®^p AfiJt: v_T %-%«*?' xi n Y^ldiK^aR^' 1 • mSti'-im. _ — „__* — i.$k'rt9 ypdcpcov 'ASeXcpoi, pi] irai&la ytveade rat? (ppecrtv. . . . EireiSr) yiyova, (prjcrtv, dvrjp, irdXtv 6 Uavkos Xiyei, KarrjpyrjKa Ta tov vrjirlov? Tatian, who was at one time a follower of Justin Martyr and lived in the latter half of the second century, is said by Jerome* to have rejected some of Paul's Epistles ; but he cites 1 Cor. xv. 22, to prove, says Irenasus,6 that Adam was not saved. Tertullian 6 speaks of himself as writing about 160 years after the date of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, that is, about a.d. 217. He ascribes it repeatedly to Paul. " Ipsum Paulum," he s."ys,7 " dixisse factum se esse omnibus omnia, Judseis Judseum, non Judseis non Judseum, ut omnes lucrifaceret." Athenagoras 8 (circa a.d. 177) ascribes the statement made in 1 Cor. xv. 54 1 Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe, 1851. Zweite Abth. 8 Comm. in Matt, xxvii. 9. 3 Padag., ut sup. * Ep. ad Tit., Prasf. 6 Adv. H borrows from Chrysostom, Severian, Theodoret, and especially ] 'hotius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Theophylact, Archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria in the eleventh century, gives Chrysostom's interpretations, with an occasional excellent note that has the appearance of originality. § 31. The most independent commentator on St. Paul in the middle ages is Aquinas (d. 1274), though he draws largely from Augustine. In his Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians the reader is not vexed with "allegorical, moral, anagogical" senses. He explains the literal meaning "quem 1 In the following pages the book is referred to as the production of Her- vreus. 2 His remark that Chloe was a city in Greece was, we may suppose, original. INTRODUCTION. XXIX auctor intendit."1 Rosenmiiller 2 alleges that the commen taries of Aquinas are all "congesta ex patribus," and that he is altogether unworthy the name of interpreter. I am unable to concur in this opinion. But it must be confessed a perusal of the book is no help to credit the story that St. Paul vouch safed to appear to him and tell him that none had so well understood his Epistles. Aquinas is above all things a dog matist, who seeks aud, therefore, finds the doctrines of mediseval Christianity expressed in the Apostle's words or underlying them, and makes Scripture fit into the scholastic framework. An egregious iustance, in which, however, he is followed by De Lyra, of this departure from the " intentio Apostoli " is the ingenious scheme of doctrines that accounts, as Aquinas thinks, for the order in which St. Paul's Epistles are arranged in the canon. He admits that the Epistle to the Romans was not the first written ; but it occupies the foremost place " quia hoc exigit ordo doctrinae," because in this Epistle the founda tion of Christian theology is laid in the doctrine of grace. Next follows the doctrine of the sacraments as the -media of grace, and this he considers to be the leading truth in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.3 His remarks on the dissen sions in the Corinthian Church are very characteristic of a writer that really expounds his own times, and does not in any true sense understand the Apostle's point of view.4 But he often pierces deep into the Apostle's thoughts. What he says, for example, on ii. 1 5, as to the influence of a spiritual disposi tion on the judgment contains noble aud profound exegesis. § 32. Nicolaus de Lyra (d. 1340), a Franciscan monk of Normandy, has the reputation of having given a more scientific turn to the interpretation of Scripture.6 He certainly antici pated some of Bengel's happy suggestions (cf. note on i. 30) ; and the right understanding of vii. 16 is due to him. He owes his fame partly to the high esteem in which Luther held his 1 Cf. " Summa," P. I., Q. I. Art. X. 2 " Hist. Interpret." P. V. p. 276. A more just, though perhaps too partial, estimate of Aquinas as an interpreter of Scripture will be found in Vaughan's "Life and Labours of St. Thomas of Aquin " (1872), vol. ii. pp. 567-602. 3 Cf. his " Prologus." 4 For instance : " Putabant a meliori baptists meliorem baptismum dari, quasi virtus baptists, in baptizatis operaretur." * Cf. Reuss, Geschichte d. Heil. ^chnften, p. 556. XXX INTRODUCTION. Commentary on the Book of Genesis. But if it is true that Luther would not have danced had not this " lyre " played, it is no less true that De Lyra borrows much from Aquinas, to whom he is inferior in penetration. § 33. The Renaissance, by putting the expositor of Scrip ture in possession of ancient Greek literature and the original language of the New Testament, created a classical taste, started the grammatical study of Greek, and paved the way to the comparative point of view, which is the best feature of our own age. The father of scientific criticism applied to the New Testament, and, after a lapse of a thousand years, the immediate successor of Jerome, is Valla (d. 1457), whose " Annotationes " was edited after his death by Erasmus and published in the year 1505. Valla was the first to compare the Vulgate with Greek manuscripts. One of the earliest exponents of the critical spirit north of the Alps was Colet (d. 1519). His lectures on St. Paul's Epistles were delivered iu Oxford each successive term, beginning probably with the First Epistle to the Corinthians in 1496.1 His transcendent merit is that, filled with heartiest veneration for the Apostle, and having very direct and deep religious feelings, he caught somewhat of his spirit.2 But his exposition of the 12th chapter of our Epistle is disfigured with fanciful analogies — traces of the Neoplatonism of his Florentine teachers, Ficino aud Mirandola — between the hierarchy of angels and the harmony of the revolving crystalline spheres.3 § 34. From Colet Erasmus (d. 1536) gradually learned to 1 His lectures on 1 Corinthians were edited by Lupton and published with an English translation in 1874. 2 Cf. Seebohm's Oxford Reformers, pp. 1-20. " He brought to his uni versity," says Lupton, "the tidings of a Newfoundland, in religion and learning, as real as that discovered in the physical world by Sebastian Cabot" (Iutrod. to Colet on Romans, p. xiv.). 3 In Green's History 'of the English People (bk. V. ch. ii.) it is said that Colet was " utterly untouched by Platonic mysticism." This is not altogether correct. Cf. Colet on 1 Corinthians, pp. 127 sqq. ; Seebohm, ut sup., p. 61. It would appear to be a mistake also to credit Colet with knowledge of Greek on his return from Italy. Cf. Hallam, Literary History, P. I. chap. iv. § 30 note. In his exposition of chap. xiii. he pens a few words in Greek letters. But in his note on x. 22 he is misled by the word cemulamur in the Vulgate, and explains the moaning to be that by going to heathen feasts we do not "emulate" the Lord. INTRODUCTION. XXXI break away from the fascination of allegorism, and find in the historical method the only guarantee for the living power of Scripture. His edition of the Greek Testament with Annota tions was published at Basle in the year 1515. His Paraphrase of the First Epistle to the Corinthians appeared in 1519, the year in which Colet died. The notes of Erasmus are remark able for candour and a boldness of utterance which his after life did not maintain.1 They are often directed against the monks, as in his remarks on xiv. 19. § 35. Cajetan (d. 1534) also represents the reaction against allegorism. He professes to expound "juxta sensum litera- lem."2 But it is abundantly evident from his book that he knew but little Greek.3 § 36. Providentially the classical Renaissance was followed by a reformation of religion. Theology asserted her claims as well as grammar. The greatest expositor of the sixteenth century was produced by the united influence of learning and piety. Calvin's Commentary on Corinthians bears date 1546. Profound thoughtfulness, sobriety of judgment, fearless honesty, fine culture, and instinctive sense of proportion, all meet in this prince of commentators. In expounding St. Paul he holds converse with a kindred spirit. Perhaps the only qualification for such a task in which we may suppose him to have been deficient is passion. The light is clear and deep, but dry and cold. To appreciate Calvin we need only contrast his "per spicuous brevity " with the more ambitious and showy com mentaries of Musculus and Peter Martyr, or his judicial fairness with his friend Beza's theological partisanship. The acknow ledged superiority in exegesis of the early Reformed Church over the Lutherans is due to the influence of Calvin's method quite as much as to its fundamental doctrine, that the interpre tation of Scripture must be entirely independent of all Church authority. Denial of this independence trammelled Lutheran 1 Cf. Drummond, Erasmus, vol. I. pp. 307 sqq. 2 Cf . his Dedication to Charles V. 3 Estius (on 1 Cor. xv. 56) says that Cajetan knew no Greek, though he was otherwise a very learned man. But in his note on vi. 2 Cajetan corrects the Vulgate rendering of Kpnnpluv, and explains further that the Greeli word for smcularia means " pertinentia ad usum vita.." Lower down he says that the Greek for sub nullins redigar potestatem is of the same derivation as the word rendered licent. Did he depend on Erasmus ? XXXU INTRODUCTION. divines down to the time of Bengel and even of Ernesti, who died in 1781. Calvin's influence on English exegesis has always been immense. His method, and even his interpreta tions, were handed down from one expositor to another, and men, some of whom had evidently never read him, learned from Calvin how to understand Scripture. What Chrysostom was to the exegesis of mediaeval Catholicism, that Calvin has been to Protestantism down to the burst of exeg-etical insight in Schleiermacher. This is more especially true of England, though his Commentaries are said to have been themselves little read in Germany or England before Tholuck1 drew attention to their merits. Calvin died in 1564. § 37. It may appear strange that, with one partial ex ception, we have no Puritan commentary on this Epistle.2 The exception is the sensible, but' unoriginal, " Annotations " of the Westminster Assembly. The truth is, the Puritans achieved nothing great in interpretation, with the sole ex ception of Dr. Owen's " Exposition of the Hebrews." The questions discussed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, aud the method of handling lie for the most part outside the range of Puritan theology. It is a remarkable fact that the English Reformers of the Puritan type were sorely displeased with even Calvin's Commentary on this Epistle. " His Com mentaries on the First Epistle to the Corinthians displeased me exceedingly," writes Hooper to Bucer in the year 1548.3 He does not say what in particular offended him. We may, however, conjecture that it had reference to the use of things indifferent. Calvin charges those men with folly who allow Christians scarcely any liberty, and thus lays himself open to the suspicion of being an Adiaphorist. Hooper, on the other hand, went beyond Ridley, Bucer, and even Peter Martyr in his refusal to wear the vestments as things indifferent. How ever this may be, four years after the appearance of Calvin's Commentary, Peter Martyr, who belonged to the extreme i Vermischte Schriften, 1839, zweiter Theil, pp. 330 sqq. A translation of Tholuck's Essay appears in the volume of the Calvin Translation Society that contains the Commentary on Joshua (Edinburgh, 1854). 2 I pass by Sclater's Commentary, because, though he was Puritan in his sympathies, his book is scholastic in form and meagre in substance. It belongs to an age that had long before his time passed away. 8 Original Letters (Parker Society), p. 48. INTRODUCTION. XXXU1 Puritan school, published, at the instigation of the famous John Cheke, an Exposition of the Epistle which was received in England with great applause.1 Scaliger ranked Martyr next after Calvin as a theologian. His Commentary wears a scholastic garb. Yet he applies the Apostle's teaching, as he understands it, to the settlement of the burning questions of his own day. He declares that no other Epistle had so close a bearing on the controversies of his age. In saying this he refers apparently to the questions in dispute between Roman ists and Protestants, not to the Puritan controversy. He denies all reference to purgatory in iii. 13. His theory of the Lord's supper stands midway between Calvin's and Zwingle's ; for he maintains that a real union is effected through faith between the recipient and the body of Christ, but refuses to admit the mystery of a spiritual effluence flowing from the humanity of the exalted Christ into the person of the believer. § 38. Of Roman Catholic expositors of this Epistle after the age of the Reformers the best, to my mind, is Estius (d. 1613). He is original and independent, perfectly clear, and very judicial. His main defects are occasional digressions and a too evident wish to make the Apostle speak the lan guage of Trent. Notwithstanding this, his commentary is correctly described by Reuss as a valuable exposition of St. Paul's Epistles in the Augustinian sense. § 39. Cornelius a Lapide's (d. 1637) reputation rests mainly, so far as I can form an opinion, on his acquaintance with patristic literature. His remark on ii. 15, that the spiritual judgment will lead the spiritual man, who judges all things, to have recourse to the better judgment of the Church in obscure questions of faith and morals, is a notable instance of the influence of a pre-conceived theory in making an honest ex positor say almost the very opposite of what the Apostle means. § 40. Grotius (d. 1645) is the best of Dutch expositors- Valckenaer accuses him of purloining from Beza. It is easy to see that he had read Beza's notes ; and if he did borrow, he only followed Beza's example, who owed much to Valla and Erasmus. Grotius differs from Beza quite as often as he 1 He had lectured on the Epistle in Naples some years before he came to- this country. XXXIV INTRODUCTION. concurs in his interpretations. The difference is sometimes for the better, as on v. 4, but more frequently, it must be confessed, for the worse, especially in the direction of un- spiritualising the meaning, as when he explains the words "demonstration of power and of spirit" (ii. 4) to mean the gifts of healing and prophecy. Beza's own explanation, that the words are a hendiadys for " spiritual power," is itself only- less unsatisfactory. There is some truth in the remark that, if Cocceius saw Christ where He is not, Grotius refused at times to see Him where He is. § 41. Bengel founded, and could found, no school. His marvellous felicities must ever remain inimitable. He is mighty to quicken thought. Reading him often acts like a charm; and unless the reader is well on his guard against the ¦fascination, he is in some danger of actually surrendering his own power of thought. § 42. The only influence on English exegesis comparable to that of Calvin has been exerted within the last fifty years by the great expositors of Germany. The reaction that set in against the dreary negations and euhemerism of the earlier rationalists was the effect of the believing, fervid rationalism •of Schleiermacher. It gave birth to Neander, Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, and others. Of these first-rate expositors the most judicial, I venture to think, is De Wette (d. 1819), the most useful Meyer (d. 1873). Osiander is laborious and full, rather than suggestive. Hofmann is striking and original, but often painfully ingenious and fanciful. § 43. Even this brief sketch cannot be concluded without mention of one who wrote no commentary. F. C. Baur, the founder of the Tubingen School, has by his profound learning and creative thoughtfulness left his mark, whether we accept or reject his conclusions, on the exegesis of this Epistle no less than of other books of the New Testament. Several important works on the life and theology of St. Paul have been written in recent years under his influence. Among commentaries the "Short Protestant Commentary"1 of Lang ¦ on our Epistle may be regarded as representing the school. Its point of view and general character will be understood 1 It has been translated into English by F. H. Jones, B.A.. ("Theological -Translation-Fund ".. INTRODUCTION. XXXV from the following positions which it ascribes to the Apostle : 1. When God made Adam, the earthly man, He also made a second man in heaven of heavenly material, His own Son. 2. This pre-existing man came down upon earth, and assumed, instead of the heavenly body, another made of flesh and blood. 3. The earthly body was left on the cross, and the former heavenly body again assumed. 4. Paul saw Jesus in a vision only, within the depths of an excited mental life. 5. By " flesh " the Apostle means the finite and material constitution of our bodies, and this he considers to be the source of im perfection and sin. 6. Christ's work is to set free the whole creation from its burden of finiteness. 7. From the Apostle" conception of the flesh arose his doctrine of marriage, which is allowed only as a remedy for incontinence. In all these points — we shall consider them in their proper places — Lang really follows the leading of Baur. The expository notes disappoint the hopes raised by Lipsius's able introduction. § 44, The name of the late Dean Alford (d. 1871) deserves always to be mentioned with respect as one of the first to introduce into England some of the fruits of recent German exegesis. But he was greater as a textual critic than as an expositor. In his notes on Corinthians he relies too much on De Wette and Meyer. I make no remark on living English commentators, except that I desire to pay a tribute to the very original notes of Canon Evans, the scholarly little book of Mr. Lias, the carefully written works of Mr. Beet and Mr. Shore, and the popular expositions of Canon Farrar and Dr. David Brown. SUMMAEY. Introductory : i. 1-9. Fiest Division : The Factions in the Church : i. 10-iv. 21. A. Statement of the Case : i. 10—12. B. First Argument : i. 13-ii. 5. The Gospel is primarily and essentially the proclamation of a salvation through Christ. After a personal digression (i. 13-17) this is proved. (1) From the lature of the message : i. 17-25. (2) From the character of the Church : i. 26-31. (3) From the power of the ministry : ii. 1-5. C. Second Argument : ii. 6— iii. 4. The Gospel is a Divine revelation through the Spirit. For — (1) Christianity is God's wisdom : ii. 6-9. (2) God's wisdom is inwardly revealed by the Spirit : ii. 10-13. (3) The revelation of the Spirit is understood only by the spiritual man : ii. 14-iii. 4. D. Third Argument : iii. 5-20. God has appointed teachers and defined their work. (1) The Apostles and teachers are, not leaders of men, but servants of God : iii. 5-9. (2) What is taught must be in character with the Divine foundation and plan : iii. 10-15. (3) The worldly-wise teaching of party-leaders destroys God's temple and incurs His displeasure: iii. 16-20. E. Fourth Argument: iii. 21-23. The factions are incon sistent with the prerogatives of the Church itself. F. Concluding Remarks: iv. 1-21. XXXV111 SUMMARY. Second Division : — Church discipline : v. 1-vi. 20. A. The case of incest : v. 1-13. B. The practice of going to law before heathen tribunals : vi. 1-11. C. A statement of the difference between actions indifferent and actions in their very nature sinful : vi. 12-20. Third Division : — Marriage and celibacy : vii. 1-40. A. General statement : vii. 1—7. B. Application of the doctrine to particular cases : vii. 8- 38. (1) The case of a Christian that has never been married or is in a state of widowhood: vii. 8, 9. (2) The case of a Christian married to a Christian : vii. 10, 11. (3) The case of a Christian married to an unbeliever that is willing to cohabit with the believer : vii. 12-14. (4) The case of a Christian married to an unbeliever that refuses to cohabit with the believer: vii. 15, 16. (Digression on Christian liberty, with special refer ence — (a) To Circumcision: vii. 18, 19; (b) To Slavery : vii. 20-24.) (5) The case of virgins : vii. 25-38. (6) The case of widows : vii. 39, 40. Fourth Division : — Conceening the eating of meat oiteeed to idols': viii. 1-xi. 1. A. The reconciliation of the two opposite Christian concep tions of liberty and love : viii. 1—13. B. This reconciliation exemplified in the Apostle's own con duct : ix. 1-27. C. The dangers to which the Corinthians exposed themselves by partaking of the idol-feasts shown by the example of the Israelites : x. 1-14. D. Partaking of the idol-feasts inconsistent with partaking of the Lord's Supper: x. 15-22. E. A practical summary of what has been said on the sub ject : x. 23-xi. 1. summary. xxx1x Fifth Division : — Censuee of Abuses in the Church Assem blies : xi. 2-34. A. In reference to women praying with head uncovered : xi. 2-16. B. In reference to the Lord's Supper: xi. 17-34. Sixth Division : — The Spiritual Gifts : xii. 1-xiv. 40. A. Description and Vindication of the Spiritual Gifts : xii. 1-31. B. The Praise of Love: xiii. 1-13. C Superiority of Prophecy over Tongues : xiv. 1-40. Seventh Division : — The Resurrection of the Dead : xv. 1-58. A. That the Gospel which the Apostle preached rested on the facts of Christ's death and resurrection, facts proved by eye-witnesses : 1-11. B. The denial of the resurrection of the dead, involves our denying the resurrection of Christ : 12-19. C. Direct Proof: The resurrection of the dead necessary that the Christian order of the subjection of all things to Christ may be realized : 20-34. D. The Proof confirmed by analogies : 35-44. E. The Proof confirmed by Scripture : 45-49. F. The change from psychical to spiritual necessary and uni versal : 50-54. G. Refrain of triumph and concluding exhortation : 55-58. Eighth Division : — Sundry Personal and Incidental Matters : xvi. 1-24. A. Of the Collection for the Church in Jerusalem : 1-4. B. Of the Apostle's intention to come to Corinth : 5-9. C. Of the coming of Timotheus and Apollos to Corinth: 10-12. D. A summary of the practical lessons of the Epistle: 13, 14. E. A kindly recommendation of Stephanas and others to their brotherly regard: 15-18. F. Salutations: 19, 20. G. Concluding warning and prayer : 21-24. A COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. INTRODUCTORY. (i. 1-9). Ch. I. 1-3. Salutation. The Apostle vindicates his au thority to address his readers, and acknowledges their claim upon him, as the Church of Christ. The attributes of the Church here mentioned correspond to the attributes of the apostleship. If he is a called apostle, they are called saints ; if he is Christ's, they are sanctified in Christ ; if he is an apostle through the will of God, they are the Church of God. kXtitos. Cf. Rom. i. 1. The same notion is expressed in 1 Timothy i. 1, by Kar eTTtTayrjv Oeov. It is almost certain the word contains an allusion to the historical incident of his hearing the authoritative voice of Jesus on the way to Damascus. St. Paul nowhere separates his conversion from his apostleship. The word, therefore, while expressing personal humility (Chrys., Theophyl. on Rom. i. 1), is an assertion of the Divine authority of his office. But we must not suppose, with Meyer, that his having been " called " distinguished St. Paul's apostleship from that of the others, who are supposed to have come to Christ of their own choice, or been led to- him by accidental circumstances. They also were called (cf. Matt. iv. 21 ; John vi. 70). But St. Paul vindicates his apostle ship by saying that he was called no less directly by Christ Himself (cf. Gal. i. 12-16). He emphasizes the directness of his call, partly because it made him a witness for the resur rection of Jesus (cf. xv. 8 ; Acts xxvi. 16), partly because it conveyed to him his peculiar commission to preach to the Gentiles (cf. ix. 1 ; 2 Cor. xii. 1). It was a new starting-point B 2 THE FIE ST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. in the history of Christianity. It rang the knell of Judaism within the Church, and made Christianity a religion for the race and the ages. This second beginning was inaugurated with a miraculous call. 'Irjaov Xpicrrov. Genit. not only of the agent ("sent by Jesus Christ"), but also of possession. Cf. Rom. i. 1; Acts xxii. 3, ^Tuott)? rov ©eov, " God's zealot." d-7roo-ToXo<;. We observe the rise of the properly Christian usage of the word in Mark iii. 14, iva dirocneXXri avroix; K-rjpvo-aetv. Christ adopted it as the official name of the Twelve (cf. Luke vi. 13). The words KXr/rof and diroaToXos express the two opposite sides of one act of Christ. He called men to Himself out of the world in order to send them forth into the world. The idea, but not the word, occurs also in St. John's writings. Cf. John xvii. 18. 1 Std. Cf. Gal. i. 1, where d-rro expresses the source of his apostleship, Bid the instrumentality by which his apostolical authority was actually bestowed upon him. Even in Std ©eov, Bid is not used loosely for a7ro. It means that God acted directly. His own will was the only instrument of His action. ©eXrjpa and 6ekr)o-i<; do not occur in classical Greek. Scoo-Oev-ris. De Wette, Meyer, etc., think this Sosthenes cannot have been identical with the ruler of the synagogue mentioned in Acts xviii. 17, because, in that case, we should ihave to make the gratuitous assumption that the Corinthian Sosthenes had accompanied the Apostle to Ephesus. But why, otherwise, is he mentioned here? He may have been 'the Apostle's amanuensis. But Tertius, his amanuensis, is not named as joint writer of the Epistle to the Romans. 6 doeXqbos. It is interesting to mark, in Acts and the Epistles, the almost unconscious adoption by the Church of the few names which Christ had borrowed from the Jews, while He infused into them a deeper meaning (cf. Matt. v. 47 ; xxiii. 8) . The Church is not only a 7ro\t?, but also oIkos ©eov (cf. Eph. ii. 20; 1 Tim. iii. 15; Heb. ii. 10-17; Col. i. 2). The abstract term dBeXcborrn soon came into use in a collective sense, "the brotherhood" (cf. 1 Pet. ii. 17; Clem., ¦Ad Cor. 2). 1 If the fourth Gospel had been written in the second century, the nama 'i.-irdaroXos would not have been absent from it. INTRODUCTORY. — I. 1, 2. 3 V. 2. Three notes of the Church are mentioned. First, it is God's, ©eov is genit. of possession ; not to distinguish the Church from the heathen iKKX-rjcriai — a name never used in profane Greek to denote a religious assembly — but to distinguish it from the Koorpos, which is the antagonist of the kingdom and out of which the Church is called. Though the name iKKXtjcria was most probably borrowed from the clubs or asso ciations of the time, the Apostle discovers in it a Christian idea, that of separation from the world. To say that the Church is an eKKX-rja-ia is to say that it is God's. Second, as the result of its being an iKKX-rjcrla, the Church is " sanctified" (cf. John xvii. 16—19). The primary meaning is consecration. The Christian Church enters into the place hitherto occupied by the Jewish Church. But consecration in its Christian form resolves itself into holiness. Christ takes possession of every morality and raises it into spirituality. All goodness becomes a religion, binding the soul to God. 'Ev means that believers not only are sanctified " through «the offering of the body of Jesus Christ" (Heb. x. 10), but also continue holy in virtue of union with Christ (cf. Rom. xv. 16). Third, the Church consists of men who are " called to be saints," They are saints by reason of a Divine call from without as well as of a Divine operation within (cf. Rom. i. 6; Lev. xxiii. 2). In Barn., Ep. iv. 13, the words o>s kXtjtoi refer to the future kingdom. The notion of saintship is in Scripture inseparable from that of being reckoned', of being allotted a place by God. Cf. Wisd. v. 5, 7rw? KaTeXoyiaO-q iv viois ©eov Kal iv dyiot<; and indeed Kadojf itself are com paratively late Greek, for KaOd. The cause of richness of spiritual endowment is a vivid, complete acceptance of God's testimony concerning Christ. tov Xpio-Tov, obj. genit., " the testimony concerning Christ." (Cf. Acts i. 8; 2 Tim. i. 8, where paprvpiov is explained by evayyeXtov; Matt. xxiv. 14; Rev. xix. 10.) In favour of subj. genit. Bengel aptly refers to Acts xviii. 8, where it is said that many in Corinth "believed the Lord" (cf. Acts INTRODUCTORY. — T. 4-7. 7 xiv. 3). But belief in the testimony which Christ gave, whether we understand it of the confession which He made through His sufferings (Phot.), or the revelation of God given by Christ (as in Rev. iii. 14), is not the acceptance which brings the believer into union with Christ. According to St. Paul, faith acts on Christ Himself, and Christ it finds in the Krjpvypa of the Gospel. (Cf. ii. 1 .) ifiefiaiooOr), not " was confirmed among you intellectually," but " was established in you spiritually ; " " firmiter per fidem cordibus inhEerens" (Aquinas). St. John has precisely the same idea (cf. 1 John iii. 19 ; v. 10). That this is the mean ing is evident from the use of ftePaiiocrei with dveyKXrjTov? in ver. 8, as well as from the connection of the clause with ver. 5 (cf. 2 Cor. i. 21 ; Col. ii. 7). Only so far as the testimony concerning Christ had taken deep root in their hearts were they enriched in utterance of it. We must, therefore, reject as quite inadequate, Theophylact's explanation, " through miracles and charismata." V. 7. To be closely connected with ver. 6. Ovto>? may be mentally supplied with ij3e(3aitodr). The testimony concerning Christ had been so deeply fixed in their hearts that, for a time, they were not impoverished in any gift. The pres. vo-repeio-da.t refers to the time covered by ifiefiaiwQr), not to the time at which the Apostle was writing. They had been rich, but now they were impoverished in every grace. This interpretation lends force to the Apostle's subsequent expression of confi dence that God would again firmly establish them to the end. vcnepelcrQai iv tlvi is " to be impoverished in a thing," opp. to irepiacreveiv, as in Phil. iv. 12; iaTepeia6ai Ttvo? is "to want a thing altogether," as in Rom. iii. 23. The word con veys the notion of poverty, in contrast to iTrXovricrdrfTe, ver. 5. (cf. Luke xv. 14). The act. varepeiv is more usual in this sense in class. Greek. A reminiscence of the Apostle's words occurs in Ignat., Smyrn. 1, dvvtneprrrrcp ovcry TrdvTos ^apt'cr- paros. XapicrpaTi. Estius, Olshaus., Wordsworth are right in saying that x"PlarLa aiwaJs denotes a special gift, but wrong in adding that %a/j« always denotes grace in general. (Cf. Eph. iii. 8; Barn., Ep. i. 2, ttjv epcpvrov 7% Baped? TrvevpaTiKijs Xapiv elXr)(paTe.) 8 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. direKBexopevovs, " inasmuch as ye were patiently expecting." For the causal participle cf. Rom. iii. 24. The tense is im perfect. Now, on the contrary, far from earnestly waiting for the coming of the Lord, some in the Corinthian Church denied the doctrine of the resurrection and of the kingdom of Christ. The Apostle represents the expectation of the Church for the Lord's appearance as the highest attainment of a soul that fully realizes the truth of the testimony concerning Christ. But in its lower aspects this expectation is Jewish and seeks an earthly return ; in its better form, it is spiritual. AireKhe- XecrOai " perseverante expectare notat." (Fritzscho, on Rom. viii. 19.) diroKaXv^tv, that is, at Christ's second coming. (Cf. 2 Thess. i. 7 ; 1 Pet. i. 7, 13.) The more usual word, irapovaia, denotes the fact of Christ's presence ; the rare word, iirucpdveia, its visibility, as in 2 Thess. ii. 8 ; drroKaXv-tyt';, its inner mean ing. 'Ewicpdveia is used of the incarnation, never diroKdXv-tyt<;. The nearest approach to it is in Luke ii. 32. Nothing shows more clearly the powerful influence of the thought of Christ's speedy return on the Apostle's spiritual life than its intro duction into the opening sentences of the Epistle. V. 8. 6'?. That 'Iricrov XptcrTov is repeated at the end of the verse is not enough to prove that Christ is not here meant. (cf. Eph. iv. 12 ; 2 Thess. iii. 5). The reference of 09 to God, ver. 4 (Estius, Bengel, 01shaus.),is too far. The repetition of 6 0eo9, ver. 9, makes it probable that Christ is meant, who acts in God's behalf. (3e/3aic6o-ei. An anticipatory allusion to the factions. The Corinthians were BiaKpivopevoi in St. James's meaning of the word (i. 6). (Cf. Phil. i. 6 ; 1 Thess. v. 24 ; Heb. vi. 10. Cf. (ppovpovpevovs, 1 Pet. i. 5.) 6C09 TeXot>9, that is, to the end of the present a3on, at the revelation of Christ. (Cf. x. 11 ; 1 Pet. i. 13 ; iv. 7.) dveyKXrJTOw;, a proleptic brachylogy for 649 to elvai vpcis dveyKXtfrovs. (Cf. Rom. viii. 29; Matt. xii. 13.) The word means, not "blameless in character," but, "free from any charge" (cf. Rom. viii. 33). So Hesych., dvevdvvo'i. It is, therefore, more forcible than apepirTos or dpcopot and virtually synonymous with dvapdpTr)To Trap' avToiai%oi9 (Luke iv. 18). ovk iv aocpia Xoyov. The negative particle is ov, not prj, though the infin. evayyeXi^eoOai is to be supplied, because the words iv aocpia Xoyov are virtually opposed to another clause not expressed, such as d\X' ev pcopia tov K-qpiypaToi. Cf. Thuc. I. 85, where ov Xoyco Biaiperds is opposed, in a similar way, to a clause to be mentally supplied, such as dXX' epycp irpos avrds Trapao-Kevacneov. " Wisdom of word " can not mean merely rhetoric (Theod., Theophyl.), as if it were synonymous with aotpia tov Xeyeiv, for it is opposed to pcopia (ver. 18) and piopia tov Kripiy^aros (ver. 21). Neither can it denote a heathen system of philosophy ; for it is joined with evayyeXi^eadai. It must, therefore, mean a Christian philo sophy, a system, that is, of theological speculation raised on the basis of a revelation, as opposed to the simple declaration of a fact. Keva>6f), " emptied " (cf. xv. 14 ; Rom. iv. 14). The force of Kevbs in this connection may be conveyed by the words " empty of content, unreal, not having objective existence, consisting only of opinions, sentiments, speculation." The cross of Christ is a real cause in the moral order of things. To substitute a system of notions, however true and ennobling, for the fact of Christ's death, is like confounding the theory of gravitation with gravitation itself. V. 18. That to regard the Gospel as a mere philosophy deprives it of its cosmical power is proved from the condition of those that perish and of those that are being saved. For the moral state of those that perish effectually prevents them from seeing the greatness and understanding the truth of this THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — I. 17-19. 25 Divine philosophy. It must, therefore, manifest its power to save before it can be recognized as the wisdom of God. Again, those that are saved know in their own experience that the Gospel wields a Divine power and that salvation is, not a theory only, but an operation of God. o X0709 tou cTTavpov, synonymous with eiayyeXiov (cf. Eph. i. 13). Sravpov is objective genit. (cf. 2 Cor. v. 19 ; 1 John i. 1). d7roXXu/x6i'ot9 and crto^opevoit are not precisely ethical datives (" in the opinion of"), but datives of respect ("in its bearing on them "). They easily pass into the ethical mean ing. The Gospel becomes folly in the eyes of those whom it does not save. This explains the fact that some men are even now in a condition that prevents them from seeing the wisdom of the Gospel, while others are now in a condition to acknowledge it. As Chrysostom observes, those that perish are like sick folk to whom healthy food is distasteful, or madmen who abuse their best friends. Meyer thinks the present is here used for the future to express certainty. Winer doubts that it is ever so used ; but cf. Bernhardy, W. S. p. 371. The objection to Meyer's view is that the certainty of perdition or salvation is not relevant to the Apostle's argument. The perdition and the salvation here meant are undoubtedly eternal death and eternal life. (Cf. Phil. iii. 19, mv to TeXo9 dirdikeia.) V. 19. The substitution of a Divine power for human speculation is in accordance with the purpose of God declared through the prophet, that God would at some future time destroy the wisdom of the wise. The time is come. diroXco . . . dOerr/crm. The words are cited from the LXX., Isa. xxix. 14, except that the Apostle has d&eT-rjaw for Kpvyjro)., Kaiitzsch suggests that he wrote dOeTijaco from a reminiscence of Pa. xxxii. (xxxiii.) 10. The passage in Isaiah has reference to the spiritual blindness and obduracy of Israel, which the prophet traces back to the sovereignty of the Most High. The circumstances differ. But the application of the words to the impotency of human wisdom is justifiable. The principle of God's action is the same in both cases, that spiritual blindness should be punished with spiritual blindness. On the distinction between crocpia and crvvecris cf. Harless on Eph. i. 8 ; Ellicott on Col. i. 9. But it must not be here 26 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. pressed as the citation is an instance of the parallelism of Hebrew poetry. V. 20. The prophecy is fulfilled. The world's philosophy is dying. God has through the Gospel turned it into folly. Most expositors, from Clem. Alex. (Strom. I. p. 370 Potter) and Chrys. to De Wette and Meyer, see in the Apostle's three questions an allusion to Jewish and Greek philosophy. De Wette and others, after Vitringa on Isa. xxxiii. 18, think the first question includes the other two, of which the former refers to Jewish, the latter to Greek speculations ; and Eiickert and Hofmann do not succeed in their attempts to throw discredit on the distinction. The name ypapparevs was unknown in class. Greek, except as the designation of the clerk of the Ecclesia. But in the New Test, the "scribes" are the Sopherim, the interpreters of the Law and teachers of Eabbinical wisdam; mostly Pharisees and identical probably with the vopoSiSaaKaXoi (cf. Luke xxii. 2). But o-v^r}Tr]Trjs would correctly describe a Greek philosopher. Indeed the word is resumed in ver. 22, "EXXnves croqbiav grjTovcriv. It is not unlikely that the Apostle borrowed the name from the Jewish Cabbalists (cf. Baruch iii. 23 ; and Vitringa, De Synag. p. 670). But the expression is too wide to justify Brucker's supposition that the Apostle is speaking only of the Cabbala or of the germs of Gnosticism (Hist. Crit. Philos. II. p. 708). The word expresses precisely the difference between croqbos and cpiXocrocpos, the latter the designation said to have been assumed by Pythagoras from a sense of unworthiness (Cic, Tusc. V. 3). But all through Greek literature aocpia has a tinge of arrogance from which abiXoaocpia is free (cf. Plat., Pheedr. p. 278 D; Sympos.ri. 203 C. ; Plut., De Plac. Philos. I.). There is perhaps a touch of irony in the Apostle's question, " Where is there a wise man ? " Compare Rom. i. 22, 4>do-KovTe<; elvai croqbol, with the common phrase oi cpdcrK0VTe]6tjs iroTapbv ev BiafirjcrbpeOa Kal Trjv ijrvx'jv ob piavdrjcrbpeda. The words " in the wisdom of God " are in antithesis to "the folly of what is preached," and the words "through its wisdom " to the words " them that believe." The cross is the manifestation of God in the Gospel, corresponding to the works of nature and providence ; while faith is the eye of the soul that corresponds to human wisdom. W. 22-24. Explanatory of ver. 21. The "world" con sists of two very different classes of men, who endeavour to know God in two several manifestations of Him. The Jews find a revelation of God's presence in a physical interruption of the course of nature ; the Greeks seek Him in intellectual conceptions. Christianity accomplishes a supernatural work that surpasses all physical miracles, and by so doing proves itself the highest conception ever grasped by the mind of man. V. 22. Meyer makes etreiBr) . . . grjTovcriv the pro tasis, and rjpeis Be . . . ea-Tavpcopevov the apodosis. For Se introducing an apodosis after etreiBrj, cf. Thuc. I. 11, iireiBr) Be dqbiKopevot pdxj) eKparrjijav . . . (paivovTai Be oi/S' ev~ ravOa Trdcrrj ttj Bvvdpei XPVaupievoi. But we should then expect a particle to connect this with the preceding verse. Hofmann considers the words to be explanatory of rriaTev- ovras, as if the Apostle wished to show why men are saved through faith. But the leading thought is the nature of the Gospel, not the way whereby its benefits are received. Olshausen translates iireiBrj by " for," and thinks the Apostle is proving that God has made foolish the wisdom of the world. " He has done so by permitting Jews and Gentiles to seek false objects, such as miracles and wisdom instead of salva- THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — 1. 21, 22. 31 tion.''' But this lays the whole emphasis on the first two clauses. Besides, though iirei sometimes means " for," to translate iireiB-q so is contrary to usage. The passages cited by Olshausen do not prove it. Estius, Riiukert, De Wette, etc., rightly consider these words to be explanatory of the statement that God has resolved to respond to men's yearn ings for a revelation of God by offering them salvation, which is at once the mightiest miracle in the guise of weakness and the highest wisdom in the guise of folly. The word Ktfpvcr- aopev looks back to KrjpvypaTos. The Gospel has already been described as an evayyeXtov in reference to the benefits it confers. The words epoopavev 6 ©eos and euBoKvaev add the great conception that the Gospel is the outcome of God's sovereign will. It was an act of righteous judgment that proclaimed the foolishness of this world's wisdom. But that judgment was made effectual through another Divine act, the fruit of God's mercy, when He freely resolved to offer men salvation. The Gospel is that divinely authorised proclama tion. God's answer to men's demand for miracles and to their search for wisdom is a message, an authoritative proclamation of Christ crucified. eVe.SJ) . . . r)pels Be. Eiickert says pev must be under stood with iireiBq. But the latter clause is not merely anti thetical to the former, but introduces an additional thought. " It pleased God to save men through the folly of the Gospel, inasmuch as all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are conscious of spiritual wants, however wayward their efforts to supply them ; and, to meet those deep yearnings, we on the other hand, preach Christ crucified." Hence Kal . . . Kai, not pev . . . Be. On the alleged omission of pev in apparently antithetical clauses, cf. Fritzsche's exhaustive note on Eom. x. 19 ; 1 Harless on Eph. v. 8; Hartung, Parti/tell. I. p. 163. 'IovBaioi and "EXXtjves have not the article because many Jews and Greeks were now Christians. He avoids the blunt expression, " The Jews require a sign," etc. Yet the national 1 He says : " Quotieseunque yM> non scviptum est, ne cogitatum quidem est a scriptoribus. Recte autem ibi non ponitur ubi non sequitur membrum op position, aut scriptores oppositionem addere nondum constituerant, aut loqnentes alterius membri oppositionem quacunque de causa lectoribas non indixerunt." 32 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. characteristics of both are hit off to perfection in the words alrelv and fijTetv. To the Jews God has already spoken ; and they, from the proud eminence of their divinely sprung re ligion, "demand" of all upstart religions their proofs and credentials (cf. Matt. xii. 38; xvi. 1; John vi. 30) } The Greeks, on the other hand, are seekers; and they seek, as they worship, they know not what. They can only give it the general name of wisdom or truth (cf. Lucret. I. 640, " Gravis inter Graios qui vera requirunt "). The Apostle's statement of a national difference in way of thinking is per haps one of the latest to be met with in ancient literature. In the second and third centuries a universal syncretism effaced the old national peculiarities of intellectual and moral ten dencies under the influence of the natural pantheism of tho East. An exception proves the rule. _$_lian the sophist was especially honoured in Rome as a survival of the men who, like Cato, had stoutly maintained the national characteristics (cf. Philostr., De Vita Sophist, ii. 31). Yet ^Elian of Praeneste wrote in Greek and like a Greek. He professes (Var. Hist. xii. 25) to be as deeply interested in Greeks as in Romans. In religion only did nationalism continue to be considered indispensable. Celsus, for example, thought it absurd that Greeks and barbarians should have the same religion. But this only proves how completely a matter of external rites and how entirely separated from the mental and moral life of men it was held to be. crrjpeia. So S A B C D, Vulg., all the Latin and most of the Greek Fathers. The word means "miracles," as in Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12. The Apostle alludes to the belief of the Jews that Messiah would do greater miracles than Moses. Every Divine revelation must be replete with miracles and with wisdom. Without miracles no revelation can be proved to be Divine ; if it does not offer consummate wisdom, it is proved not to be Divine. But we must advance further. The wisdom and the miracle are both of the very essence of the revelation. The Apostle blames the Jews for demanding miracles on precisely the same grounds as he blames the 1 A similar allusion to Jewish consciousness of superiority lurks in the word SoyiMTt{e (a later form of crKavBdXrjBpov, of the same root as scando and our slander). It was properly the piece of wood that falls when a creature enters a trap, like Z-7ro9 and povTpov, on which cf. Hesych. It is synonymous with irdyts in Wisd. xiv. 11. It occurs in the metaphorical sense in LXX. but not in class, writers, who use irpoo-Kotrr] (Polyb. ; cf. 2 Cor. vi. 3). Cf. Gal. v. 11 ; John vi. 60, 61, where the reference is to the doctrine of the cross. Cf. Ignat., Ephes. 18; Justin M., Dial. c. Tri/ph. 247. The word appears to have been often on the lips of the Jews. Philo designates any history in the Old Test, that would not fit into his allegories a " scandal." pcopia. Cf. Acts xvii. 18; Justin M., Apol. i. 13, ivTavQa yap pavtav rjpcbv KaTaqbaivovTai, Bevrepav X^Pav rl€Ta T0V aTpeirrov Kal del ovra debv Kal yevvijropa tov dtravrcov dv- Spdnrtp o-TavpcodevTi BiBdvat rjpds Xiyovres- The cross was among the Romans infelix lignum, and crucifixion the punish- 1 Mission of the Comforter, Note N. A masterly demonstration of the neces sity of miracles will be found in Canon Mozley's Bampton Lectures, I. Cf. also- Bruce, Chief End of Revelation, ch. IY. 34 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ment of slaves and conquered enemies. To preach what was already shame as God's way of salvation was to add insult to folly. V. 24. avrots Be tois kXtjtois, " but to them, the called ; " that is, "those that believe," ver. 21. The other render ing, " but to the called themselves," does not yield any very tangible meaning, though Alford is wrong in saying it would require Tot9 KXrjTots ai/rots. Cf. John v. 36, avra Ta epya, " not only My Father, but the works themselves testify." Cf. Heb. xi. 11, Kal avrr] lappa, "she also, Sarah; " 1 Thess. iv. 16, aiirbs b Kvpios, " He, the Lord." Xpicrrov, accus., not after a supplied Kr/pvcrcropev, but in appos. to X. io-Tavpcopevov, and co-ordinate with aKavBaXov and pcopiav. Avvapiv and aocpiav are explanatory of Xpiarov. ©eov Bvvapiv and 0eoi5 aocpiav look back to crrjpeiov a'novai and aocpiav ^rjTOvai of ver. 22 ; but they add new elements to the conceptions. God's power is more than a sign ; it is also the thing signified. God's wisdom is more than the wisdom of which philosophers were in search. There is an ascent in ¦aKavBaXov, crnpeiov, and ©eov Bvvapis, and a corresponding ascent in pcopia, aocpla, and ©eov crocpia. Ambrose at the 'Council of Aquileia argued from this verse that Christ is eter nal, because the power and the wisdom of God are eternal (cf. Ambros., De Fide V. 7). Athanasius uses the same argument frequently. Augustine (De Trin. VI. 1) criticises and rejects ¦it. Evidently " power " and " wisdom," when applied to Christ, mean the manifestation of those attributes in the Divine •nature. Still a Gospel that consists in the preaching of a cross could not manifest them except for the reason that the .•crucified One is the power and wisdom of God in the same -sense in which He is the Son of God. In effect, therefore, Ambrose is right. V. 25. Close of the argument. The reason why those that are called see in the crucified One the Christ of God is that the Gospel has proved stronger and wiser than anything -human, inasmuch as it saves men, what the world has failed to do. to pcopbv, " the foolish thing; " that is, the cross, as Chrys., 'Theod., Theophyl. explain it. A neut. adj. is often used, it is 'true, for an abstract noun. (Cf. Rom. ii. 4, to yprjorov for THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — I. 23-26. . 35 i) xPr)°"r°Tri'S, ix. 22, to BvvaTov for rj Bvvapts ; Heb. vi. 17. Cf. Poppo on Thuc. I. 9.) But it is inadmissible here. Besides the unmeaningness and in truth irreverence of such expressions as " God's foolishness," " God's weakness," the connection of the words tells strongly against this rendering. (2) That the Gospel is primarily the proclamation of a salva tion through Christ is proved from the character of the Church. (i. 26-31). V. 26 is not, as Meyer and Alford explain, to be joined to what immediately precedes. The Apostle is entering upon his second argument to prove the peculiar nature of Christ ianity. The cross has not been made void, but is powerful to save ; and this is proved from the nature of the Church, the glory of which consists, not in the men that compose it, but in their union with Christ through God's grace. fiXeirere, imper., "look at," etc. (cf. x. 18; Phil. iii. 2). So Chrys., eVta7ce-\|racr0e. In class. Greek we should have had iirl with accus. KXfjcriv, not " condition of life " (Olshaus.) , a meaning which kXtjo-is never has, but " call." The notion that colours the whole passage, is that the characteristic and in the eyes of the world paradoxical elements in the Church are the result of a Divine act. KXijcr .9 continues the notion of evBoKrjcrev (ver. 21). Outside the pale of the Church we are in the region of human effort, striving to attain its ends within the limits of law. In the action of Christianity on the world we witness the self- manifestation of the Divine will. dBeXcpol. The Apostle is careful to assure his readers of their high Christian brotherhood, now that he directs their attention to the lowliness of their worldly position. aocpol . . . Bvvarol . . . evyevels. The " wise " are evidently not only the philosophers, the class, meaning of the word, but educated men in a more general sense, synon. with ¦jre-TraiBevpevoi, and opp. to iBnarai. Such was Apollos (cf. Oi'ig., c. Cels. III. 73, aocpovs Koivorepov Xeycov rrdvras tovs BoKovvras TrpoBeftvKevai p.ev iv paOqpaaiv, diroireTTTooKOTas Be els ttjv ddeov iroXvdebrrjTa). The Bvvaroi are men of rank and political influence, opp. to Br)p,os, " the commonalty," as 36 . THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. in Thuc. II. 65. Such was Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 7) and Dionysius the Areopagite (Acts xvii. 31). The evyeveis meant, in the aristocratic ages of Greece, men of high descent, such as the Alcmasonidas at Athens or the Bacchiadae at Corinth. But when the democracy had been long established, the word degenerated in meaning and came to signify men whose ancestors were virtuous and wealthy, in fact the better sort of freemen, the lionesti as opposed to the humiliores of the Empire (cf. Arist., Pol. VIII. i. 7). In the mock funeral ora tion, which Socrates puts into the mouth of Aspasin, Plato (Menex. p. 237) sneers at the readiness of the Athenian people to worship birth, and designates all the soldiers that fell in battle evyeveis, because "their ancestors were not strangers, and their children, therefore, were children of the soil." At Athens itself birth never ceased to have a charm (cf. __Eschyl., Agam. 1009, Paley's note; ^Elian, Var. Hist. III. 18). There is, consequently, a climax in the Apostle's words : Few intellectual men, few politicians, few cf the better class of free citizens, embraced Christianity.1 The verse breathes the spirit of the Saviour's appeal, as evidence of His divine authority, to the fact that the poor have the Gospel preached unto them. At first these three classes alike rejected Christianity. Five years before this St. Paul had himself been the laughing-stock of philosophers on Areopagus, the Epicureans deriding his doctrine of Divine providence, and the Stoics being offended at his calling all men to repent. Their scorn was, in most cases, the result rather of ignorance than of aversion. Gallio, the gentle brother of Seneca, thought the dispute between Jews and Christians " a question of words and names " ; and Tacitus, himself a Stoic, described Christianity as an " exitiabilis superstitio," because he confounded it with " the atrocious and shameful things that flowed from all parts of the world into Rome " (Ann. XV. 44). From the thinkers the politicians and rich men borrowed the principles and prejudices that deter mined their attitude towards Christianity, at first affecting to despise it, afterwards persecuting its adherents. Eusebius (Hid. Eccles. II. 25) says that Nero was the first of the autocrats to proclaim war against the religion of Christ. 1 Iu Jer. ix. 23 the same threefold division occurs, but with jrKoiaios instead of eiyevris. The Apostle probably did not mean much more. THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — I. 26, 27. 37 In less than forty years the Apostle's words would no longer represent the condition of things. When Pliny wrote his letter to Trajan about the Christians, a.d. 104 — one of the earliest references in a pagan writer to Christianity — many Roman citizens of all ranks were to be found amongf them (Ep. ad. Traj. X. 97). Flavius Clemens and his wife Domitilla, both cousins of Doraitian, were charged with atheism, which meant a profession of Christ.1 Gibbon enumerates the philo sophers that had embraced the faith of Christ in the next age after that of the Apostles. The three classes here mentioned comprehended separate and irreconcilable elements. The thinkers were an aristocracy of intellect, despising public life, and content with the political extinction of Greeee. The free citizens, under the Roman regime, gave themselves up to amassing wealth. KaTa crdpKa. Chrys., KaTa rb cpaivoptevov, Kara rov irapovra (3tov, Kara ttjv eljcoOev iraiBevcriv. " Flesh " came to have this meaning from the antithesis between the irvevpa, the super natural element revealed in Christianity, and the merely human (cf. note on iii. 1). The explanation which derives the meaning of KaTa crdpKa from the notion of kinship is hardly admissible in our passage, but it fits in well in x. 18. V. 27. rd pcopd, neut. for masc, in speaking of a class, especially to convey some degree of contempt (cf. Gal. iii. 22, rd irdvra, " all men "). So Thuc. II. 45 ; VI. 3. ' toO Koo-pov, not "in the opinion of the world" (Theod., Grot.), which would not apply to dyevr) tov Koapov, ver. 28. Meyer understands it of the human race. But this does not account for the emphatic repetition of the word. It means, as in ver. 21, the kingdom of evil, in opposition to the Church; Koo-pov being genit. of relation. " As appertaining to the world" (cf. James ii. 5). i^eXe^aro, thrice repeated, because stress is laid, as before, on the fact that the historical development of Christianity has been determined by the free action of God's grace. Here the reference is probably, not to God's eternal election unto salva tion (as in Eph. i. 4 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13), but to the call of the Gospel, synonymous with kXtjctis, inasmuch as rd pcopd tov 1 Cf. Euseb., Hist. Eccles. III. 18 ; Justin M.., Apol. I. 6, &8eoi iceic\jfi.e9a. 38 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Kocrpov naturally denotes the mass of things in the world. Out of the mass God chooses the Church. KaTaicrxvvr), that is, because the foolish are chosen the wise " begin with shame to take the lowest place." The aor. subj. is the regular usage for the final clause in Hellenistic Greek. In the New Test, the opt. does not occur in real final clauses. V. 28. egovdevvpeva, "set at nought," "flouted." The word denotes, not mere contempt, but the expression of it (cf. Luke xxiii. 11). The class, equivalent for this Hellenistic word is irpoirrjXaKi^o). rd p-h ovra, " things that are no better than if they were not." Td ovk ovra would mean " things that actually do not exist," which is Tertullian's explanation of this verse (c. Marc. V. 5). Cf. Xen., Anab. IV iv. 15: Td pf] ovra &>9 ou« oVt«, and Soph., Antig. 1325 : top ovk ovra pdXXov rj priBeva. Even in Rom. iv. 17, though rd /j,tj oVTa are non-existing, yet they are represented as being so regarded by the Creator. The distinction is neglected in the Homily that goes under the name of Clement's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ii. 18, eKaXeaev r)pds ovk ovTas. The slave was to prj ov. He had no side of his existence distinct from his master's. He was oXcos eKeivov. V. 29. orvcos introduces the ultimate end, as iva intro duced the subsidiary purposes, vv. 27, 28. Originally oircos denoted manner. Hence, as a final particle, it is more objective than tva, and introduces the ultimate aim, which is also the event : " and so it will come to pass " (cf. 2 Thess. i. 11, 12). In Gal. iii. 14 we have tva . . . 'iva, because both purposes are co-ordinate. Eph. v. 26 is an exception. To put men to shame would, as an ulterior object, be unworthy of God. It is worthy only in so far as it is subsidiary to the design of bringing all His creatures to glory in God. Ildaa crdpl; is a Hebraism for -jrd9 dvOpcorros, but with a covert allusion to man's weakness and unworthiness to be an object of boasting in the presence of God. The use of irds (or rracra ia, as in N A C D, Vulg. So Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort, etc. (B has crocpia ¦qpcov). The words 077-0 ©eov must, therefore, be joined, not with crocpia, " wisdom from God," but. with eyevqdrj. We must distinguish also, between d7ro and viro. Though dirb is some times used much like 1.77-6, but indicating "a less direct agency" (L. and S. ; Buttmann, N.S. p. 280), it cannot be so understood here; for Christ was the eternal Logos. But He came from God, and, when He had come, He was found to be wisdom for our advantage; profectus est a Deo tanquam fonte (cf. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s.v. diro, II. 3). Similar^ John vi. 46, irapd. The reference is not to be restricted to Christ's death, but must be extended to the constitution of Christ's person, as God-Man and Mediator. aocpia . . . BiKaioavvtj Te Kai dyiaapos Kai drroXvTpaiais. He means more than that Christ was the source of our wisdom, etc. (Fritzsche on Rom. vii. 7). Christ is the manifestation of God's wisdom, etc., in our behalf. As to the relations of these words among themselves, we observe : (1) That re Kai joins BiKaiocrvvTj and dyiaapos closely together, as being both on the same plane of thought in relation and contrast to d7roXi5T/3ft)o-t9. Words joined by Te Kai are e'/c 7rapc.XX?jXoi/, and words attached afterwards by Kai are adjuncts. Cf. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 102 ; Ellendt, Lex. Suph., who renders Antig. 607 (611), to t errena xai to peXXov Kal to irplv eirapKeaei vopos 6'Se, " et in futurnm et in quod instat tempus valebit ea lex, atque prseterea de prteterito." (2) That T6 Kal . . . Kai would naturally be used to introduce words explanatory of the aocpia. (This against Alford.) Cf. Xen , Mem. I. i. 1 9, IlcoKparvs Be rrdvra pev rjyeiTO 6eoiis elBevat, rd re Xeyopeva Kai rrpaTTopeva Kal aiy-n fiovXevbpeva, where cf. Kiihner's note; Thuc. II. 49, rd eVro9 r\ re qbdpvytj Kal •} yXcbaaa. (3) That the position of crocpia, separated from BiKaioavvn by fjjiiv dirb ©eov, suggests the interpretation. (4) That the Apostle's purpose throughout is to represent the Gospel as the power and the wisdom of God. Choosing, calling into the Church the foolish, weak, and worthless, putting to shame the wise and mighty, bringing to nought things that are, uniting believers to His Son, sending His Son THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — I. 30. 41 to be righteousness, sanctifk-ation and redemption — these are acts of God's power and sovereign will. But in these things we have the most perfect revelation of wisdom. Righteous ness, sanctification and redemption are the great spiritunl necessities of man; and, from the Apostle's present point of view, they comprehend all the fruits of Christ's death. For these reasons I think BiKaioavvrj, dyiaapos and air oXvrp coats are explanatory of aocpla. So Neander, Hofmann, Heinrici. The view of Origen, In Johanu. i. 23, is adopted by most expositors, that righteousness, sanctification. redemption, are additional notions to that of wisdom. If this explanation be preferable, then De Lyra and Bengel's suggestion may seem not to be far-fetched, that wisdom stands in contradistinction . to foolish, righteousness to weak, sanctification and redemp tion to ignoble. BiKaioavvrj, the state of having been justified, the result of BtKaicoais (cf. Rom. x. 4). The words BiKaiov elvai irapii tco ©em (Rom. ii. 13) are explained by BtKaiovadai irapd tco ©em (Gal. iii. 11). The conception is borrowed from the Old Test. The laws of God are judgments, BiKatcopara (cf. Ps. xviii. 22), and even in those passages in which BiKaioavvrj means inherent purity (as Ps. xviii. 20, where it is paralleled by KaOapioTvs tcov xeLP^>v) & regards that moral condition as the ground of an objective justification. In the theocracy ethics necessarily assumed a forensic form. It must do so in all primitive nations, when morality is not yet distinguished from religion, nor religion from politics. Indeed, the develop ment of Greek thought is a gradual unravelling of these threads of human life. In Plato's Republic, for instance, the idea of the State occupies the place assigned in the Old Test. to the Invisible King. Consequently the moral condition of the individual is determined, in the one and the other, by his objective relation to the State or King; that is, the central idea of morality is righteousness. So in the teaching ot Christ (cf. Matt. vi. 33). The outward theocracy has passed away, and the Greek conception of the 7ro'Xt9 gives place io a deeper conception, which represents every man as a rroXtTeia under the rule of God. This is unquestionably St. P.iul's point of view. The Ep. of Barnabas also speaks of BiKaioavvrj Kpiaems. Now believers are thus forensically righteous, not 42 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. in themselves, but in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. v. 21). Christ is not only their justification, but also the ever-abiding cause of their remaining justified ; that is. He is their righteousness. dyiaapos. Another conception derived from the Old Test., but assimilated and transformed by Christianity. Jehovah being King of Israel, loyalty was identical with consecration of spirit to God ; and as Jehovah was king by indefeasible right, not by his subjects' choice, their consecration must be ' more than self-devotion ; it must be a condition in which they are placed by God. This, applied to the relation of God to believers, means : first, that the Christian character is not mere rectitude, but holiness; not only conformity to moral law as the authoritative rule of life, but also assimilation to the moral character of a personal God springing from love; second, that this holiness is the result of a Divine act of sanctifica tion — not, like virtue, a human attainment, but. the creation of God's Spirit. Hence dyiaapos here, not dytmavvrj (2 Cor. vii. 1). Though there is a tendency in the New Test, to use verbals in -pbs, from verbs in -d^m and -t£a>, to denote a condition (cf. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 511), the forensic meaning assigned to BiKaioavvrj necessitates our understanding dyiaapos of the act of sanctification or moral consecration. Both dytmavvrj and dyiaapos are found only in LXX., New Test. and ecclesiastical writers. diroXvTpaats. First, Christ has delivered us from the guilt of sin by the payment of a ransom (Xiirpov), which is Christ Himself (cf. Eph. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14). Second, as a consequence, He will also deliver us from the moral servitude of sin, and this also is brought to pass through the ransom (cf. Eph. i. 14; iv. 30 ; Eom. viii. 23). In the former, Christ is our redemp tion by being the formal cause of our justification; in the latter, our redemption means the end and crown of our sanctification. As the former is already included in BiKaio avvrj, redemption here must be restricted to fiual deliverance. So Chrys. These three conceptions are a summary of the Gospel, from the Apostle's present point of view — God justifies, the Spirit sanctifies, Christ redeems. In these three aspects of the Gospel Christ is come to us from God as wisdom ; or, to borrow the more sharply-cut phrases of a later age, Christ THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — I. 30-11. 1. 43 fulfils the office of Prophet by fulfilling the offices of Priest / and King. V. 31. Conclusion of the section. " If the Church mani fests God's power and wisdom, let the believer boast, not in men, but in Christ, the source of the Church's spiritual pri vileges of justification, sanctification and final redemption." 'iva. On the anacoluthon cf. Winer, Gr. § LX1V. lb ; Butt- mann, N.S. p. 201. The words are a free citation from Jer. ix. 23, 24, with an allusion perhaps to Isa. xiv. 25 (cf. 2 Cor. x. 17; Phil. iii. 3). The Apostle detaches from their connec tion in LXX. the words that are to his purpose. Cf. Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 12, where the prophet's and the Apostle's words are cited together. ' ev, denoting the object of the boast, as in Rom. ii. 17; v. 3, 11 (cf. %aipa> ev, Phil. i. 18; Col. i. 24). In class. Greek irrl would be used, not eV. (3) That the Gospel is primarily the proclamation of a salva tion through Christ is proved from the power of the ministry. (ii. 1-5). The messenger is like the message. As the Gospel is the foolish thing of God, so the Apostle has no wisdom and no utterance of his own (ii. 1, 2). As the Gospel is the weak thing of God, so the Apostle came to Corinth in weakness, fear and trembling (ii. 3). But as Christ is the power and wisdom of the Gospel, so the Spirit is the power and wisdom of the ministry (ii. 4). Finally, as the Gospel is the mystery of God and, therefore, a Divine power, so the ministry is a Divine power and, therefore, the manifestation of Divine wisdom (ver. 5, leading to ver. 6). Ch. II. 1. Kayco, not "I as well as the other Apostles" (De Wette) , but " I too in my own person " ; that is, " my ministry represents the character of the Gospel : the Gospel is a proclamation, I am a preacher." Cf. Matt. iii. 4, avrbs Be 'Imdw-ns, "John in his own person as distinguished from John as the voice of Christ;" Rom. vii. 25, aires iyco, "I myself apart from Christ." iXdmv . . . r)X6ov, an instance of the pleonastic use of the participle, which occurs even in class. Greek, cf. Hdt. IX 44 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.. 509, ecpaaav Xiyovres ; Plat., Phced. p. 164, drreXdcov cpxero, espec. in LXX., in imitation of the Heb. idiom, as Ex. iii. 7, and New Test., as Acts vii. 34; Heb. vi. 14. It emphasizes, how ever, the notion of the verb. The Apostle's having come to Corinth was itself worthy of mention. The Gospel was not a plant of native growth. Christianity is not a mere develop ment of the ancient world, but a new and supernatural beginning. Kara, not "by way of" (De Wette, Alford, etc.), but " after the model of," " taking as my standard." So even in Phil. ii. 3, Kara epiOeiav, " in accordance with the dictates of party- spirit" (cf. Plat., Rep. p. 446 B, Kara tov tcov aKVToropmv fiiov). The Apostle's ideal was not pre-eminence1 as a philo sopher or an orator. He wished to " fashion " his ministry " after " the Gospel he preached. The words dXXd Kara to Kqpvypa tov aTavpov may be mentally supplied. The clause ov Ka6' inrepoxvv Xoyov f) aocpias is better con nected with KarayyeXXmv than, as Hofmann, with fjXOov. In that case the Apostle would probably have written dXXd ' Karr'iyyetXa. KarayyeXXmv. The pres. implies that he began to declare as soon as he came to Corinth. Cf. Thuc. II. 73, rjXdov d-nay- yeXXovres ; Xen., Cyr. VII. iv. 7, Jjkov ipmrrnvres. So Acts xv. 27 ; xx. 25 ; 1 Cor. iv. 14; xiv. 6. It is pres. of manner, to be distinguished from fut. of purpose. " Came by way of declaring." For paprvpiov (B D Vulg.) N (first hand) A have pva- rrjpiov, which is adopted by Westc. and Hort, Rev. Vers. Though the MS. evidence is pretty evenly balanced, and though elsewhere " the mystery of Christ " is the invariable phrase, still pvari'jpiov is probably the true reading. The notion that the Gospel contains God's wisdom in the garb of folly is pertinent to the Apostle's purpose, and is precisely what " mystery " implies. The Apostle is showing the re semblance between his declaration of the Gospel and the Gospel itself. Both are wisdom ; both appear to be folly. Cf. Justin M., Dial. 7, ov yap pera diroBeil-ems ireiroivvTai Tore tovs Xoyovs, are di mrepm irdatjs diroBei^ems, ovres d^ioiriaTOl pdprvpes T?j9 dXnOeias. Tot) ©eov. De Wette, Meyer, etc., consider it to be object. THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — II. 1, 2. 45 genit., as the Gospel declares concerning God that He raised Christ from the dead (cf. xv. 15; 1 John iv. 14). If we read pvarrjpiov, then ©eov is necessarily subj. genit. ; and it is probably so if we read paprvpiov. For the Apostle's pur pose is to state that, not only the Gospel, but also the ministry is from God. So Calvin, Grot., Beng., Osiand., Hofm. (cf. 1 John v. 9, 11; 1 Pet. iv. 17; 2 Tim. i. 8; Rev. i. 9; Acts xiii. 26 ; 1 Thess. ii. 4). The same idea is at the root of the Old Test, revelation (cf. Isa. viii. 16). V. 2. He proves that his ideal was not pre-eminence in utterance or wisdom, by avowing his previous determination to have no sort of philosophy — except that philosophy of God which is the opposite of all philosophy of man, Christ crucified. ov yap eKpiva, not " I did not judge that I knew " (Hofm.), but " I determined not to know." The latter rendering is the only one that confers any moral value on his abstaining from preaching after the manner of a philosopher or a rhe torician (cf. vii. 37; 2 Cor. ii. 1). On the transference of the negative, as in ov cpaaiv, cf. Jelf, Gr. § 745. 2 (cf. ov deXm, x. 20). ti elBevai (omitting tou) is the reading of N AD. So Lachm., Tisch., etc (cf. Acts xx. 7; but tov in Acts xxvii. 1). Origen and Neander emphasize iv vpiv, as if the Apostle changed his method when he came to Corinth, having in Athens preached at first natural religion (Acts xvii. 22), but in Corinth begun with the peculiar doctrine of Christ's death. Similarly F. W. Robertson. But such a supposition is really inconsistent with the radical change which the man's entire being had undergone at his conversion. Indeed it makes his preaching in Athens an unwarrantable presumption and his conduct morally faulty. 'I. X. Kal tovtov iaravpmpevov, a formal and emphatic ex pression for the person and death of Christ — the two con stituents of His atonement ; and it was, not merely the disgrace of the servile supplicium of the cross, but the doctrine of the atonement that offended the world. The Apostles' words are perfectly consistent with the supreme place assigned in the Acts and by St. Paul to Christ's resurrection. For he is speaking of the living Jesus, who appeared to him on the 46 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. way, not of a theological conception nor of the Logos assuming human nature. V. 3. The consequence of that determination was a union of personal fear and ministerial power. From the resemblance in folly between the message and the preacher, the Ap6stle passes on to the resemblance between them in point of weakness. Kal eym, emphatic; as in ver. 1, contrasting the preacher and the message. eV dadeveia, k.t.X., not merely persecutions (Chrys.), but denoting that complex state of mind which began in a sense of spiritual prostration, then assumed the special form of fear, and found expression at last in trembling. It is not the fear of external danger, but an absorbing sense of responsibility (cf. 2 Cor. vii. 15; Eph. vi. 5; Phil. ii. 12); the mysterious dread felt by the great preachers of all ages and in all sections of the Church, and more or" less constantly accompanying the spiritual power of the ministry. But the Apostle had special causes of discouragement. He came to Corinth from Athens, where he had met- with very partial success and not founded a Church. At Corinth he was beset with difficulties through the malevolence of the Jews (cf. Acts xviii. 6). His sad ness and gloom find utterance in the First and still more in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, written at the time from Corinth. The word avveixero (Acts xviii. 5), whether it means " straitened in spirit " or " hard-pressed by enemies " or " zealously intent on the work of the ministry," implies that he was in a state of unusual dejection. The Lord Jesus vouchsafed to appear to him in a night-vision for his encouragement. iyevo/j.7]v rrpbs vpds, "came to you and was among you" (cf. xvi. 10 ; Matt. xiii. 56). V. 4. Having drawn a twofold comparison between him self and his message, the Apostle proceeds to state in what the success of his ministry, which he calls to Kqpvyfid pov, and the greatness of the Gospel, which he calls 6 X0709 pov, essentially consists. Neither of the two depends on the power of demonstration ; both manifest their excellence by the de monstration of power. Various attempts have been made to distinguish between X0709 and Krjpvypa, such as " private conversation " and THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH: — II. 2-4. 47 "public preaching" (De Lyra, Bengel, Neander, Olshausen) ; or " X0709 the more general term and Krjpvypa the more par ticular" (Meyer); or "Xoyos, speech, a matter of language and dialectic, Krjpvypa, preaching, a matter of conviction and participation" (De Wette). The last explanation comes nearest. A comparison of the verse with ver. 18; Rom. xvi. 25 ; Tit. i. 3, leads to the inference that Xoyos means the Gospel, the revelation of the eternal mystery ; Kijpvypa, the announcement of that mystery, the preaching of that Gospel. pov . . . pov, emphatic ; contrasting his message with the dogmas of philosophers, his method with theirs. rreiBois, an anomalous form for iriOavois, but formed, as Heinrici observes, after the manner of cpeiBbs from cpeiSopai. It occurs only here. The reading in Euseb., Prcep. Evang. I. 3, eV rreiQoi dvdpmrrivrjs aocpias Xbymv occurs more than once in Origen and partly corresponds to the rendering in D and Ambrosiaster, in persuasione humaiice sapiential. It is adopted by Beza. Grotius conjectures Treiarois. The evidence of N B C D in favour of eV treidois aocpias Xoyots is decisive. But the meaning is well given by Eusebius, ib., Tas pev dtraT-rfXas Kal aocptariKas rndavoXoyias irapaiTovjievos, and by Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. XIII. 8, ov aocpiariKal KaraaKeval Ktvovvrai vvv, iirel BiaXvovrat.1 The Apostle had not the "persuasive accent, to make the worse appear the better reason." With a contemptuous touch of irony, that reminds one of Socrates in the Gorgias and Apology, he disclaims all skill in rhetoric, the spurious art of persuading without in structing, held, nevertheless, in high repute at Corinth. But when the Apostle speaks of " the demonstration of Spirit and of power," he soars into a region, of which Socrates knew nothing. Socrates sets aocpia against rreiOm, the Apostle regards both as being on well-nigh a common level from the higher altitude of the Spirit. That an antithesis is intended in the clause seems evident. Persuasive means effective, powerful; and wisdom means de monstration. He contrasts these persuasive words of wisdom, that is, the power of human demonstration, with the demon stration of Divine power. 1 The name of sophist was hateful even to heathen writers. Cf. M. Anton. VI. 80, where it is said in praise of Antoninus Pius that he was no sophist. 48 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. iv, " in the form of" (cf. xiv. 6; Jeli, Gr. § 622, 3). It is more than the instrumental dat. diroBeigei, "demonstration," not " proclamation " (Est.), or "display" (Vulg. ostensiu ne, as if it were iiriBei^ei). For the antithesis of persuasion and demonstration, cf. Plat., Themt. 162 E, ei drroBeigeaOe rndavoXoyia, and Arist., Eth. Nic. I. iii. 6 4, TrapatrXijaiov yap cpaiverai p,a6-npaTiKov re rriOavo- Xoyouvros drroBexeadai Kal p-nropiKov drroBei^eis diraneiv. This drroBei^is is the positive side of the iXey^is mentioned by Christ (John xvi. 8). Refutation of the principles of the world and demonstration of the Gospel are the two sides of the work of the Spirit. Hence there can be no doubt that the Spirit of God is here meant (cf. ver., 14). The Spirit proves the truth by power. His demonstration consists partly in an inward illumination that lends to spiritual objects a self- evidencing clearness (cf. Matt. xi. 25-27; xvi. 17; John xiv.' 17, 20, 26 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 13 ; 2 Cor. iv. 6 ; Eph. i. 18), partly also in a Divine energy moving, without constraining, the will. It was a taunt of the heathen that- Christian teachers, instead of proving their doctrines, demanded faith. On this pretext the Emperor Julian excluded them from educated society (cf. Theod., Grose. Aff. p. 12). Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 13, where to rrvevpa ttjs iriarems means the Holy Spirit as the mover of the will and author of faith. (Cf. Phil. ii. 13.) irvevparos and Bvvdpems are, like aocpias, subj. genit (cf. ver. 13 ; 1 Thess. i. 5). " Spirit and power " is not a hendiadys for powerful Spirit. Neither does "demonstration of power" mean miracles (so Chrys.), which would have been plur., Bvvdpemv. The error of such writers as Grotius, South, Stil- lingfleet, who acknowledge no demonstration of the Spirit save the gift of tongues and the power of doing miracles, is re sponsible for much of the unspiritual character of Christian evidences. Similarly Lessing (Essay on Demonstration, etc.), understands prophecy by Spirit and miracles by power. V. 5. Conclusion of the Third Argument; co-ordinate, therefore, with i. 31. "Iva denotes, not the Apostle's purpose in the ministry, but God's purpose in rendering the Gospel and its effective preaching a folly and a weakness in the eyes of man. •7tiVt.9. The previous paragraph ended with an exhortation THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — II. 5, 6. 49 to boast in Christ. The present argument closes with the Divine purpose that men should trust in God. When preached, the Gospel becomes not merely an object of boasting — it is that in itself — but also an object of trust. Ev means, therefore, first of all, the object of faith, as in Mark i. 15. The power of God's Spirit is no less to be believed in than the efficacy of Christ's death. But eV means also that, not the wisdom of men, but the power of God, is the true originator of faith. It denotes the foundation on which faith in Christ rests (De Lyra), or the earth in which the roots of faith fasten and out of which the tree and the sap of life within it spring. Hence irians is more than an intellectual conviction of the truth (Baur, Neut. Theol. p. 154). It is trust in God ; and this saving trust grows out of the all-powerful activity of the Divine Spirit. Cf. Eph. iii. 18, iv dydirrj ippi%a>p,evoi. C. Second Argument against the Factions. (ii. 6-iii. 4). Christianity, then, is primarily a Gospel, not a philosophy; and, as such, it addresses itself to all, out of the evil world forming for itself a Church, and creating the supernatural life of faith. But, when it finds fit audience, Christianity is the truest and divinest philosophy. Regarded from that side too, as a wisdom and a knowledge, it is a protest against factious boasting in men. For, first, it is God's wisdom ; second, it is revealed inwardly by the Spirit ; third, it is understood only by the spiritual man. (1) Christianity is God's Wisdom. (ii. 6-9). V. 6. coqbiav, not " practical wisdom," Plato's r) -n-epl rov- $lov aocpia, but, to borrow Aristotle's happy definition, " the science of the highest objects with its head on" (Eth: Mr... VI. vii. 3). The notion of true philosophy is implied in aocpia here, as always in Scripture, except when it is used ironically. Cf. Eurip., Bacch., 393, to aotpbv S' ov aocpia. XaXovpev. St. Paul and the older Apostles were, therefore,. agreed not only in their facts (cf. xv. 11), but also in their interpretation of the facts. He says "we" to censure covertly 50 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the party-spirit in Corinth that set one Apostle against another. If the Tubingen theory were in any vital sense true, the Apostle could not have said XaXovpev, either honestly or otherwise. It is not unlikely that he intends a special reference to the Churches of Asia Minor, where he now was (xvi. 8), which seem to have attained greater spiritual maturity than the Churches of Macedonia and Achaia. ev, " among," in consessu, not " in the opinion of" (Grot.), a meaning which iv has not except in pronominal phrases, as iv epoi. reXeiois, not "sincere" (Grot.), nor "endowed with the charismata of prophecy and tongues" (Iren., Hcer. V. 6), but " full-grown," as is proved by the use of vr)irios in iii. 1 (cf. xiv. 20; Eph. iv. 13, 14 ; Heb. v. 13). So in Philo, Leg. Meg., pp. 57, 58, oiBevos yap rovrmv 6 TiXeios Beirai • . . t&> Be vrjirim \ypeia\ irapaiveaems Kal BiBaaKaXtas. Hence, all Christians are not reXeioi, as Clem. AI. (Peed. I. 6, vloiroioi- pevoi TeXeiovpeda), and Chrys. (reXeiovs Toils TreiriaTevKOTas) thought. The Gospel is the poiver of God to every believer (cf. i. 24 ; Rom. i. 16). But with the growth of the Christian •character a capacity to discern spiritual things is created and developed. Origen aptly observes that some have come into the Church from the wisdom that is according to the flesh, and of those some have advanced even to the wisdom that is Divine. In the opinion of the majority of commentators from Castalio 'to our own day the words imply that the Apostles taught deeper and more mysterious doctrines to mature Christians 'than to the less advanced ; and in early times Origen (c. Gels. III. 19) adduces this passage to prove the distinction between the fideles or baptized and the catechumens. But on the 'question what these doctrines were, they are not agreed. Meyer and De Wette think they were all questions connected with the future development of Messiah's kingdom. Osiander ¦explains them of the counsels of grace, the person of Christ, the fall of man, the establishment of the kingdom of God. In ¦addition to the arbitrariness of such conjectures, the view is open to some objections. First, the Apostle in effect tells us in the subsequent verses what this wisdom consists of. It 'includes "the things which God hath prepared for them that THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — II. 6. 51 love Him;" which " the princes of this world" did not know ; which are "freely given to us of God." But these things the Apostle preached to all alike. Without them Christianity is not a Gospel. In Col. i. 26 the "word of God," that is the Gospel, is itself called " the mystery hidden from the ages." In Eph. vi. 19 to pvaTtjpiov tov evayyeXiov means " the mystery which is the Gospel." It is also evident that the wisdom which the rulers of this world did not know is the same as the wisdom which babes in Christ could not under stand (iii. 1). Second, the distinction of exoteric and esoteric doctrines is not in character with the first age of the Church. That Paul the missionary preacher should withhold from the world the profoundest truths, from which all other truths derived their value and power, is hard to believe. Chrys. virtually admits it when he acknowledges " that there were no catechumens then " (Hom. in xii. 3) ; and the distinction of fideles and catechumeni was but the fixed and artificial form of the distinction which expositors discover in this verse. J It is true that in Heb. v. 11-vi. 3 we perceive the beginning of a tendency to divide theological truth into sets of doctrines. But the aToi.x6?a °f that passage consist of the broad outlines in the spiritual history of the believer, repentance and faith, baptism and laying-on of hands, resurrection and judgment, whereas here the doctrines which the Apostle says he preached to the Corinthians, who were babes in Christ, cluster around the person and death of Christ. We infer that the Apostle distinguishes, in our passage, not two classes of truths, but two aspects of the same truths. He is, in fact, stating one of Philo's fundamental distinctions, but with a difference. Christian wisdom does not consist in discovering allegories in the history and ordinances of the Old Testament. Even in the Epistle of Barnabas the distinction between Triaris and yvasais is .more like Philo's than St. Paul's. It is Clement of Alexandria that first rises to a worthy conception of the Apostle's words. But his account of it is marred by one defect, which is, that he describes iriaTis as an intellectual 1 In the Church of Alexandria alone was there a conscious attempt in the ante-Nicene period to introduce into Christian teaching a distinction resembling, as Origen [c. Cels. II. 7) confesses, the distinction of exoteric and esoteric, formerly ascribed to Pythagoras and Aristotle. 52 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.' apprehension of truth, not as the trust of the heart and an act of the will. It was this error that gave rise to a discipUna arcani in Clement and to Origen's principle of exegesis, that Scripture has a natural, a moral, and a mystical meaning. Nevertheless, Clement's distinction is pre-eminently Pauline. For the Apostle here says that Christ as He is the power of God is the object of trust, and that Christ as He is the wisdom of God is the object of knowledge. Cf. espec. Clem. AI., Strom. VII. p. 865 Potter, rj ptev iriaris . . . Trepaiovpevn. aocpiav Be. On Be introducing a limitation cf. note on i. 6; Rom. iii. 22. oiBe tcov dpxovrmv. Tertullian (c. Marc. V. 6) explains the rulers to be the secular power ; Origen's view (de Princ. III. ii. 1) that evil spirits are meant, as in John xii. 31 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4, arose from the early patristic doctrine of the atone ment, that Christ gave His life a ransom to the evil ono. (Cf. Orig., Gomm. in Matt. xvi. 8 ; Cyril of Jerus., Cat. XII. 15.) Ambrosiaster explained the verse in the same way. So also Cajetan and Estius. But it is inconsistent with ver. 9. The Apostle must mean the wise, the mighty, and the noble of i. 26. But he regards the world under the figure of a king dom (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Eph. ii. 2 ; John xiv. 30) . He con templates the two antagonistic principles in their historical manifestations. tcov Karapyovpevmv, pres. ; the Divine purpose of destroying the " world" is already beginning to find its accomplishment. " Far from speaking this world's wisdom, we speak a wisdom that is actually bringing it to nought." The Apostle does not, therefore, refer to the future coming of Christ (Meyer), nor to the evanescent nature of earthly things (Chrys.). Cf. Is. xix. 12. V. 7. The emphasis in ver. 6 is on aocpiav, in ver. 7 on XaXovpev. Hence iv pvarvpim must be connected with XaXovpev (De Wette, Meyer), not with diroKeKpvppevrjv (Aquinas, Grotius), which would have been t^v eV p. diroKe- Kpvppevnv, nor with aocpiav (Theophyl., Beza, Evans), for o-ocbia is left purposely anarthrous : " a wisdom of God." e'v pvarnpim (from pveiv, to close the mouth ; cf. Curtius, Grundz.Tp. 338). The word "mystery" has four meanings, which may be arranged almost in chronological order: (1) ¦ THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — II, 6, 7. 53 " That which it is forbidden to divulge except to the initiated." Such were the secrets of the political and religious festivals held in most cities of Greece; cf. Lobeck, Aglaoph., Eleus. § 6. We have a trace of this meaning in Matt. xiii. 11. In 2 Pet. i. 16 it is said that the Apostles did not follow the false track (i^aKoXovdrjaavres) of rationalised myths (aeaocpiapevois p.vdois), but were eye-witnesses by initiation (e7ro7rTa.) of Christ's majesty (cf. Col. ii. 3). (2) " That which cannot be known except by revelation" (cf. Rom. xvi. 25; Eph. iii. 3,4; Col. i. 26. Add Ignat., Ad Ephes. 19). (3) "Sacred ceremonies that have a symbolical or spiritual significance;" sometimes restricted to denote the Eucharist. After the time of Tertullian this is the prevailing signification, and its Lat. equivalent is sacramentum. (4) " A truth that transcends the human intellect to comprehend," and this may be either an absolute impossibility or impossible till the Spirit of God gives an inward revelation. In the present passage the word in cludes somewhat of all these meanings, except the third. The word TeXet09, while it signifies " full-grown," contains an allusion to initiation into mysteries. The Apostle's words are apparently parodied by the Gnostic Valentine. Cf. Epiphan., C.Hcer.1.31. diroKeKpvppevrjv, that is, not only it is passed over in silence (cf. Rom. xvi. 25), but also it is intentionally concealed by God ; for it was a mystery of His will (cf . Eph. i. 9 ; Col. i. 27; Baruchiii. 37). qv, that is, the wisdom of God ; not simply the plan of salvation (Est., Billr.), but the Divine wisdom which the mature Christian sees in it. rrpompiaev, " fore- ordained," before it was revealed. Eph. i. o and Ellicott's note. The word is to be connected with " unto our glory." This is the proof that it excels the wisdom of the world and our warrant for speaking it. To supply yvmpiaai after irpompiae destroys the meaning. eis B6%av r)pmv. The wisdom of the great men of the world ends in their destruction ; God's wisdom leads, not only to our salvation, but to our glory, which is the Christian con ception of happiness. EvBaipxtvia does not occur in the New Test. A6t;a expresses two notions that are alien to the Greek conception of happiness ; that the blessedness of the righteous 54 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. is in the highest degree abundant and that it is a reflection of God's blessedness. The world's wisdom stops at a mystery, and this is man's misery ; God's wisdom reveals a mystery beyond, and in receiving new revelations of this mystery man's supreme happiness for ever consists. V. 8. This verse is at once a proof of the previous state ment that this wisdom was hidden by God and a preparation of the reader for the argument of the following verses, that men cannot know the wisdom of God without the illumination of the Spirit. tjv, that is, the wisdom (Chrys. indirectly, De Wette, Meyer), not the glory (Cor. a Lap., Billr., Stanley), which would be irrelevant and superfluous (cf. Rom. viii. 18; 1 John iii. 2). iaravpmaav. The contrast between " they crucified " and " the Lord of glory " is intentional (cf. Heb. xii. 2). Christ was put to death by the rulers of the world as the representa tives of its highest wisdom, which has proved itself foolishness in not knowing the Son of God. The triumphant antithesis to this verse is Gal. vi. 14. The world that crucified Christ has been crucified by the power of Christ's cross. Kvpiov Trjs Bo^qs, not "the dispenser of glory" (Aug., De Trin. I. xii. 24, quod ipse glorificet sanctos suos), neither is it a Hebraism for "glorious Lord" (Heydenr.), but "the Lord to whom glory belongs as His native right." It is genit. of characteristic quality (cf. Acts vii. 2; Eph. i. 17; 1 Thess. v. 23). Glory is the peculiar attribute of Jehovah among all the gods (cf. Ps. xxix. 1). The expression is theologically important because it implies that Jesus was Lord of glory, that is, Jehovah, and that this Lord of glory died (cf, Acts iii. 151). It is an instance of the communicatio idiomatum, in reference to the meaning of which the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches divided ; the former maintaining that the attributes of the one of the two natures in the person of Christ, that is to say, the Divine nature, are communicated to the other, that is, the human ; the latter teaching that the acts 1 Cf. Orig., Comm. in Rom. i. 6 : " Omnia quse carnis sunt ascribuntur et Verbo, quomodo et qua. Verbi sunt pr_edicantur in came. Jesum vero et Christum et Dominum invenimus ssepe ad utramque naturam reierri, ut est illud, Unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quern omnia, et iterum, Si enim cognovissent nunquam Dominum majestatis cruciHxissent." So Athan., C. Apollin. H. 16 ; Aug., De Trin. I. xiii. 28. Cf . Aquinas in loc. THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — II. 7-9. 55 of either of the two natures are the acts of the Divine-human Person of the God- Man. The use of Kvpios involves a refer ence in Boga to more than Christ's exaltation. V. 9. Not only was God's wisdom unknown to the princes of this world, but those things in which it manifests itself are in their nature such that their inner meaning cannot be known without a revelation of the Spirit within. The verse is more than a proof (Cor. a Lap., Bengel) that the princes of the world did not know God's wisdom. God's wisdom has mani fested itself in things and in facts. But these facts o£ Christianity have an inner life and meaning, which is hid, not merely from God's enemies, but also from all creatures, and must be inwardly revealed in order to be known. The Apostle does not give that revelation. God's Spirit bestows it on the initiated. We must have the Spirit to know the things of God, though in words they may be spoken to all. The Apostle himself can only tell us what they are not. They are not what eye hath seen, that is, the glories of the visible creation ; nor what ear hath heard, that is, doctrines taught by a master to his disciples ; nor what springs up in the heart of man, that is, the creations of imagination and desire. The ascent is to be noticed. The works of God in nature have an excellence and beauty that does not invest the great ones of the world ; a lily is more gloriously arrayed than Solomon. But there are thoughts in God too great ever to be visibly represented in ocean depths and blazing suns. Yet some at least of even these thoughts are expressed in human language and received into our minds. But the heart desires what it cannot uttefin Words, and " makes," by the force of imagination, forms of goodness and beauty that have a being only " in the land that is very far off." But beyond nature, beyond ideas, beyond the ken of imagination and the reach of merely natural desire, are the things that God has actually prepared, the completed reality of the Gospel. It may, further, be asked if the Apostle intends this to be an exhaustive division of the things that are not the hidden wisdom of God. If not, why does he mention nature, doctrine, and the ideal ? These are the outward garb of the eternal mystery. It manifests itself, first, by taking its place in human history through the fact of the incarnation ; second, by a system of Christian truth, a philosophy of the.' 56 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Divine revelation in Christ; third, by an ideal of perfection. It was necessary that the Divine mystery should manifest itself in these human forms, because Christ is primarily a power; that is, He is a new element in human history, a new force in truths of doctrine, a higher ideal of moral perfection. But no external act or object can of itself, apart from the spiritual insight of the onlooker, be a revelation of anything beyond power, and no manifestation of power can be an adequate revelation of God. The supreme act of Divine love, that God should send His Son and the Son sacrifice Himself for us, can be nothing more to an unspiritual man than a manifestation of infinite power, if it can be that. These things have an inner life known to those who love God. Many writers, from Irenaeus, Clem. AI., Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, to Meyer, suppose the Apostle is speaking of the future blessings of heaven. Several Rabbis so explain Isa. lxiv. 4, as if it meant that the prophets indeed foretold the days of Messiah, but the world to come no eye had seen, except God alone. Cf. Wisd. ix. 16, Td Be ev ovpavois tis i^.tXviaaev ; But to exclude present insight into Divine things is to break away from the general purport of the chapter. Ka0cos yeypa-mai. The perf. signifies that it still abides as authoritative in Scripture. Origen (Comm. in Matt, xxvii. 9) says he never heard of any one that considered this Epistle spurious because the writer cites these words from the apocry phal Book of the prophet Elias. Chrys. thinks the words are taken from a lost book. They resemble too closely Isa. lxiv. 4 to permit a doubt that Jerome (Ep. 57, Ad Pamm.) is right in saying that the Apostle had in his mind the prophet's words, to which we must add Isa. lxv. 16 (17) ; and Clement of Rome (Ad Cor. 24) alters the Apostle's dyairmaiv to inropevovaiv, as it is in Isaiah. If, with Delitzsch and Cheyne, we render the prophet's words thus : " Yea, from of old men have not heard nor perceived with the ear, (and) eye hath not seen, a God beside thee, who will do gloriously for him that waiteth for Him," then there is no accommodation to an alien purpose in the Apostle's use of the passage. Prophet and Apostle ex press the same truth, though they do not refer to the same manifestation of it. d . . . avrov. Osiand., De Wette, etc., think the words THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — II. 9, 10. 57 are an anacoluthon. If the words were an exact citation, it might be so. But as the Apostle inserts the relat. pron., he must have intended to place the citation in grammatical con struction. Lachm. and Hofmann make rjpiv Be direKaXv^rev the apodosis. But in that case the antithesis between eye not having seen and God having prepared, both being in the protasis, is entirely missed It is preferable, therefore, with Erasm., Est., Meyer (later Edd.), Alford, Heinrici, to connect the words with what precedes as an objective clause aftei XaXovpev. " We speak the things which," etc. iirl KapBiav . . . dveB-n. On this Hebraism cf. Acts vii. 23; Herm., Past. Mand. IV. i. 3. oaa -nroipaaev. So ABC, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort. The word baa (quam pulchra) implies that these things are different in kind from what eye has seen, etc. The Apostle has altered the prophet's iiroirjaev into qroipaaev, which expresses, more than erroinaev, first, that the Gospel is the outcome of Divine thought; second, that it is designed to supply the spiritual wants of men ; third, that it is now completed (cf. Matt. xxii. 4, 8). T049 dyaTrmaiv ai/Tov. Love is the eye that sees, the ear that hears, the heart that realizes the things of God (cf. xiii. 8, 12 ; Eph. iii. 18). The Apostle has substituted dyair&aiv for viropevovaiv eXeov, because the revelation of God, which the saints of the Old Test, waited for as still to come, has now been given. This is another proof that the Apostle is not speaking exclusively or mainly of the future glory of heaven. That glory we still wait for. (2) God's wisdom is revealed inwardly by the Spirit. (ii. 10-13). V. 10. vpiv, that is, the reXeioi. Meyer well observes that the word is spoken in a tone of triumph. direKaXv-^re. This is scarcely an instance of the aor. being used for the perf. Winer (Gr. § XL.) says it is never so used. But cf. Goodwin, Greek Moods, etc., p. 25 ; Buttmann, N.S. p. 171 ; and see Xen., Mem. I. vi. 4; Thuc, I. 73, irapr]X0opev. Here, however, it is a pure aor. The Apostle is speaking of the revelation given to Christians as an event that began a new epoch in the world's history. 58 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Bid tov rrvevpaTos. _. ABC omit uvtov. But it does not change the meaning ; for the following verses prove that the Spirit of God, not the human spirit, is meant. ipavva. So S A B C. It is the Alexandrian spelling of ipewa. ' Cf. Rom. xi. 33; 1 Pet. i. 10; Barn. Ep. iv. ]. (Hilgenf.). Here the Spirit, in Rom. viii. 27 God, in Rev. ii. 23 Christ, is said to "search." Hence it does not mean searching in order to discover, but expresses the activity of the Divine knowledge. So Meyer. The LXX. never uses ipevvav of God's knowledge, but BoKipd^eiv, which expresses, not so much activity as thoroughness of knowledge. Chrys. makes it refer to the accuracy, others (as Greg. Naz., Or. xliii. 65) to the rich fulness, of the Spirit's knowledge. But all this misses the point. The Fathers justly use the word to prove the Spirit's proper Divinity. But the argument is that the Spirit is ever active in fathoming the depths of God. Td Bd0t], not " deep things," but " depths," mysteria in terior a (Aug.). In Rom. xi. 33 the Apostle joins together the ideas of depth and unsearchableness.1 V. 11. He proves by an analogy that we cannot know the things of God without the revelation of the Spirit of God. No man knows another's thoughts ; so none can know God's thoughts until He utters them. Does " Spirit of God" here mean more than the self-consciousness of God ? Does not the force of the Apostle's argument lie in the analogy between the self-consciousness of man, knowing what is in man, and the self-consciousness of God as it knows what is in God ? Yes, say Osiander, Meyer, Kling, after Baur (Neutest. Theol. p. 207). But it would be palpably absurd to say that God reveals anything to men through His own self-consciousness, unless the self-consciousness of God is identical with the Holy Spirit. This, again, would involve that the procession of the Spirit is prior in idea to God's self-consciousness, whereas His self-consciousness as Deus must be prior, in order of ideas, to His self-consciousness as fans deitatis. We must not, there fore, press the analogy. If we admit that the Holy Spirit knows the things of God, it is not necessary to the validity 1 Hilgenfeld {Zeitsch.f. Wiss. Theol. XV. p. 223) does not hesitate to assert that there is a sarcastic allusion to the Apostle's words in Rev. ii. 24 j that is, the Apostle John calls the Apostle Paul's God Satan ! THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.— II. 10-12. 59 of the Apostle's reasoning that He should know them as man knows the things of man, by self-consciousness. Both are knowledge through introspection, and this is enough. The view of Baur is rejected by De Wette and Delitzsch (Bitd. Psych. IV § 4). If the Spirit is neither the humo,n spirit nor the Divine self-consciousness, a more decisive declaration of His personality cannot be. to irvevpa tov dvBpcoirov, man's entire intellectual and moral nature. It includes vovs and, as Origen (Co mm. in Rom. ii. 15) says, conscience also, and is synonymous with Plato's o eWo9- dv0pmiros (cf. Matt. xxvi. 41 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; 1 Pet. iv. 6). This use of irvevpa is to be carefully distinguished from its more special signification of the Divine in man. ovoels eyvmKev. So A B C D, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort. OlSa is to know a fact ; eyvcoKa, to know the inner nature of a thing. The distinction is perhaps not to be pressed here (cf. John viii. 55). The perf. means cugnita hn.beo. Ambrose compares Matt. xi. 27; justly. No one knows the Father save the Son; no one knows the depths of God but the Spirit ; an inconsistency in appearance only. To to rrvevpa tov ©eov he does not add to iv avrco, because the spirit of man is in him as part of him, but the Spirit of God is God and the whole of the Divine essence. The patristic phrase eV ©em refers to the avro0eos or Father, and expresses the perichoresis of the Divine persons. But it may be questionable whether the phrase " tres Trpoamrra in Deo " is correct.V. 12. The Spirit reveals by dwelling within. to rrvevpa tov Koapov. Hofmann explains it of the Spirit of God as the principle of life, physical and intellectual, in all creatures. But iXdBopev would then be inappropriate, and the antithesis that runs through this and the latter part of the first chapter between the kingdom of God and the world, compels us to understand by Koapos, not the creation (as Theod. Mops.), but the kingdom of evil, the antagonist of the revelation of God in Christ. Meyer and Alford think the personal " god of this world " is meant. In favour of this is the antithesis that would then emerge between the personal Spirit of God and the personal spirit of the world. " To receive the spirit of the world" would then mean to be under 60 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the influence and in the possession of Satan, which is in accordance with the general representation of Scripture that the world is in the power of the evil one (cf. 1 John v. 19). The objection to this interpretation is that St. Paul does not elsewhere use the word irvevpa as a personal appellation in the sense of an evil spirit. The verse that bears closest resemblance to the present passage is Eph. ii. 2, where the construction of the genit. irvevparos is doubtful, but on the whole it had better be taken in apposition to igovatas. The world is the empire of Satan, and that empire stands together by means of the spirit or principle of evil. Similarly here the spirit of the world will be the principle of evil that binds together the kingdom of darkness and makes it, not a chaos, but a Koapos, an organization contrived to subvert the kingdom of Christ. It is not necessary to the Apostle's purpose that this spirit should be a person, provided it is the central unifying principle. Now such a spirit as this would effectually incapacitate a Christian to comprehend the things of God. The minds of those that believe not are blinded. The aor. eXd/3o/xev refers to the time of regeneration, when the believer received the Spirit of adoption (cf. Rom. viii. 15). The revelation of God can be given only through God. " God, who is the object of knowledge and love, must be Himself the principle of knowledge and love " (Martensen, Christi. Dogm. § 53). Cf. Aug., Conf. XIII. xxxi. 45 : " Quidquid in Spiritu Dei vident quia bonum est, non ipsi, sed Deus videt quia bonum est." e'/e. Inasmuch as every revelation of God can be received only through God, there must be an actual going forth of the Spirit of God to dwell in man. Hence, though e'« does not here express the truth of the Spirit's procession (as Theod. explains), yet it implies it. The Constantinopolitan Creed changed the irapd of John xv. 26 into e«, perhaps from a reminiscence of the present passage, the framers of the Creed apparently1 translating from Tertullian. The purpose of the words in this place is to show that what imparts certainty and depth to the mature believer's knowledge of the things of God is the identity of that which bestows and that which apprehends the revelation. God within teaches the man's 1 Cf. Swete, History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit, p. 76. THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — II. 12, 13. 61 spirit to understand the revelation of God above ; God in us reveals God in our nature. Ta xaPlaa^VTa- The aor. is not (as probably in Phil. i. 29) to be taken in the sense of the perf., but refers to the gift once for all made to man in the facts of Christ's death and resurrection, the contents of the mystery. The argument still advances. For if the thoughts of God must be revealed in order to be known, much more are the free actions of God's heart. Human love never forecast what Divine love would do. God's self-sacrifice was a conception not understood even by God's peculiar people, though taught for ages by priest and prophet. V. 13. We teach them also through the same inward illumination of the Spirit. ovk ev BiBaKTois . . . Uvevparos. NAB CD omit dyiov. So Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort, Rev. Vers. It is better away. " Taught by Spirit " — by a supernatural indwelling light. *. Hofmann connects these two clauses with Kpivovres. But Xoyois suggests that they should be connected with XaXovpev. The Apostle has already said that he spoke the things of God ; he now adds in what words he spoke them. AdXm is preferred to Xeym, because they are the utterances of the Spirit (cf. xiv. 2). aocpias and irvevparos are genit., as Erasmus saw, not after Xo7pt9, but after BiBaKTois, as in John vi. 45. AiBaKros is espec. apt to take the genit. (cf. Soph., El. 344). But other words not derived from verbs that govern the genit. have the same construction. Cf. yeyvpvao-pevnv irXeovegias (2 Pet. ii. 14); evXoyrjpevoi tov irarpos (Matt. xxv. 34). It is rare in class, prose. Cf. Porson on Eur. Or. 491, irXrjyels 0vyarp6s. This verse makes no reference to the Apostles' special in spiration as writers of the New Test. (Hodge, etc.). Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 9. The Apostle rests, not indeed his authority, but his ability, to teach on the fact that the Spirit of God enlightened him, as he enlightens other mature Christians. 1 Cf. Harless on Eph. ii. 22, p. 267 : '¦ TA irvedp,a ohne Artikel als inwohnend einem menschliohen Subjecte gedacht wird. Vgl. Rom. viii. 5, oi Si Kara irvevp.a (&res) ra tw irveifnaros ((ppovouaiv), im ersteu Satzglied ist vvevaa inneres normgebendes Princip, im zweiten ist tou iryeipiaros der objectiv wirkliche, heilige Geist." 62 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. rrvevpariKois rrvevpaTiKa avyKpivovres. The various inter pretations offered of these words differ according to the meaning assigned to avyKpivm and the gender of rrvevpaTiKois. (1) Calvin, Beza, Cor. a Lap., De Wette, Meyer, etc., render avyKp. by ac.commodantes, aptantes, and consider ttv. neuter : "adapting spiritual words to spiritual things," and not language incongruous, as we should be doing if we spoke the things of God in words taught by human wisdom. But the Apostle has said this already in effect; and according to this view there is a play on the word " spiritual," which is not in the Apostle's manner; for " spiritual words " can only mean words taught by the Spirit (cf. Eph. v. 19), but " spiritual things " must mean things that reveal God. (2) Estius, Olshausen (doubtingly), render avyKp. by "adapting," but consider ttv. to be masc. : "adapting spiritual things to spiritual men." But this is the direct opposite of what the Apostle declares, that spiritual men understand spiritual things, so that no adaptation of them to their capacity is needed. (3) Bengel, Ruckert, Stanley, Alford (latest Edd.), Hofmann, Heinrici render avyKp. by inter pretantes and consider irv. to be masc. : " interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men." But it is only in reference to dreams and visions that avyKpivm means "to interpret," and that, with few exceptions, in LXX. In no passage are the things of God represented as dreams to be interpreted or allegories of which the Apostles have the key. (4) Neander's rendering : " interpreting spiritual things by spiritual words," is open to the same objection. Similar to this is Grotius's rendering, but he restricts the reference to the interpretation of Old Test, prophecies, which would be foreign to the Apostle's purpose. (5) Theod. Mops., Chrys., Theod. thus : " proving the truth of spiritual things (whether Old Test, types, as Chrys. says, or the teaching of the Spirit, as Theod. Mops, says) by the demonstration of the Spirit." But avyKp. does not elsewhere signify " to prove." (6) The rendering of the Auth. Vers., " comparing spiritual things with spiritual," is satisfactory. Christianity is a Divine wisdom. But this means, from the side of teacher and of learner, that revealed truths are combined so as to form a consistent and well-proportioned system of truths in their correlation. The higher Christian training resembles Plato's THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — II. 13, 14. 63 criterion of dialectical power, the faculty to see the relation of the sciences to one another and to true being (cf. Rep. VII. p. 517). With avyKpivovres compare Plato's avvoirTtKos. The words are a clear statement of the necessity for an objective teaching, and its spirit is opposed to the theory of the Clemen tine Homilies (xiii. 6) that men require only an inward revela tion. It is this objectiveness of the revelation that saves the Apostle's conception of the province of the spiritual man from the Gnostic intellectualism, which deprived Christianity of its foundation in historical fact and reduced it to a philosophical speculation. (3) God's Wisdom is Understood Only by the Spiritual Man. (ii. 14 — iii. 4). V. 14. -^rvxtKos. Two questions claim our attention. First, Does yjrvxiKos denote the unregenerate man or the weak Christian? Chrys. explains it, 6 Kara adpKa %cbv Kal prjirm tov vovv cpmria0els Bid tov irvevparos, dXXd pbv-nv ttjv epqbvTOV Kal av0pmTn-ivrjv avveaiv e^ow, fjv rats drrdvTmv i^rvxais ipBdXXei 6 Bnptovpyos. Chrysostom's definition is interest ing as the source of Luther's rendering, from which Tyndale borrowed the phrase now current in English theology, "the natural man." The Lutherans, in the Augsburg Confession, and the Calvinists, in the Second Helvetic Confession, cite the verse as their locus classicus in their polemics against the Pelagianism of the Church of Rome, to prove the impotence of the unregenerate man to attain holiness. On the other hand Catholic expositors, Aquinas, Cor. a Lap., Estius, and the Rheims translators (" sensual "), follow Augustine, who says (Serm. lxxi.) : " Hos in ecclesitl, constitutos parvulos dicit [Apostolus] nondum spirituales, sed adhuc carnales. . . . Quomodo essent parvuli in Christo nisi renati ex Spiritu Sancto ? " Similarly Bernard, De Vita Solitarid. This view is defended by Usteri (Entw. d. Paul. Lehrb. p. 294, 5th Ed.) . As the irvevpaTiKOS is opposed to crapKiKos and vtjttios in iii. 1, it is at least evident that the spiritual man is also the TeXetos. To avoid the inference that the tyvxtKOs is the weak Christian, the Lutheran Calixtus and recently F. C. Baur maintained 64 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. that aapKiKos as well as yjrvxiKos is a designation for the unre generate man, which is plainly contrary to iii. 1. But the strong expressions, " the natural man rejects the things of the Spirit," and " they are foolishness unto him," are Jiard to reconcile with the supposition that the natural man is the weak Christian, of whom indeed the Apostle has not hitherto spoken. On the other hand, the contrast between the impotence of the merely human faculties to understand the things of God, and the certain knowledge possessed by all who have been endowed with the Divine Spirit is in the channel of the Apostle's argu ment. Moreover we have the same distinction in James iii. 15; where the wisdom that is not from above is said to be irriyeios, tyvxiKrj, BatpovimB-rjs — -eiriyeios in its sphere of action, -^rvxiKfj in the mental and moral condition of the persons it addresses, and BaipovimBrjs in its origin and principle. So also in Jude 19 the -^vxtKoi are said to bo trvevpa p,r) exovres, that is, they have not the Spirit of God. For these reasons we must accept the view that by tJtvxikos the unregenerate man is meant. Second, Why is the unregenerate man called y]rvxu9 aapKivois means " as if ye were men of flesh " is untenable ; for in Rom. vii. 14, iym Be adpKivos elpt (the better attested reading), a>9 is omitted. Delitzsch and Hofmann consider crdpKivos to mean the man who has still a sinful tendency, aapKiKos the man whose fundamental charac ter is this sinful impulse. If so, the regenerate man is not aapKiKos (cf. ver. 3). On the whole it is safe to infer that at first both forms were used interchangeably, but that aapKiKos was afterwards alone retained to express the idea of " fleshly," in opposition to irvevpariKOs. Similarly Bleek on Heb. vii. 16. But we must not with Baur (Neut. Theol.) regard them as synonymous with yjrvxiKos. Man regarded as not supernatural is yfrvxtKOs, man regarded as sinful is adpKivos or aapKiKos (cf. Gal. v. 17). Adam in his sinless state was "vJr..^i/co9. Christ was neither -tyvxiicbs nor aapKiKos- The unregenerate man is yfrvx^bs and aapKiKos. The believer is not -^rvxtKos, but for a time continues to be aapKiKos. These two words, therefore, express the antitheses to the two meanings of irvevpariKos in chap. ii. The temptation to apply the term •yJrvxtKos to the regenerate man may have arisen from the mistaken notion that aapKticos refers only to the bodily appe tites. It is so applied by Aquinas and De Lyra, and for this reason. But cf. Col. ii. 18; Rom. viii. 6; Gal. v. 20.1 WTriots (vrj-, eiros, in-fans), the farthest remove from the reXet09 (cf. Heb. v. 13). The Apostle is partial to the meta phor. He uses it here to soften the effect which the epithet "carnal" might have produced. Cf. iraiSia, 1 John ii. 13, where allusion is made to their childishness and to the Apostle's fatherly love. ev Xpiarm, not "in Christian things" (De Wette), but "in union with' Christ" (cf. John xv. 1-7. Cf. De Wette on Col. i. 28). V. 2. 7dXa, nourishment for babes. The opp. is Bpmpa or areped rpocpr, (Heb. v. 12). Cf. Philo, De Agric. p. 188, eirel Be v-niriots pev iari ydXa rpocpr), TeXeiois Be rd e'« rrvpmv rrkppara, Kal ->|fu%»J9 yaXaKrmBeis pev dv e'iev rpocpal Kara ttjv •n-aiBiKrjV rjXiKiav to tTjs iyKVKXiov povaiKrjS -npoiraiBevpaTa. ' In Eph. ii. 3 . The accus. is used when prominence is to be given to the act of laying the stones, the dat., when their position on the foun dation is the more prominent notion. Xpvaiov . . . KaXdpnv. Asyndeton in enumerations, espec. of opposites (cf. Plat., Prot. 319). Maybe the Apostle alludes to the houses of new Corinth, built, no doubt, of various materials ; the columns of ancient edifices being raised 1 I prefer this explanation of Chrys. to that of Calvin, that the words mean the foundation laid by Apostles and prophets. THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH:— HI. 11, 12. 79 from the ruins and made to support a thatched roof of reed cut in the marshy plain around. Or he may be thinking also of Solomon's temple, in the construction of which gold, silver, marble, and the better sort of timber were used (cf. 1 Kings vi.). The allusion would then prepare us for the mention of the temple in ver. 16 (cf. Isa. liv. 12). The more perishable materials were used for huts and private houses of even some pretensions ; for the walls, the poorer qualities of timber (rd t&v otKimv %vXa, Xen., Anab. II. ii. 16) or mud mixed with grass (xbpros) ; for the roof, straw-thatch (/caXaprj, cf. Verg., Mn. VIII. 654, "Romuleoque recens horrebat regia culmo ") or the lighter sort of reed (KaXapos). The Apostle is not thinking of two buildings, the one a hut, the other a palace (Cor. a Lap., Wetst., Stanley). The less valuable materials would be properly used for a hut. The absurdity to which the Apostle refers is that men should use perishable materials in building a temple. fuXa, "timber," so Cranmer's Bible. The plur. denotes wood cut into shape. What do the two kinds of materials represent ? Many in the early Church thought the Apostle meant the difference between a godly and an ungodly life, and even Bernard (Serm. de Ligno), Bengel, and Hofmann maintain the Apostle is describing the different kinds of persons whom the teachers admitted into the Church. The strongest argument is that of Webst. and Wilkins., "that the entire passage is an expansion of ©eov oiKoSopi) iare, which is repeated in 16, 17." They add " that the foundation is explained to be a person." This suggests the answer to their argument. The Apostle laid the foundation, which was Christ, by preaching the doctrine con cerning Christ, and it is through his doctrine that the teacher can exclude corrupt persons from the Church. Excommuni cation was, in the early Apostolic age, vested in the Church, not in the teachers (cf. v. 4; vi. 1-5; 2 Cor. ii. 8, 10), It could only to a very limited extent be designated the epyov of the teacher, — the business of his life, what is distinctly his own. Add, (1) that the analogous metaphor of seed sown is used by Christ of doctrines as well as of persons (cf. Luke viii. 11). (2) All the materials in the building rest on the true founda tion, which cannot be said of ungodly persons. (3) Worth- 80 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. lessness is not an expression strong enough to designate wicked men ; but it precisely sets forth the nature of those doctrines that do not produce an eternally abiding result.1 V. 13. eKaarov . . . yevijaerai. This is grammatically the apodosis to ver. 12. The epyov consists, not simply of the materials mentioned in ver. 12, but of those materials when built into the house by men's hands. Before the builder placed them in the wall, they were a heap of things, having no character of their own (o7rotov) . rj yap rjpepa B-nXmaei, undoubtedly the day of Christ's second coming (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; 2 Thess. i. 10; Heb. x. 25). That day is always represented as a day of judgment. But tov Kvpiov is here omitted, to lay special emphasis on its being, not only a fixed time for judgment, but also a day as opposed to night (cf. Rom. xiii. 12). The Apostle speaks of life as a night and death as the break of day ; while Christ, on the contrary, represents life as the day and death as the night. The contrast is suggestive of the terrible meaning which his own death had to the Saviour's mind, and the Apostle's confidence that that death had taken away the sting of death for all believers. diroKaXvTTTeTai. CEcum., Neander, and some others con sider to epyov to be the subject. But this would make the next words tautological. The subject is rj r/pepa. The day of Christ comes with burning judgment. It is this fiery judgment that reveals it to men (cf. 2 Thess. i. 7, 8, iv irvpl cpXoyos), that is, the flaming fire will be the signal of Christ's coming. e'v irvpl, not " by means of fire," but " enwrapped in fire " (cf. Meyer's good note). The Apostle applies to Christ's coming, "the natural description of a theophany in Biblical language" (Cheyne on Isa. xxx. 27). The pres. diroKaXvir- 1 The doctrines referred to are clearly not radically false and soul-destroying errors, but frivolous and worthless ones (so Aquinas, De Lyra, etc.). The difference may be exemplified by the incident related of Abp. Leighton. " In a synod he was publicly reprimanded for not ' preaching up the times.' ' Who,' he asked, ' does preach up the times? ' It was answered that all the brethren did. ' Then,' he rejoined, ' If all of you preach up the times, you may surely allow one poor brother to preach up Christ Jesns and eternity ' " (Pearson, Life of Leighton). Luther alluded to this verse when he applied the epithet " letter of straw " to the Epistle of James. THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.— III. 13. 8l Terai is probably used, not so much to mark its nearness, as to express its nature. It is a day of such a kind that fire is the only fitting revelation of it. eKdarov. The unity of structure makes it impossible for men to distinguish the work of one builder from that of another. God only can say where the work of one man ends and that of another begins. The extent no less than the quality of the work will be judged. epyov. The word has a tinge of the Aristotelian meaning, "function," "the entire activity of a man's life." It is doubt ful whether epyov is nom. or accus. Neander thinks the former more in St. Paul's style. In that case, it is better, with Hofmann, to consider airo accus. after BoKipdaei. But this makes ep7ov too emphatic. That airo must not be omitted is certain. It is found in K A B C. Meyer and Alford explain avrb to mean that the fire by its own nature will test the work, which is a truism. Rather airo emphasises iriip : " the very fire will try it." Other tests may leave the thing where it was before; though judgment has been passed, power is wanting to execute the sentence. Fire will utterly consume what cannot stand the test. What is this fiery test? The undoubted reference in the passage to the second coming of Christ disproves all the in terpretations that explain it of the events of the present lif'tj, such as the destruction of Jerusalem (Hammond), the work of the Spirit (Colet, Calvin), the spiritual development of the Church in knowledge of doctrine (Neander), tribulation (Aug., Aquinas,1 Bernard, Melanchth.). Neither does the Apostle's notion resemble the Romanist conception of purgatory.3 For (1) he speaks of a probation, not of a purification ; (2) the fire- tests, not the man's moral character, but the teacher's work, whether it is worthless; (3) the reference is to the second coming, not to what takes place in the intermediate state between death and the judgment ; (4) the work of every man,. 1 They explain it of the " emendatorius ignis " as well. s Gregory the Great (Dial. IV. 39), who consolidated the floating notions of earlier writers into a doctrine of purgatory, and the Council or, as Bishop Bull calls it, the Cabal of Florence, a.d. 1439, base the doctrine on this passage. But, among Roman Catholio expositors, Colet, Estius, and Maier reject the in.- terpretation. G 82 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. even the best, must be tried in the fire, a notion not admitted into the definition of purgatory. Still less can the Apostle mean the fire of Gehenna (Chrys., CEcum., Theophyl.). The only natural explanation is that it means the judgment which Christ will pass on men at His second coming. So Origen (whose irvp Ka0dpaiov must not be confounded with purgatory, his account of which we have in De Princ. II. xi. 6 ; Hom. in Exod. vi. § 4), Basil (De Spir. Sancto, 15), Greg. Naz. (Orat. xxxix. p. 690), Theodoret, and among the Latins Tertullian (G. Marc. IV 2), Lactantius (Inst. VII. 21), Ambrose (Enarr. in Ps. cxviii.). The word "fire" is used metaphorically, in keeping with the colouring of the whole passage, as in Isa. lxvi. 15 ; Mai. iii. 2 ; as the symbolical irvp cpXeyov on Sinui, Exod. xxiv. 17. It is in the very design of the spiritual temple that it should pass unharmed through the most search ing trial. The fire is not the punishment, but the test, — irvpmais rrjs BoKipaaias (Didache, c. 16). Vv. 14, 15. The test being that the building should be fire-proof, the owner, who is also represented as the designer, of the house, will reward the builder whose work passes un scathed through the fire, but will inflict a penalty on him whose work is burned; yea, that servant will himself barely .escape out of the conflagration that consumes his work. pevei. The future was suggested by Beza, to correspond to iKaTaKarjaerai. So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., etc. The indie. marks the certainty of the fact that some work will abide, •some will be burned. tivos, emphatic in both verses. The least will receive his wage, if his work endures ; the greatest will pay a penalty, if ihis work is burned. pia06v, not his salvation, which is a ^d/ato-/*a (Rom. vi. 23). •Cf. Matt. xx. 8. What it consists of has not been told, except in metaphor. " The eschatology of the Bible is sym bolical." (Cheyne on Isa. lxvi. 24.) V. 15. KaraKaqaeTat, Hellenistic for KaraKav0rjaerai (cf. :2 Pet. iii. 10; Rev. xviii. 8). ^vpim0rjaeTai, sc. tov pia06v, — he will be mulcted of his ¦expected wage. Supply accus. of quantitative object. The •emphatic avros that follows proves that £vpim0rjaeTat does not mean "he shall be .punished." Neither can epyov be the object THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — III. 13-20. 83 (CEcum., Scalig., Est.) ; for the burning of the work is the owner's, not the workman's loss ; and it is the fact that he has incurred loss through the servant's unfaithfulness th;it justifies the owner in withholding his wages and inflicting a fine. avrbs. The man himself will be saved, though his work will be burned. As a worker he suffers loss ; but his salvation 'is through faith. Yet his salvation even will be through the fire of the conflagration that consumes his work. He deserves for his unfaithfulness to forfeit his salvation and perish with the unbeliever. But he is saved as if through the very fl unes (cf. 1 Pet. iii. 20). He is a smoking firebrand (Isa. vii. 4). Neither here nor anywhere else can Bid mean " notwithstanding." Chrys., CEcum., Theophyl. explain am0rjaerai Bid irvpbs of the endless duration of the pains of Gehenna. But am^eiv nowhere has the meaning of rnpelv (Jude 6). Many expositors consider cos Bid irvpbs to be a proverb, signifying difficulty. So Scalig., Grot., Wordsworth. But the reference to irvp in ver. 13 is evident. The metaphor requires us to suppose the fire is kindled at once. It is not that a fire happens to break out afterwards (Ruck.). The fire is purposely lit to try the build ing, aud that before the workmen are gone. He whose work feeds the fire escapes only through the flames. Either the Apostle represents the second coming of Christ as close at hand (Stanley, Hofmann), or he considers that every man's work continues through the ages till the Son of Man appears. (3) The worldly-wise teaching of party -leaders destroys God's temple and incurs His displeasure. (iii. 16-20). Chrys. and others join these verses closely with what imme diately precedes. De Wette, Meyer, Osiander, Stanley, etc., consider them to be a new argument against party-spirit. The previous metaphor of a house naturally leads up to that of a temple, and indeed implies it. The materials intended by the designer to be used in the construction of the house were the proper materials for building a temple. Notwith standing this, the thought moves onward. The Apostle has 84 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. spoken of men who would be saved, though their work would perish. He refers now to those whom God will destroy with their work. From transitory work built on the true founda tion, he passes to the crafty wisdom of the world, which is in direct antagonism to Christ. The new argument seems to be that party-spirit is sometimes the introduction into the Church of the wisdom of the world, which would craftily subvert the kingdom of God. Teachers that bring into the Church the principles of the enemy of Christ, God will destroy, because destruction of the Church is sacrilege. Indeed, to say that the Church is a temple is but another form of the general concep tion of these chapters, — the inconsistency of dissension with the mystical union between Christ and the believer. When Clement of Rome (Ad Gor. 2) congratulates the Corinthians on the cessation of schism among them, the word he uses to ex press their repugnance of dissension conveys just the notion of the Apostle that the Church is a sanctuary. " All sedition and all schism was in your eyes an abomination (BBeXvKTov)," — an allusion to Christ's words (Matt. xxiv. 15), "the abomina tion of desolation standing in the holy place." We may infer from this remark of Clement that the Corinthians understood the point of the Apostle's argument and felt its force. V. 16. ovk o'iBare ; This searching question is much more than a reference to the common-place of Philo and others that man is a dwelling of God. It is more also than an expression of surprise. Their want of spirituality had left them in ig norance of the indwelling of the Spirit. He dwells in every believer, but the carnal Christian does not know it. yabs, "sanctuary"; not merely oIkos ev0a ©eos irpoaKvveirat (Hesych.), but "the house in which God dwells." The lepbv is the sacred enclosure, Tepevos (cf. Hdt. VI. 19 ; Joseph., Antiq. VIII. iii. 9, vaov S' e^m0ev lepbv coKoBopnaev). In no instance, not even in Matt, xxvii. 5, is vao9 used for the whole sacred .building (cf. 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; vi. 14-16). Though vabs is here anarthrous, it must be rendered "the temple" (cf. Winer, Gr. § XIX. 1 a). Neander is wrong in saying that the art. is omitted because the Apostle speaks only of a single Church. But Estius is equally mistaken in arguing from the use of the sing, that the reference is only to the universal Church. As in oikoBoutj, so in vao9, the Church as a whole THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — III. 16, 17. 85 is meant.1 Every believer is God's temple; yet the whole Church is but one temple. This is so, not only because the allusion in the word to the substitution of the spiritual order of things for the Temple at Jerusalem implies that there is but one temple, but also because the very nature of the Church involves the idea of unity. Similarly in the Epistle of Barnabas vaos sometimes denotes the Church, sometimes the heart. We have a beautiful analogy to the Apostle's use of the word vao9 in the appellation given by Polycarp, Ad Phil. 4, to the poor widows that received the alms of the Church — 6vaiaaTr)pia ©eov. to JJvevpa . . . vpiv. This is the proof that they were the temple of God (cf. 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. ii. 22). The words have often been used to prove the divinity of the Spirit. So Ambrosiaster. Cf. Basil, Contra Eunom. III. p. 276 ; Athan., De Incarn. p. 704; Ambrose, De Spir. Sancto, III. xii.; Aug., De Trin. VII. 3; Contra Maxim. II. 21. Similarly Pearson, On the Creed, Art. VIII. : " If the Spirit were any other Person not Divine, or anything but a Person though Divine, we could not by any means be assured that He did properly inhabit in us ; or if He did, that by His inhabitation He could make a temple of us." V. 17. If the Church be God's temple, he who destroys it is guilty of sacrilege, and will himself be destroyed. cp0eipei. Tert., De Pudic. xvi., has vitiat ; Aug., De Lib. Arbit. III. xiv., corrumpit ; but in Contra Ep. Manich. xxxix. he adds that many Latin interpreters feared to use the word " corrupt," and said " destroy." Vulg. and Beza have violat for 0eipei, and perdet for 0epei. Wycliffe : " If ony defoulith the temple of God, God schal leese him." Erasmus defends the use of two words on the ground that a play was intended on the Greek word, which cannot be rendered by one word in Latin. But I cannot find that cpdelpm ever means to "pollu.e a holy place." The destruction of a temple is, of course, a sacrilege and a defilement. But this is an inference which the Apostle draws in the next words. Deyling (Obs. Sacree, II. p. 505, cited by Grimm, Lex.) says the Jews considered the pollution of the Temple to be its destruction. But this 1 " Simul omnes," says Herv_eus on xii. 4, " unum templum et singula templa sumus, quia non est Deus in omnibus quam in singulis major." 86 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. notion of pollution is alluded to in £7109, not expressed in jj and 0dvaios refer to the teachers, who are willing to live or die for the Church. Chrys. offers an alternative explanation, adopted by Theodoret : d tov ABdp, 0dvaros Si' rjpds, 'iva amcppovi- a0mpev, Kal b rov Xpiarov, 'iva am0mpev, which leaves %mrj unexplained. Neither can the former be the correct view; for the notion is already contained in eire LJavXos k.t.X., and 92 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the abstract terms, £&.?? and 0dvaros, would hardly be used (cf. Phil. i. 21). Most expositors understand £iofj to mean vital existence, which is included in ivearmra (cf. 1 Tim.iv. 8). We should rather say that "life" and " death," in keeping with the spirit of the passage, are half-personified and denote the two great powers of the spiritual world, the one compre hending all that human nature fears and abhors, the other all it loves and hopes for (cf. 2 Tim. i. 10; Heb. ii. 14). So also in Rom. viii. 38 £mrj and Qdvaros are in a way personified and enumerated with angels, dominions and powers. Third. 'Evearmra will, therefore, denote the present state of existence, — its possibilities, its work and the results, while peXXovra will include all the future in its eternal development, ever increasing revelations, and consummation of glory (cf. 1 Tim. vi. 19). Koapos usually has the article, but not here, partly because it is in an enumeration, partly because it expresses a quality (cf. note on irvevpa, ii. 13). 7rdvTa vpmv is repeated in order to close with a formal and complete enumeration of the series of subordinations. "All things yours ; you Christ's ; Christ God's." For the same reason iariv is omitted, as in A B C D. The word 7rai'Ta sums up the three pairs of opposites, which comprehend the three spheres in which men's entire existence moves, — the sphere of nature, the sphere of the supernatural or unseen universe, and the sphere of the Church or Christianity. V. 23. ipeis Be Xpicrrov. On its Divine side the Church is a Beairoreia. The argument is twofold: "Do not subject yourselves to men ; first, because ye are subject to Christ ; second, because men are subject to you in virtue of your sub jection to Christ." The Apostle even here rises above the partial view that Christianity is merely a revelation of a Divine plan for the salvation of the individual. If that were all, Christ would exist for the sake of the Church, not the Church for the sake of Christ (cf. Eph. i. 22). Xpiarbs Be ©eov. He connects the subordination of all things to the Church, through the subordination of the Church to Christ, with the subordination of Christ to God. This is stated because it implies, on the one hand, that the authority of the Church is formed after the pattern of Christ's authority, THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — III. 22, 23. 93 that is, it is based on subordination ; on the other hand, that the supremacy of the Church has in it a Divine element, inas much as it springs ultimately from God's authority. Meyer and others think these words are intended as a saving clause, lest any might think the Apostle in the previous words favoured the claim of the Christ party. But the words " Christ is God's " would, in that case, denote, not subordina tion, but exaltation, and mean that Christ is too high to be the head of a party. The genitive ©eov could hardly admit of this meaning, which, besides, would be a different meaning from that of the genitives vpmv and Xpiarov. In ante-Nicene times the reference in these words was under stood of Christ's mediatorial office and His assumption of humanity. Clement 'of Rome, for instance, seems to have this passage in his eye when he says, d Xptarbs ovv dirb tov ©eov Kal ot AirbaroXoi dirb tov Xpiarov (Ad Cor. 42) ; and Ignatius speaks of a series of subordinations analogous to this : viroTayrjTe t& iiriaKQirm Kai dXX»;Xot9, ms b Xpiarbs too Harpl Kara adpxa Kat ot AiroaroXot to) XpiarcZ Kal tco Uarpi Kal tco Uvevpari (Ad Magnes. 13). So Calvin, C.ijetan, Estius, Cor. a Lap., Olshaus., De Wette, all of whom refer the words to the humiliation of the God-Man. On the other hand, the Greek Fathers of the dogmatic period refer them to the Son's eternal generation. Thus Theodoret says, Xptarbs Be ©eov d>s vlbs yvrjatos, il; avrov yeyevvnpevos Kara ttjv 0eoTVTa. So Hervaeus, Meyer, Kling, etc. The Apostle is evidently speaking of a subordination in the sense of subjection to God's authority. Now the Greek dogmatists connected this subordination with Christ's eternal sonship. They assigned to the Son not only 7evv77tr.9, but also, as its necessary conse quence, virnpeaia. So apparently Tertullian also (O.Prax. 16). But Ambrose and Augustine disconnected this notion of inferiority (to viroSeeaTepov elvai) and ministry from that of sonship and connected it with the Son's incarnation. If this is not done, the incarnation is nothing more than a continua tion of the eternal sonship under the altered conditions imposed by the assumption of humanity. Another passage explained by Chrys. to be a reference to the eternal fatherhood and sonship is xi. 3. He strives to rebut the inference, which the heretics were not slow to draw, that a certain inferiority 94 . THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (eXarrmais tis) belonged to the Son. In commenting on the same verse Ambrose (De Fide IV. iii.) says that God is the head of Christ secundum incarnationem. Again, the words of Christ, " The Father is greater than I," are cited by Athana sius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom in proof of the doctrine of the Son's subordination Kara Oebrnra. But Augustine explains them of His incarnation (Contra Maxim. Arian. I. 5 et al). If, in order not to imperil the doctrine of the Son's equality with the Father (Phil. ii. 6), we must distinguish between generation and subjection,1 and as the Apostle here speaks of subjection, we must accept the refer ence of the words to the Mediator, the God-Man. But, what is of no less importance, the Apostle speaks, not of Christ's obedience unto death, but of His present state of exaltation, which continues the obedience and service in a heavenly form. The exaltation of Christ is the glory of unending service. As the 6edv0pmiros he is still subject to God, and the Apostle elsewhere intimates (xv. 28) that a further subjection awaits Him, that God may be all in all; and this will also be the Son's final and supreme exaltation. His present life in heaven is a life of consecration to God on behalf of the Church (cf. Rom. v. 10; vi. 10; Heb. vii. 25). If it were not so, He would not have been through the ages subduing the wills and hearts and consciences of men, nor have made myriads willing to die for Him. F. Concluding Remarks. (iv. 1-21). (1) A personal appeal from the judgment of men to that of Christ. (iv. 1-5). The Apostle, having exposed the errors of the Corinthians respecting their teachers and their office, adds an earnest declaration of its true nature, and ends with a lofty appeal to the judgment of Christ, whose servant he is — an appeal that reminds us of Aristotle's description of high-mindedness; only that the Apostle's greatness of soul is rooted in a pro- 1 Bp. Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. IV. 2. 1) identifies " auctoritas " and " origo." THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — IV. 1. 95 found sense of duty and a vivid realization of God's judgment, resulting in dignity without pride, humility without mean ness. V. 1. Most expositors join oi.Ta.9 with cos, which makes the transition abrupt and emphatic, but sacrifices the reference in the verse to the close of the previous chapter. The Apostles are servants and possession of the Church because the Church is the possession of Christ. " As such, therefore, and from this point of view, let us be judged." Xoyi£ea0w. The notion is taken up by the word Kpivm. " So far you may judge us and no further; so far, that is, as to account us servants of God and, therefore, exempt from your judgments." dv0pmiros, for Tt9, a rare usage in class. Greek, not mentioned by Lidd. and Scott. But cf. Ast, Lex. Plat., Prot. 355 A. The Apostle, however, borrowed it from the use of t_J*N in this sense. It passed to the sub-apostolic writers, e.g., Ep. ad Diogn. 7. It is an over-refinement to suppose, with Beng. and Osiand., that the Apostle uses the word to distinguish between the judgment of man and that of God (cf. xi. 28 ; but eKaaros in Gal. vi. 4). virriperas, lit., " nnder-rowers." But we are not to suppose any allusion to the literal meaning ; in a war-galley all that performed any service, except the soldiers, were called virnpeTat. Aiukovos implies "trust;" and, in allusion to Christ's de parture and continued absence, this became the name of a class of officers in the Church. But virnpeTrjs implies sub ordination1 and long afterwards became the name of the v-jroBtaKovot (cf. Suic. s. v.). From the Apostle St. Luke borrowed it (Luke i. 2). oiKovbpovs, " house-stewards," in allusion to ©eov oiKoSoprj (iii. 9; cf. 1 Tim. iii. 15). The steward, though himself a BovXos, stood, in the master's place (cf. Plat., Polit. 259, oiKovbpos Kal BeairoTrjS ravrbv). In relation to the Beairor-ns the oiKovopios was a BovXos, but an iiriTpovos in relation to the ipyaTai (cf. Matt. xx. 8 ; Luke xvi. 1, 13 ; and Epictet. III. 24, tov ©eov SiaKovoi). pvarnpimv (cf. note on ii. 7). The metaphor of the house- 1 Trench (Syn. p. 32) says, on the contrary, that the lunjpir-ns had more official character and functions than the Sianovos. 96 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. steward is not dropped. The wisdom which had been hidden but is now revealed is the treasure which the stewards dis pense on behalf of the oiKoSeairoTvs to the household (cf. Matt. xxiv. 45). The notion of distributing contained in oiKovopos accounts for the use of the plur. pvarmpimv. Aquinas, Olshausen and others explain it of the sacraments. Cf. Philo, De Proem, p. 929, pvarvv yeyovbra t&v Oeimv reXermv. Properly speaking, the sacraments are not mysteries in the New Test, meaning of th word, that is, a thing revealed. They are instruments of revelation, not the revela tion itself (cf. Arnold, Fragment on the Church, p. 29). That the sacraments are included is probable. But if they alone were meant, the Apostle would not have said in i. 17 that Christ had not sent him to baptize. V. 2. mSe. The phrase 6 Se Xoiirbv (text, rec.) occurs nowhere else. The reading of M ABCD and Vulg. (hie) and several of the Fathers is wSe, which is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort, while b Be is retained by De Wette, Olshausen, Hofmann. The weight of evidence is in favour of mSe, but it is difficult to fix the meaning. (1) Kling, Stanley, etc. : " in this matter." But iv tois o'lKovbpois would then be redundant. (2) Alford: "here on earth;" as if a contrast were indicated between the stewards into whose faithfulness an enquiry is made on earth, and God's stewards, who refuse to submit to any earthly judgment. Shore considers we have here, not a contrast, but an analogy : " As in the case of an earthly steward, inquiry is made, so will it be in the case of God's stewards." But the notion of responsibility first appears in ver. 5. In Heb. xiii. 14 wSe means "on earth;" but all danger of ambiguity is there obviated by the word peXXovaav. (3) Lachm. joins &>Se to ver. 1 : " stewards of the mysteries of God in this matter." The position of mSe is harsh, and ptvarnplmv makes it re dundant. (4) Meyer's rendering yields an excellent meaning : "such being the case;" that is, such being the nature of our condition as servants of Christ and stewards of God's mysteries ; wSe being equivalent to e'lirep mBe e%et (cf. Soph., Philoct. 624, ireia0rjaopat yap mSe). Christ's servants and the stewards of the mysteries of God should, because they are such, take no heed of men's judgment, but be faithful to their Lord. THE FACTIONS IN" THE CHURCH. — TV. 2, 3. 97 Xot-irov, "for the rest," ceterum. If the Apostles are servants of Christ, nothing else remains for them except to be faithful. Their whole duty is comprised in being faithful. Auth. and Revised Versions incorrectly : " moreover." 'iva, denoting the object of ^vreiTai. Meyer's opinion that iva is always telic cannot be sustained (cf. i. 10 ; xiv. 12 ; John xv. 8). The phrase gnreiv Xoyov is class., but with irapd, not iv. 'Airaneiv iv would be used. elpe0fi. The word looks back to ^nreiTai. The master seeks and expects to find faithfulness, when the steward renders his account (cf. Luke xii. 43 ; 2 Cor. v. 3). It is incorrect, therefore, to suppose evpeiv is here an Aramaism for elvai (Cureton, Corp. Ignat. p. 271). x Cf Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 50, 'Iva evpe0&pev dp,mpoi. V. 3. ipol Be. We might have expected ovv. " Since faithfulness to his Lord is required in a steward, therefore I, being God's steward, will pay no heed to your judgment." But the sing, ipol introduces, not a general statement, but an earnest and emphatic personal expression of the Apostle's determination, the more emphatic because all reference to others is suppressed. els eXaxiarbv iartv, " it amounts to very little," when com pared with God's judgment. This use of els to express the point to which something rises or is reduced is class., and must be distinguished from the Hebraistic use of els as a secondary predicate. dva/cpi0&, not "to be judged whether I am faithful or not" (Aquin., Beng.), but "to be examined, sifted, so that all my faults shall be made manifest " (cf. Luke xxiii. 14 ;, Acts iv. 9; xii. 19). The Apostle knew that on the score of faithfulness nothing could be laid to his charge. But dvatiplveiv implies that even if men were to bring to light the hidden things of darkness (ver. 5), it would be a matter of little moment to him, because they had no jurisdiction. The judgment of God at once confers worth on the judgment of men, when the latter is an echo of the former, and prevents our over-estimating it when it is not (cf. 2 Cor. i. 12 ; iv. 2 ; Gal. i. 10). 1 In Isa. liii. 9, the LXX. has, in the Alex. MS., eipiBn, though the notion oi finding is not in the Hebrew. R 98 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. fj virb dv0pmirivvs r)p,epas. This is added to explain why he made light of their judgment. It was not from personal contempt, but because man is not his judge. The phrase is not equivalent to virb dv0pmirmv. The latter denotes the judgment of public opinion; but V7rd dv0p. r/pepas denotes the judgment of the constituted authorities as representing the principles of the world. No doubt the phrase was suggested by the use of rjfxepa Kvpiov in Isa. xiii. 6; Joel i. 15; Zeph. i. 14. It implies indirectly a contrast between men's day and Christ's, a contrast necessarily springing from the fundamental difference between the Koapos and the Church, the kingdom of evil and that of Christ, the present and the future, the natural sphere and the spiritual. It is unnecessary to suppose, with Jerome (Ep. cxxi. Ad. Algas.), that the phrase is a Cilician provincialism, or, with Theod., that it is an allusion to the shortness of life. dXX' oiBe i/jiavrbv civaKplvm, "but I do not bring even myself to trial and I pass no judgment upon myself." The judgment of his own conscience even is not absolute and final (cf. l,John iii. 19, 20). The reference is not to "morbid spiritual analysis " (Webst. and Wilkins.) He appeals, not •only from an unhealthy subjectivism, but also from the healthy, *but imperfect and erring, judgment of conscience to the judg ment of God. We cannot fail to mark the suggestive contrast between this avowal of inability to judge oneself and the em phatic claim made by the Apostle in chap. ii. on behalf of 1;he spiritual man, who judges all things. Self-knowledge is more difficult than knowledge of revealed truth. V. 4. ovSev yap ifiavrcZ avvoiSa, "for I am not conscious of any unfaithfulness as steward of God's mysteries." Cf. Plat., Apol. p. 21, oiire peya ovre apiKpbv %vvotSa epavrm aocpbs mv, and Job xxvii. 6. The clause is not simply con cessive, as if the next clause alone contained the reason why the Apostle did not judge himself. This would have required ip,ev. Both clauses depend on yap : " I do not judge myself; for I am not conscious of fault, so as to condemn myself : I do not judge myself; for I am not absolved by being free from the condemnation of my own conscience." He ascribes to conscience authority to condemn, and denies to conscience the power to absolve. Cf. Rom. ii. 15, where Karrjyopelv THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — IV. 3-5. 99 implies the condemnation of conscience, but diroXoyeiadai means, not acquittal, but merely a defence. Similarly the Apostle John says that when conscience condemns, God con demns, but the silence of conscience does not involve that God absolves. He adds, what is only suggested in the language of St. Paul, that if our heart condemn us not, we have confidence before God. This is hinted at in BeBiKalmpai : the silence of conscience is a ground of hope that he has been justified (cf. Heb. xiii. 18 ; 2 Cor. i. 12 ; v. 9, 10). BeBiKalmpai. Cor. a Lap. and Estius understand this of the dogmatic justification, as in Rom. i. 17, in accordance with their definition of justification as renovatio inter ioris hominis. Melanchthon (Postilla, vol. xxiv. p. 687, edit. 1856), Ruckert, Meyer also explain it of dogmatic justification, but in a forensic sense. Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Calvin, De Wette, etc., refer it to the approval bestowed on the faithful servant when he gives an account of his stewardship. Cf. Ignat., Ad Rom. 5 ; Barn., Ep. iv. 10, prj Kaff eavrovs evSii- vovres povd^ere d>s ijBr) BeSiKaimpevoi, and xv. 7, and it is the only sense in which Barn, uses the word "justification." As this is an appeal on the part of the steward of God's mysteries to the judgment of God, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and burn the worthless materials which the servant may have placed in the walls of the temple, the notion of justification through faith is foreign to the general purport of the passage. Of course the denial of present justification includes that he has not been justified by the law. By the use of the perf. the Apostle intimates that the case is still pending. In the next clause this judgment is ascribed to the Lord Jesus, to whom the act of forensic justifi cation is never assigned. That Kvpios means Christ is proved by ver. 5. " Ad tribunal tuum, Jesus Christe, appello," said Pascal, in the spirit of St. Paul. V. 5. mare. Cf. note on iii. 21. irpb Kaipov, "before the appointed time," when the saints will judge as the Lord's assessors (cf. vi. 2). Tt is accus. of respect, not of the object, which would have been rivas. ems dv. In class, prose the instances in which dv is omitted with ems before a subjunctive are rare, at least till the time of 100 . THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Plutarch. Cf. Bernhardy, W. S. p. 400. In the New Test. it is much the more frequent usage. Cf. Buttmann, N. S. p. 198; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 291. Hermann (De Partic. civ, II. 9) and Klotz (Devar. II. p. 568) think eo>9 with the subjunctive takes dv when either the event itself or the time of its occurrence is uncertain. A comparison of our passage with xi. 26 seems to prove that in the New Test, there is no real difference in meaning between &xpts ov or ims and d%/w ov dv or ems dv with subjunctive Compare xv. 25, d%p.9 ov 0fj, where N B D omit dv, with Matt. xxii. 44, ems dv 0m. Ta Kpvirrd tov o-kotovs, genit. of possession, in order to ex press more emphatically the power of Christ, who will bring into light the things which the darkness holds in its grasp. Cf. KapBias, xiv. 25; Rom. ii. 16; espec. Philo, Quod a Deo mittantur somnia, p. 578, w irdvra irpovirra Kal oaa iv pvxois Tr)s Biavoias dopdrms iiriTe^eirai, and Col. i. 13. 09 Kai, " who also," besides judging, will make manifest, etc. cpmriaei, i.e. els J>&s dyeiv (Suid., cf. 2 Tim. i. 10). But in John i. 9 ; Eph. iii. 9, it means " to enlighten." The word is comparatively late Greek. BovXds. It is not enough, in order to pass judgment on men, that the hidden things should be brought to light. The motive must also be known. Tore, emphatic : " then, not before ; but then at once." d 67ratvo9, " the praise due to each." Cf. d pia0bs, Rom. iv. 4. '!E7ratvo9 is not a vox media,, including the censure of one and the praise of another. The Apostle refers to the servant, who has built on the true foundation, and will receive his due praise, neither more nor less. dirb tov ©eov. Christ brings secret things to light; God passes judgment. It is the Divine element in Christ's judg ment that makes it absolute and final. This finality is well expressed by a7rd (cf. Rom. ii. 29, e'« tov ©eov). 'Ek means that the act of judging passes in God's mind and the judg ment formed is by Him pronounced ; it is, therefore, an inde pendent, judgment. 'Airo denotes that the judgment proceeds ultimately from God and cannot be traced to any higher authority; it is, therefore a final judgment. THE "FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — IV. 5-13. 