ) by means of justifying faith 
 (Eph. i. 4 ff. ; Heb. x. 10). Comp. Phil. i. 1. ’Ev X. T. gives to the rjyiaoy. 
 its distinctively Christian character . 1 — Klyroig ayioig ] 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 k1t]to~i g. 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. ; Ustcri, Lehrbegr. p. 281) through the 
 preachers of the gospel (Rom. x. 14 ; 2 Thess. ii. 14) ; see Weiss, bill. 
 Theol. p. 386 f. — cvv Traci k.t.1.) does not belong to Klyrolg ayioig, 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, Rosenmliller, Flatt, 
 Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Neander, Becker, Hofmann). But 
 it belongs, as necessarily follows from 2 Cor. i. 1, to the superscription as 
 part of it (on cvv, comp. Phil. i. 1) ; yet neither so as to mark the Epistle as a 
 catholic one (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, Cornelius a 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 emml. r. ov. r. K vp. were meant the separatists, in contrast to 
 those disposed to adhere to the church (Vitringa, Michaelis), or as if cvv 
 warn k.t.1. were meant to comprehend all Corinthian Christians without dis - 
 
 r 
 
 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 . 
 
 11 
 
 tinction (Eichhorn, Einleit. III. 1, p. 110, Pott) ; but so that tlie sense is in 
 substance just that expressed in 2 Cor. i. 1 : cvv Totg dy'totg Tract rolg ovctv ev 
 oXy rfi ’Axata. See below on aiiruv te nal i/yuv. The Epistle is primarily 
 addressed to the Christians in Corinth ; not, however, to them merely , but 
 at the same tune also to the other Achaean Christians , and the latter are de¬ 
 noted by Traci . . . r/yuv. A comma is to be put after ay totg. — rolg eninaX. r. 
 or r. K vp.] confessional designation of the Christians, Rom. x. 12 f. ; 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 1 (of Him as the Mediator and 
 Lord over all, but under God, Phil. ii. 10 f.), see on Rom. x. 12. — avrtiv 
 te aai yyav] is joined with tov Kvpiov by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius, 
 Theophylact, 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 fjyuv. 
 But apart from the fact that this ijyidv in the habitually used K vptog tyiuv em¬ 
 braces all Christians, and consequently avrav te teat y/uuv (fytiv being re¬ 
 ferred to Paul and Sosthenes) would express something quite self-evident, 
 and that, too, without any special significance of bearing, 2 the position of 
 the words is decisive against this view, and in favour of attaching them to 
 TravTi tottcl), to which they necessarily belong as a more precise definition. 
 Comp. Yulg. : “In omni loco ipsorum et nostro.' 1 ' 1 If, namely, cvv Traci . . . 
 T/ycov must denote the Achaean Christians out of Corinth (see above), then 
 ■jravTi TOTrif) requires a limitation to the geographical district which is intend¬ 
 ed. Now, this limitation is not already laid down by ev KopivOu (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 
 avTuv te ml hutiv, in such a way, namely, that avrebv refers to the Corinthians , 
 who, however, are indicated not by vyuv, but by avruv , because from the 
 point where the widening of the address (cvv Tract k.t.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 Ccnchreae, Rom. xvi. 1), was a place which be¬ 
 longed to the Corinthians , a Torrog aintiv, 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 ( avTibv ). As in 
 
 1 [The New Testament knows nothing of avrwv applies to the Corinthians. But in 
 
 two kinds of worship.—T. W. C.] fact, according to the view of Lucke and 
 
 2 It is supposed to convey a polemical Wieseler (see below), it cannot do so, but 
 reference to the party-divisions. See Wie- must apply to the other Achaeans. 
 
 seler, l.c. This can only be the case if 
 
12 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corihthiahs. 
 
 Rom. xvi. 13 avrov ml eyov delicately expresses the community of lore (comp, 
 also 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Philem. 11 ; Soph. El. 417 f. : narpog rov gov re mfiov), 
 so here avrtiv re ml y,ao)v 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 
 mi (as though it must be equivalent to elre) arises from a misunderstand¬ 
 ing ; it is the usual co-ordinating re mi, which here has not even the appear¬ 
 ance (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 100) of standing in place of elre. Comp., on 
 the contrary, Hartung, p. 101 ; Baeuml., Partik. p. 225. Observe, besides, 
 that re ml gives more rhetorical emphasis to the association of the two gen¬ 
 itives than the simple ml ; see Dissen, ad Pern, de cor. p. 165. Rabiger, 
 krit. Enters, p. 62 f., has assented to our view. 1 Comp, also Maier. Those 
 who join ovv ttcigl K.r.X. to tiigrolg ay. (see above) usually take avrkv re ml gy- 
 as an analysis of the idea Ttavrl : in every place, where they and where ice 
 (Paul and Sosthenes) are , i.e. elseiohere and here in Ephesus. See Calovius, 
 Riickert, de Wette, Osiander. But how meaningless this more precise ex¬ 
 planation of rcavrl would be ! In fact, it would be absurd ; for, since the 
 subject is all ( 7 ram n.r.i.), in which the ryieig are thus already included, an 
 analysis of it into avrol (which the rcdvreg are surely already) and y/ueig is 
 utterly illogical. This applies also in opposition to Becker, by whom the 
 rdrcog i/yuv is held to be Corinth , and to refer to the strangers who come to 
 Corinth. Others have, following Ambrosiaster, referred avruv to the heathen 
 lands , and fiytiv to Judaea (Erasmus, Sender, Bolten ; similarly Schrader). 
 Contrary to the text, as is also ‘Wetstein’s opinion : “ P. suum locum y ocat, 
 ubi ipse per praedicationem evangelii ecclesiam fundaverat. Tacite se at- 
 que Sosthenem . . . opponit peregrino falso doctori, qui in locum non suum 
 irrepserat.” Others refer ev iravrl . . . r/yuv to the different meeting-places 
 of the parties (Vitringa, Mosheim, Eichhorn, Krause, Pott, Ewald), so that 
 the roirog ryiuv 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 r6 tt. avruv 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. Bottger, l.c. p. 25, holds, strangely, that avruv applies to the Corin¬ 
 thian Christians, and r/yuv to those of Lower Achaia (among whom Paul is 
 supposed to have written ; see Introd. § 3) ; and Ziegler, that avriov applies 
 to those in Corinth, rjyuv to those staying with Paul in Ephesus, Stephanas, 
 Fortunatus, Achaicus (xvi. 17), and others. Hofmann propounds the pe¬ 
 culiar view that ml hytdv betokens that Paul Tvas at home , and felt himself 
 to be so , wherever Christ was invoked. As if the reader would have been 
 capable of deducing any such ubiquity of spiritual domicile from the sim- 
 
 1 Also Burger in his (popular) Auslegung , Erl. 1859, and Holtzmann, Judenthum u. Chris- 
 tenth. p. 749. 
 
CHAP. I., 3-5. 
 
 13 
 
 pie pronoun, and that, too, in the very address of the Epistle, without the 
 slightest hint from the connection. 
 
 Yer. 8. See on Rom. i. 7. 1 
 
 Yv. 4-9. Conciliatory preamble, by no means without real praise (Hofmann), 
 assuredly not ironical (Sender, 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 w T ith the character of Paul and with the words themselves, directed 
 to the church as a whole under a persuasion of the truth of its contents,— 
 brino’ino; forward first of all with true affection what was laudable, so far as 
 it existed, and lovingly leaving out of view for a time w 7 hat was blame¬ 
 worthy, but withal soberly keeping within the bounds of truth and tracing 
 all up to God. 
 
 Yv. 4, 5. Mon] 2 as in Rom. i. 8.— ndvrore] always , to be measured not 
 strictly by the literal import of the word, but by the fervour of Ids constant 
 love. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 2 f.; 2 Thess. i. 8. — eni] ground of the thanks, 
 Phil. i. 5 ; Polyb. xviii. 26. 4; Yalck. in loc. The grace of God, which had 
 been bestowed on them, is described more precisely in ver. 5 according to 
 its effects. — kv X. T.] i.e. 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. — on] that you, 
 namely, etc., epexegesis of enl t?) jap. k.t.X. — kv Ttavri] 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 kv (comp. 2 Cor. vi. 4), adds 
 the more precise definition chosen in reference to the state of things at 
 Corinth : kv navrl /Pyu k. naaij yvivast. : 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 a man4s dwarog yvtimv e^enrelv (Clem. 
 Cor. I. 48) ; and the latter, the inward endowment—are to be found wfith 
 you richly in every form. This view, according to which /Pyog is sermo, 
 occurs in substance in the Greek commentators, in Calovius, Ruckert, 
 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. JPoyog 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.fur 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. 25 f. Otherwise 
 it would always be tripartite , and, in par¬ 
 ticular, would not omit the characteristic 
 eAeos. Now, the only Epistles in which it 
 certainly occurs as tripartite, and with eAeos, 
 
 are the (post-Pauline) ones, 1 and 2 Tim. 
 and 2 John 3 ; also Jude 2 (but with a pecul¬ 
 iar variation). It was only at a later date 
 that the Aaronic blessing passed over into 
 Christian liturgic use Constitt. 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 16yog to be specially the donum linguarum, and yvuGtg 
 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 yhcjooaig lalelv (chap. xiv.). Lastly, as 
 to the running together of the two : ev tt day yvuoei rov "koyov (Schulz, Morus, 
 Rosenmiiller), the very repetition of the 7rdoy , and the difference in point of 
 idea between the two words, should have dissuaded its supporters from such 
 a view ; for hoy. and yvbtc. can as little be synonyms (Clericus, Pott) as “Ol 
 and P.1H . Clement also, 1 Cor. 1, praises the former condition of the church 
 with respect to rijv Teheiav nal aotpah?) y v u g t v . 
 
 Yer. 6. K aOd>g] According as, introduces the relation of that happy condi¬ 
 tion of things (ev izavrl ett'Xovt'lgQtite . . . yvcjGei) to its cause. See on John 
 xiii. 34, xvii. 2 ; 1 Cor. v. 7 ; Eph. i. 4 ; Phil. i. 7 ; Matt. vi. 12. — to 
 yapTvpiov tov X.] characteristic designation of the Gospel , the publishers of 
 which bear witness of Christ. Comp. 2 Tim. i. 8 ; Acts i. 8, iii. 15, ad.; 
 2 Thess. i. 10 ; 1 Pet. v. i. Comp. yapr. rov 9 eov, ii. 1. — e(3e(3cu&dtj] is ren¬ 
 dered by most : is confirmed , 1 has been accredited (Mark xvi. 20 ; Rom. xv. 
 8 ; Ileb. ii. 3, al.)\ comp, also Ruckert : “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 nadibg k.t.Tl. to the foregoing, as well as with 
 the fteftaiuGEi 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 rov hdyov ovk ejere yevovra ev vylv 
 (John v. 38). Comp. Billroth and de Wette. — ev vylv ] in animis vestris. 
 
 Yer. 7. Result of to yapr. r. X. e/3e/3. ev vylv, consequently parallel to ev 
 Trawl errhovr. ev avny. The negative expression yrj vGrepelGdat ev is conceived 
 quite after the analogy of the positive Trlovr'f. ev (see on ver. 5), so that ev 
 denotes that in which one is behind (defectively constituted). Hence : so 
 that ye in no gift of grace are behind (i.e. less rich than other churches.) 
 Comp. Plat. Pol. vi. p.‘484 D : yrjd' ev ahTup yr/devl yepei aperyg VGrrjpovvrag. 
 Ecclus. Ii. 24. The sense would be different, if the words were yydevog 
 Xciployarog (so that no gift of grace is lacking to you.) See Rom. iii. 22 ; Luke 
 xxii. 35 ; John ii. 3. Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 51. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 237 ; 
 ad Soph. Af 782. Xdpioya 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 irvevya ay tov (Rom. i. 11 ; 1 Cor. 
 vii. 7) ; not, with most of the older expositors, as well as Billroth, Ruckert, 
 Olshausen, Hofmann, in the narrower sense of the extraordinary gifts (chap, 
 xii. ff.). The proof of this is, first, that the immediately following cnreK.de- 
 Xoy. k.t.Tl.. makes the yrj vGrepelcdat ev yrjdevl x a P Ll ?y a ~ l appear as an ethical 
 endow T ment ; second, that the significant retrospective reference of the 
 aveyKkrjrovq in ver. 8 does not suit the x a P' LG P aTa i n narrower sense, 
 
 1 “ Non de confirmatione externa verbi, Calovius. Chrysostom understood it of 
 quae fit per miracula, sed de confirmatione both ; Theodoret, Theophylact, and others, 
 interna quae fit per testimonium Sp. St., ” of the miracles only. 
 
15 
 
 chap, i., 8. 
 
 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 svfficienter praeditum esse 
 to stand comparison with other churches.— cnreicdexoiu. k.t.X.] is a 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. iii. 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 a 
 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 censure the doubters (Grotius, Riickert), or 
 even to make ironical reference to the fancied perfection of the Corinthians 
 (Mosheim). The participial clause, which needed neither ug nor the article, 
 is not merely a temporal definition—consequently u for the time ” of the 
 waiting (Hofmann)—any more than at Tit. ii. 13 ; Rom. viii. 23 ; Jude 
 21. — aneaS. ] denotes the persevering expectation. See on Rom. viii. 19 ; 
 Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 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. 
 
 Yer. 8. r %] refers to T rjaov X., not, as Flatt, Pott, Billroth, Schrader, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Hofmann, with the majority of in¬ 
 terpreters, assume, to the far-distant Qs6g, ver. 4, — a view to which we are 
 not compelled either by the ’I pa. Xpcarov 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, al.). 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. — nat] also , 
 denotes that which corresponds to the anEK^exeaQai k.t.7 L, What Christ will 
 do. — (3e(3ciG)c>et :] cmjpitjet, Rom. xvi. 25 ; 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 21. The 
 future stands here not optatwely (Pott), but as expressive of a confident hope 
 in the gracious working of Christ. 1 — eog relovg] applies not to the end of life 
 
 1 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, rect censure ; as a hint that they were aa- 
 
 and others, find in this expression an indi- Aeuojaeyoi and ey/cAT^acn, vuv vn’o/cei/j.evoi.. A. 
 
16 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corinthiahs. 
 
 (Calovius, Flatt, and others), but, as the foregoing r. aironal. k.tA. and the 
 following kv ry yykpa k.t./ 1. clearly show, to the end of the pre-Messianie 
 period of the world’s history (the aluv ovrog , 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 awreleia tov altivog, Matt. xiii. 39 f., 
 xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20 ; comp. Heb. ix. 26. —avtytikrjTovq k.t A.] result of the 
 strengthening : so that ye shall l>e free from reproach in the day , etc. Comp. 
 
 1 Thess. iii. 13. See respecting this proleptic usage generally, on Matt, 
 xii. 13 ; Phil. iii. 21, and Jacob, Quaest. epic. ii. 4, p. 136 If. Stallb. ad 
 Plat. Pep. p. 560 D. — tov K vplov k.t./ 1 .] 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 
 1ST. T. (Winer, l.c. and p. 136 [E. T. 180]). Here (as at 2 Cor. i. 5 ; Eph. 
 i. 13 ; Col. i. 13 f., al.) it has solemn emphasis. Comp. ver. 21. 1 —It is to 
 be noted, moreover, that the blamelessness in the day of Christ (comp. 
 Rom. viii. 33) 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 If.), so that 
 the avkyslyToq at the Parousia appears not, indeed, as avayapTyToc ,, but as mivy 
 ktlclq kv XpicTti (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. 2 f. ; Phil. i. 10 f., and now receives the j3pa- 
 /3e~iov of his calling (Phil. iii. 14), the cTktyavog of the dimiocvvy (2 Tim. iv. 8), 
 in the 66£a of everlasting life. 
 
 Yer. 9. Ground of this confident hope. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 13 ; 1 Thess. 
 v. 24 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3 ; Phil. i. 6 ; Rom. xi. 29. Were the /3e/3aL>(nc on the 
 part of Christ (ver. 8) not to take place, the divine call to the kolvuvlo, tov 
 vlov avTov would remain without effect, which would not be compatible with 
 the faithfulness of God, from whom, the call comes, and w T ho, by His call¬ 
 ing, gives pledge to us of eternal salvation (Rom. viii. 30).—Rtickert finds 
 in dC ov, 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 vft ov, 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, k£ ov ml 
 tit' ov to, TcavTa (Rom. xi. 36) ; hence both modes of representation may oc¬ 
 cur, and did. may be used as well as vtto, 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 
 Pom. I. p. 15 ; Bernhardy, p. 235 f.—The Koivuvia tov viov civtov is the fel¬ 
 lowship with the Son of God (genitive, as in 2 Cor. xi. 13 ; Phil. ii. 1 ; 2 Pet. 
 i. 4), i.e. the participation in the filial relation of Christ, which, however, 
 
 view the more inappropriate, when we con- tie was the thought expressed with respect 
 sider how natural and familiar to the apos- to all his churches. 
 
CIIAP. I., 10 . 
 
 17 
 
 is not to be understood of the temporal relation of sonsbip, Gral. iii. 20 f. 
 (KOivcjviav yap viov rr/v viodeciav eKaksoe, Thcodoret), nor of ethical fel¬ 
 lowship (Grotius, Hofmann, and many others), but, in accordance with the 
 idea of the nakeiv which always refers to the Messianic kingdom, of fellow¬ 
 ship of the glory of the Son of God in the eternal Messianic life , 1 —a fellowship 
 which will be the glorious completion of the state of vioOeoia (Gal. iv. 7). It 
 is the do%a ruv tekvov tov Qeov (Rom. viii. 21), wdien they shall be ovyukr/povo- 
 fjLOL tov XpiGTOv , Gvppopfyoc of His image, ovpfiaoiixvovTEg and Gvvdo^acdkvTEC, 
 Rom. viii. 17 ; comp. vv. 23, 29 ; 2 Thess. ii. 14 ; Col. iii. 4 ; Phil. iii. 20 
 f. ; 1 Cor. 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. 13-16). 
 
 Ver. 10. “ Exhortation, however, lest ye miss this end of your calling, 
 exhortation I give to you,” etc. — abektyoi] 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. — 6ia tov ovopaTog n.r.k.] 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 set 
 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 Ghristi (Heu- 
 mann, Sender, Ernesti, and Rosenmuller), it would be expressed by kv ru 
 ovop. (v. 4 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6, al.). — Iva) design , and in this form of concep¬ 
 tion, contents of the irapaKaku, as in xvi. 12, 15 ; 2 Cor. viii. 6, ix. 5 ; 2 
 Thess. ii. 17, and often in the Synoptic Gospels. —to ovto kkyr/TE] 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 (yrs 
 6k KaTppTLGfi. k.t.X.) ; 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 this inward agreement, which Paul would have known 
 well how to express by to ovto (ppovelv (Rom. xv. 5 ; Phil. ii. 2 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 
 11), or in some similar correct way, and which, even in such passages as 
 Thuc. v. 31. 5, Polyb. ii. 62, is not expressed , but presupposed. More expres¬ 
 sive still is Polyb. v. 104. 1 : kkyeiv kv nal tovto , to speak one and the same 
 thing. — nal pi/ y kv vp. ox'iapaTa] the same thought in prohibitive form (comp. 
 Rom. xii. 14, al.), but designating the evil forbidden more generally, accord¬ 
 ing to its category. — t/te 6k K.r.k.] 6k, but rather, but on the 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 nal pi/ 
 k. t. k. — KaTT/pTtopkvoi ] fully adjusted, established in the right frame (Vulg. 
 perfecti ; Theophyl. teIelol). 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, biblische Theol. p. 310. 
 
18 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORIHTHIAHS. 
 
 mrdprioig is wanting (2 Cor. xiii. 9 ; comp. mrapriopog, Eph. iv. 12) ; hence 
 Greek writers also use mrapritieiv 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. iii. 10. Whether any figurative reference, 
 however, of mrypr. to the original sense of oxiopara , fissurae , be intended 
 (to make whole and good again what w T as broken or rent, comp. Matt. iv. 
 21 ; Mark i. 19 ; Esdr. iv. 12, 18, 16 ; Herod, v. 106), as Bos, Eisner, 
 Yalckenaer, 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 ofiapa 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). — kv re avrti volte, t A.] the sphere, 
 in which they were to be mrypr. Com/p. Heb. xiii. 21. Noftf and yvupy 
 differ as understanding and opinion. Through the fact, namely, that Chris¬ 
 tians in Corinth thought differently (vovg) on important matters, and in con¬ 
 sequence of this difference of thinking, formed in a partisan spirit different 
 opinions and judgments (yvupy), and fought for these against each other, the 
 to avro Xeyeiv was wanting and oxiapara prevailed. In opposition to this, 
 the Corinthians were to agree together in Christian thinking 1 and judging ; 
 the right state of things was to establish itself among them in dpovoelv and 
 opoyvupovelv (Thuc. ii. 97 ; Dem. 281. 21 ; Polyb. xxviii. 6. 2). In bptdeg, 
 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. 
 'Aucpiafiproven pbv yap ml 6 cl evvocav oi fiT^oi rolg QiAoig, epi^ovoi 6b ol 6ia(j>opoi 
 re ml bxOpol akAykoig, Plat. Prot. p. 337 B. Many other interpreters take 
 yvcjprj as referring to the practical disposition (to love ) ; whereas vovg denotes 
 the theoretical understanding. See Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, 
 who says : orav yap rpv avryv trior iv bx^pev, py ovvatrrcjpeda 6b Kara ryv ayarryv , 
 ra pbv avrd v o o v p e v , 6uorape6a 6b mra ryv y v 6 p y v . But this separation 
 between theory and practice is quite arbitrary ; and yvupy never means in 
 the N. T. “ disposition,” but always (even in Rev. xvii. 13, 17) sententia, 
 judicium. Comp, the classical ryg avryg yvupyg elvat, to have one and the same 
 view, Thuc. i. 113, iii. 70. Eur. Hec. 127 : ek ptag yvtbpyg , Dem. 147. 1 : 6ia 
 pidg yvupyg yiveodai , Isocr. Paneg. 38 : ryv avryv exclv yvupyv, Plat. Ale. 2, p. 
 139 A. The converse : kyivovro 6ixa ai yvupai , Herod, vi. 109. 
 
 Yer. 11. Motive for the foregoing exhortation .—vno ruv X16yg] 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 Yalckenaer understood u mortuae Chloes liber os others gen- 
 
 1 The sense of “ disposition ” is wrongly Maier). This is not the case even in Rom. 
 attributed to voCs (Riickert, Neander, i. 28, xii. 2 ; Eph. iv. 17 ; see in loc. 
 
CHAP. I., 12 . 
 
 19 
 
 erally, “ those of her household others, again, 11 slavesf as undoubtedly 
 such genitives are sometimes to be explained by doi/?iog (Schaef. ad Bos. Ell. 
 p. 117 f.) ; comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 60 A. Ghloe 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 Ephesian 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 hdr/lfady (comp. Col. i. 8) : u exemplum delationis bonae nec sine 
 causa celandae. ” It was in fact the fulfilment of a duty of love. 
 
 Yer. 12. Now what I mean (by this epideg h vfx.lv elcu) is this (which fol¬ 
 lows), that, etc. Regarding the explicative leyu, common also in Greek 
 writers, comp. Gal. iii. 17 ; Rom. xv. 8. Calvin and Beza understand it, 
 making tovto retrospective : I say this , because , etc. But, not to speak of 
 the less suitable meaning thus attained, tovto 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. ii. 4, a clause expressive of design follows. — 
 enaoTog] Each of you speaks in one of the forms following. Comp. xiv. 26. 
 Chrysostom says aptly : ov yap pepog, aTJa to tt av hrevepeTo Trjg en^rjalag r/ <p6opa. 
 — Nothing is to be supplied with the genitive Uavhov k.t.X., for elvat Ttvog 
 means to belong to any one , addictum esse. See Seidl. ad Eur. El. 1098 ; 
 Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 621 ; Winer, p. 184 [E. T. 243 f.]. — KqQa] The Jewish 
 name 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 II hpog em¬ 
 ployed by him ; hence the less may we regard Kijxjxd 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 
 XpcoTov and ver. 14 ff. invalidate at once the theory held by the Fathers 
 (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, see Rabi- 
 ger, hr it. Enters, 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. Exeg. I. p. 91 ; Baur in the Tub. 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 (Meander, 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 corihthians. 
 
 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 disjios- 
 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 : 1 2 “ 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 ilium praeferre doctorem, 
 aliis (recte quidem, 1 Cor. iii. 23) se Christi sectatores simpliciter appellan- 
 tibus” (Schott, Isag. 233). With respect to this, it is to be observed that 
 iii. 23 implies not the justification of those leyovref kyib tie Xpiarov, 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, (b) The theory invented by Baur 3 in behalf of 
 the antagonism between Paulinism and Petrinism (comp, also Lechler, p. 
 386) : that the same party called themselves both rove K^d, because Peter 
 had the primacy among the apostles of the Jews, and also rovg Xpiarov, 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 ; 4 
 that the Christ-party, in fact, were the most thoroughgoing disciples of 
 Peter (comp. Billroth and Credner, Einl. sec. 132 ; also Reuss, and especial¬ 
 ly Ilolsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 25 f.). (c) 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 ) Rabiger’s view, according to w T hich the 
 Christ-party is purely a creation of the exegetes, kyio Xpicrov being the ut¬ 
 terance common to the three parties ; so that all, indeed, professed allegiance 
 
 1 He, however, holds that Paul added 
 
 “eya/ Se Xpiurou” /cat oiKoOev ( i.e. a<t>' eavrov, 
 as Theophylact has it), PovXoyevov Papvrepov 
 to eyKXr/p-a noir/aai /cat be?£ai ovtio /cat rov 
 Xpiar'ov ets p-epos SoOevra ev, et /cat prj outws 
 e-noLovv tovto e/cetj/oi. Comp. also Theodoret, 
 who lays stress on the special wisdom of 
 this procedure. 
 
 2 The rightness of the confession: ey<b Se 
 
 Xpto-Tou, 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 
 Rabiger) the non-existence of a special Chris¬ 
 
 tine party from its non-mention. Origen 
 also does not quote the eyib be Xpiarov with 
 the rest of the passage in one instance, al¬ 
 though he does in another. 
 
 3 See Beyschlag, p. 225 ff.—nilgenfeld (see 
 his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 241) calls Baur’s disser¬ 
 tation of 1831, “ the ancestral stronghold of 
 our whole criticism.” If so, it is a ruin, 
 like so many other ancestral strongholds. 
 It could not so much as stand firm against 
 the simple words eytb be Xpiarov, into which 
 Baur put a meaning as if Paul had written : 
 eyoj be rtov anouToXuiv Xpiarov. The con¬ 
 fession eyw be Xpiarov 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 Xpiarov elvai. See also Hilgenfeld in his 
 Zeitschr. 1864, p. 165 f. 
 
CHAP. I., 12. 
 
 01 
 
 /v 
 
 to Christ, but the strife between them consisted in this, 1 £ 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 : li Et illi, qui a 
 Christo Cliristianos se dicebant, quatenus ab aliis seseper schisma separabant, illo 
 nomine sibi solum appropriate, schismatis rei erant.” Since they are ranked, 
 just as the others, under the category of the afapaTa and epideg (vv. 10, 11), 
 and their fault is set before them as before the others, ver. 13, by pepep. 6 
 Xpicrog , we cannot even characterize them, w T ith 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. § 1 ; also Riickert, Bleek, Einl ., 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, 1 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 ( Opusc . II. p. 252 ff.), adopted by 
 Rosenmuller, Krause, Hug, Heydenreich, and Flatt (comp, also Bertholdt, 
 Einl. YI. p. 3319), that they had called themselves tov Xpiarov, 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 ol tov ’I aK0)j3ov or 
 oi tov afietyov tov Kvpiov, 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 SchenkeVs 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 
 d. Kirche im apost. Zeitalter , p. 143 ff. He descent and of their having 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, etc. 
 
 Jerusalem and probably also from Rome, 
 
Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 22 
 /V 'V 
 
 ent’s Epistle. Sclienkel’s theory (defended also by Grimm in the Lit. Bl. 
 zur 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). 1 2 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 Dahne agree in substance with Schenkel, 
 seeking amidst differences in detail to prove the existence of Jewisli-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 Essene 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 monies 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 Essene 
 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 
 loth elements , as also were the adherents of Paul and 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 rov Xpicrov. This holds good in particular against 
 
 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¬ 
 rival in Corinth of our first Epistle. But 
 this is simply an unwarranted evasion. 
 
 2 According to Ewald’s Gesch. d. apost. 
 Zeit. p. 506 f., ed. 3, they readily allowed 
 themselves to be carried away by the zeal 
 
 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 is a 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, Dahne, Ivniewel, 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 1 makes in this manner to appear in the most damaging light, while 
 Osiander 2 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 j)recise historical acquaintance 
 with and information regarding Christ, whom they had known jDersonally, 
 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- 
 
 1 He 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. 
 
 2 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) 
 
 Yer. 13. MeyEpiorai 6 Xpiarog ] affirmative (with Lachmann and Kniewel ; 
 so rivig 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 
 Rabiger), just as forming a party, but not them alone (Hofmann). The in¬ 
 terrogatory rendering, common since Chrysostom : Is 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 yrj that the text, gives us to recognize the beginning of the 
 interrogative address. 2 Had Paul intended yeyep. 6 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 : rj Tlavkog ear. vtt. vy. The text, 
 I may add, gives no warrant for interpreting Xpiarog of the corpus Chr. 
 mysticum, i.e. the church (Estius, Olshausen, and others ; rivig in Theodoret), 
 or even of the doctrina Chr., which is not varia et multiplex (Grotius, Mos- 
 heim, Sender, Morus, Kosenmuller). —yg Havlog k.t* l.] Paul surely was not , 
 etc. 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 assent ; relata : redimere, se addicere.” The two 
 questions correspond to the mutual connection between believing and being 
 baptized. — invep] on behalf of, in the sense of atonement. 3 Comp, on Gal. i. 
 4 ; Eph. v. 2. — eig to ovoya ] 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 first of these two questions ; the 
 
 1 The conception is not that Christ is 
 broken up into parts or fragments, so that 
 the one party should possess this, the other 
 that, part (see Baur, de Wette, Riickert, 
 Calvin, etc., 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 
 conception corresponds, too, the eyoi Se 
 Xpurrov, instead of which it would not 
 have been necessary that it should run, 
 ejuoO 6 Xpurros - , as Hofmann objects. 
 
 3 [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 nepl v/xtov, instead of vnep 
 vp.<av, following only B D* ; too weakly at¬ 
 tested, and deserving of rejection also on 
 this ground, that Paul always uses vnep 
 (even in 1 Thess. v. 10) where the death of 
 Christ is placed in relation to persons, for 
 whom He died. Comp, on xv. 3, which is 
 the only certain passage in Paul’s writings 
 where vnep occurs with an abstract term. 
 See also Wieseler on Gal. i. 4. 
 
chap, i., 14-17. 25 
 
 answer to it was so self-evident. But as to the second, the apostle has some 
 remarks to make, vv. 14-16. 
 
 Yv. 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 
 w r as 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 
 to place the persons concerned u 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 eyed yev elyi Uavhov is, because it would have 
 such absurd premisses. — Kp'unrov] See Acts xviii. 8. — Taiov] See on Rom. 
 xvi. 23. — iva yf\ is never elsewhere, and is not here, to be taken as : so 
 that not , but it denotes the design, arranged in the divine providential lead¬ 
 ing, of the ovdeva vy. efianTica (comp. ver. 17 ; 2 Cor. i. 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 Xoittov ovk olda n.r.h. Regarding 
 Stephanas, we know nothing save from xvi. 15, 17. — Aotnov is the simple 
 ceterum, otherwise , besides that. Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 1 Thess. iv. 1 ; fre¬ 
 quent in Greek writers also after Polybius. 
 
 Yv. 17-31. Paul justifies the simplicity of his icay 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 yap . . . 
 evayy.), 1 and theme of the section (ovk kv coepia . . . Xpicr-ov).—ov yap /c.r.A.] 
 
 1 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 baptizers (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 apostolic vn-g- 
 pkrai (Acts xiii. 5), in order to avoid, for his own part, being drawn away 
 from following out 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. 1 — ov . . . dAA’] is not here, 
 any more than elsewhere, to be taken as equivalent to non turn . . . quam 
 (Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Estius, Storr, Rosenmuller, Flatt, Pott, and others ; 
 comp, also Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 785), but absolutely (see Winer, p. 461 if. 
 [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 (Ruckert, comp. Buttmann, neut. Or. 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 (elg gev yap to gefov aireo- 
 rakg, cnro fie rov nal to CXottov evepyelv ovk hiuTivdp, Theophylact), but sent in 
 order to baptize he was not. Comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophy¬ 
 lact. — ovk h ao(j>tg Aoyou] does not belong to air ear. (Storr, Flatt), which 
 would be an involved construction, but links itself closely to evayyeM&aOai, 
 as telling in what element that does not take place. The negation is objec¬ 
 tive, attaching to the object (Kiihner, II. § 714. 1 ; Baeumlein, Partite. p. 
 257 if.), negativing actually the kv aofig : hence not gg. That aofia loyov is 
 not the same as "Xoyog oocpoq , A. Geootyioghog (Erasmus, Grotius, and many 
 others, including Flatt and Pott), but emphasizes aotyla 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, Rosenmuller, Flatt, and others), 
 but toth eform, 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 evayyePfeciOai —which 
 
 1 According to Ritschl, althath. Kirche, p. 
 369, baptism was performed on the others 
 by those three, who themselves had been 
 first baptized by Paul, and who had be¬ 
 come overseers. Against this view it may 
 be at once urged, that if he had regarded 
 
 the baptism of those three in that light, 
 Stephanas would not have occurred to him 
 only by way of afterthought. Besides, there 
 must have been baptized converts there be¬ 
 fore a presbytery could be erected. Comp. 
 Acts xiv. 23. 
 
CHAP. I., 18. 
 
 27 
 
 is in truth given for all cases alike—without casting it in any philosophic 
 mould; his speech was not to be kv croft?, 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 
 pi/ icevioOy k.t.X.] aim of the evayy. ovk kv oocf). A. : in order that the cross of 
 Christ might not be emptied (comp. Rom. iv. 14) of its essence divinely effectual 
 for salvation (Rom. i. 16). The cross of Christ —that Christ was crucified 
 (and thereby won salvation for us),—this fact alone was the pure main sub¬ 
 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 w r ay of inward living experience, 
 bringing to nought all human wisdom (vv. 18, 19 ff.). Now, had the cross 
 of Christ been preached kv cotyia hoyov, it wrnuld 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, 
 wrnuld have exalted it and made it come, totally alien in nature as it w r as, 
 in place of itself. Bengel says well : 1 ‘ Sermo autem crucis nil heterogeneum 
 admittit.' 1 ' 1 — With marked emphasis, 6 OTavpog tov XpccTov is put last. 
 
 Yer. 18. Establishment of the foregoing iva yfj . . . XpioTov. 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 a iva yy nevudy 
 of its substance, the cross of Christ, as the aim of the evayy. ovk kv a. A. — 
 The kart with the dative expresses the actual relation in wdiich the loyog 
 stands to both ; it is for them in fact (not, as might be thought, simply in 
 their judgment') the one and the other. — roig cnroXXvy.] to those who are sub¬ 
 ject to (eternal) aircjHeia. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 15, iv. 3 ; 2 Thess. ii. 10. The 
 present participle 1 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 roig oo(oy., those who are saved unto 
 Messianic bliss, (b) From xv. 2, Rom. v. 9, 10, viii. 24, al. , also Eph. ii. 5-8, 
 the former mode of conceiving it seems to be the correct one ; comp. ii. G. 
 Paul designates in this way the believers and unbelievers, airb tov rklovg rag 
 Tzpoor/yopiag rcdeig, Theodoret. He has certainly (Rtickert) 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. — yupia] 
 This doctrine is to them (to their conscious experience) an absurdity (yopia 
 ts Kal , ahoyia, Plat. Epin. p. 983 E; Dem. 397, pen.). Why ? see ver. 22. 
 Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 3. Billroth’s answer is un-Pauline. — yyiv] is not put last 
 out of modesty (Billroth), but because the emphasis of the contrast lies on 
 the idea of roig out^oy. Comp. Eur. Phoeniss. 1738. Pors. : ekavveiv tov 
 yepovTa y' Ik naTpag. — dvvayig 0eoi>] Comp, on Rom. i. 16. That doctrine is 
 
 1 Bengel’s ingenious exposition: “qui bivio , et nunc aut perit aut salvatur,” is 
 evangelium audire coepit, nec ut perditus wrecked on the word ^ h>, which the audire 
 nee ut salvus habetur, sed est quasi in coeyit does not suit. 
 
28 
 
 Paul’s eibst epistle to the coeihthiahs. 
 
 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 ootpla Qeov, and is also logically cor¬ 
 rect ; for dvva/Lug Qeov necessarily presupposes the opposite of yupia, because 
 the power of God brings about enlightenment, repentance, sanctification, 
 love, peace, hope, etc. Comp. Ignat, ad Eph. 18, where it is said of the 
 cross, that it is to us curggia k. aluviog. 
 
 Yer. 19. Establishment from Scripture of the foregoing rolg be cu^oy. k.t.1. : 
 for were the word of the cross not God's power for the mo^oyevoi, 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, 1 recognizes a prediction of the 
 j)owerful 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 aofa and 
 avveoig ( intelligence ), see on Col. i. 9. 
 
 Yer. 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. iii. 27) is : clean gone are all sages, scribes, and disputers of this 
 icorld-period (they can no more hold their ground, no longer assert them-v 
 selves, have, as it were, vanished) ; God has made the world's wisdom to be 
 manifest folly ! As the 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 k^enbeiodri is the answer to the ttov ; according to classi¬ 
 cal usage, Yalckenaer, ad Eur. Phoen. 1662. Ewald holds ver. 20 to be a 
 citation from a lost book ; but we are not necessarily shut up to this conclu¬ 
 sion by the ypayyarevg, although the term does not occur elsewhere in Paul’s 
 writings, for this exclamation might easily have been suggested to him by 
 the ypayyaruioi of Isa. xxxiii. 18. The three substantives cannot well be 
 taken as alluding to the synagogal phrases "'2D *7Dn and (Lightfoot, 
 
 Yitringa), since Paul was not wonting 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 wdiat 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 
 
 tt/v an(j>lav represents all the three ideas put together ; that ypa/upaTsvg, again, 
 is always (excepting Acts xix. 35) used in the X. 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 av^T/TT/rrjg (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 gv^tjteu (Mark viii. 11, ix. 14 ; Luke xxiv. 15 ; 
 Acts vi. 9, ix. 29, al.) and avp';rr/atg (Acts xv. 2, 7, xxviii. 29) ; and further, 
 that disputing was especially in vogue among the Sophists (ol oldpevoi tt avr 
 eidevai , Xen. Mem. i. 4. 1). And on these grounds we conclude that go^oq 
 is to he taken of human wisdom in general, as then pursued on the Jewish side 
 hy the scribes, and on the Hellenic side by the sophistical disputers , so that, in 
 this view, ypaya. and av^rjr. are subordinated, to the general go^oq in respect 
 to matters of Jewish and Hellenic pursuit. Many exegetes (Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Tlieophylact, Oceumenius, and others, including Storr, Rosen- 
 muller, Flatt, Billroth) depart from the view now stated in this respect, that 
 they would limit ootpog to the heathen philosophers, 1 which, however, is pre¬ 
 cluded by the co<j>iav embracing all the three elements (comp, alsover. 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 : clev¬ 
 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 ypayy. nothing else than a name for the cotyoL of their people. Schra¬ 
 der, w T ith older expositors (see below), understands by av^r/r. 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 gv&t. could only denote 
 a fellow-inquirer (comp, gv^telv in Plat. Men. p. 90 B, Crat. p. 384 C ; Diog. 
 L. ii. 22), which would be without pertinence here ; while, on the other 
 hand, according to our view, the avv finds its reference in the notion of dis- 
 putare. — rov aiuv. tovtov] attaches to all the three subjects : who belong to 
 the pre-Messianic period of the world ( u quod totum est extra sphaeram verbi 
 crucis,” Bengel), and are not, like the Christians, set apart by God from the 
 viol rov aiuvog tovtov to be members of the Messianic kingdom, in virtue 
 wdiereof they already, ideally considered, belong to the coming aiuv. 
 Comp. ver. 27 ; Gal. i. 4 ; Col. i. 13 ; Phil. iii. 20 ; Rom. xii. 2. Luther 
 and many others take tov aiuv. r. as referring simply to gv^t. ; 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 aiuv ovvog (as Riickert 
 and Billroth) ; others render : indagator rerum naturae, physical philosopher 
 (Erasmus, Beza, Drusius, Cornelius a Lapide, Justiniani, Grotius, Clericus, 
 and Valckenaer), which is quite contrary to the invariable sense of aiuv ovt. 
 — epupavev] emphatically put first : made foolish, i.e. from the context, not : 
 He has made it into incapacity of knowledge (Hofmann), wdiich would come 
 in the end to the notion of callousness , but : He has shown it practically to be 
 
 1 In consequence of this, has and heathen dialecticians. See especially 
 
 been regarded as comprising the Jewish Theodoret. 
 
30 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 folly , “insaniens sapientia” (Hor. Od. i. 34. 2), oofta aaoQog (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 gopooocpoc, Lucian, Alex. 40), and put to shame (ver. 27), 
 since the Kypvyga, held by them to be foolish , is that which brings salvation , 
 not indeed to them, but to those who believe ; Ttoia yap aofta, orav to netyahaiov 
 tcov ayadcbv gy evpiony ; Chrysostom. Comp. Isa. xliv. 25, where gupaivuv is to 
 be taken in precisely the same way as here. — rov hog gov] i.e. of profane non- 
 Christian humanity, the two halves of which are the Jews and the heathen, 
 vv. 22-24. 
 
 Yer. 21. More detailed explanation as to this egupavev 6 Qeog k.t.X., 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 icorld 
 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 ( ev ry goQ. t. Qeov ovk eyvo 6 Koag. t. Qeov ), —did not attain by the 
 means which they employed, by their wisdom, namely (Ad ryg oofiag), 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. — ev ry oofia t. 0eot>] 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 ev Paul marks out the 
 sphere , in which the negative fact of the ovk. eyvu (“in media luce,” Calvin) 
 took place ; tov Qeov again is genitive subjecti , 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. 1 Riickert is 
 wrong in holding that ev r. oo<p. r. Qeov 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 ev . . . Qeov, which on Ruckert’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 eluded with the rest in the notion of the 
 many others, including Hofmann). For koct/uos. 
 
CHAP. I., 22 . 
 
 31 
 
 cant relation between the protasis and apodosis, according to which the 
 measure taken by God ( ev66kj]gev k.t.X.) appears as called forth by men's 
 lack of knowledge, and hence the ovk eyvu 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 .—ovk eyvu] 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 Kooyog had reached it, would have caused 
 the preaching of the cross to appear other than foolishness ; comp. ii. 14. — 
 6ea rrjg oocp. ] 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 ovk the whole from eyvo to Qeov inclusive is negatived) by the Koopog for 
 the knowing God. The prepositional relation cannot differ from that of the 
 correlative 6ta r. popiag which follows. Hence Theophylact interprets 
 wrongly : 6ia rf/g ev ehyXiorria Oecopovpkvrjg oofag epnoddfSpevoi. So, too, Bill¬ 
 roth : “ their own wisdom was the cause of their not knowing. — ev66kt]gev 
 6 0.] placuit Deo, He pleased, it was His will, as Rom. xv. 26 ; Gal. i. 15 ; 
 Col. i. 19 ; 1 Thess. ii. 8. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 370. — 6ia rrjg pupiag 
 tov KTjpvyp., i.e. 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 Koapog 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 nioTevovTag, which word, as solving the riddle 
 of the divinely applied pupta, stands emphatically at the end. For to the 
 conscious experience of believers that resultless wisdom of the world is now 
 foolishness , and the foolishness of the Kjpvypa 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 go fa and Qe6g, 1 ‘ quasi aliquod telum saepius perven.iat in ean- 
 dem partem corporis,” Auct. ad Ilerenn. iv. 28. 
 
 Yer. 22 f. 1 Protasis (kneed}]) and apodosis (juelg 6k) parallel to the protasis 
 and apodosis in ver. 21 : since as well Jews desire signs as Hellenes seek after 
 wisdom, we, on the other 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 'lovdaloe k. "'Eillriveg is just the notion of the k6g/io g broken up; orjpela 
 aiTovoc and oofav f]T. is the practical manifestation of the ovk eyvu . . . tov 
 Qeov ; and lastly, ppelg 6e Kr/pvooouev k.t.X. contains the actual way in which 
 the £v66k7]gev 6 Qeog /c.r.X. was carried into effect. And to this carrying into 
 effect belongs in substance ’lovdaioig pkv oaavdalov k.t.A. down to oofav, 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 
 nal . . . Kai includes not only the two subjects 'lovdaloi and "~EJfoiveg, 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. — i/yelg 
 
 1 Yer. 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. 
 
 6e] This (if, on the contrary , on the other hand , is the common classical fik of 
 the apodosis (Acts xi. 17), which sets it in an antithetic relation correspond¬ 
 ing to the protasis. See Ilartung, PartiJceU , I. p. 184 f.; Baeumlein, PartiTc. 
 p. 92 f. ; Bornem. Act. ap. I. p. 77. Examples of this usage after ette'l and 
 ettelSt] may he 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 eTCEidr/ 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 etcel6tj . . . £ijrovcuv introduce a 
 second protasis after evdos. 6 Qeof, but also to Hofmann’s, that vv. 22-24 are 
 meant to explain the emphasis laid on rove 'klgtevovtcic, ; as likewise to the 
 view of Riickert and de Wette, that there is here added an explanation of 
 the dia Tijq fiopiag /c.r.A., in connection with which Riickert arbitrarily 
 imagines a yev supplied after ’I ovdaioi. — ’lovdaioi and "EiU rjveg without the 
 article, since the statement is regarding what such as are Jews , etc., are wont, 
 as a rule, to desire. — aiyiela] Their desire is, that He on whom they are to 
 believe should manifest Himself by miraculous signs , w T hich 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 
 crjiiela (Rom. xv. 18 f.; 2 Cor. xii. 12). What the Jews desired in place of 
 these were miraculous signs by which the crucified , 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 1). Comp. 
 Reiclie, Comment, crit. I. p. 123 f. To take, wfith Hofmann, the crjyela 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 cr/yelov (see the critical 
 remarks) to be adopted, we should have to understand it of some miracle 
 specifically accrediting the Messiahship ; not, with Schulz, Valckenaer, 
 Eichliorn, and Pott, of the illustrious person of an earthly rider. 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 aofiav, nor 
 is it so even by X. ecravp. in ver. 23. See on the latter verse. — alrovat ] is 
 the demand actually uttered (that there be given ); proven the seeking after 
 and desiring, anquirere (correlative : Evpianecv).—Xpicrov karavp.] Christ as 
 crucified (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. — esavdahov] in opposition to X. karavp. As cru¬ 
 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.— yupiav] because philosophy is w r hat they 
 desire as a guide to salvation ; therefore to believe in Christ (not as one of 
 
chap, i., 24 , 25 . 
 
 33 
 
 the wise of this world, but) as crucified, is to them a folly, an absurdity ; 
 whereby, indeed, their own oopia becomes yupia napa r. 0c<p, iii. 19. 
 
 Yer. 24. Along with Xpiordv, which is triumphantly repeated, w r e are men¬ 
 tally to supply Kppvoooyev : 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, 1 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. 30. Hofmann’s construction, making Xpiorov to be in apposition 
 to Xpiorov koravp ., would be logically correct only on one of two suppositions : 
 either if in ver. 23 there stood merely eoravpoyevov without Xpiorov ( u a cruci¬ 
 fied one . . . who is to them Christ "); or if, in ver. 24, some more precise 
 definition, such as ovrivg or aApdug, were given along with Xpiorov. — avroig ] 
 is not the Us pointing back to rovg rnorevovrag, so that rolg k Iprolg would be in 
 apposition to it (Hofmann) ; for in that case, notwithstanding the harsh and 
 distant retrospective reference, avroig would in fact be entirely superfluous ; 
 but the words avroig 6e rolg nlprolg —the avroig 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 avroig denotes 
 the called themselves (Herm. ad Viger. p. 733), in contrast to those round 
 about them still remaining in unbelief (’I ovdaloig . . . yoptav). Instead of 
 r. nhprolg, we might have had rolg tuctevovoiv (ver. 21); but how natural it 
 was that the Qeov 6vvay.iv /c.r.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 
 vikprog , see on ver. 2. 2 That Paul did not write pyiv , is to be accounted for 
 on the ground of its being unsuitable to the ttppvoo. , which is to be here 
 again understood ; not, as Riickert thinks, because it seemed to him too 
 hard to oppose py. to ’lord, and eOveoi. — Qeov 6vv. k. 6. oop.] To all the tihproi 
 Christ is loth. But the words are formally parallel to the two former de¬ 
 mands in ver. 22 ; hence dvvaytv is put first. Respecting oopiav, comp, on 
 ver. 30. 
 
 Yer. 25. Confirmation of the Qeov 6vv. k. Qeov oop. by a general prop¬ 
 osition, the first half of which corresponds to the Qeov oopiav , and the sec¬ 
 ond to the Qeov Ivvayiv. — ro yupov rov Gt'ou] the foolish thing which comes 
 from Godf i.e. what God works and orders, and which appears to men ab- 
 
 1 For 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). 
 
 2 Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. p. 314 (ed. 
 Paris. 1641) : navriov avOpuniov KeKArjpevMV oi 
 viranovcrai Pov\rj0euT€<; kA r/roi u>vop.acr6r)(jav. 
 
 These also are the a-^opevot, ver. 18 ; the 
 Opposite is the an-oAAv/Aero t. 
 
 3 This, according to the well-known use 
 in Greek of the neuter with the genitive 
 (Poppo, ad Thuc. VI. p. 168 ; Kiihner, II. p. 
 122), might also be taken as abstract: the 
 foolishness of God—the iveakness of God. 
 So to fxwpov, Eur. ffipp. 966. But Paul had 
 the concrete conception in his mind ; other¬ 
 wise he would most naturally have used the 
 abstract piopia employed just before. The 
 meaning of the concrete expression, how¬ 
 ever, is not: God Himself \ in so far as lie is 
 foolish (Hofmann); passages such as 2 Cor. 
 
34 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 surd. Comp, to g orr/piov r. Qeov, Luke ii. 30. — tov avOpoirov] We are not 
 to amplify this, with the majority of interpreters (including Beza, Grotius, 
 Valckenaer, Zachariae, Flatt, Pott, Heydenreich, and de Wette), into tov 
 g o (j> o v tov avdpoir., after a well-known abbreviated mode of comparison 
 (see on Matt. v. 20 ; John v. 36), which Estius rightly censures here as 
 coactum (comp. Winer, p. 230 [E. T. 307]), because we should have to 
 supply w T ith tov avdp. 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. — to aadeveg 
 tov Qeov] 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 to popbv and to aadeveg tov Qeov , 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. 
 
 Yer. 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 
 popov tov Qeov 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 wfisdom, to help that wddch now appears as the 
 popov t. Qeov to victory over the foolishness of the world. This holds, too, 
 as against de Wette, who (comp, also Hofmann) makes yap refer to the 
 whole series of thoughts, vv. 19-25, notwithstanding that the expressions 
 here used attach themselves so distinctly to ver. 25. — imperative. 
 
 As such it has with logical correctness its hortatory emphasis ; 1 but not so, 
 if we take it as indicative (Valla, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Ben- 
 gel, Rosenmuller, and Schrader).— tl/v kXt/glv vgov] is not to be taken ar¬ 
 bitrarily, with Beza, Estius, Mosheim, Semler, Rosenmuller, and Pott, pro 
 concreto , for vpag tovq Klr/Tovg, 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 fL). Krause and Olshausen run counter to 
 the specific Christian sense of the word, and even to the general linguistic 
 usage (see on vii. 20), when they make it mean, like the German word 
 “ Beruf” [calling], the vitae genus, the outward circumstances.— otl] 
 equivalent to eig knelvo, otl, in so far, namely, as. Plat. Prot. p. 330 E, Crat. 
 p. 384 C, ad. John ii. 18, ix. 17, xi. 51 ; 2 Cor. i. 18, xi. 10 ; Mark xvi. 
 14 ; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 248 f. — ov nolloi cocpol k. g.] that not many (among 
 you) are wise in the eyes of men, etc. It is enough to supply the simple eIgl, 
 making ov t toaa., i.e. but few, the subject, and 00 $. the predicate ; and there is 
 
 iv. 17, Rom. i. 19, ii. 4, viii. 3, are no proof of 
 this.—As to the different accentuations of 
 ./tuijpo? and p.wpo 5 , see Lipsius, grammat. 
 Unters. p. 25; Gottling, Accentl. p. 304. 
 
 1 The yap is not against our taking it as 
 imperative ; Greek writers, too, use it with 
 that mood, as e.g. Soph. Phil. 1043 : a^sre yap 
 
 avTOV. 
 
chap, i., 27 , 28 . 
 
 35 
 
 no need for introducing an eK/J/Or/oav (so commonly ), according to which ov k. a. 
 together would be the subject. Kara capua, specifying the kind and manner of 
 the a o<j>ia, marks it out purely human , and distinguishes it from the Christian 
 wisdom which proceeds from the Holy Spirit. For oap% comprises the sim¬ 
 ply human element in man as opposed to the divine principle. Comp, eocpla 
 captaKT], 2 Cor. i. 12 ; eofta 'ipvxtK., Jas. iii. 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 eotyla tov Kooyov , ver. 20 , and the c. rov aluvog tovtov , ii. 6 , are the same. 
 — SwaroL ] We are not to supply Kara adpKa here again ; for that was essen¬ 
 tially requisite only with aocpoi , 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. — evyevelg ] 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 in a circle. But this is 
 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 , wdio 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. 
 
 Yv. 27 , 28 . Expanded (see rov Koapov and Traaa oap%, ver. 29 ) statement of 
 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. 13 f.; Rom. viii. 30 , ix. 23 
 f. — ra pupa rov Koapov] 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, Rosenmuller, Flatt, and Billroth) take the gen¬ 
 itive as : according to the judgment of the world. Against this maybe 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 acd. and ayev., 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. a. Karaiax-] 
 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 e^el. 6 Qe6g, 
 beside the three contrasts of co<j>oi, fivvaroi , and evyevelg ver. 26 ), carries with 
 it a triumphant emphasis. — ra pi/ ovra ] The contrast to evyevelg is brought 
 out by three steps forming a climax. This third phrase is the strongest of 
 all, and sums up powerfully the two foregoing ones by way of apposition 
 
Paul’s first epistle to the corintiiians. 
 
 30 
 
 (lienee ■without Ka'i) : the non-existent, i.e. what was as utterly worth nothing 
 as if it had not existed at all (Winer, p. 451 [E. T. 608]). Comp. Eur. Hec. 
 284 : ijv t:6t\ aXXa vvv ovk elf en. Dem. 248. 25 ; Plat. Crit. p. 50 B ; and 
 Stallbaum thereon. The subjective negation yij 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 ri to 
 T« ovra (as if gpdev elvai had been used before), but to explain it : the exist¬ 
 ent, what through repute, fortune, etc., is regarded as that which is ( kcit ’ k%o- 
 xvv). Comp. Pflugk, ad Hec. I.e. : “ ipsum verbum elvai cam vim habet, ut 
 significet in aliquo numero esse, rebus secundis florere.” — mrrjpy. ] Not 
 Karate r^. again, because the notions yrj elvai and elvai 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). 
 
 Yer. 29. Final aim, to which is subordinated the mediate aim expressed 
 by the thrice-repeated Iva k.t.I. —oirug /ur) Kavx . rcaca aap^] 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 naoa a. p^3 _L ?7>): that every man 
 may abstain from boasting himself. Comp. Fritzsche, Hiss, in 2 Cor. II. p. 24 
 f. Regarding oap% as a designation of man in his weakness and imperfection 
 as contrasted with God, see on Acts iii. 17. — evuir. r. Qeov ] Rom. iii. 20 ; 
 Luke xvi. 15, al. No one is to 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. 
 
 Yer. 30 f. In contrast (J>e) to the omog yr/ Kavx • 7r - a - evmtuovt. Qeov, we have 
 now the true relation to God and the true and right Kavxaodai 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. — ef avrov ] has the principal emphasis : 
 From no other than God is derived the fact that you are in Christ (as the 
 element of your life). ’E£ denotes the causal origination. Comp. Eph. ii. 
 8 : ovk £% vytiv, Qeov to dibpov, also in profane writers : ek Oeibv, ek A i6g 
 (Yalckenaer, ad Herod, ii. 13) ; and generally, Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 460]. 
 While Hofmann here, too, as in ver. 28, introduces into elvai 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 ££ avrov de vyelg egte by itself in such a way as to make it 
 express sonship with God (comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 553), and regard ev 
 as conveying the more precise definition of the mode whereby this sonship 
 is attained : naideg avrov hare, dia rov Xpicrrov rovro yevdyevoi, Chrysostom ; 
 comp. Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Ewald, and others. 
 But wrongly ; for the conception ek Qeov elvai 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 elvai ev Xpiorti was a conception so habitually in use 
 (Rom. xvi. 7, 11 ; 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. i. 22, al.), that it must have occurred 
 ef itself here also to the reader ; besides, the and Qeov which follows answers 
 
CHAP. I., 30 . 
 
 37 
 
 to the e£ avTov. This applies, too, against Osiander, who, after ef avrov, 
 mentally supplies yeyevijyEvoL : “being born of God, ye are members of 
 Christ.” — vyelg] with emphasis : ye for your part, ye the chosen out of the 
 world. — og kyevrjdrj . . . anoAvTpwmg] brings home to the heart the high 
 value of that God-derived elvat ev XptGTti : who has become to us from God 
 wisdom, righteousness and holiness , and redemption. ’Eycvi/Orj is simply a later 
 (Doric) form for eyevero (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 w r as of primary importance in the connection of ver. 19 
 IT.,— 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. 3) ; righteous¬ 
 ness , for by means of faith we are through the Lord’s atoning death consti¬ 
 tuted righteous before God (Rom. iii. 24 f., 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. iii. 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 ( po<j>ia ) 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 first place positively as dtKaiocvvr] and ayiao/u6g, 
 but then also—as though in triumph that there was now nothing more to 
 fear from God— negatively as airohvTpumg, 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 anoAvTp. we should not 
 (with Chrysostom) abide by the general cnrrjPAa^ev r/uag euro iravrov tuv kcikuv , 
 wdiich is already contained in what goes before ; nor again should we, with 
 Grotius, Calovius, Riickert, Osiander, Neander, and others (comp, also 
 Schmid, bibl. Theol. II. p. 325 ; and Lipsius, Paulin. Rechtfertigungslehre , p. 
 8), make it the final redemption from death and all evils , such as is the object 
 of khrig, 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 rf/g 
 7TEpnToi7/G£ug, in iv. 30 by r/yepav , and in Rom. viii. 23 by rov acj/uarog. Riickert 
 (comp. Neander) is further of opinion that buicuocvvr] /c.r./L is merely explana¬ 
 tory of how far Christ is to us oof La, namely, as dutacoGvvrj, dytaapbg, and enro- 
 7>vrp., and that these three refer to the three essential things in the Christian 
 life, faith, love, and hope : there binding together the last three words and 
 separating them from the first. But (1) the re links closely together only 
 dacaioo. and dyiaay., and does not include cnro?i. ; much less does it separate 
 the three last predicates from aofia ; 1 on the contrary, re k ai embraces Slk. 
 
 1 With cro<l>ia the tc has nothing whatever to do. Hofmann makes it serve as a link 
 
38 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 and ay., as it were, in one, so that then aTzolvrpuaig comes to be added with 
 the adjunctive nai as a separate element, and consequently there results the 
 following division : {a) wisdom, (b) righteousness and holiness, and ( c ) 
 redemption. See as to this use of re nat . . . nai, Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 
 102 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 878 f. ; Baeumlein, Partile. p. 224 f. (2) 
 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 ug or a participle. (3) According 
 to the correct interpretation, cnroXvrp. is not something yet future, but some¬ 
 thing which has already taken place in the death of Christ, (d) Bos ( Ohs. Misc. 
 p. 1 ff.), Alethius, Clericus, Nosselt ( Opusc. II. p. 127 if.), Yalckenaer, and 
 Krause interpret in a still more involved way, holding that only the words 
 from og to Qeov apply to Christ, and these are to be put in a parenthesis ; 
 while dtKcuoGvvT} ic.t.X. are abstracta pro concretis (2 Cor. v. 21), and belong to 
 vuelg here : “ Ejus beneficio vos estis in Christo Jesu 6maioawrj k.t.) 1.,” 
 Yalckenaer. How ambiguous and unsuitable would such a statement as og 
 eyev. cotpia k.t.%. be for a mere parenthetical notice ! — a7ro 0eoi>] on God's part, 
 by God as the author of the fact. Comp. Herod, vi. 125 : ano 6e ’A lupa'iiv- 
 vog . . . eyevovro nal aapra \apirpot. See generally, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
 I. p. 194 ; Winer, p. 348 [E. T. 464] ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 280 [E. T. 
 325]. That it belongs to eyevrjdrj, and not to aofia , is proved by the rjplv 
 which stands between. The latter, however, is not to be understood, with 
 Ruckert, as though it ran rj rjperepa cocpia (“ what to the Hellene his aofia is, 
 or is merely assumed to be, namely, the ground of confidence,— that Christ 
 is to us”), else Paul must have written : og rjp.lv eyevrjOrj i) aofia with the arti¬ 
 cle, and have placed rjplv first with the emphasis of contrast. — Observe 
 further, that Paul has said vpelg 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 vpelg, we have the rjplv including him¬ 
 self and others. 
 
 Yer. 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 KavxaoOai : 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 K vpcog is not Christ (Ruckert) but God, and not Christ and God (Hof¬ 
 mann), is proved by the emphatic e% avrov, ver. 30, and evuir. r. Qeov, ver. 
 29. Comp, on 2 Cor. x. 17.—The apostle quotes Jer. ix. 24, abbreviating 
 quite freely, after the LXX. The construction , however, is anacoluthic ; 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 cro^ca. In that case, Paul must have written <ro<J>ux re <al Si/catoo-. k. 
 
 ay. k. a7ToA. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 39 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (a) The factions. Vv. 11-13. 
 
 On tlie 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 w r as 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.” Yer. 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 to the Corinthians. 
 
 meaning in any given case. In the LXX. the present passive and the perfect 
 passive participle of the verb cu& are used as precisety equivalent. (Compare 
 Jer. xliv. 14 with xlii. 7, and Isaiah xlv. 20 with lxvi. 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 Peter i. 9, “Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls”; 
 Rom. viii. 24, “ We are saved in hope, but hope that is seen is not hope”; 1 Cor. 
 v. 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 saved.” 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 well as 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 may 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 
 maybe 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 
 its 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 
 
 (d) “ 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 God as 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. But it was the wisdom of man. Now he glories in Christ as having been 
 made unto us wisdom. It was necessary therefore to difference this from what 
 he had been condemning. So he adds 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, not a repetition, but a distinct thought in and Qeov, and so a 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 pikst epistle to the coeinthians. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Ver. 1. papTvpiov'] A C X* min. Syr. Copt, and some Fathers : pvGTrjpiov. Ap¬ 
 proved by Griesb. and Ewald, adopted also by Buckert. A gloss written on the 
 margin from ver. 7. Had paprvptov crept in from i. 6, the witnesses which 
 have it would read also tov XpcoTov instead of r. Qeov ; but this occurs only in 
 very few, some of which, besides, have pvonjpiov. •—-Ver. 2. rl elbevai} Elz. tov 
 eibevaL tl. But tov is wanting in decisive witnesses ; that tl should be put 
 first is rendered certain by B C, min. Bas. Cyr. Isid. Chrys. Hil. Victorin. Aug., 
 also D E (which have tl ev vplv elbevac) ; and the external attestation must de¬ 
 cide here. — Yer. 3. teal eyci] Lachm. and Buckert read k aytv, with A B C 
 min. Or. Bas. al. Taken from ver. 1. — Yer. 4. After TrecOolg Elz. has dvQpu- 
 Tcivrjg, against preponderating evidence. Addition from vv. 5 and 13. In re¬ 
 ply to Heydenreich’s unfounded defence of the word, see Beiche, Comment, crit. 
 I. p. 134. — The readings which alter neiOoig (ttelOoI : 1, 18*, 48, al. Or. Eus. al. ; 
 7 reidavolg, Macar.), and those which either leave out X oyoig (E G, 74, al. Erp. 
 Boern. Ambrosiast. Sedul.) or alter it (Xoyuv : Syr. Armen. Or. twice over, and 
 several others : Xoyov), are old shifts resorted to on failure to understand rreiOoig , 
 as also the short reading ev tvelOo oocplag must be so accounted. See the exegeti- 
 cal remarks, and Beiche, p. 133. — Yer. 7. The order of the words Qeov oo<piav 
 (Elz. and Matth. invert it) is decisively attested, as also the order in ver. 10 : 
 ciTTeiidX. 6 Qtog. — Yer. 9. In place of the second u, Lachm. and Tisch. have ooa. 
 with A B C and some Fathers. 1 Bightly ; a is a mechanical repetition from 
 what goes before. — Yer. 10. Instead of 6e Tisch. reads yap, supported only by 
 B, min. Copt. Sahid. Clem. — avTov ] is wanting in A B C X , Coj3t. Clem. Bas. 
 Cyr. It is deleted by Lachm. and Buckert. But considering the independent 
 to yap Trvevpa which follows, it would have been more natural to omit avTov or 
 to add uycov (so Didym.) than to insert avTov .— Yer. 11. eyvonev is, in ac¬ 
 cordance with the vast preponderance of evidence, approved by Griesb. and 
 adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Buckert. Elz., however, Matth. and Scholz, have 
 ohhv. Bepetition of the preceding oldev done mechanically or by way of gloss. 
 In favour of eyvunev there is also the reading eyvco in F G, 23, and Fathers. — 
 Ver. 13. Trvevparog] Elz. adds uylov, against decisive evidence to the contrary. 
 A superfluous and weakening definition. — Yer. 15. The pev after avanp. in Elz. 
 and Scholz (deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Buck.) is wanting in A C D* F G, 
 17, and many vss. and Fathers. It has arisen from the 6e which follows. In 
 X* the whole verse is omitted through Homoioteleuton. K**has pev. — tcI 
 TcavTa~] so also Buck, and Tisch. ; Lachm. brackets ra ; Elz. and Scholz have 
 simply 7r avTa. But ra is attested by A C D, min. Ir. ms. Or. Nyss. Chrys. ; 
 rcavTa is an old correction of the text, with the view of bringing in the mascu- 
 
 1 Clement, too, Cor. T. 34, has baa, which mann). A converse proceeding on the part 
 certainly was not first imported from his of the transcribers might rather seem more 
 quotation into that of the apostle (Hof- natural. 
 
CHAP. II., 1 , 2 . 
 
 43 
 
 line to correspond with the ovSevog which comes after ; hence, too, Didym. 
 and Theodoret have t ravrag. —Ver. 16. Xpicrov] Lachm. has K vptov, with B D* 
 • F G, Theophyl. Ambrosiast. Aug. Sedul. Mechanical repetition of the preced¬ 
 ing K vptov. Had K vptov been the original reading and explained by a gloss, 
 the substitute for it would have been not Xpccrov, but Qeov, seeing that every 
 marginal annotator must have been aware from Isa. xl. 13 that the preceding 
 Kvpiov 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. K aytf 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 aad ’ vKEpoxgv k.t.X. belongs to Karayy., as indicating the mode adopted 
 in the Karayyehheiv : I too , when I came to you , brethren , came proclaiming to 
 you , not upon the footing of a pre-eminence of speech (eloquence) or wisdom (phi¬ 
 losophy), the testimony of God. Against connecting the words in this way, 1 
 it is objected that kXdtov f/Wov 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 r/Tidov ov . . . ootptag, Karayyi/Ousv (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 aad’ vKepoxyv k.t.Ti. of the manner of the preaching than 
 of the manner of the coining. For that reason, too, ffiOov is not placed after 
 aofiac. The preposition Kara, again, to express mode (Winer, p. 375 [E. T. 
 501]), is quite according to rule ; comp, nad’ virEpfioXrjv, Kara uparog, and the 
 like. —As to virepoxy , eminentia , comp. 1 Tim. ii. 2 ; Plat. Legg. iv. p. 711 
 D ; Def. 416 ; Arist. Pol. iv. 9. 5. Also aanuv vTtcpoxv, 2 Macc. xiii. 6. — 
 Karayy£?ihuv'] Paul might have used the future, but the present participle 
 places the thing more vividly before us as already begun with the rfOov. So 
 especially often ayyelhuv (Valck. ad Plioen. 1082) ; e.g. Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 29 : 
 kg rag ’Adqvag ettTievgev, ayyeXhovaa ra ysyovara , Plat. Phaed. p. 116 C, and 
 Stallbaum in loc. See, in general, Winer, p. 320 f. [E. T. 429 f.] ; Dissen, 
 ad Pindar. 01. vii. 14. — to yaprvp. rov 0eo7] in substance not different from 
 r. yapr. t. Xplgtov , 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. 2 Had Paul not disdained this and not put aside all other 
 
 1 Which is done also by Castalio, Bengel, 
 and others, Pott, Heydenreich, Schrader, 
 de Wette, Osiander, Ewald. 
 
 2 Causaubon remarks well, that ’It? cr. X. 
 refers to the person , and k. tout, earavp. to 
 
 the officium, and “ in his duobns totum 
 versatur evangelium.” But the strong 
 emphasis on the latter point arises from 
 looking back to i. 17-24. 
 
44 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the coriktiiiaks. 
 
 knowledge, his KaTayyePkeLV would not have remained free from vn epoxy 
 ?i6yov y aofiaq. The ordinary reference of the negation to tl : I resolved to 
 Ammo nothing , etc., is in arbitrary opposition to the words (so, however, Pott, 
 Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, Ewald). In enpiva Calvin and Grotius find too 
 much, since the text does not give it : magnum duxi; 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 self-deter¬ 
 mination was, not to be directed to know, etc. Comp. vii. 37 ; 2 Cor. ii. 
 
 1 ; Itom. xiv. 13 ; Ivplvai tl nal rrpoOeodaL, Polyb. iii. 6. 7 ; Wisd. viii. 9 ', 1 
 Macc. xi. 33 ; 2 Macc. vi. 14, al. He might have acted otherwise, had he 
 projoosed to himself to do SO. — rl eidevai] jrpog avTibiacTohyv ryq e^udev elprjrac 
 oocpiaq' ov yap yXOov ovXXoyLGpovq ttAekuv, ovbe cofiopaTa, ovd’ aXho tl Xeyuv vylv, 
 y otl 6 XpiOTog eoTavpudy , Chrysostom. But the giving up of everything else 
 is far more powerfully expressed by eidevai (comp. Arrian, Epict . ii. 1) than 
 if Paul had said leyeiv or XaAelv. 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 ; Iviihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 1 ; 
 Anab. v. 7. 34), would here only weaken the force of the statement. Were 
 tov elhevaL tl the correct reading (but see 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. — n. tovt. 
 kcTavp. ] 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 nai : And I for my part (with others 
 it may have been different !) fell into weakness and into much fear and trem¬ 
 bling among you (jrpoq v/i. ; see on John i. 1).— ylyvecOat ev, to fall into a 
 state, etc. (and to be in it) ; so Thuc. i. 78. 1 ; Plato, Prot. p. 314 C ; Hem. 
 p. 179, ult. Comp. Luke xxii. 44 ; 1 Macc. i. 27 ; 2 Macc. vii. 9 ; Hist. 
 Sus*. 8. We might also join irpoq vyaq to eyevoyyv, not, indeed, in the way in 
 which Hofmann interprets it, as if for hyevdpyv there stood ypyv (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 : Nagelsbach on the Iliad, p. 
 295, ed. 3) ; ver. 4, however, shows that wliat is here spoken of is not again 
 (ver. 1) the coming thither , but the state when there. — The three phrases, 
 had., <1)6 ft or, and Tpopoq , depict the great timidity with which Paul was in 
 Corinth, through liis 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 a Lapide, Grotius, 
 and others, of the sufferings and persecutions ( acO .), and of the apprehen- 
 
chap, ii., 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 w T rongly understand aoOeveia even of 
 bodily weakness, either generally sickliness (Ruckert) or more especially 
 weakness in the chest and voice (Storr, comp. Rosenmiiller). — <p6j3og k. rpopoc ] 
 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. 13 ; Epb. vi. 5. —6 16yoq pov k. t. 
 Kypvyyd pov ] are indeed emphatically separated from each other by the repe¬ 
 tition of the pov ; 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 Ruckert 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. —ova ev tt eiOolg ao<j). loyo/f sc. rjv, 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. YIel06c is found nowhere 
 else in the whole range of extant Greek literature, widavoq being the word in 
 use (Xen. Cyr. vi. 4. 5 ; Thuc. iv. 21 ; Dem. 928. 14 ; Josephus, Antt. viii. 
 9 ; and the passages from Plato in Ast, Lex. III. p. 102. Meineke, Menand. 
 p. 222). II eiOog, however, is formed from veido by correct analogy as 
 <peidog from <f>e!<5opai, etc. Comp. Salmasius, de ling. Hellenist, p. 86 ; Reiche, 
 Comment, crit. I. p. 186 f. It was in all likelihood an adjective belonging 
 only to the colloquial language of common life. Kypke, indeed ( Obss . II. p. 
 193), would find some trace of it in Plato, Gorg. p. 493 A ; but what we have 
 there is a play on the words to ttlOcivov and irWog, a cask , which has no connec¬ 
 tion whatever with 7 reiOog. Pasor and Schrader make ttelOoIq to be the dative 
 plural of tteiOu, suada, and what follows to be in apposition to it : in persua¬ 
 sions, in words of wisdom. But the plural of 7 reidu 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), ev %ei8oi aofag 
 loyov ; Grotius, ev 7 rioroig /c.r.A.; Yalckenaer, Klose, and Kuhn ( Commentat. 
 ad 1 Cor. ii. 1-5, Lips. 1784), ev widavolg or ireiftavoig /c.r.A. (comp, also Alberti, 
 Schediasm. p. 105) ; Alberti, ev Tteidovg (suadae) a. Tioyoig, or 1 ev tteiOoi oofiag 
 (without ioyoig). —ev aTcodeigei iwEvparog k. dvvapeog~\ Without there being any 
 necessity for explaining the two genitives by a ev did dvoiv as equivalent to 
 wvevparog dvvarov (so still Pott, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Maier, with older 
 expositors), the meaning may, according to our interpretation of anodei^g and 
 to our taking the genitives in an objective or subjective sense, be either : so 
 that I evinced Spirit and power (so Yatablus and others, with Pott and Bill¬ 
 roth) ; or : so that Spirit and power made themselves known through me (Calvin : 
 
 1 So, too, Semler, Flatt, Kinck, Fritzsche in the Hall. Lit. Zeit . 1840, Nr. 100. 
 
46 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 “in Pauli ministerio .... quasi nuda Dei manus se proferebat”) ; or : so 
 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 anodet^ig (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 ova iv kelOoIq a. ?i6yoig . Paul means the 
 Holy Spirit (ver. 10 ff.) and the divine poicer 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 . 1 At variance with the text is the 
 view of several of the older expositors (following Origen, contra Celsum , i. 
 p. 5), who refer Trvevyarog to the oracles of the O. T., and 6vvay. 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 clko^el^lq. 
 
 Yer. 5. Aim of the divine leading, the organ of w T hich 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 iva introduces not his oicn (Hof¬ 
 mann), but the divine purpose, is clear from iv aTrodeUjeL k.t.X., in which 
 Paul has stated how God had wrought through him. Comp. Iva in i. 31. 
 
 Yv. 6-16. Wisdom , hoicever, we deliver among the perfect; but it is a higher 
 wisdom revealed to us by the Spirit, which therefore only those filed 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 aof.a 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 cofa delivered, but not a 
 philosophy in the common, worldly sense, etc. 
 
 Yer. 6. Wisdom, nevertheless (unphilosophical as my discourse among you 
 was), we deliver among the perfect. — Xalovyev] 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 nal iyd) in iii. 1, which intro¬ 
 duces the particular application of the plural statement here. — iv means 
 nothing else than in, surrounded by, among, coram ; lalelv iv corresponds to 
 the Xalelv with the dative in iii. 1. AVe 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- 
 
 1 Theophylact is right in supposing as 
 regards nyev/ u.aro? : appTjTw Tivl Tpoiuo vicrTcv 
 evenotei rots aKovovcn. He makes fivj'dp.eoj?, 
 however, apply to the miracles, as does 
 Theodoret also, who takes the two ele¬ 
 
 ments together, and explains the clause of 
 
 the Oavp.arovpyia tov nvevp.aTo<;. So, tOO, in 
 substance, Chrysostom, according to whom 
 it is by 7 rveup-aro? that the miracles are 
 made to appear as true miracles. 
 
CHAP. II., G. 
 
 47 
 
 hardy, p. 212, the local force of kv should be retained), but also the expla¬ 
 nation : according to the judgment of the 'perfect (Grotius, Tittmann, de Spir. 
 Dei mysterior. die. interpreter Lips. 1814, in the Syn. N. T. p. 285), which 
 would have to be referred, with Billroth, do the conception of among, since 
 the corresponding usage of kv kyot, kv col, in the sense, according to my or thy 
 view , applies exclusively to these particular phrases (Bernhardy, p. 211). — 
 The teXuoi (comp, on Eph. iv. 13), who stand in contrast to the vtjtuoi. kv 
 Xpicru) 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 co(j>la , 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). Th eform of this instruction was that of spir¬ 
 itual discourse (ver. 13) framed under the influence of the holy Trvsvya, but 
 independent of the teachings of philosophic rhetoric ; and its matter w T as 
 the future relations of the Messianic kingdom (vv. 9, 12) in their connection 
 with the divine counsel of redemption and its fulfilment in Christ, the yvcri/pia 
 rfjq (iaGLhelaQ ruv ovpavuv (Matt. xiii. 11), — that, which no eye hath seen, etc. 
 Comp. Bab. Sanhedr. f. xeix. 1 : “Quod ad mundum futurum : oculus 
 non vidit, O Deus, praeter te.” The definitions now given 1 respecting the 
 cofa Qeov 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 ktIclq 
 as regards its Messianic final destination, Bom. viii.,—that highest analogue 
 to the philosophy of nature. It may be gathered, however, with certainty 
 from iii. 1, 2, that w T e are not to think here of any disciplina arcani. With the 
 main point in our view as a wdiole,—namely, that cocpla denotes that high¬ 
 er religious wisdom, and riXecoi 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, Kiickert, de Wette, Osiander, 
 Ewald, Neander, Maier, Hofmann, accord. Chrysostom, however, Theophy- 
 lact, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others, in- 
 
 1 Comp. Ruckert, 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 
 well as 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 
 more in detail, Estius. According to de 
 Wette, portions of this wisdom are to be 
 found in the Epistle to the Homans, in the 
 
 discussions on justification, on the contrast 
 between Christ and Adam, and on predesti¬ 
 nation ; in the Epistles to the Ephesians and 
 Colossians, in the indications there given as 
 to the divine plan of redemption and the 
 person of Christ; in our Epistle, chap. xv.; 
 views of the same kind in Ileb. vii.-x., 
 comp. iv. 11 ff. Osiander makes this ao^ia 
 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 pi'oblems 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 tiie Corinthians. 
 
 eluding Tittmann, Flatt, Billroth, and Olshausen, understand by the rekzioi 
 the Christians generally, or the true Christians, to whom the apostle^s doctrine 
 {poftav key el to Krjpvyfxa ucu rov Tporrov r fjg GUTTjptag, to did CTCivpov Godfjvcu, te A st¬ 
 ove be Tovg TTETTiGTEvnoTae, Chrysostom), appeared as wisdom , not as folly, (e) 
 “ Ea dicimus quae plena esse sajnentiae judicabunt veri ac probi Christiani, ” 
 Grotius. But iii. 2 is decisive against this view ; for there yaka denotes the 
 instruction of beginners as distinguished from the Go<j>t.a (Pptiya). Comp, the 
 appropriate remarks of Castalio on this passage. — coftav tie ov r. aiuv. r.] wis¬ 
 dom , however , which does not belong to this age (Se, as in Rom. iii. 22, ix. 30 ; 
 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. A idivog tovtov aotpiav ovopd^ei rrjv efw, tog TcpoGucupov nai Tip aicdvi tovto) Gvy- 
 KdTakvofjLEvijv , Theophylact. — ovSe] also (in particular) not. —tuv apx ■ r. 
 aiejv r.] 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 
 <700m in question is a wisdom to which holders of temporal power are stran¬ 
 gers. Comp. ver. 8. It is a mistake to explain the apx- r. aiuv. r. as refer¬ 
 ring either to influential philosophers and men of learning 1 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, Yorstius, 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). — tuv naTapy .] which ame done aioay with , i.e. cease to sub¬ 
 sist (i. 28, x'v. 24 ; 2 Thess. ii. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. 10 ; Heb. ii. 14), namely, when 
 Christ returning establishes Uis kingdom. Comp. Rev. xvi.-xix. This 
 reference is implied in the context by the emphatic repetition of tov aitivog 
 tovtov. 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 in i. 18. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 7. 
 
 Yer. 7 . Qeov aocpiav] God?s philosophy, of which God is the possessor, who 
 has made it known to those who proclaim it, ver. 10. This Qeov is with 
 great emphasis prefixed ; the repetition of kakovyev, too, carries with it a 
 certain solemnity, comp. Rom. viii. 15 ; Phil. iv. 17. — ev yvoTrjp'nf does 
 not belong to rr/v anonEKp. (with which it was connected expressly as early 
 as Theodoret ; comp. Grotius : “ quae diu in arcano recondita fuit”) but to 
 kakovaev^ not, however, in the sense : u secreto et apud pauciores ” (Estius, 
 Cornelius a Lapide), since there is no mention of a disciplina arcani (see on 
 
 1 These are not even included (in opposi¬ 
 tion to Chrysostom and others, including 
 Osiander), although the ap^orTe? may have 
 accepted their wisdom, played the part of 
 patrons to them, etc. (Theodoret, Theo¬ 
 
 phylact, and others, including Pott; comp. 
 Neander : “the intellectual rulers of the 
 ancient world.”) 
 
 2 Erasmus, Estius, Riickert, Schrader, de 
 Wette, Osiander, Hofmann. 
 
CHAP. II., 8. 
 
 49 
 
 ver. 6), blit rather : by means of a 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 h pvarypicp with cmfiav, sc. oveav : God’s secret wisdom (unknown but for 
 revelation). So also Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth, Tittmann, Usteri, Ewald). 
 But the article, although after the anarthrous aofiav 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 rip ev pvoTvp'up. On the other hand, if he joined hv yvar. to TiaTiovgev, 
 he could not, seeing that he wished to prefix hak. for the sake of emphasis, 
 write otherwise. — rip cittokekp.] 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 wrnrd, which in itself might be dispensed wfith, is added in order to 
 introduce the following statement with completeness and solemnity.—?> 
 wpoup. 6 0£OC k.t.2,.] There is no ground here for supplying (with the major¬ 
 ity of expositors, including Pott and Heydenreich) aTroKalvTTTEcv, yvupiaac, 
 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 ijv the object of the wis¬ 
 dom, the salvation obtained through Christ. For i-poop, has its complete 
 and logically correct reference in elg 66%av i)g. (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 
 gloryy This elg 66%. ryi. corresponds significantly to the ruv natapy. of ver. 
 6, and denotes the Messianic glory of the Christians wdiich 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 realize it. 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, Heancler, and many older expositors), as 
 also the correlative ryg 66%yg in ver. 8 applies purely to the heavenly glory. 
 Bengel says well : “ olim revelandam, turn cum principes mundi destruen- 
 tur.” It reveals itself then as the wisdom that makes blessed , having at¬ 
 tained in the 66%a of believers the end designed for it by God before the 
 beginning of the world. 
 
 Yer. 8. " Hv ] Parallel with the preceding yv , and referring to Qeov aofiav 
 (Calvin, Grotius, and most commentators, including Flatt, Riickert, de 
 Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), not to 66%. rpuv (Tertullian contra Marc. v. G, 
 Camerarius, Pott, Billroth, Maier) ; for the essential point in the w r hole con¬ 
 text is the non-recognition of that wisdom .* — ei yap iyvcjcav n.r.h.] parenthet - 
 
 1 The simple uniform continuation of the 
 discourse by y\v has a solemn emphasis here, 
 as in Acts iv. 10, and especially often in the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians. All the less reason 
 is there for taking it,withHofmann,as equiv¬ 
 alent in this verse to ravryv (Buttmann, neut. 
 
 Gr. p. 243 [E. T. 282]), and as introducing a 
 new principal sentence. The asyndetic simi¬ 
 lar co-ordination of several relative clauses 
 is, from Homer onward (see xYmeis on the 
 Odyss. xxiii. 299, append.), a very common 
 usage in the classics also. 
 
50 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corixtiiiaxs. 
 
 ical proof from fact for what has been just asserted ; for the aXkd in ver. 
 9 refers to ?> ovdeig . . . iyvunev. The crucifixion of Christ , seeing that it 
 was effected by Jewish and heathen rulers together, is here considered as 
 the act of the apx • r. alcov. collectively. — rdv K vpiov tt)q do^r/g] Christ is the 
 Lord, and, inasmuch as Ilis 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 f. ; Col. iii. 1-4, al.), the Lord 
 of glory. Comp. Jas. ii. 1. In a precisely analogous way God is called, in 
 Eph. i. 17, 6 7T ari/p ryg Comp. Acts vii. 2 ; Ps. xxiv. 7 ; Heb. ix. 5. 
 
 In all these passages the expression of the adjectival notion by the genitive 
 has rhetorical emphasis. Comp. Hermann, ad Vigor, p. 887. This designa¬ 
 tion of Christ, however, is purposely chosen by way of antithesis to EGravpuoav ; 
 for 6 Gravpog adogiag elvac chad, Chrysostom. Had the apxovreg known that 
 Gofta Qeov, then they would also have known Christ as what He is, the K vpiog 
 Tfjg 66^rjg, and would have received and honoured instead of shamefully cruci¬ 
 fying Him. But what was to them wisdom was simply nothing more than 
 selfish worldly prudence and spiritual foolishness ; in accordance with it 
 Annas and Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, acted. Comp., generally, Lukexxiii. 
 34 ; Acts iii. 17. 
 
 Ver. 9. ’A Ha] but, antithesis to h v ovdeig ruv apxdvrov r. al. r. eyvuKev. — 
 The passage of Scripture, which Paul now adduces, is to be translated : 
 ‘ 4 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 
 Ilim.” In the connection of our passage these words are still dependent 
 upon lalovpev. Paul, that is to say, instead of affirming something further 
 of the wisdom itself, and so continuing with another ijv (which none of the 
 rulers have known, but ichich ), 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 AVette 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 yeyove (Theophylact, Grotius). 
 The connection with ver. 10, adopted byLachmann (in his ed. min.), and in 
 my first and second editions, and again resorted to by Hofmann : wlcat no eye 
 has seen, etc., God, on the other handle, 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 ayaircooLv avrov, nadiog yeypaTcrai logically would need to stand, 
 not before, but after, a, because in reality this a, and not the nadibg yeypanraL, 
 would introduce the object of cmEicdhvipev.—Kadug yiyp.\ Chrysostom and 
 Theophylact are in doubt as to what passage is meant, whether a lost prophecy 
 (so Theodoret), or Isa. Iii. 15. Origen, again, and other Fathers (Fabri- 
 cius, ad Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 342 ; Pseudepigr. N. T. I. p. 1072 ; Lucke, 
 Einleit. z. Offeiib. 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. II., 10. 
 
 51 
 
 Evang. p. 343) that he himself had actually read the words. Grotius re¬ 
 gards them as 11 e scriptis Pabbinorum, 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 lii. 15, lxv. 17 ; see especially Surenhusius, /cara/U. p. 526 tf., also Rig- 
 genbachin the Stud . u. 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 ca¬ 
 nonical Scriptures that are ever cited by Paul with Kadkg yeyp., we must at 
 the same time assume that he intended to do so here also, but by some confu¬ 
 sion of memory took 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. — a otyOalpog 
 ovk uSe /c.r.Z.] 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 : oW 
 kmdepKTa rad’ avSpaoiv , ovr ’ erraKOvcrra, oiire voo Trepi^r/TTra. With respect to 
 ava/3. ettI Kapb., 2*7 Sj? 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. — Ttolg ayan. avrov] i.e. in the apostle’s view : for the true Chris¬ 
 tians. 1 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. 
 32 . 2 : ol tie dUacot tt opevoovrai elg <k,ur]V ai 6v iov p ov o yovv r eg 
 
 £K£iva , a btydahyog ovk elde k.t.?l. 
 
 Yer. 10. Having thus set forth the hitherto hidden character of the divine 
 cofia, Paul now turns to its unveiling , as a result of which it was that that 
 Aa’kovyEv of ver. 6 f. took place. In doing this he puts ryiiv emphatically 
 first in the deep consciousness of the distinction implied in so signal a mark 
 of divine favour. The object of aneKa'k. is the immediately preceding a 
 fjToiyao£v k.t.Ti. — yylv] plural , as T^aTiovyev in ver. 6, and therefore neither to 
 be referred to the apostle alone (Rosenmuller, Ruckert, and others), nor to 
 all Christians (Billroth, etc .).—dia tov Trvevy. a^rot)] The Holy Spirit, pro- 
 
 1 Clement, ad Cor. I. 34, in quoting this 
 same passage (with his usual formula for 
 scriptural quotations, Ae-yet yap), has here 
 toIs vnop-evovatv avrov, remembering per* 
 haps Isa. lxiv. 4 in the LXX. Clement also, 
 there can be no doubt, held the passage to 
 
 be canonical, which is explained, however, 
 by the fact of his being acquainted with 
 our Epistle. The Constitt. apost. too, vii. 32. 
 2, have t<ks ayarruaiv avrov. The so-called, 
 second Epistle of Clement, chap, xi., haa 
 the passage only as far as aveprj. 
 
52 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corihthians. 
 
 ceeding fortli from God as the personal principle of Christian enlightenment, 
 of every Christian endowment, and of the Christian life, is 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. —to yap 
 -jrvevua k.t.A.] Herewith begins the adducing of proof for that ryuv 61 a-eudl- 
 vi]>ev k.t.%. wdiich 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 Icnowledge to God , which corresponds to the re¬ 
 lation of the human spirit to man (vv. 10, 11) ; but what ice have received is 
 no other than this Spirit of God , in order that we might Jcnow the salvation of 
 God (ver. 12), so that no doubt remains that we have actually the cnrondl- 
 vtyiq in question through the Spirit. That to iwev/ua means not the human 
 spirit , but the Holy Spirit , is certain from what goes before and from vv. 
 11, 12. — epevvg] rightly interpreted by Chrysostom : ova ayvoiaq, a TCP aiipifiovc 
 yvdxjscog evTavOa to epevvgv evSeiKTiudv. Comp. Ps. cxxxix. 1 ; Rom. viii. 27 ; 
 Rev. 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. 
 — TtdvTa\ all things , without limitation. Comp. Wisd. vii. 23 ; Ps. cxxxix. 
 7. — to. j3adr] tov 0eoi)] Comp. Judith viii. 14 : {3a0og uapdiac; avOptdTcov ; see on 
 Rom. xi. 33, also Plato, Theaet. p. 183 E. The expression : 11 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 [iadvfiovlov (Aeschylus, 
 Pers. 143) of the Godhead, are included; but we are not to suppose that 
 they alone are meant. The opposite is ra /3adia tov Earava, 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, i.e. 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. 
 
 Yer. 11 assigns the reason for the nal ra (3a0r] tov Qcov just mentioned, and 
 that in such a way as to represent the searching of these (3a6y as exclusively 
 pertaining to the Spirit of God, according to the analogy of the relation be¬ 
 tween the spirit of man and man himself. — avdpu ttuv] should neither, with 
 Grotius, be held superfluous nor, with Tittmann, be suspected (it is wanting 
 in A, Or. 1, Athan. Cyr. Yigil. taps.) ; on the contrary, it is designed to 
 carry special emphasis, like tov avOpunov afterwards (which is wanting in 
 F G, and some Fathers), hence also the position chosen for it : avdpu ttcjv 
 ra tov avdpuTTov : no man Jcnows what is man's, save the spirit of the man which 
 is in him. 1 Comp. Prov. xx. 27. Were what is peculiar to him not known 
 
 3 The to lv airy is an argumentative defini- hence to irvevua, not f) xJjvxv- Comp. De- 
 tion.—In the man the subject knowing is litzsch, biblische Psychologies p. 198; Krumm, 
 the Ego of the personal self-consciousness, bte notionib. psychol. Paul. p. 16 f. 
 
CHAP. II., 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 flad/} by way of supplement to ra tov avOp. or to ra 
 tov Qeov. This would be a purely arbitrary limitation of the universal 
 statement, to which ra j3a6?j, 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 ?” — eyvutce] cognita habet. See 
 Bernhardy, p. 378. For the rest, this ovdelg ejvoke is, as a matter of course, 
 said not as in distinction from the Son (Luke x. 22), but from the creatures. 
 
 Remaek.—T he 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 Trvevfia 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 to nvevpa tov Qeov, Paul' 
 does not again join to ev ovtq, 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 to nvEvpa to sk tov Qeov. See 
 ver. 12. 
 
 Ver. 12. Ae] leading on to the second half* of the demonstration which 
 began with to yap Vr vevfia in ver. 10 (see on ver. 10 ). — r/pelg] as fjpiv in ver.. 
 10. — to 7 rvEvpa tov Koopov ] i.e. the spirit which unbelieving mankind has. This 
 spirit is the diabolic nvsv/ua, that is, the spirit proceeding forth from the devil ,. 
 under whose power the noapog lies, and whose sphere of action it is. See 
 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Eph. vi. 11, 12, ii. 2. Comp. John xii. 31 ; 1 John iv. 3, v. 
 19. Had we received this spirit, — and here Paul glances back at the apxov- 
 Teq tov aitivog tovtov 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 nvevpa Trig TcXavrjg as con¬ 
 trasted with the nvevpa Ti)g aXrjOeiag, 1 Johniv. 6. Most commentators take 
 to TTvevpa 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, Rosenmuller, Flatt, Heydenreich, de Wette, Maier, and simi¬ 
 larly Pott . 1 But, according to ver. 10, to nvEvpa 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 coeihtiiiahs. 
 
 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 nvEvpa, 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 nvEvpa not from the world, but 
 from God, ” cannot even be reconciled with the words of the passage. — to 
 in r. 0eot>] The ek is employed by Paul here not in order to avoid the appear¬ 
 ance of making this rcvEvpa the principle that determines the action of God 
 (so Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 435), which were a needless precau¬ 
 tion, but because this form of expression has a significant adaptation to the 
 Iva EidufjLEv k.t.Ti. ; 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, to ev avrf), John xv. 20. — iva Eidupsv k.t./L] the divine pur¬ 
 pose in imparting the Spirit which proceeded forth from God. This clause, 
 expressive of design, containing the object of the arcEKalvipEv in ver. 10, 
 completely winds up the adducing of proof for the fyulv til cnrEnal. 6 0. tiia r. 
 7 tv. avr. — ra vtto t. Qeov x a P • vpiv] are the blessings of the Messianic king¬ 
 dom, the possession of which is bestowed by divine grace on the Christians 
 ( rjfiiv ), 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 to x a P ia ®l v ~ a must be identical with a i/rolpacTEv 6 Qeog k.t.1. in ver. 9, 
 and with the tio$a yp. in ver. 7. 
 
 Ver. 13. Having thus in vv. 10-12 given the proof of that ypiv ds aiTEKa1. 
 k.t.X., the apostle goes on now to the manner in which the things revealed 
 were proclaimed , passing, therefore, from the eltievat ra x a P • to the laleiv of 
 them. The manner, negative and positive, of this aoIeIv (comp. ver. 4) he 
 links to what has gone before simply by the relative : which (namely, ra . . . 
 xapLoO. yp.) 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 : avdpoTr. co<f>. 
 and rrvEvpaTog, are dependent on tittiaKroig (Johnvi. 45). See Winer, pp.182, 
 178 [E. T. 242, 236]. Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 1135. Comp. Pindar, 01. ix. 
 153 : TvoTikoi til tiitianraig avdpcjTrwv apsraig Kkeog fopovoav eXecrdai' clvev til 6 eov k.t.j l., 
 comp. Nem. iii. 71. Sophocles, El. 336 : rapa vovderypara neivyg tiidanTa. It 
 is true that the genitives might also be dependent upon hoyoig (Fritzsche, 
 Dm. II. in 2 Cor. p. 27) ; but the context, having tiitiaKroig 7tvevpaTog, is 
 against this. To take didaKroIg (with Ewald) as meaning, according to the 
 
CHAP. II., 13. 
 
 55 
 
 common classical usage, learnable, quaedoceri possunt (see especially Demostli. 
 1413. 24 ; Plato, Prot. p. 819 B : ov didanrov elvai fj.rj6' vP avdpu ttivv TcapaGnev- 
 aarov avdpuiroig ), does not agree so well with vv. 4 and 15. — The suggestio 
 verborum, here asserted, is reduced to its right measure by 6 id an to l g ; 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. — nvEvua- 
 tikoIq Tcvevuaruia avyupivovreg] connecting 1 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 
 ( 7 TVEvyariKolc) the speech also taught by the Spirit (wvEv/iariKa ),— things con¬ 
 sequently of like nature, “ spiritualibus spiritualia componentes” (Castalio). 
 So in substance also Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Balduin, Wolf, Baumgarten, 
 Klingin 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 cvyupiveiv (Yalckenaer, p. 
 134 f.; Porson, ad Med. 136). Plato has it frequently in this meaning, and 
 in contrast to dianpivEiv. See Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 290 f. Other commen¬ 
 tators, while also taking tt vEvyar. as neuter, make cvyupiveiv, explicare, namely, 
 either : explaining the JST. T. doctrine from the types of the 0. T. (Chrysostom 
 and his successors 2 ), or: “ exponentes ea, quae prophetae Spiritu Dei acti 
 dixere, per ea, quae Christus suo Spiritu nobis aperuit” (Grotius, Krebs), 
 or: “spiritualibus verbis spiritualia interpretantes” (Eisner, Mosheim, 
 Bolten, Ncander). But the first two of these renderings are against the 
 context, and all the three are against the usus loquendi; for Gvyupivciv is 
 never absolutely interpretari, either in profane Greek (in which, among 
 later writers, as also in 2 Cor. x. 12, Wisd. vii. 29, xv. 18, 1 Macc. x. 71, it very 
 often means to compare; comp. Yulgate : 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 (^HS, see Gen. xl. 8, 16, 22, xli. 12, 
 15 ; Dan. v. 12); but in such cases (comp, the passages from Philo, where 
 dianpivEiv occurs, in Loesner, p. 273) we have to trace it back to the literal 
 signification of judging , 3 namely, as to what was to be indicated by the 
 
 1 Not proving , as Theodore of Mopsuestia 
 takes it : fit a ra>v tou nvevp.aro<; anoSei^ecvv 
 rrjv tov nvevparog 8i.8a<TKa\iav ni.crTOvp.eOa. 
 
 2 So, too, Theodoret : e^o/xei/ yap tt}? na\- 
 
 atas fita#Jj>07? ttjv /aapTuptav, /cat fit e/cetVrj? rr]V 
 Katvy]v PePaiovpev nvevp.ari.Kr) yap KaKeivr) 
 . . . k at Sia T(>)v rvncov SetKvvp.ev rrjv a\rj&eiav. 
 
 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 1 
 
 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) : Svvao-at KpLp.ara avyKplvai, tllOU 
 
 canst pronounce utterances of judgment. 
 Comp, the phrase, recurring more than 
 once in that same story of Belshazzar, in 
 Dan. V. : rr)V cru'y/cpicrir -yvtopigeiv, or : avayye \- 
 Aeiv: to make known or declare the judg¬ 
 ment (as to what that marvellous writing 
 might signify). 
 
56 
 
 Paul's first epistle to the corihthiahs. 
 
 vision in the dream (comp, Kpivsiv to cypaivopEvov tuv oveiparov in Josephus, 
 Antt. ii. 2. 2, also the ’0 vsiponpiTtica of Artemidorus). (g) The meaning, to 
 judge, however, although instances of it may be established in Greek writers 
 also (Anthol. vii. 182 ; Polybius, xiv. 8. 7, xii. 10. 1 ; Lucian. Soloec. 5), 
 •would be unsuitable here, for this reason, that the phrase tz vEvpaTinolg tzvev- 
 partaa, both being taken as neuter, manifestly, according to the context, 
 expresses the relation of matter and form, not the judging of the one 
 TTvevpartKov by the other (Ewald), notwithstanding that Luther, too, adopts 
 a similar interpretation : “ and judge spiritual things spiritually.'''' Lastly, it 
 is incorrect to take TzvEvpaTiKolg as masculine, and render : explaining things 
 revealed by the Spirit to those who are led by the Spirit (the same as teIelolq in 
 ver. 6; comp. Gal. vi. I). 1 To the same class belongs the exposition of 
 Hofmann, according to w T hom 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 x a P LC ®' evTa i n ver - 12, 
 and the problem and its predictive sign are imported into crvyKp'ivovTEg .' 2 
 Again, it is by no means required by the connection with ver. 14 ff. that we 
 should take t zvevyaTiKoig as masculine ; for ver. 14 begins a new part of the 
 discourse, so that ipvxucog avOpuzzog only finds its personal contrast in 6 6e 
 nvEvpartKog 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 : tz vEvpaTog, TzvEvpaTiKolg, TzvEvpaTiKa. 
 
 Yer. 14. To receive such teaching, however, in which zzvEvpaTLKa are united 
 with TzvEvp.aTiK.dlg, every one has not the capacity ; a psychical man appre¬ 
 hends not that which is the Spirit of God, etc. — ^jv^ik og avOpozzog is the 
 opposite of the TzvsvpaTLKbg who has received the Holy Spirit (vv. 12 f., 15) ; 
 he is therefore one izvevpa (the Holy Spirit) py exov (Jude 19). Such a 
 man—who is not essentially different from the oapKiKog (see on iii. 1), 
 but the mental side of w T hose nature is here brought forward by the word 
 1 pvxucbg —is not enlightened and sanctified by the Spirit of God, but is gov¬ 
 erned by the ifivxy, the principle of life for the cap%, so that the sphere in 
 w T hich he works and strives is not that of the divine truth and the divine 
 but the purely human activity of the understanding, and, as regards 
 practical things, the interests of the life of sense, the ETziOvpiat ipvxtKai, 4 
 Macc. i. 32, the sizidvpiai avdpcb tzuv, not the Oclypa Qeov, 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, 
 Theophylact (suggested only), Thomas, 
 Estius, Clericus, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Pott, 
 Heydenreich, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert. 
 
 2 Hofmann expounds as if Paul had writ¬ 
 ten in ver. 12 f. : ra vjStj vuv i/no t. ©. 
 
 XO-picOevra 19 ju. 1 v, CTijjueta ovra t a) v jueA- 
 Aovtujv, & Kai <Tvy/cpi'vo/uev . . . nvev- 
 paTLicois irvevp.aTi<a AaAovvre?. Comp, on 
 the latter expression, Maximus Tyrius, xxii. 
 4 : avverd crwerots Ae'ywv. 
 
CHAP. II., 14 , 
 
 57 
 
 human Trvevfia, 1 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. G), 
 lias not yet taken place with him ; hence the j psychical man is really the nat¬ 
 ural man, i.e. not yet enlightened and sanctified by the Spirit of God, not 
 yet born again, 2 although, at the same time, 'ipvxucog means not naturalis {i.e. 
 <pvoiK6g in contrast to diSanrog, rexvucog , and the like ; comp. Polyb. vi. 4. 
 7 : (pvauicjg nal cinaraGnavag ), but anivnalis (Vulgate). Comp, {icxiic y go (pi a as 
 contrasted with that avudev Karepxopevr/, Jas. iii. 15. Many have taken up 
 the idea in a one-sided way, either in a merely intellectual reference (rov 
 povotg rolg ohcetoig aprcovpevov loyiopolg, 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, Limborcli, Clericus, Rosenmiiller, Valck- 
 enaer, Krause, and others). The two elements cannot be separated from 
 each other without quite an arbitrary act of division. — ov dexerai] The 
 question whether this means : he is unsusceptible of it , does not understand 
 (Vulgate, Castalio, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Ruckert, et 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 ^pvxv and wevpa, 
 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 hurnanae trichotomia N. T. scrip- 
 toribus recepta , in his Opusc. Berol. 1834, p. 
 143 ff.; and, on the other side , Hahn, Theol. 
 d. N. T. I. 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 6 eo-w and 6 7 avPpoonos 
 (see on Eph. iii. 16), become popular (comp. 
 Josephus, Antt. i. 1. 2, according to which 
 God breathed rvevpa and ^vx^r into man 
 when first formed, and subsisted alongside 
 of the twofold conception and the cor¬ 
 responding mode of expression (v. 3 f., vii. 
 34; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; Rom. viii. 10 f., al.). 
 Comp. Lunemann on 1 Thess. v. 23. Luther, 
 as early as 1521, has some excellent remarks 
 on the trichotomy (printed also in De- 
 litzsch’s bibl. Psychol, p. 392 f.). He likens 
 the it v tv pa to the Sanctum sanctorum , the 
 ypvxv to the Sanctum , and the criopa 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 noiionibus pyschol. Pauli , p. 1 ff. ; De- 
 
 litzsch, loc. cit. p. 87 ff. ; Ernssti, Ursprung d. 
 Siinde , II. p. 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 and m/evgart/co?, the i pvxv 
 
 cannot be the seat and sphere of operation 
 of the Divine Spirit, which is to be found 
 rather in the human wevpa, and conse¬ 
 quently must be conceived as specifically 
 distinct from the latter. 
 
 2 Luther’s gloss is : “The natural 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. Calovius, who insists with justice 
 against Grotius, that i//ux tK °? and o-ap/cuco? 
 differ only “ratione formalis significa- 
 tionis.” Paul might have used crapici/cd? 
 here too (see on iii. 1); but i|/vxi*d? nat¬ 
 urally suggested itself to him as correlative 
 to Sexeo-Jcu; for the if/vxv 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 
 crowds toO Koo-pov, for example, or in some 
 other way)! 
 
58 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 view by the standing use of dlxcadai 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. — rd tov tcv.] what comes from the Spirit. 
 This applies both to the matter and form of the teaching. See ver. 13. — 
 popia yap . . . yvuvac] ground of this ou de^erat ic.r.h. : 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 : on 
 
 TTvevpaTiKcjc avanpiveraL : because they (rd tov tcvev/j..') are judged of after a 
 spiritual fashion (iv. 3, xiv. 24), i.e. 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 ipvxmog). UvevyanKug, that is to 
 say, refers not to the human spirit, but to the Holy Spirit (sec ver. 13) who 
 tills the human spirit, and by the hallowing influence of divine enlighten¬ 
 ment and power capacitates it for the avanpivuv of the doctrines of teachers 
 filled with the Spirit who address it, so that this avanpiveLv is an activity 
 w T hich proceeds in a mode empowered and guided by the Spirit. We may add 
 that avanpiv. 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 tales place ; they are subject to spiritual judgment. That 
 is an axiom. But this very sort of avanpioig is what is lacking in the ipexmoq. 
 
 Ver. 15. He who is spiritual , on the other hand, judges all things , but is far 
 his own part (adrdf) judged by no one ; so lofty is his position, high above all 
 the rpvxiKoic, to whom he is a riddle, not to be read by their unenlightened 
 powers of judging, to which rd tov TrvEvpaTog are folly ! — 6 i TvevyaTiKoq] he 
 who stands under the influence of the Holy Spirit, enlightened and led by 
 Him. Comp, on TrvcvyaTiKcbq in ver. 14. — rd irdvra] (see the critical remarks) 1 
 receives from the context no further limitation than that of the article, 
 which is not unsuitable (Hofmann), but denotes the totality of what presents 
 itself to his judging , so that it does not apply merely to rd tov TTVEvyaToq 
 (Ewald : “all the deepest and most salutary divine truths”), the avanpivetv 
 of which, on the part of the 'nVEvyaTUids, is a matter of course, but means all 
 
 1 In connection with the reading ndvra, 
 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); or: “Ego 
 quidem . . . quemlibet profanum . . . diju¬ 
 dicare adeoque a nvevp.arucol<; s. vere collus- 
 tratis dignoscere possum” (Pott); or: 
 “Convincere quemlibet profanum erroris 
 potest ” (Nosselt, Rosenmiiller). Were the 
 reading genuine, and ndvra masculine, it is 
 
 only the first of these renderings that would 
 be admissible ; for, according to ver. 14, 
 avaKp. cannot mean erroris convincere 
 (against Nosselt), and to restrict ndvra to 
 the profane would be entirely unwarranted 
 by the context, as is plain from nvevp.anKU)s 
 dvaKpiverat in ver. 14 (against Nosselt and 
 Pott). At the same time, it would also be 
 arbitrary in adopting the first view to refer 
 it only to the loqui or docere , and not also 
 to deeds and other expressions of the life. 
 
CHAP. II., 1G. 
 
 50 
 
 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 dompdfiv (1 Thess. v. 21) for all that otfers itself to him 
 to be judged. How often has Paul himself displayed this dvanpLcig TwevpaTiKy, 
 and that, too, in matters not connected with doctrine, under situations the 
 most varied ! e.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 
 w T ith 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 w r hom 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. 1 — vn' 
 ovdevog] namely, who is not also tt vevpariKog. This follows necessarily from 
 the foregoing 6 TTvavpar. avanpivei ra tt dvr a. Comp, too, 1 John iv. 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, e.g., in Cornelius a Lapide : “ Sin 
 autem nova oriatur quaestio in fide aut moribus, eaque obscura et dubia, 
 eadem prudentia dictat homini spirituali . . . ejusdem Spiritus judicio 
 reeurrendum esse ad superiores , ad doctores , ad eccelesiam Uomanam quasi mat - 
 ricem , ” etc. 
 
 Ver. 16. Proof for the avrog 6e viz’ ovSevoc dvanpiveTcu. ‘ 1 For in order to 
 judge of the TrvEvpariKog, one would need to have Jcnown the mind of Christ , which 
 we Tvvev/mTiKOL are in possession of—to he 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. 2 The major proposition is 
 clothed in the words of Isa. xl. 13 (substantially after the LXX.), comp. 
 Rom. xi. 34. There, indeed, K vpiog 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 jpeigde k.t.) 1. proves.— 
 The vovg K vpiov is the understanding of the Lord, embracing His thoughts, 
 judgments, measures, plans, etc., the vovg being the faculty where these 
 
 1 [Surely here the author goes beyond 
 the scope of the passage, which is limited 
 to the things of the Spirit. So Hodge and 
 Poor.—T. W. C.] 
 
 2 Fully expressed, it would run thus : No 
 one can know the mind of Christ so as to in - 
 
 struct Him: but we, we nvevpaTLKol, are they 
 who have the mind of Christ; therefore we 
 are they also whom no one can know so as to 
 instruct them , that is, just they who vn ouSe- 
 vos avaKpiVovrcu, ver. 15. 
 
k 
 
 GO PAUL’S FIPST EPISTLE TO TIIE COBINTHIANS. 
 
 originate and are elaborated. The conception is not identical with that of 
 the 7 rvevpa Xpiarov (against Billroth, Neander, and many others), which 
 rather, when imparted to man, makes his vovg the vovg Xpiarov , not being itself 
 the vovg X., but that wdiich constitutes its substratum. — ogavpfi(3. avrov ] qui 
 instructurus sit eum, i.e. in order (after thus coming to know him) to instruct 
 Him. See on this use of bg, Matthiae, II. p. 10G8 ; Kiihner, II. p. 529 IT. 
 Regarding avpfifa^eiv, 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. Y. p. 154. This bg avp/3. avrov is not “ rather superfluously ” taken 
 in along with the rest of the quotation (Ruckert), but is included as essen¬ 
 tial to the proof of the in’ ovSevog avaapiverai , since the forming a judgment 
 assumes the capacity to instruct (act as master). This , then, is what he 
 who would judge the nvevparucoi must be capable of doing with respect to 
 Christ , since these have the mind of Christ. Chrysostom says well : of 
 avp[ii(3daei avrov, ovx anlug npoasOqicev, a/lAd rcpbg o ehrev i/dfj, on rov nvevpariKov 
 ovbeig avanpivei' el 'yap eibevai ovSeig dvvarai rov 9 eov (rather Christ's) rov vovv, 
 ■nroUhi paXhov SiSaaiieiv nal diopOovaOai .—To refer avrov, with Nosselt ( Opusc . 
 II. p. 137 f.), to the nvevparmog (so, too, Rosenmiiller and Tittmann, l.c. p. 
 294), is an involved construction rendered necessary only by failure to 
 catch the simple course of proof. — qpeig be vovv X . ex- ] the minor proposition, 
 with the emphasis on r/pelg, and the explanatory Xpiarov in place of K vpiov. 
 Paul includes himself along with the rest among the nvevparmoi. These are 
 the possessors (exopev) 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 vovg, too, can be no mental faculty different in kind from 
 the vovg Xpiarov , 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 Uharovog, ovde UvOayopov, says Chrysostom, aXT 6 
 Xpiarog ra eavrov rfj r/perepa evEdptce diavota. Many commentators (not recog¬ 
 nizing the process of proof) have interpreted ix°l uev as perspectam habemus 
 (see Tittmann, l.c.), as e.g. Rosenmiiller and Flatt : “We know the mean¬ 
 ing of the doctrine of Christ or Grotius : “ Xovimus Dei consilia, quae 
 Christo fuere revelata. ” 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (e) The “ perfect.” Yer. 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 to the 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 elite 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 Homans and Ephe¬ 
 sians, all addressed to the mass of the people. The New Testament makes no 
 distinction between (■rv'iang and yvfiaig) 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.” 
 
 (f) No confusion of memory. Yer. 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. 383). 
 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 Homans 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 course in this view we must suppose the phrase As it is 
 vmitten not to be a form of quotation, but rather equivalent to our purpose when 
 we say, “To 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. 
 
 (e) cvyKpivovrsQ. Yer. 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. 
 
 ned.) 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 
 use in this sense. The sense too is every way appropriate, “ explaining spiritual 
 things in spiritual words” (substantial^ 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 wording of 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 thoughts of a man without making him a machine, why cannot he 
 control 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. III. 
 
 03 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Yer. 1. Kal hyu] ABCDEFG fcs, min. Clem. Or. Chrys. Damasc. read Kay 6, 
 which Griesb. Laclim. Scholz, Biickert, Tisch. have adopted, and justly, con¬ 
 sidering the decisive testimony in its favour. — capKiKolg'] Griesb. Lachm. 
 Biickert, Tisch. read oapKivoig with A B C* D* 5$, 67** 71, Clem. Or. Nyss. To 
 be preferred on like grounds as in Bom. vii. 14. Here the interchange was es¬ 
 pecially aided by ver. 3, where, according to the preponderance of evidence, 
 capKLK. is the true reading ; for the fact that D*FG, Or. Nyss. have capKiv 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. 1 — Yer. 2. ovdi] Elz. has 
 ovre, in opposition to all the uncials and most Fathers. The former is neces¬ 
 sary here (Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 157), but had ovre very often substituted for it 
 by the transcribers.—In] is wanting in B; bracketed by Lachm. But how 
 easily it might fall aside after ovde through similarity in sound, or on the 
 ground that it might be dispensed with when vvv followed ! — Yer. 3. Kal 6lxog- 
 racriui ] omitted in A B C some min. and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by 
 Lachm. Biickert, and Tisch. Were it genuine, why should it have been left 
 out? An addition byway of gloss (even in texts used by Irenaeus and Cyjmian) 
 from Gal. v. 20. — Ver. 4. uvQponoi] adopted also by Lachm. Biickert, and 
 Tisch., followed by Ewald, according to almost all the uncials and several vss. 
 and Fathers. The Recepta GapKiKoi., although still defended by Fritzsche and 
 Beiche, is so decidedly condemned by the critical evidence (among the uncials 
 they have only L and K **), that it must be regarded as derived from ver. 3. 
 Ovx too, has flowed from the same source, instead of which, ovk is to be re¬ 
 stored, with Lachm. Biickert, and Tisch., in accordance with ABC fc*, 17, 
 Dam. — Ver. 5. rif] Lachm. and Biickert. read tc, with AB K, min, Yulg. It. 
 Aeth. and Latin Fathers. The personal names very naturally suggested the 
 masculine to transcribers.—The order Raving . . . *knoAltig (in Elz. and 
 Scholz) arose from ver. 4 ; compare i. 12.—Before di&Koroi, Elz. and Tisch. have 
 caa’ which, however, from the decisive weight of testimony against it, must 
 be regarded as an addition to denote the sense : nil nisi. —Ver. 12. rovrov ] is 
 
 1 Fritzsche, indeed (ad Rom. II. p. 46, and 
 de conform. N. T. Laclim. p. 49), holds that 
 the form adpi civo? in this passage, Rom. vii. 
 14, and Heb. vii. 16, is an offspring of the 
 transcribers. But it was precisely the other 
 form o-apKLKos , 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 Ileb. vii. 16. 
 The most decisive argument from the exter¬ 
 
 nal evidence against the Recepta is, that pre¬ 
 cisely the weightiest Codices A BCX, are 
 equally unanimous in reading aap/civo? in 
 ver. 1. and aapKucoi in ver. 3 ; and we cannot 
 at all see why the hand of an emendator 
 should have inserted themore classical word 
 only in ver. 1, while leaving the unclassic 
 (Ta.pK.LKoi in ver. 3. Besides, we have o-a.pKiVa.is 
 in 2 Cor. iii. 3, entirely without any various 
 reading o-ap/ciKais, 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 33 C* tt*, Sahkl. Arnbr. Deleted by Lachm. and Eiickert. The 
 omission, however, was easily occasioned by Homoioteleuton, and was aided by 
 the fact that the word could be dispensed with. — Ver. 13. to tt vp] Lachm. Eiick- 
 ert, and Tisch. read to irvp avro, with A B C, min. Sahid. and several Fathers. 
 Eightly ; the avro not being in any way essential was easily disregarded. —- 
 Yer. 17. tovtov] Lachm. and Eiickert have avrov , which Griesb. too recom¬ 
 mended, with A D E F G, min. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. (on the margin) 
 Vulg. and It. (ilium), and Latin Fathers. But, after ei nq in the protasis, avrov 
 offered itself in the apodosis as the more common. —Yer. 22. early] has pre¬ 
 ponderant evidence against it. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. 
 Eiickert, and Tisch. A repetition from ver. 21. 
 
 Yv. 1-4. Application of the foregoing section (ii. 6-16) to the Apostle's rela¬ 
 tion to the Corinthians. 
 
 Y T er. 1. Kaya>] 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 Qcov aoflav 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 
 Kal vglv would have been a more stringent way of putting it. — aXX! uq aap- 
 Ktvocq] namely, had I to speak to you. See Kiihner, II. p. 604. Kruger on 
 Thuc. i. 142. 4, and on Xen. Anab. vii. 2. 28. This brevity of expression 
 is zeugmatic. lapiuvoq (see the critical remarks) is : fleshy (2 Cor. iii. 8), 
 not equivalent to capnucog, fleshly. See on Rom. vii. 14. Winer, p. 93 
 [E. T. 122], and Fritzsche, ad Horn. II. p. 46. Here, as in Rom. l.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 w r ho have as yet experienced so little of the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit, that the oap% — 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 vovq 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 acOevda rfjq capnoq (Rom. vi. 19), although they might also 
 be in part (pvciovpvvoi viro rov vooq rijq captcog aiiruv (Col. ii. 18),—so that 
 Paul, in order strongly to express their condition at that time, could call 
 them fleshy. By capiavoq, therefore, he indicates the unspiritual nature of 
 the Corinthians,— i.e. a nature ruled by the limitations and impulses of the 
 cap!;, 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 cap/wtol (guiding themselves according 
 to the oap%, and disobedient to the Trvsvya) ; for although, in connection with 
 continued Christian instruction, they had become more effectually partakers 
 also of the influence of the Divine Spirit, nevertheless,—as their sectarian 
 
ciiap. in., 1. 
 
 C>5 
 
 tendencies (see ver. 3) gave proof,—they had not so followed this divine 
 principle as to prevent the sensuous nature opposed to it (the oapg) from 
 getting the upper hand with them in a moral and intellectual respect, so 
 that they were consequently still /card capua and kv capni (Rom. viii. 5, 8), 
 ra tjjq craptcog (frpovovvTeg (Rom. viii. 5), /card capua tcavxupevoi (3 Cor. xi. 18), 
 kv cotyia aapKLKrf (3 Cor. i. 13), 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, upbraiding 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 Idnd ; 
 hence ire in ver. 3 is logically correct (against the objection of de Wette 
 and Reiche). 
 
 The difference between a apmicog (also oapaivog) and i fjvxacSg is singly this : 
 ipvxiK-oQ 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 in the natural state without Christ (homo naturalis, 
 as in ii. 14), or that he has been forsaken again by the Spirit (as in Jude 19). 
 Sapiwtog, on the other hand, may be affirmed not merely of the i pvxmog, who 
 is indeed necessarily vapiwiog, 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 oap% and 
 sets itself against the Spirit ; but, on the contrary, instead of being tcvsv- 
 parc/cog and, in consequence, living kv TrvevpaTt and being disposed /card nvev- 
 pa, he is still kv vapid, and still thinks, judges, is minded and acts /card 
 aapaafl The i pvxinog is accordingly as such also vapmuog, but every captcncog 
 is not as such still or once more a ipvxucog, not yet having the Spirit, or 
 having lost Him again. The expositors commonly do not enter upon any 
 distinction between capnivog and oapiaKog, either (so the majority) reading 
 capKiKoig in ver. 1 also, or (Riickert, Pott) arbitrarily giving out that the 
 two words are alike in meaning. The distinction between them and ipvxtKog 
 also is passed over in utter silence by many (such as Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
 Billroth), while others , in an arbitrary way, make aaptavog and a apian, some¬ 
 times to be milder than -ipvxmog (Bengel, Riickert, holding that in capn. there 
 is more of the weakness, in ipvx- more of the opposition to what is higher), 
 sometimes to be stronger (Osiander ; while Theophylact holds the former to 
 be Tcapa (}>voiv, the latter /card <pvcnv, and the pneumatic virep <pvatv), 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 
 aapicLvos and (rap/aKo? answers to that be¬ 
 tween elvat ev crap/ct and Kara. crapKa, 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. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 397 f., 
 has in substance hit the true distinction 
 
 between crapKivos and aap/aKo?. 
 
 3 Ewald 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 could 
 
 only be brought out by the contrast of 
 Christianity, because it is the opposite of 
 the TryevpaTiKos, and cannot therefore oc¬ 
 cupy a middle place between the two for¬ 
 mer notions. 
 
Co Paul’s first epistle to tiie corixthiaks. 
 
 lower moral condition as given up to the desires (Locke, Wolf, and others). 
 — vrj'KLOiQ kv XpiGTfi] statement justifying the foregoing ug crap/c. by setting 
 forth the character of their Christian condition as it had been at that time 
 to which ova ifwrjdgv k.t.a. looks back. The phrase denotes those wdio, in 
 their relation to Christ (in Christianity), are still children under age, i.e. 
 mere beginners. The opposite is rthetoc ev X., Col. i. 28. See, regarding 
 the analogous use in Rabbinical writers of filpUTl ( sugentes ), Schoettgen 
 in loc. ; Wetstein on 1 Pet. ii. 2 ; Lightfoot, Ilor. p. 1G2 ; and for that of 
 D'Jftp, 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 vi/irtog ev Xpcartp, i.e. an infans as yet in re¬ 
 lation to Christianity, w T ho as such receives the elementary instruction suit¬ 
 able for him (the yaha of ver. 2). The EvayyEAUiEGda^ on the other hand, 
 w T hich 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 vt/tuol ev Xpiorti. 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 first 
 arrival, of the time, consequently, in which he founded the Corinthian 
 church, w r hen he instructed those who gave ear to his Evayys^c^Eadai, in the 
 elements of Christianity. — By ev Xpiarti is expressed the specific field to 
 which the notion of vyircoryg is confined ; viewed apart from Christ, he, who 
 as a new convert is yet a vijircog^ may be an adult, or an old man. Comp, on 
 Col. i. 28. 
 
 Yer. 2. Keeping to the same figure (comp. Heb. v. 12 ; Philo, de agric. 
 p. 301), he designates as yaha : ri/v EiGaycjytKpv nal airhovoTEpav rov Evayyehiov 
 dtdacniahiav (Basil. Ilom. I. p. 403, ed. Paris, 1638), see Heb. v. 12, vi. 1 f., 
 and as fiptiya : the further and higher instruction, the <7o<pia, which, as dis¬ 
 tinguished from the yvu(nv ryv ek. Karrixv <y£u C (Clemens Alexandrinus), is 
 taught among the teIecol (ii. 6 ff.). Comp. Suicer, Thes. I. p. 721, 717. 
 Wetstein in loc. 1 — hhvao-fe] 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 dvvapcu , dvvarog ic.t.X. (which makes any supplementing of it by egBlelv 
 ftpupa 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 Macc. v. 41 ; Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 267 If. —alV ov6e eti vvv d'w.~\ ahV 
 ovdi, yea , not even. See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 157. Ilerm. 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 alloio him to treat the sub¬ 
 ject in an elementary style. There is no self-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. Theog. Anab. iv. 5. 8; also Nagelsbaeh on the Iliad , 
 640), see Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. III. p. 437 f.; p. 179, ed. 3. 
 
ciiAr. hi., 4. 
 
 67 
 
 of the doctrine of the resurrection in chap. xv. belonged really to the fip&ya 
 (comp. ii. 9), and rises high above that elementary teaching concerning the 
 resurrection, with which every Jew was acquainted, and which Paul himself 
 so often gave without thereby speaking kv teIelolq, whence also it is rightly 
 placed in Heb. vi. 1 among the first rudiments of Christian doctrine. 
 
 Ver. 3. lapKiKoi] see on ver. 1.— ottov] equivalent seemingly to quando- 
 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. 
 III. p. 307 ; Herod, i. 68 ; Thuc. viii. 27. 2, viii. 96. 1 ; Isocrates, Paneg. 
 186.— ZyTidq] Jealousy. —/card avdp.] after the fashion of men. Comp, on 
 Rom. iii. 5 ; often, too, in classical writers, e.g. /car’ avdp. (ppoveiv (Soph. Aj. 
 747, 764). The contrast here is to the mode of life conformed to the Divine 
 Spirit ; hence not different from /card eapua in Rom. viii. 4. — Respecting 
 the relation to each other of the three words Zyrfk., ip., dixocrr., see Theophv- 
 lact : 'KaiTjp yap 6 t,yd°q rrjq epidoq, avri] de raq dcxocraaiaq yevvq. — On oi'x'i , 
 comp. Bengel : “ nam Spiritus non fert studium partium humanarum.” On 
 the contrary, t,ffkoq k.tA. are ranked expressly among the ipya rrjq capnoq , 
 Gal. v. 20. 
 
 Ver. 4. Tap] explanatory by exhibiting the state of contention in concreto. 
 — avdp.] with a pregnant emphasis : are ye not men ? i.e. 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. Anal), vi. 1. 26 : avdpuTtoq eiyi (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 /card avdpoTrov irepi- 
 TraTEire, hence there is no ground for rejecting the reading dvdpunoc, 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 (aPti ova or ov /uevtoi). —It may 
 be added that Paul names only the two parties : eyo) . . . UavUov and eyh> 
 ’A/ro/lAd), not giving an imperfect enumeration for the sake of the gerao XVpa¬ 
 ne yoq 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 pETaaxvpanapdq, in iv. 6, with 
 reference to himself and Apollos alone. — kyi j yev] This yev does not stand 
 in a logical relation to the following de. 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 yev and de (Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. i. 9 ; Baeumlein, PartiJc. 
 p. 168 f.). 
 
 Yv. 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 
 
63 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 reward according to his oicn 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 (vv. 10-15). The 
 aim of this discussion is stated in iv. 6. 
 
 Yer. 5. Ovv] 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 Ajiollos are not our heads, what are they then ? Paul, however, 
 is in the habit of indicating counter-questions expressly as such (xv. 85 ; 
 Rom. ix. 19, all). — tl] more significant than rig ; comp. ver. 7. The 
 question is, what , as respects their position, are they ? Comp. Plato, Hep. 
 p. 332 E, 341 D.— Siamvoi ] They are servants, and therefore not fitted 
 and destined to be heads of parties ; allog early 6 dEOTtorrig, ryjeig ekelvov 
 dovXoi, Theodoret. — 6C kv\ u per quos, non in quos,” Bengel. Comp. 
 John i. 7. They are but causae ministeriales in the hand of God. — 
 ha Loreva. ] as in xv. 2, 11 ; Rom. xiii. 11. 1 — /cat] and that, /cat . . . eScokev is 
 not to be joined with ver. 6 (Mosheim, Markland, ad Lys. XII. p. 560 f.), 
 seeing that in ver. 7 no regard is paid to this /cat . . . eScjicev. — Emory kg ] 
 the emphasis is on ekclot., as in vii. 17 and Rom. xii. 3. —6 K vpiog] correla¬ 
 tive to the Stanovoi, 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 aXX 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. i. 13. 
 
 Yv. 6, 7. Statement of the difference in the Stanovia 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 .—tyvrsvea k.t.7 1.] We are not to 
 suppose the object left indefinite (de Wette) ; on the contrary, it emerges 
 out of St' kv ETriorEvoars, ver. 5, namely : the faith of the Corinthian com¬ 
 munity. This is conceived of as a tree (comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 276 E) 
 which was planted by Paul, inasmuch as he first brought the Corinthians to 
 believe and founded the church ; but watered 2 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 
 Trig yap avrou jap/rof to mropBopa, 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, Ep. 48, and several of the 
 respected the beginning and the further- Fathers make kron-crav refer in a totally in- 
 ance of faith. See ver. 6. The becoming appropriate way to baptism. 
 a believer comprehends different stages of 
 
CHAP. III., 8-10. 
 
 G9 
 
 Comp. Acts xvi. 14, xiv. 27 ; 1 Cor. xv. 10. — kan tl\ may be taken to 
 mean : is anything of importance, anything worth speaking of (Acts v. 36 ; Gal. 
 ii. 6, vi. 3. 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 
 ti 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. — dll' 6 all;. 
 Geof] sc. ra rcdvra eon (1 Cor. xv. 28 ; Col. iii. 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 Kuhner, II. p. 604 ; Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 366 D, 561 B. Theo- 
 phylact says well : diddgag, on 0 £ d> del p 6 v cp KpooexEuv, nal elg avrov dvanOevai 
 tc av t a ra avp^aivovTa ayada. 
 
 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. — ev doiv\ 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 : tcara rr/v vKovpyiav. — ekogtoq 6e /c.r./l.] irpog yap to tov Qeov epyov 
 KapafiallbpEvoL ev elglv' ekeI kovcov evekev {i.e. in respect of the pains and 
 labour expended) ovic elalv, alia ekogtoq k.t.1., Chrysostom. — ISiov] both 
 times with emphasis. Bengel puts it happily : ‘ ‘ congruous iteratio ; anti- 
 theton ad unumP The Irj^e-at, however, refers to the recompense at the 
 last judgment, ver. 13 ff. —Yer. 9 gives now the proof, not for both halves 
 of ver. 8, of which the first has been already disposed of in the preceding 
 statement (in opposition to Hofmann), but for the new thought enaarog . . . 
 k.6tvov introduced by 6e. The emphasis of proof lies wholly on the word 
 thrice put foremost, Qeov. 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 ekogtoc . . . 
 kokov must hold good, and none lack his reward according to his labour 
 (“ secundum laborem, non propter laborem,” Calovius). — Qeov owepyoi ] 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 ; Kuhner, II. p. 172), and fails to appre¬ 
 ciate that lofty conception of a dovloq Qeov. — Qeov yedopy. and Qeov olk. 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 field, for tillage 
 {yedopy., Strabo, xiv. p. 671 ; Theag. in Schol. on Pind. Nem. iii. 21 ; Prov. 
 xxiv. 30, xxxi. 16), which belongs to God and is cultivated, and as a building 
 belonging to God (Eph. ii. 21), which is being carried up to completion. 
 
 Yer. 10. The former of these images {yedopy.) has been the underlying 
 
TO 
 
 . PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 thought in what has hitherto been said (vv. 6-8) ; the second and new 
 figure (oi/coJ.) 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 is not the apostolic office, with which Paul was graced (Rom. xii. 
 3, 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 was conscious 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 Kara . . . <5o6. /not is to express humility in making the utterance which 
 follows. Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact. — crotyog apxir.] 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 unskilful architect. 
 Without a foundation no man builds ; without a proper foundation no ao0oc, 
 i.e. no one who understands the art (Ex. xxxv. 10). Comp. Plato, Phil. p. 
 17 C, de virt. b.‘376 A ; Pind. Pyth. iii. 115, v. 115 ; Soph. Ant. 362. But 
 Paul by the grace of God was a cro<f>bg apxir cktuv. — 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 p>ossessed by 
 the conscious faith of the Corinthian church. Comp, on Eph. ii. 20. — heui/aov] 
 The masculine 6 defiltog (see ver. 11 ; hence wrongly held by Ewald to be 
 neuter here), attributed by the old grammarians to the noivj (see Wetstein 
 on ver. 11), is commonly found only in the plural, and that as early as Thuc. 
 i. 93. 1. In the singular, 2 Tim. ii. 19 ; Rev. xxi. 19 ; Machon in Athen. 
 viii. p. 346 A ; 3 Esdr. vi. 20. — aXUog tie enoiKod.] By this is meant not 
 merely Apollos, but any later teacher of the Corinthians whatever (comp. 
 enaorog) : “ Not my task, however, but that of another, is the building up, 
 the carrying on the building. ”— 7r«f] i.e. here : with what materialsJ See 
 vv. 12, 13. Without figurative language : u 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 otKodoffi is, as before, the church, 
 which, being founded upon Christ (see above), is further built up, i.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 
 7ro)? consists primarily in this, that they sim¬ 
 ply carry on the building, and do not alter 
 the foundation (which was probably done 
 
 by the opponents of the apostle). But the 
 carrying on of the building, so far as that 
 is concerned, is presupposed in 7rws €ttouco- 
 
 fio/Aei. 
 
71 
 
 CHAP. III., 11, 12. 
 
 wrong way, see vv. 12, 10), 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. 
 
 Yer. 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, lie cannot otherwise than , etc. ; but as regards the upbuilder , the case is, as 
 ver. 12 ff. sets forth. We are not to bring in any intermediate thought to 
 explain the yap, either with Billroth : u 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. Bather we are to 
 note that ver. 11 stands only in a preparatory relation to ver. 12, in which the 
 varying wug of the eTroiK.oSop.elv is exhibited. — Svvarai] can , not may (Grotius, 
 Glass, and others, including Storr, Kosenmiiller, Pott, Billroth) ; for it is 
 the Christian church that is spoken of, whose structure is incapable of having 
 another foundation.— tv apa rbv Keipevov] i.e. different from that , which lies 
 already there. Kespecting tv apa after a/.log in this sense, see Kruger, ad 
 Dion. p. 9 ; Stallbaum, ad Phileb. p. 51 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. III. 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, Keander, 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 rdpevog must have been in its place before the 
 apostle himself laid his foundation. Hence the Ketpevog depehog is that laid 
 by God (so, rightly, Kiickert 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 f. ; 1 Pet. ii. G). Comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16. This is 
 the objective foundation , which lies there for the whole of Christendom. But 
 this foundation is 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 ’I rjoovg Xpiorog , so as 
 emphatically to designate the personal, historically manifested Christ. This 
 og eoTtv 'Irjcovg Xpievog is the sum of the fundamental Christian confession of 
 faith, John xvii. 3 ; Phil. ii. 11 ; Acts iv. 10 ff. 
 
 Yer. 12. Ae] 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, 1 as though the 
 OepeXiog were that not of a house, but of a city (Billroth) ; against which 
 ver. 1G (see in loc.) is decisive, as is, further, the consideration that the idea 
 of Christ’s being the foundation of 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 
 
 PAUI/S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORIKTHIAKS. 
 
 / 
 
 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- 
 ium vero ex stramine et culmo”). It sets before us, on the contrary, a 
 building rearing itself upon the foundation laid by the master-builder, for the 
 erection of which the different icorlcmen 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 (Kruger and Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. 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. 1 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 ( Kalayy , not equiva¬ 
 lent to Kakayog, a reed ; see Wetstein and Schleusner, Thes .), of little worth 
 and perishable, 2 so that they—instead of, like the former, abiding at the 
 Parousiain their eternal truth—come to nought, i.e. are shown not to belong 
 to the ever-enduring afo'/deia, and form no part of the perfect knowledge 
 (xiii. 12) which shall then emerge. 3 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. 4 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, avrog Se 
 cudr/cETcu, ver. 15. Billroth makes the strange objection to this interpreta- 
 
 1 Luther’s gloss is appropriate : “ This is 
 said of preaching and teaching , by which 
 faith is either strengthened or weakened.” 
 
 2 Compare Midr. Tillin, 119. 51, of false 
 teachers : “ Sicut foenum non durat, itanec 
 verba eorum stabunt in saeculum.” 
 
 3 So, in substance (explaining it of the 
 different doctrines), Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 Ambrosia ster, Sedulius, Lyra, Thomas, 
 Cajetanus, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, 
 Piscator, Justiniani, Grotius, Estius, Calo- 
 vius, Lightfoot, Stolz, Rosenmuller, Flatt, 
 Ileydenreich, Neander, de Wette, Osiander, 
 Ewald, Maier. Comp. Theodoret: Ttve? nepi 
 Soyp.a.TbJi' ravra eipr/crSai. Tcp a7ro<TT6A.a> (/>a<xiV. 
 
 4 Estius characterizes the second class 
 well as “ doctrina minus sincera minusque 
 solida, yeluti si sit humanis ac philosophicis 
 aut etiam Judaicis opinionibus admixta 
 plus satis, si curiosamagis quam utilis,” etc. 
 Comp, the Paraphr. of Erasmus, who refers 
 specially to the “ humanas constitutiunculas 
 de cultu, de victu, de frigidis ceremoniis.” 
 They are, generally, all doctrinal develop¬ 
 
 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. 
 
CHAP. III., 12. 
 
 73 
 
 tion as a wliole, that xp va & v k-.t.I. 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. iii. et. xiii. Ep. Pauli prim, ad 
 Cor., Lips. 1819) see Heydenreich and Itiickert. Our exposition is, in fact, 
 a necessity, because it alone keeps the whole figure in harmony with itself 
 throughout. For if the foundation, which is laid, be the contents of the 
 first 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 fruits 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 ra eldrj njg apsTtjg ; w r ood, etc., 
 ra evavria rfjq aper^g, olg TjoTpeTuarai Ti)g ■yeevvrjg ro tt vp ); or, again, of the 
 worthy or unworthy members of the church themselves, who would be moulded 
 by the teachers (Schott in Rohr’s Magaz. fur christl. Precl. 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 epyov, 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 
 H. 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 w T ith 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 ; lie 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, icherein 
 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 enlarg«ment of the church, which is made up of persons, 
 
74 
 
 Paul’s eirst epistle to the corihthians. 
 
 receive a character varying in value. The hroucodoyeiv takes place on the 
 persons through doctrines, which arc the building materials. 
 
 Yer. 13. Apodosis : So will what each has done on the building (to epyov ) 
 not remain hidden (apavepov yevyo.). Then the ground of this assurance is as¬ 
 signed : y yap yyepa dyhcjaec, sc. ekclotov to epyov. The day is /car’ e^oxyv, the 
 day of the Parousia (comp. Ileb. x. 24), w r hich is obvious from what follows 
 on to ver. 15. So, rightly, Tertullian, contra Marc. iv. 2 ; Origen, Cyprian, 
 Ep. iv. 2 ; Lactantius, Inst. 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, Ewalcl, 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: 
 Xpovoq Sinaiov avSpa Selkvvglv yovog, Sophocles, Oed. Pex , G08 ; Stob. Eel. I. 
 p. 234,—so Grotius, Wolf, Wetstein, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Platt, and others); 
 or of the time of clear lcnoicledge of the gospel (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Yors- 
 tius ’) ; or of the dies tribulationis (Augustine, Calovius, and others). — otl 
 ev 7 rvpi aizonal.) We are neither to read here ore 2 instead of otl (Bos, Al¬ 
 berti), nor does the latter stand for the former (Pott), but it has a causative 
 force : because it is revealed in fire, —the day, namely, 3 not to epyov, 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 6 K vpLog, which can be evolved from y yyepa 
 only by a very arbitrary process, since the whole context never speaks of 
 Christ Himself. —ev Trvpi] i.e. encompassed icithfire (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 ay>- 
 pear coming from heaven ev vrvpl <j>hoyog (2 Thess. i. 8 ; comp. Dan. vii. 9, 
 10 ; Mai. iv. 1), i.e. 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 epyov, even the golden, etc., and proves each, leaving the 
 one unharmed, but consuming the other. The correct supplying of y yy'epa 
 with aTTonah. 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 
 contain an antithetic designation of the 
 present time as night. And in that case, 
 too, it would surely be the clear day of the 
 Parousia which would be meant, as in Rom. 
 xiii. 12. 
 
 2 As regards the fact of the two words 
 being often put the one for the other by 
 transcribers, see Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor. p. 
 491; Kiilmer, ad Xen. Anab. i. 4. 2. 
 
 3 Estius, Pott, Billroth, Riickert, Olshau¬ 
 sen, de Wette, Ewald, Hofmann. 
 
chap, in., 14, 15. 
 
 75 
 
 view of ?) iyikpa sets aside the explanations of the wrath of God against the Jews 
 (Lightfoot), of the Holy Spirit , who tries “quae doctrina sit instar auri et quae 
 instar stipulae” (Calvin), of the fire of trial and persecution (Rosenmuller, 
 Flat!, following Augustine, de civ. Dei , xxi. 28, 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 anv one has taught what is excellent and 
 imperishable, that, as belonging to the divine bJkifiua, 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.” — aKOK.a?.vnreTai] The result of this act of 
 revelation is the dijlkcEL already spoken of. The present marks the event as 
 beyond doubt; the sentence is an axiom. — teal e/caorov k.-t.A.] not to be 
 connected with on (Rtickert), but with the clause in the future, i) yap r/u. 
 tirjluoei. Is cpyov in the nominative (Theopliylact, 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 ok. ken 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 shoic 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. —to nvp avro] ignis ipse (see the critical remarks), i.e. 
 the fire (in which the aKOKa^v-ipig of the day takes place) by its own proper 
 working, without intervention from any other quarter. Respecting the posi¬ 
 tion of avro after Kvp, see Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 5. 1. Were we to 
 take it as the object of doKiyaaei , pointing back to the preceding statement 
 (Hofmann), it would be superfluous in itself, and less in keeping wfith the 
 terse, succinct mode of expression of this whole passage. — Sota/maei] 11 pro- 
 habit, non : purgabit. Hie locus ignem purgatorium non modo non fovet, 
 sed plane extinguit,” Bengel. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. Manner and result of this doKiyacrei. — yevel] will remain un¬ 
 harmed ; not yevet {Text, recept.) for KaraKar/aerai, in ver. 15, corresponds to 
 it. — fucObv M/rp. ] namely, for his work at the building (without figure : 
 teacher' 1 s recompense ), from God, at whose oiKodopy he has laboured. Rtickert 
 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 KaratcaS/cerai, shall be burned down (comp. 
 
76 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corihthiaks. 
 
 2 Pet. iii. 10), instead of the Attic KaraKavdyaerai , see Thom. M. p. 511. — 
 £rj/uiG)6f/<jETcu\ sc. top pioObv, i.e. frustrabitur praemio. Comp, on (gyiovcOai tl , 
 to suffer loss of anything, Matt. xvi. 26 ; Luke ix. 25 ; Phil. iii. 8. See 
 also Yalckenaer, ad Herod, vii. 39. The thought is : He will, as a punish¬ 
 ment, not receive the recompense which he would otherwise have received 
 as a teacher. We are not to think of deposition from office (Grotius), seeing 
 that it is the time of the Parousia that is spoken of. To take the (rjp,., 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 picO. ff/rperai. — avrog be oiodijceTai, ovro be ug Sea tt vpog^ 
 In order not to be misunderstood, as if by his (gyiodycErai 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 he saved , hut so as through 
 fre. A vrog refers to the rov gioOov, which is to be supplied as the object of 
 : 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 aurnpia, 1 yet still only in such a way that the 
 catastrophe of the Parousia will he fraught with the highest anxiety for him, and 
 will not elapse without sensibly impairing his inheritance of blessing. He shall 
 obtain the ouri/pia, but only a lower grade of it, so that he will belong to 
 those w T hom Jesus calls u the last ” (Matt. xx. 16 ; Mark x. 31). The main 
 })oint in this interpretation, namely, that cadge. refers to the Messianic 
 cioTT/pia, is accepted by most expositors ; but several, such as Rosenmuller 
 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 2 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 earn adipiscetur (quod boni ominis causa sperare 
 mavult apostolus) non fiet id sine gravi moestitia ac dolore.” It is a common 
 mistake to understand kg bia wpog in the sense of a proverb (by a haiPs- 
 breadth, see Grotius and Wetstein in loc. ; Valckenaer, p. 157 ; and comp. 
 Amos iv. 11 ; Zech. iii. 2 ; Jude 23), because the passage, looking back to 
 ver. 13, really sets before us a conflagration (flg, as in John i. 14). It may be 
 
 1 For he has after all held to the founda¬ 
 tion. The Messianic salvation is the gift of 
 grace to those who believe in Christ as 
 such ; while the teacher’s blessedness, as 
 P-LcrOoi (which the general o-wrrjpia in and by 
 itself is not), must be some specially high 
 
 grade of blessing in the Messiah’s kingdom. 
 Comp. Dan. xii. 3; Matt. xix. 28. 
 
 2 So before him Theodore of Mopsuestia : 
 
 a\\a icai au crto^TjTat Sta riva erepav airiav <T 
 avrov Svya/x.eyr]p. 
 
CHAP. III., 16, 17. 
 
 77 
 
 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 
 lire 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. Bengel 
 illustrates the matter well by the instance of a shipwrecked man : U ut mer- 
 cator naufragus amissa merce et lucro servatur per undasd Other commen¬ 
 tators, again (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact), understand it to 
 mean : lie shall he preserved , hut so only as one is preserved through the fre 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, Trip cannot be allowed to have any reference to the fire 
 of hell ; secondly, because acj^eadai, 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. 1 
 This last consideration tells also against Schott’s explanation (l.c. p. 17) : 
 ‘ ‘ lie himself shall indeed not he utterly destroyed on that account; he remains , 
 hut 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) 
 
 Yv. 16-23. 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, vv. 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. 
 
 Yv. 16, 17. Ova olhare on k.t.X.] could be regarded as said in proof 
 of ver. 15 (Billroth), only if Chrysostom’s interpretation of oodr/oErai . . . 
 irvpdg, or Schott’s modification of it (see on ver. 15), were correct. 2 Since 
 this, however, is not the case, and since the notion of cuBrjasrai, although 
 limited by ovtcj 6e wf did, tt vpog, cannot for a moment be even relatively included 
 under the <j>dEpei tovtov 6 0eof of ver. 17, because the <pOopa is the very opposite 
 of the Gorrjpia (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, u qui fundamentum evertunt et aedificium destruunt,” 3 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 
 
 1 Hence, also, it will not do to refer avxo?, 
 with Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 144 f., to the 
 Aio 9, which will remain safe, but covered 
 over with refuse, ashes, and the like, which 
 he holds to be indicated by is Si a nvpos. 
 
 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 a one ! Let them con¬ 
 sider how sacred is the field in which he 
 works. 
 
 3 Estius and others, including Michaelis, 
 Eosenmuller, Flatt, Pott, Hofmann. 
 
78 
 
 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Corintli,—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 : el de 
 ng (pdetpEi k.t.1. 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 olKodoyrj 
 Qeov. But he has not yet set before their minds what sort of an olsoS. Qeov 
 they are, namely, the temple of God (hence vaog 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 1 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 
 such ignorance, comp. v. G, 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. — vaog 0£oi>] not : a temple of God , but the 
 tempde of God} 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 have 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 afyOivov. There are not, therefore, several 
 temples, but several churches, each one of wririch 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 Eisner and Wetstein. — nal to nyer/ia] appends in how far (W being 
 the explicative and) they are vaog Qeov. God, as He dwelt in the actual 
 temple by the HTDty (Buxtorf, Lex. 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 ev v/uiv 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. 21 f. ; Ezek. xxxvii. 27). — Na<k did 
 not need the article , which comes in only retrospectively in ver. 17, just be¬ 
 cause there is but one vaog Qeov in existence. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. 
 ii. 21 ; Wisd. iii. 14 ; 2 Macc. xiv. 35 ; Ecclus. Ii. 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- T. W. C.] 
 
 ings, namely, in Rom. vi. 16, xi. 2. 
 
ciiap. hi., 17 , 18 . 
 
 79 
 
 Ver. 17. Et rig . . . ayiog koriv] This is spoken of the real temple ; 
 the application to the church as the ideal one is not made until the olrtvkg 
 ears vyelg 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 w T atching and superintendence of it. See 
 Maimonides, de domo electa , i. 10, vii. 7. Deyling, Obss. II. p. 505 ff. — 
 < pdepel ] placed immediately after <pdeipei at the head of the apodosis, to ex¬ 
 press wfith emphasis the adequacy of the recompense. See Kiihner, II. 
 p. 626. What tyOepel denotes is the temporal destruction, the punishment of 
 death which God will bring upon the destroyer of His temple, as in the 
 LXX. (pddpo) is often used of God as inflicting such destruction. Comp. 
 Gen. vi. 13 ; Micah ii. 10 ; 1 Kings ii. 27, al. — ayiog] as the dwelling 
 of God, sacred therefore from all injury, and not to be destroyed without in¬ 
 curring heavy divine penalty. — olrivkg lore vyelg] of which character (namely, 
 ayioi) are ye. In this wrn have the minor proposition of the syllogism 
 contained in vv. 16 and 17 : Him w T ho destroys God’s temple God will 
 destroy, because the temple is holy ; but ye also are holy, as being the 
 spiritual temple ; consequently, he wdio 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 of the 
 (ideal) temple the deterioration of the churches the part of the sectarians , and 
 by the penal destruction which awaits them, their aru'kua at the Messianic 
 judgment (the (pdopdoi Gal. vi. 8). It is a mistake (with most commentators, 
 including Luther) to regard oinveg as put for o'l (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 vaog tov 0 eov : which temple ye are. That would rather yield the inap¬ 
 propriate (see on ver. 16) plural sense : cujusmodi templa vos estis. See 
 Porson and Schaefer, ad Eurip. Or. 908. Matthiae, p. 977. 
 
 Yer. 18. M r/deig eavr. kijan .] 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 k^aTrar.’. voy'fuv, on a/ Wog kx El T ° rpayya k at oi>x dg eIttov. — — donsi ] 
 believes , is of opinion, not appears (Vulgate, Erasmus) ; for it was the former 
 that was objectionable and dangerous. Comp. viii. 2, xiv. 37 ; Gal. vi. 3. 
 — aotyog eivai . . . tovtc j] kv vylv belongs to aocpog eivai, and kv tg3 aicbvi rovnp 
 defines the Go<j>og Eivai kv vylv more precisely, to wit, according to his non- 
 Christian standing and condition (comp. ver. 19) : If 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-Messianic period. To 
 the alibv ovrog, 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 aluv is a sphere essentially alien to the 
 true state of being wise in the church ; in it a man may have the loyog aofiag 
 
80 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corixthiaxs. 
 
 (Col. ii. 23), but not the reality. We must not therefore, in defiance of its 
 place in the sentence, link kv ru al. r. merely to a6<pog (Erasmus, Grotius, 
 Riickert, and many others), in doing which kv is often taken as equivalent 
 to Kara. Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Mosheim, Rosen- 
 miiller, and others, join it to w 7 hat follows, rendering either generally to this 
 effect : u is a vulgohominum pro stulto haberi nonrecuset or wfith 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 kv vyiv and kv ru aluvi r., but upon ootyog and yopog, as is plain from 
 the fact that in the clause expressive of the aim we have the simple uocpog 
 alone without kv vyiv. It may be seen, too, from ver. 19 (po(f>. tov udayov) 
 that Paul had included kv r. al. r. in the protasis. — yupog yevkoOu] i.e. let Mm 
 rid Mmself of Ms fancied wisdom , and become (by returning to the pure 
 and simple gospel unalloyed by any sort of philosophy or speculation) 
 such a one as now in relation to that illusory wisdom is a fool. — oo<p6g~\ wfith 
 emphasis : tndy wise. See Col. ii. 2, 3. The path of the Christian 
 supere aude proceeds from becoming a fool to wisdom, as from becom¬ 
 ing blind to seeing (John ix. 39). 
 
 Yer. 19. Giving the ground of the yupog yevkodo demanded in order to the 
 yiveodat cofyov. — tov k ocyov tovtov ] i.e. such as is peculiar to the pre-Messianic 
 world (humanity), like the Hellenic sophistry, rhetoric, etc. ; comp. i. 21, 
 ii. 6. — 7r apa r. 0ew] judice Deo ; Rom. ii. 13 ; Winer, p. 369 [E. T. 493]. 
 How truly that wisdom was its own very opposite, and how utterly to be 
 given up !— ykyp. yap ] 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 wmrning and admonition in ver. 18 
 (Hofmann),—to take it thus would be arbitrarily to reach back over w r hat 
 immediately precedes the yap ,—but, as ver. 20 also confirms, for the state¬ 
 ment just made, ?} yap aofia /c.r.A. If, namely, God did not count that wis¬ 
 dom to be folly, then He could not be spoken of as He who taJceth the wise in 
 their craftiness, i.e. wfiio 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 talces them in their craftiness, whereby He just practically proclaims His 
 judgment regarding their wisdom, that it is foolishness. As respects Travovp- 
 yia, comp, the Hellenic distinction between it and the true wisdom in Plato, 
 Menex. p. 247 A : rcdoa te kjTiGTrjyr] x^P^oyEvy dmatoGvvng kol rrjg aTChrjg apETrjg 
 Travovpyia, ov aofia, (paivErai .— 6 dpaooou. is not u ex Hebr. pro finito dpaoGE- 
 Tac n (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, neut. Gr. p. 250 [E. T. 291]. — On dpacoEGdat 
 wfith the accusative (commonly with the genitive), comp. Herod, iii. 13, LXX. 
 Lev. v. 12, Num. v. 26. 
 
 Yer. 20. JldXtv] as in Rom. xv. 10 ; Matt. iv. 7. The passage quoted is 
 
CHAP. III., 21 . 
 
 81 
 
 Ps. xciv. 11, and the only variation from the Hebrew and the LXX. is in 
 putting (jotpcjv instead of avOpcjiruv, and that purposely, but with no violence 
 to the connection of the original (the reference being to men of pretended 
 wisdom). — juaratot] empty, thoughts (for Paul, at all events, had dcahoy. not 
 co<f>. in view) which are without true substance. Comp. Plato, Soph. p. 231 
 B : 7TEf)l TTjv yaraiov dogoGofiav. 
 
 Yer. 21. "£Igte\ Hence, that is to say, because this world’s wisdom, this 
 source of your KavxaoOcu ev civdpuTrotg (see ver. 18), is nothing but folly before 
 God, vv. 19, 20. According to Hofmann, cjgte draws its inference from the 
 whole section, vv. 10-20. But yrjtiElg Kavxaudo k.t.Tl. manifestly corresi3onds 
 to the warning yqSEig kavr. e$aTz. in ver. 18, from the discussion of 
 
 which (ver. 19 f.) there is now deduced the parallel warning beginning 
 with cjgte (ver. 21) ; and this again is finally confirmed by a sublime repre¬ 
 sentation of the position held by a Christian (ver. 22 f.). — ev avOpdjTTmg] “id 
 pertinet ad extenuandum,” Bengcl ; the opposite of ev Iv vpicj, i. 31. 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, ichom he has subjected to himself and formed into a sect. 
 Eire Rav?iog . . . K jj<j>ag in ver. 22 is decisive against this ; for how strangely 
 forced it is to make yr/dsig refer to the teachers, and vyuv to the church ! — 
 The imperative after vote (comp. iv. 5, x. 12 ; Phil. ii. 12) is not governed by 
 that word, but the dependent statement beginning with cjgte changes to the 
 direct. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 852 ; Bremi, ad Hem. Phil. III. p. 276 ; 
 Klotz, cid Hevar. p. 776. — tt avra yap vycjv egtlv ] with the emphasis on Ttavra: 
 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 jmsition as 
 Christians. Observe that we are not to explain as if it ran : vycjv yap n-dvra 
 egtlv (“ilia 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 
 “ Cephas is my man,” and the like. It was thus that some boasted them¬ 
 selves of individual personages as their property, in opposition to the ndvra 
 vy. e. It may be added that what is conveyed in this Travra vycjv egtlv 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” (jravTa ?), 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, 1 and that the actual Khrjpovoyia rov KOGyov (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 Wet stein), 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 
 
 PAUI/S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Ver. 22. Detailed explication of the iravra ; then an emphatic repetition 
 of the great thought navra vy., in order to link to it ver. 23. —liavlog . . . 
 K ?/<p.] for they are designed to labour for the furtherance of the Christian 
 weal. Paul does not write hyu ; as forming the subject-matter of a partisan 
 confession, he appears to himself as a third person ; comp. ver. 5. — aboyog] 
 generally ; for tlie world , although as yet only in an ideal sense, is by desti¬ 
 nation your possession, inasmuch as, in the coming aluv, 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 hoc yog, as it occurs in this 
 full triumphant outpouring—such as reliqui omnes homines (Rosenmuller and 
 others), the unbelieving world (comp, also Hofmann), and so forth—are 
 totally unwarranted by the connection. Bengel says aptly: “Repentinus 
 hie 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 focryog'), condition (fuy, Oavarog ), time {hearura, ykXkovrd ).— £«/) . . . 
 Oavarog] comp. Rom. viii. 38. We are not to refer this, with Chrysostom, 
 Tlieophylact, and Grotius, to the teachers: “ si vitarn doctoribus protrahit 
 Deus,” and u 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 
 icorld. 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 if. Theodoret : nai avrog de 6 Oavarog rf/g vycrepag evekev hxfte^dag 
 eittjve%0t] ry (pvcEL. — Eire kvEcrura, eIte ykWovra] 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. 
 
 Yer. 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 navxaoOai kv avOpu-rroig of ver. 21 cannot but be 
 unseemly. Riickert would make tv avra -yap vyuv egtl n.r.1. in ver. 22 the 
 protasis and said by way of concession, so that the leading thought would 
 lie in ver. 23 : 11 All indeed is yours ; but ye belong to Christ.” We are, 
 he holds, to supply yh after iravra. 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 navra vytiv, 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 Kav%. 
 
CHAP. III., 23 . 
 
 83 
 
 ev avOpunoiq. — Xpiarog de Geo?)] and Christ, again, belongs to God, is subordi¬ 
 nated to God, stands in His service. For KS(f>a/\r/ Xpcarov 6 Qeog, xi. 3. Comp. 
 Luke ix. 20. The strict monotheism of the N. T. (see on Rom. ix. 5), and 
 the relation of Christ as the Son to the Father, necessarily give the idea of 
 the subordination of Christ under God . l As His equality with God and His 
 divine glory before the incarnation (Phil. ii. 6), although essential, were 
 still derived (eikcjv t. Qeov, TTpcoToroKog tv aar/g Krcaeug, 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 
 Xpiarog tie Qeov (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 : Xpiarog yap Qeov oi’x kg nr cap a Qeov, aXP kg 
 vlog tov Qeov), 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 y'evvqga yvr/aiov . . . kg avrov alrcov ex^v Kara ro tt are pa elvat 
 (Chrysostom) not subordinate to Him simply in respect of His manhood. 
 But for what reason does Paul add here at all this Xpiarog de Qeov, seeing it was 
 not needed for the establishment of the prohibition of the navxaadai ev av- 
 OptJTTocg ? We answer : Had he ended with vpeig de Xpcarov, he would then, in 
 appearance, have conceded the claim of the Christ-party, who did not boast 
 themselves ev avdpknoig (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 his intention ; for the confession of 
 the Christ-party was not, indeed, Ebionitic,—as if the X. de Qeov 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— belonging 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. (i) 
 
 Remark.—T he reference in ver. 22 f. to the party of Peter 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. I. p. 120 f. JJrspncng der Siinde, I. p. 194 ff. Weiss, bibl. 
 
 Gess, v. d. Person Chr. p. 157 ff. Ernesti, Theol. p. 306. 
 
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 tt avra v/liuv konv, 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 Chrisi-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 vv. 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 (etre Koapog . . . 
 piXkovra] he finds the Christ-party’s doctrine of the harmony of all contrasts 
 accomplished in Christ as the world-soul. 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (h) “ Saved so as by fire.” Yer. 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 still 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 appear in 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 outcome 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 a state and place in which by 
 disciplinary fires their righteousness may be made complete. 
 
 (i) Xo boasting in men. Yv. 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¬ 
 nation 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 
 the great 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 CORIHTHIAHS. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Ver. 2. 6 fie] Lachm. Buck. Tisck. read ufie, with A B C D* F G X, min. Syr. 
 Erp. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Jerome, Aug. Ambr. Pelag. Sedul. Bede. This vast¬ 
 ly preponderating testimony in favour of tide, and its infrequency with Paul 
 (only again in Col. iv. 9), make the Becepta seem the result of change or error 
 on the part of transcribers. — fyTeiTai] A C D E F G N, min, have fyrelre. 
 Becommended by Griesb. But B L and all the vss. and Fathers are against it. 
 A copyist’s error. —Yer. 6. Instead of 6, A B C X, 31, Syr. p. Copt. Athan. 
 Cyril have « ; which is recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. 
 and Biickert. The Latin authorities have supra quam, which leaves their read¬ 
 ing doubtful. The preceding ravra naturally suggested a. — <ppove 7v] is want¬ 
 ing in A B D* E* F G K, 46, Yulg. It. and Latin Fathers. Bightly deleted by 
 Lachm. Tisch. and Biickert. 1 A supplementary addition, in place of which 
 Athanasius has (pun lovcOcu. — Yer. 9. otl after yap has preponderant evidence 
 against it, and should be deleted, as is done by Lachm. Biick. and Tisch. Su¬ 
 perfluous addition. — Yer. 13. fthacnp.] A C N*, 17 46, Clem. Origen (twice), Eu- 
 seb. Cyril, Damasc. have fiuorp. Approved by Griesb., accepted by Biick. and 
 Tisch. Bightly ; the more familiar (for the verb fiucnp. occurs nowhere else in 
 the N. T., comp. 2 Cor. vi. 8), and at the same time stronger word was inserted. 
 — Ver. 14. vovderoj'] A C X, min. Theophylact have vovQetuv [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 , hut 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). 
 
 Yer. 1. 0 urog] is commonly taken as preparatory , emphatically paving 
 the way for the ug unrip, which follows. . Comp. iii. 15, ix. 26 ; 2 Cor. ix. 
 5 ; Eph. v. 33, al ., and often in Greek waiters. The navx. iv avOp. 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 : unrip. Xp lgtou and olkov. 
 © eou sound significantly like the uyelg fie X p i a r o u, Xpiarog fie 0 eou which 
 immediately precede them, ourcsg is rather to be regarded as the sic retrospec¬ 
 tive (in this way , in such fashion ), and ug again as stating the objective qual- 
 
 1 $poveZv has been defended again by 
 Reiche in his Commentar. crit. I. p. 14G ff. 
 He urges that the omission is not attested 
 by the Greek Fathers, a£d, out of all the 
 versions, only by the Latin ones, and that 
 the word is indispensable. But the latter is 
 
 not the case ; and the former consideration 
 cannot turn the scale against the decisive 
 weight of the chief codices, among which 
 only C—and even that not certainly— has 
 
 tppoveiv. 
 
CHAP. IV., 2 . 
 
 87 
 
 ity, in which the ijueic have a claim to the ovtojc yy.dc lay it,, avdp. 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 ; hut 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 hut be judged of as servants of Christ, etc., according to 
 the standard of that lofty Christian mode of view (ovrog) and how con¬ 
 clusively shut out from this sphere of vision will he the partisan icav^dadac 
 ev avOpunoigl Men will he lifted high above that. — i/ydg] i.e. myself and 
 such as I, hv which other apostles also and apostolic teachers (like Apollos) 
 are meant. In view of iii. 22, no narrower limitation is allowable. — avOpu- 
 7 rof] not a Hebraism (^’^, one; so most interpreters, among whom Luther, 
 Grotius, and others explain it wrongly every one), hut 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' 1 ' 1 is an importation.— vnrjp. X. k. 
 oikov. fiver. 0£m>] 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 ohcog Qeov, 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 is no reference whatever here to the sacraments, which Olshau- 
 sen and Osiander again desire to include. See i. 17. The whole notion of 
 a sacrament, as such, was generalized at a 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 o’ucovoyoc 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 olaovoyot 
 are His servants. Paul uses perr/g only in this passage ; but there is no 
 ground for importing any special design into the word (such as that it is 
 humbler than dianovoc). Comp, on Eph. iii. 7. 
 
 Yer. 2. If we read tide (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 Iolttov (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 tick 1 again, quite in accordance with 
 the old classical usage (see Lehrs, Arist. p. 84 ff.), would convey the notion 
 of sic, i.e. “ cum eo statu resnostrae sint” (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 991). We 
 might paraphrase, therefore, as follows : “ Such being the nature of our po- 
 
 1 The word would be singularly super- to treat it as belonging to ver. 1, and to 
 fluous, and would drag behind in the most separate it by a point from Acht^. 
 awkward way, were we, with Lachmann, 
 
ss 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 sition as servants , the demand to he made upon the stewards of households 1 of 
 course trikes effect.' 1 ' 1 If we abide by the Recepta, 6 61 Xonrdv 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, etc.; comp, on Rom. vi. 10. It is a perversion of the 
 passage to make it refer, as Billroth does, to the preceding depreciation of 
 the supposed merits of the teachers : u hut 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 ^tjteItcu ev means nothing 
 else but : it is sought at their hand (requiritur), i.e. demanded of them. See 
 Wetstein. Hofmann’s interpretation, too, is an impossible one. He makes 
 6 de Aonrov down to evpedy to be the protasis; e/liol 6e /c.r.A., and that running 
 on as far as nvpibg egtiv 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 o 6e aoittov ^rdrac would presuppose some demand already 
 conveyed in ver. 1, to which a new one was now added ; and (2) that the 
 6e 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. 2 — iva] is sought with the design, that there he found. Hence the object 
 of the seeking is conveyed in the form expressive of design. That evpicKeadai 
 is not equivalent to dvai (Wolff, Flatt, Pott, and others) is plain here, espe¬ 
 cially from the correlation in which it stands to tjnreiTai. — rig] i.e. any one of 
 them. See Matthiae, p. 1079 ; Nagelsbach on the Iliad , p. 299, ed. 3. — 
 TriorSg] 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 ^rdrai k.t.1. — dg khaxiorov egtiv] dig, in the sense of 
 giving the result : it comes to something utterly insignificant, evinces itself as 
 in the highest degree unimportant. Comp. Pindar, 01. i. 122 : kg xhp LV 
 TEXktTai, Plato, Ale. I. p. 126 A ; Buttmann, neutest. Gramm, p. 131 [E. T. 
 150]. — iva] does not stand for orav (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 , is in the mind of the writer, and has 
 
 1 This tv rot's oiKovofji. is not “ uncalled 
 for and superfluous” after d>Se (as Hofmann 
 objects); for Paul had, in ver. 1, described 
 the official service of the teachers by two 
 designations, but now desires to attach 
 what more he has to say in ver. 2 specially 
 to the second of these designations, and 
 hence he has again to bring in the o’ucovovoi. 
 
 2 In Aoittov he finds: “Besides this, that 
 the stewards act in accordance with their 
 name.” By the antithetic e^oi Se, again, 
 Paul means: “in contrast to those who 
 conduct themselves as though 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. IY., 4 . 
 
 89 
 
 given birth to the expression. The thought is : I have an exceedingly slight 
 interest in the design of receiving your judgment. — avaicptOu] “fidelisne 
 sim nec ne,” Bengel. — y inro avdp. ijy. ] 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 yykpa K vpiov, which Paul pro¬ 
 ceeds hereafter, not indeed to name, but to describe, see ver. 5. — aTOC ovbk] 
 yea, not even, as in iii. 2. — kyavrov ] Billroth and Ruckert think that the 
 contrast between the persons properly demanded avrog kyavr. here, which, 
 however, has been overlooked by Paul. But the active exjiression kyavrov 
 avanpivLj is surely the complete contrast to the passive vf vy. avanp. ; hence 
 avrog might, indeed, have been added to strengthen the statement, but there 
 was no necessity for its being so.—The avanplvuv 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 ^v. 4, 5. 
 
 Yer. 4. Parenthetical statement of the ground of Paul’s not even judging 
 himself ( ovbkv . . . deb tic.), and then the antithesis (be : but indeed) to the 
 above ovbk kyavr. avaKptvo. — yap] 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, Ruckert, 
 * who supplies ykv here again, de Wette, Osiander), but in the antithetic rela¬ 
 tion of both clauses, wherein aXXa has the force of at, not of 11 sondern I 
 judge not my own self, because I am 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: 
 ovre ykya ovre cyucpbv %vvoiba kyavr <g aotpbg ojv, Hep. p. 331 A ; and Horace, Ep. 
 i. 1. 61 : 1 ‘ nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa;" Job xxvii. 6. — ovk kv 
 rovro) bebuc.] is ordinarily understood wrongly : “ I do not on that account 
 look upon myself as guiltless." For the words ovk kv rovrcp, negativing justifi¬ 
 cation by a good conscience, make it clear that bebiK. expresses the gus- 
 tomary conception of being justified by faith (see on Rom. i. 17 ; so rightly, 
 Calovius, Billroth, Ruckert), since, on the view just referred to, we must 
 have had kv rovrcp ov . 1 The ov is as little in its wrong place here as in xv. 51. 
 Note that the bebiKaioyai is to the apostle an undoubted certain fact y a hence 
 
 1 Paul’s thought has run thus “ Were I 
 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 standai*d 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 6 8e 8ucaiu)V, but 6 Se ava- 
 KpiVwv. Moreover, the further imputation 
 of moral desert is certainly not done away 
 with by justification, but it remains in force 
 
 until the judgment. AeSiKatwjuai, however, 
 does not refer to the being found righteous 
 at the day of judgment (against Lipsius, 
 Eechtfertigungsl. 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. 
 —Observe, 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 : a\\.’ ov 
 napa tovto 8e8ucaiu>p.cu. The certitvdo gratiae 
 is expressed but as not based upon the con¬ 
 science void of reproach. 
 
90 
 
 PAUL’S EIRST 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 (?) 
 the Lord shall charge me with no neglect of duty. That would plainly 
 make the deSisacuyat problematic . 1 — K vpiog] 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 avasp. ye and of the whole passage, vv. 3, 4, which all 
 applies to Paul. The process of thought from ver. 3 onwards is, namely, 
 this : 11 For my part, you may judge me if 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) hot to p>ass a judgment upon me pre¬ 
 maturely .”— 7 rpo satpov] 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 npo saipov, we learn only from what comes after ; 
 hence we must not by anticipation assign to saipog the specific sense of 
 tempus reditus Christi. — rt] i.e. sploiv riva, John vii. 24. — sphere] describes 
 the passing of the judgment, the consequence of the avasp., in a manner accord¬ 
 ant with the looking forward to the Messianic judgment. Luther, Raphel, 
 and Wolf render: alium alii praeferte ; but this runs counter to the context, 
 for it must be analogous to the general avasp. eog av elOy 6 /c.] Epexegesis of 
 Ttpo saipov : judge not before the time (judge not, I say), until the Lord 
 shall have come. Then only is it a saipiov spiveiv, because then only can the 
 judgment be pronounced rightly according to the Lord’s decision. The av 
 marks out the coming as in so far problematical (depending upon circum¬ 
 stances; see ILartung, 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. — og sal] sat 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, neut. 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, i.e. 
 make manifest, what is hidden in the darkness. Respecting cp ut'icei, 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 sal . . . sal as meaning as well, as also ) is included here, but not 
 that alone. Compare rather the general statement in Luke viii. 17.— sal 
 (pavep. r. /3ov/ 1. rkv sapS.] 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 judgment.— 
 sal tote . . . 0eol>] so that ye can only then pass judgment on your teachers 
 
 1 [Most critics a^ree that there is here no question of his fidelity was one not to he 
 reference to the doctrine of justification, decided by his conscience, but by the Lord, 
 and that all the Apostle means is that the —T. W. C.] 
 
CHAP. IV., 6. 
 
 91 
 
 ■with, sure (divine) warrant for what ye do. The chief emphasis is upon the 
 (itto r. Qeov , which is for that reason put at the end (Kiihner, II. p. 625), and 
 next to it upon what is placed first, 6 ewaivog. This does not mean praemium 
 (so Flatt, with older expositors, citing wrongly in support of it such pas- ■ 
 sages as Rom. ii. 29, xiii. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 7, ii. 14 ; Wisd. xv. 19 ; Polybius, 
 ii. 58. 11), nor is it a vox media (as, following Casaubon, adEpict. 67, Wolf, 
 Rosenmiiller, Pott, and others assume wholly without proof) ; but it denotes 
 simply the praise , the commendation. The apparent incongruity with endcrij 
 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 out 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 evQrjyelv,” Grotius (so also Bengel, Billroth, Riickert, 
 Olshausen). — arco r. Geoa] 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 v. 27 ff. ; Acts x. 42, xvii. 31 ; Rom. 
 ii. 16, al. 
 
 Yv. 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. 7-13). 
 
 Ver. 6. Ae] pursuing the subject ; the apostle turns now to the final 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 adeltyoi with a winning warmth of feeling, as ini. 11. — 
 ravra ] 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 to iv. 5. Taira is not to be made to refer back 
 to i. 12, where Paul and Apollos are not named alone (so Baur, following 
 older expositors). — yereaxny- dig eyavr. k. ’Attoa/A] I have changed the form of 
 it 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 eig eye, but eig eyavrov ; eig, 
 again, denotes the reference of this change of form to the parties concerned. 
 Respecting yeraaxnyarfeiv, 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 
 {prjya yerecx^yariayevov) ; Lucian, Imag. 9, Hale. 5 ; Heliodorus, ii. p. 93. 
 The oxvua, 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 a§ 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 T ), 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 
 w T ho 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 petegxpp-, 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 rove tov Xpicrov, wdio are to be regarded as forming a peculiar party by 
 themselves. Lastly, it is also a mistake (see Introd. § 1) to interpret it 
 with Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza, Yatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others : 
 “I have put our names as fictitious in place of those of the actual leaders of 
 parties 1 or to hold, with Pareus and Mosheim, that yeraox • refers to the 
 homely figures wiiich 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 Qeov awepyovg ! Moreover, the figures in themselves 
 plainly could not teach the Corinthians humility ; the lesson must lie in 
 the intrinsic tenor of the ideas conveyed. — ’AkoIIu] the same form of the 
 accusative as in Acts xix. 1. A B^ have 'AnoHuv. See regarding both 
 forms, Buttmann’s ausf. Or. I. p. 207 f. ; Kiihner, § 124, ed. 2. — hi’ vpag\ 
 not in any way for our own sakes. —Iva h ryuv k.t.'j l.] more precise explana¬ 
 tion of the <L’ v/uag (“ instructionis vestrae causa,” Estius) : in order that ye 
 might learn hy us (Winer, p. 301 [E. T. 483]), that is to say, by having us 
 before you as an example of shunning undue self-exaltation, in accordance 
 with w 7 hat I have stated regarding our official position, duty, responsibility, 
 etc. — to pi] vTrsp o yeyp.] The elliptical : “ not above what is written ,” is made 
 to rank as a substantive by the to (Matthiae, § 280) ; for (ppovslv is spurious 
 (see the critical remarks). The suppression of the verb after pi] in lively 
 discourse is common in the classics. See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 153 ; 
 Kiihner, II. p. G07 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 607. The short, terse pi] virep o 
 yeyp. may have been an old and familiar saying of the Rabbins (Ewald) ; 
 only Paul never quotes such elsewhere. — o yeyp. is by Luther and most ex¬ 
 positors (including Storr, Rosenmuller, 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 : yeypairTai in his 
 libris semper ad libros V. 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 : “ I know quite well that no fence,” etc. But, as Calovius justly ob- 
 sect among you calls itself after myself or serves, the yeTao-x->?Ma-Tia-ju.d 9 is here not “per 
 Apollos . . . ; the true names I rather re- fictionis, sed per Jigurationis modurn.” 
 frain from giving, in order to avoid of- 
 
CHAP. IV., 6. 
 
 93 
 
 written in the 0. 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 yiyp. —With¬ 
 out having the slightest support in the use and wont of the language (for 
 in passages like Pindar, Nem. vi. 13, Eur. Ion. 446 [455], ypapeiv has just 
 the ordinary force of to write), and wholly in the face of the N. T. usage of 
 yeypciKTcu , 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 ypappa in Thuc. v. 29. 4 ; for that 
 means a written clause (see Kruger). What Paul means is the objective 
 sacred rule of the Scriptures , the presumptuous disregard of which was the 
 source of the mischief at Corinth ; “ ulcus aperit,” Beza. —iva gr/ slg vri-p 
 k.t. 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 (yn-ep, 
 comp. 2 Cor. ix. 2), seeking thereby mutually among themselves to main¬ 
 tain and exalt their own reputation {eig vtt ep tov ev6g), and that with hostile 
 tendency towards the third person, who belonged to another party (/card tov 
 eripov). Olshausen understands vrrep tov Ivor of their outbidding each other 
 in pretensions , which, however, would require the accusative with vir'ep ; 
 and Winer, p. 358 [E. T. 478], renders : “ so that he deems himself exalted 
 above the other;” against which — apart from the fact that vtt ep 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 tyvcnovgevog, who can be the krepog (the different 
 • one) ; and just as elg stands in antithetic correlation with tov hepov, so virkp 
 also does with kotcl ; 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 elg, so vnep tov 
 iv6g also must refer to the collective subject of tyvcnovode, and consequently 
 both of them together convey the same sense as vrcep aXTJjluv, only in a more 
 concrete way. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 11 ; Susann. 52 ; Ecclus. xlii. 24 f. ; 
 1 Macc. xiii. 28 ; often, too, in Greek writers. — The (pvotovadac of a elg virep 
 tov ev6g takes place /card tov hepov in the jealous wranglings of mutually op¬ 
 posing parties reciprocally, so that each has always full room for the /card tov 
 hlpov (against Hofmann’s objection). — tyvcLovcde] the present indicative after 
 Iva 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. Aik. 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. Syrup, 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. p. 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 
 ocj ! Winer finds here an improper usage of the later Greek. 1 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. 362]), had Paul adopted it, he would have brought it in 
 oftener, and not have written correctly in every other case ; 2 least of all, 
 too, would he have put the indicative here, when he had just used the cor¬ 
 rect subjunctive immediately before it (ydOr/re ). Fritzsche (ad Matth. p. 836) 
 took Iva as ubi, and explained : U ubi (i.e. qua conditioner quando demisse 
 de vobis statuere nostro exemplo didiceritis) minime alter in alterius detri- 
 mentum extollitur At a later date (in Fritzsckiorum opusc. p. 186 ff.) he 
 wished to resort to emendation , namely : Iva ’ev yyiv yadrjTe to yr) virep o yeypan- 
 rat (ppovelv , ev a yrj v tt e p r o v evog tyvciovcdai Kara r ov e r e p o v (so, 
 too, very nearly Theodoret). But although it might easily enough have 
 happened that Iva yrj should be written by mistake in place of eva yy, the 
 consequence of that mistake would in that case necessarily have been the 
 alteration of Qvaiovcrdai, 3 not into (pvaiovcBe , but into ^vatuade, and the sub¬ 
 junctive , 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. l.c. ; 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. Hec. ii. 102, 711, Andoc. vi. 9, al. ; 
 
 1 So, too, Wieseler on Gal. p. 378; Hof¬ 
 mann on Gal. p. 138. Barnab. 7: 'iva. . . . 
 8ei, is an earlier example than any adduced 
 by Winer and Wieseler. But how easily Set 
 might have been written here by mistake 
 for 8] 7 , which is so similar in sound 1 (comp. 
 Dressel, p. 17). Should Set, however, be the 
 original reading, then iva may just as well 
 be ubi , as in our passage. The readings 
 aSere and ixerexeTe in Ignatius, ad Eph. 4, are 
 dubious (Dressel, p. 124).—Buttmann’s con¬ 
 jecture ( neut. Gr. p. 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. 
 
 2 1 Thess. iv. 13 included (against Tischen- 
 dorf).—In Col. iv. 17, n\y]poi<; is subjunctive. 
 —As respects Lackmann'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 5$, too, has <f>vcn.ovcrdai.. But how 
 often does that codex interchange at and e I 
 Immediately before it has yeypanre instead 
 
 of yeypanrai. 
 
CHAP. IV., 7 . 
 
 95 
 
 also Schaefer, ad Soph. 0. C. 621 ; and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 143 f.). Wliat 
 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 ( fyvcuovoOe is the future 
 realized as present) do not puff up yourselves , etc. Suitable though it would 
 be, and in accordance with the apostle’s style (Rom. 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. 1 — The 
 subjective form of the negation yy, i n the relative clause, has arisen from 
 the design cherished by Paul, and floating before his mind. Comp. e.g. 
 Sophocles, Trach. 797 : yedeg kvravd' birov ye yy rig oiperai fiporuv *, and see 
 Baeumlein, ut supra , p. 290 ; Winer, p. 447 [E. T. 603]. 
 
 Ver. 7. The words Iva yrj . . . erepov 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. — of\ applies to each individual of the preceding vyeig, not therefore 
 simply to the sectarian teachers (Pott, following Chrysostom and several of 
 the old expositors). —The literal sense of diaicpivei is to be retained. The 
 Vulgate rightly renders : “ Quis enim te discernit ?” Comp. Acts xv. 9 ; 
 Homer, Od. iv. 179 ; Plato, Soph. p. 253 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 ?). — rl Se exeig /c.r.A. ] tie, 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 thouf 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 source (ehaffg) of the gifts (Semler, Heydenreich, Pott), which would 
 be quite contrary to his humble piety, but : ovSev oinoOev excig, alia n a p a 
 rov Oeov lafitiv, Chrysostom. Comp. iii. 5, xii. 6, xv. 10. — e\ 6e nai 11.'] 
 
 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.] 
 
 the phrase a solecism, which Bishop Light- 
 
9G 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corikthiaus. 
 
 again, even if thou hast received, even if thou hast been endowed with gifts, 
 which I will by no means deny. E l ndt is not meant to represent the pos¬ 
 session of them as problematical (Riickert), but is concessive. Comp. 2 
 Cor. iv. 3. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 832 ; comp. Hartung, I. p. 140 f. ; 
 Ivlotz, ad Devar. p. 519 f. —tl Kavxaccu k.t./ 1. ] ovdeig id akkorp'uup TrapaKaradi/- 
 naig peyacppovei, ETraypvTtvd tie ravraig, Iva r<f> dcduKori, 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 vovdeata (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 /ce/cop. here, knkovr., and kfiacuk., we have a vehement 
 climax : Already sated are ye, already become rich are ye ; without our help ye 
 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 pdp 
 . . . rjSrj and x°)pk W<hv : ‘ ‘ already ye have, what was expected only in the 
 coming aluv, 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 fiaatkeia, !” 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, Kenop. and ettXovt. (comp. 
 Rev. iii. 17) have been taken as referring specially to Christian Tcnoidedge 
 and other endowments (comp. i. 5), and kfiamk. 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” (Sender), 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, (j) The right view may be seen in Hofmann also. In 
 connection with the ifiaoik. left without being more precisely defined, nothing 
 came so naturally and at once to the Christian consciousness as the thought 
 of the Messianic fiacukda . 1 And how well this idea corresponds to the wish 
 
 1 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 . 
 
 97 
 
 which follows ! If, however, e/3aa. applies to the Messianic ruling (see on 
 
 iii. 22 ; Usteri, Lehrbegriff “ p. 370), and consequently to the avy^amleieiv of 
 2 Tim. ii. 12, comp. Rom. viii. 17, then in that case nettop. and ettTiovt. 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 /car’ k^oxyv (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 th efact of having entered upon the possession. 
 SeeKiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 18. As to r/btj, i.e. now already , see on John 
 
 iv. 35. — x u pk wtiv] without whose work, in fact, you would not be Chris¬ 
 tians at all !— Kal d^ehov ye /c.r./b] and (the thought suddenly striking his 
 mind) would that ye had indeed attained to dominion! In the later Greek 
 writers otyelov is used as a particle, and joined with the indicative, 2 Cor. xi. 
 1 ; Gal. v. 12. See Matthiae, p. 1162. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 185 [E. T. 
 214 f.]. Te strengthens the force of o^eXov ; see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 
 372 f.; Baeumlein, PartiJc. p. 55 f. The thought is : “Apart from this, 
 that ye have without us become rulers, woidd that ye had at least (ye) become 
 such! Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 281 f. —Iva k. ypeig vy.lv cvy/3ac.] 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 e/3 aciA. denotes something com¬ 
 pleted from the speaker’s present point of view (have become riders ), 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 •koXo^eIov ye n.r.l. in 
 a way fitted to put the readers deeply to shame. Comp. Chrysostom. 
 
 Ver. 9. Tap] giving the ground of the foregoing wish : For the position 
 of us apostles is to my mind such , that to us the avy[3aa. would even be a thing 
 very desirable ! It is precisely the reverse of that ! — In do/cw we have a pal¬ 
 pable point in the statement. Comp, on vii. 40. Without on following, 
 see in Kiihner, ad Xen. Andb. v. 7. 13. —yyag rovg arr.] does not refer sim¬ 
 ply to Paul (Calvin and others, including Schrader and Olsliausen), which 
 is forbidden by rovg at r., but to the apostles generally. The designation rovg 
 aTToar. is added by way of contrast to their position, in which they, instead 
 of being at all privileged as apostles, were eoxaroi. 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. — eaxarovg] Predicate : as 
 homines infimae sortis. Comp. Mark ix. 35 ; Alciphr. iii. 43 ; Dio Cassius, 
 xlii. 5 ; Dem. 346, pen. It is joined with atvocr. by Erasmus, Castalio, 
 Beza, and others, including Semler and Pott : “ Deus nos, qui postremi 
 apostoli facti fuimus, tamquam etnOav. oculis alior. sistit” (Pott). But in 
 that case we should require to have rovg atr. rovg eax-, or at least rovg eax- 
 atr.j because tax. 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. 
 — arrkdeit-ev] not : fecit, reddidit , but : He has set us forth , presented us as last, 
 
98 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORIXTHIAXS. 
 
 caused us to appear as sucli before the eyes of the world (see the following 
 Bearpov n.r.X.). Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 4 ; Plat. Conv. p. 179 C ; Dem. 687. 
 11 ; Xen. Oec. v. 10 ; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 72 C. —ug emBavar. ] 
 as men condemned to death, , so that we appear as such. How true in view of 
 their constant exposure to deadly perils ! Comp. xv. 30 f. ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 
 tf. Tertullian’s rendering (de pudic. 14) : “ veluti bcstiarios ,” although 
 adopted by Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a 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. 
 — bn Bearpov eyev. k.t.'K. ] serves to makegood the statement from Boku to 
 kinBav. ; hence it is a mistake to write o, ri and connect it with Bearp., 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 spec¬ 
 tacle, , etc. Qearpov is here like Bea or Beapa, as Aesch. Dial. JSocr. iii. 20 ; 
 Ach. Tat. I. p. 55. Comp. BearpifraBai, Heb. x. 33 ; EKBearp'feaBai, Polyb. iii. 
 91. 10, v. 15. 2. — nal ayy. k. avBp.] specializes the ru Koapu : 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 ayyeloi in 
 the N. T., standing absolutely, is never used of the good and bad angels taken 
 together (this against Zeger, Bengel, Olshausen, al .), nor of the bad alone 
 (this against Vatablus, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others, including Flatt 
 and Neander), but always only of the angels /car’ egoxgv, i.e. 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 bad angels, because Bearpov 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 : t raaiv eh -Beupiav 
 ‘npoKecrai ra yperepa' ayyehot pev yap ryv yperepav avBpiav davpa^ovoi, ruv Be 
 avdpuTTuv oi pev ecpr/Bovrai rolg ijperepotg rra-Bypaoiv, oi Be awakyovai pev , ertapvvai 
 Be ova 'ioxvovolv. The way in which the angels come in here, therefore, must 
 not be regarded as simply proverbial and figurative (Baur). (k) 
 
 Yer. 10. What very different sort of peoide ye are from us! — pupol Bid, 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, 25. — typBvipot ev X.] wise men are ye in your connection 
 with Christ, sagacious, enlightened Christians ! Observe, that Paul could 
 not write again Bia X. ; the Christian pseudo-wisdom had other motives. 
 The nature of the irony, “ plena aculeis' 1 ' 1 (Calvin), with which he scourges 
 the worldly state of things at Corinth, does not allow us to supply anything 
 else here but caper and care. — acrtleveic] weak and poicerless. For in trem¬ 
 bling and humility they came forward, making little of human agency, 
 
CHAP. 1Y., 11 - 13 . 
 
 99 
 
 trusting for all success to the simple word of Christ. Ye, on the contrary, 
 are laxvpoi, 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 aod. 
 to their sufferings: “Quia multa mala patimur, nec resistimus quod est 
 infirmitatis,” and lax • : “Mala, si qua occurrunt, facile repellitis, ,, Estius. 
 — ivch^ot] celebrated, highly honoured personages ; anyoi: unhonoured, despised, 
 Matt. xiii. 57 ; Horn. II. i. 516 ; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 774 B, Euthyd. p. 281 
 C. — In the last clause the first person is the subject of the sarcastic an¬ 
 tithesis, because Paul means now to speak at more length regarding the 
 apostles. 
 
 Yv. 11-13. Down to the present hour this despised condition of ours 
 continues uninterruptedly, manifesting itself also (nai ) in all manner of pri¬ 
 vations, sufferings, and humiliations. — The assumption that we are not to 
 understand this axpi rfjg aprt copag, as also eug apn in ver. 13, 1 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. — yvyvrjTevoyev^ i.e. tee lade necessary raiment. Comp, 
 on yvyvoQ 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 yvyvirevoyev (Lachmann and Tischendorf), although 
 vouched for by a majority of the codd., is nothing but an ancient clerical 
 error ; see Fritzsche, de conform. Lahcm. p. 21. — Ko2a^.] quite literally : 
 we are beaten with fists. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 67 ; 1 Pet. ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7. 
 A concrete representation of rude maltreatment in general. — aararovyev ] we 
 are unsettled , have no abiding dwelling-place, Rufinus, Ep. 20. Theo¬ 
 phylact : ’daw oped a, (pevyoyev. — KOTufoysv /c.r.A.] we toil hard, working with 
 our own hands. Comp, as regards Paid, ix. 6 ff. ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ff. ; 1 Thess. 
 ii. 9 ff. ; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; Acts xx. 34 ; 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. — 
 ?Mtdop. evloy. /c.r.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 Pern, de Cor. p. 294), per¬ 
 secute, and slander us ( Svotyriy., see the critical remarks, and comp. 1 Macc. 
 vii. 41 ; Aesch. Ag. 1078 ; Soph. El. 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 
 
 • f 
 
 1 The two expressions are synonymous; tained by Tittmann, Synon. p. 33 ff., is 
 hence, too, this passage is a proof that the erroneous. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 
 distinction between axp i and /u-e'xpi, main- 308 ff. 
 
100 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 give beseeching words to our slanderers. 1 Whether Paul says this in remem¬ 
 brance of the words of Jesus in Matt. v. 44, Luke vi. 27 f., w T hich became 
 known to him by tradition (Ruckert and others), is very dubious, consider¬ 
 ing the difference of expression ; but the disposition required by Jesus lived 
 in him. — cjg TrepLuadappara /c.r./L] 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 Koapoq is the world of men 
 (Rom. iii. 6, v. 12), corresponding to the wavruv which follows. Jlepiiid&appa 
 (from 7r Epucadatpu, to cleanse round about, on every side) means quisquiliae, 
 what one removes by cleansing, both in a literal sense and figuratively, like 
 our offscourings, scum (Arrian. Biss. Epict. iii. 22. 78). The simple ndHappa 
 is more common ; and it especially is often found in this figurative sense in 
 Demosthenes and later writers (see Wetstein, Loesner, Obss. p. 276 f. ; comp, 
 also Kiihner, II. p. 26). With this rendering Erasmus, H. Stephanus, 
 Beza, Estius, and others, including, Ruckert, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, 
 Neander, Hofmann, are content, following Theodoret, Theophylact, and 
 Oecumenius. K adappara, however, is likewise used to denote those who, 
 m times of plague and other public calamities, were offered up to expiate the 
 wrath of the gods (see Schol. ad Arist. Plut. 454 ; Bos, Exercitatt. p. 125 ff.; 
 Munth. Obss. e Diod. p. 321 f.), and in Prov. xxi. 18, %epucddappa corre¬ 
 sponds to the Hebrew while wepuca&appog, too, in Plato, Legg. vii. p. 
 815 C, means lustratio, and n spinal a pri/piov in Hesychius ( sub voce -Jed)para), 
 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. 155), 
 and means by TrepiKcrd. expiatory sacrifices, —the idea of u reprobate, utterly 
 worthless men' 1 ' 1 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 <!>£■, that Paul ascribes a 
 certain power even to his sufferings. Now the current and constant word 
 for the expiatory offering is uddappa (not Trepucd'&appa) ; 2 but, even supposing 
 that Paul had conceived tzE pLuadappara as piacula, he would in that case 
 have again used the plural Trepiiphpara in the next clause, for tt epiip7jpa is sy¬ 
 nonymous with 7r epuidtiappa, and each individual would be a piaculum. If, 
 on the other hand, he conceived vrepuzad-apparci as offscourings, castings away, 
 he could very suitably interchange this phrase afterwards with the collect- 
 
 1 UapaKa\oviJLev: being slandered, we en¬ 
 treat. See regarding napanah to entreat , 
 Bleek on Heb. II. 1, p. 454 ff. Theophylact 
 puts it happily : npaorepon Aoyois Kal p.a\aK- 
 TLKoii ap.eifi6p.eda.. Comp. Acts xvi. 39. Gro- 
 tius explains it: Deum pro ipsis precamur. 
 But Deum and pro ipsis are unwarrantably 
 inserted on the ground of Matt. v. 10, 44. 
 
 Compare rather 2 Macc. xiii. 23: to 0? ’IovSa- 
 iou? napeicd\ecrev, he gave good words to the 
 Jews. 
 
 2 Hence Yalckenaer holds the reading of 
 G, min., uicrnepel KaOappara, to be the true 
 one, because Paul “ ritus Graecos noverat 
 et linguam.” 
 
CHAP. IY., 14 , 15 . 
 
 101 
 
 ive singular (', rubbish).—ndvruv tt ephp.] The refuse of all. The emphasis 
 lies on navruv, and cjg is to be supplied again before it. Uepi^/m (what is 
 removed by wiping) being substantially the same in meaning with nepi- 
 tiddappa (see Photius, s.v., Tob. v. 18, and Fritzsche in loc.), has been as 
 variously interpreted by the commentators. — iug apri] belongs to eyevrfi., 
 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 (r/yelg), 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 I to come to punish, or in gentleness (vv. 18-21) ? 
 
 Yer. 14. 0 vk hrpeTzuv] 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 I am now writing to you. See Heind. 
 ad Phaed. p. 249 f. ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 495 D ; Matthiae, p. 
 1289. Ruckert prefers keeping to the general sense of humbling, moving 
 greatly ; but why should w r e, when we have in 2 Thess. iii. 14, Titus ii. 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, wdiat according to 
 his idea his rebuke essentially is, not a putting to shame, but a fatherly ad¬ 
 monition. Bengel says well : “ Exquisita E'Kv&Epa.'KEia . . . Saepe quendam 
 quasi leporem apostolus salva gravitate apostolica adhibet.” — vovderci] The 
 kindly intention of the admonition is not conveyed in the word by itself (see 
 on Eph. vi. 4, and comp. e.g. Plato, Pol. viii. p. 560 A : vov&etovvtcjv re 
 Kal KaiifdvTuv, Legg. ix. p. 879 D ; Dem. 798. 19, al.), but in the context. 
 Comp. Acts xx. 31. Plato, Euthyd. p. 284 E : vov&etcj a ’ erdipov. The 
 construction is varied so as to give us not the participle again, but the in¬ 
 dicative (as the opposite of hr pernor ypacjxo, taken together), whereby the an¬ 
 tithesis is made independent and so more emphatic. See Hermann, ad 
 Hymn. Horn. p. 125. Kiihner, II. p. 423. 
 
 Yer. 15 justifies the cjg rinva pov ayccrc. vovderco. —For suppose ye have ten 
 thousand tutors in Christ. On pvpiovg, 1 compare Matt, xviii. 24 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 
 19. —Respecting the paedagogi among the Greeks and Romans (comp. 
 
 1 The distinction drawn by the old gram- without foundation. See Buttmann, avs- 
 marians between p-vpioi (a numeral proper) fuhrl. Sprachl. I. p. 284 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
 and txvpLoi (an indefinitely large number) is II. p. 144. 
 
102 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 2 Cliron. xxvii. 32 ; 2 Kings x. 1, 5 ; Esth. ii. 7 ; Rosenmiiller, Morgeril. VL 
 p. 272), who, for the most part slaves, had it in charge to educate and give 
 constant attendance upon hoys 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 TTor'fQvreg (iii. 6-8), the hroiKodogovvreg 
 (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 Trarepag except rraiday., and since, 
 moreover, Apollos also was reckoned among the naidayuyoig, 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. — all' ov i r. -n-ar.] sc. ixere. 
 The alia after a hypothetical protasis is the at of emphatic contrast, on the 
 other hand (Nagelsbach on the Iliad , p. 43, ed. 3 ; Baeumlein, Partile. p. 11; 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 93), and that, too, without a restrictive ye, in the sense 
 of at certe ; see Kiihner, adXen. Anab. vii. 7. 43. —ev yap Xpiarti k.t.1.] i.e. 
 for in the life-fellowship of Jesus Christ no other than I myself has begotten you, 
 through the gospel. Just as h Xpiarti, in the first half of the verse, conveys 
 the specific distinction of the Tcaitiaycjyovg exeiv i so here, and that with the 
 emphatic addition of ’I rjaov, 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 dia rov evayyel. (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 b/a> forbids us to refer ev X. ’I. to the person of 
 the apostle: 11 in my fellowship with Christ , i.e. as His apostle' 1 ' 1 (de Wette, 
 comj). Grotius, Calovius, Flatt, al.). — eyewijca ] Comp. ver. 17 ; Philem. 10 ; 
 Gal. iv. 19. Sanhedr. f. 19. 2 : u Quicunque filium socii sui docet legem, 
 ad eum scriptura refert, tanquam si eum genuisset.” 
 
 Ver. 16. Ovv] since I am your father. — gig. g. yiv .] become imitators of me. 
 Paul does not add any more precise definition as to the matter (“ in cur a tu- 
 tandae in ecclesia turn unitatis turn sanctitatisf 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 gig. 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. 3 : ol dAaenaloi rovg gadrjrag 
 gigrjrag eavrtiv cnrofieiKvvoveiv. 
 
 Ver. 17. Aia tovto ] namely, in order to further among you this state of 
 things meant by yip. p. yiv. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Piscator, Rtickert, 
 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 
 
CHAP. IV., 18. 
 
 103 
 
 n 
 
 parenthetical interpolation. — hrepipa ip. T ip.] Sec 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 ).—tskvov pov] 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 rknva in ver. 14, comp. ver. 15, we are 
 warranted in assuming with confidence that Timothy had been converted by 
 Paid; 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. — h Kvp'np] 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 h 
 tzlctei, 1 Tim. i. 2. Comp. i. 3.— avapvyaei] for the Corinthians seemed to 
 have forgotten it. 1 — rag odovg uov rag kv X.] i.e. the paths, which I tread in 
 Christ (as my sphere of activity), i.e. in the service of Christ. The aim in 
 view (did, tovto ) is to lead them to imitate the apostle by reminding them of 
 ' the whole way and manner, in which he conducted himself in his calling 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. — naOhg] is commonly taken as 
 defining more precisely what has been already stated in a general way, as wf 
 does in Rom. xi. 2, Luke xxiv. 20, Thuc. i. 1, and frequently elsewhere. 
 See Bornemann in Luc. p. 141. But tcaOug means sicut (Yulgate), like the 
 classical k add or KaOdirep : 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 allpjlaces ; 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 
 icadug refers not to the contents of dtdameu, nor to the mode of preaching 
 (neither of which would stand in a relation of practical significance to /up. 
 p. yiv.), but to the peculiarity of character as a whole, which distinguished 
 Paul in his work as a teacher. — tzclvt. h tt. haul. ] This emphatic state¬ 
 ment, with its double description, gives additional weight to the example 
 to be imitated. Comp. Acts xvii. 30, xxi. 28. 
 
 Yv. 18. As though now 1 were not coming to you, some are puffed up. It is 
 
 1 That Paul does not use SiSa£ei, to avoid 
 giving offence, because Timothy was still 
 young (Chrysostom, Theophylact), is an 
 imagination pure and simple. Theodoret 
 says aptly : Arf&rjv Se avroiv 6 Aoyo? KaTTjyoper 
 
 avTonrai. yap eyeyoveiaav Trj? a77ocrToA(.K7js 
 dperrjg. 
 
 2 Billroth renders it rightly : eodern modo , 
 quo , but inserts quite unwarrantably an 
 ipse after the quo. 
 
104 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corihthians. 
 
 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 again in Corinth (2 Cor. x.l) ; and it is 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 Theodore! referred e<pva. Tiveg 
 even to the incestuous person, v. 1, and Tlieophylact makes it include a 
 reference to him); on the contrary, it breaks upon us suddenly, like a 
 thunderstorm, in v. 1.—Upon 6e as the fourth word in a sentence, see 
 Winer, p. 519 [E. T. G99].— <hg, us, denotes : on the assumption that; see 
 Matthiae, p. 1320. It introduces the ground of the tyvaidd. from the point 
 of view of those that were puffed up. Comp. Kuhner, II. p. 374 ; Lobeck, 
 ad Soph. Aj. 281. — ■epxop.'] not for e2.Evaofj.evov (Flatt), but indicative of the 
 subsisting relation. ‘ ‘ Paul is not coming ” was their conception, and this 
 made them bold and boastful ; (pilapx'iag -yap to eyK2,r/ga ry epr/pia tov 6i6aaK.d2.ov 
 elg arrovoiav Kexpyadai, Chrysostom. — Tiveg] as in xv. 12. 
 
 Yer. 19. ’E2.evaop.ac Je] the contrast emphatically put first : come, hoicever, 
 I will. — raxing] Comp. Phil. ii. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 9. As to how long he 
 thought of still remaining in Ephesus, see xvi. 8. — 6 Kvptog] to be under¬ 
 stood not of Christ, but of God. 1 See the critical remarks on Rom. xv. 32. 
 Comp. Rom. i. 10; Jas. iv. 15. — yvuaopai ] what and how the boasters speak 
 (tov 2.oyov ), 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. — t?/v 6vvap.] namely, 
 their power of icorking for the advancement of the j3aai/ 1. r. Qeov, ver. 20. 
 To explain it as referring to the power of miracles (Chrysostom, Tlieophylact; 
 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. 
 
 Yer. 20. Justification of the yvkaopac oh tov 2.oyov k.t.2.. by an axiom. —ev 
 2,6y(p and ev 6vvdpei describe wherein the ftaai2.da has its causal basis ; it has 
 the condition of its existence not in speech, but in power (see on ver. 19). 
 Comp, on ii. 5. The ftaac2.Eca tov Qeov, 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 the Son T. W. C.] 
 
 (cf. vv. 4, 5), it seems more natural here to 
 
CHAP. IV., 21. 
 
 105 
 
 believing and truly sanctified (Col. iii. 3 f. ; Phil-, iv. 18-21 ; Eph. v. 5, 
 al.). (l) But faith and holy living are not established by high-soaring 
 speech (not by ra ev rolg hoyotg (pavraapaTa, Plat. Soph. p. 234 E), but by 
 bvvapcg, which is able effectively to procure gain for the kingdom (Col. i. 
 28 f.; 1 Thess. i. 5 ; 1 Cor. ix. 19 fit. ; 2 Cor. x. 4 f.). 
 
 Yer. 21. As the conclusion of the entire section, w T e 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. Laclimann, 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 ahha, or be, or yap ), 1 and since, too, in v. 1 ff. there 
 is no further reference to the speedy arrival of the apostle. — ri] in the sense 
 of 7 TOTspov. Comp. Plato, Phil. p. 52 D, and Stallbaum in loc. He fears the 
 first, and wishes the second. “Una quidem charitas est, sed diversa in di- 
 versis operatur,” Augustine. — ev with a rod ; but this is no Hebraism, 
 
 for ev 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: ev hldu, armed with a stone. Lucian, H. M. xxiii. 
 3: naOucopevog ev ry paftdu. The meaning of the figurative phrase, borrowed 
 as it is from the relation oi father, is : ev nohacet, ev rtpupia, Chrysostom. — 
 e?i0o] ami to come? See Winer, p. 268 [E. T. 356]. Chrysostom puts it 
 happily: ev vplv ro repay pa Kelrat. — rrvevpari re rrpaoT.\ not: with “a gentle 
 spirit ” (Luther, and most interpreters), so that revevpa would be the subjec¬ 
 tive principle which should dispose the inner life to this quality ; but: with 
 the Spirit of gentleness , so that rrvevpa is to be understood, with Chrysostom 
 and Theophylact, of the Holy Spirit; and rrpaor. denotes that specific effect 
 of this rrvevpa (Gal. v. 22) which from the context is brought peculiarly into 
 view. So in all the passages of the N. T. where rrvevpa , 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 rrvevpa rye alrjQeiag (John xv. 26, xvi. 13 ; 
 1 John iv. 6 ), vioQeaiag (Rom. viii. 15), ryg rrtGreug (2 Cor. iv. 13), ooftag (Eph. 
 i. 17), bwapeog k.t.Tl. (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 : eon yap rrvevpa rrpaoTrjrog icai rrvevpa avGTjjporr/Tog, 
 Chrysostom. Comp, on Luke ix. 55. —Instead of the form rrpaorr/g, Lach- 
 mann and Tischendorf have, in every passage in which it occurs in Paul’s 
 writings, the later rrpavrrjg (excejot that in Gal. vi. 1 Lachmann retains 
 npaoTyg ; 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 v. 1 as an answer which in view of ri £e'AeTe alone, is not even logi- 
 
 Paul gives to himsetfxmto his own question, cally practicable, 
 as Hofmann does, is a forced device, 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, irpaiiTrjq is undoubtedly the true 
 reading. 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (j) 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 for a 
 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 Homan 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 in a 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. 
 
 (l) 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 render them sensible of its 
 divine efficacy now and here. 
 
CHAP. V. 
 
 107 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 Yer. 1. After edveaiv Elz. has ovopd&rai, which is defended by Matthaei and 
 Beiche, but in the face of quite decisive evidence. Supplied, perhaps from 
 Eph. v. 3. Equally decisive is the evidence against etjapQrj, ver. 2 (Elz.). From 
 ver. 13.—Yer. 2. rroiyaag] Flick, and Tiscli. read 7 rpd^ag, which Griesb. too, 
 • recommended, with A C N, min. Or.? Manes (in Epiph.), Epiph. Bas. The 
 external evidence is pretty evenly balanced. But at all events the phrase ttoieIv 
 epyov was very familiar to the transcribers from the N. T. ; hence irpa^ag should 
 have the preference. —Ver. 3. a?rwv] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ug air., against A 
 B C D* K, min. and several vss. and Fathers. According to the analogy of the 
 ug napuv which follows, 6g (as embracing the whole dirdv . . . tt vevp.) was first 
 of all written on the margin, and then taken into the text. —Yer. 4. ’lyaov alone 
 (without Xpiarov) is the reading in both cases of A B D, Aeth. Clar. Lucif., and, 
 as regards the second, of several other vss. and Fathers. So also Lachm. Buck, 
 and Tisch. Bightly ; the solemn character of the address gave occasion to the 
 addition of Xpiarov. —Yer. 5. rod Kvptoti T yaov] So also X. Biickert reads rod 
 K vp. f/puv T. Xpiarov , with evidence of considerable weight in favour of it, but 
 probably taken from i. 8. Lachm. brackets rjpuv T. X. ; for B, Or. (thrice) 
 Tert. (twice) Epiph. Aug. (once) Hilar. Pacian, have simply tov K vpiov. So 
 Tisch. But since ’lyaov occurs in all the other witnesses except those few, and 
 since their discrepancies concern only ypiov and Xpiarov, the Kec. tov K vpiov 
 'Irjaov should be retained ; for 'hjaov might very easily be overlooked, espe¬ 
 cially where four words,.one after another, end in OY.—Ver. 6. Qvpoi] The 
 various readings doXoi (D*, Bas. Hesych., recommended by Griesb.) and <pdeipei 
 (Lat. in Cerular. ; corrumpit: Yulg. Clar. and Latin Fathers) are interpretations. 
 — Ver. 7. After EKnaOap. Elz. has ovv, against a great preponderance of evidence. 
 A connective addition, as are also k ai before ov in ver. 10, and nal before etjap. 
 in ver. 13. After ppivv Elz. and Scholz read vnep yptiv, contrary to decisive tes¬ 
 timony. An inappropriate (for the apostle is speaking only of the death of 
 Christ in itself, see Beiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 161 ff.) dogmatic gloss. —Yer. 10 fj 
 ap7r.] Kai dp-r. is the reading of almost all the uncials and Clar. Boern. (so Lachm. 
 Buck, and Tisch.) ; y was mechanically taken up from the context. —Yer. 11. 
 Instead of y before iropv. .Elz. has r/, contrary to Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. Ir. 
 Tert. Chrys. and many other Fathers, also some min. The ?/, which occurs in 
 B** D K, came in mechanically from the succeeding context. —Yer. 12. nal] is 
 wanting in A B C F G K, min. and several vss. and Fathers (suspected by 
 Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Buck.) ; 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. — Yer. 13. k^apeiTtf\ e^dpare, 
 approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Buck, 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 Kai before etjap. 
 in Elz. 
 
 ir 
 
108 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthian's. 
 
 Vv. 1-8. Reproof and apostolical judgment respecting an incestuous person in 
 the church. 
 
 Yer. 1. The censure of the party-divisions is concluded. Without note 
 of transition, hut 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. — olog] means simply in general , in universum, as 
 in vi. 7, xv. 29, Matt. v. 34, and in Greek writers ; it belongs to aKoverai, so 
 that to the general expression blog aKoverat nopv. there corresponds the par- 
 ticular*Kal TOiavrr] iropv ., sc. aKoverai. The latter, however, is something worse 
 than the former, hence the nai 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 
 found among the heathen themselves. To render it certainly (so as to indicate 
 that it is no duhius rumor , seel res manifesta; so Calvin, Beza, Piscator, 
 Estius, Eisner, Calovius, Wolf, al.) or universally (Schrader, Ewald) is 
 against the meaning of the word, which may, indeed, signify prorsus or 
 omnino (Vulgate), but neither ubique nor certainly . 1 2 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 yovv. This is arbitrary, and even in point 
 of logic doubly incorrect, because blog here introduces the report of a quite 
 special offence, and therefore cannot assign a ground by generalization; and 
 because, if the restrictive yovv would have been better in this passage, Paul 
 in using the generalizing blog must have expressed himself illogically. — h 
 vylv ] not : as occurring among you (comp. Ewald), for it is a defining state¬ 
 ment which belongs to £iKoverai ; 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 ! — hv roJg eOv.] ael and tov 
 LOvlkov oveidi^ei rolg moToig, Chrysostom. Regarding the prohibition among 
 the Jews : Lev. xviii. 8 ; Deut. xxii. 30 ; Philo, cle spec. leg. p. 301 ; 
 Michaelis, Mbs. R. II. p. 206 ; Saalschutz, 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 Eisner, p. 90 ; Wetstein and Pott in loc.), and 
 abhorred (Wetstein, l.c.)d — ywaiaa tov Trarpdg] i.e. stepmother , 
 
 Lev. 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 pr/rpvm), 
 oote ttoIIo xalenoTEpov Trlg^ai, Chrysostom. The departure from the usual 
 arrangement of the words, too, ywcund nva tov naTpog, puts an emphasis of 
 ignominy upon ywalaa. — ex eiV ] Many expositors, such as Calvin, Riickert, 
 Neander, leave it undecided whether this refers to having her in marriage 
 
 1 [The R. Y. gives the sense happily by the as a crime 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 
 
 (Yorstius, Michaelis, Billroth on 2 Cor. vii. 12, Maier) or in concubinage 
 (Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Pott, Olshausen, Osiander, 
 Ewald, Hofmann). Butin favour of the former there is, first of all, the fact 
 that exu is never used in the N. T. in such a sense as that of the well-known 
 £X<J Aaida (Diog. Laert. ii. 75 ; Athen. xxii. p. 544 D), or “ quis heri Ghrysi- 
 dern iiahuit (Terent. Andr. i. 1. 58), but always of possession in marriage 1 
 (Matt. xiv. 4, xxii. 28 ; Mark vi. 18 ; 1 Cor. vii. 2, 29. Comp. 1 Macc. xi. 
 9 ; Horn. Od. iv. 569 ; Herod, iii. 31 ; Thuc. ii. 29. 1 ; Xcn. Gyr. i. 5. 4 ; 
 Gregor. Cor. 931, ed. Scliaef.; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 121) ; but further, 
 and more especially, the use of the past tenses noipcrag, ver. 2, and narepyaaa- 
 juevov , 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 ixopvda (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 k. roiavrri iropv. k.tA. the particular occur¬ 
 rence wdiich is included under this general category. Matt. v. 32, xix. 9, 
 should have sufficed to keep Hofmann from asserting that iropveia 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, 13). 
 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 nopivdid^ecrOat (see Introd. § 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 (Maimonicles, Jebhamoth , f. 982 ; Michaelis, Einl. 
 § 178, p. 1221 ; Liibkert in the Stud. u. 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. 
 
 Yer. 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 1). — vyelg emphatic : Ye, the people among 
 whom so disgraceful a thing can occur ; for kolvov rravTuv to eyK^rjpa yeyovs , 
 
 1 Even in John iv. 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.— iretyva. here] 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). 
 — knevdya. ] are fallen into distress (penitential mourning), for by reason of 
 the fellowship between Christians (comp. xii. 26) iSei -rrevOf/cjai, 6i6n elg rb 
 koivov ryg huikrjGLac rj (ha(3o?ii) Trpoexcoppoev, Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom. — 
 iva cipdij k.t.j l.] The design which, according to the apostle’s view, the ettevO. 
 ought to have had, and the attainment of which would have been its result, 
 had it taken place : in order that he might lie 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. 
 3, with sycj pev yap k.t.X. ; all the less, therefore, is Iva apOy k.t.1. 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. — epyov] facinus, the nature of which is 
 shown by the context. See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 671. 1 
 
 Yer. 3. ’Ey<y pev yap ] introduces the independent resolution already ar¬ 
 rived at by himself, and therewith the justification of the 'iva apQy ; 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. 3-5 corre¬ 
 spond to the Iva ap6y in its connection with nal . . . hrevdya. The pev solita- 
 rium must be taken as meaning : I at least. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 
 841 f. ; Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 159 ; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 413. — r<5 
 'nvevpari] Comp. ver. 4 : rov epov tt vevparog, hence not to be understood, as 
 Chrysostom and others hold, 2 of the Poly Spirit, against which rib crupan 
 also militates, comp. vii. 34 ; Rom. viii. 10 ; Col. ii. 5. —ydy K-Scp. ug Trapcjv] 
 have made up my mind already, as though I were present (personally superin¬ 
 tending your community). 3 — rov ovtcj tovto narepy. ] belongs to tt apad. ru 2ar., 
 ver. 5, so that, after the intermediate statements which follow, the object 
 of the sentence is taken up again by rov roiovrov in ver. 5 (liunc talem in- 
 quam ), comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2. See Matthiae, p. 1045 ; Schaefer, Melet. p. 84. 
 Rengel says happily : “ Graviter suspensa manct et vibrat oratio usque ad 
 ver. 5.” Not so happy is Hofmann’s view, that rov . . . narepy. belongs to 
 Ktnpina as an accusative of the object, whereupon napadovvai k.tA. is then set 
 down to a mixing up of two constructions, this being coupled with an inap¬ 
 propriate comparison of Mark xiv. 64. — ovru] 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 ovru in a 
 
 1 [This verse is read as a question in the 
 Syriae 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. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. 
 p. 385. 
 
 ^ « 
 
 3 Were the tt? before an-cov the genuine 
 reading,—and Hofmann persists in retain¬ 
 
 ing it as such, notwithstanding that cod. X, 
 too, has added its weight to the side of the 
 overwhelming contrary testimony,—this <i>s 
 might be very simply distinguished from 
 that which stands before -rrapitiu in this way, 
 that the first ws would mean as, and the 
 second as if. 
 
CHAP. Y., 4. 
 
 Ill 
 
 bad sense, see on John xviii. 22, and Bremi, ad Bern. Phil. I. p. 120. Pott 
 and Olshausen explain it wrongly : “ licet Christianas sit,'" 1 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. — narcpy.] has per¬ 
 petrated, more emphatic than Troiyaag, ver. 2. See on Rom. i. 27. 
 
 Yer. 4. Four different ways of dividing the verse are possible : either ev 
 t£) ov6p. belongs to avvaxO. and avv ry 6vv. to 7 xapadovvcu (Beza, Justiniani, 
 Calovius, Heydenreich, Billroth, Olshausen, Ewald, Hofmann), or both be¬ 
 long to avvaxO. (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, 
 Riickert), or both belong to irapadovvat (Moshcim, Pott, Flatt, Schrader, 
 comp, also Osiander) ; or h r. ovoy. belongs to tt apadovvai, and avv r. dvva/i. 
 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 hv ru ovbp. 
 k.t.1. , as a solemn formula of apostolic enactment (2 Thess. iii. 6 ; Acts iii. 6, 
 xvi. 18), links itself more suitably to the sense with irapadovvai k.t.X. than 
 with ovvaxO. /c.r./L (to the latter of which Matt, xviii. 20, eig to dv., 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). 1 Against this, Hofmann objects that hv r<3 ovogari k.t.1. 
 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 eery front the 
 seal of his high and plenary authority. — ovvaxOivrov . . . ’I ya'ov] after ye are 
 assembled , and my spirit (note the emphatic r. egov ), 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 f urnished with the power of Christ , and in this assembly 
 shall declare : u Paul , in the name of Christ, with whose power he is here spir¬ 
 itually in the midst of us, hereby delivers oxer the incestuous man unto Satan.” 
 ^p'uiTjg gearbv ovveKporyae Stuaarypiov, Theodoret. — avv] 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 wuth the authority of Christ, Winer, p. 366 [E. T. 458]. 2 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. 3 For Paul bore this power in himself, being as an apos- 
 
 1 [So Stanley, Beet, Principal Brown, et 
 al.— T. W. C.] 
 
 2 [rt is a serious objection to this view 
 
 that it would naturally require the preposi¬ 
 tion before Swaps 1 to be not avv but eV. 
 
 —T. W. C.] 
 
 3 Chrysostom and Theophylact, however, 
 leave the choice open between the two 
 renderings : on 6 XpiaTOS &ut/aTcu Toiavrrjv 
 vp.iv x°-P iV Sovva-L, ware 8vva.a&ai. rep 6taj8oAa» 
 
 t 
 
112 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 tie its official possessor and organ, and could not therefore imagine himself 
 meeting with other persons and with it in the third place, but : 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 gvv r. Svv. k.tA. 
 Paul means only to express this, that he icould rely upon the aid of the 
 power of Christ. Comp, the classic gvv Oeolg, deorum ope (Reisig, Enarr. p. 
 lxiv. ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 8). But the thought thus yielded, 
 after the kv rip ovoyari /c.r.A. which has gone before it, would be far too weak. 
 
 Yer. 5. Tor> rotovrov'] the so-constituted, comprises in one word the whole 
 abhorrent character 1 of the man. Note the similar expression in 2 Cor. ii. 
 7. —Tzapadovvcu rip ha-ava] is—although the phrase may not occur in Jewish 
 formulae of excommunication (Lightfoot, Ilorae, p. 167 ff., but* see Pfalf, 
 Orig. jur. eccles. p. 72 if.)—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 CH.n which had passed over 
 from the synagogue to the church, and the simple alpeiv Ik yk.Gov, ver. 2, 
 comp. ver. 13. The latter could be performed by the church itself, whereas 
 the Ttapadovvcu rip 2ar. 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 k^ovata, 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 powrnr to inflict the intensified 
 penalty of excommunication, the delivery to Satan, of which, accorelingly, 
 he does not say that the church ought to execute it, but that he has already 
 resolved, etc. Observe, too, that tc apadovvcu is active; he does not say 
 'xapadodijvai, but lie 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 2 (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 rip larava (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 elg oleOpov r. oapKog was obvious of itself. The delivery over 
 
 irapaSiSotrcu, rj oti k al anoj v/xwv 
 
 tear’ avrov <f> e p e i ttjv Accord¬ 
 
 ing to Theodoret, Christ is viewed as the 
 presiding authority. Had 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 
 (Svyd/xei), but would have written at least 
 
 <rvv Tcp 7 Tvevp-aTi. tov Kvptov. Comp. Acts XV. 
 28. 
 
 1 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 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. 
 
 I f o 
 
 10 
 
 to Satan can only be viewed as an express and declaratory act of relegation 
 from Christian fellowship into the power of the apxov tov kog/uov ; not as if 
 Satan were but he, 1 ‘ 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 , 1 and not along with that the excommunication (Lightfoot, 
 Bochart, Wolf, al.). But this is against the connection, according to which 
 (see vv. 2, 13) the tt apaS. ru 'Zarava cannot belong to a different category 
 from the aipnv be pkaov. At the same time it is not quite identical with it , 2 
 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 eig oAeOp. r. aapK. as essential and as explaining itself to the 
 reader without further interpretation. —dg oleOp. r. crap/c.] 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 (eXicei Trovrjpti r/ vocu he pa , Chrysos¬ 
 tom), his sinfulfleshly 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 . 3 It is not his ouua that is to die, but his 
 cap% (Rom. viii. 13 ; Col. iii. 5). The reason why the word cap% is here, 
 purposely selected, and not the ethically indifferent ctipa, was correctly 
 discerned by so early an expositor as Chrysostom, although many more 
 recent interpreters, such as Ruckcrt, 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 oXedp. r. capa. the same as dm^beiperai 6 e^u 
 yyav avSpoTroQ, 2 Cor. iv. 15, accords neither with the real meaning nor with 
 the ethical relations of the case. As regards the two telic statements : dg. 
 d/xOp. r. a. and iva to Tzvevpa k.t.X. (which last expresses the final design of 
 the whole measure of the 7 -apa6ovvat k.t.a .), 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 
 
 1 So also Grotius, who, moreover,—and 
 in this Billroth follows him,—rationalizes 
 napaSovvaL into precari Deum, ut eum tradat. 
 
 2 So, too, Theophylact on 1 Tim. l.c. 
 Comp. Balsamon, ad Can. vii. Basil, p. 938, 
 where it is said that we term subjects of 
 Satan : oi XGopgdjueyot d7ro TTjs Koivwvtas rd> v 
 vuttuv, similarly Theodore of Mopsuestia in 
 Cram. Cat. p. 92, who explains it of the ex- 
 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 oAe&pov crap/co?: 
 
 Trjv Kara Toy napovra fiLov Sia rrjg p.erap.eAeta 9 
 avvrpLprjv- Comp. Ambrosiaster, Augustine, 
 contr. Barm. iii. 2 ; Pelagius, Anselm. 
 
 3 The expression : o\eOp. r. a-ap<., 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.ira Tra(,8eiH9-dicrt, 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 crap£ 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 o-dp£ is to perish, in order 
 that the Suoj of oAei^pos altv ios may not be 
 inflicted at the day of judgment (2 Thess. i. 
 
 9 ; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 9). 
 
114 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 serve God's aim of salvation. —Iva to n very a /c.r.A.] in order that his spirit , 
 the underlying element of the higher moral life, of the true <> 77 , may be saved 
 (with the Messianic salvation) on the day of the (approaching) Parousia. That 
 the aiojua , again,—in which the cap £ has lost its life, so that it is no longer 
 the etbpa Trjg aapicoc, 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 : 
 k ‘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 dhedpog rrjq aapnog in the 
 case of the man led by this punishment to conviction of sin and true peni¬ 
 tence. The 7 r apadovvat rw 2 «r. was therefore a paedagogic penal arrange¬ 
 ment, a u medicinale remedium 1 ' 1 (Calovius), as is shown by the wdiole scope 
 of this passage and 1 Tim. i. 20 (not by the term Trapadovvai itself, as Chrys¬ 
 ostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact maintain, on the ground of Paul’s not 
 having written Udovvai :),— a measure, in connection with which the iwevpa 
 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 cap% 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' 1 ' 1 (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 1 the 
 .Trapachvvcu rw Ear., 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 2 in the meantime ; and what he desires for the present 
 is just the simple aipuv he peoov (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 r his own powers of apostolic discipline, and may trust him to have 
 been satisfied that, to try milder measures first (the omission of w hich 
 Riickert blames as arising from passion), would not with the person con¬ 
 cerned have had the effect aimed at. (m) 
 
 Yer. 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! Kavxvpa is not the same 
 as navx^acg, but : materies gloriandi (see on Rom. iv. 2) ; and what is meant 
 
 1 Baur, however, is of opinion ( Paulus , I. 
 p. 334) that as it never did come in the in¬ 
 stance before us to the working of an ac¬ 
 tual apostolic miracle, so neither did such a 
 thing ever take place in any other case. 
 See, on the other hand, Rom. xv. 19 ; 2 
 
 Cor. xii. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 10, 29 f. 
 
 2 Hence, too, the idea that the readers 
 were to let him know of the day fixed for 
 the meeting in question (Hofmann), is not 
 conveyed in the passage, and is, indeed, 
 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! 
 aioxpov /cAfof, Eur. Hel. 135.— ova oifiare /c.r.A.] 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 ^vyrj 
 and a^vya. 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 ayiorqg is gone ! 
 
 Ver. 7. ’E/c Kcidapare rqv irah. C,vy] From what has been already said, the 
 meaning apart from the figure cannot, it is plain, be : Exclude from your com¬ 
 munion the incestuous person 1 and other notorious offenders (Rosenmiiller), but: 
 Empty your church of the sinful habits, ivhich still remain among you from 
 your pre- Christian condition (as a residuum of the unregenerate Tralcubg avdpu- 
 7 rof, Rom. vi. 6 ; Eph. iv. 22 ; Col. iii. 9). 2 Flatt, Pott, and Ruckert join 
 the two ideas together ; but this is unwarranted and against the unity of 
 sense of the passage. Respecting rqv Trahcuav , comp. Ignatius, Magnes. 10 : 
 rqv Kaurjv £vyqv rqv izahcucjOdGav nai kvofujaaav. — The expression hmadap. (comp. 
 Plato, Euth. p. 3 A ; LXX. Deut. xxvi. 13) 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, Jud. 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.). — veov (pvpaya] a fresh hneaded mass, i.e. figure 
 apart : a morally new church , freshly restored after the separation from it of 
 all immoral fermenting elements, its members being veol avOpcoiroi through 
 Christ (Col. iii. 9, 10). As respects the difference between vtog and naivog, 
 see on Col. iii. 10 .—naOug eote a^vyoi] 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 a^vyov elvac 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 wdio as a new Knoig of God (2 Cor. v. 17 ; Eph. iv. 24 ; Col. iii. 
 10) in the tcaivoTqg Trvevyarog (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 a Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Neander, Hof- 
 
 Lapide, Zeger, Estius, Miohaelis. mann. 
 
 2 Comp. Theodoret, Calvin, de Wette, 
 
11G 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corihthiahs. 
 
 being leavened) is abnormal. Hence Christians are —according to this 
 higher mode of regarding the position of a Christian— d^vpoi. There is as 
 
 little warrant for rendering cote here by esse clebetis (Fluff, Pott, Billroth, 
 following Chrysostom, Theophylact, al.) as in Luke ix. 55. Rosenmuller 
 holds that a^vp. has here its proper meaning : as ye now “ vivitis festos dies 
 azymorum.” But a£vyog, in fact, does not mean qui abstinet fermento (as 
 Grotius would make out, likening it to aoiTog , aoivog), but non fermentatus 
 (comp. BPfD). 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 Jcwish-Christians among 
 them still kept the Jewish Passover. —nal yap to wdaxa /c.r.A.] The motive 
 for eKKaOdpare n.r.l. The emphasis is on to Traoxa, 1 and/cal yap does not mean 
 simply for, etenim , but for also (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 137 f.; Stallbaum, 
 ad Plat. Gorg. p. 467 B), the u 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 11 as the beginning of redemption 
 which made it possible” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis , II. 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, 
 § lxxxi. 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 Gbtt. 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 , § 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 ;” 2 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 (as if it were 
 
 Kai yap r/pthu t . it .) : e^op-ev Kal r) p. ei s apvov 
 tt)v vnep r)pu)v lepovpytav KaraSe^apevov ; COmp. 
 
 Luther and Neander. Erasmus translates 
 correctly : “ Nam etpascha nostrum.” 
 
 2 This passage, too, therefore goes to 
 establish the position that John's narrative, 
 and not the Synoptic , is the historically cor¬ 
 rect one as regards the day of the death of 
 Jesus. Observe how the Rabbinical tradi¬ 
 
 tion also agrees with this. See Gemara 
 Bab. in Sanhedr. vi. 2 : “ Traditio est, ves- 
 pera Paschatis suspensum fuisse Jesum.” 
 It is well known that the 14th Nisan (the 
 Preparation-day) was called nD2 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 tXaarfjpLov, 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. 
 JSynopse, p. 374 f. (comp, also his Beitr. z. Wurdigung d. Ev. p. 26G), urges as 
 an argument on the other side, that in x. 16, to norkpcov Tfjg evloyiag, 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 cup 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 oil John xviii. 28. 
 
 Yer. 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 us therefore keep feast , etc. The eoprij implied in copra £. 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. p. 447 D. It may be 
 added, that Theodore of Mopsuestia says aptly : kg yap tt apkv, ovro tv pog 
 roiig tt apSvrag ?.oltcov dLa^cyeraL. — ev C,vg,ij ttca.] Precisely as in ver. 7 \ not as a 
 designation of the incestuous person (Michaelis, Rosenmuller, Heydenreich), 
 which would, besides, have required the article. ’Er is used in the sense 
 of provided with. Comp, on iv. 21. — yrjdh hv typy Kan. k. ttov.] singles out 
 something special from the general prj h £. izal .: and in particular 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. 
 — a^vyoig] from d^a, what is unleavened, i.e. (Ex. xii. 15, 18). There is 
 nothing (such as aproig ) that needs to be supplied. — E Danpiv. and akrjQ. differ 
 from each other only in degree ; the former is moral purity (nadapor^g 5ia- 
 voiag nal aboXorr/g ovShv e^ovaai ovvecKiacyevov nal vttovXov , Theophylact on 2 
 Cor. i. 12) ; the latter, moral truth , the essence of actual moral goodness. 
 Sec on John iii. 21 ; Eph. v. 9 ; Phil. iv. 8. 
 
 Remark.— This whole allegory, w. 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 corikthiaa t s. 
 
 (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, Ghronologie 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 r (Henke on Paley’s Ilor. Paul. 
 p. 413 ff. ; Eichhorn, Pint. III. p. 138 ; de Wette, Curtius, de temp, quo prior P. 
 ad Tim., etc. 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 Paster (see especially Hey denreich). 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. ; Lecliler, p. 
 350). Theophylact says well : Se'ucvvffiv otl w ug 6 % pov o g iopryg sari Kaipog roig 
 XpioTiavoig (ha tt)v virepfioTiyv rkv doQevrwv avrotg ayaOkv' dca tovto yap 6 vlog rov 
 Qeov avOpuirog yeyove Kai etvOtj, Iva oe eoprafiv TzoLyoy. 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. 
 
 Yer. 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. —hv ry e-morohy] i.e. in the 
 letter which I wrote to you , and so : 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, Sender, and many others, including most modern interpreters. 
 Chrysostom, again, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 Fabricius, Wol f, Glass, Baumgarten, Bolten, Stosch (de epp. ap. non deperd. 
 1753, p. 75 ff.), and Muller (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 eyp. apply to ver. 11. This method of interpretation arises for the 
 most part from dogmatic prejudices, 1 and has against it the following con- 
 
 1 Grotius aptly remarks: “ Satis Deo 
 debemus, quod tot (epistolae) servatae 
 sunt, ad quas si et singulorum vita et regi¬ 
 men ecclesiae dirigatur, beneerit.” Comp. 
 Calvin. Calovius, in order to defend the 
 integrity of the canon against the Roman 
 Catholics, insists upon the distinction— 
 
 which itself owes its origin to a dogmatic 
 retrospective inference — between canon 
 particulars and universalis, temporalis and 
 perpetuus. Divine Providence, beholds, did 
 not design the lost Epistle ad usum canoni- 
 cum perpetuum of the whole church, and 
 therefore allowed it to perish. 
 
CHAP. V., 10. 
 
 119 
 
 sidcrations : first, the parallel passage in 2 Cor. vii. 8 ; secondly , that h rf? 
 h r. would in that case be singularly superfluous ; thirdly, the fact that py 
 cwavay. rrdpv. 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 “fiction,” 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 Ruckert 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. — ovvavayiyv. ] to mix oneself vp with, have intercourse with, 2 Thess. 
 iii. 14 ; Athen. vi. p. 256 A ; Lucian. Gont. xv. Comp, the affirmative 
 cTehTiectiai and, 2 Thess. iii. 6. — vropvog, in the N. T. and in Ecclus. xxiii. 
 16, signifies fornicator. 1 See also Lennep. Phalar. ep. xi. p. 60. 2. 
 
 Yer. 10. More precise negative explanation of the rule laid down in the 
 said letter, yrj cwavay. uopv., 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 icere not Christians ; 
 perhaps from a disposition to connive at the offenders within the bosom of 
 the church itself. — ov ndvrug rolg rropv. r. k. r.] is dependent on prj ovvava- 
 yiyv. ; it stands in a relation of opposition to the preceding uopvoig, and ex¬ 
 plains what that uopvoig did not mean. “ I wrote to you to refrain from 
 i n tercourse with fornicators, (i.e.) not absolutely 2 with the fornicators of this 
 world.” An entire cessation of intercourse with rrdpvoig 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 : ov ndvriog ttjv avrrjv u. t?/v 
 erepav <pvoiv knOepeQa, dXP ekeIvo to eldog pdvov /c.r.A. The ov instead of pr/ is 
 correct enough (in opposition to Ruckert), because ov ndvrug r. nopv. r. k. t. 
 conveys something which is objectively denied, a definition of the notion of 
 ndpvoig, 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 : 
 lav rig ge <py yr/ tt aw ti Evdaipovag uoielv TovTovg. Commentators often supply 
 
 1 In the classics, mostly of unnatural vice 
 (with males). Becker, Charides, I. p. 34G ff.; 
 Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxix. 22. 
 
 2 The phrase ndvry navrus, which is com¬ 
 
 mon with Greek writers (Lobeck, Paral. p. 
 57), would have been still stronger if used 
 in place of iravTois, altogether , absolutely. 
 See generally on ix. 22. 
 
120 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 eypaipa after ov ; so, among the rest, Olshausen ; not ( wrote I, meant I ) : with 
 the fornicators of this tcorld in general. But what an arbitrary separation 
 this is of the mutually connected words ov navTiog ! And the interpretation 
 in question has this, too, against it, that r. nooyov r. does not refer to the 
 world in general, but to those who were non-Christians (see below), so that 
 the 11 in general ” would be logically incorrect. Riickert takes ov rravTug as 
 an intensified negative like that in Rom. iii. 9 (comp. Luther), and supplies 
 vypaipa after it : u By no means did I write ; i. e. , the import of my prohi¬ 
 bition was by no means, to hare no intercourse with the fornicators of this 
 world.” But so understood, the words would lend countenance to inter¬ 
 course wfith fornicators not Christian, wdiich cannot be Paul’s meaning. 
 His intention is merely to set aside the misinterpretation wdiich 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 
 (to tv a vt cj g co g etvl tvyohoyiipevov teQelke TvpayyaTog) : 1 1 not, of course, with 
 
 the fornicators of this world.” In that case, we should have had at least 
 7r dvTug ov, for the sense would be, as Theophylact himself states : nal Tcavrug 
 ov rolg 7 ropvoig r. nooyov cvvavayiywadai ek tv/ivoa, tovtegti roig ruv 'iBKkrjvuv. —• 
 tov Koayov tovtov ] who Ijelong to this (ante-Messianic) world, not, like the 
 Christians, to the Messiah’s kingdom as its future members ; hence it is the 
 alloTpLOL Ti]g TcioTEug (Theodoret) who are here denoted, wdiose opposite is 
 the aSehpog in ver. 11. To understand it of manhind in general, Christians 
 and non-Christians together (Pott, Hofmann, al.), is, seeing that tovtov 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 
 W'orld of men in general, he purposely omits the tovtov. — ?/ Tolg TCAEovEKTaig 
 K.r.l] We may suppose that Paul, in the passage of his former letter now 
 alluded to, had warned them not merely against 7 ropvoig, but also against 
 those guilty of the other kinds of vice indicated here, and yet more specifi¬ 
 cally in ver. 11. Hence : u 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 
 wfith each other as general, and particular by mi (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 view r ed by itself. As to apir., the essen¬ 
 tial characteristic of which is violence, comp. Luke xviii. 11 ; Soph. Phil. 
 640 : Kheifiac te xhpnaaai fa. -— T. noapov t. is to be understood again after 
 aprr. and eldul. See ver. 11. — etveI ocpeiTiETe K.T.h.^for so, (were you absolutely 
 and entirely to break off from the heathen fornicators, etc.) you must needs 
 go out of the world (sTepav oinovyEvpv o^eiAere ipTrjoai, 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 o^elIete, 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 LkPeiIete, which has, indeed, the preponderance 
 
chap, y., 11. 
 
 121 
 
 of evidence in its favour, but must be considered as an emendation. The 
 strangeness of the conclusion is not conveyed by tlie apa (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. Baeumlcin, Partik. p. 19 ff.). See against Hartung, Ellendt, 
 Lex. Soph. I. p. 214. 
 
 Ver. 11. Nwj <h] But thus (see on Rom. iii. 21), in reality as contrasted 
 with the aforesaid misconstruction, I did write to you. Herewith Paul now 
 introduces the true meaning of the passage from his letter quoted above, 
 ver. 9. Other expositors make vwl 6k refer to time: hut 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 : u prj ovvavafyvvcOai nopvoig.” 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 ypacpo 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. — adeltyog 
 ovoyaCdp.] the most important element in the more definite explanation 1 
 which Paul is giving of his misunderstood prohibition : being called a brother, 
 i.e. bearing the name of Christian. Comp, ovoya kxetv, Rev. iii. 1. Estius, 
 following Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Oecumenius, joins ovopai b with 
 what comes after, in the sense of : if a brother is a notorious fornicator , 
 having the name of being such. But bvopaZ,ecdat 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 ovopd^eadat elvat iropvog (Plato, Pol. iv. p. 428 E ; Prot. 
 p. 311 E). Besides, it is unlikely that he should have expressly limited 
 the prohibition to notorious fornicators alone, and thereby weakened its 
 moral force. — hoidopog] as in vi. 10 ; comp, on iv. 12. — eldololarprig] Estius 
 observes well that this applies to the Christian, who ‘ 1 sive ex animo, seu 
 metu, seu placendi voluntate, seu quavis alia ratione inductus, infidelium 
 sacris se admiscet, ut vel idolum colat, opere saltern 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. — pkOvcog] 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, 
 cannot have been given expressly in the 
 lost Epistle, but must have been taken for 
 granted as self-evident. Otherwise they 
 could not have so misinterpreted the awa- 
 
 vav-Ly. iropvoi? as they had actually done. 
 For there is no indication in the text that 
 the misinterpretation was a wilful and 
 malicioits one, arising out of Kanin k. nov^pia, 
 ver. 8 (Hofmann). 
 
Paul’s first epistle to the corixthiae's. 
 
 100 
 
 X/v/V 
 
 destroy the peace of the church- life.—ru r. grjdl uvvead. ] parallel, though 
 by way of climax, to the gg awavag. ; hence not anacoluthic in point of 
 construction. As regards the meaning, again, we must not limit it to the 
 Agapae (Yorstius, Mosheim, Stolz, Heydenreich), which would suit neither 
 the quite general phrase gweoO. (comp. xi. 20) nor the intensifying gride. 
 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 de noiviiq 
 rpo(j)?ig Tolg Toiovroig ov del Kotvuvelv , i]izov -ye gvGruitjg re sal d-elag , Theodoret. Re¬ 
 specting the distinction between the grj cvvavagiyv. and excommunication, 
 see 2 Thess. iii. 15. 
 
 Ycr. 12 f. 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. — rl yap goi\ for what concern 
 is it of mine? etc. See Wetstein on the passage, and Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. 
 p. 508. The emphasis falls so entirely upon rl and rovg etju, that we have 
 not egoi , which is not needed even if the reading k al (even, besides) r. e%u be 
 adopted. — rovg was with the Jews the standing name (D'JIYTY) for the 
 heathen (see Lightfoot, Hor., ad Marc. 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. 
 iii. 7). —ovfi rovg ecru vgelg npivere ;] 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 ego. What he means is rather this : “ To 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 Kplvere is altered in meaning by Billroth: 
 Is it not enough that ye? etc., as well as by Castalio, Grotiiis, al. : judicare 
 debet is (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 rwkg in Theo¬ 
 phylact, Knatchbull, Hammond, Michaelis, Semler, Rosenmilller, Flatt, 
 Heydenreich : No; judge ye your fellow-Christians ! Ovx'i is not a suitable 
 answer to rl, and would, besides, require a?2a after it (Rom. iii. 27 ; Luke 
 i. 60, xii. 51, xiii. 3, 5, xvi. 30), and that with a clause forming a logically 
 correct antithesis to the question put. 
 
 Yer. 13. But of those that are without God is judge ,—not I and not you. 
 
CHAP. Y., 13. 
 
 12.3 
 
 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 ovx't ; so Lachmann, Riickert, Olshausen, Hofmann). The ac¬ 
 centuation Kpivel 1 is 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, ii. 1G), on the con¬ 
 trary the present npivei (Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, al ., Pott, de Wette) 
 corresponds in much the most natural way to the preceding npiveiv and npi- 
 vete. According to this view, then, the future judgment is neither exclu¬ 
 sively pointed to by uphei, 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 : k^apare k.t.X. 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. M uaaiKgv retiet/ce 
 papTvp'iav, dele) vdpep (3e(3atu(jag tov koyov, Theodoret. Hofmann conjectures 
 that Paul wrote sal kgapei re, and that this meant : and no less will lie {God) 
 also takeaway the wicked one (those who are wicked in general ) from the midst 
 of you f but this is neither critically established—since the Recepta nal 
 i^apelre is on critical grounds to be utterly rejected—nor grammatically ad¬ 
 missible, for the assumed use of ical ... re is foreign both to Attic prose 
 and to the X. T. ; 2 nor, finally, is it in accordance with the context, for tov 
 novTjpov manifestly refers to the specific malefactor of ver. 2, and to his ex¬ 
 clusion from church ; comp. Augustine : “ tov novrjpdv, quod est kune malig- 
 num.” — vpuv avTkbv] is more expressive than the simple vptiv : from the midst 
 of yourselves , in which you have hitherto tolerated him. Bengel’s com¬ 
 ment hits the mark : “ antitheton externosR 
 
 Remark. —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, 
 Estius, Wetstein, Bengel, Yalckenaer, al ., 
 Lachmann, Scholz, Riickert, Olshausen, 
 Tischendorf, Ewald, Hofmann (in accord¬ 
 ance with Arm. Copt. Vulgate, Chrysostom, 
 al.). 
 
 2 The apparent proof - passages from 
 Greek writers are either founded on cor¬ 
 rupt readings or are deprived of their force 
 when correctly explained. See especially 
 
 Bornemann, ad Anab. i. 8. 3; Kiihner, ad 
 Memor. iv. 2. 28 ; Hartung, Partikdl. I. p. 
 113 ff. ; also Kruger on Thuc. i. 9. 3. The 
 atque etiam would have been rendered by 
 Kal . . . Se. With respect to the occurrence 
 of <al re and Kal . . . tc, without a corre¬ 
 sponding Kal after it, in Homer, Herodotus, 
 etc., see Niigelsbach on the Iliad , p. 176 f., 
 ed. 3 ; and on the whole subject, comp. 
 Matthiae, § 626, p. 1504 f. 
 
124 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 any one special party, ancl if so, to which. In particular, we must refrain from 
 attempting to refer the tt opve'ia 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 
 (Rabiger). 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 tho mischief (vi. 
 12), cannot be charged upon the Petrine party. 
 
 Notes by Ameeican Editoe. 
 
 (m) Church discipline. Yer. 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 tho 
 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 its fellowship. 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¬ 
 cration to God. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 125 
 
 (n) Lost epistles. Yer. 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 
 all ages. 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. 
 
12G 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Yer. 2. 57 ] is wanting inElz., but lias decisive evidence in its favour. —Yer. 5. 
 Aeyi j] Laclim. has ?m/ 10 , on the authority of B alone. In the absence of internal 
 grounds for decision, this is too weakly attested, far weaker than in xv. 34. — 
 m] so Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Ruck. Tisch., following BCL K, min. Chrys. 
 Theodoret, al. How easily the familiar konv (so Elz.) would creep in ! — au<pdg 
 ovde elf,’] Laclim. and Ruck, read ovdetg cotyog, with BC N, min. Copt. Damasc. 
 D* E, Clar. Germ. Aeth. Athan. have simply ootpog ; F and G have ovde elg ootyog. 
 In A, the whole passage vv. 3-6 is wanting (from the similarity of the two last 
 syllables Igtov in vv. 2 and 6 ). From this it appears that the evidence for ovde'tg 
 GtMpog certainly preponderates, against which, however, there must be set the 
 difficulty of seeing why this reading should have undergone alteration. Were 
 coipog ovde elg, on the other hand, the original reading (I)*** 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 ovde elg (which Griesb. 
 approves of), inasmuch as copyists went right on from oo<pOI, to OS, and the 
 two other variations would then arise from dissimilar critical restorations of the 
 text. — Yer. 7. Elz. has ev vpiv against decisive evidence. An interpretation. 
 — Yer. 8 . kcu ravra ] Lachm. Ruck, and Tisch. have nal tovto, following A BCD 
 E K, min. vss. and Fathers. Rightly ; the plural crept in, because two things 
 were mentioned' (adut. and dvroor.). — Ver. 9. There is conclusive evidence for 
 reading 0 eoo (3ac . in place of (3aa. Qeov. In ver. 10, again, this order is too weak¬ 
 ly attested to be received. — Yer. 10. The ov before r?p. is wanting in A B C D E 
 5$, min. Copt. Ignat. Method. Athan. Chrys. al. Deleted -by Lachm. and Ruck, 
 with justice ; for while the preceding Qeov might in itself just as easily lead to 
 the omission as (by repetition of the last syllable) to the insertion of the ov, the 
 latte?' was favoured by ver. 9. —Yer. 14. ? ipdg~\ Elz. has vpag, against decisive tes¬ 
 timony (perhaps from Rom. viii. 11). — e^eyepei] Lachm. and Ewald read e£e- 
 yelpei, with A D*. B and 67** have egr/yeipe. The Hecepta should be adhered 
 to, with Tisch., following C D*** EKL K, min. Yulg., both Syr. Copt. Aeth. 
 Arr. and many Fathers. The connection makes the future necessary as the 
 correlative of narapyrioei 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 
 e^nyeipe and etjeyeipei, the former looks like a mechanical repetition of the pre¬ 
 ceding tense, and the latter a slip of the pen. — 7 ) oPic (not the simple ova) has 
 decisive evidence on its side.—Ver. 19. to atipa] Matth. aDd Tisch . 1 read ra 
 cupara 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. sal ev rip 7rvevpari. ipuv, utlvu eon tov Qeov is deleted by all 
 modern editors (except Matth.) since Mill and Griesb., following ABC* D* E 
 FG X, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Method. Didym. Cyr. Maxim. Damasc. Tert. 
 
 A [Tischendorf returns to the singular in his last edition.— T. W. C.] 
 
CIIAP. VI., 1. 
 
 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 a church-lesson begins with do^acare. Comp. Reicke, Comm, 
 crit. I. p. 165 ff. 
 
 Vv. 1-11. The readers are not to go to law before the heathen (vv. 1-G) ; 
 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 1 any one, etc., and so 
 plunges in medium rem. 2 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 nopvog. Paul does not employ so 
 much as a 6e, or an alia, or any other form of connection, but goes on w T ith 
 epistolary freedom, leaping, as it were, from one point of censure to 
 another. — rtf] any one whatever. The quite general treatment of the subject 
 which follows shows that no specific individual (Sender) 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. — tt payya] lawsuit, matter of dis¬ 
 pute. Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 9. 1 ; Demosth. 1120. 26 ; Josephus, Antt. xiv. 
 10. 7.— icpivecdac] go to law, litigare; see on Rom. iii. 4; Wetstein, ad 
 Matth. v. 40. —£7 rl to)v adinov] before (~Winer, p. 851 [E. T. 469]) the unright¬ 
 eous ; a specially significant designation of the heathen (see on Gal. ii. 5), as 
 
 1 Bengel 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: 
 toA/atjs ecrTi to irpayp-a /cat rrapavop.la<;. See as 
 to ToAjitav, sustinere, non eimbescere, Stall- 
 baum, ad Plat. Phil. p. 13 D ; Jacobs, ad 
 Athen. addit. p. 309. Comp, the proverbial 
 phrase rrciv ToKp-av. 
 
 2 It is out of the harmony with the fervid 
 tone of the whole passage, in which ques¬ 
 tion is heaped on question, to understand 
 
 ver. 1 as affirmative (against Lachmann). 
 Least of all can we agree with Hofmann in 
 taking the words down to aSimov affirma¬ 
 tively, and then regarding /c. ovx<- err. t. 
 ayloiv as a query that strikes in there : for 
 erri r. a.St/cu>f, /cat ov^t e. t. ay., is plainly just 
 the ordinary antithesis of assertion and ne¬ 
 gation .-joined together by /cat ov. To make 
 Hofmann’s rendering logically tenable, it 
 would be needful that Paul should, instead 
 of k. ou^t, have written : /caixi ovxb and why 
 not before the saints ? 
 
128 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corihthiaes. 
 
 contrasted with, tlic Christians, who are ayioi (sec on i. 2). Chrysostom puts 
 it well : ovic sheer' etc! to>v avciGruv (as in ver. G, where the opposite of adebtyog 
 was required), aTJC brl tuv ad'ucuv, ae^iv Oeig i]g yaktoTa xP EiOV £ ix £V £i C T V V 
 TrponEi/uEvtjv vttoOegiv , g)gte arcoTphpai kcli cncayayelv. There is indeed a contra- 
 dictio in adjecto in the uplveodai etc l r. adinov ! For the Rabbinical prohibi¬ 
 tions of going to law before the heathen, see Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. 
 II. p. 472 ff. (e.g. Tanchuma , f. 92. 2 : “ Statutum est, ad quod omnes Isra- 
 elitae obligantur, eum, qui litem cum alio habet, norf debere earn tractare 
 coram gentibus”). The tribunal intended by Paul is not merely that of 
 arbitration , which had passed over from Judaism (see Michaelis, Einl. II. p. 
 1221 f.; comp. Lightfoot, Eor. 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, wdiich could of course be done only in the way of arbitration 1 
 (comp. ver. 5) ; according to this, therefore, different forms of tbe npivEodat 
 are present to the apostle’s mind in speaking of the judgment etti t. ad. and 
 etc! r. ay. ; in the former case, that by legal 'process,; in the latter, that by 
 arbitration through means of diaurirai. — Theodoret remarks justly (on ver. 
 6), that the prohibition of the KpivToOai etti ruv adUuv is not at variance with 
 Rom. xiii. 1 ff. : ov yap civtltelvelv ke?ievel rolg apxovGiv , akka rolg i/duajyivoig 
 voyoOeTei //?} nexpvodai rolg apxovGi. To yap alpelodai y aducciGdai i) icapa rolg 
 dpoTTLGTOig doKiya^EGdai rrjg avrtbv k^praro yvuyrjg. 
 
 Ver. 2. n H ovk oidare k.t./ 1.] 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 notV' 1 etc. Only on the ground of 
 this not knowing could you betake yourselves to such unworthy apivcodaL ! 
 
 Toivvv 6 yeXkuv apivEiv EKEtvovg tote, tt tig vtt ’ ekeivuv civexv K-pivEGdac vvv ; Chry¬ 
 sostom. — tov kog/wv uptvovGi] at the last judgment , namely, sitting along with 
 Christ as judges oxer all who are not Christians (aoojiog). Comp, as early a 
 passage as Wisd. iii. 8. We have here the same conception 2 —only general¬ 
 ized with respect to the subjects of judgment—as in Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke 
 xxii. 80. 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 Rev. xx. 4 (when the Kooyog , 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 udoyog 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 also 
 trates. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 417. (Acts xvii. 31). Comp, on xv. 24. 
 
CHAP. VI., 2. 
 
 129 
 
 smned by Billroth as the ideal 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 a majori ad minus is destroyed, if 
 Kpivovai is to be understood in a one-sided way as equivalent to Karasp., and 
 if no proper and personal act of judgment is designed. 1 It is a mistake 
 also to hold, with Lightfoot, Yitringa, Baumgarten, Bolten, that Paul means 
 quod Ghristiani futuri sint magistratus (Lightfoot), which is at variance with 
 ver. 3, and with the conception of the speedily approaching Parousia. 
 Mosheim, Ernesti, Nosselt, Rosenmiiller, and Stolz turn the u shall judge” 
 into “ can judge,” comparing ii. 15, 16. But this, too, is to alter the notion 
 of kp'lvelv in a way contrary to the text (judge of) : and the can , since it 
 wmuld have an emphasis of special significance here, and would denote 14 be 
 in a position to,” would require to be expressly inserted. Comp, rather the 
 prophetic basis of the thought in Dan. vii. 22.— nai el ev vytv k.t.X.) The 
 quick striking in of the kcll in the very front of the question is as in ver. 2 ; 
 see also Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 123. — el ev vy. up. 6 Kooy.] repeats with em¬ 
 phasis, and with an individualizing force ( yyiv ), the contents of the truth 
 already stated and established to the believing consciousness (hence the 
 present Kpiverai). The h vyiv, here emphatically put first, does not mean, 
 as Chrysostom and Theophylact think, 2 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, ev diitaoTaig, Thuc. i. 53. 1, ev voyoderacg /c.r.2. See, too, the 
 passages in Wetstein. The ^therefore by no means stands for vko (Raphel, 
 Fiatt, al.), although we may gather from the context that the vyeig are them¬ 
 selves the parties judging (vv. 2, 4). Nor has it 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, ev stands in a wholly different relation from 
 what it denotes here. Here the word ev is selected in view of the following 
 KpiTT/pia, 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. —- 
 aval;, here upcr. Kpirr/piov does not mean matter of dispute , case at laic, 
 
 as most expositors (even Pott, Fiatt, Ruckert, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, 
 Ewald), wfish 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. 
 G ; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 767 B ; Susanna, 49), or judicial trial which is held 
 (judicium'). Comp, the precept : yj epxlodo errl Kptfrjptov eOvluov , Constitt. 
 ap. ii. 45. Precisely so with diKacrrypiov. 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 f 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 (Fiatt, Heydenreich). 
 tbe 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 corinthiams. 
 
 as to the sense : “ indigni estis, qui cle minimis judicetis ?” 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, Yalckenaer, al.) or interrogatively (Billroth) : and that 
 it is unworthy of you to he judged before courts of so low a hind f Similarly, 
 Olshausen. But ver. 4 is decisive against this ; for we have there the very 
 same thing which in ver. 2 is expressed by Kpirr/p. klax-, described as /Stonra 
 Kpvrrjpia. 
 
 Yv. 0, 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. — ayye'hovg] 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 0 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4), nor good and bad angels (so Corne¬ 
 lius a Lapide, al.; 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 a certain supposed case, they would 
 incur an avadepa. 1 All modes of explaining away the simple meaning of the 
 words are just as inadmissible as in ver. 2 ; as, foi example, Chrysostom : 
 brav yap al aooparot dvvapetg avrat eUarrov r/poi evpedocuv exovcai, T ^ v oapua irept- 
 ffifhypevov, x a ^- e7T(j)r f av dhoovci SiKrjv ; 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 Nosselt, Ernesti, and Stolz make it 
 ability to judge, if an angel were to preach a false gospel (Gal. i. 8). —pyrtye 
 ftioTiKa] is not to be included in the question, so that we should have to put 
 only a comma after uptvovpev (as Tischendorf does). For (honied, things 
 which belong to the necessities of this life, disputes as to the meum and tuum 
 (comp. Polybius, xiii. 1 . 3 : tov (3iotlkov cvva7JkaypaTov), will not be among 
 the subjects of the future judgment, to which Kptvovpev refers. We must 
 retain, therefore, the mark of interrogation after Kptvovpev (Lachmann), and 
 
 1 Observe also the different classes of without ethical 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. 32. We cannot con- good, Mark x. 18. Comp, on Col. i. 20. (o) 
 
 ceive these distinctions in rank to exist 
 
CHAP. YI., 4 . 
 
 131 
 
 put a full stop after (3iot. , so that yfiiye /3 iut. may be seen to be the con¬ 
 densed conclusio : to say nothing then of private disputes ! i.e. How far less can 
 it de doubtful that we have to judge for oca ! Comp. Dem. 01. i. (ii.) 23, and 
 Bremi in loc. p. 159. See generally as to fi/rcye (found only here in the 
 X. T.), nedum sc. dicam ; Herm. ad Vigor, p. 803 ; Schaefer, Appar. ad Dem. 
 
 1. p. 2G5 ; Hartung, Partilcell. II. p. 154 f. Regarding the relation of 
 fitioTucdg to the later Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 355.—The antithesis 
 of dyybbovg and fionaa turns on this, that the former belong to the higher 
 superterrestrial sphere of life (d>g av ekelvuv ov icara rbv fiov tovtov bvrcjv, 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia). The ayybk. without the article is qualitative. 
 
 Yer. 4. B tunna ysv ovv k.t./ 1.] takes up (lior. at once again with emphasis. 
 Comp. Herod, vii. 104 : ra av bcstvog avuyy' avuyec de ravro dec. —The sen¬ 
 tence may be understood as a question (of astonishment), so de Wette, 
 Tischendorf, Ewald, at.; or as a reproachful statement , so Lachmann. The 
 former, if r. t^ovd. be correctly explained, corresponds best with the whole 
 structure of this animated address (see on ver. 3). Mev ovv is the simple 
 accordingly , thus. 1 2 Kpcrjpca are here also not lawsuits , but judicia, as in ver. 
 
 2. The meaning therefore is : If 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 : exovtuv rag dinag, qui lites habent administran- 
 
 das. Hofmann’s rendering is a most involved one, making fluor. npir. 
 
 predicate to rovg e^ovd. ev r. bail. , and eav ex • a parenthetical clause , to which we 
 
 are to supply as its object e^ovdEvpfievovg.' 1 — Kadfere] do ye —instead of 
 
 taking some from among yourselves for this jDurpose— set those down , etc. ? 
 
 namely, upon the judgment-seat as judges, which follows from npirr/pta. 
 
 Comp. Plato, Legg. ix. p. 873 E ; Dem. 997. 23 ; Polyb. ix. 33. 12. It is 
 
 the indicative , and the e^ovdeviyi. ev r. ekkX. are the heathen. So in substance 
 
 Yalla, Faber, Castalio, Luther, Calovius, Wolf, al., including Pott, Flatt, 
 
 Heydenreich, Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, 
 
 Heandcr, Weiss ; Osiander is undecided. To this it is objected that nadil f ,. 
 
 does not suit heathen magistrates, and that ev t. ekkI. indicates the h^ovd. 
 
 * 
 
 as members of the church (see especially Kypke, II. p. 201). But neither 
 objection is valid ; for the term Kadifre 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 (rovg l^ovd.), while the text does not give rovg ev rf/ ekkI. More¬ 
 over, by r. k^ovd., Paul does not mean to describe the contempt for the hea¬ 
 then as justifiable (Hofmann’s objection), but simply as existing , as a fact, 
 however, the universal existence of which made the absurdity of the 
 procedure here censured very palpable. Other interpreters make nadf 
 imperative , and the h^ovd. members of the church held in small account : 
 take (rather) minimos de piorum plebe as arbiters. 3 But not to speak 
 
 1 Introducing the more detailed develop¬ 
 ment of the thought to which expression 
 had been given already. See Baeumlein, 
 Partik. p. 181. 
 
 2 How meaningless this would be ! More¬ 
 
 over, see below. Comp, also Laurent. 
 
 neutest. Stud. p. 127. 
 
 3 So the Vulgate, Peshito, Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, 
 Vatablus, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, 
 Wetstein, Hofmann, al. 
 
132 
 
 FAUL’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 r. egovb. kv r. ekkX. 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 rovg kgovb. rovg kv r. ekkX. For ol k£ovb. kv r. ekk A. 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 : 
 ova evl kv ipiv. Arrangements of words like rovg k^ovb. kv ry 'ekk.'/ 1. for rovg kv 
 r. ’ekkX. kgovb. are common enough in classical writers also. See Kuhner, 
 ad Xen. Anah. iv. 2. 18. — rovrovg] with an emphasis of disdain. See Hissen, 
 ad JDem. de Cor. p. lii. f., 225 ; Kruger, Aanb. i. 6. 9 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
 II. p. 4G0. 
 
 Ver. 5. npof kvrp. vfuv Tikyo] 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 unfolds 
 the humiliating consideration involved in ver. 4. The address thus acquires 
 more point and inrpressiveness.— ovrug] belongs not to Ityu (Hofmann), 
 but to ovk evl /c.rJ,., and sums up the state of things : sic igitur , rebus ita 
 comparatis , since you rovg k^ovbEvypevovg Kabi^ETE. See Bornemann in Rosen- 
 miiller’s Ltepert. II. p. 245 ff.; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 933. C. Fr. Her¬ 
 mann, ad Lucian, de hist, conscr. p. 161. It is otherwise understood by 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, al., including Flatt, Billroth, Rtickert, 
 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 ovdk elg. — Regarding 
 Iviy see on Gal. iii. 28. The oofydg carries point against the Corinthian self- 
 conceit. — ovdk eh] ne units quidem. “ Quod est vehementius, ” as Erasmus 
 well puts it, “ cum sitis turn multi.” See on John i. 3, and Kruger, Anab. 
 iii. 1. 3 ; Bornemann and Poppo, ad Cyrop. ii. 1. 21. Comp, non ullus 
 (Kuhner, ad Cic. Tusc. i. 39. 94) nemo unus (Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 137). 
 Frequent in Isocr., see Bremi, I. Exc. iii. — og tivvyoeraL] purely future in 
 force : who (as cases shall occur) will be able. — dtaKplvai ] to judge , as arbitra¬ 
 tor. — ava pkcsov t. ad. avrov ] between (LXX. Gen. xvi. 5 ; Ex. xi. 7 \ Ezek. 
 xxii. 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 r. adElqov, is meant to put to shame. The singular is used for 
 this reason, that tov adelPov 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 self-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 : Staicptvai ev mvrti irpbq rov aSeX^ov 
 a'urov. Moreover, ovSe elq (or ovSetq 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, r. aSeXtyov k. rov SSeX^ov avrov (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. II. p. 37 ; Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 10 f.) brother goes to laio loith 
 brother , and that (see on Rom. xiii. 11) before unbelievers. 1 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 ! K ptverat in precisely the same sense as in 
 ver. 1, K.pLveo'&aL ettI tuv aStucov. (p) 
 
 Ver. 7. Mn> ovv] as in ver. 4 ; it now brings under special consideration 
 the foregoing aSEXtp. ysra ad. aptvErat —namely, as to what the real character 
 of such a proceeding may be in itself viewed generally (pXuq being taken as 
 inv. 1), apart from the special element unhappily added in Corinth, etti 
 arrioTuv. The yh corresponds as little (against Hofmann) to the aXXa which 
 follows in ver. 8, as the yev in ver. 4 to the aXXa in ver. 6. The rfr] is the 
 logical already (“ already then , viewed generally' 1 ' 1 '), in reference to something 
 special, by which the case is made yet worse. Comp. Hartung, Partikell , I. 
 p. 240 f. — rjrrj]ya\ a defeat (see on Rom. xi. 12), i.e. 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).— 
 eavrtiv] like aXXr/Xuv , but giving them to feel, more strongly than the latter 
 would, the impropriety which had a place in their own circle (Kiihner, ad Xen. 
 Mem. ii. 6. 20). — icptyara J as in Rom. v. 16, Wisd. xii. 12, legal judgments, 
 which they had respectively obtained (e^ere).— aStKEicr&E . . . enroerrep.] 
 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 Start in ver. 7 still continues : Why 
 do ye not rather allow yourselves to suffer wrong, etc., and not , on your %)art, 
 do wrong , etc. ? This view, instead of the ordinary one, which makes 
 ver. 8 an independent sentence like ver. 6, is necessary, because h ova olSare 
 in ver. 9 has its logical reference in Start. The reference, namely, is this : 
 “ There is no ground conceivable for your notfl etc. (Start . . . aSeXcpovg ), 
 “ unless that ye knew notf etc. (y ova olSare). —teal rovro aSeXtyovg) to whom 
 nevertheless, as your brethren, the very opposite was due from you ! With 
 respect to the climactic/£. rovro, 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, Hofmanu), makes the passage adopted also by Tischendorf and Ewald. 
 
134 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Yer. 9. 'H ovk. oldare] See on vcr. 8. To supply an unexpressed thought 
 here (“ Do not regard the matter lightly,” Billroth ; “ This is a far greater 
 r/rrr/pa ,” Ruckert ; that r/rrr/pa to the church “ they could only fail to per¬ 
 ceive, if they did not know,” etc., Hofmann) is just as arbitrary as to do so 
 in ver. 2— aihiwt] the general conception (under which the preceding aduceiv 
 and enroar. are included): unrighteous , immoral. See the enumeration which 
 follows.— Qcov (jam/ i.J the Qeov coming close after cnhuoi, and put first for 
 emphasis (see the critical remarks). As to the truth itself, that aSida 
 excludes from the Messiah’s kingdom, see on Gal. v. 21 ; and as regards 
 what is implied in the Messianic Klr/povopia, on Gal. iii. 18 ; Eph. i. 11. —■ pi) 
 frAavacrde] for that moral fundamental law was more easily, it is plain, flung 
 to the winds in frivolous Corinth than anywhere else ! Possibly, too, some 
 might even say openly : QtAavdpurrog k>v 6 Qeog nal ayetdof, ova ETcegepxETcu rolg 
 Tc'Xpppe'XppaGL' pi/ (h) poftr/dugev ? Chrysostom. Hence : he not mistaken (jr/.a- 
 vderde, passive , as also inxv. 33 ; Gal. vi. 7; Luke xxi. 8 ; Jas. i. 1G; 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 adinoi into 
 particulars, not, however, arranged systematically, or in couples, nor redu¬ 
 cible, save by force, to any logical scheme ; 1 in this enumeration, owing to 
 the state of matters in the place, the sins of sensuality are most amply speci¬ 
 fied. — 7 ropvoi, fornicators in general ; poi%oi, adulterers , Heb. xiii. 4. — 
 eiJwAoA.] see on v. 11. — paXanoi] effeminates, commonly understood as qui 
 muliehria 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 tt 6pvoi 
 or KLvcudoL. One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be 
 mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore : effeminate 
 luxurious livers. Comp. Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : pakanog teal rpvcpuv, Xen. Mem. 
 ii. 1, 20, also paXanug, iii. 11. 10 : rpvtpi/ be nal pah&aida, Plato, Hep. p. 590 
 B.— apccvoKolTcu ] sodomites , who defile themselves with men (1 Tim. i. 10 ; 
 Eusebius, Praep. evang. p. 27G D). Regarding the wide diffusion of this 
 vice, see the passages in Wetstein ; comp, on Rom. i. 27, and Hermann, 
 Privatalterth. § 29, 17 ff. 
 
 Yer. 11. How unworthy are such of your new Christian relations ! — ravra] 
 of persons in a contemptuous sense : such trash , such a set. See Bern- 
 hardy, p. 281.— nvig] more exact definition of the subject of i/re, namely, 
 that all are not meant. It is the well-known cxvpa nad' oaov nal pspog 
 (Kiihner, II. p. 156). Comp. Grotius. Yalckenaer says well : “ vocula tiveq 
 dictum paulo durius emollitP Billroth is wrong in holding (as Yorstius 
 before him) that ravra nveg belong to each other, and are equivalent to 
 roLovroi. In that case ravra nva would be required, or roloi nveg. See Ast, 
 ad Plat. Legg. p. 71 ; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 1. 2 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
 II. p. 832. — aiTiXovG. K.r./ 1.] 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, Ur sprung der Siinde, II. p. 29 f. 
 
CHAP. VI., 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, ii. 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. e^anriGavTo, 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 
 Olsliausen—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 If.), against which the same phrase in Acts xxii. 
 16, and the analogous one, nadapioag, in Eph. v. 26, militate strongly. This 
 moral regeneration exists in connection with baptism (Tit. iii. 5), but is not 
 designated by cnvelova., although its subjective conditions, /ueravoia and 717077 c 
 are presupposed in the latter expression. The producing of regeneration, 
 which is by water and Spirit , is implied in the r/yidoOnre which follows : ye 
 became (from being unholy, as ye were before baptism) holy , inasmuch, 
 namely, as by receiving the duped rov ayiov irvevgaTog (Acts ii. 38) 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, dyiacy). Riickert and Ols¬ 
 hausen take it in the theocratic sense : “ye became set apart, numbered 
 among the aytoi.” Comp. Osiander, also Hofmann : “ incorporated in the 
 holy church.' 1 ' 1 But the progression of thought here, which marks its advance 
 towards a climax by the repetition of the alia, 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.— kdiKatudrjTe] ye icere made righteous . 1 This, however, cannot mean 
 the imputative justification of Rom. iii. 21 (de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann, 
 wfith older commentators ; because, in the first place, this is already given 
 in the aizelovcaoQe ; and secondly, because the eSuiaiuOpre, if used in this 
 sense, would have needed not to follow the dyidadpre, 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 aizelovc. , which so manifestly indicates the beginning 
 of the Christian state. What is meant, and that b} r w r ay of contrast to the 
 notion of aduda which prevails in ver. 9 f., is the actual moral righteousness 
 of life, 2 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 ducaiuya rov voyov (Rom. viii. 4), 
 and he himself, being dead unto sin, dediKaiurai euro rfjg apapriag (Rom. vi. 
 
 1 [Beet says, with justice, “a solitary 
 instance, probably, in the New Testament 
 of this simplest sense.” — T. W. C.] 
 
 2 There is therefore no warrant for ad¬ 
 ducing this passage, as is done on the Ro¬ 
 man Catholic side (even by Dollinger), in 
 
 opposition to the distinction between justi¬ 
 fication and sanctification. Justification is 
 comprised already in an-eAov'cr. Comp. 
 Weiss, Ubl. 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 kdovludrj ry dticcuoavvy (Rom. vi. 18), whose instruments his members 
 have now become in the Kaivorr/g of the spirit and life (Rom. vi. 13). This 
 dmaLuOijvai does not stand related to the ayiaadt/vai in any sort of tautological 
 sense, but is the effect and outcome of it, and in so far, certainly, is also 
 the moral continuatio justifeationis (comp. Calovius), Rev. xxii. 11.—The 
 thrice repeated alia lays a special emphasis upon each of the three points. 
 Comp. Xenophon, Anab. v. 8. 4 ; Aristophanes, Acharn. 402 ff. ; 2 Cor. ii. 
 17, vii. 11 ; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 142 ; Bornemann, ad Xen. 
 Symp. iv. 53 ; Buttmann, neut. Gramm, p. 341 [E. T. 398].— ev ru ovdgari 
 . . . yg&v] is by most expositors made to refer to all the three points. But 
 since ev r« tt vevgan k.t.I. does not accord with cnrelovo. (for the Spirit is 
 only received after baptism, Acts ii. 38, xix. 5, G ; Tit. iii. 5, 6 ; the case 
 in Acts x. 47 is exceptional), it is better, with Ruckert, to connect iv re 3 
 ovogart . . . rjjiojv simply with edcuauvO., which best harmonizes also with the 
 significant importance of the ediKatud^re as the crowning point of the whole 
 transformation wrought in the Christian. The name of the Lord Jesus, i.e. 
 what pronouncing the name “ Kvpioq ’Irjcovg” (xii. 3) affirms,—this, as the 
 contents of the faith and confession, is that in which the becoming morally 
 righteous had its causal basis {iv), 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 iv tc 3 
 bvdgari . . . Qeov ygtiv into connection with the iravra got etjecriv which fol¬ 
 lows, the latter would at once become limited and defined in a way with 
 which the antitheses all' k.t.I. would no longer in that case harmonize. 
 For it is precisely in the absoluteness of the iravra got egeoriv 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 7/yiaod. and iducaiufi. 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 ; a(po<5pa evrpeTTTiKcjq 
 iverjyaye Xeyuv' ivvopoare ifAinov vgag e^elIeto nancbv o 0 ebq k.t.j l., Chrysostom. 
 And thereby he seeks morally to raise them. 
 
 Vv. 12-20. Correction of the misunderstanding of Christian liberty, as though 
 fornication , 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. In 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- 
 pointedby God merely for a time (ra fiphgara . . . aarapy., ver. 13). Wholly 
 otherwise is it with the use of the body for fornication ; that is anti- Christian 
 
CHAP. VI., 12 - 14 . 
 
 1 ‘I’V 
 
 lo 4 
 
 (to He cuga . . . Gufj.au, 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 aducia in ver. 9, place nopvda 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., § 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 : 7 ravra yoc e^eguv. 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. Tlieol. p. 420 f. 
 
 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, 1 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. Neancler, 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. 23 lends no support to 
 this exposition, for it is obvious that the same maxim could be made to 
 apply in very many different directions. Ruckert’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 7 ravra e^egtlv 
 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). To the ordinary interpretation Rlickert objects, that 
 the Corinthians in their letter would certainly not have described the iropvda 
 
 1 Olshausen reasons thus : Since in vi. 9 
 unnatural vices are named with the rest, 
 we should have to conclude that the ndvra. 
 n 01 e^ecrTi was applied to these also in Cor¬ 
 inth ; now Paul would surely never have 
 
 suffered persons guilty of such abomina¬ 
 tions to remain in the church. But in vv. 13 
 ff. the apostle is speaking quite distinctly 
 and constantly of the TtopueLa alone, not of 
 unnatural sins. 
 
138 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the coriintiiians. 
 
 as prevailing among tliem, nor would they have undertaken the defence of 
 it to the apostle whom they knew so w T ell. 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 navra e^egtlv through expressions in the Corin¬ 
 thian letter (this against Hofmann also). According to Ewalel, 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. 13 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. 13 stand in an antithetic relation to each other, which 
 gives the first half merely the position of an auxiliary clause ; thirdly, that 
 chap, viii.-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 o>i fornication. —ndvra got e^ectiv] 
 might be regarded as the objection of an opponent (so Pott and Platt, 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 kpzlg ovv , or the like). Comp, on ver. 13. — 
 It would be self-evident to the reader that ndvra meant all that icas in itself 
 indifferent (whatever was not anti-Christian). — poi] spoken in the character 
 of a Christian in general. Comp. ver. 15. Bengel says well : 11 Saepe Paulus 
 prima personS, singul. eloquitur, quae rim habent gnomes. ^ Comp. Gal. ii. 18. 
 
 — avfKpipet] is profitable. This must not be arbitrarily restricted either in the 
 way of taking it as equivalent to ohcodopsi (Calvin, al ., also Billroth after x. 
 23), or by confining it to one’s own advantage (Grotius, Iieumann, Schulz, 
 Olshausen). What is meant is moral profitableness generally in every respect, 
 as conditioned by the special circumstances of each case as it arises. So, 
 too, in x. 23. Theodore of Mopsuestia, it may be added, says rightly : 
 hrEid'p yap ov navra cvptpzpEi, dffkov d>g ov naci xprareov, dThAa roig axpehovci pdvoig. 
 
 — ovic eycj] not I for my part. The 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 oim zy6 and by vn6 rivog. The common 
 interpretation : “ ego sub nullius redigar potestatem” (Vulgate), does not 
 correspond to the order of the words. — k^ovciacO.'] 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 the 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 nvdq masculine (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, 
 Vatablus, Ewald, al.), the meaning would then be, that in things indiifer- 
 
 I 
 
CHAP. VI., 13 . 
 
 139 
 
 ent a man sliould 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 rravra. — The paronomasia in egeoriv and egovg. was 
 remarked by expositors as early as Chrysostom and Theophylact. All is in 
 my power, yet it is not I iclio will be overpowered by anything. Regarding k^ov- 
 Gid^eiv (which is not used in this sense by Greek writers), comp. Eccles. vii. 
 19, viii. 8, x. 4 f. 
 
 Ycr. 13. Tf? Koikla ] sc. fern, belong to, inasmuch, that is to say, as they are 
 destined to be received and digested by the belly (the vtzo&oxv ruv gitluv, 
 Photius in Occumenius). Comp. Matt. xv. 17 .—rolg ppuyaoiv] inasmuch 
 as it is destined to receive and digest the food. — This reciprocal destina¬ 
 tion according to nature is the first 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, is 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 kolKlc, and the fipuyaGL, 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. — 6 41 Qeog 
 . . . narapy.] 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 ct ven¬ 
 ter . . . sunt res periturae ; . . . ideo sunt adiaphora and Bengel : 
 “quae clestruentur, per se liberum liabent usum, Col. ii. 20 ff.” Comp. 
 Castalio, and among more modern expositors, Schulz, Krause, Billroth, 
 Riickert, Schrader, Olshausen, deWette, Osiander, Ewald, Maier, Neander, 
 Hofmann. 1 Pott, Flatt, and Ileydenreich (and see still earlier writers in 
 Wolf) approximate to this view, but take ra Ppuyara . . . narapy. as words 
 of an opponent, the premisses of a conclusion as to the allowableness 
 of fornication, which conclusion is impugned by Paul in the to de 
 cayia k.t.1. 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 alia again (as in ver. 12, ac¬ 
 cording to this dialogistic view). Other interpreters, following Chrysos¬ 
 tom and Theophylact, make the design of 6 Ss 0 eog k.t./ 1. to be a warning 
 against excess. Comp. Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, al. But this, although 
 in harmony with the alia in ver. 12, would stand in no logical relation to 
 the 6 tie Oeog k.t.1. of ver. 14, and thereby the inner connection of the whole 
 address (see above) would be broken up. — nal ravrpv icai ravra] Regarding 
 
 1 Several of them, however, fall into the to be at death , which k<h ravra alone shows 
 
 mistake of making the date of the narapy. to be inadmissible. 
 
140 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 the use of the double ovroq for knelvoq. . . . ovroq, which is not common, see 
 Bernhardy, p. 277. Comp. Josh. viii. 22 ; 1 Mace. vii. 4G, ix. 17. — to Sk 
 ccbjua] Paul cannot name again here a single organ ; the whole body is the 
 organ of fleshly intercourse : 1 see ver. 16. —ry Tcopveia] for fornication (con¬ 
 ceived of as a personal power), for its disposal and use.— rcplvvp'np] inas¬ 
 much as the body is a member of Christ. 2 * Soever. 15.—rwaw/m-n] inas¬ 
 much, namely, as Christ is destined (has it as Ilis function) to rule and use 
 the body as Ilis member. “Quanta clignatio !” 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, ra ppcopara /c.r./l.), 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 6 de Qeog /c.r./l. in ver. 13). 
 
 Yer. 14. This is parallel in contents and form to the sentence, 6 tie Qebq 
 . . . k arapyyaei, 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 aluv ; how wholly different therefore 
 from the hoc Ha, that organ of temporal nourishment, which will cease to be ! 
 — ml rov K vp. yyeipe] necessary assurance of what follows. See Rom. viii. 
 11. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 20 ; Col. I. 18 ; 2 Cor. iv. 11, 14. — nai r)paq eg eye pel s ] 
 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 rov K vp. r/yeepe, 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 (?/ydr), 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 rpy. and h%ey. (out of the grave, comp, e^avaaracTig ruv veicpuv, 
 Phil. iii. 11) is accidental, without any sjiecial design—in opposition to 
 Bengel and Osiander’s arbitrary opinion that the former word denoted the 
 first-fruits , and the latter the “ massa dormientium.” 4 — avrov ]—not avrov, 
 
 1 Neither our text nor Luke xx. 35 drives 
 any support to the assumption that those 
 partaking in the resurrection will be with¬ 
 out sexual distinction. The doing away of 
 the KoiAia refers simply to the cessation of 
 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 vnep 6 yiypanTcu. 
 
 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 wqs never designed.” Stanley.— 
 
 T. W. C.] 
 
 3 If e£eyetpei 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 
 e£»lyeipe were correct, we should have to 
 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. eyelpto is the tei'm con¬ 
 stantly used both of Christ’s resurrection 
 and that of believers ; whereas e£eyeipco 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. YI., 15 , 16 . 
 
 141 
 
 because uttered from tbe standpoint of tbe writer—applies to God , not to 
 Jesus (Theodoret) ; and dia ryg 6way. avr. should be referred not to both 
 the clauses in the sentence (Billroth), but, as its position demands, to kgcyc' 
 pel ; for to the ground of faith which the latter has in nal rbv K vpiov yyeipe , 
 Paul now adds its undoubted possibility (Matt. xxii. 29), perhaps glancing 
 purposely at the deniers of the resurrection, rf? dtjcoiuGrla ryg rov Tvoiovvrog 
 laxvog rovg avriTikyovrag ETrcorou'fov, Chrysostom. 
 
 Yv. 15-17. That fornication is not an indifferent thing like the use of 
 meats, but anti-Christian, Paul has already proved in yv. 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 principii 
 (Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 538 f.), but on the ground of the proof 
 of this immorality already given in yv. 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. 
 
 — ovk old are k.t.j l.] He here takes up once more, and exhibits with greater 
 fulness, the thought in ver. 13, to cuya rw Kvp'up, as the basis for the follow¬ 
 ing warning : apag ovv k.t.X.— ykly Xpiarov ] 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. 13, ad.). 
 
 — apag] Shall I then take away , take off, the members of Christ, and, etc. 
 Billroth sees in dpac simply minuteness of description, indicative of deliber¬ 
 ation, as in np 1 ?. But this is to confound it with Xaj3uv. The Vulgate 
 renders rightly : tollens ; Luke vi. 29, xi. 22 ; John xi. 48 ; Plato, Pol. ix. 
 p. 578 E, Tim. p. 76 B ; Sophocles, Track. 796 ; 1 Macc. viii. 18. What 
 is depicted is daring misappropriation. The plural ra yk\y denotes the cat¬ 
 egory, for the matter ‘ ‘ non quanta sit numcro, sed qualis genere sit, specta- 
 tur, Reisig, Conjee, in Aristoph. p. 58. Since the Christian’s body is among 
 the members of Christ, the tc opveieiv is a deed whereby a man takes away 
 the members of Christ from Him whose property they are, and makes them 
 a harlot’s members. — Trocyau] future : Shall this case occur with me ? shall I 
 degrade myself to this ? so far forget myself ? Rlickert and Osiander hold 
 that it is the aorist subjunctive : should I, etc. (see Herm. ad Viger. p. 
 742). It is impossible to decide the point. 
 
 Yer. 16. HI ovk olfiare] u Or if this yy ykvoiro (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 y ovk oldare cannot correspond with the ovk 
 oldare of ver. 15 (Hofmann : 11 either the one or the other they must be 
 ignorant of,” etc.), for ort 6 KolAhy. k.t.1. manifestly refers to the conclusion 
 
142 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 from the preceding expressed in apag ovv , and therefore is subordinated to 
 the question answered shudderingly with py ykvotro . In ver. 19, too, the y 
 ovk oidare refers to what has just before been said. — koX/ Iwp] who joins him¬ 
 self to indicating the union in licentious intercourse. Comp. Ecclus. 
 
 xix. 2 ; Gen. ii. 24 ; Ezra iv. 20. — ry rrbpvy'] the harlot with whom he deals 
 (article). —ev ocbpa konv ] is a single hocly; previous to the nolTiacdcu he and 
 the person concerned were two bodies, but he who is joined to the harlot— 
 an united subject—is one body. —ecovrai -yap /c.r./L] Gen. ii. 24 (quoted from 
 the LXX.) speaks, indeed, of wedded , not unwedded, intercourse ; but 
 Theodoret rightly points out the paritas rationis: ev yap nal tovto kclkeZvo ry 
 <j>vcei tov rrpdyparog. — <pyalv\ 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. 1G ; Eph. iv. 8 ; Heb. viii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xv. 
 27. 'II ypa<py, which is what is usually supplied here, would need to be 
 suggested by the context, as in Rom. xv. 10. Riickert arbitrarily prefers 
 to rrvevpa . 1 — ol dvo] the tico in question. The words are wanting in the 
 Hebrew text, but are always quoted with it in the X. T. (Matt. xix. 5 ; 
 Mark x. 8 ; Eph. v. 31) after the LXX., and also by the Rabbins {e.g. Beresh. 
 Ball). 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. 2G0 f.). — eig oapaa piav] “IHi* See on Matt. xix. 5. 
 
 Ver. 17. Weighty contrast to 6 noTJicop. ry rropvy ev aupa eon, no longer 
 dependent on on. — icoAXacOai r(p Kvp'up, 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. G ; Ecclus. ii. 3, al.). It denotes here, inward union 
 of life with Christ , and is selected to be set against the koX/ l. ry rrdpvy in ver. 
 16, inasmuch as in both cases an intima conjunctio takes place, in the one 
 fleshly, in the other spiritual. We are not to assume that Paul was thinking 
 here, as in Eph. v. 23 if. (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 koXX. ry rropvy would be an unsuitable one. 
 Olshauscn’s additional conjecture, that when the apostle spoke of ry rropvy 
 there floated before his mind a vision of the great whore who sitteth upon 
 many waters (Rev. xvii. 1), is an empty fancy. — ev rrvevpa eon ] conceived 
 of as the analogue to ev acopa. 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 rrvevpa of the believing man 
 and the rrvevpa 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 To 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. 134], 
 
 warrant from any other instance of Paul’s 
 
CHAP. VI., 18 . 
 
