Full text of "A critical and exegetical commentary on the first epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians"

I ittinnittorral Critical (0mnuntarg

on the Dodj Scriptures of tije (H& anb
fleto Ctstaimnte

UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF

THE REV. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D.

Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford

THE REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.

Late Master of University College, Durham

THE REV. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.

Professor of Theological Encyclopadia and Symbolics
Union Theological Seminary, New York

THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY

A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY

ON THE

FIRST EPISTLE OF ST PAUL
TO THE CORINTHIANS

Right Rev. ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D,

AND

Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D,

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY

MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED

FOR

JL. & T. CLARK. EDINBURGH
w&gt;w YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNEX/S SON*

The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved.

A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY

ON THB

FIRST EPISTLE OF ST PAUL
TO THE CORINTHIANS

erf TBK

Right Rev. ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D.

BISHOP OF EXETER

LATE PRINCIPAL OF KING S COLLEGE, LONDON

FORMBRLY PRINCIPAL OF BISHOP HATFIELD s HALL, DURHAM

HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD

AND THE

Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER. M.A., D.D.

LATE MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM
FORMERLY FELLOW AND TUTOB OP TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD

SECOND EDITION

EDINBURGH : T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET

First Edition ....
Second Edition . . . 1914
Latest Reprint .... jp6 j

16 1964

PREFACE

MORE than fourteen years ago I promised to Dr. Plummer,
Editor of the " International Critical Commentary," an
edition of this Epistle, of which I had the detailed
knowledge gained by some years of teaching. Almost
immediately, however, a change of work imposed upon me
new duties in the course of which my predominant
interests were claimed, in part by administrative work
which curtailed opportunities for study or writing, in part
by studies other than exegetical.

I had hoped that in my present position this diversion
of time and attention would prove less exacting ; but the
very opposite has been the case. Accordingly my task in
preparing for publication the work of past years upon the
Epistle has suffered from sad lack of continuity, and has
not, with the exception of a few sections, been carried
beyond its earlier chapters.

That the Commentary appears, when it does and as it
does, is due to the extraordinary kindness of my old
friend, tutor at Oxford, and colleague at Durham, Dr.
Plummer. His generous patience as Editor is beyond any
recognition I can express : he has, moreover, supplied my
shortcomings by taking upon his shoulders the greater
part of the work. Of the Introduction, also, he has written
important sections; the Index is entirely his work.

While, however, a reader versed in documentary
criticism may be tempted to assign each nuance to its
several source, we desire each to accept general responsi-

vii

viii PREFACE

bility as contributors, while to Dr. Plummer falls that of
Editor and, I may add, the main share of whatever merit
the volume may possess.

It is hoped that amidst the exceptional number of
excellent commentaries which the importance of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians has called forth, the present
volume may yet, with God s blessing, have a usefulness
of its own to students of St Paul.

A. EXON:

EXETER,

Conversion of St Paul,
1911.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION :

PAGl

I. CORINTH .... . xi

II. AUTHENTICITY . . . . . xvi

III. OCCASION AND PLAN . . . . xix

Analysis of the Epistle . . . . xxv

IV. PLACE AND DATE ... . xxvii

Aretas to the Apostolic Council . . xxviii

Apostolic Council to the End of Residence at

Ephesus . . . xxix

From Festus back to I Corinthians . . xxx

Resultant Scheme ... . xxxi
Bearing of St Paul s Movements on the Question

of Date ..... xxxi

Table of Pauline Chronology . . xxxiii

V. DOCTRINE ..... xxxiv

The Apostle s Relation to Christ . . xxxiv

The Resurrection .... xxxvi

The Person of Christ . . . xxxviii

The Christian Life .... xxxviii

The Collective Work of the Church . xxxix

The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit . . . xlv

VI. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE . xlvi

Words peculiar to I Corinthians in the N.T. . xlix
Words peculiar to I Corinthians in the Pauline

Epistles . . . . li

Phrases peculiar to I Corinthians in the N.T. . lii

Quotations from the O.T. . . . Hi
b

X CONTENTS

FACE

VII. TEXT liv

General Features . . . . .liv

The Pauline Epistles . . . . lv

Authorities for this Epistle .... Ivii
Illustrative Readings . . . . lix

8 VIII. COMMENTARIES ..... Ixvi

Patristic and Scholastic .... Ixvi
Modern .... Ixvii

COMMENTARY . . . . . i

INDEX :

General . . . . . .403

*jreek Words . . . 413

Latin and English Words . . . , 424

INTRODUCTION

I. CORINTH.

WHAT we know from other sources respecting Corinth in St
Paul s day harmonizes well with the impression which we receive
from i Corinthians. The extinction of the totius Graedae lumen,
as Cicero (Pro lege Manil. 5) calls the old Greek city of Corinth,
by the Roman consul L. Mummius Achaicus, 146 B.C., was only
temporary. Exactly a century later Julius Caesar founded a
new city on the old site as Colonia Julia Corinthus.* The re
building was a measure of military precaution, and little was
done to show that there was any wish to revive the glories of
Greece (Finlay, Greece under the Romans^ p. 67). The inhabi
tants of the new city were not Greeks but Italians, Caesar s
veterans and freedmen. The descendants of the inhabitants
who had survived the destruction of the old city did not return
to the home of their parents, and Greeks generally were for a
time somewhat shy of taking up their abode in the new city.
Plutarch, who was still a boy when St Paul was in Greece, seems
hardly to have regarded the new Corinth as a Greek town.
Festus says that the colonists were called Corinthienses, to dis
tinguish them from the old Corinthii. But such distinctions do
not seem to have been maintained. By the time that St Paul
visited the city there were plenty of Greeks among the inhabi
tants, the current language was in the main Greek, and the
descendants of the first Italian colonists had become to a large
extent Hellenized.

The mercantile prosperity, which had won for the old city
such epithets as d^veto s (Horn. //. ii. 570 ; Find. Fragg. 87, 244),
evScu/uov (Hdt. iii. 52), and oA/3ta (Pind. Ol. xiii. 4; Thuc. i. 13),
and which during the century of desolation had in some degree
passed to Delos, was quickly recovered by the new city, because
it was the result of an extraordinarily advantageous position, which
remained unchanged. Corinth, both old and new, was situated

* Other titles found on coins and in inscriptions are Laus Juli Corinthui
and Colonia Julia Corinthus Augusta.

xii INTRODUCTION

on the bridge or causeway between two seas; TTOVTOV
d/ca/xavros (Find. JVem. vi. 67), yc^vpav irovrtaSa Trpo KopwOov
T;j(e a&gt;v (Isth. iii. 35). Like Ephesus, it was both on the main com
mercial route between East and West and also at a point at which
various side-routes met the main one. The merchandise which
came to its markets, and which passed through it on its way to
other places, was enormous ; and those who passed through it
commonly stayed awhile for business or pleasure. "This
bimaris Corinthus was a natural halting-place on the journey
between Rome and the East, as we see in the case of S. Paul
and his companions, and of Hegesippus (Eus. H.E. iv. 22). So
also it is called the TrcptTraros or lounge of Greece" (Lightfoot,
S. Clement of Rome &gt; ii. pp. 9, 10). The rhetorician Aristeides
calls it " a palace of Poseidon " ; it was rather the market-place
or the Vanity Fair of Greece, and even of the Empire.

It added greatly to its importance, and doubtless to its
prosperity, that Corinth was the metropolis of the Roman
province of Achaia, and the seat of the Roman proconsul
(Acts xviii. 12). In more than one particular it became the
leading city in Greece. It was proud of its political priority,
proud of its commercial supremacy, proud also of its mental
activity and acuteness, although in this last particular it was
surpassed, and perhaps greatly surpassed, by Athens. It may
have been for this very reason that Athens was one of the last
Hellenic cities to be converted to Christianity. But just as the
leaders of thought there saw nothing sublime or convincing in
the doctrine which St Paul taught (Acts xvii. 18, 32), so the
political ruler at Corinth failed to see that the question which
he quite rightly refused to decide as a Roman magistrate, was
the crucial question of the age (Acts xviii. 14-16). Neither
Gallio nor any other political leader in Greece saw that the
Apostle was the man of the future. They made the common
mistake of men of the world, who are apt to think that the
world which they know so well is the whole world (Renan,
5. Paul, p. 225).

In yet another particular Corinth was first in Hellas. The
old city had been the most licentious city in Greece, and
perhaps the most licentious city in the Empire. As numerous
expressions and a variety of well-known passages testify, the
name of Corinth had been a by-word for the grossest profligacy,
especially in connexion with the worship of Aphrodite Pande-
mos.* Aphrodite was worshipped elsewhere in Hellas, but

* Koptvdtdfr&lt;r0ai, "KopivQla K6py t Kop. Trews : oft Travrbs AvSpbs ~K.6pi.v8ov
t&lt;T0 6 TrXoDj, a proverb which Horace (Ep. I. xvii. 36) reproduces, non anvis
komini contingit adire Corinthum. Other references in Renan, p. 213, and
Farrar, St Paul, i. pp. 557 f.

INTRODUCTION riii

nowhere else do we find the UpoSovAoi as a permanent element
in the worship, and in old Corinth there had been a thousand
of these. Such worship was not Greek but Oriental, an im
portation from the cult of the Phoenician Astarte; but it is
not certain that this worship of Aphrodite had been revived
in all its former monstrosity in the new city. Pausanias, who
visited Corinth about a century later than St Paul, found it
rich in temples and idols of various kinds, Greek and foreign ;
but he calls the temple of Aphrodite a vaiSiov (vm. vi. 21):
see Bachmann, p. 5. It is therefore possible that we ought
not to quote the thousand Icpo&ovXoL in the temple of Aphrodite
on Acrocorinthus as evidence of the immorality of Corinth in
St Paul s day. Nevertheless, even if that pestilent element had
been reduced in the new city, there is enough evidence to show
that Corinth still deserved a very evil reputation ; and the letters
which St Paul wrote to the Church there, and from Corinth to
other Churches, tell us a good deal.

It may be doubted whether the notorious immorality of
Corinth had anything to do with St Paul s selecting it as a
sphere of missionary work. It was the fact of its being an
imperial and cosmopolitan centre that attracted him. The
march of the Empire must everywhere be followed by the
march of the Gospel. The Empire had raised Corinth from
the death which the ravages of its own legions had inflicted
and had made it a centre of government and of trade. The
Gospel must raise Corinth from the death of heathenism and
make it a centre for the diffusion of discipline and truth. In
few other places were the leading elements of the Empire so
well represented as in Corinth : it was at once Roman, Oriental,
and Greek. The Oriental element was seen, not only in its
religion, but also in the number of Asiatics who settled in it or
frequently visited it for purposes of commerce. Kenchreae is
said to have been chiefly Oriental in population. Among these
settlers from the East were many Jews,* who were always
attracted to mercantile centres ; and the number of them must
have been considerably increased when the edict of Claudius
expelled the Jews from Rome (Acts xviii. 2; Suet. Claud. 25).
In short, Corinth was the Empire in miniature; the Empire
reduced to a single State, but with some of the worst features
of heathenism intensified, as Rom. i. 21-32, which was written
in Corinth, plainly shows. Any one who could make his voice
heard in Corinth was addressing a cosmopolitan and representa
tive audience, many of whom would be sure to go elsewhere, and

* Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 36 ; cf. Justin, Try. I. It is unfortunate that
neither the edict of Claudius nor the proconsulship of Gallio can be dated
with accuracy.

xiv INTRODUCTION

might carry with them what they had heard. We need not wondei
that St Paul thought it worth while to go there, and (after receiv
ing encouragement from the Lord, Acts xviii. 9) to remain there
a year and a half. Nor need we wonder that, having succeeded
in finding the * people (Aao s) whom the Lord had already marked
as His own, like a new Israel (Acts xviii. 10), and having suc
ceeded in planting a Church there, he afterwards felt the keenest
interest in its welfare and the deepest anxiety respecting it.

( It was from Athens that St Paul came to Corinth^ and the
transition has been compared to that of passing frorrfresidence
in Oxford to residence in London; that ought to mean from
the old unreformed Oxford, the home of lost causes and of
expiring philosophies, to the London of our own age. The
difference in miles between Oxford and London is greater than
that between Athens and Corinth; but, in St Paul s day, the
difference in social and intellectual environment was perhaps
greater than that which has distinguished the two English cities
in any age. The Apostle s work in the two Greek cities was
part of his great work of adapting Christianity to civilized
Europe. In Athens he met with opposition and contempt
(Acts xvii. 18, 32),* and he came on to Corinth in much
depression and fear (i Cor. ii. 3); and not until he had been
encouraged by the heavenly vision and the experience of con
siderable success did he think that he would be justified in
remaining at Corinth instead of returning to the more hopeful
field in Macedonia. During the year and a half that he was
there he probably made missionary excursions in the neigh
bourhood, and with success : 2 Corinthians is addressed unto
the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints
which are in the whole of Achaia.

So far as we know, he was the first Christian who ever
entered that city ; he was certainly the first to preach the Gospel
there. This he claims for himself with great earnestness
(iii. 6, 10, iv. 15), and he could not have made such a claim,
if those whom he was addressing knew that it was not true.
Some think that Aquila and Priscilla were Christians before
they reached Corinth. But if that was so, St Luke would pro
bably have known it, and would have mentioned the fact ; for
their being of the same belief would have been a stronger reason
for the Apostle s taking up his abode with them than their being
of the same trade, TO o^or^ov (Acts xviii. 3).! On the other

* This attitude continued long after the Apostle s departure. Fora century
or two Athens was perhaps the chief seat of opposition to the Gospel.

f It is possible that this is one of the beloved physician s medical words.
Doctors are said to have spoken of one another as 6[j.&rex v l (Hobart, Med.
Lang, of St Luke, p. 239).

INTRODUCTION Xt

hand, if they were converted by St Paul in Corinth, would not
either he or St Luke have mentioned so important a success,
and would not they be among those whom he baptized himself?
If they were already Christians, it may easily have been from
them that he learnt so much about the individual Christians
who are mentioned in Rom. xvi. The Apostle s most important
Jewish convert that is known to us is Crispus, the ruler of the
Corinthian synagogue (Acts xviii. 8; i Cor. i. 14). Titius or
Titus Justus may have been his first success among the Roman
proselytes (Acts xviii. 7 ; Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller, p. 256),
or he may have been a Gentile holding allegiance to the syna
gogue, but not a circumcised proselyte (Zahn, Intr. to N.T.,
i. p. 266). Acts xviii. 7 means that the Apostle taught in his
house, instead of in the synagogue ; not that he left the house
of Aquila and Priscilla to live with Titus Justus.* About
Stephanas (T Cor. xvi. 15, i. 16) we are doubly in doubt, whether
he was a Gentile or a Jew, and whether he was converted and
baptized in Athens or in Corinth. He was probably a Gentile ;
that he was a Corinthian convert is commonly assumed, but it
is by no means certain.

A newly created city, with a very mixed population of Italians,
Greeks, Orientals, and adventurers from all parts, and without
any aristocracy or old families, was likely to be democratic and
impatient of control ; and conversion to Christianity would not
at once, if at all, put an end to this independent spirit. Cer
tainly there was plenty of it when St Paul wrote. We find
evidence of it in the claim of each convert to choose his own
leader (i. lo-iv. 21), in the attempt of women to be as free
as men in the congregation (xi. 5-15, xiv. 34, 35), and in the
desire of those who had spiritual gifts to exhibit them in public
without regard to other Christians (xii., xiv.).

Of the evils which are common in a community whose chief
aim is commercial success, and whose social distinctions are
mainly those of wealth, we have traces in the litigation about
property in heathen courts (vi. i-n), in the repeated mention
of the 7r\eov6KTr}&lt;s as a common kind of offender (v. 10, n,
vi. 10), and in the disgraceful conduct of the wealthy at the
Lord s Supper (xi. 17-34).