101 (2) A Sharp Rebuke. (iv. 6-13). V. 6. No better proof of the substantial harmony between the Apostle's teaching and that of Apollos could be had than what he now says. They at least cannot have been heads of contending factions. For what has been said from iii. 5 to iv. 5, the Apostle now tells us, is a kind of parable, in which the Corinthians could read their own condition and dangers. There were teachers among them who built wood, hay, and stubble into the walls of God's temple, or strove even to destroy it. The Apostle — if indeed he knows — will not name them. To do so would only establish them the more firmly in their position of party-leaders ; and on the other hand, the Apostle's reticence does much to dissolve their influence. peTeax^^dTiaa. Meraax- means properly " to change the figure or shape." It thus approaches to the signification of peTapopcpovp.9 fjfimv meaningless. Still it was by being satiated with influence in the Church that they had attained to a false appearance of the kingly power which, will be bestowed on all Christians at the comiug of Christ. The correct interpretation, that the Apostle refers to the second coming, was suggested by Origen, and in modern times resuscitated by Cor. a Lap., Moyer, De Wette, Neander, Hofmann, etc. koX otpeXbv ye, " and would that certainly," etc. In the New Test, and late Greek ocpeXov is simply an adverb. Cf. Exod. xvi. 3, with pres. tense ; 2 Cor. xi. 1, with irnperf. ; Gal. v. 12^ with fut. With a past tense of indie, as here, it expresses a wish which is, at the same time, impossible of attainment (cf. Rev. iii. 15). In exclamations and expressions of a wish 76 often occurs. Cf. Eur., Iph. in Aul. 70, ms ye pryKor mcpeXev XaBeiv. Sometimes Kal . . . ye, "and certainly," introducing with force an unexpected addition (cf. Xen., Mem. III. viii. 6). After ironically taunting the Corinthians with the pretence of kingship, the Apostle gives utterance to his desire for the comiug of Christ. His dis appointment at the spiritual degeneracy of the Corinthians aud, perhaps, his own sufferings at Ephesus make him long for rest. Theod. observes that in other passages av/j-BaaiAeveiv denotes the Christian's reigning with Christ (cf. 2 Tim. ii. 12) ; and elsewhere (Col. i. 28) St. Paul describes believers as presented perfect in Christ Jesus before God's throne by him self and other teachers. Here he expresses a wish to reign with these Corinthians, to be presented, that is, by them. 108 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. In Col. i. 24 he strikes a higher note and rejoices in his sufferings for the Church. Vv. 9-13. He enumerates his sufferings and contrasts them with the self-satisfaction of the Corinthians. He does this, not to account for his wish to see the kingdom of God come, but to explain why it was that, while the Corinthian Church was racked with contentions, the Apostles presented a united front to the world. Satiety left the former a prey to factions ; sore trials made any considerable disunion within the apostolic college impossible. V. 9. Bok&, " methinks ; " not implying doubt, nor ironical (Grot.), nor a strong asseveration (CBcurn., Wordsw.), but the expression of his own feeling and corresponding, therefore, to KeKopeapevoi. Theirs was a feeling of self-satisfaction; his, of self-surrender to God's will. Hence 6 ©eos is emphatic. " Ye are become kings, but your greatness is of your own making ; we suffer, but our sufferings are appointed by God." Yet this must not be thought to destroy the irony of the passage as a whole. tovs diroaroXovs. Babes in Christ imagining themselves in possession of the kingdom, while Christ's ambassadors, through whom they believed, are exhibited before the world as men condemned to death ! iaxdrovs, not " the last Apostles " (Wycliffe, Erasm., Calvin, Beza, Cor. a Lap., Heinrici), as if Paul and his brethren were last compared with the Apostles of the Old Test., that is, the prophets, or as if Paul were last of all the Apostles. This would be T0119 eax- a7r. Heinrici defends the omission of tov9 before the adj. by reference to x. 3, to airo Bp&pa irvevpartKov, and Gal. i. 4, tov ivear&ros al&vos irovnpov, and Matt. xxiv. 45, d 7rto-To? S0OX09 Kal qbpovipos. But cppovipios is virtually a predicate, and in the other two examples the occurrence of another attributive (to avro and ivear&ros) having the article dispenses with the article before the second attributive, even in class. Greek (cf. Buttmann, N. S. p. 79). Chrys , Estius, and most modern expositors make iaxdrovs predicate after direSet^ev. Tynd. and Cranm. : "hath set forth us which are Apostles for the lowest of all." Selden (De Dis Syris, Praef.) understands the word to denote the icpeSpos or third combatant; who sits by to fight the conqueror. It is difficult to see the THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — IV. 9. 109 propriety of the metaphor. Chrys.: iravrmv dripbrepoi. For eaxaros in this sense cf. Mark ix. 35. Extremus is used in the same way, and Cicero (Pro Sext. Rose. 137) uses postremus for pessimus. The reference is probably to the custom of carrying into effect the sentence on men condemned to death as a fitting close to the day's sport, when less sanguinary exhibitions had palled on the spectators' appetite. The Apostle's mind is still full of the thought that Christ's kingdom is at hand. It is the evening of the world's day of power. Already the scene changes ; and the last act is played out in the worst display of cruelty. direSeige. Not equivalent to iiroivae (Chrys.), which is a class, meaning of diroBeUvvpi. The allusion to the 0earpov requires the meaning of " exhibiting." Beza correctly : spectandos proposuit (cf. 2 Thess. ii. 4). The a7ro- has the force of " away from oneself," so that diroBeiKvvpi is really syno nymous with iiriSeUvvpi, "to show forth" (cf. Matt. xxii. 19). ms eiri0avaTlovs, "as men condemned to death;" to be distinguished from eiri0dvaTos, " hard at death's door ; " though Hesych. seems to use both words in the latter meaning. But here at least iiri0avaTios must mean more than ev 0avaTOi9 iroXXaKis (2 Cor. xi. 23) ; for ms introduces a meta phor. Indeed 0avarbm properly means, not "to kill" (as Auth. Vers, in Rom. viii. 36), but " to put to death by process of law" (cf. ^Eschyl., Prom. V. 1074, Paley's note). It was Tertullian, apparently, that suggested an allusion to the bestiarii. So Colet, Calvin, Estius, Cor. a Lap., Stanley; but not De Wette and Meyer. The words d7reSetfev and iaxdrovs strongly favour the allusion, and the causal on shows that the words 0earpov iyevr\0rjpev explain more fully the covert allusion in iiri0avarlovs. Cf. xv. 32, i0npiopdxvaa ; Phil. i. 27, aTrjKere ("stand your ground in the encounter") ; and Martyr. Ignat. 9, 0npiois avrov els rep-^iv tov 0edrpov Koivrjv eKSo0rjvai. 0earpov, that is, 0eapa iv dedrpm, " a theatrical spectacle." Cf. Heb. x. 33, dearpt^bpevoi. Cf. Greg. Naz., Ep. 29, Bpdpa yeyovapev, oi irore vopiaOevres evSalpoves. to. Koap,m, "to a world." It is not often St. Paul uses Koapos in the sense of " the universe," as here and viii. 4. That a world has been summoned to the spectacle enhances 110 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. at once their suffering and its dignity. The Corinthians were kings because they centred in themselves and were satisfied with very small attainments. The Apostles were, indeed, covered with obloquy, but it was cast upon them when they were doing a work in which men and angels and God Himself were interested. The absence of Kal before Koap,m makes it probable, but not certain, that "angels" and "men" are explanatory of "the world." Cf. Gen. i. 24, rerpdiroBa Kal epirera Kal 0npla, where the three are co-ordinate. But the omission of the article before a77eXot9 and dv0pmirots is also favourable to this view. So Tertullian (C. Marc. v. 7) and most expositors; but Origen apparently otherwise (Ad Mart. 18). This comprehensive use of the word Koapos is remarkable because, on the one hand, it is an advance on the Old.Test. conception of two separate spheres of existence, Heaven and Earth, not comprehended under any wider designation ; and, on the other, because it differs from the meaning attached to the word among the Greeks, inasmuch as the Apostle uses it of the spiritual as well as the physical totality of existence. The spiritual oneness of the universe is a conception eminently characteristic of St. Paul. But it is foreshadowed by Plato (Gorg p. 508), cpaal S' ot aocpoi . . . Kal ovpavbv Kal yrjv Kal 0eovs Kal dv0pooirovs ttjv Koivmviav avvixeiv Kal tpiXlav Kal Koa/jubrnra Kal amtppoavvnv Kal BiKaioTr/Ta Kal to okov tovto Bid ravra Koapov KaXovaiv. On dyyeXoi cf. 1 Pet. i, 12. "The angels of God," observes Origen (Cat.), "hasten to this novel spectacle, to see a man compassed with flesh ¦ wrestling against principalities and powers." In Ad Mart. 18 he rightly includes bad as well as good angels. Cf. Rom. viii. 38. V. 10. Asyndeton, because this verse is epexegetical of the preceding verses. With combined irony and earnestness he savs in what way the Apostles are the laughing-stock of the world, and in what way the Corinthians are kings m the Church. The threefold antithesis of fools and wise men, of weaklings and strong men, of outlaws and men in honour, is an allusion to i. 23-28, which makes the irony of the words the more biting. " God chose the foolish, the weak, the despised things of the world, and you were at one time willing to be fools, weaklings and outcasts for Christ's sake. But you have THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — IV. 9-11. Ill succeeded in becoming wise, strong, and honourable in con sequence actually of your being Christians.- • You have turned your Christianity itself into an effective means to restore to you the worldly greatness, in another form, which you once surrendered in order to become Christian^." StdXpto-Tov . . . ivXpiarw, "fools on account of Christ; " not in Christ, because he is speaking of the inward motive : but "wise in Christ;" not on account of Christ, because they made their objective condition as Christians the occasion of pride. They not only succeeded in reconciling these two opposites, Christianity and worldly prudence (Neander, De Wette), but actually put the latter to rest upon the former. Their worldly wisdom was an attainment which they had achieved in virtue of their union with Christ. Cf. Jude 4. Hence cppbvipoi is to be closely joined to ev Xptarm, which, therefore, means, not e'v Tot9 Kara Xpiarov irpdypaaiv (Chrys.), nor "in ejus ecclesia" (Grot.), but "as Christians." evBo^os carries with it the notion of glitter and show, ostentation with a suggestion of pretence. Cf. __Elian., Var. Hist. ii. 20, where Antigonus calls kingship evBo^ov BovXeiav. dripot, " outlaws," " outcasts." The contrast is between kings and persons stigmatised with social dripia. Vv. 11-13. " Our condition proves that we are fools, weaklings, outcasts in the eyes of the world." He mentions three things, every one of which proves all he has said in ver. 10, while each has also a special reference to one or another of the three points mentioned. First, the Apostles endured hardship for the sake of Christ (ver. 11); and this the world would account folly and fanaticism. Second, they abstained from retaliating, and even blessed their persecutors (ver. 12); and this the world accounts weakness and "a noble simplicity." Third, they were outcasts for their religion and the honour of Christ; and this treatment of them the world accounted a religious rite that might be expected to appease the anger of their gods (ver. 13). V. 11. dxpi rr)s dpTi &pas, with special reference to his own sufferings at the time in Ephesus. Apri, from dpm, " up to this very hour," when you imagine the kingdom of Christ to have come. yvpvijrevop,ev, " we go without sufficient clothing," the opp. 112 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. of 0eppaivea0ai (James ii. 16). Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 27. The form yvyivirevopev is read in X A B C D, and is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. The difficulty is that yvpvlrris does not occur, but yvpvrjTvs, from which we should expect yvpvrjrevm. But yvp,vbs would correctly yield yvpvirrjs and yvpvirevm. Though, therefore, we cannot, with Alford, assume a form yopvirns, we need not, with Meyer, suppose a clerical error in yvpvirevm. KoXacj>i%6pe0a, " we are buffeted ; " literally so (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 23). dararovpev, "we have no home." Cf. Ep. ad Diogn. 5, excellently : irarpiBas o'tKovaiv IBlas, dXX' ms irdpoiKoi. . . . 77-do-a irarpls Zevrj. So Heb. xi. 13, 37, 38. The Vulg. has instabiles sumus, whence Wycliffe : " we ben unstable." Beza corrects it into incertis sedibus erramus. V. 12. Koiri&pev ipya^bpevoi, " we toil in working." The latter word denotes the Apostle's self-denial, the former his physical weariness. Barnabas and Paul differed from the other Apostles in voluntarily refraining from accepting maintenance at the hands of the Churches (ix. 6) . Cf . 1 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; Acts xx. 34. He mentions it here as folly in the eyes of the world, — that he, a learned teacher, should assume the contemptible condition of a mechanic (Bdvavaos rexvirns). On the participle cf. 2 Cor. xi. 7, raireivmv. XoiBopovpevoi. . . . irapaKaXovpev. He passes to what the world considers weakness, the humility around which all the Christian graces cluster. That humility shines in every grace he shows by three contrasts, — blessing revilers, being patient in persecutions, being gentle towards slanderers. XoiSopeio0ai differs slightly from BXaacbrjpeia0ai or its equivalent Bvacpnpeia0ai, because it implies " reviling to one's face," and so refers to the sting of the word, while BXaacp. (for /SXai/rt^T/yLtetv, says Pott, Etym. Forsch. I. 47) is "to defame," and refers to the injury inflicted. dvexope0a, " we bear up under it ; " scarcely so strong a word as viropeveiv. The former is " to bear patiently," the latter " to bear bravely." V. 13. Svacp-npoiipevoi. So NAC; adopted by Lachm., . Tisch., Westc. and Hort. irapaKaXovpev, probably not " we pray for them" (Tynd., Cranm., etc.). So Calvin. The THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — IV. 13. 113 accus. tov ©eov would have been inserted. Theophyl. para phrases, irpaorepois Xoyois Kal paXaKois dpeiBbpe0a. But "to give a soft answer" is a rare meaning of irapaKaXeiv. Basil (Reg. Brev. Tract, ccxxvi.) explains it of Christian in struction : avp,BiBa^eiv ttjv KapStav els irXvpocpopiav rrjs dXrj0eias. To the same effect Orig., C. Gels. V. 63. The persuasiveness of the Christian preacher is here opposed to unchristian reviling. It is on this its positive side that it surpasses the abstention from retaliation urged by Plato, Grit. p. 49. irepiKaOappa and irepi-yfrvpa have almost precisely the same meaning : " what is scoured or scraped off in cleansing a vessel." Neither word occurs elsewhere in the New Test. For the metaphorical sense cf. Dem., In Mid. p. 578, Ka0dppara Kal irrmxol Kal ovBe dv0pmiroi. Many expositors see in the words an allusion to an ancient custom in Athens of throwing men into the sea as*a sin-offering for the people, with the words irepttynpa r/p&v yevov. Hence Luther has " Fegopfer." Our authority for the existence of such a custom is the Schol. to Aristoph., Ran. 731, Plut. 454. De Wette sums up the objections to this view: (1) The custom had long ceased before the Apostle's time; (2) Ka0appa, not irepiKa0appa, was the usual word; (3) the plur. would have been used. Similarly Meyer, Hofmann, etc. But (1) even if the custom had ceased the allusion would be understood by the reader ; the Schol. says it prevailed among the Romans ; and, if the custom were unknown to the early Christians, it is difficult to account for their using the expression, iyco irepi- yjr-rjpa aov, to betoken great affection (cf. Eus., H. E., Hein- rich's Ed., Excurs. xii. 2). (2) Though Ka0appa is the class. word, irepiKa0appa occurs in the same sense in LXX. (cf. Prov. xxi. 18). (3) The sing, is used because all the offerings would make one atonement. Erasmus mentioned another objection, that the Apostle would be arrogating to himself what belongs only to Christ. But he states what the world thinks, not what he claims. A stronger objection is the probability that the Apostle's words are a citation from Lam. iii. 44 (45 according to the Heb.). On the other hand (1) The two words irepiKa0. and irepty. point equally to a propitiatory sacrifice (cf. Hesych.). If only, one. of the words 114 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. did so, the probability that even that word was so used here would be much weaker. (2) The genitives Koapov and iravrmv are vague and rhetorical, if there is no allusion to the ancient custom ; while, on the other hand, the notion of a sacrifice that would propitiate the gods for the guilt " of all men," because of the aggravated crimes of the men so sacri ficed, is a thought distinctly conceived and boldly expressed. (3) The allusion is a natural and appropriate description of utter disgrace and obloquy. Cf. Schol. ad Aristoph., Equit. 1136 : erpeqbov ydp Tivas A0r)vaioi Xlav dyevveis Kal dxprjarovs Kai ev Kaipm avpqbopds tivos iireX0ovar]S rfj irbXei e0iov tovtovs eveKa tov Ka0ap0rjvai tov ptdaparos, ovs Kal eirm\ n- p,a£ov Ka0dppara. The subsequent use of ireptynpa as an expression of Christian love (as in Ignat., Ad Ephes. 8 ; Barn., Ep. iv. 9 ; vi. 5, e'7o> ireptynp,a Trjs dydirns vpmv) does not seem to have been occasioned solely by this verse ; for Diony sius of Alexandria (Eus., H. E. vii. 22) cites it as a popular and often unmeaning saying (Snp&Ses pypa). The Latin Fathers sometimes retain peripsema (Tert., De Pudic. 14), sometimes render it by purgamentum (Vulg.), sometimes by lustrameutum (Ambrose, Serm. in Ps. cxviii.). This variety and these words imply that the writers had in their minds a special reference. The name "Stercorius" is said to occur frequently on early Christian tombs, perhaps in allusion to our passage. (3) What has been said ?'s a Father's Admonition. (iv. 14—21). V. 14. ovk ivrpeirmv, " not by way of making you ashamed." The metaphorical use of the act. ivrpeirm is late Greek. On the pres. part. cf. note on ii. 1. In vi. 5 and xv. 34 he does speak 77-pos ivrpoirijv. raxna, considered by most expositors to refer to what im mediately precedes, but equally pertinent to all the Apostle has said of the factions in the Corinthian Church. The section •contains supplementary remarks of a personal nature which occurred to him on a review of the whole discussion. vov0eT&. Admonition is the duty of a father (cf. Eph. vi. 4) . The finite verb is used instead of the part, for the sake of THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — IV. 14-16. 115 emphasis, as in ix. 27, where virmirid^m corresponds to Sepuv (cf. vii. 37). Such a transition from part, to finite verb is not class, (cf. Buttmann, N. S. p. 327). V 15. pvpiovs, a hint that they had already too many (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 3). Other teachers they might themselves heap up ; but they owed their existence as a Church to Paul. 7rat8a7<»7oii?, whence our " page," properly the slaves who took the children to school (cf. Plat., Lys., p. 208, iraiSa- 7&>709 BovXos eov, dymv Sqirov els SiSaaKaXov). But the word had also the more general signification of "tutor," "guardian." It seems, however, to have always had a slightly disparaging meaning. Hence it is not likely the Apostle uses it here simply for teacher. Origen well remarks that the word con tains a covert allusion to the childish state of the Corinthian Christians, and would not have been used in reference to the Ephesians. dXX' ov, at certe non ; an emphatic contrast (cf. viii. 7 ; strengthened into dXXa76 in ix. 2). It frequently occurs after a hypothetical clause. iv Xpiarm Trjaov, meaning more than the previous ev Xpiarm, as iyevvnaa signifies more than iraiBaymyovs exeiv. All Church teaching is to be " in Christ," who is the quicken ing spirit of all words and sacraments. But he also quickens souls into spiritual life. The name " Jesus " brings into prominence the realization in the Apostle's mind of Christ's personal activity in the Church. He identifies once and again the exalted Christ, the source of life, with Jesus, whom he has persecuted (cf. ix. 1). Std rov evayyeXlov, as the instrument of their conversion. Cf. Eph. i. 13 ; v. 26; 1 Pet. i. 23 ; James i. 18. iyivvnaa. Cf. Philem. 10; Gal. iv. 19 ; 1 John ii. 1 ; Philo, De Virtut. p. 1000, ptdXXov aiirbv rj oi>x rjTTov t&v yovemv yeyevvtjKa. V. 16. piprjrai, implying more than pipeiaOe. It ought to be their general character. Hence he does not specify par ticulars. Children are imitators of their father and disciples, as Socrates says (Xen., Mem. I. vi. 3), of their teacher in all things. The Apostle's self-denial would not be theirs, if they did not elevate their life generally to the level of his. Cf. xi. 1 ; 1 Thess. i. 6; 2 Thess. iii. 7-9. 116 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. V. 17. Std tovto, not, as Chrys. and Theophyl., because. the Apostle was their father, for then ver. 16 would be without connection, but because he wished them to be imitators of him, the wish being implied in irapaKaXm. Even here Bid with accus. denotes, not the purpose (Alford), but the ground or reason cf the act. Cf. Winer, Gr. § XLIX. c. eirepyjra may be epistolary aor., which womld imply that Timotheus was the bearer of this very Epistle. So Bleek, Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 625. This would scarcely be con sistent with iav eXdrj, xvi. 10. Timotheus had, probably, been already sent, perhaps in consequence of the tidings brought by Chloe's servants. Hofmann thinks he had even come to Corinth. The Apostle at least evidently supposed him to be still on his journey (xvi. 10), probably in Macedonia (cf. Acts xix. 22). It is a natural conjecture that, as Timotheus had been the Apostle's companion when he first visited Corinth (Acts xviii. 5), he sent him to exhort the Church before he decided to write this Epistle, and that, after Timo theus had started on his journey through Macedonia, the Apostle resolved to anticipate his arrival by sending a letter across the ^Egean. Paley (Hor. Paul.) has noticed undesigned coincidences between this passage and the narrative in Acts. Another coincidence is the following. It is not stated in the Book of Acts that the Apostle sent Timotheus to Corinth. All we know from the narrative is that he went to Macedonia. But it is said that Erastus accompanied him. Now this Erastus was most probably the treasurer of Corinth (cf. Rom. xvi. 23). The natural inference is that Erastus was returning home from Asia and that Timotheus' destination was Corinth. But whether he remained in Macedonia or came to Corinth at this time is not known. reKvov pov. The father sends a son to sons ; but a faithful son, which some of them were not. It is nowhere expressly said that Timotheus was converted by Paul. At the time of the Apostle's second visit to Lystra, he was already a disciple (cf. Acts xvi. 1). We infer that he became a Christian during the Apostle's first visit (cf. Acts xiv. 6, 7; 1 Tim. i. 2, 18; 2 Tim. i. 2). dvapvrjaei, milder than BiSdfjei, yet containing a sting ; for THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.— IV. 17. 117 it implies that they had forgotten the ways of their father. Timotheus was very young. Ten years after this St. Paul bids him so conduct himself that no one would find occasion to despise his youth. bBov;. A youth could bring to their remembrance the Apostle's " ways in Christ," and nothing else would be more effective to silence his detractors. A vague expression is preferred, because a more definite reference to his self-denial would have the air of arrogance, and would not include his doctrine and manner of teaching. Cf. James i. 8; Acts xiii. 10. ras iv Xpiarm, as opposed to the Apostle's ways in himself. Cf. Gal. ii. 20; Phil. i. 21. Ka0ms. Cf. note on i. 6. It never has the meaning, which &>9 sometimes has, of a relative pron., " what I teach." He is comparing his way of teaching with his life generally, and declares the perfect consistency of the one with the other. V. 18. &>9 prj ipxopevov, " as if you thought I was not coming." They had concluded from his sending Timotheus that he dared not come himself. The position of Be suggests that the words ms prj ipxopevov form one notion, " keeping away." Cf. Hartung, Fartikell. I. p. 190; Kiihner on Xen., Mem. IV. i. 3. This accounts also for the pres. part., which is not for the fut. rives, some, .either " whom I cannot name," or " whom I could name" (cf. xv. 12; Gal. i. 7). So in Soph., Aj. 1138, tivi is ironical for crot. V. 19. Taxems. Cf. xiv. 6 ; xvi. 7, 8. He intends staying in Ephesus till Pentecost. He previously purposed crossing direct to Corinth and then proceed to Macedonia. In order to give the Corinthians time to repent and rectify abuses, he alters his plan and decides to visit Macedonia first (cf. Acts xix. 21 ; 2 Cor. i. 23) . The word Taxems, compared with xvi. 8, proves that the Epistle was written shortly before Pentecost. Kvpios, that is, Christ (cf. 1 Thess. iii. 11). In Rom. i. 10 he says @ed?, but in Rom. xv. 32 Lachm. reads Sid deXrjparos Kvpiov 'Inaov. yvwaopai, not "I will know" (Rev. Vers.), denoting his. purpose in trying them, but " I shall know," expressing the certain result of the trial. 118 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Bvvapiv, not " the power of doing miracles " (Chrys., Theophyl.). Cf. note on ii. 4. Their lack of the Spirit's power, to transform men's character was the test by which the Apostle intended to try the pretensions of the party-leaders (cf. 1 Thess. i. 5). V. 20. ev, not "consists in" (Alford), which would be expressed by the predicate, as in Rom. xiv. 17, but "is established on." It denotes the foundation on which the kingdom rests. Cf. note on ii. 5 ; Heb. ix. 10, iiri. ¦ij BaaiXeia tov ©eov, in allusion to ver. 8. He will test the spiritual power of these men, who boast as if they had already attained possession of the kingdom ; for that kingdom rests on power. This clearly refers to the future kingdom. At the same time the power he speaks of is the spiritual power of the Gospel (cf. ii. 4). Thus the two conceptions, of a futura kingdom to be established at the second coming of Christ and of a present kingdom consisting in the spiritual condition of a believer, run into one. The ethical character of the future triumph is identified with the ethical character of the present time of warfare. A kingdom erected on words or on any other foundation than sovereign authority is not a king dom. If, then, the Corinthian boasters have entered into the kingdom of Christ, let them show that they possess its pecu liar attribute, which is spiritual power. V. 21. It is more natural to join this ver.. to what imme diately precedes than with what follows (as CEcum., Calvin, Hofmann) ; for, first, the threat to come with a rod is con nected with the assertion of his fatherly authority ; second, the next ver. has no connecting particle and must be the sudden bursting of the storm. The Apostle claims that he possetses the power of the kingdom. He can wield the rod ; and that spiritual power is, after all, the power of words. ev pdBSm. Though e'v denotes sometimes the instrument eveu in class. Greek, it is here used because of the antithesis between iv pdBSm and ev dydirjj — in anger and in love. Tert. (De Pudic. 14) paraphrases : virgd armatum (cf. Luke xiv. 31 ; 2 Cor. ii. 1). eX0a>, " am I to come ; it is for you to decide." The de liberative subjunctive depends on 0eXeTe. Cf. Luke ix. 54. irvevnari. Chrys., Theophyl., Meyer understand the Holy THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. — IV. 21. 119 Spirit. But the co-ordination of dydirrj and irvevpart, im plies that irvevpa is a disposition of meekness; only it should be borne in mind that a good disposition is designated a irvevpa, because it is the product of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost (cf. Exod. xxxi. 3; 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; Eph. i. 17; and Ilarless's note to Eph. iv. 23). In Rom. viii. 15, irvevpa BovXeias is in antithesis to irvevpa vto0eatas (cf. 2 Tim. i. 7). Again, in Gal. v. 22, " love " and " gentleness " are named among the fruits of the Spirit. If, therefore, he had meant here the Holy Spirit, he would probably have written e'v irvevpari dydirns re Kal irpaoTTjTOs. But we may still ask, Why did not the Apostle say " the spirit of love " as well as " the spirit of meekness " ? The answer is, that dydirrj is not natural affection, but a Christian grace, which is always and necessarily the work of the Spirit of God, whereas irpabins is a natural virtue raised by the Spirit into a Christian grace. Hence in 2 Tim. i. 7 irvevpa dydirns means the Holy Spirit as the source of love. irpavrrjTos, the later ' form, is the reading of A B C. So Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort. SECOND DIVISION. CHURCH DISCIPLINE. (v. l.-vi. 20). Though we cannot suppose, with Chrysostom and Ambrosi aster, a direct reference in the previous discussion to the case of the incestuous person, what the Apostle has already said prepares generally for this severe rebuke. The Second Division opens with a sudden, indignant charge. Irony, which was befitting in dealing with factious self-conceit, is almost entirely laid aside. The style even becomes more formal ; the march is slower and less jerky. Of no portion of the Epistle are Jerome's words more true, " As often as I read the Apostle Paul, I seem to hear, not words, but thunders" (Ep. XLVIII. Ad Pamm. 13). The Apostle brings against the Corinthians two specific charges, which indeed seem, at first, to be mutually incon sistent. He accuses them of tolerating gross sins of impurity ard of not tolerating injuries. Actions that would be a shame in the eyes of the heathen these Christians unblushingly avow. Losses such as a Christian ought to suffer with equanimity for the sake of peace, they carry before the judges. But these opposite tendencies are but the development of one error. The Corinthians denied or ignored the conception of the Church as the body of Christ. Christianity must create for itself an organic body, which is a society complete within its own limits. Hence, while it can nourish itself by assimi lating elements which it draws from the world, it must, on the other hand, have the power of governing itself, which involves the right and duty of excommunication. This power 1-20 CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — V. 1-13. 121 dwells in the Church in virtue of the spiritual presence of the Lord Jesus. In his name and Spirit the Church is ever in pro cess of formation through the washing of regeneration (vi. 11) ; in his name and Spirit evil-doers are chastised (v. 4). His presence gives birth also to the following leading elements of Church life : holiness and joy (v. 8), silent rebuke of sin on the part of the individual Christian (v. 11), collective censure and excommunication (v. 13), awe (vi. 1), practical wisdom in judging and awe-inspiring boldness in pronouncing judgment (vi. 3—5), magnanimity and love that brooks injuries and is not exacting (vi. 8). Having shown the relation in which the fundamental conception of union with Christ stands to Church discipline, the Apostle applies it to explain the attitude of Christianity towards those sins of impurity their tolerance of which has called forth his rebuke. This Division of the Epistle falls, therefore, into two sections : A. Union of the Church with Christ determining the nature of Church discipline (v. 1-vi. 11), with special reference (1) to the case of the incestuous person ; (2) to the practice of accusing brethren before heathen judges. B. Union with Christ inconsistent with a life of sensuality (vi. 12-20). A — Union with Christ Determining the Nature of Church Discipline. (v. 1-vi. 11). 1. The Case of Incest. (v. 1-13). Ch. V. 1. oXms . . . iropveia. Various interpretations have been offered of this difficult clause. (1) " A common saying." So Wordsworth : " It is commonly reported, as a notorious fact." But 0X019 will not admit of this meaning. (2) " The character of iropvos is actually borne among you." (Alford). This would be aKovei. (3) "Even fornication is reported among you." But 0X0.9 does not mean " even." (4) " Absolutely, without any qualification or doubt, it is reported," etc. For oXms in this sense (prorsus) cf. Plat., 122 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Phileb. 36, dXyovvff oXms. (5) "To speak generally (ut in univv is omitted in N AB CD Vulg. and some of the Fathers, but De Wette, Maier, Hofmann retain it. Meyer thinks it crept in from ms irapmv, which is improbable. Its insertion certainly seems to strengthen the expression : " as being (that is, in the character of one who is) at once absent in body and present in spirit." The Se would then be a copula. That the Apostle has passed judgment on the case resulted from his being absent in one way and present in another. But the MS. evidence against ms is too strong, and it is omitted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. The 124 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. chiuse will then be an example of the omission of pev, occa sioned perhaps by the previous pev, in the former of two antithetical clauses : " absent indeed in body, but present in spirit." tco irvevpan. When irv. is contrasted, as here, with a&pa, it is usually equivalent to tyvxv (cf. James ii. 26). But the Christian irv. is the ^rvx>h not in the unity merely of self- consciousness, but as the dwelling-place of God's Spirit (cf. Rom. viii. 10; Col. ii. 5). It is in virtue of the indwelling of the Spirit of God that the Apostle could assert his apostolical authority at any time or place. As with Christ, so with the Christian, there is a real presence other than that of the body. Church authority and the apostolic office are, not a garb put on or an external condition assumed, but a mode of the spirit's inner life in so far as it is the abode of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Greg. Naz., Ep. 31, irapeipl irvevpariK&s. Hence irv. here does not mean " solicitude " (Beza, Est., Cor. a Lap.) ; nor the Holy Ghost (Ambrosiast.), which is disproved by ipov, ver. 4; nor the merely human ^vx^ (Pfleiderer, Paulin. p. 65). On irvevpa generally cf. Usteri, Lehrb., Anhang I. ms irapmv, " as though I were present in body." Such was the power of the Spirit that the Apostle judged the case with as much certitude and authority as he would have done if he had been present in body. Distance neither blunted his sense of the heinousness of the sin nor weakened the force of his condemnation. On ms, " as though," cf. 2 Cor. x. 14. tov . . . Karepyaadpevov is accus. after KeKptKa, and tov toiovtov is resumptive of tov Karepyaadpevov. To govern irapaSovvat by KeKptKa weakens the meaning of KexptKa : " I have decided to," etc. — Ovrm tovto is not synonymous with to toiovtov, "a deed of this kind"; ovrm conveys the notion of his being a member of the Church. It is unnecessary to suppose it refers to aggravating circumstances known to the Corinthians, but unknown to us. V. 4. But this judgment of an individual, though an Apostle, was not authoritative, as an ecclesiastical act, without the sanction of the assembled Church. eV t& bvbpari . . . ''I-naov, " in the name of our Lord Jesns." Xpiarov is omitted in A B D. C deficit. It was probably inserted by copyists to assimilate the clause to the CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — V. 4, 5. 125 more usual formula. Origen (De Or. 31), Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Beza, Grot., Olshaus., etc., join e'v t&5 bvbpan . . . 'Inaov to avvax0evras, as in Matt, xviii. 20, where avvvypevoi els to ovopa justifies avvayeiv ev tu ovofiari. But, as irapa Sovvai is the leading idea of the verse, it is more probable that the Apostle is stating the authority on which this act rested (cf. 2 Thess. iii. 6). aiiv rfj Bvvdpei . . . 'Inaov. NABD Vulg. omit Xpiarov. The clause is better joined to avvax0evrmv, because, first, as the words ev . . . 'Irjaov have been joined to irapaSovvai, the participial clause would otherwise be left with out an adjunct and the verb would have two adjuncts almost equivalent in meaning; second, if the words are joined to irapaSovvai, avv must mean "armed with the power of," but it is very doubtful that avv has this meaning in the New Test. ; cf. Grimm, Lex. s. v. The words will rather express the reason why the Apostle refers the question for settlement to the Church. The power of Christ resides, not in any individual, but in the assembly of believers. De Wette well observes that the Apostle writes "in the republican spirit of early Christianity." So also when the transgressor is par doned, the Apostle declares his readiness to concur in the pardon granted by the Church. The punishment had been inflicted "by the greater number" (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 6, 10). In Acts xv. 22, 23, "the whole Church" and "the brethren" are associated with the Apostles and elders in deliberation. Cf. Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 4s4<, avvevBoKaans rrjs iKKXnaias irdans, and 54, itoi& rd irpoaraaabpeva viro tov irXr)0ovs. The nervous suspense of the whole passage arises from the Apostle's reluctance to have recourse to the extreme act of Church discipline, and his an-xiety to fortify himself in his present attitude with the authority of the Church and of Christ Himself. rfj Bvvdp,ei, not merely " with authority," equivalent to rfj egovalq (Meyer), nor "the power of doing miracles " (Osiand.j, but, as in iv. 20, the spiritual force that makes all the acts of the Church effective aud compels obedience. It is the power of the kingdom. V. 5. Hofmann joins irapaSovvai with et9 oXe0pov, Satan beino- the agent through whom God accomplishes the destruc- 126 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. tion. This makes tco 2. dat. of the instrument, which the position of the words renders unnatural ; and irapaSovvai rtfi Xarava occurs without ei'9 in 1 Tim. i. 20 (cf. Matt. v. 25). Tertullian (De Pudic. 20), Calvin, Beza, Cor. a Lap., Maier, etc., explain the words to mean simply excommunication. The world, outside the Church, is described as the power of the darkness and of Satan (Acts xxvi. 18; Col. i. 13). But the phrase " delivering to Satan " was not among the Jews an expression for the higher degree of excommunication. Origen (Horn. 14 in Lev.), Chrys. (on 1 Tim. i. 20), Theod., Theophyl., Ambrose (De Pozuit. I. 13), Augustine (De Serm. in Monte), Aquinas, Grotius, De Wette, Meyer, Alford, Heinrici, etc., maintain that the words mean bodily affliction. In favour of this view are the following considerations : (1) Satan was the cause of physical disease (cf. Luke viii. 2; xiii. 16; Heb. ii. 14; 2 Cor. xii. 7). (2) Disease and even death were forms of punishment inflicted in the Apostle's time on members of the Church (cf. xi. 30 ; Acts v. 5 ; Rev. ii. 22). (3) There was an element in the incestuous man's punishment that made it impossible for the Church alone, without the presence of the Apostle's spirit, to inflict it, whereas the Church could have excommunicated him. (4) If the words mean only excom munication, they are a rhetorical exaggeration. For it cannot be supposed that the offender's expulsion involved his being abandoned to the spiritual domination of sin, inasmuch as the purpose of his chastisement was " the salvation of his spirit." Tertullian and Ambrose err unquestionably in saying that he was delivered unto Satan " non in emendationem, sed in per- ditionem." l (5) The moral influence of physical and mental suffering is acknowledged and experienced by the holiest men (cf. Ps. cxix. 67) ; and even of Christ it is said (Heb. v. 8) that He learnt obedience through suffering. By bad men it is not seldom the only salutary influence profoundly felt. When its influence is the reverse of salutary, the soul is lost. Saravas. Whether the Iranian ideas with which the Jews came in contact during the exile first gave them the con ception of Satan may fairly be doubted, though it must be admitted demonology plays a more conspicuous part in their 1 Renan (Apotres p. 87) says that excommunication was regarded as equiva lent to a sent unce of death I CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — V. 5-7. 127 religious history after the return from Babylon. The correct view seems to be that Christ and His Apostles combined the Zoroastrian doctrine of an antagonist of God with the early Hebrew doctrine of Satan's inferiority to God (cf. Isa. xiv. 18). Our passage contains no reference to tho belief that the Pagan world, as distinguished from the Church, was under the dominion of demons. . The Satpovla, that is, the heathen gods, are not identified with Satan, the Sammael of the Hebrews. aapKos. The distinction between adpfj and irvevpa is not precisely the same as that between a&pa and ^vxq. The adp% is the principle of sin as it actuates itself through the a&pa, the members of the body being peXv ttjs aapKos. Hence the destruction of the adpg involves the salvation of the irvevpa, which the death of the body does not. As adpi; has here an ethical meaning, so also has irvevpa. It is not "the psychological opposite of a&pa" (Pfleiderer, Paulin. p. 65). We must add the notion of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, on which the salvation of the irvevpa depends. Similarly in Rom. viii. 10, 11 the life of the human spirit is connected with the indwelling of the Divine Spirit. The action of Satan is only destructive ; but it is overruled by God to destroy the principle of sin. Salvation is the work of God. Finally, it is worthy of note that Satan is represented as acting from without, by the infliction of bodily suffering; but the Spirit of God from within, by dwelling in the human spirit. qpepq. Cf. note on i. 8 ; iii. 13 ; iv. 5. V. 6. Kavxnpa, "an object of boasting;" not the inces tuous person (Chrys,, Hammond), but "this is the sort of thing you boast in." In Phil. i. 26 Kavxnpa has passed over into the meaning of Kavxnais. Cf. Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 34. typn (from fe'w, cf. %&pos ; Lnt.jus; Eng. juice), "leaven." Ambrosiast., Herv., Meyer, Hofm., Alford understand it to mean that toleration of sin robs the Church of its Christian character and implicates all in the sin of one. This is not the meaning of the proverb elsewhere. Cf. Gal. v. 9; and Wet stein's note for the Rabbinical use of it, and Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) on Matt. xvi. 6. Chrys. correctly explains it here of the moral influence of a corrupt example. V. 7. The mention of leaven suggests to the Apostle a 128 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. beautiful allegorical application of incidents connected with the paschal feast, a suggestion helped perhaps by the fact of his writing about Easter. iKKa0dpare, " purge out thoroughly " (cf . aqbavielre, Exod. xii. 15). The omission of ovv (so A D Vulg.) makes the com mand more urgent. The next verse shows that the leaven means wickedness. The Apostle is not, therefore, here speaking of the excommunication of the incestuous person, but passes to a more general statement. The epithet " old " is not itself part of the allegory, but introduces into it the Pauline distinction of the "old" and the "new" (cf Rom. vii. 6 ; Eph. iv. 22, 24). Now that the Gospel has brought in " the power of an indestructible life," wickedness ought to be purged out, because it is in its very nature corruption. Yet, though it ever " decayeth and waxeth old," it is a leaven. The spirit, on the other hand, is not only Katvbv, but also vedv; not only a life, in opposition to death, but also recent, entering into the place hitherto occupied by corruption and death. The classical opposites are dpxalos and Kaivbs (cf. 2 Cor. v. 17), 7raXato9 and veo9. But it does not appear that the dis tinction is always observed in the New Test. (cf. Matt. xiii. 52; Rom. vii. 6). The sing, cpvpapa is significant, denoting the oneness of the Church and the consequent danger of con tamination from evil-doers. Ka0ci>s iare d^vpoi. It is better not to understand aproi. Theod., Grot, explain it, " abstaining from leavened bread," as if it referred to their observing at the time the feast of pass- over. But (1) though daiTos and aoivos are active, d^vpos is not. (2) There is no trace at this early period of a Christian feast at Easter, other than the weekly Eucharist. (3) To the Apostle the observance of a Jewish rite could be no reason for spiritual purity; indeed it would be contradicted by the argument that we ought to be pure because Christ is the true paschal lamb. Chrys., Theophyl., Est., Cor. a Lap., etc., think Christians are here designated " unleavened," because it became them to be pure, or because they would at last be pure. The. Protestant Reformers and Neander understand it of forensic righteousness. (Melanchthon adds the beginnings of sanctification.) Wordsworth explains it of baptismal re generation. It is one of those words, our interpretation of CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — V. 7. 129 which will inevitably be coloured by our preconceived doc trines. Laying aside every dogmatic expression, we may at least say that it refers to what the Christian is in idea, as distinguished from what he is actually. Kal yap . . . Xpiaros " for our passover has been slain, even Christ." Cf. Eur., Io 161, dXXos ipeaaei kvkvos, "another bird comes, and that a swan." So Heb. ii. 9. "and that one no other than Jesus;" Heb. iii. 1, "I mean Jesus." The words virep rjp&v are omitted in KiBCD Vulg. ; and are rejected by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., De Wette, Meyer, Reiche, Westc. and Hort. They are unnecessary. The notion is really included in fjp&v, and we must not, with Meyer and Reiche, say that it would be here inappropriate. In the fact that the paschal sacrifice has been offered for us lies the reason for our keeping the feast. Two grounds for purging out the old leaven of wickedness have been mentioned. The one is that it would leaven the whole lump. The other is that the whole time of the Church is a paschal feast. Hence Kal is " also," not " truly ; " and Kal ydp is equivalent to the more usual Kal ydp Kal, as in 2 Cor. ii. 10 (cf. Fritzsche on Rom. xi. 1). So Plat., Rep. p. 468, Kal ydp "Opvpos. irdaxa> " the paschal lamb," as in Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 7. The word is emphatic. That Christ is our atonement is the foundation of holiness, a sufficient refutation of Hol- sten's assertion (Zum Ecang. d. Paulus, p. 43), that knowledge is the only fruit of his conversion acknowledged by St. Paul. The Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world has been slain, and the condition of the Christian Church is, therefore, that of men keeping the paschal feast. The notion of atone ment lies not so clearly in the word hv0rj as in the idea of the paschal lamb and the sprinkling of its blood, which things. constituted the passover a real sacrifice (cf. 2 Chron. xxx. 16,; Exod. xii. 27; xxiii. 18). The view of Calov, Reuss and Hofmann (Schriftb. II. p. 270, 2nd ed.) that it was only a sacrament would render the Apostle's use of it here an un justifiable accommodation. Not the first passover only, but the annual commemorative celebration also was a sacrificial feast (cf. Exod. xxxiv. 25). To infer that the Apostle accepted the tradition that the crucifixion took place on the day before that on which the Jews kept the passover is to introduce into K. 130 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the Apostle's allegory a detail which is as unimportant as it is uncertain. V. 8. mare ioprd^mpev, " so then let us keep the feast," that is of the spiritual passover. The Apostle is surely not urging the Corinthians to observe the Jewish passover (Lechler, Apost. Zeit. p. 350, ed. 1857; Hilgenfeld). Cf. Gal. iv. 9-11 ; Col. ii. 16. "Arras Se o /3t09 avrov [the true Gnostic] iravq- yvpis dyta, says Clem. AI. (Strom. VIII. p. 860, Potter). Cf. Origen, C. Gels. VIII. 22. But, while the reference is to the Christian's life, the Apostle alludes especially to the Lord's Supper — thus preparing his readers for what is to follow, — which commemorated at once the death and the resurrection of Christ. The transition from the command to purge out the old leaven to the thought of joy and thanksgiving for redemp tion occasions the pleasaut change from the imperat. to the subjunctive and the Apostle's gladsome associating of himself with his readers. jL7) . . . dXn0eias. MnSe introduces not an additional thought, but the explanation of the allegorical expression, "old leaven." The view that by " old leaven," the Apostle meant •Judaism is absurd ; for he has already described the Jewish passover as eaten with unleavened bread. Kaicias, etc., are genitives in apposition, " the leaven which consists in," etc. KaKla and irovnpla are found together also in Rom. i. 29. The former means that which is in itself evil, the latter what is injurious to others. But either word may be used in the •general sense of " evil " (cf. Acts iii. 26 ; viii 22). The case of 'the incestuous man exemplified the twofold character of sin. eiXitcpiveia is derived in the Et. Magn. from irpbs etXyv 'Kpiverat, " what is tested by being held up to the sun; "by Alberti (notes to Hesych.) and Stallbaum from etXetv, " what is tested by shaking;" by Bishop Lightfoot (on Phil. i. 10) from e'iXv, elXrjSbv, gregatim. It is distinguished from dXujdeia as " sincerity " from " truth." The former is the harmony of 'our words and actions with our convictions, the latter the harmony of all these with reality. Similarly in 2 Cor. ii. 17, i% elXiKptveias denotes the inner, e'« ©eov the external source (cf. 1 John iii. 21). 'AXr)0eta sometimes means " sin cerity," as in Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 19, eV cpoBm Kal dXndeia. Hut not so here. In Corinth there was a marked absence of CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — V. 9-13. 131 intellectual honesty and moral sincerity. " Truth " does not here mean " true doctrine." It is a moral quality, inasmuch as the harmony of our convictions with objective truth depends on the moral state of the soul. The converse of truth is self- deception. Vv. 9-13. He justifies the sharpness of his language. He has warned them before not to associate with wicked men, so that they cannot now plead the excuse of ignorance. But he explains more fully from the nature of the Church what that warning implies. It does not mean that Christians should withdraw from all secular dealings with bad men. That would be tantamount to the withdrawal from the world of the power of Christianity to leaven society and ever to create the Church out of the world. It means that the exercise of discipline should assume the form, first, of personal alienation; and, second, of the transgressor's excommunication from Church fellowship. Expositors suppose the Corinthians misunderstood the Apostle's former letter, and that this passage is a digres sion intended to remove that erroneous impression. But it is not likely anybody could have imagined St. Paul of all men urging Christians to live in seclusion from the world. It is more natural to think that he wishes to explain his former words in order to apply to a particular instance his conception of the nature of Church discipline. V. 9. eypayjra. Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Cor. a Lap., Hammond, Wolf, Whitby, Middleton (Greek Article, p. 326 Rose), Stanley, etc., understand this to be the epistolary aor., referring to the present Epistle, more especially verses 2, 6 and 7, or (as Lardner thinks) what the Apostle subsequently writes. But the words e'v ttj iirtaroXy seem as if they were added expressly to guard against this interpretation. The examples cited by Middleton of iiriaroXrj referring to the letter written at the time are not to the point ; for in Rom. xvi. 22 ; Col. iv. 16; 1 Thess. v. 27; 2 Thess. iii. 14, the word is required to complete the sense (cf. Hilgenfeld, Einleit. p. 260). Similarly St. John refers to an Epistle of his not now extant (3 John 9), not to mention Chrysostom's supposition of an Epistle written by St. Paul to the Corinthians between our First and our Second Epistles, and the "Epistle from Laodicea " (Col. iv. 16). 132 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. V. 10. The Kal before ov is omitted in A B C D Vulg. If we join the ov to irdvrms the words will mean, "by no means did I intend that you should not associate," etc. This makes ov irdvrms equivalent to irdvrms ov, which is very rarely the case (cf. Grimm, Lex.) . It also emphasizes the negation much too strongly for the Apostle's purpose. We must, therefore, connect irdvrms with prj avvavapiyvva0ai understood ; thus : " not that I intended you should abstain altogether from all dealings with," etc. fj . . . eiBrnXoXdrpais. He adds two other classes of wicked men, one class, however, falling into two divisions ; for we must read Kai (as in ABCD) between irXeoveKrais and apiragtv. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. Hence the omission of the art. . before apiragiv. Estius remarks that the Apostle mentions those sins under which all sins can be comprehended. The fornicator sins against himself; the covetous man against his neighbour; the idolater against the majesty of God. But they are mentioned probably because they were the cardinal vices of the heathen world, especially Corinth, where religion itself combined sins of impurity, avarice, and idolatry. This is better than to suppose all these words denote impurity. Thus Stanley, Conyb. and Howson, etc., render 7rXeov. by "lascivious persons," for which there is no foundation; Hammond renders dp7r. by "ravishers;" and Stanley renders et'SeuX. by " sensual men." LJXeov. is the man who takes by fraud; dpir. the man who takes by violence. elSmXoXdrpai, the earliest, instance of the occurrence of the word. Cf. Trench, Study of Words, p. 180, 15th Ed. cocpeiXere. So X A B C D, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. But Meyer, De Wette, Alford prefer bcpeiXere, as if m. were the attempt of a copyist to correct the Greek. dpa differs from ovv in marking the unexpected character of the inference. Cf. note on vii. 14; Gal. v. 11 ; Xen., Hell. VII. i. 32; Plat., Rep. p. 382, where a series of startling inferences respecting the gods are each introduced with dpa. Koapos is explained by Calvin in an ethical sense : " I did not write to you to abstain from associating with the fornicators of this present, evil world, because you ought surely of your own accord to come out from among them." Cf. Tert., Idol. CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — V. 10, 11. 133 24. But eVet dpa means, not " for surely," but " for in that case." Besides, dxpeiXere would then mean that it was their duty to withdraw from the intercourse and business of society, not that it was practically impossible in such a place as Corinth, this 7rdXt9 iiracppoSiordTv. The Apostle deprecates any in tention to advise Christians, as a duty, to become recluses and anchorites. Chrysostom's paraphrase (e-7ret erepav o'iKovpevnv eSei ^nrijaai), though adopted by Aqninas and modern ex positors, does not give wcf>. its proper force, "Av is omitted almost always when the apodosis contains such words as eSet, axpeiXov, KaXov r/v, iBovXbpnv, rjSvvdp,rjv, espec. in the later prose and New Test. (cf. Matt. xxv. 27). V. 11. vvvl Be, not the temporal, but the logical " now," as in vii. 14; xiii. 13; Rom. iii. 21; Heb. xi. 16. This word and repetition of eypa-^ra conveys a sharp censure, and tends to prove that the Corinthians had not misunderstood the Apostle's former letter. idv , . . irbpvos, " if any one having the name of a brother be a fornicator," Messmer and Kling point out the antithesis between what he is called and what he really is. pnSe avvetr0ieiv, not a reference to the Agape or to the Lord's Supper merely (Hausrath), but to social intercourse. So Tert., ¦De An. 35 (cf. Luke xv. 2 ; Gal. ii. 12). Eating together is a sign of friendliness ; business transactions are not. If the reference is restricted to Church fellowship, the emphatic " not even " is out of place. It is true that pi-nSe has also an adversative meaning, ("and not," "instead of," "on the con trary; " cf. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 210). This cannot be the meaning here ; for the emphatic position of rm roiovrm shows that avvea0ieiv prolongs the notion of avvavaplyvva0ai. Cf. Matt, xviii. 17; Rom. xvi. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 6; Tit. iii. 10. That an idolater should be in the Church seems strange. The reference cannot be to the weak brother, who still believed that a divine power is hid behind the idol; for the same Apostle bids the Romans receive such a one into friendship (Rom. xiv. 1). Neither does he mean the strong brother who despised the scruples of the weak and took part in idolatrous feasts ; for he did not believe in any divinity attaching to the idols and, consequently, did not worship them. The passage intimates that a hard and fast line was not always drawn 134 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. between the heathen of religious feelings and the Christians. Men that still worshipped idols came into the Church as semblies, though unbaptized, in the same way as misers and revilers, if baptized, are to be found there still. The persecu tions of later times widened the gulf between heathen piety and profession of Christianity. When the Church mounted the imperial throne, Constantino found it possible to preside unbaptized over an oecumenical council. V. 12. Tt ydp pot k.t.X., " for what have I to do with judging those who are without ?" Cf. Dem., In Aphob. III. p. 855, ti tco vbpm Kal rfj Baadvm ; So Mark i. 24 ; John ii. 4. The Kai before tol>9 e%m is omitted in K A B C. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. Its omission renders it impossible to accept Riiekert's view that the Apostle is deny ing that he judged at all : " Those who are within you, not I, judge ; those who are without God jndges, not I." We should also, in that case, expect p,ev before earn, the force of the ovxl running on to xpivei. Rather the Apostle introduces the question that refers to himself in order to show, by his own example, that it is not a Christian's duty to withdraw from the world. St. Paul was an apostle, no more a Pharisee; an evangelist, not a censor. Cf. John v. 45. V. 13. In vi. 2 he says the time will come when the saints will judge not only those who are within, and not only individuals among those who are without, but the world as a system of evil, and even angels. At present they judge only brethren. Why this difference ? Their judgment of those who are within is disciplinary ; their judgment of the world will be punitive. In the latter case, therefore, exact justice must be meted out ; in the former the purpose of the chastisement is to produce a salutary effect. For this reason it is that in God's providential government discipline is delegated to fathers, hut not the power of finally condemning or absolving, which God has kept in his own hands. In like manner the judgment of the Church is at present disciplinary, and moral influence is more to be sought in it than exact distributive justice. Again, the judgment of the ' Church is now formed in great measure through the religious feeling, on the ground of maxims that embody men's best instincts, such as the rule to do unto others as we would have others do unto us. But the final award CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — V. 13. 135 will be arrived at from a profound knowledge of the spiritual principles that guide the moral government of the Most High. In proportion as the Church becomes more holy, its judgment of men and of principles partakes more of the character of final awards. ovxi • • . Kpivere; "Is it not the fact that you also, like myself, judge only those who are within?" He appeals to their own consciousness of power to exercise discipline within the Church, and of feebleness, as yet, to judge the world. He has referred to himself as an example of a Christian who did not associate with the world. He now asks them if, as a fact, they did not know they had sufficient spiritual power to judge those who are within. The phrases ot earn, ot e%m, transfer to the language of the Church the Jewish idea of separation from the world, — an idea appropriated by Christ Himself. Cf. Mark iv. 11 ; Col. iv. 5 ; 1 Thess. iv. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 7; Rev. xxii. 15, where, however, the metaphor is, not that of a household, but that of a city, into which some men cannot enter through the gates. Kplvei, better here than Kpivei, which is adopted by Lachm., Tisch. So Vulg., judicabit. The future judgment of God at the last day is not thus contrasted with the judgment of the Church (cf. vi. 2). itjdpare. So X A B C D, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Meyer, De Wette, Westc. and Hort. The reading Kal, igapeire is probably an attempt to assimilate the Apostle's expression to the words in Deut. xxiv. 7, Kal igapeis, which he is undoubt edly citing. But the aor. and tho omission of /cat make this final command more abrupt and urgent : "I wrote to this effect before ; I have now explained how and why it should be done : Do it." Theod. excellently observes that the Apostle adds force to his command by using the very language of God's law given through Moses. tov irovnpbv, not Satan (so Calvin), but the incestuous person. In most passages the Heb. has the neut. But in Deut. xvii. 7, where the reference is to stoning the idolater, the LXX. has tov irovvpbv. 'Eijdpare looks back to dp0f}, ver. 2. But it contains an allusion also to the contagion of the man's evil example. For the compound i^alpeiv does not mean " to remove," except in the applied signification of removing a 136 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. disease (cf. Hippocr., Tract. 765). Chrys. rightly understands it so here : ms eirl vbaov Ttvos Kai Xoipov. il; iiprnv avr&v, " from among yourselves." The avrmv is emphatic. If they spared him, they would be participating in his sin. 2. Litigation before Heathen Judges. (vi. 1-11). The Apostle next applies his conception of the nature of the Church to censure the practice of instituting legal proceed ings against Christian brethren before heathen tribunals. The point of his censure lies in three things : first, that the Church permitted its members to go to law before heathen tribunals, and did not decide by arbitration within the Church all dis putes among brethren touching secular matters (vi. 1-6) ; second, that Christians should have such disputes and insist on their rights, instead of suffering wrong (vi. 7, 8) ; third, that the real cause of both these faults was their ignorance of the nature of Christ's kingdom and Church (vi. 9-11). The reader will perhaps be reminded of Plato's description (Rep. p. 405) of a diseased State, in which the art of the lawyer gives itself airs and a man that actually prides himself on his liberal education has to go abroad for his justice b ..cause he has none at home. Ch. VI. 1. ToXpa, " dare." Bengel admirably : " Grandi verbo notatur lassa majestas Christianorum." It contains the gist of the Apostle's argument, which is not, at pre sent, that brotherly love and pity ought to restrain them. He has already set forth the greatness and power of the Church, and now asks if any of them dare affront the majesty of Christ who dwells therein. Hence audet (Vulg.) is better than the sustinet of Erasmus and Beza. irpaypa, "a matter of dispute " (cf. Xen., Mem. II. ix. 1). Tov erepov, " the other party," " his opponent." Kplvea0ai, reflex, mid., " to go to law " (cf. Matt. v. 40 ; Eccles. vi. 10). "Eirl, " before the tribunal of," coram, arising from the notion of local nearness (cf. Acts xxv. 9, 10). It is a class, usage, though not freq. in the best writers. t&v dSiKmv. It is doubtful that he purposely chooses an CHURCH DISCIPLINE.— VI. 1, 2. ¦' 137 ethical designation, as if he wished to show the folly of seeking justice at the hands of the unjust. The Apostle had met with a notable exception in the gentle Gallio in Corinth itself. Oi dSiKoi was equivalent to ot dpaprmXol, the Jewish designation of the Gentiles, while the Jews applied to themselves the •epithet ot SiKaiol (cf. Wisd. xviii. 20). On the other hand, the Apostle calls Chriotians " holy," to remind them of the sanctity and awe that pertains to those who have the mind of Christ, and therefore judge all things (cf. ii. 15). It is most probable that the Greek portion of the Corinthian Church were guilty of the practice, not the Jewish. The Greeks were proverbially litigious (cpiXoBiKol). The Jews were in the habit of appointing arbiters from among themselves to settle dis putes, if both parties were Jews, and their Roman conquerors connived at the system. Cf. Joseph., De Bello Jud. IV. 34 ; Origen, Ep. ad Afric. 14. Perhaps Acts xviii. 15 is an allusion to it. From the Jewish synedrion it passed into the Christian Church. Cf. the so called Epistle of Clement to James, 10, ot irpdypa exovres, dSeXcpol, eirl t&v etjovalmv prj Kpwea0maav, dXX' virb t&v tyjs iKKXnaias irpeaBvrepmv avpB<,Ba&o~0u)aav. To this small begiuuing we must trace the authority acquired by the bishops, especially in the Latin Church, to settle disputes in ecclesiastical and even civil cases, which was in part recognized by a law of Valens, a.d. 376. An interesting account of the "tumultuous perplexities" of an episcopal magistrate is given by Augustine (De Op. Monnch. 29). We may infer that the Apostle does not mean to say that civil disputes should be brought before the assembled Church, but that both parties should choose Christians as arbitrators and submit to tlieir decisions. V. 2. rj (inserted from N A B C D) ovk o'iSare, an interro gative phrase introducing a statement that could not have been known except by revelation (cf. vv. 16, 19). Kpivovai. Chrys., Ambrosiast., Theod., Theophyl., Phot., Eras in., Musculus understand the judgment of the world by the saints to mean that their faith will condemn the unbelief of the world, as the Ninevites will rise in judgment against the generation that rejected Christ. But this would not prove that Christians are fit to judge matters in dispute in the Church. Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) and Vitringa (on Isa.xxxii. 18) 138 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. consider the words to be a prediction of the worldly power of the Church, when the magistracies of the world would be in the hands of Christians, a prophecy that began to be fulfilled in the time of Constantine. What, then, is meant by judg ing angels ? Neander justly objects that the Apostolic age did not expect a time when the Church would wield the power of the State, but anticipated a continuous struggle to be ended only by the second coming of Christ (cf. Justin M., Dial. c. Tryph. 39). Tertullian (Apol. 21) evidently believed that the Cassars, as the personification of the evil principle in the world, would never become Christians. Surely the mean ing is that the saints will be associated with Christ in the act of judging the world at the last day (cf. iv. 5). This doctrine glimmered faintly to a prophet's eyo and came as a message of consolation and hope in a time of national suffering and shame (cf. Dan. vii. 18, 22; Wisd. iii. 8). It is stated, within narrow limits, by Christ (Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30), and emerges in the Apocalyptic visions (Rev. xx. 4). In the belief of the post-apostolic Church, the prerogative of being tov Xpiarov irdpeBpoi . . . Kal peroxoi rrjs Kpiaems avrov Kal avvBticd^ovTes avrm (Eus., H. E. VI. 42) was confined to martyrs. Tertullian (Apol. 39) has caught the spirit of the Apostle's words. Kai, introducing a question. Cf. note on v. 2. Ev, implying a judicial college, in consessu vestro. It will not be the irre sponsible opinion of individuals, but the solemn sentence of assembled judges. Cf. Dem., 01. III. § 10, vop.o0eras Ka0iaare- iv Be tovtois rots vopo0erais prj 0rjade vbpov pr/Seva. 'Tpiv differs from ot ayioi as the actual from the ideal. d Koapos, not here the kingdom of sin, but the created universe. The contrast between Koap. and KpiT. iXdxtara is that between the vastest and the smallest. avdgioi . . . iXaxiarmv. The usual meaning of Kpirrjptov is "a court of justice," and Chrys., Theophyl., Valcken., Olshaus. so understand it here : " Ye are too noble to appear) before these very small tribunals." But, notwithstanding the; occasional use of dvdgios in class. Greek in the sense of uimis dignus (e.g. Soph., Old. in Col. 1546, dvdgtai BvaTvxeiv),the Apostle would probably have written dvd^ta vp&v iart Kpt- Ttjpta eXdxiara. It is more natural to suppose that Kpnijpta means, by an easy metonymy, the judgment of disputes: CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — VI. 2-4. 139 "Are ye unworthy of sitting in judgment on the smallest matters ? " V. 3. From the contrast between great matters and small he passes to the difference between the present life and the supernatural order of things: "If we judge angels, whose nature touches ours only in its higher part, and the conditions of whose moral status are in some respects essentially different from those under which we are placed, are we incompetent to judge those matters that touch us on the lower side of our nature, and often involve the consideration of no complex moral conditions." Aquinas, Meyer, Alford, Hodge think the reference is to good angels. But, as there is no hint in Scripture that they will come to judgment, ovk o'lSare would be out of place (cf. Jude 6). The thought that the saints will pass sentence of condemnation on fallen angels is but the complement of the doctrine taught by St. Paul that they here wrestle against principalities, powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places (Eph.-vi. 12). The contest will end in the defeat of the evil spirits (cf. Luke x. 19, 20). The reference to bad angels is maintained by Tert. (De Cult. Fern. 11), Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Calvin, Est., Bengel, etc. ixr)n ye, "not to mention," quanto magis (Vulg.). BimriKa, that is, ai /3i'ou irpayparelai (2 Tim. ii. 4) or d )8t'o9 (Luke xv. 12), synon. with the class. Qiov rpoebq. Btm- tikos first occurs in Aristotle, but in an active sense : " capable of obtaining the means of living." Polybius and Philo use it in the sense of " secular," as here. But it has a depreciatory meaning. V. 4. Ka0l^ere. The view that this is an assertion cannot be correct, because e'dv cannot be synon. with dVe or et with indie, ("on those occasions on which"), Valla suggested that it is an interrogative and, therefore, that egov0evnpevovs means the heathen. So Luther, Wolf, Olshaus., De Wette, Meyer, Maier, Neander, Heinrici, etc. The strongest argument iu favour of this interpretation is that the Apostle in ver. 5 seems to imply that the wise ought to be judges. But, (1) if Ka0i^ere is interrog., would idv with subjunct. be used, and not et with indie. ? (2) Ka0l%etv means not " to appear before a tribunal," but "to appoint as judges," as in Dem., In. Mid. p. 585, d7rdcroi.9 dv rj irbXis Ka0ian. (3) Tovs e^ov0evvpevovs 140 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. cannot mean merely " those who have no authority " (Olshaflq.; Maier), but means " those who are despised," as in i. 28. Was contempt of the heathen a fact in the Corinthian Church ? On the whole, it yields a more natural and certainly a more forcible meaning to consider Ka0i^ere iinperat. : " In case youj may at any future time have disputes pertaining to this life, appoint the despised ones of the Church to be your judges." He is not justifying their contempt of brethren, but stating it, and, in stating it, really rebuking their pride. Meyer objects that the Apostle would then have written, tou9 i%ov0evnpevovs tovs iv r-p iKKXnaiq. But their being despised by the Church was more to the Apostle's purpose than their being members; and Cajetan rightly altered the contem.ptibiles of the Vulg. into eontemptos. Whatever view we accept of the words, they; imply that a standing presbytery had no place as yet in the Corinthian Church. In the Clementines (see note on ver. 1) the enactment reads differently. V. 5. The Apostle has written ironically in ver. 4. He justifies himself by saying that he did it to make them ashamed. For surely they will not admit that they have no brother fit to arbitrate. ovrms, not to be joined to Xeyw (Hofm.) ; nor having a cli macteric meaning (Chrys.), for we should then expect an adj., as in Gal. iii. 3 ; but inferential : " So, it seems, I am to infer." Cf. Matt. xxvi. 40. 'Evi. So X B C, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. On evi cf. Winer, Gr. § XIV. 3 c. ; Lightfoot and Ellicott on Gal. iii. 28. At least, it is more emphatic than eartv : " So, then, there is no room among you for one wise !, man." aocbbs, " spiritually wise." Vitringa (De Syn. p. 570) erro neously supposes the Apostle means an official teacher, such as the president of a Jewish synagogue was. SiaKpivai . . . avrov, " to arbitrate between his brother and ' an opponent." It is not a Hebraism for t&v dSeXcp&v (Maier) because of avrov. Though incorrect, in occurs in LXX., Exod. xi. 7, et al. Avrov is emphatic. i V 6. dXXd introduces a sharp contrast. Hence the clause i had better be regarded as an assertion, not a question. The contrast is threefold : instead of displaying the moderation CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — VI. 6, 7. 141 of wisdom, you wrangle brother against brother ; instead of accepting arbitration, you go to law ; instead of referring matters to brethren for decision, you bring complaints against brethren before heathen tribunals. Kal tovto, et quidem. The class, phrase is Kal ravra. Cf. Heb. xi. 12. i diriarmv. As dSiKot, is the designation of the heathen among the Jews, so diriaroi is their name from a Christian point of view. The distinctive characteristic of a Jew is legal right eousness, that of a Christian faith. V. 7. rjBn, "at once," not here, however, temporal, but I logical. " If it is a shame to go to law before unbelievers, then that at once implies that a litigious spirit generally is itself unchristian." Hence 6'Xa>9 is " generally," that is, apart from contingent circumstances, such as that the appeal is to heathen judges. rjunpa, first in LXX., Isa. xxxi. 7, " subjugation." The Att. form is rjTra. In the New Test. rjTTrjpa occurs only here, ' and in Rom. xi. 12, where it is the Opp. of irXnp&pa and must ; mean either " diminution in number " or " rejection." But both these meanings are two aspects of the same notion and do not involve the idea of moral depravity. In our passage Chrys. (apparently), Theod., Theophyl., CEcum., Calvin, Bengel, Neander, Olshausen, etc., explain it to mean sin ; Vulg., delectum. But Maier, Meyer, De Wette, Osiand., Kling, Hofm., etc., think it means "loss," though some of them refer it to present disadvantages, others to loss of participation in Messiah's kingdom. (1) It must have a pass, meaning; and, if it has any moral reference, it must be to moral loss, not to moral depravity. Cf. Rom. xi. 12, where irapdirrmpa denotes " lapse," and rjTT-npa " rejection," the loss of what was once possessed. (2) The notion of loss naturally prepares for ver. 9; a litigious spirit is an unjust spirit, and the unjust forfeit the kingdom. (3) There may be also, as Messmer and Wordsworth surmise, a contrast intended between the fancied gain of going to law and the real loss involved in it; their irXeoveKTnpa was a rjTTrjpa. (4) N A B C omit eV, and there fore vpiv will be a dat. incommodi, which is a natural con struction only if fjTTvpa means " loss." But we ought not to restrict the reference to loss of participation in the future 142 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Messianic kingdom. Loss of spirituality also results from an exacting and litigious spirit. Kpipara, more general than Kpvrrjpia, and including private arbitration. dStKeia0e . . . diroarepeiaOe, " why do ye not suffer your- > selves to be unjustly treated and defrauded?" For this usef of the middle cf. Thuc. I. 120, pr/re rm r)avxim ttjs elprjvqs ¦fjBbpevov dSiKeia0ai, " to brook injury," — a passage, by the way, the sentiment of which is in direct contrast to that of the Apostle's words. Plato comes nearer, Crito 10, ovBe dSiKovpevov dpa dvraStKeiv. drroarepeiv is a specific form of dSiKia, having reference/ mostly to property (cf. James v. 4). In Mark x. 19 ptf diroaTeprjo-ns seems to be the form in which the Jews of our Lord's time stated the tenth commandment, substituting the out ward act of fraud for the inward coveting. In the commercial centre of Greece injustice would assume the form of fraud. V. 8. Not a continuation of the questions (Meyer). The emphatic vpeis shows that he starts anew with an assertion; and dXXd will then have its usual meaning after a question, " nay but," as in ver. 6. " You of all men doing injustice ! " V. 9-11. 'ASikoi connects these verses with dStKeire in ver. 8. But they have a wider range of meaning than as a reason why Christians should be just. They are an argument for Church discipline, and an additional statement respecting the nature of the Church. The Apostle, as we have seen, does not recognize a sharp boundary line between the present spiritual condition of the Church and that of the Messianic kingdom. The ethics of the kingdom yet to come determine the morals of the kingdom that now is. If wicked men will be excluded from the former, they cannot be left unchastised in the latter. For the presence and power of Christ is as real in the one as in the other. It is true that the present is a state of trial and education, and that, consequently, Church discipline does not now involve the exclusion of all wrong-doers. But the presence of Christ endows the Church with an authority not less real nor less absolute in itself than that of the future kingdom. The ethical resemblance between the two is what the Apostlu insists upon. V. 9. dSiKoi, primarily to be understood in the special CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — VI. 9-11. 