 143 
 
 power of tlie Holy Spirit, Rom. viii. 9-11. Now, be it observed bow, 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 xerbum, quo actus concubialis sanctificatur ^ Calovius. Comp. Weiss, 
 bibl. Theol. p. 421. 
 
 Vv. 18-20. Direct prohibition of fornication, strengthened by description 
 of it as a sin against one’s own body, which is in fact the temple of the Holy 
 Spirit, etc. 
 
 Ver. 18. QevysTE rijv wopv.] 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,” Bengcl. — wav ayaprypa 
 k.t.j l.] 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 wav, with 
 Michaelis, Flatt, Pott, and others, in a popular sense, as equivalent to 
 almost all (comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Melanchthon : u 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 ( apaprrjpa ), 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 apaprypa , 
 viewed in its relation to the body, comes to stand ektoq tov auparoc, 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 ektoc tov 
 cuparoq. How entirely different from the case of all such other sinful acts 
 stands the state of things with unchasteness, where there is sin, not eutoq t. 
 acjparoc, but dc to idiov ou/ua ! See below. In connection with this passage, 
 expositors indulge in many arbitrary and sometimes very odd interpretations 1 
 
 1 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, al., 
 single out as the characteristic point—con¬ 
 trary to the literal tenor of the passage— 
 the defilement of the whole body by forni¬ 
 cation, on which ground a hath is taken 
 subsequently. This latter point Theodoret 
 also lays stress upon, explaining, however, 
 the expression by the fact that the man 
 who commits other sins ov TocravTTji' ai<r&r](Tiv 
 \anpdvei rrjs d/j.apTLa';, while the profligate, 
 On the other hand, evtlu? /mera t r\v dfxapTLav 
 aLcr&d.i'eTou tov kclkov kcll avro to traj/xa jSSeXvT- 
 
 t erai. Chrysostom’s interpretation of the 
 whole body has been taken up again by 
 Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 540 f.). 
 
 The body in its totality , he holds, is meant, 
 inasmuch as it is one body with the harlot, 
 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 does not 
 remain with him" (?). 
 
 0 
 
144 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corinthiahs. 
 
 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 Opusc. 
 p. 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 euros r. cujuan 
 eoriv 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.—oeav K.r.X.] which in any case whatever (Hermann, ad 
 Viger. p. 819) a man shall have committed. Respecting kav, instead of av, 
 after relatives, see Winer, p. 291 [E. T. 390]. — euros r. ou/u. eoriv] inasmuch 
 as the sinful deed done has been one brought about outside of the body. — els to 
 I biov ouya] For liis 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 els , 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 ayapravei in respect of the specific description of it 
 given by els ro ISiov ocbya. u Commits sinfi 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, icnow ye not that (1) your body (i.e. the body of each one 
 among you, see Bernhardy, p. 60) is the temple (not : a temple, see on iii. 16) 
 of the Holy Spirit which is in you (Rom. viii. 11) ; and that (2) ye belong not 
 U your own selves (see ver. 20) ? Fornication, therefore, so far as it affects 
 your own body, is a desecration of w r hat is holy, and a selfish rebellion 
 against God your Lord. — ov e%ere airo Geol] gives edge to the proof, 1 and 
 leads on to the second point (ovic ears eavribv). Ov is under attraction from 
 ay. rev. (Winer, p. 154 [E. T. 203]). —nal ovk.k.t.%.] still dependent upon on, 
 which is to be supplied again after nai, not an independent statement (Hof¬ 
 mann, who takes the nai as meaning also), which would needlessly interrupt 
 the flow of the animated address. 
 
 Ver. 20. For (proof of the ovk. lore eavr.) ye icere 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. 24 f. ; 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 : /cal tov SeSuxoTa Tedeucev, 
 v\liq\ov re o/xov ttoloov tov aKpoar'-qv, /cal (f>of3tov 
 /cal T(ii peyi’&eL rrj? napaKaTaSriKq<; Kal t rj <pL\o- 
 rt/xta tov 7rapa/carat?e/xe»'ou. Further, US to 
 
 the idea of the body being the temple of the 
 Holy Spirit, in opposition to the abuse of 
 it in debauchery, comp. Herat. Fast. Sim. 
 v. 7. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 145 
 
 Christ; but see John xvii. 9.— rijujjg] strengthens the rjyopacd. 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, Ruckert, Osiander, Olshausen, 
 Ewald). 1 Comp. Herod, vii. 119, and the passages in Wetstein ; and see 
 already Valla. — do^daare di/ k.t./ 1 .] Do but glorify, etc. This is the moral 
 obligation arising out of the two things grasped by faith as certainties, 
 ver. 19. Regarding the dr/ of urgency with imperatives, see on Acts xiii. 2. 
 — kv add/i. vg.] not instrumental, nor as in 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 ariga^eiv tuv Qe6v (Rom. ii. 23) in His own sanctuary ! 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (o) 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 
 *f 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?” 
 
 (p) 'Going io law before unbelievers. Ver. 6. 
 
 A litigious spirit is known to have characterized the Greek nation from the 
 time of Aristophanes downwards ; and it is 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 TIIE 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 
 Xvith emphasis the wrongfulness and the meanness of cherishing a litigious 
 spirit. 
 
 (q) “ Ye were washed." Yer. 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 
 Scripture—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 w r ashed, 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. d<f>ei2.rjv] Elz. and Matt, read oipeiloph’Tjv evvoiav, against decisive evi¬ 
 dence. Erroneous explanation.—Ver. 5. Trj vrjorda nai after axo^darjre (not 
 cxohdfyre, Elz.) is an inappropriate addition in the ascetic interest ; and 
 cvvipx^Oe, in place of r/re, is a gloss. —Ver. 7. yap] A C D* E G X* min. It. 
 Copt. Goth, and several Fathers have JL Approved by Griesb., and adopted 
 by Lachm. Tiscli. and Ruck. The yap was an incorrect gloss upon the be. — 
 Instead of bg . . . og, read, with Lachm. and Tiscli., following the majority of 
 the uncials, o ... 6. In ver. 10 again, Lachm. and Ruck, put x u P L & 0 ® ai i 11 
 place of x^P LG ^V val (with A D E F G) ; but, considering the weight of authority 
 on the other side, cicpievai must dissuade us from the change.—Ver. 13. uvrog] 
 approved also by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Ruck, and Tisch. The evidence 
 against avrdg (Elz.) is conclusive. But this induces us to read avrp in ver. 12 
 also (with Lachm. Tisch. and Ruck.).— avrdv] Lachm. Tisch. and Ruck, have 
 rov avdpa, approved b} r Griesb. also, and on conclusive grounds. Avtov has 
 crept in from uniformity to ver. 12. Had there been a gloss, we should have 
 found a corresponding variation of avrpv in ver. 12 as well. —Ver. 14. avbp!] 
 The uncials from A to G, X*, Copt. Baschm. It. Jerome, and Augustine, read 
 adeTupti. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Ruck, and Tisch. 
 ’A vbpi is an explanatory addition. —Ver. 15. ? )pdg] Tisch. has v/uug , but the evi¬ 
 dence for it is weaker ; and vpag would easily come in from ver. 14. — Ver. 17. 
 K vpiog] Elz. and Matt, read ©eo^, and, after Ken’drinev : 6 K vpiog. Against con¬ 
 clusive testimony ; Kvpiog was glossed and dislodged by Qeog, and then after¬ 
 wards reinserted in the wrong place. Hence in G, Boern. we have 6 Kvpiog 
 ... 6 Kvpiog 6 Qeog. — Ver. 18. Instead of the second rig skI.ijQti, Lachm. Tisch. 
 and Ruck, read KenTierai rig, with A B K, min., and additional support from D* 
 F and G, which have rig Kt/cH. The Recepta is a mechanical repetition from the 
 first clause of the verse. —Ver, 28. yppyg] B N have yapr/cyg ; and, since in A we 
 have ya/z^cr?;, and in I) E F G /~d(3ijg yvvalna, which is plainly a gloss, the evi¬ 
 dence preponderates in favour of yappoyg (Lachm. Tisch.) ; yt'/pr/g arose out of 
 what follows. —Ver. 29. 1 After ddel^n'i Elz. has on, against A B K L K, min. 
 Baschm. Syr. p. Vulg. Eus. Method. Basil, Theodoret, Hierat. al. An exegetical 
 addition. — to Xm~6v eortv] A B K, min. Copt. Syr. p. Arm. Slav. Eus. Ephr. 
 Basil, Cyr. have kari to lonzdv. Now, seeing that D* has simply eoti ?,oin6v, 
 and F G 67** Boern. Vulg. Method. Tert. Jerome, Ambrosiast. al. have earl, 
 Tiorirdv kanv, the reading of A, etc., is best accredited. That in the Received 
 text originated in the wish to indicate the fact that to Tionrov 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 koriv and to Tionrdv, which is done by Lachm. 
 Tisch. Ruck, and Scholz, see the exegetical remarks on the verse. — Ver. 31. rip 
 
 1 Respecting ver. 29, see Reiche, comment, cril. I. p. 178 ff. 
 
148 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the coriktiiiaks. 
 
 kog/up tovtu ] Lachm. Tisch. and Ruck. read roi> nbopov, with AB K, also D* F 
 G 17, which, however, add tovtov. The dative was a correction to bring it 
 into accordance with the common usage ; tovtov (tovtu) again in addition from 
 what follows. — Yv. 32-34. apiaei ] Lachm. and Ruck, have dpeoy, with ABBE 
 F G K 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. — Yer. 34. 1 pepeptcTai k.t.2,.] Kai 
 pepepioTcu occurs in A B D* K, min. Syr. p. Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome, and 
 many other Fathers, and is joined to what precedes it by most of the codd. 
 Copt. Yulg. 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 nai after pepep., 
 which is wanting in Elz., is conclusively attested by A B D*** F G K L K, 
 min. Aeth. Vulg. It. Chrys. al. Going on with the verse, we find y ayapog after 
 yvvy in A B some min. Yulg. and several Fathers ; while, on the other hand, 
 there is no y ayapog after rrapOevog in Yulg. Jerome, Aug. Euseb. al. We have 
 the choice left us, therefore, between the following two readings (and modes 
 of connecting the words) : (1) [/cm] peptpicTcu nai y yvv?) nai y izapOevog' y uya- 
 pog peptpvg k.t.A. , and (2) Kai pepepLCrai. Kai y yvv 7 ) y ayapog /cal y napOevog y 
 ayapog peptpvg k.t.\. 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 G K 
 L, and many min. It. Slav. Chrys. Theodoret, Dam.), presented a stone of stum¬ 
 bling in the pepepioTai, 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 
 pep'i&oQac must mean curis distrahi, see Jerome, adv. Jovin. i. 7), it was con¬ 
 nected with the preceding clause by Kai (which appears, therefore, to be spuri¬ 
 ous). This made yvvy be taken as mulier vidua (Aeth.) ; and hence y ayapog 
 was either pushed forward (Yulg.), or else left in connection with napQivog, 
 and the same word added to yvvy as well (A B K, Laclim.). Scholz, too, has 
 the words as in our reading, 2 but spoils it by his quite wrong and abrupt method 
 of punctuation : Ty ywcun'r pepepLCTCu. Kaiy yvvy nai y napdevog y uyapog pepipva 
 /(.r.A. — Ver. 34. rd tov nbcpov] omitted in B alone, which, however, is approved 
 of by Buttmann ( Studien u. Krit. 1860, p. 370). — Ver. 37. idpaiog' ev Ty Kapbia'] 
 Lachm. reads ev Ty napb. avrov ebpdiog, which has conclusive evidence in its 
 favour ; on the other hand, there is no sufficient ground for omitting tbp. (as 
 Griesb. does) or avTov (deleted by Tisch.). As regards eSpaiog 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 earyKev. — avTov tov'] 
 is deleted by Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. in accordance with AB K In place of 
 it, Tisch., following the same authorities, has ev Ty l dig, naphta. The evi¬ 
 dence, however, for avTov tov (the uncials D E F G K L) is too weighty and 
 uniform, while tov again was in appearance so cumbrous and superfluous, and 
 such a natural occasion for writing idig instead of avTov 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 Kai after /xe/j-epto-rat, which was 
 
 2 It is defended also by Reiche and retain- justly reinserted by Bengel. 
 
CHAP. VII., 1. 
 
 149 
 
 preceding ISiov OeTipp., that onr conclusion is to retain the Recepta. — Instead 
 of ttoleI, A B K 6 17 37, Copt, have ttoltjgel (as also where it occurs for the sec¬ 
 ond time in ver. 38), which is adopted by Lachm. and Buck. (B 6 17 37 have 
 TToiTjGEi 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. 6 EKyap'fuv] Lachm. and 
 Biick. have 6 }api(uv t?/v napBkvov iavrov. Now it is true that yap'fcov occurs in 
 ABDE X 17 23 31 46, Clem. Method. Basil., and tt)v irapB. iavr. (or r. iavr. 
 napB., so Biick.) in much the same codices and Syr. Erp. Arm. Baschm. Aeth. 
 Vulg. Clar. Germ. Clem. Basil, al. But the whole reading is manifest^ of 
 the nature of a gloss, eayapifav, being explained sometimes by yap'fuv ri/v rrapd. 
 kcivT., sometimes by the addition to it of tt)v napO. iavr. The latter phrase 
 crept into the text beside knycip., the former in place of it. — Instead of 6 6e read 
 sal 6 ; so Griesb. Lachm. Schulz, Biick. Tisch., upon conclusive evidence. 
 The antithesis gave rise to the 6 6e. — Ver. 39. After diderac Elz. has vop<p, 
 against A B D* F a 1 K**, min. with many vss. and Fathers. Taken from Bom. 
 vii. 2, although Beiche doubts this. — kav de] Tisch. has kav 6e Kai , upon 
 insufficient evidence ; the Kai might easily come in through writing the next 
 syllable twice over, or by a clerical error such as KEKoiprjOrj (so F G). 
 
 Contents. —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 Ehescheidungsfrage , 1861. 
 
 Ver. 1. A£] leads over to the answering of questions put in the letter 
 from Corinth. — kypaipark pot] 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, 1 2 were mixed up wdth 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. p. 460. 
 
 2 If 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: 
 xaXbv av&pwnu) yvvauicbs g.rj airTe(T&cu , 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 f. 1 ), could be nothing else but favourable to 
 marriage (see Lightfoot, Horae , p. 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 Essenism 
 in particular, to which Ewald traces back the rejection of marriage among 
 the Corinthians. 2 In the last place, that it was the followers of Paul (Storr, 
 Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Pott, Neander, Riibiger, Osiander, Maier, Riickert re¬ 
 fuses to give a decision), who—in opposition, perhaps, to the Petyine 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. 3 4 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 lelow 
 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.). — Ka?tbv avdpuTtco] With respect to what you have written to me 
 (Kepi k.t.1 ., absolute, as in xvi. 1, 12 ; Bernhardy, p. 261 ; Bremi, ad He- 
 
 1 One section of the Essenes even declared 
 
 itself against celibacy, Josephus, Bell. ii. 
 
 8.13 ; Ritschl, altlcalh. Kirche, p. 185. 
 
 4 According to Ewald (comp, too, his 
 Geseh. 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 oivn 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. 
 
151 
 
 CHAP. VII., 2. 
 
 mosth. 01. p. 194 ; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 170), it is good foraman , etc., that 
 is to say : it is morally salutary 1 for an (unmarried) 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 ywancbg yg arcTEodcu 
 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 nalbv /c.r.A. is not appropriate 
 for the defence of celibacy in general (“ si donum est mulicrem non tangere, 
 malum ergo est tangere,” Jerome, ad Jovin. i. 4, and see especially Cornelius 
 a Lapide in loc.). — airrecdat, like tangere in the sense of sexual intercourse 
 (Gen. xx. 16, xxi. 11 ; Prov. vi. 29). See Wetstcin and Kypke, II. p. 
 204 f. Marriage is the particular case coming under this general yvvainog 
 a-nTEcOcu , to be treated of in detail hereafter. Riickert, failing to recognize 
 this progress in the apostle’s argument (so, too, Kling in the Stud. u. 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 
 u a chaste life , as of brother and sister , was more consonant, on the part of 
 married persons, with delicacy of moral feeling” ( ko16v ) ; 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 If.). — The axiom is enun¬ 
 ciated without a yev, because it is, in the first place, conceived simply in itself; 
 the limitation which follows is added with by way of antithesis. Comp, 
 on Eph. v. 8, and Fritzsche, ad Bom. II. p. 433. 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, Kuhner, II. p. 28 ; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 144 f.) 
 may be avoided in practice , the rule holds good : Let every man have 2 a wife of 
 liis own (properly belonging to himself in marriage), etc. On dta, comp. 
 Winer, p. 372 [E. T. 497]. Riickert, de Wette, and Maier are wrong in 
 maintaining that exeto 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 airoSi- 
 doro in ver. 3 is not to be taken as permissive, any more than the yayrjaaruaav 
 which answers to exeto in ver. 9. It is opposed, further, by the considera¬ 
 tion that 6ta rag 'iropveiag is a determining element of a moral kind, which 
 must therefore necessarily lead not to a mere permissibility, but to a positive 
 
 1 That we have in zcaA.br k.t. 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 
 koAoi/ in ver. 26, where the reason is formal¬ 
 
 ly stated.—-T. W. C.] 
 
 2 This ex €tv is nothing else but the simple 
 habere (to possess); it does not mean inter- 
 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 eiest 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 laic , 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 tlieol. 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. 1 Comp, 
 also Rothe, Ethih , III. p. 614. But can it be true, then, that be, who looked 
 upon the union with Christ itself as the analogue of wedded life, valued 
 marriage only as a “ temperamentum continentiae” ? 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 Kopcvdid^eodai), 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 avayny, 
 the near approach of the Lord, and the necessity, therefore, of an undivided 
 surrender to Him, Paul had, under these given circumstances, recognized in 
 the state of single life what in and by itself was naXov avOpunu, if only no 
 fornication and heat icere 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. 8, 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.— .t?)v btytu\rjv\ 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, ad Phryn. p. 90. 
 Nor does it in the LXX. and the Apocrypha. — y ywy tov idiov atop. k.t.Ti.] 
 
 1 Comp, in opposition to this, Ernesti, 
 Ethik des Ap. Paulus , p. 115 f. 
 
 2 If we adopted the common reading ttjv 
 6 </>eiAo/A. evi'ot.ai', we should not take it, with 
 Grotius, al., in the same sense as given 
 above, but generally, witli Calvin and 
 others, as benevolenliam. For the expi-ession 
 for that special idea is not euvoia (not even 
 
 in Philo, de Abr. p. S84), but (£ 1 X 6 x 775 (Homer). 
 /A£i5, crwova-ia. The author of the gloss, 
 therefore, must either have misunderstood 
 rrjv 6 (£eiA. 77 i/, or, understanding it rightly, 
 have used a wrong expression to explain 
 it. The reading o(£e<Ao|u.eV 7 }i/ Tijur^ in Chrys¬ 
 ostom points to the former alternative. 
 
CHAP. VII., 5 , 6. 
 
 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 {oyoiog) 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, uxor. Ilebr. iii. 6. 7. — Bengel says happily 
 respecting Idiov, that it forms with ova fovotApn an elegans paradoxon. 
 
 Ver. 5. Withhold not yourselves from each other , unless it were perhaps {nisi 
 forte , comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; Luke ix. 13) that ye did so as occasion emerged 
 {av), by agreement for a time (supply a^oarepyrc al'/Jf. ; see on Luke ix. 13). 
 The obvious meaning is euphemistically expressed by aizoarep. ; ayav roivvv 
 apyobiug rovro teOeucev etvI rcbv ov (jv/wpkvug rrjv iyspareiav alpovyevuv , Theodoret. 
 — Iva oxolaorjTE a. r. L ] 'ha introduces the design of the concession just made ek 
 ( jvuf)v. 7 rpog Karpov : 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 
 hhiaXELiTTug (1 Thess. v. 17 ; Eph. vi. 18), but such extraordinary exercises 
 in prayer as they might have determined specially to devote themselves to 
 fora 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 w r ants 
 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. Ill 
 f. Comp. Test. ATI. Patr. p. G73 : naipog yap avvovaiag yvvaisog avrov , nal 
 sacpog eyspareiag elg 7 rpocEvxyv avrov.—nal tcclXlv 7/re] still dependent on Iva, 
 indicates asyvkg the being together again for matrimonial intercourse. With 
 respect to hri to avro, 1 comp, on Acts i. 15. —iva yrj 'KEipa^g ic.r.X.] design of 
 the Kal 7 r akiv . . . t]te : 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. ’A Kpaaia, 
 which occurs again in the N". T. in its older form of aKparcra , Matt, xxiii. 25, 
 comes from aKparrjg {spareiv), and is the opposite of eyspareia. See Lobeck, 
 adPhryn. p. 524 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 461 B. Ruckert conjectures 
 that the word means : not mingling in matrimonial intercourse {on account of 
 your non-participation therein). This is quite against usage ; for anpacia 
 (with the a long, from asparog ), in the Ionic form anpyof, means bad mixture , 
 as opposed to cvKpacria. See Theophrastus, c. pi. iii. 2. 5 ; Dio Cassius, 
 lxxvii. 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. Tokro] does not refer to what follows (J. Cappellus, Rosenmiiller), 
 which it does not suit ; nor to ver. 2 (Beza, Grotius, de Wette, Gratama, 
 
 1 Erasmus remarks rightly : “ut intelligas, eos ante fuisse separates thalamis .” 
 
154 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTIIIAHS. 
 
 Baur, Hofmann) ; nor to all that has been said from ver. 2 onwards (Bengel, 
 Pott, Flatt, Billroth, Rtickert, Osiander), for vv. 2-4 contain precepts 
 actually obligatory ; nor to k. nahiv evrl to avro t/te (Origen, Tertullian, Je¬ 
 rome, Cornelius a Lapidc, al .), which is but a subordinate portion of the 
 preceding utterance. It is to this utterance : yrj anOG-epdre . . . imp. vyuv, 
 which directly precedes the tovto , that it can alone be made to refer without 
 arbitrariness, — an utterance which might have the appearance of an ett irayi), 
 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 you might not be abstinent at other times or for a longer period 
 ek cvy<f>G)vov, but by way of indulgence (“ secundum indulgentiamf Vulgate), so 
 that thereby concession is made to your lack of continency, it is allowed for. 
 Theophylact puts it well : cvynaTaBaivov ry aoOevda vyuv, and Erasmus : “ con- 
 sulo vestris periculis.”* —Gvyyvuyy occurs here only in the N. T. (Ecclus., 
 pref. i. and iii. 13), but very often in Greek writers,—not, however, in the 
 LXX. It means invariably either forgiveness, or, as here, forbearance, indul¬ 
 gence, yvkyy Kpirmy rov eiriEmovg opdrj, Aristotle, Eth. vi. 11. Hammond and 
 Pott transgress the laws of the language by making it the same as Kara rrjv 
 kprjv yvuyrjv- So even Valckenaer ; comp. Calovius, Flatt, Heydenreich, al. 
 Ewald, too, renders without any support from the usage of the language : 
 
 4 ‘ with the best conscience. ” 
 
 Ver. 7. I do not say by way of command that you should withhold your¬ 
 selves only for the time of prayer and then be together again ; but indeed 
 ( 8e ) 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 : Kara Gvyyvuyjjv) this gift 
 is not vouchsafed to all. There is no more ground for supposing that yev 
 should be supplied (after heyu) in connection with this 5e, than there is in 
 ver. 2 (against Riickert). — kg nai eyavrov ] as also I myself, that is to say, 
 endued with the donum continentiae, cv hynparda, Chrysostom. See what fol¬ 
 lows. He does not mean his state of single life, but its charismatic basis. 
 The nai is, as for instance in Acts xxvi. 29, the quite commonly used nai of 
 comparison. — xhp LG H a \ a 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 tt avrag avdpk- 
 Ttovg do not contradict this ; for Paul could most warrantably wish to all 
 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. —6 yev ovrug k.t.A.] is not to 
 be understood as if the first ovrug 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 so, the other so. Under this general statement, the possession 
 
CIIAP. VII., 8, 9. 
 
 w 
 
 155 
 
 of continence, or some other gracious endowment in its place, is included. 
 As to the double ovrcog, comp. LXX. 2 Sam. xi. 25 : 7 -ore pev ovrag nai ttotv 
 ovvog Kara^dysTai rj poptyaia, also Judg. xviii. 4 ; 2 Kings v. 4 ; 2 Sam. xvii. 15. 
 It is not so used in Greek writers. 
 
 Vv. 8, 9. A eyo 4e] 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 enunciate. Riickert holds that the 
 transition here made by Paul is from the married to the unmarried. But 
 were that the case, rolg 6s ayapoig would require to stand first (comp. ver. 
 10) ; the emphasis is on Acyu.—rolg ayapoig ] what is meant is the whole 
 category, all without distinction, including both sexes, not simply widowers; 1 
 for the phrase opposed to it, rolg yeyaprjKooi, in ver. 10, embraces both sexes ; 
 and hence ayap. cannot apply to the unmarried men alone (Riickert). The 
 additional clause, k. raig xnpaig, by no means justifies a restrictive rendering ; 
 for in it the nai 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 Marc. p. 11, 713. Comp, here Soph. 0. R. 1502 : 
 Xepcovg (p0apijvcu Kaya.jj.ovg. It was a special w T ish of Paul’s, therefore, that the 
 widows should remain unwedded, doubtless in the interests of the church 
 (Rom. xvi. 1 ; 1 Tim. v. 9 ff.). —Kahov (as in ver. 1) avroig, sc. here ; comp, 
 ver. 40. — kav pdvuciv k.t.'j 1.] if they shall have remained as I also {have remain¬ 
 ed'), i.e. unmarried. The opposite of this is yaprjcdroaav, ver. 9. The ug 
 Kayu 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 ; 2 so, too, Ewald. But this conclusion rests upon the assumption, 
 which is linguistically inadmissible, that ayapoig denotes widowers alone 
 {i.e. XVP 0L ) i 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. — ovk kyparevovrai] 
 to be closely joined together : are incontinent. See Hartung, Partikell. II. 
 p. 122 ; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 267 ; Ameis on Horn. Od. ii. 274. The 
 verb eyKparevecdai (Ecclus. xix. G) is foreign to the older Greek, although this 
 precise phrase : ovk kyicpar., is sanctioned by Thomas, p. 30, and Phryn. p. 
 442. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. l.c. — yaprjedr.'] Regarding the later form of 
 the aorist eydprjaa, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 742. — wpovcOat ] to be in a 
 flame , of vehement emotions (2 Cor. xi. 29 ; 2 Macc. iv. 38, x. 35, xiv. 45 ; 
 of love, Anacreon, x. 13) ; it means here, “ occulta flamma concupisccntiae 
 vastari,” Augustine, de sancta virginit. 34. Comp. Suicer, Thes. II. p. 895 ; 
 from the Rabbins, the history of Amram in Lightfoot, Horae, p. 190 ; from 
 the classics, Jacobs, Del. Epigr. v. 34. — Kpsiacov ] not because it is the least 
 
 1 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Es- the ancient church was that Paul was never 
 
 tius, al., including Pott, Heydenreich, Bill- married (Tertullian, Jerome, Chrysostom, 
 roth, Ewald. al.). The contrary is stated in Clem. Alex. 
 
 2 The prevalent and correct tradition of (in Eus. H. E. iii. 30). 
 
156 
 
 * Paul's first epistle to the corinthiaxs. 
 
 of two evils (Riickcrt, Klirtg ; comp. Estius), but because to marry is no sin 
 (vv. 28, 36), while to burn is sinful (Matt. v. 28). 
 
 Yer. 10. But to those who have married; this is opposed to the ■yajuT/cdru- 
 ca.v , which referred to future marriages. Accordingly, just as yafirfadr. ap¬ 
 plied only to Christians of both sexes leading a single life, so yeyafirfn6ci, 
 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 roig TiocTrolg, 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 
 roig yeyafirjKoGL 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 
 wudow, 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 ayd/iot and the widows being coupled together in ver. 8 lends 
 no support whatever to this, for aydyoig 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 vecogt !), 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. 1 
 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. — ova tyw, akTJ 6 K vpiog] The negation 
 is absolute. Paul knew from the living voice of tradition what commands 
 Christ had given concerning divorce, Matt. v. 31 f., xix. 3-9 ; Mark x. 2- 
 12 ; Luke xvi. 18. Hence 6 K vpiog, sc. Trapayye^n, 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 devout enthusi¬ 
 asm on the part of Corinthian wives leading 
 them to shrink from matrimonial inter¬ 
 course (de Wette, comp. Hofmann, p. 140), 
 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 /u.eveYu> d-yago?. 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. § xxx. 
 14-16), not merely by dismissal on the part 
 of the husband (aironefineLv), but also by de¬ 
 sertion on the part of the wife (d7roA.eiVe<.i/); 
 comp. Bremi, ad Bern. 1. p. 92. 
 
CHAP. YII., 11 . 
 
 157 
 
 known to him by inspiration). It is otherwise in 1 Thess. iv. 15. As re¬ 
 gards the kyu, 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 his own and inspired commands, but between 
 those which proceeded from his own (God-inspired) subjectivity and those 
 which Christ Uimself supplied by His objective word, (n) Since, now, the 
 Tzvevya Qeov in no way differs from the irvevya Xpiorov (Rom. viii. 9-11), 
 Kvplov kvrolai (xiv. 37 according to the Text, 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 kvroAar K vpiov (xiv. 37). —yrj x^P^pvcu] 
 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. 73. For the rest, vv. 13, 15 prove that this phrase and yr) cupievac in 
 ver. 11 are not so different, that the former can be used only of the wife and 
 the latter only of the husband. 
 
 Yer. 11. From lav to mraXX. is a parenthesis pure and simple, disjoined 
 from the rest of the sentence which continues with ml avdpa. But in case 
 she should perhaps (eav Se) even (, mi , 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 b} r ovk 
 eyib, aXP 6 K vp., ver. 10), but he supposes a future case, which will possibly 
 arise notwithstanding the commandment of the Lord’s just adduced. The 
 eav mi therefore, with the 6e of antithesis, introduces, as in ver. 28, an oc¬ 
 currence which will possibly be realized in the exper ience of the f utu re (Her¬ 
 mann, ad Viger. p. 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 a separation has actually already taken place within the church, 
 thereby presupposing that such a thing will henceforth never take place 
 there again. — yev'eru ayayoc ] 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. — ?/] or else; comp, on ix. 
 15. — naraAlayrjTtj] 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. — ml avtipa yvv. yy 
 acfnevat] and that a husband put not away a wife, send her from him, separate 
 himself from her. Comp. Herod, v. 29 : ankvra ravrrjv ryv yvvalm. This 
 clause added by Christ (in accordance with Schamai’s doctrine) : TrapenToq 
 loyov Tropvetag, 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 tiie co hint iii a ns. 
 
 lieard of it at all, for the simple reason, that the validity of this ground of 
 divorce was self-evident. Comp, on Matt. v. 32. 
 
 Yer. 12. The Ioltzo'l 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 .—ovx b 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 irapay- 
 ykXko .— gvvev8ok£~l\ approves with him (comp, on Rom. i. 32), joins in ap¬ 
 proving ; for Paul takes for granted that the Christian partner on his side 
 approves the continuance of the union. 1 It is alien to the scope of the pas¬ 
 sage to hold, with Billroth, that in owevb. is implied the contempt of the 
 heathen for the Christians. Regarding olnelv }uera , to dwell with , of living 
 together in marriage , see Seidlor, ad Ear. El. 99 : h ydyoig ^cvxOelcav ohcstv , 
 comp. 212.—It may be noted, moreover, that ver. 12 f. does not give per¬ 
 mission to a Christian to mqrry a non-believer. “ Non enim dixit : si quis 
 ducit , sed : si quis liabet infidelem, ” Pelagius. -epl ruv tt pb Kg pvy par og 
 cvvacpdivTcov Theodorct. 
 
 Yer. 13. K al ovrog ] a common turn of expression (instead of og /c.r.A.) in 
 connection with sat. See on Luke x. 8 and Ktihner II. p. 526. — ■ pr/ apdro 
 t. avdpa] let her not put away her husband , not send him from her. To trans¬ 
 late otherwise (let her not leave him) is, in view of ver. 12, altogether 
 arbitrary. The Yulgate 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, Ehescheidungsfr. 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. 3, xiv. 34 ; Eph. v. 22 ; 
 Col. iii. 18 ; 1 Tim. ii. 11 f. 
 
 Yer. 14. 2 For —this justifies the injunction given in vv. 12, 13— the unholi¬ 
 ness of the non-believing partner is taken away in virtue of his personal connec- 
 
 1 Hence the compound arvvevSoKel is used 
 rightly and of deliberate purpose in the 
 second part of the statement also, although 
 there the husband is the subject, and it 
 ought not to be supplanted by the simple 
 
 evSoKel, according to B (in opposition to 
 Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1800, p. 309). 
 
 2 Comp, on this verse, Otto against Abre- 
 nunciation, 1804. 
 
CHAP. VII., 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 ayioTyg, 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 <f>vpapa (Gal. vi. 1G ; 
 Rom. xi. 16). 1 The clause : e-itei apa ra rkava k.t! l., shows that what the 
 (jlklgtoq 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 
 EKK?i7]GLa Qeoi 3, 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 atiddaprog as hitherto, but — although 
 mediately after the fashion described — a i/ytaopkvog. The manifold misinter¬ 
 pretations of the older commentators may be seen in Poole’s Synopsis and 
 Wolf’s Curaei Observe, moreover, in how totally different a w T ay Paul 
 regarded the relation of the Christian who had connected himself with a 
 harlot (vi. 15). In that case the harlot is the preponderating clement, and 
 the members of Christ become unholy, members of an harlot. —With kv ry 
 yvv. and kv rep dvd ., comp, kv col ttclg' kyuye Gu^oyai, Soph. Ay. 519 ; kv Got 
 koyev , Oed. B. 814, and the like ; Ellendt, Lex. Sop)h. I. p. 597.— knel apa 
 /c.r.A.] because according to that (if, namely, that yyuiorat. 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 noopoc, 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 
 
 1 In a mixed marriage, therefore, the 
 Christian ayioTTj? forms, in relation to the 
 non-Christian unholiness, th e preponderating 
 element, extending the character of sancti¬ 
 ty even to what of itself would be profane ; 
 as Chrysostom expresses it: vac* rj k a&aporrji 
 T 7} s yvvatKOs rr)v aKadapcrtai'. Comp, the 
 paraphrase of Erasmus : “ Non inficit detc- 
 rioris impietas alterius pietatem, quin illud 
 
 potius praeponderat quod melius est et 
 efficacius.” 
 
 *e.g. Calovius and others hold that r t y. 
 refers to the usus conjugalis as sanctified 
 per preces fidelis conjugis; Tertullian, 
 Jerome, Theodoret, Castalio, Estius, al., 
 think that it points to his being destined 
 to be converted afterwards, so that the 
 meaning would be candidatus jidei 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. 1 — Had the 
 baptism of Christian children been then in existence, Paul could not have 
 drawn this inference, because in that case the dytorr/g of such children would 
 have had another basis. 2 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. u. Krit. 1830, p. G69 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, hibl. Theol. p. 423) ; such a point is rather to be 
 found in the gradual development of the doctrine of original sin (s) — vjuuv] 
 should not be restricted, as is done by most expositors, following Chrysos¬ 
 tom (so recently, Pott, Platt, Ewald, Harless), to those involved in mixed mar¬ 
 riages ; 3 but, as Paul himself makes clear by changing the person, referred 
 to the readers as Christian in general 4 (de Wette, Schrader, Ruckert, 
 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. — vvv dt] but 
 so, 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 union, as 
 regards the children, does not lie in their 
 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 far as that is concerned, do 
 not regard the sin with which it is 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 dose 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 atritno^, the predicate 
 aKad-apra 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 
 
 vital union. It is upon this paritas rationis 
 that the validity of the argument depends. 
 
 2 Comp. Jebamoth, f. lxxviii. 1: “ Si gravi¬ 
 da fit proselyta, non opus est, ut baptizetur 
 infans quando natus fuerit; baptismus enim 
 matris ei cedit pro baptismo.” 
 
 3 'AKadaproi. is taken by many as equiva¬ 
 lent to spurii. See Melanchthon in partic¬ 
 ular: “Si non placeret consuetudo conju- 
 galis, filii vestri essent spurii et eatenus 
 immuudi, aKdOaproL. At filii vestri non sunt 
 spurii ; ergo consuetudo conjugalis Deo 
 placet.” He interprets d/ca^aprot after “RDD 
 in Deut. xxiii. 
 
 * Comp. Muller, v. d. Siinde, II. p. 383, ed. 
 
 5. Our passage, however, ought not to be 
 adduced to prove the universal pollution 
 of men by nature and birth, for d/cd^apra 
 must denote, not moral, but theocratic un¬ 
 cleanness, like the Koivd of Acts x. 28. 
 This against Ernesti also, TJrsprung der 
 Siinde, II. 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 through 
 fellowship with the Redeemer by faith. <* 
 
CIIAP. VII., 15. 
 
 1G1 
 
 the non- Christian partner seeks separation ? In that case they were to let 
 such an one go without detention (xupfkoOo, permissive, see Winer, p. 291 
 [E. T. 390]); “suas sibi res habeat ; frater sororve sit aequo ammo,” 
 Bengel. And the reason for this was : u A believer in such circumstances is 
 not enslaved, nay, surely (tie 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 unpeaceful through constraint. — oh dedovl. ] is not enslaved , so, 
 namely, as still to remain bound in marriage to such a xopfoyevog. 1 The 
 expression brings out the unworthy 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 dederai in ver. 39. — ev roig roiov - 
 roig\ not, as Hofmann takes it : u In matters of the natural lifef to which 
 marriage belongs, but in accordance with the context : under such circum¬ 
 stances, i.e. in such a position of things, where the non-believing consort 
 separates himself. Luther renders well : 11 in solchen Fallen .” Comp, h 
 rolaSe, Soph. Oed. Tyr. 892. ev tovtolq, Plut. Glor. Ath. p. 350 A ; Phil, 
 iv. 11 ; ev of, Antiph. i. 6, and Maetzner in loc., p. 131. Only a comma 
 should be placed after Toiovrotg. — ev e\pr)vf\ is not the same as elg eipyvyv 
 (Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Riickert, following older expositors ; comp, also Bill¬ 
 roth), or iva tjyev ev elp. (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 in 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 If.). Analogous to this is the ev in Eph. iv. 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 7 ; 
 comp, also on Gal. i. 6. To understand, however, the eipyvij as referring to 
 the peace of the soul with God (Harless, Hofmann) would be possible only if 
 defiovh. were to be referred to binding of the conscience. And even in that 
 case we should expect as correlative rather ev or kA k?,evdepla (Gal. v. 13). 
 
 Remark. —Since desertion (xupt&rai) 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, 
 lie 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 also to such marriages as are Christian on both sides 
 
 — the x u P^f zev °C, that is to say, being an unchristianly - minded Christian 
 (Harless)—is exegetically inadmissible, seeing that the lonroi who are here 
 spoken of (see ver. 12) constitute the specific category of mixed marriages, in 
 
 1 Weiss, in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1866, p. 
 267 (comp, his bibl. Theol. p. 423), under¬ 
 stands SeSov'A. of the burden of the conscience 
 in view of Christ’s command respecting the 
 indissolubleness of marriage. Precisely so 
 
 Ilofmann. But had Paul meant this, he 
 must have indicated it more particularly. 
 According to the context, ov SeSov\. is the 
 opposite of the fr) in vv. 12,13, denot¬ 
 
 ing legal necessity, like Se'Serai in ver. 39. 
 
102 
 
 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 which, therefore, the one partner in each case falls to he reckoned among rovg 
 So also pref. to 4th ed. p. vii. f. —Onr text gives no express information 
 upon the point, whether Paxil would allow the Christian partner in such a union 
 to marry again. For what ov bebov acotcu negatives is not the constraint “ ut 
 caelebs maneat ” (Grotius, al.), but the necessity for the marriage being con¬ 
 tinued. 1 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, Z.c., a yoixeia. 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. Z.c.). (t) 
 
 Yer. 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 jieace. 2 Most ex¬ 
 positors, on the other hand, from Chrysostom downwards, take si in the 
 sense of el yy (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. 'Avabel-ai <pyciv ettI 
 Xpyaralq e/.ttlci rov ttovov. exeiq rov 0 eov ryq 7 rpoOvylaq ETvinovpov, Theodoret. 
 That is to say, they find in ev be elpyvij /c.r.A. 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, 
 Ituckert, 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 cv be elpyvy k.t.1. is the contrary to 
 context. With respect again to taking el as equivalent to el yy, it is per¬ 
 fectly true that el, following upon the notion of uncertainty, may answer 
 in meaning to el yy (Thuc. ii. 53. 2 ; Kruger, § lxv. 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 ov 
 bebovloTcu, to which the proposed rendering of the el would run counter. 3 
 Moreover, this use of el is foreign to the N. T., often though it occurs in the 
 classics (see especially Kiiliner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 8, Anab. iii. 2. 22).— rt] 
 precisely as the German : “ was weisst du, ob,” etc., so that in sense it is 
 the same as : how, in how far (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 823) ; it is not 
 
 1 Photius, as cited by Oecumenius, says 
 Very justly: ovk e^ei. dvayKrjv 6 7rurrbs rj tj 
 ttictttj ev rots airicrTOis touxvttjv, oia avTai eirt/cei- 
 t at £7ri twv nLCTTUiv e/cet p.ev yap navn rpono), 
 X<*>p'<S Aoyov nopveia? ovk f^eernv an' aAArjAtov 
 rovs avvaifi&ei'Tas xuipicrd^vai’ evravda Se, av 
 pev <Tvvev8oKrj to (itticttov piepos tiZ ttlctio avvoi - 
 tceiv, Set p.r) Aveiv to ctwockcctiov av Se <TTa<ndCy 
 
 Kai ttjv \v<tlv eKeivos noi.fj, ov SeSovAwTai 6 nur- 
 to? ei? to pri x<vp<-o"Orivai. 
 
 2 Comp, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, 
 Ewald, Maier, Hofmann [Stanley, Alford, 
 Beet]. 
 
 3 A limitation of the ov SeSovAiorai, and 
 that, too, of a quite general sort, comes in 
 only with the el p.y k.t.A. in ver. 17. 
 
chap, vii., 17. 
 
 1C3 
 
 therefore the accusative of the object. Comp. rl olei, rl bonds, Xen. Hier. i. 
 
 15. Regarding the future ccjcreig comp. Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 249 ; Klotz, 
 ad Denar, p. 508. 
 
 Ver. 17. E2 yy\ is meant, according to Grotius, to introduce an exception 
 to the rl olbag : “Illud quidem, quod dixi, non scis, sed hoc debes scire f 
 or, more exactly, since el yy is not the same as aXka (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 el yy k.t.1. as a newly introduced leading idea stands in 
 no logical nexus. The logical connection of el yy, nisi , etc., is, on the con¬ 
 trary, to be sought in the leading thought of the foregoing passage, which 
 was ov bebovXurai K.r.X. This ov bebovlorai . . . Qeog 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. 1 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 
 so much as knowing whether he shall save his non-believing consort; he is not in 
 bondage, only 2 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 x u Pf £TaL should be 
 supplied after el yy ; but the antithesis would, require el be yy, and the rule 
 which follows would be very superfluous in a case where no separation had 
 taken place, more especially after ver. 12 f. Yater and Riickert supply 
 ouGciQ : “But even if thou shouldst not, the general rule applies in every 
 case.” Were that correct, we should of necessity find el be nal yy. Lastly, 
 there is the view of those who would join el yy to the preceding clause 
 (nveg in Theophylact, Knatclibull, Homberg, Hammond, Olearius, Moras* 
 and recently Hofmann) : if thou shalt save thy wife, if (or) not f 3 Now this 
 is not, indeed, excluded by the yy (as Riickert thinks, who requires ov ; but 
 see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 123) ; still the addition would be quite inap¬ 
 propriate to the sense of the two questions, for these convey the idea : thou 
 knowest not at all if, etc., with which the alternative necne does not harmon¬ 
 ize,—on which ground, too, Hofmann makes ver. 16 to be the concluding 
 
 1 Paul had doubtless ground enough in 
 the rich experience of his career for giving 
 this warning. How often in the cases of 
 conversion to Christianity must the deep 
 inward change have had linked to it a 
 yearning after some change of outward re¬ 
 lationships !—an offence against the practi¬ 
 cal rule : “ Qua positus fveris , in statione 
 mane ” (Ovid, Fasti , ii. 674), which Paul 
 
 here gives expression to in a Christian 
 form. 
 
 2 Respecting el ixrj in the sense of nX - yv , 
 see Poppo, ad Time. III. 1, p. 216 ; and re¬ 
 specting the principal sentence annexed to 
 it, Buttmann, neut. Gram p. 308 [E. T. 359],. 
 
 3 Hence the reading y ny in more recent 
 codd. Severianus in Oecumenius, Chrysos¬ 
 tom, ms. Syr. p. on the margin. 
 
1G4 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 confirmation of tlie whole admonition beginning with rolg tie honroig in ver. 
 12. This, again, is impossible, for this reason, that the first part of the 
 counsel given to the Xonroi has already received its confirmation in the yap 
 of ver. 14, and in accordance therewith the yap of ver. 1G 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 py 
 on to K vpiog with the preceding passage : “ nescis enim, an salvum eumfac- 
 turus sis, nisi prout quemque Dominus adjuverit.” But^dorw <hg kpep. 6. K. 
 and e Kaurov log kekI. 6. 0. are manifestly parallel, and, as such, contain not a 
 frigid repetition (Rinck), but an earnest exhaustion of the thought. —ekclutcj 
 <[)£•] the same as log ek ., but wfith emphasis on the EKaurco. Comp. iii. 5, x. 
 16 ; Rom. xii. 3. As the Lord (God) hath apportioned to each (has bestowed 
 his outward lot), as (i.e. y KkycEi, ver. 20) God hath called each (to the 
 Messiah’s kingdom), so let him wcdlc, 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. ’ Epcptaev , 
 has given his portion (Polybius, xxxi. 18. 3, 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, 1 etc. See ver. 18 ff. These 
 relationships of life are here regarded as a whole, out of which each indi¬ 
 vidual has received his plpog from God (to /uepEpiupevov , Lucian, JD. D. xxiv. 
 1), in accordance with the varying modes (log) of the divine apportionment. 
 Comp, the classical y eigappevy , sors attributa. We have to supply neither 
 TrcpnraTEiv (Hofmann), nor anything else. What the Lord has apportioned 
 is just the pepog, which each man has. Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 175 ff., 
 understands pepi^Eiv in the theocratic-Messianic sense, and makes 6 K vpiog 
 refer to Christ : “in qua vitae externae sorte ac statu (log, conf. ver. 18) 
 cuique Dominus beneficiorum suorum quasi partem tribuit .” According to 
 this, what would be meant would be the pEpig rov slypov riov ay'uov (Col. i. 
 12), which, however, refers to the bliss of the future ailov, 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 kpkp. is not suggested by the context (see, on 
 the contrary, ver. 18 if.) ; and in the second place, logically the calling 
 must go first, since before it there can be no mention of the Messianic pep'fciv 
 (Rom. viii. 30, x. 14 ; Col. i. 12). This holds also against the essentially 
 similar interpretation of Harless, which co-ordinates epep. with the calling. —• 
 
 1 The call of the individuals to salvation 
 took place in these differently apportioned 
 positions and relationships in life. Hence 
 the <bs efjLepurev takes precedence of the <b? 
 KeicXriKev. Hofmann is wrong in holding that 
 the ws ep.ept.crev might lie on this side or on 
 that of the calling, and might consist even 
 
 in a 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 at the time 
 of the calling ; see vv. 18, 21, 24. 
 
CHAP. VII. 5 18-20. 
 
 1G5 
 
 kekIijkev] a completed transaction continuing to the present in its results, 
 hence the 'perfect; the aorist k/iep ., on the other hand, indicated something 
 merely which took place as an act of the past, and this act occurred before the 
 kekItjkev, at birth, or some other point in life. — ml ovrug k.t.X.] 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., tva rw exeiv ml 
 aTiTiovq notvovovg pod v pore pot nepl rrjv inraiwyv dtareOijcri, Theophylact. — dtaraca.^ 
 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. 1 — 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, II. p. 561. —py hiGiraaOh] ne sibi attraliat, 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 Ilorae, 
 p. 1159 f. ; Lightfoot, p. 194 ; Lubkert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 657. 
 Such persons were styled D’D^D. See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1274. — h 
 aicpo(3 .] Comp. Rom. iv. 10. 
 
 Ver. 19. Comp. Rom. ii. 25 if. ; Gal. v. 6. From the Christian point of 
 view it matters nothing whether a man be circumcised or not ; comp. viii. 8. 
 —aTikarypyatg hroTi. GeoD] but keeping of the commands of God, sc. rd tc avrakan, 
 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 in so far as 
 they are an observing of the commandments of God ,for y cncpofi. cannot 
 be included with the other under ryp. hr. Qeov. 
 
 Ver. 20. An emphatic repetition of the rule after giving the illustration of 
 it. Comp. ver. 24. — kv ry kIt/cei y kulr/dy] Since Calvin, expositors have 
 often understood Klyotg of the outward position in life, like our calling \Beruf \, 
 and have supplied h before y in accordance with the pure Attic idiom (Stall- 
 baum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 76 D ; Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 32). So, re¬ 
 cently, Riickert. But although hkyatg (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 Ckyatg in the sense of avocation [Beruf\ (rank, and the 
 like) ; and in the whole H. T. the Christian meaning of koXeIv and ulyatg is 
 
 1 Theodoret says well: elra. a7rb tou npoKetixevov el<s ere pa /*eraj3f. ivei, 
 
 waai vopioderuji' ra KaTa\\r]\a. 
 
1GG 
 
 Paul's first epistle to the corihthians. 
 
 that in which they are invariably used, and so here also : in the calling (to 
 the Messianic kingdom ( through which (?/ being the dat. instrum ., as in 2 Tim. 
 i. 9) he was called. This may have been, that is to say, a icAijoig going forth 
 from God to a circumcised man or an uncircumcised, to a slave or a free¬ 
 man, etc. If, now, the man, for example, who was called in circumcision 
 b y a vocatio circumcisi 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 (kv o"up fup nai kv o’icp raypari nai ttoTutev/luiti iov ettigtevgev, 
 kv tovtc) /xeverio' kItjglv yap rijv eig ri/v niariv tt p o g ay o y rj v tyyGi). 
 Comp. ver. 17 : cog kekItjuev 6 0eof. The emphatic kv ravry (vi. 4) points at the 
 misdirected yearning for another state of matters through which another KlfjGig 
 would present itself, as e.g. through the EniGTraodai a being called kv aitpo- 
 ftvGTia, etc. 
 
 Ver. 21. Mr) gol peIetlS] let it give thee no concern , let it be all the same to 
 thee. Horn. II. ii. 338, x. 92 ; Plato, Phaed. p. 95 B ; 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. — all' el mt k.t.1.] but , even if thou art in circumstances to become 
 free, use it rather , namely, the having been called as a slave ; make use 
 rather (instead of becoming free) of thy “ vocatio servi” by remaining true 
 to thy position as a 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, 1 Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 2G ft.), also Vaihinger 
 in Herzog’s EncyTcl. XIY. p. 474 f. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 417 f. The alia 
 is nothing else than the German sondern , corresponding to the preceding yy 
 gol pel., and d nai is etsi (Herm. ad Viger. p. 832 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. 
 p. 32 A ; Baeumlcin, Partik. p. 151), so that it conveys the sense : even 
 although , if even ; and in the conditional clause the emphasis is made by nai 
 to fall upon (VuvaGai. The Syriac, however (“elige tibi potius quam ut ser- 
 vias”), and most modern commentators, supply ry klcvdEpia after xpfjoai, 
 with Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Cornelius a 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 /ca/, 2 and 
 
 1 Who, however, expounds xprja^ai as 
 meaning to let oneself be used , i.e. to be de¬ 
 pendent without being able to establish any 
 precedent for such a rendering. Regard¬ 
 ing xPn<T& ai without a dative of the object, 
 see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ilep. p. 452 C, 489 B. 
 
 2 What devices have been practised of 
 late with this nai ! 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 eAev£.: 
 
 “ but if thou mayest even be free,” etc. Ols- 
 hausen holds that spiritual freedom is im¬ 
 plied in KaAeicrdcu, 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 w T ith this. But upon Billroth’s view 
 /cai would require to come before ei ; upon 
 Riickert’s and Olshausen’s, before eAeilt?.; 
 and the turn given to the clause by tho 
 latter is but one proof out of many that 
 
1G7 
 
 CHAP. VII., 22. 
 
 contrary also to the connection, for Paul would thus be contravening his own 
 thrice-repeated injunction : let each man remain , etc. (u) 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. iii. 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 fia'Alov xPV C( ti. 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. lie 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 ; 
 Pliilem. 1G ; 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 awa} r . It maybe further noted that he does not 
 forbid an exchange of slavery for freedom, which was in itself allowable ; 
 but he dissuades 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. 
 
 Yer. 22. For the converted slave is Christ's freedman; in like manner, too 
 (pyotug nai 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. G ; Col. iii. 24) ; but Paul grounds 
 here his admonition in ver. 21 by showing that the matter may be looked 
 at from a twofold pjoint of view : the Christian slave should recognize his 
 relation to Christ as that of an enrehevdepog Xpiarov, 1 and the freeman’s relation 
 as that of a Sovhog Xpio-ov. This will serve in his case this end, not by any 
 
 men may make anything out of every¬ 
 thing, if they — will. Hofmann considers 
 that km 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 y-y croc. 
 i.ie\er w. He even maintains that, according 
 to our understanding of the verse, Paul 
 
 must have written ko.1 el. He might have 
 written either, and would, had it been /cal 
 el, have meant even in the case that; but ho 
 meant el ko.1 {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 “ el awfia SovAov, aAA’ 6 vovs cAeu- 
 tfepo?,” Soph. Fragm. G77, Dindorf. 
 
1G8 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 means (as Hofmann illogically inserts into the text, despite the yhetv again 
 required in ver. 24) that he should count it unnecessary to remain in the 
 position of a slave, 1 but, on the contrary, that he should abide content¬ 
 edly in his station without coveting freedom. — oh Kvp'np k 1. 6ov/ l.] the 
 slave who is called in the Lord , i.e. who has received the Christian calling. 
 That is to say, this KAijoig 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 h Kvph, which might have been understood of it¬ 
 self, is expressly added here, because it was meant to be an emphatic corre¬ 
 late to the K vpiov which follows. It is wholly foreign to the argument to 
 imagine a contrast here with the earthly master (Hofmann), as in Eph. vi. 
 o ; Col. iii. 22, iv. 1. —inrelevdepog 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 a freed- 
 man belonging to Christ (comp. kItjtoI T rjcov X., Rom. i. 6), after Christ, 
 namely, has set him tree from the service of another (comp. Ignatius, ad Rom. 
 4). This was self-evident to the consciousness of the reader. 
 
 Yer. 23. For a price (see on vi. 20) were ye (my readers in general) bought 
 (namely, by Christ to be Ilis 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. So also Theodoret’s 
 view, that he enjoins pi) dovho7rpares ex etv typhvpa. Osiander and Neander’s 
 rendering is too general also (“every kind of wnong dependence”). It 
 is altogether alien to the context, vv. 17-24, to suppose that avOpuTruv 
 refers to Paul, Cephas, Apollos, etc. (Riickert), and that the meaning is 
 substantially the same as had been expressed in iii. 21 by p^deig Kavxaodo 
 lv avOpomoi.g (Hofmann). Equally out of accordance with the subject in 
 hand is Billroth’s exposition (given before by Yatablus), 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). Ileydenreich, on the other hand, holds (with 
 
 1 Paul is, in fact, guarding by this grand tianity side by side with all unjust estima- 
 
 utteranceof his against all unjust contempt 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. 
 
 1G9 
 
 Menochius, Hammond, Knatchbull, Mosheim, Michaelis, Zacliariae) 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 (ev 6 k.t.X. : In whatever relationship, in whatever outward po¬ 
 sition, etc.), and now with the strengthening clause tt apa Geti, which de¬ 
 scribes the h tovtcj fiivELv 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 fellov T ship is locally 
 represented in a concrete way by Tzapd (“ a Deo non recedens,” Estius). 
 Comp. Theophylact,—who, however, makes out a special reference to im¬ 
 moral obedience to masters,—Schrader, Riickert, Meander, Osiander. De 
 Wette limits the meaning to the relation of a Christian slave, as in ver. 22, 
 which, after the general ver. 28, is inadmissible. The common interpretation, 
 u coram Deo' 1 ' 1 (Calvin), u Deo inspectante ” (Grotius), which-would imply: 
 “perpetuo memores, vos in ejus conspectu versari” (Beza, comp, de Wette), 
 would correspond to the current phrase evuttcov tov Qeov. Hofmann makes 
 ev p and ev tovtc) 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, on i. 9). 
 
 Ver. 25. Ae] indicating the transition to a new section in the discussion 
 on marriage. — tz apOevuv] virgins. We are not to understand this 1 of the un¬ 
 married of both sexes , young men and maidens, which is contrary to the ordi¬ 
 nary usage of the language (see too, vv. 84, 86, 37) ; for in such passages as 
 Rev. xiv. 4, Oecumenius, Quaest. Amphil. 188 ; Nonnus on John xix. 26 ; 
 Fabricius, Pseudepigr. V. T. II. pp. 92, 98 ; also Arist. Eg. 1302, the word 
 is maidenly ; and that it ever with Greek writers means a single man in the 
 proper sense, is at least very doubtful. ■— yvuprjv] view, opinion. As regards 
 yvufi. Sidufu (2 Cor. viii. 10), see the examples in Kypke, II. p. 205.—The 
 . sense most in accordance with the context for marog is that of credible, i.e. 
 trustworthy (1 Tim. iv. 9). The more general faithful (in the service of 
 Christ ; so Billroth, Ruckert, Ewald) is less suitable ; and least of all the 
 simple believing , as Hofmann would have it. Paul’s being an a^ioxpeog ovy- 
 fiovlog (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 apostlesliip, and without enlightenment and aid from 
 Him. Comp, also ver. 40. Hence ug ( quippe ) eX eryievog k.t.X. 
 
 1 With Theodore of Mopsuestia, Bengel, Sender, Zachariae, Schleusner, Schulz, Rosen- 
 miiller, Flatt, Pott, Olshausen, Ewald, 
 
170 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corinthiax's. 
 
 Yer. 26. In carrying out his them c 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 sexes , and only then deals with the subject of vir¬ 
 gins exclusively on to ver. 38. — ovv] therefore , introduces now the yvuyii in 
 accordance with what was said in ver. 25. — avOpuTzu ] 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, 1 2 but means: 
 a person, including both sexes. It is otherwise in ver. 1 .— ovrug] so, as he 
 is, i.e. unmarried, which follows from r. tz apOevtov, ver. 25. To be so Paul 
 esteems salutary {yaKov, as in ver. 1), not absolutely and in itself, but be¬ 
 cause the Parousia is near, and still nearer, therefore, must be the general 
 calamities which arc to precede it, the dolores Messiae, lL) 2H (see on 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 3). These form the instant (iii. 23) distress, i.e. a distress 
 which is impending and has already begun to set in. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 
 19. The persecutions (Pott, Platt, Hofmann, after older expositors) are 
 only a part of it. Matrimonial cares and sufferings, again (Schulz, follow¬ 
 ing Tlieophylact 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. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 103), against which 0/d-ipiv 
 alone, in ver. 28 and ver. 31, testifies with sufficient clearness. Comp, 
 rather ttj eveoT&cnj avayiaj, 3 Macc. i. 16, the distress having set in, and see 
 generally on Gal. i. 4 .— The construction is anacoluthic, so that tovto, 
 which belongs to voffu, prepares for the following nanbv imapxeiv on to 
 ovrog elvat (comp, on Rom. ii. Sand Kuliner, § 631. 2); but then otl nalov 
 which states the contents of the voffu, instead of ending simply 
 with avOpcjTzu to ovtcx; elvat, begins from the beginning again, and that with 
 a on, which comes in in place of the construction with the infinitive 
 (Kiihner, § 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 6ta t. hear, avaya., that he had already said 
 Kalov vTrapxcLv. Hence, too, it is more natural to connect 6ta r. evecr. avayte. 
 with what precedes it than hyperbatically w T ith oti k.t.a. (Ewald, Hofmann). 3 
 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. 
 Ileydenreich holds wrongly — as the fact of there being no avralq added is 
 enough of itself to show—that o n 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 tovto as equivalent to zzapOevov elvat, and then renders on by 
 because: u because it is in general good for a man to be unmarried.” 3 But 
 this “ in general’ 1 ' 1 is not in the text, and yet of necessity it would have 
 required to be there, for without it the argument emerges as an idem per 
 
 1 di/#pco7ro? as a feminine usually answers 
 In Greek writers, as is well known, to the 
 German colloquial phrase “ das Mensch." 
 
 2 Ewald, moreovei’, takes to ovto>; elvat to 
 mean “ that it should be so," referring to the 
 
 following rule SeSecrai, k.t.A. 
 
 3 This rendering occurs in substance in 
 Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin. Beza, too, 
 agrees with it in his explanation of toOto, 
 but understands on KaA'ov k.t.a. as resump¬ 
 tive. 
 
CHAP. VII., 27-31. 
 
 171 
 
 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 did r. hear, avaynyv. 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. 
 
 Yer. 27. Lest the yvuyjj in ver. 20 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 he 
 loosed. The construction is as in ver. 18. — yvvaud] dativus communionis , as 
 in Rom. vii. 2, and with Greek writers. It is plain, especially from vv. 20 
 and 84, that tied. yvv. does not mean betrothal (Ewald and Hofmann), but 
 that yvvrj denotes a married wife. — MXvcai] does not imply: art thou sepa¬ 
 rated from (Mosheim, Sender), but art thou free 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 \ckvadai an' dXkifkov is equivalent to avrovoya slvai. 
 
 Yer. 28. 0 i>x ijyapTsg] But should it be the case that thou shalt have 
 married, thou hast not sinned therein. Comp. Matthiae, p. 1203; Buttmann, 
 neut. Or. p. 172 [E. T. 199]. Hofmann is wrong here also (comp, on ver. 
 11) in holding that lav be nai means : but if already actually , etc. —yrjyy j) 
 napd .] Here as in 1 Tim. v. 11 the term yayelv 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 Marc. p. 424. — ry capid ] 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 on 1 Cor. xii. 7 ; Bernhardy, p. 88), or whether 
 it belongs to the verb, cannot well be determined. — eyo) de vy. cpridoyai] hut 
 /, 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 
 OXhpig. 
 
 Yv. 29-81. This , however , Isay , i.e. of what follows I assure you. Comp - ), 
 xv. 50. At- leads over to something wherewith Paul (“as it were pwopffiesy- 
 ing,” Ewald) designs to secure the more acceptance for the counsel, which he 
 has given with the view of spearing his readers. Pott, Flatt, and others 
 take tovto de <pyyi k.t.%. as a more precise expflanation of 6/uipiv . . . toiovtoi , 
 and then vv. 32-35 as a more precise explanation of e y« de vy. qtid. Two 
 things militate against this—first, the more emphatic inport of (ppyi (comp, 
 also x. 15, 19 ; Ellendt, Lex. Sogrfi. II. p. 90G), which is stronger than Myu ; 
 and secondly, the correct view of cwecTaly. (see below). Ruckert takes it : 
 “ Happen, however, what may, marry ye or not, this remark I cannot sup¬ 
 press.” But were that the meaning, tovto de $. would require to follow at 
 once after ovx yyapTe. —6 Kaipdg] the space of time ,—subsisting up to the Pa- 
 rousia,—not our earthly lifetime in general (Calvin, Yorstius, Estius, al.) ; 
 neither is it merely the time yet to elap^se ere that aydyny arrives (Reiche), 
 
172 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 which would be more distinctly indicated than by the simple 6 naipog ; be¬ 
 sides, the avayta] has already begun to make itself felt, evegtugg, ver. 26. — 
 cwEGTalphog] is taken by most recent expositors (Schulz, Rosenmuller, 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 Macc. iii. 6 (comp. Polyb. v. 15. 8, xxiv. 5. 13 ; Plato, Lys. 
 p. 210 E ; Isocrates, p. 176 A ; Philo, Quod omn. prob. liber , p. 609), v. 3, 
 
 2 Macc. vi. 12, 3 Macc. v. 33, gvgteaaio means to humble , to orerthroic , which 
 does not suit with icaipog. 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. gvgtoXI/, abbreviation). The space 
 of time remaining is only of brief duration. In connection with this, to 
 X onrov is generally made to refer to what precedes : 1 the time is henceforth 
 (in posterum, see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 777 ; Kuhner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 
 5) cut short ,—a mode of connecting the w x ords, however, which makes to 
 aoltvov convey a superfluous idea. Others hold that it refers to what follows , 2 
 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 telic sense of iva, too, would be deprived of its logical 
 reference to what precedes. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Hofmann, adopt¬ 
 ing the reading which puts egtl before to Xoltcov (see the critical remarks), 
 place a comma after the verb : ovvEOTaXy. egt'lv , to Xoiizbv Iva k.t.X., i.e. the 
 . time is shortened , in order that in f uture , etc. Comp, as regards this posi¬ 
 tion for iva , on Eph. iii. 18 ; Gal. ii. 10 ; Rom. xi. 31. This is preferable, 
 because to Xonrov 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 gwegtoa/u. egtl 
 in the arrangements of God. z Beza, Billroth, Schrader, Hofmann make it 
 refer to tovto 6e tyrjpu. But we may see from napayEL yap k.t.X. 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. 13, viii. 17, xi. 31 ; 2 
 Cor. iv. 7, vii. 9, al. He looks upon everything as fitted into the plan of 
 moral redemption under the government of God. — iva aai oi e%. yw. k.t.X.~\ 
 The meaning is : In order that each may keep himself imcardly 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 
 
 1 Peshito, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theo- 
 phylact, Beza, Grotius, al ., including Bill¬ 
 roth, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Reiche, 
 Ewald, Maier, Neander. 
 
 2 Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Vulgate, 
 Erasmus, Calvin, al., including Heydenreich 
 
 and Riickert. 
 
 3 There is therefore no ground here for 
 beginning a new sentence with to Aoutov 
 iva, and taking iva in the imperative sense 
 (comp, on v. 2). So Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 
 130. , 
 
chap, vii., 31, 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 clown rules here (“that the mar¬ 
 ried ought to be as though unmarried,” etc., Ruckert, 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 dejiciet mails bonisve sensu percipiendis. ”— ical oi exovtec yvv. ] Even the 
 married. This nal singles out the first point for special emphasis, because it 
 was the one on which the discussion chiefly turned ; nai in the instances 
 which follow is the simple and. — ol ayopdC,. fog py kcitcx-] the buyers as not 
 possessing (2 Cor. vi. 10), that, namely, which they buy. —&g py naraxp.] 
 may mean, like the Latin abuti, so far as the word in itself is concerned, 
 either : as not abusing it, 1 or : as not using it (Vulgate, Calvin, Grotius, 
 Estius, al., including Pott, Ruckert, 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 Isocr. 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 
 naraxp. in the sense of using 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) 
 — XPV^ OL i n the sense of uti with an accusative (see the critical remarks) 
 occurs here only in the X. T. ; 2 in classic Greek not at all (in Xen. Ages. 
 xi. 11, the true reading is r(p peyakotppovi), and seldom in later Greek (Schae¬ 
 fer, ad Gregor. Cor. p. 691). See also Bornemann, Acta apost. I. p. 222. 
 
 K araxpyoOai, 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. 157 f. [E. T. 181]. 
 
 Vv. 31, 32. Lachmann places only a comma after tovtov, in which he is 
 followed by Billroth, Ruckert, Olshausen, and Maier. From Tvapayst on to 
 elvat would thus form collectively a ground for the preceding nal ol xpkpevoi 
 k.t.E This would be correct, if the foregoing words conveyed an exhorta¬ 
 tion, or if Iva in ver. 29 were dependent upon tovto Se <j>ypi. Since, how¬ 
 ever, what is conveyed in the preceding statement is the design of God, the 
 full stop after tovtov should be retained ; the words from napayei on to tov¬ 
 tov form thus a confirmatory addition to ol xpupcvoc . . . KaTaxpkpevoi, while 
 
 1 Syriac, Tertullian, Theodoret, Theo- Paul gives us here the explanation of his 
 phylact, Oecumenius, Luther, Beza, Corne- foregoing paradox. 
 
 lius a Lapide, al., including Olshausen and 2 Hence Fritzsche (de confco'm. 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 corinthiahs. 
 
 OeIu tie, again, marks tlie advance to something new, to what Paul , in view 
 of this passing away of the fashion of this world, now desires of his reader's, 
 namely, that they should be ayvptyvoi, i.e. without worldly cares (see vv. 33, 
 34). — napayei] is passing away , in accordance with the naipog cvvEcrahy. in 
 ver. 29. To axyya, 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 aicjv ovrog, 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 tf. ; 2 Pet. iii. 10 ; Matt, 
 v. 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. Ion. 10G ; Lucian, Ilerm. 86). Our 
 rendering is demanded by vv. 26, 29, and by the eschatological view of the 
 IST. T. generally. — 0e?m 6e k.t.X.] Comp, eye) de vy. ^cihoyai in ver. 28. —ra 
 rov Ivvpiov (the cause of Christ) is more precisely defined by what follows. 
 — The reading apeoEi, how he shall please , and apecry, how he may please 
 (see Stallbaum, ad Sympos. p. 216 C ; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 350), me equal¬ 
 ly suitable so far as the sense is concerned. 
 
 Ver. 34. Taking the reading yeyip. n. y yvvy a. y TtapOhoq (see the critical 
 remarks), we have : Theicife, too, and the maiden are divided, 1 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 yEp'fecOai 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 yeptyvav. 
 Tkeophylact says well : ov ryv avryv ixovac (f>povTtSa, aTJka yeyepuxyEvat eIcl tcuq 
 CT rovdatc, nat ?/ yev tt epi uXka crrovtiafi, y Se rcspl aWa. 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. — M eyep. is in the singular, because it stands at the head of the 
 sentence, and y yvvy k. y Trapdlvog embraces the female sex as a whole made 
 up of two halves. Comp. Kiihner, II. p. 58 f.; Bernhardy, p. 416 ; Butt- 
 
 1 If we adopt Lachmann’s reading (de¬ 
 fended especially by Hammond among the 
 older expositoi's), which Ewald also follows 
 (leaving out, however, the second 17 aya^op 
 the meaning will be : The married man 
 cares . . . how he may please his icife , and is 
 divided (in his interest). And the unmarried 
 wife (widowed or divorced) and the unmar¬ 
 ried maiden cares , etc. Hofmann, too, pre¬ 
 fers this reading, taking the /cat, which it 
 has before ywy, in the sense of also. The 
 
 betrothed maiden, in his opinion, is no 
 longer ayajuo?. But in the whole context 
 there is only the simple distinction made 
 between married and unmarried persons. 
 Betrothed maidens, too, belong to the lat¬ 
 ter class ; comp. ver. 36 : yafieiroia-av. [Tre- 
 gelles and Westcott & Hort follow Lach- 
 mann, but Tischcndorf and the Canterbury 
 Revision adhere to the received text.—T. 
 W. C.] 
 
CHAP. VII., 35. 
 
 175 
 
 mann, neut. Gr. p. 110 f. [E. T. 12G]. — Iva y ayia /c.r.A.] Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 
 1. This moral consecration to God of her whole personality, which she 
 strives after, is the irtig apeoei r<p Kvpiu explicated. One can hardly conceive 
 that Paul avoided the latter phrase on the ground of possible misconstruc¬ 
 tion (Hofmann). This, considering the sacrcclness of the idea of apecKeiv 
 tu) Kvp'up, w T ould be a piece of prudery , which is unlike him. 
 
 Note. —There is no ground for inferring from vv. 32-34 that Paul, himself 
 unwedded, looked “ somewhat askance” upon marriage (Riickert). 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, 1 but only his experience of how 
 in point of fact they usually did subsist. This experience he (6 uyayog) 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 clas3 
 among his readers. 
 
 Yer. 35. Towro] refers to the recommendation of single life contained in 
 vv. 26-34. — 7r pog to vy. avrav avycj).] for your oicn advantage. The genitive 
 with avfKpipov used as a substantive, as in x. 33 ; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
 Pep. p. 338 C.— ov% iva k.t.X.] explaining more in detail, negatively and 
 positively, the npog . . . ovytpepov. 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 f reedom (bringing under binding and lim¬ 
 iting relations). Comp. Prov. vii. 21, and see Wetstein and Loesner, in 
 loc. The sense of “ giving occasion to scruples” (Billroth, comp. Bengel) 
 does not correspond so well with the figure and the connection. — oXka it pog 
 to evc>x- Ac.r./l.] but to promote the habit of com eliness 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 ayayoi ; see vv. 32-34, 
 where, too, he makes it clear beyond doubt ichat 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 ” 
 
 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. 18CG, p. 102. 
 handmaids of the Lord (Priscilla, etc.) who 
 
17G 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 of the Christian. Its sacred nature and the foul contrasts to it are set forth 
 in Rom. xiii. 13, 14.—The dative of appropriation, r<p Kvp'np and cnvepcGTr ., are 
 conjoined with the ev-xap ., used as a substantive, to make up the unity of the 
 idea. — evnapedpog does not occur elsewhere. Hesychius explains it by nalug 
 •napapevov. — cnrepiOTr. ] u absque distractione, i.e. avev rov pepipvav ra rov 
 Koopov,” Kypke, II. p. 207. Comp. Trspicnracrdai, Luke x. 40. Regarding 
 the connection of the word with the later Greek, see Lobeck, ad Pliryn. p. 
 415. Xenophon, Ages. i. 4, has ad logit aarog. The adverb attaches itself to 
 evvzcip. defining its meaning precisely. See on xii. 28. 1 
 
 Yer. 3G. At-] introduces something opposed to the evGXVpov .— aaxpuoveiv] 
 means aoxvpova eivai (comp, evgxvuoveIv = evGxvpova eivai, Plat. Legg. v. p. 
 732 C), and may therefore be explained either in the active sense (to act dis¬ 
 honourably, conduct oneself in a dishonourable way, Plato, Pol. vi. p. 506 D, 
 Theaet. p. 165 B ; Xen. de re eg. xi. 6 ; Pleroclian, v. 8. 16 ; Lucian, cle sacrif. 
 7), or in the passive sense {to have dishonour , Eur. Hec. 407 ; Herodian, viii. 3. 
 21; Deut. xxv. 5 ; Ezek. xvi. 7). The former of the tw T o interpretations is the 
 common and the correct one, namely : if any one third s that he is acting dishon¬ 
 ourably toicards 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. Bex. 1492 ff. ; Eur. IJel. 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 : 6 de rrjv 
 ayapiav anoopiav vTcolagfiavov, Theophylact, cd.). Taking it in the passive 
 sense, we have : if any one thinlcs 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, Xeander ; 
 comp. Hofmann, who holds that what is here expressed is the matter of fad 
 of its being the father's fault that the daughter remains unmarried. But even 
 apart from the consideration that aaxvp- is most commonly found in the ac¬ 
 tive meaning (see also xiii. 5), there is this against the second rendering, 
 that hri with the accusative takes for granted that daxvyovelv implies activity, 
 since it states the direction in which it is exerted (comp. daxvt L0V dv eig nva, 
 Dion. Hal. ii. 26). — vop'fei] “ Si perspecto filiae suae ingenio judicet, coeliba- 
 tui non esse aptam,” Calvin. —edv y vTrepaicp.] is the case, in connection with 
 which that el tie rig aaxvpoveiv, k.t.1. is supposed : in case she pass her time, 
 pass the highest point of her youthful bloom. As regards the aicpy itself, see 
 Plato, Pep. p. 460 E : ap' ovv goi ^wdonel perpiog XP° V0 C b-Kppg ra e'Lkoglv erp 
 yvvaud, avSpl ra rpiaKovra , and Stallbaum, ad hunc loc. / other definitions 
 of the age may be seen in Locella, ad. Xen. Eph. p. 145. Paul’s opinion is, 
 that before the any?) is reached the aGxnpoveiv . . . vop'fei 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 vrepanpog 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. 
 39^12 in the original.—T. W. C.] 
 
CHAP. VII. 5 37. 
 
 177 
 
 word vn&paKfi ., ■which is not found in ancient Greek, see Eustath. 11. i. p. 11, 
 31 ; Od. p. 1915, 29. The classical writers use instead of it the perfect of 
 'jrapaiifj.aCeiv, as in Xen. Mein. iv. 4. 23 ; or the adjective TzapanyaaTtK j, as in 
 Galen, VI. p. 312, 14. —nal ovTiog o^etTiei yiveaOcu ] depends on the el r 1 and 
 if so (namely, that the virgin marry), it must he. Thus there is added to 
 the subjective condition of things, expressed in de rig aaxvp- k.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 : und wean's nicht unders sein Icann 
 [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 bcpeiXei. According to Ruckert, k. ovt. 6$. yiv. depends upon 
 eav : and she must remain so (i.e. unwedded). But the indicative bydlei is 
 decisive against this rendering ; and what an amount of straining is needed 
 to make yiveodac equivalent to remain ! for she is unwedded, and, if she so 
 remains, cannot become so. — 6 Oelei noietru] not : let him do what pleases him 
 (so ordinarily ; but this is contrary to the context ; see what follows, and 
 the preceding bepeidei), but : let him do what he intends (to give his virgin in 
 marriage). Theocloret puts it well : to Sokovv TcpaTTETco. — yapELTuaav] 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 Ruckert 
 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 
 “ the youths'''' should be supplied here as the subject, and avTrjv 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. — ur/ exuv avdynyv\ without having constraint (ob¬ 
 jective necessity), as he, in ver. 36, whom the natural temperament of his 
 virgin causes to fear the aaxnpovelv before explained; — k^ovaiav 6b exec /c.r.A.] 
 contrasted with the py ex- avdyn. (be, 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, neut. Gr. p. 327 
 f. [E. T. 382]. — tovto ] is not explained — though this is the common suppo¬ 
 sition—by the infinitive which follows ; were that the case, we should have 
 to Tfjpelv, or (as in Od. i. 82 ; 1 Thess. iv. 3 ; Jas. 1. 27, al.) the simple 
 infin. (comp, the critical remarks). But Pau] leaves the reader to gather 
 from the connection what is meant by tovto (namely, not giving the maiden 
 
 1 Theophylact begins the apodosis with 
 
 <ca't ouru )9 ; yevierdd), <f>r]crl, /cat o vtu>. nibs; 6 
 t^eAei uoiecTO). In that case k. outos 0(j>. yiv. 
 would be quite superfluous, the /cai deprived 
 of its reference, and ovx agapr. would not 
 suit the obligatory 6(f>etA.et. Similarly Hof¬ 
 mann, who follows the same view, para¬ 
 phrasing it thus : “ This too (?) is a necessity 
 
 arising from the nature of the case , that he 
 do what he will." Laurent also makes koX 
 outu )9 6(f). yiv. the apodosis, expounding it 
 to mean : so it must be in this case also. The 
 clauses which follow he considers explana¬ 
 tory ; and /cat must go back for its reference 
 all the way to ver. j : not merely in the case 
 
 Of the 7rvpovcn}ou. 
 
178 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 in marriage). The design of this rovro kekpikev (conclusum habet) is then de¬ 
 clared by rov rrjpelv : 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 
 lias in his rovro kekpikev, by virtue of his right to dispose of his own child: ob¬ 
 serve the emphatic rr/v eavrov vap&ivov. 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. § 80. 2 ff.).— /caJof rtoiei] in the sense of 
 action, morally right , the positive side of the oi>x ayapravu of ver. 86, and 
 in so far stronger here ; hence, too, it is represented in ver. 28 by Kpelaaov 
 rroiel in relation to the k akibg tcoleI , which is equivalent to oi>x auapravei. 
 
 Yer. 88. Result of vv. 36, 37, nal . . . mi, as well ... as also. Paul had 
 thought of saying koAuq tcoleI in the second clause also, but thereupon 
 strengthens his expression (upticoov) so as to correspond with the relations of 
 the two predicates, ovx ayapr. in ver. 86, and koXuq ttolei in ver. 37 .—6 
 EKyay.] 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.— updaaov] for see ver. 34. Regarding e/cya/z., comp. Matt. xxiv. 
 38 ; it is not preserved in Greek writers. 
 
 Yv. 39, 40. An appended rule respecting second marriage on the part of 
 women, occasioned probably by questions from the Corinthians. — SldeTat] 
 sc. rip avdpt ; she may not separate herself from him and marry another. 
 Comp. ver. 27 ; Rom. vii. 2. — 6 Mlet yauydyvai] to whom she desires to be 
 married. Comp. Mark x. 12. Tayei nev yap 6 avfjp , yayelrai de y yvvrj, Schol. 
 ad Eur. Med. 593. As regards the later form yayydrjvai, instead of the Attic 
 yay.E'&yvai , see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 742. — /wvov ev K vp'up] 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¬ 
 ried. 1 So among the early interpreters, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, 
 Jerome, Theodoret, Grotius (who puts it happily : intra ecclesiam), Estius, 
 etl ., also Olshausen and de Wette. This does not run counter to ver. 12 
 If., 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 a Christian spirit , acting as a 
 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 g) &eXei so emphatically put first. * Moreover, the wider and more 
 general the meaning ascribed to kv K vpicp, 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.— yanapior.] more Messed , i.e. not merely more 
 spared from troubles (vv. 26, 28), but, in accordance with the higher ref¬ 
 erence which pandp. invariably has in the N. T., enjoying the blessed rela¬ 
 tion, which arises out of withdrawal from worldly cares and seli-surrender 
 to Christ. See vv. 32-84. As to greater blessedness in heaven , which some 
 have dragged in here in the interests of celibacy (Ambrosiaster, Cornelius a 
 Lapide, al., including Hirscher, Moral , III. p. 502), there is not a word of 
 that in the text, even if we should read eorai in place of egt'iv. — Kara r. e/llt/v 
 ■yvd)iiT]v~\ hp.Tj v carries the emphasis of apostolic self-consciousness. — 6oko) 61 
 Kayo) /c.r.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 (ixetv) to me also, and hence as worthy to be 
 received and followed.—Respecting 6ok6), mihi videor , the note of Estius 
 may suffice : “minus dicit, plus volens intelligi.” Comp. iv. 9.—/cay«] 
 like other teachers who have received His gifts.—In the two expressions 
 coming together—of which 6ok6) has a touch of irony (comp. Dissen, ad Bern, 
 de Cor. p. 230 f.)—there is implied a side-glance, but whether precisely at 
 the Petrine party (Neander, Rabiger, al.) 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. 
 
 (r) 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 is not. 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) “ Novo 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¬ 
 crate 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 
 Chrislianum est soboles Christiana (Bengel). 
 
 $ 
 
 (t) Desertion a cause of divorce. Ver. 15. 
 
 Hodge’s explanation of this matter is somewhat different and apparently 
 better: “ There is 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. 
 
 (u) “ Use it rather.” Yer. 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 
 uni 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 .” Yer. 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. Yer. 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 (Epli. 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 
 dew 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 God 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 uncircum¬ 
 cision. 
 
CHAP. VIII. 
 
 181 
 
 CHAPTER yin. 
 
 Ver. 2, de] is wanting in A B min. several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by 
 Lachm. Biick. and Tisch., as Griesb., too, had recommended. Added for the 
 sake of connection, as was also yap (after the first ovte) in ver. 8, which is omit¬ 
 ted likewise in A B 5$ 17, at. — eidevai'] It is true that A B D E F G K, min. 
 Clem. Nyss. Theodoret, Damasc. have kyvuidvai (recommended by Griesb., 
 adopted by Lachm. Biick. and Tisch.) ; but what goes before it and what fol¬ 
 lows make it clear that eyv. is a gloss. The reading elvai, too, in 39, 91, 109, tells 
 in favour of eidevai. — ov6etvu ovdev Eyvune ] Lachm. and Biick. have ovnu iyvu, 
 which was recommended by Griesb. in accordance with testimony of very con¬ 
 siderable weight, in .substance the same as that in favour of eyvunevai instead 
 of Eidhai. 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 ovttu iyvu, at first, perhaps, by omitting the su¬ 
 perfluous ovdev, all the more readily that it was preceded by ovSettu, whereupon 
 EyvuKE became transformed into iyvu, either from the next word beginning with 
 K, or by the influence of the inf. yvuvai which follows, while ovdenu was dis¬ 
 placed, as in many other cases (John vii. 39 ; Luke xxiii. 53 ; Acts viii. 16), by 
 the more familiar ovttu. —Ver. 4. erepof] is wanting in A B D E F G X* min. 
 with several vss. and Fathers. Condemned by Mill and Griesb., deleted by 
 Lachm. and Biick. But why should any one have added irepoq ? 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. ry cvveidycei ] 
 Lachm. and Biick. read ry GvvyOeta, with AB X, some min. Copt. Bashm. Aeth. 
 Syr. p. (on the margin) Damasc. Approved also by Griesb. and Binck. r y 
 avveidyoci, however, as the more difficult reading, should be retained. See also 
 Beiche, Comment, crit. I. p. 200 ff. It was noted on the margin how the gvvel- 
 Atjcic roi 5 eiduAov arose, namely, by ry GwyOeig, and then this phrase easily crept 
 into the j)lace of the original r. cvveid. — It is preferable, however, to put iug 
 apn before rov eidulov (Lachm. Biick. and Tisch.), with B D E F G N 31, 37, 
 116, and several vss. and Fathers ; in the Recepta we have transposition in the 
 interest of the construction. — Ver. 8. Trap!oryoi] AB X, min. Copt. Bashm. 
 Clem. Origen (twice), Athan. Cyr. Damasc. have TrapacTyoEL. Becommended by 
 Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Biick. and Tisch. Bightly ; the presents which 
 follow gave rise to the same tense here. tZvviGTrjm, which has but weak sup¬ 
 port, is a gloss. — There is considerable evidence (especially A B X) in favour 
 of omitting the yap, 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 clg6eveglv instead of the Recepta ugOevovglv. — Ver. 11. nal aTzoTiEirai] In 
 place of kul, A has ovv after the verb (so Biick.), while B X* 17, Copt. Bashm* 
 Goth. Clem, have yap, 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 ; yiip not being understood, was explained in 
 some cases by ml, in others by ovv. Instead of anoAelTai, read with Lachm. 
 Buck. and Tisch. arroM.vTcu, on the authority of A B D* N, several min. Copt. 
 Goth. Clem. Bas. Antioch. Chrys. Theodoret, and Damasc. The future arises 
 from a mechanical alteration of the text after oiKodopyO. — adeh^og) Lachm. 
 Buck, and Tisch. have 6 ade'hcpog after yvuosi, which has conclusive evidence in 
 its favour. The Recepla originated in a mistaken attempt to help out the con¬ 
 struction. — kizi ] Lachm. Buck, and Tisch. read kv , which is supported by de¬ 
 cisive testimony. 
 
 Contents. —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 is a 
 stumbling-block to them (vv. 7-13). 
 
 Ver. 1. At’] marks the transition to a new subject, which the queries from 
 Corinth led the apostle to discuss. —nepl tojv eiJwZod.] 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 on (for) 
 7 zdvreg, as is done by Luther, Bos, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Wolf, Bengel, Yalck- 
 enaer, and others, among whom are Olshausen and Maier ; for the fact 
 that y yvucng qvoiol stands unconnected with what precedes it, and the sense 
 of on in ver. 4 (that), are decisive against this. The true commencement is 
 only at y yvtieig pvaiot (so, with older commentators, Pott, Ruckert, de Wctte, 
 Osiander, Ewald, Neander ; Billroth is undecided on the point), so that 
 the preceding yvuoiv exouev has very naturally given occasion to the warn¬ 
 ings which begin with y yvuaig pvcnoi. — elduXod-vra, things offered to idols , 
 Kpea ELfiolo'd-vra, 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 xv. 20 . 1 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 loc. 
 cil., and on Gal., Introd. § 3. Moreover, 
 this very chapter, along with chap, x., 
 shows plainly that, in virtue of his inde¬ 
 
 pendent position as an 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. 
 
CHAP. VIII., 1. 
 
 183 
 
 cess, whether we are disposed to find the former in the Christ-party (Ols- 
 hausen, Jaeger) or in the Apollonians (Rabiger). As regards the weak, see 
 ver. 7, and the remark subjoined to it. — oida/uEv] should not be joined di¬ 
 rectly with nept k.t.X., but the latter clause is to be taken as in vii. 1 : Now, 
 as respects meat offered to idols, we Tcnow that , etc. Hofmann, following 
 Sender, but in the face of all the Versions and Fathers, reads olSa uev (I know, 
 indeed, that), by which he gains nothing but a psv solitarium, which would be 
 all the more uncalled for, seeing that the corresponding antithetic clause, 
 where he ought to find y be yvumg, 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 be. The subject of oibayev consists of all those, 
 besides the apostle himself, of whom the yvuciv exogev holds good, that is 
 to say, of Paul and the (as regards this point) more enlightened Christians : 
 I and those like myself in this. Theopliylact puts it rightly (comp. Chrysos¬ 
 tom) ; npog rovg reXeiovg biaXeyErai, a^elg rovg ar eXeot epovg. Since oibapev and 
 kxopEv must have one and the same subject, Rtickert 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 yvucng and ?} yvibatg, making the former to be a certain, 
 ground of knowledge in general ; the latter, the specific knowledge of how the 
 form and the poicer of idolatry stand related to each other. But the yvuoig in 
 ver. 1, although without the article, has been already defined very exactly 
 as regards its contents by nepl r. eibuX., and still more by ver. 4, so that y 
 ^rcjcng in ver. 7 can mean nothing else but the yvttaig 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 navreg, if the ovic ev ttclglv 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 tt avreg there the Unexpressed idea, u properly 
 speaking, all Christians as such' 1 ' 1 (Ewald), or to give to the exopcv the sense 
 of “ should have.” 1 Others, following Er. Schmid (“we at Corinth are all 
 wise enough”), regard the Corinthians as the subject, and take (Nosselt, 
 Opuscula, II. p. 152, Rosenmuller, Pott, Ileydenreich, Flatt) the words Trepl 
 . . . ixo/uev, and then bn ovbev EtbuXov 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 y 
 yvucig (pvaioi k.t.X., on to ver. 3, 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. 
 7 vanishes on considering the change of person (from the first in ver. 1 to 
 the third in ver. 7). — yvticnv] have knoioledge ; of what? is plain from the 
 
 1 So Elwert, Progr ., Quaestiones ad philol. sacrain. JY. T., Tubing. 18G0, p. 17. 
 
184 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 context, namely, of the way in which flesh offered to idols should he regarded. 
 The contents of the statement are more fully expressed in ver. 4. 
 
 Yv. 1-3. Now follows the caveat inserted parenthetically with a view to 
 yvuoiv exoyev. — The article turns the abstract yvucug into- a noun appellative. 
 
 • —The knowledge (in and by itself, namely) puffeth up (iv. 6, v. 2); hut the 
 love (to the brethren ; comp. Rom. xiv. 14, 15) edifleth (x. 23), furthers the 
 progress of the church (viewed as olnodoff] Qeov, see iii. 9) towards Christian 
 perfection. It is, indeed, the necessary yyeyovindv to the effectively sympa¬ 
 thetic and humble application of the knowledge. Comp. chap, xiii., espe¬ 
 cially ver. 4. — Yv. 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 yvuaig 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 r/ yvtiag as a 6 okeIv 
 eidevai tl ; 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 ayairav rov Qeov. 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. — t'l\ anything 
 whatever , any object of the yvuccg. Pott and Flatt interpret : something 
 wonderful ; but this does not correspond so well with the sententious 
 character of the verse. — ov6'etto k.t.’X.] 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 yvtivcu naOkg del 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), Schomann, ad Is. p. 469 ; Stall- 
 baum, ad Plat. Crat. p. 398 E). —Yer. 3. ovrog] with emphasis : he , to the 
 exclusion of the other who prides himself on his knowledge. — Eyvoarac vtt’ 
 avTov ] This is rationalized by Billroth in his usual fashion into : “ God 
 recognizes Himself in him ff but it means simply : this man is known hy Him. 
 The statement is a pregnant one. Instead of making it logically conrplete 
 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 eyvuarcu vtt 
 abrov shows the importance and preciousness of the love spoken of, in accord¬ 
 ance with its holiness; for if God knoivs 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 Ilis love, gracious care, etc. (x) The idea, therefore, 
 is that of the effective divine knowledge, which becomes part of the inner 
 experience of the man, and which is the causa salutis , 1 so that God in thus 
 
 1 Comp. Constit. up. V. 16. 3 : v-r) yi.yvu)<TKOi'Te<; ©ebp Sia rov Aojpv-yjuaTOS TuaTevcravTe^ ey wore 
 
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. p. 258 ff. See also on xiii. 12. Other inter¬ 
 preters supply the thought ut suum discipulum (Erasmus) or inter filios 
 (Calvin), and the like. Comp. Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 288. But that is to 
 insert a meaning not in the text. Others, again, take it as approbatus est 
 (Piscator, Clericus, Gataker, Grotius, Wolf, Mosheim, Sender, Morus, Vater, 
 al ., following Fathers in Suicer, Thes. 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 Nosselt, Rosenmuller, 
 Heydenreich, Pott, Flatt), so that the passive would correspond to a 
 Hophal. Olsliausen’s mysterious fancy is contrary to the whole context, 
 which demands the simple conception of knowing ; he finds in yivuGiceiv (as 
 in 1’T, see on Matt. i. 25) the bridcd (?) relation of the soul to God. 
 
 Ver. 4. 0 vv] igitur, takes up again the interrupted statement (ver. 1) ; 
 comp. xi. 20, and see on Mark iii. 81, and Baeumlein, Par tile,, p. 177. — r?Jg 
 Spue. r. eld.] more precise definition of the indefinite rtiv elSuhod., ver. 1. 
 There is no reason any more than formerly for writing oidayev here as olSa 
 uev with Hofmann. — brt ovtiev dduh. ev Kociuf that there is not an idol in the 
 world. Paul’s meaning here is not: what the heathen adore as gods is some¬ 
 thing absolutely without existence (sec, 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 ovdev 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 : “ Hoverant utique Israelitae, idolum nihil esseP Comp, 
 also Joseph. Antt. viii. 13. 6. But this must be held incorrect, seeing that 
 ev r. Koago) does not harmonize with it, and because of the parallel expres¬ 
 sion ovSelg Qeog. —nai qtl ovheig /c.r.A.] and that there is no other God but one. 
 The ei uh refers simply to ovSdg Qe6g, not to erepog, See on Gal. i. 19. 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. Confirmatory elucidation of the preceding statement ore ovhev 
 eiduhov . . . d pi) dg. 
 
 Ver. 5. For (yap) even (nai) if really (elirep, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 
 343 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 202) there exist so-called gods, whether in heaven 
 or on earth. Heathenism conceived heaveti and earth to be filled with being's 
 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, 1 but 
 merely supposes it, and that with nal ehrep, i.e. even in the case that, if there be 
 in reality, if after all, whereby of course 11 in incerto relinquitur, utrum jure 
 an injuria sumatur” (Hermann, ad Viger. p. 834), this, however, not being 
 implied in ehrep by itself, but by the connection in which it stands here. 
 
 cu/ToV, uaAAov Se eyvcoaOrfre v 7 r* airov ]ow that the gods as such existed at all, but 
 fta ' Ir) a ov tov erwr^po? a. XvrpoiTov tuv held those beings regarded as gods to be 
 €A.7rg6vro)v In' avrov. demons. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Tlieol. p. 279. 
 
 1 We know from x. 29 that he did not al- 
 
186 
 
 Paul’s eiest epistle to the coeihthiaks. 
 
 Comp. Rom. viii. 9, 17, etc.; and see Bacumlcin, l.c. 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 uairep k.t.1. : as there are , 
 indeed, gods many and lords many. What is conceded here is the premiss 
 from which that possibility may be drawn as a consequence. If there exist, 
 that is to say, a multitude of superhuman beings, who come under the cate¬ 
 gory of Oeol (in the wider sense) and Kvptoi, then we must admit that it is 
 possible that those whom the heathen call gods—Jupiter, Apollo, and so 
 on—have an actual existence. 1 The Oeol i-oXkoi and Kvpioi i toTOFl 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 : 6 yap Iv vptog 6 0 eog vpcbv, ovrog Qsbg tuv Oecbv nal K vpiog ruv 
 Kvpiuv . 2 Comp. Ps. cxxxvi. 2, 3. Most commentators take eld as said e 
 gentilium persuasione (so Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, de Wette, Ewald, Nean- 
 der, Maier), which would give as the sense of the whole : “if there he in 
 reality so-called gods among the heathen , as, indeed , they speeds of many gods and 
 lords ” (de Wette). But this explanation runs counter to the fact that eld 
 is put first with emphasis : and the e gentilium 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 iyuv 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 eld denotes real existence (th cleyoy. Oeol being demons , x. 20,) while 
 with the second w r e should supply : in the view of the heathen. Riickert 
 takes both the first and second eld in the right sense, but makes rt~ep 
 mean,—contrary to the rules of the language,— although it must he conceded 
 that (which is not its meaning even in such passages as those given by 
 Kuhner, II. § 824, note 2), and supposes that the apostle conceived the 
 angels and demons to be the realities answering to the leyoy. deoi . 3 —As 
 regards /cat el, etiam, turn, si, which marks the contents of the conditional 
 clause as uncertain, comp, on Mark xiv. 29 ; and see Hermann, ad Viger. p. 
 832 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 32 A. It is here the u etiamsi de re in 
 cogitatione posita,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 884. Examples of nal yap el, 
 for even if, may be seen in Hartung, Par tip ell. I. p. 141. 
 
 Ver. 6. Apodosis : yet have ice Christians hut one God, the Father, etc. 
 Therefore : oibagev on ovbev elOulwv /c.r.A. The eortv to be supplied after fjyiv 
 is the simple verb substantive. — a?P] as in iv. 15 . —Qsog 6 ■Karryh] might be 
 taheen together here as forming one conception, like K vpiog 6 Qeog (Fritzsclie, ad 
 
 1 The meaning of the verse, therefore, 
 freely rendered, would he: For even if 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, etc., ver. G. 
 Hofmann agrees substantially with our ex¬ 
 position of the passage. See also his Schrift- 
 bew. I. p. 348. 
 
 2 [Hodge, in loco, sustains this view strong¬ 
 ly.—T. W. C.] 
 
 s 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 Ae-yo/xeroi? 0eo<?, 
 should have sufficed of itself to prevent 
 this; still more the correlation in which 
 the many gods and lords stand to the el? 
 ©eos and el? Kvpio? in ver. 6. 
 
CHAP. YIII., G. 
 
 137 
 
 Matt. p. 1G8) : it agrees better, however, with the elg K vpiog ’I. X. whicli 
 follows, to understand 6 narrip as in apposition to Geof and defining it more 
 precisely. By 6 irar^p, and the relative definitions of it which follow, the 
 elg Qeog 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 unity of God, and how idols are 
 with him put out of account altogether. Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 
 348. — 6 7raryp\ in the Christian sense, according to the idea of the viofteaia of 
 Christians. Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iii. 2G. — e g ov ra tv dvra\ as to primary ori¬ 
 gin. See on Rom. xi. 36.— nal ?)peig elg avrov ] i.e. and ice Christians are 
 destined to serve His purposes : He is our End. Here again, after the kcl'i, we 
 have the deviation from the relative construction, common with the apostle 
 from his preference for direct address. Comp, on vii. 18. Bernhardy, p. 
 804. It is arbitrary to take elg in such a narrow sense as is given to it by 
 Piscator, Grotius, Rosenmuller, cil. : for God's honour ; but positively incor¬ 
 rect to take it for h, with Beza, Calvin, and others ; or for eg, with Schulz, 
 Heydcnreich, 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 1” This has only a seeming likeness to Augustine’s “ Fc- 
 cisti me ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donee requiescat in te,” Conf. 
 i. 1. Olshausen, following older expositors (Calovius, Estius, al.), finds the 
 Trinity here also (comp, on Rom. xi. 86), 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. 1 2 He holds, with 
 Billroth (comp, also Neander), that the elg refers to the agency of the Holy 
 Spirit in bringing all back to its primary origin. 2 — 6C ov ra Travra] 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 ra iravra ; 
 but it means that Jesus Christ, in His premundane existence, as the Son of 
 God (not as the Ideal Man or the like) as tt piororoKog Trdnr/g uriaeug (in John’s 
 phrase, as A 6yog), was He through whom 3 God brought about the creation 
 of the world. See on Col. i. 15 ff. Comp. John i. 3. Usteri, Lehrbegriff , 
 p. 315 ff.; Rabiger, Christol. Paid. p. 29 ff. ; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. § 85 ; 
 Lechler, p. 51 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 318. Philo calls the Xoyog the 
 opyavov , 6C ov sarecnevdo'&i] (6 Konyoe). See de Cherub. I. p. 162. In Rom. xi. 
 36, dc’ ov is said of God, and the reference is therefore of a different kind 
 
 1 Hence we find, in some of the later codd. 
 and Fathers, additional clauses respecting 
 the Spirit, namely, /cat ev irveviJ.a ayiov, ev w 
 Ta navra. k. rj/xeis ev avr cj>, and : /cat ev irvev/JLa 
 
 ay. Si o5 navra. But so early an expositor 
 as Chrysostom remarks expressly that the 
 Spirit is not mentioned here. 
 
 2 In order to bring out the “ all ” (Rom. 
 
 xi. 36), Olshausen affirms : “ Insomuch as 
 the church is destined to receive all men in¬ 
 
 to it, and insomuch as it exerts a reflex re¬ 
 storative influence even upon the /crto-i? 
 (Rom. viii. 19 ff.), those who believe are 
 equivalent to things as a whole.” An in¬ 
 stance—to be taken as a warning—of exo- 
 getical subjectivity in the interest of dog¬ 
 matic preconception. 
 
 8 Not e£ ov which holds only of the Fa¬ 
 ther, although cis ov could bo said of the 
 Son also (comp. Col. i. 16). 
 
188 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 than here. — nal ygEig 6t ’ avrov ] 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, k. ygEig elg avrov , 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' 1 2 ' 1 shuts out all the heathen gods as such, so 
 far as the Christian consciousness is concerned. 
 
 Yer. 7. “Ye know that there is no idol, etc.; however, this yvioGig that we 
 speak of (y) is not in all ; but doubtless (the tie as in vii. 37, and very often 
 — so ver. 9 — after a negative clause) there are many who, ” etc. — ry avvei- 
 tiycEi ecog apn rov ddu'kov] 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 GWEidyotg rov eiduhov is : oidagEv, on ovSev e18io7x>v ev KOGgcp, 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 
 lienee that to eat of it is sinful. 1 — ovveidyaig^] means simply conscience (neither 
 judicium , as many maintain, nor obscure conception, as Schulz would have it ; 
 Billroth’s rendering is better, though still inexact : “ conviction that there 
 are eiSwla so also Reiche, Maier), and rov ddcolov is the object of the moral 
 consciousness, the article indicating the idol in a generic way. As to the 
 gen. with gweIS., 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). — eug 
 apn] marks off the time more sharply than “ always as yet” (Hofmann), 
 which would be en ; it means, “up to this very hour' 1 ' 1 (iv. 13, xv. 6, and in 
 all other passages). Taking the usual order of the words, it would most 
 naturally attach itself to egQlovgl ; but since the place which on critical 
 grounds must be assigned to it is before eiduXov (see the critical remarks), it 
 must be joined to ry gvvel8tjgel. We might have expected ry kug apn ovvEidyGEi 
 rov £id(i)?wv or ry GWEtdyoEi rov eiduhov ry iug apn ; 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 
 other reading vwyOela = by familiar inter¬ 
 course with , or as the Revised Version has 
 it, “being used to.”—T. W. C.] 
 
 2 See generally, besides von Zetschwitz 
 
 {Trojan grlicit. pp. 52 ff., 75) Kohler, Schrift- 
 gemasse Lehre vom Geiv., 18G4; Delitzscli, 
 Psychol, p. 133 ff. ; Lindes, de vi et ratione 
 cvveiSTjcreto? ex N. T. Lund, 1866; R. Hof¬ 
 mann, Lehre vom Gew ., Leipz. 1866. 
 
CIIAP. VIII., 8. 
 
 180 
 
 this mode of expression (see on xii. 28 ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 ; Phil. i. 26 ; Gal. i. 
 13). —It is an artificial construction, and without sufficient ground, to 
 supply a second GvvetSyoei (without the article) after ry awed., and connect 
 icog aprc rov e'lSloTuOv with this. — aoOevyg ovaa] 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 in rdcreug (Rom. 
 xiv. 23). M oIvvelv (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 1), of ethical defilement ; also in 
 Ecclus. xxi. 28 ; Porphyr. de Abstin. i. 42 ; Synesius, Ep. 5. Comp. Titus 
 i. 15 : iua'iveiv . Observe here the two sides of the conscience : it was weak 
 to begin with , and afterwards it is defiled as well. 
 
 Note.—T he iog Spn, 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) : yoav yap ttoTAoI hi; EiScj^oTiarplag rrj ttlgtel TTpoGs'kOovreg ol iog apn, tovtegtl 
 ical pera to tugtevgcii, tu eiScjUdOvra egQlovgiv d>g elScj/ioOvra. Theodoret says : ovx 
 y (SpkGig poTivvci, a?Ad y GvvsiSyGig ryv TE?wiav ov Se^apivy yvcjoiv, in Si rrj t: Xavy ruv 
 eiScj?,uv icarexopivy. 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 Crenfife-Cliristians, 
 is advocated also by Hofmann, and finds expression in Lachmann’s reading of 
 GwyOeia. 
 
 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, Parcus, 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 : ovre idv py (payupev, TVEpiGoevopev , ovte iav tyayupev, 
 vGTcpovpeOa. No, Paul is now going on (the advance being indicated by Si) 
 to show what regard should be paid to those weaker brethren : 11 Now, food 
 is not the determining element in the Christian's relation to Cod; 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 .''' 1 If food were not a 
 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 COltlXTHIAKS. 
 
 to the weak .—ov rrapaaryaei] 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 , cither 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 commendcibit , or, keeping by the Dec. tt apicrgai, commen- 
 dat , as if it were gvvigtt/gei or gvvlgttigl. This is untenable according to the 
 rules of the language ; and it is illogical besides, for both the cases which 
 follow ovts . . . ovre are included under the collective conception, ov napaar. 
 r. 0f(D. 1 — vorepovp.] do ice come short , do we lack anything in our relation to 
 God. The opposite of this (comp. Phil. iv. 12) is vepiGG. : we hare an over¬ 
 flowing abundance , something more than mere sufficiency in our relation to 
 God *, tovtegtlv Evbonipovpev rrapa rip Qcp tog ayadov rt irotr/GavTEg nai p'eya, Chrys¬ 
 ostom. — (Dettete 4e] The be, now then , introduces what is their positive 
 duty , as contrasted with the foregoing negative state of the case. — irpoGnoppa] 
 stumbling , i.e. occasion to act contrary to conscience. Comp. Rom. xiv. 13. 
 
 Yer. 10. Tik] any such weak brother, namely .—-ov exovra yvbootv] quippe 
 qui cognitionem habes , in significant apposition to ge. It is just this, which 
 the weaker believer knows respecting the stronger, that leads him astray. — 
 kv eISloTieUp KaraKEtpEvov ] 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 eUuIeIov —which does not occur in profane writers—from the LXX. and 
 the Apocrypha, may be seen in Schlcusner, Thes. II. p. 24G. See also 
 Eustath. ad Od. vi. p. 263. 17. In the Fragm. Soph. 152 (Dind.), the true 
 reading is ebuhta. — ohio<5oppOyoeTat\ is neither a vox media (Clericus, Eisner, 
 Wolf, al .), nor does it mean impelletur (Castalio, Kypke, Hermann, Stolz, 
 al.) or conflrmabitur (Syr., Grotius, Zachariae, Schulz, Billroth), but as 
 always in the X. T.: will be built up, advanced in a Christian frame of mind , 
 so as to eat (elg to egO.). To be brought to eat sacrificial flesh while one is 
 weah (JiGdev. ovTog, opposite of yvtiotv e%£iv), is, as Calvin rightly expresses it, 
 a ruinosa aedifleatio , seeing that the foundation which it ought to have, the 
 iTLGTtg, is wanting. We have here, therefore, an ironically significant anti- 
 phrasis; without the aof). ovtoq it might be a case of a real oinodopEteOat ; 
 things being as they are, however, it can be so only in appearance , and, in 
 reality, it is the very opposite . 2 Egregie aedifleabitur! The hypothesis 
 (Storr. Opusc. II. p. 275 f. ; Rosenmiiller, Flatt, comp. Xeander), that Paul 
 borrows the word from the letter of the Corintliians to him (in which they 
 
 1 This holds also against the modification 
 which Valckenaer, Rtickert, and de Wette 
 have made upon the ordinary view: “ does 
 not bring us near to God, does not put us 
 into a position to appear before Him.” 
 Comp. Theophylact: ovk olkcloI pa?™ ©e<£. 
 
 2 'Wetstein compares with this the pas¬ 
 sage in Nedarim , f. 40. 1: “Si dixerint tibi 
 juniores aedifica, et seniores demolire, audi 
 seniores et non audi juniores, quia aedifi- 
 catio juniorum est demolitio, et demolitio 
 seniorum est aedifleatio.” 
 
Chap. tiii. , 11-13. 
 
 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. ’AwoUvrai (“ terrificum verbum,” Clarius) yap unfolds the mean¬ 
 ing of the antiphrastic element of the preceding olnod., the yap introducing 
 the answer (Ilartung, I. p. 477 ; Klotz, ad Denar, p. 240 ; Baeumlein, Part. 
 p. 72), in which the apostle’s irony loses itself in the deep earnestness which 
 underlies it : he is in truth utterly ruined , etc. — awoXkvTai is meant here, as 
 in Rom. xiv. 15, of destruction /car’ ktpoxyv, the eternal anukeia 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 yap here to be quite inexplicable, unless we take aw6Xk. simply in 
 the sense of is led astray (but see the critical remarks) ; while Ruckert 
 declares the yap utterly useless. Nevertheless, anoXAvrai /c.r.A. makes it 
 clear and unmistakable how the case stands with the preceding oiKo6oyyO., 
 so that yap is logically correct. — ev ry ay yvkasi] belongs to awolk. : l>y 
 means of thy knowledge , so that it through the use thou hast made of it, has 
 occasioned this destruction. ’Ewi (see the critical remarks) would be : upon 
 thy knowledge, so that it was the ground of what took place. — 6 adekip. 6i 
 ov X. aw. ] a weighty twofold motive for not bringing about such a result. 
 Comp. Rom. xiv. 15. The 6i’ bv X. aw. is frustrated by the awoll. ! Comp, 
 ver. 12. Bengel says well in reference to 6 V bv : “ ut doceamur, quid nos 
 fratrum causa debeamus.” Respecting cba, comp. Rom. iv. 25. 
 
 Ver. 12. 0 vtu] When ye sin against the brethren in this way , as described 
 in vv. 10, 11. — nal] and especially. — rvwrovTeg] in substance the same thing 
 as yoXvvovreg 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 (Horn. II. 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. — avrcov] put first because 
 correlative to the eig Xpcardv which follows ; in the latter is- finally concen¬ 
 trated the whole heinousness of the offence. 
 
 Ver. 13. Comp. Rom. xiv. 21. The classic dibwep, 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. — fiptiya] any kind of food , indefi¬ 
 nitely. Instead now of saying in the apodosis : “ then I will never more eat 
 of it,” etc., he names the special kind of food fpea) presenting itself in appli¬ 
 cation to the subject discussed, by abstaining from which, at any rate, the 
 use of sacrificial flesh and the onavdalov thereby given would be excluded. — 
 ov fir] (payo] u Accommodat suae personae, ut facilius persuadeat,” Piscator. 
 The expression is not by way of exhortation, but of assurance , “ then I will 
 certainly not eatfi etc. T ovro kg 6i6a.GK.akog apiarog to 61 eavrov wai6eveiv a Myet, 
 Chrysostom. — dig r. aiava] to all eternity, nevermore; hyperbolical mode of 
 expressing the most thorough readiness. Comp, as regards the idea, Rom. 
 xiv. 21. —iva p) k.t.X] 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 ckavSal. and r. aSety. y. 
 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. (z) 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (x) “ Is 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. 
 
 (y) An idol is nothing. Yer. 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 so much the non-existence as the nothingness of the idol 
 which is asserted, it is on the w r hole 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. 
 
 (z) The rule of expediency. Yer. 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 category of adiaphora, 
 which has existed in every system of ethics from the beginning, is simply abol¬ 
 ished. 
 
194 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Ver. 1 . ovk eipi elevQepog ; ovk eipi d?r.] So A B 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, Binck, Beiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 206 ff., Hofmann. But it 
 was very natural to transfer ovk eipi dn. 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. Trig cprjg'] Lachm. Buck. Tisch. read pov rrjg, with B 17, 31, 46, Or. 
 Bightly ; the Recepta is a more precise definition of the meaning inserted in 
 view of ver. 3. Had pov crept in from the to epyov pov in ver. 1, it would have 
 been put after diroGTolrig. — Ver. 6. tov'] is wanting, it is true, in AB D* EG K, 
 17, 46, Isidor., and is deleted consequently by Lachm. and Buck. ; but the 
 omission was very naturally suggested by vv. 4, 5.—Ver. 7. eic tov Kaprrov] 
 Lachm. Buck. Tisch. read tov Kapirov, with ABC* D* F G X*, 17, 46, 137, 
 Sahid. Boern. Tol. Flor. Harl. Vulg. ms. Bede. The Recepta is an alteration 
 in accordance with what follows, made without observing the difference in 
 meaning. — Ver. 8. rj otqy kol k.t./ 1.] There is decisive testimony in favour of 
 p Kai 6 vopog Tama ov ley el ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Buck. 
 Tisch. It was altered because not understood. — Ver. 10. err' eIttlCl tov pete- 
 Xclv] So Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Buck. Tisch., wfith ABC K*, 10, 17, 71, Syr. 
 utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Basclim. Arm. Or. Eus. Cyr. The Recepta again 
 (defended by Beiche) is : r/jg khridog avTov petexclv elncdi. Since, however, 
 this ot’ elirUh is omitted also by D* F G, 46, it has such a weight of evidence 
 against it 1 that it must be rejected at once ; Tr/g k?midog avrov pETt'xciv, again, is 
 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 dlouv after alouv, the en elnidi tov petexclv 
 remained unintelligible, and Trjg elnidog avTov w r as 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. OepiGopev ] CLEF 
 G L, min. Vulg. It. Tlieodoret, have OeplcopEv. So Lachm. on the margin. 
 Tischendorf is right in receiving it into the text ; grammarians took offence at 
 the subjunctive after el .— Ver. 13. There is decisive evidHice for reading 
 napedp. here with Lachm. Buck. Tisch. (approved also by Griesb.), and in ver. 
 15 ov luxpvpaL ovdevl r., with Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Buck. Tisch. — Ver. 15. 
 iva Tig KEvuari] There is great diversity here. B D* K*, Sahid. Baschm. have 
 ovdeig kevugel (so Lachm.). A has ovdslg pr) kevugel (so Buck.). F G, 26, give us 
 ng kevugel. The Recepta, which is specially defended by Beiche, iva rig kevugtj, 
 has only a partial support from C D*** E IK X**, the majority of the mm. 
 and vss., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl. Oec., because most of these 
 
 1 Reiche would attach this addition as standing first, it would obtrude upon 
 (which quite mars the sense in the Recepta) the antithesis something quite foreign to it 
 to the next verse ; hut there, too, especially and unsuitable. 
 
CHAP. IX. 
 
 195 
 
 authorities are in favour of kevuoei, which is adopted by Tiscli. But the 
 Received reading, as well as the rtg kevuhjel, 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 i) to navxvyd ! 10V ovdeig kevuoel. See the exeget. remarks 
 on the verse. — Yer. 16. navxrjya] DEFG N*, It. : Not strongly enough 
 
 attested ; an old gloss in accordance with Luke vi. 32- 34. Instead of yap after 
 oval, Elz. has 6s, but against conclusive evidence. A false correction. There 
 are decisive grounds for reading, with Lachm. and Tisch., EvayyEXioupai in 
 place of the second EvayyeM&yat ; the Becepla is a repetition from the first. — 
 Ver. 18. Elz. and Scholz have tov Xpiorov after evayyeX., in opposition to deci¬ 
 sive evidence. —Ver. 20. p?) cjv avrbg vtto voyov] omitted in Elz., but given by 
 almost all the uncials and many vss. and Fathers. Homoeoteleuton. — Ver. 21. 
 The genitives Qcov and Xpiarov (Elz. and Scholz have the datives) have deci¬ 
 sive testimony in their favour, as KEpdavu Tovg dv. also has (so Lachm. Ruck. 
 Tisch.) ; the Becepta KEpdr/Gu dvopovg was formed upon the model of ver. 20. — 
 Ver. 22. The ug before aoO. is wanting in A B K* 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 
 7T avra (Elz. Scholz) is condemned by a great preponderance of authority. — 
 Ver. 23. rovro’] The most and best of the uncials, with the majority of vss. 
 and Fathers, have re avra ; recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Riick. 
 Tisch. T ovro is a gloss inserted to define the meaning more precisely ; for the 
 same reason Sahid. Arm. read ravra 6e redvra. —Ver. 27. vttcjk So Elz. 
 Lachm. It has such a mass of weighty testimony on its side (ABC D* 
 min. Or. Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Oec.) that the other readings, v-nomafa 
 (FGKL min. Fathers) and iicamifa (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, viroTudfa has been defended of late, especially 
 by Matth. (“ Tna^stv loco ttle&lv 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 or tue£u, but took 
 
 offence at vi rw (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), lie 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. 
 
 Yer. 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 nal avrovg elg papTvpiav nalel, 
 Theodoret.— eXevdepog] free, dependent upon no man. Comp. ver. 19.— 
 •Itjoovv. . . eupatta] 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. 1G,—but to the sight 
 of the glorified Jesus , which w T as first vouchsafed near Damascus to call him 
 to be an apostle (Acts ix. 17, xxii. 14 f., xxvi. 1G ; 1 Cor. xv. 8), and was 
 often repeated afterwards, although in different forms (Acts xviii. 9, xxii. 
 17 f. ; 2 Cor. xii. I). 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. — ev K vp'np] does not belong to epyov ; just as little 
 does it to vpelg (Pott), or to vpelg ears alone (Rtickert), but is meant to bring 
 out the Christian character of the ichole to epyov p. vpelg hare. For out of 
 Christ, in whom (as the objeet 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 K vpiog of God (Beza, Piscator, Flatt, Riick- 
 ert, al., following Chrysostom and Theophylact). Comp. iv. 15. 
 
 Yv. 2, 3. Hot a parenthesis, but a statement interposed in his own de¬ 
 fence, occasioned by ov to epyov k.t.X., and flowing from a heart deeply 
 moved.— aXXotg] i.e. in relation to others, who, not belonging to your com¬ 
 munity, do not own my apostleship as valid for them. 2 “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. ’EneWr) 
 ixera rrj v avaKyppcv rod crcor^pos e/cAr/0-rj, el^or Se 
 86£av oi dn6uro\oL napa. na.cn /ueyicrr/jv (ii; t rj? 
 rod Kvpiov 0ea? rj^uop-evoi, Kal rodro npocrreO- 
 eucev, Theodoret. And it is no 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, al.), see 
 Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 18G4, p. 220 f. 
 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 ecopa/ceVcu and 64>9r)vai (xv. 
 8), since these do not determine the kind of 
 seeing and appearing. Comp. e.g. the use 
 of the latter term in Acts vii. 26 of a bodily 
 appearing. 
 
 2 It 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. G. — ovic elyi] 
 See Winer, p. 446 [E. T. 601J.— allaye] still at least. See Hermann, ad 
 Viger. p. 826. The ys intensifies the alia 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 allaye ever occurs in the classics undivided (without one or 
 more words put between the two particles). See Klotz, l.c. p. 15, and 
 Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 86 E ; Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 831 B.—Taking the 
 reading y yap c<ppay. gov r. clkoct. (see the critical remarks), the meaning is : 
 my seal of apostleship , with the emphasis on cep pay. As to the word itself, 
 see Rom. iv. 11. Theodoret well remarks : anddeit-iv yap tcjv (ittoctoIckIov 
 K arapOupdruv ryv vyerepav yerafUolyv. — ev K vp'up] as in ver. 1 ; it belongs 
 to the whole preceding clause : y eppaytq r. eg. air. vy. ecte. 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). —y kyy anoloy. k.t.1.] 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 avry ectl were absent, 
 or if ecte occurred again .—rolq tpe dvaicp.] to those who institute an inquiry 
 regarding me (comp. Acts xix. 33 ; 2 Cor. xii. 19), who question my apostle- 
 ship. Both enrol, and avanp. are purposely-chosen forensic expressions. 
 Comp, as to the latter, Luke xxiii. 14 ; Acts iv. 9, xii. 19, xxiv. 8, xxviii. 
 18. — avrrf\ this , namely, this fact, that you are the seal of mine inrocToly. 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 1 )—Observe, lastly, the emphasis of kyy 
 and eye, expressive of a well-grounded sense of his own position. 
 
 Ver. 4 f. 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. — yy ova 
 exoyev] 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 , seeing 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 ydvoq 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 ‘ 1 semper et ubique vitari oporteat sed de eo tantum 
 
 Schenkel makes them of the Christ-party. were not anti-Pauline, and the express con- 
 Hofmann explains the expression from the trast here is with the among whom 
 
 difference between the anoaTokr) n-ept- must be included the Jewish-Christians who 
 Top.T}s and that tt}? a»cpo^u<rrias. But that is were in Corinth, 
 going too far; for all circumcised Christians 
 
198 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corinthiaxs. 
 
 quod in cam noxii scandali infirmorum fratrum vitandum est.” — (payeiv 
 k. nieiv] 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 tov (Matt. ix. 
 6 ; Mark ii. 10, al.). — aSehtygv yvv. nepiay.] to lead about (along with me on 
 my official journeys) a sister (a female believer) as a wife. The view taken 
 by several of the Fathers (see Aug. de op. Monach. iv. 5, Jerome, Tiveg in 
 Theodoret, Theophylact ; comp, generally, Suicer, Thes. I. p. 810), that a 
 serviens matrona is meant (so also Erasmus, Cornelius a 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. 1 It has, however, 
 been still defended of late by Roman Catholic writers (Maier) on wholly 
 insufficient grounds. On TtepiayEiv, comp. Xen. Gyr. ii. 2. 28 ; it occurs 
 oftener in the middle, as Xen. Mein. i. 7. 2 ; Polyb. xx. 5. 8. — wf me oi 
 loin. a7r.) It does not follow from this that all 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 1 ) — 
 mi oi adstyot tov K vpiov] 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. 1G 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. 
 8 ; Mark iii. 21. The aSelcpoi tov K vpiov, 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 uterine 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 2 
 runs counter to what was formerly the common view, namely, that of Je¬ 
 rome, which still prevails with Roman Catholics, and is supported by Hengs- 
 tenberg and others, that the phrase denoted the sons of Christ's mother's sis- 
 
 1 Valla perceived rightly “ fuisse aposto- 2 Which is held also by de Wette, Billroth, 
 los suas uxores 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)! 
 
CIIAP. IX., G. 
 
 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” (nx 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. Zeitolter , 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 hery?rs£-born (Matt. J. 25 ; 
 Luke ii. 7), but as her only child. Lange is wrong here in making the mi 
 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 i. 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 : ll a?id, i.e. and, to mention him in particular by name, Cephas so 
 that it is only the last mi , and not the second as well (as Hofmann, too, 
 maintains), that carries the force of special distinction (Fritzsche, ad Marc. 
 p. 11) ; comp. Mark xvi. 7. —The design of the whole question, yy ovk ex- 
 ei-ov a. adeXcj). y. 7 -., 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 Trepiayeiv : “ Am I 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. I. p. 330. 
 
 Yer. 6. V H] or, i.e. unless it icere true that, etc. In that case, indeed, the 
 egovaia, of which I spoke in vv. 4, 5, must of course be wanting ! We have 
 therefore no third eijovoia introduced here (Pott, Rtickert), but y conveys an 
 argument, as it usually does. — B apvafiag] 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. ii. 9). — rov yy epyaCA Have 
 we not the right to cease from icorlcing ? 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 novoy) claimed support from the resources of the 
 churches. ’E pya^eaQai is the word constantly used used for working, 2Thess. 
 iii. 8 ; Acts xviii. 3 ; Homer, II. 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 yf). 
 
200 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to tiie corixthiaxs. 
 
 Yer. 7. Proof of this apostolic right rov prj epyafcdai 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,” Bengcl. Comp. 2 
 Cor. x. 3 ff.; Matt. xx. 1 ; John x. 12 ; Acts xx. 28 ; Eph. iv. 5. —idioig 
 oip.] i.e. so that he pays his own wages (Luke iii. 14 ; Rom. vi. 23).—The dif¬ 
 ference of construction in the two clauses with egBiei (rov napirov, see the 
 critical remarks, and then el), is to be regarded as simply an accidental 
 change in the form of conception, without diversity in the substance of the 
 thought. With e/c (comp. Ecclus. xi. 17 ; Tob. i. 10, al.) the expression is 
 partitive ; in using the accusative 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 Rosenmuller, Morgenl. VI. p. 97. 
 
 Yer. 8. Transition to the proof from Scripture of the above k^ovaia. —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 a man (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 f Is 
 it silent concerning this principle ? Does it contain no statement of it ? — 
 Kara avBp.] The opposite of this is Kara rov vd.uov rov Qeov. Comp, on Rom. 
 iii. 5 ; Gal. iii. 15. Theodoret gives the idea correctly : el fie rim avOpumvog 
 elvai ravra <5 okei loyiaybg, aKoverio rov voyov diapprjdrjv Siayopevovrog. — rf\ 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. — mi\ too ; the law is conceived of as the higher 
 authority coming in over and above the individual lala. — ov] negatives 
 the leyei ; see the critical remarks. Comp. ver. 7. — As to the difference 
 to be noticed between ha ?m and leyu, see on Rom. iii. 19 ; John viii. 43. 
 
 Ver. 9. rap] introduces the answer which is to prove that the ravra ov leyei 
 does not hold good. — rd> MwDcr. v6p(f\ carries a certain solemnity, as coming 
 after 6 vdyog 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 ( <piy6g , loj/uog), which used to be 
 done among heathen nations (Varro, i. 25 ; Cato, de re rust. 54). See 
 Michaelis, Mos. R. III. § 130. 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. 3.— (piyuGeig] — KTjykaeig, 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 Kpyovv, to muzzle , comp. Xen. de re 
 eg. v. 3 ; Poll. i. 202. As to the future with the force of an imperative 
 (thou wilt —that I expect of thee— not muzzle an ox in the thrashing-floor ), see 
 on Matt. i. 21. — Beginning with flq rkv (3otiv, 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 Hyei, first of all, negatively : God does not surely concern Himself about 
 oxen? To modify 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. G, 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 6C yyag. Ov yap inrep ruv ahoyuv 6 voyog, ahTC vTcep rcov vovv k. 
 Adyov ex6vtuv, Philo, de Sacrif. p. 251. Manifestly in this way the apostle sets 
 aside 1 the actual historical sense of that prohibition (Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 
 21) in behalf of an allegorical sense, 2 which, from the standpoint of a purely 
 historic interpretation, is nothing but an application made ‘ ‘ a minori *ad 
 majus” (comp. Bara Mezia , f. 88). But this need not surprise ifs, 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 this 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. IT), 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 1 ) 
 
 Ver. 10. Or —since that cannot be supposed—is this the true state of the 
 case, that He saith it altogether for our salces? — rvavrcog] in the sense of in any 
 case , wholly , absolutely , as in v. 10, ix. 22 ; see the remarks there. Ooinp. 
 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) : ug 
 etti byo\oyovykvov tcSelkev, Iva pi) cryx^pyay yyS’ onovv clvteltce'lv rw aicpoary. — 
 di’ yyag] 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 yyetg in ver. 11, since it is an entire¬ 
 ly arbitrary assumption to make the latter word have a different subject from 
 our yyag. — 7dyei\ sc. 6 Qsog supplied from the foregoing clause, not y ypatyy 
 (Olshausen). — yap ] as in ver. 9. — eypacpy] namely, the utterance of the law 
 cited in ver. 9.—on] cannot have an argumentative force (Luther, Beza, 
 
 1 Not simply generalizes (Kling in the Stud, 
 u. Krit. 1839, p. 834 f.; comp. Neander), nor 
 “ subordinates the one to the other ” (Osiander), 
 nor the like, which run counter to the plain 
 meaning of the words. Luther’s gloss, too, 
 
 goes astray with a naive simplicity of its 
 own: “ God cares for all things; but He 
 does not care that anything should be writ¬ 
 ten for oxen, seeing that they cannot read." 
 
 2 Comp, also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 296. 
 
Paul’s first epistle to the corixthians. 
 
 202 
 
 Calvin, and others, among whom is Ncander); nor is it the simple that of 
 quotation (Ruckert, who indeed looks upon what follows as cited from some 
 apocryphal book, in wdiich Ewald concurs with him), so that eypap/ w T ould 
 refer to the next clause,—but it is explicative merely (Castalio, Pott, de 
 Wette, Osiander, al n comp, also Hofmann), setting forth the typico-allegor- 
 ical contents of these words of the law in so far as they were written 6i’ r/yag, 
 that is, for the Christian teachers: namely , that the plougher is hound to plough 
 in hope , and the thrasher (is bound to thrash) in hope of having his share. The 
 alouv and the aporpiuv is thus no other than the gospel teacher , as necessa¬ 
 rily follows from dtl r/yag ; 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 yeupyiov 
 Qeov (iii. 9), without, however, the two words being intended to signify dif¬ 
 ferent 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 hound 1 to exercise his office of teaching , in hope to have profit there¬ 
 from. Ovbev ovv ETspov to croya ani/puTov ov tov £6ov tovtov j3oa ?/ otl rovg fiidacr- 
 nalovg rovg Trovovvrag del nai apotflf/g cnroAavEiv , Chrysostom. It is a mistake to 
 apply the words, as is commonly done, to the literal 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 biSdanalog otyetleL aporpiav k. kottlclv £tt’ elnridL ayoLftrjg 
 avriyiG&iag. — ctt’ kinifii] has the chief emphasis, and belongs to oLpeilei, being 
 its conditioning basis (as in Kom. 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. — tov yeTExeiv] 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 otl pet^ova layfiavovaiv r/ diddauLv, Chrysostom ; an argument a 
 majori ad minus. — i/yelg] 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 (honeipayer), Acts xviii. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 19. — 
 rjpelg vylv ] An emphatic juxtaposition, the emphasis of which is further 
 heightened by the rjyeig vucjv which follows. — ra nvevyaTiKa] spiritual things , 
 
 1 ’0<^ctAet debet (Vulgate). Hofmann goes the sense of being/ entitled , as if he read 
 against linguistic usage in turning it into fihcaios eari, or something to that effect. 
 
203 
 
 CHAP. IX., 12. 
 
 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 ra capauid , 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. 27: — yvya] res magni momenti , Xen. Cyrop. 
 vii. 5. 52, Anab. vii. 7. 27. It means here, from the connection : some¬ 
 thing disproportionate. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15.— ■&epiou/uev] see the critical 
 remarks. The subjunctive after d “respectum comprehendit experientiae” 
 (Hermann, de partic. av , p. 97) ; see regarding this idiom on Luke ix. 13, 
 and Hermann, ad Tiger, 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. 
 
 Yer. 12. Confirmation from the example of others. — a?Aoi] other teachers 
 generally, who came into the church after the apostle and his associates 
 (comp. iii. 10), and who w T ere 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. Rut there was, 
 in fact, no other apostle whatever among the rest of the Corinthian 
 teachers .—rrjg vyuv k^ovo.'] the authority over youj i.e. according to the 
 context : the right (d 1 ) to claim their support from you. 'Y ptiv is thus 
 the genitivus objecti (as in ver. 6, comp. John xvii. 2 ; Matt. x. 1, al .), 
 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 wmrd in the sense of means (Schulz, with Castalio, Sal- 
 meron, Zeltner, Ewalcl), i.e. resources , which are at your command, may be 
 justified by classical usage (Plato, Legg. viii. p. 828 D ; Time. i. 38. 3, vi. 
 31. 4), but not by that of the X. T., and is excluded here by the scope of 
 w r hat 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. Conjectures (such as that of Olearius : r/ytiv, 
 which is actually the reading of 2. 52, and to which Riickert and Xeander 
 too are inclined ; or that of Cappellus and Locke : ovciaf are quite super¬ 
 fluous. — The second alia is opposed to the ovk exPVQ- Comp. Horn. il. i. 
 26 f. ; Plato, Sympos. p. 211 E, and often elsewhere .—ydllov ] potius , we 
 the founders of your church. —tt avra creyoycv] 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 yrj kyKoir. k.t.1.] 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 first: over you , who are surely to them. 
 
 / 
 
204 
 
 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 \ 
 
 mended and furthered by such an example of noble self-denial ! Respect¬ 
 ing ir/HOTCT}, comp. Dion. Hal. de comp. verb. p. 157, 15. 
 
 Vv. 13, 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, tyw de . . . rovruv repeats the contrast to this. 
 —The first of the two parallel halves of ver. 13, 1 which together describe 
 the lepareveiv (Luke i. 7), characterizes the priests generally : oi ra iepa epyaC,., 
 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” (tt pooedp. and napedp., 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 ra iepa , res sacrae , i.e. what belongs to the 
 divine cultus, comp. 3 Macc. iii. 21 (according to the true reading) ; 
 Demosth. 1300. 6 ; and often elsewhere in the classics. They eat firom 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 : “ altaris 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 w r ere not rd 
 iepa epya^S/uevoi, but only lepodovhoi (3 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 
 include the Levites here (against de Wette, Osiander, Maier, al.). Ruckert 
 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 iepdv and the dvoiacT. are simply /car’ 
 H°XV v y those of Israel (Rom. ix. 4) ; and how could he otherwise have said 
 ovtu ml k.t.1 ., ver. 14, seeing that the heathen priestly institute was by no 
 means of divine appointment ? For these reasons we cannot even say, wfith 
 Ewald, that the words refer primarily indeed to Hum. xviii., but are 
 couched in such a general form as to apply also to the priests in the heathen 
 temples. The mention of rip tivciacT/jp. is especially opposed to this inter¬ 
 pretation, since for Paul there can be but the one altar ; comp. x. 18. — 
 gvtcj ml 6 Iv vpiog /c.r./L] so , i.e. in accordance with the relation of things 
 stated in ver. 13, hath the Lord also, etc. '0 Kvptoc 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 mi, again, the command of 
 Christ is linked to the foregoing relations under the O. T. economy , with 
 
 1 The paraphrastic description of the 
 priests from their employments serves to 
 make the representation uniform with that 
 in ver. 14. The double designation, however, 
 brings out the analogy with the Christian 
 teachers in a 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. l.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 : ovru nut roig to evayy. narayy. 6 Kvpiog Sura^e. — For ex¬ 
 amples of the idiom t,fjv be, see Kypke. 
 
 Ver. 15. ’Eyw Paul now reverts to the individual way of expressing 
 himself (ver. 3), effecting thereby a lively climax 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. —ovSevl rovrov] none of these things; Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 Estius, Riickert, al., make this refer to the grounds of the k^ovoia in question 
 which have been hitherto adduced. But there is no reason why w T e should 
 not refer it simply to the immediately preceding statement as to the ordi¬ 
 nance of Christ regarding the be rov evayyeliov £yv. Of what belongs to that 
 ordinance (food, drink, money, clothing, etc., see Acts xx. 33)—of none of 
 these things ( rovrov ) had Paul availed himself. How common it is for 
 Greek writers also to use ravra of a single thing, when considered in its dif¬ 
 ferent component elements, may be seen in Kiihner, § 423, note ; Stallbaum, 
 ad Plat. Apol. Soc. p. 19 D. Hofmann holds that the u facts from the history 
 of redemption ,” cited in vv. 13, 14, are meant. But ovSevt implies that what 
 is referred to is a multitude of things, which is summed up in rovrov. — 
 Observe the use of the 'perfect ksxpvp- to describe a continuous course of 
 action. It is different with expyeag. in ver. 12.—A full stop should be put 
 after rovrov ; for w T ith ovk eypaijm Sc ravra (all from ver. 4 to ver. 15) there 
 begins a new section in the apostle’s address. — Iva ovro /c.t./L] 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) should he done 
 in my case (comp. Luke xxiii. 31 ; Matt. xvii. 12). — gal?wv] potius, namely, 
 than let myself be supported (not mag is, Vulgate). — ?) to icavxyga gov ovSeig 
 nevboei] (see the critical remarks) expresses what is to take place, if the 
 airodavelv does not ensue. That is to say, the y cannot here be the than of 
 comparison, 1 as it would be were we to adopt the Recepta, which in fact has 
 just arisen from men failing rightly to understand this ij. It means u autf 
 or otherwise (comp. vii. 11 ; Acts xxiv. 20), equivalent to d Si gy, and so 
 specifying “ what icill 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, l.c. What Paul says is : u Rather is it 
 
 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 rj, breaking off there 
 to exclaim with triumphant certainty: My 
 Kavxvn* no man xoill make void! According 
 to this, we should have to supply a dash 
 after rj, and take what follows indepen¬ 
 dently. I now regard this interpretation— 
 
 although approved by Winer, p. 532 [E. T. 
 715]—as too bold, being without analogy in 
 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 forme to die, i.e. rather is death beneficial for me, or otherwise, if this 
 a-rrotiavelv is not to ensue and I therefore am to remain alive, no one is to make 
 my glory mid. Comp, as to this asseveration, 2 Cor. xi. 10. —to navxypa gov 
 n.T.y l.] i.e. 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 (navxgga here too means materies glori- 
 andi, as in v. 6 and always). Lachmann’s conjecture (Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 
 p. 839, and Praef. p. xii.), which is adopted by Billroth : vy to navxygd gov' 
 ovtitig kevugei (comp. xv. 31), breaks up the passage unnecessarily ; and the 
 same meaning would be arrived at more easily and simply, w r ere we merely 
 to write ?; with the circumflex, in the sense of sane, which is so common in 
 the classics (Baeumlein, Pdrtik. p. 119 f.) : in truth, no one will make my 
 glory void. But this use of rj does not occur in the N. T. Ruckert’s opinion 
 is, that what we find in the old mss . gives no sense at all ; 1 we cannot tell 
 what Paul actually wrote ; but that the best [how far ?] of what we have to 
 choose from is the Pecepta. Ewald, too, and Hofmann, follow the latter.— 
 It does not follow from ver. 14 that by cnro&avelv we are to understand pre¬ 
 cisely death lay 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 avrl rov £yv aTro&vT/oKEiv evkXeuc, Isocr. Evag. 1. The apostle’s 
 Kavxvm would have been made empty (kevugel), if he had been brought to a 
 course of action wdiereby 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 KEvzavxy ? (Homer, II. viii. 230). ( e 1 ) 
 
 Ycr. 10. Why Paul has every reason (yap) to hold his icavxgga 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 .—avdyny yap got etvIk.] sc. evayyeXfecd-aL, as is proved by what 
 goes before. Comp. .Homer, II. vi. 458 : Kparcp?) 6' ettikeiget' avdyurj, and the 
 common phrase in the classics : avaynyv ETU’&elvai. — oval yap pot early] Comp. 
 LXX. in Hos. ix. 12. Woe betides him, i.e. God’s threatened judgment 
 will fulfil itself upon him (in the coming day of judgment), if he shall not 
 have preached the gospel (EvayyePiGogai, see the critical remarks) ; from this 
 is evident (yap) how the dvdynr/ arises, namely, that he ?nust preach ; he can¬ 
 not give it up, without incurring eternal destruction. 
 
 Ver. 17 f. The sentence immediately preceding this verse, oval yap . . . 
 evayy., was merely a thought interposed, a logical parenthesis, to the con¬ 
 tents of which Paul does not again refer in what followxs. Inver. 17 f., 
 accordingly, with its yap, the reference is not to this preceding sentence 
 oval k.t.1., so as to establish it by way of dilemma (which w T as my former 
 
 1 The readings of B D* X* and A give the evacuat”), give the plain and good sense : 
 
 above sense ; F G again, with their ns sevA- for it is better for me to die (than that such a 
 
 o-ei, in which it is simplest to take the ns as thing should happen in my case); or who 
 
 an interrogative (comp. Boerner : “ quis will bring my glory to nought ? 
 

 chap, ix., 17. 207 
 
 interpretation), but to avayajj yoi ettike irai 7 ver. 1G (comp, de Wette, Osiander, 
 Hofmann), and that indeed in so far as these latter words icere set down to 
 confirm the previous assertion , eav EvayyeX'fo/Liai, ovk egtl not navxv ua - The cor¬ 
 rectness of this reference of the yap which introduces ver. 17 f., is confirmed 
 by the fact that the leading conceptions in the argument of ver. 17 f., to 
 wit, ekuv and cikuv, are correlative to the conception of avaynr/ in ver. 1G. 
 The yap in ver. 17 thus serves to justify the second yap in ver. 1G, as we 
 often find, both in Greek writers and in the N. T., yap repeated in such a 
 significant correlation as we find here (see Fritzsche, ad Bom. II. p. 110 f.). 
 In order to prove that he has rightly established his previous statement eav 
 . . . Kavx’nycL by adding avayurj yap pot, ETriKetrac, the apostle argues, starting 
 now from the opposite of that avdynrj , and therefore e contrario , as follows : 
 “ For supposing that I carry on my preaching (tovto Trpaooio) .of free self-de¬ 
 termination , then I have a reward , of which, consequently, I can glory ; but 
 if I do it not of my own free icill (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, rig 
 ovv k.t./ 1.) involves no reward for me.”—From this simple course of thought 
 —in which the yccOuv ex « refers to the certain possession hereafter of the 
 Messianic reward, 1 and is conceived as the more specially defined contents of 
 the mvxw a i n VGr - 16,—it wfill be seen that the apodosis of the second half 
 of ver. 17 is oiKovoyiav :KE-KiorevyaL , that these words, consequently, should 
 neither be put in a parenthesis nor attached to the protasis (so Knatchbull, 
 Semler, Hofmann—comp, also his Schriftbeweis , II. 2, p. 332) by reading el 
 <5e clkuv ohiov. TCETZLGTEvyaL together, to which rig ovv k.t.X. would then become 
 the apodosis ; 2 —a view under which the significant bearing of the purpose¬ 
 ly chosen phrase olicov. KEiriGTEvyai is entirely lost sight of. Billroth, failing 
 to recognize how essential el 6e clkov, oik. 'kvk'lgt. is to the argument, makes 
 it parenthetical, and understands anuv (with Bengel, Zachariae, and Schulz) 
 as meaning non gratis , which is contrary to the signification of the word. 
 Many expositors render ek6v and clkuv by “ with joy and gladness''' 1 and “ with 
 reluctance' 1 ' 1 (so Calovius, Piscator, Estius, Kypke, Rosenmuller, Flatt, Pott, 
 al.; comp, also Ewald); but this runs counter to the fact that, as rig ovv 
 . . . fucOog 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 (sf avayKrjg ukuv, Plato, Legg. v. 734 B),—- 
 
 1 On ju.u70ov ex eLV > comp. Matt. vi. 1. It is 
 the opposite of oval /xoi eo-rtV, and hence 
 ixmjQos cannot mean the reward which lies 
 in the very action itself, namely, the self- 
 satisfaction to which it gives rise (Hof¬ 
 mann). 
 
 2 As regards the ovv of the apodosis, see 
 on Eom. 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 V&v k.t. A.). Moreover, it.is 
 a special peculiarity of Herodotus to put 
 ovv before the apodosis ; whereas, with 
 Paul, it occurs only in Romans loc. 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 corinthiahs. 
 
 but, notwithstanding, pursued his work with heart and hand. — olaovofiav 
 ttettlot. ] o'ucov. has significant emphasis ; as to the construction, comp. Rom. 
 iii. 2 ; Gal. ii. 7. If I preach clkuv, so Paul holds, then the apostleship, 
 with wdiich 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 (ovv) 
 that no reward awaits me (this being the negative sense of rig . . . giodog ; 
 comp. Matt. v. 46 ; Rom. vi. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 32) ; for a steward—conceived 
 of as a slave 1 —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 ohc. 
 tt£ 7T. are inserted by themselves ; thus Pott explains, “ nihilosecius peragen- 
 dum est,” comp. Schulz, Rosenmuller, Flatt, Schrader, Meander, and older 
 interpreters ; wdiile 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 rig ovv. To suppose a middle clause omitted be¬ 
 fore this sentence (with Meander, who would insert, “ How am I am now 
 to prove that I do it of my own free will ?”) is to make a purely arbitrary 
 interruption in the passage. — 6 /Luo'&og] the befitting reward. Neither here 
 nor in the first clause is \ua$6g the same as kcivxv, ua (Pott, Ruckert, Ewmld, 
 al.) ; but it is vieyved as standing in the relation of the inducing cause to 
 that koTi got aavxn/J-a, 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 is, 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 olfence, but not 
 as implying surplus merit. The latter notion is discovered in the text by 
 Cornelius a Lapide and others. 
 
 Yer. 18. "Iva] is taken by Grotius as meaning if by Luther and most in¬ 
 terpreters—among w T hom are Ruckert, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald—as 
 used in place of the exegetical infinitive, so that it gives the answer to the 
 foregoing question. 2 The first of these renderings is linguistically incor- 
 
 1 This is not an arbitrary assumption (as 2 Wetstein, with whom Baur agrees, re- 
 Ilofmann objects), since it is well enough marks: “argute dictum, nullum mercedem 
 known that the oi/coroyxot were, as a rule, accipere, haec mea merces est.” But had 
 slaves. Paul intended any such point, he must have 
 
209 
 
 chap, ix., 19-22. 
 
 rect ; the second would have to he referred to the conception : u I ought 
 etc., but yet does not suit the negation : “ I have therefore no rewardf which 
 had its animated expression in the question : rig ovv /c.r.A. It is much 
 better to interpret Iva evayy. k.t.1. 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 ohcovoyia, and consequently made him worthy of reward, 
 which the work of the ohcovdyog, 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 di’ ov). The iva is 
 used here, as so often in the N. T., to indicate the divine teleology (Winer, p. 
 427 [E. T. 573]).— ei>ayye?u £. adcnr. dyao ro evayy.) i.e. 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 rWyui, 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 riOevat x^P iV i or with 
 Pott : to set before them (as spiritual food). "Iva, with the future indicative, 
 conveys the idea of continuance. See Matthiae, p. 1186. Among the older 
 Greek writers oTztog (also o<ppa) is ordinarily used in this connection (Matthiae, 
 l.c. ; Kiihner, II. p. 490), while this use of iva is, to say the least, very 
 doubtful (see against Elmsley, ad Eur. Batch, p. 164, Hermann, ad Soph. 
 Oed. Col. 155 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 629 f.) in the N. T. again, and with 
 later authors it is certain (Winer, p. 271 [E. T. 361] ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. 
 p. 202 [E. T. 234]). — eig ro uy naraxp •] aim of his adarc. rtOevai to evayy.: 
 in order not to make use of. To understand naraxp- 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. — h rip evayy.] i.e. in do- 
 cendo evangelio. —The et-ovoia yov is not exclusively that indicated in ver. 4, 
 but the apostolic prerogative generally, although in application to this par¬ 
 ticular point. 
 
 Yv. 19-22. Confirmation of this eig to yy naraxp • r. ^ P ov by hi* s practical 
 procedure in other matters, which was such, that not to renounce the use 
 of that egovoia would simply be to contradict himself ; it would be a gross 
 inconsistency. — en navriov] Masc. It belonged to the apostolic e^ovola 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 a,uio-0o? or a/Juo-OC. He would evayy., or somethin" similar, if lie had put 
 possibly have written 'iva. a^icrtfo? to iva at all instead of the infinitive. 
 
210 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the coiuntiiians. 
 
 the converse of this was the only one logically tenable by the apostle). 1 
 Notwithstanding, Paul had made himself a bondsman to all , accommodat¬ 
 ing himself to their necessities in self-denial to serve them. It is only here 
 that ekevdepog occurs with ek ; elsewhere (Rom. vii. 3 ; comp. Rom. vi. 18, 
 22, viii. 2, 21) and in Greek writers with arco. —rovg t rkeiovag] i.e. according 
 to the context : the greater part of the nav-reg, not : more than are convert¬ 
 ed by others (Hofmann), (f 1 ) Comp. x. 5. By acting otherwise he would 
 have won, it might be, only individuals here and there. — /cepA/cro] namely, 
 for 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 0600 in ver. 22. Comp. Matt, 
 xviii. 15 ; 1 Pet. iii. 1. Regarding the form enepSqaa, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 740. 
 
 Yer. 20. Explanation in detail of the preceding verse (kcil 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. 3, 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. — 
 toIq vito vbyov ] to those under the law / not really different from roig ’I ovfiaiotg, 
 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 vi to vdpov. 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, al.; 
 Theophylact is undecided which of the two to prefer, comp, also Chrysostom ; 
 Lightfoot and Ileydenreich adopt the third. — yq ijv avrog vtto voyov ] although 
 I myself (for my own part) am not, etc., a caveat very naturally arising from 
 liis 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 TouJaZof .—rovg vtto v 6 y .] The 
 article denotes the class of men in question. 
 
 Yer. 21. ToZ^ avdyoig ] i.e. to the heathen, Rom. ii. 12. Comp. Suicer, Thes. 
 I. p. 366. —uc avoyog ] 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 re? ovv ju.cn eo-riv 6 jutcr- from claiming support. This view is con¬ 
 dos 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. Pclus. ed. Paris, 1638, p. 186. — py hv k.t.2,.] must similarly be re¬ 
 garded not exactly as a defence of himself (Grotius, Ruckert), 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 rolg avdpoig ug avopog , always recognized his subjection to the divine 
 v6fj,og revealed in Christ. In spite, therefore, of his thus condescending to 
 the avduoig , he was by no means one without legal obligation to God (no 
 avopog 0 cov 1 ), 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 vopog tov Tzveyparog /cat ryg x^p^og (Chrysos¬ 
 tom), and was to him accordingly the higher analogue of the Venerated 
 vdpog (Rom. iii. 27), which has its fulfilment in love (Rom. xiii. 10) ; comp. 
 Gal. vi. 2. The two genitives Oeov and Xpicrov denote simply in relation to , 
 in my position towards ; they thus give to the two notions avopog and evvopog 
 their definite reference. 
 
 Yer. 22. The aedeveig are Christians weak as yet in discernment and moral 
 power (viii. 7 ff. ; Rom. xiv. 1, xv. 1 ; Acts xx. 35 ; 1 Tliess. v. 14). The 
 terms tcepdycto and edeu 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 (Ruckert, de 
 "VVette, Osiander, Hofmann), is against the formal use of oi aedeveig, and can¬ 
 not be justified by Rom. v. 6. Comp, also 2 Cor. xi. 29. — dig aedevyg'] 
 “perinde quasi simili tenerer imbecillitate,” Erasmus, Paraphr. —rolg Traci 
 k.t.1.] to all (with whom I had to do) I hare become all , have suited myself 
 to them in all ways according to their circumstances. Comp, as regards 
 Trdvra yivecdaf 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 cvyKara^acig 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 Ruckert’s unfavourable judg¬ 
 ment. Augustine puts it well : “non mentientis actus, sed compatientis 
 
 1 Hofmann’s conjecture, that Paul wrote 
 ©e<p (followin'? it, however, with Xpio-roO), 
 has virtually no critical foundation, and is 
 wholly devoid of exegetical basis. Hof¬ 
 mann explains the passage as if he read 
 fwoju.0? XpioToO ovk ai'ofj.oT ©eci), making 
 Paul say of “ his being shut up in 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 7rai’Ta ytVecnJat nvi, which means instar 
 omnium fieri alicni , as in Xen. Eph. ii. 13; 
 comp. Locella in loc ., p. 209. 
 
212 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 affectus — navrur] in any case (comp, on ver. 10, and Plato, Phaedr. p. 
 266 D ; 2 Macc. iii. 13 ; 3 Macc. i. 15 ; the reverse of ov6apug, Plato, Soph. 
 p. 240 E ; comp, the frequent phrase navvy navvug, Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
 Phaed. p. 78 D). 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 7r Xdoveg of ver. 19, whom it was his design to win as there summarily 
 set forth. — 0600 ] make them partakers in the Messianic (salvation, vii. 16, 
 x. 33 ; Rom. ix. 27, al. Not different in substance from Kcp 6 yau, but strong¬ 
 er and more specific, as was suitable in expressing the final result. Comp. 
 
 1 Tim. iv. 16. 
 
 Ver. 23. Tlawa 6 c noiu] quite general ; note all that I do is done for the 
 gospel’s sake. —iva avyuoiv. avrov yev.~\ Epexegesis of 6 ia to evayy. : in order 
 that I may become a fellow-partaker therein, ( g 1 ) Comp, on ovyuoiv ., 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 
 wdiich forms the real 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- 
 ingof the gospel. But the aim here stated corresponds to the /3pa/3dov in ver. 
 24. The inward salvation of the moral life again (Sender and Pott) is only 
 the ethical path of development, whereby men ultimately reach the ovyKoivu- 
 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 Isthmian 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, 
 Wolf, all), 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. — to (3paj3dov~\ Ticycrai 6c ovvo to 6i66ycvov y'epag rep vinycavvi 
 ), and pev tg)v 6i6ovtuv avvo fiia/Sevruv /3pa/3eiov, and 6c tuv a6?iovvvo)v 
 aOlov , Scholiast on Pindar, 01. i. 5. Ircpog 6c cgtl tov ayuvog (the Isthmian) 
 nLTvg {pine), to 6c avenadev odXiva (not ivy, but parsley) nal avrov yv oveepavog, 
 Scholiast on Pindar, Isthm. vno&ccng ; comp. Plutarch, qu. symp. v. 3, and 
 see Boeckh and Dissen, ad Pind. 01. xiii. 33 ; Hermann, gottesdienstl. Al- 
 terth. § 50. 27, ed. 2. In the application (!Iva Kaval.), we are to understand 
 the future Messianic salvation which all may reach. Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12. — 
 ovro rpcxcTc, Iva ] should not be rendered, as it is by most expositors, 11 so 
 
chap, ix., 25-27. 
 
 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 eig with the plural /caraAa/fyre. 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), (h 1 ) There is no need for the arbitrary insertion of the 
 idea : “ as is necessary , in order that,” etc. (Hofmann). 
 
 Yer. 25. As] marks the transition to the course of conduct observed by 
 any competitor for a prize. — The emphasis is on nag. It is from it that the 
 conclusion is then drawn in ver. 26, eyk roivviA — 6 ayuvfoy.] used as a sub¬ 
 stantive. The statement is as to what every competitor does to prejuare him¬ 
 self for his struggle ; incdl respects he exercises self-control ( kynpar ., see on vii. 
 9). The word aycovt&o&ai denotes every kind of competition, and includes 
 therefore the more specific rpex £l v (comp. Herod, v. 22 ; Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 
 27 : ayuviCec&ai aradiov). Regarding the abstinence (especially from wfine, 
 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 ; 
 Rosenmuller, Morgenl. VI. p. 97 f. ; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 50. 16 f. — 
 Tcavra] Accusative of more precise definition. See Lobeck, ad Aj. 1402. 
 Comp. ix. 25. — ekeIvol yev ovv /c.r.A.] illi quidem igitur , to wit, the competi¬ 
 tors proper. — yysig] U)e Christians. The navra EynpaTEVEod-cu holds of both 
 the ayuvit^oyevoi, 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 iravra eynpaTevovrcu, is assumed by Paul, speaking from his ideal 
 point of view, as a thing of course. 
 
 Yv. 26, 27. So run I then , seeing that I, for my part, according to 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 a runner and combatant) before his readers as a pattern. Respecting 
 the following roivvv , which Paul has only in this passage, comp. Luke xx. 
 25 ; Heb. xiii. 13 ; Hartung, Partik. II. p. 349 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 251 f. 
 — ova adpAug] sc. rpixuv. The word means unapparent, not clear, reverse of 
 7 rpodr/hog. 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 mars who acts, hopes, etc., is himself not clear, but uncertain 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. Track. 667 ; Dem. 
 416. 4 ; Polyb. xxx. 4. 17, viii. 3. 2, vi. 56. 11, iii. 54. 5 : aSr/iog ett ifiamg ; 
 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. Yulgate, “non in incertum Chrysostom : npog okotzov 
 TL va (3Xekuv, ova eikti nai yarr/v, Phil. iii. 14, /card gkotzov dicjiao etzi to (3paj3£tov, 
 Bengel, “ Scio quod petam et quomodo,” Melanchtlion, “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. Evvald : “not as in the dark, but 
 as in the sight of all. Still this does not correspond so well with the parallel 
 <bg ovk aepa dlpcov, 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.— ovk 
 aepa fiepov] The boxer ought to strike his opponent, and not, missing him, 
 to beat the air, to deal strokes in air. Comp, the German phrase, 11 in's 
 Blaue hinein.” See Eustath. ad II. p. 663, 17, and the instances given by 
 Wetstein. Comp. Theophilus, ad Autol. iii. 1. The context (see above on 
 afiip l.) 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 {muapaxia). Resjoecting the ovk in this 
 passage, see Winer, p. 452 [E. T. 609]. — all’ vnoTufio k.t.1 .] but I beat my 
 body blue ,—alteration of the construction, in order to make the thohglit 
 stand out in a more independent way ; comp, on vii. 37. The alia, how¬ 
 ever, can have the effect only of presenting what is here stated as the oppo¬ 
 site of aepa (Upov, not as that whereby a man simply prepares himself for the 
 contest (Hofmann, comp. Pott). Paul regards his own body (the cti/ua Tf/g 
 capKog , Col. ii. 11, the seat of the nature opposed to God, of the law in his 
 members, comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 23) as the adversary {avTa-yuvicTqg), against 
 whom he fights with an energetic and successful vehemence, just as a boxer 
 beats the face of his opponent black and blue (respecting inruTnfieiv, comp, 
 on Luke xviii. 5, and Bos, Exercitt. 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 rag Trpa^eig rov akyarog ■davarovv in Rom. viii. 13 ; comp. 
 Col. iii. 5. The result of the inruTrcfico k.t.1. is, that the body becomes sub¬ 
 missive to the moral will, 1 yea, the members become weapons of righteous¬ 
 ness (Rom. vi. 13). Hence Paul adds further : k. dovlayuyo), I make it a 
 slave (Diodorus, xii. 24 ; Theophrastus, Ep. 36 ; Theophyl. Simoc. Ep. 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. — alio eg KTjpv^ag] 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 Krjp. 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 icith 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. 1 — add/ayog] 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 , —fij rove d/Jnvc to 6eov avroc tov tTaqvq tcjv ayuvuv 
 
 TravTcXo)^ dta/uapra), Theodoret. (i 1 ) 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (a 1 ) Paul's defence. Yer. 3. 
 
 The Bevised Yersion 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 1 ) “ Power to lead about a wife." Yer. 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 1 ) “ Doth God care for oxen ?” Yer. 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. cxlvii. 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.” 
 
 (d 1 ) The sense of k^ovaia. 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 Bevised Yersion in every case substi¬ 
 tutes rigid (see vv. 4, 5, 6, 12), the sense being not physical, but moral au¬ 
 thority. 
 
 1 [Stanley remarks concernin'? this com¬ 
 plication of the metaphor,that it is rendered 
 less violent by the fact that the office of the 
 herald itself was an object of competition, 
 
 and that sometimes, as in the case of Nero, 
 the victor in the games was also selected 
 as the herald to announce his success. — 
 T. W. C.] 
 
216 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIAHS. 
 
 (e 1 ) 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. 
 
 (e 1 ) “ That I might gain the more. ” Yer. 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 all.” He 
 would have greater success through gratuitous preaching attracting all, than 
 through paid j>reaching attracting some but repelling others. 
 
 ( g 1 ) “ That I may become a fellow-partaker.” Yer. 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,” i.e. 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). 
 
 ( h 1 ) “ In such way run that ye may obtain .” Yer. 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). 
 
 (i 1 ) “ Lest 1 myself should be rejected .” Yer. 27. 
 
 What an argument and what a 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 (Bom. 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). 
 
CHAP. X. 
 
 217 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Ver. 1. yap ] Elz. has de, against decisive evidence. An alteration arising from 
 failure to understand the connection. — Yer. 2. £i3a7rriaavTo'] ACD EF6 X 
 min. Dial. Bas. Cyr. al. have e^auTiaOrjaav. 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 flanr. ; the middle is sufficient¬ 
 ly attested by B K L, Orig. Chrys. al. —Ver. 9. K vpiov\ So B C X, min. and 
 several vss. and Fathers. The readings 0 eov and Xpcarov are interpretations, the 
 first occurring in A, 2, Slav. ms. Bede, the second adopted by Elz. Scholz, and 
 Tisch. on the authority of D E F G Iv L, min. vss. Fathers ; defended also by 
 Reiche. Epiphanius avers Xpiorov to be a change made by Marcion. — Yv. 9, 
 10. Elz. adds /cat after naQdg ; but this has too powerful testimony against it to 
 be admissible on the ground of ver. 8. It is deleted b}^ Lachm. Tisch. Riickert. 
 — Yer. 9. airuXovTo] Riickert, following A (?) B 5$, reads aTcuXkvvTo, as he does 
 also in ver. 10 on the authority of A. Rightly in both cases ; the change of tense 
 was overlooked. —Ver. 11. 7rdvra] is wanting after de in A B 17, Sahid. and sev¬ 
 eral Fathers. It comes before it in D E F G ^,3, Aeth. and some Fathers. 
 Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Ruck, and Tisch.; an addition naturally sug¬ 
 gested.— tvttol] Lachm. and Ruck, read tvttlkcjc;, following ABCK &, min. 
 Syr. p. (on the margin), and many Fathers. Rightly ; the Becepta, defended 
 by Reiche, is a repetition from ver. 6. As connected with tvtwcu) g, how¬ 
 ever, and resting on very much the same attestation (including K), Gwefiat- 
 vsv should be adopted in place of ovveftaivov. — k arqvTr/Gev'] Lachm. and Tisch. 
 have KaTrjVTrjuEv, on the authority of B D* E* FG X, 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 vpdc after 
 dvvaaOac ; but this is an addition opposed by decisive evidence.— Yer. 19. Lachm. 
 Ruck, and Tisch. invert the order of the two questions, following B C** D E 
 N**, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Yulg. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. Bede. Rightly. One 
 of the two queries came to be left out, owing to the similarity in sound (so still 
 in A C* and K*), and was afterwards restored where it seemed to stand most 
 naturally (according to the order of origin and operation). Reiche, nevertheless, 
 in his Comm. cril. I. p. 240 f., tries to defend the Becepta (K L, with most of the 
 min. Syr. utr. Goth, and Greek Fathers). — Yer. 20. d Ovel ra eBvrf\ Lachm. 
 Ruck, and Tisch. read u Qvovoiv, on very preponderant evidence (as also Ovovglv 
 afterwards). The missing subject ra iOip was joined on to Qvovgiv (so still in 
 A C K), which thereupon drew after it the change to Ovel. ■ —Yer. 23. Elz. has 
 pot after navra, against decisive evidence. Borrowed from vi. 12. — Ver. 24. 
 After irepov Elz. has EnaGroc, in face of decisive testimony. Supplied, perhaps, 
 from remembrance of Phil. ii. 4. — Yer. 27. de] is wanting in A B D* FG 
 and some min. Copt. Vulg. Antioch. Chrys. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel. al. Lachm. 
 and Ruck, are right in rejecting it as a mere connective addition. — Yer. 28. 
 lepdOvrov'] approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Ruck. Tisch. Elz. and 
 
218 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Scholz. again have eI dcjhbQvrov, contrary to A B H &, Sahicl. and the indirect 
 witnesses given b} 7 Tisch. The commoner word (which is defended by Reiche) 
 was first written on the margin, and then taken into the text. —After cwEidqcuv 
 Elz. has tov yup Iv vpiov i] yrj k. to Tcfajpu/ia avrfjg. 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 6e which Elz. puts after el 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 self-conquest; he now justifies his special enforcement of 
 this duty by the warning example of the fathers. Ahelov ai>Tovg dediZaaOcu 
 (lovTirjdelg tcjv Kara tov 'laparfi avafu/uvr/onei , Kal bacvv cnrjTiavaav ayaOtiv nal ocaig 
 TrepieiTEoav Tiyiopicug. nal nahel TVTvovg tovtuv ekeIvci , dcdacKov <hg to, oyoia ttelcov- 
 tcu fiv ojuoiav amaTiav KTjjedyevoi , Theodoret. —ov 6c'/\u v/u. ayv.~\ indicating 
 something of importance. See on Rom. xi. 25.— oi waTcpeg /)//.] i.e. our 
 forefathers at the time of the exodus from Egypt. The apostle sa} T s y/itiv, 
 speaking, as in Rom. iv. 1, from his national consciousness, which was 
 shared in by his Jewish readers, and w T ell understood by his Gentile ones. 
 The idea of the spiritual fatherhood of all believers (Rom. iv. 11 ff., de 
 Wette, all), or that of the O. T. ancestry of the N. T. church (Hofmann), 
 would suit only with holy ancestors as being the true 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. — tc avreg] lias strong emphasis, 1 and is 
 four times repeated, the coming contrast of ovk ev rolg nheioatv, ver. 5, being 
 already before the apostle’s mind. All had the blessing of the divine 
 presence ( vno t. vety. i/aav), all that of the passage through the sea ; all re¬ 
 ceived the analogue of baptism, all that of eating, all that of drinking at the 
 Lord’s Supper ; but with the majority God was not well pleased. —vtco t. veep.] 
 The well-known ( ryv ) jiillar of cloud (Ex. xiii. 21 f.), in which God’s pres¬ 
 ence was, is conceived as spreading its canopy over ( vno ) the march of the 
 people that followed it. Comp. Ps. cv. 39 ; Wisd. x. 17, xix. 7. — 6ia r^g 
 0a/1 .] See Ex. xiv. 
 
 Ver. 2. The discourse flows on in uninterrupted stream, beginning with 
 the otl in ver. 1, to the end of ver. 5 ; then follows the application in 
 ver. 6. — elg tov M oveijv] 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.— kficnTTLcavTo] they had 
 
 1 Grotius : “ tarn qui sospites fuere, quam qui perierunt.” 
 
chap, x., 3, 4. 
 
 210 
 
 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 airehova., vi. 11,—is purposely chosen, as in Acts xxii. 16, to 
 denote the receptive sense (see Kiihner, II. p. 18; Yalckenaer, p. 256; 
 Winer, p. 239 [E. T. 319]); for although t'/kzTrr., and the subsequent etyciyov 
 and ewtov, 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. —kv ry vety.] ev is local , as in ftaTcr'deiv 
 kv v (iarq Matt. iii. 11, al., indicating the element in which , by immersion 
 and emergence, the baptism was effected. Just as the convert was baptized 
 in 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. lxviii. 9, of a “pluvia ex nube decidua” 
 (Wolf, comp. Pott); neither, again, is it 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 etaqua 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. Pclagius : ‘ c Et nubes proprium humo rem portat;” 
 so also Bengel : “Nubes et mare sunt naturae aqueae (quare etiam Paulus 
 de columna ignis silet).” (j 1 ) 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 two 
 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 fl). 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. 1 -— rb avro ] so that each one therefore stood on the very 
 
 1 Bengel well says : “ Si plura cssent N. T. sacramenta, ceteris quoque simile quiddam 
 
220 
 
 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 same level of apparent certainty of not being cast off by God. — The fipcopa 
 'KvevfjiaTUidv 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. lxxviii. 
 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 x&pic ttvev- 
 fiariKT] of Jehovah, it was, although material in itself, a xapiapa TTVEvgaTUiov , a 
 food of supernatural, divine, and spiritual origin. Comp. Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia : TWEvyaTtnov naXsl Hat to fipcopa nal to irdpa, cog av tgv t TVEvpaTog 
 ap^cj 6ia tov Mtovaeug Kara ttjv arroppr/Tov ai)Tov napaoxovTog dvvapiv. ovtcj 6e nal 
 7rvevpaTiK?)v knahECEV Tyv TCETpav, cog av ttj dvvapEt tov irvEvpaTog hidovoav ra vdaTa. 
 
 "YVliat 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. II. 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.— Tropa] Ex. 
 xvii. 1-6 ; Kum. xx. 2-11. Regarding the forms ?r6pa and ncopa, see Lobeck, 
 Parol, p. 425 f. — etuvov . . . XptcTog] a parenthetic explanation in detail 
 as to the quite peculiar and marvellous character of this tt opa. 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 
 etuov according to the peculiar circumstances in which it took place ; it thus 
 has a modal force, showing how things went on with the izavTEg . . . etuov, 
 while it was taking place. Bengel remarks rightly on the -yap : 1 ‘ qualis 
 petra, talis aqua.” — ek TTvsvuaT. anoh. t ~ETpag‘ y ds TZETpa yv 6 N.] from a spir¬ 
 itual rock that followed them ; the Rock , however (which we speak of here), 
 was Christ. UvEuparmyg has the emphasis ; it corresponds to the preceding 
 TTVEvpaTLnov, and is explained more specifically by y 6 e tt. yv 6 X. The rela¬ 
 tion denoted by anolovdovayg, 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 A oyog 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 Tzerpa tt vEvparuiy ; 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 to men (comp. 
 Targ. Isa. xvi. 1, and Philo’s view, p. 1103 A, that the rock was the aoepia). 
 (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 
 should be observed that the ecclesiastical 
 notion of a sacrament does not appear in 
 the N. T., but is an abstraction from the 
 common characteristics of the two ordi¬ 
 
 nances in question. Both, however, are 
 equally essential and characteristic ele¬ 
 ments in the fellowship of the Christian 
 life. Comp. Baur, neut. Theol. p. 200; Weiss, 
 hill. Theol. p. 353. 
 
CHAP. X., 3, 4. 
 
 221 
 
 their way through the desert ; for Christ in His pre-existent condition, 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 
 IHmself, 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, II. S. 1 ; Onkeloson 
 Hum. xxi. 18-20 ; and see Wetstein and Schottgen, 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 ; e.g. 
 the interpretation of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Drusius, Grotius, 
 Lightfoot, Billroth, al. (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 (rfi ). That ?)v denotes here significabat (so too 
 Augustine, Vatablus, Salmasius, Bengel, Loesner, al.), is a purely arbitrary 
 assumption, seeing that Paul neither says hari, nor tvtzoq gv, 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 Opusc. p. 261 : 
 “ The rock in the wilderness was a rock of blessing, strength, and life-giving 
 for the Jews, and thus it 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 neut. Theol. p. 
 193), by asserting that Paul speaks of Christ as the nvevy. irirpa 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. 1 See, in opposition to this, Rabiger, Christol. Paid. 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, 2 Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact, Melanchthon, Cornelius a Lapide, and many others, among 
 
 1 Baur is wholly unwarranted in taking <f>r)cr\v Oil yap av nal np'o tovtov ivep\v£ev, a\\' 
 
 TTi’evfxaTLKO?, ver. 3 f., in the sense of typical erepa ti? n eVpa nvevfj-aTLKri to nai> eipyagero, 
 or allegorically significant. His appeal to tovtso-tiv 6 Xpto-ros 6 napwv avrol? iravTaxov 
 Itev.xi. 8 and Barnab. 10 is irrelevant. teal nav-a ^avpaTovpywv. 
 
 2 oil yap r] tv)s 7Tc : Tpas <j>vcri<; to dotop Yjtfrlei 
 
222 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 whom arc Flatt, Kling in the Stud, und Krit. 1839, p. 835 ; Osiander, 
 Neander, Hofmann. 1 (k 1 ) 
 
 Yer. 5. 'Ovk kv rolg it leioaiv] not with the greater 'part of them. A tragical 
 litotes. Caleb and Joshua alone reached the land of promise. Num. xiv. 
 30.— Karearpudijaav] were struck down} Comp. Num. xiv. 10, 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. 3. G4 ; Judith vii. 14 ; 2 Mace, 
 v. 26). Comp, also Heb. iii. 17. 
 
 Yer. 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 Tvnog, on Rom. v. 14. — k-yevgOpaav] The 
 plural is by attraction from the predicate vxmot. See Kiihner, II. p. 53 f.; 
 Kruger, § lxiii. 6. Hofmann (comp. vi. 11) takes the Israelites as the sub¬ 
 ject : u They became this as types of us f but the recurrence of the ravra in 
 ver. 11 should have been enough of itself to preclude such a view. — km* 
 Ovujjt. KaKtiv] quite general in its reference : desirers (Herod, vii. 6 ; Dem. 
 661 ult ., and often in Plato) of evil things (Rom. i. 30). To restrict it to the 
 “ Corinthios epulatores' 1 '' (Grotius) is arbitrary ; for it is equally so to con¬ 
 fine the KaOug kciheIvol kneO. which follows solely (Riickert, de Wctte, 
 Osiander, Neander), or particularly (Hofmann), to the desire of the Israelites 
 for 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. 
 
 Yer. 7. There* follows now upon this general warning the first of four 
 special ones against sins, to which the kTuOvyeiv kokow might very easily lead. 
 ‘‘Eligit, quod maxime Corintliiis congruebat,” Calvin. — juphk] also in par¬ 
 ticular do not. Comp. Buttmann, neat. Gr. p. 314 [E. T. 366]. The rep¬ 
 etitions of ygde which follow, tod, from ver. 8 to ver. 10 are also negatived, 
 but in continuance of the special prohibitions. — yiveade] in the second per- 
 
 1 Comp, his Schriftbew. I. p. 171: “ The rock 
 from which the water flowed was a natu¬ 
 ral one, and stood fast in its own place ; 
 but the true Rock that really gave the 
 water was the *7*0 EP (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¬ 
 
 cess of thought on the part of the apostle, 
 which, as such, is not to be measured by 
 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. iv. 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. 
 
 2 [Literally, strewed as corpses.—T. W. C.] 
 
CHAP. x. 7 8, 9. 
 
 22 
 
 ♦ > 
 O 
 
 son, because of the fecial danger to 'which, his readers, from their circum¬ 
 stances , were exposed. Comp, on ver. 10. — EidoloXarpai] 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 (<paytiv k. ttleIv). Comp. vv. 14, 20, 21. The passage cited is Ex. 
 xxxii. 6 according to the LXX.; it describes the sacrificial feast after the 
 sacrifice offered to the golden calf. The rives avruv, 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. iii. 3. — nai^eiy ] 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 (Horn. Od. viii. 251 ; Hesiod, Scut. 277 ; Pindar, 01. xiii. 
 123) does not harmonize with the more general meaning of pDV 1 ? in the 
 original text. To understand the phrase as indicating unchastity (Tertull. 
 dejejun. 6) is contrary to Ex. xxxii. 18, 19, and Philo, de xit. Mos. 3, pp. 
 677 D, 694 A. 
 
 Ver. 8. ’ Endprevaav ] Xum. xxv. 1 ff.— eIkooi rpelg ] According to Hum. 
 xxv. 9, there were 24,000. So too Philo, de xit. Mos. 1, p. 694 A ; de 
 fortit. p. 742 D ; and the Rabbins in Light.foot, Horae, p. 205 ; also Jose¬ 
 phus, Antt. iv. 6. 12. A slip of memory on the apostle’s part, (l 1 ) as might 
 easily take place, so that there is no need of supposing a variation in the 
 tradition (Bengel, Pott), or an error in his copy of the LXX. (Ewald). 
 Among the arbitrary attempts at reconciliation which have been made are 
 the following : that Paul narrates only what happened on one day, Moses 
 what happened on two (Grotius) ; that Moses gives the maximum, Paul the 
 minimum (Calvin, Bengel) ; that 23,000 fell xi dixina, and 1000 gladio ze- 
 lotarum (Krebs, after Bernard and Havercamp on Josephus, loc. cit .) ; that 
 Paul states merely what befell the tribe at Simeon (Michaelis). Cajetanus 
 and Surenhusius would have us read eIkocl recaapEs, as, in point of fact, is 
 given in a few codd., but manifestly by way of correction. Osiander too 
 leans to this ; comp. Valckenaer. 
 
 Ver. 9. ’En-Eip.] Stronger than the simple verb (to pr ox e to the full), Matt, 
 iv. 7 ; Luke x. 25. Comp, the classic bnreipaoycu (Herod, iii. 135 ; Plat. 
 ep. 13, p. 362 E). To try the Lord,' 1 HDJ, means generally, to let it 
 
 come to the point ichether He will show Himself to be God; in this case : 
 whether He will punish (“ quousque itura sit ejus patientia,” Grotius). See 
 in general, Wetstein, ad Matt. iv. 7. What special kind of trying Paul has 
 here in view, appears from nadog /c.r.A., where the reference is to the people 
 after their deliverance losing heart over the contrast between their position 
 in the wilderness and the pleasures of Egypt. See Hum. xxi. 4-6. The 
 readers therefore could not fail to understand that what the apostle meant 
 was discontent on their part with their present Christian position, as involv¬ 
 ing so much renunciation of sensual pleasures formerly indulged in. How 
 
 1 The Kvpio? is God in Num. xxi. 4 ff. had no reason to refer it to Christ as the 
 Paul’s readers, whose familiarity with the A6-yo? ao-apxos (from which comes the Eecep- 
 history in question is taken for granted, ta Xpicrroy), 
 
224 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 many, forgetting the blessings of their spiritual deliverance, might look 
 back with a discontented longing to the license of the past ! It is a 
 common opinion that Paul designates their participation in the sacrificial 
 feasts as a tempting of God (comp. ver. 22, where, however, the connection 
 is totally different, and rbv Kvpiov does not apply to God at all). So Bill¬ 
 roth, Itiickert, de Wette, Osiander, Maier ; but this is quite at variance 
 with the context, because not in keeping with the historical events indicated 
 by the undue nal k.t.Tl., and familiar to the readers. The context equally 
 forbids the interpretations of Chrysostom and Theophylact : the craving for 
 wonders; Tlieodoret, the speaking with tongues; Grotius, the conduct of 
 the schismatics ; and Michaelis, that of the anti-Pauline party. — krcEtpacav) 
 namely, avrbv, not in an absolute sense (Winer, Reiche). — invuTikwro] see 
 the critical remarks. The imperfect lays the stress on the continuous devel¬ 
 opment of what occurred, and thus places it in the foreground of the his¬ 
 toric picture. See Kiihner, II. p. 74. As to vn-6 with airuXTi., see Yalcke- 
 naer, p. 261. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 880. 
 
 Yer. 10. Nor murmur , etc. ; expression of contumacious discontent (Matt, 
 xx. 11 ; Phil. ii. 14), without right of* reason. Against whom? is discovered 
 from the narrative , to which Paul here refers us. That this is to be found 
 not in Num. xiv. (the more common view), but in Num. xvi. 41, 49 (Cal¬ 
 vin, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Maier, Ewald), is clear, in the first place, 
 because vrro r. oXodp. denotes a violent death, which does not tally 
 
 with Num. xiv. ; and, in the second, because reveg avruv cannot apply to 
 the whole people (except Caleb and Joshua), which it would have to do ac¬ 
 cording to Num. xiv. If, however, what Paul has here in view is the mur¬ 
 muring against Moses and Aaron after the death of Korah and his company 
 (Num. xvi. 41, 49), then his prohibition must refer not to discontent against 
 God (which was, moreover, referred to already in ver. 9), but only to mur¬ 
 muring against the divinely commissioned teachers (Paul, Apollos, and others), 
 who, in their position and authoritative exercise of discipline, corresponded 
 to the type of Moses and Aaron as the theocratic leaders and teachers of the 
 rebellious people. And it is for this reason that he uses the second person 
 here, although the first both precedes and follows it. Amidst the self-con¬ 
 ceit and frivolity which were so rife at Corinth, and under the influences 
 of the party-spirit that prevailed, there could not fail to be perverse dispo¬ 
 sitions of the kind indicated, which would find abundant expression. 
 Comp, the evils prevalent in the same community at a later date, against 
 which Clement contends in his epistle. — aizuKk. invo r. oloOp.'] namely, the 
 14,700, whose destruction (Num. xvi. 46 ff.) is ascribed to the plague (^SJD) 
 of God. Paul defines this more closely as wrought by the Destroyer (Hesy- 
 chius, Tivpeuv), who is the executor of the divine plague, just as in Ex. xii. 
 23 the rmBto executes the plagu/f (^11) of God,—this personal rendering 
 of rmtfD (according to others, pernici.es), which was the traditional one 
 from the earliest times among Jews and Christians alike, being followed by 
 the apostle also. The b/,odp£VT?/g (6 ohoOpevuv , Ex. xii. 23 ; Heb. xi. 28 ; Wisd. 
 xviii. 25. Comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 16 ; Isa. xxxvii. 36 ; Job xxxiii. 22, al. ; Acts 
 xii. 23) is the angel commissioned by God to carry out the slaughter ; and he 
 
CHAP. X., 11. 
 
 225 
 
 again is neither to be conceived of as an evil angel (a conception still foreign 
 to the old Hebrew theology in general ; see also 1 Chron. xxi. 12 ; 2 Chron. 
 xxxii. 21 ; 2 Macc. xv. 22, 23), nor rationalized into a pestilence. The 
 Rabbinical doctrine of the rnon (see Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenth. 
 
 I. p. 854 if.) developed itself out of the Hebrew idea. — 0 lodpevu, and the 
 words formed from it, belong to the Alexandrian Greek. See Bleek on 
 Heb. II. p. 809. But the reading oleOp., although in itself more correct, is 
 very weakly attested here. 
 
 Ver. 11. T avra] These facts, referred to in ver. 6 if. — rvTUKug] in a typi¬ 
 cal fashion, 1 in such a way that, as they fell out, a typical character, a pre¬ 
 dictive reference, impressed itself upon them. Eisenmenger (II. p. 159 f., 
 264, 801) gives passages from the Rabbins in support of the principle of the 
 interconnection of the whole theocratic history : ‘ ‘ Quicquid evenit patribus, 
 signum filiis,”—a principle generally correct according to the idea of the 
 Oeta pol.pa. It is only among the Fathers that we find Tvirucog and rvTTiKug 
 used anywhere else in this sense (it is otherwise in Plutarch, Mor. p. 442 
 C).— cweflaivov] brings out the progressive development of the events ; the 
 aorist b/patyrj simply states the fact. 2 Comp, on ver. 4, and Matthiae, p. 
 1117. The tie contrasts eypatyrj k.t.1. with what precedes it, expressing 
 “quod novum quid accedit, oppositionem quandam,” Hermann, ad Viger. 
 p. 845 : “that it was written , again, was for,” etc. — tt pog vovdeoiav rjyuv] 
 for our admonition (comp, on iv. 14). That is to say, when we are tempted 
 to the same sins, then should the thought of those facts that happened 
 rvTtiKug, warn us not to bring down upon ourselves like judgments by like 
 offences. As to the later form, vovOema in place of vovderj^aig and vovderia, 
 see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 512 .—elg oi>g k.t.1.] is not opposed, as Hofmann 
 would have it, to the beginning of Israel’s history, to which the transactions 
 in question belong, which is neither conveyed by the text nor in itself his¬ 
 torically correct (for the beginning of that history lies in the days of the 
 patriarchs) ; but it gives point to the warning by reminding the readers how 
 nigh at hand the day was of retributive decision. Ta relrj tuv aluvuv is identi¬ 
 cal with r] cwreleia tuv aluvuv, Heb. ix. 26, the concrete ra rely (the ends) 
 being put here for the abstract avvreleia (consummation). In other words, 
 upon the supposition of the Parousia being close at hand, the last times of 
 the world were now come ; the aluveg, which had their commencement at its 
 beginning, were now running out their final course. The plural expression 
 ra rtkrj, here used, corresponds to the conception of a plurality of periods in 
 the world’s history, whose common consummation should carry with it the 
 final issues of them all. 3 With the Parousia the aluveg eTcspxbyevoi (see on 
 
 1 The Eecepta Tvnot would mean : These 
 things happened to them as types; comp, 
 ver. 6. Hofmann takes ravra Se tvttol as an 
 independent clause. But what an arbitrary 
 disruption of the sentence this would be 1 
 
 And how thoroughly self-evident and void 
 of significance the a-wepciLvov cue iVoi? would 
 in that case be ! 
 
 3 [The former verb (plural) relates to the 
 
 events in detail; the latter (singular) to the 
 recc'd as a ivhole.— T. W. C.] 
 
 3 Weiss, in his bibl. Theol. p. 301, gives a 
 different interpretation, making rd re\r) the 
 goals. Each of the past aiwve?, according 
 to his view, served as a preparation for the 
 time of full maturity. But Paul always uses 
 reAo? in the sense of end (in 1 Tim. i. 5 it is 
 otherwise); and this, too, is the most natural 
 
226 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corinthiaxs. 
 
 Eph. ii. 7) begin to run. What is implied by the plural is not one thing 
 running alongside of another, in particular, not the time of Israel and the 
 time of the Gentiles (Hofmann), but the succession of the world-periods, one 
 coming after another. So always, where aitiveg occurs in a temporal sense. 
 — naTr]VTr]Kev\ They have reached to us, i. e. have fallen upon our lifetime, and 
 are how here. The altiveg are conceived of as stretching themselves out, as 
 it were, in space. Comp. xiv. 36. 
 
 Yer. 12. "flore] Wherefore, warned by these instances from the O. T. — 
 earavai] whosoever thinks that he stands, i.e. is firm and secure (Rom. v. 2, 
 and comp, on 1 Cor. xv. 1) in the Christian life, namely, in strength of 
 faith, virtue, etc. Comp. Rom. xiv. 4. — filci tetu, y?) ttegjj] points to the 
 moral fall, whereby a man comes to live and act in an unchristian way. 
 The greater, in any case, the self-confidence, the greater the danger of such 
 a fall. And how much must the moral illusions abroad at Corinth have 
 made this warning needful ! Others understand the continuance in, or 
 falling from, a state of grace to be meant (see Calvin, Bengel, Osiander). 
 But all the admonitions, from ver. 6 onwards (see, too, ver. 14), have a 
 direct reference to falling into sins, the consequence of which is a falling from 
 grace so as to come under the divine opyrj (comp. Gal. v. 4). 
 
 Yer. 13. Encouragement to this fl'AcKero yy tvecuj. “ Your temptations, as 
 you know, have not hitherto gone beyond your strength, neither will they, 
 through the faithfulness of God, do so in the future.” Ruckert follows 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, Bengel, Zachariae, and others, 
 in his interpretation : “You are not yet out of danger ; the temptations 
 which have hitherto assailed you were only human ones, and you have not 
 withstood them over-well (?) ; there may come others greater and more 
 grievous.” Similarly Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald ; so 
 that, according to this view, Paul seeks first of all to humble, and then, 
 from Tuarog onwards, to encourage,—a connecting thought, however, being 
 interpolated between the two clauses (“sed nunc major tentatio imminet,” 
 Bengel). — neipaaydg] The context makes no special mention of sufferings and 
 persecutions (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Camerarius, Grotius, Ewald, al.), but 
 of incitements to sin in general, as things which, if not overcome, instead of 
 being a discipline to the man exposed to them, will bring about his ttltttelv ; 
 but suffering is included among the rest in virtue of the moral dangers which 
 it involves. Pott restricts the reference too much (comp, also Hofmann) : 
 “tentatio quae per invitationem ad convivia ilia vobis accidit,” which is 
 inadmissible in view of the general terms employed in ver. 12 ; the particular 
 application follows only in ver. 14. — dhycpev] marks the continuance of the 
 fact of its not having taken them. It has not done so, and does not now. 
 This use of layflavsiv, in reference to fortunes, states, etc., which seize upon 
 men, is very common in the classics (Thuc. ii. 42 ; Pind. 01. i. 130 ; Xen. 
 Symp. i. 15, and often in Homer). Comp. Luke v. 26, vii. 16 ; Wisd. xi. 
 12 ; Bar. vi. 5.— avtipumvog] i.e. viribus humanis accommodatus, oi>x virep & 
 
 meaning here, where he is speaking of the the same as in nAr/piona tw v icaipiov, Eph. i. 
 lapse of periods of time. The thought is 9 f. 
 
CHAP. X., 14. 
 
 227 
 
 Avvarai avtipunrog. See Pollux, iii. 131. The fact that in the second clause of 
 the verse this phrase has vTrsp o dvvaafl-E and rov dvvac&ai vncveyicciv corre¬ 
 sponding to it, militates against the rendering : “ not of superhuman origin' 1 ' 1 
 (comp. Plato, Ale. i. p. 103 A ; Phaedr. p. 259 D ; Pep. p. 497 C, 492 E), 
 i.e. either not from the devil (Melanchthon, Piscator, Yorstius, al.), or not 
 from God (Olshausen, who finds an allusion in the second clause to the dolo- 
 res Messiae). Comp, ova av&puTrivTj nania , Polyb. i. 67. G, and the like ; Plato, 
 Prot. p. 344 C, Crat. p. 438 C ; ovk avdponivr/s dvvapEtoc, Thuc. vi. 78. 2 ; 
 oea avdpwizoL ( sc. fivvavrai), Plato, Rep. p. 467 C ; pei^ov rj icar’ av&pcmov , Soph. 
 Oed. Col. 604. Chrysostom : avlipcoTuvog, rovrecn pticpog, flpaxvg, ovpperpoQ. — 
 irKjrdg] for if He allowed them to be tempted beyond their powers, He 
 would then be unfaithful to them as regards His having called them to the 
 Messianic salvation, which now, in the case supposed, it would be impossi¬ 
 ble for them to reach, (m 1 )—6^] in the sense of on ovroq, like the German “ er 
 der.” Comp. Bernhardy, p. 291. "Ocrye would be still more emphatic. —6 
 dvvacAe] what you are in a position to hear. The context shows the more 
 special meaning. Comp, on iii. 2. — oXj\ a ttolt/gel k.t.A] hut will with the (then 
 existing) temptation make also the issue , i.e. not the one without the other. 
 God is therefore conceived of here as He who malces the temptation, i.e. 
 brings about the circumstances and situations which give rise to it (comp, 
 on Matt. vi. 13), but, previously , as He who lets men be tempted. The two 
 things, according to Paul’s view of the divine agency in the world, are in 
 substance the same ; the God who allows the thing to be is He also who 
 brings it to pass. Hence the tw x o modes of conception may be used inter¬ 
 changeably, as here, without contradiction. Comp, on Rom. i. 24. — r. 
 EKpacnv\ the issue ( egressum , Wisd. ii. 17, viii. 9, xi. 16 ; Horn. Od. v. 410 ; 
 Xen. Anah. iv. 1. 20, iv. 2. 1 ; Polyb. iv. 64. 5) from the temptation, so 
 that one escapes out of it morally free (comp, ek irEipaapov pvecdai, 2 Pet. ii. 
 9) ; similarly Eur. Med. 279, £K/3acng arris. Theophylact gives the sense with 
 substantial correctness, r)v a-rraTHayriv rov t reepaapov ; but it is unsuitable to 
 make, as he docs, the ovv k.t.1. refer to coincidence in time (apa rip etteMeiv 
 v/uv tov TTELpaafiov) ; so also Hofmann. Bengel puts it w T ell : u Kai, etiam , 
 indivulso nexu.”— rov (Yvvaa&ai inrev.] does not say wherein the issue might 
 consist (of being able to hear the temptation ; comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 
 844), for the dvvac&ai vttev. is no Euftaou; (the taking it so is illogical) ; but it 
 is the genitive of design: in order that you may he able to hear it (the tempta¬ 
 tion). Were it not that God gave the £K/3aais along with the 7 TEtpaagdg, the 
 latter would be too heavy for you ; you would not be able to bear up under 
 it, but would be crushed altogether. But that is not His will. That vpas 
 should be supplied to Svv. vttev., is clear of itself from what precedes. See 
 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 10. 
 
 Yer. 14. A l6ttep\ for this very reason (viii. 13), to wit, in order that you 
 may not withdraw from this saving guidance of the faithful God, and de¬ 
 prive yourselves of it ; idolatry would separate you from God. Comp. ver. 
 22. And they would rpake themselves indirectly guilty of idolatry by par¬ 
 taking of the sacrificial feasts. See vv. 7, 20 f. As respects (pevyetv an6, 
 f ugiendo discedere a, see on Matt. iii. 7. Ruckert would draw a distinction 
 
228 
 
 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIAHS. 
 
 here to the effect that, had the verb been joined with the accusative (vi. 18), 
 it would have indicated that the readers were already involved in idolatrous 
 worship ; but this is untenable (2 Tim. ii. 22 ; Wisd. i. 5 ; Plato, Legg. i. 
 p. 636 E ; Soph. Phil. 637, Oed. B. 355), being a confusion of the phrase in 
 question with <j>evyeiv kn (Xen. Andb. i. 2. 18 ; Tob. i. 18). The precise meaning 
 here must be sought in the context, which certainly gives us only the idea of 
 the danger being at hand (ver. 7). 
 
 Yer. 15 ff. Paul has just been forbidding his readers to participate in the 
 sacrificial feasts, on the ground of its being idolatry. This he now explains by 
 the analogy of the holy fellowship, into which the Lord’s Supper (vv. 15-17), 
 and participation in the Israelitish sacrifices (ver. 18), respectively brought 
 those who partook of them. It does not follow from his second illustration 
 that the idols were gods, but that they were demons, with whom his readers 
 should have no fellowship ; one could not partake both of Christ’s table and 
 of the table of demons (vv. 19-22). The former excludes the latter. 
 
 Yer. 15. 'S2c Qpovlyoiq] i.e. to those of whom I take for granted that they 
 are intelligent ; cjg indicates the mode of contemplation, the aspect under 
 which he regards his readers in saying to them, etc. Comp. iii. 1 ; 2 Cor. 
 
 vi. 13, al. See Bernhardy, p. 333. — heyo refers to Kplvare vy. o <j>. (comp. 
 
 vii. 12), and o (prjyi points to what follows in vv. 16-18. “As to intelligent 
 men (who can judge aright), I say : judge ye ichat I affirm .” On the differ¬ 
 ence between liyo and (pnyi, comp. Bom. iii. 8 ; Herod, iii. 35 ; Xen. Apol. 
 13, Anab. i. 7. 18, vi. 6. 16, ii. 1. 14 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 906. — 
 The emphasis is on vyelg ; your own judgment shall decide. 
 
 Yer. 16. To tt orypiov] It is most natural to take this as in the accusative , 
 after the analogy of the second clause of the verse (against Riickert). 
 Respecting the attractio inversa, as in Matt. xxi. 42, see Bornemann, Schol. 
 in Luc. p. 16 f. ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 288] ; Kuhner, II. p. 
 512. This Greek fashion of “ trajection” is of such common occurrence, 
 that it is a piece of pure arbitrariness to infer, with Hofmann, from the 
 accusative here that the action of blessing and breaking, of which the ele¬ 
 ments are the objects, makes them the mivuvia. — Paul names the cup first, 
 not because at the sacrificial feasts men thought less about food than about 
 a pleasant meeting primarily for enjoying wine (they came for eating and 
 drinking), but because he means to speak at more length about the bread, 
 and in connection with it, especially to discuss the Israelitic partaking of 
 the sacrifices, as it suited his theme of the meat offered to idols. For this reason 
 he begins here by disposing briefly of the point concerning the cup. In 
 chap. xi. he does otherwise, because not regarding the matter there 
 from this special point of view. —rgq evhoy'iac] genit. qualit., i.e. the cup over 
 which the blessing is spoJcen, namely, when the wine contained in it is 
 expressly consecrated by prayer to the sacred use of the Lord’s Supper. 1 It 
 
 1 Who had to officiate at this consecration ? 
 Every Christian man probably might do so 
 at that time, when the arrangements of 
 church-life as regards public worship were 
 as yet so little reduced to fixed order. In 
 
 Justin Martyr’s time {Apol. i. 65) it fell to the 
 7rpoeo-Tws, but so that the president is con 
 ceived as representing and acting in fellow¬ 
 ship with the congregation. See Ritschl, 
 aUTcathol. K. p. 365 f. The plurals in the pas- 
 
CHAP. X., 16. 
 
 229 
 
 is a mistake to understand ri/g ev2.oy. actively : the cup which brings blessing 
 (Flatt, Olshausen, Kling), as tlie more detailed explanations which follow 
 are sufficient of themselves to prove. They equally forbid the explanation, 
 of Schulz : the cup of praise 1 (comp. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendm. p. 128). 
 Neither should the phrase be viewed as a terminus technicus borrowed from 
 the Jewish liturgy, and answering to the n2"Qn DO. See on Matt. xxvi. 
 27, and Riickert, Abendm. p. 219 f .—o EvXoyovyev] an epexegesis giving 
 additional solemnity to the statement : which we bless , consecrate with 
 prayer, when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Comp. Mark viii. 7 ; Luke 
 ix. 16 ; 1 Sam. ix. 13. E bXoy. in its literal sense must not be confounded 
 with ehxapLOT. (Erasmus, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Beza : “ quod cum gratia- 
 rum actione sumimus”), although the prayer was, in point of fact, a thanksgiv¬ 
 ing prayer in accordance with Christ’s example, xi. 24 f. As to the difference 
 between the two words, comp, on xiv. 16. — obfiL noiv. r. alp. r. X. kori\ This 
 is aptly explained by Grotius (after Melanchthon and others) : “ aoivuviav 
 vocat id, per quod ft ipsa communio.” The cup, i.e. its contents as these 
 are presented and partaken of, is the medium of this fellowship ; it is real¬ 
 ized in the partaking. 2 Comp. i. 30 ; John xii. 25, xvii. 3 ; Rodatz in 
 Rudelbach’s Zeitschrift , 1844, 1, p. 131 ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 31. The 
 sense therefore is : Is not communion with the blood of Christ established 
 through partaking of the cup ? 3 ’EcrrZ never means anything else than est 
 (never signifcat ) ; it is the copula of existence ; whether this, however, be 
 actual or symbolical (or allegorical) existence, the context alone must decide. 
 Here it must necessarily have the former sense (against Billroth), for the 
 mere significance of a participation would go no way towards proving the 
 proposition that eating meat offered to idols was idolatry ; and as, therefore, 
 in ver. 18. it is not the significance , but the fact of the participation, that is 
 expressed (comp. ver. 20), so also must it of necessity be here. What sort 
 of a participation it might be, was of no importance in the present connec- 
 
 sage before us are the utterance of the 
 Christian consciousness of fellowship , to which 
 it makes no difference who, in each sepa¬ 
 rate case, may be the ministerial organ of 
 the fellowship. Kahnis explains them from 
 the amen of the congregation (Justin, loc. 
 cit .); but that itself was primarily the time- 
 hallowed expression of that consciousness. 
 
 1 With excessive arbitrariness Hofmann 
 (comp, his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 225 f.) insists 
 on taking ev\oyla otherwise than ev\oyov/xev; 
 the former, in the sense of an ascription of 
 praise , with God as its subject; the latter, 
 in the sense of consecrating the cup. The 
 consecration, according to him, makes the 
 difference between it and the Passover cup. 
 But the said difference could not have been 
 expressed by Paul in a more unsuitable 
 or perplexing way than by repeating the 
 same word. 
 
 2 Hofmann too comes to this in substance 
 after all, although he tries to escape from 
 
 it, taking Koivuvla as “ the matter of fact of a 
 joint (?) participancy ,” and then opining that 
 the apostle has in view an eating of the 
 bread and drinking of the wine, which by 
 means of this corporeal process, and with¬ 
 out its being possible to eat and drink 
 merely bread and wine, makes us joint-par¬ 
 takers of the body and blood of Christ. In 
 support of the meaning thus assigned to 
 Kou'ojvia, Hofmann appeals inappi’opriately 
 to i. 9; 2 Cor. xiii. 13 ; 1 John i. 3. Joint 
 participancy would be o-u-y/coivwvi'a ; comp. 
 avyKoivuvos, ix. 23; Rom. xi. 17; Phil. i. 7. 
 
 3 It is plain from vv. 18,20, 21, that Kou'u>vla 
 is here neither communication , apportioning 
 (Luther, al ., including Kling, Billroth), 
 which it never means in the N. T. (see on 
 Rom. xv. 26), nor consortium , societas (Eras¬ 
 mus : “ quod pariter sanguine Christi sumus 
 redemti,” comp. Zwingli). See also Kahnis, 
 Abendm. p. 132 f. 
 
230 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 tion, for the apostle is dealing here simply with the icoivovia in itself, not 
 with its nature, which differed according to the different analogies adduced 
 (vv. 18, 20). (n 1 2 ) It cannot therefore he gathered from this passage 
 whether he was thinking of some kind of real , possibly even material con¬ 
 nection of those eating and drinking in the Supper with the body and blood 
 of Christ, 1 or, on the other hand, of an inward union realized in the believing 
 consciousness , consisting therefore in the spiritual contact whereby the 
 believer, who partakes of the elements, is conscious to himself in so partak¬ 
 ing of being connected by saving appropriation w ith the body and blood of 
 reconciliation. But we see clearly from xi. 24 f. that Paul could only mean 
 the latter, since at the institution of the Supper the body of Christ was not 
 yet slain, and His blood still flowed in His veins. a See, besides, on Matt, 
 xxvi. 26. Again, if the glorified state of His body, i.e. the obpa rgg 661 -tjs 
 avrov (Phil. iii. 21), set in only with His ascension, and if, when He insti¬ 
 tuted the Supper, His body was still but the ao)/ua ri)g capK.bg avrov , which 
 soon after died upon the cross for reconciliation (Col. i. 22), while, never¬ 
 theless, the first Lord’s Supper, dispensed by Jesus himself\ must have 
 carried with it the whole specific essence of the sacred ordinance—that essence 
 depending precisely upon the future crucifixion of the body and outpouring of 
 the blood,—then the apostle cannot have in view the glorified 3 cdpa and 
 aljua as being given and partaken of through the medium of the bread and 
 wine. Otherwise, we should have to attribute to Paul the extravagant con¬ 
 ception,—which is, however, equally out of harmony with the institution 
 itself and without shadow of warrant in the apostle’s words, nay, at vari¬ 
 ance with what he says in xv. 50,—that, at the last Supper, Jesus had His 
 pneumatic body already at His disposal to dispense as He would (Olshausen, 
 Hofmann), or that a momentary glorification, like that on the Mount, took 
 
 1 For the rest, it is plain enough from the 
 correlative crwp.a that the aiy.a r. X. denotes 
 the blood— not, as D. Schulz still maintains, 
 the bloody death —of Christ (which, consid¬ 
 ered in itself, it might indeed symbolize , but 
 could not be-called. Fritzsche, ad Bom. I. 
 p. 274 ; Kahnis, Abendm. p. 60 f.). 
 
 2 When Rodatz objects that an ideal 
 union with the actual body slain and blood 
 shed is a logical contradiction, he overlooks 
 the fact that the material sphere is not be¬ 
 yond the reach of inward appropriation. 
 Spiritual communion may have reference 
 to a material object, without excluding a 
 symbolic process in which “ signatum non 
 cum signo sed nobiscum unitui'” (Vossius, 
 debaptismo, p. 11). Comp. Kahnis, Dogmat. 
 I. 621 : “Bread and wine form not a mere 
 symbol, but a sign, which is at the same 
 time medium;''' see also III. p. 489. The 
 important alteration in the Latin Confess. 
 Aug. Art. X. of 1540, points in the same di¬ 
 rection. 
 
 3 Riickert also ( Abendm. p. 224 ff.) holds 
 that Paul conceived the body and blood in 
 
 the Supper as glorified; that, in virtue of 
 the conseci*ation, the participant partakes 
 of the glorified blood, etc. Riickert, of 
 course, discards all questions as to mode in 
 connection with this view which he ascribes 
 to the apostle, but which he himself consid¬ 
 ers a baseless one (p. 242). His mistake lies 
 in deducing too much from nvevpaTLKov^ 
 which is neither in ver. 3 nor anywhere 
 else in the N. T. the opposite of material, 
 but of natural (1 Pet. ii. 5 not excluded); 
 and the nvtvp.a to which nyevpaTLicog refers is 
 always (except Eph. vi. 13, where it is the 
 diabolic spirit-world that is spoken of) the 
 Divine lu'ev/j-a. In the case of gifts which 
 are irrevpiaTiKa, it is this Trvev/xa who is 
 always the agent; so with the supply of 
 manna and w r ater in the wilderness, 
 and so, too, with the bread and wine 
 received in the Lord’s Supper, inasmuch 
 as in this |3pu>|ua and n6y.a the commun¬ 
 ion of the body and blood of Christ is real¬ 
 ized, which does not take place when 
 bread and wine are partaken of in the ordi¬ 
 nary, natural way. t 
 
CHAP. X., 1G. 
 
 231 
 
 place at the time of instituting the Supper, as Kahnis formerly held ; but 
 see now his Dogmat. I. p. 622 ; and comp, also, on the other side, Ebrard, 
 Dogma vom heilig. Abendm. I. p. 109 f. Either, therefore, the apostle re¬ 
 garded the noLvuvca of Christ’s body and blood as being different before His 
 glorification from what it was afterwards, or it was in his eyes, both before 
 and after, the inward spiritual fellowship realized by the inner man through 
 the medium of the symbol partaken of, as an appropriation of the work of 
 atonement consummated through means of His body and blood, and conse¬ 
 quently as a real life-fellowship, other than which, indeed, he could not 
 conceive it as realized when the Supper was instituted. Comp. Keim in the 
 Jahrb. fur Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 90 ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 355. Against 
 this noLvovia subjectively realized in the devout feeling of the believer, and 
 objectively established by the divine institution of the ordinance itself, it is 
 objected that the phrase, “ fellowship of the body and blood,” expresses at 
 any rate an interpenetration of Christ’s body and the bread (according to the 
 Lutheran synecdoche ; comp. Kahnis’ former view in his Abendm. p. 136, 
 also Hofmann, p. 219). But this objection asserts too much, and therefore 
 proves nothing, seeing that the fellowship with Christ’s body and blood 
 realized by means of the symbol also corresponds to the notion of fellowship, 
 and that all the more, because this eating and drinking of the elements 
 essentially is the specif c medium of the deep, inward, real, and living Koivuvia ; 
 hence, too, the “ calix communionis” cannot be possibly a fgurata loquutio. 
 This last point we maintain against Calvin, who, while insisting that “ non 
 toW&tur figurae veritas and also that the thing itself is there, namely, that 
 “non minus sanguinis communionem anima percipiat, quam ore vinum 
 bibimus,” still explains away the noLvovla of the blood of Christ to the 
 effect, £ 11 dum simul omnes nos in corpus suum inserit, ut vivat in nobis et 
 nos in ipso.” — ov Khuysv] There was no need to repeat here that the bread, 
 too, was hallowed by a prayer of thanksgiving, after the cup had been 
 already so carefully described as a cup consecrated for the Supper. Instead 
 of doing so, Paul enriches his representation by mention of the other essen¬ 
 tial symbolic action with the bread ; comp. xi. 24. That the breaking of the 
 bread, however, was itself the consecration (Riickert), the narrative of the 
 institution will not allow us to assume. —tov cuyaroQ r. X.] in the strict, 
 not in the figurative sense, as Stroth, Rosenmuller, Schulthess, and. others : 
 “ declaramus nos esse membra corporis Christi, i.e. societatis Christianae,” 
 comp, also Baur, neut. Theol. p. 201. This interpretation is at variance 
 with the first clause, for which the meaning of the Supper as first instituted 
 forbids such a figurative explanation (in opposition to Zwingli ’) ; nor can 
 this be justified by ver. 17 ; for 
 
 1 Zwingli, in his Respon. ad Bvgenh., ex¬ 
 plains it thus : “ Poculum gratiarum actio- 
 nis, quo gratias agimus, quid quaeso, aliud 
 est quam nos ipsi ? Nos enim quid aliud 
 sumus nisi ipsa communio, ipse coetus et 
 populus, consortium et sodalitas sanguinis 
 Christi? h. e. ille ipse populus, qui sanguine 
 Christi ablutus est.” The most thorough 
 
 historical development of Zwingli’s doc¬ 
 trine is that given by Dieckhoff in his evang. 
 Abendmahlslehre im Reformaiionszei taller, I. 
 p. 428 ff. Riickert remarks with justice 
 that Zwingli has here lost his footing on 
 evangelical ground altogether. But Cal¬ 
 vin, too, has lost it, inasmuch as he makes 
 everything turn upon the spiritual recep- 
 
232 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Ver. 17 confirms the statement that the bread is a communion of the body 
 of Christ. For it is one bread; one body are we, the many, i .a. for through 
 one bread being eaten in the Supper, we Christians, although as individuals ice 
 are many, form together one (ethical) body. This union into one body through 
 participation on the one bread could not take place unless this bread were 
 Kocvuvia of the body of Christ, which is just that which produces the one 
 body—that which constitutes the many into this unity. The proof advan¬ 
 ces ah effectu (which participating in the one bread in and of itself could 
 not have) ad causam (which can only lie in this, that this bread is the com¬ 
 munion of Christ’s body). The argument 1 does not imply a logical conver¬ 
 sion (as Rodatz objects) ; but either the effect or the cause might be posited 
 from the Christian consciousness as premiss, according as the case required. 
 See a similar process of reasoning ah effectu ad causam in xii. 12. Comp, also 
 Luke vii. 47. According to this, on is just the since, because (for), so com¬ 
 mon in argument, and there is no need whatever to substitute yap for it 
 (Hofmann’s objection) ; hon is to be supplied after dig aprog ; and the two 
 clauses are placed side by side asyndetically so as to make the passage 
 “ alacrior et nervosior” (Dissen, ad Pind. Exc. II. p. 27C), and, in particular, 
 to bring out with more emphasis the idea of unity (dig . . . iv) (comp. Acts 
 xxv. 12). The oi yap rravreg /c.r.A. which follows leaves us no room to doubt 
 how the asyndeton should logically be filled up (and therefore also) ; for 
 this last clause of the verse excludes the possibility of our assuming a mere 
 relation of comparison (as there is one bread, so are we one body ; comp. 
 Ileydenreich, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, al.). The oi yap navreg, too, 
 forbids our supplying eayev after aprog (Zwingli, Piscator, Mosheim, Stolz, 
 Schrader, comp. Ewald) ; for these words indicate the presence of another 
 conception, inasmuch as, repeating the idea conveyed in dig aprog, they 
 thereby show that that dig aprog was said of literal bread. This holds against 
 Olshausen also, who discovers here the church as being “ the bread of life for 
 the world!''' 1 Other expositors take on (comp. xii. 15 f.; Gal. iv. 6) as intro¬ 
 ducing a protasis, and iv a. ic.r.h. as being the apodosis : 11 because it is one 
 bread, therefore are we, the many, one body." 2 In that case either we should 
 have a further exposition about the bread (Hofmann), no sign of which, 
 however, follows ; or else this whole thought would be purely parentheti¬ 
 cal, a practical conclusion being drawn in passing from what had just been 
 stated. But how remote from the connection would such a side-thought 
 be ! And would not Paul have required to interpose an ovv, or some such 
 word, after the on, in order to avoid misunderstanding ? Interpreters would 
 
 tion of the glorified body, i.e. upon receiving 
 the vivifying power which flows from it, 
 whereas the words of institution have to do 
 simply with that body, tvhich was to be cru¬ 
 cified for the atonement and with its fellow¬ 
 ship. As to Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper, 
 see, besides Henry and Stahelin, Kahnis, II. 
 p. 494 ff. 
 
 1 Comp. Bengel: “ Probat poculum et 
 panem esse communionem. Nam panis per 
 
 se non facit, ut vescentes sint unum corpus, 
 sed panis id facit quatenus est communio ,” 
 etc. 
 
 2 Flatt, Riickert, Kahnis, Maier, Hofmann, 
 following the Vulgate, Castalio, Calvin, 
 Beza, Bengel, al. Riickert, however, has 
 since assented ( Aberidm . p. 229 ff.) to the 
 modifications proposed by Rodatz, of which 
 mention is presently to be made. 
 
CHAP. X., 18. 
 
 233 
 
 not liave betaken themselves to a device so foreign to the scope of the pas¬ 
 sage, had they not too hastily assumed that ver. 17 contained no explana¬ 
 tion at all of what preceded it (Riickert). Rodatz agrees with the rest in 
 rendering : “because there is one bread, therefore are we, the many, one 
 body,” but makes this not a subordinate thought brought in by the way, 
 but an essentially new point in the argument ; he does this, however, by 
 supplying after ev oufia, “ with Christ the Head” (comp, also van Hengel, 
 Annot. p. 167 f.), and finding the progress of the thought in the words sup¬ 
 plied. But in this way the very point on which all turned would be left 
 to be filled in, which is quite unwarrantable ; Paul would have needed to 
 write ev ccbpa aiirov ryq nscpahijc, or something to that effect, in order to be 
 understood.— ol ttoIIol] correlative to the ev atbga (comp. v. 15, 19): the 
 many , who are fellow-participants in the Lord’s Supper, the Christian mul¬ 
 titude. The very same, viewed, however, in the aspect of their collective 
 aggregate , not, as here, of their multitudinousness, are ol navreq, the whole; 
 comp. Rom. v. 15, 18. The unity of bread is not to be understood numeri¬ 
 cally (Grotius, who, from that point of view, lays stress upon its size), but 
 qualitatively , as one and the same bread of the Supper. The thought of the 
 bread having become a unity out of many separate grains of corn is foreign 
 to the connection, although insisted on by many expositors, such as Chrys¬ 
 ostom, Augustine, Erasmus, Calovius, al. — ek rov evog aprov gerex- is inter¬ 
 preted by some as if there were no k : “ since we are all partakers of one 
 bread” (Luther). This is contrary to the linguistic usage, for gerexcLv is 
 joined with the genitive (ver. 21, ix. 12) or accusative (Bernhardy, p. 149), 
 but never with ek ; and the assumption that Paul, in using ek, was thinking 
 of the verb egOlelv (xi. 28), is altogether arbitrary. The linguistically cor¬ 
 rect rendering is : for we all have a share from the one bread , so that in ana¬ 
 lyzing the passage we have to supply, according to a well-known usage 
 (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 138 [E. T. 158]), the indefinite indication of a 
 part, tl or rtvoq , before ek rov evog aprov. Hofmann, too, gives the correct 
 partitive sense to the expression. The article before hog points back to 
 what has been already said. 
 
 Yer. 18. Another 1 analogue to prove that participation in the sacrificial 
 feasts is idolatry. — Kara capKa] without the link of the article, because ’I op. 
 Kara capKa is regarded as a single idea. Comp, on Rom. ix. 3. Israel after a 
 purely human sort means the born Israelites , the Jews, as distinguished from 
 the ’I op. Kara Tzvevga (Rom. ii. 28 f.; Gal. iv. 29 ; comp. Gal. vi. 16), which 
 the Christians are, in virtue of their fellowship of life with Christ the prom¬ 
 ised oirepga of Abraham. It was very natural for the apostle to add Kara 
 capKa , seeing that he had just been speaking of the sacred ordinance of the 
 Christians. — As to the Jewish sacrificial feasts, see Michaelis, Mos. H. II. 
 pp. 282, 346 f., IY. § 189. —koivuvoi rov dvoiacr.] This is the theocratic 
 bond of participation, whereby the man stands bound to the sacrificial altar, 
 who eats of the sacrifice belong to it as such. The Israelite who refused to 
 
 1 Which does not therefore by any means Gemeindegottesd. p. 195 ; comp, also Kahnis, 
 place the Lord’s Supper in the light of a Abendm. p. 30). See against this view, Hof- 
 sacrificial feast (Olshausen, Harnack, mann, Schriflbew. H. 2, p. 232. 
 
234 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 eat of the flesh of the sacrifice as such, would thereby practically declare that 
 he had nothing to do with the altar, but stood aloof from the sphere of theo¬ 
 cratic connection with it. The man, on the other hand, who ate a portion 
 of the flesh offered upon the altar, gave proof of the religious relation in 
 which he stood to the altar itself. The question which may be ashed, Why did 
 not Paul write 0 eov instead of Ovgiciot. ? is not to be answered by affirming 
 that he could not ascribe the kolv. tov Qeov eigl to the ’I op. a. capua (Ruckert, 
 Abendm. p. 217, and Heander ; but could he not in truth, according to 
 Rom. ix. 4 f., xi. 1, say this of the people of God ?), or by asserting that 
 he could not well have attributed so high an effect to the sacrificial service 
 (de Wette ; but why should he not, seeing he does not specify any partic¬ 
 ular land of fellowship with God ?). But the true reply is this : the kol- 
 vuvia Qeov would have been here much too vague and remote a conception; 
 for that fellowship belonged to the Jew already in his national capacity as 
 one of the people of God generally, even apart from partaking of the sacri¬ 
 fices. It was by the latter that he showed the narrower and more specific 
 relation of worship in which he stood to God, namely, the peculiarly sacred 
 KOLvuvia (Ex. xx. 21 ff.) tov dvutaarrjpLov. Hence the inappropriateness of the 
 view taken by Ruckert and many others, that Paul leaves the inference 
 open : “and hence, too, with God,” and of that of Rodatz, that the altar is 
 put for the offering. 
 
 Vv. 19, 20. By these two analogues, vv. 16-18, the apostle has now jus¬ 
 tified his warning given above against the sacrificial feasts as a warning 
 against idolatry (ver. 14). But from the case of the Jewish sacrificial eating 
 last adduced, his readers might easily draw the inference : “ You declare, 
 then, the idolatrous offerings and the idols to be what the heathen count 
 them ?” For whereas the apostle adduced the icotvovla of the Jewish OvoiaG- 
 rr/pcov , and that as an analogue of the heathen OvGiacT'ppca, he seemed thereby 
 to recognize the ko/,vuv'ui of these too, and consequently also the real divine 
 existence of the idols thus adored. He therefore himself puts the possible 
 false inference in the shape of a question (ver. 19), and then annuls it in ver. 
 20 by adducing the wholly different results to v^hicli ver. 18 in reality gives 
 rise. The inference, namely, is drawn only from ver. 18, not from vv. 16- 
 18 (de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann, al .), as ver. 20 ( Ovovoiv , correlative to the 
 OvGLciGTrjptov of ver. 18) shows. —rl ovv Qtj/u ;] what do I maintain then ? namely, 
 in following up ver. 18. Upon this way of exciting attention by a question , 
 comp. Dissen, ad Demosth. de cor. p. 347. Kruger, Anab. i. 4. 14. — rl egtiv ] 
 is something, i.e. has reality, namely, as eIScjaoOvtov, so that it is really flesh 
 which is consecrated to a god, as the heathen think, and as eidolov, so that 
 it really is a divine being answering to the conception which the heathen 
 have of it ; as if, for instance, there were such a being as Jupiter in exist¬ 
 ence, who actually possessed the attributes and so forth ascribed to him by 
 the heathen. To accent the words n egtiv (Billroth, Tischendorf, comp. 
 Ewald) would give the sense : that any idol-sacrifice (and any idol) exists , in 
 the capacity, that is to say, of idol-sacrifice and of idol. Either rendering 
 harmonizes with viii. 4. In opposition to the latter of the two, it must not 
 be said, with Ruckert, that egtl would need to come immediately after orq 
 
CHAP. X., 19, 20. 
 
 235 
 
 for the last place, too, is the seat of emphasis (Kiihner, II. p. G25) ; nor yet, 
 with de Wette, that the one half (eiduMOvrov) is not so suitable, for the con¬ 
 text surely makes it perfectly plain that Paul is not speaking of absolute ex¬ 
 istence. But since both renderings are equally good as regards sense and 
 expression, we can decide between them only on this ground, that with the 
 second the ri would be superfluous, whereas with the first—which, follow¬ 
 ing the Vulgate, is the common one—it has significance, which should give 
 it the preference. At the same time, we must not insert any pregnancy of 
 meaning like that in iii. 7 (of influence and effect) into the ri, as Hofmann 
 does without warrant from the context ; but it is the simple aliquid, the op¬ 
 posite of the non-real, of the non-ens. — all') refers to the negative sense of 
 the preceding question. Hence : u JVo; on the contrary , I maintain ,” etc. 
 See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 37 ; Baeumlein, p. 10 f. — g, Ovovoiv] see the crit¬ 
 ical remarks. The subject is self-evident : the sacriflcers (the heathen , who 
 sacrifice). Kiihner, II. p. 35 f.—The assertion, again, that the heathen sac¬ 
 rifices are presented to demons and not to a real God (Qetp), follows (ovv , in ver. 
 19) from the fellowship in which the Jew who ate of the sacrifices stood to 
 the altar on which they were offered ; inasmuch as confessedly it was only 
 the Jewish OvoLaorripiov with its sacrifice that belonged to a real God, and 
 consequently the heathen Omiaorr/pia and their offerings could not have ref¬ 
 erence to a God, but only to beings of an opposite kind, i.e. demons. — 
 £at/LLovlotg] does not mean idols, false or imaginary gods (Bos, Mosheim, 
 Valckenaer, Zachariae, Rosemniiller, Heydenreich, Flatt, Pott, Xeander), 
 which is contrary to the uniform usage of the LXX. and the X. T., 1 2 and 
 would, moreover, yield a thought quite out of keeping with the context ; for 
 it was the apostle’s aim to point to a connection with an antichristian reality. 
 The word means, as always in the X. T., demons, diabolic spirits. That the 
 heathen worships quoad eventum (of course not quoad intentionem) were 
 offered to devils, was a view derived by ail the later Jews with strict logi¬ 
 cal consistency from the premisses of a pure monotheism and its opposite. 
 See the LXX. rendering of Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Ps. cvi. 37,—a reminiscence 
 of which we have in Paul’s expression here,—Ps. xcv. 5 ; Bar. iv. 7 ; Tob. 
 iii. 8, vi. 14, and the Rabbinical writers quoted in Eisenmenger’s entdeclct. 
 Judenth. I. pp. 805 ff., 816 ff. So Paul, too, makes the real existences an¬ 
 swering to the heathen conceptions of the gods, to be demons , which is es¬ 
 sentially connected with the Christian idea that heathendom is the realm of 
 the devil ; for, according to this idea, the various individual beings re¬ 
 garded by the heathen as gods can be nothing else but diabolic spirits, who 
 collectively make up the whole imperial host of the apxov rov nocpov tovtov 
 (Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12), who is himself the apxyybgd Comp. Hahn, Theol. des 
 
 1 Acts xvii. 18 is uttered by Greeks accord¬ 
 ing to their sense of the word ; but in Rev. 
 ix. 20 we are to understand demons as 
 meant. 
 
 2 Mosheim objects that if Paul held this 
 belief, he must have pronounced the sacri¬ 
 ficial meat to be positively unclean. But 
 it had surely received no character indelebil- 
 
 is through its being set apart for the altar. 
 If not partaken of in its quality as sacrifi¬ 
 cial meat , it had lost its relation to the de¬ 
 mons, and had become ordinary meat, just 
 as Jewish sacrificial flesh, too, retained the 
 consecration of the altar only for him icho 
 ate it as such. 
 
236 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corixthiaxs. 
 
 N. Test. I. p. 36G f.; Weiss, bill. Theol. p. 279. The ancient church, too, 
 followed Paul in remaining true to this idea. See Grotius on this passage. 
 Usteri, Lehrhegr. p. 421 ff. As to the consistency of this view with that ex¬ 
 pressed in viii. 4, see the remarks on the latter verse. Ruckert therefore 
 (with Grotius) is wrong in altering the representation to this effect, that ac¬ 
 cording to Paul the demons had “ given the heathen to believe'' 1 that there 
 were gods to whom men should sacrifice, in order to obtain for themselves 
 under their name divine ■worship and offerings, and that in so far the sacri¬ 
 fices of the heathen were presented to demons. The LXX. rendering of 
 Deut. xxxii. 17 and Ps. xcv. 5 should of itself have been enough to prevent 
 any such paraphrase of the direct dative-relation. —ov OsTm 6e k.t.) 1.] that J, 
 however, do not wish , still dependent upon ort , the reply to rl ovv <pygi being 
 only thus completed. The kolvuvovq points back to koivuv. in ver. 18. The 
 article in tcjv tiaiy. denotes this class of beings. 
 
 Yer. 21 gives the ground of the foregoing ov Oslo tie vyag h.t.a. — ov tivvaode] 
 of moral impossibility. “ Nihil convenit inter Christum et impios daemo- 
 nes ; utrisque serviri simul non potest nisi cum insigni contumelia Christi,” 
 Erasmus, Paraph. Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 15.— 7 -orypiov K vpiov] a cup having ref¬ 
 erence to the Lord, i.e. according to ver. 16 : a cup whichbrings into communion 
 with Christ. Its analogue is a Tcorr/piov Haiyoviov ; the latter was quoad even- 
 turn, according to ver. 20, the cup out of wdiich men drank at the sacrificial 
 feast, inasmuch as the whole feast, and therefore also the wine used at it, 
 even apart from the libation (which Grotius, Munthe, Michaelis, de Wette, 
 and others suppose to be meant), made the partakers to be Koivuvovg tuv daiyov. 
 (ver. 20). — rpaTreiiyg Kvpiov ] refers to the whole avpianov deinvov, xi. 20. In¬ 
 stances of pcTExuv with TpcnrE&g, and like expressions, may be seen in Loes- 
 ner, Obss. p. 288. / 
 
 Yer. 22. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy ? to prove that He will not 
 suffer us to set Him on the same level with the demons ? The connection is 
 this : “ Tou cannot , etc., ver. 21, unless it were the case that we Christians were 
 people whose business it is to provoke Christ to jealousy .” Hence the indicative , 
 which should not be taken as deliberative, with Luther and others, includ¬ 
 ing Pott, Flatt, and Ruckert (or would we defy the Lord?), but : we occupy 
 ourselves therewith, are engaged therein. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 370. 
 The phrase, rbv K vpiov, however, should not be referred to God on the 
 ground of the allusion undoubtedly made here to Deut. xxxii. 21 (so com¬ 
 monly, as by Ewald, Pott, Billroth, Ruckert, Olshausen), but (as by dc 
 Wette and Hofmann), on account of ver. 21, to Christ. — gr/ \ax v P • x-r.A.] 
 we are not surely stronger than He? i.e. we are not surely persons, whom His 
 strength, which He would put forth against us to carry out the promptings 
 of that jealousy, 1 cannot get the better of ? Comp. Job xxxvii. 23. Chrys- 
 
 1 According to Hofmann, Paul means that 
 strength, which men must suppose them¬ 
 selves to possess if they are confident that 
 they can take part with impunity in the 
 sacrificial feasts, whereas Christ can by no 
 means endure the sight of such participa¬ 
 
 tion on their part without becoming jeal¬ 
 ous. But the idea, “ with impunity would 
 be arbitrarily imported into the passage. 
 The greater strength, upon this view of it, 
 would be in truth the capacity—not existing 
 in Christ —to do what was morally impossible 
 
chap, x., 23-25. 
 
 237 
 
 ostom already correctly notes the abductio ad absurdum , with which Paul 
 winds up this part of his polemic against the eating of sacrificial meat. 
 
 Yer. 23. In connection, however, with this matter also, as with a former 
 one, vi. 12, the principle of Christian liberty in things indifferent admitted 
 of application, and had no doubt been applied in Corinth itself. Paul 
 therefore now proceeds to treat the subject from this purely ethical side, 
 introducing the new section without any connective particle (Buttmann, 
 neut. Gram. p. 345 [E. T. 403], and enunciating in the first place the afore¬ 
 said principle itself, coupled, however, with its qualifying condition of love. 
 Thereafter in ver. 24 he lays down the general maxims arising out of this 
 qualification ; and then in vv. 25 ff. the special rules bearing upon the eat¬ 
 ing of meat offered in sacrifice. — o'ucoAopel] promotes the Christian life of 
 the brethren, viii. 1. Comp, on Rom. xiv. 19. See the counterpart to this 
 in Rom. xiv. 13, 15, 20. —As to ovptyepei, see on vi. 12. 
 
 Yer. 24. Let no one be striving to satisfy his own interest , but , etc. Comp, 
 ver. 33. We must not impair the ideal , to which this rule gives absolute 
 expression (otherwise in Phil. ii. 4), by supplying povov and icai, as Grotius 
 and others do. See rather Rom. xv. 1 f. Even the limitation to the ques¬ 
 tion in hand about sacrificial feasts (Pott), or to the adiaphora in general 
 (Billroth, de Wette, Osiander), is unwarranted ; for the special duty of the 
 oiKodoyeiv is included under this quite general rule, the application of which 
 to the matter in dispute is not to come till afterwards. — After alia we are 
 mentally to supply ekciotoq from the preceding prjde'u Sec Bernhardy, p. 
 458 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 192 E, Pep. p. 366 C ; Buttmann, neut. 
 Gr. p. 336 [E. T. 392]. 
 
 Yer. 25. On pa/cellov, shambles , slaughter-house (Yarro, de ling. Lat. 4, p. 
 35 ; Dio Cass. lxi. 18), see Kypke, II. p. 219. Comp. Plut. Mor. 752 C : 
 paneleia. It passed over into the Rabbinical writings also ; see Drus. in loc. 
 — pr/dev avanpiv.] making no investigation (Yulg. interrogates ; not : condemn¬ 
 ing , as Grotius, Ewald, and others take it, contrary to the meaning of the 
 word), i.e. instituting no inquiry about any of the pieces of meat exposed 
 for sale, as to whether it had been offered in sacrifice or not. The weaker 
 Christians, that is to say, were afraid of the possibility (see on viii. 7) of 
 their buying sacrificial meat at the flesh-market, because they had not yet 
 risen to see that the flesh of the victims when brought to the public mart 
 had lost its sacrificial character and had become ordinary meat. They 
 would probably, therefore, often enough make anxious inquiries over their 
 purchases whether this or that piece might have been offered at the altar or 
 not. The stronger believers did not act in this way ; and Paul approves 
 their conduct, and enjoins all to do the same. — 6ia rr/v cwd6rjmv\ may 
 be taken as referring either (1) to prjdev avatepivovre c as to the required mode 
 of the 7r av iodkiv : eat all without inquiry , in order that your conscience may 
 
 (ver. 21). Had this, however, been the apos¬ 
 tle’s meaning, he would have needed, in 
 order to be logical and intelligible, to re¬ 
 verse the order of his clauses, so that lcrx v - 
 poTepoi should have its sense determined by 
 
 ov Suvao-de in ver. 21. According to the 
 present order, the meaning of io-xvp. is de¬ 
 termined by napa£r]\ov/jLei' to be the strength 
 which could make head against that of the 
 4>}A.os thus aroused. 
 
238 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corinthiahs. 
 
 not he troubled , which would be the case if you were told : This is meat of¬ 
 fered to idols (so Erasmus, Rosenmuller, Hofmann, and others, following 
 Chrysostom) ; 1 or (2) simply to avaicpivovreg : icithout making any inquiry on 
 grounds of conscience. So Castalio, Calvin, Beza, at. , including Billroth and 
 Ewald (the latter, however, rendering : ‘ £ condemning nothing on account 
 of conscience”). The second method of connection is preferable, both be¬ 
 cause it gives the simplest and most direct sense for 6ia r. avveid., and also 
 because of the rov yap K vpiov /c.r./L that follows,—words by which Paul de¬ 
 signs to show that, as regards such questions about food, there is really no 
 room for holding a court of conscience to decide upon the lawfulness or 
 unlawfulness of eating. He means then that his readers should partake 
 freely of all flesh sold in the flesh-market, without for conscience’ sake en¬ 
 tering into an inquiry wfliether any of it had or had not been sacrificial flesh. 
 The flesh offered for sale was to be flesh to them, and nothing more ; con¬ 
 science had no call whatever to make any inquiry in the matter ; for the 
 earth is the Lord’s, etc., ver. 26. Other interpreters understand the conscience 
 of others to be meant : “No investigation should be made . . . lest, if it 
 turned out to be sacrificial flesh, the conscience of any one should be ren¬ 
 dered uneasy, or be defiled by participation in the food so Rtickert, and 
 so in substance Yatablus, Bengel, Mosheim, and others, including Flatt, 
 Pott, Heydenreich, de Wctte, Osiander, Maier. Comp. viii. 7, 10. But it 
 could occur to none of the apostle’s readers to take ryv owed), as referring to 
 anything but their own individual conscience. It is otherwise in ver. 28, 
 where 6C enelvov rov prjvvo. prepares us for the transition to the conscience of 
 another person ; while the ovft rov eavrov in ver. 29 shows that in vv. 25 
 and 27 it was just the reader’s own conscience that was meant. 
 
 Ver. 26 supplies the religious ground for the injunction just given : gqdev 
 avaspiveiv <5ia r. avvedir/env, expressed in the words of Ps. xxiv. 1 (comp. Ps. 
 1. 12), which Paul here makes his own. (o 1 ) If the earth and its fulness 
 belong to God, how should it be necessary before using somewhat of them 
 for food to institute an investigation on grounds of conscience, as if such 
 gifts of God could be in themselves unholy, or involve sin in the use of 
 them ? Comp. 1 Tim. iv. 4. For the rest, the passage affords another proof 
 that the apostle had now in principle gone beyond the standpoint of the 
 decree of Acts xv. Comp, on viii. 1, Remark. —As to nM/poya, id , quo res 
 impletur , see Fritzsche, ad Bom. II. p. 469 If. Calvin had already put the 
 point well : “Terra enim, si arboribus, herbis, animalibus et aliis rebus 
 careret, esset tanquam domus . . . vacua .” 
 
 Ver. 27. Ae] of continuation. In the matter of invitations too the same 
 principle holds good, only with the incidental limitation adduced in ver. 28. 
 Note the emphasis conveyed by the unusual place of the na ) leZ, in contrast to 
 the to h paKeTJup rruhovg. which has been already spoken of. Attention is 
 thus called to the fact that a second and a new situation is now to be dis¬ 
 cussed ; before, the reader was in the flesh-market; now, he is a guest at a 
 feast. — It is plain, at the same time, from ver. 28, that what is meant is not 
 
 1 “ Vitandum enim est offendiculum, si in his Paraphrase with fine exegetical dis- 
 incidat, non accersendum,” Erasmus adds cernment. 
 
CHAP. X., 28. 
 
 239 
 
 the invitation to festivals in express connection with sacrifice, but to other 
 heathen feasts, at which, however, flesh offered to idols might occur ; for 
 in the case of a sacrificial feast the iepddvrov kart was a matter of course. — 
 ml OtJere 7 Top.) “ Admonet tacite, melius forte facturos, si non cant, ire 
 tamen non prohibet,” Grotius. 
 
 Yer. 28. ’E av tie rig k.tJ i.] But should it so happen that some one, etc. It 
 is clear from this that the host (Grotius, Mosheim, Semler) is not meant, 
 otherwise rig (ver. 27) would not be repeated, and besides, dC deeivov . . . 
 cvvddrjaiv would not suit ; but a fellow-guest , and that not a heathen (Chrys¬ 
 ostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, al., including de Wette and Maier, according 
 to whom the thing is done maliciously, or to put the Christian to the test 1 ), 
 nor a heathen or Christian indifferently (Flatt), nor a Jew (Wetstcin), but a 
 Christian fellow-guest (Osiander, Neander, al.), who, being himself still 
 under the influence of the ideas about sacrificial flesh, warns his fellow- 
 believer at the table against defilement ; and, moreover, a Gentile Christian 
 (see remark on viii. 7), who had somehow learned—perhaps only since 
 coming to the house—that the flesh from the altar was to form part of the 
 feast . 2 According to Reiche, in his Comment, crit., we should not seek to 
 define the rig more specially, but leave it quite general. But this is at vari¬ 
 ance with the apodosis, which takes for granted that, in the case supposed, 
 eating of flesh would involve a want of forbearance towards the pywaag , as 
 was obviously implied of necessity in the did after what had already been 
 said in viii. 7-18. The rig, therefore, must be one whose conscience re¬ 
 quired to be spared, consequently neither a heathen nor a Jew, but, in ac¬ 
 cordance with viii. 7 ff., onlv a brother who was of weak conscience. This 
 holds against Hofmann also, who assumes that the case supposed in ver. 28 
 might occur just as well if the seller knew the buyer to be a Christian as if 
 the host or any of his family knew the guest as such. To leave the rig thus 
 indefinite is, besides, the more clearly wrong, seeing that the rule for buy¬ 
 ing meat had been finally disposed of in vv. 25, 28, and cannot extend into 
 ver. 28, because ver. 28 is included under the case of the invitation brought 
 forward in ver. 27, and this case again is very distinctly separated by the 
 very order of the words (see on ver. 27) from that of the purchase in the 
 market, ver. 25. —dC kneivov r. yrjvvc. k. t. cvvdd .] for the sake of him who 
 made it known, and of conscience, i.e. in order to spare him and not to injure 
 conscience. The (did) rr/v ovvdidrjoiv is the refrain w T hich serves to give the 
 motive for the rules laid down since ver. 25. To whose conscience this re¬ 
 frain points here , Paul does not yet say (else he would have added avrov), 
 but utters again first of all this moral watchword without any more precise 
 definition, in order immediately thereafter in ver. 29 to express with the 
 special emphasis of contrast the particular reference of its meaning designed 
 
 1 Ewald, too, holds the n's to be a heathen 
 (“ the host, as most interpreters take it, or 
 very possibly a companion at the table”), 
 who gave the hint in a frank and kindly 
 way, as not expecting that a Christian 
 would partake of meat of that sort. 
 
 2 De Wette’s objection, that one of such 
 tender conscience would hardly have gone 
 to a heathen festival at all, carries weight 
 only on the supposition of a sacrificial feast 
 being meant. 
 
240 
 
 paul’s first epistle to the corihthiahs. 
 
 here ; 1 for in vv. 25, 27, tlie gwelStjglq had a different meaning. This k. t. 
 gwel5t]glv, therefore (the nai here being the simple and), carries with it some¬ 
 thing to whet curiosity ; it stands forth in the first place as a sort of riddle , 
 so to speak, which is to find its solution in ver. 29.—Regarding pi jvvg., see 
 on Luke xx. 37. If we imagine the prjvvG. to be a heathen , the k. t. avveid. 
 lands us in an insoluble difficulty. For either (1) we should, with Ewald, 
 suppose that this heathen’s view of the matter was, that the Christian, being 
 warned, w'ould not eat, but, on the other hand, if he did, would be still 
 worse than a Jew, converting liberty into licentiousness ; comp. Erasmus, 
 Paraphr. 2 But in that case how very obscurely Paul would have expressed 
 himself, especially when in the whole context Gvvc'nSrjGig means the Christian 
 consciousness raising scruples for itself, and that in respect of what was law¬ 
 ful or unlawful ! Or (2) we should have, with de Wette, to take rgv gwel- 
 SfjGiv as not the conscience of the ppvvG. at all, but that of third persons 
 (weak Christians), which, however, ver. 29 forbids us to do, unless we are 
 to regard Paul as writing with excessive awkwardness. — iepodvrov] used of 
 sacrificial flesh also in Plutarch, Mor. p. 729 C. The term is purposely 
 chosen here instead of eiSoIoOvtov, as a more honourable expression, because 
 the words are spoken at table in the presence of heathen. We may be sure 
 that this delicate touch is due to no corrector of the text (in opposition to 
 de Wette and Reiche). As to the usage of the word in Greek, see Lobeck, 
 ad Phryn. p. 159. 
 
 Ver. 29 f. Lest now any one should understand this last 6ia r. gweiH. as 
 meaning one's own conscience, as in vv. 25, 27, and so misunderstand Paul 
 with his high views of Christian freedom, he adds here this emphatic ex¬ 
 planation, and the reason in which it rests (Ivari yap . . . ver. 30).— rrjv 
 eavrov] his own individual conscience, his, namely, who was warned. —rov 
 etepov\ of the other in the case, points back to the rov yrjvvcavra, whose con¬ 
 science, too, is afterwards included under allrjg GWEcdr/GEog. — Ivari yap /c.r./l.] 
 For why is my liberty, etc., that is : for it is absurd that another man's con¬ 
 science should pronounce sentence (of condemnation) upon my liberty (my moral 
 freedom from obligation as regards such things, indifferent as they are in 
 themselves). This is the reason, why Paul does not mean one’s own con¬ 
 science when he says that to spare conscience one should abstain from eat¬ 
 ing in the case supposed (ver. 28), but the conscience of the other. One’s 
 own conscience, the distinctive moral element in one’s own self-conscious¬ 
 ness, does not need such consideration ; for it remains unaffected by the 
 judgment passed and slander uttered, seeing that both are without founda¬ 
 tion. The only motive for the abstinence, therefore, is the sparing of the 
 conscience of others, not the danger to one’s own. Similarly Bengel ; comp, 
 de Wette. Th a ordinary interpretation 1 2 3 is that of Chrysostom, taking the 
 
 1 Hence r. a-wetS. should not be under¬ 
 stood of conscience in abstracto (Hofmann : 
 “conscience as such, no matter whose,” 
 although in the first place that of the fxrjvvcr.). 
 
 2 Similarly Hofmann also thinks of the 
 
 “bad opinion of Christianity” which the 
 v.rivv<T. first of all, but others as well, would 
 
 have occasion to form, so that the Chris¬ 
 tian’s liberty would be subject to the tribu¬ 
 nal of the moral consciousness of others. 
 
 3 Adopted by Heydenreich, Flatt, Bill¬ 
 roth, Riickert, Olshausen, Neander, Maier, 
 Ewald, Hofmann ; Osiander is undecided. 
 
chap, x., 31, 32. 
 
 241 
 
 words as tlie reason for the rule in vcr. 28, in the sense of : “For why 
 should I give occasion to others to pass judgment upon me and to speak evil?” 
 or, “ There is no reason for letting it come to such a pass, that a Christian’s 
 liberty should be subjected to that tribunal of the moral consciousness of 
 others,” Hofmann. But even apart from the fact that the text says nothing 
 about “ giving occasion,” or “ letting it come to such a pass,” it is a very ar¬ 
 bitrary proceeding to take a clause standing in such a marked way in the 
 course of the argument as avveiSycnv . . . erepov , and to thrust it aside as some¬ 
 thing only incidentally appended. The connection, too, of the conditional 
 protasis with the interrogative ri in the apodosis in ver. 80, makes it clear 
 enough that Paul wishes to bring out the absurdity of the relation between 
 the two conceptions. Comp. Rom. iii. 7, al. Yatablus, Schulz, and Pott 
 find here and in ver. 30 the objection of an opponent “ ad infirmitatem fra- 
 trum suorum se conformare nolentis. ” The yap is not inconsistent with this 
 (see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 807), but the ovv is (ver. 31). — Observe the dif¬ 
 ference between tov erepov ( alterius) and aTilyg (cdius, i.e. alienae ), by which 
 any other conscience whatever is meant. — : xapcrt\ Dative of the manner : 
 gratefully , tcith thanks. Comp. Eph. ii. 5, where, however, the context 
 shows that the meaning is by grace ; see in general, Bernhardy, p. 100 f. 
 It refers to the grace at meat. By understanding it as benefcio Dei (Beza, 
 Grotius, Heydenreich, Hofmann), we bring in Dei entirely without warrant, 
 and overlook the parallel evxuptark, the idea of which is the same with that 
 of x^pi-TL. — The twice-used eyk is emphatic : I for my part. — juexix^] The 
 object of the verb is self-evident : food and drink. Comp, inrep ov. — evxa- 
 purru] “ Gratiarum actio cibum omnem sanctificat, auctoritatcm idolorum 
 negat, Dei assCrit ; 1 Tim. iv. 3 f.; Rom. xiv. 6,” Bengel. 
 
 Yv. 31-33. The section treating expressly of the participation in sacri¬ 
 fices has been brought to a close. There now follow, introduced by ovv 
 (which here marks the inference of the general from the particular), some 
 additional admonitions, in which are expressed the leading moral rules/er 
 all right Christian conduct / curb tov rrpoKeipevov e~l to nadoTunov egyyaye ryv 
 rrapaiveotv, eva nahTaorov opov fyilv Sovq, to tov Qeov did, iravrov bo^a^eadai, Chrys¬ 
 ostom. — eadiere and tt ivere are to be understood in a perfectly general sense, 
 although the subject which the apostle had been handling hitherto naturally 
 suggested the words. Rlickert is wrong in holding that it would be more 
 correct if eav stood in place of el. The el is here also “ particula plane 
 logica, et quae simpliciter ad cogitationem refertur,” Hermann, ad Viger. 
 p. 834. T/, again, does not stand for the Attic otlovv (Ruckert), but the 
 
 emphasis is on ttocsits : be it that ye eat , or drink , or do anything ; so that 
 the three cases are : eating , drinking , acting. — iravra] without any limita¬ 
 tion whatever. “Magnum axioma,” Bengel. A Christian’s collective action 
 should be directed harmoniously towards the one end of redounding to the 
 glory of Cod ; for all truly Christian conduct and work is a practical glori- 
 fyingofGod. Comp. vi. 20 ; Eph. i. 12; Phil. i. 11 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11 ; John 
 xv. 8. The opposite : Rom. ii. 23. (p 1 ) 
 
 Yer. 32. ’ Attp6okottoi ] become inoffensive (by constantly increasing com¬ 
 pleteness of Christian virtue). See on Phil. i. 10. — sal ’I ov6. sal "EAA. sal 
 
242 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO TIIE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 r. ekkI. tov 9eow] i.e. for non- Christians and for Christians. The former are 
 spoken of under two divisions. It is a mistake to suppose, with Beza, that 
 the reference is to Jewish and Gentile Christians , which is at variance with 
 nal TTj ekkK. tov Qeov , since the three repetitions of nai stand on the same 
 level. Hence also it will not do to lay all the emphasis, as Billroth does, 
 upon rf/ ekkI. tov Qeov , although it is true that it is designated in a signifi¬ 
 cant way, as in xi. 22. The rule is clearly quite a general one ; and it 
 places on the same level the three classes with whom intercourse must he 
 held without giving any occasion for moral offence. 
 
 Ver. 33. Ilarra naoiv iipec r/cw] See ix. 19 ff. iravTa, in every respect, ix. 25. 
 ap'ecKu , am at the service of. It denotes what takes place on the apostle's side 
 through his endeavour, namely, to be the servant of all, and to be all things 
 to all men (ix. 19 ff.) ; not the result of his endeavour, as if he actually did 
 please all (see on Gal. i. 10) ; for ttciglv apecneiv tov Gvp^ov'XevovTa nal ra noivd 
 TzpdTTovTa c idvvaTov , Dem. 1481.4. Comp. Rom. xv. 2 ; 1 Thess. ii. 4. — tuv 
 vro?,?iuv] of the many , the multitude, opposed to the unity of his own single 
 person. Comp, on ix. 19 ; Rom. v. 15 ; and on the idea, Clement, ad Cor. 
 I. 48 : £ tjteIv to KOLvaxpe^EQ ttciglv, nal pi] to eovtov. — iv a gloOiogl] ultimate end , 
 for the sake of which he sought their good : that they might be sharers in 
 the Messianic salvation. Comp. ix. 22. “Ex eo dijudicandum utile,” 
 Bengel. 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (j 1 ) “ In the cloud.” Ver. 2. 
 
 This view agrees with the representation of the cloud in the Rabbinical 
 books : “It encompassed the camp of the Israelites as a wall encompasses 
 a city.’' It is hardly necessary to make much of the typical relation upon 
 which Meyer insists. The point of similarity which the Apostle makes is that 
 the display of God’s power in the cloud and in the sea constituted the people 
 disciples of Moses. “It inaugurated the congregation, and, as it were, bap¬ 
 tized them to him, bound them to serve and follow him.” There cannot be 
 an allusion to the mode of baptism, because, so far as appears, the people were 
 neither immersed nor sprinkled. 
 
 The privileges mentioned in this verse and the one following are such as 
 correspond most nearly with the two Christian sacraments. This is the only 
 passage where they are thus brought into juxtaposition. Neander as well as 
 Bengel views the fact as a testimony in favour of the Protestant doctrine that 
 there are only two sacraments. 
 
 (k 1 ) The Bock was Christ. "Ver. 4. 
 
 These words seem specially inserted, Stanley says, in order to impress upon 
 the readers that whatever might be the facts of the history or tradition, the 
 only rock present to the Apostle’s mind was the Messiah, just as in the case of 
 “ Christ our passover” (ver. 7), for he, in a far higher sense than the rock (tzur) 
 at Horeb or the cliff (selah) at Kadesh, was the Rock which was always in 
 view with its waters to refresh them at the end no less than at the beginning 
 
NOTES. 
 
 243 
 
 of their long wanderings.—The passage not only affirms the pre-existence of 
 our Lord, but identities Him with the Jehovah of the Old Testament. 
 
 (l 1 ) A slip of memory. Ver. 8. 
 
 There is no need of assuming any such slip, because Paul’s number is a 
 thousand less than Moses’s. Hodge remarks, with great force: “Both state¬ 
 ments are equally correct.” Nothing depended upon the precise number. 
 Any number between the two amounts may, according to common usage, be 
 stated roundly as either the one or the other. The infallibility of the sacred 
 writers consists in their saying precisely what the Spirit of God designed they 
 should say ; and the Spirit designed that they should speak after the manner 
 of men, that they should call the heavens round and the earth flat, and use 
 round numbers without intending to be mathematically exact in common 
 speech. 
 
 (m 1 ) “ God is faithful." Ver. 13. 
 
 The author hardly gives the exact sense of these words. Still less does 
 Stanley, who says that “ they express, what we often find in the Psalms, that 
 the faithfulness or justice of God, rather than His mercy, is the sure ground of 
 hope.” Alas for the sinner, however penitent, who appeals to justice. Nor is 
 faithfulness = justice. It means, when used in reference to God, His fidelity to 
 His promises. He has engaged that those who are given to His Son shall never 
 perish (John x. 28, 29). This therefore is their security, and not at all any 
 natural firmness of their own, or even the grace infused into them by regenera¬ 
 tion. 
 
 (n 1 ) “ Communion .” Ver. 16. 
 
 The word thus rendered ( Jeoinonia ) is often used by Paul. Thus we read of 
 participation of His Son, 1 Cor. i. 9 ; of the Spirit, 2 Cor. xiii. 13 ; of the 
 ministry, 2 Cor. viii. 4 ; of the Gospel, Phil. i. 5 ; of sufferings, Phil. iii. 5. Of 
 course, the nature of the participation depends on the nature of its object. 
 Here it cannot mean a literal partaking of the substance of Christ’s body and 
 blood, since, not to mention other reasons, when the supper was instituted the 
 body of Christ was not yet broken nor His blood shed. It must mean therefore 
 the appropriation of the results of His sacrifice, the appropriation being 
 mediated by this ordinance when there exists faith in the communicant. 
 
 (o 1 ) “ The earth is the Lord's ,” etc. Ver. 26. 
 
 This is said by Wetstein to have been the common Jewish form of acknowl¬ 
 edgment and thanksgiving before meals, and probably was the early Eucha¬ 
 ristic blessing. This fact would give the greater weight to the citation of it as 
 an evidence that nothing is unclean in itself, or can become polluting if used in 
 
 obedience to the design of its creation. 
 
 0 
 
 (p 1 ) “Ho all to the glory of God.” Ver. 31. 
 
 All the special directions given in the preceding discussion are here summed 
 up. To make the divine glory the governing motive of our lives introduces 
 
244 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 * 
 
 order and harmony into all our actions. The sun is then the centre of the 
 system. This secures all other ends (such as our own welfare, the good of 
 others, etc.) by making them subordinate, while at the same time it exalts the 
 soul by placing before it an infinite personal object. Between this and mak¬ 
 ing being in general the end of our actions, there is all the difference that there 
 is between the love of Christ and the love of an abstract idea. The one is re¬ 
 ligion, the other is morality (Hodge). 
 
 I 
 
 t 
 
CHAP. XI. 
 
 245 
 
 CHAPTEK XI. 
 
 Yer. 2. adetyot] is wanting in A B C K, min. Copt. Saliid. Aetli. Arm. Athan. 
 Cyr. Bas. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. and Biickert. A natural addition at the 
 beginning of a new section. Comp. x. 1, xii. 1, where not a single authority 
 omits it. Had it been in the original text here, there was no inducement to 
 leave it out. It is otherwise in xv. 31, Bom. xv. 15.—-Yer. 5. eavTijg'] avri/g 
 (Lachm.) occurs in A C D * F G L X, min. Chrys. Theodoret, al. This is such 
 a preponderance of evidence against the Becepta (preferred by Tisch. on the 
 authority of B E K Or.), that we must suppose the latter to be an exegetical 
 change for the sake of clearness. —Ver. 7. yw?/] A B D* F6 73, 118, Dial. 
 Isid. Theodoret read yvvr/, which is adopted bj r Lachm. Buck. Tisch. Bightly ; 
 the article was omitted as in the verse before and after. — Yer. 11. Elz. has the 
 two clauses in inverted order (which Binck defends), but there is decisive evi¬ 
 dence against it. To put the man first seemed more natural. —Yer. 14. ?}] is 
 wanting in witnesses of decisive authority ; deleted by Lach. Buck. Tisch. 
 Added to mark the question. — avrrj 7) (pvmg~\ A B C D H min. Damasc. have 
 i] (pvcng avrrj (so Lachm. and Tisch.) ; F G Arm. Tert. simply rj (pvoig. In the 
 absence of grounds of an internal kind, the weight of evidence on the side of 
 7 / 0 . avrrj should make it be preferred. — Ver. 17. TrapayysHuv . . . ettcuvCj] 
 Lachm. Buck. Tisch. read tt apayyeTilo . . . encuvuv, on the authority of A B C* 
 F G min. Syr. utr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Yulg. Clar. Born. Ambrosiast. Aug. Pel. 
 Bede. This is a preponderance of evidence—all the more that D*, with its 
 reading of TrapayyeTJiu, ovk ettcievg), must here remain out of account. Then, too, 
 ver. 2 compared with ver. 22 made ovk ettcuvco come most naturally to the copy¬ 
 ist ; so that altogether we must give the preference to Lachmann’s reading, 
 which is, besides, the more difficult of the two (against Beiche, who defends 
 the Becepta). —Ver. 21. Trpolapfiavei] A, 46, al. have Trpoa?ia/uft. So Biickert. 
 But this is plainly an alteration, because the tt po, prae, was not understood. — 
 Ver. 22. ettulvegg)'] So also Lachm. on the margin (but with ETtaivcd in the text) 
 and Tisch., following A C D E K L X, all min., several vss. Chrys. Theodoret. 
 The present crept in from its occurrence before and after. —Ver. 24. After eh re 
 Elz. has 'Adhere, (payers ; but in the face of decisive evidence. Taken from 
 Matt. xxvi. 26. — nXupevov] omitted in A B C* 17, 67**, Ath. Cyr. Fulg. 
 In D* we have OpvTrrdpevov ; in Copt. Sahid. Arm. Yulg. al., didopevov. Justly 
 suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. Buck. Tisch. Mere supplements. 
 — Yer. 26. The rovro which stands after norrjpiov in Elz. is condemned by de¬ 
 cisive evidence. So, too, the rovrov, which Elz. has after dprov in ver. 27, is a 
 later addition. — Yer. 29. avaljlug does not occur in A B C N*, 17, Sahid. Aeth.; 
 nor does rov Kvplov (after cupa) in these and some other witnesses. Lachm. 
 and Tisch. delete them both ; and both are glosses. What reason was there 
 for omitting them if in the original ? — Ver. 31. There is a great preponderance 
 of evidence in favour of (5 e instead of yap. The latter is an explanatory altera¬ 
 tion.— Ver. 34. eil Elz. has el tie ; but there is conclusive evidence for reject¬ 
 ing it. 
 
246 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Contents.— (1) How requisite it is that women cover their heads in the 
 public assemblies for the worship of God, 1 vv. 2-16. (2) Regarding the 
 
 abuses of the Agapae, and the right way of celebrating them, vv. 17-34. 
 
 Yer. 1 belongs still to the preceding section.—Become imitators of me. 
 Become so, Paul writes, for there was as yet a sad lack of practical evidence 
 of this imitation ; see also x. 32 (comp. Klihner, ad Xen. Anal), i. 7. 4). — 
 A-dyw] as I also have become an imitator , namely, of Christ. Comp, on Matt, 
 xv. 3. Christ as the highest pattern of the spirit described in x. 33. Comp. 
 Phil. ii. 4 ff.; Rom. xv. 3 ; Eph. v. 2 ; Matt. xx. 28. 
 
 Yer. 2. Conciliatory preamble to the sharp correction which follows. — 
 df] is simply the autem leading on to a new subject ; hence we are not to 
 seek any set purpose in the similarity of sound between /uyyrat and pkpvyode. 
 — t ravra] because you are in all respects mindful of me. Riickert’s explana¬ 
 tion : “ you think on everything that comes from me' 1 ' 1 (xvi. 14), is needlessly 
 far-fetched, seeing that iiep.vryj.aL with the accusative, very frequent in Greek 
 writers, does not occur in the N. T., and the absolute navra is common 
 enough (ix. 25, x. 32). — nal Kaddg /c.r.H.] and because you hold fast the tra¬ 
 ditions in the way in ichich I delivered them to you. This is the practical 
 result of what was stated in the foregoing clause. Uapaddaecg might refer 
 to doctrine as well as to usages and discipline (comp. Gal. i. 14 ; Col. ii. 
 8 ; 2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. G ; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 803 A ; Polyb. xi. 8. 2) ; but 
 the tenor of the following context shows that Paul means here directions 
 of the latter sort, which he had given to the Corinthians orally (and also 
 perhaps in his lost letter, v. 2). He had, at the foundation of the church 
 and afterwards, made various external regulations, and rejoices that, on the 
 whole, they had not set these aside, but were holding them fast in accord¬ 
 ance with his directions (/carejere, comp. xv. 2 ; 1 Thess. v. 21 ; Ileb. iii. 
 6 , x. 23). As to the connection of tt apedcona . . . tt apadooeig, sec Winer, p. 
 210 [E. T. 281]. 
 
 Yer. 3. “After this general acknowledgment, however, I have still to 
 bid you lay to heart the following particular point. ” And now, first of all, 
 the principle of the succeeding admonition. Respecting dehv . . . eidivai , 
 comp, on x. 1 ; Col. ii. 1. — tt avrdg avdp. ] note the prominent position of 
 the word, as also the article before Ke<j>. : of every man the Head. That what 
 is meant, however, is every Christian man, is self-evident from this first 
 clause ; consequently, Paul is not thinking of the general order of creation 
 (Hofmann), according to which Christ is the head of all things (Col. i. 16 
 f., ii. 10), but -of the organization of Christian fellowship, as it is based 
 upon the worh of redemption. Comp. Eph. v. 21 ff. — necpafoy from which 
 we are not (with Hofmann) to dissociate the conception of an organized 
 whole (this would suit in none of the passages where the word occurs, Col. 
 ii. 10 included) designates in all the three cases here the proximate, imme¬ 
 diate Head , which is to be specially noted in the second instance, for Christ 
 
 1 Much fruitless trouble has been taken 
 to connect even the non-veiling of the 
 ■women with the state of parties at Corinth. 
 Now it has been the Pauline party (Nean- 
 
 der), now the Christ-party (Olshausen), and 
 now the folloivers of Apollos (Rabiger), who 
 have been represented as the opponents of 
 veiling. 
 
CHAT. XL, 4. 
 
 247 
 
 as head of the church (Col. i. 18 ; Eph. i. 22, iv. 15) is also head of the 
 woman (comp. Eph. v. 22 f.). The relation indicated by Ke<j>. is that of 
 organic subordination , even in the last clause : lie to idiom Christ is subor¬ 
 dinate is Cod (comp. iii. 23, xv. 28, viii. 6 ; Col. i. 15 ; Rom. ix. 5 ; and see 
 Kahnis, Dogm. III. p. 208 ff.), where the dogmatic explanation resorted to, 
 that Christ in His human nature only is meant (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, 
 al.), is un-Pauline. Neither, again, is His voluntary subjection referred to 
 (Billroth), but—which is exactly what the argument demands, and what 
 the two first clauses give us—the objective and, notwithstanding His essen¬ 
 tial equality with God (Phil. ii. G), necessary subordination of the Son to 
 the Father in the divine economy of redemption. 1 Much polemic discus¬ 
 sion as to the misuse of this passage by the Arians and others may be found 
 in Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact. — Gal. iii. 28, indeed, shows 
 that the distinction of the sexes is done away in Christ (in the spiritual 
 sphere of the Christian life) ; but this ideal equality of sex as little does 
 away with the empirical subordination in marriage as with differences of 
 rank in other earthly relations, e.g. of masters and servants. — nety. de X. 6 
 0eof] The gradation of rank rises up to the supreme Head over all , who is 
 the Head of the man also, mediately, through Christ. This makes it all 
 the more obvious that, on the one hand, the man who prays or speaks 
 as a prophet before God in the assembly ought not to have his head cov¬ 
 ered, see ver. 7 ; but that, on the other hand, the relation of the women 
 under discussion is all the more widely to be distinguished from that of 
 the men. 
 
 Ver. 4. First inference from the aforesaid gradation of rank.—This infer¬ 
 ence is a plea of privilege for the men , which was but to prepare the way for 
 the censure next to be passed upon the women. Had Paul meant to cor¬ 
 rect the men because they had prayed or preached as prophets at Corinth 
 with their heads covered (Chrysostom and many of the older commenta¬ 
 tors ; see against this view, Bengel, and especially Storr, Opusc. II. p. 283), 
 he would have gone into the matter more in detail, as he does in what fol¬ 
 lows respecting the women. — tt poaevx- ] of praying aloud in the public 
 assemblies. For that Paul is giving instructions for the sphere of church-\iie, 
 not for family worship (Hofmann), is quite clear from the irpo^pTevuv added 
 here and in ver. 5, which does not suit the idea of the private devotions of 
 a husband and wife, like the cxo'kaC.eiv ry tt poaevxy in vii. 5, but always 
 means the public use for general edification of the x^piaya referred to, name¬ 
 ly, that of apocalyptic utterance (Acts ii. 17 f., xix. 6, xxi. 9; 1 Cor. xiii. 
 and xiv. ; Matt. vii. 22). Moreover, vv. 5 f. and 10 presuppose publicity; 
 as indeed a priori we might assume that Paul would not have prescribed so 
 earnestly a specific costume for the head with a view only to the family edifi¬ 
 cation of a man and his wife. It was precisely in the necessity of avoiding 
 
 1 Melanchthon puts it well: “ Deus est 
 caput Christi, non de essentia dicitur, sed 
 de ministerns. Filius mediator aecipit min- 
 isterium a eonsilio divinitatis, sicut saepe 
 inquit: Pater misit me. Fit hie mentio non 
 
 arcanae essentiae, sed ministern .”—Even 
 the exalted and reigning Christ is engaged 
 in this ministerlum, and finally delivers up 
 the kingdom to the Father. See xv. 28. 
 
248 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 public occasion of offence that such precepts could alone find ground enough 
 to justify them ; they were not designed by the liberal-minded apostle to 
 infringe upon the freedom of a woman’s dress at home. How can any one 
 believe that he meant that when a wife desired, in the retirement of her 
 own house, to pray with her husband (and how often in a moment might 
 an occasion for doing so arise !), she must on no account satisfy this relig¬ 
 ious craving without first of all putting on her ttE pifioXaiov, and that, if she 
 failed to do so, she stamped herself as a harlot (ver. 5 f.) ! — To take tv po- 
 cevx . as equivalent to ylucccus la’heiv (Baur) is not justified by xiv. 18, 
 although speaking with tongues may have occurred in connection with pub¬ 
 lic prayer by women. —tt pocpijr.] See on xii. 10. The force of the partici¬ 
 ples is : Every man, when he prays or speaks as a prophet, ichile he has, etc. 
 — Kara Keep, sc. tL See Fritzsche, Conyect. I. p. 36. Buttmann, neut. 
 
 Gr. p. 127 [E. T. 146]. Having ( something ) down from the head , i.e. with a 
 head covering. The Jewish men prayed with the head covered, nay, even with 
 a veil ( Tallith ) before the face. See Lightfoot, Horae , p. 210 f. Michac- 
 lis, Anm. p. 244 f. Hellenic usage again required that the head should 
 be bare on sacred occasions (Grotius on ver. 2; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. 
 § 86. 18 f.), while the Romans veiled themselves at sacrifices (Serv. ad Aen. 
 iii. 407 ; Dougt. Anal. II. p. 116). The Hellenic usage had naturally be¬ 
 come the prevalent one in the Hellenic churches, and had also commended 
 itself to the discriminating eye of the apostle of the Gentiles as so entirely 
 in accordance with the divinely appointed position of the man (ver. 3), that 
 for the man to cover his head seemed to him to cast dishonour on that posi¬ 
 tion. — Karaiox • ryv Keep, avrov ] So, with the spiritus lenis, avrov should be 
 written, from the standpoint of the speaker, consequently without any re¬ 
 flex reference (his own head), which the context does not suggest. The 
 emphasis of the predicate lies rather on KaraLaxvvEt, as also in ver. 5. Every 
 man, when he prays, etc., dishonours his head. In what respect he does so, 
 ver. 3 has already clearly indicated, namely (and this meets Baur’s objec¬ 
 tion to the apostle’s argument, that the duty of being veiled should attach 
 to the man also from his dependence, ver. 3), inasmuch as he cannot repre¬ 
 sent any submission to human authority by a veil on his head without there¬ 
 by sacrificing its dignity. His head ought to show to all (and its being 
 uncovered is the sign of this) that no man, but, on the contrary, Christ, 
 and through Him God Himself, is Head (Lord) of the man. We are to 
 understand, therefore, ryv KE(pali/v avrov quite simply like Kara KE<pal?jc, of the 
 bodily head; 1 not, with Oecumenius, Theophylact (doubtful), Calvin, Calo- 
 vius, and others, including Heydenreich, Riickert, cle Wette, Osiander, 
 Maier, Hofmann, of Christ , which is not required by ver. 3, and is posi¬ 
 tively forbidden by vv. 5, 6, 14, which take for granted also, as respects the 
 man, the similar conception of the KE^a^rji namely, in the literal sense. This 
 holds also against the double sense which Wolf, Billroth, and Olsliausen 
 assume the passage to bear, understanding it to refer to the literal head and 
 to Christ as well. 
 
 1 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Benge], Elatt, Ewald, Neander. 
 
CHAP. XI., 5. 
 
 249 
 
 Yer. 5. A second inference of an opposite kind from ver. 3, namely, with 
 respect to the icomen. — Prayer and prophetic utterances in meetings on the 
 part of the women are assumed here as allowed. In xiv. 34, on the contrary, 
 silence is imposed upon them ; comp, also 1 Tim. ii. 12, where they are 
 forbidden to teach. This seeming contradiction between the passages dis- 
 ' appears, however, if we take into account that in chap. xiv. it is the public 
 assembly of the congregation, the whole buOuia'La, that is spoken of (vv. 4, 5, 12, 
 16, 19, 23, 26 ff., 33). There is no sign of such being the case in the pas¬ 
 sage before us. What the apostle therefore has in liis eye here, where he 
 does not forbid the Trpoaevxcadai ?) irpodTjTeveiv of the women, and at the same 
 time cannot mean family worship simply (see on ver. 4), must be smaller 
 meetings for devotion in the congregation, more limited circles assembled 
 for worship, such as fall under the category of a church in the house (xvi. 19 ; 
 Rom. xvi. 5 ; Col. iv. 15 ; Philem. 2). Since the subject here discussed, as 
 we may infer from its peculiar character, must have been brought under the 
 notice of the apostle for his decision by the Corinthians themselves in their 
 letter, his readers would understand both what kind of meetings were 
 meant as those in which women might pray and speak as prophetesses, and 
 also that the instruction now given was not abrogated again by the “ taceat 
 mulier in ecclesiaP The latter would, however, be the case, and the teach¬ 
 ing of this passage would be aimless and groundless, if Paul were here only 
 postponing for a little the prohibition in xiv. 34, in order, first of all, pro¬ 
 visionally to censure and correct a mere external abuse in connection with a 
 thing which was yet to be treated as wholly unallowable (against my own 
 former view). It is perfectly arbitrary to say, with Grotius, that in xiv. 34 
 we must understand as an exception to the rule : “ nisi speciale Dei man- 
 datum habeant.” — aKaraKalvTTTcp] Polyb. xv. 27. 2. As to the dative, see 
 Winer, p. 203 [E. T. 271 ].—rrjv necpah. avrrjq] —see the critical remarks— 
 is, like r. ne<p. avrov in ver. 4, to be understood of the literal head. A woman 
 when praying was to honour her head by having a sign upon it of the 
 authority of her husband, which was done by having it covered ; otherwise 
 she dishonoured her head by dressing not like a married wife, from whose 
 head-dress one can see that her husband is her head (lord), but like a loose 
 woman, with whose shorn head the uncovered one is on a par. —iv yap kart 
 k.t.X.] for she is nothing else, nothing better, than she who is shorn. As 
 the long tresses of the head were counted a womanly adornment among Jews 
 and Gentiles, so the hair shorn off was a sign either of mourning (Deut. xxi. 
 12 ; Homer, Od. iv. 198, xxiv. 46 ; Eurip. Or. 458; Hermann, Privatalterth. 
 § xxxix. 28) or of shamelessness (Eisner, Obss. p. 113), and was even the 
 penalty of an adulteress (Wetstein in loc.). What Paul means to say then 
 is: a woman praying with uncovered head stands in the eye of public 
 opinion, guided as it is by appearances, on just the same level with her who 
 has the shorn hair of a courtesan. — iv k. to avro ] emphatic: unum idemque. 
 See instances in Kypke, II. p. 220. The subject to this is -raca yw?) /c.r.4., 
 not the appearing uncovered, so that strictly it ought to have been ru 
 E^vpijoOai (Billroth). And the neuter is used, because the subject is regarded 
 as a general conception. Comp. iii. 8. Respecting the dative, see Kuliner, 
 
250 
 
 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 II. p. 244; Kruger, § xlviii. 14. 9. — The form %vpao has less authority in 
 Attic writters than ^vplu. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 205. 
 
 Eemakk.—T he evil, which Paul here rebukes with such sharpness and de¬ 
 cision, must have broken out after the apostle had left Corinth ; had he been 
 present, he would not have allowed it to emerge. It arose probably from an 
 imseemly extension of the principle of Christian liberty, occasioned by the 
 fact of women partaking in the special gifts of the Spirit, ver. 4, and doubtless 
 under the influence of the greater laxity of Hellenic ideas about female dress. 
 The letter from the Corinthians, when referring to the way in which the apos¬ 
 tle’ s instructions were acted upon at Corinth (ver. 2), must have contained an 
 inquiry put to him upon this particular point (comp, on ver. 5). The fact that 
 Paul makes no allusion to virgins here proves that they were not involved in the 
 wrong practice, although Tertullian {de virginib. veland.) unwarrantably aj)plies 
 our passage to them also. 
 
 Ver. 6 gives the ground of ev ion /c.r.X, ver. 5. That ground is, that the 
 step from not being covered to being shorn is only what consistency demands , 
 while the dishonour again implied in being shorn requires that the woman 
 should be covered; consequently, to be uncovered lies by no means midway 
 between being shorn and being covered as a thing indifferent, but falls under 
 the same moral category as being shorn. For when a woman'puts on no covering , 
 when she has once become so shameless, then she should have herself shorn too 
 (in addition). A demand for logical consistency (Winer, p. 292 [E. T. 391]) 
 serving only to make them feel the absurdity of this unseemly emancipation 
 from restraint in public prayer and speaking (for ver. 5 shows that these 
 rules cannot be general ones, against Hofmann). To understand it simply 
 as a permission , does not suit the conclusion; comp, on the contrary 
 KaTaK,a?iVTCTt:cdio. —to neip. fy £vpac0cu\ u Plus est radi (fwp.) quam tonderi,” 
 Grotius. Comp. Valckenaer. Evp. means to shave , with the razor fvpdv). 
 The two -words occur together in Mic. i. 16, LXX. Note the absence of any 
 repetition of the article in connection with the double description of the 
 one unseemly thing. 
 
 Vv. 7-9. Tap] introduces the grounding of the KaraKaXv'KTead w, consequently 
 a second ground for the proposition under discussion (the first being vv. 
 3-6). The argument sets out again (comp. ver. 3) e contrario. — ovk otpelTiei] 
 does not mean: he is not bound , which, as ver. 3 shows, would not be enough; 
 but: he ought not, etc., in contrast to the woman who ought (vv. 5, 10). 
 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 14.— eIkoiv /c. 6o^a /c.r.A] The obligation to pray, etc., 
 with the head covered would be inconsistent with this high dignity, because 
 to cover the head is a sign of submission to human power, ver. 10. A man 
 as such (avrjp) is the image of God (Gen. i. 26 f.), inasmuch as he, being 
 Adam’s representative, has dominion over the earth. Other elements of 
 what constitutes the image of God are not, according to the context, taken 
 into account here, nor are the ecclesiastical definitions of it. He is also the 
 glory of God , inasmuch as, being the image of God, he, in his appearance as 
 man, practically represents on earth in a human w r ay the majesty of God as 
 a ruler. Riickert, following older interpreters (given in Wolf), holds that 
 
CHAP. XI., 10. 
 
 251 
 
 Jofais meant here as the rendering of rUD'l, Gen. i. 26; as also the LXX., 
 in Num. xii. 8, Ps. xvii. 15, translates HHDP by doija. But had Paul wished 
 to convey the meaning of rUD'n, a passage so important and so familiar as 
 Gen. i. 26 would certainly have suggested to him the word used there by 
 the LXX., dfioLucig. Ao^a corresponds simply to the Hebrew TOD.—Paul 
 describes only the man as being the image and do$a of God; for he has in his 
 eye the relation of marriage, in which rule is conferred on the man alone. 
 The woman accordingly has, in harmony with the whole connection of the 
 passage, to appear simply as 66% a avSpug, inasmuch, namely, as her whole 
 wedded dignity, the high position of being spouse of the man, proceeds 
 from the man and is held in obedience to him; so that the woman does not 
 carry an independent glory of her own, an iSia 86£a, but the majesty of the 
 man reflects itself in her, passing over to her mediately and, as it were, by 
 derivation, (q, 1 ) Grotius compares her happily to the moon as “lumen 
 minus sole.” This exposition of So^a avdpog is the only one which suits the 
 context, and corresponds in conception to the preceding dotja Qeov , without 
 at the same time anticipating what is next said in vv. 8, 9. The conception 
 of the doga, which is Qeov in case of the man and avdpSq in that of the woman, 
 is determined by the idea of the ordo conjugal is, not by that of humanity 
 (Hofmann) originally realized in the man but passing thence into a deriva¬ 
 tive realization in the woman. —Paul omits elkAv in the woman’s case, not 
 because he refused to recognize the divine image in her (except in an im¬ 
 mediate sense), but because he felt rightly that, in view of the distinction of 
 sex, the word would be unsuitable (comp, de Wette), and would also convey 
 too much, considering the subordinate position of the woman in marriage. 
 — Ver. 8. For there is not such a thing as man from woman , etc., but the re¬ 
 lation of the two as respects being in the converse. — Yer. 9. The yap here 
 is subordinate to that in ver. 8: “for there was not created a man for the 
 woman’s sake, but conversely. ” This is the concrete historical establishment, 
 from the narrative of their creation , of the relation between the two sexes, 
 which had been generally stated in ver. 8; in giving it, Paul, with Gen. ii. 18 
 in his view, does not bring in h again, but Sea, which, however, considering 
 how familiar the history was, throws no doubt upon the genuineness of the 
 ek. In nai yap the nai (which has the force of even indeed , Hartung, I. p. 
 135) belongs to ovk enricOr/. The present genetic relation of the two sexes, 
 ver. 8, began as early as the creation of the first pair, (n 1 ) 
 
 Yer. 10. Aid, tovto ] namely, because the relation of the woman to the man 
 is such as has been indicated in vv. 7-9. — ei-ovoiav exetv ercl rijc Ke<j).\ to have 
 a power, i.e. the sign of a power (to wit, as the context shows, of her husband's 
 power, under which she stands), upon her head ; by which the apostle means 
 a covering for the head. 1 So Chrysostom, 2 3 Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophy- 
 lact, with the majority both of ancient and modern commentators, including 
 
 1 Luther’s gloss is : “ That is the veil or And on ver. 7 he says : As the man ought 
 covering, by which one may see that she is to pray uncovered in token of his apxv, so 
 under her husband’s authority, Gen. iii. for the woman it is a mark of presumption 
 
 16.” to pit) ex €t,/ vviAfioKa t f/g vnoTayr/g. 
 
 3 ’Apa to Ka\vjTTecrdcu vnorayrjg Kal Zi-ovcrCag. 
 
252 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORIHTHIAHS. 
 
 van Hengel, Annot. p. 175 If.; Liicke in the Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 571 f. ? 
 Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander, Maier, 
 Weiss, Yilmar in the Stud. u. Krit. 18G4, p. 465 f.; comp. Diisterdieck in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1863, p. 707 tf. Just as in Diodor. Sic. i. 47, in the 
 phrase exovoav rpeig fiaoikeiaQ errl rfjg Ke<j>. , the context shows beyond a doubt 
 that (3acr. means symbols of one's own power (diadems), so here the connection 
 justifies the use ot k^ovola to denote the sign of another's power ; the phrase 
 thus simply having its proper reference brought out, and by no means being- 
 twisted into an opposite meaning, as Hofmann objects. Comp, also the or¬ 
 naments of the Egyptian priests, which, as being symbols of truth, bore the 
 name of aM/Oeta, Diod. Sic. i. 48. 77 ; Ael. V. II. xiv. 34. Schleusner ex¬ 
 plains ££ow. as a token of the honour (of the married women over the single). 
 But both the context (ver. 9) and the literal meaning of e^ovoia are against 
 this. Bengel and Schrader make it a sign of authority to speak in public. 
 But the whole connection points to the authority of the husband over the 
 wife. There is not a word in the whole passage about the potestas orandi, 
 etc., nor of its being granted by the husband (Schrader). Hagenbach’s view 
 (Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 401) is also contrary to the context, seeing that we 
 have jireviouslv 6lcl tuv avdpa ; he understands h^ovaia as a mark of descent. 
 Paul, he holds, formed the word upon the analogy of irapovcia k.t.1 .,—a view 
 that does not even leave to the term its lexical meaning, which was surely 
 familiar enough to the apostle and his readers. Other expositors make 
 k^ovoia directly to signify a veil (Micliaelis, Schulz), to establish which they 
 have appealed in the most arbitrary way to the kelp of Hebrew words 
 (Cappellus, Clericus, Hammond, Semler, Ernesti). Hitzig again, in the 
 theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 129 ff., gives out the term to be a Jewish-Greek one, 
 derived from e? icov ; because the veil had, he maintains, two overhanging 
 halves which balanced each other, in front and behind. But what is fatal 
 to every attempt of this kind is that kgovoia, power, is so very familiar a 
 word, and suits perfectly well here in this its ordinary sense, while, as the 
 name of a veil, it would be entirely without trace and without analogy in 
 Greek. As for the derivation from k$ laov, that is simply an etymological 
 impossibility. Other interpreters still assume that e^ovo. means here not a 
 sign of power, but power itself. So, in various preposterous ways, earlier 
 commentators cited by Wolf ; and so more recently Kypke and Pott. The 
 former puts a comma after k^ovaia, and explains the clause : “ propterea 
 mulier potestati obnoxia est, ita ut velamen (comp. ver. 4) in capite kabeat.” 
 But the sense of o^eDwlv n would rather have required vnanogv in place of 
 e^ovoiav. Pott again (in the Gotting. Weihnachtsprogr. 1831, p. 22 tf.) ren¬ 
 ders it : “mulierem oportet servare jus seu potestatem in caput suuin, sc. 
 eo, quod illud velo obtegat.” Hot inconsistent with linguistic usage (Rev. 
 xi. 6, xx. 6, xiv. 18 ; comp. Luke xix. 17), but all the more so with the 
 context, since what ver. 9 states is just that the woman has no power at all 
 over herself, and for that very reason ought to wear a veil. Hofmann, too, 
 rejects the symbolical explanation of k^ovoia, and finds the metaphorical ele¬ 
 ment simply in the local import of the phrase eki necpalfjq (comparing it with 
 such passages as Acts xviii. 6, where, however, the idea is wholly different 
 
CHAP. XI., 10. 
 
 253 
 
 in kind). lie makes the thought to be : the woman must have a power 
 upon or over her head, because she must be subject to such a power. In 
 that case what would be meant would be her husband’s power, which she 
 must have over her. But the question in hand was not at all about anything 
 so general and self-evident as that, but about the veiling , which she was 
 bound to observe. The conjectural interpretations which have been at¬ 
 tempted are so far-fetched as not to deserve further mention. We may add 
 that there is no evidence in antiquity for the symbolism which Paul here con¬ 
 nects with the veiling of the women in assemblies (the hints which Baur 
 founds upon in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 571 tf., are too remote). We have 
 the more reason, therefore, to agree with Liicke in ascribing it to the inge¬ 
 nious apostle himself, however old the custom itself—that married women 
 should wear veils in public—was in Hebrew usage (Ewald, Alterth. p. 269 
 f.). — 6ia rovg ayyeXovg] which Baur uncritically holds to be a gloss—a view 
 to which Neander also was inclined—is not a formula obsecrandi (Heyden- 
 reich, who, with Vorstius, Hammond, Bengel, and Zachariae, strangely 
 assumes a reference to Isa. vi. 2), but a clause adding to the inner ground 
 ((ha tovto ) an outward one : u for the sake of the angels,” in order to avoid 
 exciting disapproval among tliem. 1 Tovg ayyekovc; aldiadgn, Chrysostom. Eras¬ 
 mus puts it well in his Paraphrase : “ Quodsi mulier eo venit impudentiae, 
 ut testes hominum oculos non vereatur, saltern ob angelos testes, qui 
 vestris conventibus intersunt, caput operiat.” That the holy angels are 
 present at assemblies for worship, is an idea which Paul had retained from 
 Judaism (LXX. Ps. cxxxviii. 1 ; Tob. xii. 12 f.; Buxtorf, Bynag. 15, p. 
 306 ; Grotius in loc.; Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II. p. 393), and 
 made an element in his Christian conception, 1 2 in accordance with the 
 ministering destination ascribed to them in Ileb. i. 14, but without any of 
 the Jewish elaborations. It must remain a very doubtful point whether 
 he had guardian angels (Acts xii. 15 ; Matt, xviii. 10) specially in view 
 (Jerome, August, de Trin. xii. 7; Theodoret, comp. Theophylact), seeing 
 that he nowhere says anything definite about them. Other expositors make 
 the reference to be to the bad angels, who would be incited to wantonness 
 by the unveiled women (Tort. c. Marc. v. 8 ; de virg. vel. 7, a?.), 3 or might 
 incite the men to it (Schoettgen, Zeltner, Mosheim), or might do harm to 
 the uncovered women (Wetstein, Semler). Others, again, understand it to 
 
 1 [So Hodge, Lange’s Com., Stanley, 
 Princ. Brown, Speaker’s Com., Ellicott’s 
 Com., and Beet.—T. W. C.] 
 
 2 Since the apostle is speaking of meet¬ 
 ings for worship, it is unsuitable to make 
 the reference be to the angels as witnesses 
 of the creation of the first pair; so van Hen- 
 gel, Annot. p. 181 f., following a Schol. in 
 Matthiae. Any allusion to Gen. vi. 1-4 (sug¬ 
 gested already by Tertullian, al. Comp, 
 also Kurtz, d. Elien d. Sohne Gottes, p. 177, 
 and Hofmann) is wholly foreign to the pas¬ 
 sage. Hofmann imports info it the idea : 
 
 “ that the spirits which have sway in the cor¬ 
 poreal world might be tempted to enter into 
 
 that relation to the woman which is assigned 
 to her husband .” Hilgenfeld too, in his 
 Zeitschr. 1864, p. 183, makes it refer to the 
 story in the Book of Enoch, 5 f., about the 
 transgression.of the angels with the daugh¬ 
 ters of men. What an importing of carnal 
 lust! And were not the women whom the 
 apostle here warns in part matrons and 
 gray-headed dames ! 
 
 3 Test. XII. Pair. p. 520 should not be ad¬ 
 duced here (against Bretschneider). The 
 passage contains a warning against the 
 vanity of head-ornament, the seductive 
 character of which is proved by an argu¬ 
 ment a majori ad minus. 
 
Paul’s first epistle to the corintiiians. 
 
 mean pious men (Clem. Alex.), or the Christian prophets (Beza), or those pre¬ 
 siding in the congregation (Ambrosiaster), or those deputed to bring about 
 betrothals { Lightfoot). or unfriendly spies (Heumann, Alethius, Schulz, Morus ? 
 Storr, Stolz, Rosenmuller, Flatt, Schrader)—all mere attempts at explana¬ 
 tion, which are sufficiently disposed of by the single fact that ayyeAoi , 
 when standing absolutely in the N. T., always denotes good angels alone. See 
 on iv. 9. The correct exposition is given also by DListerdieck, l.c ., who 
 shows well the fine trait of apostolic mysticism in 6ia rove; ayyelovg. 
 
 Yer. 11. Paul’s teaching from ver. 7 onward might possibly be misin¬ 
 terpreted by the men, so as to lead them to despise the women, and by the 
 women so as to underrate their own position. Hence the caveat which now 
 follows (in ay el ryv dcopOocnv, Chrys.) against the possible dislocation of the 
 Christian relation of the two sexes : nevertheless , neither is the woman with¬ 
 out the man , nor the man without the woman in Christ , i.e. nevertheless there 
 subsists such a relation between the two in the sphere of the Christian life 
 (ev Kvp'up), that neither does the woman stand severed from the man, i.e. in¬ 
 dependent of, and without bond of fellowship with, him, nor vice versa. 
 They are united as Christian spouses (comp. ver. 3) in mutual dependence, 
 each belonging to the other and supplying what the other lacks ; neither 
 of the parties being a separate independent person. The ev Kvp'up thus as¬ 
 signs to the relation here expressed the distinctive sphere, in which it sub¬ 
 sists. Out of Christ, in a profane marriage of this world, the case would 
 be different. Were we, with Storr, Heydenreicli, Ruckert, Hofmann, to 
 take iv K vp'np as predicative definition : “ neither does the woman stand in 
 connection with Christ without the man, nor vice versa” this would resolve 
 itself either into the meaning given by Grotius : “ Dominus neque viros 
 exclusis feminis, neque feminas exclusis viris redemit or into Hofmann’s 
 interpretation, that in a Christian marriage the relation to the Lord is a 
 common one, shared in by the two parties alike. But both of these ideas 
 are far too obvious, general, and commonplace to suit the context. Ols- 
 hausen (comp. Beza) renders it, u by the arrangement of God.” But iv Kvp'up 
 is the statedly used term for Christ; the reference to the divine arrangement 
 comes in afterwards in ver. 12. 
 