The conceited self-satisfaction of the Corinthians as to their
intellectual superiority is indicated by ironical hints and serious
warnings as to the possession of yvoio-is (viii. i, 7, 10, n,

* Justus, as a surname for Jews or proselytes, meant (like Sinaios in
Luke i. 6) careful in the observance of the Law. It was common in the
case of Jews (Acts i. 23 ; Col. iv. n). Josephus had a son so called, and he
tells us of another Justus who wrote about the Jewish war (Vita, I, 9, 65).
It is said to be frequent in Jewish inscriptions.
b

xvi INTRODUCTION

xiii. 2, 8) and cro^ia. (i. 17, iii. 19), by the long section which
treats of the false and the true wisdom (i. i8-iii. 4), and by the
repeated rebukes of their inflated self-complacency (iv. 6, 18, 19,
v. 2, viii. i ; cf. xiii. 4).

But the feature in the new city which has made the deepest
mark on the Epistle is its abysmal immorality. There is not
only the condemnation of the Corinthians attitude towards the
monstrous case of incest (v. 1-13) and the solemn warning
against thinking lightly of sins of the flesh (vi. 12-20), but also
the nature of the reply to the Corinthians letter (vii. i-xi. i).
The whole treatment of their marriage-problems and of the right
behaviour with regard to idol-meats is influenced by the thought
of the manifold and ceaseless temptations to impurity with which
the new converts to Christianity were surrounded, and which
made such an expression as the Church of God which is at
Corinth (i. 2), as Bengel says, laetum et ingens paradoxon. And
the majority of the converts probably the very large majority
had been heathen (xii. 2), and therefore had been accustomed
to think lightly of abominations from which converts from
Judaism had always been free. Anxiety about these Gentile
Christians is conspicuous throughout the First Epistle ; but at
the time when the Second was written, especially the last four
chapters, it was Jewish Christians that were giving him most
trouble. In short, Corinth, as we know it from other sources,
is clearly reflected in the letter before us.

That what we know about Corinth and the Apostle from
Acts is reflected in the letter will be seen when it is examined
in detail ; and it is clear that the writer of Acts does not derive
his information from the letter, for he tells us much more than
the letter does. As Schleiermacher pointed out long ago, the
personal details at the beginning and end of i and 2 Corinthians
supplement and illuminate what is told in Acts, and it is clear
that each writer takes his own line independently of the other
(Bachmann, p. 12).

II. AUTHENTICITY.

It is not necessary to spend much time upon the discussion
of this question. Both the external and the internal evidence
for the Pauline authorship are so strong that those who attempt
to show that the Apostle was not the writer succeed chiefly in
proving their own incompetence as critics. Subjective criticism
of a highly speculative kind does not merit many detailed
replies, when it is in opposition to abundant evidence of the
most solid character. The captious objections which have been

INTRODUCTION xvii

urged against one or other, or even against all four, of the great
Epistles of St Paul, by Bruno Bauer (1850-1852), and more
recently by Loman, Pierson, Naber, Edwin Johnson, Meyboom,
van Manen, Rudolf Steck, and others, have been sufficiently
answered by Kuenen, Scholten, Schmiedel, Zahn, Gloel, Wrede,
and Lindemann ; and the English reader will find all that he
needs on the subject in Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles,
ch. iii., or in The Testimony of St Paul to Christ, lect. xxiv. and
passim (see Index). But the student of i Corinthians can spend
his time better than in perusing replies to utterly untenable
objections. More than sixty years ago, F. C. Baur said of the
four chief Epistles, that "they bear so incontestably the char
acter of Pauline originality, that there is no conceivable ground
for the assertion of critical doubts in their case " (Paulus, Stuttg.
1845, ii. Einleit., Eng. tr. i. p. 246). And with regard to the
arguments which have been urged against these Epistles since
Baur s day, we may adopt the verdict of Schmiedel, who, after
examining a number of these objections, concludes thus : " In a
word, until better reasons are produced, one may really trust
oneself to the conviction that one has before one writings of
Paul" (Hand-Commentar zum N.T., n. i. p. 51).

The external evidence in support of Pauline authorship in
the fullest sense is abundant and unbroken from the first century
down to our own day. It begins, at the latest, with a formal
appeal to i Corinthians as "the letter of the blessed Paul, the
Apostle" by Clement of Rome about A.D. 95 (Cor. 47), the
earliest example in literature of a New Testament writer being
quoted by name. And it is possible that we have still earlier
evidence than that. In the Epistle of Barnabas iv. 1 1 we have
words which seem to recall i Cor. iii. i, 16, 18; and in the
Didache x. 6 we have /xapav aOd, enforcing a warning, as in
i Cor. xvi. 22. But in neither case do the words prove acquaint
ance with our Epistle; and, moreover, the date of these two
documents is uncertain : some would place both of them later
than 95 A.D. It is quite certain that Ignatius and Polycarp
knew i Corinthians, and it is highly probable that Hermas did.
"Ignatius must have known this Epistle almost by heart.
Although there are no quotations (in the strictest sense, with
mention of the source), echoes of its language and thought
pervade the whole of his writings in such a manner as to leave
no doubt whatever that he was acquainted with the First Epistle
to the Corinthians" (The N.T. in the Apostolic Fathers, 1905,
p. 67). We find in the Epistles of Ignatius what seem to be
echoes of i Cor. i. 7, 10, 18, 20, 24, 30, ii. 10, 14, iii. i, 2, 10-
15, 16, iv. i, 4, v. 7, vi. 9, 10, 15, vii. 10, 22, 29, ix. 15, 27, x. 16,
17, xii. 12, xv. 8-10, 45, 47, 58, xvi. 18; and a number of these,

xviii INTRODUCTION

being quite beyond dispute, give increase of probability to the
rest. In Polycarp there are seven such echoes, two of which (to
T Cor. vi. 2, 9) are quite certain, and a third (to xiii. 13) highly
probable. In the first of these (Pol. xi. 2), Paul is mentioned,
but not this Epistle. The passage in Hernias (Mand. iv. 4)
resembles i Cor. vii. 39, 40 so closely that reminiscence is more
probable than mere coincidence. Justin Martyr, about A.D. 147,
quotes from i Cor. xi. 19 (Try. 35), and Athenagoras, about
A.D. 177, quotes part of xv. 55 as Kara rbv aTroo-roAov (De Res.
Mort. 18). In Irenaeus there are more than 60 quotations; in
Clement of Alexandria, more than 130 ; in Tertullian, more than
400, counting verses separately. Basilides certainly knew it, and
Marcion admitted it to his very select canon. This brief state
ment by no means exhausts all the evidence of the two centuries
subsequent to the writing of the Epistle, but it is sufficient to
show how substantial the external evidence is.

The internal evidence is equally satisfactory. The document,
in spite of its varied contents, is harmonious in character and
language. It is evidently the product of a strong and original
mind, and is altogether worthy of an Apostle. When tested by
comparison with other writings of St Paul, or with Acts, or with
other writings in the N.T., we find so many coincidences, most
of which must be undesigned, that we feel confident that neither
invention, nor mere chance, nor these two combined, would be
a sufficient explanation. The only hypothesis that will explain
these coincidences is that we are dealing with a genuine letter of
the Apostle of the Gentiles. And it has already been pointed
out how well the contents of the letter harmonize with what we
know of Corinth during the lifetime of St Paul.

The integrity of i Corinthians has been questioned with as
much boldness as its authenticity, and with as little success. On
quite insufficient, and (in some cases) trifling, or even absurd,
grounds, some sections, verses, and parts of verses, have been
suspected of being interpolations, e.g. xi. 16, 19 b, 23-28, xii. 2&gt;
13, parts of xiv. 5 and 10, and the whole of 13, xv. 23-28, 45.
The reasons for suspecting smaller portions are commonly better
than those for suspecting longer ones, but none are sufficient to
warrant rejection. Here and there we are in doubt about a
word, as Xpto-rov (i. 8), I^o-oO (iv. 17), ^/xoiv (v. 4), and ra Wvt]
(x. 20), but there is probably no verse or whole clause that is an
interpolation. Others again have conjectured that our Epistle is
made up of portions of two, or even three, letters, laid together
in strata ; and this conjecture is sometimes combined with the
hypothesis that portions of the letter alluded to in v. 9 are
imbedded in our i Corinthians. Thus, iii. 10-23, vii. 17-24,
ix. i-x. 22, x. 25-30, xiv. 34-36, xv. 1-55, are supposed to be

INTRODUCTION xix

fragments of this first letter. An hypothesis of this kind
naturally involves the supposition that there are a number of
interpolations which have been made in order to cement the
fragments of the different letters together. These wild con
jectures may safely be disregarded. There is no trace of them
in any of the four great Uncial MSS. which contain the whole
Epistle (N A B D), or in any Version. We have seen that
Ignatius shows acquaintance with every chapter, with the possible
exception of viii., xi., xiii., xiv. Irenaeus quotes from every
chapter, excepting iv., xiv., and xvi. Tertullian goes through it
to the end of xv. (Adv. Marc. v. 5-10), and he quotes from xvi.
The Epistle reads quite intelligibly and smoothly as we have it ;
and it does not follow that, because it would read still more
smoothly if this or that passage were ejected, therefore the
Epistle was not written as it has come down to us. As Jiilicher
remarks, " what is convenient is not always right." * Till better
reasons are produced for rearranging it, or for rejecting parts of
it, we may be content to read it as being still in the form in
which the Apostle dictated it.

III. OCCASION AND PLAN.

The Occasion of i Corinthians is patent from the Epistle
itself. Two things induced St Paul to write, (i) During his
long stay at Ephesus the Corinthians had written to him, asking
certain questions, and perhaps also mentioning certain things as
grievances. (2) Information of a very disquieting kind respect
ing the condition of the Corinthian Church had reached the
Apostle from various sources. Apparently, the latter was the
stronger reason of the two ; but either of them, even without
the other, would have caused him to write.

( Since his departure from Corinth, after spending eighteen
months in founding a Church there, a great deal had happened
in the young community/" 1 The accomplished Alexandrian Jew
Apollos, mighty in the Scriptures, who had been well instructed
in Christianity by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts xviii. 24, 26) at
Ephesus, came and began to preach the Gospel, following (but,
seemingly, with greater display of eloquence) in the footsteps of
St Paul. Other teachers, less friendly to the Apostle, and with
leanings towards Judaism, also began to work. In a short time
the infant Church was split into parties, each party claiming this
or that teacher as its leader, but, in each case, without the
chosen leader giving any encouragement to this partizanship

* Recent Introductions to the N.T. (Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Gregory, Earth,
Weiss, Zahn) treat the integrity of I Corinthians as certain.

XX INTRODUCTION

(i. 10, n). It is usual to attribute these dissensions to that
love of faction which is so conspicuous in all Greek history, and
which was the ruin of so many Greek states ; and no doubt there
is truth in this suggestion. But we must remember that Corinth
at this time was scarcely half Greek. The greater part of the
population consisted of the children and grandchildren of Italian
colonists, who were still only imperfectly Hellenized, supple
mented by numerous Orientals, who were perhaps scarcely
Hellenized at all. The purely Greek element in the population
was probably quite the smallest of the three. Nevertheless, it
was the element which was moulding the other two, and there
fore Greek love of faction may well have had something to do
with the parties which so quickly sprang up in the new Corinthian
Church. But at any other prosperous city on the Mediterranean,
either in Italy or in Gaul, we should probably have had the same
result. In these cities, with their mobile, eager, and excitable
populations, crazes of some kind are not only a common feature,
but almost a social necessity. There must be something or
somebody to rave about, and either to applaud or to denounce,
in order to give zest to life. And this craving naturally generates
cliques and parties, consisting of those who approve, and those
who disapprove, of some new pursuits or persons. The pursuits
or the persons may be of quite trifling importance. That matters
little: what is wanted is something to dispute about and take
sides about. As Renan says (St Paul, p. 374), let there be two
preachers, or two doctors, in one of the small towns in Southern
Europe, and at once the inhabitants take sides as to which is
the better of the two. The two preachers, or the two doctors,
may be on the best of terms: that in no way hinders their
names from being made a party-cry and the signal for vehement
dissensions.

After a stay of a year and six months, St Paul crossed from
Corinth to Ephesus with Priscilla and Aquila, and went on with
out them to Jerusalem (Acts xviii. n, 18, 19, 21). Thence he
went to Galatia, and returned in the autumn to Ephesus. The
year in which this took place may be 50, or 52, or 54 A.D.
Excepting the winter months, intercourse between Corinth and
Ephesus was always frequent, and in favourable weather the
crossing might be made in a week, or even less. It was natural,
therefore, that the Apostle during his three years at Ephesus
should receive frequent news of his converts in Corinth. We
know of only one definite source of information, namely, members
of the household of a lady named Chloe (i. 1 1), who brought news
about the factions and possibly other troubles : but no doubt
there were other persons who came with tidings from Corinth.
Those who were entrusted with the letter from the Corinthians

INTRODUCTION xxi

to the Apostle (see on xvi. 17) would tell him a great deal.
Apollos, now at Ephesus (xvi. 12), would do the same. The
condition of things which Chloe s people reported was of so
disturbing a nature that the Apostle at once wrote to deal with
the matter, and he at the same time answered the questions
which the Corinthians had raised in their letter. As will be seen
from the Plan given below, these two reasons for writing, namely,
reports of serious evils at Corinth, and questions asked by the
converts themselves, cover nearly all, if not quite all, of what we
find in our Epistle. There may, however, be a few topics which
were not prompted by either of them, but are the spontaneous
outcome of the Apostle s anxious thoughts about the Corinthian
Church. See Ency. Brit., nth ed., art. Bible, p. 873; art.
Corinthians, pp. 151 f.

It is quite certain that our i Corinthians is not the first letter
which the Apostle wrote to the Church of Corinth; and it is
probable that the earlier letter (v. 9) is wholly lost. Some critics,
however, think that part of it survives in 2 Cor. vi. i4-vii. i, an
hypothesis which has not found very many supporters. The
question of there being yet another letter, which was written
between the writing of our two Epistles, and which probably
survives, almost in its entirety, in 2 Cor. x. i-xiii. 10, is a
question which belongs to the Introduction to that Epistle, and
need not be discussed here.

But there is another question, in which both Epistles are
involved. Fortunately nothing that is of great importance in
either Epistle depends upon the solution of it, for no solution
finds anything approaching to general assent. It has only an
indirect connexion with the occasion and plan of our Epistle ;
but this will be a convenient place for discussing it. It relates
to the hypothesis of a second visit of St Paul to Corinth, a visit
which was very brief, painful, and unsatisfactory, and which
(perhaps because of its distressing character) is not recorded in
Acts. Did any such visit take place during the Apostle s three
years at Ephesus ? If so, did it take place before or after the
sending of i Corinthians? We have thus three possibilities with
regard to this second visit of St Paul to Corinth, which was so
unlike the first in being short, miserable, and without any good
results, (i) It took place before i Corinthians was written.
(2) It took place after that Epistle was written. (3) It never
took place at all. Each one of these hypotheses involves one in
difficulties, and yet one of them must be true.

Let us take (3) first. If that could be shown to be correct,
there would be no need to discuss either of the other two.

As has already been pointed out, the silence of Acts is in no
way surprising, especially when we remember how much of the

xxii INTRODUCTION

life of St Paul (2 Cor. xi. 23-28) is left unrecorded by St Luke.
If the silence of Acts is regarded as an objection, it is more
than counter-balanced by the antecedent probability that, during
his three years stay in Ephesus, the Apostle would visit the
Corinthians again. The voyage was a very easy one. It was
St Paul s practice in missionary work to go over the ground a
second time (Acts xv. 36, 41, xviii. 23) ; and the intense interest in
the condition of the Corinthian Church which these two Epistles
exhibit renders it somewhat unlikely that the writer of them
would spend three years within a week s sail of Corinth, without
paying the Church another visit.