143 sense of " unjust," inasmuch as the word is suggested by dSiKeire, ver. 8. But the word has also a generic meaning here, which appears from the use of the subordinate negatives ovre . . . ovre. " Unrighteousness " is the fundamental idea of sin (cf. 1 John iii. 4). By omission of the art. before dSiKoi, | attention is dra.vu to the attribute of unrighteousness. ©eov BaaiXeiav. So K A B C D. This reading brings into juxta-position the contrasted notions, dSiKoi and 0eo9. I KXnpovopijcrovai, a theocratic word, in allusion to the promise given to Abraham (cf. Gal. iii. 29). All believers are heirs; but the heirs will be disinherited if they live in sin, and that because of the very nature of the inheritance (cf. Col. i. 12, 13). It was a widespread belief among the Jews that belief in One God secured a man from future punishment, however evil his life might be. irbpvoi, generic; poixoi, specific, expressing the opp. of the koi'ti; dpiavros (Heb. xiii. 4). Cf. Theophyl. on Rom. i. 29, iraaav d7rXw9 ttjv aKa0apaiav rm rr)s iropveias ovopari irepteXaBev. elBrnXoXarpai. The mention of idolaters is suggested by the intimate connection existing at Corinth between the rites I of the worshippers of Aphrodite and fornication. In Rom. i. 25 the Apostle speaks of idolatry as constituting the punish ment of sins of the flesh. paXaKoi, probably not " persons living in self-indulgence " (Meyer), but specifically synon. with iraiSiKa, qui muliebria paliuntur. dpaevoKolrai, synon. with iraiSepaaral. Cf. Dion. Hal., Antiq. VII. 2. V. 10. Comparing this with the enumeration of the works of the flesh in Gal. v. 19-2 1, we see that both series begin with sins of impurity. The transition is easy, in both passages, to the mention of idolatry. These and drunkenness were the universal sius of the pagan world, in polite Corinth no less than in half-civilized Galatia, In our passage " calumny " represents the many manifestations of hatred mentioned in the Epi-tle to the Galatians. For witchcraft, which would prevail in Galatia, covetousness is here substituted. V. 11. The ethical aspect of the Church is exemplified in the actual change of moral character which the Corinthians themselves have undergone. 144 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ravra is not equivalent to toiovtoi (Billr.) ; nor can Ttve9 be joined to ravra as part of the predicate ("and something of this kind ye were ") to soften the harshness of the expression (Valcken.), which would have been TauTa Ttva. Ttve9 limits the subject : " and these things ye were, some of you." The t neut. is often thus used to express contempt, especially after Kai (cf. Rev. iii. 2 ; Thuc. VI. 307, bXiyov r)v to iriarevov 'EppoKparei). dXX direXovaaa0e k.t.X. For this use of dXXd in a suc cession of statements to emphasize a contrast between each and another that precedes them all cf. 2 Cor. vii. 11. Hence 7jyida0r]Te and iSiKaimOnre may be explanatory of direXovaaa0e. That they are so is probable : for (1) ^7reX. is a figurative term, the others are not. (2) It is reflexive middle, implying that, while this washing was not their own act, it did not take place without an act of their own. It is therefore a reference to baptism (cf . Acts xxii. 1 6) . But baptism in the New Testa-t ment represents two distinct blessings, forgiveness (Actsii. 38)> and renewal (Eph. v. 26). Cf. note on i. 14. But what is called forgiveness in reference to sins is called justification in refer ence to the person of the believer; and sanctification is another name for renewal (cf. Heb. x. 10, 14 ; xiii. 12). In other words fjyida0r\re and iBiKaim0nTe are explanatory of direXovaaa0e, Cf. Turretin, Instit. Theol., De Baptismo xiii. ; De Justificatione, Q. II. xx. We must, therefore, reject the view of Aquinas, Grotius, Lipsius (Die Paulin. Rechtf. pp. 49, sqq.), Osiander, etc., that justification is here to be understood subjectively as synonymous with "sanctification."1 The objection that the Apostle ought to have named justification first is not of much weight. As he is contrasting the present moral condition of tho Corinthians with their former life, he gives special promi nence to sanctification. In fact he adds the reference to justification to show that their change of moral character was not a mere individual gift, but the result of that Divine economy of redemption which had given birth to the Church and will develope it into the Messianic kingdom. This is the reason why he speaks of those blessings as coming "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." 1 Roman Catholic expositors explain SikoWis of sanctification also in Rom. iv. 25. CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — VI. 12. 145 The name of Christ is the source of Church authority. The Spirit is the power that renders the exercise of that authority effective. The Corinthians are now summoned to wield that authority in Church discipline which has been effectually directed towards them in their own justification and sanctifica tion. B. Union with Christ inconsistent with a life of SENSUALITY. (vi. 12-20). It was a prevalent belief among the heathen at this time that fornication was no sin. At the Council of Jerusalem the Apostles thought it necessary to forbid fornication as a thing not indifferent (cf. Acts xv. 20). The Epistle to the Romans contains a distinct refutation of Antinomian teaching. The Apostle sets himself to show, from the new Christian standpoint, that there is an essential contrast between things in themselves indifferent and things in their very nature evil. The believer's mystical union with Christ is consistent with the former, inconsistent with the latter. 1 V. 12. He begins with a broad, unqualified statement of ! Christian liberty : " All actions are lawful to me." It is put in the form of a maxim, as appears from the asyndeton and, as Bengel has observed, from the use of poi. Whether they are the words of the objector (Theod., Calvin) or not, the Apostle appropriates them to express his own doctrine. Some have thought he is speaking of objects, not of actions. But such a distinction is fanciful. Objects do not come into moral relation to us except through our action upon them.. Besides avpcpepei must refer to actions. After stating the principle broadly, he limits its application on two sides : first, it must not be applied to the injury of ourselves or others; second, it must not be applied to its own destruction ; and both these are but two aspects of Christian utility. The Apostle does not formally state the other distinction, that of right and wrong. Not that he denied it. But we cannot well conceive his thinking it necessary to prevent a misunderstanding of his words on the subject, as a modern writer on ethics might. i%ovaiaa0fjaopai. Chrys. 'kas not failed to remark the play 146 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. on the words e^eo-Tt and i£ovaiaa0r)aopai. "All things are' in my power, but I shall not be overpowered by anything." If Meyer's acute observation on ovk iym is too fanciful : " The subjection will not be on my side ; the things will be subjected to me," we may suppose the contrast to be between the Apostle and his readers : " Whatever you may do, I will not," etc, Vv. 13-20. He explains what he means by these two aspects of Christian utility. And, first, in vv. 13-17 he explains " expediency." It consists not in the possession of external goods, but in the development of all the creature's capacities and the realization of all possibilities. This, again, is secured by a Divine adaptation of one thing to another. What is contrary to that fitness is destructive of Christian ¦expediency. This adaptation runs through all creation. For instance, food is adapted to the organs of digestion, and they in turn are adapted to receive and assimilate the food. Here we find adaptation in the lower sphere of perishable things. A higher example of it is to be seen in the relation between Christ and the body, an adaptation that leads up to the eternal life and development of the body through the power of God. Now fornication is destructive of the adaptation of the body for Christ, and fatal to the entrance of the body into the sphere of the spiritual. Second, in vv. 18-20 he explains the other aspect of Christian freedom. .It must not be freedom to destroy freedom. The Christian must not be brought into subjection by anything. When he cannot resist, he must flee ; and such is the nature of fleshly lust that victory is ob- 'taiued only by flight. If he is subjugated by this sin, he has ¦enslaved his body. Let the Christian remember, rather than permit himself to be brought into subjection by lust, that he is already in subjection to Christ, who bought him and conse crated his body to be a holy dwelling place of His Spirit, thus making His service the most perfect freedom and subjugation of the body the body's most glorious exaltation. V. 13. Cf. 1 Thess. v. 22 ; Rom. vi. 19. This relation be- tiween Christ and the body does not exist between Christ and mere matter as such, nor even between him and the body itself as a material substance. It exists between Christ and the body so far as it is part of the believer's personality. { CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — VI. 13-15. 147 Hence the Apostle does not say " meats for the body," because he is speaking here of the fitness established between meats and the crdp£, the material substance and the physical organs, which cannot inherit the kingdom of God (xv. 50). But he does say, " the body for the Lord," because he now speaks of what is part of a human personality, to the full consciousness of which personality a man most of all rises when he is brought into union with Christ. V. 14. Chrys. erroneously makes gluttony and intemperance the object of Karapyrjaei, in accordance with the patristic doctrine of a material resurrection. The Apostle asserts that the material universe as such will be destroyed. Food and the physical organs will both perish for ever. But the body, the instrument of the soul and, equally with the soul, part of the man, is capable of undergoing a change from material to spiritual, from mortal to immortal. The body of our Lord underwent this change by His resurrection, which is here mentioned to show that Christ has been raised to lordship over the body, and is become the quickening Spirit that can change our bodies from material io spiritual. Cf. Rom. viii. .11, xiv. 9; 2 Cor. iv. 14; Col. i. 18. For igeyepei, the reading of _. AOD, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., B reads igrjyeipe. The fut. seems to be required by the opposition of the word to Kardpyrjaei. rjpas, " us," Christians. He says nothing in this Epistle of the general resurrection of all men. avrov, that is God. Cf. Matt. xxii. 29. V. 15. The body is not only adapted for the Lord, but also united to the Lord. In the previous verses the Apostle represents the personality of the man as the link between Christ and the body. He now speaks of Christ Himself as being the unifying personality ; so that the believer's body becomes " members of Christ." peXn. Neander and Meyer suppose the figure to be that of the head aud the members, as in Eph. iv. 16. This is inadmissible here, because it destroys the analogy between peXn Xpiarov and ptiXn irbpvns- Rather, Christ is represented , as the new, supernatural personality with which the believer ' is endowed. Cf. Gal. ii. 20. dpas, not " take," as if expressing intention (Cor. a Lap., 148 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Est., Messmer, Webst. and Wilkins.), which would be XaBmv, f but " take away," so that they cease to be members of Christ (cf. John xvii. 15). The point of the Apostle's question lies in the impossibility of the body being member of Christ, if it is made the member of a harlot (cf. Aug., De Civ. Dei, XXI. 25). Atpm expresses also the voluntariness and determined character of the act (cf. Soph., (Ed. Tyr. 1270, dpa9 eirataev dp0pa r&v avrov KVKXmv). He does it in spite of his higher nature, like Leontius, SteX*wa9 tov9 bcp0aXpovs (Plat., Rep. IV. p. 440). The same notion lurks also in iroirjam : " Shall I make them by my own deliberate act ? " iroirjam may be deliber. subjunct. ("am I to," etc), or, what is more probable, fut. indie, ("will it ever com„ to pass that," etc.). Cf. Luke xi. 5, the fut. implying that such importunity I is not likely to happen. irbpvns peXn. He means that the union of man and woman confers upon both, in accordance with the original decree of God at man's creation, a double personality. The roots of the union, whether in or out of wedlock, live and grow necessarily in the personality of each. Fornication is the forming of this union in an immoral way ; that is, in contravention of the Creator's decree of monogamy. Because it is a sin that affects the man's own personality, it destroys the holy, super natural union between him and Christ. Baur (Theol. Jahrb. 1852, pp. 18 sqq.) endeavours to show that the Apostle's reasoning involves a petitio principii, be cause he proves the sinfulness of fornication by assuming that it is immoral to make the members of Christ the members of a harlot. The Apostle does not seek to prove the sinfulness;! of fornication. He assumes it. Has he not already said' (vi. 9) that it excludes men from the kingdom of God ? His ; purpose is to introduce a new reason, applicable to Christians only, for purity. Indeed it is only on the assumption of the ¦ sinfulness of fornication that the argument escapes being a non sequitur. Marriage, being a holy union, does not involve the taking away the members of Christ. Fornication, being an unholy union that does involve it, ought, for that reason also, to be shunned by Christians. V. 16. KoXXaa0ai, akin to Eng. glue, and denoting a most intimate union (cf. Luke x. 11). ry iropvy, "his harlot." CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — VI. 15-18. 149 cmpa denotes not merely a physical organism, but a com plex personality on its lower plane. In this citation adp£ must have the same meaning, by synecdoche, and not signify the mere material substance of the body. So basar in the Old Test, is used for " body " as well as for " flesh." Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11. Melanchthon explains the words in Genesis to refer to the union between Christ and the believer, because of the apparent difficulty to apply to fornication words that originally referred to marriage. The ydp and the Se render this view inadmissible. obrjaiv, sc. d ©eos, as in Rom. ix. 15. Cf. Matt. xix. 4, 5, where d iroinaas supplies a nom. to elirev. Similarly in Philo and Barnabas cpnai introduces citations from Scripture. ot Bvo. He cites from LXX., Gen. ii. 24. So Matt. xix. 5 ; Eph. v. 31. The words ot Bvo are wanting in the Hebrew. Their omission does not affect the argument. V. 17. Here again koXX. is mid., " he who cleaveth to the Lord," expressing the believer's act of self-consecration and faith, resulting in union with Christ. He is really exhorting them to unite themselves to Christ. Cf . Deut. x. 20 ; 2 Kings xviii. 6 ; Herm. Past., Sim. viii. 8, prj KoXXmpevoi tois dyiois. The KoXXnais is what grammarians call ax^TiKr), that is, it here expresses consent of will. irvevpa, denoting a complex personality on the higher plane. This union is not in the sphere of the natural, but in that of the supernatural and spiritual. It is observable that the words " of his flesh and of his bones " are to be omitted in Eph. v. 31. V. 18. Other vices are overcome by resistance (cf. Eph. vi. /13; James iv. 7). The imagination detracts from the fascina- j tion of other sins, but adds fuel to the flame of fleshly lusts. The opposite of cpevyeiv is KoXXaa0ai. Cf. Ambrose on this ver. (De Fugd Scec. IV.), whose words sound like a reminis- | cence of Plat., Rep. p. 329, " I have fled from lust, as if I ' were fleeing from a savage and fierce master." Perhaps the close connection in Corinth between impurity and idolatry caused the Apostle to give the same warning in reference to idolatry also (cf. x. 14). dpdpTrjpa, " a sinful act " ; dptapria may be either the prin ciple or the act. o edv, " whatsoever." On the use of edv for dv cf. Winer, 150 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Gr. § XLII. 6; Buttmann, N.S. p. 63. It is pot for dv only in relative clauses with the subjunctive, and that not in class. authors (cf. Matt. xvi. 19). et'9 to t'Stov a&pa. Els may menn " against," as in Luke /xv. 18, or "towards," denoting the object affected, as in irXovTeiv els ©eov. Cf. Plat., Rep. p. 396, dpaprdvovaiv els ai/rovs re Kal els aXXovs. The meaning is that fornication institutes a relation which affects the sinner's personality. S&pa has the same meaning as in ver. 16. Some explain it of the harlot's body ; De Wetto thinks it is the language of exaggeration ; Calvin, that it is spoken relatively ; Meyer and Osiander suppose the meaning to be that the bodily frame is the immediate organ and object of the sin. But why, if two sins, drunkenness and fornication, equally affect the body, is the latter the more heinous because no external agent is employed ? V. 19. The connection is that, while they ought not to permit themselves to be brought under the power of anything, they should remember, on the other hand, that they have been ' brought into subjection to Christ through purchase, and that, consequently, their bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. a&pa. So 1* A B C D. Vulg. has membra vestra. The use] of the sing, a&pa for the plnr. ("your bodies") occurs in class, prose, once at least, in Plat., Menex. p. 249. vaos. The indwelling of the Spirit confers a sacredness on the body. Fornication is sacrilege, and defiles the shrine of God. 'Aytov is emphatic. The Apostle alludes indirectly to the contrast between the dwelling-place of a holy God and the temples of heathen deities, in some of which fornication itself became a sacred rite. No wonder he refuses them the name of temple (cf. note on viii. 10). The difference is noteworthy between the Apostle's declaration that the body is the shrine of the Holy Spirit and the philosopher's description of it as a prison and a tomb. Cf. Plat., Pheed. 63 (referred to by Tert., De An. 53) ; Gorg. 493, to pev a&pd iariv yplv afjpa. exere. The indwelling of the Spirit was a fact, then true of them (cf. Gal. iv. 6). Jovinian adduced the words to prove that marriage is not necessarily sinful. Jerome (Adv. Jovin. II. 29) replies that there are many chambers in a temple, all of which are not equally the abode of Deity. The word vao9 ( CHURCH DISCIPLINE. — VI. 18-20. 151 (" shrine," not lepbv) refutes the reply. It refutes also the view of Baur, Holsten, and Pfleiderer, that the Apostle taught that the body is essentially sinful (cf. 2 Cor. vii. 1). | core, depending on on. They were Christ's. But the Apostle does not say so. He leaves it to the witness of tho Spirit to declare whose they were. Cf. vii. 21, 22; Gal. iii. 13 j iv. 5; Tit. ii. 14; 2 Pet. ii. 1, where Sea-n-brns expresses the property Christ had in them by purchase. In Acts xx. 28 the purchaser is God, unless we read Kvpiov, with Lachm. and Tisch. V. 20. r)yopda0rjTe, aor., referring to Christ's death (cf . Tert., Ad Uxor. II. 3). Tipr)s. The price or ransom (Xvrpov) which Christ, their purchaser, paid for their redemption from slavery was His own soul (Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45), or His own blood (cf. Eph. i. 7 ; 1 Pet. i. 19 ; Rev. v. 9). Now to the mind of a man whose religious life has been that of a pious Israelite, the conception of deliverance through blood must mean that the idea of redemption passes over into that of propitiation. The blood is } necessarily the blood of a sacrifice. It is this new conception i : of an atonement that connects the redemption from slavery! with the indwelling of the Spirit. The great dogmatic passage 'j in Gal. iv. 4-7 teaches that the purpose of redemption, which consists in deliverance, is to bestow the positive blessing of adoption, which is the highest form of reconciliation, and that the result of adoption is " that God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts." The Vulg. has pretio magno. It is a correct paraphrase. The point, however, is that the trans action was not a nominal but a genuine purchase. Cf. Tert., De Cor. 13, "et quidem magno." Sogdaare Sfj. The urgency of a command is often expressed / by Si? (cf. Luke ii. 15). The aor. also helps: " Do it, I say, at once." The positive idea of glorifying God takes the place of the negative warning to flee from sin; because, whereas union with Christ is the source of the body's sacredness, it is the indwelling of the Spirit that imparts to the believer all actual grace for well-doing. Nearly all the Latin fathers and the Vulg. have " clarificate et portate (or tollite) Deum," as if djoaTe or /3aa-Td£eTe were in the text. Chrys. (Hom. 4 in 1 Tim.) has Bo^dampev rolvvv rov ©eov, apmpev avrby ev rm 152 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ampari rjp&v. With this exception the reading seems to be unknown to the Greek Fathers. e'v, "in" the temple of your body, in allusion to ver. 19. The body of the believer, as it circumscribes his personality, is the sphere within which he glorifies God. The words Kal ev rm irvevpan vp&v, drtvd iari tov ©eov, are omitted in X A B C D, Vulg., in some of the Greek aud all the Latin Fathers, but read by the two Syriac translators, by Chrys., Theod., etc. Most editors now follow Mill in rejecting them. They enfeeble the sententious strength of the conclud ing exhortation. For ampa means, throughout, not a mere physical organism, but the man's personality in its lower and more external aspects (cf. Rom. xii. 1). In both passages the Apostle means that, in order to glorify God, religion must pass out of the sphere of thought and emotion into action. Additional Note on Vv. 16, 17. The "decay in verbal significance" (Rutherford's Babrius, p. Ix.), that is, the tendency to use vivid words in a less intense and incisive meaning than former usage warranted, observable in debased Greek, had not set in when the Apostle wrote. In later writers Ko~KXda0ai signifies no more than "to be attached" to a person. In our passage it expresses the formation of a mystical union. THIRD DIVISION. MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. (vii. 1-40). The Apostle passes from the complaints that reached him from other quarters to answer various questions contained in the letter of the Corinthian Church. He begins with the subject of marriage, perhaps because it is closely connected with the previous warning against fornication. The doctrine that Christians ought to abstain from marriage has been ascribed by one or another expositor to three out of the four parties that divided the Church. Olshausen, Haus- rath (Der Ap. Paulus, p. 389), etc., find an ascetic tendency in the Christ-party ; Olshausen because he thinks they were idealists, Hausrath because he supposes they imitated Christ's abstention ; and certainly Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. p. 533 Potter) refers to certain persons who boasted that, in abstaining from marriage, they followed the Lord's example. Schwegler (Nachap. Zeit. I. p. 163) detects asceticism in the Petrine party and traces it to the influence of Ebionitism, which indeed was, not improbably, another name for Jewish Christianity (cf. Origen, G. Cels. II. 1). But the opinion that the Ebionites advocated celibacy rests on the sole testimony of Epiphanius, Hcer. XXX. ii. 5.1 At least, if they abjured marriage, it is unlikely they would profess themselves followers of Cephas. Neander, Riibiger, Meyer, Osiander, Maier> Stanley, etc., think the question respecting marriage originated with the Pauline party, who are supposed to have drawn an un warrantable conclusion from the Apostle's celibacy. But all these conjectures (for they are little more) rest on too con- 1 Neander {Church History, I. Sect, iv.) discerns in Ebionitism a reaction even of the original Hebraism in favour of marriage. 153 154 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. tracted a view of the influence of the ascetic spirit in the Apostolic age. Asceticism was one of the undefined impulses of the time, which Christianity had to take into account, but did not create. Christ assumes its existence among the men whom He warns not to be as the hypocrites are. Cf. Matt. vi. 16; and xix. 12 implies that already men were waiting for the kingdom and bringing the body into subjection for its sake. The tendency of the ancient Jewish religion had been to extol marriage. But after the return from Babylon the ascetic spirit manifests itself, and gathers strength with the breaking up of the national independence and exclusiveness. Perhaps the vigorous language of the 127th Psalm, written after the exile, conveys the remonstrance of the old religion against the growing asceticism of the age. In course of time ascetic pietism degenerated into a hypocritieil Pharisaism or assumed an increasingly vigorous form in Essenism (cf. Joseph., Hist. Jud. II. viii. 2, et al. ; Pliny, Hist. Nat. V. 17). x In early Christian writers the morality of marriage appears to be well nigh the only casuistical question which all discuss. Certainly they were not led to assign so important a place to it in their thoughts and exhortations from any special prominence it assumes in the New Testament. On the contrary, they are continually adjusting the statements of Scripture in accordance with their own preconceived notions. It is a curious fact also that asceticism appears in a more pronounced form among the heretical seeks (cf. Tert., 0. Marc. I. 29). For instance, Tatian the Syrian and the Gnostics repudiated marriage; and the Montanists considered it an evil, though necessary. But even the orthodox betray an admiration for celibacy. Clement of Alexandria, though he comb its the ascetic spirit, speaks of virginity as the more excellent way. Athenagoras (Apol. 33) praises those Christ ians who had grown old in the unmarried state, hoping to attain thereby closer communion with God. Methodius wrote 1 Reference to the so-called Therapeutic of Egypt in this connection must now be omitted, since Lucius of Strasburg (in bis Die '.' hernpeuten, etc., 1879) has convinced such competent critics as E. Schiirer, Hilgenfeld, and Kiinen that the treatise De Vita ('omemplativd, previously ascribed to Philo, in which alone we have an account of the Therapeutas, is a Christian forgery of the fourth century. MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 1. 155 a dialogue in praise of virginity. The early Fathers generally condemned marriage if entered into for any other purpose than the procreation of children ; and in this they were more ascetic than the dogmatic writers of the fourth and fifth centuries, when asceticism had struck its roots deep in the moral sentiment of the Church. We infer that the Apostle in this chapter discusses, not an isolated question, but a wide-spread and prominent tendency of the age, not originating always in a definite theory, much less occasioned by separate instances of celibacy, but present ing to Christianity a great moral force which it must either subdue or assimilate, and undoubtedly to be connected with the doctrine that all contact with matter was essentially evil. The Chapter may be divided thus : (1) A general statement (vv. 1-7). (2) The case of a Christian who has not been married or is in a state of widowhood (vv. 8, 9). (3) The case of a Christian married to a Christian (vv. 10, 11). (4) The case of a Christian married to an unbeliever that is willing to cohabit with the believer (vv. 12-14). (5) The case of a Christian married to an unbeliever that refuses to cohabit with the believer (vv. 15, 16). (6) A digression in reference to cir cumcision and slavery (vv. 17-24). (7) The case of virgins (vv. 25-38). (8) The case of widows (vv. 39, 40). (1) A general Statement. (vii. 1-7). Ch. VII. 1. Se, not only transitional but also slightly adversative; what the Apostle says concerning marriage standing in a relation of contrast to what he has said respect ing fornication. irepl mv, i.e. irepl iKelvmv irepi mv. iypd^are. No trace of their letter occurs except in the Apostle's reply. But we may infer from the plur. here that it was written in the name of the whole Church. It is also evident that the Apostle's deliverances on casuistical questions were incidental, as circumstances brought them to the surface, and that they formed no part of the Gospel which he preached as the divine power and wisdom. airTea0ai, a euphemism ; not synonymous with yapeiv. Cf. 156 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Gen. xx. 4, 6; Plat., Laws, p. 840 A; espec. Clem. AI., Pcedag. p. 224 Potter. The expression is used because the question was prompted by an ascetic sentiment that marriage was defiling (aKa0apTov). Cf. Lev. xi. 8; Col. ii. 21. But Jerome's explanation that the word is used to show the danger of the slightest approach would require pnSi. The omission of pev renders it probable that the clause koXov k.t.X. is explanatory of d iypdip-are (Musculus, Rabiger). The clause is not the enunciation of an independent axiom (Meyer), inas much as the Apostle is replying to a question. His answer necessarily assumes the form of an admission, on the one hand, and a limitation of that admission, on the other. KaXbv. Jerome (Adv. Jovin. I. 7), who is followed by E-^tius and Cor. a Lap., considers the meaning to be that celibacy is a moral and spiritual good, marriage an evil, not indeed sinful in itself, but inevitably accompanied by sin in this state of corruption, and permitted " ne milo quid deterius fiat." That KaXbv sometimes approximates to the meaning of dya0bv must be admitted (cf. Rom. vii. 18, 19). Bnt how, then, can the Apostle call marriage in ver. 7 a divine x^jPlaria> or describe it in Eph. v. 31, 32 as acquiring a mystical mean ing, or the Hebrew Christians be exhorted to hold their marriage in honour and not be led by Essenians to disparage it ? On the other hand, many Protestant expositors assign to the word the meaning of " expedient under present circum stances," as in ver. 26. Cf. Matt. xvii. 4 ; xviii. 8, where KaXbv is synonymous with avpcpepei of Matt. v. 29. We must bear in mind that the Apostle is discussing a great ascetic principle. Is it likely he would begin with advising his readers to abstain from marriage from prudential motives in hard times ? And if, in saying that a widow is more blessed by remaining a widow, he means only that she is morn prudent, why should he close his argument with declaring that he was guided by the Spirit of God ? KaXbv differs from avpqbepet in containing the notion of mental satisfaction, — such gratification, for instance, as that which is felt in con templating a beautiful scene or an act of self-sacrifice. Con sidered in its idea, marriage has an honour conferred upon it which is denied to celibacy. For it is a type of the union between Christ and the Church and from that union derives MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.— VII. 1, 2. 157 ifs own holy character. But, considered in its several acts and accompaniments, marriage is inferior to celibacy. The unmarried are, like the angels of God, freed from the earthly side of what, in its higher aspects, bears an analogy to the life of the Son of God, in whose union with the Church the conception of marriage is realized without the dross of earth. We must add, therefore, the notion of the morally beautiful to the notion of expediency before our interpretation will satisfy the Apostle's words. He is exhorting his readers to win for themselves the comeliness of undistracted and entire service. Abstention from marriage and, by mutual consent for a time, in marriage will give leisure for special seasons of prayer, deepen the Christian's solicitude for the things of the Lord, and create a more complete consecration in body as well as spirit. Whatever furthers this is KaXbv. V. 2. Limitation (Se, cf. note on ii. 6) of the general state ment that celibacy is good. Bid with accus. denotes cause ("owing to"). Whether it can also express purpose ("for the sake of") is doubtful. Kriiger (Gr. II. p. 294) and Winer (Gr. § XLIX.c and Moulton's.. note) deny it. The few examples given by Shilleto (Dem., De Falsa Leg. § 291) and Jelf (Gr. § 627. 3 a) are from Thucydides or. in pronominal phrases, such as Std ti ; Here, at least, the art. points out the meaning. The fornications then abounding in Corinth were a reason why Christians should marry, if they were in danger of contamination. iropvelas. The use of the plur. of abstract nouns to denote the various acts in which an abstract quality manifests itself is a frequent Hebraism in LXX. (cf. Isa. lxiii. 15). But it is also a classical usage. Cf. Heinichen's exhaustive note to Eus., H. E. VIII. 6 ; Fritzsche on Rom. xii. 4 ; Bernhardy, W. S. pp. 62-64. So Matt. xv. 19. Paraphrase: "But owing to the prevailing fornication of all kinds." ixerm. The imperat. is sometimes permissive in the New Test., though not so often as grammarians say. But here Calvin and Meyer rightly consider it to be jussive. The absence of a connecting particle makes d7roStSoTOi and piy) diroarepeiTe (vv. 3, 5) explanatory of ixerm. As they are jussive, so must it also be. Besides, the prevalence of fornication in Corinth is a reason, not merely for permitting marriage, but also for 158 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. making it incumbent on all that have not the gift of con tinence. The Apostle does not, therefore, prohibit all con tinent persons to marry. Origen (Gat.), Jerome (Adv. Jovin. I. 4), Eiickert, Kling think the Apostle is speaking of those who are already married. But e^etv does not mean "to retain" (so Semler), as if synonymous with /caTe'^etv, not even in 1 Tim. i. 19 ; 2 Tim. i. 13. It means " to have a wife," as in Thuc. II. 29, ov eZ^e ttjv dSeX^^v, and Mark vi. 18. t'Stov, implying that the wife is to have a husband who is to be her own aud no other woman's husband. He does not say also ttjv 'IBiav yvvatKa because a warning against polyandry was not present to his mind. In Greece the only approach to it was in Sparta. When Theodoret (Grose. Aff. Cur. p. 133) contrasts the Apostle's doctrine on this point with Plato's community of wives, which involved polyandry as well as polygamy, he uses tSto9 of husband and wife. "ISios is not redundant, not even in Wisd. x. 1. V. 3. For bcpeiXopevnv eiivoiav SABOD Vulg., Clem. AI. (Strom. III. p. 555, Potter), Orig. (Gat.; De Or. 17), Tert. (De Pudic. 16), etc., read ocbeiXijv, which Erasm. actually con jectured from the debitum of the Vulg. The longer reading may have been a euphemistic gloss or had an ascetic origin (so Neauder), thus making the Apostle's words mean that, though cohabitation may cease from ascetic motives, kindness is still due to the wife. But "the debt" strictly means cohabitation. The ascetic feeling that prompted to celibacy would also lead to abstention from cohabitation on the part of those who were married. V. 4. He proves that cohabitation is the due of husband and wife. Each is the other's possession. The fundamental ground of the Apostle's conception of marriage is to be found in the union that forms of husband and wife one complex personality. The revelation of the union between Christ and the Church has restored the conception of marriage which God sanctioned before man's fall, that husband and wife are one flesh (cf. Matt. xix. 5). It is the realization of this primeval conception that distinguishes the Christian theory of marriage. From this arises the " elegans paradoxon," to adopt Bengel's happy phrase, that husband and wife have no right to their own bodies, but have a right to one another's MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 2-5. 159 bodies. This is the reason why their right to one another's goods and chattels must be decided on altogether different grounds. To this radical distinction also we must trace the wide divergence of the Apostle's theory of marriage from that of Judaism and Paganism. By the law of Moses polygamy was allowed under certain limitations. In Greece concubinage prevailed as widely as marriage. In Roman law the woman passed in manum viri and was included in his patria potestas ; and in the later days of the Republic, when this ancient con ception of marriage had become practically obsolete, far from being followed by such a theory as that of the Apostle, which gives the potestas (i^ovala) to both husband and wife, the authority of the husband ceased and made room for " the laxest marital tie the Western world has seen." Cf. Maine, Ancient Law, Ch. V. It must, however, be acknowledged that Greek and Roman sentiment was slowly rising towards the distinction, as we may infer from the ever widening difference between the patria potestas and the dominica potestas, which were at first identical. Cf. Justinian, Institutes, Sander's Ed. I. ix. Gradually the notion of ownership was modified in reference to wife and children as distinguished from slaves. Cf. Chrys., Hom. de Virginit. 75. V. 5. Not only is cohabitation the due of husband and wife, but the Apostle advises that neither of them should lay it aside, except under certain restrictions; viz. first, that it be by mutual consent; second, for a time only; third, in order to have leisure for special prayer ; and, fourth, with a view to the resumption of cohabitation in a manner worthy of Christians. diroarepeiTe. The object is left unexpressed from motives of delicacy. But the word " rob " alludes to the word " due." et pfj ti dv. Sometimes dv is used without a mood, if the verb can be supplied from a preceding clause. Cf. Hermann, De Part, dv, p. 187 ; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 330. Bnttmann (N. S. p. lb'9) suggests that dv stands for idv, sc. diroaTepnTe dXXijXovs, " except perhaps in case you may," etc. But as the use of dv for idv is very doubtful in the New Test., it is more natural to render et pijri by " except perhaps," and to consider that dv makes the et pivrl more indefinite : '• except, perhaps, should it so happen" (cf. Jelf, Gr. § 4-30. 2. Obs. 1). 160 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 7rpo9 Katpbv, "for a time," the 717.09 expressing that it is with a view to its lasting only a short time. The notion of duration is in Katpbv, not in irpbs. Cf. irpbs eairipav " to wards evening"; and Heb. xii. 10. axoXdanre, soKABCD. The aor. refers to extraordinary seasons for prayer. Clem. AI. (Strom. III. p. 547 Potter), by pointing this out, refutes Tatian the Syrian's attempt to prove from this verse that marriage is in itself sinful. The words rfj v-narela Kal occur in Chrys. (De Virginit. 29, et al.) Theod., etc. But they are omitted in N A B C D, Ignat. (Ad Pol. I. 3), Origen (Hom. in Num. xxiii.), Cyprian (Ad Qjiiir. iii. 22), Vulg. Fasting cannot be the purpose of ab stention from cohabitation, but is itself a form of abstinence. The words had, we may suppose, an ascetic, but early origin (? 2nd cent.) both here and, though more doubtfully spurious, in Mark ix. 29. In Matt. xvii. 21 and Acts x. 30 they must be omitted. rf) irpoaevxfl need not be restricted to stated seasons of public worship, which would rather be in the plur,, as in Col. iv. 12 (cf. Col.iv. 2). eVt to airo, " to the same place," as in Acts ii. 1, and im plying that there has been for a time a local separation. So Erasm., Meyer. Jerome thinks the phrase a euphemism. r/re, so K A B C D. It seems to have been altered first to avvipxva0e, and, in the time of Chrys. (De Virginit. 29, et al.) to avvepxea0e. But Gratama correctly considers r)re to de pend on iva, though he is incorrect in saying that the Apostle writes inaccurately. Abstention from cohabitation ought to have for its purpose, not only special prayer, but also a return to cohabitation with all the permanent benefits derived from that time of prayer. It is, therefore, unnecessary to suppose rjie is an anacoluthon for an imperat., occasioned by the attraction of the foregoing conjunctions (Osiand). Bid ttjv aKpaalav vpi&v. He began with a reference to the prevailing immorality of Greek society; in the end he charges the Corinthians themselves with incontinence. AKpaaia is the later form of aKparela. Ruckert derives it from Kepdvvvpi with a, and renders : " on account of your abstaining from matrimonial intercourse " ; and Cranmer's Bible has " for your continencye." But Kepdvvvpi has not the euphemistic mean- MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 5-7. 161 ing which piyvvpi has, and aKpdaia would signify, not " ab sence of mixing," but "bad mixture." V. 6. tovto refers to all the Apostle has said on the subject or marriage. So Chrys. (De Virg. 34), Bengel, De Wette. T te general advice to abstain from marriage (ver. 1), the advice to the incontinent to marry (ver. 2), the advice to the married to cohabit (ver. 3), and the advice to abstain for a time (ver. 5) — all this variety of exhortation is given by way of allowance for the weakness of human nature. Hence the necessity for a declaration of the distinction between casuistical decisions and moral principles. avyyvcopn, which occurs only here in the New Test., does not mean " pardon " in this ver. ; that would yield a very un natural antithesis to " command." There is, consequently, not the slightest ground for the inference of Augustine (De Bono Covj. 6, et al.) that the Apostle considered even mar riage, if entered into from any other motive than the perpetua tion of the race, a sin, though a venial one. Neither does avyyvcbpn ever mean "advice," "opinion," (Valck., Hammond, Neander) ; so that the antithesis between 0-U77V. and iirnayrj cannot be the same as that between yvmpn and iirnayrj in ver. 25. Here it can only mean " forbearance," " concession toweakness," or, to borrow from Aristotle's definition (E'h. Nic. VI. xi. 1), "the discriminating considerateness of equity." So Iren. IV. 15 (29), 2, Origen (Gat.) and Chrys. (Horn, in Gal. ii.). If so, he is speaking, not of the permission given him by the Holy Ghost (Webst. and Wilkins.), but of the allowance made for their weakness and incontinence by the- Apostle. He has spoken, not as a legislator imposing gene ral and unqualified commands, but as an equitable man, who takes into consideration their moral weakness. V. 7. 0eXm. It is usually said that, while B°vXop,ai im plies a positive wish, i0eXm expresses only the negative idea of willingness, having no objection. Cf. Shilleto^Dem., De Falsa Leg. § 26. This does not hold good in the New Test.. at least. Indeed Buttmann (Lexil.) and Stallbaum (on Plat., Rep. p. 437 B) say that i0eXm adds to the notion of wishing that of intending (" voluntatem deliberation et consilio ni- tent3m significat"). Cf. 1 Tim. v. 14. He wishes them to marry, but he has no intention of urging his wishes upon M 162 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. them. On the other hand, in our passage the Apostle declares his wish that all men should be as he himself was, possessed of the gift of continence, and his intention to do what he can to bring about this result. The Gospel has for its practical aim to discipline men to deny fleshly lusts. 'E0eXm is the prevail ing form in Attic prose, except in certain phrases ; 0eXm is the only form in the New Test. BovXopai is a much rarer word both in the classics and in the New Test. Be is the reading of A C D, and is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, etc. It gives to 7rdvTa? av- 0pm-iTovs its full and natural force; for these words covertly express the Apostle's exulting joy at the moral victory of the Gospel over the world. ms Kal ipavrov, that is, continent. So Chrys. But he mentions himself rather than say iv eyKpareia to show that continence is not a Utopian dream. Pierius, the Alexandrian commentator in the third ceutury (Jerome, Ep. 49, Ad Pamm.), is not the last to maintain that the Apostle in this verse preaches celibacy. ms Kai. In correlative clauses Kai sometimes occurs in both members of the comparison, sometimes only in the demonstra tive clause, sometimes only in the relative. But it is not the Kai of comparison, as it is in bpoims Kat, but preserves its force, "also." The pivot of comparison is in ms, not in Kal. Hut when the Kai occurs only in the second member of the •comparison, the writer, in penning the first clause, either had not the second clause in his mind, or purposely left the reader ¦unprepared for it. Cf. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 126. So here. The Apostle starts with deXm irdvras dv0pmTrovs, as if he were about to finish with eyKparevea0ai. But he suddenly ¦changes the expression into a more concrete and personal form. Cf. Mark xiv. 31. 'Epavrbv is an example of the ¦somewhat rare attraction of the nom. into the accus. after ms, •mairep, mare. Cf. Thuc. VI. 68, marrep Kal rjpds, and Poppo on Thuc. V. 44. t'Stov xdpiapa. Continence is the common material out of which a special class of xdplapaTa are formed, which, how ever, have each of them its own distinguishing characteristic (cf. xii. 11). De Wette and Alford consider the words to be a milder expression for " all have not the gift of continence." MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 7, 8. 163 But this would imply that incontinence also is a gift. What he means is that marriage and celibacy are equally gifts of God, wherein purity of soul may manifest itself and be developed. Uveei xap'taparos d yipos, says Origen even. Similarly Theod. aud Jerome (Adv. Jovin. I. 8). But we must not say that Xapiapa expresses nothing more than " moral and intellectual gifts" (Stanley; so also Origen, Cat. in Pom. i. 11 : ean ydp rtva xapiapara ov irvevpariKa, ms Kal b ydpos' to yap irvevpa- tikov ovk dv irore ipiroBiaai irpoaevxfi). Though all attain ments are God's gifts, it is only when they are sanctified by the Spirit to Christ's service that they become xaP"rlJ'aTa- St. Paul himself defines ^dp to-/xa as Bmped iv ^dptTt (Rom. v. 15). 'Ek, as in xi. 12; John x. 32. The use of e'«: to denote • the agent is rare in Attic prose. 6 pev ... 6 Be. So N AB C D. The reading 09 pev . . . 09 Be arose from the frequent use of the relative. Cf. Dem,, De Cor. p. 243, as pev dvaip&v, els as Be tovs cbvydBas Kardymv. Cf. Rom. xiv. 5. (2) The Case of a Christian who has not been married or is in a state of widowhood. (Vv. 8, 9). V. 8. Xeym Be, " now what I mean is this." Cf. note on i. 12. Though Xeym grammatically belongs to this clause only, logically it introduces all the particular decisions that follow to the end of the Chapter, and in ver. 40 the notion that the Apostle's decisions are authoritative is repeated in a stronger form. By to?9 dydpots Erasm., Musculus, Grotius understand "widowers," corresponding to Tat9 X»?Pa'?- Bllt ** must nere include all unmarried persons, in contrast to Tot9 yeyapnKoai, ver. 10. Hence Kai is, not "and also," but "and especially," et quidem. Cf. Mark xvi. 7 ; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 1 45. Meyer thinks the Apostle wished the widows to remain un married in the interests of the Church. The special position assigned to widows in the early Church had probably some connection with the ascetic tendency of the age. In the second and third centuries the deaconesses were chosen from 164 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the widows. Cf. Tert., De Veland. Virg. 19 ; Ad Uxor. I. 7. The reading in Ignat., Ad Smyrn. xiii. l,is doubtful, but Voss thinks the word Ta9 irap0evovs rds Xeybpievas %?/pa9 *s an allusion to deaconesses. The Pastor of Hermas says that a widow or a widower who remains unmarried gains greater honour with the Lord (cf. Mand. IV. iv. 2). Athenagoras (Leg. p. 37) probably meant marriage after the death of a first husband when he said d Seiirepos ydpos evirpeirrjs ian poixeia. Cf. also Clem. Al., Strom. III. p. 428. We may with some confidence infer that in the Apostle's advice to widows not to contract a second marriage we have a reference to those widows for whose support the Church had already made pro vision (Acts vi. 1), and who afterwards acquired a more official position as deaconesses, or, in a later age, as members of the X>]piKov, the viduate. The present passage marks an inter mediate stage in the growth of that office. ms Kaym. Those who understand widowers by dyd/jots argue from these words that the Apostle was a widower. So Erasm., Grot. If we set aside as corrupt or not genuine the Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, the belief that the Apostle had been married rests solely on a statement of Clem. Al. (Strom. III. p. 535 Potter), cited by Eus. (HE. III. 24), UavXos ovk OKvei ev tivi iiriaToXfi ttjv avrov irpoaayopevetv avtyyov. But this is evidently not a tradition, but an infer ence from a mistaken interpretation of Phil. iv. 3. Tert. (De Monog. 8) says Peter was the only one married among the Apostles. Cf. Jerome, Ep. 22, Ad Eustoch. § 20. Certainly we may infer from this ver. that Paul was never married. V. 9. et Se ovk iyKparevovrai, " but if they are inconti nent"; equivalent to et Se aKparevovrai (Arist., Eth. Nic. VIT. 6. Cf. x. 1 ; Matt. xxvi. 42 ; Xen , Mem. II. vi. 3 and Kiihner's note). This is not the only force of ov in a con ditional clause ; for it sometimes expresses an antithesis between the conditional and some other clause, as in ix. 2. Canon Evans so explains it here. 'EyKparevopai is not a class, word. The aor. iydpnaa is a later form of eynpa, which occurs in Luke xiv. 20. irvpova0ai, pres., " to burn on " (so Canon Evans ex cellently). Tert. (De Pudic. 16), Cyprian (Ep. 4, Ed. Fell) and Pelagius understand it of the fire of hell. They would MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 8-11. 165 not have fallen into this error, if the Lat. expressed the force of the Greek present. Clem. Al. gives the correct explan ation. It is synonymous with the i^eKav0naav of Rom. i. 27. (3) The Case of a Christian married to a Christian. (Vv. 10, 11).' V. 10. irapayyeXXm denotes the command of a superior. But irapaKaXem, with which it is sometimes joined (2 Thess. iii. 12), expresses urgency more than authority. ovk iym, dXX' d Kvpios. Cf. note on ver. 12. Xmpia0r)vai. A D read ^copifea-0at, adopted by Lachm. The aor. is more usual after verbs of commanding. The Apostle omits an important modification of the doctrine that marriage is indissoluble, which in Matthew's Gospel is found in the teaching of Christ, viz. " except for the cause of adultery." But its omission in the other Gospels proves that its absence in our passage is not necessarily occasioned by a difference between Christ's doctrine and the Apostle's. The Apostle is stating Christ's doctrine as authoritative ; and his omitting all reference to the one lawful reason for divorce shows that he is speaking of a voluntary separation, which does not affect the vinculum of the marriage. Xmpia0rjvai has a mid. sense, as the 1 aor. pass, often has in the New Test. (cf. Rom. vi. 17, irapeSb07j, Matt. ix. 36, iairXayxvia0n, James iv. 7, virordynTe) . Xmpl£m is said of the man (Matt. xix. 6), XmpiCppai of the woman (Polyb. XXXII. 12). V. 11. edv Se Kal x^ptady. Osiand., Hofm., Alford trans late : " if such a separation have really taken place " ; but incorrectly. Cf. Goodwin, Greek Moods § 20, Note 1. The supposition is that a case of the kind may occur in the future ; the wife, that is to say, separating from the husband in con travention of the law that divorce is not permitted, except, as we may presume is implied, on account of adultery. The Kai emphasizes, not the condition, but the word xmPl0~Qfl '¦ " ^ sne go so far as actually to separate from her husband notwith standing the command" (cf. iv. 7; Matt, xviii. 17). Augus tine wrote one of the books De Govjugiis Adulterinis to prove that the Apostle here supposes the case of a woman that 166 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. separates from her husband because of his adultery. Romanist expositors, adopting this interpretation, infer that in no case can the vinculum of marriage be dissolved, except by death, and, therefore, that, when one of the parties is guilty of adultery, the other party may not contract a second marriage. Augustine's argument is that, if the Apostle were referring to any other case than that of the wife's separation because of the husband's adultery, he would not give her the option of remaining unmarried, but would command her to be recon ciled to her husband. Protestant expositors endeavour to rebut this argument by saying that there are circumstances which justify a woman in leaving her husband, but do not justify divorce. This, however, contradicts ver. 5. Besides, Xmpia0y refers to the same kind of separation as xo)Pla^Vl'al> which undoubtedly means divorce ; for the Apostle is citing the words in which Christ prohibits divorce. We need not suppose, with Hodge and others, that the Apostle justifies the woman's conduct. It is the case of a woman that persists in divorcing herself from her husband for an insufficient reason. She transgresses the law of Christ. She ought to be recon ciled to her husband. If she refuses to be reconciled, at least let her remain unmarried. No one will say that such a case was not likely to occur in the Corinthian Church, who bears in mind the ease with which a divorce was obtainable in Greece or Rome. Cf. Plut., Cat. Min. 25; Juvenal, Sat. VI. 224, fiam-mea content. Among the Jews the school of Hillel per mitted divorce Kara iraaav airiav, Matt. xix. 3. Very differ ent from Augustine's is Chrysostom's interpretation. He supposes that the woman lives apart from religious motives. De Wette also thinks it is the case of an ascetic. But it would not be necessary to bid such a person remain unmarried ; and KaraXXayrjTm implies that the woman separates from her husband on account of dissension. dcpievai, depending on irapayyeXXm. Acpievai is said to be a milder word than diroirepireiv, and both than eK/3dXX<». But the three words denote the act of dismissal, while diroXvm (Matt. v. 32) denotes more directly the dissolution of the marriage, and x^pi^m simply the actual separation. MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 11, 12. 167 (4) The Case of a Christian married to an Unbeliever that is willing to cohabit with the Believer. (Vv. 12-14). V. 12. T0t9 Be Xoiiroi?, co-ordinate with T019 yeyaprjKoat and T019 dydpiois, introducing, therefore, two supposed cases of mixed marriages, the one of an unbeliever willing, the other of an unbeliever refusing, to cohabit with the Christian. Estius and Cor. a Lap. understand the reference to be to the married. But we should then expect pev with yeyaptjKoai and a connecting particle after et. On the other hand, Augustine (De Gonj. Adult. I. xiii.), who correctly says the Apostle is speaking of mixed marriages, thinks Xeya> differs from irapayyeXXm as exhortation differs from command; and from this interpretation of Augustine's Aquinas and Hervasu^ argue that it is allowable, though not always expedient, for the believer to divorce the unbeliever. The distinction be tween X67W and irapayyeXXm being baseless, their infereuce falls to the ground. eym, ovx b Kvpios. The distinction is not between uninspired and inspired commands of the Apostle, as Tertullian (De Exhort. Cast. 3 and 4) understood it, though he was afraid of being considered irreligious for daring to say so. Origen (In Joh. i. 5) explains it in the same way; and Milton (Tetrnch.) says, " If the Lord spake not, then man spake it, and man hath no lordship to command over conscience." But this in terpretation affords no logical resting-place. If we say that the Apostle is usually writing under the infallible guidance of a Divine inspiration, but that when he speaks on the question of celibacy his inspiration fails him, to return suddenly when he enters on the question of divorce, again to desert him when he writes on the case of mixed marriages, inspiration becomes at once arbitrary and mechanical ; arbitrary, because there is nothirg in the nature of the subjects discussed to account for the difference, and mechanical, because it comes and goes independently of the writer's mental a.ctivity. Chrys. (De Virgin. 12) offers a more satisfactory explanation. On the ques tion of divorce Christ Himself had legislated for His Church when He was on earth. We have His decision in Matt. v. 32 ; 168 1HE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. xix. 9. But touching other questions discussed by the Apostle we have no direct decision of the Lord. The question of divorce touches the inmost nature of marriage, as it was instituted by God at the beginning aud afterwards connected by Christianity with the union between Christ and the Church. For this reason Christ, as the Divine lawgiver of His Church, rescinded ("But I say unto you ") the Mosaic permission to a man to divorce his wife for other causes than adultery and restored the original idea of marriage. St. Paul never dared rescind a law of Moses. Cf. Chrys., De Christi, Precibus 3. Yet the Apostle draws various inferences from the words of Christ. One distinction between the teaching of Christ and that of His Apostles must necessarily be that Christ always commands. We have no instance of His arriving at a con clusion through a process of reasoning, much less of His dis cussing a question and leaving it undecided. John Baptist is said irapaKaXetv tov Xaov, Christ never. This absolute certitude is essential in the revelation of central principles. But it would be destructive of all that is valuable in human effort, if it extended to the minute details of practical life ; if it decided beforehand every possible case of conscience and reduced our moral activity to a mechanical conformity with unswerving and merely authoritative regulations. The danger attaches to all books of causistry ; but in a book accepted by the doubting conscience as containing divinely inspired causistry, the effect is fatal. The writings of the Apostles abound, on the other hand, in argument and inference, which sometimes end in practical decisions, sometimes result only in the expression of an opinion. The decision is often left to the enlightened conscience of the spiritual man (cf. ver. 25). But apart from the teaching of Christ, which is the fons et origo of revelation, the inspiration of the Apostles would have been an altogether different thing from what it actually is. Baur (Theol. Jahrb.) thinks the Apostle is speaking of the higher and lower degrees of certitude with which a Christian truth presented itself to his consciousness. What he received as truth without doubt or misgiving was to him the voice of Christ; but whatever was accepted with more or less doubt he himself spoke, not Christ. Practically this view amounts to the same thing as the view of Chrysostom, and in its point of . MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.— VII. 12, 13. 169 difference it is less satisfactory. For the certitude with which truths present themselves to the mind varies by imperceptible degrees and at different times. The pres. irapayyeXXei is no difficulty. It means that the command of Christ was still in force. We need not suppose, with Bengel, that Christ gave the Apostle an immediate revelation on the question of divorce. The general tradition of the early Church aud the narrative in the Book of Acts points to an intimate connection between St. Paul and the Evangelist Luke. Indeed our Lord's doc trine on the subject was in that age singular, and cannot fail to have been known among Christians throughout the world. exei. The supposed case is that of a man who was already married before he became a Christian. The case of a Christian marrying a heathen is not put. On ot/cetv meaning " co habitation " cf. Soph., CEd. Tyr. 990, fjs ot/eet perd, that is, as his wife. V. 13. yns, implying that the Apostle is speaking of a class. Cf. note on iii. 17. N D read et T19. o5ro9. So N A B C D, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. Both avrbs and 0VT09 are used in the New Test, and LXX. in the sense of " he." Cf. Buttmanu, N.S. pp. 95 and 328. The use of Kal and the demonstrative where we should expect the relative or participle is of frequent occurrence in class. Greek. The repetition of the relative was avoided from preference for direct narration. Cf. Bernhardy, W. S. p. 304 ; Stallbaum's note to Rep. III. p. 395. So in viii. 6 ; Tit. i. 2, 3 ; 2 Pet. ii. 3. pr; dcbierm avrov. Afitevai is properly used of the husband, diroXelirm of the wife. Bengel and Meyer suggest that dcf>iivai is here used of the wife because the Christian is the superior party. Rather, dcpievai is the expression used by Christ for " renouncing" all things for his sake. A touching story is told by Justin Martyr (Apol. II. 2) of a Christian woman who for a length of time continued to live with her unbelieving and unchaste husband in hope she might reform him. After long and fruitless efforts she at last gave hira a bill of divorce and separated from him ; whereupon he informed on her that she was a Christian. Here a believer cohabits with an unbeliever; and when at last she leaves him, it is 170 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. not because he is a heathen, but for unnatural cruelty and unchastity. V. 14. dSeXcpm is the reading of SABCD. "Apa : cf. note on v. 10. 'Ean: on the pres. after 67ret cf. v. 10, ocpelXere. Having stated as a fact the consequence of a mixed marriage, he states, also as a fact, the alternative, which neces sarily follows if that consequence does not follow. Three explanations have been offered of the Apostle's state ment that the children of believers are holy : First, that the children of even a mixed marriage are legitimate, sanctitate quddam civili. So Cajet., Muscul., Cor. a Lap., Melanchth., Wolf (hesitatingly), Heydenr., and certain antipasdobaptists who think to evade, with the help of this interpretation, the inference which other divines have drawn from the words in favour of infant baptism. Against this view are the following considerations: (\)"Aytos means more than the negation of v60os. (2) This view makes all heathen marriages illegitimate. (3) It supposes that rd reKva v/j&v denotes the children of mixed marriages only, whereas the word vp&v shows that the reference is to the children of any Christian parents. Those who feared that cohabitation with an unbelieving husband or wife would defile a Christian would, by parity of reason, believe that the children of a mixed marriage are dKa0apra. (4) To prove that the children of a mixed marriage are legitimate would not of itself be enough to prove that the Christian ought not to separate from the unbeliever. Second, Theod., Cyril Al. (aaynvevaopev els evaeBetav), Photius, Estius, Hammond (Pract. Gut. VI. iii.), De Wette, Osiand., Olshaus., Neand., Maier think the Apostle is speaking of the moral iufluence which the believer's holy life will have upon the children and, consequently, it may be hoped, on the unbelieving wife or husband. Such was Nonna, who made her husband a Christian by her life, not by arguments (Greg. Naz., Carm. 68). This view is mentioned by Tertullian (De Auimd, 39, "ex institutions discipline") and Augustine (De Serm. in Monte III. 45; in De Peccat. Merit. III. 12 ho speaks more doubtfully). The perf. r/yiaarai would then refer to actual instances of the conversions brought about already in Corinth by the holy life of the Christian; and certainly MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 13, 14. 171 dyid&pai may signify the conversion of the unbeliever (cf. i. 2). But, besides that this view makes rd reKva denote more naturally the children of mixed marriages, it does not follow that, if the unbelieving husband is not converted, the children also will remain unconverted. Moreover, the reply would not really touch the difficulty felt by the Apostle's questioners, who feared moral defilement from the perpetuation of a marriage union with an unbeliever. Further, the correct understanding of ver. 16 will lead to the inference that the Apostle considered the contingency of the unbeliever's con version by the believer's example too remote to be used as an argument for perpetuating the marriage union between them. Third, many Protestant divines explain it to mean sanctitas faedeialis. The children of believers are in God's covenant. From this the Second Helvetic Confession argues that they have a right to baptism, the sign of the covenant. But when we enquire into the meaning of " federal holiness," Lutherans and most Calvinists1 part company. For the former under stand by it a right to the external privileges of the Church or, to borrow Bramhall's words (whose view is similar), " an exterior or ecclesiastical sanctity." Cf. Gerhard, Loci. XXI. viii. § 2 1 7. On the other hand Calvin, followed by Beza and Peter Martyr, argues from this verse that the children of a Christian parent are already from their birth " supernaturali gratia sancti" (Inst. IV. xvi. 31). Beza, however, modified this doctrine of the internal sanctification of believers' children and their " latent possession of the seed of faith " (as Calvin said), by making their federal holiness consist, not in their actual sanctification at their birth, but in the certainty that elect children of believers will hereafter receive the grace of regeneration ex audita. He therefore justified their baptism in infancy by the faith of their parent.2 Against the Lutheran 1 Not all. Turretin (Inst. XV, Q. xiv. § 14) differs from Calvin in explaining it of " Christianismus " and " sanctitas externa." 2 Hooker's remarks on the subject are noteworthy, because of the allusions he makes to these various theories : " We are plainly taught by God that the seed of faithful parentage is holy from the very birth. "Which albeit we may not so understand, as if the children of believing parents were without sin [the Romanist doctrine], or grace from baptized parents derived from propagation [Calvin's doctrine] , or God by covenant and promise tied to save any in mere 172 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. doctrine the Dutch Calvinists especially argued that an ex ternal sanctity has no place under the new covenant, and no one can be called holy unless he is truly holy within, because all the promises and precepts of the new covenant are internal. Cf. Vitringa, Doct. Christ. Relig. XXIV. pp. 116, 117. It is objected to the Lutherans that they make the baptism of a believer's children altogether meaningless ; but they reply that the sanctification ascribed to them is bestowed upon them at their baptism. But this is certainly not the Apostle's meaning. If he intended to ascribe their children's holiness to their baptism, it would not follow that, if the husband were not sanctified in the wife, the children could not be sanctified in baptism. Again, Calvin's interpretation cannot be what the Apostle here intends; for the holiness ascribed to the children must be of the same kind as the holiness resulting from it to the unbelieving husband or wife. But no one will say that the unbeliever is a child of God in virtue of his marriage with a Christian. Fourth, Bengel, Grotius, Hofmann, etc., think the sanctifi cation of the unbelieving husband of a believing wife denotes the character of the marriage-union, not the personal character of the husband. Tertullian mentions this as an alternative explanation ("ex seminis prserogativa"). The Christian character of the marriage is proved from the sanctity of the children of a Christian parent. The Apostle argues that, if parentage is a Christian relation, so also is marriage. It implies that, if the children partake of the consecration of a believing parent, much more will the husband partake of the consecration of the believing wife. The union between husband and wife constitutes a complex personality ; that between parent and child does not. The solidarity of men in their various relations is a pre-eminently Pauline concep tion. The race is one ; the Church is one ; and the family is one. It is not true that the privileges of the new covenaut are internal and individual only. Yet the Apostle does not regard of their parents' belief [Beza's doctrine] : yet seeing that to all pro- essors of tbe name of Christ this pre-eminence above infidels is freely given, the fruit of their bodies bringeth forth into the world with it a present inteiest and right to those means [Luther's doctrine], wherewith the ordinance of Christ is that His Church shall be sanctified" [Eccl. Pol. V. Ix. C). MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 14. 173 sacrifice the individual to the community any more than the community to the individual. Indeed, it is the individual faith of one member of the family that confers sanctity upon the family and, as touching their relation to the family, on all its other members. For this reason also the sanctity of the family is not a figment nor a mere idea, but a practical power. For the believing member may be trusted to bring into a family that is Christian in idea the Christian influence also of prayer, example, and teaching. These, however, do not create its sanctity ; they flow from it. This view yields an excellent meaning, and it disposes at once of Baur's theory (Theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 18) that St. Paul recognizes no moral element in marriage, nor even the divinely-appointed means to perpetuate the race, — nothing, in fact, but a remedy for incontinence. As to the bearing of this ver. on infant baptism, it neither proves nor disproves that infants were baptized in the Apos^ tolic Church. It does not prove it ; for the sanctification here spoken of is the children's inheritance in virtue, not of their baptism, but of their relation to a Christian parent. It does not disprove it, as De Wette and Neander (Hist, of Dogmas, Eng. Trans., I. p. 230) allege, at least if we accept the ob- signatory theory of baptism. Indeed, supposing this to be the Apostle's theory, the principle on which infant baptism rests is contained in this verse. For if infants are either children of God or in the covenant, why not give them the symbol and seal of their privilege ? (5) The Case of a Christian married to an Unbeliever that refuses to cohabit with the Believer. Vv. 15, 16. In this case the Christian is free to regard the unbelievers' departure as a separation and a dissolution of the marriage ; for three reasons : (1) the believer has not been made a slave by becoming a Christian ; (2) the Christian's call has given him or her a right to the enjoyment of peace ; (3) these Christ ian privileges of liberty and peace are not to be sacrificed from an uncertain and probably fallacious hope of saving the 174 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. unbeliever, by continuing in the bondage of wedlock when the unbeliever has severed the actual union. V. 15. xo3P%€Tal> Pres- marking intention : "if he is bent on departing." Xmpt%ea0m, concess. imperat., but even here conveying something of decision and authority, if not also of contempt : " let him begone." ov BeBooXmrai. The rendering of the Auth. Vers, ("is not under bondage ") arose probably from the notion that the Apostle is contrasting the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free (Gal. v. 1) with the bondage of the law. But he is speaking of a particular application of the doctrine of Christ ian liberty. Christianity has not made slaves of believers as touching marriage.. It has revived the original conception of marriage, but has not imposed a new obligation. The words imply what is subsequently more directly stated, that the Apostle would reject the doctrine of counsels of perfection. But the real question is' whether the Apostle means to say that a Christian, if finally deserted by an unbelieving husband or wife, is at liberty to marry another. Bengel, Olshausen and others deny it. If he permits a second marriage after deser tion, how are his words consistent with Christ's prohibition of a divorce except only for adultery ? But it is one thing to divorce husband or wife, another to be repudiated. In ver. 1 2 he is careful to say, as if he anticipated the objection, that he is now proceeding to the consideration of cases to which, as not having arisen, Christ made no reference. One of them is the case of a Christian repudiated by the unbeliever. Ben gel objects also that the Apostle himself in ver. ] 1 commands the believing wife, who has insisted on separating from her hus band, to remain unmarried. But in ver. 15 he is dealing with .he case of a wife finally deserted, not of one who separates herself. Another objection has been based on an incorrect in terpretation of the words, " God has called us in peace," which are really a reason for a second marriage, not for abstention. In favour of the view that the Apostle permits the deserted Christian to contract a second marriage are the following considerations: (1) No other explanation does justice to the words "is not enslaved." It has been argued (e.g. by Tholuck, Bergp. pp. 233, sqq. 3rd Ed., otherwise 1st Ed.) that • the Apostle is not speaking of' a final and absolute desertion. If MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 14, 15. 175 so, the condition of the deserted believer is the worst form of slavery. Cf. Gerhard, Loci, De Conjugiis, § 627; Nitzsch, Sijst. d. Christi. E'hre, p. 338, 6th Ed. (2) Equity seems to require that at least a person that has not the power of con tinence should not be precluded from marrying in a case of final desertion. " Nequaquam," says Mclanchthou (Loci, App. I.),"laquei injiciendi sunt innocenti personse propter aliena delicta: " a principle of general application and decisive of the question. Fabiola, in the time of Jerome, is a case in point. She even deserted her husband for his vileness and married another, because she had not the gift of continence. Jerome (Ep. 77, Ad Ocean.) excuses her conduct. But she did penance after her second husband's death. (3) If the desertion is absolute and final, the marriage is de facto dissolved. But why is it permitted to a widower to contract a second marriage, if not because death annuls a marriage de facto ? By parity of reason may we not argue that final desertion, as it brings the union to an end actually, leaves the deserted believer free to marry another ? This view was held in the early Church by Ambrosiaster. But the Council of Aries (a.d. 314) advised abstention. ev elprjv-tj . . • 0eo9. Winer (Gr. § L.), Maier and De Wette think e'v is for et'9, " called into peace." But KaXeiv can hardly be considered a verb of motion. Cf. Harless! and Elli ott's notes on Eph. iv. 4. The latter well observes: "We are called eV iXev0epia and et9 £mr)v almviov, but iv elptjvy, iv dytaapm and e'v pla, iXirlSi." The reason of the differ ence may be that liberty and life are our condition, but that peace, sanctification, hope are the attitude of the soul when it reflects on its condition. Hence " peace " in our passage is much more' than a state of permanent truce between two parties. , It is their, tendency to lose sight of the deeper con ception of peace that marks the comparative shallowness and different stand-point of- sub-apostolic writers. To them peace is the cessation of hostilities. Consequently the question of Church order assumes an importance in their eyes, as the final aim of Christian endeavour, not assigned to it in St. Paul's writings. He also, it is true, represents peace as the ultimate goal, but not in this negative and external sense. It includes the deep tranquillity of the spirit, the peace which 176 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Christ gave His disciples. To endure affliction is consistent with the profoundest spiritual peace ; but to cling tenaciously to an unbeliever that spurns the Christian from him is the un rest of weakness, the perturbation of a soul that seeks its happiness in the creature, not in God. But there is special reference in the words to a person that has not the gift of con tinence. The divinely-ordained means to secure his " peace " is marriage. Many expositors explain the clause as a limita tion of the statement that the believer has not been enslaved in such cases : " Though the believer is free, still it is his duty to live in peace as far as possible." But if the unbeliever has finally deserted the Christian, it is inconsistent to add that the believer must live in peace with the unbeliever. Chrys., Pelag., Theophyl., Cajet., Est., De Wette, Meyer, Harless, Osiand., etc., rightly understand the words as a reason for separation. The word " call " may be intended to allude, in a secondary sense, to runners in a race. Perhaps Clement of Rome (Ad Cor. 19) has the passage in his thoughts when he urges the Corinthians to run towards the goal of peace delivered to them from the beginning. V. 16. Tt ; not " how ? " but " how far ? " The Tt" expresses, not the manner in which the knowledge is to be obtained, but the extent of it. Cf. Matt. xvi. 26 ; xxvi. 65. Ot8a9 is Ionic, rare in Attic. Like many other Ionic forms, it re appears in the koivtj and supersedes ola0a in the New Test., certainly not from " lettered affectation." What is this verse a reason for ? Tert. (Ad Uxor. II. 2), Chrys. (Cat.), Theod., Augustine (DeConj. Adult. I. xiii), Pho- tius, Hervseus, Cajet., Hodge, etc., connect it with vv. 13, 14, as a reason why the believer should continue to live with the unbelieving husband or wife, if the unbeliever consents. It is improbable that ver. 15 is parenthetical. Besides, this view implies the Christian's right to depart, if there is no hope of the unbeliever's conversion though the unbeliever be con tent to remain. We must, therefore, accept the interpreta tion proposed by De Lyra, and regard these two questions as the third reason for letting the unbelieving husband or wife depart, if he or she refuses to remain unless the believer renounces Christianity. The privilege of spiritual peace, especially if continence is imperilled, must not be MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 17-24. 177 sacrificed to so remote a contingency as the conversion of an unbeliever that demands the renunciation of Christianity as the first condition of cohabitation. St. Peter also intimates, by his use of Kal el, that he considered the conversion of such as had been hitherto disobedient to the word difficult and improbable ; yet he is speaking of husbands willing to cohabit with their Christian wives. This view is adopted by Est., De Wette, Meyer, Alford, Stanley, Neander, Osiand., Maier, etc. But some of them incorrectly allege that et would be bad Greek in the sense of " whether thou mayest not." De Wette says it is "allem Sprachgebrauche widerstreitend," and Osiander supposes it crept into the Greek of the Fathers from the Lat. hand scio an ! But cf. Xen., Mem. I. i. 8, ovre rm KaXyv yijpavTi iv' eicppaivyrai SrjXov el Bia rainyv dvidaerai," it is not certain that he will not suffer"; Thuc. II. 52, dSrjXov vopi^mv el Siaqj0apr]aeTai, where see Poppo's note; Eur., Heracl. 