 Yer. 12. For, were this not the case , the Christian system would be clearly at 
 variance'with the divine arrangement in nature. This against Ruckert, who 
 accuses ver. 12 of lending no probative support to ver. 11. — ij ywij in tov 
 civSp.] sc. ion, namely, in respect of origination at first. Comp. ver. 8. — b 
 av 7 /p (ha ryg yvv. ] in respect of origination now. ’E/c denotes the direct orig¬ 
 ination in the way known to all his readers from the history of woman’s 
 creation in Gen. ii. 21 f. ; did again the mediate origin by birth, all men 
 being yevvyrol ywaiKuv , Matt. xi. 11 ; Gal. iv. 4. Paul might have repeated 
 the in in the second clause also (Matt. i. 16 ; Gal. iv. 4), but he wished to 
 mark the difference between the first and the continued creation. And in 
 order to bring out the sacred character of the moral obligation involved in 
 this genetic relation of mutual dependence, he adds : ra 6i rravra in t. Qeov : 
 now all this , that we have been treating of (“vir, mulier et alterius utrius 
 mutua ab altero dependentia,” Bengel), is from God , proceeding from and 
 
CHAP. XI V 13 - 15 . 
 
 255 
 
 ordered by Him. As regards this h, comp. 2 Cor. v. 18 ; 1 Cor. viii. G ; 
 Rom. xi. 36. 
 
 Yv. 13-15. By way of appendix to tlic discussion, the apostle refers Ms 
 readers—as regards especially the 'praying of the women, which had given 
 rise to debate—to the voice of nature herself. He asks them : Is it seemly, 
 —judge within yourselves concerning it,—is it seemly that a woman should 
 offer up prayers uncovered ? Does not nature herself even (ovdtj teach you 
 the opposite ? — kv vp.lv avrolg ] without any influence from without ; comp, 
 x. 15. —ru 0 £cj] superfluous in itself, but added for the sake of emphasis , in 
 order to impress upon them the more deeply the unseemliness of the un¬ 
 covered state in which the woman comes forward to deal with the Most High 
 in prayer. — Regarding the different constructions with npeirov kart, see Butt- 
 mann, neut. Gr. p. 239 [E. T. 278].—The §v<ng is the natural relation of the 
 judgment and feeling to the matter in question,—the native, inborn sense 
 and perception of what is seemly. This instinctive consciousness of pro¬ 
 priety had been, as respected the point in hand, established by custom and 
 had become Qvaig. Comp. Chrysostom. The manifold discussions, to little 
 purpose, by the old commentators regarding the meaning of <f)vcng , may be 
 seen in Poole’s Synopsis, and in Wolf. It is here, as often in Greek writers 
 (comp, also Rom. ii. 14), the contrast to education, law, art, and the like. 
 It cannot in this passage mean, as Hofmann would have it, the arrangement 
 of things in conformity with their creation —that is to say, the arrangement of 
 nature in the objective sense (so, frequently in the classics), for the assertion 
 that this teaches all that is expressed by the on avyp /c.r.A. would go much 
 too far and be unwarranted. Were we, again, to assume that on does not 
 depend at all on didamiei, but gives the ground for the question, so that 
 didaonEL would require its contents to be supplied out of the first half of 
 the verse, how awkwardly would Paul have expressed himself, and how 
 liable must he have been to misapprehension, in putting on instead of con¬ 
 veying his meaning with clearness and precision by yap ! And even apart 
 from this objection as to the form of expression, we cannot surely suppose 
 that the apostle would find in a fact of aesthetic custom (vv. 14, 15)—that 
 is to say, a something in its own nature accidental, and subsisting as an 
 actual fact only for the man accustomed to it—the confirmation of what the 
 order of things in conformity with their creation teaches, (s 1 ) — avrij\ inde¬ 
 pendently of all other instruction.—Upon the matter itself {Kogrjv tie E^eiv nal 
 evKoyov dvai yvvauiurepbv eon, Eustath. ad II. iii. p. 288), see Perizonius, ad 
 Ael. V. H. ix. 4 ; Wetstein in loc. In ancient times, among the Hellenes, 
 the luxuriant, carefully-tended hair of the head was the mark of a free man 
 (see generally, Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxiii. 13 ff.). Comp, also 2 Sam. 
 xiv. 25 f. In the church, both by councils and popes, the Koporpo^elv was 
 repeatedly and strictly forbidden to the clergy. 1 See Decretal, lib. iii. tit. 
 
 \ 
 
 1 If we are to look upon the tonsure, how¬ 
 ever, as a symbol of the spiritual life in 
 contradistinction to the vanities of this 
 world (see Walter, Kirchenr. § 212). then 
 this by no means corresponds to the view 
 
 held by the apostle in our text. Long hair 
 on the head is a disgrace to a man in his 
 eyes ; because he regards it as a sign of 
 human subjection. 
 
256 
 
 Paul’s fikst epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 i. cap. 4. 5. 7. —otl i) n6py avri ireptft. 4e4.] Ground for long hair being an 
 ornament to a woman : because it is given to her instead of a veil , to take its 
 place, to be, as it were, a natural veil. This again implies that to wear a 
 veil, as in the case in hand, is a decorous thing. For if the nopy is an hon¬ 
 our for a woman because it is given to her in place of a veil , then the veil itself 
 too must be an honour to her, and to lay it aside in prayer a disgrace. 
 “Naturae debet respondererohmtas,” Bengel. UeptfShhatov, something thrown 
 round one , a covering in general (see the Lexicons, and Schleusner, Thes. IY. 
 p. 289), has here a special reference to the veil ( 'nalv-rc-pa , nalvyga) spoken of 
 in the context. 
 
 Yer. 1G. The apostle has done with the subject ; but one word more of 
 warning now against all controversy about it.—do/ceZ] Yulg. : u si quis autem 
 videtur contentiosus esse.” This would imply that sort of forbearing cour¬ 
 tesy in the rio/ceZ, according to which one “ videri aliquid esse, quam vere esse 
 dicere maluit,” Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 129. Comp. Frotscher, ad Xen. Ilier. 
 p. 92. Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 757 f. So de Wette and Winer, p. 570 [E. T. 
 766]. But one can see no reason for Paul’s choosing any such special deli¬ 
 cacy of phrase. If, again, we understand the words to mean : if any one 
 likes to be , or has pleasure in being , contentious (Luther, Grotius, Riickert), 
 that is to confound the expression with the construction Sokei pot. 1 The 
 simplest explanation, and, at the same time, quite literally faithful, is, as in 
 Matt. iii. 9, Phil. iii. 4 : if any one is of opinion , if he thinks , or is minded 
 to be , etc. ; but to import the notion of permission into the infinitive here, 
 in connection with this rendering (Billroth), would be arbitrary, because 
 without warrant from the text (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 1).— y/uelg 
 tolclvtt]v k.t./ 1.] declarative : Let him be told that ice, etc. Comp. Bom. xi. 
 18. See Winer, p. 575 [E. T. 773]. — ypeig] I and those who are like minded 
 with me. — -oiavryv awyd.] such a custom. Interpreters refer this either to 
 the censured practice of the women being unveiled (Theodoret, Erasmus, 
 Grotius, Bengel, Michaelis, Sender, Rosenmtiller, Ileydenreich, Flatt, Bill¬ 
 roth, Olshausen, Ewald, Neander, Maier, Hofmann), or to the custom of 
 contention (Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, Calo- 
 vius, and others, including Riickert and de Wette). The latter suits the 
 immediate context, and is requiredj by ypelg ; hence we cannot, with The- 
 ophylact and Osiander, leave it an open question which of the two refer¬ 
 ences should be preferred. The ovde ai ekkI. t. Qeov is not against this 
 view ; for what is asserted is not that all individual members were free from 
 the love of strife, but only that the churches as a whole were so. These last 
 are distinguished by ovde at ekkL. t. Qeov from the individuals implied in 
 ypEtg. Neither does the expression cwydEta throw any difficulty in the way 
 of our interpretation ; on the contrary, occurring as it does in this short con¬ 
 cluding sentence of deprecation, it lends to it a certain point against the 
 readers, some of whom seem to have allowed this vice of contentiousness 
 to grow with them into a habit ; it was their miserable custom / (t 1 ) — The 
 
 1 So, too, Soko> /mot, lubet, volo. See Ast, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 251. Also SiSoKraC not. See 
 Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 552. 
 
CHAP. XI., 17-19. 
 
 257 
 
 abnormal position of isolation, into which, their controversial tendencies 
 would bring them, should surely suffice to prevent their indulging them ! 
 
 Yer. 17. Transition to the censure which follows. Now this (what I have 
 written up to this point about the veiling of the women) I enjoin , 1 while I 
 do not praise (i.e. wffiile I join with my injunction the censure), that ye , etc. 
 The u litotes” ova hTaivtiv glances back upon ver. 2. Lachmann’s view, ac¬ 
 cording to which the new section begins at ver. 16, so that <pil ovelkoq would 
 relate to the Gxicyara in ver. 18, has this against it, that Trapayyehhu always 
 means praecipio in the 1ST. T. (vii. 10 ; 1 Thess. iv. 11 ; 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 
 10, 12, al .), not I announce, and that no injunction is expressed in ver. 16. 
 Moreover, we should desiderate some conclusion to the foregoing section, 
 and, as such, considering especially that the matter in question was such a 
 purely external one, ver. 16 comes in with peculiar appropriateness. Other 
 expositors, such as Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Hammond, 
 Bengel, Riickert, also Ewald and Hofmann (comp, his Schriftbeweis , II. 2, 
 p. 235 f.), refer tovto, after the example of the Greek Fathers, to what 
 follows , inasmuch, namely, as the exposition now to begin ends in a command, 
 and shows the reason why the church deserves no praise in this aspect of its 
 church-life. Paul has already in his mind, according to these interpreters, 
 the directions which he is about to give, but lays a foundation for them 
 first of all by censuring the disorders which had crept in. Upon that view, 
 however, the tovto napayy. would come in much too soon ; and we must 
 suppose the apostle, at the very beginning of an important section, so little 
 master of his own course of thought, as himself to throw his readers into 
 confusion by leaving them without anything at all answering to the tovto 
 napayy. — otl ovk e'ig to KpeiTTov k.t.Tl.] does not give the reason of his not 
 praising, but—seeing there is no vpag with eiraiv ., as in ver. 2—states what it 
 is that he cannot praise. Your coming together is of such a kind that not 
 the melius but the pejus arises out of it as its result ; that it becomes worse 
 instead of better with you (with your Christian condition). Theophylact 
 and Billroth make to kpeItt. and to tjttov refer to the assemblies themselves : 
 “that you hold your assemblies in such a way that they become worse instead 
 of better.” A tame idea ! 
 
 Yv. 18, 19. Iipo)Tov pev yap ] The second point is found by most expositors 
 in ver. 20 (so Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, Winer, 
 p. 536 [E. T. 721]). In that case Paul first of all censures here generally 
 the divisions which appeared in their assemblies, and then in ver. 20 links 
 on by ovv the abuse of the Lord’s Supper as a consequence of those divisions. 
 But this view has against it the fact that he follows up ver. 18 neither by 
 censure nor correction of what was amiss, which he would not have omitted 
 to do, considering the importance of the matter in question, if he had re¬ 
 garded ver. 18 as touching upon a distinct point from that in vv. 20, 21. 
 Moreover, in ver. 22, ETcaiviao vpag ; ev tovtco ovk. etc acvo), which has reference 
 
 1 Hofmann irrelevantly objects to our 
 making tovto refer to the preceding pas¬ 
 sage, that Paul has previously enjoined 
 nothing. He has, in fact, very categorically 
 
 enjoined that the women should be veiled 
 (comp. esp. vv. 5, 6, 10), and not simply ex¬ 
 pressed his opinion upon a custom that 
 displeased him. 
 
 
258 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corintiiian'S. 
 
 to the ovk EirciLvtiv of ver. 17, proves that in his mind vv. 18-22 formed not 
 two rebukes, but one. This serves, too, by way of reply to Hofmann, who 
 insists on taking npurov, in spite of the pcv that follows it, not as first, but 
 as before all things, above all. The true view, on the contrary, is (comp, also 
 Baur in the theol. Jcihrbucher , 1852, p. 558 ; Rabiger, p. 135 ; Osiander), 
 that ovv in ver. 20 does not introduce a second point of reprehension, but 
 takes up again the first point, which had been begun in ver. 18 and inter¬ 
 rupted by nal pepog tl k.t.1. (see .on viii. 4), — an interpretation which is 
 strongly supported by the repetition of the same words cvvepxop. vpuv. In 
 using the term oxiapara, 1 Paul has already in his mind the separations at the 
 love-feasts (not the party divisions of i. 12, Theodoret, and many others), 
 but is kept for a time from explaining himself more fully by the digression 
 which follows, and does so only in ver. 20. Still, however, the question 
 remains : Where is the second point, which npurov leads us to expect ? It com¬ 
 mences in xii. 1. Paul censures two kinds of evils in connection with their 
 assemblies—(1) the degeneration of the Agapae (vv. 18-34), and (2) the 
 misapplication of the gifts of the Spoirit (xii. Iff.). The irpuTov pkv is left 
 out of account while he pursues the first point, and instead of following it 
 up with an erceiTa 6e, after completing his discussion, he passes on in xii. 1 
 with the continuative 6e to second subject, making no further reference to 
 that TTpoTov per yap in ver. 18. How common it is in classic writers also to 
 find the Ttpurov followed by no Eircira, or anything of the kind, but another 
 turn given to the sentence, may be seen in Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 191 ; 
 Bremi, ad Lys. I. p. 31. Comp, on Acts i. 1, and on Rom. i. 8, iii. 2. —h 
 huh.] in a church-meeting. This is conceived of as & local sphere (comp. Ben- 
 gel : “ ver git ad significationem loci' 1 ''), in which the avvepxeadac takes place 
 by the arrival of members ; as we also say : “in einer Gesellschaft zusam- 
 menkommen.” Comp. Winer, p. 386 [E. T. 515]. Although the apostle 
 might have written e\q EKKlr/alav (Lucian, Jov. Trag. 6), yet we must neither 
 take kv in the sense of dg (Vulgate, Ruckert, Schrader), nor impute to the 
 word ekkI. the meaning : place of assembly (Grotius, Wolf, Heydenreich), 
 nor understand it adverbially, as with abstract terms : congregationally 
 (Hofmann). — There should be no comma after ek.h1. ; for cvvepx . k.t.1. 
 connects itself in meaning not with clkovco, but with axiapara k.t.Tl. — cikovu] 
 in the sense of aKTjKoa, denoting continuance. See Ast, ad Plat. Leg. 
 p. 9 f. ; Bernhardy, p. 370 ; Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 26. — pepog tl] 
 for a paid, partly, Thuc. i. 23. 3, ii. 64. 2, iv. 30. 1 ; Isocr. p. 426 D. lie 
 cannot bring himself to believe all that he has heard of the divisions at 
 their assemblies. A delicate way of showing the better opinion that he still 
 has of his readers, not a reference to the uncertainty of the source whence 
 the news reached him (Hofmann). — <5eZ] according to God’s decree. It is 
 the “ necessitas consequentiae” (Melanchthon) ; for the iva which follows 
 indicates, according to the apostle’s teleological view (comp. Matt, xviii. 
 7), the end ordained by God, namely, that the tried, those who have not 
 
 1 Chrysostom well remarks : ou \eyer &kov w 
 
 fxrj KOLvrj vpa<s avySenryelv, aicovu) yap Kar iSiav 
 vpas icrriacrdat Kal pr) pera tu>v nevrjToiv a\\’ o 
 
 paXuna 'ucavov r\v avriav fiiacretcrat rrjv Siavoiav, 
 tovto Tedeuce to tov axtaparoi ovopa , o Kal tov- 
 tov rjy alnov. 
 
CHAP. XI., 20. 
 
 259 
 
 suffered themselves to be carried away by party-agitation, should "become 
 manifest, (u 1 )— aal alpecreic, ■] It cannot be proved (although Itiickert, Nean- 
 der, Hofmann, and others hold) that alpeaeig is something worse 1 than g fa- 
 para (and that nac must mean even), as Pelagius, Estius, and Calovius would 
 take it ; for nai may be simply also (among other evils also), and in Gal. v. 
 20—where, moreover, Gfanara does not come in at all—Paul does not in¬ 
 tend to construct an exact climax, but merely to heap together kindred 
 things. Now, seeing that our Epistle says nothing of absolute p&rty-sepa¬ 
 rations, but always shows us merely party -divisions subsisting along with 
 outward unity, one cannot well make out wherein the worseness of the 
 alpeaetc consisted ; for to hold, with Riickert, that zlvai means to ensue , and 
 points to the future (as Hofmann too maintains), is a perfectly groundless 
 assumption. The alpecreig were there, were not merely coming ; it will not do 
 to confound elvai with yivEoOai or eWelv (Matt, xviii. 7 ; Luke xvii. 1), a 
 mistake into which J. Muller also falls, l.c. We must therefore, with 
 Chrysostom, Grotius, Olshausen, ad., regard alpeoeig as another form of des¬ 
 ignation for the same thing (the a fa para). It does not mean heresies in 
 the sense of false doctrine (2 Pet. ii. 1), as Calvin, Calovius, and others 
 maintain ; neither does it refer simply to the separations in keeping the 
 Agapae (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact) ; but—as is clear from the 
 nature of the sentence as assigning a more general reason for what had been 
 said—to factious divisions in the church generally 2 (according as there existed 
 tendencies and views at variance with each other and destructive of har¬ 
 mony). Comp, on Gal. v. 20. 
 
 Yer. 20. OtSv] resuming after the parenthesis ; see on ver. 18. —knl to 
 avrd ] to the same place. See on Acts i. 15. —ovk zgtl Kvpiatc. Seittv. (j>ay. ] 
 there does not take place an eating of a Lord's Supper, i.e. one cannot eat a Lord’s 
 Supper in that way ; it is morally impossible, since things go on in such 
 fashion as ver. 21 thereupon specifies by way of proof. We have here the 
 very common and familiar use of sari with the infinitive, in the sense of : it 
 is possible , one can, as in Heb. ix. 5. So e.g. the passages from Plato given 
 by Ast, Lex. I. p. 622 ; Horn. il. xxi. 193, al. ; Thuc. viii. 53 ; Soph. Phil. 
 69 ; Aesch. Pers. 414 ; Polyb. i. 12. 9, v. 98. 4. It occurs in the classics 
 also for the most part with the negative. See generally, Valckenaer on 
 Eurip. Ilippol. 1326. Beza, Estius, Zachariae, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, 
 Winer, al., render it otherwise, as if there were a tovto in the text : this is 
 not, etc. And even if there were such a tovto, it would have nothing here 
 to connect itself with. — Kvpianov SeIttvov] a meal belonging to the Lord, conse¬ 
 crated to Christ ; comp. ver. 27, x. 21. The name was given to the love- 
 feasts (Agapae, Jude 12), at which the Christians ate and drank together 
 what they severally brought with them, and with which was conjoined the 
 Lord’s Supper properly so called (x. 16, 21 ; comp, on Acts ii. 42), so that 
 
 1 So also J. Muller, v. d. Siinde , I. p. 538, ai'peo-is a “ mollius vocabulum” than 
 ed. 5, holds that crx^r- denotes the inner 2 It is arbitrary to ascribe the disturbance 
 disunion in the church, which shows itself about the Lord’s Supper to one special 
 
 in positive division and faction (aipeo-ei?). party at Corinth, such as the Christ-party 
 
 Wetstein, on the contrary, considered (Olshausen), or that of Apollos (Rabiger). 
 
260 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 the bread was distributed and partaken of during the meal and the cup 
 after it, according to the precedent of the original institution. Comp. 
 Tertullian, Apol. 30. Chrysostom, indeed, and Pelagius held that Lord’s 
 Supper came first; but this is contrary to the model of the first institution, 
 came into vogue only at a later date, and rests purely upon the ascetic idea 
 that it was unbefitting to take the Eucharist after other food. To under¬ 
 stand here, as Hofmann does, not the whole meal , but merely the celebration 
 of the Lord's Supper, which was conjoined with it, is not in keeping with 
 the phrase dtinvov, the precise scope of which is determined by the meal so 
 originally instituted (John xiii. 2) to which it points. 
 
 Ver. 21. TlpoXapfiavct] takes beforehand his own meal (as contrasted with 
 Kvpian. SeIttv., comp. Chrysostom : to yap nvpiaicbv IduortKov teolovglv). Instead 
 of waiting (ver. 33) till a general distribution be made and others thus 
 obtain a share (comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 14. 1), and till by this means the meal 
 assume the form of a avpianbv deivrvov, he seizes at once for himself alone 
 upon the portion which he brought with him, and holds therewith his own 
 private meal in place of the Lord’s Supper. The expression is not “ in the 
 highest degree surprising,” as Ruckert calls it ; but it is very descriptive of 
 the existing state of matters. Gi;otius (comp, de Wette) is wrong in sup¬ 
 posing that the rich ate first, and left what remained for the poorer members. 
 This runs counter to the e/caorof, which must mean every one who brought 
 anything with him. Of course, when the rich acted in the way here 
 described, the poor also had to eat whatever they might have brought with 
 them by themselves ; and if they had nothing, then this abuse of the Lord’s 
 Supper sent them empty away, hungry and put to shame (vv. 22, 33). —ev 
 T 6 j tpayelv] not ad manducandum (Vulg.), but in the eating , at the holding of 
 the meal. — ttelvo] because, that is to say, he had nothing, or but little, to 
 bring with him, so that he remained unsatisfied, receiving nothing from the 
 stores of the wealthier members. — ycOvci] is drunken , not giving the exact 
 opposite of Tcciva , but making the picture all the fuller and more vivid, be¬ 
 cause 7 vEiva and ueOvsc lead the reader in both cases to imagine for himself 
 the other extreme corresponding to the one specified. We must not weaken 
 the natural force of peO ., as Grotius does, to ‘‘plus satis bibit.” See on John 
 ii. 20. Paul paints the scene in strong colours ; but who would be war¬ 
 ranted in saying that the reality fell at all short of the description ? 
 
 Yer. 22. In a lively succession of questions the apostle shows how un¬ 
 suitable and unworthy this procedure of theirs was. —yrj yap olidag /c.t.a.] 
 ■yap has inferential force ; see on Matt, xxvii. 23 ; John ix. 30 ; Acts xix. 
 35 ; and Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 559] ; Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 10 : you 
 surely are not without houses f The sense of astonishment (Hartung, Partikell. 
 I. p. 478) is conveyed by the question, not by the yap. — rj rfjq EKicXnotag . . . 
 Exovrad] a second counter question, which divides itself into two parts: 1 or, 
 again, is it the case with you that you are persons whose business it is ( 1 ) 
 generally to despise the church of God (which you show by your not counting 
 
 1 The underlying dilemmatic conclusion of God, etc.; you have houses, therefore you 
 
 is : Persons who act as you do have either despise, etc. 
 no houses, etc., or they despise the church 
 
CHAP. XI., 23. 
 
 261 
 
 its members worthy to eat and drink on a common footing with you), and (2) 
 to cause the poor to he put to shame ? The latter could not but feel themselves 
 slighted, if they were not thought worthy of having a share in what the 
 wealthier had provided. The main emphasis in the first clause is upon rrjq ekkX. 
 t. 0 eov (Qeov , “ dignitas ecclesiae,” Bengel, comp. ver. 16 ); in the second, 
 upon KaTaiaxvveTe. —Respecting ova exav, not to have , to be poor, see Wet- 
 stein on 2 Cor. viii. 13 ; comp, oi exovreg, divites, in Ast, ad Plat. Legg. v. 
 p. 172 ; Bornemann, ad Anah. vi. 6 . 38 . Here, however, we have pi] with 
 the participle and article, because the class is referred to (Baeumlein, Partik. 
 p. 296 ). — tl v/ilv eItto k.t.X.] what shall I say to you ? Shall I give you 
 praise ? On this point I praise not. If we keep ver. 17 in view, to connect 
 h tovtci) with Eiraivti gives a more suitable emphasis for the words than to 
 link them with the preceding clause (Lachmann, Hofmann, with various 
 codices and versions). On other points he has already praised them, ver. 2. 
 The apostle’s deliberative and ceremonious mode of expressing himself, and 
 the result that he arrives at, could not but make the readers themselves 
 feel how much they deserved the reverse of praise in this matter. 
 
 Yer. 23. Ground of the tv tovtu ovk Enaivo. For I, for my part, have re-, 
 ceived the following instructions from, Christ touching the institution of the Lord's 
 Supper , 1 which I also delivered to you. How should it be possible then that 
 your disorder should meet with praise, so far as I am concerned, at variance 
 as it is with the knowledge of the matter obtained by me from Christ and 
 communicated to you ? — invo rov Iv vpiov] Had Paul written tt apa r. k., this 
 would have denoted that he had received the instructions directly from 
 Christ (Gal. i. 12 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13, iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. 14 ; Acts x. 22; John 
 vi. 45, viii. 40, x. 18) ; airo r. k., on the other hand, means forth from the 
 Lord, from the Lord's side as the source , so that the preposition taken by itself 
 leaves the question open whether the relation referred to be an indirect (so 
 generally, including Gal. iii. 2 ; Col. iii. 24) or a direct one (as in Col. i. 7 ; 
 1 John i. 5 ; 3 John 7). And Hofmann does not go further than this in¬ 
 definite relation, holding the only idea expressed here to be that of origin 
 from the Lord ; comp, also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 211. But seeing that, 
 if what Paul had in view had been an immediate reception, it would have 
 been natural for him, and of some importance for his argument, to express 
 this distinctly by using tt apa, while yet in point of fact he uses only euro , we 
 are warranted in assuming that he means a reception, which issued indeed 
 from Christ as originator, but reached him only mediately through another 
 channel, (v 1 ) This applies against Calovius, Bengel, Flatt, and others, 
 including Heydenreich, Olshausen, de Wette (assuming a confirmation by 
 special revelation of what he had learned from report), Osiander, who all 
 find here a direct communication from Christ. The argument of Schulz and 
 de Wette, however, against this latter view, on the ground of the word Trape¬ 
 zia being in itself inappropriate, will not hold, especially when we view 
 it as correlative to Trapedutca ; comp. xv. 3. 
 
 1 Not merely regarding its design and re- the special account of the institution itself, 
 quirements (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 353 f.); for which follows, goes beyond that. 
 
262 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 The question now remains : Does Paul, in asserting that his account of 
 the institution proceeded from the Lord, mean to say simply that he received 
 what follows by a tradition descending from Christ, 1 or by a revelation 
 issuing from Christ ? The latter alternative, which Riickert also adopts 
 ( Abendm . p. 194 f.), is not to be rejected on the ground of the following 
 narrative being something with which all were familiar. For it is quite 
 possible that it was wholly unknown to the apostle at the time of his con¬ 
 version ; and even apart from that, it was so important for his apostolic 
 vocation that he should have a sure and accurate knowledge of these facts, 
 and to receive it by way of special revelation was so completely in harmony 
 with Paul's peculiar position as an apostle, since he had not personally been 
 a witness of the first Lord’s Supper, that there is nothing to forbid our 
 assuming that he received his account of the institution of this ordinance, 
 like his gospel generally, in the way of authentic revelation from Christ. 
 As to the form of mediate communication through which Christ had caused 
 these facts to reach Paul, not appearing to him for this purpose Himself, we 
 must leave that point undecided, since very various kinds of media for 
 divine revelations are possible and are historically attested. It may have 
 been by an utterance of the Spirit, by an angel appearing to him, by seeing 
 and hearing in an ecstatic state. Only the contents of the revelation—from 
 its essential connection with the gospel, and, in fact, with its fundamental 
 doctrine of the work of reconciliation—exclude, according to Gal. i. 1, 12, 
 15, the possibility of human intervention as regards the apostle in the 
 matter ; so that we should not be justified in supposing that the revelation 
 reached him through some man (such as Ananias) commissioned to convey 
 it to him by the Lord. As to the view that we have here a mere tradition, 
 on the other hand, recounted by Paul as originating with Christ, the 
 apostle himself decides against it both by his use of the singular (comp, 
 xv. 8), and also by the significant prominence given to the eyu, whereby he 
 puts forward with the whole strength of conscious apostolic authority the 
 communication made to himself , to him personally, by the Lord, over-against 
 the abuse, contrasting with it, of the Holy Supper among the Corinthians. 
 Had he meant simply to say : u I know it through a tradition proceeding 
 from Christ,” then his tyu would have been on the same level with every 
 other, and the emphatic prominence which he gives to the kyu, as well as 
 the sing. irape^a^ov, would be quite unsuitable, because without any 
 specific historical basis ; he would in that case have written : Trapelafioyev 
 yap curb rov K vpiov. We have certainly therefore in this passage not merely 
 the oldest account of the Lord’s Supper, but even “ an authentic explanation 
 given by the risen Christ regarding His sacrament” (Olshausen) ; not one 
 directly from His lips indeed, but conveyed through some medium of revela¬ 
 tion, the precise form of which it is impossible for us now to determine, 
 whereby we have a guarantee for the essential contents of the narrative inde¬ 
 pendently of the Gospels, although not necessarily an absolute ultimate 
 authority establishing the literal form of the words of institution (even in 
 
 1 So Neander and Keim in the Jahrb. fur Deutsch. Theol. 1859, p. 69. 
 
CHAP. XI., 24. 
 
 263 
 
 opposition to Matthew and Mark), since a revelation of the history, nature, 
 and meaning of the institution might be given even without any verbal 
 communication of the words spoken in connection with it. —o nal naped.] 
 which I (not only received, but) also delivered to you. Conversely in xv. 3. 
 Instances of k apakagfi. and rrapadovvat, in the sense of discere and tradere, 
 may be seen in Kypke. — oti] that , as in xv. 3, not for, as Luther and Hof¬ 
 mann render it. The latter translation would leave untold what Paul had 
 received and delivered, in spite of the importance of the matter in ques¬ 
 tion ; and it derives no support from the repetition of the subject, 6 K vpiog, 
 since that, with the addition of the sacred name ’I gaovg, gives a solemn em- 
 phasis to the statement. It is the full doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, which 
 they owe to him, that he is now setting before his readers. — kv r?) wkti y 
 TcapedtSoro (imperfectum adumbrativum , see Kiihncr, II. p. 73): in the night 
 in which His betrayal was going on (hence not the aorist). It is a deeply 
 solemn and arresting thought contrasted with the frivolity displayed 
 among the Corinthians at the Agapae. The preposition is not repeated 
 before the relative. Comp. Xen. Anab. v. 7. 17, Mem. ii. 1. 32, with 
 Kiihner thereon ; Plato, Phaed. p. 76 D, with Heindorf and Stallbaum in 
 loc. — aprov] bread (a cake of bread), which lay on the table. 
 
 Remark. —The agreement which prevails between Paul’s account of the Sup¬ 
 per and that of Luke, is not to be explained by a dependence of Paul upon 
 Luke (G.rotius, comp, also Beza), but conversely. See on Luke xxii. 20, Re¬ 
 mark. 
 
 Yer. 24. T ovto gov kori to cto/ua] This is my body (the body of me). The 
 emphasis lies not on the enclitic gov, but on to etiga. See, further, on Matt, 
 xxvi. 26, and Keim (in the Jahrb. fur Deutsch. Theol. 1859, p. 73), as against 
 Strobel (in Rudelbach’s Zeitschr. 1854, pp. 598, 602 ff.), who would have 
 tovto not to refer to the broken bread at all, but to point forward to what 
 is to be designated by the predicate. This tovto can mean nothing else 
 whatever but : this broken bread here, which again necessitates our taking eotl 
 as the copula of the symbolic “ being.”—Otherwise the identity of the sub¬ 
 ject and predicate here expressed would be, alike for the speaker and the 
 hearers, an impossible conception ; the body of the Lord was still alive, 
 and His death, which answered to the breaking of the bread, was yet in the 
 future. When wfe come, therefore, to define kaH more precisely in connec¬ 
 tion with that first celebration of the Supper, it is to be taken as “being” 
 in the sense of 'proleptic symbolism ; and thereby the very possibility of the 
 Lutheran synecdoche (upon which even Mehring falls back, in the Luther. 
 Zeitschrift, 1867, p. 82) is done away. — to vizep vgcbv] ukuyevov is spurious. 
 We must supply simply ov : which is for your behoof, namely, by its being 
 broken (slain 1 ). Christ’s body was not, indeed, literally broken (John xix. 
 
 1 This more precise explanation of the 
 absolute to vnep v/x., sc. ov, is to be drawn 
 from the preceding e/cAao-e ; and hence the 
 addition of kKJj/jlsvov is very correct in point 
 of interpretation. But the word was not 
 
 spoJcen by Jesus, only the thought, was ex¬ 
 pressed in the action of breaking the bread. 
 This silent language of lively depicting suits 
 well with the deep emotion of the moment; 
 and there is no ground either for regarding 
 
264 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 33), but in His violent death our Lord sees that accomplished in His body 
 which He had just done with the bread. This is the point of what he be¬ 
 holds in the broken bread looked upon by Him with such direct creative 
 vividness of regard ; but in truth the simple to vi rep vguv is more in keeping 
 with the deep emotion of the moment than any attempt to expound in a 
 more detailed way the symbolism which both presents and interprets itself 
 in the breaking of bread ; and Matthew and Mark have not even this “for 
 you.” — tovto Troidre] to wit, what I now do ; not merely the breaking of 
 the bread joined with a thanksgiving prayer, but also—as the action itself 
 became the silent commentary on this tovto — the distribution and eating of 
 the bread ; comp. ver. 26. — dg r. e/u. avagv.'] in remembrance of me, presup¬ 
 poses His absence in body for the future ; see on Luke xxii. 19. We may 
 add that these words also do not occur in Matthew and Mark, whose simple 
 tovto egti t. auga gov carries it with a presumption of its being the original, 
 unexpanded by any later explanation or reflection. Generally speaking, a 
 like preference must be accorded to the narratives of the Supper by Matthew 
 and Mark (and between those two, again, to that of Mark) over those of 
 Paul and Luke. 
 
 Ver. 25. '12 aavT. k. t. i ror.] sc. eXafie nal EvxapiGTrjoag eSokev ai>Toig (this last is 
 to be taken from Enlaae), vv. 23, 24. —to noTgp.] the cup which stood before 
 Him. It was the cup which closed the meal, although there is no ground 
 to connect gcTa to 6eltzv. here with to iroTyp., as Pott does. — egtlv] in the 
 position which it has here, is decisive against our connecting h ru kgip dig. 
 with i] k. ihad., as most interpreters do (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and many 
 others, including de Wette, Rodatz, Maier, Hofmann), although Luther (in 
 the gr. Bek.) rightly rejects that connection. What Christ says is, that the 
 cup is the new covenant in virtue of His blood, which, namely, is in the cup. 
 For in the wine of the cup the Lord sees nothing else than His blood which 
 was about to be shed. This vividly concrete, direct, but symbolical mode 
 of view at that solemn moment stands out in the sharpest contrast with the 
 strife of the churches on the subject (for the rest, see on Luke xxii. 19 f.). 
 Christ’s blood became, by its being poured forth, the ilaoTgpiov, 1 whereby 
 the new covenant 2 was founded (Rom. iii. 24 f., v. 3), the covenant of grace, 
 in which were established, on man’s side, faith in Christ,—not, as in the old 
 covenant, the fulfilling of the law,—and on God’s side forgiveness by the 
 
 the reading which admits KA.wju.evor as prob¬ 
 able on internal evidence (Kahnis, Dogmat. 
 I. p. 616), or for characterizing that which 
 rejects it as “ vaga et frigida” (Reiche, 
 Comm, crit.) ; nor will it do to explain the 
 omission of the word by John xix. 36 f. (Hof¬ 
 mann). As to Hofmann’s making kAwju. refer 
 only to the violent bending and wrench¬ 
 ing , as the term is used of men under tort¬ 
 ure (see Wetstein) and by physicians, the 
 very fact that the bread was broken should 
 have sufficed of itself to forbid the idea. 
 
 1 The atonement through the death of 
 Jesus is at any rate the necessary premiss 
 
 of even the symbolical interpretation of the 
 Lord’s Supper. With every attempt to ex¬ 
 plain away the atoning death, the Supper 
 becomes utterly unintelligible. Comp. 
 Ebrard, Dogma vom Abendm. II. p. 752 ff. 
 
 ‘ 2 The word covenant is unquestionably 
 genuine, for it is common to all the narra¬ 
 tives ; but the designation of the Sia&rjicr) as 
 KaLvr) dates from Paul, being a later more 
 precise definition of the phrase. Kaivijs in 
 Matt. xxvi. 27 and Mark xiv. 24 is spurious. 
 This applies also in opposition to Baur in 
 the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 551. 
 
CHAP. XI., 2G. 
 
 2G5 
 
 way of grace, justification, sanctification, and bestowal of eternal Messianic 
 salvation. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 6. And the Lord looks upon the cup as this 
 covenant, because He sees in the wine of the cup His covenant - sealing 
 blood. The cup therefore, in this deeply vivid symbolism of view is to Him 
 as that which contains the covenantAfootZ of the covenant. — rovro iroisire] to 
 be taken so as to harmonize with ver. 24. Hofmann is wrong in thinking 
 that Paul lays such special emphasis on this statement of the purpose of the 
 Supper, because it appeared incompatible with the Corinthian mode of ob¬ 
 serving it. The apostle has no intention whatever here of laying enrphasis 
 either on one thing or another ; he wishes only to report, in their simple 
 objectivity , the sacred words in which the original institution was couched. 
 What he desires to lay stress upon as against the Corinthians, comes in 
 afterwards in ver. 26 ff. — ooaacg av mv.\ peculiar to this account of the or¬ 
 dinance : as often as ever {quotiescunque, see Kiihner, II. p. 94 ; comp. Ben- 
 gel) ye drink it; the context sup plies tovto to Tcoriip. as the object of iHv., 
 without its having to be represented by a pronoun ( avro ). See Kruger, 
 § 60. 7 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 8. 4. The will of Jesus, according to this, 
 is that every time , when they drink the concluding cup at the meal of com¬ 
 munion, they should, in remembrance of Him, do with it as has now been 
 done. Hofmann would make the words mean : as often as ye are together at 
 a nJVd/p. But how can that be conveyed by the simple tylvtjts ? And it 
 was certainly not a drinking meal , but a regular delirvov (ver. 25). — Note, 
 further, as to the av, that it is placed after ogclklq, “ quia in liac voce maxi¬ 
 mum sententiae pondus positum est,” Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 16. 
 
 Yer. 26. Not still words of Christ (Ewald), ] in citing which Paul glides in¬ 
 voluntarily into the form into which they had by this time become moulded 
 in the church ; for against this view there is (1) the unsuitableness in itself 
 of such a verepov Tcporepov in the expression (especially after ver. 28) ; (2) the 
 fact of the words being linked to the preceding by yap, which is less in 
 keeping with the tone and direct form of the words of institution, but, on 
 the other hand, naturally marks the apostle himself again beginning to 
 speak ; and (3) the fact that Luke has nothing of a similar kind in his ac¬ 
 count of the Supper. The common view is the right one, that Paul proceeds 
 here in his own person. But what he gives is neither a further reason as¬ 
 signed for ova erraivij in ver. 22 (so Hofmann, in connection with his incor¬ 
 rect interpretation of on in ver. 23), nor is it an experimental elucidation of 
 the last words of ver. 25 (the ordinary view), for the contents of ver. 26 
 stand rather in the logical relation of consequence to the foregoing narrative 
 of institution. No ; yap is to be taken here (comp, on ver. 22) in its infer¬ 
 ential sense, and made to refer to the whole preceding account of the ori¬ 
 gin of the Supper. We may paraphrase thus : Such, then, being the facts of 
 the original institution, it comes to pass that as often as ye, etc. — rbv aprov 
 rovrov ] the bread prescribed according to this appointment of Christ ; to 
 'KOTTjpiov : the cup now spoken of, the eucharistic cup. — mrayyePAen] ye pro- 
 
 1 In the Conslitt. ap. too (viii. 12. 16) they change of tov Odvarov tov e^ov /carayye'A- 
 are placed in Christ’s mouth, but with the Acre, dxpt? * v 
 
2G6 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 claim the Lord’s death, i.e. ye declare solemnly in connection with this ordi¬ 
 nance, that Christ has died for you. This narayyeXkciv cannot without arbi¬ 
 trariness be taken as merely a declaring by action (so commonly ) ; it can only 
 be taken as actually oral.' How it took place, we do not know. The 
 Peshito (the Yulgate has annuntiabitis) rightly took narayy. as indicativef 
 which Grotius and others ought not to have changed into annuntiare debetis ; 
 for the proclamation in question was an essential thing which took 'place at 
 the Supper, and therefore an admonition to it would have been inappropri¬ 
 ate. Even in the case of unworthy participation the narayyeXheiv referred to 
 was not omitted ; the admonition, therefore, could only have respect to the 
 worthiness of the participation, with which that narayyllleiv w r as connected; 
 and, in point of fact, such an admonition follows accordingly in ver. 27 f. 
 We must reject therefore the view commonly taken by other interpreters 
 (and necessarily adopted by Ewald in accordance with his view of the verse 
 as given above), namely, that narayy. is imperative. See, besides, Rodatz 
 in Lucke and Wieseler’s Vierteljahrschr . I. 3, p. 351. —axpny ov eldy] until 
 lie shall have come; for the apostle was convinced that the Parousia was 
 close at hand, and therefore future generations could not have been present 
 to his mind in writing thus ; but to apply his words to them is historically 
 necessary and right. — a-xpig stands without av (see instances in Lobeck, ad 
 Phryn. p. 15 f.), because the arrival of the Parousia is conceived as abso¬ 
 lutely certain, not as conditioned by any contingencies which might possi¬ 
 bly delay it (Hermann, part, av , p. 109 ff.). In Gal. iv. 19 also, Paul, in 
 the earnestness of his love, conceives the result as equally certain (against 
 Riickert’s objection). After the Parousia the Lord Himself is again there. 
 Theodoret : yera yap dr) rip avrov rrapovatav ovneri xP eia rdrv a v y (3 ohuv rov 
 c d) y a r o g, avrov (paivoylvov rov acjyarog' Aid, rovro eIttev ’ axpig ov av eWri. To 
 eat with Him will then be a new thing (Matt. xxvi. 29) ; but until then the 
 proclamation here spoken of is not to be silenced. How that thought was 
 fitted to keep constantly before their minds the solemn responsibility of an 
 unworthy participation in the Supper (see ver. 27) ! In this way Paul links 
 to the narayy elleiv of the communicants the fear and trembling of the Maran 
 atha , xvi. 22. 
 
 Ver. 27. From that narayy eIAeiv n.r.l. it follows how great is the sin of 
 participating unworthily. This reference of the wore is sufficiently pointed 
 and appropriate not to require us to go back further (to all that has been 
 
 1 KarayyeWeLv is always an actual procla¬ 
 mation, never a mere giving to be known by 
 deeds. Were the latter the meaning here, 
 Paul would be using a poetical expression 
 (something like avayye\\ei.v in Ps. xix. 1 f.), 
 which would be not at all suitable in view 
 of the context. I regret that Hofmann has 
 been so hasty in censuring my assertion of 
 the necessity of the above interpretation, 
 as if it carried absurdity on the face of it. 
 We do not know in what forms a liturgical 
 element had already developed itself in con¬ 
 nection with a rite which had now been ob¬ 
 
 served for some quarter of a century. And 
 have not the eucharistic liturgies up to this 
 day, even the oldest that we are acquainted 
 with (in Daniel, Codex liturg.), as for in¬ 
 stance the “ Liturgia Jacobi,” essential 
 parts, which are a KarayyeWeiv of the Lord’s 
 death? Comp, too the explicit confession 
 prescribed at the Jewish feast of the Pass- 
 over, Ex. xii. 27, xiii. 8. 
 
 2 So also Theophylact, Beza, Bengel, de 
 Wette, Osiander, Kahnis, Neander, Maier, 
 Ruckert in his Abendrn. p. 211, Hofmann. 
 
CHAP. XI., 27. 
 
 2G7 
 
 said from vcr. 20 onwards), as Riickert would liave us do. —rj 7 rivy] 1/ does 
 not stand for nai (Pott and older expositors) but the meaning is : if a 
 •man partake of the one or the other unworthily, he is alike guilty ; neither 
 in the case of the bread nor of the wine should there be an unworthy par¬ 
 ticipation. We must remember that the two elements were not partaken of 
 in immediate succession, but the bread during the meal and the wine after it, 
 so that the case was quite a possible one that the bread might be partaken 
 of in a worthy, and the cup in an unworthy frame of spirit, and vice versa. 
 Comp. also Hofmann. The guilt, however, of the one or the other un¬ 
 worthy participation was the same, and was alike complete ; hence rj is not 
 repeated in the apodosis. Roman Catholics (see Estius and Cornelius a 
 Lapide) find in this i] a support for their “ communio sub una .” See Calo- 
 vius in opposition to this. — rov K vpiov] as nvpianov in ver. 20, x. 21.— 
 avapug] in an unworthy manner , i.e. in a way morally out of keeping with the 
 nature (x. 16) and design of the ordinance (ver. 24 f.). Paul does not define 
 it more closely ; hence, and because an unworthy participation may, in the 
 concrete, occur in many different ways, the widely differing definitions of 
 interpreters, 1 2 which are, however, quite out of place here. For the apos¬ 
 tle leaves it to his readers to rank for themselves their particular way of 
 communicating under the general avagiog, and not till ver. 29 does he him¬ 
 self characterize the special form of unworthy participation which prevailed 
 among them by 6 yap eod'tuv k. ttlvcjv. See on the verse. — kvo%og karat k.t.j l.] 
 kvoxog with the dative and genitive (see Matthiae, p. 850) expresses the lia¬ 
 bility of guilt (see Bleek on Heb. ii. 15) : he shall be —from the moment he 
 does so— under guilt to the body and blood of Christ , i.e. crimini et poenae 
 corporis et sanguinis Christi violati obnoxius erit (comp. Jas. ii. 10, and the 
 
 1 To this mistake, too, is to be traced the 
 reading <a.L (in A D, some min. vss. and 
 Fathers), which Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 
 191, and Riickert approve. It was suggest¬ 
 ed by ver. 2G, and gained support from the 
 ko-L which follows ; but is not necessary, for 
 there is a change of conception. 
 
 2 Theophylact, following Chrysostom, 
 makes it w? TrepiopuAra? tov s ney7]Taq. Theo- 
 doret holds that Paul hits at those fond of 
 power in Corinth, the incestuous person, 
 and those who ate the things offered to 
 idols, and generally all who receive the 
 sacrament with bad conscience. Luther: 
 “ he is worthy who has faith in these words, 
 ‘ broken for you, etc.’ ” Grotius : “ qui hoc 
 actu curat quae suasunt, non quae Domini.” 
 Bengel : “qui se non probant.” Flatt: not 
 with thankful remembrance of the death of 
 Jesus, not with reverence towards Him. 
 not with love towards others ; so also in 
 substance Riickert in his Commentary, and 
 —with more detail and to some extent dif¬ 
 ferently—in his work on the Lord’s Supper, 
 p. 234. Billroth : with offence to the breth¬ 
 ren. Olshausen: what is primarily meant 
 
 is want of love, a disposition to judge 
 others, but with the underlying idea that it 
 is impenitence that makes an unworthy 
 communicant. Kahnis : “ unbelief, which 
 does not acknowledge a higher intrinsic 
 worth in the Lord’s Supper.” At all events, 
 it is the lack of a constantly present, lively, 
 and active faith in the atonement brought 
 about by Christ’s death, which is the source 
 of the various states of moral unworthiness 
 in which men may partake of the Supper : 
 as was the case also with the Corinthians 
 when they degraded it into an ordinary 
 meal for eating and drinking (and Hofmann 
 goes no further in his explanation of the 
 a.j'a^uo?). The more earnest and powerful 
 this faith is, the less can that participation, 
 by which we are conscious of coming into 
 communion with the body and blood of the 
 Lord, and thereby commemorating Him, 
 take place in a way morally unworthy. 
 Bengel is right indeed in saying: “ Alia est 
 indignitas edentis, alia m/s” (comp. Riickert, 
 Abendm. p. 253) ; but the latter in its diffei"- 
 ent, moral forms is the necessary conse¬ 
 quence of the former. 
 
208 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 classical evoxoq vopoig, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 869 B E) ; inasmuch, namely, as the 
 proclamation of the Lord’s death at the participation in the bread and the 
 cup presupposes a moral condition which must be in keeping with this most 
 sacred act of commemoration ; and if the condition of the communicant 
 be of an opposite kind, then the holy body and blood, into communion 
 with which we enter through such participation, can only be abused and 
 profaned. Comp. ver. 29, p?) btaKpivuv k.t./1 . The often repeated interpre¬ 
 tation : “ par facit, quasi Christum trucidaret” (Grotius, following Chrys¬ 
 ostom and Theophyiact), appears once more in Ewald ; but it neither cor¬ 
 responds sufficiently with the words themselves (for had Paul meant that, 
 he would have said distinctly and suitably : evoxog larat rov Oavarov rov Iv vp.\ 
 nor with the parallel thought in ver. 29. This holds, too, against Ebrard’s 
 view (Dogma v. Abendm. I. p. 126) ; each man by his sins has a share in 
 causing the death of Jesus ; if now he communicates unworthily, not only 
 do his other sins remain unforgiven, but there is added this fresh guilt be¬ 
 sides, of having part in nailing Christ to the cross (which, with every other 
 sin, is forgiven to the man who communicates worthily). But that would 
 be surely no new guilt, but the continuance of the old; and in this sense 
 Kahnis explains it, Dogmat. I. p. 620. But to bring out this meaning, the 
 apostle, if he was not to leave his words open to misunderstanding (comp. 
 John iii. 36, ix. 41), must have written not evox. earai, but evox . givei or pevel. 
 Olshausen again, with older expositors, thinks that our passage implies a 
 powerful argument against all Zwinglian theories of a merely commemora¬ 
 tive ordinance. This, however, is too hasty and uncertain an inference ; 
 because the profanation of an acknowledged symbol, especially if it be one 
 recognized in the religious consciousness of the church (suppose, e.g., a cru¬ 
 cifix), does injury to the object itself represented by the symbol. Hofmann 
 is not justified in disputing this. Comp. Oecolampadius, Piscator, and 
 Scultetus, who adduce, as an analogous case, an injury done to the king’s 
 seal or picture. 1 Ituckert, on the other hand, is wrong in supposing that 
 we have here a proof that the bread and wine are only symbols . 2 For, even 
 granting that they are really the body and blood of Christ, there w T as ground 
 enough for the apostle’s warning in the fact that his readers seemed to be 
 forgetting this relationship. Our conclusion therefore is, that this passage 
 in itself proves neither the one theory nor the other, as even Hofmann now 
 acknowledges, although he goes on to infer from ver. 29 that Christ’s real 
 body and blood are partaken of in the Sacrament. See, however, on ver. 
 29, and comp, on x. 15 f. 
 
 1 Luther’s objection to this in the Grosse 
 Bekenntniss resolves itself, in truth, into 
 mere hair-splitting. The argument of the 
 old systematic divines again is : The object 
 against which we sin must be present; we 
 sin against the body and blood of Christ; 
 therefore these must be present. This con¬ 
 clusion is incorrect, because the major pre¬ 
 miss is so. The presence of the object “ in 
 quod delinquimus quodque indigne tracta- 
 mus” (Quenstedt) is not alzuays necessary, 
 
 and need not be a real presence. Thus a 
 man sins against the body of Christ, even 
 when he sins against the sacred symbol of 
 that body, and against the blood of Christ, 
 in like manner. Comp, also Neander. 
 
 2 Otherwise in his treatise vom Abendm. 
 p. 236, where, on the ground of x. 3 f., x. 16, 
 he does not doubt that what is meant is a 
 direct offence committed against the very 
 things there present. 
 
chap, xi., 28, 29. 
 
 209 
 
 Ver. 28. At] carrying onward : “ now, in order not to incur this guilt, let 
 a man examine himself, etc.let him search into his frame of mind and 
 moral condition (rijv diavotav eavrov, Theodore of Mopsuestia) to see whether 
 he will not partake unworthily (w 1 ) comp, diaicpivecv, ver. 31. — /cat oarwf] 
 and so, after he has examined himself, and in that case. See on Rom. xi. 26. 
 Every reader, not addicted to hairsplitting, would understand here of course 
 that this did not apply to a case in which the result of the self-examination 
 was to make the man feel himself unworthy. There was no need, therefore, 
 for Flatt and Riickert (following Lightfoot, Semler, Schulz) to take cio/apd£. 
 as meaning to make qualified , which it never does, not even in Gal. vi. 4 ; 2 
 Cor. xiii. 5 ; 1 Thess. ii. 4. — avdpoirog] as iv. 1. 
 
 Yer. 29. Since avafaog is spurious (see the critical remarks), 6 ecOiov k. 
 ttIvov might be understood absolutely : the eater and drinker, who turns the 
 Supper, as was actually done at Corinth, vv. 22, 34, into a banquet and ca¬ 
 rousal. This was the view I held myself formerly, taking pi] fiiaicpivuv in the 
 sense : because he does not, etc., as in Rom. iv. 19. But after ver. 28, whoso 
 kodieiv k. 7 riveiv finds expression here again, it is simpler and most in accord¬ 
 ance with the text to render : He who eats and drinks (the bread and the 
 cup), eats and drinks a judgment to himself, if he does not, etc.,” so that in this 
 way prj dianpivuv /c.r.A. conditions the predicate, and is not a modal definition 
 of the subject. The apostle might have written simply uplpa yap eavrip eadiet 
 k. nivei, py dianp. r. a .; but the circumstantial description of the subject of 
 the sentence for the second time by 6 yap hdiov k. tt'ivuv carries a certain 
 solemnity with it, making one feel the risk incurred by going on to eat and 
 drink. — sptpa eavrip /c.r./l.] a concrete expression (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 16) of the 
 thought : he draws down judicial sentence upon himself by his eating and drink¬ 
 ing. The power to effect this turns on the evo^og ear at k.t.j l., ver. 27 ; and 
 therefore nothing is decided here against the symbolical interpretation of 
 the words of institution. That the splpa is a penal one, is implied in the 
 context (Rom. ii. 2, iii. 8, xiii. 2 ; Gal. v. 10). The absence of the article, 
 again, denotes not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in general 
 without any limiting definition. From vv. 30 and 31 we see that Paul was 
 thinking, in the first place, of temporal judgments as the penalty of un¬ 
 worthy communicating, and that such judgments appeared to him as chas¬ 
 tisements employed by God to avert from the offender eternal condemna¬ 
 tion. With respect to the dativus incommodi eavrip, comp. Rom. xiii. 2. — 
 pi) Sianpivuv to aiopa] if he does not form a judgment upon (so diaicp., Vulgate, 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel, de Wette, Weiss) the body, i.e. the body 
 /car’ egoxyv, the sacred body, into communion with which he enters by par¬ 
 taking of the Supper, and respecting which, therefore, he ought to form 
 a judgment of the most careful kind, such as may bring him into full and 
 deep consciousness of its sacredness and saving significance (on 4/a/cp., 
 comp. xiv. 29 ; Matt. xvi. 3). Comp. Chrysostom : py ferdfav, py evvouv, 
 d>g xPVi T ° pcyeOog ruv irponetpivuv, py Tioyfopevog rov oynov rrjg dopeag. Usually 
 
 1 Confession^ an institution of the church , assurance that one does not eat and drink 
 
 meant to aid in carrying out this rule of the unworthily, 
 apostle’s, in which the absolution gives 
 
270 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corihthiahs. 
 
 (so too Ewald, Kahnis, Hofmann) commentators have taken diaicp. in the 
 sense of to distinguish (iv. 7), and have rendered accordingly : if he (or, 
 following the reading which puts avafiog after ttlvuv : because he ) does not 
 distinguish the body of Christ from common food. 1 2 Hofmann, again, see¬ 
 ing that W’e have not tov K vpiov along with to ctbya holds it more correct to 
 render : if he does not distinguish the body, which he who eats this bread par¬ 
 takes of from the mere bread itself '. Both these ways of explaining the word, 
 which come in substance to the same thing, proceed upon the supposition 
 either that the body of Christ is that with which we enter into fellowship by 
 jiartaking of the symbol (which is the true view), or that it is partaken of 
 “in, with, and under” the bread (Lutheran doctrine), or by means of the 
 transubstantiation of the bread (Roman Catholic doctrine). But in ver. 31, 
 where dieicpivoyev is taken up again from our passage, the word means to 
 judge , not to distinguish , and we must therefore keep to that meaning 2 here 
 also. —It was needless to add ncil to alga to to cuga, because the cuya is re¬ 
 garded as that which had suffered death by the shedding of its blood ; comp, 
 ver. 26, also x. 17. The twofoldness of the elements has its rational signifi¬ 
 cance only in the equal symbolism of the two ; apart from that symbol¬ 
 ism, reference to it would be inappropriate, since, objectively, they cannot 
 be separated. 
 
 Ver. 30. Proof of that npiya eavTti . . . nivei from the present experience 
 of the Corinthians themselves.—Paul knew that there were at this time 
 many cases of sickness, and not a few of death ( uoi/utivTai ), among them ; and 
 he saw in this a divine chastisement for their unworthy use of the Lord’s 
 Supper. The explanation which refers this to moral weakness and deadness 
 (Valckenaer, Morus, Krause, Eichhorn) is not to be rejected (as by Rtickert) 
 on the ground that this moral sickness and deadness must have been repre¬ 
 sented as the cause of the unworthy participation (for, from the Pauline 
 standpoint, they might quite as well be regarded as its consequence , see 
 Rom. i. 24 ff.). But it is to be set aside, because such a sense must have 
 been suggested by the context , whereas there is not the remotest hint of it, 
 either by itself or in connection with the physical interpretation (Olshausen). 
 — Koigcovrai] dormiunt, i.e. are dead. Comp., regarding this euphemistic al¬ 
 lusion, w T hat is said on xv. 18. Elsewhere in the N. T. we find the perfect 
 or aorist. But comp. Lachmann’s reading in 1 Thess. iv. 13. — It is impos¬ 
 sible to establish a definite distinction of idea between acOevElg and appaaroi. 
 Grotius and Bengel hold the latter to mean more than the former ; Wetstein 
 and Tittmann again ( Synon. p. 76) differ from them in this. Both w r ords 
 denote want of strength from sickness. 
 
 Vv. 31, 32. If, on the other hand, ice judged ourselves (submitted our own 
 condition to moral criticism ; parallel to (htciya^Eiv eavrSv, ver. 28), then should 
 ice not receive any judgment (judgment of condemnation, ver. 29 ) ; but when 
 
 1 So Luther’s gloss : who handles and in ver. 31) : a judgment ... if he does not 
 
 deals with Christ’s body as if he cared no form a judgment. Hence there is the less 
 more for it than for common food. warrant in the text for the meaning “ dis- 
 
 2 Which stands in significant correspond- anguish.” 
 ence with /cptjua (comp, too, the oxymoron 
 
chap, xi., 33, 34. 
 
 271 
 
 wc do receive a judgment (in point of fact, by temporal sufferings), ice are 
 chastened (punished in a disciplinary way) by the Lord (by God), in order 
 that we may not be condemned (namely, at the last judgment) with the world 
 (along with the anti-Christian part of mankind. Note the oxymoron : 
 <heicp. Kpiv. naranpiO. , answering significantly to the mutual relation of uplya 
 and Scaup lvg)v in ver. 29. In both passages we have the same sort of pointed 
 alliteration, corresponding to their internal connection (which is plainly 
 enough marked by the Sea rovro, ver. 30, and 6e, ver. 31, although Hofmann 
 denies it). —As to the divine chastisement , which lies within the sphere of 
 the divine redemptive agency (Ileb. xii. 6 ; Tit. ii. 12 ; also 1 Tim. i. 20 ; 2 
 Tim. ii. 25), comp. J. Muller, v. d. S'dnde , I. p. 339 f., ed. 5. — The use of 
 the first person gives to the sentence the gentler form of a general statement, 
 not referring merely to the state of things at Corinth, but of universal 
 application. 
 
 Ver. 33. Conclusion from this proposition, general in its tenor, for the 
 conduct of the readers at the love-feast, when they came together to keep it 
 (eif to (f>ayelv, not belonging to aX) 1 . evAex -).— adeXtyoi gov\ “ perterrefactos 
 rursum hac blanda compellatione solatur,” Grotius. — aXkrfk. hide; wait 
 for one another (“ invicem exspectate,” Vulg.), xvi. 11, so that no one Idiov 
 deirrvov 7 TpolapfiavEi. This closing admonition corresponds to the censure, 
 with which the section began in ver. 21, and there is therefore no need for 
 departing from this rendering, which is adopted by Luther, Erasmus, and 
 the majority of commentators. Tlieophylact : deuevvov, bn noiva elm ra 
 eheIue eludepoyeva, nal del avaueveiv t?)v Koivr/v uvveXevuiv. Others translate : 
 Receive ye one another , namely, convivio , as a contrast to despising the other 
 guests, and keeping them from sharing in what you yourselves have to 
 give. So Pott, Ruckert, Olshausen, Ewald, Hofmann, following Moslieim, 
 Michaelis, Morus, Schulz, Rosenmiiller. But in the N. T. eiiSexccdai (xvi. 
 11) means always exspectare (comp. Soph. Phil. 123 ; Polyb. xx. 4. 5, iii. 
 45. 6 ; Apollod. i. 9. 27 ; also in Plutarch, aZ.), although in classical 
 writers, as well as in the LNX. and Apocrypha, the meaning excipere is far 
 more frequent. The latter sense Paul w T ould have expressed by the simple 
 dExecOai, or by n pouXayfiaveuQai (Rom. xiv. 1). 
 
 Ver. 34. To satisfy hunger, is a thing to be done at home. The Agapae 
 should not be used as meals for such material purposes ; they have a higher 
 significance. Comp. ver. 22. Others take it : “If any one has such keen 
 hunger that he cannot wait for the distribution, let him rather take a pre¬ 
 vious meal at home” (Billroth ; comp. Erasmus, Paraph.). But how much 
 of this is arbitrarily imported into the text ! — ra 6e lonra] What has not yet 
 been regulated in this section, vv. 17-^34. The reference is to matters con¬ 
 nected with the love-feasts ; not indeed of a doctrinal kind, but, as the word 
 diarauueuOai is enough of itself to show, pertaining to outward order and 
 arrangements, vii. 17, ix. 14, xvi. 1 ; Gal. iii. 19 ; Tit. i. 5. A passage taken 
 advantage of by Roman Catholics in support of their doctrine of tradition. 
 And, no doubt, it does serve to establish in general the possibility of the 
 existence of apostolic traditions ; but in each particular case in which such 
 traditions are asserted, the burden of bringing forward the proof lie3 
 
272 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 alwaj^s upon, those who make the assertion, and it can never he produced. 
 — ajg av] whensoever I shall have come ; in the temporal sense = simulatque. 
 See on Phil. ii. 23, and Hartung, II. p. 289. 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (q 1 ) “ The woman is the glory of the man." Yer. 7. 
 
 The sense may be further expanded thus : The woman is in a certain re¬ 
 spect subordinate to the man. She is not designed to reflect the glory of God 
 as a ruler, but that of her husband as head of the household. She receives and 
 reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always assumes his station ; be¬ 
 comes a queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and honour 
 which may belong to her husband. Thus understood, the passage is no deroga¬ 
 tion to the sex, but rather a precise statement in accordance not only with Scrip¬ 
 ture, but with the results of all human experience ; and its position, united 
 with the other teachings of this pericope, is a sure guarantee for woman’s dig- 
 unity, happiness, and honour. 
 
 (r 1 ) Mosaic account of the creation. Yv. 8, 9. 
 
 It is customary to speak of the Old Testament as mythical and fabulous, or at 
 least allegorical. But the Apostle refers to the Mosaic narrative of man’s crea¬ 
 tion as being literal fact. How then can any one who believes in the inspira¬ 
 tion of the Apostles deny the divine authority of the Pentateuch, or confine that 
 authority only to its doctrinal and preceptive statements ? 
 
 (s 1 ) The teaching of nature. Vv. 14, 15. 
 
 Some explain the Apostle’s question as referring to the original course of 
 nature. It has made a visible distinction between the sexes by covering the 
 woman’s head with more abundant hair. This teaches that the God of nature 
 designs the sexes to be distinguished in the most conspicuous portion of the 
 body. Short hair belongs to a man, long hair to a woman ; and it is unnatural 
 and disgraceful for either sex in this respect to assume the appearance of the 
 other. Others suppose that the word refers to the instinctive feelings which 
 arise from nature’s laws, and which are largely determined by education and 
 habit. In this sense an Eastern woman feels impelled, whenever surprised by 
 strangers, to cover her face. This to her is an instinctive impulse, yet it would 
 not be so in a European or American woman. But Paul, writing to women 
 of his own age and training, was sure of an affirmative response. F. W. Kobert- 
 son well says : “ Fanaticism defies nature. Christianity refines it and respects 
 it. Christianity does not destroy our natural instincts, but gives them a high¬ 
 er and nobler direction. ” 
 
 (t 1 ) “ We have no such custom .” Yer. 16. 
 
 What is this custom ? Most of the recent critics (Stanley, Kling, Beet, Canon 
 Evans, etc.) agree with Meyer in referring it to the contentiousness just men¬ 
 tioned. But besides the fact that “ if any one be contentious” is not a custom, 
 there is force in Alford’s statement : “ Surely it would be very unlikely that, 
 
NOTES. 
 
 273 
 
 after so long a treatment of a particular subject, the Apostle should wind up 
 all by merely censuring a fault common to their behavior on this and on all 
 the other matters in dispute. Such a rendering seems to me almost to stultify 
 the conclusion. But for the weighty names on the other side it would seem 
 hardly to admit of a question, that the custom here disavowed was the practice 
 of women praying uncovered. He cuts off all further disputation on the mat¬ 
 ter by appealing to universal Christian usage.”—Argument is useless with the 
 contentious ; they must be silenced by authority. It must be a very clear case 
 of conscientious duty which will justify a man in departing from the estab¬ 
 lished usages of the church. 
 
 (u 1 ) The use of dissensions. Yer. 19. 
 
 It is a great consolation, Hodge says, to know that dissensions, whether in 
 church or state, are not fortuitous, but are ordered by the providence of God, 
 and are designed as storms for the purpose of purification. Certain it is that 
 the prevalence of heresies has been the occasion of bringing out more fully and 
 plainly the faith of the church from the Apostle’s age to our own. 
 
 (v 1 ) “ I received from ihe Lord .” Yer. 23. 
 
 Meyer’s reasoning supposes an unusual refinement in Paul’s use of the Greek 
 prepositions, and, besides, the airo may have been chosen to avoid the triple 
 repetition of napa. The form of the revelation cannot be determined, but that 
 it was directly from the Lord seems certain, and this fact is no small testimony 
 to the importance of the ordinance, thus specifically made known to the 
 Apostle. 
 
 (w 1 ) The icorthy communicant. Yer. 28. 
 
 No better or briefer statement of what is required on this point can be found 
 than is given in the answer of the Heidelberg Catechism to the question (81), 
 Who ought to come to the table of the Lord? “ Those who are grieved with 
 themselves on account of their sins, and yet trust that the same are taken away 
 from them, and their remaining weakness is covered by the suffering and death 
 of Christ, and who also earnestly desire more and more to strengthen their 
 faith and better their life.” 
 
274 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the coriktiiiaks. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Ver. 2. bn ore] approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lacbm. (who brackets 
 ore, however), Scholz, Ruck. Tiscli. with ABCDEL min. and several vss. 
 and Fathers. The on alone (Elz. with F G min. Syr. Erp. Clar. Germ. Oec. 
 Ambrosiast.), and the weakly attested ore alone (which Billroth and Ewald pre¬ 
 fer), are two different attempts to help out the construction, whose difficulty 
 leads Reiclie again to defend the Recepta. —Ver. 3. Instead of the Recepta 
 ’ lycovv and K vpiov 'Iijcovv, which Reiclie upholds, read ’Iijcovg and Kv/uog ’Irjcovg, 
 with Lachm. Ruck, and Tisch., following ABC X, min. and several vss. and 
 Fathers. The accusatives are the work of copyists altering the oratio directa, 
 which struck them as unusual. —Ver. 9. In place of the second avru, A B, min. 
 Vulg. Clar. Germ, and Latin Fathers read evt. So, rightly, Lachm. Ruck. Tisch.; 
 avTu has crept in after the preceding. —After cugarog in ver. 12, Elz. has tov 
 tvdg, against greatly preponderating testimony. A gloss. — Ver. 13. eig ev -rrvevpa] 
 Many various readings ; the best accredited is ev -vevpa (B C D* F G K, 17, 73, 
 80, with several vss. and Fathers). So Lachm. Ruck. Tisch. Reiche. The in¬ 
 sertion of the eig arose from comparing the clause with the first half of the 
 verse. Then, according as the words were understood to refer to the Supper 
 or not, arose the readings nd/ua (with or without eig) instead of i-vevjua, and 
 etywTioQrifj.ev (said of baptism, as the Greek Fathers were accustomed to use it) 
 instead of ettot. —Ver. 31. KpeirTova] ABC X, min. Syr. Aeth. Vulg. ms. Or. 
 {twice) read ne’fova. So Lachm. Ruck. Tisch. But while tcpeiTTova might easily 
 appear a doubtful expression in itself, and even objectionable as implying the 
 contrast of “ worse,” pei&va, on the other hand, was very naturally suggested 
 by xiii. 13, xiv. 5. 
 
 Contents. —Concerning the Spirit's gifts. 1 The fundamental character¬ 
 istic of speaking in the Spirit is the confession of Jesus as the Lord (ver. 
 3) ; but the especial utterances of the Spirit, which are given to individu- 
 
 1 Baur, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 646 f., 
 holds that the abuse of the glossolalia in 
 Corinth, which has certainly given occasion 
 to this section of the Epistle, had arisen in 
 the party-interest of the Petrine Christians 
 in opposition to the Pauline. The former, 
 he maintains, had brought the yA. AaA. to 
 bear against the latter, denying to Paul the 
 apostolic character and consequently the 
 possession of the nvevua ayiov. But there is 
 no trace of this whatever in the apostle’s 
 treatment of the subject; for the word 
 thrown out at vii. 40, in connection with a 
 totally different occasion, has no bearing at 
 all upon this question ; and xiv. 6 and 18 
 take for granted that his readers admitted 
 that Paul himself had the gift of the glosso¬ 
 
 lalia, and that in a high degree. Rabiger, 
 too, agrees in substance with Baur, assum¬ 
 ing, as he does, an opposition between the 
 Pauline npo^grevovreg and the Petrine yAc6cr- 
 o-ais AaAoOi're?. But there is not 4he slightest 
 support in the text either, in general, for 
 connecting the subject in hand with the 
 state of parties at Corinth, or, in particular, 
 for ascribing the glossolalia to any one 
 special party (Dahne, e.g., regards it as a 
 piece of Alexandrian fanaticism among the 
 Christ-party). Van Hengel’s conjecture, also 
 (Gave d. talen , p. Ill f.), that Apollos had 
 brought the glossolalia to Corinth, where it 
 had been abused and had degenerated, 
 lacks all definite foundation. 
 
CHAP. XII., 1, 2. 
 
 275 
 
 nls for the welfare of the community (vv. 7-10), differ one from another 
 (vv. 4-6). The Gfiver of all gifts, however, is one and the same Spirit ; for 
 Christians form an organic whole, like the limbs of one body, so that none 
 of them ought either to judge himself in a depreciatory spirit (vv. 11-20), 
 or to ignore the need and worth of those with fewer or lower gifts (vv. 21- 
 30. Still there ought to be a striving after the more excellent charismata ; 
 and Paul will show his readers the best kind and mode of thus striving 
 (ver. 31).—The peculiar difficulty attaching to this whole section is very 
 truly described by Chrysostom : rovro arcav to x^pidv acpodpa early aoadeg' rrjv 
 de aadcpetav fj r toy re p ay y ci r co v ayvoia re nal e h h e i ip i g rroiel, rov Tore 
 yev avy/3aivdvrov, vvv de ov yivoyevov. 
 
 Ver. 1. Ae] leads over from the matter previously discussed to another, in 
 connection with which also abuses had crept into the church (see on xi. 18). 
 We are warranted in assuming that the discussion of such a subject, so 
 comprehensive and entering so much into details, was occasioned b} T ques¬ 
 tions put in the letter from Corinth (vii. 1, viii. 1). — rov rrvevyartKov] is to 
 be taken (with Chrysostom, Luther, and most expositors) as neuter , stating 
 the theme in a quite general way : On the forms of action which 'proceed from 
 the Holy Spirit and malce manifest His agency in the life of the church. The 
 speaking with tongues is specially taken up only in chap, xiv., so that it is 
 a mistake to regard nvevyar. as referring to this alone (Storr, Heydenreich, 
 Billroth, Baur in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 644, and Wieseler in the same, 
 p. 711, also Ewald). The tt yevyaracd are in their nature the same as the 
 xapiayara , ver. 4. Other interpreters make it masculine (Grotius, Llam- 
 mond, Clericus, Locke, Sender, Morus, Rosenmuller, Stolz, Heydenreich, 
 Ewald, Hofmann, also David Schulz, d. Geistesgaben der ersten Christen, 
 p. 163 ; and Hilgenfeld, die Glossolalie , 1850, p. 16) : “ concerning the in¬ 
 spired, whether genuine or not ; Ewald renders : “ concerning the men of 
 the Spirit” (speakers with tongues). But in xiv. 1 we have the theme re¬ 
 curring as ra Trvevyaruid. — ov 6 eao vp. dyvoelv~\ I will not leave you in ignorance. 
 Comp. x. 1 ; 1 Thess. iv. 13. Theodore of Mopsuestia puts it aptly : deho 
 vyag nal rov TrvevyariKov x a P LG ffirov eldevai ryv ra^iv, here j3ov/ioyal n sal rrepl 
 tovtov elrreiv. 
 
 Ver. 2 . Reason (comp, on did, ver. 3) why he wishes to instruct them con¬ 
 cerning the 7 wevyaruid. The pneumatic condition into which they had 
 entered as Christians was, of course, an entirely new one to men who had 
 been heathen, entirely without precedent or analogy in the experiences of 
 their former sad estate,—all the more, therefore, requiring to be subjected 
 to a trustworthy and correct judgment. — The construction, when we adopt 
 the reading on , ore, is simply this : the object-sentence begins indeed with 
 bn, but instead of ending with affiyecds, or repeating ffie before cvrayoy., runs 
 off into the participle,—an anakoluthic use of the on not uncommon also in 
 classic writers, after parenthetic clauses, even when but short, have inter¬ 
 vened. See Kruger on Thuc. iv. 37 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. 37 B ; 
 Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 481 D. Translate : Ye know that, at the time when 
 ye were heathen , ye were led away to the dumb idols, in whatever way people led 
 you. Buttmann (neut. Gr. p. 329 [E. T. 383]) holds that the sentence after 
 
276 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 ore edvjj rjre passes with kg into an indirect question. But og av yyecHe, from 
 its position between rrpog r. eld. r. a<j>. and arraydy., can only be a parenthetic 
 clause. In that case, too, array, would be cumbrous and dragging at the 
 end of the verse ; it must convey a weighty closing thought, to which dig av 
 rjyeaOe serves as modal definition. Hofmann, although not reading on, ore, 
 but simply on with Elz. (which in fact does away of itself with all real 
 difficulty), has twisted and obscured the whole passage in a very unhappy 
 way. 1 — ore edv?j r/re] A reminder to his readers of their sad note, to which 
 Paul often turns back their eyes from their happy vvv (Eph. ii. 2 f., 11, 13, 
 
 v. 8 ; Col. i. 21, iii. 7 ; Rom. xi. 30). —irpog ra eiduTia] namely, in order to 
 worship them, sacrifice to them, invoke them, inquire of them, and the like. 
 — ra atpuva] (Plat. Pol. I. p. 336 D, and often elsewhere ; Dem. 292. 6. 294. 
 19 ; 2 Mace. iii. 24) impresses on the readers that idols, which were them¬ 
 selves dumb (comp. Hab. ii. 18 ; 3 Mace. iv. 16), could produce no pneu¬ 
 matic speaking. Notice the emphatic reiietition of the article.— <bg av 
 rjyeade ] as ye were at any time led. Regarding this av of repetition, see 
 Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 35 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 186 f. [E. T. 216] ; 
 ►comp, on Acts ii. 45. — arrayoyevoc] becoming led aioay. The force of the ano 
 is not that of removal from the normal condition of the natural knowdedge 
 of God (Rom. i. 19 ff.), an interpretation which would need to be suggested 
 by the context ; but it serves vividly to set forth the result. The consequence 
 of the ciyeoOai, namely, was the arrayecrdai , the being involuntarily drawn away 
 from the surroundings in wdiich they were actually placed to the temples, 
 statues, altars, etc. of the idols. We may take it for certain, from Paul’s 
 views of heathenism (x. 20 ; Eph. ii. 2), that he thought of Satan as the 
 leading power. Hilgenfeld aptly compares the passage in Athenagoras, 
 Legat. pro Christ, p. 29, ed. Col. : oi yev rrepl ra elduhia avrovg eh,novreg ol 
 daiyoveg elaiv n.r.h,. The opposite is rrvevyart ayecOai , Rom. viii. 14 ; Gal. v. 
 18 ; Matt. iv. 1. Others make it : a sacerdotibus (Yalckenaer, al.), and the 
 like. —We may note further both that homoioteleuta , such as oldare, bn ore 
 . . . five, occur even in the best writers, showing that the resemblances of 
 sound were not offensive to them (Lobeck, ad Aj. 61, Parol, p. 53 ff.), aud 
 also that the subject in hand is brought all the more vividly and impres¬ 
 sively home by the adnominatio , i/yeade , arrayoyevoi (Bremi, ad Lys. I. Exc. 
 
 vi. p. 209). 
 
 1 Hofmann insists, namely (1st), on read¬ 
 ing o!5a Te instead of olSare, and (2d) tbs 
 avr/yeaSe instead of <bs av rjyeade and (3d) on 
 taking on edvrj r]Te as: became ye were 
 heathen , and that as specifying the reason 
 for what follows, in which, for the sake of 
 emphasis, n-pos . . . a<f> ova is put before the 
 <bs. But how involved the whole general 
 structure of the sentence becomes in that 
 way ! How wholly uncalled for, neverthe¬ 
 less, and inappropriate would be the invest¬ 
 ing of the quite superfluous (quite superflu¬ 
 ous, to wit, as specifying a reason) “ because 
 ye were heathen ,” with all the emphasis of 
 being put first in a hyperbaton which is, 
 
 moreover, doubled! And how strange the 
 choice of the compound av^yeade, since it 
 does not (as Hofmann supposes) convey the 
 notion of whither (which is expressed by 
 ?rpbs), but that of upward , as avayeiv always 
 means to lead up! The re, too, after o 16a, 
 would not be suitable even in a logical 
 point of view (see note on ver. 3). Laurent, 
 in his neut. Stud. p. 132, agrees with Hof¬ 
 mann in so far that he also reads tbs av^y- 
 eade instead of tbs av rjyeade. For the rest, he 
 retains olSarc, and neither reads on nor on, 
 ore, but simply oTe, which is supported by 
 very slender evidence. 
 
CHAP. XII., 3. 
 
 277 
 
 Yer. 3. A 16 ] therefore , because the experiences of spiritually gifted men 
 could not be known to you in your heathen state, 1 and you have conse¬ 
 quently all the more need of sound instruction on the subject, therefore I 
 give you to know : the fundamental characteristic of speaking by the Spirit 
 is, that Jesus is not execrated , hut confessed as Lord. Paul expresses this in the 
 two parallel thoughts : that the former, the execration , comes from the lips 
 of no inspired person ; and that the latter, the confession of the Lord , can 
 only be uttered by the power of the Holy Spirit. Both the negative and the 
 positive marks are thereby given ; and it is arbitrary to lay the whole stress, 
 as Billroth and Riickert do, upon the second half, and to regard the first as 
 almost superfluous and a mere foil to the second. Paul must, moreover, 
 have had his own special reasons for placing such a general guiding rule at 
 the head of his whole discussion in answer to the question, Who in gen¬ 
 eral is to be held an inspired speaker ? Among all the different forms and 
 even perversions of the gift of speaking in the Spirit at Corinth, men may 
 have been divided upon the question, Who was properly to be regarded as 
 speaking by the Spirit, and who not ? and against all arbitrary, envious, 
 exclusive judgments on this point the apostle strikes all the more powerfully, 
 the more he brings out here the width of the specific field of speaking in the 
 Spirit, and the more simply and definitely he lays down at the same time its 
 characteristics. To find any special reference here to the speaking with 
 tongues —and in particular to go so far in that direction as to assume (Hof¬ 
 mann, comp, his Schriftbew. I. p. 309) that the first clause guards against 
 
 1 Similarly deWette ; comp. Bengel, and, 
 yet earlier, Luther’s gloss. Osiander drags 
 in a contrast between the one Lord of the 
 Christians and the many <vpiov s of heathen¬ 
 ism. Moreover, widely differing statements 
 as to the connection are to be found among 
 interpreters. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 and Theopliylact trace it back in a perfect¬ 
 ly arbitrary way to the contrast between 
 the unconscious mania of heathen inspira¬ 
 tion and the conscious inspiration of Chris¬ 
 tians. Comp. Neander: “because it is 
 now otherwise with you, and you have 
 become free organs of the Holy Spirit.” 
 Kling (in the Stud. v. Krit. 1838, p. 486) 
 makes it: “ that you may not suffer your¬ 
 selves to be again carried away to blind 
 worship of an unintelligible phenome¬ 
 non” (?). Theodoret holds that what is re¬ 
 ferred to is the contrast between the Sta- 
 (fHovtoi of heathenism and the a-v/j-^tavia in 
 Christianity. In like manner Rabiger: 
 “ because your heathen cultus did not rest 
 upon a common Divine Spirit ruling in you 
 all, I make it known to you that there is 
 such a principle in Christianity in the 
 TTuevfjia ©eoO.” But in this way the essential 
 point on which the question hinges is only 
 gained by abstraction out of what Paul actu¬ 
 ally says, and that in the interest of the 
 
 assumption that he designs to secure for 
 the glossolalia the respect due to it as 
 against the opposition of the Pauline party. 
 Paul is here making known to his readers 
 the criterion of Christian inspiration as re¬ 
 gards its confession, and that for this reason 
 (8< .6), because they, as formerly serving 
 dumb idols, had all the more need of this 
 yv(api£eiv. The words before us yield no 
 more than this. Ewald also imports too 
 much into them : You will not surely wish 
 back your former heathen days ; ... it is 
 in the light of that old state of things that 
 one first really comes rightly to understand 
 and feel the value of Christianity, and so 
 forth. Hofmann shapes the connection in 
 accordance with his construction of the 
 text in ver. 2 : because Paul does not wish 
 to leave his readers in the dark 7repi t. 
 nvevp.aTLK(av ; and because, on the other 
 hand, he knows what their old life had 
 been as respects divine service, therefore 
 he gives them the following instructions. 
 This is logically incorrect. For the second 
 element in this case would not be one 
 brought forward in addition to the first (re), 
 but one already lying at the root of it; and 
 Paul must therefore have written, not olSa 
 re (as Hofmann reads), but o!8a yap. 
 
278 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 anxiety in presence of the yluoaaig lakelv, and the second against undervalu¬ 
 ing the 7 rpoyrjTEVELv —comes just to this, that Paul has expressed himself in a 
 highly unintelligible way, and arbitrarily anticipates the elucidations in 
 detail which follow. — kv TrvEvpan 0eoi>] so that the Holy Spirit is the ele¬ 
 ment which pervades his inner life, and in which the lalelv takes place. 
 Comp, on Rom. viii. 15 ; Matt. xxii. 43. — 'Aci/uov] uttering himself , speaking ; 
 IkyeL, on the other hand, has reference to the object of the utterance. Comp, 
 on Rom. iii. 19 ; John viii. 43 ; Schulz, Geistesgaben, p. 94 If. —avciOega 
 'IrjGovq] sc. ecti , accursed (see on Rom. ix. 3 ; Gal. i. 8), fallen into eternal 
 perdition is Jesus! This is the anti-Christian (especially the Jewish) con- . 
 fession ; the Christian is: Kvptog ’Iqoovg, Jesus is Lord! Comp. Phil. ii. 
 11. Why did Paul not say Xpiorog ? Because, from its original appellative 
 meaning, it would not have suited the first clause (avad .); in the second, 
 again, its appellative meaning is contained in K vpiog ; and in both it was 
 essential to name the historical Person who was the Messiah of the Chris¬ 
 tians’ faith as exalted to be the avvdpovog of God. It is self-evident, we may 
 add, that Paul regarded the K vpiog ’Irjaovq as the constant watchword of the 
 believing heart, and the keynote of inspired speech, (x 1 ) “Paulus loquitur 
 de confessione perseveranti etintota doctrina,” Melanchthon. —Regarding 
 the confession itself, comp. 1 John iv. 1 f., where the proposition is of sub¬ 
 stantially the same import, only still more directly aimed against false 
 teachers. 
 
 Yer. 4. Although the fundamental character of all inspired speaking is not 
 in any case different : there are , notwithstanding , distributions of grace-gifts 
 (“ divisiones gratiarum,” Vulg.), but it is the same Spirit (from whom they 
 proceed). Comp. Heb. ii. 4, and Liinemann upon that passage. Xdpio/ua, 1 
 a specifically H. T. word, foreign to ordinary Greek, is used here in the 
 narrower sense (for in the wider sense, every manifestation of divine grace 
 —in particular, every part of the Christian possession of salvation, and every 
 activity of the Christian life—is a xdpiaga). It means any extraordinary 
 faculty, which operated for the furtherance of the welfare of the Christian 
 community, and which was itself wrought by the grace of God, through the 
 power of the Holy Spirit, in special individuals, in accordance, respectively, 
 with the measure of their individual capacities, whether it were that the 
 Spirit infused entirely new powers, or stimulated those already existing to 
 higher power and activity, Rom. xii. 6 If. Regarding diaipEcng, distribution t 
 comp. ver. 11 ; Xen. Gyr. iv. 5. 55 ; Plat. Sop>h. p. 267 D, Phaedr. p. 266 
 B, Polit. p. 275 E ; Polyb. ii. 43. 10 ; Ecclus. xiv. 15 ; Judith ix. 4. The 
 charismatic endowment is not something undivided ; we do not find a unity 
 and equality among the gifted, but there are distributiones donorum ; so that 
 one has this peculiar xaptapa, and the other that, dealt out to him as his own 
 appointed share. If we take duupkcjEig to mean differences (Beza, and many 
 others, including de Wette, Ewald), this is equally lawful so far as linguistic 
 
 1 Comp. Krumm, Be notionib. psycJwl. x a P t/<r M aTa and the extraordinary, see Con- 
 Paulin ., Gissae 1858, p. 35 ft. As regards the stitt. ap. viii. 1.1 ft. 
 difference between the genei’al Christian 
 
CHAP. XII., 5 - 7 . 
 
 279 
 
 usage goes (Plat. Soph. p. 2G7 B, Prot. p. 358 A), but does not correspond 
 to the correlative purposely chosen by the apostle in ver. 11, diaipovv. 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. Continuation of the representation of the difference and yet rel¬ 
 ative unity of the x a P' La P ara i illustrated in two characteristic forms of their 
 action, in so far, namely, as they present themselves practically as diasoviai 
 and as evzpyjpara. These are not merely different names for the charismata 
 (as the Greek Fathers held), nor yet distinct species of them (Estius and 
 others), but different forms of expression in which they show themselves 
 and appear to the observer. — And there are distributions of services , but it is 
 the same Lord (Christ as Lord of the church) who is served thereby. To 
 make the Scanoviat refer to the specific offices in the church , ver. 28 (Beza, 
 Grotius, Estius, Olshausen, and many others), is to narrow the meaning too 
 much ; for in accordance with the first sentence, and in accordance gener¬ 
 ally with the comprehensive scope of the whole three sentences, all 
 charismata must be meant, in so far , namely , as all , according to the relation 
 of their exercise to Christ , manifest themselves as services rendered,.—“And 
 there are distributions of workings (deeds of power), but it is the same God 
 who works them all (evepyr/uara) in all (in all who are acting in the power 
 of the Spirit).” ’E vepy. is as little to be taken in a special sense here as 
 <ha/c. in the previous sentence ; it is neither to be referred to the work¬ 
 ing of miracles alone (so most interpreters on the ground of ver. 10, 
 where, however, it is joined with Swap.), nor to the healings of the sick (so 
 Olshausen, quite arbitrarily). No, all charismata may manifest their oper¬ 
 ation in deeds (comp, on hepyr/yara , Polyb. ii. 42. 7, iv. 8. 7 ; Diod. iv. 51), 
 whether these be miraculous or not. 
 
 Remark.—T he Divine Trinity is here indicated in an ascending climax (comp, 
 on Eph. iv. 6), in such a way that we pass from the Spirit, who bestows the 
 gifts, to the Lord, who is served by means of them, and finally to God, who, as 
 the absolute First Cause and Possessor of all Christian powers, works the entire 
 sum of charismatic deeds in all thus endowed. This passage has always (from 
 Chrysostom and Theodoret onwards) been rightly adduced in opposition to 
 anti-Trinitarian error (comp, too Calovius against the Socinians) ; but it is to 
 be observed also here, that with all the equality of nature and inseparable unity 
 (2 Cor. xiii. 13) of the Three, still no dogmatic canon can do away with the 
 relation of subordination which is also manifest. Comp. Gess, v. d. Person 
 Christi, p. 158 f.; Kahnis, Dogm. III. p. 206 ff. 
 
 Yer. 7. Ae] leading on to the like destination of all the gifts. The empha¬ 
 sis lies on 7 rpog to ovytyepov. This is the aim, which is the same in the case 
 of every one who receives a gift. To each one is the manifestation of the 
 Spirit (his making known the Holy Spirit to others by charismatic acts) 
 given with a view to benefit (in order to be of use, see xiv. 12). The genitive 
 is to be taken in this objective sense (with Billroth, Schulz, Geistseg. p. 164, 
 and Hofmann), because there exists no reason here for departing from the 
 similar meaning of (pavep. aXr/0. in 2 Cor. iv. 2 ; and we have no other 
 instance of the use of the word except in the Fathers. Calvin, Riickert, de 
 Wette, and most expositors understand it subjectively: the'self-revelation of 
 
280 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corintliiaks. 
 
 the Spirit. Even on the first interpretation there is not too much concession 
 to independent human activity (in opposition to de Wette), as is plain from 
 the very idea of the didorat. 
 
 Yer. 8 ff. Now one man may receive one, and another another endowment 
 from the same Spirit. The following nine charismata, enumerated in a 
 preliminary way up to ver. 10 (besides which, others are afterwards men¬ 
 tioned, ver. 28), are divided into three classes, which cannot, however, 
 correspond to the three diaipeoecg, vv. 4-6, because there each sentence 
 comprises all charismata. The external division is distinctly marked by 
 Paul himself in this way, namely, that he notes the transition to a new cate¬ 
 gory by ETEpcp 1 (while for subdivision icithin the classes he uses thus : 
 
 (1) ver. 8, by <*> pev ; (2) ver. 9, by erepcp tie ; (3) ver. 10, by erepo) de. The 
 logical division again, although not rigidly carried out, presents itself with¬ 
 out constraint as follows : 
 
 I. Charismata which have reference to intellectual power : 
 
 1. Aoyof cro^iaf. 
 
 2 . T^dyog yvucreoc. 
 
 II. Charismata which depend upon special energy of faith : 
 
 1. The Tctanq itself. 
 
 2. Its agency in deeds , namely, 
 
 a. \dpara. 
 
 b. dvvapeig. 
 
 3. Its agency in words, namely, the TTpcxpr/reia. 
 
 4. Its critical agency, the dicucpecug Tcvevp. 
 
 III. Charismata which have reference to the yluooai : 
 
 1. Speaking with tongues. 
 
 2. Interpretation of tongues. 2 
 
 Yer. 8. 7 12 pev] This is followed by a/U<n de instead of w de. An unexact 
 expression, as in ver. 28. Comp. Xen. Anab. iii. I. 35 ; Hermes in Stob. 
 Ed. phys. 52, p. 1082.— 16yog aofiag] Discourse of wisdom, discourse the 
 contents of which are aofia. The distinction drawn by many (including 
 Schulz, Neander, Billroth, Olshausen, comp, also Froschammer, non d. Cha- 
 
 1 Whether after erepw, w. 9 and 10, we 
 read Se or not (which Lachmann brackets in 
 ver. 9 and deletes in ver. 10) makes no dif¬ 
 ference at all as regards the marking of the 
 divisions (in opposition to Hofmann); the 
 divisions mark themselves by the way in 
 which the erepa> stands out from the many 
 repetitions of dAA&>. In several cases the 
 Se too, after dAAcp, is wanting in important 
 witnesses. 
 
 2 Other modes of division may be seen in 
 Kling, Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 477 ff. ; Engl- 
 mann, von d. Charismen , 1858, who, how¬ 
 ever, divides them into official and non- 
 official, which does not correspond with 
 the conception and nature of the gifts; 
 
 Krumm, l.c ., who bases his division on the 
 categories nvevpa, KapSta, vovs ; de Wette 
 renounces any arrangement ; Hofmann 
 divides according to the categories of the 
 cognitive faculty (\oy. <ro$., and A oy. yvuo-ews) 
 of the volitional faculty (TricrTi9, td/aara, SvvoL- 
 juet?), and of the power of the Holy Spirit 
 (npo(l>r]TeLa k.t. A.). Bengel puts its aptly : “ $• 
 erepo)- ere'pw: hvic, alteri, alteri,—pe nera 
 tria.”—The distinction between II. and III. 
 arises from the fact that the yAwo-aai were 
 an entirely peculiar xdpio-joia, in connection 
 with which the agency of the vow? was 
 absent. In ver. 28 also the glossolalia is 
 ranked in a class by itself. 
 
CHAP. XII., 9. 
 
 281 
 
 rumen , 1850, p. 28 ff.) between this and hoyoq yvuaeug, according to which 
 the former is a more practical , the latter a more theoretical method of teach¬ 
 ing (Bengel, Storr, Rosenmuller, Flatt reverse it, comp. Cornelius a Lapi- 
 de), is an unlikely one, seeing that the separation between theory and prac¬ 
 tice is not in keeping with the nature of inspired discourse. The more 
 correct view is indicated by ii. 6 f. compared with xiii. 2 ; ooQia, namely, is 
 the higher Christian wisdom (see on ii. 6, comp. Ejih. i. 17) in and by itself, 
 so that discourse, which enunciates its doctrines (mysteries), elucidates, 
 applies them, etc., is hoyog ao(j>iag. This, however, does not yet imply the 
 deep and thorough knowledge of these doctrines, the speculative insight 
 into, and apprehension and elaboration of, their connection, of their 
 grounds, of their deeper ideas, of their proofs, of their ends, etc., and 
 a discourse which treats of these matters is hoyog yvuoecjg. 1 Accordingly 
 the Gotpia cannot cease at the Parousia, but the yvticug ceases, xiii. 8, because 
 it belongs to the category of imperfect temporal things, (y 1 ) Others inter¬ 
 pret otherwise. Chrysostom, 2 Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theopliylact are 
 wrong in holding that the possession or the want of the teaching faculty 
 makes the difference between aocpia and yvucig. See, on the contrary, xiii. 
 8 ; 2 Cor. xi. 6. Baur makes yvticrtg refer to the unfolding of the deeper 
 meaning of Scripture chiefly through allegorical exegesis, which is totally 
 without proof. De Wette gives no explanation : Osiander explains as we 
 do. Hofmann makes aotyia a property of the subject (see in opposition to 
 this, ii. 6 : aofyiav hahovpev), one, namely, which qualifies for right judgment 
 in general ; yvucrtg, again, a relation to an object , namely, the thorough mas¬ 
 tery of it in the particular instance in hand. But in that case the yvtiaig 
 would only be the application of the ao<pia in concreto, and Paul would thus 
 not be adducing two x a p' ,a ya-a distinct in character from each other.— Kara 
 to avro irvev/Lia ] according to the same Spirit. Comp. ver. 11, and the classical 
 Kara Qeov, according to divine destination (Yalckenaer, ad IJerod. iii. 153). 
 The prepositions Ad, /card, h, are not equivalent in meaning (Riickert), but 
 they so express the relation of the Spirit to the divine bestowal (diSorai), ac¬ 
 cording to the different aspects of His participation therein, as to show that 
 He is medians , normans , or continens , with respect to the different gifts in 
 question. 
 
 Ver. 9. 'Erqow] not ahhio again, because introducing another class wdiich 
 differs in kind from the preceding one. Comp, on Gal. i. 6 ; 2 Cor. xi. 4 ; 
 Matt. xvi. 14.— ntang] cannot be the Jides salvifica in general, seeing that 
 this is a possession common to all and required of every Christian, not a pe¬ 
 culiar charisma of certain individuals. Hence it has been understood by 
 most commentators, following the Fathers, (see in Suicer, Thes. II. p. 727), 
 
 1 According to Ewald, Aoyos o-o^i'a? em¬ 
 braces more the intelligent explanation and 
 establishment of recognized truths, with a 
 view to profit in life ; Aoyos yt/wo-ews, more 
 the treatment of obscurer and more hidden 
 portions of knowledge. But ii. 6 ff. shows 
 that the latter also are included under the 
 <ro<t>(a. 
 
 2 Paul and John, he says, had the Aoyos 
 costas ; the Aoyos yyaxretos was possessed by 
 oi 7roAAoi. tu)u 7riara)i/, yviocnv iJLiv e'xovTes, Si Sacr- 
 kslv Se ovtws ov SwdfjLei'oi. In like manner 
 now Krumm asserts, “ yiwews, proprieta- 
 tem in argumentis , ao<f>ias, in forma positam 
 esse.” 
 
282 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 to refer to the fides miraculosa, Matt. xvii. 20. But this is clearly too narrow 
 a meaning, since not only the la/jara and Swapeig are ranked under this head, 
 but also the npo^r/reia and the diaKpiaeig Trvevp. What is intended, therefore, 
 must be a high degree of faith in Christ produced by the Holy Spirit, a hero¬ 
 ism of faith , 1 the effects of which manifested themselves in one in healings, 
 in another in wonders, in a third in prophecy (Rom. xii. 6 ), in a fourth in 
 discernment of spirits. — kv rai avr(p nv.] in the same Spirit , so that, contained 
 in this Spirit, the xapaypa is given, and the Spirit thus includes in Himself 
 the gift. — x a p' LG h- ] gift 8 ) through means of which healings are effected. 
 The instances in the Acts of the Apostles show that this does not mean 
 natural skill, but cures wrought by spiritual power upon bodily maladies 
 (miraculous cures). Comp. Mark xvi. 18 ; Acts iv. 30. It does not, how T - 
 ever, exclude the application of natural means in connection with the power 
 that wrought the cure (Mark vii. 33, viii. 23 ; John ix. 6 , al.; Jas. v. 14). 
 The plural xapiapara points to the different kinds of sickness, for the healing 
 of which different gifts were needful . 1 2 
 
 Yer. 10. ’E vepyi/para /Swap.] workings (ver. 6 ) ichich consist in acts of poicer. 
 It is a purely arbitrary assumption that by this is meant merely the “ potes- 
 tas puniendi sontes , qualis exercita in Ananiam, etc.” (Grotius, following 
 Chrysostom and Theophylact, comp, also David Schulz). They are in gen¬ 
 eral—excluding, however, the cures already assigned to a special gift— mi¬ 
 raculous works (comp. Acts iv. 30), which, as the effects of a will endowed 
 with miraculous power, may be very various according to the different oc¬ 
 casions which determined its action (2 Cor. xii. 12 ; Heb. ii. 4 ; also Rom. 
 xv. 19). Instances of raising the dead belonged likewise to this division . 3 
 — 7 rpo(p7]TELa\ prophetic speech, i.e. address flowung from revelation and im¬ 
 pulse of the Holy Spirit, which, without being bound for that matter to a 
 specific office, suddenly (xiv. 30) unveils the depth of the human heart 
 (xiv. 25) and of the divine counsels (iii. 10 ; Eph. iii. 5), and thereby works 
 with peculiar power for the enlightenment, admonition, and comforting of 
 the faithful (xiv. 3), and so as to win over the unbelieving (xiv. 24). As 
 respects the substance of what he utters, the prophet is distinguished from 
 the speaker with tongues by this, that the latter utters prayers only (see be¬ 
 low) ; and as respects form, by the fact that the prophet speaks intelligibly, 
 not in an ecstatic way, consequently not "without the exercise of reflective 
 thought ; he differs from the ih6daK.a2.og thus : 6 pev tt potyrjrcvuv rcdvra ano rov 
 
 Chrysostom on ver. 28. Comp, generally on Acts xi. 27. Liicke, Einl. in 
 
 1 “ Ardentissima et praesentissima appre- 
 hensio Dei in ipsius potissimum voluntate, 
 ad effectus vel in naturae vel in gratiae 
 regno singulariter conspicuos.”— Bengel. 
 
 2 As Baur rationalizes all these charis¬ 
 mata : 7ricrTis being, according to him, a 
 peculiarly strong faith in Divine Providence ; 
 the xap'-o'Ma- iagarwv being the gift of praying 
 with special power and fervency for the 
 
 sick, with more or less confident promise of 
 
 recovery, if it please God ; and the evepyrni. 
 Sway., being proofs of extraordinary men¬ 
 tal fortitude and energy in the interests of 
 Christianity. 
 
 3 But not instances of the casting out of 
 demons (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 410), which 
 are to be placed under the category of the 
 idgara (comp. Matt. xv. 28 ; Luke vi. 17, ix. 
 42 ; Acts x. 38). 
 
CHAP. XII., 10. 
 
 283 
 
 d. Offerib. Joh. p. 29. Gilder in Herzog’s Encyldop. XII. p. 210. f. — 6ia- 
 KpicELQ TrvEVju. ] judgments of spirits , i.e. judgments which avail, and that im¬ 
 mediately on hearing the utterances, for the preservation of the church 
 from misleading influences, by informing it from what spirits the utterances 
 proceeded, and by whom they were carried on in the different cases (hence 
 the plural dtaKpiceig), whether consequently the Holy Spirit, or the human 
 spirit merely, or even demoniac spirits (1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 1 John iv. 1) were at 
 work ; aac yap TzoXkrj t6te tow ipEvdoTrpoQijTuv fjv diatpopa , tov 6iaj36?iov (f>i?.ovEtKovvrog 
 TTapvTroGTTjuaL Tff aXqdeia to ijjEvdog, Chrysostom. Respecting diaupnug, comp, 
 on Rom. xiv. 1 . —yevq yXuaauv] The yXucoaig laleiv in Corinth was identical 
 with that mentioned in Acts x. 46 and xix. 6, identical also with the speak¬ 
 ing at Pentecost, Acts ii., according to its historical substance (see on Acts, 
 loc. cit .), although not according to the form preserved by tradition in 
 Luke’s account, which had made it a speaking in foreign languages, and so 
 a miracle of a quite peculiar kind. Most commentators, indeed, following 
 Origen and the Fathers generally (with exceptions, however, as early as 
 Irenaeus and Tertullian), have taken yl&ocai in this passage also as meaning 
 foreign languages (so Storr, Flatt, Heydenreicli, Schultliess, Schrader, 
 Riickert, Ch. F. Fritzsche, Maier), and that, too, in the view of the ma¬ 
 jority, unacquired languages ; 1 only a few (among the most recent of whom 
 are Schultliess, de charismatib. Sp. St., Lips. 1818, and Schrader, also Ch. 
 F. Fritzsche in his Nor. Opusc. p. 302 ff.) regarding them as acquired by 
 learning . 2 The former view is held also by Riickert (“ the faculty, in iso¬ 
 lated moments of high inspiration, of praising God in languages which 
 they had not previously learned ”) and Baeumlein in the Stud. cl. evange- 
 lischen GeistlicKkeit Wurtemb. VI. 2, 1834, pp. 30-123 ; Osiander ; Kling in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 487 ff. ; to some extent Olshausen and Bauer in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 658 ff. ; 1844, p. 708 ff. See, in opposition to it, 
 especially Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 17 f. ; Bauer in the Tubing. 
 Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 104 ff. ; Schulz, Geistesgdben , p. 57 ff. ; Zeller, Apos- 
 telgesch. p. 89 ff.'; van Hengel, de Gave der talen , Leiden 1864, p. 90 ff. 
 
 1 So, too, Zinsler, de charism. tov y\. Aa- 
 A elv, Aug. Vind. 1847,—a Roman Catholic 
 prize-essay which obtained the prize, but is 
 destitute of all scientific worth. Of a much 
 more thorough description is another suc¬ 
 cessful prize-essay (also Roman Catholic), 
 by Englmann, von den chariswen , etc., Mainz 
 1848, who explains it in the same way of for¬ 
 eign languages; as also Froschammer, 
 Charismen , 1850 ; and Maier, Die Glossolalie 
 des apost. Zeitalt. 1855. 
 
 2 Ch. F. Fritzsche’s view is : At Corinth, 
 as in seaport towns generally, there were 
 labourers, fishers, etc., who, from their in¬ 
 tercourse with foreign sailors, had become 
 so far acquainted with different languages 
 as to be able to converse about matters of 
 ordinary life. Many of these people had 
 become Christians, and having now learned 
 
 that it had been predicted by the prophets 
 that in the Messianic times the Holy Spirit 
 would bring about a speaking concerning 
 divine things in strange tongues (Isa. xxviii. 
 11 f.; Joel iii.), they had accordingly applied 
 this oracle to themselves, “ quos pro sua, 
 licet tenui, exterarum linguarum peritia 
 prae ceteris idoneos putassent, quos 
 Spiritus s. barbaris linguis de rebus divinis 
 disserere juberet.” Since, however, most 
 of the Christians did not understand this 
 speaking in strange tongues, there had to 
 be an interpretation into Greek, and the 
 interpreters in their turn not less than the 
 speakers, regarded their ability as flowing 
 from the Holy Spirit. So it all resolves it¬ 
 self into naive self-deception and imagina¬ 
 tion 1 
 
284 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Even putting out of account the singular expression ylcxjcr) XaXeiv, which is 
 supposed to refer to d, foreign language, and the psychological impossibility 1 
 of speaking languages which had not heen learned , the following consider¬ 
 ations tell decidedly against the view of foreign languages : (1) It would 
 make xiv. 2 untrue in all cases in which persons w T ere found among the au¬ 
 dience who understood the languages spoken. (2) In xiv. 10, 11 we have 
 the yivrj (puvtiv ( languages ) expressly distinguished from the yhg yhucauv (see 
 unfounded objections to this in Baeumlein, p. 92, and in Hofmann), and the 
 former adduced as an analogue of the latter. (3) What is contrasted with 
 the glossolalia is not speaking in one’s native tongue, but speaking with 
 employment of the understanding (xiv. 15) ; and the glossolalia itself is 
 characterized as hakclv nvevyaTt. (4) In xiv. 6 there is contrasted with the 
 y?MG(j. hakeiv the speaking kv aTroKahv-ipei, hv yvuast zc.r./L, which could all, of 
 course, be done in any language ; hence the unintelligibleness of the glosso¬ 
 lalia is not to be sought in the idiom , but in the fact that what was spoken 
 contained neither aTrosahvipig nor yvtoaig, etc. (5) Upon this theory, the case 
 supposed in xiv. 28 could not have occurred at all, since every speaker 
 would have been able also to interpret. (6) In xiv. 18 Paul states that he 
 himself possessed the glossolalia in a high degree, but adds that he did not 
 exercise it in the church,—from which it would follow that Paul was in the 
 habit of praying in private, before God, in foreign languages ! (7) In xiv. 
 
 9, Sea rfjq yluacrjg plainly means Ing the tongue , which, however, would be a 
 quite superfluous addition if the point were not one concerning speaking 
 with tongues (not with languages). (8) Paul would have discussed the 
 whole subject of the xapic/ua in question from quite another point of view, 
 namely, according to the presence or non-presence of those who understood 
 foreign languages. Billroth therefore is right in opposing, as we do, the 
 hypothesis of foreign languages ; but he still holds fast the signification 
 language , and maintains that the glossolalia was u the speaking of a mixed 
 language , which comprised the elements or rudiments of actual historic languages 
 of the most widely different kinds , and was the type of the universal character 
 of Christianity .” But to say nothing of the Quixotic arbitrariness of the 
 conception of such a medley, to say nothing also of the fact that the first 
 rudiments of languages must have been only very imperfect, unadapted for 
 supersensuous themes, and wholly unsuitable as a means of expression for 
 ecstatic inspiration—this view is opposed by almost all the considerations 
 adduced against the hypothesis of foreign languages applied with the req¬ 
 uisite modifications, and in addition by the phrase yX&aay lalelv without 
 the article ; for the mixed language would surely not have been indefinitely 
 a language , but the language kcit’ el-oxf/v, the primeval speech. Rossteuscher, 
 too ( Gale d. Sprachenim apost. Zeitalter , 1850), explains it as languages , and 
 infers from xiii. 1 that the glossolalia in 1 Cor. was the speaking in angelic 
 languages (Acts ii. : in human languages), the designation being formed 
 with reference to the characteristic of this mysterious language, that it be- 
 
 1 This is made only the more evident, if take elements from very different \ anguages 
 we suppose (comp. e.g. Kling) that one and join them creatively together in a har- 
 speaking with tongues could perhaps even monious combination. 
 
CHAP. XII., 10. 
 
 285 
 
 tokened a converse alone witli God, such as the angels have. So also, in 
 substance, Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 67 f. But this whole con¬ 
 ception is shown to be erroneous when we consider that, if the specific 
 characteristic of the phenomenon had been its angelic nature, the latter 
 would have found its expression in the very name of the thing, and would 
 also have been made mention of by Paul in his certainly pretty minute dis¬ 
 cussion of the subject ; whereas, on the contrary, in xiii. 1 a speaking ralg 
 ■ylhccaiq tuv ayy'eluv is only supposed as an imaginary case to heighten the 
 contrast. Generally, however, the explanations which make it a speaking in 
 a language or languages , are incompatible with the whole account of it which 
 follows, even if we try to represent to ourselves the phenomenon and the 
 designation as Hofmann does. According to him, the question is regarding 
 languages spoken by the speaker only in virtue of his being carried away 
 by the Holy Spirit, the distinctions between which, however, were not to 
 be considered as differences between the language of one nation and an¬ 
 other, but arose out of this, that the Holy Spirit gave impulse and power 
 to the speaker to make his language for himself for what he had to utter at that 
 very moment, so that the language moulded itself specially in the mouth of 
 each individual respectively for that which had to be uttered. Those ex¬ 
 positors who departed from the signification language entered on the right 
 path. 1 2 But that by itself was not enough to bring them to what was pos¬ 
 itively the right meaning. For Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, pp. 3-79, 
 1830, p. 43 ff., explains it as glosses , i.e. antique , highly poetic words and 
 formulae to some extent consisting of provincialisms. This view is equally op¬ 
 posed by most of the considerations which tell against the foreign lan¬ 
 guages, as well as by xiii. 1 ; and further, it has against it the fact that yl. 
 in the above sense is a terminus technicus which occurs, indeed, after Aris¬ 
 totle, although for the most part in grammarians, but which the New Tes¬ 
 tament writers probably did not so much as know ; and also the considera¬ 
 tion that the singular yhoujoy ha'helv ) yhuaaav lx uv i yhuccy npoGeoxeadai, as 
 well as the expression yluoocu ayyehuv, would be quite absurd. See further, 
 Baur, loc. cit. p. 85 ff. (who, however, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 618 ff., 
 has come over in substance to Bleek’s view) ; Schulz, loc. cit. p. 20 ff., and 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 752 ff. ; Wieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, 
 p. 723 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie , 1850, p. 28 ff. The result of all this is, 
 that there is only the signification tongue remaining for yluooa, so that yhorj- 
 aaig lahsiv expresses an uttering oneself with tongues. This is not, however, 
 to be taken as justifying the extreme view of Bardili (signifcatus primitiv. 
 rods Tzpotpijr., etc., Gott. 1786) and Eichhorn (Biblioth. I. pp. 91 ff., 775 ff. ; 
 II. p. 755 ff. ; III. p. 322 ff.), according to which what is meant is a lisping 
 of inarticulate tones ; 2 for such a strange form of expression for inspiration, 
 
 1 Luther too, up to 1528, had “ tougues,” 
 but from that date onwards has “lan¬ 
 guages.” In chap, xiv., however, he has 
 still “ tongues” in 1545. 
 
 2 Wieseler approached nearest to this 
 view, understanding “ an ecstatic speaking 
 in unintelligible expressions , i.e. in soft , 
 
 scarcely audible , inarticulate words, tones 
 and sounds , in which inspired pious feeling 
 found vent" {Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 738). 
 The same writer, however, has more recent¬ 
 ly (see Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 113 ff.) modified 
 his view to this extent, that he now explains 
 the ecstatic soft praying as being only one 
 
286 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 for which Paul would hardly have given thanks to God,—such a play of 
 spiritual utterance as would hardly have made any certain charismatic ex¬ 
 position possible,—must have been clearly presented by the text, in order, 
 despite these considerations, to warrant its assumption. Comp, on Acts ii. 
 But the text characterizes the speaking in tongues as utterance of prayer 
 (xiv. 13-17) in which the vovg falls into the background, and therefore un¬ 
 intelligible without interpretation. There must thus, certainly, have been 
 a want of connection, since the reflective faculty was absent which regulates 
 and presents clearly the conceptions ; there may even have been inarticu¬ 
 lateness in it, sometimes in a greater, sometimes in a less degree ; but must 
 it on this account have been a mere babbling ? May it not have been a 
 speaking in ecstatic ejaculations, abrupt ascriptions of praise to God, and 
 other mysterious outbursts in prayer of the highest strain of inspiration ? 
 Baur, too, loc. cit. , agrees in substance with this ; 1 as also Steudel in the 
 Tub. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 135 ff. ; Neander ; Ivuntze in the theol. Mitarb. 
 1840, p. 119 ff. ; Olshausen (who, however, takes y/ l. as languages , and 
 holds himself obliged, on the ground of Acts ii., to include also the use of 
 foreign languages) ; de Wette ; Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 362 f. ; Zeller in the 
 theol. Jahrb. 1849, 1, p. 43, and Apostelgesch. p. 111. Comp, too, Ewald, 
 Jahrb. III. p. 270 ff., who, however, derives from the speaking with tongues 
 the a/3/5a 6 Kargp, which is in itself so intelligible, and which does not pre¬ 
 suppose any high inspiration, and the unutterable sighings, Rom. viii. 2G, 
 which do not belong to the sphere of the laAelv. Similarly van Hengel, p. 
 105, who, again, conceives the original glossolalia (‘ ‘ open-hearted and loud 
 speaking to the glorifying of God in Christ ,” see on Acts ii.) to have become 
 so degenerate and abused by the Corinthians, that it was now £ £ a sjnritless 
 counterfeit , a product of pride and vanity ,” and so no longer to the glory of 
 God in Christ,—an assumption which leaves it unexplained why Paul 
 should not have denounced an abuse of this kind in the severest way, and 
 how he could even place his own speaking with tongues upon the same 
 level with that of the Corinthians. Hilgenfeld, who understands it to mean 
 language of immediate divine suggestion (“ divine tongues, spirit-voices 
 from a higher world ”), is not disposed to keep distinct from each other the 
 two meanings of yktiaca, tongue and language (so also Zeller, Delitzsch, and 
 others), although Paul himself keeps them distinct in xiv. 10 f. Schulz 
 limits the conception too narrowly to ascriptions of praise to God, 2 since, in 
 
 special yeV os yAwo-ow, no longer making it 
 the universal form of all speaking with 
 tongues, and in other respects agreeing in 
 substance with our interpretation. But 
 there is nothing in the whole section to 
 lead to the idea of even a soft kind of glosso¬ 
 lalia ; on the contrary, the comparisons, 
 in particular, with the flute, lyre, trumpet, 
 and cymbal, as well as with foreign lan¬ 
 guages, are decidedly against this. A soft 
 lisping might run along with it, but was 
 assuredly no special yeVo? yAwo-ow. 
 
 1 Comp, also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 410. 
 
 2 The result of his investigation is pre¬ 
 sented by Schulz, p. 1G0, as follows : “ The 
 extraordinary excitement of mind, which 
 at times possessed believers in Christ in the 
 primitive church at the thought of the sal¬ 
 vation now manifested in Christ, of the 
 blessedness of God’s chosen children now 
 realized after the fulfilment of his earlier 
 promises, and which, under certain circum¬ 
 stances, rose even to ecstasy, was itself re¬ 
 garded as a special gracious gift of the God¬ 
 head, and since no nearer means of expla¬ 
 nation offered itself, as an immediate oper- 
 
CHAP. XII 10. 
 
 287 
 
 fact, xiv. 13-17 shows that it included prayer, praise, and thanksgiving. 
 We are accordingly to understand by yXuaaaig haltiv such an outburst of 
 'prayer in petition, praise, and thanksgiving, as was so ecstatic that in connection 
 with it the speaker's own conscious intellectual activity was suspended, while the 
 tongue did not serve as the instrument for the utterance of self-active reflection, 
 but, independently of it, was involuntarily set in motion by the Holy Spirit, by 
 whom the man in his deepest nature teas seized and borne aicay. 1 As regards 
 this matter, it is conceivable—(1) that the abeyance of the vovg made this 
 Aalelv so disconnected and mysterious for hearers who w T ere bound to the con¬ 
 ditions of the vovg, that it could not be understood by them without epyriveia. 
 Incomprehensible sounds, partly sighing, partly jubilant cries, broken 
 words, expressions new in their form and connection, in which the deepest 
 emotion struggled to express itself, and in whatever other ways the tongue 
 might give utterance to the highest surgings and heavings of the Spirit,— 
 it remained unfruitful for others, if no interpretation was added, like a for¬ 
 eign language not understood. Equally conceivable is it (2) that in such 
 utterances of prayer, the tongue, because speaking independently of the 
 vovg, apparently spoke of itself ,' 2 although it was in reality the organ of the 
 Holy Spirit. It was not the I of the man that spoke, but the tongue, —so 
 the case seemed to be, and so arose its designation. But (3) because that ec¬ 
 static kind of prayer showed itself under very different characteristic modi¬ 
 fications (which we doubtless, from want of experience of them, are not in 
 a position to establish), and the same speaker with tongues must, according 
 to the varying degrees, impulses, and tendencies of his ecstasy, have ex¬ 
 pressed himself in manifold ways which could be easily distinguished from 
 each other, so that he appeared to speak with different tongues, there arose 
 both the plural expression ylfoaoaig \a\ziv and the mode of view which led 
 
 ation of the Holy Spirit. Every one there¬ 
 fore willingly yielded himself to such an ex¬ 
 altation of spirit, and had no scruple in 
 giving vent to.hls joy of soul by joyous and 
 jubilant tones, shouting aloud the praises 
 of God in song, partly in old and familiar 
 strains, partly in newly formed ones, with¬ 
 out any concern for the fact that in this 
 way he might easily fall into boundless ex¬ 
 travagances, improprieties, and troubles. 
 This singing of praise to God , arising in and 
 from that condition of ecstasy,—these triumph¬ 
 ant , loud-sounding strains of jubilation (not 
 the condition of ecstasy itself), are in our 
 judgment what is denoted by the formulas 
 yAujacrri and yAwcrcrai? AaAetv.” 
 
 1 In the ancient church we have, as anal¬ 
 ogies to the glossolalia , to some extent 
 (Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 473 IT.) the Montanistic 
 ecstasies (see Schwegler, Mon.tanism , p. 83 
 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie , p. 115 ff.; comp. 
 Liicke Einl. in d. Apokal. I. p. 324, ed. 2); 
 in modern times, the ecstatic discourses 
 of the French and German inspired ones 
 (Goebel in the Zeitschr.f.histor. Theol. 1854, 
 
 p. 287 ff.), as well as the Irvingite speaking 
 with tongues (Hohl, Bruchstiicke aus d. Leben 
 Irv., St. Gallen 1839, evangel. Kirchenzeit. 
 1839, No. 54 f. ; 1839, No. 88 f. ; Reich in the 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 195 ff.), and ecstatic 
 incidents at Revivals and among the Ameri¬ 
 can Methodists (Fabri, d. neuesten Erweckun- 
 gen in America , etc., I860); as likewise glos- 
 solalic phenomena, which are narrated of 
 clairvoyants (Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 364 f.). 
 But earlier still we have another analogue in 
 Philo’s conception of the divinely inspired 
 speaking of the prophets ; the prophet only 
 seems to speak himself, Karaxp^rai 6e eYepo? 
 avrov rot? </>covi}TTjpiois opyavois, errogan /cal 
 yAcoTTjj 7rpo5 p.r)vvcn.v wv av 0d\r) (guis rer. div. 
 haer. I. p. 510, Mang.).—Regarding the essen¬ 
 tial difference of somnambulist phenomena, 
 which may be compared with the speaking 
 with tongues, see Delitzsch, Psychol, loc. cit. 
 —There is not the remotest ground for 
 thinking of an ecclesiastical secret language 
 (Redslob, Apokal. I. 1859). 
 
 2 The tongue was not ykoocraa vnriicoos ru> 
 Aoyio-gw, Plut. Mor. p. 90 B. 
 
288 
 
 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 men to distinguish, ylvy yhjcouv . 1 — epprjvda y'kuaa.'] Interpretation of tongues, 
 i. e. a malcing of tongues intelligible in speaking , a presentation of the sense of 
 what they say. 2 The condition for this was the capacity of the vovg, pro¬ 
 duced by the Spirit, to receive what was prayed for in glossolalia. The 
 man speaking with tongues might himself (xiv. 5-13) have the x^piapa of 
 the interpreter (comp, the classical vnocpi/ryg), but did not always have it 
 himself alone, as Wieseler also now admits {Stud. u. Krit. 18G0, p. 117) in 
 opposition to his own earlier view, (z 1 )' 
 
 Yer. 11. Amid all this diversity, however, what unity of the operative 
 principle ! — hvepyel ] namely, as the divine power endowing the different 
 individuals differently. See what follows. A tafyopoi per ol upovvol , pia 6e 
 TravTog Trrjyr], Theodoret. — ISia] seorsim, severally. See Bernhardy, p. 185. 
 Comp. Plato, Menex. p. 249 B : arcep 16'ig ek aorg> Idea ylyverai. Pind. Nem. 
 iii. 42 ; and very often in classical writers. Elsewhere in the 1ST. T. : /car 
 iSlav. — uaOojg (3ovleTai\ not : arbitrarily , but (comp, on Matt. i. 19) : in ac¬ 
 cordance with the determination of Ills will , which by no means precludes this 
 divine self-determining action of the Holy Spirit from proceeding in a man¬ 
 ner corresponding to the natural and general Christian capacity, and to the 
 peculiar disposition and tendency of the minds, of men. Hence, on the 
 one hand, the possibility that, from the human side, particular charismata 
 may be obtained by effort , ver. 31, xiv. 1 ; and also, on the other hand, the 
 duty of not estimating slightly the gifts of others. Observe, further, in 
 icaOug (3ovlerai the personality of the Spirit. 
 
 Yer. 12. Illustration of how one and the same Spirit works all the cha¬ 
 rismata as He will ; namely, just as the case stands with the body , that its 
 many members make up its unity, so also does it stand in like manner with 
 Christ , whose many members likewise constitute the unity of His body. 
 
 1 Baur, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 628 ff., 
 professes himself, so far as the plural ex¬ 
 pression yAoio-crai? \a\elv is concerned, an 
 adhei'ent of Bleek’s theory, which in other 
 respects he impugns, with two limitations, 
 however (see p. 636) : (1) that we are not to 
 connect with yAAcrcrai the conception of a 
 poetic, inspired mode of speech ; and (2) 
 that Bleek’s explanation is not to be applied 
 to the passages in the Acts. According to 
 Baur, it is “ a speaking in strange, unusual 
 phrases which deviatefrom theprevailing usage 
 of the language The pressure of the over¬ 
 powering feeling, which strove for expres¬ 
 sion, called to its aid these forms of speech, 
 which were partly borrowed from foreign 
 languages, partly at least not in use in the 
 ordinary language of common life. These 
 forms of speech were, according to him. the 
 yhiiiaaaL, and the yAujo-crai? \a\eiv was an in¬ 
 tensified yXaicrcrrj AaA. But if yAa/crcra, both 
 in its singular and plural form, is to mean 
 tongue (see p. 622), then yAdxrcrai (the plural) 
 cannot at the same time mean utterances of 
 the tongue, peculiarities of language (see p. 
 
 634 f.).—The different explanations of yiv-q 
 yA. may be easily known from the different 
 views of the nature of the xdp<.<r/ua in itself. 
 Those interpreters, e.g who understand 
 yAcooraat of foreign languages, think of the 
 variety of languages (Chrysostom on ver. 1: 
 6 /xev Tjj Tlepcrlov, 6 Si tuv ‘Paiyaicov, 6 Si tt} 
 Tj/Scov, 6 Se tt) irepa tivl touxvttj evdews icfci&e y- 
 yeTo yAAo-o-Tj) ; Eichhoi’n : “all sorts of unin¬ 
 telligible tones Schulz : “ many various 
 strains of divinely inspired songs of 
 praise;” Wieseler (1838): the inarticulate 
 lisping itself, with and without its interpreta¬ 
 tion ; Rossteuscher: “ human and angelic 
 languages,” xiii. 1; Hilgenfeld : different 
 kinds of divinely suggested speech ; Hof¬ 
 mann : all the different sorts of peculiar 
 forms of the language in the mouth of each 
 individual. 
 
 2 How the ancient interpreters conceived 
 of this xapurga, may be seen, e.g., in Theo¬ 
 doret : avrip yap 7roAAd(cts Trjv 'EAAaSa yAwrrav 
 ixovrjv el8u)$, erepov ttjj/ f,Kvdu>v /cal ©pa/caiv 
 StaAeyojueVov, riji' ipp.r\velav irpocretfrepe toI? 
 aieovovai. 
 
CHAP. XII., 13. 
 
 2S9 
 
 '0 Xpicrdg is not the Christian church , but Christ Himself , inasmuch, that is 
 to say, as He, as the Head of the church, has in its many members His or¬ 
 ganic body, 1 2 which receives forth from Him, the Head, the whole harmo¬ 
 nious connection and efficiency of all its members and its growth. Christ 
 is not conceived as the Ego of the church as His body (Hofmann), but as in 
 all parallel expressions of the apostle (see especially Eph. iv. 1G, 25, v. 30 ; 
 Rom. xii. 4 f., and above on vi. 15), as the Head of the church, and the 
 church as the body of the Head. Ver. 21 does not run counter to this ; see 
 on that passage. — The repetition of rov cuyarog, which is superfluous in 
 itself, or might have been represented by avrov (comp. Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 
 222, ed. 2 ; Ktihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 11), serves here emphatically to 
 bring out the unity. 
 
 Yer. 13. Confirmation of this unity from the holy inward relation which 
 conditions it. For even by means of one Spirit were we all baptized into one 
 body — i.e. for even by this, that we received one and the same Holy Spirit 
 at our baptism, w T ere we all to be bound together into one ethical body. 
 Comp. Titus iii. 5. —In nai, which belongs to h hi ttv., is conveyed the 
 indication of the relation corresponding to what was spoken of in ver. 12 ; 
 ejSaTTTiaO. , again, is not to be taken tropically , as is done by Reiche also (“ de 
 Spiritu sancto largiter nobis collato”), following Yenema, Michaelis, Rosen- 
 muller, Krause, Flatt, and admitting only an allusion to baptism ; but, as 
 the word itself must have suggested to the reader, of the actual baptism, 
 only in such a way that by h hi rrvevyan it was to be brought prominently 
 before the mind from its spiritual side, according to its materia coelestis , in 
 so far as it was a baptism of the Spirit. Comp. Hofmann also, now in op¬ 
 position to his own Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 28. This ^arvTiabfjvai h hi wvavyari 
 has taken place elg h otiya, in reference to one body (Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Rom. 
 vi. 3 ; 1 Cor. x. 2), i.e. it had as its destination that we should all now 
 make up one body. Regarding elre ’ lovdaloi k.t.Ti., comp. Gal. iii. 28 ; Col. 
 iii. 11. — The second hemistich does not begin already with eire 'lovdaioi k.t.X., 
 in which case kcil before tv avreg would be only in the way (comp, also iii. 
 22 ; Col. i. 16), but starts only from nal ndvreg , so that the reception of the 
 one Spirit at baptism is once again declared with emphasis. The reference 
 to baptism was correctly made by as early commentators as Chrysostom,' 1 
 Oecumenius, Theophylact ; in recent times, by Riickert, Baur, de Wette, 
 Ewald, Maier, Hofmann : and we were all given to drink of one Spirit (comp. 
 Ecclus. xv. 3). To represent the communication of the Spirit which took 
 place at baptism as a giving to drink, followed naturally from the concep¬ 
 tion of the pouring out of the Spirit, 3 John vii. 37 ff. ; Acts ii. 17 ; Rom. 
 v. 5 ; and is here, after being already mentioned with h hi Tvvevyan, brought 
 forward yet again independently and with peculiar emphasis as the inward cor¬ 
 relate of the iv coya. This k al tv. h ttv. error, refers neither (Augustine, 
 
 1 Comp. Ehrenfeuchter, praJct. Theol. I. e-m^oiryenv ryv ano tov PanTLap.aTO<; nal npo 
 
 p. 57 f. ; See also Constitt. ay. ii. 59. 1. roil' pvarypitov eyyLvopevyv yp.iv. 
 
 2 He gives first the explanation referring 3 Comp, also Isa. xix. 10 : nenoTinev vp .as 
 
 it to the Lord’s Supper, but then goes on : Kvpios -nvevp.a.Ti naravi^e ws. 
 
 epol Se Sonet. vOv eneivyv \eyetv nvevp.aTOi ryv 
 
290 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Luther, Beza, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Calovius, Osiander, Neander, Kahnis, 
 Kling, and many others) to the Lord's Supper (most adopting the reading elg 
 tv 7 -v., which would mean : in order to make up one Spirit ), nor “ to the fur¬ 
 ther nourishment and training in Christianity through the Divine Spirit, who 
 constantly renews Himself in every Christian” (Billroth, Olshausen), in con¬ 
 nection with which the reference to the Lord’s Supper is not excluded. The 
 aorist is against both these interpretations, for its temporal significance must 
 be the same with that of efarrr., and against the former of them is the read¬ 
 ing ev nvevfia 1 (without elg), by which the reference to the Lord’s Supper 
 (see, in opposition to this, Theophylact) is debarred in this way, because 
 the idea that we drink the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s Supper is not biblical, 
 not even underlying x. 8 f. See, besides, Weiss, hibl. Theol. p. 355. Riick- 
 ert refers correctly kcll . . . error, to the reception of the Spirit as an event 
 happening once for all, but takes the relation of the two clauses in such a 
 way, that what Paul means to say is, “we are not simply one body, but 
 also one spirit.” In that case he would not have written h hi rrvevpan in 
 the first clause. 
 
 Yer. 14 ff. For the further illustration (yap) of this unity, the figure of 
 the human body is again brought forward in order now to carry it out more 
 minutely, and to show by it in detail on to ver. 26 how preposterous it is 
 to be discontented with the gift received, or to despise those differently 
 gifted. On the whole passage, comp, the speech of Menenius Agrippa in 
 Livy, ii. 32, also Seneca, de ira, ii. 31 ; Marc. Anton, ii. 1, vii. 13 ; Clem. 
 Cor. I. 37. — bn ovk dpi x e 'p] because I am not hand, I am not of the body, do 
 not belong to it. — ov rrapa rovro k.t./ 1 .] cannot, with Erasmus , 2 be taken as 
 a question (which Billroth, Riickert, Hofmann, following Bengel and others, 
 rightly rejects), so that the double negative should strengthen the denial : 
 num icleo von est corporis? In this case, namely, ov would only be the or¬ 
 dinary interrogative, which presupposes an affirmative answer ; but as such 
 it can by no means warrant or explain an intensifying repetition. And an 
 anadiplosis of the ov (Klotz, ad Lenar, p. 696 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. 
 <p. 199 A) would be suitable in an earnest declaratory sentence, but not in 
 such a question as this. We must therefore delete the mark of interroga¬ 
 tion, as Lachmann also and Tischendorf have done , 3 so as to make ov serve 
 as a negative for the whole sentence, while the succeeding ovk applies sim¬ 
 ply to the ecTiv. We render consequently, so is he not on that account (name¬ 
 ly, because he asserts it in that discontented expression) no part of the body ; 
 that peevish declaration does not do away with what he is, namely, a member 
 of the body. — Regarding rrapa with the accusative in the sense of : far 
 the sake of, in virtue of, on account of, see Klausen, ad Aesch. Choeph. 383 ; 
 Kruger on Time. i. 141. 6 ; so often in Demosthenes. By rovro 4 cannot be 
 meant : this, that it is not the hand (Billroth and others), but only (comp. 
 
 1 [This reading is adopted by all the re- Neander. 
 
 cent editors.—T. W. C.] 3 [Also Westcott and Hort, Stanley, Kling, 
 
 2 Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and most and Beet so translate.—T. W. C.] 
 
 expositors, including Griesbach, Scholz, 4 Comp, napa rovro, 4 Macc. x. 19; napa 
 
 Flatt, Schulz, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, ravra navra, Judith viii. 25. 
 
chap, xit., 17-23. 
 
 201 
 
 Hofmann), as the logical relation of the protasis and apodosis requires : 
 this, that it gives vent to such discontent about its position of not being the hand, 
 as if it could not regard itself in its capacity of foot as belonging at all to 
 the body. Erasmus in his Paraphrase happily describes the temper of the 
 member which spoke in this way as : deplorans sortem suam .”— It may be 
 added, that as early an interpreter as Chrysostom has appreciated the fact 
 of Paul’s placing together foot and hand, eye and ear, as analogous mem¬ 
 bers : £TT£ih?/ yap ov rolg o(p66pa vrrepexovoiv, aAAa rolg b’hiyov avafiefirjKOGL (j)0oveiv 
 elcjOapev. 
 
 Yer. 17 exposes the preposterous character of the preceding language. — 
 b(f>6a?p6g\ sc. rjv, ver. 19.— oa^pijaig] Plato, Phaed. p. Ill B, the sense of 
 smell. 
 
 Yer. 18. Nwi de] but so, i.e. but in this way, as the case really stands, has 
 God given to the members their place ( edero ), etc. —ev enaorov avruv] is in 
 apposition to ra pHrj, and defines it more precisely. — r}QPXr}czv\ To this sim¬ 
 ple will of God each member has to submit itself. The thought in naOibg 
 PovTwrai, ver. 11, is different. 
 
 Yer. 19 f. If, on the contrary, the whole of the members , which make up 
 the body, were one member ,—if they, instead of their variety, formed one 
 undifferentiated member ,—where were the body ? 1 In that case there would 
 be no body existent, for its essential nature is just the combination of dif¬ 
 ferent organs,—a new abductio ad absurdum. — But so (as ver. 18) there are 
 indeed many members, but one body. The antitheses in vv. 18 and 20 mani¬ 
 fest, in contradistinction to the perverseness of vain longing after gifts not 
 received, the necessity of the existing relation to the organic and harmoni¬ 
 ous subsistence and life of the church. 
 
 Yer. 21. Hitherto, in vv. 15-20, this figure has been used to rebuke those 
 who were discontented with what they considered their lesser gifts ; we 
 now come to those who were proud of their higher gifts and contemptuous 
 towards the less highly gifted. — ov hvvarai] of the impossibility conditioned 
 by the indispensableness of the hand for the eye. — naTuv] as in Matt. iv. 7, 
 v. 33, again, —since the case belongs to the same category. Comp, on 2 Cor. 
 x. 7 ; Rom. xv. 10. —g Kz$alrj\ the head, consequently the part of the body 
 which stands highest, compared with the feet, the members that stand lowest. 
 That Paul, in his specializing representation, has in view simply the corporeal 
 members as such, and therefore introduces the head also upon the scene with 
 the rest, without in any way thereby touching upon the idea of Christ as 
 the Head of the church (comp, on ver. 12), is plain from the whole picture, 
 which, in its concrete details, is as far as possible from giving occasion to 
 allegorical interpretations of the several parts of the body. 
 
 Yv. 22, 23. No ; the relationship of the members is, on the contrary, of a 
 different sort ; those accounted iveaker are necessary ; likewise those held to be 
 less honourable are the more honourably attired ; those which are unseemly arc 
 invested with all the greater seemliness. What particular members Paul 
 specially meant here by the weak (Theodoret, Estius, and several others 
 
 1 [That is, what would become of the organization of the body as a whole ?—T. W. C.] 
 
292 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 hold: the brain and inward organs ; Hofmann : ‘ 1 the delicate inward 
 parts Bengel : the hands; most commentators, including Billroth : the 
 eyes and ears) and by the ariyorEpoig {usually : the feet ; Grotius and Calo- 
 vius : “venter cum iis quae sub ventre sunt Kypke : the intestines) 
 cannot be definitely settled in detail, since he only says in a summary way : 
 u How contrary it is to the natural relation of the members, if one were to say 
 to the other (as in the preceding illustration the eye to the hand, or the head 
 to the feet), I have no need of thee ! Such contemptuous treatment can 
 find no warrant either in the weakness, or the less honourable character, or 
 the unseemliness of any member ; for the members which we count weak are 
 shielded from depreciation by their necessity ; those held less honourable, by 
 their more honourable dress ; and those which are unseemly, by their seemly 
 covering.” Since, however, it is of itself undoubted that he reckoned the 
 pudenda (rd alSold) and the breech among the aoxyyova , we may further, with¬ 
 out arbitrariness, set down the delicate organs of sense, such as the eye and 
 ear , among the acdevEorEpa, and among the anyorepa again the members spe¬ 
 cially cared for in the way of adornment by dress, such as the trunk, hips, 
 and shoulders, (a 2 ) — Tvokkcp yakkov] the logical multo potius. — rd Sokovvto] 
 which appear , like a Sokov yen, ver. 23. Chrysostom aptly says, that wdiat is 
 conveyed is not ryg QvoEug tuv Tcpayyaruv , but ryg tu>v n okkuv vizovoicig ipijQog. 
 The position is, as in Plato, Rep. p. 572 B, ml rcavv Sokovolv yyuv kvloig yerploig 
 eivcu. Comp. p. 334 C. —The first mi in ver. 23 subjoins another category, 
 the two members of which are put in order of climax ( ariyor., aoxyy-). — 
 anydrepa eivcu rov o6y.] to be more dishonourable parts of the body, than others ; 
 “ comparative molliens,” Bengel. — nyrjv nepLco.'] honour in richer measure 
 than others, namely, by the clothing, which is indicated by neptrlO. (Matt, 
 xxvii. 28 ; Gen. xxvii. 16 ; Esth. i. 20 ; Prov. xii. 9 ; 2 Macc. xi. 13, xii. 
 39, xxiii. 32 ; Horn. II. iii. 330, xiv. 187).—rd cioxyy. yy.] our unseemly 
 parts. Theodore of Mopsuestia says well : aoxyyova og rrpog ttjv mivyv 6-ijjiv 
 aTzomlel. Notice, too, that we have not here again the milder relative com¬ 
 parative. — e xcl] They have greater seemliness than others ; it becomes 
 their own, namely, through the more seemly covering in which they are at¬ 
 tired. On the purport of the verse, Chrysostom remarks rightly : tl yap ruv 
 yopluv tcjv yevvyrimv arcyoTepov ev rjylv elvai SokeI ; aXX oyog ttA eiovog airolavu 
 nyyg, ml oi acpoSpa nevyreg, mv rd hocTzov yvyvov exucu civya, ovk av avaaxotvTo 
 EKeiva rd yeky Selvae yvyva. According to Hofmann, we are to supply rov 
 ouyarog from what goes before in connection with rd aoxyy .; the words from 
 yyuv to excl, again, are to be taken as : they bring with them a greater seemli¬ 
 ness (a more seemly demeanour) on our part. Needlessly artificial, and con¬ 
 trary to the rd te Evcrxyy- yy&v which follows. 
 
 Yer. 24. Td Se Evaxyy. yy. ov xp • Ct-] which should be separated from what 
 precedes it only by a comma, is not designed to set aside an objection (Chrys¬ 
 ostom, Theophylact), but it appertains to the completeness of the subject 
 that, after the aoxyyova have been spoken of, the remark in question should 
 be added regarding the evcxyyova also, in order to let nothing be wanting 
 in the exhibition of the adjustment which takes place in connection with 
 the variety of relation subsisting between the members. E voxyyoovvyv Trepioc. 
 
chap, xii., 25-27. 
 
 293 
 
 ex^v naturally supplies itself from the foregoing context to ov xp £ ' iav £ X £t - 
 All the less ground is there for connecting yy&v with ov xp • £ X- (Hofmann, 
 comp. Osiander), which would give the thought: they stand in no need of us, 
 which is too general, and which would still need to be limited again by what 
 precedes it — hXP 6 Qsoq k.t.a.] cannot be antithesis to the foregoing neg¬ 
 ative (Hofmann), which would bring the special subordinate thought ov xP £l - av 
 ex £ i into a connection quite disproportionately grand and far transcending it. 
 There should, on the contrary, be a full stop placed before a?JC, so as to 
 mark the beginning of a new sentence ; and a?JC rather breaks off (at, see 
 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 15) the delineation of the mutual relations of the 
 members, which has been hitherto given, in order now to raise the readers 
 to the higher point of view from which this relationship is to be regarded, 
 that of the divine appointment and destination. — cvvenepaoe] He has mingled 
 together, i.e. united into one whole out of differently constituted parts. — rw 
 vGrepovvTi] to that which stands after, remaining back behind others, i. 7, viii. 
 8 ; Plato, Pol. vii. p. 539 E, Epin. p. 987 D (see also on Matt. xix. 20), i.e. 
 to the part which, according to human estimation, is meaner than others . 1 
 — TzepLGG. dovg Tiy.~\ dovg is contemporaneous with Gwenepaoe: so that He gave, 
 namely, when He granted to them, according to vv. 22, 23, respectively 
 their greater necessity and the destination of being clad in a more honourable 
 and more seemly w T ay. 
 
 Yer. 25. ya\ i.e. disunion, such as is vividly represented by way of ex¬ 
 ample in ver. 21. —aXka to avro k.t.X.] in order that, on the contrary, there 
 may be one and the same interest, to which the members mutually direct 
 their care for each other. Comp. Liv. loc. cit. What Paul has in view in 
 the to avTo, which he so emphatically puts first, may be gathered from the 
 virep aXhr/^uv, namely, the welfare of every other member. Comp. ver. 26. 
 The plural yepiyviooL with the neuter noun is to be explained from the dis¬ 
 tributive sense (Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 3. 12) ; in ver. 26, on the other 
 hand, the totality of the members is expressed. 
 
 Yer. 26. And how perfectly is this design of God realized in the mutual 
 sympathy of the members ! This happy result of the divine appointment 
 stands most suitably here at the close of the whole discussion before the ap¬ 
 plication ensues in ver. 27, although Hofmann denies the connection of 
 thought. — c h^d^ETai] is glorified , which may take place practically by flour¬ 
 ishing growth, by adornment, dress, anointing, and the like, and further by 
 recognition of its usefulness, beauty, strength, dexterity, and so forth. —In 
 view of the sympathy of the whole organism, and in consideration of the 
 personifying style of the description, the concrete literal sense of the verse 
 ought by no means to be modified. 
 
 Yer. 27. Application of all that is said of the human body (vv. 14-26) to 
 
 1 In how far, is stated in vv. 22, 23. By a 
 very arbitrary importation of ideas, Hof¬ 
 mann holds that to va-repovv means the 
 loins and genitals, a part of the body which, 
 while falling behind the rest in honour, is 
 distinguished by the honour of serving 
 
 for the self-propagation of man. Neither 
 that specific reference in itself, nor this 
 more precise definition of the greater 
 honour referred to,—out of place as it is in 
 this connection,—could ever have been 
 guessed by a reader from ver. 22 f. 
 
294 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 his readers : now ye are (in order now to apply to you what has been hither¬ 
 to said, you then are) the body of Christ and members proportionately. In 
 each Christian church the (ideal) body of Christ presents itself, as in each 
 is presented the (ideal) temple of God ; but each church is not a separate 
 body of Christ ; hence, just as with the idea of the temple (see on iii. 1G), 
 we must keep entirely away from us the conception of a plurality, as if the 
 churches were Guyara Xpiorov , and understand Givya Xpccrov not as a body , 1 
 but as body of Christ, the expression without the article being qualitative. 
 — Now if the church, as a whole, is Christ’s body, then the individuals in 
 it are Christ’s members (comp. vi. 15), but this not without distinction , as if 
 every one could be any member ; but ek yepovg , according to parts , according 
 as each one respectively has his own definite part in the body of Christ, con¬ 
 sequently his especial place and function which have fallen to him pro parte 
 in the collective organism of the church. ’E/c betokens the accompanying 
 circumstance of the fact, Bernhardy, p. 230 ; the expression, however, does 
 not stand here as in xiii. 9, 10, 12, in contrast to that which is perfect (Hof¬ 
 mann), but, as the context shows, in contrast to the united whole , the kou>6v 
 comp. enaorov yepovg , Eph. iv. 16. Luther puts it well, as regards the essen¬ 
 tial meaning: “ each one according to his part.” Comp. Calvin. Other 
 interpreters understand, withGrotius (who explains it like ol Kara yepovg) : si 
 ex partibus fit aestimatio , considered as individuals. So Billroth, Ruckert, 
 Ewald, Maier. But what would be the object of this superfluous definition ? 
 That ye/\rj refers to individuals, is surely self-evident. Chrysostom held 
 that the Corinthian church was thereby designated as part of the church 
 universal. So also Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza, Wolf, Bengel, and others. 
 But a glance at other churches was entirely alien from the apostle’s purpose 
 here. 
 
 Yer. 28. More precise elucidation of the en yepovg , and that in respect of 
 those differently gifted and with extension of the view so as to take in the 
 whole church ; hence Paul adds ev ry enKlyGia , and thereby averts (against 
 Hofmann’s objection) the misunderstanding of kcil (which is to be taken as 
 and indeed ), as if there had been Corinthian apostles. — Regarding eOero, 
 comp. Acts xx. 28. — ovg yev ] certain ones. In beginning thus, Paul had it 
 in mind to make ovg <5e follow after ; but in the act of writing there occurred 
 to him the thought of the enumeration according to rank (comp. Eph. iv. 11), 
 and so ovg yev was left without any continuation corresponding to it. After¬ 
 wards, too, from sire it a onwards, he again abandons this mode of enumera¬ 
 tion. Comp. Winer, p. 528 [E. T. 711] ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 313 
 [E. T. 365]. According to Hofmann, yy tv dvreg /c.r.A., ver. 29, is meant to 
 form the apodosis of k. ovg yev /c.r./L, so that the subject of tv dvreg is con¬ 
 tained in ovg: “ Those, too, whom God has placed in the church first as 
 apostles . . . are they all apostles, all prophets ?” etc. But ovg yev can be 
 nothing else than the quite common distributive expression, and not equiv- 
 
 1 Baur, too, founds upon the absence of 
 the article, and takes it to mean, “ a body 
 which has the objective ground of its ex¬ 
 istence in Christ,'" so that the genitive 
 
 would be objecti. But in every place where 
 the body of Christ is spoken of the genitive 
 is subjecti; Paul would in that case have 
 written o-w pa kv Xpio-nZ (camp. Rom. xii. 4). 
 
CHAP. XII., 28. 
 
 alent to ovtoi fiv, ov c, as Hofmann would have it (appealing inappropriately 
 to Isocr., Paneg. 15); and the proposition itself, that those appointed by 
 God to this or that specific function have not also collectively (?) all other 
 functions, would be in fact so self-evident, and the opposite conception so 
 monstrous, that the apostle’s discourse would resolve itself into an absurdity. 
 — kv rij £/ck/L] The Christian church generally, not simply the Corinthian, is 
 meant, as is proved by curoor. ; comp. Eph. i. 22 ; Phil. iii. G, al. — aixoaro- 
 ?,ovg] in the wider sense, not merely of the Twelve, but also of those messen¬ 
 gers of the Messianic kingdom appointed immediately by Christ at a later 
 time for all nations, such as Paul himself and probably Barnabas as well, 
 likewise James the Lord’s brother. Comp, on xv. 7. The apostles had 
 the whole fulness of the Spirit , and could therefore work as prophets, teachers, 
 healers of the sick, etc., but not conversely could the prophets, teachers, 
 etc., be also apostles, because they had only the special gifts for the offices 
 in question. —7rpo0?/r.] See on ver. 10. — didaoicaTiovs] These had the gift of 
 the Holy Spirit for preaching the gospel in the way of intellectual develop¬ 
 ment of its teaching. Comp, on ver. 10 and Acts xiii. 1 ; Eph. iv. 11. 1 — 
 ( hwaueis] sc. idero , i.e. He instituted a category of spiritual gifts, which 
 consists of miraculous powers. Paul does not designate the persons endowed 
 with such powers (Hofmann, who appeals for support to Acts viii. 10, and 
 compares the names of the orders of angels), but, as the following par¬ 
 ticulars show, his discourse passes here into the abstract form ; by no means, 
 however, because there were no concrete representatives of the things 
 referred to (Billroth, Riickcrt), but probably because variations of this 
 kind, even without any special occasion for them, are very natural to his 
 vivid style of representation. Comp. Rom. xii. 6-8, where, in the reverse 
 way, he passes from abstracts to concretes. — avriXy-ipeif services of help (b 2 ) 
 (2 Macc. viii. 19; 3 Macc. v. 50; Ecclus. xi. 12, li. 7; Ezr. viii. 27, al.; not 
 so in Greek writers), is most naturally taken, with Chrysostom and most 
 interpreters, of the duties of the diaconate , the care of the poor and sick. — 
 KvfiepvfjoEiQ] governments (Pind. Pyth. x. 112 ; Plut. Mor. p. 162 A ; comp, 
 also Xen. Cyr. i. 1. 5 ; Polyb. vi. 4. 2 ; Hist. Susann. 5), is rightly under¬ 
 stood by most commentators, according to the meaning of the word, of the 
 work of the presbyters (bishops) ; it refers to their functions of rule and 
 administration , in virtue of which they were the gubernatores ecclesiae. The 
 (climactic) juxtaposition, too, of avTikrj i/>. and Kvfipv. points to this interpre¬ 
 tation.— Regarding yhrj yluoouv, see on ver. 10.—The classification of all 
 
 1 As Eph. iv. 11 speaks only of the exer¬ 
 cises of teaching activity , the remaining 
 charismata which are named here found 
 no place there. The evangelists specially 
 mentioned, in addition, in that passage 
 were assistants of the apostles, and there¬ 
 fore did not require to be specially adduced 
 here, where the point of view extended 
 further than to the departments of teaching 
 merely. The 7roi/AeVes ica i SiSaa/caAot, Eph. 
 l.c. , are as Koineves included under the 
 Kv/lepi'rjcreis.—Observe, further, that the 
 
 divine appointment of the persons referred 
 to took place in the case of the apostles, 
 indeed, by an immediate call along with 
 the endowment, but in the case of the rest 
 by the endowment , the emergence of which, 
 in the standing services of the church, regu¬ 
 lated the choice of the churches under the 
 influence and indication of the Holy Spirit 
 (comp, on Acts xx. 38). Comp, also Hofling, 
 Kirchenverfasswig, p. 272 f., ed. 2, and see 
 on Eph. iv. 11. 
 
296 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 the points adduced is as follows : (1) To the gift of teaching, the most im¬ 
 portant of all, belong cltzogt., npocp., diSacn. ; (2) to the gift of miracles: 
 Swap., x a P l(7 l u -i dinar. ; (3) to the gift of practical administration rag ruv ekkIt]- 
 ccijv oiKovofiiag, Theodoret : avriTu'^ip. and Kvftepv. ; (4) to the ecstatic x^piaya : 
 the yevy ylocouv (see on ver. 10). This 'peculiar character of the last named 
 gift naturally enough brought with it the position at the end of the list, 
 without there being any design on Paul’s part thereby to oppose the 
 overvaluing of the glossolalia (in opposition to Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Theophylact, and many others). It is only the cltz6gt., the rzpotyijr., and the 
 tiidaon. which are expressly adduced in order of rank; the encira and elra 
 which follow only mark a further succession, and thereafter the enumera¬ 
 tion runs off asyndetically, which, as frequently also in classical writers (see 
 Kriiger, Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 28), takes for granted that completeness is not 
 aimed at. The two enumerations, here and in vv. 8-10, supplement each 
 other ; and Rom. xii. 6 If. also, although the most incomplete, has points 
 peculiar to itself. 1 
 
 Vv. 29, 30. None of these functions and gifts is common property of all 
 (all gifted persons). This Paul expresses in the animated queries : But all 
 surely are not apostles ? and so on ; whereby, after the same thing had been 
 done positively in ver. 28, the ek yepovg of ver. 27 is now clearly elucidated 
 afresh in a negative way—in order to make the readers duly sensible of the 
 non omnia possumus omnes, and of the preposterousness of envy against other 
 gifted persons. — Swayeig] Accusative depending on exovgiv, not nominative, 
 as if it denoted wonder-working persons (Bengel, Riickert, de Wette, Osian- 
 der, Hofmann, and others) ; see on ver. 28. — Paul here passes over the 
 avrihgip. and K.vfiepv., since it was of no importance to make a complete repe¬ 
 tition.—With reference to the whole thought, comp. Homer, II. xiii. 730 f. 
 
 Ver. 31. It is not the wish of Paul, by what he has said from ver. 4 up 
 till now regarding the different gifts of the Spirit, to repress the eager 
 striving after them. But the important question is as to the nature of the 
 gifts and the manner of the striving. Hence : But be zealous after the better 
 gifts of the Spirit , 2 those which are more essential than others, and have a 
 more absolute value for the highest welfare of the church (ver. 7). The 6e 
 is the autem marking the transition to a new point. — Z ylovre, again, does 
 not conflict with ver. 11, because the will of the communicating Spirit is 
 not an arbitrary one, but makes the receptive capacity and the mental ten¬ 
 dency of the individual to be the grounds of its own self-determination. The 
 zealous striving after the better gifts consists therefore negatively in this, 
 that one makes such x^piapara, as are less generally necessary and have less 
 value for the church (as e.g. the glossolalia, the reception of which was sought 
 after by many for the sake of show), less the aim towards which he directs 
 his will and cultivates a susceptibility ; positively, again, it consists in this, 
 that one makes those better gifts, on the other hand, the object of his ar¬ 
 dent desire and the aim of his self-active development, in order to reach in 
 
 1 [No one of these seems to be intended attain something, comp. Dem. 500. 2 (aper^v), 
 
 to be exhaustive.—T. W. C.] 504. 8 (Scoped?), 1401. 9 (ra dyatfa) ; Polyb. vi. 
 
 2 Regarding £r)\ovv n, to seek eagerly to 25. 11 (to /3cAtiov) ; Wisd. i. 12 (tidvaTov). 
 
CHAP. XII., 31. 
 
 297 
 
 this way the definite degree of receptivity needful to be the organ of the 
 agency of the %vev/ia in question, and thereby to become, by the free will of 
 the Spirit, partaker of the better gifts. 1 It is perfectly plain that in this ^r/lovv 
 supplicatory prayer is also included ; but it is arbitrary to limit the concep¬ 
 tion to it, as does Grotius : “ agite cum Deo precibus , ut accipiatis” (comp. 
 Heydenreich, Riickert, Hofmann). Equally arbitrary, too, is every de¬ 
 parture from the hitherto invariable sense of xapicua ; as e.g. Morus and 
 Ewald hold faith, hope, and love to be meant ; and Billroth, the fruits aris¬ 
 ing from love ; Flatt, again (comp. Osiander), even imports the right use of 
 the gifts which should be striven after. Comp, on the contrary, as to the 
 difference in value of the charismata, xiv. 2 ff. —kcu etc k.t. 1.] and further¬ 
 more, yet besides (Luke xiv. 26 ; Heb. xi. 36 ; Acts ii. 26 ; often thus in 
 Greek authors), besides prescribing to you this rplovrE, I show you (now, 
 from chap. xiii. 1 onwards) a surpassing icay, 2 an exceedingly excellent 
 fashion, according to which this ^r(kovv of yours must be constituted. By 
 this he means that the striving after the better gifts must always have love 
 as its determining and impelling principle, without which, indeed, the gifts 
 of the Spirit generally would be worthless (xiii. 1 ff.), and the Kpdrrova un¬ 
 attainable. Love is thus the most excellent way, which that C'rjlovv ought 
 to keep, (c 2 ) Riickert (so also Estius) finds here the meaning : “I show 
 you a far better way still, in which ye may walk, namely, the way of love, 
 which far surpasses all possession of charismata and so, too, in substance, 
 Hofmann : “ even away beyond the goal of the better charismata I show 
 you a way,” i.e. a way which brings you still further than the £rflovv r. x a P • 
 r. up. But Paul surely did not conceive of the striving after the better 
 charismata as becoming unnecessary through love, but rather as necessarily 
 to be connected with love (xiv. 1, 39). Besides, he would logically have 
 required to attach his statement not by nai, but by eyu Se or alia ; but even 
 d priori it is improbable that he should have merely set down the weighty 
 Znlovre 6 e t. xapioy. r. kpe'ltt. in such a naked way, and should have forthwith 
 forsaken it again with the remark that he would now give instructions away 
 beyond the better gifts. Grotius and Billroth connect naff vizepfi. with the verb. 
 The former renders : by way of superfluity (so also Ewald) ; the latter : 
 “after a fashion which , as being the best , is certain of its success.' 1 ' 1 But the 
 meaning, by way of superfluity {ek. rreptovaiag, etc tov irEpioaov), corresponds 
 neither to the 1ST. T. use of the phrase (Rom. vii. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 17 ; 
 Gal. i. 13 ; comp. 4 Macc. iii. 18), nor to its use elsewhere in Greek (Soph. 
 Oed. Tyr. 1196 ; Polyb. iii. 92. 10, ix. 22. 8 ; Lucian, p. mere. cond. 
 13 ; Dem. 1411. 14). Moreover, Paul could hardly have considered the 
 following instructions, especially in view of the circumstances of the Corin- 
 
 1 Theophylact aptly says (comp. Chrysos¬ 
 tom) : r)vii;OLTO ripe/xa, on avTO i oLtlol elcn tov 
 Ta eAarrora \af3elv Sia yap tov eiireii>' c^AoCre, 
 t'i)v i:ap' eKeLvu)v cmovSijv anaiTel ical tt)v n\eiio 
 imOvpiiav nepi Ta nvevp-aTuca. Kai ovk elne- Ta 
 p.ei£ova, aAAa ra KpeirTOva , rovreo-Ti ra d>(f>eAi- 
 
 pLUTepa. Comp. Bengel: “ Spiritus clat ut 
 vult, sed fideles tamen libere aliud prae alio 
 
 possunt sequi et exercere. Deus operatur 
 suaviter, non cogit.” So also de Wette. 
 
 2 Paul has not put the article to 6 86v, 
 “ snspensos nonnihil tenens Corinthios,” as 
 Bengel says, who also observes with fine 
 discernment upon the present SeUwpu, 
 “ jam ardet Paulus et fertur in amorem.” 
 
298 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 thians, as given “further by way of superfluity.” It militates against Bill¬ 
 roth, again, that the apostle’s thought could not be to recommend the 
 manner of his instruction regarding the way, but only the way itself as ex¬ 
 cellent. On the other hand, to take the nciO' virepfi. 66ov together is gram¬ 
 matically correct, since it is a genuine Greek usage to attach adverbs of de¬ 
 gree to substantives, and that generally by prefixing them. Bernhardy, p. 
 338 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 83 f. [E. T. 96] ; comp, on 2 Cor. xi. 23 ; 
 also on 1 Cor. viii. 7, vii. 35 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phoed. p. 93 B. We find 
 this connection given in the Vulgate, by Chrysostom and Theophylact (naO' 
 virep/3. rovTEGTiv vncpexovoav), Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, and most 
 interpreters. Bengel suggestively describes the superlative conception, 
 which is attached to 6<5ov by ku& virepfiolfv, “quasi dicat: mam maxima 
 vialemP 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (x 1 ) Calling Jesus Lord. Ver. 3. 
 
 Of course any man can utter the words, but what the Apostle means is, that 
 no man can make this confession, truly believing all that it implies, unless he be 
 enlightened by the Holy Ghost. And this is precisely what our Lord said to 
 Peter when he made his noble confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of 
 the living God.” “ Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath 
 not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (Matt. xvi. 16, 17). 
 
 (y 1 ) The word of wisdom and the wwd of knowledge. Ver. 8. 
 
 A simpler view of the subject states the difference thus : The word of 
 wisdom is the gift of revealing the truth of the gospel, which belonged only to 
 the Apostles ; but the word of knowledge is the gift of understanding and ex¬ 
 plaining correctly the truth thus received, which belonged to the other teachers. 
 
 (z 1 ) The gift of longues. Ver. 10. 
 
 The two chief theories on the meaning of this gift are—one, that it was the 
 power of speaking foreign languages without having learned them ; the other, 
 that it was an ecstatic utterance in a tongue different from all known languages 
 of earth, and requiring to be interpreted to be of service to any hearer. The 
 former view was firmly held by the late Dr. Edward Robinson, who insisted 
 that the glossolaly recorded in the second chapter of Acts, being the foundation 
 passage in the whole matter, should control all the other references to the sub¬ 
 ject. This view of the case may be found sustained by a masterly array of 
 arguments in Dr. Hodge’s notes on the text in his First Corinthians. With him 
 agree Principal Brown and others. The latter view seems to be held by Stan¬ 
 ley, Kling, Speaker’s Commentary, Ellicott’s Commentary, Beet, and most of 
 the more recent writers. The reader will find a very clear and comprehensive 
 statement of the whole question in the new edition of Schatf’s “History of the 
 Christian Church” vol. i. 234-243. 
 
 (a 2 ) (( The less honourable parts." Ver. 23. 
 
 Stanley justly remarks upon the terms “weaker,” “less honourable,” “ un¬ 
 comely,” that they are best left undefined, as the Apostle has left them ; the 
 
KOTES. 
 
 299 
 
 words being accumulated and varied designedly, so as to include all parts of 
 the human frame without particularly specifying any. 
 
 (b 2 ) Services of help. Yer. 28. 
 
 This word ( aniilepseis ), as used in the LXX., is not (like diakonia ) help minis¬ 
 tered by an inferior to a superior, but by a superior to an inferior (see Ps. 
 lxxxi'x. 18 ; Eccles. xi. 12, li. 7) ; and thus, while inapplicable to the ministra¬ 
 tions of the deacon to the presbyter, would well express the various helps ren¬ 
 dered by those who had the gift of interpretation, to the congregation at large, 
 or to those who were vainly struggling to express themselves intelligibly in 
 their strange accents. 
 
 (c 2 ) “ The more excellent way” Yer. 31. 
 
 Hodge insists that the original term here is not in itself comparative, and 
 can get that meaning only from the context. But here no comparison is im¬ 
 plied. The idea is not that Paul intends to show them a way that is better 
 than seeking gifts, but a way par excellence to obtain those gifts. The sense of 
 the verse is therefore, “seek the better gifts, and moreover I show you an excel¬ 
 lent way to do it.” So Kling and Alford. Shore, in Ellicott’s Commentary, 
 says, “the more excellent way is not some gift to be desired to the exclusion 
 of the other gifts, but a more excellent way of striving for those gifts. You 
 are not to strive for any one gift because it is more highly esteemed or because 
 it is more apparently useful, or because it is more easily attained. That which 
 will consecrate every struggle for attainment and every gift when attained, is 
 Love.” 
 
 I 
 
SCO 
 
 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 V 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Ver. 3. tpuyiacj] Elz. has i/;w/A£b, which is condemned by almost all the uncials. 
 — icavQrjouuai] AB X, 17, Codd. in Jerome, Copt. Aeth. Ephr. Hier. have uav- 
 xhoupai. 1 But iva Kaoxvaupac (given up again even by Lachm.) is a manifest 
 addition, which was written on the margin to call attention to the loveless mo¬ 
 tive, and supplanted the similar and difficult Iva Kavdrjouyat (C K, min. vss. 
 Chrys. Theodoret, and Latin writers). — Instead of the subjunctive , Tisch. has 
 the future indicative uavOr/copai (D E P G I, min. Mac. Max.), which of course 
 could be easily changed by ignorant copyists into the subjunctive, anomalous 
 though it was. — Ver. 8. ektzltvtel] Lachm. reads ttltttel, following ABC* K*, 
 min. and several Fathers. Eightly ; the simple form was defined more precise¬ 
 ly by way of gloss. Comp. Bom. ix. 6.— yvucuc, KaTapyTjOrjceTai] A D** E G X, 
 17, 47, Boern. Ambrosiast. have yvuosiq, KarapyTjOrjvovrai. So Biickert (Lachm. 
 on the margin). The plural crept in after the preceding. — Ver. 10. to] Elz. 
 Scholz read tote to, against decisive testimony. 
 
 Contents. —The want of love makes even the greatest charismatic 
 endowments to be worthless (vv. 1-3) ; excellencies of love (vv. 4-7) ; 
 eternity of love in contrast to the transient nature of the charismata (vv. 
 8-13).—This praise of love—almost a psalm of love it might be called—is as 
 rich in its contents drawn from deep experience as in rhetorical truth, ful¬ 
 ness and power, grace and simplicity. “ Sunt figurae oratoriae, quae hoc 
 caput illuminant, omnes sua sponte natae in animo heroico, flagrante amore 
 Christi et huic amori divino omnia postponente,” Valckenaer, p. 299. In 
 no other passage (comp, especially, Rom. xiii. 8-10) has Paul spoken so 
 minutely and in such a manner regarding love. It is interesting to compare 
 the eulogy of V E pug —so different in conception and substance—in Plato, 
 Symp. p. 197 C D E. A Christian eulogy on love, but one far inferior, 
 indeed, to the apostle’s, may be seen in Clement, Cor. I. 49. (d 2 ) 
 
 Ver. 1. ’E av] is not equivalent to el nai with the optative (Riickert), but it 
 supposes something, the actual existence of which is left dependent on cir¬ 
 cumstances : assuming it to be the case , that I speak , etc. — Talc yhoxjoaic tuv 
 avdp. k. t. ayy .] To say that yhcjooai must mean languages here (Riickert, 
 Olshausen, Baur, Rossteuscher), is an arbitrary assertion. 2 Why may it not 
 
 1 [This reading, adopted by Westcott and 
 Ilort, is expressed in the margin of the 
 Revised New Testament. It is a case in 
 which the best mss. differ from almost all 
 the other documents.—T. W. C.] 
 
 2 Riickert: “ If I spoke all languages, not 
 only those of men, but also—which would 
 certainly be a higher gift, higher than your 
 ■yAwcrcrais AaAeiv which you esteem so highly 
 
 —those of the angels.” So likewise Flatt. 
 Baur renders strangely : “ If I spoke not 
 simply in isolated expressions taken from 
 different languages, but in those different 
 languages themselves ; and not simply in the 
 languages of men, but also in the languages 
 of the angels.” This climactic ascent from 
 glosses to the languages themselves is surely a 
 pure importation. Rossteuscher, if his 
 
CHAP. XIII., 1. 
 
 301 
 
 be held to mean tongues ? The expression is analogous to the well-known 
 Homeric one — only much stronger : d got Sena pev ylooaai, Sena de Gropar' eIev, 
 11. ii. 489. Comp. Virgil, Aen. vi. 625 ; Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 16 : ovde el 
 pvpia ardpara exoi ical pvpiag yXoooag. The meaning is : Supposing that I am 
 a speaker with tongues, from whom all possible kinds of articulate tongues might 
 he heard, not simply those of men, hut also —far more wonderful and exalted 
 still— those of the angels. Paul thus describes the very loftiest of all conceiv¬ 
 able cases of glossolalia. The tongues of angels here spoken of are certainly 
 only an abstract conception, but one in keeping with the poetic character of 
 the passage, as must be admitted also with respect to the old interpretation 
 of angelic languages. Beza says well, that Paul is speaking “ imepPolucug ex 
 hypothesi, ut plane inepti sint, qui h. 1. disputant de angelorum linguis.” 
 Comp. Chrysostom : ovx L aopa tt eptridelg ayyeXoig, aXff o Xeyec tolovtov kart' uav 
 ovro) (pdeyyuuai og ayyeXoig vopog rrpbg iOArfovg dialeyeadat. Others, such as 
 Calovius, Bengel, and several more, have thought of the languages used by 
 the angels in their revelations to men ; but these surely took place in the form 
 of human language. The appyra pypara of 2 Cor. xi. have also been brought 
 in, where, however, there is nothing said of angels.—Why the apostle begins 
 with the ylboo. lal. , is correctly divined by Theodoret (comp. Chrysostom, 
 Oecumenius, Theophylact) : tt porov airavTov redeiKE rrjv rrape^eraGiv tt oiovpevog 
 
 TO X^P 10 ^ 0 T & v y^UGGUV, £ 7T £ i S ?) T OVT 0 7T a p' OV T Oi g £ 6 6 K £ L p E l £ 0 V 
 
 elvat rov a ?A, ov . It had become the subject of over-estimation and 
 vanity to the undervaluing of love. — ayarr?^ i-e. love of one's neighbor, which 
 seeks not its own good, but the good of others in a self-forgetting way. 
 Ver. 4 if.— A sounding metal and a clanging cymbal, i.e. like these, a mere dead 
 instrument of a foreign impulse, without any moral worth, yeyova have I 
 become ( and am so : perfect), namely, in and with the actual realization of 
 the supposed case. See Buttmann, neut. Gramm, p. 172 [E. T. 199]. To 
 interpret x a ^6g as a brazen musical instrument (Flatt, Olshausen, with many 
 older commentators), which would otherwise be admissible in itself (comp, 
 generally, Dissen, ad Find. 01. vii. 83), is wrong here, for the simple reason, 
 tjiat one such is expressly named in addition. The text does not warrant 
 our departing from the general metal ; on the contrary, it proceeds from 
 the indefinite to the definite {cymbal), from the crude to the product of art. 
 Comp. Plato, Prot. p. 329 A : oGrrep ra xu^k-eici Tc7irjy' £VTa paKpbv i]X E h p. 
 
 430 A. — Kvpfialov] brazen basins were so called, which were beaten upon, 2 
 Sam. vi. 5 ; 1 Chron. xiii. 8, al.; Judith xvi. 2 ; 1 Macc. iv. 54 ; Joseph. 
 Antt. vii. 12. 4 ; Xenojuhon, de re eg. i. 3 ; Pind. Fr. 48 ; Lucian, Bacch. 4, 
 Alex. 9 ; Herodian. v. 6. 19. — aXald^ov] screaming, an epithet no doubt 
 
 theory of an “ angel's language which was 
 the Corinthian glossolalia , were correct, 
 would require, in conformity with the plu¬ 
 ral expression, and with his view of the 
 human languages (the latter being the lan¬ 
 guages of the nations spoken in Acts ii.), to 
 make the passage refer to many different 
 languages of the angels, which they sought 
 to speak at Corinth. If -y\wcrcrat meant lan¬ 
 
 guages at all, nofmann would be in the 
 right in holding that no kind of speaking 
 should be excluded here from the wonderful 
 utterances in question, since the angels also 
 doubtless speak among themselves or to 
 God, so that Paul would go beyond what 
 actually took place by including also the 
 modes of utterance of the angels. 
 
302 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 purposely chosen, which is manifestly at variance with the theory of the soft 
 and scarcely audible (Wieseler, 1838), nay, noiseless (Jaeger) nature of the 
 glossolalia. The nvpjia'Xa were bfvfoyya (Anthol . vi. 51). Comp, akakayyoq of 
 cymbals (Ps. cl. 5) and other loud-sounding instruments, Eur. Cycl. 65, Hel. 
 1368. 
 
 Ver. 2. That Paul adduces only two charismata fpocppreLa and ' 7 riong) in 
 the protasis, and consequently uses nal ddti . . . yv&oiv to mark out the 
 degree of i-popp-rda, is shown plainly by himself in his repeating the nai kav . 
 In the case of these gifts also he is supposing the highest conceivable degree. 
 — ra [ivorr/pta navra] the ichole of the mysteries, i.e. what remains hidden from 
 human knowledge without revelation, as, in particular, the divine decrees 
 touching redemption and the future relations of the Messianic kingdom, iv. 
 
 1 ; Matt. xiii. 11 ; Rom. xvi. 25, al. — yvtiaiv\ profound knowledge ot these 
 mysteries, as xii. 8 . The verb connected with it is ddu, but in such a way 
 that the latter is to be taken here zeugmatically in the sense : I am at home 
 in (Homer, Od. ii. 121 ; II. xviii. 363, xv. 412). Observe further, that 
 before it w T as pvaripia, but here Tracciv , which has the emphasis ; translate : 
 
 “ the mysteries one and all, and all knowledge.' 1 ' 1 To these two departments 
 correspond the hoyog Goftag and the \6yog yvdGeug in xii. 8 . — tt aoav r. tzlgtiv 
 /c.r./L] the ichole heroism of faith (not specially the faith of miracles , see on 
 xii. 9), so that I displace mountains. — The latter phrase in a proverbial sense 
 (to realize the seemingly impossible), as Jesus Himself (Matt. xvii. 20, xxi. 
 21) had already portrayed the omnipotence of faith. But without love, 
 even in such an instance of the might of faith there would still not be the 
 files salvifica, Matt. vii. 22. — ovdev dpi] in an ethical respect, without any 
 significance and value. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 11 ; Arist. Eccl. 144 ; Soph. Oed. 
 Rex , 56 ; Xen. Andb. vi. 2. 10, al.; Wisd. iii. 17, ix. 6 ; Bornemann, adXen. 
 Gyr. vi. 2. 8 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 216 E ; Ellcndt, Lex. Soph. II. 
 430.—Notice further, that Paul only supposes the cases in vv. 1 and 2 in a 
 general way ; but they must be conceived of as possible ; and their possibil¬ 
 ity arises from the fact that, in the midst of the charismatic phenomena 
 which made their appearance as if by contagion in the church, men might 
 be carried away and rapt into states of exaltation without the presence of 
 the true ground of the new inward life, the new creature, the true mivorng 
 fajjg and 7 rvevparog (Rom. vi. 4, vii.' 6 ). 
 
 Yer. 3. “And supposing that I do outwardly the very highest works of 
 love, but without really having love as my inward motive, then I have no 
 advantage therefrom, namely, towards attaining the Messianic salvation” 
 
 (1 John iii. 14). Comp. Matt. xvi. 26 ; Gal. v. 2.—i poyiftv riva tl means 
 jwoperly : to feed any one with something in the way of putting it by mor¬ 
 sels into his mouth ; then generally, cibare aliquem aliqua re, Rom. xii. 20. 
 See the LXX. in Schleusner, Y. p. 569 ; Yalckenaer, p. 303. Only the . 
 thing is mentioned here in connection with the verb, but who the persons (the 
 poor) are, is self-evident, as also the meaning : cibando consumsero. Comp. 
 Poll. vi. 33. — uni kav napaSti k.t.W. ] a yet higher eternal work of love, surren¬ 
 der of the body (Dan. iii. 28), self-sacrifice. —Iva navd/popac] (see the critical 
 remarks) in order to be burned. The reading KavOqougai would be a f uture 
 
ciiap. xiii., 4 , 5 . 
 
 303 
 
 subjunctive, a barbarism, the introduction of which in pre-New Testament 
 Greek is due only to copyists. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 720 f.; Buttmann, 
 neut. Gramm, p. 31 [E. T. 35]. The seme should not be defined more pre¬ 
 cisely than : in order to die the death by fire. To refer it, with most inter¬ 
 preters since Chrysostom, to the fiery death of the Christian martyrs, is with¬ 
 out support from the known history of that period, and without a hint of it in 
 the text. Probably such martyr-scenes as Dan. iii. 19 fir., 2 Mace, vii., hav¬ 
 ered before the apostle’s mind. Comp. Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 20. 
 
 Ver. 4. Love is personified ; the living concrete portrait of her character, 
 . in which power to edify (viii. 1) reflects itself, is presented as if in sharply 
 drawn outline, with nothing but short, definite, isolated traits, positively, 
 negatively, and then positively again, according to her inexhaustible 
 nature. — yanpoOvyd ] she is long-suffering; in face of provocations control¬ 
 ling her anger, repressing it, giving it up, and maintaining her own proper 
 character. The general frame of mind for this is xpjjavEverai : she is gracious 
 (comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 IT.), Clem. Cor. i. 14. The verb is found, 
 besides, only in the Fathers. — Observe here and in what follows the asyndetic 
 enumeration, and in this “ incitatior orationis cursus ardorem et affectum” 
 (Dissen, ad Pind. Exc. II. p. 275). But to write, with Hofmann, following 
 Lachmann, y ayairy yanpoOvyel. XpyoTEverai y ayarcy, is less suitable, for this 
 reason, that, according to the traditional division, the long list of negative 
 predicates which follows is very appropriately headed again by the subject. 
 — ov £ylol] negation of all passionate, selfish feelings towards others (envy, 
 jealousy, and such like). — ov TrepirepevETaL) she boasts not , practises no vaunt¬ 
 ing. Sec Cicero, ad Att. i. 14 ; Antonin, v. 5, and Gatak. in loc. ; also 
 Winer, Beitr. zur Verbess. d. neutest. Lexicogr. p. 5 IT. Comp, irtpirepor in 
 Polyb. xxxii. 6. 5, xl. 6. 2 ; Arrian. Epict. iii. 2. 14. 
 
 Ver. 5. 0 vk aoxypovti] she acts not in an unseemly way. See on vii. 36. 
 To hold that Paul was thereby alluding to unsuitable attire in the assem¬ 
 blies (Flatt), involves an inappropriate petty limitation, as does also the 
 reference to unseemly conduct on the part of those speaking with tongues 
 (de Wette). He means generally everything that offends against moral 
 seemliness. — rd eavryq] comp. x. 33. — ov it apo^vverac] does not become embit¬ 
 tered, does not get. into a rage, as selfishness does when offended. This is 
 the continuance of the yanpoOvyia. — ov loyi^erat to aanov) she does not bring 
 the evil, which is done to her, into reckoning (2 Cor. v. 19 ; Rom. iv. 6, al.; 
 Ecclus. xxix. 6 ; Dem. 658. 20, 572. 1, al.) Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 8. Theodoret 
 puts it happily : avyy lvogke t rolq hrTacayevotc, ovk hrl nano) gkotco ravra yeyevyoOcu 
 lay flavor. Others render : she thinks not evil (Ewald ; Vulgate : “non 
 cogitat malum”). This thought, as being too general in itself, has been more 
 precisely defined, either as : “ she seeks not after mischief ” (Luther, Flatt, and 
 several others ; comp. Jer. xxvi. 3 ; Hah. i. 9), which, however, serves so 
 little to describe the character of love, that it may, on the contrary, be said 
 to be a thing self-evident ; or as : u she suspects nothing eviV (Chrysostom, 
 Melanchthon, Grotius, Heydenreich, and others ; comp, also Neander), 
 which special conception, again, would be much too vaguely exjwessed by 
 
 /My'Cerai. 
 
304 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corinthiakts. 
 
 Ver. G. ’E7Ti ry aducta] over immorality (Rom. i. 18, ii. 8), when she sees 
 this in others. In view of the contrast, Chrysostom and others, including 
 Hofmann, take this in too narrow a sense : ovk. etyySerai tolq Kcucut; ndaxovciv , 
 understanding it thus of delight in mischief; comp. Luther : “ sic lachet 
 nicht in die Faust, wenn dem Frommen Gewalt nncl Unrecht geschieht” 
 (She does not laugh in her sleeve when the pious suffer violence and wrong). 
 Theodoret puts it rightly, pied ra tt apavopa. It is just the generality of this 
 thought which specially fits it to form the copestone of all those negative 
 declarations ; for in it with its significant contrast they are all summed up. 
 — cvyxaipu Se ry alyO. ] The airfield is personified, and denotes the truth /car’ 
 H°xh v i the divine truth contained in the gospel, Col. i. 5 ; Eph. i. 13 ; Gal. 
 v. 7 ; 2 Tliess. ii. 12, 13 ; John i. 17, al. Love rejoices with the truth, has 
 with it one common joy, and this is the most complete contrast to the 
 xaipeiv enl ry ddida ; for to make morality prevail, is the ethical aim of the 
 akrfiua (2 Thess. ii. 12 ; Rom. ii. 8), whose joy it is, therefore, when she is 
 obeyed in disposition, speech, and action (1 Pet. i. 22, vreanoy rye ahydeiag ); 
 and her companion in this joy is love. Usually ah-jOeia has been understood 
 of moral truth, i.e. morality , as in v. 8 ; either, with Theodoret, Flatt, and 
 most interpreters : she rejoices over what is good ,—a rendering, however, from 
 which we are debarred by the compound ewyx- i or? with Chrysostom : owy- 
 Serai roig evdo/upovui, Billroth: “ she rejoices with those who hold to the 
 right,” Riickert : “she rejoices with the man, who is saved to morality,” 
 Osiander : “ she rejoices with the heart, which is filled with the truth and 
 with obedience towards it.” Thereby there is made an arbitrary change in 
 the conception, according to which, in conformity with the antithesis, the 
 diKdioavvy (the opposite of the aduda) is not the subject, in fellowship with 
 which love rejoices, but the object of this common joy ; the subject with 
 which love rejoices is that truth. According to Hofmann, the meaning of 
 the passage is, that love has her joy withal, when the truth comes to its rights 
 in that which befalls any one. But so also there is no sufficient justice done 
 to the compound evyx., and the more precise definition, “ in that which 
 befalls any one , ” is imported. 
 
 Yer. 7. ndvra] popular hyperbole. Grotius aptly says : “Fert, quae ferri 
 ullo modo possunt.” — creyei ] as in ix. 12 : all things she bears , holds out 
 under them ( sujfert , Vulgate), without ceasing to love,—all burdens, priva¬ 
 tion, trouble, hardship, toil occasioned to her by others. Other interpreters 
 (Hammond, Estius, Mosheim, Bengel, al.; Riickert hesitatingly) under¬ 
 stand : she covers cdl up , i.e. excuses all wrong. Equally correct from a 
 linguistic point of view, according to classical usage ; but why depart from 
 ix. 12 ? — Tzavra Trior. ] Opposite of a distrustful spirit ; bona fides towards 
 one’s neighbour in all points. — navra ehr'fei] opposite of that temperament, 
 which expects no more good at all from one’s neighbour for the future; 
 good confidence as to the future attainment of her ends. — rcavra vtt o/uevei] 
 all things she stands out against —all sufferings, persecutions, provocations, 
 etc., inflicted on her. This is the established conception of vnopovy in the 
 N. T. (Matt. x. 22, cd.; Rom. xii. 12 ; 2 Cor. i. G, al.), according to which 
 the endurance is conceived of as a holding of one's ground , the opposite of 
 
CHAP. XIII., 8 - 10 . 
 
 305 
 
 (j>Evyeiv (Plato, Tim. p. 40 E, Tlicciet. p. 177 B)-. Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10. — 
 Note further how the expressions rise as they follow each other in this verse, 
 which is beautiful in its simplicity : if love encounter from others what may 
 seem too hard to be endured, all things she bears; if she meet what may 
 cause distrust , all things she trusts ; if she meet what may destroy hope in 
 one’s neighbour, all things she hopes ; if she encounter what may lead to giv¬ 
 ing way , against all she holds out. 
 
 Yer. 8. Up to this point the characteristics of love have been given ; now 
 on to ver. 13 her imperishahleness is described, in contrast to the purely tem¬ 
 porary destination of the gifts of the Spirit. — ov8etvote ttltttei^ (see the criti¬ 
 cal remarks) never does she fall , i.e. she never falls into decay , remains always 
 stedfast (jxevei , ver. 13). The opposite is : KarapyndpGovraL , TiavcrovTai. 
 Comp. Luke xvi. 17 ; Plato, Phil. p. 22 E ; Soph. Ant. 474 ; Polyb. x. 33. 
 4, i. 35. 5 ; Dem. 210. 15. The Recepta ekttltttel (Rom. ix. 6) is to be taken 
 in precisely the same way. Theodoret puts it well : ov diaa^aXherai, aXk ’ael 
 ylvEL /3£(3a'ia k. anivr]rog , hg a£i dtagEvovoa' tovto yap dia ruv ETrayopEvov edtda^Ev. 
 — In what follows eIte opens out in detail the general conception of x a p' ia ~ 
 para. Be it again (different kinds of) prophesyings , they shall be done away ; 
 be it (speaking) tongues , they shall cease , etc. This mode of division and 
 interpunctuation is demanded by Se (against Luther and others, including 
 Ileydenreich). Prophecy, speaking with tongues, and deep knowledge, 
 are only appointed for the good of the church for the time until the 
 Parousia ; afterwards these temporary phenomena fall away. Even the 
 gnosis will do so ; for then comes in the perfect knowledge (ver. 12), and 
 that as the common heritage of all, whereby the deep knowledge of gifted 
 individuals, which is still but imperfect, as it occurs before the Parousia, 
 will necessarily cease to subsist. 
 
 Yv. 9, 10. Proof of the last and of the first of the three preceding points. 
 The second stood in need of no proof at all. For in part {ek pepovg ; its 
 opposite is ek tov tt avrdg, Lucian, Bern. enc. 21) we know , imperfect is our 
 deep knowledge, and in part we speak prophetically , what we prophetically 
 declare is imperfect. Both contain only fragments of the great whole 
 which remains hidden from us as such before the Parousia. —or civ de sidy 
 k.t.X. ] but when that which is perfect shall have appeared (at the Parousia ; 
 otherwise, Eph. iv. 13), then will that ichich is in part (the gnosis and the 
 prophecy therefore also, seeing they belong to the category of the partial) 
 be done away. The appearance of the perfected condition of things nec¬ 
 essarily brings with it the abolition of what is only partial. With the 
 advent of the absolute the imperfect finite ceases to exist, as the dawn 
 ceases after the rising of the sun. We are not to supply, with Hofmann, 
 yLvucuELv and npocprjTEVEiv (as substantival infinitives) to to te^eiov and to to etc 
 pepovg, by which unprecedented harshness of construction the sense would 
 be extorted, that only the imperfect yivucKEiv and npo^pT^vew will cease to 
 make room for the perfect. But what Paul means and says is that these 
 charismata generally, as being designed only for the aeon of the partial, 
 and not in correspondence with the future aeon of the perfect, will cease to 
 exist at the Parousia ; their design, which is merely temporary, is then 
 
306 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 fulfilled. With the advent of the Parousia the other charismata too (xii. 8 
 ff.) surely cease altogether : not simply that the imperfection of the way in 
 which they are exercised ceases. 
 
 Yer. 11. Illustration of what was said in ver. 10 by an analogy taken from 
 each man’s own personal experience in life, inasmuch, namely, as our 
 present condition, when compared with our condition in the alkv pklluv, is 
 like that of the child in comparison with that of the man. The man has 
 given up the practices of the child, (e 2 ) —kcppovow refers to the interest and 
 efforts (device and endeavour), Hoy. to the judgment (reflective intellectual 
 activity). To make klah., however, point back to the glossolalia , i<j>p. to the 
 prophesying, and Hoy. to the gnosis (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bengel, 
 Yalckenaer, Heydenreich, Olshausen, D. Schulz, Ewald ; Osiander unde¬ 
 cided), is all the less warranted an assumption, seeing that k<pp. and Hoy. 
 are no specific correlates of the prophecy and gnosis respectively. 
 
 Yer. 12. Justification of this analogy in so far as it served to illustrate the 
 thought of ver. 10. — apn ] i.e. before the Parousia. — 6C EGoirrpov ] through cu 
 mirror ; popular mode of expression according to the optical appearance, 
 inasmuch, namely, as what is seen in the mirror appears to stand lehind it. 
 The meaning is : our knowledge of divine things is, in our present condition, no 
 immediate knowledge, but one coming through an imperfect medium. We 
 must think not only of our glass mirrors, but of the imperfectly reflecting 
 metal mirrors 1 of the ancients (Hermann, Privatalterth. § 20. 26). To Ecompov 
 TreplcTr](u to opcjjuevov 6 7t cj a <5 r] 7t o t e , Chrysostom. This is enough of itself 
 to enable us to dispense with the far-fetched expedient (Bos, Schoettgen, 
 Wolf, Mosheim, Schulz, Rosenmiiller, Stolz, Flatt, Heydenreich, Ruckert, 
 and others) that eaoTc-pov means spjeculare , a window made of talc ( lapis spec- 
 ularis, see Pliny, Nat. Hist, xxxvi. 22). In support of this, such Rabbini¬ 
 cal passages are adduced as Jevamm. iv. 13, “ Omnes prophetae viderunt 
 per specular (N 1 ‘l L ’pDD’50) obscurum, et Moses, doctor noster, vidit per spec¬ 
 ular lucidum.” See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 171 ; Wetstein in loc. But 
 against this whole explanation is the decisive fact that the assumed meaning 
 for eaoTTTpov is quite undemonstrable, and that no expositor has succeeded 
 in establishing it. It always means mirror , as do also evoTzrpov and kcltotxtpov 
 (Pindar, Nem. vii. 20 ; Anacreon, xi. 2 ; Plutarch, Praec. conjug. 11 ; Luc. 
 Amor. 44, 48 ; Wisd. vii. 26 ; Ecclus. xii. 11 ; Jas. i. 23); a talc window 
 is dioiTTpa (Strabo, xii. 2, p. 540). — kv alvlypan ] which should not be sepa¬ 
 rated from 6i' egotttpov by a comma, is usually taken adverbially (Bernhardy, 
 p. 211), like alviypaTiKtig, so that the object of vision shows itself to the eye 
 in an enigmatic way. Comp, also Hofmann, who holds that what is meant 
 is an expression of anything conveyed in writing or symbol, of such a kind 
 that it offers itself to our apprehension and eludes it in quite equal measure. 
 But alviypa is a dark saying ; and the idea of the saying should as little be 
 lost here as in Hum. xii. 8. This, too, in opposition to de Wette (comp. 
 Osiander), who takes it as the dark refection in the mirror, which one sees, 
 so that ev stands for e\q in the sense of the sphere of sight. Ruckert takes 
 
 1 Hence the designation xa\no<; Siam's for a mirror. See Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 378. 
 
CHAP. XIII., 12. 
 
 307 
 
 h for elg on an exceedingly artificial ground, because the seeing here is a 
 reading, and one cannot read elg rov 16yov, but only h rib 7oy<p. Luther ren¬ 
 ders rightly : in a dark word ; which, however, should be explained more 
 precisely as ~by means of an enigmatic word , whereby is meant the word of the 
 gospel-revelation, which capacitates for the (Hekelv in question, however 
 imperfect it be, and is its medium to us. It is aiviyya , inasmuch as it affords 
 to us, (although certainty, yet) no full clearness of light upon God’s decrees, 
 ways of salvation, etc., but keeps its contents sometimes in a greater, some¬ 
 times in a less degree (Rom. xi. 33 f.; 1 Cor. ii. 9 ff.) concealed, bound up in 
 images, similitudes, types, and the like forms of human limitation and human 
 speech, and consequently is for us of a mysterious and enigmatic nature , 1 stand¬ 
 ing in need of the future 7vacg, and vouchsafing ttlctiq, indeed, but not eMoc 
 (2 Cor. v. 7) ; comp. Num. xii. 8. To take h in the instrumental sense is 
 simpler, and more in keeping with the conception of the (Hetzelv ( videre ope 
 aenigmatis ) than my former explanation of it as having a local force, as in 
 Matt. vi. 4 ; Ecclus. xxxix. 3 (in aenigmate versantes). — t6te de] orav tie elOy- 
 to teXelov, ver. 10. —irpoGunrov rrpog Trpooiorcov] according to the Hebrew 
 
 (Gen. xxxii. 30 ; comp. Num. xii. 8), face to (coram) face, denotes 
 the immediate vision. Grammatically irpoooirsv is to be taken as nominative, 
 in apposition, 2 namely, to the subject of (37i.Eiroy.Ev, so that rrpop irpocoTrov applies 
 to the object seen. And it is God who is conceived of as being this object, as 
 is evident from the parallel uadi )c k at hrEyvaadyv. — apn yivumao k.t.X.] conse¬ 
 quence of the foregoing spoken asyndetically, and again in the first person 
 with individualizing force, in the victorious certainty of the consummation at 
 hand. — ETriyvcjooyai aadibg real EirEyvibod.'] cannot mean : then shall I know as 
 also I am known, i.e. as God knows me (so most interpreters), but (observe the 
 aorist ) : as also I was known, which points back to the era of conversion to 
 Christ (for the apostle himself, how great a remembrance !), when the Chris¬ 
 tian became the object of the divine knowledge (see on viii. 3) turning to 
 deal with him effectually. The meaning therefore is : “ but then will my 
 knowledge of God be so wholly different from a merely partial one, as it is note, 
 that, on the contrary, it will correspond to the divine knowledge, so far as it once 
 at my conversion made me its object, namely (opposite of ek yipovg) by complete 
 knowledge of the divine nature, counsel, will, etc., which present themselves 
 to me now only in part.” Notice further that the stronger term Emyvaooyai 
 is selected in correspondence with the relation to the preceding simple yivucnuo 
 (Bengel, pernoscam ; see Yalckenaer, ad Luc. p. 14 f.), and that nai is the or¬ 
 dinary also of equivalence. It may be added, that this likeness of the future 
 knowledge to the divine is, of course, relative; the knowledge is “in suo 
 genere completa, quanta quidem in creaturam rationalem cadere potest,” 
 Calovius. 
 
 1 The objection, that Paul would hardly 
 have called the revelation aXviyya (see de 
 Wette) is sufficiently set aside by the con¬ 
 sideration that he calls it so relatively , in 
 relation to the unveiling ft till to come. Me- 
 lanchthon puts it happily . “ Yerbum enim 
 
 est velut involucrum illius arcanae et mi-, 
 randae rei, quam in vita coelesti coram as- 
 piciemus.” 
 
 2 As appositio partitiva. See Matthiae, 
 § 431. 3. Fritzsche, ad Matth. iii. 12. Kru¬ 
 ger, § 57. 10. 
 
30S 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Yer. 13. 5Tm Se\ nunc autem , and thus , since, according to vcr. 8 to 12, 
 the present temporary charismata do not continue, but cease in the future 
 age, continue (into the everlasting life and onward in it) faith , hope , love . 1 
 This explanation.of vvvl de in a conclusive sense, as xii. 18, 20, and of n'evei 
 as meaning eternal continuance, 2 has been rightly given by Irenaeus, Haer. 
 ii. p. 47, iv. 25 ; Tertullian, de pat. 12 ; Photius in Occumenius, p. 553 ; 
 Grotius, Billroth, de Wette, Osiander, Lipsius ( Rechtfertigungsl. pp. 98, 
 210), Ewald, Maier, Hofmann. For, although the majority of interpreters 
 since Chrysostom (including Flatt, Heydenreich, Riickert, David Schulz, 
 Neander) have explained vvvl de in a temporal sense : ‘ 1 but for the present, 
 so long as that glorious state lies still far off from us” (Riickert), and pevec 
 of continuance in the present age (in the church), this is incorrect for the 
 simple reason, that Paul, according to ver. 8 ff., expected the charismata to 
 cease only at the Parousia, and consequently could not have described 
 merely the triad of faith, hope, and love as what was now remaining ; the 
 yvuoiq also, prophecy, etc., remain till the Parousia. Hence, too, it was an 
 erroneous expedient to take yevei in the sense of the sum total , which re¬ 
 mains as the result of a reckoning (Calvin, Bengel, and others). — iriarig] 
 here in the established sense of the fides salvifica. This remains, even in the 
 world to come, the abiding causa apprehendens of blessedness ; what keeps 
 the glorified in continued possession of salvation is their abiding trust in the 
 atonement which took place through the death of Christ. Not as if their 
 everlasting glory might be lost by them, but it is their assured possession 
 just through the fact, that to them as ovyulripovoyoL of Christ in the very be¬ 
 holding and sharing His glory the faith, through which they become blessed, 
 must remain incapable of being lost. The everlasting fellowship with Christ 
 in the future aluv is not conceivable at all without the everlasting continu¬ 
 ance of the living ground and bond of this fellowship, which is none other 
 than faith. — elrdq] equally in its established N. T. sense, hope of the ever¬ 
 lasting glory; Rom. v. 1, and frequently. This abides for the glorified, 
 with regard to the everlasting duration and continued development of their glory. 
 How Paul conceived this continued development and that of the Messianic 
 kingdom itself to proceed in detail, cannot indeed be proved. But the idea 
 is not on that account unbiblical, but is necessarily presupposed by the con¬ 
 tinuance of hope, which is undoubtedly asserted in our text. Moreover, in 
 xv. 24, steps in the development of the future fiamleia are manifestly given, 
 as indeed the everlasting do£a generally, according to its essential character 
 as is not conceivable at all without development to ever higher perfec- 
 
 1 The three so-called theological virtues. 
 But faith and hope might also be called 
 virtues , “quia sunt obedientia, quam pos- 
 tulat Deus praestari suo mandato,” Me- 
 lanehthon. 
 
 2 If, again, it be assumed that the con¬ 
 ception of differs in reference to its 
 different subjects, this is nothing but arbi¬ 
 trary importation. Osiander (comp. Theo- 
 phylact before him) holds that the iv 
 
 has different degrees; in the case of faith 
 and hope, it lasts on to the Parousia ; in the 
 case of love, it is absolute, onward beyond 
 the Parousia. And as distinguished from 
 the charismata, it denotes in the case of 
 faith and hope the constant continuance as 
 opposed to the sporadic. What accumidated 
 arbitrariness ! Lipsius is correct in sub¬ 
 stance, but does not define specifically 
 enough the conception of the wi'ans. 
 
CHAP. XIII., 13. 
 
 309 
 
 tion for the individual, and therefore also is not conceivable without the 
 continuance of hope. The conception of this continued development is not 
 excluded by the notion of the riheiov, ver. 10, but belongs thereto. 1 Bill¬ 
 roth is wrong in saying “faith and hope remain, in so far as their contents 
 is eternal.” That is to confound the objective and subjective. De Wette 
 (comp. Maier) holds that “ faith and hope, which go directly to their object, 
 remain hy passing over into sight. ” But in that way precisely they would not 
 remain (Rom. viii. 24 ; Heb. xi. 1), and only love would remain. For all the 
 three the gkvetv must be meant in the same sense. Our interpretation, again, 
 does not run counter either to 2 Cor. v. 7 (where surely the future seeing of 
 the salvation does not exclude the continuance of the fides salvifica ), or to 
 Rom. viii. 24, Heb. xi. 1, since in our text also the hope meant is hope of 
 something future not yet come to manifestation , wdiile the fides salvifica has 
 to all eternity a suprasensuous (Heb. loc. cit.) object (the atoning power of 
 the sacrifice of Jesus). Hofmann transforms it in his exposition to this, that 
 it is asserted of the Christian who has believed, hoped, and loved that he 
 brings thither with him what he is as such, so that he has an abiding heri¬ 
 tage in these three things. But that is not what Paul says, but simply that 
 even in the future aeon, into which the charismata will not continue, 
 Christians will not cease to believe, to hope, to love. — ra rpia ravra ] brings 
 the whole attention, before anything further is said, earnestly to bear upon 
 this triad. — gei^uv 6 e rovruv~\ is not to be taken as ge'fuv de p ravra , for rov- 
 ruv must apply to the foregoing ra rpia ravra , but as : greater however (comp, 
 xiv. 5) among these i.e. of higher value (than the two others) among these three, 
 is love. Regarding gefov with the gen. partitivus, comp. Matt, xxiii. 11. 
 Hofmann has no warrant for desiderating the article ; comp. Luke ix. 4G. 
 Why love holds this highest place, has been already explained, vv. 1-7 ; 2 
 because, namely, in relation to faith love, through which it works (comp. 
 Gal. v. 6), conditions its moral worth (vv. 1-3) and the moral fruitfulness of 
 the life of Christian fellowship (vv. 4-7); consequently without love (which 
 is divine life, 1 John iv. 8, 16) faith would be something egotistical, and 
 therefore spurious and only apparent, not even existing at all as regards its 
 true ethical nature ; 3 from which it follows at the same time that in relation 
 to hope also love must be the greater, because if love fails, the hope of fu- 
 
 1 Comp, also Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 473. 
 
 2 The interpreters who take wvl Se to 
 mean, but for the present, follow for the most 
 part Chrysostom in stating it as the higher 
 worth of love, that it alone continues in 
 eternity, while faith and hope, as they as¬ 
 sume, cease. According to de Wette, Paul 
 seems darkly to indicate the truth that love 
 is the root of faith and hope. But even 
 apart from the fact that this is not a Pau¬ 
 line thought, the reader could not be ex¬ 
 pected after ver. 7 (where nothing of the 
 kind is even indirectly indicated) to arrive 
 
 at such a thought. Baur too imports what 
 is not in the text when he says that Paul 
 
 calls love the greatest, because it is what 
 it is immediately, in an absolute -way, and 
 hence also remains always what it is. 
 
 3 Justification, however, would be by love, 
 only if perfect satisfaction were rendered 
 to its requirements, which is not possible 
 (Rom. xiii. 8). Hence the divine economy 
 of salvation has connected justification 
 with faith, the necessary fruit and evidence 
 of which, however, is love. Comp. Me- 
 lanchthon, “ Aliud est causa justificationis, 
 aliud est necessarium ut effectus sequens 
 justificationem . . . ut in vivente dicimus 
 necessario motum esse, qui tamen non est 
 vitae causa.” See also Form. Cone. p. 688 ff. 
 
310 
 
 PAUL’S PIEST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ture glory—seeing that it can only be cherished by the true faith which 
 works by love—cannot with reason exist at all (comp. Matt. xxvi. 35 If.). 
 
 (F 2 ) 
 
 Notes by Amebican Editok. 
 
 (d 2 ) The description of love. 
 
 “The surpassing beauty of this chapter has been felt and expressed wher¬ 
 ever it has been read, by persons of the most opposite religious views, and by 
 those who can appreciate only its literary qualities. In the chapters that go 
 before there is eloquence too, but of a very different kind—keen, impassioned, 
 vehement; the next chapter but one also rises to the height of sublimity ; but 
 here all is serene. The opening verses are a grand introduction to what fol¬ 
 lows, sweeping away as worthless the very best things which want the cardinal 
 principle of love. This is then defined by no fewer than fifteen characteristics, 
 eight negative and seven positive. The terse precision and wonderful com¬ 
 pleteness of these strike every discerning reader ; while the periods roll on in 
 rhythmic melody to the end of the chapter, like a strain of richest music dying 
 away, or a golden sunset; and everything is seen out but Love, which is found 
 standing alone as the enduring life of heaven” (Principal Brown). — “The very 
 style shows that it rises far above any immediate or local occasion. On each 
 side of this chapter the tumult of argument and remonstrance still rages ; but 
 •within it, all is calm ; the sentences move in almost rhythmical melody ; the 
 imagery unfolds itself in almost dramatic propriety ; the language arranges 
 itself with almost rhetorical accuracy” (Dean Stanley). 
 
 (e 2 ) I spake as a child. Yer. 11. 
 
 Upon this verse Hodge well says that the feelings and thoughts of a child 
 are true and just, in so far as they are the natural impression of the objects to 
 which they relate. They are neither irrational nor false, but inadequate. In 
 like manner our views of divine things will hereafter be different from those 
 which we now have. But it does not thence follow that our present views are 
 false. They are just, as far as they go ; they are only inadequate. It is no 
 part of the Apostle’s object to unsettle our confidence in what God now com¬ 
 municates by His word and Spirit to His children, but simply to prevent our 
 being satisfied with the partial and imperfect. 
 
 (f 2 ) Love is the greatest. Yer. 13. 
 
 The remarks of the author on this verse hardly show his wonted acumen. 
 The most satisfactory treatment of the question why Love is the greatest is 
 found in the following citation from Hodge : “ Some say, because it includes, 
 or is the root of faith and hope. It is said that we believe those whom we love, 
 and hope for what we delight in. According to Scripture, however, the reverse 
 is true. Faith is the root of love. It is the believing apprehension of the 
 glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, that calls forth love to Him. Others 
 say, the ground of superiority is in their effects. But we are said to be sancti¬ 
 fied, to be made the children of God, to overcome the world, to be saved by 
 faith. Christ dwells in our hearts by faith ; he that believes hath eternal life. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 311 
 
 i.e. faitli as including knowledge is eternal life. There are no higher effects 
 than these, so far as we are concerned. Others say that love is superior to faith 
 and hope, because the latter belong to the present state only, and love is to 
 continue for ever. But, according to the true interpretation of the verse, all these 
 graces are declared to abide. The true explanation is to be found in the use 
 which Paul makes of this word greater, or the equivalent term better. In 12, 13, 
 he exhorts his readers to seek the better gifts, i.e. the more useful ones. And in 
 xiv. 5 he says, ‘ Greater is he, that prophesies, than he that speaks with tongues 
 i.e. he is more useful. 
 
 “ Throughout that chapter the ground of preference of one gift to others is 
 made to consist in its superior usefulness. This is Paul’s standard ; and 
 judged by this rule, love is greater than either faith or hope. Faith saves our¬ 
 selves, but love benefits others.” 
 
 An English writer remarks that the contrast in this verse is not between love 
 which is imperishable and faith and hope which are perishable, but between 
 ephemeral gifts and enduring graces. It is strange how completely in popular 
 thinking this has been lost sight of, and hence we find such words as these : 
 
 “ Faith will vanish into sight, 
 
 Hope be emptied in delight, 
 
 Love in heaven will shine more bright, 
 
 Therefore give us love 
 
 which express almost the opposite of what the Apostle really wrote. The 
 same may be said of the close of one of Charles Wesley’s most familiar and 
 admired hymns : 
 
 “ Where faith is sweetly lost in sight, 
 
 And hope in full supreme delight, 
 
 And everlasting love.” 
 
312 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV, 
 
 Ver. 7. T otg dQoyyotg] Lachm. reads tov tyOoyyov, with B, Clar. Germ. Tol. 
 Ambrosiast. Too weakly attested ; and after the preceding (povyv didovra (giving 
 from itself ) the change of the dative into the genitive (Vulgate, soniiuum), and of 
 the plural into the singular, was very natural. Neither ought we to read, 
 instead of C<p (Elz. Laclim. Tisch.), the more weakly attested ch5<p (recommended 
 by Griesb), which is a repetition from the preceding didovra. — Ver. 10. eotiv\ 
 Lachm. Buck. Tisch. read eioiv, following A B D E F G K, min. Clem. Dam. 
 Theophyl. The singular is an emendation, in accordance with the neuter plural. 
 
 -—avrcjv should be deleted, with Lachm. Buck. Tisch., according to prepon¬ 
 derating testimony. A defining addition. —Ver. 13. Instead of 6 lot: e plead. did, 
 upon decisive evidence.—Ver. 15. ck'] is wanting both times in F G, min. 
 Vulg. It. Saliid. Syr. Damasc. and Latin Fathers ; the first time also in K, the 
 second time also in B ; hence Lachm. deletes only the second 6e. Probably 
 Paul did not write either at all, and B contains merely the insertion which w T as 
 first made in the first half of the verse. — Ver. 18. Elz. has pov after Qeg), which 
 Beiche defends, in opposition to decisive evidence. Addition from i. 4 ; Bom. 
 i. 8 al. There is preponderating testimony for y\6ooij (Lachm. Buck. Tisch.) 
 in place of yAuoocuq, as, indeed, in this chapter generally the authorities vary 
 greatly in respect of the singular and plural designation of this charisma. In 
 this passage the plural w*as inserted because they ascribed the knowledge of 
 ever so many languages to the apostle. —AaAwy] B D E F G 5$, 17, 67** Copt. 
 Syr. utr. Vulg. It. Oec. and Latin Fathers have Aalco (so Lachm. and Tisch.); of 
 these, however, F G, Copt. Syr. utr. Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers have otl before 
 7T avruv. A omits \a\tov altogether (which Buck, prefers, as also D. Schulz and 
 de Wette). The preponderance of attestation is manifestly in favour of 
 which is also to be regarded as the original. For the omission (A) is explained 
 by the fact that the words from evxapLGTu to yluaaatg w r ere viewed (in accord¬ 
 ance with vv. 14-16) as belonging to each other. Other transcribers, who 
 rightly saw in tt avruv vptov k.t.Ti. the ground of the evxapitJTcj, sought to help 
 the construction, some of them by otl, some by changing ?ial.u into lalcov. The 
 latter was welcome also to those who saw in tccivtov . . . AaA&v, not the ground, 
 but the mode of the Evxap lctu, such as Beiche, Comm. crit. p. 271, who accord¬ 
 ingly defends the Recepta. —Ver. 19. Elz. Tisch. read did tov voog, running 
 counter, it is true, to A B D E F G X, vss. and Fathers, which have r<5 voi (so 
 Lachm. and Buck.), but still to be defended, because ™ voi has manifestly come 
 in from ver. 15. The very old .transcriber’s error (ha tov vopov (without pov ), 
 which Marcion followed, tells likewise on the side of the Recepta. —Ver. 21. 
 iTEpoLQ] Lachm. Buck, read hep^v, following ABN, min. Bightly ; the dative 
 was written mechanically after kTEpoyAuocoiQ and x £ ' L ^ ecuv - —Ver. 25. Elz. has 
 nal ovto before ra KpvxTa, in opposition to greatly preponderating evidence. 
 The result seemed to begin at this point, hence the subsequent nai ovto was 
 • taken in here and the ovtco following was left out (so still Chrysostom). After- 
 
CHAP. XIV., 1. 
 
 313 
 
 wards this second ovru was restored again without deleting the first kuI ovtu. — 
 Ver. 32. nvevjuara] DEFG and some min. vss. and Fathers have irvEvpa. But 
 TTvevjiaTa seemed out of place, seeing that it is the Holy Spirit that impels the 
 prophets. —Ver. 34. v/uuv, which is defended by Keiche and Tisch., is wanting 
 in A B X, min. vss. and Fathers (deleted by Lachm. and Buck.), but was very 
 liable to be omitted from its being non-essential, and from the generality of 
 the precept, and is to be retained on the ground of its old (as early as Syr.) 
 and sufficient attestation. — ettltet panrai] EiuTpEirerat, has greatly preponderant 
 authorities in its favour. Becommended byGriesb., adopted by Lachm. Biick. 
 Tisch. Bightly ; the sense of the perfect (permissum est) came more readily to 
 the mind of the transcribers, both of itself and because of the prevalent refer¬ 
 ence to the law. — vnoTaaoeciOcu ] Lachm. Biick. read vKOTaaaeaOuaav, following 
 A B K, and some min. Copt. Baslim. Marcion, Damasc. ; an interpretation. — 
 Ver. 35. ywatuci.'] Elz. Scholz read yvvaitji, in opposition to A B X* min. and 
 several vss. and Fathers. The plural was introduced mechanically after the 
 foregoing. — Ver. 37. eioiv evto/mI] Many various readings. Among the best 
 attested (by A B K** Copt. Aeth. Aug.) is eotIv evtoThj. So Lachm. But D* E* 
 F G, codd. of It. Or. Hil. Ambrosiast. have simply ectlv ; and this is the origi¬ 
 nal (so Tisch.), to which evtoItj was added, sometimes before and sometimes 
 after, by way of supplement. The Recepta eIoIv IvTolat (defended by Beiche) 
 arose out of the plural expression a ypatyu in the way of a similar gloss. — Ver. 
 38. ayvoelru'] ayvosiTai occurs in A* (apparently) D* F G N* Copt. Clar. Germ. 
 Or. So Lachm. and Biick. ; Binck also defends it. Other vss. and Fathers 
 have ignorabitur. But in the scriptio continua an 12 might easily be be left out 
 from ayvoeirQQrjTe, and then it would be all the more natural to supplement 
 wrongly the defective ayvosir by making it uyvoslrai, as it was well known that 
 Paul is fond of a striking interchange between the active and passive of the 
 same verb (viii. 2, 3, xiii. 12). One can hardly conceive any ground for ayvoElrat 
 being changed into the imperative, especially as the imperative gives a sense 
 which seems not to be in keeping with apostolic strictness and authority. 
 Offence taken at this might be the very occasion of ayvoEtru being purposely 
 altered into dyvoEirai. 
 
 Contents.—(1) Regarding tlie higher value of prophecy in comparison 
 with the gift of tongues, vv. 1-25. (2) Precepts regarding the application 
 
 of the gifts of the Spirit in general, and of the two named in particular, vv. 
 26-33, with an appended remark on the silence of women, vv. 34,35. (3) 
 
 Corroboration of the .precepts given, vv. 36-38, and reiteration of the main 
 practical points, vv. 39, 40. 
 
 Ver. 1. Aiukete r. ay aw-qv\ pursue after love ; asyndetic, but following with 
 all the greater emphasis upon the praise of love, chap. xiii.; while the figura¬ 
 tive Sccjk. (sectamini) corresponds to the conception of the way, xii. 31. 
 Comp. Phil. iii. 12. And after Paul has thus established this normative 
 principle as to seeking after the better gifts of the Spirit, he can now enter 
 upon the latter themselves more in detail.— ZqXovre 6 s k.t.A.] With this he 
 joins on again to xii. 31, yet not so as to make the 6e resumptive ,—in wdiich 
 case diva. r. ay air. would be left standing in an isolated position, — but in 
 such a way that he sets over against the latter the t^rjlovv ra wv. as what is to 
 take place along with it. “Let the end which you pursue be love ; in con- 
 
314 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corinthiahs. 
 
 nection with, which, however,—and upon that I w r ill now enter more parties 
 ularly,—you are not to omit your zealous seeking after the gifts of the Spirit, 
 but to direct it especially to prophecy.” Comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 and Theophylact. —ra TWEvparcKd] as in xii. 1, the gifts of the Spirit generally 
 not merely the glossolalia (Billroth, Ewald, comp, also Itiickert), which first 
 comes in at ver. 2, and that with a definite designation. M dllov 6s iva 
 7 rpo0., which is not to be read as a subordinate clause (Hofmann), represents 
 and defines more closely the phrase ra x a p' L(7 P ara ™ upeirrova , xii. 31. M dllov 
 does not simply compare the longing for prophetic gifts with that for the 
 glossolalia ,—which is only done in the following verses (in opposition to Hof¬ 
 mann),—but is to be explained : in a higher degree , however , than for the other 
 gifts of the Spirit , be zealous that ye may speak prophetically. ” The iva thus 
 states the design of the ^tjIovte , which we must again mentally supply (comp, 
 ver. 5). 
 
 Yv. 2, 3 give the ground of the pallor Se iva irpoty. by comparing prophecy 
 with the glossolalia in particular, which was in such high repute among the 
 Corinthians .—For he who speaks with the tongue (see on xii. 10) speaks not to 
 men (does not with his discourse stand in the relation of communicating to 
 men), hut to God , who understands the Holy Spirit’s deepest and most fer¬ 
 vent movements in prayer (Rom. viii. 26 f.). Comp. ver. 28 .—ovdelc yap 
 cikovei ] for no one hears it , has an ear for it. So too Porphyr. deAhst. iii. 22 ; 
 Athen. ix. p. 383 A. What is not understood is as if it were not heard . Comp. 
 Markiv. 33 ; Gen. xi. 7, xlii. 43, and see ver. 16: riliyEig ova olde. 1 Wieseler, 
 in 1838, took advantage of cikovei in support of his theory of the soft and in¬ 
 audible character of the speaking with tongues, against which the very ex¬ 
 pression laleiv, the whole context (see especially ver. 7 f.) and the analogy 
 of the event of Pentecost, as well as Acts x. 46 and xix. 6, are conclusive. 
 See also on xii. 10, xiii. 1. The emphatic ovk avdp. lalsi, alia r. 0ed mili¬ 
 tates against Fritzsche, Nov. opusc. pp. 327, 333, who takes ovdeic; y. cikovei in 
 a hyperbolic sense (“ nam paucissimi intelligunt, cf. Joh. i. 10, 11 ”). No one 
 understands it,—that is the rule, the exceptional case being only, of course, 
 that some one gifted with the x^ptapa of interpretation is present ; but in 
 and of itself the speaking with tongues is of such a nature that no one under¬ 
 stands it. Had Paul meant the speaking in foreign languages , he could all 
 the less have laid down that rule, since, according to ver. 23, it was a possible 
 case that all the members of the church should speak ylivaaaic, and conse¬ 
 quently there would always be some present who would have understood 
 the foreign language of an address. — 7 xvevpan Se lalsi pvar. ] de—not the 
 German ‘ ‘ sondern' 1 ' 1 (Riickert)—is the however or on the other hand frequent 
 after a negative statement (see Hartung, Partik. I. p. 172 ; Baeumleim, p. 
 95). We are not to understand nvevyaTi of the objective Holy Spirit, ver. 
 14 being against this, but of the higher spiritual nature of the man (different 
 from the ipvxv). This, the seat of his self-consciousness, is filled in the 
 inspired man by the Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 16), which, according to the 
 different degrees of inspiration, may either leave the reflective activity of 
 
 1 Comp, also Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 382. 
 
CHAP. XIV., 4, 5. 
 
 315 
 
 the understanding ( vovg , ver. 14) at work, or suspend it for the time during 
 which this degree of inspiration continues. The latter is what is meant 
 here, and TrvEvyart lalslv signifies, therefore, to speak through an activity of 
 the higher organ of the inner life, which directly (without the medium of 
 the vovg ) apprehends and contemplates the divine ; so that in rcvEvyan is 
 implied the exclusion of that discursive activity, which could, as in the case 
 of prophecy, present clearly to itself in thought the movements and sugges¬ 
 tions of the Holy Spirit, could work these out, connect them with things 
 present, and communicate them to others in an intelligible way. — / ivarypia ] 
 secrets, namely, for the hearers, hence what was unintelligible , the sense of 
 which was shut up from the audience. The mysterious character of the 
 speaking with tongues did not consist in the things themselves (for the 
 same subjects might be treated of by other speakers also), but in the mode 
 of expression, which, as not being brought about and determined by the 
 intellectual activity of the vovg, thereby lacked the condition connecting 
 it with the intellectual activity of the hearer, for which it was only made 
 ready by the interpretation. Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 362. — o!ko6. k. 
 rrapaicl. k. 7rapa/u.] The first is the genus, the second and third are species 
 of it : 1 edification (Christian perfection generally) and (and in particular) 
 exhortation (comp, on Phil. ii. 1) and consolation. — tz apayvdia, only here in 
 the N. T., means in general (Heindorf, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. 
 
 p. 70 B), then comfort in particular ; Plato, Ax. p. 365 A ; Aeschin. Dial. 
 Socr. ii. 3 ; Lucian, Mort. D. xv. 3 ; de Dea Syr. 22 ; Ael. V. H. xii. 1; 
 Wisd. xix. 12. Comp, on napapvdiov, Phil. ii. 1. 
 
 Ver. 4. Difference between the relations of the two in respect of the 
 mentioned olnodoyy. — eavrov ] in so far, namely, as he not merely believes that 
 he feels (Wetstein), but really does feel in himself the edifying influence of 
 what he utters. This does not presuppose such an understanding of what 
 he utters as could be communicated to others, but it does assume an impres¬ 
 sion on the whole of a devout and elevating, although mystical kind, ex¬ 
 perienced in his own spirit. — bcnhyc.] a church, without the article, an as¬ 
 sembly. 
 
 Ver. 5. Ae] etc e Ay Trap ’ avrolg k^a^ovv y’kldacatg zzoXkoX, iva yy dia <p0ovov 
 
 KaraopuipivEiv rag yTiuacag, 0e?u j, <pycrl, rzavrag /c.r.A., Theophylact. Comp, the 
 Se, xii. 31. — paAlov de /c.r.A.] rather , however, I wish that ye should speah pro¬ 
 phetically . Note here the distinction between the accusative with the infinitive 
 and Iva after 6e?uj (see on Luke vi. 31). The former puts the thing absolutely 
 as object ; the latter, as the design of the delo to be fulfilled by the 
 readers (Nagelsbach on the Iliad , p. 62, ed. 3) ; so that it approaches the 
 imperative force (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 839). — ye'fuv] preferable, of more 
 worth, xiii. 13, because more useful for edification, vv. 6, 26.— karog e\ yy 
 dispy.] the case being excepted, if he interpret (what has been spoken with 
 tongues). EKTog ei yy is a mixing up of two modes of expression, so that yy 
 
 1 Ver. 4, where the oIkoSo/atj is named significance of the two latter points: 
 alone , testifies to this relation of the three “ 7rapa/<Aijcris tollit tarditatem, napa^vOia 
 words (in opposition to Ruckert). Comp. * tristitiam.” 
 
 Bengel, who has noted well the edifying 
 
316 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 now seems pleonastic. Comp. xv. 2 ; 1 Tim. v. 19. Not a Hebraism 
 (Grotius), but found also in the later Greek writers (Lucian, Dial. Mer. 1; 
 Soloec. 7). See Wetstein ; Lobeck, ad Pliryn. p. 459. — Regarding el with 
 the subjunctive, see on ix. 11. The subject of diepy. is not a rig to be sup¬ 
 plied (Flatt, comp. Ewald), but 6 XaXuv y/ 1. The passage shows (comp. ver. 
 13) that one and the same person might be endowed with glossolalia and 
 interpretation, (g 2 ) 
 
 Ver. G. Nwi ch] But so, i.e. but in this condition of things, since, namely, 
 prophecy is greater than the speaking with tongues when left without edi¬ 
 fying interpretation, I, if I came to you as a speaker with tongues, would 
 only then be useful to you when I united with it prophetical or doctrinal 
 discourse. Hofmann is wrong in wishing to refer vwl tie to the main thought 
 of ver. 5 ; in that case the second part of ver. 5 is all the more arbitrarily 
 overlooked, seeing that the eav yh in ver. 6 is manifestly correlative to the 
 enrog d yh in ver. 5. Others take it otherwise. But the key to the interpre¬ 
 tation which is in accordance with the context and logically correct lies in 
 this, that the two uses of eav are not co-ordinate (which was my own for¬ 
 mer view), so as in that way to give to the principal clause, ri vyag kfilyou, 
 two parallel subordinate clauses (comp, on Matt. v. 18) ; but, on the con¬ 
 trary, that eav yy, corresponding to the enrog d yh, ver. 5, is subordinated to 
 the first eav. Paul might, forsooth, instead of eav yrj . . . c hdaxy have written 
 simply : eav yh vylv diepyr/vevoo. Instead of doing so, however, he specif es 
 the two kinds of discourse in which he might give an interpretation of his 
 speech in tongues, and says : If I shall have come to you speaking with tongues , 
 what shall I prof t you, if I shall not have spoken to you (for the sake, namely, 
 of expounding my speech in tongues, ver. 5), either in revelation, etc. The 
 apostle possessed the gift of glossolalia (ver. 18), but might also be his own 
 dtepyrjvevThg, and might apply to the diepyrjveveiv the other apostolic charis¬ 
 mata which belonged to him for teaching, prophecy, and didaxh (xiii. 9 ; 
 Acts xiii. 1). — y kv cnronaX. ac.t.A.] not four, but two charismatic modes of 
 teaching are here designated — prophecy and didascalia. For the former, 
 the condition is ajronaXv'ipig ; for the latter, yvtimg. See Estius in loc. The 
 prophet spoke in an extempore way what was unfolded and furnished to him 
 by revelation of the Spirit ; the teacher (if he did not simply deliver a Xoyog 
 cofag, xii. 8) developed the deep knowledge which he had acquired by in¬ 
 vestigation, in which he was himself active, but yet was empowered and 
 guided by the Spirit. This twofold division is not at variance with xiii. 2, 
 from which passage, on the contrary, it is plain that there belonged to proph¬ 
 ecy yvuocg and cnroKaXvipig, the latter of which was not included as a condi¬ 
 tion of the didascalia ; so that the characteristic mark of distinction in proph¬ 
 ecy is thus the cnroicdXv'ipig. Comp. ver. 80. — ev denotes the inward (cnronaX., 
 yvuc .) and outward (jrpoep., did.) form in which the XaXeiv takes place. Comp. 
 Matt. xiii. 3. — Note further the use of th e first person, in which Paul comes 
 forward himself with all the more convincing force in support of what he 
 says. 
 
 Ver. 7. The uselessness of a discourse remaining in this way unintelligible 
 is now shown by the analogy of musical instruments. — oyug ] is paroxytone, 
 
CHAP. XIV v 7. 
 
 317 
 
 and means nothing else than tcimen (Vulgate), but is put first here and in Gal. 
 iii. 15, although logically it ought to come in only before kav SiacTokrjv k.t. h. ; 
 hence it is to be explained as if the order was : ra aijjvxa, Ka'mep <jxjv. 6A6vra, 
 Eire av?i6g, eIte KiOapa, bpcog, kav diaorohr/v r. <pd. prj dti, rrcog yvcjcrdr/crETai k.t.X. 
 
 It is rightly taken by Chr. F. Fritzsche, Nov. Opusc. p. 329. Comp. C. F. 
 A. Fritzsche, Gonject. I. p. 52 : “ instrumenta vitae expertia, etiamsi sonum 
 edunt , tamen , nisi distincte sonent, qui dignoscas,” etc. So Winer, also, at 
 last (ed. 6 ; ed. 7, p. 515 [E. T. 693]), and, in like manner, Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. p. 264 [E. T. 308]. To analyze it into ra aipvxa, Ka'nzEp aijjvxa, 
 oyug (puvr/v 6t66vra k.t.X. (Winer formerly, comp. Riickert), brings out an 
 antithetic relation which could not be expected from the context. For 
 what is to be expressed is not that the instruments, although lifeless, never¬ 
 theless sound; but this, that the lifeless instruments, although they sound, 
 nevertheless give out no intelligible melody, unless, etc. As regards the 
 hyperbaton, common with classical writers also, by which oyug, instead of 
 following the participle, goes before it, 1 see Matthiae, § 566, 3 ; Kruger, 
 § lvi. 13. 3 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Pep. p. 495 D ; Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 447 ; 
 Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 232. That bptog stands for oyoiug, and should be 
 accented (comp. Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. p. 480, ed. 2) oycbg (Faber, Alberti, 
 Wetstein, Hoogeveen, and others), is as erroneous (bycog means : equally, 
 together) as Kypke’s assertion that the paroxytone oycog means similiter. — 
 dAovra] giving forth , as Pind. Nem. v. 93 ; Judith xiv. 9. ^covy is used of 
 the voice of musical instruments in Eccles. 1. 16 ; Esdr. v. 64 ; 1 Macc. v. 
 31, al. Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 47 C ; yovcuicy (pcovy, Pol. iii. p. 397 A ; Pint. 
 Mor. p. 713 C ; Eur. Tro. 127. —kav Staarohyv /c.r.A.] If they (the aipv%a cjxovi/v 
 (hbovra) shall not have given a distinction to the sounds , if they shall have 
 sounded without bringing out the sounds in definite, distinctive modulation. 
 “Harmonium autem ex intervallis sonorum nosse possumus,” Cic. Tusc. i. 18. 
 41. Comp. Plat. Phileb. p. 7 C D, and Stallbaum in loc. — tt ug yvucOpc. to avl. 
 k.tA.] how shall that be recognized which is played upon the flute or upon the 
 cithern? i.e. how can it then possibly happen that one should recognize a 
 definite piece of music (a melody) from the sounds of the flute or the 
 cithern ? One is none the wiser from them as to what is played. The 
 repetition of the article is quite correct : what is played on the flute, or 
 again, in the other supposed case, what is played upon the cithern. Riickert 
 takes it as meaning, How is it possible to distinguish between flute and cith¬ 
 ern? Inappropriate, in view of the essentially different character of the 
 two instruments, and seeing that the question in the context (comp. ver. 9) 
 is not as to distinguishing between the instruments, but as to understand¬ 
 ing the melody.—It may be observed, further, that the analogy in ver. 7 
 would be unsuitable, if Paul had been thinking of foreign languages, since 
 these would not have lacked the diaorohri of the sounds. This holds also in 
 opposition to the view of the matter which makes it an utterance of glosses, 
 as likewise in opposition to Wieseler’s conception of a soft yevog -yhuaaojv, 
 
 1 Not always immediately before, as Hof- also Reisig, Enarr. Oed. Col. p. xlvi. Comp., 
 maim opines that Paul must have written : too, 4 Macc. xiii. 26. 
 ra oufjvxoi o/uw? SiSovra. See Jacobs, I.e., 
 
318 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthian's. 
 
 seeing that in ver. 7 it is not the strength of the sound, hut its distinctness 
 (comp. Wieseler himself in 1860, p. 114), in virtue of which it expresses a 
 melody, which is the point of comparison. 
 
 Ver. 8. Confirmation of the negative implied in rrtig yvoodrjGSTac k.t.Tl., by 
 another yet stronger example : for also in the case of etc. The emphasis 
 is upon od'kmyZ, a trumpet , the simple sounds of which are assuredly far 
 more easily intelligible as regards their meaning and design than those of 
 flute and cithern. — ddphov) not clear , uncertain, qui dignosci nequeat, Beza. 
 
 “ Unius tubae cantus alius ad alia vocat indites,” Bcngel. Comp. (f>uvdg 
 nvag darjyovg, Lucian, Alex. 13. — tyu>vr]v\ comp. II. xviii. 219. —sig nohsgov\ 
 to battle, Horn. II. i. 177, iv. 891 ; Bind. 01. xii. 5 ; Plato, Phaed. p. 66 C ; 
 Eccles. xxxvii. 5, xl. 6 ; 1 Macc. ii. 41. The signal of attack was given 
 with the trumpet. See Wetstein and Valckenaer in loc. ; Rosenmuller, 
 Morgenl. VI. p. 110. 
 
 Yer. 9. Inference from ver. 7 f. : accordingly, if you also, etc. — did ri)g 
 yluGGTjg] for it was by means of the tongue that his readers brought forth so 
 much unintelligible matter through their glossolalia. The vgsig (ha ryg 
 yluoagg speaking unintelligibly correspond to those instruments in vv. 7, 8 ; 
 hence &d r. y\. is put immediately after vgsig, and before lav (comp. vi. 4). 
 — ever/ gov hoyov] an easily distinguishable discourse, the meaning of which 
 comes plainly out by clear and distinct words and connection. Comp. 
 Soph. Ant. 1008 ; Polyb. x. 44. 3 ; Men. ap. Athen. xiii. p. 571 E. —Icecde 
 yap k.t.1.'] expressing the unsuitable relation of state , hence not the mere 
 future (comp. Kuhner, II. p. 40) : for ye shall be people, who, etc. — sig as pa] 
 palpably illustrates the uselessness (what does not remain with the hearer). 
 Comp. ix. 26 ; Lucretius, iv. 929 ; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 334. Philo : aspo- 
 gvdsiv, to speak to the wind, and aspogvdog. 
 
 Yv. 10, 11. Another example still to induce them to lay aside this way of 
 speaking. — si rvxoi ] if it so happens, if it is really the case, i.e. perhaps, just 
 as the mere absolute tv%ov also is employed (Isocr. Archid. 38 ; Be pace, 60 ; 
 Xen. Mem. vi. 1. 20, and Kuhner in loc.). So in all the passages in Wet¬ 
 stein, Loesner, p. 293 ; Yiger. ed. Herm. p. 301, which are usually adduced 
 in support of what is assumed (by Ruckert also) to be the meaning here : for 
 example. The phrase has never this meaning, and merely its approximate 
 sense can be so expressed, 1 2 and that always but very unexactly, in several 
 passages (such as xv. 37 ; Lucian, Amor. 27). And in the present case this 
 sense does not suit at all, partly because it would be very strange if Paul, 
 after having already adduced flutes, citherns, and trumpets as examples, 
 should now for the first time come out with a 11 for example ,” partly and 
 chiefly because si rvxoi is a defining addition, not to the thing itself (yevij 
 <j>uvuv), but to its quantity (to Tooavra). Comp. Lucian, Icarom. 6 : nal noh- 
 TiCiKig, si tvxol, gpds orroaot ordihoi M syapddsv ’AdpvaCs siaiv, duping STCiGTaysvot. 
 Paul, namely, had conceived to himself under roGavra a number indefinite, 
 indeed, but very great;* and he now takes away from this conception its 
 
 1 This also in opposition to Hilgenfeld, indefinite expression by d tv\ol (in opposi- 
 
 Glossol. p. 24. , tion to Hilgenfeld). 
 
 2 For this reason he could limit even the 
 
CHAP. XIV., 12. 
 
 319 
 
 demonstrative certainty by d tvxol : in so great multitude , perhaps, there are 
 different languages in the world. Billroth, too, followed by Olsliausen, takes 
 ei tvxol in itself rightly, but introduces an element of irony, inasmuch as he 
 quite arbitrarily takes roaavra . . . nat ov6ev for oca . . . rocavra , and, in 
 doing so, makes £4 tvxol even reach over to the second clause : u as many 
 languages as there are, probably just so many have sense and significance.” 
 — On £4 with the optative , expressing the mere conjecture, it may suffice to 
 refer to Hermann, ad Viger. p. 902 .—yevg favtiv] i.e. all sorts of different 
 languages , each individual unit of which is a separate yevog <puvtjv. The op¬ 
 posite is (puvy fa Tract, Gen. xi. 1. — oi'6ev~\ namely, yevog (jxovuv. Bleek ren¬ 
 ders it, contrary to the context : no rational being. Similarly Grotius and 
 others, so that avruv in the Textus receptus would apply to men. Comp, van 
 Hengel, Annot. p. 194 f., who supplies edvog with ovdev. — acpcjvov ] speechless, 
 i.e. no language is without the essence of a language (comp, fog afioTog, and 
 the like, in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 229 f. ; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 612 ; Jacobs, 
 Del. epigr. i. 33), i.e. unintelligible, and that absolutely, not merely for him, 
 to whom it is a foreign tongue (ver. 11). — ovv~\ therefore, draws its argu¬ 
 ment, not from the great multitude of the languages (Hofmann), which, in 
 truth, is not at all implied in what is contained in ver. 11, but from ovdev 
 acpuvov. For were the language spoken to me (rf?g cpuv.) atpovog, and so un¬ 
 intelligible in itself, I could not in that case appear even as a barbarian to 
 the speaker, because, in fact, what he spoke would be understood by no man. 
 The barbarian (fiapfiapotyuvog, Herod, vii. 20, ix. 43) speaks only a foreign 
 language, not one altogether devoid of meaning for others. — tt)v 6vvay.Lv ryg 
 gxvvTjg] the signification, the sense of the language (which is being spoken). 
 Polyb. xx. 9, 11 ; Lucian, JSfigr. 1 ,al. Comp. Herod, ii. 30 ; Plat. Eutliyd. 
 p. 286 C. —kv eyoi ] with me, i.e. in my judgment. See Valckenaer, ad Eur. 
 Hipp. 324 ; Pflugk, ad Eur. Eel. 996 ; Winer, pp. 362, 204 [E. T. 483, 273]. 
 
 Bemaek.—P aul has chosen tpovrj to denote language, because in the whole sec¬ 
 tion he has only the meaning tongue in his mind for yEvcca. To instruct his 
 readers regarding the speaking with tongues, he uses the analogy of speaking 
 languages. Hofmann resorts to the suggestion that Paul must have used (puvg 
 here, because he would not have expressed what k al ov6ev ucpuvov was designed 
 to convey by k. ov6ev ayAocoov. That is incorrect ; for ay?.uccov would have 
 conveyed the very same thing ( speechless, Poll. ii. 108 ; Soph. Track. 1060 ; 
 Pind. Nem. viii. 41) with the very same point {et nullum elingue), if he had used 
 yhficca instead of (puvrj. 
 
 Yer. 12. Inference, which the readers have to draw from ver. 10 f. 
 “ Therefore (itaque), seeing, namely, that the unintelligible speaking is, 
 according to ver. 10 f., something so absurd, seek ye also, since ye are indeed 
 zealous after spirits, with a view to the edification of the church therein, that ye 
 may have abundance .” The ovtu k. vyelg, which is repeated here, must be 
 related to ver. 10 f., just as the ovtcj k. vyelg in ver. 9 is to ver. 7 f., and 
 may not therefore be made to refer to all that precedes it back as far as ver. 
 6 (Hofmann). As the former ovto k. vyelg set forth an inference for warn¬ 
 ing, so the present one infers the requisite precept, and for both what in 
 
320 
 
 Paul’s eirst epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 each, case immediately precedes serves as the premiss. — Upbg r. oikoS. t. 
 ekkItjg. has the emphasis (in opposition to Hofmann). The absurdity re¬ 
 ferred to is meant to point the readers, with their zealous striving after gifts 
 of the Spirit, to the right way, namely, that with a view to the edification of the 
 church 1 they should seek after ever richer endowments. Consequently it is 
 just as superfluous to isolate ovru k. vfj.dc as a sentence by itself (riveg in 
 Theophylact, Mosheim, Flatt, Ileydenreich), which, moreover, would be 
 quite unsuitable in respect of sense, as it is to assume a suppressed inference 
 after ver. 11 (Estius, Ruckert).—K ai vydg] you too ; for the Corinthians 
 were in fact to form no exception from this general maxim, as in their striv¬ 
 ing after higher charismata, and especially after the gift of speaking with 
 tongues, seemed, alas, to be the case ! — ett el ^fiiurai egte iwevp..] on which 
 account you have all the more need of the right regulative ! A pointed hint 
 for the readers, the force of which. they could doubtless feel for them¬ 
 selves. — TTvevfjdrcjv ] the genitive of the object, to which the zealous striving 
 relates. The plural expression is purposely chosen Kara to (j)aiv6fjevov (comp. 
 Hofmann) in keeping with the emulous doings at Corinth. For the specifi¬ 
 cally different manifestations, in which the manifold working of the One 
 Spirit displayed itself, assumed indeed, in presence of such jealous seeking 
 and striving, such an appearance to the eyes of the observer of this unseemly 
 state of things, as though not one Spirit, but a plurality of spirits, differing 
 in kind and importance, were the object of the rivalry. What were diaipe- 
 octg xapLGfidrurv, and hence only different (pavepatOEig rov irvevfidrog, presented 
 themselves, as matters stood at Corinth, to the eye and pen of the apostle 
 as dcaipeoecg Tcvev/idTCJv. Uvevudruv, therefore, is just as far from standing for 
 TzvevparLKuv (Beza, Piscator, Storr, Flatt, and others) as it is from denoting the 
 glossolalia (Heydenrich, Billroth). 2 To suppose a real plurality of spirits, 
 after the analogy of the persons possessed by a number of evil spirits (see 
 Hilgenfeld, p. 52 f.), so that a number of divine spirits would be meant, is 
 at variance with the N. T. generally, and at variance with xii. 4, 7 ff. — Iva 
 iT£pioo.~\ Ovk eItcev‘ iva kt7]G7]oQe to, ^ap/cy/ara, aX) l’ Iva tteplggevtjte, 
 tovtegtlv iva Kai fiETCi daipihEiag TroTdXyg avrd £XV Te ' togovtov yap clttexg) tov py 
 flovhEGOac Ex^iv vgag avrd, ori Kai ne.piGGEVEiv vfiag ev avroig povhofuai, povov dv slg 
 to Koivy GVfMpepov avrd pEraxcLpUiyTE, Chrysostom. — iva] sets before us the 
 object of the striving as its design, as at ver. 1, iv. 2.—What we are to 
 conceive as the contents of the tteplggevelv (to have to the full, viii. 8 ; Phil. 
 
 1 Trpo? t. oik. t. ckkA. belongs to ^rjretre, not 
 to nepicrcr. (Grotius and many others), be¬ 
 cause Paul has not written : ^reZre, npos r. 
 oi/c t. e/c/cA. iVa nepLcrcr. That would be the 
 correct way of putting it first with the 
 emphasis, if it were meant to belong to 
 irepLcrcr., 2 Cor. ii. 4 ; Gal. ii. 10 ; Acts xix. 4. 
 This also in opposition to Hofmann, who 
 takes np. t. oIk. t. ckk\. as only a. subordinate 
 thought (“ which then comes to be profit¬ 
 able for the edification of the church”) be¬ 
 longing to nepicr cr. The edification of the 
 church is in truth just the normative test 
 
 for the appreciation and right pursuit of 
 the charismata (vv. 3,4, 17, 26; Eph. iv. 12, 
 16). The article before oLkoS. does not de¬ 
 note the edification already otherwise taking 
 •place, but is simply = 7rpo? to oUoSopdaOaL t. 
 eKK\r](Ttav. Paul might either put it or leave 
 it out (ver. 26 ; Rom. xv. 2 ; Eph. iv. 29). 
 
 2 The endeavour to be a speaker with 
 tongues was rather only a particular mode, 
 in which the rtveyp-ara £r)\ovv, this general 
 tendency, came into manifestation espe¬ 
 cially in Corinth. 
 
chap, xiv., 13, 14. 321 
 
 i. 9, iv. 12, al.) is self-evident, namely, what was previously meant by 
 rrvevpaTuv, spiritual gifts. 
 
 Yer. 13. Upoaevxlodu Iva Stepp.] is taken by Chrysostom, Theodoret, The- 
 ophylact, Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Wetstein, 
 Bengel, and others, including Flatt, Bleek, Riickert, Olshausen, Neander, 
 Hofmann, in the sense of : let him pray for the gift of interpretation. But 
 against this ver. 14 is decisive, where the Trpoaevxeadai, linked by yap to 
 what precedes, must have the same reference with our TrpoaevxecQat in ver. 13. 
 Bleek’s objection, that we find evxaptcTu in ver. 18.standing in a different ref¬ 
 erence than previously, does not hold good, since vv. 17 and 18 do not stand 
 in direct logical connection (as vv. 12 and 14 do), but, on the contrary, with 
 ver. 18 there begins a section of the discourse distinct from the preceding. 
 Without taking Iva , with Luther, Yorstius, Wolf, Rosenmuller (comp, 
 already Photius in Oecumenius), as meaning so that , the right translation 
 is : let him pray in the design, in order to interpret (afterwards what has 
 been prayed ylcdootj). Comp. Billroth, David Schulz, Winer, de Wette, 
 Osiander, Ch. F. Fritzsche, Ewald, Maier. The previous general XaTitiv is 
 thus represented here by TrpoaevxeaOaL, i.e. more precisely described as what 
 it was , as address in prayer see vv. 14-17. It is objected that ver. 27 mili¬ 
 tates against this view (see Riickert); that the person praying ylhooij could 
 not have had that design, because he did not know whether the interpreta¬ 
 tion would be given to him (Hofmann). But our explanation does not in 
 fact assume that every man who spoke with tongues was capable of inter¬ 
 preting ; but, on the contrary, that Paul, in ver. 13, was thinking only of 
 such speakers with tongues as possessed also the gift of interpretation (ver. 
 5). The apostle still leaves out of view the case in which the speaker was 
 not also interpreter (ver. 28); hence we are not to take it with Ewald : 
 ‘‘ that people may interpret it.” The subject is the speaker himself (yer. 14 
 ff.), as in ver. 5. 
 
 Yer. 14. Justification of the preceyff irpooevx. iva Stepp. —For if I pray 
 with my tongue, my spirit prays, hut my understanding is unf ruitf ul. It is a 
 thoroughly arbitrary and mistaken procedure to take the genitive relation 
 in to Trvevpa pov otherwise than in 6 vovg pov, and to explain the former, with 
 Bleek, Billroth, Olshausen, Maier, and Chr. F. Fritzsche, following Chrys¬ 
 ostom (to x^P La y a r h SoOev pot nal tavovv ryv ylikcoav), of the Spirit of God, in 
 so far as He has laid hold, of the man and speaks out of him. The Holy Spirit, 
 although in the man, is never called the spirit of the man, and cannot be so 
 called, just because He is different from the spirit of the man. See ii. 11 ; 
 Rom. viii. 1G, ix. 1. No ; to Trvevpa pov is my spirit, i.e. my individual prin¬ 
 ciple of higher life (comp, on ver. 2). If I pray with the tongue, this higher 
 life-power in me, which plunges immediately (i.e. without the intervention 
 of the discursive reflective faculty) into the feelings and intuitions of the 
 divine, is called into activity, because it is filled and moved by the Holy 
 Spirit as His receptive organ ; but my understanding, my thinking faculty, 
 furnishes nothing, aaapTrog tan . 1 — vovg in contrast to Trvevpa, which is the 
 
 1 Namely, to edify the church by the pi’aying ; see ver. 12. Chrysostom, Theoph- 
 
322 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 deeper basis of life, the “ penetrate 1 ' 1 (Bengel) of the vovq, is the reflective 
 discursive power through which the making oneself intelligible to those 
 without is effected, and without the co-operative action of which the human 
 7 Tvevfia cannot with such one-sided development of its energy express the 
 contents of its converse with the Divine Spirit in such a way as to be intel¬ 
 ligible for others who are not specially gifted for this end. Comp. Krumm, 
 de notionib. psychol. Paul. p. G4 ff.; Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 184 ; Ernesti, TJrspr. 
 d. Siinde , II. p. 87 f. Note how definitely Paul here distinguishes the specific 
 activities of the mind, and excludes the vovg from the glossolalia. And he 
 speaks thus from experience. But were we to think of foreign languages , 
 that distinction and exclusion would not be appropriate, or would resolve 
 themselves into a mere self-deception. 
 
 Ver. 15. T 1 ovv ion ;] what then tapes place? How then does the matter 
 stand ? namely, in consistency with the foregoing, i.e. what follows then? 
 Comp. ver. 26 and Acts xxi. 22, and the classical and N. T. phrases : rt ovv ; 
 tl yap ; by which we are prepared in a vivid way for what is to follow. See 
 generally, Dissen, ad Bern, de Cor. p. 346 f. — 7 vpoaev^opai] the future denotes 
 what in consistency will he done by me. The hortatory subjunctive in both 
 clauses (t Tpoaev^coyai, A D E F G) is a bad emendation, which in K is carried 
 out only in the first clause. — irpoaev^. k. rti voi ] ( dative of instrument ) is to 
 be understood, in accordance with ver. 14, of the interpretation following, 
 which the person speaking with tongues gives of his tongue-prayer ( fpoGevx. 
 t(L ttv.) in a w r ay suited to the understanding, and by consequence intelligi¬ 
 ble. — -ipaTiu] applies to improvised psalms , which in the glossolalia were sung 
 with the spirit, and after an intelligible manner in the w 7 ay of interpretation. 
 Comp, generally on Eph. v. 19. 
 
 Ver. 16. ’E7 tel] for , without this ypalluv sal rti voi, i.e. otherwise (xv. 29 ; 
 Bom. iii. 6 , al .), the layman, in fact, when thou praisest with the spirit, 
 cannot say the Amen, etc. —evhoyeiv and eixapiareiv denote substantially one 
 and the same thing, the thanksgiving prayer, the former word referring more 
 to the form of praise to God (nD" 0 ), the latter more to its contents. Comp, 
 on x. 16 ; Matt. xiv. 19. —avaizhppovv r. ronov rivog, to fill the place of any 
 one, is not a Hebraism ('3 Dipip tfSn), in the sense of in statu et conditione 
 alicujus esse (see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2001), but corresponds to the Greek 
 expressions : nhrjpovv tt/v ;pjpax>, to occupy the place, avanhr/povv rrjv kfipav 
 (Plat. Tim. p. 79 B), and the like, so that roizog is not to be taken in the 
 abstract sense of position (in opposition to de Wette, Hofmann), but applies 
 quite literally to the place 1 in the assembly. With this is improperly compar¬ 
 ed Josephus, Bell. v. 2. 5, where we have not rowov, but rai-iv. And he who 
 occupies the place of the layman is, according to the connection, every one in 
 the assembly who is not endoiced with glossolalia or its interpretation. Where 
 he sits is, in this particular relation (be he himself even a prophet or teach¬ 
 er), the place of the layman. Paul speaks vividly, as if he saw the assembly 
 
 ylact, Calvin, Estius, and others errone- 1 Even in passages like Clem, ad Cor. 
 ously hold it to apply to one’s own profit. I. 40. 44, tottos is not the abstract “position,” 
 Theodoret rightly remarks : /capn-os toO but the post, the place which a man has in 
 Xeyovros rj wc^eAeia tw aKovovTwv. the hierarchy or polity of the church. 
 
CIIAP. XIV., 17-20. 
 
 323 
 
 before bis mind’s eye. Regarding Ibiuryg (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6), which, like 
 our layman, obtains its definition from the context in each case, see on Acts 
 iv. 13. — 7rcjg kpei] how is it (reasonably) possible that he shall say. —The cus¬ 
 tom, arising out of the time-hallowed usage in connection with oaths, 
 imprecations, vows, prayers, etc. (Hum. v. 22 ; Deut. xxvii. 15 ff.; Neh. 
 viii. 6, ah), that the audience at the close of a public prayer should express 
 their assent, and their faith in its being heard, by amen , was introduced 
 among the Christians from the synagogues (Buxt. Lex. Talm. sub voce jDK ; 
 Vitringa, de Synag. p. 1093 ; Schoettgen, Ilor. p. 654 ff.; Wetstein), and 
 has in this passage apostolic confirmation . 1 —rb ayrjv] the amen to be pro¬ 
 nounced by him. — hrf\ to thy prayer, to which the amen is added. Observe 
 the cry bringing the matter into prominence, (h 2 ) 
 
 Yer. 17. For thou indeed (by thyself considered) utterest an excellent 
 thanksgiving-prayer. This Paul admits, and with reason, since the speaker 
 prayed vi to rrjg 6hag hvspyovyevog xapirog (Theodoret). — 6 erepog ] 6 avarrAypuv 
 tov totcov tov ISicjtov, ver. 16. (i 2 ) 
 
 Yv. 18, 19. Confirmation by the apostle’s own exanrple of what has been 
 said against the public speaking with tongues. — I thank God, more than 
 you all speak I with the tongue, in a higher degree than you all I have this 
 charisma. Such direct modes of expression, instead of a connecting on, 
 occur likewise in Greek writers ; see Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 460 A ; Har- 
 tung, Partikell. II. p. 134 ; Kuhner, § 760 a. Even the Becepta 'kaLuv would 
 have to be taken as stating the ground of the ei>xap. rc3 0e<a (comp. xi. 29 ; 
 Acts iv. 21, al.), not, with Reiche (whom Hofmann follows in his explana¬ 
 tion of this reading, which, however, he rightly rejects), as referring to the 
 manner of it (I make more frequently and more fervently than any of you 
 thanksgiving prayers in glossolalia to God). There would thus result a 
 declaration, the tenor of which hardly suits the character of the apostle, as 
 indeed such an unconditionally expressed assertion could not be upheld by 
 him. MaA/W can only denote the greater measure of the endowment; see 
 already in Chrysostom. — h ekkX.] in the assembled church, opposite of private 
 devotion. — Oslo if\ The preferential will (matte) is implied in the logical re¬ 
 lation of the relative verbal notion to the particle, without there being any 
 need of supplying yadJkov. See Hartung, II. p. 72 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
 589 f.; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 136. 
 
 Yer. 20. Up to this point Paul has been contending against speaking 
 with tongues in public and without interpretation, on the ground of its use¬ 
 lessness. He now adds an animated and winning admonition, well calcu¬ 
 lated to meet the conceit of the Corinthians on this point. — adelcpot] u suavem 
 vim habet” (Bcngel). — Become not children as respects your power of judg¬ 
 ment. His readers were becoming so, inasmuch as, through their increas¬ 
 ing craving after glossolalia, they lacked more and more the power of dis¬ 
 tinguishing and judging between the useful and the useless ; their speaking 
 with tongues assumed the character of childishness. As regards malice (v. 
 
 1 “Vult Deus consensum esse ecclesiae in doctrina, fide, invocatione et petitione,” etc.— 
 
 Melanchthon. 
 
324 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corixthiaxs. 
 
 8), on the other hand he children; have a child-nature in quite another 
 respect, namely, by being free from all malicious thoughts and actions 
 (Matt, xviii. 3). Comp. Rom. xvi. 19 ; Gal. vi. 3 ; Tit. i. 10 ; Lucian, 
 Ilalc. 2 : vT/7rc6Trjg<ppEvo)v. —Regarding vrima^uv, to he a child, (in Greek writers 
 also vrjTuaxcLv and v/jTziaxeveiv ), comp. Hipp. Ep. p. 1281. 52.— teXeiol] of 
 full age , adultus. See Plat. Legg. xi. p. 929 C. Comp, on Eph. iv. 13. 
 
 Yer. 21. You go against Scripture with your foolish doings ! This is the 
 theological side of the judgment, which Paul now further brings forward, 
 before he imparts in ver. 26 tf. the final precepts for the right procedure. — 
 vojuog] of the O. T. generally. See on Rom. iii. 19 ; John x. 34.—The 
 passage is Isa. xxviii. 11, 12 in a very free 1 variation from the LXX. — art] 
 for , ’•3, belongs, with the rest, to the Scriptural quotation (LXX. : on Icikrj- 
 aovGL to lati tovtu)), and has here therefore no reference in the context. — 
 The historical sense of the original text (in which Jehovah threatens to send 
 foreign-speaking men , i. e. barbarians, upon the kingdom of Judah, etc.) is 
 taken up typically by Paul in such a way that he, looking back from the 
 phenomenon of the present upon that prophetic utterance, recognizes in it 
 the Christian glossolalia divinely foreshadowed, as regards its substance, 
 namely, in the characteristic ev ETEpoylhaeoig . . . ercpoLog , and, as regards 
 its destination , in k al ovd’ ovrcog elcctn. —ev ETEpoyhkaeoig /c.r./l.] in peoples of 
 another tongue (conceived of as organs of the visiting God, who speaks in 
 their persons ; hence ev, comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3 ; Heb. i. 2) and in lips of others 
 ( ETEpov , see the critical remarks) iDili I speak to this nation. According to 
 the original text , the reference is to people to ho speak a foreign language (the 
 Assyrian, comp, xxxiii. 19), and to lips of foreigners (other than Israelites); 
 but the similarity of the relation, which presents itself in the type and anti¬ 
 type, consists in the extraordinary phenomenon of the strange divine speak¬ 
 ing, which becomes perceptible in the case of the type in the foreign lan¬ 
 guage, in that of the antitype in the character of the glossolalia, so wholly 
 different from ordinary intelligible speech. In virtue of this unintelligibil¬ 
 ity, the speaking in tongues also was for the hearers a speaking in strange 
 tongues, and he who spoke was not one like-tongued, i.e. using the like 
 language (o/uoyhueeog, Xen. Gyrop. i. 1. 5 ; Herod, i. 17, viii. 144 ; Lucian, 
 Scyth. 3, de Salt. 64), but a strange-speaking man ( £TEp6y?Mcaog , Polyb. xxiv. 
 
 9, 5 ; Strabo, viii. p. 333 ; Aq. Ps. cxiii. 1), and his lips a strangers lips. ; 
 What is in the original text : rnnx Paul renders more freely than the 
 
 LXX. (Ad ylkaarjg irepag), and making it personal, by ev ETEpoyhkaeoig ; 2 the 
 
 recognizes a double formula for the gift of 
 tongues, a shorter one, yA. A., and a longer, 
 ere'p. y\. A. Certainly too wide an inference, 
 since in no other place does the apostle 
 bring forward the characteristic element of 
 ere'pats. He was using the quotation in 
 order to prove the destination of the glos¬ 
 solalia for unbelievers, but could not use Sia 
 <^av\i.<TiJ.bv xeiAewi', which besides the LXX. 
 has incorrectly, and therefore altered it in 
 accordance with the parallel in the passage, 
 Sia y\. erepa?. We may infer consequently 
 
 1 Hence (and on account of the quite 
 general ev r. vo/xy) Ewald derives the words 
 from a source now unknown to us. Still, 
 fora typical reference to the speaking with 
 tongues, Isa. xxviii. 11 f. is characteristic 
 enough. But if Paul had this passage in his 
 eye, he must have understood it of men 
 speaking foreignly, not, as Ewald explains 
 the prophetic words, of the language of the 
 thunder and of terrible punishment. 
 
 2 Wieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 
 734 ff., infers from our passage that Paul 
 
325 
 
 CHAP. XIV., 22. 
 
 Hebrew n3t^ again (through stammerers of the lip, i.e. through men 
 
 speaking unintelligibly, because in a strange tongue, he renders more cor¬ 
 rectly as regards the general sense than the LXX. (who have erroneously 
 (ha tyavlicgov x £ dhkov, on account of mockery of the lips , comp. Hos. vii. 16) by 
 ev x £L ^' £T£ P‘ > putting it, however, impersonally, and reversing the order of 
 the two clauses. It may be added that it is clear from the parallel x e 'hecLv 
 that Paul conceived of yAcbaoa in erepoyAoxjaoLc as u tongue f as pt^7 also is 
 conceived of in the original text,—both as instrument of the XaTielv. The 
 tongue is ayyehog 16yov, Eur. Suppl. 205. — r<p Aa& tovtu] applying in its 
 historical meaning to the disobedient people of Israel , which, however, is a 
 type of those who reject the Christian faith, represents therefore the latter 
 in the view of the apostle, (j 2 ) — Ka2 ovd' ovtcjq] and not even so, dealt with 
 by such a measure, will they hearken to me (obey me, Ecclus. iii. 6, xxxix. 3; 
 and in classical writers). This second half of the passage is, for the demon¬ 
 stration, the main point. See ver. 22. 
 
 Yer. 22. "12crre] Accordingly, namely, in accordance with this ovd ’ ovrug 
 eiaaicovff. gov.—elg aryiuov k.t.X.] The phenomenon of the speaking with 
 tongues is destined for a (divine) sign, not for the believers, hut for the unbeliev¬ 
 ers, i.e. to make those to whom the glossolalia goes forth he recognized as unbelievers. 
 This view alone corresponds to the express ovd' ovtuq elaaKova. gov from 
 which the inference is drawn, as well as to what is further inferred in ver. 
 23. At variance, on the other hand, with both stands the interpretation 
 which has been the ordinary one since Chrysostom (and which has hitherto 
 been my own), that the speaking with tongues is called a sign for the un¬ 
 believers, because it was intended to arrest and move them so that they should 
 refect and become believers. Equally unsuitable is it that Chrysostom, Theo- 
 phylact, and others, including Hofmann, only half carry out this tradition¬ 
 al interpretation, and stop short at the impression of something astounding 
 and amazing, whereby the ylbxjaai are to be a aygeiov to the unbelievers, 
 which, moreover, in presence of the notion of a divine orjgeiov, could only 
 appear as a means to an ulterior end. We must keep the old’ ovtcoc eiaatcovo. 
 gov sharply before us in order to determine accurately the notion of the 
 crjgelov k.t./ 1. Billroth, moreover (comp. Beza, Yatablus, Calovius, Corne¬ 
 lius si Lapide, and others), is in error in holding that oygeiov is a penal sign, 
 or a sign of divine judgment; comp, also Ililgenfeld, p. 21 ; Rossteuscher, 
 p. 77. This, in fact, is not at all implied in ver. 21, where, on the con¬ 
 trary, the glossolalia appears as a last extraordinary measure Remaining like¬ 
 wise without result, which will at length make full exposure of the disobedi¬ 
 ence of the persons in question, but not as a sign of wrath. And had Paul 
 thought of irae signum, he must have expressed the irae too, and, in fact, 
 brought it emphatically forward. 1 Again Storr, Flatt, Baur, and Dav. 
 
 from our passage only thus much, that the 
 glossolalia as regards its nature could be de¬ 
 scribed in the way of application by ev ere- 
 poyAujcrcrois and ev \el\eaev erepuiv AaAeiv, but 
 not that yA. AaA. and ere'p. yA. AaA. were two 
 current formulae for denoting the speaking 
 with tongues. Hence also we are not, with 
 
 Hirzel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 121 ff., to 
 infer from this passage the originality of 
 the designation erepa IS yAwcro-ats AaAeiv. 
 
 1 According to Billroth’s view, namely, 
 Paul warns the Corinthians that they should 
 not thoughtlessly foster among themselves 
 a thing which is called in the O. T. a sign of 
 
326 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Schulz ( Geistesg. pp. 78, 176) are wrong in saying that the prevalence of the 
 glossolalia in the church was a sign of their unbelief. This is unsuitable for 
 this reason, that according to vv. 21, 23 we are to conceive as the clttlotol 
 not those who speak yAuaaatg, but those who are spoken to in yl. — rolg airlc- 
 tolq ] Dative of the reference in view, as is also rolq tuotevovcuv. The con¬ 
 ception of the airiaroi, however, is, by virtue of this very antithesis (and 
 see also vv. 23, 24), simply the non-believing , the unbelievers ,—a conception 
 which is neither to be softened down to that of non-genuine Christians or the 
 like (Flatt, David Schulz), nor intensified to that of obstinate unbelievers, 
 those wholly unsusceptible of faith, infideles privative (Neander, Billroth, 
 Ruckert). Hirzel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 120 ff. (who is followed in 
 substance by de Wette, Osiancler, Maier, Engelmann, and see Bengel’s hints 
 of earlier date), understands by the airier oiq those who do not wish to believe , 
 and by the merevoveiv those who wish to believe. 1 Comp, de Wette: “They 
 are not heard by such as let themselves be moved thereby to believe, but by such 
 as remain unbelieving.' 1 '' This is conclusively negatived by the prevailing use 
 of oi irierevovreg and ol ameroi, to which any such artificial pregnancy of mean¬ 
 ing is quite alien (see immediately, vv. 23, 24). — ij fie irpo^rela k.t.A.] a con¬ 
 trast, which is not intended to be inferred from that passage of Scripture, — 
 which in truth says nothing whatever about the irpotyrjrEveiv, —but the truth of 
 which was self-evident to the readers in virtue of an argumentum e contrario. 
 We are not, however, to supply the simple tori, so that the meaning would be : 
 not to the unbelievers, but to the believers, is the prophetic address to be di¬ 
 rected (my own view hitherto), but rather elg epuelov kenv, for Paul has not 
 written kenv at all, and therefore leaves the predicate of the first half of the 
 verse to operate still in virtue of the antithesis. Consequently : prophecy 
 is designed to be a sign not for the unbelievers, but for the believers , i.e. in order 
 to make those to whom the prophetic address is directed known as believers ; see 
 ver. 24, where this statement of the apostle is verified by the fact that such 
 as come into the Christian assembly as unbelievers, being won over by the 
 overpowering impression of the prophetic addresses, submit themselves to 
 Christianity and declare themselves believers. Erasmus, Grotius, and Bleek 
 are wrong in holding that ov means non tantum. The negation is absolute, 
 as in the preceding clause. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 784. Accord¬ 
 ing to Hirzel (de Wette and Osiander), the meaning here also is alleged to 
 be : prophecy is given not for such as do not wish to believe, but for such 
 as wish to believe. 
 
 punishment. Comp. Beza and Cornelius a 
 Lapide, also Calovius. Upon this view, 
 Paul must have absolutely disapproved of the 
 glossolalia. It would have been a tempt¬ 
 ing of God by the abuse of a divine sign of 
 curse. 
 
 1 Hofmann also understands by Tok a-rria- 
 toi? those indisposed to believe. As if Paul 
 would not have known how to express this 
 conception ! Hofmann even conceives two 
 classes to be comprehended under roi? 
 nuTTevovaiv, namely, those already standing 
 
 in faith and those who are becoming believ¬ 
 ers, and holds that on this account Paul did 
 not write rot? tticttols. As if oi maTevovTeg 
 were noc with the apostle quite the usual 
 expression for the believers (i. 21; Rom.i. 
 16, iii. 22, x. 4; Gal. iii. 22 ; Eph. i. 19, alt), 
 who are such, but not for those, or so as to 
 include those, who are only becoming such. 
 The n-icrTeiWTe? are not at all different from 
 the ttlcttoIs (2 Cor. vi. 15; Eph. i. 1; Col. 
 i. 2). 
 
CHAP. XIV., 23. 
 
 327 
 
 Ver. 23. What, then, will he the effect of the speaking with tongues, which 
 you all so much desire, upon ungifted persons or unbelievers? If such come into 
 your church ichen you are assembled together, and get nothing else there to hear 
 from any of you but glossolalia, so far will they be from declaring themselves as 
 believers upon your speaking with tongues, that, on the contrary, they will declare 
 you to be mad. — ovv ] draws an inference from ver. 22 in such, a way that 
 ver. 23 corresponds to the first, and ver. 24 f. to the second half of ver. 22. 
 — navreg] Paul does not suppose that all those assembled speak together in 
 a confused, tumultuous wmy (Cornelius a Lapide and others ; comp, also 
 Maier), but that all in succession hold glossolaliae, and only such,—not ad¬ 
 dresses of any other kind. For, if all spoke together and confusedly, even 
 in the case of prophecy it could make no impression (ver. 24). — ISlutcll] is 
 not to be understood otherwise than in ver. 16: Christians who are not 
 endowed with glossolalia, or with the gift of understanding it. The context, 
 however, shows by the foregoing kav . . . avro that those meant are un¬ 
 gifted persons from any extraneous church, who come into the church at 
 Corinth when in full assembly. Were the stranger who entered not an un¬ 
 gifted person, but one who himself spoke with tongues or interpreted, his 
 judgment respecting the gift which he himself possessed or understood 
 would, of course, not take the same form. All explanations which deviate 
 from the meaning of the word in ver. 16 are on that very account to be 
 rejected, such as not only that of most of the old interpreters, with Billroth 
 and Chr. F. Fritzsche: “ such as do not understand foreign languages,” 
 but also that of Tkeodoret, David Schulz, Flatt, Olshausen (also Riickert, 
 although with hesitation) : “ beginners in Christianity;” comp. Pelagius, 
 Thomas, Estius: “ nuper credentes, neophyti ;” Melanchthon: “rudis qui 
 primum coepit catechismi doctrinam audire,” comp. Neander. Riickert 
 suggests that Paul is supposing the case that the glossolalia should break 
 out somewhere suddenly and for the first time, and there should then come 
 in Christians who knew nothing of it and, not being present, had not been 
 affected by the paroxysm, and non-Christians. But the suggestion is to be 
 dismissed, because there is no mention of the ‘ ‘ suddenly and for the first 
 time,” which would in that case be the main thing. Hirzel and de Wette 
 hold erroneously, because in opposition to ver. 16, 1 and not to be estab¬ 
 lished even by 2 Cor. xi. 6, that the idturat are non-Christians (so, too, 
 Ulrich in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 420, and Hofmann), in which case they 
 are in various arbitrary ways distinguished from the amaroi, namely, by 
 Hirzel 2 asserting that the arc. are heathen, the id. Jews; by de Wette, that 
 the former were still more aloof from believing than the latter ; by Ulrich, 
 that the id. were persons unacquainted with Christianity, the an. those ac¬ 
 quainted with it indeed, but unbelieving and (Hofmann) hostile towards it. 
 Hot the idturat, but the aniaroi, are the non-Christians (who are never called 
 id.), as in ver. 22. We may add that Grotius remarks rightly : “ Solebant 
 
 1 For in ver. 23 and ver. 16 the conception 
 of iSuLtou is determined by a like context — 
 namely, by the same contrast to those gifted 
 with the glossolalia. This we remark in 
 
 opposition to Hirzel, Ulrich, Hofmann, who 
 assume that ver. 16 cannot regulate the ex¬ 
 planation of iSiwTij? in ver. 23 f. 
 
 2 Comp. vanHengel, Gaved. talen, p. 94. 
 
328 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corhsThiaxs. 
 
 enim pagani ” (and Jews also) u adire Christianorum ecclesias ad videnda 
 quae ibi agebantur.” Their admission (certainly not to the Agapae, how¬ 
 ever) was the less a matter for hesitation, since it might become a means of 
 their conversion. Comp, generally, Harnack, Gemeindegottesd. p. 143 ff. — 
 bn yaiveade] that you (Christians in Corinth) are foolish , and out of your 
 senses , because, namely, you collectively and without exception carry on a 
 kind of converse so unintelligible and meaningless for the hearers. Olsliau- 
 sen strangely holds that the verdict expressed is: u ¥e see, doubtless, that 
 you are possessed by a God ; but there is no prophet here ; we do not 
 understand what the god says to us !” An unwarranted explaining away 
 of the clear import of the word : paivecdaL means insanire , just as in Acts 
 xxvi. 24. The verdict of drunkenness passed by the unbelievers in Acts 
 ii. 13 presents a remarkable analogy. —Observe, further: (1) Here Idiurai is 
 put first, and clklotol follows , because the idiarai, as Christians , and there¬ 
 fore acquainted with the uselessness and absurdity of the glossolalia without 
 interpretation and to the exclusion of all other (intelligible) discourse, 
 come here into the foreground, 1 and may and will be the first to pass the 
 judgment on patvsade ; in ver. 24, on the contrary, amoroq stands first, 
 because conversion is spoken of, and hence ‘ ‘praecipue agitur de infideli ; 
 idiota obiter additur ob rationem ejus non plane disparem” (Bengel). (2) 
 In ver. 23, since Paul designs to cite the judgment in the form of an utter¬ 
 ance (epovaiv), which is most naturally conceived of by him as a mutual com¬ 
 munication, the plural eice/Wcjcn k.t.X. presented itself with as much appro¬ 
 priateness as the singular eiaeWri k.t./ 1. does in ver. 24, where the apostle 
 -wishes to depict specially the concerting work, vv. 24, 25, in its course, 
 which, from the nature of the case, is done most befittingly in an individu¬ 
 alizing representation. 
 
 Yv. 24, 25. How wholly different, on the other hand, will the effect of 
 general prophetic speaking be upon such persons !. Arrested and humbled 
 before God, they wdll declare themselves believers. —eav <5s navne rcpocp.] is 
 to be completed in accordance with ver. 23 : lav (5e avveWy y ekk. 1. oXy ettl to 
 av^o k. navTEg rtpocf). — lbicj-yg] according to the context : one not prophetically 
 gifted , and, indeed, coming likewise from an extraneous church. Comp, on 
 ver. 23.—Prophecy, from its nature, was generally intelligible; but who¬ 
 ever had not its x G P LG P a could not speak prophetically, and such a one was 
 in presence of this gift an idiotes.—eheyxerai vivo iravr.] The characteristic 
 power of prophecy (ver. 22), by which you all mutually edify yourselves, 
 thus exercises such an overmastering influence upon his mind, that he is 
 convinced by all , i.e. brought to a consciousness of the guilt of his sins. 
 Comp. John xvi. 9. All produce this impression upon him, because each 
 speaks prophetically, and the fundamental character of prophetic address— 
 the penetrating into the depths of the human heart for wholesome admoni¬ 
 tion (comp. ver. 3)—is alike in all. —After the first aggregate impression of 
 the llcy^g, he experiences and is conscious of the moral sifting and unveil- 
 
 1 y) amaroL is omitted in B, because it has crept in from ver. 24. But in that case 
 might appear unsuitable. Buttmann in the dmo-rot. would have been prefixed (so only 
 Stud. u. Krit. 18G0, p. 370, believes that it Arnbrosiaster). 
 
CHAP. XIV., 2G. 
 
 329 
 
 ing of liis innermost life. A striking climax. — avanpivercu] for in the judg¬ 
 ment of the human heart, which the prophets deliver, he hears a judgment 
 upon his own heart and his own moral condition .—ra Kpvirra rrjg naptYiaq 
 zc.r.X.] i.e. the moving springs, inclinations, plans, etc., of his whole inner 
 active life, which had been hitherto known to no other, are brought to 
 light, inasmuch as the prophets depict the hidden thoughts and strivings 
 of the human spirit, with apocalyptically enlightened depth of insight, so 
 truly and strikingly, that the listener sees the secrets of his own heart laid 
 bare before all who are there present. — nal ovru] result : and in such form , 
 namely, convinced, judged, and made manifest, as has been just said. — 
 anayyeTAuv] announcing , i.e. declaring aloud , and not first at home (Beza). — 
 oyrwc] really , opposite of what is merely pretended or semblance. Comp. 
 Mark xi. 32 ; Gal. iii. 21, al. —h vylv] in animis vestris , in which He works 
 this enlightenment and spiritual power. “ Argumentum pro veritate relig- 
 ionis ex operationibus divinis eflacacissimum” (Benge 1). Through this pres¬ 
 ence of God in the individuals (by means of the Spirit) He dwells in the 
 church , which thereby is His temple (iii. 16 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. ii. 20 f.). 
 
 Ver. 26 ff. The theoretical part regarding the charismata is closed (vv. 1- 
 25). There is now added as its sequel the regulative part regarding the 
 proper application of the charismata, and (1) of the charismata in general 
 (ver. 26) ; then, in particular, (2) of the glossolalia (vv. 27, 28); and (3) 
 of the gift of prophecy (vv. 29-33). Upon this follows, as an appendix, (4) 
 the prohibition of public speaking on the part of women (vv. 34-36). And 
 by way of conclusion, (5) the assertion of apostolic authority for the whole 
 teaching now given (vv. 37, 38); and (6) a summary repetition of the chief 
 points (vv. 39, 40). 
 
 Yer. 26. Tt ovv ear tv ;] as in ver. 15. —The apodosis begins with ekclgtos, 
 and Tzavra on to yiveodu is a sentence by itself. As often as you come together , 
 every one (every one gifted with charismatic speech among you) has a psalm 
 ready, i.e . he feels himself qualified and constrained to sing aloud such a 
 spirit-given song. It is not, however, the glossolalia ipaXkuv which is meant, 
 since afterwards ylocaav lx u is specially mentioned in addition, but the in¬ 
 telligible singing of praise, which takes place with the vovg (comp. ver. 15). 
 Comp, generally on Eph. v. 19. Grotius compares the improvised hymns 
 of Deborah, Simeon, etc. — ex £L i s neither interrogative (Grotius) nor : he 
 may have (David Schulz), nor are we to supply in thought with Locke, “ut 
 moram ferre non possit but it simply expresses the state of the case : in 
 promptu habet. Bengel rightly judges of the repetition of the £x eL ’ u elegan- 
 ter exprimit divisam donorum copiamA — dtdaxrjv] a doctrinal address. See 
 on xii. 10, 28. — yl&ooav] a tongue , i.e. a spirit-tongue , which seeks utterance. 
 The matter is so conceived and described as that not every one has the use 
 of a tongue in the sense of the glossolalia, but only the man gifted with this 
 charisma, in whom there is present for this purpose a tongue as the organ 
 of the Spirit. — cnroK.dXviptv ] a revelation , which he wishes to utter by a pro¬ 
 phetic address, comp. ver. 29 f. — ep/ur/veiav ] an interpretation, which he 
 wishes to give of an address in a tongue already delivered. — The words 
 Tpakyov to epy. ex £l are th- e separate divisions of the iicaaTog, as in i. 12. Then 
 
330 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 follows the general rule for all these charismata : all must be done for the 
 furtherance of Christian perfection (of the church) ! Observe how, accord¬ 
 ing to this passage, public teaching was not restricted to one definite 
 office (k 2 ) See Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 350. 
 
 Yer. 27. After this general rule come now particular precepts : suppose 
 that one wishes to speak with a tongue; comp, yhtiocav e%ei, vcr. 26. There is 
 no other e'Lte to correspond to this cite (sire, Vulgate) ; but the plan of sen¬ 
 tence first thought of and begun is so disturbed by the apodosis and ver. 
 28, that it is quite abandoned, and ver. 29, instead of commencing with a 
 new eire, is not even continued in hypothetic form at all. See Maetzner, ad 
 Antiph. p. 194. Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 538. According to Hofmann 
 (who writes eI te separately), te is annexire, namely, to Travra tv. oik. y. In 
 that case d te would be : in like manner if (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 106 f.), 
 which, however, would be logically suitable only on the supposition that 
 yluaoa did not already occur also in ver. 26. — Kara duo k.t.X.] sc. AaAELTucav 
 (comp. 1 Pet. iv. 11), and this is to be taken declaratively (as in xi. 16) : 
 let him know that they should speak by two , or at most by three ; in each assem¬ 
 bly not more than two, or at most three, speakers with tongues should come 
 forward. As to the supplying of laleir. , see Kiihner, II. p. 603 ; Fritzsche 
 ad Pom. III. p. 65.— to ttIelotov] adverbially. See Matthiae, p. 1000.— 
 Ecu ava yipoQ, and that according to order , one after the other, not several 
 together. See Valck. ad Phoen. 481 ; Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 380. Doubt¬ 
 less—and this seems to have given occasion for this addition—the case had 
 often occurred in Corinth, that those who spoke with tongues had so little 
 controlled their impulse that several came to sjteak together. — K di elg dicp/u.] 
 and let one (not several) give the interpretation , of that, namely, which the said 
 two or three speakers with tongues have spoken in succession. Grotius puts 
 it rightly : “ unus aliquis, qui id donum liabet and it is plain from vv. 5, 
 13 (in opposition to Ewald) that the speaker with tongues himself might 
 also be the interpreter. Paul will not allow several interpreters to speak, 
 because that would have been unnecessary, and would only have shortened 
 the time for the more useful prophetic and other addresses. 
 
 Yer. 28. Should it be case, however, that there is no interpreter present, let 
 him be silent in the assembly. This comprises the double possibility that the 
 speaker with tongues cannot himself interpret, and also that no other, who 
 possesses the donum interpretandi, is present. Regarding eIvju as equiva¬ 
 lent to 7r apeivai, comp, on Mark viii. 1 ; Luke ii. 36. David Schulz un¬ 
 derstands y as the simple copula : “if, however, he does not know how to 
 make himself intelligible.” But the interpretation might in fact be given 
 also by another, who had the charisma of the EpyyvEia yXuootiv, xii. 10, 30. 
 — ay. ev ekkX. ] Paul takes for granted here — and how easily one can under¬ 
 stand it, considering the intimate union subsisting among the Christians of 
 those days !—that the members of the community mutually know each other 
 as regards their special endowments. — ecivtu) 6e hah. k. t. 6. ] in contrast to 
 addresses given ev r?) EKKhpoia, and hence a characteristic designation of the 
 private devotion carried on by means of glossolalic prayer, where his glosso- 
 lalia avails for himself and God (ver. 2), not for others also as listeners. 
 
chap, xiv., 29 - 31 . 
 
 OOI 
 
 OO 1 
 
 Comp. Epict. Piss. iv. 8. 17, and the similar passages in Wetstein. Others 
 take it to mean : quietly in his thoughts (Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom, 
 also Chr. F. Fritzsche), so that it remains on the footing of an inward in¬ 
 tercourse between him and his God (Hofmann) ; which, however, is not in 
 keeping with the essential mark of the Aaldv, this being uttered aloud , which 
 belonged to the matter in hand. 1 Observe, further, how, even in this high¬ 
 est degree of inspired impulse to speak, a man could control his own will. 
 Comp. ver. 32. 
 
 Yer. 29. A£] marks the transition to the rule regarding the prophets. —• 
 The ava /uipog (ver. 27) i3 emphasized in a special way, ver. 30 ; yet Paul 
 does not add a to nleioTov here, thereby limiting the gift of prophecy less 
 sharply, and tacitly also conceding a plurality of speakers, when the circum¬ 
 stances might perhaps involve an exception from the rule. Still we are not 
 (with Hofmann) to read <Vvo ?; rpelg as meaning u rather three than two.” — 
 Km ol alloi dianp.] and the other prophets, who do not take part in speaking, 
 are to judge : whether, namely, what has been said proceeds really from the 
 Spirit or not. We see from this that the charisma of judging the spirits 
 was joined with that of prophecy, so that whoever could himself speak pro¬ 
 phetically was qualified also for the dianpiaig ; for ol aKkoi (comp, ahXo, ver. 
 30) cannot be taken (with Hofmann) universally, without restriction to the 
 * category of prophets, seeing that in fact the dianpiaig w T as no universal 
 xapiopa. The article is retrospective, so that it is defined by 'Kpo^jrat. At 
 the same time, however, it must not be overlooked that even such persons 
 as were not themselves prophets might still be endowed with the dianpiaig 
 (xii. 10), although not all were so. 
 
 Yer. 30. But two prophets were never to speak together. The order 
 ought, on the contrary, to be this, that if a revelation shall have been im¬ 
 parted to another prophet (aTJaS) while he sits listening, the first shall be silent 
 (not simply soon cease, as Neander, Maier, and others would take it ; comp., 
 too, Hofmann) and let the second speak. Paul thus does not enjoin that 
 the second shall wait until the first is finished, to which meaning Grotius, 
 Storr, and Flatt twist the words (comp. vv. 28, 34) ; on the contrary, he at¬ 
 taches more importance to the fresh undelayed outburst of prophetic in¬ 
 spiration, than to the further continuance of the address after the first out¬ 
 burst. — nadpp.'] for the prophets spoke standing , Luke iv. 17. See Grotius 
 in loc. 
 
 Yer. 31 f. Establishment of this precept by setting forth the. possibility 
 of its observance. The principal emphasis is laid upon dvvaerde, which is for 
 this reason placed first (not upon tt dvreg, as Riickert holds), for in it lies the 
 pith of the proof. Next to it Tzdvrtq has the emphasis. The sense is : u For 
 in my 6 irpurog ay. 1 am enjoining nothing which is impossible for you ; on the 
 contrary , it stands in your power that , one after another , you may all come to 
 give a prophetic address.' 1 ' 1 etc.— sad’ eva] always one at a time , singulatim. 
 Acts xxi. 19 ; see Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 639 f. ; Bernhardy, p. 240. The 
 
 1 Besides, it was self-evident that, ivhere be in the first instance remitted to quiet 
 silence was enjoined , a man did not need to inward fellowship with God. 
 
332 
 
 Paul’s eiest epistle to the corihthians. 
 
 subject addressed in dbvacde is the prophets in the church, not the members of 
 the church generally (Hofmann), seeing that prophecy was a special x^picya 1 
 which did not belong to all (see xii. 29 ; Acts xiii. 1 ; Eph. iv. 11). The 
 inspiration of the prophets does not compel them to speak on without a 
 break, so as not to allow another to take speech at all or to speak alone, but 
 it is in their power to cease when another begins, so that by degrees all 
 may come to speak—not, of course, in the same assembly (ver. 29), but in 
 successive meetings. — And this circumstance, that izaO’ cva ttclvteq tt po^rjrev- 
 ova , has for its design (iva), that all the members of the church (which in¬ 
 cludes also' other prophets along w T ith the rest) map learn , etc., that none 
 may remain without instruction and encouragement. For modes of pro¬ 
 phetic inspiration, very different from each other in substance and form, 
 will then find expression, whereby satisfaction will be given to the most 
 different wants. — yavdavuai] what God has revealed to those speaking pro¬ 
 phetically.—■ napanTi .] be encouraged , aroused. Comp. TrapanTipcLv, ver. 3. 
 Paul describes here the effects of prophecy from the theoretical (pavd .) and 
 practical (rrapaKaX.) sides. The latter he had already stated more specially in 
 ver. 3. 
 
 Yer. 32. The second part of the establishment of the precept (yap, ver. 31). 
 And prophets' 1 spirits are obedient to prophets. The indicative presents the 
 normal relationship as it is , not as it ought to be (Olshausen and others). 
 — TTVEvpara 7rpo(f>.] cannot be workings of the Divine Spirit in the prophets 
 (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Estius, and others, including Flatt, comp, de 
 Wette), nor does it mean the spirits which the prophets hare received , so that 
 the one Tzvevya appears as if divided among them (Rtickert), or created an¬ 
 gelic spirits in the service of the Holy Spirit (Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. p. 307), 
 or even actually several Holy Spirits (Hilgenfeld ; see, however, on ver. 
 12) ; but (comp, the genitival relation, ver. 14) it is the prophets' 1 own spirits , 
 filed , however, by the Iloly Spirit. Persons prophetically inspired are, as 
 such, raised to a higher spiritual potency, and have prophets' 1 spirits. Comp. 
 Rev. xxii. 6, and Diisterdieck in loc. But their free-will is not thereby 
 taken away, nor does the prophetic address become something involuntary, 
 like a Bacchantic enthusiasm ; no, prophets’ spirits stand in obedience to 
 prophets ; he who is a prophet has the power of will over his spirit, which 
 makes the 6 wpcoToc; cuydro in ver. 30 2 possible ; ekl to~lq TTpofjraL^ earl to ar/av 
 i) XaHsiv, Theophylact. Comp. Hofmann in loc., and Scliriftbew. I. p. 312. 
 Others, again (Theophylact gives both interpretations alongside of each 
 other), refer tv pof/raig to other prophets : to ev col xdptcpa . . . viroTaccETac t<o 
 XapicpaTL tov ETEpov tov KLvrjdEVTOQ el f to 7rpo(p?jTEVELV , Theophylact. So Theo¬ 
 dore!, Calvin, Calovius, Estius, Rosenmiiller, and others, including Hey- 
 
 1 It is not correct to say, “ on the con¬ 
 trary, whoever receives a revelation becomes a 
 prophet” (Hofmann); for the prophetic en¬ 
 dowment is habitual , belonging to one and 
 not to another. Whoever has it receives 
 revelations to be communicated for the 
 edification of others; he is the vessel 
 divinely prepared for this reception and 
 
 communication. 
 
 2 Comp. Luther in the gloss: ‘ They 
 should and may well give place, since the 
 gifts of the Spirit stand under their control, 
 not to use them in opposition to unity, so 
 that they may not say that the Spirit drives 
 and compels them.” 
 
chap. xiy., 33, 34. 
 
 333 
 
 denreich, Bleek, Riickert, and Ritschl, altkatli. K. p. 473. But if Paul 
 had conceived of the prophet’s becoming silent as conditioned by the will 
 of another, and so objectively ,—which the expression, taken simply in itself, 
 might imply,—then plainly his admonition 6 vrpkrog ciyaru would be entirely 
 superfluous. He must, on the contrary, have conceived of it as conditioned 
 subjectively by the will of the subjects themselves who spoke ; and with this 
 our view alone accords, which is found in as early expositors as Origen, 
 Jerome, and Oecumenius. —The absence of the article in the case of all the 
 three words depends upon the fact that the relation is conceived not in con- 
 creto , but generically. — Observe, further, the strict, measured form of ex¬ 
 pression, 7 Tvevnara tt potyrjrkv Tcpo^jraig, which is designed not simply for rhe¬ 
 torical emphasis, but for definiteness and clearness of meaning, separating 
 the prophets’ spirits from the subjects who have them. A vroig would not 
 have marked this so strongly. 
 
 Yer. 33. Establishment of ver. 32 on religious grounds. “For how 
 could God have appointed it otherwise, seeing that by Him is produced not 
 confusion (as would be the case if every prophet had to speak on involun¬ 
 tarily), but peace!''' 1 Comp. Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20 ; Phil. iv. 9 ; 1 Thess. v. 
 23. The antithesis is correct, for the anaTaoTaota would bring wuth it a 
 jealous and unyielding disposition. 
 