But these a priori considerations are accompanied by direct
evidence of a substantial kind. The passages which are quoted
in support of the hypothesis of a second visit are i Cor. xvi. 7 ;
2 Cor. ii. i, xii. 14, 21, xiii. i, 2. We may at once set aside

1 Cor. xvi. 7 (see note there) : the verse harmonizes well with the
hypothesis of a second visit, but is not evidence that any such
visit took place. 2 Cor. xii. 21 is stronger: it is intelligible, if
no visit of a distressing character had previously been paid ; but
it is still more intelligible, if such a visit had been paid; lest,
when I come, my God should again humble me before you.

2 Cor. ii. i is at least as strong : For I determined for myself
this, not again in sorrow to come to you. Again in sorrow
comes first with emphasis, and the most natural explanation is
that he has visited them lv Xv-n-y once, and that he decided that
he would not make the experiment a second time. It is in
credible that he regarded his first visit, in which he founded the
Church, as a visit paid lv Xviry. Therefore the painful visit
must have been a second one. Yet it is possible to avoid this
conclusion by separating again from in sorrow, which is next
to it, and confining it to come, which is remote from it. This
construction, if possible, is not very probable.

But it is the remaining texts, 2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. i, 2, which
are so strong, especially xiii. 2 : Behold, this is the third time I
am ready to come to you This is the third time I am coming
to you. ... I have said before, and I do say before, as when I
was present the second time, so now being absent, to those who
were in sin before, and to all the rest, etc. It is difficult to think
that the Apostle is referring to intentions to come, or willingness
to come, and not to an actual visit ; or again that he is counting
a letter as a visit. That is possible, but it is not natural. Again,
the preposition in rots Trpo^apT^/cocrti/ is more naturally explained
as meaning who were in sin before my second visit than
before their conversion. Wieseler (Chronologic, p. 232) con
siders that these passages render the assumption of a second visit
to Corinth indispensable (nothwendig). Conybeare and Howson

INTRODUCTION xxiii

(ch. xv. sub tntf.) maintain that this visit is proved by these
passages. Lightfoot (Biblical Essays^ p. 274) says: "There are
passages in the Epistles (e.g. 2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. i, 2) which seem
inexplicable under any other hypothesis, except that of a second
visit the difficulty consisting not so much in the words them
selves, as in their relation to their context." Schmiedel (Hand.-
Comm. ii. i, p. 68) finds it hard to understand how any one can
reject the hypothesis ; die Leugnung der Zwischenreise ist schwer
verstdndlich ; and he goes carefully through the evidence.
Sanday (Ency. Bibl. i. 903) says : " The supposition that the
second visit was only contemplated, not paid, appears to be ex
cluded by 2 Cor. xiii. 2." Equally strong on the same side are
Alford, J. H. Bernard (Expositors Grk. Test), Jiilicher (Introd.
to N.T. p. 31), Massie (Century Bible\ G. H. Kendall (Epp. to
the Corr. p. 31), Waite (Speaker s Comm.) ; and with them agree
Bleek,* Findlay, Osiander, D. Walker, and others to be men
tioned below. On the other hand, Baur, de Wette, Edwards,
Heinrici, Hilgenfeld, Paley, Renan, Scholten, Stanley, Zahn, and
others, follow Beza, Grotius, and Estius in questioning or denying
this second visit of St Paul to Corinth. Ramsay (St Paul the
Traveller , p. 275) thinks that, if it took place at all, it was from
Philippi rather than Ephesus. Bachmann, the latest commentator
on 2 Corinthians (Leipzig, 1909, p. 105), thinks that only an
over-refined and artificial criticism can question it. We may
perhaps regard the evidence for this visit as something short of
proof; but it is manifest, both from the evidence itself, and also
from the weighty names of those who regard it as conclusive,
that we are not justified in treating the supposed visit as so
improbable that there is no need to consider whether it took
place before or after the writing of our Epistle, f

Many modern writers place it between i and 2 Corinthians,
and connect it with the letter written out of much affliction and
anguish of heart with many tears (2 Cor. ii. 4). The visit was
paid ei&gt; AVTTT?. The Apostle had to deal with serious evils, was
perhaps crippled by illness, and failed to put a stop to them.
After returning defeated to Ephesus, he wrote the sorrowful
letter. This hypothesis is attractive, but it is very difficult to
bring it into harmony with the Apostle s varying plans and the
Corinthians charges of fickleness (2 Cor. i. 15-24). But, in any
case, if this second visit was paid after i Corinthians was written,
the commentator on that Epistle need not do more than mention
it. See Ency. Brit., nth ed., vii. p. 152.

* Bleek is said to have been the first to show how many indications of a
second visit are to be found (Stud. Krit. p. 625, 1830).

t For the arguments against the supposed visit see the section on the Date
of this Epistle.

xxiv INTRODUCTION

But the majority of modern writers, including Alford, J. H
Bernard, Bleek, Billroth, Credner, Hausrath, Hofmann, Holsten,
Klopper, Meyer, Neander, Olshausen, Otto, Reuss, Riickert,
Sanday, Schenkel, Schmiedel, Waite, and B. Weiss follow
Chrysostom in placing the second visit before i Corinthians.
Some place it before the letter mentioned in i Cor. v. 9. This
has decided advantages. The lost letter of v. 9 may have alluded
to the painful visit and treated it in such a way as to render any
further reference to it unnecessary. This might account for the
silence of i Corinthians respecting the visit. Even if the visit
be placed after the lost letter, its painful character would account
for the silence about it in our Epistle. Some think that the
Epistle is not silent, and that iv. 18 refers to this visit: As if,
however, I were not coming to see you, some got puffed up.
But this cannot refer to a visit that is paid, as if it meant, * You
thought that I was not coming, and I did come. It refers to a
visit that is contemplated, as the next verse shows : Come, how
ever, I shall quickly to see you.

The following tentative scheme gives the events which led up
to the writing of our Epistle :

(1) St Paul leaves Corinth with Aquila and Priscilla and
finally settles at Ephesus.

(2) Apollos continues the work of the Apostle at Corinth.

(3) Other teachers arrive, hostile to the Apostle, and Apollos
leaves.

(4) St Paul pays a short visit to Corinth to combat this
hostility and other evils, and fails.

(5) He writes the letter mentioned in i Cor. v. 9.

(6) Bad news arrives from Corinth brought by members of
Chloe s famitia, perhaps also by the bearers of the Corinthians
letter, and by Apollos.

The Apostle at once writes i Corinthians.

The Plan of the Epistle is very clear. One is seldom in
doubt as to where a section begins and ends, or as to what the
subject is. There are occasional digressions, or what seem to
be such, as the statement of the great Principle of Forbearance
(ix. 1-27), or the Hymn in praise of Love (xiii.), but their con
nexion with the main argument of the section in which they
occur is easily seen. The question which cannot be answered
with absolute certainty is not a very important one. We cannot
be quite sure how much of the Epistle is a reply to questions
asked by the Corinthians in their letter to the Apostle. Certainly
the discussion of various problems about Marriage (vii. 1-40) is
such, as is shown by the opening words, Trepl Se wv eypa^are : and
almost certainly the question about partaking of Idol-meats
(viii. i-xi. i) was raised by the Corinthians, ire/at Se TCOV

INTRODUCTION XXV

OVT&lt;DV. The difficulty was a real one and of frequent occurrence ;
and, as the Apostle does not refer to teaching already given to
them on the subject, they would be likely to consult him, all the
more so as there seem to have been widely divergent opinions
among themselves about the question. It is not impossible that
other sections which begin in a similar way are references to the
Corinthian letter, irepl Se TWV Trvev/xariKcui/ (xii. i), irepl 8c -n)s Aoyias
TT/S eis TOVS dyious (xvi. l), and Trept Se ATroXXw TOV dSeX^ov
(xvi. 12). But most of the expressions which look like quotations
from the Corinthian letter occur in the sections about Marriage
and Idol-meats ; e.g. KOL\OV dv^ptuTrw ywaiKOS yarj a7rr(r$ai (vii. l),
Travres yvokriv e^o/xcv (viii. l), Travra e^tcmv (x. 23). The direc
tions about Spiritual Gifts and the Collection for the Saints may
have been prompted by information which the Apostle received
by word of mouth. What is said about Apollos (xvi. 12) must
have come from Apollos himself; but the Corinthians may have
asked for his return to them.

According to the arrangement adopted, the Epistle has four
main divisions, without counting either the Introduction or the
Conclusion.

Epistolary Introduction, i 1-9.

A. The Apostolic Salutation^ i. 1-3.

B. Preamble of Thanksgiving and Hope, \. 4-9,

I. Urgent Matters for Blame, i. 10- vi. 20.

A. The Dissensions (Sx*&gt;iaTa), i. lo-iv. 21.

The Facts, i. 10-17.

The False Wisdom and the True, i. iS-iii. 4.
The False Wisdom, i. i8-ii. 5.
The True Wisdom, ii. 6-iii. 4.

The True Wisdom described, ii. 6-13.
The Spiritual and the animal Characters,

ii. i4-iii. 4.
The True Conception of the Christian Pastorate,

iii. 5-iv. 21.

General Definition, iii. 5-9.
The Builders, iii. 10-15
The Temple, iii. 16, 17.
Warning against a mere human* Estimate

of the Pastoral Office, iii. i8-iv. 5.
Personal Application ; Conclusion of the sub
ject of the Dissensions, iv. 6-21.

B. Absence of Moral Discipline ; the Case of Incest,

v. 1-13.

xxvi INTRODUCTION

C. Litigation before Heathen Courts, vi. i-u.

The Evil and its Evil Occasion, vi. 1-8.
Unrighteousness, a Survival of a bad Past
which ought not to survive, vi. 9-11.

D. Fornication, vi. 12-20.

II. Reply to the Corinthian Letter, vii. 1-xi. 1.

A. Marriage and its Problems, vii. 1-40.

Celibacy is good, but Marriage is natural,

vii. 1-7.
Advice to Different Classes, vii. 8-40.

B. Food offered to Idols, viii. i-xi. i.

General Principles, viii. 1-13.

The Great Principle of Forbearance, ix. 1-27.

These Principles applied, x. i-xi. i.

The Example of the Israelites, x. 1-13.

The Danger of Idolatry, x. 14-22.

Practical Rules about Idol-meats, x. 23~xi. i.

III. Disorders in Connexion with Public Worship, xi. 2-

xiv. 40.

A. The Veiling of Women in Public Worship, xi. 2-16.

B. Disorders connected with the Lord s Supper,

xi. 17-34.

C. Spiritual Gifts, xii. i-xiv. 40.

The Variety, Unity, and true Purpose of the

Gifts, xii. i-n.
Illustration from Man s Body of the Unity of

the Church, xii. 12-31.
A Hymn in Praise of Love, xiii. 1-13.
Spiritual Gifts as regulated by Love, xiv. 1-40.
Prophesying superior to Tongues, xiv. 1-25.
Regulations respecting these two Gifts, xiv.

26-36.
Conclusion of the Subject, xiv. 37-40.

IV. The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead, xv. 1-58.

A. The Resurrection of Christ an Essential Article,

XV. I-II.

73. If Christ is risen, the Dead in Christ will rise,

xv. 12-34.

Consequences of denying the resurrection of
the Dead, xv. 12-19.

INTRODUCTION xxvii

Consequences of accepting the Resurrection of

Christ, xv. 20-28.
Arguments from Experience, xv. 29-34.

C. Answers to Objections: the Body of the Risen,

xv - 35-58.
The Answers of Nature and of Scripture,

. xv - 35-49-

Victory over Death, xv. 50-57.
Practical Result, xv. 58.

Practical and Personal ; the Conclusion, xvi. 1-24.

The Collection for the Poor at Jerusalem,

xvi. 1-4.
The Apostle s Intended Visit to Corinth,

xvi. 5-9.

Timothy and Apollos commended, xvi. 10-12.
Exhortation, xvi. 13, 14.
Directions about Stephanas and others, xvi.

15-18.
Concluding Salutations, Warning, and Benediction,

xvi. 19-24.

No Epistle tells us so much about the life of a primitive
local Church ; and 2 Corinthians, although it tells us a great
deal about the Apostle himself, does not tell us much more
about the organization of the Church of Corinth. Evidently,
there is an immense amount, and that of the highest interest,
which neither Epistle reveals. Each of them suggests questions
which neither of them answers ; and it is very disappointing to
turn to Acts, and to find that to the whole of this subject
St Luke devotes less than twenty verses. But the instructive-
ness of i Corinthians is independent of a knowledge of the
historical facts which it does not reveal.

IV. PLACE AND DATE.

The place where the Epistle was written was clearly Ephesus
(xvi. 8), where the Apostle was remaining until the following
Pentecost. This is recognized by Euthal praef. airo e ^eVov rfjs
Ao-i as, also by B 3 P in their subscriptions. The subscriptions
of D b K L d corr Euthal. cod. all agree in giving Philippi or
* Philippi in Macedonia as the place of writing, a careless infer
ence from xvi. 5, which occurs also in the Syrr. Copt. Goth.
Versions, in later cursives, and in the Textus Receptus.

St Paul is at Ephesus in Acts xviii. 19-21, but the data of this

xxviii INTRODUCTION

Epistle (xvi. 5-8) are quite irreconcilable with its having been
written during this short visit. It must therefore belong to some
part of St Paul s unbroken residence at Ephesus for three years
(Acts XX. 1 8, rov Ttavra. \povov. 31, rptertav VUKTO. Kal ^/zc/Dai&gt;),
which falls within the middle or Aegean period of his ministry.
The first, or Antiochean period extends from Acts xi. 25-
xviii. 23, when Antioch finally ceases to be his headquarters.
The Aegean period ends with his last journey to Jerusalem
and arrest there (xxi. 15). This begins the third period, that of
the Imprisonments, which carries us to the close of the Acts.
Our Epistle accordingly falls within the limits of Acts xix. 21-
xx. i. We have to consider the probable date of the events there
described, and the relation to them of the data of our Epistle.

The present writer discussed these questions fully in Hastings,
DB. art. Corinthians, without the advantage of having seen the
art. * Chronology, by Mr. C. H. Turner, in the same volume,
or Harnack s Chronologic d. Altchristlichen Literatur, which
appeared very shortly after. The artt. Felix, Festus, were
written immediately upon the appearance of Harnack s volume,
that on Aretas previously. This chapter does not aim at
being a full dissertation on the chronology of the period. For
this, reference must be made to all the above articles; Mr.
Turner s discussion is monumental, and placed the entire
question on a new and possibly final basis.

The general scheme of dates for St Paul s life as covered by
the Acts lies between two points which can be approximately
determined, namely, his escape from Damascus under Aretas
(Acts ix. 25 ; 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33) not long (^/xe /oas nva?, Acts ix. 19)
after his conversion, and the arrival of Festus as procurator of
Judaea (Acts xxiv. 27) in succession to Felix. The latter date
fixes the beginning of the Sceri a oXrj of Acts xxviii. 30 ; the close
of the latter, again, gives the interval available, before the
Apostle s martyrdom shortly after the fire of Rome (64 A.D.),
for the events presupposed in the Epistles to Timothy and
Titus.

Aretas to the Apostolic Council.

The importance of the Aretas date, which Harnack fails to
deal with satisfactorily, is that Damascus is shown by its coins
to have been under the Empire as late as 34 A.D., and that it
is practically certain that it remained so till the death of Tiberius,
March 37 A.D. This latter year, then, is the earliest possible
date for St Paul s escape, and his conversion must be placed at
earliest in 35 or 36.