791, cpoBos yap el poi i^&aiv ovs iym 0eXm, " I am afraid that they are not alive." The objection to Chrysostom's inter pretation is not the grammar, but the connection. Cf limner, Hermeneut. p. 145. (6) A Digression in reference to Circumcision and Slavery. (Vv. 17-24.) The connection of these verses with what precedes depends on the meaning we assign to et prj. (1) Chrys. (Cat. ; other wise Horn.), Theod. (Cat. ; otherwise in loc), CEcum., who ascribes the view to Severian, read rj py, as a disjunctive mem ber of the preceding question : tI olSas el ryv yvvaiKa acbaets rj py (amaeis ;) MS. authority is decisive against the reading. (2) Others read et py, but join the words in the same way to what precedes. But et cannot be used for rj. In 2 Cor. iii. 1 et has been so rendered; but the true reading is y. (3) Others render it by "if not," that is, "if thou canst not save the unbeliever, let every one walk," etc. This would be et Be py or et Be Kal py. (4) Chrys. (Horn.), Theod. (in loc), Herveeus join it to what precedes, and put a full stop after Kvptos : "how knowest thou that thou wilt save thy wife unless thou behavest to her according to the grace given thee ? " But this would destroy the force of the argument in ver. 16, which rests on the 178 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. improbability of the unbeliever's conversion, even though the Christian's behaviour be worthy of his holy calling. (5) Beza, Grotius, Wolf, Meyer (earlier Edd.) make et py synon. with dXXd (cf. Jelf, Gr. § 860, 5 I). But in the New Test, el pr, has always an exceptive force, as may be seen from its always following a negative clause. Cf. Fritzsche on Rom. xiv. 14 ud fin. (6) There cannot be much doubt that De Wette's render ing, adopted by Olshaus., Osiand., Harless, Meyer (latest Edd.), Maier, Alford, Evans, etc., is the correct one. The Apostle has stated his doctrine of Christian liberty and applied it to the case of a believer married, before his conversion, to an unbeliever, who refuses to live with the Christian unless she renounces her new religion. With his usual balance of thought and care to shun a one-sided and therefore misleading state ment, St. Paul, who was not one of those men " who license mean when they cry liberty," proceeds • to state the opposite truth, that Christian liberty does not dissolve or disturb worldly relations, but, on the contrary, confers upon them a new charac ter, that of constituting the various forms assumed by obedience to the "call" of the Gospel. He introduces the principle of order as limiting in actual life the principle of liberty. Christ ianity has not made slaves of us ; but neither has it brought in anarchy. It is not despotic ; it is not revolutionary. The Christian is free from the bondage of wedlock with the un believer that insists on his denying Christ, "saving that" •every one should abide in the position in which his Christian •calling has placed him. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 5, el p,y iv ra'ts da0eveiais. V. 17. eKaarm ms. Cf. note on iii. 5. The word is re peated for emphasis. Cf. Phil. ii. 4. o Kvpios . . . b ©ebs. So X A B C D, Vulg. ; adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. De Wette and Meyer think that by Kvpios is meant God, which makes the change to o ©ebs in the next clause meaningless. The Christian's lot and work in life is the dispensation (pepipixev) ¦of Christ, and a man's call (KeKXyKev) by God to be a Christian turns that lot and work into an expression of his religion, which consists henceforth in obedience (cf. Harless, Die Ehescheid. p. 93). As far as human action is concerned the A.postle does not acknowledge the distinction between sacred MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 17, 18. 179 and secular. One act differs from another in degree of reli gious effectiveness, but not in kind. The Apostle's sentiment is the reverse of the Stoical doctrine that slavery erases from the soul all holy principles. Cf. M. Anton. X. 9. Biardaaopai k.t.X. He says this to intimate that he has been stating a broad principle, not laying down an arbitrary regulation ; not building an imaginary republic, but repre senting Christianity as the leaven of society. The word Biardaaopai marks how largely the historical development of the Church was determined by St. Paul (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 28). The mid. of StaTdcro-m does not differ in meaning from the active. Cf. xvi. 1. Vv. 18-24. What he has to say is not only commanded to all the Churches, but also applicable to various cases. Two applications, other than marriage, of the general principle that every man's condition of life is the outward form of his Christian calling, are now discussed, viz. circumcision (vv. 18- 20) and slavery (vv. 21-24). V. 18. irepneTpypevos tis iKX>)6rj • So Lachm., Rev. V., Westc. and Hort punctuate. It is better to regard it as a hypothetical assertion; "one who has been circumcised was called, — suppose the case." Cf. Hermann, Opusc. I., De Ellipsi, p. 205 ; Bernhardy, W.S. p. 385 ; Buttmann, N.S. p. 194 ; Winer, Gr. § XXV. 1 b. So Dem., 01. III. p. 33 ; De Cor. p. 317, dBiKei ns eKmv . . . i^ypapre tis aKmv (and Karmp0mae in next clause is also hypoth. indie, and should not have a mark of interrog. any more than the other two clauses). Cf. James v. 13. iiriairda0m, sc. ryv aKpoBvarlav. Hesych., py eXKverm rb Beppa The word occurs only here in this sense. Many Jews after the time of the Maccabees wished to be thought uncir- cumcised, in order either to avoid the scorn of the Greeks or the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes. Cf. 1 Mace. i. 15; Joseph., Anliq. XII. v. 1 ; Ewald, History of Israel, Eng. Trans., Vol. V. p. 271. The Apostle's word seems to conVey the notion that Jewish Christians had adopted the practice of epispasmus. There is no hint elsewhere of such a thing, ex cept as an inference from this passage. Hence Origen (Cat.) aud Jerome (Ado. Jovin. I. 6 and 14, et al,) think the Apostle, in speaking of circumcision and slavery, is referring allegoric- 180 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ally to marriage. But we may naturally conclude that there were Judaisers among the Gentile Christians and contemners of Judaism among Jewish Christians. We are told by Dion Cassius that many heathens had in this age become prose lytes to Judaism, and they appear to have preferred it in its more rigorous forms. Some Gentile Christians too became Ebionites. Why may we not suppose there were Jews in the Church who practised epispasmus, not indeed as a condition of their Christian status, but from fear of scorn and shame of their nationality ? Contact with Greek thought was to them the sudden revelation of a new world. In their new contempt of their former narrowness and exclusiveness we recognize some of the beginnings of Gnosticism, as it appears, for in stance, in Philo's theory that the historical religion of the Jews was a mere husk around the kernel of ideas. To such men circumcision was nothing; but for that very reason uncircum- cision would acquire factitious importance, and a false liberal ism would be thought to be the only worthy position to assume. The Apostle applies to the badge of nationality his doctrine that all things are, not only pure, but to a Christian sacred and religious. He condemns false shame no less than false righteousness. Faithfulness to one's own nation and age is as real an expression of Christian sentiment as charity and cosmopolitanism. V. 19. ovSev iari, that is, ovk mcpeXei (Rom. ii. 25), or ovk la^vei (Gal. v. 6). So also in class. Greek. Chrysostom's paraphrase, "contributes nothing to faith," limits the refer ence too much. rnpyais ivroXmv ©eov, sc. irdvra iartv, which is expressed in Col. iii. 11. Cf. Plat., Rep. p. 366 D, Stallbaum's note. In such instances dXXd means " much rather." Cf. Bernhardy, W.S. p. 458. The art. is omitted with rripycris to make the notion as general as possible. It is obedience as such that has moral value. In this sense rypeiv is not a class, word, but often occurs in Scripture. Lipsius (Paul. Rechtf. p. 194) re marks that it is almost a technical word for fulfilling the Mosaic Law. Cf. Sir. xxxv. (xxxii.) 22 ; Wisd. vi. 19. To the mind of a true Israelite obedience involved the notion of keeping intact the Divine deposit entrusted to the Jews (cf. Rom. iii. 2). In Gal. v. 6 -circumcision is contrasted with faith working MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 19, 20. 181 through love; in Gal. vi. 15 with the new creature; and here with obedience. It does not follow that faith, the new creature, and obedience are identical. The Apostle is here speaking of practical duties. Circumcision was at one time a Divine injunction, but when the Jews did what had been commanded, not in the spirit of obedience, but in the spirit of self-righteousness, their circumcision became uncirCum- cision. It is important to observe, that, though circumcision and uncircumcision are in themselves indifferent, abstention from the one or the other may become a duty when others de clare that either is not indifferent. The Apostle himself acted on this principle when he refused to circumcise Titus (cf. Gal. ii. 5). V. 20. The case of circumcision is summed up (cf. ver. 24). iv ry Kkyaei y iKX>]0y cannot mean " let every one abide in the condition of life to which he was called," a rendering as early as the time of Tertullian (De Idol. 5), and used then by certain manufacturers of idols to justify their continuing in their craft. The relat. y may be governed by e'v to be sup plied from e'v ry KXyaei. Cf. xi. 23 ; Matt. xxiv. 50 ; and freq. in class. Greek, e.g. Thuc. I. 28, irapd irbXeaiv als. The meaning would then be, " Let every one abide in that occupa tion in which Christianity found him " (cf. Clem. Al., Strom. III. 12, eKaaros ovv iv m iKXy0y epym ryv BiaKovlav eKTeXeirm) . But KXyais never means " occupation," " business." It is not improbable that this signification was attached to the corresponding words in other languages in consequence of this interpretation of the present passage (cf. Du Cange, s.v. vocatio). KXyais must mean "the call of the Gospel," as al ways in the New Test. (cf. Rom. xi. 29 ; Eph. iv. 1 ; Heb. iii. 1 ; 2 Peter i. 10). That being so, § will be either instrumental or by attraction for yv, cognate accus. with eKXy0y. Cf. Eilicott on Eph. iv. 1. In either case the meaning of the clause is the same : " Let every man abide in the call of the Gospel." But it is evident such an expression has no relevant meaning, unless the Apostle is referring also to conditions of life. In fact he describes circumcision and uncircumcision, slavery and freedom, as modes of the Divine call into the sphere of the spiritual life. The idea is not that the various occupations of life are the Divinely-appointed lot of every man, but that there 182 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. are certain conditions of life that impart to the Christian call a special form. Such are the great distinctions — natural, national, social — on the maintenance of which, in any particular age or country, the preservation of the principles of liberty and order and their legitimate development in human history mainly depend. Cf. Gal. iii. 28, where the Apostle enumerates the three fundamental conceptions that at once divide and unite the race, that of Jew and Greek or the national distinc tion, that of slave and free or the social distinction, and that of male and female or the physical distinction. V. 21. He passes to the second case that illustrates the bearing of Christianity on human relations. This example, again, is not arbitrarily chosen. For, first, slavery was a very conspicuous institution in the ancient world and sprang from the other fundamental distinctions, — the physical superiority of the man over the woman, the religious pre-eminence of Jew over Gentile, or else the Greek consciousness of creative politi cal genius ; so that, in discussing the question of slavery, the Apostle not only arbitrates between master and slave, but ad dresses himself to the antagonisms most deeply seated in the religious, political, and social condition of his time. Second, slavery is one of the institutions which Christianity transforms. At times the Apostle appears to sanction it, sometimes to pro claim its entire abolition. In Christ there is neither bond nor free, and in the history of his religion the distinction between master and slave ceases at the door of the Church. But Christianity abolishes slavery by assimilating and sanctifying the relation of master and servant in its inmost, nature. While it refuses to wield the sword and destroy civil institutions by violence, it so transforms their ruling ideas that those institu tions become what they never were before. For instance, Christ bestows on the most degraded and despised slave who is a believer, spiritual endowments that cannot fail to inspire him with a consciousness of freedom. He ceases to be a slave by the very fact of knowing that in the sight of God he is free, and his service ceases to be a bondage because it is now a willing obedience to Christ.1 " Deo servire," observes Augustine, " vera libertas est." 1 Cf. Origen, C. Cels. III. 54 : 'Op.o\oyovp.ev Si icavrat i0i\eiv TaiSevirai t$ toB Gcou Xiyy, tiiare . . . oUdrpupiv iiwoSeiKvuvai vus iXeOdepov ava\a(2ovres fyp'.vnpA i^evyeviadeiev inro toO \6yov. MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 21. 183 eKXfj0ys. Cf. note on ver. 18. py aol peXirm, " let not the fact that thou wert called to manifest thy spiritual life by servitude weigh upon thy mind, as if the liberty with which thou wert then endowed made thy external condition of slavery unworthy of thee." dXX' et Kal . . . xpVarai'- Does this mean, " if thou canst become free, accept thy freedom," or " though thou canst be free, remain a slave and serve so much the more faithfully because thou art a Christian ? " The latter is the view of Chrys. (pdXXov BovXeve, similarly Serm. 5 in Genes.), Theod., Pelag., Theophyl., Aquinas, GUcum., Phot., Herveeus, Muscul., Est., Bengel, Wolf, De Wette, Meyer, Maier, Alford, Stanley, Osiand., Baur (Theol. Jahrb. 1832, p. 26), Heinrici ; the former that of certain persons referred to by Chrys., of Calvin, Grot., Neand., Hofmann, etc. El Kai has two mean ings. First, it is often opposed to Kal el. The latter (when the Kai is more than a connecting particle, which it seldom is in the New Test.) emphasizes the condition, that is, represents the occurrence of the condition as doubtful ; the former em phasizes, not the condition, the occurrence of which is sup posed to be not doubtful, but the opposition between the conditional and the consequent clauses. Cf. p. 105, foot-note. If this is the meaning of et Kai in our passage and we render it by " although," the consequent will mean " still remain a slave." Second, el Kai is also used to emphasize some words only in the clause. Cf. Luke xi. 18, et Be Kal b Saravds Biepepia0y, "if Satan even, so strong a potentate;" Phil. ii. 17, et Kal airevBopai, " if I am offered even." In this case also the meaning will be, " if thou canst be even free, still re main a slave." If the Apostle had intended the consequent clause not to be contrasted with the conditional clause, but to be homogeneous with it (" if thou canst be free, accept thy freedom "), he would have omitted Kai, as in vv. 9 and 15. A contrast is, besides, more in keeping with the whole tenour of the passage. His advice to every man to remain in the call of the Gospel, whatever condition of life obedience to that call may assume, amounts to very little if it is to be applied u_ily when the man is compelled to abide in his present condition. The Apostle's words imply that the Christian slave is more likely than the free man to realize vividly his freedom in the 184 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Lord, and, therefore, that, of the two conditions, his is the preferable. pdXXov xPVcral may mean " accept it in preference to free dom," or "apply thyself to the service so much the more be cause thy master has offered thee freedom." Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 2, dXXd pdXXov BovXevermaav, "let them serve the more faith fully." This accounts the better also for the introduction of the clause, and the other view seems to do some violence to the meaning of ^pdo/uat (cf. 1 Pet. ii. 18, 19). Xpya0at is a vox media, being used with avvrvxia and evTUX'a. The words eKmv ydp ovSels SovXim xPVTa1, {TUY?> (.-Eschyl., Agam. 922) express a sentiment the reverse of what the Apostle teaches ; but they justify the use of xpi) would hardly be used, but eXeov rvyxdveiv. V. 26. His reluctance renders his language redundant and incorrect. Tovto refers to no substantive expressed, but to a thought which he intended to express in the next clause, but does not ; for ovrms also refers to no antecedent. There is also an anacoluthic repetition of toOto KaXov in the form brt KaXov. That on is not " because " (Est., De Wette), intro ducing the reason for virginity ("because it is good to abstain from marriage generally") is evident; for this would be in consistent with the statement that the present distress had led the Apostle to the opinion which he is about to give. dvdyKy has been explained to mean (1) the troubles in separable from marriage (Gi.cum., Aquin., Herv., Calvin) ; (2) our life in the body (Orig.) or the afflictions of life (Grot.) ; (3) the approaching end of the world (Ambrosia st.) or, morej particularly, the distress that would precede the second coming of Christ (Meyer, Maier, Osiand., etc.). The third view is rendered probable, first, by the word a-vvearaXpivos, ver. 29 ; second, by dvdyKy, which sounds like a reminiscence of what the Apostle may have heard from Luke of the discourses in which Christ foretells the great distress of the latter days (cf. Luke xxi. 23-28). Hence ivear&aav will mean "im pending " (as in 2 Thess. ii. 2), not " present " (as in iii. 22). In class. Greek dvdyKy rarely means "distress, calamity." Cf. iEschyl., Prom. III. 108, et al.; Xen., Mem. III. xiii. 2; MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 26-28. 191 Annb. IV. v. 15. But it is common in Hellenistic Greek. Cf. Ps. cxix. 143; Luke xxi. 23, et al. V. 27. SeSeo-at. Cf. note on ver. 18. TvvatKl is dat. of community. Cf. Pom. vii. 2 ; 2 Cor. vi. 15 ; Jelf, Gr. § 590. XeXvaai. Tert. (Ad, Uxor. I. 7) and others explain it of release from a previous marriage by the death Or desertion of the wife. If so, the Apostle dissuades from a second marriage. But it is more probable that Origen is right in considering; XeXvpevos to be equivalent to py SeSepevos. So Phot., Est.,/ De Wette, Meyer. Avm may have been used to intimate a deliverance from the strongest of human impulses. V. 28. For yypys A1 B read yapyags, adopted by Lachm., Treg., Westc. and Hort ; so that we have in this ver. the class. aor. yypy and the later form. Tapem is not used of the woman in class. Greek. The passages in which it occurs, as Eur., Med. 262, are probably spurious. Whether the aor. subjunc tive is a fut. or a fut. perf. depends on the context. Cf. Bernhardy, W.S. p. 382; Goodwin, Greek Moods, etc. p. 26. As the Apostle has already disposed of the case of persons previously married and does not after this give his opinion of such as would in future marry, it is better to regard the aor.' here as a fut., not a fut. perf. The case of virgins is associated with that of others, in order to show that really there is no dif ference between them. If virgins sin in marrying, so does a man ; if it is because of the impending distress that it is well for all to abstain from marriage, it is well for virgins to do so for the same reason. "Hpapres and ypapre are gnomic aorists. Cf. John xv. 6 ; Rom. viii. 29 ; James i. 10, 23 ; 1 Pet. i. 24. Origen, Chrys., Jerome (Adv. Jovin. I. 7), CEcum., and Romanist expositors deny that the Apostle is speaking of virgins dedicated to the Lord's service. But, first, he has already discussed the case of unmarried persons generally (ver. 8), and there is no apparent reason why he should revert to the subject; second, in ver. 34 it is said that " the unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord;" third, there are allusions in other Epistles to vows of abstinence from marriage, as in 1 Tim. v. 12, where "the first faith" seems to refer to the vow to abstain from a second marriage. In his advice to Timothy the Apostle dissuades the younger widows from taking 1 A has yap.-/)o-Q, evidently by an oversight. 192 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. such vows ; and as in our passage he intentionally places all on the same footing, we may infer that he would have equally discouraged vows of virginity. His mentioning the impending distress as a reason for abstinence proves that he cannot have advised virgins to abstain because the married life was morally a superior condition. Origen's remark that the Apostle does not say, " If thou marry, thou doest well," is inconsistent with ver. 38. 0Xi^tv, another of Christ's words in reference to the cir cumstances that would presage His appearance (cf. Matt. xxiv. 9, 21, 29). The Apostle undoubtedly applies it to the same events. Peace, holy joy, serene awe are the befitting preparations for the coming of Christ. ©Xtyts is not a class. word ; but dXlBm (akin to rplBm) occurs. aapKi may be dat. of instrument, and adptj will then mean the lower appetites, their indulgence of which occasioned the tribulation. But it is more natural to consider it dat. of) sphere or reference. 2dp}j will then denote the earthly aspect ! of human nature and life, in an unethical sense, with an implied contrast between it and irvevpa, which is the spiritual side of the regenerate man. So of Christ, Heb. v. 7. Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 11; Gal. ii. 20; iv. 13; Phil. i. 22; Col. i. 24; ii. 1, 5. They have not sinned by marrying, and their mind and conscience have not been defiled (cf. Tit. i. 15). Still they have not " watched " ; their hearts have been overcharged with the cares of this life, and the day of the Lord comes upon them unawares. For the dat. of reference cf. xiv. 20; Matt. xi. 29; 2 Cor. ii. 12. It limits the action to the flesh and so gives a delicate turn to the import of the verb : " they will find afflictions for their flesh." oi toiovtoi, not only the virgins that marry, but all that do not watch for the coming of the Son of Man, who consequently involve themselves in unbefitting cares. eym Be vp&v cpeiSopai, that is, "if you follow my advice, you will be spared afflictions to the flesh." Augustine (De Virgin. 16) explains the words to mean "I will spare you the enumeration of the cares of married life." The emphatic iyrn is decisive against this, as wdII as against the interpretatioa of Cajetan and others : " I grant you indulgence and do not altogether forbid you to marry." MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 28, 29. 193 V. 29. The reading of D, oti before Kaipbs, is not supported by N A B Vulg., though it has the authority of Origen and Tertullian. If we omit oti, tovto must refer to what follows, to emphasize it, as in xv. 50. " Whether you marry or abstain is a question of less importance; but this I do say, Watch." The words that follow are, therefore, not intended to urge celibacy or virginity (Meyer). The objection that, if his pur pose was to exhort Christians to watch, the words " but this I say " would have followed immediately after the words " he has not sinned," is not of much force, inasmuch as the Apostle is now stating a fact, and that a fact which he could not have stated without revelation. Hence he uses cbypi, which is stronger than Xeym, having the force " affirmandi cum suasione." For the Rec. to Xoiirov ian we must read, with NAB, earl to Xoiirov. But the punctuation is more doubtful. On the whole it is better to connect rb Xoiirov with what precedes, not with tva k.t.X. ; for this will account for the participle avvearaXpevos. " In itself the time is not short ; but hence forth it is to be short, because God has shortened it." The distinction sometimes made between Xonrbv, " finally," and to Xoiirov, "henceforth," is not correct. Cf. Phil. iii. 1 ; Eph. vi. 10. It is also doubtful that late writers observe the dis tinction between to Xoiirov, "for the future," and tov Xoiirov, " any time in the future." avvearaXpevos is explained by Valck., Ruck., Olshaus.,. Neand. as meaning that the time is full of tribulation. But, though crijo-TeXXe-v has the metaphorical meaning of " oppres sing," "filling with consternation" (cf. Schweigh., Lex. Polyb. s.v.), this notion is inapplicable to a period of time. Tert., Chrys., Ambrosiast. give it its usual meaning, "shortened." Vulg., breve. But the participle expresses more than /3pa^wr^ (CEcum.). The time has been shortened by a Divine act (cf. Dan. ix. 24; Mark xiii. 20). That is, the length of the time is determined on ethical grounds. Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 12, " hastening the coming of the day of God ; " Barn., Ep. IV. 3 : " For this purpose the Lord has shortened the times and the days, that His beloved may hasten and come to His inherit ance." Hence Kaipbs will mean, primarily, the time that must elapse before Christ comes. So Chrys., De Virgin. 73. Cf. o 194 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Rom. xiii. 11; and, possibly, Rom. xii. 11 (xaipm for Kvpim). iBut to refer it also to the individual life (so Calvin, Cajet., | Estius) is not only a pious application, but also a justifiable 1 explanation. Christ and St. Paul regard the life of the individual and the life of the Church as two aspects of the same conception. Christianity has brought into men's lives an element of responsibility and a sense of individuality aud solitariness. It has made life more intense than it was among the Greeks, whose greatest writers are lacking in moral depth. A Christian has never enough of time. His life on earth is shortened by being linked to the life beyond. The distinction between xP°v°s and Kaipbs is not to be neglected. For it is not shortness of duration, but certainty of consequences when the Judge appears, and the uncertainty of His approach though He is near, that make the Christian sentiment of watchfulness a stronger incentive to well-doing than the heathen contempt and despair of life. Vv. 29, 30. iva depends on cbypl (Beza, Hofmann), not on avvearaXpevos (Meyer). For, though God's purpose in shortening the time is to bring Christians into an attitude of watching, the Apostle mentions those particular forms of watchfulness which might be realized in his own or his readers' experience. He begins with marriage, because the letter of the Corinthians referred to it. From this he passes to the mutually opposite and universal emotions of sorrow and joy, the deep springs of human character; to these he purposely links external aspects of life, buying and using. If we can imagine St. Paul putting together an ethical theory after the manner of a Greek philosopher, we have the pith of it in this verse. Marriage is ranked in the same category with sorrow ¦and joy, while all three are classed with the more external side of man's life on earth. They are in themselves neither morally good nor morally bad, but indifferent; yet forming the raw material out of which men produce their moral good ness or their moral evil. The Stoics would not have joined together the soul's emotions and external conditions. The latter would have been described as a thing indifferent, the former as a defect: 7rdv pev yap ird0os apaprta (Plut., Viri. Mor. 10) ; and, though Cleanthes distinguished between %apa ¦and ySovy, the only joy he permitted was made to consist in MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 29-31. 195 apathy. The Apostle, on the other hand, taught that emotion was not to be eradicated or weakened, but that it ought to be regulated and harmonized. The nearness and uncertainty of the time of Christ's coming is the regulative element in the Christian life. It checks excessive joy, tempers the anguish of sorrow, and determines the right mean in the use of earthly goods. But it also deepens joy and sorrow, and unites both in one joy of sadness, sadness of joy. Pagan life was shallow in the great emotions of the human spirit. No man rejoices, no man sorrows, as the Christian who lives in expectation of Christ. Excess is prevented, not by the diminution of joy or sorrow, but by the harmony of both. V. 31. Karexovres, " possessing," as in 2 Cor. vi. 10. Karaxpmpevoi may mean either (1) " using wrongly," as in Plat., Menex. 247 A, or (2) " using fully," " to the uttermost," as in Clem. Al., Peed. I. p. 142 Potter, irday Karaxpmpevos aocpias pyxavfj. But here the former signification would de stroy the symmetry of this series of antitheses, in which he is contrasting what is right, not with what is in itself wrong, but with what is wrong because the time has been shortened. Cf. Theophyl., ireplrrms XPVa^al- When Christ comes they will neither marry nor give in marriage ; therefore let those who are now married assimilate their present condition as closely as may be to that future state, by caring for the things of the Lord, how they may please the Lord, and being as holy (tha^i is, as consecrated) in soul and spirit as the unmarried Christian is. Again, as to the emotions of sorrow and joy, a philosopher may condemn every the least degree of either, or discover that their danger lies in excess and their goodness in a mean. But the Apostle, judging both in the light of Christ's speedy return, teaches that Christians may weep much and greatly rejoice. But let them regard their sorrows as being also joys, and their joys as being also sorrows. Spiritual greatness of character demands the union of surpassing joy and profoundest sorrow. Watching for the coming of Christ is more than anything else calculated to unite and deepen both. Finally, the sum total of the actions that constitute the business of human society and are designated "the world" consists in buying (or selling), on the one hand, using and ac cumulating, on the other. But it is the desire of accumulating 196 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. and the need of using that confer on all the transactions of the world their reality and worth. Now this sense of reality in worldliness is just what the Apostle wishes to remove. He finds its solvent in the expectation of Christ's speedy return. Christians that watch for their Lord's coming will buy to use, not to possess. But from this arises an opposite danger, that of over-using the world. Watching for Christ's return will deliver them from this temptation also, by making all eager pursuits of the World unreal as the acting of a play, when the curtain falls. Koapov. So «ABD, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. Kbapm must have been a copyist's attempt to improve the grammar. Several examples of accus. after Xprja0ai are given by Palm and Rost. But most of them, even in late Greek, are doubtful or explicable on other grounds The use of the adverbial accus. with xPV(T^a,/ m class, writers (e.g. Thuc. II. 15, d.^ia expmvro) prepared the way for it and for the objective accus. after compounds of xpya0ai in Plutarch, Lucian And other late writers. In Hellenistic Greek the ex amples are few and more or less doubtful ; e.g. in Wisd. vii. 14 Tisch. retains bv oi xPVadpevoi, which some change into KTyadpevoi. In Acts xxvii. 17 C reads /3o77#et'a9 expmvro. Buttmann's suggestion (N. S. p. 157), therefore, that the object of ^p&j/xevot is attracted into the accus. by Karaxpmpevot, which in ix. 18 itself governs the dat., is scarcely necessary. irapdyei . . . tovtov. Recent expositors consider irapdyet to be used for the fut., to denote the nearness of the end. Gf. Buttmann, N. S. p. 177. The older expositors think the refer- 1 ence is to the transitoriness of the world. This seems to me/ correct. The danger of worldliness lies in its fascination. It has the power of making men believe that the present is the only reality and that spiritual things are a dream. In the previous clause the Apostle has taught Christians to regard it as unreal, and now compares the world to the acted scenes of a play. Its fascination is that of the theatre; but its unreal na ture betrays itself in the shifting of the scenes. He appeals to their own observation : "For behold how the scene changes!" Every change proves that the end will come. This is a legiti mate application of the transitoriness of earthly things. It is abused .only if we descend to details and infer from particular MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. £1-33. 197 changes the approach of the end, as is done by Cyprian, Ad Demetr. : " scire debes senuisse j un mundum, non illis viribus stare quibus prius steterat." The Apostle's argument goes only so far as to deny the theory of an eternal series of changes or that "all is mutable save mutability." In the moral as in the natural world movement implies a future crisis. When the Apostle wrote, the state of society was one of intense strain. But the tension, which led heathen moralists to despair of humanity, made the ear of the Christian quick to catch the sound of his coming Lord. The view that irapdyei is synony mous with avvearaXpivos leaves 70^ altogether purposeless. LTapdyeiv is not used in the sense of " passing away " in class. Greek. But to render it by " deceives " (Cajetan, etc.) intro duces a notion foreign to the purport of the passage. " The world " is understood by most expositors in a physical sense, the sum total of the material universe. But it is better to explain it in both clauses of human life on earth, as in 1 John ii. 17. Diisterdieck is not justified in saying that St. John alone speaks of the world in an ethical sense. axypa, "fashion," always denotes an external semblance and, consequently, of itself involves some change. Cf. Theod. on 2 Cor. iii. 18, to Be ax^P-a evBidXvTov xpyp-a. " He shows that every human thing exists in fashion only and glides by us as a shadow and a dream " (Chrys., Hom. 35 in Genes.). The allusion to theatrical spectacles is certain. The word implies their unreal nature. Vv. 32-34. A second reason for abstention from marriage. The first was the near approach of Christ's kingdom ; the second is the need of devotedness to Christ's work ; and the former lends urgency to the latter. V. 32. He has said that he wishes them to be free from care on the eve of the great distress. But this freedom from care consists in caring for the work vof the Lord. A happy paradox. Care has two sides. The one is devotedness ; the other is distraction. He who cares for the things of Christ concentrates his thoughts on one purpose ; he who cares for the things of the world is distracted between the world and Christ. V. 33. Those things by doing which a man pleases the Lord are the Lord's, but those things by doing which a man pleases 198 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. his wife are said to be, not the wife's, but the world's. Acts belong to the heavenly or to the earthly order of things, and that according to the motive of the doer. But two things characterize motives, — sincerity aud depth. Of two equally sincere actions, the one may be a fuller and more adequate exponent of a man's spiritual nature than the other. On this distinction a great part of Christian self-denial rests. V. 34. The reading is very doubtful. But Kal must be inserted before pepipiarat from SABD, and Kal must be inserted before y 71WJ from X A B. Probably, but not certainly, y dyapos ought to be inserted after yvvrj from N A B. So Vulg., innupta. Jerome (Adv. Jovin. I. 13) says that, though the Lat. MSS. omit it, other authorities prove it to be apostolicte verilatis. But Tert. (De Virg. Vel. 4), Chrys., Basil (De Virg. 17) omit it. After irap0evos N A insert dyapos. B omits it ; so Vulg. and all the early Greek and Latin Fathers. The weight of evidence is against it. The meaning of the passage will depend on the question whether kcu pepepiarai is to be connected with what precedes or with what follows. This, again, depends on the insertion or omission of y dyapos after 7vvq. For, if they are omitted, yvvy means a married woman, and cannot, therefore, be the subject of pepipva tu tov Kvpiov. In that case y yvvy and y irap0evos will be subjects of pepepiarai : " And the wife and the virgin differ." So De Wette, Meyer, Osiander, Baur (Theol Jahrb., 1852, p. 18), Maier, Alford. The next verse will then explain how they differ. But the sing. pepepiarat, is an objection to this rendering. Meyer defends it on the ground that the verb precedes the two subjects and that 7UVJ3 and irap0evos together include the female sex as a whole. But the Apostle's purpose is not to regard them as a complex whole, but the reverse. He wishes to state in what they differ, and this makes the rule as to the use of the sing, inapplicable to the passage. Cf. Bernhardy, W. S. p. 416. If, on the other hand, we read y 71/1/)) y ayapios we must join Kal ptejiepiarai with what precedes. I accept, therefore, Lachmann and Tregelles' punc tuation : o Be yapyaas pepipva rd tov Koapov, ir&s dpean Ty yvvaiKi, Kal pepepiaTar Kal y 71'i'r) y dyapos Kal y rrapOevos pepipva rd Toil Kvpiov. " But he who has married careth for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 33-35. 199 and he is distracted ; and the unmarried woman and the virgin cares for the things of the Lord." So Estius, Neander, Hof mann, Westc. and Hort. Mepepiarai will then mean, " is divided in his interests," " is distracted." Cf. Matt. xii. 25, BaaiXeia pepiadeiaa Ka0' iavrys. " The unmarried woman" will mean the virgin, the widow, and the wife whose husband has deserted her. The sing, pepipva is used because the two subjects form one complex notion, Kai meaning "and to particularise." iva y dyla. He does not mean that the unmarried woman is morally purer than the married woman. For, first, he has already said that marriage is not a sin (ver. 28; cf. 1 Pet. iii. 5) ; second, the words are evidently an expansion of " how she may please the Lord," and denote, therefore, consecration to the Lord's service ; third, the indwelling Spirit of God makes the body of every believer a holy temple (cf. iii. 17; 1 Thess. v. 23). Augustine (De Bono Conj. xi. and xii.) gives the correct explanation, that the virgin has greater singleness of purpose in the Lord's service. On the dichotomy of a&pa and irvevpa cf. note on v. 3. On the dat. of reference, ampan, irvevpan, cf. note on ver. 28. V. 35. This question of marriage is, however, to be decided according to its bearing on the spiritual advancement of each. As touching other matters the Apostle lays strict injunctions on the Churches (ver. 10), but this is not one of them. Devotedness to the Lord and spiritual growth coincide. Bpbxov, " noose," a metaphor taken from the chase, not from war. Philo (De Vita Mos. III. p. 691) alludes to the custom of throwing the lasso to catch the enemy. But the Apostle's purpose is to assure the Corinthians that he has no wish to deprive them of liberty to marry. Some expositors think the word means "a snare" (irayis), as if the Apostle meant to say that he has no wish to give them occasion to fall into the sin of incontinence by abstaining from marriage. This is not likely, though the word does sometimes mean " snare " in late Greek. evirdpeSpov. SoNABD. EinpoaeSpov crept into the text because evirdpeSpov occurs nowhere else. Cf. Ignat., Ad Pol. 6, 0)9 ©eov oUovopoi Kal irdpeSpoi Kal viryperat. The meaning is that they also serve who only stand and " wait.' 200 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. direpiairdarms, "without distraction," a frequent expression among the later Stoics, as the opposite of irapepyms. Cf. Epictet. III. 22, " he ought to be without distraction wholly given to the service of God." Theodoret incorrectly explains it by SiyveK&s, " continually," in accordance with the monastic tendency of his time. Hesych., dpepipvms, dcbpovnarms. The remarkable similarity between the passage and Luke's account of Mary and Martha (Luke x. 38-42) has not escaped the notice of expositors. EvirdpeSpov reminds us of irapaKa0iadaa, direptairdarms of irepieairdro, ixepipva of pepipvas Kal TvpBdgy. L-" Vv. 36-38. He has urged abstinence from marriage with a view to what is seemly. But cases may arise in which such abstention appears to the persons concerned to be unseemly and sometimes really is so. In such cases let them marry. V. 36. avrov, the father of the virgin, as is evident from ver. 38, though y irap0evos avrov in the sense of " maiden daughter" is not a very usual expression. In Soph., Old. , Ti/r. 1462, GDJipus speaks of his daughters as irap0evotv epaiv. daxypoveiv may be passive, "that he incurs shame," as in Deut. xxv. 3. So Chrys. (De Virgin. 78), Grot., Knpke, Neander, Hofmann. The active meaning (" to put to shame") is apparently not classical. But it is the better meaning here ; for iirl with accus. will express the direction of the verbal notion. It is a more difficult question in what the unseemli ness of the father's action consists. Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Beza, Estius think the reference is to the disgrace supposed by Jews and Gentiles to attach to the unmarried state ; Meyer, De Wette, Hodge, Kling, to the danger of the maiden being tempted into sin. The words edv y virepaKpos favour the former view. For they mean, not "if she be of full age" (Alford), but "if she have passed her bloom." The class. synon. ot virepaKpos is irapaKpd^m. Cf. Arist., Rhet. III. 10, inrepypepoi r&v ydpmv ai irap0evoi. It is the age which follows the perptos %povo9 aKpys, which, according to Plato, Rep. p. 460, begins at twenty in the case of females. In Sir. xiii. 9 the father is described as losing his sleep with anxiety lest his daughter pass the flower of her age unmarried. On the other hand, oqbeiXei is too strong an expression, unless we can com bine both views. The Apostle probably has in his mind the MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 35-37. 201 father's sentiment and the daughter's danger, arising, perhaps, from its being an enforced abstinence. These will correspond to the two opposite suppositions stated in the next verse, that the father is steadfast and unmoved by the general opinion of the age respecting the unseemliness of being unmarried, and that there is no real necessity for the daughter's marriage arising from peculiar circumstances in the case. iroieiTm, permissive imperat. Cf. note on ver. 2. Tapehm- aav, the virgin and her wooer. Wolf and Neander think the subject is virgins. This is grammatically admissible. Cf. 1 Tim. v. 4, where Chrys. supplies xVPal as subject of pav0avermaav from Tt9 XVPa- V. 37. The opposite case is that of a father refusing to give his daughter in marriage. He earns the praise of welldoing, provided, first, he is steadfast in his resolve ; second, he is free from constraint ; third, he has authority to give effect to his wish; fourth, he obeys the spontaneous promptings of his own heart. First, by " firmness " we are to understand free dom from vacillation. The three words, " stands," " heart," " stable," express the same notion of firmness. For earyKevai is " to stand fast," as in xv. 1 ; KapBla is the inmost spring of purpose, as in Acts Xi. 23 ; and eSpaios contains the meta phor of a house and combines in its signification the special meanings of Te0epeXimpevos and dperaKlvyros (cf. Col. i. 23). This steadfastness of purpose is in contrast to fear of shame. It is the firmness that does not bend to the opinions of the day nor yield to national sentiment at the cost of sacrificing a higher good. Second, freedom from external restraints is in contrast to the words " ought so to be." The Apostle is sup posing that there are no circumstances, such as his daughter's incontinence would be, that make it incumbent on the father to give his daughter in marriage. For dvdyKy of external compulsion cf. Luke xiv. 18. Third, the words igovalav . . . 0eXypaTOs suppose the father to be a freeman, e^ovaiav denot ing civil rights. The change of construction from e^oiv to e'^et and the anacoluthon that arises from the omission of et occur fequently in the New Test., sometimes in class. Greek. Cf. Xen., Oyr. VIII. ii. 24. In reference to a father's authority over his children at this time we must not forget that Corinth was politically a Roman city. Though there was ample time 202 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CO^TNTHIANS. during the hundred years that had elapsed since Julius Cassar had founded the Colonia Julia Corinthus for Greek thought to leaven Corinthian society, the political institutions of the place would still be essentially Roman, even apart from the diffusion of the old Patria Potestas at this time " into every corner of the Empire" (Maine, Ancient Law, p. 114). On the other hand, it would be in such a place as Corinth that the stringency of the Roman law of persons would be relaxed. The veterans and the freed men, who composed the colony, would be the men whom we should expect to find losing their entire authority over the persons of their children or retaining it in a very mitigated form. The military' class had been themselves practically free from the action of the Patria Potestas when they served as legionaries, and a libertinus, who had not become a Roman .citizen, had the same political status as a Latinus, that is, he had no Patria Potestas what ever over his children. Cf. Justinian, Institutes, Sander's Ed. I. v. We may safely infer that there were some besides. slaves in the Corinthian Church, that had not the. i^ovata presup posed by the Apostle. Fourth, it must be the resolve of his own (IB la) heart, free from that undue influence which would mar its moral worth. The whole description belongs to times far different from our own, and, in its present form, is not applicable to men whose life is moulded by freer social sentiments and more complex political ideas. Yet mutatis mutandis the words are true and practically important in every age. If a person wishes to abstain from marriage that he may wholly devote himself to the work of the Lord, he must have these quali fications : steadfastness of purpose, freedom from any moral obligations to marry, freedom from civil restraints, a genuine desire in his inmost heart as opposed to the promptings of another. Whoever abstains from domestic joys and sorrows in order to serve the Lord without distraction, and does not infringe any of these conditions, not only does not sin, but even does well. Cf. ver. 36. tovto is the object of KeKpixev, and rypeiv is explanatory of tovto. Meyer defends tov rypeiv, and it certainly is the more difficult reading. But as S AB omit tou, Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort do right in rejecting it, though Kpivm may MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.— VII. 37-39. 203 take infin. genit., as in Acts xxvii. 1. For the infin. without the art. to explain tovto, cf. Barn., Ep. i. 4, et'9 tovto Kayco dvayKa^opat, dyairav lipids. So Plat., Rep. p. 351, tovto ep70V dStKlas, piaos ipiroteiv. rypeiv moans, not merely " to keep her from marrying " (Alford), nor " to keep her at home in her father's service," but " to keep intact in what he believes to be the best state." Cf. 1 Pet. i. 4 ; Rev. xvi. 15. She is consecrated by her father to the Lord's service. V. 38. After 6 yapii^mv N A read ryv eavrov irap0evov, B D ryv irap0evov eavrov. M A B D Vulg. read Kal 0 prj. But we are not justified in inferring (De Wette, Meyer, Winer, Gr. § LIII. 4) that the Apostle had intended writing koX&s, not Kpeiaaov, in the second clause. For he has already ascribed some superiority to the father who does not give his daughter in marriage, by saying that he did well, while of the father who allowed his daughter to marry he says only that he did not sin. Vv. 39, 40. He has mentioned the case of virgins and that of widows in ver. 34. In vv. 36-38 he states his opinion respecting the former; he now states his opinion respecting the latter. V. 39. N A B D Vulg. omit vbpm. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. Reiche defends it. The word probably crept in from Rom. vii. 2 and is as much out of place here as it is appropriate there. In our passage the Apostle is stating the Christian doctrine, not the Mosaic law. The object of the verse is to check any desire on the part of married women to leave their husbands in order to devote themselves to the work of the Lord, the doctrine afterwards taught by Mon- tanus, 6 o"t§a|fa9 Xvaeis ydpmv. Cf. Eus., H.E. V. 18. The Apostle does not here touch upon the right of the wife to seek divorce for the cause of fornication. Koipy0y, at first simply an easy euphemism for death (cf. Horn., IL ii. 241; Soph., El. 499). It is used in the Old Test. of Rehoboam as well as of Moses and David (cf. Deut. xxxi. 16 ; 1 Kiugs xi. 21 ; 2 Chron. xii. 16, LXX direOave). Christ appropriated it to a higher use (John xi. 11), and it conveys to the Christian mind the doctrine of the resurrection. Cf. Chrys., Hom. 29 in Genes.; Aug., Tract, in Johan. xi. 11. In 204 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Rom. vii. 2, where he discusses the general question, the Apostle uses the more direct expression, " if her husband die ; " here his words will have a practical bearing on some of his readers and he uses the more tender and Christian expression. yapy0yvai, late Greek (Plutarch, etc.) for yape0yvai. The Apostle permits second marriages. He adopts and sanctions the established law. Tertullian (Ad, Uxor. I. 7), in defending the Montanists, who forbade second marriages, not only to bishops, but to all Christians, parries the natural inference to be drawn from the Apostle's words in two ways : First, our life dates from our second birth — a notion borrowed from Tertullian by the author of the treatise "De Vita, Contem plative," who says the Therapeutaa reckoned seniority according to the time of admission into the Society — and the Apostle speaks of a woman whose husband was dead when she became a Christian. Second, even if the Apostle permits second marriages, he tolerates them because of the weakness of the O J flesh ; and as Christ abrogated what Moses had, by reason of men's hardness of heart, permitted, similarly the Paraclete may abrogate what St. Paul has allowed. Cf. De Monog. xi. and xiv. There is an evident allusion to this ver. in Herin. Past., Mand. IV. 4, where, however, the disapproval of second marriages is more pronounced (as it certainly is in ecclesiastical writers generally) than in our passage or in 1 Tim. v. 14. e'v Kvpim. Tert. (C. Marc. V. 7), Cyprian (Test. iii. 62), Jerome (Ep. exxiii. Ad Ageruch. 5), Cor. a Lap., Est., Grot., Bengel, Olshaus., De Wette, Meyer, etc., explain the words to mean that she is not permitted to marry an unbeliever. Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Calvin, Neand., Osiand., etc., think they mean that she must marry in the spirit and with the motives of a 'Christian. Augustine (De Conj. Adult. 25) says he does not remember a passage in the New Test, forbidding, in unambiguous terms, Christians to marry unbelievers. His mother Monica had married a heathen. The words m i0eXei are favourable to the former view, but the latter is more to the point. If a widow marries, let her do so with the same motives with which another remains unmarried. Let their lives be within the sphere of the Lord's work. In Rom. xvi. 2, the phrase "in the Lord" is explained by " worthy of saints." MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. — VII. 39, 40. 205 Cf. Ignat., Ad Pol. 5, iva 6 ydpos rj Kara Kvpiov, Kal prj Kar iiri0vplav. V. 40. MaKapios sometimes means "fortunate" (Acts xxvi. 2), but usually has the higher meaning of "blessed." Here it cannot refer to external prosperity (Erasm., Grot.), for the statement is too general and unqualified; and it must not be restricted to the future blessedness of heaven (Tert., De Cast. 4: "erit"). It denotes the blessedness of entire con secration to the work of the Lord. In 1 Tim. v. 14 very different advice is given the younger widows. But after the Apostolic age the Church regarded second marriages with displeasure. Athenagoras calls them eiirpeirys pioixela, and Origen asserts, somewhat hesitatingly, that they exclude from the kingdom of God (Hom. 17 in Luc). In a.d. 314 the Synod of Neo-Cassarsea forbade a priest to sit at table at a second marriage. Cf. also Apost. Const. VI. 17. Sok&. Some infer from Gal. ii. 9 that Sok& exeiv here means "I certainly have." So Lee, Inspiration, Lect. VI. But ot SoKovvres means "those who have the repute of being pillars." Aok& always implies an opinion, either true or false, either one's own or another's ; and, as we cannot suppose the Apostle means that he had the reputation of having the Spirit, we must render Sok& " I think." This use of Bok& is common in Ionic prose and reappears in later Greek, but the usual phrase in Attic would have been Sok& poi. But it may still be explained in one of two ways. Chrys., Est., Alford, etc., consider it to be a modest way of asserting a claim to Divine inspiration and authority. It is difficult to see that an am bassador gives any proofs of modesty by saying, "I think I have my sovereign's authority." Augustine (Tract, in Johan. XXXVII.), Meyer, De Wette, etc., consider the word to be ironical, — a strong asseveration being couched in terms ex pressing a doubt, as dlpai is often used by Plato " asseverandi vi " (Ast, Lex.). But this is unnatural. The word is quite appropriate. The Apostle has given his opinion. But an opinion is the result of thought. The guidance of the Spirit in the formation of the opinion does not destroy the man's consciousness of mental effort; otherwise the judgment is only a revelation. But this implies that his knowledge also of his own inspiration is, not a revelation, but the result of thought. 206 , THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. His conviction that he has the guidance of the Spirit may be equal in degree in both cases, but it is different in kind. But the words seem to have a further reference than to the Apostle's inspiration as a writer. He presents himself to their notice as an example of a Christian that has been guided aright through the besetting difficulties of life. Since his conversion he has hearkened to the voice of God within. To this secret of prayer and trust he ascribes his victory. On a retrospect of his 'own history he infers, that he has been guided by the Spirit of God. Kaym, " I also " no less than other teachers, no less than all Christians who hear the voice of God and obey it. Hilgen- feld's suggestion that the others were inspired prophets who cried Xvaare robs ydpovs, r/77>«:e yap y BaatXeia t&v ovpav&v, is, therefore, unnecessary. irvevpa ©eov e^etv is not synon. with vovv Xpiarov exeiv (ii. 16). In ii. 12 possession of the Spirit is set forth as the cause of the believer's having the mind of Christ, and in Rom. viii. 9 the indwelling of the Spirit in every believer is explained to mean that every believer has the Spirit of Christ. Hence, in the present passage also, the words do not neces sarily convey the notion of a special revelation or mean that the Apostle, in declaring his judgment as to second marriages, was "borne along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet. i. 21) and impelled to the utterance of what he did not understand (cf. 1 Pet. i. 10, 11). FOURTH DIVISION. EATING MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. (viii. 1-xi. 1). The public and private life of ancient Greece and Rome .was bound up with religion. The hearth-stone was an altar at which worship was paid to departed ancestors, and the city was in idea the family on a large scale, with its own presiding divinity. House and garden would be studded with statues of the gods. Most banquets would be, like Agathon's, sacrificial feasts! Cf. Philo, De Plant. Noe, p. 354 Vol. I. Ed. Mang. ; Tert., De Idol. 9 sqq. From the earliest times, as we know from Homer (II. I. 457 sqq., et al.), it was usual to burn in sacrifice the legs of the animal, enclosed in fat, and the intes tines. The remainder, being thus sanctified, was given back to the worshipper and either eaten by him and his family or sold in the public shambles. The antipathy of Jews and Christians to idolatry would naturally attach itself to all its surroundings, especially to the festive meals at which meat offered to an idol was eaten. It required a very broad and profound conception of the nature of morality to discover or even admit that " not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man" (Matt. xv. 11). The Apostles even had not under stood this truth, though Christ had revealed it, until facts taught it them at the Council of Jerusalem and before. St. Paul was the first of the Apostles to recognise the difference between principle and rule, between moral and ceremonial defilement, between the abiding nature of holiness and the transitoriness of ritual cleansing. But it is not a just repre sentation of what took place at the Council to describe the Apostles as decreeing abstention from meat offered to idols because they still believed that eating such food was forbidden sor 208 THE FIRST EPISTLE .TO THE CORINTHIANS. in the Mosaic law ; for they permit freedom in other matters equally forbidden by Moses. Besides, as Paul assented to the decree, it would be nothing less than a breach of faith on his part afterwards to ignore it. Indeed, it is only in so far as it becomes an occasion to the weak to fall into the sin of fornication that the risen Christ forbids in his letters to the Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira (Rev. ii. 14, 20) the eating of sacrificial meats.1 The views of subsequent times may be briefly indicated. In the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles the orthodox were strict abstainers from sacrificial meats, and eating them was one mark of a heretic. The "Didache" says: a7ro tov elBmXo0vrov Xiav irpbaexe' Xarpeia ydp iart ©e&v veKp&v. Justin Martyr abstained, while the Gnostics took part even in the idol feasts. Cf. Just. M., Dial. c. Tryph. 35; Iren., Adv. Hcer. I. vi. 3 ; Tert., Apol. 9. We cannot suppose that these Fathers were conscious of being in opposition to the Apostle. The explanation is that in times of persecution tasting the wine of the libations or eating meat offered to idols was understood to signify recantation of Christianity. The subsequent history is chiefly of interest because it shows the difference between the Greek and the Latin Churches. For the decree of the first Council of Jerusalem was confirmed at the Council of Gangra (? A.d. 362-370) ; and the second Trullan Council (a.d. 692) forbade the eating of things that had been strangled, but its oecumenical authority was not ac knowledged by the Western Church. The view of the Latin Church is given by Augustine, who considered that the decree of the Council of Jerusalem was only of temporary application, bacause Christ condemned " nullam cibi naturam, quam so- cietas admittit humana, sed quae iniquitas committit peccata " (Contra Faust. XXXII. 13). The Apostle's discussion of the subject may be thus divided : A. A statement of the two opposite Christian conceptions of liberty and love (ch. viii.). B. Their reconciliation exemplified in the Apostle's own conduct (ch. ix.). C. The temptations to sin to which the Corinthian Christians would expose them selves, as the Israelites had done, by taking part in the idol- 1 The reason given in Rev. ii. 14, is noteworthy ; for it has been alleged that the reproach of being a Balaam is directed against St. Paul.- MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — VIII. 1. 203 feasts (x. 1-14). D. Partaking of the idol- feasts inconsistent with coming to the Lord's Supper (x. 15-22). E. A practical summary (x. 23-xi. 1). A. A Statement of the two opposite Christian Conceptions of Liberty and Love. (viii. 1-13.) V. 1. Se, transitional. The Apostle enters on another of the casuistical questions of the Corinthian Church, and intro duces the discussion with 7rept. Cf. vii. 1 ; xii. 1. The repetition of 7rept Se t&v elSmXo0VTmv in ver. 4 shows that a parenthesis intervenes between the beginning of ver. 1 and ver. 4, though, as we shall see, we must seek here the basis of the discussion. But does the parenthesis begin with oti irdvres yv&aiv exopev or with y 7v']0eia the process that leads up to it. But the weight of evidence is in favour of avvyOeia, which is also apparently, though not really, the more difficult reading. For it seems at first strange that the Apostle should speak of Christians associating with an idol. The fact is that he intro duces it as an instance of the formation of a moral conviction by habituation. EOiapm ai dpxal tov yOiKov ytvmaKov- rai. (Andron. Rhod. Paraph: Arist. Eth. Nic. I. 7). Con sequently the opposite conviction can be formed only by habituation; that is to say, it is not every Christian that can entirely free his conscience from the vague dread that behind the idol there lurks a divine power. From a similar source comes the belief in witchcraft among Christians. Missionaries bear witness to the same fact among their converts to this day. Hence the words " until now." It is not mere faith, but faith developed into knowledge that liberates conscience ; and that knowledge must be, not a merely intellectual belief in a doctrine, but the inmost conviction that grows through habi tuation with the truth of God's spirituality and oneness. This is the force of e'v in the previous clause. If avveiB>)aei is read, then tov elBmXov will be objective gen.: " conscious convictions in respect of the idol." So avvelSrjaiv tov ©eov in 1 Pet. ii. 19. ea)9 apn must follow avvyOeia (or o-weiS??a-et) as in N B D Vulg. Hence it is not to be connected with " eat " (Theophyl., fficum., Calvin), but closely with "habituation," which has not yet ceased. The words imply that some at least of the weak brethren belonged to the Gentile portion of the Church. In Rom. xiv. they are Jews. The moral influence of Mosaism was in this matter similar to that of pagan religions. Both enfeebled the conscience. On adverbial phrases attached to substantives in the place of adjectives and the omission of tho article cf. Winer, Gr. § LIV. 6 ; Buttmann, N. S. p. 83. So in xii. 31, KaO iiirepBoXyv bSbv. Examples occur in the classics. Cf. Bernhardy, W. S. p. 338. &s elSmXaOvrov iaOiovat, " meat offered to an idol they eat as such," not as ordinary meat. Hence the supposed defilement. avveiSyats. The word first occurs in a passage of Chrysip- MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — VIII. 7. 221 pus cited by Diog. Laert. VII. 85, irp&rov ydp oheiov irdvn %mm y avaraais Kal y ravrys crvveiSyais, where it means " consciousness." But the passage proves that when the word came to mean " conscience," the avv- expressed, not " knowing together with God," as Bp. Sanderson held after the School men, but " knowing together with oneself"; that is, it signifies that man cannot be conscious of himself without knowing him self as a moral creature. In the language of Stoicism it con veys also the ethical notion of an internal judge. Cf. Epictet., Fragm. 27, dvBpas Be yevopevovs 6 ©ebs irapaSlSmai iy eptpvTm avveiSyaei cpvXaTTeiv, and frequently in Seneca. So in LXX., Eccles. x. 20, but not in the Old Test. In our passage it means the sense of guilt which a Christian has when he thinks he has contracted moral defilement by con tact with an idol. aadevys, " a weak " or, as we might say, " diseased " con science, incapable of forming a sound, healthy judgment. As we speak of weak nerves, the Apostle speaks of a weak conscience. A person who has been taught when a child to believe in ghosts will sometimes be seized with dread if he is alone at night, though his reason has long since convinced him that spectres do not appear. Similarly, though the moral reason of a Christian tells him that the heathen deities which he formerly worshipped do not exist, yet it requires spiritual knowledge of the true God to allay his dread. Cf. 1 Tim. i. 5, where the Apostle joins "a good conscience" with "faith unfeigned." The metaphor is more apparent in da0evys than it would be in daOevoiiaa (ver. 12). poXvverai, "is continually defiled"; that is, the weak Christ ian contracts moral defilement in his own eyes, and that more and more. The New Test, speaks of the conscience itself being defiled or pure (1 Tim. iii. 9), evil (Heb. x. 22) or good (1 Tim. i. 19), because the word still carried with it the idea of self-consciousness. A pure or defiled conscience is a con sciousness of being pure or defiled. But if, in the language of Butler, we assert the sovereign authority of conscience as judge, then we cannot ascribe to conscience either moral good ness or moral depravity. Even " an erring conscience " is a phrase without meaning. Conscience is the judge that pro nounces sentence. But the correctness of the verdict depends 222 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. on the evidence submitted to the reason and the capacity of the intellect to form a judgment upon it ; and the moral value of that judgment arises from considerations extraneous to the conscience. Further, this consciousness of defilement from contact with an idol is produced only in the weak Christian. A heathen does .not consider it to be a defilement ; for the idol is to him the manifestation of God. A strong Christian will not think it a defilement ; for he has no dread of the demons and does not believe they can defile him apart from his own will. Curtius (Grundz. p. 372) connects p.oXvvm with peXas and Lat. malus. V. 8. irapaaryaei. So Nl A B, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. D has iraplaryai, which De Wette and Hofmann prefer, because the first may have crept in from Rom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 14. The meaning is given in Rom. xiv. 10, irapaaryabpe0a rm Byp-an tov ©eov, which again is expounded by Kap-frei irav ybvv. Food will not present us before God as our judge. It is true that conscience is essen tially the power which sets a man in God's presence. But eating and abstaiuing from eating are things indifferent. God condemns neither the one nor the other. If conscience con demns either, it places the man before a phantom tribunal, not before the living God. The Auth. and Rev. Versions render the word by " commend," as if it were synon. with avvlarypi. But this would be applicable only to one limb of the antithesis that follows, irepiaaevopev. The words vorrepovpeOa and irepia- aevopev must, therefore, have a comparative force, and be connected, the former with idv p.y cpdympev, the latter with edv cpdympev: " For neither, if we abstain, are we inferior on that account to him that eats; nor, if we eat, are we on that account superior to him that abstains." The man of over scrupulous conscience often admires the superior knowledge of the strong Christian and, at the same time, condemns the liberty of action which is the direct result of largeness of view; while the strong Christian is conscious of a superiority that often degenerates into pride and contempt of the breth ren. Hence it is that the term " weak " is applied to him who abstains, the term " strong" to him who eats. V. 9. Having stated the principle that eating and absten tion are in themselves indifferent, he proceeds to state the MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — VIII. 7-11. 223 opposite principle, that the strong Christian ought to abstain, if by eating he tempts the weak brother to do what his con science condemns as a sin. Se, adversative. Though food does not affect our relation to God, it may affect our relation to our brethren and so bring us indirectly under the condemnation of God. i^ovaia, "authority." Chrys. observes that a rebuke lies hid in the word. irpoaKoppa. that at which one strikes one's foot. Cf. note on i. 23 ; Rom xiv. 13. rots daOeveaiv. So N A B D, which is decisive against dcrOe- vovaiv. The weakness precedes and occasions the stumbling. Cf. Rom. xiv. 21, where a climax is observable, irpoaKbirrei —a KavBaXt^erai — daOevel. V. 10- That the example of a strong brother may lead a weak brother astray is proved by supposing a case, an extreme one, it is true, but likely to have occurred in Corinth. He supposes a Christian taking part with heathen friends at a sacrificial banquet, and that before the shrine of an idol. In x. 14 he condemns the practice on other grounds. ydp, introducing an instance. elSmXeim, " the place of an idol." Cf. Mace. i. 47. So AarapTeiov, 1 Sam. xxxi. 10. The Apostle shuns the use of the word " temple " or " house " in speaking of dead gods, in the same way as Ovaiaarypiov is used of the altar of the true God, to distinguish it from the heathen /3&>/tto9. Kara/ceipevov, "reclining at table." So also dvaKeiaOai in late Greek, as John xii. 2. A banquet in a public place, but not worthy to be designated a sacrifice in a temple. o'lKoSopyOijaerai, ironical : " built up." The irony is lost if we render it "emboldened" (Tyndale, Auth. and Rev. Ver sions). The word implies a consciousness of superiority in being permitted by one's conscience to sit at a banquet in the place of an idol. Cf. Tert., De Preescript. 3 : " aedificari in rninatn." V. 11, The best attested reading is dirbXXvTai yap 6 'da0ev&v iv ry ay yvmaei, b dSeXcbbs Si hv Xpiarbs direOavev. So X A B D, except that A has ovv, not ydp, D an asyndeton, and that B omits ay. The ver. is, therefore, not part of the question of ver. 10, but the answer to it: "Builded up, did I 224 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. say ? Nay, he is perishing ! " Hence the pres. dirbXXvrai is not intended to express the certainty of a future occurrence, but implies that the weak brother is now, by reason of his guilt, in the act of perishing. eV vy ay yvmaei, not merely " by reason of thy knowledge," but " by attempting to share in thy knowledge," without making it really his own. An antithesis is implied between e'v and ay. 'Eirl would express only the external occasion of his perishing ; iv means " in the midst of, surrounded by, thy knowledge." The knowledge increases the sinfulness of ensnaring the weak. He uses the largeness of his own Christianity to destroy a brother Christian, whereas that large ness of view ought to have enabled him to understand his brother's position and taught him how to save his brother. The words " a brother, for whom Christ died," are a most effective close to the Apostle's remonstrance. They express the idea of love in two of its aspects ; first, as it is based on Christian brotherhood, and second, as it is the manifestation of Christ's death in the Christian's life. The Apostle contrasts the reckless indifference of a brother to a brother and the generous self-sacrifice of Christ for an enemy. Cf. Rom. xv. 3. Another thought, that the strong Christian was undoing the work of Christ, is included, but is not the most prominent idea of the words. V. 12. Be, " yea moreover." Cf. Heb. ii. 6 ; iv. 13 ; xii. 6; Ast, Lex. Plat. p. 421. Kal, not exactly explicative of dpaprdvovres (De Wette), but adding to the notion of sin that of injury. rviTTovTes. Elsewhere in the New Test. Tvirrm is not used metaphorically, as it is occasionally in class. Greek and LXX., as Prov. xxvi. 22. The metaphor of " smiting " conscience is suggested by the word " weak." ryv avvelSyoiv daOevovaav, " their conscience, and that when it is growing weaker." ei'9 Xpto-Tov. Not only their conduct is in direct contrast to that of Christ, but also they sin against Him. How it is a sin against Christ is told us in the word ovrm, which should be closely connected with dpaprdvovres, "thus sinning." For, first, they sin against a brother, who is equally loved by Christ; second, they sin against conscience, emancipated and MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — VIII. 11-13. 225 endowed with sovereign authority by Christ; third, they destroy him for whom Christ died. V. 13. Sibirep, "just for this reason." The irep adds vividness and force to the St' o. Cf. Hartung, Partikell. I. pp. 327-344. The meaning here is that the Apostle is resolved not to offend a brother because he would be sinning against Christ by so doing. On 7rep cf. idvirep ("if as a matter of fact"), Heb. iii. 14. Bp&pa, generally : " if such a thing as food." There are things which the Apostle will not sacrifice; and some of them are in themselves indifferent, provided his action does not wound the conscience of a weak brother but condemns the insidious doctrines of false brethren, He would not, for this reason, consent to circumcise Titus (cf. Gal. ii. 5). ov py. Understand some such word as cpbBos, as in Xen., Mem. II. i. 25, ov cpbBos py ae dydym. The fut. indie, is accounted for by supposing that the origin of the phrase was forgotten and it came to be regarded as a mere strong nega tive. Elmsley (on Eur., Med. 1151) explains it as a question; ov py peveis ; " will you not not-remain ? " But this does not account for the use of ov py with the subjunctive, and the second negative cannot be py. Goodwin (Greek Moods, §§87 and 89, Note 2, Rem. 1) considers this subjunctive to be a relic of the Homeric use of that mood with the force of a weak fut. indie. But, in that case, we should expect ov, without py, to take the subjunctive sometimes; and, as ov py is au emphatic negative, we should expect it to be followed by a strong, not a weak, future. Kpea, " flesh-meat," that food which, as a matter of fact,, caused the weak brother to stumble. The Apostle's sudden. vehemence arises from his mention of Christ ; and the declara tion of his resolve prepares the way for the mention of his own example in the next chapter. B. The Reconciliation of the opposite Christian Conceptions of Liberty and Love. (ix. 1-27). This chapter stands in close connection with the preceding discussion of the law of love as it regulates the action of Christian liberty. The Apostle's conduct is an instance of 226 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. self-denying abstinence from lawful things for the sake of others. The main thought of the chapter is stated in ver. 19, the rest being either an expansion or a proof of this thought iiWts two opposite aspects. First, he proves from the fact of hi? apostleship that he is free. As instances of the application of the Christian conception of liberty, he specifies freedom from restrictions as to food, freedom from obligation to abstain from marriage, and freedom to claim maintenance at the hands of the Churches. Second, he is resolved, notwithstanding this, to forego the exercise of his rights in these things, that he may have more power to gain men through the Gospel, as a runner or a boxer undergoes hardship when he is in training for the race or the ring. V. 1. The impassioned language of viii. 13 continues. This justifies the asyndeton. X A B Vulg. read ovk elpl eXei)0epos; ovk elpl dirbaroXos ; So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. Reiche defends the tex. rec. on the gronnd that the mention of liberty ought to follow the mention of the apostolic office from which it springs. But the liberty here spoken of is the Christian liberty ; only its application is different in the ¦case of an Apostle. Meanwhile he takes advantage of the refer ence to his apostleship to prove by the way that he is an apostle. For a similar short digression cf. xv. 9, 10. The two essential ¦constituents of apostleship were, first, that the Apostle should bear witness to the world of the central fact of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and, second, that he should preach the risen Saviour in the demonstration of Spirit and of power. Paul has seen Jesus after His resurrection and is, conse quently, a witness of the Lord's heavenly life. His ministry also has been effectual in making the Corinthians themselves Christ ians, so that they at least must acknowledge his apostleship. Xpiarov should be omitted, as in K A B. He means that he has seen the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The reference must be to the appearance of Jesus to Saul on the way to Damascus. Ruckert objects that no mention is made of his having seen Jesus. But cf. Acts ix. 17, 27. To have seen Him in the days of II is flesh or in a vision would not have made St. Paul a witness for the resurrection. empaKa. The perf. expresses the abiding result of having seen Jesus in the power of his apostleship. MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — IS. 1-4. 227 ep70v. Cf. Seneca, Ep. 34, "meum opus es." V. 2. dXXot9- They cannot be identified with any degree of certainty with any party in the Church, such as the Petrine party (Rabiger). The word implies that St. Paul's apostleship was denied in many Churches. His vindicating his apostleship in writing to the Corinthians proves that it was questioned in Corinth also. Almost all his epistles lead to the same conclu sion, and show the widespread influence of his antagonists. dXXd ye, only here and Luke xxiv. 21 in the New Test. In both places it. seems to mean "yet at all events." In class. Greek some word comes in between. crcppayls, not only a aypeiov. What they were was a Divine attestation to his apostleship. Cf. Rom. iv. 11. "In the Lord," belongs, not to "apostleship," but to vpieis : "You, as being in the Lord." V. 3. avry is referred by Chrys. to what follows, as if the Apostle were justifying his practice of not depending on the Churches for his maintenance. But no one questioned his right to do so, whereas many denied his apostleship. The word must, therefore, refer to what precedes : " That I have seen Jesus, and that you are my work in the Lord — these are the proof of my apostleship." Avry is not subject (De Wette), but predicate, in gender of subject. For the clause answers the question, " what is the seal of my apostleship ? " Cf. John i. 19 ; xvii. 3. dvaKplvovaiv, a legal term. Cf. Luke xxiii. 