 Yer. 34. Appendix to the regulative section regarding the gifts of the 
 Spirit (vv. 26-33) : directed against the public speaking of women. Corin¬ 
 thian women, with their freer mood inclined towards emancipation (comp, 
 xi. 2 ff.), must have presumed on this. —kg h ko.o. t. ekkI. t. ay.] is referred 
 by the Fathers and most of the older expositors, Ruckert, Osiander, Nean- 
 der, Maier, to what precedes (comp. iv. 17, vii. 17, xi. 16). But since the 
 preceding ov yap . . . elppvpg is quite general, and hence contains no special 
 point of reference for kg (for which reason this kg has been got rid of in 
 various ways, and even dthacncu has been added in some codd. and versions); 
 since, on the other hand, the passage wfliich follows offers this point of ref¬ 
 erence in the fact of its being a command for the Corinthians ; and since 
 ver. 36 manifestly glances back at the argument implied in h -k. t. ekk/ l. r. 
 ay., —therefore it is preferable to connect the clause with what follows, as is 
 done by Cajetanus and most modern expositors : As in all church assemblies 
 of the saints, your women ought to be silent in the church assemblies, (l 2 ) 
 
 To place a comma, with Lachmann, before rkv ay'nov, puts an incongruous 
 emphasis upon rkv ay. — Regarding the matter itself (1 Tim. ii. 11), comp, 
 the parallels from Greek, Roman, and Rabbinical writers in Wetstein in loc.; 
 Yitringa, Synag. p. 724 ; Schoettgen, Horae , p. 658. —ov -yap eTriTphrerai] 
 for it is (permanently) not allowed.. To take ETT/rpeTreadai as mandari (Reiche) 
 would be linguistically correct in itself, but against the usage of the whole 
 H.T. (comp. xvi. 7 ; 1 Tim. ii. 12). — aXti vTroTaooscOai] namely, is incum¬ 
 bent upon them , in accordance with a current Greek brevity of expression. 
 Comp. 1 Tim. iv. 3 ; see Klihner, II. p. 604 f. ; Dissen, ad Demosth. de Cor. 
 p. 222 f. The vtt oTaccecOat, excludes, in Paul’s view, the speaking in the 
 assemblies, inasmuch as the latter appears to him as an act of uncomplying 
 independence. —6 vdyog] Gen. iii. 16. 
 
334 
 
 PAUL'S PIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Ver. 35. Even questions for their instruction should not be brought for¬ 
 ward by the women in the assemblies. — kv okw] has the emphasis. At 
 home , not in the assembly, they arc to obtain for themselves by inquiry the 
 desired instruction, and that from those to whom they, as women, are 
 naturally referred, from their own husbands. 
 
 Ver. 36. rj joins on to what is immediately before prescribed, not to the 
 previous directions in general (de Wette, Osiander, et al.). “It is dis¬ 
 graceful for a woman to speak in public, unless, perhaps, you were the first 
 or the only Christian church, in which cases then, doubtless, your custom 
 would show that disgracefulness to be a mistake, and would authorize as 
 becoming the speaking of women by way of an example for other churches !” 
 pi) tolvvv rotg olnelotg apnelcQe, aTAa ralg tuv eniiXrjaLCiv vopoOecLaig aKOAovdeire , 
 Theodoret ; but the point of the expression, as against the Corinthian 
 haughtiness, is very palpable. — aloxpbv] hreidij k a ?. X o tt i £ e c 6 a i evrevdev 
 evoppov in rov (pQeyyecOac dr/poala, zrdXiv elg to evavrtov Trepidyet rov loyov , Chrys¬ 
 ostom. Comp. xi. 5 f. Paul is decided against all undue exaltation and 
 assumption on the part of women in religious things, and it has been the 
 occasion of much evil in the church. 
 
 Ver. 37. He now, after the digression regarding the women, adds the 
 authority of Christ to the section upon the charismata, which has been already 
 previously brought to a conclusion, but to which he looks back once more. 
 
 — Jo/ceZ] If any one represents himself (iii. 18, viii. 2, x. 12) to be a prophet, 
 or spiritually gifted in any way, then let him also prove himself to be such 
 by his recognizing, etc. Not to acknowledge this would show him to be 
 not a prophet or not inspired. — tt vevpariKog] quite general : “ dotibus Sp. St. 
 instructus not, as Billroth, David Schulz, Baur, and Wieseler would have 
 it, equivalent to yh. XaXdnt (comp, on xii. 1, xiv. 1). *H is : or generally. 
 Hofmann is wrong in saying that the i) is not suited for thus linking on a 
 general statement. Why not ? Comp. iv. 3 ; Luke xii. 11 ; Matt. xvi. 14. 
 There is all the less reason for assuming, with Hofmann, that Paul uses the 
 expression in the vaguer sense of one going even beyond the prophet , because 
 he had found it so used in the letter from Corinth. —a ypd<pu vp.~\ refers to 
 the whole section regarding the nvevpariKolg. To refer it, as Billroth and Ols- 
 hausen do, to the command that the women should keep silence, does not 
 harmonize with the introduction el rig . . . TzvevpartKog , and involves the 
 awkwardness of only this intervening matter being thus confirmed with 
 such solemnity, and the principal and far more important section not at all. 
 
 — Kvpiov early (see the critical remarks) : proceed from the Lord. In his com¬ 
 munion of spirit with Christ , Paul was conscious that what he had been 
 writing, from chap. x. onwards, regarding spiritual gifts and the right use 
 of them, was the result not of his own meditation and desire, but of the 
 working of Christ upon him—that he wrote as an interpres Christi. There 
 is thus no reason for making nvplov refer to God (Grotius, Billroth, Olshau- 
 sen), seeing that Christ had in fact given no rules regarding the charismata. 
 Paul is affixing here the seal of apostolic authority, and upon that seal we 
 must read Christ. 
 
 Ver. 38. ’A yvoei] namely, a ypacpio v/ulv, ore k.t.X., ver. 37. His not being 
 
NOTES. 
 
 335 
 
 willing to know, or the attitude of wrongly Tcnowing (Hofmann), is not con¬ 
 veyed in the word, but is presupposed. — ayvoetru] permissive , denotes the 
 renunciation of all endeavours to instruct such an one who lets himself be 
 puffed up. It is the opposite of the emyivucKeiv, ver. 37. Estius puts it 
 well : “ Sibi suacque ignorantiae relinquendos esse censeo.” Comp. xi. 1G. 
 
 (M 2 ) 
 
 Yv. 39, 40. Gathering up (fare, u Hague, summa,” Bengel) the main 
 points of the whole discussion, and that (1) of its theoretical (ver. 39), and 
 (2) of its regulative part (ver. 40). —Paul has aptly indicated the value of 
 the glossolalia relatively to the prophetical gift by ^r/Xovre (comp. ver. 12, 
 xii. 31) and yy kuavete, without there being any ground, however, for in¬ 
 ferring from this an attitude of hostility on the side of the Pauline party 
 towards those who spoke with tongues (Baur, Rabiger, comp, at an earlier 
 date Storr). — svaxvy^vug] in a seemly way (Rom. xiii. 13 ; 1 Thess. iv. 12), 
 denoting ecclesiastical decorum. — Kara ra^Lv] in accordance with order (see 
 Wetstein), so that it is done at the right time, and in the right measure and 
 limits, (n 2 ) Comp. Clem, ad Cor. I. 40, also what Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 
 8. 5, says of the Essenes : ovre Kpavyrj ttote tov oIkov , ovre Oopvfiog yoXvvei, rag 
 6e TiaXiag hv tol^el tt apax^povav aXkrfkoLg. 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (g 2 ) The tongues were edifying. Yer. 5. 
 
 It shows also that the contents of the discourses delivered in an unknown 
 tongue were edifying. They did not consist of ecstatic but unintelligible and 
 unintelligent outpourings of the heart before God, for if that were the case in¬ 
 terpretation would be manifestly impossible. 
 
 (h 2 ) How shall he . . . say the Amen ? Ver. 16. 
 
 The practice of giving the audible response was borrowed from the synagogue, 
 in which all the worshippers were expected to utter the Amen with such hearti¬ 
 ness as to show that they entered fully into what was said. Principal Brown 
 says justly that those churches have not done well who have dropped out the 
 audible response, the uttered Amen, of the congregation, by which alone they 
 have it in their power to express their cordial sympathy with what is uttered in 
 prayer by the officiating minister. 
 
 (i 2 ) The unknown is unedifying. Ver. 17. 
 
 Many commentators take occasion from this passage to reprove the custom 
 in the Roman Church of using the Latin language in her public services. For 
 the very thing here prohibited is praying in public in a language which the 
 people do not understand. “ It is indeed said that words may touch the feel¬ 
 ings which do not convey any distinct notions to the mind. But we cannot say 
 Amen to those words any more than we can to a flute. Such blind emotional 
 worship, if such it can be called, stands at a great remove from the intelligent 
 service demanded by the apostle” (Hodge). 
 
336 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corlnthiahs. 
 
 (j 2 ) “In the law it is written .” Yer. 21. 
 
 It may well be doubted whether it is wise to insist upon interpreting this 
 quotation typically. It is better, with Stanley, Hodge, and Beet, to take it as a 
 simple reference to an event in Jewish history from which a useful lesson could 
 be drawn. As the Jews had refused to hear the prophets speaking in their own 
 language, God threatened to bring upon them a people whose language they 
 could not understand. This was a judgment, a mark of displeasure, designed 
 as a punishment and not for their conversion. Hence the Apostle wishes the 
 Corinthians to learn that it was no token of God’s favour to have teachers whose 
 language they could not understand. Their childish zeal for tongues was sim¬ 
 ply turning a blessing into a curse. 
 
 (k 2 ) Public teaching not restricted to one definite office. Yer. 26. 
 
 This is true, yet the circumstances are to be considered. While the extraor¬ 
 dinary gifts of tongues, prophecy, and the like continued, any member present 
 who experienced the working of the Spirit in these manifestations was author¬ 
 ized to exercise his gift. And all that Paul does is to lay down the general rule 
 that everything should be done unto edifying. But manifestly, after the gifts 
 ceased, no one would have the right, simply under the impulse of his own mind, 
 to rise in the church and take part in its services. 
 
 (l 2 ) “ As in all the churches ,” etc. Yer. 34. 
 
 Alford, Principal Brown, Westcott and Hort insist upon the old patristic 
 usage of connecting this clause with what precedes, but not wisely. So under¬ 
 stood, the words have no pertinent sense, for the Apostle would hardly undertake 
 to uphold a conceded and undeniable truth by an appeal to the authorit}' or 
 experience of the church. On the other hand, to make such an appeal in favour 
 of what he says in the 34th verse is both pertinent in itself and consonant with 
 the Apostle’s own practice, as stated inxi. 16, “we have no such custom,” etc. 
 The Bevision of 1881 follows the old practice. 
 
 (m 2 ) “ Let him be ignorant.” Yer. 38. 
 
 The Prevised Version gives in the margin, “ he is not known,” according to a 
 reading found in several uncials and read apparently by Origen. But as the 
 documentary evidence is fairly divided, and the indicative reading would be 
 very hard to expound, it is better to adhere to the received text, the sense of 
 which is a contemptuous expression of indifference to the opinion of opposers 
 or an affirmation that to argue further with such persons would be a waste of 
 time. 
 
 (n 2 ) “ Decently and in order.” Yer. 40. 
 
 Decently, i.e. becomingly, in such a way as not to offend against propriety. 
 Dean Stanley says that this direction, and that given in ver. 26, “ Let all things 
 be done unto edifying,” are the only rubrics of the primitive church. And 
 they are of universal and perpetual authority. 
 
CHAP. XV. 
 
 337 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Ver. 10. 7) gvv e/uoi ] Lachm. has merely gvv kpoi, following B D* F G X* 
 Vulg. It. Or. Ambrosiast. Aug. Bightly ; the article was inserted, doubtless, 
 in some cases in a mere mechanical way after rj eig e/ue, but in others purposely, 
 in order to have a thoroughly complete contrast to ova eyd, at the suggestion of 
 dogmatic interest, which also produced the weakly attested reading rj ev kpoi. 
 The rj is wanting also before elg kps in D* F G, Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers. 
 But here there was nothing in the context to occasion the insertion, and the 
 article could be dispensed with, and was thus overlooked. — Ver. 14. kevt) /ca/] 
 Elz., Scholz, Tisch. read kevt) tie mi, against greatly preponderating testimony. 
 — Ver. 19. ev XpiGTpi] stands before ijAiuKoreg in A B D* E F G X, min. Vulg. 
 It. Goth, and several Fathers. So Lachm. Buck. Tisch. and rightly, for this 
 position is not easier than that of the Recepia, and hence the great preponder¬ 
 ance of the evidence is all the more decisive. — Ver. 20. After KEKotp. Elz. has 
 EyEvero, against decisive evidence; a supplementary addition. — Ver. 21. 6 
 Savarog ] The article is wanting in A B D* K K, Or. Dial. c. Marc. Cyr. Dam. al. 
 Bightly deleted by Lachm. and Buck. From Bom. v. 12. —Ver. 24. Instead of 
 the Recepta rvapadip, which Beiche defends, B F G have napndidoi, and A D E X, 
 min.' Fathers izapudidip ; the former preferred by Lachm. and Tisch., the latter 
 by Buck. IIapachd<L, or the ncipaSidol, which is likewise to be taken as a sub¬ 
 junctive form (there is no means of deciding between the two), is correct (see 
 the exegetical remarks) ; orav KaTapyrjGp, however, made the aorist come very 
 naturally to the transcribers, who did not apprehend the different relations 
 of the two clauses. — Ver. 25. — dv before drj (in Elz. and Scholz) is omitted in 
 preponderant authorities, and has come in from the LXX. Ps. cx. 1. —Ver. 29. 
 avTuv] Elz. reads tuv vsKptiv, against decisive evidence ; a correct gloss. —Ver. 
 31. vpETEpav ] A, min. Or. have r/pETepav. So Buck. But the former not being 
 understood, the latter appeared to be required by r/v ex «. — After navxrjoiv 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have dihhipo'i, on the testimony of A B K K, min. vss. and 
 Latin Fathers. Bightly ; it is in keeping with the impassioned address, but 
 was easily overlooked by the transcribers, since no new section of the address 
 begins here (comp, on xi. 2). — Ver. 36. dippov] Lachm. Buck. Tisch. read 
 dijtpuv, following A B D E G X, min. The former is a correction. — Ver. 39. 
 Before dvQpunuv Elz. has <rdp| again, which is deleted by Griesb. and the later 
 editors, in accordance with decisive evidence. — tjSdcjv, uaXt] dt 7 TTr/viov] A pre¬ 
 ponderance of authoritj 7 —and this alone can decide here—has it in the inverse 
 order TTTrjvijv . . . ixBvuv. So Buck., also Lachm. and Tisch., who, however, 
 read crdp| again before TZTrjv., which has, it is true, important attestation, but 
 is a mechanical addition. Paul repeated oap% in connection with the^rs^ kind 
 of animals only, and so arranged his enumeration. —Ver. 44. egtl aupa /c.r./l.] 
 el egtlv oupa ip., egtlv /cal TzvevpaT. occurs in A B C D* F G X, min., and several 
 vss. and Fathers. Becommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Buck. Tisch. 
 And how easily the form of the preceding clauses might occasion the passing 
 
338 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 over of the el, which, besides, was so exposed to omission from the way in 
 which the following word begins (EiEcmv).—Yer. 47. After 6 (hvrepog civQp. 
 Elz. and Scholz have 6 nipiog, in opposition to B C D* E F G K* 17, 67** and 
 several vss. and Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Riick. 
 Tisch. A gloss. See Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 294 if.—Yer. 49. $opeooyev ] 
 Lachm. reads (poptouuev, following ACDEFGKL X, and many min. Copt. 
 Slav. Vulg. It. Goth. Theodot. Or. (ed. de la Rue) Method. Bas. Chrys. Cyr. 
 Macar. Epiph. Damasc. Ir. Tert. Cypr. Hilar. Zeno, Ambrosiast. Jer. Pel. al. 
 A great preponderance of testimony ! Nevertheless, the very ancient Becepta 
 still retains the important attestation of B and many min. Syr. utr. Arr. Aeth. 
 Arm. Or. ed. Theodoret; Oec. and Theophyl. give and explain both readings. 
 The Becepta is to be retained, because it is necessary in the connection (see the 
 exegetical remarks) ; the subjunctive is unsuitable, but was easily brought into 
 the text from the fact that oap$ k. alya in ver. 50 was taken in the ethical sense 
 (see especially Chrys.) ; as in the physical sense, indeed, it would have stood 
 in opposition to the doctrine of the “ resurrectio carnis. ,} fynpeooyev was first 
 of all interpreted as hortative (which interpretation Theodoret felt it necessary 
 expressly to reject), and then the hortative form of the verb was inserted in the 
 text. — Yer. 50. nhypovoyei] Lachm. reads Khypovoyyoei, following C* D* F G, 
 Yulg. It. and Latin Fathers. Occasioned by the similarity of sound of the 
 preceding Klypovoyijaai. — Yer. 51. 1 zzavreg yev . . . d/iAay.] Lachm. reads rzavreg 
 KoiyyO,, ov zzavreg tie a/i hay. Altogether there are many variations, but all of 
 them arose from the offence which was taken, in connection with the reading of 
 the text, at the idea of Paul and his readers having all of them undergone death. 
 The Becepta occurs in B (which merely omits yev) D** EKL almost all min. 
 codd. in Jer. al. Goth. Syr. utr. Copt. Aeth. Arr. and many Fathers, an attesta¬ 
 tion which, considering how the readings otherwise vary, is a very strong one, 
 although among the uncials CG X support Lachm. —Ver. 54. Both the omis¬ 
 sion of the first part of the protasis (in K* also) and the transposition of the 
 two clauses are insufficiently attested, and are to be explained from the homo- 
 eoteleuta. —Ver. 55. viaog is put first and icevTpov last by B C J X, 17, 64, 71, 
 Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ms. Vulg. and several Fathers. So Lachm. Ruck. 
 But they are evidently transposed, after the LXX. in Hos. xiii. 14. — Instead of 
 a<]n. B C D E F G J X* 39, 67** and several vss. and Fathers have Bavare again. 
 So Lachm. Ruck. Tisch.; and rightly, for afiy has come in from the LXX. 
 
 Contents . 2 —Disquisition on the resurrection of the dead , occasioned by 
 the deniers of it in Corinth (ver. 12). That these deniers had been forfnerly 
 Sadducees , and had brought forward again their Sadducean views in connec¬ 
 tion with Christianity (so recently Flatt, following Heumann, Michaelis. 
 Storr, Knapp ; and comp, earlier, Calvin, and Lightfoot, Ckron. p. 110) is 
 not to be assumed, partly because, in general, Sadduceeism and Christianity 
 
 1 See on the passage Reiche, Comment, 
 crit. I. p. 297 ff., who defends the Recepta 
 with thoroughness and triumphant success. 
 Tischendorf also has retained it, deleting 
 only the ju.ev (which is certainly open to the 
 suspicion of being an addition). 
 
 2 See regarding the whole chapter, W. A. 
 van Hengel. Common tar. perpet. in 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 cum epistola ad Winerum, Sylvae ducis, 
 1851; Krauss, theol. Kommenlar z. 1 Kor. 
 XV., Frauenfeld 1864 (who stands, however, 
 in express antagonism to grammatico-his- 
 torical exegesis). Comp, also Klopper, zur 
 paulin. Lehre v. d. Avfersteh. in the Jahrb.f. 
 D. Theol. 1862, p. 1 ff. 
 
CHAP. XV. 
 
 339 
 
 are too much antagonistic in their nature to mingle with each other, and 
 also because in that case Paul could not have based his refutation upon the 
 resurrection of Christ (Acts iv. 2). Nor is it more probable that the oppo¬ 
 nents had been Epicureans, for it is plain from vv. 32-34 that the Epicurean 
 turn which they had taken was not the ground, but the consequence of their 
 denial of the resurrection ; as, indeed, Epicureanism in general is such an 
 antichristian element that, supposing it had been the source of the denial, 
 Paul would certainly have entered upon a discussion of its principles, in so 
 far as they were opposed to faith in the resurrection. It is certain at the 
 same time that the deniers were not Jewish Christians; for with them the 
 belief in the Messiah stood in the most necessary connection with the belief 
 in the resurrection ; comp. Acts xxiii. 6. On the contrary, it must have 
 been Gentile Christians (Baur, de Wette, van Hengel, Ewald, and many 
 others) to whom the resurrection seemed impossible, and who therefore (vv. 
 35, 3G) denied it. And it is probable, at all events, that they were persons 
 of philosophical training (Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, including 
 Ziegler, theol. Abh. II. p. 35 f., Neander, Olshausen, Osiander ; Ruckert is 
 undecided), because they must in asserting their thesis, otl avacraaQ veicptiv 
 ovk ecmv, have caused some sensation, which, in such a place as Corinth, is 
 hardly conceivable on the part of men strangers to any degree of philosophi¬ 
 cal education and practice in dialectics ; and because the anti-materialistic 
 explanation of the matter, which Paul gives to combat the doubts of his 
 opponents (ver. 35 ff.), makes it probable that the antagonism on the part 
 of the sceptics was a spiritualistic one, i.e. an antagonism resting on the 
 philosophic ground that the restoration of the matter of the body w r as impos¬ 
 sible. That the apostle does not contend at the same time against the world's 
 wisdom in general (a doubt expressed by de Wette) is the less strange, as he 
 has to do now with a special subject, and had also already delivered a general 
 polemic of this nature, chap. ii. 3. The small number, however, of men philo¬ 
 sophically trained (i. 2G) permits of no further inference than that the sceptics 
 in question also were not numerous (tiveq, ver. 12). In Athens, too (Acts xvii. 
 32), the resurrection of the dead was the stone of stumbling for philosophic 
 culture ; and how often has it been so since, and even to the present day ! 
 —But to which of the four parties in Corinth did these deniers belong f That 
 they were not of the Petrine or Judaistic party is self-evident. Neither 
 were they of the Christ-party (as Neander, Olshausen, Jager, and Goldhorn 
 hold them to have been), for Christ had so often and so distinctly taught 
 the doctrine of resurrection of the body, that the denial of it would have 
 been at the most palpable variance with the eyib Xpicrov elpi. Nor yet were 
 they of the party of Paul, seeing that the doctrine of the resurrection was a 
 most essential article of the Pauline Gospel. There remains, therefore, only 
 the party of Apollos (so also Riibiger and Maier), some of whom having been 
 converted, doubtless, only after the apostle had ceased to labour in Corinth, 
 or having come thither subsequently from other quarters, may have found 
 what he had taught in Corinth regarding the resurrection of the dead not 
 compatible with their philosophical standpoint, and hence—being the more 
 incited to it, perhaps, through party variance—altogether denied that there 
 
340 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corihthiahs. 
 
 was a resurrection of the dead. 1 Only we roust not take this to mean that 
 the adherents of Apollos as such —their party as such—had denied the resur¬ 
 rection, and that accordingly this denial formed part of their party princi¬ 
 ples* but only that the “some” (ver. 12) were preponderantly from the 
 number of those who had attached themselves to Apollos and to the party 
 named after him. Of the idea that the denial was a party matter , there is 
 not only no trace whatever in the treatment of the subject, but it would also 
 conflict with what is a necessary presupposition, namely, that the Christian¬ 
 ity of the Apollos-party as such cannot have stood in such an essential and 
 real contradiction in point of doctrine to that of Paul. We may add that the 
 denial in question is not to be regarded as a theory, such as we find in 2 Tim. 
 ii. 17 f., in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who understood the doc¬ 
 trine allegorically, and maintained that the resurrection had already taken 
 place. So, following Chrysostom, Grotius, Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 3G2, Billroth, 
 and Olshausen. The whole elaborate treatment of the subject does not show 
 the slightest trace of this (see, on the contrary, especially ver. 12), although 
 the main aim in that case would have been to prove that the resurrection 
 was not a thing past, but something future. 
 
 Vv. 1-11. Foundation for the following argument. The latter enlarges 
 upon the resurrection itself as far as ver. 34, and then upon the manner of it 
 from ver. 35 to ver. 54, after which triumph and exhortation, vv. 55-58, 
 form the conclusion. — The certainty of the resurrection of Jesus was not 
 doubted even by his opponents, who must otherwise have given up the 
 whole historic basis of Christianity, and must have been treated by the 
 apostle as apostates (comp. Ziegler, theol. Abh. II. p. 93 ; Knapp, Scr. var. 
 arg. p. 316 ; Rabiger, p. 154 f.); for only in this way was that fact capable of 
 serving him for a firm starting-point for his argument with the view of reduc¬ 
 ing the deniers ad absurdum. For this reason he sets forth the resurrection 
 of Jesus in its certainty not polemically, but as a purely positive proposition. 
 
 Yv. 1 , 2. Ae] forming the transition to a new subject. There is no trace, 
 however, of a question on the part of the Corinthians, to which Paul is giving 
 the answer. — yvup'fcj] not, as is commonly held, equivalent to mrofuyvTjOKo 
 (Oecumenius), nor yet, as Riickert weakens the force of the word : I call your 
 attention to; but : I malce known to you (xii. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 1; Gal. i. 2 ; 
 Eph. i. 9 ; Col. iv. 7, al.). It is, no doubt, in substance a reminding them 
 
 1 That they denied also the continued life 
 of the spirit after death, which Calvin ex¬ 
 pressly leaves undecided, cannot be main¬ 
 tained, with Flatt and others, from pas¬ 
 sages such as vv. 19, 29, 30-32, 58. On the 
 contrary, these passages show merely this, 
 that Paul attached no value to the con¬ 
 tinued life of the souls in Hades, regarded 
 in itself, and not ended by the resurrection. 
 It was to him a vita non ritalis (comp. Kling 
 in the Stvd. u. Krit. 1839, p. 502), and the 
 true everlasting was conditioned for 
 him by the nearParousia and resurrection. 
 This, at the same time, serves to correct 
 
 what is asserted by Riickert and others, 
 that in Paul’s mind, as in that of the Jews 
 and Pharisees, the ideas of continued exist¬ 
 ence and of resurrection were so blended 
 into each other, that whoever denied the 
 one seemed not to be capable of holding 
 fast the other. According to Phil. i. 21, 23 
 (comp, also 2 Cor. v. 8; Acts vii. 59), Paul 
 has the conviction that if he should die as 
 a martyr, he would pass, not into Hades, 
 but to Christ in heaven, into a blessed inter¬ 
 mediate state until the resurrection of the 
 body. See on Phil. l.c. 
 
 2 Comp, also Krauss, p. 12. 
 
CHAP. XV., 1 , 2 . 
 
 341 
 
 I 
 
 of something already known, but the expression is more emphatic, more 
 arousing, putting to shame a part of the readers, and accordant with the 
 fundamental importance of what is now to be discussed. — to evayy.~\ is not 
 simply the tidings of the death and resurrection of Jesus (Heydenreich, 
 Ruckert, and others), but the Christian tidings of salvation generally , because 
 there is here no limiting definition, and as is further in particular clear from 
 iv TrpuToiQ in ver. 3. —o nai tt apel. k.t.X.] which you have also received. The 
 thrice used /cat denotes with ever increasing emphasis the element to be 
 added 1 to the preceding one. —Regarding KapCi., comp. John i. 11 ; Phil, 
 iv. 9 ; and regarding egttjk,., you stand , are firm , x. 12 ; Rom. v. 2 ; 2 Cor. 
 i. 24 ; Eph. vi. 13 ; 1 Pet. v. 12 ; John viii. 44. — gu^egOe'] pictures as 
 present the future, quite certain Messianic salvation. Comp, on i. 18. —tlvi 
 T idyc) . . . kcitexcte ] condition to gcj^egOe, in which tlvi \oy(p evrjyy. vil. is put 
 first for the sake of emphasis. Comp. vi. 4, xi. 14, xiv. 7, 9. Comp, also 
 Plato, Pol. i. p. 347 D : n oTuq avdptiv ayaOtiv el yevoiro , Parm. p. 136 A ; 
 Baruch iii. 13, as indeed in general it is common in the classics (Stallbaum, 
 ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 238 A) and in the 1ST. T. (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 334 
 [E. T. 390]) for such words as ought to follow the conjunctions to precede 
 them for the sake of emphasis. Hence : through which (by means of faith 
 in its contents) you also obtain salvation , if you hold fast with what word I 
 preached it to you. Not without design does he add this condition to the 
 cufode ; for his readers were threatened with the danger of being led by 
 the deniers of the resurrection to become untrue to the specific contents of 
 his preaching. Others (including Bengel, Heydenreich, Billroth, van Hen- 
 gel, Ewald) regard tlvi Tioyo evrjyy. vp. as a more precise definition of to evayy. 
 6 evrjyy. vp. in accordance with the common form of attraction oldci ge tlq el 
 (Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781]). (o ) Against this, however, it may be urged : 
 (1) that the meaning : “ I make known to you . . . if you still hold it fast ,” 
 contains in the latter half (which is not to be transmuted, with van Hengel, 
 into the sense : “si curae nobis cordique est quod nunc dico ”) a condition 
 which stands in no logical relation to the first half ; (2) that el kcltexete would 
 be at variance with tv w adi egttjkcite ; (3) that we should then have to as¬ 
 sume for ektoq el prj elk fj ekigt. the inadmissible (see below) reference to 
 kcltexete. All these difficulties fall away with the above interpretation, ac¬ 
 cording to which 7rapeAa/3ere expresses the historical act of reception ; egttj- 
 kclte, the present faithfulness ; gu^egOe, the certain blessed future ; and el 
 /carejere, the abiding condition of the attainment of this end ; while enTog 
 el prj elktj ettlgt. in turn denotes the exaltation above every doubt in respect 
 of the Messianic salvation really to be attained under this condition. — tlvi 
 Aoyw] not as in Acts x. 29, with what ground (Wetstein, Kypke, Heyden¬ 
 reich, and others, following Theodoras of Mopsuestia and Pelagius), which 
 Osiander views as scriptural ground ; for rrapeduKa yap vp. k.t.1., ver. 3, gives, 
 in fact, not a ground, but the contents of the preaching. Hence also it does 
 not refer to the u manner and method of the proclamation” (Neander), but 
 
 1 Calovius says rightly: “ Sequuntnrhaec severanti conservatio, perque illud fide sus- 
 se invicem : evangelii annuntiatio, annun- ceptum et conservatum aeterna salvalio." 
 tiati per fidem susceptio , suscepti in fide per- 
 
342 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 means : through what word, i.e. 'preaching what. As regards -hi, instead of 
 a relative, see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 216 [E. T. 251]. How different 
 from the seductive discourses of the deniers had this Aoyoc of the apostle 
 been ! According to Hofmann, rhi Adyip is meant to be interrogative, and 
 that in the sense of “ with what presupposition ,” while el Karexere and el pr) 
 end) ettict. are the answer to it. Against this it may be urged : (1) that, 
 since el fq eIk. ettict. would be a second condition, Paul would have marked 
 the connection in an intelligible way by mi (putting therefore either eal ei 
 or teal by itself, but not simply ei) ; (2) that 16yog, in the sense of condition 
 or presupposition, is foreign to the N. T. and peculiar to Herodotus, who, 
 however, always expresses sub conditione by etti tG> Adyip ; see Schweighauser, 
 Lex. Herod. II. p. 79 f. —el kcltexete ] This implies not merely the not hav¬ 
 ing forgotten ; it is the believing firm retention, which does not let go the 
 doctrine received—the continuance of the ecTrpiaTE. Comp. Luke viii. 15 ; 
 1 Cor. xi. 2. And there is not so much an u aculeus ad pungendum' 1 ’ 1 (Calvin) 
 in this as an admonition of the danger. —kuTog el prj el ktj ettict.'] through 
 which you are also saved, if you hold fast my word, —unless that ye have 
 become believing in vain, without any result. Only in this case, inconceiva¬ 
 ble to the Christian consciousness (Beza aptly says : ‘ ‘ argumentatur ab 
 absurdo”), would ye, in spite of that holding fast, lose the curqpia. The 
 words therefore imply the certainty of the cuCecOcu to be expected under the 
 condition of the kcltexeiv. On eIkt}, comp. Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11 ; and regarding 
 i-KTog el, pq, except if, see on xiv. 5 ; on ettict., comp. iii. 5 ; Rom. xiii. 11. 
 To refer ehq to kctexete (Oecumenius, Theophylact, Theodoret, Luther, 
 Calvin, Estius, and others, including Billroth and de Wette) is impractica¬ 
 ble for this reason, that el kotexete itself is a conditional clause, while to 
 supply such an idea as kotexete de Travrug (Theophylact) would be quite an 
 arbitrary course. 
 
 Yer. 3 f. More precise explanation of the rhi 16yip evqyy. vp. el kcltexete, 
 by adducing those main points of that Xoyog, which are of decisive impor¬ 
 tance for the further discussion which Paul now has in view. Hofmann’s 
 interpretation of it as specifying the ground of the alleged condition and 
 reservation in ver. 2, falls with his incorrect exposition of el kcltexete /c.r.A. 
 — ev irpuToig ] neuter : in primis, chiefly, i.e. as doctrinal points of the first 
 rank. Comp. Plato, Pol. p. 522 C : 6 kcu iravTi ev irpuToig avaynr] pavOaveiv. 
 To take it, with Chrysostom, 1 of the time (e£ apxqg), comp. Eccles. iv. 17, 
 Prov. xx. 21, runs counter to the connection, according to which it is rather 
 the fundamental significance of the following doctrines that is concerned. 
 This in opposition also to Riickert’s view of it as masculine : to you among 
 the first (comp. 1 Macc. vi. 6 ; Eccles. xlv. 20 ; Thuc. vii. 19. 4 : Lucian, 
 Paras. 49 ; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 220), which is, moreover, historically 
 untrue, unless with Ruckert we arbitrarily supply 11 in AchaiaP — o koX 
 vrapelafiov} This conveys the idea : which had been likewise communicated to 
 
 1 Who is followed by van Hengel: “Re- ostom, Paul adduces the time as witness 
 
 censet partem eorum, a quibus proponendis kcu on ecrxarrjs aicrxiAij?, -touovtov xp° vov 
 
 Corinthios docere incepit.” So Hofmann tnuoOivTaq vvv neTaTidecOai. 
 also in substance. According to Chrys- 
 
CHAP. XV., 5. 
 
 343 
 
 me ,—nothing therefore new or self-invented. From whom Paul had re¬ 
 ceived the contents of vv. 3-5, he does not say ; but for the very reason 
 that he does not add an aizo rov Kvptov, as in xi. 23, or words to like effect, 
 and on account of the correlation in which irapelafiov stands to napeduna 
 (comp, also 6 /cat tt apshafleTs, ver. 1), as well as on account of the reference 
 extending to the simple historical statements in ver. 5 ff., we are not to 
 supply : from Christ , through revelation (the common view since Chrysos¬ 
 tom), but rather : through historical tradition , as it was living in the church 
 (comp, van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann). It is true, indeed, that he has that, 
 which forms the inner relation of the cnredavev k.t.1. and belongs to the 
 inner substance of the gospel, from revelation (Gal. i. 12) ; but here it is the 
 historical element which is predominantly present to his mind, (p 2 ) — 
 v-ip tojv d/iapr. ?///.] on account of our sins , i.e. in order to expiate them , 
 Iiom. iii. 23-2G ; Gal. iii. 13 ff., al. The connection of the preposi¬ 
 tion with the abstract noun proves that Paul, in saying elsewhere virep 
 ?jpd)v (comp, also Epli. v. 25 : virep ryq eKichrjciag), has not used the prep¬ 
 osition in the sense of loco , not even in 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Gal. iii. 13. The idea 
 of the satisfactio vicciria lies in the thing itself, not in the preposition. Sec 
 on Rom. v. G ; Gal. i. 4 ; Eph. v. 2. It may be added that, except in this 
 passage, the expression virep ruv dyapricov rjp. occurs nowhere in the writings 
 of Paul (not even in Gal. i. 4), although it does in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 v. 1, 3 (?), ix. 7, x. 12. Regarding the distinction between virep and tt epi 
 the remark holds true : “id unum interest, quod tt epi usu frequentissimo 
 teritur, multo rarius usurpatur vrrep, 1 quod ipsum discrimen inter Lat. 
 praep. de et super locum obtinet,” Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid. p. 188. —/card 
 -ypcKf. i.] according to the Scriptures of the 0. T. (“quae non impleri non 
 potuere,” Bengel), in so far as these (as e.g. especially Isa. liii.) contain 
 prophecies regarding the atoning death of Christ. Comp. Luke xxiv. 
 25 ff. ; John xx. 9, ii. 22 ; Acts xvii. 3, xxvi. 22 f., viii. 35 ; 1 Pet. i. 11. 
 —The second k. t. yp. does not refer to the burial (Isa. liii. 9) also, as de 
 Wette and most interpreters assume, following Theodoret and Oecumenius, 
 but, as is to be deduced from the repetition of the otl before eyrjy., only to 
 the resurrection. 2 See on John ii. 22. Christ’s death and resurrection are 
 the great facts of the redemptive work, borne witness to by the Scriptures ; 
 the burial (comp. Rom. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 12 ; Acts xiii. 29), being the conse¬ 
 quence of the one and the presupposition of the other, lies between as an 
 historical correlate of the corporeal reality of the resurrection, but not as a 
 factor of the work of redemption, which as such would require to have been 
 based upon Scripture testimony. — eyyyeprai] not the aorist again ; the being 
 risen is the abiding state, which commenced with the eyepdyvai. Comp. 2 
 Tim. ii. 8 ; Winer, p. 255 [E. T. 339]. 
 
 Yer. 5. “ Res tanti moment! neque facilis creditu multis egebat testibus,” 
 Grotius. —KComp. Luke xxiv. 34. 3 — elra rotq JwJe/ca, John xx. 19 ff. ; 
 
 1 This holds in the N. T., where the death 
 of Christ is spoken of, only of those passages 
 in which the preposition is not joined with 
 persons: of persons Paul constantly uses 
 vnep. Comp, on i. 13, Remark. 
 
 2 And that on the third day , wdiich /card r. 
 ypa<f). must be held to include in its refer¬ 
 ence. Comp. Matt. xii. 40 ; Luke xxiv. 40. 
 
 3 According to Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul, 
 u. Petr. p. 115 ff., the appearance made to 
 
344 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Luke xxiv. 36 ff. After the death of the traitor, there were indeed only 
 eleven (hence several witnesses read kvdena, comp. Acts i. 26), nay, ac¬ 
 cording to John l.c., Thomas also was absent at that time ; but comp, 
 the official designations decemviri, centumviri, at., where the proper number 
 also was often not complete. To reckon in Matthias (Chrysostom, Oecu- 
 menius, Theophylact, Bengel, and others) would make a needless prothys- 
 teron of the expression. It may be added that under the hxpdr/ we are always 
 to conceive of but one act of appearing, as is especially clear from ver. 8 ; 
 hence we are not in connection with rolg 6u( k/ca to think of a combination of 
 John xx. 19 ff. and 26 ff. (Osiander, van Hengel, and others), to which some 
 have even added John xxi. That Paul narrates the series of appearances 
 chronologically, should not have been questioned by Wieseler (Synopse der 
 Evang. p. 420 f.), who assumes only an enumeration of the individual cases 
 without order of time. It is implied necessarily in the words of historical 
 continuation themselves (sirura htyOrj), as well as in their relation to eaxarov 
 Travruv, ver. 8. Comp, also vv. 23, 24, 46. 
 
 Yer. 6 exhibits a change in the construction—which does not -continue 
 further with on —but still belongs to the contents of the vrapebcona and tv apk- 
 7ia/3ov down to airocT. naaiv (in opposition to Hofmann) ; for the point of 
 view of the b nal Trapelaftov reaches thus far, and it is only at ver. 8 that per¬ 
 sonal experience comes in instead of it. Nor is it to be inferred from the 
 transition from the dependent to the independent construction (so frequent 
 also, as we know, in Greek writers), which naturally corresponds with the 
 concrete vividness of the representation, that Paul had not included this 
 appearance and those which follow in his preaching at Corinth, but, on the 
 contrary, was now communicating them to his readers as something new (van 
 Hengel). Yer. 8 is especially opposed to this view, since Paul, in referring 
 to the appearances of the Risen One, had certainly not been silent upon 
 that made to himself (comp. ix. 1). — enavu] adverbial , not prepositional, 
 Mark xiv. 5. Comp. vTrlp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410. “ Some” referred 
 
 to by Chrysostom, were mistaken in holding it to mean : above , over their 
 heads. — irevTanoo. ] Consequently the number of believers in general was 
 already much greater than that of those who were assembled, Acts i. 15. The 
 remarks to the contrary by Baur and Zeller, according to whom the small 
 number 120 is plainly shown by our passage to be incorrect, are not conclu¬ 
 sive, since the appearance here mentioned may, without any arbitrariness, 
 be placed at so early a stage that many pilgrims to the Passover may be con¬ 
 ceived as still present in Jerusalem when it took place, and among these 
 many non-Jewish disciples of Jesus, especially Galileans. The 120 who 
 assembled afterwards were the stock of the congregation of Jerusalem itself. 
 Comp, on Acts i. 15. On the other hand, it is possible that the Lord 
 appeared to the 500 brethren also in Galilee in an assembly of so many of 
 His disciples there (Schleiermacher, Ewald). More precise evidence is 
 wanting. Matt, xxviii. 16 If. has nothing to do w T ith our passage (in oppo- 
 
 Peter also (like all the following ones) was was the perplexing contradiction between 
 a vision , the determining occasion of which the once living and the now dead Messiah. 
 
CIIAP. XT., 7, 8. 
 
 345 
 
 sition to Liglitfoot and Flatt), but applies only to tlie eleven. — e^d-rra^] not : 
 once for all (Bretschneider, comp. Rom. vi. 10 ; Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, x. 10), 
 but, as it is usually understood : at once, simul (Luc. Dem. enc. 21). The 
 former sense would need to be given by the context, which, however, from 
 the largeness of the number, naturally suggests the latter. Yan Hengel, 
 too, wrongly insists upon the meaning semel , holding that this appearance 
 took place only once , whereas ver. 5 applies to several appearances. The 
 peculiar importance of this appearance lies precisely in the simul (Vulgate), 
 avvTTOTTTog 6e tg)v tooovtuv 7] paprvpla , Theodoret. This Etyaircit; and the multi¬ 
 tude of the spectators exclude all the more decidedly the idea of a visionary 
 or ecstatic seeing, although some have ascribed all the appearances of the 
 Risen One to this source (see especially, Holsten, zum Ev. des Paul. u. Petr. 
 p. 65 ff.). Here we should have upwards of 500 visions occurring at the 
 same time and place, the same in substance and form, and that, too, as psy¬ 
 chological acts of the individual minds. — ol Ttldovg] the majority, x. 5. 
 Luther gives it wrongly : “many still.” — yevovoiv ] superstites sunt. Comp, 
 on John xxi. 22 ; Phil. i. 25. v E^w ydprvpao etl (^tovrag, Chrysostom. It 
 may be added that the definite affirmation, ol nXelovg ykvovav, shows how 
 earnestly the apostolic church concerned itself about the still surviving wit¬ 
 nesses to the resurrection of Jesus, and how well it knew them. 
 
 Yer. 7. Both of these appearances also are otherwise unknown. —Ta/cw/Iw] 
 The non-addition of any distinguishing epithet makes it more than probable 
 that the person meant is he who was then the James /car’ Efxh v , James the 
 Just, 1 not one of the Twelve, but universally known as the brother of the 
 Lord (see onix. 4). Perhaps it was this appearance which made him become 
 decided for the cause and service of his divine brother. Comp. Michaelis 
 on our passage. The apocryphal narrative of the Evang. sec. Hebr. in Je¬ 
 rome, de vir. ill. 2, is, even as regards time, here irrelevant (in opposition to 
 Grotius). —rolg cnrooroXoig 7racw] andoroloL, since it takes in James also (comp. 
 Gal. i. 19), must stand here in a wider sense than rolg dudeica, but includes 
 them along with others. In the Book of Acts, Barnabas, for instance, is 
 called an apostle (xiv. 4, 14) ; and in 1 Thess. ii. 7, Timothy and Silvanus 
 are comprehended under the conception dnoorohoi, of whom, of course, Tim¬ 
 othy at least cannot be as yet included here. Chrysostom supposes the 
 Seventy to be included. Comp, on xii. 28. In no case is it simply the 
 Twelve again who are meant, whom Hofmann conceives to be designated 
 here in their relation to the church. How arbitrary that is, and how super¬ 
 fluous such a designation would be ! But % am stands decidedly opposed to 
 it ; Paul would have required to write elra waltv rolgcnzooT. Notice also the 
 strict marking off of the original apostles by ol duSesa, an expression which 
 Paul uses in no other place. 
 
 Yer. 8. Appearance at Damascus. Comp. ix. 1.—Regarding the adver¬ 
 bial iaxarov, comp. Plato, Oorg. p. 473 C ; Soph. Oed. Col. 1547 ; Mark xii. 
 22 (Lachm.). It concludes the series of bodily appearances, and thereby sep¬ 
 arates these from later appearances in visions (Acts xviii. 9), or some other 
 
 1 Comp. Plitt in the Zeitschrift f. Luth. Theol. 1864, p. 28 ff. 
 
346 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 apocalyptic way. — navrov] is not to be understood, as has been usually 
 done, of all those in general to whom Christ appeared after Ilis resurrec¬ 
 tion, but of all apostles, as is the most natural interpretation from the very 
 foregoing rolg a-oar. Tract, and is rendered certain by the tu kurpup. with the 
 article, which, according to ver. 9, denotes/car k$°XV v ^ ie apostolic “abor¬ 
 tion.” 1 —The apostle’s sense of the high privilege of being counted worthy 
 to see the Risen One awakens in him his deep humility, which was always 
 fostered by the painful consciousness of having once persecuted the church ; 
 he therefore expresses his strong sense of unworthiness by saying that he is, 
 as it were (ucTrepet, quasi, only here in the N. T., often in classic writers), 
 to ear pupa, the untimely foetus, Arist. Gener. An. iv. 5 ; LXX. Num. xii. 
 12 ; Job iii. 16 ; Eccles. vi. 3 ; Aq. Ps. lvii. 9. See the passages in Wet- 
 stein, Fritzsche, Biss. I. p. 60 f.; and as regards the standing of the word as 
 Greek (for which the older Attic writers have apfilupa), Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 209. In opposition to Heydenreich and Schulthess (most recently in Keil 
 and Tzschirner’s Anal. I. 4, p. 212 f.), who interpret in a way which is lin¬ 
 guistically erroneous (adopted, however, already by tlveq in Theophylact), 
 late-horn, born afterwards in old age, see Fritzsche, l.c. The idea of being 
 late-horn, i.e. late in becoming an apostle, is conveyed in sc^arov tcclvtuv, not 
 in eKTpuua. What Paul meant to indicate in a figurative way by r. kurp. is 
 clearly manifest from ver. 9, namely, that he was inferior to, and less icorthy 
 than, the rest of the apostles, in the proportion in which the abortive child stands 
 hehmd that horn mature . 2 Comp. Bengel : “ Ut abortus non est dignus hu- 
 mano nomine, sic apostolus negat se dignum apostoli appellatione.” See 
 also Ignatius, ad Rom. 9. The distinct explanation which he gives himself 
 in ver. 9 excludes all the other—some of them very odd—interpretations 
 which have been given, 3 along with that of Hofmann : Paul designates 
 himself so in contrast to those who, when Jesus appeared to them, were 
 brethren (James too ?) or apostles, and consequently had been “ horn as chil¬ 
 dren of God into the life of the faith of Christ whereas with him the matter 
 had not yet come to a full formation of Christ (Gal. iv. 19), as was the case 
 with the rest. This artificial interpretation is all the more erroneous, seeing 
 that Paul, when Christ appeared to him, had not yet made even the first 
 
 1 The “ abortion” in the series of the 
 apostles. Hofmann is wrong in making 
 ndvriov extend to the whole of the cases 
 previously adduced. That would surely be 
 a thing quite self-evident, namely, that in 
 a series of cases following after each other, 
 the last mentioned is just the last of all. 
 No, iravTtav is correlative to the preceding 
 naaiv, and the progress of thought is : “ to 
 the apostles all, last of all, however, to me 
 also.” Thereby Paul gives adequate ex¬ 
 pression to the deep humility with which 
 he sees himself added to the circle of the 
 apostles. Comp. ver. 9 : <x77oo-t6Awi/, 0.77-60-1-0- 
 A 05 . and then the retrospective rwr ■na.vnav, 
 ver. 10, also the skcIvoi, ver. 11.—Hofmann 
 seems to take the wanepei. in the sense of ut 
 
 decet ; for he cites Klausen, ad Aesch. Agam. 
 1140, who treats specially of this meaning 
 of the word, p. 244. 
 
 2 The whole passage is entirely misunder¬ 
 stood by Kienlen in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 
 1808, p. 310 ff. 
 
 3 Among these must be placed Calvin’s 
 opinion (comp. Osiander) : “ Se comparat 
 abortivo . . . subitae suae conversionis re¬ 
 spects,” shared by Grotius and others, in¬ 
 cluding Schrader. So, too, with the view 
 of Baronius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 and others, that Paul describes himself as 
 a supernumerary. And Wetstein even sug¬ 
 gests : “ Pseud apostoli videntur Paulo sta- 
 turam exiguam objecisse, 2 Cor. x. 10.” 
 
CHAP. XV., 9, 10. 
 
 347 
 
 approach to being a Christian embryo, but was the most determined opponent 
 of the Lord, and was actively engaged in persecuting Him (Acts ix. 4); 
 G)cnr. r. £kt p. does not describe what Paul was then , when Christ appeared to 
 him, but what he is since that time. — napoi] at the end, with the unaffected 
 stamp of humility after the expressions of self-abasement put before. — Ob¬ 
 serve further, that Paul places the appearance of the Risen One made to 
 himself in the same series with the others, without mentioning the ascension 
 which lay between. Certainly, therefore, he did not regard the latter as the 
 striking, epoch-making event, which it first appears in the narrative of the 
 Book of Acts, forty days after the resurrection. See generally on Luke xxiv. 
 51, Remark. But observe also what stress Paul lays here and ix. 1 upon the 
 outwardly manifested bodily appearance of the Lord, with which Gal. i. 15 
 does not in any way conflict. 1 2 Cor. xii. 2 ff. is of a different tenor. 
 
 Yer. 9. Justification of the expression uGirepd rep hiTpupan. Yv. 9 and 
 10 are not a grammatical, though they may be a logical, parenthesis. — lyu] 
 has emphasis : just I, no other. Comp, on this confession, Eph. iii. 8 ; 1 
 Tim. i. 15.— og ova dpi k.t.1.] argumentative ; quippe qui, etc. Comp. Od. 
 
 ii. 41, al.; Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 13 ; Matthiae, p. 1067, note 1. — havog] suffi¬ 
 ciently fitted, Matt. iii. 11 ; Luke iii. 16 ; 2 Cor. iii. 5. — naldcdai] tobearthe 
 name of apostle, this high, honourable name. 
 
 Yer. 10. The other side of this humility, looking to God. Yet has God's 
 grace made me ivhat I am. Comp. Gal. i. 15. — x^P LTL \ has the principal em¬ 
 phasis, hence again y x&pig avrov. — b dpi] In this is comprehended the whole 
 sum of his present being and character, so different from his pre-Christian 
 condition. — y dg eye] Comp. 1 Pet. i. 10 : towards me. Plato, Pol. v. p. 
 729 D. —ov Kzvrj] not void of result. Comp. ver. 58 ; Phil. ii. 16 ; 1 Thess. 
 
 iii. 5. — eyev.] not : has been, but : has practically become. — alia] introduces 
 the great contrast to ov aevy kyev., valued highly by Paul, even in the depth 
 of his humility, as against the impugners of his apostolic position ; and in¬ 
 troduces it with logical correctness, for nEpiGGdrEpov . . . knoTciaoa is the re¬ 
 sult of the grace. — tt epica. ] accusative neuter. It is the p>lus °f the result. 
 Regarding ekott. of apostolic labour, comp. Phil. ii. 16 ; Gal. iv. 11, al. — 
 avrojv Tidvrov] than they all, which may either mean : than any of them, or : 
 than they all put together. Since the latter corresponds to the rolg enroar. 
 jraaiv, ver. 7, and suits best the design of bringing out the fruitful efficacy 
 of the divine grace, and also agrees with history so far as known to us, it is 
 accordingly to be preferred (Osiander and van Hengel) in opposition to the 
 former interpretation, which is the common one .—ova kyib 61, all' k.t.1.] 
 Correction regarding the subject of kKomaaa, not I however, but. Chrysostom 
 says well : ry GvvyOei nexpypkvog Taireivoippoovvy nal tovto (that he laboured 
 more, etc.) taxing Tapkbpape, sal to irav avkdyKE up OeiI). Paul is conscious in 
 himself that the relation of the efficacy of God’s grace to his own personal 
 agency is of such a kind, that what has just been stated belongs not to the 
 latter, but to the former. 2 — y x^ptg r. 6 eov gvv kpoi] sc. EKOiriaGE hepigo. avr. 
 
 1 SeeParet in the Jahrb.f. deutsche Theol. 2 Augustine, J)e Grat. et lib. arb. 3, says : 
 1859, p. 243 ff. ; Beyschlag In the Stud. u. “ Non ego autem, i.e. non solus, sed gratia 
 Krit. 1864, p. 219 f. Dei inecum ; ac per hocnec gratia Dei sola. 
 
348 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 7 raw. Not I leave laboured more, but the grace of God has done it with me (in 
 efficient fellowship with me, comp. Mark xvi. 20). It is to be observed 
 that the article before avv eyoi is not genuine (see the critical remarks), and 
 so Paul does not disclaim for himself his own self-active share in bringing 
 about the result, but knows that the intervention of the divine grace so 
 outweighs his own activity, that to the alternative, whether he or grace has 
 wrought such great things, he can only answer, as he has done : not I, but 
 the grace of God with me. Were the article before avv eyoi genuine, the 
 thought would not be : the grace has wrought it with me , but : the grace , 
 which is with me, 1 has icrought it. But Beza’s remark holds true for the case 
 also of the article being omitted : ‘ ‘ Paulum ita se ipsum facere gratiae ad- 
 ministrum, ut illi omnia tribuat.” There is no ground for thinking even re¬ 
 motely of a “not alone , but also ,” or the like (see Grotius, Flatt, and 
 others). 
 
 Yer. 11. Ovv] takes up again the thread of the discourse which had been 
 interrupted by vv. 9, 10, as in viii. 4, but yet with reference to ver. 9. f. — 
 enelvoi] i.e. the rest of the apostles, vv. 7, 8, 9 f. — ovru] so as was stated 
 above, namely, that Christ is risen, ver. 4 ff., and see ver. 12. — ical ovrug] 
 and in this way, in consequence, namely, of this, that the resurrection of 
 Jesus was proclaimed to you, ye have become believers (emaT. as in ver. 2). 
 —Observe, further, in dre ovv eya, elre knelvoi, the apologetic glance of apos¬ 
 tolic self-assertion, which he turns upon those who questioned his rank as 
 an apostle. 
 
 Yer. 12. In what a contrast, however, with this preaching stands the 
 assertion of certain persons among you that, etc. ! Xpiarog has the main 
 emphasis in the protasis ; hence its position. — niog] expression of astonish¬ 
 ment ; how is it yet possible, that; xiv. 7, 16 ; Rom. iii. 6, vi. 2, viii. 32, x. 
 14 ; Gal. ii. 14. The logical justice of the astonishment rests on this, that 
 the assertion, “there is no resurrection of dead persons,” denies also per 
 consequentiam the resurrection of Christ. Yer. 13. — rived] quidam, quos 
 nominare nolo. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 731, also Schoemann, ad Is. p. 
 250. See, besides, introduction to the chapter. ’Ev vylv is simply in your 
 church, without any emphasis of contradistinction to non-Christians (Krauss). 
 — ovk eanv] does not take place, there is not. Comp. Eph. vi. 9 ; Matt. xxii. 
 23 ; Acts xxiii. 8. Comp, also Plato, Phaed. p. 71 E : ehrep eari to avafiiua- 
 KEcdcu, Aesch. Eum. 639 : an.ai; Oavovrog ovrig ear' avaaraaig. 
 
 Yer. 13. Ae] carrying onward, in order by a chain of inferences to reduce 
 the nveg with their assertion ad absurdum. — ovSe] even not. The inference 
 rests upon the principle : “ sublato genere tollitur et species” (Grotius). For 
 Christ had also become a veKpog, and was, as respects His human nature, not 
 different from other men (ver. 21). Comp. Theodoret : auya yap nai 6 <5 cgtt 6- 
 rrjg elxe Xpiarog. This in opposition to the fault which Riickert finds with 
 the conclusion, that, if Christ be a being of higher nature, the Logos of 
 
 nec ipse solus, sed gratia Dei cum illo.” looked. 
 
 Therewith, however, the relation of the 1 That is, which stands in helping fellow- 
 grace to the individuality, as Paul has ex- ship with me. See Kiihner, II. p. 276. 
 
 pressed it by ovk eyto, dAAd, is entirely over- 
 
CHAP. XV., 14, 15. 
 
 349 
 
 God, etc., the laws of created men do not hold for Him. It is plain that 
 the resurrection, as well as the death, related only to the human form of 
 existence. The ctiya of Christ (xi. 24 ; Rom. vii. 4), the cupa rijq aapnog 
 avrov (Col. i. 22 ; comp. Eph. ii. 15), was put to death and rose again, 
 which would have been impossible, if avdaraaiq veKpuv (bodily revivification 
 of those bodily dead) in general were a chimera. Comp. Knapp, Scr. var. 
 arg. p. 316 ; Usteri, p. 364 f. ; van Hengel, p. 68 f. Calvin, following Chrys¬ 
 ostom and Theodoret, grounds the apostle’s conclusion thus : ‘ ‘ quia enim 
 non nisi nostra causa resurgere debuit : nulla ejus resurrect! o foret, si nobis 
 nihil prodesset.” Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. But according to this it 
 would not follow from the avaaraaig venp. ovk egtlv that Christ had not risen, 
 but only that His resurrection had not fulfilled its aim. The idea, that 
 Christ is airapxv of the resurrection is not yet taken for granted here (as an 
 axiom), but comes in for the first time at ver. 20 (in opposition to Chrysos¬ 
 tom, Theophylact, and others, including de Wette and Osiander), after the 
 argument has already reached the result, that Christ cannot have remained 
 in the grave, as would yet follow with logical certainty from the proposi¬ 
 tion : avaaracng vsnp. ovk egtlv. It is only when it comes to bring forward 
 the airapxv, that the series of inferences celebrates its victory. 
 
 Yer. 14. At] continues the series of inferences. Without the resurrection 
 of Jesus, what are we with our preaching ! what you with your faith ! The 
 former is then dealt with in ver. 15 1, the latter in vv. 17-19. — apa] is the 
 simple therefore , thus ( rebus ita comparatis). See against Hartung’s view, 
 that it introduces the unexpected (this may be implied in the connection, but 
 not in the particle), Klotz, ad Devar. p. 160 ff. — kevov and kevt/ are put first 
 with lively emphasis.— ovk iyyy.] he. has remained in the grave. — kevov ] 
 empty , i.e. without reality (Eph. v. 6 ; Col. ii. 8), without really existing 
 contents, inasmuch, namely, as the redemption in Christ and its completion 
 through the Messianic Gtorypla are the contents of the preaching ; but this 
 redemption has not taken place and the Messianic salvation is a chimera, if 
 Christ has not risen. Comp. ver. 17 ; Rom. i. 4, iv. 25, viii. 34. = mi] 
 also. If it holds of Christ that He is not risen, then it holds also of our 
 preaching that it is empty. — y 'kigtlq vytiv] your faith in Jesus as the Messiah , 1 
 ver. 11. Christ would, in fact, not be the Redeemer and Atoner, as which, 
 however, He is the contents of your faith. 2 Comp. Simonides in Plato, 
 Prot. p. 345 C : keveclv . . . Soph. Ant. 749 : kevclq yvcjyag, Eur. Iph. 
 
 Aul. 987, Hel. 36. 
 
 Yer. 15. We should not, with Lachmann, place only a comma after ver. 
 14 ; for ver. 15 carries independently its full confirmation with it, and its 
 awful thought comes out all the more impressively, when taken indepen¬ 
 dently of what precedes it. The emphasis of the verse lies in the God-dis¬ 
 honouring ipEvSoyapr. tov dcov. In this phrase rov deov must, in conformity 
 with what follows, be genitivus objecti (not subjecti, as Billroth would make 
 
 1 The reading 17 /Awv, which Olshausen pre- is a mechanical repetition of the preceding 
 fers from a total misapprehension of the jjjuwv. 
 connection, has only the weak attestation 2 Comp. Krauss, p. 74 ff. 
 of D* min. and some vss. and Fathers, and 
 
350 
 
 PAUL ? S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 if : “ false witnesses, whom God lias,” comp. Osiander, et al.) : peo'sons 
 who have testified what is false against God. —/card rov deov] is not to be taken, 
 with Erasmus, Beza, Wolf, Raphel, de Wette, and others, as in respect to 
 God, of God (Schaefer, ad Dem. I. p. 412 f. ; Yalck. ad Phoen. 821 ; 
 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 272) ; for the context requires the reference to be as 
 much in opposition to God as possible, and hence requires the sense : 
 against , adversus (Vulgate). Comp. Matt. xxvi. 59, 62, xxvii. 13 ; Mark 
 xiv. 56, 60, xv. 4, al. ; Xen. Apol. 13 : ov ipe.vdopai Kara tov Oeov , Plato, Gorg. 
 p. 472 B. Every consciously false giving of testimony that God has done 
 something, is testimony against God, because an abuse of His name and 
 injury to His holiness.— ov ova r/yeipev , cheep apa k.t.Tc. ] whom lie has not 
 raised , if really thus (as is asserted) dead persons are not raised (q 2 ). Regard¬ 
 ing el apa and elk ep apa see Klotz, l.c. pp. 178, 528. Observe here (1) the 
 identity of the category , in which Paul places the resurrection of Christ and 
 the bodily resurrection of the dead ; (2) the sacredness of the apostolic testi¬ 
 mony for the former ; (3) the fanatical self-deception , to which he would 
 have been a victim, if the appearances of the Risen One had been psycho¬ 
 logical hallucinations, so that the whole transformation of Saul into Paul— 
 nay, his whole Gospel—would rest upon this self-deception, and this self- 
 deception upon a mental weakness which would be totally irreconcilable 
 with his otherwise well-known strength and acuteness of intellect. 
 
 Ver. 16. Proof of the ov ova ijyeipev , cheep zc.r./L by solemn repetition of 
 ver. 13 entirely as to purport, and almost entirely as to the words also. 
 
 Vv. 17, 18. Solemnly now also the other conclusion from the ovde Xpiarog 
 eyyy., already expressed in ver. 14, is once more exhibited, but in such a 
 way that its tragical form stands out still more awfully (yaraia and etc egte 
 ev r. ape. ip.), and has a new startling feature added to it by reference to the 
 lot of the departed. — pavaia] vain , fruitless , put first with emphasis, as etc 
 is afterwards. Comp. ver. 14. The meaning of the word may be the 
 same as ne-vf] in ver. 14 (comp, paraiog loyoq, Plato, Legg. ii. p. 654 E ; 
 Herod, iii. 56 ; paraiog dogoGocpla, Plato, Soph. p. 231 B ; pdraioc evxVi Eur. 
 Iph. T. 628, and the like, Isa. lix. 4 ; Eccles. xxxi. 5 ; Acts xiv. 15 ; 1 Cor. 
 iii. 20), to which Hofmann, too, ultimately comes in substance, explaining 
 the tclgtiq paraca of their having comforted themselves groundlessly with 
 that which has no truth. But what follows shows that resultlessness , the 
 missing of the aim , is denoted here (comp. Tit. iii. 9 ; Plato, Tim. p. 40 D, 
 Ijegg. v. p. 735 B ; Polyb. vi. 25. 6 ; 4 Macc. vi. 10). This, namely, has 
 its character brought out in an awful manner by etc egte ev t. ap. ip.: then 
 ye are still in your sins —i.e. then ye are not yet set free from your (pre-Chris¬ 
 tian) sins, not yet delivered from the obligation of their guilt. For if 
 Christ is not risen, then also the reconciliation with God and justification 
 have not taken place ; without His resurrection His death would not be a 
 redemptive death. 1 Rom. iv. 25, and see on ver. 14. Regarding the ex¬ 
 pression, comp. 3 Esdr. viii. 76 ; Thuc. i. 78. See also John viii. 21, 24, 
 ix. 41. — apa /c al oi KocprjO. /c.r.A.] a new consequence of el tie X. ova kygy., but 
 
 1 Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 329. 
 
CHAP. XV., 19. 
 
 351 
 
 further inferred by apa from the immediately preceding m kore kv rale apapr. 
 vp. : then those also icho have fallen asleep are accordingly (since they, too, can 
 have obtained no propitiation), etc.— ol noipr/O.] Observe the aorist: who 
 fell asleep , which expresses the death of the individuals as it took place at 
 different times. It is otherwise at ver. 20 ; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 14 f.— kv 
 Xpiorti] for they died 1 so, that they during their dying were not out of 
 Christ, but through faith in Him were in living fellowship with Him. 
 Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 18 ; Rev. xiv. 13. We are neither, with Gfrotius (comp, 
 as early interpreters as Chryosostom and Theodoret), to think simply of the 
 martyrs (kv = propter), nor, with Calovius, widening the historical meaning 
 on dogmatic grounds, to include the believers of the Old Testament (even 
 Adam), for both are without support in the context ; but to think of the 
 Christians deceased. — airulovro] they are destroyed , because in their death 
 they have become liable to the state of punishment in Hades (see on Luke 
 xvi. 23), seeing that they have, in fact, died without expiation of their sins. 
 That this does not mean : they have become annihilated (Menochius, Bengel, 
 Heydenreich, and others), is clear from in kark kv r. ap. vp., of which, in 
 respect of the dead, the a-rulna in Hades is the consequence. 
 
 Ver. 19. Sad lot of the Christians (not simply of the apostles, as Grotius 
 and Rosenmiiller would have it), if this ol KOLpyOkvrec; kv X. arru'XovTo turn out 
 to be true ! “If we are nothing more than such, as in this life have their 
 hope in Christ, — not at the same time such, as even when noipydkvreg will 
 hope in Christ, 2 —then are we more wretched,” etc. In other words : “If 
 the hope of the future glory (this object of the Christian hope is obvious of 
 itself, xiii. 13 ; Rom. v. 2), which the Christian during his temporal life 
 places in Christ, comes to nought with this life, inasmuch as death trans¬ 
 ports him into a condition through which the Christian hope proves itself 
 to be a delusion,—namely, into the condition of aTruAEia ,—then are we 
 Christians more wretched,” etc. — The correct reading is u kv ry £. ravry kv 
 X. rfkTz. kop. povov. See the critical remarks. In kv r. fay rainy the main 
 emphasis falls upon ry fay , as the opposite of icoipyOevreg (comp. Rom. viii. 
 38 ; 1 Cor. iii. 22 ; Phil. i. 20 ; Luke xvi. 25), not upon rainy (so com¬ 
 monly) ; and povov belongs to the whole kv r. £. r. kv X. ifTrucorec kapev , so 
 that the adverb is put last for emphasis (Klihner, ad Xen. Anal), ii. 5. 14, 
 ii. 6 . 1), not simply to kv r. £. ravry , as it is usually explained : “If we arc 
 such as only for this life (‘ dum hie vivimus,’ Piscator) have placed their 
 hope in Christ,” Billroth. This trajection of povov would be in the highest 
 
 1 KoL/xdaffat is the habitually used New 
 Testament euphemism for dying (comp. vv. 
 6 , 11, 30), and in no way justifies the un- 
 scriptural assumption of asleep of the soul, 
 in which Paul is held to have believed. See 
 against this, Delitzseh, Psychol, p. 419 ff. In 
 the euphemistic character of that expres¬ 
 sion, however, which classic writers also 
 have (Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. viii. 2), lies the 
 reason why he never uses it of the death of 
 Christ. This was recognized as early as by 
 
 Photius, who aptly remarks, Qieaest. A?n- 
 philocll. 187 : enl p.ip ovp tov Xpicrroi) 6 a. p a- 
 top /caAet, iVa to n a0o? nurrtxxrriTai• ini Si 
 r)p.u)p Koifi-qcrip, Iva. tyjp oSvptjp napafivQfatf- 
 tou. ''E vOa fxeu yap nape^ixiprja'ei' r) ai'acrracri?, 
 Oappiov Ka\el davarop’ ev9a Si ip iAnicriP ert 
 flips i, acoc/xt)0"iv Ka\el k.t \. 
 
 3 The conception of the i\nt$ does not 
 so coincide here with that of the 7rtVrt5, as 
 Lipsius assumes, Eechffertigungsl. p. 209. 
 
352 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corihthiahs. 
 
 degree violent and irrational. The perfect rfkizucdreq indicates the continued 
 subsistence during this life of the hope cherished ; 2 Cor. i. 10 ; 1 Tim. iv. 
 10, al. See Bernhardy, p. 378 ; Ast, ad Plat. Legg. p. 408. Comp, the 
 iokrca so frequent in Homer ; Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 368. That the 
 hope has an end with the present life, is not implied in the perfect (Hof¬ 
 mann), but in the whole statement from el on to gdvov. The participle 
 again with eager does not stand for the ternpus finitum , but the predicate is 
 brought into peculiar relief (Kuhner, II. p. 40), so that it is not said what 
 w r e do, but what we are (Hoffer). Comp, as early as Erasmus, Annot. As 
 regards h Xpiorti, comp. Eph. i. 12 ; 1 Tim. vi. 17 ; the hope is in Christo 
 reposita, rests in Christ. Comp, tugtevelv ev ; see on Gal. iii. 26. Ruckert 
 is wrong in connecting ev X. wfith gdvov (equivalent to ev govcp rti X.) : “If 
 we in the course of this life have placed our whole confidence on Christ alone, 
 have (at the end of our life) disdained every other ground of hope and de¬ 
 spised every other source of happiness, and yet Christ is not risen ... is 
 able to perform nothing of what was promised ; then are we the most un¬ 
 happy,” etc. Against this may be decisively urged both the position of 
 govov and the wholly arbitrary way in which the conditioning main idea is 
 supplied (“and if yet Christ is not risen”). According to Baur, what is 
 meant to be said is: “if the whole contents of our life were the mere 
 hoping,” which, namely, never passes into fulfilment. But in that w r ay a 
 pregnancy of meaning is made to underlie the t/Titcikote^, which must have 
 been at least indicated by the arrangement : ei gTnriKoreg govov eager k.t.'X. — 
 e1eelv6-£pol navT. ] more worthy of compassion than all men, namely, who are 
 in existence besides us Christians. Comp, the passages in Wetstein. Re¬ 
 garding the form ekeeLvoq, which is current with Plato also (in opposition to 
 Ast) and others, instead of ePietvdg, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 87 ; Borne- 
 mann, ad Xen. Anal), iv. 4. 11, Lips. In how /hr the Christians—supposing 
 them to be nothing more than persons who build their hope upon Christ so 
 long as they live, who therefore after their death will see the hope of their 
 life concerning the future 6o^a vanish away—are the most wretched of all 
 men, is clear of itself from their distinctive position, inasmuch, namely, as 
 for the sake of what is hoped for they take upon themselves privation, self- 
 denial, suffering, and distresses (Rom. viii. 18 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17 f. ; Col. iii. 
 3), and then in death notwithstanding fall a prey to the airukeLa. In this 
 connection of the condition until death with the disappointment after death 
 would lie the e1eelv6v, the tragic nothingness of the Christian moral eudae- 
 monism, which sees in Christ its historical basis and divine warrant. The 
 unbelieving, on the contrary, live on carelessly and in the enjoyment of the 
 moment. Comp. ver. 32, and see Calvin’s exposition, (r 2 ) 
 
 Yer. 20. Ho, we Christians are not in this unhappy condition ; Christ is 
 risen, ical r?/v tov ggeTepov GivTfjpoq avaGraaiv Exeyyvov (guarantee) ryg ygerepa^ 
 exogev civcigt&geoc, Theodoret. Several interpreters (Flatt, comp. Calvin on 
 ver. 29) have wrongly regarded vv. 20-28 as an episode. See on ver. 29. 
 — vwl de] jam vero, but now, as the case really stands. Comp. xiii. 13, xiv. 6, 
 al. — a Trap xv rtiv /ce/coty.] as first-fruits of those to ho have fallen asleep, predica¬ 
 tive more precise definition to Xpiarog, inasmuch as He is risen from the 
 
chap, xv., 21, 22. 
 
 dead. Comp, as regards anapxh used of persons , xvi. 15 ; Rom. xvi. 5 ; 
 Jas. i. 18 ; Plutarch, Thes. 16. The meaning is : “ Christ is risen, so that 
 thereby He has made the holy beginning of the general resurrection of those 
 who have fallen asleep” (comp. ver. 23 ; Col. i. 18 ; Rev. i. 5 ; Clement, 
 Cor. I. 24). Whether in connection wfith anapxv Paul was thinking pre¬ 
 cisely of a definite offering of first-fruits as the concrete foil to his concep¬ 
 tion (comp. Rom. xi. 16), in particular of the sheaves of the Paschal feast, 
 Lev. xxiii. 10 (Bengel, Osiander, and others), must, since he indicates 
 nothing more minutely, remain undecided. The genitive is partitive. See 
 on Rom. viii. 23. — That by ruv kekol/x. we are to understand believers , is to 
 be inferred both from the word itself, which in the Hew Testament is 
 always used only of the death of the saints, and also from the fellow¬ 
 ship with Christ denoted by anapxv- And in truth what is conceived of 
 is the totality of departed believers, including, therefore, those too who 
 shall still fall asleep up to the Parousia, and then belong also to the kekol- 
 prjyevoL (the sleeping ; see ver. 23. This does not exclude the fact that 
 Christ is the raiser of the dead also for the unbelieving ; He is not, however, 
 their airapxv ; but see on ver. 22. That those, moreover, who were raised 
 before Christ and by Christ Himself (as Lazarus), also those raised by apos¬ 
 tles, do not make the airapxy r &v kskol/u. untrue, is clear from the considera¬ 
 tion that no one previously was raised to immortal life (to cnpOapala) ; while 
 Enoch and Elias (Gen. v. 24 ; 2 Kings ii. 11) did not die at all. Christ 
 thus remains rrparog avaoTcnreog vEKpivv, Acts xxvi. 23. But the cnrapxy 
 allows us to look from the dawn of the eschatological order of salvation, as 
 having taken place already, to the certainty of its future completion. Lu- 
 thardt says well : “ The risen Christ is the beginning of the history of the 
 end.” 
 
 Ver. 21. Assigning the ground for the characteristic cnrapxv tuv kekoi/j,. 
 u For since {seeing that indeed , i. 21 f., xiv. 16 ; Phil. ii. 26) through a man 
 death is brought about , so also through a man is resurrection of the dead brought 
 about” We must supply simply kari ; but the conclusion is not (Calvin and 
 many others) e contrariis causis ad contrarios effectus, but, as is shown by the 
 tie avOpcjirov twice prefixed with emphasis : a causa mali effectus ad similem 
 causam contrarii effectus. The evil which arose through a human author is 
 by divine arrangement removed also through a human author. How these 
 different effects are each brought about by a man, Paul assumes to be known 
 to his readers from the instructions wdiich he must have given them orally, 
 but reminds them thereof by ver. 22. — Oavarog ] of death, Rom. 
 
 v. 12. — avaoTcioig venpuv] resurrection of dead persons , abstractly expressed, 
 designates the matter ideally and in general. So also Oavarog without the 
 article ; see the critical remarks. 
 
 Ver. 22. More precise explanation confirmatory of ver. 21, so that the 
 first 6i avOpunov is defined in concreto by kv ru ’A day, likewise davarog by 
 7r avreg arroOvr/CKovmv k.t.'j l. — kv rip ’A day] In Adam it is causally established that 
 all die , inasmuch as, namely, through Adam’s sin death has penetrated to 
 all, Rom. v. 12 ; to which statement only Christ Himself, who, as the sin¬ 
 less One, submitted Himself to death in free obedience toward the Father 
 
354 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 (Phil. ii. 8 ; Rom. v. 19), forms a self-evident exception.— h to X.] for in 
 Christ lies the ground and cause, why at the final historical completion of 
 His redemptive work the death which has come through Adam upon all 
 shall be removed again, and all shall be made alive through the resurrec¬ 
 tion of the dead. In this way, therefore, certainly no one shall be made 
 alive except in Christ , 1 but this will happen to all. Since ndvrec, namely, 
 is not to be restricted to the totality of believers, but to be taken quite 
 generally (see below), there thus results more specially as the idea of the 
 apostle : Christ, when He appears in His glory, is not simply the giver of 
 life for His believing people ; He makes them (through the resurrection, 
 and relatively through the transformation, ver. 51) alive unto the eternal 
 Messianic £a)y (Rom. viii. 11 ; but His life-giving power extends also to the 
 other side, that is, to the unbelievers who must experience the necessary 
 opposite of the completed redemption ; these He awakes to the resurrection 
 of condemnation. Paul thus agrees with John v. 28 f. ; Matt. x. 28 ; and 
 thus his declaration recorded in Acts xxiv. 15 finds its confirmation in our 
 text (comp, on Phil. iii. 11). —navreg (oo-rr.] which is to be understood not 
 of the new principle of life introduced into the consciousness of humanity 
 (Baur, neut. Theol. p. 198), but, according to the context and on account of 
 the future, in the eschatological sense, is by most interpreters (including 
 Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Osiander, van Hengel, Maier, Ewald, Hofmann, 
 Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 145 ; Lutterbeck, II. p. 232 If.) held to refer only to 
 believer's. But enaaroq, ver. 23, requires us to think of the resurrection of 
 all (so also Olshausen, de Wette) ; for otherwise we should have to seek the 
 7 vavTEQ collectively in the second class etteitci ol tov XpiGTov, so that ol tov 
 X picrrov and the Tvavreg would cover each other, and there could be no men¬ 
 tion at all of an enaoTog ev to 16 io ray pan in reference to the rcdvreg. Accord¬ 
 ingly we must not restrict £«07r. to blessed life, and perhaps explain (so de 
 Wette, comp, also Meander in loc. ; Messner, Lehre der Apost. p. 291 f. ; 
 Stroh, Cliristus d. Erstl. d. Entschlaf. 1866) its universality {-dvreg) from the 
 (not sanctioned by the N. T.) cnroKaTaoTacug tt avTov (comp. Weizel in the 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 978 ; Kern in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1840, 3, p. 24). 
 Neither must we so change the literal meaning, as to understand it only of 
 the destination 2 of all to the blessed resurrection (J. Muller in the Stud. u. 
 Krit. 1835, p. 751), or as even to add mentally the condition which holds 
 universally for the partaking in salvation (Hofmann)—which alteration of 
 what is said categorically into a hypothetical statement is sheer arbitrariness. 
 On the contrary, ^uotzoitjO. (see also ver. 36), confronted with the quite uni¬ 
 versal assertion of the opponents that a resurrection of the dead is a non ens 
 (vv. 12-16), is in and by itself indifferent (comp. Rom. iv. 17 ; 2 Kings v. 
 7 ; Neh. ix. 6 ; Theod. Isa. xxvi. 14 ; Lucian, V. II. i. 22), the abstract 
 opposite of flavarog (comp. ver. 36), in connection with which the concrete 
 difference as regards the different subjects is left for the reader himself to 
 infer. As early interpreters as Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, and Theodoret 
 
 1 Yon Zezschwitzin the Erlang. Zeitschr. 2 Comp. Krauss, p. 107 ff., who finds in the 
 1863, Apr. p. 197. Comp, also Luthardt, v.d. whole chain of thought the anonaTaaracn^ 
 letzten Dingen , p. 125. r<nv n-di'Twr. 
 
355 
 
 chap. xy. ? 23. 
 
 have rightly understood navreg <^uott. not simply of the blessed resurrection, 
 but generally of bodily revivification, and without limiting or attaching con¬ 
 ditions to the Ttavreg. It denotes all without exception, as is necessary 
 from ver. 23, and in keeping with the quite universal tt avreg of the first half 
 of the verse. See, too, on ver. 24. In opposition to the error regarding 
 the Apokatastasis, see generally Philippi, Olaubenslehre , III. p. 372 ff.; 
 Martensen, Dogmat. § 286. (s 2 ) 
 
 Ver. 23. Each, however, in his own division, sc. ^uoTroL^OrjaeraL. — rdyya] does 
 not mean order of succession, but is a military word ( division of the army, le¬ 
 gion, Xen. Mem. iii. 1. 11, and see the passages in Wetstein and Schweig- 
 hauser, Lex. Polyh. p. 610 f.), so that Paul presents the different divisions of 
 those that rise under the image of different troops of an army. In Clement 
 also, Cor. i. 37, 41, this meaning should be retained. — cnrapxy Xpcardg] as 
 first-fruits Christ, namely, vivificatus est. What will ensue in connection 
 with the (nvapxiii after the lapse of the period between it and the Parousia, be¬ 
 longs to the future. It would appear, therefore, as though drcapxv X. were 
 not pertinent here, where the design is to exhibit the order of the future 
 resurrection (ver. 22). But Paul regards the resurrection of all, including 
 Christ Himself ’ as one great connected process, only taking place in several 
 acts, so that thus by far the greater part indeed belongs to the future, but, 
 in order not simply to the completeness of the whole, but at the same time 
 for the sure guarantee of what was to come, the aTrapxn also may not be left 
 unmentioned. There is no ground for importing any further special design ; 
 in particular, Paul cannot have intended to counteract such conceptions, as 
 that the whole rdyya must forthwith be made alive along with its leader 
 (von Zezschwitz), or to explain why those who have fallen asleep in Christ 
 continue in death and do not arise immediately (Hofmann). For no reader 
 could expect the actual resurrection of the dead before the Parousia ; that 
 was the postulate of the Christian hope. 1 —We may note that, in using cnrapxh, 
 Paul departs again from his military mode of conception as expressed in 
 rdyua ; otherwise he would have written dpxdg, bpxvydg, hrapxog, Kopvcpaiog, 
 or something similar. — oi tov Xpicrov ] the Christians, Gal. v. 24 ; 1 Thess. 
 iv. 16. — ev rff Trapovaia avrov] at Ilis coming to set up the Messianic kingdom, 
 Matt. xxiv. 3 ; 1 Thess. ii. 19, iii. 13, iv. 15 ; Jas. v. 7 f. ; 1 John ii. 28 ; 
 2 Pet. iii. 4. Paul accordingly describes the rdyya which rises first after 
 Christ Himself (as the dnapxy) thus : thereafter shall the confessors of Christ 
 be raised up at His Parousia. It is opposed to this—the only correct— 
 meaning of the words to restrict oi tov Xpiarov to the true Christians {oi tuotoi 
 koI oi evdoKiyrjKoreg, Chrysostom), and thereby to anticipate the judgment (2 
 Cor. v. 10 ; Rom. xiv. 10), or to include along with them the godly of the 
 Old Testament , as Theodoret, and of late Maier, have done. Not less con¬ 
 trary to the words is it to explain away the Parousia, as van Ilengel does : 
 “ qui sectatores Christi fuerunt, guum ills hac in terra eratP This is gram¬ 
 matically incorrect, for the article would have needed to be repeated ; 2 in- 
 
 1 This applies also against the view of no other of them that sleep arisen, seeing 
 Weiss, Ubl. Theol. p. 429, that Paul wishes that Christ has truly arisen already ? 
 
 to anticipate the question, Why, then, has 2 Because rrj napova. avrov does not 
 
356 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 appropriate as regards expression, for jj rrapovaia tov X. is in the whole New 
 Testament the habitual technical designation of the last coming of Christ ; 
 and lastly, missing the mark as to meaning, since it would yield only a non- 
 essential, accidental difference as to the time of discipleship as the criterion of 
 distinction (Matt. xx. 16). (t 2 ) — err sera is simply thereafter, thereupon , look¬ 
 ing back to the arrapxv , not following next , as Hofman would have it. The 
 intervening period is the time running on to the Parousia. Hofmann inap¬ 
 propriately compares the use of the word in Soph. Ant. 611, where to irrecra 
 occurs and denotes what follows immediately next ; see Schneidewiin on 
 Soph. l.c. ; also Hermann in loc: u a quo proximum est cum eoque cohaeret .” 
 
 Yer. 24. Ezra to relog] sc. ecTai. Then shall the end he, namely, as is clear 
 from the whole context, the end of the resurrection. Bengel puts it aptly : 
 “ correlatum primitiarum 1f (comp. Matt. xxiv. 14, where to teIoq is correla¬ 
 tive with apxv in ver. 8, also Mark xiii. 7, 9) ; although Christ is only the 
 first-fruits of the believers , He is nevertheless at the same time the begin¬ 
 ning of all. According to Paul, therefore, the order of the resurrection is 
 this : (1) it has begun already with Christ Himself ; (2) at Christ’s return 
 to establish His kingdom the Christians shall be raised up ; (8) thereafter 
 —how soon, however, or how long after the Parousia, is not said 1 —sets in 
 the last act of the resurrection , its close, which, as is now self-evident after 
 what has gone before, applies to the non-Christians* These too shall, it 
 is plain, he judged (vi. 2, xi. 32), of which their resurrection is the necessary 
 premiss (in opposition to Weiss, hibl. Theol. p. 430 f.). Paul has thus con¬ 
 joined the doctrine of Judaism regarding a twofold resurrection (Bertholdt, 
 Christol. pp. 176 if., 203 If.) with the Christian faith, in accordance with 
 the example of Christ Himself (see on Luke xiv. 14 ; John v. 29). The 
 majority of interpreters after Chrysostom (including Reiche, Ewald, Maier) 
 understand to Tehog of the end of the present age of the world, , 3 the final con¬ 
 summation (Weiss), the dosing issue of things (Luthardt, v. d. letzten Bingen, 
 p. 127), which includes also the resurrection of all men. (u 2 ) In connection 
 with this Ruckert thinks (comp. Kling, p. 505) that eha indicates the im¬ 
 mediate following, one upon the other, of the avacTacng and the Telog ; Ols- 
 hausen, again, that Paul conceived the thousand years of the Messianic 
 kingdom to come in between the Parousia, and the Tslog, and the resurrec¬ 
 tion of the non-Christians to be joined together with the relog. But against 
 the latter view it may be urged that, according to the constant doctrine of 
 
 blend together with oi tov X. into a unity 
 of conception ; as, for example, to !? n\ov- 
 atcHs ev to ) vvv aLaivi, 1 Tim. vi. 17, where toT? 
 vAovcr. receives an essential modification of 
 the conception by the note of time added. 
 
 1 Within this intermediate time falls the 
 continued conquest of Christ over all hos¬ 
 tile powers, vv. 24, 25, whose subjugation 
 will not yet be completed at the Parousia. 
 This also in opposition to Weiss, bibl. Tlxeol. 
 p. 427. To import into this period a process 
 of redemption for the non-Christians and 
 the wicked (Weizel, Stroh), is neither in ac¬ 
 
 cord with Paul nor with the New Testa¬ 
 ment generally. 
 
 2 Van Hengel, too, takes it rightly of the 
 closing act of the resurrection, but explains 
 this in consequence of his incorrect under¬ 
 standing of oi tov X. ev Trj napova. avrov : 
 “ turn ceteri Christi sectatores, qui mortem 
 subierant, in vitam restituentur.” 
 
 3 Comp. Calvin : “finis, i.e. meta cursvs 
 nostri, quietus portus, conditio nullis am- 
 plius mutationibus obnoxia.” Erasmus, 
 Paraphr.: “ finis Jmmanarum vicissiludi- 
 num." 
 
CHAP. XV., 24. 
 
 357 
 
 tlie New Testament (apart from Rev. xx.), with the Parousia tlierc sets in 
 the finis hnjus saeculi, so that the Parousia itself is the terminal point of 
 the pre-Messianic, and the commencing-point of the future, world-period 
 (Matt. xxiv. 3, al.; Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 344). Against the former view it 
 may be decisively urged, that eha to teXoq in the assumed sense would be 
 inappropriate here, where the order of the resurrection is stated and is 
 begun with a-xapxh 5 further, that Paul would not have given, in any proper 
 sense at all, the promised order of succession, whether we take 7 vavreg, ver. 
 22, simply of believers or correctly of all in general. For in the former case 
 there could be no mention at all of several raypara (see on ver. 22) ; and in 
 the latter case Paul w T ould have passed over in silence the very greatest 
 raypa of all, that of those who died non-Christians. But how complete 
 and self-consistent everything is, if aTzapxh is the beginning, etteitci oi tov 
 Xpiarov the second act, and elra to teAoq the last act of the same transaction ! 
 So in substance among the old interpreters, Theodoret and Occumenius, 
 later Cajetanus, Bengel, Jehne, de resurrect, cam. Alton. 1788, p. 19 ; 
 Heydenreich, Osiander, Grimm in the Stud. u. Krit. 1850, p. 784. In ac¬ 
 cordance with what has been said, we must reject also the view of Grotius 
 and Billroth, that to tCXoq is the end of the kingdom of Christ (comp. Kahnis, 
 Dogm. I. p. 575) ; in connection with which Billroth leaves it undecided 
 whether Paul conceived that there would be a thousand years’ reign, but 
 finds rightly that his conception is different from that of Rev. xx. 1 ff . 1 
 The same considerations militate against this view as against that of Riick- 
 ert ; moreover, te'Koq requires its explanation not from what follows, but 
 from what precedes it, with which it stands in the closest relation. This 
 also in opposition to de Wette (so, too, Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeit- 
 alter , p. 140 ; Neander in loc .), who understands the completion of the 
 eschatological events (comp. Beza), so that the general resurrection would be 
 included in the conception (comp. Theophylact : to teIoq tuv ttovtuv icai avr?/g 
 TijQ avaoTaoeog ); similarly, therefore, as regards the latter point, with Lu- 
 thardt and Olshausen. Theodoret is right, in accordance with the Pauline 
 type of doctrine (comp. Matt. xiii. 39 f.), in remarking already at the pre¬ 
 ceding class (oi tov X.): /card tov tt}c cwteTielcu; naipov. For the intervening 
 period between the eirEtTa and the eka is by no means to be reckoned to 
 the aikv ovTog , but to the aikv pSOuw, of which it is the first stage in.time 
 and development ; the absolute consummation is then the giving over of 
 the kingdom, which is immediately preceded by the last act of the resurrcc- 
 
 1 According to the Apocalypse, between 
 the first and second resurrection there is 
 the thousand years’ reign, which ends with 
 Satan’s being again let loose and again over¬ 
 come and cast into hell. Olshausen, who 
 does not admit the variation of the Pauline 
 doctrine from the Apocalyptic, holds that 
 the Revelation, which handles the doctrine 
 exprofesso, is only more detailed. But this 
 plea would only avail if Paul had shown 
 himself to be a C'hiliast somewhere else. 
 This, however, he has never done, often as 
 
 he had opportunity for doing so. In sub¬ 
 stance like Olshausen’s is the view of de 
 Wette and of Georgii in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1845, 
 1, p. 14, who, however, put this difference 
 between Paul and the author of the Apoc¬ 
 alypse, that the former leaves the duration 
 of the reign indefinite, and places the 
 Messiah’s conflict not at the end of this reg¬ 
 nal period, but throughout the whole time 
 of its duration. But these differences are so 
 essential, that they would do away with 
 the agreement of the two. 
 
358 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 \ 
 
 tion (to T£Aog ). Hofmann (comp, also liis Schriftbew. II. 2, p. G57) takes 
 to relog adverbially, and then the two clauses commencing with orav as 
 protases to baxarog, exOpog na-Tapy. 6 OavaTog , ver. 26, so that in this way del 
 yap avTov /c.r./L, ver. 25, falls to the second of those two protases as a reason 
 assigned, inserted between it and the apodosis ; consequently : thm shall 
 finally , when . . ., when . . ., the last enemy be brought to nought. This 
 bringing to nought of death, he holds, includes the raising to life of such 
 as, being ordained to life, did not belong to Christ during their bodily ex¬ 
 istence, and thus there is formed of these a second Tayya, for the possibility 
 of which Hofmann adduces Rom. ii. 15 f. But in what an involved and 
 violent way are the simple, clear, and logically flowing sentences of the 
 apostle thus folded and fenced in, and all for the purpose of getting out of 
 them at last a second Tayya , wdiich, however, does not stand there at all, 
 but is only inserted between the lines ; and that, too, such a Tayya as is 
 entirely alien to the New Testament eschatology, and least of all can be 
 established by Rom. ii. 15 f. (see in loc.) as even barely possible ! And 
 how unsuitable it is to treat ver. 25, although introduced with solemn words 
 of Scripture, as a subordinate sentence of confirmation, making the chain of 
 protases on to the final short principal sentence only the longer and clum¬ 
 sier ! In this whole section withal Paul employs only sentences of short 
 and simple construction, without any involved periods. It may be added 
 that, from a linguistic point of view, there would be nothing to object 
 against the adverbial interpretation of to TeXog , considered solely in itself 
 (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 8) ; but, after the two elements which have gone before, 
 the substantive explanation is the only one which presents itself as accord¬ 
 ant with the context ; nay, the adverbial use would have here, as the whole 
 exegetical history of the passage shows, only led the understanding astray. 
 — oTav Tvapadcdip k.t.X.] states with what to rblog will be contemporaneous : 
 when he gives over the (Messianic) kingdom , etc. The church , or the fellow¬ 
 ship of believers (van Hengel), is never designated by y fiaaik., not even vi. 
 9 f.; Eph. v. 5 ; Col. i. 13, iv. 11 ; neither is it so here. The conception, 
 on the contrary, is : the last act of Christ’s Messianic rule consists in the 
 close of the resurrection, namely, the raising up of the non-Christians ; 1 
 this He performs when He is about to hand over the rule to God, after 
 which the last-named wields the government Himself and immediately, and 
 Christ’s Messianic, and in particular His kingly office—the regency which 
 had been entrusted to Him by God (Phil. ii. 9 f.)—is accomplished. It 
 was a purely dogmatic (anti-Arian) explaining away of the clear meaning 
 of the word to take napadidovai as equivalent to Karopdovv (Chrysostom) or 
 teIelovv (Theophylact) ; such, too, was the interpretation of Theodoret, 
 Ambrosiaster, Cajetanus, Estius, and others, including Storr and Flatt, ac¬ 
 cording to which the giving over of the kingdom to the Father denotes the 
 producing the result, that God shall be universally acknowledged as the su¬ 
 preme Ruler, even by those who did not wish to acknowledge Him as such. 
 
 1 With which their judgment is necessarily latter as included was not called for by the 
 
 bound up ; but an express mention of the connection of the passage. 
 
CHAP. XV., 24. 
 
 359 
 
 Hilary and Augustine ide Trin. i. 8) have another mode of explaining it 
 away : what is meant is the "bringing of the elect to the vision of God ; 
 similarly van Ilengel (comp. Neander): Paul means to say, u Christum 
 sectatores suos facturum peculium Dei , ut ei vivant and in like manner 
 Beza, Heydenreicli : we are to understand it of the presentation of the citi¬ 
 zens of the kingdom , raised from the dead , before God. Another mode is that 
 of Calovius, Bengel, Osiandcr, Reiche, al. (comp, also Gess, Pers. Ghr. p. 
 280): it is only the form of the rule of Christ (namely, as the reconciler ) 
 that ceases then ; the regnum gratiae ceases, and the regnum gloriae fol¬ 
 lows, which is what Luther’s and Melanchthon’s exposition’ also comes to in 
 substance. Ho ; Christ, although by His exaltation to the right hand of 
 the Father He has become the ovvdpovog of God, is still only He who is in¬ 
 vested with the sovereignty by the Father until all hostile powers are over¬ 
 come (comp. Phil. ii. 9 ff.; Eph. i. 21 ; Acts ii. 33 ff.; Heb. i. 3, 13), 2 so 
 that the absolute supreme sovereignty, which remains with the Father, is 
 again immediately exercised after that end has been attained ; the work of 
 Christ is then completed ; He gives up to the Fa.ther the Messianic admin¬ 
 istration of the kingdom, which has continued since His ascension. 3 The 
 thought is similar in Pirke Elies. 11. “ Honus rex est Messias, qui reget 
 
 ab extremitate una mundi ad alteram. Decimus Deus S. B.; tunc redibit 
 regnum ad auctorem suumD "We must not mix up the spiritual fiaoikda, 
 John xviii. 37, here, where the subject is the exalted Lord. —ro 6eti k. 
 narpl] God , who is at the same time Father , namety, of Jesus Christ. Comp. 
 Rom. xv. G; 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31 ; Gal. i. 3 ; Eph. i. 3, v. 20; Col. i. 3 ; 1 
 Pet. i. 3 ; Jas. i. 27, iii. 9. Estius says rightly : 1 ‘ unus articulus utrumque 
 complectens.” See Matthiae, p. 714 f., and on Rom. xv. G. That Paul, 
 however, means by waryp Xpiarov , not the supernatural bodily generation, 
 but the metaphysical spiritual derivation, according to which Christ is Kara 
 TTvev/m ayusavvrjQ the Son of God, see on Rom. i. 4.—But this giving over of 
 the kingdom will not take place sooner than : brav Karapygay k.t.'j l., when die 
 shall have done away , etc. Observe the difference of meaning between orav 
 with the present (rrapachbcj) and with the aorist ( futur. exact.). See Mat¬ 
 thiae, p. 1195. And this difference of tense shows of itself that of the two 
 clauses introduced with orav, this second one is subordinated to the first, 
 and not co-ordinated with it (Hofmann). Hence, too, we have no /cat or re 
 with the second brav. It is the familiar jdienomenon of the double protasis, 
 the one being dependent on the other (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 35 ; 
 Anab. iii. 2. 31). — Tracav apxvv . . . bvvau.] every dominion and every power 
 and might , is to be understood, as ver. 25 proves clearly, of all hostile powers, 
 of all influences opposed to God , whose might Christ will bring to nought 
 
 1 Luther : Christ is now ruling through the 
 word, not in visible public fashion, as we 
 see the sun through a cloud. “ There we see 
 indeed the light, but not the sun itselfj but 
 when the clouds are gone, then we see both light 
 and sun together in one and the same subsist¬ 
 ence.'' Melanchthon : “ Offeret regnum 
 patri, i.e. ostendet has acliones (namely, of 
 
 the mediatorial office), completas esse, et 
 delude simul regnabit ut Deus, immediate di- 
 mnitatem nobis ostendens." 
 
 2 Comp, upon the relation of the dominion 
 of Christ, as conferred by the supreme Sover¬ 
 eign, the parable in Luke xix. 12 ff. 
 
 3 Comp, von Zezschwitz, l.c. p. 20S; 
 Luthardt, l.c. p. 128. 
 
3G0 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 (/campy., comp. ii. 6); consequently we may not explain it simply of de¬ 
 moniac powers (Chrysostom, Calovius, and others, including Heydenreich, 
 Billroth, Usteri, Neander, Lutharclt), nor refer it to worldly political powers 
 as such (Grotius). In opposition to the context on account of rovg exOpovg, 
 ver. 25, Calvin interprets it (comp. Cajetanus) : 1 ‘ potcstates legitimas a Deo 
 ordinatas ; and Olshausen understands all rule, good as well as bad, and even 
 that of the Son also, to "be meant. The subject of /campy, must, it may be 
 added, be the same with that of n apadido, consequently not God (Beza, 
 Grotius, Bengel, Heydenreich, van Hengel, and others). 
 
 Vv. 25-28. Establishment of the fact that Christ will not deliver up the 
 kingdom until after the doing away of every dominion, etc. (vv. 25-27, 
 down to Tvodag avrov), but that then this abdication will assuredly follow (vv. 
 27-28 ).—For He must (it is necessary in accordance with the divine counsel) 
 reign (wield the Messianic government) until, etc. The emphasis of the 
 sentence as it advances falls on this until, etc.— axpi-g ov k.t.1.] words taken 
 from Ps. cx. 1,—a Messianic psalm, according to Christ Himself (Matt, 
 xxii. 43 f.),—which Paul does not quote, but appropriates for himself. The 
 subject to 6fi is not God (so even Hofmann), but Christ (so Riickert, de 
 "Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Maier, comp, already Chrysostom), 
 which is necessarily required by the preceding avrov, and by sarapyjari in 
 ver. 24, to which 6y k.t.X. corresponds. 1 Not till ver. 27 does God come in 
 as the subject without violence and in harmony with the context.— axpig ov 
 indicates the terminus ad quern of the dominion of Christ, after which 
 epoch this dominion will have ceased ; see on ver. 24. The strange shifts 
 which have been resorted to in order to maintain here the subsequent con¬ 
 tinuance of the rule of Christ (ov rfjg fiacnAtiag ova earai rklog was added to 
 the Nicene Creed in opposition to Marcellus in the second Oecumenical 
 Council), may be seen in Estius and Flatt. His Tcingdom continues, but not 
 His regency, ver. 24. The seeming contradiction to Luke i. 33 (Dan. vii. 
 14) is got rid of by the consideration that the government of Christ lasts on 
 into the alcov ykTJXuv, and that after its being given over to the Father, the 
 kingdom itself will have its highest and eternal completion (ver. 28); thus 
 that prophecy receives" its eschatological fulfilment, (v 2 ) 
 
 Ver. 2G. More precise definition of the axptg ov by specification of the 
 enemy who is last of all to be brought to nought. As last enemy (whose 
 removal is dealt with after all the others, so that then none is left remain¬ 
 ing) is death done away (by Christ), (w 2 ) inasmuch, namely, as after comple¬ 
 tion of the raising of the dead (of the non-Christians also, see on ver. 22) 
 the might of death shall be taken away, and now there occurs no more any 
 state of death, or any dying. The present sets it before us as realized. 
 Olshausen imports arbitrarily the idea that in eoxarog there lies a reference 
 not simply to the time of the victory, but also to the greatness of the resist¬ 
 ance. To understand Satan (Ileb. ii. 14) to be meant by Odvarog , with 
 Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 373, and others, following Pelagius, is without warrant 
 
 1 We are not, however, on this account to pronoun has proceeded from the standpoint 
 write 7r66as avrov instead of n. avTov ; the of the writer. 
 
CHAP. XV., 27. 
 
 361 
 
 from linguistic usage, and without ground from the context. As regards 
 the 'personification of the death, which is done away, comp. Rev. xx. 14 ; 
 Isa. xxv. 8. 1 
 
 Yer. 27. liavra yap . . . avrov] Proof that death also must be done away. 
 This enemy cannot remain in existence, for otherwise God would not 
 have all things , etc. The point of the proof lies in ixavra , as in Heb. ii. 8.— 
 The words are those of Ps. viii. 7, which, as familiar to the reader (comp, 
 on Rom. ix. 7 ; Gal. iii. 11), Paul makes his own, and in which he, laying 
 out of account their historical sense, 'which refers to the rule of man over 
 the earth, recognizes, as is clear from orav 6e slrzy h.t.j l., a typical declaration 
 of God, wdiich has its antitypical fulfilment in the completed rule of the 
 Messiah (the devrepog avOpuixog, ver. 47). Comp. Eph. i. 22 ; Heb. ii. 8. — 
 The subject of imirage (which expresses the subjection ordained by God in 
 the word of God) is God, as w r as obvious of itself to the reader from the 
 familiar passage of the psalm. If God has in that passage of Ps. viii. sub¬ 
 jected all to the might of Christ, then death also must be subdued by Him; 
 otherwise it is plain that one power "would be excepted from that divine 
 subjection of all things to Christ, and the izavra w T ould not be warranted.— 
 orav 6c dixy k.t.X.] 6e leading on, namely, to the confirmation of the giving 
 over of the kingdom to God, for which proof is still to be adduced: “but, 
 w T hen He shall have said that the whole is subjected, then without doubt He 
 will be excepted from this state of subjection, who has subjected the wdiole 
 to Him.” The subject of dixy is not j ypafi/ (de Wette, al.), but neither is it 
 Christ (Hofmann), but the same as of vizeraser, therefore God, whose w r ord 
 that passage of the psalm adduced is not as regards its historical connec¬ 
 tion, but is so simply as a word of Scripture. Comp, on vi. 16. The aorist 
 eItz y is to be taken regularly, not, with Luther and the majority of inter¬ 
 preters : wdien He says , but, like vv. 24, 28, as futurum exaction : clixerit 
 (Irenaeus, Hilary). So, too, Hofmann rightly. 2 * * * * Comp. Luke vi. 26. Plato, 
 Farm. p. 148 C; Ion. p. 535 B; also kav dixy , x. 28, xii. 15. The point of 
 time of the quando, orav, is that at wdiich the now still unexecuted ixavra 
 inzera^ev shall be executed and completed ; hence, also, not again the 
 aorist, but the perfect viz or kr anrai. The progress of the thought is there¬ 
 fore : “ But when God, who in Ps. viii. 7 has ordained the viz ora^ig, shall 
 have once uttered the declaration, that it be accomplished —this viroraZig.” 
 This form of presenting it w r as laid to the apostle’s hand by the fact that he 
 had just expressed himself in the words of a saying of Scripture (a saying of 
 God). In Heb. i. 6 also the aorist is not to. be understood as a present, but 
 (jz aXiv) as & futurum exaction. See Lunsmann in loc. — tiylov or;] Adverbial, 
 
 1 [The meaning of this verse, here correct¬ 
 ly given, does not seem to me to be ex¬ 
 pressed in the A. V. or in the revision of 
 1881—T. W. C.] 
 
 2 Who, however, w 7 ith his reference of 
 
 elnj] to Christ as its subject gains the con-' 
 
 ception : “ As Christ at the end of His 
 
 obedience on earth said : rereAeo-rat, so shall 
 
 lie at the end of Ilis reign within the world 
 
 say: ^dm vTroreTa/cTat.” But witb what 
 difficulty could a reader light upon the 
 analogy of that reTe'Aeo-rai! IIow naturally, 
 on the contrary, would he be led to think 
 of the subject of vireraijev, consequently 
 God, as the speaker also in ehrj )! This ap¬ 
 plies also in opposition to Luthardt, Lc. p. 
 131. 
 
302 
 
 Paul’s pirst epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 in the sense of manifestly , assuredly ; therefore: it (namely, the ir avra vir orc- 
 ranrai) will dearly take place with the exception of Him, who, etc. See regard¬ 
 ing this use of Sffkov on, which has to be analyzed by means of supplying 
 the preceding predicate, Mattliiae, p. 1494 ; Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 661 f.; 
 Buttmann, ad Plat. Grit. p. 53 A (p. 106). According to Hofmann, SyAov 
 on is meant as, namely , as it is used likewise in Greek writers, and especially 
 often in grammarians (not Gal. iii. 11); from SrjAov to iravra is only an 
 explanation interposed, after which the former orav 6c dixy ic.r.A. is shortly 
 resumed by orav Sc virorayy K.r.l ., ver. 28. See regarding Sc after paren¬ 
 theses or interruptions, Hartung, Partik. I. p. 172 f. But, in the first place, 
 Sffov on K.r.l. is a very essential point, no mere parenthetic thought in the 
 course of the argument ; and, secondly, the resumption after so short and 
 plain an intercalation would be alike uncalled for, and, through the 
 change in the mode of expression (not again with ehry), obscure. — curog rov 
 virordL] i.e. with the exception of God; but Paul designates God as the 
 subjecting subject: “ quo clarius in oculos incurreret, rem loqui ipsam, ” van 
 Ilengel. 
 
 Ver. 28. What Paul had just presented in the, as it were, poetically ele¬ 
 vated form orav 6c einy k.t.A., he now sums up in the way of simple state¬ 
 ment by orav 6c virorayy k.t.j l., in order to make the further element in his 
 demonstration follow in accordance with the Sffkov bn k.t.A. —nai avrog] the 
 Son Himself also shall be subjected, 1 not of course against His will, but as 
 willingly yielding compliance to the expiry of His government. The Son 
 wills what the Father wills ; His undertaking is now completed—the be¬ 
 coming subject is His “last duty” (Ewald). Here, too, especially by the 
 older interpreters, a great deal of dogmatic theology has been imported, in 
 order to make the apostle not teach—what, in truth, he does teach with the 
 greatest distinctness—that there is a cessation of the rule of Christ. The 
 commonest expedient (so Augustine, de Trin. i. 8, and Jerome, adv. Pelag. 
 i. 6, and the majority of the older expositors) is that Christ according to His 
 human nature is meant, in connection with which Estius and Flatt take 
 viroray. as : it will become very manifest that , etc. Ambrosiaster, Athanasius, 
 and Theodoret even explained it, like Xpiorog in xii. 12, of the corpus Ghristi 
 mysticum , the church. Chrysostom also imports the idea (comp. Theophylact 
 and Photius in Oecumenius) that Paul is describing ryv iroAlyv irpog rov 
 irarepa oyovoiav. — iva y 6 Ocbg ra iravra cv iraaiv] aim not of virora^avn avr. r. i r. 
 (Hofmann), but of avrog 6 viog virorayy a. k.t.A ., which is indeed the main 
 point in the progress of the argument, the addition of its final aim now 
 placing the reader at the great copestone of the whole development of the 
 history of salvation. The object aimed at in the Son’s becoming subject 
 under God is the absolute sovereignty of God : ‘ 1 in order that God may be 
 the all in them allf i.e. in order that God may be the only and the immedi¬ 
 ate all-determining principle in the inner life of all the members of the king¬ 
 dom hitherto reigned over by Christ. 2 Not as though the hitherto 
 
 1 vnorayricreTai is to be left passive (in op- Letov. Comp. ver. 
 position to Hofmann). God is the virordaacov. 2 Melanchtlion : 1 ‘Deus . . . immediate 
 
 Comp. Rom. viii. 20. But Christ is subject se ostendens, vivificans et effundens in. 
 
CHAP. XY., 29. 
 
 3G3 
 
 continued rule of Christ had hindered the attainment of this end (as Hof¬ 
 mann objects), but it has served this end as its final destination, the com¬ 
 plete fulfilment of which is the complete u glory of God the Father” (Phil, 
 ii. 11) to eternity. “ Significatur hie novum quiddam, sed idem summum 
 ac perenne . . .; hie finis et apex ; ultra ne apostolus quidem quo eat habet,” 
 Bengel. According to Billroth, this expresses the realization of the iden¬ 
 tity of the finite and the infinite spirit, which, however, is unbiblical. 1 See 
 in opposition to the pantheistic misunderstanding of the passage, J. Muller, 
 v. d. Sunde, I. p. 158 f. Olshausen (following older interpreters in Wolf) 
 and de Wette (comp. Weizel and Kern, also Scholten in the Tub. Jahrb. 
 1840, 3, p. 24) find here the doctrine of restoration favoured also by 
 Neander, so that h Traci would apply to all creatures , in whom God shall be 
 the all-determining One. But that would involve the conversion even of 
 the demons and of Satan, as well as the cessation of the pains of hell, which 
 is quite contrary to the doctrine of the New Testament, and in particular 
 to Paul’s doctrine of predestination. The fact was overlooked that kv Traci 
 refers to the members of the kingdom hitherto ruled over by Christ, to whom 
 the condemned, who on the contrary are outside of this kingdom, do not 
 belong, and that the continuance of the condemnation is not done away 
 even with the subjugation of Satan, since, on the contrary, the latter him¬ 
 self by his subjugation falls under condemnation. See, moreover, against 
 the interpretation of restoration, on ver. 22, and Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 431 ; 
 Georgii in the Tab. Jahrb. 1845, 1, p. 24 ; van Ilengel in loc. — h n aciv] is 
 just as necessarily masculine as in Col. iii. 11. The context demands this 
 by the correlation with aurdf 6 vlog /c.r.A., for up to this last consummation the 
 Son is the regulating governing principle in all, but now gives over His king¬ 
 dom to the Father, and becomes Himself subject to the Father, so that then 
 the latter is the all-ruling One in all , and no one apart from Him in any. 
 This in opposition to Hofmann, who takes h ttciciv as neuter , of the world , 
 namely, with regard to which God will constitute the entire contents of its 
 being in such a way as to make it wholly the created manifestation of His 
 nature ; the new heaven and the new earth, 2 Pet. iii. 13, is only another 
 expression, he holds, for the same thing. This introduction of the palin¬ 
 genesis of the universe, which is quite remote from the point here, is a con¬ 
 sequence of the incorrect reference of Iva (see above). Moreover, if the 
 meaning was to be : u All in the all,” Traci would require the retrospective 
 article, which Travra has in ver. 27 and ver. 28 a. See a number of examples 
 of Travra and ra rravra ecn in the specified sense in Wetstein, Locella, ad 
 Xen. Eph. p. 209. Comp, on Col. iii. 11, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 727. 
 (x 2 ) 
 
 Yer. 29. 2 ’Errd]for, if there is nothing in this eschatological development 
 
 beatos.suam mirandam lucem, sapientiam, 
 justitiam et laetitiam.” 
 
 1 Equally unbiblical are the similar inter¬ 
 pretations of the perishing (a.7raiActa) of the 
 individual existence and the regeneration 
 of the universe to form an immediate abso¬ 
 lute theocracy (Beck, comp. Rothe). 
 
 2 See on the passage, Riickert, Expos, loci 
 P. 1 Cor. xv. 29, Jena, 1847; Otto in his 
 delcalog. Enters. 1857; Diestelmann in the 
 Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1861, p. 522 ff.; Linder in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 571 f., and in the 
 Luther. Zeitschr. 1862, p. 627 ff.; Isenberg in 
 the MeJclenb. Zeitschr. 1864-65, p. 779 ff.; 
 
3G4 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 onward to tlie end, when God will he all in all, what shall those do , i.e. how 
 absurdly in that case will those act, who have themselves baptized for the dead ? 
 Then plainly the result, which they aim at, is a chimera ! Usually interpret¬ 
 ers have referred end back to ver. 20, and regarded what lies between as a 
 degression ; Olshausen is more moderate, considering only vv. 25-28 in that 
 light, so also de Wette ; Riickert, again, holds that Paul had perhaps rested 
 from writing for a little after ver. 28, and had had the sentence ‘ ‘ the dead arise ” 
 in his mind, but had not expressed it. Pure and superfluous arbitrariness ; 
 as always, so here too, enei points to what has immediately preceded. But, 
 of course, in this connection the final absolute sovereignty of God is con¬ 
 ceived as conditioned by the resurrection of the dead , which, after all that had 
 been previously said from ver. 20 onwards, presented itself to every reader as 
 a thing self-evident. Hofmann makes end refer to the whole paragraph be¬ 
 ginning with an a p xv Xptarog, as that is construed by him, down to ver. 26, 
 to which vv. 27, 28 have attached themselves as confirming the final abo¬ 
 lition of death. But see on vv. 24, 27. — Upon the words which follow all 
 possible acuteness has been brought into play, in order just to make the 
 apostle not say that which he says. — tl noirjGovctv) makes palpable the sense¬ 
 lessness, which would characterize the procedure in the case assumed by enei. 
 The f uture is that of the general proposition, 1 and applies to every baptism 
 of this kind which should occur. Every such baptism will be without any 
 meaning, if the deniers of the resurrection are in the right. Grotius : “ quid 
 efficient ” (comp. Flatt). But that a baptism of such a kind effected anything, 
 was assuredly a thought foreign to the apostle. He wished to point out the 
 subjective absurdity of the procedure in the case assumed. The interpreta¬ 
 tion : “ nescient quid agendum sit” (van Hengel) does not suit the connection, 
 into which Ewald also imports too much : “are they to think, that they 
 have cherished faith and hope in vain ?” — vnep tojv veuptiv] The article is 
 generic. Every baptism which, as the case occurs, is undertaken for a dead 
 person, is a baptism for the dead , namely, as regards the category. It must 
 have been something not wholly unusual in the apostolic church, familiar¬ 
 ity with which on the part of the readers is here taken for granted, that 
 persons had themselves baptized once more for the benefit of {vnep) people 
 who had died unbaptized but already believing , in the persuasion that this 
 would be counted to them as their own baptism, and thus as the supple¬ 
 ment of their conversion to Christ which had already taken place inwardly, 
 and that they would on this account all the more certainly be raised up with 
 the Christians at the Parousia, and made partakers of the eternal Messianic 
 salvation. 2 This custom propagated and maintained itself afterwards only 
 among heretical sects, in particular among the Cerinthians (Epiphanius, 
 Haer. xxviii. 7) and among theMarcionites (Chrysostom ; comp., moreover, 
 
 Koster in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1866, p. 15 ff. 
 Comp. alsoElwert, Quaest. et obss. ad philol. 
 sacram., Tub. 1860, p. 1211. The various in¬ 
 terpretations of older expositors may be 
 seen especially in Wolf. 
 
 1 Comp. Kruger, § liii. 7. 1; Elwert, p. 17; 
 
 Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 457 ; ad Rom. II. p. 9. 
 
 2 It is to be noted that Paul does not speak 
 at all in a self-inclusive way, as if of some¬ 
 thing common to all, but as of third persons , 
 tl TroLr/crovcrLP k.t.\. He designates only those 
 who did it. Comp, already Scaliger. 
 
CHAP. XY., 29. 
 
 365 
 
 generally Tertullian, de resurr. 48, adv. Marc. v. 10). 1 Among the great 
 multitude of interpretations (Calovius, even in his time, counts up twenty- 
 three), this is the only one which is presented to us by the words. Ambro- 
 siaster first took them so ; 2 among the later interpreters, Anselm, Erasmus, 
 Zeger, Cameron, Calixtus, Grotius, al.; and recently, Augusti, DenfcwurdigTc. 
 IV. p. 119 ; Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 219] ; Billroth, Ruckert, de Wette, 
 Maier, Neander, Grimm, Holtzmann ( Judenth. u. Ghristenth. p. 741) also 
 Kling and Paret (in Ewald’s JaTiri. IX. p. 247 1), both of which latter 
 writers call to their aid, on the ground, it is true, of xi. 30, the assumption 
 of a pestilence having then prevailed in Corinth. The usual objection, that 
 Paul would not have employed for his purpose at all, or at least not without 
 adding some censure, such an abuse founded on the belief in a magical 
 power of baptism (see especially, Calvin in loc .), is not conclusive, for Paul 
 may be arguing ex coyicesso, and hence may allow the relation of the matter to 
 evangelical truth to remain undetermined in the meantime, seeing that it does 
 not belong to the proper subject of his present discourse. The- abuse in 
 question must afterwards have been condemned by apostolic teachers (hence 
 it maintained itself only among heretics), and no doubt Paul too aided in the 
 work of its removal. For to assume, with Baumgarten-Crusius (Dogmengesch. 
 II. p. 813), that he himself had never at all disapproved of the ^aKT^Ecdar. 
 inrep tcjv veuptiv, or to place, with Ruckert, the vicarious baptism in the same 
 line with the vicarious death of Christ, is to stand in the very teeth of the 
 fundamental doctrine of the Pauline gospel—that of faith as the subjective 
 ethical “ causa medians” of salvation. For the rest, Ruckert says well : 
 “Usurpari ab eo morem, qui ceteroqui displiceret, ad errorem, in quo im- 
 pugnando versabatur, radicitus evellendum, ipsius autem reprehendendi 
 aliud tempus expectari.” The silent disapproval of the apostle is brought 
 in by Erasmus in his Paraphrase : ‘ ‘ Fidem probo, factum non probo ; nam 
 ut ridiculum est, existimare mortuo succurri baptismo alieno, ita recte cre- 
 dunt resurrectionem futuram.” Epiphanius, Haer. 28, explains it of the 
 baptism of the clinici , of the catechumens on their deathbed, who irpo ryr 
 Telev-yq Xovrpov naval; tovvrai. So Calvin, although giving it along with an¬ 
 other interpretation equally opposed to the meaning of the words ; also 
 Flacius, Estius, al. But how can vrcep r. reap. mean jamjam morituri 
 (Estius) ! or how can the rendering 11 ut mortuis , non vivis prosit” (Calvin) 
 lead any one to guess that the “baptismus clinicorum” was intended, even 
 
 1 Chrysostom says that among the Mar- 
 cionites, when a catechumen died unbap¬ 
 tized, some one hid himself under the bed ; 
 then they asked the dead man if he wished 
 to be baptized,and on the living one answer¬ 
 ing affirmatively, they baptized the latter 
 avTL toO ane\06vTo<;. Of the Cerinthians, 
 again, Epiphanius says, l.c.: /cat ri napaSo- 
 
 crews npdyp.a r]\6ev et; riP-as, tos rtvcov p.ev nap’ 
 aureus npofyQavovTutv re\evTr)crai dvev PamLu- 
 /aaTos, aAAou? 6e avr a vtu>v eis ovojtta e/ceii'wi/ 
 /3a77Tt£e<r0ai vnep tov p.r) ev rfj avac rratret 
 ai'acrTOLaavTas avrovi ducrjv SovvaL Ttjtta/ptas, 
 
 pdnTia-pa a ij etArjc^ora?. Tertullian does not 
 name the Marcionites, but quotes the ex¬ 
 planation of our text as applying to the 
 vicarious baptism, without approving of it. 
 
 2 “ In tantum stabilem et ratam vult 
 ostendei-e resurrectionem mortuorum, ut 
 exemplum det eorum, qui tarn securi erant 
 de futura resurrectione, ut etiam pro mor¬ 
 tuis baptizarentur, si quem mors praeve- 
 nisset, timentes ne aut male aut non resur- 
 geret, qui baptizatus non fuerat. . . . 
 Exemplo hoc non factum illorum probat , sed 
 fidem fixam in resurrectione ostendit." 
 
3G6 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 supposing that it had been already customary at that time ! 1 Chrysostom, 
 too, runs counter to the words : V7r£p tuv vEnpuv, tovtegtl tcov Goparov, ml yap 
 
 ETcl TOVTO fiaiTTL^TJ, TOV VElipOV GCjpaTOg avaGTOGiV TTIGTEVUV. Paul, he holds, lias 
 
 in view the article in the baptismal creed (which, however, certainly belongs 
 only to a later time) : “I believe in a resurrection of the dead.” So, too, 
 on the whole, Pelagius, Oecumenius, Photius, Theophylact, Melanchthon 
 (“ profitentes de mortuis”), Cornelius a Lapide, Er. Schmid, and others ; 
 and somewhat to the same effect also Wetstein. Comp, yet earlier, Tertul- 
 lian : “pro mortuis tingi pro corporibus est tingi.” Theodoret gives it a 
 different turn, but likewise imports a meaning, making the reference to be 
 to the dead body : 6 /3aTrTfop£vog , frjGi, ~<p dEGTrdrri GwOdwreTai , "iva tov Oavarov 
 KQiVuv?]Gag ml ttjq avaGraGEug yivyrac kolvovoq' ei d e v e k p ov e gt i to g pa , 
 ical o v k avLGTarciL , r l 6 7] tt o t e nal fiaTETi^ETai. Luther’s explana¬ 
 tion, adopted again recently by Ewald and others, that “ to confirm the resur¬ 
 rection, the Christians had themselves baptized over the graves of the dead ” (so 
 Glass and many of the older Lutherans ; Calovius leaves us to choose be¬ 
 tween this view and that of Ambrosiaster), has against it, apart even from 
 the fact that mrip with the genitive in the local sense of over is foreign to 
 the New Testament, the following considerations : (1) that there is a lack 
 of any historical trace in the apostolic period of the custom of baptizing 
 over graves, such as of martyrs (for Eusebius, II. E. iv. 15, is not speaking 
 of baptism), often as churches were built, as is well known, in later times 
 over the graves of saints ; (2) that w r e can see no reason why just the 
 baptism at such places should be brought forward, and not the regarding of 
 these spots as consecrated generally ; (3) that to mark out the burial-places of 
 pious persons who had fallen asleep, would have been in no way anything 
 absurd even without the belief in a resurrection. And lastly, baptism took 
 place at that time not in fonts or vessels of that kind, which could be set 
 over graves, but in rivers and other natural supplies of water. Other inter¬ 
 preters, following Pelagius, refer virep r. reap, to Christ , taking (3arrT . in some 
 cases of the baptism with water (Olearius, Schrader, Lange, Elwert) ; in 
 others, of the baptism with blood (Al. Morus, Lightfoot). tuv vEicp. would 
 thus be the plural of the category (see on Matt. ii. 20). ‘ But, putting aside 
 the consideration that Christ cannot be designated as vEttpog (not even ac¬ 
 cording to the view of the opponents), the baptism with water did not take 
 place vttep XpcGToi ), 2 but Eig Xpiorov ; and the baptism with blood would have 
 required to be forcibly indicated by the preceding context, or by the addi¬ 
 tion of some defining clause. “ For the benefit of the dead ” remains the right 
 
 1 Bengel also understands it of those who 
 receive baptism, “ quutn mortem ante 
 oculos positam habent” (through age, sick¬ 
 ness, or martyrdom). Osiander agrees with 
 him. But how can vnep r. veKp. mean that? 
 Equally little warrant is there for inserting 
 what Ivrauss, p. 130, imports into it, taking 
 it of baptism in the face of death : “ Who 
 caused themselves to receive a consecration 
 to life, while, notwithstanding, they were 
 
 coming not to the living, but to the dead." 
 
 2 Elwert, p. 15, defines the conception of 
 the PaTTTi^eadac v n e p Xpiarov : “ eo fine et 
 consilio, ut per baptismum Christo addic- 
 tus quaecunque suis promisit, tibi propria 
 facias.” But that is plainly included in the 
 contents of the Panr. ei? X. or e v bvo p.ar t 
 tov Kvpiov, and one does not see from this 
 why Paul should have chosen the peculiar 
 expression with vnep. 
 
CHAP. XV., 29. 
 
 367 
 
 interpretation. Olshausen holds this also, but expounds it to this effect, 
 that the baptism took place for the good of the dead, inasmuch as a certain 
 number, a 'nlrjpuua of believers, is requisite, which must first be fully made 
 up before the Parousia and the resurrection can follow. But this idea must 
 be implied in the connection ; what reader could divine it ? Olshausen 
 himself feels this, and therefore proposes to render, “ who have themselves 
 baptized instead of the members removed from the church by death.” So, 
 too, in substance Isenberg (whose idea, however, is that of a militia Christi 
 which has to be recruited), and among the older interpreters Clericus on 
 Hammond, Deyling, Obss. II. p. 519, ed. 3, and Doderlein, Instit. I. p. 409. 
 But in that case vtt ep r. vsKp. would be something not at all essential and 
 probative for the connection, since it is plain that every entrance of new 
 believers into the church makes up for the departure of Christians who have 
 died, but in this relation has nothing to do with the resurrection of the 
 latter. This at the same time in opposition to van Hengel’s interpretation, 
 about which he himself, however, has doubts: for the honour of deceased Chris¬ 
 tians , “ quos exteri vituperare vel despicere soleant.” According to Diestel- 
 mann, vtt ep r. v. is for the sake of the dead , and means : in order hereafter 
 united with them in the resurrection to enter into the kingdom of Christ; while 
 the vEKpoi are Christ and those fallen asleep in Him . 1 But it is decisive against 
 this view, first, that there is thus comprised in the simple preposition, an 
 extent of meaning which the reader could not discover in it without more 
 precise indication ; secondly, that every baptism whatsoever would be also in 
 this assumed sense a (SaTTrifaQac vk ep tuv veKptiv, whereby therefore nothing 
 distinctive w r ould be said here, such as one could not but expect after the 
 quite singular expression ; thirdly, that Christ cannot be taken as included 
 among the veicpol, seeing that the resurrection of the Lord which had taken 
 place was not the subject of the denial of resurrection here combated, 
 but its denial is attributed by Paul to his opponents only per consequen- 
 tiam , ver. 13. According to Koster, those are meant who have themselves 
 baptized for the sake of their Christian friends who have fallen asleep , i.e. 
 out of yearning after them, in order to remain in connection with them, 
 and to become partakers with them of the resurrection and eternal 
 life. But in this way also a significance is imported into the simple 
 V7rip tcjv veKpuv, which there is nothing whatever to suggest, and which 
 would have been easily conveyed, at least by some such addition as cvyyevuv 
 Kal (piXuv. According to Linder, the fiaTrritidpEvoL and the vEicpoi are held to 
 be even the same persons, so that the meaning wmuld be : if they do not rise 
 {in gratiam cinerum ), which, however, the article of itself forbids ; merely 
 vnIp vEKptiv ( veKp . would be in fact qualitative ) must have been made use of, 
 and even in that case it would be a poetical mode of expression, which no 
 reader would have had any clue to help him to unriddle. Similarly, but with 
 a still more arbitrary importing of meaning, Otto holds that ol f3aKrfoy. are 
 the deniers of the resurrection, who had themselves baptized in order 
 (which is said, according to him, ironically) to become dead instead of living 
 
 1 Comp., too, Breitschwert in the Wurtemb. Stud. X. 1, p. 139 ff. 
 
3G8 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORIKTHIAHS. 
 
 men. Most of all does Hofmann twist and misinterpret the whole passage 
 (comp, also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 199 f.), punctuating it thus : ettel tl 
 
 7C017JG. OL ficiTCT. VTTEf) TUV VEKptJV, El VEKp. OVti EyELpOVTCU J TL KELL fiaTTTL^OVTCU J 
 
 vTrep ai>Tuv tl nal yuelg Kivdvvevogev ; the thought being : u If those, who by 
 means of sin lie in death, become subject in their sins to an utter death from which 
 there is no rising, then will those, who have themselves baptized, find no reason in 
 their Christian status to do anything for them, that may help them out of the 
 death in which they lief ’ nay, why do they then have themselves baptized? and 
 why do we risk our lives for them? 'Twep ruv reap, thus belongs to tl ttoit/g. ; 
 the vTcep avruv, placed for emphasis at the head of the last question, applies to 
 the fiarmCopEvoi. Every point in this interpretation is incorrect ; for (1) to 
 do something for others, i.e. for their good, is an absolute duty, indepen- 
 dent of the question whether there be a resurrection or not. (2) But to do 
 something which will help them out of death, is not in the passage at all, but is 
 imported into it. (3) Those who can and should do something for others 
 are the Christians ; these, however, cannot have been designated so strangely 
 as by oi (iaTvrfopEvoL, but must have been called in an intelligible w r ay oi 
 TuoTEvoavTEQ perhaps, or at least oi fiaTTTioOevTEg. (4) The venpoi can only, in 
 accordance with the context, be simply the dead, i.e. those who have died, 
 as through the whole chapter from ver. 12 to ver. 52. (5) To give to vrrep 
 
 avrtiv another reference than inrep tuv venpuv, is just as violent a shift as the 
 severance of either of the two from fici-TfEoOai, in connection with which 
 they are symmetrically requisite for more precise definition, and are so 
 placed. And when (6) virep av-tiv is actually made to mean 11 in order to in¬ 
 duce them to receive baptism ,' 1 ' 1 this just crowns the arbitrariness of inserting 
 between the lines what the apostle, according to the connection, could 
 neither say nor think. Moreover, virep avruv could not have the emphasis, 
 but only the yuelg introduced with mi, like the fa-ir-f. previously introduced 
 with Kfii. — e'l ohcjg venpoi ova eyelp.] Parallel to the conditional clause to be 
 supplied in connection with etteL For Paul conceives of the resurrection of 
 the dead as being so necessarily connected with the completion of the 
 Messianic kingdom that the denial of the one is also the denial of the other. 
 If universally (as v. 1) dead persons cannot be raised up, why do they have 
 themselves baptized also for them? since plainly, in that case, they would have 
 nothing at all to do for the dead. See, generally, on Rom. viii. 24 ; Pflugk, 
 adllec. 515 ; Baeumlein , Partik. p. 152. This “ also " 1 betokens the (entirely 
 useless) superinduced character of the proceeding. To refer el e-yelp, still to 
 w'hat precedes (Luther and many others, the texts of Elzevir, Griesbach, 
 Scholz ; not Beza) mars the parallelism ; the addition of the conditional 
 clause to ettei has nothing objectionable in itself (in opposition to van 
 Hengel), Plato, Prot. p. 318 B ; Xen. Anab. vi. i. 30, vii. C. 22 ; 4 Macc. 
 viii. 8. (y 2 ) 
 
 Ver. 30. How preposterously ice cdso are acting in that supposed case ! — 
 nai] does not, as some fancy, determine the meaning of the preceding fairr. 
 to be that of a baptism of suffering, but it adds a new T subject, whose con¬ 
 duct would likewise be aimless. — yyek] I and my compeers, we apostolic 
 preachers of the gospel, we apostles and our companions. Paul then, in 
 
309 
 
 chap, xv., 31, 32. 
 
 ver. 31 f., adduces himself , his own fortunes, in an individualizing way as a 
 proof. The argument is, indeed, only for the continuance of the spirit 
 (comp. Cicero, Tusc. i. 15) ; but this, when hoped' for as blessedness, has 
 with Paul the resurrection as its necessary condition. 
 
 Ver. 31. ’Atto^v^ct/ccjJ / am occupied with dying , am a inoribundus. See 
 Bernhardy, p. 370, and van Hengel. Strong way of denoting the deadly 
 peril with which he sees himself encompassed daily. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 11, 
 xi. 23 ; Rom. viii. 36, and the parallel passages in Wetstein. The perfect 
 as in Eur. Hec. 431, would have been still stronger. — vrf\ a very frequent 
 term of asseveration in classical writers (in the New Testament only here), 
 always with the accusative of the person or thing by which the asseveration 
 is made (Kiihner, II. p. 396). By your boasting, which I have in Christ, i.e. 
 as truly as I boast myself of you in my fellowship with Christ, in the service 
 of Christ. Corap. Rom. xv. 17. The boasting, which takes place on the 
 part of the apostle, is conceived of by him as a moral activity, which be¬ 
 longs to him. Comp, the opposite uo/npijv exew, pvyfiv ex eiV , and the like, 
 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 732. — vyerepav ] is to be understood objectively 
 (Matthiae, p. 1032 ; Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 221 ; Kiihner, II. § 627, A. 6). 
 Comp. xi. 24 ; Rom. xi. 31. The expression brings out more strongly the 
 reference to the person (as truly as ye are the subject of my boasting). The 
 Corinthians, whose subsistence as a church is an apostolic boast for Paul, 
 can testify to himself what deadly perils are connected with his apostolic 
 work. He thus guards himself against every suspicion of exaggeration and 
 bragging. The asseveration does not serve to introduce what follows (Hof¬ 
 mann), since that does not come in again as an assertive declaration, but in 
 a conditional form. 
 
 Ver. 32. Something of a special nature after the general statement in ver. 
 31. — If I after the manner of men have fought with beasts in Ephesus, ichat is 
 the profit (arising therefrom) to me ? — Kara avOpunov] has the principal em¬ 
 phasis, so that it contains the element, from which follows the negative in¬ 
 volved in the question of the apodosis : “then it is profitless for me.” And 
 the connection yields from this apodosis as the meaning of Kara ardpurrov : 
 after the manner of ordinary men, i.e. not in divine striving and hoping, but 
 only in the interest of temporal reward, gain, glory, and the like, whereby 
 the common, unenlightened man is wont to be moved to undertake great 
 risks. If Paul has fought in such a spirit, then he has reaped nothing from 
 it, for he Kad' rjyepav invodvr/GKei. The many varying explanations 1 may be seen 
 in Poole’s Synopsis. Against Riickert, who explains it : “according to 
 human ability, with the exertion of the highest power, ” it may be decisively 
 urged that Kara avOp. in all passages does not denote what is human per ex- 
 cellentiam. If, therefore, the context here required that Kara avOp. should ex¬ 
 press the measure of power (which reference, however, lies quite remote), 
 then we must explain it as : with ordinary human power , without divine power. 
 According to Riickert’s view, moreover, Kara avOp. would not be at all the 
 
 1 Chrysostom and Theophylact : oow TO doret : /car a av6pu> ttlvoi' \oyi.crp.bv Oijpiuv 
 eis avQpionovs, as far as a beast-fight can eyevopurjv /3opa. 
 take place in reference to men. Theo- 
 
370 
 
 Paul’s pirst epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 principal element of the protasis, which, however, from its position it must 
 necessarily be. Interpretations such as exempli causa (Semler, Rosenmuller, 
 Heydenreich), or ut hominum more loquar (Estius), are impossible, since 
 leyu or lalu does not stand along with it. The conjecture was hazarded : 
 Kara avdpcj ttov (Scaliger). — iOppiopaxyoa] dppiopaxciv, to fight with wild beasts 
 (Diod. iii. 42 ; Artem. ii. 54, v. 49), is here a significant figurative descrip¬ 
 tion of the fight w ith strong and exasperated enemies. So Tertullian (Be resurr. 
 48 : “depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi, illas sc. bestias Asiaticae pressurae”), 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Pelagius, Sedulius, Beza, Grotius, 
 Estius, Calovius, Michaelis, Zachariae, Yalckenaer, Stolz, Rosenmuller, as 
 w r ell as Schrader, Riickert,01shausen, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, 
 Maier, Hofmann, Krauss. Comp. Appian. B. C. p. 763 (in Wetstein), 
 where Pompei us says : oloiq Oqpioig paxopeda. Ignatius, ad Rom. 5 : and hvpiag 
 fi&xpi 'Vhprjq Bppi.opax^j Ad yfjg nal dahaoGrjc, ad Tars. 1, ad Smyrn. 4. Comp. 
 Tit. i. 12 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17 ; Ignatius, ad Eph. 7, as also in classical writers 
 brutal men are called Brjpia ; (Plato, Phaed. p. 240 B ; Aristophanes, Nub. 184 ; 
 Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 114). See also Valckenaer, p. 332. Paul takes 
 for granted that his readers were acquainted with what he describes in such 
 strong language, as he might assume, moreover, that they would of them¬ 
 selves understand his expression figuratively, since they knew, in fact, his 
 privilege of Roman citizenship, which excluded a condemnation ad bestias , 
 ad leonem. His lost letter also may have already given them more detailed 
 information. Nothwithstanding, many interpreters, such as Ambrosias- 
 ter, Theodoret, Cajetanus, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 Lightfoot, Wolf, and others, including Flatt and Billroth, have explained 
 this of an actual fight with beasts , out of which he had been wonderfully de¬ 
 livered. 1 It is objected as regards the privilege of a Roman citizen (see in 
 particular Flatt), that Paul was in point of fact scourged, etc., Acts xvi. 
 22 f. But in Acts, l.c ., Paul did not appeal to his right of citizenship, but 
 made it known only after he had suffered scourging and imprisonment, 
 whereupon he was forthwith set free, ver. 37 ff. Before he was thrown to 
 the beasts, however, he would, in accordance with his duty, have appealed 
 to his right of citizenship, and thereby have been protected. And would 
 Luke in the Acts of the Apostles have left unmentioned an incident so en¬ 
 tirely unique, which, among all the wonderful deliverances of the apostle, 
 would have been the most wonderful ? Would not Paul himself have named 
 it with the rest in 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff., and Clement in 1 Cor. 5 ? — Upon the 
 non-literal interpretation, 2 however, it cannot be proved whether a single 
 
 1 From this literal interpretation arose 
 the legend in the apocryphal Acta Pauli in 
 Nicephorus, 11. E. ii. 25 (p. 175, ed. Paris, 
 1630), that he was thown first of all to a 
 lion, then to other beasts, but was left un¬ 
 touched by them all.—Van Ilengel (comp, 
 previously his Annot. p. 208), while likewise 
 holding fast the literal view, has explained 
 it only of a supposed case : “ Sumamus, me 
 Ephesi depugnasse cum feris,” etc. But 
 
 this would not at all fit into the connection 
 with the actual dangers and sufferings 
 which Paul has mentioned before. Ob¬ 
 serve,' on the contrary, the climax: klvSv- 
 vevofiev, anoOvrio-Kio, e9r]pLOfJ.dxr)cra., which 
 latter word brings forward a particular in¬ 
 cident, which has occurred, as proof of the 
 general anoOvrjcrKu}. 
 
 2 Which Krenkel also follows in Hilgen- 
 feld’s Zeitschr. 1866, p. 368 ff., assuming in 
 
V 
 
 chap, xv., 33. 371 
 
 event , and if so, which , is meant. Many of the older expositors think, with 
 Pclagius, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, of the uproar of Demetrius in Acts 
 xix. But in connection with that Paul himself was not at all in danger ; 
 moreover, we must assume, in accordance with Acts xx. 1, that he wrote 
 'before the uproar. Perhaps he means no single event at all, but the wdiole 
 heavy conflict which he had had to wage in Ephesus up to that time with ex¬ 
 asperated Jewish antagonists, and of which he speaks in Acts xx. 19 : pet a 
 . . . daicpviov k. TTEipaupijv /c.r .%.—tl poi to o^e/lof;] what does it profit me? 
 The article denotes the definite profit, conceived as result. The self-evident 
 answer is : nothing! Comp. ix. 17. As the gain, however, which he gets 
 from his fight waged not Kara avOpoirov, he has in view not temporal results, 
 founding of churches and the like, but- the future glory , which is conditioned 
 by the resurrection of the dead (comp. Phil. iii. 10, 11) ; hence he continues : 
 el venpol K.r.h .— el vsKpol ovk kystp.] is referred by the majority of the-old 
 interpreters (not Chrysostom and Theophylact, but from Pelagius and 
 Theodoret onwards) to the preceding. It would then be a second condi¬ 
 tional clause to ri pot to ofcXog (see on xiv. 6) ; but it is far more suitable to 
 the symmetry in the relation of the clauses (comp. ver. 29) to connect if 
 with what follows (Beza, Bengel, Griesbach, and later expositors). For the 
 rest, it is to be observed that el v£Kp. ova eyeip. corresponds to the thought 
 indicated by /card avQp. as being in correlative objective relation to it ; fur¬ 
 ther, that Paul has not put an ovv or even a yap after el, but has written 
 asyndetically, and so in all the more vivid and telling a manner ; likewise, 
 that for the apostle moral life is necessarily based on the belief in eternal 
 redemption, without which belief—and thus as resting simply on the ab¬ 
 stract postulate of duty—it cannot in truth subsist at all ; lastly, that the 
 form of a challenge is precisely fitted to display the moral absurdity of the 
 premiss in a very glaring light, which is further intensified by the fact that 
 Paul states the dangerous consequence of the earthly eudaemonism, which 
 tOj yaoTpl psTpei nal to~ic, alafiiGToiq ttjv EvSaipoviav (Dem. 824, 24) in set words 
 of Scripture (comp. Chrysostom), LXX. Isa. xxii. 13. Analogies to tills 
 Epicurean maxim from profane writers, such as Euripides, Alcest. 798, may 
 be seen in Wetstein ; Jacobs, Del. epigr. vii. 28 ; Dissen, ad Pindar, p. 
 500 ; comp. Nicostr. in Stob. Flor. lxxiv. 64 : to Cv v ovSev ahho egtlv g ogtiq 
 av (f>dyy. See also Wisd. ii. 1 ff. — avpiov ] light-minded concrete expression 
 for what is to be very soon. Comp. Theocr. xiii. 4. — It is not implied, 
 however, in avptov yap cittoOvt/gk,. that el vEtcpol ova ey. includes the denial of 
 life after death absolutely (Flatt, Ruckert, al.), but Paul conceives of death 
 as the translation of the soul into Hades (comp, however, on Phil. i. 25 f., 
 Remark), from which the translation of the righteous (to be found in Para¬ 
 dise) into the eternal Messianic life is only possible through the resurrec¬ 
 tion. 
 
 Ycr. 33 f. The immoral consequence of the denial of the resurrection 
 (ver. 32) gives occasion to the apostle now in conclusion to place over 
 
 connection with it a use of language Mark i. 13, which resolves itself into a by- 
 among the primitive Christians based upon pothesis incapable of proof. 
 
PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 070 
 
 old 
 
 against tliat Epicurean maxim yet a word of moral warning, in order thereby 
 to express that the church should not be led astray, i.e. be seduced into 
 immorality (--lavacOe , passive , see on vi. 9), by its intercourse with those 
 deniers who were in its bosom (nveg ev vfiv, ver. 12 ; comp. ver. 34). — 
 
 (bdeipovmv /c.r./L] justification of the admonition fq TrlavaoOe. The words 
 (forming an Iambic trimeter acatalectic *) are from the Thais of the comic 
 poet Menander (see his Fragmenta , ed. Meineke, p. 75); although it still 
 remains a question whether Paul really reeognized them as an utterance of 
 this comic poet (as a M evavdpsiog (puvq, Lucian, Am. 43), or only generally 
 as a common Hellenic saying, which, just as such, may have been taken up 
 by that poet also. The latter is probable from the proverbial character of 
 the words, and in the absence of any indication whatsoever that they are the 
 words of another. Similar classical passages may be seen in Alberti, Obss. 
 p. 356 ff., and Wetstein. Comp, especially, Theognis 35 f .—rjOij xpv° 
 good morals, the opposite being nana, Soph. 0. B. 610, Antig. 516, and 
 TrovTjpd, Plato, Gorg. p. 499 E, Phil. p. 40 E ; Plat. Pef. p. 412 E : XPWto- 
 ttjq i/dovc cnv'kacTLa per’ evloyLGriag.—opCkiai nanat] Vulgate : colloquia mala. 
 So Luther, Erasmus, and many, including van Hengel and Krauss. Comp. 
 Dem. 1468, 27, 1466, 2 ; Xcn. Mem. i. 2. 6. But the context does not 
 justify this restriction of the conception. Comp. Beza. Hence it is rather : 
 good-for-nothing intercourse , bad company. Regarding the plural , comp. 
 Plato, Pol. p. 550 B : 6p/2.taig . . . kclkcuq kexpvgOcu , Soph. 0. B. 1489 ; Xen. 
 Mem. iii. 7. 5, Ilier. iv. 1. In the application the readers were meant to 
 think of intercourse with the deniers of the resurrection, to be on their 
 guard against moral contagion through them. — EKv^ipare diKaiug, k. fq d/uapr.] 
 Parallel to p) TrlavaGOe, but representing the readers as already disturbed in 
 the moral clearness and soundness of their judgment, already transferred 
 by the influence of those nvtg, ver. 34, into a certain degree of moral bond¬ 
 age (intoxication); for the idea of being completely sobered from the con¬ 
 dition in which they were before their conversion (Hofmann) is remote from 
 the text, as, in particular, the very ground assigned, which immediately 
 follows, points to the hurtful influence of the nvlg. He separates the church 
 from these individuals among her members ; the former is not to let herself 
 be injured through the latter (v. 6), but to become sober, in so far as she 
 has already through them experienced loss of moral soberness. Become sober 
 after the right fashion , properly as it behoves. Comp. Livy, i. 41 : exper- 
 giscere vere ; Homer, Od. xiv. 90 : ovk edelovm diKaiug pvaodai, Dem. 1180, 
 25. Comp. Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 547. As regards tKvqtyuv, to become sober 
 in a non-literal respect, comp. Plutarch, Dem. 20 ; Aret. iv. 3 ; Joel i. 5. 
 Bengel, we may add, says well: “ knv^are exclamatio plena majestatis 
 apostolicae.” The aorist imperative denotes the swift, instant realization 
 of the becoming sober ; p) dpapraveref on the contrary, requires the con- 
 
 1 The reading xpw 0 ’ (Lachmann ; Elzevir, 
 with wrong accent: which is, how¬ 
 
 ever, almost without support, suits the 
 metre. According to the correct reading, 
 xpi jcrTa, Paul has left the metrical form out 
 of account, perhaps was not aware of it at 
 
 all. 
 
 2 The context gives no warrant for lend¬ 
 ing (comp, on Eph. iv. 26) to the imperative 
 vim futuri (Bengel, Krauss). As regards 
 the general /U.rj ajuaprai'eiv, comp, the noiria-a.1. 
 kclkov /jLrjSev, 2 Cor. xiii. 7. 
 
CHAP. XV., 35. 
 
 373 
 
 tinuous abstinence from sinning. — ayvualav yap k.t./ L] for some persons have 
 ignorance of God; how carefully should you guard yourselves from being 
 befooled by such! 'Ayvuala (1 Pet. ii. 15) is the opposite of yvkaiq, see 
 Plato, Pol. v. p. 477 A, Soph. p. 267 B. The nveg are those spoken of in 
 ver. 12, not, as Billroth arbitrarily assumes, only a small portion of them. 
 The nature of their unbelief in the resurrection is apprehended as in Matt, 
 xxii. 29. The expression ayv. exciv, u gravior est phrasis quam ignoraref 
 Bengel. They are affected with it. Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Pep. p. 574 
 E. — Tipbr hrp. vp. Aeyu] For it disgraced the church, that such nvtq were 
 within it ; all the more alert should it be. Comp. vi. 5, v. C. ’Tpiv be¬ 
 longs to Aeyco. 
 
 Remark on vv. 32-34.—Billroth, followed by Olskausen, is too hasty in in¬ 
 ferring from ver. 32 that the opponents of a resurrection would themselves 
 have abhorred the maxim (payupev k.t. A. Paul assumes of his readers generally 
 that they abhorred that maxim as anti-Christian ; but the riveg among them, 
 who denied the resurrection, must, according to the warning and exhortation 
 vv. 33, 34, have been already carried away in consequence of this denial to a 
 frivolous tendency of life ; otherwise Paul could not warn against being led 
 away by their immoral companionship) (ver. 33). Nay, several others even 
 must already have become shaken in their moral principles through the evil 
 influence of the nvig ; else Paul could not give the exhortations which he does 
 in ver. 34. For that, in ver. 33 1, he is not warning against mistaking and neg¬ 
 lecting of saving truths, as Hofmann thinks, but against corruption of wholesome 
 habits, consequently against immorality, is certain from f/Og in the words of 
 Menander, and from pg dpapr. ; hence, also, the danger of going astray is not 
 to be conceived of as having arisen through intercourse with heathen fellow- 
 countrymen (Hofmann), but through association with those nvkg in the church, 
 who had become morally careless by reason of the denial of the resurrection. 
 This is demanded by the whole connection. The nveg were sick members of 
 the church-body, whom Paul desires to keep from further diffusion of the evil, 
 alike in faith and in life. 
 
 Ver. 35. The discussion on the point, that the dead arise, is here closed. 
 But now begins the discussion regarding the nature of the future bodies. 
 This is the second, the special part of the apology, directed, namely, against 
 the grounds upon which they disputed the resurrection. — all' epei rig] but, 
 notwithstanding of my arguments hitherto adduced, some one will say. 
 Comp. Jas. ii. 18. “ Objicit in adversa persona quod doctrinae resurrecti- 
 
 onis contrarium prima facie videtur ; neque enim interrogatio ista quae- 
 rentis est modumcum dubitatione, sed ab impossibili arguentis,” Calvin. — 
 This general and not yet concretely defined expression is afterwards 
 fixed more precisely by no'up de oupart. The de places irug and ttolu) de aupari 
 in such a parallel relation (see Hartung, Partik. I. p. 168 f.; Klotz, ad 
 Devar. p. 362) that it does not, indeed, mean or again (Hofmann), but sets 
 over against the nwg that which is intended to be properly the scope of the 
 question : but (I mean) with what kind of a body do they come f Then from 
 ver. 36 onward there follows the answer to the question, which has been 
 thus more precisely formulated. — epxovrat ] namely, to those still alive at the 
 
374 
 
 Paul’s pirst epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Parousia, 1 Tliess. iv. 1G f. Tlie presents kyeip. and epx . bring what is in 
 itself future vividly before us as a present object of contemplation. Comp. 
 Dissen, ad Pind. JYem. iv. 39. So the same tense may bring the past also 
 before us as present (Dissen, ad Bern, de Cor. p. 253). Erasmus puts it hap¬ 
 pily : “actio rei declaratur absque signification temporis.” 
 
 Yv. 36-41. In the first place, analogies from the experience of nature, 1 by 
 way of preparation for the instruction, which then follows at ver. 42 ft'., 
 regarding the rrotorgg of the resurrection-body inquired about. — aQpov] The 
 deniers have thus, on the assumption of the identity of the resurrection-body 
 with the body which is buried, found the rroLo-pg of the former to be incon¬ 
 ceivable ; but how foolish is this assumption ! The nominative is not address , 
 because without the article, but exclamation; so that to explain it gram¬ 
 matically we must supply el. Comp. Luke xii. 20 (Lachmann, Tischendorf), 
 and see, generally, Bernhardy, p. 67 ; Winer, p. 172 [E. T. 228] ; Klihner, 
 II. § 507 c, Remark. — oi> b aireipeLg] What thou soicest , is not made alive, etc. 
 The au has the emphasis of the subsequent contrast with the divine agency 
 in ver. 38 : Thou on thy part; hence we must not take atppcov av together. 
 — ZuoTcoiElTac] description (suggested by the thing typified) of the springing 
 up of the seed, which must first of all die ; inasmuch, namely, as the living 
 principle in it, the germ, grows out thereof, and the grain containing it be¬ 
 comes subject to decomposition. Comp. John xii. 24. The arrodavelv is 
 therefore, in the case of the seed sown, the analogue of the decay of the body 
 buried. As the seed-corn in the earth must die by decomposition, in order 
 to become alive in the springing germ, so must the body decay in the earth 
 in order to become alive in the resurrection-body arising out of it at the res¬ 
 urrection of the dead. That it is not simply the necessity of dying to attain 
 the resurrection-life (van Hengel ; comp. Riickert and Holsten z. Ev. d. 
 Paul. u. Petr. p. 374) which is depicted, is clear from this, that in the ex¬ 
 planation of the resurrection the being sown necessarily represents the burial, 
 and consequently the arrodavelv of the seed-corn, because it folloics after the 
 being sown, must correspond to the decay of the body, (z 2 ) 
 
 Ver. 37. KA 6 arrelpeig] And what thou sowest,—not the body, which is to be, 
 sowest thou. '0 arret petg makes the attention rest upon itself first in general, 
 independently of what follows, which forms a complete sentence by itself. 
 See on Matt. vii. 24, x. 14 ; Luke xxi. 6. What shall spring out of the 
 grain, the plant , Paul calls r o a u pa to y ev rj a 6 p., because he has it before 
 his mind as the analogue of the resurrection-body. The emphasis, however, 
 lies upon to y ev rj a. — yvuvov k6kkov~\ a nahed grain , which is not yet clothed, 
 as it were, with a plant-body (see what follows). Comp. 2 Cor. v. 3. To 
 this future plant-body corresponds the future resurrection-body with which 
 that, which is buried and decays, is clothed. That it is not the soul or the 
 ■Tcvevya of the departed which corresponds to the yvpvog noKKog (Holsten), is 
 shown by o arretpeig ; comp, with ver. 42 ft. — el tv^oi gltov ] it may be of 
 wheat. Here, too, el rvxot does not mean, for example, but, if it so happens 
 (that thou art just sowing wheat). See on xiv. 10. — y nvog ruv hotirov] neuter. 
 
 1 Comp. Clement, 1 Cor. 24. 
 
chap, xy., 38-41. 375 
 
 We are to supply from the connection cirepyaTuv. Comp. Nagelsbach on the 
 Iliad, p. 304, ed. 3. 
 
 Ver. 38. '0 de fled^-] setting over against the cv o orre/peic, ver. 3G, what is 
 done on God's part with the seed which on man’s part is sowed. — r/del.] has 
 willed. It denotes the (already at the creation) completed act of the divine 
 volition as embodied in the laws of nature. — kcil] and indeed, as iii. 5. — 
 The diversity of the (peculiar, idiov) organisms, which God bestows upon — i.e. 
 causes to spring forth out of—the different seeds sown, while preserving 
 the identity of the kinds, exposes all the more the folly of the question : 
 Troiu) (5£ ooyarc epxovrcu, in so far as it was meant to support the denial of the 
 resurrection. As if God, who gives such varied plant-bodies to the sown 
 grains, each according to its kind, could not also give new resurrection- 
 bodies to the buried dead! How foolish to think that the same body which is 
 buried (as e.g. the Pharisees conceived of the matter) must come forth again, 
 if there is a resurrection ! Every stalk of wheat, etc., refutes thee ! 
 
 Vv. 39-41. In order to make it conceivable that the same body need not 
 come forth again, further reference is now made to the manifold diversity of 
 organic forms in nature ; so also faith in the resurrection cannot be bound 
 up with the assumption of the sameness of the present and the future bodily 
 organism. Very diverse are, namely : (1) the kinds of animal flesh (ver. 
 39) ; (2) the heavenly and earthly bodies (ver. 40) ; and (3) the lustre of the 
 sun, of the moon, and of the stars (ver. 41). — aapB, nTgvtiv] flesh of cattle , i.e. 
 not quadrupedum generally (so de Wette and Osiancler, following older 
 interpreters), but also not simply jumentorum (van Ilengel), but pecorum 
 (Vulgate), which are kept for household use and for burden-bearing ; Plato, 
 Grit. p. 109 B ; Herod, ii. 41 ; Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 19, iv. 7. 17 ; Luke x. 
 34; Acts xxiii. 24.— ouyara hrovpayia] heavenly bodies , i.e. bodies to be 
 found in heaven. Comp, on John iii. 12 ; Phil. ii. 10. The bodies of the 
 angels are meant by this (Matt. xxii. 30 ; Luke xx. 36 ; Phil. l.c.). So, too, 
 de Wette . 1 Were we to understand by these words, as is usually done (so, 
 among others, Hofmann ; Hahn, Theol. d. N. Test. I. p. 265 ; Delitzsch, 
 Psychol, p. 66 ; Philippi, Glaubensl. II. p. 292 f.), the heavenly bodies (sun, 
 moon, and stars), we should be attributing to the apostle either our modern 
 use of language, or the non-biblical mode of regarding the stars as living 
 beings (see Galen, de usu part. 17 in Wetstein 2 ), which is not to be proved 
 even from Job xxxviii. 7. The same holds in opposition to Billroth, who 
 understands the words as meaning heavenly organisms generally and indefi¬ 
 nitely, from which sun, moon, and stars are then named by way of example. 
 Sun, moon, and stars are not comprehended at all under ocbyara eTrovp., and are 
 first adduced in ver. 41 as a third analogue, and that simply in reference to 
 their manifold do^a. The whole connection requires that ouyara should be 
 bodies as actual organs of life, not inorganic things and materials ; as, for 
 instance, stones (Lucian, vitt. auct. 25), water (Stob. f. app. ii. 3), and 
 
 1 Comp, also Kurtz, Bibel u. Astron. p. ing that o-co/x. enovp. denotes the pious, and 
 
 157 ; Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 72 f. creoju.. eniyeia the godless, in spite of the 8o£a 
 
 2 Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. which is attributed to-both, 
 also Theodoret) go entirely astray, suppos- 
 
376 
 
 PAUL’S PIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 .material tilings generally (Plato, Polit. p. 288 D) are designated in Greek 
 writers—not, however, in the New Testament—by cuya. Had Paul meant 
 heavenly bodies in the modern sense, he would in that case, by describing 
 them as bodies , have committed a ytrafiaoLg sic oXao ytvog ; whereas, on the 
 contrary, the bodies of the angels, especially when we consider the similar¬ 
 ity of those who are raised up to the angels, which was taught by Jesus Him¬ 
 self, were essentially included as relevant to the subject in the list of the 
 diversities of bodily organization here enumerated (in opposition to Hof¬ 
 mann’s objection). He then, ver. 41, brings forward in addition the heav¬ 
 enly bodies only in respect of the diversity—not of their bodies , but—of the 
 lustre of their light. — otvpara ETrlyeia] bodies to be found on earth, that is, the 
 bodies of men and beasts. — Both kinds of bodies, the heavenly and earthly, 
 are of different sorts of peculiar glory, —the former encompassed with a 
 heavenly radiancy (Matt, xxviii. 8 ; Acts xii. 7, al.), the latter manifesting 
 strength, grace, beauty, skilful construction, and the like in their outward 
 appearance. Notice that in ver. 40 hepa is used, because the subjects are 
 of specifically different kinds and qualities. It is otherwise in ver. 41, 
 comp. ver. 39. —Ver. 41. Sun-lustre is one thing, and moon-lustre another, 
 and lustre of stars another (i. e. another than solar and lunar lustre). Paul uses, 
 however, aoripevv, not aorepog, because the stars too among themselves have 
 not one and the same lustre ; hence he adds by way of explanation : for 
 star differs from star in lustre. AiaQtpei is thus simply dffert (Yulgate), 
 not excellit (Matt. vi. 26, x. 31, xii. 12), which the context does not sug¬ 
 gest. Regarding tv with diacptpti, comp. Plato, Pol. viii. p. 568 A ; Dem. 
 291, 17 ; Bremi, ad Isocr. I. p. 169. The accusative or dative of more pre¬ 
 cise definition is more usual (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 394). The design of 
 ver. 4 is not to allude to the different degrees of glory of the bodies of the 
 
 r 
 
 saints (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Calovius, Estius, al.), which is 
 neither indicated in what precedes nor adverted to in the application ver. 
 42 ff., and hence has no foundation in the context ; but Calvin rightly 
 remarks: “Non disputat, qualis futura sit conditionis differentia inter 
 sanctos post resurrectionem, sed quid nunc differant corpora nostra ab iis, 
 quae olim recipiemus . . . ac si diceret : nihil in resurrectione futurum 
 doceo, quod non subjectum sit jam omnium oculis.” Comp, also Krauss. 
 —Generally, let us beware of forcing upon the individual points in vv. 
 39-41 different individual references also, 1 contrary to the application which 
 the apostle himself makes in vv. 42-44. 
 
 Yv. 42-44. Application of the passage from ver. 36 (aTreiptrai) on to ver. 
 41. — ovto) teal ij avacracug r. ve/cp.] sc. tern. So does it hold also with the res¬ 
 urrection of the dead, in so far, namely, as the resurrection-body will be quite 
 otherwise constituted than the present body. 2 — It is soicn in corruption, etc. 
 
 1 Tertullian, de resurr. 52, may serve as a 
 warning; he says on ver. 39: “Alia caro 
 hominis, i.e. servi Dei; alia jumenti, i.e. 
 ethnici; alia volucrum, i.e. martyrum ; alia 
 piscium, i.e. quibus aqua baptismatis sufficit." 
 On ver. 41, again: “alia solis gloria, i.e. 
 
 Christi; alia lunae, i.e. ecclesiae ; et alia stel- 
 larum, i.e. seminis Abrahae.''' 
 
 2 It is to be observed that Paul, in his 
 whole discussion regarding the nature of 
 the future bodies, has in view only those of 
 the first resurrection (see on ver. 23), leav- 
 
chap, xv., 42-44. 
 
 o w+j 
 
 O il 
 
 Wliat is sown and raised up, is self-evident, and is also distinctly said in 
 ver. 44, on occasion being given by the adjectival form of expression, into 
 which the discourse there passes. — On gtt eiperai, the remark of Grotius is 
 sufficient : “cum posset dicere sepelitur, maluit dicere seritur , ut magis in¬ 
 sistent similitudini supra sumtae de grano.” The apostle falls back on the 
 image of the matter already familiar to the readers, because it must have 
 by this time become clear to them in general from this image, that a repro¬ 
 duction of the present body at the resurrection was not to be thought of. 
 The fact, again, that the image of sowing had already gone before in this 
 sense,—in the sense of interment ,—excludes as contrary to the text, not 
 only van Hengel’s interpretation, according to which GTreiperai is held to 
 apply to generation and man is to be conceived as the subject, but also Hof¬ 
 mann’s view, that the sowing is the giving up of the body to death , without 
 reference to the point whether it be laid in the earth or not. The sowing 
 is man's act, but the kyeiperai God's act, quite corresponding to the antithe¬ 
 sis of try, ver. 36, and 6 6k deog, ver. 38. — kv <pdopg] in corruption , i.e. in the 
 condition of decay , is the body when it is buried. 1 Of a wholly different 
 nature, however, will be the new body which raises itself at the resurrec¬ 
 tion-summons (ver. 52 f.) out of the buried one (as the plant out of the seed- 
 corn) ; it is raised in the condition of incorruptibility. Comp. vv. 50, 52. — 
 kv art fa] in the condition of dishonour. Chrysostom (ri yap elfoxOiorepov 
 vsKpov 6iappvkvrog ;), Tlieodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, al., 
 including Billroth, have rightly understood this of the foeditas cadaveris ; 
 for cttt eiperai represents the act of burial. Erasmus, Calvin, Vorstius, Esti- 
 us, Rosenmiiller, al ., including Flatt, (comp. Riickert), hold that it refers 
 to the ante mortem miseriis et foeditatibus obnoxium esse, ” Estius. So also 
 de Wette (comp. Osiander and Hofmann) in reference to all the three points, 
 which, according to these expositors, are meant to designate the nature of 
 the living body as regards its organization, or at least to include it (comp. 
 Maier) in their scope. But this mode of conception, according to which 
 the definition of state characterizes the earthly body generally according to 
 its nature, not specially according to the condition in which it is at its in¬ 
 terment, comes in only at the fourth point with ccbua ipvxwov in virtue of the 
 change in the form of expression which*is adopted on that very account. 
 From the way in which Paul has expressed the first three points, he desires 
 to state in what condition that which is being sown is at its sowing ; in 
 what condition, therefore, the body to be buried is, when it is being buriedl. 
 This, too, in opposition to Ewald’s view : “even the best Christians move 
 now in corruption, in outward dishonour before the world," etc. — kv 6o%f\ re¬ 
 fers to the state of outward glory, which will be peculiar to the resurrection- 
 bodies ; ver. 40. It is the aypyopepov drat, rip a (o pari rijg 66f/g Xpicrov, Phil. 
 
 ing quite out of account the bodies of those 
 who shall belong to the second resurrec¬ 
 tion, and consequently to the Te'Ao?, ver. 24. 
 He has in fact to do with believers, with 
 future sharers in the resurrection of the 
 righteous (comp, on Phil. iii. 11), whose 
 
 resurrection-hope was being assailed. , 
 
 1 Not as Hofmann would have it, in con¬ 
 nection with his inappropriate interpreta¬ 
 tion of anelpeTai: up to the point, when it is 
 given over to death. 
 
378 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corihthians. 
 
 iii. 21.— ev acOeve'ia] not : “ variis morbis et periculis obnoxium,” Rosen- 
 muller and others, comp. Riickert (weakliness) ; for it refers to the already 
 dead body ( GTreipercu ), but : in the condition of powerlessness , inasmuch as all 
 ability, all laxvg (Soph. Oed. Col. 616) all cOevog of the limbs (Pindar, JVem. 
 v. 72, x. 90) has vanished from the dead body. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 Theodoret, Tlieopliylaet, «?., narrow the reference too much in an arbitrary 
 way, applying it simply to the inability to withstand corruption. Ev aoO. is 
 not a superfluous (de Wette), but a characteristic mark which specifically 
 distinguishes the dead from the living body. — ev dwayei] in the condition 
 of strength: the resurrection body will be endowed with fulness of strength 
 for life and activity. What Grotius adds: “cum sensibus multis, quos 
 nunc non intelligimus, ” is perhaps true in itself, but is not conveyed in ev 
 6vva.fj.Ei. — Instead of adducing one by one further qualities of the body as 
 buried, with their opposites in the resurrection-body, Paul sums up by 
 naming in addition that which conditions those other qualities, the specific 
 fundamental nature of the present body which is buried, and of the future 
 one which is raised : c~eiperaL ocjpa i/myi/cor, eyeip. a. TzvevpariKov , i.e. there is 
 sown a psychical body , etc. This is not opposed to the identity of the body, 
 but the one which rises is quite differently qualified ; there is buried a xpvxucov, 
 there rises a TwevyariKov. That is the new Troioryg rov cuyarog in which the 
 risen man comes (ver. 35); but the expression, which sets forth the differ¬ 
 ence as two subjects, is stronger and more significant than if we should 
 take it with Hofmann : it is sown as a psychical body , etc. — The body which 
 is buried is ipvxibv, inasmuch as the ipvxb, this power of the sensuous and 
 perishable life (comp, on ii. 14), was its life-principle and the determining 
 element of its whole nature (consisting of flesh and blood, ver. 50). The 
 ipvxv had i n if, as Oecumenius and Theophylact say, to nvpog k. ti/v yye/uoviav. 
 The resurrection-body, however, will be TTvevpariKov , i.e. not an ethereal 
 body (Origen, comp. Chrysostom), 1 which the antithesis of i fwxinov forbids; 
 but a spiritual body , inasmuch as the iwevya , the power of the supersensu- 
 ous, eternal life (the true, imperishable £«?/), in which the Holy Spirit 
 carries on the work of regeneration and sanctification (Rom. viii. 16, 17), 
 will be its life-principle and the determining element of its whole nature. 
 In the earthly body the ipvxv, not the iwevya , is that which conditions its 
 constitution and its qualities, so that it is framed as the organ of the fvxv ’, 2 
 in the resurrection-body the reverse is the case ; the iwevya, for whose life- 
 activity it is the adequate organ, conditions its nature, and the ipvxy has 
 ceased to be, as formerly, the ruling and determining element. We are 
 not, however, on this account to assume, with Riickert, that Paul conceived 
 the soul as not continuing to subsist for ever,—a conception which would 
 do away with the essential completeness and,thereby with the identity of 
 the human being. On the contrary, he has conceived of the uvevya in the 
 
 1 Or as Zeller in the tlieol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 
 297, would have it: “a body composed of 
 spirit ,” the nveiiya. being conceived as ma¬ 
 terial. Comp. Ilolsten, zvm Ev. d. Paul. u. 
 Petr. p. 72 : “ out of heavenly light-material." 
 
 2 Luther’s gloss is: “ which eats, drinks, 
 sleeps, digests, grows larger and smaller, 
 begets children, etc. Spiritual , which may- 
 do none of these things, and nevertheless 
 is a true body alive from the spirit.” 
 
CHAP. XV., 45 . 
 
 379 
 
 # 
 
 risen bodies as the absolutely dominant element, to which the psychical 
 powers and activities shall be completely subordinated. The entire predi¬ 
 cates of the resurrection-body, contrasted with the properties of the present 
 body, are united in the likeness to the angels , which Jesus affirms of the risen, 
 Matt. xxii. 30, Luke xx. 36, and in their being fashioned like unto the 
 glorified body of Christ, as is promised by Paul, vv. 48, 49 ; Phil. iii. 21. 
 How far the doctrine of Paul is exalted above the assertion by the Rabbins 
 of the (quite crass) identity of the resurrection-body with the present one, 
 may be seen from the citations in Wetstein on ver. 36, and in Eisenmenger, 
 entdeckt. Judenth , II. p. 938 f.— ei sore ouya cctl not k.t.X.] logical 
 
 confirmation of the ouya Twev/uar. just mentioned. It is to be shown, name¬ 
 ly, that it is not an air-drawn fancy to speak of the future existence of a 
 (jufia TrvevuaTiKov : If it is true that there is a psychical body, then there is also a 
 spiritual body, then such a body cannot be a non-ens —according to the mu¬ 
 tually conditioning relations of the antitheses. The emphasis lies on the 
 twice-prefixed eon, existit (comp, the Rabbinical IV K in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 
 670). The logical correctness of the sentence, again, depends upon the pre¬ 
 supposition (ver. 42 f.) that the present and the future body stand in the 
 relation of counterparts to each other. If, therefore, there exists a psychical 
 body (and that is the present one), then a pneumatic body also must be no 
 mere idea, but really existent (and that is the resurrection-body). 
 
 Ver. 45. Scriptural confirmation for the si can ouya ip. k. t.A. — ovtu] so, i.e. 
 in this sense, corresponding to what has been said above, it stands written 
 also, etc. The passage is from Gen. ii. 7 according to the LXX. (/c. iyevero 
 6 avdp. eig ip. £.), but with the addition of the more precisely explanatory 
 words Ttpurog and ’A Say. The citation extends only to £ tboav ; the 6 coxarog 
 k.t.X. that follow are words of the apostle, in which he gives an explanation 
 of his ovtu by calling attention, namely, to the opposite nature of the last 
 Adam, as that to which the Scripture likewise pointed by its description 
 of th e first Adam, in virtue of the typical relation of Adam to Christ. He 
 joins on these words of his own, however, immediately to the passage of 
 Scripture, in order to indicate that the 6 iax aT °g . . . 7 uottocovv follows as 
 necessarily from it according to its typical reference, as if the words had 
 been expressed along with it. 1 He thus gives expression to the inference 
 which is tacitly contained in the statement, by adding forthwith this self- 
 evident conclusion as if belonging also to the passage of Scripture, because 
 demanded for it by the inner necessity of the antithesis. When others, such 
 as Billroth and Ruckert, assume that 6 eaxarog k.t.1. is meant really to be a 
 part of the Scripture-quotation, they in that case charge the apostle with 
 having made the half of the citation himself and given it out as being Bible 
 words ; but assuredly no instance is to be found of such an arbitrary proced¬ 
 ure, however freely he handles passages from the Old Testament elsewhere. 
 And would the readers, seeing that 'ey hero . . . ^uoav is such a universally 
 known statement, have been able to recognize in 6 ioxarog k.t.X. Bible words ? 
 
 1 To make the relation of the two halves at £ioo-av, and let then 6 eax aT0 ^ follow 
 discernible in reading, let eyeVero . . . Qaav a little less slowly and loudly, 
 be read slowly and loud, pause markedly 
 
380 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 According to Hofmann, ovrco ml yeyp. is a completed sentence, which only 
 states that the distinction between two kinds of human body is scriptural. 
 In order to demonstrate this scripturalness the apostle then applies the pas¬ 
 sage Gen. ii. 7. But against this it may be urged, first, that Paul is wont 
 in general to use the yeypairrat for citing passages of Scripture ; secondly , 
 that the reader could all the less think here of another use of the w T ord, since 
 in reality at the moment a passage of Scripture, and that a universally fa¬ 
 miliar one, is joined on directly, and without a particle (such as yap) to lead 
 the thoughts aright in another direction. — eyevero] by his creation, by means 
 of the animation through God’s breath. —ipvxyv Z&aav] rrn KtolS, comp. 
 Gen. i. 30, unto a living soul-nature , so that thus the body of Adam must be 
 formed as the receptacle and organ of the ipvxy, must be a cuya ipvximv. 1 
 Therewith sin itself is not assumed as yet, nor even the necessity of its fu¬ 
 ture entrance (comp. Ernesti, TJrspr. d. Silnde , I. p. 133), but the suscepti¬ 
 bility for it, which, however, did not fall within the scope of the apostle 
 here. — 6 eoxarog ’A day] is Christ. Comp. ver. 22 ; Rom. v. 14 ; Neve 
 Sclialom, ix. 9 : “ Adamus postremus (pHIKn) est Messias.” He is called, 
 however, and is the last Adam in reference to first Adam, whose antitype 
 He is as the head and the beginner of the new humanity justified and re¬ 
 deemed through Him ; but at the same time in reference also to the fact, 
 that after Him no other is to follow with an Adamite vocation. Apart from 
 this latter reference, He may be called also the second Adam. Comp. ver. 
 47. —elg nvevya fioTiot.] unto a life-giving spirit-being, sc. 'ey hero. It is thereby 
 expressed that the body of Christ became a crcbya tt vevyarcmv. But what is 
 the point of time, at which Christ elg irvevya fioir. eyevero ? Not as a created 
 being, as one of the heavenly forms in the divine retinue before His mission 
 (Ilolsten), nor yet in His incarnation , 2 whether we may supply mentally a 
 Beitate (Beza, comp, too Rabiger, Christol. Paul. p. 35 ; Baur, Delitzsch, 
 al.), or take refuge in the communicatio hypostatica (Calovius and others); 
 for during his earthly life Christ had a ipvximv ocoua (only without sin, Rom. 
 viii. 3) which ate, drank, slept, consisted of flesh and blood, suffered, died, 
 etc. The one correct answer in accordance with the context, since the point 
 in hand has regard to the resurrection (and see especially ver. 44), can only 
 be : after His death (comp. Hell wag in the Tubing, theol. Jahrb. 1848, 2, p. 
 240 ; Ernesti, Urspr. d. Silnde, II. p. 122 ff. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 314), and 
 indeed through His resurrection, Christ became elg irvevya t^cvorr. The body, 
 doubtless, of the Risen One before His ascension (hence the Socinians think 
 here of the latter event ; so, too, J. Muller and Maier) consisted still of flesh 
 and blood, still ate, drank, etc. ; but it was immortal, and so changed (see 
 Remark appended to Luke xxiv. 51) that it already appears as iwevyarimv, 
 although it was only at the ascension that it entered upon its completion in 
 that respect, and consequently into its dofa as the otiya rijg ddgqg (Phil. iii. 
 21). The event producing the change, therefore, is the resurrection ; in 
 virtue of this, the last Adam, who shall appear only at the Parousia in the 
 
 1 Not as if he had lacked the higher life- body, 
 principle (the nvevfj.a .); but the tyvxv was 2 So, too, Sellin in the Luther. Zeitschr. 
 that which determined the nature of the 1867, p. 231. 
 
chap, xv., 46, 47. 
 
 381 
 
 whole efficiency of His life-power (ver. 47), became ( 'ey hero ) elc Trvevpa faoiroiovv, 1 
 and that through God, who raised Him up. — £ uottoiovv ] ovk eittev’ dig ttvev/uo. 
 £<jv, alia ^uottoiovv to \is~fov eitcuv, Theophylact. The connection shows what 
 C,uf] is meant in £uottoiovv , namely, the resurrection-life , which Christ, who has 
 become TrvEvpa £wo7r., works at His Parousia. Comp. ver. 22 ; Phil. iii. 21 ; 
 Col. iii. 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 16 ; John v. 21 If. This limitation of the reference 
 of £ uottoiovv , made in accordance with the context, shows that we have not 
 here an argument proving too much (in opposition to Baur, neut. Theol. p. 197). 
 
 Yer. 46. After it has been stated and confirmed from Scripture in vv. 44, 
 45 that there exists not simply a psychical, but also a spiritual body, it is now 
 further shown that the latter cannot precede the former, but that the reverse 
 must be the case. u Nevertheless the pneumatic is not first, but the psychical ; 
 afterwards the pneumatic.' 1 '' We are not, with the majority of the older com¬ 
 mentators (also Flatt, Osiander, Hofmann), to supply auya (which the 
 context does not even suggest) ; but Paul states quite generally the law of 
 development, 2 that the pneumatic appears later than the psychical, a grada¬ 
 tion from lower to higher forms, which goes through the whole creation. 
 This general statement he then proves : 
 
 Yer. 47, by the concrete phenomena of the two heads of the race of 
 mankind, Adam and Christ. — The principal emphasis is upon tt purog and 
 fievTepog, so that the former corresponds to the rrpuTov , and the latter to the 
 ETcsira of ver. 46 ; hence, too, eaxarog is not used here again. ‘ ‘ The first 
 man (not the second) is of earthly origin, earthy (consisting of earth-mate¬ 
 rial) ; the second man (not the first) is of heavenly origin.” — ek yrjg x°'^6g] 
 Origin and material nature. Comp. Gen. ii. 7, x°hv laj3uv and rrjg yvg ; 
 Eccles. iii. 20, xii. 7 ; 1 Macc. ii. 63. That the article (John iii. 31) was 
 not required with yrjg (in opposition to van Hengel, who, on account of the 
 lacking article, explains it, terrenus sc. terram sapiens; and then x°iKog ; 
 humilia spirans) is clear not only in general (see Winer, p. 114 [E. T. 149]), 
 but also from passages such as Wisd. xv. 8, xvii. 1 ; Eccles. xxxvi. 10, xl. 
 11. It may be added, that since, by the words ek yrjg jokoc, Adam’s body is 
 characterized as -ipvxtK.bv ouya, as in ver. 45, and the psychical corporeity, 
 again, taken purely in itself (without the intervention of a modifying rela¬ 
 tion), includes mortality (ver. 44), it is clear that Paul regards Adam as cre¬ 
 ated mortal , but so that he would have become immortal, and would have con¬ 
 tinued free from death, if he had not sinned. The protoplasts are accord¬ 
 ingly in his eyes such as under an assumed condition potuerunt non mori, 
 which, however, through the non-fulfilment of this condition, i.e. through 
 the Fall, came to nothing ; so that now death , and that as a penalty, came 
 
 1 There exists no ground for assuming 
 that Paul had a different conception of the 
 coporeity of the risen Christ before His res¬ 
 urrection from that held by the evange¬ 
 lists. It is true that Paul mentions the ap¬ 
 pearances of the Risen One, ver. 5 ff., in 
 such a way that he speaks of the appear¬ 
 ance after the ascension, ver. 8, no other¬ 
 wise than of those which preceded it. But 
 
 he had there no ground for drawing any 
 such distinction, since it only concerned 
 him generally to enumerate the appear¬ 
 ances of the Bisen One , while for his pur¬ 
 pose it was all the same which of them had 
 taken place before and which after the as¬ 
 cension. 
 
 2 See also Ernesti, loc. cit. p. 126. 
 
382 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 to be a reality,—a view which agrees alike with his own doctrinal statement, 
 Rom. v. 12 , 1 and also with Genesis. For had the protoplasts not sinned, 
 they would, according to Genesis, have remained in Paradise, and would 
 have become immortal (Gen. iii. 22) through the enjoyment of the tree of 
 life (Gen. ii. 9), which God had not forbidden to them (Gen. ii. 16, 17). But 
 they were driven out of Paradise, before they had yet eaten of this tree 
 (Gen. iii. 22); and so, certainly, according to Genesis also, through sin 
 came death into the world as the penalty appointed for them by God (ii. 17). 
 Comp. Augustin, Be pecc. meritis et remiss, i. 5 : “ ipsum mortale non est 
 factum mortuum nisi propter peccatum see, too, Ernesti, l.c. p. 248 f.; 
 Ewald, Jahrb. II. p. 153 f. — eg ovpavov] of heavenly derivation. This ap¬ 
 plies to the glorification of the body of Christ, 2 originating from heaven, i.e. 
 wrought by God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 2), in which glorified body He is in 
 heaven, and will appear at His Parousia (comp. Phil. iii. 20). Comp, on 
 ver. 45. According to de Wette (comp, also Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1860, p. 437 1, and Christol. pp. 228, 242), it applies to the whole personality 
 of Jesus, “ which, through its preponderating spirituality, has also a spirit¬ 
 ual body,” or to the heavenly origin characterizing the nature of the 
 whole person (Beyschlag). But the above-given definite reference is the 
 only one which corresponds, in accordance with the text, to the contrast of 
 hi ytjQ which applies to the formation of Adam’s body, as well as to the 
 
 ■whole point of the development (chya TwevyariKov). Van Hengel is wrong 
 in seeking to conclude from the absence of the article here also, that the 
 heavenly dignity of Jesus is meant. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 2 ; Gal. i. 8. Paul 
 has the article before ovpavog or ovpavot after hi or duo, only in 1 Thess. i. 10. 
 — No predicate in the second clause corresponds to the x°Ik6q of the first 
 half of the verse, 3 because the material of the glorified body of Christ tran¬ 
 scends alike conception and expression. 
 
 Ver. 48. Application to our present and future bodily nature. We are to 
 supply simply kari and hoi. —6 x oi - K °s\ Adam. —oi ^o'Z/coZ] all Adam's poster¬ 
 ity, as such, in so far as they have the same material nature with their first 
 father. This common nature is the psychical corporeity. — 6 hrovpdvior] lie 
 who is in heaven (comp, the frequent knovyavLOi Oeol in Homer ; Matt, xviii. 
 
 1 In' connection with this, no difficulty 
 whatever is occasioned by the e</>’ <5 navreg 
 rifiapTov, Rom. v. 12, according to its correct 
 interpretation, which does not make it re¬ 
 fer to the individual sins of the posterity ; 
 see on Rom. l.c. The Pelagian view, that 
 Adam,even if he had not sinned, would have 
 died, is decidedly against the Pauline doc¬ 
 trinal conception. This in opposition to 
 Schleiermacher, Neander, and others ; es¬ 
 pecially, also, against Mau, v. Tode , d. Solde 
 der Siinde, 1841. 
 
 2 Hence Gess ( v. d. Person Chr. p. 75) very 
 irrelevantly objects to the reference to the 
 body of Christ, that that body was not 
 from heaven , but from the seed of David. 
 
 Delitzsch ( Psychol. p. 334 ff.), by referring 
 
 ovpavov back to the incarnation, which is 
 contrary to the context, mixes up things 
 that differ. Beyschlag (comp, also his 
 Christol. p. 226) finds in our text a heavenly 
 humanity of Christ (human pre-existence); 
 but the connection and the contrast lead 
 us only to the heaven-derived body of the 
 risen and exalted One. Comp., too, Hof¬ 
 mann and J. Muller, v. d. Siinde , p. 412, ed. 
 5; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 315 f. 
 
 3 Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 336, prefers the 
 Marcionitic reading : 6 Sevrepo s Kvp. e£ ovp., 
 i.e. the second is Lord from heaven. Accord¬ 
 ing to the critical evidence, this reading 
 deserves no consideration. Offence was 
 taken at avOpunog. 
 
CIIAP. XV., 49 . 
 
 383 
 
 35 ; Phil. ii. 10 ; 2 Macc. iii. 39 ; see also on ver. 40), i.e. Christ; not, 
 however, as the heavenly archetype of humanity , as which He was pre-exist¬ 
 ent in God (Beyschlag), but as the exalted to heaven, Phil. ii. 9 ; Eph. iv. 8 
 ff. — 04 £7 -ovpavto/.] These are the risen Christians, inasmuch as they shall be 
 citizens of the heavenly commonwealth, Phil. iii. 20 ; Ileb. xii. 22 ; 2 Tim. 
 iv. 18. The common nature of the eirovpaviog and the cTrovpavioi is th e pneu- 
 matic body. Comp. Phil. iii. 21. Instead of referring the twofold resem¬ 
 blance in kind to the nature of the body, Hofmann makes it refer to the 
 nature of the life, —on the one side, sinfulness and nothingness ; on the 
 other side, holiness and glory. But the matter is thus turned to its ethical 
 side, which Paul cannot' have in view here in accordance with the whole 
 connection, which has to do only with the twofold bodily condition—that 
 belonging to the first, and that to the last Adam. This also in opposition to 
 van Hengel. 
 
 Ver. 49. The Recepta tyopeooyev is to be retained (see the critical remarks), 
 for which van Hengel, too, decides, although taking r. ciiwva in the moral 
 sense, (a 3 ) An exhortation (popecoyev, defended by Hofmann) lies all the more 
 remote from the connection, seeing that Paul proceeds in his development 
 of the subject with ml, and it is certainly not the ethical , but the physical 
 conception of ehc&v which is prepared for by what precedes (see still tolovtol, 
 ver. 48); also in what follows, ver. 50, it is not an ethical, but a physiological 
 relation which is expressed. Beza says w r ell, in opposition to the reading 
 \popsaufiev and its interpretation : “Hoc plane est detortum, quum res ipsa 
 clamet, Paulum in proposito argumento pergere.” What, namely, was al¬ 
 ready contained in ver. 48, he now expresses in a yet more definite and con¬ 
 crete way (hence, too, passing over into the first person), bringing out with 
 much emphasis the full meaning of the weighty statement, thus : And as 
 ice have borne (before the Parousia) the image of the earthly (of Adam),— i.e. 
 the psychical body which makes us appear as like in kind to Adam, —so 
 shall we (after the Parousia) bear also the image of the heavenly (of Christ), i.e. 
 the pneumatic body. Paul transfers himself and his readers to the turning- 
 point of the Parousia, from which the aorist dates backward in the aliov 
 ovrog, and th a future forward in the alibv yehXuv. — To extend the “ ice' 1 ' 1 to 
 all men (Ivrauss) is forbidden by the whole context, and would presuppose 
 the idea of the aTrosaraaraaig nav-cov. — Regarding (popeiv, the continuous 
 <pepeiv , see on Rom. xiii. 4. 
 
 Remark.—A dopting the reading epopeauyev, we should not, with Bengel, im¬ 
 port the idea of a promise, but take it as hortative, with Chrysostom, Tkeophy- 
 lact, Erasmus, al, including Hofmann, so that einuv would need to be under¬ 
 stood ethically. E inova tie x°is-ov rag <t>avhag tt pat; e lq Asyer ehidva de rov 
 inovpavlov rug ayaOdg, Theophylact. In connection with this Hofmann takes 
 KaOug argumentatively (comp, on Phil. i. 7, ii. 12) : “ seeing that we have borne 
 . . . so must we now also be willing to bear ...” But that naOug is the ordi¬ 
 nary as of comparison, is shown by the two comparative clauses in ver. 48, and 
 by the annexing of the Kabug to them by the simple sal, which continues the 
 comparison in the way of assertion. Moreover, (popeauyev would, in fact, not 
 mean, “ we must be willing to bear," but, “ Let us bear." 
 
384 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corixtiiians. 
 
 Yer. 50. The discussion regarding the nature of the resurrection-body is 
 now closed with a negative axiom, which serves to confirm the (popeoogev r. 
 eIk. r. eTrovp. 1 But this (in order to add yet this general statement in con¬ 
 firmation of what has just been said) I assure you of. Comp. vii. 29. The 
 sense of a concession (for the spiritualistic opponents, so Usteri, Billroth, 
 Olshausen) is imported into the context and the simple <j>ggi. According to 
 van Hengel, Paul writes to obviate a misapprehension ; his readers were not 
 to think that the (popsaogev k. t. eiKova ruv ercovgavLov consisted in the fellow¬ 
 ship of the flesh and blood, which Christ had before and after His resurrec¬ 
 tion. But there was no occasion presented for such an opinion, since the 
 Christian belief was assured that the heavenly Christ has a glorified body 
 (Phil. iii. 21). Hofmann (following Beza) refers tovto to what precedes, and 
 takes oti as introducing the ground , why the apostle has uttered vv. 46-49. 
 But this ground is of a positive nature, and does not lie in the merely 
 negative thought ver. 50, but much deeper, namely, in the Scriptural (ver. 
 45) relation of the bodily condition of the earthly and of the heavenly 
 Adam. — oap% k. alga] i.e. the bodily nature which we have in this temporal 
 life, the chief constituents of which are flesh and blood, 2 the latter as the 
 seat of life. T?)v Ovgri/v (piioiv aaTicV afivvarov ds ravrpv etl Ovr/rgv ovaav rgq 
 e.Kovpav'iov fiamheiag tv%eiv, Theodoret. Comp. vi. 13. 2. k. alga is just as 
 little to be taken in the ethical sense, which cap% by itself elsewhere has, as 
 is (f)6opa afterwards (in opposition to Chrysostom, Tlieophylact, al.) — ovdl] 
 and not , still dependent upon bn. This second half of the verse forms with 
 the first a parallelism , in which the first clause names the concrete mat¬ 
 ters, and the second one the general class (the categories in question), to 
 which the former belong. The (pOopd , i.e. according to the context (comp, 
 ver. 42), the corruption (and to this category flesh and blood belong, 
 which fall a prey to corruption), inherits not the incorruptibility , to the 
 realm of which belong the relations of the Messianic kingdom, and in 
 particular the glorified body of the sharers in the kingdom. The abstract 
 nouns instead of to (pdaprov and to a<f>6aprov have a certain solemnity. 
 Comp. Dissen, ad Bind. p. 476 : 11 Sublimitatem et tt ddog adjuvant abstracta 
 sic posita pro concretis.” Regarding tO^gpovog. of the entrance upon the 
 Messianic possession, comp. vi. 9 ; Gal. iii. 29. The present sets what is 
 sure and certain before us as present. 
 
 Yer. 51. After Paul has with the weighty axiom in ver. 50 disposed of 
 the question tto/w de ougart epxovrat., which he has been discussing since ver. 
 35, a new point, which has likewise a right withal not to be left untouched 
 
 1 According to Tischendorf and Ewald, 
 ver. 50 begins already the new section, and 
 would thus be the introduction to it. Like¬ 
 wise suitable; still at vii. 29 also tovto 8 e 
 <f>riiJLi serves to confirm what has preceded it. 
 
 2 It is not to the body as such that partici¬ 
 pation in the Messianic kingdom is denied, 
 but to the present body consisting of flesh 
 and blood. Jerome says well: “ alia car- 
 nis, alia corporis definitio est; omnis caro 
 
 est corpus, non omne corpus est caro.” In 
 harmony with our passage we should have 
 to read in the third article [of the “Apos¬ 
 tles’ Creed ”] “ resurrection of the body,” 
 instead of “ resurrection of the flesh.” The 
 conception “ glorified flesh” is for the apos¬ 
 tle a contradictio in adjecto , which cannot 
 even be justified from his doctrine of the 
 Lord’s Supper. 
 
CHAP. XV., 51 . 
 
 385 
 
 in this connection, however mysterious it is, now presents itself for eluci¬ 
 dation, namely, what shall happen in the case of those who shall he yet alive at 
 the Parousia. This last, as it were, appended part of his discussion begins 
 without transition in a direct and lively way (Idov), designated too as yvo- 
 rr/piov , as dogma reconditium, the knowledge of which Paul is conscious that 
 he possesses by awoKalvipig. 1 2 See on Rom. xi. 25. —navreg yevov kolil. k.t.1. ] 
 is held by the commentators to mean : ice shall indeed not all die , hut all shall 
 he changed. They either assume a transposition of the negation (so the ma¬ 
 jority of the older expositors, following Chrysostom, also Heydenreich, 
 Flatt, Osiander, Reiche, and van Hengel); or they hold that Paul had 
 allay., upon which all the emphasis lies, already in his mind in connection 
 with the first navreg : “ We all—shall not indeed die until then, hut notwith¬ 
 standing—all shall he changed ,” Billroth, whom Olshausen, de Wette, Maier, 
 follow ; or (so Ruckert) the meaning is : die indeed ice shall not all , etc., so 
 that, according to this view, in pure Greek it -would be said : Kotypfhjaoyeda 
 Tcavrcg yev ov , 3 Three makeshifts, contrary to the construction, and without 
 proof or precedent, in order to bring out a meaning assumed beforehand to 
 be necessary, but which is incorrect, for Paul after vcr. 52 can only have 
 applied allaypooueda to those still living at the Parousia, and not, as according 
 to that assumed meaning must be the case, to those already dead. The 
 result of this is, at the same time, that the subject of ov noiy. and allay, must 
 be Paul himself, and the whole of those who, like him, shall yet witness the Pa¬ 
 rousia (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 17 : rjyelg °' L C^vreg), as could not but be clear to 
 the reader from allay. Hence we must interpret strictly according to the 
 order of the words : we shall indeed all not sleep (i.e. shall not have to go 
 through the experience of dying at the Parousia, in order to become sharers 
 in the resurrection-body, but shall remain alive then), hut shall, doubtless , 
 all he changed . 3 Regarding the subject-matter, comp. ver. 53 ; 1 Thess. 
 iv. 15, 17. This interpretation alone, according to which ov, in conformity 
 wfith the quite ordinary use of it (comp, immediately ov dvvarai, ver. 50), 
 changes the conception of the word before which it stands into its opposite 
 (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278), is not merely verbally correct, but also in 
 keeping with the character of a yvarr/piov ; while, according to the usual 
 way of taking it, the first half at least contains nothing at all mysterious, 
 but something superfluous and self-evident. Our interpretation is adopted 
 and defended by Winer since his fifth edition (p. 517, ed. 7 [E. T. 695]), 
 
 1 Not “ a half confession that now there 
 comes a private opinion” (Krauss, p. 169), 
 which he only with reluctance gives to the 
 public. Comp, also, as against this view, 1 
 TheSS. iv. 15 : ev Aoyco Kvpiov. 
 
 2 Comp. Hofmann’s earlier interpretation 
 
 (in the Schriftbevi. II. 2, p. 654) : “Collec¬ 
 tively we shall not sleep, but we shall be 
 changed collectively.” Now ( heil . Schr. d. 
 N. T.) the same writer follows Lachmann’s 
 reading, which, however, he punctuates 
 thus : 7ravTes /aev KOLnyjOrjcrofxeOa ov, n avres Se 
 aAAay , whereby, on the one hand, the uni¬ 
 
 versality of the dying is denied, whereas on 
 the other the universality of the change is 
 affirmed. Against this interpretation, apart 
 from the critical objections, it may be 
 urged, as regards the sense, that dAAay. can¬ 
 not be predicated of the dead along with 
 the rest (see ver. 52), and as regards linguis¬ 
 tic usage again, that to place the ov after 
 the conceptions negatived by it (Baeumlein, 
 Partik. p. 307 f.) is foreign throughout to the 
 New Testament, often as there was oppor¬ 
 tunity for placing it so. 
 
 3 ets a^Oapcrtay p.eTO.necreii', Chrysostom. 
 
386 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corixthiahs. 
 
 comp. Ewald and Kling ; 1 but it is contested by Fritzsche, de confoi'm. 
 Lachm. p. 38 ; Ilciche, commentar. crit.; de AYette, van Hengel, Hofmann, 
 Hoelemann, nene Bibelstud. p. 27G ft'., wlio, it may be added, looks upon 
 the passage as regards text and interpretation as a “still uncertain” one, 
 but decidedly denies that there is here or in 1 Tliess. iv. an expectation of 
 the Parousia as nigh at hand. The objections raised against our view are 
 insufficient ; for ( a ) something absurd would result from it only on the 
 supposition of the subject being all Christians or Paul and all his read¬ 
 ers ; ( l) ) to make navreg refer to the whole category of those among whom 
 Paul reckoned himself, that is, to all who should still live to see the Parousia, 
 of whom the apostle says that they shall not attain to the new body by the 
 path of death, is not only not inadmissible, but is established in accordance 
 with the context by the predicate alhayrja. , which does not include the 
 process of the resurrection (ver. 52); (c) the LXX. Yum. xxiii. 13 cannot be 
 used to support the reference of ov to tt avreg, for in the words of that pas¬ 
 sage : 7r avrag de ov grj idyg, the well-known use of ov gij testifies irrefragably in 
 favour of the connection of the negation, not with tt avrag, but directly with 
 the verb. Equally unavailable is the LXX. Josh. xi. 13, where by ndoag 
 Tag noheig rag K.ex u gariogEvag oi'K. EvhrpyGev it is declared of the whole of the 
 lull-cities that Israel left them unburnt, so that the negation thus belongs 
 to the verb alongside of which it stands. In Eccles. xvii. 30 also the words 
 ov dvvarat (it is impossible) belong to each other ; in John iii. 16, vi. 29, 
 again, the mode of expression is quite of another kind (in opposition to 
 Buttmann, neut. Or. p. 106 [E. T. 121]). In our text the repetition of irdvreg 
 ought to have sufficed of itself to prevent misapprehension of the plain 
 meaning : all we shall at the return of the Lord, in order to our entering 
 glorified into His kingdom, not need first to fall asleep, but shall all be 
 changed living (ver. 52), so that our ipvxiKov otiga shall become a TTvev/uariKov. 
 (b 3 ) 
 
 Yer. 52. Ev arogxg, ev perry expo.] A double, because a thoroughly designed 
 and extremely exact description of the suddenness of the ahhayyo ., which is 
 meant wholly to exclude even the possibility of those still alive having 
 first, perhaps, to die at the Parousia, in order to come into the resurrection- 
 life. — drogov, what is indivisible , an atom (Plato, Soph. p. 229 D), is here 
 a little indivisible point of time, kv arogu' ev pini/garc, Hesychius. Comp, 
 the phrase, current in Greek writers, ev anapel (Lucian, As. 37 ; Alciphron. 
 iii. 25 ).—ev rij e gx- odhmyyi] at the last trumpet, while it is sounded 
 (by an archangel). SeeAYiner, p. 361 [E. T. 482]. Comp, ev avlolg, Pindar, 
 01. v. 45. Paul might also have written : arrd . . . GdhTuyyog, Polyb. iv. 
 13. 1. Begarding the subject-matter, comp. 1 Tliess. iv. 16, andLiinemann 
 and Ewald on that passage. The last trumpet is that sounding at the 
 final moment of this age of the world. It does not conflict with this state¬ 
 ment, if we suppose that Paul conceived the second resurrection also (ver. 
 24) to take place with trumpet-sound, for egx■ has its temporal reference 
 in aluv ovrog. De AYette (so, too, in the form of a suggestion, Vatablus ; 
 
 1 Comp, also Iloltzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 565. 
 
CHAP. XT., 52 . 
 
 387 
 
 and corap. previously, Theodore! of Mopsuestia) thinks of the last among 
 several trumpet-,' signals, against which, however, is the simple, not more 
 precisely defined Gakidau yap which follows. This, too, in opposition to 
 Osiander, van Hengel, Maier, and Hofmann. To understand, with Ols- 
 hausen, who follows older expositors (rives even already in Theophylact), 
 the seventh trumpet, Rev. viii. 9, with w T hich, along with the trumpets of 
 Jericho, Hofmann also compares it, is to place it on the same level with 
 the visions of the Revelation, for doing which we have no ground, since in 
 1 Thess. too, l.c. , only one trumpet is mentioned, and that one taken for 
 granted as well known. It is true that the Rabbins also taught that God 
 will sound the trumpet seven times , and that in such a way that the resurrec¬ 
 tion wfill develop itself in seven acts ; 1 but this conception, too, was foreign 
 to the apostle, seeing that he represents the rising as an instantaneous event 
 without breaks of development. It may be added, that the trumpet of the 
 Parousia (see, already, Matt. xxiv. 31) is not to be explained away, either 
 with Wolf and others : u cum signa apparebunt judicii jam celebrandi,” or, 
 with Olshausen (comp. Maier), of a startling icorh of the Spirit , arousing 
 mankind for a great end. Comp., too, Theophylact, w r ho understands by 
 the oakTciy'S, the uShevoga and vevpa of God to Sid iravruv (f>Oavov ; as in substance 
 also Usteri, p. 356, Billroth, Neander, Hofmann. 2 As regards the phrase 
 in itself, w r e might compare the Homeric dpfi Se Gakniy^ev peyas ovpavos , U. 
 xxi. 388, where the thunder (as signal for the onset) is meant. But the con¬ 
 nection gives us no right whatever to assume a non-literal, imaginative repre¬ 
 sentation. On the contrary, Paul has in fact carried w T ith him the concep¬ 
 tion of the resurrection trumpet (resting upon Ex. xix. 16) from the popular 
 sphere of conception, attested also in Matt. l.c. (comp. 4 Esdr. vi. 24), 
 into his Christian sphere, 3 as he then himself adds forthwith by way of con¬ 
 firmation and with solemn emphasis : caTiniosi yap /c.r.A] for the trumpet 
 shall sound , and the dead (the Christians who have already died up to that 
 time) shall he raised incorruptible , and we (who are still alive then) shall he 
 changed. The paratactic expression (instead of ore yap, or some other such 
 form of subordination) should of itself have been sufficient to prevent the 
 divesting the oalir. yap. of its emphasis by regarding it simply as an intro¬ 
 duction to what follows in connection with h r. tcr^. gqItt. (Hofmann); 
 comp. Kiihner, § 720, 4 ; Winer, p. 585 [E. T. 785]. A special attention 
 is to be given to the oal.TrtG. Instead of r/pelg dXXay., Paul might have written 
 ol fovreg dXkayrjGovraL ; but from his persuasion that he should live to see 
 the Parousia, he includes himself with the rest. 4 (c 3 ) Comp, on ver. 51. 
 
 1 “Primo sono totus mundus commove- 
 bitur; secundo pulvis separabitur; tertio 
 ossa colligentur . . . tuba septima vivi sta- 
 bunt pedibus suis.” See Eisenmenger, 
 entdeckt. Judenth. TI. p. 929. 
 
 2 Lange in the Stud. n. Krit. 1836, p. 708, 
 thinks of a revolution of the earth which will 
 
 be the signal of the advent of Christ. 
 
 Osiander holds that the victory over the last 
 enemy (vv. 25, 27) is pointed at. According 
 
 to de Wette, it is generally the apocalyptic 
 figure for solemn, divinely-effected catas¬ 
 trophes. 
 
 3 The recognition of this form of concep¬ 
 tion by no means implies that a dogma is to 
 be made out of it. 
 
 4 As in 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff., to which pas¬ 
 sage, however, this one does not stand in 
 the relation of a further advance of develop¬ 
 ment, or more thorough liberation from 
 
 
388 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the corixthiaks. 
 
 Van Ilengel is wrong in referring oi venpoi to those now (when Paul wrote) 
 already dead, and yyelg to those now still alive, of whom a part will then be 
 also dead ; allay, can apply only to the change of the living. —Galmcei (sc. 
 
 6 alTT/.yKT7jg ) has become in its use just as impersonal as vei, vityu, al. See 
 Elmsl. ad Heracl. 830 ; Kiihner, II. p. 36, and ad Xen. Anal), i. 2. 17. The 
 form aalTc'ico instead of calTviy^u is later Greek. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 
 191. 
 
 Ver. 53. Confirmation of what has last been said, k. yyelg allay., by the 
 necessity of this change. — del] denotes, in accordance with ver. 50, the ab¬ 
 solute necessity. — to (pOaprov tovto ] pointing to it ; Paul looks, as he writes, 
 at his own body.— hSvaaadai atyOapcr.] figurative description (2 Cor. v. 4) 
 of the process of change to an incorruptible condition of existence ; adavaciag ml 
 aipOapalag erctovoyg avrC), Chrysostom. The infinitives aorist are purposely 
 chosen to denote the instantaneous completion. 
 
 Ver. 54. Then, however, when this our change has taken.place, shall the 
 dominion of death cease ; no one shall die anymore. —orav 6e . . . adavac.] 
 and, as it were, triumphant repetition of the same weighty words. Comp. * 
 Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxix. Theodoret calls the passage a song of 
 victory. All the less is the first clause to be rejected, with Hofmann, on 
 critical grounds. The first corrector of N lias rightly restored it. — yevyaerm] 
 shall come to pass (in respect of its contents) the word, i.e. it shall become 
 actual,—the written word shall become fact. Hofmann wrongly takes it : 
 Men shall then say so, as it stands written. Where a loyog or pfjya goes forth, 
 i.e. is spoken, there stands along with it the preposition of direction (as 
 John x. 35, Luke iii. 2, and frequently ; comp. Gen. xv. 1, al.), or whence 
 the word comes (as Jer. xxvi. 1), or through whom it goes forth (from God ; 
 as Hagg. i. 3). It may be added, that they are not things simultaneous 
 which are announced in the protasis and apodosis (as Hofmann objects); 
 but when that which is spoken of in the protasis shall have taken place, 
 then, because from this time forward no one shall fall any more under the 
 power of death, shall that be realized, etc. This is the happy consequence 
 of that,—the complete victory of the life, which will link itself to that 
 change which shall thus take place in the twinkling of an eye, as to its 
 signal and prelude .—6 loyog] effatum, oraculum, 1 Macc. vii. 16; Plato, 
 Phaedr. p. 275 B ; Pindar, Pytli. iv. 105. Comp. Rom. ix. 9 ; John xii. 
 38, xv. 25. — KareiTod?] k.t.1.] Isa. xxv. 8, not according to the LXX., 1 
 but according to the original text ; in quoting which, however, is 
 
 rendered as passive, and ni'l 1 ? is expressed in the way in which it is often 
 rendered in other passages, e.g. 2 Sam. ii. 26, Job xxxvi. 7, Jer. iii. 5 (but 
 not here), by the LXX. : elg vlnog. The meaning is : Death has been com¬ 
 pletely done away. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 4. This being brought to nought is 
 
 Rabbinical reminiscences (Kranss, p. 172); 
 for the two passages agree in substance, 
 and they supplement each other. The 
 incapacity, too, of the flesh for inheriting 
 the kingdom forms the necessary presup¬ 
 position for 1 Thess. iv. 17. And the resto¬ 
 
 ration of all is not taught even in our pas¬ 
 sage, ver. 54 f., where the final shout of tri¬ 
 umph of the redeemed (ver. 26 f.) is heard. 
 
 1 Who here translate the words of the 
 prophet incorrectly: Karkn^v 6 flcAaro? 
 
 icrxvcras. 
 
CHAP. XV., 55 . 
 
 380 
 
 represented under the image of being swallowed up (namely, by God ; see 
 the original text). As regards the event itself, comp. Rev. xxi. 4. — eig 
 vinog] unto victory, i.e. so that thereby victory —namely, of the opposing power 
 of eternal life in the future Aeon—is established; eh, in the sense of the 
 result. 1 Comp. Matt. xii. 20. NZ/cof is a later form, in place of the old vUrj. 
 See Hermann, Diss. de Orph. p. 821. — Since the personified davarog is, ac¬ 
 cording to the context, bodily death and nothing more, this passage also 
 (comp. ver. 26) is of no avail for the establishment of the doctrine of res¬ 
 toration (in opposition to Olsliausen). Comp, on vv. 22, 28. The passages 
 from the Rabbins, who likewise, upon the ground of Isa. l.c ., teach : “ in 
 diebus ejus (Messiae) Bern 8. B. deglutiet mortem ,” may be seen in Wetstein. 
 
 Ver. 55. Exulting exclamation of joy from the apostle (comp, as to ttov, 
 Rom. iii. 27 ; 1 Cor. i. 20), who transfers himself into that blessed future 
 of the yevrjaeraL /c.r.A., ver. 54, 2 and breaks out, as it were, into an ettlv'uclov. 
 In doing so, he makes words from the LXX. IIos. xiii. 14 his own, with 
 free alteration. This great freedom in availing himself of the passage 
 almost solely in respect of the assonance of the words, and the whole lyrical 
 cast of the outburst, make it less likely that ver. 55 is still part of the quo¬ 
 tation (the common view ; but see, in opposition to it, van Hengel). — to 
 KEvrpov ] Paul images to himself death as a beast with a deadly sting (a scor¬ 
 pion, or the like). Billroth, following Schoettgen thinks of a goad, which 
 death uses in order to cultivate its field. But this conception is not in the 
 least recalled by the context. Olshausen, too, is wrong in holding that to 
 Kcvrpov denotes that which elicits the forthputting of strength : 11 sin cuca- 
 hens the sleeping strength of death, and the law, again, that of sin. ” Then, 
 plainly, to nevTpov rov Oavarov, ver. 56, would be that which stings death, 
 which is impossible according to ver. 55 ! — In the second question, ac¬ 
 cording to the Becepta ttov gov, a<h/ k.t.'a., the (personified) Hades is looked 
 upon as having lost the victory ; for it has not only had, in virtue of the 
 resurrection of the bodies, to render up the souls of the departed which lay 
 under its power, but it receives no other souls into its power any more. 
 According to the reading : 3 ttov gov, Oavars k.t .A. (see the critical remarks), 
 the new element, w’hich comes as a climax, is brought forward in to vIkoq 
 by way of addition, after a bold repetition of the same address ; so that, 
 putting aside the interrogative form, the meaning of the triumphant outburst 
 is : Thou death stingest no more, for no one dies henceforth ; thou death hast 
 lost the victory, for the power of eternal life has won it over thee. 
 
 1 According to Osiander, ei? is local; so 
 that viico? is presented under the image of a 
 wild beast, which swallows up its prey. 
 Against this view there is, first, the absence 
 of the article ; secondly, eis (we should have 
 expected vtto, comp. Polyb. ii. 41. 7); lastly, 
 the to in/cos which follows vv. 55, 57. — 
 Luther’s gloss puts it happily and graphi¬ 
 cally : “ Death lies undermost, and has now 
 no strength left; but life lies uppermost, 
 and says, Victory !” 
 
 2 So, rightly, Chrysostom and Theophy- 
 
 lact. According to van Hengel, Paul is 
 speaking of the present life, namely, of the 
 joy of hope. But it is just the boldness of 
 the flight of thought which is the most 
 Pauline feature in our passage. The nevTpov 
 also is taken in too weak a sense by van 
 Hengel, namely, in that of only a hurting, 
 not a deadly sting, by which, in his view, 
 the terrors of death are meant. 
 
 3 [This reading is so well sustained as to 
 be adopted by all modern editors and 
 critics.—T. W. C.] 
 
390 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Yer. 56 f., still retaining the conception of the Kcvrpov and the vIkoq, 
 points, by way of happy conclusion (not as introduction to the admonition 
 which follows, as Hofmann would have it), to the firm dogmatic ground 
 upon which this certainty of future victory rests in a connected view of 
 the gospel. “ Seeing that death slays through sin (Rom. v. 12), and sin, 
 again, is powerful through the law (Rom. vii. 7 if.), it is thus certain that 
 God gives us the victory over death through Jesus Christ.” Christ, that is 
 to say, has indeed blotted out sin through His IXaorhpcov, has risen for our 
 righteousness’ sake ; and has thus withdrawn us from the curse of the law, 
 and withdrawn us by His Spirit from its power to stir up and promote sin 
 (Rom. viii. 1 If.). In this proof set forth by the apostle, the summary of 
 his whole gospel is contained. The form , however, is not argumentative, 
 but, in correspondence with the elevated and emotional tone of the passage, 
 such that shadow and light are placed Reside each other, but with the light 
 breaking forth after the darkness, as in Rom. vii. 25, in the shape of a cry 
 of thanksgiving. — ru 6l6ovtl\ present; for this future victory of life over 
 death is for us sure and certain. 
 
 Yer. 58. Closing admonition, drawn in the way of inference by acre from 
 rip tiidovri i/plv to vinog did k.t.Ti. (d 3 ) “ Therefore — because you are sure of the 
 victory — he stedfast, ” etc. The Eidoreg k.t.X., which glances back upon that 
 sure vlnog, testifies in favour of this reference of vote ; hence we have no 
 adequate ground for referring here to the whole section (de Wette, van 
 Hengel, al.), nay, even for making it extend to the whole Epistle (Hof¬ 
 mann. — idpaloi , apeTamv .] Comp. Col. i. 23. To conceive of the readers as 
 ethical athletes (Beza), is not suggested by the context. What is expressed is 
 Christian perseverance in general, under the figure of standing firm, comp, 
 vii. 37 (opposite : caAeveadai , comp. Theodoret), in connection with which, 
 again, aperauLv. presents the perseverance more precisely as unseduceableness, 
 both being in opposition to the possible seductions through the deniers 
 of the resurrection. Comp, on aperaniv., Plato, Ep. vii. p. 343 A ; Dion. 
 Hal. i. p. 520 ; and on both words, Arist. Eth. ii. 4. 3. — tv epLcoevovreg ev rti 
 epyep t. k. jrdvT.] abounding in the work of the Lord , i.e. exceedingly active 
 and energetic therein, always. This more precise definition of TrepioG. is 
 confirmed by the correlative 6 kotcoq vyav (your pains and labour); ev, again, 
 denotes the definite sphere, wherein , etc. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 7 ; Phil. i. 26; 
 Col. ii. 7 ; Rom. xv. 13. The epyov rov nvpiov is the work which is carried on 
 in the service of Christ. Comp. xvi. 10. Ills is the work, in which His 
 people labour. And they labour therein, each according to his different 
 calling, by the active fulfilment of His will as servants of the Lord (xii. 5). 
 The three points, edpaloi, aueraa . , izepiGo. k.t. form a climax. —eiddrff] since 
 ye know (comp. Rom. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 7, iv. 14); it introduces the motive, 
 so significant in this connection, to follow the irepioo. ev t. e. r. k. ; 6 Konog 
 vpcov, your painstaking labour, which is devoted to the epyov r. Kvpiov. — Kevog] 
 in vain, i.e. without result. Comp. vcr. 10 ; 1 Thess. iii. 5. So would the 
 labour be, if there were no resurrection and no victorious consummation of 
 eternal life, because then the blessed reward of the labour would remain 
 unattained, namely, the salvation of the Messianic kingdom which is des- 
 
* 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 391 
 
 lined for the labourer. Rom. ii. 7; 2 Tim. ii. 12 ; Jas. i. 12, al. — hv nvp'uf] 
 is not to be connected with 6 K.6iroq v/j.., but with ovi c eon kevo$. It depends 
 upon Christ , that your labour is not fruitless ; for in Him the resurrection 
 (ver. 22) and the Messianic cuvqpia have their causal basis, vv. 17-19 ; Acts 
 iv. 12 ; Rom, v. Of., vi. 22, 23, x. 9, al. 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (o 9 ) “ Saved if you hold fast” Yer. 2. 
 
 The view which reads, * ‘ I make known ... if you still hold fast’ ’ is fa¬ 
 voured by Principal Brown and is adopted in the text of the Revision of 1881, 
 the other view being put in the margin, which, however, the American Commit¬ 
 tee prefer to the text. The weight of the argument appears to be with the old 
 version. The force of the last clause of the verse is well given by Hodge thus : 
 “the gospel secures salvation unless your faith is of no account.” 
 
 ( P 2 ) << pjiai Christ died for our sins." Ver. 3. 
 
 The Apostle begins the account of his Gospel not with the birth or infancy of 
 Christ, but with his death. This is due not to the subject he was about to 
 treat, so much as to his general custom of making the crucifixion the first and 
 great theme of his preaching. (See i. 18, 23, ii. 2.) This agrees with the gen¬ 
 eral strain of the Epistles, in which the death and resurrection of our Lord are 
 the main points insisted upon. Rom. iv. 25 ; Ephes. i. 7-23 ; Col. i. 14-23 ; 1. 
 Tim. iii. 16. 
 
 (q 2 ) “If so be that the dead are not raised .” Ver. 15. 
 
 The principle assumed by the objectors was that the dead could not rise. 
 Hence the reply of the Apostle is, If the dead cannot rise, then Christ did not 
 rise ; for Christ was dead. 
 
 (r 2 ) “ We are of all men most miser able." Ver. 19. 
 
 This is not meant to teach that Christians in this life are more wretched than 
 other men, for the contrary is the case. But the point is that Christ is all in 
 all to His people, the source of their present as well as of their future happi¬ 
 ness. Without Him they are yet in their sins, under the curse of the law, un¬ 
 reconciled to God, having no hope, and without God in the world ; and yet 
 subject to all the peculiar trials incident to the Christian profession which in 
 the apostolic age often included the loss of all things. 
 
 The argument of vv. 14-19 may be summed up thus : If Christ’s resurrec¬ 
 tion be denied, (1) the whole gospel is subverted, v. 14 ; (2) the apostles are 
 made false witnesses, v. 15 ; (3) believers, instead of being pardoned, are still 
 in their sins, v. 17 ; (4) all the dead in Christ are lost, v. 18 ; and (5) the living 
 are more miserable than other men, v. 19, 
 
 (s 2 ) “ In Christ shall all be made alive" Ver. 22. 
 
 Alford and the Speaker’s Commentary agree with Meyer in taking the “all” 
 as meaning the entire race, and confining the “ making alive” to the mere fact 
 
392 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 of a resurrection, without saying to what. But Stanley, Hodge, Prin. Brown, 
 and Beet limit the “all” to those who are in Christ, i.e. believers, and give 
 the verb its full meaning of a resurrection unto life. The wicked are not 
 thought of at all by the Apostle, and there is no reference to them here. The 
 latter view seems more in accordance with all that follows to the end of the 
 chapter. 
 
 (t 2 ) “ They that are Christ's .” Yer. 23. 
 
 This phrase is used, Gal. v. 24, as = believers. It is difficult to see any rea¬ 
 son why it may not be taken to denote those who belong to Christ, no matter 
 in what age or country they may have lived. 
 
 (u 2 ) “ Then cometh the end." Yer. 24. 
 
 The opinion which regards this phrase as meaning the end of the world is 
 favoured by the natural meaning of the word, by the analogy of Scripture (Matt, 
 xxiv. 6, 1. Peter iv. 7), and by the immediate connection which treats of the 
 completion of Christ’s mediatiorial reign. So Stanley, Alford, Hodge, Princi¬ 
 pal Brown, Beet, etc. Meyer’s view is rejected by most interpreters. 
 
 (v 2 ) “ All his enemies." Yer. 25. 
 
 The next verse seems to show clearly that the “ enemies” here refer not only 
 to intelligent beings hostile to Christ, but to all forms of evil, physical or 
 moral. 
 
 (w 2 ) “ The last enemy." Yer, 26. 
 
 This rendering of Meyer seems to give the sense better than the A. Y. or the 
 Revised Version. Beet translates in much the same way, “As a last enemy 
 Death is brought to nought.” 
 
 (x 2 ) “ All in all." Ver. 28.) 
 
 The phrase may be taken as all things in all persons , i.e. according to the con¬ 
 nection, the one Being who fills up the whole place in each one’s life, and is 
 the sole ruler of all interests and events. To attach to it a pantheistic sense is 
 utterly unreasonable and unscriptural. Stanley’s note on the verse is sugges¬ 
 tive. 
 
 (y 2 ) “ Baptized for the dead." Yer. 29. 
 
 All that needs to be added to the thorough discussion of these words in the 
 text is the remark of Hodge. “ The darkness which rests upon this passage can 
 never be entirely cleared away, because the reference is to a custom of which 
 no account is extant.” 
 
 (z 2 ) “ Is not quickened except it die." Yer. 36. 
 
 The argument is that death is not annihilation, but disorganization, and this 
 as preparatory to reorganization, so that there is merely a transition from one 
 mode of being to another. But it is sometimes objected that while in the case 
 of the seed the germ remains, so that there is no interruption in the organic 
 life of the plant, the body on the contrary not only decays but is dis- 
 
NOTES. 
 
 393 
 
 persed, its elements often being taken up into new conbinations. The answer 
 is that the life of the body may be in the soul, which at the proper time gathers 
 its materials and unfolds itself into a new body. It is certain that sameness 
 does not require absolute identity of materials. No full-grown man now has a 
 particle of what constituted his body when a child, yet he is sure of his per¬ 
 sonal identity. So will it be with the risen saints. They will know themselves 
 to be the same persons that died and were buried, and this is enough to sustain 
 the blessed doctrine of the resurrection. To deny that doctrine because we 
 are unable to explain it would be the height of folly. 
 
 (a 3 ) “ We shall also hear." Yer. 49. 
 
 All the recent editors adopt the subjunctive reading, and render Let us also 
 hear as in the margin of the Revision of 1881, and for this the external evi¬ 
 dence greatly preponderates. Yet this seems to be a case in which the de¬ 
 mands of the context outweigh all other considerations. Stanley and Beet do 
 not feel this, yet it would seem to be plain that Paul here is dealing not with 
 ethics but physiology. Besides, Meyer, in his textual notes prefixed to the chap¬ 
 ter, shows very clearly how the vicious reading may have originated. 
 
 (b 3 ) “ We shall not all sleep." Yer. 51. 
 
 Dr. Meyer seems to understand the Apostle as affirming a confident expecta¬ 
 tion that he and others of that generation would survive till the coming of 
 Christ. To this there are two objections. First, it is not necessary. The 
 words simply mean that all (including both the Apostle and his readers) will 
 not die, but while some will escape death, none will escape a total bodil}* 
 change. Secondly, to suppose that the Apostle solemnly, under divine di¬ 
 rection, announced to his readers what was not the fact, would be to impeach 
 his inspiration. 
 
 (c 3 ) “ We shall he changed.” Yer. 51. 
 
 The author’s assumption that the Apostle here states his belief that he should 
 live to see the Parousia is not necessary, since the words may mean merely “ all 
 of us who are alive shall be changed,” and besides is opposed to his own state¬ 
 ment to the Thessalonians (II. iv. 15), whom he warns against expecting a 
 speedy occurrence of the Advent. 
 
 (d 3 ) “ Therefore he ye stedfast." Yer. 58. 
 
 The sudden subsidence of so impassioned a strain of triumph into so sober a 
 conclusion is a remarkable instance of the practical character of the New Testa¬ 
 ment teaching (Stanley). 
 
394 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Ver. 2. oaftfiaTov] recommended by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. Buck. 
 Tisch., following ABCDEFGJ X** 17, Syr. Yulg. Clirys., al. Elz. and 
 Scliolz, however, have GaQfiaruv, an alteration in accordance with passages 
 §uch as Matt, xxviii. 1 ; Mark xvi. 2 ; Luke xxiv. 1.—Ver. 7. Instead of the 
 second yap, Elzevir has 6e, against decisive evidence. An alteration to express 
 the antithesis. — eKirpeny] Lachm. Biick. Tisch. read, as approved previously 
 by Griesb. : EKirpeipr/, following A B C J K, min. Chrys. Theoph. ms. Bightly ; 
 comp. Heb. vi. 3. —Yer. 17. vyCov~\ vyerspov should be adopted, according to 
 preponderant evidence ; and comp. Phil. ii. 30. — Instead of ovtoi, ALE 
 F G, 64, Vulg. Chrys. Oec. Ambrosiast. have avroi, which is recommended by 
 Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Biick. Tisch. Bightly ; the external evidence 
 is considerable enough, and ovtol might easily be written on the margin by 
 way of gloss.—Ver. 19. In place of Hpicmh^a we should write Upicua, with 
 Tisch., following B ^5, 17, and several vss. Pel. The former name was taken 
 from the Acts.—Ver. 22. ’Irjcovv XpicrSv in Elz. after nvpiov (against ABC* 
 X* and several min. Aeth. Copt.) is an old, readily-occurring addition. 
 
 Vv. 1-9. Regarding the collection for Jerusalem ; doubtless (comp. vii. 1, 
 viii. 2, xii. 1) occasioned by a question in the Corinthian letter. 
 
 ■Ver. 1. The construction may be : locks p Kepi Tfjg hoy. (her. raig £KKh. rfjg 
 TaA., ovtco li.r.l. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 1 ; also 1 Cor. xii. 1. Still Kepi . . . 
 aylovg may also be taken by itself (de Wette and others), comp. ver. 12, vii. 
 1, viii. 1. We cannot, indeed, decide, but the latter is more in harmony 
 with the inartificial movement of the epistolary style. — hoyia' cvhhoyii, 
 Suidas, comp. Hesychius. Without example elsewhere save in the 
 Fathers. — eig rove ayiovg] i.e. eig rovg KTtoxovg tlov ay'uov tlov ev 'lepovcahgp, 
 Bom. xv. 26. This detail, however, was obvious of itself to the readers ; 
 the assumption that oi ayioi by itself denoted the mother church (Hofmann) 1 
 is neither necessary nor capable of proof ; they are the ayioi who are known ; 
 the readers were acquainted with the fact, for ichom the apostle made the 
 collection. —Th q poverty of the church at Jerusalem explains itself in part 
 from the community of goods which had formerly 2 subsisted there (see on 
 Acts ii. 44 f.). This poverty itself, along with the high interest excited by 
 what was in truth the mother church of the whole of Christendom, as well 
 as Gal. ii. 10, and generally Paul’s love for his people (Rom. ix. 3), which 
 made sacrifices with joy, form a sufficient explanation of his great zeal in 
 their support, and of his delivering over the sums raised in person, notwitli- 
 
 1 See in opposition to this explanation of 2 The community of goods cannot by this 
 oi ayioi, which was previously proposed by time have subsisted any longer ; otherwise 
 Wieseler also, Iiiehm, Lehrbegr. d. Ilebr. Br. it could not have been said, Rom. l.c rows 
 p. xviii. ed. 2. utco^ous tu>v ayiuv. See Acts iv. 34. 
 
CHAP. XVI., 2 . 
 
 395 
 
 standing the dangers which he saw before him. Riickert’s view (comp, 
 also Olshausen), that Paul desired to appease the minds of the Jewish 
 Christians there which were embittered against him, before he journeyed 
 into the west, has no trace whatever of its existence either in the Acts or 
 the Epistles. See, on the contrary, Acts xxi. 17-24. Riickert even asserts 
 that such a reason alone could justify him in undertaking so perilous a 
 journey. But see Acts xx. 22-24. —ryq Talar.'] whether from Ejdiesus by 
 messengers, or in person on the journey mentioned in Acts xviii. 23 
 (Osiander, Neander, Wieseler), or by letter (so Ewald), must be left unde¬ 
 cided. In the Epistle to the Galatians preserved to us there is no mention 
 of this collection ; for Gal. ii. 10 is of general import, although it is th^ 
 basis of the apostolic diaraGceiv , as well as the special warrant for it. For 
 the rest, Bengel aptly says : u Galatarum exemplum Corinthiis, Corinthio- 
 rum exemplum Macedonibus, et Macedonum Romanis proponit, 2 Cor. ix. 
 2 ; Rom. xv. 26. Magna exemplorum vis.” But a proof, too, how Paul 
 sought to foster the community of life and effort in his churches (comp. 
 Lechler, p. 364 f.), and how the appointed mode of doing so had already 
 approved itself. 
 
 Yer. 2. Kara yiav Gaj3f3drov] on each first day of the week. A Hebraism 
 very common in the New Testament, in accordance with the Jewish custom 
 of designating the days of the week by rotJQ “in&, L31222 'W, etc. Light- 
 foot, Ilor. ad Matth. xxviii. 1. (e 3 ) The singular of oa(3(3. also means iceek, as in 
 Mark xvi. 9 ; Luke xviii. 12. — It does not, indeed, follow from this pas¬ 
 sage in itself that the Sunday was already observed at that time by assem¬ 
 blies for the worship of God, although this is to be assumed from other 
 indications (see regarding this on Acts xx. 7) ; for Trap’ eavru tiOeto cannot 
 refer to the laying down of money in the assembly (Estius, Bengel, 
 Mosheim, al.) ; but no doubt it does show that to the Christian conscious¬ 
 ness it was a holy day in whose consecration the appropriateness of such 
 works of love was felt, rd yap envoppyra aya6ci nal i) pfa nat ?} apxv ryq 
 ijyeripag ev ravry yeyovev, Chrysostom. —Trap’ eavrti rider a k.t. 1.] let him lay 
 up in store at home whatever (quodcunque) he succeeds in, i.e. if he has suc¬ 
 cess in anything, let him lay it up (i.e. what has been gained thereby), corn}), 
 expressions such as in John xii. 5 ; Matt. xix. 21, etc. Comp. Ilerod. vi. 
 73 : K leo/uivei EvuddOy to rcpyypa. Eccles. xi. 16, xxxviii. 14, xli. 1 ; Tobit 
 iv. 19 ; 3 John 2. To supply drjoavp'feiv after evod. (Hofmann) is superflu¬ 
 ous. Explanations such as guod ei placuerit (Vulgate, 1 Erasmus, Paraphr., 
 Luther, al.), and that of Billroth and Riickert, following older interpreters : 
 what is possible for him without burdening himself, are not in accordance with 
 the literal sense of Evodoa (see on Rom. i. 10). Trap’ lavra) : at home, chez lui , 
 see on Luke xxiv. 12. Loesner, Obss. p. 297. Oyaavpfuv : “paulatim 
 cumulum aliquern faciens,” Grotius. — Iva py k.t.1.] in order that gatherings 
 be not made, when I shall have come. The collection was to be then so far 
 already made, that every one would only have to produce wdiat he had 
 
 1 The Vulgate, perhaps, may have read eiSoK-fj. Comp, the Gothic : “ tliatci vili ” (what 
 he will). 
 
396 
 
 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 already gathered together week by week out of his profits in trade. By this 
 whole injunction Paul doubtless had in view both the enlargement and the 
 acceleration in due season of the collection. 
 
 Yer. 3. Ovg lav 6 okiju.] whomsoever you shall consider Jit. Paul thus makes 
 the appointment of the persons who were to bring the money dependent 
 upon the choice of his readers ; hence Grotius observes : “ Vide, quomodo 
 vir tantus nullam suspicioni rimam aperire voluerit.” It is possible, how¬ 
 ever, that he had never thought of that ; for it was quite natural for him, 
 with his fine practical tact, not to anticipate the givers as respects the trans¬ 
 mission of their gifts. — 6C ettiotoXov] by means of letters , by my giving them 
 letters along with them to express their mission. Comp. Winer, p. 35G [E. 
 T. 476]. The plural might denote the category (by way of letter), and thus 
 only one letter be meant (Heumann) ; but there is nothing to compel us to 
 depart from the plural sense, for Paul very reasonably might design to write 
 different letters to several persons at Jerusalem. 1 A C Itugt. is to be connected 
 with what follows (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and the majority of modern 
 expositors), and it is put first , because Paul has already in his mind the 
 other possible alternative, that lte himself may make the journey. The 
 majority of the older editors (except Er. Schmid), also Beza, Calvin, Estius, 
 al ., connect it with boiay : “ quos Hierosolymitanis per epistolas commenda- 
 veritis,” Wetstein. But in that case the irlfi-ipa) would surely be somewhat 
 meaningless ! No ; the bearers of the collection are to be chosen by the 
 givers; but it is Paul, as the originator and apostolically commissioned 
 steward (Gal. ii. 10) of the collection, who sends the money. —ttjv x^P LV fyi.] 
 your love-gift , beneficium. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 4, 6, 7, 19. “Gratiosa appel- 
 latio,” Bengcl ; comp. Oecumenius ; Xen. Ag. iv. 4 f., Ilier. viii. 4 ; Eccles. 
 iii. 29, xxx. 6, xxix. 15 ; 4 Macc. v. 8. 
 
 Yer. 4. In case , however , of it (what is being spoken of, i.e. the result of 
 the collection) being worthy that I too should journey (to Jerusalem), 2 then 
 they shall journey with me. The genitive rov nopeveodat depends upon agiov. 
 Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 845 ; Winer, p. 304 [E. T. 408],—Paul 
 makes his own journeying thither dependent upon the issue of the collec¬ 
 tion, not, of course, for the sake of safety in its conveyance, nor yet because, 
 in the event of a considerable sum being realized, he desired to be indepen¬ 
 dent in connection with the application of it, but—which alone results from 
 a^tov without arbitrariness—because a scanty sum would have been dispro- 
 
 1 We see, too, from this passage how com¬ 
 mon it was for the apostle, in the course 
 of his work, to indite letters even to indi¬ 
 viduals. Who knows how many of such 
 writings of his have been lost! The only 
 letter of the kind which we still have (set¬ 
 ting aside the pastoral Epistles), that to 
 Philemon, owes its preservation perhaps 
 solely to the circumstance that it was 
 addressed at the same time to the church in 
 the house (Philem. 2). 
 
 2 It is clear from Ka^e no p. that he will 
 
 not make the journey at any rate (Hof¬ 
 mann), but that he makes it dependent on 
 the above-named circumstance whether J.e 
 also snail journey thither. What a strange 
 state of things, too, would be the result, 
 if he were resolved to journey at any rate , 
 but the messengers, in the event of the col¬ 
 lection proving a small one, were to make 
 the journey not in his company, but alone! 
 Paul assuredly did not contemplate any¬ 
 thing so paltry. 
 
CIIAP. XVI., 5 - 7 . 
 
 397 
 
 poi'tionate to an extraordinary mission. Consideration for tlie decorum at¬ 
 taching to the apostolic rank underlies his procedure, not the prudential 
 motive : “ in order, on this opportunity, to fulfil his purpose of going to 
 Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21), and to prepare for himself there a good reception” 
 (de Wette), or in order by this journey to heal the breach between the Jew¬ 
 ish and Gentile Christians (Baur). Bengel says well : “ Justa aestimatio 
 sui non est superbia.” At the same time, he will not undertake this charge 
 alone ; see 2 Cor. viii. 20. 
 
 Ver. 5 f. His arrival, which had not hitherto been specifically determined, 
 is now defined by him as respects its time. — otciv Maned. dte/£u] According 
 to 2 Cor. i. 15, it had previously been his plan to proceed from Ephesus by 
 Corinth to Macedonia, from Macedonia again back to Corinth, and then on¬ 
 ward to Jerusalem. This plan, however, he has altered (see 2 Cor. i. 15, 
 23 fit.), and he now intends to journey first through Macedonia, and then 
 to Corinth, where he thinks perhaps (rvxov) to spend some time, or even to 
 winter. In the second Epistle, too, we see him actually engaged on this 
 journey in Macedonia (2 Cor. ii. 13, viii. 1, ix. 2, 4), and upon the way to 
 Corinth (ii. 1, xii. 14, xiii. 1, al.). Acts xx. 1, 2, agrees with this. —Ma/ceA 
 ■yap dtepx-] is not a parenthesis, but the Ma/ceA put first corresponds to the 
 wpbc ipag de which follows, and the diepxoyat. to the wapayevu : for Macedonia 
 I journey through (without halting), hut with you will I perhaps remain. The 
 present dtepx . designates the future as present in conception, i.e. conceived 
 as quite certain. 1 From the erroneous rendering : I am on my journey 
 through Macedonia , arose the erroneous statement in the subscription, that 
 the letter was written from Philippi. — wapayevC] he remained three months, 
 Acts xx. 2. — iva vyelq k.t.A.] vyeig has the emphasis. Were Paul to remain 
 in another church, others would give him the escort ; there is something 
 kindly both in Iva and in ty telg, the unprompted thoughtfulness of love. — 
 rvxov ] forsan, only here in the New Testament, very common in Greek 
 writers. —ou] As Luke x. 1. Bornemann, Schol. in loc. ; Kuhner, II. p. 318. 
 Whither his thoughts, however, were generally turned at that time, see 
 Acts xix. 21. 
 
 Ver. 7. For it is not my will to see you now in passing. Since he does not 
 say t Takiv ev wap., but apn ev wap., no inference can be drawn from this pas¬ 
 sage to decide the question (see introduction to 2 Cor. § 2) whether Paul 
 had been already twice in Corinth before writing our Epistle to the Corin- 
 tliians (in opposition to Schrader, Neander, Wieseler, Otto) ; but he says 
 simply : it is not his will noic to visit the Corinthians only as a passing travel¬ 
 ler, which leaves it quite undecided whether he has already previously 
 visited them once ev wapoda> (so, too, Hofmann) or not. In order rightly to 
 understand the passage, observe that the vpag, which is put first on that ac¬ 
 count, has the emphasis, in contrast to the Macedonians. The Corinthians , 
 in the journey which he is now about to make, are to have the advantage over 
 the Macedonians, whom he will only see in journeying through, ver. 5. 2 Ac- 
 
 1 [That is, Tam to jiass, not I am passing, a 2 This also against Otto, Pastoralb. p. 
 
 sense of the present tense not uncommon CoG f. 
 in the Xew Testament.—T. W. C.] 
 
398 
 
 Paul’s pirst epistle to the coriptthiaks. 
 
 cording to Billroth and others, the thought is meant to be, that he •will not now 
 see them, as he had formerly intended , on his journey through (to Macedonia). 
 But in that case lie would have written : apn -yap ov 6 Dm k.t.1. Regarding 
 h 7 -apSfia), comp. Thuc. i. 126. 7, v. 4. 5, vii. 2. 3 ; Polyb. v. 68. 8 ; Lucian, 
 B. Bear. xxiv. 2. — DMfa yap k.t.1.] ground of the ov ODm k.t.1. ; for he 
 hopes that the Lord will enable him to make a longer visit to the church 
 than merely kv n-apodo), and upon the ground of this hope it is not his will, 
 etc. — 6 Kvpiog] Christ , in whose service the apostle journeys and works 
 (Acts xvi. 7, 10).— eTurpETpy] shall have allowed, i.e. shall have given signs 
 of His approval. “ Pia conditio,” Bengel. Comp. iv. 19. 
 
 Vv. 8, 9. Paul now mentions the duration of his present stay in Ephesus, 
 and the reason of it. — Ti>g ttsvtpk.] is the immediately impending festival of 
 Pentecost. See Introduction, § 3. Rotking can be inferred from our text, 
 which contains simply a statement of time, in support of a Christian cele¬ 
 bration of this festival as already by this time subsisting. — dvpa yap pot k.t.1.] 
 The figurative expression (comp. Wetstein) denotes the opportunity opened 
 before him, for wording (otherwise Acts xiv. 27). Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 12, and 
 see on Col. iv. 3. (f 3 ) M eyaArj applies to the extent, hepy. to the influence of the 
 sphere of action offered ; the latter epithet, however, powerful , corresponds 
 not to the figure but to the matter , and even to that only in so far as it is 
 conceived of as immediately connected with the opened Ovpa, —a want of con- 
 gruity in the animated and versatile mode of representation (comp. Plato, 
 Phaedr. p. 245 A : Movaibv ettl 7roo/TiKag 6vpag afinriTai ) which occasioned the 
 reading hapyr/g, evidens (Vulgate, Itala, Pelagius, Ambrosiaster. Beda), 
 which occurs in Pliilem. 6, and is approved by Beza, Grotius, Bos, and 
 Clericus. As regards the later Greek of aveuyev (instead of avcuKTai, as 46, 
 Theophylact and Oecumenius actually read), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 157 f. 
 
 •— k. avTLKeip. t -oXloi] 11 quibus resistam. Saepe bonum et contra ca malum 
 simul valde vigent,” Bengel. 
 
 Vv. 10, 11. Recommendation of Timothy (iv. 17) to be 'well received 
 and escorted back. He is not the bearer of our Epistle (Bleek), but jour¬ 
 neyed through Macedonia (Acts xix. 22), and must arrive in Corinth later 
 than the Epistle. — kav Se eldr)] if indeed, he shall have come. Rtickert holds 
 that brav w T ould have been more correct. Either one or other was correct, 
 just according to the conception of the writer. He conceives of the arrival 
 of Timothy as conditioned by the circumstances, and therefore places it 
 under the hypothetical, not under the temporal (orav ), point of view.— Iva 
 k.t.1.] design of the [^/.ettete : be careful, in order that he, .etc. Paul might 
 also have written negatively: file ttete, pi/ h po/L> (ii. 3), or Iva pi] k. p. (2 
 John 8), etc. The positive expression, however, demands more; his going 
 out and in among the readers is to be free from fear. Comp, on y'iveaOai 
 with the adverb of the mode of the going out and in, Herod, i. 8, ix. 109 ; 
 Plut. Alex. 69, Bemetr. 11, Mor. p. 127 A ; also Plato, Prot. 325 B ; Tobit 
 vii. 9, 11 ; 1 Macc. viii. 29. They are so to conduct themselves towards 
 him that he shall not be intimidated among them. This peculiar atyofiug, as 
 well as the reason assigned which follows to yap Ipyov k.t.1., and the con¬ 
 clusion again drawn from it: pi] rig ovv av~. Djovdevi/crri, make it probable 
 
 i 
 
ciiai\ xvi., 12. 
 
 300 
 
 tliat Paul lias in view not the ill-will of his own opponents, which his friend 
 might encounter (Osiander, Neander), with which the to yap . . . dig Kai 
 iydi does not well agree, but the youth of Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 12), on 
 account of which, in a church to some extent of a liigh-mjnded tendency, 
 he might easily be not held in full respect, slighted and intimidated. So 
 already Chrysostom and the majority of interpreters. The -neonlecture that 
 Timothy was of a timid nature (de Wette) is without a trace of historical 
 support, and is superfluous. Regarding to ipy. tov Kvp., see on xv. 58 . — iv 
 eipqvy ] is not to be explained from the formula : TropevecOai iv eipyvy (so 
 Calvin : “ salvum ab omni noxa,” comp. Beza, Flatt, Maier), since, on the 
 contrary, the context would lead us to think, in accordance with d<p6/3cig and 
 pi] Tig etjovd., of a peaceful escort, a tz poTripTreiv in peace and concord , x u pC 
 paxvg k. (jnloveudag (Chrysostom, Theophylact). Flatt and Hofmann refer iv 
 eip. to what follows ( that he may come to me safely and icithout danger). But 
 the subsequent reason assigned contains nothing referable to iv eiprjvTj, 
 which must have been the case, had it been so emphatically put first. Be¬ 
 sides, the escort to be given was not for protection, but in testimony of love 
 and reverence. — Iva OJdy zzpog pe] There is implied, namely, in TcpoTvipiiaTe 
 k.t with its aim as here defined : ‘‘ in order that he may come (back) to 
 me,” the admonition not to detain him too long in Corinth —for Paul is 
 expecting him. — ge-a tciv adcfapbiv] Several others, therefore, besides Erastus 
 (Acts xix. 22), had journeyed with Timothy. 1 
 
 Yer. 12. &£] marks the transition from Timothy to Apollos. —irepl Hi ’At r. 
 tov «A] stands independently : quod attinet ad Apoll ., as ver. 1, vii. 1. — iva 
 i/Mij k.t./ 1 .] design of the nolla TzapeKdleoa uvtov : I hare advised him much , in 
 order that he should come , etc. Paul makes this remark : “ ne Corinthii sus- 
 picentur, ab eo fuisse impeditum,” Calvin. Perhaps they had expressly 
 besought that Apollos might be sent to them. — nolla is intensive , as in 
 ver. 19, and often in Greek writers. — peva tov ade/Kpdiv] These are the 
 Corinthian Christians, who journeyed back from Ephesus to Corinth with 
 this Epistle. See ver. 17. Here also the words are not to be joined with 
 TrapeiidTieca (Hofmann), but with iva HOr) k.t.X., beside which they stand. — 
 Kai Travriog k.t. A ] And the will teas wholly (out and out) lacking (“sermo quasi 
 impersonalis,” Bengel) that he should come now , comp. Matt, xviii. 14. 
 The context compels us to understand Oilryia of the will of Apollos , not of 
 God's will (Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Bengel, Riickert). Kai 
 does not stand for a?Ad (Beza and others) comp. Rom. 1. 13. — otuv ebsaip.] 
 So soon as he shall have found a convenient time for it. Regarding the late¬ 
 ness of the word in Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 125. 
 
 Remake.—I t follows from this passage that Apollos, who by this time must 
 have been again (Acts xviii. 24 ££.) in Ephesus, 2 was neither a faction-maker 
 
 1 To refer it to e*Se*.: I with the brethren 
 who are here (Bengel and de Wette unde¬ 
 cidedly, older interpreters in Calovius, and 
 again Hofmann), has the analogy of ver. 12 
 against it. It was usual that several should 
 
 he sent together on such missions. 
 
 2 He seems, however, just when this let¬ 
 ter was written to have been absent for a 
 time, since no special greeting is sent from 
 him. 
 
400 
 
 Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 nor at variance witli Paul, for Paul himself plainly regarded his going to Cor¬ 
 inth as a thing advantageous and to be desired. Hence, too, the refusal of 
 Apollos is not to be explained from fear of adding new fuel to the party heats, 
 but simply from the contents of the orav evKaipyay. He must have found hin¬ 
 drances for the present in the relations of his work, by which he saw himself 
 detained from^tlie desired journey until a more convenient time, so that he did 
 not yield even to the advice of the apostle. The text tells us nothing further ; 
 but the Corinthians themselves might learn more details from the bearers of 
 the Epistle. Van Hengel (Gave d. talen. p. Ill f.) brings the refusal into a too 
 arbitrarily assumed connection with the Corinthian misuse of the glossolalia. 
 
 Yer. 13 f. In conclusion of the whole Epistle, and without connection or 
 reference to what has immediately preceded, there is now added a concise 
 exhortation which compresses closely together, in five imperatives following 
 each other asyndetically, the whole sum of the Christian calling, upon 
 which are then to follow some personal commendations and greetings, as 
 well as, lastly, the proper closing greeting and the benediction. — The ypyyo- 
 pslre summons to Christian foresight and soberness , without which stedfast- 
 ncss in the faith (orrjK. ev r. Trior.) is not possible ; (g 3 ) avdpfcoOe and 
 nparacovode, again, to the manly (“ muliebris enim omnis inconstantia,” 
 Pelagius) and vigorous resistance against all dangers, without which that 
 stedfastness cannot continue. — avdp'feoOai] to bear oneself man fully , to be 
 manly in bearing and action; only here in the New Testament, but often 
 in classic writers, see Wetstein, and in the LXX. Comp, the Homeric 
 avepeg cure, II. v. 529 ; and see, also, Yalckenaer, ad Herod, vii. 210; Heind. 
 ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 239 B. Comp. avdpuiibg inroyelvai yaxcodac k.t.a ., Ast, 
 Lex. Plat. I. p. 165. — uparaiovoOe] be strong. Comp. Eph. hi. 1G: dvvapei 
 KparaiioOf/vat dca rov rrvevyarog avrov elg rbv eoo avOpurrov. The verbal form 
 occurs in the LXX. and Apocrypha ; not in Greek writers, who say nparv- 
 veoOcu.—kv ayaTzy] as in the life-sphere of the whole Christian disposition 
 and action, chap, xiii., and, in particular, of mutual edification, viii. 1. 
 
 Yv. 15-18. Commendation of the three Corinthian delegates who had 
 brought to the apostle the letter of the church ; first of all (ver, 15 f.) and 
 chiefly, of Stephanas (i. 16) and his house. The special expression which 
 Paul gives (ver. 16) to the commendation of Stephanas must have been 
 grounded in some antagonism unknown to us, which the man had to lament 
 in his work for the church. — tt npanahb] The question is, Whether the ex¬ 
 hortation itself begins at once with oldare (so that the latter would be imper¬ 
 ative ), or only with iva , so that oldare would be indicative , and the passage 
 ending with eavrovg would put forward the motive in the first place ? The 
 latter is the ordinary view and the only correct one, for oldare as an imper¬ 
 ative form (instead of lore') cannot be pointed out (in opposition to Erasmus, 
 Wolf, Heydenreich) ; on the supposition of its being imperative , eldevai 
 would require to betaken as in 1 Thcss. v. 12 (“ut jubeat agnosci bene 
 meritos,” Erasmus) ; on the view of its being indicative , it is the simple 
 know. The construction is the ordinary attraction olda ce rig el, and oldare 
 . . . eavrovg is an auxiliary thought which interrupts the construction (comp. 
 Disscn, ad Pern, de Cor. p. 34 b). — anapxy ryg ’A x y.] i.e. the first family which 
 
CHAP. XVI.j 17 , 18 . 
 
 401 
 
 had accepted Christianity in Achaia ; the holy first-fruits of the land, in so 
 far as it was destined to become, and was in process of becoming, Christian. 
 Comp. Rom. xv. 6. — era^av] The 'plural , on account of the collective oinca. 
 They have set themselves (voluntarily devoted themselves and placed them¬ 
 selves at the post) for the service of the saints. Instances of rdaaetv eavrov in this 
 sense may be seen in Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 234. Comp. Plato, Rep. 
 p. 371 C : eavrovg enl ryv Stanovtav rdrrovai ravrr/v , Xen. Ages. ii. 25, Mem. ii. 
 1. 11. Beza denies the emphasis of eavrovg , unwarrantably, but in the inter¬ 
 est of the “ vocatio legitima.” 1 We have no more precise knowledge of the 
 historical circumstances here pointed to. Perhaps Stephanas devoted him¬ 
 self also especially to journeys, embassies, execution of special commissions, 
 and the like ; his wife, to the care of the poor and sick. — roig ayioig is an appro¬ 
 priating dative to dean. See, already, Raphel, Xenoph. in loc. ; Bernhardy, 
 p. 88. By ol aycoL are meant the Christians , as in ver. 1 ; not, however, the 
 mother church at Jerusalem (Hofmann). A reference to prosecuting the col¬ 
 lection (in connection with which people had, it is supposed, been refractory 
 towards Stephanas) lies wholly remote from the words. — nal vyelg] You too. 
 The k ai finds its reference, according to the context, in what goes before : 
 eig dean. r. ay. era!;, eavr. Wetstein is right, therefore, in saying : “illi vobis 
 ministrant ; aequum est, ut vos illis vicissim honorem exhibeatis” (rather : 
 obsequamini). — vreordaa. ] namely, to their proposals, exhortations, etc. 
 Ewald and Ritschl regard Stephanas as one of the overseers of the church ; 
 a relation which, however, would have required a more precise and definite 
 designation than the general and qualitative rolg roiovroig. See, besides, on 
 i. 17. —rolg rotovroig] to those ivho are so affected, indicates, in a generalizing 
 way, the category to which Stephanas and his house belong. This general¬ 
 ization, by which the injunction of obedience towards the concrete persons 
 comes out in a less strict and immediate form, but in which it is still implied, 
 is a delicacy of expression. —ru awepy.] The reference of the aw is given by 
 the context from rolg roiovroig ; hence : who works with them , i.e. in fellowship 
 with them , which presupposes harmony in the spirit and purport of the work. 
 Comp. Chrysostom. While Ruckert leaves us our choice between three 
 supplements contrary to the context : ro dep (iv. 9), knot (so Erasmus), and 
 vfiiv if Cor. i. 24), Hofmann adds a fourth arbitrary supplement : helpful to 
 increase the kingdom of God. This design is of course taken for granted of 
 itself, but does not explain the avv. —nal Korriuvn] and takes pains (therein), 
 gives himself trouble about it. Comp. xv. 10, iv. 12 ; Gal. iv. 11 ; Rom. 
 xvi. 6. 
 
 Yv. 17, 18. Regarding Fortunatus (probably not different from the per¬ 
 son named in Clem. 1 Cor. 59) and Achaicus no particulars are known. 
 They are not to be included (as de Wette would have it) in the family of 
 Stephanas, which has been spoken of already. Grotius holds them to be 
 Chloe’s people ; but see on i. 11. —on to vyerepov vareprjya avrol dveirXf because 
 they for their part have supplied your lack (your absence). Comp, on Phil. 
 
 1 Which does not come into consideration here, since there is no mention of entrance 
 upon an ecclesiastical office. 
 
402 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORIHTHIAHS. 
 
 ii. 30. 'Y/z£ 7\ is thus taken objectively (comp. xv. 31) : the Inch of your pres¬ 
 
 ence ; and v/i£T. and aiiro'i (see the critical remarks) have the emphasis. Ob¬ 
 serve how courteously the expression : the want of you (of your presence), is 
 chosen. Hofmann, on the contrary, misses this delicate touch by taking it 
 as : what was lacking in you , in this respect, namely, that you could not 
 appear with me in person. With still less delicacy Grotius, who adduces in 
 his support 2 Cor. ix. 12 : “ quod vos omnes facere oportuit , id illi fecerunt; 
 certiorem me fecere de vestris morbis.” He is followed by Riickert, who 
 founds wrongly upon Phil. ii. 30 : u what should have been done by you , that 
 have they done” inasmuch, namely, as they had given him joy, which had 
 not been done by the Corinthians. But we must not decide here by passages 
 from other Epistles, since linguistically both renderings alike may be cor¬ 
 rect, but simply by the connection, according to which the men as ambassa¬ 
 dors from the Corinthians were the compensation to the apostle for the lack 
 of the presence of the latter. Comp. Chrysostom. — avkitavcav yap K.r.h.] 
 reason assigned for the preceding to voTkpqya ai it. averr/ 1. 1 Regarding the 
 phrase, conrp. 2 Cor. vii. 13 ; Pliilem. 7, 20. — nat to vytiv] for they have 
 refreshed (by their arrival here, and the communications and assurances con¬ 
 nected therewith, comp. 2 Cor. vii. 13) my spirit and yours. The latter, 
 inasmuch as they had come not in their own name, but as representatives of 
 the whole church; their meeting therefore with Paul could not but be refresh¬ 
 ing to the consciousness of the whole church. As they by their presence 
 provided for Paul the joy of avcnravaic, so they provided it also for the church, 
 which through them had entered into this fellowship with the apostle, and 
 thus owed to them the refreshment which it could not but experience in the 
 consciousness of this living intercourse of love with Paul brought about 
 through these men. Comp. Chrysostom : ov Ilat^ yovov, alia nat hctivoig 
 ai/Tov; x a P i(ya ! J -l V0V Q Selkvvgl tcj tt)v nohiv airacav ev avToiq nepapEpEiv. Paul thus 
 expresses not simply reciprocity in general,—that which is presupposed where 
 there is good-will (de Wette),—but the relation implied in the representation 
 of the church by their delegates,—a relation, therefore, which for the latter, 
 in virtue of their acceptance of the embassage, was one of merit. There 
 lies here, also, in the addition of this second pronoun, a tender delicacy 
 (comp, on i. 2), which the readers acquainted with the manner of the apos¬ 
 tle could well appreciate. Grotius makes the reference to be to the assur¬ 
 ances of Paul’s love which those men had brought with them to the Corin¬ 
 thians. But to vgtiv also, like to eyov nvEvya, must refer to the time of the 
 presence of the delegates with Paul. — huyivtocwcTE] Attention to the com¬ 
 pound verb : recognize them rightly (comp, on xiii. 12), should of itself have 
 sufficed to prevent alterations of the sense of the word (such as : prize them 
 highly , so Theophylact, Grotius, Flatt, Neander, and others). The high es¬ 
 teem is the consequence of the ekijiv. — tov; tolovtovq] as in ver. 16. 
 
 Ver. 19 f. T? 7 f ’A mag] in the narrower sense, comprehending the western 
 coastlands of Asia Minor‘(see on Acts ii. 9), where Ephesus also lay. From 
 
 1 Had Paul and his readers met together this refreshment of both parties had now 
 in person, this would have been refreshing taken place through those delegates, 
 for botli parties (comp. Rom. i. 12); and 
 
chap, xvi.,, 21-24. 
 
 403 
 
 the latter, at least, Paul was charged with a greeting, but in the assurance of 
 a like loving fellowship on the part also of the other Asiatic churches, 
 with which he was in intercourse from Ephesus, he widens it. — hv Kvp'af] 
 marks the Christian character of the greeting, inasmuch as it was given 
 with the feeling of living and moving in Christ. Comp, on Rom. xvi. 22. 
 The ev Kvp. , which is here added, is taken for granted by the reader in the 
 case of the other greetings also. But here precisely it is expressed, be¬ 
 cause this greeting is a specially fervent one ; hence also tc olid {much, comp, 
 ver. 12 ).—avv ry mr ’ oIkov clvt. £kk/ l.] Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla), who 
 had gone from Corinth (see on Acts xviii. 2) to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 26), 
 had therefore given their dwelling here too, as afterwards at Rome (Rom. 
 xvi. 3 f.), for the assembly of a portion of the Christians in the place. 
 Comp, on Rom. l.c. Probably Paul also lodged with them, so that the 
 old addition : Trap' o\q ml ^Ev'fopai (D E F G, Vulg., etc.), contains a true 
 statement.— ol adehjtol -dr-ref] the whole of the members of the Ephesian 
 church—these, still, separately and personally, although already included 
 collectively in the first greeting. — h (pil. ay.] l>y means of a holy hiss. See on 
 Rom. xvi. 16 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ; 1 Thess. v. 26. It is the kiss which was 
 the token of Christian, brotherly love (1 Pet. v. 14), and thus had the spe¬ 
 cific character of Christian consecration. Comp. Constit. apost. ii. 57. 12, 
 viii. 5. 5 : ro kv icvp'up fikryia. More special considerations, such as that of 
 the absence of hypocrisy (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact), are im¬ 
 ported. They are to greet each other, mutually (not from Paul), with the holy 
 kiss after the reading of the Epistle in the assembly, and thereby manifest 
 their brotherly love to each other respectively. 1 Comp, on Rom. xvi. 16. 
 
 Yv. 21-24. Conclusion added with his own hand in token, according to 2 
 Thess. iii. 17, comp. ii. 2, that the Epistle, though not written with his own 
 hand, was his Epistle. Comp. Col. iv. 18. — 6 dcnaapdC] is the greeting mP 
 h^oxyv, the final salutation to the church. Nothing is to be supplied ; on 
 the contrary, Paul writes these words, and there is the greeting. — IT avlov] 
 in apposition to iyy. See Kiihner, II. p. 145.—In ver. 22, looking back 
 once more, as it were involuntarily, upon the many degenerate forms of 
 Christian life, and the discords at Corinth, he adds an apostolic utterance of 
 judgment, full of terrible solemnity, against all those who could not but 
 feel that it struck at them. —ov cpilel r. nvp.] is without love to Christ. So he 
 designates those Christians, w T ho, like so many at Corinth, by factiousness, 
 self-seeking, strife, a carnal life, etc., practically denied their love to Christ 
 (John xiv. 23). That the course applied to them, as long as they were impen¬ 
 itent, is self-evident. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 10.—Observe that the more sen¬ 
 suous word (piltiv is nowhere used by Paul in those Epistles which are un¬ 
 doubtedly his (comp., however, Tit. iii. 15), except in this passage so full of 
 emotion ; elsewhere he uses ay array (Eph. vi. 24). —yro ava.0.] i.e. then let 
 him be one devoted to destruction (to the eternal an hi £ia). See on Rom. ix. 
 3 ; Gal. i. 8. — papavaOa ] energetic reference to the Parousia, at which that 
 
 1 We are to conceive of this aa-n-d^eo-^ai the medium instead of words. Comp. 
 
 aAArjAovs as a silent one, in which the kiss is Const, ap. viii. 11. 4. 
 
404 
 
 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 f]Tu avaO. shall be realized. The word is the Aramaic NEK NPD, i.e. our Lord 
 is come , by which, however, not the coming in the flesh is meant, as Chrys¬ 
 ostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, Erasmus, Castalio, al., assume, 1 
 but, in accordance with the context (see previously ijru avaO .), the eschato¬ 
 logical coming to judgment. Paul sees the near and certain Parousia as if 
 already begun (see on this use of the Hebrew praeterite, Ewald, Lehrb . 135. 
 3), and exclaims, like a prophet beholding it in vision : Our Lord is here! 
 But it is not a form of putting under ban (see Lighfoot, Hor . p. 260), as indeed 
 it does not occur in the Rabbinical writings ; Luther (comp. Calvin) has with¬ 
 out any warrant made it into Maharam Motha (which would be NE1D DEEID, 
 maledictus ad mortem ). According to Hofmann, papavaOa is meant to be 
 equivalent to EIEJN Erp ? Thou art the Lord , whereby the thought is ex- 
 pressed : “ He will prove Himself in them to be Lord” But how needless is 
 this wholly novel and far less characteristic interpretation ! The traditional 
 interpretation, 2 on the other hand, places the punishment ofl the judgment di¬ 
 rectly before our eyes. Why, we may ask further, did Paul use the Ara¬ 
 maean expression ? We do not know, (n 3 ) Perhaps there was implied in it 
 some reminiscence from the time of the apostle’s presence among them, un¬ 
 known to us, but carrying weight for his readers ; perhaps it was only the 
 prompting of momentary indignation, that,* after the sentence of judgment 
 already pronounced (iftoavdOeya), u rei gravitate commotus, quasi sibi non 
 satisfecisset” (Calvin), he desired to clothe in truly solemn language the 
 threatening reference to the Parousia yet to be added by papavaOa , instead of 
 saying 6 icvpcog fjpuv ijnct. That there was a reference, however, in the 
 Aramaean expression to the Petrine party who understood Hebrew, is not to 
 be assumed (in opposition to Hofmann), as the general d rig ov tyCkzl r. nvpiov 
 shows of itself. The two Aramaean words were doubtless intelligible enough 
 in general in the mixed church, which contained so much of the Jewish 
 element. Had the Maranatha, however, been as it were the mysterious 
 watchicord in the world of that time (Ewald), there would be in all proba¬ 
 bility more traces of it to be found in the New Testament. This also in op¬ 
 position to Bcngel. The view of Chrysostom and Theophylact is singularly 
 absurd : Paul wished by the Aramaean to cross the conceit of the Corin¬ 
 thians in the Hellenic language and wisdom. Billroth, followed by Riickert, 
 holds that he had added something in Aramaic also, in order to accredit yet 
 more strongly the authenticity of the Epistle, but that this had afterwards 
 been written by the transcribers in Greek letters. But the assumption that 
 
 1 Paul, they hold, means thereby to say: 
 “Quodsuperfluum sitadversus eum (Chris¬ 
 tum) odiis pertinacibus contendere, quern 
 venisse jam constet,” Jerome, Ep. 137 ad 
 Marcell.; or, he means thereby to put them 
 to shame , because they still continued in 
 their sins after the Lord had shown such 
 condescension, Chrysostom; or, “quando- 
 quidem aversatur eum, a quo solo poterat 
 consequi salutem, et venisse negat quem 
 constat venisse magno bono credentium, 
 
 sed magno malo incredulorum,” Erasmus, 
 Paraphr.; or, “ quod si quis eum non amat, 
 frustra alium expectat,” Castalio. 
 
 2 Even those codd. which have written 
 the word in a divided way, have the divi¬ 
 sion not p.ap avad-a, but p.apav ada. So al¬ 
 ready B**. And the versions, too (those 
 which do not with the Vulgate retain it 
 untranslated), translate according to this 
 division ; so already the Peshitto : Dominxts 
 noster venit. Cod. It. g.: in adventu Domini. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 405 
 
 lie had not written yapavaOa in Greek letters, although it has passed over so 
 into all Greek mss. of the text, is equally arbitrary with the presupposition 
 that he had thought such an extraordinary and 'peculiar mode of attestation 
 to be needful precisely in the case of this Epistle, which was already suffi¬ 
 ciently accredited without it by the bearers. — Yer. 23. The grace of the Lord , 
 etc., sc. sir/, the apostle’s most common closing wish in an epistle, Rom. xvi. 
 20, 24 ; Gal. vi. 18 ; Phil. iv. 23 ; 1 Thess. v. 28 ; 2Thess. iii. 18 ; Philem. 
 25. —Yer. 24. My love , etc., sc. here : his heart impels him still to add this 
 assurance at the very end, all the more because the divisions, immoralities, 
 and disorders in the church had forced from him such severe rebukes and, 
 even now, such corrective appeals. He loves them, and loves them all. If 
 taken as optative (Luther, Estius, Ewald), it would be less suitably an indi¬ 
 rect admonition, namely, that they might so conduct themselves that, etc. — 
 kv Xptorti ’Liaov] Christ is his whole life-sphere ; in it he loves also. His love 
 has thus the distinctively Christian character, in contrast to all koojulk?) ajan?] 
 (Tlieophylact). 
 
 Notes by Ameeican Editoe. 
 
 (e 3 ) “ The first day of the week.” Yer. 2. 
 
 This is generally and justly considered the earliest mention of the observance 
 of the Lord’s day. It does not show that Sunday was then observed by assem¬ 
 blies for public worship, for the direction implies that the laying by of money 
 for charity was to be done individually and in private. But it does show that 
 the day then had a sacred character which made it eminently suitable for the 
 discharge of a duty of Christian love. On no other ground can we account for 
 the mention of a specific day by the Apostle. — It may be added that if it was 
 intended, as some say, that the Old Testament obligation of contributing a 
 tithe of one’s gains should be continued in the New, here was a proper place 
 to mention it. 
 
 (e 3 ) “ A great door and effectual,” etc. Yer. 9. 
 
 Two inducements for the Apostle to stay in Ephesus are a wide sphere and a 
 powerful opposition. As Grotius says, what terrifies others attracts Paul. 
 His reference is, on one hand, to the spread of the Gospel in the neighbourhood 
 of Ephesus (Acts xix. 20), and on the other, to the opposition of Pagan (xix. 23) 
 and of Jewish (xix. 33, xx. 29) enemies (Stanley). 
 
 (g 3 ) Stand fast in the faith. Yer. 13. 
 
 Hodge gives well a certain phase of this injunction : “ Do not consider 
 every point of doctrine an open question. Matters of faith, doctrines for which 
 you have a clear revelation of God, such for example as the doctrine of the 
 resurrection, are to be considered settled, and as among Christians, no longer 
 matters of dispute. There are doctrines embraced in the creeds of orthodox 
 churches so clearly taught in Scripture that it is not only useless but hurtful to 
 be always calling them into question.” — On the whole verse Beet remarks : 
 “Note the military tone of these words. We are sentinels on guard, and must 
 not yield to sleep. In face of the enemy we must maintain our position ; and 
 
40 G 
 
 Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 we do so by abiding in faith. We must show moral courage. To this end we 
 must accept the strength provided for us. This fourfold description of our 
 attitude towards spiritual foes is followed by a description in one word of our 
 attitude towards our fellow-Christians and fellow-men. Love must be the one 
 element of our entire activity.” 
 
 (h s ) “ Anathema , Maran-atha .” Ver. 22. 
 
 The introduction of the Aramaean phrase may best be explained as giving 
 additional force to the previous curse, since such seems to be the origin of the 
 use of the Syriac Abba in Eom. viii. 15, Gal. iv. 6, and of Hebrew words such as 
 Abaddon and Armageddon in the Apocalypse. The assurance that “the Lord is 
 coming ” is a solemn reminder that the. anathema is not an idle threat, but a 
 tremendous reality. — It is vain to deny, as some do (Speaker’s Com. in loc.), 
 that this is an imprecation. The words can mean nothing else. The explana¬ 
 tion is that they express no personal vindictiveness, but only the writer’s 
 absolute sympathy with all holy beings in their opposition to the crowning sin 
 of men, viz. their insensibility or indifference to Him who unites in himself 
 all divine and all human excellence, and who so loved our lost race as to stoop 
 to the cross that we might not perish, but have everlasting life. They who 
 refuse to recognize such love deserve to be anathema. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE COMMENTARY ON THE SECOND EPISTLE. 
 
 Since the year 1862 , in which the fourth edition of this Commen¬ 
 tary was issued, the only exegetical work calling for mention on the 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians (except a Roman Catholic one) is that 
 of von Hofmann. My relation to this work has already been indicated 
 in the preface to the Commentary on the First Epistle ; it could not be 
 different in the exposition of the Second, and it will doubtless remain un¬ 
 altered as regards the Pauline writings that are still to follow, as is ap¬ 
 parent already in the case of the Epistle to the Galatians, my exposition 
 *of which I likewise am now issuing in a new edition. 
 
 The much-discussed questions of Introduction—whether between our 
 two Epistles to the Corinthians there intervened a letter which has been 
 lost, and whether the adversaries so sharply portrayed and severely cen¬ 
 sured by the apostle in the Second Epistle belonged to the Christ-party 
 —have recently been handled afresh in special treatises with critical skill 
 and acumen ; and the general result, although with diversities in detail, 
 points to an affirmative answer. After careful investigation I have found 
 myself constrained to abide by the negative view ; and I must still, as 
 regards the second question, hold the Christine party to be the most 
 innocent of the four, so that they are wrongly, in my judgment, made 
 responsible for all the evil which Paul asserts of his opponents in the 
 Second Epistle. I am at a loss to know how so much that is bad can be 
 brought into inward ethical connection with the simple confession eyco 
 de Xpiorov without calling in the aid of hypotheses incapable of being 
 proved ; or how, moreover, Paul should not already in his First Epistle, 
 which was followed up by the Second in the very same year, have dis¬ 
 covered the thoroughly dangerous springs and movements of this party- 
 tendency ; or lastly, and most of all, how Clement of Pome, while re¬ 
 calling to the recollection of his readers the three other factions, should 
 not even in a single word have mentioned the Christ-party, although in 
 looking back on the past he could not but have had before his eyes the 
 whole historical development of the fourfold division, and in particular 
 
403 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 the mischief for which the Christians were to blame, if there were in 
 truth anything of the sort. I have not met with any real elucidation of 
 these points among the acute supporters of the opposite view. 
 
 In wishing for this new edition a kindly circle of readers, not led 
 astray either by the presupposition of the dogmatist or by the tendency 
 to import and educe subjective ideas,—as I may be allowed to do all the 
 more earnestly on account of the special difficulties that mark the present 
 letter of the apostle,—I commit all work done for the science which 
 applies itself soberly, faithfully, and devotedly to the service of the 
 divine word—desiring and seeking nothing else than a sure historical 
 understanding of that word—to the protection and the blessing of Him, 
 who can do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask and understand. 
 Under this protection we can do nothing against the truth, everything for 
 the truth. 
 
 Hannoyee, 21s/ June, 1870. 
 
THE 
 
 SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 § 1.—OCCASION, AIM, AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 1 
 
 EFOKE the composition of our first Epistle, Paul had sent 
 Timothy to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17) ; he assumed, in regard 
 to him, that he would arrive there later than the Epistle (1 
 Cor. xvi. 10 f.), and he might therefore expect from him 
 accounts of the impression which it made, and its result. Cer¬ 
 tainly Timothy is again with Paul, wdiile he is composing the second Epistle 
 (2 Cor. i. 1) ; but there is no mention of news brought by him. Hence 
 Eichhorn was of opinion (also Rabiger and Hofmann) that he had again left 
 Corinth even before the arrival of our first Epistle in that city ; others, how¬ 
 ever (Ziegler, Bertholdt, Neander, Credner, Rtickert, cle Wette, Reuss, Maier), 
 assumed that he had not come to Corinth at all, but had returned from 
 Macedonia, where he had made too long a stay, to Ephesus (Acts xix. 22). 2 
 But against the latter view may be urged the fact that, according to 1 Cor. 
 iv. 17, Timothy was quite distinctly delegated to Corinth, i.e. was commis¬ 
 sioned to visit Corinth from. Macedonia (com]). Acts xix. 22) ; hence we are 
 not justified in believing that he left this apostolic mission unfulfilled, or 
 that Paul himself had cancelled it, otherwise we should necessarily expect 
 the apostle in this second Epistle to have explained to his readers why 
 Timothy did not come, especially as the anti-Pauline party would not have 
 failed to turn the non-appearance of Timothy to account for their hostile 
 ends (comp. i. 17). Eichhorn’s opinion presupposes that the bearers of the 
 first letter lingered on the journey (1 Cor. xvi. 17), which there is the 
 less ground to assume as these men presumably had no other aim than to 
 return from Ephesus to Corinth. In opposition to the opinions that Timothy 
 
 1 See Kldpper, Exeg. Jcrit. Enters, ub. d. 
 zweiten Brief, d. Paulus an d. Gemeinde zu 
 
 Kor., Gott. 1869. 
 
 2 Chap. xii. 17, 18 is also quoted in con¬ 
 firmation of this view ; for, it is said, if Tim¬ 
 othy had come to Corinth, Paul could not 
 but have mentioned him here. See espe¬ 
 
 cially, Ruckert, p. 409. But Paul may, dur¬ 
 ing the time when he was not at Corinth 
 himself, have sent to the church there 
 many a one whom he does not here name. 
 He names only the last, Titus. Besides, 
 Timothy was in fact joint-zvriter of our 
 Epistle. 
 
410 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corintiiians. 
 
 did not get so far as Corinth, -or that he left it again prematurely, compare, 
 in general, Ivlopper, p. 4 IT. It must .therefore he held that Paul had 
 received from Timothy news of the impression which the former Epistle had 
 made. The fact that he makes no mention of this is explained from the cir¬ 
 cumstance that, in i. 1, Timothy himself appears as joint-sender of the 
 Epistle ; whence not only was it obvious to the reader that Timothy on his 
 return had made communications to the apostle, but it would have been un¬ 
 becoming and awkward if Paul had said that he had received from Timothy 
 accounts of the result of his Epistle. For these accounts, viz. those of the 
 first impression made by the letter, must have been by no means tranquilliz¬ 
 ing for Paul (ii. 12, vii. 5 ff.). It is true that in Phil. ii. 19 the joint-sender 
 of the letter is named as a third person, but there the state of the case is 
 quite different (in opposition to Hofmann), namely, a special recommendation 
 of Timothy, just as the relation of the apostle himself to the church in 
 Philippi with which he was so affectionately intimate was very diverse from 
 that in which he stood to the Corinthians. 
 
 But besides Timothy, Titus also at a later period brought to the apostle, 
 who meanwhile had travelled by way of Troas to Macedonia, intelligence of 
 the result of his letter (ii. 12, vii. 5 ff.). Paul had delegated the latter to 
 Corinth after our first Epistle, 1 and after Timothy had again arrived in 
 Ephesus from the journey mentioned in 1 Cor. xvi. 10 f., comp. iv. 17 ; and 
 it is natural that from Titus he should have received further (as also more 
 tranquillizing) intelligence than from Timothy, because the former came later 
 to Corinth. 
 
 The occasion of our Epistle, which Titus was to bear (viii. 6), was there¬ 
 fore given by the accounts which first of all Timothy , hut mainly Titus , had 
 brought regarding the effect produced by the previous letter on the dispositions 
 and relations of the Corinthian church. 
 
 Eemark.— The special object that Paul had in sending Titus to Corinth we 
 do not know ; for viii. 6 does not refer to this journey (see vv. 23, 24), but to 
 the later, second journey, in which this Epistle itself was entrusted to him. 
 The supposition of Eiclihorn, Bertholdt, Neander, de Wette, and some others, 
 that the apostle had despatched Titus out of anxiety about the impression which 
 his first Epistle might make on the Corinthians, is a conjecture which receives 
 some probability from ii. 12, vii. 5 ff., especially if we suppose that, before 
 Titus was sent off, Timothy had returned with very disquieting news. Bleek 
 
 1 Schrader, indeed (I. pp. 137, 262), and 
 Billroth, to whose view Riickert also in¬ 
 clines, have assumed that Titus was sent 
 to Corinth before our first Epistle, perhaps 
 with the one now lost, and on account of 
 the matter of the collection, and that he 
 was therefore in that city when our first 
 Epistle arrived there. But in that case Paul 
 would have mentioned Titus in his first 
 Epistle (especially xvi. 1 ff.), just as he 
 mentions Timothy ; and at least a greeting 
 to him would not have been forgotten. 
 Billroth thinks that Paul had probably al¬ 
 
 ready in the lost Epistle said enough in rec¬ 
 ommendation of Titus. But does this make 
 a greeting in the Epistle that follows super¬ 
 fluous ? Riickert says that the bearers of 
 our first Epistle had perhaps brought with 
 them a special letter to Titus, or instruc¬ 
 tions by word of mouth, which, however, 
 is a mere conjecture to which he is con¬ 
 strained to resort. Muller also, De trib. Pauli 
 iiineribus Corinth, susceptis, Bas. 1831, agrees 
 with Schrader, without, however, admit¬ 
 ting the loss of an Epistle, at 1 Cor. v. 9. 
 
INTRODUCTION". 
 
 411 
 
 (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 625 ff., and in his Introduction ) supposes, and 
 Credner ( Einleit . I. 2, p. 371), Olshausen, Neander, Hilgenfeld ( Zeitschr . 1864, p. 
 167), Beyschlag (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 253), and Klopper (l.c. p. 3 If.) 
 agree with him, that Paul, after Timothy’s return, sent to the Corinthians by 
 Titus a letter of very strong reproof (which is now lost). But our first Epistle 
 contained enough—especially after (Timothy had already brought with him 
 disquieting news—to excite in Paul apprehensions regarding the severity of 
 his letter (i. 15 ft'., iii. 2, 3, iv. 8, 18-21, v. 1 ff., vi. 8, xi. 17 ff., at.), enough to 
 be used by the evil-disposed in bringing a charge of boastfulness (ii. 16, iv. 1 
 ff., ix., xiv. 18, xv. 8, 10, al.)\ while the second Epistle contains nothing which 
 required Bleek’s supposition to explain it, as will appear at such passages as 
 ii. 3, 4 ff., vii. 8, 11, 14, at.; see in general, in opposition to Bleek’s hypoth¬ 
 esis, Muller, de tribus Fault itineribus, p. 34 ff.; Wurm, in the Tub. Zeitschr. 
 1833, 1, p. 66 ff.; "VVieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalt. p. 366 ff.; Baur, Hofmann, 
 and others. According to Ewald, as he has more precisely defined and modi¬ 
 fied ( Sendschr. des. Ap. Paulus, p. 224 ff. 1 ) his earlier hypothetical arrangement 
 (Jahrb. II. p. 227 f.), the position of things in Corinth after our first Epistle 
 had in part been aggravated, especially by a Petrine opponent of Paul from 
 Jerusalem ; Paul had got information of this from Timothy on his return and 
 otherwise, and had himself made a short journey from Ephesus to Corinth in 
 order to restore harmony to the church ; after his departure, being calumniated 
 and slandered anew (especially by a member of very high repute), he then sent 
 from Ephesus a very severe letter by Titus to Corinth ; and this letter, which 
 has not been presented to us, brought the church to bethink itself, as he 
 learned from Titus, who joined him in Macedonia. On this account, and also 
 because there still remained various evils to be rectified, he at last wrote our 
 second Epistle to the Corinthians, and had it sent likewise by means of Titus. 
 A supposition of this kind is necessary, if the person mentioned in ii. 5 ff. can¬ 
 not be the one guilty of incest in 1 Cor. v. But see on ii. 5-11 ; and for the 
 supposed intermediate journey to Corinth, see § 2, Remark. 
 
 The aim of the Epistle is stated by Paul himself at xiii. 10, viz. to put the 
 church before his arrival in person into that frame of mind, which it was 
 necessary that he should find, in order that he might thereupon set to work 
 among them, not wdth stern corrective authority, but for their edification. 
 But in order to attain this aim, he had to make it his chief task to elucidate, 
 confirm, and vindicate his apostolic authority, which, in consequence of his 
 former letter, had been assailed still more vehemently, openly, and influen¬ 
 tially by opponents. For, if that were regained, his whole influence would 
 be regained ; if the church were again confirmed on this point, and the op¬ 
 position defeated, every hindrance to liis successful personal labour amongst 
 them would be removed. With the establishment of his apostolic character 
 and reputation he is therefore chiefly occupied in the whole Epistle ; every¬ 
 thing else is only subordinate, including a detailed appeal respecting the 
 collection. 
 
 As to contents , the whole falls, after the salutation and introduction, into 
 three parts : I. Paul sets forth his apostolic character and course of life, 
 
 1 Comp, also liis Gesch. d. Ajiost. Zeit. p. 520 ff., ed. 3. 
 
412 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 and interweaves with it affectionate outpourings of "his heart over the im¬ 
 pression produced by his former letter,—an ingenious apology, closing wdth 
 expressions of praise and confidence, 1 chap, i.-vii. II. Regarding the collec¬ 
 tion, chap. viii. ix. III. Polemical assertion of his apostolic dignity against 
 its opponents, with some irritation, and even not without sarcasm and bit¬ 
 terness, but forcible and triumphant. Conclusion. 
 
 Remake: 1.—The excitement and varied play of emotion with which Paul 
 wrote this letter, probably also in haste, certainly make the expression not sel¬ 
 dom obscure and the sentences less flexible, but only heighten our admiration 
 of the great delicacy, skill, and power with which this outpouring of Paul’s 
 spirit and heart, possessing as a defence of himself a high and peculiar inter¬ 
 est, flows and gushes on, till finally, in the last part, wave on wave overwhelms 
 the hostile resistance. In reference to this, Erasmus aptly says, in the dedica¬ 
 tion of his Paraphr.: “ Sudatur ab eruditissimis viris in explicandis poetarum 
 ac rhetorum consiliis, at in hoc rhetore longe plus sudoris est ut deprehendas 
 quid agat, quo tendat, quid vetet ; adeo stropharum plenus est undique, absit 
 invidia verbis. Tanta vafricies est, non credas eundem hominem loqui. Nunc 
 utlimpidus quidam fons sensim edullit, mox torrentis in morem ingenti fragore 
 devolvitur, multa obiter secum rapiens, nunc placide leniterque fluit, nunc 
 late, velut inlacum diffusus, exspatiatur. Rursum alicubi se condit, ac diverso 
 loco subitus emicat, cum visum est, miris Maeandris nunc has nunc illas lam- 
 bit ripas, aliquoties procul digressus, reciprocato flexu in sese redit.” 2 
 
 Remake 2.—The opponents specially combated from chap. x. onwards, were 
 at any rate Judaists (xi. 22, Riibiger, p. 191 ff.; Neander), and therefore, from 
 a party point of view, to be reckoned as belonging to the Petrine section. It is 
 only the Petrine, and not the Christine party (Sclienkel, Goldhorn, Kniewel, 
 Baur, de Wette, Thiersch, Osiander, Beyschlag, Hilgenfeld, Iilopper), that suits 
 the character of disputing, directly and specially, the apostolic authority of 
 Paul, whether we regard the Christines as a party by themselves, or, wdth Baur 
 (see on 1 Cor. i. 12), as part of the Petrines. 
 
 Remake 3.—The division of the Epistle into two halves, separate in point of 
 time, so that the part up to vii. 1 was written before the arrival of Titus, and the 
 part from vii. 2 omvards after it (Wieseler, p. 356 ff.), cannot be justified either 
 exegetically or psychologically on the ground of vii. 6 ; while, on the ground 
 of ii. 12-14, it can only be regarded as exegetically inadmissible. 
 
 § 2.—PLACE, TIME, GENUINENESS AND UNITY. 
 
 "When Paul wrote this letter, he was no longer in Ephesus (i. 8), but had 
 already arrived by way of Troas in Macedonia (ii. 13, vii. 5, viii. 1, ix. 2, 
 comp. Acts xx. 1), wdiere Titus, w T hom he had already expected with longing 
 
 1 Luther, Preface : “In the first Epistle, 
 St. Paul rebuked the Corinthians severely 
 on many points, and poured sharp w r ine in¬ 
 to their wounds, and alarmed them. But 
 now an apostle should be a comforting 
 preacher, . . . therefore he praises them 
 anew in this Epistle, and pours oil into the 
 vrnunds,” etc. 
 
 2 We may confidently apply to our Epis¬ 
 tle what Dionysius, De admit, vi. die. in Dem. 
 8, says of Demosthenes’ mode of speaking, 
 which he calls : p.eya\onpeTrri, Airrjv nepiTrrjv, 
 anepiTTOv e^rjAAay p.evr)v, (Tvvri&'r)' Travr)yvpucr)v, 
 dAr/i?ivrjv avcrrrjpav, iAapav ctvvtovov ,dvetyaevr)v 
 i/Seiav, TUKpav ediKrjy, na^eTiKrjv. 
 
* IKTHODUCTIOX. 
 
 413 
 
 in Troas (ii. 12), returned to him. A more precise specification of the place 
 (the subscriptions in B and in many later codd., also in the Peshitto, name 
 Philippi ) cannot be made good. The date of composition appears to be the 
 same year, 58 (yet not before the month Tisri, see on viii. 10), in which, 
 shortly before Easter, he had written our First Epistle, and after Pentecost 
 had left Ephesus (see Introd. to 1 Cor. § 3). Paul at that time intended to 
 come to Corinth for the third time, as he actually did soon after his letter to 
 his readers (Acts xx. 2). 
 
 Remake.— From ii. 1, xii. 14, 21, xiii. 1, 2, it follows of necessity that Paul 
 before he wrote bis Epistles to the Corinthians, had been in Corinth, not once 
 only, on the occasion when he founded the church (as Reiche in his Comment, 
 crit. seeks again to establish), but twice. For in xiii. 1, rpirov rovro epxopai can¬ 
 not mean, “I am now on the point of coming for the third time hence also 
 xiii. 2 must be understood of a second visit which had already taken place ; in 
 ii. 1 and xii. 21, ev Iviry and rinrELVucy (which latter is to be connected with 
 naTav) cannot refer to the first visit ; and finally, in xii. 14, rpirov must belong to 
 elQeiv, not to Iroipog exo, as is made certain by the context (see the commen¬ 
 tary on these passages). With justice, therefore, has this view been maintained, 
 after Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theopliylact, by Erasmus, Baronius, Mill, 
 Michaelis, and others, and recently by Schrader, Bleek (in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1830, p. 614 ff.), Muller (Piss, detrib. Pauli, itineribus Corinthum, etc., Basil. 1831) 
 Schott (Erart. einiger wicht. chronol. Punkte, p. 51 ft'.), Schneckenburger (Beitr. p. 
 166), Wurm, Anger (rat. temp. p. 70 ft.), Billroth, Credner, Olshausen, Ruckert, 
 Wieseler, Reuss, Osiander, Hofmann, and others. See the commentary in op¬ 
 position to the explaining away of these passages, according to which “the 
 third journey of Paul to Corinth is a fiction” (Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 199 ; 
 comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1850, 2, p. 139 ft., and in his Paulus, I. p. 339 
 ft., ed. 2). But it cannot be definitely decided whether the second journey to 
 Corinth is to be placed in the time of the three years’ stay at Ephesus (Schra¬ 
 der, Billroth, Olshausen, Ruckert, Wieseler, Reuss, and Hofmann ; Bleek is also 
 inclined to this), or whether it is to be considered only as the return from a 
 longer excursion during the eighteen months’ stay in Corinth (Baronius, Mi¬ 
 chaelis, Schmidt, Schott, Anger ; favored by Bleek ; comp. Neander on ii. 1) ; 
 for Lva devrepav xdpiv exvte, ini. 15, testifies neither for nor against either of 
 these views (see on this passage). Still by that very circumstance the latter view 
 loses its support, and has, besides, against it the point that, as the first and 
 third journeys were special journeys to Corinth, so also his second journey, to 
 which he refers by rpirov rovro epxopcu and the like, is most naturally to be re¬ 
 garded as a special journey, and not as a mere return from a wider excursion. 
 See, moreover, Wieseler, p, 239. The proposal to place the second journey to 
 Corinth between our first and a lost Epistle wdiich preceded our second (Ewald, 
 see § 1), finds, apart altogether from the lost letter being an hypothesis, no 
 sufficient confirmation in the passages concerned, ii. 1, xii. 14, xiii. 1 f., and 
 has i. 23 (oviceri) against it ; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 5 ft. and 2 Cor. i. 15 f. 
 