From this date we reckon that of the first visit of St Paul

INTRODUCTION

(as a Christian) to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion
(Gal. i. 1 8), i.e. in 37-38, and of the Apostolic Council (Acts xv. ;
Gal. ii. ; the evidence for the identity of reference in these two
chapters is decisive), fourteen years from the conversion
(Gal. ii. i). (The possibility that the fourteen years are
reckoned from the first visit must be recognized, but the
probability is, as Turner shows, the other way; and the
addition of three years to our reckoning will involve insuper
able difficulty in the later chronology.) This carries us to 49,
whether we add 14 to 35, or as usual in antiquity, reckoning
both years in 13 to 36. This result 49 A.D. for the Apostolic
Council agrees with the other data. The pause in the Acts
(xii. 24, the imperfects summing up the character of the period),
after the death of Agrippa i., which took place in 44 (see Turner,
p. 41 6 b), covers the return of Barnabas and Saul from their
visit to Jerusalem to relieve the sufferers from the famine. This
famine cannot be placed earlier than 46 A.D. (Turner) ; supposing
this to have been the year of the visit of Barnabas and Saul
to Jerusalem, their departure (Acts xiii. 3) on the missionary
journey to Cyprus, etc., cannot have taken place till after the
winter 46-47 ; the whole journey must have lasted quite eighteen
months. We thus get the autumn of 48 for the return to
Antioch (xiv. 26) ; and the xpovov OVK oXiyov (v. 28) spent there
carries us over the winter, giving a date in the first half of 49,
probably the feast of Pentecost (May 24), for the meeting with
the assembled Apostles at Jerusalem. This date, therefore,
appears to satisfy all the conditions.

Apostolic Council to the end of Residence at Ephesus.

Assuming its validity, the sequence of the narrative in the
Acts permits us to place the departure of St Paul from Antioch
over Mount Taurus after some days (Acts xv. 36-41) in
September 49, his arrival at Philippi in the summer, and at
Corinth in the autumn, of 50. The eighteen months (xviii. ii)
of his stay there would end about the Passover (April 2-9) of
52. By Pentecost he is at Jerusalem, and by midsummer at
Antioch. Here, then, closes the Antiochene period (44-52) of
his ministry. Antioch is no longer a suitable headquarters,
Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus claim him, and he transfers his field
of work to the region of the Aegean. His final visit to Antioch
appears to be not long (xviii. 23, xpovov rtva) : if he left it about
August, his journey to Ephesus, unmarked by any recorded
episode, would be over before midwinter, say by December 52.
The rpie-ta (see above) of his residence there cannot, then.

XXX INTRODUCTION

have ended before 55; the three months of xix. 8 and the
two years of v. 10 carry us to about March of that year: the
remainder of the rpterta (which may not have been quite
complete) is occupied by the episodes of the sons of Sceva, the
mission of Timothy and Erastus (xix. 22), and the riot in the
theatre. Whether this permits St Paul to leave Ephesus for
Corinth soon after Pentecost 55 (i Cor. xvi. 8), or compels us
to allow till Pentecost 56, cannot be decided until we have
considered the second mam date, namely, that of the procurator-
ship of Festus.

from Festus back to I Corinthians.

That Felix became procurator of Judaea in 52 A.D. may be
taken as fairly established (Hastings, DB. artt. * Felix, and Chron
ology, p. 418). The arrival of Festus is placed by Eusebius in
his Chronicle in the year Sept. 56-Sept. 57 ; that of Albinus, his
successor, in 61-62. The latter date is probably correct. But
the crowded incidents set down by Josephus to the reign of
Felix, coupled with the paucity of events ascribed by him to that
of Festus, suggest that Felix s tenure of office was long compared
with that of Festus (the TroAAa CTT; of Acts xxiv. 10 cannot be
confidently pressed in confirmation of this). We cannot, more
over, be sure that Eusebius was guided by more than conjecture
as to the date of Felix s recall. His brother Pallas, whose
influence with Nero (according to Josephus) averted his con
demnation, was removed from office in 55, certainly before
Felix s recall; but the circumstances of his retirement favour
the supposition that he retained influence with the Emperor for
some time afterwards. It is not improbable, therefore, that
Felix was recalled in 57-58. St Paul s arrest, two years before
the recall of Felix (Acts xxiv. 27), would then fall in the year
Sept. 55-Sept. 56, i.e. at Pentecost (Acts xx. 16) 56 (for the details
see Turner in Hastings, DB. art. Chronology, pp. 418, 419).

We have, then, for the events of Acts xix. 2i-xxiv. 27, the
interval from about March 55 to Pentecost (?) 58, or till Pente
cost 56 for the remainder of St Paul s stay at Ephesus, the
journey from Ephesus to Corinth, the three months spent there,
the journey to Philippi, the voyage thence to Troas, Tyre, and
Caesarea, and arrival at Jerusalem. This absolutely precludes
any extension of St Paul s stay at Ephesus until 56. The
Pentecost of i Cor. xvi. 8 must be that of 55, unless indeed we
can bring down the recall of Felix till 58-59, which though by
no means impossible, has the balance of probability against it.
Still more considerable is the balance of likelihood against 60 or
even 61 as the date for Felix s recall, and 58 or 59 for St Paul s

INTRODUCTION xxxi

arrest. The former date, 58, must be given up, and St. Paul s
arrest dated at latest in 57, more probably in 56.

Resultant Scheme.

Accordingly from Aretas to Festus, that is from St Paul s
escape from Damascus to the end of his imprisonment at
Caesarea, we have at most 22 years (37-59), more probably
only 21. It is evident that the time allowed above for the
successive events of the Antiochene and Aegean periods of his
ministry, which has throughout been taken at a reasonable
minimum, completely fills the chronological framework supplied
by the prior dates. The narrative of St Paul s ministry in the
Acts, in other words, is continuously consecutive. While giving
fuller detail to some parts of the story than to others, it leaves
no space of time unaccounted for ; the limits of date at either
end forbid the supposition of any such unrecorded period.
Unless we are contrary to all the indications of this part of the
book to ignore the Acts as an untrustworthy source, we have in
the Acts and Epistles combined a coherent and chronologically
tenable scheme of the main events in St Paul s life for these
vitally important 21 years. It must be added that the minor
points of contact with the general chronology, the proconsul-
ships of Sergius Paulus and of Gallic, the expulsion of the Jews
from Rome by Claudius, the marriage of Drusilla to Felix, fit
without difficulty into the scheme, and that no ascertainable date
refuses to do so. For these points, omitted here in order to
emphasize the fundamental data, the reader must consult Mr.
Turner s article and the other authorities referred to below.

We may therefore safely date our Epistle towards the close
of St Paul s residence at Ephesus, and in the earlier months of
the year 55.

Bearing of St PauFs movements on the question of Date.

The date of the previous letter referred to in v. 9 can only
be matter of inference. Seeing that the Apostle corrects a
possible mistake as to its meaning, it was probably of somewhat
recent date. There is every antecedent likelihood that letters
passed not infrequently between the Apostle at Ephesus and his
converts across the Aegean (see Hastings, DB. artt. i Cor
inthians, 6, and 2 Corinthians, 4 g). But the language of
our Epistle is difficult, or impossible, to reconcile with the
supposition that the Apostle s Ephesian sojourn had been broken
into by a visit to Corinth. "There is not a single trace" of it
c

xxxii INTRODUCTION

(Weizsacker, Apost. Zeitalter, pp. 277, 300). The case for such
a visit is entirely based on supposed references to it in 2 Cor. ;
these references at any rate show that this visit, if paid at any
time, was of a painful character (eV Xviry, 2 Cor. ii. i). If, then,
such a visit had been paid before i Corinthians was written, to
what was this XvTTfj due? Not to the o-xtV/xara, of which St Paul
knew only from Chloe s people (i. 1 1). Not to the Tropi/eia, nor to
the disorders at the Lord s Supper, of which, he expressly tells us,
he knew by report only (v. i, xi. 18). Not to the litigiousness, nor
to the denials of the Resurrection, of both of which he speaks
with indignant surprise. If a distressing visit had preceded our
Epistle, the painful occasion of it was dead and buried when St
Paul wrote, and St Paul s references to it (clearly as a recent
sore) in 2 Corinthians become inexplicable. Certainly when our
Epistle was written a painful visit (ev pa/3Su), iv. 21) was before
the Apostle s mind as a possible necessity. But there is no
TraAtv, no hint that there had already been a passage of the kind.
On the contrary, some gainsayers were sceptical as to his coming
at all; there is, in fact, nothing to set against the clear inference
from i Cor. ii. i sqq., that St Paul s first stay at Corinth had so
far been his one visit there. So far, in fact, as our Epistle is
concerned, the idea of a previous second visit is uncalled for, to
say the very least. If 2 Corinthians necessitates the assumption
of such a visit,* it must be inserted before that Epistle and after
our present letter. But the question whether such, necessity
exists depends on the possibility of reconciling the visit with the
data as a whole. (On this aspect of the matter the present writer
would refer to Hastings, DB. vol. i. pp. 492-5, 4, 5.) The
most ingenious method of saving the painful visit has a direct
bearing on the date of our Epistle. Recognizing the conclusive
force of the objections to placing the visit before our letter,
Dr J. H. Kennedy (The Second and Third Epistles to the
Cori?ithians, Methuen, 1900) places this Epistle before the
Pentecost of the year previous to St Paul s departure from
Ephesus, distinguishes Timothy s mission to Corinth (i Cor.
iv. 17, xvi. 10) from his (later) mission with Erastus to Mace
donia (Acts xix. 22), makes our Epistle the prelude to the
painful visit (xvi. 5), and breaks up the Second Epistle so as to
obtain a scheme into which that visit will fit. i Corinthians would
then be dated (in accordance with the chronology adopted above)
before Pentecost 54.

But, interesting and ingenious as is Dr. Kennedy s discussion,

the close correspondence of ch. xvi. 3-6 with the facts of Acts

xx. 1-3 the journey through Macedonia to Corinth, the winter

spent there, the start for Jerusalem with the brethren makes

* See the previous section, pp. xxi-xxiv.

INTRODUCTION

XXXlll

the divorce of the two passages very harsh and improbable. In
our Epistle the plan actually followed is already planned; its
abandonment and resumption follow rapidly, as described in
2 Corinthians, and it seems impossible to doubt that our Epistle
was written with the immediate prospect (not of the painful visit
but) of the visit actually recorded in Acts xx. 3 ; i.e. in the spring
of 55-

The following table gives the schemes adopted by Harnack
in his Chronologic (supra), Turner (DB. as above); Ramsay,
St Paul the Traveller and Expositor, 1896, p. 336, A fixed
date, etc.; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 216-233; Wieseler,
Chronologic d. Apost. Zeitalters (Eng. tr.) ; Lewin, Fasti Sacri.
See also Blass, Acta Apostolorum, 1895, PP- 21-24; Kennedy
(as above). See also Ency. Brit., nth ed., in. pp. 891 f., vn.
p. 151.

Harnack.

Turner.

rt
(1

Lightfoot.

&lt;u

Lewin.

The Crucifixion .

29 or 30

Conversion of St Paul .

35 or 36

3 2

First visit to Jerusalem

Second visit to Jeru

salem

...

First missionary

journey .

46 or 47

45-57

Third visit to Jeru

salem ; the Apostolic

Council .

Second missionary

journey .

Corinth reached late in

5 2

Epistles to the Thessa-

lonians .
Fourth visit to Jeru

48-50

50-5 2

51-53

52-53

salem
Return to Antioch

5
50

52
5 2

54
54

53
53

Third missionary

journey .
In Ephesus ; I Corin

thians
In Macedonia ; 2 Corin

5^53

52-55

53-56

54-57

thians
In Corinth ; Epistle to

Romans .
Fifth visit to Jerusalem ;

53, 54

55, 56

56,57

57,58

arrest

xxxiT INTRODUCTION

V. DOCTRINE.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians is not, like that to the
Romans, a doctrinal treatise ; nor is it, like Galatians, the docu
ment of a crisis involving far-reaching doctrinal consequences. It
deals with the practical questions affecting the life of a Church
founded by the writer : one great doctrinal issue, arising out of
circumstances at Corinth (xv. 12), is directly treated ; but doctrine
is, generally speaking, implied or referred to rather than enforced.
Yet, none the less, the doctrinal importance and instructiveness
of the letter can hardly be overrated. In its alternations of light
and shadow it vividly reproduces the life of a typical Gentile-
Christian community, seething with the interaction of the new
life and the inherited character, with the beginnings of that age
long warfare of man s higher and lower self which forms the
under-current of Christian history in all ages.

The Apostle recalls to first principles every matter which
engages his attention ; at every point his convictions, as one
who had learned from Christ Himself, are brought to bear upon
the question before him, though it may be one of minor detail.
At the least touch the latent forces of fundamental Faith break
out into action.

First of all, we must take note of the Apostles relation to
Christ. He is a called Apostle of Jesus Christ (i. i), and
asserts this claim in the face of those who call it in question
(ix. 3). He rests it, firstly, on having seen Jesus our Lord (ix. i),
clearly at his Conversion ; secondly, on the fruits of his Apostle-
ship, which the Corinthians, whom he had begotten in the Lord
(iii. 6 sqq., iv. 15, see notes on these passages), should be the
last to question (ix. 2). This constituted his answer to critics
(ix. 3). As far, then, as authority was concerned, he claimed to
have it directly from Christ, without human source or channel
(as in Gal. i. i, 12). But this did not imply independence of
the tradition common to the Apostles in regard to the facts of
the Lord s life, death, and Resurrection. In regard to the Institu
tion of the Lord s Supper (see below), the words TraptXaftov airo TOV
Kvpiov have been taken as asserting the contrary. But they do
not necessarily, nor in the view of the present writer probably,
imply more than that the Lord was the source (a-rro) of the
Tra/aaSoo-ts. The circumstantial details here, as in the case of the
appearances after the Resurrection, would most naturally come
through those who had witnessed them (xv. i-io), in common
with whom St Paul handed on what had been handed on to him.
So again in dealing with marriage, he is careful to distinguish
between the reported teaching of the Lord and what he gives as

INTRODUCTION xxxv

his own judgment, founded, it is true, upon fidelity to the Spirit
of Christ (vii. 10, 12, 25, 40).

The passages in question have an important bearing upon
St Paul s knowledge in detail of the earthly life, ministry, and
words of Christ. It is not uncommonly inferred from his nearly
exclusive insistence upon the incarnation, passion, death and
Resurrection of our Lord that he either knew or cared to know
nothing of the historical Jesus (2 Cor. v. 16 ; i Cor. ii. 2).* But
the appeal of ch. vii. 10, 25 is a warning that the inference from
silence is precarious here. The pre-existence of Christ is clearly
taught in xv. 45-48.! That St Paul taught pre-existence only
as distinct from the Divinity of Christ (His pre-existence in the
Unity of the Godhead), was the view of Baur, followed in sub
stance by Pfleiderer (Paulinism, Eng. tr. i. 139 sqq.), Schmiedel,
in loc., and many others. It is bound up with the old Tubingen
theory which restricts the Pauline homologumena to i and 2 Cor
inthians, Romans, and Galatians. If we are allowed to combine
the thoughts of Phil. ii. 5 sqq., and Col. i. 15-18, ii. 9, with i Cor.
xv., it becomes impossible to do justice to the whole thought of
St Paul by the conception of an avflpuTros l ovpavov (xv. 47), pre-
existent in the Divine Idea only. The fundamental position of
Christ and that crucified (ii. 2 ; cf. iii. 10, n) in the Apostle s
preaching is only intelligible in connexion with His cosmic
function as Mediator (viii. 6, oY ov ra Travra) which again stands
closely related with the thought expanded in Col. i. i5f. In a
word, it is now admitted that, according to St Paul, Christ, as
the Mediator between God and man, stood at the centre of the
Gospel. Whether this equally applies to the teaching of Christ
Himself, as recorded in the Gospels, or whether, on the contrary,
the teaching of Christ is reducible to the two heads of the
Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man, without any
proclamation of Himself as the Mediator of the former, as
Harnack in Das Wesen des Christe?itums and other recent writers
have contended, is a question worthy of most careful inquiry,
but not in this place. \ It belongs to the study of the history
and doctrine of the Gospels.