14. It means, not merely " questioning it," but "examining into it." V. 4. Christian liberty is not in all cases identical in its manifestations. To an Apostle it means authority to expect maintenance from the Churches for himself and his family. py ov, num non, gives an ironical turn to the question. It expresses surprise. Cf. Xen., Mem. IV. ii. 12, py ov Bvvapai, " Is it, then, come to this, that I cannot," etc. cpayeiv Kal irieiv, that is, to be maintained at the expense of the Churches. Cf. Luke x. 7. Here is no allusion to eating things offered to idols (Olshaus.), or to asceticism (Hofm.), as in Matt. xi. 18. Cf. vv. 7, 9, 11, 14. It was necessary for the Apostle to discuss the question of his claim to receive main tenance from the Churches, partly in consequence of the doubts cast upon his apostleship, partly perhaps because a reaction 228 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. was setting in against the enthusiasm of the earliest Christians of Jerusalem, who considered- nothing their own, and of such men as Barnabas, who sold his land and laid the money at the Apostles' feet, partly on account of the "peculiar difficulties," as Wordsworth observes, " the two Apostles of the Gentiles had to contend with arising from the absence of any regular code of ministerial maintenance for the priests of heathen nations." V. 5. Another form of Christian liberty is the right to enter the married state. uSeXcpyv yvvaiKa, "a sister as wife," that is, a wife who is a Christian. So Tert., Exhort, ad Cast. 8. But in De Monog. 8 he offers the explanation afterwards mentioned by Theod. and accepted by Jerome (Contra Jovin. I. 26), Augustine (De (ty. Monach. 4), QjJcum., Theophyl., Cor. a Lap., Est., that the Apostle is speaking, not of a wife, but of a female attendant who ministered of her substance to the Apostles as rich women had ministered to Christ. Helena, -the companion of Simon Magus, was an instance of the abuse of this very thing. The only argument favourable to this view is the general tradition of the early Church that few of the Apostles were married. Peter only, says Tertullian (ut sup.). Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. p. 535, Potter) adds Philip and Paul, from having misunderstood Acts xxi. 9 ; Phil. iv. 3.1 But yvvaiKa would surely be redundant, if it did not mean " wife." The practice among the clergy of having yvvaiKas avveiaaKTOVS, which prevailed widely in the time of Chrysostom, was forbidden by several Council?. We may infer that the Apostle speaks here of marriage as a thing indifferent no less than as an example of the application of the principle that an Apostle, who journeys from place to place to found Churches, has a right to expect the Churches to maintain him and his family. cos . . . Kyqbas, "as the rest of the Apostles and, to par ticularize, the brothers of the Lord and Cephas." If Cephas is here included among the Apostles, so also are the brothers of the Lord. In Gal. i. 19 James is almost certainly styled an Apostle as well as brother of the Lord, and apparently so, but 1 I cannot account for the statement in the interpolated Ignatian Epistle to the Philadelphians. ch. 4, that all the Apostles, inclnding Paul, were mar ried. It is an interpolation not in the interest of asceticism. Ambrosiaster also (on 2 Cor. xi. 2) speaks to the same effect, but excepts Paul and John. MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — IX. 4-10. 229 not so certainly, in 1 Cor. xv. 7. On Kal in the sense of " to particularize " cf. note on ver. 5. All the Apostles had con fessedly the right ; the Lord's brothers and Cephas exercised it. Oa the difficult question whether the Lord's brothers were sons of Joseph and Mary or sons of Joseph by a former wife | or sons of another Mary, sister to the Lord's mother, cf. Bp. ' Lightfoot's exhaustive note, " Galatiaus," pp. 246 sqq. V. 6. y throws some degree of emotion into the question. ipyd£ea0ai, the usual word for manual labour. Cf. Acts xviii. 3 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8. V. 7. Passing from his claim to maintenance as the equal of the other Apostles, he argues the question on its own merits. He mentions, as every-day illustrations of the principle that the labourer is worthy of his meat, the soldier, the vine dresser, and the shepherd. Such secular vocations are men tioned as are themselves types of the Christian ministry. The first represents the Apostles going forth to wage war with the world; the second represents them, after conquest, planting Churches ; the third represents their pastoral care of the Churches which they have founded. Again, the soldier is a mercenary ; the vine-dresser an owner ; the shepherd a slave. Yet in all alike labour implies reward. tov Kapirbv. So ABCD. The accus. would scarcely be used if the reference were not to the owner of the vineyard. Vv. 8, 9. He will not rest content with illustrations taken Kara dvOpmirov, from human affairs. Cf. Gal. iii. 15 ; note on iii. 1. He will appeal to the Divine law given through Moses. Cf. Deut. xxv. 4. The correct reading is rj Kal 6 vbpos ravra ov Xiyei ; So A B C D. The form of expression intimates that some one has objected that, whatever may be the practice of men, God does not enjoin upon the Churches the duty of maintaining the Apostles : " Or is it indeed true that the law says nothing about these things ? " (pipmaeis. B D read Kypmaeis. So Tisch. It is a various reading in 1 Tim. v. 18 also. $lpos is for acpiypbs, the root being cbiy, as in Lat. fi,go. dXodm is akin to elXvm and Lat. volvo. In the East to this day oxen tread out the corn, and the Arabs do not muzzle them. V. 10. py . . . ©em ; " Is it for the oxen that God cares," that is, when He enjoins the Israelites not to muzzle 230 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. them? "Or does not" God in the law " generally," as also in every particular command, " speak on our accouut ? " The command not to muzzle the ox that treads the corn is given with an ulterior reference to ministers of the Gospel. The proof of this is that the Mosaic Law, as a whole, has a spiritual, Christian meaning underlying the more immediate application of its provisions. The meauing is not that every law has for an ulterior purpose the care and government of rational crea tures, as the words are understood by Cajetan, Wolf, Neander, Alford, and De Wette, who cites an apposite parallel from Philo, De Sacrif. p. 848, ov ydp virep t&v dXoymv 6 vbpos, dXX' virep t&v vovv Kal Xoyov ixbvrmv. Cf. De Somniis I. p. 579, where Philo declares it would be unworthy of God to take thought of a garment; quite in the spirit of Heraclitns' words, 7rdvTn yap yaeByaev "Opypos el py yXXyybpyaev. But this would not prove the right of Apostles to maintenance. Besides, we cannot imagine St. Paul departing so far from the spirit of Christ's teaching, that God cares for the raven and sparrow because they are His creatures, not merely for the sake of man. The Apostle here applies the doctrine of the typical nature of the Mosaic dispensation. Cf. Tert., Contra Marc. V. 7, " et legem allegoricam secundum nos probavit." The allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. iv. is another instance in which the Apostle ascribes to the Law a spiritual meaning. This interpretation explains iravrms, which in a question must mean "a^a_whole," "generally," and cannot be rendered "certainly." Cf. Pfleiderer, Paulin. p. 72. The Epistle of Barnabas differs from our passage only in the forced character of the allegories. The general theory of both writers is one and the same, and the more extreme form which it assumes in that Epistle gives a clue to the true purport of the doctrine in the bands of St. Paul. Cf. Barn., Ep. X. 2, dpa ovv ovk eanv ivroXij ©eov to py Tpmyeiv, Mmvays Be e'v irvevptan iXdXyaev. What this sentence affirms is in accordance with the present passage; what it denies is anti-Pauline. peXet. Cf. Barn., Ep. XI. 1, ^yryampiev Se ei ipeXyaev t£ Kvpim irpocpavep&aai k.t.X., that is, in the Law. 7ap k.t.X., sc. 6 vbpos, " Yes, it was written because of us." Tap is used when the answer is a repetition of a ques tion in the form of an assertion. Cf. 1 Thess. ii. 20. MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.— 15. 10, 11. 231 on, demonstrative, " to show that " (Evans). If it is causal ("because," Revised Version), then the argument is that the Mosaic injunction is proved to have a typical meaning because it is in accordance with natural equity. But, if this were the Apostle's purpose, an appeal to the general principle would be sufficient and render an allegorical use of the law of Moses needless. Again, the on clause is not the subject of iypdcpy (Authorized Version) ; for then we should expect yey pairrai and also be compelled to suppose, with Ruckert, that the subsequent words were taken from a lost apocryphal book. Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Evans rightly understand the words in a spiritual, not in a literal, sense. "Ploughing" denotes the work done by him who breaks the fallow ground to form a Christian community; and "threshing" refers to the work of subsequent teachers. The reading of ABC, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort, is babeiXei iir eXiriSi b aporpi&v apoTpiav Kal b dXo&v iir eXiriSi tov /zeTeyetv. Paraphrase : " Surely it is because of us Apostles that this particular injunction was put in writing, to show that it is right for him who ploughs, that is, first preaches the Gospel in any place, to do so with the prospect of reaping, that is, of receiving maintenance from the Church he has formed, aud for him that threshes, that is, teaches and administers, to do so with the prospect of sharing in that maintenance." V. 11. A sudden, we may almost add humorous, descent from allegory to practical common sense. The irony of the transition is slightly marked by the antithetical balance of the two clauses and the use of peya. " Is it a great matter ? Is there a principle at stake, which render? it incumbent upon us to thrust aside as unworthy of notice the injunction of so great a man. as Moses?" Hence perhaps it is that the name of Moses is introduced in ver. 9. rd irvevpanKa, that is, the things of God. Cf. ii. 14; xii. 1-3; xiv. 1; Rom. xv. 27. iairelpapev. Cf. Luke viii. 11 ; Gal. v. 22. The Apostles sowed the word; believers reaped the graces of the Spirit. Td aapKiKa (in accordance with the synecdochical use of adp% for "body") is synon. with rd /3iojTt/ed (vi. 3), oppos. to Sward t& ©em (2 Cor. x. 4). Cf. Col. iii. 22. depiaopev. So N AB, adopted by Lachm., Treg., Westc. 232 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. and Hort. So Tisch. in 8th edition. Hermann (De Part. dv, II. 7) vindicated the use of ei with the subjunctive in the classics, though in prose its occurrence is extremely rare. Cf. Thuc. VI. 21, ei ^var&aiv, Luke ix. 13. But the fut. indie. is preferable here. It expresses the certain connection be tween the sowing and the claim to reap. V. 12. The usual explanation is that of Chrys.: "If false teachers are permitted to make slaves of you, we have a greater right to do it than they ; yet we have not used that right." The gen. vp&v will then be objective: "power over you." Cf. Matt. x. 1. But (1) "authority over you" is not a natural expression for maintenance ; (2) this interpretation assigns no meaning to perexovatv, "partake of." Canon Evans' suggestion that vp&v is subjective gen. appears to me to be excellent. But I cannot think that i^ovala means no thing more than " license to expect maintenance." " All things are yours," says the Apostle elsewhere. Whatever rights and prerogatives a teacher has, they are simply an embodiment of the rights that belong to the Church. Here, therefore, the Apostle speaks of the claim to maintenance as being one phase of the Church's possession of all things. Community of pro perty had been tried and abandoned. But the principle on which that experiment was based was a truth intact. " Omnia indiscreta sunt apud nos." In an ideal Church that applica tion of the principle may be resuscitated in its integrity. The maintenance of Christian ministers is only a partial application of it in one direction. In ver. 11 the Apostle asks if there is any great principle that forbids his receiving maintenance at the hands of the Church ; in this verse he reminds them of the principle, already stated in iii. 22, which sustains the claim. iyKoirijv. 'EyKoirreiv is properly " to cut up a road to check the advance of an enemy or runner." The oppos. is 6So7roietv and irpoKbirreiv. Cf. Chrys., dvaBoXyv rm Bpbpm roil Xoyov. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 1. V. 13. Another argument, which differs from the previous ones in two things : (1) it is not an argument from analogy, but represents the maintenance of the ministers at the hands of the Churches as being truly an application of a principle acted upon under the Old Test. ; (2) that principle is that their MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — IX. 11-15. 233 maintenance is, not an earthly and secular matter (aapKiKov, ver. 11), but a spiritual offering to God. The Apostle mentions those who performed sacred rites and those who gave attendance at the altar. Ambrosiaster thinks the former are Gentiles, the latter Jews. It is not likely the Apostle would have based an argument on heathen customs. Theophyl., CEcum., Vitringa (Synag. Vet. p. 74), etc., consider the former to be Levites, the latter the priests. Certainly ipyd^eaOai includes more than the act of oblation, and in Num. viii. 12 sqq. it describes the peculiar duties of the Levites. At any rate it comprehends in its range of meaning the preparation of the sacrifices, while irapeSpevovres refers specially to the subsequent act of offering them to God ; that is to say, the former clause is another allusion to founders of Churches, the latter to the men that carried on the work locally. ipyd^eaOai is Hellenistic in the sense of offering worship and performing sacred rites. This usage is a survival of the ordinary meaning of the Ionic pe^eiv. For irpoaeSpevovres ABCD read irapeSpevovres. The meaning is the same. Cf. Heb. vii. 13. Ovaiaaryptm, " with the altar." A portion is consumed by the fire on the altar, a portion by the priest, who shares it with the altar, ©vataarypiov, the altar of Jehovah; /3ft>/xo9, a heathen altar. Philo uses Ba>Pi0'> °f tae a'tar of the Lord. So also Barn., Ep. I. 7. V. 14. As God enjoined under the Law, so also Christ ordained in His Church (cf. Matt. x. 10; Luke x. 7). On e'« cf. Rom. i. 17. So dirotfv, Thuc. I. 2. V. 15. Kexpypai. So K A B 0 D. Copyists are apt to change a perf. into an aor. oiBivi Tovrmv, not "none of these arguments" (Heinrici), but " none of these prerogatives," such as, freedom from re strictions as to food, freedom to marry, and authority to claim maintenance from the Churches. Cf. Phil. iv. 10 sqq. eypa\j/a, epistolary aor. He avows his intention to abide by his resolution henceforth. e'v ipol, "in my case" (cf. Matt. xvii. 12). In xiv. 11 it means "in my judgment." Sometimes it means "in my power." 234 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. KaXbv, " a noble thing." Cf . Soph., Ant. 72, KaXbv pot tovto iroiovay Oaveiv. Theophyl. and Gilcum. wrongly understand Xipm. y to Kai>xypd pov ovSels Kevmaei. A reads ovOets py Kevmaei, H'BD read ovSels Kevmaei, C reads tva Tt9 Kevmaei, which appears in Chrys., Theod., etc., in the subjunctive Kevmay. Reiche adopts the reading of C. This would make the construction easy. Cf. Buttmann, N.S. p. 202. The use of iva with the fut. iudic. in the New Test, is unquestionable. Cf. Gal. ii. 4, KaraSooXmaovaiv (N A B C D), Phil. ii. 11, e'fo- poXoyyaerai (A C D), 1 Pet. iii. 1, KepBrjOyaovrai (NAB C), etc. But the better attested reading is ouSe^9 Kevmaei, a more difficult and, on that ground, preferable reading. So Lachm., Tisch. (8th ed.), Treg., Westc. and Hort. What then is the explanation? Meyer renders y by "or": "it is better for me to die than use my authority in this matter; or at least, if death will not be the consequence, still nobody shall make void my boast." But the pdXXov before the y and the unnatural weakening of the Apostle's asseveration by the introduction of another asseveration intended to modify it are fatal to this forced interpretation. Canon Evans supplies tva in thought after y. But this compels him to understand ovBeis as if it were equivalent to Tt9, and introduce into Hellenistic Greek the class, idiom pdXXov y oi in the sense of "rather than." We are driven to the supposition of an aposiopesis, though we need not suppose an anacoluthon and place a colon after pov. The Apostle started with the intention of saying " than that any one should," etc. But he turns the sentence into a direct denial : " than that — no one shall make void my boast." The boast is that he preaches the gospel without accepting maintenance from the Churches. This he regards as representative of all the other instances of his self-denial. V. 16. This matter of boasting, the loss of which is worse thau death, does not consist merely in preaching the gospel. That is a charge laid upon him, and woe to him if he neglects it. The " necessity " laid upon him is certainly not the need of maintenance (Aug., Surm. in Monte, II. 18; Jonathan Edwards, Notes on the Bible), but the command of Christ and the consequent urgency of obedience. V. 17. Of the various interpretations offered of this diffi- MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — IX. 15-17. 235 cult ver. two only need be here considered. Calvin, Estius, Neander, Wordsworth, Stanley, etc., thus : To prove that woe is to him if he preaches not the gospel, the Apostle makes two suppositions. The one is that he preaches the gospel with readiness of mind, in which case he may expect a reward ; the other is that he preaches the gospel against his will, in which case he would only be a slave in charge, — but this he is not. But in either case, therefore, woe is to him if he neglects -to preach the gospel. For if he neglects to do it with readiness of mind, he forfeits the reward promised to the earnest worker; if he neglects to do it as a duty, then he, as being a slave, is liable to punishment. This interpretation is beset with difficulties. (1) Why, if this view is correct, does the Apostle make these two suppositions ? Was he doubtful whether he preached with a willing or an unwilling mind ? (2) This interpretation implies that Christ rewards only zeal, whereas faithfulness in discharging a duty will secure a reward (cf. iv. 5). (3) The turn sometimes given to this interpretation implies that o'tKovopia conveys the notion of degradation. The steward was often a slave (cf. Luke xii. 42, 43) . But in iv. 1 ; Eph. iii. 2 ; Col. i. 25 ; Tit. i. 7, oUovopia, far from being less honourable than piiaOos, is as much more honourable as trust is superior to mercenary service. Meyer, De Wette, Hofmann, Alford, Hodge, etc., thus : To prove that woe is to him, if he preaches not the gospel, or, better still, that preaching the gospel is no matter of boasting, the Apostle makes two suppositions. The- one is that he takes this honour unto himself (Heb. v. 4), without being called of God. The other is that he preaches, not for the gratification of his own ambition, but in strict obedience to the constrain ing command of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. x. 5). In the former case he will, it is true, expect a reward. But this is not his case. He is but a steward, who can demand no payment, not a mercenary, who claims his wage. To this interpretation the objection at once suggests itself that it seems to assign to eK&v and aKmv meanings which they do not easily bear. But cf. Rom. viii. 20, ovx eKovaa, " not of its own accord"; Horn., II. III. 66, eK&v S' ovk dv ns eXono, " which a man by his own efforts is not likely to obtain"; ^Eschyl., Again 38, e/cdv XrjOopai, "of sot purpose I forget;" and espec. ib. 1613, 236 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. where eKmv KaraKTaveiv explains ToOSe tou cpovov paabevs This view of the passage is the only one that assigns to irpdaam a distinct meaning, that of " engaging in a transac tion," the opposite of which is "being entrusted with a stewardship." If his preaching is a business transaction, he expects to make a profit of some kind or other ; if it is not, then the only explanation that can be offered of his having undertaken such a work is that he is a steward carrying out the injunctions of his Lord. As a preacher of the gospel, therefore, he has no occasion of boasting. His glorying and his reward must be sought in his preaching the gospel without charge. V. 18. Tt'9 . . . o pia06s ; " which reward, then, is the reward that is reserved for me ? " The art. is intended to intimate that he considers his reward to be assured. But the boasting and the reward are not the same thing. The former is the Apostle's own act, the latter a future good to be bestowed upon him. Meyer is surely wrong in supposing the answer to be, "I have no reward." But other expositors are no less in error in supposing the reward to consist in the praise awarded by Christ in the day of judgment to all his faithful servants. This reward he will receive for preaching the gospel. Here he speaks of a peculiar reward which would be bestowed upon him for preaching the gospel without charge. Alford and Evans continue the question to the end of the verse. But the emphasis on eiayyeXi^bpevos and its close proximity to dSdiravov suggest that this clause is really the answer. " Proclaiming the gospel, the free, glad tidings of God, I am resolved that my preaching shall be like the gospel, free." The felicitous and characteristic paradox should be noted. The consciousness of preaching freely a free gospel was the Apostle's pay for declining to be paid. tva, in the sense of a substantival infin. Cf. John viii. 56, yyaXXidaaro iva iSfj, which in class. Greek would have been tc5 t'Setv. Cf. Winer, Gr. § XL1X. 8. dSdiravov, here only in the New Test. The root Bair, a lengthened form of Sa, to give, occurs in Bdirrm, Seiirvov, Seiras. 0r)am, " make the gospel to be without charge." This use of rlOypi with a secondary predicate occurs in class. Greek, MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — IX. 17-19. 237 though seldom in prose (cf. Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 385). The usual word is 77-oiw (cf. note on xii. 18). On the fut. Orjam cf. notes on ver. 15 and iv. 6. Karaxpyaaadai, "make full use." Cf. note on vii. 31. et9. Meyer (on Rom. i. 20) insists that els with the sub stantival infin. always expresses purpose. It expresses result in Heb. xi. 3, perhaps in 2 Cor. viii. 6. Yet, in our passage, that the Apostle refrained from asserting his rights in the sphere of the gospel is probably represented as the motive that prompted him to preach gratuitously. ev toj evayyeXlm may be joined with igovata, without repe tition of ttj. Repetition of the article is dispensed with, (1) before oft recurring phrases, such as e'v rq> Xpicrrm, Kara adpKa, and, no doubt, ev t& evayyeXlm, (2) after substan tives derived from verbs that are construed with the prepo sition used in the phrase, as ryv avveaiv p,ov iv rm pvarypim. But here it is better to join the words with KaraxpyaaaOai. For he could not be thought to refer to any other than his apostolical authority. Joined with the verb the words are another statement of the contrast between the free gospel preached and the exacting spirit of the preacher who demands pay, when it is not voluntarily offered. Vv. 19-22. A detailed enumeration of instances in which he found his reward for preaching the gospel gratuitously in assimilating his ministry to the free character of the gospel. V. 19. e'« only here with iXev&epos, for a7r6 (Rom. vii. 3) or ethical dat. (Rom. vi. 20). It expresses, not exemption from, but deliverance out of, bondage. But iravrmv is masc, like tou9 irXelovas. Origen (Oat.) limits it unduly to freedom from sin. It means the liberty with which Christ hath made us free from bondage to men. But, in the spirit of Christ and the gospel, he used his Christian freedom to make himself, by a voluntary act, every man's slave. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 7 ; Mark x. 44; Rom. xv. 1. T0V9 irXelovas, " the more " ; not " the majority " (Meyer, De Wette) ; not " more than the other Apostles " (Alford) ; but " more than would otherwise be gained." It is virtually equivalent to the Eng. phrase, " the more," where " the ". is a comparative ablative. Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 15. KepSyam. The word both explains p.ia0bs and carries on 238 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the metaphor of the steward. He refuses payment in money that he may make the greater gain in souls. But the gain is that which a faithful steward malces, not for himself, but for his master. Vv. 20-22. In his voluntary subjection to others be re gards them from three distinct points of view — race, religion, conscience. V. 20. Race. To Jews he became a Jew. He does not in this instance add that to the Greeks he became a Greek. This was unnecessary, partly because the old Hellenic pride and exclusiveness had in great measure ceased at this time, partly because the Apostle himself was practically a Greek in sentiment and language. Great as is the moral altitude and equilibrium of St. Paul, it falls short of the perfect, universal character of Jesus Christ, in which we can perceive no effort to be a Jew to the Jews or a Greek to the Greeks, but an entire oneness with both. Religion. The Apostle circumcised Timothy at Lystra, and on that very journey he was carrying to the Churches of Asia the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, which released Gentile Christians from the yoke of circumcision (cf. Acts xvi. 4). Contrast the Apostle's address in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xiii. 14-41) and his address to the Athenians (Acts xvii. 22-31). The clause py mv avrbs virb vbpov must be inserted from XABCD. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. The clause proves that the words " under the law " are not pre cisely synonymous with " Jew." The Apostle was a Jew, but he was not "under the law." It proves also that by "law" the Apostle means the complex of the Mosaic institutions; not the moral law alone, nor the ceremonial law alone, but both re garded as one. He does not distinguish them as if they were two laws. But his conversion had produced so mighty a revo lution in Paul that he who was previously a Hebrew of the Hebrews and a Pharisee had to assume deliberately a new mode of religious thought and feeling in order to put himself in sympathy with the Judaists in the Church. V. 21 dvopos, not merely " one not under the law," but " an outlaw." The word describes the Gentiles from a Jewish point of view. As dvopos is more than p,y vbpov e^wv (Rom. MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — IX. 19-22. 239 ii. 14), so also evvopos is more than virb vbpov. Not that the Apostle uses the word in the ethical meaning which it has in the classics, "just" (cf. Plat., Rep. p. 302), but that the differ ence between Jew and Christian is that the former lives under the law, which speaks from without and from above, the latter in the law, because that law is itself love. py mv, "not regarding myself as being," etc. These clauses contain the reason why he made himself all things to all men. He is without law to those who are without law, because he is in the law of Christ and, therefore, not without law in respect to God, the ultimate lawgiver and judge. For ©em and Xpiarm we must read ©eov and Xpiarov, as in A B C D. They are gen. of possession, as in KXyrol 'Iyaov Xpiarov. KepSavm. So ABC, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. V. 22. Conscience. The Apostle reverts to the special point in which he made himself an example to the Corinthians (cf. viii. 10). This, together with the fact that da0evijs elsewhere, always means weak Christians, is decisive against Alford's view that the Apostle here speaks of unbelievers. Cf. x. 32, where he mentions Jews, Greeks, and the Church of God. yeyova, " I became and have ever since continued to be come " all things to all men. This is what the Fathers meant by o'tKovopia and avyKardBaais. An interesting corre spondence passed between Jerome and Augustine as to the import of the Apostle's words. The former held that they justify dispensatory dissimulation. The latter maintained that the Apostle's observing Jewish ceremonies was quite con sistent with the doctrine that these ceremonies have no saving power. They had been instituted by God, whereas the re ligious rites of the Gentiles owed their origin to the instiga tion of demons. As the Apostle did not conceal his belief .that men's salvation is through Christ alone, his occasionally observing ceremonies which he confessed to be to him un meaning, in order to avoid giving offence, was not an act of dissimulation. Jerome was convinced by his friend's arguments. 'iva amam. Peter did it from moral weakness. Cf. Gal. ii. 12. 240 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. irdvrms rtvas, "in every way some"; that is, one man in one way, another in another. His desire was to save all in some way or other, and if he failed of this, yet in all these ways some at least. V. 23. TrdvTa. SoSABCD. Std to eiayyeXiov, not " for the sake of," but " because of the gospel ; " that is, because the nature of the gospel is such that self-denial in its ministers is the only spirit worthy of it. Hence avyKoiv. means more than " partaker of salvation." The word sums up the detailed statement of the previous verses that he assimilated his ministry to the character of his message. He wished to be a sharer with others in the spirit of the gospel. Vv. 24-27. By the two illustrations of runners in a race and boxers, he shows the necessity for special exertion and unusual self-denial in order to win the reward. That reward is not eternal life (which is not a piaObs), but assimilation to the spirit of the gospel. To gain the prize has not been given to all Christians. V. 24. /3pa/3etov (derivation conjectural).1 Vulg. has bra- vium. The Latin Fathers liked to use the Apostle's word for the Christian prize, in preference to d0Xov or prcemium. The allusion is probably to the Isthmian games, though there is nothing in the passage to exclude allusion to the Olympic. ovrm, that is, as athletes do, with full resolve to win, remembering that all do not win. rpexere, imperat. The indie, we have already in irdvres ipex°vaiv. KaTaXdByre, " that ye may ( = so as to) lay hold of," etc. ; synon. with iiriXapBdveaOai of 1 Tim. vi. 12. Cf. Phil. iii. 12. This is better than " to overtake the other runners" (Evans). The word means " to catch at," not " to out-strip." V. 25. The two lessons the Apostle wishes to teach are the difficulty of winning and the unspeakable worth of the . prize. Both illustrations of the runner and the boxer would equally well serve to teach both lessons. As simply matter of style, the Apostle attaches the one lesson to the latter com parison, the other to the former. 1 Is it akin to the Eng. brave, which formerly meant "handsome," like the Welsh word braf t MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — IX. 22-27. 211 irds, "every athlete, whether runner or boxer"; thus pre paring the way for irvKrevm. iyKparebeTai. The hardship is not confined to the actual race, but includes the severe training that prepares for it. pev ovv. The ovv calls attention to a special point, the p.ev is correlative of Se. It is not the pev ovv of argument, as in vi. 4, 7. Cf. Winer, Gr. § LIII. 8. a, Moulton's note. qbOaprbv, at the Isthmian games a wreath of pine leaves. The victor won, it is true, a crown of glory. But the wither ing of the leaves was no less symbolical than their greenness. In every dymviapa es to irapaxpyp>a the glory fades almost as fast as the wreath. The memorable men of Greece are not the Olympic victors. Cf. 1 Pet. v. 4. V. 26. iym toIvvv, " I therefore," that is, because I am running in a race for a special prize ; because a long course of training is needed; and because an imperishable wreath is held before me. Whatever you niay do, this I will do, being dOXyrys dOXov tov peylarov (M. Anton. III. 4). dSqXms, " without steady aim." Cf. 2 Mace. vii. 34. It is, I think, late Greek in this sense. Uncertainty of purpose and vagueness in realizing the nature of the Christian aim is one of the most wide-spread and enervating dangers of the spiritual life. rpexm. Cf. Acts xx. 24. ovk depa Sipmv, that is, "as hitting, not the air, but my antagonist." A lively description of a crKiapaxia, a mere fencing. So Chrys. Cf. Vergil's " ictibus auras verbero." This is more to the purpose than the usual explanation that "hitting the air" means " missing one's man," "hitting wide of the mark." The ovk negatives depa, pi] would have nega tived the Sipmv. Cf. Xen., Mem. III. ix. 4, irapovaav . . . ov Ty Tvxovay. The words dXXd pov to a&pa were in the Apostle's mind. But, instead of connecting them with Sipmv, he uses a stronger expression, virmirid^m, thus adding to the meaning. Aepm, etymologically the same word as " to tear." V. 27. What he has said negatively he now states affirma tively with greater emphasis aud detail. He not only hits, but he bruises, and his antagonist is his own body. Even this is not enough. To the metaphor of boxing is added that of capturing in war and enslaving, to show the abiding effect £ 242 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. of the combat. And all this, lest the umpire, Christ, after investigation made into the victor's strict adherence to the conditions of the contest, should in' the end refuse to acknow ledge his victory or to bestow on him the crown.' This would be the more galling to him, because his work as an Apostle consisted in heralding the contest and summoning others iuto the lists. virmirid£m (from virmiriov, hence "to hit under the eye"), " to bruise." The reading viroirie^m, though adopted by Reiche and Hofmann from Clem. Al., Strom. III. p. 558 Potter (cf. his note), is not the reading of NABC. to a&pa, not because the body is necessarily evil, but because it is the weapon with which the law of sin aud death fights us and, at the same time, the sphere within which the spiritual powers of evil come within our reach to be bruised and destroyed. BovXaymy&. He again changes the metaphor to that of a battle, in order to express the permanence of the result. The Christian victor does not destroy the body, but makes it his slave ; so that it now serves the soul which it sought to slay. Kypv^as. It is difficult to reject the allusion, admitted by Wolf, Osiander, Maier, Meyer, etc., to the heralds whose duty it was not only to proclaim the victor (iElian, Var. Hist. II. 23), but also to summon the runners (Plat., Leg. VIII. p. 833). Yet in Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 5, BpaBeiov . . . Kypv% yevbpevos, the word does not seem to mean more than " preacher of the gospel," notwithstanding the proximity of the metaphor in BpaBeiov. dSoKipos, "rejected by the umpire;" in allusion to the examination of the combatants at the close of the contest, when, if the victor was proved not to have contended in strict accordance with the conditions, he forfeited the crown. The word is derived, not from SoKipd^eiv, but from Bexopai, and always has the passive meaning "rejected." There is no allusion to "assayiug in fire" (Evans). "Castaway," "re jected," are better renderings than "unapproved." The Genevan version has "reproved," that is, of men; and it has been said that the rendering was adopted for doctrinal ¦reasons. MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — IX. 27-X. 1. 243 C. The Temptations to Sin to which the Corinthian Christ ians would expose themselves, as the Israelites had done, by taking part in Idol-feasts. (x. 1-14). This chapter is to be closely connected with ix. 27. In the history of the chosen race we see men becoming dSoKipoi and falling short of the promised inheritance. But the warning is the more pointed inasmuch as the danger of the Corinthians and of the Israelites alike lay in contact with idolatry. The chapter, therefore, is also closely connected with the subject of this division of the Epistle. V. 1. ydp. So N ABCD, Vulg. It introduces an instance of rejection by God. oi 0eXm vpds dyvoeiv. Cf. xii. 1; Rom. i. 13; xi. 25; 2 Cor. i. 8 ; 1 Thess. iv. 13. The words are always used, not by way of rhetorical impressiveness, but to introduce what could not otherwise be known to the reader; such as the Apostle's intention to visit Rome, his afflictions, revelations vouchsafed him concerning the spiritual blessings to be bestowed on Israel, spiritual gifts in the Church, the hope of the resurrection, or, as here, the sacramental character of the cloud aud of the passage through the Red Sea. irarepes. Estius, Meyer, etc., explain it of the national ancestors of the Apostle and other Jews in the Church. The name was so used by the Jews themselves. But Christ gave it an ethical meaning, and significantly added the word "your," implying that the unbelief of that generation was the same as the unbelief of their forefathers. The Apostle also uses the word ethically, but says " our," to intimate that the Church under the Old Testament was the spiritual ancestry of the Church under the New. But he speaks of the Church as a whole, not as in Rom. iv. 16 ; Gal. iii. 29, of individual Christians. Cf. Gal. vi. 16 ; Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 4, o iraryp yp&v 'laK&B- virb. Cf. Exod. xiii. 21 ; Wisd. xix. 7, aKidtpvaa veqbeXy, and Ps. civ. (cv.) 39, Sie7reTao-e vecpeXyv. Though virb is sometimes used with the accus. to denote extension under, without the idea of motion (as in Acts ii. 5 ; cf Thuc. II. 99, virb to LJdyyaiov . . . virb Tm LTayyalm, without differ- 214 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ence of meauing), the act of going under the cloud was pro bably in the Apostle's mind, as it helps the analogy between the baptism of the Israelites and ours. V. 2. ei'9. Moses represented Christ. Cf. Gal. iii. 22. So Basil, De Spir. Sancto, xiv. 3, ms el aKidv Kal tvitov. All other renderings of ei9, such as "under the leadership of," "through" (Aug., Enarr. in Ps. lxxvii.), "having confidence in" (Chrys.; cf. Exod. xiv. 31), are grammatically and exe- getically inadmissible. If Moses was the representative of Christ, the baptism of the Israelites under the cloud and in the sea was not a mere allegory, but a true baptism unto Christ and implied more than the baptism of John. Cf. note on ver. 4. Whether we read iBairr iaavro with B, or eBairriaOyaav with N A C D, the word implies that it was their own voluntary act. Their rebellion was so much the more sinful. Though the aor. mid. is never used in a passive sense, the aor. pass. has sometimes a reflexive meaning. Cf. Jelf, Gr. §§ 364, 5; Buttmann, N. S. p. 46. " Received baptism." " Coinmise- runt se aquis " (Melanch.). The e'v should not be pressed, as if the Israelites immersed themselves in the cloudy vapour, which they did not. It is used, as Hofmann rightly observes, to make the analogy between the baptism of the Israelites, which was not by immersion, and the baptism of Christians, which was, at least as a rule, by immersion, more complete. Mmayv (AD) or Mmvafjv (NBC). In Luke xvi. 29 Mmiiaea or Mmaea occurs. The prominence given to the man Moses in the New Test, is worthy of note, coming as it does after the comparative silence of the Old Test. Scriptures. Cf. John v. 45; ix. 28. We cannot conceive David or Isaiah calling himself a disciple of Moses, who was truly what Spinoza calls him, "a voice in the air." It is one of the symptoms of the decay of a religion that the name of its founder should be thrust into the front. Reverence of the man takes the place of faith in his doctrines. Christianity, on the other hand, would cease to exist, if it were severed from the living person of its founder. The writers of the New Test, mark the contrast between Judaism and Christianity by personifying the former in Moses, as they find the latter in Christ. Cf. John i. 17; Heb. iii. 3. MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — X. 1-4. 245 V. 3. 'irvevpariKov. Theod. Mops., De Wette, etc.,under- stand this to mean that the meat was of supernatural origin. Cf. Ps. Ixxvii. 24 ; Joseph., Antiq. III. i. 6, 0etov Bp&pa. But the notion that the bread, the water, and the rock had an allegorical (Baur), and even sacramental meaning is more to the purpose and must, at least, be added to the other meaning. Cf. Rev. xi. 8. So Chrys., De Lyra, Estius, Bengel, Osian.der, etc. Cf. Aug., ut. sup. -. " eundem potum spiritualem biberunt, non corporalem eundem." On the attributive without the art. cf. note on iv. 19. to airo. omitted in H A, but necessary and emphatic. Calvin aud Heinrici correctly explain it, " the same which we Christians eat and drink " ; not " the same all of them ", which is unimportant, whereas the identity of the sacrament in the wilderness and under the new dispensation is the central truth of the passage. V. 4. trbpa occurs in class. Greek ; but the usual form is Tr&pa. aKoXov0ovays. From the initiatory sacrament of baptism the Apostle passes to the sacrament of sustenance, which follows the Israel of God to the end of their journey. The use of the word aKoXovOovays shows that the Apostle has in his mind the rabbinical tradition that the rock smitten by Moses followed the Israelites through their wanderings. But it does not prove that he believed and gave his sanction to the legend (Alford), nor that he represents the Wc'iter that gushed out of the rock as flowing by the side of the host during their march (Theod. Mops., Calvin, Est jus, etc.). Both suppositions are inconsistent with Num. xxi. 5, 16. On the contrary the Apostle purposely adds, in order to obviate the inference that he believed the legend and to introduce a beautiful allegorical use of it, that the true rock which followed the Israelites was Christ. Now this cannot mean merely that the rock was a type of Christ (Tert., Adv. Jud. 9 ; Theod. Mops., Baur, Neut. Theol. p. 193), which would have required ian, as in Gal. iv. 24. Rather, the Apostle finds in the legend an allegorical expression of the truth that Christ was the constant source of spiritual blessings to all that partook of the sacrament in stituted in the wilderness. So Chrys., Theophyl., Hervseus, Meyer, etc. Philo (Deterius, etc., p. 176), makes a similar 246 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. use of the allegory : irirpav ryv aeppdv Kal dSiaKoirov epcpaivmv troqbtav ©eov, ryv rpoqbbv Kal Ti0yvoKofj.ov Kai Kovporpocpov t^? dcpOdprov Biairys icpiepivmv. According to Philo there was a rock that could not be cleft, which was no other than the Word or Wisdom of God, and only such as desired incorrupt ible or spiritual sustenance were nourished by it. The Apostle declares that the ever-present Wisdom was Jesus Christ. The passage is important as a statement of Christ's pre-exist ence. Cf. note on viii. 6. The point of these four verses is the real, identity of the sacraments under both dispensations. Without this there is not much force in the Apostle's warning. The dispensations differed, as law differs from Gospel, and as the covenant from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, differs from the liberty, wherewith Christ has made us free. But though circumcision, to take an example, or the paschal sacrifice was a symbol of legal bondage, the Mosaic dispensation had also a spiritual side. Cf. note on xiv. 21. It had real sacraments, and not mere types of sacraments. Bp. Bull is surely in error when he says (Harm. Diss. 2, cap. 7, § 5), " that the old covenant laboured under a want of pardoning grace or the remission of sins." The Christian Church existed under the Old Testament. Cf. Heb. iii. 4, 5 ; iv. 2 (they had the Gospel preached to them) ; xi. 26 (the reproach of Christ). The prophets spoke of the sufferings of Christ and were inspired bv Christ's Spirit. Cf. 1 Pet. i. 11, where Xpiarov after irvevpa is subjective gen. : "the Spirit sent by Christ," imply ing Christ's pre-existence and presence. Stephen speaks of the "Church in the wilderness" (Acts vii. 38). l The strange 1 Cf. Mozley, Review of the Baptismal Controversy, p. 108 : " There has been but one fundamental dispensation in the world since its creation, viz. that of the Gospel." He cites Augustine, Ep. 157, § 14: '-Antiquos justos non nisi per eandem (idem liberatos per quam et liberamur nos, fidem scilicet incarna- tionis Christi." Similarly Calvin, Inst IV. xiv. 23 ; Witsius, De (Econ. Fad. Lei, IV. xii., where he refutes with considerable spirit the doctrine of Cocceius that salvation was not revealed under the Old Testament. Cf . Cocceius, Summa, liii. § 7. Dr. Arnold (Fragm. on the Church, p. 78) calls attention to the error that lurks in the summary of the present passage in the English Bible, " The sacraments of the Jews are types of ours." " Here is the error," he says, " of making the outward rites or facts of the Jewish religion subordinate to the outward rites of ours, instead of regarding both as co-ordinate with one another and subordinate to some spiritual reality, of which both alike are but signs." MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — X. 4-6. 247 thing is that the Apostle should find these sacraments in the miracles of the Red Sea and the wilderness. But Christ also said that it was not Moses that had given the bread from heaven (John vi. 32) ; that is, in the sacrament of the manna God was actually giving Christ. These miraculous gifts possessed the two essential characteristics of a sacrament ; for they were the evidence of the Divine authority of the dispen sation which they inaugurated, and also symbols of the con secration of Israel to God's service. It is noteworthy that the Apostle recoguises only two sacraments in the history of the Israelites, and that these correspond to the two sacraments •of baptism and the Lord's Supper. V. 5. ovk iv toIs irXeloaiv, that is, " very few." Cf. Num. xiv. 30. All, in fact, perished, save Caleb and Joshua. eiSoKeiv iv nvi is an Alexandrian construction for the late Greek eiS. nvi. Cf. LXX., 1 Mace. x. 47. KareaTpcbOyaav, cited from LXX., Num. xiv. 16. Cf. Heb. iii. 17. V. 6. Tv7ro9 has two ethical meanings in the New Testa ment; an example (1 Tim. iv. 12), and a type representing a spiritual truth (Rom. v. 14; Heb. ix. 24). Here it is more natural to understand it in the former meaning, but of an example to be avoided. Hence et'9 denotes God's ulterior object in events which also answered more immediate pur poses. iyevyOyaaV. Cf. note on i. 30. It is unnecessary to explain the plur. after ravra by the attraction of the predicate TU7rot. The plur. verb occurs in class. Greek with a neuter subject especially when instances of a general statement are men tioned, as here. Cf. Bernhardy, W.S. p. 418. So avveBatvov, ver. 11, in A. D. yp&v. For the gen. cf. 1 Tim. iv. 12 ; 2 Pet. ii. 6. iiriOvpyrds KaK&v. The Apostle begins with a general expression, to connect the sins of the Israelites with those of the Corinthians and include under one head the various sins afterwards enumerated. . KaKeivot, " even those men," who had enjoyed such privi leges. Vv. 7-10. The moral ground of all forms of sin is desire of evil things. This leads to the sin of idolatry, idolatry to Desire of evil assumes the form 248 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. fornication, fornication to tempting God, and tempting God to murmuring against Him. Thus : — iof worship = idolatry ; leading to ot lust = fornication; leading to of doubt = proving God; 2. Of unbelief • leading to of despair = murmuring. V. 7. The Israelites were guilty of idolatry when they worshipped the calf in Horeb (cf. Exod. xxxii. 6). The form of their idolatrous worship is mentioned to bring home forcibly to the minds of the Corinthians the similarity between the dangerous practices in which they indulged and those which had proved fatal to the Israelites. V. 8. Idolatry led to fornication. Cf. Wisd. xiv. 12, dpxh ydp iropvelas iirlvoia elS&Xmv. The Israelites had been guilty of fornication with the daughters of Moab at an idol-feast (cf. Num. xxv. 1-6). At Corinth the fashionable cult was worship of Aphrodite, whose priestesses were harlots. But it is not merely the associations of idolatry, but idolatry itself also, that leads to sins of impurity. Chastity and holiness of mind and heart are produced by a realization of the spiritual nature of God. eireaav. So K A B C D. A few instances of the 1 aor. in class. Greek are thought to be genuine. Cf. Veitch, Greek Verbs, s.v. irlirrm. But it frequently occurs in LXX. and seems to have been much affected at Alexandria. In the New Test, it is found oftener in A than in any other MS. Hiinm is often used as passive of ySdXXw. But here it probably im plies that the agent was unseen, the fact alone visible. e'lKoanpeis. In Num. xxv. 9 the number is four and twenty thousand. Hodge and others say both are equally correct as round numbers for a number that was really be tween them. But if the Apostle knew that the number given in the narrative was four and twenty thousand, why did he deliberately alter the "four" into "three?" We must sup pose a lapse of memory (so Neand., De Wette, Meyer), or else say that the Apostle followed a Jewish tradition (so Evans). MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.— X. 7-10. 249 Some expositors have changed the "three" into "four," to save their theory of inspiration. So Musculus. V. 9. Fornication leads to tempting God. Sensuality is the parent of unbelief, both because it produces a conscious ness of guilt and because it blunts the spiritual discernment. Unbelief at first assumes the form of doubt of God's goodness, especially His faithfuluess to His promises as the God that hears prayer and to His threatenings as the holy and righteous punisher of sin. Such doubts draw men on to presumption. They put God's patience to the test. iKireipd^mpev, "try out and out." Cf. Heb. iii. 9, where eiretpacrav is explained by iSoKlpaaav, unless we read iv BoKtpaala. But even the latter reading throws light on the meaning of the words "tempting God." They put Him to the test when He was putting them to the test. The com pound iKiretpd^m is taken from Ps. Ixxvii. (lxxviii.) 18, and is used because unbelief grows ever stronger, and increases in guilt till it reaches a point, fixed in God's mind, at which the Divine vengeance is no longer restrained. A reads ©eov, NBC Kvpiov, D Xpiarov. The weight of evidence is in favour of Kvpiov. Marcion is said by Epi phanius (Contra Hceres. XLII.) to have altered Kvpiov into Xpiarov that the Apostle might not appear to assert the lordship of Christ. Really either reading tells against him. But Marcion was right in thinking that the reading Kvpiov identifies the Lord Jehovah of the narrative with the historical Jesus Christ. dirmXXvvTo is the reading of K B, A is illegible, C D have diroiXovTo. The imperf. expresses that they perished from time to time. V. 10. Unbelief, foiled in its presumption, changes to despair. Cf. Num. xvi. 41. The murmuring of the Corin thians manifested itself in party-spirit and strife — the pride, boasting, foolishness and bitterness, with which Clement of Rome charges them. 6Xo0pevTov. A D have oXeOpevrov, and in Heb. xi. 28 A D read bXeOpeiimv. The form in e is the more correct, as oXo0pos never occurs, but always oXe0pos. The reference is to Num. xvi. 41. But the words " by the destroyer" are added by the Apostle, in perfect consistency, however, with the narrative. 250 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. It was suggested probably by what is elsewhere said of the destroying angel (cf. Exod. xii. 23). It is evident that an angel of the Lord is meant, not Satan. V. 11. After enumerating the successive steps in the fall of Israel, the Apostle repeats from ver. 6 that these things were a warning to us. TvirUms. So X A B C. D, tvttoi. Swefiaivev. So N B C. A D, -ov. vovOeaia, Hellenistic ; vovOeryais, Attic. KaryvryKev. So N B D. AC, -crev. Cf. note on Kexpypai, ix. 15 ; iOyptopdyrjaa, xv. 32. In late Greek the perf. and the aor. are sometimes used interchangeably. rd reXy, synon. with o-WTeXeta toO aidivo9 (Matt. xiii. 40,' 49), and rb eaxarov t&v xpbvmv (1 Pet. i. 20). But, while Christ speaks of the eud of the ages as future, the Apostles represent it as present or even past. In the Gospels it is connected with His second coming (Matt. xxiv. 3) ; in the Epistles with His death (Heb. ix. 26), when the consumma tion of the world's history was realized. Previously it was described as coming from the future to meet us ; now it is represented as rushing from the past and " overtaking " us. " Men whom the ends of the ages have overtaken " is the appellation of Christians. The Apostle mentions it here partly to warn the Corinthians of the near approach of jddgment, partly also in contrast to rv-rriKms. The temptations of Christ ians are the more perilous, because they do not tread the low plain of earthly rewards and punishments, but belong to the spiritual sphere of the kingdom of God. V. 12. Admonition is intended by the Spirit of God in recording the sins and punishments of the Israelites. ware. Cf. note on vii. 38. eardvai, " that he stands in safety." Cf. 2 Cor. i. 24. To maintain the antithesis, 77-6077 must mean " lest he fall from a position of safety and be a castaway." Cf. Rom. xi. 11 ; xiv. 4. The words are an allusion to KarearprnQyaav, ver. 5. Chrys., Estius, De Wette, Meyer, etc., explain them of falling into sin and standing in righteousness. Cf. Fritzsche on Roin. xiv. 4, " iriirreiv peccare, et ar/JKeiv recte facere." But does Scripture represent sin as a fall, except in the metaphor of falling against a stumbling-stone ? Cf. Hos. xiv. 1. MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — X. 10-14. 251 V. 13. e'iXycbev, "has seized," tenuit, like KardXapBdvm. The temptation had not only solicited but seized and overcome them. It was now holding them fast. Cf. Luke ix. 39. dvBpmiTivos, not "originating with men" (Mosh., Olshaus.), but " common to men." Cranmer : " such as foloeth the nature of man." Cf. M. Anton. VIII. 46, dvOpmiriKov avp- irrmpa. Theirs was not an extraordinary temptation, peculiar to them ; for the history of Israel had proved that others had passed through the same temptations, and Caleb and Joshua had overcome. The temptation common to men is the strength of their own lust. But some are tempted to deny Christ by the terrors of martyrdom ; and Christ also had temptations peculiar to Himself. The Corinthians had not been called to resist "unto blood." Hence Se marks an advance in the thought. " Your temptation' is common to man ; moreover, even should extraordinary temptations assail you in the future, . God is faithful." o? k.t.X. God's faithfulness is shown in not permitting temptation to be too intense in degree or too long in duration. o Svvaade, " your strength." No ellipse of an infin. Cf. Soph., Aj. 322, ei Svvaade n, and note on iii. 2. e/c/3acriv, properly " a way out of a defile," " a mountain pass." Cf. Xen., Anab. III. 20. t^v, " that way out," which is suitable to the nature of the temptation. avv, " simultaneously with." So Theophyl., dpa. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 9, eV ireipaapov. It means that God makes both the temptation and the way of escape ; and the way out is not an after-thought. tov Bvvaadai. Meyer rightly observes that " to bear " is not identical with "to escape." Trust in God's faithfulness to provide a way of escape, makes the Christian strong under the temptation until the deliverance is accomplished. Hof mann wrongly considers tov Bvv. gen. of identity. V. 14. He ends the argument from the example of the Israelites with a sharp admonition. All the verses from 1 to ¦ 13 are intended to show the dangers of contact with idolatry. d7ro- gives to cpevym a quasi-local meaning. Cf. Plat., Phaid. p. 65, cpevyei a7ro. tov amparos- The metaphor, that is, of an army caught (e'iXycpev) in a defile and urged to flee 252 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. through the mountain-pass (eKBaais) is kept up. In the spirit of the Apostle's injunction the early Christians stood aloof from the games and festivals of their heathen neighbours, because of their close connection with idolatry. Cf. Tert., De Sped. 4 and 11 ; De Idol. 11. It is not improbable that this abstention of the Christians occasioned the first outbreak of persecution. D. Partaking of the Idol-feasts inconsistent with Partaking of the Lord's Supper. (x. 15-22). ( In this section we again meet with the mystical side of the Apostle's teaching, the pith of which, from this point of view, is that every act of worship is of the nature of a sacrament, inasmuch as it brings the worshipper through outward means into communion with the unseen and spiritual. He who par takes of the idol-feasts as religious rites is in communion with demons. The Israelites of old were brought through their act of sacrifice into " communion of the altar." The Christ ian, when he partakes of the Lord's Supper, is in communion with Christ. But we cannot be in communion at once with demons and with Christ. Shun, therefore, the idol-feasts. } V. 15. o!>9 cppovipois, "as being men of discernment." This is not a retractation of iii. 1 ; and we cannot, in such a connection, attach to the word the slightest tinge of irony, as in iv. 10. Their spiritual insight was dull; but they were not deficient in natural intelligence and worldly wisdom. Cf. ix. 13. Though they had not the spirituality to discover the truth for themselves, they could estimate the worth of a doctrine suggested by another. The new conception of the irvevpariKos caused the word cppbvipos to sink to a much lower level in the New Test, than it had occupied in Plato and Aristotle. Plato defines (ppbvyais as that state of mind in which the soul " departs for the realm of the pure, eternal, immortal and unchangeable" (Pheedo p. 79). According to St. Paul it is the spiritual man that has knowledge ; the cppbvipos has been educated on the lower plane of idiapos, not on the higher plane of iiriarypy. vpeis, emphatic : " Do ye now judge it; I have done so." MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — X. 14-16. 253 Xeym . . . (pypi. " Affirm andi cum suasione qucedam vis inest in cpypl." Ellendt, Lex. Sophoc. "Judge ye what I declare." V. 16. The connecting particle is omitted because tho ver. is explanatory of b cbypl. to iroryptov and tov dprov are accus. of inverse attraction, that is, the antecedent is put in the case of the relat. So in class. Greek, Soph., Trach. 282, rdaS' dairep elaopas xeoPova'l> in LXX., Ps. cxvii. 22, and New Test., Matt. xxi. 42. Hof mann, with his usual ingenuity, suggests that the inverse at traction is here used to denote that it is the act of blessing, not the cup itself, that makes the Kotvmvla. The Apostle mentions the cup first — and in this he is followed by St. Luke — perhaps because the sacrificial feasts of the Greeks were avpirbaia rather than avaa'nia. The cup is mentioned before the bread in the " Didache " also, c. 9. eiXoylas, "the cup over which a blessing is pronounced." It is genit. of necessary relation,- "whore one term implies the other." Jelf, Gr. § 542. 5. ii. a. EiXoyia is the same as eixapiana. Cf. xiv. 16 ; Matt. xxvi. 26 ; Luke xxii. 19. For some centuries the Supper was indifferently called Eulogy and Eucharist. The reference, therefore, is to the cup of blessing at the passover; and, as it is called in Luke xxii. 20 "the cup after supper," it is probably the cup of the Hallel, which was the fourth and last. Still the Apostle does not use the name as a mere technical term (Neander, Hofm.). Christ made the act of thanksgiving a reality, and imparted to it a deeper significance than it could have had from the lips of a pious Jew at the paschal meal. He introduced the new dispensation with an act of thanksgiving for the dispensation that was now about to close. But the thanksgiving became a prayer and a consecration and has continued as such in the Church. |The words " which we bless," " which we break," are em phatic. They express tho sacramental acts by which the recipient is brought into communion with Christ."^ " Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum etiam 4psum tan- quam visibile verbum." Aug., Tract.in Johan. XV. 3. Break ing the bread and blessing the cup, that is, receiving the elements and giving thanks at the Lord's Supper, correspond 254 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. to the sacramental eating of the manna and drinking of the water out of the rqck.j. Hence we may justly understand eiXoyovpev with both the cup and the bread, and understand irlvopev in the former clause to correspond to KX&pev in the latter. We are not told that these are the only possible, nor i that they are essential, sacramental acts. The essential thing I is that the symbolical acts should be done by the recipients themselves, either individually or through their president as representing them. It is this voluntary and spiritual act of the recipient that brings him into communion with Christ in the sacrament. Cf. Justin M., Apol. I. 67, where the Amen of the people is spoken of as being co-ordinate with the thanksgiving of the president. Breaking the bread in Acts ii. 46 is the act of all, in accordance with the command of Christ, Luke xxii. 17. Koivmvla, that is, means of communion. Cf. note on aotbla, i. 30. The Supper was called communicatio before it was called participatio, which appears in the Vulg. It is the com plement of doing it in remembrance of Christ, xi. 24. For Christ is in one sense absent, and in another sense present. Koivmvia means more than participation, as it implies that the whole is received by all ; for this gift has no parts. Cf. Heb. ii. 14. But it includes also, first, that this receiving of Christ is the result of a mystical union with Him ; and, second, that all that are in union with Christ are thereby brought into union with one another. Cf. Chrys., oi yap rm perexeiv pbvov Kal peraXapBdveiv, dXXd to, evovadai Kotvm- vovpev. The meaning of this word and the Apostle's evident purpose in referring to the Lord's Supper in this passage are inconsistent with the Zwinglian theory (fully stated in the Comment, de vera et falsa Rdigione, Opp. III. p. 269), that the sacraments are "only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession," and the Eucharist is " nothing more than a com memoration " or, at best, a mere sign, not the means, of fel lowship in spirit with Christ. Cf. First Helvetic Confession, xxi. This theory destroys the analogy which the Apostle in stitutes between idolaters, who have communion with demons, and Christians, who in the sacraments have communion with Christ. To sustain the Apostle's argument, sign and opera tion must, in some way or other, intelligible or, it may be, MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — X. 16. 255 to us incomprehensible, coincide, or, in the words of the Second Helvetic Confession, in which Bnllinger, under the influence of Calvin, advances beyond the Zwinglian position, " signa et res significatse inter se sacramentalia conjungun- tur," Of course, they must be distinct as well as conjoined, otherwise the analogy breaks down on the other side. Cal vin's theory (Inst. IV. xvii. 10), that believers receive grace through the sacramental act from the glorified humanity of Jesus Christ is, to say the least, in perfect harmony with the general purport of the Apostle's teaching. Meyer's objection (offered also by Schenkel, Herzog' a Real-Enc, s.v. Abend- mahls-streitungen), that Christ could not institute before His death a sacrament of communion with HL glorified humanity, if it has any force against Calvin's view, has just a0 much force against the Lutheran doctrine, which rests on the assumption of the ubiquity of Christ's glorified body. But it has no force. We cannot separate the merits of Christ's death from the fulness of grace bestowed by Him in His state of exaltation. It is through mystical union with the living Christ that the believer receives the blessings purchased through the atoning death. To deny this is to gainsay the central principle of the Pauline theology. Justification, for instance, being a forensic act, is an arbitrary act, if it does not spring from union \ with Christ. ¦ rov aiparos . . . rod amparos, genit. of the things jointly possessed, as in toiovtov yvmparos Koivmvbs, " I hold the same opinion with you." The words mean that the believer's spiritual life is sustained by his continued appro priation of Christ, and that the efficacy of his union with Christ is derived from Christ's death as a paschal sacrifice. The reference is to Christ's words at the institution of the Supper. The figurative expression "to drink My blood and to eat My flesh," used by Christ Himself, proves that there was close affinity between His teaching and the doctrine of this Epistle. It is observable that the blood and body are here spoken of as separated. Cf. xi. 24-28; John vi. 53, 54. The meaning of this cannot be that the bread is a symbol of the incarna tion, the wine of the atonement. For Christ used the words "for you" in giving His disciples the bread and the wine.. 256 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Cf, Heb. x. 10. The shedding of His blood signified that His death was a sacrifice. The view of Erasmus, Zwingli and Baur (Neut. Theol. p. 201), that the Apostle means the Church by Christ's body, and the consciousness of being a member of His Church by the communion of His body, is sufficiently refuted by the co-ordi nation of the body with the blood of Christ (though Zwingli says the blood also means the Church !) and the' undoubted reference to the words used by Christ when He spoke of His body as being given and His blood as being shed. It is in consistent also with the general purpose of the whole passage; which is to prove that, as idolaters are in communion with the object of their worship, so also Christians are in com munion with Christ in the sacrament of bread and wine. KX&pev. The act of breaking the bread, as it is sacramental, is also symbolical, for it represents the sacrificial death of Christ, the communicant's appropriation of Him by faith, and the fellowship of the Church. For this reason the sacramental bread came to be known as td xXdapa. So " Didache," c. 9. Cf. Luke xxii. 17, where the distribution of the cup expresses the same truth as the breaking of the bread. Cf. Ignat., Ad Philad. 4 (longer text), els Kal apros tois iraatv e6pvcj>dy Kal ev irorypiov rois oXois Sievepijdy. That Christ's body was not broken on the cross (John xix. 33, 36) does not render the breaking of the bread less symbolical of His sacrificial death. V. 17. Zwingli (from whom it found its way into the First Helvetic Confession), Estius, Olshausen, Alford, render the clause on . . . eapev thus : " Inasmuch as we the many are one bread, that is, one body." But, if they understand dpros in a sacramental sense, it is a mere tautology to add "one body." If they understand it literally, it is not true that we are one body metaphorically in consequence of having eaten one and the same literal bread. Chrys., Theophyl., De Wette, Meyer, etc., thus : " For there is one bread and there fore we the many are one body." Calvin, Beza, Bengel thus : " Because there is one bread, we, the many, are one body." The causal meaning of on in an antecedent occurs, it is true, though but rarely, in the Apostle's writings.. Cf. xii. 15, 16; Gal. iv. 6. But the asyndeton is awkward. The meaning will be virtually the same if we render 6Vt by " inasmuch as." He MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — X. 17. 257 is proving that the sacramental bread is a means of communion with Christ's body. It is so, inasmuch as the body, that is the Church, is one. We all acknowledge the oneness of the Church, and call it the body of Christ. But the oneness of the Church proves the communion of all Christians with the one glorified body by means of the one sacramental bread, without which communion we, being many, would in no sense be one. The Apostle's object is to prove, not the unity of the Church, but communion with Christ. The former is here introduced to prove the latter. But the argument is expressed tersely : " In asmuch as — one bread, one body ; " that is, inasmuch as the unity of the body rests upon and proves the oneness of the i sacramental bread. Cf. Eph. iv. 4. He adds, however, " we the many," which indeed is necessary to his argument. Apart ifrom communion through the sacramental bread with the body ^of Christ we are many ; in virtue of that communion we, though many, are one. ot iroXXoi, not " the assembled many " (Alford, Evans, etc.), but " we who are many." The art. marks the contrast between our being many in one sense and our being one in another sense. Cf. Rom. v. 15, toO evbs ... ot iroXXoi, xii. 5, ot iroXXoi ... ei/ a&pa. So iEschyl., Again. 1456, 'EXeva pta ras 7roXXa9 k.t.X. We may add two .corollaries. First, since the Apostle is speaking, not of literal, but of sacramental bread, he cannot have had in his mind the notion of bread being one loaf composed of many grains of wheat.1 Second, if the doc trine of transubstantiation were true, the Apostle could not have said " bread " in this verse, but must have said " body." ot . . . perexopiev. Proof of the statement that the unity of the Church is the consequence of the oneness of the sacra mental bread. For we have all the same spiritual life, having all received the same fulness of grace. "Bread" in both clauses means, not literal, but sacramental bread, the means of communion with Christ's body. Merexm nowhere else occurs with e«. The insertion of the preposition is, therefore, prob- 1 I understand the words &o-irep %v tovto K\de-p.a SimKopicKSiiAvov iirdvui tQv Apiav Kal o-vvaxSiv iyivero Iv, oliru o-vvaxBrrru) o-oi/t). eKKXriala in the " Didache," o. 9, to be an allusion to the Apostle's statement and an attempt to interpret it. a 258 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ably intentional. It suggests that the bread, that is, Christ, retains its oneness after all have received of it. We do not share, but we all appropriate this bread. V. !!8. Another analogue, co-ordinate with that of the Lord's Supper, proving that participation in the idol-feasts is idolatry and communion with the unseen. Even under a typical dispensation (Kara adpKa) the material of a sacrificial feast has been laid upon the altar and the meal becomes for that reason a sacrament. The imperat. BXeirere is co-ordinate with Kpivare, ver. 15. KOivmvol rov Ovaiaaryplov, not " partakers together with the altar," the priest having one portion and the people another (Alford, etc.), but " partakers in the altar." Again, the idea is not that God receives a part, and the worshipper a part, of the same sacrifice, but that the worshipper, in eating this meat, consisting of a sacrifice, appropriates, with his fellow- worshippers, the altar in its sacredness. His eating is the sacrament that follows the sacrifice and brings into his pos session the blessings secured for him through God's acceptance of his sacrifice. Hence the word " altar," not the word "' sacrifice." On the other hand, he does not say " Christ," ¦but "the altar," because he is not speaking of that side of the Mosaic ritual which is identical in meaning with the Christian ¦sacrament, but refers to the typical and peremonial side of the ¦dispensation. But we Christians are made partakers, as Chrys. remarks, not of the altar merely, but of Christ Himself. Cf. Heb. iii. 14; xiii. 10. V. 19. The Apostle has stated that in the Lord's Supper 'the believer appropriates Christ and in the Jewish sacrificial meal the worshipper appropriates the sacredness of the altar. The application of this truth to the case of the idol-feasts is put vividly in the form of an objection : " Do I then recognise •an analogy between the Lord's Supper or the sacrificial meal of a Jewish worshipper and the heathen feasts ? Is the thing offered in sacrifice to an idol of wood or stone, or is the idol itself, a medium of communion with any real being behind the visible image ? " (cf. viii. 7). The answer is " Yes." A nega tive answer would be inconsistent with the following verse and tyiii. 4. ti ovv obypl, " what then do I mean to affirm ? " MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — X. 17-20. 259 V. 20. dXXd, " nay, but " ; that is, I affirm that, not only the idol has some power, but actually brings the worshipper into communion with demons. Cf. Is. xliv. 11, where by the " fellows " of an idol are meant its worshippers, " who together formed a kind of guild and by partaking of the sacrificial meals are brought into a mystical union with the god whom they worshipped" (Cheyne). Cf. Hos. iv. 17; Rev. ix. 20. The Apostle seems to be citing LXX., Deut. xxxii. 17. Saipoviots. The word occurs in St. Paul's Epistles here and in 1 Tim. iv. 1 only. In both places it means " devil " (cf. Eph. vi. 12). Aaipmv is probably derived from Saletv, " to distribute." Cf. Pott, Wurzelw. I. 127 ; though others derive it from the root St, " shining." Cf. Curtius, Grundz. p. 230. At any rate it is originally synonymous with Oeiov. Cf. Arist., Rhet. II. xxiii. 8, to Saipbvtov oiBev ianv dXX' rj debs rj Oeov epyov, and Xen., Mem. I. i. 1, Katvd Saipbvta. But simul taneously with the meaning of " a divine being " or " a divinely appointed lot," a tendency is observable to use the word in a depreciatory sense. Cf. Eur., Io 1374, rd tov Oeov pev xpyard, roil Si Saipovos ySapea; Plat., Lys., p. 223, mairep Baipoves rives, "like an evil apparition"; Apol. p. 27, ei S' av ol Baiiioves Oe&v iraiSes elai vbOoi rives ; Symp. p. 202, 7rdv to Saipbvtov pera^v ecrrt Oeov re Kal Ovyrov. This meaning became the usual one among the Stoics and, in course of time, so much prevailed over the other that, whereas Socrates was accused of introducing new divinities because he had said on pot Oeibv Tt Kai Baipovtov yiyverai (Plat., Apol. p. 31 C), Augustine, on the other hand, remarks (De Civ. IX. 19) that no pagan even would say to his slave by way of praise, " Das- monem habes." Add to this that a semi-personal signification clings to the word in the classics. Cf. Verrall's note on Eur., Med. 1110. The way was thus prepared among the Greeks themselves for the meaning that attaches to the word in the Jewish angelology, and they would have no difficulty in under standing the Apostle's use of the word in the present passage. The Fathers used the word in the same sense. Cf. Justin M., Apol. I. 5, II. 5 ; both passages, however, containing notions not to be found in St. Paul; Tert., De Sped. 13; Origen, Contra Gels. VIII. 39, where he refuses to give the name of 260 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Baipmv to the Son of God : Kara pev ot$v ypas tovs Xeyovras irdvras Saipovas elvai cbavXovs k. t. X. l In Rom. i. 25 the Apostle says the heathen worshipped the creature, that is, nature. The two representations are not inconsistent. As the worshippers themselves understood it, the heathen cult rested on a deification of nature. But the Apostle says nothing about the demons persuading the heathen to worship them as gods (Waterland, Charge, etc.). Behind the intention of the worshipper lay the preternatural fact that the moral ideas represented by the heathen deities were actually attributes of devils. When we have said this, we have said all. We must not, with some of the Fathers, attempt to identify particular gods with certain demons and say, for instance, that Moloch was Mars and Chemosh Priapus (cf. Atbanas., Oral, ad Greecos ; Theodoret, Ad Ps. cv. ; Jerome, In Osee ix. 11). The Apostle has nothing of this. Neither does he fall into the confusion met with in Tert. (e.g. De Idol. 10), which condemns the speculations of the philosophers as a craft of the priests. In this matter Clem. Alex, and Origen represent much more truly the Apostle's attitude. dXX' on, i.e. dXXd qbypl on. 'AXXa introduces an answer, not only when the answer negatives what is contained in the question, but also when it asserts more than what the question includes. Cf. Heb. iii. 16, "nay but did not all," etc. So here: "Do I affirm that a graven image has any meaning or power? Nay but I affirm more; the demons even, God's antagonists, are the beings that receive the worship offered by the heathen to their gods, and they impress upon their wor shippers their own moral character." Cf. note on viii. 4, oi ©em, not "to a no-God" (Evans), for then we should have had the plur., but " and not to God." The words are borrowed from Deut. xxxii. 17. But the Apostle uses them in order to lay emphasis on the mutually exclusive nature of communion with demons and communion with God through Christ. Koivmvovs t&v Satpovimv, not "partakers together with the demons " (Alford, etc.), but " partakers together with one 1 I believe the word Leva degenerated in the same way. In the Vedas it means " God," in the Zend-Avesta " an evil spirit." The gods of one people are the evil, spirits of another. MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — X. 20-22. 261 another in the spiritual influence of the demons." The con trast intended is between receiving holy influences from Christ at the Lord's Supper and unholy influence from demons at the idol-feasts. Fellowship with an object of worship and receiving from him are kindred notions. They represent the two sides of all worship, the acceptance by the divinity of the worshipper's offerings and the bestowal of gifts on the worshipper. Meals were spread for the gods in Babylon, Palestine and Greece. But the truth most pertinent to the Apostle's purpose is that the worshipper receives from the Deity in the very act of making an offering. Worship is always sacramental. V. 21. The meaning of the words " you cannot " must not be toned down to an expression of unbecomingness. To receive the influence of Christ and at the same moment re ceive the influence of demons cannot be. The two things are incompatible because of the moral contrast and antagonism between the demons and Christ. Cf. 2 Cor. vi. 15, 16. . " The cup of the Lord " means the sacrament instituted by the Lord. Cf. xi. 20. " The cup of demons " will then mean the idol- feast ordained by demons. Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1, " doc trines emanating from demons." It is called a " cup " to mark the contrast sharply : " the sacrament of demons." Tpaire£ys. The Lord's Supper got the name of " table " because the early Christians celebrated it in connection with the family meal. Cf. Acts ii. 46, and Pliny's Letter : " Morem sibi [Christianis] . . . coeundi ad capiendum cibum, pro- miscunm tamen et innoxium." Heathenism turned religious rites into convivial feasts, and Christianity has made a house hold meal a sacrament. But the Apostle here borrows the name from Malachi, who designates the altar of burnt-offering " the table of the Lord," meaning that God's altar is also God's table, that is, that God partakes of the sacrifice in' common with the worshipper. Similarly, says the Apostle, the Supper, instituted by Christ when He was here on earth, was then and is now a table at which the believer is brought into real communion with Christ. But the table is an altar, inas much as the communion rests on Christ's atoning sacrifice (cf. Heb. xiii. 10). V. 22. irapagnXovpev, in allusion to Deut. xxxii. 