 The genuineness of our Epistle (see, after less certain indications in the 
 apostolic Fathers and Justin, Irenaeus, Haer. ii. 7. 1, iv. 28. 3 ; Athena- 
 goras, de resurr. p. 61, cd. Col. ; Clement, Strom, iv. p. 514, ed. Sylb.; 
 
414 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corikthiaxs. 
 
 Tertullian, de pudic. 13) is as internally certain and as unanimously attested 
 and undisputed as that of the first ; in fact, we need hardly notice, even his¬ 
 torically, the strange theory invented by Bolten and Bertholdt, that it w T as 
 translated (by Timothy) from the Aramaic. 
 
 The unity of the Epistle has been contested by Sender and Weber ; while 
 it has been most arbitrarily cut up into three letters by Weisse (see his Beitr. 
 u. Krit. d. Paul. Br ., edited by Sulze, p. 9). Sender (see Keggemann, praes. 
 Semler, de duplici ep. ad Rom. append ., Hal. 1767, and Semler, Paraphr. 
 1776) cuts it up into the following three letters : (1) chap. i. viii., Rom. xvi., 
 and 2 Cor. xiii. 11-13 ; (2) x. 1-xiii. 10 ; (3) chap, ix., as a special leaf 
 which was intended, not for Corinth, but for the Christians in Achaia. In 
 opposition to this, see Gabler, de capp. ult. ix.-xiii. poster, ep. P. ad Cor. ah 
 eadem haud separand ., Gott. 1782. Weber (de numero epp. P. ad Cor. rectius 
 constituendo, 1798) was of opinion that there were originally two letters :— 
 (1) chap, i.-ix. and xiii. 11-13 ; (2) chap. x. 1-xiii. 10. Similarly, also, 
 von Greeve (in Royaards de altera P. ad Cor. ep ., Traj. ad Rhen. 1818), who, 
 however, considers as the first letter only chap, i.-viii. In opposition to 
 these attempts at dismemberment may be urged not only the whole body of 
 the critical witnesses, but also the certainty that the abruptness of chap. ix. 
 is only apparent, and that the contrasting tone of chap, x.-xiii. is easily ex¬ 
 plained 1 by the altered mood of the apostle.—AVith regard to the originality 
 of vi. 14-vii. 1, see on vi. 12, Remark. 
 
 ] Hug, Eivl. II. § 108, says very pertinent¬ 
 ly : “ Who would on that account break up 
 the speech of Demosthenes pro Corona into 
 two parts, because in the more general 
 vindication calm and caution prevail; 
 
 whereas, in heaping shame and castigation 
 on the informer, in the parallel between 
 him and Aeschines, words of bitter mock¬ 
 ery gush forth impetuously like a thunder¬ 
 shower.” 
 
ciiap. i. 
 
 415 
 
 IlavXov 7rpd$ KopivGlovZ i-rtwroXi] devrepa. 
 
 c, 
 
 A B Iv K, min. have only irpoQ KopivQiovg B., the most simple, and doubtless 
 the oldest superscription. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Yer. 6. elre napanalovpeOa, vnep ryp vptiv napaiclyaeug, rf}C evepyovpevyg ev vno- 
 fiovy tuv avTuv naOpparidv, uv kcu ypelg naaxopev’ nal rj elnig ypuv /3ej3aia vnep 
 vptiv' eedoreg k.t.1.’] So Beza, ed. 3, 4, 5, Beng. and Griesb., following A C, min. 
 Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Flor. Harl. Yulg. Ephr. Antioch. Ambrosiast. Pel. 
 Beda. But Elz. (following Erasm. ed. 2 ! ) : ryg evepyovpevyg tv vnopov?) tcjv avrOv 
 naOypciTuv cjv nai ypelg naaxopev' elre napaK.aAovp.e9a, vnep ryg vptiv napaKlyaeug 
 nal aorypiag' koX y elnig yp. f3e3. vnep vpd>v‘ e’/doreg k.t.1. Finally, Lachm. Tisch. 
 Scholz, and Buck, read, with Matth., after Erasm. ed. 1 : nal y elnig yp. (3e(3. 
 vnep vpdtv immediately after naaxopev, but in other respects with Elz., and have 
 the support of B D E F G K L tf, min. Ar. pol. Goth. Syr. p. Slav. It. Chrys. 
 Theodoret, Damasc. Phot. Theophyl. Oec. The Becepta must be rejected on 
 account of the want of ancient attestation, and the choice remains only between 
 Griesbach’s and Lachmann’s reading. The latter is defended most thoroughly 
 by Beiche, Comment, crit. I. p. 318 ff. But the former, sufficiently attested, 
 appears to be the original, in so far as from it the rise of the others is easily 
 and naturally explained. An immediate transition was made from the first 
 napaKl. to the second ; the intermediate words were left out, and brought in 
 again afterwards at wrong places, so that the corruption of the text proceeded 
 thus :—1. Original form of ver. 6 as in Griesb. 2. First corruption: eire d£Qhj36- 
 peBa, vnep ryg vpOv napaKlyaeug, ryg evepyovpevyg ev vnop. rtiv avruv naOyp. (Lv it. 
 ypelg naaxopev nal y klnlg ypdv /3ef3ala vnep vptiv. 3. Erroneous restoration: elre 
 <5e 6?a/36peda . . . vnep vptiv' elre napaKalovpeOa, vnep ryg vpd>v napan1. Another 
 erroneous restoration (“ex judicio eclectico,” Beng. Appar.) is contained in the 
 Beceived text. 4. The nal aorypiag, still wanting, was finally added, in part 
 rightly only after the first napaKl., in part wrongly only after the second napaKl. 
 (B, 176), in part wrongly after both. —Yer. 8. vnep ryg 0/1.]' A C D E F G N, 
 min. Bas. Chrys. Theodoret, Antioch, have nep'i r. 01. So Lachm. Biick. But 
 nepi offered itself as more current. — yplv\ is wanting in preponderant witness¬ 
 es. Suspected by Griesb., rejected by Lachm. Biick. A superfluous gloss on 
 yevop. — Yer. 10. kuI fiverai] is wanting in A D* Syr. Clar. Germ. Vulg. ms. 
 Chrys. Ambrosiast. So Biick. But BC X, 73, 93, 211, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav, 
 ms. Tol. Boern. Ath. Damasc. have nai ftvaerai. So Lachm., but in brackets. 
 Thus the Becepta, reverted to even by Tisch., has certainly preponderating 
 testimony against it ; still it retains the considerable attestation of D*** E F G 
 
 1 Luther and Castalio have translated according to this reading. 
 
416 
 
 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIAN'S. 
 
 K L, and most min. Yulg. Syr. p. Theodoret, Tbeophylact, Oec. Or. int. Jer., 
 and the subsequent fivcerat might very easily be written directly after nat in¬ 
 stead of fiverat, so that subsequently, owing to the erroneous restoration of 
 what was left out, the spurious nai pvcercu in some cases remained, but in others 
 was dropped without the genuine net) five-rat being put in its place. — Yer. 11. 
 evx a P • vrrep rpi uv] The reading evxap. vrzep vpcbv, though preferred by Beng., 
 recommended by Beiche, and adopted by Tisch., has weaker attestation, and 
 does not suit the sense. — Yer. 12 . inrhorrjrt] ABCK min. Copt. Arm. 
 Clem. Or. Damasc. have dytorrjrt. So Lachm. Buck. Bightly; drr\drr]rt, 
 though defended by Beiche and Tisch., must be considered as a gloss of more 
 precise definition ; it was from our very Epistle well known and current, 
 whereas dyiorrjg was unfamiliar (only elsewhere in Heb. xii. 10 ). — Ver. 13. The 
 first 7j is wanting in A, min. Bracketed by Buck. But appearing superfluous, 
 and not being understood, it was omitted. — Yer. 16 . 6lea6eIv\ A D* F G, 80, 
 Copt. Chrys. Damasc. : dnElOelv. Becommended by Griesb., adojried by 
 Lachm. and Buck. Bightly ; it was more natural to introduce the reminis¬ 
 cence of 1 Cor. xvi. 5 than that of Bom. xv. 28. — Yer. 17 . (3ov'd6pEvo<j\ Elz. and 
 Tisch. have (SovXevo/ievoc, against preponderant evidence. Gloss in accordance 
 with what follows. — Ver. 18. Eyevero'] Lachm. Scholz, Buck. Tisch. have ear tv, 
 as Griesb. also recommended, in accordance with a great preponderance of 
 testimony. eyevero, which Beiche defends, came in from ver. 19 . — Ver. 20 . 
 Kat ev avrt j] A B C F G N, min. vss. and Fathers have did nat 6t avrov. So 
 Lachm. Buck. The Recepta arose in this way : (ho fell out by an omission of 
 the copyist (so still D* Clar. Germ.), and was then added to <5 t avrov after the 
 previous ev avrip as a gloss, which accordingly came into the text. This altera¬ 
 tion w'as the more natural, as the two definitions (V avrov and dt' r/puv might 
 seem not to accord. The liturgical reference of the d/ufiv does not appear a 
 sufficient occasion for the insertion of dio, nor for the change from ev avrd) into 
 61 ’ avrov, particularly after the ev avrd which went before and was left unglossed. 
 This in opposition to Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 56, and Beiche, Comment, 
 crit. I. 331 ff. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. Address and greeting. — did OeU. 0eo7] See on 1 Cor. i. 1. — not 
 T ijuod.] His relation to this Epistle is the same as that of Sosthenes to the 
 first Epistle : he appears, not as amanuensis, but as (subordinate) joint-sender 
 of it. See on 1 Cor. i. 1. — 6 ade^fi.] as at 1 Cor. i. 1. — cvv roig aytoig Tract 
 tc.r.s 1.] Grotius : “Voluit P. exempla hujus ejiistolae mitti ad alias in 
 Achaiaecclesias.” So also Rosenmuller, Emmerling, and others. But, in that 
 case, would not Paul have rather written cvv ralq EKuTaiciaiQ rracatg ? Comp. 
 Gal. i. 2. And are the contents of the Epistle suited for an encyclical des¬ 
 tination ? No ; he means, in agreement w T ith 1 Cor. i. 2, the Christians 
 living outside of Corinth, scattered through Achaia, who attached them¬ 
 selves to the church-community in Corinth, which must therefore have been 
 the sole seat of a church — the metropolis of the Christians in the province. 
 The state of matters in Galatia was different.—Under Achaia we must, 
 according to the sense then attached to it, understand Hellas and Pelopon¬ 
 nesus. This province and that of Macedonia comprehended all Greece. See 
 on Acts xviii. 12. —Yer. 2. See on Rom. i. 7. 
 
 Yv. 3-11. A conciliatory introduction,—an effusion of affectionate emotion 
 
CHAP. I., 3 , 4 . 
 
 417 
 
 (comp. Eph. i. 3) out of the fulness of special and still recent experience. 
 There, is no hint of a set 'purpose in it ; and it is an arbitrary supposition, 
 whether the purpose be found in an excuse for the delay of his journey 
 (Chrysostom, Theophylact), or in a confirmation of his apostolic standing 
 (Beza, comp. Calovius, Mosheim), or in an attestation of the old love, which 
 Paul presupposes also on the part of the readers (Billroth), and at the same 
 time in a slight alienation which had been suggested by his sufferings (Osi- 
 ander). 
 
 Ver. 3. '0 0 eog /c. rrar. K.r.\i\God, who is at the same time father of Jesus 
 Christ. See on 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; Rom. xv. 6. Against the connection of rov 
 Kvpiov k.t.1. also with 6 Qeog (Hofmann), see on E])h. i. 3. — oiraryp-wv oinnp- 
 ptiv] D'prnn i.e. the Father, whose fatherly frame of mind and disposi¬ 
 tion is compassionateness, — the compassionate Father (pokier a iSiov Qeov nai 
 i^aiperov nai r?) tyvaet cvyneKka/popevov, Chrysostom). Comp, on 1 Cor. ii. 8 
 and Eph. i. 17. It is the qualitative genitive, such as we find in the lan¬ 
 guage of the Greek poets (Seidl. ad Electr. 651 ; Herm. ad Viper, p. 890 f.). 
 Ruckert (comp, before him Theodore!) takes it as the genitivus efflecti: “ The 
 Father from whom all compassion comes 1 ' 1 (comp. xiii. 11 ; Rom. xv. 5, 13, 
 al.). But, since ohcTipyoi (comp. Plato, Polit. p. 305 B) is the subjective 
 compassion (Tittrn. Synon. 69 f.), it would have to be explained : “The 
 Father who works in us compassion , sympathy , ” and this sense would be alto¬ 
 gether unsuitable to the connection. On the contrary, ruv ohcripg. is the 
 specific quality of the Father, which dwells in Him just as the Father of 
 Christ, and in consequence of which He is also 0eof rrdegg napa/cki. ; and this 
 genitive is that of the effect which issues from the Merciful One : “ The 
 compassionate Father and God who worketh every consolation .” This render¬ 
 ing, differing from that of the first genitive, is demanded by ver. 4 (in 
 opposition to Hofmann) ; comp. vii. 6 ; Rom. xv. 5. As to ohcnpyoi , see 
 on Rom. xii. 1. Observe that the characteristic appellation of God in this 
 passage is an artless outflow of the experience , which was still fresh in the 
 pious heart of the apostle, vv. 8-10. (go 3 ) 
 
 Ver. 4. 'H yog] Where Paul in this Epistle does not mean himself exclu¬ 
 sively, but wishes to include Timothy also (or others, according to the 
 context), although often only as quite subordinate, he speaks in the plural. 
 He does not express himself communicative , but in the singular , where he 
 gives utterance to his own personal conviction or, in general, to anything 
 concerning himself individually (vv. 13, 15, 17, 23, ii. 1-10, 12, 13, vii. 4, 
 
 7 ff., al.). Hence the frequent interchange between the-singular and plu¬ 
 ral forms of expression. 1 — Chrysostom already gives the force of the present 
 rrapanahuv correctly : on ov% enrol;, ovSe dig , akJa Siyveiccog rovro rroiei . . . Sid 
 eittev 6 TtapaKokiuv , ovx o TrapoKakiEcag. — etti rcaaq t?) dkiiipei] concerning all our 
 affliction. The collective sufferings are regarded as one whole. Afterwards, 
 
 1 Even in the plural mode of expression, he expresses himself singulariter or com- 
 however, he has always himself and his own municatixe. Hence the interchange of the 
 relations primarily in view ; and, owing to two modes of expression in one sentence, 
 the versatility of his mode of conception, it e.g. xi. 0 f. 
 is often quite a matter of accident whether 
 
418 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corinthiaxs. 
 
 on the other hand, h racnj 62,.: in every affliction, ini marks the ethical 
 foundation, i.e. here the cause, on account of which. See Matthiae, p. 1373. 
 Comp. 2 Macc. vii. 5 f.; Deut. xxxii. 36. According to Ruck., TzapanaA. 
 denotes the delivering , and hence he takes km of the circumstances : in. 
 See Matthiae, p. 1370. But throughout the passage tt apan. means to comfort; 
 and it is quite an open question, how the comforting takes place, whether by 
 calming or by delivering. God did both in the apostle’s case. — elg to Svvao- 
 6ai k.t.I L] in order that ice may be able , etc. For he, who for himself receiv¬ 
 ed comfort from God, is by his experience placed in the position of being able 
 to comfort others. And how important was this teleological view of his own 
 sorrows for the aj:>ostolic calling ! “ Omnia sua P. ad utilitatem ecclesiae 
 
 refert, ” Grotius. (iih 3 ) — Tovg kv iraori OMipei] is erroneously and arbitrarily taken 
 as equivalent to navTag rovg iv tiVnpei (see Emmerling, Flatt, Riickert). It 
 means : those to be found in every trouble , the all-distressed ; not : those to be 
 found in whatever sort of trouble (Hofmann), but kv tzclvtI 6?a(36pevoi , iv. 8, 
 vii. 5. — Sea rfjg -apaCA. k.t. 2,.] i.e. through communication of our own comfort , 
 which we experience from God. This more precise determination of the sense 
 is demanded both by the preceding mention of the purpose elg to dvvaaOac 
 
 k. t.2,., and by the avToi. Olshausen, it is true, holds that Paul conceives 
 the comfort to be a real power of the Spirit, which may again be conveyed 
 to others by the receiver. But there is no analogy in the whole N. T. for 
 this conception ; for Matt. x. 13 is merely a concrete illustration of the effi¬ 
 cacy or non-efficacy of the elpyvy vylv. — yg] Attiacted, as in Eph. i. 6, iv. 
 
 l, because one can say tt apaK/.ymv wapaKa2,elv. See Gieseler in Rosenmiiller, 
 Uepert. II. p. 124 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 287]. The attracted 
 genitive instead of the dative in other cases is very rare. See Kiihner, ad 
 Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 5. — civtol ] ipsi, for our own selves, in contrast to the others 
 to be comforted. 
 
 Ver. 5. Ground assigned for the yg rrapaKaAovyeOa avrol vto t. Qeov. — ireptc- 
 gevel elg yuag] is abundant in relation to us , i.e. it is imparted, to us above measure , 
 in a very high degree. Comp. Rom. v. 13.—ra 7ra%zara tov XpioTov ] are 
 not the sufferings for Christ' 1 s sake (so Pelagius and most), which cannot be 
 expressed by the simple genitive, but the sufferings of Christ (Winer, Bill¬ 
 roth, Olshausen, Heander, Ewalcl, Hofmann), in so far as every one who 
 suffers for the gospel suffers the same in category as Christ suffered, (i 3 ) Comp. 
 Matt. xx. 22 ; Phil. iii. 10 ; Col. i. 24 ; Heb. xiii. 13 ; 1 Pet. iv. 13. See 
 also on Rom. viii. 17. Hence Cornelius a; Lapide, Leum, and Riickert 
 render correctly in substance: quales passus est Christus.” But Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Calovius, and others are wrong, who 
 render : “the sufferings, which Christ endures in His members:'' 1 comp, de 
 Wette and Osiander. For the conception of a Christ continuing to suffer in 
 His members is nowhere found in the N. T., not even in Acts ix. 4, and is 
 contrary to the idea of His exaltation. See on Col. i. 24.— <5ia tov X.] 
 through His indwelling by means of the Spirit. See Rom. viii. 9, 10 ; Eph. 
 iii. 17 ; Col. i. 29, al. 
 
 Vv. 6, 7. Ae] leading on to the gain, which the two, this affliction and 
 this comforting, bring to the readers.—Be it that we are afflicted , ice are afflicted 
 
CHAP. I.j G, 7. 
 
 419 
 
 for the sake of your consolation and salvation ; it redounds to this, that you 
 are to he comforted and advanced in the attainment of Messianic salvation. 
 In how far ? According to Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Calovius, Wetstein, 
 and many, including Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Emmerling, Reiche : through the 
 example of the apostle in his confidence towards God, etc. But the context 
 has as little of this as of what is imported by Billroth and Olshausen : “ in 
 so far as I suffer in the service of the gospel, through which comfort and 
 salvation come to you so also Hofmann. Riickert, without ground, 
 gives up all attempt at explanation. Paul himself has given the explana¬ 
 tion in ver. 4 by sig to Svvacdac yyag napanahelv k.t.?i. Hence the sense of the 
 definition of the aim imep tt}q vyov Trapani, k. cot. : “in order that we may he 
 enabled to comfort you , when ye come into affliction, and to f urther your sal¬ 
 vation. For this end we are put in a position by experience of suffering , as 
 well as by that, which is its other side, by our experience of comfort in the 
 school of suffering firs tt apanahovyeda k.t.a.). — virep rye vy. Trapanh. ryg evepy. 
 k.t.a.'] i.e. in order to he able to give you the comfort , which is efficacious, etc. 
 Paul does not again add k. coTypiag here, because he has still to append to 
 napan?,yc£og a more precise and detailed explanation, after which it was im¬ 
 practicable to bring in nal coTyplag ; and it could be left out all the more 
 readily, as it did not belong essentially to the representation. —Tyr hvepyovp. 
 h vTvoji. k.t.j l.] which is efficacious in patient endurance of the same sufferings, 
 which ice also suffer, hvepyovy., as in the whole N. T. (iv. 12 ; Rom. vii. 5 ; 
 Gal. v. 6 ; Eph. iii. 20 ; Col. i. 29 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13 ; 2 Thess. ii. 7 ; Jas. v. 
 16) is middle , not passive (3 Esdr. ii. 20 ; Polyb. i. 13. 5, ix. 12. 3), as it is 
 here erroneously taken by Oecumenius, Theopliylact, Castalio, Piscator, Cal¬ 
 vin, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Rosenmiiller, Emmerling, Bill¬ 
 roth, Riickert, Ewald. 1 For the distinction between active (personal efficacy) 
 and middle in Paul, see Winer, p. 242 [E. T. 323]. —iv broyovy] denotes 
 that hy virtue of providing which the wapdakycLg is efficacious. It is therefore 
 the working of the Christian rcapaKAyccc, which we experience when y dhifig 
 vxoyovyv naTepya^eTai, Rom. v. 3. -— tov gvtov iraHyyaTov, ov /c.t.A. ] in SO far, 
 namely, as they are likewise sufferings of Christ. The sufferings appointed 
 to the readers are meant, which do not differ in kind from the sufferings of 
 Paul (and Timothy) (ov k. yyelg ndcxoysv). Billroth, Olshausen, Heander 
 understand the sufferings of the apostle himself, in so far as these were jointly 
 felt by all believers as their own in virtue of their fellowship of love with 
 him. Compare Chrysostom on ver. 7, also de Wette, who refers it partly 
 to the foreboding, partly to the sympathetic joint-suffering. But, then, 
 Paul would have been utterly illogical in placing the nai before yyzlg ; for 
 it would, in fact, be sufferings which the readers also had suffered (with Paul 
 through their loving sympathy). How erroneous this exposition is, is shown, 
 besides, by ver. 4. It does not appear from this passage, we may add, that 
 at that time the Corinthians had otherwise to endure affliction for the gospel’s 
 
 1 The passive interpretation would be 
 necessary with the reading of Lachmann, 
 since salvation is the goal of the state of 
 grace, and hence is tvrought (Phil. ii. 12, 13 ; 
 
 Matt. x. 22; Jas. i. 12); but nowhere is it 
 conceived and represented as working in 
 patience, and the like. This tells against 
 that reading. 
 
420 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 sake. Paul has rather in view the case of such affliction occurring in the 
 future, as the following aai y elnlg k.t.1. proves. Comp, on xiii. 11. —nai y 
 eatt. rjfi . /3e/3. vtc. vp.] is not to be placed in a parenthesis, with Griesbach 
 and others, since e16ote g is connected not with TracxopEv, but with y eIttX q ypuv. 
 The contents of ver. 6, namely, is not the expression of a present experience 
 undergone by the readers, but the expression of good hope as to the readers 
 for the future, that what is said by eIte 6e ■dltfidped-a . . . 7t6.gxoij.ev will be 
 verified in their case in afflictions which would come on them for Christ’s 
 sake, so that they would in that case obtain from the apostle, out of his ex¬ 
 perience of suffering and consolation, the comfort which through patience 
 is efficacious in such sufferings. Therefore he continues : and our hopje is 
 firm on account of you. virep vpuv does not belong either simply to y kin. vp., 
 or simply to (3e[3aia (Billroth), but to the whole thought of y eXtt. vp. fief]. 
 On virep, comp. Polyb. xi. 20. 6, xiv. 1. 5, and the contrary expression 
 ( pofiio&cu vTTEp rivog, propter aliquem in metu esse. — elSotec ] refers, according 
 to a common anacolouthon, to y eIttIq yp., in which ypeiq is the logical 
 subject. 1 See Stallbaum, ad. Apol. p. 21 C, Phaedr. p. 241 D, Phaedo, p. 81 
 A ; Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 49. Comp, on Eph. iv. 2 ; Col. ii. 2. It in¬ 
 troduces the certainty on which rests the hope just expressed : for ice know 
 that you, as you are sharers of the sufferings, are sharers also of the consolation. 
 To have a share in the sufferings, and also in the consolation, to be excepted 
 neither from the one nor from the other, is the appointed lot of the Chris¬ 
 tian. Paul knows this in regard to his readers, and he grounds on it the 
 firm hope for them, that if they shall have their share in bearing sufferings, 
 they will in that case not lack the effectual consolation; to impart which 
 consolation he is himself qualified (ver. 4) and destined (ver. 6) by his otvn 
 experience of suffering and consolation. Accordingly, kolvuvoX k.t.1. is con¬ 
 textually not to be explained of an ideal, sympathetic communion, and that 
 in the sufferings and consolation of Paul (fGirep yap ra na\^ypara ra y pete pa 
 vpETcpa E\vai vopfere, ovto naX ryv TrapanlyoLV ryv yperipav vperepav, Chrysostom. 
 Comp. Theodoret, Grotius, Billroth, Olshausen, and others), but ra tt aftypara 
 and y TTapanAyoiq are to be taken generically. In both kinds of experience 
 the Christian has a share ; he must suffer ; but he is not excluded from the 
 consolation, on the contrary, he partakes also in it. (j 3 ) 
 
 Vv. 8-11. Out of his own (and Timothy’s) experience of suffering and 
 comfort, Paul now informs his readers of something special which had 
 lately befallen the two in Asia. The fact in itself he assumes as known to 
 them, but he desires to bring to their knowledge the consoling help of God in 
 it. There is nothing to indicate a reference to an utterance of the church 
 (Hofmann) concerning the event. 
 
 Ver. 8. Ou y. del. vp. ayv. ] See on Bom. i. 13, xi. 25 ; 1 Cor. xii. 1 ; 1 
 Thess. iv. 13.— virep ryq Oli-ip.] regarding (de) the affliction, concerning the 
 same. See Bernhardy, p. 244 ; Kiihner, II. § 547, 2. — ev ry ’Agio] as in 1 
 Cor. xvi. 19. What particular affliction is meant, and at what place it hap- 
 
 1 With Lachmarm’s reading it is referred by Reiche and Ewald'to the Corinthians 
 
 (v/xwr): since you Icnoiv, etc. 
 
CHAP. I., 9. 
 
 421 
 
 
 pened, we do not know. The readers, who must have known it, may have 
 learnt it from Titus or otherwise. Perhaps it was the avnueiyevoi iroXkoi, 1 
 Cor. xvi. 9, who had prepared for him the extraordinary trial. The tumult 
 of Demetrius in Ephesus, Acts xix. 23 ff. (Theodoret, Calvin, Estius, Corne¬ 
 lius a Lapide, Michaelis, Vater, Schrader, Olshausen, Osiander, Ewald, and 
 others), is not to be thought of, since Paul was not in personal danger 
 there, Acts xix. 30, and immediately after the tumult set out on his journey 
 to Greece, Acts xx. 1. Ileumann, Emmerling, Riickert, Bisping, suggest 
 a severe illness. Against this it may be urged that, according to ver. 5, it 
 must have been a rrddyya rov Xpioroy (for the special experience must be 
 held as included under the general one previously spoken of), as well as 
 that Paul speaks in the plural. Both grounds tell at the same time against 
 Hofmann, who thinks of the shipwreck, xi. 25, to which, in fact, ev r. ’A ala, 
 ver. 8, is not suitable, even if we ventured to make a mere stranding on the 
 coast out of the incident. Besides, the reading pverai , ver. 10, militates 
 against this. — bn kuQ' vnepfi. /c.r.A.] that ice were burdened to the uttermost 
 beyond strength , a statement of that which, in regard to the affliction men¬ 
 tioned, is not to be withheld from the readers. m0’ vTrepftoArjv defines the 
 degree of k[iap. inep dvvay. See Fritzsche, JDiss. I. p. 1 f. (“ut calamitates 
 vires meas egregie superarent”). The view which regards the two expres¬ 
 sions as co-ordinate (Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Estius, and many, includ¬ 
 ing Flatt, Rtickert, Osiander, Hofmann): so heavy that it went beyond our 
 ability , would place alongside of each other the objective greatness of the 
 suffering and its disproportion to the subjectivity (see de Wette) : still the 
 position of eflap ., as well as the want of a mi before inep, is more favourable 
 to the view which takes ej3ap. vtt. 6vv. together; and this is also confirmed 
 by the subjectivity of the following hare e^anop. n.r.h. The suffering made 
 itself palpable to him as a 7reipaoy.be <>vk avdp&mvoe (1 Cor. x. 13). Riickert, 
 moreover, has no ground for thinking that efiapyQ. is inappropriately used 
 of persecutions, attempts to murder, and the like, and that inep dvvayiv is 
 also opposed to it. flapbg, fiapeu , and (3apvvu are used of all troubles by 
 which we feel ourselves burdened. See the passages from Homer in Dun¬ 
 can, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 202 ; comp. Plat. Grit. p. 43 C ; Soph. Trach. 151 ; 
 Theocr. xvii. 61, and expressions like fiapvyoxOoe, [iapvnoryog, flapvnevOye, 
 fiapvSaiyov, and the like .—(bore eganop. k.t.?i.~\ so that we became quite per¬ 
 plexed even (mi ) in regard to life , placed in the highest perplexity even with 
 regard to the preservation of our life. hr. strengthens the simple verb, iv. 
 8. Polyb. i. 62. 1, iii. 47. 9, 48. 4. The genitive (rov £rjv) is the usual 
 case in Greek with anopeiv, in the sense of having lack of something ; seldom 
 is it found in the sense of being perplexed about something (Dem. 1380, 4 : 
 Plat. Conv. p. 193 E). 
 
 Yer. 9. ’AiUa] is the simple but , the contrast of the negation contained in 
 EZ-aTropr/Oijvai, which contrast, nevertheless, no longer depends on wore : the 
 independent position makes it all the weightier. There is therefore the less 
 ground for taking a/2a as nay indeed , with Hofmann, and making it point 
 to the following clause of purpose, whereby the chief clause avrol /c.r.A. 
 would be arbitrarily forced into a position logically subordinate—viz., “if 
 
422 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corintiiians. 
 
 we ourselves, etc., it was to serve to tlie end, tliat we,” etc. — avrol ev lavrolg ] 
 for our own selves in our own consciousness — i.e. apart from what might take 
 place from without, through divine interference, to cause a change in our 
 position. This certainty in their own heart, however, could not hut exclude 
 all self-confidence ; hence iva pi/ rcETroLd-orEg /c.r.A. —arcoKpcpa ] not equivalent 
 to KaraKpcfia (so most, following Ilesychius), but to responsum (Vulgate, 
 Billroth), tlie award, decision. Comp, a-oupcaig. So in Suidas (see Wetstein) 
 and Josephus, Antt. xiv. 17 (in Kypke). Chrysostom says well : ri/v 
 
 T7JV Kp 'lOLV , T7]V TTpOcdoKiaV TOiaVT7]V jdp 7/<j)'l£L TCL TT pay par a (j)lOV7/V TOiaVTTJV a TV 6 - 
 
 npioiv kdidov ra ovpfiavra, on cnvo'davovpE'&a rzavrog .—As to koxW-, observe 
 the perfect hdbuimus , which represents the situation as present. Comp, on 
 Rom. v. 2. —iva pi) k.t.a.] divinely appointed aim of the avrol . . . ec ixynapEv. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. i. 15. (k 3 ) — r(5 kyeipovn rovg reap.] is to be referred not only to 
 the future awaking of the dead, but to the awaking of the dead in general , 
 as that which is exclusively God's doing. This characteristic of God is the 
 ground of the confidence. For the awaker of the dead must also be able to 
 rescue from the danger of death (ver. 10). Comp. Rom. iv. 17 ; Heb. xi. 
 19. See on Rom. l.c. “Mira natura fidei in summis clifficultatibus nullum 
 exitum habere visis,” Bengel. Hence Paul, in spite of the human k^ano- 
 prjdrjvai :, ver. 8, could yet say of himself, iv. 8 : ova E^a-nopovpEvoi. 
 
 Ver. 10. Result of this confidence, as w r ell as the hope grounded thereon 
 for the future. — ek ti/Alk. Oavarov ] out of so great death. Paul realizes to him¬ 
 self the special so mighty death-poicer which had threatened him (and Timo¬ 
 thy), and by the expression pvEcOac ek Oavarov (see examples in Wetstein, p. 178) 
 makes death appear as a hostile power by which he had been encompassed. 
 0 dvarog does not signify peril of death (as most say, even Emmerling and 
 Flatt), but it represents that sense. Comp. xi. 28 .—nal pvErat] The 6?u ipig, 
 which had been survived in Asia, therefore still continued in its after-effects, 
 which even extended over to Macedonia (perhaps by continued plots against 
 their lives), and Paul and Timothy were still continuing 1 to experience the 
 rescuing power of God. (l 3 ) — rfrdnapEv ] have set our hope. See Herm. ad 
 Viger. p. 748 ; Kuhner, H. p. 71 ; conrp. 1 Cor. xv. 19 ; 1 Tim. v. 5, vi. 
 17 ; John vi. 45.— on k. en pvuerai] that he loill rescue (us) even f urther, 
 namely, ek. tp?uk. Oavarov , in the continuing danger from the Asiatic enemies 
 which was still to be apprehended in the future. In the fact that Paul 
 speaks of a present, nay, of a future rescue, Riickert finds a support for his 
 opinion regarding a dangerous illness (not yet fully overcome) ; see on ver. 
 8. But could no machinations pass over from Asia to Macedonia ? and 
 
 1 Hofmann reads the passage : /cai pvo-erat ., 
 et? ov Y]ATTLKaiJ.ev, (cai en pucrerai. According¬ 
 ly, he takes the first Ka\ as an also , begin¬ 
 ning an independent sentence. With this 
 expressive reference to the future Paul 
 looks forward to the wide voyages still be¬ 
 fore him. In opposition to this we have, 
 from a critical point of view, the facts that 
 on before /cat en is wanting only in B D* 64, 
 and that it is supported by preponderating 
 
 witnesses, even by those which have the 
 reading pvaera t for puerat, as C and 5$ ; and 
 from an exegetical point of view, the fact 
 that the repetition /cal In pvaercu amounts 
 to a tautology without strengthening the 
 thought in the least: for en follows as a 
 matter of course from the pvaerai already 
 said. Besides, against the whole reference 
 to the shipwreck, see on ver. 8. 
 
CHAP. I., 11. 
 
 423 
 
 could not these be recognized by Paul as the more dangerous, in so far as 
 they were more secret ? Comp. Acts xx. 3. 
 
 Ver. 11. A trustful and conciliatory mention of the intercessions of the 
 readers. This is regarded as not so much conditioning (Erasmus, Rosenmiiller, 
 Riickert, and others), as rather furthering the ml hi pvazrat : “he will also 
 still save us, since ye also are helpful together for usf etc. On the idea of the 
 efficacy of intercession, comp, especially Phil. i. 19 ; Rom. xv. 80 f.—The 
 reference of the aw in avvvnovpy. is to the apostle's own work of prayer, with 
 which that of the readers is joined byway of help : similar help on the part 
 of other churches is just hinted by the mi before vycov. — hr ip yyuv] on our 
 behalf. A transposition for ry ckyan imep rjy. would indeed be grammatically 
 possible (Bernhardy, p. 461), but is in the highest degree superfluous (in 
 opposition to Erasmus, Grotius, Schulz, Rosenmiiller).— ivaimro'XA. irpocuir. 
 /c.r./L] divinely-appointed aim of the cwvirovpy. k.t.1. The correlations are 
 to be noted : 1. in TroXktiv rrpoauTr. and to eif r/yag x&P- \ 2. Ad vrok/icjv 
 and inrep yy wv ; 3. xapLaya and ev x a P t yd y. Accordingly, there 
 stand parallel to one another in iroll. 'Kpoouir. and then Ad ttoTJmv ; as also to 
 elg yydg x^pi-apa and then inrep yycov. Hence, it is to be connected and taken 
 thus : that from many countenances for the gift of grace made to us by means of 
 many thanks may be rendered on our behalf. Paul means that the thanksgiv¬ 
 ing for his (and Timothy’s) rescue (i.e. to elg yy. x^P- 1 2 ) i s 11 °t to be offered to 
 God by himself (and Timothy) alone, but that it is to be a rendering of thanks 
 made for him by many through the mediation of many. The many are the 
 same in in rroXk. Trpoaknr. as in Ad ; but there they are conceived of as 
 
 those who give thanks , and in Ad n r. as those who have been the procuring 
 means of the thanksgiving , in so far as through their prayer they have aided in 
 obtaining the apostle's rescued Trpoooirov, according to the use of the later 
 Greek (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 880 ; Schweigh., Lex. Polyb. p. 540 ; 
 Wahl, Clav. Apocr. p. 430), is taken as person by Luther and most others 
 (already in codd. of the Italic version). But it is nowhere used thus in 
 the 1ST. T., not even in passages like Jude 16 ; and, if Paul had had 
 person in mind, there would have been no motive for choosing in instead of 
 vtvo. Hence we must abide by the literal signification, countenance (Billroth, 
 Ewald, Osiander, Hofmann) : the expression^ noil. npoacdn. is pictorial, for 
 on the merry countenance the feeling of gratitude is displayed (Prov. xv. 
 80) ; it is mirrored therein, and goes out from it and upward to God in 
 the utterance of thanksgiving, (m 3 ) Fritzsche, ad Pom. III. p. 53, in the 
 
 1 Not the apostolic office (Ewald, Osiander), 
 which here lies far from the context. So 
 also Hofmann : the grift of God, to preach 
 Christ to those who do not yet know Him. 
 In the ordinary interpretation, there was 
 not the least need of a demonstrative : the 
 article and el? r/^a? is from the context de¬ 
 monstrative enough. 
 
 2 It was quite unsuitable, and contrary 
 to the construction purposely carried out 
 
 by the correlata stated above, to take e« 
 
 no AA. npoacon. or Slol noW. as neuter, and 
 either to explain the former, ex multis re- 
 spectibus (Bengel, comp. Melanchthon—not 
 even justifiable in the usage of the lan¬ 
 guage), or the latter, prolixe (Castalio : “in- 
 gentes gratiae,” Wolf, Clericus, Sender, 
 Storr, Rosenmiiller). Comp. Luther. So 
 also Hofmann takes Si a iroAA. “ abundant 
 thanksgiving.” The Vulgate renders right¬ 
 ly: “per multos.” 
 
424 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 same way rightly joins ek noil, npocun. as w T ell as 4m noil. w 7 itli evxap but 
 he takes ek noil. np. of those who have besought the rescue and have thereby 
 become the causers of the thanksgiving, and dm nolluv of the thanksgivers 
 themselves. So also Neander. But by this view justice is not done to the 
 mediating sense of dm, and the pictorial reference of npocunuv (see above) 
 can, according to the text, be found only in the act of thanksgiving itself. 
 It is obvious from what has already been said, that neither can dm noil, be 
 joined to to Eig rjp. xapiaga (Theophylact and others, Billroth, Olshausen, 
 Osiander, Kling), nor can ek noil, npocfun. be connected with ro elf r/y. %ap. 
 as if it stood : to ekttoII. npocion. slgypag x^P La h a (Ambrosiaster, Valla, Beza, 
 Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and many others, including Flatt, Fritzsche, JDiss., 
 Biickert, de Wette). Onty on our view does the simple construction, as 
 given by the order of the words, remain without dislocation, and the mean¬ 
 ing of the words themselves uninjured. Whether, further, in ek noil, npoaun. 
 the nolluv is masculine (Hofmann and Vulgate, “ex multorum facie”) or 
 neuter , cannot be decided. — vnep r/ytiv] on our behalf, superfluous in itself, 
 but suitable to the fulness of the representation. — The time in w T hich the 
 thanksgiving is to happen is after the beginning of the pvcerai, not on the 
 
 last day (Ewald).—The passive expression EvxapioTEiaOai (comp. Hipp. Ep. 
 
 _ « 
 
 1284, 31) is conceived like axapicTelcOcu (Polyp, xxiii. 11. 8), to experience 
 ingratitude, to be recompensed with ingratitude. Comp. Buttman, neut. 
 Or. p. 130 [E. T. 148]. 
 
 Ver. 12. The apostle now begins the vindication of himself, at first in 
 reference to the purity of his walk in general (ver. 12), then in reference to 
 his honesty in writing (vv. 13, 14), and afterwards specially in reference to 
 the changing of his plans for the journey (vv. 15-24). — yap] Ground as¬ 
 signed for the confidence uttered in ver. 11, that the readers would help 
 him by their intercession in the manner denoted : for we boast, according to the 
 witness of our conscience , to have made ourselves worthy of your help. — Kavxyoig 
 is not equivalent to Kavxvya, materies gloriandi (so most, but in no passage 
 rightly, see on Rom. iv. 2), but we should interpret : For this our boasting 
 (which is contained in ver. 11) is the testimony which our conscience furnishes 
 that we, etc. In other words : This our boasting is nothing else than the ex¬ 
 pression of the testimony of our conscience, that, etc.; hence no aiGxvvEcOat and 
 Kavxhaeog (Isa. xii. 13) can take place. The contents of this testimony (or* 
 k.t.1.) shows how very much the navxvaig of Paul is a KavxacOai ev icvpiu 
 (1 Cor. i. 31). Accordingly, avT-q is to be taken together with ?/ Kavxvmg yyuv 
 (comp. 1 Cor. viii. 9 : i) k^ovaia vyl)v avTjj)’, to yaprvpiov k.t.1. is th a predicate, 
 which is introduced by egtl, and otl k.t.1. is the contents of the testimony. 
 By the plain simplicity of this explanation we obviously exclude the view 
 that avTp is preparative, and that it is to be referred either to ro yapTvpiov 
 (Luther and most), or, more harshly, with Hofmann, to otl k.t.1., because in 
 that case ro yapTvpiov k.t.1. is made an interpolated apposition. —h aytoT^Tt 
 (see the critical remarks) Kal dliKp. 9eow] Qeov is not used superlatively, as 
 Emmerling w r ould still take it. Further, it neither denotes what is well¬ 
 pleasing to God (Schulz, Rosenmtiller, Flatt, Riickert, Reiche), nor what 
 avails before God (Calvin, Beza, Estius, Billroth, and others, following 
 
CHAP. I., 13. 
 
 425 
 
 Theophylact, nor what is like God (Pelagius), nor the God-like (Osiander), 
 which is God's manner (Hofmann), but the moral holiness and purity estab¬ 
 lished by God through the influence of the divine grace, as the following ova 
 ev cofy. aapn ., all' ev ^apm Qeov proves . 1 So also Olshausen, de Wette, 
 Ivling, Neander, Winer, p. 221 [E. T. 296]. Comp. diKaioavvij Qeov , Rom. i. 
 17, eiprjvij Qeov , Phil. iv. 7, and the like. The rare word ayioryg is found also in 
 2 Macc. xv. 2 ; Heb. xii. 10 ; Schol. Arist. Thesm. 301. Regarding eihiKp ., 
 see on 1 Cor. v. 8 . Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 66 A .—ovk ev go 0 . capK. 
 d/u’ ev x^P' 0 eoi>] is not to be placed in a parenthesis, for it is parallel to 
 the previous ev aytor. k. eiTanp. Qeov, and gives negative and positive infor¬ 
 mation about it. The cofla capK. is the merely human wisdom , the wisdom 
 which is not the work of the divine influence (of the Holy Spirit), but of 
 human nature itself unenlightened and unimproved, guided by the sinful 
 lust in the cap A See on 1 Cor. i. 26. —ev x^P LTL 0 eot)] is not to be explained 
 of miracles (Chrysostom), nor yet with Grotius : “cum multis donis spirit- 
 ualibus,” but without any limitation of the influence of the divine grace , under 
 which Paul lived and worked .—The thrice repeated use of ev denotes the 
 spiritual element in which his course of life moved (Eph. ii. 3 ; 2 Pet. ii. 
 18 ).—ev np Koayu] i.e. among profane humanity. This serves by contrast 
 to make the holiness of Ids walk and conversation more prominent. Comp. 
 Phil. ii. 15. — Ttpbg vyag] denotes the direction of his association, in inter¬ 
 course with you. See Bernhardy, p. 265. More than with others, he had 
 established such a relation with the Corinthians (hence TrepcccoT.). 
 
 Yer. 13 f. In order to vindicate the apparently vainglorious (ver. 10) 
 7 repiGG. de 7 rp. vyag (ver. 12), in so far as it might be suspected as not honour¬ 
 ably meant, he asserts his candour in writing, which must have been assailed 
 by his opponents (comp. x. 10), who probably maintained, “ His letters to 
 us are not the expression of his genuine inmost opinion !” — For nothing else 
 do we write to you than what you (in our letters) read or also understand ; i.e. in 
 our letters to you we do not hide or disguise our genuine opinion, but it agrees 
 exactly with what the reading of the same, or your acquaintance with our 
 mode of thinking and character, says to you. Comp. Theocloret. On ypd- 
 (peev 'in its reference to the sense of what is written, comp. 1 Cor. v. 11. Ac¬ 
 cording to de Wette, the sense amounts to the thought : u I cannot do other¬ 
 wise, I must write thus.' 1 ' 1 But Paul is making an appeal to the readers .— 
 all' jf\ praeterquam, nisi. For examples in which the previous negative sen¬ 
 tence has also ahhog, see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 45 ; Heindorf, ad Prot. 
 p. 354 B ; Klotz, ad Bevar. p. 36 f. ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 5. The mode 
 of expression depends on a blending of the two constructions —ovk a Aha . . . 
 alia and ovk alia . . . ?/ ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 81 B ; Kuhner, II. 
 p. 438. —a avay/.vcjGKere, rj k. eruy.'] This latter rj is in no connection with the 
 former, in which case it could not but have stood a r) avay ., i) ml hny. This 
 
 1 With this fall to the ground also the difficulty regarding dyior., that Paul talks 
 scruples of Iiiickert against the word of his purity as teacher , is also untenable. 
 
 dyioTTjTi, which he either wishes to take abu- lie certainly speaks of his entire conduct , 
 
 sive, like the Latin sanctitas , integrity , or not merely of his teaching, 
 conjectures in its stead dyi'OTrjn. Reiche’s 
 
426 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 in opposition to Fritzsche’s way of taking it : “neque enim alia ad vos per- 
 scribimus, quamaut ea . . . autea quae” etc. avaycvuGKELv is to read, as it is 
 usually in the Attic authors, and always in the X. T., not to understand, as 
 Calvin, Estius, Storr, 1 following the Peshito, wish to take it, though it has this 
 meaning often in classical Greek (Horn. II. xiii. 734, Od. xxi. 205, xxii. 206 ; 
 Xen. Anab. v. 8. 6 ; Pind. Isthm. ii. 35 ; Herodian, vii. 7; comp, also Prayer of 
 Manass. 12). —fj koX kruyiv.] or also (without communication by letter) under¬ 
 stand. Wetstein imports arbitrarily : “ vel si alicubi haereat, post secundam 
 aut tertiam lectionem, attento animo factam, sit intellecturus.” Ruckert : 
 “and doubtless also understand.” Quite against r/ nai, which stands also 
 opposed to the view of Hofmann : Paul wishes to say that he does not write 
 in such a way, that they might understand something else than he means in 
 his words. In this case we should have had nai only, since rj nai points to 
 something else than to the reading, with which what he has written agrees. 
 —The assimilation of the expressions avaytv. and huyiv. (comp. iii. 2) can¬ 
 not be imitated in German, but in Latin approximately : legitis aut etiam 
 intelligitis. Comp, on Acts viii. 30 ; Plat. Ep. II. p. 312 D.— klTr'fu Se 
 k.t.X. ] The object to et rcyvcjosoOE is on kavxvpa vgcov Eager /c.r.A., and naOug kcic 
 £ ir£yv. bt 1 - o7ro fiep. is an inserted clause : “I hope, however, that you will 
 understand even to the end,—as you have understood us in part,—that we 
 are your boast,” etc. We might also consider bn navxvga k.tA. as a nearer 
 object to E-KEyvidTE vgag (Estius, Rosenmuller, Billroth, Ruckert, de Wette) ; 
 but, since in this way ETnyvcoGEGde remains without an object (Billroth sup¬ 
 plies : “that I think the same as I write ;” comp. Ruckert ; Osiander : 
 “all my doing and suffering in its purity”), the above mode of connection 
 is easier and simpler. Ambrosiaster, Luther, Grotius, and others, also Ols- 
 hausen (Osiander doubtfully), take on as for, stating the ground for nadhg k. 
 ETceyv. i)g. and pep. But in that case the accurate, logical connection is still 
 more wanting, since from the general navxn pa I guv eager k.t.Ti. no inference 
 to the ETVEyvuTE r/gag restricted by enro gepovg is warranted ; the reason assigned 
 would not be suitable to a7ro gepovg. The connection which runs on simply 
 is unnecessarily broken up by Ewald holding ver. 13 and ver. 14 on to 
 gepovg as a parenthesis, so that on, ver. 14 ( that ), joins on again to ver. 12. 
 — hog TE?.ovg] does not mean till my death (Hofmann), but till the end, i.e. till 
 the ceasing of this world, till the Parousia. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 8, xv. 51 f. ; 
 Heb. iii. 6. — Yer. 14. nadiog n. EKeyv. i/gag compares the future, regarding 
 which Paul hopes, with the past, regarding which he knows. And therefore 
 he adds a limitation in keeping with the truth, anb gepovg (comp. Rom. xi. 
 25) ; for not all the Corinthians had thus understood him. Hofmann, quite 
 against the usage of the language, takes airo gepovg of time, inasmuch as the 
 apostle’s intercourse with them up to the present was only a part of what he 
 had to live with them. In that case Paul would have written eog apn in con¬ 
 trast to bug TElovg. Calvin, Estius, and Emmerling refer it to the degree of 
 knowledge, quodammodo (comp. ii. 5), with which Paul reproaches the readers, 
 
 1 Calvin thinks avayiv. and kniyiv. are dis- makes the difference : “ et recognoscitis an- 
 tinguished as agnoscere and recognoscere. tiqua, et insuper etiam cognoscitis ?'ecentia.' n 
 So, on the whole, Storr also. But Estius 
 
CHAP. I., 15, 16. 
 
 427 
 
 cjg pi) KavTsfajg ciKomapevovg ratg nar' avrov ysysvypevag diafloXag, Theodoret. But 
 a purpose of reproach is quite foreign to the connection ; and certainly the 
 readers to whom kneyvure applies had not only understood him quodammodo, hut 
 wholly and decidedly, that, etc. Billroth thinks that Paul wishes to mark his 
 cordial love, which till now he could only have shown them in part. Comp. Chrys¬ 
 ostom, according to whom anu pcpovg is added from modesty ; also Theophylact, 
 according to whom Paul is thinking of the imperfect exhibition of his virtue. 
 But how could the readers conjecture this ! — on navxypa k. t.a. J that ice redound 
 for glory ( i.e . for the object of tcavyaodai) to you , even as you to us on the day of 
 the Parousia. It will be to your honour on that day that you have had us 
 as teachers, and it will be to our honour that we have had you as disciples. 
 Comp. 1 Thess, ii. 19 f. ; Phil. ii. 16. With how much winning tact the 
 addition nadairep k. vpelg ypibv suppresses all appearance of self-exaltation ! 
 cjg paOyraig oporipoig diaXeyopevog ovrug e^ioa^ei rbv Xoyov, Chrysostom. — ev ry 
 ypepa r. Kvp. belongs to the whole ore Kavxvpa • • • vpelg ypuv, not, 
 
 as Riickert arbitrarily thinks, to aadcmep k. vp. ypuv merely (so Grotius, Ca- 
 lovius, and others) ; nor yet, as Hofmann would have it, primarily to Kavx- 
 vpcbv leper. 
 
 Vv. 15, 16. Kai ravry ry Tcenoid.] and inconsequence of this confidence, viz. 
 otl eug riXovg e-myr. k.t.X. in vv. 13, 14. TreTcoidycug (iii. 4, viii. 22, x. 2 ; 
 Eph. iii. 12 ; Phil. iii. 4 ; Joseph. Bell. i. 3. 1) is later Greek. See Eusta¬ 
 thius, ad Od. iii. p. 114, 41 ; Thom. Mag. p. 717 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 
 294 f. — efiovMpyv] Paul entertained the plan for his journey, set down in 
 ver. 16, before the composition of our first Epistle, and he had communi¬ 
 cated it to the Corinthians (whether in the first letter now lost, or other¬ 
 wise, we know not). But before or during the composition of our first 
 Epistle he altered this plan (as we know from 1 Cor. xvi. 5) to this extent, 
 that he was not now to go first to Corinth, then to Macedonia, and from 
 thence back to Corinth again (ver. 16), but through Macedonia to Corinth. 
 The plan of travel, 1 Cor. xvi. 5, was accordingly not the first (Baur) ; comp. 
 Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 200 f.), but the one already altered, which altera¬ 
 tion was ascribed to the apostle as indecision. This is intelligible enough 
 from the antagonistic irritation of their minds, and does not require us to 
 presuppose an expression in the alleged intermediate Epistle (Ivlopper, p. 
 21 f.). Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumcnius make the apostle say : I 
 had, when I wrote to you 1 Cor. xvi. 5, the unexpressed intention to arrive 
 still earlier than I promised, and to reach you even sooner (immediately on 
 the journey towards Macedonia). Quite a mistaken view, since such a 
 mere thought would not have been known to his opponents, and no excuse 
 for his fickleness could therefore have been engrafted on it. — k porepov] be¬ 
 longs to 7rpbg vpdg kldelv : 1 I intended to come to you first of all , —not, as I 
 afterwards altered my plan, to the Macedonians first, and then from them 
 to you. Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others, including Rosenmuller and 
 Riickert, connect npor. and e(3ovX., which, however, on the one hand is 
 
 1 The position of nporepov immediately and is therefore to he preferred, makes no 
 after epov\. (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Buck- difference in this respect, 
 ert), which has preponderating evidence, 
 
 * 
 
428 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 opposed to the sense (for Paul cannot say, “ I intended formerly to come 
 to you,” since his intention is still the same), and on the other would not 
 accord with Iva devr. x&P- ' E X- \ for n °t the rrporepov e ft ov \ d prjv, but the rcpo- 
 repov 7 r p o g vpa g e el v, was to bring in its train a devrepa x^pi-g-— 1va devre- 
 pciv x&pw £ XV T£ ] devrepav corresponds ingeniously to the rrporepov : in order that 
 you m ight have a second benefit of grace. By %apiv is meant a divine bestowal of 
 grace , with which Paul knew his coming to be connected for the church ; for 
 to whatever place he came in his official capacity, he came as the imparter of 
 divine ^dp^, Rom. i. 11; comp. xv. 29. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others, 
 including Kypke, Emmerling, Flatt, and Bleek (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 
 p. 622), hold that x (l P^ is equivalent to %&P a (and hence this is actually the 
 reading of B L, some min., and Theodoret). Certainly x«P l C also means 
 pleasure , joy, and is, as in Tob. vii. 18, the opposite of M'mg (Eur. Ilel. 661, 
 and more frequently in Pindar ; see Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 1191 ; also 
 in Plato, Ast, Lex. III. p. 538), but never in the N. T. This sense, besides, 
 would be unsuitable to the apostle’s delicate and modest style of expression 
 elsewhere. Nor, again, is a benefit on the part of the apostle meant (Grotius, 
 Rosenmuller, Schrader, Billroth, comp, also Hofmann), because the expres¬ 
 sion is only in keeping with his affection and humility (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 10) 
 if a divine display of grace is meant. The comparison with 1 Cor. xvi. 3 is 
 therefore not to the point, because there a x^P l Q is named, of which the 
 readers were givers. But what does he mean by devrepav x.ap LV • Many 
 answer with Estius : “ ut ex secundo meo aclventu secundam acciperetis 
 gratiam, qui dudurn accepistis primam, quando primum istuc veniens ad 
 fidern vos converti.” Comp. Pelagius, Calvin, Wolf, Mosheim, Bengel, 
 Emmerling. But against this it may be urged : (1) historically, that Paul 
 certainly had been already twice in Corinth before our two Epistles (see 
 Introd. § 2) ; and (2) from the connection, that the devrepa x^pig in this 
 sense can by no means appear as an aim conditioned by the i-porepov ; for 
 even a later coming would have had a devrepa x^P^ in this sense as its 
 result. This second reason is decisive, even if, with Schott, Erorterung, 
 etc., p. 58 ff., and Anger, rat. temp. p. 72 1, we # were to set aside the 
 former by the supposition : ‘ ‘ apostolum intra annum ilium cum dimidio, 
 quern, quum primum Corinthi esset, ibi transegit, per breve aliquod tem- 
 poris spatium in rcgiones vicinas discessisse ; sic enim si res se habuit, 
 Paulus, etsi bis ad Corinthios venerat, ita ut in secunda, quam iis misit, 
 epistola adventum tertium polliceri posset : tamen, quoniam per totum illud 
 intervallum Corinthi potissimum docuerat, simile beneficium, quod in itinere 
 seriore in eos collocaturus erat, jure secundum appellavit,” Anger, l.c. p. 73. 
 The right solution results from ver. 16, which is joined on by the epexe- 
 getical Kai, viz., that the devrepa x<*P l S appears as setting in through the 
 rcdTav curd Maned. eWelv Trpbg vpag. Paul had intended on his projected 
 journey to visit Corinth twice, and had therefore proposed to himself to 
 come to the Corinthians first of all (not first to the Macedonians), in order 
 that they in this event might have a second x^P^ on bi s return from Mace¬ 
 donia (the first 3 fpig they were to have on his journey thither). From this 
 it is at once obvious : (1) how superfluous is the linguistically incorrect 
 
CHAP. I., 17. 
 
 429 
 
 supposition that devrepav is here equivalent to dmlyv, as Bleek and Neander, 
 following Chrysostom and Tlieodoret, 1 take it ; (2) how erroneous is the 
 opinion of Ruckert, that Iva devr. x^P LV &XP TE put a wrong place, and 
 should properly only come behind cAdeiv npog vyag, ver. 16. No ; according 
 to the epexegetical tcai, ver. 16, dt? v/uibv aneAdeiv elg Ma/ced. serves to give 
 exact and clear information as parallel to the nporepov npog v/udg khdeiv, and 
 then nal naXiv and M an. khdeiv npog vyag as parallel to the iva devrep. xapiv 
 exyre. Cotnp. Baur, I. p. 338, ed. 2. 
 
 Yer. 17. Wishing this therefore (according to what has just been said), did 
 1 then behave thoughtlessly? Was this proposal of mine made without duly 
 taking thought for its execution ? yyri supposes a negative answer, as always, 
 in which case cipa (meaning : as the matter stands ) makes no alteration, such 
 as the suggesting, perhaps, a thought of possible affirmation. Such a sense, 
 as it were, of a mere tentative nature feeling its way, which is foreign here, 
 could only be suggested by the context, and would have nothing to do with 
 apa (in opposition to Hartung, whom Hofmann follows). See Klotz, ad 
 Bevar. p. 176 f.— ry klatypta] The article marks the thoughtlessness not as 
 that with which the apostle was reproached by the Corinthians (Billroth, 
 Olsliausen, Ruckert, de Wette), which he must have indicated more pre¬ 
 cisely, in order that it might be so understood, but thoughtlessness as such in 
 general , in abstracto : have I then made myself guilty of thoughtlessness ? 
 ehaeppia belongs to the substantives in -pm formed late from adjectives in 
 -pog. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 343. For the ethical sense (wantonness), 
 comp. Schol. Aristoph. Av. 195, and c'Aappog in Polvb. vi. 56. 11 ; kla^povoog, 
 Phocylides in Stob. h'lor. app. iii. 7. — y a (iovlevopai, Kara capaa flovhevoyai ] 
 i/ is not aut (Billroth, Ruckert, Osiander, Hofmann, after the Vulgate and 
 most expositors) but an ; for without any interrogation the relation of the 
 two sentences is : My proposal was not though tless , unless it should be the case 
 that I form my resolves Kara a a pa a. See Hartung, II. p. 61. —Mark the 
 difference between zxpyaaiiyv as aorist (historical event) and (lovhevopai as 
 present (behaviour generally). —Kara cdpua] according to the flesh, after the 
 standard of the capi.e. so that I let myself be guided by the impulses of 
 human nature sinfully determined, Gal. v. 16 ff. —iva y nap' kpol to val val 
 Kal to ov ofr] By Iva is expressed simply the immoral purpose which would be 
 connected with (dovlEvecdai /card caprn ; in order that with me there may be the 
 Yea , yea , and the Nay, nay, i.e. in order that with me affirmation and denial 
 may exist together ; that I, according as the case stauds, may assent to the 
 fleshly impulse, and in turn renounce it ; to-day yea, and to-morrow nay, 
 or yea and nay as it were in one breath. Billroth errs in thinking that in 
 this explanation Kal must be taken as also. That it means and, is proved by 
 * vv. 18, 19. The duplication of the vai and ov strengthens the picture of the 
 untrustworthy man who affirms just as fervently as he afterwards denies. 
 
 1 In other respects Tlieodoret, Bleek, and 
 Neander, as also Billroth, Olshausen, and 
 Ruckert, agree in thinking that Sevrepav 
 refers to the repeated visit to Corinth 
 which had been intended after returning 
 
 from Macedonia. But Chrys., quite against 
 the context, explains the double joy as Kal 
 
 r'r\v S La Tali' ypap.p-a.TMV Kal r'r\v Sea rij? napovaias. 
 
 So also Erasmus, Vatalbus, and others. 
 
 i 
 
430 
 
 paul ? s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Failing to discern this, Grotius and Estius wished to prefer the reading of 
 the Vulgate, to val nal to ov, which has very weak attestation. The arti¬ 
 cle marks the val vat and the ov ov as well-known and solemn formulae of 
 affirmative and negative asseveration (as they were also in Jewish usage ; 
 see Wetstein, ad Matth. v. 37). Comp, on val vat, Soph. 0. C. 1743. As 
 to the main point, namely, that the val vat and the ov ov are taken as the 
 subject of 7?, this explanation has the support of Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, 
 Estius (though conjecturing Iva up instead of Ira), Cornelius & Lapide, 
 Grotius, Mill, Wolf, and others ; also of Rosenmiiller, Emmerling, Flatt, 
 Schrader, Ruckert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Maier, and others ; even 
 Olshausen, who, however, sets up for vat and ov the “peculiar” signification 
 (assumed without any instance of its being so used) of “truth” and “false¬ 
 hood.” The diplasiasmus val vat and ovov is not without reason (as Billroth 
 and Hofmann object), but quite accords with the passionate excitement of 
 the moral consciousness ; whereas afterwards, in ver. 18, where his words 
 go on quietly with a glance towards the faithful God, the bare val nal ov is 
 quite in its place. Note, further, that the simple expression of the coexistence 
 of the yea and nay (to which Hofmann objects) is more striking , than if Paul 
 had given a more precise explanation of the maxims of vea and nay. The 
 readers knew him, and even his evil-wishers could not but know that he was 
 no yea-and-nay man. Others consider the second vat and the second ov as 
 predicates, so that a wholly opposite sense is made out of the words : in 
 order that with me the Yea may be yea, and the Nay be nay, i.e. in order that 
 I may stubbornly- carry through what I have proposed to myself. Comp. 
 Jas. v. 12. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, 
 Castalio, Bengel, and others, and recently Billroth ; Winer, p. 429 [E. T. 
 576], gives no decision. The context, however, before (“levitatis et incon- 
 stantiae, non autem pertinaciae crimen hie a se depellere studet,” Estius) 
 and after (vv. 18, 19), is decisive against this view. Hofmann imports into 
 nay’ e/uot a contrast to napa tcj Qe ti, so that the idea would be : to assent to 
 or refuse anything on grounds taken from one’s own self, without reservation, 
 because purely as an expression of self-will, with which Jas. iv. 13 is com¬ 
 pared. 1 Such a contrast could not but be based upon what went before, in 
 itself as well as in the sense assumed. Besides, to this pretended emphasis 
 on nap’ hyo't the order Iva nap’ e/hoI y would have been suitable ; and the idea 
 of speaking no absolute yea or nay, would have demanded not sat but p be¬ 
 tween the vat and the ov. And was Paul, then, the man in whose resolves 
 “the yea is always meant with the reservation of a nay” ? Luther’s trans¬ 
 lation (comp. Ambrosiaster and Erasmus) comes back to the result, that the 
 mark of interrogation is placed after kotcl a. /3ov?i., and in that case there is 
 supplied nequaquam , of which negation Iva k.tJ. specifies the purpose. This 
 is intolerably arbitrary. Regarding the erroneous translation of the Peshitto 
 (Grotius agrees with it), which distorts the meaning from misconception, 
 see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 2. 
 
 1 Similarly Ewald, but he takes nap’ e/xoi one or the other ”), as if, therefore, it were 
 (with Camerarius) as penes me (“ merely ev efioi. Ewald compares Ps. xii. 5. 
 after my own pleasure to say and to do the 
 
CHAP. I., 18 , 19 . 
 
 431 
 
 Ver. 18. But according to Ills faithfulness, God causes our speech to you to he 
 not yea and nay, not untrustworthy. 1 The 6k introduces the contrast ( yea rather ) 
 to the state of things denied in the preceding question (Baeumlein, Partiic. 
 p. 95) ; and on is equivalent to elg kne.lvo, on, like John ii. 18, ix. 17, xi. 51 ; 
 1 Cor. i. 26, al. : Faithf ul is Godin reference to this, that our speech , etc., i.e. 
 God shows Himself faithful by this , that, etc. Beza, Calvin, and others, in¬ 
 cluding Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Hofmann, 
 take tugtoq 6 Qeog as an asseveration : proh Dei fidem ! Against all linguistic 
 usage, for the £« eycb ... on (see on Rom. xiv. 11), which is compared, is 
 a habitual formula of swearing, which the Tnoroq 6 Qeog, very frequent with 
 the apostle (1 Cor. i. 9, x. 13 ; 1 Thess. v. 24 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3 ; 1 John i. 
 9 ), is not. Nor can we compare xi. 10, where a subjective state of things is 
 asserted as a guarantee of what is uttered. — 6 ho-yog r//u6)v\ is by most under¬ 
 stood of the preaching of the gospel , according to which Paul thus, against 
 the suspicion of untruthfulness in his resolves and assurances, puts forward 
 the truthfulness of his preaching,—in which there lies a moral argument a 
 majori ad minus; for the opinion of Hofmann, that Paul means to say that 
 his preaching stands in a different position from the conditioned quality of 
 his yea and nay, falls with his view of ver. 17. From ver. 19, however, it 
 appears to be beyond doubt that the usual explanation of loyog, of the 
 preaching, not in general of the apostle’s speech (Riickert), or of that unful¬ 
 filled promise (Erasmus in the Annot.), is the right one. Olshausen mixes up 
 the two explanations. 
 
 Yv. 19-22. Paul furnishes grounds in ver. 19 f. for the assurance he had 
 given in ver. 18 ; then refers his veracity to the stedfastness bestowed on 
 him by God, ver. 21 f. ; and finally, ver. 23, makes protestations as to the 
 reason why he had not yet come to Corinth. 
 
 Yer. 19. f O yap rov Qeov vlog ] or, as Lachmann, Riickert, and Tischendorf, 
 following preponderating testimony, have it rightly : 6 rov Qeov yap vlog ( yap 
 in the fourth place ; see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 100 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
 I. p. 339 ; Hermann, ad Philoct. 1437), marks the rov Qeov as emphatic, in 
 order to make what is to be said of Christ, ova eykvero val k. ov, felt at once in 
 its divine certainty. To be God’s Son and yet val n. ov would be a contra¬ 
 diction. In the whole 6 ... ’I. X. there lies a solemn, sacred emphasis. — 
 6 kv v/iiv 6l’ i)[i 6)v nqpvxftelg] reminds the readers of th a first preaching of Christ 
 among them, of which Paul could not but remind them, if they were to 
 become perfectly conscious, from their experience from the beginning, that 
 Christ had not become val a. ov. But in order to make this first preaching 
 come home to them with the whole personal weight of the preachers, he 
 adds, in just consciousness of the services rendered by himself and his 
 companions as compared with the later workers, a more precise definition of 
 the 6C ryicov, with more weighty circumstantiality : A’ eyov k. 'Lilovavov k. 
 T tyoQkov. For the two latter had been his helpers in his first labours 
 in Corinth. See Acts xviii. 5. From this it is obvious why he has not 
 
 1 Erasmus says aptly, Paraphr. : “Sed praedicavimus, non vacillarit, sed semper 
 non fallit Deus, cujus praesidio factum est, sui similis fuerit.” 
 ut sermo noster, quo vobis illius evangelium 
 
432 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 named others, as Apollos, but simply these (Calvin thinks, that these had 
 been most calumniated) ; hence also there is no need to suppose any inten¬ 
 tion of making his assurance more credible (Chrysostom, Thcophylact, and 
 many others). A side glance at the Christ preached by Judaistic opponents 
 (xi. 4) is here quite foreign to the connection (in opposition to Klopper, p. 
 8 G f.). — 'Ltlovavov ] Universally so with Paul (1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1) ; 
 also in 1 Pet. v. 12. In the Acts of the Apostles only the shortened name 
 hlac appears. Silvanus is here placed before Timothy, because he was an 
 older apostolic helper than the latter. See Acts xv. 22 ff. — ovk ejevero val 
 k. ov\ lie has not become affirmation and negation , has not showed Himself as 
 untrustworthy, as one who affirms and also denies (the fulfilment of the divine 
 promises, ver. 20), as one who had exhibited such contradiction in himself. 
 This Paul says of Christ Himself ’ in so far as in the personal objective Christ, 
 by means of his appearance and His whole work,, the vai in reference to the 
 divine promises, the affirmation of their fulfillment, is given as a matter of 
 fact . Wrongly most expositors (comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy- 
 lact) understand Xpiotoq as doctrina de Christo (“our gospel of Christ is not 
 changeable, sometimes one thing, sometimes another, but it remains ever 
 the same”), an interpretation here specially precluded by verses 20 and 21. 
 This may be urged also against the similar interpretation of Hofmann, that, 
 with the very fact that Christ has come to the readers through preaching , 
 there has gone forth a Yea (the affirmation of all divine promises), without 
 any intervention of Nay. Olshausen and Riickert take it rightly of Christ 
 Himself ; but the former puts in place of the simple meaning of the word 
 the thought not quite in keeping : “ Christ is the absolute truth, affirmation 
 prnre and simple; in Him is the real fulfilment of the divine promises ; in 
 Him negation is entirely wanting and the latter arbitrarily limits hyhero 
 merely to the experience of the Corinthians (“ among you He has not shown 
 Himself untrustworthy”). Paul, however, uses the words ovk kykvsTo val k. 
 ov of Christ in general, and by 6 kv vjulv . . . T tpoQ. directs the attention of 
 the Corinthians to the recognition of the truth on their part and out of their 
 own experience. —abha val kv avrej ykyovev ] of the two only the former, i.e. 
 affirmation (that the divine promises are fulfilled and shall be fulfilled) is es¬ 
 tablished in Him: in Christ is actually given the yea , that, etc. In the per¬ 
 fect ykyovev (different from the previous aorist b/evero) is implied the continu¬ 
 ance of what has happened. Comp, on Col. i. 16 ; John i. 3. Grotius, in 
 opposition to the context (see ver. 20), referred val kv aiirti yey. to the mira¬ 
 cles , by which Christ confirmed the apostolic preaching. And Beza awk¬ 
 wardly, and, on account of ver. 20, erroneously, took kv avry of God , whose 
 Son is “ constantissima Patris reritas. ” 
 
 Yer. 20. A more precise explanation and confirmation of val kv avroj yky- 
 ovev , running on to the end of .the verse. Hence boat . . . ayrjv is not to be 
 put in a parenthesis, as Griesbach, Scholz, and Ewald.— to vai and to ayr/v 
 cannot be synonymous, as most of the older commentators take them (re- 
 petit, ut ipsa repetitione rem magis confirmet,” Estius), for this is rendered 
 impossible by the correct reading Sid k. 6C avvov to a l ul/ v (see the critical re¬ 
 marks). Rather must the former be the cause (c ho) of the latter. And here 
 
CHAP. I., 21 . 
 
 433 
 
 the expression to ajur/v is without doubt to be explained from the custom in 
 worship, that in public prayer a general Amen was said as certifying the 
 general assurance of faith as to its being heard (see on 1 Cor. xiv. 1G). Ac¬ 
 cordingly to val and to a/ir/v are here to be distinguished in this way ; to vat, 
 as in the whole context, denotes the certainty objectively given (comp, on 
 that point, Rom. xv. 8), and to ayjv, the certainty subjectively existing, the 
 certainty of faith. Consequently : for, as many promises of God as there are 
 (in the O. T.), in Him is the yea (in Christ is given the objective guarantee 
 of their fulfilment) ; therefore through Him also the Amen takes place; there¬ 
 fore it comes to pass through Christ, that the Amen is said to God’s prom¬ 
 ises ; i.e. therefore also to Christ , to His work and merit, without which we 
 should want this certainty, is due the subjective certainty of the divine promises, 
 th a faith in their fulfilment. Billroth, indeed (and in the main, de Wette), 
 thinks the conception to be this : that the preachers of the gospel say the 
 Amen through their preaching, so that to vat refers to the living working 
 of God in Christ, in whom He fulfils His promises, and to ayrjv to the faith¬ 
 ful and stedfast preaching of these deeds of God. But the saying of Amen 
 expressed the assurance of faith, and was done by cdl; hence to auyv would 
 be in the highest degree unsuitable for denoting the praedicatio. Finally, 
 Riickert is quite arbitrary when he says that to vat relates to the fulfilment 
 of the prophecies wrought by the appearing of Christ Himself, and to aygv 
 to the erection of the church, ivhich had groicn out of that appearing. —The 
 article before vat and aifiv denotes the definite Yea and Amen, which relate 
 to the kTrayyeVtat 0 sov and belong to them. The article was not used before 
 in ver. 19, because no definite reference of the yea was yet specified. ■—rt3 
 0£'<j 7r poq 6o^av St’ T/ytb i>] a teleological definition to A’ avTov to ayi/v with the 
 emphatic prefixing of TtiQeu : to God's honour through us, i.e. what redounds 
 to the glorifying of God (viii. 19) through us. — A’ rjyuv] nostro ministerio 
 (Grotius), in so far, namely, as the ministry of the gospel-preachers brings 
 about the Amen, the assurance of faith in God’s promises, Rom. x. 14. 
 
 Yer. 21 f. A£] not specifying the ground of rc3 0e<p npbq do$av (Grotius), 
 nor confirming the assurance that he had preached without wavering (Bill¬ 
 roth), but continuative. Paul has just, with A’ r/yuv, pointed to the blessed 
 result which his working (and that of his companions) is bringing about, 
 namely, that the Amen of faith is said to all God’s promises to the glory of 
 God. But now he wishes to indicate also the inner divine life-principle, 
 on which this working and its result are based, namely, the Christian sted- 
 fastness, which is due to no other than to God Himself. — On the construc¬ 
 tion, comp. v. 5 ; hence Billroth (whom Olshausen follows) has incorrectly 
 taken 6 A fi^atuv . . . Qeoq as subject, and 6 teal otbpay. k.t.a. as predicate. 
 It is to be translated : ‘ ‘ And He who makes us stedfast with you toward 
 Christ, after He has also anointed us, is God; who also," etc. Since the 
 anointing precedes the /3ej3atovv, and is its foundation, and Paul has not 
 written 6 de xp'^ a C nai pepattiv k.tA., it is not to be regarded with the 
 expositors as qui autem confirmat et unxit, but aal xp' LCa S Vfhq is to be taken 
 as a definition subordinate to the (leftattiv, and nat as the also of the corre¬ 
 sponding relation ; otherwise, there would be a hysteron-proteron, which 
 
434 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corihthiahs. 
 
 there is no ground for supposing. — slg Xpicrov in relation to Christ, so 
 that we remain unshakenly faithful to Christ. Chrysostom well says : 6 py 
 eov i/pag wapacaXevecdai in rf/g iricreog rfjg elg r. Xpccrdv. The explanation : 
 into Christ (Billroth, Olshausen) has against it the present participle. For 
 the believers are already in Christ; their continued confirmation , see 
 on 1 Cor. i. 6) therefore could not but take place in Christo, Col. ii. 7, not in 
 Christum. — cvv vpiv] Paul adds, in order not to appear as if he were deny¬ 
 ing to the readers the fleftaioctg elg Xp/.crov. Estius says aptly : U ut eos in 
 hac sua defensione benevolos habeat.” This agrees with the whole tone of 
 the context ; but there is not, as Ruckert conjectures, a side glance at those 
 who had held the apostle to be a wavering reed. — xp' tca £ r/pag] here, with¬ 
 out cvv vpiv, is a figurative way of denoting the consecration to office (Luke 
 iv. 18 ; Acts iv. 27, x. 38 ; Heb. i. 9), i.e. to the office of teacher of the gos¬ 
 pel, without, however, pressing the expression so far as Chrysostom and 
 Theopliylact : Spov Trpo(p?fag ml iepeig k. ftaci^sag kpyacapevog. Whether, how¬ 
 ever, did Paul conceive the consecration as effected hy the call (Billroth, 
 Olshausen, Ruckert) or by the communication of the Spirit (Calvin, Grotius, 
 Estius, Osiander, and many others, following the ancient expositors) ? Yer. 
 22 is not opposed to the latter view (see below) ; and since the call to the 
 office is, in point of fact, something quite different from the consecration, 
 Xpicag is certainly to be referred to the holy consecration of the Spirit (comp. 
 Acts x. 38). Comp., further, 1 John ii. 20, 27, and Dusterdieck on 1 John 
 i. p. 355. An allusion to Xpicrov (Bengel, Osiander, Hofmann, and others) 
 would not be certain, even if there stood ml xp' iaa G Ka l vffig, because Xpicrov 
 is not used appellatively, but purely as a proper name. An anointing of 
 Christ (as at Luke iv. 18 ; Acts iv. 27, x. 38 ; Heb. i. 9) is as little men¬ 
 tioned by Paul as by John. If, however, it had been here in his mind, in 
 order to compare with it the consecration of the fjpeig, he could not but have 
 added cvv avro, or some similar more precise definition of the relation in¬ 
 tended, to make himself intelligible ; comp, the idea of the cv^oonoieiv cvv 
 Xpicro, and the like .—dual ctypayic. vpag k.t.'X,.^ is argumentative. How 
 could He leave us in the lurch unconfirmed, He, who has also sealed us, etc. ! 
 How would He come into contradiction with Himself ! This cQpayic. vpag 
 does not present the same thing, as was just expressed by xp' lGa t VP-i i 11 
 another figurative form; but by means of mi it adds an accessory new ele¬ 
 ment, 1 namely, the Messianic sealing conferred, although likewise through 
 the Holy Spirit (see the sequel), apart from the anointing, i.e. the inner con¬ 
 firmation of the Messianic corrjpia. Comp, on Eph. i. 13, iv. 30. It is not 
 added to what the sealing objectively relates (to the Messianic salvation), 
 because it is regarded as a familiar notion, well lenown in its reference. — ml 
 dovg k.t.7 l.] is epexegetical of 6 ctypayicap. rjpag, Winer, p. 407 [E. T. 545]. — 
 tov appa/3ova rov wvevparog] Comp. v. 5. The genitive is the genitive of ap¬ 
 position, as 1 Cor. v. 8 : the earnest-money, which consists in the Spirit, appafiov 
 (also with the Romans arrhabo or arrha) is properly rj ettI raig hvalg napa tov 
 
 1 Hence k<u is to be taken as also, not with pecially as KaX afipay. and <al 5ovs are not 
 the following <al , as well ... as also ; es- two acts essentially different. 
 
chap. 1., 23 , 24 . 
 
 435 
 
 ovovyevav didoykvrj 7TpoKaTa(3oXi) virkp ac^ahe'cag, Etym. M. ; Aristot. Pol. i. 4. 
 5 ; Lucian, Phet. praec. 17, 18. Then it is a figurative expression for the 
 notion guarantee. See in general Wetstein, and especially Kypke, Obss. 
 II. p. 239 f. For what the Holy Spirit is guarantee, Paul does not say, but 
 he presupposes it as an obvious fact in the consciousness of the readers, just 
 as he did with ctypayiody. The Holy Spirit is in the heart as an earnest- 
 money given for a guarantee of a future possession, the pledge of the future 
 Messianic salvation. Comp. v. 5 ; Eph. i. 14. How ? see Rom. viii. 2, 10 
 f., v. 5, viii. 15 if. ; Gal. iv. 6 f. ; Eph. v. 19. In appa/3., therefore, the 
 climax rd)v yelldvr ov ayadtiv (Theodoret) is characteristic. — kv raig 
 Kaptitaic ?///.] The direction is blended with the result, as viii. 1 : He gave the 
 Spirit, so that this Spirit is now in our hearts. Comp. viii. 16, and on John 
 iii. 35. 
 
 Yer. 23. After Paul has vindicated himself (vv. 16-22) from the suspicion 
 of fickleness and negligence raised against him on account of his changing 
 the plan of his journey, he proceeds in an elevated tone to give, with the 
 assurance of an oath (xi. 31 ; Rom. i. 9 ; Gal. i 20), the reason why he had 
 not come to Corinth.— kya> d£] Hitherto he has spoken communicative , not 
 talking of himself exclusively. How, however, to express his own self-de¬ 
 termination, he continues : but I for my own part , etc.—For examples of 
 kmnaheioOaL rov Qeov yaprvpa, see Wetstein. Comp. Horn. II. xxii. 254. Qeovg 
 huduyeOa’ rot yap apicroc ydprvpoi eccovrai , Plat. Legg. ii. p. 664 C. — knl r. 
 by. -i/wj.] not : against my soul, in which case it would be necessary arbi¬ 
 trarily to supply si falio (Grotius ; comp. Osiander and others, also Ernesti, 
 JJrspr. d. Sdnde , II. p. 102), but, in reference to {for) my soul, u in qua rerum 
 mearum mihi conscius sum, quam perimi nolim,” Bengel. It expresses the 
 moral reference of the invocation, and belongs to eninaA., in which act Paul 
 has in view that he thereby stakes the salvation (Heb. x. 39 ; 1 Pet. i. 9 ; 
 Jas. i. 21) or ruin of his soul (Rom. ii. 9). Comp, the second commandment. 
 — <peidoyevog vy.] exercising forbearance towards you. This was implied in the 
 very fact of his not coming. Had he come, it must have been kv pafldti, 1 
 Cor. iv. 21. Comp. ii. 1. — ovtckn ] not again, as would have accorded with 
 my former plan, ver. 16. 1 But since this former plan is altered already in 1 
 Cor. xvi. 5 f., the Itl in ovketc must refer to a visit preceding our first Epistle. 
 elg K opivdov] “ eleganter pro ad vos in sermone potestatem ostendente,” 
 Bengel. 
 
 Yer. 24. Guarding against a possible misunderstanding of (peiSoyevog. 
 Theodoret says aptly : tovto 6k d>c v<popyovv TeOeucev ; for the expression (psido - 
 yevoQ might be interpreted as a pretension to lordship over faith. — ovx brt\ 
 is equivalent to ovk kpu, on. See on John vi. 46, and Tyrwhitt, ad Arist. 
 Poet. p. 128. — Kvpievoyev /c.r.A.] The apostle knows that no lordship over 
 faith belongs to him ; how the faith in Christ is to be shaped among the 
 churches as respects contents, vital activity, etc., he has not to command, as 
 if he were lord over it, but only to teach, to rouse, and entreat (v. 20) there- 
 
 1 [The phrase is excellently well rendered in the Revised N. T., “ I forbare to come.”— 
 
 T. W. C.] 
 
436 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 to, to promote it by praise or blame, etc. The order nvp. vyuv r. Trier. 
 depends on the form of conception : we do not lord it over you as to faith. 
 Comp, on John xi. 32, and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 117 A, Rep. p. 518 
 C. This prefixing of the pronoun occurs very often in the N. T.; hence it 
 was the more preposterous to supply a kveKa before rrjg Trier. (Erasmus, Calvin, 
 Estius, Flatt, and others). — aX/ id evvcpyoi] hut (it is implied in my (petdopevog 
 v/uav) that we are joint helpers of your joy, that it is our business to be helpful 
 to you, so that you rejoice. To this destined aim an earlier coming would 
 have been opposed, because it would have caused grief (ii. 1). The ew in 
 evvepyoi refers to the union of the helping efficacy with the working of the 
 Corinthians themselves. Contrary to the context, Grotius suggests : “ cum 
 Deo et Christo,” which Osiander also imports. The x a P& is n °f to be taken 
 of the joy of blessedness (Grotius and others), but of the joy of the church 
 over the improvement and the success of the Christian life amongst them. Only 
 this agrees with the context, for the want of this success had been the 
 cause of Paul’s formerly coming kv 7Jknry to the Corinthians and of the 
 necessity for his coming again kv pafldu (1 Cor. iv. 21). — ryyap rrierei eerrjKare] 
 for in respect to faith ye stand ; the point of faith, in respect to which you 
 are firm and stedfast, is not now under discussion, (p 3 ) Note the emphatic 
 placing of rij Trier, first. Theophylact well says : ova ovv kv rovroig (roig Kara 
 Trier cv) slxov rt. pkpipaedac vpag' kv aXhorg 6k keaXveeOe. On the dative of more 
 precise definition, comp. Polyb. xxi. 9. 3 ; Rom. iv. 19, 20 ; Gal. v. 1 
 (Elzevir). It does not mean per fidem, Rom. xi. 20, asBengel and Hofmann 
 hold (through faith you have an independent and firm Bearing), in which 
 case w T e should have for kerijic. a very vague and indefinite conception ; but 
 it is, in substance, not different from kv ry Trier ei, 1 Cor. xvi. 13. 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (gg 3 ) “ The Father of mercies." Yer. 3. 
 
 On this expression, Stanley makes the unwarrantable remark that it com¬ 
 bines the two ideas that God’s essence consists in mercy, and also that He is 
 the father and the source of mercies. Neither of these ideas is in the words. 
 For the genitive is not that of source or effect, but of quality, as Meyer affirms, 
 so that the phrase gives us the conception of God as a being whose character¬ 
 istic is mercy ; but this is a very different thing from the crude and flabby 
 notion that His essence consists in mercy. For, if that be so, what becomes of 
 the other perfections which reason and Scripture compel us to attribute to 
 Him? 
 
 (hh s ) That we may he able to comfort. Yer. 4. 
 
 Paul was willing to be afflicted in order to be the bearer of consolation to 
 others. A life of ease is commonly stagnant. It is those who suffer much and 
 who experience much of the comfort of the Holy Ghost who live much. Their 
 life is rich in experience and resources (Hodge). 
 
NOTES. 
 
 437 
 
 (i 3 ) “ The sufferings of Christ in us. ’ ’ Ver. 5. 
 
 This means, as Meyer states, not sufferings on account of Christ, nor those 
 which He endures in His members, but such sufferings as Christ endured, and. 
 which His people are called upon to endure in virtue of their union with Him. 
 It is not enough simply to say that it is of the very nature of spiritual things 
 that they cannot be confined within themselves. It is a more specific truth 
 the Apostle has in view, viz. that as union with Christ was the source of 
 His afflictions, so it was the source of His abundant consolation. 
 
 (j 3 ) The reason of Paul's affliction and his comfort. Yv. 6, 7. 
 
 The order of the words in these verses is well given in the Revision of 1881. 
 The general sense is plain. If the Apostle was afflicted, it was for the salva¬ 
 tion of others ; if he was comforted, it was for their comfort. In this twofold 
 sense they were joint partakers in his joys and his sorrows. 
 
 (k 3 ) “ The sentence of death." Yer. 9. 
 
 The Revised N. T. begins this verse with Yea instead of But (so Stanley and 
 Principal Brown), which certainly seems more vivid. Meyer's objection is 
 hardly tenable.—The Revised rendering answer of the first noun, now gener¬ 
 ally adopted, is wonderfully expressive and emphatic. It means, “ Whenever I 
 have put to myself the question, What will be the issue of this continuous con¬ 
 flict? the answer has been, Death.” 
 
 (n 3 ) “ And doth deliver Yer. 10. 
 
 Westcott and Hort as well as Tischendorf adopt the future reading, “and 
 will deliver,” which is given also in the Revised N. T. This reading is best 
 sustained externally, but the internal evidence is all the other way. It is a 
 precious assurance that God did, does, and will deliver, as the three tenses of 
 the common reading declare. 
 
 (m 3 ) “ From many countenances .” Ver. 11. 
 
 A graphic picture is given in this phrase, “from many (upturned)faces,” as 
 of men looking up to God in prayer and praise. Meyer’s view is sustained, as 
 he shows, by the invariable usage of the New Testament. 
 
 (n 3 ) As God is faithful. Yer. 18. 
 
 Meyer’s objection to this rendering has weight, yet his own is far from being 
 unimpeachable. It paraphrases the passage rather than translates it, and is 
 certainly constrained and awkward. "Whereas the other gives a noble sense : 
 “ As God is true, my preaching is true.” Paul's confidence in the truth of the 
 Gospel as he proclaimed it was one and the same with his confidence in God. 
 To tell him that it was not to be depended upon was all the same in his mind 
 with saying that God was not to be believed. 
 
 (o 3 ) Anointing, sealing, earnest. Yer. 22. 
 
 The first of these words cannot refer to official chrism, but must denote the 
 unction common to all Christians (1 John, ii. 20). The second denotes the 
 
438 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CQRINTHIANS. 
 
 authentication and preservation of believers, a seal being used both to prove 
 genuineness and to maintain inviolate. The third is unusually strong, indi¬ 
 cating that the indwelling of the Spirit here and now is an instalment, a first- 
 fruits of what is to come, and so a very special pledge of its certain attainment. 
 
 ( P 3) “ By faith ye stand.” Yer. 24. 
 
 Stanley gives the sense thus : “ We are but co-operators with you in produc¬ 
 ing not your grief, but your joy : and so far from our being the masters of your 
 faith, it is by your faith that you stand independently of us.” 
 
CHAP. II., 1. 
 
 439 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Yer. 1. TvaXiv ev "Xviry tt pog vpdig khOelv] Elz. : tlclTuv khdeiv kv "hoTty npog vjudg, 
 in opposition to ABCKL K, min. Theodoret, Damasc., also in opposition to 
 D E F G, 14, 120, al, Syr. Arm. Ynlg. It. Chrys. Theophyl. and the Latin 
 Fathers, who have tv aAtv ev Xvny ehOelv npog vjudg (so Tisch.). The Becepta 1 is 
 evidently a transposition to connect irdTuv with ehQeiv, because it was supposed 
 that Paul had been only once in Corinth. —Ver. 2. eonv after rig is wanting in 
 A B C X, Copt. Syr. Cyr. Dam. Lachm. Tisch. Supplemental addition. —Ver. 
 3. v[uv\ after eyp. is to be struck out as an explanatory addition. So Lachm. 
 and Tisch., who follow ABC* N* 17, Copt. Arm. Damasc. Ambrosiast. —Ver. 
 3. Tivtttjv] D E F G, min. Yulg. It. Syr. p. Pel. Beda : hvnyv enl avtttjv. Ampli¬ 
 fication, in accordance with ver. 1. —Ver. 7. pdh aov] is wanting in A B. Syr. 
 Aug. (deleted by Biickert). In D E F G, Theodoret, it stands only after vjudg. 
 As it was superfluous, it was sometimes passed over, sometimes transposed. — 
 Yer. 9. Instead of el, A and B have y. But how easily might el be dropped 
 before elg (so in 80), and then be variously replaced (109 : (if)! — Yer. 10. o 
 nexapeapaL, el ri nexapiopai] So A B C F G X, min. Yulg. It. Damasc. Jer. Am¬ 
 brosiast. Pacian. Pel. Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Buck. Tisch. But Elz. has el tl 
 K exapLopai, & Kexdpicpai, defended by Beiche. This reading arose from the 
 Codd., which read (evidently in accordance with the previous <p) $ nexapiojuai, 
 ' el tl nexQ-pt-Guai (so still D*** E, 31, 37). The repetition of nexapiopai caused 
 the el tl nex . to be left out ; 2 afterwards it was restored at a wrong place. — 
 Yer. 16. Before davaTov and before farjg there stands a in A B C K, min. Copt. 
 Aeth. Clem. Or. and other Fathers. Bightly ; the en seemed contrary to the 
 sense, and was therefore omitted. Accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., rejected 
 by Beiche.—Ver. 17. ol tzo'XIo'l] D E E G L, min. and some versions and 
 Fathers have ol loinol, which Mill favoured, Griesbach recommended, and 
 Beiche defended. But ol 7 toIaol has preponderating evidence ; loinoi was a 
 modifying gloss, and displaced the other. — aaTevuniov ] KarevavTi, as well as 
 the omission of the following article, has preponderating attestation, and 
 hence, with Lachm. and Buck., it is to be preferred. 
 
 Yv. 1-4. Continuation of what was begun in i. 23. 
 
 Yer. 1. "'EiKpiva 6e e/uavTd> tovto ] 6e is the usual jueTaflaTinSv, which leads on 
 from the assurance given by Paul in i. 23, to the thought that he in his own 
 interest (epavTti, dativus commodi ; for see ver. 2) was not willing to come 
 again to them ev Iviry. (q 3 ) — The interpretation apud me (Vulgate, Luther, 
 Beza, and many others) would require izap’ epavTdi or ev e/u. (1 Cor. vii. 37, xi. 
 13). Paul, by means of e/xavTd), gives to the matter an ingenious, affection- 
 
 1 Which, perhaps, has no authorities at the copyist took place, as still 39, 73, Aeth. 
 
 all; see Reiche, Comm. Crit. I. p. 355 f. Ambr. have merely o Kexapur/aai. 
 
 2 Also with the reading o this omission of 
 
440 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 ate turn, regarding the truth of which, however, there is no doubt. — inpivd] 
 I determined, as 1 Cor. ii. 2, vii. 27. As to the emphatically preparatory 
 tovto with following infinitive accompanied by the article, comp, on Rom. 
 xiv. 13, and Kruger, § li. 7. 4. — irdTuv] belongs to kv limy npog vp. eWeiv, 
 taken together , so that Paul had once already (namely, on his second arrival) 
 come to the Corinthians hv Army. The connection with eWeiv merely (Pela- 
 gius, Primasius, Theodoret, and the most ; also Flatt, Baur, Reiche), a con¬ 
 sequence of the error that Paul before our Epistles had been only once in 
 Corinth, 1 is improbable even with the Recepta (the more suitable order of the 
 words would be : to jut) hv avT ty irdliv hWeiv repog vpag), but is impossible both 
 w r ith our reading and with that of Tischendorf (see the critical remarks), un¬ 
 less we quite arbitrarily suppose, with Grotius (comp, also Reiche), a trajectio, 
 or, with Baur, I. p. 342, an inaccuracy of epistolary style. — hv Ivizy] provided 
 with affliction (Bernhardy, p. 109 ; comp. Rom. xv. 29), bringing affliction 
 with me, i.e. afflicting you. This explanation (Theodoret, Calvin, Grotius, 
 and others, including Ewald) is, indeed, held by Hofmann to be impossible 
 in itself, but is required by the following ei yap hyiv Ivt r« vpag. Hence Bill¬ 
 roth and Hofmann, following Chrysostom and many others, are wrong in 
 thinking that the apostle's own sadness is meant ; and so also Bengel, Ols- 
 hausen, Riickert, de Wette, Reiche, Neander, following Ambrosiaster, and 
 others, who think that it is also included. That it is not meant at all, is 
 shown b} r (peidopevog , i. 23, and by the coupling of what follows with yap. 
 Comp, hv paj3d(a, 1 Cor. iv. 21. The apparent difficulty, that Paul in our 
 first Epistle makes no mention whatever of the fact and manner of his 
 former visit to Corinth when he caused affliction, is obviated by the consid¬ 
 eration that only after our first Epistle was the change of plan used to the 
 apostle’s disadvantage, and that only now was he thereby compelled to men¬ 
 tion the earlier arrival which had been made hv limy. Hence this passage is 
 not a proof for the assumption of a journey to Corinth between our two Epis¬ 
 tles (see the Introd.). 
 
 Ver. 2. As reason for his undertaking not to come to his readers again hv 
 l.viry, Paul states that he on his own part could not in this case hope to find 
 any joy among them. Comp. ver. 3. For if I afflict you , who is there also to 
 give me joy, except him who is afflicted by me? — i.e., if I on my part (hyu is em¬ 
 phatic 2 ) make you afflicted, then results the contradiction that the very one 
 who is afflicted by me is the one who should give me joy. Against this view 
 Billroth and Riickert object that ei py . . . hpov is superfluous, and even in 
 the way. No ; it discloses the absurdity of the case conditioned by ei hyo> 
 
 1 This error has compelled many to get 
 out of the difficulty by conceiving our first 
 Epistle as the first coming Zv Avny/. So 
 Chrysostom, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, and 
 others. Lange, Apostol. Zeitait. I. p. 204, 
 believes that he has found another way : 
 that Paul had the very first time come to 
 Corinth in affliction (1 Cor. ii. 1 ff.), which 
 affliction he had brought with him from 
 Athens. As if in 1 Cor. ii. 1 ff. he is speaking 
 
 of a Avjrrj ! and as if a Avnrj brought with 
 him from Athens , though nowhere proved, 
 would have anything to do with the Corin¬ 
 thians ! 
 
 2 This emphasis is usually not recognized. 
 But in the eyw there lies a contrast to others 
 who do not stand in such an intimate rela¬ 
 tion to the readers as Paul. Comp. Osian- 
 der. 
 
CHAP. II., 3 . 
 
 441 
 
 /lv7tcj vudg. Pelagius, Bengel, and others, including Billroth, render : who 
 yet so much gladdens me as he who lets himself be afflicted by me (which is a 
 sign of amendment) ? Comp. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, Erasmus, and 
 others. So also Olshausen, who sees here an indirect warning to take the 
 former censure more to heart. But against this perversion of 6 hvirovyevog in 
 a middle sense, we may decisively urge :—(1) that the sense of ver. 2 would 
 not stand in any relation to ver. 1 as furnishing a reason for it ; and (2) the 
 ovx ' Lva ’hv-KrjdyTe in ver. 4. Riickert sees in el . . . vyag an aposiopesis ; then 
 begins a new question, which, contains the reason why he may not afflict 
 them, because it would be unloving, nay, ungrateful, to afflict those who 
 cause him so much joy. Hence the meaning, touchingly expressed, is : “1 
 might not come to you afflicting you ; for if I had done so, I should have af¬ 
 flicted just those who give me joy : this would have been unloving on 
 my part. ” This is all the more arbitrary, since, logically at least, it must have 
 stood in the converse order : adi rig eartv 6 Xvwovyevoc e^ eyov el yi) 6 eixppatvuv 
 ye. Hofmann holds still more arbitrarily and oddly that el -yap is elliptical 
 protasis, and eyb Au~cj vydg apodosis : if I come to you again in affliction, I 
 make you afflicted, and who is there then who gladdens me, except him whom 
 affliction coming from me befalls ? The well-known omission of the verb in 
 the* protasis after el is, in fact, a usage of quite another nature (see Hartung, 
 Partikell. II. p. 213 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Pep. p. 497 ; Kruger, § lxv. 5. 11). 
 Besides, this subtlety falls with Hofmann’s view of ver. 1.— nal] also , ex¬ 
 presses after the conditional clause the simultaneousness of what is contained 
 in the apodosis, consequently without the interrogative form : there is also no 
 one, etc. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 130 f. ; Buttmann, neut. Gramm, p. 
 311 [E. T. 362 ].—6 IvKovyevog] does not mean the incestuous person (so, 
 against the entire connection, Beza, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Ileumann); 
 but the singular of the jiarticiple with the article denotes the one who gives 
 joy, as such, in abstracto. Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 13, al. ; Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 20, al. 
 Paul might have written rives elclv ol k.t.a., but he was not under necessity of 
 doing so. — e% eyoi >] source of the Av-rreicOai. See Bernhardy, p. 227 ; Schoem. 
 ad Is. p. 348 ; Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 460]. Comp. a<j>’ uv, ver. 3 ; but eg is 
 ‘ ‘ quid dam penitius,” Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 3 appends what Paul had done in consequence of the state of things 
 mentioned in ver. 1 f.: And I hare written (not reserved till I could commu¬ 
 nicate orally) this very thing, i.e. exactly what I have written, in order not, 
 when I shall have come, to have affliction, etc. — eypmpa] placed first with em¬ 
 phasis, corresponds to the following elOuv, and does not at all refer to 
 the present Epistle (Chrysostom and his followers, Grotius, and others, 
 including Olshausen), against which opinion vv. 4, 9 are decisive, but to our 
 first Epistle, the contents of which in reference to this point are rendered 
 present by rovro avro ; as indeed ovrog is used often of what is well known, 
 which is pointed to as if it were lying before one (Kuhner, II. p. 325). 
 That Paul is thinking of the passages of censure and rebuke in the first Epis¬ 
 tle (especially of chap, v. 1 ), results from the context, and suffices for its ex- 
 
 1 Not merely iv. 21, wherein the v-y) ev Avnj] iXPeiv is held to be contained (Calovius, 
 Osiandex-). iv. 21 was only a casual threat. 
 
442 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 planation, so that the reference to a lost letter sent along with Titus (Bleek, 
 Neander, Ewald, Klopper ; see Introd. § 1) i& not required. With Tkeo- 
 doret, Erasmus, Morus, Flatt, Riickert, Hofmann, 1 to take tovto avro as in 2 
 Pet. i. 5, for tins very reason , cannot in itself be objected to (Bernhardy, p. 
 130 ; Kiihner, § 549, A. 2 ; Ast, ad Plat. Leg. p. 214 ; and see on Gal. ii. 
 10 and on Phil. i. G ); but here, where Paul has just written in ver. 1 tovto 
 as the accusative of the object, and afterwards in ver. 9 expresses the sense 
 for this reason by elg roin-o, there is no ground for it in the context. — Iva yrj 
 /c.r.A] Since his arrival was at that time still impending, and Paul conse¬ 
 quently denotes by iva . . . exu a purpose still continuing in the present, 
 the subjunctive exo> (or cr^«, as Lachmann, Riickert, and Tiscliendorf, read, 
 following A B K *, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius) after the pre¬ 
 terite eypaxpa is quite accurate (Matthiae, p. 1180); and Riickert is wrong 
 when he takes LXBhv hypothetically (if I had come ), and refers to the past. 
 In that case, Paul could not hut have used the optative. — a<p' uv] anb tovtuv , 
 a<f o)v. See Bornern. Schol. in Luc. p. 2. — a-rro, on the part of. Xaipeiv does 
 not elsewhere occur w T ith avro, but EvQpaiveaOac is similarly joined with cnro, 
 Xen. Hier. iv. 6 ; Judith xii. 20. —fdei] The imperfect indicates what prop¬ 
 erly (in the nature of the relation) ought to be, but what, in the case contem¬ 
 plated of the TivTcrjv is not. See Matthiae, p. 1138 f. — tvettoiOuq k.t.X.] 
 subjective reason assigned for the specified purpose of the eypaipa : since I 
 cherish the confidence towards you all , etc. Paul therefore says that, in order 
 that he might find no affliction w r hen present among them, he has communi¬ 
 cated the matter by letter, because he is convinced that they w r ould find 
 their own joy in his joy (which, in the present instance, could not but be 
 produced by the doing away of the existing evils according to the instruc¬ 
 tions of his letter).— h rt] of the direction of the confidence towards the 
 readers. Comp. 2 Thess. iii. 4 ; Matt, xxvii. 43 ; Ps. cxxiv. 1. In classi¬ 
 cal authors usually with the dative, as i. 9. — rravTac vyag] This, in spite of 
 the anti-Pauline part of the church, is the language of the love which rcavTa 
 tugtevei , rravTa eAmfri, 1 Cor. xiii. 7. “ Quodsi Pauli opinioni judicioque 
 
 non respondeant Corinthii indigne eum frustrantur, ” Calvin. 
 
 Yer. 4. Reason assigned for the ttettolQIh; k.t.1. For if L in icriting the 
 Epistle had not had that confidence , the Epistle would not have caused me so 
 much grief and so many tears. In the very contrast of this confidence w T ith 
 the necessity of having to write in such a manner lay the great pain. — he 
 and 6ta vividly represent the origin of the letter as a going forth and a press¬ 
 ing through : out of much affliction and anxiety of heart L wrote to you through 
 many tears. And this Paul might say, even if he had not himself held the 
 pen. — OlhpiQ and awoxh ( anxiety , Luke xxi. 25 : not so among the Greeks, 
 but see Schleusner, Thes. Y. p. 212) do not refer to outward, but to inward 
 
 1 Hofmann, in accordance with his inter¬ 
 pretation of tovto avro , “for this very rea¬ 
 son ,which serves to point to the following 
 'iva nn k.t.A., thus defines the relation of vv. 
 1 and 3 : This is what I resolved for myself, 
 that I would not again come to you in sor¬ 
 
 row of heart. And this is the very reason 
 why I wrote to you: I did not wish to have 
 sorrow of heart on my arrival, etc. This is 
 what Paul by the composition of his Epis¬ 
 tle had wished to obtain for his sojourn, 
 when he should come. 
 
CHAP. II., 5 . 
 
 443 
 
 suffering, as both are defined by napdiaQ. Riickert concludes from the calm 
 tone of the first Epistle that Paul 11 had from prudent consideration known 
 how to impose such restraint on his state of feeling, that the Epistle might 
 not reflect any faithful picture of it.” But this would have been cunning 
 dissimulation, not in keeping with the apostle’s character. No ; it was 
 just his specially tender care for the Corinthians which on the one hand in¬ 
 creased his pain that he needed to write such rebukes, and on the other hand 
 did not allow his vehement emotion to emerge in that Epistle ; hence w r e 
 must not say that the quiet character of our first Epistle is not psychologi¬ 
 cally in keeping with the utterance of this passage. In particular, 1 Cor. v. 
 might have caused the apostle anxiety and tears enough, without our needing 
 to suppose an intermediate letter (see on ver. 3). — daupvuv] Comp. Acts xx. 
 19, 31. Calvin aptly says : “ mollitiem testantur, sed magis heroicam, 
 quam fuerit ilia ferrea Stoicorum durities.” — ov% tva, XvKr/dqre, a?J,a k.t.X.\ 
 This added explanation regarding the purpose of his letter, to him so painful, 
 is intended also to corroborate the ttett oidug k.t.X., of which he has given as¬ 
 surance. — ttJv ayarrijv ] placed first for emphasis. — Treptoaor. ] rj (elf) rove 
 a/iAovg fxadrjrac, Theophylact, who, following Chrysostom, also directs atten¬ 
 tion to the winning tenderness of the words ( ' par ay Iv naive l de rov loyov /3ov?i6- 
 /uevog ETTKJTrdaaoOat aiirovg). Comp. i. 12. The love of the apostle for his 
 churches has along wuth its universality its various degrees, just as the love 
 of a father for his children. The PhilijDpians also were specially dear to 
 him. 
 
 Vv. 5-11. Digression regarding the pardon to be granted to the in¬ 
 cestuous person.—That the incestuous person is meant, as even Klopper 
 maintains in spite of his assumption of a lost intermediate letter, is denied 
 by Tertullian (de Pudicitid , 13) simply for dogmatic-ascetic reasons. The 
 exclusion, which Paul demanded in the first Epistle, v. 13, left open the 
 possibility of a return to the communion of the church by the path of suit¬ 
 able penitence and expiation ; as may be gathered also from 1 Cor. v. 5, 
 where the apostle’s threat of the higher excommunication, of the giving over 
 to Satan, contemplates in this punishment the conversion and saving of the 
 offender, and consequently shows clearly that in the apostle’s eyes the penal 
 procedure of the church, even in the case of so grave a sin, was of a paed- 
 agogic nature in reference to the person of the evil-doer. The jmnance of 
 the latter, however, as well as that of the whole church on his account (vii. 
 7. ff.), may have really been so deeply and keenly manifested, that Paul, in 
 accordance wuth the now changed state of things, might express himself in 
 such a mild, conciliatory w T ay as he does here. And there is no sufficient 
 ground in the passage for the assumption of an intermediate letter, or that 
 there is here meant, not the unchaste person, but a slanderer rebuked by 
 Paul in this intermediate letter (see Introd. § 1). Besides, the mild, soft 
 tone of the present passage, if it referred to such a personal opponent, would 
 not be in keeping with the quite different way in which, from chap. x. 
 onwards, he pours forth his apostolic zeal against his personal ojDponents 
 and slanderers. 
 
 Ver. 5. “ To cause grief among you w T as not my intention (ver. 4) ; he, 
 
444 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the coeinthians. 
 
 however, who has (really) caused grief has not grieved me.” In other 
 words : “I did not wish to grieve you ; one of you, however, has with his 
 afflicting influence, not affected me, but,” etc. Olshausen connects ver. 5 
 with ver. 3 : “if, however, any one formerly has awakened grief.” But 
 how arbitrary it is to leap over the natural reference to the immediately 
 preceding IvirpOyre ! And if the “ formerly ” made the contrast, it must have 
 been somehow expressed. — In the hypothetical el, as in the indefinite rig, 
 there lies a delicate, tender forbearance. — ovk ipe IeIvtcpkev, all'] Paul does 
 not say ov povov, alia nai , because as concerns the relation of the matter to 
 himself he wishes absolutely to deny that he is the injured party. He could 
 do this, because he did not belong to the church, and he wishes to leave 
 wholly out of view his position as apostle and founder of the church in the 
 interest of love and pardon. Olshausen thinks that he wishes indirectly to 
 refute the erroneous position of some (impenitent) Corinthians towards the 
 case of the incestuous person ; that many, namely, had lamented much 
 to the apostle about the solicitude which that unhappy person had caused 
 to him ; and that, in order to make these turn from him to themselves, he 
 says that the question is not about him, but about them, that they should 
 look to their own pain. But of this alleged direction to occupy themselves 
 with their own pain, there is nothing whatever in what follows ; and the 
 apostle would have set forth in more precise terms a rebuke so weighty ; it 
 was not at all fitting here, where the touched heart beats only with mildness 
 and forgiveness.— ?.e1vttj]kev] Bengel says aptly: “ contristatum habet.” 
 — all' (iTcb pf.povg k.t.1. ] Imt in'part, that I may not burden him (with greater 
 guilt), you all. and uepovg, which Paul adds (pEibopEvog avrov (Chrysostom), 
 softens the thought in IeIvtttikev Travrag vpag, while it expresses that the grief 
 is only in a partial degree, not wdiolly and fully (as on the one immediately 
 concerned) inflicted on all, i.e. on the whole church by means of moral sympa¬ 
 thy ; only quodammodo . (see Fritzsche JDiss. I. p. 1G ff.), therefore, are the 
 readers all affected by that grief as sharers in it. The Iva pi] emflapa (sc. 
 avrov ) contains the purpose, for which he had added the softening limitation 
 Inzb pepovg. Beza, Calvin (in the Commentary), Calovius, Hammond, Hom- 
 berg, Wolf, Estius, and others, following Chrysostom, agree with this 
 punctuation and explanation ; also Emmerling, Fritzsche, Ruckert, de 
 Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald. Yet Riibiger explains it is if Paul had 
 written exsdov instead of awb pipovg. But others read Iva /up huft. navrag vp. 
 together : he has not grieved me (alone and truly), but only in part (conse¬ 
 quently you also) ; in order that I may not lay something to the charge of you 
 all; for, if he had grieved me alone, you would all have been indifferent 
 towards the crime. So Thomas, Lyra, Luther, Castalio, Zeger, Bengel, 
 Wetstein, and others, including Flatt. Incorrectly, because ovk eye and all' 
 enrb pepovg cannot be antitheses. Mosheim and Billroth separate navrag and 
 vpag : he has not grieved me, but in part, that I may not accuse all, you ; for 
 I will not be unjust, and give you all the blame of having been indifferent 
 towards that crime. At variance wfith the words ; for, according to these, 
 with this punctuation they whom Paul accuses (hrLfiapet) must appear to be 
 not the indifferent, but those grieved by the incest. Olshausen also follows 
 
CHAP. II., 6. 
 
 445 
 
 this punctuation, but finds in and /uepovg, iva yy bn/3. navrag a delicate irony 
 (comp, also Michaelis, who, however, follows our punctuation), in so far 
 as Paul would have held it as the highest praise of the Corinthians, if he 
 could have said : he has grieved you without exception. Since he could not 
 have said this, he wittily turns his words in this way : he has not grieved 
 me, but, as regards a part, you, in order that I may not burden you all with 
 this care. But this very wit and irony are quite foreign to the mild tone 
 and the conciliatory disposition of this part of the Epistle. Hofmann takes 
 ovk £/ue le?„v7r. as a question , after which there comes in with alia the con¬ 
 trast {nevertheless) which continues over ver. 5 and includes ver. 6 ; in this 
 case cnto yepovg is temporal in meaning (yet is “ first enough’’); and iva yy 
 emfiapo) rravrag vyag, which is to be taken together, is meant to say that the 
 apostle, if he expressed himself dissatisfied with what had been done by the 
 majority, would burden the whole church with the pain of knowing that 
 one of their members was under the ban of sin which remained unforgiven 
 on the part of the apostle ; lastly, the bro tuv ttIeiovuv stands in opposition 
 to a minority, which had wished to go beyond the punishment decreed, a 
 minority which is included in rravrag. But all this involved explanation is 
 inadmissible, partly because the blunt question ova kye lelvn., bringing 
 forward so nakedly a sense of personal injury, would be sadly out of unison 
 with the shrewdly conciliatory tone of the whole context ; partly because 
 and yepovg, taken of time , is as linguistically incorrect as at i. 14, and would 
 also furnish the indelicate thought of an umvoryg with reservation, and till 
 something further ; partly because the complexity of thought, which is said to 
 lie in bnfiapu, is just imported into it ; partly because the supposition that 
 the minority of the church would have gone still further in the punishment 
 than the resolution of the majority went, is without any ground, nay, is in 
 the highest degree improbable after the reproach of too great indulgence, 1 
 Cor. v .— On kmfiapelv, comp. 1 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; Dion. Hal. iv. 
 9, viii. 78 ; Appian, B. C. iv. 81. Comp. /3apog of the burden of a feeling 
 of guilt, Gal. vi. 2. (u 3 ) 
 
 Ver. 6. 'Itcavov] something sufficient is, etc. Regarding this substantive 
 use of the neuter of the predicate adjective, see Matthiae, p. 982 ; Kiihner, 
 II . p . 45. Comp. Matt. vi. 34. — tQ> tolovtu] for one of such a nature; how 
 forbearing it is here that no more definite designation is given ! —?) exiTi/aia 
 avry\ this punishment. What it was, every reader knew. Comp, on ver. 8. 
 ■f] kniriyia (which in classic writers denotes the franchise of a citizen, Demos¬ 
 thenes, 230, 10, al.), in the signification poena, like the Greek ro brcriyLov 
 (Dem. 915, 1 ; 939, 27, al.), y buriyyag (Wisd. xii. 26), and ro bnriyyya 
 (Inscript.), occurs only here in the N. T., but elsewhere also in Wisd. iii. 10, 
 in ecclesiastical writers, and in acts of councils (not in Philo). It is not 
 merely objurgatio (Vulgate ; comp. Beza, Calvin, and others, (s 3 ) — y vrrb tuv 
 nleidvov ] which by the majority (of the church) has been assigned to him. 
 That the presbyterium is not meant (Augustine, Beza, Grotius, Valesius, and 
 others), is shown by the article. There is a further question here, whether 
 the excommunication enjoined by Paul, 1 Cor. v., was carried out or not 
 (Beza, Calvin, Morus, Riickert, Hofmann). Most assume the former, so 
 
446 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the coiitkthians. 
 
 that they refer imv6v to the sufficient duration of the excommunication. 1 But 
 an accomplished full excommunication is not to be assumed on account of 
 the very virb rtiv nXeiovuv ; but it is probable that the majority of the church 
 members, in consequence of the kgapare rov novqpov (1 Cor. v. 13 ; comp, 
 ver. 2), had considered the sinner as one excommunicated, and had given 
 up all fellowship with him. By this the majority had for the present suffi¬ 
 ciently complied with the expressed will of the apostle. To the minority 
 there may have belonged partly the most lax in morals, and partly also 
 opponents of the apostle, the latter resisting him on principle.—Riickert, 
 however, supported by Baur and Rabiger, regards Paul’s judgment havov 
 k.t.s l., as a prudent turn given to the matter, by which, in order to avoid an 
 open rupture, he represents what would have happened even without his 
 wfill to be his own wish. But what justifies any one in attributing to him 
 conduct so untruthful ? The real and great repentance of the sinner (ver. 7) 
 induced the apostle to overlook the incompleteness in carrying out his 
 orders for excommunication, and now from real sincere conviction to pro¬ 
 nounce the i/cavov and desire his pardon. Comp, above on vv. 5-11. Had 
 Paul not been really convinced that the repentance of the evil-doer had 
 already begun (as even Lipsius, Pechtfertigungsl. p. 183, is inclined to 
 suppose), he would here have pursued a policy of church-discipline quite at 
 variance with his character. Calvin judges very rightly of this passage : 
 “ Locus diligenter observandus ; docet enim, qua aequitate ct dementia 
 temperanda sit disciplina ecclesiae, ne rigor modum excedat. Severitate 
 opus est, ne impunitate (quae peccancli illecebra merito vocatur) mali red- 
 dantur audaciores ; sed rursus, quia periculum est, ne is qui castigatur 
 animum despondeat, hie adhibenda est moderatio, nempe ut ecclesia, simu- 
 latque resipiscentiam illius certo cognoverit, ad danclam veniam sit parata.” 
 
 Yer. 7. So that you , on the contrary , rather (j potius ) pardon and comfort. 
 This is the consequence which ensued, connected with the utterance of 
 inavbv k.t.1. Hence the notion of delv (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 754 ; Kuhner, 
 ad. Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 1) is not here to be supplied, as Billroth and Olshausen 
 wish, following the older commentators. It is not said what ought to happen , 
 but what, according to the apostle’s conception, ensued as a necessary and 
 essential consequence of the havov k.t. A. (Kuhner, II. p. 564). The jap/cracrftaq 
 however, is not at variance with the reference to the adulterer (because for¬ 
 giveness belongs to God—Bleek, Neander), for what is here spoken of in a 
 general way is only the pardon, which the church imparts in reference to the 
 offence produced in it, the pardon of Christian brethren (Eph. iv. 32 ; Col. 
 iii. 20). — Ty TrepLcaorepa hvjry] through the higher degree of affliction , which, 
 namely, would be the consequence of the refusal of pardon, and certainly of 
 the eventual complete excommunication. — naraTrody ] Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54; 
 1 Pet. v. 8. This being swallowed up is explained by some, of dying (Grotius, 
 according to his view of an illness of the sinner), by others, of suicide , or of 
 
 1 Most strange is the judgment of Grotius, Corinthiorvm imniiserat. Paul had, in fact, 
 
 that the apostle is here speaking not de res- not really ordained the giving over to Sa- 
 
 tituenda communione , but de auferendo tan at all. See on 1 Cor. v. 5. 
 
 morbo , quern ei Satan as ad preces piorum 
 
CHAP. II., 8 , 9 . 
 
 447 
 
 apostasy from Christianity (the latter is held by Theodoret, Pclagius, and 
 others, also Flatt ; Kypke and Stolz, following Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 and others, leave a choice between the two); or as conveying a hint that the 
 Iv-n-rj bordering on despair might drive him into the world, and he might 
 be devoured by its prince (Olshausen). The latter point : “by the prince 
 of the world,” is quite arbitrarily imported. The sadness (conceived as a 
 hostile animal) is what swallows up. The context gives nothing more pre¬ 
 cise than the notion : to be brought by the sadness to despair , to the aban¬ 
 doning of all hope and of all striving after the Christian salvation. 1 Comp, 
 on tear arrive tv in the sense of destroying, Jacobs, Animadv. in Athen. p. 315. 
 
 Ver. 8. Kvpuaai elg avr. ayarr.] to resolve in reference to him love — i.e. 
 through a resolution of the church to determine regarding him, that he be 
 regarded and treated as an object of Christian brotherly love. On avpovv , of 
 a resolution valid in law, comp. Herodotus, vi. 80, 126 ; Thuc. viii. 69 ; 
 Polyb. i. 11. 3, i. 17. 1 ; Diod. Sic. ii. 9 ; Gal. iii. 15 ; Gen. xxiii. 20 ; 
 4 Macc. vii. 9. See Blomfield, ad AescTi. Prom. Gloss. 70, and Pers. 232. 
 Here also (comp, on ver. 6) Ruckert again finds a prudent measure of the 
 ajmstle, whereby the form, if not also the thing (the apostolic approval), is 
 saved. A diplomacy, which would be the opposite of i. 13. 
 
 Yer. 9. Yv. 9 and 10 are not to be placed in a parenthesis, nor ver. 9 alone 
 (Flatt) ; but the discourse proceeds without interruption. Yer. 9, namely, 
 begins to furnish grounds for the Kvpuaat etc avrdv ayarrrjv, and, first of all, 
 from the aim of the former Epistle , which aim (in reference to the relation 
 to the incestuous person in the case of most of them at least) was attained, 
 so that now nothing on this point stood in the way of the Kvptbaat k.t.1. 
 “ Correcta enim eorum segnitie nihil jam obstabat, quominus hominem pros¬ 
 tratum et jacentem sua mansuetudine erigerent,” Calvin. —elg tovto] points 
 to the following Iva k.t.1., comp. ver. 1. It is : for this end in order that, 
 etc. — Kal eyparpa is not to be translated as if it stood : nal yap elg tovto eyparpa 
 (Flatt), following the older commentators), but as, rightly, in the Yulgate: 
 “ ideo enim et scripsiP The nai, however, cannot be intended to mark the 
 agreement with the present admonition (Hofmann), because Paul does not 
 quote what he had written ; but it opposes the written to the oral commu¬ 
 nication (comp. vii. 12), and rests on the conception : I have not confined 
 myself merely to oral directions (through your returning delegates), but— 
 what should bind you all the more to observance—I have also written. 
 This eyparpa, however, does not apply to the present Epistle (Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Menochius, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann, 
 Schulz, Morus, Olshausen, and others), but, as the whole context shows 
 (comp. vv. 3, 4), to our first Epistle. 2 — ttjv doniui/v vy.] your tried quality 
 (viii. 2, ix. 13, xiii. 3 ; Rom. v. 4 ; Phil. ii. 22),— i.e. here , according to 
 the following epexegesis, et elg rravra vrrrjK. here : your assured submissiveness 
 to me. The aim thus stated of the first Epistle was, among its several aims 
 (comp. vv. 3, 4), the very one, which presented itself here from the point 
 
 1 The 6 TotovTo? repeated at the end, in 2 On the supposition of a lost intermediate 
 
 itself superfluous, has the tone of compos- Epistle, this must have been the one meant; 
 sion. see Ewald. Comp, on ver. 3, vii. 12. 
 
448 Paul's second epistle to tiie Corinthians. 
 
 of view of tlie connection .—elg iravra] in reference to everything , in every 
 respect, therefore also in regard to my punitive measure against the incestu¬ 
 ous man. Comp, phrases such as eig navra irpurov elvai (Plato, Charm, p. 
 158 A), and the like ; eig Tiavra is here emphatic. (t s ) 
 
 Yer. 10. A second motive for the nvpucai elg avrov ay air. And to whomso¬ 
 ever (in order to hold before you yet another motive) you give pardon as to 
 anything , to him I also give pardon. Ae, according!}^, is the simple pera- 
 fiariKov. Riickert wishes to supply a pev before yap in ver. 9, so that ver. 9 
 and ver. 10 together may give the sense : 11 It was , indeed , my wish to find 
 perfect obedience among you ; but since you are willing to pardon him , I too am 
 willing. But here, too, this supplement is altogether groundless ; nay, in 
 this very case, where ver. 9 is referred by yap to what goes before, the ex¬ 
 press marking of the mutual relation of the two clauses would have been 
 logically necessary, and hence pev must have been used. Further, the mean¬ 
 ing contained in Riickert’s explanation would express an indifference and 
 accommodation so strangely at variance with the apostolic authority, that 
 the apostle would only have been thereby lowered in the eyes of his read¬ 
 ers.— tij Se tl x a pi&ade, nai eycj] general assurance (and this general expres¬ 
 sion remains also in the reason assigned that follows), to which the present 
 special case is subordinated. The reader knew to whom the bg and to what 
 the tl were to be applied. — nai yap eyk k.t.Ti.'] Reason assigned for what 
 was just said. “ For this circumstance, that I also pardon him to whom 
 you pardon anything, rests on reciprocity : what also I on my part have par¬ 
 doned,, if I have pardoned anything , I have pardoned with a regard to you ”— 
 i.e. in order that my forgiveness may be followed by yours. This definite mean¬ 
 ing of c )C vpag (not the general : for your benefit , as Flatt, de Wette, Osian- 
 der, and many others have it) is, according to the context, demanded by 
 cj tl %ap., nai eyk, in virtue of the logical relation of the clause containing 
 the reason to this assurance. Paul, however, has not again written the 
 present x a P'b°P a h but nexapiopai, because he wishes to hold before his 
 readers his own example , consequently his own precedent already set in 
 the pardon in question. Between this nexapiopai, however, and the xapi^opai 
 to be supplied after nal eyk, there is no logical contradiction. For in <L 
 tie ti xapi&ade the act of the sinner is considered as an offence to the church; 
 as such, the church is to forgive it, and then the apostle will also forgive 
 it : but in nal yap eyih 6 nexapiapai it is conceived as a vexation to the apostle ; 
 as such, Paul has forgiven it, and that 6C vpag , for the sake of the church •, 
 in order that it too may now give free course to the pardon which the 
 offence produced in it needed. 1 To this thoughtful combination of the 
 various references of the act, and to the placable spirit by which the rep¬ 
 resentation is pervaded, the intervening clause el ti nexapiopai corresponds, 
 which is by no means intended to make the act of pardon problematical 
 (de Wette), or to designate it only as eventual , turning on the supposition 
 of the church granting forgiveness (Billroth), but contains a delicate ref- 
 
 1 Not: to get rid of the painful relation in mann infers, from his incorrect interpreta- 
 which they stood to that sinner, as Hof- tion of iVa /arj empapA u-avTas u^as, ver. 5. 
 
CHAP. II., 11 . 
 
 449 
 
 erence back to vcr. 5, in this sense, namely : if- —seeing that the sinner, 
 according to ver. 5, has not in fact grieved me, but you— that which I 
 designate as icexapicrfiai is really this; for the having pardoned presupposes 
 the pardoner to be the injured party, which Paul, however, ver. 5, denied 
 himself to be.—Against all versions, Fathers and expositors, Riickert has 
 taken nexapiayai passively 1 of the pardoning grace which Paul experienced 
 through his conversion. The sense would thus be : ‘ l for whatever I have got 
 pardoned , if I have got anything pardoned , I have got it pardoned for your 
 saJces (in order as apostle of the Gentiles to lead you to salvation).” See my 
 third edition. This exposition is incorrect, partly because there is nothing 
 in the text to suggest an allusion to the apostle’s conversion ; partly because 
 this pardoning grace was to him so firm and certain, and, in fact, the whole 
 psychological basis of his working, that he could not, even in the most 
 humble reminiscence of his pre-Christian conduct (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10), 
 have presented it as problematical by el tl nexapiapai ; partly because with 
 this problematical inserted clause the very ev ttpogcjttu Xpia-ov (explained 
 by Riickert: “on the countenance of Christ beaming with God’s grace”) 
 would be at variance.— ev ■Kpocu'Ku Xpccrov] i.e. in conspectu Christi , comp. 
 Prov. viii. 30, Ecclus. xxxii. 4, denotes the having pardoned, in so far as it 
 has taken place di’ vpaq, in its fullest purity and truth. It has taken place 
 in presence of Christ , so that He was witness of it. (u 3 ) Interpretations at 
 variance with the words are : in Christ" 1 s stead (Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, 
 Luther, Calovius, Wetstein, and others) : by Christ, as an oath (Emmer- 
 ling), and others. Hofmann, who without reason maintains that according 
 to our view it must have run uq ev TrpocuTvcp X., attaches the words to what 
 follows, so that they would precede the Iva by way of emphasis, like r. 
 aya-Tryv , ver. 4 (see on Rom. xi. 31), and the meaning would be : Christ 
 should not be obliged to be a spectator of how Satan deprives His church of 
 one of its members. This interpretation could only be justified if we were 
 in any way by the context prepared for the ev TvpoGunrcp X., thus taken as a 
 specially tragic feature of the devil’s guile. Besides, the thought that the 
 devil injures the church under the eyes of Christ , would be nowhere else 
 expressed. — Observe, further, how, according to this passage, the peni¬ 
 tence of the sinner, just as much as the removal of the offence to the church, 
 is the aim of church-discipline, and hence its initiation and cessation are to 
 be measured accordingly ; but the Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgence 2 
 is at variance with this. 
 
 Ver. 11. Aim of this pardon imparted 6P vyaq : that we might not be over¬ 
 reached , etc. A being overreached by Satan, the enemy of Christ and of 
 Christianity, would be the result if that pardon were refused to the sinner, 
 and thereby his KaraTro-&yvai ry TzepiGoorepa hvny were brought about ; for 
 thereby Satan would get a member of the church into his power, and thus 
 derive advantage to our loss. Onth e passive irXeoveKrela&ai, comp. Dem. 1035, 
 
 1 This passive use would in itself be 18; Acts xxvii. 24. 
 correct as to language. See Kiilmer, ad 2 Still Bisping finds its principles clearly 
 Xen. Mem. i. 2. 10. The transitive use, how- traced out in this passage, 
 ever, is the more usual one, as at Gal. iii. 
 
450 
 
 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 2G. Tlie subject is Paul and the Corinthian church .—ov yap abrov n.r./i.] 
 “ By Satan, I say, for his thoughts (what he puts forward as product of his 
 vovg ; comp, on iii. 14, iv. 4, x. 5, xi. 3) are not unknown to us.” voi/para 
 ayvoovpev forms a paronomasia. These thoughts : 1 Pet. v. 8 ; Eph. vi. 11. 
 The discerning of them in the individual case is spiritual prudence, which 
 w r e have in the possession of the vovg of Christ (1 Cor. ii. 16). (v 3 ) 
 
 Vv. 12, 13. Since Paul, by mentioning the mood in which he had written 
 his former Epistle (ver. 4), was led on to discuss the case of the conscious 
 sinner and the pardon to be bestowed on him (vv. 5-11), he has now only 
 to carry on the historical thread which he had begun in vv. 4 and 5. 1 There 
 he h4d said with w r liat great grief he wrote our first Epistle. Now, he tells 
 how, even after his departure from Ephesus, this disquieting anxiety about his 
 readers did not leave him, but urged him on from Troas to Macedonia with¬ 
 out halting. This he introduces by 6e, which after the end of the section, 
 vv. 5-11, joins on again to ver. 4 (Hartung, Partik. I. p. 173 ; Fritzsche, 
 Piss. II. p. 21). Billroth attempts to connect it with what immediately 
 precedes : ‘ 1 His designs are not unknown to us ; all the more I had no 
 rest.” Against this may be urged, not that alia must have stood instead 
 of ch, as Ruckert thinks (see Hartung, l.c. I. p. 171 f. ; Baeumlein, Partih. 
 p. 95) ; but rather that between the emphatically prefixed ov yap avrov , ver. 
 11, and P.Ocjv tie, no logical relation of contrast exists. —dg rijv T poada] from 
 Ephesus on the journey which was to take him through Macedonia to Cor¬ 
 inth. 1 Cor. xvi. 5-9. — eig to evayy. tov X.] Aim of the eld-, dg r. T poada : 
 for the sake of the gospel of Christ — i.e. in order to proclaim this message of 
 salvation (hence tov X. is genitivus objecti , see generally on Mark i. 1). He 
 might, indeed, have come to Troas without wishing to preach, perhaps only 
 as a traveller passing through it. All the more groundless is the involved 
 connection of the eif r. evayy. with the far remote aveaev (Hofmann). — nal 
 xS-vpag k.t.1.) ' when also (i.e. although , see Bornem. cicl Xen. Symj). iv. 13 ; 
 Kiihner, ad Mem. ii. 3. 19) a favourable opportunity for apostolic icork was given 
 to me. Comp, on 1 Cor. xvi. 9. — iv nvp'af] That is the sphere in which a door 
 was opened to him : in Christ , in so far as the work opened up to him w r as 
 not out of Christ (one outside of Christianity), but Christ was the element 
 of it : h Kvp. gives the specific quality of Christian to what is said by -dip. p. 
 av .—The perfect vividly realizes the past event, as often in the 
 Greek orators. Comp. i. 9, vii. 5 ; Rom. v. 2. See Bernhardy, p. 379. — 
 tC) TzvevpaTL pov ] Pativus commodi. Paul has not put ry xpvxy ! 10V i because 
 here (it is different at vii. 5) he wishes to express that his very higher life- 
 activity, which has its psychological ground and centre in the -irvevpa as the 
 organ of the moral self-consciousness (comp, on Luke i. 46 f.), was occupied 
 by anxious care as to the state of the Corinthians, so that he felt himself 
 thereby, for the present, incapable of pursuing other official interests, or of 
 turning his thoughts away from Corinthian concerns. Comp. vii. 13 ; 1 
 Cor. xvi. 18. — to p?) evpeiv] on account of not finding , because I did not find. 
 
 1 Laurent regards vv. 12 and 13 as a marginal remark made by the apostle at i. 1C, and 
 wrongly inserted here. 
 
CHAP. II., 14 . 
 
 451 
 
 Comp. Xenophon, Cyr. iv. 5. 0 ; often in Greek. See Winer, p. 308 [E. T. 
 344]. — Titov] whom he had sent to Corinth, and whose return he impa¬ 
 tiently expected, in order to receive from him news of the effect of the 
 former Epistle. — rov adety. gov] By gov the closer relation of fellowship in 
 office is suggested for a(k!<p. — avroig] the Christians in Troas. As to axo-raf. 
 see on Mark vi. 46.— et-ijfa%v] from Troas. —eig Ma/ceA] Titus w T as there¬ 
 fore instructed by Paul to travel from Corinth back to Troas through Mace¬ 
 donia, and to meet with him again either there or here. 
 
 Yer. 14. In Macedonia, how T ever, he had met Titus, and, through him, 
 received good new's of the impression made by his former Epistle. See vii. 
 G. Therefore he continues : But thanks he to God , etc., placing first not 
 %apig , as in most cases (viii. 1G, ix. 15), but rw Qefi, because, in very contrast 
 to his own wealcness , the helping God , whom he has to thank, comes into his 
 mind. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 57. Others here make a digression go on as far as 
 vii. 5, and refer the thanks to the spread of the gospel in Troas (Emmerling !) 
 or Macedonia (Flatt, Osiander). Comp. Calvin and Bengel. Against the 
 context ; for, after the description of the anxiety and disquiet, the utterance 
 of thanks must relate to the release from this state (comp. Rom. vii. 24 f.). 
 The apostle, however, in the fulness of his gratitude to God, includes (and 
 thereby makes known) his special experience of the guidance of divine grace 
 at that time in the general thanksgiving for the latter, as he experiences it 
 always in his calling. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who abides by 
 the general nature of the thanksgiving, and that in contrast to the dec¬ 
 laration that the apostle did not preach in Troas in spite of the good oppor¬ 
 tunity found there. — ™ ttcivtote 6pcag[3evovn ggag] given rightly by the Vul¬ 
 gate : “ qui semper triumphat nosf is taken by many older expositors 
 (Luther, Beza, Estius, Grotius, and others) and by some more recent (Em¬ 
 merling, Flatt, Riickert, Olshausen, Osiander) : who makes us always tri¬ 
 umph. 1 It is certainly a current Greek custom to give to neuter verbs a facti¬ 
 tive construction and meaning. See in general, Matthaie, p. 1104, 944 ; 
 Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 250 ; Bahr, ad Ctes. p. 132 ; Lobeck, ad Aj. 40, 869. 
 Comp, from the N. T., avareXkEiv rov r'/Tuov , Matt. v. 45; nalsiv n, Matt. v. 15 ; 
 gaOgTEvctv nva , Matt, xxviii. 19 ; from the LXX., pacnkeveiv riva , 1 Sam. viii. 
 22 ; Isa. vii. G, al. Comp. 1 Macc. viii. 13. &piag/3svEiv nva is thus taken : 
 to make any one a triumpher. Comp. opevsiv nva to make any one dance — i.e. 
 to celebrate hy means of dancing { Brunck, ad Soph. Ant. 1151 ; comp. Jacobs, 
 ad Del. epigr. x. 55,90). The suitableness of the sense cannot be denied, but 
 the actual usage is against it; for dpiagfievEtv nva, has never that assumed 
 factitive sense, but always means triumphare dedliquo , to conduct, to present 
 any one in triumph ; so that the accusative is never the triumphing subject, 
 but always the object of the triumph, as Plut. Thes. et Horn. 4 : (lacuTiElg 
 E&pidgjlevae sal r/yEgovag, also Plut. Mor. p. 318 B, d-ptagfi. viar/v. Quite simi¬ 
 lar is the Latin triumphare aliquem. See in general, Wetstein ; Kypke, II. p. 
 243. Comp, also Hofmann on the passage. Paul himself follows this usage, 
 
 1 To this also the expositions of Chrysos- Kara rov Sia/3dA.ou Tpoiraiuv Trept^at'et? iroiel. 
 tom and Theophylact ultimately amount. So in substance Chrys. Comp. Ambrosias- 
 The latter says: rjp.as 6 ©eos p.era tuv ter, Anselm, and others. 
 
452 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 see Col. ii. 15. We are thus the less authorized to depart from it. Hence 
 it is to be translated: who always triumphs over us (apostolic teachers)— i.e. who 
 does not cease to represent us as his vanquished before all the world , as a tri¬ 
 umpher celebrates his victories.. In this figurative aspect Paul considers 
 himself and his like as conquered by God through their conversion to Christ. 
 And after this victory of God his triumph now consists in all that those con¬ 
 quered by their conversion effect as servants and instruments of God for the 
 Messianic kingdom in the world ; it is by the results of apostolic activity 
 that God continually, as if in triumph, shows himself to the eyes of all as 
 the victor, to whom His conquered are subject and serviceable. For the 
 concrete instance before us, this perpetual triumph of God exhibited itself 
 in the happy result which He wrought in Corinth through the apostle’s 
 letter (as Paul learned in Macedonia through Titus, vii. 6). Note further, 
 how naturally with Paul this very conception of his working, as a continual 
 triumph of God over him, might proceed from the painful remembrance of 
 his earlier persecution of the church of God, and how at the same time this 
 whole conception is an expression of the same humility, in which he, 1 Cor. 
 xv. 10, gives to God alone the glory of his working. Jerome, ad Hedib. 11, 
 translates rightly : triumphat nos or de nobis , but quite alters the sense of 
 the word again by the interpretation : u triumphum suum agit per nos.” 
 Theodoret does not do justice to the notion of the triumph , when he merely 
 explains it : bp aocjrup ra /cad’ yyap irpvTavEvov t yd e kcl k. el o e tc e p i ay e t 
 dy?,ovp y yap a rr a a tv a n o (j> a iv o v. W etstein is more exact, but also takes 
 the element of leading about, and not that of celebrating the victory, as the 
 point of comparison : 11 Deus nos tanquam in triumpho circumducit, ut non 
 maneamus in loco, aut in alium proficiscamur pro lubito nostro, sed ut 
 placet sapientissimo moderatori. Quern Damasci vicit, non Romae et semel, 
 sed per totum terrarum orbem, quamdiu vivit, in triumpho ducit.” Comp. 
 Krause, Opusc. p. 125 f. The conception of antiquity, according to which 
 the dpiap,[3Ev6yEvog is necessarily the conquered, is quite abandoned by Cal¬ 
 vin, 1 Eisner, Bengel : u qui triumpho nos ostendit, non ut victos, sed ut vic- 
 toriae suae ministros .” So also de Wette, and substantially Ewald : comp. 
 Erasmus, Annot. (x 3 ) — h Xpiorti] Christ is the element in which that con¬ 
 stant triumph of God takes place : no fact in which that consists has its 
 sphere out of Christ : each is of specifically Christian quality.— The follow¬ 
 ing nal t. baur/v k.t.1. declares what God effects through His triumphing. That 
 avrov refers not to God (so usually, as also Hofmann, following the Vulgate), 
 but to Christ (Bengel, Osiander), is shown by ver. 15. The genitive ryp 
 yvcxr. avr. is the genitive of apposition (comp. i. 22), so that the knowledge 
 of Christ is symbolized as an odour which God everywhere makes manifest 
 through the apostolic working, inasmuch as He by that means brings it to 
 pass that the knowledge of Christ everywhere exhibits and communicates its 
 nature and its efficacy. How does Paul come upon this image ? Through 
 
 1 In the translation he has triumphare nos quod esset opera sua acquisitus ; qualiter 
 
 facit: and in the Commentary it is said : legati currum primarii ducis equis insiden- 
 
 “ Paulus autem intelligit, se quoque trium- tes comitabantur tanquam honoris socii.” 
 phi, quern Deus agebat, fuisse participem, 
 
CHAP. II., 15. 
 
 453 
 
 the conception of the triumph ; for such an event took place amid perfumes 
 of incense : hence to assume no connection between the two images (Osiander) 
 is arbitrary. To think of ointments (Oecumenius, Grotius), or of these as in¬ 
 cluded (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza *), is alien to the first image ; and 
 is as alien to suppose that a dosed vessel, filled with perfume, is meant, and 
 that the (j>avepovvn points to the opening of the same (Hofmann). Observe, 
 moreover, that by 8C gptiv (since the r/peig are those conducted in the triumph, 
 ol tipcapfiEvopevoi) the thing itself finds its way into the image, and by this the 
 latter loses in congruity. 
 
 Yer. 15 f. Further confirmatory development of the previous nal r. bappv 
 /c.r.yl., in which, however, Paul does not keep to the continuity of the fig¬ 
 ure, but, with his versatility of view, now represents the apostolic teachers 
 themselves as odour. — Xpiarov Evubia] may mean a perfume produced by 
 Christ , or one filled with Christ, breathing of Christ. The latter, (Calvin, 
 Estius, Bengel, Riickert, Osiander, and most expositors ; comp, also Hof¬ 
 mann) corresponds better with the previous bap?) ryg yvkasug abrov, and is 
 more in keeping with the emphasis which the prefixed Xpcarov has, because 
 otherwise the evudla would remain quite undefined as regards its essential 
 quality. The sense of the figurative expression is : for our working stands 
 in the specific relation to God, as a perfume breathing of Christ. The image 
 itself is considered by most (comp. Ritschl in the Jahrb. far. d. Th. 1868, p. 
 258) as borrowed from the sacrificial fragrance (so also Billroth, Riickert, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald), on which account appeal is made 
 to the well-known bapp evudiag of the LXX., nh , J TT*}, Lev. i. 9, 13, 17, al. 
 But as Paul, wherever else he uses the image of sacrifice, marks it distinctly, 
 as Eph. v. 2, Phil. iv. 18, and in the present passage the statedly used 
 bapr) evuSiag does not stand at all, it is more probable that he was not think¬ 
 ing of an odour of sacrifice (which several, like Billroth, Ewald, Ritschl, 
 find already in bap?), ver. 14), but of the odours of incense that accompanied the 
 triumphal procession; these are to God a fragrance, redolent to Him of 
 Christ. That in this is symbolized the relation of the acceptableness to God 
 of the apostolic working, is seen from the very word chosen, evodia, which 
 Hofmann misconstrues by explaining ru beti to God’s service. — nal ev to~lq 
 airo?Ji .] and among those, who incur eternal death; comp. iv. 3. See on 1 
 Cor. i. 18. Grotius strangely wishes to supply here tcanudia ex vi contrario<- 
 rum. It is, in fact, the relation to God that is spoken of, according to 
 which the working of the Apostle is to Him evodta, whether the odour be 
 exhaled among aui^ophoi or ano/JcvphoL. Comp. Chrysostom. To take h in 
 the sense of operative on (Osiander) anticipates what follows. Comp. iv. 3. 
 — Yer. 16 specifies now the different relation of this odour to the two 
 classes. Paul, however, does not again use evudta, but the in itself indif¬ 
 ferent bap?), because the former would be unsuitable for the first half, while 
 the latter suits both halves. — ek havarov slg Zavarov ] an odour, which arises 
 from death and produces death. The source, namely, of the odour is Christ, 
 
 1 Beza, Grotius, and also L. Cappellus, contrary to the context, find an allusion to the 
 anointing of the p?'iests. 
 
454 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corintiiians. 
 
 and He, according 1 to the idea of the k'r&og rov 7 rpouKopparog (Rom. ix. 33 ; 1 
 Pet. ii. 8 ; Acts iv. 11), is for those who refuse the faith the author of 
 eternal death. 1 For them , therefore, in accordance with their inward atti¬ 
 tude towards Him, Christ, the source of the odour, i.e. of the apostolic 
 activity, is death , and also the effect is death, though Christ in Himself is 
 and works eternal life. Comp. Matt. xxi. 44 ; Luke ii. 34. Hence Christ, 
 by means of the npioig which He brings with Him, is the source respectively 
 of death and life, according as His preaching is accepted by one to salva- 
 vation, is rejected by another to destruction. I 11 the latter case the blame 
 of Christ’s being ftavarog, although he is, as respects His nature and destina¬ 
 tion, fay, lies on the side of man in his resistance and stubbornness. Comp. 
 1 Cor. i. 23, also John ix. 39, iii. 18 f., xii. 48. u Semper ergo distinguen- 
 dum est proprium evangelii officium ab accidentali (ut ita loquar), quod 
 hominum pravitati imputandum est, qua fit, ut vitalllis vertatur in mortem,” 
 Calvin. Comp. Dusterdieck on 1 John, I. p. 166. This, at the same time, in 
 opposition to Ruckert, who objects that the apostolic activity and preaching 
 can in no way be regarded as proceeding from davarog, and who therefore 
 prefers the Fecepta, 2 in which Reiche and Neander agree. Gregory of Nyssa 
 remarks aptly in Oecumenius : Kara ryv irpoaovcrav indcrru diademv y faoTroiog 
 kyhero, y davaxpepopog y evnvoia. Quite similar forms of expression are found 
 in the Rabbins, who often speak of an aroma (ED, see Buxt. Lex. Talm. p. 
 1494 ; L. Cappellus on the passage), or odor vitae and mortis , see in Wetstein 
 and Schoettgen. (z 3 )—■ sal wpbg ravra rig hcavog ;] This no longer depends on 
 the brt of ver. 15 (Hofmann), a connection to which the interrogatory form 
 would be so thoroughly unsuitable that no reader could have lighted on it ; 
 but after Paul has expressed the great, decisive efficacy of his calling, there 
 comes into his mind the crowd of disingenuous teachers as a contrast to that 
 exalted destination of the office, and with the quickly interjected icai he 
 hence asks with emotion : And ivho is for this {i.e. for the work symbolized 
 in vv. 15 and 1 S) fit ? Who is qualified for this? The rig is intentionally 
 pushed towards the end of the question, in order to arrest reflection at the 
 important rvpbg ravra, and then to bring in the question itself by surprise. 
 Comp. Herod, v. 33 : ooi 6b nal rovronu roiai Ttpaypaai ri eon ; Plat. Conv. p. 
 204 D : 6 kpcbv ribv Kakibv ri epa ; Xen. Cyr. iv. 6, 8 ; Rom. viii. 24 ; Eph. iv. 
 9 ; Acts xi. 17. (a 4 ) 
 
 Yer. 17. The answer to the foregoing question is not to be supplied , so 
 that it should be conceived as negative (si 6e yy iKavol, xhp>-~og ro yivoyevov , 
 Chrysostom, Neander, Hofmann, and others), but it is given, though indi- 
 
 1 ©avoro? and £w77 are to be understood 
 both times of eternal life and death. The 
 contrast of au>^opevoi and a7roAAvjueVot per¬ 
 mits no other interpretation : comp. vii. 
 10. Ewald takes e* iWdrou of temporal 
 death and e* £ajr)? of temporal life : from the 
 former we fall into eternal death, and from 
 the temporal life we come into the eternal. 
 
 2 According to the Becepta , which Hof¬ 
 
 mann also follows, h(jp<\ £(orjs is life-giving 
 
 odour , and 607x77 Pavarov is deadly odour ; et<? 
 ddvoLT. and eis would then be solemn ad¬ 
 ditions of the final result , which actually 
 ensues from the life-giving deadly power of 
 the odour. Accoi’ding to Hofmann, the 
 genitives are intended to mean: in which 
 they get to smell of death and of life respec¬ 
 tively. But comp, expressions like dpros r. 
 £w 5 }S, <£w9 t. guirj s, Aoyos £<0779 pyyara £10779. 
 
CHAP. II., 17. 
 
 455 
 
 rectly, in ver. 17 itself, inasmuch as the expression introduced by yap readily 
 suggests to the reader the conclusion, that the subjects of eapev, i.e. Paul 
 and liis like, are the luavol , and that the rrollol are not so. See Klotz, ad 
 Devar. p. 240 ; Bauemlein, Partite. p. 83. If Paul had wished to convey in 
 his question the negative statement, “ No one is capable of this,” he could 
 not but have added a limiting aft eavrov or the like (comp. iii. 5), in order to 
 place the reader in the right point of view. — ol koIIol] the known many , the 
 anti-Pauline teachers. 1 Comp. xi. 13 ; Phil. iii. 18. See on ol ttoaIol “ de 
 ccrtis quibusdam et definitis multis,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. G03 ; comp, 
 also Rom. xii. 5. To understand by it the majority of the Christian teachers 
 in general, is to throw a shadow on the apostolic church, which its history 
 as known to us at least does not justify.— KairglevovrEg] belongs to eapev. 
 The verb means (1) to carry on the business of a Karcrjlog, a retailer, partic¬ 
 ularly a vintner ; (2) to negotiate ; (3) to practise usury with anything (rl), 
 in particular, by adulteration , since the adulterated the wine (LXX. 
 
 Isa. i. 25), and in general, had an evil reputation for cheating (Ka-nffa rexvij- 
 nara, Aesch. Fragm. 328 D). In this sense the word is also used by the 
 Greeks of intellectual objects, as Plato, Protag. p. 313 D : ol ra pad?/par a . . . 
 icair7j?uEvcvreg . Comp. Lucian, Her mot. 59 : cpilococpoi arrocYikovrai ra paOrjpara 
 kG~ep ol Kangloi, KEpacapcvol ye ol ttoIIoi nal SoluGavreg ical KaKopsrpovvrEg. 
 Philostr. 16 : rgv cof.av naTTgleveiv. So also here : comp, the opposite e? 
 EiAucp. and iv. 2. Hence: ice practise no deceitful usury with the word of God, as 
 those do, who, with selfish intention, dress up what they preach as the word of 
 God palatably and as people wish to hear it, and for that end ra avrkv avapiyvvovai 
 ro'ig Odoig, Chrysostom. Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 3. Such are named in Ignat. Trail. 
 (interpol.) G, comp. 10, x[ nGT ^y' !r0 P 0L -> and are described as rbv lov TzpoG—leKovreg 
 rfjg rcAavpg rg ylvKEia irpoor/yopla. — aXX' kg el - elliKp.] hut we speak (lalovgeij 
 as one speaks from sincerity of mind (which has no dealings with adulter¬ 
 ation), so that what we speak proceeds from an honest heart and thought. 
 Comp. i. 12. kg is as in John i. 14. On ek, compare John iii. 31, viii. 44 ; 
 1 John iv. 5.— a/2' kg ek Oeov ] hut as one speaks from God (who is in tlio 
 speaker), as deoirvEVGrog. Comp. Matt. x. 20 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 25 ; 2 Cor. v. 20. 
 The a)2a is repeated in the lively climax of the thought. Comp. vii. 11, 
 and see on 1 Cor. vi. 11. Ruckcrt strangely wishes to connect it with rov 
 Tibyov, and to supply ovra. So also Estius (“tanquam profectum et accep- 
 turn a Deo”), Emmerling, and others. That is, in fact, impossible after alX 
 kg e£ EiPu/cp. —Karevavn Oeov ev Xpiorti^ Since neither alia nor kg is repeated 
 befor e Karevavri, Paul himself indicates the connection and division : U but 
 as from sincerity , hut as from God , ice speak before God in Christ ,” so that 
 the commas after the twice occurring Oeov are, with Lachmann and Tischen- 
 dorf, to be deleted. This in opposition to the opinion cherished also by 
 Hofmann, that Karevavri Oeov and ev Xpiark are two modal definitions of 
 lalovpsv, running parallel with the foregoing points. — Karevavri 6teoi)] before 
 
 1 Not merely the anti-Pauline Gentile were found whom Paul had to regard as 
 teachers, as Hofmann with the reading ol falsifiers of the word, and who every- 
 AotW arbitrarily limits it. It was among where pushed themselves into the sphere of 
 the Jewish-Christians that the most of those his labours. 
 
45 G 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians: 
 
 God, with the consciousness of having Him present as witness. Comp. 
 Rom. iv. 17. —ev Xpicrti] can neither mean Christi nomine (Grotius, comp. 
 Luther, Estius, Calovius, Zachariae, Ileumann, Schulz, Rosenmuller), nor 
 de Christo (Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Morus, Flatt), nor secundum Christum 
 (Calvin), but it is the habitually employed expression in Christo. We speak 
 in Christo, in so far as Christ is the sphere in which our speaking moves. 
 Comp. xii. 19 ; Rom. ix. 1. In Him we live and move with our speaking, 
 ovdev ry yperepa oofia a'AXa ry nap’ eneivov dvvapei evr/xovpEvoc, Chrysostom, 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (q 3 ) Paul's motive. Yer. 1. 
 
 This view of the dative, which is surely correct, is adopted by the Revision 
 of 1881, which renders the clause thus : “ I determined this for myself.” 
 
 (r 3 ) Paul's forbearance. Yer. 5. 
 
 The sense of the verse seems to be : “ The wrong in the case has been done 
 not to me personally, but to some extent (for I would not press you too hard) 
 to you all.” The real injury was inflicted not upon the Apostle, but upon 
 the whole church as those who tolerated the crime. Stanley says, with justice, 
 that it is evident that the horror excited by the First Epistle against the offend¬ 
 er had been very great. 
 
 (s 3 ) Punishment. Ver. 6. 
 
 The meaning of the original word is certainly punishment (Wisdom iii. 10), 
 and its employment by the Apostle sheds light upon the nature and aims of 
 church discipline. What this punishment actually was, does not appear. But 
 it was followed by genuine and overwhelming sorrow on the part of the offend¬ 
 er, and in view of this fact Paul says that it was sufficient. The whole pas¬ 
 sage indicates that Paul was more lenient than the church, for he exhorts 
 them not to be too severe in the treatment of their offending brother. 
 
 (t 3 ) “ Obedient in all things." Ver. 9. 
 
 Obedience to legitimate authority is one of the fruits and evidences of Chris¬ 
 tian sincerity. A rebellious, self-willed, disobedient spirit is a strong indica¬ 
 tion of an unsanctified nature (Hodge). 
 
 (u 3 ) “ In the person of Christ." Yer. 10. 
 
 As if Christ Himself were present and looking on. Nothing could be better 
 adapted to secure both fidelity and tenderness in administering the discipline 
 of Christ’s house, than the feeling that the eyes of Christ were fixed upon the 
 judges. 
 
 (v 3 ) Satan's devices. Yer. 11. 
 
 These are, in a matter of this kind, first to corrupt the church by inducing it 
 to tolerate open sin, and then, when discipline is interposed, to render it so 
 
NOTES. 
 
 457 
 
 harsh and severe and protracted tliat tlie offender is either hardened in sin or 
 driven to despair. 
 
 (x 3 ) Who leadeth us in triumph. Yer. 14. 
 
 Meyer’s view of this clause, though stoutly resisted by Principal Brown (Pop. 
 Com.), is adopted by Stanley, Alford, Conybeare, Waite, Beet, and Plumptre; 
 and is given in the Kevised Version. The neuter sense of the verb, “to triumph 
 over” us, easily passes into the transitive, to lead us in triumph. The causa¬ 
 tive sense has, as Meyer says, all New Testament and Hellenistic usage against 
 it. The Speaker’s Commentary adopts Calvin’s view, and gives the sense thus : 
 “Thanks be unto God, who at all times makes a triumphal pageant of us, as 
 His victorious officers or soldiers.” 
 
 (y 3 ) “ In them that are saved." Yer. 15. 
 
 See on I. i. 18. Hodge justly says there is no reference to foreordination, as 
 if the words meant those destined either to be saved or lost. “ But the two 
 classes are designated ex eventu. The gospel and those who preach it are well 
 pleasing to God, whether men receive it and are saved, or reject it and are 
 lost. The light is inestimably precious, whether the eye rejoices in it or through 
 disease is destroyed by it.” 
 
 (z 3 ) “ From death unto death." Ver. 16. 
 
 Either a Hebrew superlative, or a combination expressing the quality of the 
 source, a deadly savour, and the nature of the effect, a savour producing 
 death. So of the corresponding phrase, “a savour from life unto life.” 
 
 (a 4 ) Who is sufficient for these things? Ver. 16. 
 
 The explanation of Meyer is that of nearly all critics. The Apostle meant 
 that he was sufficient (not of course of himself, for this is plainly denied in the 
 5th verse of the next chapter : “ our sufficienc} r is from God’ ’), and the ground 
 of the sufficiency is stated in the next verse. There is, as Calvin says, an im¬ 
 plied antithesis. The object of preaching is the diffusion of the knowledge of 
 Christ : the effect of that diffusion is life to some and death to others. Who, 
 then, is competent to this work ? Not your false teachers, who corrupt the word 
 of God, but I and others who preach the gospel from pure motives.—The words 
 of all faithful ministers are spoken in the presence of God and in union with 
 Christ as their encompassing element. 
 
458 
 
 Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Ver. 1. y So also Griesb. Laclim. Scholz, Buck. Tisch., following BCD 
 E F G K, min. Vulg. It. Syr. Arr. Copt. Slav. Theodoret, and Latin Fathers. 
 But tl fii/ (Elz. Beiclie) has also considerable attestation (A K L, min. Chrys. 
 Damasc. al.), and since after the interrogation the y continuing it occurred to 
 the copyists more readily than the conditional el, the latter, whose explanation 
 is also more difficult, is to be preferred. 1 —The second cvgtcltu cwy (after vpkhv) 
 is wanting in ABC $$, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Theodoret, and several 
 Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. and Buck. An addition by way of gloss, which 
 in F G is further increased by ettigtoauv. — Ver. 3. napdiug] So Iren. Orig. Vulg. 
 But A B C D* E G L X and many min. have napdtaig. So Lachm. An error of 
 the copyist after ver. 2. —Ver. 5. dip’ kavruv] has its correct position after 
 'Aoy'iG. tl, as is abundantly attested by A D E F G, It. Vulg. Goth, and Latin 
 Fathers (so also Lachm. Tisch. and Buck.). The Recepta after hcavoi kop.EV, and 
 the position before inavoi in BC X, min. Copt. Arm. Bas. Antioch, are to be 
 regarded as superfluous transpositions to connect the d<p’ k.avruv with inavoi 
 EGpev. —Ver. 7. kv ypappaoiv'] Laclim.: kv ypdppaTi, following BD*F G. A 
 mechanical repetition of the singular from ver. 6. — Before AiOoig, Elz. Scholz 
 have kv. An explanatory addition against decisive evidence. — Ver. 9. ?) khano- 
 via ] AC D* F G N, min. Syr. utr. Clar. Germ. Or. Cyr. Buf. : tt) dianovia. So 
 Lachm. and Buck. An interpretation instead of which Sedul. and Ambrosiast. 
 have ex or in ministerio, while others applied the interpreting at do£a, as still 
 Vulg. Sixtin. Pel. read kv dofy. —kv doZy] kv is wanting in A B C (do£«), 17, 
 39, 80, Tol. Vulg. ms. Deleted by Lachm., bracketed by Buck. The kv slipped 
 in easily from ver. 8 ; comp. ver. 11. —Ver. 10. ov ] Elz. : ovdk, against decisive 
 evidence. Originated by the first syllable of the dedo£. that follows. —Ver. 13. 
 Instead of kavrov, avrov is, according to decisive testimony, to be read with 
 Lachm. and Tisch.— Ver. 14. ?)pkpag'] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive 
 attestation, and was passed over as superfluous (comp. ver. 15).—Ver. 15. 
 ava-yivuoKETai ] Lachm. and Buck. : dv dvayLvuGKrjrai, in accordance with ABC 
 while D E have the subjunctive, but not dv. Since the dv before avay. might 
 be introduced through a mistake of the copyist just as easily as it might be 
 left out, we have merely to decide according to the preponderance of the evi¬ 
 dence, which proves to be all the more in favour of Lachmann’s reading, 
 because this is supported also by D E with their retention of the subjunctive 
 (without dv), while they betray the copyist’s omission of the dv. — Ver. 17. £/m] 
 is wanting in A B C D K* 17, Copt. Syr. Cjw. Nyss. Suspected by Griesb., 
 deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Buck. An addition of the copyists, who had in 
 mind the current use elsewhere of knei after ov (Matt, xviii. 20, 24, 28 ; Jas. iii. 
 10 al.), an usage not found in Paul. See Bom. iv. 15, v. 20. 
 
 1 [The T. R. here is rejected by Westcott and most justly, according to the weight of 
 and Hort and nearly all the later critics, evidence.—T. W. C.] 
 
CHAP. III., 1. 
 
 459 
 
 Contents . 1 —This, again, is no recommendation of self ; for we need no let¬ 
 ters of recommendation, since you yourselves are our letter of recommendation 
 in the higher sense (vv. 1-3). But with this confidence we wish to ascribe 
 our ability not to ourselves, but to God, far exalted over the old covenant, who 
 has made usable as servants of the new covenant, (vv. 4-G). How glorious 
 is this service compared with the service of Moses (vv. 7-11) ! Hence wo 
 discharge it boldly, not like Moses with his veil over his face (vv. 12,13). 
 By this veil the Jews were hardened ; for up to the present time they do 
 not discern that the old covenant has ceased (vv. 14,15). But when they 
 are converted to Christ, they will come to unhindered discernment ; we 
 Christians, in fact, all behold without hindrance the glory of Christ, and 
 become ourselves partakers of it (vv. 16-18). 
 
 Yer. 1. Apxo,usda\ namely, through what was said in ii. 17, regarding 
 which Paul foresaw that his opponents would describe it as the beginning 
 of another recommendation of himself. It is interrogative , not to be taken, 
 with Hofmann, who then reads ?) yy, as an affirmation , in which case a log¬ 
 ical relation to the question that follows could only be brought out by 
 importing something. 2 — ,tt a/Ur] belongs to iavr. cwlct ., and refers to expe¬ 
 riences, through which Paul must have passed already before, certainly also 
 in respect to his last Epistle (1 Cor. i.-iv., v., ix., xiv. 17, al.), when the 
 charge was made : iavruv Gwiordvet ! As to the reason why he regards the 
 eavrov GwiGraveiv to be such a reproach, see x. 18. — In the plural he in this 
 chapter includes also Timothy, as is clear from expressions such as immedi¬ 
 ately occur in ver. 2, ev raig naphiaig yy. , and ver. 6, i/yag hianovovg. — gvvig- 
 rdveiv ] as at Rom. xvi. 1. Hence ETriGroXai cvGrarinai or ypayyara cvG-aruici 
 Arrian. Epict. ii. 3. 1 ; Diog. L. v. 18, viii. 87), letters of recommendation. 
 Regarding their use in the ancient Christian church, see Suicer, Thes. II. p. 
 1194 ; Dought. Anal. II. p. 120. — elyy k.t.X]. nisi, i.e. unless it possibly be, that , 
 etc. Only if this exigency takes place with us, can that apxovrai uakiv eavrovg 
 GwiGraveiv be asserted of us. Such epistolary recommendations, indeed, wo 
 should not have, and hence we should have to resort to seZ/’-praise ! The 
 expression is ironical in character, and contains an answer to that question, 
 which reveals its absurdity. Comp. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 8. Hence el is not to 
 be taken, with Reiche, as siquidem or quia, and yy as negativing the XPV~ 
 C,oyev (as if it were el ov XPVZ-)- —df riveg] as some people (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 18, 
 xv. 12 ; Gal. i. 7), certainly a side-glance at anti-Pauline teachers, who had 
 brought to the Corinthians letters of recommendation, either from teachers 
 of repute, or from churches, 3 and had obtained similar letters from Corinth 
 
 1 See on chap, iii., Krummel in the Stud, 
 und Krit. 1859, p. 39 ff. 
 
 2 The question that follows with y i*rj 
 would mean : “or do ice not withal need?''' 
 etc., which does not fit in with apxoned-a. 
 when taken as an affirmation. Hofmann, 
 however, imports the thoughts : whoever is 
 offended at this , that Paul has no scruple in 
 recommending himself, to him he offers to 
 answer on his part the question , whether he 
 
 and his official associates have any need of 
 
 letters of recommendation. 
 
 3 According to Gal. ii. 7-9 but hardly from 
 the original apostles or from the church of 
 Jerusalem under their guidance as such. 
 This, however, does not exclude the possi¬ 
 bility that individual members of the mother- 
 church may have given such letters. Wo 
 do not know anything more precise on the 
 point: even from ru'es a n 6 Tcuao/3ou, Gal. 
 ii. 12 ff., nothing is to be inferred. 
 
4G0 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corintiiians. 
 
 at their departure thence. —irpoq vpaq, yk£ vpihv] In the former case, it might 
 be thought that we wished to supply this need by recommendation of our¬ 
 selves ; in the latter case (y k% vptiv), that we, by our self-recommendation, 
 wished to cornet your judgment, and to induce you to recommend us to 
 others. Both would be absurd,, but this is just in keeping with the irony. 
 
 Yer. 2 f. This ironical excitement, ver. 1, is succeeded by earnestness and 
 pathos. Paul, as conscious of his deserts in regard to the Corinthians as 
 he is faithful to his Christian humility (see ver. 3), gives a skilful explana¬ 
 tion of the thought contained in ver. 1 : we need no letters of introduction 
 either to you or from you. —y kirioTohy ypuv\ i.e. the letter (the letter of 
 recommendation) which we have , have to show, namely, as w T ell to ydu as from 
 you. That we should understand both, is required by ver. 1, and to this vv. 
 2 and 3 are admirably suited, since what is said in them represents every 
 letter of recommendation as well to the Corinthians as from them as super¬ 
 fluous. This in opposition to Flatt, Riickert, Osiander, and others, who 
 are of opinion that Paul has reference merely to his previous k% vpuv, and 
 (Riickert) that the Ttpbq vpaq has been said only to hit his opponents. — vpdq 
 core] in so far, namely, as your conversion, and your whole Christian being 
 and life, is our work, redounding to our commendation. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 
 2. — kyyeypapp. kv ralq napd. yp.] A more precise definition of the manner of 
 the kiuarohy ypuv : inscribed in our hearts. This is the mode — adapted to the 
 image—of conveying the thought : since we have in our oivn consciousness the cer¬ 
 tainty of being recommended to you by yourselves and to others by you. (n 4 ) 
 That you yourselves are our recommendation (to yourselves and to others) 
 our own hearts tell us, and it is known by all. Paul did not write vptiv, as 
 it and a few cursives, also the Ethiopic, have the reading, which Olearius, 
 Emmerling, Flatt, and especially Rinck ( Lucubr. crit. p. 160), recommend 
 to our adoption : for in that case there would result an incongruity in the 
 figurative conception, since the Corinthians themselves are the letter. Be¬ 
 sides, there were so many malevolents in the church. But the apostle’s own 
 good consciousness was, as it were, the tablet on which this living Epistle of 
 the Corinthians stood, and that had to be left unassailed even by the most 
 malevolent. Of the love (comp. vii. 3 ; Phil. i. 7) of which Chrysostom and 
 others explain kv r. napd. yp. (comp. Wetstein : “ quam tenero vos amore 
 prosequar, omnes norunt”), there is no mention in the whole context. 
 Emmerling is wrong, however, also in saying that kyysyp. kv r. napd. yp. is 
 equivalent to the mere nobis inscriptae , i. e. quas ubigue nobiscum gestamus, 
 ut cognosci et legi ab omnibus possint. Just because what is written stands 
 within in the consciousness , kv ralq aapd. yp. 1 is used. — The plural is neither 
 to be explained, with Billroth, from the analogy of GTc'kayxva (without such 
 usage existing), nor to be considered with Riickert and de Wette as occa- 
 
 1 Olshausen thinks strangely that Paul 
 refers to the official badge which the high 
 priest wore on his heart, and on whose 
 twelve precious stones stood engraven the 
 twelve names of the children of Israel. This 
 arrangement, he holds, Paul takes in a 
 spiritual sense, and applies it to the relation 
 
 of himself and other teachers to their spirit¬ 
 ual children ; they bore the names of these 
 engraven on their hearts, and brought them 
 always in prayer before God.—Sheer fan¬ 
 cifulness, since the. context has nothing 
 pointing to a reference so entirely peculiar. 
 
CHAP. III., 3. 
 
 461 
 
 sioned by the plural of tlic speaking person (to whom, however, the plural 
 hearts would not be suitable), but Paul writes in name of himself and of 
 Timothy. Comp, also iv. 6, vii. 3, and see Calvin, who, however, in an ar¬ 
 bitrary way (see i. 1) includes Silvanus also (i. 19). —■yivucuophv k.t.1.] 
 This appears to contradict the previous words, according to which the 
 Epistle is written ev raig napdiatg rjyuv ; hence Fritzsche, JDiss. I. p. 19 f. 
 (Billroth follows him), says that Paul “ nonnulla adjicere, in quibus Corin- 
 thiorum potius, quam epistolae, cum qua eos comparat, memor esse videatur.” 
 But he rather presents the thing as it is, and hence cannot otherwise delin¬ 
 eate the hnage of the Epistle in which he presents it, than as it corresponds 
 to the thing. In so far, namely, as Paul and Timothy have in their hearts 
 the certainty of being recommended by the Corinthians themselves, these 
 are a letter of recommendation which stands inscribed in the hearts of those 
 teachers ; and yet, since from the whole phenomenon of the Christian life of 
 the church it cannot remain unknown to any one that the Corinthians re¬ 
 dound to the commendation of Paul and Timothy, and how they do so, this 
 letter is known as what it is, and read 1 by all men. The Epistle has therefore 
 in fact the two qualities, which in a letter proper would be contradictory, 
 and the image is not confounded with the thing, but is adapted to the thing. 
 Ruckert, who likewise (see above) finds for h r. nape), the reference to the 
 apostle’s love, explains it : u In his heart they stand written . . . and where 
 die himself arrives, there he, as it were, reads out this writing, when he from a lov¬ 
 ing heart gives forth tidings everywhere, what a prosperous church the Lord 
 has gathered to Himself in Corinth.'' 1 Comp. Chrysostom. But in that case the 
 Tcavreq would not in fact be the readers—as yet they ought to be according to 
 vKb wdvTuv avOp .—but Paul ; and the thing would resolve itself into a self¬ 
 recommendation, which is yet held to be disclaimed in ver. 1. 
 
 Yer. 3. $ avepovyevoi ] attaches itself in construction to vpeig hare, to which 
 it furnishes a more precise definition, and that in elucidative reference to 
 what has just been said yivucKoyevri . . . civOpunov : since you are being mani¬ 
 fested to bean epistle of Christ, i.e. since it does not remain hid, but becomes 
 (continually) clear to every one that you, etc. Comp, on the construction, 
 1 John ii. 19. — kmaroXpiarov] genitivus auctoris (not of the contents —in 
 opposition to Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact) : a letter composed 
 (dictated) by Christ. Fritzsche, l.e. p. 23, takes the genitive as possessive, so 
 that the sense without figure would be : homines Christiani estis. But in 
 what follows the whole origin of the Epistle is very accurately set forth, and 
 should the author not be mentioned—not in that case be placed in front ? 
 Theodoret already gives the right view. — skiotoTJ] is here not again specially 
 letter of recommendation (ver. 2), but letter in general ; for through the 
 characteristic : ‘ ‘ you are an epistle of Christ, drawn up by us, ” etc., the 
 statement above : “you are our letter of recommendation,' l ' 1 is to be elucidated 
 and made good. — In the following diaKovpdeioa . . . aapidvaig Paul presents 
 himself and Timothy as the writers of the epistle of Christ fi.anov. vp’ ?)//.), 
 the Holy Spirit as the means of writing in lieu of ink, and human hearts, i.e. 
 
 1 Grotius : “ prius agnoscitur manus, deinde legitur epistola.” Here yi vcjctk. precedes ; 
 it is different in i. 13. 
 
4C2 Paul’s second epistle to tee corintiiiaks. 
 
 according to the context, the hearts of the Corinthians, as the material which 
 is written upon. For Christ was the author of their Christian condition; 
 Paul and Timothy were His instruments for their conversion, and hy their min¬ 
 istry the Holy Spirit became operative in the hearts of the readers. In so far the 
 Corinthians, in their Christian character, are as it were a letter which Christ 
 lias caused to he written, through Paul and Timothy, by means of the Holy 
 Spirit in their hearts. On the passive expression diaicovrjO. if ?}y., comp. viii. 
 19 f. ; Markx. 45 ; note also the change of the tenses : (haKoyfi. and kyyeypayy. 
 (the epistle is there ready) ; likewise the designation of the Holy Sjiirit as 
 TrvEvya Oeov itiwog, comp. ver. 0. We may add that Paul has not mixed 
 up heterogeneous traits of the figure of a letter begun in ver. 2 (Ruckert and 
 others), but here, too, he carries out this figure, as it corresponds to the thing 
 to he figured thereby. The single incongruity is ovic kv uXaft TuOivacg, in which 
 he has not retained the conception of a letter (which is written on tablets of 
 paper), but has thought generally of a writing to be read. Since, however, 
 he has conceived of such writing as divinely composed (see above, nvevyan 
 Oeov favreg), of which nature was the law of Sinai, the usual supposition is 
 right, that he has been induced to express himself thus by the remembrance 
 of the tables of the law (Ileb. ix. 4 ; comp. Jer. xxxi. 31-33) ; for we have 
 no reason to deny that the subsequent mention of them (ver. 7) was even 
 now floating before his mind. Fritzsche, indeed, thinks that “accommodate 
 ad nonnulla V. T. loca (Prov. iii. 3, vii. 3) cordis notionem per tabulas cordis 
 expressurus erat, quibus tabulis carneis nihil tarn commode quam tabidas 
 lapideas opponere potuerit.” But he might quite as suitably have chosen an 
 antithesis corresponding to the figure of a letter (2 John 12 ; 2 Tim. iv. 13) ; 
 hence it is rather to be supposed that he came to use the expression tabulae 
 cordis , just because he had before his mind the idea of the tables of the laAV. 
 — The antitheses in our passage are intended to bring out that here an epistle 
 is composed in quite another and higher sense than an ordinary letter (which 
 one brings into existence yehavi awdpuv (ha icahdyov , Plato, Phciedr. p. 276 
 C)—a writing, wliich is not to be compared even with the Mosaic tables of 
 the law. But the purpose of a contrast with the legalism of his opponents 
 (Klopper) is not conveyed in the context. — That there is a special qmrposo 
 in the use of oapidvat.g as opposed to TuOlvacg, cannot be doubted after the pre¬ 
 vious antitheses. It must imply the notion of something better (comp. Ezek. 
 xi. 19, xxxvi. 26), namely, the thought of the living receptivity and suscep¬ 
 tibility : dearinag rov ?ioyov (Theophylact, Calvin, Stolz, Flatt, de Wette, 
 Osiander, Ewald, and others). The distinctive sense of eaptccvdg is correctly 
 noted by Erasmus : “ut materiam intelligas, non qualitatem .” Comp, on 1 
 Cor. iii. 1. K apdiag is also the genitive of material, and the contrast would 
 have been sufficiently denoted by d/CP h napdiag : it is, however, 
 
 expressed more concretely and vividly by the added capdvaig : in fleshy 
 tablets of the heart. 
 
 Ver. 4. n enoiOriaiv is emphatic, and therefore precedes (otherwise in i. 15); 
 confidence, however, of such a kind as is indicated in vv. 2, 3 -, 1 for there 
 
 1 [Not self-confidence, as is clearly shown by the next two verses.—T. W. C.] 
 
CHAP. III., 5. 
 
 4C3 
 
 Paul lias expressed a lofty self-consciousness. Hence there is no reason for 
 seeking a Reference to something earlier instead of to what immediately pre¬ 
 cedes, and for connecting it with ii. 17 (Grotius and others, including de 
 Wette ; comp. Ruckert), or with ii. 14-17, as Hofmann has done in conse¬ 
 quence of his taking apxoyeda in ver. 1 as not interrogative. Brief and apt 
 is Luther’s gloss : “Confidence, that we have prepared you to form the epistle .” 
 •— 8ta rov Xpiarov\ through Christ , who brings it about in us : for in his 
 official capacity Paul knows himself to be under the constant influence of 
 Christ, without which he would not have that confidence. Theodoret says 
 well : rov Xpicrov rovro ygiv 8 e8ukoto(; to Oapoog. — tt pop rov Oeov] ill relation to 
 God , as bringing about the successful results of the apostolic activity. It 
 denotes the religious direction , in which he has such confidence (comp. Rom. 
 iv. 2, v. 1), not the validity before God (de Wette). 
 
 Ver. 5. Now comes the caveat, for which ver. 4 has prepared the way, 
 
 •—the guarding against the possible objection, that Paul considered himself 
 (and Timothy) as originator of the ability for apostolic working, ovx ”°tl is 
 therefore not to be taken as equivalent to bn oi>x (Mosheim, Schulz, Em- 
 merling), nor is TreiroLda to be supplied again after ovx (Emmerling); but we 
 have here the quite common use of ovx ° TL f° r owe or*. See on i. 24. 
 
 Ruckert finds in ovx ” 0TL k.t.1. a reason assigned for the 7 rpbr rov beov, or an 
 explanation of it : “In thus speaking, I would not have it thought that,” 
 etc. But if in 7 rpbg r. beov there was meant to be conveyed the same idea 
 as was further explained in ver. 5, Paul would have expressed himself quite 
 illogically, and in explaining or assigning a reason for it he must have writ¬ 
 ten on ovx • No ; the course of thought is : “ With this TTETroibycng, how¬ 
 ever, I do not wish to be misunderstood or misconstrued : I do not mean 
 by it, that we are of ourselves sufficient,” etc. With this connection rrpog 
 rov $eov is not at variance ; for by it God was not yet meant as author of the 
 adequate ability (ver. 5 shows this very point), but as producer of the result. 
 —'koyiaaohai tl] to judge anything (censer e). The context furnishes the more 
 precise definition which Paul had in view. Vv. 2-4, 6. He denies, namely, 
 that of himself he possesses the ability to settle in his judgment the means 
 and ways, and, in general, the mode of discharging his apostolic duties. If he 
 has just been speaking in vv. 2-4 with so much confidence of his prosper¬ 
 ous and successful labour in Corinth, yet it is by no means his own ability, 
 but the divine empowering, which enables him to determine by his own 
 judgment anything regarding the discharge of his vocation. Accordingly, 
 we can neither approve the meaning arbitrarily given to rq aliquid praeclari 
 (Emmerling ; van Ilengcl, Annot. p. 219), nor agree with Hofmann, who, 
 in consistency with his reference of ■Keiroi’&ycng to ii. 14-17, makes the apostle 
 guard against the misconstruction that this, his 7rcTToi/&yaig, rests on ideas 
 which he forms for himself —on an estimate of his official working, accord¬ 
 ing to a standard elaborated by his own mind. Even apart from that er¬ 
 roneous reference of the TrETro'e&yoig, the very expression lnaval would be un¬ 
 suitable to the meaning adopted by Hofmann, and instead of it a notion of 
 presumption would rather have been in place ; the prominence given to inavo- 
 rjg by its being used thrice can only concern the ability which regulates the 
 
404 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 official labour itself. The dogmatic exposition, disregarding the context, 
 finds here the entire inability of the natural man for all good. See Augus¬ 
 tine, de dono persev. 13, contra Ptilag. 8 ; Calvin : “non poterat magis 
 hominem nudare omni bono.” Comp. Beza, Calovius, and others, including 
 Olsliausen. The reference also of the words to the doctrinal contents of the 
 preaching, which was not derived from his own reflection (Theodoret, Gro- 
 tius, de Wette, Heander, and others), is not suggested by the connection, 
 and is forbidden by the fact that dtp’ eavruv does not belong to hoyicaode at 
 all (see below). This also in opposition to Osiander, who finds the meaning : 
 ‘ ‘ not human, but divine thoughts lie at the root of the whole of my official 
 work.” — a<j>’ eavTcjv ] has its assured place after loyic. n (see the critical re¬ 
 marks). The contrast that follows (etc tov deov) decides what it belongs to 
 in sense,—namely, not to loyicacdai n , but to inavoi Eoyev ,— so that Inavoi 
 ea/uEv loyicaodcd tl is to be considered as going together , as one idea. Mis¬ 
 taking this, Riickert thinks that either Paul has placed the words wrongly, 
 or the order given by B C K (see the critical remarks) must be preferred. — 
 On aft eavrov, from one's own means , nemine suppeditante , see Wetstein. —&g 
 ££ eavTcjv] sc. inavoi ovreg ’koyic. tl, a more precise definition of the cup’ eavr. 
 inserted on purpose (making the notice thoroughly exhaustive). The pro¬ 
 ceeding from ( arco ) is still more definitely marked as causal procession (in) : 
 as from ourselves , i.e. as if our ability to judge anything had its origin from 
 ourselves. Wolf arbitarily refers dvo to the will, and it, to the power ; and 
 Riickert wrongly connects i^ eavr. with hoyicr. tl ; it is in fact parallel to cup’ 
 eavr. Paul is conscious of the inavov eivac hoyioacOai tl, and ascribes it to 
 himself ; but he denies that he has this inavoryg of himself, or from himself. 
 — y inavoryg yyuv] sc. loyiaaodai tl. — Riickert finds in our passage, especially 
 in cap' eavTuv, an allusion to some utterances, unknown to us, of opponents, 
 which, however, cannot be proved from x. 7, and is quite a superfluous 
 hypothesis. 
 
 Ver. G. "Of nai indvuoev yycig~\ og 7 he who , in the sense of ovrog yap. Sec 
 Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 64 ; van Hengel, Annot. 220. And nai is the 
 also of the corresponding relation (Baeumlein, Partite, p. 152), so that there 
 is expressed the agreement between what is contained in the relative clause 
 and what was said before : who also {qui idem , comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
 G3G) has made us captable (apnoveav i^upr/yyce dvvauiv , Theodoret) as ministers , 
 etc. According to Bengel, Riickert (comp, also de Wette, Osiander, Hof¬ 
 mann), the sense is : “that God has bestowed on him not only the ability 
 mentioned in ver. 5, but also the more comprehensive one of a Scdnovo^ ic.r.A.” 
 But in that case the words must have stood thus : og nal dianovovg naivf/g 
 diaOjjtvjg inavcoaev ypdg. The notion of InavoTf/g is thrice put in front with the 
 same emphasis. Of Inavoco (Col. i. 12) only the passive, in the sense of to 
 have enough , occurs in the (later) Greek writers, such as Dion. Hal. ii. 74, 
 and in the LXX. — dtandvovg naivyg diaOi/n. ] as ministers of a new covenant 
 (comp. Eph. iii. 7 ; Col. i. 23 ; 2 Cor. xi. 15 ; Luke i. 2), i.e. to be such 
 as serve a new covenant, as devote to it their activity. Ivan;, diad., without 
 the article, is conceived qualitatively. The new covenant (Heb. xii. 24) of 
 God with men, which is meant, is—in contrast to the one founded by Moses 
 
CHAP. III., G. 
 
 4G5 
 
 —that established by Christ, in which the fulfilling of the law is no longer 
 defined as the condition of salvation, but faith in the atonement by Christ, 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 25 ; Rom. x. 5 ff. ; Gal. iv. 24 ff. ; Matt. xxvi. 28. — ov ypappa- 
 rog, d?Ad 7 rvevp.] is since Heumann usually (also by Billroth, Riickert, Ewald) 
 regarded as governed by nacvyg diadyayg (Riickert, “of a covenant, which 
 offers not ypappa, but 7r vevpa' n ), but without reason, since the sequel, by y 
 dicLKovia tov davarov and y dian. tov Twevparog (vv. 7, 8), rather points to the 
 fact that Paul has conceived ov yp. alia ttv. as dependent on dtaKovovg (so 
 also de Wette, Neander, Osiander, Hofmann), as an appositional more pre¬ 
 cise definition to the natvyg diaOyicyg : to l)e ministers not of letter (which we 
 would be as ministers of the old covenant), but of spirit. V pap pa character¬ 
 izes the Mosaic covenant according to the specific manner in which it occurs 
 and subsists , for it is established and fixed in writing (by means of the writ¬ 
 ten letter), and thereby—although it is divine, yet without bringing with 
 it and communicating any principle of inward vital efficacy—settled as ob¬ 
 ligatory. On the other hand, tt vevpa characterizes the Christian covenant 
 in so far as its distinctive and essential mode of existence consists in this, 
 that the divine living power of the Holy Spirit is at work in it ; through 
 this, and not through a written instrument, it subsists and fulfils itself. 
 Comp. Rom. ii. 29, vii. 6 ; Heb. x. 29, viii. 7 ff. Not letter therefore, but 
 spirit , is that to which the teachers of the gospel minister, the power, whose 
 influence is advanced by their labours \ 1 ov yap ra 7 t aAaia tov vdpov ixpoofi- 
 popev ypappara , aXAa ryv naivyv tov TcvevpaTog Supvav, Theodoret. It is true 
 that the law also is in its nature n-vevpaTinog (see on Rom. vii. 14), and its 
 ?i6yia are C«rr« (see on Acts vii. 38), but it is misused by the power of sin in 
 man to his destruction, because it does not furnish the spirit which breaks 
 this power. — to yap ypappa cnroKTELvei , to ()e nvevpa C,v)OTroiei\ specifies quite 
 simply the reason , why God has made them capable of ministering not to 
 the letter, but to the spirit. It is therefore quite unnecessary to presuppose, 
 with Fritzsche, Billroth, and Riickert, a suppressed intermediate thought 
 (namely, that the new covenant is far more excellent). We may add that 
 the yap does not extend also to what follows (vv. 7, 8), so as to make the 
 sentence to ypappa k.t.1. merely introductory to the sequel, and the whole a 
 vindication of the apostle’s referring his capacity of judgment to God. This 
 view of Hofmann is connected with his interpretation of 7.oyia. tl , ver. 5, 
 and has besides against it the fact, that the weighty antithesis to y. ypappa 
 k.t.1. is neither adapted to be a mere introductory thought, nor betokened 
 as being such, the more especially as it contains completely in itself the 
 ground establishing what immediately precedes, and with ver. 7 a new 
 discussion begins, which runs on to the end of the chapter without a break. 
 — airoKTEivEc ] does not refer to the physical death (Ivauffer, ald>v. p. 75), in 
 so far as that is the consequence of sin (Rom. v. 12), and sin is occasioned 
 and furthered by the law (Rom. vii. 9 ff., vi. 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 56, al.). 
 Against this interpretation it is decisive that according to Rom. v. 12 ff. 
 
 1 Bengel acutely and justly remarks: in proprio illo officio suo, etiam cum hand 
 
 “ Pa ulus etiam dum haec scripnt. non lit- scrvpsit, tamen in litera versatus est.’ - 
 Crae, Sed spiritus ministrum egit. Moses 
 
466 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 (see in loc.) bodily death is the consequence, extending to all, of Adam's sin, 
 and has, since Adam, reigned over all even before the law. Nor yet are we 
 to understand spiritual (Billroth), ethical (de Wette, Krummel), or spiritual 
 and bodily death (Ruckert), or the mere sensus mortis (Bengel, comp. Nean- 
 der), but according to Rom.' vi. 21, 23, vii. 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 24, eternal 
 deathf the opposite of the eternal life , which, by means of the Holy Spirit 
 becoming operative in the heart through the gospel, is brought about for 
 man who is liable to eternal death (Rom. viiii. 2, C, 10, 11)—which here 
 (comp. John vi. 63) is expressed by to Tcvtvya ^uotzoleI, comp, on ii. 16. 
 How far the law works eternal death, is shown from Rom. vii. 5, 7 If.; 
 comp. 1 Cor. xv. 56. Through its prohibitions, namely, it becomes for the 
 power of sin in man the occasion of awakening evil desire, and therewith 
 transgression sets in and the imputing of it for condemnation, whereby 
 man is liable to eternal death, and that by means of the curse of the law 
 which heaps up sin and produces the divine anger, see on ver. 9 ; Gal. iii. 
 10. Comp. Rom. iv. 15, v. 20. After Chrysostom and his followers (also 
 Ambrosiaster), Grotius explains it as: u morte violenta punit peccatores,” 
 and Fritzsche : “ lex supplicia sunlit.” This is to be rejected, because in 
 this way the law would not be the very thing that kills, but only that which 
 determines death as a punishment ; and consequently no corresponding- 
 contrast to faoiroicl would result. Finally, we can only consider as histori¬ 
 cally remarkable the interpretation of Origen regarding the literal and mys¬ 
 tical sense of Scripture, the former of which is injurious, the latter condu¬ 
 cive, to salvation. Something similar is still to be found in Krause and 
 Royaards. Against the visionaries, who referred ypayya to the outicard and 
 7 tj wvjua to the inward word, see Calovius. 
 
 Ver. 7. At-] leads on to a setting forth of the great glory of the Christian 
 ministry, which is proved from the splendour of the ministry of Moses by a 
 conclusion a minori ad majusf — y dianovla rev Oavdrov] i.e. the ministry con¬ 
 ducing to the rule of death ; for to y pay pa airoKrdvsi, ver. 6. It is not the law 
 itself that is meant, but the ministry of Moses, which he accomplished by 
 bringing down to the people the tables of the law from Sinai. Ruckert 
 erroneously thinks that the whole ministry of the Levitical priesthood is meant, 
 against which what follows is clearly decisive. The reason assigned by 
 
 1 With this is connected certainly moral 
 death (the negation of the moral life), but 
 only the eternal death is here meant , which 
 is the consequence of the KaTcucpuns, ver. 9. 
 This in opposition to Osiander. Nor is the 
 aTTOKTeivei. meant of the letter conditionally 
 (“ so soon as we abide by it alone and deify 
 it”), but the killing is the specific operation 
 of the law ; how ? see Rom. vii. 9 f. : 1 Cor. 
 xv. 56. This in opposition to Ewald.—Hof¬ 
 mann unites the various meanings of the 
 death to which the sinner is liable, inasmuch 
 as he defines the notion as “ the existence of 
 the whole man shut out from the life of God 
 and for ever.’ 1 ' 1 This collective definition of 
 
 the notion, however, does not relieve us 
 from the labor of showing from the vari¬ 
 ous contexts in what special sense death and 
 dying are conceived of in the several 
 passages. 
 
 2 Without doubt this whole comparison of 
 the ministry of the New Testament with 
 that of Moses (vv. 7-11), as well as the sub¬ 
 sequent shadow which is thrown on the 
 conduct of Moses (ver. 13), and the digres¬ 
 sion on the obstinacy of the Jews (vv. 14-18), 
 is not put forward without a special pur¬ 
 pose, but is an indirect polemic against the 
 Judaists. Comp. Chrysostom : 6 pa 7 rw 57 rdA. 1 v 
 
 UTrorep-verai to <\>p6vr\fxo. to ’Iov8ai./<6v. 
 
CHAP. III., 7. 
 
 4G7 
 
 Riickert, that Moses as geairrjg rgg nak. dia&fiKvg can only be treated as on a 
 parallel with Christ, and not with the apostles, is not valid, since in the con¬ 
 text the prevailing conception is not that of psGiTr/g blit that of dianovog, and 
 as such Moses is certainly parallel to the ministers of the new covenant. — kv 
 ypdfifj.aGLv evtetvtt. /lidoif] A comma is not to be put after ypdp.fi. (Luther, 
 Beza, Piscator, Estius, and others, including Schrader and Ewald), which 
 would require the repetition of the article before kv yp., and would make 
 the sentence drag ; but it is : which icas imprinted on stones by means of 
 letters. The death-promoting ministry of Moses was really graven on stones, 
 in so far as the Decalogue engraven on the two tables was actually the min¬ 
 isterial document of Moses, as it were the registration of his office. In this 
 case kv ypdfjuaocv is not something of an idle addition (in opposition to de 
 Wette, who defends the reading kv ypaggaTi, and attaches it to tov Zavarov), 
 but in fact an element emphatically prefixed, in keeping with the process of 
 argument a minori , and depicting the inferior unspiritual character. Riickert 
 (forced by his reference to the service of the Levitical priesthood) errone¬ 
 ously thinks that Paul means not only the tables of the law, but the whole 
 Pentateuch , and that he has been not quite so exact in his use of the expres¬ 
 sion (evtetvtt. Xi&oig !). — kyevry&ij kv dopj] took place in splendour, was surrounded 
 by splendour, full of splendour, see Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 284 [E. T. 
 330]. Bengel says rightly : “ nacta est gloriam ; yivogat fio, et el pi sum,. 
 ver. 8. differunt.” Comp. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p.284. It relates 
 to the external radiance, which in the intercourse with God on Sinai passed 
 from the divine glory (Ex. xxiv. 1G) to the countenance of Moses, so that 
 he descended from the mountain with his face shining (Ex. xxxiv. 29 ff.). 
 For a Rabbinical fiction that this splendour was from the light created at 
 the beginning of things, see Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 369 f.- 
 Others (Yatablus, and more recently, Flatt, Billroth, Riickert) take ev do^j,. 
 not of that glorious radiance, but of grandeur, glory in general. So also de 
 Wette and Hofmann. But this is opposed to the context, for in what follows 
 it is not merely a visible proof of the dd£a which is adduced (as Riickert 
 thinks), or a concrete representation of it (Hofmann), but the high degree 
 (vote) of the very do^a which is meant by kyEvry&Tj ev dd^tj. It is said, indeed, 
 that ver. 8, where the glory spoken of is no external one, does not admit of 
 our reference. But even in ver. 8 the do^a is an external glory (see on vei\ 
 8) ; and further, we have here an argument a minori ad magus, in which 
 every reader was historically aware that the minus, the do^a of Moses, was 
 an external one, while as to the magus, the dofa of the ministry of the N.T., 
 it was self-evident that it is before the Parousia merely something ideal, a 
 spiritual possession, and only becomes also an external reality after the 
 Parousia (and to this ver. 8 applies). — wore g?) dvvaa$ai k.t.a.] Philo gives 
 the same account, Vit. Mos. p. GGo A ; Ex. xxxiv. has only : kepop/fpoav 
 lyyiaai avTti, which was more precisely explained by that statement. —did 
 Tyv dogav tov Tcp. atn\] would have been in itself superfluous, but with the 
 addition t?)v narapy. strengthening the conclusion it has a solemn emphasis. 
 Philo, l.c. , calls this do^a : r/TaoELdeg (pep/og. — tt/v KaTapyovgevr/v^ “Claritas ilia 
 vultus Mosis transitoria erat et modici temporis,” Estius. Ex. l.c. gives us 
 
4G8 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 no express information of this ; but ver. 13 clearly shows that Paul regarded 
 the radiance which Moses brought down from his converse with God as only 
 temporary and gradually ceasing, which, indeed, is self-evident and correctly 
 inferred from the renewal ol the radiance on each occasion. In this passing 
 away of that lustre, — which even during its passing away was yet so great 
 that the Israelites could not gaze fixedly on him,—Paul undoubtedly (in 
 opposition to Hofmann) found a type of the ceasing of the Mosaic ministry 
 (ver. 13); but in our present passage this is only hinted at in a preliminary 
 way by the historical addition r. sarapy ., without the latter ceasing to belong 
 to the historical narration. Hence the participle is not to be taken, with 
 Yulgate; Luther, Calvin, and others, including Ruckert, in a purely present 
 sense : “ which yet ceases ,” nor in the sense of transient (Ewald), but as the 
 imperfect participle ; the transitory, which teas in the act of passing away. 
 
 Ver. 8 . The ministry dedicated to the Holy Spirit , i.e. forming the medium 
 of His operation (the teaching ministry of the gospel), is as such the spe¬ 
 cific opposite of the dianovia rov •davarov kv ypayyaaiv cvtetvtc. AidoiQ, ver. 7. 
 In tov 7 rvevpaToc are contained the elements of contrast. See ver. G. — karai\ 
 is not the future of the inference (Billroth, Hofmann, and the older commen¬ 
 tators) ; nor does it refer to the advancing steady development (Osiandcr), 
 but rather to the gloria futuri seculi. Comp, on ver. 12, where the 66pi — 
 w hich is therefore not to be understood, as it usually is, of inner elevation 
 and dignity—appears as the object of the eIttiq. We cannot therefore say 
 with Bengel : “loquitur ex prospectu V. T. in Novum,” but : loquitur ex 
 prospectu praesentis seculi in futurum. 
 
 Ver. 9. Grounding, simply by a characteristic change of the predicates 
 far asp. and ducaiocrvv.), of what was said in vv. 7, 8 . Comp. Rom. v. 18, 
 19. — y dianovLa rf/g Karanpiof the ministry, which is the medium of condemna¬ 
 tion. For the ministry of Moses, which communicated the Decalogue, pro¬ 
 moted through the law sin (Rom. vii. 9 ff.),whose power it became (1 Cor. 
 xv. 56), and thus realized the divine curse against the transgressors of the 
 law (Gal. iii. 20). Comp, on ver. 6 . The article denoted the well-known, 
 solemn condemnation, Dent, xxvii. 26. — dd£a] sc. ken, for the former kye- 
 viftrj kv (hfy is realized as present, regarded as present. Comp., subsequently, 
 the present tt epiouevei. The substantive 6o^a (it refers, as in ver. 7, to that 
 external glory) stands as predicate in the sense of kvih^og, denoting the 
 notion of the adjective more strongly , according to a current usage in Greek. 
 Rom. viii. 10 ; John vi. 63 ; 1 John iv. 8 , al. See Abresch, Auctar. Diluc. 
 p. 275 f. ; Fritzsche, ad Tom. II. p. 120. — tcepiggevei] The tense realizes as 
 present what is future ; for the future glory of the teacher is already now an 
 ideal possession. Note the accumulated strength of the expression : is in 
 much higher degree superabundant in glory. On the dative of more precise 
 definition with TCEpiocEvnv , comp. 1 Thess. iii. 12 ; Acts xvi. 5 ; Polyb. xviii. 
 18. 5 ; Plut. Mor. p. 708 F. Usually in the N. T. with kv, as also here in 
 Elzevir. — y dianovia r?~;r diKaioavv .] the ministry, which is the medium of right¬ 
 eousness 1 (comp. xi. 15) ; for it is the office of gospel teaching to preach the 
 
 1 Note the contrast of /caraKpun? and Sikcuoctvvji. The former is an actus forensic • so 
 
CHAP. III., 10. 
 
 469 
 
 faith in Jesus Christ, by which we have righteousness before God. See 
 Rom. i. 17, iii. 22 ff., 30, x. 4 ; Gal. iii. 13. Comp, especially, v. 21. 
 
 Ver. 10. A more precise grounding of the previous Trohhip paXkov irepioGsvei 
 a.t.A. by the highest climax of this relation. For even ( sal yap) that which 
 is glorious is icithout glory in this point by reason of the superabundant glory. 
 — ob dedoZaaraL] The chief element is prefixed, and combined into one idea 
 (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 122 ; Baeuml. p. 278) : gloria destitutum est. 
 The perfect denotes the continuance of what had taken place ; Kiihner, II. 
 p.-70.— to chfhj^aaphov] is referred to the Mosaic religious economy by Em- 
 merling and Olshausen, following older expositors, quite against the con¬ 
 text: Most refer it to the ministry of Moses, which had been made glorious 
 through the radiance on his countenance, vv. 7-9. But see below. — iv 
 ravru tg) pipei] in this respect (ix. 3 ; 1 Pet. iv. 16 ; Col. ii. 16 ; often in 
 Greek authors), is joined with to deSo^acpivov by Fritzsche, l.c. p. 31 (also 
 de Wette and Ewald) : 11 quod collustratum fuit hac parte h. e. ita , ut per 
 splendorern , qui in Mosis facie conspiciebatur , illustre redderetur .” But on the 
 one hand — supposing that to deSo^acp. denotes the ministry of Moses — the 
 iv TovTcp tg) pipei so taken would be an utterly superfluous addition, since the 
 reader would already have had full information in accordance with the con¬ 
 text through to dedo^aop. having the article ; on the other hand, we should 
 expect tovt<p to point to something said just before, which, however, is not 
 the case, since we must go back as far as ver. 7. If, again, with Ewald, 
 we take iv tovtg) tg> pi pet as u in all that is Jewish , apart from what is Chris¬ 
 tian,” and refer it to the then still subsisting state of the temple, syna¬ 
 gogue, etc., how enigmatically Paul would have expressed himself, without 
 any hint of his meaning in the context ! Following Chrysostom ( nara ruv 
 rfjg GvyKpiGEug TiSyov ) and Theodoret ( cnroflheTnov eig rovrovg , namely, to the 
 ministers of the N. T.), most commentators (including Billroth, Olshausen, 
 Osiander, Hofmann) join it with ov 6e6o^., so that it would indicate the 
 reference in which the sentence ov rh< 5 < 5 £. to holds good (see Hofmann), 
 
 and consequently would have the meaning: “ over against the office of 
 Moses.' 1 '’ But how utterly superfluous, and in fact cumbrous, would this iv 
 tovtg) tg) pep. be if so taken, especially seeing that there still follows evekev r. 
 vKEpffi r5o£., which serves to throw light upon the relation asserted ! How 
 surprising would this amplification be at this very point, where the compar¬ 
 ison is carried to the highest pitch, and the representation is so forcibly and 
 pithily begun by the oxymoron ov Seho^. to dedog. ! Riickert (following 
 Flatt) connects also with ov defiogaoTt, but explains it : in this respect , that 
 is, in so far as the first hiaicovia was the (hanovia Tijg KaTarpioeGxg. At variance 
 with the connection. For not in so far as the Mosaic dianovia ministered to 
 condemnation and death, is its splendour darkened, but in so far as its 
 splendour is outshone by a far greater splendour,—that of the dianovia of 
 the M. T. Besides, if the assumed reference of iv tovtu tg> pipei were to be 
 held correct, the KaTanpiOig would necessarily be the principal element (pred- 
 
 also the latter, constituted by the divine on imputation. Comp. v. 21. This in oppo- 
 
 uct of the SikouWi? (Rom. iv. 25, v. 18), rests sition to Hofmann, Schrifibev:. I. p. (527 f. 
 
Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 470 
 
 icate) in what precedes, not merely an attributive definition of the subject. 
 On the whole, the following explanation, against which none but quite ir¬ 
 relevant objections 1 are made, seems to be the right one : hv rovrip ro fit pel 
 is certainly to be connected with ob dedo^acrai ; to dedo^ac/ievor, however, is 
 not to be taken as a designation of the Mosaic SiaKovia in concreto , but sig- 
 nifies that which is glorified generally , in abstract#; so that, in addition to 
 the ob dedo^acrai said of it, there is also given with ev tovtu rw ykpei the ref¬ 
 erence to the particular concrete thing of which the apostle is speaking, the 
 reference to the ministry of Moses, namely, thus : “ for in this respect , i.e. 
 in respect of the relation of glory in which the Mosaic diamvia stands to' the 
 Christian (ver. 9), it is even the case that what is glorified ' is unglorified. ” 
 Analogously, the 66 of the moon, for instance, is no 66lja, when the 66^a 
 of the sun beams forth (1 Cor. xv. 14 ). —evekev rf/g vnepfiaXh. 66%r)g\ by rea¬ 
 son ofi (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 329 B) the superabundant glory , which 
 obscures the dec foi-aayevov, exhibits its do fa as relatively no dofa. This ap¬ 
 plies to the future glory of the N. T. dianovia, setting in at the aiibv fiebluv, 
 but already conceived as present. 
 
 Yer. 11. A justification of the foregoing expression nyg vnepfiall. do^gg by 
 a general proposition, the application of which in conformity with the con¬ 
 nection is left to the reader, and the truth of which in this connection lies 
 in the idea of the completion, which the facts of salvation in the O. T. have 
 to find in the kingdom of God. ‘ ‘ For if that which ceases is glorious , much 
 more is that which abides glorious. ”— ro Karapyovyevov ] that which is in the act 
 of passing away. This the reader was to apply to the dianovia of Moses 2 
 spoken of in vv. 7-10, in so far, namely, as this ministry is in the course of 
 its abolition through the preaching of the gospel by means of the dianovia 
 rfyg dinaioauvryg. Moses ceases to be lawgiver, when the gospel is preached ; 
 for see Rom. x. 4. That this is the application intended by Paul, is con¬ 
 firmed by the contrast ro ycvov, which the reader was to apply to the teach¬ 
 ing ministration of the N. T. (not to the Christian religion, as Emmerling 
 and Flatt, following older commentators, think), in so far, namely, as that 
 ministration is not abolished, but continues on to the Parousia (whereupon 
 its glory sets in). Fritzsche is of opinion that the dianovia of Moses is to 
 narapyovyevov for the reason : a quod ejus fulgor muneris Christiani gloria 
 superatur, et ita sane narapyelrai , nullus redditur.” But in that case the 
 subject of narapyelTai , would in fact be the splendour, not the dianovia itself. 
 This applies at the same time in opposition to Billroth, who refers to narapy. 
 to the lustre of Moses’ office on each occasion soon disappearing , which is im¬ 
 possible on account of did do^rjg. — did dogr/g] sc. eon. did expresses the sit¬ 
 uation, condition, and so is a circumlocution for the adjective. Stallbaum, 
 ad Plat. Phileb. p. 192 ; Bernhardy, p. 235 ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 138. 
 
 1 The objection made by Osiander is a di¬ 
 lemma logically incorrect. Hofmann urges 
 that ei/ TovTip rco juepet cannot mean : in this 
 case. But it is not at all alleged to have that 
 meaning, but rather: in this point, , i.e. hoc 
 respectu , in the relation under discussion. 
 See on this adverbial usage, C. Fr. Herm. ad 
 
 Lucian, hist, conser. p. 8. 
 
 2 Not to the Mosaic religion in general , 
 which ceases through Christ (Tlieodoret, 
 Theophylact, and many others, including 
 Emmerling and Flatt),—which is quite at 
 variance with the context. See vv. 7-10. 
 
CHAP. III., 12, 13. 
 
 471 
 
 h S6^i 1 (ver. 7) is not different in sense ; but the supposition of Estius, Bill¬ 
 roth, Olshausen, Osiander, Neander, Hofmann, that Sia indicates only what 
 is transient, and h what is abiding, is mere fancy. Paul is fond of varying 
 the prepositions in designating the same relation. Comp. Rom. iii. 30, v. 
 10, xv. 2 ; Gal. ii. 16 ; Philem. 5. Comp, also Kuhner, II. p. 319. 
 
 Ver. 12. v Ejovt££- ovv toicivt. eat:.'] ovv, accordingly , namely, after what has 
 just been said TroXkcb yaXkov to pevov ev Sopj, sc. egtl. Since the karris has its 
 object necessarily in the future, and not yet in the present (Rom. viii. 24), 
 roiavTT] eXttlc cannot denote the consciousness of the abiding glory of his office, 
 which Paul possesses (Hofmann ; comp. Erasmus and others), but it must 
 be the apostle’s great hope,—a hope based on the future of the Messiah's king¬ 
 dom —that the ministry of the gospel would not fail at the Parousia of its 
 glory far surpassing the dofa of the ministry of Moses. This will be the 
 glorious, superabundant reward of the labour of Christ’s SovAoc, as promised 
 by their Master (Luke xxii. 29 ff. ; John xiv. 3 ; Matt. xxv. 14 ff., al.). 
 Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 14, iv. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 14 ; Phil. ii. 16 ; 1 Thess. ii. 19 f. 
 
 It is the d(f)0apTOQ arkpavoq of the faithful labour in teaching, 1 Cor. ix. 25 ff.; 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; 1 Pet. v. 4. The reference to the contents of the teaching (Em- 
 merling : 11 tale munus quum habeam tantorum honorum spem ostendens”), 
 to which Rlickert is also inclined, is opposed to the words used and to the 
 context. As little are we to assume, with Heander, an equalization of the 
 eArr/f with the TrEKoibijaig, ver. 4, and a linking on of the thought to ver. 4. 
 — TzoAAy Trappy ala XP^P- ] denotes the frank unreservedness and openness to¬ 
 wards those with whom the teacher has to do : per' EAEvbeptag iravTaxov Qdey- 
 yop.E'&a, ovSev cnroKpvTTTopEVoi, ovSev vitoGTEA'XopevoL , ovSev ixpopupEvoi , aAAa Gacpfog 
 HyovrEc , Chrysostom. The evidentia (Beza, comp. Mosheim) or perspicuitas 
 (Castalio) belongs to this, but does not exhaust the idea. On xp tt apprjo ., 
 comp. Plato, Ep. 8, p. 354 A ; Phaedr. p. 240 E ; xP ( ~°p- is utimur , not uta- 
 mur (Erasmus). 
 
 Ver. 13. A negative amplification of the t ro/2y vappyGig xP^P £ ^ a by com¬ 
 parison with the opposite conduct of Moses. — ml ov ] sc. ribepev mlvppa hrl 
 to TrpoGionov yfjiwv, according to the Greek way of putting the verb, which ' 
 is common to the principal and subordinate clause, in the subordinate 
 clause, and adapting it to the subject of that clause. See Heindorf, ad Gorg. 
 p. 592 A ; Winer, p. 542 [E. T. 728] : Kuhner, II. p. 609. The meaning 
 of the allegorical language is : “ and we do not go to work veiling ourselves 
 (dissembling), as Moses did, veiling his countenance , that the Israelites might 
 notf etc. See Ex. xxxiv. 33-35. —npbg to yg cltevigcu k.t.a.] the purpose , . 
 which Moses had in veiling his radiant face while he spoke to the people : 
 the people were not (as they Avould otherwise have done) to fix their gaze on 
 the Tvkog tov mTapyovyevov (see below). In order to free Moses from a dis¬ 
 simulation, Wolf explained it : “ ut indicaretur cos non posse intueri,” 
 which, however, is not conveyed in the words, and is not to be supported 
 by Luke xviii. 1 ; and Schulz and Flatt, following older commentators, 
 explain that -pog k.t. A. means so that , etc., which, however, is wrong both 
 as to the usage of the words (comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. v. 28, p. 231) and 
 as to the connection of ideas, since the Tco/IXy Trapp, xp • ver - 12 presupposes 
 
472 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 the intentional character of the opposite procedure. The latter remark 
 applies also in opposition to de Wette (comp, before him, Beza and Calvin), 
 who takes npog k.t.X. not of the intention, but of the divine aim , according 
 to the well-known Biblical teleology, in which the result is regarded as 
 aimed at by God, Isa. vi. 9 ; Matt. xiii. 11 ff. ; Luke viii. 10. In this way 
 a conscious concealment on the part of Moses is removed ; but without suffi¬ 
 cient ground, since that concealment must not have been regarded by Paul 
 as immoral (“ fraudulenter, ” Fritzsche), and with his reverence for the 
 holy lawgiver and prophet cannot have been so regarded, but rather, in 
 keeping with the preparatory destination of the Mosaic system, as a paeda- 
 gogic measure which Moses adopted according to God’s command, but the 
 purpose of which falls away with the emergence of that which is abiding, 
 i.e. of the ministry of the gospel (Gal. iv. 1 ff;.). Finally, the argument of 
 usage is also against de Wette, for in the N. T. by the telic rrpbg ro and infini¬ 
 tive there is never expressed the objective, divinely-arranged aim (which is 
 denoted by iva and orzug), but always the subjective purpose, which one has 
 in an action (Matt. v. 28, vi. 1, xiii. 30, xxiii. 5 ; Mark xiii. 22 ; Eph. vi. 
 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thcss. iii. 8 ; Jas. iii. 3, Elzevir ; also Matt. xxvi. 12). 
 The point of comparison is the k ‘ tecte agere” (Fritzsche), which was done by 
 Moses with the purpose specified through the veiling of his face (not through 
 the figures in which he veiled the truth, as de Wette, following Mosheim, 
 imports), but is not done by the teachers of the gospel, since they go to 
 work in their ministry freely and frankly (ver. 12). The context furnishes 
 nothing further than this, not even what Hofmann finds in the k. ov na-datr. 
 M. k.t.'j l. 1 2 As little are we to suppose arbitrarily, with Klopper, that Paul 
 had in mind not so much Moses himself as his successors (?), the Judaists .— 
 tig to rihog tov icarapy.] to TtXog, by its very connection with tov naTapy., is 
 fixed to the meaning end , and not final aim (Osiandcr) or completion ; 2 and 
 tov Karapy. must be the same as was meant by to naTapy ovysvov in the applica¬ 
 tion intended by Paul of the general proposition in ver. 11. Consequently 
 it cannot be masculine (Luther, Vatablus ; even Rtickert is not disinclined 
 to this view), nor can it denote the Mosaic religion , the end of which is 
 Christ [Rom. x. 4], as, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, 
 most expositors, including Flatt and Osiander, think, against which, how¬ 
 ever, even Moses’ own prophecy (Deut. xviii. 15), according to the Messianic 
 interpretation then universal, would militate ; but it must be the ministry of 
 Moses , which is passing away , see on ver. 11. The Israelites were not intend¬ 
 ed, in Paul’s opinion, at that time to. contemplate the end of this ministry, 
 
 1 “If the apostle had found his calling 
 only in publishing to others traditional doc- 
 trines , he would have thought, like Moses, 
 that he must carefully distinguish between 
 what he was .and what he had to teach , that 
 he must keep his person in subordination to 
 his task, in order not ... to injure the ef¬ 
 fect of what he taught.” 
 
 2 So Isenbergin the Lather. Zeitschr. 1867, 
 p. 240 ff., who, regarding too Karapy. as the 
 
 genitive of apposition, brings out the sense : 
 “the transitory office of the O. T. as the 
 completion, after which no other institution 
 could be expected.” Thus there is ascribed 
 to Moses exactly the opposite of what the 
 simple words say ; Paul would have written 
 something like ei? to Ko.Ta.pyovp.^vov to 
 TeAeior. The genitive of apposition would 
 here give the meaningless thought: “ the 
 end, which is the transitory.” 
 
CHAP. III., 14. 
 
 473 
 
 which, was to cease through the ministry of the gospel ; therefore Moses 
 veiled his face. 1 By what means (according to the apostle’s view), if Moses 
 had not veiled himself, they would have se'en the end of his office, is apparent 
 from ver. 7, namely, by the disappearance of the splendour, the departure 
 of which would have typically presented to them the termination of the 
 tiiaicovia of Moses. 2 * But not on this account are we to explain (with the 
 scholiast in Matthaei and others, including Stolz, Billroth, Olshausen, de 
 Wette, Ewald, 8 Hofmann) to narapy. of the transient splendour itself (ver. 7), 
 which is forbidden by ver. 11, and would be a confusion of the type and 
 antitype. 
 
 Vv. 14-18. Sad contrast which the procedure of the preachers of the 
 gospel indicated in vv. 12, 13—so wholly different from the procedure of 
 Moses—meets with in the hardening of Israel. How far off arc they to this 
 day from divine freedom ! how altogether different, however (ver. 18), it 
 is with us Christians ! 
 
 Ver. 14. ’A/U’ e-upu&r) k.tX.] This alia does not refer to the thought 
 implied in the previous repbq to yg aTevlcnu k.t.1., that the Jews did not con¬ 
 template the end of the Mosaic ministry, for this was made impossible to 
 them, in fact, by Moses himself and according to his own intention. What 
 Billroth imports into alia is therefore also unsuitable : “ hut instead thereof 
 icere hardened ,” etc. Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, Hofmann (comp, also Ols¬ 
 hausen) take the connection rightly, that over against the utterance treating 
 of the holders of the apostolic office, ver. 12 f. stands , that which speaks of Israel. 
 Accordingly alia is at, nevertheless. — h-nupcodf Paul does not here say hy 
 whom this certainly passive (in opposition to Theodoret) hardness of heart 4 * * * 
 
 1 Paul deviates, therefore, from the rep¬ 
 resentation of Ex. xxxiv. in not abiding 
 simply by the statement, that Moses veiled 
 his face because the eyes of the Israelites 
 could not endure the radiance—but, in con¬ 
 nection with his typological way of regard¬ 
 ing the fact, apprehends it in the sense that 
 Moses was induced to veil himself by the 
 subjective motive of keeping out of the peo¬ 
 ple’s sight the end of his ministry of law. (f 4 ) 
 
 2 It might be objected to our whole ex¬ 
 
 planation, that, if Moses had not veiled him¬ 
 
 self, the people would still not have read 
 
 the end of the Mosaic ministry from the 
 
 departing splendour (Billroth), nay, that 
 Moses himself did not find anything of the 
 kind in it. But we have not here a supple¬ 
 ment of the account in Ex. xxxiv. (Krum- 
 mel), but a rabbinic-allegorical exposition 
 
 02H*1) of the circumstances, which as such 
 is withdrawn from historical criticism, but 
 nevertheless is in accordance with the strik¬ 
 ing aim which the apostle has in view. 
 
 This aim was to make the nap^cria of the 
 stewardship of the gospel-ministry conspic¬ 
 uous by contrast, like the light by shadow. 
 (e 4 ) 
 
 3 Who explains it as if not elg to re\og row 
 Karapy., but simply et; to Ka.Tapyovp.evov , were 
 used. Ewald conceives the disappeai’ance 
 of the splendour as ensuing gradually dur¬ 
 ing the age, and finally at the death of 
 Moses, as Grotius also on ver. 7 represents it. 
 
 4 TnopovaOai means to be made hard (from 
 the substantive nibpog) not to be blinded , as 
 Schleusner ( Thes. IV. p. 541) and others, 
 following the Fathers, and also Hofmann 
 would take it, since there is no trace at all of 
 the use among the Greeks of an adjective 
 Tnopog, blind, which the etymol. Gud. and 
 Suidas quote. The Greeks have tt npog, blind¬ 
 ness, and vijpog, blind, but not ntopog. And if 
 the LXX. translate nnD, Job vii. 7, by jrw- 
 
 T T 
 
 povaOaL, and Zech. xi. 17 by eKTV<})\ovad-aL (to 
 which Hofmann makes appeal), this proves 
 nothing in favour of that explanation of 
 iTtopovcrOaL, since the LXX. very often, with 
 exegetical freedom, render the same word 
 differently according to the context. We 
 may add that Hofmann irrelevantly com¬ 
 pares Lucian, Amor. 46, where nr)poi does 
 not mean blind at all, but lias its fundamen¬ 
 tal meaning maimed. The passage in 
 Lucian means : lL To whom are the glances of 
 
474 
 
 PAUL’S SECOXD EPISTLE TO TIIE COItIHTHIAXS. 
 
 has been caused. It may be conceived as produced by God (Rom. xi. ff., 
 comp. John xii. 39 f.; Acts xxviii. 26) just as well as by the devil (iv. 4, 
 comp. Matt. xiii. 19), these two wliys of regarding it not being contradic¬ 
 tory to each other. The aorist denotes the hardness of heart which set in 
 later after their intercourse with-Moses, but in connection with the insight 
 then rendered impossible to them. UendipuTai would have meant something 
 else. On vor/para, thoughts , the products of the vovg, of the exercise of the 
 theoretic and practical reason, which, through the hardness of heart, become 
 inaccesible to, and insusceptible of, the perception of the divine, comp, on 
 Phil. iv. 7. —axpi -yap k.t.'j l.] A proof, in accordance with experience, for 
 what was just said ETrcjpcb^r/ k.t.X. —to avro Kakvppa ettc /c.t.A] The same veil 
 is, of course, to be understood, not of material identity, but symbolically 
 of the likeness of the spiritual hindrance. Without figure the meaning is : 
 the same incapacity for recognizing the end of the Mosaic ministry, which was 
 produced among them then by the veil of Moses , remains with them to this day 
 when the Old Covenant is read. — hrt ry avayv6aei\ Paul conceives the public 
 reading of the O. T. every Sabbath (Acts xv. 21) as overlaid with the veil 
 hindering knowledge ; still we need not assume, with Wolf, Michaelis, 
 Semler, and others, a reference to the (see Lakemacher, Obss. III. p. 
 209 ff.) with which the Jews veiled themselves at the reading of the law 
 and at prayer, because otherwise Paul must have made the veil fall on the 
 countenances of the Jews, and not on the public reading. But he has con¬ 
 ceived to himself the matter so, that the public reading takes place under 
 the veil enwrapping this act, so that in this reading the Jews remain shut 
 out from insight into the new covenant. Yv. 13 and 15 preclude us from 
 abandoning the local signification of etcl , on. The explanation, u when there 
 is public reading ” (Hofmann), confuses the meaning with the sensuous, but 
 in relation to the context appropriate, form of presenting it .—rijg ttga. 
 (baJ/y/cr/f] For when the law of Moses is publicly read, there is read the old 
 covenant (comp, on vcr. 6) therein set forth. This is the contents of the 
 public reading. Comp. ver. 15 : avayivuGKETai M ovoyg. ’H izaTi. dia&. does 
 not mean the boohs of the 0. T ., as is here usually supposed. — pi) avaaalvw- 
 ropevov , bn kv X. Karapyelrac] These words in themselves admit of two ex¬ 
 planations ; the first refers the participle and Karapyelrai to to nalvppa , and 
 takes utl in the sense of because , as specifying the ground of the pi/ avana; l. 
 (so most of the older expositors, and recently Fritzsche, Billroth, Schrader, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Xeander, Hofmann, comp. Ewalcl) : without being 
 uncovered , because it is annihilated in Christ (the veil), but Christ is not 
 preached to them. On avanaXvTTTEiv Kakvppa , to uncover a veil , comp. BXX. 
 Deut. xxii. 30 : ova avaKakvipat Gvymkvppa rov irarpog. But against this view 
 (. 7 ) Karapyeirai seems decisive, which, according to the context (see vv. 11, 
 13), cannot apply to the taking away of the veil, but only to the abolition 
 of the Mosaic ministry, or according to the connection of ver. 14, to the 
 abolition of the old covenant, which is the object of the Mosaic ministry 
 
 the. eyes so blind (rvfiXoi), and the thoughts of the understanding so lame ( nripoC )?” Here 
 nrjpoi is a figurative expression for weakness. 
 
CHAP. III., 15. 
 
 4 >+J 
 
 4 O 
 
 (comp, also Rom. iii. 31 ; Eph. ii. 15) ; and lienee Paul, ver. 1G, does not 
 use KarapytiTcu of tlie removal of the veil, but tz eptaipeirai, which signifies the 
 same thing as avaizalvzzTerat. (b) If py avanalvTZTopevov were to refer to to avro 
 nalvppa, then nalvppa in the contrast introduced by alia in ver. 15 would 
 necessarily be the same veil, of which py avanalvizr. would be here said, and 
 Paul must therefore at ver. 15 have written to nalvppa with the article. 
 Hence the second method of explanation 1 is to be preferred, according to 
 which the participle is taken absolutely , and bn as that, while narapyeirai is 
 referred to the zzal. beady ny, thus : while it is not disclosed (unveiled),' 2 * it re¬ 
 mains hidden from the Jews, that in Christ the old covenant is done away, 
 that in Christ—in Ilis appearance and in His work—the abolition of the 
 Old Covenant takes place (Rom. x. 4 ; Col. ii. 14). The whole is thus a 
 more precise practical definition of the previous to abrb KaXvppa . . . pivei. 
 This absolute appositional use of the neuter participle (to be regarded as 
 accusative, though viewed by Hermann and others as nominative ) is a cur¬ 
 rent Greek idiom in impersonal phrases. Sec Hermann, ad Yiger. p. 7G9 ; 
 Bernhardy, p. 471 ; Kruger, § lvi. 9. 5 ; Maetzncr, ad Antiph. p. 17G. 
 Hence Rlickert is without reason in referring py avanalvTZT. to to nalvppa, and 
 yet understanding bn as that and narapyeirat of the Old Covenant, whereby 
 the unwarranted importation of a thought becomes necessary, namely, to 
 this effect : u the same veil rests on the reading of the O. T. and is not up¬ 
 lifted, so that it (the people) might perceive that it (the O. T.) has its end 
 in Christ.” Luther’s translation (comp. Erasmus, Beza, and Ileumann) 
 follows the reading b,ri (Elzevir), which Scholz also lias again taken 
 up. (ii 4 ) This q,tl would have to be explained as quippe quod (velamen), and 
 would give from the nature of the veil (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 30) 
 the information why it remains unlifted,—an interpretation, however, which 
 w T ould only be compatible with the first view given above, and even with 
 that would be unnecessary. — narapyelrai] present; for the fact, that in 
 Christ the Old Covenant is abolished, is laid down in theoretical form as an 
 article of faith, as a truth which remains veiled from the Jews so long as 
 they are not converted to Christ (ver. 16 ). 
 
 Yer. 15. ’A/IJ’] opposite of the py avanal., bn h X. narapy., but no longer 
 connected with yap, ver. 14 (Hofmann), since the apostle does not again mean 
 the particular veil (that of Moses) to which the confirmatory clause introduced 
 with yap, ver. 14, referred. It is not disclosed, that, etc. ; till to-day, on the 
 contrary, there lies a veil , etc. ; till to-day, whenever (av, in whatsoever case) 
 Moses is publicly read, their insight (comp, previously ezzoptbdy, etc.) is hin¬ 
 dered and prevented. The figurative expression does not again represent the 
 veil of Moses, for otherwise rb nalvppa must necessarily (in opposition to Ilof- 
 
 1 So among the older commentators Cas- 
 talio, and recently Kypke, Flatt, Osiander, 
 Maier; comp, also Krummel, who, how¬ 
 ever, mentally supplies “ by all teachers of 
 the law.''' 1 
 
 2 Very naturally and suitably Paul chose 
 
 the word ava^aA.., not inoKa\. (in opposition 
 
 to de Wette’s objection), since he has to do 
 
 with the conception of a koAi^/ao. that re¬ 
 mains. The veil remains, since it is not 
 unveiled that, etc. In this way the explana¬ 
 tory expression is quite in beeping with the 
 figure itself. Besides, ava/caXuVrei^ was com¬ 
 mon enough in the sense of to make mani¬ 
 fest, to make known (Tob. xii. 7, 11; Polyb. 
 iv. 83. G). 
 
476 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 mann) have been used, but generally a veil, and that one placed over (hri 
 with acc.) the heart (here regarded as the centre of the practical intelli¬ 
 gence, comp. iv. G ; Rom. i. 21 ; and see on Eph. i. 18 ; Krumm, de not. 
 psych. P. p. 50 ; Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 248 f. ; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 
 4G0) of the hearers, (i 4 ) The impersonal yy avamhvirToy. of ver. 14 induced the 
 apostle very naturally and with logical suitableness, not to use again in the 
 contrast of ver. 15, with its emphatic stress laid on the point lug ayyepov, 
 that historical image of the veil of Moses, but to express the conception gen¬ 
 erally of a veil hindering perception (lying on the heart). The same thing, 
 therefore, is expressed in two forms of one figure ; the first form gives the 
 figure historically (the veil of Moses on the avdyvuag t. i rah. Head.) ; the 
 second form, apart from that historical reference, gives it as moulded by the 
 apostle's own vivid imagination (a veil upon the heart at the public reading). 
 Fritzsche (comp. Al. Morns in Wolf) assumes that Paul imagines to him¬ 
 self two veils, one on the public reading of the Old Covenant, the other on 
 the hearers’ own hearts, by which he wishes to mark the high degree of 
 their inaptitude for perceiving. But, in order to be understood, and in 
 keeping with a state of things so peculiar, lie must have brought this out 
 definitely and emphatically, and have at least written in ver. 15 : ’A/U,’ . . . 
 Muvcyg, ml crrl tt/v mpdiav avrtjv KaXvyya keItul. — yv'im ] at the hour when, 
 quando , after Horn. Od. xxii. 198 frequent in the classic writers, but in the 
 N. T. only here and at ver. 16. Often used in the Apocrypha and the LXX, 
 also at Ex. xxxiv. 34 ; and perhaps the word was suggested by the recol¬ 
 lection of this passage. — On avayivucK. Mova. comp. Acts xv. 21. 
 
 Ycr. 10. When, however , it shall have turned to the Lord , shall have come 
 to believe on Christ, the veil , which lies on their heart (ver. 15), is taken 
 away; i.e., when Moses is read before them, it will no longer remain un¬ 
 perceived by them that the Old Covenant ceases in Christ. The subject to 
 £7n(TTp£'tpy is y mpSla avruv, ver. 15 (Luther in the gloss, Beza, Grotius, Ben- 
 gel, and several others, including Billroth, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann), 
 not d T apayl (Chrysostom, Thcodoret, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, and 
 many others, including Osiander), nor Mwi )cyg (Calvin, Estius), 1 nor the 
 general rig (Origen, Storr, Flatt). — The common supposition, that in ver. 
 1G there is an allegorical reference to Moses, who, returning from the people 
 to God, conversed unveiled with God (Ex. xxxiv. 34), is in itself probable 
 from the context, and is confirmed even by the choice of the words (Ex. l.c. : 
 y v t k a <T av eigettopeveto M. evavrt Kvpcov . . . TreptijpeiTO to Kal.vp.yd), 
 
 though the same veil with which Moses was veiled (to avTo mh., ver. 14) is 
 no longer spoken of, but a veil on the hearts of the Jews.— yvim with av 
 and the subjunctive aorist 2 denotes : then , when it shall have turned (Luther 
 wrongly : when it turned itself), and that as something conceived, thought 
 
 1 Calvin thinks that Moses is here tanta¬ 
 mount in meaning to the law, and that the 
 sense is: When the law is referred to 
 Christ, when Christ is sought in the law by 
 the Jews, then will the truth dawn upon 
 them. Estius, who refers K-upcov to God, 
 
 says: “Moses conversus ad Dominum 
 atque retectam habens faciem, typum 
 gessit populi Christiani ad Deum conversi 
 et. revelata cordis facie salutis mysteria 
 eontemplantis.” 
 
 2 See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 773. 
 
CHAP. III., 17. 
 
 477 
 
 of, not as an unconditioned fact. The tt pog icbpiov, however, docs not affirm : 
 to God , who is now revealed in the Lord (Hofmann), but, in simple accord¬ 
 ance with ev Xptorti of ver. 15 : to Christ. The conversion . of Israel which 
 Paul has in view is, now that it is wholly relegated to the experience of the 
 future, the conversion as a whole , Rom. xi. 25. It was, however, obvious of 
 itself that what is affirmed finds its application to all individual cases which 
 had already occurred and were still to be expected. — irepiatp. has the em¬ 
 phasis, both of its important position at the head of the clause (removed is the 
 veil) and of the future realized as present. The passive is all the more to be 
 retained, seeing that the subject of brioTp. is the heart ; the sense of self -lib¬ 
 eration (Hofmann) may not be imported on account of Ex. xxxiv. 84. The 
 conversion and deliverance of Israel is God's work. See ver. 17 and Rom. 
 xi. 26 f. The compound corresponds to the conception of the veil covering 
 the heart round about. Comp. Plato, Polit. p. 288 E : 6eppara aupdruv 
 vcspiaipovca , Dem. 125, 26 : Trepieilw to telxVi 802, 5 : Trepiypprat, rovg GTEcjavovg, 
 Judith x. 3 : rov gokkov, Bar. iv. 34, vi. 58 ; Acts xxvii. 40. 
 
 Yer. 17. Remark giving information regarding what is asserted in ver. 16. 
 — de, [the German] aber , appends not something of contrast , i.e. to Moses, 
 who is the letter (Hofmann), but a clause elucidating what was just said, 
 7 -epiatp. to ml., 1 equivalent to namely. See Hermann, ad. Viger. p. 845 ; 
 Ilartung, Partikell. I. p. 167. Ruckert (comp, de Wette) is of a different 
 opinion, holding that there is here a continued chain of reasoning , so that 
 Paul in vv. 16, 17 means to say : “When the people of Israel shall have 
 turned to the Lord, then will the Kal.vp.pa be taken from it ; and when this 
 shall have happened, it will also attain the freedom (from the yoke of the 
 law) which is at present wanting to it.” But, because in that case the 
 ilevdepia would be a more important point than the taking away of the veil, 
 ver. 18 must have referred back not to the latter, but to the former. Seeing, 
 however, that ver. 18 refers back to the taking away of the veil, it is clear 
 that ver. 17 is only an accessory sentence, which is intended to remove every 
 doubt regarding the Treptaipdrai to Kalvppa . 2 * * * Besides, if Ruckert were right, 
 Paul Avould have continued his discourse illogically ; the logical continuation 
 would have been, ver. 17 : ov 6e TcepiaipelTaL to Kabvppa, to Trvevpa Kvpiov egtlv" 
 ov 66 to tcv. Kvp. k.t.Il. — 6 66 Kvpiog to Trvevpa egtlv ] 6 Kvpiog is subject , not (as 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Schulz held, 
 partly in the interest of opposition to Arianism) predicate, which would be 
 possible in itself, but cannot be from the connection with ver. 16. 8 The 
 
 1 Bengel aptly says: “Particula autem 
 ostendit, hoc versu declavari praeceden- 
 tem. Conversio fit ad Dominum ut spiri¬ 
 tual.” Theodoret rightly furnishes the 
 definition of the Se as making the transition 
 to an explanation by the intermediate ques¬ 
 tion : Tt? Se o 5ro? 7rpo? Set a7ro/3A€i//ai ; 
 
 2 There is implied, namely, in ver. 17 a 
 
 syllogism, of which the major premiss is : 
 
 oti to ni'evp.a Kvpiov, e\evOepi.a, “ where 
 
 the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ; ” 
 
 the minor premiss is: “this Spirit he 
 who is converted to the Lord has, because 
 the Lord is the Spirit ; ” the conclusion : 
 “consequently that Kd\vp.p.a can no longer 
 have a place with the converted but only 
 freedom.” 
 
 3 For the most complete, historical and 
 critical conspectus of the many different 
 interpretations of this passage, see Krum- 
 mel, p. 53 ff. 
 
478 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 words, "however, cannot mean : Dominus signiflcat Spiritum (Wetstein), 
 because previously the conversion to Christ, to the actual personal Christ, 
 was spoken of ; they can only mean : the Lord , however , is the Spirit , i.e. the 
 Lord , however , to whom the heart is converted (note the article) is not differ¬ 
 ent from the (. Holy ) Spirit , who is'received, namely, in conversion, and (see 
 what follows) is the divine life-power that makes free. That this was meant 
 not of hypostatical identity, but according to the dynamical oeconomic point 
 of view, that the fellowship of Christ, into which we enter through conver¬ 
 sion, is the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, was obvious of itself to the believ¬ 
 ing consciousness of the readers, and is also put beyond doubt by the follow¬ 
 ing to irvevya nvpiov. And Christ is the Spirit in so far as at conversion , and 
 generally in the whole arrangements of salvation , He communicates Himself in 
 the ILoly Spirit , and th is Spirit is Ills Spirit , the living principle of the influ¬ 
 ence and indwelling of Christ , —certainly the living ground of life in the church, 
 and the spirit of its life (Hofmann), but as such just the Holy Spirit, in whom 
 the Lord reveals Himself as present and savingly active. The same thought 
 is contained in Rom. viii. 9-11, as is clear especially from vv. 10, 11, where 
 Xfucror and to irvevya tov h/ei pavroc ’Ir/covv and irvevya Xp/GTov (ver. 9) appear 
 to be identical as the indwelling principle of the Christian being and life, so 
 that there must necessarily lie at the bottom of it the idea : XpcoToq to irvevya 
 kcTL. Comp. Gal. ii. 20, iv. G, Phil. i. 19, Acts xx. 28, along with Eph. iv. 
 11. As respects His immanence , therefore, in His people, Christ is the Spirit. 
 Comp, also Krummcl, l.c. p. 97, who rightly remarks that, if Christ calls 
 Himself the light, the way, the truth, etc., all this is included in the propo¬ 
 sition : “the Lord is the Spirit.’’ Fritzsche, Dissert. I. p. 42, takes it : 
 Dominus est ita Sp. St. perfusus , ut totus quasi to irvevya sit. So also Ruckert, 
 who nevertheless (following Erasmus and Beza) believes it necessary to ex¬ 
 plain the article before irvevya by retrospective reference to vv. G, 8. 1 But 
 in that case the whole expression would be reduced to a mere quasi , with 
 which the further inference ov 5e to irvevya icvp'ov would not be logically in 
 accord ; besides, according to analogy of Scripture elsewhere, it cannot be 
 said of the exalted Christ (and yet it is LLe that is meant), “ Spiritu sancto 
 perfusus estfl or “ Spiritu gaudet divino, ” an expression which can only belong 
 to Christ in Ilis earthly state (Luke i. 35 ; Mark i. 10 ; Acts i. 2, x. 38); 
 whereas the glorified Christ is the sender of the Spirit, the possessor and 
 disposer (comp, also Rev. iii. 1, iv. 5, v. 6), and therewith Lord of the Spirit, 
 ver. 18. The weakened interpretation: “Christ, however, imparts the 
 Spirit’ 1 ' 1 (Piscator, L. Cappellus, Scultetus, and others, including Emmer- 
 
 1 Quite erroneously, since no reader 
 could hit on this retrospective reference, 
 and also the following to Tzveipa Kvplov is 
 said without any such reference. Paul, if 
 he wished to express himself so as to be 
 surely intelligible, could not do otheru'ise 
 than put the article ; for, if he had written 6 
 Se Kvpios nvevijLa ean, he might have given 
 rise to quite another understanding than he 
 wished to express, namely : the Lord is 
 
 spirit , a spiritual being, as John iv. 24, 
 irvevpa 6 ®eo?,—a possible misinterpretation, 
 which is rejected already by Chrysostom. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 45. We may add that to 
 7rveuju.a is to be explained simply according 
 to hallowed usage of the Holy Spirit, not, 
 as Lipsius ( Tlechtfertigunqsl . p. 167) unrea¬ 
 sonably presses the article, “ the whole full 
 TTvedpa." So also Ernesti, Uspr. d. Siinde, 
 I. p. 222. 
 
CHAP. III., 17. 
 
 479 
 
 ling and Flatt), is at variance with the words, and is not to be supported 
 by passages like John xiv. 6, since in these the predicates are not concretes 
 but abstracts. In keeping with the view and the expression in the present 
 joassage are those Johannine passages in which Christ promises the commu¬ 
 nication of the Spirit to the disciples as His own return (John xiv. 18, aid). 
 Others have departed from the simple sense of the words “ Christ is the 
 Spirit, ” either by importing into to wev/ia another meaning than that of the 
 Holy Spirit, or by not taking 6 nvprog to signif}^ the personal Christ. The 
 former course is inadmissible, partly on account of the following ov tie to 
 irvevoa nvpiov, partly because the absolute to rcvevpa admits of no other mean¬ 
 ing whatever than the habitual one ; the latter is made impossible by ver. 
 16. Among those adhering to the former view are Moms : “Quum Dom- 
 inum dico, intelligo illam divinitus datam religionis scientiam Erasmus 
 and Calvin : “that to tt vevpa is the spirit of the laic , which only becomes 
 viva et vivifica , si a Christo inspiretur , whereby the spirit comes to the body;” 
 also Olshausen: “the Lord now is just the Spirit, of which there was men¬ 
 tion above” (ver. G) ; by this is to be understood the spiritual institute, the 
 economy of the Spirit ; Christ, namely, fills His church with Himself ; hence 
 it is itself Christ. Comp. Ewald, according to whom Christ is designated, 
 in contrast with the letter and compulsion of law, as the Spirit absolutely (just 
 as God is, John iv. 24). Similarly Ncander. To this class belongs also the 
 interpretation of Baur, which, in spite of the article in to tv vevya, amounts 
 to this, that Christ in His substantial existence is spirit, i.e. an immaterial 
 substance composed of light; 1 comp, his neut. Theol. p. 187 f. See, on the 
 contrary, Rabiger, Christol. Paid. p. 36 f ; Krummel, l.c. p. 79 If. Among 
 the adherents of the second mode of interpretation are Yorstius, Mosheim, 
 Bolten : “6 uvpcog is the doctrine of Jesus /” also Billroth, who recognizes as 
 its meaning : “inthe kingdom of the Lord the Spirit rules ; the essence of 
 Christianity is the Spirit of the Lord, which He confers on His own.” For 
 many other erroneous interpretations (among which is included that of 
 Estius, Calovius, and others, who refer 6 Kvpiog to God, and so explain the 
 words of the divinity of the Holy Spirit ), see Pole and Wolf.— klevOepia] 
 spiritual freedom in general , without special limitation. 2 To have a veil on 
 the heart (see ver. 15), and to be spiritually free, are opposite; hence the 
 statement TrepiaipeiTai to ualvypa, ver. 16, obtains elucidation by our ehevdepia. 
 The veil on the heart hinders the spiritual activity, and makes it fettered ; 
 vdiere, therefore, there is freedom , the veil must be away ; but freedom 
 must have its seat, where the Spirit of the Lord is, which Spirit carries on and 
 governs all the thinking and willing, and removes all barriers external to its 
 sway. That Paul has regard (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Fritzsche) 
 to the conception that the veil is an outward sign of subjection (1 Cor. xi. 
 
 1 Weiss also, bibl. Theol. p. 308, explains it 
 to the effect, that Christ in His resurrection 
 received a pneumatic body composed of 
 light, and therefore became entirely nveiixa. 
 (1 Cor. xv. 45). But the article is against 
 this also. Besides, the body of Christ in 
 His resurrection was not yet the body of 
 
 light, which it is in heaven (Phil. iii. 21). 
 
 2 Grotius understands it as libertas a vitiis; 
 while Pnickert, de Wette, and others, after 
 Chrysostom, make it the freedom from 
 the law of Moses. According to Erasmus, 
 Paraphr., it is free virtue and love. 
 
480 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 10), is to be denied all the more, seeing that here what is spoken of is not a 
 covering of the head (which would be the sign of a foreign k^ovala), as 1 Cor. 
 l.c., but a veiling of the heart , ver. 15. 
 
 Yer. 18. The eXevdepui just mentioned is now further confirmed on an 
 appeal to experience as in triumph, -by setting forth the (free, unrestricted) 
 relation of all Christians to the glory of Christ. The Se is the simple yera- 
 ISariKov , and forms the transition from the thing (iXevdepia) to the persons , in 
 •whom the thing presents itself in definite form. For the freedom of him 
 who has the Spirit of the Lord forms the contents of ver. 18, and not sim¬ 
 ply the thought : “we, however, bear this Spirit of the Lord in us.” 1 
 Flaft and Ruckert are quite arbitrary in attaching it to ver. 14.— yyelg] 
 refers to the Christians in general , as the connection, the added tt avrer, and 
 what is affirmed of S/yeig, clearly prove. Erasmus, Cajetanus, Estius, Ben- 
 gel, Michaelis, Nosselt, Stolz, Rosenmiiller are wrong in thinking that it 
 refers merely to the apostles and teachers. — The emphasis is not on Trdvreg (in 
 which Theodoret, Theophylact, Bengel find a contrast to the one Moses), 
 but on 7/fj.e ug, in contrast to the Jews, “ qui fidei carent oculis,” Erasmus. — 
 avaKEKal. ^pocCmfi with unveiled countenance; for through our conversion to 
 Christ our formerly confined and fettered spiritual intuition (knowledge) 
 became free and unconfined, ver. 16. After vv. 15, 16 we should expect 
 avanEKalivppiv'ij napdia ; but Paul changes the figure, because he wishes here 
 to represent the persons not as hearing (as in ver. 15) but as seeing , and 
 therewith his conception has manifestly returned to the history of Moses, 
 who appeared before God with the veil removed, Ex. xxxiv. 34. Next to 
 the subject r/ueig, moreover, the emphasis lies on avanes-al. Trpoodivcp : “But 
 we all, with unveiled countenance beholding the glory of the Lord in the mir¬ 
 ror, become transformed to the same glory.” For if the beholding of the 
 glory presented in the mirror should take place with covered face , the re¬ 
 flection of this glory (“speculi autem est lumen repercutere,” Emmerling) 
 could not operate on the beholders to render them glorious, as, indeed, also 
 in the case of Moses it was the unveiled^ countenance that received the radia¬ 
 tion of the divine glory. — rrjv So^av Kvpiov ] said quite wdthout limit of the 
 whole glory of the exalted Christ . 2 It is the divine , in so far as Christ is 
 the bearer and reflection of the divine glory (Col. i. 15, ii. 9 ; John xvii. 
 5 ; Heb. i. 3) ; but Kvpiov does not (in opposition to Calvin and Estius) apply 
 to God , on account of vv. 16, 17.— Karontpi^oyevoi] beholding in the mirror. 
 For we beheld the glory of Christ in the mirror, inasmuch as we see not 
 immediately its objective reality, which will only be the case in the future 
 
 1 So Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 
 124 f. 
 
 2 They see Ilim therefore as the o-iAJpovos 
 of the Father (Acts viii. 5G), as the head of 
 the church, as the possessor and bestower 
 of the whole divine fulness of grace, as the 
 future judge of the world, as the con¬ 
 queror of all hostile powei’s, as the inter¬ 
 cessor for His own, in short, as the wearer 
 of the whole majesty which belongs to His 
 
 kingly office. Usually t . S6£av kvo. is taken 
 as including in its reference the state of 
 humiliation ■ (see especially Calovius, do 
 Wette, Osiander), the moral elevation, the 
 grace and truth (John i. 14), the lifting up 
 on the cross, etc. This, however, is con¬ 
 trary to the parallel with the history of 
 Jfoses, who saw the supernatural glory of 
 Cod that might not otherwise be beheld. 
 Grotius indicates the right view. 
 
CHAP. III., 18 . 
 
 481 
 
 kingdom of God (John xvii. 24 ; 1 John iii. 2 ; Col. iii. 3 f. ; Rom. viii. 
 17 f.), but only its representation in the gospel; for the gospel is to every/, rgg 
 6o^rjq tov Xpccrov , iv. 4, consequently, as it were, the mirror , in which the 
 glory of Christ gives itself to be seen and shines in its very image to the eye 
 of faith ; hence the believing heart (Osiander), which is rather the organ of 
 beholding, cannot be conceived as the mirror. Hunnius aptly remarks that 
 Paul is saying, “ nos non ad modum Judaeorum caecutire, sed retecta facie 
 gloriam Domini in evangel ii speculo relucentem intueri.” Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 
 12, where likewise the gospel is conceived of as a mirror, as respects, 
 however, the still imperfect vision which it brings about. KaroTrrpi^G) 
 in the active means to mirror , i.e. to show in the mirror (Plut. Mor. p. 894 
 D) ; but in the middle it means among the Greeks to look into , to behold 
 oneself in a mirror. To this head belong Athen. xv. p. G87 C, and all the 
 passages in Wetstein, also Artemidorus, ii. 7, which passage is erroneously 
 adduced by Wolf and others for the meaning : “ to see in the mirror .” But 
 this latter signification, which is that occurring in the passage now before 
 us, is unquestionably found in Philo (Loesner, Obss. p. 304). See especially 
 Alleg. p. 79 E : grj6e mroirTpioaigyv kv aXhcp nvl tt/v cyv I6eav rj ev col to deti. 
 Pelagius (“ contemplamur”), Grotius, 1 Ruckert, and others quite give up 
 the conception of a mirror , and retain only the notion of beholding ; but this 
 is mere caprice, which quite overlooks as well the correct position of the 
 case to which the word aptly corresponds, as also the reference which the 
 following eiKova has to the conception of the mirror. Chrysostom and his 
 successors, Luther, Calovius, Bengel, and others, including Billroth and 
 Olshausen, think that mroTZTp'feadai means to reflect , to beam back the lustre , 
 so that, in parallel with Moses, the glory of Christ is beaming ; fj icaOapa 
 mpd'ta Tfjq deiac botjrg; ol6v re engayelov ml mroTcrpov yiverai , Theodoret. (j 4 ) 
 Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. , and Luther’s gloss : “as the mirror catches an 
 image, so our heart catches the knowledge of Christ.” But at variance 
 with the usage of the language, for the middle never has this meaning ; and 
 at variance with the context, for avanemX. TrpocuTnp must, according to vv. 
 14-17, refer to the conception of free and unhindered seeing. — rrjv avrr/v 
 eiKova geragopeb.] we become transformed to the same image , i.e. become so 
 transformed that the same image which we see in the mirror—the image of 
 the glory of Christ—presents itself on us, i.e. as regards the substantial 
 meaning : we are so transformed that ice become like to the glorified Christ. 
 Now, seeing that this transformation appears as caused by and contempo^- 
 raneous with avaneK. irpoc. r. 66 f. a. mroTrrp., consequently not as a future 
 sudden act (like the transfiguration at the Parousia, 1 Cor. xv. 51 f. ; comp. 
 Phil. iii. 21), but as something at present in the course of development, it 
 can only be the spiritual transformation to the very likeness of the glorified 
 Christ 1 that is meant (comp. 2 Pet. i. 4 ; Gal. iv. 19, ii. 20), and not the 
 
 1 “ KaronTpL^., i.e. attente spectantes , quo- 
 modo et Latini dicunt specularly nimirum 
 quia qui speculum consulunt omnia singu- 
 latim intuentur. Sic Christiani attente 
 meditantur, quanta sit Christi in coelis reg- 
 
 nantis gloria.” 
 
 2 Comp. Calovius: “Ilia autem fj.era^6p- 
 <t>u>(TL<; neutiquam essentialis est, ut fanatiei 
 volunt, quum in substantiam Christi trans-r 
 formari nequeamus, sed mystica et spir- 
 
482 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 future 66$a (Grotius, Fritzsche, Olshausen would have it included). 
 Against this latter may be urged also the subsequent nadarrsp cnro nvpiov tcvzv- 
 fiarog , which has its reference precisely to the spiritual transformation, that 
 takes place in the present aluv, and the sequel of which is the future 
 Messianic glory to which we are-called (1 Thess. ii. 12 ; Rom. viii. 30) ; so 
 that the present spiritual process, the Kaivorpg ^or/g (Rom. vi. 4) and 
 jrvev/uaTog (Rom. vii. 6)—the spiritual being risen with and living with 
 Christ (Rom. vi. 5 ff.)—experiences at the Parousia also the corresponding 
 outward owSogaodyvai with Christ, and is thus completed, Col. iii. 4. — rrjv 
 avrijv ehiova ] is not to be explained either by supplying Kara or elg , or by 
 quoting the analogy of TrapanalziodaL TcapaKXpcLv and the like (Hofmann), 
 but the construction of perapoptyovv with the accusative is formed quite like 
 the commonly occurring combination of pzrafiaXkzLv with the accusative in 
 the sense : to assume a shape through alteration or transmutation undergone. 
 See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Pep. p. 424 C. The passive turn given to it, in 
 which the accusative remains unaltered (Kruger, § lii. 4. 6 ; Buttmann, 
 neat. Gr. p. 164 [E. T. 190]), yields therefore the sense : we are so trans¬ 
 formed , that we get thereby the same image. —and dS^rjg tig 66^av~\ i.e. so that 
 this transformation issues from glory (viz. from the glory of Christ beheld in 
 the mirror and reflected on us), and has glory as its result (namely, our glory, 
 see above). Comp. ii. 16, also Rom. i. 17. So in the main the Greek 
 Fathers (yet referring curb do^pg, according to their view of curb Kvptov rrvzv- 
 fiarog , to the glory of the Holy Spirit ), Vatablus, Bengel, Fritzsche, Billroth, 
 and others, also Hofmann. But most expositors (including Flatt, Ruckert, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald) explain it of ascending to ever higher 
 (and at length highest, 1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.) glory. Comp, zk Swa/uzug elg dvvaytv, 
 Ps. lxxxiv. 7, also Jer. ix. 2. In this way, however, the correlation of this 
 o.k6 with the following (cnro Kvp. ttv.) is neglected, although for cnro . . . 
 elg expressions like cnro Oa’kaoorjg elg Qdkaacav (Xen. Hell. i. 3 4) might be 
 compared. — Kadarrep airo Kvptov irvevyarog] so as from the Lord of the Spirit , 
 people, namely, are transformed, yzTaydptyucug fiverai. In this there lies a 
 confirmation of the asserted rr) avryv . . . 6o%av. Erasmus rightly observes : 
 “ a>g hie non sonat similitudinem sed congruentiam.” Comp. ii. 17 ; John 
 i. 14, al. Lord of the Spirit (k 4 ) (the words are rightly so connected by 
 “ neoterici quidanP in Estius, Emmerling, Vater, Fritzsche, Billroth, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander, Kling, Krummel ; comp, however, 
 also at an earlier date, Erasmus, Annot.) is Christ, in so far as the operation 
 of the Holy Spirit depends on Christ ; for the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of 
 Christ (ver. 17 ; Rom. viii. 9 f. ; Gal. iv. 6), in so far as Christ Himself 
 rules through the Spirit in the hearts (Rom. viii. 10; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. iii. 16 f.); 
 the sending of the Spirit, 1 is brought about through Christ (Tit. iii. 6), 
 
 itnalis . . . quum ejusdem et justitiae per 
 f.dem, et gloriae per ffratiosam commmii- 
 cationem adeoque et divinae ejus naturae 
 participes i-eddimur.” 
 
 1 The sender himself is, according to Paul, 
 not Christ, but God , 1 Cor. ii. 12, vi. 19; 2 
 Cor. i. 22; Gal. iv. 6; 1 Thess. iv. 8 ; Tit. iii. 
 
 6. According to John (xv. 26, xvi. 7), Christ 
 also sends the Spirit, though not indepen¬ 
 dently, but in the way of interceding with 
 the Father (xiv. 16); comp, also Acts ii. 28. 
 Hence there is no contradiction between 
 Paul and John. 
 
I 
 
 notes. 483 
 
 and by His operations service is done to Christ (1 Cor. xii. 5). Here, too, 
 the relation of subordination in the divine Trinity is most distinctly expressed. 1 
 Why , however, is Christ here named avpiog tt vev/uarog ? Because that spir¬ 
 itual metamorphosis, which proceeds from Christ, cannot take place 
 otherwise than by the influence of the Holy Spirit on us. The explana¬ 
 tions : a Domini spiritu 2 and a Domino spiritu , i.e. a Domino qui est spir- 
 itus 3 agree, indeed, with the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated by the 
 church, but deviate without reason or warrant from the normal order of 
 the words (comp. ver. 17, and see Buttmann, neut. Gramm, p. 295 [E. T. 
 343]), in particular, from the genitive-relation which quite obviously sug¬ 
 gests itself. Riickert hesitatingly allows a choice between the two erro¬ 
 neous views. 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (b 4 ) “ Written in our hearts .” Yer. 2. 
 
 “Anything of which a man is certain, or of which he has a conviction 
 founded upon his inward experience, may be said to be written on his heart. 
 That the Corinthians were his epistle was to the Apostle a matter of conscious¬ 
 ness. It was a letter which he could neither misunderstand nor be ignorant 
 of” (Hodge). 
 
 (c 4 ) “ Such confidence .” Ver. 4. 
 
 Not trust, as in the A. V., but confidence, and such as did not quail even under 
 the eye of God. That it was as humble as it was strong, that it was in no 
 sense self-confidence, is shown by the verses that follow. 
 
 (d 4 ) “ A new covenant." Ver. 6. 
 
 The adjective here employed (Jcainos) has more than a temporal force like 
 neos. The sense is, not an old and worn-out covenant, but one qualitatively 
 different from all that had gone before, instinct with youth and energy ; not a 
 written word, but a living spirit. 
 
 The letter (the law) kills, (1) by demanding perfect obedience, which no man 
 can render ; (2) by producing the knowledge of sin and guilt, and so of just 
 exposure to God’s wrath ; (3) by exasperating the soul in holding forth to it 
 the high standard of dhty which it has no power or inclination to obey. The 
 Spirit (the gospel), on the other hand, gives life, (1) by revealing a perfect and- 
 gratuitous righteousness ; (2) by revealing God’s love and awakening hopein- 
 
 1 The qualitative interpretation of the 
 genitive, like varrip oixTipp ., i. 3 (de Wette, 
 “ whose whole character or whole efficacy 
 is spirit”), is inadmissible, because nuevpa, 
 in accordance with the context, must be 
 the Holy Spirit as respects the notion of 
 subsistence (the person of the Spirit). 
 
 2 Syriac, Vulgate, Augustine, Theophy- 
 
 lact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, 
 
 Grotius, Bengel, and others, including 
 
 Schrader and Hofmann. 
 
 3 Chrysostom : opa ttws Kal evravOa to 
 nvevp.aKvpi.oy Ka\ei Theodoret, Valla, Luther, 
 Beza, Calovius, Wolf, Estius, and several 
 others, including Flatt and Neander. 
 Comp, also Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. 
 p. 125, according to whom Christ is here 
 designated as /cvpio? trvevpa. But he is pre¬ 
 cisely not so designated, but as /cvpio? nvev- 
 
 paros. 
 
484 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 stead of fear ; (3) by transforming the soul through the Holy Ghost, so that it 
 reflects the image of God. 
 
 (e 4 ) “ Shall he with glory." Ver. 8. 
 
 Meyer’s reference here to the Parousia is wholly unoalled for. The manifest 
 comparison is between the outward brightness of the temporary old dispensa¬ 
 tion and the transcendent inward splendour of the new and lasting economy. 
 
 What was a bright cloud overhanging the cherubim to the light of God’s 
 presence filling the soul ?”—The same remark may be made in reference to 
 what the author says on ver. 12. There is nothing in the words themselves 
 or the connection to lead one to think that the Apostle looks forward to the 
 Parousia. On the contrary, the reference is to the present superiority of the 
 gospel and its ministry to the law and the ministry of Moses. 
 
 (f 4 ) The reason of Moses's veil. Ver 13 (note). 
 
 It is not necessary to call Paul’s statement of the reason of Moses’s veiling 
 his face a deviation from the account in Exodus. It is simply an addition, 
 and there is no inconsistency in the two accounts. The veiling had both 
 effects. It calmed the fears of the people, and it prevented their seeing how 
 fleeting the brightness was. 
 
 (g 4 ) Rabbinic-allegorical exposition. Ver. 13 (note). 
 
 There is no necessity of assuming that the Apostle was indebted for his lan¬ 
 guage to any such method of interpretation. The words of Exodus xxxiv. 33 
 are incorrectly rendered in the Authorized Version by inserting till. The true 
 version as given in the LXX. is, “And when he had made an end of speaking 
 with them, he put a veil on his face.” The face of Moses was unveiled when 
 he came fresh from the presence of Jehovah, and veiled only after he had de¬ 
 livered God’s commands and the people had seen the glory. Paul declares 
 that one object of this was that the people might not see the end (termination), 
 the fading away, of this glory. Who has any right to say that this was not 
 actually the fact? As Prof. C. A. Briggs says ( Fresb. Review, i. 566), “The 
 face of Moses needed a new illumination from the Theophany every time he 
 addressed the people from Jehovah. But the face of Christ needed no new il¬ 
 lumination—the glory abode therein forever. The face of Moses was veiled 
 that he might not be humiliated and the people might not be discouraged or 
 rendered irreverent by seeing the glory gradually becoming fainter and fainter 
 till it disappeared.” 
 
 (h 4 ) “ That it is done away in Christ .” Ver. 14. 
 
 Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort read bn, which Kling, Hodge, and Waite 
 render because; but Conybeare, Alford, Stanley, Beet, Plumptre, and Principal 
 Brown, that, viz. “ it not being revealed that,” etc., as Meyer and the margin 
 of the Revised Version. As a veil covered Moses’s face, hiding from Israel 
 the fact that its glory was fading, so the open page of the Old Covenant, even 
 while being read, was veiled, since it was not yet made known to the conscious¬ 
 ness of these readers that that covenant (not of course as a rule of life, for in 
 
NOTES. 
 
 485 
 
 that sense it is established by the Gospel, Matt. v. 17, but as a basis of ap¬ 
 proach to God and acceptance with Him) is done away. In other words, the 
 book was veiled. 
 
 (i 4 ) “ A veil lieth upon their heart.” Yer. 15. 
 
 The metaphor is changed while the word is kept, in order to show that the 
 real hindrance is not in the book, but in the hearts of the readers. 
 
 (j 4 ) “ Reflecting as a mirror .” Yer. 18. 
 
 This sense is adopted in the text of the Revised Version, but in the margin 
 (which is preferred by the American Committee) the better rendering of 
 A. V., Kling, Hodge, Waite, Beet, and Plumptre is given— beholding as in a mirror. 
 Stanley’s argument to the contrary, though able, is not convincing. 
 
 (k 4 ) “ The Lord of the Spirit .” Ver. 18. 
 
 This rendering, although linguistically possible, is incongruous with New 
 Testament usage, and therefore not to be adopted without necessity. Whereas, 
 to translate “the Lord (who is) the Spirit” (Kling, Stanley, Brown, Plump¬ 
 tre) gives the usual sense of two nouns thus placed (Rom. i. 7 ; Gal. i. 1, 3, 
 etc.), and is in strict consistency with the immediate context. See ver. 17. 
 There the Apostle had said, “ The Lord is the Spirit,” and here, he says, the 
 transforming power by which we are made like Christ flows from “ the Lord 
 who is the Spirit.” Hodge explains the phrase as meaning the Lord who is 
 one with the Spirit, the same in substance, equal in power and glory ; who is 
 where the Spirit is, and does what the Spirit does. 
 
48G 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Ver. 4. avyaoai ] A, 10, 17, 23, 31, and several Fathers have diavyacai ; C D E, 
 73, Or. (once) Eus. al. have naravyaoai. So Lachm. on the margin. Two more 
 precise definitions to accord with the context. The avrolg that follows (in Elz.) 
 has decisive evidence against it, and is an addition. — Yer. 6. A«/n/;az] Lachm. 
 reads XapipEi, following A B D* 54* 67** Aeth. But the evidence of almost all 
 the Versions and all the Fathers is against it ; and how easily Au/n[>Ei. might 
 occur to the copyists through remembrance of the direct address in Gen. 
 i. 3 ! — The omission of the following bg (D* F G 36, It. Chrys. and several 
 Fathers), as well as the weakly-supported readings ug, ovrog, and ipse, are cor¬ 
 rections arising from not understanding the sense. — roi i 6eov ] Lachm. reads 
 avrov, on no preponderating evidence. A change for the sake of the style ; for 
 if it had been avrov originally, there would have been no uncertainty whatever 
 about the reference, and so no reason for glossing it by rov Oeov. — Tjyuoi] is 
 to be deleted, according to A B 17, Or. (once) al., with Lachm. Tisch. and 
 Buck.—Yer. 10. rov 'Irjaov'] Elz. has rov nvplov ! I rjaov, against decisive testi¬ 
 mony. — Yer. 12. 6 Oar.] Elz. has 6 uev Odv., against decisive testimony. — Ver. 
 14. did T tjgov] Lachm. Tisch. Buck, and also Beiche (Comm. crit. I. p. 351 f.) 
 have gvv ’lrjaov, following B C D E F G N* 6, 17, 31, Copt. Slav. Vulg. It. Tert. 
 Ambros. Pel. Bightly ; the g i)v '\rjaov appeared unsuitable in point of time to 
 the resurrection of the dead. —Yer. 16; 6 rayOer] Lachm. and Biick. read 6 ego 
 r/fitiv, following preponderating evidence, indeed ; but it is evidently a change 
 in accordance with what goes before. — Ver. 17. After napavrina, D* E F G 31, 
 Syr. Arr. Arm. Vulg. It. and Latin Fathers have rcpoGnaipov Kal. A gloss, which 
 has crept in, of tt upavrUa. Comp. Theodoret : did rov rzapavrina edEi^e rd CP a X^ 
 te Kal TrpoGiiaipov. 
 
 Bemark.—I n the Codex Alexandrinus all from iv. 13, EKicrevGa , xxii. 6 
 inclusive, is wanting through mutilation. 
 
 Contents.—C ontinuation of the theme begun in iii. 12 f. (vv. 1-6); 
 relation of the external state, so full of suffering, to the glory of the office 
 (vv. 7-18). 
 
 Ver. 1. Aid rovro'] Paul now reverts, it is true, to what had been begun in 
 iii. 12 f., but had, owing to the comparison with Moses and the discussion 
 thence arising about the hardening of the Jews and the freedom contrasted 
 with it (iii. 14-18), remained without further elucidation, but reverts in 
 such a way that he attaches it to what immediately precedes by did rovro. 
 Therefore , since the Christians are so highly privileged as was specified in 
 iii. 17, 18, we become, in the possession of the office, which ministers to this 
 Christian freedom and glorification. . . not dejected .*— Kadivg ifei/O.] a modal 
 definition, full’of humility (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 10, vii. 25), to Ixovreg r. dian. 
 ravr. : ‘ ‘ having this ministry in accordance with the (divine) mercy imparted 
 
CHAP. IV., 2 . 
 
 487 
 
 to us .” The important practical bearing of this addition is aptly indicated 
 by Bengel : “ Misericordia Dei, perquam ministerium accipitur, facit stren- 
 uos et sinceros .”—ovk EKxaiwvyev] Lachraann, Tischendorf, [Westcott and 
 Ilort], and Riickert, following A B D* F G K, read 'ey kokov fev (comp. ver. 
 1G ; Luke xviii. 1 ; Gal. vi. 9 ; Eph. iii. 13 ; 2 Thess. iii. 13). But this 
 appears to be a correction, since only Eynaneiv, and not ekkukeIv (which is 
 here the reading of C D*** E K L), occurs for certain out of the N. T. and 
 the Fathers and ancient lexicographers. Polyb. iv. 19. 10 ; Theodotion, 
 Prov. iii. 11, Symmachus, Gen. xxvii. 4G ; Num. xxi. 5 ; Isa. vii. 1G. 
 Comp. eyKCLKTiaiQ , Symmachus, Ps. cxix. 143. Probably ekkukeIv was at that 
 time only in oral use, and came first through Paul and Luke into the lan¬ 
 guage of ecclesiastical writings. It means, however, to become cowardly, to 
 lose courage. Ilesychius, gdgyovr/GEv' E^enaarjcev ; Suidas, e^enaKTjaa' arrrjyb- 
 pevoa. The contrast in ver. 2 is not adverse to this signification ; for the 
 becoming dejected through any kind of difficulties (with Pelagius, Theo- 
 doret, Oecumenius, Beza, and others, to think only of sufferings is arbitra¬ 
 ry) leads easily to Kpvirra rgg aioxbvgc, while bold, brave, unweakened cour¬ 
 age disdains such things. Comp, the demeanour of Luther. Hence Rtickert 
 is mistaken in holding that, for the sake of the contrast, we must assume 
 the general signification : to abandon oneself to badness , a signification which 
 cannot elsewhere be made good for kyKUK. or for ekkuk. (in Polybius, iv. 19. 
 10, EVEKamjaav means, u they were lazy”). Chrysostom is in substance cor¬ 
 rect : ov KaTaTTL'KToyEV, aX la nai xaipoyev KC d TrapppafloyEda. The opposite is 
 the preservation of the holy avdpia (1 Cor. xvi. 13). 
 
 Ver. 2. Contrast to ova EKicanovuev in reference to antagonistic teachers. — 
 cnrenra/Lieda] we have renounced, ice have put away from us. Comp. Homer, II. 
 xix. 35, 75 ; Plato, Legg. xi. p. 928 D ; Polyb. xiv. 9. 6 ; and in the middle, 
 in this sense, Herod, i. 205, iv. 120, vii. 14 ; often in Polyb. ; also Callim. 
 Hymn, in Dian. 174 : airo 5’ chraro teO/luo T avpuv, Aelian, II. N. vi. 1 : tt/v 
 anoAaGTov Kotrgv cnzELTraro rravreAcor naoav. Regarding the aorist middle, cnrci- 
 irayrjv, see Thomas M. p. 57 ; Moeris, p. 29 ; Kuhner, I. p. 817, ed. 2. —ra 
 KpvTTTct Tfjq aloxvvr]f\ as in 1 Cor. iv. 5, ra up. tov gkotovq , the hidden things of 
 shame , i.e. what shame (the sense of honour, verecundia ) hides, 1 does not allow 
 to come to the light. This is to be left quite general : “ All that one , because 
 he is ashamed of it, does not permit to become manifest, ” but, on the contrary, 
 Kpv(j)rj KalviTTEi Kapbia (Soph. Antig. 1239) ; a kpvttteiv del sal gvgklclC,elv aiGxr- 
 voykvovQ kcu Epvdpitivrac, Chrysostom. All special limitations, such as to secret 
 plans and intrigues (Beza, Grotius, and others, including Emmerling and 
 Billroth), or to the disfiguring (Calvin) or hiding (de Wette) of the truth, or to 
 secret fear of men (Ewald), or to hidden, disgraceful arts of fleshly wisdom 
 (Neander), or to secret means and ways to which the preacher of Chris- 
 
 1 aicrxvvr) in the subjective sense (Plato, Def. 
 p. 41G : <t>6[ 3o? ini npocrSoKia a6o£iap. See, 
 especially, Ecclus. iv. 21, xx. 20 f., xli. 16. 
 Comp. Dem. 43, 6'. rot? eAeu^e'pois p.eyicrTrji' 
 u.va.yKY)v eirac rrfv vnep r<L v npa.yp.aTon’ aicr^iivT}^. 
 
 The objective interpretation, disgrace , Phil. 
 
 iii. 19 (“ which brings disgrace,” de Wette; 
 Osiander, “shameful secrecy”), would 
 make it necessary to import the thought: 
 “ if it becomes manifest." Zeger: “quae 
 manifestata probro sunt perpetranti.” 
 
488 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 tianity, who is ashamed of Christianity, has recourse (Hofmann), or even to 
 circumcision (Theodoret), or to promises not made good (Chrysostom), or to a 
 hypocritical habit (Theophylact), or even to obscoenas voluptates (Estius, Krebs), 
 are without warrant ; for Paul proceeds from the general to the par¬ 
 ticular, so that it is only in what follows, when referring more pointedly to 
 his opponents, that he adduces particular forms of the upvTcra ryg aicxvvr/g. — 
 ph TtepiTT. k.t.X.] so that ice walk not , etc. The apostle means his demeanour 
 in the ministry. — doAovvreg r. hoyov r. Oeov] adulterating the word of God. 
 Lucian, Herm. 59 ; LXX. Ps. xv. 3. It is done by alterations and foreign 
 admixtures. Comp. ii. 17, i. 12. — ry pavepkaei ryg a?.7/0.] through the mani¬ 
 festation of the truth (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 7), i.e. by making the truth contained 
 in the gospel (the truth /car’ eljoxvv) public, or, in other words, a clearly pre¬ 
 sented object of knowledge. The contrast gives a special occasion here for 
 designating the contents of the gospel by y ahyOeia. On the subject-matter, 
 comp. Rom. i. 16. —avvicrGvreg eavrovg] The emphasis of the contrast lay in 
 ry pavep. r. a A. ; but , on the contrary , through nothing else than through the 
 proclamation of the truth commending ourselves. But even in this ‘ ‘ commend¬ 
 ing ourselves” there clearly lies a contrasting reference to the antagonistic 
 teachers, who accused the apostle of self-praise (iii. 1), but on their part not 
 merely by letters of recommendation, but even by intrigues (h navovpyia , xi. 
 3, xii. 16 ; Eph. iv. 14 ; Luke xx. 23) and by adulteration of the gospel 
 (dohovvreg rov hoy. r. Oeov ) sought to make themselves honoured and beloved 
 among others. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 3, 4. Overlooking this, Riickert recom¬ 
 mends for ovvicr. the general meaning of laying down , setting forth, proving 
 (Rom. v. 8). —irpog TTdcav ovveid. avdpkir. ] Tzpog used of the ethical direction. 
 The essential meaning is, indeed, not different from tt pog ryv gvvel6tjgiv rcavruv 
 rb)v avdpu ttov (for which it is often taken, even by Riickert), but it is other¬ 
 wise conceived, namely : 11 to every human conscience.'’' 1 Comp. Rom. ii. 9. 
 Note how Paul here ascribes to every man the capacity of moral judgment, 
 and thus also the knowledge of the moral law as the propositio major of the 
 inference of conscience. If now, however, refractory minds, through per¬ 
 verted moral judgment or moral stubbornness, were unwilling to recognize 
 this de facto self-recommendation made uniformly and without izpoou'Kohrj'ipLa, 
 the matter remained the same on the part of the apostle ; hence it is not, with 
 Grotius, to be explained only of the “ bonae conscientiae,” against the mean¬ 
 ing of the words. -— evwTr. tov deov] applies to cvvicruvreg . . . avdpfa ttuv ; so 
 that this our self-recommendation is made in God's presence. This denotes 
 the highest sincerity and honesty in the subjectivity of the person acting, 
 who knows that God (tov tov cweidoTog ettotztijv, Theodoret) is present as eye¬ 
 witness. Comp. ii. 17, vii. 12 ; Gal. i. 20. 
 
 - Yer. 3. Against the assertion just made, ahha ry (pavepkaei ryg ahyOeiag . . . 
 6eov , it might be objected : “ and yet your gospel is Ksnahv/u/uevov ! is by so 
 many not at all known as the ahyOeia !” Wherefore Paul continues, “even 
 if that were the case, still it is so only with regard to the cnrohhvyevoi whom 
 the devil has blinded, and hence cannot be urged against the former asser¬ 
 tion.”— el be Kai egti KEKah.] In this admission the placing of eon before 
 Kenah. conveys the meaning : but if even it is the case that , etc. The figura- 
 
CHAP. IV., 4. 
 
 4S9 
 
 tive usual. was suggested by the still fresh remembrance of iii. 14. — to evayy. 
 ijficjv] the gospel preached by us , the Pauline gospel. — zv rolg aitoUvy. ] i.e. 
 among those who (for certain) incur the eternal antikua. See on ii. 15 ; 1 
 Cor. i. 18. zv is not nota dativi (Flatt), nor yet quod attinet ad (Bengel), 
 but inter , in their circle. Riickert takes it : in their hearts , on account of iii. 
 15. So also Osiander. But against the analogy of ii. 15 ; besides, accord¬ 
 ing to iii. 15, it is the heart of the cnrollvyevoi, and not the gospel, which 
 must be represented as the veiled subject. It has not at all reached the 
 hearts of the persons concerned, (l 4 ) 
 
 Yer. 4. A statement to establish the zv rolg cnrollvy. here keko/ l., so that h 
 dig is equivalent to on zv rovroig (comp, on iii. 6): in whom the devil has made 
 blind , i.e. incapable of the perception of the truth, the thoughts of the un¬ 
 believing (vor/fiara, as in iii. 14). 1 It is his work to make the unbelieving 
 blind, as respects the bringing forward their power of thought to confront 
 the light of the gospel ; and this his characteristic zpyov he has carried out 
 in the arroAlvyevoi ; in their souls he has succeeded in his devilish work of 
 blinding the thoughts of the unbelieving. Observe, accordingly, that the 
 conception of the avrollvyevoi is a narrower one than that of the citugtoi. Not 
 with all aiucToi does the devil gain in presence of the preaching of the gospel 
 his object of blinding them and making them anolAvyevot ; many so com¬ 
 port themselves towards this preaching that they become believing and 
 ao^oyevoL (1 Cor. xiv. 24 f. ; Acts xiii. 48, ii. 40, 47 ; Matt. xiii. 8, 28). (m 4 ) 
 Hence tqv ardaridv is neither aimless (the objection of Hofmann), nor is it, 
 with Riickert, to be referred to a negligence of expression, so that Paul would, 
 in order to round off the sentence and to make his opinion quite clearly 
 prominent, that the aTrollvyevoi are the ottigtoc, have appended the apposi- 
 tional clause ungrammatically and tautologically. Fritzsche, whom Billroth 
 follows, takes ruv aw Lot. proleptically : “ hoceffectu ut nullam haberent fidemff 
 But the proleptic use of adjectives (see on 1 Cor. i. 8) is nowhere found 
 with the genitive of an adjective used substantively ; it must have run 
 erixpluGE ra voTjyara arnGua . 2 Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 13 ; Phil. iii. 21. Quite arbi¬ 
 trarily, most of the older expositors (also Grotius, Wolf, Emmerling, Flatt) 
 explain it in such a way that tuv clttIgtov fills the place of an apposition to 
 kv olg. In that case it must have run : zv rolg cnrcGToig (see, especially, Borne- 
 mann, Schol. in Luc. p. 173). According to Ewald, Paul has inserted the 
 addition tuv arnor., as if he meant thereby merely to say : “the Gentile 
 thoughts,” because the Jews regarded the Gentiles only as the unbelievers. 
 But such a reference would have needed all the more a precise indication, 
 as the reader had to find in Toig cnzoUvy. Gentiles and Jews , consequently in 
 to)v arrlGT. no special reference to the Gentile character. According to Hof¬ 
 mann, zv olg is intended to be the domain within which, etc., and this do- 
 
 1 Comp. Homer, Od. xx. 346: ixvpaTppcn 
 
 IlaAAa? ’AiJrjvrj . . . napen\ay^e i/or)p.a, 
 
 Pind. 01. vii. 133, xii. 13 ; Plat. Phaed. p. 96 
 C ; Lucian, Nigr. 4. 
 
 2 According to Fritzsche, the unbelief ap¬ 
 pears as effect of the blinding, consequently 
 as a refusal of belief, as dTm^eia. In our 
 
 view, it appears as defectus fidei and the 
 devil steps in, with his blinding, and makes 
 OUt of the djrtcrroi the viovs rrj s anet^eLa^ 
 (Eph. v. 6 ; Col. iii. 6). As regards the con¬ 
 tents of the thought, therefore, the two 
 views are not contradictory. 
 
490 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 main is in view of the preaching of the apostle the Gentile one, in which 
 there has taken place that which this relative clause asserts of the unbeliev¬ 
 ing. To this the context is opposed, which gives no justification whatever 
 ' for limiting the anoAlvyevoi to the sphere of the Gentile world ; they form, in 
 general, a contrast to the cu^oyevoi, as also at ii. 15, i. 18, and to the r/yelg 
 navreg, iii. 18, who are just the acj^oyevoi. Finally, it is to be observed as a 
 mere historical point, that Irenaeus ( Ilaer. iv. 48), Origen, Tertullian ( contra 
 Marc. iv. 11), Chrysostom, Augustine ( c. advers. leg. ii. 7. 8), Oecumenius, 
 Theodoret, Theopliylact (also Knatchbull), with a view to oppose the dual¬ 
 ism of the Marcionites and Manichaeans, joined tov aitivog tovtov with rtiv 
 an lotov (infidelium hujus saeculi).—6 dsog tov aitivog tovt.~\ the God of this 
 (running on till the Parousia) period. On the subject-matter, comp. John 
 viii. 44, xii. 81, xiv. 30 ; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 9 f. The devil, as 
 ruling principle, is called god. Comp. Phil. iii. 19. Among the Rabbins, 
 also, it is said : “ Deus primus est Deus verus, sed Deus secundus est Samael,” 
 Jalkut Rubeni, f. 10. 4, ad Gen. i. 27. Comp, the passages in Eisenmenger, 
 Entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 827, where he is called the strange god and the other 
 god. There is not something ironical in the expression here (Olshausen), for 
 that would be quite alien to the connection ; on the contrary, with the ut¬ 
 most earnestness the great anti-Christian power of the devil is intended to 
 be made palpably evident. Comp. Bengel. (n 4 )—dg to ur/ avyacac /c.r.A.J 
 Purpose of the devil : in order that the illumination should not shine , etc. 
 For that which illumines does not shine for the blinded. 1 Hence it is quite 
 unnecessary to explain avyacai, to see , or to have an eye upon (Luther, Grotius, 
 Emmerling, Riickert, Ewald, Hofmann), which signification (more exactly, 
 to direct the light of the eyes to anything') undoubtedly occurs in Greek poets 
 (Soph. Phil. 217 ; Eur. Rhes. 793 ; more frequently in the middle, as Iliad , 
 xxii. 458 ; Elmsley, ad Bacch. 596 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIII. p. 338), but is 
 foreign even to the LXX. (Lev. xiii. 25 f., 28, 39, xiv. 56). Besides, the simple 
 avyafcv does not occur in the classic writers with the neuter meanin gfulgere 
 (though the compounds naravyafiv and diavyafiv, which are the readings of 
 several uncials, do so occur), but only in the active sense : irradiate, illumine , 
 as e.g. Eur. Ilec. 637. — tyoTtoyog] illumining , is found in Sextus Empiricus, 522. 
 9 ; Plut. Mor. 920 D ; more often in the LXX., in Aquila, Theodotion, and 
 Symmachus. Without figure, the meaning is : in order that the enlightening 
 truth of the gospel might not l)e known and appropriated by them. — Tfjg 66p]g 
 tov XpujTov ] The glory of the exalted Christ (comp. iii. 18) is here denoted as 
 the contents of the Messianic preaching ; elsewhere (1 Cor. i. 18) it is the 
 word of the cross. Both meanings are used according to the requirement 
 of the context, and both rightly (Rom. iv. 25, v. 10, al .); for the Jofa is the 
 consequence of the death of the cross, by which it was conditioned (Phil. ii. 6 
 IT.; Rom. viii. 84, al. ; Luke xxiv. 26 ; often in John), and it conditions the 
 future completion of the work of the cross (Phil. ii. 10 f.; Rom. viii. 34 ; Heb. 
 vii. 25; 1 Cor. xv.; Col. iii. 31). — og Igtlv elnibv r. deoi)] for Christ in the state 
 
 1 Hofmann very wrongly, since he him- words, objects that this explanation would 
 self recognizes the lofty poetic turn of the require the (not genuine) avrois. 
 
CHAP. IV., 5. 
 
 491 
 
 of His exaltation 1 is again, as He was before His incarnation (comp. Jolinxvii. 
 5), fully h floppy i S-eov and lea dew (Phil. ii. 6), hence in His glorified cor¬ 
 poreality (Phil. iii. 21) the visible image of the invisible God. See on Col. 
 i. 15 ; comp. Heb. i. 3. It is true that in the state of Ilis humiliation He 
 had likewise the divine doija, which He possessed icara Tzvevpa ayiuavvyg 
 (Rom. i. 4), which also, as bearer of the divine grace and truth (John i. 14), 
 and through His miracles (John ii. 11), He made known (John xiv. 9) ; but 
 its working and revelation were limited by His humiliation to man’s estate, 
 and He had divested Himself of the divine appearance (Phil, ii.7 f.) till in 
 the end, furnished through His resurrection with the mighty attestation of 
 His divine sonship (Rom. i. 4), He entered, through His elevation to the 
 right hand of God, into the full communion of the glory of the Father, in 
 which he is now the God-man, the very image and reflection of God, and 
 will one day come to execute judgment and to establish the kingdom.—Aim 
 of the addition: “hinc satis intelligi potest, quanta sit gloria Christi,” 
 Bengel ; it is the highest and holiest of all, and of the knowledge of it Satan 
 deprives those whom he blinds ! 
 
 Ver. 5. What his gospel (to evayy. ygtiv) proclaimed, he has just described 
 as that which is most glorious and sublime, namely, the 6o^a rov Xpiarov , 
 og eariv k.t.Tl. And that nothing else than this is the lofty contents of his 
 preaching, he now establishes, and that under an antithetic point of view, 
 which (comp. iii. 1) takes into account hostile calumny. This antithetic 
 aim so fully justifies the reference of the yap to what immediately precedes, 
 and the emphasis laid on Xparr. ’lya. as Kvptov, as well as the contents of ver. 
 6, so obviously confirms it, that we have no warrant for going back with yap 
 to iii. 1, even if we include vv. 3-5 (Hofmann). — eavrovg Kypvca.] In virtue 
 of the contrast that follows (Kuliner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 25), Kvpiovg might 
 be supplied (de W'ette and others, also my own view hitherto), and with 
 this i. 24 might be compared. But since it w r as self-evident that he did 
 not 'preach himself as Lord, and this could not be attributed to him even by 
 his opponents, however much they may have accused him of selfish conduct, 
 it is better (comp. Hofmann) to let the expression retain its quite general 
 character : not ourselves, not our own persons, their insight, standing, re¬ 
 pute, and other interests, do ice make the contents and aim of our preaching. 
 — KvpLov ] as Lord. In this lies the whole great confessional contents of his 
 preaching, which absolutely excludes all desire for self-assertion ; comp. 
 Phil. ii. 11 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3. This nvpiov also is to be left quite in its general¬ 
 ity, 2 so that the following v/uuv has no joint reference to it (Hofmann). — 
 did, ’ lyaovv] This it is by which the relation of service to the readers {Sovlovg 
 vpuv) is conditioned. For on Ilis account, not irrespectively of Him, we 
 are your servants. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 1. To do the will of Jesus, and to 
 carry on His work—this it is which determines us to be your servants , i.e. 
 to do our labour for your service; only in this respect, in this relation of 
 
 1 For it is the Exalted One of whom Paul 2 The whole majesty of Christ (ver. 4) lies 
 is thinking. Comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, in this one predicate. 
 
 p. 212 f. 
 
492 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 service to you, do we preach ourselves, -which, therefore, is something quite 
 different from the eavr. ar/pvao. before denied. 
 
 Ver. 6. Confirmation of the above, and not simply of the concluding 
 words of ver. 5 (eavrovg tie dovlwvg /c.r.A.), but of the entire ver. 5. For it is 
 God who has bestowed on us such enlightenment, and for such behoof as is 
 declared in ver. G ; how should we not be far exalted above the preaching of 
 ourselves instead of Christ as the Lord, and how could we proclaim ourselves 
 otherwise than simply in the relation of serviceableness to you , serviceableness 
 for Christ's sake !—“ For God, who bade light shine out of darkness, it is who 
 caused it to shine in our hearts, in order that we should make the knowledge of the 
 divine glory give light in the presence of Christ .” Apart from this figurative 
 clothing, the sense is : For it is God, the creator of light, who bestowed on us the 
 spiritual light communicated to us, not that we might retain it for ourselves 
 without further communication, but that we should convey the knowledge of the 
 divine glory to others in making this knowledge manifest to them in Christ, whom 
 we teach them to know. As to the construction, bg is not to be taken as 
 equivalent to ovrog (Vorstius, Mosheim, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Schrader ; 
 comp. Theodoret and Luther), nor is og to be deleted (Ruckert hesitates 
 between the two), but egtl is to be supplied, and supplied before og elayipev 
 (so, rightly, most of the commentators J ), not immediately after 6 deog (Valla, 
 Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Bengel, Vater, Ewald), because it is only with 6? 
 ehayipev that the important idea is introduced, and because Paul has written 
 og and not og mi. On account of the og k.t.j l. that follows it is impossible, 
 with Hofmann, to regard the sentence bn 6 &eog as far as hd/u.'ipat (“for it is 
 God who . . . has bidden to shine”) as a complete and perfect sentence. — 
 6 eittuv ek uiwTovg (pug hdp'ipac] qui jussit, etc. Reminiscence of Gen. i. 3, 1 2 3 in 
 order to prepard for the following og ehayipev k.t.’j L, which is meant to appear 
 as analogous to the physical working of God in the creation. “ Saej)e cornpa- 
 rantur beneficia creationis veteris et novae,” Grotius. The emergence of 
 the light of the holy truth in Christ from amid the sinful darkness of un¬ 
 truth (Hofmann) is not as yet spoken of ; this spiritual fact only finds its 
 expression in what follows, and has here merely the way prepared for it by 
 the corresponding physical creation of light. — ek may doubtless mean im¬ 
 mediately after (Emmerling), see Heindorf, ad Prot. p. 463 ; Jacobs, ad Ael. 
 p. 464 ; but in the N. T. it does not so occur, and here “ forth out of dark¬ 
 ness" is far more in keeping with graphic vividness, for such is the position 
 of the matter when what is dark becomes lighted up ; comp. LXX. Job 
 xxxvii. 15. — og ehayipev ev r. Kapd. i/y.] This og cannot be referred to Christ, 
 with Hofmann, who compares irrelevantly Heb. v. 7 (where Christ is in fact 
 the chief subject of what immediately precedes), but it applies to God. 
 Whether ehayijjev is intransitive (Chrysostom and most expositors) : he shone, 
 which would have to be explained from the idea of the indwelling of God 
 by means of the Holy Spirit (John xiv. 23 ; 1 Cor. iii. 16, xiv. 25), or 
 
 1 Comp, also Buttmann, neutest. Gramm. supposes an allusion to Isa. lx. 1, Job xii. 
 
 p. 338 [E. T. 395]. 22, or to some lost passage. 
 