* That this is an erroneous inference is shown by Fletcher, The Conversion
of St Paul, pp. 55-57 ; by Cohu, St Paul in the Light of Modern Research,
pp. 110-116; by Jiilicher, Paulus u. Jesus, pp. 54-56.

t See also what is implied in the rock was Christ ; note on x. 4 : and
Swete, The Ascended Christ, pp. 61, in, 157.

J That there is no such essential difference between the teaching of Christ
and the teaching of St Paul as Wrede (Paulus, 1905) has contended, is urged
by Kolbmg (Die geistige Eimvirkung der Person Jesu auf Paulus, 1906) and
A. Meyer ( Wer hat das Christentum bcgriindet, Jesus oder Paulus, 1907), no
less than by more conservative scholars. See A. E. Garvie, The Christian
Certainty, pp. 3991".

xxxvi INTRODUCTION

The Epistle contains not only the clearly-cut doctrines of the
death of Christ for our sins and of His Resurrection from the dead
on the Third Day, but the equally clear assertion that these
doctrines were not only the elements of St Paul s own teaching,
but were taught by him in common with the older Apostles
(xv. i-n). The doctrine which is mainly in question here is
that of the Resurrection of the dead, of which the fifteenth
chapter of the Epistle is the classical exposition. St Paul is
meeting the denial by some (rive s) of the Corinthians that there
is a resurrection of the dead. The persons in question, who
were most probably the representatives, not of Sadducaism, but
of vague Greek opinion influenced perhaps by popular Epicurean
ideas, did not deny the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Their
assent to it must, however, have become otiose. To the Re
surrection of Christ, then, St Paul appeals in refutation of the
opinion he has to combat. After reminding them that they had
learned from him, as a fundamental truth, the fact of the
Resurrection of Christ from the dead, attested by many appear
ances to the Apostles, and by the appearance to himself at his
conversion, he proceeds to establish the link between this
primary truth and that of the Resurrection of the dead in Christ.
The relation between the two is that of antecedent and con
sequent, of cause and effect. If the consequent is denied the
antecedent is overthrown (vv. 12-19), and with it the whole
foundation of the Christian hope of eternal life. But Christ has
risen, and mankind has in Him a new source of life, as in Adam
it had its source of death. The consummation of life in Christ
is then traced out in bold, mysterious touches (vv. 23-28). First
Christ Himself; then, at the Parousia, those that are Christ s;
then the End. The End embraces the redelivery by Him of the
Kingdom to His Father : the Kingdom is mediatorial and has for
its purpose the subjugation of the enemies, death last of them all.
All things, other than God, are to be subjected to the Son ;
when this is accomplished, the redelivery, the subjection of the
Son Himself, takes effect, that God may be all in all.

On this climax of the history of the Universe, it must suffice
to point out that St Paul clearly does not mean that the personal
being of the Son will have an end ; but that the Kingdom of
Christ, so far as it can be distinguished from the Kingdom of
God, will then be merged in the latter. St Paul here gathers up
the threads of all previous eschatological thought ; the Messiah,
the enemies, the warfare of Life and Death, the return of Christ
to earth, and the final destiny of the saints. It is important to
notice that he contemplates no earthly reign of the Christ after
His Return. The quickening of the saints at His Coming
immediately ushers in the End, the redelivery, the close of the

INTRODUCTION xxxvii

Mediatorial Kingdom. This is in harmony with the earlier
teaching of the Apostle in i and 2 Thessalonians, and there is
nothing in any of his Epistles out of harmony with it. But the
thought of the early Return of Christ (v. 51) is already less pro
minent. The time is short (vii. 29), but instead of we that are
alive, it is now * we shall not all sleep. This is borne out by
2 Cor. v. 3, where the possibility that the great change will find us
in the body (ov yv/mu) is still contemplated, but only as a possi
bility. The remainder (vv. 35 sqq.) of the chapter brings out
St Paul s characteristic doctrine of the Resurrection body. This
is in direct contrast with the crude conceptions current among
the Pharisees, according to which the bodies of the saints were
thought of as passing underground from their graves to the place
of resurrection, and there rising in the same condition in which
death found them.

St Paul, on the other hand, contrasts the mortal (&lt;0aproi&gt;) or
animal (^-VXIKOV) body with the risen or spiritual body. The
former is imyciov, xolVcoy, and cannot inherit the kingdom of
God. It will be the same individual body (^/xas, vi. 14; see
Rom. viii. 12), but yet not the same; it will be quickened,
changed (v. 51), will put on incorruption, immortality; it (the
same body) is sown as an earthly body, but will be raised a
spiritual body.

This change is in virtue of our membership of Christ, and is
the working-out of the same Divine power, first exerted in the
raising of Christ Himself, and finally extended to all His
members (cf. Phil. iii. 21 ; i Cor. vi. 14; Rom. viii. 19, 21, 23).
It follows that the Apostle conceived of the risen Body of
Christ Himself as a spiritual body ; not that He brought His
human body from heaven, but that His heavenly personality
(xv. 47) at last, through His Resurrection, the work of the
Father s Power (Rom. vi. 4), constituted Him, as the last
Adam, * quickening spirit (xv. 45), and the source of quickening
to all His members. His body is now, therefore, a glorious
body (Phil. iii. 21), and the incorruption which His members
inherit is the direct effect of their union with the Body of Christ
(xv. 48 sq.).

The whole horizon of this passage is limited, therefore, to
the resurrection of the just. It is the KCKOL^^VOL (a term ex
clusively reserved for the dead in Christ) that are in view through
out : the whole argument turns upon the quickening, in Christ
(xv. 22, 23), of those who belong to Him. As to the resurrection
of the wicked, which St Paul certainly believed (ix. 24, 27;
Rom. xiv. 10, 12; cf. Acts xxiv. 15), deep silence reigns in the
whole of ch. xv.

The Resurrection of Christ, then, occupies the central place

xxxviii INTRODUCTION

in St Paul s doctrine of the Christian Life, both here and here
after, just as the doctrine of His Death for our sins is the founda
tion of our whole rehtion to God as reconciled sinners. The
Resurrection not only supplies the indispensable proof of the
real significance of the Cross ; it is the source of our life as
members of Christ, and the guarantee of our hope in Him.

Of the Person of Christ, our Epistle implies much more than
it expressly lays down. Christ was the whole of his Gospel
(ii. 2); He is the Lord (cf. Rom. x. 13), through whom are
all things, and we through Him (viii. 6) ; He satisfies all the
needs of man, mental, moral, and religious (i. 30), and union
with Him is the sphere of the whole life and work (xv. 58) of
the Christian, of his social relations (vii. 22, 39), and of the
activities of the Christian Church (v. 4, xii. 5, 12) as a body.

The doctrine of grace, so prominent in other Epistles of this
group, is for the most part felt rather than expressly handled in
our Epistle. The passing reference in xv. 56 (17 Se 3iW/us r&gt;}?
d/xaprias 6 vo/xos) may be compared with that in ix. 20, 21, where
he explains that the Christian, though not VTTO vo/xov, is not
avo/xos eou but eWo/xos Xpio-rov (for which see Rom. viii. 2). It
may be noted that a passage in this Epistle (iv. 7, TI Se l^eis o OVK
IXa^Se?) turned the entire course of Augustine s thought upon
the efficacy of Divine grace, with momentous consequences to
the Church (Aug. de div. quaest. ad Simplic. i. ; cf. Retract, n. i. i ;
de don. Persev. 52).

On the Christian Life, our Epistle is an inexhaustible mine of
suggestion.* With regard to personal life, it may be noted that
the ascetic instinct which has ever tended to assert itself in the
Christian Church finds its first utterance here (vii. i, 25, 40,
0e A.a&gt;, vo/u co on KaXov, etc.), as representing the Apostle s own
mind, but coupled with solemn and lofty insistence (OVK ey
dAAa 6 fcvpio?) on the obligations of married life. His ascetic
counsels rest on the simple ground of the higher expediency.
This latter principle (TO &lt;n5f/&gt;opov) is the keynote of the Ethics
of our Epistle. The world (vii. 31), all, that is, which fills
human life, its joys, sorrows, interests, ties, possessions, op
portunities, is to the Christian but means to a supreme end, in
which the highest good of the individual converges with the
highest good of his neighbour and of all (x. 24). Free in his
sole responsibility to God (iii. 21, ii. 15, x. 23), the Spiritual
Man limits his own freedom (vi. 12, ix. 19), in order to the
building up of others and the discipline of self (ix. 24-27). The
supreme good, to which all else is subordinated, is partaking of
the Gospel (ix. 23), i.e. of the benefit the Gospel declares, namely,

* See A. B. D. Alexander, The Ethics of St Paul, esp. pp. 115-125, 231,
237-256, 293-297 ; Stalker, The Ethic of Jesus, pp. 175, 351.

INTRODUCTION xxxi*

the unspeakable blessedness which God has granted to them
that love Him (ii. 9, 12), begun in grace (i. 4) here, consum
mated in glory (ii. 7, xv. 43) hereafter. To analyse this
conception further would carry us beyond the horizon of this
Epistle (cf. Rom. iii. 23, viii. 18, etc. etc.) ; but it may be noted that
there is a close correlation between the glory of God (x. 31) as
the objective standard of action, and the glory of God in sharing
which our chief happiness is finally to consist ; also that the
summum bonum, thus conceived, is no object of merely self-
regarding desire : to desire it is to desire that all for whom
Christ died may be led to its attainment. This principle of the
" higher expediency " determines the treatment of the ethical
problems which occur in the Epistle : the treatment of the
body, matrimony, the eating of dSuXoOvra ; and again, the use
and abuse of spiritual gifts. But in its application to the latter,
it is, as it were, transformed to its highest personal embodiment
in the passion of Christian Love. The higher expediency lays
down the duty of subordinating self to others, the lower self to
the higher, things temporal to things eternal. Love is the inward
state (correlative with Faith) in which this subordination has
become an imperative instinct, raising the whole life to victory
over the world. Such is the positive side of St Paul s Ethics,
according to which an act may be lawful, while yet the Christian
will choose in preference what is expedient (vi. 12, x. 23; cf.
ix. 24-2 7 ), gaining, at the cost of forbearance, spiritual freedom
for himself, and the good of others. Such are the Ethics of
grace as distinct from law (Rom. vi. 14). But many Chris
tians are under law (iii. i sqq.) rather than under grace : they
need stern warning against sin, and of such warnings the Epistle is
full (vi. 9, 10, viii. 12, x. 12-14, xi. 27, xv. 34, xvi. 22). The charter
of Christian liberty (ii. 15) is for the spiritual person : emancipa
tion from the law (xv. 56 ; cf. Rom. vii. 24-viii. 2) comes, not
by indulgence (vi. 12), but by self-conquest (ix. 21, 26 sq.).

Not less instructive is our Epistle as to the Collective Work oj
the Church. No other book of the N.T., in fact, reflects so
richly the life of the Christian body as it then was, and the
principles which guided it (see Weizsacker, Apost. Zeitaltcr, pp.
575~6o5). We note especially the development of discipline, of
organization, and of worship.

As to Discipline, the classical passage is v. i sqq. ; here
St Paul describes, not what had been done by the community,
but what they ought to have done in dealing with a flagrant case
of immorality. The congregation are met together ; the Apostle
himself, in spirit, is in their midst ; the power of the Lord Jesus
is present. In the name of the Lord Jesus they expel the
offender, delivering him to Satan for the destruction of his flesh,

xl INTRODUCTION

that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Here we
have the beginning of ecclesiastical censures, to be inflicted by the
community as a whole. The physical suffering entailed (cf. ch.
xi. 30 ; Acts v. i sqq.) is assumed to be terrible (oAefy&gt;os), but
is inherently temporal and remedial. The community would
naturally have the power, upon repentance shown, to restore the
culprit to fellowship (2 Cor. ii. 6, 10, although the case there in
question is probably a different one). Such an assembly as St
Paul here conceives would a fortiori be competent to dispose of
any matters of personal rights or wrongs which might arise among
members (vi. i, 2, 5, v. 12), without recourse to heathen
magistrates (aSiKot, vi. i); for St Paul, who regards submission
to the magistrate in regard to the criminal law as a duty (Rom.
xiii. i sqq.), dissuades Christians from invoking the heathen
courts to settle quarrels, which are, moreover, wholly out of
place among brethren.

The Organization of the Corinthian Church is evidently still
at an early stage. There is no mention of bishops, presbyters,
or deacons : next after Apostles, prophets and teachers are
named, in remarkable agreement with the reference in Acts xiii.
i. Moreover, if we compare the list in i Cor. xii. 28 sqq. with
those of Rom. xii. 6-8 and of Eph. iv. n, the coincidence is too
close to be accidental. The following table gives the three lists
in synoptic form :

i. urroaroAoi (Cor., Eph.).

3. Trpo^r/rcu, (Cor., Eph. ; 7rpocj?7Tia, Rom.).

I ei ayyeAto Tai (Eph.)

Trot/xeVes (Eph.).

Sta/covia (Rom.).]

3. SiSacr/caAot (i Cor., Eph.); SiSaovcan/ (Rom.). Then follow
Trapa/caAuh/ (Rom.), Swa^ieis, id^ara, and dj/rtA^/xi^ets (i Cor.),
/aeTaSiSou s (Rom.); Kv/^ep^crets (i Cor.), Trpotora/xei/os (Rom.),
eAeaij/ (Rom.), ytvrj yAeoo-orcoy (i Cor.).

There is clearly no systematic order throughout, nor can we
take the lists as statistical. The variations are due to the un
studied spontaneity with which in each passage the enumeration
is made. All the more significant is it, therefore, that prophets
(after Apostles in our Epistle and Ephesians) take the highest
rank in all three lists, while teachers, who rank very high in
all three lists, are the only other term common to all. In our list
(ch. xii.) the three orders of Apostles, prophets, teachers, are the
only ones expressly ranked as first, second, third. Whether
Apostles include, as in Rom. xvi. 7 and perhaps Gal. i. 19, an
indefinite number, or are confined to the Twelve and (ch. ix. i)
St Paul himself, our Epistle does not clearly indicate (not even

INTRODUCTION xli

in ch. xv. 7). The office of prophet is not strictly limited to a
class, but potentially belongs to all (ch. xiv. 30-32). That
presbyters, here as elsewhere (Phil. i. i ; Acts xiv. 23, xx. 17,
etc.), had been appointed by the Apostle, would be antecedently
likely, but there is no reference to any such permanent officers
in this, nor in the second, Epistle, not even in places where (as
in v. i sqq., vi. i sqq., xiv. 32 sq.) the context would suggest the
mention of responsible officers. The low place in the list
occupied by administrative gifts (Ku/Sepvrjcreis, cf. 7rpot&lt;rra/xe/os
in Rom.) seems to imply that administrative offices are still
voluntarily undertaken ; so in xvi. 15 the household of Stephanas
have a claim to deference (cf. i Thess. v. 12), but on the ground
of their voluntary devotion to the SiaKovLa (Ira^av cavrovs).
The work begun by St Paul at Corinth was carried on by
successors (Apollos alone is named, iii. 6), who * water where
he had planted/ build upon the Stone which he had laid :
they are TraiSaywyot, while he remains the one Father in
Christ. The Epistle, however, refers to them only in passing,
and in no way defines their status. Probably they are to be
classed with the prophets and teachers of ch. xii. 28 (cf. Acts
xiii. i). Church organization, like public worship, was possibly
reserved for further regulation (xi. 34).