21. 262 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Buttmann (N. S. p. 181) says this pres. indie, is equivalent to the deliberative subjunctive. Cf. Matt. xi. 3, " are we to look for another ? " John xi. 47, " what are we to do ? " The usage occurs occasionally in the classics (cf. Bernhardy, W.S. p. 396). But here it is unnecessary, and the objective meaning is much stronger : " Is it come to this, that we are actually provoking the Lord to jealousy ? " (cf . Winer, Gr. § XLI. 3) . The notion of "jealousy " must not be lost sight of. Though it holds a subordinate place in the New Test, compared with the element of holiness in God's anger, it is here appropriate, inasmuch as the Apostle speaks of the table of demons being prepared in rivalry to the table of the Lord. py . . . iapiv, " we are not stronger than He, are we ?" On py in questions to which a negative answer is expected cf. Xen., Mem. IV. ii. 10. But in what way stronger ? The words contain an allusion to ver. 9. The Israelites, when they tempted the Lord, were destroyed. Are we stronger than He, so as to secure ourselves against His judgments ? Far other wise ; for " many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." Cf. xi. 30. E. A Practical Summary. (x. 23-xi. 1). \.In the preceding section the Apostle has shown the danger of taking part in feasts connected with idolatrous worship. This is his reply to the question of the Corinthian Church from one point of view. All tampering with idolatry is sinful and dangerous. But another point of view is that of the weak Christian, who considers meat once consecrated to an idol to be henceforth defiled, and eating it to be in itself, whether at a sacrificial banquet or at a family meal, invariably sinful and polluting. The reply to the question from this side has already been given in Chap. viii. But the Apostle closes the section with a reiteration in a more practical form of his doctrine of liberty and love.} V. 23. ABCD omit /tot. It crept in from vi. 12. The difference between the expressions in the two verses marks the difference in the purport of each. In vi. 12-20 he opposes the notions of liberty and holiness, here the notions of liberty MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. — X. 22-26. 233 and care for a brother's weal. What the Apostle has said of the Lord's Supper has served to impress on the minds of his readers the greatest manifestation of love ever made to the world. V. 24. K A BCD omit eKaaros- But it is to be mentally supplied. The Apostle's doctrine of holiness involves that we are not our own, but God's, and the practical lesson from it is that we should glorify God. The Apostle's doctrine of lovo in the present passage means that we are not our own, but belong to the brethren, and the practical exhortation from it is that we should seek the welfare of others. tov erepov, " of the other," though it be an opponent. V. 25. paKeXXov, from Lat. macellum, akin to mactare, pdxatpa and pdxopai. The practice was Roman 7rdv, " all," even though it may have been iepbOvTov, as meat sold in the public shambles often, if not always, was. LTmXem is here correctly used of the seller " qui emptorem quserit" (Cobet, Nov. Led. p. 647). Std Tt)v avveiSrjaiv, " because of your conscience." Calvin, Estius, Meyer connect the words with iaOtere : " because your conscience is an enlightened one, eat, without minutely enquiring whether the meat has been offered to an idol or not." So in ver. 28 the words are connected with py iaOlere. We obtain, however, the same meaning if we connect the words, not indeed with dvaKplvovres, but with pySev dvaKplvovres. The reference is to an enlightened conscience : " because your conscience is healthy and strong, abstain from minute en quiries whether the meat has been consecrated to an i4pl." Conscience is a reason for abstaining from enquiry. V. 26. From Ps. xxiii. (xxiv.) 1 . This is a reason why an enlightened conscience will permit a man to eat whatever is sold in the market (cf. Matt. xv. 11 ; Rom. xiv. 14 ; 1 Tim. iv. 4 ; Tit. i. 15). It is only the weak Christian that from fear of pollution eats only herbs (Rom. xiv. 2). irXyp&jia airfjs = irdvra rd irXypovvra avryv (Theophyl.), "the earth's abundance." This is the active meaning of irXyp&pa. Some (e.g. Ellicott on Col. i. 9 ; Schirlitz, Lex.) call it the passive meaning, not so correctly. In to irXyp&pa rod XptoToQ (Eph. i. 23) we have again the active meaning : " that which fills Christ." Cf. Fritzsche's exhaustive note on 264 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Rom. xi. 12. The notion of fulness is here pertinent, because it implies God's blessing on all creation and, consequently, the lawfulness of using all created things that are fit for food. Kvpiov, emphatic, " not the possession of demons, but the Lord's." V. 27. The reference in ver. 25 is to a strong Christian eating at home. The Apostle passes on to the supposed case of the strong Christian eating in another's house and in the presence of other guests. In these circumstances he should have regard to another's conscience, and abstain, if another's conscience is weak. Cf. M. Anton. I. 16, Kal rb tois els eipa- peiav Biov cpepoval n, mv y tu^jj irapexet Ba-ifriXeiav, XPr)aTI/K0V aTVij>ms dpa Kal dirpoqbaalarms, that is, without making excuses for using them. An instance is not wanting in the early Church of a Christian relinquishing the practice of ascetisin lest he should be a stumbling-block to the weak. Cf. Eus., HE. V. 3. V. 28. Tt9, the weak brother. Cf. viii. 7. A Gentile Christian. For elSmXoOvTov (CD) lepbOvrov is read in NAB. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. Reiche and De Wette retain elBrnXbOvrov. Probably lepbOvrov was altered by the copyists into elBmXbOvrov because it seemed to convey an admission that a thing offered to an idol was really sacred. But that is just the reason why the weak brother would have used the word. Origen (Contra Gels. VIII. 21) says that what things he would call irpbs dXrjOeiav elSoi-XbOvra, or, if he might be permitted to say so, SaipovibOvra, Celsus, in his ignorance of what is truly sacred, would call iepbOvra. tov pyvvaavra. The word implies the disclosure of what the speaker has hitherto kept to himself, and now reveals as something of grave import, which he could continue to lock up in his own bosom, were it not that he sees a brother in peril. The words tou . . . airys are omitted in K A B C D. Chrys. has them. They are better away. For the Lord's possession of the earth is no reason for abstaining from certain food. V. 29. eavrov, for aeavrov. Bernhardy (W. S. p. 272) says the usage is frequent in the plur. in class. Greek, but in the sing, begins with Isocrates. Poppo (on Xen., Anab. VII. v. 5) and Kiihner (on Xen., Mem. I. iv. 1 0) are of a contrary opinion. MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.— X. 26-31. 265 In every alleged instance of it in the sing, the reading is more or less doubtful, and in the New Test, the evidence of the oldest MSS. is for the most part against it. Here, how ever, the weight of evidence is decisively in its favour; for, while D reads aeavrov, H A B C have, eavrov. ivarl (=iva yevyrai rl;) . . . avveiSyaems ; These words are sometimes explained as if they contained the reason why the strong Christian should condescend to the weakness of a brother : " why should I give occasion by a needless exercise of iny Christian freedom, to others to condemn me ? " But this is not the meaning of Kptverai. The question expresses th,e reason why the strong Christian should abstain, not be cause of his own conscience, but because of the weak brother's scruples. As far as his own Christian liberty is concerped, he need not abstain ; but he abstains from motives of Christian love. V. 30. N A B C D omit Se. The verse continues the thought of ver. 29. Xapni. Chrys., Theophyl., Grot., Hofm., etc., render it " by God's grace," as in Eph. ii. 5, whether it means the grace that bestows upon us the gifts of nature for our use, or, as Chrys., the grace which enables the strong Christian to eat without defiling bis conscience. But this would be too ob scurely expressed by x"-P'Tl- We must suppose it to be dat. of the manner, like 0ia, bSm, and to mean " with thanksgiv ing." Cf. Plat., Leg. p. 796, e'v x°-Pl/Jt9 yvvatKos. According to Grotius the meaning is that Christ has not redeemed either man or woman exclusively of the other. This is much too narrow. So also is the interpretation of Hofmann and Heydenreich, who consider "in the Lord" to be predicate : " Neither is the woman in the Lord without the man," etc. The Apostle refers, not to personal state (Heinrici), but to Church order. Though the woman is subject to the man, both ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES. — XI. 10-12. 279 are mutually dependent. Marriage and rearing children be comes a Christian and hallowed service to Christ (cf. vii. 14) . The Christian unit of society is the family, not the city, not the empire ; and when these were crushed under the heavy heel of barbarian hordes, the family life of the conquerors, when they became Christians, gave birth to a new civilization. This verse should be a corrective of any false or exaggerated interpreta tion of the Apostle's praise of the unmarried state in chap. vii. The life of the unmarried woman, though it is in one direction more intense, is at the same time less complete, than the life of the married woman. iv Kvpim, " in (the sphere of) the Lord Jesus Christ;" not "Deo jubente" (Beza, Olshaus.). It denotes the Christian order, while e'/e ©eov expresses the natural order. Cf. iv. 15, 17. V. 12. The Apostle has already discovered in the history of man's creation an allegorical intimation of the woman's subjection to the man in the Christian order. In the law by which the race is perpetuated he sees also an allegory of the Christian mutual dependence of both. For whereas the first woman was taken out of the man, the race is perpetuated by birth from the woman ; and in both, the first origin and every subsequent origin, the Apostle acknowledges the hand of God ; so that the dependence of the man on the woman bears the impress of a Divine appointment no less than the subordination of the woman to the man. This inter-depen dence in the order of nature is an allegory in which the mutual co-operation of the man and the woman in the higher order of the Church is typified. (3) Natural Sentiment. (xi. 13-15). Our interpretation of these verses will depend on the mean ing we assign to the word c5ua-t9. Four explanations of it have been offered by different expositors: (1) the custom of civilized nations (Chrys., Calvin, Grotius) ; (2) the physical constitution of things (Osiander, Hofmann, Evans) ; (3) the constitution of man (De Wette) ; (4) the inborn sense of seemliness (Bengel, Meyer, etc.) That the word sometimes 280 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. bears the first of these meanings and is equivalent to rd ev irday X°^Pa Kara raird vopi^bpeva (Xeu., Mem. IV. iv. 19) is certain. Cf. Dem., De Coron. p. 317, ij qbiiais airy tois dypdqbois vbpois Kal rois dvOpmirivots yOeai SimpiKev. In later authors it is used in this signification as the equivalent of the "jus naturale" of Roman Law. The LXX. furnishes no instance; for Wisd. xiii. 1 is certainly not one. The ob jection to this rendering in our passage is that custom rests on sentiment. There is a "nature" anterior to custom. The third rendering is but a modification of the second. But the physical constitution of things cannot teach us anything as to what is seemly or unseemly unless there is a corresponding sense of it in men, and, on the other hand, no sentiment of men would be adduced by the Apostle unless it were grounded on an objective difference in the constitution of things. We must combine all these meanings, more especially the second and the fourth ; so that the word will mean " a sense of what is seemly springing from a real distinction in the constitution of things." Here the constitution of things must mean the physical constitution of man and woman, the qbvais t&v bXmv as it is manifested in the cpvats avToO (cf. Rom. ii. 14). The basis of the physical constitution of man and woman is the distinction of sex. "Nature" includes this and the entire organism that rests upon it, together with all those sentiments to which this physical constitution gives birth. What this " nature " teaches us is that to wear the hair long is to the man a disgrace, to the woman an honour. Of this the Corin thians can judge by their own sense of what is seemly. If they are not irvevpariKoi, so as to understand the meaning of the allegory, at least they are cppbvipoi (x. 15) and can judge the matter by instinctive or unconsciously formed sentiment (eV vpiv airois). The reflexive pron. is not here used for the reciprocal, as it often is iu later Greek. V. 13. tco Qeip irpoaevxeaOai. This is added because it is our appearing before God in the Church assemblies that makes seemliness in the Church more incumbent than seemliuess in our intercourse with the world. The Apostle omits prophesy ing in this verse (cf. ver. 5), because in the religion of natural sentiment there is prayer but no prophesying or preaching. Vv- 14, 15. It was the fashion among the upper classes ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.— XI. 13-16. 283 in Athens to wear the hair long as if it were an honour, and Kopdv came to have the secondary meaning of being proud. The Apostle distinguishes from these conventionalities the teaching of nature, which instructs men and women to cover themselves. This natural modesty is the more intense in the woman than in the man, sothat she is instinctively conscious that even nature's gift of long hair is for a covering. .It is nature's vesture. Hence he uses irepiBoXaiov, " a covering," which, like ireTrXos, means more than KaXv/j.pa, "a veil." dvTt, not " instead of using a veil " (Grimm, Lex.), but "as a covering." So dvTt epKovs (Basil), "for a defence." In prayer to God the veil is worn in addition to the long hair, partly to express the voluntariness of the worship (Chrys., Ambrosiaster), partly to mark the difference between worship and social life. In previous verses the Apostle has spoken of the man's shorn head and the woman's long hair as symbols of subjec tion, in the one case to the man, in the other to Christ. Here he describes the man's long hair as a dishonour and the woman's long hair as her glory. The apparent inconsistency disappears when we call to mind that the man's subjection to Christ is his honour and that the woman's glory consists in being the glory of the man by subjection to him. V. 16. Before finally dismissing the subject the Apostle sharply rebukes the contentiousness that insisted on peculiar ities of dress as a symbol of Christian equality, while the customary dress was itself a symbol, if only rightly under stood, of the equally essential and, in the public assemblies, more prominent truth of Christian order, on the maintenance of which the efficiency and success of the Church depended. Lachm. and Evans are surely mistaken in connecting this verse with what follows. The ovk iiraiv& of ver. 17 corre sponds to the iiraiv& of ver. 2. SoKei, not "seems " nor " thinks he may dare " (Winer, Gr. § LXV. 7, c), but " is minded " (De Wette, Meyer, etc.) The word contains a rebuke. It intimates a contrast between the custom of the Churches and the act of the opinionated in dividual who puts himself forward to contend against them. Cf. iii. 18; vii. 40. qbiXbveiKos, he who fights for victory, not for truth (Estius). 2C2 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Like our "contentious," the word has passed from the mean ing of loving contention to express the habit of creating it. awyOetav. Theod., Grot., Est., Hofm., Alford, etc., thiuk the practice meant is the unveiling of the women in the Church assemblies. Chrys., Calvin. Meyer, Ruckert, De Wette, etc., explain it to mean contentiousness. The objection is that we can scarcely call contentiousness a custom. But, as Meyer observes, this lends point to the rebuke. Some in Corinth had allowed contentiousness to run into a habit. Per haps the word alludes to the national character of the Greeks. " We, Christians, are not partisans and litigious men, as you Greeks are known to be the world over." This interpretation is confirmed by xiv. 33, where the Apostle says that in all the Churches peace, not dissension, prevailed. Moreover, the re ference to himself and fellow-Apostles, as distinguished from the Churches, would surely be out of place, if the Apostle referred to the unveiling of the women in the Church assem blies. In referring to the consent of Churches, not of officers, the Apostle is followed by ecclesiastical writers down to the time of Athanasius. That the Apostle's censure had the desired effect we know. Tertullian (De Virg. Vel. 2 and 3) says that, not only the married women, but also the virgins wore a veil in most of the Churches founded by Apostles or apostolic men. He men tions the Corinthian Church as one of those that obeyed the Apostle's precept. In Apol. 30 he says that men uncovered the head in prayer. Chrysostom tell us that in his time the injunction imposed by the Apostle was universally obeyed. But Basil (Ep. 237) says that the Church of Neo-Caa^area had, contrary to the practice of their former bishop, Gregory, permitted the men to pray with their head covered. Heinrici refers to the sculptures of the Catacombs. The men wear the hair short; the women have a close-fitting head-dress (the riciniurn), or the palla over the shoulders. B. Abuse of the Lord's Supper. (xi. 17-34). V. 17. ABC Vulg. read tovto Se irapayyeXXm oiic iiraiv&v. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Reiche defends the tex. rec, which ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES. — XI. 16-18. 283 is retained in the Rev. Version. Westc. and Hort do not decide. Whichever reading we adopt, tovto cannot well refer to what follows (as Chrys., Theophyl., Grot., Bengel, etc. : "but in the charge I have to give concerning the Lord's Supper I cannot praise you"). For the words irp&rov pev introduce the former of two things, both of which would be included in the pron., which would then be plur. Neither can tovto naturally refer to the injunction that the women should wear a veil in public worship. For the connection between this command and his not praising them because they came together for worse is not apparent. Tovto refers to ver. 16. When he says that neither Apostles nor Churches allowed contentiousness, he gives a virtual command. Ver. 17 means that this command is really a withdrawal of part of the praise bestowed on them in ver. 2. There he praises them for bearing him in remembrance and holding fast the instructions common to all the Churches. Here, on the contrary, he bids them follow his example and the example of the Churches, adding that, in giving this injunction, he withdraws his praise as touching their conduct in the Church assemblies. irapayyeXXm, not " I declare" (Auth. Vers.), but "I com mand," the only meaning in the New Test. oti, "seeing that;" introducing the reason why he cannot do otherwise than withdraw part of his praise. There lurks a danger in contentiousness, which is that when they come together, they receive spiritual hurt instead of edification. Cf. xiv. 4 ; I Thess. v. 11 ; and, on the other side, 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; 1 Tim. vi. 4. V. 18. irpmrov //.e'v. Olshausen, De Wette, Maier, etc., find the corresponding clause in ver. 20. But, first, not ovv, bat S' ovv (as in Isocr., Paneg. 54), would be used in the sense of eiretra Si. Second, the repetition of avvepxopievmv shows that in ver. 20 the Apostle is resuming the train of thought inter rupted by ver. 19. Third, the subject of axlap-ara, mentioned in ver. 18, is left unfinished unless the dissensions that broke out at the Lord's Supper are an instance of them. De Wette's objection that the Apostle does not say that ax'tapara had occurred at the Eucharist is true only as to the word. Rabiger (Krit. Unters. p. 135), Osiander, Meyer, Heinrici, find the Si to correspond to this /tec in xii. 1. Practically it is so. But 284 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. formally it is in to Be Xoiird, ver. 34. The next chapter seems to be an afterthought. Instead of postponing the discussion, as he had intended, till he comes to Corinth, he proceeds to consider one of the " remaining things " in what he says of the spiritual gifts. aKovm, '' I hear again and a?ain" (cf. Luke ix. 9). eKKXyaia.. KABCD omit ry (cf. xiv. 1 9). In no place in the New Test, need the word denote the place of meeting, not even in xiv. 35. Here also it means "in assembly," cum solemniter convtnitis (Erasm.), as in "Didache" 4, e'v iKKXy- aia, igopoXoyrjay. Clem. Alex. (Strom, vii. p. 846 Potter) observes that the word has the two significations. axiap.ara. Cf. i. 10. It is not improbable that the dis sensions at the Lord's Supper had some connection with the parties into which the Church was divided, but what connection we cannot tell. Maier and Rabiger (Krit. Unters. p. 136) conjecture that the rich belonged to the party of Apollos, the cultured Christians from among the heathen. But we may at least gather that some of the poorer members wore forming themselves into a party in the Church against the party of the rich. V. 19. The reason why the Apostle did not find it hard to believe part of what he had heard concerning their dissensions. Aei means the necessity that arises from God's purpose. The notion of a Divine purpose fulfilled through the strife and selfishness of men is as old as the history of Joseph and runs through all Greek poetry and Jewish prophecy. The Apostle declares what one aspect of that purpose is. It is to bring to light the men whom God accepts (cf. Matt, xviii. 7 ; Luke xxiv. 26). Justin M. (Dial. 35) ascribes the words by mistake to Christ. aipeaeis. From the first the word implied the notion of theoretical differences, not mere contentious jealousies; for it meant a sect of philosophers or jurisconsults. So in the New Test, it is used of the " sect" of the Sadducees, etc. ; and the sting of the appellation "sect of the Nazarenes " lies in the claim of Christianity to be, not a theoretical school, but a universal religion founded on the only complete revelation. It is suggestive of a half-Christianized mind that Constantino should call the Church "the Catholic Heresy" (lius., Hist. ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.— XI. 18-20. 285 Eccles. x. 5). In St. Paul's Epistles the word occurs only here and in Gal. v. 20 ; and here it is usually explained to be synon. with o~xlap.aTa, and there with Sixoaraaiai. In 2 Pet. ii. 1 the notion of erroneous doctrine is certain ; it is proved by the words ffrevSoStSdaKaXoi, irapeiad^ovai, and dpvovpevoi. On the whole I cannot see sufficient reason to think that the word ever means anything else in the New Test, than a doctrinal difference. It may not be a sharply defined error. Sharpness of definition was perhaps the con sequence of the rise of Gnosticism, and is itself an example of what the Apostle here says, that underneath the strifes of men there lies a Divine purpose, which thus finds its accomplishment. But a well marked opposition between truth and error in doc trine appears in as early a writer as Ignatius, Ad Trail. 6, aXXorplas Se ftordvys dirixeaOai yns iarlv a'ipeats. The definite ecclesiastical meaning of the word includes more than this ; and it soon became customary to ascribe this definiteness in the use of the word to the writers of the New Test. For instance, Justin M. (ut sup.) considers the errors of Valen- tinian and Basilides to be the fulfilment of the Apostle's prediction. Cf. Orig., Fragm in Ep. ad Tit. A'ipeats will, there fore, denote the intellectual embodiment of the contentious spirit ; and for that reason it is a more effective test of Christian Tightness than any other form that evil principles can assume. ol BoKipoi, that is, accepted of God. All that remains is that they should now be made manifest as such to the Church. The manifestation of an unchristian spirit in erroneous teaching ensures the manifestation of the Christian spirit in a keener insight into truth. Cf. Tert., De Prcescr. 4, "ut fides habendo tentationem habeat etiam probationem." V. 20. avvepxopevmv . . . airo, " when, therefore, you come together to the same place " ; iirl rb airo, local, as in Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 34, eVi to airo avvaxOevres, Barn., Ep. 4, eVt to airo avvepxbpevoi. The rendering "for one object" (Evans) is not so suitable here. The important point is that, though they met as a Church, yet they took their meal separately even in the Church assembly (cf. eV iKKXyalq, ver. 18). oiK . . . cpayeiv. The clause has been understood in three ways : (1) " You assemble not with any intention of eating 2S6 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the Lord's Supper" (Alford). But vv. 29, 30 imply that the Corinthians came together to eat the Supper, but ate it un worthily. (21 "This is not an eating of the Lord's Supper" (Estius, De Wette, Maier). But tovto would then be ex pressed, and this notion is unnecessarily weaker than the third rendering. (3) " It is not possible for you to eat the Lord's Supper" (Meyer, Rev. Vers.). So Cranmer's Bible: "the Lordes supper cannot bee eaten." De Wette objects that the use of e'o-Ti in the sense of "it is possible" requires the accus. of the person to be expressed before the infin. But it is not expressed in Heb. ix. 5, and many instances of its omission occur in the classics. The meaning is that there is some moral defect in them which renders their eating of the Lord's Supper. not an eating of the Lord's Supper, and makes it impossible that it should be. In the next verse he begins to explain what that defect is. KvpiaKov Sei'/rvov. Comparing the words with to irorypiov Kvpiov (x. 21), we infer that the Eucharist is here meant, not the preliminary feast or Agape*, as the Roman Catholic exposi tors say, e.g. Estius, Maldonatus on Matt. xxvi. 26. Chryso stom, Theodoret, and Augustine (Ep. 54 (118), Ad Jan.) restrict the reference to the Eucharist. But unless the Agape was celebrated at the same time or immediately before the Eucha rist, such excesses as are here mentioned could not have oc curred in connection with its celebration. That the Apostle refers to the Agape and the Eucharist is, I think, certain, though the name Agape does not occur before the closing years of the Apostolic age ; e.g. in Jude 12 N B have dyuirais, and A B read d7a7rai9 in 2 Pet. ii. 13. In Ignat. Ad, Smyrn. 8 dydiryv troteiv includes the celebration of the Eucharist; for it is joined to Bairrl^eiv. But in Justin Martyr's account (Apol. I. 67) of the celebration of the Eucharist there is no mention of the love-feast. The combination of the Eucharist and the love-feast may have been occasioned by our Lord's havino- insti tuted the former while eating the passover. It arose also from the earliest manner of celebrating the Eucharist as part of the family meal (cf. Acts ii. 46). Chrysostom ascribes the origin of the Agapae themselves to the attempt of the first Christians to establish community of goods, a trace of this remaining in the love-fe«st. When this custom of eating together and ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.— XI. 20. 237 contributing to a common fund passed from Palestine to the Churches in Hellas, it found a congenial soil. It was the age of clubs and guilds or universitates in all parts of the Empire and among all classes of society. Their main features were a religious basis, a common fund, and a common meal. Through the assimilating power of Christianity the epavot of the Greeks became one of the most beautiful features of the primitive Church. The subsequent separation of-the Agapae arose more especially from two causes, the increasing degeneracy1 of the love-feasts, and the growth of the sacerdotal doctrine of the sacraments. In the Apostolic Constitutions (II. 28) the Agapae are described as a meal given to aged women. They were for mally, though not finally, separated by a decree of the Council of Laodicea (a.d. 364), which forbade the holding of the Agapae in the churches. Though the love-feast and the Lord's Supper were not separated when the Apostle wrote, to state the distinction in idea between them would seem to be his purpose in this passage. This is the special emphasis on the supper being the Lord's. The rich are not the persons that invite, the poor are not their guests. It is a feast given by the Lord to all alike. The words tend to discountenance the union of the love-feast and the supper, and Augustine (cf. the Benedictine "Life," III. xi. 2) was justified in using the pas sage in support of his recommendation "ne honesta quidem et sobria convivia licere in ecclesia. celebrari." He correctly in fers that the Corinthians erred in not distinguishing the love- feast from the sacramental communion of the body and blood of Christ. Sozomen (Hist. Eccles. VII. 19, cited by Heinrici) says they were confounded in the Church of Alexandria. This renders nugatory the question whether the celebration of the Eucharist immediately preceded or followed the love- feast. Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc., say the Eucharist preceded the Agape, in accordance with the Greek custom of pouring a libation before sitting down to meat. But their testimony on this point is of less value because it was in their time universally held that the Eucharist must be taken fasting. Estius aud Cave (Primit. Christian. P. I. Ch. xi.) think the irregularity in the Corinthian Church consisted in their not tarrying one for 1 Cf. Tert., De Jejun. 17, " appendices guise laseivia atque luxuria.'' It is hard to believe that Tertujlian, though now a Montanist, does not speak the truth. '288 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. another to partake of the love-feast together before celebrat ing the Eucharist. V. 21. He proves the moral impossibility of their eating the Lord's Supper from their unworthy behaviour at the love- feast. Not only did they confound the Eucharist aud the Agape, but they converted the love-feast into an occasion for the rich to indulge to excess and make an invidious distinction between themselves and their poorer brethren. to iStov Seiirvov. It was essential to a love-feast, whether Eranos or Agape", that all the members should share it in com mon, rich and poor contributing according to their means, and the larger contributions of tho rich making up for tho defi ciency of the poor. The Christian love-feast was held in tho place of assembly and partook of a religious no Icjs than a social character. As the meal proceeded, it glided naturally, perhaps without a formal break, into a celebration of the Eu charist, in the same way in which our Lord's last passover ended in the institution of a Christian sacrament. When therefore the rich took the meal before and apart from their poorer brethren, the very nature of a love-feast was destroyed and with it an essential feature of the Eucharist as well. What was intended to be a communion became an occasion of discord. irpoXapBdvei, not " takes it at home before he comes to the love-feast," which is inconsistent with ver. 22, but " takes it with indecent haste before the poor come in with whom they were ashamed to eat." The opposite is dXX7;Xou9 eVSe'^eo-^at, ver. 33. Chrys. excellently , to KvpiaKov IBtmriKov iroiovaiv. iv tco cpayeiv, " when he is taking his seat at the Lord's table." The aor. denotes the beginning of the act of eating. Cf. Goodwin, Greek Moods, p. 24. The object of the verb must be mentally supplied from the previous clause. 09 pev ... 09 Be. Cf. note on vii. 7. ireiva. The Attic form is Tret^jj. Aristotle is the first to use iretva, which is the prevailing form afterwards. Tho meaning is, not that the rich man alleges hunger as an excuse for eating before the poor come in, but that the poor go home without tasting any food, while the rich have drunk to excess. Theie can be but little doubt that Chrys. is right in giving the word peOvei its full meaning. " He does not say ' drinks to satiety,' ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES. — XI. 20-22. 239 but 'is drunk.'" The Corinthian Christians were assimilat ing the love-feast to the symposia of the heathen.1 Cf. Plat., Sympos. p. 223. Long afterwards Ambrose was compelled to forbid the use of wine at festivals held in honour of the martyrs, because it led to revelry and drunkenness. V. 22. " Hold your social banquets at home. To do otherwise is to lower the Church to the level of a heathen club and to put to shame the poor." py yap ov. Ironical and denoting surprise. This is true of py ov and of ydp (against Meyer). Cf. Dem., Phil. I. p. 43, yevoiTo ydp dv n Katvbrepov y MaKeSmv dvyp AOnvalovs Kara- 7roXep&v ; Cf. Acts viii. 31 ; probably also Heb. iii. 16. t% iKKXycrias tov ©eov, that is, not a heathen symposium, but an assembly of men consecrated to the service of the holy God. For a similar emphasis cf. xv. 9; Phil. iii. 6. The Apostle was chief of sinners because he had persecuted the Church; yet this Church of the living God the Church in Corinth despised. The effect of contempt for the spiritual majesty of the Church is a readiness to put the poorer brethren to the blush because of their poverty ; for in the Church, the presence-chamber of God, the distinction between rich and poor has no place. tovs py k'xovras, not "those who have no houses " (Alford), but " those who have nothing," " the poor." So Chrys. In class. Greek ot exovres often means "the rich," and oi py exovres, "the poor." Cf. Plat., Leg. V. p. 735. In ver. 34 it is assumed that the poor had houses. My, not oi, before exovres, because their poverty was the reason why they were put to shame. Inputting to shame the indigent, who brought no contribution or a meagre one to the common meal, the wealthy Christians in Corinth did but imitate their heathen neighbours. Cf. Schol. ad Aristoph., Acha.rn. 570, e'^09 et%ov reXeapd n els to koivov StSbvai, oirep ol py StSovTe9 Kai anpoi ivopt^ovro Kal pera Bias diryrovvro. Some of the epavoi had,, however, for their special object to help the needy, who, in. their turn, when they might be in better circumstances, were expected to help others. It was this feature of the heathen 1 According to one reading .Mian (Var. Hist. III. 15) says the Corinthians-- Were aKpariarepov rip olv($ Trpoviivrts. a 290 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Eranos, in addition to the nature of the Christian Agape, that made the conduct of the wealthy Christians of Corinth so deserving of reprobation. iiratviam is, like etirm, deliberative subjunctive. Buttmann (X.S. p. 16), and Grimm (Lea:), however, consider it to be fut. indie, for the more usual iiratveaopiai. e'v tovtco, connected by Neand., Meyer, De Wette, etc., correctly with oiK iiratv&. In other matters he has praised them. V. 23. The reason why he cannot praise them lies, not only in the contrast between their selfishness and the love of the Lord Jesus, though this is not to be lost sight of, but also in their complete misapprehension of the purpose of Christ in instituting the Eucharist. The Apostle proceeds to explain, on the authority of Christ, the nature of the Lord's Supper as it is unfolded in the history of its institution. iym,"I personally." Airbs iym would express the same thing, only more emphatically. Cf. 2 Cor. x. 1 with Gal. v. 2. Buttmann (N. S. p. 115) maintains that €710 is often ex pressed in the New Test, without emphasis. There are some instances (though I think only one of the passages he cites, Matt. x. 16, is an instance), in which we may fairly doubt ¦that emphasis was intended, e.g. Gal. vi. 17. But in our passage £710 is emphatic (against De Wette). It renders the Apostle's account of the institution more reliable that he had it personally from the Lord. irapeXaBov dirb tov Kvpiov. Beza, Winer (Gr. § XLV1I.), Ellicott (on Gal. i. 12), Neander, Meyer, Hofmann, etc., think the Apostle means that he received it from Christ, not directly, but through the Apostles or by tradition. Their strongest argument is the alleged difference in meaning between a7rd and irapd, the former denoting the more remote, the latter the nearer, source. But this is not invariably the case. Cf. Thuc. I. 125, dcf>' diravrmv yKovaav, on which Poppo observes, " in- solentius." So Mat*-, xi. 29, pdOere air' ipov, which imme diately follows Bevre irpbs pe, Col. i. 7, ipdOere dirb 'E-rraqbpd, and 1 John i. 5, yv aKyKoapev dir> airov. This is admitted by Buttmann (X.S. p. 145). Chrys., Calvin, E-tins, Bengel, Osiander, Olshausen, Alford, Evans, etc., understand it to mean an immediate communication made by the risen Lord to the ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES. — XI. 22, 23. 291 Apostle himself. It is the only interpretation of the word that adequately explains why the Apostle should mention the thing. If he can declare to his readers that the Lord's Supper, instituted by Christ before He suffered, was again instituted by the risen Lord, and that its celebration in the Church from age to age was thus sanctioned by an immediate revelation of His will to the Apostle and, as Chrys. observes, proved to be no less significant and effective than at the first institution, the Apostle's words have a worthy purpose in reference both to the Corinthians and to himself. Another institution of the Supper by the risen Christ occurred in Einmaus. May we not suppose it was one purpose of His appearance to the two disciples ? That Christ should vouchsafe an immediate revela tion of it to St. Paul is in keeping with, though distinct from, the revelation of the Gospel which he declares he received from Jesus Christ, not from men (cf. Gal. i. 12). In this Apostle Christianity makes a new start as the Gospel of the risen_and .glorified Christ; But it is not anew Christianity; and this identity of the Gospel taught by Jesus in the days of His flesh and again revealed after His resurrection to Paul is set forth in the identity of the sacraments. Ideas mark tlje progress, sacraments the fixedness of Christianity. Doctrines are more fully developed in the New Test, than in the Old, and more fully in the Epistles than in the Gospel narratives. But the same sacraments continue in one form or another through all dispensations, and help to anchor theological thought to its moorings. The Apostle does not hesitate to develope new truths ; but he does not institute a new sacra ment. Indeed d7ro is more forcible in this connection than irapd. For it signifies that the Lord Jesus Christ was the original source of all revelation touching the nature of the sacrament. Here as well as elsewhere the Apostle claims to have received revelations direct from the Lord. Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 15, e'v Xbym Kvpiov, which Theod. correctly explains by e« oeias diroKaXv-frems, and Eph. iii. 3. irapaXapBdvm is the precise word to denote the receiving a deposit or trust. Cf. Thuc. II. 72, diroSmaopev vpiv a dv irapaXdBmpev jJtexpt Se rovSe exopev irapaKaraOyKyv. Kal, " also," identifies that which the Apostle received with what he delivered. In this matter of the Lord's Supper they 292 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS had forgotten his instructions (cf. note on ver. 2) . On y cf. note on vii. 20. irapeBlBero. The close connection between the betrayal and the Lord's Supper, noticed by the Evangelists, proves that the word here means, not the delivering of Christ by God, but the betrayal by Judas. The imperf. intimates that the betrayal was not the result of sudden impulse, but the fulfilment of well planned and now ripening counsels, known to Jesns when He was instituting the sacrament. The be trayal was the crisis in His history. It determined that Ho must die. Hence the night in which this act was consum mated was chosen by Christ for the institution of that sacra ment which derives its meaning and virtue from His death. The form of the expression, not " when," but " in the night in which," intimates that Judas was present at the supper. The form 7rapeStSeTO is read in X A B C D and adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, etc. Chrys. and Theod. have irapeSiSoro. Similarly in Acts iv. 35 K A B D read BieBiBeTo'. Cf. Winer, Gr. § XIV. 1. The account given by the Apostle is almost identical with. that given by Luke. This corroborates the statement of Irenasus (Adv. Heer. III. 1), that Luke was a follower of Paul and consigned to writing the Gospel which the Apostle preached. Our passage is also the first written account of the institution of the Supper. V. 24. eixaptaryaas. Cf. note on x. 16. From this the Supper came to be called the Eucharist as early as the time of Ignatius, the only one of the Apostolic Fathers that makes mention of the Lord's Supper. Cf. Ad Smym. 7 and 8; Justin M., Apol. I. 66, y rpocpy avry KaXeirai Trap" ypiv eixapicrria. The words XdBere, cpdyere are omitted in N A B C D. St. Luke and St. Mark omit cpdyere. The copyists inserted the word here from St. Matthew. The word KXmpevov is omitted in X A B C, (D has Opv- irrbpevov). Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort omit, De Wette, Reiche, Hofmann retain it. Rightly ; for, first, to virep vp&v is very harsh, perhaps unexampled ; second, break ing the body was essential to the sacrifice ; third, its omission by the copyists is accounted for on the supposition that they ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES. — XI. 23-25. 293 suspected a contradiction between this passage and John xix. 36. Meyer is wrong in supposing the Apostle omitted KXmpevov because it could be supplied from eKXaae, for that breaking refers to the bread, this to the body. et9 ryv ipyv avdjLvyaiv. Cf. note on x. 16. The words of Christ contain two distinct but connected ideas. The one implies His presence in the sacrament : " this is My body ; this is My blood." The other implies His absence: "in remembrance of Me." Both meet in the Apostle's word, "communion," which involves, first, that the communicant appropriates Christ, and, second^ that the instrument of this appropriation is conscious, voluntary faith. Appropriation of Christ necessitates His real presence; faith implies His equally real absence. The Apostle's teaching is inconsistent at once with the doctrine of transubstantiation and with Zwinglianism. ipijv. On the poss. pron. in the sense of an objective genit. cf. Jelf, Gr. § 652. 3, Obs. 6; Winer, Gr. § XXII. 7. So in xv. 31 ; Rom. xi. 31.- It occurs in class. Greek, e.g. Thuc. I. 77, to yperepov Bios, Eur., Io 1276, o oIktos 6 abs. In the New Test, the usage is somewhat rare. It seems to convey, some degree of emphasis, which is helped in this ver. by the position of pov. The words, thus emphatic, contribute to the object of the passage. They indicate the special character of the Lord's Supper. Hitherto they had celebrated the paschal Supper, in remembrance of Israel's deliverance from Egypt (cf. Exod. xiii. 9). Henceforth Christ takes the place of that deliverance. Instead of a temporal and national redemption a spiritual and, therefore, common salvation becomes the centre of men's thoughts, of their memories and their hopes. The words cannot, without great violence, be explained of a com memoration or an offering of Christ to God. ! V. 25. pera to Seiirvyaai, that is, " after the paschal ¦ meal." St. Luke is the only one of the evangelists that re cords this. But even he combines it with another account. For he mentions the cup twice. The first time Christ takes the cup and gives thanks during the paschal meal, after which He says He will no more drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God is come (cf. Luke xxii. 17, 18). According to the other evangelists he uttered these words after taking 294 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the cup of the Eucharist. The second time Christ takes the cup, according to St. Luke, after supper ; and this cup, says St. Paul, was the cup of the Eucharist. The Apostle's account is quite consistent with the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark. The difficulty is to harmonize it with the words of his own follower, St. Luke, who received, we may suppose, hia information from him. However this may be, we must under stand that the Eucharistic cup was drunk after the paschal meal. But why does the Apostle say this ? Hofmann thinks it is to warn the Corinthi.ius that after the Agnpd wine may be required for the Eucharist. Bengel suggests, what is more to the purpose, that it is intended to distinguish the Eucharist from an ordinary meal. It is remarkable that the Apostle fixes the time at which Christ took the bread and the time at which He took the cup. Both data advance his main purpose, which is to mark the essential difference between the Lord's Supper and every other feast. It was instituted on that critical night in which His death was irrevocably determined upon, because it was to be communion with Him in His death. Again, part of the Eucharist accompanied the paschal meal, part followed. The new dispensation was grafted on the old. Mosaism expired in the birth-throes of Christianity. y Kaivr) SiaOrjKy. Since the expression in St. Luke and St. Paul, "this is the new covenant in My blood," must mean the same thing as the expression, "this is My blood of the new covenant," in St. Matthew and St. Mark, it follows that the substance of the wine does not undergo a change at consecra tion ; for the cup cannot be called a covenant except in a metaphorical sense. If so, the words " this My body " (ver. 24) do not imply that the substance of the body is changed. We can now, therefore, determine the precise meaning of the word " is " in these two verses. On the one hand, it cannot denote a change of substance in the bread or the wine. On the other hand, because the Apostle teaches that the sacra ment is a communion with the body and blood of Christ, the word " is " must mean more than " represents ; " though this notion is part of its meaning, inasmuch as the Apostle teaches also that the sacrament is a commemoration. Cf. Tert., Contra Marc. I. 14, "panem . . . quo corpus suum repiassentat ; " and IV. 40, " acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES. — XI. 25, 26. 295 ilium suum fecit, hoc est, corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei." What more, then, than "represents" can | eo-Ttv signify ? Surely the answer is that it expresses com- I munion. The sacrament is a medium of communion with the body and blood of Christ, and a real means whereby faith I appropriates the blessings which flow from the glorified Christ j in virtue of His death. SiaOyKy undoubtedly means " covenant " in the LXX., though avvOijKy would be the class, word. Even in the Epistle to the Hebrews the invariable meaning of SiaOyKn is covenant. It is the only adequate meaning in our passage. The Gospel not only proclaims a Divine institution, arrangement or in tention to bestow gifts on men, but also offers those gifts on conditions and declares that God, on His part also, has pledged Himself to bestow them on the fulfilment of those conditions. This mutual pledge is ratified in the sacrifice of Christ, in whom God and man meet. The sacrament involves faith on the part of the communicant. But the emphatic words are "new" and "in My blood." The covenant is new because it no longer consists in the letter, but in the Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 6) ; no longer in a law of commandments contained in ordinances, but in the new man, which after God is created in righteous ness and true holiness. iv, " resting upon," " ratified through." The same idea might have been expressed by iiri, as in Ps. 1. (xlix.) 5, ryv BiaOyKyv airov eirl Qvalais. The covenant rested on Christ's blood, that is, the death of Christ was a sacrificial propitiation. baaKts dv irivyre, " as often as ye drink this cup of the Lord's Supper;" not " as often as ye take your ordinary meal." V. 26. That these are not the words of Christ is certain. St. Luke has them not, and pov would have been used instead oi Kvpiov. Tdp does not here introduce a proof of the truth of Christ's declaration that the bread and wine are His body and blood. The act of the Church would b 3 no proof of their truth. Nor is ydp inferential (Meyer) : " such, then, being J the fact." It has here its explicative force. The Apostle applies the general statement of Christ to the case of the Corinthians. This explicative meaning of ydp is proved by the repetition of Christ's words, "as often as." The meaning seems to be that the words of Christ at the institution of the 296 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Eucharist explain the distinctive nature of the Lord's Supper, which is to declare His accomplished death as our propitiation. In this it differs from a Christian love-feast and from the Jewish passover. KarayyeXXere. If ydp is explicative, the verb is indie. : "ye do announce." So Vulg., Bengel, De Wette, Maier, Meyer, etc. It is present of indefinite frequency. We announce the Lord's death, not orally (Meyer), but in the act of eating the bread and drinking the cup. The word explains " in remem brance of Me." It is true KarayyeXXeiv properly means "to proclaim by word of mouth." But the Apostle intentionally uses the word to denote more than would be convoyed by "represent" or "signify." In the Supper we preach the Lord's death, and this silent ministry of the Eucharist excludes ; the pride or shame of social distinctions, as the oral ministry excludes excellency of speech or of wisdom. Cf. Cyprian, /'/)). 1)3 Ad Cased. : " Qui [Christi sanguis] scriptnrarum omnium Sacramento ac testimonio effusns prudieatur." dxpts ov. The dv is omitted in N ABCD. But it is an unreal refinement to detect a difference of meaning. Cf. note on iv. 5; xv. 25. e\0y. Theod., De Wette, Meyer think the Apostle's pur pose in mentioning the Lord's second coming was to intimate that the celebration of the Lord's Supper will cease when Christ Himself is present, as there will be no need of symbols when His glorified humanity has again appeared to His Church. But there does not appear to be a sufficient reason for referring to its cessation in this place. The Apostle men tions the two termini in the history of the Church, the Lord's death and His second coming. These are the events that stamp upon the development of Christian life and Church history its peculiar character. " All time is a festival," says Chrysostom, " because the Son of God delivered thee from death." But the ages of history are to the Church much more than an after feast. They are a preparation also for the Lord's coming. This the Corinthians had forgotten, aud consequently turned the means of renovation and strengthening iuto a drunken meal. The Apostle, therefore, reminds them of the same truth which Christ taught in His later parables of the ten virgins and the talents. ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES. — XI. 26, 27. 297 V. 27. He draws the practical inference that those who eat the Eucharistic bread and drink the cup have a duty to perform towards the body and blood of the Lord. To fail in this duty renders the communicant guilty, and exposes him to God's judgments. The inference rests, not on KaTayyiXXerai (Meyer), but on the entire statement concerning the nature of the Eucharist, as the communion of the Lord's body and blood^j tovtov is omitted in K A B C D. Hence tou Kvpiov belongs to dprov as well as to irorypiov. dprov. He still says " bread." If the Apostle had taught transubstantiation, it would have made his argument much stronger to say that they were eating the body. i), "or." It cannot mean "and," which y never means, except in negative sentences ; though Kal is sometimes used for y (e.g. Dem., De Cor. p. 270, %#e9 Kal irp&yv). A reads Kai, which has apparently crept in from ver. 26. The words prove neither the Protestant doctrine that participation in both kinds is necessary, nor the opposite doctrine of " com- munio sub una specie " (Estius, Cor. a Lap., Messmer ; but not Maier). In fact the doctrine of concomitancy is meaning less without the doctrine of transubstantiation or of consub- stantiation. The Apostle says in to intimate the consequence of unworthy participation of either of the two elements. A sudden revelation of Christ's glory may bring a blessed change of heart even during the celebration. Yet he who unworthily partakes of either of the two elements incurs guilt in reference to both the body and the blood, inasmuch as he sins against Christ, from whom each part of the sacrament derives its efficacy. favaijlms. The Apostle has brought to light the special worthiness that belongs to the Lord's Supper. He who con founds it with the love-feast does not acknowledge its peculiar character. He eats and drinks unwortkilyJ[ The meaning of dva^lms is explained by py BiaKplvmv to a&pa, ver. 29, and it must be here restricted to this, though of course there may be other ways in which men eat and drink unworthily. But this passage is not a full and systematic statement of the nature of the Lord's Supper. Like the parallel ^passage in chap, x., it was occasioned by a practical emergency. evoxos=ivexdp>evos, "held in," hence "liable to." The 298 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. original construction with evo^o9 is, therefore, the dat.; whether we call it the instrumental or, as Jelf (Gr. § 605. 5), local dat.; first generally, as in Job xv. 5; then specially, as a law phrase, when the dat. expresses either the law or indictineut (toi9 vopois, ry ypaqby) or the crime (e.g. rfj irpo^oaia) or tho punishment (e.g. toj Oavarcp). The next step was the use of the genit. iustead of tho dat. This may have ari-en either from the omission of rfj ypacpy, or from the assimilation of the construction to that of judicial verbs of prosecution. Hence the genit. with evo%o9 expresses, not the law, but the crime (e.g. Xiiroia^iov). The third step was the use of the genit. to denote the punishment, as in Matt. xxvi. ()Q. The last (and latest) step was to use the genit. to denote the person against whom the crime is committed. This stage is not reached, 1 think, in class. Greek. But it is after the analogy of atTto?, which takes genit. of the person in the classics. Cf. Isa. liv. 17, oi tvo^ot aov, James ii. 10, iravrmv evoxos. These passages justify us in so explaining amparos aud a'iparos here, in preference to considering them gouit. of the crime : "corporis et sanguinis violati" (Jerome). The siu against the body and blood of the Lord consists in not re cognising tho peculiar nature of the Lord's Supper, not (as Chrys., Theod., QEcum., Theophyl., Ambrosiast., Hervoaus, the Formula Cuiicordtw, Olshausen, etc.) in crucifying to one self the Son of God afresh. The reference is not at all to unbelievers or hypocrites, or apostates to Judaism (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb.). For ver. 32 implies that those who were punished by the Lord for unworthy eating aud drinking were believers, who were not condemned with the world. Lutherans argue from this ver. that unbelievers eat the body and driuk the blood of Christ. Cf. Gerhard, Loci XXU xxii. 135. The words imply the reverse. Instead of proclaiming the Lord's [death, the unworthy partaker of the bread and wine is guilty j of sinning against Him by not recognising the difference between the Eucharist and any social meal. He thus refuses to proclaim the Lord's death, and declines communion. V. 28. To shun this guilt let every man bring his motives and the attitude of his soul to the test. Be, adversative. " Let him on the contrary," etc. SoKipa^hm, not " let him make hiin&elt worthy or approved" ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES. — XI. 27-29. 299 (Beza on Gal. vi. 4, Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., Eiickert, Lindeiij Stud. u. Krit., 1862, p. 570), which would be expressed by eavrbv Sbxipov irapaaTyadrm, as in 2 Tim. ii. 15. But SoKtpd^eiv means only (1) "to put to the test," as in Gal. vi. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 10; (2) "to approve," as the result of putting to the test, as in Rom. xiv. 22. As the meaning of self- approval would be here out of place, we must render the words "let every one test himself." Cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 5, eavrovs ireipd^ere, eavrovs SoKiptd^ere. filaving censured the Cor inthians for allowing the Eucharist to degenerate into a feast, which marked their differences, not their union, the Apostle intimates that the root of the mischief was their spiritual pride, only that they did not know it. If they would but bring to the test " the wretchedness of their disordered pas sions," their lack of love, of humility and spiritual insight, they would then see their need of communion with Christ, the one source of all grace. For this communion is not ecstatic, but moral and sanctifying; so that a sense of unworthiness, sin cere repentance, faith in Christ, promise of amendment, and thankfulness for God's mercy, are necessary to secure the blessings which the Lord's Supper is designed to bestow^1 The use made of the Apostle's words by devotional writers of various schools is, therefore, exegetically legitimate. dvOpmiros = eKaaTos. Cf. note on iv. 1. «at ovrms, that is, " when he has examined himself." This use of ovrms must be distinguished from its inferential mean ing, " this being so," " quae cum ita sint." It occurs fre quently in class. Greek, especially after participles, and is often followed by Si), but not often, as here, preceded by Kai. eK, " a portion of the bread." The word implies, what is explicitly stated in ver. 33, that all should wait for one another and so take each his portion of the bread. Breaking the bread was part of the rite in the early Church. Distribution (BtdSoais) implied communion. V. 29. A reason for the exhortation to self-examination. Communion with Christ in the Lord's Supper is the result of faith; faith is impossible without thought and a right estimate of Christ. On the other hand, thoughtlessness produces un belief and incurs God's displeasure. dvaglms and tov Kvpiov are omitted in N A B C, but in- 300 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. serted in D. Most critics omit them ; but Eiickert hesi tates. Without dvafjlms the construction and meaning may be explained in one of four ways : (1) We may, with Meyer, and, in effect, Evans, supply dvagims in thought. This is harsh ; though it is likely dvagims so crept in. (2) Osiander puts a comma after eavrm, omitting it after irlvmv and irlvei: " for he who eats and drinks judgment to himself eats and drinks without discerning the Lord's body." Nothing can well be more unnatural. (3) Ruckert thus : " for he who eats and drinks without discerning the Lord's body eats and drinks judgment to himself." The position of the participle is decisive against this. (4) Meyer and De Wette thus : "for he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not rightly estimate the body." Canon Evans doubts that the hypothetical participle is a Hellenistic usage. But cf. xi. 5; Gal. vi. 9; Heb. x. 26; xi. 32. This is the best interpretation. Kpipa (or Kpipa, cf. Winer, Gr. § VI. 1 e), "judgment," "ju dicial sentence," as in Mark xii. 40 ; Rom. ii. 2, 3. Hervasus, Estius, Mosheim explain it of eternal perdition. The sub sequent verses prove that temporal judgments are at least included. But from the absence of the article we may, I think, gather that the Apostle intentionally refrains from fixing more particularly what punishment. Some of the un worthy recipients may have incurred such guilt as rendered them obnoxious to severer punishment than others. eavrm, "against himself." Cf. Matt, xxiii. 31 ; Rom. xiii. 2; Heb. vi. 6. py StaKpivmv to a&pa. Justin M. (Apol. I. 66), Augustine (Tract, in Julian. LXIL), Hervaeus, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Hofmann explain the clause to mean "not distinguishing between the Lord's body and common bread." But as "body "cannot mean "the symbols of the body," the sin against which he warns the Corinthians cannot consist in not distinguUiing the efficacy of the sacramental bread from ordinary food, but rather in an imperfect apprehension of the sanctifying influence of fellowship with Christ. Moreover, SieKpivopev in ver. 31 must have the same meaning as BiaKpl- vmv in ver. 29, that is " if we estimated ourselves aright." The meaning is that a right estimate of ourselves is necessary ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.— XI. 29-31. 301 for a right estimate of the Lord's body (cf . Matt. xvi. 3) . This is the rendering of the Vulg., " nos dijudicans . . . quodsi nosmet ipsos dijudicaremus," etc., which is much better than Beza's " discernens . . . etenim si ipsi nos dijudicaremus." to a&pa. He does not now say "the body and the blood," because he is speaking, not of the symbols on earth, but of Christ's glorified humanity in heaven. This accounts also for the otherwise harsh omission of tov Kvpiov. The " body " is the Lord Himself in His glorified humanity. In the a&pa TJ79 Bb^ys avrov the distinction of flesh and blood has no place. The notion of Dean Jackson and Bengel, that the material blood which flowed from the Lord's body on the cross, was gathered up and restored by the power of God, is, therefore, though reverently conceived, a mere fancy. V. 30. What is a hypothesis only in ver. 29 is actually the case at Corinth. Some among the Corinthians were guilty of dishonouring the glorified body of the Lord, and this was proved by the numerous sicknesses and deaths that occurred among them. If we ask how the Apostle is justified in con necting the two things as cause and effect^)it is not enough to answer, with Hofmann, that he observed the connection from the large number of Christians that had recently died at Corinth. The Apostle and prophet is here uttering an oracular decision, with certitude and authority. Several expositors (Estius, Osiander, etc.,) notice the parallel between the cir cumstances that ushered in the Old and the New Dispensa tions. And as Ananias and Sapphira fell dead at the feet of Peter because they had lied to the Holy Ghost, so also many Christians in Corinth were stricken with sickness and some with death because they had dishonoured the majesty of Christ's glorified human nature. That the reference is not to spiritual feebleuess is evident from his using the word Kotp&v- rai, the Christian designation for death. Cf. note on vii. 39. The pres., which occurs only here in the New Test., denotes the act of "falling asleep." Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 13. Or it may mean frequency. Many died from time to time. V. 31. For ydp read Se with N A B D, against C. SieKplvopiev . . . iKpivbpeOa. This- may be rendered either, "if we were to judge ourselves, we should not be judged" or with equal correctness (against Canon Evans), "if we had 302 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. judged ourselves, we should not have been judged." Cf. Goodwin, Mood,-', § 49, 2. The context must in each case decide to what time the imperfect refers. But the Be and the 1st pers., making the reference general, are decisive in favour of the present time. " It is true that God's judgments are descending; but we, who have hitherto escaped, may shun them by judging and testing ourselves. If we examined and formed a right estimate of ourselves so as heartily to repent, we should be spared God's temporal judgments, which are intended to make us sorrow after a godly sort." Augustine used this verse as a motto to his " Retractations." V. 32. God's temporal judgments are a father's chastise ments, inflicted to lead the erring child to repentance, that he may not be condemned with the unbelieving world by Christ at His coming. The words " by the Lord," though implied with "chastised," must properly be connected with " judged," for we shall then preserve the antithesis between it and "judging ourselves," ver. 31 ; and it is because the judgment has been sent by the Lord that it has the chastening effect of discipline. iratSevbpeOa, " we are chastened," that is, disciplined, cor rected. Tlai.Sela is correction by act, vovOeala by word. In class. Greek iraiSeia is " education." But in Scripture it has acquired the further meaning of correction by a father. Cf. Prov. xxii. 15 ; Heb. xii. 5-11 ; 2 Mace. vi. 12. It differs also from KoXaats and npmpia. Cf. Chrys., vovOeaias pdXXov ianv rj KaraSiKys to yivbpevov, larpeias y npmplas, BiopOm- aems y KoXdaems. KaiaKpiOmpev, " that we may not be judged unto condem nation." Cf. Eom. v. 16, Kpipa els KaraKptpa. The Apostle means at the Lord's second coming, ver. 26. Cf. Luke xxi. 34; Matt. xxiv. 49-51. This makes it probable, against the view of expositors generally, that " the Lord," by whom the Corinthians were now judged, is Christ. \ Vv. 33, 34. He closes the discussion concerning the Eu charist with two practical exhortations. The one is that they should make it a common feast, the other is that, notwith standing this, it should not be allowed to degenerate from a spiritual into a carnal feast. The common character of the Eucharist will be preserved by their waiting one for another; ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.— XI. 31-34. 303 its religious character will be secured by their satisfying their hunger at homeA V. 33. iKSixeaOe, probably not " receive ye one another " to the feast (Mosheim, Olshausen, Hofmann, etc.). This is the more usual meaning of the word in class. Greek and LXX., only with the additional notion of receiving from another, e.g. ambassadors (Polyb. XXIV. iv. 11), whereas receiving a guest is Bexeadai (Luke xvi. 9) or diroSixeaOat (Xen., Mem. IV. i» 1). The meaning here is "wait ye for one another." The word is an intentionally formal antithesis to ver. 21. To wait for one another would render the occasion more solemn. V. 34. The omission of Be (with N A B C D) makes these two closing exhortations more impressive. He now speaks to rich and poor. The poor must not use the Lord's supper to satisfy hunger; the rich must not allow the poor to want food. Let them be fed from the provision made by the Church for the purpose, but let them be fed at home. e'v ot/eo),"at home," as xiv. 35. Cf. note on ver. 22. et9, expressing consequence. Cf. Rom. vii. 4, 6, where et9 to yeveaOai vpas erepm is explained by wore SovXeveiv yjxas. Ta Be Xoiird. Cf. note on ver. 18. ms dv eXOm. Cf. note on iv. 5 ; xi. 26. The use of a>9 dv with subjunctive is very rare in class. Greek. In the New Test, it occurs only here and Rom. xv. 24 ; Phil. ii. 23. The Apostle, it appears, purposed visiting Corinth. But after wards he deemed it expedient to write another letter to the Corinthians, as they had not received his censure with entire friendliness. Stard^opai. Cf. note on vii. 17. The word refers to ex ternal, practical arrangements, and conveys the notion of authority as well as of order. Cf. xvi. 1 ; Acts xviii. 2. Ignatius (Ad Trail, iii. 3 et al.) will not use the word in speaking of his own advice, as it implies apostolic authority. SIXTH DIVISION. THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. (xii. 1-xiv. 40). A. Description and Vindication of the Spiritual Gifts. (xii. 1-31). V. 1. Rabiger and others think the Se of this ver. balances the pev of xi. 18. The discussion that follows may well be considered a third sub-division of the Fifth Division of the Epistle, inasmuch as it has reference to the conduct of the Corinthians in the Church assemblies. But as the Apostle is answering a distinct question of the Church, he probably ranked the discussion as co-ordinate with his answers to the other questions. Ai is, therefore, transitional, with some slight notion of antithesis to Ta Xot7rd . . . SiaTagopai. (xi. 34) : "Whatever subject I postpone I must not delay to explain the nature of spiritual gifts." 7repi Be t&v irvevpariKmv. Cf. vii. 1, 25 ; viii. 1. From the form of the Apostle's answer we gather that the question arose partly from the strangeness of the phenomena that had presented themselves in the Church, partly from a natural suspicion that they were but another manifestation of the demoniacal influences which the Corinthians must have often witnessed in connection with the religious rites of heathenism. The Apostle seeks to show that unwonted manifestations of a supernatural presence in the Christian assemblies were to be expected. Some appear to have lost their moral balance in consequence of ecstatic possession. He thinks it necessary to estimate the relative worth of ecstasy and Christian love, tongues and serviceable prophecy. 804 THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XII. 1, 2. 305 The word irvevpariKa must not be understood to denote " spiritual things " in general (Kling), nor quite specifically for "the gift of tongues" (Baur, Heydenr., Stanley). Cf. note on xiv. 37. It means the Charismata, the nature of which generally is first declared, and the necessity of which in the Church is first proved. Grotius, Hofmann, Heinrici con sider twv irvevpaTiKmv to be masc, synon. with t&v irvevpaTo- cpbpmv, as in xiv. 37. This is not so, simply because the spiritual gifts were, not the prerogative of a few, but a gift bestowed in various forms and degrees on all Christians. Cf. note on ISimrys, xiv. 16. The universality of the gifts is one of the arguments which the Apostle uses to prove that no member of Christ's body, the Church, should envy another member, inasmuch as every member has its own function assigned it in the body. The gifts are called irvevpariKa, not because of any connection with the human irvevpia, but because they are bestowed by the Spirit of God. Cf. note on ix. 11. oi.OeXm. Cf. note on x. 1. The phrase is always accompa nied by the endearing address, dSeXcpol. V. 2. After on we must certainly insert ore. So N A B C D, Vulg. (quoniam cum). So Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. But Lachm. hesitates, apparently because he thought B had not ore.. Reiche defends the tex. rec. If we omit ore the construction is easy, and requires none of Hofmann's ingenious manipulations. Inserting otc, we may explain the construc tion in one of the following ways: (1) Alford supposes the Apostle to have begun with ot'SaTe on, and then to have passed into the construction of placing ore after such verbs as ptepvypai, olSa, aKovm, an ellipsis of tou xpbvov taking place. Is it certain that otSa can have this construction ? Alford cites Horn., II. xiv. 11, ySea pev yap ore irpocbpmv Aavaolaiv dpvvev. But the object of ySea is not the temporal clause, but diroXeaOai 'Axaiovs. (2) Valckenaer and Meyer think there is a confusion of two constructions after olSa, viz. a on clause and a participle, diraybpevoi. This occasionally happens. Cf. Thuc. IV. 37, yvovs . . . oti, el Kal oirmaovovv pdXXov ivSmaovai, SiacpOapyaopevovs airovs, and Plat., Gorg. p. 481, alaOdvopat . . . on, birba' dv cpy aov rd iraiBiKa Kal oirms dv cbfj exeiv, ov Bvvapievov dvnXiyeiv. It occurs also with mare, ms. Cf. Isocr., Paneg. § 64; Xen., Mem. IV. ii. x 306 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 30. But the usage is too rare and exceptional to be of much weight in reference to a construction in the New Test., espe cially as the participial predicate after otSa occurs but once in St. Paul's Epistles (2 Cor. xii. 2). (3) Castalio, Bengel, Butt mann (N. S. p. 328), Heinrici consider &s to be resumptive of OTt, the temporal clause ore edvy ijre intervening. It may be some objection to this that the intervening clause is too short to render the repetition of on probable. But this is apparently the construction adopted by Chrys. (ovTot ol pdvreis irpbs eVetva ijyovro eXKopevoi) and Basil (o pev ydp ms dv ijyyrai diraybpevos dXoyov Xarpevei Xarpeiav). That the participle diraybpevos hangs is not a sufficient objection. It expresses what could not so emphatically be stated otherwise, that the heathen worshippers are "led by being led away like prisoners at the will of the demons." o'lSare. By referring to their former condition as being what they themselves acknowledged, he avoids the harshness of the reference, and also prepares them for a statement of the opposite truth, which they did not yet understand. Hence yvmpi^m, ver. 3. eOvy, not "nations" generally (Baur), but "Gentiles," in the sense attached to the word among the Jews. Cf. Rom. iii. 29, where it is distinguished from 'JouSatot ; Gal. ii. 8, from y irepiropy ; Rom. xv. 10, from 6 Xabs avrov, and Eph. ii. 11. The peculiarity of the present passage is that the Gentiles are here distinguished from Christians, from 6 e'v t$> ¦KpvirTm 'IovSaios (Rom. ii. 29). The Christian Church is, in the Apostle's eyes, the true Israel of God. Cf. Gal. vi. 16; Heb. iv. 9. Sometimes the name is applied to the Gentile Christians. Cf. Gal. ii. 12, where ol 'IovBaioi are Jewish Christians, ol ovres e'/c irepiropys as distinguished from y irepnopy. e'iSmXa, that is, images and not realities. Cf. note on viii. 4. dcbmva. Cf. LXX., Hab. ii. 18, eiSmXa Kucpd. So Ep. ad Diugn. 2, ov Kmcbd irdvra; In speaking of idols aipmva is more correct than Kmcbd. They are not mutes, but voiceless things, Oeol veKpol (Didache 6). dv yyeaOe, the iterative imperfect with dv : " how ye were led whenever the occasion happened." Cf. Mark vi. 56. Few THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XII. 2. 307 instances occur in the New Test., but it is a frequent usage in class. Greek. Cf. Buttmann, N. S. p. 186. Erasm., Valcken., Hofm., Heinrici consider the dv to be the prefix of the verb and read oj9 avyyeaOe, that is, " were led up as sacrifices are led up to the altar." Cf. Acts vii. 41. But is this metaphor a natural one? The clause expresses the self-abandonment of the worshipper, as diraybpevoi denotes his going astray from the truth. diraybpevoi, "being led away," that is, "inasmuch as ye were led away;" causal participle, as in Mark vii. 19. 'Airdym may mean either "to lead from the truth," or "to lead away at one's own will." Both notions would be to the Apostle's purpose. But the former is the usual one when the Apostle speaks of the heathen. Cf. Tit. iii. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 18. So Lactantius vi. 8 : " Errant [pagani] velut in magno mari nee quo ferantur intelligunt." The word presents an instructive contrast to dyovrai of Rom. viii. 14; Gal. v. 18. By whom were they led? The answer is given in 2 Tim. ii. 26; Eph. ii. 2. Cf. Athenag., Leg. pro Christ., Kal ol pev irepl rd e'iBmXa avrovs eXKovres oi Salpovis elatv, and Just. M., Apol. I. 5, pdanyi Baipbvmv cpavXmv itjeXavvopevoi, which is seem ingly a paraphrase of the Apostle's diraybpevoi. This ver. is not merely a statement of their ignorance of the nature and use of the Charismata (Meyer, Alford, etc.). For, first, they must have known that these manifestations were the gift of the Spirit; the question put by the Corinthians probably contained the words 7rept t&v irvevparlKmv. Second, the contrasted notions in this and the following verses are clear. The Apostle starts with what the Corinthians know in order to show the vast difference between the influence of evil spirits on the heathen and that of the Holy Spirit on Christ ians. There is a threefold contrast : (1) The objects to which they are severally led differ as idols differ from the Lord Jesus. (2) The heathen are led away captive at the will of evil spirits, whereas Christians are led rationally and morally by the Spirit of God. (3) The worshippers of voiceless idols are, for that very reason, mute themselves concerning God, while the saints unceasingly proclaim that Jesus is Lord. Beyond these three points of contrast we cannot legitimately go. We may not say with Chrys., Theod., Theophyl. and Neander that the 308 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Apostle contrasts the ecstatic phrenzy of heathen possession with the conscious, intelligent nature of the Christian gifts ; for some of those gifts seem to have been ecstatic. At the same time the distinction so well drawn by Chrysostom is true in reference to Christianity as a whole. It is the supernatural made natural, the Divine becoming human, whereas in the' heathen religions the gulf between the two was ever widening. Their union is possible in Christianity, because it is erected on the Divine-human person of Jesus Christ and on the indwell ing of His Spirit in the Christian. V. 3. The threefold difference now mentioned enables the Apostle to lay a broad foundation for his discussion of the spiritual gifts. His vindication of these extraordinary mani festations of power rests on the two supernatural elements in the Church. The one is the Divine purpose in the creation of the Church, which is the exaltation of Jesus as Lord. The other is the presence in the Church of a Divine worker, the Spirit of Christ, who will bring this purpose" to pass. The exaltation of Jesus Christ is the external standard, and by their relation to it all actions and thou'ghts, natural and super natural, are to be estimated. The Spirit is the inward power that directs all to this end and creates supernatural energies, when natural fail, for the attainment of so high a purpose. The Apostle presents the mutual relation of purpose and worker in two aspects. On the one hand, the work of the Spirit is effectual. No man speaking by the Spirit of God can anathematise Jesus. All intellectual ideas, political combina tions, force and sentiment, if they are- derogatory to the honour and lordship of the historical and living -Jesns, are thereby at once and absolutely excluded from the sphere of Christian , influence and the development of the Christian society. They are not the material from which the spiritual gifts are fashioned. On the other hand, the Spirit's work is necessary. No man can truly acknowledge the lordship of Jesus but by the Holy Spirit. At this point the two meanings of the word irvevpanKos unite. The attainment of the highest form of the spiritual gifts, which consists in worship of the Lord Jesus, demands that the man should be spiritual in the sense of chap. ii. yvmpi%m, not "I expound," but "I make known." These THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XII. 2, 3. 