 3 Ewald, following the reading Ad^ei, 
 
\ 
 
 CHAP. IV., 6. 
 
 493 
 
 "whether it is factitive: who made it (namely, <fiug) shine (Grotius, Bengel, 
 Emmerling, Fritzsche), as avar&Xeiv is used in Matt. v. 45, and even Aay- 
 7 teiv in the poets (Eur. Phoen. 226, and the passages in Matthiae, p. 944 ; 
 Jacobs, ad Antliol. VI. p. 58, VII. p. 378, VIII. p. 199 ; ad Del. Epigr. p. 
 62 ; Lobeck, ad Adj. p. 94, ed. 2 ), is decided from the context by the pre¬ 
 ceding physical analogy, which makes the factitive sense in keeping with 
 the elrrcjv y.a/npai most probable. If the progress of thought had been : 
 “ who himself shone” (Chrysostom, Thcodoret), the text must have run, oq 
 avrbq kyayipev. God has wrought in the hearts of the apostolic teachers, 
 spiritually creating light, just as physically as at the creation He called light 
 out of the darkness. Hofmann, in consequence of his referring bq to Christ, 
 wrongly explains it : u within them has been repeated that which took 
 place in the word when Christ appeared in it .” On the point itself in refer¬ 
 ence to Paul , see Gal. i. 16. —npoq (puTicrybv n.r.y.^for the purpose of lighting 
 (ver. 4), etc., equivalent to rrpbq to (j>uTi^etv ttjv yvebatv /c.r.J., in order that 
 there may lighten , etc., by which is set forth the thought : “in order that the 
 knowledge of the divine glory may be conveyed and diffused from us to 
 others through the preaching of Christ.” For if the knowledge remains 
 undiffused, it has not the nature of a thing that lightens, whose light is 
 received by the eyes of men. — kv Trpooimcp Xpiarov ] belongs to irpoq (porta/uov, 
 but cannot be explained in persona Christi , i.e. in nomine Christi , as Estius 
 explains it after the Latin Fathers, but it specifies where the knowledge of 
 the divine glory is to lighten : in the presence of Christ. For Christ is ehaiv 
 rov deov, and Christians see unveiled the glor} 7 - of Christ, iii. 18. He, there¬ 
 fore, who converts others to Christ makes the knowledge of the divine glory 
 become clear-shining to them, and that in the countenance of the Lord , which 
 is beheld in the gospel as the reflection of the divine glory, so that in this 
 seen countenance that clear-shining knowledge has the source of its light (as 
 it were, its focus). Probably there is in kv TrpocuTup Xpiorov a reminiscence 
 of iii. 7. The connection of kv TtpoGurro) Xp. with 7 -poq (puriayov has been justly 
 recognized by Estius, and established as the only right one by Fritzsche 
 {Dissert. II. p. 170, and ad Bom. I. p. 188), wdiom Billroth follows, for the 
 usual way of connecting it with rf/q bo^r/q r. -deov (comp, also Hofmann : 
 “the glory of God visible in Christ”) would of necessity require rr/q repeated 
 after -&eov, since do^a is not a verbal substantive like (puTcaybq, and conse¬ 
 quently, "without repeating the article, Paul would necessarily have written 
 rijq tov &eov do^r/q kv npocom. Xp. (see Kruger, §§ 50, 9, 9, and 8 ). The objec¬ 
 tion of de Wette against our view—an objection raised substantially by Hof¬ 
 mann also—that the yvuaiq is the subjective possession of the apostle, and 
 cannot therefore become light-giving in the face of Christ, leaves out of 
 consideration the fact that the yvuatq is objectivized. Conveyed through 
 preaching, the yvuatq of the divine glory gives light (it would not give light 
 otherwise), and its light-giving has its seat and source of issue on the counte¬ 
 nance of Christ , because it is this, the glory of which is brought to view in 
 the mirror of preaching (iii. 18).—Note, further, how there is something 
 clumsy but majestic in the entire mode of expression, izpoq . . . Xpiarov , es¬ 
 pecially in the accumulation of the four genitives, as in ver. 4. (o 4 ) 
 
494 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Ver. 7 ff. The apostle now (on to ver. 10) turns to the relation which 
 the outward position, seemingly quite incongruous, bears to so glorious a 
 calling. This pertained to the completeness of his Apologia , and to him— 
 even without special attacks of opponents on this side—it thus most natu¬ 
 rally suggested itself ! We must put aside the supposition that his oppo¬ 
 nents had reproached him with his bodily weakness and persecutions (see, 
 especially, Calvin, Estius, Mosheim, Flatt, Emmerling) as testimonies 
 against genuine apostleship, since such a reproach, which must have affected 
 not him only, but the apostolic teachers in general, is in itself quite improb¬ 
 able, and no trace of .it is found in the whole of the following section. Still 
 this section also is certainly not without indirect polemic bearing ; for Paul, 
 owing to the peculiarity of his apostolic character, had borne and suffered 
 far more than the rival Judaistic teachers ; and hence there was in the re¬ 
 lation of his afflictions to his working quite a peculiar holy triumph for him 
 over his foes. Compare the noble effusion in xii. 23 ff. 
 
 Ver. 7. At] merely carrying on the train of thought : Now to compare 
 our outward position with this high vocation, we have, etc. — rov -&rjaavpbv 
 tovtov ] is referred either, in accordance with ver. 6, to the light Tdndled by God 
 in the heart (Grotius, Flatt, Ruckert, and others), or to the ministerium evan- 
 gelii (Calvin, Estius, Bengel, Emmerling, and others). According to ver. 
 G, the inward divine enlightening (izpoQ (portagov k.t.X.) is meant, and this defi¬ 
 nition of aim (Trpug cpor.) embraces in itself the ministerium evang. — ev bcrpa- 
 KLvotg okeveolv ] in vessels of clay. Contrast with ■dpcavyov, because, for such a 
 
 treasure, some more costly and lasting vessel seems suitable. Coop, the 
 
 * 
 
 opposite in Arrian, Epict. iii. 9 : xp va & aicevy, ocrpatuvov be Hoyov. We may 
 add that Paul, who, in fact, speaks here not of himself alone (observe the 
 plur. gheveglv, and ver. 6, Kapbtatg ), wishes not to affirm some special weakness 
 of himself, but to say generally : Though we have so glorious a trust , yet is 
 our body, the outward organ of our worhing , subject to the lot of being easily de¬ 
 structible. Following Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Theodoret, most com¬ 
 mentators have rightly found in gkevegiv a figurative designation of the body ; 
 while Billroth and Ruckert, following Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others, 
 understand the whole personality . Against the latter view we may urge as 
 well the characteristic 'oorpaidvoic, which can refer only to the corporeal part 
 (comp. Gen. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47), as also ver. 1G and v. 1 ff. For examples 
 of the use of bcrpaiavov ghevoq 1 for the easily destructible corporeality (as Ar- 
 temidorus, vi. 25 : i tavarov yev yap eindroc eGyyatve rrj yvvatKt to elvat ev barpautvo 
 (xkevei) , see Wetstein. —Iva i) vtt £p/3ofo) /c.r.A] The design of God in this, 
 namely, in order that the abundant f ulness of power , which comes to be ap¬ 
 plied, namely, in our ministry working 7 rpoQ (portayov n.r.l., ver. G, in spite 
 of all sufferings and persecutions (see what follows), may appear as the prop¬ 
 erty of God , and not as proceeding from us. The context furnishes that spe¬ 
 cial reference of the virepSohy rye Swap. The opposite of the conception of 
 vTTepj3o?dj is eTJiELTptg (Plato, Protag. 35G A, Dcf. p. 415 A, ah'). — aal yr) 
 
 1 To this category does not belong Plato, by Osiander, but there the body is figura- 
 Phaedr. p. 250.C, which passage is compared tively presented as mussel (5 arpeou). 
 
CHAP. IV., 8-10. 
 
 495 
 
 yguv] Kali gy 7/gdq vogi^uge'&a Karop'd'ovv eg eavruv tl, alia Travreq cl upuvrsq tov 
 i &eov leyucnv elvai tu rcav, Theopkylact. — The y is to be taken logice of the 
 being, which presents itself to cognition ; as often with Paul (Rom. iii. 26, 
 4, 19, vii. 13). Rtickert denies this, but comes back himself to the same 
 view by giving the meaning thus : God wishes to be the One, and to be rec¬ 
 ognized as such , who alone, etc. The explanation of Tertullian, the Yulgate, 
 Estius, according to which rijq Swag, is connected with tov -&eov, is against 
 the order of the words. 
 
 Yv. 8-10. A proof, based on experience, how r this abundant power makes 
 itself known as the 'power of God in the sufferings of the apostolic calling ; 
 so that, in spite of the earthen vessels, ver. 7, the apostolic working advances 
 steadily and successfully. — ev navrl] having reference to all the first clauses 
 of vv. 8 and 9, is neither to be supplemented by loco (Beza, Rosenmuller), 
 nor is it : in cdl that I do (Hofmann), but is to be left general : in every 
 way. Comp. vii. 5 ; 1 Cor. i. 5 ; and see on 2 Cor. xi. 6. Comp, the clas¬ 
 sic ev tv avrl naKov elvai , Plat. Hep. p. 579 B elq tt av kokov c \<j>iKveiad^ai , Ilerod. 
 vii. 118, and the like. — d-hfidgevoi k.t. 1.] hard pressed, but not being driv¬ 
 en into straits. [Pressed for room, but still having room. —Stanley.] Matters 
 do not come so far as that, in virtue of the abundance of the power of God ! 
 Kypke rightly says : arevoxopla angustias hoc loco clenotat tales, e quibus 
 non detur exitus.” For see vi. 4, xii. 10. Comp. Bengel. The reference 
 of (jtevox. to inward oppression and anxiety (Erasmus, Luther, and many 
 others) anticipates what follows. —airopovgevoi k.t.1.) beingbrought into doubt 
 (perplexity, where we cannot help ourselves), but not into despair. Comp, 
 i. 8. 1 
 
 Yer. 9. Being persecuted, but not left (by God) in the lurch (Plato, Conv. p. 
 179 A : eyKaralirrelv Kai gy (ioy&yoai). [Stanley explains : “ Pursued in our 
 flight, but not left behind as a prey to our pursuers.”] Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 
 16 ; Heb. xiii. 5. Paul here varies the mode of presentation, since the con¬ 
 trast does not again negative an action of enemies. Lydius (. Agonistic. sacr. 
 24, p. 84 ff.), Hammond, and Olshausen think that w r e have here the figure 
 of a foot-race, in which the runner overtaken byKaraleiTverai (see the passages 
 in Lydius); but the figure would be unsuitable, since the runners have a 
 common goal (1 Cor. ix. 24). Hostile persecution in general is meant. 
 Comp, Siuygog, xii. 10 ; Rom. viii. 35 ; 2 Thess. i. 4, al. — Karafiallog. k.t.1.] 
 Figure of those seized in the act of flight, icho are thrown to the ground (Plom. 
 Odyss. iv. 344, viii. 508 ; Herod, ix. 63), but not deprived of life. This part 
 thus appears in a most suitable relation of climax to wdiat precedes ; hence 
 we should not think, as many do, of icrestlcrs in the games (comp. Plato, 
 Hipp. min. p. 374 A), (p 4 ) 
 
 Yer. 10. Extreme concentration of all suffering, as of all victory through 
 the power of God. In this tzcivtote, corresponding to the ev navri of ver. 8 
 and the ad of ver. 11, is with great emphasis placed .first. The vsKpuacq is 
 the putting to death, like the classic tiavaTiocug (Thucyd. v. 9. 7). In this 
 
 1 There is no contradiction between this in a definite relation. Here, however, tho 
 passage and i. 8, where an actual e£a tto- mental attitude as a u'hole is portrayed in 
 peiodcu is affirmed only of a single case , and single, grand strokes. 
 
406 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 case the context decides whether it is to be taken in a literal or, as in Rom. 
 iv. 19, in a figurative sense. Comp. Astrampsychus in Suidas : venpovg opuv 
 veicpcjGiv ei;Ei£ wpayyaTov, Porphvr. de Abstin. iv. p. 418 ; Aret. pp. 23, 48 ; 
 also aTzovEKpuGcs in Arrian, Epict. i. 5. Here it stands, as ver. 11 proves, in 
 a literal sense : At all times ice bear about the putting to death of Jesus in our 
 body , i.e. at all times , in our apostolic movements , our body is exposed to the same 
 putting to death which Jesus suffered , i.e. to violent deprivation of life for the 
 gospel's sake. The constantly imminent danger of this death, and the con¬ 
 stant actual persecutions and maltreatments, make the venpoaig tov ’I tjgov, in 
 the conception of the sufferer as of the observer, appear as something cling¬ 
 ing to the body of the person concerned, which he carries about with it, al¬ 
 though, till the final actual martyrdom, it remains incomplete and, in so far, 
 resting on a prolepsis of the conception. On the subject-matter , comp. Rom. 
 viii. 35 f. ; 1 Cor. xv. 31 ; Phil. iii. 10. The gen. tov ’Itjgov, however, is 
 not to be taken as propter Jesum (Vatablus and others, including Emmerling), 
 nor ad exemplum Christi (Grotius, Flatt), but quite as in ra naOqyaTa tov 
 XpiGTov, i. 5 ; and it is altogether arbitrary to understand anything more 
 special than the great danger to life generally involved in the continual persecu¬ 
 tions and afflictions (xi. 23 ff.),—as e.g. Eichhorn takes it to refer to wounds 
 received in the apostolic ministry (Gal. vi. 17), and Riickert, here again (see 
 on i. 8), to the alleged sickness, from which Paul had not yet fully recovered. 
 The right view is already given in Chrysostom : oi JavaToi ol natipuepivoi , A’ 
 uv Kai ?] avacTamg e6e/kvvto. Comp. Pelagius. But r. VEKpuctv is chosen (not 
 r. tiavaTov), because Paul has in mind the course of events leading to the death 
 suffered by Jesus, which is mirrored in his own sufferings for Christ’s sake. 
 
 •— iva Kai y /c.r.A.] in order that also the life of Jesus , etc. This is the 
 blessed relation supervening according to God’s purpose. Just as, namely, 
 the continual sufferings and peril of death appear as the vltcpocrtg of Jesus in 
 the body of those persecuted, so, in keeping with that view, their rescued 
 life appears as the same which, in the case of Jesus, followed after His 
 dying, through the resurrection from death (Rom. v. 10). The victorious 
 surmounting of the sufferings and perils of death , from which one emerges 
 saved as regards the body, is, according to the analogy of the conception of 
 the vcKpuoic tov ’I?]oov, resurrection ; and thus there becomes manifest, in the 
 body of him that is rescued, the same life which Jesus entered on at His 
 bodily resurrection. If, with Chrysostom, Cajetanus, Estius, Mosheim, and 
 others (comp. Flatt and also Hofmann), we should regard the preservation 
 and rescuing as evincing the effectual operation of the bodily glorified Jesus , 
 there would be unnecessarily introduced a different position of matters in 
 the two parts of the verse ; as the venpooig itself is thought of in the one 
 case, we must in the other also understand the itself (not an effect of it). 
 According to de Wette and Osiander, the thought of the apostle is, that in 
 his ineradicable energy of spirit in suffering there is revealed Christ’s power 
 of suffering, in virtue of which He has risen and lives for ever ; comp. 
 Beza. In that case a moral revelation of life would be meant, and to thisev 
 rCp auyaTi ijyuv (comp. ver. 11) would not be suitable. — Notice, further, how, 
 in ver. 10 f., Paul names only the name Arjoovg, and how repeatedly he 
 
CHAP. IV., 11. 
 
 497 
 
 uses it. 11 Singulariter sensit dulcedinem ejus,” Bengel. As bearer of the 
 dying and living of the Lord in his body, he has before his eyes and in his 
 heart, with the deepest feeling of fellowship, the concrete human manifesta¬ 
 tion, Jesus. Even the exalted One is, and remains to him, Jesus. A con¬ 
 trast between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly Christ, for wdiom the former 
 is again deprived of life (Holsten), is, as the clause expressive of purpose 
 show^s, not to be thought of. 
 
 Yer. 11. An elucidation, and therewith a confirmation of ver. 10. — ad 
 (comp. vi. 10) is distinguished from tt avrore as respects the form of the con¬ 
 ception, just as always or continually from at all times. Comp, the classical 
 ad dia j3iov , Heindorf, ad Plat. Pliaecl. p. 75 D ; also the Homeric ol ad deoi. 
 — 7//ueig o'L £three] brings out, by way of contrast, the ad elq davaTov tt apaSAogeda : 
 we who live , so that in this way the constant devotion to death looks all the 
 more tragic, since the living appear as liable to constant dying. We are con¬ 
 tinuously the living prey of death! The reference of Grotius, u qui nondum 
 ex hac vita excessimus, ut multi jam Christianorum, ” is alien to the context. 
 Further, it can neither .mean : as long as ice live (Calvin, Beza by way of 
 suggestion, Mosheim, Zachariae, Flatt, de Wette), nor : who still , in spite of 
 perils of death, remain ever in life (Estius, Bengel, Riickert), which latter 
 would anticipate the clause of aim, Iva k.t.1. In accordance with his view of 
 ver. 10, Osiancler (comp. Bisping) takes it of the spiritual life in the power 
 of faith. — n apadidog.] by the persecutors, ver. 8 f. — kv Ty dvyry crapid ?}//.] 
 designation of the oupa (ver. 10) as respects its material weakness and tran¬ 
 sitoriness, whereby the (jravepiodyvat. of the rov ’I yaov is meant to be 
 rendered palpable by means of the contrast. In kv ro adpari, ver. 10, and 
 kv ry dvyry oaptd, ver. 11, there is a climax of the terms used. Riickert 
 thinks, wrongly, that the expression would be highly unsuitable, if in what 
 precedes he were speaking of nothing but persecutions. It was in fact the 
 mortal crap!;, wdiicli might so easily have succumbed to such afflictions as are 
 described, e.g ., in xi. 23 ff.— iva icai k.t.?..] an emphatic repetition of the 
 clause of aim contained in ver. 10, with a still stronger prominence given 
 to the element there denoted by kv ru aupan ypidv, on account of wdiich kv r. 
 dv. crapid ypuv is here placed at the end. There is implied in it a triumph. 
 Comp, on the thought of vv. 10, 11, Ignatius, Magnes. 6 : kav gy avdaiphug 
 kxwgev to arrodaveiv elg to uvtov (Christ’s) Trddog, to f]v avTov ovk egtlv kv ypiv. 
 
 Yer. 12. An inference from ver. 11 ; hence the meaning can be no other 
 
 than : Accordingly , since we are continually exposed to death, it is death 
 
 whose working clings to us ; but since the revelation of the life of Jesus in us, 
 « 
 
 goes to benefit you through our work in our vocation, the powrnr opposed to 
 death, life, is that which exercises its working on you. 6 davaroc; and y £«# can, 
 according to vv. 10 and 11, be nothing else than the bodily death and the 
 bodily life, both conceived of as personal powers, and consequently the life 
 not as existent in Jesus (Hofmann). It was death to which Paul and those 
 like him were ever given up, and it was life which, in spite of all deadly 
 perils, retained the victory and remained preserved. And this victorious 
 power of life, presenting in His servants the life of the risen Lord, w T as active 
 (comp. Phil. i. 22, 24) through the continuance thereby rendered possible of 
 
498 
 
 Paul’s secokd epistle to the coeikthiaxs. 
 
 the apostolic working among the Christians, and especially among the Corin¬ 
 thians (iv v/uiv), although they were not affected in like manner by that work¬ 
 ing of death. Estius (following Lombard) and Grotius (comp. Olshausen) take 
 ivepy. passively: “ in nobis . . . mors agitur et exercetur . . . ut vicissim 
 . . . per nostra pericula nostramque quotidianam mortem vobis gignitur, 
 augetur, perficitur vita spiritualis” (Estius). But in the N. T. ivepy. never 
 occurs in a passive sense (see on i. 6), and according to vv. 10, 11, V &T] 
 cannot be vita spiritualis , as even Osiander (comp. Ewald) here again inter¬ 
 prets it. Calvin, Menochius, and Michaelis find in it something ironical: 
 we are in continual deadly peril, while you are in comfort. Comp. Chrysos¬ 
 tom, who, however, does not expressly signalize the ironical character of 
 the passage. On f/v, vita frui , see Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 70 ; comp. 
 fjv nal elvaiy Dissen, ad Dem. cle Cor. p. 239. But the context gives no 
 suggestion whatever of irony or of any such reference of rj t^urj (vpelc; tie iv 
 aveaei, rr/v in rovruv tcjv kivSvvmv aapnovyevoL t^oi/v, Chrysostom). As foreign 
 to it is Riickcrt’s view, wdiich refers the first half of the verse to Paul’s 
 alleged sickness, and the second half to the state of health of the Corinthians , 
 which, as Paul had recently learned through Titus, had considerably im¬ 
 proved after a sickness that had been prevalent (1 Cor. xi. 30).—We may 
 add that the first clause is set down without pev, because Paul purposely 
 avoids paving the way for the contrast, in order thereupon to bring it for¬ 
 ward by way of surprise. “ Infert particula 6e novam rem cum aliqua oppo¬ 
 sition, ” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 356. 
 
 Yer. 13. A remark givinginformation (6c, see on iii. 17) on rj 61 iv vplv. 
 For through the mcrevopev , 6io nal XaAovpev, is that very f] iv vplv ivepy ci¬ 
 rca rendered possible and brought about. The connection of ideas is fre¬ 
 quently taken thus : “ Though death works in us and life in you, we have 
 yet the certain confidence that we too will partake of the life.” Comp. 
 Estius, Flatt, Ruckert. But in that case the relation of the two verses, 13 
 and 14, would be logically inverted, and the participial clause in ver. 14 
 would be made the principal clause ; Paul must logically have written : 
 u Because, however, we have the same spirit of faith, which David expresses in 
 the words, etc., we know,” etc. According to Olshausen, Paul wishes to rep¬ 
 resent the thought that his career, so full of suffering, is a source of life to 
 the Corinthians, as a living certainty wrought in him from above. But 
 apart from the erroneous explanation of ?/ 6e iv vplv, on which this is 
 based (see on ver. 12), the very fact — the r/ iv vplv ivepy elrcu — was some¬ 
 
 thing consonant to experience, and hence Paul in ver. 13 gives nothing else 
 than an elucidation consonant to experience. According to de Wette (comp, 
 before him, Erasmus, Paraphr ., who inserts the intermediate thought : nec 
 tamen ob id nos poenitet evangelic), the course of thought is : u But this work¬ 
 ing of death hinders us not from preaching the gospel boldly, since the hope of 
 the resurrection strengthens us. ” In this way, however, he arbitrarily passes 
 over the immediately preceding thought, r) 6e far) iv vplv, to which, never¬ 
 theless, ver. 13 supplies an appropriate elucidation. According to Hofmann, 
 Paul brings in a modification of the contrast contained in ver. 12, when he 
 says that he has, while death works in him, still the same spirit as exists in 
 
CHAP. IV., 14. 
 
 409 
 
 those in whom life works. But there is no hint of this retrospective refer¬ 
 ence of to avro (which would have required a ovvvylv or something similar) ; 
 and not even the thought in itself would be suitable, since his being in pos¬ 
 session of the same spirit which his disciples, in whom his life was in fact 
 at work, possessed, would be self-evident, and not a special point to be 
 brought into prominence and asserted by the apostle. This also in opposi¬ 
 tion to Erasmus, Estius, Bengel, Schrader, and others, who explain to civt6 : 
 the same spirit, which you have. — to avro nvEv/m rf/g vriaTeug] i.e. the same Holy 
 Spirit worTcing faith , not : the believing frame of mind (de Wette, comp, 
 also Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 176), which is not the meaning of Trvevya in 
 Rom. viii. 15, xi. 8 ; 1 Cor. iv. 21 ; Gal. vi. 1 ; Eph. i. 17. to civt6 is the same 
 which is made known in the following saying of Scripture , consequently the same 
 as the Psalmist had. With this hero of faith the apostle knows himself to be 
 on an equality in faith. 1 The iriaTig which the Spirit works was with the 
 Psalmist trust in God , with Paul faith in the salvation in Christ; with both, 
 therefore, the same fundamental disposition of pious confidence in God’s 
 promise (Heb. i. 11). —/card to yeyp.] in conformity, in agreement with what is 
 written. This belongs to nal rjyelg iriGTevoyev, for if it belonged to exovreg 
 (Calvin, Beza, de Wette, Ewald, and many others), civto would be superflu¬ 
 ous. — h-KLOTEvaa, did hkakrjGa] I have become a believer, therefore have I let 
 myself be heard, Ps. cxvi. 10, after the LXX., in which the translation of 
 3T1K '3 i s incorrect, but might be retained by Paul, all the more 
 
 seeing that in the original is contained the idea that the speaking proceed¬ 
 ed from faith' 2 (I trusted, for I spoke). — nal r/yelg] we too, like the Psalmist. 
 Hofmann, on the other hand, in accordance with his inappropriate view of 
 to avro Trvevya t. tt., understands it : “in common with those, who have the 
 same spirit. ” — deb nal kakovyev] on which account ice also let ourselves be heard, 
 are not silent, but preach the gospel. Through this it happens that r) h 
 v; dv evepyvlrai. See on ver. 12. The nal before kak. is the also of the relation 
 corresponding (to the iriGTevoyev). 
 
 Yer. 14. Encouraging assurance accompanying this Iakov f lev (not its con¬ 
 tents) ; since we are certain that, etc. Comp. Rom. v. 8 ; 1 Cor. xv. 58. — b 
 tyeipag r. n. ’I^er.] Comp, on 1 Cor. vi. 14 ; Rom. viii. 11. This designation 
 of God contains the ground of faith for the conviction about to be express¬ 
 ed. — nal jpag ovv '\rjaov eyepel k. TzapaoT. ovv vy.lv] This is usually understood 
 of the actual resurrection from the dead, and of the presenting before the 
 judgment-seat of Christ. And this view is the right one, partly because it 
 alone is in keeping with the definite expressions, partly because it is in the 
 highest degree suitable to the connection, when Paul here at the close of 
 what he says regarding his sufferings and perils of death expresses the cer¬ 
 tainty of the last and supreme consummation as the deepest ground of his 
 all-defying courage of faith. This amid all afflictions is his navxaatiai hr’ 
 
 1 There is ground for assuming that Paul 2 For the very different meanings given to 
 
 looked on David as the author of Ps. cxvi., the text of the original (Hupfeld, Ewald, / 
 
 which no doubt belongs to a far later time ; have faith , when Isjieak), see Hupfeld on Ps. 
 
 it was customary, in fact, to ascribe to cxvi., and Hofmann on this passage. 
 
 David the anonymous psalms generally. 
 
500 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 kln'iSt t?]q do&ig rov deoi), Rom. v. 2. Paul, indeed, expected that he himself 
 and most of his readers would live to see the Parousia (1 Cor. xv. 51 f., i. 
 8, xi. 26 ; 2 Cor. i. 13 f.) ; but the possibility of meeting death in the dead¬ 
 ly persecutions was always and even now before his mind (1 Cor. xv. 31 f.; 
 2 Cor. i. 8, v. 18 ; Phil. i. 20 f., ii. 17 ; Acts xx. 25, 38) ; and out of this 
 case conceived as possible, which subsequently he for the time being even 
 posits as a certainty (see on Acts xx. 25), he expresses here in presence of 
 his eventual death his triumphant consciousness on 6 eyelpag k.t.1. Hence 
 there is no ground for explaining it, with Beza (who, however, again aban¬ 
 doned this view), Calixtus (‘‘ suscitabit a morte sc. ilia quotidiana”), Schulz, 
 Riickert, Neander, of the resurrection in a figurative sense , viz. of the over¬ 
 coming the constant perils of death (vv. 10-12), which, it is held, is a resur¬ 
 rection with Jesus , in so far as through it there arises a fellowship of destiny 
 with the risen Christ. This interpretation is not demanded by the correct 
 reading ovv ’lyoov, as if this ovv (comp. Rom. vi. 4, 8 ; Eph. ii. 5 f.) presup¬ 
 posed the spiritual meaning. It is true that the raising of the dead takes 
 place did. ’ Ipoov , and has its basis h ru Xpcorti (1 Cor. xv. 21,22) ; but Chris¬ 
 tians may be also conceived and designated as one day becoming raised with 
 Jesus , since they are members of Christ, and Christ is the cnrapxv (1 Cor. xv. 
 23) of all who rise from the dead. The believer, in virtue of his connection 
 with the Lord, knows himself already in his temporal life as risen with Christ 
 (see on Col. ii. 12, iii. 1), and what he thus knows in faith emerges at the 
 last day into objective completion and outward reality. — nai napaor-joei ovv 
 vfiiv\ and will present us together with you. This is taken, according to the 
 previously rejected figurative sense of eye pel, to refer to the presentation of 
 the conquerors over deadly perils , or even in the sense : ‘ 1 and will bring us 
 together again with you ” (Neander, Riickert). But, according to the con¬ 
 text, after the mention of the resurrection, it obviously denotes the presen¬ 
 tation before the judgment-seat of Christ (v. 10 ; Rom. xiv. 10 ; Col. i. 22 ; 
 Eph. v. 27 ; Luke xxi. 36), where the righteous receive the eternal 66ia (2 
 Tim. iv. 8). With Christ they have suffered ; with Him they have risen ; 
 and now before the throne of the Lord their ovvdo^ao'&yvai (Rom. viii. 15) 
 sets in, which must be the blessed result of their presentation before the 
 Judge. Hence Hofmann is wrong in thinking that there is no allusion to 
 the judgment-seat of Christ in rrapaor. (n 4 ) Comp, on Col. i. 22. In the 
 certainty of this last consummation Paul has the deepest ground of encour¬ 
 agement for his undaunted working, and the presentiment of such a glorious 
 consummation is made still sweeter to him by the glance at the fellowship of 
 love with his Corinthians, together with whom he will reach the blessed goal 
 unto eternal union. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19. Hence : ovv vjuiv, which is an 
 essential part of the inward certainty expressed by elSoreg k.t.1 , which gives 
 him high encouragement. We may add that the vyelg will be partly those 
 risen, partly those changed alive (1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.; 1 Thess. iv. 14 ff.). 
 
 Yer. 15. 2w vylv, which he has just used, is now made good in such a way 
 as to win their hearts. “ With you , I say, for all of it is for your sake; ” 
 there is nothing of all that we have to suffer and that we do, which is not 
 related to our advantage. Comp. 2 Tim. ii. 10. eon simply is to be sup- 
 
CHAP. IV., 16. 
 
 501 
 
 plied ; but 7 ravra sums up what is contained in vv. 7-13 (not merely ver. 
 12 f). Christ’s death and resurrection, to which Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
 Grotius make reference, did not form the subject-matter of the preceding 
 context.— Iva r/ x^P L Q Tc'heovdaaaa in order that the grace, i.e. not only 
 
 the divine grace consisting in the reception of the spirit of faith (Hofmann), 
 but that which is at work in all our victorious suffering and labouring, in¬ 
 creased by the increasing number , i.e. after it has grown in extent and influ¬ 
 ence through the increasing number of those who beyond ourselves have 
 become partakers in it, may make the thanksgiving , which pertains to it, 
 abundant (may produce it in an exceedingly high degree) to the honour of 
 God. There is a similar thought in i. 11 ; but in the present passage the 
 thanksgiving is, in accordance with ver. 14, conceived as on the day of judg¬ 
 ment. Note the correlation of x&Pt and evxapcoriav, as well as the climax : 
 7 rkeovacmoa 81 a to)v irleiovov an&Tcepteoevcnj (1 Thess. iii. 12). On 7 teplooeveiv tl , 
 comp. ix. 8 ; Eph. i. 8; 1 Thess. iii. 12.—This is the construction adopted 
 by Chrysostom (?), the Vulgate, Ewald, and others, including Riickert and 
 Olshausen, who, however, refer 61 a rkv 7T/1 eidvuv to the intercession of the 
 Corinthians, which is not at all suggested by the context. Divergent con¬ 
 structions are (1) “ in order that the grace , since it has become so exceeding rich , 
 may contribute richly to the glory of God on account of the thanksgiving of the 
 increasing number ,” Billroth, following Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, 
 Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Krause, Flatt, Osiander, and 
 others. So, in the main, Hofmann also : (2) in order that the grace , since it 
 has shown itself so richly , may , through the increasing number , make the thanks¬ 
 giving abundant to the honour of God. So Emmerling, de Wette, Neander. 
 Both are possible ; but since 61 a with the accusative would express the con¬ 
 ception, for the sake of, here unsuitable, the former construction would lead 
 us to expect dia with the genitive instead of did r. irl. ryv evxap . 1 (comp. i. 
 11, ix. 12) ; and with both we fail to find in T:\zovdaaaa a more precise defi¬ 
 nition of that by which the grace has become more abundant, a thing not 
 directly involved in the connection (as in Rom. vi. 1). Besides, both are less 
 in keeping with the symmetry of the discourse, which, in structure and ex¬ 
 pression, is carefully chosen and terse—features seen also in the collocation: 
 increased through the increasing number. ” These tt leioveg are those who have 
 been converted by the apostolic ministry, and in particular those advanced in 
 the Christian life, who were just individualized by 6 C vyag. 
 
 Ver. 16. A 16 ] namely, on account of the certainty expressed in ver. 14 
 (partly elucidated in ver. 15), in significant keeping w T ith eidoreg, and hence 
 not to be referred back to the faith of the preachers, ver. 13 (Hofmann). 
 — ovk hnKcui .] as ver. 1. The opposite of e/c/ca/c. is : our inward man, i.e. our 
 morally self-conscious personality, with the thinking and willing vovg and 
 
 1 The position of the genitive, inverted 
 for the sake of emphasis, would have occa¬ 
 sioned no difficulty according to classical 
 usage. Thus, e.g. Plato, Hep. p. 523 D, and 
 Stallbaum in loc., also, generally, Kiihner, 
 II. p. 624. But Paul would hardly have for¬ 
 
 saken the usual order, Sta ttjv roiv ir\ei6vu>v 
 ev^ap., which would at any rate have like¬ 
 wise made the -jw n emphatic. He would 
 have had no reason for resorting to that 
 assumed hyperbaton. 
 
 
502 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 the life-principle of the rcvevpa (see on Rom. vii. 22 ; Eph. iii. 16 ; comp. 1 
 Pet. iii. 4), is renewed from day to day, i.e. it receives through the gracious 
 efficacy of the divine Spirit continually new vigour and elevation, ry ttlgtel, 
 ry eIttISl, ry TvpoOvpia , Chrysostom. But with this there is also the admission: 
 even if our outward man, our phenomenal existence, our visible bodily nature, 
 whose immediate condition of life is the i pv%y, is destroyed, i.e. is in process 
 of being wasted away, of being swept off, namely, through the continual 
 sufferings and persecutions, paoTfopevog, IXavvopevog, pvpia ndaxov 6 elvo, 
 Chrysostom. For though the continual life-rescues reveal the life of Jesus 
 in the body of the apostle (ver. 11), yet there cannot thereby be done away 
 the gradually destructive physical influence of suffering on the bodily nature. 
 There is here a noble testimony to the consciousness that the continuous de¬ 
 velopment of spiritual life is not dependent on the condition of the body ; 
 but the view of Billroth, who finds in avcuauv. the growth of the infinite, the 
 true resurrection , is just as un-Pauline as is the opinion of an inward invisible 
 body (Menken), or even of a corporeality of the soul (Tertullian). On the 
 point whether the inward man includes in itself the germ of the resurrec¬ 
 tion of the body (Osiander), the X. T. says nothing. Riickert diverges 
 wholly from the usual interpretation, and thinks that 6to ovk ekkok. is only an 
 accessory, half-parenthetical inference from what precedes, and that a new 
 train of thought does not begin till alTJ : 11 1 have that hope, and hence do 
 not become despondent. But even if I did not possess it, supposing even 
 that my outward man is actually dissolved,” etc. Against this it maybe 
 urged that ovk EKKaKovgev, a?. a’ k.t.a. could not but present itself obviously to 
 every reader as closely connected {we faint not, but), and that the whole in¬ 
 terpretation is a consequence of Ruckert’s erroneous exposition of ver. 14. 
 Hence Neancler also gives a similar interpretation, but hesitatingly. — On 
 fiiapOE'ipETcu, comp. Plato, Ale. i. p. 185 A : dia^Oapi/vai to ccjpa .—The aXf 
 {at, on the contrary ) in the apodosis, after a concessive conditional sentence, 
 introduces with emphasis the opposite compensating relation ; see Fritzsche, 
 ad Horn. I. p. 874 ; Nagelsbach on the Iliad, p. 48, ed. 2 ; Baeumlein, 
 Par tile. p. 11. —6 eaudev] the inward, inner man. Regarding adverbs in Oev 
 with the same meaning as their primitives, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 128 ; 
 Hartung, Kasus, p. 173. — ypepa kcu ypepa] day by day ; kciO’ ypepav, to e& 
 7/yepav (Eur. Cycl. 336), in point of sense, for ever and ever, without interrup¬ 
 tion or standing still. A pure Hebraism, not found once in the LXX., 
 formed after OEl Dr; comp. DV DV, Esth. iii. 4 ; Gen. xxxix. 10 ; Ps. 
 lxviii. 20. See Vorst, Ilebr. p. 307 f.— avaKatvovra /.] Winer aptly remarks 
 {Progr. de verbor. cum praepos. compos, in N. T. usu, III. p. 10), that in 
 avciKaivovv, to renew, to refresh, the question does not arise, u utrum ea ipsa 
 novitas, quae alicui rei conciliatur, jam olim adfuerit necne /” see on Col. iii. 
 10. Instead of avanaivovv, the Greeks have only avaKatvileiv (Heb. iv. 6), but 
 the simple form is also classical.—The confession el ml 6 e^o) k.t.1. became a 
 watchword of the martyrs. Comp. Cornelius a Lapide. 
 
 Ver. 17. Ground for the furtherance of this 6 eouOev avaKcuvovrcu ypepa k. i/p. 
 from the glorious eternal result of temporal suffering. —to yap TtapavriKa 
 4 . k.t.X.] for the present lightness of our affliction, i.e. our momentary affliction 
 
CHAP. IV., 17. 
 
 503 
 
 * 
 
 weighing light, not heavy to be borne, to vvv clatyp. ryg 1 9-Xty. and to napbv 
 ela(f>p. Tfjg i9 Mxp. would each give a different meaning ; see Hermann, ad 
 Viger. p. 783. For examples of the very frequent adjectival use of TvapavTUa , 
 see Wetstein, Ileindorf, ad Plat. Protag. § 100, p. 620 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
 Rep. p. 558 A ; from Xenophon in Raphel. Bengel aptly remarks : ‘ ‘ notatur 
 praesens breve.” The near Parousia is conceived as terminus ad quern; comp. 
 1 Pet. i. 6. — to cTiatypov Tfjg OXiip. ] like to 6elvov tov TroHyov, the horrors of war 
 (Plato, Menex. p. 243 B), xaher r ^ v T °h P' l0V {Hep. P* 328 E). Regarding the 
 substantival use of the neuter adjective, whereby the idea of the adjective 
 is brought into prominence as the chief idea, see Matthiae, p. 994 ; Kuhner, 
 II. p. 122. — nad’ v7Tspl3oh)v sig vnep^o'Xrjv ] is definition of manner and degree to 
 KaTepya&Tai ; it works in an abundant way even to abundance an eternal weight 
 (growth) of glory. In this—and how exuberant is the deeply emotional form 
 of expression itself !—lies the measureless force and the measureless success 
 of the KaTep-ya&Tcu. (s 4 ) If, with Ruckert, we sought to find in this an ad¬ 
 verbial definition to aiuvtov fiapog (Rom. vii. 13), it could only refer to altjvtov , 
 and the notion of aidvcog would make this appear as unsuitable. Ruckert is 
 further wrong in thinking that the expression does not seem to admit of a 
 precise verbal explanation. But on nad’ virepf see i. 8 ; Rom. vii. 13 ; 1 Cor. 
 xii. 31 ; Gal. i. 13 ; 4 Macc. iii. 18 ; Bernhardy, p. 241 ; and on elg vtcep(5. 
 comp, passages like x. 15 ; Luke xiii. 11 ; Eur. Hipp. 939 ; Lucian, D. M. 
 27. 9 ; Gymnas. 28 ; Tox. 12 ; on both expressions Yalckenaer, ad Eur. Hipp. 
 l.c. — aicjviov ingeniously corresponds to the previous wapavTiua , and j3apog to 
 th e£?M(ppov (comp. Plato, Timaeus , p. 63 C). There is contained, however, in 
 / 3apog 1 the quantitative greatness of the 6(fa ;. comp. /3apog ttXovtov, Plut. Alex. 
 48; Eur. Iph. 419; Soph. Ajax. 130, and Lobeck thereon. It is similar to the 
 German phrase 11 eine schwere Menge. ” — /carepyReTai rjfiv\ brings about for us. 
 The dot;a is conceived as requital for the dlifig (Matt. v. 12 ; Luke xvi. 25 ; 
 Rom. viii. 17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13), and in so far as its effect ,. the production 
 of which is developed in the present suffering. It is not merely a spiritual 
 and moral So^a that is meant (Ruckert, who irrelevantly appeals to Rom. 
 iii. 23), but the whole glory, the aggregate glorious condition in the Messiah’s 
 kingdom, Rom. viii. 17, 18 ff. ; Matt. xiii. 43. —yj ckotcovvt. r/p. k.t./ 1.] since 
 ice do not direct our aim to that ivhich is seen, i.e. since we have not in view, 
 as the goal of our striving (Phil. ii. 4), the visible goods, enjoyments, etc., 
 which belong to the pre-Messianic period (ra ETrlyEta, Phil. iii. 19) ; comp. 
 Rom. viii. 25. Billroth wrongly understands the resurrection-bodies to be 
 meant, which must have been derived from what precedes, and may not be 
 inferred from v. 1. The participle is taken as conditioning by Calvin, Ruck¬ 
 ert, Ewald, Hofmann : it being presupposed that we, etc. ; comp. Chrysostom: 
 av t£) v opupevLJv airayayopev savTovg. The urj would accord with this interpre¬ 
 tation, but does not require it ; see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 301 f. [E. T. 
 351], The former sense, specifying the reason, is not only more appropriate 
 
 1 pdpo s is not distinguished from oy/co? by oyxo? that of bulk. The idea of bnrdensome- 
 
 the latter having always the idea of burden ness is in both words given solely by tire 
 
 (Tittmann, Synon. p. 158). The notion of context. Comp, on oy kos, used of abundant 
 
 weight is always contained in /3dpos, and in fulness; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 126. 
 
504 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the cokinthians. 
 
 in general to the ideal apostolic way of regarding the Christian life (Rom. 
 v. 3-5, viii. 1, 9, 25 ; 2 Cor. iv. 18), but it is also recommended by the fact 
 that Paul himself is meant first of all in rjfi&v. On the more strongly em¬ 
 phatic genitive absolute (instead of pi) gicotcovgi ra f3Xen.), even after the 
 governing clause, comp. Xenophon, Anab. v. 8. 13, i. 4. 12, and Kiihner 
 thereon ; see also Kruger, § xlvii. 4. 2 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Bymp. p. 183 
 13 ; Winer, p. 195 [E. T. 2G0]. With the Greeks, however, the repetition 
 of the subject {yycjv) is rare ; comp. Thuc. iii. 22. 1. —ra firj [iXeTr6jueva\ Paul 
 did not write ra ov opera, because the goods and enjoyments of the Mes¬ 
 sianic kingdom are to appear from the subjective standpoint of the ypcig as 
 something not seen. 1 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 807 ; Kiihner, II. §715. 
 3. Comp. Heb. xi. 7. — ra yap (Bir/Tropera /c.r.A.] Reason, why we do not aim, 
 etc. — TrpoGKacpa] temporary (Matt. xiii. 21 ; Mark iv. 17 ; Heb. xi. 25), 
 namely, lasting only to the near Parousia, 1 Cor. vii. 31 ; 1 John ii. 17. — 
 On the whole expression, comp. Seneca, Ep . 59. 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 i 
 
 (l 4 ) “ It is hid to them that are lost.” Yer. 3. 
 
 Nothing can be plainer than the doctrine of this passage. A man’s faith is 
 not a matter of indifference. He cannot reject the Gospel and yet go to heaven 
 when he dies. This is not an arbitrary decision. There is and must be an ade¬ 
 quate ground for it. The rejection of the Gospel is as clear a proof of moral 
 depravity, as inability to see the light of the sun at noon is a proof of blind¬ 
 ness. Such is the teaching of the Bible, and such has ever been the faith of 
 the church (Hodge). 
 
 (m 4 ) “ Blinded the minds of them that believe not.'” Yer. 4. 
 
 The view of Meyer that unbelief precedes the blindness, that those who will 
 not believe Satan blinds so that they cannot see, is scriptural, but is not 
 taught here. Stanley gives the force of the genitive thus : tojv uklgtuv = vote 
 uttlgtovq elvac. Paul had said that the Gospel was hid to the lost. This he ac¬ 
 counts for by saying that Satan had blinded their minds. The blindness there¬ 
 fore precedes the unbelief, and is the cause of it.—It does not seem necessary 
 to limit the statement that Christ is the image of God to his. state of exaltation, 
 as the author does. Even in his humiliation he so represented God as that it 
 could be said he that saw him saw Jhe Father also (John xiv. 9, xii. 45). 
 
 (n 4 ) “ The God of this world.” Ver. 4. 
 
 Satan is so called because of the power which he exercises over the men of 
 the world, and because of the servile obedience which they render to him. It 
 is not necessary, in order that men should serve Satan, and even worship him, 
 that they should intend to do so, or even that they should know that such a 
 being exists (1 Cor. x. 20). It is enough that he actually controls them, and 
 
 , 1 Bengel aptly observes: “ Aliud significat aopara nam multa, quae non cernuntur, 
 erunt visibilia, conl'ecto itiuere fidei?” 
 
NOTES. 
 
 505 
 
 that they fulfil his purposes as implicitly as the good fulfil the will of God. 
 Not to serve God is to serve Satan. There is no help for it. If Jehovah be not 
 our God, Satan is (Hodge.) 
 
 (o 4 ) “ To give the light of the knowledge .” Ver. 6. 
 
 According to the author, the intention here is to give a reason for Paul’s be¬ 
 ing a servant to the Corinthians, viz. that God shined into his heart that he 
 might give the light to others. But it agrees better with the context and the 
 meaning of the words to view the brilliant passage as giving the reason why 
 Paul preached the Gospel. The outshining of God in creative power so illu¬ 
 mined the Apostle’s soul that he saw the divine glory in the face of Christ, and 
 could not but set forth such majesty, excellence, and grace. 
 
 ( p 4) << Troubled on every side,” etc. Yv. 8, 9. 
 
 There is in these verses an evident climax, which reaches its culmination in 
 the following sentence. Paul compares himself to a combatant : first hardly 
 pressed, then hemmed in, then pursued, then actually cast down. This was 
 not an occasional experience, but his life was like that of Christ, an uninter¬ 
 rupted succession of indignities and suffering (Hodge). 
 
 (q 4 ) Paul's quotation from the Psalter. Yer. 13. 
 
 In a footnote the author speaks of Paul as looking upon David as the author 
 of the 116th Psalm. But, besides the fact that the Apostle does not say so, it 
 may be insisted that even if he had spoken of it as David’s, it would not prove 
 anything more than that he referred to it (just as believers have done for ages) 
 as belonging to a collection which is called David’s, because he was the chief 
 author of its contents. As for the quotation itself, Paul quotes the incorrect 
 rendering of the Septuagint ; yet, as the author justly remarks, both the Hebrew 
 and the Greek contain the idea which led the Apostle to make the quotation, 
 viz. that speaking is represented as the effect and proof of faith. 
 
 (k 4 ) “ Shall present us with you." Yer. 14. 
 
 Certainly the idea of the judgment is foreign to the connection. “ It is a 
 fearful thing to stand before the tribunal of the final judge, even with the cer- 
 tainty' of acquittal.” The reference in rather to the joyful, blessed presenta¬ 
 tion before God, referred to so often elsewhere by the Apostle. See xi. 2; Eph. 
 v. 27 ; Col. i. 22 ; Jude 24. 
 
 * 
 
 (s 4 ) “ A far more exceeding and eternal." Yer. 17. 
 
 The Bcvision of 1881 gives this weighty and impressive verse in a rendering 
 which is exact, and yet faithful to our English idiom. The verse contains the 
 whole philosophy of the Christian view of affliction. It does not deny the re¬ 
 ality of earthly sorrows or underrate their power, as did the Stoics ; but after 
 allowing them all their force, calmly says that they dwindle into insignificance 
 when compared with the exceeding and eternal glory to which they lead. But 
 this applies only to believers, as appears by the next verse, “while we look,” 
 etc. Afflictions have a salutary operation, provided that we look at the things 
 which are eternal—look, i.e., fix our attention upon them as an absorbing object. 
 
506 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corlkthiaxs. 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 Yer. 3. Hye] Lachm. reads elrrep, following B D E F G 17, 80, and rtvkg in 
 Chrys. One of the two is hardly a grammatical correction, but simply an 
 involuntary alteration of the copyists. Hence the preponderance of testimony 
 is decisive, and that in favour of elye, which has the support of C K L X among 
 the uncials, and of almost all the cursives, as well as the strong weight of all 
 the Greek Fathers. (The testimony of the vss. and Latin Fathers is not avail¬ 
 able here.) — kvdvaapevoi] kndvcapevoL is found in D* F G, Ar. pol. It. codd. in 
 Chrj^s. and Oec. Ambrosiast. Tert. Paulin. Primas. Ambros. Marcion. Pre¬ 
 ferred by Mill, 1 Semi. Michael. Ernesti, Schott, Schneckenb. Beiche, Osiander, 
 and others. Becommended by Griesb. ; not adopted, but declared decidedly 
 as correct, by Buck., comp, also Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 511 ; 
 adopted by Tisch. But kndva. is an old alteration, arising from the fact that 
 kvdvo., ov yvpvoi. were not regarded as contrasts, and hence the former was found 
 inappropriate and unintelligible. Lachm. and Ewald also defend the Becepta 
 kvdva. — Yer. 4 . After ongvei Buck, reads tovtu, following DEFG min. and 
 several vss. and Fathers. A defining addition.—Yer. 5. d dom:] 6 nal dovg is 
 read by Elz. Scholz, Tisch. against B C D* FG X* min. and several vss. and 
 Fathers. But comp. i. 22.— Yer. 10. Kandy] (pavlov, favoured by Griesb., 
 adopted by Tisch., is here (it is otherwise in Bom. ix. 11) too weakly attested 
 (only by C and K among the uncials). —Yer. 12. of;] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have 
 ov yap, but against preponderating evidence. Addition for the sake of connec¬ 
 tion. — ml ov ] Lachm. reads nal pr) kv. But pp is only in B K and some cur¬ 
 sives, Theodoret ; while kv is found in B D* F G K and some cursives, Copt. 
 Syr. Yulg. It. Clem. Ambrosiast. Pel., so that prj and kv have not equal attesta¬ 
 tion. prj is an emendation, and kv supplementary. —Ver. 15. el efc] Lachm. 
 Biick. read elc, following far preponderating testimony, el was inserted for the 
 sake of a connection assumed to be wanting. — Ver. 16. el de nat] B D* N* 17, 
 39 have only el nal. So Lachm. Biick. de is only added by way of connection, 
 just as the change of order nal el in F G, Yulg., It. and Latin Fathers has been 
 made for the sake of the connection, but likewise testifies to the non-genuine¬ 
 ness of de .— Yer. 17. tu rravra] is wanting in important authorities. Deleted 
 by Lachm. and Biick. [So nearly all recent critics and expositors.] But how 
 easily it may have been passed over on account of the following ra de iravra ! 
 Some versions omit the latter. — Ver. 21. yap] is, according to preponderating 
 testimony, to be deleted, with Lachm. Buck, and Tisch. Instead of yivdop., 
 yevup. should be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B C D E K L tf, 
 min. Or. Chrys. al. These witnesses are decisive ; F and G also suggest the aor. 
 
 1 According to whom the attempts to ex- Eeiche, Comm. crit. p. 362, quite agrees with 
 plain evSvo-dfx. are alleged to be “ pleraque him in this judgment. 
 absurda , omnia dura , coacta et incongrua .” 
 
CHAP. V., 1. 
 
 507 
 
 Yv. 1-10. Still a continuation of what precedes (see on iv. 7). 
 
 Yer. 1. Tap] gives a reason for iv. 17. For if we were not certain that, 
 etc., ver. 1, we could not maintain that our temporal tribulation works for 
 us an eternal weight of glory. — oldapev] is here not the general it is known 
 (Rom. ii. 2, iii. 19, vii. 14, viii. 28), but Paul is speaking (with the inclusion 
 also of Timothy) of himself, as in the whole context, lie is certain of this. 
 Comp. Job xix. 25. — kav y knlyeiog y/ikv k.t.I.A in case our earthly house of the 
 tent (our present body) shall have been broken up (comp. Polyb. vi. 40 ; 2 
 Esdr. v. 12). Paul here supposes the case, the actual occurrence of which, 
 however, is left quite indefinite by kav, of his not living to see the Parousia. 
 It is true that he was convinced for himself that he would live to see it (1 
 Cor. xv. 51), (t 4 ) but the opposite still remained to him a possible case, and 
 he posits it here (comp, on iv. 14) as dependent on emergent circumstances 
 and with an eye to the future decision. This correct view of the use of kav 
 (see Hermann, ad Viger. pp. 822, 834 f. ; Ivlotz, ad Devar. p. 453) is suffi¬ 
 cient to set aside the supposition that it is here equivalent to Kav, etiamsi 
 (Grotius, Mosheim, Schulz, Rosenmuller, also Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 
 125), which is not the case even in passages such as Mark viii. 36 ; 1 Cor. 
 iv. 15, xiii. 1-3 ; 2 Cor. xii. 6. — k-fEioq] earthly, i.e. to be found on earth. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 40 ; Phil. ii. 10, iii. 19 ; Jas. iii. 15 ; John iii. 12. But 
 the special notion of transitoriness only comes to be added through the char¬ 
 acteristic tov GKyvovQ, and is not specially implied in kir'rysiog (in opposition to 
 Flatt and many others), for the present body is as hziyetog, in contrast to the 
 heavenly things, in a general sense temporal. — y olid a rov cKyvovg] is to be 
 taken as one conception : the house, which consists in the (known) tent, the tent- 
 house. It is wrongly translated domum corporis by Mosheim and Kypke 
 (Ruckert also hesitates as to this). For frequently as the profane authors, 
 especially the Pythagoreans and Platonists, designate the body by GKyvoq 
 (Grotius in loc. ; Alberti, Obss. p. 360 ; Dougtaeus, Anal. II. p. 122 f. ; 
 Jacobs, adAnthol. XII. p. 30), and seem withal to have quite abandoned the 
 conception of the tent (see the passages in Wetstein, and Kypke, II. p. 250), 
 still that conception always lies at the root of the usage, and remains the 
 significant element of the expression. Comp. Etym. M. ; anyvoq Kal to au/ia 
 Trapa to GKyvuya Kal cuyvyv elvac Tyr ipv^yq, olov olKyrypiov. And since Paul 
 nowhere else uses GKyvoq of the body, and was led in quite a special way by 
 figure of oLKi.a to do so here, we must keep by the literal meaning of aKyvoq, 
 tent, by which is set forth the merely temporary destiny of the earthly body. 
 Comp. 2 Pet. i. 13, 14 ; Isa. xxxviii. 12 ; Wisd. ix. 15, and Grimm in loc. 
 Chrysostom : eIttcjv olkluv CKyvovq Kal to EvSid?iVTOv Kal rcpooKaipov del^aq ektevHev, 
 avTE’&yKE ryv alavlav. There is nothing to indicate a particular allusion, such 
 as to the dwellings of the Israelites in the wilderness (Schneckenburger, 
 comp. Ruckert), or even to the tabernacle (Olshausen).—On the two geni¬ 
 tives of different reference dependent on one noun, see Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 
 239] ; and in Latin, Kiihner, ad Gic. Tusc. ii. 15. 35. — oiKoSoyyv ek -&eov a 
 building originating from God, furnished to us by God, by which is meant 
 the resurrection-body . The earthly body also is from God (1 Cor. xii. 18, 
 24), but the resurrection-body will be in a special creative sense (1 Cor. xv. 
 
508 
 
 paul ? s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 38) one, not indeed that has proceeded from God, 1 but that is given by God. 
 Note also the contrast of the transient (?) oitia tov cktjv.) and the abiding 
 (o'lKodojjiri) in the two bodies, he -&eov is to be attached to olkoS., not to be 
 connected with exoyev, by which a heterogeneous contrast would be intro¬ 
 duced (according to Hofmann, with the earthly body, ‘ ‘ which is made 
 each individual’s own within the self-propagation of the human race"). The 
 present tense, exoyev, is the present of the point of time in which that nara- 
 Iv&rj shall have taken place. Then he w r ho has died has, from the moment 
 of the state of death having set in, instead of the destroyed body, the bod}?' 
 proceeding from God, not yet indeed as a real possession, but as an ideal 
 possession, undoubtedly to be realized at the (near) Parousia. Before this 
 realization he has it in heaven (kv toIq ovpavoig belongs to exoyev), just because 
 the possession is still ideal and proleptic ; at the Parousia the resurrection- 
 body will be given to him from heaven (comp. ver. 2) by God, and till then 
 it appears as a possession which is preserved for him for a time in heaven with 
 a view to being imparted in future—like an estate belonging to him (comp, 
 the idea ex ELV &rjaavpov ev ovpavfi, Matt. xix. 21 ; Mark x. 21 ; Luke xviii. 
 22) wdiich God, the future giver, keeps for him in heaven. For a like con¬ 
 ception of the eternal in general, see Col. iii. 3 f. ; comp. Weiss, bibl. 
 Theol. p. 375. The whole of this interpretation is confirmed by ro ohajThp. 
 iyit to e £ ovpavov, ver. 2, which is correlative to the ex°t l£v • • • £V TOl C ovpavoiq, 
 ver. 1, in which, however, h does not again occur, but eu, because in ver. 2 
 to ohcyrfjptov . . . £7r evdvoaodai expresses the time of the realization of that 
 possession described in ver. 1. As accordingly exoyev expresses more than 
 the mere expectancy (“in the event of our death w r e do not wholly perish, 
 but have at the resurrection a spiritual body to expect ,” Billroth), it is not to 
 be transformed into accipiemus (Pelagius : “ sumemus”), with Emmerling, 
 Flatt, and many of the older expositors, nor is it to be said, with de Wette 
 (comp. Weizel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 967 ; also Baur, II. p. 292 f., 
 ed. 2 ; and Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 435 f.), that Paul has overleaped the middle 
 state between death and resurrection, or has let it fall into the background 
 on account of its shortness (Osiander). The ex^iv takes place already from 
 the moment of death and during the continuance of the intervening state, 
 not simply from the resurrection. Photius, Anselm, Thomas, Lyra, and 
 others, 2 including Oalovius, Wolf, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Hofmann, compare 
 John xiv. 2, and on account of the present tense refer this oiKodopg to the glo¬ 
 rious place of abode of the blessed spirits with God after death on to the 
 resurrection. So also Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 359 (comp. Schneckenburger, l.c.), 
 explains it of a life in heaven immediately after death. But against such a 
 view it may be decisively urged that oltda in the two parts of the verse must 
 
 1 Klopper in the Jahrb.fiir deutsche Theol. 
 1862, p. 8 f. 
 
 2 Calvin hesitates between the right ex¬ 
 planation and this one; he says : “ Incertum 
 est , an signified statum beatae immortalilatis , 
 qui post mortem fideles manet , an vero corpus 
 incorruptitnle et gloriosum, quale post resur- 
 rectionem erit .” Then he wishes to unite the 
 
 two views: “Malo ita accipere, ut initinm 
 hujus aedificii sit beat us animi status post mor¬ 
 tem , consummatio autem sit gloria ultirnae 
 resurrectionis.'" Billroth misunderstands 
 this, as if Calvin were thinking of tw r o dif¬ 
 ferent sorts of bodies, one of which we 
 have till the resurrection, the other by 
 means of the insurrection. 
 
CHAP. Y., 2 . 
 
 509 
 
 necessarily have the same reference (namely, to the body) ; hence also wo 
 cannot, with Ewaldand Hofmann, think of the heavenly Jerusalem, Gal. iv. 
 25 f., Ileb. xii. 22, and of the heavenly commonwealth, Phil. iii. 20. See, 
 on the other hand, to it; ovpavov, ver. 2, on which Bengel rightly remarks : 
 “ itaque hoc domicilium non est coelum ipsum.” 1 2 ( 4 u) But because the olid a 
 is £ £ ovpavov , we can as little think of a pneumatic bodily organ of the inter¬ 
 mediate state (Flatt, Auberlen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 709, Neander), 
 of which the N. T. gives no teaching or even hint whatever. Riickert 
 explains it, yet with much vacillation, of the immediate sequence of the exit 
 out of the old and entrance on the new body ; but this is against 1 Cor. xv. 
 51-53, according to which the transfiguration of those who live to see the 
 Parousia appears not as investiture with a new body after a previous KaralvatQ 
 of the old, but as a sudden transformation without destruction. This also in 
 opposition to Olshausen, who likewise seems to understand it of the trans¬ 
 figuration of the living. — axeiponoLprov ] This epithet, denoting the super¬ 
 natural origin, suits indeed only the figure (Mark xiv. 58 ; Acts vii. 48), and 
 not the thing in itself; 2 yet it occurred to the apostle the more naturally, 
 and he could use it with the less scruple and without impropriety, seeing 
 that he had just before represented the earthly body under the figure of a 
 cKfjvoQ, consequently of an olKia x £l P 07T °d]Tog, so that now, by virtue of con¬ 
 trast, the heavenly body stood before his eyes as an oheta cixstpoTToiprog. Con¬ 
 versely, an adjective may, without incongruity, correspond to the thing 
 itself and not to the figure, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 9. — iv rolg ovpavolg ] belongs 
 to exoyev ; see above.— Lastly, it is to be observed that in the two halves 
 of the verse (1) ek ticov and iv to~lq ovpav. correspond with iiriyeiog, and (2) 
 axeipoTT. and aluviov with rov ourjvovq. 
 
 Yer. 2. Confirmation of the certainty expressed in ver. 1, not an explana¬ 
 tion why he should precisely mention the fact that he has such comfort in 
 the prospect of death (Hofmann) — as if, instead of oidayev,' Xiyogev or some 
 similar xerbum declarandi had preceded. — nal yap ] does not here any more 
 than elsewhere mean merely for (see, on the other hand, Hartung, Partikell. 
 I. p. 138), but it means for also , so that nai is connected with ev rovrip. Pre¬ 
 viously, namely, the case was supposed : iiiv . . . KaraXudfi ; to which this 
 Kal yap h rovrep now corresponds, so that the train of thought is ': “ we know 
 that, in case our present body shall have one day been destroyed, we have a 
 body in heaven ; for if this were not so, we should not already in the present 
 body be sighing after the being clothed upon with the heavenly.” 3 This 
 longing is an inward assurance of the fact that, if our earthly house, etc. — 
 Kal yap tv tovtu] The emphasis is on iv : for also in this. Not merely perhaps 
 after the Karakvciq supposed as possible (ver. 1) shall we long for the heavenly 
 
 1 On the way of regarding heaven as dom¬ 
 icilium, comp. Cic. de Senect. 23. 84; Tusc. 
 i. 11,24: “ animos, quum e corporibus ex- 
 cesserint, in coelum quasi in domicilium 
 suvm, pervenire also i. 22, 51. 
 
 2 “Metaphoricus sensus in talibus specte- 
 
 tur, non primarius,” Dissen, ad Find. Pyth. 
 
 iv. 158. 
 
 * If that olKoSo/xrjv e/c #eou exo/xev were not 
 correct, it would be absurd, instead of 
 being contented with the earthly habita¬ 
 tion, to be longing already in it after being 
 clothed upon with the heavenly habitation. 
 Quite similar is the argument in Rom. viii. 
 22 . 
 
510 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corintiiians. 
 
 body, but already now, while we are not yet out of the earthly body but are 
 still in it, we are sighing to be clothed upon with the heavenly. This is 
 proved to be the right interpretation by the parallel in ver. 4, where our hv is 
 represented by oi dvr eg hv. On mi, also, in the sense of already or already also, 
 see Hartung, l.c. p. 135 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gory. p. 467 B ; Fritzsche, ad 
 Lucian, p. 5 if. With rovro, according to the supposition of Grotius and 
 others, including Fritzsche and Schrader, aoyari is to be mentally supplied, 
 so that, as is often the case in the classic writers, the pronoun is referred to 
 a word which was contained only as regards the sense in what preceded. 
 See Fritzsche, Piss. I. p. 47 ; Hermann, ad Vigor, p. 714 ; Seidler, ad Ear. 
 El. 582. Riickert wrongly thinks that Paul in that case must have written 
 hv avrti. This prevalent phenomenon of language applies, in fact, equally 
 in the case of all demonstrative and relative pronouns ; see the passages in 
 Matthiae, p, 978 f. Seeing, however, that the following to oitairi/piov rjy. to 
 kg ovpavov proves that Paul also, in hv rovro, was regarding the body under 
 the figure of a dwelling, and seeing that he himself in ver. 4 has expressly 
 written to gktjvu instead of rovro the supplying of to gktjvel is to be preferred 
 (so Beza and others, including Olshausen, Osiander, Ncander, Ewald 1 ). 
 Others take hv rovro as propterea (see on John xvi. 20 ; Acts xxiv. 16), and 
 refer it partly to what was said in ver. 1, as Hofmann : u On account of the 
 death in prospect” (comp. Estius, Flatt, Lechler, p. 138), or Delitzsch, p. 
 436 : “ in such position of the case partly to what follows, which would 
 be the epexegesis of it (Erasmus, Usteri, Billroth, the latter with hesitation). 
 So also Riickert : in this respect. But the parallel of ver. 4 is decidedly 
 against all these views, even apart from the fact that that over which we 
 sigh is in Greek given by hai with the dative or by the accusative, and hence 
 Hofmann’s view iii particular would have required hrd rovro) or rovro. — to 
 obcyri/piov . . . etc nrodovvreg contains the reason of the sighing : because ice 
 long for, etc. Paul himself gives further particulars in ver. 4. Hofmann 
 wrongly thinks that Paul explains his sighing from the fact, that his longing 
 applies to that clothing upon, instead of which death sets in. The latter point 
 is purely imported in consequence of his erroneous explanation of hv rovro. 
 It is the sighing of the longing to experience the last change by means of 
 the being clothed upon with the future body. This longing to be clothed upon 
 with the heavenly body (not, as Bengel and many of the older expositors 
 would have it : with the glory of the transfigured soul, to which view Hof¬ 
 mann also comes in the end, since he thinks of the eternal light in which God 
 dwells and Christ with Him lives) extorts the sighs. Against the reference of 
 haevSva. to an organ of the intermediate state, see on ver. 3, Remark. Ac¬ 
 cording to Fritzsche, the participle is only a continuation of the discourse 
 by attaching another thought : “ in hoc corpore male nos hdbentes suspiramus 
 et coeleste superinduere gestimusE But in that case no logical reference would 
 be furnished for kcll ; besides, it seems unwarrantable to supply male nos 
 hdbentes, since Paul himself has added quite another participle ; and in gen¬ 
 eral, wherever the participle seems only to continue the discourse, there 
 
 1 See also Klopper in the Jahrb.fiir deulsche Theol. 1862, p. 13. 
 
CHAP. V., 3 . 
 
 511 
 
 exists such a relation of the participle to the verb, as forms logically a basis for 
 the participal connection. Comp. Eph. v. 16. According to Schnecken- 
 burger, CTEvagoysv ETrnro&ovvTeg stands for ettltt odovyEv oTEva^ovTEg, SO that 
 the chief fact is expressed by the participle (Nagelsbach on the Iliad , pp. 
 234, 280, ed. 3 ; Seidler, ad Eur. Iph. T. 1411 ; Matthiae, p. 1295 f.). An 
 arbitrary suggestion, against the usage of the H.T., which is different even 
 in the passages quoted by Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 275 [E. T. 320], and to be re¬ 
 jected also on account of ver. 4, CTEvd^oyev fiapovy. — The distinction between 
 oiKca and oIkt/ttjpiov is rightly noted by Bengel : “ olida est quiddam magis 
 absolutum, oiKTjr^piov respicit incolam,” house — habitation (Jude 6 ; Eur. Or. 
 1114 ; Plut. Mor. p. 602 D ; 2 Macc. xi. 2, 3, ii. 15). —to ovpavov] that 
 which proceeds from heaven; for it is ek &eov, ver. 1. God furnishes from 
 heaven the resurrection-body (1 Cor. xv. 38) through Christ (Phil. iii. 21), 
 in the case of the dead, by means of raising, in the case of the living, by 
 means of transforming (1 Cor. xv. 51). The latter is what is thought of in 
 the present passage. — EirEvdmaodai'] With this Paul passes to another but 
 kindred figure, namely, that of a robe , as also among the Rabbins (Schoett- 
 gen, Hor. p. 693) and the Neo-Platonists (Gataker, ad Anton, p. 351 ; Bos, 
 Exercit. p. 60 ; Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 127) the body is frequently rep¬ 
 resented as the robe of the soul. See also Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 239. 
 But he does not simply say ev dvocnr&cu, but EirevShoacrdat., to put on over (which 
 is not to be taken with Schneckenburger of the succession ; see, on the con¬ 
 trary, Plut. Pelop. 11 : EC&rjTag ETZEvdedvyEvoL ywamdag rolg dcopa^L, Herod, i. 
 195 : £7tl tovtov aXhov EipivEov Krdcjva £7 vevSuvei), because the longingunder dis¬ 
 cussion is directed to the living to see the Parousia and the becoming trans¬ 
 formed alive. This transformation in the living body, however, is in so far 
 an EKEvdloaadai, as this denotes the acquisition of a new body with negation 
 of the previous death (the hidvoaoftai). This is not at variance with 1 Cor. 
 xv. 53, where the simple hdvaatr&aE is used of the same transformation ; for 
 in that passage to (frOapTov tovto is the subject which puts on, and, conse¬ 
 quently, to (pdapTov tovto EvdvETCLL is quite equivalent to ETrevtivoyelta, because in 
 the latter case, as at the present passage, the self-conscious Ego 1 is the sub¬ 
 ject. — Regarding kiuTzo-delv, in which ettc does not make the meaning 
 stronger ( ardenter cupere), as it is usually taken, but only indicates the 
 direction of the longing (irodov ex civ ettl tl ), see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 30 f. 
 
 Yer. 3. After ver. 2 a comma only is to be placed, for ver. 3 contains a 
 supplementary definition to what precedes (comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. pp. 
 391, 395 f.), inasmuch as the presupposition is stated under which the etzev- 
 dvoac&ai hmrodovyev takes place : in the presupposition , namely, that we shall 
 be found also clothed , not naked , i.e. that we shall be met with at the Parousia 
 really clothed with a body , and not bodiless. The apostle’s view is that, while 
 Christ at the Parousia descends from heaven, the Christians already dead 
 first rise, then those still alive are transformed, whereupon both are then 
 caught away into the higher region of the air (elg aepa ) to meet the Lord, so 
 
 1 The inward man. He is put on with the earthly body, and sighs full of longing to put 
 on over it the heavenly body. 
 
512 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 that they thus at their meeting with the Lord shall be found not bodiless (oh 
 yvyvoi) , but clothed with a corporeal covering 1 (evdvodyevoi) . (v 4 ) See 1 Thess. 
 iv. 16, 17, and Liinemann’s note thereon. This belief is here laid down as 
 certainty by dye n.r.k., and as such it conditions and justifies the longing 
 desire expressed in ver. 2, which, on the contrary, would be vain and empty 
 dreaming, if that belief were erroneous, i.e. if we at the Parousia should be 
 found as mere spirits without corporeality ; so that thus those still living, in¬ 
 stead of being transformed, would have to die, in order to appear as spirits 
 before the descending Christ. We cannot fail to see in the words an inci¬ 
 dental reference to those of the Corinthians who denied the resurrection, 
 and without the thought of them Paul would have had no occasion for add¬ 
 ing ver. 3 ; but the reference is such, as takes for granted that the deniers 
 are set aside and the denied fact is certain. As the whole of this explana¬ 
 tion is quite in keeping with the context and the conceptions of the apostle, 
 so is it wdth the w T ords, regarding which, however, it is to be observed that 
 the certainty of what is posited by dye, if namely , is not implied in this par¬ 
 ticle by itself (in opposition to Hermann’s canon, ad Viger. p. 834), but in 
 the connection of the conception and discourse. Comp, on Eph. iii. 2, Gal. 
 iii. 4, and Baeumlein, Pcirtik. p. 64 f. On nai, also, in the sense of really, 
 see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 132 ; and on d ye nai, comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 13. 
 The participle evdvaayevoi refers, however, to the act of clothing previous to 
 the ehpe&rjodye'&a, so that the aorist is quite in its right place (in opposition 
 to Hofmann’s objection, that the perfect is required) ; and finally, the asyn¬ 
 deton evdvody., oh yvyvoi makes the contrasts come into more vivid promi¬ 
 nence, like yaka, oh (3puya, 1 Cor. iii. 2 ; Rom. ii. 29 ; 1 Thess. ii. 17, and 
 often ; comp. ver. 7. See Kuhner, II. p. 461 ; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 31; 
 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 887. — The most current exposition on the part of 
 others is : u Si nos iste dies deprehendet cum corpore, non exutos a corpore, 
 si erimus inter mutandos, non inter mortuos, ” Grotius. So, following Tertul- 
 lian (de Pesurr. 41, though he reads hidvo.), Cajetanus, Castalio, Estius, 
 Wolf, Bengel, Mosheim, Emmerling, Schrader, Rinck, and others, and, in 
 the main, Billroth also, who, however, decides ^in favour of the reading 
 cheep, and deletes the comma after evdvoay. : u which (i.e. the being clothed 
 upon) takes place, if we shall be found (on the day of the Lord) otherwise 
 than already once clothed (with the earthly body), not naked (like the souls 
 of the dead),” so that evtivcay. oh yvyvoi evp. together would be : utpote jam 
 semel induti non nudi inveniemur. Against that common explanation, which 
 J. Muller, von der Bundle, II. p. 422 f., ed. 5, also follows wdth the reading 
 dTzep, the aorist participle is decisive (it must have been evdeSvyevoi). 12 Bill¬ 
 roth, however, quite arbitrarily imports the already once, and, what could 
 be more unnecessary, nay, vapid, than to give a reason for oh yvyvoi by 
 means of evtivody. in the assumed sense : since we indeed have already once re- 
 
 1 That is, with the new body, no longer 
 with the old. See, in opposition to 
 Klbpper, Hofmann, p. 130. 
 
 2 Even Muller acknowledges that the 
 aoi’ist is anomalous, but makes an irrrele- 
 
 vant appeal to Eph. vi. 14 ; 1 Thess. v. 8. In 
 both passages, in fact, the having put on is 
 longed for, and the aorist is therefore quite 
 in order. 
 
CITAP. V., 3 . 
 
 513 
 
 ceived a body ! which would mean nothing else than : since ice indeed are not 
 born bodiless. Against Billroth, besides, she Reiche, p. 357 f. According 
 to Fritzsche, Diss. I. p. 55 II., hdvoay. is held to be in essential meaning 
 equivalent to hr evdvoay. : u Superinduere (immortale corpus vivi ad nos re- 
 cipere) volumus, quandoquidem (quod certo scimus et satis constat, dye) etiam 
 superinduti (immortali corpore) non nudi sc. hoc immortali corpore, sumus 
 futuri h.e. quandoquidem vel sic ad regni Mess, afapoiav perveniemus. ” But 
 w r hile the ewevdvoayevoi may be included as a species among the hdvoayevoi, 
 as opposed to the yvyvoi , they cannot be meant exclusively. Besides, the 
 thought : u since we too clothed upon will not be without the immortal body” 
 would be without logical import, because the superinduere is just the assump¬ 
 tion of the future body, with which we attain to the cupdapoia of the Messi¬ 
 anic kingdom. According to de Wette, Paul says : 11 if, namely, also (in 
 reality) clothed, ice shall be found not naked (bodiless), i.e. as we then certainly 
 presuppose that that heavenly habitation will be also a body.” So, in the main, 
 Lechler, Apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 138 1, Ernesti, JJrspr. d. Sunde, I. 
 p. 118, the latter taking elye kcii as although indeed. But the whole explana¬ 
 tion is absurd, since the hdvoig could not at all be conceived as at the same 
 time its opposite, as yvyvon iq ; and had Paul wished to lay emphasis on the 
 fact that the clothing would be none other than with a body (which, how¬ 
 ever, was quite obvious of itself), he must have used not the simple yvyvoi 
 (not the simple opposite of evdvoay.), but along with it the more precise defi¬ 
 nition with which he was concerned, something, therefore, like ov o 6 yarop 
 yvyvoi (Plato, Crat. p. 403 B, and the passages in Wetstein and Loesner). 
 According to Delitzsch, l.c. p. 430, e\ nai is taken as although , and hdvoay. 
 as contrast of hrevdvoay., so that there results as the meaning : though, in¬ 
 deed, we too, having acquired the heavenly body by means of clothing (not 
 clothing over), shall be found not naked. As if this were not quite obvious 
 of itself ! When clothed, one certainly is not naked ! no matter whether 
 we have drawn the robe on or over. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 and Oecumenius take hdvoay. as equivalent to ouya acpdaprov lafiovreq, but 
 yvyvoi as equivalent to yvyvdi do^rjg, for the resurrection is common to all, but 
 not the do^a. So also Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 392 f. : “We long after being- 
 clothed upon, which event, however, is desirable for us only under the con¬ 
 dition or presupposition that we, though clothed, shall not be found naked 
 in another sense,” namely, denuded of the garland which we should have 
 gained. Here also we may place Olshausen (comp. Pelagius, Anselm, Cal¬ 
 vin, Calovius, and others), who takes ov yvyvoi as epexegetical of hdvoay., 
 and interprets the two thus : if we, namely, are found also clothed with the robe 
 of righteousness, not denuded of it. Comp, also Osiander, who thinks of the 
 spiritual ornament of justification and sanctification ; further, Hofmann on 
 the passage and in his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 473, who, putting a comma after 
 dye (“ if we, namely, in consequence of the fact that we also have put on, shall be 
 found not naked”), understands hdvoayevoi as a designation of the Christian 
 status (the having put on Christ), which one must have in order not to stand 
 forth naked and, therefore, unfitted for being clothed over. But where in 
 the text is there any suggestion of a garland, a robe, an ornament of right- 
 
514 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 eousness, a putting on of Christ (Gal. iii. 27 ; Rofn. xiii. 14), or of the 
 Christian status (1 Tliess. v. 8 ; Eph. vi. 14, iv. 24 ; Col. iii. 10), or any¬ 
 thing else, which does not mean simply the clothing with the future body ? 
 Olshausen, indeed, is of opinion that there lies in nai a hint of a transition 
 to another figure ; hut without reason, as is at once shown by what follows ; 
 and with equal justice any change in the figure at our pleasure might be ad¬ 
 mitted ! This also in opposition to Ewald’s interpretation : “ if we at least 
 being also clothed (after we have had ourselves clothed, i.e. raised again) 
 he found not naked, namely, guilty , like Adam and Eve, Gen. iii. 11.” 
 This would point to the resurrection of the wicked, Rev. xx. 12-15 ; if we 
 belonged to these, we should certainly not have the putting on of glorifica¬ 
 tion to hope for. But such a reference was just as remote from the mind of 
 the apostle, who is speaking of himself and those like him, as the idea of 
 Adam and Eve, of whom Beza also thinks in ■yvjuvoi, must, in the absence of 
 more precise indication, have remained utterly remote from the mind of the 
 reader. 
 
 Remark.— Whether the reading ekSvu. or hdva. be adopted, it is not to be 
 explained of an interim body between death and resurrection (Flatt, p. 69 ; 
 Schneckenburger, l.c. p. 130 ; Schott ; Auberlen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 
 709 ; Martensen, § 276 ; Nitzsck, Goschel, Rinck, and others, including 
 Reiche, 1 l.c.), of which conception there is no trace in the New Testament ; 2 
 but rather, since yv/xvot can only refer to the lack of a body : if we, namely, even 
 
 1 Reiche, p. 3G4 : “ Quo certior nobis est 
 gloriosae immortalitatis spes (yd p, c. 2), eo im- 
 pensiore quidem desiderio , ut movie non inter- 
 cedente propediem ad summum beatitudinis 
 fastigium evehamur, fiagramusj attamen 
 vero etiam corpore hoc per mortem exvti senti- 
 endi agendique instrumento non carebimus." 
 elye kc d is, in liis view, concessive, moderating 
 the desire to assume the heavenly body 
 without previously dying (enevSvo-acr&ai, ver. 
 2): “Si igitur Deus votis (ver. 2) non an- 
 nuerit, animum haud despondemus anxiive 
 futura anhelamus, persuasi scilicet, et. post 
 mortem illico mentem nostrum immortalem 
 in statum beatissimum evectum iri,” etc. 
 It is true that Reiche himself declares 
 against the view that Paul here speaks of a 
 body intermediate between death and resur¬ 
 rection ; but his own view amounts to much 
 the same thing, since Paul, according to it, 
 is supposed to grant that we, unclothed of 
 the earthly body by death, will yet “ post 
 mortem illico” be found not naked. 
 
 2 The manner also in wiiich the origin of 
 this corporeality has been conceived, name¬ 
 ly, as the soul’s self-embodiment by putting 
 on the elements of the higher world (see, 
 especially Glider, Ersch. Chr. unt. d. Todten, 
 p. 336, also West, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, 
 p. 280), has nowhere in Scripture any ba¬ 
 sis whatever. See, in opposition to it, 
 
 Delitzsch, p. 438 ; Thomasius, Clir. Pers. u. 
 Wertc, III. 2, p. 436, w T ho, however (p. 74 f.), 
 for his part, answers in the affirmative the 
 question, whether we are to think of “ a 
 change of clothing and clothing over of the 
 new man out of the transfigured corporeality 
 of the Lord, whose communion is the blessed 
 bread and the blessed cup." In any case 
 yvixvoi is the negation of corporeality. But 
 the question remains untouched (comp, the 
 cautious remarks of J. Muller, p. 425), what 
 organ of its activity the soul retains in 
 death, wffien it is divested of the body. 
 On this point we have no instruction in 
 Scripture, and conjectures (like Weisse’s 
 conception of the nerve-spirit) lead to noth¬ 
 ing. The opinion that the Lord's Supper 
 has a transfiguring power over the body 
 goes partly against Scripture (because it 
 presupposes the participation of the trans¬ 
 figured body of Christ) and partly beyond 
 Scripture (because the latter contains noth¬ 
 ing regarding any power of the Lord’s Sup¬ 
 per over the body). Ultra quod Scriptum 
 est is also the conception in Delitzsch of the 
 body-like appearance of the bodiless soul 
 itself, or of an outline of the same resem¬ 
 bling in form its true irnvard state. Such 
 theories bring us into the realm of phantas¬ 
 magoric hypotheses. 
 
CHAP. V., 4. 
 
 olo 
 
 in the case that ice shall he unclothed (shall have died before the Parousia), shall he 
 found not nalced (bodiless), in which the idea would be implied : assuming, 
 namely, that we in every case, even in the event of our having died before the 
 Parousia, will not appear before Christ without a body ; hence the wish of 
 attaining the new body without previous death is all the better founded 
 (eKevdveraaOai). Similarly Riickert. Kling (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 511) 
 takes it inaccurately : ‘ ‘ although we, even if an unclothing has ensued, will not he 
 found hare, 1 ' by which Paul is held to say : “even if the severing process of 
 death has ensued, yet the believers will not appear bodiless on the day of the 
 Lord, since God gives them the resurrection-body.” 1 The error of this view 
 lies in although. No doubt Kling, with Lachmann, reads ehrep. But even this 
 never means quamvis (not even in 1 Cor. viii. 5), and the Homeric use of elrrep 
 in the sense : if also nevertheless, if even ever so much (Odyss. i. 167 ; //. i. 81, and 
 Nagelsbach’s note thereon, p. 43, ed. 3), especially with a negative apodosis (see 
 Hartung, I. p. 339 ; Kiihner, II. p. 562), passed neither into the Attic writers 
 nor into the N. T. 
 
 Yer. 4. An explanation defining more precisely, and therewith giving a 
 reason for (yap), ver. 3, after a frequent practice of the apostle. Comp. iv. 
 10, 11. In this ical, even serves to emphasize the oi ovreg hr. an., just as 
 with ev tovto) in ver. 2. — The ev rovru of ver. 2 is here more precisely de¬ 
 fined by ol ovreg ev ru anyvei, in which oi ovreg is prefixed with emphasis : for 
 even as those who are still in the tent , i.e. for even as those whose sojourn in 
 the tent is not yet at an end ; already while ice are still in possession of the bodily 
 life, which duration of time is opposed to the moment of the possible vara- 
 hvaig rov cncfjvovg, when the tent is left, and when the longing and sighing after 
 the new body would be still stronger ; comp, on ver. 2. From the very 
 position of the nai Hofmann is wrong in making its emphasis fall on fapov- 
 yevot, which exto»ts sighs from us, and then taking ol ovreg ev r. gk. in anti¬ 
 thetic reference to what is afterwards affirmed of these subjects, since they 
 prefer to remain in the earthly life (comp, oi fjvreg, iv. 11). The oi ovreg ev r. 
 gk. can only, in fact, be the same as the ev rovro) of ver. 2, which, however, 
 Hofmann has already wrongly understood in another way ; the two ex¬ 
 pressions explain one another .—rti Gia)vet] The article expresses the tent 
 which is defined by the connection (the body).— (3apovyevoi] definition as¬ 
 signing a reason for orevdd,. : inasmuch as we are depressed ; not, however, 
 propter calamitates (i. 8), asPiscator, Emmerling, Schneckenburger, Fritzsche 
 suppose without any ground in the context, but the cause of the pressure 
 which extorts the sighs is expressed by the following ef 6 ov 0e?Myev n.r.h., 
 so that fiapovyevoi, ef <p ov Oehopev K.r.h. is a more precise explanation of the 
 to oiKrjrrjptov . . . hrcTrodovvreg of ver. 2. — eft <5] i.e. enl rovro) bn, propterea quod, 
 as Rom. v. 12 ; see on that passage. Comp, here particularly Ovyov ftapvveiv 
 hxi rtvi, Pind. Pyth. i. 162 f. ; Greva^eiv hri rtvi, Soph. El. 1291 ; Nen. Gyr. 
 iv. 3. 3 : Sanvdpevog enl rovroig. We feel ourselves as oppressed by a burden, 
 because we are not willing, i.e. have an antipathy, to unclothe , etc. The oppres- 
 
 1 So in the main did Chrysostom interpret comp. Matthaei in loc.): kclv inoSufieOa. to 
 the reading eKSv<rdfj.evoL (for SO we are to o-w/j-a, ov o-ioju.aT05 e/cei napaaTYiao^eOa, 
 
 read in the explanation first quoted by him, a\\a. /cal /aera rov avrou d<p0dpTov yzvop.tvov. 
 
-516 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIAN'S. 
 
 / 
 
 sive part of this ov dsXopev EKduaacOai, a/JC t'TrevbvcaaOai lies in the ever present 
 possibility of the ktcdvaacQai. Emmerling and Fritzsche take efi <p as quare 
 (see Eisner, ad Rom. v. 12 ; Matthiae, p. 1373) : “Nam in hoc corpore ad 
 calamitates valde ingemisco (pal .... yap fiapvv.) et propter hanc ipsam 
 malorum molem (if f) nolo quidem, ut haec propulsetur , mortem oppetere 
 (j hdvG .),” etc. But there is nothing of the malorum moles in the context ; 
 and if we should wish, as the context allowed, with Osiander and older 
 commentators, to refer fiapovu. to the pressure which the body as such (the 
 onf/voc) causes to us by its onus peccati et crucis (comp. Wisd. ix. 15), and 
 then to explain kef <p : and in order to get rid of this pressure ; this would be 
 at variance with the parallel in ver. 2, according to which the sighing 
 must appear to be caused by the special longing (which in ver. 4 is, by 
 way of more precise definition, designated as an oppressing one), not by 
 another pressure. 1 This, at the same time, in opposition to Usteri and 
 Schneckenburger, who take it as whereupon (comp. Kuhner II. p. 298). 
 According to Beza, it means in quo, sc. tabernaculo, and, according to 
 Flatt, even although. At variance with linguistic usage. Ewald, taking 
 fiapovp. of the burden of the whole earthly existence, explains it : 11 in so far 
 as we wish not to be unclothed , and so set forth as naked and guilty and 
 cast into hell, but to be clothed over .” Against this it maybe urged that if <p 
 does not mean quatenus (e$ oaov), and that the interpretation of “being un¬ 
 clothed ” in the sense of reum fieri is not grounded in the text ; see on ver. 
 3. — dehoyev] Out of this we are not, with Grotius, Emmerling, and others, 
 to make malumus ; otherwise ij must have stood instead of aXXa, 1 Cor. xiv. 
 19. The ov Oeaelv is the nolle , the not being willing (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 
 278 ; Ameis on Horn. Od. ii. 274), of the disinclination of natural feeling. 
 — aX/ 1’] sc. Qelopev.—Iva Karanodri /c.r.A] We wish to be clothed over, in 
 order that , in this desired case, what is mortal in us may be swallowed up (may 
 be annihilated, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 54) by life , i.e. by the new, immortal 
 power of life which is imparted to us in the moment of the change (of the 
 ett evdvoaodai). "tloTrep avtoxov to (ptog (ppovdov to cvcdrof tzoleI, ovtuq f] av^hedpog 
 £(«)?) t?]v (pQopav atyav'fci, Theodoret. (v 4 ) 
 
 Remake.—T here is no fear of death in this utterance of the apostle, but 
 rather the shrinking from death, that pertains to human nature—the shrink¬ 
 ing from the process of death as a painful one. His wish was not to die first 
 before the Parousia and then to be raised up, but to be transformed alive ; 
 and what man, to whom the nearness of the Parousia was so certain, could 
 have wished otherwise? His courage in confronting death, which was no 
 Stoical contempt of death, remained untouched by it. 
 
 Yer. 5. A£] not antithetic (Hofmann), but continuative ; this wish is no 
 groundless longing, but we are placed by God in a position for the longed- 
 
 1 Osiander : “ wherefore we long to have 
 otirselves not unclothed, but clothed over, 
 because in the very act of dying the pressure 
 of the tabernacle becomes heaviest , when it, as 
 it were, collapses over its inhabitant." It is 
 
 self-evident that of this explication of ef <S 
 there is nothing in the text: even apart 
 from the fact, that Osiander explains as if 
 the words were cS 0eAo /xev ov/c e/cSvcraa-^at 
 k.t.A. 
 
CHAP. Y., 6. 
 
 517 
 
 for change which swallows up death. Now lie who lias made us ready for 
 this very thing is God. — elg avro tovto ] for this very behalf for this very thing , 
 Rom. ix. 17, xiii. 6 ; Eph. vi. 18, 22 ; Col. iv. 8. According to the con¬ 
 text, it cannot apply to anything else than to the knevdvoaJcdai, whereby the 
 mortal will be swallowed up of life. For this precisely Paul knew his indi¬ 
 viduality to be disposed by God , namely (see what follows) through the 
 Holy Spirit, in the possession of which he had the divine guarantee that at 
 the Parousia he should see his mortal part swallowed up of life, and conse¬ 
 quently should not be amongst those liable to eternal destruction. In this 
 way the usual reference of avro tovto to the eternal glory is to be limited 
 more exactly in accordance with the context ; comp, also Maier. Bengel 
 wrongly refers it to the sighing , pointing to Rom. viii. 23. 1 But how inap¬ 
 propriate this is to the context ! And how unsuitable in that case would 
 be the description of the Holy Spirit as appa(Fdv, since, according to Bengel, 
 He is to be conceived as “ suspiria operans” ! Quite as unsuitable is the 
 reference of narepy. to the creation (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 Beza, and others, also Schneckenburger), which has no place here even as 
 the beginning of the preparation indicated (in opposition to Ewald) ; Riick- 
 ert remains undecided. — 6 Sovg yyiv k.t.2..] predicative more precise defini¬ 
 tion of the previous 6 6e Karepy. yyag . . . tieog ; He who (quippe qui ) has 
 given to us the Spirit as earnest ; see on i. 22. As earnest , namely, of the 
 fact that we shall not fail to be clothed upon with the heavenly body at the 
 Parousia (which Paul was convinced he would live to see). Comp. Rom. 
 viii. 11, and the Remark thereon. The usual reference of r. appafi .: arrham 
 futurae gloriae , is here too general for the context. The view of Hofmann 
 regarding 6 dovgyy.lv k.t.Tl., that the possession of the Spirit, etc., cancels 
 the distinction between being unclothed and being clothed over, and takes 
 away the natural shrinking from death , falls with his explanation of Karepyaa. 
 rjy. e'ig avro tovto ’, see the Remark. 
 
 Yer. 6. The resulting effect of ver. 5 on the apostle’s tone of mind.— 
 Estius (comp. Erasmus, Annot.) rightly saw that the participle does not 
 stand for the finite verb (as Flatt still holds, with most of the older com¬ 
 mentators), but that ver. 6 is an anacoluthon, as the construction is quite 
 
 1 This reference has been in substance 
 repeated by Hofmann (comp, also his 
 Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 475 f.). In place of his 
 former misinterpretation, according to 
 which he took /carepya^ecrtfcu as to work 
 down, break the spirit (see, in opposition to 
 this, my third edition, p. 115, Remark), he 
 has substituted the other erroneous expla¬ 
 nation, that Karepya^etT'&ai. is to be held as 
 “ to bring one to the point of doing something ,” 
 that eis avro tovto applies to the disinclina¬ 
 tion to being unclothed , and that the means 
 by which God brings us to the point of not 
 wishing to be unclothed is obviously the 
 i terribleness of death. The last point is purely 
 imported, and the whole explanation is 
 excluded by its very inconsistency with 
 
 the language used in the passage. For 
 Karepyd^ea&ai means, with Greek writers, to 
 bring one to something , but always only in 
 the sense to prevail on one for something for 
 which we wish to get him, to win him for 
 one's ends , whether this be effected by per¬ 
 suasion or by other influence directed to 
 the end. So also Judg. xvi. 16 ; Xen. Mem. 
 ii. 3. 11. Our expression to work on a person 
 is similar. Comp, also Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 16; 
 Herod, vii. 6 ( Karepydaaro Kal aveneiae), ix. 
 108 ; Strabo, X. 5, p. 483 (7reii4oZ Karepyafovrai). 
 In the N. T. the word never means any¬ 
 thing else than to set at work, bring about, 
 and in this sense it occurs frequently in 
 Paul. Nor is it otherwise used here. 
 
518 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 broken off by ver. 7, but the thought is taken up again with -&appovpcv de in 
 ver. 8. See Fritzsche, Biss. II. p. 43 ff.; Winer, p. 533 [E. T. 717 f.]; 
 Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 252 [E. T. 292]. We must therefore not treat 
 ver. 7 (Beza and others), nor even vv. 7 and 8 (Olshausen, Ewald), as a 
 ■ parenthesis. Paul intended to write : -dappovvTEg ovv ttcivtote ml eldbcEg . . . 
 Kvpiov, EvdomvpEv paYXov k.t./ 1., but was carried away from this by the inter¬ 
 vening thought of ver. 7, and accordingly wrote as he has done. Comp, on 
 ver. 8. Hofmann’s opinion, that dappoiipcv de k.t./ 1. is apodosis to the par¬ 
 ticipial protasis ■&appovvTeg ovv k.t.Y, would only be grammatically tenable 
 (comp, on Acts xiii. 45) if there were no de in ver. 8. This de, as is always 
 the case with de of the apodosis, even in the examples in Hartung, I. p. 186, 
 wrnuld be adversative (on the contrary ), which is not suitable here, and is not 
 to be logically supported by the added k. evdoK. paYAov (see on ver. 8). — 
 - dappovvreg ] in all afflictions, iv. 17. — ttovtote] In no time of trouble does 
 Paul know himself deserted by this confident courage, iv. 8 ff., vi. 4 ff. — 
 ml EtdoTEg k.t. I.'] This likewise follows from ver. 5, and likewise serves as 
 ground for the evdomvpev k.t. A. of ver. 8 ; hence it is not, with Calvin, to be 
 explained : quia scimus (as giving a reason for the ■&appovvTeg), nor with 
 Estius, Rosenmuller, Emmerling, Flatt, Olshausen, in a limiting sense : while 
 we yet , or although we know. — hdrjpovvTeg ev rti cup. ] being at home in the 
 body, i.e. while the body is the place of our home. The body is here also 
 conceived as olYia (not civitas , as Ruckert, de Wette, Osiander, and others 
 hold), and that an olklci out of which we have not yet migrated , Erasmus : 
 u quamdiu domi sumus in hoc corporis habitaculo.” Comp. Plato, Legg. 
 
 xii. p. 594 B : lav de cnzodrjpuv olCiag dECTTOTrjg rvyxavy, Aesch. Choeph. 569. — 
 endripovpEv curb r. Kvp.~\ peregre absumus a Domino. For in respect to the future 
 eternal home with Christ (1 Thess. iv. 17 ; Phil. i. 23, iii. 20 ; Heb. xi. 13, 
 
 xiii. 14), the temporary home in the earthly body is a sojourn abroad , an 
 EKdppia , which keeps us at a distance from Christ. On cnrbT.Kvp., comp. 
 Rom. ix. 3 ; Ameis on Horn. Od. xiv. 525, appendix. 
 
 Ver. 7. Reason assigned for the evdppovvTeg . . . Kvpiov. For through faith 
 'ice walk, etc.; faith is the sphere through which we walk, i.e. faith is the 
 element through which our earthly life moves. If we walked dm eldovg, seeing 
 that this presupposes the being together with Christ, we should not be 
 endripovvTEg cnro tov Kvpiov. The object of faith we must from the w T hole con¬ 
 nection conceive to be the Lord in His glory, whose real form (ro eidog) we 
 shall only have before us when we are with Him. Comp. Rom. viii. 17 ; 1 
 Thess. iv. 17 ; Johnxvii. 24 ; 1 Pet. i. 8, al. —dia TticrEug] quite in accord¬ 
 ance with the Greek phrase dia dimtocvvrig Uvai. Comp. TCEpnvaTEiv did, tov 
 tyuTog, Rev. xxi. 24, and the classical expressions tt opevEc&cu did tuv pdovuv and 
 the like; see, in general, Valckenaer, ad Phoeniss. 402 ; Heindorf, ad Protag. 
 p. 323 A ; Hermann, ad Oed. Col. 905 ; Bernhardy, p. 235. — ov did ridovq] 
 i.e. not so, that ice are surrounded by the appearance, not so, that we have 
 before us Christ, the Exalted One, in His real appearance and form, i.e. in 
 His visible d6£a, and that this glorious ddog shines round us in our w T alk. 
 Comp. John xvii. 24, and the TcpoowKov vrpbg TTpocomov, 1 Cor. xiii. 12. eidog 
 never means, as it is mostly explained, vision (not even in Rum. xii. 8), but 
 
CHAP. V., 8. 
 
 519 
 
 always species, (x 4 ) The Vulgate renders rightly : per speciem. See Luke 
 iii. 22, ix. 29 ; John v. 87 ; 1 Thess. v. 22 ; Duncan, Lex. , ed. Rost, p. 
 883 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 007 f.; Tittmann, By non. p. 119, who, however, 
 w T ith the assent of Lipsius ( Pechtfertigungsl. p. 100), wrongly takes it : exter¬ 
 na rerum specie caption vivere , so that the meaning would be : u Vita nostra 
 immortali ilia spe, non harurn rerum vana specie regitur.” According to 
 this view, different objects would quite arbitrarily be assumed for tvlctiq and 
 euhg ; and further, where Paul specifies with izepL-rcaTElv that by which it is 
 defined , he uses as a prepositional expression not 6ia , but Kara (Rom. viii. 4, 
 xiv. 15, al.), or renders palpable the manner of the walking by kv (iv. 2 ; 
 Rom. vi. 4, al.), or characterizes it by the dative, as xii. 18 ; Gal. v. 10. 
 These reasons tell also in opposition to Hofmann, who explains 6ia of the 
 w T alk, which has its quality from faith, etc., and sidog of an outward form of 
 the walker himself , in which the latter presents himself as visible.—Regard¬ 
 ing the relation of the 6ia wtoTEug to the 6ia sidovg , observe that in the tem¬ 
 poral life w T e have the ntang, and not the Eldog, while in the future world 
 through the Parousia there is added to the tvlgtiq also the Eldog, but the for¬ 
 mer does not thereby cease, it rather remains eternal (1 Coi\ xiii. 13). 
 
 Ver. 8. But we have good courage and are well pleased, etc. With this Paul re¬ 
 sumes the thought of ver. 6, and carries it on, yet without keejDmgto the con¬ 
 struction there begun. The idea of the dappovysv must in this resumption 
 be the same as that of the dappovvreg in ver. 6, namely, the idea of confident 
 courage in suffering. This in opposition to Hofmann, who takes -&appovvTEg 
 rightly of courage in suffering, but tiappovyev of courage in death, making 
 the infinitive ktcdriyrioai depend also on dappovycv (see below). — 6e, no doubt, 
 links on again the discourse interrupted by the parenthesis (Hermann, ad 
 Vigor, p. 847 ; Pflugk, ad Eurip. ILec. 1211 ; Fritzsche, Biss. II. p. 21), 
 wdiich may also hapjjen, wdiere no 61 has preceded (Ivlotz, ad Bevar. p. 
 877); since, however, ■d-appovvreg is not repeated here, w T e must suppose that 
 Paul has quite dropped the plan of the discourse begun in ver. G and bro¬ 
 ken off by ver. 7, and returns by the way of contrast to what w r as said in ver. 
 G. Accordingly there occurs an adversative reference to the previous 6ia 
 tugt. 'KepiTcciTovyev , ov Scci eldovg , in so far as this state of things as to the course 
 of his temporal life does not make the apostle at all discontented and dis¬ 
 couraged, but, on the contrary, leaves his ftappslv, already expressed in ver. 
 G, quite untouched, and makes his desire tend rather towards being from 
 home, etc. Comp. Hartung, I. p. 178. 2 ; Klotz, l.c. Thus there is a logi¬ 
 cal reason wliy Paul has not written ovv. Com]], on Eph. ii. 4. — On ev6okeiv 
 in the sense of being pleased, of Placet mild, comp. 1 Cor. i. 21 ; Gal. i. 15 ; 
 Col. i. 19 ; 1 Thess. ii. 8 ; Fritzsche, ad Pom. IT. p. 370. — kKdrjyyaai in rov 
 aoyarog] to be-from-home out of the body, is not to be understood of the change 
 at the Parousia (Kaeuffer, Zed) a!6v., p. 80 f.), but, in accordance wuth the 
 context, must be the opposite of kvdyyovvrEg kv rtp cuyari, ver. G ; consequent¬ 
 ly in substance not different from kiidvcaodcu, ver. 4. Hence the only right 
 interpretation is the usual one of dying, in consequence of which we are-from- 
 home out of the body. Comp. Phil. i. 23 ; Plato, Phaed. p. 67, B, C. The 
 infinitive is dependent only on EvdoKovysv, not also on dappovysv (Hofmann), 
 
520 
 
 Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 since -dappeiv with, the infinitive means to venture something , to undertake to 
 do something, which would not suit here (comp. Xen. Gyr. viii. 8. G ; Iiero- 
 dian, ii. 10. 13),—even apart from the fact that tliis use of ftappeiv (equiva¬ 
 lent to rolyav (is foreign to the X. T. and rare even among Greek writers. 
 The cvSoKovyev k.t.X. is something greater than the -dappovycv. This pas¬ 
 sage stands to ver. 4, where Paul has expressed the desire not to die but to be 
 transformed alive, in the relation not of contradiction, but of climax ; the 
 shrinking from the process of dying is, through the consideration contained 
 in ver. 5 and in the feeling of the courage which it gives (ver. 6), now over¬ 
 come, and in place of it there has now come the inclination rather (yahlov) 
 to see the present relation of kvbyydv kv rd> cdgem and- kKbyyelv arcb tov Kvpiov 
 (ver. 6) reversed , rather, 1 therefore, k k 8 y y y g a i k k to v g & y a t o g Kal 
 kv 8 Tj y?i g at 7T pog r b v kv p lov, which will take place through death, if 
 this should be appointed to him in his apostolic conflicts and sufferings (iv. 
 7 ff.), for in that case his spirit, having migrated from his body, will not, 
 separated from Christ, come into Hades, but will be at home with the Lord 
 in heaven—a state the blessedness of which will later, at the day of the 
 Parousia, receive the consummation of glory. The certainty of coming by 
 martyrdom into heaven to Christ is consequently not to be regarded as a 
 certainty only apprehended subsequently by Paul. See Phil. i. 26, Remark. 
 
 Yer. 9. Therefore , because we evSoKovycv /c.r.H., ver. 8, we exert ourselves 
 also. Bengel : “ ut assequamur quod optamus.”— (piXony .] denotes the 
 striving, in which the end aimed at is regarded as a matter of honour. See 
 on Rom. xv. 20. Bengel well says : “haec una ambitio legitima.” But 
 there is no hint of a contrast with the ‘ 1 honour-coveting courage of the heathen 
 in dying' 1 ' 1 (Hofmann). — eIte kvSrjyovvTEg , elte k^yyovvTcg] is either connected 
 with (piAoTiy. (Calvin and others, including Billroth, Rlickert, de Wette, 
 Ewald, Osiander) or with EvapsGTot avru dvai (so Chrysostom and many 
 others, including Castalio, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Emmerling, Flatt, 
 Hofmann). The decision must depend upon the explanation. Chrysostom, 
 Calvin, and others, including Flatt and Billroth, supply with kvSrjy .: npog 
 tov Kvpiov , and with £k8i]u. : inzb tov Kvpiov. In that case it must be connected 
 with evapeGrot avru) elvcu (Chrysostom : to yap grirovyevov tovto egt'l <pyoiv’ av te 
 hid uyev, av te kvTavda, Kara yvdyyv avTov f]v\ not with (piXoTiyovyE&a (Calvin : 
 Paul says, u tarn mortuis quam vivis hoc inesse studiuui") ; for they who are 
 at home with Christ are well-pleasing to Him, and, according to Rom. vi. 
 7, Paul cannot say of them that they strive to be so. The striving refers 
 merely to the earthly life, and one strives to be well-pleasing to the Lord 
 as EKbr/yuv citt’ uvtov , not as kv8rjycbv tt pog avrov. For in the case of those who 
 IvStjuovgl iTpbg tov Kvpiov , the continuance of their being well-pleased is a self- 
 
 1 ixaWov therefore belongs neither to 
 ev8oKOVfx.ev nor to Oapp. k. evSoK,. as if Paul 
 would say that he has this courage still 
 more than that meant in ver. 6 (Hofmann), 
 but to inSr)ixY)cra.L . . . Kvpiov. Wewislltliat, 
 instead of the present home in the body, 
 etc., there may rather ( potius ) set in the 
 being-from-ho?ne out of the body and the being- 
 
 at-home with the Lord. This “ rather" no 
 more yields an awkward idea here (as Hof¬ 
 mann objects) than it does in all other pas¬ 
 sages where it is said that one wills, ought 
 to do, or does, instead of one thing rattier 
 the other. Comp. e.g. 1 Cor. v. 2 , vi. 7; Rom. 
 xiv. 13 ; John iii. 19. 
 
CHAP. V v 10. 
 
 521 
 
 evident moral fact. On this account, and because quite an illogical order 
 of the two clauses would be the result (et tunc et nunc /), the whole of Chrys¬ 
 ostom's explanation, and even its mode of connection, is erroneous. The 
 right explanation depends on our completing hfy/uovvTeg by ev ro ah/iari, 
 and £Kd?//j.ovvTeg by ek. tov cuyaTog ; for that to cioya is still the idea which 
 continues operative from vv. 6, 8, as shown by ra dia tov cuyaTog in ver. 10, 
 an expression occasioned by the very reference to the body, which is before 
 the mind in ver. 9. Further, we must clearly maintain that EnSrjyovvTeg, in 
 contrast to kvdrjyovvTeg , does not mean : migrating , i.e. dying, but : peregre 
 absentee, being from home (comp. Soph. Oed. R. 114 : feojpbg endr/yav, a pil¬ 
 grim from home), just as in ver. 6 kuSr/govyev was per eg re absumus , and in 
 ver. 8 £K(h]pf/Gcu peregre abesse. 1 Hence we must reject all explanations which 
 give the meaning : living or dying (Calovius, Bengel, Ewald, Osiander, who 
 find the totality of life expressed with a bringing into prominence of the 
 last moment of life), or even : u sive diutius corpori immanendum , sive eo 
 exeundum sit ” (Erasmus, Paraphr. , Emmerling), to which Riickert ulti¬ 
 mately comes, introducing Paul’s alleged illness ; while de Wette thinks 
 that Paul includes mention of the departure from life only to show that he 
 is prepared for everything. We should rather keep strictly to the meaning 
 of ek8?i u., peregre absentes ex corpore (comp. Vulgate : absentee ), and explain 
 it : We exert ourselves to be well-pleasing to the Lord , whether ice (at His Pa- 
 rousia) are still at-home in the body, or are already from-home out of it, con¬ 
 sequently, according to the other figure used before, already endvcayevoi , i.e. 
 already dead , so that w T e come to be judged before Him (more precisely : 
 before His judgment-seat, ver. 10), not through the being changed, like 
 the EvSryiovvTeg , but through the being raised up. It is thus self-evident 
 that eiT£ evdriyovvTeg k.t.%. must be attached not to ^dkoTiyovyeda, but to 
 evapecToi avru) eivai, as was done by Chrysostom, although with an erroneous 
 explanation. 
 
 Ver. 10. Objective motive of this striving. — rovg yap iravTag r/yag\ no one 
 excepted. It applies to all Christians ; comp. Rom. xiv. 10. — 4e7] a divine 
 appointment, which is not to be evaded. — (pavepo-d-pvat ] This does not im¬ 
 ply “the concealment hitherto of the dead ” (de Wette), for the living also 
 are judged, but means : manifestos fieri cum occultis nostris (Bengel, comp. 
 Beza). Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 5 ; Rom. ii. 16. Thus it is distinguished from 
 the mere 7r apaoTf/vac, iv. 14, Rom. xiv. 10, for which Grotius takes it ; and 
 it is arbitrary to declare this distinction unnecessary (Riickert), since that 
 conception corresponds alike with the word (comp. ver. 11) and the fact. 
 Conxp. Chrysostom and Tlieodoret. — Kofiar]Tai\ Moral actions are, accord¬ 
 ing to thff idea of adequate requital, conceived as something deposited, 
 which at the last judgment is carried away , received, and taken with us, 
 namely, in the equivalent reward and punishment. Comp. Epli. vi. 8 ; Col. 
 
 1 In this case, however, there is not the 
 contrast: et nunc et tunc , in this and in that 
 life, as Beza, Grotius, and others suppose, 
 connecting it with evapeaTOL eivai. For 
 with the present weil-pleasing the future 
 
 is obvious of itself. Grotius felt this, and 
 hence, substituting another meaning in the 
 second clause, he explains it: “ nunc vitam 
 nostram ipsi probando, tunc ab ipso praemi- 
 um accipiendo." See, against this, Calovius. 
 
522 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 iii. 25 ; Gal. vi. 7 ; Matt. vi. 20 ; Rev. xiv. 13. —ra bid tov gu[ taros] sc - ovra , 
 that lohich is brought about through the body , that which has been done by 
 means of the activity of the bodily life (to chua a3 organic instrument of the 
 Ego in its moral activity generally ; hence not : rf/g capnog). Coihp., on 
 bid rov oh/MTog, expressions like ruy gbovtiv ai bid tov GuyaTog eigiv, Plat. Phaed. 
 p. G5 A ", aiodriGEig ai bed tov ohyaTog, Phaedv. p. 250 D, al. / Ktihner, ad (Ken. 
 Mem. iv. 5. 3. 1 Instead of Luther’s : in the life of the body (so also deWette 
 and many others), through the life of the body would be better. There is no 
 reason for taking the bid merely of the state (iii. 11). The thought of the 
 resurrection-body , with which the recompense is to be received (to which view 
 Osiander, following the Fathers and some older commentators, is inclined), 
 is alien to the context (vv. 6, 8, 9) ; besides, merely bid tov cdyi. would be 
 used without ra. — The npog a inpa^ev contains the standard of righteous¬ 
 ness, in accordance with which every one iwyiocTai rd bid tov ohyaTog : cor¬ 
 responding to what he has done. — e'Lte aya&bv, eIte kukov] sc. inputs. The 
 recompense of the wicked may take place as well by the assigning of a 
 lower degree of the Messianic salvation (1 Cor. iii. 15 ; 2 Cor. ix. 6) as by 
 exclusion from the Messianic kingdom (1 Cor. vi. 9 f. ; Gal. v. 21 ; Eph. 
 v. 5). (z 4 ) 
 
 Remake.— Our passage does not, as Flatt thought, refer to a special judgment 
 which awaits every man immediately after death (a conception quite foreign to 
 the apostle), but to the last judgment conceived as near ; and it results from 
 it that, according to Paul, the atonement made through the death of Jesus, in 
 virtue of which the pre-Christian guilt of those who had become believers was 
 blotted out, does not do away with the requital of the moral relation estab¬ 
 lished in the Christian state. Comp. Rom. xiv. 10, 12 ; 1 Cor. iv. 5. They 
 come in reality not simply before the judgment (to receive their graduated re¬ 
 ward of grace, as Osiander thinks), but into the judgment ; in John iii. 18, the 
 last judgment is not spoken of, and as to 1 Cor. vi. 2 f., see on that passage. 
 Paul, however, does not thereby say that, if the Christian has fallen and turns 
 back again to faith, the atonement through Christ does not benefit him ; on 
 the contrary, the /lETavoia of the Christian is a repetition of his passing over to 
 faith, and the effect of the atonement (of the lAacrfipiov) is repeated, or rather 
 continues for the Christian individual, so that even the Christian sins are 
 blotted out, when one returns from the life of sin into that of faith. But the 
 immoral conduct of Christians, continuing without this yeTavoia, is liable to 
 the punishment of the judgment, because they in such an event have frustrated 
 as to themselves the aim of the plan of redemption. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. 
 p. 379. This in opposition to Riickert’s opinion, that Paul knows nothing of a 
 continuing effect of the merit of Christ. This continuing effect is implied not only 
 in the general Pauline doctrine that eternal life is God’s gift of grace (Rom. vi. 
 
 1 The reading t a IS i a roO ertu/xaro? (Arm. 
 Vulg. It. Goth. Or. twice, and many Fa¬ 
 thers), which Grotius and Mill approved, 
 is to be regarded as a gloss, in which ra Sid 
 was meant to be defined more precisely by 
 to. ISt a. In the Pelagian controversy the 
 ISux acquired importance for combating tho 
 
 doctrine of original sin, because children 
 could not have done any ISia peccata, and 
 hence could not be liable to judgment. On 
 the other hand, Augustine, Ep. 107, laid 
 stress on the imputation of Adam’s sin, ac¬ 
 cording to which it was the moral property 
 even of children. 
 
CHAP. \. } 11. 
 
 523 
 
 23), and in tlie idea of Christ’s intercession (Bom. viii. 34 ; comp. Heb. vii. 25, 
 ix. 24 ; 1 John ii. 1, 2), but also in passages like 2 Cor. vii. 10, compared with 
 Bom. v. 9, 10, 17. We may add the apt remark of Liicke on 1 John, p. 147 : 
 “ As a single past and concluded fact, it (Christ’s atoning work) would be just 
 a mere symbol; it has full truth only in its continuing efficacy.” 
 
 Vv. 11-21. Since we thus fear Christ, we persuade men, but we are mani¬ 
 fest to God, and, it is to be hoped, also to you (ver. 11,) by which we never¬ 
 theless do not wish to praise ourselves, but to give you occasion to boast of 
 us against our opponents (ver. 12). For for this you have cause, whether we 
 may be now mad (as our opponents say) or in possession of reason (ver. 18). 
 Proof of the latter (vv. 14, 15), from which Paul then infers that he no 
 longer knows any one after the flesh, as formerly, when he had so known 
 Christ, and that hence the Christian is a new creature (vv. 16, 17). And 
 this new creation is the work of God (vv. 18, 19), whence results the exalted 
 standpoint of the apostolic preaching, which proclaims reconciliation (vv. 
 20 , 21 ). 
 
 Ver. 11. Ovv] in pursuance of what has just been said, that we all before 
 the judgment-seat of Christ, etc., ver. 10. —r. < po(3ov r. Kvpcov ] The genitive 
 is not genitivus subjecti (equivalent to to (poffpov r.nvp.), asEmmerling, Flatt, 
 Billroth, Osiander, and others hold, following Chrysostom and most of the 
 older commentators (comp. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 513; Klausen, ad Aesch. 
 Ghoeph. 31); for the use of the expression with the genitive taken objectively 
 is the standing and habitual one in the LXX., the Apocrypha, and the X. T., 
 according to the analogy of PIllT UK"] 1 (vii. 1; Eph. v. 21; comp. Acts ix. 
 31; Rom. iii. 18); and the context does not warrant us in departing from 
 this. Hence : since ice know accordingly the fear of Christ (as judge); since 
 holy awe before Him is by no means to us a strange and unknown feeling, 
 but, on the contrary, we know how much and in what way He is to be 
 feared. The Vulgate renders rightly : timorem Domini ; Beza wrongly ; 
 terrorem ilium Domini, i.e. formidabile illud judicium.” — avd-pbiTvovg 
 'Kd$oy,Ev\ we persuade men, but God we do not need to persuade, like men; to 
 Him we are manifest. The av&p. i rath has been interpreted of the gaining 
 over to Christianity (Beza, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Calovius, Emmerling, and 
 others) : or of the apostolic working in general (Ewald) ; or of the correction 
 of erroneous and offensive opinions regarding Paid (Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Theophylact); or of the striving to make themselves pleasing to men (Erasmus, 
 Luther, Eisner, Wolf, Hammond, Flatt, and others j or of the persuadere 
 hominibus nostrum integritatem (Estius, Bengel, Sender, Olshausen, de Wette, 
 Osiander, Xeander). Billroth also, with quite arbitrary importation of the 
 idea, thinks that Tceittoyev is meant of illegitimate , deceitful persuasion: “I 
 can indeed deceive men, but to God withal I am manifest.” Rapliel takes 
 it similarly, but with an interrogative turn. But this assumed meaning of 
 tvel&u must of necessity have been given by the context (which is not the 
 
 1 Luther : “ We deal softly with the peo- other wanton injunctions, for we fear God ; 
 pie, i.e. we do not tyrannize over nor drive but we teach them gently, so that we dis- 
 the people with excommunications and gust no one.” 
 
524 
 
 Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 case even in Gal. iv. 10) ; and the idea of being able would in this view of 
 the meaning be so essential, that it could not be conveyed in the mere indic¬ 
 ative, which, on the contrary, expresses the actually existing state of things, 
 as well as the following tt eoavep. Olshausen erroneously attempts to correct 
 this explanation to the effect of .our understanding the expression in refer¬ 
 ence to the accusations of the opjoonents : “As our opponents say, we 
 deceitfully persuade men, but before God we are manifest in our purity.” 
 The “as our opponents say” is as arbitrarily invented , 1 as is the conception 
 of deceit in 7 re'i’&ogev. In defining the object of Trei'&ogev, the only course 
 warranted by the context is to go back to the immediately preceding self-wit¬ 
 ness in ver. 9, (bilong. evapearoi avrC) eivai. (a 5 ) Of this we bring men to the con¬ 
 viction through our teaching and working, not: of the fact, that we fear 
 the Lord (Zacliariae, Riickert), since ddoreg r. <j>6(3. t. nvp. is only of the 
 nature of a motive and a subsidiary thought ; hence also not : “ eundem 
 hunc timorem hominibus suademus” (Cornelius H Lapide, Clericus, and 
 others). Comp. Pelagius: “utcaveant;” and again Hofmann: we convince 
 others of the duty and the right mode of fearing the Lord. After avtiphrcovg 
 there is no omission of gev (Riickert); but the putting of the clause av&p. 
 7 rei&. without indicating its relation makes the following contrast appear 
 surprising a"nd thereby rhetorically more emphatic. — h raig avveid. vguv] 
 Calvin aptly says: “ Conscicntia enim longius pcnetrat, quam carnis judici¬ 
 um.” In the syllogism of the conscience (law of God—act of man—moral 
 judgment on the same) the action of a third party is here the minor premiss. 
 The individualizing plural of avveid. is not elsewhere found; yet comp. iv. 
 2. — rrecpavepcjadai] the perfect infinitive after elK'fu, which elsewhere in the 
 N. T. has only the aorist infinitive coupled with it, is here logically necessary 
 in the connection. For Paul hopes, i.e. holds the opinion under the hope 
 of its being confirmed, that he has become and is manifest in the conscience 
 of the readers {present of the completed action). Comp. Horn. 11. xv. 110 : 
 ijdr] yap vvv elTzog' v Aprjt ye rcrjga rervx&ai, Od. vi. 297; Eurip. Suppl. 790. 
 
 Ver. 12. Ov irdliv eavr. caviar.] See on iii. 1. The eavrovg {not again self- 
 praise do we practise) does not stand in contrast with the vgiv following after 
 did. (Fritzsche, Osiander), because otherwise i>piv must have stood imme¬ 
 diately after alia. —alia acjiopg. didovreg k.t.1.] We should not, with Beza 
 and Flatt, supply eager, but leyogev ravra , which flows from the previous 
 eavr. awiar. See Matthiae, p. 1534 ; Kiihner, II. p. 604 ; Buttmann, neut. 
 Gr. p. 336 [E. T. 393]. —Kavxvgarog inrep rjg.] Here also navxvp a is not 
 (comp. Rom. iv. 2 ; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15 f. ; 2 Cor. i. 14) equivalent to 
 navxnaig (de Wette and many others), but is materies gloriandi. The thought 
 of the apostle is, that he gives the readers occasion for finding matter to 
 make their boast to his advantage {virep, comp. ix. 3, vii. 4, viii. 24, vii. 14, 
 ix. 2, xii. 5). The whole phrase alia atpop/ur/v k.t.1. combines with 
 all the strength of apostolic self-confidence a tender delicacy, in which, 
 nevertheless, we cannot help seeing a touch of irony (for Paul presents the 
 cold and adverse disposition towards him, into which a part of the church 
 
 1 It is different with etea-Trjuev, ver. 13, accusation of the opponents ; but this is 
 where the literal sense in itself points to an not the case with irelOoixev. 
 
CHAP. Y. y 12 . 
 
 525 
 
 * 
 
 had allowed itself to be brought by the hostile teachers, as lack of occasion 
 to make their boast on his account !). —After exyre there is supplied either 
 ri (Acts xxiv. 19) : in order that you may have somewhat to oppose to those 
 who, etc. (so Calvin and the most), or rl Ikyeiv (Theodoret, de Wette, 
 Osiander), or Kavxyya (rather icavx . vnep r/y., for these words go together). 
 So Camerarius, Zeger, and others, including Riickert and Ewald. But 
 since give and have are evidently correlative, the context leads us (comp. 
 Hofmann also) to supply atyopyyv Kavxvyafog vnep ? )y. : in order that ye may 
 have this occasion, have it in readiness (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 2G) to make use 
 of it, against those who , etc. TTpog , according to the context, denotes the 
 direction contra , Matthiae, p. 1390. — izpog rovg ev ttpogutuv icavx., K - tcapcVig.] 
 against those , icho make their boast for the sake of countenance and not of heart. 
 A very striking description of the opponents as hypocritical boasters, not of 
 the making a parade of their being immediate disciples of Christ (Hilgen- 
 feld). The object of their self-boasting is the countenance , the holiness, the 
 zeal, the love, etc., which present themselves on their countenance, but of 
 the heart they make no boast ; for of that of which they boast, their heart 
 is empty. 1 “ Ubi autem inanis est ostentatio, illic nulla sinceritas, nulla 
 animi rectitudo,” Calvin. It is self-evident withal to the reader that this 
 whole description is expressed according to the true state of the case, and 
 not according to the design of the persons described themselves ; for these 
 wished, of course, to pass at all events for persons who with their self-boast¬ 
 ing exhibited the virtues of their hearts, and not the semblance of their 
 faces. Comp. Theophylact (following Chrysostom) : tolovtol yap ycav evla- 
 (3eiag yev exovreg TTpoocmeiov (mask), ev fie KapSia ovbev (f>epovreg aya&ov. Usually 
 (also by Emmerling, Flatt, Schrader, Riickert, Rabiger, Neander) ev npo- 
 Gtjin.) is taken in the wider sense: de rebus externis , to which is then opposed 
 in Kapdia the purity of the disposition. Learning, eloquence, Jewish lineage, 
 acquaintance with the older apostles, and the like, are held to be included 
 in ev npoGump ; comp. Holsten, who recalls the 'E (Ipaioi eloiv k.t.X. in xi. 22. 
 But with what warrant from linguistic usage ? Even in passages like 
 1 Sam. xvi. 17, Matt. xxii. 1G, Trpoouirov means nothing else than countenance. 
 Paul must have chosen some such contfast as ev oapki nal ob Trvevyari, in order 
 to be understood. Ewald explains it : “ who doubtless boast me before the 
 face , when they see myself present, but not in the hearty But navxcjyevovg 
 cannot mean : who boast me, but only : who boast themselves. In the N. T., 
 too, ev with Kavxao&ai always denotes the object , 2 of which one makes boast, 
 
 1 7rpocrco7rw, like KapSia, must refer to the 
 persons concerned , and mean their counte¬ 
 nance (as even Beyschlag grants). Hence 
 it may not be taken, in accordance with 
 Luke xiii. 26, of their having boasted that 
 they had often seen , heard , perhaps even 
 spolcen with , Jesus, while yet they had gained 
 no relation of the heart to him. This in op¬ 
 position to Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1865, p. 266. For in that case it would, in 
 fact, be the countenance of Jesus, which 
 they would make it the contents of their 
 
 boast that they had seen, etc. 
 
 2 In x. 16 the object is denoted by ei?, 
 whereby the reference to the locality is 
 given for ev aWoTplw k<xv6vi, so that in this 
 passage the construction is not /cavxacrJai ev, 
 but (cau^aa-dai. et?. On (cav^acriJat ev, COmp . 
 the Latin gloriari in ; Cic. N. D. iii. 36. 87; 
 Tusc. i. 21. 49; Catil. ii. 9. 20. The object is 
 conceived as that, in which the Kavxaa^ai is 
 causally based. In the classics it is joined 
 with enl, ei<s, and with the simple accusa¬ 
 tive. 
 
526 
 
 Paul’s, second epistle to the corintiiians. 
 
 even in Jas. iv. 1G. Comp. Ecclus. xxxix. 8, 1. 20. This, at the same 
 time, in opposition to Hofmann’s view : ‘ ‘ they make their boast only in 
 'presence of others, and not inwardly before themselves. ” Neither irpocuiup (see 
 Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 152]) nor napdia (1 Thess. ii. 17 ; Rom. vi. 17, x. 10 ; 
 2 Cor. ii. 4, al.) needed the article ; and there w T as just as little need for 
 the self-evident avrtiv to be inserted (1 Thess. l.c.). Indeed, if Paul had 
 meant what Hofmann thinks, he could not but, in order to be intelligible, 
 have added the different genitival definitions (alluv — eavruv). Bengel 
 subtly and aptly remarks on napdia : “ Haec Pauli vena erat : ab ejus corde 
 fulgebat veritas ad conscientias Corinthiorum. ” 
 
 Ver. 13/ And you have reason for making your boast on our behalf over 
 against the adversaries !—That Paul is here dealing, and that not without 
 irony, with an odious accusation of his opponents (perhaps of an overseer 
 of the church, according to Ewald), is evident, since otherwise the peculiar 
 mode of expression used by him would appear quite uncalled for. It must 
 have been asserted that he had gone out of his senses , that he had become mad 
 (observe the aorist ),—an assertion for which narrow-mindedness as well as 
 malice might find cause enough, or seize pretext, in the extraordinary hero¬ 
 ism and divine zeal of his working in general, and especially in his sudden 
 and wmnderful conversion, in the ecstasies and visions 1 which he had had, 
 in his anti-Judaism at times unsparing, in his ideal demands on the Chris¬ 
 tian life, in the prominence given to his consciousness of apostleship, to 
 his sufferings, and the like. In reference to this accusation he now says : 
 “ For be it, that ice have become mad (as our enemies venture to assert), it is a 
 madness standing at the service of God (a holy mania, which deserves respect, 
 not blame !) ; or be it, that we are of sound understanding, ice are so for your 
 service (which can only be found by you praise worthy).” Comp. Aretius, 
 Ruckert, de Wctte, Osiander, Hilgenfeld (in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 170), 
 who, however, abides only by the apostle’s assertion, that he had seen 
 Christ and was a full apostle, as the ground for this opinion of his oppo¬ 
 nents. As early as the time of Chrysostom (lie quotes an explanation : d 
 yev yaiVEC'&ai rip yydg voy'fn /c.r. A) it was recognized that a glance at a hos¬ 
 tile accusation w T as contained in egecjTyyev, and this is remarked by most of 
 the older and the modern commentators ; but there should have been the 
 less hesitation at taking the word in its full sense (see on Mark iii. 21 ; 
 comp. Acts xxvi. 24), whereas it was often weakened into : ultra modum 
 agere , 2 or into : to be foolish (Chrysostom, Morns, Billroth), to seem to act 
 foolishly (Flatt), and the like, in spite of the following oo^povovyev, wdiic.h 
 is the exact opposite of having become mad (Plato, Phaedr. p. 244 A). 
 Comp. Acts xxvi. 25. As regards the subject-matter, k^ear. w T as mostly (as 
 by Chrysostom and Theodoret) referred to the self-praise , 3 in which case 
 
 1 Grotius limits the reference of e£e'o-r. to 
 the trances alone ; but the word in itself 
 does not justify this. 
 
 2 So Bengel; and earlier Luther, who 
 
 gives as gloss: “ If we do too much, i.e. if 
 we deal at once sharply with the people, 
 we still serve God by it; but if w T e act gen¬ 
 
 tly and moderately with them, we do so for 
 the people’s good, so that in every way we 
 do rightly and well.” 
 
 3 Comp. Pindar, 01. ix. 58: to Kavxo-crd-ai 
 napa KdLpov p.avLa<.cn.v V7ro»cpe/cei, Plato, Prolag . 
 p. 323 B : o eKel aiocfrpocrvvyv rjyovvTO elvai, 
 Ta\r)d-ri \eyeiv, evravd-a jaai nav. 
 
CIIAP. Y., 14. 
 
 527 
 
 $eti was taken as : to the honour of God , and then vfiv was referred either 
 to the salutary example (Iva yadgre Tanecvotypovelv, Chrysostom, Flatt) or to 
 the salutary condescension . So Erasmus, 1 Vatablus, Menochius, Estius, Ben- 
 gel, Emmerling, Olshausen. Billroth takes it differently : “If, however, 
 you put a rational construction on it (this boasting), in my case, I wish to 
 have myself boasted of only for your advantage ; I do it only in order that 
 you may not be deceived by my opponents regarding me.” But the whole 
 reference to the self-praise is after ver. 12, where Paul has absolutely neg¬ 
 atived the eavrovg awiardvoyev vyiv , contrary to the context ; and those ref¬ 
 erences of viiiv to the example shown, or to the apostolic condescension, or 
 to a deception of the readers to be prevented, are not in keeping with the 
 parallel ; and there is no reason in the context for sacrificing the uni¬ 
 formity in compass of meaning of the two datives, so that vyiv is not to be 
 taken otherwise than with Grotius in the comprehensive sense of in vestros 
 usus. According to Hofmann, k^eor. is to be referred to the self-testimony 
 expressed loftily and in the most exalted tone at ii. 14 ff. : “If it might there 
 be said that he had gone out of himself on the other hand, the succeeding ex¬ 
 planation (begun in iii. 1) could only produce the impression of sober ration¬ 
 ality.” Butin this way there is in fact assumed a retrospective reference 
 for eijeGT., which no reader and, excepting Hofmann, no expositor could 
 have conjectured, and this all the less that from iii. 1 to the present passage 
 Paul has been speaking of himself in a tone to a great extent lofty and ex¬ 
 alted ( e.g . iii. 2 f., 12 ff., the whole of chap, iv., particularly after ver. 7 ; 
 also v. 1 ff.) ; so that we do not see on what so great a difference of judg¬ 
 ment is to be based, as would be yielded by k^ear. and cru<ppov. It remains 
 far from clear, we may add, what more precise conception Hofmann has of 
 “ gone out of himself' 1 ' 1 (whether as insanity or merely as extravagance of 
 emotion). — dre . . . etre] does not here mark off two different conditions 
 (Baur in the theol. Jahrh. 1850, p. 182 ff.) and times, nor the actual change 
 of moods and modes of behaviour (Osiander) which Paul would scarcely 
 have designated according to different references of aim (comp, rather rd 
 Travra di' vyag, iv. 15), but two different modes of appearance of the same 
 state, which are both assumed as possibly right, but the latter of which is 
 in ver. 14 proved to be right and the former excluded. 
 
 Yer. 14 f. Paul now proves what was implied in ver. 18, that his whole 
 working was done not in his own interest (comp, ygicen eavroig , ver. 15), but 
 for God and the brethren ; the love of Christ holds him in bounds, so that 
 he cannot proceed or do otherwise. According to Ruckert, Paul wishes to 
 give a reason for the el e^eargyev But he thus arbitrarily overleaps the 
 
 second half of ver. 13, though this expresses the same thing as the first half. 
 — 7 ) ayd-rcg top Xptcrov ] not : the love to Christ (Oecumenius, Beza, Grotius, 
 Mosheim, Heumann, Hofmann, Maier), but : the love of Christ to men (so 
 Chrysostom and most others) ; for the death of Christ floating before the 
 
 1 Si quid gloriatur P., id non ad ipsius, Ruckert also, who in other respects takes 
 sed ad Dei gloriam pertinet; si raediocria e£ea-r. and o-w^p. rightly in their pure and 
 
 loquitur, id tribuit infirmioribus, quorum full sense, refers to accommodation, 
 
 affectibus et capacitati se accommodat.” 
 
528 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 apostle’s mind is to him the highest act of love (Rom. v. 6, 7 ; Gal. ii. 20 ; 
 Eph. iii. 19 ; Rom. viii. 35, 37) ; and with Paul generally (not so with John) 
 the genitive of a person with ayairr} is always the genitivns subject! (Rom. v. 
 5, 8, viii. 35, 39 ; 2 Cor. viii. 24, xiii. 13 ; Eph. ii. 4 ; Phil. i. 9 ; also 2 
 Thcss. iii. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. 3 is not-here relevant), while, when the person is 
 the object of love, he expresses this by elg (Col. i. 4 ; 1 Thess. iii. 12), and 
 denotes by the genitive only an abstract as object (2 Thess. ii. 10) ; in Rom. 
 xv. 30, tov irvevfi. is the genitivus originis. — ovvexet cohibet nos , holds us 
 in bounds , so as not to go beyond the limits marked by dew and v/uiv , and to 
 follow, possibly, affections and interests of our own. Comp. Calvin (con- 
 stringere affectus nostros ), Loesner, Billroth, Hofmann, Castalio : “tenet 
 nos.” Most, however, follow the Yulgate (urget nos ): it urges and drives usd 
 So Emmerling, Vater, Flatt, Schrader, Riickert, Olshauscn, Osiander, 
 Neander, and others ; also Chrysostom (ova afirjai ycvxa&tv ye) and Theo- 
 doret (irvp7to?iovge&a). But contrary to the usage of the word, for awexe/v 
 always expresses that which holds together, confines , and the like, and so may 
 mean press hard , but not urge and drive (Luke xix. 43, viii. 37, al.; Phil. i. 
 23 ; also Acts xviii. 5). (b 6 ) Comp. Plato, Polit. p. 311 C ; Pind. Pyth. i. 
 37, al.; Philo, Leg. ad Gay. p. 1016 E ; also LXX. in Biel and Schleusner, 
 Thes. Ewald : it harasses us, \ 1 so that we have no rest except wrn do every¬ 
 thing in it.” Thus awexa would revert to the notion of pressing hard , which 
 may be a harassing (Luke xii. 50 ; Wisd. xvii. 11, and Grimm’s Handb. in 
 loc.). But this is not given here by the context, as, indeed, that further de¬ 
 velopment of the meaning does not flow from the connection. — Kpivavrag 
 tovto ] after we have come to be of the judgment, namely, after our conversion, 2 
 Gal. i. 1G. This judgment contains that, in consequence of wdiich that re¬ 
 straining influence of the love of Christ takes place—the subjective condi¬ 
 tion of this influence. —bn elg virep navTuv /c.-t.X] that one for all, etc. Who 
 is meant by elg, is clear from ?) ayanr] r. Xpiarov, and was known to all the 
 hearts of the readers ; hence there is the less ground for breaking up the 
 simple sentence, and taking elg vwep tt&vtuv as in apposition : “ because He, 
 one for all, died ” (Hofmann). As for on, it is simplest, although el after ore 
 is not genuine (see the critical remarks), to take it, not as because, but as 
 that, corresponding, according to the usage elsewhere, to the preparatory 
 tovto (Rom. ii. 3, vi. 6 ; 2 Cor. x. 7, 11 ; Eph. v. 5, al.) ; in such a way, 
 however, that apa k.t.X. is likewise included in the dependence on on, and 
 does not form an independent clause (in opposition to Riickert). For the 
 contents of the judgment as such must lie in apa oi TrdvTeg enredavov, of wdiich 
 the historical fact, elg v-rrep ttclvt. aned., is only the actual presupposition serv¬ 
 ing as its ground. The way in which the two clauses are marshalled side by 
 side (without el or because) makes the expression more lively, comp. 1 Cor. 
 
 1 Beza: “totos possidet ac regit, at ejus 
 afflatu quasi correpti agamus omnia.” 
 
 2 Not at , but after conversion. Ilis con¬ 
 version took place through Christ seizing 
 on him and overmastering him, and not by 
 w r ay of argument; but subsequently in him 
 who had become a believer there necessa¬ 
 
 rily set in the discursive exercise of reflec¬ 
 tion, guiding the further judgment regard¬ 
 ing the new life which he had acquired. 
 This in opposition to Hofmann’s misconcep¬ 
 tion of my explanation, as if I took KpLvavTas 
 as identical with the conversion of the 
 apostle. 
 
CHAP. V., 14. 
 
 529 
 
 x. 17. Hence it is to be translated : that one died for all, consequently they 
 all died, i.e. consequently in this death of the one the death all was accom¬ 
 plished, the ethical death, namely, in so far as in the case of all the ceasing 
 of the fleshly life, of the life in sin (which ethical dying sets in subjectively 
 through fellowship of faith with the death of Christ), is objective^, as a 
 matter of fact, contained in the death of the Lord, (c 5 ) When Christ died 
 the redeeming death for all (comp. v. 21), all died, in respect of their fleshly 
 life, with Him ( Xpioro ovvEGTavpoyaL , Gal. ii. 19 ; cnre'&dveTs , Col. iii. 3); this 
 objective matter of fact which Paul here affirms has its subjective realization in 
 the faith of the individuals, through which they have entered into that death- 
 fellowship with Christ given through His death for all, so that they have 
 now, by means of baptism, become awra^evreg avrC) (Col. ii. 12). Comp. 
 Pom. vi. 4. Here 1 also, as in all passages where vnep is used of the atoning 
 death (see on Rom. v. 6 ; Gal. iii. 13), it is not equivalent to avri (comp, on 
 ver. 21), for which it is taken by most commentators, including Flatt, 
 Emmerling, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Usteri, Osiander, Gess, Baur, 
 Maier, but : for the sake of, all, for their benefit, to expiate their sins (ver. 19 ; 
 Rom. iii. 25). Since One has died the redeeming death for the good of all, 
 so that the death of this One as llao-jpiov has come to benefit all, all are dead, 
 because otherwise the elc bn ip navruv would not be correctly put. The dying 
 of Christ for the reconciliation of all necessarily presupposes that death- 
 fellowship of all, for Christ could not have died effectively, for one who 
 would not have died with Christ ; unbelieving, such a one, in spite of the 
 sacrificial death made for all, would still be in his sins. 2 That vnep here 
 cannot be equivalent to avri is shown particularly by ver. 15 : rw bnep abrcjv 
 anoftavovTi nai eyep'd-evTi ’ for according to this the resurrection of Jesus 
 also (since it would be quite arbitrary to refer vnep avruv merely to anotiavovn ) 
 must have been substitutionary, which is now T here taught, since it is rather 
 the actual proof and confirmation of the atonement (see 1 Cor. xv. 17 ; Rom. 
 iv. 25, ix. 34 ; Acts xiii. 37 f.; 1 Pet. i. 3 f.). — vnep navruv]for all men in 
 general , so that no one is excluded from the effect of his tAaarfjpLov , and every 
 one, so soon as he becomes a believer, attains subjectively to the enjoyment 
 of this effect. This subjective realization, although in the case of those who 
 refuse belief it is frustrated by their guilt, is, in the divine plan of salvation, 
 destined for all, and has already taken place in the case of believers ; hence 
 Paul, who himself belonged to the latter, might justly from this his own 
 
 1 Comp. Schweizer in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 
 1858, p. 462 f.; Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 
 324 f. What Baur remarks, on the other 
 hand, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 
 
 1859, p. 241 (comp, his neut. Theol. p. 158 f.), 
 that vnep denotes the ideal substitution, i.e. 
 the most intimate, immediate entering into 
 the other and putting oneself in his place, 
 is not the contents of the idea of the prep¬ 
 osition ,, but that of the idea of sacrifice , un¬ 
 der which the death of Jesus is ranked, in 
 the consciousness of the apostle and his 
 readers, as an iAao-rr/ptor, offered for the 
 
 Salvation of all (vnep navruv). 
 
 2 Certainly the dying of Christ was the 
 “ close of the previous sin-tainted life of 
 mankind” (Hofmann, comp. Rich. Schmidt, 
 Paul. Christol. p. 55 f.), but in so far as this 
 dying blotted out the guilt of mankind. 
 This expiation becomes appropriated by in¬ 
 dividuals through faith, and out of faith 
 there grows the new life of sanctification, 
 in which he who has died ethically with 
 Christ in faith is ethically risen with Him 
 and lives to God. 
 
530 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 standpoint in the ol vavreg aire&avov, without meaning by tt avreg only believers 
 (in opposition to my previous explanation), prove the restraining influence of 
 the love of Christ, which he had himself experienced. — ol tt avreg] with the 
 article ; for it applies to all those of whom vrrep tt. arreti. was just said. — 
 aTvedavov] not : they are to die (Thomas, Grotius, Estius, Nosselt, and others); 
 not : they were subjected to death (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, 
 and others ; Yatablus : “ morte digni ”) ; nor : they must have died (Ewald) ; 
 nor : “it is just as good as if they had died” (Calovius, Flatt, and others) : 
 but : “ mors facta in morte Ghristi ” (Bengel), they died, which is to be con¬ 
 sidered as a real fact, objectively contained in the fact of the death of Jesus, 
 and subjectively accomplished in the consciousness of individuals through 
 faith. 
 
 Yer. 15. Continuation or second part of the judgment, in consequence of 
 which the love of Christ cvvexei jydg. — in rip has the emphasis, whereas in 
 ver. 14 the stress lay on elg and i zavruv. “ And (that) He died for the benefit 
 of all (with the purpose) that (because otherwise this vnep would be frustra¬ 
 ted) the living should no more (as before the death they had died with Christ) 
 live to themselves, i.e. dedicate their life to selfish ends, butf etc. Comp. 
 Rom. xiv. 7 If. — ol Cuvreg] Paul might also have said ol izavreg ; but ol ^tivreg 
 is purposely chosen with retrospective reference to ol rzavreg cnredavov, and 
 that as subject ( the living), not as apposition (as the living, Hofmann), in 
 which view the life meant is held to be the earthly one, which Jesus left 
 when He died ; but this would furnish only a superfluous and unmeaning 
 addition (it is otherwise at iv. 11), and so also with de Wette’s interpreta¬ 
 tion : so long as we live. Ho ; it is the life, which has followed on the azzid- 
 avov. He, namely, who has died with Christ is alive from death, as Christ 
 Himself has died and become alive (Rom. xiv. 9); He who has become avy- 
 (pvrog with His death, is so also with His resurrection (Rom. vi. 5). Thus 
 the dead are necessarily the favreg, by sharing ethically the same fate with 
 Christ, Gal. ii. 19 f. Their is, consequently, doubtless in substance the 
 life of regeneration (Erasmus, Beza, Flatt, and others); it is not, however, 
 regarded under this form of conception, but as Kaivdrrjg C uyg (Rom. vi. 4), 
 out of death. Comp. Rom. vi. 8-11. Riickert, in accordance with his in¬ 
 correct taking of vizep in the sense of avrl (see on ver. 14), explains : “ those, 
 for whom He has died, on whom, therefore, death has no more claims.” — 
 nal eyepMvn ] is correlative to the ol t^uvreg, in so far as these are just the 
 living out of death, whose life is to belong to the Living One ; and vrzep 
 avrtiv belongs also to eyep-d-., since Christ is raised 6ia rrjv ditcalomv rjyuv (Rom. 
 iv. 25). Comp, on Phil. iii. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 17.—Note, further, that Paulin 
 ver. 15 writes in the third person (he does not say we), because he lays down 
 the whole judgment beginning with on as the great, universally valid and 
 fundamental doctrine for the collective Christian life, that he may then in 
 ver. 16 let himself emerge in the ryielg. He would not have written differently 
 even if he had meant by aycnni r. Xpiarov his love to the Lord (in opposition 
 to Hofmann). Much that is significant is implied in this doctrinal, objec¬ 
 tive form of confession. 
 
 Yer. 16. Inference from vv. 14 and 15 opposed to the hostile way of 
 
CHAP. V., 16 . 
 
 531 
 
 judging of his opponents (comp. ver. 13). Hence it is with us quite other¬ 
 wise than with our opponents, who judge regarding others Kara aapKa : we 
 know henceforth no one according to flesh-standard. Since all, namely, have 
 (ethically) died, and every one is destined to live only to Christ, not to him¬ 
 self, our knowing of others must be wholly independent of what they are 
 Kara aapKa. Accordingly, the connection of thought between ver. 16 and 
 vv. 14 and 15 demands that we take Kara aapKa here not us subjective stand¬ 
 ard of the oldayev, so that w T e should have to explain it : according to 
 merely human knowledge, without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit 
 (comp. i. 17 ; 1 Cor. i. 26): “ as one might know Him in a way natural to 
 man” (Hofmann, Osiander, and, earlier, Lyra, Calovius, and others ; comp, 
 also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sunde, I. p. 69), but as objective standard (comp. xi. 
 18 ; John viii. 15 ; Phil. iii. 4), so that eldivai nva Kara aapKa means : to 
 know any one according to merely human appearance , to know him in such a way, 
 that he is judged by what he is in virtue of his natural, material form of 
 existence, and not by what he is Kara uvevya, as a Christian, as mini ) Kriaig (ver. 
 17). He who knows no one Kara aapKa has entirely left out of account, e.g. 
 in the Jew, his Jewish origin ; in the rich man, his riches ; in the scholar, 
 his learning ; in the slave, his bondage ; and so forth (comp. Gal. iii. 28). 
 Comp. Bengel : “secundum carnem : secundum statum veterem ex nobili- 
 tate, divitiis, opibus, sapientia.” It is inaccurate to say that this interpre¬ 
 tation requires the article before aapKa (Osiander). It might be used, but 
 w T as not necessary , any more than at Phil. iii. 3 ff., Rom. i. 3, ix. 5, al., 
 where aap% everywhere, without the article, denotes the objective relation. 
 — yyelg] i.e. we on our part , as opposed to the adversaries who judge Kara 
 aapKa. The taking the plural as general embracing others (Billroth, by way 
 of suggestion, Schenkel, de Wette), has against it the evidently antithetic 
 emphasis of the pronoun ; it is only with the further inference in ver. 17 
 that the discourse becomes general. — cnro rov vvv] after the present time , i.e. 
 after our present (Christian) relation, and with it also the rphavrag K.r.X., 
 has begun. Paul has duo rov vvv only here. Beyond this Luke alone in the 
 N. T. has it. — oldayev] not aestimamus (Grotius, Estius, and others, includ¬ 
 ing Emmerling and Flatt), but novimus; no one is to us known Kara aapKa ; 
 we know nothing of him according to such a standard. Comp, on eldivai 
 ovdiva or ovdiv in the sense of complete separation, 1 Cor. ii. 2. olda is re¬ 
 lated to eyvum, cognovi, as its lasting sequel: scio , quis et qualis sit. —el ml 
 eyvdicayev k. a. Xpiorov /c.r.yl.] apologetic application of the assertion just 
 made, duo rov vvv ovdiva oldayev k. a. This remark is added without de (see 
 the critical remarks), which is accounted for by the impetuous liveliness of 
 the representation. If even (as I herewith grant to my opponents, see Her¬ 
 mann, ad Viger. p. 832) the case has occurred that we have known Christ accord¬ 
 ing to flesh-standard, this knowing of Him now exists with us no longer. The 
 emphasis of this concessive clause lies on the praeterite eyvumyev , which op¬ 
 poses the past to the present relation ( oldayev , and see the following yivkoKo- 
 yev). Therefore Xpiardv is not placed immediately after el mi, for Paul 
 wishes to express that in the past it has been otherwise than now ; that for¬ 
 merly the yivkoKeiv k. aapKa had certainly occurred in his case, and that in ref- 
 
532 
 
 paul ? s second epistle to the corintiiians. 
 
 erence to Christ. This in opposition to the usual interpretation, according to 
 which Xpicrov is invested with the chief emphasis. So e.g. Billroth : u if we 
 once regarded even Christ Himself in a fleshly manner, if we quite misjudged 
 Him and His kingdom Beyschlag similarly : “ even with Christ I make no 
 exception,” etc. Riickert, without any reason whatever, conjectures that 
 Paul erroneously inserted Xpiarov, or perhaps did not write it at all. The 
 right interpretation is found in Osiander, Ewald, Ivling, also substantially in 
 Hofmann, who, however, would attach el ml eyvhmpev k.t.? l. to airo rov vvv . . . 
 oapKa , and thus separate it only by a comma,—a course by which, owing to the 
 following contrast alia k.t./ 1 ., the sentence is without sufficient ground made 
 more disjointed. — Paul had known Christ /card oapm, so long as the merely 
 human individuality of Christ, His lower, earthly appearance (comp. Chrys¬ 
 ostom and Theodoret), was the limit of his knowledge of Him. At the 
 time when he himself was still a zealot against Christ, and His persecutor, 
 he knew Him as a mere man, as a common Jew, not as Messiah, not as the 
 Son of God ; as one justly persecuted and crucified, not as the sinless 
 Reconciler and the transfigured Lord of glory, etc. It was quite different, 
 however, since God had revealed His Son in Paul (Gal. i. 16), whereby he 
 had learned to know Christ according to His true, higher, spiritual nature 
 (tiara tv vevua, Rom. i. 4). 1 Comp, also Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul, und Petr. p. 
 429, who, however, refers the Xpiardv, which denotes the entire historical 
 person of the God-man, only to the heavenly, purely pneumatic personality 
 of the Lord, which had been pre-existent and in this sense was re-established 
 by the resurrection. Klopper, p. 66, has substantially the right view : the 
 earthly, human appearance of Christ according to its national, legal, and 
 particular limitation. The Judaistic conception of the Messianic idea was 
 the subjective ground of the former erroneous knowledge of Christ, but it is 
 not on that account to be explained with many (Luther, see his gloss, Ben- 
 gel, Riickert, and others) : according to Jewish ideas of the Messiah; for, ac¬ 
 cording to what precedes, k. a. must be the objective standard of the eyvum- 
 pev. In that case Xpiarov cannot be appellative , the Messiah (especially 
 Baur, I. p. 304, ed. 2, and Neander, I. p. 142 f.), but only nomen proprium, 
 as the following el rig ev XpiarC) shows. Olshausen, who rightly, as to sub¬ 
 stance, refers k. c. to the life of Christ before His resurrection, deduces, 
 however, from el ml eyvcjK. that Paul even before his conversion had seen 
 Christ in his visits to Jerusalem, which Beyschlag also, in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1864, p. 248, and 1865, p. 266, gathers from our passage and explains it 
 
 1 According to Estius, the meaning is 
 taken to be : “If we once held it as some¬ 
 thing great to be fellow-countrymen and 
 kinsmen of Christ.” But the words do not 
 convey this. Similarly also Wetstein, who 
 makes the apostle, in opposition to the (al¬ 
 leged) boasting of the false apostles that 
 they were kinsmen and hearers of Christ, 
 maintain, “ cognationem solam nihil y>ro- 
 desse et Christum non humilem esse , as on 
 earth, sed exaltatum super omnes. Comp. 
 
 Hammond, and also Storr, Opusc. II. p. 252, 
 according to whom Paul refers to such, 
 “ qui praeter externa ornamenta et Judai- 
 cam originen et pristiuam illam suam cum 
 aposlolis Christo familiaribus conjunctionem 
 nihil haberent, quo magnifice gloriari pos- 
 sent.” An allusion to the alleged spiritual¬ 
 ism of the Christine party , who had re¬ 
 proached the apostle with a fleshly concep¬ 
 tion of Christ (Schenkel, Goldhorn), is arbi¬ 
 trarily assumed. 
 
CHAP. V.j 17 . 
 
 533 
 
 accordingly, and Ewald, Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 368, ed. 3, thinks cred¬ 
 ible. This is in itself possible (though nowhere testified), but does not 
 follow from our passage ; for kyvuK ., in fact, by no means presupposes the 
 having seen , but refers to the knowledge of Christ obtained by colloquial in¬ 
 tercourse , and determined by the Pharisaic fundamental point of view,—a 
 knowledge which Paul before his conversion had derived from his historical 
 acquaintance with Christ’s earthly station, influence as a teacher, and fate, 
 as known to all. 1 Besides, the interpretation of a j^ersonal acquaintance 
 with Christ would be quite unsuitable to the following a/fa vvv k.t.1. It 
 would be at variance with the context . See also Klopper, p. 55 If. Accord¬ 
 ing to de Wette, the sense is : “ not yet to have so known Christ as, with a 
 renouncing of one’s own fleshly selfishness, to live to Him alone,” ver. 15. 
 But in this way there would result for Kara capua the sense of the subjective 
 standard (against which see above); further, the signification of ua ra a. 
 would not be the same for the two parts of the verse, since in the second 
 part it would affirm more (namely, according to fleshly selfishness, without 
 living to Him alone) ; lastly, this having known Christ would not suit the 
 time before the conversion of the apostle, to which it nevertheless applies, 
 because at this time he was even persecutor of Christ. And this he was, 
 just because he knew him Kara capua (taken in our sense), which erroneous 
 form of having known ceased only when God aneKahvipe r'ov vlov avrov 
 h avTti (Gal. i. 16). While various expositors fail to give to it a clear and 
 definite interpretation, 2 others have explained it in the linguistically errone¬ 
 ous sense of a merely hypothetical possibility. Thus Erasmus : “Nee est, 
 quod nos posteriores apostolos quisquam hoc nomine minoris faciat, quod 
 Christum mortali corpore in terris versantem non novimus, quando etiam, 
 si contigisset novisse, nunc earn notitiam, quae obstabat spiritui, deposuisse- 
 mus, et spiritualem factum spiritualiter amaremus so in the main also 
 Grotius, Rosenmuller, Flatt. For a synopsis of the various old explana¬ 
 tions, from Faustus the Manichaean (who proved from our passage that 
 Christ had no fleshly body) downward, see Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 463 If. — 
 aXka] in the apodosis, see on iv. 16. — yivoxynoyev) sc. Kara capua Xpiordv. 
 
 Ver. 17. Inference from ver. 16. If, namely, the state of matters is such 
 as is stated in ver. 16, that now we no longer know any one as respects his 
 human appearance, and even a knowledge of Christ of that nature, once 
 cherished, no longer exists with us, itfolloios that the adherents of Christ, who 
 are raised above such a knowledge of Christ after a mere sensuous standard, 
 are quite other than they were before ; the Christian is a new creature , to whom 
 the standard Kara aapua is no longer suitable. The apostle might have con¬ 
 tinued with yap instead of wore ; in which case he would have assigned as 
 ground of the changed knowledge the changed quality of the objects of 
 
 1 Certainly to him also had the cross been 
 a stumbling-block, since, according to the 
 Jewish conception, the Messiah was not to 
 die at all (John xii. 34); but we must not, 
 with Theodoret,- limit Kara aapua to the 
 iraOrjTOi’ au>p.a of Christ. 
 
 2 Hofmann, e.g., describes the knowing 
 of Christ Kara aapKa as of such a nature, 
 that it accommodated itself to the habit of 
 the natural man, and therefore Christ was 
 known only in so far as He ivas the object of 
 such knowledge. 
 
534 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 knowledge. He might also, with just as much logical accuracy, infer, from 
 the fact of the knowledge being no longer Kara capua , that the objects of 
 knowledge could no longer be the old ones, to which the old way of know¬ 
 ing them would still be applicable, but that they must be found in a quality 
 wholly new. He argues not ex causa , but ad causam. The former he would 
 have done with yap , the latter he does with ware (in opposition to Hofmann’s 
 objection). — ev XpiarG] a Christian ; for through faith Christ is the element 
 in which we live and move. — nacv?/ Kriaig] for the pre-Christian condition, 
 spiritual and moral, is abolished and done away by God through the union 
 of man with Christ (ver. 18 ; Eph. ii. 10, iv. 21 ; Col. iii. 9, 10 ; Rom. vi. 
 6), and the spiritual nature and life of the believer are constituted quite 
 anew (comp. vv. 14, 15), so that Christ Himself lives in him (Gal. ii. 20) 
 through His Spirit (Rom. viii. 9 f.). See on Gal. vi. 15. The form of the 
 expression (its idea is not different from the TraTuyyevecia, Tit. iii. 5 ; John 
 iii. 3 ; James i. 18) is Rabbinical; for the Rabbins also regarded the man 
 converted to Judaism as HiSnn m3. See Schoettgen, Ilor. I. pp. 328, 
 704 f., and Wetstein. — ra apxala Trapf/Wev k.t.a.] Epexegesis of naivy uricug ; 
 the old, the pre-Christian nature and life, the pre-Christian spiritual consti¬ 
 tution of man, is passed away ; 'behold the whole —the whole state of man’s 
 personal life— has become newd There is too slight a resemblance for us to 
 assume for certain a reminiscence of Isa. xliii. 18 1, or Isa. lxv. 17 ; as even 
 Chrysostom and his followers give no hint of such an echo. By the ufov of 
 vivid realization, and introduced without connecting particle (“ demonstra- 
 tivum rei presentis,” Bengel ; comp. vi. 9), as well as by the emphatically 
 ])refixed yeyove (comp. xii. 11), a certain element of triumph is brought into 
 the representation. —The division, according to which the protasis is made 
 to go on to urimg (Vulgate : “si qua ergo in Christo nova creatura or rig 
 is taken as masculine : “si quis ergo mecum est in Christo regeneratus,” 
 Cornelius a Lapide), has against it the fact, that in that case the apodosis 
 w r ould contain nothing else than was in the protasis ; besides, the prefixing 
 of h X. would not be adequately accounted for. 
 
 Ver. 18. On vv. 18-21, see appropriate remarks in Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. 
 p. 279 f. — ra de 7ravra] leading on from the yeyove Kacva rd rr. to the supreme 
 source of this change ; hence, contextually, ra izavra is nothing else than : 
 the whole that has become new. Everything, in which the new state of the 
 Christian consists, proceeds from God; and now by rov KaraXhat-avrog . . . 
 k ara72.ayrjg is specified the mode in which God has set it into operation, name¬ 
 ly, by His having reconciled us with Himself through Christ, and entrusted 
 to the apostle and his fellow-labourers the ministry of reconciliation. The 
 reconciliation has taken place with reference to all humanity (hence nooyov, 
 
 1 Not only in reference to sin is the old 
 passed away and everything become new 
 (Theodoret: to tjjs a papTi' as anenSvad- 
 peJa yrjpas), but also—certainly, however, 
 in consequence of the reconciliation appro¬ 
 priated in faith—in relation to the knowl¬ 
 edge and consciousness of salvation, as 
 well as to the whole tendency of disposition 
 
 and will. Chrysostom and Theophylact 
 unsuitably mix up objective Judaism as 
 also included, and in doing so the latter 
 arbitrarily specializes rd ndvra: avrl tov 
 vo/ulov evayyeAio^' cAt! 'IepovcraArjp ovpavos' 
 <At i vaov to ecruirepov tov KaTa.7reTdcrp.aT0s ev aiij 
 Tpias" avrl 7reptTop^s |8a7rTicrpa k.t.A. 
 
CHAP. V., 18 . 
 
 535 
 
 ver. 19) ; but Paul uses ipiag in the person of 'believers , as those -who have ex¬ 
 perienced the reconciliation of the world in its subjective realization. This 
 in opposition to Leun, Ewald, Riickert, Hofmann, who refer it to the apos¬ 
 tle and his fellow-workers, Hofmann, indeed, finding nothing else affirmed 
 
 than the conversion , in so far as it was, “ a change of his relation , and not of 
 
 \ 
 
 his conduct , towards God.” And that r/piv does not apply to men in general 
 (Olshausen), but to Paul and the rest of the apostolic teachers , is clear from kv 
 r/piv , ver. 19, which is evidently (seeing that Paul has not written kv avroig) 
 distinguished by a special reference from noopog ; besides, the inference, ver. 
 20, vrrep Xpiorov ovv TTpeaf, manifestly presupposes the special reference of 
 r/piv and kv r/piv in vv. 18, 19. This also in opposition to Hofling. Iiirchen- 
 verf. p. 225, ed. 3. —rov naraAla^avrog /c.r./L] who has reconciled us with Him¬ 
 self through Christ. For men were, by means of their uneffaced sin, burden¬ 
 ed with God’s holy wrath, kx&pol deov (Horn. v. 10, xi. 28 ; Eph. ii. 16 ; 
 comp. Col. i. 20 f.), Deo invisi; but through God’s causing Christ to die as 
 ikaoTTjpiov , 1 He accomplished the effacing of their sins, and by this, therefore, 
 God's wrath ceased. The same thought is contained in Rom. v. 10, only 
 expressed in a passive form. Tittmann’s distinction between diaXh, and 
 mraX/ 1. (Synon. ]). 102) is of no value ; see on Rom. v. 10, and Fritzsche, ad 
 Rom. I. p. 276 ff.— rr/v diatcov. rr/g sarahh.] the ministry , which is devoted to 
 reconciliation , which is the means of reconciliation for men, inasmuch as 
 through this ministry reconciliation is preached to them, and they are 
 brought unto faith on the ihaoTyptov Jesus, which faith is the causa appre- 
 hendens of the reconciliation, Rom. iii. 25 ; comp, diasovia rf/g dcKaioovvr/g, iii. 
 9. The opposite : 6icck. rr/g saraKpiaeug , iii. 9. 
 
 Remake.—R iickert erroneously explains the reconciliation from the active 
 enmity of men against God. God, according to his view, caused Christ to die 
 for men, that He might, no doubt, on the one hand, be able to accomplish the 
 pi/ hoyi&oQat of their sins ; but through this manifest proof of His love He 
 filled men with thankfulness, and gave them encouragement to accomplish the 
 reconciliation on their side also, and so (as was Baur’s opinion also) to give up 
 their enmity towards God. And thus strictly regarded, the death of Jesus, ac¬ 
 cording to Paul, has not so much reconciled humanity with God, as it has re¬ 
 moved the obstacles to the - reconciliation, and given a stimulus to the heart to 
 enter into the only right and friendly relation with God.—No, the death of 
 Jesus operated as ihaarr/piov (Rom. iii. 25 ; Gal. iii. 13), consecpiently as effac¬ 
 ing God's holy enmity (Rom. xi. 28), the Spy?) deov, so that He now did not im¬ 
 pute to men their sins (ver. 19), and in this way, adu forensi, reconciled them 
 with Himself (ver. 21), while simple faith is the subjective condition of appro¬ 
 priation on the part of men. Comp, on Col. i. 21. The thankfulness, the new 
 courage, the holy life, etc., are only a consequence of the reconciliation appro¬ 
 priated in faith, not a part of it. Comp. Rom. v. 1 ff., vi. 1 ff., viii. 3, 4, al. 
 This, at the same time, in opposition to the doctrine of reconciliation set 
 forth by Hofmann (see on Rom. iii. 25), who at our passage calls in question 
 the view that rov Karahhu^avrog /c.r.A. expresses an act of God, which takes 
 
 1 i.e. Sui Xp. Comp. ver. 21. Pelagius erroneously adds : “ per Christi doctrinam pariter 
 et exemption. ” 
 
536 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 place once for all in and with the history of Christ, and defines the notion of 
 KaraXX. (in which 7 /flag is held to apply to Paul, in whom God had wrought 
 faith), as amounting to this, that God through Christ, “whom He Himself gives 
 and ordains for the purpose, makes sin cease for Him to be the cause of wrath 
 against the sinner .” Comp, on the clear and correct notion of reconciliation, 
 according to our passage, Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 325. 
 
 Ver. 19. Confirmatory elucidation of the previous e a rov deov, rov 
 mraXha^avrog . . . mraAlayyg. “ I have reason for saying, from God, who 
 has reconciled us, etc., because, indeed, God in Christ reconciled the world with 
 Himself ,” etc. The recurrence of the same leading expressions , which were 
 used in ver. 18, gives to this elucidation a solemn emphasis. The em¬ 
 phatically prefixed, however, looking back to ek rov &eov in ver. 18, shows 
 that the point is not a description of the mra'Kkayy (Camerarius, Wolf, 
 Estius, Billroth, and others), or of the dianovla ryg mraXkayyg (Grotius, Riick- 
 ert), but the divine self-activity in Christ’s reconciling work and in the 
 bestowal of the office of reconciliation. The two participial clauses, yy 
 Tioyfbyevog n.r.f. and sal deyevog k.t.A., stand related to deog yv ev X. Koay. 
 mraXk. eavr. argumentatively , so that the words ml diyevog ev yylv k.t./ 1., 
 which serve to elucidate ml dovrog yylv n.r.l., ver. 18, are not co-ordinated to 
 the mralAaoocov (as one might expect from ver. 18), but are subordinated to 
 it,—a change in the form of connecting the conceptions, which cannot sur¬ 
 prise us in the case of Paul when we consider his free and lively variety in 
 the mode of linking together his thoughts. — tog on dcog yv ev X. may. mraA/ 1. 
 eavTb j] because , indeed, God in Christ was reconciling the world with Himself. On 
 cjg on, 1 utpote quod (to be analyzed : as it is the case, because ), see Winer, p. 
 574 [E. T. 771]. The yv mraHaccov should go together (see already Chrys¬ 
 ostom), and is more emphatic than the simple imperfect. Paul wishes, 
 namely, to affirm of God, not simply what He did (mryXlacoe), but in what 
 activity He was; in the person and work of Christ (ev Xpcorti) God was in 
 world-reconciling activity. The imperfect receives from the context the defi¬ 
 nite temporal reference : when Christ died the death of reconciliation , with 
 which took place that very mraXXd^avrog, ver. 18. See, especially, Rom. iii. 
 24 f., v. 10. Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Calo- 
 vius, Bengel, and many others, including Ruckert, Osiander, Neander, 
 connect yv ev Xpiarti together : God was in Christ , while reconciling the world 
 with Himself. This would only be possible in the event of the two follow¬ 
 ing participial clauses expressing the mode of reconciliation, which, however, 
 on account of the second clause (ml tieyevog ev yyiv r./c.h), cannot be the 
 case ; they must, on the contrary, contain the confirmation of deog yv ev X. 
 tibay. Kara) U. eavrC). According to their contents, however, they do not at 
 all confirm the fact that God was in Christ, but the fact that God in Christ 
 was reconciling the world; hence it is at variance with the context to make 
 
 1 In xi. 21, the on in d>s on does not speci¬ 
 fy a reason, but introduces the contents of 
 Ae'yu>. In 2 Thess. ii. 2, also, on is like 
 that. At our passage it is : in measure of the 
 fact, that God was, etc.,—a more circumstan¬ 
 
 tial and consequently more emphatic intro¬ 
 duction of the ground than a simple on or 
 yap would have been. It makes us linger 
 more over the confirmatory ground assign¬ 
 ed. 
 
CHAP. V., 19 . 
 
 537 
 
 the connection ?/v ev XpnjTti. Theodoret was right in denying expressly this 
 connection. Hofmann, after abandoning his earlier (in the Schriftbew. II. 
 1, p. 326) misinterpretation (see in opposition to it my fourth edition, p. 
 147), now explains it by referring tig bn k.t.X. merely to k. 66vTog ryiiv k.t.a. : 
 because He was a God , who in Christ was reconciling to Himself a world in its 
 sinful condition without imputation of its sins , and who had laid the icord of 
 reconciliation on him the apostle.' 1 ' 1 A new misinterpretation. For, first, the 
 qualitative expression “a God,” which is held to be predicative, would not 
 only have been quite superfluous (Paul w r ould have had to write merely J>g 
 oti f/v /c.r./L), but also quite unsuitable, since there is no contrast with other 
 gods; secondly, the relative tense fjv must apply to the time in which what 
 is said in hdvTog ?)plv k.t.X. took jflace (in the sense, therefore : because he 
 was at that time a God, who was reconciling), which would furnish an ab¬ 
 surd thought, because, when Paul became an apostle, the reconciliation of 
 the world had been long accomplished : thirdly, deyevog would be a parti¬ 
 ciple logically incorrect, because what it affirms followed on the KaTaAlaocuv ; 
 lastly, pi/ hoy fop. cannot be taken in the sense of ‘ ‘ without imputation , ” 
 since a reconciliation with imputation of sins is unthinkable. — Koapov] not a 
 world, but the world, even without the article (Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 153]), 
 as Gal. vi. 14 ; Rom. iv. 13. It applies to the whole human race , not pos¬ 
 sibly (in opposition to Augustine, Lyra, Beza, Cajetanus, Estius) merely to 
 those predestinated. The reconciliation of all men took place objectively 
 through Christ’s death, although the subjective appropriation of it is con¬ 
 ditioned by the faith of the individual. 1 — prj hoyiCopevog avTolg k.t.a.'] since 
 He does not reckon (present) to them their sins , and has deposited (aorist) in us 
 the icord of reconciliation. The former is the altered judicial relation, into 
 wdiich God has entered and in which He stands to the sins of men ; the 
 latter is the measure adopted by God, by means of which the former is 
 made known to men. From both it is evident that God in Christ recon¬ 
 ciled the world with Himself ; otherwise He would neither have left the 
 sins of men without imputation, nor have imparted to the apostolic teach¬ 
 ers the word of reconciliation that they might preach it. If, as is usually 
 done, the participial definition pp hoyfopevog is taken in the imperfect sense 
 (Ewald takes it rightly in a present sense) as a more precise explanation of 
 the modus of the reconciliation, there arises the insoluble difficulty that 
 -depevog h rjplv also would have to be so viewed, and to be taken conse¬ 
 quently as an element of the reconciliation, which is impossible, since it 
 expresses what God has done after the work of reconciliation, in order to 
 appropriate it to men. tiepevog, namely, cannot be connected with deog i/v, 
 against which the aorist participle is itself decisive ; and it is quite arbitrary to 
 assume (with Billroth and Olshausen) a deviation from the construction, so 
 
 1 The question whether and how Paul re¬ 
 garded the reconciliation of those who 
 died befoi’e the iAao-rrjpioi/ of Christ, and 
 were not justified like Abrahatn, remains 
 unanswered, since he nowhere explains 
 himself on the point, and since the dead 
 
 are not included in the notion of * 607 x 0 ?. 
 Still, Rom. x. 7, Phil. ii. 10 presuppose the 
 descent of Christ into Hades , which is the 
 necessary correlative of the resurrection 
 e* and it is expressly taught by Paul 
 
 in Eph. iv. 9. 
 
538 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to tiie corinthiaxs. 
 
 that Paul should have written edero instead of ftipevog (comp. Vulgate, Cal¬ 
 vin and many others, who translate it without ceremony : etposuit). — hvyplv] 
 The doctrine of reconciliation (comp, on the genitive, 1 Cor. i. 18 ; Acts 
 xx. 32) which is to be preached, is regarded as something deposited in the 
 souls of the preachers for further communication : u sicut interpreti comrnit- 
 titur quid loqui debeat,” Bengel. Comp, on hv yplv, which is not to be 
 taken as among us, the Helvac hv cppeai, hv ■&vpcp, hv ory'&eccu. 
 
 Ver. 20. For Christ, therefore, ice administer the office of ambassador, just as 
 if God exhorted through us. This double element of the dignity of the high 
 calling follows from the previous tihiucvog hv yplv r. lay. rye, KaraAA. If, name¬ 
 ly, it is the word of reconciliation which is committed to us, then in our em¬ 
 bassy we conduct Christ's cause (invhp X. ? -peo(3.), seeing that the reconcilia¬ 
 tion has taken place through Christ ; and because God has entrusted to us 
 this work, our exhortation is to be regarded as taking place by God through 
 us (jog t. 6. 7 rapaual. A’ yp.). On vrrep with irpeaf in the sense sjiecified, 
 comp. Epli. vi. 20 and the passages in Wetstein and Ivypke. The opposite : 
 7 -peef Kara nvog , Dem. 400, 12. The usual interpretation, vice et loco Christi, 
 which is rightly abandoned even by Hofmann, and is defended on the part 
 of Baur by mere subtlety, runs counter to the context ; for this sense must 
 have followed (ovv) from what precedes, which, however, is not the case. 
 If the notion of representation were to be inferred from what precedes, it 
 could only furnish us with a imep deoy. — Observe the parallel correlation of 
 Christ and God in the two parts of the verse. The connecting of cog rov 
 deov napan. A’ yp. with tieopeOa vwhp X. (Hofmann) w T ould only disturb this 
 symmetry without due ground.— ScSpeda virhp Xpiorov k.t.a.] specification 
 of the contents of the npeoffiia, and that in the form of apostolic humility 
 and love : we pray for Christ, in His interest, in order that we may not, in 
 your case, miss the aim of His divine w T ork of reconciliation : be ye recon¬ 
 ciled to God; do not, by refusing faith, frustrate the work of reconciliation 
 in your case, but tlirough your faith bring about that the objectively ac¬ 
 complished reconciliation may be accomplished subjectively in you. Riickert 
 wrongly holds 1 that the second aorist passive cannot have a passive mean¬ 
 ing and signifies only to reconcile oneself (see, on the contrary, Rom. v. 10 ; 
 Col. i. 21) ; that Paul demands the putting away of the cppovypa ryg capnog, 
 and the putting on of the eppovyua tov tt vevuarog ; and that so man reconciles 
 himself wfith God. In this view, the moral immediate consequence of the 
 appropriation of the reconciliation through faith is confounded with this ap¬ 
 propriation itself. The reconciliation is necessarily passive ; man cannot rec¬ 
 oncile himself, but is able only to become by means of faith a partaker of the 
 reconciliation which has been effected on the divine side ; he can only be¬ 
 come reconciled , which on his side cannot take place without faith, but is ex¬ 
 perienced in faith. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who says that they 
 are to make their peace with God, in which case what the person so sum¬ 
 moned has to do is made to consist in this, that he complies with the sum¬ 
 mons and prays God to extend to him also the effect, which the mediation 
 
 1 See against this, also Weber, v. Zorne Gottes , p. 302 f. 
 
CHAP. V., 21 . 
 
 539 
 
 constituted by God Himself exercises on the relation of sinful man toward 
 Him. — Tlie subject of KarabAdyyre is all those, to whom the loving summons 
 of the gospel goes forth ; consequently those not yet reconciled, i.e. the un¬ 
 believing, who, however, are to be brought, through Christ’s ambassadors, to 
 appropriate the reconciliation. The quotidiana remissio which is promised 
 to Christians (Calvin) is not meant, but the KaraXkdyrjrt is fulfilled by those 
 who, hitherto still standing aloof from the reconciliation, believingly ac¬ 
 cept the /.oyog r. KaraXAayfjg sent to them. 1 
 
 Yer. 21. This is not the other side of the apostolic preaching (one side of 
 it being the previous prayer), for this must logically have preceded the 
 prayer (in opposition to Hofmann) ; but the inducing motive , belonging to 
 the SeoyeBa k.t.X ., for complying with the naralb. tu> dew, by holding forth 
 what has been done on God's side in order to justify men. This weighty 
 motive emerges without yap, and is all the more urgent. — tov yrj yvdvra 
 dyapr.] description of sinlessness ( rbv avrodutaioGvvjjv ovra , Chrysostom) ; for 
 sin had not become known experimentally to the moral consciousness of Jesus ; 
 it was to Him, because non-existent in Him, a thing unknown from His 
 own experience. This wms the necessary postulate for His accomplish¬ 
 ing the w r ork of reconciliation.—The yy with the participle gives at all 
 events a subjective negation ; yet it may be doubtful whether it means the 
 judgment of Cod (Billroth, Osiander, Hofmann, Winer) or that of the 
 Christian consciousness (so Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 279 : “ quern talem vi- 
 rum mente concipimus, qui sceleris notitiam non habuerit”). The former is 
 to be preferred, because it makes the motive , which is given in ver. 21, ap¬ 
 pear stronger. The sinlessness of Jesus was present to the consciousness of 
 God , when He made Him to be sin. 2 Biickert, quite without ground, gives 
 up any explanation of the force of yy by erroneously remarking that between 
 the article and the participle yy always appears, never ov. See e.g. from the 
 FT. T., Rom. ix. 25 ; Gal. iv. 27 ; 1 Pet. ii. 10 ; Eph. v. 4 ; and from pro¬ 
 fane authors, Plat. Rep. p. 427 E : to oi>x evpyyevov, Plut. de garrul. p. 98, 
 ed Hutt. : vrpog rovg ova aaovovrag, Arist. Eccl. 187 : 6 c? ov Xa/3d)v, Lucian, 
 Charid. 14 : diyyovyevot ra ovk ovra , adv. Ind. 5, and many other passages. — 
 vizep yyuv] for our benefit (more precise explanation : iva yyelg ic.r.b.), is em¬ 
 phatically prefixed as that, in which lies mainly the motive for fulfilling the 
 prayer in ver. 20 ; hence also yyelg is afterwards repeated. Regarding vnep, 
 which no more means instead here than it does in Gal. iii. 13 (in opposition 
 to Osiander, Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 134, and older commentators), see 
 on Rom. v. 6. The thought of substitution is only introduced by what fol¬ 
 lows. (e 5 ) — ayapriav eirolyGe] abstractum pro concreto (comp. If/pog, oXeBpog , 
 and the like in the classic writers, Kiihner, II. p. 26), denoting more strongly 
 that which God made Him to be (Dissen, ad Rind. pp. 145, 476), and e-KoiyGe 
 expresses the setting up of the state , in which Christ was actually exhibited 
 by God as the concretum of dyapria , as ayaprioXog, in being subjected by Him 
 to suffer the punishment of death ; 3 comp. Karapet, Gal. iii. 13. Holsten, 
 
 1 Thereby is completed in their case the 2 Comp. Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Chi'istol. p. 
 task of the apostolic ministry, which is con- 100. 
 
 tained in the /ia^revo-are, Matt, xxviii. 19. 3 It is to be ncted, however, that cbiapiw, 
 
540 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 437, thinks of Christ’s having with His incarna¬ 
 tion received also the principle of sin, although He remained without rcapa- 
 flacLs. But this is not contained even in Rom. viii. 3 ; in the present pas¬ 
 sage it can only he imported at variance with the words {ay. hroiyaev), and the 
 distinction between ayapria and Trapdfiacnq is quite foreign to the passage. 
 Even the view, that the death of Jesus has its significance essentially in the 
 fact that it is a doing away of the definite fleshly quality (Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. 
 Ghristol. p. 83 ff.), does not fully meet the sacrificial conception of the apos¬ 
 tle, which is not to be explained away. For, taking dyapriav as sin-offering 
 mm) t with Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Oecumenius, Eras¬ 
 mus, Yatablus, Cornelius a Lapide, Piscator, Hammond, Wolf, Michaelis, 
 Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and others, 1 there is no sure basis laid even in the 
 language of the LXX. (Lev. vi. 25, 30, v. 9 ; Num. viii. 8) ; it is at vari¬ 
 ance with the constant usage of the X. T., and here, moreover, especially at 
 variance with the previous ayapr. — yevuyeOa] aorist (see the critical remarks), 
 without reference to the relation of time. The present of the Pecepjta would 
 denote that the coming of the yyeig to be diKaioovvy (to be dlnacoi ) still con¬ 
 tinues with the progress of the conversions to Christ. Comp. Stallbaum, 
 ad Grit. p. 43 B : “id, quod propositum fuit, nondum perfectum et trans- 
 actum est, sed adhuc durare cogitatur see also Hermann, ad Viger. p. 
 850. — hincuoi jvvtj deo£>] i.e. justified by God. See on Rom. i. 17. Not thank- 
 offering (Michaelis, Schulz) ; not an offering just before God, icell-pleasing 
 to Him , but as dupea Usov (Rom. v. 17), the opposite of all idea dcnaioavvy 
 (Rom. x. 3). They who withstand that apostolic prayer of ver. 20 are then 
 those, who ry dincuoovvy rov -&eov ovx vrrETcryr/aav , Rom. x. 3.— kv avru] for in 
 Ghrist , namely, in His death of reconciliation (Rom. iii. 25), as causa meri- 
 toria , our being made righteous has its originating ground. 
 
 just like Karapa., Gal. iii. 13, necessarily in¬ 
 cludes in itself the notion of guilt / further, 
 that the guilt of which Christ, made to be sin 
 and a curse by God, appears as bearer, was 
 not His own (mu y vovra. aixapriav ), and that 
 hence the guilt of men , who through His 
 death were to be justified by God, was trans¬ 
 ferred to Him ; consequently the justifica¬ 
 tion of men is imputative. This at the same 
 time in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. 
 II. 1, p. 329, according to whom (comp, his 
 explanation at our passage) Paul is held 
 merely to express that God has allowed sin 
 to realize itself in Christ, as befalling Him , 
 while it was not in Him as conduct. Cer¬ 
 tainly it was not in Him as conduct, but it 
 lay upon Him as the guilt of men to be aton¬ 
 ed for through His sacrifice, Rom. iii. 25; 
 Col. ii. 14 ; Heb. ix. 28; 1 Pet. ii. 24 ; John i. 
 29, al. ; for which reason His suffering finds 
 itself scripturally regarded not under the 
 
 point of view of experience befalling Him , 
 evil, or the like, but only under that of guilt- 
 atoning and penal suffering. Comp. 1 John 
 ii. 2. 
 
 1 This interpretation is preferred by 
 Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. I). Th. 1863, p. 249. 
 for the special reason that, according to the 
 ordinary interpretation, there is an incon¬ 
 gruity between the end aimed at (actual 
 righteousness of God) and the means ( appear¬ 
 ing as a sinner). But this difficulty is ob¬ 
 viated by observing that Christ is conceived 
 by the apostle as in reality bearer of the 
 divine Kardpa, and His death as mors vica- 
 ria for the benefit (imep) of the sinful men, 
 to be whose ihaarnpLor He was accordingly 
 made by God a sinner. As the yGead-ai 
 Sucouocnjvriv JeoC took place for men imputa- 
 tivelj , SO also did the ayapTLav enolria-ei > avrov 
 take place for Christ imputatively. In this 
 lies the congruity. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 541 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (t 4 ) Paul's expectation of living till the Parousia. Yer. 1. 
 
 The strong language of the author on this subject does not appear to be in 
 harmony with the Apostle’s own declarations to the elders of Ephesus (Actsxx. 
 22-24) and again to his friends at Cesarea (ibid. xxi. 13), in both of which he 
 speaks of death as imminent before him, or at least as that which might occur 
 at any moment. 
 
 (u 4 ) “ A building of God." Yer. 1. 
 
 That this means the resurrection body, as Meyer says, is the opinion of 
 almost all the recent expositors. Hodge alone adopts the view that the house 
 not made with hands is heaven itself, and argues for it very ably, yet not with 
 success ; for if the earthly house is a body, the heavenly house must be one also, 
 and a body which is said to be now in heaven and afterwards to come from 
 heaven can hardly be identical with heaven. 
 
 (v 4 ) “ Be found naked." Yer. 3. 
 
 Paul’s confident expectation that he would not be found without a body when 
 Christ came is naturally, according to the metaphor of the whole passage, 
 expressed by saying he would not be found naked. But the term gets a peculiar 
 propriety from the fact that the Greek writers were accustomed to use this 
 word in describing disembodied spirits. (See Stanley in loco.) —“If so be” 
 here is by virtue of the connection equivalent to “ seeing that.” 
 
 (w 4 ) “ Not unclothed, hut clothed upon." Yer. 4. 
 
 Stanley gives the sense thus : “ The groans which I utter being in the taber¬ 
 nacle of the body, are uttered not so much because of the oppression of this 
 outward frame (‘being burdened’), not so much from a wish to be entirely 
 freed from the mortal part of our nature, as from the hope that it will be 
 absorbed into a better life.” So Hodge : “ It is not mere exemption from the 
 burden of life, its duties, its labors, or its sufferings, which is the object of 
 desire, but to be raised to that higher state of existence in which all that is 
 mortal, earthly, and corrupt about one shall be absorbed in the life of God, the 
 divine and eternal life.” 
 
 (x 4 ) “ Not by sight." Ver. 7. 
 
 Meyer’s criticism is true and his rendering is exact, yet it is very certain that the 
 Common Yersion (and the Revised) gives the idea the Apostle intended, though 
 not the form in which he expressed it.—“To walk” is = versari, “pass our life.” 
 
 (y 4 ) “ At home with the Lord." Ver. 8. 
 
 The passage sheds light on a matter of which the Bible says little, the state 
 of the saved between death and resurrection. For Paul evidently thinks of no 
 alternative except to be at home in the body and at home with the Lord. Therefore 
 departed believers are with Christ ; and if so, not unconscious (for the uncon- 
 
542 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 scions are practically nowhere) ; and their nearness to Christ is such that com¬ 
 pared with it their spiritual presence with Him in this life is absence. And 
 although they have not yet entered their “eternal house” and put on their 
 heavenly clothing, yet in the presence of Christ they are at home. And their 
 eternal intercourse with Him has begun. (See Philip, i. 20.) (Beet.) 
 
 (z 4 ) “ Things done in the body.” Ver. 10. 
 
 “ If it is on the deeds done in the body that the judgment is to be held, it fol¬ 
 lows that no change effected after men have left the body will be taken into 
 account in fixing their final state” (Principal Brown).—Meyer’s statement 
 that the wicked may be recompensed by a lower degree of the Messianic salva¬ 
 tion is wholly unscriptural. The Bible knows of only two classes—the saved 
 and the lost. The former have varying degrees of blessedness, but are all 
 saved. The latter have varying degrees of suffering (many stripes, few stripes, 
 Luke xii. 47, 48), but all are lost. 
 
 (a 5 ) “ We persuade men.” Ver. 11. 
 
 Waite (Speaker’s Comm.) and Alford agree with Meyer in viewing this as 
 meaning Paul’s desire to convince men of his integrity (so Hodge apparently). 
 But Plumptre, Beet, Brown, and others take it in the sense of winning men 
 to the Gospel. The former sense is more agreeable to the context and to the 
 antithesis in this verse. 
 
 (b 5 ) “ Constraineth us.” Ver. 14. 
 
 It is true that the Greek verb does not mean to urge and drive, but it has 
 the sense of pressing hard, as a crowd does (Luke viii. 45) ; and why may not 
 this meaning of a strong outward pressure pass over into an inward impulse, 
 or, as Alford puts it, a forcible compression of energies into one line of action ? 
 
 (c 5 ) “ Therefore all died.” Ver. 14. 
 
 The simple sense is that the death of one was the death of all. If one died 
 for all, then all died. The Scriptures teach that the relation between Christ and 
 His people is analogous to that between Adam and his posterity (Hodge). 
 This important passage is greatly obscured by a mistranslation in the Author¬ 
 ized Version, corrected in the Revision of 1881. The “all” therefore must 
 refer to believers, and not to the race, as Meyer thinks. 
 
 (d 5 ) “ Who hath reconciled us unto Himself.” Ver. 18. 
 
 Meyer’s exposition of this clause is sound and satisfactory. As Hodge (in 
 loc.) says, To reconcile is to remove enmity between parties at variance with 
 each other. In this case God is the reconciler. Man never makes reconcilia¬ 
 tion. It is what he experiences or embraces. The enmity between God and 
 man is removed by the act of God. It is done by the death of Christ, which, 
 however, is represented as a sacrifice ; but the design and nature of a sacrifice 
 are to propitiate and not to reform. In Rom. v. 9, 10, “ being reconciled by the 
 death of the Son” is interchanged as equivalent with “ being justified by his 
 blood,” which proves that the reconciliation intended consists in the satisfac- 
 
NOTES. 
 
 543 
 
 tion of divine justice by the sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, here our reconcili¬ 
 ation to God is made the source and cause of our new creation, i.e. regenera¬ 
 tion. God’s reconciliation to us must precede our reconciliation to Him.— 
 Weiss, who certainly has no dogmatic bias, says : “The reconciliation cannot 
 consist in this, that man gives up his hostile disposition towards God. It is 
 not something mutual, as if man gives up his enmity and God consequently 
 gives up his opyrj. By not reckoning unto men their trespasses, God gives up 
 His enmity to men, which is, as it were, forced upon Him by the sin which 
 rouses His wrath. It is He alone that changes His hostile disposition into a 
 gracious one, after H-e has treated the sinless One as a Sinner in behalf of sin¬ 
 ners. (Bib. Theol. Part III. chap. vi. note). 
 
 (e 5 ) “ Made sin for us.” Ver. 21. 
 
 There is probably no one verse in Scripture which states the doctrines of 
 atonement and justification more clearly and concisely than this. Dr. Meyer 
 has treated it carefully and justly. 
 
 \ 
 
 » 
 
 i 
 
544 
 
 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Yer. 14. p He] Elz. : rig fie, against decisive evidence. —Ver. 15. Instead of 
 Xpi(jr(b, Laclim. and Tisch. have Xpicrov, following B C N, min. Ynlg. Copt. 
 Fathers. Bightly ; the dative came in from the adjoining words. —Yer. 16. 
 vpe'ig . . . fore] Lachm. : i/pelg . . . taper, following B D* L K* min. Copt. Clar. 
 Germ. Clem. Didym. Aug. (once). To be preferred, since the Iiecepta was very 
 naturally suggested as well by the remembrance of 1 Cor. iii. 16 as by the con¬ 
 nection (vv. 14, 17), while there was no ground for putting i/pelg . . . taper in its 
 stead. — pen] Lachm. : pov. Attested, no doubt, by B C N, 17, 37, but easily 
 brought in after avrfir. 1 — Ver. 17. eZeaQete] The form e££/,0are is to be adopted, 
 with Lachm. Tisch. and Buck., following B C E G K, 71, al. Damasc. See 
 Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 639. 
 
 / > 
 
 After Paul has, in vv. 20, 21, expressed by fieopeOa k.t.1. the first and 
 most immediate duty of his ministry as ambassador, he now expresses also 
 his further working as a teacher, and that in reference to the readers, vv. 
 1, 2. And in order to show how important and sacred is this second part 
 ' of his working as a joint-labourer with Christ, and certainly at the same 
 time by way of an example putting his opponents to shame, he thereupon 
 sets forth (vv. 3-10), in a stream of diction swelling onward with ever in¬ 
 creasing grandeur, his own conduct in his hortatory activity. “Maxima 
 est innocentiae contumacia,” Quintil. ii. 4. “Verba innocenti reperire 
 facile est,” Curtius, vi. 10. 37. 
 
 Yer. 1. Connection and meaning : “We do not, however, let the matter 
 rest merely with that entreaty on Christ’s behalf : he ye reconciled to God , 
 but, since we are His fellow - workers, and there is thus more laid on us to do 
 than that entreaty on Christ’s behalf, we also exhort that ye lose not again the 
 grace of God which you have received (v. 21), that ye do not frustrate it in your 
 case hy an unchristian life .” — awepyovvTeg ] The cvr finds its contextual refer¬ 
 ence not in the subject of v. 21, where there is only an auxiliary clause 
 assigning a reason, nor yet in kg rov &eov irapanal. fit! rjp&v, ver. 20, in which 
 there was given only a modal definition of the rr pea/Seveir vnip X., but in 
 vTcep Xpiorov , ver. 20 : as working together with Christ. It cannot, therefore, 
 apply to God (Oecumenius, Lyra, Beza, Calvin, Cajetanus, Yorstius, Estius, 
 Grotius, Calovius, and others, including Ruckert, de Wette, Osiander, 
 Hofmann, in accordance with 1 Cor. iii. 9), or to the fellow-apostles (Heu- 
 mann, Leun), or to the Corinthian teachers (Schulz, Bolten), or to the 
 Corinthians in general (Chrysostom, Tlieodoret, Pelagius, Bengel, Billroth, 
 
 1 In the LXX. also, Lev. xxvi. 22, there occurs for hoc the variation ^ov. 
 
CHAP. YI., 2 . 
 
 545 
 
 Olsliausen *), or to the exhortations , with which his own example co-operates 
 (Michaelis, Emmerling, Flatt). The apostles are fellow-workers with Christ 
 just in this, that they are ambassadors inrep Xpiorov, and as such have to 
 represent His cause and prosecute His work. —yrj Eig kevov k.t./ 1.] Ewdyei ravra 
 T7/v TTEpi tov fov GTTovdrjv aTraiTcjv, Chrysostom. For if he that is reconciled 
 through faith leads an unchristian life, the reconciliation is in his case frus¬ 
 trated. See Rom. vi., viii. 12, 13, al. — fig icev6v] incassum , of no effect. Gal. 
 ii. 2 ; Phil. ii. 16 ; 1 Thess. iii. 5 ; Diod. xix. 9 ; Heliod. x. 30 ; Jacobs, 
 ad Anthol. VII. p. 328. — d^aadai] “is to be explained as recipiatis. So 
 Vulgate, Luther, and others, including Ruckert, Ewald, Osiander, Hof¬ 
 mann. Those, namety, who, like the readers ( v/iag ), have become partakers 
 of the reconciliation through compliance with the entreaty in v. 20, are 
 placed now under the divine grace (comp. Rom. vi. 14 f.). (f 5 ) And this 
 they are not to reject, but to receive and accept (dfaaOa/.), and that not eig 
 kevov, i.e., not without the corresponding moral results, wdiich would be 
 wanting if one reconciled and justified by faith were not to follow the 
 drawing of grace and the will of the Spirit and to walk in the Kaivorr/g rf/g 
 £o?]g (Rom. vi. 4) as a new creature, etc. Comp. Tlieodoret. Pelagius also 
 is right : “in vacuum gratiam Dei recipit, qui in novo testamento non 
 novus est.” Hence it is not (not even in Rom. xv. 9) to be taken in the 
 sense of the praeterite, as many of the more recent commentators (even de 
 Wette) take it, contrary to usage, following Erasmus : “ ne committatis, ut, 
 semel gratis a peccatis exemti, in pristinam vitam relabentes in vanum rece- 
 peritis gratiam Dei. ”— vgag ] is now, after the apostolic calling has been 
 expressed at iv. 20 in its general bearing, added and placed at the end for 
 emphasis, because now the discourse passes into the direct exhortation to 
 the readers, that they receive not without effect, etc. If in their case that 
 apostolic entreaty for reconciliation had not passed without compliance, 
 they are now also to accept and act on the grace under which they have 
 been placed. 
 
 Ver. 2 does not assign the reason why Paul is concerned about his official 
 action, because, namely, now is the time in which God would have the 
 world helped (Hofmann), but gives, as the context requires by the exhorta¬ 
 tion brought in at ver. 1, a parenthetic urgent inducement for complying 
 wfith this exhortation icithout delay. — VeyEi yap] sc. o -d-eog, from what pre¬ 
 cedes. The passage is Isa. xlix. 8, exactly according to the LXX. The 
 person addressed is the HI IT ? whose idea is realized in Christ. He is 
 
 regarded as the head of the true people of God ; He is listened to, and He is 
 helped, when the grace of God conveyed through Him is not received with¬ 
 out result, (g 5 ) Such is the Messianic fulfilment of that, which in Isaiah is 
 promised to the servant of God regarding the deliverance and salvation of 
 
 1 Billroth says: “ he does not simply 
 
 preach the gospel and leave the Corinthians 
 then to stand alone, but he at the same 
 time busies himself with them for their sal¬ 
 vation, inasmuch as he stands by their side 
 with his exhortations as their instructor.” 
 Olshausen : “ condescendingly Paul does 
 
 not place himself over the Corinthians : he 
 wishes only to be their fellow-labourer, to 
 exhort them in such wise as they ought to 
 exhort one another.” In that case Paul 
 
 OUght to have Written crvvepyovvTes Se V'p.ci', 
 
 in order to be understood. 
 
546 
 
 PAUL’S SECOHD EPISTLE TO THE CORIJSTHIAHS. 
 
 the unfortunate peojfie. — mipu deurti] Thus the LXX. translate p¥8 
 at a time of favour. Paul was able to retain the expression of the LXX. all 
 the more, that in the fulfilment of the prophetic word the acceptableness 
 (Sektu) of the nacpog for the people of God consists in this, that it is the 
 point of time for the display of divine favour and grace. Chrysostom well 
 says : ncupog ... 6 rrjg bupEag, 6 ryg x^P LTO ti ore ova egtiv Evdvvag aTzaLrrjQrjvac 
 ruv apaprrjparuv, ovte 8'lktjv Sovvai , ahha pera rrjg awaKkayrjg udi pvpiuv anohavcat 
 ayaOuv, diKCUocrvvjjg, ayiaopov, ruv a /{?mv arravruv. In substance the same 
 
 thing is indicated by h ypepa curypiag, on the day of deliverance. If natpog 
 Senrog is taken as the time pleasing to God (Hofmann), 1 it is less in keeping 
 with the parallel “ day of salvation. 1 ' 1 The aorists are neither of a future 
 (Menochius) nor of a present character (Flatt), but the Deity speaking sees 
 the future as having already happened. See on Luke i. 51. —In the com¬ 
 mentary which Paul adds : ibov, vvv k.t.X., he discloses the element of that 
 utterance of God, which moves to the use of this welcome salvation-bringing time. 
 Behold, now is the acceptable time, behold, noic is the day of deliverance, which 
 the prophet has foretold ; now or never may you be successful in obtaining 
 salvation through a fruitful acceptance and aj)prehension of the divine 
 grace ! If the vvv is past, and you have frustrated in your case the grace 
 received, then the hearing and help promised by the prophet are no longer 
 possible ! The duration of this vvv was in Paul’s view the brief interval before 
 the near-approaching Parousia. The stronger EvirpoadEKrog (viii. 12 ; Rom. 
 xv. 16, 31 ; Plut. Mor. p. 801 C), which he has used instead of the simple 
 form, has proceeded involuntarily from his deep and earnest feeling on the 
 subject. 
 
 Yer. 3. The participle is not connected with ver. 11, but (in opposition to 
 Hofmann, see on ver. 11) with napaKal. in ver. 1, as a qualitative definition 
 of the subject. Grotius aptly says : “ ostendit enim, quam serio moneat 
 qui ut aliquid proficiat nullis terreatur incommodis, nulla non commoda 
 negligat.” Luther finds here an exhortation (let us give no one any hind of 
 offence ), which, however, is not allowed either by the construction (Sthovrag 
 must have been used) or by the contents of what follows. — h pydEvi] not 
 masculine (Luther) but neuter: in no respect. Comp, h ttcivtI, ver. 4. The 
 py is here used, neither unsuitably to the connection with ver. 1 (Hofmann), 
 nor instead of ov (Ruckert), but from a subjective point of view : “we ex¬ 
 hort ... as those, who, 11 etc. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 33, and see Winer, p. 451 
 [E. T. 608]. — wpoaKorH], only here in the X. T., not found in the LXX. and 
 Apocr. (Polyb. vi. 6. 8, aid), is equivalent to npdanoppa, cuavdahov, i.e. an 
 occasion for unbelief and unchristian conduct. This is given by a conduct of 
 the teachers at variance with the doctrine taught. — pupijdfi] be blamed; 
 comp. vii. 20. Paul is conscious that he represents the honour of the min¬ 
 istry entrusted to him. (h 5 ) It cannot be proved that pup. denotes only 
 light blame (Chrysostom and others, Osiander). See even in Homer, 11. iii. 
 412. It depends on the context, as in Pindar, Pyth. i. 160 ; Lucian, Quom. 
 hist. 33 : 3 ovdeig av, ah?C ovd’ 6 M upog puprjaaodai dvvairo. 
 
 1 Comp. Calvin, who understands by it the “ tempus plenitudinis” of Gal. iv. 4. 
 
CHAP. YI., 4 - 6 . 
 
 547 
 
 Yer. 4. f. IvviGTkjvTeg kavr.~\ Here kavr. is not, as in iii. 1, iv. 12, prefixed, 
 because gwigt. is the leading idea. — ug deov dianovot ] different in sense from 
 <vg 0. Sianovovg (Vulg. : ministros). This would mean : we commend ourselves 
 as those {accusative), who appear as God’s servants. The former means : 
 we commend ourselves, as God's servants commend themselves. Comp. Kiihner, 
 § 830, 5. The emphasis is on ■dvov. — kv vrtofiovy nroXXy] This is the first 
 thing, the passive bearing, through which that aw tar. kavr. djg 6. Slclk. takes 
 place, through much patience; the further, active side of the bearing follows 
 in ver. 6, kv dyvoryn k.t.X., so that kv OX'npeGiv . . . vyGrdaig is that, in which 
 ( ev ) the much patience, the much endurance is shown.—Bengel aptly classi¬ 
 fies ev dltyemv . . . vycrdaig : ‘ ‘ Primus ternarius continet genera, secundus 
 species adversorum, tertius spontanea .” Comp. Theodoret.— OXiip., avdyn., 
 gtevox •: climactic designation. On gtevox ., comp. iv. 8. It is impractica¬ 
 ble, and leads to arbitrariness, to find a climax also in the three points that 
 follow, the more especially as the very first point is worse and more dis¬ 
 graceful than the second .—kv nXyyalg] Comp. xi. 23-25 ; Acts xvi. 23. — 
 kv aKG-aG-aGicug] in tumults. Comp. e.g. Acts xiii. 50, xiv. 19, xvi. 19 ff., 
 xix. 28 ff. The explanation : instabilities, i.e. banishments from one place 
 to another (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beza, Schulz, Flatt, 
 Olshausen), is in itself possible (comp. aoTaroviiev 1 Cor. iv. 11) ; but in the 
 whole of the H. T. anaraoT. only means either confusion, disorder (1 Cor. 
 xiv. 32 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20 ; Jas. iii. 16), or in a special sense tumult (Luke xxi. 
 9 ; comp. Ecclus. xxvi. 27). See, regarding the latter signification, the 
 profane passages in Wetstein, Schweighauser, Lex. Polyb. p. 17. —kv aypvnv.] 
 in sleeplessnesses, for the sake of working with his hands, teaching, travel¬ 
 ling, meditating, praying, through cares, etc. Comp. xi. 27 ; Acts xx. 31. 
 On the plural, comp. Herod, iii. 129. —kv norroig] is not, with Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, and others, to be understood only of labour with the hands (1 
 Cor. iv. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8), which limitation is not sug¬ 
 gested by the context, but of toilsome labours in general, which the conduct 
 of the apostolic ministry entailed. Comp. xi. 23, 27. — kv vyordaig] is gen¬ 
 erally explained of the endurance of hunger and want (1 Cor. iv. 11 ; Phil, 
 iv. 12). But since vyGtda is never used of compulsory fasting, and since 
 Paul himself (xi. 27) distinguishes kv vrjoTeicug from kv Xiyti k. d'opei, we must, 
 with Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Calvin (comp, also Osiander, Hofmann), 
 explain it of voluntary fasting, which Paul, using with free spirit the time- 
 honoured asceticism, imposed on himself. The objections, that this is at 
 variance with the apostle’s spirit, or is here irrelevant, are arbitrary. See 
 Matt. vi. 16, ix. 15, xvii. 21 ; Acts xiv. 23 ; comp. xiii. 2, 3, ix. 9 ; also 1 
 Cor. vii. 5. (i 5 ) 
 
 In ver. 6, the series begun with kv vyoyovy iroXXy goes further. — kv ayvor- 
 rjTt\ through purity, moral sincerity in general. Comp. dyv6g, Phil. iv. 8 ; 
 1 Tim. v. 22 ; 1 John iii. 3. To understand this as meaning abstinentia a 
 venere (Grotius and others), or contempt for money (Theodoret), is a limita¬ 
 tion without ground in the context, and presents too low a moral standard 
 for a servant of God. — kv yvuoei ] Of the high degree of his evangelical Icnoiol- 
 edge, in particular of the moral will of God in the gospel, there is evidence 
 
548 
 
 Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 in every one of liis Epistles and in every one of his speeches in the Book of 
 Acts. Calvin and Morus arbitrarily think that what is meant is recte et 
 scienter agendi peritia , or (comp, also Riickert and Osiander) true practical 
 prudence.—kv yanpoOvyici] amid offences. —kv xPV aT drr)Ti\ through kindness 
 (Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 ff.)'. The two are likewise associated in 1 Cor. 
 xiii. 4 ; Gal. v. 22. — kv nvery. ay'up] is not to be limited arbitrarily to the 
 charismata (Grotius. and others), but : through the Holy Spirit ; of whom tes¬ 
 timony is given by our whole working and conduct just as the fruit of the 
 Spirit (comp. Gal. v. 22) and walk according to the Spirit (Gal. v. 25). 
 The position of this and the following point is determined by the circum¬ 
 stance, that Paul, in addition to the points adduced (kv vtroyovy . . . kv ayvo- 
 rrjTi k.t.X.), now further mentions their objective divine source, which he 
 bears in himself (kv tv vehyari ay US), as well as the fundamental virtue of the 
 Christian (kv ayairy avviroKp., comp. Rom. xii. 9 ; 1 Pet. i. 22 f., iv. 8), which 
 springs from this source, and without which even those elements already 
 named would fail him (1 Cor. viii. 1, xiii. 1 ff., xiv. 1). In this way he 
 brings to completion that portion of his self-attestation which reaches to 
 this point. 
 
 Ver. 7. The enumerations hitherto made related generally to the conduct 
 and character of God’s servants; now the stream, swelling ever more boldly, 
 passes over to the province of the teacher' 1 s work , and pours itself forth from 
 ver. 8 in a succession of contrasts between seeming and being, which are so 
 many triumphs of the apostle’s clear self-assurance. — kv 2,oy<p aTiqO.] through 
 discourse of truth , i.e. through doctrine, the character of ichich is truth. Comp, 
 ii. 17, iv. 2. It will not do to take, with Riickert, hoy. alrjd. objectively , as 
 equivalent to evayykhiov, because, as at Eph. i. 18, Col. i. 5, the article could 
 not have been omitted. — kv tivvayei deov] through power of God , which shows 
 itself efficacious in our work of teaching, iv. 7. Comp, 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20. 
 The limitation to the miracles is arbitrary (Theophylact, comp. Emmerling 
 and Flatt). — did tuvotcIivv rrjq dmaioa. /c.r.A.] is by Grotius connected with 
 what precedes (Dei virtute nobis arma subministrante, etc.) ; but seeing that 
 other independent points are afterwards introduced by did, we must suppose 
 that Paul, who elsewhere without any special purpose varies in his use of 
 equivalent prepositions, passes from the instrumental kv to the instrumental 
 did, so that we have here also a special point : through the weapons , which 
 righteousness furnishes. The ducaioavwrj is to be taken in the usual dogmatic 
 sense. Comp, rrjv Ocjpasa rfjq dinaioc., Eph. vi. 15. It is the righteousness of 
 faith which makes us strong and victorious in the way of assault or defence 
 against all opposing powers. See the noble commentary of the apostle him¬ 
 self in Rom. viii. 31-39. It has been explained of moral integrity (comp. 
 Rom. vi. 13, 19 ; Eph. v. 9, vi. 14), the genitive being taken either as ad 
 justitiam implendam (Grotius), or as weapons, which the consciousness of in¬ 
 tegrity gives (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Billroth), or which are allowed to a moral 
 man and. are at his command (Riickert), or which minister to that ichich is of 
 right (Plofmann), and the like ; but the explanation has this against it, that 
 the context contains absolutely nothing which leads us away from the hab¬ 
 itual Pauline conception of dimiocvvi], as it was most definitely expressed 
 
CHAP. VI., 8 - 10 . 
 
 549 
 
 even at v. 21, whereas the idea of <5vvayig 6eov stands in quite a Pauline con¬ 
 nection with that of c haatoaiivr/ Qeov. See Rom. i. 16, 17. Hence there is no 
 ground for uniting the two conceptions of diKaioavvrj (Osiander), or for ex¬ 
 plaining it of righteousness as a quality of God which works through Paul 
 (Kling). The explanation : arma justa, legitimate weapons (Flatt, follow¬ 
 ing Heumann and Morus), is out of the question.— t&v degiuv kcu apior.] 
 right-hand and left-hand arms, an apportioning specification of the whole ar¬ 
 mament. The former are the weapons of attack wielded with the right hand, 
 the latter are the weapons of defence (shield) ; the warrior needs both together. 
 Hence it w T as unsuitable to refer the former specially to res prosperas , the 
 latter to res adversas (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and others, follow¬ 
 ing the Fathers) : “ne prosperis elevemur, nec frangamur adversis, ” Pelagius. 
 Comp, rather, on the subject-matter, x. 4 f. 
 
 Ver. 8. It is usually supposed that did here is not again instrumental, but 
 local: (going) through honour and shame , or in the sense of the accompanying 
 circumstances (Hofmann): amid honour and shame, we commend ourselves, 
 namely, as God’s servants, ver. 4. This is arbitrary on the very face of it ; 
 besides, in this way of taking it there is no mode of the apostolic self-com¬ 
 mendation at all expressed. Hence Billroth was right in trying to keep to the 
 instrumental sense : u as well honour as shame (the latter, in so far as he bears 
 it with courage and patience) must contribute to the apostle''s commendation. ” 
 But, on the other hand, it may be urged that, according to the words, it 
 must be the shame itself (as also the do^a itself), and not the manner of 
 bearing it, which commends. Hence it is rather to be taken : through glory , 
 which we earn for ourselves among the friends of God, and through dis- 
 honour , which we draw on ourselves among opponents ; through both we 
 commend ourselves as God’s servants. On the latter idea (sal drifiag), comp. 
 Matt. v. 11 -/Luke vi. 22 ; 1 Pet. iv. 14 ; also Gal. i. 10. In a correspond¬ 
 ing way also what follows is to be taken : through evil report and good re¬ 
 port. — kg Trlavot k. akrjdelg] With this there begins a series of modal defini¬ 
 tions, which furnish a triumphant commentary on the two previous state¬ 
 ments, dia do^rjg k. driptag^ did dvaijipy. k. eix^rjp. In this case the order of the 
 clauses (the injurious aspect being always put first) corresponds to the order 
 of 6va<j>. k. EV(j)Tjp. The first clause always gives the tenor of the an fa and 
 dvc^jjpia ; the second clause, on the other hand, gives the actual state of the 
 case , and consequently also the tenor of the doga and ev^rjpia. Hence : as 
 deceivers and true , i.e. as people who are both, the former in the opinion and 
 in the mouth of enemies, the latter in point of fact. > Accordingly, nai is not 
 u and yet' 1 ' 1 (Luther and many others), but the simple and. — On the seven 
 times repeated wf, Valla rightly remarks • “ Paulina oratio sublimis atquc 
 urgens.” Comp. Augustine, de doctr. Christ, iv. 20.—On ttMvol, which 
 does not mean “ erring'’’’ (Ewald), comp. Matt, xxvii. 63 ; 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 
 John vii. 12 ; and Wetstein. 
 
 Vv. 9, 10. ’A yvoobpevoi] not : mistaken or misjudged (Flatt, Hofmann, and 
 others), nor yet : people, for whom nobody cares (Grotius), but : people, 
 whom no one is acquainted with (Gal. i. 22) ; obscure men , of whom no one 
 knows anything. Comp, ayvkg and the contrasted yvkpipog, Plato, Pol. ii. 
 
550 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 p. 375 E ; also Demosth. 851. 27.— emyivoaK .] becoming well known; comp, 
 on 1 Cor. xiii. 12 ; Matt. xi. 27. By whom ? Ruckert thinks : by God. 
 But without ground in the text, which rather demands the reference to mm, 
 as Chrysostom rightly saw : kg ayv. k. hmyivucK.., rovro egtl Sia do^yg nal art. p tag, 
 rolg pev yap ycav yvkptpot nal rrEpt.GTrov6aGrot, oi 6 e ovde eldevai avrovg yftovv. 
 Hence : as people who are unknown (viz. according to the contemptuous 
 judgment of opponents), andivell known (in reality among all true .believers). 
 
 — arrodvr/GKovTEg] The continual sufferings and deadly perils of the apostle 
 gave to his opponents occasion to say : he is on the point of death, he is at 
 his last ! Paul considered himself as moribundus (1 Cor. xv. 31), but from 
 what an entirely different point of view ! See 2 Cor. iv. 7-15 .—nal lOov 
 t^kpev] and , behold , we are in life! We find a commentary on this in iv. 7 ff. 
 Comp. i. 10. The construction often varies so, that after the use of the parti¬ 
 ciple the discourse passes over to the finite verb (Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 327 
 f. [E. T. 382 f. ]) ; but here, in the variation introduced with a lively surprise by 
 tdov (comp. v. 17), there is implied a joyful feeling of victory. “ Yides non 
 per negligentiam veteres hoc genere uti, sed consulto, ubi quae conjuncta 
 sunt ad vim sententiae simul tamen distinguere volunt paulo expressius,” 
 Dissen, ad Pind. Isthm. p. 527. —kg TraidvvogEvoi k. gy Oavar.] a reminiscence, 
 perhaps, of Ps. cxviii. 18 ; rraP. is not, however, to be understood of act¬ 
 ual chastisements by scourging and the like (Cajetanus, Menochius, Estius, 
 Flatt). This, judged by the analogy of the other clauses, would be too 
 much a matter of detail, and it would be specially inappropriate, because in all 
 the clauses the view of His opponents is placed side by side with the true 
 state of the case. We must rather think of God as the tt aukveov. The sor¬ 
 rowful condition of the apostle gave his opponents occasion for concluding : 
 he is a chastened man! a man who is under the divine chastening rod! (j 5 ) 
 
 — nal yy Oavar.] In his humble piety he does not deny that he'stands under 
 God’s discipline (hence there is here no opposite of the first clause); but he 
 knows that God’s discipline will not proceed to extremity, as His opponents 
 thought ; therefore he adds: and not becoming killed! not sinking under 
 this chastening.—Yer. 10. In the opinion and judgment of our enemies we 
 are peopl e full of sorrow, p>oor, and having nothing (starving and penniless 
 wretches !) ; and in reality we are z.‘: all times rejoicing (through our Christian 
 frame of mind, comp. Rom. v. 3, and the xapa hv Twevpari ay'up, Rom. xiv. 
 17 ; 1 Thess. iv. 6), enriching many (with spiritual benefits, 1 Cor. i. 5 ; 2 
 Cor. viii. 9), and having in possession everything (because entrusted with the 
 store of all divine benefits in order to impart them to others). This navra 
 K.arkx -1 like the previous rcoXkovg irlovriC,., is by Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Grotius, Estius, explained in this way, that Paul could have disposed of the 
 property of the Christians, and have enriched many by instituting collec¬ 
 tions. But such an inferior reference is altogether out of keeping with the 
 lofty tone of the passage, more especially at its close, where it reaches its 
 acme. Comp, also Gemara Nedarim f. 40. 2 : “ Recipimus non esse pauperem 
 nisi in scientia. In Occidente seu terra Israel dixerunt. : in quo scientia est, 
 is est ut ille, in quo omnia sunt ; in quo ilia deest, quid est in eo ?” 
 Rtickert’s opinion, that in those two clauses Paul was thinking of nothing 
 
CHAP. VI.j 11 . 
 
 551 
 
 definite nt all, is unjust towards the apostle. Olshausen, followed by 
 Neander, wishes to find the explanation of iravra narex- in 1 Cor. iii. 22. 
 But this is less suitable to the ttoXXovq teaovt'l^., evidently referring to the 
 spiritual gifts, to which it is related by way of climax. 
 
 Ver. 11-vii. 1. After the episode in vv. 3-10, 1 Paul turns with a concil¬ 
 iatory transition (vv. 11-13) to a special, and for the Corinthians necessary, 
 form of the exhortation expressed in ver. 1 (vv. 14-18). This is followed 
 up in vii. 1 by a general appeal, which embraces the whole moral duty of 
 the Christian. 
 
 Ver. 11. Our mouth stands open towards you, Corinthians ; our heart is en¬ 
 larged. — to orofia yptiv avey-ye] This expression is in itself nothing further 
 than a picturesque representation of the thought : to begin to speak, or to 
 speak. See, especially, Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 97, and the remark on 
 Matt. v. 2. A qualitative definition may be added simply through the con¬ 
 text , as is the case also here partly through the general character of the pre¬ 
 vious passage, vv. 3-10, which is a very ojien, unreserved utterance, partly 
 by means of the parallel y napdia yguv 'KETEAaTWTat. Thus in accordance with 
 the context the opposite of reserve is here expressed. Comp. Chrysostom 1. 
 Had Paul merely written "kEhahynapEv vylv , the same thought would, in vir¬ 
 tue of the context, have been implied in it (we have not been reserved, but 
 have let ourselves be openly heard towards you) ; but the picturesque to 
 cto pa ypuv avecpye is better fitted to convey this meaning, and is therefore 
 purposely chosen. Comp. Ezek. xxxiii. 22 ; Ecclus. xxii. 22 ; Eph. vi. 19 ; 
 xYeschylus, Prometh. 612. This at the same time in opposition to Fritzsche, 
 who adheres to the simple haec ad vos loculus sum , as to which, we may re¬ 
 mark, the haec is imported. Riickert (comp. Chrysostom 2) finds the sense 
 to be : “ see, I have begun to speak with you once, I have not concealed . . . from 
 you my apostolic sentiments ; I cannot yet close my mouth, I must speak with 
 you yet further.' 1 '' But the thought : I must speak with you yet further, is 
 imported ; how could the reader conjecture it from the simple perfect ? 
 Just as little is it to be assumed, with Hofmann, that Paul wishes only to 
 state that he had not been reserved with what he had to say, so that this 
 expression is only are sumption of the TiapaKalovpev yy elg kevov k.t.X. in ver. 
 
 I. Only in an arbitrary and violent manner can we reject the reference to 
 vv. 3-10, where such a luxuriance of holy grandiloquentia has issued from 
 his mouth. — aveuya, in the sense of avEuypai, is frequent in later Greek (in 
 
 II . xvi. 221, avEuysv is imperfect), and is rejected by Phrynichus as a sole¬ 
 cism. See Lobeck, ad Pliryn. p. 157 f. — Iv opivOioc] Regarding this particu- 
 
 1 The supposition that there is an ab¬ 
 normal, and in this respect certainly unex¬ 
 ampled construction, under which ver. 11 
 should be taken as concluding the main 
 clause along with “ the preceding long- 
 winded participial clause” (Hofmann), 
 ought to have been precluded by the very 
 consideration that that “long-winded” ac¬ 
 cumulation of participles, in which, how¬ 
 ever, Paul paints his whole life active and 
 passive with so much enthusiasm, and, as 
 
 it were, triumphant heroism, would stand 
 utterly disproportioned to that which he 
 says in ver. 11, and which is only a brief, 
 gentle, kindly remark. What a magnificent 
 preparation for such a little quiet sentence 
 without substantial contents I The exam¬ 
 ples cited by Hofmann from Greek writers 
 and the N. T. (Acts xx. 3 ; Mark ix. 20) are 
 too weak analogies. See regarding similar 
 real anacolutha, Winer, p. 527 f. [E. T. 
 709 f.]. Comp, on Markix. 20. 
 
552 ' Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 lar form of address without article or adjective (it is otherwise in Gal. iii. 
 1) Chrysostom judges rightly : nal r/ irpoGOpn// de rov bvoparog tpiVtag Koh?dg nal 
 diadcGEug nal OEpuoTijTog, nal yap Eitjdapev rtbv ayairtvpEvuv owEx&g yvpvd ra ovdpara 
 TzepLorptyeiv. Comp. Phil. iv. 15. Bengel : “ rara et praesentissima appella- 
 tio.” — rj naptha rjptbv TTEirlaTwrai] cannot here mean either: I feel mysef cheered 
 and comforted (comp. Ps. cxix. 32 ; Isa. lx. 5), as Luther, Estius, Kypke, 
 Michaelis, Schlcusner, Flatt, Bretschneider, Schrader, and others hold, or : 
 I have expressed myself frankly, made a clean breast (Sender, Schulz, Morus, 
 Bosenmuller, deWette, comp. Beza), because vv. 12 and 13 are against both 
 ways of taking it ; but, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and the 
 majority, it is to be taken as an expression of the love which, by being stirred 
 up and felt, makes the heart wide , while by £he want of love and by hate 
 the heart is narrowed and contracted. The figurative expression needed no 
 elucidation from the Hebrew, and least suitable of all is the comparison 
 with Deut. xi. 1G (Ilofmann), where the figurative meaning of nP£T is of 
 quite another kind. See, however, the passages in Wetstein on ver. 12.— 
 The two parts of the verse stand side by side as parallels without a con¬ 
 nective participle (nal), in order that thus the second thought, which out¬ 
 weighs the first, might come into more prominent relief,—a relation which 
 is indicated by the emphatic prefixing of to croua and fj naptha. The mean¬ 
 ing accordingly is : We have (vv. 3-10) spoken openly to you , Corinthians; 
 our heart has therein become right wide in love towards you —which, however, 
 may not be interpreted of readiness to receive the readers (Hofmann), for 
 they are already in his heart (vii. 3 ; comp. Phil. i. 7). The relation of the 
 two clauses is taken differently by Emmerling, who inserts a because between 
 them, and by Fritzsche, who says : quod vobis dixi ejusmodi est, ut inde 
 me vos amare appareat .” But it may be urged against both that we are not 
 justified in taking the two perfects as different in temporal import, the one 
 as a real praeterite, and the other with the force of a present. In 7re7ril arwrat 
 it is rather implied that Paul has felt his love to the fJorinthians strengthened, 
 his heart towards them widened, during his writing of the passage vv. 3-10 
 (by its contents)—a result, after such an outpouring, intelligible enough, 
 psychologically true, and turned to account in order to move his readers. 
 
 Yer. 12. A negative confirmation of the r) naptha rjp. ttett?At. just said, an 
 opposite state of matters on the part of the Corinthians. — Not straitened are 
 ye in us, but straitened in your innermost part, (o-ttA., the seat of love, like 
 naptha, ver. 11, to which the expression stands related under the increasing 
 emotion by way of climax). The meaning of it is : “ valde vos amo , non 
 item vos me.” ( k 5 ) It is impossible, on account of the ov, to take it as an 
 imperative (Aretius, Luther, Heumann, Morus, Sclileusner). —ov gtevox- 'ev 
 7 /iuv] non angusto spatio premimini in animis nostris : in this Paul retains the 
 figure of the previous rj napt. pp- n-Err^dr. Chrysostom aptly says : 6 yap Qilov- 
 pEvog pETa 'Ko'Xkrjg evdov ev Ty naptha rov tpL/\.ovvrog /3adi^ei rr/g dthtag. Comp. vii. 
 3 ; Phil. i. 7. The negative expression is an affectionate, pathetic litotes, 
 to be followed by an equally affectionate paternal reproof. This is explana¬ 
 tion enough, and dispenses with the hypothesis that Paul is referring to 
 the opinion of the church, that it had too narrow a space—a smaller place 
 
CHAP. VI., 13. 
 
 553 
 
 tlian it wished—in his heart (Hofmann). Those who interpret n lar., ver. 
 11, as to cheer , take the meaning to be : not through us do ye become troubled , 
 but through yourselves (Kypke, Flatt ; comp. Eisner, Estius, Wolf, Zacha- 
 riae, Schrader ; comp, also Luther),—a thought, however, which is foreign 
 to the whole connection ; hence Flatt also assumes that Paul has vii. 2 ff. 
 already in his thoughts ; and Schrader explains ver. 14-vii. 1 as an interpo¬ 
 lation. 1 — orevox. be ev r. ctttA. vp.] so that there is in them no right 'place for 
 us (comp. 1 John iii. 17). Chrysostom : ova eIttev' ov (j> lXeite i/pax, a'A/i' oil 
 pEra rov avrov perpov. Paul did not write cTEvoxupovpEba 6 e rjpEiq ir T oic on'X. 
 hp ., because by this the contrast would have passed from the thing to the 
 persons (for he had not, in fact, written ovx vpslg ctevox^p- ev rjplv), and so 
 the passage would have lost in fitting concert and sharp force. Ruckcrt 
 thinks that Paul refers in ver. 12 to an utterance of the Corinthians, who 
 had said : crEvoxupovpEda ev avrCp ! meaning, we are perplexed at him , and 
 that now he explains to them how the matter stood with this orEvoxupelodai, 
 but takes the word in another sense than they themselves had done. A 
 strangely arbitrary view, since the use of the GTEvoxapdodai in our passage 
 was occasioned very naturally and completely by the previous nETzld-r. Comp. 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret. 
 
 Yer. 13. A demand for the opposite of the said gtevox^v pelade ev rolg airl. 
 vp. just said. — The accusative t?]v avrr/v avripiadlav is not to be supplemented 
 either by habentes (Yulgate), nor by eiaeve-yicaTe (Oecumenius, Theophylact), 
 nor to be connected with Myu (Chrysostom, Beza, and others); it is anaco- 
 luthic (accusative absolute), so that it emphatically sets forth an object of 
 discourse, without grammatically attaching to it the further construction. 
 It is otherwise in iii. 18. There is not an interruption, but a rhetorical brealc- 
 ing off of the construction. These accusatives, otherwise explained by nard, 
 are therefore the beginning of a construction which is not continued. See 
 Schaefer, ad Fern. Y. pp. 314, 482 f. ; Matthiae, p. 955. Comp. Bernhardy, 
 p. 132 f.; Dissen, ad Pind. p. 329, ad Fern, de Cor. p. 407 ; Winer, p. 576 
 
 1 Emmerling explains this section vi. 
 14-vii. 1 to be, not an interpolation, but a 
 disturbing addition, only inserted by Paul 
 on reading over the Epistle again, “sen- 
 tentiis svbito in animo eocortis .” And re¬ 
 cently Ewald has explained it as an inserted 
 fragment from another Epistle, proceeding 
 probably only from some apostolic man, 
 to a Gentile Christian church. But (1) the 
 apparent want of fitting in to the connec¬ 
 tion, even if it did exist (but see on ver. 14), 
 would least of all warrant this view in the 
 case of an Epistle written under so lively 
 emotion. (2) The contents are quite Pau¬ 
 line, and sufficiently ingenious. (3) The 
 name fieMap, which does not occur else¬ 
 where in Scripture, is not evidence against 
 Paul, since in his Epistles (the Pastoral ones 
 excepted) even the name Sux/3oAos, so cur¬ 
 rent elsewhere, occurs only at two pas¬ 
 
 sages of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Be¬ 
 sides, the <rvp.(f)u)u. Xpiar(2 jrpog fie\iap may be 
 an echo of some apocryphal utterance 
 known, to the readers (comp. Eph. v. 14). 
 (4) The expressions peroxv (comp, perexeiv, 
 1 Cor. ix. 10, al.), pepts (comp. Col. i. 12), avp- 
 (/xteijcris (comp. o-ujix0wvos, 1 Cor. vii. 5), 
 fcaOapgw (comp. Eph. v. 26), cannot, any 
 more than crvy/caraO-ecri? which he does not 
 use elsewhere, excite well-grounded suspi¬ 
 cion in the case of one so rich in handling 
 the language. (5) The critical evidence 
 gives, not the slightest trace of ground for 
 assuming that the section did not originally 
 stand in all the manuscripts. How diffex*- 
 ent it is with passages really interpolated, 
 such as Mark xvi. 9 ff.; John vii. 33 ff. 1 Yet 
 Holsten has also, zur. Evang. d. Paul. u. 
 Petr. p. 387, assented to the condemnation 
 of the section. 
 
554 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 [E. T. 774]. — avTTjv ] Paul has blended by way of attraction the two concep¬ 
 tions to aiiro and ryv avnpiadiav. See Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 114 tf. Riick- 
 ert arbitrarily says : Paul wished to write ivaavrog de nai vpeig rrHarvvdyre, 
 ryv spyv avnpiadiav , but, by prefixing the latter, he brought the idea of tbaav- 
 rog also into the first clause, where it necessarily had now to appear as an 
 adjective. He certainly has not only placed , but also thought ryv avrifuadiav 
 first, but at the same time to aiiro was also in his mind. — The parenthetic <bg 
 rsKvoig Aeyo justifies the expression ryv avr. avrifuadiav ; for it is the duty of 
 children to recompense a father’s love by love in return. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 4. 
 Chrysostom : ovdev peya airb ), ei naryp a>v [3ov?iopai (piAeiadai Trap’ iifiuv. The 
 notion of children yet untrained (Ewald) would be indicated by something 
 like vyirioig (1 Cor. iii. 1). 
 
 Yer. 14. As a contrast to the desired tt! arvv., Paul now forbids their mak¬ 
 ing common cause with the heathen, and so has come to the point of stating 
 what was said generally at ver. 1 (jui) eig kevov r. x • T • Q £ °v degaadai) more pre¬ 
 cisely, in a form needful for the special circumstances of the Corinthians, in 
 order to warn them more urgently and effectually of the danger of losing 
 their salvation. —py yiveade erepo^vy.\ Bengel : “ ne fiatis, molliter pro : ne 
 sitisd ’ He does not forbid all intercourse with the heathen whatever (see 1 
 Cor. v. 10, x. 27, vii. 12), but the making common cause with heathen 
 efforts and aims, the entering into the heathen element of life. There is no 
 ground for assuming exclusively special references (such as to sacrificial 
 banquets or to mixed marriages), any more than for excluding such refer¬ 
 ences.— erepo^vyovvreg] see, in general, Wetstein. It means here : hearing 
 another (a different kind of) yoke. Comp, erepo^vyog, Lev. xix. 19 ; Sclileus- 
 ner, Thesaur. II. p. 557. Paul undoubtedly has in mind the figurative con¬ 
 ception of two different animals (as ox and ass) which are yoked together in 
 violation of the law (Dent. xxii. 9),—a conception, in which the heteroge¬ 
 neous fellowship of Christians with heathen is aptly portrayed : drawing a 
 yoke strange to you. In this verse the dative curiaroig denotes a fellowship, 
 in which the unbelieving partner forms the standard which determines the 
 mode of thought and action of the Christian partner. For this dative can¬ 
 not mean u w ith unbelievers” (the usual explanation), as if av^vyovvreg had been 
 used ; but it is not so much dativus commodi (Hofmann : for the pleasure of 
 unbelievers), a thought which Paul would have doubtless expressed with 
 more precision, as the dativus ethicus (Kruger, § 48. G); so that the words 
 mean : do not draw for unbelievers a strange yoke. The yoke meant is that 
 drawn by unbelievers, one of a kind strange to Christians (hepoiov ), and the 
 latter are not to pmt themselves at the disposal of unbelievers, by sharing the 
 drawing it. The great danger of the relation against which Paul warns them, 
 lies in this dative expression, (l 5 ) According to Theophylact (comp. Chrys¬ 
 ostom), the sense is : py admeire ro dinaiov hrmluvopevoi nal rrpooKeiusvoi oig ov 
 depig, so that the figurative expression is taken from the unequal balance 
 (Pliocytides, 13 : aradpov py upoveiv erepo^vyov, aXh' iaov e'Xkeiv). But apart 
 from the circumstance that Paul would in that case have expressed himself 
 at least very strangely, the reminiscence from the 0. T., which the common 
 view assumes, must still be considered as the most natural for the apos- 
 
CHAP. VI., 15. 
 
 555 
 
 tie. 1 — rig yap peroxv k.t.1.] for how utterly incompatible is the Christian with 
 the heathen character ! Observe the impressiveness of the accumulated ques¬ 
 tions, and of the accumulated contrasts in these questions. The first four 
 questions are joined in two pairs ; the fifth, mounting to the highest desig¬ 
 nation of Christian holiness, stands alone, and to it are attached, as a forci¬ 
 ble conclusion of the discourse, the testimony and injunction of God which 
 confirm it. 2 — dinaioovvy k. avoyia] For the Christian is justified by faith (v. 
 21, vi. 7), and this condition excludes immoral conduct {avoyia, 1 John iii. 
 4), which is the element of heathen life (Rom. vi. 19). The two life-ele¬ 
 ments have nothing in common with each other, Rom. viii. 1 ff.; Gal. ii. 15 
 ff.—In the second question the Christian life-element, appears as dog, and the 
 heathen as ckotoq. Comp. Eph. v. 8, Ilf.; Col. i. 12 f. In the latter is 
 implied 7 / ayvota aai i) ayapria , and in (frog : 7 ) yvocig nai 6 /3iog 6 evdeog (in both, 
 the intellectual and the ethical element are to be thought of together ), 
 Gregory Naz. Or. 36.—Regarding the two datives, of which the second is 
 expressed in Latin by cum , see Matthiae, p. 883 ; and the tv pog, in the second 
 clause, is the expression of social relation, like our with. See Bernhardy, p. 
 265. Comp. Plato, Conn. p. 209 C : aotvoviav . . . rcpog alli/lovg, Stobaeus, 
 8. 28 : ei be rig cotl notvovia rcpog deovg yyiv, Philo. Leg. ad Cai. p. 1007 C : rig 
 ovv notvovia rcpog ’ Kwollova to yrjbev otneiov etvltet7]6evk6tl, Ecclus. xiii. 2. 
 
 Ver. 15. The five different shades given to the notion of fellowship vouch 
 for the command which the apostle had over the Greek language. — Regard¬ 
 ing the use of be before a new question with the same word of interrogation, 
 see Hartung, PartiMl. I. p. 169. — Beliap] Name of the devil (the Peshitto 
 has Satan), properly '"TIE 1 ?? ( wickedness , as concrete equivalent to Uovrjpog ); 
 hence the reading Belial (Elzevir, Lachmann) is most probably a correction. 
 The form fieliap, which also occurs frequently in the Test. XII. Pair, (see 
 Fabricius, Pseudepigr. V. T. I. pp.539, 587, 619, al), in Ignatius as interpo¬ 
 lated, in the Canon. Ap., and in the Fathers (see Wetstein, critical remarks), 
 is to be explained from the not unfrequent interchange of 1 and p in the 
 common speech of the Greek Jews. In the O. T. the word does not occur 
 as a name. See, generally, Gesenius, Thesaurus , I. p. 210.— cvy^ovr/atg, 
 harmony , accord , only here in the N. T., not in the LXX. The Greeks say 
 ovyfyovia and ovy<povov (with npog , Polyb. vi. 36. 5; Plat. Lach. p. 188 D); the 
 simple form (povTjmg in Pollux ii. 111. — On yepig, share , comp. Acts viii. 21. 
 The two have no partnership with one another, possess nothing in common 
 with one another. The believer has, in Christ, righteousness, peace, etc., 
 all of which the unbeliever has not, and one day will have ye pig tov nlr/pov 
 tgjv ay tov, Col. i. 12. In strict logic 7) rig ye pig . . . cltvlgtov did not belong 
 
 1 Hence our view (comp. Vulgate) is to 
 be preferred also to that of Theodoret: jurj 
 HtlAr)o-r](T&e tovs e-repios evvevovras (Boas /cai. to v 
 cjvyov /cAtvovra? tt)v twu atri<TT(ov aira.TY\v 
 ttj? l^/xerepas 7rpoTtp.a>vTe? 6(.6acr/caAtas. 
 
 2 Hofmann brings the second and third 
 questions, as well as the fourth and fifth, 
 into closer relation. Neither the particles y 
 and Se, nor the prepositions npos and p.era, 
 
 nor yet the contents of the questions, are 
 decisive. But it is in favour of our divi¬ 
 sion, which Lachmann has also, that only 
 to the fifth question is there specially 
 added the great and important scriptural 
 testimony, vv. 16-18, which is quite in keep¬ 
 ing with its isolated and distinctive posi¬ 
 tion. 
 
556 
 
 . Paul’s second epistle to the coeintiiians. 
 
 to this series of elements of proof, since it contains the proposition itself to 
 be proved, but it has come in amidst the lively, sweeping flow of the dis¬ 
 course. 
 
 Yer. 1G. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 20. What agreement (Polyb. ii. 58. 11, iv. 17. 8) 
 has the temple of God with idols?, how can it reconcile itself with them? 
 Comp, on ovyKarad .; also Ex. xxiii. 1 ; Luke xxiii. 51. (m 5 ) The two are 
 contraries, which stand negatively related to one another ; if the temple of 
 God should come into contact with idols (as was the case, e.g., under Ahaz), 
 it would be desecrated.— i/peig yap /c.r.A] With this Paul proves that he 
 was not without reason in using the words rig tie avyuardOearg vati Oeov ic.t.X. 
 of the contradiction between the Christian and the heathen character. The 
 emphasis is on r/ueig : for we Christians are (sensu mystico) the temple of the 
 living God — £ covrog ] in contrast with the dead idols in the heathen temples. 
 — Kadtjg elitev 6 deog] in accordance with the utterance of God: Lev. xxvi. 12, 
 freely after the LXX., the summary of the divine covenant of promise. — 
 ev avrolg ] among them;' see below, epTtepLTtaTr/aio, walk about in (Lucian, 
 adv. Ind. 6 ; Ach. Tat. i. 6 ; LXX.). The indwelling of God in the body 
 of Christians as in Ilis temple, and the intercourse of His gracious rule in it 
 epitepar.), take place through the medium of the Spirit. See on 1 Cor. iii. 1G ; 
 John xiv. 28. 
 
 Yer. 17. With the foregoing quotation Paul now combines another in 
 keeping with his aim (ver. 14), containing the application which God has 
 made of His previous promise. But this quotation is still freer than the 
 one before, after the LXX. Isa. Iii. 11, and the last words Kayo) eladegopai 
 vpag , are perhaps joined with it through a reminiscence of Ezek. xx. 84 (comp. 
 Ezek. xi. 17; Zech. x. 8). Osianderand most expositors find in Kayo) eladef 
 vp. a reproduction approximately as to sense of the words in Isa. Iii. 12 : 
 teal 6 emavvayov vpag nvpiog 6 deog ’1 <j par ]a ; but this is, at any rate, far-fetched, 
 and, considering Paul’s usual freedom in joining different passages of the 
 O. T., unnecessarily harsh. — avrtbv] applies to the heathen. — anadaprov pi/ 
 airreade] Just as e^eWere k.t.1. had referred ( aorist ) to the separation to be 
 accomplished from the fellowship of a heathen life, so this refers, in the 
 sense of the prophetic fulfilment, to the continuing ( present ) abstinence from 
 all heathen habits (not sinrply from offerings to idols), and Kayo) elude!;. vp. 
 to their reception into sonship, see ver. 18. It is correlative to e^eWare ; 
 God wishes to receive those who have gone forth into His paternal house , 
 i.e. into the fellowship of the true theocracy (ver. 18). 
 
 Yer. 18. Continuation of the promise begun wfith Kayo) elade!;. vp ., and 
 holding forth the holy compensation for the enjoined severance from an 
 unholy intercourse with the heathen. The passage is most probably a free 
 
 1 So according: to the reading rjju.ei? . . . 
 idfxev. See the critical remarks. Accord¬ 
 ing to the Recepta vy.e~L<; . . . eerre (so also 
 Tisch. [but not in his last edition] defended 
 by Riickert, Osiander, Hofmann) it would 
 apply to the Corinthian church, which in 
 the spiritual sense is the temple of God, as 
 1 Cor. iii. 16. Ewald has rightly upheld the 
 
 reading ^et? . . . evyev, but has wrongly 
 used it against the genuineness of the sec¬ 
 tion ( Jahrb. IX. p. 216). How often in a 
 connection, where Paul is speaking of him¬ 
 self in the first person plural, has he there¬ 
 upon expressed also in the same person 
 the consciousness of Christians generally , 
 as e.g. just at v. 21. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 557 
 
 and enlarged quotation from 2 Sam. vii. 14. It bears less resemblance to 
 Jer. xxxi. 9, or even to Isa. xliii. G. And Jer. xxxi. 33, xxxii. 38, are quite 
 out of the question, because there the sonship is not mentioned. Cajetanus 
 conjectured that it was from a writing now lost, just as Ewald finds, from 
 Kayo onwards, a passage now unknown to us ; according to Grotius, the 
 words are ex hymno aliquo celebri apud Hebraeos. The freedom of the N. T. 
 writers in using probative passages from the O. T. renders both hypotheses 
 unnecessary ; of the latter no instance can be shown in Paul, and in itself 
 it is arbitrary, ( n 5 ) — Kvpmg TtavroKparop] “ex hac appellatione perspicitur 
 magnitudo promissionum,” Bengel ; rather, on account of the specific con¬ 
 tents of iravroK. : the unquestionble certainty of the fulfilment (Rom. iv. 21 ; 
 2 Cor. ix. 8, al.), which no power can hinder. Used only here by Paul 
 (often in the Apocal.), who has, however, taken it from 2 Sam. vii. 8, LXX., 
 where Myei Kvp. navroKp. introduces the divine utterance. 
 
 Notes by Ameeican Editok. 
 
 (e 5 ) “ Receive the grace of God in vain.” Yer. 1. 
 
 Here Dr. Meyer gives the correct idea of “ the grace of God ” in the text by 
 quoting the words in Romans : “ We are not under law, but under grace,” i.e., 
 not under a legal system where salvation is a reward of merit to be earned by 
 good works, but under a gracious system where it is a gratuitous gift of God. 
 What then Paul here cautions the Corinthians against is not receiving the rec¬ 
 onciliation and then leading an unchristian life, for there is nothing of this in 
 the context, but it is their rejection of the great salvation. To receive the 
 grace of God in vain is to have the offer of the great blessing contained in the 
 gospel, and then by refusal or neglect to frustrate its end and aim. 
 
 (g 5 ) The quotation from Isaiah xlix. 8. Ver. 2. 
 
 These words of Dr. Meyer explain not only the ground of this quotation 
 from the Old Testament, but also the reason of many other citations in the 
 later Scriptures. The “servant of the Lord” in Isaiah means sometimes 
 Messiah the head, and sometimes Israel the body, and thus its various appli¬ 
 cations are satisfactorily understood. 
 
 (h 5 ) “ That the ministry be not blamed .” Yer. 3. 
 
 The moral power of a preacher depends almost entirely upon the conviction 
 which his hearers have of his sincerity and the purity of his motives. The 
 lack of this neither learning nor ability can make good (Hodge). 
 
 (i 5 ) “Fastings." Yer. 5. 
 
 Dr. Meyer’s view is confirmed by the fact that the fastings here mentioned 
 fall into the third class as arranged by Bengel : 1. General, afflictions, etc. ; 
 2. Special, stripes, etc. ; 3. Voluntary, labours, etc. 
 
558 
 
 Paul’s secoxd epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 (j 5 ) 11 Chastened and not killed.” Ver. 9. 
 
 It is more in consonance with the general strain of the passage to take 
 chastened as = afflicted, since there is no reference to any disciplinary design of 
 God in sending the sufferings Paul was called to endure. And this is one of the 
 Scriptures which show that the distresses of believers are not always chastise¬ 
 ments, but often sent as opportunities for them to glorify God by their 
 patient endurance and steadfast faith. 
 
 (k 5 ) “ Not straitened in us,” etc. Yer. 12. 
 
 The simple meaning, without the figure, is, “The want of love is on your 
 side, not on mine.” Accordingly, the following verse means, “Open your 
 hearts to the same love that I show to you, which love is my reward.” 
 
 (l 5 ) “Not unequally yoked with unbelievers.” Yer. 14. 
 
 Many suppose that this precept forbids confessors of Christ to marry those 
 who do not confess Him in the use of His sacraments. But it does not mean 
 this. The “unbelievers” it refers to were heathen, but there is no reason to 
 confound with ignorant idolaters persons who have been born in the pale of 
 the church, baptized and religiously educated. It is the union of incongruous, 
 uncongenial elements that is forbidden. 
 
 (m 5 ) “ The temple of God.” Yer. 16. 
 
 It seems an unhappy nicety in the Be vised Version that it puts the word 
 temple in both instances of its occurrence in this verse with an indefinite article. 
 One can hardly doubt that the Apostle had in view the one temple ; and the 
 omission of the article before a noun followed by a genitive denoting some¬ 
 thing belonging to the individual, is common. See Bom. i. 2 ; 1 Cor. ii. 16, 
 and also the original of the phrase “ living God ” in this verse. 
 
 (n 5 ) Paul's method of quoting the 0. T. Ver. 18. 
 
 Hodge justly remarks that the N. T. writers often quote according to the 
 sense and not according to the letter ; they often blend different passages so as 
 to give the sense, not of one but of several combined ; and sometimes they ex¬ 
 press not the meaning of any passages in particular, but the general sense of 
 Scripture, or what it as a whole certainly teaches. This latter is the case here. 
 
CHAP. VII. 
 
 559 
 
 CHAPTEK VII. 
 
 Ver. 3. For the order tc pdg Karanp. ov Tieyu (Lachm.) even the testimony of 
 B C X is not sufficient as against all the vss. and most of the Fathers. —Ver. 
 8. Instead of the second el nal, B has el tie nai, and the yap after Borneo is 
 omitted by B D* Clar. Germ, (put in brackets by Lachm.); the Vulgate has 
 read fiXeTrov (without yap), and Biickert wishes to restore the text accordingly : 
 el de aal perepeXoprjv fiXmov otl . . . vpdg, vvv But the Recepta has far 
 
 preponderant attestation, and the variations are easily explained from it. It 
 was rightly seen that with el nai perep. there starts a new portion of the dis¬ 
 course (whence in B de was inserted as an adversative conjunction), and either 
 the apodosis was already begun at (iXenu, whence followed the omission of yap, 
 or it was rightly perceived that the apodosis only began with vvv xaipu, and 
 so /3'Ae7Tcjp was substituted as a gloss for fiXeiro yap. •— Ver. 10. Instead of the 
 hrst Karepya^erat, Lachm. Buck. Tisch. have only epyu^erac, following B C D E 
 37, Justin. Clem. Or. (thrice), Chrys. Dam. Bightly ; the compound has crept 
 in on account of the one following (comp, also ver. 11) ; it is (in opposition to 
 Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 48) too rash to conclude from ver. 11 that Paul 
 wrote narepy., for there, after the previous narepy., the compound might pre¬ 
 sent itself, naturally and unsought, to the apostle, even if he had used the 
 simple form in the first half of ver 10. —Ver. 11. vpdg] is to be deleted as a 
 supplementary insertion, with Lachm. and Buck., following BCFG N* 17, 
 Boern. Ambrosiast. Aug. — ev tg) rrpaypan'] The ev is wanting in witnesses of 
 importance ; bracketed by Lachm. and Buck.; deleted by Tisch. An explana¬ 
 tory addition to the dative. — Ver. 12. ovde ] B K** 37, 73 have aXX ovde , an 
 error of the copyist .—rrjv ottovSt/v ypcov rrjp inrep vpuv~\ B C D** EKL and 
 many min., also Syr. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Germ. Damasc. Oec. have ti/v gtc. v pu>v l 
 r. virep 7 ]pop. Becommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. Lachm. and Tisch. 
 Bejected on account of the sense by Buck, and Hofm. But it is precisely the 
 apparent impropriety in the sense of this reading which has given rise to the 
 Recepta, just as tt pog vpdg seemed also unsuitable, and is therefore wanting in Syr. 
 Erp. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. Ambrosiast. Pel. Lachmann’s reading appears, therefore, 
 to be the correct one ; it is defended also by Beiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 367. — 
 Ver. 13. 7r apanenAripeQa ml rij napa/i^r/Gei vpcov' nepiGoorepcog de pdXXov] Lachm. 
 Tisch. and Buck, read : tt apaneuXrjptOa' ml de r?j -KupaXkriGei fypuv irepiGG. pdjJXov, 
 according to considerably preponderating attestation. Bightly ; the mi, 
 twice taken in the same sense, caused ml rrj leapanX. ppdv to be attached to 
 napaKei<Xr}peQa, and hence the position of de to be changed ; and now the sense 
 further demanded the change of rjpcjv into vpu>v. The Recepta is defended by 
 Beiche. — Ver. 14. fj navxv ai £ fipvv V z^l T.] vpd>v for 7/puv (Lachm.) is supported 
 only by B F, with some vss. and Theoph. A mechanical repetition of vpuv 
 
 1 So also K, which, however, has vptov again instead of obviously through a 
 
 copyist’s error, which is also found in D* P. 
 
560 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 from what precedes. —Ver. 16. The ovv (Elz.) after is deleted, as a con¬ 
 
 nective addition, by Griesb. and the later editors on decisive evidence. 
 
 Yer. 1 closes the previous section. — Since ice accordingly (according to 
 vi. 16-18) have these promises (namely, that God will dwell among us, receive 
 us, be our Father, etc.), we wish not to make them null in our case by an 
 immoral life.— ravra c] placed at the head, bears the emphasis of im¬ 
 portance of the promises. — mdapiauyev eavrovr] denotes the morally purifying 
 activity, which the Christian has to exert on himself, not simply the beeping 
 himself pure (Olshausen). He who has become a Christian has by his faith 
 doubtless attained forgiveness of his previous sins (Rom. iii. 23-25), is rec¬ 
 onciled with God and sanctified (comp. v. 19 ff., and see on Acts xv. 9) ; 
 but Paul refers here to the moral stains incurred in the Christian condition, 
 which the state of grace of the regenerate (1 Pet. i. 22 f.) as much obliges 
 him to do away with again in reference to himself (Rom. vi. 1 ff., viii. 12 
 ff.), as by the power of God (Phil. ii. 12, 13) it makes him capable of doing 
 so (Rom. vi. 14, viii. 9). And no one forms an exception in this respect ; 
 hence Paul includes himself, with true moral feeling of this need placing 
 himself on an equality with his readers. —aapmg ml 7 wevyaTog] The Chris¬ 
 tian is in the flesh, i.e. in the material-psychical part of his nature, stained 
 by fornication, intemperance, and such transgressions and vices as directly 
 pollute the body (which ought to be holy, 1 Cor. vi. 13 ff., vii. 34) ; and 
 his spirit, i.e. the substratum of his rational and moral consciousness, the 
 seat of the operation of the Divine Spirit in him and therewith the bearer 
 of his higher and eternal life (1 Cor. ii. 11, v. 3 ; Rom. viii. 16), is stained 
 by immoral thoughts, desires, etc., which are suggested to him by means 
 of the power of sin in the flesh, and through which the spirit along with 
 the vovg is sinfully affected, becomes weak and bound, and enslaved to sin 
 (comp, on Rom. xii. 2 ; Eph. iv. 23). The two do not mfiude, but in elude 
 each other. Observe, further, that Paul might have used cuyarog instead 
 of oapnog ; but he puts capmg, because the flesh, in which the principle of 
 sin has its seat and hence the fomes peccati lies, serves as the element to 
 which every bodily defilement ethically attaches itself. This is based on 
 the natural relation of the capi to the power of sin, for which reason it is 
 never demanded that the cap% shall be or become holy, but that the body 
 (1 Cor. vii. 34) shall be holy through the crucifixion of the flesh, through 
 putting off the old man, etc. (Col. ii. 11). By these means the Christian 
 no longer lives ev capai (Rom. viii. 8 f.) and mra capm , and is purified from 
 everything wherewith the flesh is soiled-; comp. 1 Thess. v. 23 ; Rom. viii. 
 13, xii. 1. The surprising character of the expression, to which Holsten 
 especially takes objection (see z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 387), is dis¬ 
 posed of by the very consideration that Paul is speaking of the regenerate ; 
 in their case the lusts of the cap% in fact remain, and the cap% is defiled, if 
 their lusts are actually gratified. Calovius, we may add, rightly observes : 
 “ ex illatione etiam apostolica a promissionibus gratiae ad studium novae 
 obedientiae manifestum est, doctrinam apostolicam de gratuita nostri justi- 
 ficatione et in filios adoptione non labefactare pietatis ct sanctitatis studium, 
 
CHAP. VII., 2 . 
 
 561 
 
 sed ad illud excitare atque ad obedientiam Deo praestandam calcar addere.” 
 — On fj.o7ivc/j.6g, comp. Jer. xxiii. 15 ; 3 Esdr. viii. 83 ; 2 Macc. v. 27 ; Plut. 
 Mot. p. 779 C. —emreTiowTeg dyiucvvjjv] This is the positive activity of the 
 naOap'feiv eavrovg : while ice bring holiness to perfection (viii. 6) in the fear of 
 God. To establish complete holiness in himself is the continual moral en¬ 
 deavour 1 and work of the Christian purifying himself. Comp. Rom. vi. 
 22 .-—kv <p6l3o) Oeov] is the ethical, holy sphere (Epli. v. 21) in which the 
 etuteAeIv ayiuc. must move and proceed, (o 5 ) Comp. Rom. xi. 19-22, and 
 already Gen. xvii. 1. Thus the apostle closes the whole section with the 
 same ethical fundamental idea, with which he had begun it at ch. v. 11, 
 where, however, it was specifically limited to the executor of the divine 
 judgment. 
 
 Vv. 2-16. Regarding the impression made by the former Epistle and its 
 result. A conciliatory outpouring of love and confidence serves as intro¬ 
 duction, vv. 2-4. Then an account how Paul received through Titus the 
 comforting and cheering news of the impression made by his Epistle, vv. 
 5-7. True, he had saddened the readers by his Epistle, but he regrets it 
 no longer, but rejoices now on account of the nature and effect of this sad¬ 
 dening, vv. 8-12. Therefore he is calmed, and his joy is still more height¬ 
 ened by the joy of Titus, who has returned so much cheered that Paul saw 
 all his boasts to Titus regarding them justified. He is glad to be of good 
 courage in everything through them, vv. 13-16. 
 
 Ver. 2. Having finished his exhortation, vi. 14-vii. 1, he now repeats the 
 same request with which in vi. 13 he had introduced that exhortation 
 ( Tc7,aTvvdr/T£ vfielg), using the corresjDonding expression xupycaTe y/uag : take us, 
 i.e. receive us, give us room in your heart (comp. Mark ii. 2 ; John ii. 6, xxi. 
 25 ; 4 Macc. vii. 6 ; Herod, iv. 61 ; Thuc. ii. 17. 3 ; Eurip. Hipp. 941), 
 and then adds at once (without the medium of a yap) in lively emotion the 
 reason why they had no cause whatever to refuse him this request (orevojw- 
 pelcOai h rolg cwTidyxvoig, comp. vi. 12). Chrysostom rightly as to substance 
 explains the figurative x u PV aaT£ by (ju^rjcaTe ; and Theophylact : degacde r/yag 
 niartug, /cat fir/ cT£voxojp6)p.s0a ev vp.lv. Comp. Theodoret. So also most of 
 the later commentators, though the meaning was often limited in an arbi¬ 
 trary way (comp. Rosenmiiller, Stolz, Flatt, and Pelagius), e.g. : give ear to 
 us, and the like. Others take it : understand us rightly (Bengel, Storr, 
 Bretschneider, Riickert, de Wette). Unobjectionable from a linguistic 
 point of view (see Wetstein, ad Matt. xix. 11) ; but in the exhortation of 
 ver. 1 there was nothing to be misunderstood, just as little as for the readers 
 in the disclosure that follows (to which de Wette refers it) ; and if Paul, 
 as Riickert thinks, had had it in his mind that the directions of his first 
 Epistle had been judged unfavourably, he could not have expected any 
 reader to gather this from the simple x (j) py° aT£ vpdg, especially as in what 
 
 1 Although with this the moral perfection striving towards the goal at which “Jhns 
 itself, which the ideal injunction of it re- coronat opus." Comp. Bengel. The success 
 
 quires, is never fully reached. It is “ non is of God (Phil. i. 6), the fear of whom 
 
 viae , sed metae et patriae" (Calovius); but guides the Christian, 
 the Christian labours constantly at it, 
 
5G2 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corinthiaks. 
 
 follows the idea of the effects of the first Epistle is quite kept at a distance 
 by ovdkva ETrhEovEKri/aayev . 1 — ovdeva rfuir/aayev h.t.a. ] This is no doubt aimed 
 at hostile calumniations of the apostle and his companions. Some one must 
 have said : They act wrongly towards the 'people! they ruin them , they enrich 
 themselves from them! It is impossible to prove that kpOdpaytv applies ex¬ 
 actly to the corruptela quae fit pier falsam doctrinam (Calvin and most, fol¬ 
 lowing the Fathers ; just as Hofmann also refers it to the inward injuring 
 of the persons themselves, 1 Cor. iii. 17) ; the way in which the word is as¬ 
 sociated with ijdiKTjo. and h tIeovekt. is rather in favour of a reference to the 
 outward position. In how many ways not known to us more precisely may 
 the apostle and his fellow-labourers have been accused of such a ruining of 
 others ! How easily might such slanders be based on the strictness of his 
 moral requirements, his sternness in punishing, his zeal for collections, his 
 lodging with members of the church, the readiness to make sacrifices which 
 he demanded, and the like ! Probably his prosecution and administration 
 of the collections would be especially blackened by this reproach of ttXeo- 
 vetcrdv. Comp. xii. 17, 18. Riickert refers all three words to the contents 
 of the former Epistle : “ with what 1 wrote you , I have done no one wrong fi 
 etc. ; so that rjdiK. would refer to the severe punishment of the incestuous 
 person, ecpOdp. to his delivery over to Satan, and ekIeovekt. to the control 
 which Paul by this discipline seemed desirous to exercise over the trans¬ 
 gressor and over the church. But if his readers were to know of this refer¬ 
 ence to his former Epistle , he must have expressed it (the reader could not 
 guess it). Besides, the word etxIeovekt. is against this view, for in theN. T. 
 it denotes overreaching for one’s own benefit as an act of covetousness properly 
 so called , provided the context (as in ii. 11, by in to tov Varava) does not furnish 
 a more general reference. And, moreover, those acts of discipline, to 
 w T hich Paul is supposed to refer, were acts so completely personal on the 
 part of the apostle, that the plural expression in our passage would be quite 
 unsuitable. — ovdkva ] in the consciousness of innocence is with great empha¬ 
 sis prefixed three times ; but we cannot, w T ith Riickert, infer from this that 
 the incestuous person is concealed under it. Comp, ttcivteq and tx avra, 1 
 Cor. xii. 29, xiii. 7 ; Buttm. neut. Gram. p. 341 [E. T. 398]. 
 
 Yer. 3. Not for the sake of condemning do I say it , namely, what was said in 
 ver. 2. I do not wish thereby to express any condemnatory judgment, as if, 
 although we have done wrong to no one, etc., you failed in that love to which 
 XiopycaTE iyiag lays claim. K aranpimv was taken of the reproach of covetous¬ 
 ness (so Theocloret, and comp. Emmerling and Neander), but this is an ar¬ 
 bitrary importation into the word. According to Riickert, it pog naranpioiv is 
 not to be supplemented by v/uuv, but Paul wishes here to remove the unpleas¬ 
 ant impression of ver. 2, in which he confirms the severity of his former 
 Epistle, so that there is to be regarded as object of KaraKpiaig primarily the 
 incestuous person, and secondarily the whole church, in so far as it has 
 acted towards this man with unchristian leniency. This explanation falls to 
 
 1 This also in opposition to de Wette’s Epistle. For such imputation I have given 
 way of completing the thought: “ Impute you no occasion in my apostolic conduct, 
 no evil designs to me in writing the first I have wronged no one,” etc. 
 
CHAP. YII., 4. 
 
 5G3 
 
 the ground with Riickert’s view of ver. 2 ; the egte that follows puts it be¬ 
 yond doubt that vyuv is really to be supplied with rvpbg naranp. for its expla¬ 
 nation. According to de Wette, ov tv. aardup. X. applies in form, no doubt, to 
 ver. 2, but in substance more to the censure, of which the expostulatory tone 
 of ver. 2 had created an expectation ; in other words, it applies to something 
 not really said , which is arbitrary, since what was said was fitted sufficiently 
 to appear as mTaitpioeg. — tv poeipr/m yap] for I have said before (vi. 11 f.), antea 
 dixi , as 3 Macc. vi. 35, 2 Macc. xiv. 8, and often in classical writers. Comp. 
 Eph. iii. 3. This contains the proof that he ov tv pbg nardnpiGiv Xlyei ; for, if 
 he spoke now unto condemnation, he would contradict his former words. — 
 ore ev ralg mpd. k.t.a.] Comp. Phil. i. 7. In vi. 11 f. he has expressed not 
 these words , but their sense. By his adding the definition of degree, elg to 
 ovvanoO. k.t.X., Paul becomes his own interpreter. —elg T o GvvaTvoOaveiv ml 
 avCyv] is usually taken (see still Ruckert, de Wette, Ewald, also Osiander, 
 w r ho, however, mixes up much that is heterogeneous) as : so that I would die 
 and live icith you, and this as “ vehementissimum amoris indicium, nolle nee 
 in vita nec in morte ab eo quern ames separari,” Estius, on which Grotius 
 finely remarks : “ egregius x a P atiT VP boni pastoris, Joh. x. 12.” Compari¬ 
 son is made with the Horatian tecum vivere amem, tecum ohearn lubens ( Od . iii. 
 9. 24), and similar passages in Wetstein. But against this may be urged 
 not only the position of the two words, of which the Gwanodavelv must logi¬ 
 cally have been put last, but also the perfectly plain construction, according 
 to which the subject of egte must also be the subject of ewaw. and Gvtfiv : you, 
 are in our hearts in order to die and to live with (us), 1 i.e. in order not to depart 
 from our hearts (from our love) in death, if it is appointed to us to die, and 
 in life, if it is appointed to us to remain in life. For he, whom we love, 
 dies and lives with us, when regarded, namely, from the idea of our heartfelt 
 love to him, and from our sympathetic point of view feeling this conscious¬ 
 ness of love which has him always present to our heart—a consciousness ac¬ 
 cording to which we, dying and living, know him in our hearts as sharing 
 death and life with us. And how natural that Paul, beset with continual 
 deadly perils (vi. 9), should have put the avvaTvodaveiv first ! in which case cv(?iv 
 is to be referred to eternal life just as little as (tiyev in vi. 9 (Ambrosiaster, 
 comp. Osiander). Hence the thought can as little surprise us, and as little 
 appear “tolerably meaningless” (de Wette), as the conception of alter ego. 
 Hofmann, too, with his objection (“ since they, nevertheless, in fact do not 
 die with him,” etc.) mistakes the psychological delicacy and thoughtfulness 
 of the expression ; and wishes to interpret it—which no reader could have 
 hit on (especially as wpoeip. does not point back further than to vi. 11) — from 
 vi. 9 and iv. 11 to the effect that the life of the apostle is a continual dying, 
 in which he yet remains always in life, and that consequently it is his life so 
 constituted which the readers share, when they are in his heart. 
 
 Yer. 4. A further, and that a psychological, proof for the ov vvp. mTanp. 
 Asyco. — Tvappr/Gia is the internal frame of mind, the good joyous confidence (see 
 
 1 There is no justification for departing in any passage from the telic reference of ei? 
 with the infinitive. Comp, on viii. 6. 
 
564 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 on Eph. iii. 12), without which no Kavxr/cnc, no self-boasting for the sake of 
 the readers, would outwardly take place (vTrip, as in v. 12, viii. 24). To 
 take it of the libertas loquendi (Pelagius, Beza, Luther, Yatablus, Cornelius 
 a, Lapide, and many others, including Schrader and Ewald) is inappropriate, 
 because by the rrappyaia in this sense there would be no negation of t rpog 
 Ka.TQ.Kp. leys iv. And the taking the mvxva-Q of inward boasting before God 
 (Osiander), ought to have been precluded by ver. 14, comp. ix. 3. — ireizlyp. 
 k.t.1. ] The two clauses form a climax, so that ttettI. is correlative with 
 v-epTTep. and TrapaKl. with x a PP- In the use of the article with TrapaKl. and 
 Xapa Paul already looks to the special comfort and joy, of which he intends 
 to speak further (ver. 7). The dative of the instrument (as at 2 Macc. vi. 5, 
 vii. 21 ; 3 Macc. iv. 10) is used with it 1pp. in the N. T. also at Rom. i. 29, 
 and in classic Greek, though seldom. See Elmsley, ad Soph. Oed. Col. 
 16 ; Blomfield, Gloss. Aesch. Agam. 163 ; Bernhardy, p. 168. Comp, also 
 Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 209. — yrrepnEpiaaevoyai] lam exceeding richly pro¬ 
 vided with , Mosch. vi. 13 ; comp, the passive in Matt. xiii. 12, xxv. 29. The 
 present sets forth the thing as still continuously taking place. — ettI Traay ry 
 61'npei i/p.] does not belong to ry x a Ph-> but to both the entire statements Treitlr/p. 
 ry TrapaKl. and virepTrepcaa. ry x a PP 5 and ettl is not, as Grotius thought, post , 
 as in Herod, i. 45 : err’ sKsivy ry avptyopy (see, generally, Wurm, ad Dinarch. 
 p. 39 f.), since (comp. i. 3-11) the tribulation still continues, but in , at. See 
 Winer, p. 367 [E. T. 490]. 
 
 Yer. 5. In all our tribulation, I say, for even after we had come to Mace¬ 
 donia we had no rest. — In this /cat, even, Paul refers back to what was 
 stated in ii. 12, 13 ; but it does not follow that with Flatt we should regard 
 what lies between as a digression. — £cxv k£V \ as in ii- 13. Still BFGK 
 (not x ), Lachmann, have the reading £<tx £V i which appears to be original 
 and altered into accordance with ii. 13. —y cap!; yyuv] our flesh, denotes 
 here, according to the connection, the purely human essence as determined 
 by its corporeo-psychical nature, in its moral impotence and sensuous ex¬ 
 citability, apart from the divine Trvevya, without whose influence even the 
 moral nature of man (the human Trvevya with the vovg) lacks the capacity 
 for determining and governing the ethical life, (p 5 ) Comp, on Rom. iv. 1 ; 
 John iii. 6. The caps with its life-principle the ipvxh is by itself morally 
 incapable even in the regenerate man, and stands too much in antagonism 
 to the divine tt vevya (see on Gal. v. 17), not to have unrest, despondency, 
 etc., occurring even in him when he confronts the impressions of struggle 
 and suffering. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 41. No doubt the expression in this 
 passage seems not to agree with the rej iwevyari yov in ii. 12 ; but there, 
 where, besides, Paul is speaking simply of himself, he speaks only of inward 
 unrest, of anxious thoughts in the moral consciousness ; whereas here 
 (where he includes also Timothy) he speaks of outward (e^udev yaxai) and 
 inward (eauOev < p6/3oi ) assaults, so that that which lies, as it were, in the 
 middle and is affected on both sides is the oap%. 1 Riickert brings in here 
 
 1 Ernesti, TJrspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 56, has that Paul would have said -q pv xh qr-uv. 
 
 wrongly objected to this interpretation He might have done so, but there was no 
 
CHAP. YII., 6 , 7. 
 
 565 
 
 also liis groundless hypothesis regarding an illness of the apostle. — alTC h 
 Trawl 0?up6fievot] Paul continues as if he had written previously : ova ypeOa 
 aveoLv exovreg, or ovk ev avion yyeOa, or oi<x i/ovxot yyeda, or the like. Quite 
 similar departures from the construction are found also in the classics. See 
 Matthiae, p. 1293 ; Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 49. Comp. i. 7, e’Adreg, and 
 the remark on it. It arises from vividness of excitement as the thought 
 proceeds. Comp. Iviihner, II. p. 617. Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 256 
 [E. T. 298]. — e^uOev ydxat, eoudev Qdfioi ] The omission of f/oav gives greater 
 prominence to the short, concise representation. Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Pelagius, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, and others, also Schrader, 
 explain eguOev and eouBev as extra and intra ecclesiam; and of this various 
 interpretations are given ; Chrysostom holding that the former applies to 
 unbelievers, the latter to the weak brethren ; Theodoret : that the former 
 applies to the false teachers, the latter to the weak brethren ; and Grotius: 
 that the former applies to the Jews and heathen, the latter to the false 
 teachers. But after ?) cap £ i)puv (see above), and on account of <j>6(5ou it. is 
 more in keeping with the context to refer it to the subject: from icithout 
 struggles (with opponents, who may have been Christian or non-Christian), 
 from within (from our own minds) fears. The latter are not defined more 
 precisely; but it is in keeping with the contrast of xapyvai afterwards in ver. 7 
 to think of fears regarding the circumstances of the Corinthians , and in par¬ 
 ticular regarding the effect of his former Epistle on them (comp, also ii. 12). 
 Ilofmann holds, without any basis in the text, that Paul was apprehensive lest 
 the conflicts to be undergone by him (probably with the Jews) might de¬ 
 generate into persecutions. 
 
 Vv. 6, 7. Toi'c raTTEivovg] the lowly , i.e. the bowed down. This 6 irapanaluv 
 rovg raireivovg is a general designation of God, significant in its practical 
 bearing (comp. i. 3), so that the suffering fyielg (in tt apEndlecEv yyag) belong 
 to the category of the raTrcivoi. — 6 Qeog] is brought in later by way of attrac¬ 
 tion, because 6 TrapaicaHuv . . . TrapEKd?i£OEv yyag were the chief conceptions. 
 Comp. Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 1. — ev ry irapovoig ] through the arrived. 
 — Titov] See Introd. § 1. — ov pdvov tie k.t.Tl.] A delicate form of transition. 
 Hot merely through his arrival , not only through the reunion with him did 
 God comfort us, but also through the comfort , wherewith he was comforted in 
 regard to you (1 Thess. iii. 7) while he announced to us , etc. When Titus in¬ 
 formed us of your desire, etc., this information had so soothing an effect on 
 himself that we too were soothed. Comp. Ewald. The usual view, that 
 Paul meant to say : through the comfort which he brought to me, for he related 
 tome , etc., and thus wrote with logical inaccuracy, is as arbitrary as Hof¬ 
 mann’s way of escaping the difficulty—for which he adduces erroneously 
 T Thess. iii. 10—that it must have run properly (?) in the form of tt apaulrfelg 
 avyyyEikEv. Certainly Titus had himself been comforted by what he saw in 
 Corinth ; but psychologically it was most natural that this “ being com¬ 
 forted ” on the part of Titus should be repeated and renewed by his corn- 
 
 need for it; the adp£ rather corresponds with the eguOev most naturally as that which is 
 first affected from without. 
 
5G6 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 municating to Paul and Timothy his cheering observations and experiences, 
 and so they too were comforted with the comfort which was afforded to 
 Titus himself by the report which he was able to give. This interpreta¬ 
 tion—in which there is thus not to be assumed any blending of the comfort 
 which Titus had felt in perceiving the improved state of matters at Corinth, 
 and then in communicating it (Osiander)— is neither unnatural (Hofmann) 
 nor turning on punctilious reflection (cle Wette), but founded necessarily on 
 the words, which Paul has not written otherwise, just because he has not 
 conceived them otherwise. — eirnrodnatr] longing , namely, to see me again 
 among you. — odvppor] lamentation, for having saddened me so by the 
 disorders tolerated in your church, especially in reference to the incest¬ 
 uous person. Comp. vv. 11, 12.— rov vgur ijylor virsp epov J your eager 
 interest for me, to soothe me, to obey me, etc. There was no need to 
 repeat the article here after tjf/lor, since we may say tjylovv or tjrjlor ex £LV 
 vixep rcvog (Col. iv. 13), in which case vrrep epov is blended so as to form 
 one idea with tjylov. Comp, on Gal. iii. 26 and Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 245.— 
 o)gte pe pallor xapijvcu] so that I teas all the more glad. The emphasis is on 
 pallor (magis in Vulgate) ; on its meaning, all the more, comp. Nagelsbach 
 on the Iliad, p. 227, ed. 3. The apostle’s joy was made all the greater by 
 the information longed for and received, since from it he learned how, in 
 consequence of his letter, the Corinthians had on their part now met him 
 with so much longing, pain, and zeal. Observe in this the emphatic pre¬ 
 fixing, thrice repeated, of the vpur, which gives the key to this pallor x a PV~ 
 vai. The former Epistle had had its effect. He had previously had for them 
 longing, pain, zeal ; now, on their part, such longing, etc., had set in for 
 him. Thus the position of things had happily changed on the part of the 
 church, which before was so indifferent, and in part even worse, in its mood 
 towards Paul. Billroth, following Bengel, takes it : so that I rather rejoiced, 
 i.e. so that my former pain was not merely taken away, but was changed 
 into joy. Comp, also Hofmann. 1 In this case pallor would be potius. But 
 the very prefixing of the pallor, and still more the similarity of ver. 13, are 
 against this. — Theophylact, we may add, has rightly remarked that Paul 
 could with truth write as he does in this passage, inasmuch as he wisely 
 leaves to the readers the distingue personas. 
 
 Ver. 8 f. Information regarding this pallor xopprai, explaining the ground 
 of it. With el Kal perepeloppr there begins a new protasis, the apoclosis of 
 which is vvr x a ip u k.t.1., so that the j31e ttu yap k.t.1., which stands between, 
 assigns parenthetically the ground of the protasis. For if I have even sad¬ 
 dened you in my Epistle , I do not regret it; if I did regret it (which I have 
 no wish to deny) formerly (and as I now perceive, not without ground, for 
 I learn from the accounts of Titus that that Epistle, if even for a short time, 
 has saddened you), now I am glad, etc. Comp. Luther ; Rinck, Lucubr. crit. 
 
 1 Who finds the meaning to be: “that The transition to the first person singular 
 
 with the apostle for his own person the com- is caused simply by the fact, that Paul now 
 
 fort, which he shared with Timothy , rose has in view the rebuke and injunction of 
 
 into joy." In that case c/xe at least must the former Epistle, chap. v. 
 have been used instead of the enclitic pe. 
 
CHAP, VII., 8. 
 
 567 
 
 p. 1G2, and the punctuation of Lachraann and Tischendorf ; also Ivling. 
 Only in this way of dividing and interpreting this passage does the explan¬ 
 atory statement advance in a simple logical way ( 1 , I do not regret ; 2, if 
 I did previously regret, now I am glad), and the imperfect yereyel. stand in 
 right correlation with the present vvv x a 'P u , so that yereyeldygv applies to 
 the time before the present joyful mood icas reached. The common punctua¬ 
 tion, adopted also by Osiander and Hofmann, which connects el nai yereyel. 
 with the previous words, and begins a new sentence with vvv x a ' l P u i breaks 
 asunder the logical connection and the correlation of the parts, and leaves 
 (31hzu yap k.t.1. (which must be the reason assigned for ov yerayelo/uai , as 
 Hofmann also correctly holds, and not for elvvrqaa vyag, as Olshausen, de 
 Wette, and others would make it) without any proper reference. Bengel, 
 indeed, wishes to take el nai before 7 rp. up. elliptically: “ Contristavit vos, 
 inquit, epistola tantummodo ad tempus tel potius ne ad tempus quidem. ’ 
 But it is not the bare el nai which is thus used elliptically, but el nai apa, or 
 more often ehzep apa , even el apa (see Vigerus, ed. Herm. p. 514 ; comp. 
 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 440 ; Klotz, ad Detar. p. 521) ; further, npoQ upav 
 must have logically stood before el nai ; lastly, the thought itself would be 
 in the highest degree unsuitable, since Paul could not cast doubt on the 
 genuine sadness of the readers (comp, odvpyov, ver. 7, and see ver. 9 ff.). 
 The meaning would not be, as Bengel thinks, ifovqapostolici pdenissimum, but 
 in contradiction to the context. Billroth would (and Chrysostom in a 
 similar way) bring out a logical grounding of ov pera/ueloygi by taking (D.hru 
 as meaning : I take into consideration; 1 “ I take into consideration that it 
 has saddened you, though only for a short time, as I had intended ; by al¬ 
 lowing yourselves to be saddened, you have khown that you are susceptible 
 to amendment” (ii. 2). But in this way everything, in which the proba¬ 
 tive force is supposed to lie, is imported. This is the case also with Hofmann, 
 who makes (comp. Bengel above) el mi form by itself alone a parenthetic 
 elliptic sentence, but in a concessive sense, so that the import of the whole 
 is held to be : u Although the Epistle has saddened them, it is a temporary, 
 not a permanent, sadness with which it has tilled them. This the apostle 
 sees, and he therefore does not regret that he has saddened them by it.” 
 Paul does not write in this enigmatical fashion ; he would have said intel¬ 
 ligibly : h hTier, eneivp, el nai elvnrjaev vyag, npog upav elvngaev, or, at any rate, 
 have added to el nai the appropriate verb (comp. ver. 12). Such an elliptic 
 el Kai is as unexampled as that which is assumed by Bengel, and both serve 
 only to misconstrue and distort the meaning of the words. Ittickert comes 
 nearest to our view ; he proposes to read /31b ruv (as also Lachmann, Praef. 
 p. xii., would), and to make the meaning : “ That I hate thus saddened you 
 I do not regret, hut although I regretted it {el de nai yerepeloypv) when I saw 
 that that Epistle had caused you . . . sadness , still I am glad now,” etc. But 
 apart from the very weak attestation for the reading pienuv, and apart also 
 from the fact that el de Kai would be although . however, not hut although, (3/dizuv 
 
 1 Camerarius already took it as hocintueor nosco (Kom. vii. 23). Comp. Jacobs, ad 
 et considero. It is simply animadverto , cog- Anthol. II. 3, p. 203. 
 
568 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 . . . h’kvnrjGEv vfiag would only contain a very superfluous and cumbrous 
 repetition of the thought already expressed in the acknowledgment el nal 
 eAvTTT/Ga vyag, since pYenav would not apply to the insight gained from the 
 news brought by Titus. Ewald has the peculiar view, which is simply an 
 uncalled for and arbitrary invention, that Paul intended to write : for I see 
 that that Epistle, though it saddened you for a short time, has yet brought 
 you to a right repentance; but feeling this to be unsuitable, he suddenly 
 changed the train of thought and went on : I am noic glad , etc. Neander 
 has a view quite similar.—On npog upav, comp. Philem. 15 ; Gal. ii. 5. 
 The clause u although for a short time ” is here a delicately thoughtful addi¬ 
 tion of sympathetic love, which has in view the fact that the sadness caused 
 by it will only last up to the receipt of the present Epistle , which is intended 
 to assure the readers of the apostle’s pardon and joy (comp. ii. 4 ff.). 
 
 Remake.— Some make an alteration in the meaning of el kui yereyehoygv : 
 etiamsi poenituissel (Erasmus, Castalio, Yatablus, and others, including Flatt) ; 
 or hold that poenitere is here equivalent to dolorem capere (Calvin, comp. 
 Grotius) ; or suggest explanations such as: “Non autem dolere potuit de 
 eo quod scripserit cum severitate propter schismata . . . ; hoc enim omne 
 factum instinctu divino per BeoTrvevoriav ; sed quod contristati fuerint epistola 
 sua et illi, quos ilia increpatio adeo non tetigit,” Calovius (comp. Grotius) ; 
 or the more ingenious device of Beza : “ut significet apostolus, se ex epistola 
 ilia acerbius scripta nonnullum dolorem cepisse, non quasi quod fecerat 
 optaret esse infectum, sed quod dementis patris exemplo se ad lianc sever- 
 itatem coactum esse secum gemens, eventum rei expectaret.” But these are 
 forced shifts of the conception of mechanical inspiration. The Tlieopneustia 
 does not put an end to the spontaneity of the individual with his varying 
 play of human emotions ; hence Wetstein is so far right in remarking ; “ Inter- 
 pretes, qui putant, el consilium scribendi epistolam (rather of writing in so hard a 
 vein of chastisement), et ejus consilii poenitentiam, et poenitentiae poeniientiam db 
 afflatu Spir. sancti fuisse profectam , parum consentanea dicere videntur.” Not as if 
 such alternation of moods testified against the existence of inspiration ; but it 
 attests its dependence on the natural conditions of the individual in the mode 
 of its working, which was not only different in different subjects, but was not 
 alike even in individuals where these were differently determined by outer and 
 inner influences ; so that the divine side of the Scripture does not annul the 
 human, or make it a mere phantom, nor can it be separated from it mechani¬ 
 cally. It is indissolubly blended with it. (q 5 ) 
 
 Yer. 9. Nw x a ' l P u ] see on ver. 8. To take the vvv not in a temporal, but 
 in a causal sense ( proinde , jam vero , with Emmerling and Billroth), is quite 
 at variance with the context, because the thought is implied in the previous 
 clause : I no longer regret it.— oi>x oti elvir. ] not regarding the sadness caused 
 to you in itself. — Kara 6e6v] according to God , i.e. in a way in keeping with 
 the divine will. See on Rom. viii. 27. Bengel aptly remarks : 11 Secundum 
 hie significat sensum animi Deum spectantis et sequentis.” Not : by God’s 
 operation , which (in opposition to Hofmann) Paul never expresses by Kara 
 (nor yet is it so even in 1 Pet. iv. 6) ; with the Greeks, however, Kara Oeov 
 
CHAP. VII., 10. 
 
 569 
 
 means according to divine disposal. — iva ev pyfievl fyfuof). yptiv] not : ita at, 
 etc. (so Riickert), but the divinely-ordained aim of the previous klvnydyre 
 Kara Osov : in order that ye in no point (comp. vi. 3 ; Phil. i. 28 ; Jas. i. 4), 
 in no sort of way (not even in the way of severe, saddening reproof), should 
 have hurt (injury as to the Messianic salvation) from us, from whom, in fact, 
 only the furtherance of your true welfare ought to proceed. See ver. 10. 
 According to Osiander, ev pydevi means : in no part of the Christian life 
 (neither in the joyfulness of faith nor in purity of morals). At variance with 
 the context : for to the matters negatived by ev pydevi must belong the kvizy 
 itself caused by him, which, had it not occurred Kara Oeov, would have injured 
 the Gurr/pia of the readers (ver. 10). — The clause of purpose is to be con¬ 
 nected with the eTivtt. y. Kara Ocov immediately preceding, which is no paren¬ 
 thetic remark, but is the regulative thought controlling what follows (in 
 vv. 10, 11) ; wherefore Iva k.t. 1. is not, with Hofmann, to be attached to 
 ekvTr. eig peravoiav. 
 
 Ver. 10. Ground assigned for Iva ev pyd. t^ypioB. £% ypuv. for godly sadness 
 works repentance unto salvation unregretted, i.e. unto the Messianic salvation, 
 the attainment of which is not regretted. The connection of ape-auek. with 
 aurypiav is held by Augustine and other Latin Fathers, following the Vul¬ 
 gate, which has stabilem, 1 and among modern expositors by Fritzsche, 
 Billroth (yet doubtfully), Schrader, de Wette, Ewald ; decidedly by Cas- 
 talio also, but undecidedly by Erasmus, Annot. The more common connec¬ 
 tion is with peravoiav, so as to give the antanaclasis poenitentiam non poeniten- 
 dam (for similar collocations see Wetstein, comp. Pliny, Ep. vii. 10) ; ovdeig 
 yap eavrov Karayvuaerai, eav kvreyBy ef apapria, eciv rrevdyay ical eavrov crvvrpiipy, 
 Chrysostom. But for such an antanaclasis Paul would not have chosen an 
 adjective from quite a different root, but aperavoyrov (Lucian, Abd. 11, comp, 
 also Rom. ii. 5), which is also the reading 2 of some minor authorities. 
 And if aperapel. were to belong to peravoiav, it would stand immediately by 
 its side, so as to make elg curypiav appear as the result throwing light upon 
 aperapeX. When placed after eig ourypiav, aperapek. is an epithet of aeravoiav 
 no longer suitable, insipid, and halting. Olshausen and Hofmann wrongly 
 object that the epithet is not suitable to the idea of salvation, the absolute 
 good. It expresses by way of litotes the eternal satisfaction of the aurypia, 
 and is selected with a glance back to what was said in ver. 8. (r 5 ) If the 
 apostle, namely, has caused a sadness which works a contrition unto a sal¬ 
 vation exposed to no regret, it is obvious how this step of his can no longer 
 give rise to any regret in his case, but can only make him joyful. Comp, 
 on the expression itself, Rom. xi. 29, and especially Plato, Tim. p. 59 D : 
 aperapekyrov ydovyv Krarai, Legg. ix. p. 866 E \ Polyb. xxi. 9. 11 ; Plutarch, 
 Mor. p. 137 B ; Socrates in Stob. 101, p. 552 ; Clem. Cor. I. 2. —yde rov 
 Koapov Iv-rry] i.e. the sadness, however, which is felt by the world, by the ungod¬ 
 ly-minded unbelievers. This is certainly kvny Ad xPW aTa i Ad 66^av, Ad rov 
 aneWdvra k.t.1. (Chrysostom), in so far, namely, as the loss of outward 
 
 1 According to the reading ajaeTa^XTjrov, 2 And which (in opposition to Osiander) 
 which Origen has (once), hut before eis would have expressed the idea of some- 
 o-wttjp. thing painful quite as well as dp.eTap.eA.. 
 