Public Worship is the subject of a long section of the Epistle,
in which the veiling of women, the Eucharist, and the use and
abuse of spiritual gifts are the topics in turn immediately dealt
with (xi. 2-xiv.). The assembly for worship is the cK/cA^crta
(xi. 1 8), a term in which the O.T. idea of the congregation,
and the Greek democratic idea of the mass-meeting of the
citizens, find a point of convergence. At some eK/cA^oma out
siders (tSiurcu, probably unbaptized persons, corresponding to
the devout Greeks at a synagogue) might be present (xiv. 16, 23),
or even heathens pure and simple (aTrio-rot) ; yet this would be
not at the KVPLO.KOV SetTrvov, but at a more mixed assembly (o\rj,
xiv. 23). That the assemblies ets TO &lt;/&gt;ayetj/ (xi. 33) were distinct
and periodical was apparently the case in Pliny s time (see
Weizsacker, Apost. Zettaltcr, 568 f.). The Amen was in use as
the response to prayer or praise (xiv. 16). It would be hasty
to conclude from xi. 2 sqq. that women might, without St Paul s
disapproval, under certain conditions, pray or prophesy in
public : they very likely had done so at Corinth, but St Paul,
while for the present concentrating his censure upon their doing
so with unveiled head, had in reserve the total prohibition
which he later on lays down (xiv. 34). Otherwise, the liberty of
prophesying belonged to all; the utterance was to be tested
(xiv. 29), but the test was the character of the utterance itself
(xii. i sq.) rather than the status of the speaker. Prayer and

xlii INTRODUCTION

praise, / yXwo-cn? (see Hastings, DB. art. Tongues ), was a
marked feature of public worship at Corinth, but St Paul insists
on its inferiority to prophecy. Sunday is mentioned as the
day against which alms were to be set apart ; we may infer from
this that it was the usual day for the principal e /c/cA^o-m (see
above). The purpose of this assembly was to break the bread,
and drink the cup, of the Lord.

In xi. 1 7-34 we have the locus dassicus for the Eucharist of
the Apostolic age. It has been argued that we have here
a stage in the development of the sacred Rite anterior to, and
differing materially from, what is described by Justin, Apol. i. 56 ;
the difference consisting in the previous consecration of the
elements, in Justin s account, by the Trpoeorrws, and reception by
the communicants at his hands. At Corinth, on the other hand,
(w. 21, 33) an abuse existed in that each taketh before other
his own supper, so that the meal lost its character as a Lord s
Supper. If the consecration (so it is argued) were already
at this time an essential part of the service, the abuse in question
could not have occurred ; or at any rate St Paul s remedy would
have been wait for the consecration and not wait for one
another (v. 33). But, in the line of development, the Corinthian
Eucharist comes between the original institution, as described
by St Paul and by the Evangelists, and the Eucharist of Justin.*
In all the N.T. accounts of the Institution, the acts and words
of Christ, and His delivery of the bread and cup after consecra
tion to those present, are recorded, and form the central point.
The argument under notice assumes that this central feature
has disappeared at the second, or Corinthian, stage of develop
ment, to reappear in the third, namely Justin s. This assumption
is incredible. In carrying out the command TOVTO Trotetre, do
this, we cannot believe that at Corinth, or anywhere else, what
Christ was recorded to have done was just the feature to be
omitted.

Quod in caena Christus gessit
Faciendum hoc expressit

is an accurate expression of the characteristic which from the first
differentiated the Common Meal into the Christian cvxo-pi-crTLa.
The words do this were certainly part of the tradition handed
on by St Paul at Corinth (see below) ; and had it been left
undone^ the Apostle would not have failed to notice it. Further,
the argument for the absence, at Corinth, of the acts of consecra
tion, assumes erroneously that the LorcFs Supper* in v. 20 "can
be no other than the bread and the cup of the Lord in v. 27 "

* See A. W. F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, 1911, pp. xxxix-
xliv, 98-101.

INTRODUCTION xliii

(Beet, in loc.). This assumption is a reaction from the ana
chronism of introducing the Agape of later times in explanation
of this passage. (The name Agape, see Diet, of Chr. Antiq. s.v.,
is occasionally used for the Eucharist, but more properly for the
Common Meal from which the Eucharist had been wholly
separated.) The Lord s Supper (so named only here in N.T.)
is not the Eucharist proper, still less the Agape, but the entire
re-enactment of the Last Supper, with the Eucharistic acts occurring
in the course of it, as they do in the paschal meal recorded in
the Synoptic Gospels.* In the early Church the name * Lord s
Supper was not the earliest, nor the commonest, name for the
Eucharist. It was primarily (though not quite exclusively)
applied to the annual re-enactment of the Last Supper which
survived after the Agape had first been separated from the
Eucharist and then had gradually dropped out of use (Diet, of
Chr. Antiq. art. * Lord s Supper ). In any case the Lord s Supper
at Corinth would be already in progress when the Eucharistic
Bread and Cup were blessed. St Paul s censure (&lt;Wrros yap
TTpoAa/x^avct, v. 21), and his remedy (e/cSe xeo-tfe, v. 33), relate to
the supper which was over before (/xera TO Senrvfjo-at, v. 25) the
blessing of the Cup, and was doubtless (see note on xi. 23, 27)
well advanced when the Eucharistic Bread was broken : what
he blames and what he enjoins are alike compatible with the
supposition that the procedure of the Last Supper was closely
adhered to at Corinth. Whose duty it was to preside (as did
the head of the family at the Passover, our Lord at the Last
Supper, and the Trpoeo-rtos in Justin s time) we do not know, but
it may be taken as certain that some one did so. In v. 34, Et
ns irfLva K.T.A.., we notice the first step towards the segregation
of the Eucharistic acts proper from the joint meal in which they
were still, as it were, embedded. The Supper, if the direction of
v. 34 was observed, would cease to have its original character of a
meal to satisfy hunger (still traceable in Did. x. i, /xero, TO c/ATrA^o--
Bfjvai) ; it dropped out of use in connexion with the Eucharist,
except in so far as it left traces in the ritual. As a separate,
non-Eucharistic sacred meal (Diet, of Chr. Antiq. art. Agape ) it
survived for a time. This separation of the Eucharist from the
Supper, of which we here trace the origin only, was a step towards
the shifting of the former, later than any N.T. evidence, to the
" ante-lucan " hour which had become usual in Pliny s time.

The question of St Paul s relation to the Eucharistic
Institution, which only indirectly touches the doctrine of this
Epistle, must be briefly noticed here. In their account of the

* Dr. E. Baumgartner contends that in I Cor. we have a description of
the Agape alone, without the Eucharist (Eucharistic und Agape im Urchris-
icntum, 1909). But see Cohu, St Paul, pp. 303 f.

xliv INTRODUCTION

Last Supper the two first Gospels stand by themselves over
against St Luke and St Paul in mentioning no command to
repeat our Lord s action. St Luke s account, again, in the
Western text (which is more trustworthy in its omissions than
in its other variations), records simply the blessing first of the
Cup, then of the Bread, with no command to repeat the action :
what follows (Luke xxii. 19, 20, TO vTrep vpuv . . . ^K^VVO^VOV) is
(if with WH. we adopt the Western Text) an importation from
i Cor. xi. 24, 25. St Paul then, as compared with the Gospel
record, stands alone in recording our Saviour s command to do
this in remembrance of Me. Whence did he receive it? His
answer is that he * received (the whole account) from the
Lord (v. 23). This may mean by direct revelation, or may
(as certainly in xv. 3) mean received, as he handed it on,
orally, the Lord being here mentioned as the ultimate (cbrd)
authority for the Rite. It has been argued, on the assumption
that St Paul claims direct revelation to himself as the authority
for the Christian Eucharist, that this claim is the sole source of
any idea that the Last Supper (or rather the Eucharistic action)
was ordered to be repeated, that St Paul first caused it to be so
celebrated, and that the authority of the Institution hangs upon
a vision or revelation claimed by St Paul. Further, it is sug
gested that the vision in question was largely coloured by the
mysteries celebrated at Eleusis, near Athens and not far from
Corinth (so P. Gardner, The Origin of the Lord s Supper^

1903)-

The narrative of the Institution in the two first Gospels,
though they record no express command to repeat it, renders
the last-named suggestion somewhat gratuitous. Our Lord was
keeping an annual feast, and His disciples certainly at that time
expected to keep it in future : in view of this fact, of the refer
ences in the Acts of the Apostles (ii. 42, xx. 7) to the repetition
of the Supper, and of its thoroughly Hebraic and Palestinian
antecedents (cf. Bickell, Afesse und Pascha ; Anrich, Antike
Mysterienwesen, p. 127), it is much more probable that St Paul
is here the representative of a common tradition than the author
of an institution traceable to himself alone. The whole tone of
the passage, in which their coming together to eat is not
inculcated but taken for granted, supports this view against any
hypothesis of a practice initiated by the Apostle himself. See
also Andersen, D. Abendmahl in d. ersten 2 Jahrhund, 1 906).

The doctrine of the Eucharist presupposed in our Epistle is
simple, but, so far as it goes, very definite. The Bread and the
Cup are a partaking (KOWDVUI) of the Lord s Body and Blood
(x. 1 6, xi. 27); and to eat or (v. 27; and, v. 29) drink
unworthily, not discerning the Body (v. 29), is to eat and

INTRODUCTION *lv

drink judgment to oneself. The Body is clearly the body, not
merely of the Church, but of the Lord ; the latter words,
added in later copies, are a correct gloss. The interpretation of
our Lord s words here implied takes us at any rate beyond any
* Zwinglian view of sacramental reception. The reception is,
moreover, in commemoration (dj/a/x.vr/o-is) of the Lord, and is a
proclaiming (KarayyeAAeiv) of the Lord s Death till He come.
We see in these words and in ch. x. 15-18 the relation of the
Eucharist to sacrificial conceptions. To St Paul, the Death of
Christ (ch. v. 7, IrvOrj) is the Christian sacrifice. To it the
Eucharist is primarily and directly related. In ch. x. St. Paul
(in order to drive home his warning against joining in any
ceremonial eating of el^XoOvra) insists, with appeal to Jewish and
to Christian rites, that to partake of what is sacrificed is to
become a party to the sacrificial act (and so to enter upon that
fellowship of the worshipper with the deity which sacrifice aims
at establishing or maintaining). It follows, then, that St Paul
thinks of the Eucharist as the act by which Christians, collectively
and individually, make (as it were) the Sacrifice of the Cross
their own act, appropriate it, maintain and deepen their
fellowship with God through Christ. The Christian Passover,
once for all slain (v. 7), is eaten at every Eucharist. This is
an essential agreement with the statements, closely identical in
substance, by which Chrysostom (Horn, in Hebr. xvii.) and
Augustine (c. Faust, xx. 18) independently justify the term
1 sacrifice as applied to the Eucharist.

Baptism is frequently referred to in our Epistle (i. 13-16, x.
2, xii. 13; cf. vi. n), but the doctrinal reference in each case
is indirect. The aTrcXova-ao-Oe of vi. n ( ye washed them away
from yourselves ) must be compared with Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16,
and Rom. vi. 3, 4. There can be little doubt that the reference
of vi. 1 1 at least includes baptism ; comparing then the / TO)
Trvevfum there with xii. 13, ev ei/i Trvev/xcm, we see how closely
associated was baptism with the Holy Spirit as its sphere and its
underlying power (Tit. iii. 5). It must not be forgotten that St
Paul s readers had been baptized as adults. This fact, and the
sharp contrast between the old heathen life and the new life
entered upon at baptism, brought out very strongly the signific
ance of the Rite.

The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as regards the Personality of
the Spirit, comes out in xii. 1 1, Ka0ws /SovXerat ; while in ch. ii. 1 1,
where the relation of the Spirit to God is seen to be not less
intimate than that of man s spirit to man, we have the Divinity
of the Spirit unmistakably taught. The Spirit is " the self-
conscious life" of God, but not an impersonal function of God.
The gift of the Spirit, accordingly, constitutes the man, in whom

xlvi INTRODUCTION

the Spirit dwells, a Temple of God (iii. 16). There is the
indwelling of the Spirit, common to all members of Christ, the
instrument of the sanctification which is to be attained by all ;
and there is also the special energy of the Spirit, different in
different persons, which equips them for some special service as
members of the one body (xii.). So St Paul himself, " incident
ally and with great reserve," claims the guidance of the Spirit of
God for Himself (vii. 40). The inspiration of the prophet is not
such as to supersede self-control (xiv. 32), as it did in the super
ficially similar phenomena of heathen ecstasy (xii. 2, 3). (See
on this subject Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament^
pp. 176-192.)

VI. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE.

The general characteristics of St Paul s style, especially in his
letters of the Aegean period, are of course markedly present in
this Epistle. But it lacks the systematic sequence of marshalled
argument so conspicuous in the Epistle to the Romans ; it is
more personal than that Epistle, while yet the feeling is not so
high-wrought as it is in Galatians and in the Second Epistle. But
warmth of affection, as well as warmth of remonstrance and
censure, characterize the Epistle throughout. The two Epistles
to the Corinthians and that to the Galatians stand, in respect oi
direct personal appeal, in a class by themselves among St
Paul s Epistles. Philippians is equally personal, but there
everything speaks of mutual confidence and sympathy, unclouded
by any reproach or suspicion. The three Epistles to the
Corinthians and the Galatians are not less sympathetic, but the
sympathy is combined with anxious solicitude, and alternates
with indignant remonstrance. The earlier letters to the
Thessalonians, again, presuppose an altogether simpler relation
between the Apostle and his converts : his solicitude for them is
directed to the inevitable and human perils instability, over
wrought expectation of the last things, moral weakness incident
to sincere but very recent converts from heathenism.

In our Epistle and its two companions the personal situation is
more complicated and precarious : a definite disturbing cause is at
work ; the Apostle himself is challenged and is on the defensive ;
the personal question has far-reaching correlatives, which touch
the foundations of the Gospel.

In our Epistle these phenomena are less acutely present than
in the other two. The doctrinal issue, which in Galatians stirs
the Apostle to the depths, is felt rather than apparent (xv. 56,
vii. 18, 19); the personal question is more prominent (iv. 3, ix.

INTRODUCTION xlvii

*, 3, etc.), but less so than in Galatians, far less so than in the
Second Epistle.

In our Epistle the Apostle, in asserting and defending his
Apostolic status and mission, never for a moment vacates his
position of unquestionable authority, nor betrays a doubt as to
his readers acceptance of it.

One great general characteristic of our Epistle is the firmness
of touch with which St Paul handles the varied matters that come
before him, carrying back each question, as it comes up for
treatment, to large first principles. The petty o-^io-^ara at
Corinth are viewed in the light of the essential character of
the Gospel and of the Gospel ministry, the moral disorders in the
light of membership of Christ who has bought us all for Himself,
the question of marriage, or meats offered to idols, or the
exercise of spiritual gifts, from the point of view of " the higher
expediency," that is to say, of the subordination of the temporal
to the eternal. And where a commandment of the Lord is on
record, whether in the sphere of morality (vii.) or of positive
ordinance (xi.), its authority claims unquestioning obedience.

In discussing spiritual gifts, the instinct of "the higher
expediency " is sublimated into the principle, or rather passion,
of Christian charity or love, and its exposition rises to a height
of inspired eloquence which would alone suffice to give our
Epistle a place of pre-eminence among the Epistles of the New
Testament. Side by side with this marvellous passage we must
place the rising tide of climax upon climax in ch. xv. The
first climax is the emphatic close in v. 1 1 of the fundamental
assertions which go before. Then, after the sombre earnestness
of w. 12-20, the Resurrection and its sequel are enforced in a
passage of growing intensity culminating in the close of v. 28.
Then a lull (vv. 29-34), and in v. 35 we begin the final ascent,
which reaches its height in v. 55, the full close of vv. 56-58
forming a peroration of restful confidence.