309 facts they must accept on the Apostle's authority. Cf. John xv. 15. e'v, that is, " entirely possessed by." Cf. Luke iv. 1, where ev rm Uvevptan is explained by Hvevparos 'Aylov irXypys. For 'Iyaovv and Kvpiov lyaovv (so D, Chrys., followed by Reiche), we must read 'Iyaovs and Kvptos Iyaovs (so N A B C, Vulg. etc., followed by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort). With the accusatives we should have to supply men tally the infin. etvat which is a late Greek construction after elireiv, the classical construction being oti. dvdOepa. Lobeck cites Mceris : dvdOypa drnK&s, dvdOepa eXXyvtK&s. Several words in -Qypa have the form -Oepa in later Greek. Cf. Lobeck, Paralip. II. p. 424 ; Phryn. p. 249. But Hesychius says they have different meanings : dvdOepa iiriKardpaTos, aKOivmvyTos' dvdOypa, Koap/ypa. The LXX. certainly appears to draw a distinction, using dvdOypa for the clean thing that is dedicated or sacrificed to the Lord. Cf. Judith xvi. 19, where the armour of Holophernes, having been so dedicated, is called dvdOypa; 2 Mace. ix. 16; Luke xxi. 5 (avdOy/jM is the correct reading). But dvdOepa is the unclean thing which a man devotes to the Lord, but may not offer in sacrifice nor redeem, and must put to death (cf. Lev. xxvii. 28, 29). The Apostle has only dvdOepa, and always in the sense of "accursed." The words AvdOepa 'Iyaovs may, there fore, mean that the death which Jesus suffered proved Him to be under God's curse and the object of God's hatred, or they may be the imprecation of a curse upon Him (so Theophyl.). Cf. Acts xxvi. 11, rjvayKa£ov BXaacbypeiv. We know from Pliny's letter (Ep. 97) that "to curse Christ" was enjoined as the final test by which to determine if a man was a heathen or a Christian. Alpe tovs dOeovs, said the proconsul to Poly carp, XoiSbpnaov tov Xpiarov, to which the martyr replied, ir&s Bvvapai B^aa'r>ypyaai tov /3ao-tXea p,ov ; Origen tells us that the Ophiites were not more sparing than Celsus in their accusations against Jesus and admitted none into their as sembly unless he imprecated curses upon Him (Contra Gels. VI. 28). Cf. Dial. c. Tryph. 138, dSiaXet-7TTa»9 Be KarapdaOe avTm tc ixelvm Kal tois air' avrov. It is hardly necessary to observe that St. Paul never uses the word dvdOepa in the ecclesiastical signification for excommunication, which crept 310 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. into the Church from the LXX., though the Fathers so explain it in some passages (cf. Fritzsche, Rom. ix. 3). The antithesis between dvdOepa aud Kvpios does not necessitate our under standing the latter as the Greek equivalent to Jehovah. But, as it is so used in the LXX., we may explain the antithesis here to be between imprecating the curse of Jehovah on one who is Himself Jehovah and acknowledging Him to be Jehovah whom others call accursed. In point of doctrine all that is required to distinguish a Christian is an acknowledgment of the lordship of Jesus of Nazareth. Cf. 1 John ii. 22 ; iv. 2, 15; v. 1, 5. Vv. 4-16. Having stated that the acknowledgment of Jesus as Lord is the one universal and decisive test of the spiritual gifts, the Apostle proceeds to the one essential characteristic of the gifts, which is diversity in unity — diversity in their action, unity in their origin ; diversity in relation to 'the Church, unity in relation to God ; diversity making them useful, unity proving them to be Divine. V. 4. Btalpeais may mean either " distribution " (so Vulg., Erasm.), like pepiapbs in Heb.. ii. 4, or " distinction " (so Beza, after Chrys., Theod.), like pepiapbs in Heb. iv. 12. In favour of the former meaning is ver. 11 ; in favour of the latter the antithesis between Biaipeaeis and to airo or o adj-09. Cf. Rom. xii. 6, xapiarlaTa Sidcpopa. The pivot of the whole para graph is the notion of a difference in kind between one gift and another. But this again implies that one man has one gift and another has another. I have not much doubt that the Apostle uses the word in both meanings. It signifies "a distribution of gifts involving diversity of gifts." Cf. Grimm, Lex. : " discrimen e distributione aliis alia, facta ortum." Grotius, Cor. a Lap., Maier, etc., think the words ^aptV/iaTa, BiaKoviao, and ivepyypara denote three distinct things : Xapiapara signifying the gifts themselves; StaKoviai, the Church offices in which the gifts are exercised, such as apostle ship, as in ver. 28; ivepyypara, the physical and spiritual effects of the gifts. The objection to this is that it separates the action of the Spirit from that of the Lord, and both from that of God, whereas all gifts are bestowed by Christ through the Spirit from God. The view of Chrys., Theod., CEcum., Phot., Theophyl., and the most recent expositors, Meyer, De Wette, THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.— XII. 3, 4. 311 Hofmann, etc., is much more probable and richer in thought. The three words denote the gifts regarded from three distinct points of view. As they are supernatural conditions of the human spirit, they are immediate graces (xapiapara) of the Spirit of God. As their exercise gives rise to various forms of service in the Church, they have respect to the Head of the Church, and in this relation to the Lord Jesus they are BiaKovlai. As they are effectual (ivepyypara) to do this service, their source is in God. This is the threefold relation to the Church which God the Father, the Lord Christ and the Holy Spirit are elsewhere represented as maintaining. It is in accord with the intrinsic relations of the Divine Persons to one another. Cf. Eph. iv. 4, where the Christian calling is mentioned in connection with the Spirit, faith and baptism in connection with the Lord, and the universal, pervading efficacy of grace is ascribed to God the Father. Similarly we are told in 1 Pet. i. 2 that the foreknowledge of God the Father operates through the sanctification of the Spirit and results in obe dience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. This threefold aspect of the spiritual gifts is applicable also to the recipients. Effective work for God involves as its conditions that the worker should have a deep and abiding sense of his dependence on the Spirit of God, that he should toil on in self-sacrificing consecration to the service of Christ, and that he should manifest his possession of a Divine and conquering force. The Greek expositors, more at large Photius, regard this verse as one of the buttresses of Trinitarianism. The thought rests on that doctrine and implies it. But the passage does not expressly state it. The Lord is Christ the Mediator, the eternal Word, but the Word made Man, who, as Lord and Head of the Church, receives from the Father and sends the Spirit. The verse must not, therefore, be adduced, as is done by Meyer, in proof of a subordination within the Trinity. Xapiapara. Cf. note on i. 7. The word is here used in the special meaning of excellences or endowments bestowed on Christians by the sovereign grace of God. Cf. Rom. xii. 6, on which Theophylact. remarks, ov KaropQmpara, dXXd Xaplaptara. 312 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. V. 5. BiaKOvlai. The plur. expresses the various kinds of service. The word denotes official service, but it expresses the nature of the work, not merely the office. It represents the Church as a realization, however imperfect, of the kingdom of God, and for that reason it became an official name from the first. Cf. Acts i. 17. V. 6. ivepyrjpara, not passive (Maier, Grimm, after Theod., a>9 virb rys Oeias ivepyoiipevaSvvdptms. Similarly Athanasius, Ep. ad Scrap. I. 30, irapd tov LXarpbs Bid tov Xoyov x0Pn- yeirai). It is active: "effectual operations." So Erasmus. The notion that the gifts are wrought by God is contained in 6 aL>T09 0eo9, in the same way as it is contained, from another point of view, in rb airo LTvevpa and b airbs Kvptos. The Apostle -xults in the thought that Christianity is the ivipyeta of Divine possibilities in human nature. Cf. Gal. ii. 8; Phil. ii. 13. 6 ivepy&v . . . irdai, that is, " who produces effectually all spiritual gifts in all Christians." This is an explicit state ment of the notion implied in 6 adro9 ©ebs. V. 7. 'EKiiarm and 7rpo9 to avpcpipov are the emphatio notions, the former expressing the diversity, the latter the unity of the gifts of the one Spirit. Their diversity appears in their distribution to every Christian according to the measure of the gift of Christ; their unity, in the one purpose which the Spirit has when he confers divers gifts on individual men. Edification is the practical test by which to decide on the admission of any manifestation of power into the Church and estimate the comparative value of the gifts. SlSorai, pres. of indefinite frequency. The aor. iBbOy occurs in Eph. iv. 7; for in the act of ascending on high Christ virtually gave all gifts. tpavipmais, only here and 2 Cor. iv. 2 in the New Test. AiroKaXvyfris is the revelation of a truth by the Spirit of God to the Christian prophet ; tpavipmais is the declaration of that revelation by the prophet to other men. tov irvevparos, that is, the Spirit of God. Chrys., Hervaeus, Estius, Meyer, Hofmann consider it to be genit. of the ob ject : " the manifestation of the fact that the man has the Spirit " (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 2) . But it is better to understand it as genit. of the subject. So Calvin, De Wette, Ruckert, THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XII. 5-7. 313 Heinrici, etc. This is in accordance with ver. 11, which ascribes the power of the gifts to the Spirit. At the same time Neander is not justified in saying that the notion of mani festing the presence of the Spirit is not Pauline (cf. xiv. 25). The Apostle must be speaking of the self-revelation of the Spirit, who is seen, like the sun, in His own light. 7rpo9 to avpcpepov, that is, both the man's own advantage and the profit of the Church. Because it is to his own advantage, the brother of slender gifts should not envy him who has received a larger measure ; because it is to the profit of others, the latter should not despise the former. Ilpbs, not here " according to " the profit (as in 2 Cor. v. 10, and per haps Gal. ii. 14), but " with a view to." This is proved by the corresponding words in xiv. 12. Vv. 8_H. Tap connects these verses closely with ver. 7. They prove the three statements which that ver. contains : that every Christian receives gifts; that all the gifts are be stowed by the Spirit ; that edification is the purpose of God in bestowing them. Attempts have been made to classify the gifts here men tioned. The earliest is that of Tertullian (Contra Marc. V. 8), who divides them into four classes : (1) Xoyos aocpias and X0709 yvmaems (sermo intelligentiae et consilii) ; (2) irians (spiritus religionis et timoris Dei) ; (3) Idpara and Svvdpeis (valentiae spiritus) ; (4) irpocpyrela, SiaKpiaeis irvevpdrmv, 76V77 yXmaa&v, aud eppyveia yXmaa&v. The most plausible classification is that of Bengel and Meyer, who think erepos introduces the generic, aXXos the specific differences, thus : — I. Charismata which have reference to intellectual power, ] . X0709 aoqblas, 2. X0709 7vojcreoj9. II. Charismata which depend on special energy of faith, 1. irians itself, 2. irians in its operation in deeds, viz. a. Idpara, b. Svvdpeis. 3. irians in its operation in words, viz. irpoobyreia. 4. irians in its operation in criticism, viz. SiaKpiaeis irvevpdrmv. 314 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. III. Charismata which have reference to the yX&aaai, 1 . to yXmaaais XaXeiv, 2. eppyveia yXmaa&v. The objection to this classification is in the second division of gifts. It seems arbitrary and unnatural that prophecy and criticism should be in the same class with healings and powers. Though the distinction between erepos and dXXo9, on which the classification depends, is generally speaking a correct one, it is not always observed in the New Test. Cf. xv. 39, 40. But if we omit Be before irpocpyrela (as in B D ; so Lachm., Treg. ; Westc. and Hort are doubtful) and Se before SiaKpiaeis (as in N B D ; so Lachm., Treg. ; Westc. and Hort doubtful), we may perhaps recognise, not three, but five main divisions, thus : — I? / . m pev : . oyos aocpias, t Intellectual power. l. Xoyos yvmaems. j. II. erepm : 1. irians, \ 2. Idpara, > Miraculous power. 3. Svvdpeis. ) III. aXXw : irpocpyrela. Teaching power. IV. dXXm : SiaKpiaeis irvevpdrav. Critical power. V. erepm : 1. 7ev?7 yXmaa&v, 1 ^ ... „ , , . „ } Ecstatic powers. A. eppyveia yXmaamv. ) While admitting a logical classification of this sort, we can not fail to recognise a natural progress also in the series. The Apostle begins with the highest of all the Charismata, X0709 aocpias, the power of the spiritual man to understand the Divine philosophy of the revelation of God in Christ. This suggests to his mind the gift of knowledge; and this its opposite, the gift of faith; and this the miraculous results produced by faith; and this the inspiration of doctrine and of judgment, of tongues and their interpretation. He proceeds from the worthiest to the least worthy. V. 8. lochia and yv&ais are clearly related, but to be distinguished. Augustine (De Trin. XIV. and XV.) makes THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XII. 8. 315 sapientia consist in knowledge of Divine and eternal things, scientia in knowledge of things human and temporal. In Confess. XIII. 18 he compares the latter to the light of moon and stars, the former to the light of the sun. Similarly Estius, Cor. a Lap., Bengel. The reverse is the view of most commentators, that aocpia refers to practice, yv&ais to theory. Chrys., Theod., CEcum., Theophyl. think aocpia means power to teach, yv&ais power to know. This is refuted by the . word X6709. Outside this Epistle aocpia and yv&ais are used generically and interchangeably for theoretical and for practical knowledge. But their use in this Epistle seems to show that X0709 aocpias denotes the power of expounding spiritual truths, which it is the gift of the spiritual man, the reXeios, both to understand and to speak. Its object is revealed truth; its power is the illumination of the Spirit; its method a spiritual synthesis; and its results are communicated to others in words taught by the Holy Ghost. Cf. ii. 6-13 ; Eph. i. 8, 17; Col. ii. 3. The objects of yv&ais are the same; for instance, it is a knowledge of God (2 Cor. x. 5), of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. iv. 6), of Christ Jesus (Phil. iii. 8) ; and in this part of his interpretation Augustine seems to have gone astray. But, whereas aocpia was the prerogative of the mature Christian, even the Cor inthians had had yv&ais in no inconsiderable measure (cf. i. 5). While the wisdom (crocpia) of the Gospel was spoken only to the TeXetot, the Apostle thanks God for making known the savour of His knowledge (7VOJ0-19) by him in every place, wherever a door was opened unto him of the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 14; iv. 6; x. 5). Hence yv&ais is the lower stage of Christian knowledge, aocpia the higher (cf. note on viii. 1). He who has aocpia knows the things of God more esoterically ; he who has yv&ais knows them as opinions, intellectual beliefs, matters learned, premises and conclusions. To Christ ian aocpia corresponds in the natural sphere iiriarypirj, which indeed Plato calls aotpia (Rep. p. 443). The irapeKBaais of aocpia is mysticism, that of yv&ais rationalism. The Apostle speaks of the word of wisdom or of knowledge, because he is now discussing all gifts according to their usefulness to the Church (cf. ver. 11). Std . . . Kara ... ev. All the Charismata are through 316 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the Spirit, according to the Spirit, and in the Spirit ; that is to say, God bestows them through the agency of the Spirit, in proportion to the measure in which the Spirit itself has been given, and that by the indwelling and inworking of the Spirit in the believer. The only doubtful word is Kara, which may mean "according to the will of," as in Rom. viii. 27, or "ac cording to the measure of," which is the more probable mean ing, inasmuch as the Apostle ascribes the Charismata to God as giver, the Spirit being the dispenser and effectuating power. V. 9. irians always involves the notion of a power to realize the spiritual. Now this power is a necessary condition of prophesying (Heb. xi. 8) and of doing miracles (Matt. xxi. 21 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 2). In fact it is the ground of all Charismata, which abound in proportion to the strength of faith — Kara ryv dvaXoyiav rijs iriarems. But when faith acts in the doing of miracles, the result is an external fact, such as healing the sick. When it acts in other directions, it creates subjective conditions or faculties in the believer, such as wisdom and the power of prophesying, which overshadow the underlying faith and assume the character and designation of distinct Charis mata. The faith is lost sight of in the wisdom, but never in the gift of healing. Hence faith is to be here understood in a more extensive sense than as a mere gift of healing, which is afterwards mentioned, and than a mere power of exorcising evil spirits. That the power of seeing the invisible should be placed among Charismata is in perfect accord with the delinea tion of faith in Heb. xi. Xapiapara lapdrmv. The plur. lapdra means various kinds of healing; xaP^a'P-aTa is plur. because different powers are required to heal different kinds of sickness. Similarly Irenaeus (V. 3) speaks of irpocpyriKd xapi-°~rl'aTa- Cf. Eus., HE. V. 7. But why ^dptoyxa at all? To distinguish mira culous acts of healing from those of the skilled physician. Justin M. (Apol. II. 6) says the gift existed in his time— Kal en vvv l&vrai. For 'iapa in the sense of tao-t9 cf. ivipyypa for ivepyeta in ver. 10. e'v tco avTw jUvevjian. So N. But A B have evi for airm. C deficit. The probable reading is evi (so Treg., Westc. aud Hort, etc.). It brings into prominence the oneness that underlies the diversity of gifts. THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XII. 8-10. 317 V. 10. evepyypara Svvdpemv. In Acts vi. 8 Svvapt.s means the subjective power of doing miracles ; in Acts viii. 13 it denotes the miracles themselves. The plur. decides in favour of the latter meaning here, especially as lapdrmv and 7rvev- pdrmv are also objective genitives : " the operations which result in powers." Cf. evepy&v Svvdpeis, Gal. iii. 5. Heal ings might have been included in Svvdpeis, as in Luke v. 17 ; Acts xix. 11. But they have an independent place owing to the conspicuous part assigned them in the work of Jesus and His apostles. Chrys. and Heinrici incorrectly limit Svvdpeis to the power to do great and striking miracles, especially by way of punishing, such as delivering to Satan (v. 5), etc. irpocpyreia. Among the Greeks the irpoqbyTys was the in terpreter of the oracular responses delivered by the pdvns. Io, for instance, was prophetess of Apollo. The notion of predicting is not in the irpo-, but comes to attach itself to the word because it is concerning the future that men consult the gods. Cf. Paley's note on Eur., Io 413; Plato, Tim. 72. Among the Hebrews there was no pdvns. The seer and the prophet were one ; inspiration and interpretation met. So also the prophets of the Apostolic age are under the immediate influence of the Spirit and teach the Church. Sometimes they spoke in tongues and others interpreted (cf. xiv. 29). But their immediate inspiration distinguishes them from the BiSda- KaXot. The source of prophecy is revelation (cf. xiv. 6). But sometimes revelations are given which the prophet is not permitted to divulge. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 1, 4. SiaKpiaeis irvevpidrmv. Cf. 1 Thess. v. 21, where "prove all things" immediately follows "despise not prophesyings," as a consequence and a contrast. But SiaKpivm means more than SoKtpd^m. It includes, not only a comparative estimate of the value of spiritual utterances, but also a separation of mutually destructive powers, the demoniacal and the Divine. In 2 Thess. ii. 2 the Apostle acknowledges the presence in the world of a false irvevpa, whose X0709 consists in impre cating a curse on Jesus, and this utterance the Apostle ascribes to the influence of demons. Cf. 1 John iv. 1, 2 ; 1 Tim. iv. 1. The power of discerning between the true and the false spirit is here said to be a gift of God. With this we may compare or contrast the doctrine of the Reformers, that 318 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the inspiration of the Bible is known by a direct, inward revela tion, and the reply of Edward Irving to his friend Campbell's enquiries, " that the answer of the spirit in the hearer is," together with confidence in God, " the ground of belief in any word spoken by any man or any spirit." (Life, by Mrs. Oliphant, Vol. II. p. 331). But there is some difficulty here. The Apostle has already in ver. 3 declared what he considered to be a decisive test of all utterances ; and the same test is given in 1 John iv. 2, 3. What need, then, of a special gift to discern the spirits ? The answer is that the gift consists in a faculty to apply the test. This is also the correction of the Reformers' doctrine of the believer's inspiration to re cognise the word of God. "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God" (1 John iv. 3). But then, "every one that loveth knoweth God" (lb. ver. 7). The power to discern the spirits is, therefore, in a special direction the power to love. Cf. note on ver. 4. However that may be, the Apostle nowhere speaks of an interpretation of prophecy, as he speaks of an interpretation of tongues, but of a discerning of prophecy, true or false. 7ev»7 yXmaa&v. In three sets of passages in the New Test. the gift of tongues is mentioned : (1) Mark xvi. 17, if the passage is genuine, where Kaivai may mean either "not previously possessed by the disciples " or " having a new fiower." (2) Acts ii., where XaXetv erepais yXmaaais (ver. 4) is explained by rfj ISia BiaXeKTa XaXovvrmv air&v (ver. 6) and by XaXovvrmv air&v Tais yperepats yXmaaais (ver. 11) ; that is, the writer describes the Apostles as speaking in the native languages of the foreign Jews who had come to the feast. That in recording what occurred in the house of Cor nelius (Acts x. 46) and at Ephesus (Acts xix. 6) he refers to the same kind of thing as the miracle of Pentecost, is placed beyond a doubt, as to one part of the statement, by the words coairep Kal icp' y/j.ds ev dpxfl in xi. 15. But, though the Spirit fell on those who were present on the three occasions and they spoke with tongues, it is not said that this meant speaking in foreign languages, except on the day of Pentecost. (3) The various references made by the Apostle to the gift of tongues in chapters xii., xiii., and xiv. of this Epistle. If we had only the narrative in Acts no one would have supposed THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XII. 10. 319 the gift of tongues meant anything else than the power of speaking in languages colloquial knowledge of which had not in the ordinary way been acquired by the Apostles. If, on the other hand, we possessed only the references to it in this Epistle, it is hard to believe anybody would have suspected that the gift of tongues meant this, though it would be difficult to say what it did mean. Irenaeus says the gift survived in his day (Adv. Hcer. V. vi. 1). But no inference can be fairly drawn as to the nature of it from his words, 7ravToSa7rat9 XaXotWeov Std tov irvev- paros yXmaaais. The first to offer an explanation of it is Tertullian (Contra Marc. V. 8) : " Edat [Marcio] aliquem psalmum, aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem, dumtaxat spiritualem, in ecstasi, id est amentia, si qua linguae inter- pretatio accessit." He wrote this when he had become a Montanist. But his explanation is noteworthy because it disappears, perhaps in consequence of its supposed Mon- tanistic tendency, from the exegesis of the early Church, to be resuscitated towards the close of the last and during the present century by Bardili, Eichhorn, Ernesti, Herder, Bleek, Bunsen, De Wette, Meyer, etc., with importaut differences, however, among themselves. The universal interpretation of the older expositors, with the exception of Tertullian, appears to have been that the gift of tongues consisted in the power to speak foreign languages, without learning them in the ordinary way. This view first appears in Origen (Ep. ad Rom. I. 13). Chrys. and Augustine (De Baptismo III. 16) adopt it, and say the gift was no longer in existence in their times. Putting aside for the present the narrative in the Book of Acts, are the Apostle's words in our Epistle consistent with the theory that " tongues " meant foreign languages ? First, the notion of preaching the Gospel to ,the heathen would, in that case, be an essential feature in the purpose of the gift of tongues. Apart from this practical use, the power to speak in a language not previously learned is not different from ecstatic utterance. But it is evident that the Corinthians did not use their gift of tongues to evangelize the heathen world. They spoke with tongues in their Church assemblies, and not once does the Apostle urge them to apply the power to the purpose for which it would be so eminently serviceable. From 320 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. xiv. 18 we infer that the Apostle exercised the gift in private even. Of what use would it be to speak foreign languages in the privacy of his devotions ? Nay it is clear that the Apostle had formed a comparatively low estimate of the value to be attached to the gift of tongues. It is the least of the Charis mata. To boast of it is childish (xii. 28 ; xiv. 20). Though it is a " sign " to the unbelievers, it is powerless apart from prophecy to convince them of God's presence in the Church (xiv. 21—25). Can we conceive of St. Paul, who made him self all things to all men that he might save some, depreciating and refraining from urging his readers to covet earnestly a gift so eminently fitted to spread the knowledge of Christ over the face of the earth ? Second, it was a conspicuous feature of the gift that the tongues were unintelligible. Could the Apostle say of any man that speaks in a foreign language that he speaks not to men, but to God? Cf. xiv. 2. In xiv. 7-10 he compares those who speak with tongues to musical instruments that give out jarring and discordant sounds, while prophecy is said to resemble the distinction of sounds that express intelligible musical ideas. Would he have said of a man that speaks the wonderful works of God in a foreign language that he does it with the spirit indeed, but that his understanding is unfruitful, or that he cannot interpret in his own language what he utters in another ? Cf. xiv. 14, 28. For these reasons it is impossible to admit that the gift of tongues, in Corinth at least, meant the power of speaking in a language not before acquired. Ernesti and Herder suggested that by the tongues we are to understand unusual, antiquated, figurative and poetical expressions. This view is ably advocated by Bleek (Stud. u. Krit., 1829, Heft 1) and Baur (lb., 1838, p. 618). Lightfoot (Harm, of the Gospel, on Acts ii.) had proposed a theory which approximates to this, that the gift consisted in the power of speaking the true Hebrew of the Old Testament. It is probably a relic of such a custom that occurs in a prayer ascribed to Gregory Nazianzen for exorcising the demons: e%opKl%m vpds irdvra rd aKaOapra irvevpara Kara tov 'EXoi ASovai aaBamO. Bleek supplies abundant evidence of the use of the word yX&aaa in the sense of IBibryres BiaXeKTmv from Dion. Hal, Sext. Empir. and Plutarch. But these examples THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XII. 10. 321 simply prove that the word was used as a technical term in grammar. We have no intimation in the Apostle's words that Katva bvoptara were spoken in the Church. The religious use of yXmaaa to designate the ecstatic response of an oracle is more to the purpose; but it disconnects entirely the gift of tongues of which our Epistle speaks from the miracle of Pentecost. Eichhorn, Meyer and others suggest that by yX&aaa the Apostle meant the bodily member which we call the tongue. The Spirit is supposed to have taken possession of the person's faculty of physical utterance, so that unconsciously to himself he uttered inarticulate cries. Bunsen (Hippol., Vol. I. p. 11, Eng. Trans.) calls the XaXeti' yXmaaais " a convulsive utter ance, a nervous affection." Cf. Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Hcer., p. 511, Vol. I. Mang., Karaxpyrai Be erepos avrov tois VTa«, Rev. xviii. 14, evpyaovaiv for evpyays. In Luke xiii. 28 Treg. reads 6'rav oifreaOe. If we read oyjryaOe, it may be an aor. from pres. oirrm. In John xvii. 2 Treg. has Smay, as fut., Westc. and Hort Bolaei. But Smay may be aor. In Rev. viii. 3 SAC read Bmaei. ovBev mcpeXovpat. Cf. Matt. xvi. 26. Vv. 4-7. From a statement of the relation in which love stands to the gifts of the Spirit the Apostle passes to an enumeration of the main characteristics of Christian love. We may surmise that his purpose is partly to rebuke the Corinthians for their lack of love, partly to indicate in what various ways love guides the exercise of the gifts, and partly to show the superior worth of love compared with the greatest gifts. First, he has constant reference to the dis tracted state of the Corinthian Church. Again, a close con nection snbsists between the right and effective use of intel lectual gifts and the moral and spiritual state of the heart. In nothing, perhaps, is this more certain than in the exercise of the gifts of prophecy and preaching. The Apostle traces the lack of the greater gifts in the Corinthian Church to a moral defect, by showing that love gives birth to those emotions from which the noblest endowments spring. Finally, these verses connect what he has said of the gifts of the Spirit with the latter part of the chapter, where he speaks of the per petuity of love and the transient character of the gifts. This difference is the direct consequence of the moral worth of love. The reader will not fail to observe that almost all the attri butes here ascribed to love are negative, though Christian love itself is the most aggressive form of goodness. Scripture THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XIII. 3, 4. 343 prefers negative descriptions of moral virtue, partly because Christianity necessarily assumes an antagonistic attitude to wards the world's vices, partly because, as goodness is one and evil is many, the negative action of virtue consists in avoidance of many aspects of evil, while its positive action is comprehended in a few simple forms. In our passage Christian love, on its positive side, appears only in two things, kindness to men and joy in the truth, and these two are really one. For the " truth " is the Gospel, the product of God's philan thropy ; and kindness to men is a gladsome imitatio Christi. V. 4. paKpoOvpei. Jonathan Edwards (Charity and Its Fruits, p. 66) defines " long-suffering " as " meekness in bear ing injuries." This is too narrow, and makes paKpoOvpia synon. with irpabrys. Tertullian (De Patientid 12), Cyprian (Test. III. 3), Chrys., Theophyl. explain it to mean greatness of soul or magnanimity. MaKpbv seems to have been used for peya in the later Greek (cf. Hesych. s.v. paKpbs). It would also appear that peyaXo-ijrvxia, which in Aristotle means high- mindedness, came to signify in later writers magnificence, as if it were synon. with pieyaXoirpeireia. It is not, therefore, improbable that jiaKpoOvpla, which is a later word than p,eyaXoyjrvxla, was used in the sense of magnanimity. At the same time it is evident that in the New Test. paxpoOvpia has always a tacit reference to difficulties, sorrows, injuries, wrong doing:. For this reason it is here said to be an attribute of of love. It differs, therefore, in several points from the "high-mindedness" of Aristotle's Ethics: First, it is not a consciousness of greatness, but a largeness of conception. Second, it is not the loftiness of spirit that great men aloue possess, but a moral aud godly frame of mind to be exhibited in the life of every Christian. Third, it is not a noble pride that stands aloof, but an interested spectator of life's suffer ings, though not an active combatant in the strife. Xpyareverai occurs here for the first time and only here in the New Test. Clem. Rom. borrows it (Ad, Cor. 13). Origen (Gat.) paraphrases by yXvKVS irpbs irdvras. Similarly Jerome (In Gal. v. 22) ; " Benignitas sive suavitas, quia apud Graecos XpyaroTys utrumque souat, virtus est lenis, blanda, tranquilla, ¦it omnium bouorum apta consortio." Its opposite is diroropia, "sharpness," "severity" (Rom. xi. 22). Xpyaibrys supple- 344 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. ments paKpoOvpia, of which it is said by Clem. Rom. (ut sup.) to be the fruit (cf. Gal. v. 22). "Long-suffering" expresses the self-restraint of Christian love ; " kindness " expresses its self-abandonment. The former regards the wrong-doer; the latter, the sufferer. The former represents the attitude of the Divine Government towards men under the Old Covenant; the latter tells us what God has done in the Gospel. The for mer is the passive, the latter the active aspect of love. Tyndale's rendering, "is corteous," refers too exclusively to manner. £yXoi. Envy is "dissatisfaction at the prosperity of an other" (Jon. Edwards). Cf. iii. 3; Gal. v. 20. In its good meaning it is emulation, or the desire to be superior to another without any wish to injure him. irepirepeverat. The words iripirepos, irepirepela, irepire pevopai are late Greek. Cf. Schol. on Soph., Ant. 334. Hence some have supposed they were formed from the old Latin perperus ; and the Vulg. has here "non agit perperam." But -perperam itself is probably connected with irepd and originally denoted what, in a bad sense, is " over and above measure." The precise meaning of irepirepevopai is doubtful. Origen (Cat.) explains it by irpoirerys. So also Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., CEcum. make it to be synon. with ir power everai, "is hasty." In the Catena Chrys. and QEcum. paraphrase it by dXa^oveverai. The Scholiast (ut suji.) says iripirepos is a later word for Kopyjrbs, "affected." Hesychius explains irep irepevopai by Kareiralpopai, " to be arrogant ; " and to the same effect Tertullian (De Patientid 12) has "protervum sapit ; " and Theophylact, rather inconsistently, explains iripirepos by perempigbpevos. Erasmus also renders it by prucax. In Cicero (Ad Attic. I. 14, " quoifcodo iveirepirepev- adfiyv novo auditori Pompeio ") it evid/ntly refers to the manner and expression of one who sourfds his own praises rather than to disposition. Similarly/ Clem. Alex. (Puedag. III. p. 251 Potter) and Basil (Reg. Brev. Tract. 49) explain it by KaXXmiriapbs, " ostentation." Weight of authority is de cidedly in favour of this interpretation. Render : " vaunteth not itself." Cf. M. Anton. V. § 5, Gataker's note. cpvaiovTai, " is not puffed up." It denotes disposition, as irepirepevopai denotes manner. Cf. note on iv. 6 ; viii. 1. V. 5. daxypovel, " doth not behave itself unseemly." Cf. THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XIII. 4-6. 345 xiv. 40, where seemliness is prescribed in the conduct of public worship, and xi. 6-15, where an instance of unseemliness in the Church assembly is censured. The Apostle may have had an eye in the present passage also to Church worship. But what he says is a truth of wide application. Unseemliness of behaviour is the product of lust, and lust is fatal to love. God is love and light, infinite purity and infinite goodness. Holiness only can love. irapo^vverai, "is not provoked," that is, to anger. It is synon. with iraparriKpalvm. In the Old Test, the word is used of God. But such an application of it is alien to the moral tone of the New Test. It means the exasperation of anger. Love is long-suffering when it puts away anger, and is not exasperated even when anger is justly felt. The Apostle deprecates acerbity, but allows righteous resentment. His position differs from that of the Stoics, who condemned dis pleasure even at wrong-doing. Cf. M. Anton. VI. 27. We have an instance of the Apostle being exasperated once (cf. Acts xxiii. 3). ov Xoyi^erai to KaKov, " taketh not account of evil " (Rev. Vers.) . Theodoret is perhaps the first to suggest this render ing : avyyivmaKei tois iinaiapievois, oiK iirl KaKm aKoirm Tavra yeyevya.Oai viroXapBdvmv. Cf. Rom. iv. 8, 8 ; 2 Cor. v. 19. Two other renderings have been proposed. (1) " Does not suspect a person of having done evil till some proof compels belief." But this, as Hammond observes, would probably be expressed by iv0vp,eiaOai, as in Matt. ix. 4. (2) "Does not intend evil against a person." Cf. Phil. iv. 8, where Tavra Xoyi^eaOe means, " think on the way to attain these things." But to say that love does not design another's hurt is to utter a truism not worthy of the Apostle. Besides, he would then probably have written Ta KaKa. V. 6. Xa^Pel ^ TV dSiKla, " rejoiceth not at unrighteous ness." There is no malice (iirixatpeKaKla) in love. The generic term is £i}Xos or cpOovos, the specific iirixatpeKaKla. Malice is that form of envy which seeks another's hurt. Cf. Plat., Phileb. p. 48, 6 cpOov&v ye iirl KaKois tois t&v iriXas ySbp,evos dvacpavyaerai. dSiKia, not "injustice," but " unrighteousness" in the largo sense of the word in the New Test. Cf. Rom. i. 18; iii. 5. 346 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. avyxaipei Be rfj dXyOeia, "but rejoiceth with the truth.'.* Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 10, 12, where, as here, dXyOeia and ciSiKta are contrasted. Miv is omitted in the former clause, because the latter clause is virtually included in it. Not to rejoice at un righteousness implies rejoicing in the truth (cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 7). By " the truth " is here meant, not " righteousness," but " the Gospel." Cf. Test. Duod. Patr. p. 746, avyxapyaovrai airm, that is, the Messiah. The Gospel is the truth of God, not so much because it is distinguished from the types of the Mosaic dispensation as because it is the absolute wisdom, the divine philosophy, of which all the efforts of the human intellect and all the partial lights that had broken from heaven were but the dawn. Cf. Gal. ii. 5; Eph. i. 13; 3 John 3; all an echo of Christ's words in John xiv. 6. This revelation of God bursts upon man with a fulness of joy. The Son Himself has been anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows, and He appoints also unto the mourner beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heavi ness. Abraham saw the day of Christ and was glad. It is the time of harvest, when he that soweth and he that reaoeth rejoice together. The gladness of the early Church attracted the notice of the historian (cf. Acts ii. 46). We may con jecture that it was her joy that created song and broke forth even in ecstatic utterance. Who is not struck with the contrast between this and the profound sadness of the later paganism of Greece and Rome ? " Omnes agedum mortales circumspice," says Seneca, "larga ubique flendi et assidua materia ; alium ad quotidianum opus laboriosa egestas vocat ; alium ambitio nunquam quieta solicitat ; alius divitias qnas optaverat metuit . . . Lacrimse nobis deerunt antequam causaa dolendi " (Consol. ad Polyp. 23). A Christian Apostle alone can address to his readers without irony the exhortation iravrore xa^P£Te (1 Thess. v. 16). In this hymn to love the Apostle personifies the Gospel and represents it as rejoicing. The truth rejoices in its power to create love; for, as Augus tine says, the victory of truth is love. Then love created by the truth rejoices in the loveliness of the truth and rejoices with the truth in its love-creating energy. It is the joy of the shepherd when he has found the lost sheep ; the joy of the father when the prodigal has returned ; the joy of holy angels THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XIII. 6, 7. 347 and of God over one sinner that repenteth. Cf. Rom. vii. 22, avvySopai rm vopm, where Law is personified and avv- ex presses, as here, communion in joy. Cf . Phil. ii. 1 7, avyxalpm irdaiv vpiv. So Arist., Eth. Nic. IX. iv. 1, avyxaipovra tco tifying faith, which consists, not in a delight in God's per fections, but in an "apprehensio meritorum Christi." A lower form of hope also precedes love, — the hope of safety and of happiness. But peaceful trust in the Heavenly Father and fellowship with Him in holiness spring from love. Hope also maketh not ashamed when the love of God is shed abroad in a corresponding love in our hearts. Cf. Rom. v. 5. Again, love is superior to faith and hope because it is the perfection of all moral goodness (vv. 4-7). There is indeed a nexus between faith in Christ and holiness. But faith is not a germ of holiness. Love, on the other hand, is holiness both in germ and in its perfect development. But St. Paul only opens the door. To enter was reserved for St. John. C. Superiority of Prophecy over Tongues. (xiv. 1-40). The lyric strains of the beautiful hymn to love have scarcely died away when the Apostle descends again to argument and practical exhortation in reference to the spiritual gifts. A vivid realization of the supreme excellence of love has pre pared the reader to accept the doctrine of the present chapter that the showy gift of tongues, on which the Corinthians plumed themselves, is inferior to the useful gift of prophecy. V. 1. Si&KeTe, " pursue," as in 1 Thess. v. 15; 1 Pefc;,iii. 11, where BimKeiv is stronger than %yreiv. Cf. Plato, Gorg. p. 507, ovre BimKeiv ovre cpevyeiv d fj.y irpoayKei. In our passage %yXovv is not weaker than BimKeiv. The Apostle does not mean that for the Charismata we can only pray. The idea, however, is somewhat different in the two words. Love is to be chased with all eagerness for its own sake; but the Charis mata are objects of emulation. To strive to excel others in Christian love will not increase our love, but to seek emulously to excel others in gifts useful to the Church is praiseworthy, if the emulation has no tinge of envy. There is no particle connecting the verse with what pre cedes, because the Apostle is making a new start and, at the THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XIII. 13-XIV. 2. 357 outset, briefly states the sum and purpose of his digression. As, therefore, SimKere ryv dydiryv stands at the head of a new section, not at the end of a former one, the Si after gyXovre is not simply resumptive of xii. 31 (Stanley), but adversative. Chrys. and De Wette explain the antithesis excellently : "The Corinthians must not infer from the praise so richly heaped on love that the Charismata are of no value; on the contrary, while they ought to pursue the former, let them strive also for excellence in the latter." The praise of love has risen beyond its excellence as the best way to attain and use the Charismata. The Apostle now returns to his former subject, the necessity in the Church for such Charismata when sanctified by love. rd irvevpariKa. Cf. note on xii. 1. pdXXov, not a comparative in the sense of a superlative. It means, " more than the other gifts." Before tva mentally supply £yXovTe. Vv. 2-6. The gift of tongues is inferior to the gift of prophecy because it does not edify the Church. V. 2. The proof is that he who utters with tongues speaks only to God ; for no man understands him. aKovei, not "hears him" (Wieseler, who infers that utter ance with tongues was in a whisper; cf. note on xii. 10), but " understands what he hears." It means ryv St' mrmv evvotav. So in class. Greek and freq. in LXX. (Gen. xi. 7; Is. xxxvi. 11) and New Test. (Mark iv. 33). oiSeis, except, that is, when one that has the gift of inter pretation is present. irvevpan. From ver. 15, where rrvevpia is contrasted with vovs, we infer that it here signifies, not the Holy Spirit, but the man's spirit, in so far as it is under the influence of the Spirit of God. Hvevpian may be dat. of instrument or of place. pvarypia is generally understood in the modern sense of " mystery," a truth to us incomprehensible. But there is no reason why it should not here also have its usual meaning of " revealed truth." Hence Be has its limitative sense (as in ii. 6, aocpiav Be), not introducing a climax (as in Acts xii. 9 ; Heb. xii. 6); that is, the clause does not mean, "nay, rather, on the contrary, it is in his own spirit that he utters, though 358 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. then indeed he utters profound and incomprehensible truths;" it means, "though I admit that in his own spirit he gives utterance to revealed truths." V. 3. o Be irpocpyrevrnv. He does not say b irpocpyrys (as in ver. 29), that the one participle may balance the other. dvOpmirois, emphatic. The teacher speaks to men as such, in their need of edification and encouragement. o'lKoBopyv, irapuKXyaiv, and irapapvOiav are proleptic accusatives : " ad aedificationem," Vulg. The opposite of o'tKoBopy is KaOalpeats (2 Cor. x. 3). To "build up" is to produce a certain objective character. " Exhortation " and " consolation " eVoke certain feelings which spring out of that moral condition. Originally irapaKXyais and irapafj.vOta have the same meaning, " incentive," " encouragement," and sometimes also the same secondary meaning, " consolation," " comfort." Cf. John xi. 19 ; 2 Cor. viii. 17. The Rev. Vers. has " comfort and consolation." But the other meaning is much more natural here and in Phil. ii. 1 ; 2 Thess. ii. 16. The notion of affliction does not belong to the train of thought in any of these places. UapaKXyais means the incentive of exhortation and argument; irapapvOla, the encouragement of sympathy and example. Cf. 1 Thess. v. 14, "encourage (irapapvOeiaOe) the feeble-minded," who are influenced more by kindness than by argument. So " the encouragement sup plied by love" in Phil. ii. 1 is irapapvOiov. On the other hand, y irapaKXyais t&v ypacp&v (Rom. xv. 4), 6 X0709 t>j? irapaKXrjaems (Heb. xiii. 22); and irapaKXyais, not irapapvOia, became the designation of public teaching in the Church assemblies. Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 13. V. 4. eavrbv olKoSopei. He who utters with tongues builds up his own spiritual character by the exercise of his gift, though he does not himself understand what he utters. He edifies himself ecstatically, but does not present incentives aud encouragements to his own mind or to the minds of his hearers. The prophet edifies the Church by incentives addressed to the hearer's reason. iKKXyalav is anarthrous, in order to emphasize the notion of "Church" by omission of any particular definition. Cf. Jelf, Gr. § 447, Obs. 3. It means the universal Church as it is represented by a particular congregation of Christians. THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XTV. 2-6. 353 Cf. ver. 19, e'v iKKXyaia, and Heb. i. 1, e'v vim ("in one who is Son"). V. 5. "I do not depreciate the gift of tongues from jealousy ; yea, I wish you a better gift, that of prophecy." pelfav Si. So ** A B. C deficit. D reads ydp. The more difficult reading is Se. It must mean, "nay moreover;" that is, " I prefer your having the gift of prophecy, nay, prophecy is itself a greater gift than tongues." Cf. note on xii. 31. iKTos el py. Canon Evans's remark that iKrbs is general, el py specific, is excellent. But it does not prove that the phrase is not a mixture of two exceptive formulae, cktos el and et py. Similarly we have %<»pt? et py, irXyv el prj. Bteppyvevy. D has Steppyvevmv. On et with conjunctive cf. note on ix. 1 1. V. 6. Application of what has been said to the Apostle's own case. vvv Se, not temporary (Hofm.), but logical, introducing an instance to which the general truth just stated is applicable. Cf. John viii. 40. dSeXcpoi, a personal address occasioned by the Apostle's intention to refer to himself. Man is grappling with man. The reference is not a mere rhetorical individualising of the statement in vv. 11, 14 (De Wette, etc.), but an allusion to the Apostle's intended visit to Corinth. The words airbs eym are not required, because the emphasis is on eXOm. Cf. note on iv. 19. idv py k. t. X., that is, " unless the utterance take the form of a revelation," etc. The second protasis is part of the apodosis of the first protasis. E/ans objects that, in that case, Kal would be inserted before XaXyam. But the Apostle does not, I think, mean that utterance with tongues would not, in any case, benefit the brethren and that a useful Charisra must, therefore, be added to a brilliant one. He is speaking of an addition that would make the brilliant Charism itself useful. He supposes himself at Corinth exercising the gift of tongues, with which he was more richly endowed than most men, and shows how profitless to the Church it would be, unless he were also an interpreter of his own utterance, so as to transform it into a revelation or into knowledge. A man's spirit may, even in a state of ecstasy, receive a revelation, 360 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. which, when interpreted, becomes a prophecy; or the ecstasy may quicken the action of thought and lead to knowledge, which may be taught as a doctrine. ev, "in the form of." Cf. note on ii. 7. diroKaXv^ei . . . StSaxfj. Calvin, Cor. a Lap., Estius, Bengel, Meyer, De Wette, etc., rightly classify these four in two pairs. Revelation is the source of prophecy (cf. note on xii. 10); knowledge is the source of doctrine (cf. xii. 8). Cf. vv. 29-31; Eph. iv. 11. Vv. 7-9. Illustrations from musical instruments to prove the uselessness of the gift of tongues without interpretation. opms never means "moreover" (Grot., Wolf, etc.), nor is it synon. with bp&s (Wetstein, etc.). but always means "and yet/' attamen. Chrys., Theophyl., OHoum., Hofmann think it refers to a Kalirep understood with di^v^a : " though they are inanimate things, yet even they," etc. So Rev. Vers. : "even things without life." But we should then expect opms dyjrvxa [i.e. ovra'] rd cpmvyv SiSbvra. The transposition of opms, when it properly belongs to the verb, occurs only with predicative participles or words and phrases that are tantamount to pre dicative par'iciples. So in Gal. iii. 15, opms dvOpcbirov kckv- pmpevyv StaOijKyv, "though it be a man's covenant, yet," etc. Cf. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s.v. opms, 2; Ast, Lex. Plat. s.v. ; Stallbaum's note to Plat., Phileb. p. 91, opms . . . KciXXtov ov. Winer (Gr. § XLV. 2 b), Buttmann (N.S. p. 264), Grimm (L'-x. s.v.) and Meyer consider opms to be correlative to the Kaiirep to be supplied with StSo'vTa, "things without life, though they give a sound, yet," etc. But in this case we should expect Ta dx^in^a opms tpmvyv SiSbvra. Cf. Jelf, Gr. § 697 d. Besides, this makes the contrast between the facts that the instruments give a sound and yet give no distinction of notes needlessly emphatic. The words cpmvyv SiBovra serve merely to specify the kind of inanimate thing meant. There is emphasis on rd dyjrvxa. Otherwise the Apostle might have begun with ei/re aiXos and omitted from to to StSovTa. Neither explanation is quite satisfactory. May we not suppose that opms has reference to the answer which the Apostle imagines the reader to make to his previous question ? " Do yon reply that the gift of tongues is choiceworthy and profitable without revelation or knowledge ? And yet, though this is your opinion, THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XIV. 7-9. 361 you must admit that if things without life, supposing them to emit sound, give no distinction of note, no one will know what is played." Cf. John xii. 42, opms pivroi, "though Isaiah said so, yet," etc. The force of the argument will still be what Chrys. says : " If things without life, supposing them to emit a sound, are useless, unless they are guided by reason to give a distinction of sounds, much more may we expect this to be true of men, whose prerogative is reason." cpmvy, though it properly means " a voice," including the cries of animals (cf. Arist., Pol. I. 2), is sometimes used of the sounds emitted by things without life (cf. Matt. xxiv. 31 ; John iii. 8). So also cpObyyos is used in both meanings. When distinguished or, as here, applied to musical instru ments, cpmvy is "the one and yet infinite" sound, cpObyyos is the same sound when broken up into distinct parts. Cf. Plat., Phileb. p. 17, cpmvy . . . pia Bid tov arbparos 'iovaa ko.1 d-wetpos av irXyOei, and Tim. 80, baoi cpObyyoi raxeis Kal BpaSeis, b^eis re Kal /3apet9 cpaivovrai. So M. Anton. XI. 2, iav ryv pev ippeXy cpmvyv Karapeplays els- eKaarov t&v tpObyymv. The opposite of cpmvy is aiyrj, the opposite of cpObyyos is Stdarypa. aiXbs, " pipe " ; Kiddpa, " harp." The former is the generic name of the various kinds of flutes (tibice), Dorian, Lydian, Phrygian, etc. ; the latter is the generic name of all stringed instruments (fides), though it is distinguished, in a narrower sense, as the small guitar from the cpopptyg or seven-stringed instrument of Terpander, and the Xvpa or harp with large hollow shell. Cf. Bceck, De Metris Pindan III. xi. Wetstein cites Lucian, De Salt. 16, ev aiXm Kal KiOdpa. BtaaroXyv, apparently used, not for a musical "pause" (Lidd. and Scott), but as synon. with Stdarypa, a musical "in terval," that is, the difference in pitch between two sounds. Cf. CEcum., irapaXXayyv Kal ivaXXayyv peXovs. Harmony consists in distinction of sounds and distinction of pitch. Cf. Plat., Phileb. p. 17, eVetSdv XdBns rd Biaarypara birbaa iarl tov dpiOpbv t?j9 cpmvys b^vryrbs re irepi Kat Bapvryros, Kat biroia, Kal tovs opovs t&v Biaarypdrmv, Kal ra eK rovrmv baa avarypara yeyovev, d KanSbvres oi irpbaOev irapiSoaav ypiv tois eiropevois eVet'vot? KaXeiv aird dppovlas k. t. X., and Euclid, Int. Harm. p. 1 (cited in Smith's Did. of Antiquities, 362 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. s.v. Music), yppoapivov Se ian to eV cpObyymv Kal Biaary- pdrmv. Tois cpObyyois, "to the distinctive sounds;" a pure dative after B&, not instrumental : " If they do not apply intervals to the souuds ; " that is, there must be distinction of pitch as well as of sound. to aiXovpevov, not the instrument (Ruckert), but the time, as is clear from to XaXovpevov. Cf. Arist., De Musicd p. 1144 D (cited by Wetstein), to dSbpevov rj avXovp,evov rj KiOaptCp- pevov. V. 8. The same thing is true of the trumpet even (Kal yap), which is not in the proper sense an instrument of music ; for it has no keys or holes, like the flute, much less the sensitiveness that makes a stringed instrument seem to be almost a living thing. The trumpet was never an accompani ment in the avvavXia, as the flute and harp were. Yet this simple instrument is used to summon troops and rouse their courage. Its blasts become significant in consequence of a mutual understanding between the commander and his men. If the sound is uncertain, that is, if the meaning of the call is not previously agreed upon and understood, the trumpet is useless. irbXepov, "battle," as in Heb. xi. 34; Rev. ix. 7, 9. It is another example of a Homeric usage either resuscitated in later Greek or surviving as a provincialism. V. 9. yX&aaa is understood of the tongue by Mosheim, Meyer, Osiauder, Alford, Heinrici, Evans; the distinction supposed to be intended being between the tones of musical instruments and the living voice. Theophyl., Estius, De Wette understand it of the gift of uttering with tongues. The emphatic ko.1 vpeis, repeated in ver. 12, favours this view and it is in accordance with the meaning we attached to ver. 6. Cf. ver. 19, e'v yXmaay. The Std yXcbaays of this verse is in contrast to the Std voo'9 of ver. 19. evaypov evSrfXov, cpavepbv, Hesych. It includes more than aypavriKos. Every X0709 is " significant ; " it ought to be also "easy (ev-) to understand." eaeaOe . . . XaXovvres, the participle and substantive verb expressing the state, not the act only : " You will be in the condition of men speaking to the winds." THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XIV. 7-11. 363 Vv. 10, 11. An illustration to the same effect from natural sounds. et ti>xoi is sometimes, like pdXiara, used with numerals or numeral pronouns to make them indefinite. Ruckert renders it "for example," as in xv. 37. But as the previous verse itself contains an illustration, it is more natural to under stand et rvxoi in the other sense : " There are so many — whatever the number may be." 7e'v>7 cpmv&v, "kinds of voices." Chrys., Estius, De Wette, Meyer, Heinrici restrict, the meaning of cpmvy here to human languages. So in 4 Mace. xii. 7, iv rfj 'EBpatSi cpmvy. But the expression " kinds of languages " is not natural, if the Apostle means the number of languages spoken amongst men (cf. xii. 10). Rather, he distinguishes the variety of utterance in nature, in the same way as he speaks in xv. 39 of the various kinds of flesh. Kal oiBev depmvov. N A B C omit air&v after oiBev. Grotius, Bleek (Stud. u. Krit., 1829, p. 66), Evans explain the words to mean that no creature is without voice of some kind. In favour of this is the usage of aqbmvos, which signifies, not " without meaning" (as if depmvos were synon. with dSyXas tpmvr)), but "without speech." The objection is that this would be simply a repetition of what the Apostle has just said or, at best, a needless addition. Probably a play on the word is intended, as in pios d/3tWo9. " No kind of voice is voice less," that is, no utterance of any creature is without meaning. V. 11. Biivapiv, " force " of a word, " signification." Here only so used in the New Test. Cf. Plat., Critias p. 113, StairvvOavopivmv ryv t&v bvop-drmv Bvvapiv. The reference now limits itself to human languages, through the change of subject (elB&) to the Apostle himself. BdpBapos, "a foreigner." It is explained by Herodotus (II. 158), oi p,y bpbyXmaaoi. Cf. Ovid, Trist. v. 10: " Bar baras hie ego sum quia non intelligor ulli." Contempt is, however, covertly implied in the word, which is formed in imitation of the harsh sounds of a foreign language. The same contempt causes Sophocles (Trach. 1060) to give to a foreign land the appellation dyXmaaos, and .ZEschylus (Agam-. 1050) and Aristophanes (Ran. 681) to compare the dyvmra cpmvyv BdpBapov to the chirping of the migratory swallows. 364 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. e'v ipol, " in my opinion." So in class. Greek in the poets. V. 12. " Since the gift of ecstatic utterance is inferior to that of prophecy because it is less useful, and since ye are eager to possess endowments of the Spirit, seek to excel in thein to the edification of the Church." Mosheim and Hey- denreich follow certain expositors referred to by Theophyl. in placing a stop after vpeis: " So also ye are barbarians to one another in your use of the gift of tongues." This would leave the following words without connection. Meyer supposes a trajection of ovrrn Kal vpeis, as if the words were part of the eVet clause : " Since you also are in this manner, viz., by being barbarians to one another, desirous of spiritual gifts." This i~ harsh, and leaves the words unconnected with what pre cedes. The clause must be connected with ^yreire, and ovrrn will have its usual inferential signification: "therefore, seek ye also," etc. eVei k. r. X. A hint that they were seeking gifts for osten tation. Emphasis on gnXmrai. Emulation, not love, was in their eyes the more excellent way to attain spiritual endow ments. irvevparmv, not quite synon. with irvevpanK&v. The word suggests that the Corinthians sought supernatural endow ments, no matter what their nature might be. Cf. note on xii. 10. irpbs . . . irepiaaevyre. Luther, Alford, Meyer thus : " Seek spiritual gifts for the edification of the Church, that ye may abound." Alford adds that he can find no instance of ty)T& 'iva, and thinks iv. 2 not to the point. But 'iva can follow all verbs that signify wish, prayer, etc. The objection to the above rendering is that the Apostle's evident purpose here is, not to exhort the Corinthians to aim at excellence, but to urge them to seek gifts profitable to the Church. We must, therefore, understand the words thus : " Seek to excel unto the edifying of the Church." irepiaaevetv has here, as in viii. 8, a comparative meaning. The Corinthians were emulous of one another. This is implied in frXmral. Erasmus rightly renders, " excellatis," which is preferable to the Vulg. " abundetis." Vv. 13-7. "Therefore he who has the gift of tongues should endeavour to use it in conjunction with the gift of . THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XIV. 11-14. 365 interpretation. Yet, there are forms of the tongues them selves, such as prayer and psalmody, that are capable of being used intelligently and, in consequence, for edification." V, 13. First, prayer. The words irpoaevxeaOm iva Bieppy- veiiy have been explained in three different ways. (1) Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., etc., thus: "let him pray for the gift of interpretation ; " tva denoting the purport of the prayer. Cf. note on ver. 12. The objection is that in ver. 14. the Apostle speaks, not of the advantage of interpreting, but of the superiority of praying with the reason over praying with the spirit only. (2) Valla and Luther thus : " let him that speaks in a tongue refrain from praying in a tongue, unless he can interpret his utterance." But, though it may be admitted that iva can mean ita ut, " in such a manner as to," it is more natural to understand it (3) in the usual telic signification : ", let him that has the gift of tongues pray with tongues, but let him do so with the purpose of interpreting his utterance afterwards;" that is, he should not be content with ecstatic prayer, but should strive after the gift of interpreting his prayer. V. 14. Reason for ver. 13. The gift of tongues, though it involves the activity of the irvevpa, leaves the action of the V0O9 in abeyance and, consequently, needs to be supplemented by interpretation. Our understanding of this verse depends on the meanings we attach to irvevpa and vovs. As to irvevpa we may at once dismiss the rendering of Erasmus, " breath," as in 2 Thess. ii. 8 ; for it must have some relation to the gift of tongues. Neither can it mean the Charisma itself of the Spirit (Chrys., Theod., Calvin, Grotius), for then pov would not have been added. It must mean the man's own spirit ; that is, the man in so far as he is under the influence of the Spirit of God. Cf. notes on ii. 16; xiv. 2. The Apostle's use of the word in connection with the gift of tongues is proof sufficient that Delitzsch, Canon Evans and Beet are not justified in describ ing the spirit as "the quintessence of man's spirit- nature . . . towering above the V0O9 and the Xoyos ; " as if the Holy Spirit did not act directly on every part of our nature, not excepting the body. Such a view renders the gift of tongues the most exalted of spiritual conditions. As to V0O9 366 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. many expositors render it by " signification," that is, of what is uttered in the prayer. So Theod., t?)v aaipyveiav t&v Xe- yopeimv, and he is followed by Cor. a Lap., Wolf, etc. The meaning would then be that the purport of the prayer uttered in a tongue is unintelligible and, consequently, unprofitable (dicapiros) to the hearers. But this rendering is impossible in ver. 15. The natural antithesis to the man's faculties under the influence, of the Divine afflatus is the man's unassisted powers. Novs will, therefore, mean here the human reasou. It appears from this that the soul may be in prayerful com munion with God without conscious thought couched in lan guage; and no less truly, on the other hand, ecstatic utterance can be of no avail for the edification of others apart from true thoughts. Cf. Acts x. 10; Rev. i. 10. The seer's trance was akin to the mental condition of those that uttered in tongues. Heinrici aptly compares with the Apostle's words Philo's alle gorical explanation of the supernatural ecstasy that seized on Abraham " about the time of the going down of the sun," which is made to signify the setting and suppression of the natural faculties of the soul. drapiros. The course of the argument proves that the word is not to be understood in a passive sense (" my reason is not benefited"), as Chrys. and Calvin explain it. Is the word ever used passively? Here, at all events, it is active: "pro ducing no spiritual grace," pySevbs mipeXovpevov (Basil). Besides, Chrysostom's view is inconsistent with ver. 4. The word implies the ecstatic character of the utterance with tongues. V. 15. Tt ovv e'o-Ttv; "what then?" Cf. Acts xxi. 22; Rom. iii. 9. It introduces an expression of personal decision. It is equivalent to the phrase Xe7&> Be tovto (cf. i. 12). irpoaevl-opai rm irvevpan. So B. NAD read irpoaevgmpat. But the fut- indie, yields a meaning so much more satisfactory that irpoaevgopai must be accepted. So Lachm., Treg., Westc. and Hort. The best MSS. often confound o and m. If it were hortatory, we should have expected the plur. The former irpoaev%opai is concessive, and of similar import to py KmXvere (ver. 39) ; the second expresses the Apostle's prefer ence and determination. Bleek (Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 69), Osiauder, etc., consider prayer with the spirit and prayer with THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XIV. 14, 15. 367 the reason to be separate acts ; and if aKapiros (ver. 1 4) implies that he who prayed with tongues was in a state of ecstasy, this view is correct. ylraX&. Second, from prayer the Apostle passes to the mention oi praise, which is the second form (cf. note on ver. 13) of the exercise of the gift of tongues capable of being used intelligently and for edification. WdXXm, from -^rdm, meant originally " to twang the strings with the tips of the fingers;" then " to sing to the accompaniment of the harp," which is the more frequent signification in LXX. Basil accordingly defines a psalm as X0709 povatKos, brav evpvQpms Kara tovs dppoviKois Xoyovs irpbs to opyavov Kpovyrat (Horn, in Ps. xxix.), and Gregory Nyssen, -^raXpbs pev iartv y Bid tov opya vov tov povaiKov peXmBia. Expositors take for granted that tydXXm is used in our passage generically, as synon. with aSm. Certainly in Col. iii. 16 aSovres alone occurs, while in the parallel passage, Eph. v. 19, we have aSovres Kal -tyaXXovres, apparently an amplification only of the expression. But why may we not suppose that the Corinthian Christians, when giving forth ecstatic utterances in song, accompanied the vocal singing with strains of music on the harp ? The gift of tongues may on occasion have approached the phrenzy of the Bacchanal: Xmrbs orav eiKiXaSos lepbs tepd iralypara Bpepy avvoxa cpoirdaiv. Eur., Bacch. 160. It is especially probable that they had introduced the harp, if not the flute, into the Christian feast of the Agape. Clement of Alexandria (Pcedag. II. p. 193 Potter) permits the use of the harp and lyre. We can have no difficulty in thinking that the Apostle uses the word -\p-aX& metaphori cally in reference to himself. He may have the Psalmist's words, which he cites also in Rom. xv. 9, in his mind, egopo- Xoyyaopai aoi iv eOveai Kal rm bvbparl aov yfraXm. David's harping was accompanied by an intelligent confession of the Lord's goodness, and the Apostle declares that he also will play his harp, that is praise the Lord, with his reason. The powers of his soul will be the strings 011 which he will play. Cf. Clem. Alex, ut sup., y yX&rra to ¦tyaXrypiov Kvpiov. It 368 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. is sometimes said (cf. Trench, Syn. § Ixxviii.) that the ^JraXpot mentioned in the New Test. (e.g. Eph. v. 19; Col. iii. 16) were the inspired psalms of the Hebrew canon, thus distin guished from the vpvoi. But in Matt. xxvi. 30 and Mark xiv. 26 vpvoiiv is used of chanting the Old Test, psalms, and in post-apostolic times the yjraXp.ol ISimnKol are distinguished from the eiry SauiSiKa. V. 16. Proof from a particular instance of the statement that he who utters in a tongue without interpretation does not edify the Church. eVet, " for otherwise." Cf. note on v. 10. eiXoyy;, "if thou be blessing" God; that is, this is the purpose of the man who sings his psalm to the harp. It does not mean blessing God for the gift of ecstasy. o diairXyp&v tov toitov tov IBicotov. In class. Greek tStoi- ti;? has two meanings: (1) " a private person," "one who is not in office," opp. to dpxmv (as in Thuc. I. 115) or 7roXiTei>o- pevos (Dem., Phil. IV. p. 150), etc., and, hence, "one who has no professional knowledge," "a layman;" (2) "an un practised, ignorant man," opp. to Setvo9 (Dem., Phil. I. p. 50) or ireiraiSevpivos (Xen., Mem. III. xii.). In the New Test. the second is the only meaning. Cf. Acts iv. 13 ; 2 Cor. xi. 6. In the present chapter it is the name which the Corinthians would give in disparagement of those that had not the gift of tongues. Theod. excellently : ol dpvyroi. Several explana tions of the other words have been offered : (1) Cor. a Lap. : " He that occupies the seat in the public assemblies reserved for those who have no gifts." But why should the Apostle refer to such local separation, even if it had any existence at this time ? (2) Aquinas and Estius consider the person that occupied the place of the unlearned to have been the minister who uttered the responses on behalf of the people. This is to transfer to the Apostolic age what belongs to much later times. (3) The only satisfactory explanation is that (in the main) of Cyril (Cat.) among the Fathers, Neander, De Wette, Ruckert, Rothe (Anfdnge, p. 156), etc., that we have here an allusion to the synagogue worship, in which the congregation is distinguished from the officiating minister. But in the synagogue the distinction was fixed, in the Christian Churches gifts were bestowed on all in various degrees and at various THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XIV. 15, 16. 369 times. The minister might become a mere hearer, and the hearer in turn au instructor. " He that fills the place of the unlearned" (as the Corinthians would designate him) is he that occupies at the time the position of a hearer. Anon he may take the place of teacher. Cf. rdgiv dvairXi/pouv (Joseph., B. J. V. ii. 5) ; Acts i. 25, XaBeiv tov tottov rys StaKovlas ravrys and espec. Clem., Ad Cor. 63, tov viraKoys tottov avairXypmaavras ("occupying the position of an obe dient man"). The words imply the universal ministry ev Svvdpei of all Christians, and the special function of every one ev ivepyeia. When Clement of Rome wrote his letter to the Corinthians the distinction between clergy and laity was established. Cf. Clem., Ad Cor. 40. Bat to infer from this verse that the distinction had been fixed when the Apostle wrote (so Chrys., Theod., CEcum., Theophyl., Olshausen, etc.) is the reverse of what the words justify us in inferring. It is also an anachronism to identify the ISi&rai with the cate chumens, though the condition of the apostolic Churches was preparing the way for subsequent developments. ir&s ipei, " how will he say ? " It is a true fut. and not synon,. with the deliberative subjunctive. Cf. ver. 7. The doubt is, not whether he is to say or not to say Amen, but how it will be brought about. Cf. however Wiuer, Gr. § XL. 6. to dpyv, " the customary Amen." Another reference to what had passed into the Church from the synagogue. The " Amen " was the response (iiricpmvypa) of the congregation to the prayers of the minister, and especially to his declaration of God's promises aud threatenings. Cf. Deut. 'xxvii. 15, where LXX. renders it by yivoiro ; 1 Chron. xvi. 36 ; Neh. viii. 6. That the usage had passed into the public worship of the Christian Churches is amply vouched for by the early Fathers. Cf. Justin M., Apol. I. 65, p. 97, ov avvreXeaavTos, ras eu^dv «at ttjv eixapianav itds o irapmv Xaos eirevtpypei Xeymv Apyv, and Tert., De Sped. 25, " ex ore quo Amen in, Sanctum protuleris." Cf. Cyril of Jerus., Cat. xxviii. 18;. Ambrose, De Myst. 9 ; Jerome, Comm. in Gal., Procem. ; August., Contra Faust. XII. 10. eVt, that is, as a seal upon it ; iiriacppayl£mv, Cyr. (ut sup.),. Thepron. ifj ay does not imply that the thanksgiving is " pro- prium et privatum" (Cor. a Lap.) ; but it does imply that B B 370 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. the minister's prayer was extemporary. There is no reason why the reference should be restricted to the Lord's Supper (Beza, etc.). Tt Xeyets, " what is the meaning of thy utterance " Cf. note on i. 12. Bleek rightly infers (Stud. u. Krit., 1829, p. 70) that the public prayers did not at this time consist of fixed forms. V. 17. KaX&s, not ironical (Wetstein) , as in Mark vii. 9. Ecstatic utterance might be profitable to the man himself, and the Apostle desired all to receive the gift. pev dXXd, not Se, in order to mark the antithesis strongly. AXXa means " but what of that ? " 6 erepos, not dXXo9, and expressing some degree of contrast between teacher aud hearer. Cf. Gal. i. 6. Vv. 18, 19. The Apostle's own preference. V. 18. NABD omit pov. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort ; but Reiche retains it. NAD read yXmaay, B yXmaaais. The sing, is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg.; Westc. and Hort doubtful. SBD read XaXco. So Tisch. (8th ed.), Treg., Westc. and Hort. A omits it. The evidence is sufficient in favour of evxaptar& rm Oeco iravrmv vp&v pdXXov yXcbaay XaX&. Vulg. curiously omits to translate pdXXov : " quod omnium vestrum lingua loquor," as if the Apostle were thanking God that he could speak the languages of all. De Wette, following A in omitting XaX&, thinks ¦eixaptar& refers to the exercise of the gift of tongues : " I thank God in a tongue more than you all." Similarly Cajetan and Reiche, XaXwv. Others, though reading XaX&, render: "I thank God that I speak in a tongue more than all of you." The omission of oti is not a Hebraism, but occurs occasionally in class. Greek, espec. after olpai. But eixaptar& must have the same meaning in this and in the previous verse; that is, it refers in both verses to ecstatic utterance of thanks. Canon Evans well observes that the style becomes abrupt and climac teric. The meaning is : "I give thanks to God — more than all of you I speak in a tongue." The Apostle exercised the gift of tongues in private even. V. 19. For Std toO voo9 pov M A B D read t& vol, which is •adopted by most critics. OiXm . . . y. This comparative use of OeXm (maid) occurs THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. — XIV. 16-20. 371 in Hom. (e.g. Od. iii. 321), and B°vXopai is freq. so used in class. Greek. Cf. 2 Mace. xiv. 42. Karyx^am. The late Greek Karyx^m means " to teach by word of mouth " (lit. " to sound abroad ") , and in the early Church was especially used of instruction in the elements (rd aroixeia) of doctrine. After the Apostolic age such as were under instruction with a view to baptism came to be called catechumens. 7revTe, that is, " a few." Cf. Isa. xxx. 17. Estius vainly" strives to break the force of the argument drawn from this verse for using the vernacular in public prayers. But Cajetan acknowledges that the Apostle's words directly discourage the use of a language not understood by the people, and Erasmus waxes eloquent in censuring the introduction of all kinds of musical instruments into the service of the Church. V. 20. The argument closes with an abrupt exhortation, the sharpness of which is qualified by the word dSeXcpoi. Calvin joins the ver. to what follows, but incorrectly . The Corinthians set the highest value on the gift of tongues from childish ostentation, while they despised prophecy, a gift that demanded for its fitting exercise manly thought and ratiocination. yiveaOe, not so harsh as eaeaOe. They were childish. But he only urges them not to become such. Tat9 eppeaiv, "in judgment." The word occurs only here in the New Test. The Apostle probably wished to avoid using vovs, which has in the previous verse a somewhat different meaning, the conscious reason as distinguished from ecstasy. $pyv is properly the midriff (from eppdaam). After wards Btdcppaypa was used for midriff, when eppyv acquired its more usual metaphorical meaning of " mind." The datives here are of reference or sphere. . Cf. note on vii. 34. vyTrid^ere, "in evil be, not boyish, but actually childish." The Corinthians were not children in every respect. But, instead of manifesting the childlike innocence of goodness and manly vigour of judgment, they were in judgment childish and in evil wise. Vain as a child they yet had not the " noble simplicity " of the good man. Vv. 21-25. What he has said in ver. 20 reminds the 372 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Apostle of Isaiah's words (xxviii. 9), " Whom will he make to understand the tidings ? Those weaned from the milk and removed from the breast?" Recent expositors, including Delitzsch, accept Lowth's explanation of these words : " The scoffers are introduced as uttering their sententious speeches ; they treat God's method of dealing with them and warning them by His prophets with contempt and derision. What, say they, doth He treat us as mere infants just weaned ? Doth He teach us like little children, perpetually inculcating the same elementary lessons, the mere rudiments of knowledge, precept after precept, line after line, here and there, by little and little ? . . . God by His prophet retorts upon them with great severity their own contemptuous mockery, turning it to a sense quite different from what they intended. Yes, saith He, it shall be in fact as you say : ye shall be taught by a strange tongue and a stammering lip, in a strange country." This is precisely the connection between ver. 20 and what follows. The Apostle taunts the Corinthians, as the prophet taunts Israel, with being children in understanding ; and, as the Lord threatens to speak to Israel in the to them unin telligible language of the Assyrians, so the childish vanity and ostentation of the Corinthian Christians is visited with an outburst of ecstatic cries in the Church assemblies. The tongues are an example of analogical retribution; childish ness receiving childish gifts. But the Apostle discovers yet another analogy between Israel and the Corinthian Christians. The Lord spoke to Israel with the stammering tongues of Assyria as a punishment for unbelief and disobedience. From this the Apostle infers (<5