570 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 advantage in and for itself determines the sadness, 1 but the genitive tov 
 koc/liov is the genitivus subjecti , and we must retain as the characteristic of 
 this Ivtzti that it is not Kara Beov (because it cannot be determined by the 
 knowledge of God and of His will) ; hence, instead of working repentance 
 unto salvation, it works despondency, despair, exasperation, obduracy, etc., 
 unto death. Even Ad xPW ara k.t.X. there may be a sadness Kara 6tov. — 
 Oavarov ] i.e. not generally : “ all that is embraced in a state of things not 
 founded on God ” (Hofmann), but, as the opposite of that unregretted 
 cu-gpia, eternal death , the Messianic cnruheia. ; comp. ii. 16. Calovius says 
 aptly : ‘ ‘ quia mundus dolet, cum affiigitur, solatii ex verbo Dei expers ac 
 tide destitutus.” The exposition of vexing oneself to death (Theodoret), or 
 the reference made by Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others to fatal diseases and 
 suicide , is quite at variance with the context ; and Ecclus. xxxviii. 18 has 
 no bearing here. Even the ethical view {moral ruin through despair or new 
 sins, de Wette, comp. Neander) is not in keeping with the contrast to 
 auTTjpia ; besides, Paul never uses Qavaroq of ethical death. See on Rom. v. 
 12.—Regarding the difference between ipyafrcu and sarepya £. ( bring to pass), 
 see on Rom. i. 27 ; van Hengel, ad Rom. II. 10. 
 
 Ver. 11. What has just been said of the godly sorrow is now proved by 
 experience from the instance of the readers themselves. For see, this very 
 thing (nothing else), the having been afflicted with godly sorrow, etc. The 
 emphatic use of the preparatory tovto before infinitives is very common in 
 classic writers. See Kuhner, II. p. 330 ; Breitenb. ad Xen. Oec. 14. 10. — 
 vjluv] not : among you, but : vobis. — c-ovcd/v] activity, namely, to efface and 
 make amends for the offence, as opposed to their previous negligence in re¬ 
 gard to the incestuous person. — alia] yea rather, imo, corrective, and 
 thereby advancing beyond the last idea (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 2 ; John xvi. 2). 
 Paul feels that he has said too little by using cKovdyv. The co-ordinate rep¬ 
 etition of aXka before each point lays on each a special emphasis. Comp, 
 on 1 Cor. vi. 11. — airoloyiav] 7 rpog eye, Chrysostom and Theophylact rightly 
 say ; but we must at the same time observe that they have answered for 
 themselves in the first instance to Titus, and through him to Paul (that they 
 were not partakers in the guilt of the incestuous person). Billroth under¬ 
 stands the de facto exculpation by the adjudging of punishment to the 
 transgressor. An arbitrary view, and opposed to the context {bcdUr/cuv ). 
 Ewald, in accordance with his assumption of a letter in reply now lost, re¬ 
 fers it to the latter. — ayavcmTpmv ] displeasure, vexation, that such a disgrace¬ 
 ful thing had been carried on in the church. — <f>6(3ov ] “ ne cum virga veni- 
 rem” (Bengel), namely, in the event of the state of things not being 
 amended (1 Cor. iv. 21), or even of new transgressions. Comp. Chrysostom 
 and Theophylact. The explanation : fear of God's punishments (Pelagius, 
 Calvin, Flatt, Olshausen), is at variance with the context (kKiizoOrjo.). — 
 eTwroO.] as in ver. 7, longing after the apostle’s coming. — ffov] not as in 
 ver. 7, where inzlp eyov is associated with it, but, as is suggested by the fol- 
 
 1 As this would have been the case also Comp. Elwert in the Wiirtemberg. Stud. IX. 
 with the Corinthians, if they had grieved 1, p. 135 if. 
 over the reproof only, and not over the sin. 
 
CHAP. VII., 12. 
 
 571 
 
 lowing hidiurjciv (punishment of the transgressor) : disciplinary zeal against 
 the incestuous person, not zeal in general for the honour of Christ, of the 
 church, and of the apostle (Osiander). The six objects introduced by tikla 
 go logically in pairs, so that airoloy. and ayavanr. relate to the disgrace of 
 the church, (po/3ov and bmiroO. to the apostle, and £ffAov and bn6 'lktjgiv to the 
 incestuous person, the latter, however, without the arbitrary distinction 
 drawn by Bengel, that tf/lov refers to the good of his soul, and endue, only to 
 his punishment for his transgression. L,vloq is the zeal for both. — bv navri 
 GvveaTrjGciTE /c.r./L] a judgment on the whole matter added asyndetically, and 
 so with the more weight (Dissen, ad Pind. Exc. II. p. 278) : in every respect 
 you have proved that you yourselves are innocent as regards the matter in ques¬ 
 tion. By this the Corinthians are acquitted from positive participation in 
 the offence ; they could not be acquitted (comp. 1 Cor. v. 6) of a negative 
 participation (through toleration and connivance), but this is not further 
 touched on in accordance with his purpose, which is here throughout con¬ 
 ciliatory. — bavrovg] you for your own person , as opposed to the evil-doer. — 
 On GWLGTryju , with the accusative and infinitive, comp. Diod. Sic. i. 96, xiv. 
 45. Without sivcu (comp. Gal. ii. 18) the attribute would appear as purely 
 objective , as the proved fact; with elvai the expression is subjective , denoting 
 the relation from the standpoint of the readers. Comp, in general, Kruger, 
 
 § 65, 1. 4.—The dative t<2> k pa-yuan is that of ethical reference, expressing 
 the matter with respect to which what is affirmed takes place. See Mattliiae, 
 p. 876 ; Bernhardy, p. 84. Comp. bhevOepoi . . . t?j dinaioovvy, Rom. vi. 20 ; 
 Matt. v. 8. This, at the same time, in opposition to Riickert’s assertion 
 that bv (see the critical remarks) cannot be dispensed with. On the term 
 itself, Bengel rightly remarks : ‘‘indefinite loquitur de re odiosa.” Comp, 
 ii. 5 ff. 
 
 Ver. 12. V A pa] therefore , for how natural was it for the readers to think 
 that Paul had written on account of the adini/Gavroc and on account of the 
 aduirjQbvrog ! And yet the effect which that part of the Epistle had produced 
 on themselves had showed them by experience that the apostle’s true pur¬ 
 pose was quite different. So at least Paul represents the matter in a delicate 
 and conciliatory way. — el nal bypaifja vylv ] if I have also written to you , i.e. 
 have not kept silence, but have expressed myself by letter regarding the 
 affair in question. Commonly a so , so sternly , or the like, is imported quite 
 arbitrarily. Grotius indicates the right meaning : “si quid scripsi, nempe 
 ea de re.” Comp. Osiander. Those who assume an Epistle now lost be¬ 
 tween our first and second (Bleek, INTeander, Ewald, Beyschlag, Hilgenfeld) 
 find it here alluded to. Comp. ii. 3, 9. The apodosis already begins at ovx 
 eIvekev k.t.X., and does not follow only at Sta rovro (as Hofmann complicates 
 it, without sufficient ground), the more especially as in this construction, 
 according to Hofmann, dia rovro does not apply to ver. 12—to which it must 
 apply (comp. 1 Thess. iff. 7)—but to ver. 11 .—ovx • • • aW] is not non 
 tarn . . . quam (Erasmus, Estius, Flatt, and many others), but non . . . sed. 
 Paul denies absolutely that he has written that part of the Epistle on account 
 of the two persons mentioned. In the nature of the case, no doubt, he had 
 to write against the adinf/oag, and so indirectly in favour of the adLnrjdeiQ ; but 
 
572 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the cobinthians. 
 
 the destined purpose of this letter, as Paul from the true light of his apostolic 
 standpoint is aware, lay not in this aim affecting the two persons primarily 
 concerned, but in its higher significance as bearing on the church’s relation 
 to the apostle : aXX eIvekev rov ^avepcjOf/vai n.r.A. (s°) — Regarding the form 
 elvenEv , see on Luke iv. 18, and Kuhner, I. p. 229, ed. 2. The adwr/oag is the 
 incestuous person, and the aSucjjddg his father , as the party grievously injured 
 by the son’s incestuous marriage with the step-mother. Theodoret, how¬ 
 ever, is quite arbitrary in supposing from this that he was already dead (k di 
 reQvedg ycip ^A/c^ro, T VQ cvvfjg vj3piodEtong). See on 1 Cor. v. 1. This explana¬ 
 tion of the adiKTjdeig seems from the relation of the two participles active and 
 passive to be the only natural, and, in fact, necessary one. It is no objec¬ 
 tion that, in the first Epistle, nothing was said at length regarding the father 
 and the wrong done to him (see only v. 1), since the censure and ordaining 
 of chastisement to the transgressor of themselves practically contained the 
 satisfaction to the injured father. Comp, on the passive aSiK. in the sense 
 of infringing marriage- rights, Plut. Anton. 9 ; Eurip. Med. 267, 314 ; and 
 see in general on achudv in reference to adultery, Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 468 ; 
 Abresch, ad Xen. Eph ., cd Locella, p. 222. Others (Wolf, Storr, Ernmer- 
 ling, Osiander, ISTeander, Maier) think that Paul means himself \ in so far as 
 he had been deeply injured in his office by that transgression. But this 
 mode of designating himself, set down thus without any more precise indi¬ 
 cation, would be strangely enigmatical, as well as marked by want of deli¬ 
 cate tact (as if the readers were not achnTjOhreg, like Paul !), and no longer 
 suiting what was already said in ii. 5. The reference of rov aStKrjOevTog to the 
 apostle himself would only be right on the assumption that allusion is here 
 made to the state of things discussed by Paul in an intermediate letter now 
 lost. 1 Others (Bengel, comp. Wolf also) think that the Corinthians are 
 meant, but the singular is decisive against this view, even apart from the 
 unsuitable meaning. Others have even referred rov ahucrja. and rov aStK?]d. to 
 the adulterer and the adulteress (Theophylact : a/ttyo-epoc yap aXkrj^vg uer/cav ) ; 
 others, again, have taken rov aducrjO. as neuter (Heinsius, Billroth), equivalent 
 to rov adiKTjparog. The last is at variance with linguistic usage ; and what 
 sort of delicate apostolic tact would it have been, to say that he had not 
 written on account of the deed! — alX eIvekev k.t.X ] According to Lach- 
 mann’s correct reading, as translated also by Luther (see the critical re¬ 
 marks) : hut because your zeal for us was to become manifest among you before 
 God , i.e. but because I wished to bring it about that the zealous interest which you 
 cherish for us should be brought to light among you before God (a religious ex¬ 
 pression of uprightness and sincerity, iv. 2). Comp, on the thought, ii. 9 ; 
 
 1 On this assumption Bleek is of opinion 
 that Paul, in that lost Epistle, had rebuked 
 the wanton defiance of the incestuous 
 person towards him (comp, also Neander). 
 According to Ewald, Paul is the dSu^tfeis 
 over against the man of reputation in the 
 church, who had been endeavouring to de¬ 
 prive him of his repute in it by public accu¬ 
 sations. Comp. Ililgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 
 
 18G4, p. 1G9, 18G5, p. 252, according to whom 
 Paul is the dSuajdei?, because things had in 
 the meanwhile come to a pronounced rejec¬ 
 tion of his apostolic repute. According to 
 Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 254, 
 Timothy is meant, who was personally in¬ 
 sulted by a spokesman in the ranks of the 
 opponents. 
 
CHAP. VII., 13. 
 
 573 
 
 7 T pbg vjuag is the simple with you , among you , in the midst of you, in your 
 church-life, not exactly in'public meeting of the church (Ewald), which would 
 have been indicated more precisely. Comp. 1 'Cor. xvi. 7. Riickert, with¬ 
 out due ground, finds the meaning of rrpbg vpag so ambiguous that he prefers 
 the Recepta , according to which the meaning is : because our zealous interest 
 for you icas to become, manifest upon you before God. Comp. ii. 4. Hoffmann, 
 who rejects both the Recepta and the reading of Laclimann, and prefers that 
 of K : r. arrovbyv vuuv ryv iirrep vyuv rrpbc v/adg, takes this 7 rpog vyag even in a 
 hostile sense : “You are to show yourselves diligent for yourselves and 
 against yourselves the strict procedure of the church against its adherents 
 is on the one hand an acting for themselves (vnep vuuv), and on the other 
 hand an acting against themselves (rrpog vyag). This artificial interpretation is 
 wrong, because, if tt pog could mean contra here, Paul must have written at 
 least ryv vtcep v/uuv re ical irpog vpag, and because rrpog with orrovby (Heb. vi. 11; 
 Herod, iv. 11. 1 ; Diod. xvii. 114) and with GTrovbafw (Dem. 515. 23, 617. 10) 
 has not that arbitrarily assumed sense, but the sense of an interest for some 
 one, though this is more commonly expressed by tt epi. If the reading of X 
 were right, it would have to be explained simply : in order that your zeal , in 
 which you aim at your own good , should become manifest among you before God. 
 Had Paul wished to express the singular meaning which Hofmann imports, 
 he would have known how to write : ryv oirovbyv iiyuv ryv vnep vpuv re. nai 
 lead’ vyb)v. 
 
 Ver. 18. Wherefore , because I had no other purpose than this (which is 
 now attained), we are comforted; and , to our consolation there was further 
 added a very great increase in joy over the joy of Titus , etc. —errl be ry Trapani, 
 yy.] eiri used of supervening on something already in existence. 1 See Mat- 
 thiae, p. 1371 ; "VViner, p. 368 [E. T. 490]. — rrepiGGor. yallov exapyyev] the 
 joy of our consolation became still more increased. Comp, on ver. 7. Re¬ 
 garding the strengthening of the comparative by yaXXov, see Pflugk, ad Eur. 
 Idee. 377 ; Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 679 E ; Boissonade, ad Aristaen. 430. 
 — bn avaTTETravrai k.t.X.] does not specify the reason of Paul’s joy (Riickert, 
 although with hesitation), for that is contained in errl t. x a P? Titov, but is a 
 more precise definition confirmatory of ry x a P? T irov ; since indeed his spirit 
 (ii. 13) is refreshed by you all. avarrETravrai (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Philem. 
 7, 20) is placed first as the pith of the thought ; airo denotes the proceeding 
 from , the origin: forth from, from the side of. See Bernhardy, p. 222 ; 
 Kiihner, ad Xen. Andb. vi. 5. 18. 
 
 Remake. —According to the Recepta bia rovro tt apaKEKlypeba etvi ry TrapaKXyaEL 
 vpibv TreptGGOTEpcjg be fiaX/iov k.t.X., the first £717 is through, properly on account of, 
 just as in £7u r 7 ) x a pa Tirot>, so that the TrapaKlyotg v/uibv is that which causes the 
 rrapaKEKkryiEba (Winer, p. 368 [E. T. 491]) : but vyuv is not, with Flatt, 
 de Wette, and many others, to be explained : by the consolation, which you have 
 afforded to me, but: ‘ ‘ consolatione vestri' ’ (Luther, Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 Bengel, and most), i.e. by your being comforted over the pain, which my 
 
 1 Yet it may also be taken simply of the tion above is more in keeping with the cli- 
 state: in our consolation. But the explana- mactic character of the discourse. 
 
574 
 
 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Epistle caused to you, now by means of tlie bappy change which it has pro¬ 
 duced among you (ver. 11). The two genitives, namely ipCrv and T trov, must 
 be taken uniformly. On the state of the case delicately denoted by Trapani, vptiv 
 Calvin aptly remarks : “ Nam correctionis acerbitas facile dulcescit, simulatque 
 gustare incipimus, quam nobis fuerit utilis. ” Michaelis, on the other hand, 
 objects that what follows will then be discourteous; but the seeming dis¬ 
 courtesy disappears before the reason for Titus’ joy, and is amply outweighed 
 by ver. 14. According to Reiche, Comm., crit. I. p. 370, the TrapuKlrjoic vpdv 
 means the admonitio et castigatio given in the first Epistle, for the sharpness 
 and severity of which Paul is now consoled by the happy result. But after 
 TTapaK.Eiilrip.eQa, according to the analogy, moreover, of exdpypev eirl rfj xuprj, as 
 well as in accordance with vv. 4 and 6, irupaK/^oig cannot be otherwise taken 
 than as solatium. 
 
 Yer. 14 f. Polite statement of the reason why the joy of Titus had re¬ 
 joiced him so greatly. —d rt avrti virep vp. Kenavx.] Comp. ix. 2. Who 
 could deny that Paul, both alone, of which he is thinking here, and in 
 company with Timothy (at which rj Kavxyaig rjpuv then glances), had justly 
 boasted before Titus ( coram Tito ) to the advantage of the Corinthians (virep 
 vpuv, comp. ix. 2) ? See 1 Cor. i. 4 ff. He had, in fact, founded the 
 church and laboured so long in it, and they were in his heart, vii. 3. — ov 
 KaTTjaxvvdrjv] This narycx- would have taken place, if Titus had experienced 
 among you an opposite state of things, contradicting the truth of my 
 Kavxyaig. But when he came to you : did tcjv epyuv edeigari pov ra p^para, 
 Chrysostom.— all’ ug iravra k.t.1.] Opposite of ov naryax- : “as we have 
 spoken everything truly to you , our boasting before Titus has also become 
 truth.” No doubt Paul is here making a passing allusion to the attack on 
 his veracity (comp. i. 17 ff.), and that in such a way as emphatically to 
 confront it with, first, what was said by him ( iravra . . . rj navxyaig ypuv), 
 and then the persons to whom he spoke (vpiv ... p hrl Titov). Thus the 
 first, and next to it the last, place in the arrangement of the sentence 
 has the emphasis (Kuhner, II. p. 625). — rravTa] quite general : we have 
 lied to you in nothing. Chrysostom and Billroth think that it applies to 
 all the good, which Paul had said of Titus to the Corinthians ,—a purely arbi¬ 
 trary view, not to be guessed by any reader. —ev alydeia] i.e. truthfully. 
 Comp. Col. i. 6 ; John xvii. 19 ; Pind. 01. vii. 127. The adverbial use is 
 genuine Greek (Matthiae, p. 1342 ; Bernhardy, p. 211), not a Hebraism 
 (Riickert). See on John xvii. 19. — elal-rjoapev] locuti sumus, quite general, 
 and not to be limited, at variance with the context, to doctrine (Emmerling, 
 Flatt, Hofmann, and others, following Theodoret). — eirl Titov] coram 
 Tito. See Schaefer, Melet. p. 105; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 139. — eyevifir]] 
 se praestitit; it has shown itself as truth by experience. Comp. i. 19 ; 
 Rom. iii. 4, vii. 13. Often so also in classic writers. 
 
 Yer. 15. Kcfi ra OTrlayxva k.t.1.] joyful result of y Kavxyaig pguv . . . 
 eyevr/Orj. A comma only is to be put after ver. 14 : and thus, therefore, his in¬ 
 most heart (comp. vi. 12) is attached to you in a still higher degree (than before 
 his presence there) since he remembers, etc. — elg vpaq ecrlv] is for you. Comp. 
 dq avTov, 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Rom. xi. 36. — inraKopv] namely, towards him, 
 
NOTES. 
 
 575 
 
 Titus ; for what follows is epexegetical. — //era <p6fiov k. rp6yov]i.e. with a 
 zeal, which fears lest it should not do enough for its duty. Comp, on 1 
 Cor. ii. 3. 
 
 Yer. 16. Concluding result of the whole section, introduced vividly 
 (without ow, comp. ver. 12) : “ I am glad that in every respect I am of good 
 courage through you. — kv v/uv] not as to you , which would have been ex¬ 
 pressed prepositionallv by irepi, vnkp, h r/, irpog, kvena (elg, x. 1, is in an ad¬ 
 verse sense), but Paul knows his consolation as cleaving to the readers ; that 
 is the causal nexus, in which his joyous frame of mind depends on them. 
 Comp. Winer, p. 218 [E. T. 291 f.] ; Soph. Aj. 1294 : kv spot Opaavg, 1071 : 
 kv OavovoLv vfipiG-r/g ykvy, Eurip. Or. 754 : kv yvvaifiv aAiapog, Ecclus. xxxviii. 
 23 ; Matt. iii. 17. (t 6 ) 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (o 5 ) “ In the fear of God.” Ver. 1. 
 
 This is the motive which is to determine our endeavours to purify ourselves. 
 It is not regard to the good of others nor our own happiness, but reverence for 
 God. We are to be holy because He is holy (Hodge). 
 
 (p 5 ) “ Our flesh had no rest.” Yer. 5. 
 
 Flesh of course cannot mean his body, for the sufferings referred to were not 
 corporeal, but mental. The term denotes his whole sensitive nature considered 
 as frail. 
 
 (q 5 ) “ Though I did regret .” Yer. 8. 
 
 The fact that Paul says that he regretted sending a letter, which, however, 
 is universally accepted as canonical and inspired, has been considered as casting 
 doubt upon the doctrine of plenary inspiration. A satisfactory explanation is 
 found in the following remarks of Hodge (in loc .): “ Inspiration rendered its 
 
 subject infallible in writing and speaking as the messenger of God. Paul 
 might doubt whether he had made a wise use of his infallibility, as he might 
 doubt whether he had wisely exercised his power of working miracles. He 
 never doubted as to the truth of what he had written. There is another thing 
 to be taken into consideration. Inspiration did not reveal itself in conscious¬ 
 ness. It is perfectly conceivable that a man might be inspired without know¬ 
 ing it. Paul was no doubt impelled by the Spirit to write his former epistle 
 as well as divinely guided in writing : but all he was conscious of was his own 
 thoughts and feelings. The believer is not conscious of the operations of 
 grace, neither were the apostles conscious of inspiration. As the believer, 
 however, may know that he is the subject of divine influence, so the apostles 
 knew that they were inspired. But as the believer may doubt the wisdom of 
 some of his holiest acts, so the apostles might doubt the wisdom of acts done 
 under divine guidance. Such acts are always wise, but the agent may not 
 always see their wisdom.” 
 
576 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 (k 5 ) “Repentance to salvation not to be repented of." Yer. 10. 
 
 The Revised Version (in which this whole chapter is greatly improved) renders 
 this clause “repentance unto salvation, a repentance which bringeth no regret.” 
 This view of the connection of the last word is favoured by Kling, Hodge, Princ. 
 Brown ; but Beet, Plumptre, and Speaker’s Com. prefer to connect it with salva¬ 
 tion. Still one may ask, What kind of a salvation is it that is or can be attended 
 with regret ? 
 
 (s 5 ) “ Not for his sake that had done the wrong." Yer. 12. 
 
 The writer speaks of the chief object as if it w T ere the only object, and also 
 of the object which was effected by Providence, as if it had been his object. He 
 did desire to have the offender punished and the injured man righted, but the 
 primary aim was the manifestation to themselves of their regard for his apos¬ 
 tolic authority and for himself.—The reading your instead of the our of the 
 received text is now adopted by all editors, being sustained by greatly prepon¬ 
 derating authority. 
 
 (t 5 ) End of a discussion. Yer. 16. 
 
 Here concludes the long discussion carried on in the first seven chapters of 
 the Epistle. The entire pericope relates to the state of the Corinthian believ¬ 
 ers and to Paul’s relation to them. In the course of it he lays bare in the live¬ 
 liest form his intense human sympathies, and reveals much of his personal 
 character and history. The result of his faithful dealings with the church was 
 the full restoration of confidence. And now he was able to turn to other mat¬ 
 ters, as we see he did in the next chapter. 
 
CHAP. YIII.,, 1. 
 
 577 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Ver. 3. vTrep 6vvafj.iv] Lachm. Ruck, and Tisch. read tt apa dvva/j., on decisive 
 evidence ; virep is a gloss. —Yer. 4. After ayiovg Elz. has de^aaQai vpag, which, on 
 decisive evidence, is rightly struck out by Griesb. and the later editors as a 
 supplementary insertion, though defended by Rinck.—Ver. 5. rjlTviaapev] Only 
 B and 80 have r/Airtnapeu, just as in ver. 6 only B has hyp^aro. — Yer. 7. 
 
 f/puv ev vp.lv is attested only by min. and Syr. Arm. Slav. ms. Comp. Orig. : 
 nostra in vos. Error of transcription, or correction through misunderstanding. 
 — Yer. 12. After e^y Elz. and Scholz have rig. An addition in opposition to 
 decisive evidence. — Yer. 13. A'] is wanting in B C min. and Aeth. 
 Clar. Germ. ; deleted by Lachm., and rightly, since it betrays itself as inserted 
 to mark the contrast. —Ver. 16. 6 l6ovtl] D E F G L K** and many min. 
 Chrys. Theophyl. have fiovri. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Scholz, Ruck. 
 But the aorist has crept in obviously on account of the aorists that follow. — 
 Ver. 19. avv] B C and many min., also several vss. and Fathers, have ev. 
 Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Ruck, and Tisch. Rightly ; avv, 
 though defended by Reiche, is an erroneous gloss. — avrov ] is wanting in 
 B C D* F G L and many min., also in several vss. and Latin Fathers. Sus¬ 
 pected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Ruck. Considering the great prepon¬ 
 derance of the adverse evidence, it is more probable that it has crept in by 
 writing tov twice, than that it has been left out on account of its being unnec¬ 
 essary and seemingly unsuitable (Reiche). — Instead of the last rjpo)v Elz. has 
 v/juv, against decisive testimony. Alteration, because ygu>v was held to be un¬ 
 suitable. — Ver. 21. 7r povoovpev yap] Elz. : Tzpovoovgevoi, only supported by later 
 codd. and some Fathers. The participle appears to be a mere copyist’s error 
 occasioned by oteTiAo/jevoi, so that at first even the yap remained beside it, as is 
 the case still in C, min., and some vss. and Fathers, whom Tisch. follows. But 
 afterwards this yap had to be dropped on account of the retention of the 
 participle. —Ver. 24. Evch'faaOe] Lachm. and Tisch. read evfieiKvvpEvoi, following 
 B D* E* F G 17, It. Goth. The imperative is a gloss. 1 — Elz., against decisive 
 testimony, has nai before e’/g Trpoaunov. Added for the sake of connection. 
 
 Chap. viii. and ix. The second chief division of the Epistle : regarding 
 the collection for the poor in Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi.), coming very fitly after 
 the praise contained in chap, vii., and having the way appropriately paved 
 for it in particular by the closing words, vii. 16. 
 
 Vv. 1-6. The beneficence of the Macedonians has been shown beyond all 
 expectation ; hence we have exhorted Titus to complete among you the 
 work already begun. 
 
 Ver. 1. The 6e is the mere p.ETa[6arui6v, leading over to a new topic in the 
 
 1 [Westcott and Ilort retain the imperative, and the Canterbury Revision follows them. 
 —T. W. C.] 
 
578 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 Epistle. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1, viii. 1, xii. 1, xv. 1.— ryv x&P LV r. Oeov rrjv 
 (kdoft. k.t.a.] the grace of God, which is given in the churches of Macedonia, i.e. 
 how graciously God has wrought in the churches of Macedonia, inasmuch as 
 He (see ver. 2) called forth in them so great liberality. Comp. ix. 14. The 
 expression rests on the idea, that such excellent dispositions and resolves 
 are produced and nourished, not by independent spontaneity, but by the 
 grace of God working on us (operationes gratiae). Comp. Phil. ii. 13. 
 Paul, therefore, does not think of the grace of God as shown to himself 
 (Origen, Erasmus, who paraphrases it : “ quemadmodum obdfuerit mihi Deus 
 in ecclesiis Maced. comp. Zachariae, Emmerling, Billroth, Wieseler, 
 Ghronol. p. 357 ff. ; also Riickert, yet w T ith hesitation),—in which case he 
 could not but have added kyot or yyiv, in order to make himself understood, 
 —but, on the contrary, as granted to the liberal churches , working in them 
 the communicative zeal of love, so that the construction with ev is quite as 
 in ver. 1G and i. 22. 
 
 Ver. 2. A more precise explanation of ryv %apiv k.t.a., so that on (that, 
 namely) is dependent on yvup'foyev. This exposition consists, as was seen 
 by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, and many others, 
 of two statements, so that after ryq x a ph£ avruv we must mentally supply the 
 simple eon . 1 This scheme of the passage, which Osiander and Hofmann 
 also follow, is indicated by y Trepcooeia in the one half, and eneplooevoev' in 
 the other, whereby two parallel predicative relations are expressed,'as well 
 as by the fact that, if the whole be taken as one sentence, and consequently 
 y Treptoo. t. x n phc, avrciv be taken along with the following kcu y Kara /3a6ovi~ 
 TTTuxcia avruv as the subject of eTreplooevoev (so by most expositors since Beza), 
 this subject would embrace two very diverse elements, and, besides, there 
 would result the combination not elsewhere occurring : y rrepiooeta eneplo- 
 oevoev. Hence it is to be explained : that, namely, in much testing of 
 affliction the abundance of their joyfulness is, i.e. that, while they are much 
 put to the test by sufferings , their joy is plentifully present, and (that) their 
 deep poverty became abundant unto the riches of their single-heartedness, i.e. 
 that they, in their deep poverty, plentifully showed how rich their single- 
 heartedness was. — ev Trolly fioKiyy OXiipeug] Instead of writing simply ev 
 twVatj dXlipet, Paul designates this situation according to the wholesome 
 moral aspect, in which it showed itself amongst the Macedonians to their 
 praise. AoKiyy, namely, is here also not : trial, but, as Paul always uses it, 
 verification (Bom. v. 4 ; 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13, xiii. 3 ; Phil. ii. 22). Chrysos¬ 
 tom aptly says : ovbe yap airTitig eOXfyoav, a)Jt ovrog cog Kal boKiyot yeveoOai rha 
 ryg virouovyg. The verification of their Christian character, which the 6/iirptg 
 effected in them, was just the moral element, in which the joyfulness ttoXAt) 
 Kal atyaTOQ efSlaoryoev ev avToiq (Chrysostom), and existed among them in spite 
 of the OXnpic itself, which, moreover, would have been calculated to produce 
 the opposite of X a P (l - Regarding the Oliipic of the Macedonians, see 1 Thcss. 
 i. 6, ii. 14 ff.; Acts xvi. 20 ff., xvii. 5. The ^apa, the virtue of Christian 
 
 1 Notih ; for the present corresponds to in the happy state of things thus subsisting, 
 
 the perfect SeSo/*., and that, which look place is then subjoined by the aorist enepiaaevaev. 
 
CHAP. Till., 3-5. 
 
 579 
 
 gladness of soul, rising above ail afflictions (Gal. v. 23 ; 3 Cor. vi. 10 ; Horn, 
 xiv. 17 ; comp, on John xv. 11), is not yet defined here more precisely as 
 regards its sj)ecial expression, but is already brought into prominence with 
 a view to the second part of the verse, consequently to the liberality which 
 gladly distributes (ix. 7 ; Acts xx. 85).— ij Kara [366ovq 7rrw^e/a] the deep 
 poverty, 1 literally, that which has gone doicn to the depth (Winer, p. 357 [E.T. 
 477]) ; comp. /366 oq na kcjv, Aesch. Pers. 718, Ilel. 303 ; hq nlvdwov ftaOvv, Pind. 
 Pyth. iv. 868, and the like ; Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 471. (u B ) The 
 opposite is fiaOvTclovToq, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. p. 286. — ETrepiaaevaev] became 
 abundant , i.e. developed an exceedingly great activity, and this dq rbv 
 ttIqvtov k.tA., 2 unto the riches of their singleness of heart, (v 5 ) This is the re¬ 
 sult (Rom. iii. 7 ; 2 Cor. ix. 8 ) of the ETrepioa .; so that their simple, up¬ 
 right spirit showed itself as rich , in spite of their poverty, through the 
 abundance of kind gifts which they distributed. Note the skill and point 
 of the antithetic correlation purposely marking the expressions in the two 
 parts of the verse. —The a-rzloTriq 3 is the upright simplicity of heart (Eph. 
 vi. 5 ; Col. iii. 22); honestly and straightforwardly it contributes what it 
 can to the work of love without any selfish design or arrierepensee (as e.g. 
 the widow with her mite). Comp, on xii. 8. And so it is rich, even with 
 deep poverty on the part of the givers. The genitive is, as in Treptoeeta rf/q 
 xap., the genitivus subjecti, not objecti (rich in simplicity), as Hofmann, follow¬ 
 ing older commentators, holds. The avruv is against this latter view, for 
 either it would have been wanting, or it would have been added to nlovrov, 
 because it would belong to that word. 
 
 Yv. 3-5. "Ore is not dependent on yvop'fogev (Hofmann), but gives the 
 proof of what was just said : ciq rov ttXovtov rgq anl. avr. — The construction is 
 plain ; for there is no need to supply an rjoav, as many wish, after avdaiperoi 
 or after Seopevot, but, as Bengel aptly remarks : “ edonav . . . totam periochae 
 structuram sustinet .” Comp. Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 49 ; Billroth, Ewald, 
 Osiander, Hofmann. There are, namely (and in accordance therewith the 
 punctuation is to be fixed), four modal definitions attached to this edunav : 
 They gave (1) according to and beyond their means ; (2) of their own impulse; 
 (3) urgently entreating us for the x^p^q and noivavia n.r.l. ; and (4) not as we 
 hoped, but themselves, etc. This last modal definition is naturally and quite 
 logically attached by/«»' (hence nal ov sadibq ^A7t/<j.) ; and Riickert (comp, de 
 Wette and Neander) is arbitrary in holding this nai to prove that Paul al¬ 
 lowed the sentence he had begun to drop, and appended a new one, so that 
 
 1 A s a grammatical supplement the simple 
 
 overa is sufficient; hence it is not to be taken, 
 with Hofmann, as the poverty sinking deeper 
 and ever deeper , but as the deep-sunk pov¬ 
 erty. On Kara with genitive, comp, the 
 Homeric /card 11. iii. 217 ; Kara yao 7 ?, 
 
 11. xiii. 504 ; /card aneiovs, Od. ix. 330 ( down 
 into the cave), xii. 93. See in general, Spitz- 
 ner, De vi et mu praepos. ivd et Kara. ap. 
 Ilomer. 1831, p. 20 ff. 
 
 2 The neuter form, to ttAouto? (Lachm. 
 
 Tisch. Ruck.), is attested here by B C #* 17, 
 
 31, but more decidedly in Eph. i. 7, ii. 7, iii. 
 8 , 16 ; Phil. iv. 19 ; Col. i. 27, ii. 2. 
 
 3 Hofmann conjectures that the promi¬ 
 nence given to the avXorrjg was called forth 
 by the want of it among the Achaean Chris¬ 
 tians. Tn this case there would be in it a 
 side-allusion, which is not justified in what 
 follows. But the d^Aor 17 ?, which had shown 
 itself among the Macedonians in a specially 
 high degree, was to serve them as an ex¬ 
 ample, by way of stimulating emulation, not 
 exactly of pmtting them to shame. 
 
580 
 
 Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 after ykrzicayev we should have to supply an Eyevero or bnolrjaav. — paprvpG] 1 
 testify it, a parenthetic assurance. Comp, the Greek use of olpai and the 
 like (Bornem. ad Xen. Gonv. p. 71, 179 ; Stallb. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 460 A). — 
 7T apa dvvafuv ] i.e. more amply than was accordant with their resources. 
 See Homer, 11. xiii. 787 ; Thucyd. i. 70. 2 ; Lucian. Nigr. 28, de Pom. 10. 
 The same, in substantial meaning, is vnbp dvvapiv, i. 8 ; Dem. 292. 25. It 
 forms, with Kara dvvap., a climactic definition of edumv, not of avOaip., to 
 which it is not suitable. —avdai perot ] excludes human persuasion or compul¬ 
 sion, not the divine influence (see ver. 5, Ad delhuarog deov) ; we must not, 
 with Ruckert, hold it, on account of the remark ix. 2, to be an exaggeration , 
 since the latter notice does not deny the self-determination of the Macedo¬ 
 nians, but, when compared with our passage, exhibits as the real state of the 
 case this , that Paul had boasted of the readiness of the Achaeans before the 
 Macedonians, but without exhortation to the latter, and that these thereupon, 
 of their own accord, without urging, had resolved on making a contribution, 
 and had given very amply. Comp. Chrysostom on ix. 2. avdaipErog, free- 
 willed, self-determined, only here and at ver. 17 in the N. T., often in the 
 classic writers ; seldom of persons (Xen. Anab. v. 7, 29 ; Lucian. Catapl. 
 4). Comp, the adveib in 2 Macc. vi. 19 ; 3 Macc. vi. 6. — yera noTCkrjg . . . 
 eig r. ayiovg ] to be taken together : with much exhortation entreating us for 
 the hindness and the participation in the ministering to the saints, i.e. urgently 
 entreating us that the hindness might he shown them of permitting them to take 
 active part in the . . . work of collections. 0 vx vpcig avruv bdeydijpEv, a)JC avrol 
 i/ycjv, Chrysostom ; and in the Koivovia sought they saw a kindness to be 
 shown to themselves : they knew how to value the work of love thus highly. 
 The xaptg, namely, here is not grace from God (Hofmann and the older com¬ 
 mentators), since it was requested from the apostle, but n)v x^P LV K - T • koivov. 
 is a true ev did tivolv ( the favour, and indeed the partaking, i.e. the favour of 
 partaking). See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 854, and generally, Nagelsbach on 
 11. iii. 100, p. 461, ed. 3. Bengel, who likewise rejects the dbijacOat rjpag of 
 the Recepta, connects ryv x®P lv K - r V v notvuviav k.t.X. with bdunav : but what 
 a prolix designation of the withal quite self-evident object of eSiokuv would 
 that be, while (h6p,£voi 7/puv wrnuld remain quite open and void of definition! 
 On SEladac, with accusative of the thing and genitive of the person, comp. 
 Plato, Apol. p. 18 A, p. 41 E ; Xen. Gyrop. i. 4. 12 ; Anab. vii. 3. 5 ; 3 Esd. 
 viii. 53. Yet in the classics the accusative of the object is the neuter of a 
 pronoun, like rovro vyuv diopai ; ottep vyuv diojuai, and the like, or of an ad¬ 
 jective (Kruger on Thuc. i. 32. 1). — rijg Eig rovg ayiovg ] In this addition 
 (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1), which would in itself be superfluous, there lies a mo¬ 
 tive of the SeopevoL. — /ecu ov KaOkg ifirioapev] for but a little could be expected 
 from the oppressed and poor Macedonians ! 0 v irspl rf/g yvuppg Ikyei, a?i?ui 
 
 iTEpl rov nlp^ovg ruv xpvphruv, Theodoret. According to Hofmann, the words 
 are meant only to affirm that the Macedonians had joined in the contribu¬ 
 tion quite of their own resolution, which had not been expected by the apostle. 
 But in this case the remark, which on this interpretation would be no inde¬ 
 pendent element, but only the negative expression of what was already said 
 in avbaipeToi, would have had its logical position immediately behind avdai- 
 
CHAP. Till., 6. 
 
 581 
 
 peroi ; and it must have run not as it is written by Paul, but : native ovn 
 rjAmoayev. No, the apostle says : and their giving did not remain within 
 the limits of the hope which we had formed regarding them, but far sur¬ 
 passed these (d/l/l’ eavrove n.r./i.). — ciaTC eavrove n.r.A. ] but themselves they gave , 
 etc. An expression of the highest Christian readiness of sacrifice and liber¬ 
 ality, which, by giving up all individual interests, is not only a contribution 
 of money , but a self-surrender , in the first instance, to the Lord , since in fact 
 Christ is thereby served, and also to him who conducts the work of collec¬ 
 tion, since he is to the giver the organ of Christ. Flatt and Billroth, fol¬ 
 lowing Mosheim and Heumann, are wrong in making npvrov before in the 
 sense : before I ashed them. This reference is not in the least implied in the 
 immediate context ( ov native yTima.) ; and if it were, tt pvrov must have had 
 the first place : 1 aXTia npvrov eavrove edvnav n.r.X. As the words stand, eavrove 
 has the emphasis of the contrast with oi> native if me. Bengel also (comp. 
 Schrader) is wrong in thinking that in repvrov there is implied prae munere: 
 the Macedonians, before they made collection, had first given themselves to 
 the Lord, and then left it to the apostle to determine how large their con¬ 
 tribution should be. In that case there must have been inserted nal ra xp f 
 yara or something similar, as a correlative to eavrove rrpvrov tv nvpiip. 
 It is wrong to find in eavrove the idea merely of voluntarily , 2 without any 
 summons , because it is object of the verb. It must have run : avrol 
 eavrove k.tA. (comp. i. 9), or without stress on the self-object, af eavrvv. — 
 nal rjfilv] Paul does not say eweira ryiiv (in opposition to the usual opinion that 
 nat stands for erreira ; so also Riickert), because the surrender to the Lord is 
 not a prius in time , but in degree: to the Lord before all , and to us. So Rom. 
 i. 1G, ii. 9, 10. —Ad tielrjy- tfeoi)] not exactly an expression of modesty (Bill¬ 
 roth), — for it is only arbitrary to limit it merely to nal ryiiv (so also Bengel, 
 Ewald),—but added quite according to the requirement of religious feeling : 
 for God has, according to His will, so wrought on their dispositions, that 
 they, etc. Comp. vv. 1, 16. 
 
 Yer. 6 . In order that we should exhort Titus , etc. Comp. ver. 17. ele r6 
 with the infinitive is here, as in all passages (see on Rom. i. 20), to be taken, 
 not as so that (so usually, and by Winer), but as telic: in order that. Comp. 
 Kuhner, ad Xen. Andb. vii. 8. 20. Certainly the rrapanaXeaai rjyae Ttrov n.r.X. 
 was a consequence of the beyond expectation successful course of the matter 
 in Macedonia, in accordance with which Paul might promise himself no less 
 a success among the Corinthians ; but delicately and piously he presents 
 the state of the case, as if this further prosecution of the work of collection, 
 amidst the self-sacrificing liberality of the Macedonians effected by the di¬ 
 vine will, had lain in God’s purpose , and was therefore a consequence that 
 had been aimed at by God. This flows from the Ad tielrjy- deov immediately 
 preceding. Comp. Hofmann also. Paul sees in the fact, that the divinely- 
 
 1 This also in opposition to Hofmann, not mean “without,” but “before that," etc. 
 who, in consistency with his inappropriate 2 So Hofmann; whence there would re¬ 
 interpretation of k. ov KaO. jjWcr., takes suit even a threefold expression of the vol- 
 Trpu>Tov : without such a thought (such a hope) untary act, namely : (1) in avOatperoi. ; (2) in 
 having occurred to me. Besides, npioTov would k. ov ko.&. rjXiria. ; and (3) in iavrov ?. 
 
582 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 willed success of the collecting work in Macedonia lias encouraged him to 
 the continuance of it expressed in ver. 6, the fulfilment of the divine coun¬ 
 sel and will, which he is thereby serving. — Iva]. Design in the irapaKateoai, 
 and consequently its contents. — na^hg TTpoevi/p^aro] as he formerly has begun , 
 without doubt during his sojourn in Corinth after our first Epistle ; see 
 Tntrod. § 1. The w^ord is indeed without example elsewhere, but it is 
 formed from evapxogai, after the analogy of npoapxo and others. —ovro kcu 
 emreMoy elg vyag] so also might complete it among you. The emphasis lies, as 
 before on npoevyp^aro, so here on iimeUcy. With the verb of rest elg associates 
 the thought of the previous arrival, so that e/Ahv may for clearness be sup¬ 
 plied. See Kiihner, § C22 b ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XIII. p. 71 ; Ellendt, 
 Lex. Soph. I. p. 537. The correlation of evcipxce&ai and eklte'j\e~lv is simply 
 as in Phil. i. 6, Gal. iii. 3 ; we should anticipate (ix. 12) by importing the 
 idea of sacrifice (Osiander). —nal t?/v x^P tv ravryv] not hanc quoque gratiam 
 (Beza, Calvin, comp. Castalio), but : etiam gratiam istam (Vulgate). For 
 also belongs to ryv x^-P Lv i n °t to ravryv. He shall complete among you—in 
 addition to whatever else he has already begun and has still to complete— 
 also this benefit. This better suits the context, namely, the connection of the 
 ovtco nal eivLTel. with nadibg TrpoevypijaTo, than the interpretation of Estius : 
 “ dicit etiam , ut innuat Titum alia quaedam apud ipsos jam perfecisse.” So 
 also Flatt. It is quite superfluous to invoke, with Hofmann, an involution 
 of two sentences in order to explain the double nai. And since nal refers 
 to the activity of Titus , Billroth is wrong in explaining it: “they are to 
 distinguish themselves in this good deed, as in all things.” —The work of 
 collection is designated as x^P L ^i f° r on the side of the givers it was a show¬ 
 ing of hindness , a work of love, an opus charitativum. Observe that here and 
 in vv. 4, 19, d-eov is not added, as in ver. 1, ix. 14, according to which 
 Hofmann and older commentators explain it here also of the divine grace, of 
 which they are made worthy through the service rendered. 
 
 Vv. 7-15. Encouragement to associate with their other Christian excel¬ 
 lences distinction also in this work of love, which he says not in the form of 
 a command, but to test their love—for they knew indeed the pattern of 
 love in Christ—and by way of advice (vv. 7-9). For this is serviceable for 
 them , inasmuch as they had already made the beginning. Now, however, 
 they were not to fail of completing their work, namely, according to their 
 means ; for it was not intended that others should be at ease while they 
 were in want, but that a relation of equality should be established (vv. 10- 
 15). 
 
 Ver. 7. ’AAV] is not equivalent to ovv (Beza and others, also Flatt), nor to 
 agedum (Emmerling), but is the Latin at, bi'eahzng off the preceding state¬ 
 ment, like the German doch. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 812, aptly says : 
 “ Saepe indicat, satis argumentorum allatum esse.” Comp. Baeumlein, 
 Partih. p. 15. Olshausen has a more far-fetched idea, that it is corrective : 
 yea rather. And Billroth imports quite arbitrarily: “When I entreated 
 Titus, I knew beforehand that this time also you would not deceive me, 
 but that, as you are distinguished in all that is good, so also you would 
 zealously further this collection ;” and Riickert also (similarly Calvin) : “I 
 
CHAP. VIII., 8. 
 
 583 
 
 have entreated Titus, etc.; yet let it not happen that he should need first to 
 encourage you (?), yea rather, etc.” According to Hofmann, hXka forms the 
 transition to the ov nar’ hriTayyv \eyu which follows in ver. 8 ; but this sup¬ 
 poses a very involved construction (comp, afterwards on iva n.r.l.). —Cxrrrep 
 ev Travrl k.t.X.] as you in every relation are abundant (excellitis) through faith 
 (strength, fervour, and efficacy of faith), and discourse (aptitude in speaking), 
 and knowledge (see regarding both oh 1 Cor. i. 5), and every diligence (“stu- 
 dium ad agendas res bonas, ” Grotius), and your love to us, so should you abound 
 in showing this hindness. If ttIgtei k.t.X. be taken as a specification of ev Travrl 
 (Luther, Grotius, and most), the meaning is more uncertain, since ev is not 
 repeated. Comp. vi. 4 ; 1 Cor. i. 5 ; it comes in again only before ravry r. 
 zap. Grotius aptly remarks : non ignoravit P. artem rhetorum, movere 
 laudando.” Amidst the general praise, however, he wisely here also leaves 
 the distingue personas to the feeling of the readers. — ry eS, vyuv ev vulv ay any] 
 Paul here conceives the active love as something issuing from the disposition 
 of the person loving, and adhering to the person loved. Thus he felt the 
 love of the Corinthians to him in his heart; comp. vii. 3. This view alone 
 suits the context, inasmuch as the other points mentioned are points purely 
 subjective , belonging to the readers , and serving to recommend them ; hence 
 we are not to understand it as the love dwelling in the apostle , but owing its 
 origin to the readers (Hofmann). Calvin aptly remarks : “ Caritatem erga 
 se commemorat, ut personae quoque suae respectu illis addat animos.” On 
 the form of the expression, comp. Winer, p. 181 f. [E. T. 241]. —iva nal ev 
 ravry ry xh? iri nepurcr.] A periphrasis for the imperative, to be explained by 
 supplying a verb of summoning, on which iva depends in the conception of 
 the speakers. See Buttmann, p. 208 [E. T. 241] ; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 
 840, ad Marc. p. 179. In the old Greek ottuq is used in the very same way 
 ( iva late and seldom, as in Epictetus, Dissert, iv. 1. 142). See Matthiae, p. 
 1187 ; Yiger. ed. Herm. pp. 485, 791 f.; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 148. 
 According to Grotius and Bengel, whom Hofmann follows, the connecting 
 of iva k.t.1. with the following ov nar' emraygv heyu would yield no unsuita¬ 
 ble sense (in opposition to Riickert); but the construction of the passage in 
 vv. 7 and 8, so as to form one period, would be a construction assumed 
 without sufficient ground, ill-arranged and ambiguous, and would not ac¬ 
 cord with the apostle’s way of beginning a new sentence by ov . . . leyo in 
 order to guard against an incorrect judgment of the previous one (vii. 3 ; 1 
 Cor. iv. 14. Comp. 2. Cor. v. 12). —In nai ev ravry ry xapiri, ravry has the 
 emphasis (it was otherwise in ver. 6); also in this showing of kindness, as in 
 other works of beneficence, — which was embraced in ev Travrl. 
 
 Yer. 8. Prudent and yet deeply stirring caveat in reference to what was 
 said in ver. 7. Not by way of command do I say it, but as, through the dili¬ 
 gence of others, testing also the genuine nature of your love. —Ao] “ aliorum 
 studio vobis commemorato,” Bengel.— erepuv ] of members of extraneous 
 churches .—ro yvyaiov] the genuineness, (x 5 ) See Kuhner, II. p. 122 ; Dis- 
 sen, ad Find. Mem. p. 452. — doiupa^eiv] is here, too (comp, on 1 Cor. xi. 
 28), not probatum reddere (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Estius), but explorare ; for 
 by the result, which the setting forth of the Macedonian example would 
 
584 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 have on the Corinthians, it had to be shown whether, and how far, their 
 brotherly love was genuine or not. The 'participle does not depend on ver. 
 10 (Bengel), but on Xeyu, which is to be supplied again after alia. Ikyu with 
 the participle: I say it, inasmuch as I thereby , .etc. Comp, on 1 Cor. iv. 14. 
 
 Yer. 9. Parenthesis which states what holy reason he has for speaking to 
 them, not / car ’ ett naygv, but in the way just mentioned, that of testing their 
 love. For you know, indeed (jlvoxtkete not imperative, as Chrysostom and 
 others think), what a high pattern of gracious kindness you have experienced 
 in yourselves from Jesus Christ. So the testing, which I have in view 
 among you, will only be imitation of Christ. Olshausen rejects here the 
 conception of pattern , and finds the proof of possibility: 11 Since Christ by 
 His becoming poor has made you rich, you also may communicate of your 
 riches ; He has placed you in a position to do so .” The outward giving, name¬ 
 ly, presupposes the disposition to give as an internal motive, without which 
 it would not take place. But in this view nlovrycyre would of necessity 
 apply to riches in loving dispositions , which, however, is not suggested at 
 all in the context, since in point of fact the consciousness of every believing 
 reader led him to think of the whole fulness of the Messianic blessings as the 
 aim of Christ’s humiliation, and to place in that the riches meant by kIovt y- 
 ot/te. — otl fit’ vyag k.t.X.] that He for your salves , etc., epexegetical of -yv xhpw 
 t. Kvp. yy. 'Ir/cov Xpiorov. The emphatic 6P vyag brings home to the believing 
 consciousness of the readers individually the aim, which in itself was uni¬ 
 versal. — ETCTuxEvcre] inasmuch as He by His humiliation to become incarnate 
 emptied Himself of the participation, which He had in His pre-existent 
 state, of God’s glory, dominion, and blessedness (rclovcioc uv), Phil. ii. 6. 
 On the meaning of the word, comp. LXX. Judg. vi. 6, xiv. 15 ; Ps. xxxiv. 
 10, lxxix. 8 ; Prov. xxiii. 21 ; Tob. iv. 21 ; Antiphanes in Becker’s Anecd. 
 112. 24. The aorist denotes the once-occurring entrance into the condition 
 of being poor , and therefore certainly the having become poor (although 
 TTTuxevEiv , as also the classical nevEoOat, does not mean to become poor, but 
 to be 1 poor), and not the whole life led by Christ in poverty and loneliness, 
 during which He was nevertheless rich in grace, rich in inward blessings ; 
 so Baur 2 and Kostlin, Lclirbegr. d. Joh. p. 310, also Beyschlag, Christol. p. 
 237. On the other hand, see Rabiger, Christol. Paul. p. 38 f.; Neander, 
 ed. 4, p. 801 f.; Lechler, Apost. Zeit. p. 50 f.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. pp. 312, 
 318. — ojv] is the imperfect participle : when He was rich , and does not denote 
 the abiding possession (Estius, Rtickert) ; for, according to the context, 
 the apostle is not speaking of what Christ is, but of what He was , 3 before 
 He became man, and ceased to be on His self-exinanition in becoming man 
 (Gal. iv. 4 ; this also in opposition to Philippi, Glaubensl. TV. p. 447). So 
 also vTrapxov , Phil. ii. 6. — iva vyeiQ . . . TzlovryayrE^ in order that you 
 through His poverty might become rich. These riches are the reconciliation, 
 
 1 As e.g. /ScunAeueir, to be king, but epacrL- 
 Aevcra : I have become king. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 
 8 ; and see in general, Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 
 i. 1. 18; also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 
 245. 
 
 2 Comp, his neut. Theol. p. 193 : “ though 
 in Himself as respects His right rich, He 
 lived poor.” 
 
 3 Comp. Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 
 144. 
 
CHAP. VIII., 10. 
 
 585 
 
 justification, illumination, sanctification, peace, joy, certainty of eternal 
 life, and hereafter its actual possession, in short, the whole sum of spiritual 
 and heavenly blessings (comp. Chrysostom) which Christ has obtained for 
 believers by His humiliation even to the death of the cross, n IovteIv means 
 with the Greek writers, and in the 1ST. T. (Rom. x. 12 ; Luke xii. 21), to be 
 rich ; but the aorist (1 Cor. iv. 8) is to be taken as with Enruxevae. ’E kelvov, 
 instead of the simple avrov (Kruger, ad Xen. Andb. iv. 3. 30 ; Dissen, ad 
 Dem. de cor. p. 276, 148), has great emphasis : “ magnitudinem Domini in- 
 nuit,” Bengel. — In opposition to the interpretation of our passage, by wdiich 
 £tt tojx- falls into the historical life , so that ttIovgloc uv is taken potentialiter as 
 denoting the power to take to Himself riches and dominion, which, however, 
 Jesus has renounced and has subjected Himself to poverty and self-denial 
 (so Grotius and de Wette), see on Phil. ii. 6. 
 
 » , 
 
 Ver. 10. After the parenthesis in ver. 9, a continuation of the a Ala . . . 
 (hKifxd^GJv, ver. 8 : and an opinion I give in this affair. Yvcvprjv, opinion , has 
 the emphasis, as contrasting with hrtTaypv in ver. 8. Comp, on 1 Cor. vii. 
 25. — tovto yap vp.lv cvp(j)ipEi\ Gvpfepet, does not mean decet (Vorstius, Emmer- 
 ling, who appeals to LXX. Prov. xix. 10, where, however, the translation 
 is inaccurate ), but : it projits. And tovto is not, w T ith most, including 
 Ruckert, de Wette, Ewald, Xeander, to be referred to the supplying of chari¬ 
 table gifts , in which case cvgtykpu is either left without more precise defini¬ 
 tion (Ruckert : “like every good deed, bringing advantage”), oris inter¬ 
 preted as pointing to the advantage of good repute (Grotius, comp, also 
 Hofmann), of the divine recompense (Calovius) and the moral advantage 
 (Flatt), or as useful for salvation (Bisping), and so on. Toaro yap vu. cvpcj). 
 contains, in fact, the ground why Paul proceeds in this matter merely by 
 way of advising; hence, with Billroth, Osiander, and Kling, tovto is to be 
 referred to the previous yvupnv . . . didupi. It is no objection to this, that 
 in ev tovtcl) immediately before the pronoun referred to the distribution. For 
 in the previous clause yvuprjv didupi contained the whole thought, and ev tovtu 
 had no stress laid on it, not even needing to be inserted. Accordingly : for 
 this —that I do not command you, but only give my opinion in the matter— 
 is serviceable to you , is fitted to operate in the way of moral improvement on 
 you, as being persons who have already shown yourselves to be such as need 
 not command, but only counsel. The emphasis lies primarily on tovto and 
 next on vpiv. According to Hofmann, w T ho does not take ver. 9 parentheti¬ 
 cally, in Kal yvdtprjv k.t.1. there is meant to follow something new and 
 further, so that both ev tovto) and subsequently tovto point to the advice, 
 which Paul intends to give (with the following . . . what folloics), and this 
 advice is expressed in the imperative clause ver. 11, to which oiriveg k.t.1. 
 belongs as a protasis. Against this confusion it may be decisively urged, 
 first, that the ev tovto) emphatically pointing forward must have been-placed 
 first ; secondly, that after iVAopi there would come not at all the announced 
 yvupq, but in the first instance an argumentative parenthetic clause, which 
 would again begin with “ what follows,” —a course which could only lead the 
 reader astray ; thirdly, that if tovto y. vpiv avp^epet does not go with olrtveg 
 k.t.1. , and find its more precise explanation therein, it would interpolate a 
 
58G 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 thought altogether indefinite and isolated ; fourthly, that fie after vvvi in ver. 
 11 most naturally introduces a new sentence ; lastly, that ver. 11 has not in 
 the least the form of a yveynj] of an expression of opinion, hut a form purely 
 praeceptive, as, indeed, that which the apostle has put under the considerate 
 point of view of a testing and a yvuyn in contrast to an ett nayy, was already 
 contained in ver. 7 and has nothing more to do with the direct precept of 
 ver. 11. — oLTtvcg ] ut qui , includes the specifying of the reason. See on Eph. 
 iii. 13. ov fiovov to 7 riiyoai, ciTCXa ml to 8e?..elv ] Grotius, following the Peshitto 
 and Arabic of Erpenius, assumes here a loquendi genus inversum ; but this is 
 an irrational violence, 1 to which also the view of Emmerling (comp. Cas- 
 talio in the Adnot.) ultimately comes : “ vos haud mora, uno momento 
 facere et velle coepistis.” The explanation of others 2 is at least rational : 
 not only the doing , hut also the being willing , i.e. the doing icillingly . But that 
 Oeletv is not used in the sense of 6e?.ovTag ttoleIv (see regarding this use of 
 8'eIov , Markl. ad Lys. Reisk. p. GIG), or even Qekuv Tvoif/aai (Bremi, ad Bern. 
 Phil. i. 13, p. 121), is plain from ver. 11, where Paul, if that meaning had 
 been in his mind, must have continued : wvl fie ml etclteaeccite to tt. But, 
 in the form in which he has written ver. 11, the emphasis lies not on etuteIe- 
 aare , but on to TToif/oai , which is thereby shown to be something not con¬ 
 temporaneous with the OeTielv, but following upon it, something w T hich is 
 still to happen after that QeKelv is already present, so that we have an advance 
 (1) from the Koiycai to the OeIelv in ver. 10 ; and (2) from the Oeaelv to the 
 further TroujcaL in ver. 11. Moreover, in opposition to the former interpre¬ 
 tation, we may urge the change of tenses in ver. 10 ; for, if the OeIelv in 
 ver. 10 were to be something inherent in the previous iroLycrat, (willingness), 
 the aorist infinitive must likewise have been used. Lastly, there is opposed 
 to this interpretation the birug Kadanep k.t.1. in ver. 11, where evidently the 
 (future) actual accomplishment is compared with the inclination of the 
 (present) willing ; hence, in ver. 10 also QeKelv must be conceived of as some¬ 
 thing which subsists for itself, , and not simply as a willingly doing. Others 
 conceive that to ttocF/ocu denotes the collection-gathering which had already 
 actually taken place , and to OeKelv^ the continuing wish to do still more. This is 
 in the main the view of Hunnius, Hammond, Wetstein, 3 Mosheim, Bengel, 
 Michaelis, Fritzsche. The latter says {Dissert. II, p. 9): “ hoc modo non 
 solum to OeIelv tanquam gravius tu ttoieiv oppositum est {nam qui nova heneficia 
 veteribus addere vult, plus illo agit , qui in eo quod praestitit , subsistit ) sed etiam 
 v. Tcposvapijaodai utrique bene congruit , Uli (r<0 woiyaai), quoniam nondum tan- 
 tum pecuniae erogaverant , quantum ad gust am ?,oyiav sufficere rider etur , huic 
 (tcj OeIelv) quoniam in hac nova voluntate hue usque acquieverant. ” In this way 
 the change of tenses in tt oiycai and OeIelv would be quite appropriate ; both 
 would apply (this in opposition to Billroth’s objection) to the same fact, to 
 
 1 This inversion is followed also by 
 Luther, not in the translation, but in the 
 gloss: “ You have been the first , who u'illed it 
 and also did it,” 
 
 2 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 
 Gregory, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Cornelius 
 a Lapide, Clericus, Heumann, Bauer, Log. 
 
 Paul. p. 334; Zachariae, Storr, Kosen- 
 mtiller, Flatt, Billroth, Schrader, Olshausen, 
 Euckert, Osiander, Ewald, and several 
 others. 
 
 3 Who says: “ noLrjcrai. est dare; &c\eiv 
 
 TTOirjcrai, i.e. noLrjcreiv vel Sthcreiv, datUTUm 
 
 esse.” 
 
CHAP. VIII., 10. 
 
 587 
 
 the work of collecting begun in pursuance of 1 Cor. xvi., which, however, 
 
 would be viewed not according to two different sides (Billroth), objective 
 
 ( Koirjocu ) and subjective ( deleiv ), but according to two different stages , in 
 
 respect of the first activity and of the further willing, so that now also the 
 
 third stage, the execution of this further willing, must be added to complete 
 
 the whole matter, ver. 11. But since there is no indication whatever of the 
 
 reference of to OeIelv to a further willing (following on the wotycai ), and that 
 
 a willing arrested as to its realization ; and since, on the other hand, the 
 
 rvpo in TvpoEvrjp £. permits for the climactic relation ov govov to woii/crat , alia nai 
 
 to OeIelv only the temporal reference, that the del elv must have been earlier 
 
 • 
 
 than the tv oLpaai, and consequently ov povov . . . alia nai is a climax of time 
 pointing not forward, but backward : the view of Fritzsche is to be given up 
 as not accordant with the context. There remains as the only correct view, 
 that of Cajetanus and Estius, which de Wette (and after him Winer, p. 521 
 [E. T. 701 f.], also Wieseler, Ghronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 364) has defended, 
 that -KpoEvijp places the readers in comparison as to time with the Mace¬ 
 donians (ver. Iff.): not only the doing (the carrying out of the action of 
 collecting), but also already the willing has begun earlier among you than 
 among the Macedonians ; you have anticipated them in both respects. With 
 this view it is obvious that Paul could not but logically place tv ouqaai before 
 OeIelv. The offence, which this arrangement would otherwise occasion, 
 cannot be got over by the pregnant meaning, which Hofmann puts into the 
 present OeIelv , viz. that it denotes the steady attitude of mind sustained up to 
 the execution (comp. Billroth). This would, in fact, be a modal definition 
 of the willing, which Paul would doubtless have known how to designate , 
 but could not put into the bare present. 1 And such an attitude of mind 
 would withal have already existed before the Tvoiijoai, and would not simply 
 have come afterwards. — cnvo Tvepwn] More precise definition of the tv po in rvpo- 
 evrjp f.: since the previous year. On. Tvepvcn, superiore anno , see Plato, Protag. p. 
 327 C ; Gorg. p. 473 E ; Aristoph. Vesp. 1044 ; Acharn. 348 ; Lucian, Tim. 
 59 ; Soloec. 7, al. Comp. ix. 2. Whether did Paul date the beginningof the 
 year after the Greek (rather Attic and Olympic ) reckoning (so Credner, Einl. 
 I. 2, p. 372), i.e. about the time of the summer solstice, or after the Macedonian 
 fashion (so, on account of ix. 2, Wieseler, Ghronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 364), 
 i.e. at the autumnal equinox, or from the month Nisan (Hofmann ; see 
 Grimm on 1 Macc. x. 21), or from the usual national standpoint of the 
 Jewish reckoning, according to which the beginning of the civil year was 
 the month Tisri (in Sept.) ? The last is in itself the most natural, and also 
 the most probable, considering the great variety as to the times of beginning 
 the year, to which he would have had to accommodate himself in the 
 various provinces, and considering not less the acquaintance with the 
 Jewish calendar which he could take for granted in all his churches. Con¬ 
 sequently there lies between the composition of our first and second Epistles 
 the time from Easter till at least after the beginning of the new year in Tisri. 
 
 1 The present denotes simply the being the historical doing (), through which 
 disposed as the habitus of readiness prevail- the became active. 
 
 ing in the case, by way of distinction from 
 
588 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corihthiahs. 
 
 Yer. 11. The nal before to TToiijocu can only belong to it, and not to ettlteI. 
 also (de Wette, Hofmann). It is the simple accessory also ; as in ver. 10 
 the thought proceeded backwards from doing to willing, now it proceeds 
 forwards from willing to doing, so that at the bottom of nal to iroijjGai there 
 lies the conception : How, however, bring not merely the willing, but also the 
 doing to completion, (z 5 ) This is an analysis of the elements, which in reality 
 coincide (for the huTeMoac of the willing is the actual execution ), occasioned, 
 however, very naturally by the juxtaposition in ver. 10, and giving rise to 
 no misconception here. — omog naBanep /c.r.A.] in order that as the, inclination 
 of the willing, so also the completion (of that, which ye will) may be accord¬ 
 ing to means, i.e. in order that the actual execution of that, which you will, 
 may not remain out of proportion to the inclination of your will, but, like the 
 latter, may be accordant with your means. As it is the inclination of your 
 will to contribute according to the standard of your possessing, the execution 
 of this willingness should take place according to the same standard. — ovto 
 nal to £mT£?ieccu] sc. y. The supplying the subjunctive of el/ui s not linguisti¬ 
 cally inadmissible (Rtickert), and is found already in Homer (II. i. 547, and 
 Nagelsb. in loc.), but it is certainly rare in Greek writers. Comp. ver. 13. 
 See Bernhardy, p. 330 f ; Buttmann, neut. Gramm, p. 120 [E. T. 137]. — be 
 tov belongs to both subjects of the clause of purpose : in pursuance of 
 
 the having, according to your means. See Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 179 f. 
 Comp, expressions like be tuv napovTuv, ha tuv invapxovTcov, and the like. ’E ic 
 is not to be taken in the sense of the origin, as Hofmann wishes ; for it would, 
 in fact, be an indelicate and bad compliment to the inclination of the readers, 
 that it had “originated” from their possession. Paul himself indicates 
 afterwards by nado in what meaning he uses ku. 
 
 Yer. 12. Confirmation of the be tov exnv by a general proposition. There 
 is nothing to be supplied except the simple Igtl after evirpoodeKTog, so that ?; 
 ■rrpodvfa remains the subject (Yulg., Erasmus, and others, including Ruckert, 
 Osiander, Ewald). It is quite superfluous mentally to supply the non-genuine 
 Tig after exy, and to refer evnpood. to it (Billroth), all the more that Paul is 
 fond of personifying abstractions (y Tzpotivyia). The correct translation is : 
 For, if the inclination exists (presents itself as existing), it is well-pleasing in 
 proportion to that which it has, not in proportion to that which it lias not, i.e. 
 God measures His good pleasure according to that which the irpddvpog (who 
 is ready to contribute) possesses, not according to that wdiich he does not 
 possess. 1 If, for example, the poor man who is ready to give little, because 
 he has not much, were less pleasing to God than the rich man, who is will¬ 
 ing to give much, God would then determine His good pleasure according to 
 what the npoOvyog does not possess. Such an unjust standard God does not 
 apply to good wall ! oi) yap ttjv TtoooTyTa, aXka, Tyg yvuuyg opa Tyv TcoidTyTa, 
 Theodoret. On tt pdneiTai in the sense specified, see Kypke, II. p. 259, and 
 from Philo, Loesner, p. 312. Comp. TapcneiTai, Rom. vii. 18. The inter¬ 
 pretation prius adest, namely, tanquarn boni operis fund-amentum (Erasmus, 
 
 1 An evangelical commentary on this sentence is the story of the widow’s mite, Mark 
 xii. 42 ff. ; Luke xxi. 2 ff. 
 
CHAP. Till., 13. 
 
 589 
 
 Beza, Estius, and others), is not supported by linguistic usage, and there is 
 no hint in the context of a reference to time. Flatt imports “ unpleasing ” 
 into the negative half of the sentence ; and Hofmann goes still further, since 
 he finds in npoKeirai the realization of the good will, and attaches to this (not 
 to evnoocd.) the tcaOo eav exVi while he thereupon adds the supplementary 
 words ov Kadb ovk exei so as to form the sentence : li that is not the condition 
 of the acceptableness of the good will , that it is present as realized according to the 
 measure of what it has not.' 1 ' 1 In this way we should have mentally to add ei 
 TrpoKEirai after ov ; and Paul would not only have made use of a fragmentary 
 mode of expression as unintelligibly as possible, but would withal have sup¬ 
 posed an inconceivable case, namely, that the good will is realized accord¬ 
 ing to the measure of non-possession , which is tantamount to saying that the 
 good will gives ichat it has not. And the assumption that upoKEirai denotes 
 already the realization of the Ttpodsaia by the act, is the more erroneous, that 
 the one before whom the irpodvfla is laid is here God , as is shown by exnrpoa- 
 6 ektoc. God, however, looks on the heart, and the frame of mind itself lies 
 open before Him. — Note further the difference between the conditioned Kadb 
 eav exv, in proportion to what he , under the respective circumstances of each 
 case (eav — &v), may have , and the unconditioned Kado ovk exec. Comp. Ilar- 
 tung, Partikell. II. p. 293 f. ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 143. 
 
 Yer. 13. Confirmation of the previous ov Kado ovk exec from the aim of the 
 present collection. — The words usually supplied after ov yap (Beza, Flatt, and 
 others : hoc dico; Erasmus and Grotius : sic dandum est; Rosenmiiller and 
 Fritzsche, ad Rom. p. 48 : volo ; comp. Osiander ; Riickert has yiverai rovro , 
 comp. Ewald, and previously Luther) are superfluous, and therefore to be 
 rejected. There is nothing to be supplied but ?) after dhtyig and yiverai (see 
 ver. 14) at the end of the verse : for not in order that there may be to others re¬ 
 freshing, to you distress , but on a footing of equality at the present time your 
 superfluity reaches to the lack of those , is applied to remedy their lack. The 
 punctuation is to be corrected accordingly. Since the sentence in this way 
 flows logically and grammatically without any obstacle, there is not to be 
 placed after d^iipig (Beza, Elzevir, Flatt, and many others), or yet even after 
 \abrqroq (Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Riickert, de Wette, Osiander, 
 and others), any colon, by which, moreover, h up vvv Kaipip would receive an 
 emphasis not justified by any contrast, and would come in very abruptly, 
 having no connecting particle. — aHoig] means the Christians in Jerusalem. 
 The same are afterwards meant by ekeivuv. Probably opponents in Corinth 
 had said : “ he wishes to fleece us and bring us to want, that others may have 
 good times or the like. ” — On the contrast of avemg and dMipig, comp. 2 Thess. 
 i. 6 f. The asyndeton: alhoig avemg, vfiv (de is not genuine) dl'npig presents 
 the contrast more vividly. Paul, however, uses aTJioig, not erepoig (as in ver. 
 8), because he has been thinking of others generally, other persons than the 
 readers. —eg iaorrjrog] ek , as in ver. 11, used of the standard. The establishment 
 of equality (between you and others) is the norm, according to which, etc. — 
 ev up vvv Kaipip ] awakens the thought of a future, where the state of the case 
 might be reversed. See ver. 14. Hofmann thinks that Paul had here in 
 view the definite inversion of the situation in such wise, that after Israel’s 
 
590 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 conversion (iii. 1G) there would be in the Holy Land a Christian church 
 under more prosperous fortunes than the body of Gentile Christians then 
 sorely tried. But this is not to be made good by 2 Thess. ii. 3, and it has 
 against it Bom. xi. 25, according to which, before the conversion of Israel 
 will ensue, the whole Gentile world must first be converted, and accord¬ 
 ingly Paul could hardly have thought of casual collections from Judaea as 
 then either necessary or effectual for the Gentiles (apart altogether from the 
 expected nearness of the Parousia). — On yiveo&ai elg, to come unto , reach to¬ 
 wards , be apportioned to (Plato, Tim. p. 57 A ; Luc. Gaucas , 19, al.), com]), 
 on Gal. iii. 14. 
 
 Yer. 14. f. In order that (divine purpose), if the circumstances change, 
 the converse case may also set in, and the superfluity of those be im¬ 
 parted to your lade. On account of ver. 13 we must, in accordance with the 
 context, think also here of something earthly, not (as Jerome, Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, theR. Catholics, 1 Bengel, Michaelis, Schra¬ 
 der wish) of spiritual blessings—which would be unhistorical, and quite op¬ 
 posed to the standpoint of the apostle to the Gentiles. According to Paul, 
 the participation of the Gentiles in the spiritual blessings of the Jewish 
 Christians had already taken place through the conversion of the former, 
 Rom. xv. 27. —birug yEvyrai ’iGorrjg] in order that (according to the divine 
 purpose equality might set in , since, namely, then they will not have too 
 much and you too little, if their superfluity shall come to the help of your 
 lack, (a 5 ) According to Hofmann, 'tobrrjc amounts here to the idea of the 
 inversion of the relation, which, however, does not agree with ver. 15, and 
 has against it the clear reference of the meaning of 'loot, in ver. 13. 
 The idea of brotherly equalization , which Paul had expressed by Igot. as 
 regulative for the present case in ver. 13, he repeats also for the eventual 
 future case in ver. 14: it is to him of so much importance. And so 
 important was it to the primitive church generally, that it even pro¬ 
 duced at first in Jerusalem the community of goods. — icadug yeypairraii] A 
 confirmation from Scripture of this idea, which is to realize itself in the two 
 cases, ver. 13 and ver. 14. It is already typically presented in the gathering 
 of the manna, Ex. xvi. 18 (freely quoted after the LXX.). The quotation 
 refers therefore not simply to ver. 14* but to vv. 13 and 14, since in both 
 there prevails the same fundamental thought. — 6 to tvoTiv] he who much, 
 namely, had gathered, as in Ex. l.c., we must supply from the context (ver. 
 17). Paul presupposes that his readers are aware of the reference and 
 of the connection of the passage. —ova hzhedvaGe] had not too much, not 
 more than was appointed by God for his needs ; to yap perpov 6 geyalohopog 
 Tu dupu Gwe^ev^e, Theodoret. See Ex. xvi. 1G f. In the same way : ovk 
 ifaTTovrjGE, he had notjoo little. The word, frequent in the LXX., is foreign 
 to Greek writers. — The articles denote the two definite and well-known 
 cases which occurred in the gathering. 
 
 1 These misused the passage against Prot- See, on the contrary, Calovius. Bisping also 
 estants in this way : “ Locus hie apostoli thinks of prayers , merits of good tvorks, and 
 contra nostraeaetatis haereticos ostendit , posse the like, which love may give for temporal 
 
 Christianos minus sanctos meritis sanctorum gifts received. 
 adjuvari etiam in futuro saeculof Estius. 
 
ciiAr. viii, j 16-18. 
 
 591 
 
 Yv. 16-24. Regarding Titus, already mentioned in ver. 6 , and tlie two 
 others, who were sent with Titus as delegates to Corinth about the col¬ 
 lection. 
 
 Yer. 16. Ae] continuative.—ja/Kf rfi dew, rfi (hfibvri k.t.A.] language of 
 the deeply religious consciousness (1 Cor. xv. 10 ; Rom. vi. 17 ; Phil. ii. 
 13). Comp. ver. 1. The present participle ; for the continuing zeal is con¬ 
 tinually given by God. (b 6 ) — rr/v avryv ottoiA] namely, as in me. This ref¬ 
 erence is made necessary by vnep vytiv, by which Billroth’s explanation : 
 “the same zeal, which you have for the good cause f is excluded. —ev ry icapd.\ 
 See on ev raig ekk/ ver. 1. 
 
 Yer. 17. Proof of this onovdy of Titus.— For the summons indeed he re¬ 
 ceived ; but , seeing that he was more zealous , of his own accord he set out to you. 
 Paul has not expressed himself incorrectly, seeing that he can only have had 
 in his mind a climax (Riickert) ; nor has he used yev . f . tie in the sense of 
 the climactic ov yovov . . . alia (Billroth, also Flatt) ; but the concessive 
 clause tt]v yev Trapani, edit;, expresses the delicate modesty and subordination 
 of Titus, according to which he would not have it appear that he set out on 
 the journey avd-aiperog ; the second clause, on the other hand, sets forth the 
 actual state of the case. The summons (ver. 6 ) indeed he received; he did not say 
 as it were : there is no need of thy summons, I go of my own impulse ; but in 
 the actual state of the case he was too zealous to have needed a summons, 
 and set out to you of his own self-determination. — ^ 57 /tde] The praeterite does 
 not denote what teas resolved on (Billroth), but is that of the epistolary style 
 (comp, gweneyip., vv. 18, 22 ; Xen. Anab. i. 9. 25), used to represent the 
 point of time at which the letter is read by those receiving it. Comp. Acts 
 xv. 27, xxiii. 30, also on Gal. vi. 11. 
 
 Yer. 18. Recommendation of the first companion of Titus.— Gwene/iip. 
 Se yer ’ avrov~\ The aw refers, like yer'' avrov, to Titus: we have sent along with 
 him. Comp. ver. 22. See Lobeck, adPhryn. p. 354. Comp. Gal. ii. 12 ; 
 Acts i. 26, xxv. 12 ; Matt. xvii. 3. Bengel takes it incorrectly : “ una mis- 
 imus ego et Timotheusf which is contained in the plural , but not in the 
 compound. — rov abelpov k.t.1.] is understood by Heumann and Riickert of 
 an actual brother, viz. a brother of Titus. But .adelpoi r/yov in ver. 23 shows 
 that Paul has here and in ver. 22 f. taken abel<p6g in the sense of Christian 
 brotherhood. It would not have been in keeping with th eprudence of the apos¬ 
 tle to send with Titus the very brother of the latter and even his own brother 
 (according to Riickert’s view of r. adelp. yy., ver. 22 ). Who is meant, remains 
 quite an open question. Some have conjectured Barnabas (reveg in Chrysos¬ 
 tom, and Chrysostom himself, Theodoret, Occumenius, Luther, Calvin, and 
 others) or Silas (Baronius, Estius) ; but the rank of these was not consist¬ 
 ent with the position of a companion subordinate to TitiCs; nor is there 
 anywhere a trace of Barnabas and Paul having ever united again for com¬ 
 mon work after their separation (Acts xv. 39). Others (comp, also the 
 usual subscription of the Epistle) think that it was Luke. 1 But from the 
 
 1 So Origen, nVe? in Chrysostom, Jerome, including Grotius, Emmerling, Schrader, 
 Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Primasius, Anselm, Olshausen, Kohler ( Abfassiinc/szeit , p. 85), of 
 Cajetanus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, whom those named before Grotius referred 
 
592 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 very brief statement of Acts xx. 1 ff. there is no proof to be drawn either 
 for (Olshausen) or against (Riickert) ; and Ignatius, ad Ephes. (interpol.) 
 16, to which Emmerling, after Salmeron and others, has again appealed, 
 proves nothing further than that this unknown author either referred or 
 merely applied our passage to Luke. The conjecture which points to Eras- 
 tus (Ewald, following Acts xix. 22 ; 2 Tim. iv. 20) cannot be made good. 
 With just as little proof some have thought of Mark (Lightfoot, Chron. p. 
 118 ; Storr, Opusc. II. p. 339 ; Tobler, Evangelienfr. p. 12). The result 
 remains : ice do not know icho it was. So much only in reference to the two 
 persons indicated here and in ver. 22, and in opposition to the conjectures 
 adduced, is clear from ver. 23, that they were not fellow-labourers in the* 
 apostolic work, like Titus, but other Christians of distinction. 1 See on ver. 
 23. Against this non liquet Riickert indeed objects, that in that case the 
 Corinthians would not have known which of the two was meant to be here 
 designated, since in ver. 23 both are called clttogtoIoi ekkTojgicjv, by which all 
 distinction is precluded. But this first companion is in ver. 19 so distinct¬ 
 ively indicated as appointed by a special elective act of the churches concerned , 
 and appointed just for this particular work, that he could not be unknown 
 by name to the Corinthians, after Titus had already begun there the work 
 of collection (ver. 6). Besides, Paul might leave all further information to 
 Titus. — ov 6 Eiracvog k.t. 1.\ i.e. who possesses his praise (that duly belonging to 
 him) in the gospel (in the cause of the gospel, in confessing, furthering, 
 preaching, defending it, and the like), spread through all the churches , 
 throughout the whole Christian body. He was a Christian w T orthy of trust 
 and praised by all. 
 
 Ver. 19. As GTETkoysvoi in ver. 20 is connected with GWETTEy^ayev in ver. 
 18, ver. 19 is a parenthesis (Beza, Laclimann) in which Paul “ generali tes- 
 timonio subjungit speciale, quod praesenti negotio congruit,” Calvin. —ov 
 yovov de] sc. ETzatvovyevog (or etecuvoq, praised , or ivdo^oc, or the like) egtl ev t<I) 
 evayy. dia naG. ruv ekk2,t]g.“ Comp. Rom. ix. 10, v. 3, 11, viii. 23. —aTCXa ual 
 xetpoToviy&Els k.t.a.] but also haring been chosen by the (collecting) churches as 
 our travelling companion , etc. The x £l P 0T - inro r. ekicX. contains a point so 
 important in its bearing that we may not take it parenthetically , thereby 
 breaking up the flow of .the discourse. So Hofmann, assigning the incor¬ 
 rect reason, moreover, that the perfect participle must have been used. The 
 perfect might be used ; but the aorist expresses the act done , whereby the 
 person concerned became drrdcrroAoc of the churches in this case (ver. 23), and 
 so Paul has conceived of it here.—The ekk?, pGiai here meant are, according to 
 
 iv t<v evayy. to the Gospel of Luke (at that 
 time not yet even in existence). 
 
 1 Hence also we can hardly think of 
 Trophimus (de Wette, Wieseler), Acts xx. 4, 
 xxi. 29 ; nor, with Hofmann, of Aristarchus , 
 Acts xix. 29, xx. 4. 
 
 2 Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 252 [E. T. 292], 
 takes it differently : “who stands in repute, 
 not only on this account (iv to evayy., i.e. 
 as a preacher of the gospel), but also as one 
 elected by the churches.” But from the 
 
 general iv rc5 evayy. to x ei P 0T0V7 V&- there is no 
 logical climax, as respects the specifying of 
 a reason for the enaivos ; whereas the predi¬ 
 cation ascends from the universal praise of 
 the man to his being elected by the churches 
 —so as to assign a ground for the awe- 
 nifji\jjafj.ev. Besides, his being elected was 
 not the ground, but a consequence of his 
 general repute, although it was the special 
 ground for Paul’s sending him to Corinth. 
 
CHAP. VIII., 20. 
 
 590 
 
 ver. 1 ff., the Macedonian. — x £/ P 0T0V -] svffragiis designates. How this elec¬ 
 tion was conducted, we do not know. Perhaps by the presbyters as repre¬ 
 sentatives of the churches, and on the proposal of the apostle. Comp, on 
 Acts xiv. 23.— h rp x £L P Lrt K.r./b] a more precise definition of the coveted, 
 r/potv. It does not, however, simply mean : in the bringing over (Billroth ; 
 this arbitrary limitation was produced by the reading csvv ), but in general : 
 in matters of this x^Pf, i- e - i n the prosecution, in the whole bringing about, 
 of this kindness (this work of love), which is ministered by us, is effected 
 through our ministry (comp. iii. 3). —rcpog ryv tov K vpiov do^av k.t.a.] is con¬ 
 nected by most (including Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Billroth, de 
 Wette, Ewald, Neander) with ry dianov. v<f>. i/p. But since in this way izpoq 
 (which is not, with Ewald, to be taken as according to, comp. i. 20) would 
 have to combine two quite different relations : “in order to promote Christ’s 
 honour and to prove our good-will and since, moreover, the latter element 
 w r ould be self-evident, tame, and superfluous,—we ought rather, with Chrys¬ 
 ostom (who, however, reads vpebv instead of r/ptiv) to construe with x £l P 0T °- 
 vydelg k.t.a. : elected, etc., in order to further Christ's honour and our good-will. 
 The election of this brother had as its object, that by his co-operation in 
 this matter Christ should be honoured 1 and our desire and love for the 
 work should not be lessened “ ob metum reprehensionis illius, de qua mox lo¬ 
 quitur" (Bengel), but should be maintained and advanced by freedom from 
 such hindering anxiety, and by a fellow-worker thus authorized. The con¬ 
 nection with x^porovyddg k.t.1., which Hofmann, attaching it also to avvcKd. 
 ypcdv, declares to be impossible (why ?), places the election, which had pri¬ 
 marily a business motive, under the higher ethical point of view. 
 
 Ver. 20. 'LreA'kopevoL tovto] goes along with cvveTrepipapev in ver. 18. We 
 have sent also the brother, who is honoured by all, and in addition has been 
 chosen by the churches as our associate in this matter, inasmuch as we thereby 
 avoid this , that no one , etc. Riickert (comp, de Wette) arbitrarily, because 
 with unnecessary harshness, holds that Paul has abandoned the construc¬ 
 tion, and instead of writing cTe'Xlopa&a yap, has put the jwticiple, because 
 he had had in his mind the thought: “I have caused him to be elected.” 
 Hofmann connects it in an abnormal construction with rcpodvp. ypuv, which 
 in itself would be admissible (see on i. 7), but cannot suit here, because 
 nrpbg r. npodvp. yp. was a definition of the aim contemplated not by Paul, 
 but by the x £l P orov h aavT£ Q ; the connection would be illogical.—According 
 to linguistic usage, cTeWdpevot tovto (see Kypke, Obss. II. p. 259 f., 344 ;• 
 Schott on 2 Thess. p. 271) may mean : (1) making this arrangement 2 (so, in 
 
 1 Biickert, though following likewise our 
 mode of connection, holds that to the S6£a 
 tcvpiov this companionship could only have 
 contributed negatively, in so far as it was a 
 precaution against any suspicion falling on 
 the apostle, which suspicion—according to 
 a mode of view also Pauline—would have 
 been transferred to Christ. Why, then, not 
 positively also ? The brother had in fact 
 been chosen as a travelling associate co¬ 
 
 operating in the work of collection, so that 
 by his election the work might be prose¬ 
 cuted more extensively and more success¬ 
 fully. And thus the choice of this brother 
 served positively to glorify Christ; hence 
 also 7rpos . . . 66£<xi' is not to be held, with de- 
 Wette, as “ rather unsuitable.” 
 
 2 In this case tovto would not have to bo 
 taken as equivalent to £n\ tovto (preparing 
 ourselves for this), but as simple accusative 
 
£94 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 the main, Kypke, Riickert, Hofmann), in which case there is not brought 
 out any significant bearing of the words, and besides, the aorist participle 
 could not but be expected ; or (2) inasmuch as ice draw hack from this, 
 shrink from and avoid this (Hesycliius : cTkTJieo&ai' <poffila&ai ); so Chrysos¬ 
 tom, Theophylact, Luther, and most, following the Itala and Vulgate : 
 “ devitantes, ” Gothic: “ bivandjandans.” Comp. LXX. Mai. ii. 5. The 
 latter is to be preferred as most appropriate in the connection, and agreeing 
 with 2 Thess. iii. 6. The reading imoaTe'XhofiEvoi in F G is a correct gloss. 
 Paul in his humility and practical wisdom did not deem it beneath his dig¬ 
 nity to obviate calumnies. ■— rovro ] would in itself be superfluous, but it 
 serves as an emphatic preparation for the following fiy ru ,■ /c.r.Z. See Winer, 
 £>. 152 [E. T. 200 ].—fiy tig wag poyyo.] firj after the notion of anxiety 
 (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 288), which lies in gteaX6(i. : that no one may reproach 
 us (as if we were embezzling, not dealing conscientiously with the distribu¬ 
 tion, and the like) in this abundance .— b] in puncto of this abundance. 
 Comp, b rw svayy., ver. 18 ; b ry %ap., ver. 19. — adporyg, from aSpog, dense, 
 thick , means in Homer (II. xxii. 263, xvi. 857, xxiv. 6): “habitudo corporis 
 firma et succulenta,” Duncan, lex., ed. Rost, p. 20. Afterwards it occurs 
 in all relations of the adjective, as in reference to plants and fruits (The- 
 ophr., Herod, i. 17), to speech (Diog. Laert. x. 83), to tone (Athen. x. p. 
 415 A), to snow (Herod, iv. 31), etc. Hence what abundance is meant, is 
 determined solely by the context. Here : abundance of charitable gifts. 
 According to Wetstein, Zosimus has it also four times “ pro ingenti largiti- 
 one.” Riickert’s proposal to understand it of the great zeal of the contributors, 
 which was produced through the apostle’s ministry(rf; Sian. vft yyuv), would 
 only be admissible in the event of there being anything in the context about 
 such zeal. As it is, however, b ry ddp. ravry is in substance the same as 
 b ry xdpiri ravry in ver. 19. Comp. ver. 3. 
 
 Ver. 21. Ground of this precautionary measure. For our anxiety is directed 
 to what is good, not merely before the Lord , not merely so that we set before 
 us God in this way (Prov. iii. 4), but also before men. Comp, on Rom. xii. 
 17. Were it merely the former, we should not need such precautionary 
 measures, since to God we Trecpavepcjpe^a, v. 11 ; but “ propter alios fama 
 necessaria est,” Augustine, (c 6 ) The misuse of the latter consideration is 
 guarded against by burr, nvpiov. — 7 rpovoeiv, prospicere, also in the active; 
 comp. Plato, Clit. p. 408 E ; Xen. Mem. ii. 10. 3 ; Aelian, V. II. ii. 21 ; 
 Wisd. vi. 7 ; Hesych.: npovoeV huyelelrai. — For analogous Rabbinical say¬ 
 ings, see Wetstein. 
 
 Ver. 22. Commendatory mention of the second companion. — avroig ] with 
 Titus and the brother already spoken of. —rbv ade.hj>. r/y.] This one, too, we 
 do not know by name. 'Hywr does not point to him as in official relation to 
 the apostle and Timothy , but denotes him as a Christian brother (see ver. 23), 
 so that the yauv embraces also the readers. Conjecture has lighted (but sec 
 previously on ver. 18) on Epaenetus, Rom. xvi. 5 (Grotius), on Apollos 
 
 of the object, as- in Polyb. ix. 2i. 4 : nopelav Wisd. xiv. 1; 2 Mace. v. 1. Comp. Blom- 
 
 enevoet. crTeWeadau. Arrian, An. v. 17. 4 ; field, Gloss, in Aesch. Pers. p. 157 f. 
 
CHAP. VIII., 23. 
 
 595 
 
 (Thomas, Lyra, and mentioned already in Theodorct) on Luke (Calvin and 
 also Estius, who, however, does not discountenance the conjecture of Zenas , 
 Tit. iii. 13, and Sosthenes ), and even on Timothy (Cajetanus) and others. 
 Wieseler (comp, on vei*. 18) understands it of Tychicus , and to this Hof¬ 
 mann also is inclined. The very plural r/yuv should have precluded Riickert 
 from thinking of an actual brother' of the apostle ; see also on ver. 18. — 
 tv ttoWoIq rcoAAd/ug] goes with etion. : in many things many times. See on 
 this collocation, Lobeck, Parol, p. 56. — vvvl 6 e ttoXv oTrovdaiorepov ttetcolD. 
 k.t./ 1.] vvvl stands in contrast with the previous eSokc/u. ev nolTioig 7ro/Ua/ap : 
 now, however , as much more zealous (than in the earlier cases) through the great 
 confidence which he reposes in you. A high degree of good confidence in you 
 has now increased very much his zeal. Others understand TzcKOL&rjGsi k.t.a. 
 of Paul's confidence, connecting it either with ttoXv cnrovdaioT. (Erasmus, Beza, 
 Piscator, and others) or with GwcTckfi-tyaycv (Estius, Emmerling : “ sperans ut 
 bene a vobis excipiantur”). The latter is an inappropriate departure from 
 the order of the words, depriving ttoTJv cTrovdaiorepov of the ground assigned 
 for it (and how delicately is its ground assigned by this very tvetcol#. 
 /c.r./l.!); and the former must necessarily have been denoted by a personal 
 pronoun added to TrenoLd. 
 
 Yer. 23 f. Summary closing recommendation of all the three delegates. — 
 elte virep T ltov] sc. ?lycj or ypdcpu. Be it that I speak on behalf of Titus , he is 
 my associate and (especially) in regard to you ni% fellow-worker , and my inter¬ 
 cession is thus made with good reason. — elte adelyol ryiav\ be it that they are 
 brothers of ours , namely, for whom I speak, they are delegates of churches , 1 an 
 honour to Christ , jieople, whose personal character and working redound to 
 Christ’s honour. The words to be supplied with elte in both cases would oc¬ 
 cur of themselves to the reader of the incomplete passage. Comp. Fritzsche, 
 ad Rom. III. p. 47 f. Observe, however, that adetyoi r/yuv is predicative , and 
 therewith qualitative ; hence the absence of the article appears to be strictly 
 regular, 2 denoting the category to which the subjects meant in this second 
 half of the verse belong, and therefore neither unsuitable (Riickert) nor yet 
 erroneous (Buttmann, neut. Or. p. 76 [E. T. 87]; comp. Hofmann).— ryiuv] 
 as in ver. 22. The distinguishing of the two others from Titus, who holds 
 a higher position, by the qualitative clSeMol rjyd)v, shows that aiktyoL are not 
 official associates. Such a one Titus was ; the two others, however, were only 
 distinguished church-members—as it were, lay brothers commissioned ad 
 hoc , the one by the churches, the other by Paul, 
 
 1 In so far as they did not come as private 
 persons, but as agents in the business of the 
 church , as which they were appointed partly 
 by destination of the apostle (namely, the 
 second of the brethren), partly by the choice 
 of the Macedonian churches (the first of the 
 brethren, ver. 18 f.). 
 
 2 This absence of the article has led Hof¬ 
 mann wrongly to take all the nominatives 
 in ver. 23 as subjects , but vnep Tirov as a 
 parenthesis (“ which holds true of Titus"), 
 and then ovv in ver. 24 as the ovv of the 
 
 apodosis. A groundless artificial construc¬ 
 tion, in which the awkward and unprece¬ 
 dented parenthesis (Paul would have said 
 something like Titov 8e Aeyco, and that after 
 awepyos, comp. 1 Cor. x. 29; John vi. 71) 
 would be simply superfluous in the highest 
 degree, since, if koi vwvo? k.t. A. is the subject, 
 the person thereby indicated would be self- 
 evident. Just as uncalled for here after the 
 short alleged protasis would be the epan- 
 aleptic ovv of the apodosis. Comp, on Rom. 
 ii. 17-24. 
 
596 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Ver. 24. According to the Pecepta , evdetgaafie is here a direct exhortation, 
 in conformity with the points adduced in ver. 23 (ovv), to furnish towards 
 those three («f avrovg) the demonstration (ri/v ev6.) of their love, etc., which 
 demonstration of love is shown to the churches that were represented by 
 them (eif 7rp<5crtJ7r.). Since, however, the Pecepta is a gloss (see the critical 
 remarks), and evdeinvvuEvoi is the correct reading, we have here an indirect ex¬ 
 hortation, which puts the matter as a point of honour, and so touches the 
 readers more effectively, without directly making a demand on them. 
 
 ‘ ‘ When you accordingly show' towards them the demonstration of your love and 
 of what we have boasted regarding you, you do it in presence of the churches.' 1 ' 1 
 In this way eig avrovg and eig Tzpoaomov tojv ekkX. emphatically correspond w T ith 
 each other, and after the participle evikirv. the second person of the present 
 indicative of the same verb is to be supplied. Comp. Soph. 0. G. 520 ; El. 
 1428 (1434): rd rrplv ev -Q-epevoi rad' dig nahiv, sc. ev fir/cfte. See Schneidewin in 
 loc ., and, in general, Doederl. debrachyl. 1831, p. 10 f.; also Dissen, ad Dem. 
 de Cor. 190, p. 359. We might also simply supply the imperative eare with 
 evSeiKv. (see on Rom. xii. 9), so that also w T ith this reading there would be a 
 direct , stern summons. But with the former interpretation the contextually 
 appropriate emphasis of eig irpocuTrov tuv ekkI. comes out more strongly and 
 more independently. — On points of detail we may further observe—(1) The 
 ouv does not draw the inference simply from the second half of ver. 23, but 
 from both halves, since the exclusion of reference to Titus is not warranted 
 by eig irpoooir. r. ekkX. , which, in fact, suits all three together, and r/pcjv nav- 
 XW&ug k.t.1. includes specially a glance at the apostle’s relation to Titus ; 
 comp. ver. 6 , vii. 14. (2) Upocoirov is here also not (see on i. 11) person , which 
 
 would be against the usage of the NT. T., and, besides, in the singular w r ould 
 be unsuitable here ; but dig -poconvov means to the face, i.e. coram in the sense 
 of the direction. The conception, namely, wdiich Paul wishes to excite in 
 the minds of his readers, is this, that in those three men they have to think 
 of the churches themselves, whose instruments these men are in the matter 
 of the collection, as present and as witnesses of the demonstrations of love 
 that fall to the share of the representatives, and to measure their demeanour 
 towards them accordingly. According to this view, every evidence of love, 
 which is showui to these men, comes, when it takes place, before the eyes of 
 the churches (ideally present in the case). The churches stand by and look 
 on. (3) rfjg aydiri/g vp. is not the love to Paid (Grotius, Billroth, de Wette, 
 Ewald, and others, following Chrysostom and Theophylact), but the Chris¬ 
 tian brotherly love , which thereupon has its definite object marked out by eig 
 avrovg. — On rijv evdei^iv evfietKvvcr&cu , comp. Plat. Legg. 12, p. 966 B. The 
 demonstration of the boasting : namely, how true it w T as. Comp. vii. 14. 
 
 Notes by Amekican Editor. 
 
 (u 5 ) “ Deep poverty .’ ’ Yer. 2. 
 
 That this phrase is not a figure of speech appears from what is said in Ar¬ 
 nold’s “Roman Commonwealth” : “ The condition of Greece in the time of 
 Augustus was one of desolation and distress. ... It had suffered severely by 
 
NOTES. 
 
 597 
 
 being tlie seat of the successive civil wars between Ccesar and Pompey, between 
 the Triumvirs and Brutus and Cassius, and lastly, between Augustus and An- 
 tonius. Besides, the country had never recovered from the long series of mis¬ 
 eries which had succeeded and accompanied its conquest by the Romans ; and 
 between those times and the civil contest between Pompey and Cassar, it had 
 been again exposed to all the evils of war when Sylla was disputing the pos¬ 
 session of it with the general of Mithridates. . . . The provinces of Macedonia 
 and Achaia, when they petitioned for a diminution of their burdens in the reign 
 of Tiberius, were considered so deserving of compassion that they were trans¬ 
 ferred for a time from the jurisdiction of the Senate to that of the Emperor” 
 [as involving less heavy taxation]. 
 
 (v 5 ) “ Singleness of heart.” Ver. 2. 
 
 Dr. Meyer adheres to the original and natural meaning of the word, which, 
 however, both in the A. V. and in the Revision, is rendered “liberality,” and 
 justly, if a single word is to be employed. Doubtless it expresses both the 
 quality and the quantity of the gifts, or it may be that the generic term is em¬ 
 ployed for one of its specific manifestations. 
 
 (w 5 ) “( They gave ) of their own accord .” Yer. 3. 
 
 The Authorized Version renders this clause, “ they were willing of them¬ 
 selves” ; but this is not what the Apostle says. He speaks not of will, but of 
 deed, and the correct rendering, quoted above and found in the Revision, is 
 sustained by all authorities. 
 
 (x 5 ) “ The sincerity of your love.” Ver. 8. 
 
 Almsgiving, in obedience to a command or to satisfy conscience, is not an adt 
 of liberality. What is not spontaneous is not liberal. Paul therefore would 
 not coerce the Corinthians by a command. The real test of the genuineness of 
 anv inward affection is not so much the character of the feeling as it reveals 
 itself in our consciousness, as the course of action to which it leads. Many per¬ 
 sons, if they judge themselves by their feelings, would regard themselves as 
 truly compassionate ; but a judgment founded on their acts would lead to the 
 opposite conclusion (Hodge). 
 
 (y 5 ) “ Became poor.” Ver. 9. 
 
 Dr. Meyer is undoubtedly right in rendering the verb thus, and in explaining 
 it to refer not to our Lord’s outward poverty during his earthly life, but to the 
 kenosis, the self-impoverishment in laying aside the glory of His divine majes¬ 
 ty. Indeed, the connection requires this, for what Paul quotes the case for is 
 not Christ’s remaining in the poverty He had on earth, but His relinquishing 
 the riches He had in heaven, and a similar renunciation was what He asked of 
 the Corinthians. 
 
 (z 5 ) “ Perform the doing of it.” Ver. 11. 
 
 This awkward and tautologous expression is well replaced in the Revision 
 by the more accurate “ complete the doing of it.” 
 
598 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 (a 6 ) “ That there may he equality .” Yer. 14. 
 
 This is not communism. The New Testament teaches (1) that all giving is 
 voluntary. A man’s property is his own. It is indeed a moral duty for him 
 to give to the needy, but this is one of those duties which others cannot en¬ 
 force as a right belonging to them. (2) The end of giving is to relieve neces¬ 
 sities. The equality, therefore, that is aimed at is not an equality as to the 
 amount of property, but equal relief from the burden of want, as the whole 
 passage shows. (3) There is a special obligation to relieve fellow-Christians, 
 because they with us are members of Christ’s body, and because there is no 
 need to fear that the giving will encourage idleness or vice. (4) The poor 
 have no right to depend upon the benefactions of the rich. See 2 Thess. iii. 
 10. Thus the Scriptures avoid the injustice of agrarian communism, and also 
 the heartless disregard of the poor. Were these principles carried out, there 
 would be among Christians neither idleness nor want (Hodge). 
 
 (b 6 ) “ God which putieih the same earnest care.” Yer. 1G. 
 
 The Apostle attributes the zeal of Titus to God, yet we cannot doubt that 
 this zeal was the spontaneous effusion of his own heart, and an index and ele¬ 
 ment of his character. The instance shows therefore that God can and does 
 control the inward acts and feelings of men without interfering either with 
 their liberty or their resjDonsibility. 
 
 (c 6 ) Regard for appearances. Yer. 21. 
 
 There is great practical wisdom and a very useful lesson in this verse. 
 There is no sense in trifling with one’s reputation. “ We are bound to act in 
 such a way that not only God, who sees the heart and knows all things, may 
 approve our conduct, but also so that men may be constrained to recognize 
 our integrity. ” Hence the Apostle prevented all misrepresentation by having 
 another brother to join in the distribution of the money and audit the accounts. 
 
CHAP. IX., 1. 
 
 599 
 
 * 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Ver. 2. v/iuv] BC min. Ambrosiast. Pelag. and several vss. have only 
 i)fidv. So also Lachm. and Buck. But e£ was not understood and was found 
 superfluous. Why should it be added? — Yer. 4. After ravr^Elz. has rf/g 
 KavxyGEW, in opposition to B C D* F G K* min. and several vss. and Fathers. 
 An addition by way of gloss from xi. 17. —Yer. 5. The readings tv pog vpdg and 
 'ir/joe'Trj-yyaX/j.evTiv (Lachm. Buck. ; Tisch. has adopted only the latter) have 
 preponderant, and the latter through the accession of C X decisive, attestation ; 
 irpoETTr/yy. is also to be preferred on this account, that npoicaTyyy. might very 
 easily arise through alliteration after the previous irpoKaraprca. Keiche has un¬ 
 satisfactorily defended the Becepta eig (which crept in easily from viii. 6) and 
 7 T ponarriyy .— Ver. 7. Trpoat.pF.iTai ] Lachm. lliick. read tt poijpyTai, following 
 B C F G K 31, Chrys. ms. Cypr. Aug. Pel. and several vss. But the sense : 
 prout destinavit, presented itself to the not further reflecting copyists as so 
 natural, that with the similarity of the two forms the present might drop out 
 far more easily than come in.— Yer. 8. dvvarog'] Lach. and Buck, read dvvarei. 
 It has, indeed, the attestation of B C* D* F G (?) X ; but if dwarsi were 
 the original reading, the gloss would not have been dvvarog simply, but dvvarog 
 ion, as in Bom. xiv. 4. or dvvarai. — Yer. 10. OTTEppd] B D* F G 80, have 
 CTropov. So Lachm. and Buck. Occasioned by the thought of the onopov 
 following. — x°P r iyy GEi • • • n%i}Qvvei . . . Elz. has x°Pyyv aaL • • • 
 
 tcAi iBvvcu . . . a vtjjjaai, in opposition to B C E* FG X, min. Syr. Arr. Copt. 
 Aeth. Arm. Yulg. It. Cyr. Cypr. Ambrosiast. Aug. The future was wrongly 
 taken in the sense of wish, and accordingly, aided perhaps by the recollection 
 of such passages as 1 Thess. iii. 11, 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 17, iii. 5, was changed into 
 the optative. 1 °o also in Bom. xvi. 20, instead of ovvTptyei, owTpiipat crept 
 into A, vss. and Fathers. — Ver. 15. 6e after ja pig is, with Lachm. and Tisch., 
 to be deleted on preponderating evidence. 
 
 Contents.— By a delicate turn in vv. 1 and 2 Paul begins once more from 
 the work of collection, and impresses on his readers : (1) that they should 
 make ready the bounty soon, before his arrival, vv. 3-5 : further, (2) that they 
 should give amply , vv. 5 and 6 ; and (3) that they should give with all will¬ 
 ingness, ver. 7 ; whereupon (4) he points them to the blessing of God, 
 vv. 8-11, and, finally, brings into prominence the religious consequence 
 of the thanksgivings towards God, which their beneficence will call forth, vv. 
 12-14. An utterance of thanks to God forms the conclusion, ver. 15. 
 
 Yer. 1. Since the yap connects the verse with what precedes, not only does 
 the opinion of Selmer, that chap. ix. contains a separate Epistle, fall to the 
 
 1 For that these forms are not infinitives, is abundantly shown in Fritzsche, Diss. II. 
 p. 82 ff. 
 
coo 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ground, but also the hypothesis, that Paul writes as if he were beginning a 
 new topic,—on the basis of which, e.g. Emmerling (comp. Neander) thinks 
 that between the composition of chap. viii. and that of chap. ix. a consid¬ 
 erable time had elapsed. Against this may be urged also the fact that in 
 new sections he does not begin with tt epi pkv , but with rrepl 6e (1 Cor. vii. 
 1 , viii. 1, xii. 1, xvi. 1). Estius is right in saying that the apostle speci¬ 
 fies with yap the reason why he, in what goes, before (viii. 24), had 
 exhorted them not to collecting, but to affectionate receiving of the 
 brethren. Comp. Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 21. “ Laute excipite fratres , id 
 moneo (viii. 24) ; nam praeter rem ad liberalitatem denuo quidem provocarem 
 ad earn yam propensos homines ,” ver. 2. So also Schott, Isag. p. 240 ; Bill¬ 
 roth, Ruckert, Olshausen, Osiander ; but there is no indication of a contrast 
 with the Gentile-Christian churches (as if the ayioi were the ekkUj/oIo, nar’ 
 zijoxhv), although Hofmann imports it. — pev] To this the 6e in ver. 3 corre¬ 
 sponds. See on that passage. The counter-remark of clc Wette (who, 
 with Osiander and Neander, takes the pkv as solitarium), that 6e in ver. 3 
 makes a contrast with ver. 2, does not hold good, since the contrast is 
 quite as suitable to ver. 1 (though having respect to what is said in ver. 
 2). Even in classic writers (often in Thucyd.) the clauses correspond¬ 
 ing to each other with pev and 6e are found separated by intervening 
 clauses. See Kuhner, II. p. 428. —rijg dtanovlag rfjg eig r. ay.] as in viii. 4. 
 Beza is incorrect (see ver. 2) in saying that the bringing over only is meant. 
 The word itself corresponds to the idea of Christian fellowship in love, in 
 which the mutual activity of love is a constant debitum ministerium (Rom. 
 xiii. 8 ; Heb. vi. 10 ; 1 Pet. iv. 10), after the example of Christ (Matt. xx. 
 28 ; Luke xxii. 26 f.). Comp. Gal. v. 13 .—nepicoov poi Ar™] i.e. I do not 
 need writing , namely, to effect my object. — to ypaOecv] with article, because 
 the writing is regarded as actual subject. 
 
 Remark. —Certainly Paul has written of the collection both in chap. viii. and 
 again in what follows ; and he meant it so, otherwise he would have ended the 
 section with chap. viii. But he delicately makes a rhetorical turn, so that, in 
 order to spare the readers’ sense of honour, he seems not to take up the subject 
 again, but to speak only of the sending of the brethren ; and he annexes to 
 that what he intends still to insert regarding the matter itself. Zotyug tit' tovto 
 T rmei, wore paAlov avrovg eiumaciandai. Theophylact and Chrysostom. Proba¬ 
 bly, when he wrote viii. 24, he meant to close the section with it, but—perhaps 
 after reading over chap. viii. again—was induced to add something, which he 
 did in this polite fashion (rrj roiavry tuv ?i6y<ov /ueObhcj, Theodoret). Hofmann’s 
 idea—that recommendation of the collection itself was superfluous, but that there 
 had been delay in carrying it out, etc.—is quite in accordance certainly 
 with vv. 1-5, but from ver. 5 to the end of the chapter there again follow 
 instructions and promises, which belong essentially to the recommendation 
 of the collection itself. 
 
 Yer. 2. T rjv repodvp. vpuv'] Ruckert infers from the whole contents of the 
 two chapters that the inclination is only assumed as still existing, and no 
 longer existed in reality ; but his inference is unjust, and at variance with 
 
CHAP. IX., 3. 
 
 G01 
 
 the apostle’s character. Already, arro repvcsi (viii. 10) have the readers begun 
 to collect, and the work of love, in fact, needed only the carrying out, 
 which Paul intends by chap. viii. and ix. to procure.— r/v vizep v/u. icavr. 
 M fz/ced. ] of which I malee my boast in your favour (in your recommendation) 
 to the Macedonians; for the Corinthians were made by Paul to favour the 
 collection. On i<avxaopai , with the accusative of the object, comp. vii. 14, 
 x. 8, xi.30 ; LXX. Prov. xxvii. 1 ; Lucian, Ocyp. 120 ; Athen. xiv. p. 627 C. 
 On the present Bengel rightly remarks : “Adhuc erat P. in Macedonia.” — 
 otl ’A x a ia 7Tapean. cnzo Trepvoi] so ran the tcavxiopac : that Achaia has been in 
 readiness (to give pecuniary aid to promote it) since the previous year. Paul 
 says ’ Axaia , not vyelQ (comp. ver. 3), because he repeats words actually used 
 by him. These concerned not only Corinth, but the whole province , in 
 which, however, the Corinthian was the central church. Comp, on i. 1. — 
 Kal 6 eg vpcbv /c.r./L] is, by way of attraction, an expression of the 
 
 thought : your zeal wrought forth from you as stimulating to them. Comp, 
 from the N. T. Matt. xxiv. 17 ; Luke xi. 13. See on Matt. l.c. and Her¬ 
 mann, ad Vigor, p. 893 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. 5. —ro?A irltiovar] 
 the majority of the Macedonians, so that only the minority remained unin¬ 
 fluenced. 
 
 Remake.—P aul might with perfect truth stimulate (1) the Macedonians 
 by the zeal of the Corinthians, because the latter had begun the work earlier 
 than the former, and were already ano repvtn in readiness ; and then (2) the 
 Corinthians, again, by the example of the Macedonians (viii. 1 ff.), since the 
 latter, after having followed the Corinthians in the prosecution of the work, 
 had shown such extraordinary activity as in turn to serve the Corinthians 
 a model and a stimulus to f urther beneficence. Is it not possible that in the 
 very same affair first A should be held up as a model to B, and then, according 
 to the measure of the success, conversely B to A ? Hence Theodoret and 
 many (comp, also Chrysostom) have rightly remarked on the wisdom in the 
 apostle’s conduct ; whereas Riickert declares this conduct of his to be unwise 
 (of its morality he prefers to be silent), unjustly taking it for granted that his 
 KavxuaOai regarding the Corinthians was untrue. See vii. 14. De Wette also 
 thinks that the apostle is not free from human error here, (d 6 ) — That in 
 avOaiperoL, at viii. 3, there is no contradiction with ix. 2, see on viii. 3. 
 
 Yer. 3. Connection: Although, in regard to the collection I do not need to 
 write to you, and that for the reason stated in ver. 2, I have yet not been able 
 to omit the sending of the brethren for this purpose, in order that, etc. Paul 
 by this would direct attention not to the general object of this mission, but 
 to the special one of having all things ready before his arrival. See what 
 follows. On pev . . . de, which may often be translated etsi . . . tamen , 
 comp. Xen. Anab. ii. 3. 10, and Kiihner in loc. The same is more strongly 
 
 1 The form to £t)A.o? is found here in B K 
 (Laohm. ed. min.); it has much stronger at¬ 
 testation in Phil. iii. 6. Running counter to 
 the usage of the whole N. T.. it must be 
 considered as an error of the copyists, 
 
 though it really occurs in Clem. Cor. i. 4 
 (thrice) and 0, and Ignatius, Trail. 4 (Dressel), 
 and hence was doubtless known to the 
 copyists. 
 
602 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the coeinthians. 
 
 expressed by yiv . . . oyug di, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 7G, or yiv . . . 
 ytvTot, Viger. p. 536. — Tovg adt?i<f>ovg] Titus and the two others, viii. 17 ff. — 
 to navxnya to vnip vy.~\ on account of the following tv tQ> ytpti tovtu, 
 which first adds the special reference to the general, is not to be understood 
 of the special Kavxacdai described in ver. 2, but is to be taken generally: in 
 order that that, of which ice boast on your behalf (mvxnya is here materies glori- 
 andi , and not equivalent to Kavx^cng), might not become empty (1 Cor. ix. 15), 
 i.e. might not be found without reality in this point , in the matter of the 
 collection,—if, namely, on our arrival it should be found that your benevo¬ 
 lent activity had come to a standstill or become retrograde. See ver. 4. In 
 the addition tv rd> yipei tovtc j (comp. iii. 10) there lies an “ acris cum tacita 
 laude exhortatio ” (Estius) ; for Paul has not a similar anxiety in respect to 
 other sides of the Kavxvya (comp. vii. 4). Billroth considers tv r. yipti r. as 
 pointing to ver. 4, and takes to navxyya /c.r.A. of the special boast in ver. 2 : 
 u in this respect, namely, inasmuch as, if Macedonians come with me . . . we 
 . . . are put to shamed' Involved, because iva Kadcjg . . . yvt lies between ; 
 and at variance with the parallel tv tt/ vtt ooTacti tcivtij of ver. 4. — Iva Kadiog 
 /c.v.A.] forms, with the following yyivug /c.t.A., a positive parallel to the 
 previous negative iva yy to Kavxvyn . . . tovtco. Comp, on iva repeated in 
 parallel clauses, Rom. vii. 13 ; Gal. iii. 14, iv. 5. 
 
 Ver. 4. Lest perhaps, etc.; this is to be guarded against by the TraptcKtvao- 
 pivoi yre. —tav eWocn K.r.'t l.] if there shall have come, etc., namely, as giving 
 escort after the fashion of the ancient church. See Acts xvii. 14, 15, al.; 2 
 Cor. i. 16 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 6 ; Rom. xv. 24. — M«/cf(5owf] Macedonians without 
 the article. — cnrapaaKtvdaTovg ] not in readiness (often in Xen., as Anab. i. 5. 
 9) ; airapdoKevog is more frequent, and the two words are often interchanged 
 in the mss. ; see Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. 6. Here it is equivalent 
 to : so that you are not ready to hand over the money ; the expression is 
 purposely chosen in reference to ver. 2. — kytig] see ver. 3. But because this 
 being put to shame in the case supposed would have involved the Corin¬ 
 thians as its originators, Paul with tender delicacy (not serene pleasantry, 
 as Olshausen thinks), moving the sense of honour of the readers, adds par¬ 
 enthetically : iva py Xiyuptv v y tig. — tv ry viroaTaatt Tavry ] in respect of this 
 confidence, according to which we have maintained that you were in readi¬ 
 ness. Comp. xi. 17 ; Heb. iii. 14, xi. 1 ; LXX. Ps. xxxix. 7 ; Ezek. xix. 
 5 ; Ruth i. 12 ; and passages in Wetstein ; Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1398. So 
 Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Rosenmuller, and 
 others, including de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann. But others take it as 
 quite equivalent to iv Tip yipti tovtu, ver. 3 : in hac materia, in hoc argumento 
 (gloriationis). Comp. Vulgate : in hac substantia. So Chrysostom, Theophy- 
 lact, Erasmus, Castalio, Estius, Kypke, Munthe, and others, including 
 Schrader, Riickert, Olshausen, Ewald. Linguistically correct, no doubt 
 (Polyb. iv. 2. 1 ; Casaubon, ad Polyb. i. 5. 3, p. Ill ; Diodorus, i. 3 ; comp, 
 also Heb. i. 3, and Bleek, Heb. Br. II. 1, p. 61 f.), but here a point quite 
 unnecessary to be mentioned. And why should we depart from the mean¬ 
 ing : confidence, when this is certain in the usage of the X. T., and here, as 
 at xi. 17, is strikingly appropriate ? The insertion of iva y ?) A. vytig forms 
 
CHAP. IX., 5, G. 
 
 603 
 
 no objection (tliis in opposition to Riickert), since certainly the putting to 
 shame of the apostle in regard to his confidence would have been laid to 
 the blame of the Corinthians, because they would have frustrated this con¬ 
 fidence ; hence there is not even ground for referring that insertion merely 
 to Kciraiox • exclusive of kv r. vtvoot. t. (Hofmann). Lastly, the explanation 
 of Grotius : in hoc fundamento meae jactationis , has likewise, doubtless, 
 some support in linguistic usage (Diodor. i. 66, xiii. 82, al. ; LXX. Ps. lxix. 
 2 ; Jer. xxiii. 22, al.), but falls to the ground, because ri ig icavx . is not gen¬ 
 uine. 
 
 Yer. 5. Oih] in pursuance of what was said in ver. 4. — iva] comp. viii. 
 6.— irpo£?t ,'&.] namely, before my arrival and that of the Macedonians pos¬ 
 sibly accompanying me. The tlirice-repeated repo- is not used by accident, 
 but adds point to the instigation to have everything ready before the apos¬ 
 tle’s arrival. — npoKarapria.] adjusted beforehand, put into complete order before¬ 
 hand, Hippocr. p. 24, 10, 18.— ti/v TcpnETcnyyeipevr/v evXoyiav vpdv] your bless¬ 
 ing promised beforehand (by me). See vv. 2-4. On Tzpoev:., comp. Rom. 
 i. 2. Erasmus, Estius, Riickert, and some others at variance with the 
 context, take it : the blessing formerly promised Jjy you. — evXoyia is a char¬ 
 acteristically conciliatory fal ry irpocnyopia avTovg ETrecTrdoaTo, Chrysostom) 
 designation of the collection, inasmuch as it is for the receivers a practical 
 blessing proceeding from the givers ( i.e. 'KAiy&vcgbg ayaitoy ei; E/covaioTyTog, 
 dedoyevog, Phavor.). Comp, on ebioyia in the sense of good deed, LXX. 
 Gen. xxxiii. 11 ; Judg. i. 15 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 26 ; Ecclus. xxxix. 22 ; Wisd. 
 xv. 19 ; Eph. i. 3. —ravryv eToiyyv eivai ovTog og k.t.'j l.] the intended conse¬ 
 quence of Tcposarapr. r. Tcpoeir. ev?i. vyov, so that the infinitive in the sense of 
 (bare (Kiihner, II. p. 565, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 5. 3) and ravryv, which attaches 
 itself more emphatically to what has to come than to what goes before 
 (Hofmann), afe used anaphorically (Bernhardy, p. 283) : that this may be in 
 readiness thus like blessing and not like covetousness, in such manner that it 
 may have the quality of blessing, not of covetousness ; in other words, that 
 it may be liberal, which is the character of evioyia, and not sparing, as cov¬ 
 etousness shows itself in giving. HieovefLa does not mean here or anywhere 
 else parsimony (Flatt, Riickert, de Wette, and many others); but Paul con¬ 
 ceives of the sparing giver as covetous, in so far as such a man desires him¬ 
 self to have that which he contributes, in order to increase his own, and there¬ 
 fore gives but very scantily. Following Chrysostom (comp. Erasmus, 
 Paraphr. and Beza), Billroth refers 7 -ieove^ia to Paul and his colleagues: 
 “ Your gift is to be a free, and not an extorted, one.” Against this may 
 be urged as well the analogy of og evloyiav, as also ver. 6, where the mean¬ 
 ing of og 7r i£ov£^. is represented by (pecdoyevog ; hence also we must not, with 
 Riickert and others, combine the ideas of willingly and unwillingly (which 
 are not mentioned till ver. 7) with those of giving liberally and sparingly. 
 —(e 6 ). On ovrog after its adjective, see Stallb. ad Plat. Pep. p. 500 A. 
 
 Yer. 6. Allusion to the Messianic recompense. Chrysostom aptly remarks : 
 Kal GTcopov to Trpaypa ekoIegev, iva Evftiog npog ri]V dvTidocuv idyg nai tov dfirjTov 
 evvoyaag ydd-yg otl n’idova ia/uj3dv£ig y didog. The di is continuative, not 
 restrictive, as Billroth thinks (“but so much know”), since the subsequent 
 
G04 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 £/r’ evloyiaiQ proves that in ver. 6 exactly the same two kinds of giving are 
 expressed as in ver. 5. — tovto ch] after Chrysostom and the Vulgate, is 
 explained by the expositors supplying a ?dyu or Ioteov. But with what 
 warrant from the context ? Beza already made the admission : “ quamvis 
 haec ellipsis Graeco sermoni sit inusitata.” Comp. Gal. iii. 17 ; 1 Thess. 
 iv. 17 ; 1 Cor. vii. 29, al ., where Paul adds the verb of saying. Even the 
 comparison of Phil. iii. 14, where, in fact, to the ev 6e its verb is brought 
 from the context, does not settle the question of the asyndetic tovto (in 
 opposition to Hofmann). Tot>ro might be regarded as the object of awdpuv ; 
 but in that case there would result for tovto an inappropriate emphasis (this 
 kind of seed), seeing that a awElpciv was not mentioned before, and the figure 
 here comes in as new. Hence tovto may be regarded as accusative absolute (see 
 on vi. 13), taking up again with special weight what was just said, in order 
 to attach to it something further : Now as concerns this , namely, this ug 
 ei'Tioy'iav , /c. pi) wf nhEoveflav, it is the case that , etc. Lachmann placed 6 
 cTvetpuv . . . £7r’ evloy. a. depiacr. in a parenthesis. This would require us to 
 supply facial after ekuotoc, or even the more definite det (from 6otjjv in ver. 
 7). But it would be unsuitable to assign to the important thought of ver. 6 
 merely the place of a parenthetic idea. — tyeuSopevuc] in a sparing way (Plut. 
 Al. 25), so that he scatters only parsimoniously, narrowly, and scantily. 
 But in (peibopcvug k. -d-cprasc the one who spares and holds back is the giver of 
 the harvest, i.e. apart from figure : Christ the bestower of the Messianic salva¬ 
 tion ., who gives to the man in question only the corresponding lesser degree 
 of blessedness. Comp. v. 10; Bom. xiv. 10; Gal. vi. 7.— etc’ ev/ioyiaic] 
 denotes the relation occurring in the case (Matthiae, p. 1370 f. ; Fritzsclie, 
 ad Rom. I. p. 315) : with blessings, which, namely, he, when sowing, imparts , 
 and in turn receives when reaping, i.e. according to the context, richly. 
 Comp. ver. 5. In the reaping Christ is likewise the distributor of blessings, 
 bestowing on him, who has sowed in a blessed way, the appropriate great re¬ 
 ward in Messianic blessedness. On the whole figure, comp. Prov. xi. 24, xxii. 
 8 ; Ps. cxii. 9 ; Gal. vi. 8, 9. The plural strengthens the idea of richness, 
 denoting its manifold kinds and shapes, etc. Maetzner, ad Lycurg. p. 144 f.). 
 The juxtaposition also serves as strengthening : et' evhoy., £7r’ evloy. Comp, 
 on 1 Cor. vi. 4. The fact that the measure of well-doing is conditioned by 
 one's oicn means , is guarded already at viii. 12. Comp, in general, Matt, 
 xxv. 20 ff. See Calovius on this passage, in opposition to the misuse of it 
 by Boman Catholics as regards the merit of good works—the moral measure 
 of which, however, will, according to the divine saving decree, have as its 
 consequence merely different degrees of the blessedness won for believers 
 through Christ. The very nature of good works, which subjectively are the 
 fruits of faith and objectively the fruits of the divine preparation of grace 
 (Eph. ii. 10), excludes the idea of merit. 1 
 
 Ver. 7. But Paul does not desire them to give richly against their will; 
 hence the new exhortation : Let every one give freely and willingly ! — ekogtoq 
 Kaddg k.t.a.\ as each one purposes it to himself in his heart , namely, let him give , 
 
 1 Comp, Weiss, Uhl. Tiled, p. 378 f. 
 
CHAP. IX., 8. 
 
 605 
 
 —a supplement, which readily flows from the previous 6 < jireipov ; comp, the 
 subsequent don/v. Let him give according to cordial, free , self-determination. 
 On r \) Kapd., comp, ry ipvxy, Gen. xxxiv. 8 . The present is used, because the 
 7 rpoaipelc&aiia conceived as only now emerging after the foregoing teaching . 1 
 In ■KpoaipEOfxcu (only here in the IX. T., but often in the sense of resolving in 
 Greek writers ; comp. 2 Macc. vi. 9 ; 3 Macc. ii. 30, vi. 10 ; 4 Macc. ix. 1), 
 •a po has the notion of the 'preference, which we give to that on which we 
 resolve, because the simple aipela&cu has the sense of sili eligere, where it 
 likewise expresses a resolve or purpose (Xen. vii. 6 . 37 ; Ages. iii. 4 ; Soph. 
 Ajax, 443 ; Isocrates, Panath. 185). Hence paXkav also, though in itself 
 superfluous, may be added to irpoaipEicr&ai (Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 2, iii. 5. 16, iv. 
 2. 9). — in "XvTrrjg y £% avayur/c ;] The opposite of Kcc&ibg npocup. r. napd. : out of 
 sadness , namely, at having to lose something by the giving, or out of neces¬ 
 sity, because one thinks himself forced by circumstances and cannot do 
 otherwise (comp. Philem. 14). ’Ek denotes the subjective state, out of which 
 the action proceeds. To the ek 1'vkt]Q stands contrasted evyevuv cTepvuv, 
 Soph. Oed. G. 488 ; and to the it; avayKyg, the eh Ovyov tpiTieuv, Horn. II. ix. 
 486. —ilapov yap k.t.X.] Motive for complying with this precept. The em¬ 
 phasis is on ilap6v, whereby the opposite, as the giving ek Ivirrjg and e% avdyKrjQ, 
 is excluded from the love of God. Comp. Rom. xii. 8 . The saying is from 
 LXX. Prov. xxii. 8 , according to the reading : ayarra instead of Evloyei. It 
 is wanting in our present Hebrew text. Comp, also Ecclus. xiv. 16, and 
 the Rabbinical passages in Wetstein ; Senec. de benef. ii. 1. 2 : “ in benefi- 
 cio jucundissimo est tribuentis voluntas.” Instead of doryg, dorjp or dorrjp 
 only is found in classical authors ; in lies. Op. 353, 66rqg also. See in gen¬ 
 eral, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 428. 
 
 Ver. 8 if. After Paul has aroused them to ample and willing giving, he 
 adds further the assurance, that God can bestow (vv. 8 , 9), and will bestow 
 (vv. 10, 11) on them the means also for such beneficence. Finally, he sub¬ 
 joins the religious gain, which this work of contributing brings, ver. 11 , 
 i]rtg KarEpyaipcTai k.t.X.,. on to ver. 14. 
 
 Ver. 8. The he is continuativc ; dwaroc, however, is with emphasis pre¬ 
 fixed, for the course of thought is : God has the power, and (ver. 10) He will 
 also do it. The discourse sets out from possibility, and passes over to reality. — 
 rrdaav x^piv] every showing of kindness. This refers to earthly Messing, by which 
 we have the means for beneficence ; see the sentence of aim, that follows. 
 Chrysostom correctly says : EUTz^yaat vpag tooovtov kq Svvaad-ai TrepiTTEveiv evry 
 (pPoTiyta ravrij. Theodorct and Wolf, at variance with the context, hold that 
 it applies to spiritual blessings; Flatt and Osiander blessings of hath kinds. — 
 7 rep;cr(T£f;( 7 ai]transitive : officere ut largissime redundet in vos. See on iv. 15. —• 
 ev 7 r avrl TzavroTE Tzdcjav] in all points at all times all , an energetic accumulation. 
 Comp, on Eph. v. 20 ; Phil. i. 3, 4. — Tzacrav avrapKEiav exovtec ] having every, 
 that is, all possible self-sufficing ; for this is the subjective condition, without 
 which we cannot, with all blessing of God, have abundance eic 7 rav epyov 
 
 1 The &e\<uv, not 3 T et taking definite shape, give, is conceived by Paul as occurring now, 
 already existed 6.nb nepwi ; but the definite after the z-eaders have read ver. 6. 
 determination lioio much each desires to 
 
606 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO TIIE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 ayadov. Hence Paul brings out so emphatically this necessary subjective require¬ 
 ment for attaining the purpose, which God connects with his objective blessing: 
 in order that you , as being in every case always quite self-contented, etc. A brap- 
 KF.ia is not the sufficienter habere in the sense of external position, in which 
 no help .from others is needed (as it is taken usually ; also by Emmerling, 
 Platt, Riickert, Osiander), but rather (comp. Hofmann also) the subjective 
 frame of mind, in which we feel ourselves so contented with what we 
 ourselves have that we desire nothing from others,—the inicard self-sufficing , 
 to which stands opposed the npoackig a/iluv (Plato, Tim. p. 33 D) and etu- 
 ■dvpeiv to)v aA?MTptov. Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 6 ; Phil. iv. 11, and the passages in 
 Wetstein. It is a moral quality (for wdiich reason Paul could say so ear¬ 
 nestly ev navrl navr. ttclg ., without saying too much), may subsist amidst very 
 different external circumstances, and is not dependent on these,—which, 
 indeed, in its very nature, as teHi6tt]c ktt/geoc ayalHbv (Plato, Bef. p. 412 B), 
 it cannot be. Comp. Dem. 450. 14 ; Polyb. vi. 48. 7 : tt pog iraaav Trep'iGTaciv 
 avrdpKr/g. — tt epiGGEvqrE etc; ttclv ipyov aya$6v~\ that you may have abundance 
 (comp, h tt avrl tt! ovTi^opwot, ver. 11) for every good work (work of benefi¬ 
 cence ; comp. Acts ix. 3G, and see Knapp, Opusc., ed. 1, p. 486 ff.). If 
 Riickert had not taken avrapnEia in an objective sense at variance with the 
 notion, he would not have refined so much on tteplgg ., which he understands 
 as referring to the growth of the Corinthians themselves : “in order that you, 
 having at all times full sufficiency . . . may become ever more diligent unto 
 every good ivorhC De Wette also refines on the word, taking the participial 
 clause of that, which, in spite of the TrepiGaevaai takes place in the same : 
 “ inasmuch as you have ivithalfor yourselves quite enough ,” which would pre¬ 
 sent a very external and selfish consideration to the reader, and that withal 
 expressed of set purpose so strongly ! 
 
 Ver. 9 connects itself with tteplgg. elg ttciv epyov ayati. This t repiGGEveiv is 
 to exhibit the fulfilment of the Scripture saying in your case : lie scattered , 
 lie gave to the poor ; 1 His righteousness remains for ever. The quotation is 
 Ps. cxii. 9 (exactly after the LXX.), where the subject is avr/p 6 tyoflovyevor 
 tov Kvpiov. — EGnopTUGEv] figurative description of the beneficent man, who 
 pera hailnheiac Hoke, Chrysostom. Comp. Symmachus, Prov. xi. 24. Ben- 
 gel well says: “ Verbum generosum : Spargere , plena manu, sine anxia 
 cogitatione, quorsum singula grana cadant.” But that Paul (not the orig¬ 
 inal) had in his view the image of strewing seed , is already probable from 
 ver. 6, and is confirmed by ver. 10 (in opposition to Hofmann). Regard¬ 
 ing the use in late Greek of the originally Ionic word, seeLobeck, aclPhryn. 
 p. 218. — I] dwaLOGvvij] is not, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Gro- 
 tius, Estius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Vater, Emmerling, and others, to be 
 taken as beneficence (Zachariae and Platt have even : recompense ), which it 
 never means, not even in Matt. vi. 1 ; but it ahcays means righteousness , 
 
 1 Regarding the notion of tt evr??, which cant poverty, see Arist. Pint,. 552 f.; Stallb. 
 does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. (6 be ad Plat. Apol. p. 23 C. Regarding avos. 
 
 tovov /cal evepyetag to ex w,/ > Pttnym. M.), and ec/enus, esuriens, see Jacobs, ad Antliol . IX. 
 
 its distinction from 7rrcoxd?, which among p. 431, XII. p. 4C5. 
 the Greeks expi-esses the notion of mendi- 
 
CHAP. IX., 10 . 
 
 607 
 
 fvhich, however, may, according to the context, as here (comp. Toh. xiv. 
 11), be that which expresses itself by doing good. So also HjTW, which on 
 this account is often translated by ekeryioavvrj in the LXX. (see Gesen. Thes. 
 III. p. 1151 ; Buxt. Lex. Talm. p. 1890). The Christian moral righteous¬ 
 ness is beneficent through the love which comes from faith. Comp. Bom. 
 xii. 9, x. 13-15 ; Gal. v. 6. —pevei etc t. aluva\ is, according to Paul, to be 
 'taken quite in the full sense of the words : remains for ever (comp. Diod. 
 i. 56 ; Lucian, Philops. 17), never ceases, either before the Parousia, when 
 his tiLKcuocvvrj continues to develop its vital activity, as in general, so spe¬ 
 cially through beneficent love, or after the Parousia, when, in itself incapa¬ 
 ble of being lost, it has its eternal subsistence in love that cannot be lost 
 (1 Cor. xiii. 8, 13). Explanations, such as of a perpetua lausapud homines and 
 gloriosa merces apud Deum (Estius, comp. Chrysostom, Grotius, Emmerling, 
 and others), or that it applies merely to the earthly lifetime of the beneficent 
 one (Beza), are at variance with the words, which affirm the ykvuv of the 
 ■ duauoovvT] itself ; and in the X. T. yevecv eig rov aiibva is always to be taken 
 in the definite sense of eternal abiding. See John viii. 34, xii. 34 ; Heb. 
 vii. 24 ; l.Pet. i. 25 ; 1 John ii. 17. Comp, yeveiv eig ffv aicjviov , John vi. 
 27. Hence de Wette also takes it too indefinitely : “that the beneficence 
 itself, or the means for it, has enduring subsistence.'' 1 Chrysostom and Theo- 
 doret have, moreover, inverting the matter, found the beneficence here, 
 which Chrysostom compares to a fire consuming sins, to be the cause of the 
 justification. It is its consequence and effect, Gal. v. 6, 22, Col. iii. 12 ff., 
 at ., as is the Christian righteousness of life itself, Rom. vi., viii. 4 ff. (f 6 ) 
 
 Ver. 10. The progress of the discourse is this : able is God, etc., ver. 8 ; 
 but He who gives seed, etc., will also do it. The description of God intro¬ 
 duced by (it- contains the ground of this promise, which rests on a syllogism 
 a minor i ad magus. — Who supplies seed to the sower and bread for eating , is a 
 reminiscence of Isa. lv. 10, which is very suitable to the figure prominent in 
 the context (vv. 6, 9). On /3paaig actus edendi, differing from flpcjya, cibus, 
 see on Rom. xiv. 17 ; 1 Cor. viii. 4 ; Col. ii. 16.—Chrysostom, Castalio, 
 Beza, and others, including Hofmann, rightly connect x o PW^ Gei with what 
 follows. Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Estius, Elzevir, and others, including 
 Ewald and Neander, think that k ai aprov eig fipuaiv x°PV7- should go together. 
 This would be at variance with Isa. lv. 10, and would destroy the symmet¬ 
 rical relation of the two parts of the verse. — x°PVYV GeL 1 K - tt/L rj^vvei rov arropov 
 vyuv] i.e. dropping the figure : will give and increase the means , with which 
 you distribute benefits. What is given away benevolently by the readers, is 
 the seed which they scatter (6 arrdpog avruv) ; hence Riickert’s idea is arbitrary 
 and unnecessary, that here two clauses, x°P 1 iyi] aeL huiv arropov and rr/mllvvei rov 
 arropov vytiv, are blended into one. Riickert also inappropriately thinks that 
 Paul is not speaking at all of the present, but wholly of the future, of the 
 blessed consequences of their beneficence now asked, and that 6 arrdpog, 
 therefore, does not denote what they were now to give away, but what God 
 
 1 eTrixopriy. and x°P r iy- are distinguished reichen, dargeben and geben {give forth and 
 simply like the German darreichen and give]. 
 
608 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 will further bestow on them.’ At variance with, the entire course of the pas¬ 
 sage (see on ver. 8 ff.) ; and the very 6i gyiiv in ver. 11 ought to have pre¬ 
 vented the excluding of the present time. Paul intends by x°P r l7V (yei . . . 
 v/j.ojv .the means for th e, present work of collection, and only with nal av^aei 
 does he promise the blessing thence arising for the future. This k. av f. ra 
 ■yevvrjjiaTa rgq Slk. vy. corresponds to the preceding nai aprov elg /3ptjoiv : and 
 will make the fruits of your righteousness grow (see on ver. 9), i.e. and will 
 cause that the blessing, which proceeds from your dinaioovvij ( what blessing 
 that is, see ver. 11) may become always larger. Paul abides by the figure. 
 Just as God causes aprov d<; fipajciv to grow from the natural seed, so from 
 the GiropoQ , which the beneficent scatters through his gifts of love. He like¬ 
 wise causes fruits (blessings) to grow ; but because this ciropoq had been 
 sown by the beneficent man in virtue of his Christian righteousness , the fruits 
 produced are the yevvi/yara r?)<; diKaioavvry; avroii, just as the bread-fruits, which 
 the husbandman obtains from his ondpoq, are the yevvi/yara of his diligence. 
 Hence Theodoret rightly remarks : cwopov yevroi ttqXlv rrjv evKoiav knakece. 
 yevv?]yara dk dtKaiocvvrj^ ryv ek ravrrjg flkaGTaoacav axjrkXeiav. — ykvvyya, in the 
 sense of vegetable fruit, according to late Greek ; not to be written ykvrtya. 
 Comp, on Matt. xxvi. 29. On the figurative expression yevvijy . r. ducaioG., 
 comp. Hos. x. 12. 
 
 Yer. 11. The manner in which they will experience in themselves the 
 avfjGEL ra yevvi/yara r. diKaioovvr/g vyu>v just promised. — The participle is 
 neither to be supplemented by kork or egeg^e (Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt), 
 nor to be attached to ver. 8, so that vv. 9 and 10 would be a parenthesis 
 (Valla, Cornelius a Lapide, Knatchbull, Homberg, Wolf, Bengel, Schulz), 
 which is forbidden by the portion of the discourse beginning afresh at ver. 
 10 ; but it is anacoluthic , namely, in such a way that it is attached to the 
 mentally supplied logical subject of what is promised in ver. 10 (v/uelg), and 
 indeed of this whole promise, not merely of the portion of it contained in 
 7 TMfvvel r. GTvopov vyd)v (Hofmann) : inasmuch as you become enriched. Comp, 
 on i. 7. The becoming rich in everything is, according to the connection (see 
 ver. 10), an earthly enrichment, not, however, in and for itself, but with the 
 telic ethical reference : eiq iraoav dTridrrjra, whereby Ruckert’s objection dis¬ 
 appears, that it would be unsuitable for the apostle to promise to his readers 
 riches. Riickert understands it of a spiritual enrichment (viii. 7), and 
 therefore attaches ttIovtiC,. only to rrjq dmaioGvvpc, v/utiv. This is as arbitrary 
 as Hofmann’s interpretation of an internal enrichment, which makes the soic- 
 ing abundant , so that they with small means are able to give more liberally 
 than otherwise with large, if their growth on all sides in the Christian life 
 ultimately issues in an increase of entire simplicity and self-devotion. Without 
 arbitrary restriction and separation, kv tt avrl rrTiovr. elg nao. drrl. can only be 
 a modal definition of the whole promise x°P r iyh ceL on to ditcaioo. vykv.—etc 
 rcaoav envkor. ] d'n;'X6rr]g does not mean even here (comp, on viii. 2) bountiful¬ 
 ness , but singleness , simplicity of heart; and t\<: expresses not the consequence 
 of kv tt. ttXovti £., but the aim: for every simplicity, i.e. in order to bring it 
 into exercise, to give it satisfaction (through the corresponding exercise of 
 beneficence). The emphasis rests, as formerly on kv rcavn , so here on Traoav, 
 
CHAP. IX., 12 , 13 . 
 
 609 
 
 whereby attention is directed to the present work of collection and every 
 one that might be set on foot in future by Paul ( 'ijrig narepy. SC rjpvv k.t.X.). 
 — 7 'jng Karepya^erai n.r.h.] quippe quae, etc. With this the discourse makes 
 the transition to set forth the religious side of this blessing of the collecting 
 work, ver. 12 ff. — SC r/ytiv] through our means, in so far as the work of the 
 citaottjq, the collection, Sianoveirai v(j> r/yuv, viii. 19, 20, and the apostle, for 
 himself and his companions, feels so much that is elevating in this service of 
 love, that he cannot let pass unmentioned. — The thanksgivers are the re¬ 
 ceivers of the gifts of the a-rrhor/jg . The paraphrase of Grotius : ‘ ‘ quae causa 
 est, cur nos gratias Deo agamus ,” is incorrect (on account of Sea, and of vv. 
 12, 13). —rip deep] might belong to narcpyafrai, but is better, because in 
 uniformity with ver. 12, joined to Evxapicriav as an appropriating dative 
 (Bernhardy, p. 88 ), which is quite warranted in view of the construc¬ 
 tion evxapiGTelv tivl (comp. Stallb. ad Plat. Euthyphr. p. 13 D, Apol. S. p. 30 
 A). 
 
 Ver. 12. Confirmation of what was just said ijrig narepya^srai n.r.2.. by the 
 particular circumstances of the present collection. 1 — fj Sianovia rijg lEirovpy. 
 ravrpg] i.e. the service, which you render by this Xeirovpyia. And the work of 
 collection is called leirovpyia, in so far as it was to be regarded, according to 
 its destined consecration to God, as a priestly bringing of offering (going to 
 the benefit of the receivers). Comp, on Phil. ii. 17, 25; Rom. xiii. 6 , xv. 1G. 
 Most others take ?} Sianovia of the service of the apostle, who took charge of 
 the collection (rijv Isirovpyiav ravrrjv). But this is at variance with ver. 13, 
 where rijg Sianoviag ravrrjg is manifestly equivalent to rijg Sianoviag rr/gheir. ravr., 
 and must be understood of the service rendered by the contributors. Hence 
 the activity of those conveying it is not even to be understood as included here 
 (Hofmann). — oi> povov /c.r.L] The emphasis lies on TTpoaavaTrbrjp. and Trepica., 
 in which case the expression with kan denotes how the Sianovia is as regards 
 its efficacy, not simply what it effects (this would be the simple present of the 
 verb). The service, etc., has not only the supplementing quality, in that it 
 makes up for what the saints lack, but also an abounding, exceedingly bliss¬ 
 ful quality, in that it calls forth many thanksgivings towards God. Others, 
 like Piscator and Flatt, connect rrepiaaevovaa rip Oeip : “it contributes much 
 to glorify God comp. Hofmann : “it makes for God a rich product.” 
 Against linguistic usage, since irepicGevei yoi n means : I have abundance or 
 superfluity in something (Thuc. ii. G5. 9 ; Dion. Hal. iii. 11 ; Tob. iv. 16 ; 
 John vi. 13 ; Luke ix. 17 ; comp. Luke xii. 15 ; Mark xii. 44). There 
 must have been used dig 6eov or cig rrjv So£av rov 6eov (Rom. v. 15 ; 2 Cor. iv. 
 15). —On TrpocavaTrhripdu, to fill by adding to, comp. xi. 9 ; Plat. Men. p. 84 
 D ; Diod. v. 71 ; Athen. 14, p. 654 D ; Wisd. xix. 4. 
 
 Ver. 13 is not to be placed in a parenthesis ; see on ver. 14. The parti* 
 ciple is again anacoluthic (comp, on ver. 11). As if he had said before : by 
 the fact that many give thanks to God, Paul now continues : inasmuch as they, 
 induced by the tried character of this service, praise God on account of the sub- 
 
 1 Nowhere has Paul expressed with so among the Greeks for the Jews was to have 
 deep fervour and so much fulness as here on the quickening of the religious fellow- 
 the blissful influence, which his collecting ship between them. 
 
610 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 mission , etc. 1 Hofmann considers ver. 13 as co-ordinated with ver. 11, so that 
 the So^a^ovreg r. 6. would be the subjects themselves performing the service, 
 ■who by this service prove themselves to be Christians. If so, (1) we should 
 have to leap over ver. 13 as a merely relative appendage of ver. 11, and to elim¬ 
 inate it from the continuity of the chain of thought ; but it does not lend itself 
 to be so dealt with either in virtue of the position assigned to it by on, or in 
 virtue of the important contents of its two clauses ; (3) we should have to 
 shut our eyes to the fact, that So^a^ovreg r. 0. is obviously correlative to the 
 previous Ad ttoXX. evxaptentiv rep deep ; finally, w T e should have to make the 
 participial clause afterwards begin, in a very involved fashion, with etvi 
 ttj vTcorayr) k .r./L, in spite of the fact that this hri could not but at once pre¬ 
 sent itself to, and obtrude itself upon, every reader, as the specification of 
 the ground of the do^ovreg r. Oeov (comp. ver. 15 ; Luke ii. 30 ; Acts iv. 
 31 ; Ecclus. iii. 3). —The Soupy ryg SLatov, r. is the indoles spectata (see on 
 viii. 3) of this work of giving, according to which it has shown itself such 
 as might have been expected in keeping with the Christian standard (es¬ 
 pecially of love). So Theophylact : Ad ryg Sonipov ravryg ndi pepaprvpypevyg 
 £~l tyilavdpuiria Sianoviag. Others take the relation of the genitive as : the ap¬ 
 proved quality , in which this bounty has exhibited you. So Calvin ( u erat enim 
 specimen idoneum probandae Corinthiorum caritatis, quod erga fratres pro- 
 cul remotos tarn liberales erant”), Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Btickert, Ols- 
 hausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander ; comp, also Hofmann, who takes ryg 
 Sianoviag as epexegeiical genitive. But it is only in w T hat follows that the 
 ground of the praise is introduced as subsisting in the Corinthians , and that 
 by a different preposition (An), and, besides, it is most natural to under¬ 
 stand ryg Sianoviag r. of that which is attested , so that the attested character 
 of the collecting work appears as the occasion (Ad, see Winer, p. 357 [E. T. 
 476] ; Bernhardy, p. 335) of God’s being praised on account of the obedi¬ 
 ence of the Corinthians, etc. Observe, withal, how the actual occasion which 
 primarily brings about the So^afiv r. 6. (Ad), and the deeper ground of this 
 So^a^eiv (err/), are distinguished. We may add that Itiickert arbitrarily finds 
 here an evidence that Paul in the collection had it as his aim to break down 
 the repugnance of the Jewish-Christians towards the Gentile-Christians by 
 this proof of the latter’s love. Comp, on 1 Cor. xvi. 1. The work of col¬ 
 lection may have furthered this reconciliation, but this was not its aim. — 
 — hri ry iavorayy . . . rravrag ] contains two reasons for their praising God. 
 Th q first refers to the gospel of Christ (concerning Christ, ii. 13) ; on account 
 of the compliance with your confession (because you are so obedient in fact to 
 your Christian confession of faith), they praise God in reference to the gospel 
 of Christ , which, in fact, produces such compliance of its confessors. The 
 second reason refers to the persons, namely, to them, the receivers them- 
 
 1 Luther and Beza connect fit a rr)? fio/ciju% 
 t ijs fitafcorias Taurr;? with ver. 12, for which 
 Beza adduces the reason that otherwise 
 fio£d£orTes is connected with Sia and eni 
 without copula,—a reason quite untenable, 
 considering the diversity of the relations 
 expressed by the two prepositions ! And 
 
 how very much the symmetry of the pas¬ 
 sage would be disturbed ! As ver. 11 closed 
 with evxap. rtfi de<fi, so also the confirmatory 
 clause closes with vx a P • T< r an d the 
 more precise explanation begins with the 
 following Sia. rrji 8 ok. k.T.K. 
 
CIIAP. IX., 14 . 
 
 Gil 
 
 selves, and all Christians in general : and on account of the simplicity of the 
 fellowship (because you held the Christian fellowship in such a sincere and 
 pure manner) they praise God in reference to themselves and to all , as those 
 whom this dirkdryg r. soivtoviag goes to benefit. Paul rightly adds k. dg 7 rdvrag, 
 for by the beneficence towards the Jews the Corinthians showed, in point 
 of fact, that they excluded no Christians from the sincere fellowship of love. 
 The expositors connect dig to evayy. r. X. either with -ijg o/uokoy. vyibv, so that 
 opokoy. dig is said, like tvuT rig dg (Erasmus Schmid, Wolf, Flatt, Riickert, 
 Ewald, Osiander, and others, including Billroth), or with ry vTvorayy (Chrys¬ 
 ostom, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, and many others), and then dg 
 avrovg k. dc Travvag with rye Koivuviag. 1 But this view would require the con¬ 
 necting link of the article both before dig to evayy. and also before dig 
 avTovg , since neither vTOTaaaeaOai nor oyokoyeiv nor Koivcovelv is construed with 
 dg, the last not even in Phil. i. 5 (in opposition to de Wette). The sugges¬ 
 tion to wdiich Hofmann has recourse, that the twuce used elg expresses the 
 direction in which both — the inroTayy Tf/g opokoy'iag and the airkoTr/g Tf/g Kor.vtovl.ag 
 —take place, has against it the non-insertion of the connecting article, which 
 only may be rightly omitted when dig in both cases belongs to the verb 
 (fo^a^ovTeg t. 6.). 2 Riickert’s appeal to the inexactness of the language in 
 this chapter is unfounded and the more to be rejected, that no fault can be 
 found with the meaning—by no means tame (Osiander), but rich in signifi¬ 
 cant reference — which arises from the strictly grammatical construction. 
 Observe especially the quite Pauline way of exhausting, by different prepo¬ 
 sitions, the different characteristic aspects of the subject-matter (here the 
 bo^aC,eiv tov Oedv ), which he does according to the categories of the occasion 
 (bid), the ground (eni), and the point of reference (dig : with a view to). 
 Comp. i. 11, Rom. iii. 25, and many other passages. — On oyokoyia , 3 confession , 
 comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13 ; Heb. iii. 1, iv. 14, x. 23 ; 3 Esr. ix. 8 ; not so in 
 the Greek writers. The explanation consensus (Erasmus : “ quod intelligant 
 vos tanto consensu obedire monitis evangelicis,” comp. Castalio, Vatablus, 
 and Calvin) accords, no doubt, with the classical usage, but is at once set 
 aside by the fact that the passage must have run : eirl r?) oyokoyia rrjg 
 VTTOTayyg. 
 
 Ver. 14. Kru avTtbv der/crei virsp vy.\ does not go with 'Kepiooevovoa in ver. 
 12, so that ver. 13 would be a parenthesis (Beza, Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
 Olshausen, de Wette), because in that case Paul would have written very 
 enigmatically, and must at least have continued with bid instead of with 
 
 1 Riickert and most others interpret: 
 “ on account of the sincerity of your fellow¬ 
 ship with them and with allhut Billroth 
 and Neander: “ on account of the liberality 
 of communication to them and to all,”— 
 which, however, is quite wrong, for an\6Tri<; 
 does not mean liberality, and of the com¬ 
 munication (which, besides, is never the 
 meaning of Kotvuvla at least in the N. T.; 
 see on Rom. xv. 26, xii. 13, Gal. vi. 6 ) it could 
 not be said that it had taken place to all. 
 
 2 This, indeed, is quite impossible accord¬ 
 ing to Hofmann’s mistaken construing of 
 eirl rfj vnorayij /c.r.A. as dependent on the 
 participial clause Kal avTuv . . . eninoOovvTiov. 
 
 3 Many elder commentators quite arbitra¬ 
 rily took tt}? 6 |u.oAoyia 5 for rfi o^oAoyou/xevft. 
 So Beza : “ de vestra testata subjectione in 
 evang.” But Erasmus Schmid and Wolf: 
 “ ob subjectionem vestram, contestatam in 
 evang.” (so that ei? to evayy. is held to 
 belong to ojaoAoy.). 
 
612 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 tlie dative. Nor yet does it go with do^dfovreg, in which case the dative is 
 either made to depend on bri (Luther, Castalio, Bengel), or is taken instru- 
 mentally (Emmerling, Billroth, Osiander, Neander ; Riickert does not 
 decide), for in the former case there would result an idea strange and desti¬ 
 tute of all analogy from the N. T. (Bengel wrongly appeals to 2 Tim. i. 3); 
 in the latter, nai would be superfluous, and the prefixing of the avruv would 
 remain entirely unregarded. We must rather take nai avruv . . . eTwrodovv- 
 t( ov together as genitive absolute (comp, the punctuation in Lachmann and 
 Tischendorf, also Ewald and Hofmann), and /cat avroi means they too , by 
 which is meant to be indicated the fact that, and the mode in which, on 
 their side also the dnlorr/c r?]g noivuvtac, which the Corinthians have shown, 
 is returned. Thus : while they too with prayer for you long after you. The 
 emergence of the genitive absolute without difference of the subject is a 
 phenomenon also frequent in classical authors. See Pojipo, ad Thucyd. I. 
 p. 119 f.; Richter, de anacol. § 16 ; Matthiae, p. 1306 ; Bornemann, ad Act. 
 xiii. 6. — derjaei is not instrumental, but an accompanying accessory defini¬ 
 tion of the mode : with prayer , amid prayer for you. 1 Comp. Bernhardy, 
 p. 100 f. — Regarding etuttoOeiv, see on v. 2. It is the longing of pious, 
 grateful love for personal fellowship with the brethren far distant. It is a 
 sheer fancy that it means maximo amore complecti (Beza and many others, 
 even Billroth). — did, ryv vTTspfldllovoav n.r.l.] reason of this pious longing : 
 because the grace of God is abundant towards you. How far this was shown 
 in the present instance, see ver. 13. Chrysostom well says : bwrodovoi yap 
 tovto ov did ra xpgpara, dll’ ugte Oearal yEvecOai rye dedo/uEvyg v/ulv xdpiTog. Even 
 in this d. r. bvEpflaTl. x^P LV i Hofmann finds the contrast between the Israel- 
 itic Christians and the Gentile Christians, who before had lived beyond the 
 pale of the church of God, and without God in the world. If Paul had 
 meant this relation, he would have expressed it (comp. Eph. ii. 12). —ef vfiv 
 belongs to virep flail. Comp. Ivtihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 18. bri denotes 
 the object, to which the activity has passed over. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 
 230 [E. T. 337]. (g 6 ) 
 
 Yer. 15. At the close we have an exclamation of gratitude springing out 
 of deep piety (comp. Rom. ix. 5, xi. 33 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 57 ; Gal. i. 5 ; 1 Tim. 
 i. 17), without any special purpose (such as to awaken humility, Beza ; corftp. 
 Chrysostom), but issuing out of the fuller craving of the heart, without 
 being intended (as Hofmann holds) to impress the duty of willingly con¬ 
 tributing gifts which are so small in comparison. — The duped is consequence 
 and evidence of the x^P^i ver - 14 . Comp. Rom. v. 15, 17. — bri ry avendiriy. 
 avroi) duped] on account of his indescribable gift. What is meant by this is in¬ 
 dicated to the Christian consciousness by dvEndirjy. (comp. Rom. xi. 33 ; 
 Eph. iii. 18 f.), namely, the whole wonderful and inexpressibly blissful work 
 of redemption. It is for this , and not simply for the grace imparted to the 
 
 1 It is the Christian intercession of thank¬ 
 fulness for the benefactors, for whom the 
 praying heart yearns. Hofmann goes be¬ 
 yond the text when he imports into this 
 prayer the definite contents : that God would 
 
 keep the Achaean Christians till the time , 
 when Jesus shall bring together the scattered 
 children of God with those of the Holy Land 
 and people. Matt. xxiv. 31 treats of the 
 Parousia, and is not at all relevant here. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 613 
 
 Gentiles (Hofmann), that Paul gives thanks, because it is the gracious foun¬ 
 dation of such fellowship in love , and of its blissful worJcing. Others 1 under¬ 
 stand it of the previously discussed happy result of the work of collection 
 (Calvin,‘Estius, Bengel, Billroth, Riickert, Osiander ; comp. Ewald, who 
 takes xhpt-Q K..T.X. as the quoted closing words of the prayer of gratitude on 
 the part of the church at Jerusalem itself); but in that case aveKdci/yr/rog ap¬ 
 pears to be much too strong an epithet, whereas it is quite suitable to the 
 highest of all God’s gifts, the dupea nar' k^oxvv. Comp. Rom. v. 15 ; Heb. 
 vi. 4. —On avendiTpyi/Tcp, comp. Arrian, Anab. p. 310 : rrjv avendcpy^Tov rdXpav. 
 
 (H 6 ) 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (d 6 ) Paul 's earnestness. Yer. 2. 
 
 There does not seem any ground for the view of Stanley and Plumptre that 
 the urgency of Paul’s appeal here indicates a latent misgiving whether he had 
 not unconsciously overstated the fact, and had mistaken “ the will ” that had 
 shown itself for an actual readiness to send off the money whenever it was 
 called for. What he told the Macedonians was simply that the Corinthians were 
 prepared — a preparation consisting in alacrity of mind for the work, readiness 
 of purpose, which had not yet been carried out. Paul’s urgency is due sim¬ 
 ply to the desire to have his boasting made good, as the next two verses show. 
 
 (e 6 ) “ Not of covetousness." Ver. 5. 
 
 The Revised Version renders this ad sensum, if not literally, “ not of extor¬ 
 tion.” After giving due weight to Dr. Meyer’s words, it still seems that this 
 thought is necessarily implied in the contrast with a liberal, cheerful giver. To 
 give scantily and grudgingly because of covetousness is to give because the gift 
 is felt to be extorted. 
 
 (f 6 ) The promise to the liberal. Yer. 9. 
 
 An objection may be made to the truth of this promise on the ground that 
 we do not always see liberality attended by riches. Hodge replies that this and 
 similar passages in the Old Testament and the New are not to be taken liter¬ 
 ally or applied universally. They were intended to teach three truths : 1. The 
 tendency of things. Righteousness tends to produce blessedness, as evil tends 
 to produce misery. 2. The general course of divine providence. God does, as 
 a general rule, prosper the diligent and bless the righteous. Even worldly wis¬ 
 dom holds the maxim that honesty is the best policy. 3. Even in this life 
 righteousness produces a hundred-fold more enjoyment than unrighteousness 
 does. In sickness, in bereavement, in poverty, the good man is far happier 
 than the wicked. It is therefore a general law that he that scattereth 
 increaseth, and he that gives shall have wherewith to give. 
 
 1 To these belongs Grotius also, who in ostom and Theophylact quote both ex- 
 his acute way remarks : “ Paulus in grati- planations, but incline more to that which 
 arum actionem se ittis in Judaea fra,tribus we have adopted, 
 
 adjungit, et quasi Amen illisaccinit.” Chrys- 
 
614 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 (g 6 ) “ The exceeding grace of God in you." Yer. 14. 
 
 The grace which had rendered them such cheerful and liberal givers. The 
 whole section is notable for the light it throws upon Christian morals. There 
 is no praise of voluntary poverty and no denunciation of property, Hut an ex¬ 
 hortation to the right use of wofldly means. It is remarkable, as Stanley says, 
 how Paul’s inculcation of beneficence differs from the mechanical view of it 
 entertained by the Pharisees, the Koran, and some of the mediaeval saints. 
 They have dwelt upon the amount bestowed as in itself drawing down the 
 divine blessing. The Apostle, even in his undisguised eagerness to obtain the 
 largest possible contribution, insists with no less eagerness on the spirit in 
 which it is given. 
 
 (h 6 ) The unspeakable gift. Yer. 15. 
 
 Most readers will agree with Dr. Meyer in referring this burst of exalting 
 
 » 
 
 praise to the highest of all God’s gifts. Shore thinks that such a reference 
 makes too wide a deviation from the immediate context. Plumptre cannot 
 make up his mind as to what the Apostle intended, and thinks that he did not sub¬ 
 ject “ his utterance of praise to a minute analysis.” But surely it is most con¬ 
 sistent with the natural force of the words, the analogy of Scripture, and the 
 impetuous fervour of the Apostle, to think that he has in mind the one, great, 
 supreme, all-comprehending gift of God, in the mission of His own Son. And 
 so far from there being any impropriety in the sudden change, one may well 
 say with Principal Brown : “ This exquisite and resistless outburst of thanks¬ 
 giving for that gift which not only transcends all our givings, but originates 
 them all, is as sublime as it is suitable at the close of the whole subject of the 
 collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem.” 
 
CHAP. X. 
 
 615 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Yer. 7. Instead of a<f> } Lavrov read ef eavrov ; see tlie exegetical remarks. — 
 After y/j.elg Elz. has Xpiarov. An addition condemned by a great preponder¬ 
 ance of evidence.—Yer. 8. re] is wanting in B F Gr, min. Chrys. Theophyl. 
 Bracketed by Lachm., and deleted by Buck. But how easily might the omis¬ 
 sion of the particle take place, as it might quite well be dispensed wdtli, while 
 there was no ground whatever for inserting it! — nai before nepioa. has against it 
 the principal uncials and vss. An addition produced by the sense of climax. — 
 yplv] is, on preponderating evidence, to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch. A 
 supplementary insertion, instead of which pot is also found. — Vv. 12, 13. 
 The w^ords ov avviovaiv ppeig 6e, which follow after ea vtovq tavroig in the Becepta, 
 and are defended by Lachm. Biick. Tisch. Beiche, are wanting in D* F G 109, 
 codd. of the Itala, Ambrosiast. Auct. gr. de singul. cleric, (in Cyprian) Vigil, 
 taps. Idacius, Sedul. (while in 74** Vulg. Lucif. Pel. Fulg. only ov avviovaiv is 
 wanting). Condemned by Mill, Bengel, Sender, Morus, Griesb. Bosenm. Flatt, 
 Fritzsche, Billr., Binck, Lucvbr. crit. p. 165 f. ; Ewald. But the very fact that 
 we have only Occidental evidence on the side of the omission makes the latter 
 suspicious, and the difficulty of the words (which, with the reference of avroi 
 to Paul so easily suggesting itself after aXXa, cannot at all be overcome), 'while 
 in the event of their omission the passage runs on smoothly, makes their dele¬ 
 tion appear an expedient critically violent and resorted to in the interest of 
 explanation. Where ov avviovaiv only is wanting (see above), ryuelg 6i appears to 
 be an imperfect restoration of the imperfect text. — The following KavxpaopeQa 
 also is wanting in D* Clar. Germ., while F G, Boern. Auct. de singul. cler. read 
 Kavxupevoi. But if the word had not been original, but added by way of gloss, 
 the makers of the gloss after their mechanical fashion would not have used the 
 future, but the present , in accordance with the previous ro'h.pupcv, to which the 
 comparison of ver. 15 also might induce them. Hence it is to be assumed that 
 in the witnesses adduced above KavxvaopeOa has dropped out. By what means we 
 do not know ; perhaps it is simply due to the similar final letters in aperpA. and 
 KavxvaopeS A. The Kavx^yivoi, subsequently introduced instead of Kavxv^opeBa, 
 is to be considered as a critical restoration, made under the influence of ver. 
 15. — Yer. 14. ov yap ug prj] Lachm. reads tjg yap pn, on the authority of B and 
 two min. only, so that he puts a note of interrogation after kavrovq. Too weakly 
 attested. 
 
 Ch. x.-xiii. contain the third chief section of the Epistle, the apostle’s 
 polemic vindication of his apostolic dignity and efficiency , and then the conclu¬ 
 sion. 
 
 Ch. x. 1-18. After the introduction of vv. 1, 2, which plunges at once in 
 mediam rem , Paul, in the first place, makes good against his opponents the 
 power of his genuinely apostolic working (vv. 1-8), in order to repel the 
 
616 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 malicious attack that he was strong only in letters (vv. 9-11). This leads 
 him to set forth in contradistinction the very different modes of self-judg¬ 
 ment, which are followed by him and his arrogant opponents (vv. 12-16), 
 after which there is further held up to the latter the Christian standard of 
 self-boasting (vv. 17, 18). 
 
 Remark.— The difference of the subject-matter—with the importance of that 
 which had now to be decided—and the emotion excited in the high and pure 
 self-consciousness of the grievously injured Paul, so sufficiently explain the 
 change of tone which at once sets in, and this tone, calculated for the entire 
 discomfiture of his enemies, is just in the last part of the Epistle--after the 
 church as such (as a whole) had been lovingly won over—so suited to its ob¬ 
 ject, that there is no ground at all for the hypothesis of ch. x.-xiii. 10 having 
 formed a separate Epistle (see Introd. § 2). (i 6 ) 
 
 Ver. 1. A e leads over to a new section, and its position lays the emphasis on 
 avrog ; comp, on Rom. vii. 25 : ipse autern ego , I, however, for my own self , 
 independently and without bias from the action of others among you. See 
 what follows. With this avrog eycj, Paul, in the feeling of his elevation 
 above such action, boldly casts into the scales of his readers the weight of 
 his own personality over against his calumniators. The expression has 
 something in it nobly proud and defiant ; but the eytyacng rrjg anoaroXnifig 
 afiaf lies not in avrog, but in eylb Havlog simply. While many , as Beza and 
 Olshausen, have left the reference of avrog quite unnoticed, and others have 
 arbitrarily imported what the context does not suggest, such as Erasmus, 
 Bengel, and also Hofmann ; 1 2 Emmerling and Riickert assume that Paul 
 wrote from x. 1 onward with his own hand , so that the avrdg was explained 
 to the readers by the altered handwriting. Comp. Ewald, according to 
 whom Paul meant only to add a short word of conclusion with his own 
 hand and therewith to end the letter, but on beginning this concluding 
 word, felt himself urged to enter on a detailed discussion of the matter 
 itself in its personal relations. But, seeing that Paul has not added any¬ 
 thing like ry ipy (1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; Col. iv. 18), or at least written ypacpu 
 vylv instead of napaKaXo) vyag, there is no sufficiently certain hint of this 
 explanation in the w r ords themselves, the more especially as the avrog hyu is 
 frequently used by him elsewhere (xii. 13 ; Rom. vii. 25, ix. 3, xv. 14). 
 Riickert finds a confirmation of that hypothesis in the fact that this Epistle 
 
 1 Theodoret, comp. Chrysostom, Theo- 
 phylact, Oecumenius, and others, including 
 Billroth. 
 
 2 Erasmus : “ file ipse vobis abunde spec- 
 tatus P., qui vestrae salutis causa tantum 
 malorum et passus sum et patior.” Bengel, 
 however, hesitates between three refer¬ 
 ences : “ ipse facit antitheton vel ad Titum 
 et fratres duos, quos praemisit P., vel ad 
 Corinthios, qui ipsi debebant officium obser- 
 vare ; vel etiam ad Paulum ipsum majore 
 coram usurum severitate, ut avr 6s, ipse, de- 
 notet altro .” Hofmann, still referring to 
 
 the collection , makes the apostle lay em¬ 
 phasis on the fact that this exhortation 
 comes from himself, in contradistinction, 
 namely, from what those others (chap, ix.) 
 will do in his stead and by his order (comp. 
 Bengel’s 1st). But the whole matter of the 
 collection was completely ended at ix. 15. 
 After the exclamation of thanksgiving in 
 ix. 15, a napaKa\eiv of his own in this 
 matter is no longer suitable ; and, besides, 
 the emphatic vindication of the apostolic 
 authority in that case would be uncalled 
 for. 
 
CHAP. X., 2. 
 
 617 
 
 does not, like the First, contain some concluding lines in his own hand. 
 But most of the apostle’s letters contain nothing of the sort ; and this Epistle 
 in particular, ou account of its whole character and on account also of its 
 bearer, stood so little in need of any authentication, if there was to be such 
 a thiug, from his own hand, that his enemies would have made themselves 
 ridiculous by doubting the authenticity of the composition. Apart from this, 
 it remains very probable that Paul himself wrote the conclusion of the Epis¬ 
 tle, possibly from xiii. 11 onward, without mentioning the fact expressly. 
 — Sia t?A TTpqoTTjrog kcu C7 vieiKeiag tov Xpiarov , by means of the meekness and gen¬ 
 tleness of Christ; i.e. -assigning a motive for compliance with my exhorta¬ 
 tion by pointing to the fact , that Christ, whose example I have to imitate, 
 is so gentle and meek (Matt. xi. 29, 30 ; Isa. xlii. 2, 8, lii. 4-7). Comp. 
 Rom. xii. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 10. The gentleness and meekness of Christ belong 
 to the divine love manifested in Him (Rom. viii. 39 ; Tit. iii. 4 ff.), and are 
 continually shown by Him in His heavenly government, in the working of 
 His grace, in His intercession, etc. Estius designates rightly the ground of 
 the motive assigned : ‘ £ quia cupiebat non provocari ad severitatem vindictae” 
 (which would not be in harmony with Christ’s meekness and gentleness). 
 On EKieineta, dementia (Acts xxiv. 4), which is often found in connection 
 with 7 Tpgdrng (as Plut. Pericl. 39, Caes. 57 ; Philo, de Vita Mos. p. 112), 
 comp. Wetstein. It is attributed even to God (2 Macc. x. 4 ; Bar. ii. 27) 
 and to Wisdom (Wisd. xii. 18). Bengel gives the distinction of the two 
 words : “ wpaorrjq virtus magis absoluta ; etzielkeici magis refertur ad alios.” 
 It is the opposite of standing on one’s full rights, Plato, Def. p. 412 B : 
 Slkcl'lov k. cvpcpepovruv e^cittoolq. — oq Kara Trpocunrov pev /c.r.A.] I who , to the 
 face , am indeed humble , of a subdued, unassuming character among you , but 
 in absence have courage towards you —a malicious opinion of his opponents, 
 designed to counteract the influence of the apostle’s letters, which he here 
 appropriates to himself pipr/riKuq. Comp. ver. 10. Kara tv pdaonov, coram,, 
 is not a Hebraism, but see Wetstein on the passage ; Hermann, ad Soph. 
 Track. 102 ; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 612. There is no need to supply, any¬ 
 thing after rarreivoq, neither el pi nor uv. On TaneivoQ, comp. Xen. Mem. iii., 
 10. 5, where it is connected with avelevdepoq ; Dem. 1312, 2. 
 
 Remake.— Riickert is wrongly of opinion that the assertion of the opponents 
 had been true, and just on that account had been so ill taken by Paul ; that 
 he belonged to those in whom natural impetuosity is not united with per- 
 sonalcourage. Against this there is the testimony of his whole working from 
 Damascus to Rome ; and outpourings like vi. 4 ft', al. do not lack internal truth. 
 Comp, besides, passages like Acts xx. 22 ft., xxi. 13, xxiv. 25 ; 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff. 
 al. That assertion of his opponents may be explained from the fact that, 
 though there were not wanting disturbing phenomena even at his second arri¬ 
 val in Corinth (ii. 1, xii. 21), it w r as only subsequently that the evils had be¬ 
 come so magnified and multiplied as to necessitate his now writing (in our first 
 Epistle) far more severely than he had spoken in Corinth. 
 
 Ver. 2. After the previous relative clause, the irapanc/Ati is in substance 
 resumed by means of Siopai be, and that in such a way that Si has its adver- 
 
G18 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 sative reference in the contents of the relative clause (Hartimg, Partikell. I. 
 p. 174 ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 377), and the deopac now substituted for napa- 
 KaXij betrays the increasing earnestness softened by the mention of Christ's 
 gentleness and meekness. Emmerling and Ruckert refer deupai not to the 
 Corinthians, but to God: 1L but I pray God that I when present may not 
 be obliged to act with the confidence and boldness,” etc. So also Ewald 
 and Hofmann. But how strangely Paul would have written, if he had left 
 his rapanaTio) vpag to stand quite abruptly at the very beginning of the new 
 address ! It is all the more arbitrary not to refer deopai also to the readers, 
 and not to be willing to supply a vpkv with deopai from-the previous Trapanalco 
 vpag. Chrysostom and most expositors rightly give it this reference. And 
 how little does what is attached to deopai de (observe especially y loy’fopai 
 sound like the contents oi prayer ! — to pi):rapkv Oappijcai k.t.1.] I 
 entreat the not being courageous in presence , i.e. that I may not when present 
 (this rrapkv has the emphasis) he of brave courage with the confidence , etc. The 
 meaning is : that you may not let it come to this , that I, etc. Comp. Chrysos¬ 
 tom : pi] pe avayndayre k.t.1. On the infinitive with the article, see Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. p. 225 [E. T. 261]. The nominative tt apkv with the infinitive is 
 quite according to Greek usage. See Kiilfner, II. p. 344 ; Matthiae, p. 
 1248. The reerzoibyaig is not specially fiducia in Deum (Grotius, against the 
 context), but generally the official confidentia, assurance. — rj loy'fopai rolpf/- 
 ocu\ with which I reckon (am minded) to be bold towards certain people , etc. 
 On loy'fopcu , comp. Herod, vii. 176 ; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 13 ; 1 Macc. iv. 35, 
 vi. 19 ; LXX. 1 Sam. xviii. 25 ; Jer. xxvi. 3 ; and on rokurjcai, xi. 21 ; 
 Horn. 11. x. 232 ; Maetzner, adAntiph. p. 173. Others, such as the Vulgate, 
 Anselm, Luther, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Er. Schmid, Calovius, Bengel, 
 Semler, Schulz, take loyfopai passively {qua efferri ducor , Emmerling). In 
 that case we should have had an airkv with rolpijoai , because in this lay the 
 most essential point of the hostile criticism ; besides, the boldness of the 
 expression, which lies in the correlation of loy'fopai rovg loyfopevovg, would 
 be obliterated. — km rivag rovg 7ioyfop.\ against certain , who reckon us, etc., is 
 to be connected with rolprjoaL, since only by the erroneous course of taking 
 the previous loyfopai as passive would the connection with flappr/aai be re¬ 
 quired (Luther, Beza, Estius, Emmerling, also Billroth). — revag denotes 
 quosdam, quos nominare nolo. See on 1 Cor. xv. 12. These are then char¬ 
 acterized in their definite quality by rovg hoyi^op. See on Luke xviii. 9, and 
 Doederl. ad Oed. Col. p. 296. —kg Kara Capua Trept7rarovvTag ] as people iclio 
 walk according to the standard of the flesh, kg with the participle as the object 
 of a verb of believing or saying. See Kuhner, II. p. 375. Comp. Rom. viii. 
 36 ; 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; LXX. Gen. xxxi. 15, al. The TTEpiTrareiv Kara cdpKa is not 
 an expression of weakness, 1 since TrepiTrarEiv denotes the moral conduct. 
 Hence the meaning is : as those, whose icay of thinking and of acting follows, 
 not the influence of the Holy Spirit, but the lusts opposed to God, which have 
 ■ their seat in the materio-psychical nature of man. Comp, on Rom. viii. 4. 
 
 1 Beza : “ non alio praesidio freti, quam inem spectes.” Comp. Bengel, Mosheim, 
 quod prae nobis ferimus, qui videlicet horn- Flatt, Emmerling, also Billroth, 
 ines sumus viles, si nihil aliud quam horn- 
 
CHAP. X., 3, 4. 
 
 G19 
 
 This general interpretation is not at variance with the context, since, in 
 fact, a Kara capua 7vepnvar£iv would have shown such a demeanour in the 
 apostle’s position as his opponents blamed him for,—bold at a distance, 
 timid when near, full of the fear of men and of the desire to please men. 
 In that special accusation there was therefore expressed this general one of 
 the Kara aapKa TTEpnrareiv ; (hefiaHov yap avrov of vrroKpiryv, kg rrovrjpov, kg 
 d?ff6va, Chrysostom. Thus the expression is to be explained from the im¬ 
 mediate context, and not of the reproach made to him by the representatives 
 of a false spirituality, that he acted on too free principles (Ewald). 
 
 Yer. 3 does not introduce the refutation of the previous accusation (so 
 that, with Estius and Billroth, w r e should have to supply a quod falsum est ), 
 since yap may quite naturally finds its logical reference in what was expressed 
 before. Nor does it assign the reason for ry tteitoiO. y loy'fopai rolpyaai, 
 since there is nothing whatever against the reference, which first and most 
 naturally suggests itself, to the chief thought of the previous verse. Hence 
 it assigns the reason of the bcbpat 6e k.t.1. : u I entreat, let me not become 
 bold, etc. ; for the position of matters with us is quite different from what 
 the opponents believe : we do not march to the field Kara capita ,” etc. Do 
 not therefore run the risk of this ! — kv aapKi yap ^epm.] Paul wishes to ex¬ 
 press the thought : for it by no means stands with us so as those think, and 
 hence says : For, though we walk in the flesh, for although the existent form of 
 the sinful bodily human nature is the organ , in which our conduct of life has its 
 course (aapKa pkv yap rrepiKEipeQa , Chrysostom), still we do not take the field 
 according to the flesh, the a dpt, is not the standard, according to which our 
 official working, which resembles a campaigning, is carried on. Observe 
 that even in kv aapKi the notion of the cap% is not indifferent , expressing the 
 mere life of the body (comp. Gal. ii. 20 ; Phil. i. 22) : this is forbidden by 
 what goes before and follows. If taken in this way, kv capkl TrcpiTr. would 
 contain something very insignificant, because self-evident, and would form 
 no adequate contrast to Kara aapKa —a contrast, which only results when the 
 notion of a apt is alike in both clauses. For the stress of this contrast lies in 
 kv and Kara (in the flesh, not according to the flesh) ; instead of irsptTvarovpEv, 
 however, there comes in crparevopsda , because it was highly appropriate to 
 the context (vv. 1, 2) to give thus a military character to the apostle’s 
 TrepcTrarelv in presence of liis enemies (comp. vi. 7). On the idea, comp. 
 1 Tim. i. 18. 
 
 Yer. 4. Reason assigned for the assertion just made ov k. a. crparevopeOa , 
 but not a parenthesis (Griesbach, Lachmann), since ver. 5 is manifestly a 
 further explanation of the preceding irpog Kadaip. oxvp ., so that the participles 
 in ver. 5 f. are to be referred to the logical subject of the verse before ( fjpeig ). 
 Comp. ix. 11, 13. — That the crparevecOai is not Kara aapKa , is shown from 
 the fact that the weapons of warfare are not aapKiKa ; for, if the former were 
 the case, so must the latter also. By the weapons (comp. vi. 7 ; Rom. vi. 
 13, xiii. 12) are to be understood the means, which the apostolic activity 
 makes use of in the strife with the hostile powers. — aapKiKa ] which belong 
 to the life-sphere of the cap £, so that the cap!;, the sinfully inclined human 
 nature, is their principium essendi, and they do not proceed from the Holy 
 
620 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Spirit, 1 as e.g. aofla Gap/cud/, i. 12, the vovg rrjg capnog, Col. ii. 18, the whole 
 Ipya Tijg aapn., Gal. v. 19. Now, since fleshly weapons as such are weak 
 (Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Rom. vi. 19), and not in keeping with the aims of the 
 apostolic work, the weapons opposed to them are not designated according 
 to their nature (for it is self-evident that they are bnTia nvevpaTuca), but at 
 once according to their specific potency (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 4), as dvvara rw 6e(L. 
 By this the passage only gains in pith, since by virtue of the contrast so ex¬ 
 pressed in capnuca the quality of weakness, and in bwara ru deep the pneu¬ 
 matic nature, are understood ex adjuncto. Hence the inference frequently 
 drawn from bvvara rep deb 3, that aapauiog here must mean weak, is too hasty. — 
 6 war a rep deep] mighty for God , i.e. passing with God as mighty, which de¬ 
 notes the true reality of the being mighty, without, however, being a He¬ 
 braistic periphrasis for the superlative (Yorstius, Glass, Emmerling, Vater, 
 Flatt). See on acrelog ru deep, Acts vii. 20 ; Bernhardy, p. 83 f. Others, 
 not following this current genuinely Greek usage (for the corresponding 
 Hebrew usage, see Gesenius, Thesaur. I. p. 98), ha T e explained it as : 
 through God , 2 or for God , i.e. so that they are to God a means of showing His 
 jiower (Billroth ; comp. Chrysostom and Hofmann). But the former would 
 be superfluous , since it is self-evident in the case of spiritual weapons, and 
 the latter would import something into the words, especially as not God, 
 but Christ (ver. 5), is conceived as the general ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 3. For 
 the mighty TravoTcXia of the Christian, which, along with the special apostolic 
 gifts, is also that of the apostles, see Eph. vi. 14 ff. — vrpbg nadaipeoiv oxvpu- 
 paTuv] that , for which the weapons are mighty : to the pulling down of strong¬ 
 holds (Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 3 ; very frequent in the books of the Maccabees ; 
 comp. oxvpoQ TTvpyoq , roTrog, oxvpa noliig, eppovpa ., and the like). The rvepog 
 ''EiXh'pvuioq and the laxvg ruv aoepiGyaruv Kal tcjv diaXoyiG/uebv (Chrysostom) are 
 included in the phrase. It does not, however, mean these alone , nor the 
 “ old walls of the Jewish legal system” (Klopper), but generally everything, 
 which may be included as belonging to the category of humanly strong and 
 mighty means of resistance to the gospel. Examples of this figurative use 
 may be seen in Wetstein and Kvpke, and from Philo in Loesner, p. 317. 
 The pulling down depicts the making quite powerless and reducing to 
 nought—the narapyelv , 1 Cor. i. 28, and KaraiGxvveiv, 1 Cor. i. 27. 
 
 Ver. 5. How the npog nadaip. oxvpuy. is executed by the r/yelg (the logical 
 subject in ver. 4): inasmuch as we pull down thoughts (Rom. ii. 15), i.e. bring 
 to nothing hostile deliberations, resolutions, plans, calculations, and the 
 like, raising themselves like fortresses against Christ. More precise defini¬ 
 tions (Grotius and many others: “ ratiocinationes philosophorum,” comp. 
 Ewald ; “ subtleties,” Hofmann : “thoughts of their own,” behind which 
 men screen themselves from the urgent knowledge of God) are not warrant¬ 
 ed by the context, nor yet by the contrast of yvtbcig r. d. , since this is meant 
 objectively (in opposition to de Wette, who understands thoughts of self-con- 
 
 1 Chrysostom reckons up such weapons : 2 Beza, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapido, 
 
 it\ 0UT05, Sb£a, Svi/acrreca, evyAiom'a., beivorr)?, Estius, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Bengel, and 
 Trepi.8pofJ.ai , /coAaiceiac , vnoKpiae^, ra a A A a others ; Erasmus has afflatu Dei. 
 
 T a T o ii T O l 5 £ O L K 6 T a. 
 
CHAP. X., 6. 
 
 621 
 
 edited wisdom). Also against Olshausen’s opinion, that Paul is censuring 
 specially the pretended wisdom of the Christ-party , it is to be observed that 
 he is speaking, not simply of the working against Corinthian opponents, 
 but against enemies in general. The figurative expression of destruction by 
 war, mdaipovvreg , wvas very naturally suggested by the image which had just 
 gone before, and which is immediately afterwards taken up again by v-ipuya 
 (t -eyeive rff rpoTnp Iva i:\zLova noeijoy rrjv eyepaenv, Chrysostom) ; and the subse¬ 
 quent ercaipoy. emphatically corresponds to it.— ko.1 tz av if uya k.t.X.] and 
 every exalted thing (rampart, castle, tower, and the like, comp. Aq. Ps. xviii. 
 34, and see in general, Schleusner, Tlies. Y. p. 427), which is lifted up against 
 the (evangelical) knowledge of God (the knowdedge of God /car’ i^oxyv), that 
 this may not become diffused and prevailing. (j c ) The real meaning of the 
 figurative inpoya is equivalent to that of oxvpuya , ver. 4 ; the relation to 
 Xoyiayovg is, however, correctly defined by Bengel : ‘ ‘ cogitationes species , 
 altitudo genus. ” — The enemy , who is thus vanquished by the destruction of 
 his high places, is rzav vorjya , i.e. not all reason (Luther ; comp. Vulgate : 
 ‘•omnem intellectum ”), as if -k avra vovv were used, but (comp, on iii. 14, 
 iv. 4) every creation of thought , every product of the human thinking faculty. 
 The koyaryot before named belong to this, but Paul here goes on to the 
 whole general category pf that, which as product of the vovg takes the field 
 against Christianity. All this is by Paul and his companions brought 
 into captivity , and thereby into subordination to Christ , after the bulwarks 
 are destroyed, etc. Thus the holy war comes to the goal of complete 
 victory. — elg rip viranor/v tov X.] so that this nav vorjya, which previously 
 was hostile to Christ, now becomes obedient and subject to Christ. By 
 this is expressed the conversion to Christ, which is attained through the 
 apostolic working, consequently a leading captive curb Sov?.eiag elg elevdepiav , 
 aizb Oavarov rrpog ^or/v, eg anoleiag rrpog coTypiav, Chrysostom. The condition 
 vnanorj tov Xpurrov is conceived of as a local sphere , into which the enemy is 
 led captive. Comp. Luke xxi. 24 ; Tob. i. 10 ; 1 Kings viii. 46 ; 3 Esdr. 
 vi. 16 ; Judith v. 18. Apart from this conception, Paul would have written 
 ry vTumoy tov Xp'urov , or simply rw Xpiarcb. Comp. Bom. vii. 23. Kypke, 
 Zachariae, Flatt, Emmerling, Bretschneicler, connect eig r. vtt an. r. X. with 
 ttclv vor/ya, and take elg as contra. But in that case Paul w T ould have written 
 very unintelligibly, and by the change of the preposition (previously /card) 
 would have simply led the reader astray ; besides, the aixyalurfovreg, with¬ 
 out elg r. vtt an. r. X., would remain open and incomplete ; finally, ver. 6 
 shows that he conceived the vt- aico?) Xpcarov as the goal of the working, conse- 
 quently as belonging to olxya A Comp, also Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26. 
 
 Yer. 6. The reverse side of the alxyakorfovreg k.t.H. just expressed. Al¬ 
 though, namely, the alxyaih. tt av vorjya elg r. viran. tov XptaTov is the result of 
 the apostolic warfare on the whole and in general, yet there remain excep¬ 
 tions —persons, who do not surrender themselves captive to Christ’s domin¬ 
 ion ; there remains tt apanorj in contradistinction to the inranoy of others. 
 Hence it is a part also of the complete w T ork of victory to punish every napa- 
 kot]. And this, says Paul, we are in readiness to execute, so soon as, etc. 
 Bengel well says : u Zelus jam adest ; prometur, cum tempus erit.” Paul 
 
622 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 docs not speak of the action of war-captives at variance with the duty of 
 obedience, to which they are taken bound (Hofmann). For this the threat, 
 which would amount, in fact, to the avenging of every sin , would be too 
 strong, and the following orav k.t.'/ 1. would not be suitable. The TrapaKovovreg 
 must still be enemies who, after the victory, do not submit to the victor. — 
 h iroipcp exovte f] in promptu hdbentes , also in Polvb. ii. 34. 2, and Philo, 
 Leg. ad Gap p. 1011, 1029. See, in general, Wetstein. —orav Trhj/pudy vpuv 
 7] viranor]} With this he turns to apply what was previously said of a general 
 tenor {ek6lk. iraoav napaa.) specially to the circumstances of the Corinthians, 
 so that the conduct of the Judaistic teachers, who had intruded into Corinth 
 and directed their doings against Paul, appears especially to be included in 
 7 rciaa Tvapanofj ; and the Corinthian church, a part of which had been led 
 astray by those persons, is represented as not yet completely obedient, but 
 as in the course of developing this complete obedience. When this develop¬ 
 ment shall be completed (which till then makes a claim on my patience, “ ne 
 lacdantur imbecilliores,” Bengel), that eKdUrjatg of every disobedience shall— 
 even as respects the situation of things at Corinth—ensue . 1 Thus the 
 apostle separates the interest of the church from that of the intruding 
 seducers, and presents his relation to the church as one of forbearance and 
 confidence, while his relation to his opponents is one of vengeance delaying 
 its execution only for the sake of the church, which has not yet attained to 
 full obedience—a wise manipulation of the Divide et impera ! — IIow he 
 means to execute the ek.6lk.eIv (Rom. xii. 19), he does not say ; he might do 
 so by ordaining excommunication, by giving them over to Satan (1 Cor. 
 v. 5), or by other exercise of his miraculous apostolic power. — v/uuv] is 
 placed first with emphasis, to distinguish the church from those whose napa- 
 KOT/ was to be punished. Hofmann, without ground, denies this emphasis, 
 because vpuv does not stand before rrlr/puOf/. The emphasis certainly falls, 
 in the first instance , on Tr?n/p., and next not on r) vitck., but on vyov. 
 
 Ver. 7. Paul feels that the egovcria, just described in vv. 3-6, is not con¬ 
 ceded to him by his opponents and those misled by them in the church ; 
 they judge that he is evidently no right servant of Christ, and that he must 
 come to shame with his boasting (comp. ver. 8 ). He at once breaks into 
 the midst of this course of thought on the part of his opponents with the 
 disapproving question : Do you looh on that which lies before the eyes ? do you 
 judge according to the appearance ? by which he means this, that they pro¬ 
 fess to have seen him weak and cowardly, when he was in Corinth person¬ 
 ally (comp. ver. 1). This does not involve any admission of the charge in 
 ver. 1, but, on the contrary, discloses the error, in accordance with which 
 the charge was based on the apostle’s outward appearance, which did not 
 make a display of his boldness. The answer to the question is : If any one 
 is confident that he belongs to Christ , let him judge this again of himself that 
 
 5 Lachmann, by a full stop, separates orav 
 ir\r^p. vp. i) vnaK. wholly from what goes 
 before, and connects it with what follows, 
 so that the meaning results : “"When your 
 obedience shall have become complete, see 
 
 to what lies before your eyes.” A precept 
 strangely conditioned ! And why should 
 we give up the common punctuation, which 
 yields a delicate touch quite characteristic 
 of Paul? 
 
CIIAP. X., 7 . 
 
 623 
 
 just as he belongs to Christ , so do we. The opposing teachers had certainly 
 boasted : How utterly different people are we from this Paul, who is bold 
 only at a distance, and makes a boast of belonging as an apostle to Christ ! 
 We are right servants of Christ ! — ra /card r-poauirov /3 ?iett£te ] is taken inter¬ 
 rogatively by Theodoret ; 1 2 along with which, however, many import into Kara 
 iTcpoaomov elements at variance with the text (see vv. 1 and 10), such as 
 intercourse with Jesus when on earth and other matters. It is taken as not 
 interrogative (Lachmann and Tischendorf), but also with ptenere as indica¬ 
 tive, and the sentence, consequently, as a judgment of censure, by Chrysos¬ 
 tom, Gennadius, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Schulz, Flatt. Calvin 
 says : 44 Magni facitis alios, qui magnis ampullis turgent ; me, quia ostenta- 
 tione et jactantia careo, despicitis while Flatt, following Storr, in spite 
 of vv. 1 and 10, refers Kara Tzpoaoivov to the kinship of James with Christ, on 
 which the Christine party had relied. In any case, however, it is more live¬ 
 ly and forcible, and therefore more suitable, to take it as interrogative. 
 Others, again, take /l/i-ere as an imperative: 2 observe withal what lies so clearly 
 before the eyes ! In this view we should not have to explain it with Ewald : 
 4 4 regard personal matters so that Paul begins to point to the personal ele¬ 
 ment which is now to be taken into consideration ; but with Hofmann : 
 the readers only needed to have their eyes open to what lay before them, in 
 order to judge rightly. But against this it may be urged that /card -irpoacmov 
 could not but most naturally explain itself from ver. 1, and that the meaning 
 itself would have something tame and more calmly argumentative, than 
 would be suited to the lively emotion of the passage. Besides, it is Paul’s 
 custom elsewhere to put (3Xettete first, when he summons to an intuemini. 
 See 1 Cor. i. 26, x. 18 ; Phil. iii. 2. — eItlq tvettolQev iavrCi Xptarov £ivac\ In 
 this way is designated the confidence which his opponents (not a single 
 peculiar false teacher, as Michaelis thinks) arrogantly cherished for them¬ 
 selves, but denied to Paul, that they were genuine Christ-people, genuine 
 servants of Christ. The addition of dovloq to Xpiarov in D* E :;< F G, It. 
 Ambrosiaster, is a correct gloss (comp. xi. 23). For it is not the confiteor of 
 the Christine party (1 Cor. i. 12) that is meant here, 3 but the assertion—to the 
 exaltation of themselves and the exclusion of Paul—of a true apostolic con¬ 
 nection (through calling, gifts, etc.) with Christ 4 on the part of Judaistic 
 pseudo-apostles (xi. 5, xiii. 22, 23). Observe that the teachers here meant 
 were not a party of the church , like the adherents of Christ designated in 1 
 Cor. i. 12. The very ovro Kal yyeig, compared with ver. 8,—to say nothing 
 
 1 Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Cajetanus, 
 Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Hammond, 
 Bengel, Heumann, Rosenmiiller, Emmer- 
 ling, Rabiger, Osiander, Klopper, and 
 others. 
 
 2 Vulgate, Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Corne¬ 
 lius a Lapide, Billroth, Riickert, Olshausen, 
 de Wette, Bisping, Hofmann. 
 
 3 Mosheim, Stolz. Flatt, comp, also Ols¬ 
 hausen, Dahne, de Wette, Schenkel, Bey- 
 
 schlag, Hilgenfeld, Klopper, and others; 
 see against this, Neander, I. p. 393 £f., and 
 
 also Hofmann. 
 
 4 Not with His disciples, and in particular 
 with Peter, as Baur insinuates. See his 
 Paulus , I. p. 306, ed. 2. It was in his view the 
 original apostles as immediate disciples of 
 the Lord (see also Ilolsten, z. Evang. des 
 Paul. u. Petr. p. 24 ff.), from whose position 
 the anti-Pauline party in Corinth had bor¬ 
 rowed their watchword Xpia-rov elvcu. And 
 in these his opponents Paul was at the 
 same time combating the original apostles. 
 
024 
 
 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 of the fact that there is no hint of any such special reference,—precludes 
 our explaining it of the continued immediate connection with Christ through 
 visions and the like, of which the heads of the Christine party had probably 
 boasted (de Wette, Dahne, Goldhorn, and others, following Schenkel). — 
 7 tcl7,lv] not : on the contrary , or on the other hand , which it never means in the 
 1ST. T. (see on Matt. iv. 7, and Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 167), but, again, denuo. 
 It refers to ef eavrov , which is correlative to the previous eavrti. He is con¬ 
 fident to himself; let him then consider once more for himself. In this view 
 there was no need of the shift to which Fritzsche has recourse, that ttettol- 
 devat and Tioyfeadai 11 communem continent mente volvendi notionem.” The 
 verbs might be quite heterogeneous in point of the notion conveyed, since 
 •koKiv is logically defined by the relation of eavrti and eavrov. — The Recepta 
 af eavrov , instead of which, however, e<p eavrov is to be read 1 would mean 
 proprio motu, Luke xii. 57, xxi. 80, 2 Cor. iii. 5, i.e. without any need for 
 one first to say it to him. The text gives no warrant for ironical interpretation 
 (from his own high estimate, Riickert). —ovru nal ryieig] is a litotes from the 
 apostle’s point of view. Oh yap fio'v’kerai etc tt pooiyiuv ofyohpoq yiveoOac aXha Kara 
 yiKpov avgerai Kal Kopvtpovrat , Chrysostom. 
 
 Yer. 8. Proof of the ovreo Kai ryieiq from his apostolic authority, which was 
 yet greater than he had already represented it. — re yap] etenim , as in Rom. 
 i. 26, vii. 7. See on these passages, and Hermann, ad Soph. Trach. 1015 ; 
 regarding the independent usage frequent in the later Attic, see Klotz, ad 
 Devar. p. 750 f. — ear] is not used concessively (Riickert ; not even 1 Cor. 
 iv. 15, xiii. 1 IT.), but puts a case as a conception of the speaker, in which 
 the realization remains left to experience : for , in case that I shall have boast¬ 
 ed myself yet something more (than has been already done by me in vv. 8-6) 
 of the authority , etc., I shall not be put to shame , it will be apparent that I have 
 not been practising empty boasting of which I should have to be ashamed. 
 7 -eptcaor. ri is accusative of object, like ri, vii. 11. See on ix. 2. The ref¬ 
 erence of the comparative to what was said in ver. 7 (Osiander, Hofmann, 
 following older commentators) has against it the fact that Paul, in ver. 7, 
 has not spoken of an e^ovaia ; and to take tt epi r. e^ova. rju. as an element, 
 added only by way of supplement, would be all the more arbitrary, since, 
 in fact, what follows is attached to it significantly. It is taken too gener¬ 
 ally by Grotius and others : plus guam alii possentf or as : u somewhat 
 more amply ” (Ewald ; comp. Billroth and Olshausen). On r. e^ovciaq K.r.l ., 
 comp. xiii. 10. —yq eSukev o wpioq eiq oiKoboyr/v k.t./ 1.] significant more precise 
 definition of the previous yyuv, with a double side-glance at the false apos¬ 
 tles, whose power neither was from Christ nor redounded to edification 
 (perfection of the Christian life), but rather to the destruction of the church. 
 (k b ) Paul conceives of the church as a temple of God, which the apostolic 
 
 1 The reading e<y eavrov (Lachm. ed rain.), 
 supported by C L X 21, is not meaningless 
 (Ewald), but is to be taken : with himself , in 
 quietness for himself—a classic usage since 
 Ilomer (11. vii. 195, xix. 255; see Faesi on 
 these passages) of very frequent occur¬ 
 rence ; see Kiihner, II. p. 296. The transla¬ 
 
 tion apud se in the Yulg. and It. also rests 
 on this reading, which might easily enough 
 be supplanted by the better known a<f>‘ 
 eavrov, and hence deserves to be preferred. 
 There lies in this e<f>’ eavrov (secum solo re¬ 
 putet) a reproof putting more delicately 
 to shame than in d<y eavrov. 
 
CHAP. X., 9 . 
 
 625 
 
 teachers are building (1 Cor. iii. 10 ; comp, on Rom. xiv. 19); and lie is 
 conscious that he will, in the event of his making a still Greater boast of 
 that, not be put to shame, but see himself justified by the result of his 
 work. Observe the interchange of plural (kgovc. y/u.) and singular. Ols- 
 hausen, in an arbitrary and involved way, connects elq oucod. with Kavxyau- 
 /uai , holding that there is an anticipation of the thought, so that, according 
 to the meaning, it ought to have run : ovk aiaxwOpeoyat, eycvero yap eiq k.t.a. 
 — ovk alaywO. ] when ? in every case of the future generally. There is no in¬ 
 dication in the text of a limitation to the last day (Ewald). Even on his 
 arrival at Corinth he expected that he should exjierience no cause for 
 shame. 
 
 Yer. 9 is taken by Chrysostom 1 as the protasis of ver. 11, so that ver. 10 
 becomes a parenthesis. But by Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Grotius, 
 Bengel, and others, also Billroth and Schrader, it is attached to ver. 8, in 
 which case, however, some (Beza, Bengel, comp. Billroth) supply before 
 tv a a u quod ego idcirco dicofi others (Grotius, comp. Erasmus) : “ non addam 
 plura ea de re. ” The latter is pure invention ; and from the supplement of 
 Beza there would not at all logically result what is said in ver. 9. No ; 
 let Iva /nr) 66$; o) k.t.1. be joined immediately , without assuming any interven¬ 
 ing thought, to ovk aiGx v vdrjGO[mi : I shall not he put to shame (now comes the 
 definition , in a negative form, of the divine aim with reference to the charge 
 in question) in order that I may not appear , etc., that the matter may not 
 remain on the footing of the mere word, but it may be apparent in point of 
 fact that I am something quite other than the man who wishes to frighten 
 you by his letters. If in this way the passage proceeds simply and correctly 
 without logical difficulty, the less simple connection of Chrysostom et al. 
 (see above) is superfluous, and is, moreover, not to be accepted, because the 
 new part of the passage would begin, in a very palpably abrupt way, with 
 iva without any connecting particle, 2 3 and because what Paul says in ver. 11 
 could not destroy the appearance indicated in ver. 9, to which belonged 
 matter of fact. — <vq av Litpofilv vyaq] The Vulgate rightly lias : “tanquam 
 terrere vos,” and Beza : “ ceu perterrefacere vos.” The uq av modestly takes 
 away from the harsh and strong EKtfrofielv the offensiveness, which in the 
 feeling of the apostle it w r ould have had, if taken by itself and in its full 
 sense. It is not modal (“in any way,” Hofmann), but comparative , corre¬ 
 sponding quite to our modifying as [German wie\ : that I may not appear 
 to put you as in dread. In later Greek uq av certainly has the meaning tan- 
 guam , quasi , av having lost its specific reference. See Hermann, de part, 
 av , 4. 3, p. 184 ; Bornemann, in d. Sachs. Stud. 1846, p. 61 ; Buttmann, 
 neut. Gram. p. 189 [E. T. 219]. To resolve it into dtq av EK<poj3olyi vyaq (Ols- 
 hausen) is arbitrary, as if it were oratio directa. The classical uq av with 
 optative and subjunctive (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 767), as in 1 Tliess. ii. 7, is 
 not to be brought into comparison here.— 6ta ruv enter.] namely, which I 
 
 1 Calvin, Schulz, Morus, Zachariae, Em- crept in after Iva a fie, which we still find in 
 
 merling. Yater, Riickert, Olshausen, de Syr. Vul^. Chrys. Theophyl. Pel. Ambro- 
 Wette, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann. siast. and several cursives. 
 
 3 Hence also at a very early time there 
 
626 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 write to you ( article ); lie had already written two. The plural does not 
 justify the hypothesis of a third letter already written (Bleek). —The com¬ 
 pound tK.(poj3elv (comp. hc(j>o(ios, Mark ix. 6 ; Heb. xii. 21) is stronger than 
 the simple form, Plato, Gorg. p. 483 C ; Ep. 3, p. 318 B ; Thuc. iii. 42. 4 ; 
 Polyb. xiv. 10. 3 ; Wisd. xvii. 9, 19 ; 1 Mace. xiv. 17. 
 
 Ver. 10. For his letters, it is said, are weighty and strong ; his bodily pres- 
 ence, however, is powerless (when present in body, he acts without power 
 and energy) and his speech despised , his oral teaching, exhortation, etc., find 
 no respect, are held of little account. Comp. ver. 1. For the apostle’s 
 own commentary on the second part of this assertion of his opponents, see 
 1 Cor. ii. 3, 4. Quite at variance w T ith the context, some have found here 
 also bodily iceakness (Witsius in Wolf ; recently, in particular, Holsten, zum 
 Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 85), and a weak utterance (Er. Schmid). Besides, 
 the tradition is very uncertain and late, which pronounces Paul to have 
 been yinpov ml cvveoTahyEvov to tov okyaroQ ycyedoq (Nicepli. Call. ii. 37). 
 Comp, on Acts xiv. 12.—The opposite of laxvpai, powerful , is acrOEvfc. — On 
 (lapelaL, comp. Wetstein. The gravitas is imposing and instils respect ; 
 hence the opposite e^ovdcvyg. — (pyac ] it is said , impersonal, as often w T ith the 
 Greeks. See Bernhardy, p. 419. The reading cpaolv (Lachmann, following 
 B, Yulg.) is a rash correction. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Thesmoph. p. 189 ; 
 Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 119 [E. T. 136]. (ns) 
 
 Ver. 11. After ver. 10 a full stop is to be put (see on ver. 9), so that now, 
 without any connecting particle, but with the more striking force, there 
 follows what is suggested for the consideration of the person judging in 
 such wise. — tolovtol ml napdvTcg to 3 epyu] sc. eayev. Such a double part w r e 
 do not play. 
 
 Ver. 12. 1 Reason assigned for this assurance (oloi eayev . . . rw epyG) : for 
 we are not like our boastful opponents, but, etc. If we were such people as 
 ■they are, word and w T ork might doubtless not harmonize in our case. — ov 
 yap To/.puyev K.T.A.i\for we do not venture to number ourselves among , or compare 
 ourselves , with certain people among those who commend themselves; but they* 
 measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are 
 not rational; we, on the other hand, will not make our boast beyond measure, but, 
 etc., ver. 13. In ov Tohycouev is implied an irony which shows the want of 
 humility in those people. Bengel aptly says : “ sepem inter se et illos ponit.” 
 — sytcpivat] annumerare, to place in one category ; inserere, as the Vulgate 
 rightly has it (Hor. Od. i. 1. 35 ; construed with elg, yeTa, ettl with genitive, 
 and with the simple dative of the persons joined (Apoll. Rhod. i. 48. 227). 
 See Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 264. — cvyuplvai] might mean the same (Morus, 
 Rosenmliller, Flatt, Reiche, and several, following the Peshitto), but is defined 
 by avyupLvovTEQ in the contrasting clause as having the meaning comparare 
 
 1 This passage is most thoroughly dis¬ 
 cussed by Fritzsche, Dissert. II. p. 33 ft. 
 (whom Billroth has entirely followed), 
 and by Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 375 
 ff. Theodoret remarks: do-a<f>d>? anav to 
 X<dpr]jua toOto yeypa<f>ep, and for this he ad¬ 
 vances as a reason : eVap-yws e\ey£cu TOWS 
 
 airtou? ov f3ov\6fjLevos. 
 
 2 This emphasized they (avrot, they on their 
 part) is fully justified in contrast to the 
 following rjjuets ; hence it is not, with Osi- 
 ander, to be taken in the sense of soli, in its 
 limitation to themselves. 
 
627 
 
 CHAP. X., 12 . 
 
 (Vulgate), which, it very often has in later Greek, as also in Wisd. vii. 29, 
 xv. 18, equivalent to napafialhuv in Polyb. i. 2. 1, xii. 12. I. 1 See, in gen¬ 
 eral, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 278. Comp. Loesner, Obss. p. 273. Observe, 
 moreover, the 'paronomasia of the tw T o verbs, something like inferre aut con¬ 
 ferred the German zurechnen oder gleichrechnen; Ewald : emgleichen oder 
 rcrgleichen [reckon to or reckon like]. — not] as in ver. 2, not : even the least 
 of them (Hofmann). —rkv eavr. gvvlgt.] This is the class of men, to which 
 the nveg belong. — alia] introduces the opposite in such a way that the pro¬ 
 cedure of the two parties is pdaced antithetically in juxtaposition: “We do not 
 venture to reckon ourselves to or compare ourselves with them, but they 
 proceed thus, we, on the other hand, thus.” We do not venture, etc., but 
 between them and us there subsists the contrast, which does away with that 
 kyKf)lvai h ovyaplvai /c.r./l., that they, etc., whereas we , etc. — avroi down to ov 
 gwlovolv applies to the hostile TLveg , and on this point one half of the expositors 
 are agreed. But gwlovolv , wdiich is therefore not to be accented gwlovolv 
 (comp, on Rom. iii. 11), is not a participle (Chrysostom), so that it would be 
 definition of quality to eavroig, which would quite unnecessarily make an 
 anacoluthon, but it is the third person plural (Matt. xiii. 13) for the Attic 
 gvvlclglv , which is read by Lachmann, following BK** —SO that ev eavroig 
 eavrovg luerpowreg k. ovyup. eavr. eavroig is the point, in which the opponents 
 show their irrationality (inasmuch as they measure themselves by themselves . . . 
 they are irrational ), and not the object of ov gwlovolv (they do not know that 
 they measure themselves by themselves ), as Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Estius, 
 Grotius, Er. Schmid, Wolf, and several have held. To this last view, in¬ 
 deed, there is no grammatical objection (Valckenaer, ad Herod. III. 1, and 
 on the distinction from the infinitive construction, Iviihner, II. p. 357), but 
 it would yield an inappropriate meaning ; for the contrast ypeig he k.t.%. shows 
 that Paul did not mean to bring into prominence the blindness of his oppo¬ 
 nents towards their foolish conduct, but the folly of this procedure itself, 
 whereas he proceeds quite otherwise. When those people measure them¬ 
 selves by themselves, judge themselves by their own personality, and com¬ 
 pare themselves with this instead of with persons vmrking more and better, a 
 they are in this presumption of theirs (comp. Chrysostom 1) irrational , in- 
 eptiunt, ov gwlovgl. This, however, is not to be defined more precisely by 
 arbitrary additions, such as : they do not know how ridiculous they make 
 themselves (Chrysostom 2, Theophylact), or how arrogant they are (Oecume- 
 nius), or what they are talking about (Augustine). Comp, rather Rom. iii. 11 ; 
 
 : The objects compared maybe oi similar 
 or dissimilar nature. On this point the word 
 does not determine anything. 
 
 2 Such an one thinks: what a great man 
 I am, for how much I know and can do ! 
 how I even excel myself, etc.! His own ego 
 is thus object and canon of the measuring 
 and judging. Calvin aptly illustrates this 
 by the example of the ignorant and yet so 
 conceited monks. The juxtaposition of 
 avroi ev eavToi? eavrovs palliates the conceit of 
 the selfish nature. Comp. Plato, Protag. p. 
 
 347 E : avroi S’ eai/TOi? avvei.cn St’ eavrtov. It 
 is well paraphrased by Reiche, p. 380: 
 “ sibi ipsis e vana sua de se opinione virtu- 
 tum meritorumque modulum constituentes 
 atque se sibi solis comparantes, non potior- 
 ibus meliusque meritis, quod si fecerint., 
 illico quam sint nihil ipsi cognoscerent.” 
 Hofmann, again, deals in subtleties, refer¬ 
 ring ev eavrotg not only to the first, but also 
 to the second participle, and (see against 
 this, below) connecting the concluding 
 eavTois with the following verb. 
 
02 S 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Matt. xiii. 13, at. ITofmann prefers the reading of K* 93 : cvvioacLv (ccmp. 
 on this Attic form, Acts xxvi. 4, and see Buttmann, Ausf. Sprachl. p. 548 
 ff.), and attaches eavrolg to it : they are not conscious of this, that they only 
 measure themselves and compare themselves, i.e. that only within their oicn selves 
 they form their judgment respecting themselves, how far they are capable of appre¬ 
 hending , and to whom they are entitled to rank themselves equal. But the reading 
 cvvLcaoLv can only be regarded as a copyist’s error, through which, instead of 
 gwlclglv (Lachmann), there crept in the word avvicamv well known from the 
 Attic writers {e.g. Soph. El. 93 ; Xen. Cyrop. iii. 1. 9), and this in turn was at 
 once amended by the corrector A. And in no case can eavrolg be separated from 
 avynpivovreg, since avyupiveiv in itself is an incomplete notion, which necessarily 
 requires a specification of that with which comparison is made. Hofmann’s 
 view is at once uncritical and illogical , apart from the fact that it very much 
 disturbs the purposely chosen symmetry of the two participial definitions ; 
 hence it is also formally unsuitable. — The second half of the expositors 
 (Chrysostom hesitates between the two views) refer avroi . . . gwlovglv to 
 Paul, and consider gwlovglv (to be written gwlovglv) as a participle , so that the 
 measuring self by self, etc. appears to be the right kind of judgment. 1 
 Comp. Horace, Ep. i. 7. 98 : “ Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede venun 
 est.” In this case either (a) ov gwlovglv is considered as in contrast with 
 eavrolg : with ourselves, not with wise people, by which the conceited opponents 
 would be ironically meant (Bos, Homberg, Schrader). Or (b) al/id . . . 
 eavrovg eavrolg is taken as parenthesis, and ov gvvlovgl as one conception in 
 apposition to rial tcjv eavr. gvvlgt. (Schulz). Or ( c) ov gwlovglv is taken as 
 apposition to the preceding eavroig : u neque existimo ex me, homine, ut istis 
 placet, insipido,” Emmerling, whom Olshausen follows. All these views take 
 the participles for the finite tenses (or rather as anacoluthic) ; but against 
 them all the following ijyei g de is decisive, which makes it logically neces¬ 
 sary to refer avroi to the opponents; for it cannot, as Emmerling and Ols¬ 
 hausen think, form a logical contrast to the charge which is alleged to be im¬ 
 plied in ov gwlovglv, since iyielg de would require to be put in antithesis to the 
 accusers, and not to the accusation (which, besides, would only be expressed 
 quite cursorily and indirectly by ov gwlovglv). Further, there may be urged 
 against (a), that it would require ov rolg gwlovglv with the article ; against 
 (h), that this interpretation is involved ; against (c), not so much the want 
 of the article—for ov gwlovglv need not be in apposition, but might also be 
 an accompanying definition of eavroig —as the fact that there is no hint in the 
 context of any ironical adducing of such a charge, and hence it is not to be 
 compared with xi. 1, 16, 19, xii. 11. (ll*) 
 
 Remark 1. —Against our explanation, 2 it has been objected (see especially 
 Fritzsche and Billroth) that a/Ckd avroi /c.r.Z. cannot apply to the opponents, 
 
 1 According to Emmerling, yerp. eavr. ev 
 eavr. applies to abstinence from promises 
 which transcend their powers, and the 
 crvyupt-v. eavr. eavroig to the “ judicium ferre 
 de se ad normam virium suarum, factorura 
 et meritorum.” According to Olshausen, iv 
 
 eavroig eavrovg /aerpovvreg is intended to 
 mean: we measure ourselves by what the 
 Lord has imposed on us ! 
 
 2 Which is found in substance also in 
 Augustine, Chrysostom 1, Theodoret, Theo- 
 phylact, Luther, Calvin, Hammond, Wet- 
 
CHAP. X., 13. 
 
 G29 
 
 because manifestly different modes of dealing, and not different persons, would 
 be opposed to each other, in which case Paul could not but have written : rjpeig 
 yap ov . . . a/ua avrol /c.r./l. But by this very contrast of persons first intro¬ 
 duced by aXka (u/Cld avrol . . . ijptig tie) the opposite of the mode of action pre¬ 
 viously negatived is exhibited in a truly concrete and vivid way, and by no 
 means illogically, seeing that in fact by the previous kavrovg tigl the contrast of 
 persons introduced with alXa was very naturally suggested. On the other 
 hand, it would not have been logical, if Paul had written rjpeig yap ov ro7^pu- 
 pev . . . uA/ld avrol /c.r./l., since then doubtless the persons, but not that which is 
 asserted of the persons, would stand in logical contrast with one another ; for 
 what is asserted would need to be substantially in both clauses one and the same 
 thing, which would be denied of the ypelg, and affirmed of the avroi. It has 
 been objected to our explanation of ov gvvlovglv that it is against the context ; 
 but it is, in point of fact, to be observed, that on the one hand it gives a very 
 delicate explanation concerning the ironical ov to a pup tv, and that on the other 
 hand the following ypelg tie k.t.a. with logical accuracy opposes to the previous 
 a/i?ia avrol /c.r.2. the thought : we, however, abide by the measure which God has 
 imparted to us, so that in /card to perpov rov navovog, ov ep'ep. pp. 6 Qeog p'erpov there 
 lies the contrast to the irrational procedure of the opponents measuring them¬ 
 selves by themselves. He who measures himself by himself, seeing that in fact 
 he lacks an objective standard, falls with his boasting eig rd dperpa, like 
 those opponents ; but not he, who knows himself determined by a limit set by 
 God. Finally, the objection, that by our interpretation ov gvvlovglv gets a 
 thought imported into it which its literal tenor does not actually present 
 (Hofmann), is quite groundless, since ov, by a quite common usage, turns the 
 gvvlovglv into its opposite, consequently ov gw. expresses the aGweoia, the 
 irrationality and folly of those men in their procedure. 
 
 Bemake 2.—By leaving out ov gvvlovglv rjpeig tie, but retaining navxrjCopeQa, 
 ver. 13 (see the critical remarks), the meaning results : “ sed me ex meo modulo 
 metiens mihique me conf evens, non praeter modum, sed ad modum iia mihi praefiniti 
 spatii, id ad vos quoque pervenirem, gloriabor ” (Fritzsche). 1 But if Kavxyabpeda 
 also is left out, as Fritzsche and Billroth approve, Paul in ver. 15 turns back to 
 ovk e)g rd dperpa in ver. 13, and then adds the still necessary verb anacoluthi- 
 cally in the participle : “sed me ipse mihi conferens, non praeter modum . . . 
 ver. 15, non praeter modum inquam me efferens ” (Fritzsche). The suitableness of 
 the meaning and of the antithetic character in the several parts, as well as the 
 unexceptionable warrant of the anacoluthon, have been aptly shown by 
 Fritzsche, pp. 41, 43 f. But the rejected words cannot thereby be deprived of 
 their critical title to exist. 
 
 Yer. 13. Elf rd dperpa] so that we with our navxbcOai go beyond measure, go 
 into limitless extravagance. This is what is done by the man who measures 
 
 stein, Zachariae, and others, including 
 Riickert, Reiche, Neander, Osiander, Kling, 
 partly also in Hofmann. 
 
 1 Comp. Ewald : “ but modestly and cau¬ 
 tiously measuring ourselves by ourselves and 
 our abilities, and comparing ourselves with 
 ourselves and our labours already achieved 
 and clear before the world and before God, 
 
 we will not (like those intruders) boast with¬ 
 out measure , but at most will boast accord¬ 
 ing to the measure of the standard which God 
 imparted to us as measure , and which ac¬ 
 cordingly among other things authorized 
 and strengthened us, that we attained even 
 unto you and founded you.” 
 
030 
 
 Paul’s secokd epistle to the corinthiahs. 
 
 himself by himself, because in that case no check external to himself is put 
 on his imagination and self-exaltation. Such a man certainly has an 
 object of the uavxaoOai, and is not simply aiming at the having one (Hofmann), 
 •which would yield an absurd idea ; but he has no bounds in the manner and 
 degree of his navxaodai ; he is wanting in /uerp/oTT/g. Regarding the use of 
 eif with an adjective of degree and the article, see Viger. ed. Herm. p. 596 ; 
 Matthiae, p. 1349. On the expression itself, comp. Homer, II. ii. 212, 
 where Thersites is called aperposit fa. — Kavx^aopeda] The future asserts that 
 this case will not occur. Comp. Rom. x. 14, al.; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 
 369. — aXka nara to perpov rov navovog , ov k.t ] sc. navxpoopeOa : but according to 
 the measure of the boundary-line, which God (not our own choice) has assigned 
 to us as measure , to reach even unto you , i.e. but our boasting will restrict and 
 measure itself according to the limit which God has drawn for us, and by 
 which He has measured off the sphere of our activity, in order that we 
 should reach even to you with our working. By this Paul is manifestly 
 aiming at the vaingloriousness of the false apostles, who decked themselves 
 with extraneous feathers, inasmuch as they intruded into the provinces of 
 others, into spheres which had not been assigned to them by God as the 
 measure of their activity : as, indeed, in particular they had come also to 
 Corinth, which lay within the boundary-line of PauVs apostolic action, and 
 were now boasting as if the church-life in Corinth were chiefly their work. 
 For, although they could not give themselves out to be the founders of the 
 church (Baur, Tub. Zeitschr. 1832, 4, p. 101), they could still put forward 
 as their merit the rapid growth of the church and many points of detail, and 
 thereby presume to put the apostle in the shade. Olshausen thinks that the 
 false apostles had appropriated to themselves Corinth as their province, 
 because they had already been at work there before Paul ; but that the latter 
 had still felt himself at liberty to preach in Corinth, because no ajjostle had 
 been there before him. This is an hypothesis quite as superfluous as it is 
 unhistorical, since neither in the Book of Acts is there found any trace of 
 Christianity at Corinth before Paul’s arrival, nor in the Epistles, in which, 
 bn the contrary, he states expressly that he was the first to preach there (1 
 Cor. iii. 6, 10), and that all other teachers had entered later into the work 
 (1 Cor. iv. 15). — Kara to perpov rov navovo f] Here to perpov is the measure de¬ 
 fined for the Kavxaadai , as is clear from the previous ov fmc va aperpa navx ., 
 — and tov navovoQ is the genitivus subjecti : the measure given by the drawn 
 measuring-line. And the subsequent perpov 1 is an apposition to tov aavovos 
 not at all unnatural (as Hofmann declares it), but attracted by the relative 
 clause according to a very frequent Greek usage (see Bernhardy, p. 302 ; 
 
 1 For which Grotius ought not to have 
 conjectured p-erpov. But the most mistaken 
 view as regards nerpov is that lighted on by 
 Hofmann, who attaches it to 6 deos: “ the 
 God of measure," by which, in his view, it is 
 affirmed that “ to everything God sets some 
 sort of measure.” As if this singular way 
 of designating God (altogether different 
 from such appellations as: the God of 
 
 glory, of peace, of love, of hope, and the 
 like) were even possible without the article 
 before ju erpov ! In Wisd. ix. 1, iraTeptov re¬ 
 quired no article, according to the well- 
 known anarthrous usage of naTrjp in the 
 singular and plural; and in Ecclus. xxxiii. 
 1, navTwv without the article is quite accord¬ 
 ing to rule. 
 
CHAP. X., 14. 
 
 631 
 
 Pflugk, ad. Eur. Ilec. 771 ; Stallbaum, ad. Plat. Phaed. p. 66 E ; Pep. p. 
 402 C ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 246 [E. T. 286J) ; consequently not again 
 the measure of the boasting , but, as appears from the definition of the object 
 aimed at eyudadat axpi k.. vyuv, the spatial measure , namely, how far one is to 
 reach (see what follows), or, dropping the figure: the measure of extent of the 
 destined working. Paul, namely, conceives of the local extension assigned 
 to his official working as a space marked out by God with a measuring-line, 
 in which he takes his stand and is able to reach to all points of it without 
 unduly stretching or straining himself, ver. 14. Hence : tyuceadai axpi nai 
 vycjv, which is not simply exegetical (Hofmann), nor does it express the 
 consequence (Ruckert, de Wette), but is, in accordance with the notion of 
 eye/ >., to be taken as infinitive of definition of ov hycp. i)y. 6 Oebg yerpov. —navtjv 
 does not mean sphere of vocation (Flatt and many others), but measuring-rod, 
 measuring-line. Here the latter. Comp. Gal. vi. 16 ; Aq. Job xxxviii. 5 ; 
 Ps. xviii. 4. See in general, Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost. p. 587 f. On yep'feiv 
 Tivi rt, to impart something to one, assign as one’s share, comp. Rom. xii. 3 ; 
 1 Cor. vii. 17 ; Heb. vii. 23 ; Polyb. xi. 28. 9, xxxi. 18. 3. The tyiKveioOai is, 
 in keeping with the figurative representation of the state of the matter (see 
 especially ver. 14), not to arrive at (Hofmann), which is only expressed 
 by etyOaoayev , but to reach to, pertingere , as the Yulgate aptly renders it. 
 The word is found nowhere else in the X. T., and is here selected for the 
 sense indicated. Comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 1. 5, v. 5. 8 ; Plut,. Mor. p. 190 E ; 
 Lucian, Jup. conf. 19, at.; also Ecclus. xliii. 27, 30. The Corinthians, be¬ 
 cause not to be found beyond the bounds of his ttavhv, were to the apostle 
 e(patrol, reachable. 
 
 Yer. 14. A parenthetical (see on ver. 15) confirmation of dpntEcdai axpi kol 
 vycjv : for not, as though we were such as do not reach to you, do ice overstretch 
 ourselves, i.e., dropping the figure : for we do not usurp for ourselves any 
 extension of our working at variance with its destined limit, as would be 
 the case, if you lay beyond the measured-off province which is divinely 
 assigned to us. Paul abides by his figure : for if he were not destined to 
 extend his official working even to Corinth, and yet wished to do so, he 
 would resemble a man who stretches himself beyond the boundary-line 
 drawn for him, in order to reach to a point that lies beyond the limits which 
 he is forbidden to overpass. —uq y?) dpncv. die vyag] etyutv. is to be taken in no 
 other sense than the previous E&uttcdai. The present, however, denotes : as 
 though we were persons, in whose case the reaching to you does not occur, i.e. 
 whose position within their measured local district implies that you are not 
 capable of being reached by them, because, forsooth, you lie beyond the 
 limits of this district. Luther, Beza, and many others, overlooking this 
 continuation of the figure, and taking Eiputvovyevoi, in spite of the present 
 (and in spite of the present v-KEpsardvoyev), historically, have explained it : 
 ut si non pervenissemus, from which error there has sprung the participle of 
 the second aorist, supported by very weak evidence, and yet preferred by 
 Billroth. Regarding yf Winer, p. 442 [E. T. 595], very correctly remarks : 
 “a mere conception ; in point of fact, the state of the case is otherwise ; 
 compare, on the other hand, 1 Cor. ix. 26.” —-.axpi yap nal vytiv k.t.Tl. ] This 
 
632 
 
 Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 is now the historical position of the case, in confirmation of what was just 
 figuratively expressed by ov yap . . . eavrovg. How fraught with shame must 
 the sum of recollections, which this simple historical fact embraced, have 
 been for the misled portion of the church ! k^Oaoayev is simply : ice have 
 arrived at (Rom. ix. 31 ; Phil. iii. 16 ; Matt. xii. 28 ; 1 Thess. ii. 16), not : 
 we have arrived before (sooner than the opponents, Osiander, comp. Ewald). 
 This important point Paul must have denoted by some such expression as 
 e(j)0dc. endvovg (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 15). —ev ru evayy. r. X.] The gospel of Christ 
 is conceived as the official clement in which the ecpdaoayev took place : in 
 the matter of the gospel, i.e. in functione evangelica (Bengel). Comp. Rom. 
 i. 9 ; 2 Cor. viii. 18 ; Phil. iv. 3 ; 1 Thess. iii. 2. (m 6 ) 
 
 Yer. 15. As ovk elg ra ayerpa navx • is evidently intended to resume the ovfii 
 elg ra dyer pa navx- in ver. 13, and as ver. 14 is merely a confirmatory state¬ 
 ment occasioned by etyinecOai axpi k. vyuv, it is most natural and logically 
 most suitable, with Lachmann, Osiander, Ewald, to place the whole of ver. 
 14 in a parenthesis (not the second half of the verse merely, as is done by 
 Griesbach, Scholz, de Wette, Hofmann), so that navxdyevoi depends on the 
 navxijcrdyeda to be supplied in the second clause of ver. 13, not on ov yap . . . 
 vnepeurdv. eavrovg (de Wette, Hofmann). To attach it, with Ruckert (conrp. 
 Tischendorf), to effacayev is quite unsuitable, because the latter contains an 
 historical remark,—only made, moreover, in passing,—and thus heterogeneous 
 elements would be combined. — ev allorpioig nonoig] object of the negatived 
 elg ra aye-pa navxdaQai. With his opponents it was the case that their un¬ 
 measured boasting referred to labours which were done by others, but were 
 boasted of by them as their worlc. — kin Ida de exovreg'] but having doubtless 
 hope , when your faith increases , to become large among you according to our 
 rule abundantly , i.e. but doubtless hoping, with the growth of your faith, 
 to attain among you this , that starting from you we may be able still 
 further abundantly to extend our working according to the measure of our 
 destination. This meaning Paul expresses figuratively, and that with faith¬ 
 ful adherence to the figure used in vv. 13, 14. He, namely, who can worlc 
 far off, is a man of great stature , who without overstretching himself reach¬ 
 es afar ; hence yeyalwOyvai. 1 Further : because Paul still thinks of working 
 
 1 fieya\. is by most taken as celebrari , 
 which departs from the figure and hence is 
 at variance with the context (Luke i. 46; 
 Acts v. 13, x. 46, xix. 17 ; Phil. i. 20). So Flatt, 
 Biliroth, and Ewald: “ to be exceedingly 
 praised , instead of being bitterly blamed,” 
 to which Kara t. Kavova r)y.o)v is not suitable. 
 The whole figure demands the explanation 
 to become large (Matt, xxiii. 5; Luke i. 58), 
 and only thus does it stand in its right rela¬ 
 tion to, and bearing on, avgavop. r. 71 - 10 - 7 -. vp. 
 Theodoret seems to have understood peya.\. 
 rightly, since he explains it: nepcu.Tepu> nopev- 
 Mjvai. Comp. Luther: “proceed further,” 
 which explains the figurative expression no 
 doubt, but does not translate it. Osiander 
 understands under it an actual glorifying 
 
 of the office— that its influence, greatness, 
 and glory shall become advanced. Hof¬ 
 mann : that the continuation of the preach¬ 
 ing in the far West will make him still 
 greater, whereby he will have still more 
 ground for boasting—a view made impossi¬ 
 ble by the fact that ev vpiv must be joined 
 with jote-yoA. < t.A. With all such interpreta¬ 
 tions the bold, concrete figure, which is set 
 forth in peya\w&., is—in opposition to the 
 connection—abandoned according to a sub¬ 
 jective standard of taste, as if it were too 
 strong and harsh. Erasmus in his Annot. 
 (not in the Paraphr.) aptly says: “ Significat 
 se sperare futurum ut in dies crescente 
 fide Corintliiorum creseat ipse et major ma¬ 
 jor que fiat." 
 
CIIAP. X., 1G. 
 
 6 
 
 •>oo 
 
 /JO 
 
 forth to distances indefinitely remote , lie hopes to become large elg irepiccrdav 
 (comp. Prov. xxi. 5). Still he knows that this wide working, on which he 
 cherishes the hope of being able to enter, will be in keeping with the line 
 drawn for him by God— i.e. the spatial limit divinely appointed for him— 
 and thus will be no vtcepekteivelv havr .5 hence /card tov navova r/yivv, 1 
 ■which Beza ought not to have taken for ev rti navovi iyi. (comp. ver. 13). 
 Further : the possibility of this wider working will not set in, if the faith of 
 the Corinthians does not grow , namely, intensively, by becoming always purer, 
 firmer, and more living than now, because Paul will not sooner be able to 
 leave Corinth and travel onward ; hence av^avoy. ryg 7 rioTsug vyuv,' 2 so 
 that thus—and what a wholesome impulse ought this to be to them—it is 
 the Corinthians themselves, among whom he will see himself brought to the 
 point of being able to extend his working further ; hence hv vyiv 3 yeyalwO.: 
 among you to become large in order to further abundant working. — d.g TtEpio- 
 edav ] for Paul knew that he was destined to preach the gospel among all 
 nations (Itom. i. 14, 15, and see on Rom. xv. 23, 34 ; Acts xix. 21); hence 
 beyond doubt he had already at that time the intention of proceeding by way 
 of Rome to Spain. Thus in yeryalvvdrjvai ... dig -epioodav the whole grand 
 feeling of his apostolic destiny finds earnest and true expression. Riickert, 
 on the contrary, sees a touch of irony , as if Paul would say : if the Corinthi¬ 
 ans would become a church as perfect as he wishes and expects, there will 
 thence accrue a gain also for him ; he, too, will then grow with. them, and 
 become capable not only of doing in the midst of them what is necessary, 
 but also of doing yet something more, of growing, as it were, beyond the 
 proper stature, etc. But both Kara tov navova yycbv and eig TVEpiccEiav are at 
 variance with the character of irony. If Paul had wished to express him¬ 
 self ironically, he would have written possibly ev vyiv yeyalvvbpvai oXiyov or 
 the like, which would have expressed something different from what he 
 properly meant. 
 
 Ver. 16. Infinitive without a connecting nai, and all the less therefore 
 dependent in its turn on kfazida tie exovteq , but rather infinitive of the aim: 
 
 1 Eackert, at variance with the contest, 
 understands under <avuv here the apostle’s 
 rule of not working where others had al¬ 
 ready wrought. See against this, ver. 13. 
 
 2 Bengel rightly remarks on the present 
 participle : “ Paulus Corinthios neque ante 
 tempus omittere voluit, neque alios diutius 
 
 differre.” Olshausen erroneously thinks 
 that Paul was waiting for the completion of 
 faith among the Corinthians. The apostle 
 rather means the proportionate increase of 
 the faith of the readers, which hitherto 
 had not attained such a degree of develop¬ 
 ment as to make it possible for him to with¬ 
 draw his working from them and extend 
 the sphere of his activity further. This 
 delicate reference of avgavon. r. mar. vjuw, 
 which appeals to the whole sense of honour 
 in the readers, and according to which Paul 
 
 makes his further working at a distance de¬ 
 pend on their Christian progress, is missed 
 by Hofmann, who explains av$avo/x. k.t.A. 
 merely in the sense of coincidence in time 
 ( 1 while faith grows). This is bound up with 
 his incorrect joining of ev v/xiv with av^avofj.. 
 See the following note. 
 
 3 This ev wju.ii/ is not, with Luther, Castalio, 
 Beza, Mosheim, Billroth, de Wette, Hof¬ 
 mann, to be joined to av£a.vo ju. (whereby 
 either vylav or ev vyiv at any rate, even with 
 the meaning imported into it by Hofmann : 
 “within your own sphere,” would seem 
 very superfluous); nor yet is it to be taken 
 as per vos (Erasmus, Grotius, Flatt), which 
 only impairs the vividness and complete¬ 
 ness of the figure, and in substance is al¬ 
 ready contained in avgavoy. T. mar. vy. 
 
634 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to tiie Corinthians. 
 
 we liope to become exceedingly large among you, in order to preach the gospel 
 unto the lands lying beyond you, 1 not within the boundary-line of another to 
 boast of what is already done. This negative part is a side-glance at the 
 opponents who in Corinth, which lay within the range of the line drawn 
 for Paul, and so kv allorpkp kcivovi , had boasted in regard to the circumstan¬ 
 ces of the church there, which they had, in fact, found already shaped 
 before they came, consequently elg ra kroiya. Comp. Calvin : “ quum Paulus 
 militasset, illi triumphum agebant.” Beza and Billroth, also de Wette and 
 Hofmann (who thinks all three infinitives dependent on kin r. Cl'-), take the 
 infinitive as epexegesis of yeyalwd. by adding an id est ; but this is pre¬ 
 cluded by the correct connection of kv vylv with yeyalwd. For, if Paul 
 hopes to become large among the Corinthians , this cannot mean the same 
 thing as to preach awany beyond Corinth ('dig ra vnepeKeiva vy. evayy.). No ; 
 that yeyalwd. denotes the becoming capable for further extended working, 
 the being put into a position for it, and accordingly the aim of this is : dig to. 
 virepeKeiva vydv evayy. Ewald would make the infinitives evayy. and Kavx- 
 dependent on Kara r. navova ryi., so that they would explain in what more 
 precisely this rule consists ; but this is forbidden by the fact that dig nrepioo. 
 is not placed before Kara r. k. yy. —The adverb virepeKeiva, ultra , is bad Greek. 
 See Thomas Magister, p. 336 : knreKeiva pyropeg leyovoi . . . inrepeKeiva de yovoi 
 oi ovpcpaneg (the rabble). Comp. Bos, Ellips ., ed. Schaef. pp. 288, 290.— 
 dig before vrcepen. does stand for kv (Flatt and others), but comp. 1 Pet. i. 
 25 ; Johnviii. 26 ; 1 Thess. ii. 9. —ovk kv allorp. navhvi] ovk , not yy, is here 
 used quite according to rule (in opposition to Ruckert), since the ovk kv all. 
 Kav. is correlative to the dig ra vnr epeKeiva vyuv as contrast (Hartung, Partikell. 
 II. p. 125 f.). And this correlation demands that kv be understood not of 
 the object of Kavxaodai (Hofmann), but locally, to which also the very notion 
 of nav gjv (ver. 13) points : within the measuring-line drawn for another , i.e. 
 as to substance : in the field of activity divinely destined for another. — On 
 eh with Kavx ., in reference to, comp. Arist. Pol. v. 10. 
 
 Ver. 17 f. The kv all. sav. eig ra aroma Kavx. was the way of the oppo¬ 
 nents, whose self-glorying was selfish ostentation. Therefore Paul now lays 
 down the law of the right Kavxaodai, and establishes it in a way (ver. 18), 
 the application of which to the perversity of the opponents’ boasting could 
 not but be obvious. —de] leading over from the previous Kavxhcraadai to the 
 law of the Kavxaodai. 11 But as regards self-glorying, the maxim applies : 
 Let him that glories glory (not otherwise than) in the Lord ,” let him have God 
 as the object of his Kavxaodai, inasmuch as it is God, by whose grace and 
 power he has and does everything. Paul himself gives a glorious example 
 of the kv Kvphp Kavxaodai in 1 Cor. xv. 10. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9, 10. —As 6 
 Kavx • ' EV KV P- x-avx- is an O. T. maxim well known to the reader (Jer. ix. 23 
 f.; comp. 1 Cor. i. 31), and the context contains nothing at all which would 
 be at variance with the original reference of the kv Kvpiip to God, viewed as 
 object of the Kavxaodai, in which this is grounded (see on Rom. ii. 17), it is 
 
 1 “ Meridiem versus ct occidentem ; nam Athenis Corinthum venerat, Act. xviii. 1,” 
 Bengel. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 not to be understood of Christ (Erasmus, Estius, Flatt, Riickert, and others), 
 nor is h to be taken in the sense of communion (Calvin, Bengel, Osiander). 
 Observe, moreover, what a moral difference there is between this Christian 
 navxaoOai ev Oslo (comp. Iiom. v. 11) and that of the Jewish particularism, 
 Rom. ii. 17. — Yer. 18. For not he who acts in the opposite way, not he who, 
 instead of glorying kv Kvp'up, makes himself the object which he commends to 
 others, is approved , is in the position of attested Christian character, hut he , 
 ivhom the Lord commends. The latter is—and that in contrast with the oppo¬ 
 nents extolling themselves—the practical commendation, which God bestows 
 oil those concerned by His whole gracious aid, by the success and blessing 
 attending their work, by their rescue from dangers, etc. In this de facto 
 6ela ipfrfog (Tlieodoret), which is made known before the eyes of the world, 
 they have at the same time the right de facto ^(/’-commendation, vi. 3 ff., 
 Avithout being avrerraiveToi (avrETraivirovg yap puJEt 6 Oeog , Clem. 1 Cor. 30). — 
 Observe, further, the emphatic Ensivog as Avell as the unrestricted Soniyog, the 
 notion of Avhich is not to be referred merely to human recognition (Hof¬ 
 mann), as in Rom. xiv. 18, where rolg avOpdyK. stands beside it ; comp, rather 
 1 Cor. xi. 19 ; Rom. xvi. 10 ; Jas. i. 12. (mm 6 ) 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (i 6 ) The change of tone and style. Yv. 1-18. 
 
 This change, Avhich is obvious to every careful reader, has been explained by 
 Stanley as due either to the reception of fresh tidings from Corinth of a relapse 
 of fervour on the part of the church, or to a return on the part of the Apostle to 
 his former feeling of apprehension (ii. 1). Hodge, on the other hand, says that 
 in the previous nine chapters Paul was addressing the faithful and obedient 
 portion of the church, while here he has in view the false teachers and their ad¬ 
 herents, who not only made light of his authority, but corruptee! the gospel, 
 and he therefore naturally assumes a tone of authority and severity. 
 
 (j 6 ) “ Every high thing that exalteth itself Yer. 5. 
 
 The conflict here referred to is that between the wisdom of the world and the 
 wisdom of God, which has continued from Paul’s day to our own. Scientists 
 and philosophers exalt their own opinions against “the knowledge of God,” 
 which they deem foolishness. Here Paul teaches that they are not to be met 
 with carnal weapons by turning the gospel into a philosophy. This would make 
 it a human conflict on both sides, whereas we are to rely not upon power of ar¬ 
 gument, but on the demonstration of Spirit, setting in opposition to human 
 reasonings the testimony of God. This is the weapon that is mighty before 
 God and at last subdues all opposition. 
 
 (k. 6 ) “ Not for your destruction." Ver. 8. 
 
 The Avord here used is the same as that employed in ver. 4 of the pulling down 
 of strongholds. The Revision of 1881 preserves the uniformity of terms by 
 giving the parenthesis thus : “ Which the Lord gave for building you up, and 
 
030 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 not for casting j 7 ou down.” The Apostle’s authority was given to him not for 
 his own exaltation or for putting down his joersonal enemies, but for the build¬ 
 ing up of the church in holiness and peace. 
 
 (l 6 ) “ Ilis bodily presence is weak." Ver. 10. 
 
 The traditions which represent Paul as short in stature and unattractive in 
 appearance (Renan calls him “ an ugly little Jew”) are, as Dr. Meyer says, of no 
 value. The comparison of Barnabas to Jupiter and Paul to Mercury by the 
 people of Lystra (Acts xiv. 12) implies that he was the less commanding of the 
 two. But his whole history, his unceasing labonrs, his constant journeyings, his 
 innumerable sufferings, prove that he was not physically a man of feeble con¬ 
 stitution. 
 
 ( kl 6 ) Self-measurement. Yer. 12. 
 
 Calvin applies the whole passage to the monks of his day, w r ho while igno¬ 
 rant as donkeys, were held to be learned, and if any one had even a tincture of 
 elegant letters he spread his plumage like a peacock. Yet if one removed the 
 cowl and examined the facts, he found nothing but emptiness. Why ? The 
 old proverb, Ignorance is bold. But particularly because they measured them¬ 
 selves by themselves. And since barbarism prevailed in their cloisters, it is no 
 wonder that the one-eyed is kiDg among the blind. 
 
 (m 6 ) Paul's province. Ver. 14. 
 
 By this term the Devised Version renders the word given in the A. V. as 
 rule (ver. 13). There is no ground for the notion that the Apostles portioned 
 out the world amongst them with a peculiar province for each, which could not 
 be, since their authority arose not from election or appointment to a particular 
 place, but from their plenarj 7 knowledge, infallibility, and supernatural power, 
 and w r as therefore the same everywhere and in relation to all the churches. 
 Yet it is plain from Galatians ii. 9, that in the great divisions of Jew and Gen¬ 
 tile, the former belonged to the original Apostles James, Peter, and John, the 
 latter to Paul and his companions. It was also the Apostle’s maxim never to 
 make a permanent stay where the gospel had already been preached, so much 
 so that his visit to Rome was regarded by him as taken merely on his way to 
 Spain, which was still open to a new teacher (Rom. xv. 18-24). 
 
 (mm 6 ) The rule of true boasting. Vv. 17, 18. 
 
 This is furnished by the Apostle in the words of Jeremiah, which he recites 
 without naming their author. There are occasions when it is necessary for a 
 Christian to assert his character and works and claims before men, but when 
 these occur, the whole praise should be ascribed to God, who is the sole source 
 of all success. This rule was binding both upon Paul and upon his oppo¬ 
 nents ; the difference between them was that he observed the rule, but they 
 did not. 
 
CHAP. XI. 
 
 G37 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Yer. 1. aveixeaBe] Elz. : yveixeabe, following min. Chrys. Theophyl. But the 
 former is decisively attested by B D E G L M (K has dvaaxeabE) and many 
 min., also Chrys. ms. Damasc. Theoph. ms. K and several min., as also 
 Theodoret, have avexeade, which appears to be a corruption of the original 
 dveixeabe, easily arising from the avexeobe that soon follows .—ry a<ppoavvy] 
 So Mill, Beng. Matth. Griesb. Scholz, Beiche, following K L and many min. 
 Copt. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Oec. Theophvlact, ms. But there is far more 
 support for the reading of Lachm. Buck, and Tisch. : n a^poovvyg, following 
 B D E K, min. (Elz. has TLTyg ucpp., following F G, min. vss. Fathers). This tl 
 dQpoovvyg is to be held as the original, not, however, as if Griesbach’s reading 
 had arisen only from a copyist’s error of itacism (ry for tl, as Binck holds, 
 Lucubr. crit. p. 167, and Buck.), but on account of the relatively preponderant 
 attestation, and because the following d/Gd kcll dve jecrftd pov most naturally sug¬ 
 gested to the copyists to regard pov as the object of aveixeode, to which then the 
 genitive atypoavvyg was no longer suitable. T/} atypocvvy had to be made out 
 of it (in regard to folly), and thereupon the superfluous tl easily disappeared 
 through the following Ty. The reading pLKpov Tyg acppoavvyg pov (F G, It. Yulg.) 
 is explained partly from imperfect critical restoration (of the genitive), partly 
 as an indication of the right construction. — Yer. 3. ovtu] is wanting in B D* 
 FG X, It. Copt. Goth. Arm. Clem. Epiph. Lucif. Gaud. ; deleted by Lachm. 
 and Buck. An addition. — After drloTyTog BEG, K min. Syr. p. (with 
 asterisk), Aeth. Copt. Goth. Boern. Pol. Aug. Beda have nal Tyg ayvoryTog (so 
 Lachm.) ; D E, Clar. Germ. Ejriph. (once) change the order of the two 
 parts ; Epiph. (once) has dyveiag instead of uyvoTyTog. After ver. 2 ( dyvyv) 
 dyvoTyTog was written alongside as a gloss on dirlSTyrog, and was already at an 
 early date incorporated in the text, partly behind, partly before utIot. —Yer. 
 4. dvelxeabe] The form yveixeabe (Elz.) is condemned here also by decisive 
 evidence. Comp. ver. 1. Lachm. reads avexeabe, but only supported by B, 
 where it has arisen from the apparent grammatical necessity of the present. 
 Fritzsche also, on account of this necessity, declares for the present ; but see 
 the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 6. QavEpobevTeg ] Lachm. Tisch. and Buck, [also 
 Tregelles and Westcott and Hort] read (pavepuaavTEg, supported by B F G 17. 
 <pavEpudevTsg was explained by the gloss (pavEpuaavTEg tavTovg, as is actually the 
 reading in M, 108** Arm., and thus the active participle came into the text, 
 where it was the more easily retained, as it could be referred without difficulty 
 to Tyv yvticuv. —Yer. 14. 6avpaaTbv~\ B D* F G t!, 17, 39, 67** 74, Or. have 
 Qavpa. So Lachm. Tisch. and Buck. The former is a gloss.—Yer. 16. The 
 order rcayd pmp. tl rcavx. (Elz. has piKp. r. ndyd navx-) has decisive attestation. 
 — Yer. 21. yabe.vyva.pEv] Lachm. has the perfect, but follows only by B K, 80. — 
 Yer. 27. ev before kottu is on decisive evidence, with Lachm. Tisch. and Buck., 
 to be deleted as an addition. — Yer. 28. enLavaTaaig pov] BEG : kirioTacig 
 
G38 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 poi ; so Lachm. Buck. ’Emo-ramf is supported also by DE X** 39, al., which 
 have the reading kuLoraaig fiov. Comp, also inslaniia mea in Vnlg. Boern. 
 Ambrosiast. Pel. The word kmovoracit; has crept in from Acts xxiv. 12, be¬ 
 cause tnla-aaLC was not understood, and gov is a hasty correction. —Ver. 32. 
 GfAwv] is wanting in important witnesses, deleted by Lachm. Buck, and Tisch. 
 An exegetical addition. 
 
 Contents.— The apostle's self-glorying against his opponents. (1) Intro¬ 
 duction, vv. 1-4. (2) Theme of the self-praise, ver. 5 f. (3) Vindication 
 
 of the special boast that he had preached to his readers gratuitously (vv. 
 7-9), a practice which he will continue to observe on account of his oppo¬ 
 nents (vv. 10-15). Then, (4) after a repeated entreaty for patience towards 
 the folly of his self-glorying, which entreaty he accompanies with bitter re¬ 
 marks (vv. 16-20), he compares himself with his enemies (a) in general, ver. 
 21 ; (b) specially as a Jew T , ver. 22 ; ( c ) as a servant of Christ, ver. 23 ff., 
 in which latter relation he vindicates his sufferings, toils, and dangers, as 
 things of which he will glory (vv. 23-30). Lastly, (5) after a solemn assur¬ 
 ance that he does not lie, he begins an account of his experiences of suffer¬ 
 ing (vv. 31-33), which, however, is not continued. 
 
 Ver. 1. Would that ye would hear from me a little hit of folly ! The con¬ 
 nection of thought is this : after the principle just expressed in x. 18, I am 
 indeed acting foolishly when I boast of myself ; but would that you became 
 not angry on that account ! Irony ; the apostle’s tt epiavroboyia w 7 as not, like 
 that of his opponents, idle self-exaltation, but a vindication enjoined by the 
 circumstances and accordant with his duty, in order to drive the refractory 
 boasters at length quite out of the field. Flatt and Baur would insert an 
 also (from me also as from mine enemies), but quite arbitrarily. — opelov] 
 see on 1 Cor. iv. 8. — avdxccde] Hellenistic form with the simple augment 
 (Piers, cid Moer. p. 176) instead of the common yveix- in the older waiters 
 (Buttmann, Ausfuhrl. Sprachl. II. p. 189 f. ; Blomfield, ad Aesch. Choeph. 
 735) : The imperfect is not : have home (Erasmus, Calvin, and others), but : 
 ferret is, would hear. Comp, dde with imperfect : “ubi optamus earn rerum 
 conditionem quam non esse sentimus,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 516 ; Ellendt, 
 lex. Soph. I. p. 499 ; Buttmann, neat. Gr. p. 185 [E. T. 215].— yov] does 
 not belong to acppoavvyc (Hofmann), so that its position standing apart and 
 prefixed w 7 ould be emphatic,—which, however, does not at all suit the en¬ 
 clitic form,—but, as genitivus subjecti, to pispov n aeppoa., so that ginp. ri has 
 two genitives with it. Comp. LXX. Job vi. 26 : ovde yap vguv (pdiyga pryia- 
 roc avi^opac. See in general, Kiihner, § 542. 3 ; Lobeck, ad Aj. 309 ; Stall- 
 baum, ad Plat. Pep. p. 329 B. With the reading yuepov ry a<ppocvvy (see the 
 critical remarks) it would have to be attached to aveix- (would that ye en¬ 
 dured me a little as to folly), not to ry aeppoavvy, as Fritzsche, Piss. II. p. 53 
 f., contrary to the simple order of the words, prefers, and fuicpdv would have 
 to be taken either of time, or, with Reiche, of degree: paulisper, “non 
 nimio fastidio.” — aela sal avlx^Ol yov] corrective : yet this wdsh is not 
 needed, ye really hear patiently with me. The imperative interpretation of 
 avexcade (Vulgate, Pelagius, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, 
 
CHAP. XI., 2. 
 
 639 
 
 Hofmann), according to which Paul would proceed from wish to entreaty, 
 would be quite tame on account of the preceding w T ish, and in the corrective 
 form unsuitable. — nai] also, i.e. in reality. See Hartung, Par tile ell. I. p. 
 132. — pov] avexeode governs either the accusative , as in the case of pinpov tl be¬ 
 fore (and this is the more common construction in Greek authors), or, as here, 
 the genitive (so usually in the H. T.), which is also found in Greek authors 
 when the object is a thing (Horn. Od. xxii. 423, and later authors, such as 
 Herodian, viii. 5. 9, i. 17. 10), but very seldom wdth persons (Plat. Protag. 
 p. 323 A), without a participle standing alongside, as Xen. Andb. ii. 2. 1 ; 
 Plat. Pol. ii. p. 367 D, or without a simple participle, as Plat. Pol. viii. p. 
 564 D, Apol. p. 31 B ; Herod, v. 89, vii. 159. 
 
 Yer. 2. Ground of the a Ala i<al avexcaOe gov : My jealousy for you is, in 
 fact, a divine jealousy ; how can you then refuse to me the avexeoOac ! Riick- 
 ert refers yap to ocpelov . . . atypoovvpq, but in this way al?.a teal avkxcaOk pov is 
 overleaped all the more violently, seeing that it is a correction of what goes 
 before. Calvin (comp. Chrysostom and Bengel) : “ en cur desipiat, nam 
 hominem zelotypia quasi transversum rapit.” Against this may be urged 
 the emphatic Oeov, in which lies the very point of the reason assigned. — 
 yap vpag k.t.1.] As Paul, in what follows, represents himself as a mar¬ 
 riage-friend (comp. John iii. 29) who has betrothed the bride to the bride¬ 
 groom, and is now anxious that she may not let herself be led astray by an¬ 
 other, irflu is to be taken in the narrowest sense as equivalent to CAotvkco : 
 I am jealous concerning you (comp. Hum. v. 14 ; Ecclus. ix. 1), for the mar¬ 
 riage-friend very naturally takes the bridegroom’s part. The more indefinite 
 interpretation : I am zealous concerning you (Flatt and others), is therefore, 
 according to the context, too general, and the explanation : vehementer amo 
 vos (Rosenmuller, comp. Fritzsche), is at variance with the context. — Oeov 
 C,i]l(p\ with a jealousy, ichich God has ; wfiich is no human passion, but an 
 emotion belonging to God, which I therefore have in common with Him. 
 Paul consequently conceives of God as likewise jealous concerning the Co¬ 
 rinthian church ( 'vpaq ), that she might not, as the bride of Christ, suffer her¬ 
 self to be led astray. God appears in the O. T. as the spouse of His people, 
 and therefore jealous regarding it (Isa. liv. 5, lxii. 5 ; Jer. iii. 1 ff. ; Ezek. 
 xvi. 8 ff., xxiii. ; IIos. ii. 18, 19). How, as the representative of God in 
 the theocracy of the H. T. is Christ, with whom, therefore, the church ap¬ 
 pears connected, partly as spouse (see on Rom. vii. 4), partly as betrothed 
 (with reference to the completion of the marriage at the Parousia), as here 
 (comp. Eph. v. 25 ff.) ; the falling away from Christ must therefore be the 
 object of divine jealousy, and so Paul knows his iploq, the tffkoq of the mar¬ 
 riage-friend, as the £yloq of God. Oeov has been taken as genitivus auctoris 
 (Wolf and others, comp. Flatt, de Wette), or as : zeal for God (Rom. x. 2, so 
 Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Sender, Schulz), or as : zeal pleasing to God (Bill¬ 
 roth, comp. Flatt), or as : zeal extraordinarily great (Emmerling, so also 
 Fritzsche ; comp. Bengel : u zelo sancto et magno”) ; but all these inter¬ 
 pretations lie beyond the necessary definite reference to what follows, in 
 which a reason is given for the very predicate Oeov. (n 6 ) — r/p/iocrd/iT/v yap k t. /. ] 
 for I have betrothed you. . . but Ifear, etc., ver. 3, so that, with Lachmann, 
 
G40 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 only a comma is to be put after ver. 2 . dppoCeiv, adaptare, then specially in 
 the sense of betroth; see Wetstein. The more Attic form is appdrreiv. See 
 Gregor, p. 154, Schaef. ; Lobeck, ad P/tryn. p. 241. That Paul has ex¬ 
 pressed himself contrary to the Greek usage (according to which dppohaOat 
 Ttva means : to betroth oneself to a woman, Herod, v. 32, 47, vi. 65), is 
 only to be said, in so far as a classical writer would certainly have used the 
 active (Herod, ix. 108 ; Find. Pyth. ix. 207), although in late writers the 
 middle also occurs in the active sense (see the passages from Philo in Loes- 
 ner, p. 320, e.g. de Abr. p. 364 B : yapog ov appofrai rjbovrj), and here the 
 following hi avbpt leaves no doubt of the reference : I have joined ( i.e . ac¬ 
 cording to the context, betrothed) you to one husband. Paul regards himself 
 as a marriage-friend (npouvijarerp vuuv hyevoprjv kclI rov yd gov geotrrjg, Theodoret), 
 by whose intervention the betrothal of the Corinthians with Christ was 
 brought to pass. Chrysostom aptly says on the figurative representation of 
 the matter : pvrjarttag yap eon mipog 6 rrapibv Katpog' 6 be ruv rracrdduv erepog , 
 brav Myuai.v' dviarrj 6 vvpfcog . . . r O paTacra rovroig (to the readers) etpepev 
 atjterpa, rovro rtdrjcuv, iavrov pev ev xb>pa rrjg TTpogvrjurptag, hdvovg be h rd§ei rf/g 
 vvpcbrjg arrjaag. Pelagius, Eisner, Mosheim, Emmerling wrongly hold that 
 he conceives himself as father of the Corinthians ; their father (but this fig¬ 
 ure is here quite out of place) he has, in fact, only come to be through their 
 conversion to Christ (1 Cor. iv. 17 ; 2 Cor. xii. 14 ; comp. Tit. i. 4) ; he had 
 not been so already before. Regarding the marriage-friend of the Jews, jDBntP, 
 7 -apavvgcpcog, who not only wooed the bride for the bridegroom, but who was 
 the constant medium between the two, and at the wedding itself was regu¬ 
 lator of the feast, see Schottgen, Hor. ad Joh. iii. 29. With the Rabbins, 
 Moses is represented as such a marriage-friend. ' See Rab. Sal. ad Exod. 
 xxxiv. 1 , at. — hi avbpt] to one husband , to belong to no one further. — Trap- 
 Ohov ayvrjv k.t.1 .] Aim, with which he had betrothed the Corinthians to a 
 single husband : in order to present a pure virgin to Christ (rrapaar., comp, 
 iv. 14), namely, at the Parousia, when Christ appears as bridegroom, to 
 fetch home the bride, Matt. xxv. 1 ff. ; Eph. v. 27 ; Rev. xix. 7-9. The 
 church in its entirety, as a moral person, is this virgin. On ayvrjv , comp. 
 Dem. 1371. 23 ; Plut. Mor. p. 268 E, 438 C ; Plat. Legg. viii. p. 840 D. 
 The whole emphasis is on napdhov ayvrjv. When this is attended to, there 
 disappears the semblance of elg dv-ijp and 6 Xpiarog being different persons,— 
 a semblance for which Rtickert blames the apostle. Fritzsche regards re 3 
 Xptorti as apposition to hi avbpt (in which Rtickert agrees with him), and 
 encloses irapaGrfjoat, between two commas ; but this is an unnecessary and 
 enfeebling breaking up of the passage. Beza and Bengel connect hi avbpt 
 with Trapaor ., and take re 3 Xpiare> likewise epexegetically. But the absolute 
 rjppoohgrjv vpdg would in fact mean : I have betrothed myself to you ! In order 
 that it may not mean this, it must necessarily be joined to hi avbpt. 
 
 Yer. 3. The point of comparison is the leading astray by the devil , which 
 toolc place in the case of Eve (through the serpent), and was to be feared in 
 that of the Corinthians (through the false apostles, Satan’s servants, ver. 
 15). For Paul presupposes it as well known to his readers, that Satan had 
 led astray Eve by means of the serpent. To him and to them the serpent 
 
CHAP. XI., 4. 
 
 641 
 
 was by no means either a symbol or a mystical figure of the cosmical principle 
 (Martensen). (o 6 ) Comp. Wisd. ii. 23 f. ; 4 Macc. xviii. 8 ; 1 John iii. 8 ; 
 Rev. xii. 9, 14 1, xx. 2 ; and see on Johnviii. 44, and Grimm on Wisd. l.c . 
 For the monstrous inventions of the later Rabbins, see Eisenmenger, Ent- 
 decktes Judenth. I. p. 830 ff. —Paul’s mention (comp. 1 Tim. ii. 15) of Eve 
 (not Adam) is alike in keeping with the narrative (Gen. iii.) and with tlio 
 comparison, since the church is represented as feminine (comp. Ignat. Eph. 
 interpol. 17). In Rom. v. 12 and 1 Cor. xv. 22, the connection demanded 
 the mention of Adam. — 6 o<pic\ the well-known serpent. — ev r\ ) i ravovpy. 
 avrov] instrumental. Comp. Eph. iv. 14 ; Aq. Gen. iii. 1 : 6 b<pig f/v Travovp- 
 yog, Ignat. Phil. 11 interpol. : 6 asoXibg bejug k.t.X .— fiapy] become corrupted, 
 not be corrupt (Ewald). Paul expresses himself with tender forbearance; 
 the corruption of the church by anti-Pauline doctrine (ver. 4) he sees as a 
 danger. — ano rrjg archor. k.t.X.] a pregnant phrase: lest your thoughts 
 (comp. iii. 14, iv. 4, x. 5) become corrupted and led away from the simplicity 
 towards Christ (eig X. is not equivalent to ev X., as the Vulgate, Beza, 
 Calvin, and others have it). See Fritzsche, Piss. II. p. 63 f. ; Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. p. 277 [E. T. 322]. The aieXoryg r) eig X. is the quality of simple, 
 honest fidelity in the Trcipdevog ayvrj , who shares her heart with no other than 
 with her betrothed. 
 
 Ver. 4. An ironical (and therefore not conflicting with Gal. i. 18) reason 
 assigned for that anxiety. For if, indeed, my opponents teach and work some¬ 
 thing so entirely new among you, one would not be cible to blame you for being 
 pleased with it. —Regarding el yev, if indeed, see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 
 414 f. ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 522. — 6 epxoyevog] does not refer to 6 b(pcg, ver. 
 3 (Kniewel). It might doubtless mean the first comer, as Emmerling and 
 Billroth hold (Bernhardy, p. 318), comp. Gal. v. 10 ; but, since Paul man¬ 
 ifestly has in view the conduct of the whole fraternity of opposing teachers 
 (see immediately, ver. 5), it is rather this totum genus that is denoted by 6 
 epxeoyvog, and that concretely, and in such a fashion that their emergence 
 is vividly illustrated by reference to one definitely thought of, of whom, 
 however, the point is left undetermined who he is : is qui venit. Comp. 
 Fritzsche, Piss. II. p. 65 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 8. 22. The word ex¬ 
 hibits the persons meant in the light of outsiders, who come to Corinth and 
 there pursue their courses in ojiposition to the apostle. They are intruders 
 (comp. iii. 1), and by the present tenses their coming and practices are de¬ 
 noted as still presently prevailing, just as this corrupting intercourse had 
 been already going on for a considerable time. Ewald thinks here, too, of 
 a special individual among the counter-apostles. — alAov ’lycovv nypvGGEL] 
 i.e. so preaches of Jesus, that the Jesus now preached appears not to be the 
 same as was previously preached, 1 consequently as if a second Jesus. 
 Hence, to explain it more precisely, there is.added : ov ovk esrjpv^ayev : who 
 was not the subject-matter of our preaching, of whom we have known noth¬ 
 ing and preached nothing, therefore not the crucified Saviour (1 Cor. ii. 2) 
 
 1 If Paul had written a\\ov Xptcrrov, the hut another is the Christ, now unsuitable 
 reading of F. G, Arm. Vulg., the meaning this is, is self-evident, 
 of it would be : he preaches that not Jesus, 
 
042 
 
 Paul’s secokd epistle to the corinthiahs. 
 
 through whom men are justified without the law, etc. alhoq negatives 
 simply the identity, erepoc at the same time the similarity of nature : an 
 other Jesus ... a different spirit. Comp. Acts iv. 12 ; Gal. i. G, 7 ; 1 Cor. 
 xii. 9, xv. 40. — 7] Ttvevfia erepov /c.r.A.] rj, or, in order to describe this reform 
 atory working from another side, another Mnd of Spirit , etc. As the 
 false apostles might have boasted that only through them had the right 
 Jesus been preached to the Corinthians, 1 they might also have added that 
 only through their preaching had the readers received the true Holy Spirit, 
 whom they had not before received, namely, when Paul had taught them 
 (6 ova eid/3ere). Moreover, it is decidedly clear from rj jrvevya erepov k.t.'/ 1. 
 that it cannot have been (this in opposition to Beyschlag) a more exact 
 historical information and communication regarding Jesus, by means of 
 which the persons concerned attempted to supplant Paul among the Corin¬ 
 thians. It was by means of Judaistic false doctrines ; comp. ver. 13 tf. 
 See also Klopper, p. 79 f. — o ovk edetjacrOe] for the Pauline gosj^el was ac¬ 
 cepted by the readers at their conversion : the gospel brought by the false 
 apostles was of another Mnd (erepov), which was not before accepted by them. 
 Riickert arbitrarily says that ecUijacrOe is equivalent to elafiere, and that the for¬ 
 mer is used only to avoid the repetition of the latter. How fine and accurate, 
 on the other hand, is Bengel’s remark : “Verba di versa, rei apta ; non con- 
 currit voluntas hominis in accipiendo Spiritu, ut in rccipiendo evangelio.” 
 Comp, on the distinction between the two words, Theile, ad Jacob, p. 68. — 
 Kalcjg aveixeode] Kaiag, like praeclare in tlie ironical sense of with full right. 
 See on Mark vii. 9 ; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 271 ff. ; Biss. II. p. 72 f. ; and 
 regarding the ironical use of the adjective nalotg, Stallb. ad Pep. p. 595 C, 
 607 E. According to Hofmann, aalug is an expression of an earnest ap¬ 
 proval, wdiich, however, is cancelled of itself by the impossibility of the 
 case which is put. But in the protasis the case, in fact, is just simply put , 
 not put as impossible (comp. Gal. i. 8, 9) ; hence in the apodosis an dvaOe/ua 
 on the seducers, or a severe censure of those who did not withstand them, 
 wrnuld have had its place in the mind of the apostle rather than a naXcbc 
 aveixcode earnestly meant. The imperfect aveixeoOe does not, indeed, in 
 strict logic suit kt] pvooet, and lapfiavere in the protasis, and we should expect 
 avexeade, as is actually the reading of B. But it is not on that account to 
 be explained as if el eKrjpvaaev K.r.X. stood in the protasis (if the comer was 
 preaching ... ye would, etc.), as Chrysostom, Luther, Castalio, Cornelius 
 a Lapide, and many others, including Baur, l.c. p. 102, explained it, which 
 is wrong* in grammar; nor is—along with an other wise correct view of the 
 protasis —Kakbxg aveixccde to be taken in the historical sense, as has been 
 attempted by some, as interrogatively (have you with, right tolerated, 
 it ?), such as Heumann, by others, such as Sender, 2 in the form of an indig¬ 
 nant exclamation (you have truly well tolerated it!), both of which mean¬ 
 ings are logically impossible on account of the difference of tenses in the 
 
 1 Against the interpretation that it was a sclilag, 1865, p. 239 f. 
 spiritual, visionary Christ whom the Chris- 2 He is followed recently by Hilgenfeld in 
 tian party had given out for the true one his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 261. 
 
 (Sclienkel, de Wette, and others), see Bey- 
 
CHAP. XI., 5. 
 
 643 
 
 protasis and apodosis. No ; we have here the transition from one construc¬ 
 tion to the other. When Paul wrote the protasis, he meant to put avexeade 
 in the apodosis ; but when he came to the apodosis, the conception of the 
 utter non-reality of what was posited in the protasis as the preaching of 
 another Jesus , etc., induced him to modify the expression of the apodosis 
 in such a way, that now there is implied in it a negatived reality as if in 
 the protasis there had stood el eni/pvacrev k.t.X. For there is not another 
 Jesus ; comp. Gal. ii. 6. Several instances of this variation in the mode 
 of expression are found in classical writers. See Klihner, II. p. 549 ; 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 489. Comp, on Luke xvii. 6. The reason for the 
 absence of av in the apodosis is, that the contents of the apodosis is rep¬ 
 resented as sure and certain. See Kruger, § G5, 5 ; Stallb. ad Plat. 
 JSympos. p. 190 C ; Kuhner, ad Xen. Andb. vii. 6. 21 ; Bremi, ad Lys. 
 Exc. IY. p. 438 ff. 
 
 Yer. 5. You might *icell tolerate it , Paul had just said; but every reader 
 who knew the'apostle could not but at once of himself feel that he did not 
 mean it so, that the meaning at his heart was rather : then you would be 
 very far wrong in tolerating such novelties ; that he thus in the way of 
 ironical censure makes it palpable to his readers that their complaisance 
 towards the false apostles was the ground of his anxiety expressed in ver. 3. 
 Hence he now by yap 2 at once gives a reason for the censure of that complai¬ 
 sance so disparaging to his own position as an apostle, which is conveyed in 
 the ironical nalug aveixecrOs. This yap does not refer therefore to ver. 1, but 
 to what immediately precedes, in so far, namely, as it was not meant ap¬ 
 provingly (Hofmann), but in exactly the opposite sense. Hofmann ground¬ 
 lessly and dogmatically replies that the reason assigned for an ironical praise 
 must necessarily be itself ironical. 3 — loydoyai] censeo , I am of opinion. 
 Horn. ii. 3, iii. 28, viii. 18, al. — yrjSev vcreprjKevai] in no respect have I re¬ 
 mained behind. Comp, on Matt. xix. 20. Biickert without reason adds : 
 “i.e. in my action. ” The yifh, in no respect a stronger negation than the 
 
 1 Here, too, the delicate and acute glance 
 of Bengel saw the correct view : “ Ponit 
 conditonem, ex parte rei impossibilem ; ideo 
 dicit in imperfecto toleraretis ; sed procona- 
 tu pseudapostolorum non modo possibilem, 
 sed plane presentem ; ideo dicit in prae- 
 senti praedicat. Conf. plane Gal. i. 6 f.” 
 Comp, also 1 Cor. iii. 11. Riickert refines 
 and imports a development of thought, 
 which is arbitrarily assumed, and rests on 
 the presupposition that there is no irony in 
 the passage. With the same presupposition 
 Hofmann assumes the intermingling of two 
 thoughts, one referring to the present, the 
 other to the past,—which would amount to 
 a confusion of ideas without motive. This 
 also in opposition to Klopper, p. 84, who 
 thinks tha£ Paul does not wish to charge 
 the readers with the avex^Oai for the im¬ 
 mediate present, but had been distinctly 
 aware that they had tolerated, etc. In 
 
 that case we should have here a singular 
 forbearance and a singular form of its ex¬ 
 pression, the former as undeserved as the 
 latter is unlogical. There was as little need 
 for the alleged forbearance toward the 
 readers as in ver. 19 f. 
 
 2 Se, adopted by Lachm. on the testimony 
 of B only, and approved by Riickert, ap¬ 
 pears after el pev in ver. 4 as an alteration, 
 because no reference was seen for the yap. 
 With Se there would result the quite simple 
 course of thought: ‘ ‘ If indeed . . . I mean, 
 however , etc., not as Riickert. would have it, 
 that Paul passes from the justification of 
 the intended self-praise given in vv. 2-4 to 
 the self-praise itself. 
 
 3 Without conceding this arbitrary asser¬ 
 tion, observe, morever, that ver. 5 also has 
 a sufficiently ironic tinge. Comp. iv. 8, 9. 
 See also Klopper. 
 
644 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 simple fifj (Kiihncr, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 10), excludes any restriction to some 
 mere partial aspect of his official character. The perfect exhibits the state of 
 the case as at present continuing to subsist (Bernhardy, p. 378): to stand be¬ 
 hind. In xii. 11 the conception .is different. — tuv vnepllav clkogtoXuv] The 
 genitive with a verb of comparison. Comp. Plat. Pol. 7, p. 539 E. See 
 Matthiae, p. 836. Comp. Kypke, II. p. 265. vizephlav, overmuch , supra 
 quarn valde , is not preserved elsewhere in old Greek, but is found again, 
 nevertheless, in Eustath. Od. i. p. 27, 35 : eoti yap n tote k al rO Xtav Kara rz> 
 rpaycpSlav xpuoOai Ka?iug, sad’ o opgaivd/uevov hiyogev viva inrephiav oocpov. Simi¬ 
 larly we have vTrepdyav (2 Macc. viii. 35, x. 34 ; Strabo, iii. p. 147), virepev 
 (Kypke, Obss. II. p. 267), inrepavu, etc., as well as generally Paul’s frequent 
 application of compounds with Prep (Fritzsche, ad Pom. I. p. 351). But 
 whom does he mean by ruv iarephlav cnroorohuv ? According to Chiysostom, 
 Theodoret, Grotius, Bengel, and most of the older commentators, also Em- 
 merling, Flatt, Schrader, Baur, Hilgenfelcl, Holsten, Iloltzmann'(Jw^en£A 
 undj Christenth. p. 764), -the actual summos apostolos , namely, Peter , James , 
 and John (comp. Gal. ii. 9). But Paul is not contending against these, but 
 against the false apostles (ver. 13); hence the expression : “ the over-great 
 apostles ,” which is manifestly selected not per’ eyiaoyiuv (Chrysostom), but with 
 a certain bitterness, would be very unsuitable here (comp, on the other hand, 
 1 Cor. xv. 9, ix. 5) if the old apostles should be simply incidentally men¬ 
 tioned, because they were possibly placed high above Paul by his oppo¬ 
 nents. 3 Rightly, therefore, Richard Simon, 1 2 and others have followed Beza’s 
 suggestion (comp. Erasmus in the Annot.), and understood the Judaistic 
 anti-Pauline teachers to be the pseudo-apostles (vv. 13, 22), whose inflated ar¬ 
 rogance in exalting themselves over Paul is caricatured. Nevertheless they 
 are not to be considered as the heads of the Christ-party (comp, on x. 7). 
 
 Remake.— The reference of our passage to Peter, James, and John was sup¬ 
 ported among the earlier Protestants from polemical considerations, for the 
 comparison in itself and the plural expression were urged against the primacy 
 of Peter. See Calovius, Bibl. ill. p. 505. In defence of this primacy, it was 
 maintained by the older Catholic writers that the equality referred to preach¬ 
 ing and gifts, not to power and jurisdiction. See Cornelius a Lapide. 
 
 Ver. 6. A more precise explanation of this grjSev voTeprjKhai tuv vtt epb. 
 aTTooTohuv, starting from a concession, so that Si introduces something ap¬ 
 parently opposed. Although , however , I am untrained in speech , yet I am not 
 so in Tcnoicledge , but in everything we have become manifest among all in refer¬ 
 ence to you. (p K ) The view of Hofmann, that that concession bears on the 
 preference of the opponents for Apollos , finds no confirmation in the dis¬ 
 cussion that follows. Comp, on the contrary, x. 10. — fyavepudevreg does not 
 apply to the yvuoie (Bengel, Zachariae, and others), for how inappropriate 
 
 1 The immediately following e£ Se kclI Schulz, Stolz, Rosenmuller, Fritzsche, Bill- 
 
 iSiu>Tr)s tw Aoya) would also be quite unsuit- roth, Riickert, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, 
 able, since every other apostle, at least as Osiander, Neander, Hofmann, Weiss, Bey- 
 much as Paul, was cSiwtt)? t<5 \6yu>. schlag. 
 
 2 Alethius, Heumann, Sender, Michaelis, 
 
ciiap. xi., 6. 
 
 045 
 
 vcr. 7 would then be ! But Paul proceeds from the yvtiotg, which he has 
 attributed to himself in opposition to the reproach of want of training in 
 discourse, to his having become manifest in every respect, so that ry yvuoei and 
 kv TcavTL are related to one another as species and genus. 1 It is arbitrary to 
 supply a definite reference for tyavepoQ. Rosenmiiller : ‘ ‘ tanquam verum 
 apostolum et doctorem Riickert : “as apostle and honest man”); in 
 every respect , says Paul, we have become manifest as to how we are consti¬ 
 tuted ; and what hind of manifestation that was—its qualitative aspect— 
 he leaves entirely to the judgment of his readers. Riickert (following Flatt) 
 regards ei Sk nal . . . yvcjasi as a parenthesis, and places all’ kv Tvavrl k.t.1. 
 in connection with ver. 5, so that Paul, instead of keeping to the infinitive 
 construction, would pass over into the participial ; but after what has been 
 said above, this is a quite superfluous expedient, according to which, more¬ 
 over, d 6 e Kal . . . yvidGci would.only stand as a strangely isolated, as it 
 were a forlorn thought, out of all connection. Olshausen, too (comp. Beza), 
 breaks up the passage by taking the second alia as corrective: “Yet ve 
 know in fact my whole conduct, why should I still describe it to you ?” 
 And yet all' kv izavri stands in so natural relation and connection with the 
 previous ov ry yvacrei, that it more readily occurs to us to take alia as : but 
 on the contrary , than, with de Wette, to take it as co-ordinate with the first 
 alia (introducing a second apodosis), as in 1 Cor. vi. 11. — idiuryg ru Aoyw] 
 Paul therefore did not reckon a scholastically-trained eloquence (and he is 
 thinking here specially of the Hellenic type, of which in fact Corinth was a 
 principal seat) as among the requisites for his office. 2 Comp. 1 Cor. i. 17, 
 ii. 1 If. But his opponents (comp. x. 10) disparaged him for the want of 
 it. Regarding Idiaryg, see on Acts iv. 13 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 16. —ry yvuasi] “quae 
 prima dos apostoli,” Bengel ; Matt. xii. 11 ; Eph. iii. 34 ; Gal. i. 12, 15. 
 
 — kv -navri ] not : at every time (Emmerling, Flatt), nor ubique (Erasmus), 
 but, as it always means with Paul : in every point , in every respect , iv. 8, vi. 
 4, vii. 16, viii. 7, ix. 8 ; see Bengel. Particularly frequent in this Epistle. 
 
 — After (pavepuOkvreg , kcykv is to be sujiplied from what goes before. The 
 aorist contains the conception : have not remained hidden, but have become 
 manifest. The perfect is different in v. 11. The device of Hofmann, that 
 after (pavepuO, we should supply an k<pav£po)0yp£v to be connected with kv naciv 
 elg vyag, yields a thought weak in meaning (“after that we . . . had been 
 made manifest we have . . . been made manifest in presence of you”) and is 
 utterly groundless. How altogether different it is at viii. 24 ! The transi- 
 
 1 Billroth follows the reading <jxx.vepu<Ta.v- 
 res : “ If I, however, am unskilled in an ar¬ 
 tistic discourse of human wisdom, I am not 
 so in the true, deep knowledge of Chris¬ 
 tianity ; yea rather, I have made it (the 
 knowledge) in every point known to you 
 in all things.” Ewald, following the same 
 reading: “ but people, who in everything 
 (in every position) have spoken clearly re¬ 
 garding all kinds of matters (iu na<nv) 
 towards you.” 
 
 2 How Paul, with the great eloquence to 
 
 which all his Epistles and speeches in the 
 Book of Acts bear testimony, could yet 
 with truth call himself ifiiwTTj? rip Aoyip, Au¬ 
 gustine, de doctr. Christ, iv. 7, has rightly dis¬ 
 cerned: “Sicut apostolum praecepta elo- 
 quentiae secutum fuisse non dicimus: ita 
 quod ejus sapientiam secuta sit eloquentia, 
 non negamus.” Comp, also how Xenophon 
 (de venat. 14, 3) designates and describes 
 himself as idiotes, in contradistinction to 
 the sophists. 
 
C4G PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 i V 
 
 tion to the plural form inclusive of others (by which Paul means himself and 
 his fellow-teachers) cannot surprise any one, since often in his case the 
 purely personal consciousness and that of fellowship in a common office pre¬ 
 sent themselves side by side. Comp. i. 23 f., v. 11 ; 1 Thess, iii. 4 f.; 
 Philem. 7 f., al. — ev ndatv] being separated fromev tt avn cannot (as in Phil, 
 iv. 2) be taken as neuter (in all things, Billroth, Neander ; in all possible 
 points, Hofmann : ev ndotv olg noiovyev k. leyoyev, Theophylact), but only as 
 ‘masculine: among all we have been made manifest in reference to you, that 
 is, among all (i.e. coram omnibus ) there has been clearly displayed, and has 
 remained unknown to none, there lation in which we stand to you ; every 
 one has become aware what we are to you. Comp. Erasmus (“ quales simus 
 erga vos”). 
 
 Yer. 7. That Paul meant by his ev iravn QavepoO. an advantageous manifes- „ 
 tation, was obvious of itself ; comp. v. 11. Hence, in order now to make good 
 a distinctive peculiar point of his (paveptocug , he continues with a question of 
 bitter pain, such as the sense of being maliciously misunderstood brought to 
 his lips : Or have I committed sin — abasing myself in order that ye might be ex¬ 
 alted—that I gratuitously preached to you the gospel of God ? No doubt the 
 opponents had turned this noble sacrifice on his part, by way of reproach, 
 into un-apostolic meanness. — eyavrov Taneivuv ] namely, by my renouncing, 
 in. order to teach gratuitously, my apostolic e^ovala, 1 Cor. ix., and content¬ 
 ing myself with very scanty and mean support (comp. Acts xviii. 3, xx. 34). 
 Chrysostom and others exaggerate it : ev crevoxcopta diryyayov, for nal voTepr/deic, 
 ver. 8, is only a temporary increased degree of the Taireivucnc. — Iva vpelp 
 vipuflyre] viz. from the lowmess of the dark and lost pre-Christian condition 
 through conversion, instruction, and pastoral care to the height of the 
 Christian salvation. It is much too vague to take it of prosperity in general 
 (Schulz, Rosenmuller, Flatt) ; and when Zachariae explains it : “ in order 
 to prefer you to other churches, ” or when others think of the riches not les¬ 
 sened by the gratuitous preaching (Mosheim, Heumann, Morus, Emmerling), 
 they quite fail to see the apostle’s delicate way of significantly varying the 
 relations. Comp. viii. 9. Chrysostom already saw the right meaning : 
 y.dXhov cjKodopovvTo nai ovk ecuavdaA'fovTO. — on] that , belongs to ayapr. ercoir/aa 
 (to which eyavT. raireivtbv is an accompanying modal definition), inserted for 
 the sake of disclosing the contrast of the case as it stood to the question. 
 
 "0 n may also be taken as an exegesis of eyavr. rajeeiv. /c.r.Z., so that already 
 with the latter the committing of sin would be described as regards its con¬ 
 tents ; comp. Acts xxi. 13 ; Mark xi. 5 (so Luther, Beza, and many others, 
 also Osiander). But our view interweaves more skilfully into one the ques¬ 
 tion with its contradictory contents. — dcopeav] has the emphasis. — tov Oeov ] 
 Genitivus auctoris. Note the juxtaposition : Sopeav to tov 6eov evayy. : 
 gratuitously the gospel of God (“ pretiosissimum,” Bengel). (q 6 ) 
 
 Yer. 8. Further information as to the previous dupeav k.t.I. — kovkrjca] I 
 have stripped , plundered, a hyperbolical , impassioned expression, as is at once 
 shown by ha/3o)v otyuviov after it. The ungrateful ones are to be made aware, 
 in a way to put them thoroughly to shame, of the forbearance shown to 
 them. — The ahlac eKuhqciat meant w r ere beyond doubt Macedonian. Comp. 
 
I 
 
 chap, xi., 9. 647 
 
 ver. 9. — -Tiafluv k.t.2,.] contemporaneous with eavlrjaa, and indicating the 
 manner in which it was done. — bf&viov ] pay (see on Rom. vi. 23), i.e. 
 payment for my official labour. — n pog rr)v vyuv dianoviav ] Aim of the aAAag 
 ekk/ l. eaufo/oa la{3o)v of., so that the emphatic vyuv corresponds to the emphat¬ 
 ic alhag. Paul had therefore destined the pay taken from other churches to 
 the purpose of rendering (gratuitously) his official service to the Corinthians , 
 to whom he travelled from Macedonia (Acts xvii. 13 f., xviii. 1) in order to 
 preach to them the gospel. — nai reapibv /c.r.l] and during my presence with 
 you I have, even when want had set in icith me, burdened no one. He thus brought 
 with him to Corinth the money received from other churches, and subsisted 
 on it (earning more, withal, by working with his hands) ; and when, during 
 his residence there, this provision was gradually exhausted, so that even 
 want set in (pal voreprideig), he nevertheless importuned no one, but (ver. 9) 
 continued to help himself on by Macedonian pecuniary aid (in addition to 
 the earnings of his handicraft). Comp, on Phil. iv. 15. Riickert thinks 
 that Paul only sought to relieve his want by the manual labour entered on 
 with Aquila, when the money brought with him from Corinth had been ex¬ 
 hausted and new contributions had not yet arrived. But, according to Acts 
 xviii. 3, his working at a handicraft— of which, moreover, he makes no mention 
 in this passage — is to be conceived as continuing from the beginning of his 
 residence at Corinth; how conceivable, nevertheless, is it that, occupied as he 
 wrns so greatly with other matters, he could not earn his whole livelihood, but 
 still stood in need of supplies ! On Trpogvpag, which is not to be taken “ after 
 my coming to you ” (Hofmann), comp. 1 Cor. xvi. G ; Matt. xiii. 56. — nare- 
 vapurjoa] Hesychius : epdpwa, I have lain as a burden on no one. It is to be 
 derived from vapup, paralysis, debility, torpidity ; thence vapnatj, torpeo, II. 
 viii. 328 ; Plat. Men. p. 80 A B C ; LXX. Gen. xxxii. 32 ; Job xxxiii. 19 ; 
 hence naravapnav nvog : to press down heavily and stiffly on any one (on the 
 genitive, see Matthiae, p/8G0). Except in Hippocrates, p. 816 C, 1194 H, 
 in the passive (to be stiffened), the word does not occur elsewhere in Greek ; 
 and by Jerome, Aglas. 10, it is declared to be a Cilician expression equiva¬ 
 lent to non gravavi vos. Vulgate: u nulli onerosus fui.” Another explana¬ 
 tion, quoted in addition to the above by Theophylact (comp. Oecumenius): 
 “/ have not become indolent in my office” (so Beza, who takes Kara . . . 
 ovdevog, cum cujusquam incommoclo ), would be at variance with the context. 
 See ver. 9. Comp, also xii. 13, 14. Besides, this sense would not be de¬ 
 monstrable for KaravapK. but for airovapK. (Plutarch, Ediic. p. 8 F). 
 