In these passages there is no sign of rhetorical artifice, but
the glow of ardent conviction, gaining the very summit of effect,
because effect is the last thing thought of. Sincerity of style,
the note of Pauline utterance, is as conspicuous in these towering
heights as in his simplest salutations, his most matter-of-fact
directions on practical subjects. For the rest, this Epistle
exhibits all the characteristics of St Paul s style, especially as we
have it in the four letters of the Aegean period of his ministry,
his period of intensest controversy. Equipped with a language
hardly adequate to the rich variety and subtlety of his thought
or to the intensity of his feeling, he is ever struggling to express
more than he actually says ; the logical sequence is broken by
the intrusion of new ideas, feeling supersedes grammar and
d

xlviii INTRODUCTION

forbids the completion of a clause (e.g. ix. 15). The scope of
the Epistle, practical direction rather than theological argument,
explains the absence of the characteristic apa ovv so common in
Romans ; generally, in fact, the argument here is less abstruse,
and is comparatively easy to follow (see below). But it is not
always in the form that we should expect in a modern writer.
In x. 30, for example, he asks, Why do I incur blame for that foi
which I give thanks ? meaning, Why give thanks for what
involves me in blame? just as in Rom. vii. 16, where he means
that if I hate what I do, I (by hating it) assent to the law, he
similarly inverts the ideas, saying, If / do what I hate, etc.
At times, again, he assumes a connexion of ideas obvious perhaps
to his readers, but no longer so to the modern reader, as in xi. 10
(8ta TOVS dyyeXous). The same consideration to some extent
applies to his enigmatic reference (xv. 29) to the practice of
baptizing for the dead. It may be added that the mention of
such a practice with no word of blame does not, in view of St
Paul s style, justify the inference that he sanctioned or approved
it He is so engrossed in his immediate point that the Resurrec
tion is presupposed by the whole life of the Christian community,
that he does not turn aside to parry any wrong inference that
might be drawn from his words. Similarly, in viii. 10 he insists on
the bad example to the weak of taking part in a sacrificial feast,
as if the action were in itself indifferent, whereas we learn later
on (x. 14 and following) that the act is per se idolatrous. Or
again, in xi. 5, from the prohibition against a woman prophesying
unveiled, it has been inferred that she might do so if properly
veiled, whereas in xiv. 34 we find this entirely disallowed. It is,
in fact, St Paul s manner to hold a prohibition as it were in
reserve, producing it when the occasion demands it.

The language of this Epistle, as of St Paul generally, is the
Greek of a Hellenist Jew ; not necessarily of one who thought
in Hebrew but spoke in Greek, but rather of a Jew of the Dis
persion, accustomed to use the Greek of the Jewish community
of his native city, and conversant with the Old Testament
Scriptures in their Greek version. His studies under Gamaliel
had doubtless been wholly Hebraic, and he could speak fluently
in the Aramaic dialect of Palestine (Acts xxii.). But once only,
in this Epistle at least, does he certainly go behind the LXX
to the Hebrew (iii. 19). His language is not literary Greek;
he shows little sign of knowledge of Greek authors, except in
current quotations [the language of Rom. ii. 14, 15 has close
points of contact with Aristotle, gained perhaps indirectly
through the Greek schools of Tarsus]; even the quotation
(xv. 33) from Menander s Thais is without the elision necessary
to scansion. We miss the subtle play of mood, versatile com-

INTRODUCTION xlix

mand of particles, and artistic structure of periods, that char
acterize classical Greek (see Weiss, Introd. to N.T. 16. 7).

The extent to which St Paul s thought has been influenced
by Greek thought has been sometimes exaggerated. But the
influence of Hellenism in shaping the forms in which he ex
pressed his thought can be clearly traced in some cases. We
can see that he becomes gradually familiar with certain philo
sophical terms. None of the following are found in the Epistles
to the Thessalonians : yvokrt?, cro&lt;j&gt;ia, &lt;rvv&lt;ris, (rwetS^o-is, cr^fta,
all of which are found in i Corinthians and later Epistles. The
following also are not found in the Epistles to the Thessalonians,
but are found in one or more of the Epistles which are later
than i Corinthians : cuo-$?7&lt;ris, Siavoia, eio-r^s, jjLop&lt;f&gt;rj, opc^ts.
Perhaps aKpaa-ta and iSiorrrys ought to be added to the first
group, and aKpar^ to the second. In his essay on "St Paul
and Seneca," Lightfoot has shown what parallels there are
between expressions in the Pauline Epistles and expressions
which were in use among the Stoics. The meaning may be
very different, but there is a similarity which is perhaps not
wholly accidental in the wording (see notes on iii. 21, iv. 8, vi. 7,
19, vii. 20, 31, 33, 35, viii. 4, ix. 25, xii. 14, xiii. 4).

We may perhaps assign the argumentative form, into which
so much of St Paul s language is thrown, to the influence of
Hellenism. In this he is very different from other N.T. writers
who did not come so decidedly under Greek influence. Every
one who has tried knows how difficult it is to make an analysis
of the Epistles of St James and of St John. Perhaps no one
has succeeded in making an analysis of either which convinced
other students that the supposed sequence of thought was
really in the writer s mind. But there is little difference of
opinion as to the analysis of St Paul s Epistles. And not only
is the sequence of thought in most cases clear, but the separate
arguments which constitute the sequence are clear also. They
may not always seem to be convincing, but they can be put
into logical shape, with premiss and conclusion. Such a
method of teaching is much more Western than Oriental, much
more Greek than Jewish.

The following is a list of words peculiar to i Corinthians
in N.TJ

aya/xos, vii. 8, II, 32, 34; * dyet/rj?, i. 28 ; * dScnravos, ix. 1 8 \
us, ix. 26; au/ty/xa, xiii. 12; d/caraKaAvTrTOS, xi. 5, 13;
ix. 17; * d/xeTa/aV?7TOs, XV. 58; dvdios, VI. 2 ; di

Au asterisk indicates that the word is not found in the LXX.

1 INTRODUCTION

XI. 27; &vSptofjLCUy xvi. 13; di/Tt X&gt;7p:i//(,9, xii. 28; *
vii. 22; * d7repio-7rdo-TO)9, vii. 35; d-TroSa^is, ii. 4;

iii. IO ; dorareco, iv. Ii; do-^/xovew, vii. 36, xiii. 5; dc
xii. 23 ; aro/xos, xv. 52 ; avXos, xiv. 7 ; * A^at/cos, xvi. 17 ;
xiv. 7; /?pd;(OS, vii. 35; yewpytov, iii. 9; * yv/xvireva;, iv. II ;
8up(ri&lt;?, xii. 4, 5, 6; ? * Siep/z^j/eur^g, xiv. 28; SioTrep, viii. 13,
X. 14 ; * SouXaycuyeo), ix. 27 ; Spao-fro/xat, iii. 19 ; 8ucr&lt;/&gt;?7//,(jU, iv. 13 ,
ey/cparevo/xai, vii. 9, ix. 25; etSwXiov, viii. 10; /CVT?&lt;CO, xv. 34;
l^rpw/xa, XV. 8; * eVepy^/xa, xii. 6, 10 ; * ei/KOTrr;, ix. 12; eirpOTn/,
vi. 5, XV. 34; ecupu), v. 13; OpTaa&gt;, v. 8; e7n6a.va.TLOs, IV. 9;
fTTiOvfJLrjrrjs, X. 6; cVio-Trao/xai, vii. 18; ep/x^vta, xii. 10, xiv. 26;
? * ep/AT/veurr;?, xiv. 28; erepoyXwo-cros, XIV. 21 ; * eiJ7rdpeSpo&lt;?, vii.
35; vo-r//x,o?, xiv. 9; cvo-xwoo-vvr), xii. ,23 ; ^os, XV. 33 ;^X /0) *
xiii. I ; * ^&gt;7pio/xaxew, XV. 32 ; ia/xa 5 xii. 9, 28, 30 ; * Upo^vros,
X. 28; /caXd/xry, iii. 12; KaraKaXvTTTOjuai, ix. 6, 7; /caTa(7Tpwwv/x,ai,
X. 5; Karaxpao/uu, vii. 31, ix. 18; ? * K^/XOCD, ix. 9; * Ko/xdto, xi.
14, 15; KO/X&gt;;, xi. 15; Kv/^epvTycri?, xii. 28; Kv/x^aXov, xiii. i;
*Aoyia, xvi. I, 2; Aot Sopos, v. II, vi. 10; AtW, vii. 27; * /ma/c-
cXXov, X. 25; /Ac dvo-o?, V. n, vi. 10 ; /xTJrtye, vi. 3; /nwpta, i. 1 8,
21, 23, ii. 14, iii. 19 ; vrj, xv. 31 ; * vrj7nd,u, xiv. 20 ; * 6Xo0pevr?js,
X. 10; 6/xiXta, xv. 33; * o(r&lt;pr7(ris, xii. 17; 7rcua&gt;, x. 7 &gt; Tro.pa-
fivOLa, xiv. 3; TrapeSpeiW (ix. 13); TrdpoSo?, xvi. 7; * TTI^OS, ii. 4;
7rpi/cd#ap/Aa, iv. 13; Trepi i/^/xa, iv. 13; * TrepTrepev o/xat, xiii. 4;
Trrrjvd, XV. 39; *7TV/cri;w, ix. 27 ; piTrr/, XV. 52 ; (rvjjLfjxypov, vii. 35,
x. 33 ; O-^/A^WVOS, vii. 5 ; &lt;rwyy CO/AT;, vii. 6 ; * (TW^T^T^S, i. 20 ;
(rw//,epio/x,ai, ix. 13 ; rdyp;a, XV. 23 ; * TVTTIKCUS, X. II ; * VTrepaK/xos,
vii. 36; ^tXoVeiKos, xi. 16; ^p^v, xiv. 20 ; x i- K * xv - 47 4^&gt; 49 &gt;
* xp^o"Teuo/xat, xiii. 4 ; * wcnrepci , xv. 8.

None of these words (nearly 100 in all) occur anywhere else
in N.T. But a few of them are doubtful, owing to uncertainty
of text ; and a few of them occur in quotations, and therefore
are no evidence of St Paul s vocabulary, e.g. r)6os t 6//,iXt a, Spdur-
&lt;roju,ai, eaipa&gt;.

The number of words which are found in this Epistle and
elsewhere in N.T., but not in any of the other Pauline Epistles, 1
is still larger ; and the extent of these two lists warns us to be
cautious when we use vocabulary as an argument with regard
to authorship. Statistics with regard to i Corinthians are all
the more valuable, both because of the length of the Epistle,
and also because the authorship is certain on quite other grounds.
Putting the two lists together, we have nearly 220 words in
i Corinthians, which are not found in any other of the Pauline
Epistles. A fact of that kind puts us on our guard against
giving great weight to the argument that Ephesians, or Colossians,

t It is assumed here that the Pastoral Epistles (but not the Epistle to the
Hebrews) were written by St Paul.

INTRODUCTION li

or the Pastoral Epistles, cannot have been written by the Apostle,
because of the large number of words in each of them which do
not occur in any other letter written by him. There are far
more important tests, f

Words peculiar to i Corinthians in the Pauline Epistles.

dyvwcria, XV. 34; dyopaa&gt;, vi. 20, vii. 23, 30; dSr/Ao?, XIV. 8;
av/zos, V. 7, 8 ; d/cpacriu, vii. 5 ; dAaAaa&gt;, xiii. I ; djaep^ivo?, vii.
32; d/A7reA&lt;oi/, ix. 7; avaKpivu), ten times; dm/Ai/^o-t?, xi. 24, 25;
a7ro^)epa), xvi. 3; apyvpiov, iii. 12; dporpiaa), ix. 10 ; ap7ra, v. IO,
li, vi. 10 ; dppa)i7T09, xi. 30; doTT/p, xv. 41; CITC/XO?, iv. 10,
xii. 23 ; auAeo/jtcu, xiv. 7 ; avpiov, XV. 32 ; ya/xi^co, vii. 38 ; SCITTVCW,
xi. 25; SeiTTvov, xi. 20, 21 ; Sicupeto, xii. 12; SiSaKTos, ii. 13;
Siep/xryi/evco, xii. 30, xiv. 5, 13, 27; SwSe/ca, XV. 5; eaa&gt;, X. 13;
i8eoAo#vTos, viii. I, 4, 7, 10, X. 19; eucoai, x. 8; K/3acn9, X. 13 ;
K7Tipau&gt;, X. 9; eAeeti/09, XV. 19; eWo/xos, ix. 21 ; evo^o?, xi. 27;
e^etrriv, VI. 12, xii. 4; e^ouo-ia^co, vi. 12, vii. 4; 7rava&gt;, XV. 16;
7ri/?aAAto, vii. 35; eTrtVei/xa/., ix. 16; ecroTTTpoi/, xiii. 12; cuyev^s,
i. 26 ; * UKcupeuj, xvi. 12 ; evcr^/zan/, vii. 35, xii. 24 ; ^aVrco, xv. 4 ;
flearpov, iv. 9; 0ua&gt;, v. 7, x. 20; upor, ix. 13; ix^ s &gt; xv - 39 \
/cato; xiii. 3; Kara/cat a), iii. 15; Kara/cei/xat, viii. 10; Kara/xcVw,
xvi. 6 ; KiOdpa, xiv. 7 ; /a#apt w, xiv. 7 ; /aviWeva), xv. 30 ; /&lt;Adw,
x. 16, xi. 24; KOK/C09, xv. 37; KopeVi/v/xat, iv. 8; KT^I/OS, xv. 39;
O?, xi. 20; /xatVo/xat, xiv. 23; /xaAa/&lt;os, vi. 9; /xTyvva), X. 28;
O?, vi. 9; /xoAww, viii. 7; /xvpto?, iv. 15, xiv. 19; VIKO?,
^^54, 55. 57; ^paoy^at, xi. 5, 6; oAw?, v. i, vi. 7, xv. 29;
ocra /as, xi. 25, 26; OLXH, ix. 16 ; ovSeVorc, xiii. 8; o&lt;/&gt;eAo5, XV. 32;
Trapayw, vii. 31 ; Trapo^wo/xat, xiii. 5 ; Trao-^a, v. 7 ; TrevraKOcrioi,
XV. 6 ; 7rei/T7?Koo-rr/, xvi. 8; TreptySoAatov, xi. 15 ; 7repm$i7/&gt;u, xii. 23 ;
TrActoTos, xiv. 27 ; Trvev^ariKO)?, ii. 13, 14; Troi/xatVco, ix. 7 ; Troi/xvry,
ix. 7; 7rdAe/xo5, xiv. 8; 7ro/xa, x. 4; Tropvcvco, vi. 18, X. 8; Tropi/r?,
vi. 15, 16; TTor^piov, eight times; TrpoarKwtu), xiv. 25; Trpo^Teuaj,
eleven times; TrwAew, x. 25; pa/38o9, iv. 21; &lt;raA7uw, xv. 52;
0-eX.rjvr), XV. 41 ; (rraStoi/, ix. 24; crv/x/^atVoj, x. II ; crwayw, V. 4;
&lt;rwetSoi/, iv. 4; crvvepxo^ai, seven times; &lt;rwT09, i. 19; (rv^eta,
viii. 7, xi. 16; o-wo-re AAw, vii. 29; * o-^iV/xa, i. 10, xi. 18, xii. 25 ;
or^oAa^aj, vii. 5; T^pi7&lt;ri5, vii. 19; xt /xto?, iii. 12; rotVvv, ix. 26;
VTr^peV//?, iv. i; * V7r(07ria to, ix. 27; ^vrev oo, iii. 6, 7, 8, IX. 7;
^aAKo s, xiii. i; x o/ P TO? &gt; i"- I2 i ^evSo/xaprv?, xv. 15; i^v^tKO?,
ii. 14, xv. 44, 46.