 Ver. 9. to yap va-'nprjpa down to M aKehoviag is not, with Griesbach, Lach- 
 jnann, and others, to be made parenthetical, 1 since Kal ev iravrl k.tA. is 
 structurally and logically (as consequence) connected with it : for what was 
 wanting to me the brethren (known to you) supplied, after they had come from 
 Macedonia, and, etc.— 7TpoGaverr?J/puGav] addendo suppleverunt (comp. ix. 12). 
 But we are not, with Grotius (who in ver. 8 and here thinks of the means 
 for supporting the poor) and Bengel, to seek the reference of irpdg in the 
 
 1 So also Ewald, who takes ver. 8 and ver. 9 still as a continuation of the question in 
 ver. 7. 
 
648 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to tiie corihtiiiaxs. 
 
 addition to the earnings of his labour , for of this the whole context contains 
 nothing ; but the brethren added the support brought by them to the apos¬ 
 tle’s still very small provision, and so supplemented his vGrepyya. This aid 
 is later than that mentioned in Phil. iv. 15 (see in loc.) : the names of the 
 brethren (were they Silas and Timothy ? Acts xviii. 5) are unknown to us. 
 — nal h Trawl /c.r./l.] and in every point (comp. ver. 6) I have kept and will Tceep 
 myself non-burdensome to you ; I have occasioned you no burden in mine own 
 };>erson, and will occasion you none in the future (“tantum abest, ut poeni- 
 teat,” Bengel). — aj3apf/g only here in the N. T., but see Arist. de coel. 4 ; 
 Chrysipp. in Plut. Mor. p. 1053 E ; Luc. D. M. x. 5. 
 
 Yer. 10. Not in form an oath, but a very solemn assurance of the nal 
 Ttipyou : there is truth of Christ in me , that , etc. That is to say : By the in¬ 
 dwelling truth of Christ in me I assure you that , etc. The apostle is certain 
 that as generally Christ lives in him (Gal. ii. 20) Christ’s mind is in him 
 (see on 1 Cor. ii. 16), Christ’s heart beats in him (Phil. i. 8), Christ speaks 
 in him (xiii. 3), all, namely, through the Spirit of Christ, which dwells in 
 him (Rom. viii. 9 ff.); so, in particular, also truth of Christ is in him, and 
 therefore all untruthfulness, lying, hypocrisy, etc., must be as foreign to 
 him as to Christ Himself, who bears sway in him. The 6 n is the simple 
 that, dependent on the idea of assurance , which lies at the bottom of the 
 clause egtcv aki/6. X. kv kyoi, and has its specific expression in this clause. 
 Comp. eyio, on, Rom. xiv. 11. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 242 f. 
 Riickert’s view is more far-fetched : that otl n.r.k. is the subject, of which Paul 
 asserts that it is ahr/Octa Xpiorov in him, i.e. what he says is a j^roposition, 
 which just as certainly contains truth, as if Christ Himself said it. Olshausen 
 attenuates the sense at variance with its literal tenor into : “as true as I am 
 a Christian.” The thought is really the same in substance as that in Rom. 
 ix. 1 : akr/detav keyco ev Xpiorti, ov ijjEvdoyat, but the form of the conception is 
 different. — ?) navxyetx avry ov ppay. etc eye] this self -boasting will not be stopped 
 in reference to me. The gloriatio spoken of, namely as to preaching gratui¬ 
 tously, is personified; its mouth is not, as to what concerns the apostle, to 
 be stopped, so that it must keep silence. Hofmann, not appreciating this 
 personification, takes offence at the fact that the navxycus is supposed to have 
 a mouth , while Riickert resorts to an odd artificial interpretation of (ppay. elg 
 eye ( will not be cooped up in me). Just because the nav^aodac is an action of 
 the mouth , the personified navxvmg has a mouth which can be stopped. Comp. 
 Theodoret. — §payr)GETai\ Comp. Rom. iii. 19 ; Heb. xi. 33 ; LXX. Ps. cvii. 
 42 ; Job v. 16 ; 2 Macc. xiv. 36 ; Wetstein, ad Rom. l.c.; Jacobs, ad 
 Anthol. XII. p. 297. It cannot surprise us that to G-oya is not expressly sub¬ 
 joined, since this is obvious of itself, seeing that the K.avxvmc is conceived as 
 speaking. There is nothing in the context to justify the derivation of the 
 expression from the damming up of running water, as Chrysostom and 
 Theophylact, also Luther (see his gloss), and again Hofmann take it. 
 There is just as little ground for de Wette’s suggestion, that (ppayycErai is 
 meant of hedging in a way (IIos. ii. 6). — eic eye] For, if Paul should so con¬ 
 duct himself that he could no longer boast of preaching gratuitously, the 
 mouth of this savx^cug would, in reference to him , be stopped. In this elg eye, 
 
CHAP. XI 11, 12. 
 
 G49 
 
 as concerns me , there is implied a tacit comparison with others , who con¬ 
 ducted themselves differently, and in regard to whom, therefore, the mouth 
 of Ka'vxnaiQ clvtt] would be stopped. — ev toIq nPiyaai rrjg ’A%.] is more weighty, 
 and at the same time more tenderly forbearing, than the direct ev vplv, 
 which would be tvI rinriKUTepov (Chrysostom). 
 
 Ver. 11. Negative specification of the reason for his continuing to preach 
 gratuitously in Achaia. — How easily, since he had accepted something 
 from the poorer Macedonians, might his conduct appear or be represented 
 to the Corinthians as the result of a cold, disdainful, distrustful disposition 
 towards them ! Love willingly accepts from the beloved one what is due 
 to it. — 6 dedg older ] namely, that the reason is not want of love to you. — 
 Observe the lively interrogative form (Dissen, ad Dein. de cor. pp. 186, 347). 
 
 Ver. 12. 1 Positive specification of the reason , after brief repetition of the 
 matter which calls for it (6 de tvolu , ual tvoit/giS). —Since Paul, in accordance 
 with ver. 10, wishes to specify the aim inducing the future continuance of 
 his conduct, nal tvoli]go must be apodosis (comp. Erasmus, Annot ., Beza, 
 Bengel, Lachmann, Tischendorf), and must not be attached to the protasis, 
 so as to make it necessary to supply before Iva a did tovto tvoiu (Erasmus, 
 Paraphr. , Luther, Castalio, Emmerling), or tovto tvoilo k. tvoitjgo (Riickert, 
 but undecidedly), or simply yiveTai (Osiander, Ewald ).—Iva ennoTpio k.t.X.] 
 in order that I may cut off the opportunity of those , who wish (exoptant, Beza) 
 opportunity , namely, to degrade and to slander me. T?)v a^oppyv, having 
 the article, denotes the definite occasion, arising from the subject in ques¬ 
 tion, for bringing the apostle into evil repute. Had he caused himself to 
 be remunerated by the Corinthians, his enemies, who in general were looking 
 out for opportunity (a(pop/u. without the article), would have taken thence 
 the opportunity of slandering him as selfish and greedy ; this was their 
 cKpopyr/, which he wished to cut off ( avatpelv , Chrysostom) by his gratuitous 
 working. Others understand by tt/v d<j>oppr/v the occasion of exalting and 
 magnifying themselves above him (Calvin, Grotius, Flatt). But according 
 to this, we should have to assume that the false apostles had taken no pay, 
 on which point, after the precedent of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, 
 Grotius, Billroth, and others, Riickert especially insists. This assumption, 
 however, which Heander also supports (comp, against it, Beza), has against 
 it d priori the fact that Paul lays so earnest stress on his gratuitous preach¬ 
 ing—which would not be appropriate to his apologetico-polemic train of ar¬ 
 gument, if on this point he had stood on the same footing with his oppo¬ 
 nents. Further, xi. 20 and 1 Cor. ix. 12 are expressly opposed to it ; and 
 the objection of Riickert, that the apostle’s testimony to the baseness of his 
 opponents loses much of its force owing to his passionate temperament, is 
 an exaggerated opinion, to which we can concede only this much, that his 
 testimony regarding his opponents is strongly expressed (comp. ver. 20), 
 but not that it contains anything untrue. If they had worked against him 
 from honest prejudice, it would have been at once indiscreet and un-Chris¬ 
 tian in him to work against them. Rtickert’s further objection, that the 
 
 1 See regarding ver. 12, Diisterdieck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 517 ff. 
 
050 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE COIIIXTIIIAXS. 
 
 adversaries, if they had taken payment where Paul took none, would have 
 coupled folly with selfishness, is unfounded, seeing that in fact, even with 
 that recommendation in which Paul had the advantage of them by his un¬ 
 paid teaching, very many other wmys were left to them of exalting them¬ 
 selves and of lowering his repute, and hence they might be all the more 
 prudent and cunning. Comp, on ver. 6. — iva ev <5 Kavxuvrcu k.t.a .] may be 
 parallel to the previous clause of purpose (Diisterdieck). Yet it is more in 
 keeping with the logical relation—that here something positive, and pre¬ 
 viously only something negative, is asserted as intended—and thereby with 
 the climactic course of the passage, to assume that iva kv <5 navx . ic.t.X. is the 
 aim of EKKoipu tt]v acj)op/ur/v r. 6. acp., and thus the final aim of the 6 6e ttoio), 
 nal Troufico in regard to the opponents : in order that they , in the point of 
 which they boast , may be found even as we. This is what I purpose to bring 
 about among them. If, namely, the enemies did not find in Paul the op¬ 
 portunity of disparaging him as selfish, now there was to be given to them 
 withal the necessit}^ (according to his purpose) of showing themselves to be 
 just such as Paul 1 in that, in which they boasted, i.e. according to the context, 
 in the point of unselfishness. Hitherto, forsooth, the credit of unselfishness, 
 which they assigned to themselves, was idle ostentation, see ver. 20. De 
 Wette makes objection, on the other hand, that they could not have boasted 
 of unselfishness, if they had shown themselves selfish. But this was the 
 very point of his enemies’ untruthfulness (ver. 13, comp. v. 12), that they 
 vaingloriously displayed the semblance of unselfishness, while in fact they 
 knew how to enrich themselves by the Christians. Theodoret aptly says : 
 edec^E de aiiTovg 2.6yu> KOUTra^ovrag, f a 6 p a de xP r /l LLaTL £°l J 'l vov £' Dtister- 
 dieck, too, can find no ground in the context for saying either that the op- 
 ponents had reproached the apostle with selfishness, or had given themselves 
 out for unselfish. But the former is not implied in our explanation (they 
 only sought the occasion for that charge), while the latter is sufficiently im¬ 
 plied in ver. 20. The expositors who consider the opponents as labouring 
 gratuitously understand ev cj Kavx^vrat of this unpaid working, of which they 
 had boasted, so that Paul in this view would say : in order that they , in this 
 point of which they boast , may be found not better than ice. See Oecumenius, 
 Erasmus, Calvin, comp. Billroth and Riickert ; Billroth and others (comp. 
 Diisterdieck above) taking withal the second iva as parallel to the first, 
 which Riickert also admits. But against the hypothesis that the opponents 
 had taught gratuitously, see above. And the not better than we arbitrarily 
 changes the positive expression naOibg into the negative. Lastly, this 
 explanation stands in no logical connection with what follows. See on ver. 
 13. Following Augustine, de serm. Dom. in monte , ii. 1G, Cajetanus and 
 Estius regard iva . . . yueig as an exposition of acpopyyv : occasion, in order to 
 
 1 Beza well gives the substantial mean¬ 
 ing : “ Isti quidem omnem mei calumniandi 
 occasionem captant, expectantes dum po- 
 eniteat me juri meo renuntiantem in prae- 
 dicando evangelic) ex raanunm mearum 
 labore vietitare. At ego nunquam patiar 
 
 banc laudem (qua ipsos refello) mibi in 
 Achaiae ecclesiis praeripi. Imo in hoc in¬ 
 stitute pergam, ut et ipsos ad exemplum 
 meum imitandum provocem, nedum ut 
 quam captant occasionem inveniant.” 
 
CHAP. XT., 12. 
 
 051 
 
 be found as we, and h d) kovx- as parenthetical : in quo, sc. in eo quod est 
 inveniri sicut et nos, gloriantur. Comp, also Bengel. But the opponents 
 did not, in fact, boast of being like Paul, but of being more than he was 
 (ver. 5), and wished to hold him or to have him held as not at all a true 
 apostle, ver. 4. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who, attaching the 
 second Iva to a^oppijv, and referring 1 ev d> icavxd)vrai to the apostleship of 
 which the opponents boasted, finds Paul’s meaning to be this : maintaining 
 in its integrity the gratuitous character of his working, he takes away from 
 those, who would fain find ways and means of making their pretended apostle- 
 ship appear equal to his genuine one, the possibility of effecting their purpose. 
 But in the connection of the text, ev d Kavxdvrac on the one side and naOdg 
 nal yyelg on the other can only denote one and the same quality, namely, the 
 unselfishness, of which the opponents untruly boasted, while Paul had it in 
 truth and verified it. Olshausen has been led farthest astray by taking the 
 second Iva as the wish of the opponents ; he imagines that they had been 
 annoyed at Paul’s occupying a position of strictness which put them *so 
 much to shame, and hence they had wished to bring him away from it, in 
 order that he might have no advantage, but that he should be found even 
 as they. And the ev d savx . is to be taken, as if they had put forward the 
 authority to take money as an object of glorying, as an apostolic preroga¬ 
 tive (1 Cor. ix. 7 If.) ; so that the whole passage has therefore the ironical 
 meaning : 11 Much as they are opposed to me, they still wish an opportunity of 
 letting me take a share of their credit, that I may allow myself to be supported 
 as an apostle by the churches ; but with this they wish only to hide their shame 
 and rob me of my true credit: in this they shall not succeed I'’’ 1 But that the 
 opponents had put forward the warrant to take money as an apostolic pre¬ 
 rogative, is not to be inferred from 1 Cor. ix. 7 ff., where Paul, in fact, 
 speaks only of the right of the teacher to take pay. Further, there is no 
 ground in the context for the assumed reference of ev d) navx .; and lastly, 
 in keeping with the alleged ironical meaning, Paul must have written : 
 evpeOuyev naOdg Kal avroi, which Olshausen doubtless felt himself, when he 
 wrote : “in order that he might have no advantage, but that he should be 
 found such as they.' 1 ’ 1 — On eKnonreiv, in the ethical sense of bringing to nought, 
 comp. LXX. Job xix. 10 ; 4 Macc. iii. 2 ff. ; Plat. Charm, p. 155 C ; 
 Polyb. xx. 6. 2. The opposite : rrapexeiv acpopyfi (Biihr, ad Pyrrh. p. 237). 
 — On the double iva, the second introducing the aim of the first clause of 
 aim, comp. Eph. v. 27 ; John i. 7. Hofmann, without reason, desires 
 b~ug in place of the second iva. 
 
 1 De Wette and Diisterdieck also refer ev 
 (S KavxuvTaL to the apostolic working and 
 dignity. According to the latter, the mean¬ 
 ing would be : in order that they, as regards 
 unselfishness , may let themselves be found just 
 such as 1, the apostle vilified by them, and may 
 in this way show what is the worth of their 
 boastf ul claim to apostolic dignity. Even this 
 clear interpretation does not remove the 
 difficulty that, as the icavxwx of Paul con¬ 
 
 cerned the gratuitous nature of his labouring 
 (ver. 10, comp. 1 Cor. ix. 15), so also the 
 Kavxaa-OaL ascribed in the immediate context 
 to the opponents, and pointing back by 
 koAoj? koX rjjueis to the apostle’s conduct 
 (which was the subject-matter of his boast¬ 
 ing), requires no other object, nay, when we 
 strictly adhere to the immediate connec¬ 
 tion, admits of no other. 
 
652 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the coeinthians. 
 
 Ver. 13. Justification of the aforesaid 'iva ev b icav%cjvTcu, evped. mOibg k. yyeig. 
 “ Not without ground do I intend that they shall, in that of which they 
 boast, be found to be as we ; for the part, which these men play, is lying 
 and deceit.” — Those who tak e-mOug k. ypeig in ver. 12 : not letter than we, 
 must forcibly procure a connection by arbitrarily supplying something ; 
 as e.g. Rtickert : that in the heart of the apostle not letter than ice had the 
 meaning : lut rather worse , and that this is now illustrated. Hofmann, in 
 consequence of his view of ’iva kv cj navx . k.t.Tl. ver. 12, interpolates the 
 thought : 11 for the rest ” they have understood how T to demean themselves 
 as Christ’s messengers. —oi yap tolovtol k.t.X.] for people of that kind are false 
 apostles , etc., so that -tyevdaTcooToloL is the predicate . 1 So also de Wette and 
 Ewald. Usually, after the Vulgate (also Flatt, Billroth, Riickert, Hofmann), 
 ipevdaTcocroloL is made the subject: 11 for such false apostles are,” etc. But it 
 should, in fact, be rather put : “ for the false apostles of that hind (in dis¬ 
 tinction from other false apostles, comp. xii. 3 ; Soph. 0. R. 674 ; Polyb. 
 viii. 2, 5, xvi. 11, 2) are,” etc.,—w T hich would be quite appropriate. Besides, 
 the ipevdandcToloi, disclosing entirely at length the character of the enemies, 
 would lose its emphasis. On the contemptuous sense of roiovrog , comp. 
 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 843. — tpyarai 667 uol\ comp. Phil. iii. 2. They 
 were workers , in so far certainly as they by teaching and other activity were 
 at work in the church ; but they were deceitful workers (dealt in do/Jaig /3ov- 
 T^aig, Eur. Med. 413, 6o?doig etteeggiv, Horn. ix. 282, and do/Jaig rexvaici , Pind. 
 JVem. iv. 93), since they wished only to appear to further the true Christian 
 salvation of the church, while at bottom they pursued their own selfish and 
 passionate aims (ver. 20). For the opposite of an epyaryg do/nog, see 2 Tim. 
 ii. 15.— iiETaaxnparf. eig cittogt. X.] transforming themselves into apostles of 
 Christ. Their essential form is not that of apostles of Christ, for they are 
 
 servants of Satan ; in order to appear as the former, they thus assume 
 
 another form than they really have, present themselves otherwise than they 
 really are. In working against Paul in doctrine and act, they hypocritically 
 assumed the mask of apostle, though they were the opposite of a true apos¬ 
 tle (Gal. i. 1 ; Rom. xv. 18 tf.; 2 Cor. xii. 12). 
 
 Vv. 14,15. And that is quite natural ! — ml ov dav/m] neque res admiranda 
 est. Comp. Plat. Pol. vi. p. 498 D ; Epin. p. 988 D ; Pind. Nem. x. 95, 
 Pyth. i. 50 ; Eur. Hipp. 439 ; Soph. Oed. R. 1132, Phil. 408 ; Pflugk, ad 
 Eur. Hec. 976.—What follows is an argumentum a majori ad minus .— 
 avTog ] ipse Satanas , their Lord and master. Comp, afterwards ol dianovoc 
 aiirov. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 733. — elg ayyskov epurog] into an angel of 
 light. As the nature of God (1 John i. 5 ; Rev. xxi. 23, 24), and His 
 
 dwelling-place (1 Tim. vi. 16 ; 1 John i. 7) is light, a glory of light, a 6o^a 
 
 beaming with light, which corresponds to the most perfect holy purity, so 
 
 1 Bengel says aptly: “ Haec jam pars 
 praedicati, antitheton, ver. 5. Nunc tandem 
 scapliam scapham dicit." On the idea of 
 \f/evSanocrTo\oi, Erasmus rightly remarks: 
 “ Apostolus enim ejus agit negotium a quo 
 missus est, isti suis commodis serviunt.” 
 
 Without doubt the people maintained for 
 themselves their claim with equal, nay, 
 with better right than Paul, to the name 
 of apostle , which they probably conceded to 
 Paul only in the wider sense (Acts xiv. 4, 
 14 : 1 Cor. xv. 7). 
 
CHAP. XI., 15, 1G. 
 
 G53 
 
 also His servants, the good angels, are natures of light with bodies of light (1 
 Cor. xv. 40) ; hence, where they appear, light beams forth from them (Matt, 
 xxviii. 3, al.; Acts xii. 7, al.; see Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 274 f.; Weiss, 
 hihl. Theol. p. 4G0). Regarding Satan, on the other hand, comp. Eph. vi. 
 12 ; Acts xxvi. 18 ; Col. i.' 13. He is 6 Khrjpovopoq tov onorovg, Ev. Hie. 20. 
 — There is no trace in the narratives concerned to justify the assumption 1 
 that ver. 15 points to the fall of man (Bengel, Sender, Ilengstenberg, 
 Ghristol. I. p. 11), or even to the temptation of Christ , Matt. iv. 8, in which 
 the devil appeared as the angel to whom God had entrusted the rule of 
 Palestine (Michaelis) ; but, at any rate, it is the apostle’s thought, and is 
 also presupposed as known to the readers, that devilish temptations in 
 angelic form assail man. In the O. T. this idea is not found ; it recurs 
 later, however, in the Rabbins, w T ho, with an eccentric application of the 
 thought, maintained that the angel who wrestled with Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 
 34 ; IIos. xii. 4, 5) was the devil. See Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 
 845. For conceptions regarding the demons analogous to our passage from 
 Porphyry and Jamblichus, see Grotius and Eisner, Obss. p. 160. (u 6 ) 
 
 Yer. 15. It is not a great matter, therefore , not strange and extraordinary, 
 if etc. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 11 ; Plato, Hipp. maj. p. 287 A, Menex. p. 235 D ; 
 Herod, vii. 38. — mi\ if, as he does himself, his servants also transform them¬ 
 selves, namely, as servants of righteousness, i.e. as people who are appointed 
 for, and active in, furthering the righteousness by faith. Comp, on iii. 
 9. The diKaLoovvr), the opposite of avoyia , but in a specifically Christian 
 and especially Pauline sense (comp, on vi. 14) as the condition of the king¬ 
 dom of God, is naturally that which Satan and his servants seek to counter¬ 
 act. When the latter, however, demean themselves as Iitvogto/ml Xpiarov, the 
 duicuocvvr], wdiich they pretend to serve, must have the semblance of the right¬ 
 eousness of faith, although it is not so in reality. This view is therefore not 
 “ out of the way ” (Klopper, p. 90), but contextual ; and the ducatoovvp cannot 
 be the righteousness of the laic, the preaching of wdiich is not the mark of 
 the cmooTohoL XpiGTov. As to dr ( transform themselves and become as), comp, 
 on Rom. ix. 29. — uvro rehoq /c.r.l] of whom —the servants of Satan— the end , 
 final fate, will he in accordance with their works, (s 6 ) Comp. Phil. iii. 19 ; 
 Rom. vi. 21 ; 1 Pet. iv. 17. “ Quacunque specie se nunc efferant, detrahi- 
 
 tur tandem schema,” Bengel. 
 
 Yer. 16. I repeat it: let no one hold me for irrational; hut if not, receive me 
 at least as one irrational (do not reject me), in order that I too (like my oppo¬ 
 nents) may hoast a little. Thus Paul, after having ended the outpouring of 
 his heart begun in ver. 7 regarding his gratuitous labours, and after the 
 warning characterization of his opponents thereby occasioned (vv. 13-15), 
 now turns back to wdiat he had said in ver. 1, in order to begin a new self¬ 
 comparison with his enemies, wdiich he, however, merely introduces —and that 
 once more with irony, at first calm, then growing bitter—down to ver. 21, 
 
 1 The present would not be against it. See then but is not preserved in our present O. 
 Bengel: “ Solet se transformare ; fecit jam T., to wdiich Paul alludes, or of a narrative 
 in paradiso.” According to Ewald, w r e are similar to that in Matt. iv. 1-11. 
 to think of a narrative, which was known 
 
C54 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 and only really begins with ev <5 S' av tic rolyg k.t.1. at ver. 21. — That, which 
 is by ttclTuv leyo designated as already said once (ver. 1), is yh rig ye Soi-y a<pp. 
 eivai and el Se yy ye . . . navxycnvyaL, both together, not the latter alone (Hof¬ 
 mann). The former, namely, lay implicite in the ironical character of ver. 
 1/ and the latter explicite in the words of that 'verse, (t 6 ) — el fit- yy ye] scd 
 nisi quidem. Regarding the legitimacy of the ye in Greek (Plato, Pol. iv. p. 
 425 E), see Bremi, ad Aesch. de fals. leg. 47 ; Klotz, ad Bexar. p. 527 ; Din- 
 dorf, ad Bern. I. p. v. f. praef. After negative clauses el Se yh follows even 
 in classical writers (Time. i. 28. 1, 131. 1 ; Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 6, vii. 1. 8), 
 although we should expect el Se. But el Se yy presupposes in the author the 
 conception of a positive form of what is negatively expressed. Here some¬ 
 thing like this : I wish that no one should hold me as foolish ; if, however, 
 you do not grant what I wish, etc. See in general, Heindorf, ad Plat. Farm. 
 p. 208 ; Buttmann, ad Plat. Grit. p. 106; Hartung, Partik. II. p. 213 ; and 
 in reference to the X. T., Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 554 f. — k av] certe, is to be 
 explained ellftically : SfacOe ye, teal eav kgaeppova SfycOe ye. Comp. Mark vi. 
 56 ; Acts v. 15. See Wiistemann, ad Theocr. xxiii. 35 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. 
 XI. p. 316 ; Winer, p. 543 [E. T. 729]. — cog aeppova] in the quality of one irra¬ 
 tional, as people give an indulgent hearing to such a one. — yuepdv tl] accu¬ 
 sative as in ver. 1 : aliquantulum , may deal in a little bit of boasting. 
 
 Ver. 17. More precise information as to the aav kg cuppova. — o ?m?m] 
 namely, in the boastful speech now introduced and regarded thereby as 
 already begun. — Kara nvpwv] according to the Lord (comp. Rom. xv. 5, viii. 
 27), i.e. so that I am determined in this case by the guiding impulse of Christ. 
 A speaking according to Christ cannot be boasting ; Matt. xi. 29 ; Luke 
 xvii. 10. Xow as Paul knew that the /card Kvpiov lalelv was brought about 
 by the nvevya working in him (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 10, xxv. 40), ov lalk /card 
 nvpiov certainly denies the theopneustic character of the utterance in the 
 stricter sense, (u 6 ) without, however, the apostle laying aside the conscious¬ 
 ness of the Spirit’s guidance, under which he, for his purpose, allows the 
 human emotion temporarily to speak. It is similar when he expresses his 
 own opinion, while yet he is conscious withal of having the Spirit (1 Cor. vii. 
 12, 25, 40). Regarding the express remark, that he does not speak /card /c vpiov 
 k.t.a., Bengel aptly says : “quin etiam hunc locum et propriam huic loco 
 exceptioncm sic perscripsit ex regula decori divini, a Domino instructus.”—- 
 a?P kg ev aypoevvy] but as one speaks in the state of irrationality. — ev ravr. r. 
 vttogt. t. ic. ] belongs to ov 1 alk Kara Kvpiov , aXti <1 >g ev acppoc. taken together: 
 not according to the Lord, but as a fool do I speak it, with this confidence of 
 boasting. vnocTamg is here interpreted as differently as in ix. 4. According 
 to Chrysostom, Riickert, Ew r ald, Hofmann, and many others : in this subject- 
 matter of boasting (comp. Luther, Billroth, and de Wette : “ since it has 
 once come to boasting”). But what little meaning this would have ! and 
 how scant justice is thus done to the Tarry prefixed so emphatically (with 
 this so great confidence) ! The boasting is indeed not yet actually begun (as 
 de Wette objects), but the apostle is already occupied with it in thought ; 
 comp, previously talu. According to Hofmann, ev ravr. r. inr. r. /c. is to be 
 attached to the following protasis enel izoXkol /c.r.A. But apart from the 
 
CHAP. XI., 18-20. 
 
 uncalled-for inversion thus assumed, as well as from the fact that the vnoaraaq 
 t. k. is held to be specially the apostleship , the rfjq Kavxyotwq would be a quite 
 superfluous addition ; on the other hand, Avitli the reference to the general 
 lalo> as modal definition of inoaracnq it is quite appropriate. 
 
 Yer. 18. That which carries him away to such foolishness, ver. 16 : Iva 
 Kayo) fUKf). n Kavxvc- — Seeing that many boast according to their flesh , so will I 
 boast too , namely, Kara r. aapKa. — Since Kara rijv aapKa is opposed to the /card 
 Kvpiov in ver. 17, and is parallel to the wq h aeppoavvy, it cannot express the 
 objective norm (comp. \\ 16), or the object of the boasting (comp. Phil. iii. 3 
 if. ; Gal. vi. 13), as Chrysostom and most expositors, including Emmerling, 
 Platt, and Osiander, explain it : on account of external advantages , 1 but it 
 must denote the subjective manner of the KavxaoOai , namely : so that the uav- 
 XaaOat is not guided by the Iloly Spirit , but proceeds according to the standard 
 of their natural condition as material , pyschically determined , and striving 
 against the Divine Spirit , whence they are urged on to conceit, pride, ambi¬ 
 tion, etc. 2 Comp. Ruckert : “according to the impulse of self-seeking per¬ 
 sonality also de Wette, Ewald, Neander. Billroth, in accordance with 
 his philosophy, takes it : “as individual, according to what one is as a sin¬ 
 gle human being.” Kara avdpoirov in 1 Cor. ix. 8 is not parallel. See on 
 that passage. — Riickert denies that Paul after Kayo) Kavxyaoyat has again 
 supplied in thought Kara r. aapKa , and thinks that he has prudently put it 
 only in the protasis and not said it of his own glorying. But it necessarily 
 follows, as Avell from the previous oi> la? L u /card Kvpiov , in which the /card r. 
 aapKa is already expressed implicite , as also from the following ruv a(ppovuv , 
 among whom Paul is included as /card rrjv aapKa Kavxwyevoq. (\ r6 ) It is other¬ 
 wise in John viii. 15. 
 
 Yer. 19. Not the motive inducing, but an ironical ground encouraging , 
 the just said Kayo) Kavxyao/uai : For willingly you are patient with the irra¬ 
 tional (to whom I with my Kavxaadat belong), since ye are rational people! 
 The more rational person is on that account the more tolerant toward fools. 
 Hence not : although you are rational (Ewald and the older commentators). 
 
 Yer. 20. Argumentum a majori for what is said in ver. 19, bitterly sarcas- 
 
 1 To this category belongs also the inter¬ 
 pretation of Baur, who, however, refers 
 erdpg quite specially to Judaism as what is 
 inherited, and therefore understands a 
 boasting, the object of which is only inherited 
 accidental advantages. The Scolkovoi XpLarov , 
 ver. 23, and the apostle’s subsequent glory¬ 
 ing in suffering , ought to have dissuaded 
 Baur from adopting such a view. 
 
 2 Osiander is quite wrong in objecting to 
 this interpretation that the article is against 
 it, since Paul, when he means crdp£ in this 
 sense, never puts the article after /card. 
 Paul, in fact, has the article only in this 
 single passage, and elsewhere writes always 
 Kara aapKa (i.e. conformably to flesh) whether 
 he uses <rdp£ in the subjective or objective 
 sense; hence, so far as the article is con¬ 
 
 cerned, there is no means at all of compari¬ 
 son. Besides, r^v here is very doubtful 
 critically, because it is wanting in D* F 
 G K* min. Chrys. Dam., and is at variance 
 with the Pauline usage. Osiander’s further 
 objection, that (card aapKa , as understood 
 by us, is in the apostle’s mouth unworthy of 
 him for the apodosis, is likewise incorrect, 
 for he is speaking ironically ; he wishes, in 
 fact, to deal in boasting like a fool! As to 
 the distinction between /card adpKa and /card 
 TTJV aapKa, we may add that the one means: 
 “ after the manner of natural humanity ,” the 
 other, “ after the manner of their natural 
 humanity.” Comp, on Phil. i. 24, 22. In 
 substance they are equivalent; the latter 
 only individualizes more concretely. 
 
Go 6 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 tic against the complaisance of the Corinthians towards the imperious ( Kara - 
 dovhol), covetous ( KdTEcdisi ), slyly capturing (A ay/3avet), arrogant (enaiperai), 
 and audaciously violent (elg 7 rpoccmov depei) conduct of the false apostles. —* 
 KarachvTioi] enslaves. Comp, on-Gal. ii. 4 ; Dem. 249. 2, and the passages 
 in Wetstein. Paul has used the active, not the middle, as he leaves quite 
 out of view the authority, whose lordship was aimed at ; beyond doubt, 
 however (see the following points), the pseudo-apostles wished to make them¬ 
 selves lords of the church, partly in religious, i.e. Judaistic effort (comp. i. 
 24), partly also in a material respect (see what follows). — Kareodiei] swallows 
 up, devours, sc. vyag, a figurative way of denoting not the depriving them of 
 independence in a Christian point of view (Hofmann), which the reader could 
 the less guess, since it was already said in Karabovl., but the course of greeds 
 ily gathering to themselves all their property. Comp. Ps. liii. 5 ; Matt, xxiii. 
 13 ; Luke xv. 30 ; Add. to Esth. i. 11 ; Horn. Od. iii. 315 : yrj toi Kara 
 Travra (paycjcn KTr/para, Dem. 992. 25; Aesch. c. Tim. 9G. So also the Latin 
 devorare (Quintil. viii. G). Comp, also Jacobs, ad. Anthol. X. pp. 217, 230. 
 Riickert, who will not concede the avarice of the opponents (see on ver. 
 12), explains it of rending the church into parties. Quite against the mean¬ 
 ing of the word ; for in Gal. v. 15 a?,fo'/lovg stands alongside. And would 
 it not be wonderful, if in such a company of worthlessness avarice were 
 wanting ^ Xayj3dvei] sc. vyag, captures you. Comp. xii. 16. The figure is 
 taken from hunting, and denotes the getting of somebody into one’s power 
 (Dem. 115. 10, 239. 17) in a secret way, by machinations, etc. (hence differ¬ 
 ent from naraSovAoi). Comp. Reiske, Ind. Dem., ed. Schaef. p. 322 : “ de- 
 vincire sibi mentes hominum deditas et veluti captas aut fascino quodam 
 obstrictas.” This meaning is held by Wolf, Emmerling, Flatt, Billroth, 
 Ruckert, de Wette, Osiander, and others. The usual older interpretation : 
 if any one takes your goods from you (so also Ewald), is to be set aside, be¬ 
 cause vyag would necessarily have to be supplied, and because already the 
 far stronger Kareodiei has preceded. The same is the case with Hofmann’s 
 interpretation : if any one seizes hold on you (“ treats you as a thing' 1 ' 1 ), which 
 after the two previous points would be nothing distinctive. — enaiperai] ex¬ 
 alts himself (proudly). See the passages in Wetstein. As in this clause 
 vyag cannot be again supplied, and thus the supplying of it is interrupted, 
 vyag is again added in the following clause. — elg irpocmm. Sepsi] represents an 
 extraordinary, very disgraceful and insolent maltreatment. Comp. 1 Kings 
 xxii. 24 ; Matt. v. 39 ; Luke xxii. 64 ; Acts xxiii. 2 ; Philostr. vit. Apoll. 
 vii. 23. On the impetuous fivefold repetition of el, comp. 1 Tim. v. 10. 
 
 Yer. 21. In a disgraceful way (for me) I say, that we have been weak ! Iron¬ 
 ical comparison of himself with the false apostles, who, according to ver. 
 20, had shown such energetic bravery in Corinth. For such things we, I 
 confess it to my shame, were too weak ! — Kara anyiav ] is the generally cur¬ 
 rent paraphrase of the adyerb (artyog), to be explained from the notion of 
 measure (Bernhardy, p. 241). See Matthiae, p. 1359 f. — &g otl] as that 
 (see in general, Bast, ad Gregor. Cor. p. 52) introduces the contents of the 
 shameful confession, not, however, in an absolutely objective way, but as a 
 fact conceived of (og), Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2 ; Xen. Hist. iii. 2. 14 ; and the 
 
CHAP. XI., 21. 
 
 657 
 
 passages from Joseph, c. Ap. i. 11, and Dionys. Hal. 9 (hnyvovg, log bn ea^a- 
 roig elerlv ol KaraKteiod&vTeg) in Kypke, II. p. 268 ; also Isocr. Busir. arg. p. 
 862, Lang. : Karpyopovv ovrov, log bn naiva daiyovia eicnpipei, and the causal log 
 bn, v. 19. The confession acquires by ug bn something of hesitancy, which 
 strengthens the touch of irony. — r/yeig] is with great emphasis opposed to 
 the men of power mentioned in ver. 20. — r/cdevrjcapev] namely, w T hen we 
 were there ; hence the aorist. On the subject-matter, comp. 1 Cor. ii. 2. — 
 There agree, on the whole, with our view of the passage Bengel, Zachariae, 
 Storr, Flatt, Schrader, deWette, Neander, Osiander, and others. The main 
 point in it is, that /car’ anyiav denotes something shameful for the apostle, 
 and 7dyio has a prospective reference. Riickert also gives Xeyco a prospective 
 reference, but he diverges in regard to /car’ anyiav, and supplies ykv : 11 in 
 the point, indeed, to bring disgrace upon you, I must acknowledge that I have 
 been 'wealed'' But in that case how unintelligibly would Paul have expressed 
 himself ! For, apart from the arbitrary supplying of ykv, the definite anyiav 
 would be quite unsuitable. Paul, to be understood, must have written /card 
 tt/v anyiav vycov (as regards your disgrace), or at least, with reference to ver. 
 20, /card ryv anyiav (as regards the disgrace under consideration). Ewald 
 and Hofmann take /card any. rightly, but give Ikyio a retrospective reference. 
 In their view of log on they diverge from one another, Ewald explaining it : 
 as if I from paternal weakness could not have chastised you myself; v Hofmann, 
 on the other hand, taking log on as specifying the reason for saying such a 
 thing (comp. v. 19). Against Ewald it may be urged that log bn does not 
 mean as if, and that the five points previously mentioned are not brought 
 under the general notion of chastisement; and against both expositors, it 
 may be urged that if /card anyiav were in reference to what precedes to mean 
 a dishonour of the apostle himself, r/yibv must of necessity (in Phil. iv. 11, 
 /card is different) have been appended in order to be understood, because 
 the previous points were a shame of the readers ; consequently the fine point 
 would have lain just in an emphatically added yyibv (such as /card fr/v r/yibv 
 anyiav). In our interpretation, on the other hand, /card anyiav receives its 
 definite reference through log bn r/yeig (that we), and a i/yibv with anyiav 
 would have been quite superfluous. Most of the older commentators, too, 
 though with many variations in detail, refer /card any. leyio to what precedes,. 
 but explain /card liny, of the shame of the readers. So Chrysostom , 1 Tlieophy- 
 lact, Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Hunnius, and others : to. 
 your shame I say this (ver. 20 ), as if [rather : as because ] we had been weak, 
 and could not have done the same thing, although we could do it but would: 
 not. Similarly also Billroth (followed by Olshausen) : In a disgracef ul way, 
 I maintain, you put up with that injustice from the alleged reason that we are 
 weak ” (rather : had been). But since /card any. is not more precisely defined by 
 a vylov, we have no right to give to it another definition than it has already 
 received from Paul by the emphatic r/yeig r/odevr/o. Against the retrospective 
 reference of 7,ky<o, see above. Finally, in that view the passage would lose 
 
 1 Chrysostom observes that w? on k . t .\. is unpleasantness of the meaning by the ob- 
 given obscurely, in order to conceal the scurity. 
 
058 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 its ironical character, which however still continues, as is shown at once by 
 the following tv dcppocvvy leyu.—iv c) S’ av riq rolya k.t.1.] Contrast with 
 the ironical ycdevyoa/iEv : icherein , however, any one is bold—I say it irration¬ 
 ally — I too am bold ; in whatever respect ( quocunqne nomine) any one pos¬ 
 sesses boldness, I too have boldness. In iv <u lies the real ground , in wdiich 
 the ToAyav has its causal basis. As to rolpa, comp, on x. 2. av contains the 
 conception : should the case occur. See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 35. — tv acppo- 
 cvv 7 ] liyu] Irony; for yf] rig /ue S6^y acppova tlvai , ver. 16. But Paul knew 
 that the rolyd) nayd would appear to the enemies to be a foolish assertion. 
 
 Yer. 22. Now comes the specializing elucidation of that tv u> 6' av rig roly a, 
 rdlffi Kayo), presented so as directly to confront his enemies. Comp. Phil, 
 iii. 5. Observe, however, that the opponents in Corinth must have still left 
 circumcision out of the dispute.—The three names of honour, in which they 
 boasted from their Judaistic point of view, are arranged in a climax , so 
 that f E (Ipaloi, which is not here in contrast to the Jews of the Diaspora, 
 points to the hallowed nationality , ’IcpafKirai to the theocracy (Rom. ix. 4 f.), 
 and anipya ’A[3paay to the Messianic 'privilege (Rom. xi. 1, ix. 7, al.), with¬ 
 out, however, these references excluding one another. The interrogative 
 interpretation of the three points corresponds to the animation of the passage 
 far more than the affirmative (Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Estius, Flatt, and 
 others). 
 
 Yer. 23. In the case of those three Jewish predicates the aim was reached 
 and the emotion appeased by the brief and pointed nayu. Now, however, 
 he comes to the main point, to the relation towards Christ; here nciyu cannot 
 again suffice, but a inip ty<i must come in (comp. Theodoret), and the holy 
 self-confidence of this inip iyd> gushes forth like a stream (comp. vi. 4 ff.) 
 over his opponents, to tear down their fancies of apostolic dignity. — napa- 
 (ppovuv lain) also ironical, but stronger than tv cuppoa. liyu : in madness 
 (Herod, iii. 24 ; Dem. 1183. 1 ; Soph. Phil. 804) I speak! For Paul, in 
 the consciousness of his own humility as of the hateful arrogance of his foes, 
 conceives to himself a : napa<ppovti ! as the judgment which w T ill be pro¬ 
 nounced by the opponents upon his inip iyd> ; they will call it a napdeppov 
 inog (Eur. Ilipp. 232) !— inip iy<v\ He thus concedes to his opponents the 
 predicate Stanovoi Xpiarov only apparently (as he in fact could not really do so 
 according to vv. 13-15) ; for in inip iyd there lies the cancelling of the 
 apparent concession, because, if he had granted them to be actually Christ’s 
 servants, it would have been absurd so say : I am more! Such, however, 
 is the thought : u servants of Christ are they ? Well, if they are such, still 
 more am I !” The meaning of inip iyk is not, as most (even Osiander and 
 Hofmann) assume : I am a servant of Christ in a higher degree than they” 
 (1 Cor. xv. 10), but : I am more than servant of Christ; for, as in nayu there 
 lay the meaning : I am the same (not in reference to the degree , but to the 
 fact), so must there be in inip iy cj the meaning : I am something more. 
 Thus, too, the meaning, in accordance with the strong napatypovuv lain, 
 appears far more forcible and more telling against the opponents. 1 inip is 
 
 1 So that the absolute vnep is not to be explained vnep aiiTous, but virep Sux/co^ovs X. 
 
cnAP. xi., 24, 25. 
 
 C59 
 
 ■used adverbially (Winer, p. 394 [E. T. 526]) ; but other undoubted Greek 
 examples of this use of v-k ip are not found, as that in Soph. Ant. 514 (6 6’ 
 avriorag vrrip ) is of doubtful explanation. — ev kotcolq TrepicrcroTEpug k.t./ i. ] Paul 
 now exchanging sarcasm for deep earnest, under the impulse of a noble 
 peyaTojyopia (Xen. Apol. i. 2) and ‘ ‘ argumentis quae vere testentur pectus 
 apostolicum” (Erasmus), begins his justification of the inrep kyd), so that ev is 
 to be taken instrumentally : through more exertions, etc. The comparative is 
 to be explained from the comparison with the kottol of the opponents. Tlio 
 adverb, however, as often also in classic writers, is attached adjectivally (sc. 
 ovol ) to the substantive. So also de Wette . 1 Comp. Luke xxiv. 1 ; 1 Cor. 
 xii. 31 ; Phil. i. 26 ; Gal. i. 13 ; see Ast, ad Plat. Polit. p. 371 f. ; Bern- 
 hardy, p. 338. Billroth, Osiander, Hofmann, and the older commentators 
 incorrectly hold that dpi is to be supplied : “I am so in a yet much more 
 extraordinary way in labours.” Apart from the erroneous explanation of 
 vnep eyu , which is herein assumed, the subsequent TroXkaKig is against it, for 
 this with dpi supplied would be absurd. Hofmann would make a new 
 series begin with ev Oavar. noXhaiag ; but this is just a mere makeshift, 
 which is at variance with the symmetrical onward flow of the passage with 
 kv. Beza, Flatt, and many others supply gv or yeyova ; but this is forbidden 
 by ver. 26, where (after the parenthesis of vv. 24, 25) the passage is con¬ 
 tinued without ev, so that it would be impossible to supply gv or yeyova 
 further. — ev tt hgy. vnepfiaTCk.] l>y strobes endured beyond measure. — ev gv/xts. 
 TcepiaooT .] by more imprisonments. Clement, ad Cor. i. 5 : 6 liaveog viropovgg 
 fipapElov aTreoxev ett r a k. i g Sea pa (popeaag, in which reckoning, however, the 
 later imprisonments (in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Rome) are included. — ev Oava- 
 roig noTJantg] noTJatug yap dg mvd'vvovg TrapeSodgv Odvarov E^ovrag, Chrysostom. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 31 ; 2 Cor. iv. 11 ; Rom. viii. 36 ; and Philo, Place, p. 
 990 A : irpomrodvr/cnicj TcoUovg bavdrovg imopevov avO ’ evog tov TeXevraiov, Lucian, 
 Tyr. 22 ; Asin. 23. See on this use of ■bavarog in the plural, Stallbaum, ad 
 Plat. Crit. p. 46 C ; Seidler, ad Pur. El. 479. 
 
 Vv. 24, 25. Parenthesis, in which definite proofs are brought forward for 
 the ev bavaroig noTJAiag. —vtto ’lovdaiov] refers merely to t revraiug . . . ehaflov ; 
 for it is obvious of itself that the subsequent rpig eppa(36ta^T/v was a Gentile 
 maltreatment. Paul seems to have had in his mind the order : from Jews 
 . . . from Gentiles, which, however, he then abandoned. — reocapaiiovTa napd 
 piav ] sc. Tvhjjydg. Comp, on Luke xii. 47, and Ast, ad Legg. p. 433. napd 
 in the sense of subtraction ; see Herod, i. 120 ; Pint. Caes. 30 ; Wyttenb. 
 ad Plat. VI. pp. 461, 1059 ; Winer, p. 377 [E. T. 503]. Dent. xxv. 3 or¬ 
 dains that no one shall be beaten more than forty times. In order, therefore, 
 not to exceed the law by possible miscounting, only nine and thirty strokes 
 were commonly given under the later administration of Jewish law. 2 See 
 
 Our view is already implied in the plus (not 
 magis) ego of the Vulgate. Luther also has 
 it, recently Ewald; and Lachm. writes 
 vnepeyw as one word. Comp, also Klopper, 
 p. 97. 
 
 1 In the Vulgate this view has found dis¬ 
 tinct expression at least in the first clause: 
 
 “ in laboribus plurimis.' 1 '' 
 
 2 This reason for omitting the last stroke 
 is given by Maimonides (see Coccej. ad Mac- 
 coth iii. 10). Another Rabbinical view is 
 that thirteen strokes were given with the 
 three-thonged leathern scourge, so that 
 the strokes amounted in all to thirty-nine. 
 
CGO 
 
 Paul's second epistle to the corikthiaks. 
 
 Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 21, 23, and the Rabbinical passages (especially from 
 the treatise Maccoth in Surenhusius, IY. p. 269 if.) ; in Wetstein, Schoettgen, 
 JHor. p. 714 If.; and generally, Saalscliutz, JMJ. JR. p. 469. Paul rightly 
 adduces his five scourgings (not mentioned in Acts) as proof of his kv Hava - 
 roig TToAldKtg, for this punishment was so cruel that not unfrequently the re¬ 
 cipients died under it ; hence there is no occasion for taking into account 
 bodily weakness in the case of Paul. See Lund, Jud. JHeUigth. ed. Wolf, 
 p. 539 f. — rptc £f>pa[3dicr&r/v] One such scourging with rods by the Romans 
 is reported in Acts xvi. 22 ; the two others are unknown to us. — curat; eki- 
 daenL] See Acts xiv. 19 ; Clem. 1 Cor. v.— rph; evavay.] There is nothing of 
 this in Acts, for the last shipwreck, Acts xxvii., was much later. How many 
 voyages of the apostle may have remained quite unknown to us ! and how 
 strongly does all this list of sufferings show the incompleteness of the Book 
 of Acts ! — wx'&ypcpov kv rip (Jv&C) KSTroiTjna] Lyra, Estius, Calovius, and 
 others explain this of a miracle , as if Paul, actually sunk in the deep, had 
 spent twenty-four hours without injury ; but this view is at variance with the 
 context. It is most naturally regarded as the sequel of one of these ship¬ 
 wrecks, namely, that he had, with the help of some floating wreck, tossed 
 about on the sea for a day and night, often overwhelmed by the waves, 
 before he was rescued. On j3v&og, the depth of the sea , comp. LXX. Ex. xv. 
 5 ; Ps. lxvii. 14, cvii. 24, al.; Bergl. ad Alciphr. i. 5, p. 10 ; and Wetstein 
 in loc. —t roielv of time : to spend, as in Acts xv. 33 ; Jas. iv. 13 ; Jacobs, ad 
 Anthol. IX. p. 449. The perfect is used because Paul, after he has simply 
 related the previous points, looks back on this last from the present time 
 (comp. Kiihner, § 439, la); there lies in this change of tenses a climactic 
 vividness of representation. 
 
 Ver. 26 f. After the parenthesis of vv. 24,25, the series'begun in ver. 23 
 is now continued, dropping, however, the instrumental kv , which is not to be 
 supplied, and running on merely with the instrumental dative—through 
 frequent journeys, through dangers from rivers, etc. The expression odonrop. 
 tv olla a l q is not to be taken as saying too little, for Paul was not con¬ 
 stantly engaged in journeys (comp, his somewhat lengthy sojourns at 
 Ephesus and at Corinth); wherefore he had the less occasion here to put 
 
 another expression in place of the which belonged, as it were, 
 
 to the symmetry of the context (vv. 23, 27). Hofmann wrongly joins 
 TcoXXdiag with KivSvvoig, and takes TroAAd/c. Kivdvvoig as in apposition to odoi- 
 TvopiaLg : u journeys, which were often dangers.' 1 '' As if Paul were under the 
 necessity of expressing (if he wished to express at all) the quite simple 
 thought : odoiiropiaig 7ro/l/ld/«f kiriKtvdvvocg (journeys which were often dan¬ 
 gerous), in a way so singularly enigmatical as that which Hofmann im¬ 
 putes to him. Besides, if the following elements are meant to specify the 
 dangers of travel, the t\Vo points ha yevovq and eg kHvcbv at least are not at.all 
 specific perils incident to travel. And how much, inconsequence of this er- 
 
 See in general, Lund, p. 540 f. According proved from the Rabbins that it was on this 
 
 to Maccoth iii. 12, the breast, the right and account that the fortieth was not added, as 
 
 the left shoulder, received each thirteen of Bengel, Wetstein, and others assume, 
 the thirty-nine strokes. But it cannot be 
 
CHAP. XI., 28. 
 
 GGl 
 
 roneous connection of ofioinop. tt oXkan. kcvSvv., does Hofmann marttie further 
 flow of the passage, which he subdivides as irorapiov ntvdvvoig, Tit/gtcov kivSvvoic, 
 £k. yevovg KivdvvoLs k.t.X. down to kv ftaTiaaoTj nivdvvoig, but thereafter punctu¬ 
 ates : ev ^E.vtiad£?L(poi(; kSttcj k. y6x £v aypvTrv'iaig , izoTiAaiag ev Xipu) a. dtipEi, ev 
 vT/crrdcug , iroXhaiag ev t/wj. k. yvyv. 1 In this way is lost the whole beautiful and 
 swelling symmetry of this outburst, and particularly the essential feature 
 of the weighty anaphora, in which the emphatic word (and that is in ver. 26 
 KivSvvoig) is placed first (comp. e.g. Horn. II. x. 228 tf., i. 436 ff., ii. 382 ff., 
 v. 740 f.; Arrian, Diss. i. 25 ; Quinctil. ix. 3. Comp, also ver. 20, vii: 2 ; 
 Phil. iii. 2, iv. 8 al.). — kivcY i roraptiv /c.r./L] The genitive denotes the dangers 
 arising from rivers (in crossing, swimming through them, in inundations, 
 and the like) and from robbers. Comp. Heliod. ii. 4. 65 ; kivSvvol Aalaaotov, 
 Plat. Pol. i. p. 332 E ; Euthyd. p. 279 ; Ecclus. xliii. 24.—The tctvdvvoig , 
 each time prefixed has a strong oratorical emphasis. Auct. ad Herenn. iv. 
 28. There lies in it a certain tone of triumph. — he ykvovg ] on the paid.of 
 race , i.e. on the part of the Jews , Acts vii. 19 ; Gal, i. 14. The opposite : 
 e£ k&vuv. — ev ttoael , in city , as in Damascus, Jerusalem, Ephesus, and others ; 
 the opposite is kv kprjfig, in desert. On the form of expression, comp, kv olucp, 
 ev aypC 3 , ev yeyapo), and the like. Xen. de rep. Lac. viii. 3 : ev teoXel kcu ev 
 organa aal kv oiaep.—kv ijj£vdad£?.(j)oig~\ among false brethren , i.e. among Juda- 
 istic pseudo-Christians, Gal. ii. 4, ol inrEnplvovro rr/v afietyoTyra, Chrysostom. 
 Why should not these, with their hostile and often vehement opposition to 
 the Pauline Christianity (comp. Phil. iii. 2), have actually prepared dangers 
 for him ? Riickert, without reason, finds this inconceivable, and believes 
 that Paul here means an occasion on which non- Christians , under cover of 
 the Christian name, had sought to entice the apostle into some danger 
 (? Kcvdvvoig). —Yer. 27. kotto) k. ydx&f] by trouble and toil; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 
 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8. 2 Then with kv aypvnv. there again appears the instrumen¬ 
 tal kv. On kv Xipu) /c.r.A. , comp. Deut. xxviii. 48. —kv vyorekaig iroXTiaiag ] by 
 frequent fastings. Here precisely, where kv Tuyti k. Siipec, and so involuntary 
 fasting, precedes, the reference of vijor. to voluntary fasting is perfectly 
 clear (in opposition to Riickert, de Wette, Ewald). Comp, on vi. 5. Estius 
 aptly observes : “jejunia ad purificandam mentem et edomandam carnem 
 sponte assumta.” Comp. Theodoret and Pelagius. (w 6 ) 
 
 Yer. 28. Apart from that which occurs beside (beside what had been men¬ 
 tioned hitherto) there is for me the daily attention , the anxiety for all the 
 churches . 3 * * He will not adduce more particulars than he has brought for¬ 
 ward down to yvfLvoTTjTt, but will simply mention further a general fact, that 
 
 1 So that TroWaK. ev Atpup k. Siif/et would 
 belong to a.ypvirvLai<;, and jroAAdfc. ev i J/v%ei k. 
 yviMvoTtjTL to vrjiTTeiai?, each as a circum¬ 
 stance of aggravation ; while both ev aypvn- 
 viclls and ev vr)(TTeiaL<; belong to Konip k. 
 VLOx&ca. 
 
 2 From these passages, combined with 
 
 Acts xx. 31, we may at the same time ex¬ 
 
 plain the aypvnvLai., which Ilofm. interprets 
 
 of night-watchings in anxiety about the 
 
 pseudo-Christians. This results from his 
 error in thinking that all the points in ver. 
 27 are to be referred to ev '/ev8a8ek<jA 
 3 Accordingly the comma after r^pepav is 
 to be deleted. If p.epip.va k. t.A. be (as is tho 
 usual view) taken as a clause by itself, the 
 ea-TL to be supplied is not a copula, but: 
 exists. But according to the right reading 
 and interpretation, r) emar. as an inde¬ 
 pendent point, would thus be too general. 
 
662 
 
 Paul’s second ■ epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 he has daily to bear anxiety for all the churches. On x u pk with the geni¬ 
 tive : apart from, see Stallbaum, ad. Plat. Apol. S. p. 35 C. The emphasis 
 is on nacav. Theodoret : nacng yap rrjg olnovpEvrjg ev epavrcp irepupepo rijv pepipvav. 
 Nevertheless, this 7 raauv is not, .with Bellarmine and other Roman Catholic 
 writers, as well as Ewald et al., to be limited merely to Pauline churches, 
 nor is it to be pressed in its full generality, but rather to be taken as a popular 
 expression for his unmeasured task. He has to care for all. Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, and others attach x^P- r. Trap, to what precedes, and separate 
 it from what follows by a full stop ; but this only makes the latter unneces¬ 
 sarily abrupt. Luther, Castalio, Bengel, and many others, including Flatt, 
 Billroth (but uncertainly), and Olshausen, consider 7 / kniaraaig /c.r.A. (or, 
 according to their reading : ?) enicvoraoig /c.r.A.) as an abnormal apposition 
 to tg)v TrapenTog : not to mention what still occurs besides, namely, etc. This 
 is unnecessarily harsh, and x u Pk rwv r-apsKrog would wuthal only be an empty 
 formula.— ra ndpenrog is : quae praeterea eveniunt , 1 not, as Beza and Bengel, 
 following the Vulgate, hold : “ quae extrinsecus eum adoriebantur” (Beza), 
 so that either what follows is held to be in apposition (Bengel : previously he 
 has described the proprios labores, now he names the alienos secum communi¬ 
 cator), or ruv tt apenrog is referred to what precedes, and what follows now 
 expresses the inward cares and toils (Beza, comp. Erasmus). Linguistic 
 usage is against this, for tt apenrdg never means extrinsecus , but always beside , 
 in the sense of exception. See Matt. v. 32 ; Acts xxvi. 29 ; Aq. Deut. i. 36 ; 
 Test. XII. Patr. p. 631 ; Geopon. xiii. 15. 7 ; Etym. M. p. 652, 18. This 
 also in opposition to Ewald : “without the unusual things,” with wdiich 
 wdiat is daily is then put in contrast (comp. Calvin). Hofmann, following the 
 reading 7/ Eniovcrraaig pov, would, instead of tojv tt apsnrog, w r rite ruv nap' bnrog, 
 which is, in his view, masculine , and denotes those coming on the apostle 
 from without (the Christian body), whose attacks on his doctrine he must 
 continually withstand. With this burden he associates the care of all the 
 many churches , which lie continually on his soul. These two points are in¬ 
 troduced by x^pk-, which is the adverbial besides. This new interpretation 
 (even apart from the reading entovcracug, which is to be rejected on critical 
 grounds) cannot be accepted, (1) because ol nap' burog , for which Paul w T ould 
 have written ol ego (1 Cor. v. 12 ; Col. iv. 5 ; 1 Thess. iv. 12) or ol itju&ev 
 (1 Tim. iii. 7), is an expression without demonstrable precedent, since even 
 Greek writers, wdiile doubtless using ol enTog, extranei (Polyb. ii. 47. 10, v. 
 37. 6 ; comp. Ecclus. Praef. I.), do not use ol nap’ ek nog ; (2) because the 
 two parts of the verse, notwithstanding their quite different contents, stand 
 abruptly (without nal or plv . . . <5e, or other link of connection) side by side, 
 so that we have not even rj 6 e pEpipva pov (over against the eniavaraaig gov) in¬ 
 stead of the bare 7 } peptpva ; and (3) because the adverbial x u Pk in the sense 
 assumed is foreign to the N. T., and even in the classical passages in ques¬ 
 tion (see from Thucydides, Kruger, on i. 61. 3) it does not mean praeterea 
 generally, but more strictly scorsim , separatim , specially and taken by itself d 
 
 1 The Armenian version gives instead of (ova ra irapaXeu^PevTa TIov anapLp/JL^Oei'Tiav. 
 napeKTos: aA.<w A correct inter- 2 So, too, in the passage, Thuc. ii. 31, 2, 
 
 pretation. Chrysostom exaggerates : n A e - adduced in Passow’s Lexicon by Rost and 
 
CHAP. XI., 29. 
 
 CG3 
 
 I 
 
 See Ellendt, Lex. Sopli. II. p. 974. But the two very general categories, which 
 it is to introduce, would not suit this sense.— fj ETrioTaaig] may mean either: 
 the daily halting (comp. Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 2G ; Polyb. xiv. 8. 10 ; Soph. Ant. 
 225 : iroXhag yap egx°v (ppovrAcov eirtGraGeig, multas moras deliberationibus 
 effectas ), or: the daily attention. 1 See Lobeck, ad Phyrn. p. 527 ; Schweigh. 
 Lex. Polyb. p. 2G5. This signification is most accordant with the context 
 on account of the following y peptpva k.t.) 1. Rtickert, without any sanction 
 of linguistic usage, makes it : the throng towards me, the concourse resort¬ 
 ing to me on official business. 2 So also Osiander and most older and more 
 recent expositors explain the Pecepta eiriavcraaig pov or etugvgt. pot. But 
 likewise at variance with usage, since hucvcraoig is always (even in Num. 
 xxvi. 9) used in the hostile sense : hostilis concursio, tumultus , as it has also 
 been taken here by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Beza, 3 Bengel, 
 and others. See Acts xxiv. 12, and the passages in Wetstein and Loesner, 
 p. 230.— The pot ; which, in the interpretation of err tar. as concourse , would 
 have to be taken as appropriating dative (Bernhardy, p. 89), is, according 
 to our view of ettigt. , to be concei ved as dependent on the egtl to be supplied. 
 
 Yer. 29. Two characteristic traits for illustrating the piptpva rraGtiv rtiv 
 EKicXyGiov. Chrysostom aptly says : ett yyaye ual ryv erriraGiv ryg (ppovridog , and 
 that for the individual members (Acts xx. 31). —As aodevei with GKavdaPt^erat, 
 so also aGdevtj with tc vpovpai forms a climax — and in a way highly appropri¬ 
 ate to the subject ! For in point of fact he could not in the second clause 
 say : nal ov GnavdaPfopai. — The meaning of the verse is to express the most 
 cordial and most lively sympathy (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 26) of h is care amidst the 
 dangers, to whom the Christian character and life of the brethren are expos¬ 
 ed : “ Who is weak as regards his faith, conscience, or his Christian moral¬ 
 ity, and L am not weak , do not feel myself, by means of the sympathy of my 
 care, transplanted into the same position ? Who is offended , led astray to 
 unbelief and sin, and L do not burn , do not feel myself seized by burning 
 pain of soul ?” Sender and Billroth, also de Wette (comp. Luther’s gloss), 
 mix up what is foreign to the passage, when they make aadevu apply to the 
 condescension of the apostle, who would give no offence to the weak, 1 Cor. 
 ix. 22. And Emmerling (followed by Olshausen) quite erroneously takes 
 it : “ quern affictum dicas , si me non dicas ? quem calamitatem oppetere , si 
 me non Us premi , quin uri memores In that case it must have run koX 
 
 by Hofmann, where x w P l 5 further intro¬ 
 duces a separate army contingent, which is 
 counted by itself. 
 
 1 Gregory of Nazianzus has e-mo-Tao-ta, 
 which is to be regarded as a good gloss. 
 See Lobeck, l.c.; Ktihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 
 5. 2, var. 
 
 2 eTTio-Tao-is does not once mean the pressing 
 on (active) the crowding. In 2 Macc. vi. 3 
 (in opposition to Grimm in loc.), n cTrio-Tao-i? 
 tt)s Ka/aa? is the setting in, the coming on, i.e. 
 the beginning of misfortune (Polyb. i. 12. G, 
 ii. 40. 5, al.). In Dion. Halicarn. vi. 31, the 
 reading is to be changed into kuLOeuiv. In 
 
 Polyb. i. 26. 12, it means the position. 
 Nevertheless, Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 156 [E. T. 
 180], agrees with Rtickert. 
 
 3 Chrys : ol Oopvfioi, aL rapaxeii, ai no\iop- 
 ki'cu tu>v Sr]p.u>v Kal Tt ov no\etxn' e$oSoi. Beza 
 
 renders the whole verse: “ Absque iis, 
 quae extrinsecus eveniunt, urget agmen 
 illud in me quotidie consurgens, i.e. solici- 
 tudo de omnibus ecclesiis.” Comp. Ewald : 
 “ the daily onset of a thousand troubles and 
 difficulties on him." Bengel: “ obturbatio 
 illorum, qui doctrinae vitaeve perversitate 
 Paulo molestiam exhibebant, v. gr. Gal. vi. 
 17 .” 
 
664 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 ovk eye) a oO ev td ; besides, oKavdalL&aOai never means calamitatibus affei, but 
 constantly denotes religious or moral offence ; and lastly, ck avdal'ferac and 
 Trvpovfiai would yield a quite inappropriate climax (Paul must have repeated 
 GKavdak%o(iai). — aodevet] comp. Rom. iv. 19, xiv. 1, 2, 21 ; 1 Cor. viii. 9, 11 ; 
 1 Thess. v. 14 ; Acts xx. 35. The correspondence of cKavda^erai in the climax 
 forbids us to understand it of suffering (Chrysostom, Beza, Flatt). — nypovgai ] 
 What emotion is denoted by verbs of burning, is decided on each occasion 
 by the context (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 9 ; see in general on Luke xxiv. 32), 
 which here presents a climax to aodevti, therefore suggests far more naturally 
 the idea of violent pain (comp. Chrys.: Kad EKaarov k6wa.ro juekog) than 
 that of anger (Luther: “ it galled him hard;” comp. Bengel, Riickert). 
 Augustine says aptly : “ quanto major caritas, tanto majores plagae de 
 peccatis alienis .” Comp, on the expression, the Latin ardere doloribus, faces 
 dolor is, and the like (Kuhner, ad Cic. Tusc. ii. 25. 61); also 3 Macc. iv. 2, 
 and Abresch, ad Aesch. Sept. 519. — Lastly, we have to note the change in 
 the form of the antitheses , which emerges with the increasing vividness of 
 feeling in the two halves of the verse : ovk aa&evo) and ovk eyk nvpovyai. 
 In the former case the negation attaches itself to the verb, in the latter to 
 the person. Who is weak without weakness likewise occurring in me ? who 
 is offended without its being /, who is burning f Of the offence which another 
 takes, I on my part have the pain. 
 
 Yer. 30. Result of the previous passage—from ver. 23 onward 1 in proof 
 of that inrep kyk in ver. 23—put, however, asyndetically (without ovv), as is 
 often the case with the result after a lengthened chain of thoughts (Dissen, 
 ad Pind. Exc. II. de asynd. p. 278); an asyndeton summing up (Niigelsbach 
 on the Iliad , p. 284, ed. 3). If I must boast (as is the given case in confront¬ 
 ing my enemies), I will boast in that which concerns my weakness (my suffer¬ 
 ings, conflicts, and endurances, which exhibit my weakness ), and thus prac¬ 
 tise quite another Kavxacr&ad than that of my opponents, who boast in their 
 power and strength. In this ra r. aerd. y. Kavx • there lies a holy oxymoron. 
 To refer it to the ac&evelv in ver. 29 either alone (Riickert) or inclusively (de 
 Wette), is inadmissible, partly because that aodevelv was a partaking in the 
 weakness of others , partly because the future is to be referred to what is 
 meant only to follow. And it does actually follow ; hence we must not, with 
 Wieseler {on Gal. p. 596), generalize the future into the expression of a 
 maxim , whereby a reference to the past is facilitated. So also in the main 
 Hofmann. — Kavxaa&ai , with accusative , as ix. 2. 
 
 Yer. 31. He is now about to illustrate (see vv. 32, 33) the just announced 
 ra rrjg ao&eveiag gov Kavxhaoyai by an historical enumeration of his sufferings 
 from the beginning, but he first prefaces his detailed illustration (“rem 
 quasi difficilem dicturus,” Pelagius) by the assurance , in God's name, that he 
 
 1 Everything in this outburst, from ver. 
 23 onward, presented him, in fact, as the 
 servant of Christ attested by much suffering. 
 Thus, if he must make boast, he wishes to 
 boast in nothing else than his weakness. 
 And this /cau^ao-dai is then, after an assur¬ 
 
 ance of his truthfulness (ver. 31), actually 
 begun by him (ver. 32) in concrete historical 
 form. 
 
 2 Chrys. exclaims: 05to; d^oirroAubs 
 XapaKTrjp, Sea tovtiov vcftaiverai evayye'Aiov. 
 
chap, xi., 32, 33. 
 
 665 
 
 narrates nothing false. The objections taken against referring his assurance 
 to what follows (see Estius and Ruckert)—that the incident adduced in ver. 
 32 stands, as regards importance, out of all proportion to so solemn an 
 assurance, and the like—lose their weight, when we reflect that Paul has 
 afterwards again broken off (see xii. 1) the narrative begun in vv. 32, 33, and 
 therefore, when writing his assurance, referred it not merely to this single 
 incident, but also to all which he had it in his mind still to subjoin (which, 
 however, was left undone owing to the interruption). Others refer the 
 oath to what precedes, and that either to everything said from ver. 23 onward 
 (Estius, Calovius, Flatt, Olshausen), or to ver. 30 alone (Morus, Ruckert, 
 Hofmann ; Billroth gives a choice between the two). But in the former 
 case logically we could not but have expected ver. 31 after ver. 29, and in 
 the latter case the assurance would appear as quite irrelevant, since Paul at 
 once begins actually to give the details of his ra rrjg aa&ev. pov uavxyaojuac (ver. 
 31 f.). — 6 i9 eog k. nari/p r. Kvp. yu. ’I. X.] Union of the general and of the 
 specifically Christian idea of God. ’Hytiv yap ■deog rov 6e nvpiov rcaryp, Theo- 
 doret. Comp, on 1 Cor. xv. 24 and Eph. i. 3. — 6 &v £v?„oyyrbg k.t./ 1.] append¬ 
 ed by the apostle’s pious feeling, in order to strengthen the sacredness of 
 the assurance. “ Absit ut abutar ejus testimonio, cui omnis laus et honor 
 debetur in omnem aeternitatem, ” Calovius. 
 
 Yv. 32, 33. Paul now actually begins his navxao'&ai ra ryg aadeveiag avrov, 
 and that by relating the peril and flight which took place at the very com¬ 
 mencement of his work. Unfortunately, however (for how historically im¬ 
 portant for us would have been a further continuation of this tale of suffer¬ 
 ing !), yet upon the emergence of a proper feeling that the continuation of 
 this glorying in suffering would not be in keeping w T ith his apostolic position, 
 he renounces the project, breaks off again at once after this first incident 
 (xii. 1), and passes on to something far higher and more peculiar—to tlio 
 revelations made to him. The expositors, overlooking this breaking off 
 (noted also by Hilgenfeld), have suggested many arbitrary explanations as 
 to why Paul narrates this incident in particular (he had, in fact, been in 
 much worse perils I), 1 and that with so solemn asseveration and at such 
 length. Billroth, e.g. (comp. Flatt), says that he wished to direct attention 
 to the first danger pre-eminently by way of evidence that everything said 
 from ver. 23 onward was true (ver. 31). In that case he would doubtless 
 have written something like y8y yap h A ayaonti, or in such other way as to 
 be so understood. Olshausen contents himself with the remark that Paul has 
 only made a supplementary mention of the event as the first persecution ; 
 and Ruckert even conjectures that it was by pure accident that Paul noted 
 by way of supplement and treated in detail this story occurring to his recol¬ 
 lection ! Osiander thinks that he singled it out thus on account of its con¬ 
 nection (?) in subject-matter and time with the following revelation, and, 
 as it were, by way of further consecration of his official career. Comp, also 
 Wieseler on Gal. p. 595, who likewise considers the narrative as simply a 
 
 1 Arbitrary explanations are already and less known; and by Pelagius: because 
 given by Chrysostom (comp. Bengel, Ewald, in Damascus the Jews had stirred up etiam, 
 and others): because the incident was older principes gentium against Paul. 
 
666 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 suitable historical introduction to the revelation that follows. But we do 
 not see the purpose served by this detailed introduction,—which, withal, as 
 such, would have no independent object whatever,—nor yet, again, the pur¬ 
 pose served by the interruption in xii. 1. According to Hofmann, the men¬ 
 tion of this means of rescue, of which he had made use, and which many a 
 one with merely natural courage would on the score of honour not have 
 consented to employ, is intended to imply a confession of his weakness. 
 The idea of weakness, however, is not at all here the opposite of the natural 
 courage of honour, but rather that of the passive undergoing of all the 
 'Kadriyara of Christ, the long chain of which, in Paul’s case, had its first link 
 historically in that flight from Damascus. Calvin correctly names this flight 
 the “tirocinium Pauli.” — kv A a/ucnmC)] stands as an anacoluthon. When 
 Paul wrote it, having already in view a further specification of place for an 
 incident to follow, he had purposed to write, instead of the unsuitable tt/v 
 AayaaKTjvuv noTav, something else (such as rag Trvhag), but then left out of 
 account the kv A ayacKti already written. It is a strange fancy to which Hof¬ 
 mann has recourse, that r. A ayacn. ttoIlv is meant to be a narrower concep¬ 
 tion than kv Aayamcti. — k&vdpxvg] prefect (Josephus, Antt. xiv. 7. 2 ; 1 Macc. 
 xiv. 47, xv. 1 ; Strabo, xvii. p. 798 ; Lucian, Macrob. 17), an appellation of 
 Oriental provincial governors. See in general, Joh. Gottlob Heyne, de 
 ethnarcha Aretae , Witeb. 1755, p. 3 ff. The incident itself described is 
 identical with that narrated in Acts ix. 24 f. No doubt in Acts the watch¬ 
 ing of the gates is described to the Jeics, and here, to the ethnarch ; but the 
 reconciliation of the two narratives is itself very naturally effected through 
 the assumption that the ethnarch caused the gates to be watched by the Jews 
 themselves at their suggestion (comp. Heyne, l.c. p. 89). “Jewish gold had 
 perhaps also some effect with the Emir,” Michaelis .—ryv Aayaan. 7 t6?ilv] 
 namely, by occupying the gates so that Paul might not get out. Regarding 
 the temporary dominion over Damascus held at that time by Aretas, the Ara¬ 
 bian king, and father-in-law of Jlerod Antipas, see on Acts, Introd. § 4, and 
 observe that Paul would have had no reason for adding ’A pkra rov flam'/dug, 
 if at the very time of the flight the Roman city had not been exceptionally 
 (and temporarily) subject to Aretas—a state of foreign rule for the time 
 being, which was to be brought under the notice of the reader. Hofmann 
 thinks that the chief of the Arabian inhabitants in the Roman city was meant ; 
 but with the less ground, since Paul was a Jew and had come from Jerusa¬ 
 lem^ and consequently would not have belonged at all to the jurisdiction of 
 such a tribal chief (if there had been one). He went to Arabia (Gal. i. 17) 
 only in consequence of this incident.—Ad dvp'Aog by means of a little door 
 (Plato, Pol. ii. p. 359 D ; Lucian, Asin. 45). It was doubtless an opening- 
 high up in the city wall, closed, perhaps, with a lid or lattice. — kv capyavy] 
 in a wickerwork , i.e. basket (Lucian, Lexiph. 6). Comp. Acts ix. 25 : kv 
 oizvp'Ai. — On the description itself Theodoret rightly remarks ; to tov 
 tavdvvov ykye-d-og tgj rpoTzo) rf/g (j)vygg Trapedr/Xuoe. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 6G7 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (n 6 ) “ A godly jealousy” Yer. 2. 
 
 This phrase, given in.the A. Y. and retained in the Revision, includes all the 
 possible meanings of the original ; for a godly jealousy may be at once one of 
 which God is the author or the object, one that He has, or that is pleasing to 
 Him, or that is extraordinarily great. 
 
 (o 6 ) “ The serpent.” Yer. 3. 
 
 The comparison made here is a clear evidence that Paul accepted the narra¬ 
 tive of the fall as an historical fact. For a fable would give no ground for his 
 fear, and would be inconsistent with the earnestness of this passage. The 
 comparison suggests that the serpent was a mouthpiece of a spiritual foe. 
 
 (p 6 ) Paul's manifestation. Yer. 6. 
 
 A better sense than that of the T. R., which Dr. Meyer adopts, is obtained 
 from the reading of all the later editors, which gives an active participle : have 
 made manifest viz. the Apostle’s knowledge of divine revelations and spiritual 
 truths. 
 
 (q 6 ) Paul's gratuitous service. Yer. 7. 
 
 This verse and the following seem designed to answer the charges founded 
 on the fact that he took no money from the Corinthian church, but supported 
 himself by his own labours and the gifts of others. The charges were that a 
 real apostle could not thus abstain from claiming his undoubted right, and that 
 Paul’s doing it indicated a want of confidence in the Corinthians. He vindicates 
 his course, and declares his intention to persist in it. 
 
 (r 6 ) “ Satan transformed.” Yer. 14. 
 
 It would hardly be possible to affirm the personality of Satan more strongly 
 than is done here. The practical suggestion is also of immense weight—Satan 
 does not come to us as Satan. 
 
 (s 6 ) “ Whose end shall he according to their works.” Yer. 15. 
 
 On this Beet remarks that Paul had no expectation that all men would event¬ 
 ually be saved. For he is evidently thinking of bad works, and therefore of a 
 bad end. But if finally restored, the end of all men and of these servants of 
 Satan would be endless happiness, in whose light the most terrible and pro¬ 
 longed bygone torments will, as endless and glorious ages roll by, dwindle into 
 insignificance. 
 
 (t 6 ) Paul's boasting. Ver. 16. 
 
 Three times he has attempted to begin his boast, first in x. 18, when he is 
 interrupted by the recollection of the hollowness of the boast of his opponents 
 and compelled to assert the reality of his own ; again, in xi. 1, when he is checked 
 by the recollection of the difficulty of pressing it on readers so perverted as the 
 Corinthians by the influence of their false teachers ; again, in xi. 6, when he is 
 led aside to answer the charge arising out of his refusal of support. Now once 
 more he returns to the point, and now for the first time carries it through. He is 
 
668 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 still oppressed by the consciousness of the seeming senselessness of such self- 
 praise ; but he defends himself on two grounds : that he is driven to it by the 
 pretensions of his opponents ; and that he is speaking, not of his higher gifts, 
 of which he might reasonably be proud, but of those very points in his con¬ 
 duct and character which had given occasion to his opponents to charge him 
 with “weakness,” x. 10. (Stanley). 
 
 (u 6 ) “ Not after the Lord.” Yer. 17. 
 
 This phrase means, “ Not as Christ would have me speak, but in the person of 
 a fool.” Such an utterance is not inconsistent with the Apostle’s claim to in¬ 
 spiration. For the simple end of inspiration is to secure infallibility in the 
 communication of truth. It does not sanctify, nor does it preclude the natural 
 play of the intellect or of the feelings. Even if therefore this conduct of Paul 
 was due to human weakness, that would not prove that he was not under the 
 inspiration of God. But such an assumption is needless. There was nothing 
 wrong in his self-laudation. He never appears more truly humble than when 
 these references to his labours and sufferings were wrung from him, filling him 
 with a feeling of self-contempt. All that the expression implies is that self- 
 praise, in itself considered, is not the work of a Christian ; it is not a work to 
 which the Spirit of Christ impels a believer. But when it is necessary to the 
 vindication of the truth or the honour of religion, it becomes a duty (Hodge). 
 
 (v 6 ) “ According to the flesh.” Ver. 18. 
 
 Surely there is no necessity of supplying these words at the end of the verse. 
 What the Apostle means is, “As many boast from unworthy motives, I also 
 will boast.” If they did it from bad motives, he might well do it from good 
 motives ; and that he did it from such motives the whole section shows. 
 
 (w 6 ) Paul’s toils and sufferings. Yer. 27. 
 
 On this graphic statement Stanley justly remarks that “ it represents a life 
 in the Western world [may we not add, in the Eastern also ?] hitherto with¬ 
 out precedent. Self-devotion for some special national cause had been often 
 seen before ; the career of Socrates was a lifelong service to humanity ; but a 
 continual self-devotion, involving hardships like those here described, and ex¬ 
 tending over so long a period and in behalf of no local or family interest, but 
 for the interest of mankind at large, was, down to this period, a thing unknown. 
 Paul did all this, and Paul was the first who did it.”—“ This passage makes 
 even the most laborious of the modern ministers of Christ hide their faces in 
 shame. What have they ever done or suffered to compare with what this apos¬ 
 tle did? It is a consolation to know that Paul is now as pre-eminent in glory 
 as he was here in suffering” (Hodge).—Stanley adds further: “It is remark¬ 
 able that while there is nothing in this account which contradicts, yet the 
 greater part of it goes far beyond the narrative of the Acts. It shows that the 
 biography of the Apostle, unlike most biographies of heroes and saints ( e.g. 
 Xavier), instead of overrating, underrates the difficulties and sufferings which 
 we learn from the Apostle’s own account, the accuracy of which is guaranteed 
 by the extreme and apparently unfeigned reluctance with which it is brought 
 forward.” 
 
CHAP. XII. 
 
 6G9 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Ver. 1. navxaodai d?/] So also Tisch., following K M and most min. Arm. and 
 the Greek Fathers. Bnt B D** E F G I, and many min., also Syr. ntr. Air. 
 Yulg. It. Ambrosiast. have the reading navxaoOcu 6 si, which Griesb. has recom¬ 
 mended, and Scholz, Lachm. Buck, have adopted. D* S<* 114, Copt. Slav, 
 codd. Lat. Theophyl. have KavxdaOai 66 , which Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 122 1, 
 prefers. The testimonies for KavxuoOaL 6 ei preponderate so decidedly that we 
 are not entitled to derive deZ from xi. 30. On the other hand, the apparent 
 want of connection in kclvx. 6 si ov avfi<j>. was sufficient occasion, partly for 
 changing 6 si into 6 s, or by means of itacism into 6 'rj (the latter Beiche defends 
 and Ewald follows, also Hofm.), partly for prefixing an si to the kclvx■ from xi. 
 30 (&** 39, Lect. 17, Yulg. Pel.). — ov cvpcpEpsi poi, s'Xevcopai yap] Lachm. and 
 Buck, read ov avp^pov psv, kXsvcopev 6 s (Lachm.: 6 s sat, after B), supported by 
 BEG K, and in part by some min. vss. and Fathers. But psv ... 6 s betrays 
 itself as a correction by way of gloss of the difficult yap, in which pot was sup¬ 
 planted by psv, and yap by 6 s. The question whether cvpQfpov is original 
 instead of avptyspsL, is decided by the circumstance that, according to the codd., 
 the reading cvpcpspov is connected with the reading psv . . . 6 s, and hence falls 
 with it. -—Yer. 3. r/crof] B D* E* tf, Method, in Epiph. have x u P^- ^o Lachm. 
 Tisch. and Buck. Biglitly ; skt 6 q is from ver. 2. The subsequent ovk ol 6 a is 
 deleted by Lachm., but only on the authority of B, Method. — Yer. 6. tl) is doubt¬ 
 less wanting in B D*** E** F GfcP 37, 67** Arm. Boern. Tol. Harl.** codd. Lat. Or., 
 and is deleted by Lachm. and Buck. But how easily it was left out, being regard¬ 
 ed as utterly superfluous, and even as confusing ! — Yer. 7. Before the first Iva 
 Lachm. has 616 , following A B F G K 17, Boern. An insertion for the sake of con¬ 
 nection, occasioned by the not recognizing the inverted order of the words, so 
 that nal rrj vKsp(3. ruv ano/taX. was attached in some way to what goes before 
 (with some such meaning as this : in order that no one may get a higher opinion 
 of me . . . even through the abundance of the revelations). — The second Iva pp vnspat- 
 popat, is wanting in A D E F G K* 17, and several vss. and Fathers (bracketed by 
 Lachm.) ; but the emphasis of the repetition being overlooked, the words have 
 been passed over as having been used already. — Yer. 9. 6 vvapig pov) pov is 
 wanting in A* B D* F G K, and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Bengel, 
 Lachm. Tisch. Considering, however, the no small weight of the testimonies 
 for pov (A** D*** EKL K** and almost all min. vss. Or. Chrys. Theodoret\ 
 and seeing that the syllable pov might easily be passed over after, the syllable 
 pig, the Recepta is to be preserved, its sense also being necessary according to 
 the whole context. — rslsLovraL] A B D* F G K* have Tsleirai. So Lachm. Tisch. 
 and Buck. Biglitly ; the former is an interpretation.—Ver. 11. After atppuv 
 Elz. has Kavxcjpsvog, against decisive evidence. An exegetical addition. — Yer. 
 12. h appsioLg] sv is wanting in A B D* K 17, 39, 71, al. Vulg. ms. Clar. Germ. 
 Tol. and Fathers ; while F G, Boern. Syr. Chrys. Ambrosiast. have sat. sv is 
 mechanically repeated from what precedes, and with Lachm. Tisch. and Buck. 
 
670 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 is to be deleted. — Ver. 13. iirrpBrjre] B D* K* 17 have rjacuOprE (so Lachm.), which 
 is nothing but a copyist’s error, and in D and K is rightly corrected ; F G have 
 eXarruOpre, which is a gloss. — Ver. 14. After rpirov Griesb. Scliolz, Lachm. 
 Ruck. Tisch. read rovro, following doubtless a preponderance of authorities, 
 among which, however, D E 93, Copt. Syr. ? put it before rpirov. An addition 
 fromxiii. 1. — vpov] is -wanting after KaravapK. in AB K17, 71, al. Aeth. Damasc., 
 while D* F G have vpdg. Both have been supplied, and are rightly deleted by 
 Lachm. Tisch. — Ver. 15. el Kal ] kcll is wanting in A B F G Copt. Sahid. 
 Deleted by Lachm. An addition from misunderstanding ; see the exegetical 
 remarks. -— Ver. 19. izdXiv] Lachm. Tisch. and Ruck, read rzadkai on preponder¬ 
 ating evidence. Rightly ; the rza'kai not understood was erroneously glossed. — 
 In what follows uarevavn is to be adopted instead of Karevunwv, with Lachm. 
 and Ruck., on preponderating evidence. Comp. ii. 17. —Ver. 20. Instead of 
 of epeig, Lachm. and Ruck, read epig, but against preponderating evidence. 
 The latter might easily originate through itacism. Instead of tf/hm, Lachm. 
 Tisch. and Riick. read &dog, following A B D* F G, Goth. Syr. Arm. Dam. 
 Rightlj 7 ; the plural crept in from the surrounding forms. — Ver. 21. e?,Q6vra pe] 
 Lachm. Riick. and Tisch. read e/.Qovrog pov, following A B F G K* 39, 93. 
 Rightly ; the JRecepta is a grammatical emendation, which brought with it the 
 omission of the subsequent pe .— raize tv Mari'] Lachm. and Tisch. read raizeivuaei, 
 following B D E F G L, min. Oec. The subjunctive is a mechanical alteration 
 in accordance with the preceding and usual form. 
 
 Contexts.— Breaking off from what precedes, Paul passes over to the 
 revelations which he has had, narrates one of them, and says : Of this he 
 would boast, not of himself, except only of his weaknesses ; for he will 
 perpetrate no folly by self-glorying, but abstains from it, in order not to 
 awaken too high an opinion of himself (vv. 1-6). And in order that he 
 might not plume himself over those revelations, there was given to him a 
 painful affliction, on account of which after a thrice-repeated invocation he 
 had been referred by Christ to His grace ; hence he preferred to glory in 
 his ’weaknesses, in order that he might experience the power of Christ, for 
 which reason he had pleasure in his weaknesses (vv. 7-10). — He had be¬ 
 come a fool, compelled thereto by them ; for he ought to have been com¬ 
 mended by them, since in no respect did he stand behind the fancied apos¬ 
 tles, but, on the contrary, had wrought amongst them the proofs of his 
 apostolic dignity (vv. 11, 12). This leads him, amidst bitter irony, again 
 to his gratuitous working, which he will continue also on his third arrival 
 (vv. 13-15). But not only had he not by himself and immediately taken 
 advantage of them, but not even through others mediately (vv. 16-18). 
 Now begins the conclusion of the whole section : Not before them, but 
 before God, does he vindicate himself, yet for their edification. For he 
 fears that he may find them not in the frame of mind which he wishes, and 
 that he may be found by them in a fashion not wrshed for (vv. 19-21). 
 
 Ver. I. 1 Scarcely has Paul, in xi. 32 f., begun his Kavxaodai ra rrjg do&evelag 
 
 1 See on ver. 1 ff., Beyschlag in the Stud. schlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 217 ff.; 
 v. Krit. 1864, p. 206 ff. ; Hilgenfeld in his also Holsten, zum Evang. des Paul. u. d. 
 Zeitschr. 1864, p. 173 ff.; and again, Bey- Petr. 1868, p. 21 ff. 
 
CHAP. XII., 1. 
 
 671 
 
 with the incident in Damascus, when he breaks off again with the thought 
 w T hich, in the instantaneous, true tact of his consciousness (comp, on xi. 32 
 f.), as it were bars his way : navxaod-ai del, ov ovfitykpu pot (see the critical re¬ 
 marks) : to boast of myself is necessary, not beneficial for me. Let it be 
 observed that ov ovucj). is the antithesis of del ; ( necesse, non utile est) , and 
 that a comma only must therefore stand after del ; further, that yoi belongs 
 not merely to ov/up., but also to del (Tob. v. 14 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 
 3. 10, Anab. iii. 4. 35 ; Matzner, ad Antiph. p. 257) ; 1 lastly, that ovyp. 
 means the moral benefit as opposed to the ethical disadvantage of the self¬ 
 exaltation (comp. ver. 7, and see Theophyl.) : “ saluberrimum animo r/ ryg 
 oir/asug aver did) f Gro tius. Comp. Ignat. Trail. 4 : n okka ppovcb kv Hep, akV 
 kyavrov juerpoij Iva prj ev Kavxydet aizokuyai. The del arose out of the existing 
 circumstances of the Corinthians, by which Paul had seen himself necessi¬ 
 tated to the navxacr&ai. ; but the ov ov/upepei prevails with him to pass on to 
 something else and far higher , as that in which there lay no self-glory (ver. 
 5). With the reading dy (see the critical remarks) the dr] w T ould only make 
 the notion of navxacr&aL more significantly 2 prominent, like the German eben 
 or ja [ certainly , or indeed ] (see Kruger, § G9, 19. 2 ; Ivlotz, ad Decar. p. 392 ; 
 Baeumlein, PartiTcell. p. 98), but could not, as Hofmann (with an inap¬ 
 propriate appeal to Hartung) assumes, denote glorying “ simply and abso¬ 
 lutely in contrast with a navxaodai ra ryg acr&eveiag. This Paul would have 
 known how to express by something like awke~og dr] mvxdadai. — eAevaopat] 
 not : I would (to which Hofmann practically comes), but : I will (now) 
 come to speak. See Wolf, Gurae; Dissen, ad Find. 01. ix. 83, p. 119.— 
 ■yap] He might also have said ovv, but his conception is, that by his passing 
 over to something else the ov Gvyfipei pot, is illustrated and confirmed. See 
 Klotz, ad Decar. p. 235 ; Baeumlein, PartiJc. p. 86.— cig oirraoia gnat ano/cak. 
 Kvpiov] i.e. to facts, in which Christ imparted to me visions and revelations. 3 
 The genitivus subjecti nvpiov is the characteristic definition, which both words 
 need (not simply the second , to which Hofmann limits it). Theophylact 
 remarks that in airoKak. there is added to ottt an. something more, y pe.v yap 
 
 1 Reiche ( Comment. crit. I. p. 404) objects 
 that Paul must have written “ solenniter et 
 perspicue Ka.vxa(TOa i eye Set, ov Se avp.pepei 
 p.oi. But if iu-oi were not to be referred 
 jointly to Set, seeing that Set with the dative 
 and infinitive certainly is found in classical 
 writers seldom (see also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
 i. p. 399 f.), and never in the N. T., an epe 
 would not be necessary : but kclvx. Sel may 
 be taken absolutely : boasting is necessary 
 (under the circumstances given), not advan¬ 
 tageous is it to me. The non-use of Se or aAAa 
 is in keeping with the very common asyn¬ 
 detic juxtaposition of contrasted state¬ 
 ments, 1 Cor. vii. 6; Rom. ii. 29; 2 Cor. v. 
 3, el al. Reiche himself, defending the Re- 
 cepta , lays the whole emphasis on poi: my 
 boasting takes place not for my own advan¬ 
 tage, but for yours (in order to correct your 
 judgment regarding me, etc.). He explains 
 
 it, therefore, as if Paul had written : ovk 
 epoi or ovk epavrlp avp(f>epeL. Theodoret had 
 already taken it erroneously, quite like 
 Reiche. 
 
 2 “ Ae est particula determinativa, id 
 verbum, quod sequitur, graviter efferens,” 
 Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 2. Comp, also 
 Hartung, Partik. I. p. 283. Erasm. : “glo- 
 riari sane non expedit mihi.” It might ac¬ 
 cordingly be taken also with a touch of 
 irony , like scilicet: boast indeed I must. See 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 173 E; Ilar- 
 tung, l.c. Ilolsten also, l.c. p. 28, takes it in 
 the ironical sense. 
 
 3 As is well known, from this passage 
 arose the apocryphal ’ATroKaAvi/n? riaiiAou, 
 and (or?) the 'AvafiarLKov nauAov. See Liicke- 
 Einl. in d. Offend. Joh. I. p. 244 ff. ed. 2. Theo, 
 phylact finds the proof that this treatise is 
 not genuine in apprira, ver. 4. 
 
672 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 fiSvov /31kx£tv didocnv, avTrj tie nai tl /3a$vTepov tov opo/uevov axoyvyvoi. This 
 distinction, however, keeps the two ideas apart contrary to their nature, as 
 if the apocalyptic element were not given with the onraaia. ’Om-aota 
 (“species visibilis objecta vigilanti aut somnianti,” Grotius) is rather a 
 special form of receiving the axondlvipig (comp. Liicke, Einl. in d. Offenb. Jok. 
 I. p. 27, ed. 2), which latter may take place by means of such a miraculous 
 vision (Dan. ix. 23, x. 1, 16) ; see also Luke i. 22 ; Acts xxvi. 19. This is 
 the meaning of bxraoia here, and axonal. is a wider idea (inasmuch as 
 revelations occur also otherwise than in the way of visions beheld, although 
 here ensuing in that way ; comp. ver. 7, where axonal, stands alone.—That 
 Paul by what follows wishes to prove, with a polemic object against the 
 Christine party, that external acquaintance with Christ was superfluous (so 
 Baur ; see also Oecumenius), is not to be assumed, just because otherwise 
 the mention of his having had a vision of Christ would be necessary for its 
 bearing on the sequel. Nor can we from this passage infer it as the distinc¬ 
 tive feature of the Christines, that they had claimed to stand by visions and 
 revelations in a mystical connection with Christ (Schenkel, Dahne, de 
 Wette, Goldhorn ; comp, also Ewald, Beyschlag), since Paul is contending 
 against specifically Jndaistic opponents, against whom he pursues his gen¬ 
 eral purpose of elucidating his apostolic dignity, which enemies obscured 
 in Corinth, 1 from the special distinctions which he, and not his opj)onents, 
 had to show (comp. Rabiger, p. 210 ; Ivlopper, p. 99 ff.). (x 6 ) 
 
 Yer. 2. He now quotes instar omnium a single event of such a nature, 
 specially memorable to him and probably unique in his experience, vv. 2-4. 
 — olda av&pcjxov k.t.1.] I hnoio a man . . . who was snatched away. Paul 
 speaks of himself as of a third person, because he wishes to adduce some¬ 
 thing in which no part of the glory at all falls on the Ego proper. And 
 how suitable in reality was the nature of such an event to the modest mode 
 of representation, excluding all self-glory ! In that ecstasy the Ego had 
 indeed really ceased to be the subject of its own activity , and had become 
 quite the object of the activity of others , so that Paul in his usual condition 
 came before himself as other than he had been in the ecstasy, and his I , 
 considered from the standpoint of that ecstasy, appeared as a he. — kv Xpiorti] 
 a man to be found in Christ (as the element of life), 1 Cor. i. 30, a Christian; 
 not : “ quod in Christo dico, i.e. quod sine ambitione dictum velim,” Beza, 
 connecting it with oida (comp. Emmerling). —xpo htiv denareoadpuy] belongs 
 to apxaykvra, from which it is separated by the parenthesis. We may add 
 that this note of time is already decisive against those, who either find in 
 this incident the conversion of the apostle (or at least something connected 
 therewith), as Damasus, Thomas, Lyra, L. Capellus, Grotius, Qeder, Keil, 
 Opusc. p. 318 ff. ; Matthaei, Pieligionsgl. I. p. 610 If., and others, including 
 
 1 According to Hilgenfeld, Paul means such things had not been imparted after 
 
 now to impai’t yet something greater than the resurrection of Christ. That, indeed, 
 
 the vision of Christ (?) at his call. Not some- we do not at all know. We are acquainted 
 thing greater, but something quite of with analogous disclosures also by Peter. 
 
 another kind. Holsten, too, finds in the And how scanty are our sources regarding 
 
 birracrLas something, which exalts Paul above the history of the Twelve ! 
 
 the original apostles, since to the latter 
 
673 
 
 CHAP. XII., 2. 
 
 » ' 
 
 Bretschneider and Reiclie, and quite recently Stolting, Beitr. z. Exeg. cl. 
 Paul. Br. 1869, p. 173—or identify it with the appearance in the temple, 
 Acts xxii. 17 ff., as Calvin (but uncertainly), Spanheim, Lightfoot, J. Ca- 
 pellus, Rinck, Schrader, and others ; comp, also Schott, Erbrt. p. 100 ff. ; 
 Wurm in the Till). Zeitschr. 1833, 1, p. 41 If. ; Wieseler, p. 165, and on Gal. 
 p. 591 tf. ; Osiander. The conversion was upwards of twenty years earlier 
 than this Epistle (see on Acts, Introd. § 4). See, besides, Estius and 
 Fritzsche, Biss. I. p. 58 If. ; Anger, rat. temp. p. 164 ff. In fact, even if the 
 definition of the time of this event could be reconciled with that of the ap¬ 
 pearance in the temple , xActs xxii. 17 ff., still the narrative of this passage (see 
 especially ver. 4 : f/novcrev appyra n.r.l.) is at any rate so essentially different 
 from that in Acts xxii., that the identity is not to be assumed. 1 The connec¬ 
 tion which Wieseler assumes with the Damascene history does not exist in 
 reality (comp. onxi. 32 f.), but with xii. 1 there begins something new. The 
 event here mentioned, which belongs in point of time to the stay at Antioch 
 or to the end of the stay at Tarsus (Acts xi. 25), is to us quite unknown 
 othencise. The reason , however, why Paul added the definition of time is, 
 according to Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodoret, and others, given thus : 
 “ videmus Paul am ipsum per annos quatuordecim tacuisse, nec verbum fuisse 
 facturum, nisi importunitas malignorum coegisset,” Calvin. But how purely 
 arbitrary ! And whence is it known that he had been so lon£ silent re- 
 garding the ecstasy ? No ; the specification of time flowed without special 
 design just as naturally from the pre-eminently remarkable character which 
 the event had for Paul, as from the mode of the representation, according 
 to which he speaks of himself as of a third person, in whose case the notice 
 of an already long past suggested itself spontaneously ; for u longo tempore 
 alius a se ipso quisque f actus videtur ” (Bengel).— eire h ok nan ] sc. ypTrayrj 
 from what follows. Regarding elre . . . sire, whether . . . or , see Hartung, 
 Partikell. II. p. 202 f. also Dissen, ad Bern, de Cor. p. 224. He puts the 
 two cases as quite equal as respects possibility, not the first as more probable; 
 hence with the second sire no nai is added ; see Dissen. In that ecstasy his 
 lower consciousness had so utterly fallen into abeyance, that he could not 
 afterwards tell (according to Athan. c. Ar. Serm. 4 : dared not tell) wdiether 
 this had taken place by means of a temporary withdrawal of his spirit out 
 of the body, or whether his whole person, the body included (ev okyari), had 
 been snatched away. By this alternative he expresses simply the utter in¬ 
 comprehensibleness for him of the manner of the occurrence. It is to him as 
 if either the one or the other had taken place, but he knows neither the 
 former nor the latter ; hence he is not to be made responsible for the possi¬ 
 bility or eventual mode of the one or other. u Ignoratio modi non tollit cer- 
 tam rei scientiam,” Bengel. Following Augustine, Genes, adlit. xii. 5, Thomas 
 and Estius explained ev ok part : anima in corpore manente , so that Paul would 
 say that he does not know whether it took place in a vision (ev okpari) or by an 
 
 1 According to Wieseler, the apprjTa prjpuxra 
 were the preparatory basis for the delega¬ 
 tion of the apostle in Acts xxii. 18, 21. But 
 there is no hint of this in either text. And 
 
 the revelation laying the basis for his voca¬ 
 tion among the Gentiles had been received 
 by Paul much earlier than the appearance 
 in the temple, Gal. i. 15. 
 
674 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to tile Corinthians. 
 
 actual snatching away of the spirit (kurog tov a.). But if he had been uncer¬ 
 tain, and had wished to represent himself as uncertain, whether the matter 
 were only a seeing and perceiving by means of the spiritual senses or a real 
 snatching away, it would not ha.ve had at all the great importance which it 
 is held to have in the context, and he would only have exposed to his rivals 
 a weak point, seeing that inward visions of the supernatural, although in 
 the form of divinely presented apparitions, had not the quite extraordinary 
 character which Paul manifestly wishes to ascribe to the event described. 
 This also in opposition to Beyschlag, 1864, p. 207, who explains the alter¬ 
 native eIte ev cufiaTi only as the bestowal of a marvellous “range” and 
 “ reach” of the inward senses—in spite of the apirayevra. Moreover, we must 
 not ascribe to the apostle the Rabbinical opinion (in Schoettgen, Ilor. p. 
 697) that he who is caught into paradise puts off his body and is clothed 
 with an ethereal body ; because otherwise he could not have put the case 
 eIte ev Guyari. 1 So much, however, is clear, that for such a divine purpose 
 he held as possible a temporary miraculous withdrawal of the spirit from the 
 body without death. 2 * The mode 3 in which this conceived possibility was to 
 take place must be left undetermined, and is not to be brought under the 
 point of view of the separability of the bare nvevya (without the ipvxv) from 
 the body (Osiander) ; for spirit and soul form inseparably the Ego even in 
 the trichotomistic exjiression of 1 Thess. v. 28, as likewise Heb. iv. 12 (see 
 Lunemann in loc .). Comp, also Calovius against Cameron. Hence also it 
 is not to be said with Lactantius : “ abit animus, manet animal —The anar¬ 
 throus ev ab)part means bodily, and that his own body was meant by it, and 
 tov cuparog with the article is not anything different, was obvious of itself 
 to the reader ; ouga did not need the article, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 
 83 C. — dpira-yevra] the stated word used of sudden, involuntary raptures. 
 See Acts viii. 39 ; Rev. xii. 5 ; 1 Thess. iv. 17. The form of the 2d aorist 
 belongs to the deteriorated Greek. See Thomas Mag. p. 424 ; Buttmann, 
 I. p. 381. — tov tolovtov] summing up again (Kuhner, II. p. 330) : such an 
 one, with whom it was so. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 5. —eog rpirovovp.] thus, through 
 the first and second heaven into the third. 4 As the conception of several 
 heavens pervades the whole of the O. and N. T. (see especially, Eph. iv. 10; 
 Heb. iv. 14) ; as the Rabbins almost unanimously (Rabbi Juda assumed only 
 two) reckon seven heavens (see the many passages in Wetstein, Schoettgen, 
 Hor. p. 718 ff. ; comp, also Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 460 ; 
 Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 247) ; and as Paul here names a definite number, 
 
 1 Just as little is the case put to be made 
 conceivable as a momentary transfiguration 
 of the body (Osiander). The bodily trans¬ 
 figuration is simply an eschatological event 
 (1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.; 1 Thess. iv. 17), and a trans¬ 
 formation of such a nature, that after it the 
 return to the previous condition is quite in¬ 
 conceivable. 
 
 2 Comp, the passage already quoted in 
 
 Wetstein from Philo, de Somn. I. p. G26, 
 
 where Moses dcroG/xaros yerd/xeyo? is said to 
 
 have fasted forty days. 
 
 3 The remark of Delitzsch in this connec¬ 
 tion : “ because what is experienced com¬ 
 presses itself , after the fashion of eternity, into 
 a moment '’ (Psychol . p. 357). is to me obscure 
 and too strange to make it conceivable by 
 me. 
 
 4 In Lucian, Philopatr. 12, Christ (raAiXalo?) 
 is mocked at as eis Tpirov o vpavov aKpoparno-ai 
 Kal ra KaWccrra eKp.ep.a&r)Kw<;. 
 
675 
 
 CIIAP. XII., 2 
 
 without the doctrine of only three heavens occurring elsewhere ; as he also 
 in ver. 4 specifies yet a higher locality situated beyond the third heaven : it 
 is quite arbitrary to deny that he had the conception of seven heavens, 
 as was done by Origen, contra Celsum, vi. p. 289 : etttol 6e ovpavovg, y blog 
 Trepiopta/iiEvov apcdyov avrrbv, al (pepdpevai ev raig ’ KtcXyaiatg ovk arcayyiTJova ypatyai. 
 (y 6 ) The rationalistic explanations of more recent expositors, such as that 
 of Billroth (following Schoettgen) : that he only meant by this figurative 
 (?) expression to express the nearness in which his spirit found itself to 
 God, have as little exegetical warrant as the explanation of Calvin, Calo- 
 vius, and others, that the holy number three stands /car’ e^oxyv pro summo 
 et perfectissimo, so that rpirov denotes “ the highest and most perfect sphere 
 of the higher world ” (Osiander) ; 1 or as the assertion of others (Estius, 
 Clericus, Bengel, and others), that it is a doctrine of Scripture that there are 
 only three heavens (the heaven of clouds, the heaven of stars, and the 
 empyrean ; according to Damascenus, Thomas, Cornelius Lapide, and 
 others, “ coelum sidereum, crystallinum , empyreum /” according to Grotius : 
 “regio nubifera , reg. astrifera , reg. angelifera ”), or the fiction of Grotius 
 and Emmerling, that the Jews at that time had assumed only these three 
 heavens. It is true that, according to the Rabbins, the third heaven was 
 still no very exalted region. 2 But we do not know at all what conception of 
 the difference of the seven heavens Paul followed (see below), and are there¬ 
 fore not at all justified in conjecturing, with Ruckert, in opposition to the 
 number seven, that Paul was not following the usual hypothesis, but another, 
 according to which the third heaven was at least one of the higher ; 3 but see 
 on ver. 4, where a still further ascent from the third heaven into paradise 
 is mentioned. Even de Wette finds the usual view most probable, that by 
 the third heaven is meant the highest; “ in such things belonging to pious 
 fancy nothing was established until the Rabbinical tradition became fixed.” 
 But the third heaven must have been to the readers a Avell-known and already 
 established conception ; hence we are the less entitled to depart from the 
 historically attested number seven, and to adopt the number three (nowhere 
 attested among the Jews) which became current in the church only on the 
 basis of this passage (Suicer, Thes. II. p. 251), while still in the Test. XII. 
 Pair, (belonging to the second century) p. 546 f., the number seven holds 
 its ground, and the seven heavens are exactly described, as also the Ascensio 
 Jesaiae (belonging to the third century) has still this conception of Jewish 
 gnosis (see Liicke, Einl. in d. Offenb. Joh. I. p. 287 f., ed. 2). How Paul 
 conceived to himself the several heavens as differing , we cannot determine, 
 
 1 The old Lutherans, in the interests of the 
 doctrine of ubiquity, maintained that the 
 third heaven and paradise denote “ statvm 
 potius alterius saeculi quam locum," 
 Hunnius. 
 
 2 The Rabbinical division was different, 
 e.g. (1) velum; (2) expansvm; (3) rubes; (4) 
 habitaculum; (5) habitcitio; (6) series flxa ; 
 
 (7) Araboth or t a/xeTov. Others divide in 
 other ways. See Wetstein. 
 
 3 Ruckert appeals to the fact that R. Juda 
 assumed only two heavens. But this iso¬ 
 lated departure from the usual Rabbinical 
 type of doctrine cannot have any applica¬ 
 tion here, where a third heaven is named. 
 Passages would rather have to be shown, 
 in which the number of heavens was 
 assumed to be under seven and above tico. 
 In the absence of such passages, Riickert’s 
 conjecture is groundless. 
 
G7G Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 especially as in those Apocryphal books and among the Rabbins the state¬ 
 ments on the point are very divergent. Erroneously, because the concep- 
 of several heavens is an historical one, Hofmann (comp, also his Schrift- 
 beweis, II. 1, p. 535) has regarded- eug rpirov ovpavov as belonging to the vision , 
 not to the conception (in connection with which he lays stress on the absence 
 of the article), and spiritualizes the definite concrete utterance to this effect, 
 that Paul in the vision, which made visible to him in a spiritual manner the 
 invisible, u saw himself caught away beyond the lower domains of the super¬ 
 mundane and up into a higher region.' 1 ' 1 This is to depart from the clear lit¬ 
 eral meaning and to lose oneself in generalities. It is quite unwarranted to 
 adduce the absence of the article with rpirov , since wdth ordinal numbers 
 the article is not at all required, Matt. xx. 3 ; Mark xv. 25 ; Acts ii. 15, 
 xxiii. 23 ; John i. 40 ; Thuc. ii. 70. 5 ; Xen. Anal), iii. 6. 1 ; Lucian, Alex. 
 18 ; 1 Sam. iv. 7 ; Susann. 15 ; see Ivuhner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 35 ; 
 Xagelsbach on the Iliad , p. 292, ed. 3. 
 
 Yv. 3, 4. And I know such a man . . . that he, namely, was caught away, 
 etc. The expression is here the well-known attraction oida ere rig d. Most 
 expositors consider the matter itself as not different from what is mentioned 
 in ver. 2, so that rpirog ovpavog and 6 tt apaSecaog would be one and the same. 
 But it is decisive against this view, that 6 rpirog ovpavog cannot without arbi¬ 
 trariness be taken otherwise than of a region of heaven comparatively low 
 (see on ver. 2). Besides, the wdiole circumstantial repetition, only with a 
 change in designating the place, wmuld not be solemn language, but battol- 
 ogy. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who imports the modification : 
 ‘ ‘ The one time emphasis is laid only on the surroundings , into wdiich he 
 found himself transported away from the earth ; the other time on the con¬ 
 trast of the fellowship of God , into which he was transported away from the 
 church of God here beloic Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Origen, Atha¬ 
 nasius, and several Fathers and schoolmen (see Estius and Bengel on the 
 passage), also Erasmus 1 and Bengel 2 , have rightly distinguished paradise 
 from the third heaven. Comp, also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 246 ; Osian- 
 der, Hilgenfeld, and others. Still we are not, with Bengel (comp, de 
 YYette), to regard (see on ver. 2) paradise as interim quiddam in coelo tertio , 
 quarn ipsum coelum tertium (comp. Cornelius a Lapide) ; but Paul relates 
 first how he was caught up into the third heaven, and then adds, as a fur¬ 
 ther point in the experience, that he was transported further, higher up 
 into paradise, so that the cog rpirov ovpavov was a break, as it were, a resting- 
 jjoint of the raptus. Thus, too, the repetition of the same words, as well 
 as the repetition of the parenthesis, obtains its solemn character ; for the 
 incident is reported step by step , i.e. in two stages.— The paradise is here 
 not the loicer , i.e. the place in Sheol, in wdiich the spirits of the departed 
 
 1 “ Raptus est in tertium usque coelum, 
 hincrursum in paradisum,” Erasmus in his 
 Paraphr. Comp. Clemens Alex. : eL? rpirov 
 
 ovpavov, KaKeiOev tis napateurov (StTOni. V. 
 
 p. 427). 
 
 2 Who as to the repetition of the same 
 
 words judges very rightly : “ Non solum 
 suaviter suspendunt aeuuntque lectorem, 
 et gloriationi consideratae pondus addunt, 
 sed etiam plane duplex rei momentum exprv 
 muntP 
 
CHAP. XII., 5. 
 
 righteous are until the resurrection (see on Luke xvi. 23, xxiii. 43), nor as 
 Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 489, substitutes in place of this historical 
 conception the abstraction : ‘ ‘ the present communion of the blessed dead 
 with God, as it is on this side of the end of things but the upper , the 
 paradise of God (Rev. ii. 7 ; Enoch xxv. 1) in heaven, where God’s dwell¬ 
 ing is. This distinction is one given historically, and necessary for the 
 understanding of the passage, and is rightly maintained also by Osiander, 
 Hahn, and others. Comp, the Rabbinical passages in Eisenmenger, entdeckt. 
 Judenth. I. 296 if., and generally, Thilo, ad Ev. Nic. 25, p. 748 if.; Gfrorer, 
 Jahrh. d. Hells , II. p. 42 ff. The idea, however, that Christ has carried the 
 believing souls out of Hades with Him to heaven (Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 
 414) goes beyond Scripture, and is not presupposed even in this passage. — 
 apprjra pfjyara] an oxymoron : 1 2 dicta nefanda dictu, speakings , which may not 
 he spoken (Dem. 1369. 25, 1370. 14 ; Soph. 0. R. 465 ; Eur. Hel. 1370 ; and 
 Pflugk in loc .), i.e. which may not be made the subject of communication 
 to others. The revelations which Paul received were so sublime and holy, 
 that the further communication of them would have been at variance with 
 their character ; what was disclosed to him was to be for him alone, for his 
 special enlightenment, strengthening, comforting, with a view to the fulfil¬ 
 ment of his great task ; to others it was to remain a mystery, in order to 
 preclude fanatical or other misuse ; comp. Calvin. That apprjra here does 
 not mean quae did nequeunt (Plato, Soph. p. 238 C), asBeza, Estius, Calovius, 
 Wolf, and many others, including Billroth and Olshausen, hold (Rtickert is 
 not decided), is shown by the solemn epexegetical a ova e^ov av&puir<p lalrj- 
 cac. in which h%ov means licet, fas est , and is not—as Luther and many older 
 and later commentators, including Billroth and Olshausen, wish to take it, 
 quite at variance with the signification of the word—equivalent to dvvarov . 
 The Vulgate aptly renders : “ et audivit arcana verba, quae non licet hom- 
 ini loqui,” i.e. which a man may not utter aloud. Lucian, Epigr. 11 (Jacobs, 
 Del. epigr. VII. 66) : apprjruv breuv yhuocnj ofyprjy'ig eTTiKeiadu, Soph. El. 1000, 
 Aj. 213. Comp. Rev. x. 3 f. — avdpuwu] for they are reserved only for 
 divine communication ; a man, to whom they are revealed, may not utter 
 them. (z fi ) —As to what it was that Paul heard for himself, the Fathers and 
 schoolmen made many conjectures after their fashion. See Cornelius a; 
 Lapide and Estius. Theodoret well says : avrog older 6 ravra rc&ea/uevogd 
 From whom as the organ of communication he heard it, remains veiled in 
 apocalyptic indefiniteness. Revealing voices (comp. Rev. l.c.) he did hear. 
 
 Ver. 5. On hehalf of the one so constituted I will hoast, hut on hehalf of 
 myself, etc. Paul abides by his representation begun in ver. 2, according to 
 which he speaks of himself as of a third person. The reader understood 
 him! to the effect, namely, that apart from that difference of persons under- 
 
 1 See regarding similar juxtapositions in 
 general, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 229 f. Comp, 
 plat. ConV. p. 189 B : appr)Ta ecrrai ra eip-qpeva, 
 Soph. Oecl. Col. 1005 : p-qr'ov appr/rov, Aj. 213 : 
 
 Aovcv appr/TOV. 
 
 2 It is most natural (comp.the Apocalypse) 
 
 to think of disclosures regarding the end of 
 the world , which however, must have gone 
 further than what occurs in the Epistles of 
 the apostle (as 1 Thess. iv. ; 1 Cor. xv.; 
 Rom. xi. 25 f.). More definite statements 
 (see Ewald) must be left in abeyance. 
 
678 
 
 PAUL’S SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORIXTIIIAKS. 
 
 lying the mere representation, the essential meaning of wrep rov tolovtov Kav- 
 xbaopaL was the same as if Paul had written : to tolovto (or ev rC> tolovto j) 
 k avxvcojuai. But this may not mislead us, with Luther, Mosheim, Zachariae, 
 Heumann, Schulz, Rosemnuller % Riickert, to take tolovtov as neuter; for in 
 favour of the view that it is masculine (so after Chrysostom, most expositors, 
 including Flatt, Fritzsche, Billroth, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Osiander, 
 Hofmann) we may decisively urge not merely tov tolovtov, vv. 2 and 8, as 
 well as the personal contrast in kpavTov , and the otherwise marred symmetry 
 of the whole mode of representation (see Fritzsche, Piss. II. 124), but also 
 in-ip, which with Kavxao&aL denotes the g.>erson for whose advantage (see on v. 
 12), not simply inregard to whom (Hofmann), the boast is made ; the thing 
 is afterwards by ev expressly distinguished from the person. The objection 
 of Riickert, that Paul might not push the conception so far! is quite invalid, 
 since, in fact, the readers, if they once knew that from ver. 2 onward he 
 meant himself , could not at all misunderstand him. — el pi/ is not for kav / it/ 
 (Riickert), but it introduces an actually existing exception to that principle 1 
 irrrep epavrov ov Kavxfoopai. It is, however, neither necessary nor justifiable 
 to supply with vtt. ep. ov navx . : “of the visions and revelations which I 
 have had,” so that el prj would form an inexact contrast (de Wette), since 
 Paul, quite in harmony with xi. 80, absolutely denies that he wishes to 
 boast on behalf of his own self otherwise than only of his weaknesses (comp, 
 xi. 80). Self-glorying otherwise is only then to take place on his part, 
 when his own Ego (his work, toil, merit, etc.) does not come at all into 
 consideration, but he is merely the dependent, receptive instrument of the 
 Lord, and appears as a third person , on behalf of whom the navxacfcu takes 
 place. The plural aadev. denotes the various situations and manifestations, 
 in which his feebleness presents itself, (a 7 ) 
 
 Yer. 6. Tap] is not indeed or however (Flatt and others), nor are we, with 
 Riickert, to supply a pev after kav ; but the thought, for which -yap assigns 
 the reason, is—by a frequent usage very natural with the lively train of 
 thought (see especially, Hartung, PartiJcell. I. p. 464 ff.; Baeumlein, Partik. 
 p. 88 f.)—as resulting of itself, not expressly set forth ; it is implied in the 
 ov navxvcopai el lit) /c.t.A., in so far as these words presuppose that Paul could 
 boast, if he icould. In reference to this he continues : for in case I possibly 
 shall have icished , etc. Comp. Winer, p. 422 [E. T. 568]. Osiander 
 wrongly refers yap to the first half of ver. 5 ; for the second half contains 
 the leading thought and the progressive point of the passage. According 
 to Ewald, Paul means the time of judgment , when he shall wish really to 
 glory, whereas now he refrains. In this case he must have subsequently at 
 least written vvv de (peidopai in order to be understood, and even then the 
 reference of the -delr/ow to the day of judgment, in the absence of any 
 express designation of the latter, would only be very indirectly indicated. — 
 eav] does not stand for kclv any more than at x. 8 (in opposition to Riickert). 
 — ovk eoopai acppov] glancing back to xi. 1, 16 If,, but spoken now in entire 
 
 1 Kavxwoju.ai, namely, expresses a princi- others would take it: “ Futurum pro 
 pie to be followed, not as Grotius and potentiali . . . gaudere et exultare^ossm.” 
 
CHAP. XII., 7. 
 
 679 
 
 seriousness, expressing the folly of the vaunting which injures the truth .— 
 <peidoyai ch] sc. rov navxao&cu, i.e. hut I keep it hack, make no use of it. Comp. 
 Xen. Cyr. i. 6, 35, iv. 6. 19 ; Soph. Aj. 115 ; Pind. Nem. ix. 20. 47; LXX. 
 Job xxxiii. 18 ; Wiscl. i. 11 ; Dissen, ad Pind. p. 488 ; Porson, ad Eur. Or. 
 387. — yy rig elg eye loyloyrai /c.r.A.] Purpose of the (peidoyai tie : in order that 
 no one may judge in reference to me heyond that, asichichhe sees me (i.e. supra 
 id quod vidit esse me, Beza), or what he possibly hears from me (out of my 
 moutL , i.e. in order that no one may form a higher opinion of me than is 
 suggested to him by his being eye-witness of my actions, or by his being, it 
 may be, an ear-witness of my oral ministry. Many in Corinth found his 
 action powerless and his speech contemptible (x. 10) ; but he wished still 
 to call forth no higher judgment of himself £han one consonant to experience , 
 which could not but spontaneously form itself ; hence he abstains from the 
 navxcnrdai, although he would speak the truth with it. On loyicrjrai, comp, 
 xi. 5 ; Phil. iii. 13 ; 1 Cor. iv. 1, al. Ewald takes it ; in order that no one 
 may put to my account. This, however, would be expressed by yy rig eyol 
 loyio. — The ri {possibly) is to be explained as a condensed expression : si 
 quid quando audit. See Fritzsche, Piss. II. p. 124 ; Schaefer, ad Pern. IV. 
 p. 232 ; Bremi, adAesch. II. p. 122 f. On e% eyov, comp. Herod, iii. 62, and 
 the Latin audio ex or de aliquo. See Madvig, ad Gic. Fin. p. 865. 
 
 Ver. 7. na'i\ is the simple copula, not even (Fritzsche). The course of 
 thought, namely, is : For this reason I abstain from navxdo-dai (ver. 6), and 
 —to return now to what I said in vv. 1-5—as concerns those revelations 
 which I, though without self-glorying, leave not unmentioned (ver. 5), 
 care is taken of this, that I do not vaunt myself on this distinction. — ry 
 vTrepftoXy tg)v animal .] Pativus instrument : because the revelations imparted 
 to me have a character so exceeding,—a nature transcending so utterly all 
 the bounds of what is ordinary. The order of the words is inverted, in order 
 to make the whole attention of the reader dwell on ry vtt ep{3. r. anona!., to 
 which the discourse here returns. 1 Comp. ii. 4 ; Gal. ii. 10, al. See on 
 Rom. xi. 31. — kdody yoi oKoloip ry aapki k.t.1 .] “ Ex alto habuit revela- 
 tionem, ex profundo castigationem,” Bengel. It is not to be connected so 
 as also to take in Iva ayyelog 2ar. ye Kolaip. (Knapp), nor is cuoloTp to be con- 
 
 1 Lachmann, who has adopted Sio before 
 iva (see the critical remarks), puts the 
 whole of ver. 6, iav . . . e£ ipov, in a paren¬ 
 thesis, and places a full stop after anoKa- 
 Avif/etav in Ver. 7, SO that k. rrj vnepfi. t. 
 anoKaA. goes with ei p.rj ev raig a(T&eveiais 
 
 (Lachmann has struck out nov, but on too 
 slender authority) in ver. 5, and Sio 'iva fxrj 
 bnepaipiopiat begins a new sentence. But 
 in that case not only would nai t fj vnepfioAri 
 tuv anoKaA. come in haltingly after a very 
 isolated and, as it were, forlorn fashion, 
 but Paul would have given to the paren¬ 
 thesis and illogical position. Logically he 
 must have written : vnep Se ip-avrov ov 
 Kav\rj<rop.ai (eav yap fteArjaco Kav^aacrpai . . . 
 e£ ip. ou) ei p.rj iv rats aadeveiais nai Trj vnepfioAjj 
 
 robv anoKaAv\f/e(ov. Ewald follows Lach- 
 mann's reading, but, not assuming any pa¬ 
 renthesis, attaches Kai T-fi vnepfi. tu>v anoKaA. 
 to p.y\ ns els ip-e AoyiarjTai k.t.A., and that ill 
 the sense : even by these abundant disclosures 
 led astray , if I should express myself,namely, 
 as to their contents. But apart from the con¬ 
 sideration that Paul would have expressed 
 such a sense too unintelligibly by the mere 
 dative and without more precise definition, 
 utterances regarding the contents of the 
 anoKaAvxf/eig, had lie made them, would have 
 fallen within the category of what is 
 denoted by y aKovei ri i£ ipov , and conse¬ 
 quently in so far the logical accuracy of py 
 tis eis ipe Aoy. k.t.A. would fail. 
 
680 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 sidered as a prefixed apposition, and ayyelog 2ar. as subject (Tertullian, and 
 probably also Chrysostom, see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 127). For it may be 
 urged against the former , that an inappropriate relation of meaning would 
 result from it ; and against the latter , which Hofmann has again preferred, 
 that there is no reason whatever for departing from the usual order of the 
 words, since even with it the Iva ye Kolati. applies to the angel of Satan. 
 The ordinary construction isto be retained as the simplest and most natural; 
 according to this, dyyeAof 2ar. appears as an appositional more precise defini¬ 
 tion of ciioXo'ip tt) caput : there was given to me a thorn for my flesh, an angel of 
 Satan.—edotiy] by whom ? The usual answer, given also by Ruckert, Olshausen 
 (“the educating grace of Cod”), Ewald, is : ~by God. See especially, Au¬ 
 gustine, de nat. et grat. 27 : “Neque enim diabolus agebat, ne magnitudine 
 revelationum Paulus extolleretur, et ut virtus ejus proficeretur, sed Deus.' 
 Ab illo igitur traditus erat justus colaphizandus angelo Satanae, qui per 
 eum tradebat et injustos ipsi Satanae.” Certainly Iva yrj vnEpaipoyat is the 
 purpose not of the devil, but of the divine will, without which the suffering 
 in question inflicted by the devil on the apostle could not affect him ; but 
 just because the latter has thought of the devil as the one from whom that 
 suffering proceeded, he must have conceived him also as the giver, because 
 otherwise his mode of representation would be self-contradictory. Doubt¬ 
 less Satan is only the mediate giver, 1 who thereby is to serve the divine final 
 aim Iva yy imatp. ; but the explanation, that Paul had wished to say (?) that 
 God had permitted (so also Chrysostom and Theophylact) Satan to torment 
 him (Billroth) is a quite arbitrary alteration of what Paul actually says. 
 His meaning is rather, and that expressed in an active form : Satan has 
 given to me a thorn for the flesh, in order to torment me with it—which 
 has the moral aim ordained in the divine counsel, that I should not vaunt 
 myself. — ckSTlotP] only here in the FT. T. It may mean stake, %vlov oflu, 
 Hesychius (Homer, II. viii. 843, xv. 1, xviii. 177 ; Herod, ix. 97 ; Xen. 
 Anab. v. 2. 5), but also thorn (Lucian, Merc. cond. 3 ; LXX. Hos. ii. 6 ; 
 Ezek. xxviii. 24 ; Xum. xxxiii. 55 ; Ecclus. xliii. 19, and Fritzsche in loc., 
 Dioscor. in Wetstein), as, indeed, it may also denote anything pointed, 
 splinters, ridges, etc. The Vulgate has stimulus. It is here commonly taken 
 as stake, many, like Luther, thinking of a penal stake. 2 Comp. cKoAoTrfw, 
 impale, avacrn’koTTfu, Herod, i. 128. But as the conception of a stake fixed 
 in his flesh has something exaggerated and out of keeping about it, and as 
 the figurative conception of a thorn pressed into the flesh with acute pain 
 might very naturally occur to him from the LXX. (Xum. xxxiii. 55 ; Ezek. 
 xxviii. 24), the latter signification is to be preferred. Comp. Artem. iii. 
 33 : amv&at ml cm’koTCEQ obvvac crjyatvovct Sea to o^v. — ry caput is most natu¬ 
 rally attached to ckoAotJj as an appropriating dative (comp. Castalio) : a thorn 
 for the flesh, which is destined to torment that sensuous part of my nature 
 which lusts to sin (in specie , to self-exaltation). Fritzsche, who, with 
 
 1 Comp. Hofmann: “an evil which he- 2 In the gloss: “It is a stake, where 
 falls him in accordance with God’s will, but people are impaled, or crucified, or 
 through the woi’king of a spiritual power hanged.” 
 opposed to God.” 
 
CHAP. XII., 7 . 
 
 681 
 
 Winer, Osiander, and Buttmann, takes ry caput as defining more precisely 
 tlie part of yoi (see as to the cxvya /cad’ olov nai yepog, more used by the poets, 
 Hagelsbach on the II. ii. 171, iii. 438 ; Reisig, ad Oed. Col. 266 ; Jacobs, 
 Delect. Epigr. p. 162, 509 ; Kiihner, II. p. 145), objects that r ?) caput seems 
 inappropriate, because it is inconceivable that a cuoloip should torment the 
 sohl, and not the body. But this objection would apply, in fact, to 
 Fritzsche’s own explanation, and cannot at all hold good, partly because it 
 is certainly possible to think figuratively of a cuoloty tormenting the soul (see 
 Artemid. l.c ., where, among the figurative references of anav&at, k. cko^ottec, 
 he also adduces : nal (ppovndag nal Tvinrag 6ta ro rpaxv), partly because capg 
 does not denote the body absolutely , or only according to its susceptibility 
 (Hofmann), but according to its sinful quality which is bound up with the cdpf 
 The objection, on the other hand, that salutary torment is not the business 
 of an angel of Satan (Hofmann), leaves out of consideration the divine tele¬ 
 ology in the case ; comp, on 1 Cor. v. 5 .—ayyeloQ Snrar] Paul considers 
 his evil, denoted by cuoTioip r. c. , as inflicted on him by Satan, the enemy of 
 the Messiah, as in the 1ST. T. generally the devil appears as the originator of 
 all wickedness and all evil, especially also of bodily evil (Hahn, Theol. d. 
 AT. T. I. p. 372 f. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 462). By the addition of dyye?iog 
 2ar. in apposition to cuoloip r. c. the cKoUmp is personified , and what is an 
 epyov of Satan appears now, under the apostle’s vivid, concrete mode of 
 view, an angel of Satan. The interpretation which takes the indeclinable 
 lardy, 1 occurring only here in the N. T. (see, however, LXX. 1 Kings xi. 
 14, 23, 25 ; Aq. Job i. 6), as the genitive , is the usual and right one. For 
 if hardy be taken as a nominative , it must either be a nomen proprium : the 
 angel Satan (Billroth), or it would have to be taken adjectivally : a hostile 
 angel (Cajetanus and others, including Flatt). But the latter is against the 
 standing usage of the N. T., into which TMKf has passed only as a nomen 
 proprium. Against the former no doubt Fritzsche’s reason is not decisive: 
 “sic neminem relinqui, qui ablegare Satanam potuerit” (comp. Riickert), 
 since Satan in his original nature was an angel, and might retain that ap¬ 
 pellation without the point of view of the sending coming further into con¬ 
 sideration ; nor can we, with Olshausen, urge the absence of the article, 
 since dyy. har. might have assumed the nature of a proper name ; but the 
 actual usage is against it, for Satan, so often as he occurs in the X. T., is 
 never named ayyeloq (Rev. ix. 11 is not to the point here, see Diisterdieck 
 in loc .), which was a very natural result of the altered position of the devif, 
 who, from being an ayyeloq before, had become the prince (Eph. ii. 2) of his 
 kingdom, and now had angels of his own (Matt. xxv. 41, comp. Barnab. 
 18). — "iva ye KoXafiCyl design of the giver in kdo'&y yoi k.t.1. : in order that 
 he may buffet me (Matt. xxvi. 67 ; 1 Cor. iv. 11 ; 1 Pet. ii. 20). The present 
 denotes the still subsisting continuance of the suffering. See Theophyl.: 
 ovx iva ciTra% ye noTiatytcy, aXT aet. Comp. Chrysostom. The subject is ayysloq 
 Zarar, as indeed often the continuation of the discourse attaches itself to 
 
 1 Varava, read by Lachmann and Riickert on the authority of A* B D* F G K* G7**, is 
 a correct interpretation. 
 
682 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 the apposition, not to the subject proper. See Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 143 f. 
 Fritzsche himself, indeed, regards anokoxp as the subject, 1 2 and assumes that 
 the vivid conception of the apostle has transferred to the subject what 
 properly belongs only to the apposition, to which view he had been moved 
 by the similar sound of ok6ao xp and Koka<pi^y, as well as by the personification 
 of onokoip. But how easily might he have found a word which would have 
 suited the conception of the personified anokoip, and would not have been 
 inappropriate to the apposition ayy. Ear. ! But in fact he has chosen a 
 word which does not suit crKokoip at all , and suits ayy. Ear. exclusively , and 
 hence we are not warranted in denying that the word belongs to ayy. Ear. 
 Besides, this connection is most naturally suggested by the relations of the 
 sense ; for only by iva /ue noWaty. does ayy. Ear. come to be a complete appo¬ 
 sition to GKoXo-ip r. a., inasmuch as the element of pain in the case expressed in 
 cmokoip r. a. is not yet implied in the mere ayy. Eardv, but is only added by 
 iva ye nokaty. — iva //?) virepatpcoyai] paedagogic aim of God’s guidance in this 
 Kokaffew. See above. The devil and his angels serve, against their inten¬ 
 tion, the intention of God. See Hahn, Theol. d. JSf. T. I. p. 382 f. In the 
 repetition of the same words there is expressed the deeply felt importance 
 of this telic destination. See Heindorf, ad Phaed. p. 51 IT. ; Matthiae, p. 
 1541. Comp, also Bornemann, Schol. in loc. p. xxxix.—Lastly, as con¬ 
 cerning the thing itself, which Paul denotes by caokoip r. o. /c.r.A., it was 
 certainly known by the Corinthians from their personal acquaintance with 
 Paul without any more precise indication ; to us at least any special indica¬ 
 tion has been denied. For a great host of attempts at explanation, some of 
 them very odd, see Poole’s Synopsis; Calovius, Bill. ill. p. 518 IT. ; Wolf, 
 Cur. The opinions are in the main of three hinds: (1) that Paul means 
 spiritual assaults of the devil (what are called injectiones Satanae ), who sug¬ 
 gested to him blasphemous thoughts (Gerson, Luther, Calovius), stings of 
 conscience over his earlier life (Luc. Osiander, Mosheim ; also Osiander, who 
 includes also a bodily suffering), and the like. The Catholics , however, to 
 w T hom such an exposition, favouring forms of monastic temptation, could 
 not but be w r elcome, thought usually of enticements of Satan (awakened, ac¬ 
 cording to Cardinal Hugo, by association with the beautiful Thecla !) 2 to 
 unchastity (Thomas, Lyra, Bellarmine, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, and 
 many others, and still Bisping), for which Augustine and Theophylact are 
 often wrongly quoted as vouchers. (2) That Paul means the temptations on 
 the part of his opponents 3 engaged in the service of Satan (xi. 13, 15), or the 
 temptations and troubles of his apostolic office in general (Theodoret, Pelagius, 
 Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and many others, including Fritzsche, Schrader, 
 Beiche, Comm. crit. p. 401). (3) That Paul means a very severe bodily 
 
 1 Comp. Augustine, Cone. 2 in Ps. lviii. : 
 “ Accepit apost. stimulum carnis, a quo cola- 
 phizaretur .” 
 
 2 See, regarding this mythical association, 
 the Acta Pauli et Theclae in Tischend. Act. 
 apocr. p. 40 ff. 
 
 3 So Chrysostom and others. Many 
 among these, because of the singular, think 
 
 specially of one pre-eminently hostile an¬ 
 tagonist. So, among the ancient expositors, 
 Oecumenius, and, among the modern, sev¬ 
 eral cited by Wolf, and also Sender and 
 Stolz. Chrysostom and Theophylact name, 
 by way of example, the smith Alexander, 
 Ilymenaeus, and Philetus. 
 
CHAP. XII., 7. 
 
 G83 
 
 suffering (Augustine and many others, including Delitzsch and Hofmann), 
 in connection with which conjecture has lighted on a variety of ailments, 
 such as hypochondriac melancholy (Bartholinus, Wedel, and others), 'pain in 
 the head (riveg already in Chrysostom, Theophylact, Pelagius, Oecumenius, 
 and Jerome, ad Gal. iv. 14, mention it ; so also Teller), haemorrhoids (Ber- 
 tholdt), “falling sickness or something similar 1 (Ewald, Hofmann), epileptic 
 attacks of cramp (Ziegler, Holsten), and several others. —Against No. 1 we 
 cannot urge ry capai, since the devil’s influence would have, in operating on 
 the moral consciousness, to start certainly from the cap%, where the prin¬ 
 ciple of sin has its seat (Rom. vii.), but we may urge cKo'hoip and iva ye Ko%a<j>., 
 figurative expressions which evidently portray an acute and severe pain. 
 Besides, under such a constant spiritual influence of the devil, Paul would 
 not appear in a manner in keeping with his nature wholly filled by Christ 
 (see especially, Gal. ii. 20), and with his pneumatic heroism. Enticements 
 to unchastity are not even to be remotely thought of on account of 1 Cor. 
 vii. 7 ; it would be an outrage on the great apostle. Against No. 2 it is to 
 be remarked that here a suffering quite peculiar must be meant, as a counter¬ 
 poise to the quite peculiar distinction which had accrued to him by the 
 vTrepj3o?i7/ T(bv cnroK.aXv'ipeov. Besides, adversaries and official troubles belonged 
 necessarily to his calling (see especially, iv. 7 ff., vi. 4 ff.), as, indeed, he 
 had these in common with all true preachers of Christ, and knew how to 
 find an honour in them (comp. Gal. vi. 17) ; hence he would certainly not 
 have besought the taking away of these sufferings, ver. 8. It is believed, no 
 doubt, that this explanation may be shown to suit the context by ver. 9 
 compared with ver. 10 (see especially, Fritzsche, p. 152 f.), but acrdiveia in 
 vv. 9 and 10 expresses only the category , to which also that special suffering 
 belonged. Accordingly No. 3 remains at all events as the most probable, 
 namely, the hypothesis that Paul lore in his person some kind of painful, 
 chronic bodily evil, which seemed to him as inflicted by Satan. 1 Only this 
 evil cannot at all be specified more precisely than that it made itself felt in 
 its paroxysms by shocks of pain, which might be compared to blows ; but 
 in what part of the body it had its seat (possibly proceeding from the head) 
 cannot with certainty be inferred from nolaffeiv, since this word, like the 
 more correct Greek k. ovdvX'feiv, denotes buffeting with the fist. More spe¬ 
 cific conjectures are mere fancies, are liable to be enlisted in the service of 
 tendency-criticism (Holsten, who attaches to this suffering the disposition to 
 visionary conditions), and come to some extent into sharp collision with 
 the fact of the apostle’s extraordinary activity and perseverance amid bodily 
 hardships. The hypothesis of a bodily suffering, with the renunciation of 
 any attempt to specify it more precisely, is rightly adhered to, after older 
 expositors, by Emmerling, Olshausen, Riickert, de Wette, Beyschlag, et al. 
 
 1 In this respect, too, we find a parallel in 
 the history and mode of view of Luther, 
 who, as is well known, suffered from vio¬ 
 lent attacks of stone (which visited him with 
 especial severity on the Convention at 
 Schmalkald), and likewise ascribed this 
 suffering to the devil as its author.—Chrys¬ 
 
 ostom exclaims against the view of a 
 
 bodily evil Oce<£a.AaA-yi<x): fir) ■yeVoiTO 1 ov yap av 
 to cru>p.a too TlavXov rats too 5ia/36Aou x e P a ' LV 
 e£e869ri, onov ye aiiTOs 6 Sia/SoAo? euLTaypaTL 
 p.6vov elnev avTu naoAa>. An argument nimi- 
 um probans! 
 
G84 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 (though Riickert here also appeals to the alleged traces of sickness in our 
 Epistles, such as 1 Cor. ii. 2, 2 Cor. iv. 12, as well as to Gal. iv. 13-15) ; 
 while others , as Neander and Billroth, content themselves with an utter 
 non liquet , although the former is inclined to think of inward temptations. 1 
 
 Yv. 8, 9. 'T7r ep tovtov ] in reference to whom , namely, to this angel of Satan. 
 That tovtov is masculine (comp. ver. 3), not neuter (Yulgate, Luther, Flatt, 
 Osiander, and others), is evident from the fact that iva aTroory an’ egcv follows 
 without any other subject. On the latter, comp. Luke iv. 13 ; Acts v. 38, 
 xxii. 29. — rpig] is taken since Chrysostom’s time by many as equivalent to 
 TTollcuag ; but quite arbitrarily, and not at all in keeping with the small 
 number ! No ; Paul relates historically ', as it really happened, leaving it 
 withal undetermined what intervals had elapsed between these invocations. 
 At his first and second appeal to the Lord no answer was made ; but wdien 
 he had made a third appeal, the answer came. And that he thereujion did 
 not entreat again, was understood of itself from his faithful devotion to Him, 
 whose utterance he had now received. According to Billroth, rpig is 
 intended to intimate a thrice-repeated succumbing to that pain, a thrice- 
 repeated utter dejection, wdiich, however, is sheer fancy. — tov nvpiov ] not 
 God (Calvin, Neander, and others), but Christ (see ver. 9), who is, in fact, 
 the heavenly advancer of His kingdom and mighty vanquisher of Satan. 2 — 
 dprjKE got] The perfect , w T hich Riickert finds surprising, is what is quite com¬ 
 monly used of the continued subsistence of what has been done : he has 
 spoken , and I have now this utterance abidingly valid, (b 7 ) Accordingly the 
 evil itself is to be regarded as still adhering to the apostle. How he received 
 the answer, the xf> r d LaTLa l LL °g (Matt. ii. 12 ; Luke ii. 6 ; Acts x. 22), from 
 Christ (by some kind of inward speaking, or by means of a vision, as 
 Holsten holds), is entirely unknown to us. —apKd coi rj x&pig gov ) there suffices 
 for thee my grace , more thou needest not from me than that I am gracious to 
 thee. In this is implied the ref usal of the prayer, but at the same time what 
 a comforting affirmation ! 11 Gratia esse potest, etiam ubi maximus doloris 
 
 sensus est, ” Bengel. Riickert (comp. Grotius) takes xffi'P quite generally as 
 good-will; but the good-will of the exalted Christ is, in fact, always grace 
 (comp. xiii. 13 ; Acts xv. 11 ; Rom. v. 15), and made itself known espe¬ 
 cially in the apostle's consciousness as grace, 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9, and often. A 
 special gift of grace, however (Chrysostom : the gift of miracles), is arbitra¬ 
 rily imported. —rj yap Svvagig gov /c.r.il.] for my strength is in weakness per¬ 
 fected. The emphasis lies on dvvautg : 11 Thou hast enough in my grace ; 
 for I am not weak and powerless, when there is suffering weakness on the 
 part of the man to whom I am gracious, but exactly under these circum¬ 
 stances are my power and strength brought to perfection, i.e. effective in full 
 measure.” Then, namely, the divine Svvagig of Christ has unhindered scope, 
 not disturbed or limited by any admixture of selfish striving and working. 
 
 1 The most strange interpretation of the 
 passage is given by Redslob in the Progr. 
 d. Hamb. Gymnas. 1860, who goes so far as 
 to make out of it a jesting designation of 
 Sdvanus Ezek. xxviii. 24)! 
 
 2 The invocation of Christ has reference 
 also here to the intercessory work of the 
 Loi-d. Comp, on Rom. x. 12 ; Rich. Schmidt, 
 Paul. Christol. p. 127 f. 
 
CHAP. XII., 10. 
 
 685 
 
 The relation is similar in 1 Cor. ii. 4 f. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 7. With the read¬ 
 ing without fj.ov (see the critical remarks), which Hofmann too prefers, there 
 would result the quite general proposition : “for power there attains to its 
 full efficacy, where weakness serves it as the means of its self-exertion” (as 
 Hofmann puts it)—a proposition, which is only true when the duva/ucg is dif¬ 
 ferent from the ability of the weak subject, and can work with all the less 
 hindrance amidst the powerlessness of the latter. Hence, for the truth of the 
 proposition and in keeping with the context (comp. ver. 9), the specification 
 of the subject for?) tivvayug cannot at all be dispensed with. — r/fiicra ovvyaXAov 
 Kavxyaoyat /c.r.A.] t*he altered tone proceeding from that answer of Christ. 
 Grotius 1 and others, including Emmerling, join yalhov with ydiara, although 
 fxalAov is used to heighten the comparative , but not the superlative (see on vii. 
 13). Estius (comp, previously, Erasmus) finds in yallXov : “ magis ac potius’, 
 quam in ulla alia re, qua videar excellere Bengel and Billroth : rj ev raig 
 anoKdXvijjEciv ; Riickert : more than of what I can (my talents and perform¬ 
 ances) ; comp, also Ewald. But against all this is the consideration that 
 Paul must have written : yaXkov ev ralq aa^EVEiacg yov navxyaoyai. As the text 
 stands, /laklov belongs necessarily to navxyaoyai (comp. vii. 7), not to its 
 object. And the reference of yaXAov is furnished by the context. Previously, 
 namely, Paul had stated how he had prayed the Lord to take away his suf¬ 
 fering. Now, however, after mentioning the answer received, he says : 
 Yfith the utmost willingness ( maxima cum voluptate, comp. ver. 15) there¬ 
 fore will I, encouraged by the word of the Lord which I have, only all the 
 more (comp, on vii. 7) glory in my weaknesses ; all the more boldly will I now 
 triump>h in my states of suffering, which exhibit me in my weakness ; comp. 
 Rom. v. 3, viii. 35 ff. More than would have been otherwise the case, is the 
 courage of the Kavxaodai ev raig a<rdevdaiq increased in him by that utterance 
 of the Lord, (c 7 )—iva £7rnjK.7]v<v<7i] k.t. H.] Aim of the yaAhov navxycoyai k.t.a. 
 And the Lord’s answer itself has, in fact, placed this goal before his eyes, and 
 assured him of his reaching it. The bv' eye is conceived of as : may take its 
 abode on me, i.e. may come down before me and unite itself with me for abid¬ 
 ing-protection, comfort, strengthening, etc. 2 The choice of the word etelcktjv. 
 leads us to conclude that he has conceived of the case as analogous to the 
 Shechinah (comp, on John i. 14, xiv. 23). The direction from above down¬ 
 ward is not withal implied in ekl by itself, which rather indicates direction 
 in general (comp. Polyb. iv. 18. 8 : bnaKrjvovv bri rag oi/dag, to go into 
 quarters in the houses), but is given in the context. Comp. Ps. civ. 12. (c 7 ) 
 Yer. 10. A to] because, namely, in such circumstances with such a mood the 
 power of Christ joins itself with me. — evSoku ev do-den.] I take pleasure in 
 weaknesses , bear them with inward assent and willingly, when they befall me. 
 Comp. vii. 4. “ Contumax enim adversus tormenta fides,” Tacitus, Hist. 
 
 i. 3 ; Seneca, de prov. iv. 4. dad. are here, as in the whole context, situ¬ 
 ations of human powerlessness, brought about by allotted experiences of 
 
 1 Grotius and Emmerling expressly, but 
 many others, as also Flatt and Olshausen, 
 tacitly, by leaving ju.aAA.ov untranslated. 
 
 2 That is the holy €v5uva/AoOa0ai by means 
 
 Of Christ to the ttrxveiv wavra (Phil. iv. 13) 
 in its forms of ever-renewed heightening 
 and exaltation (Phil. iv. 16). Comp. 2 Cor. 
 vi. 4 ff.; Rom. viii. 37 ff. 
 
GS6 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corixthians. 
 
 $ 
 
 suffering. Afterwards four, partly more, partly less, special kinds of such 
 situations are adduced. Rtickert, quite at variance with the context, under¬ 
 stands diseases to be meant. — kvifipeaiv] passive : incases of arrogant treatment, 
 which I experience. On the plural, comp. Plato, Legg. i. p. 627 A ; Dem. 
 522. 13 ; Ecclus. x. 8. They bring into necessities (avay/c .); and persecutions 
 drive into straitened ‘positions {gtevox.),ovlX of which no issue is apparent (comp, 
 on iv. 8). — virep Xpiarov ] belongs neither to all five elements (so usuall} 7 ), 
 nor simply to the last four points (Hofmann) but to evdosu : for Christ's 
 sake, because by such sufferings His honour and His work are promoted. 
 That Paul meant sufferings for Christ , was, indeed, self-evident. But he 
 wishes to assign the specific motive for his evdosu. — tote dvvardg eI/lu ] inwardly 
 through Christ’s power. See vv. 8, 9. tote, then, is emphatic, here with the 
 feeling of victoriousness. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54 ; Col. iii. 4 ; Horn. II. xi. 
 191 f., 206 f.; Plato, Phil. p. 17 D, Conv. p. 192 B. On the idea, comp, 
 the expression of Moses in Philo, Vit. M. 1, p. 613 B : to ckt&eve g vyav diva- 
 fig EGTIV. 
 
 Ycr. 11. Paul now comes to a stand, and surveys how much he has said 
 in commendation of himself from chap. xi. onward. This retrospect ex¬ 
 torts from him the admission: yeyova cappuv, but as respects its contents he 
 at once proceeds to justify himself, and to impute the blame to the readers. 
 It is not to be taken either as a question or in the sense of a hypothetical pro¬ 
 tasis (Hofmann gives a choice between the two). The vyelg k.t.1., asyn¬ 
 detic, but all the more striking, gives no ground for such a weakening of 
 the meaning. — yeyova cuppcov] ironical exclamation ; for it is clear from xi. 
 16, xii. 6, that Paul did not really regard his apologetic Kav^da^ac hitherto 
 as a work of folly. But the opponents took it so ! In the emphatically 
 prefixed yeyova (comp. v. 17) there is implied : it has come to pass that I am 
 a fool! This now subsists as accomplished fact! “ Receptui canit,” 
 Bengel. —vyelg ye yvaysacaTE' eyh yap /c.r.A.] This justifies him and blames 
 the Corinthians for that yeyova adp. The emphatic vyelg, and afterwards the 
 eyu, the emphasis of which Rtickert failed to perceive, correspond to each 
 other significantly : you have compelled me ; for I had a claim to be com¬ 
 mended by you, instead of commending myself. The stress is on if vyuv, 
 next to the eyu, in which there is a side-glance at the pseudo-apostles, 
 boastful themselves, and boasted of by their partisans. — ovdev yap vorepnaa 
 k.tI l.] Reason assigned for eyk iodEhov. See, moreover, on xi. 5. The 
 aorist refers to the time of his working at Corinth. The negative form 
 of expression is a pointed litotes. — el sal ovdev elyi] although I am quite 
 without value and without importance. The same humility as in 1 Cor. 
 xv. 8-10. But how fraught with shame for the opposing party, with 
 w r hich those false apostles were of so great account ! And in this w T ay 
 the significant weight of this closing concessive clause is stronger and 
 more telling than if it were attached as protasis to what follows (Hofmann). 
 It is more striking. — In regard to ovdev eivai, see on 1 Cor. xiii. 2 ; Gal. 
 vi. 3. 
 
 Yer. 12. Proof of the previous ovdev varepijaa tuv vtt epA. a-noor : The signs, 
 indeed (yet without producing among you the due recognition) of the apostle 
 
CIIAP. XII., 13. 
 
 G87 
 
 were wrought among you. The pfa solitarium leaves it to the reader to supply 
 for himself the corresponding contrast, so that it may be translated by our 
 truly, indeed. See especially, Baeumlein, Partite. p. 163 ; Maetzner, ad An- 
 tiph. p. 153 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anah. i. 2. 1. The contrast to be supplied 
 here is put beyond doubt by the idea of the orjytia which is placed emphat¬ 
 ically and significantly at the head ; hence we must reject what Billroth 
 (followed by Olshausen) supplies ; but even otherwise you can maJce no com¬ 
 plaint about anything. — ra orjyela tov clttogt. is that which divinely evinces the 
 apostle to be such, that by which one discerns the apostle. '0 awdorolog with 
 the article does not denote the ideal of an apostle (Billroth), which would be at 
 variance with his humility, but the apostle in abstracto. Bengel says aptly : 
 “ ejus, qui sit apostolus.” — Karecpyaadp hv v/luv\ namely, which I was with 
 you. The /, however, retreats modestly behind the passive expression. 
 The compound u perficere notat maxime rem arduam factuque difficilem,” 
 Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 107. —h irday viroyovy] the manner of the itamp- 
 yacr&T] h vplv, strengthening the force of the proof : in all manner of perse¬ 
 verance , so that amidst adverse and painful circumstances there was perse¬ 
 verance with all possible stcdfastness in fully exhibiting these signs of an 
 apostle. The view followed by many older expositors since Chrysostom : 
 U primum signum nominat patientiam,” is erroneous, since the vv:ogovi] is 
 not a specifically apostolic ar/pelov . 1 — apysioig k. repaai kclI Svvapem] whereby 
 those signs of an apostle were accomplished, so that apyeioig is here meant 
 in a narrower sense {miraculous signs) than the previous ra crjnela. The 
 three words in emphatic accumulation denote the same thing under the two 
 different relations of its miraculous significance {cryi. it. rep.) and of its nature 
 (Svv. deeds of power, 1 Cor. xii. 10). Comp. 2 Thess. ii. 9 ; Heb. ii. 4 ; 
 Acts ii. 22. The notions of crjyela and repara are equivalent. See on Rom. 
 xv. 19.—Paul therefore wrought miracles also in Corinth, and wrought 
 them as credentials of his apostleship (Heb. ii. 4). Comp. Rom. xv. 19 ; 
 Acts xv. 12. —On the accumulation of terms, comp. Cic. Tusc. ii. 40. 26 : 
 ‘ ‘ His ego pluribus nominibus unam rem declarari volo, sed utor, ut quam 
 maxime significem, pluribus.” Comp, also Cic. de Fin. iii. 4. 14 ; Nat. D. 
 ii. 7. 18. — How at variance with our passage is the historical criticism, 
 which lays dowm d priori the negation of miracles ! (d 7 ) 
 
 Yer. 13. T 1 yap eanv . . . vnuv] Bitterly ironical justification of what was 
 said in ver. 12. For ichat is there , in which you were placed at a disadvantage 
 towards the other churches (in which I wrought), except , etc. ? that is to say : 
 for in nothing have you come behind, as compared with the other churches, 
 except, etc. Quite arbitrarily Grotius limits this question, which embraces 
 the whole blissful apostolic working, to the communication of gifts by the lay¬ 
 ing on of hands. — vreep] means nothing else than beyond , but in the direction 
 downward (reference to the minus ) which r/rr^^re specifies. Comp. Winer, 
 p. 376 [E. T. 502]. Riickert, overlooking the comparative sense of -r/rrifirjre, 
 says : there is here an ironical confession that all churches had disadvantage 
 
 1 An appeal should not have been made to vi. 4, where in fact there stands the wider 
 conception 0eov Siolkovol. 
 
C88 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the coeixtiiiaxs. 
 
 from Paul, and it is only denied that the disadvantage of the Corinthian 
 was greater than that of the other churches. This would not suit at all as 
 assigning a reason for ver. 12. In assigning a reason, Paul could not but say: 
 ye have in nothing come off worse ; but to say, for your disadvantage has not 
 been greater , would, with all its irony, be inappropriate. On the accusative 
 of more precise definition with i)rrr/-&rjre, comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 5 : a i/rruro. 
 The more usual construction is w or kv u>. — el yj bn k.t.X.] In this exception 
 (“specie exceptionis firmat quod dicit,” Grotius) lies the painful bitterness 
 of the passage, which in the request that follows x a P' u "made k.t.X. becomes 
 still sharper. It is the love, deeply hurt in its pure consciousness, that 
 speaks. —avrog iy<b] I myself ; this places his own person over against the 
 apostolic services indicated in n . . . grry-dpre. Comp, in general on Rom. ix. 
 3. Riickert (so also Bengel) holds that Paul has already had in his mind 
 what he subjoins in vv. 16-18. Such an arbitrary prolepsis of the reference 
 is the more untenable, seeing that with vv. 14, 15 another train of ideas in¬ 
 tervenes. •— ov KaTevapKrjca vyav] See on xi. 8. Only by the fact that he has 
 not been burdensome to them in accepting payment and the like, has Paul as¬ 
 serted himself as an apostle less among them than among the other churches ! 
 Por this injustice they are to pardon him ! 
 
 Yer. 14. After that cutting irony comes the language of paternal earnest¬ 
 ness, inasmuch as Paul once more (comp. xi. 9-12) assures them that even on 
 his impending third arrival among them he will remain true to his principle 
 of not burdening them, and explains why he will do so. — Ibov] vivid realiz¬ 
 ing of the position in the changing play of emotion. — rpirov ] emphatically 
 prefixed, belongs to ehtieiv tz pog vyag (comp. xiii. 1), not to eroiyug as 
 Beza, Grotius, Estius, Emmerling, Flatt, and others, also Baur (in the 
 Theol. Jahrb. 1850, 2, p. 139 ff.), Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 200 f.,,would 
 have it, 1 since, according to the context, it was not on his third readiness to 
 come that anything depended, but on the third arrival , for only as having 
 arrived could he be burdensome to the readers. Comp, the Introd., and 
 see Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 614 ff.; Neander, I. p. 414 ; Anger, 
 Rat. temp. p. 71 ; Wieseler, Ghronol. d. ap. Zeitalt. p. 233. Chrysostom 
 aptly says : nal bevrepov rzapeyevoyyv teal rpirov rovro TrapeonevaoyaL eAdeZr, nal ov 
 naravapidjou v/icjv. — ov yap iyrb) n.r./ 1 . ] for my endeavour is not directed to yours , 
 but to you ; you yourselves (your ipvxai, ver. 15)—namely, that I may win 
 you for the salvation in Christ (Matt, xviii. 15 ; 1 Cor. ix. 19)—are the aim 
 of my striving. “ Dictum vere apostolicum,” Grotius. Comp. Cic. de Fin. 
 ii. 26 : “Meigitur ipsum ames oportet, non mea, si veri amici futuri su- 
 mus.” Comp, also Phil. iv. 17. —ov yap ocpeiXei /c.r.A] Confirmation of the 
 principle previously expressed, from a rule of the natural rightful relations 
 between parents and children ; for Paul was indeed the spiritual father of 
 the Corinthians (1 Cor. iv. 15). The negative part of this confirmation cor¬ 
 responds to ov Zpru ra vyuv, and the positive to the vyag ; for, while Paul 
 G?reZ avrovg (not ra avruv ), he is the father, who gathers for his children 
 treasures, namely, the blessings of the Messianic kingdom. — ol yovelg ] sc. 
 
 1 See also Marcker, Stellung d. Pastoralbr., Meiningen 1861, p. 13 f. 
 
CHAP. XII., 15-18. 
 
 689 
 
 b<pe'i?iovGL -Q'rjaavpt^eLVy not as Beza holds : '&?]oavpi£ovcn ; for otyei^ei is not im¬ 
 personal. That by the first half of the verse, moreover, the duty of children 
 in love to support and provide for their parents is not excluded, is clear from 
 the very -dr/oavpitieiv, and is just as obvious of itself as that in the second part 
 the -&T/Gavp'feiv is not to be urged as a duty of parents (1 Tim. v. 8), but 
 always has merely its relative obligation, subordinate to the higher spiritual 
 care (Matt. vi. 33, vv. 19-21 ; Eph. vi. 4 ; Mark viii. 36). 
 
 Ver. 15. Paul applies what was said generally in ver. 14 : ov yap btyeihei 
 k. r. A. to himself (eye), I on my part: I, however , will very willingly spend and 
 he spent for the good of your souls , in order, namely, to prepare them for the 
 salvation of eternal life (Heb. x. 39, xiii. 17 ; 1 Pet. i. 9 ; Jas. i. 21). 
 Theodoret rightly says : kycj di; tuv Qvgei rrarepcov /cat tzTieov tl ttole'lv z'KayykXkoyai. 
 — For examples of Sarravav (be strengthens, Polyb. xxv. 8. 4, xxi. 8. 9, xvii. 
 11. 10) used of the life, see Kypke, II. p. 272. On the subject-matter, comp. 
 Horace, Od. i. 12. 38 f.: “ animaequemagnae prodigum Paullum.” — e'nrepia- 
 got. vyag ayawuv r/rrov ayanbyat^ el does not stand for si ieai (which is read by 
 Elzevir and Tischendorf), for which Riickert takes it, but is the simple if 
 and that not even in the sense of inei or on, as it is used “ ne quid confiden- 
 tius, directius affirmetur” (Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 195), but, as is here 
 most in keeping with tender delicacy in the expression of a harsh thought, 
 in the purely hypothetical sense : if which I leave undecided, etc. In 
 view of the possible case , that he finds the less love among his readers, the 
 more he loves them (this is implied in the mutual reference of the two com¬ 
 paratives, see Matthiae, § 455, Rem. 7), 1 the apostle will most gladly sacrifice 
 his own (what he has from others, or even by his own work) and himself 
 (comp. Rom. ix. 3 ; Phil. ii. 17) for their souls, in order that thus he may 
 do his utmost to overcome this supposed—and possibly existing—dispropor¬ 
 tion between his loving and being loved by stimulating and increasing the 
 latter (Rom. xii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 4-7). Hofmann, not observing the clever 
 turn of the hypothetical expression of the thought, without reason finds this 
 view absurd, and with sufficient crudeness and clumsiness takes el to ayawb- 
 yai as an independent question, to which Paul himself makes answer with 
 egtu Se (in the sense : he it so withal, I will let it rest there). To this inter¬ 
 rogative view Hofmann ought all the less to have resorted, seeing that in¬ 
 terrogation in such an indirect form (Winer, p. 474 [E. T. 639], and see on 
 Matt. xii. 10 ; Luke xiii. 23) is wholly without example in Paul, often as he 
 has had an opportunity for using it. It is found often in Luke, more rarely 
 in Matthew and Mark. Except in the writings of these three, the N. T. does 
 not present that independent use of the indirectly interrogative el. 
 
 Yv. 16-18. Refutation of the possible slander, which assuredly was also 
 actually ventured on the part of his adversaries, that, if he had not himself 
 directly burdened the Corinthians, he had still done so in a cunning way 
 indirectly by means of his emissaries.—In ver. 16 Paul does not, indeed, 
 speak in the person of his opponents, for otherwise, instead of kyb, he must 
 
 1 In opposition to Hofmann, who, not two comparatives, supplies with nepiaa -.: 
 
 attending to the correspondence of the than others , and with r\TJov : than by others. 
 
C90 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 have expressed himself in the third person ; but he clothes his speech in 
 the words of his adversaries. 1 (e 7 ) — euro Si'] concessive : but be it so , it may, 
 however, be the case that I have not oppressed you. Comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 
 516 C, al. (Kruger, § 54, 4. 2) ; also the elev, very common in classical writers, 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Euthyph. p. 13 D ; Reisig, ad Qed. Col. 1303, and for 
 the similar use of the Latin esto, sit ita sane , Cicero, Tusc. i. 43. 102 ; De 
 Fin. iv. 45. — b/d] my own person. —hlTJ inrapxtov k.t.A] no longer depends 
 on ecru Si, but is the contrast—to be read as an exclamation—of ecru Si, 
 eycj ov nartfiap. vya<; : but cunningly I , etc. — So?m] This would have been the 
 case, if he had made plunder of them indirectly by a third hand. — ilciflov] 
 caught, figure taken from hunting. See on xi. 20. Comp, on SoTup lapfiav. 
 Soph. Phil. 101, 107, 1266. —Vv. 17 and 18 now show in lively questions, 
 appealing to the reader’s own experience, how untrue that aXP inrapxcjv . . . 
 eAaftov was. Have I then overreached you by one of those whom I sent to you ? 
 namely, by claims for money, and the like. The construction is anacoluthic, 
 inasmuch as Paul, for emphasis, prefixes absolutely the riva uv aniarafKa 
 7r pbg vpaq as the object of what he wishes to say, and then subjoins the further 
 statement independently of it, so that the accusative remains the more em¬ 
 phatically pendent —a usage found also in classical writers. See Bernhardy, 
 p. 133. — ov] tovtcjv ovg. Comp. Rom. xv. 18. — In ver. 18 he now mentions, 
 by way of example, Titus , whom he had encouraged to travel to Corinth, 
 and his fellow-envoy, and he asks, significantly repeating hzlcoviKr. and pre¬ 
 fixing it : Has Titus overreached you f This journey of Titus to Corinth is not, 
 as is otherwise usually supposed, the one mentioned in chap, viii., which 
 had yet to be made, and in which Titus had two companions (viii. 18, 22), 
 but the one made soon after our first Epistle, and mentioned in chap. vii. 
 The fact that Titus only is here mentioned, and not also Timothy (1 Cor. iv. 
 17, xvi. 10), is made use of to support the opinion that Timothy had not 
 come to Corinth at all (see the Introd.). Comp. Ruck. pp. 380, 409. But 
 how groundlessly ! From the long and close connection of the apostle with 
 the Corinthians it may be even d priori concluded, that he had sent vari¬ 
 ous persons to Corinth beside Titus ; and he himself testifies this by the 
 plural dv cnriaraTiKa. But here he names only Titus instar omnium as the one 
 last sent. Besides, it would not have been even proper to say : I have sent 
 Timothy to you, since Timothy, in fact, was joint-sender of the letter (i. 1). 
 — tov aSetyov] the brother (fellow-Christian) well known to them (but unknowm 
 to us). 2 That in that mission he was quite subordinate to Titus is clear from 
 cwaTvioT., and from the fact that in what follows the conduct of Titus alone 
 is spoken of. — tQ> avru> 7 rvevp.] with the same Spirit , namely, with the Holy 
 Spirit determining our walk and excluding all nHovepia. The dative is that 
 of manner to the question how ? Comp. Acts ix. 31, xxi. 21 ; Rom. xiii. 13. 
 It may, however, also be just as fitly taken as dative of the norm (Gal. v. 16, 
 
 1 Let us conceive that they had asserted 
 regarding Paul : ccttco Se • avro? ov najefidpricTev 
 vp.d<; k.t.\. This Paul makes use of, inas¬ 
 much as he, entering into their meaning, 
 says of himself, wtmithey have said of him— a, 
 
 mimesis, which is almost a parody. 
 
 2 According to Wieseler, Chronol. p. 349, 
 it was Tychicus, as also at viii. 22. This 
 rests on a combination drawn from Titus 
 iii. 12. 
 
chap, xii., 19. 
 
 691 
 
 vi. 16). We cannot decide the point. If the inward agreement is denoted 
 by rti avTfi nvevy., the likeness of outward procedure is expressed by mlg 
 avrolg l^veai (comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 276 D : ru ravrov ixvog yeridvn ). But 
 here the dative is local , as in Acts xiv. 16 ; Jude 11 (comp. Fritzsche, ad 
 Rom. I. p. 225 f.). So Pind. Pyth. x. 20 : eyj3ef3aKev ixveaiv narpbg, comp, 
 with Nem. vi. 27 : ixvecnv ev Ttpa^AayavTog eov rroda veyuv. Whose are the 
 footsteps, in which the two walked ? The footsteps of Paul in which Titus 
 followed his predecessor (comp. Lucian, Herm. 73), so that they thereby 
 became the same , in which both walked — said with reference to the unself¬ 
 ishness maintained by both. The context does not yield any reference to 
 Christ (1 Pet. ii. 21). 
 
 Yer. 19. His vindication itself is now concluded. But in order that he 
 may not appear, by thus answering for himself, to install the readers as 
 judges over him, he further guards his apostolic dignity against this risk. 
 Carrying them in medium rem. , he says : For long you have been thinking 
 that we are answering for ourselves to you ! Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 3. Correction 
 of this opinion : Before God ire speak in Christ; it is God in presence of 
 whom (as Judge) we speak in Christ’s fellowship (as the element in which 
 we subsist and live), ev X. gives to \akovyev its definite Christian character 
 (which, with Paul, was at the same time the apostolic one). Comp. ii. 17. 
 But, that he may not suppress the proper relation of his apology to the 
 readers , he adds lovingly : but the whole, beloved , (we speak) for your edifica¬ 
 tion, for the perfecting of your Christian life. —nalac done ire bn vyiv cnroiioy. ] 
 After adopting the reading i-ahai (see the critical remarks) this sentence is 
 no longer to be taken interrogatively, because otherwise an unsuitable empha¬ 
 sis would be laid on nalcu. Lachmann, Tischenclorf, and Biickert have also 
 deleted the mark of interrogation, irdlat means nothing else than for a long 
 time , in which, however, the past to be thought of may be very short accord¬ 
 ing to the relative nature of the notion of time, as e.g. ITom. Od. xx. 293 
 f. : yolpav [iev b?) %elvog ex eL irahaL, ug hreoiKev, larjv, Plat. Gorg. p. 456 A ; 
 Phaed. p. 63 D, al.; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 18 B ; Xen. Anab. iv. 
 8. 14, iv. 5. 5 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 481. So also the Latin dudnm , 
 jamdudum. Here the meaning is, that the readers are already for long, dur¬ 
 ing the continuation of this apology , remaining of opinion, etc. As respects 
 the connection with the present, see further, Plato, Phacdr. p. 273 C ; Xen. 
 Anab. vii. 6. 37. There exists no reason for attaching wahai to ver. 18 (Hof¬ 
 mann, then taking Soaelre interrogatively), and it would, sta®ding after Ixveai, 
 come in after a tame and dragging fashion, while it would have had its fit¬ 
 ting position between oi> and rw avry. — vyiv] Dative of destination. Comp. 
 Acts xix. 33 ; Plato, Protag. p. 359 D ; Pol. x. p. 607 B. Vobis, i.e. vobis 
 judicibus, has here the chief emphasis, which Riickert has aptly vindicated. 
 The earlier expositors, not recognizing this, have accordingly not hit on the 
 purpose and meaning of the passage ; as still Billroth : ‘‘It might seem 
 that he washed to recommend himself’’ (comp. iii. 1, v. 12). To this his 
 answer is : “I speak before God in Christ, i.e. my sentiments in what I say 
 are not selfish, but upright and pure.” Comp. Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza, 
 Calvin, Grotius. — Karevavn tov iteov ev Xp. 2,aT^ovyev] to be taken togeth- 
 
G92 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the corinthiahs. 
 
 er, 1 as in ii. 17.— ra de tt avra\ sc. hahovpev. Grotius and others, including 
 Griesbach, Scholz, Olshausen, and Ewald, read rade as one word, and con¬ 
 nect it with the previous hahovpev. But for what end ? The mode of ex¬ 
 pression in the usual way of writing it is quite Pauline, and makes the im¬ 
 portant thought more emphatically prominent ; ode never occurs with Paul, 
 and the reference of rads to what goes before would at least not be in ac¬ 
 cordance with the common usage (comp, on Luke x. 39). (f 7 ) 
 
 Ver. 20 f. 2 Subjective justification of what was just said, mrep rfjg vpuv 
 OLK.o6ofj.fjQ. For I fear to find you on my arrival such as have very great need 
 of oiKo6ojU7j. — The sharp lesson which he now gives his readers down to xiii. 
 10, although introducing it not without tenderness to their feelings po/3ovpai, 
 and then the negative form of expression), could not but wholly cancel the 
 thought : ijfjiv aTvoloyelrai , and make them feel his apostolic position afresh 
 in all its ascendancy. It is in this way that the victor speaks who has recon¬ 
 quered his domain, and this language at the end of the letter completes the 
 mastery shown in its well-calculated arrangement. —Kciyh evpe'&u vpiv k.t.X.\ 
 and that I shall he found such an one as you do not wish , namely, as rigopog kcll 
 KolaoTijQ , Theophylact ; 1 Cor. iv. 21. The negation attaches itself to oiovg 
 in the first clause, but in this second to hehere, by which there is produced 
 a climax in the expression.— vfiv\ Reference of eypedu : for you, to your 
 judgment based on experience. Comp. Rom. vii. 10 ; 2 Pet. iii. 14. This is 
 more delicate and expressive than the meaning of the common interpretation : 
 by you (dative with the passive), Rom. x. 20. —What follows is not, with 
 Riickert, to be regarded as if pfjTrog down to aKaraaraaiaL were a more pre¬ 
 cise explanation regarding the condition of the Corinthians (consequently re¬ 
 garding that fj-rjTTLDg iTidibv ovx oiovg dihco evpo vpdg), and, ver. 21, a more pre¬ 
 cise explanation regarding the apostle's duty to punish (consequently regard¬ 
 ing that Kayd . . . dehere). Against this it may be decisively urged that 
 ver. 21 brings forward quite a different category of sinful states from ver. 
 20, and that ver. 21, rightly understood, does not yet express any threat of 
 punishment. Ho ; the arrangement of the passage is this : After Paul has 
 said that he is afraid of not finding them such as he wishes them, and of 
 being found by them such as they would not wish him, he now gives the 
 more precise explanation of that first apprehension (gfinwg . . . evpo vpag), by 
 adducing two hinds of sins , which he fears to find among them, namely, (1) 
 the mischiefs occasioned by partisan feeling ; and (2) the sins of impurity, 
 which would bow him down and make him sad. The further explanation 
 regarding the second apprehension expressed, Kayo evpeOo vp.lv olov ov Oelere, 
 thereupon follows only at xiii. 1 ff .—plynog epecg /c.r.A.] sc. evpedoacv h vpiv. 
 — epag, fijAog\ contentions , 3 jealousy. See 1 Cor. i. 11, iii. 3.— Ovpoi] irae, 
 excitements of anger. See on Rom. ii. 8 ; Gal. v. 20.— epLdelaL\ party-in¬ 
 trigues. See on Rom. ii. 8, and the excursus of Fritzsche, I. p. 143 ff . 4 — 
 
 1 So that the chief emphasis is laid on 
 Ka.Te.vo.vTi. t ov 0eou, opposed to the previous 
 
 VfJLLV . 
 
 2 On ver. 20-xiii. 2, see the thorough dis¬ 
 
 cussion by Liicke (.Whitsun Programm of 
 
 1837); Conjectan. exeg. Part I. p. 14 ff. 
 
 3 Regarding the plural form epe is, see 
 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 326 ; Gregor. Cor., ed. 
 Schaef. p. 476 ; also Buttmann in the Slud. 
 u. Kvit. 1862, p. 172. 
 
 4 Fritzsche (following Ilgen) is probably 
 right in deriving epiOos from €>i, valde (see 
 
CHAP. XII., 21. 
 
 693 
 
 KaralallaL , iptOvpiGpot] slanders , whisperings. See on Rom. i. 30. — <j>vGi&oeig] 
 Manifestations of conceited inflation; elsewhere only in the Fathers. — 
 aKciTaGTaclai\ disorderly relations, confusions , comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 33. (g 7 ) 
 
 Yer. 21. The interrogative interpretation (Lachmann, Liicke) is, viewed 
 in itself, compatible not only with the reading Tcnreivucu (Lachmann), but 
 also with the deliberative subjunctive of the Pecepta (Liicke). Comp. 
 Xenophon, Oec. iv. 4 : pi] aiGxwd&pev t'ov TYepouv (iaoitea mprjoaadai ; see in 
 general, Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 159 f. ; Baeumlein, Partilc. p. 203. But 
 the usual non-interrogative explanation, which makes pi] still dependent on 
 < po(3ovpcu , not only makes the passage appear more emphatic (by the three 
 parallels, ppirug — pi/nug — pij), but is also the only interpretation suited to 
 the context, since, in fact, after the apprehension quite definitely expressed 
 in ver. 20, the negative question, in the case of which a No is to be con¬ 
 ceived as the answer (comp. vv. 17, 18), would be inappropriate. — In pi] 
 compared with the previous pynug there lies a climax as regards the definite¬ 
 ness of the conception. — ttciTuv] goes along with e/idovrog pov raireivuGri pe 6 
 6. p. 7r pog vp. (comp, on ii. 1), so that Paul reminds them how already at his 
 second visit (comp. 1 Cor. v. 9) he had experienced such humiliation. 
 Connected merely with tWdvrog pov (Beza, Grotius, Flatt, de Wette, Weise- 
 ler, and many others), it would be without important bearing.' —eiidovrog 
 pov tcctt. pe] a construction also of frequent occurrence in classical writers. 
 Comp, on ix. 14, and see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 270 [E. T. 315]. — tcittsi- 
 rcjcei pe , not of bodily (Hofmann), but of mental bowing down in dejec¬ 
 tion. Comp. Polyb. iii. 116. 8, iv. 80. 3. “ Nihil erat, quo magis exultaret 
 apostolus, quam prospero suae praedicationis successu (comp. 1 Thess. ii. 
 20 ; Phil. iv. 1) ; contra nihil erat, unde tristiore et demissiore animo red- 
 deretur, quam quum cerneret, se frustra laborasse,” Beza. Comp. Chrys¬ 
 ostom. The future raireivuGei (see the critical remarks), which expresses 
 the apprehension that the sad case of this humiliation will withal actually 
 still occur (see on Col. ii. 8), stands in a climactic relation to the previous 
 subjunctives ; the apprehension increases. — 6 Oeog pov ] as Rom. i. 8 ; 1 Cor. 
 i. 4. In the humbling experiences of his office Paul sees paedagogic de¬ 
 crees of his God. — rrpog vpag ] not among you , for how superfluous that 
 would be ! but : in reference to you , in my relation to you. So also Rtick- 
 ert, w r ho, however (comp. Chrysostom, Osiander, and several), explains 
 raweivuGig of Paul’s seeing himself compelled “to appear before them not 
 with the joyful pride of a father over his good children, but with the puni¬ 
 tive earnestness of a judge.” But the punitive earnestness of the judge is 
 in fact no raireivuGig , but an act of the apostolic authority, and only follows 
 subsequently, after the Tcnreivuoig has taken place by the observation of the 
 punishment-deserving state , which has made him feel that his efforts have 
 been without result. — wo/Chovg tcjv Trpor]papTT] kotlov mi pi] peravorjcavruv ] On 
 
 Buttmann, Lexilog. I. p. 146 f.). Comp, the 
 many forms compounded with ept in Ho¬ 
 mer. For the second part of the word no 
 proper derivation has yet been found. This 
 second half is not simply the ending 0os, 
 
 but i0o?, since in epi the iota is short, 
 whereas in ep<.0o? it is long. See Homer, 11. 
 xviii. 550 : ’Ey S’ eridei. repcei^o? paOv\rjLov 
 evOa S’ epidoi. See regarding the various 
 derivations, Lobeck, 'Pathol, p. 305. 
 
694 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Trpoijiio.pT ., comp. Herodian, iii. 14. 8 : cnrohoyEiotjaL npoq ra TrporjpapTTjpha. 
 According to Riickert, Paul has written thus inexactly, instead of ttoMlovc toiv 
 Trporj/iapT. t ov g prj fiETavorjoavTaq. How arbitrary ! ,In that case he would 
 have expressed himself with downright inaccuracy. Liicke, l.c. p. 20, ex¬ 
 plains it more ingeniously : “C’ogitavit rem ita, ut primum poneret Chris- 
 tianorum ex ethnicis potissimum rbiv irpogyapTijicoTuv nal yrj yeravoTjoavTiov 
 genus universum, cujus generis homines essent ubique ecclesiarum, deinde 
 vero ex isto hominum genere multos eos, qui Corinthi essent, designaret 
 definiretque.” But the reference to the unconverted sinners, who ubique 
 ecclesiarum essent , is quite foreign to the context, since Paul had simply to 
 do with the Corinthians (comp, previously wpoq vjuag), and hence these 
 could not seek the genus of the TxpoijpaprrjKOTuv k.t'.Tl. here meant elsewdiere 
 than just in their own church. The right interpretation results undoubtedly 
 from the order of the thoughts specified at ver. 20, according to which etti 
 tT) anadapcia k.t.X. cannot belong to peravorjo. (comp. Lucian, de salt. 84 : 
 /iETavorjoai kf oiq ettol/josv ), as it is usually taken, but only to tcevOtjou: and that 
 I will lament J many of those , who have 'previously sinned and shall not have 
 repented , on account of the uncleanness , etc. Thus Paul passes over from the 
 sinful states named in ver. 20 to quite another category of sins, and the 
 course of thought accordingly is : “I fear that I shall not only meet with 
 contentions , etc., among you, but that I shall have also to bewail many of 
 the then still unconverted sinners among you on account of the sins of im¬ 
 purity which they have committed (Eph. iv. 30 ; Heb. xiii. 17).” Not all 
 TrporjpapTijKbreq teal prj peravorjoavrEq in Corinth were impure sinners, but Paul 
 fears that he will encounter many of them as such ; hence he could not 
 
 1 irev&rja-ut is taken by Theophylact and 
 others, including Billroth, Riickert, Ols- 
 Jiausen, and de Wette, as a threatening of 
 punishment; and Grotius even thought that 
 the apostles may have discharged their 
 penal office not without signs of mourning, 
 “ si cut Romani civem clamnaturi sumebant 
 pullam togam .” But the whole reference 
 of the word to punishment is in the highest 
 degree arbitrary, and at variance with the 
 context. For it is only at xiii. 1 ff. that 
 the threat of punishment follows; and the 
 
 TaneLvuiari pe 6 Jeo; pov npos vpas, with 
 
 which /cat nevdricru is connected, warrants 
 us only to retain for the latter the pure 
 literal meaning lugere aliquem, which is 
 very current in classical writers (Horn. 
 11. xix. 225, xxiii. 2S3; Ilerod. vii. 220; Xen. 
 Hell. ii. 2. 3) and in the LXX. (Gen. xxxvii. 
 34, 1. 3, at. ; Eeclus. li. 19 ; Judith xvi. 34). 
 The word does not at all mean to prepare 
 sorrow , as Vater and Olshausen explain it. 
 Calvin therefore is right in leaving the idea 
 of punishment out of account, and aptly 
 remarks : “ Yeri et germani pastoris affec¬ 
 tum nobis exprimit, quum luctu aliorum 
 peccata se prosequuturum dicit.” Estius, 
 
 too, rejects any reference to punishment, 
 and finds in nevdr)™ that Paul regards 
 those concerned as Deo mortuos. Comp. 
 Ewald. Under the latter view too much is 
 found in the word, since the context does 
 not speak of spiritual death, but specifies 
 the ground of the mourning by in i r jj <bca- 
 ■Japcrta k.t.\. Hence we must adhere to 
 Calvin’s exposition as not going beyond 
 either the meaning of the word or the con¬ 
 text. Calovius also says very correctly (in 
 opposition to Grotius) : “ Non de poena hie 
 Corinthiorum impoenitentium, sed de moe- 
 rore suo super impoenitentia.” De Wette, 
 followed by Osiander, finds in nevb. the 
 pain of being obliged to proceed with the 
 special punishment of excommunication , and 
 explains no\\ov<; Ttov nporjpapr. k. p.r> perav. 
 ini k.t. A. of the worst among the unconvert¬ 
 ed sinners guilty of unchastity. In that 
 case the chief points of the meaning must be 
 mentally supplied, for which there is the 
 less warrant, seeing that nevPrjaoi is parallel 
 to the Taneiv. p.e 6 #., expressing subjectively 
 that which is denoted by raneiv. k. t.A. ob¬ 
 jectively. 
 
CHAP. XII., 21. 
 
 695 
 
 write at all otherwise than : tt onTiovg tcjv tc poppapry kotov ual pi) peravoyaavTuv . 1 
 This explanation is adopted by Winer, p. 590 [E. T. 792], Bisping, and 
 Kling. — The perfect participle irpoypapr. denotes the continuance of the 
 condition from earlier times; and aal py peravoyaavruv has the sense of the 
 futurum exactum: and who shall not have repented at my arrival. The 
 7r po in t -oorjpapT. expresses the sinning that had taken place in earlier times, 
 which Liicke (comp. Olshausen) refers to the time before conversion (comp, 
 the passages of Justin, Apolog. i. 61 ; Clement, Strom, iv. 12 in Liicke, p. 
 18 f.). But as the evils adduced in ver. 20 only set in after the conversion, 
 we are not warranted (see the plan of the passage specified at ver. 20) to 
 assume for the sins named in ver. 21 the time before conversion, as, indeed, 
 1 Cor. v. 1 also points to the time after conversion. But if we ask how far 
 Paul with his 7 -po looks back into the past of the Corinthians that had 
 elapsed since their conversion, it might, if we regard vv. 20 and 21 by them¬ 
 selves , appear as if he referred not further back than to that time, in which 
 the contentions (ver. 20) and the sins of impurity censured in 1 Cor. v. 1 
 (ver. 21) emerged. But as this happened only after his second visit, and 
 as he says in xiii. 2 that he had foretold (comp. ii. 1) punishment to the 
 TTpoypapryuoai already at his second visit, it follows that with his tt po he 
 glances back from the present to the time before his second visit. After his 
 first visit there had already emerged in Corinth evils, which humbled him 
 at his second visit (ver. 21), and on account of which he at that time 
 threatened (see on xiii. 2) these TrpoypapTyuoTeg with punishment ; after his 
 second presence there had now broken out, in addition, the contentions 
 
 1 The objections of de Wette against my 
 explanation will not bear examination. For 
 ( 1 ) from the fact that Paul, in order to ex¬ 
 press his alarm and anxiety regarding the 
 unchaste , mentions withal the category of 
 sinners in general , there does not arise the 
 appearance as if he would not have to 
 mourn over the latter ; but out of the col¬ 
 lective wickedness in Corinth he singles out 
 the unchastity which was prevalent there 
 as specially grievous. This species of sin¬ 
 ners appears under the genus of Corinthian 
 sinners as one of the two chief stains on 
 the church (the other was the party-spirit, 
 ver. 20). Further, (2) the TTporj^apr^/cores in 
 xiii. 2 are not any more than here a species , 
 but likewise the category , to which the 
 kinds denoted in vv. 20 and 21 belonged. 
 (3) The connection of enl k.t.A. with nevOria-oi 
 is not unnatural, but natural, since 71-oA.Aous 
 rS>v 7 rpoTjp.. k. p.T) p.eTav., taken together , is the 
 object of nev&., so that Paul has observed 
 the sequence which is simplest of all and 
 most usual (verb—object—ground). The ob¬ 
 jections of Osiander and Hpfmann are not 
 more valid. Those of the latter especially 
 amount in the long run to subtleties, for 
 which there is no ground. For Paul cer¬ 
 
 tainly fears that he will have to lament the 
 non-repentance of the persons concerned, 
 and the sins which they are still committing 
 at the time. This is clearly enough contained 
 in /cat pr) p.eravorjcrdj'Twi'; and asto 77 enpa^av, 
 Paul very naturally writes the aorist, and 
 not 77 vpaa-aovaLv, because he transplants 
 himself, as in pv peravoria-., to the point of 
 time when he arrives and will then judge 
 what they have done up to that time. He 
 might also have written 77 v-pdao-ovo-iv, but 
 would thereby have deviated from the con¬ 
 formity of his conception of time intro¬ 
 duced with k. p. p-eravorja-. (which is that of 
 the f uturum exactum), for which he had no 
 occasion. It is incorrect, with Hofmann, 
 to say that peravorio-dpTon’ refers to the time 
 when Paul was writing this, and that, be¬ 
 cause there was still space for them to 
 repent up to the time of his arrival, he has 
 not spoken generally of the impenitent, but 
 of many (who, namely, would remain hard¬ 
 ened). According to the context, peravor)- 
 <to.vt(ov can only apply to the time of his im¬ 
 pending Zhdeiv, when he will have to lament 
 many of the old and still at that time non- 
 repentant sinners, on account of their im¬ 
 purity, etc. 
 
GOG 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 and sins of impurity which we know from his Epistles ; and to all 
 this, consequently to the whole time till after his first and before his 
 second visit, he looks back, inasmuch as he says not merely rjyapTrjKOTov, 
 but 7 t po 7ip.apT7jK.6Tov. Consequently Billroth is wrong in restricting the word 
 merely to those “ whom I already , through my second sojourn among you , 
 know as sinners and Estius says too indefinitely, and also quite arbitrari¬ 
 ly, as regards tt po, not starting from the present time : ante scriptam prio- 
 rem epistolam , while many others, like Riickert, do not enter on the ques¬ 
 tion at all. —£7 ri Tfj anadapcia /c.r./l.] if connected with peTavorjoavTov , w r ould 
 be in respect or on account of. But, apart from the fact that peTavoeiv (which, 
 we may add, Paul has only here) is in the N. T. never connected with ett t 
 (as Joel ii. 13 ; Amos vii. 3, LXX.), but with into (Acts viii. 22 ; Heb. vi. 
 1) or ek (Rev. ii. 21 f., xvi. 11), in this particular case the necessary and 
 correct connection (see previously on TtoXh. r. itporjg. k. ur/ pETavojjo.y is with 
 TtEvQrjco , the ground of which it specifies : over. Just so Aeschin. p. 84, 14; 
 Plut. AgiSj 17 ; Rev. xviii. 11 ; 1 Sam. xv. 35 ; Ezra x. 6 , al. ’ AKadapoia , 
 here of licentious impurity, Rom. i. 24 ; Gal. v. 19 ; Eph. iv. 19. Then : 
 7 ropveia, fornication in specie. Lastly : aceX-ycta, licentious wantonness and 
 abandonment (Rom. xiii. 13 ; Gal. v. 19 ; Eph. iv. 19; Wisd. xiv. 26).— 
 E7tpa^av] have practised. Comp, on Rom. i. 32. 
 
 Notes by American Editor. 
 
 (x 6 ) Paul’s view of boasting. Yer. 1. 
 
 The Revised Version gives an exact rendering of the text as adopted by all 
 the latest editors and by most modern expositors. “I must needs glory, 
 though it is not expedient.” He had repeatedly spoken of boasting as a kind 
 of folly, something derogatory and painful; still, unseemly as it was, circum¬ 
 stances compelled him to resort to it. However, now he would leave it and 
 pass to the revelations made to him. 
 
 (y 6 ) “ The third heaven.” Yer. 2. 
 
 In regard to Dr. Meyer’s view that Paul had the Rabbinical notion of seven 
 heavens, it may be said that it is by no means clear that the Jewish opinion to 
 that effect was prevalent in Paul’s day, and still less that it was adopted by 
 the sacred writers. But as we have in Eph. iv. 10 the phrase “above all 
 heavens,” and in Heb. iv. 14, “passed through the heavens,’’ it seems better to 
 consider the words as simply = the highest heaven. This disposes also of 
 Dr. Meyer’s statement in ver. 3, that Paradise is different from the third 
 heaven and in a higher sphere.—Paul was simply caught up to the present 
 abode of the faithful dead. 
 
 (z 6 ) “ Not lawful for a man to idter.” Yer. 4. 
 
 It needs no argument to show that if Paul was not allowed to narrate what 
 he had actually seen in heaven, it is certainly wrong for ordinary persons 
 to give an account of what they imagine to have taken place there. Besides, 
 
NOTES. 
 
 697 
 
 how could a man utter them ? We have a case in point in the fourth and fifth 
 chapters of the Apocalypse. John had heaven opened to him, and tells us the 
 result, but it is altogether in the form of symbols and figures. A throne 
 is there, and One like a jasper and a sardine stone ; a rainbow like an emerald 
 encircles all ; seven lamps of fire are burning ; lightnings flash, thunderings 
 are heard ; and a sea of glass shines like crystal. All these are marvellously 
 suggestive, but they do not “ utter the unutterable.”—And further, recent ex¬ 
 perience confirms the words of F. W. Bobertson : “ There are some things 
 in this world too low to be spoken of, and some things too high. You cannot 
 discuss such subjects without vulgarizing them.” 
 
 (a 7 ) “ Save in my weaknesses .” Yer. 5. 
 
 The meaning is, “I will boast concerning myself only in those things which 
 prove or imply my own weakness.” A revelation was a gratuitous favor, 
 and might be gloried in without assuming any special merit to himself. 
 
 (b 7 ) “ He hath, said.” Yer. 9. 
 
 Dr. Meyer rightly insists upon the full sense of the perfect tense, as given in 
 the Eevised Version above. The answer was ever sounding in the Apostle’s 
 ears, and not in his only, but in those of all God’s suffering people from 
 that day to this. 
 
 (c 7 ) “ Will I glory in my infirmities.” Ver. 9. 
 
 This is not a fanatical or irrational assertion, but based on sufficient grounds 
 •—viz. that Christ’s power may dwell upon me as a Shechinah. Most Christians 
 are satisfied if they are resigned under suffering. To rejoice in trials because 
 thereby Christ is glorified is more than they aspire to. Paul’s experience was 
 far above that standard. That Christ should be glorified was to him an end for 
 which any human being might feel it an honour to suffer (Hodge). 
 
 (d 7 ) “ Signs and wonders and mighty deeds.” Yer. 12. 
 
 As the author saj's, these are different designations of the same thing, viz. 
 miracles. These are called signs in reference to their design, i.e. to confirm 
 the divine mission of those who perform them ; wonders, because of the effect 
 they produced ; and mighty deeds , because they are manifestations of divine 
 power. How far the Apostle was from the view of some in our day, that 
 miracles are a burden to carry. 
 
 (e 7 ) ‘ * Caught you with guile.” Yer. 16. 
 
 It is very unfortunate that this phrase has often been quoted as if it 
 expressed the course of the Apostle, instead of being, as Dr. Meyer says (and all 
 critics agree), a concessive statement of the charge of his adversaries, which he 
 proceeds in the next verse at once to deny, by an appeal to facts, viz. the 
 mission of Titus and his companion, who followed Paul’s example in bearing 
 their own expenses. 
 
698 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 (f 7 ) False impressions corrected . Yer. 19. 
 
 The closing verses of the chapter seem designed to guard against two mis¬ 
 takes the Corinthians might make : “First, that he felt himself accountable to 
 them, or that they were the judges at whose bar he was defending himself. 
 Second, that his object wasm any respect personal or selfish. He spoke before 
 God, not before them ; for their edification, not for his own reputation.” 
 The first words of ver. 19 are well given in E. V. according to the best text, 
 “Ye think all this time that we are excusing ourselves,” etc. 
 
 (g 7 ) “ Lest there he strife, jealousy,” etc. Ver. 20. 
 
 The accumulation of words serve to show the Apostle’s indignation, and also 
 to present a lively picture of the evils introduced into a Christian church 
 by the revival of this old disease of the Grecian commonwealths (Stanley). 
 “ Swellings” = manifestations of pride and insolence. The other terms 
 are well given in the R. V., except that “ wraths,” an unidiomatic word, would 
 be better replaced by “ outbreaks of anger.” 
 
CHAP. XIII.; 1. 
 
 699 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Ver. 2. After vvv Elz. has ypd^u, in opposition to decisive evidence. A sup¬ 
 plementary addition. Comp. ver. 10. — Ver. 4. el] is wanting in B D* F G K 
 K* min. Copt. Aeth. It. Eus. Dem. Theoph. Bracketed by Lachm. and Biick. 
 Looking to the total inappropriateness of the sense of kcu el, those authorities 
 of considerable importance sufficiently warrant the condemnation of el, although 
 Tisch. (comp. Hofm.) holds the omission to be “ manifesta correctio.” Offence 
 was easily taken at the idea that Christ was crucified e£ aoQevelag, and it was 
 made problematical by the addition of an el, which in several cases also was 
 assigned a position before nat (Or : el yap nai). — aal yup ijpeig] Elz. has /cat yap 
 nat rjpelg, in opposition to far preponderating evidence. The second /cat is an 
 addition, which arose out of nal yap being taken as a mere for, namque, — ev 
 avrui] A F G K, Syr. Erp. Copt. Boern. have cvv avr<p. So Lachm. on the mar¬ 
 gin. An explanation in accordance with what follows. — £i]cr6peQa] Lachm. 
 Biick. Tisch. read tyoopev, in favour of which the evidence is decisive. — elg 
 vpdg] is wanting only in B D*** E*** Arm. Clar. Germ. Chrys. Sedul., and is 
 condemmed by Mill, who derived it from ver. 3. But how natural was the 
 omission, seeing that the first half of the verse contains no parallel element [ 
 And the erroneous reference of fyoo/iev to eternal life might make elg vpdg appear 
 simply as irrelevant.—Yer. 7. ev%opai ] Lachm. Tisch. and Biick., following 
 greatly preponderant evidence, have evxopeOa, which Griesb. also approved. 
 And rightly ; the singular was introduced in accordance with the previous 
 ekirifa. — Ver. 9. tovto dr] This 6e is omitted in preponderant witnesses, is 
 suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. Tisch. and Biick. Addition for 
 the sake of connection, instead of which 73 has dij and Chrys. yap. — In ver. 10, 
 the position of 6 Kvpcog before eduK. poi is assured by decided attestation. 
 
 Contents. —Continuation of the close of the section as begun as xii. 19. 
 At his impending third coming he w'ill decide with judicial severity and 
 not spare, seeing that they wished to have for once a proof of the Christ 
 speaking in him (vv. 1-4). They ought to prove themselves; he hopes, 
 however, that they will recognize his proved character, and asks God that 
 he may not need to show them its verification (vv. 5-9). Therefore he 
 writes this when absent, in order that he may not be under the necessity of 
 being stern when present (ver. 10). Concluding exhortation with promise 
 (ver. 11) ; concluding salutation* (ver. 12) ; concluding benediction (ver. 
 13.) 
 
 Yer. 1. As Paul has expressed himself by prjKug epig k.t.1. in xii. 20, and 
 in ver. 21 has explained himself more precisely merely as regards that ppirog 
 eWidv ovx olovg OeAo evpo vpdg (see on xii. 20), he still owes to his readers a 
 more precise explanation regarding the nayd) evpedu vplv olov ov delere, and 
 this he 7ioio gives to them. Observe the asyndetic, sternly-measured form of 
 
700 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 liis sentences in vv. 1 and 2. — rpirov tovto epxopai Trpog vpag] The elaborate 
 shifts of the expositors, who do not understand this of a third actual coming 
 thither , inasmuch as they assume that Paul had been but once in Corinth, 1 
 may be seen in Poole’s Synopsis and Wolf’s Curae. According to Lange, 
 apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 202 f. (comp, also Marcher, Stellung der Pastoralbr. p. 
 14), rp'iTov tovto is intended to apply to the third project of a journey, and 
 epxoyat to its decided execution: “This third time in the series of projects 
 laid before you above I come.” Linguistically incorrect, since rpirov tovto 
 £ p%. cannot mean anything else than : for the third time I come this time , so 
 that it does not refer to previous projects , but to two journeys that had taken 
 place before. On tp'ltov tovto, this third time (accusative absolute), that 
 is, this time for a third time, comp. Herod, v. 76 : rerapTov tip tovto . . . 
 aTUK.6g.evoi, LXX. Judg. xvi. 15 : tovto TpiTov enhavpaag pe, Num. xxii. 28 ; 
 John xxi.14. Bengel correctly remarks on the present : “jam sum in pro- 
 cinctu.” (h 7 ) —etti GTopaTog 6vo paprvpuv /c.r.A.] On this my third arrival there 
 is to be no further sparing (as at my second visit), but summary procedure. 
 Comp. Matt, xviii. 16, where, however, the words of the law are used with 
 another turn to the meaning. Paul announces with the words of the law 
 well known to his readers, Deut. xix. 15, which he adopts as his own, that 
 he, arrived for this third time, will, without further indulgence, institute a 
 legal hearing of witnesses (comp. 1 Tim. v. 19), and that on the basis of the 
 affirmation of two and three witnesses every point of complaint will be decided. 
 Not as if he wished to set himself up as disciplinary judge (this power was 
 vested ordinarily in the church , Matt, xviii. 16, 1 Cor. v. 12, 18, and was, 
 even in extraordinary cases of punishment, not exercised alone on the part 
 of the apostle, 1 Cor. v. 3-5), but he would bring on and arrange the sum¬ 
 mary procedure in the way of discipline, which he had threatened. Nor 
 did the notoriety of the transgressions render the latter unnecessary, seeing 
 that, on the one hand, they might not all be notorious, and, on the other, 
 even those that were so needed a definite form of treatment. Following 
 Chrysostom and Ambrosiaster, Calvin, Estius, and others, including recently 
 Neander, Olshausen, Rabiger, Ewald, Osiander, Maier, have understood 
 the two or three witnesses of Paul himself ’, who takes the various occasions 
 of his presence among the Corinthians as testimonies, by which the truth of 
 the matters is made good, 2 or the execution of his threats (Chrysostom, The- 
 
 1 Most of them, like Grotius, Estius, Wolf, 
 Wetstein, Zachariae, Flatt, were of opinion 
 that Paul expresses here, too, simply a 
 third readiness to come, from which view 
 also has arisen the reading eroi'jaws e'xw e\9eiv 
 instead of epxo^atin A, Syr. Erp. Copt. To 
 this also Baur reverts,who explains epx»M.ai: 
 7 am on the point of coming. But this would, 
 in fact, be just a third actual coming, which 
 Paul was on the point of , and would presup¬ 
 pose his having come already twice. Beza 
 and others suggest: “ Binas suas epistolas 
 (1) pro totidem ad illos profectionibus re- 
 censet.” 
 
 2 Grotius, in consistency with the view 
 that Paul had been only once there, quite at 
 variance with the words of the passage, 
 pares down the meaning to this : “ cum bis 
 terveid dixerim, tandem ratum erit.” Com¬ 
 pare also Clericus. The explanation of Em- 
 merling: “Titum ejusque comites certis- 
 simum edituros esse testimonium de animo 
 suo Corinthios invisendi,” is purely fanci- 
 ul. The simple and correct view is given 
 already by Erasmus in his Paraphr.: “ Hie 
 erit tertius meus ad vos adventus ; in hunc 
 se quisque praeparet. Neque enim amplius 
 connivebo, sed juxta jus strictum atque exac- 
 
701 
 
 CHAP. XIII., 2. 
 
 ophylact, and others, corap. Bleek, Billroth, Ewald, Hofmann) is to be de¬ 
 cided (Theophylact : h~l rcov rpiibv pov napovaiuv nav pr/pa aireihrj-uibv naraora- 
 dr/GETai naO' iipuv nal KvpLjd/jaeTat, lav pi) peravoijoaTE' avrl paprvpov yap rag 
 wapovo lag aiirov ridrjci) . But if Paul regarded himself, under the point 
 of view of his different visits to Corinth respectively, as the witnesses, he 
 could make himself pass for three witnesses only in respect of those evils 
 which he had already perceived at his first visit (and then again on his 
 second and third), and for two witnesses only in respect of those evils which 
 he had lighted upon in his second visit for the first time, and would on his 
 third visit encounter a second time. But in this view precisely all those evils 
 and sins would be left out of account, which had only come into prominence 
 after his second visit; for as regards these, because he was only to become 
 acquainted with them for the first time at his third visit, he would only 
 pass as one witness. Consequently this explanation, Pauline though it looks, 
 is inappropriate ; nor is the difficulty got over by the admission that the 
 relations in question are not to be dealt with too exactly (Osiander), as, in¬ 
 deed, the objection, that the threat is directed against the tt poijpapnjicbTeg, 
 avails nothing on the correct view of xii. 21, and the continued validity of 
 the legal ordinance itself (it holds, in fact, even at the present day in the 
 common law) should not after 1 Tim. v. 10 have been doubted. Nor docs 
 the refining of Hofmann dispose of the matter. He thinks, forsooth, that 
 besides the npoijpapTijKoreg, all the rest also, whom such a threat may con¬ 
 cern, are now twice warned, orally (at the second visit of the apostle) and in 
 writing (by this letter), and his arrival will be to them the third and last ad¬ 
 monition to reflect. This is not appropriate either to the words (see on ver. 
 2) or to the necessary unity and equality of the idea of witnesses , with which, 
 in fact, Paul—and, moreover, in application of so solemn a passage of the 
 law—would have dealt very oddly, if not only he himself was to represent 
 the three witnesses, but one of them was even to be his letter. — nai] not in 
 the sense of rj, as, following the Vulgate, many earlier and modern exposi¬ 
 tors (including Flatt and Emmerling) would take it, but : and , if, namely, 
 there are so many . 1 Paul might have put 7 , as in Matt, xviii. 16, but, fol¬ 
 lowing the LXX., he has thought on and , and therefore put it. —irav prjpa] 
 everything that comes to be spoken of, to be discussed. Comp, on Matt, 
 iv. 4.— cTa0i)O£Tai\ will be established (□’Ip)), namely, for judicial decision. 
 This is more in keeping with the original text than (comp, on Matt. xxvi. 
 25) : will be iveighed (Ewald). 
 
 Ver. 2. it apuv . . . vvv is not to be put in a parenthesis, since it is a 
 definition to irpoXeyio, which interrupts neither the construction nor the sense. 
 I have said before, and say beforehand, as at my second visit (“ sicut feci, cum 
 secundo vobiscum essem,” Er. Schmid), so also in my present absence, to those 
 who have formerly sinned, and to all the rest, that , when I shall have come again, 
 I will not spare. Accordingly Ag irapcov to devrspov leaves no doubt as to the 
 
 tvm res ayetur. Quisquis detains fuerit , is pression “ zwei bis drei.” Comp. Xen. 
 
 duorum ant trium hominum testimonio vel Anab. iv. 7. 10: &vo <a l rpia p^ara. See 
 
 absolvetur vet damnabilur." Kruger and Kiihner in loc. In this case 
 
 1 It corresponds quite to the German ex- /cat is atque, not also (Hofmann). 
 
702 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 temporal reference of tv podprjna. Moreover, from ver. 2 alone the presence of 
 the apostle, which had already twice taken place, could not be proved. For, 
 if we knew that he had been only once, TvpodprjKa would certainly refer to the 
 first epistle, and cog rvapcov tt.r.1. would have to be explained : as if I were 
 'presentfor the second time , although I am now absent (comp. Grotius, Estius, 
 Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Baur, and others ). 1 But, as it is clear from 
 other passages that Paul had already been twice in Corinth, and as here in 
 particular rphov tovto epxoyai immediately goes before, that view, in which 
 also the vvv would simply be superfluous and cumbrous, is impossible. 
 Beza, who is followed by Zachariae and Marcker, connects awkwardly (see¬ 
 ing that to dsvrepov and vvv must correspond to each other) to fievrepov with 
 TvpoXeyo. Hofmann also misses the correct view, when he makes <og serve 
 merely to annex the quality (“ as one having been there a second time, and 
 now absent”), in which the apostle has said and says beforehand. In this 
 way cog would be the quippe qui from the conception of the speaker, as in 1 
 Cor. vii. 25, and tv apcov would be imperfect. The two clauses of the sentence, 
 however, contain in fact not qualities subjectively conceived, but two objec¬ 
 tive relations of time; and hence cog, if it is to have the sense given above, 
 would simply be irrelevant (comp. 1 Cor. v. 3a; 2 Cor. x. 11 ; Phil. i. 27) 
 and confusing. Paul would have simply written : Tvpodtpryca tv apcov to ticvTcpov 
 ical wpoTieyco cittcjv vvv. — to'l g TvporjyapT7jit6ci\ See on xii. 21. It is self-evident, 
 we may add, that the Ttpo in TvporjyapT. has from the standpoint of the tv po- 
 Tieyco a greater period of the past behind it than from the standpoint of the 
 7 vpodprjua, and that the tv porjyapTrjuoTeg, whom the present wpoXeyco threatens, 
 were more, and in part other, than those to whom at the second visit the 
 tv podprjKa had applied. The category , however, is the same ; and hence it is 
 not to be said, with Liicke, that from our passage it is clear : “ quibus nunc, 
 tanquam Tvporjy.apT7jK.6ci , severiorem castigationem minatur apostolus, eosdem 
 jam tunc , quum olim (jvpodLpijKo) minitatus esset, TvporjyapTrjKOTag fuissef Paul 
 had at his second presence threatened the Tvpor/yapTrjtcoTeg , and he threatens 
 them also now. On the two occasions the threat referred to the same 
 genus hominum , to those who had sinned before the time at w T hich Paul 
 discoursed to the Corinthians, and were still sinners ; but the individuals 
 were not on the two occasions quite the same. Certainly at least there 
 were noio ( tv poleytS) not a few among them, who had not been included on 
 the previous occasion (see 1 Cor. i. 11, v. 1, comp, with 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21). 
 — /cat Tolg Xonvolg tvclclv ] Thus rolg yrj TvporjyapTrjtc6ci. To these he then said it 
 
 1 To this category belongs also the strange 
 view of Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 203: 
 “ This is the second time that I am present 
 among you and yet absent at the same 
 time.” Paul, namely, had, in Lange’s view, 
 the spirit-like gift of transplanting himself 
 with the full spiritual pow r er of his author¬ 
 ity during his absence into the midst of the 
 distant church, which had doubtless felt 
 the thunderclap of his spiritual appearing. 
 In Corinth this had taken place the first 
 
 time at the exclusion of the incestuous per¬ 
 son, 1 Cor. v. 3, and the second time now. 
 Of such fancies and spiritualistic notions 
 there is nowhere found any trace in the 
 apostle. And what are we to make in that 
 case of the vvv ? The only correct view of 
 this vvv and its relation to to Sevrepov is al¬ 
 ready given by Chrysostom : nopeyev6p.r)v 
 Sevrepov Kai ehrov , Aeyw 6e Kat vvv Sea ttJ? 
 eTTUTToAr)?, avdyier) /ae \ombv d\r]6evcrcu. Comp. 
 
 also ver. 10. 
 
CHAP. XIII., 3. 
 
 703 
 
 before, and he says it so now, by way of warning , of deterring. It is the 
 entire remaining members of the church that are meant, and Paul mentions 
 them, not as witnesses , but in order that they make the threatening serve 
 according to the respective requirements of their moral condition to stimu¬ 
 late reflection and discipline ; hence roig ’koLnoig, even according to our view 
 of TzpoTjyapT. , is not without suitable meaning (in opposition to de Wette). 
 — eig to 7 ta?uv\ On the 7 xaliv used substantially, see Bernhardy, p. 328, and 
 on in the specification of a term of time, Matthiae, p. 1345. Comp, eig 
 avdig, eig ofe, eg reXog, and the like. — ov <peiaoyai ] The reasons why Paul spared 
 them in his second , certainly but very short, visit, are as little known to us, 
 as the reason why Luke, who has in fact passed over so much, has made no 
 mention of this second visit in the Book of Acts. 
 
 Yer. 3. I will not spare you ; for ye in fact will not have it otherwise ! 
 Ye challenge, in fact, by your demeanour, an experimental proof of the 
 Christ that speaks in me. Thus etzei, before which we are to conceive a 
 pause, annexes the cause serving as motive of the oi> (petaouac, that was under 
 the prevailing circumstances at work. Emmerling begins a protasis with 
 kwei, parenthesizes og eig vyag /c.r.A., and the whole fourth verse, and regards 
 eavrovg Tretpafrs in ver. 5 as apodosis. So, too, Lachmann, Olshausen, 
 Ewald, who, however, treat as a parenthesis merely ver. 4. This division 
 as a whole would not yield as its result any illogical connection, for, because 
 the readers wish to put Christ to the proof, it was the more advisable for 
 them to prove themselves. But the passage is rendered, quite unnecessarily, 
 more complicated and cumbrous. — etteI doKiyi/v C,tjteIte /c.t.A] That is, since 
 you make it your aim that the Christ speaking in me shall verify Himself, 
 shall give you a proof of His judicial working . To take row . . . Xpiarov as 
 genitive of the subject (comp. ix. 13 ; Phil. ii. 22) better suits the following 
 og Kal ipag K.T.'h., than the objective rendering (Billroth and Riickert, follow¬ 
 ing older expositors) : a proof of the fact that Christ speaks in me. — og eig 
 vyag ovkcloOeveI k.t.X.] whoinreference to you is not impotent , but mighty among 
 you. By this the readers are made to feel how critical and dangerous is 
 their challenge of Christ practically implied in the evil circumstances of 
 the church (xii. 20 f.), for the Christ speaking in the apostle is not weak 
 towards them, but provided with power and authority among them, as they 
 would feel, if He should give them a practical attestation of Himself. A 
 special reference of dwarei ev v/uiv to the miracles , spiritual gifts , and the 
 like, such as Erasmus, Grotius, 1 Fritzsche, 2 de Wette, and others assume, is 
 not implied in the connection (see especially ver. 4) ; and just as little a 
 retrospective reference to x. 10 (Hofmann). — Of the use of the verb Avvareiv 
 no examples from other writers are found, common as was adwarelv. Its 
 use in this particular place by Paul was involuntarily suggested to him by 
 
 1 Grotius: “Non opus habetis ejus rei 
 periculum facere, cum jampridem Christus 
 per me apud vos ingentia dederit potentiae 
 suae signa.” 
 
 2 Fritzsche, Biss. TT. p. 141: “qui Christus 
 xapiV/txaro. largiendo, miracula regundo, 
 
 religionis impedimenta tollendo, ecclesiam 
 moderando, ipse vobis se fortem ostendit.” 
 This emphatic ipse is imported,—which 
 arose out of Fritzsche’s regarding the apostle , 
 not Christ, as the subject of Soiufirjv. 
 
1 
 
 , '• r ' \ 
 
 704 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 the similar sound of the opposite acOevd. Yet he has it also in Rom. xiv. 4 ; 
 as regards 2 Cor. ix. 8, see the critical remarks on that passage. — h vpiv\ 
 not of the internal indwelling and pervading (Hofmann), which is at variance 
 with the context, since the latter has the penal retribution as its main point ; 
 but the Christ speaking in Paul has the power of asserting Himself de facto 
 as the vindex of His word and work in the church , so far as it is disobedient 
 to Him and impenitent. 
 
 Ver. 4. Kai yap earavp. e £ acd., alia gy he Swap. 6eov\ Reason assigned for 
 the previous og e/f vpag ovk aoOevei , alia Sward e.v vplv : for even crucified was 
 lie from weakness, but He is lining from the 'power of God. 1 Without pev after 
 earavp. the contrast comes in with the more striking effect, h; aedwdag de¬ 
 notes the causal origin of the koravphOr], and is not, with Chrysostom (who 
 complains of the difficulty of this passage), to be interpreted of apparent 
 weakness, but finds its explanation in viii. 9 ; Phil. ii. 7 f. Jesus, namely, 
 had, in the state of His exinanition and humiliation, obedient to the Father, 
 entered in such wise into the condition of powerless endurance as man, 
 that He yielded to the violence of the most ignominious execution, to 
 which He had, according to the Father’s will, submitted Himself ; and 
 accordingly it came if aedevdag, that He teas crucified. But since His resur¬ 
 rection He lives (Rom. v. 10, vi. 9, xiv. 9, all), and that from the power of 
 God, for (3-od has, by His power, raised Him up (see on Rom. vi. 4) and 
 exalted Him to glory (Acts ii. 83 ; Epli. i. 20 ff.; Phil. ii. 9). To make 
 the dsov refer to aedevdag also (Hofmann, who inappropriately compares 1 
 Cor. i. 25) would yield a thought quite abnormal and impossible for the 
 apostle, which the very ovk acBevel, ver. 8 , ought to have precluded. — Kai yap 
 i/peig k.t.1. ] Confirmation of the immediately preceding Kai yap . . . deov, 
 and that in respect of the two points aedevdag and Cj? e k Swdpeug 'deov. 
 “ That the case stands so with Christ as has just been said, is confirmed 
 from the fact, that these two relations, on the one hand of weakness, and 
 on the other of being alive ek Swap, deov, are found also in us in virtue of 
 our fellowship with Him. It is an argumentum ab effectu ad causam issuing 
 from the lofty sense of this fellowship, a bold certainty derived from experi¬ 
 ence, the argumentative stress of which, contained in ev avrti and aw avrti, 
 
 1 The Recepta /cai yap ei eerravp. would 
 yield the quite unsuitable sense : for even 
 if, i.e. even in the event that, He has been 
 crucified , etc. Kai ei should not, with the 
 Vulgate and the majority of expositors, be 
 taken as although, for in that case it would 
 be confounded with ei k at. Kai ei means 
 even if, so that the climactic Kai applies to 
 the conditional particle. See Hartung, I. 
 p. 140 f.; Haack. ad Thuc. p. 562 f.; Stall- 
 baum, ad Plat. Ap. S. p. 32 A, Gorg. p. 509 
 A. De Wette wrongly rejects my view of 
 the Recepta, making /cai yap signify merely 
 for. It always means for even. See Har¬ 
 tung, I. p. 148; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. 
 p. 467 B. So, too, immediately in the Kai 
 yap pixels that follows. Hofmann quite er¬ 
 
 roneously takes the Recepta in such a way, 
 that Paul with /cai ei merely expresses a 
 real fact conditionally on account of his 
 wishing to keep open the possibility of looking 
 at it also otherwise. In that case e£ aaOeveLas 
 would really be the point of consequence 
 in the protasis, and the apostle must at 
 least have written /cai yap ei eg acr&eveias 
 earavpuO-q. Besides, the leaving open a pos¬ 
 sible other way of regarding the matter 
 would have no ground at all in the text. A 
 mistaken view is adopted also by Osiandex*, 
 who has taken /cat as the also of comparison, 
 namely, of Christ with His servant (conse¬ 
 quently, as if /cai yap ai/ro? had stood in the 
 text). 
 
CHAP. XIII., 5. 
 
 705 
 
 bears the triumphant character of strength in weakness. Hofmann wrongly, 
 in opposition to the clear and simple connection, desires to take nal yap ypeig 
 aoO. ev avrd >, which he separates from the following aAla /c.r./L, as a proof 
 for the clause og elg vpdg ova aoOevel, d/i/la dvvarel ev vpiv , for which reason he 
 imports into ev avrti the contrast : not a weakness of the natural man. This 
 contrast, although in substance of itself correct, is not here, any more than 
 afterwards in avv avrti, intentionally present to the mind of the apostle. — 
 acdevovuev ev avrti] Paul represents his sparing hitherto observed towards the 
 Corinthians (for it is quite at variance with the context to refer dad., with 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, Estius, and others, to suffer¬ 
 ings and persecutions) as a powerlessness based on his fellowship with Christ, 
 inasmuch as Christ also had been weak and eoTavpdi&y eg acHeveiag . 1 But 
 that is only a transient powerlessness ; we shall he aline with Him through the 
 power of God in reference to you. (i 7 ) As he is conscious, namely, of that im¬ 
 potence as having its ground in Christ, he is conscious also of this being 
 alive in union with Christ as fellowship with His life ( avv avrf), and hence 
 proceeding e/c dwapeog deoa, as Christ’s being alive also flowed from this 
 source, Rom. i. 4, vi. 4, al. — Elf vpag, lastly, gives to the faouev (which is 
 not, with Theodoret, Anselm, and Grotius, to be referred to the future life) 
 its concrete direction and special reference of its meaning : 2 we shall he alive 
 (vigere , comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8) in reference to you , namely, through the effec¬ 
 tive assertion of the power divinely conferred on us, especially through 
 apostolic judging and punishing (seevv. 1, 2). “Non est vivere, sed valere 
 vita,” Martial, vi. 70. Comp, for the pregnant reference of £6, Xen. Mem. 
 iii. 3. 11 ; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 809 D ; Dio Cass. lxix. 19. Calvin well 
 observes : “ Vitam opponit infirmitati, ideoque hoc nomine florentem et 
 plenum dignitatis statum intelligit.” 
 
 Yer. 5. Now he brings the readers to themselves. Instead of wishing to 
 put to the proof Christ (in Paul), they should try themselves (ireipafiv, to put 
 to the test, and that by comparison of their Christian state with what they 
 ought to be), prove themselves (6oKipdf.iv). Oecumenius and Theojfliylact 
 correctly estimate the force of the twice emphatically prefixed eavrovg ; 6okl~ 
 pafiv , however, is not, any more than in 1 Cor. xi. 8, equivalent to dosipov 
 ttoicIv (Riickert) ; but what Paul had previously said by tt eipafre, el eare ev r. 
 7t ., he once more sums up, and that with a glance back to ver. 3, emphati¬ 
 cally by the one word doKipafre. —el ears ev ry tlctel] dependent on 7 Teipdfre, 
 not on doKipafre : whether ye are in the faith, whether ye find yourselves in 
 the fides salvifica (not to be taken of faith in miracles, as Chrysostom would 
 have it), which is the fundamental condition of all Christian character and 
 life. The elvai ev ry Tviaret stands opposed to mere nominal Christianity. — 
 7 ] ovk e’KLytvdvGKeTe /c.r.A.] not ground of the obligation to prove themselves the 
 more strictly (“si id sentitis, bene tractate tantum hospitem,” Grotius, 
 
 1 This impotence is not to be conceived as 
 involuntary (de Wette, following Schwarz 
 in Wolf), but as voluntary (comp, ov <f>ei<ro- 
 ycu, ver. 2), as Christ’s weakness also was 
 voluntary, namely, the impotence of deep¬ 
 
 est resignation and self-surrender, and this 
 was its very characteristic. Comp. Heb. 
 xii. 2. 
 
 a Hence eb is not, with Castalio and 
 Ktickert, to be joined to Sway, tfeov. 
 
706 
 
 paul ? s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 comp. Osiander, Maier, and others) ; for the ETCLyivdoKstv already presup¬ 
 poses the self-trial, not the converse (Hofmann). On the contrary, Paul 
 lays hold of the readers by their Christian sense of honour, that they should 
 not be afraid of this trial of themselves. Or does not this proving of your¬ 
 selves lead you to the knowledge of yourselves, that Christ is in you ? (j 7 ) 
 Are you then so totally devoid of the Christian character, that that self-trial 
 has not the holy result of your discerning in yourselves what is withal the 
 necessary consequence 1 of the elvai ev ry tcIgtel : that Christ is in you (by 
 means of the Holy Spirit) present and active ? Comp. Gal. ii. 20 ; Eph. 
 iii. 17. The construction eavrovg on ’I. X. ev vylv ecrnv is not a case of at¬ 
 traction, since in on /c.r.A., vyelg is not the subject (see on Gal. iv. 11), but 
 bn defines more precisely (that, namely). And the full name ’I ycovg Xpiorog 
 has solemn emphasis. — el yyrc adomyol core] After this a mark of interroga¬ 
 tion is not to be repeated, but a period to be placed. That Christ is in you, 
 you will perceive, if you are not perchance (el yrjn, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 5) spu¬ 
 rious Christians, (k 1 ) In such, no doubt, Christ is not ! Rom. viii. 9 f. 
 To attach it merely to the predicated clause itself (’I. X. ev vy. e.) as a limi¬ 
 tation (Hofmann), is at variance with the very yvdaecr&e, on that follows in 
 ver. 6, in keeping with which that exception el yyn n.r.X. is to be included 
 under the on /c.r.A. attached to hnyivdcnc. eavrovg. In el yyn the TL serves 
 (like forte) “incertius pronuntiandae rei,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 496. 
 According to Ewald, el yyn uS. egte depends on 8oiuyd{,eTe, and ?) ov eTtiyivuGn. 
 
 . . . ev vylv eonv is to be a parenthesis—a construction which is harsh and 
 the less necessary, seeing that, according to the usual connection, the 
 thoughtful glance in the adomyol egte back to eavrovg domya^ere is retained. 
 
 Yer. 6. The case of the adoiayov elvat, however, which he has just laid 
 down as possible perhaps in respect of the readers, shall not, he hopes, oc¬ 
 cur with him: you shall discern (in pursuance of experience) that we are 
 not unattested, ungenuine, that is, u non deesse nobis experimenta et argumenta 
 potestatis et virtutis, qua in refractarios uti possimusf Wolf. Comp. vv. 7, 
 9. Not without bitterness is this said. But the object of the hoping is 
 not the desert of punishment on the part of the readers, but the doniyy of the 
 apostolic authority in the event of their deserving punishment. ’KTreilyriKdg 
 tovto redteuiEV, dig ye/O mv avroig rfjg TrvevyariKyg dvvayeug Tvapexeiv anodei^/v, Theo- 
 doret. According to others (Beza, Calvin, Balduin, Calovius, Bengel), 
 Paul expresses the hope that they would amend themselves and thereby 
 evince the power of his apostolic influence. This, as the blending of the 
 two views (Flatt, Osiander), is opposed to the context in vv. 3 f., 7, 9. 
 Not till ver. 7 does Paul turn to the expression of gentle, pious love. 
 
 Yer. 7. Yet we pray to God that this, my apostolic attestation, which I hope 
 to give you means of discerning, may not be made necessary on your part. 
 On evxdyetta (see the critical remarks), compared with the ebir'fio used just 
 before, observe that, as often in Paul and especially in this Epistle of vivid 
 emotion, the interchange of the singular and the plural forms of expressing 
 
 1 The elvai iv r. uia-Tei and the Xpicrro? iv each other as cause and effect. Comp. 
 
 vfiiv are not equivalent, but are related to Weiss, Mbl. Theol. p. 348. 
 
CHAP. XIII., 7. 
 
 707 
 
 himself has by no means always special grounds by which it is determined. 
 — py Trotr/ccu vfj.de K-anbv fir/bt:v} that ye may do nothing evil, which, in fact, 
 would only keep up and increase your guilt. Others incorrectly take it, 1 
 “that I be not compelled to do something evil to you.' 1 ' 1 How could Paul 
 have so designated his chastisement ? For that ttoleIv kokov stands here, not 
 in the sense : to do something to one's harm, but in the ethical sense, is shown 
 by the contrast to nalov Troiijre in what follows. But even apart from this, 
 in fact, because evxbpe&a receives through npog rov heov (comp. Xen. Mem. 
 
 i. 3. 2 ; 2 Macc. ix. 13, xv. 27 ; Hum. xxi. 8, al.) the meaning we pray, the 
 words, in the event of ■Kotfiaai vpag not being held to be accusative with in¬ 
 finitive, would have to be explained : to pray to God that He may do 
 nothing evil to you —which would be absurd. But the accusative with the 
 infinitive occurs as in Acts xxvi. 19. — ovx iva ypsig k.t.A.] Statement of the 
 object, for which he makes this entreaty to God, first negatively and then 
 positively ; not in a selfish design, not in order that we may appear through 
 your moral conduct as attested) in so far, namely, as the excellence of the 
 disciple is the attestation of the teacher, comp. iii. 2 f., Phil. iv. 1, 1 Thess. 
 
 ii. 20, al.), but on your account, in order that ye may do what is good, and 
 thus the attestation may be on your side and we may be as unattested, in so 
 far, namely, as we cannot in that case show ourselves in our apostolic 
 authority (by sternness and execution of punishment). That he should 
 with boKifioi and adoiapoi refer to two different modes of his boaipy, is quite a 
 Pauline trait. Through the moral walk of the readers he was manifested 
 on the one hand as dotapog, on the other as ddonipog ; what he intended in 
 his Evxdfteda tt pog tov -d-eov k.t.a. was not the former, for it was not about 
 himself that he was concerned, but the latter, because it was simply the 
 attestation of the readers by the tcole'iv to salov that he had at heart. 
 According to Olshausen, there is meant to be conveyed in oi>x iva ypelg 6ok. 
 par d>y.: not in order that the fulfilment of this prayer may appear as an effect 
 of my powerful intercession. But Paul must have said this, if he had meant. 
 it. Others 2 hold that after ovx there is to be supplied evxopai, or the idea of 
 wish implied in it, and Iva expresses its contents; “I do not wish that I 
 should show T myself as standing the test (that is, stern), but rather that ye 
 may do what is good and I be as not standing the test (that is, may appear 
 not standing the test, and so not stern),” Billroth. Certainly the contents 
 of evxm&at might be conceived as its aim, and hence be expressed by Iva 
 (Jas. v. 16 ; Col. i. 9 ; 2 Thess. i. 11) ; but in this particular case the 
 previous infinitive construction, expressing the contents of the prayer, 
 teaches us-that Paul has not so conceived it. Had he conceived it so, 
 he would have simply led the readers astray by Iva. The explanation 
 is forced, and simply for the reason that the fine point of a double aspect of 
 
 1 So Billroth, Ewald, Hofmann, and pre¬ 
 viously Flatt and Emmerling, as in the first 
 instance Grotius, who says: “ Ne cogar 
 cuiquam poenam infligere, quae malum 
 dicitur, quia dura est toleratu.” On noielv 
 TLva rt, comp. Matt, xxvii. 22; Mark xv. 
 
 12. Elsewhere always in the N. T. noielv 
 
 TIVL TL. 
 
 2 So Billroth and Osiander and others, as 
 well as previously Flatt, Zachariae, Estius, 
 Menochius, al. 
 
 « 
 
708 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 the Sontpy was not appreciated. From this point of view Paul might have 
 said in a connection like vi. 8 f.: wf aSoncpoi nal Soniyoi. — ug aSoiupoi ] Beza 
 aptly says : hominum videlicet judicio. By way of appearance. Comp, al¬ 
 ready Chrysostom. 
 
 Yer. 8. Reason assigned for the relation just expressed as aimed at by Iva 
 vueig rbnalov tv otjjre, rpiEig Si S>g aSoni/uoi cjucv. That we really have this design, 
 is based on the fact that we are not in a position to do anything against the 
 truth, but for the truth. The a/l/ydem is to be taken in the habitual sense 
 of the N. T.: the truth /car e^oxr/v, the divine truth, i.e. the gospel; comp, 
 iv. 2, vi. 7. If Paul, forsooth, had not had the design that the readers 
 should do what is good, and he himself appear without punitive power and 
 consequently as unattested, he would have counteracted the gospel, in so far 
 as it aims at establishing Christian morality, requires penitence, announces 
 forgiveness to the penitent, etc. ; but he is not in a position to do so (l 7 ) 
 To take aAjydem, with Flatt and older expositors, 1 as moral truth (see on 
 1 Cor. v. 8), uprightness , is a limitation of it, which the context all the less 
 suggests, seeing that aXjd-Eta in the above sense embraces in it the moral 
 element. The taking it in the judicial sense would be accordant with the 
 context diva aA/yd?y tyepoficr rr/v ipjj&ov, Theophylact, so Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Grotius : “quod rectum justumque est;” Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, de 
 Wette: “the true state in which the matter finds itself ;” so, too, Rabiger); 
 yet, in that case, there would result an inappropriate contrast, since virep. r. 
 ah. can only mean “for the benefit of the truth,” which presupposes a more 
 comprehensive idea of alj-d. (de Wette : “to further the truth ”).—aXX 
 virip t. aX. ] sc. SwapeSa tl , we are able to do something. 
 
 Yer. 9. Not reason assigned for ver. 7 (Hofmann), but confirmation of 
 what is said in ver. 8 from the subjective relation of the apostle to the 
 readers, in which ja/poaev has the emphasis. This joy is as the living seal 
 of the heart to that axiom. — aG&ev&pev] according to the connection, quite 
 the same as aSSutpoi upev in ver. 7, of the state in which the apostle is not in 
 a position to exercise punitive authority on account of the Christian conduct 
 of his readers. Comp. ver. 4. — Swaroi ] correlative to the aG&£vcjg.ev, con¬ 
 sequently : such as (on account of their Christian excellence) one can do noth¬ 
 ing to with the power of punishment. The latter is powerless in presence of 
 such a moral disposition. The context does not yield more than this con¬ 
 trast ; even the thought, that the Swaroi guard themselves against all that 
 would call forth the punitive authority (Hofmann), is here foreign to it. — 
 tovto nai evxoueda] this , namely, that ye may be strong, ice also pray; it is 
 not merely the object of our joy, but also of our prayers. On the absolute 
 Euxeodai used of praying (for after ver. 7 it is not here merely wishing), comp. 
 Jas. v. 16 ; often in classic writers. There is no reason for taking the tovto 
 adverbially : thereupon , on that account (Ewald). — rr/v vyuv Kardpriatv ] epexe- 
 gesis of tovto : namely, your f ull preparation , complete furnishing, perfec¬ 
 tion in Christian morality. Comp. KarapTLcyog , Eph. iv. 12. Beza and 
 
 1 So Photius in Oecumenius, p. 709 D : “ Innocentiae enim nostra sententia obesse 
 
 6i\rj&eiav ttjv evaefieiav Ka\el to? voPov orro? non poteritas also Erasmus, Moslieim, 
 tov Svao-efiovs fiiov, and previously Pelagius : and others. 
 
CHAP. XIII., 10, 11. 
 
 709 
 
 Bengel think of the readjustment of the members of the body of the church 
 that had been dislocated by the disputes (see on 1 Cor. i. 10, and Kypke, 
 II. p. 290)—a special reference, which is not suggested in the context. 
 See ver. 7. 
 
 Yer. 10. This, namely, that I wish to have you dvvarovg or KaTTjpTiopevovs 
 and pray accordingly, this is the reason why 1 write this when absent , in order 
 not to 'proceed sharply ichen present , etc. He wishes that he may be spared 
 from the ov ^daopat threatened in ver. 2, and that he may see the earnest 
 anxiety, which he had already expressed at xii. 20 f., dispelled. In virtue 
 of this view of its practical bearing, ravra is to be referred, not to the whole 
 Epistle, but (comp. Osiander and Hofmann) to the current section from xii. 
 20 onward. — cnroropog] literally, curtly ,—that is, with thoroughgoing stern¬ 
 ness,—the same figurative conception as in our schroff , scharf [English, 
 sharply\. In the N. T. only recurring at Tit. i. 13. Comp. Wisd. v. 22, and 
 Grimm in loc. ; cnroroyia , Rom. xi. 22. More frequently in classical writers. 
 See, in general, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 508 ; Hermann, ad Soph. 0. R. 
 877. —On xphoycu without dative, with adverb, to deal with , comp. Esth. i. 
 19, ix. 27, ix. 12 ; 2 Macc. xii. 14 ; Polyb. xii. 7. 3. — fjv 6 K vpiog sAuke pm 
 dig ohiod. /c.r.A.] contains a reason why he might not proceed a7tor6p(og , as 
 thereby he could not but act at variance with the destined purpose for which 
 Christ had given to him his apostolic authority, or at least could serve it 
 only indirectly (in the way of sharp chastening with a view to amendment). 
 Comp. x. 8. If we connect the whole Kara r. k^ovoiav k.t.X. with ypatyo (Hof¬ 
 mann), the Iva -rrapibv pr/ airorop. xpvwpcu is made merely a parenthetic thought, 
 which is not in keeping with its importance according to the context (ver. 
 7 tf.), and is forbidden by the emphasized correspondence of aircjv and it ap6v 
 (comp. ver. 2). This emphasis is all the stronger, seeing that inruv in itself 
 would be quite superfluous. 
 
 Yer. 11. Closing exhortation. Bengel aptly observes : u Severius scrip- 
 serat Paulus in tractatione, nunc benignius, re tamen ipsa non dimissa.”— 
 XolttSv] See on Eph. vi. 10. What I otherwise have still to impress on you 
 is, etc. : “Yerbum est properantis sermonem absolvere,” Grotius. — x a ' L ~ 
 pers ] not : valete (for the apostolic valete follows only at ver. 13), as Yalla, 
 Erasmus, and Beza have it, but gaudete (Yulgate). Encouragement to 
 Christian joy of soul, Phil. iii. 1, iv. 4. And the salvation in Christ is great 
 enough to call upon even a church so much injured and reproached to re¬ 
 joice. Comp. i. 24. — Karaprl^crQ-e] let yourselves ~be brought right , put into 
 the right Christian frame *, teXelol yivEcr&E, avaTrXrjpovTE ra Xcnropeva , Chrys¬ 
 ostom. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 10 ; and see Suicer, Thes. II. p. 60. — TrapaKaXdcrd-e] 
 is by most, including Billroth, Schrader, Osiander, correctly understood of 
 consolation ; become comforted over everything that assails and makes you to 
 need comfort, consolationem admittite ! ettel yap ttoXXoI ijcav oi rrupaapdi /cat 
 pEyaXoL oi dvdwoi, Chrysostom. Riickert no doubt thinks that there was 
 nothing to be comforted ; but the summons has, just like what was said at 
 i. 7, its good warrant, since at that time every church was placed in circum¬ 
 stances needing comfort. Riickert’s own explanation : care for your spirit¬ 
 ual elevation , is an arbitrary extension of the definite sense of the word to an 
 
710 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the cokikthians. 
 
 indefinite domain. Others, following the Vulgate (< exhortamini ), such as 
 Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Ewald, Hofmann, render : accept exhortations to what is 
 good, which, however, in the connection is too vague and insipid ; while de 
 Wette, following Pelagius, Cornelius it Lapide, and others (exhort ye one 
 another'), imports an essential element, which Paul would have expressed by 
 'jrapanaXslTE a?Ar/?iOvg (1 Thess. iv. 18, Y. 11) or eavrovg (Heb. iii. 13). —to avrb 
 QpoveIte] demands the toeing harmonious as identity of sentiment. See on 
 Phil. ii. 2.— clppveveTe] have peace (one with another), Rom. xii. 18 ; 1 Thess. 
 v. 13 ; Mark ix. 50 ; Plat. Theaet. p. 180 A ; Polyb. v. 8. 7 ; Ecclus. xxviii. 
 9, 13. It is the happy consequence of the to ai/To (ppovciv ; with the dixa 
 (ppovEiv it could not take place. — /cat 6 D-cog /c.r.A] This encouraging promise 
 refers, as is clear from rf/g aydrrqg /cat eipr/vpq, merely to the two last points 
 especially needful in Corinth—to the harmony and the keeping of peace ; 
 hence a colon is to be put after Ttapanahela^e. And then, if ye do that (/cat, 
 with future after imperatives, see Winer, p. 293 [E. T. 392]), will God, who 
 works the love and the peace (Rom. xv. 13, xvi. 20 ; Phil. iv. 9 ; 1 Thess. 
 v. 23 ; Heb. xiii. 20), help you with His presence of grace. The charac¬ 
 teristic genitival definition of God is argumentative , exhibiting the certainty 
 of the promise as based on the moral nature of God. (m 7 ) 
 
 Ver. 12, 13. As to the saluting by the holy hiss, see on 1 Cor. xvi. 20. — ol 
 ayiot 7rdvTEg] namely, at the place and in the vicinity , where Paul was writing, 
 
 in Macedonia. It was obvious of itself to the readers that thev were not 
 
 «/ 
 
 saluted by all Christians generally (Theodoret). It by no means follows from 
 this salutation that the Epistle had been publicly read at the place of its com¬ 
 position (possibly Philippi) in the church (Calovius, Osiander), but simply 
 that they hiew of the composition of the Epistle. ISTor is any special set 
 purpose to be sought as underlying the current designation of Christian ayioi 
 (“ utpote sanguine Christi lotos et Dei Spiritu regenitos et sanctificatos,” 
 Calovius). According to Osiander, the higher value and blessing of the 
 brotherly greeting is meant to be indicated ; but comp. 1 Cor. xv. 20, ol 
 afe/pol TrovTeg. — Paul does not add salutations to individuals by name ; these 
 Titus might orally convey, and the apostle himself came, in fact, soon 
 after (Acts xx. 2). 
 
 Ver. 14. Concluding wish of blessing—whether written by his own hand 
 (Hofmann) is an open question—full and solemn as in no other Epistle, 
 tripartite in accordance with the divine Trinity, 1 from which the three 
 highest blessings of eternal salvation come to believers. — The grace of Christ 
 (comp. Rom. v. 15, i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2, viii. 9 ; Gal. vi. 18 ; Eph. 
 i. 2 ; Phil. i. 2 ; 2 Thess. i. 2 ; Philem. 25), which is continuously active in 
 favour of His own (Rom. viii. 34 ; 2 Cor. xii. 8), is first adduced, because 
 it is the medians, Rom. v. 1, viii. 34, between believers and the love of God, 
 that causa principalis of the grace of Christ (Rom. v. 8), as it also forms the 
 presupposition of the efficacy of the Spirit, Rom. viii. 1, 2. The fellowship 
 of the Iloly Spirit —that is, the participation in the gracious efficacy of the 
 
 1 On the old liturgical use of this formula of blessing, see Constit. apost. viii. 5. 5, viii. 
 12. 3. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 711 
 
 Holy Spirit 1 —is named last, because it is the consequence of the two former 
 (Rom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6), and continues (Rom. vii. 6, viii. 4 If., 26 f.) and 
 brings to perfection (Rom. viii. 11 ; Gal. vi. 8) their work in men .—pera 
 rrdvruv vjuuv] sc. ebj. Seal of holy apostolic love after so much severe cen¬ 
 sure, one thing for all. (n 7 ) 
 
 . Notes by Ameeican Editoe. 
 
 (h 7 ) Paul's visits to Corinth. Yer. 1. 
 
 All the recent expositors save Stanley and Plumptre (in Ellicott’s Commentary) 
 agree that the language of this verse implies that the Apostle had already 
 visited Corinth twice. There is a good note on the subject by Dr. Poor in the 
 American edition of Lange. 
 
 (i 7 ) “ We also are weak in Him." Yer. 4. 
 
 This weakness is not a moral weakness, nor is it bodily infirmities or suffer¬ 
 ings, nor yet a weakness in the estimation of others, i.e., that he was despised. 
 It is antithetical to power, and as the power referred to was that of punish¬ 
 ment, the weakness must be the absence of such power. “The Apostle in 
 Christ, i.e., in virtue of his fellowship with Christ, was when in Corinth weak 
 and forbearing, as though he had no power to vindicate his authority ; just as 
 Christ was weak in the hands of His enemies when they led Him away to be 
 crucified. But as Christ’s weakness was voluntary, as there rested latent in 
 the suffering Lamb of God the resources of Almighty power ; so in the meek, 
 forbearing Apostle w r as the plenitude of supernatural power which he .derived 
 from his ascended Master’ ’ (Hodge). 
 
 (j 7 ) “ Prove your own selves." Yer. 5. 
 
 The exhortation, Hodge argues, supposes on one hand that faith is self-mani¬ 
 festing, that it reveals itself in consciousness and by its fruits ; and on the 
 other, that it may exist and be genuine and yet not be known as true faith by 
 the believer himself. [The poet Cowper is a case in point.] Only what is 
 doubtful needs to be determined by examination. 
 
 (k 7 ) “ Except ye he reprobates . ” Yer. 5. 
 
 The Revised Version retains the closing word here, putting it as an adjective 
 and not a noun. Of course it neither does nor can have the theological sense 
 
 1 Estius, Calovius, and Hammond under¬ 
 stand Koivoivia of the communicatio activa of 
 the Holy Spirit, which, doubtless, as row 
 nvevfji. ay. w r ould be genitivus subjecti, is in 
 accordance with the preceding clauses, and 
 not at variance with the linguistic usage of 
 Koivmvia in itself (Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. pp. 
 81, 287), but is in opposition to the usage 
 throughout in the N. T. (see on Rom. xv. 
 2G; 1 Cor. x. 16), and not in keeping with 
 passages like Phil. ii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 9; 2 Pet. 
 i. 4, —passages which have as their basis 
 
 the habitually employed conception of the 
 participation in the divine, which takes 
 place in the case of the Christian. Hence 
 also not: familiaris consuetudo with the 
 Holy Spirit (Ch. F. Fritzsche, Opusc. p. 
 276). Theophylact well remarks : rijv kou'w- 
 
 vLav row aytov TrvevyaaTO?, tovtsctti rr)v fj. e t o- 
 Xy]v avTOVKalrr^v p e r a A rj \p t v , Kad-' ijv 
 ayia^opex9a, Trj €</>’ r)pas im<j)OiTr)arei. tov tt apa- 
 /cArpov KOivuvoi axnov yevopevpi. (cat avroi, ov/c 
 overt a, aAAa /ue#e£et ovtcs. 
 
712 
 
 Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 of “ one judicially abandoned to perdition,” but simply means those who can¬ 
 not stand the test and are disapproved. 
 
 (l 7 ) “ We can do nothing against the truth.” Yer. 8. 
 
 It follows from Dr. Meyer’s just exposition of this utterance that Paul’s de¬ 
 cision, if against the truth, availed nothing before God. The doctrine of Borne, 
 that discipline is valid and effectual, even clave errante, is refuted by this text. 
 What the church binds on earth is bound in heaven only when it is in accord¬ 
 ance with the truth. 
 
 (m 7 ) The condition of peace. Yer. 11. 
 
 In reference to the two latter clauses of the verse, Hodge calls attention to 
 the “ familiar Christian paradox. ” God’s presence produces love and peace, 
 and we must have love and peace in order to have His presence. God gives, 
 but we must cherish His gifts. His agency does not supersede ours, but min¬ 
 gles with it and becomes one with it in our consciousness. We work out our 
 own salvation while God works in us. 
 
 (n 7 ) The comprehensive benediction. Yer. 14. 
 
 It is remarkable that an Epistle written under a tempest of conflicting emo¬ 
 tions and often breathing indignation, reproach, and sorrow, should close with 
 the richest of all the benedictions of the New Testament. The grace of the 
 Lord Jesus stands first, because it is by it, as Bengel says, that the love of God 
 reaches us. It is indeed the necessary condition of its manifestation, for we 
 are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. The love of God, again, is the 
 source of redemption. It is manifested in His sending his only-begotten into 
 the world, for God so loved the world that he gave, etc. The communion of 
 the Holy Ghost is not communion with Him, but participation in Him, the 
 holy fellowship mediated by His indwelling with the Father and with the 
 Son, and with all that belong to the one mystical body of Christ.—The dis¬ 
 tinct personality and the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 
 being here plainly implied, the benediction is a clear recognition of the 
 Trinity, the fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 
 
TOPICAL 
 
 INDEX 
 
 A. 
 
 Aaronic Blessing, 13. 
 
 Absolution, 269. 
 
 Abstinence, 189 seq. ; for others’ 
 good, 191 seq. 
 
 Achaia, 6 ; churches of, 11, 400 seq., 
 416. 
 
 Adam, The first and the last, 379 seq.; 
 the fall of, 640 seq., 667. 
 
 Adiaphora, 190, 192, 193. 
 
 Admonition, 101. 
 
 Affliction, 417 seq., 436, 437, 419 seq. ; 
 a special, 420 seq. ; in ministerial 
 work, 494 seq., 505, 647 seq , 548 
 seq. ; compensations of, 503, 505, 
 507. 
 
 Agapae, 258, 259, 271, 328. 
 
 Aim of the Christian Life, 213 seq., 
 216. 
 
 Amen, 323, 335, 433. 
 
 Anathema, Maranatlia, 404 seq., 406. 
 
 Angels, 129 seq. ; the judging of, 145 ; 
 as guardians, 253 ; the language of, 
 301. 
 
 Aphrodite, worship of, 1. 
 
 Apollos, 2 ; his party, 19 seq., 84, 
 183 ; and the resurrection, 340 ; to 
 visit Corinth, 399. 
 
 Apostles, sent of God, 98 ; suffer pri¬ 
 vations, 99 seq. ; married, 215 ; 
 witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, 
 344 seq. 
 
 Apostolic, greeting, 9, 13, 403 seq., 
 416 seq. ; teaching, 26; benevolence, 
 394 seq. 
 
 Appearances, Begard for, 594, 598. 
 
 Aquila, 1. 
 
 Arbitration, 128, 131 seq. 
 
 Asceticism, 214, 260. 
 
 Atonement, The, 264 seq. ; faith in, 
 267 ; the central fact, 343 ; effect of, 
 522 ; its benefits, 529 seq., 542 seq. ; 
 the doctrine of, 539 seq., 543. 
 
 Avaricious, The, warned against, 120, 
 
 121 . 
 
 B. 
 
 Baptism, and faith, 24 ; and Paul, 25 
 seq. ; delegated to assistants, 26 ; 
 effect of, 66 ; regeneration in, 135, 
 146 ; of infants, 160, 179 ; the sym¬ 
 
 bols of, 219 seq., 242 ; in the Holy 
 Spirit, 289 ; for the dead, 364 seq., 
 366 seq., 368, 392. 
 
 “ Being saved,” 39 seq. 
 
 Benevolence, commended, 237, 242, 
 394 seq. ; exhibited, 578 seq., 597, 
 580 seq. ; exhortation to, 583 seq., 
 601 seq. ; the divine measure of, 
 588 seq. ; equal and universal, 590 
 seq., 598; voluntary, 604 seq.; bless¬ 
 ings of, 609 seq. 
 
 Benediction, The Triune, 710, 712. 
 
 Bible, The, its chief aim, 40 ; its spir¬ 
 itual interpretation, 56 seq. 
 
 Blessing, Aaronic, 13. 
 
 Boasting, forbidden, 36, 81, 84 seq., 
 commanded, 38 ; disapproved of, 
 627 seq. ; in God, 635 ; of Paul, 654 
 seq., 671 seq. 
 
 Body, The, 141 seq. ; a temple, 144 
 seq. ; its membership, 291 seq. ; 
 divinely designed, 293 seq. ; nature 
 of its resurrection, 373 seq., 375 seq., 
 377 seq., 393. 512 seq., 541 ; kinds 
 of, 378 seq., 383, 384, 507 seq. ; 
 translation of, 520. 
 
 Brothers of Christ, 198 seq. 
 
 C. 
 
 Calvin, and the Lord’s Supper, 231 
 seq. 
 
 Canon, of the Bible, 125. 
 
 Catechism, Teachings of the, 61. 
 
 Celibacy, 150 seq., 152 seq., 154, 155 
 seq., 169 seq., 174 seq., 176 seq., 
 178 seq., 180, 197. 
 
 Cephas, his party, 19 seq.; mentioned, 
 199 ; witness of Christ’s resurrec¬ 
 tion, 343. 
 
 Change, A universal, 384 seq., 393. 
 
 Chloe, 18 seq. 
 
 Childhood condition, 306, 310 ; in 
 judgment and malice, 323 seq. 
 
 Christ Jesus, invocation of, 11 ; fel¬ 
 lowship with, 10, 13 ; imparts 
 
 knowledge, 13 seq. ; his second 
 coming, 15, 16, 74, 84, 91, 355 seq.; 
 a party of, 20 seq. ; if divided, 24 
 seq. ; proclaimed, 31 seq. ; as the 
 Crucified, 32 seq., 391 ; our wisdom 
 and righteousness, 37 seq., 41 ; his 
 
714 
 
 TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 crucifixion, 50 ; liis mind, 59 seq. ; 
 the foundation, 70 seq., 73 ; subor¬ 
 dinated, 83, 85 ; the paschal lamb, 
 
 116 ; His brothers, 198 seq. ; as the 
 Eock, 221, 222, 242 ; his Divinity, 
 243; the head, 246 seq.; confessing, 
 298 ; His resurrection, 342 seq., 
 352 seq. ; His final triumph, 359 
 seq., 361 seq. ; the glory of His res¬ 
 urrection body, 382 ; the author of 
 victory, 390 ; the life of believers, 
 497 seq. ; died for all, 529 seq., 542 
 seq. ; the righteousness of God, 
 539 seq. ; his humiliation, 584 seq., 
 597 ; will triumph over all, 621. 
 
 Christian, The, possessing all, 81, 82, 
 84, 501 ; belonging to Christ, 84 
 seq. ; as God’s steward, 87 seq. ; 
 enduring privations, 96 seq. ; to be 
 purified, 115 seq., 124 ; to be holy, 
 
 117 ; to be a judge, 128 seq., 145 ; 
 of angels, 129 seq. ; forbidden to 
 litigate, 127 seq., 131 seq., 133 seq.; 
 to be self-master, 139 ; united with 
 Christ, 142 ; bought with a price, 
 168, 196 ; striving for the goal, 213; 
 his rule of conduct, 241 ; to imitate 
 Christ, 246 ; to seek after love, 
 300-312 ; to be raised first, 355 
 seq. ; the nature of his calling, 400 ; 
 a sweet savour to God, 453 seq. ; the 
 glory of, 480 seq., 482 seq. ; his 
 power of life, 497 seq. ; their afflic¬ 
 tions and their glory, 503, 505, 548, 
 558 ; walking by faith, 503 ; striv¬ 
 ing to please God, 521 seq. ; anew 
 creature, 533 seq. ; a coworker with 
 God, 544 seq. ; his righteous con¬ 
 duct, 548 seq. ; his moral duty, 551 
 seq. ; the temple of God, 556, 558 ; 
 the riches of, 584 seq. 
 
 Christianity, The blessings of, 14 seq.; 
 and nature, 272. 
 
 Christ-party, The, 83 seq. ; 150, 183. 
 
 Circumcision, 165. 
 
 Church, The, founded on Christ, 70 
 seq. ; its building materials, 72 ; the 
 abode of the Spirit, 78 seq. ; its 
 teachers, 84 ; its basis, 104 seq., 
 106 ; its discipline, 111 seq., 124 ; 
 scandal in the, 115 ; to be purified, 
 115 seq., 124 ; united to Christ, 145; 
 as Christ’s body, 294 seq. ; govern¬ 
 ment in, 295 seq. ; to be edified, 
 320, 321 seq. ; the temple of God, 
 624 seq. 
 
 Comfort, from God, 417 seq., 436, 439 
 seq., 502, 565 seq. 
 
 Collections, 395, 580 seq., 586 seq., 
 593 seq., 600 seq. 
 
 Communion, 229 seq., 231 seq., 233 
 seq., 236 seq., 243. 
 
 Communism, 590 seq., 598, 612, 613. 
 
 Companionship with evil, 372 seq. 
 
 Conduct, Eule of, 241 ; righteous, 
 548 seq. 
 
 Confession, of sin, 269 ; of Christ, 
 297. 
 
 Confidence, desired, 561; secured, 574 
 seq., 576. 
 
 Conscience, 89 ; of the heathen, 188 ; 
 under temptation, 190 seq. ; vio¬ 
 lated, 191 ; treatment of, 191 ; in 
 eating sacrificial meats, 238, 239 ; 
 testimony of, 424 seq. 
 
 Contentiousness, reproved, 256 seq., 
 272 seq., 692 seq., 698. 
 
 Continency, 154. 
 
 Conversion, 167, 528, 535. 
 
 Conviction, of the heart, 460, 483. 
 
 Corinth, The Church at, 1 ; its un¬ 
 mixed character, 2 ; its divisions, 
 3 seq. ; receives Paul’s Epistles, 6 ; 
 its parties, 12 ; favored with gifts, 
 14 seq.; a testimony for Paul, 461 
 seq. ; Paul’s visit to, 700, 711. 
 
 Corinthians, Epistles to the, apocry¬ 
 phal, 4 seq. 
 
 Corinthians, First Epistle to the, 4 ; 
 occasion of writing, 5 ; aim and 
 contents, 5 ; to whom written, 6 ; 
 place and time of writing, 6, 118 ; 
 its genuineness, 6 seq.; its address, 
 11 seq. 
 
 Corinthians, Second Epistle to the, 
 409 ; occasion of writing, 410 ; aim, 
 411 ; contents, 411, 412 ; place of 
 writing, 412 seq. ; genuineness of, 
 413 ; unity of, 414. 
 
 Communicant, The wmrthy, 269, 273. 
 
 Covenant, 264 seq. ; the new and the 
 old, 464 seq., 466 seq., 483, 474 seq., 
 484, 475 seq. 
 
 Covetousness, 603, 613. 
 
 Creation, Mosaic account of, 272. 
 
 Creatures of God, good, 238. 
 
 Crispus, 1 ; baptized by Paul, 25. 
 
 Cross of Christ, 27; preached, 31 seq.; 
 its influence with the Jew r s, 32. 
 
 Crucifixion of Christ, 50. 
 
 Culture, opposed to the Gospel, 2. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dancing, 223. 
 
 Dead, Eaising the, 282. 338, 340, 348, 
 350, 352, 353, 354, 355. 374, 376, 
 383, 385, 386, 387, 391, 392, 393. 
 
 Death, through man, 353 ; universal, 
 353 seq. ; the last enemy over¬ 
 come, 360 seq. ; done away with, 
 388 seq. ; a transition state, 374, 
 392 seq. ; the sentence of, 422, 437 ; 
 eternal, 466 ; no fear of, 516 ; ethi¬ 
 cal, universal, 529, 542. 
 
TOPICAL IJSTDEX. 
 
 715 
 
 Decrees of God, 87. 
 
 Deceit, reproved, 652. 
 
 Defilement, 189. 
 
 Deliverance, promised, 226 seq. ; of 
 God, 422, 436 ; prayer for, 684. 
 
 Demons, or devils, 235 seq. 
 
 Dependence, Mutual, 290, 292. 
 
 Desertion, 161 seq., 179 seq. 
 
 Discernment, of Scripture, 56 seq., 
 58 seq. 
 
 Discipline of the Spirit, 105 ; of the 
 Church, 111 seq., 121, 122, 124, 192, 
 445 seq., 456 ; unto edification, 709. 
 
 Discontent of Christians, 223 seq. 
 
 Discrepancy of Scripture, 223, 243. 
 
 Dissensions, reproved, 257 seq. ; uses 
 of, 273. 
 
 Divorce, 109, 156 seq., 158 seq., 160 
 seq., 171 seq., 178, 179, 180. 
 
 Doctrines, Development of, 72. 
 
 Drunkard, The, warned against, 121. 
 
 E. 
 
 Earnestness, manifested, 601 seq. 
 
 Easter, 118. 
 
 Ebionitisin, 23. 
 
 Ecstasy, 672. 
 
 Edification, 320 ; by prayer, 321 seq.; 
 in discourse, 335 ; in all teaching, 
 329, 336; 691. 
 
 Elections, Church, 593. 
 
 Election, Divine, 34 seq., 185. 
 
 Encouragement, 517, 519. 
 
 End, The, of the Resurrection, 356 ; 
 of the world, 385 seq., 392, 511. 
 
 Endowment, 295. 
 
 Ephesus, 6, 398, 405. 
 
 Epicureanism, 149, 339 ; its immoral 
 maxims, 369 seq. 
 
 Epistle, A lost, 118 seq., 125. 
 
 Equality, Christian, 167. 
 
 Essenes, 22, 150. 
 
 Eve, The fall of, 640 seq., 667. 
 
 Evil Angels, 225, 253. 
 
 Evil, The rights of, 137 seq. ; avoid¬ 
 ance of, 241 seq., 707 ; association 
 with, 372 seq. ; renounced, 487 seq. 
 
 Excommunication, 109 ; enforced, 111 
 seq., 113 seq., 124. 
 
 Exhortation, to steadfastness, 342, 390 
 seq., 391, 400, 405, 433 seq. 
 
 Expediency, Christian, 137 seq.; the 
 rule of, 191, 192 seq. ; its applica¬ 
 tion, 237. 
 
 F. 
 
 Factions, The, 39, 123. 
 
 Faith, perseverance in, 16 ; and bap¬ 
 tism, 24 seq.; based on God’s power, 
 46 ; saving, 281 seq. ; without love, 
 302; and love, 308 seq., 310 seq.; de¬ 
 pendent on Christ’s resurrection,349 
 
 seq. ; steadfastness in the, 342, 390, 
 391, 400, 405, 433 seq., 438 ; the 
 spirit of, 498 ; in Christ’s salvation, 
 499 ; walking by, 518, 541 ; appro¬ 
 priating salvation, 535 ; increase of, 
 632 seq. 
 
 Faithfulness of God, 227 seq., 243, 
 431, 437. 
 
 Fasting, 547, 557. 
 
 Fatherhood, Spiritual, 218. 
 
 Fear of God, The, 560 seq., 575. 
 
 Feasts, Sacrificial, 182, 204, 227 seq., 
 233 seq., 235 seq. 
 
 Fellowship, Christian, 159 seq., 229 
 seq., 231 seq., 401 seq., 403 seq., 
 418 seq., 441 seq., 610 seq. 
 
 Fellowship, with Christ, 10, 13, 16, 
 
 142 ; in the Lord’s Supper, 229, 230 
 seq ; with unbelievers, 554 seq., 558; 
 with saints, 580 seq. 
 
 Fidelity, 88 ; decided by God, 89 seq.; 
 to one’s calling, 165 seq., 169, 180. 
 
 Folly, reproved, 80. 
 
 Forbearance, 191, 239 seq., 444 seq., 
 456. 
 
 Forgiveness, 443 seq., 446 seq., 448 
 seq. 
 
 Fornication, 108 seq., 119 seq., 121 
 seq., 123, 137 seq., 139 seq., 141 seq., 
 
 143 seq., 151 seq., 223. 
 
 Foundation, The, laid, 70, 73. 
 
 Freedom, Moral, 137 seq., 154, 163, 
 
 167, 172, 189, 236, 238, 239 seq.; in 
 
 the Spirit, 479 seq. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gaius, 25. 
 
 Gallio, 2. 
 
 Gifts, bestowed. 14 seq.; all from God, 
 95 seq., of the Holy Spirit, 275, 
 277 seq., 479 seq.; classes of, 280 
 seq., 282 ; in the church, 295 seq., 
 distributed, 296. 
 
 Glory of God, sought for, 241, 243 
 seq. ; completed, 393 ; in Christ, 
 493, 502, 504. 
 
 Glory, to be revealed, 50 seq., 481 seq., 
 485. 
 
 God, his faithfulness, 16, 227 ; con¬ 
 founds the world’s wisdom, 28 ; 
 manifests His own wisdom, 30 seq., 
 33 seq. ; His choice of means, 35 
 seq. ; secures us salvation, 36 seq. ; 
 glorying in, 38 ; revealed through 
 the Spirit, 52 ; source of spiritual 
 growth, 69 seq. ; His wrath, 77 ; as 
 Judge 122 seq.; the only Deity, 168 
 seq. ; as Creator, 238 seq. ; His 
 glory, 241, 243 ; His absolute sov¬ 
 ereignty, 362 seq.; and the resur¬ 
 rection body, 375 ; the Father of 
 Mercies, 436 ; trust in, 422 ; giveth 
 
716 
 
 TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 victory, 452 seq., 457 ; man’s suf¬ 
 ficiency, 455, 457, 463 seq. ; givetli 
 the Spirit, 517. 
 
 Gospel, The, proclaimed to the lower 
 classes, 1 ; established in the be- • 
 liever’s soul. 14; proclaimed, 30, 
 340 ; without charge, 209 ; opposi¬ 
 tion to, 398, 405 ; not changeable, 
 432 ; triumph of, 621 seq. 
 
 Government, in the Church, 295 seq. 
 
 Grace of God, The, in Christ, 13 ; 
 powerful in Paul, 347 seq. ; impart¬ 
 ed through him, 428 ; in vain, 545, 
 557 ; given to liberal churches, 578 ; 
 freely given, 607 seq. ; sufficient for 
 all trials, 684 seq. 
 
 Greeks, The, litigious, 145 seq. 
 
 Greeting, Apostolic, 9, 13, 403 seq., 
 416 seq., farewell, 710. 
 
 H. 
 
 Head-covering, in prayer, 247 seq., 
 249 seq., 251 seq., 255 seq., 272. 
 
 Heathen gods, 185 seq. 
 
 Heathenism, 235 seq. ; intercourse 
 with, 554 seq., 558. 
 
 Heathen vices, 121 seq. 
 
 Heaven, longing for, 510 seq., 515 seq., 
 519 seq., 541, 542 ; our home, 518 ; 
 the number of heavens, 674 seq., 
 696 ; visions of, 677. 
 
 Holiness, in Christ, 37 seq., 117 ; to 
 be established, 560 seq., 575. 
 
 Holy Spirit, The, his gifts, 14 seq., 
 275, 279 seq., 281 seq., 287 seq., 314 
 seq. ; revelation of, 51 seq. ; dwell¬ 
 ing in the church, 78 seq., 461 seq. ; 
 his gentleness, 105 ; a symbol of, 
 219 ; imparted, 289 ; given to the 
 church, 295 ; to human prophets, 
 332 seq., anointing of, 434 seq., 437 
 seq. ; dedicating the ministry, 468 ; 
 giving life, 464 seq.; giving liberty, 
 479 seq. ; from God, 517. 
 
 Honesty, recommended, 594. 
 
 Humanity, to the brute creation, 200, 
 215. 
 
 Humility, The rule of, 93 seq. ; en¬ 
 forced, 95 seq. ; exemplified, 212 ; 
 enjoined, 226. 
 
 Husband, Duties of a, 152 seq. 
 
 I. 
 
 Idols and Idolatry, 182 seq., 185 seq , 
 188 seq., 190 seq., 192, 223, 227, 233 
 seq., 276. 
 
 Immortality, 374 seq., 377 seq., 381 
 seq. ; longing for, 510, 515 seq., 511. 
 
 Impressions, False, corrected, 691 seq., 
 698. 
 
 Incest, 5, 108 seq. ; how punished, 
 111 seq. 
 
 Incontinency, 153. 
 
 Indulgence of Sin, 224. p 
 
 Infant Baptism, 160, 179. 
 
 Infirmities, 685, 697. 
 
 Inspiration, 568, 575. 
 
 Intercourse, with sinners, 119 seq., 
 121 seq. ; with unbelievers, 554 seq., 
 558. 
 
 Intermediate State, The, 39, 340. 
 
 Interpretation, Scripture, 55 seq., 61 
 seq. ; the gift of, 321 seq., 334 seq. 
 
 Interpretation, The gift of, 283 seq., 
 324 seq. 
 
 Irony, Apostolic, 96, 98 ; of Paul, 106, 
 459 seq., 638 seq., 641 seq., 655 seq., 
 687 seq. 
 
 Israelites, The, 218 ; their exodus, 
 219 ; in the Wilderness, 221 ; their 
 sacrifices, 228 ; their hardening, 473 
 seq. ; blinded, 475 seq. ; enlighten¬ 
 ed, 476. 
 
 Isthmian Games, 212 seq. 
 
 J. 
 
 James, the brother of Christ, 21 ; wit¬ 
 ness of Christ’s resurrection, 345. 
 
 Jealousy, godly, 639 seq., 667. 
 
 Jerusalem, The church at, 394 seq. 
 
 Jesuits, The first, 22. 
 
 Joy, in tribulation, 564 seq., 566 seq.; 
 secured, 573 seq. 
 
 Judaists, 23. 
 
 Judgment Day, The, 15, 74 seq., 84, 
 90 seq., 128 seq., 225, 386 seq., 499 
 seq., 505, 522. 
 
 Judgments of God, 28. 79, 122 seq., 
 271 ; to be vindicated, 622, 653, 
 667 ; foretold, 693 seq. 
 
 Judgments of Men, 90, 122. 
 
 Justification, 135 seq., 146 ; by faith 
 and love, 309 ; the doctrine of, 539 
 seq., 543. 
 
 Justus, 1 ; the church in his house, 2. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kiss, An holy, 403, 710. 
 
 Knowledge, 183 seq., 192 ; its conceit, 
 184 ; its abuse, 191 ; as a gift, 281 ; 
 the word of, 298 ; without love, 
 302 ; imperfect, 305 seq., 307 seq.; 
 according to the Spirit, 531 seq. 
 
 Knowledge of God, revealed, 52 ; a 
 matter of experience, 184 seq. ; the 
 light of the. 492 seq., 505. 
 
 Knowledge, through Christ, 13 seq. ; 
 of Christ, 531. 
 
 L. 
 
 Labor, and its Keward, 200 seq., 215, 
 390 seq. 
 
 Law, The, as higher authority, 199 ; 
 of Moses, 467, 475 seq. 
 
TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 717 
 
 Lawsuits forbidden, 127 seq., 131 seq., 
 133 s^q., 145 seq. 
 
 Leaven, 114 seq. 
 
 Letters of Commendation, 459, 461. 
 
 Liberality, commended, 237, 242, 394 
 seq. ; exhibited, 578 seq., 597, 580 
 seq. ; exhortation to, 583 seq. ; the 
 divine measure of, 588 seq. ; equal 
 and universal, 589 seq., 598 ; free 
 and cordial, 605 ; the reward of, 605 
 seq. ; its spirit, 607 seq., 613 seq. ; 
 blessings of, 609 seq. 
 
 Liberty, Christian, 137 seq., 180, 189 
 seq., 236, 238, 239 seq. ; in the 
 Spirit, 479 seq. 
 
 Life, Spiritual, activity of, 450. 
 
 Liturgies, Eucharistic, 266. 
 
 Living for Christ, 530. 
 
 Lord's Supper, The, 117, 219 seq., 228 
 seq., 230 seq., 232 seq., 243, 259 ; 
 disorders at, 260 seq., its institu¬ 
 tion, 261 ; its doctrine and celebra¬ 
 tion, 263 seq., 265 seq. ; liturgies of 
 266 ; worthy reception of, 267 seq., 
 273; Zwinglian view of, 268; self- 
 examination for, 269 ; unworthy re¬ 
 ception of, 269 seq. ; its transfigur¬ 
 ing power, 514. 
 
 Love, 184 seq., 192 ; as a gift, 297, 
 299 ; the w t ant of, 300 seq., 302 ; ex¬ 
 cellency of, 303 seq., 313 ; personi¬ 
 fied, 303 ; its characteristics, 304 
 seq. ; its imperishableness, 305 seq.; 
 and faith and hope, 308 seq., 310 
 seq.; description of, 310 ; the great¬ 
 est gift, 310 seq. ; in all things, 
 400 ; its exercise, 447, 552 seq.; con¬ 
 straining, 527 seq., 542 ; exhibited 
 in benevolence, 583 seq., 597 ; 
 brotherly, 596. 
 
 Love Feasts, 122, 258, 259, 271. 
 
 Lutheran Church, Evangelical, The, 
 its doctrinal development, 72 ; and 
 the Lord’s Supper, 230 seq., 263 
 seq., 270. 
 
 M. 
 
 Macedonia, 397 ; receiving grace, 578; 
 showing benevolence, 578 seq., 580 
 seq. 
 
 Man, his spiritual condition, 57 seq., 
 65 ; wdth Christ’s spirit, 60 ; the 
 temple of God, 78 ; over woman, 
 246 seq. ; with head covered in 
 prayer, 247 seq., 249 seq., 255 ; de¬ 
 pendent on woman, 254 seq. 
 
 Man, The Natural, 64 seq., 67. 
 
 Marriage, 149 seq., 151 seq., 155 seq., 
 158 seq., 162 seq., 170 seq., 173 seq., 
 178 seq., 180, 189, 250, 252 seq. ; 
 from a Christian standpoint, 254 
 seq. ; mixed marriages, 158, 159, 
 
 161, 178 seq. ; with unbelievers, 
 554 seq., 558. 
 
 Martyrdom, 303. 
 
 Meat, offered to idols, 183, 185, 188 
 seq., 190 seq.; abstinence from, 191, 
 233 seq., 237 seq., 239 seq. 
 
 Memory, Confusion of the, 61. 
 
 Messianic Kingdom, The, 10, 17, 74 
 seq., 84, 96 seq. ; its basis, 104 seq , 
 106 ; its advent, 305 ; its develop¬ 
 ment, 308 seq. ; its end, 356, 358. 
 
 Millennium, The, 357 seq., 359. 
 
 Mind of Christ, The, 59 seq. 
 
 Ministerial Support, 200 seq., 202 seq., 
 204 seq. 
 
 Ministry, The Christian, 466 ; its 
 glory, 467, 486 ; its dedication, 468, 
 470 ; free from sin, 487 ; sufferings 
 in the, 495 seq., 505, 547 seq., 549 
 seq. ; of reconciliation, 535, 537 
 seq. ; its moral power, 546, 547. 
 
 Miracles, The gift of, 282. 
 
 Modesty, The rule of, 93 seq. ; •en¬ 
 forced, 95 seq. 
 
 Monasticism, 197. 
 
 Monks, The first, 22. 
 
 Monotheism, of the New Testament, 
 83. 
 
 Moses, 218 ; his ministry, 467 seq., 
 469 seq., 471 seq., 473 seq., 484, 
 475 seq. 
 
 Murmuring, against spiritual authori¬ 
 ty, 224. 
 
 Musical instruments, 317. 
 
 Mystery of God, revealed, 52. 
 
 Mythology, Heathen, 186. 
 
 N. 
 
 Nature, conformity to, 255, 272. 
 
 New Testament, its practical charac¬ 
 ter, 393 ; its monotheism, 83. 
 
 O. 
 
 Obedience, to authority, 447, 456. 
 
 Offence, giving no, 242 seq. 
 
 Old Testament, Manner of quoting 
 the, 556 seq., 558. 
 
 Order, in God’s kingdom, 246 seq ; 
 in public worship, 331 seq., 333, 335, 
 336. 
 
 Organic Nature, its glory in diversity, 
 375 seq. 
 
 P. 
 
 Paradise, 676 seq. 
 
 Pardon, 443 seq., 448 seq. 
 
 Parousia, The, 16, 74 seq., 114, 
 225 seq., 305 seq., 355 seq., 385 seq., 
 387 seq., 404 secj., 427, 467 seq., 
 484, 507 seq., 511 seq., 541. 
 
 Partisanship at Corinth, 19 seq.; re¬ 
 buked, 24 seq., 91 seq., 96 seq., 
 123 ; considered, 39, 67 seq. 
 
718 
 
 TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 Paschal Lamb, The, 116 seq. 
 
 Passover, The, 116 seq., 118. 
 
 Paul, at Corinth, 1 ; at Athens, 2 ; 
 his authority attacked, 3 ; writes 
 his first Epistle, 5 ; his visits to 
 Corinth, 6 ; his greeting, 9 seq. ; 
 called by God's will, 9 ; full of 
 Christ, 15 ; exhorts to unity, 17 ; 
 his party, 19 seq., 84 ; his relation 
 to baptism, 25 seq.; his fxmction as 
 a teacher, 26 ; preaches Christ, 
 31 seq., 43 seq. ; rebukes party 
 strife, 67 seq. ; lays the foundation, 
 70 ; as spiritual father. 102 seq. ; 
 sends Timothy, 103 ; his plenary 
 authority, 111 seq. ; his unmarried 
 state, 155, 175, 215 ; and circumci¬ 
 sion, 192 seq. ; his vision of Christ, 
 196 ; his claim as apostle, 196 seq., 
 215 ; his secular occupation, 199 ; 
 means of support, 205 seq., 647 ; 
 his apostolic reward, 208 ; all things 
 to all men, 210 seq.; divine revela¬ 
 tion to, 263, 273 ; as a teacher, 
 316 ; a witness of Christ’s resurrec¬ 
 tion, 346 ; his humility, 346 seq. ; in¬ 
 fluenced by God’s grace, 347 ; in dai¬ 
 ly suffering, 369, 547 seq., 549 seq. ; 
 his conflict with wild beasts, 369 
 seq.; writes numerous letters, 396 ; 
 reason of his comfort, 419 seq. ; his 
 plan of journey, 427 seq. ; a messen¬ 
 ger of grace, 428 ; a man of word, 
 429 seq. ; not Lord over the faith, 
 435 seq. ; his forbearance, 444 seq., 
 456 ; his forgiveness, 443 seq. ; 
 quotes from the Psalms, 498, 505 ; 
 persuades men, 523 seq. ; manifests 
 zeal, 526 ; an ambassador of God, 
 538 seq. ; his fraternal love, 562 seq.; 
 desires confidence, 561 ; secures it, 
 574 seq., 576 ; vindicates his author¬ 
 ity. 617 seq., 619 seq., 625 ; his 
 bodily presence, 626, 636 ; his prov¬ 
 ince, 631, 636 ; indulges in irony, 
 638 seq. ; his speech, 644 seq. ; his 
 gratuitous service, 646 seq., 667 ; 
 indulges in boasting, 654 seq.; 
 667 seq. ; relates his sufferings, 
 660 seq. ; his escape from Damascus, 
 666 ; his special revelations, 671 seq.; 
 receives a thorn in the flesh, 
 680 seq. ; works signs and wonders, 
 687 ; threatens discipline, 700 seq. ; 
 farewell exhortation and greeting, 
 709 seq. 
 
 Peace, Conditions of, 709 seq., 712. 
 
 Perfect, The, 60 seq. 
 
 Pentateuch, its divine authority, 272. 
 
 Pentecost, 398. 
 
 Perseverance, in faith, 16. 
 
 Peter, 3 ; the party of, 83 seq.; a mar¬ 
 
 ried man, 150 ; his wife, 199 ; his 
 primacy, 644. 
 
 Petrine party, 150, 189, 196, 404. 
 
 Philosophy, Christian, 47, 48. 
 
 Polygamy, 152. 
 
 Poverty, of the Primitive Church, 
 394 ; of Macedonia, 579, 596 seq. 
 
 Power, 104 seq., 215. 
 
 Prayer, demeanour in, 247, 249 seq., 
 251 seq., 255 seq. ; with understand¬ 
 ing, 321 seq. ; of thanksgiving, 323, 
 423 seq. ; intercessory, 423, 707. 
 
 Preaching, of Paul, 26 seq., 431, 437 ; 
 of the Cross, 27 ; its foolishness, 
 30 ; its nature and aim, 31 seq., 
 43 seq., 54 seq. ; with recompense, 
 206 ; a necessity, 206, 216 ; 
 
 its Messianic reward, 207 ; in un¬ 
 known tongues, 316 seq., 319, 321, 
 327 seq., 330 seq., 334 seq.; depend¬ 
 ent on Christ s resurrection, 349 
 seq. ; ability in, from God, 455, 457 ; 
 Christ, 491 seq. ; gratuitously, 646 
 seq., 667 ; for deliverance, 684. 
 
 Predestination, 27, 49, 453 seq., 457. 
 
 Pride of Party, rebuked, 91 seq. 
 
 Priesthood, The Levitical, 466 seq. 
 
 Priests, 204. 
 
 Progress, Moral and Spiritual, 305 seq. 
 
 Promises of God, certain, 433, 560. 
 
 Prophecy, of the Old Testament, 28 ; 
 
 Prophecy, The gift of, 282, 314 seq., 
 316 seq. 331 seq.; without love, 302; 
 its design, 326 seq., 328 ; its order, 
 331 seq., 334 seq. 
 
 Providence of God, 180, 200 seq., 215. 
 
 Punishment,, remedial, 114 ; admin¬ 
 istered, 445 seq., 446 ; for deeds 
 done, 521 seq., 542, 653, 667, 694 
 seq. 
 
 Purgatory, 74, 84. 
 
 Purification of the Church, 115 seq., 
 123, 124. 
 
 Purity, Moral, 175. 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quotations, 40. 
 
 R. 
 
 Rabbinical Exposition, 473, 484. 
 
 Rebuke, administered, 442 seq. 
 
 Reconciliation, 534 seq., 542 seq., 
 536 seq. 
 
 Redemption in Christ, 37 seq., 47, 
 534, 542 seq., 539, 543 ; the price of, 
 144, 168. 
 
 Regeneration, 135, 534. 
 
 Religion, The beginning of, 66. 
 
 Renunciation, of self, 209 seq., 216. 
 
 Repentance, 113 ; unto salvation, 569 
 seq., 576. 
 
 Reprobates, 706, 711 seq. 
 
TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 719 
 
 Responses, 322 seq., 335, 433. 
 
 Restoration, Tlie doctrine of, 363 seq. 
 
 Resurrection, of Christ, 340, 343 ; wit¬ 
 nesses of, 344 seq., 346 ; the central 
 doctrine, 349 seq. ; its certainty, 
 352 seq., 499 ; its glory, 490 seq. 
 
 Resurrection of the Dead, 338 seq., 
 
 340 seq., 499, 507, 512, 541 ; denied 
 by some, 348 seq. ; terrible alterna¬ 
 tives of, 350 seq., 352 seq. ; through 
 man, 353 ; universal, 354 seq. ; in 
 complete order, 355 seq. : nature of 
 their bodies, 374 seq., 376 seq., 383 
 seq., 386, 387, 392 seq. ; the time of, 
 385. 
 
 Reward, of work, 69, 74 seq., of deeds 
 done, 521 seq., 542. 
 
 Revelations, Divine, 331 seq. ; special, 
 to Paul, 671 seq. 
 
 Righteousness, in Christ, 37 seq., 135, 
 539 seq., 543. 
 
 Rubrics, Primitive, 336. 
 
 S. 
 
 Sacrament, The idea of a, 220 ; the 
 number of, 242. 
 
 Sacrifices, 182, 204, 227, 228, 233 seq., 
 235 seq. 
 
 Sadduceeism, 338 seq. 
 
 Saints, on earth, 10 seq. 
 
 Salvation, from God, 16, 36 seq. ; by 
 the Cross, 27 ; by preaching, 30 
 seq. ; its proper understanding, 39 
 seq. ; revealed by the Spirit 52 ; 
 degrees of, 76 seq., 522, 542 ; the gift 
 of grace, 76 ; with difficulty, 84 ; 
 of God’s calling, 164 ; its cause, 
 184 ; Messianic, 212 seq., 242 ; a 
 life-struggle, 216 ; by the Gospel, 
 
 341 ; in the present, 546, 557. 
 
 Sanctification, 10 seq., 135 seq., 146, 
 
 159. 
 
 Satan, 111 seq. ; to be destroyed, 130 ; 
 his devices, 449, 456 ; blinding man, 
 489 seq., 504 ; intercourse with, 
 555 ; and Adam’s fall, 641, 667 ; his 
 personality, 652 seq., 667 ; the 
 angel, 681. 
 
 Scandal, in the church, 115, 124. 
 
 Schism, reproved, 293. 
 
 Scripture, Unity of, 40. 
 
 Sectarianism, at Corinth, 2 seq. ; re¬ 
 buked, 17 seq., 24 seq. ; considered, 
 39, 67 seq. ; pride of, 91 seq., 96 
 seq. 
 
 Self-conceit, 110, 627 seq., 631 seq., 
 636. 
 
 Self-control, 213 seq., 218. 
 
 Self-deception, 79 ; warned against, 
 226. 
 
 Self-denial, 173 seq., 180, 202 seq., 210 
 seq., 216. 
 
 Self-devotion, 660 seq., 668, 689. 
 
 Self-examination, 269, 270, 706. 
 
 Selfishness, condemned, 237. 
 
 Self-measurement, 628 seq., 631 seq., 
 636. 
 
 Self-punishment, 214. 
 
 Separation of Man and Wife, 156 seq., 
 178 seq. 
 
 Services of Help, 294 seq., 299. 
 
 Serving God, 236. 
 
 Sex, Distinctions of, 140 seq., 272 ; 
 subordination of, 247 seq., 249 seq., 
 251 seq., 272 ; Christian relations 
 of, 254 seq. 
 
 Silas, 1. 
 
 Sin, warning against, 226 seq., 225 
 seq.; incitements to, 226 ; to be pun¬ 
 ished, 702 seq. 
 
 Slander, refuted, 689 seq., 697. 
 
 Slavery, 166, 180 ; its abolition, 167. 
 
 Social Exclusion, 118 seq. 
 
 Sodomy, 134. 
 
 Sorrow, godly, 569 seq., 576. 
 
 Sosthenes, 9. 
 
 Sowing and reaping, 202 seq. 
 
 Spectacle of the Universe, 97 seq., 
 106. 
 
 Speech, 104 seq. 
 
 Spirit, The Human, 52 seq. 
 
 Steadfastness, Exhortation to, 342, 
 390 seq., 391, 400, 405, 433 seq. 
 
 Stephanas, 25, 401. 
 
 Stewards of God, 87 seq. 
 
 Stumbling-blocks, 189 seq. 
 
 Subordination of Christ, 11, 83, 85, 
 247. 
 
 Substitution, of Christ, 529 seq., 542 
 seq. 
 
 Suicide, 143. 
 
 Suffering, for the Gospel’s sake, 203, 
 660 seq., 668. 
 
 Suffering from God, 455, 457, 463. 
 
 Sunday, its practical observance, 395, 
 405. 
 
 T. 
 
 Teachers, A Divine Order of, not in¬ 
 stituted, 5 ; their ability, 316 ; to 
 speak in their own language, 324, 
 336. 
 
 Teaching of the Apostles, 26 ; of 
 Christ’s disciples, 73 ; tried by fire, 
 74 seq.; not restricted to office, 329, 
 336. 
 
 Temptations, 226 ; help in, 227. 
 
 Tempting God, 233 seq. 
 
 Thanksgiving, 238, 243, 323, 390, 417, 
 436, 423 seq., 451 seq., 501, 608 seq., 
 612. 
 
 Things eternal and temporal, 503. 
 
 Thorn in the flesh, Paul’s, 680 seq. 
 
 Timothy, 1, 416 ; sent to Corinth, 5, 
 103, 398, 409 ; his conversion, 103. 
 
720 
 
 TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 Titus, 1 ; his joy, 574 ; to gather con¬ 
 tributions, 582 ; sent to Corinth, 
 591 seq.; companion of Paul, 592 ; 
 commended, 594 seq. 
 
 Tongues, The gift ol, 275 seq., 277 
 
 seq., 279 seq., 284 seq., 286 seq., 
 
 296, 298, 300 seq., 314 seq., 316 
 
 seq., 324 seq., 327 seq., 330 seq., 
 
 336. 
 
 Tonsure, The, 255. 
 
 Traditions, 246, 271 ; historical, 343. 
 
 Translation, of the body, 520. 
 
 Transubstant;ation, 270. 
 
 Trinity, The, 279 ; recognized, 710, 
 712. 
 
 Trumpet, The, 318 ; at the resurrec¬ 
 tion, 387. 
 
 Trust in God, 422. 
 
 Truth, 304 ; manifested, 488 ; alone 
 decisive, 708, 712. 
 
 U. 
 
 Unbelievers, at law with, 133 seq., 
 145 seq. ; lost, 488|seq., 504 ; blinded 
 by Satan, 489 seq., 504 seq. 
 
 Unchastity, 5. 
 
 Uncircumcision, 165 seq., 180. 
 
 Union with Christ, 10, 13,142, 231 seq. 
 
 Unity, Christian, enjoined, 17 seq. ; 
 in the Lord’s Supper, 232 seq. ; of 
 believers, 290. 
 
 Unrighteousness, endured, 133 seq. 
 
 Utterance, imparted by Christ, 13. 
 
 V. 
 
 Veil, as a covering, 251 seq., 256 ; as a 
 symbol, 253. 
 
 Vices, excluding from the kingdom, 
 134. 
 
 "Vision, Ecstatic, 676 seq., 697. 
 
 Victory, through God, 452 seq., 457. 
 
 Virgins, and Virgin Life, 169, 174, 177 
 seq. 
 
 Virtues, The theological, 308 seq. 
 
 W. 
 
 Warfare, carnal, 619 seq. ; spiritual, 
 620 seq., 635 seq. 
 
 Warning, against sin, 222 seq., 225, 
 226, 372 seq., 694 seq. 
 
 Weakness, Moral, 270 ; physical, 684 ; 
 becomes strength, 685 seq., 704 seq. 
 
 Wicked, The, judged, 123 ; no.t to 
 enter heaven, 134. 
 
 Widowers, 155. 
 
 Widows, 156. 
 
 Wife, Duties of a, 152 seq., 174 seq. 
 
 Will of God, The, 291. 
 
 Wisdom, Christian, 281 ; the word of, 
 298. 
 
 Wisdom, of the world, 28 seq., 425 ; 
 of God, 30 seq., 33 seq., 35 seq., 45 
 seq., 48 seq., 60 seq. ; in Christ, 37 
 seq. ; its glorious character, 41 ; re¬ 
 vealed by the Spirit, 46 ; religious 
 wisdom, 47 ; wordly wisdom re¬ 
 buked, 79 seq. 
 
 Woman, her rank, 246 seq. ; her de¬ 
 meanor in public prayer, 247 seq., 
 249 seq., 255 seq.; the glory of man, 
 251 seq., 272 ; dependent upon man, 
 254 seq.; to be silent in public wor¬ 
 ship, 333 seq., 336. 
 
 Workers with God, 69 ; rewarded, 74 
 seq. 
 
 Works, without love, 302. 
 
 World-power, and wisdom, 35 seq. 
 
 Worship, of Christ, 11. 
 
 Worship, public, 247 seq., 249 seq., 
 251 seq., 255 seq.; 327 seq., 329 seq.; 
 with the understanding, 322 ; order 
 in, 331 seq., 333, 335, 336 ; woman 
 in, 333 seq., 336. 
 
 Wrath of God, 77, 79. 
 
 * Z. 
 
 Zeal, after gifts, 296, 297, 299, 313 seq, 
 319 ; for God, 526 seq. ; disciplinary, 
 571, 576 ; awakened, 572 ; given of 
 God, 591, 598 ; stimulated, 601 seq. 
 
 Zwingli, his view of the Lord’s Sup¬ 
 per, 231, 268. 
 
 THE LIBRARY «F THE 
 
 MAY 1933 
 
 UNlVtnaiH Of ILLINOIS. 
 

 << 
 
 
 
 V • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « , 
 
 
 ■■ 
 
 * 
 
 .% .% ■ 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 \ 1