There are a few words which are common to this Epistle
and one or more of the Pastoral Epistles, but are found nowhere

t As Schmiedel says about I Thessalonians : Begnugt man sich nicht mit
meckanischeni Zahlen, alphabetise hem Aufreihen und detn fast wtrthloscn
Achlen auf die aira

Hi INTRODUCTION

else in N.T. These are, d0ai/a&lt;ria, xv. 53, 54^; dXoao&gt;, ix. 9, 10
(in a quotation) ; cKKaOatpw, v. 7 ; * o-w/3ao-iA.ei;(o, iv. 8 ; vn-epoxj,
ii. i. There are a good many more which are common to this
Epistle and one or more of the Pastoral Epistles, and which
are found elsewhere in N.T., although not in other Epistles of
St Paul. But these are of less importance, although all links
between the Pastoral Epistles and the unquestionably genuine
Epistles are of value.

Phrases peculiar to I Corinthians in N.T*

fj &lt;TO&lt;f&gt;LCL TOV KOOyAOU, i. 2O, lli. I 8.

ot dpYOfTe? TOV atwvos TOUTOU, li. 6, 8.
Trpo rcov a uavwv, ii. 7.

TO TTl/et yaa TOV KOO-/XOV, 11. 12.

ov o-vvep-yoi, iii. 9.

TOVTO 8 01//U, vii. 29, xv. 50 ; cf. x. 15, 19.

1 770-0 vv TOV Kvpiov rj/JL^v eopttfca, ix. I ; cf. John XX. 25.

TO TTOTYjpcov Trjs euXoytas, x. 1 6.

TTOTfjptOV KvpLOV, X. 21.

KvptaKov oeiTTi/oi/, xi. 20.

i? Trjv e /xr/v avdjjLvrjcriv, xi. 24, 25 : ? Luke xxii. 19.

TO TroTr/piov TOV Kvpiov, xi. 27.

et TV XOI, xiv. 10, xv. 37 ; cf. TVXOV, xvi. 6.

TO 7rA.eto-Tov, xiv. 27.

ev O.TO/XO), ev ptTT^ 6^&gt;^aXjaov, XV. 5 2 -

Mapav d^a, xvi. 22.

Quotations from the O.T.

The essay on the subject in Sanday and Headlam, Romans,
pp. 302-307, should be consulted; also Swete, Introduction to
the O.T. in Greek, pp. 381-405. The number of quotations in
i Corinthians is about thirty, and none of the Epistles has so
many, excepting Romans and Hebrews ; and none quotes from
so many different books, excepting Romans. In i Corinthians,
eleven different books are quoted; Isaiah about eight times,
Psalms four or five times, Deuteronomy four times, Genesis four,
Exodus two or three, Numbers once or twice, Zechariah once or
twice; Job, Jeremiah, Hosea, Malachi, once each. In several
cases the quotation resembles more than one passage in the
O.T., and we cannot be sure which passage the Apostle has in
his mind. In other cases there is a conflation of two passages,
both of which are clearly in his mind. Consequently, exact
numbers cannot always be given. All the quotations are short,
and it is probable that all of them were made from memory.

INTRODUCTION liii

There are no long citations, such as we have in Hebrews, which
no doubt were in most cases copied.

If, with Swete, we may count as direct quotations those
which (though not announced by a formula, such as *a#ws
ye ypaTTTcu) appear from the context to be intended as quotations,
or agree verbatim with some context in the O.T., then at least
half the quotations in i Corinthians are direct. * They are

i. 19 = Isa. xxix. 14 x. 7 = Exod. xxxii. 6

i. 31 = Jer. ix. 24 x. 26 = Ps. xxiv. i
(i Sam. ii. 10)

ii. 9 = Isa. Ixiv. 4(?) xiv. 21 = Isa. xxviii. nf.

ii. 16 = Isa. xl. 13 xv. 27 = Ps. viii. 6, 7

iii. 19 = Job v. 13 xv. 32 = Isa. xxii. 13

iii. 20 = Ps. xciv. n xv. 45 = Gen. ii. 7

vi. 16 = Gen. ii. 24 xv. 54 = Isa. xxv. 8

ix. 9 = Deut. xxv. 4 xv. 55 = Hos. xiii. 14

Out of these thirty quotations from the O.T., about twenty-
five are in exact or substantial agreement with the LXX, and this
is in accordance with evidence derived from the other Epistles.
Sometimes the variations from the LXX bring the citation closer
to the Hebrew, as if the Apostle were consciously or uncon
sciously guided by the Hebrew in diverging from the LXX, e.g.
in xv. 54 = Isa. xxv. 8. Sometimes he seems to make changes
in order to produce a wording more suitable for his argument,
e.g. in iii. 2o = Ps. xciv. ii, where he substitutes cro^toi/ for
, or in i. 19 = Isa. xxix. 14, where he substitutes
a&gt; for Kpvij/w (cf. Ps. xxxiii. 10).

The quotations which are in agreement with the LXX are
these

vi. 16 = Gen. ii. 24 x. 21 = Mai. i. 7, 12

ix. 9 = Deut. xxv. 4 x. 26 = Ps. xxiv. i

x. 7 = Exod. xxxii. 6 xv. 32 = Isa. xxii. 13

x. 20 = Deut. xxxii. 17 xv. 45 = Gen. ii. 7.

In the following instances there is substantial agreement with
the LXX, the difference in some cases being slight :

i. 19 = Isa. xxix. 14 x. 22 = Deut. xxxii. 21

i. 31 = Jer. ix. 24 xi. 7 = Gen. v. i

ii. 16 = Isa. xl. 13 xi. 25 = Exod. xxiv. 8 :

Zech. ix. ii

iii. 20 = Ps. xciv. ii xiii. 5 = Zech. viii. 17

v. 7 = Exod. xii. 21 xv. 25 = Ps. ex. i

v. 13 = Deut. xvii. 7, xxi. 21, xv. 27 = Ps. viii. 6

xxii. 24

x. 5 = Num. xiv. 1 6 xv. 47 = Gen. ii. 7

x. 6 = Num. xi. 34, 4 xv. 55 = Hos. xiii. 14

* The large number of direct quotations shows that it is not correct to say
that, in teaching at Corinth, the Apostle left the O.T. foundation of the
Gospel more or less in the background : see esp. xv. 3, 4, v. 7.

liv INTRODUCTION

Perhaps under the same head should be placed

ii. 9 = Isa. Ixiv. 4, Ixv. 17 ; and xiv. 21 = Isa. xxviii. II.

But in both of these there is divergence from both the Hebrew
and the LXX.

In a few cases he seems to show a preference for the Hebrew,
or possibly for some version not known to us.

i. 2O = Isa. xix. II f., xxxiii. 18 xiv. 25 = Isa. xlv. 14

iii. 19 = Job v. 13 xv. 54 = Isa. xxv. 8

In xv. 57, TO) Se eo&gt; x^P ts T( ? SiSoiri rjfMv TO vucos resembles
2 Mace. X. 38, ewAoyow TO) Kupiu) TW TO J/IKOS aurots SiSoyTi, but this
is probably an accidental coincidence.

VII. THE TEXT OF THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE
CORINTHIANS.

The problem of textual criticism the historical problem of
establishing, as nearly as possible, the earliest ascertainable
form of the text exists for all N.T. books under very
similar conditions. The great wealth of material, the early
divergence of readings which can be more or less grouped into
classes constituting types of text, and then the practical super
session of divergent types by an eclectic text which became
dominant and which is represented in the greater number of
later MSS., these are the general phenomena. But the different
collections of N.T. books the Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles,
Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse have each of them special histories
and their textual phenomena special features. Our Epistle shares
the special phenomena of the Pauline collection, and in this
collection it has some distinctive features of its own.

GENERAL FEATURES.

During the first century or so after they were written,
the books of the N.T. were copied with more freedom
and less exactness than was afterwards the case. With the
exception of some readings, probably editorial in character,
distinctive of the Syrian text (practically the Textus Receptus},
nearly all the various readings in the N.T. originated in this
early period. In a very few cases, readings, which cannot have
been original, are traceable to so early a date, antecedent to all
ascertainable divergence of texts, that the original readings dis
placed by them have not survived. These are the cases of
l primitive corruption," where conjecture is needed to restore

INTRODUCTION lv

the original text. These cases are rare in the entire N.T., and
very rare in the Pauline Epistles. In our Epistle there is only
one probable example, namely, xii. 2 ore, where Trore, not
preserved in any document, was very likely written by St. Paul
(see note in loc.).

WESTERN TEXT.

Apart from such rare cases, the early freedom of copying has
bequeathed to us a congeries of readings amongst which we
distinguish a large class which, while probably (and in many
cases certainly) not original, yet remount to an antiquity higher
than that of any extant version, and which are as a whole
common to the Greek text embodied in many early MSS., and
to the early versions, especially the Old Latin. To these
readings the collective term Western is applied. It is probably
a misnomer, but is too firmly rooted in current use to be con
veniently discarded. This class of readings, or type of text, is
the centre of many interesting problems, especially as regards
the Lucan books.

ALEXANDRIAN READINGS.

There is also a body of readings not assignable to this type
but nevertheless of very early origin ; these readings are of a
kind apparently due to editorial revision rather than to tran-
scriptional licence, while yet they are not, on transcriptional
grounds, likely to belong to the original text. These readings,
mainly preserved in texts of Egyptian provenance, have been
referred by Westcott and Hort to the textual labours of the
Alexandrians. This limited group, although its substantive
existence has been questioned (e.g. by Salmon), is due probably
to a true factor in the history of the text.

THE PAULINE EPISTLES.

(i) Syrian Readings.

In the Pauline Epistles, the first task of criticism is to
distinguish readings which, whether adopted or not in the
Syrian or received text, are in their origin pre-Syrian. Such
readings will be preserved in one or more of the great uncials
K A B C D G, of the important cursives 17, 67**, in the older
witnesses for the Old Latin text, in one of the Egyptian Versions,
or by certain * quotation in some Christian writer before

* Quotations in patristic texts are liable, both in MS. transmission and in

Ivi INTRODUCTION

250 A.D. The chances of a genuine pre-Syrian reading, not
preserved in any of the above sources, lingering in any later MSS.
or authorities, is so slight as to be negligible.

RESIDUAL EARLY TEXT.

Having eliminated distinctively Syrian readings, we are
still confronted with great diversity of text, and with the task of
classifying the material. We have to identify readings distinc
tively Western, and to segregate from the residue such readings
as may prove assignable to Alexandrian recension ; the ultimate
residuary readings, or neutral text, will, with very rare excep
tions, represent the earliest form of the text that can by any
historical process be ascertained. This, the most important
problem, is also the most difficult, as we are dealing with a
period (before 250 A.D.) anterior to the date of any existing
document. The question is, In what extant authorities do we
find a text approximately free from traces of the causes of varia
tion noted above : early liberties with the text in copying, and
Alexandrian attempts at its restoration ?

Briefly, we need in the Pauline Epistles, for readings inde
pendent of the * Western text, the support of X or B. Readings
confined to D E F G, the Old Latin, or patristic quotations
(apart from Alexandria), are probably Western. The dis
tinctively Alexandrian readings will be attested by X A C P, some
cursives, Alexandrian Fathers, and Egyptian Versions. But
these authorities do not ipso facto prove the Alexandrian character
of a reading, which is matter for delicate and discriminating
determination. It must be added that the readings classed as
Alexandrian are neither many nor. as a rule, important. The
purely Alexandrian type of text is an entity small in bulk, as
compared with the * Western.

As a result of the above lines of inquiry, we find that in the
Pauline Epistles, as elsewhere, B is the most constant single
representative of the Neutral type of text ; but it has, in these
Epistles only, an occasional tendency to incorporate Western
readings, akin to those of G. N, on the other hand, which in the
N.T. generally bears more traces than B of mixture of (pre-
Syrian) texts, is freer from such traces in the Pauline Epistles
than elsewhere. Of other MSS. of the Pauline Epistles, neutral
readings are most abundant in A C P 17, and in the second
hand of 67. See E. A. Hutton, An Atlas of Textual Criticism,
pp. 43 f.

print, to assimilation to the received text ; we must rely only on critically
sdited patristic texts.

INTRODUCTION Ivii

AUTHORITIES FOR THIS EPISTLE.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians is preserved in the
following main documents :

Greek Uncial MSS.

N (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg,
the only MS. containing the whole N.T.

A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus ; now at the
British Museum.

B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS.

C (Fifth century.) The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest ; now
at Paris. Lacks vii. 18 eV d/cpo^vo-rt a-ix. 6 TOV pr]
pyaecr0ai : xiii. 8 Trava-ovrcu XV. 40 aAAa ere/Da.

D (Sixth century.) Codex Claromontanus ; now at Paris. A
Graeco-Latin MS. xiv. 13 816 6 \aXuv-22 o-^/xetov eariV
is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subse
quent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected
the MS. (see Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 418-422).

E (Ninth century.) At St Petersburg. A copy of D, and
unimportant.

F (Late ninth century.) Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau),
now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G; in
any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely
varies (see Gregory, p. 429).

F* (Seventh century.) Coisl. i. ; at Paris. A MS. of Gen.-
Kings, containing N.T. passages added by the scribes as
marginal notes, including i Cor. vii. 39, xi. 29.

G (Late ninth century.) The Codex Bornerianus; at Dresden.
Interlined with the Latin (in minuscules). Lacks i Cor.
iii. 8-1 6, vi. 7-14 (as F).

H (Sixth century.) Coisl. 202. At Paris (the part containing
x. 22-29, x i- 9~ l6 )- An important witness, but unhappily
seldom available. The MS. is scattered in seven different
libraries, having been employed for bindings.

I 2 (Fifth century.) Codex Mural ti vi. At St Petersburg.
Contains xv. 53 roirro-xvi. 9 di/e co.

K (Ninth century.) Codex S. Synod, xcviii. Lacks i. i-vi. 13
ravrrjv KO.L : viii. 7 TII/CS Se viii. 1 1 a7re$avev.

L (Ninth century.) Codex Angelicus. At Rome.

M (Ninth century.) Harl. 5913*; at the British Museum.
Contains xv. 52 a-aXma-eL to the end of xvi. The MS.
also contains fragments of 2 Corinthians and (in some
leaves now at Hamburg) of Hebrews.

Iviii INTRODUCTION

P (Ninth century.) Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest
acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew.
Lacks vii. 15 v/xas 6 eo s-i7 Trepnr&rei : xii. 23 rov
orw/AttTO? xiii. 5 ov Aoyi : xiv. 23 rj aTrtcrrot 39 TO XaAeiv /xty
A good type of text in St Paul s Epistles.

$ (Fifth century.) [Papyrus] Porfirianus Chiovensis. Contains

i. 17 oyov wa fjLrj-a-vvfyTrjT (20); vi. 13 n o 05-15 /x,ar

[a v/xwv /xA.77]X[pio-To]u, vi. 16-18 (fragmentary), vii. 3-14

(fragmentary). The only papyrus uncial MS. of the N.T.

* (Eighth or ninth century.) Codex Athous Laurae, 172

(or B 52).
S (Same date.) Codex Athous Laurae. Contains i. i-v. 8,

xiii. 8 eire Sc 7rpo&lt;/&gt;-xvi. 24.

2 (Fifth century.) Vatic. Gr. 2061. Contains iv. 4-vi. 16,
xii. 23~xiv. 21, xv. 3~xvi. i. A palimpsest, from Rossano,
perhaps originally from Constantinople. Its readings are
not yet available.

It will be seen that K A B L * contain the whole Epistle,
C D F G K P nearly the whole, while F a H I 2 M Q S 2 contain
but small portions. The oldest MSS. are N B of the fourth century,
A C I 2 Q 3 of the fifth, and D H of the sixth. Marks of punctua
tion are very few in X A B C D H ; they are more frequent in G.
(On the punctuation see Scrivener (ed. 4), vol. i. p. 48 ; Gregory,
vol. iii. pp. 111-115.)

Cursive MSS.

The Epistles of St Paul are to be found in some 480 cursives,

of which we mention only one or two as of special interest.

17. (Ev. 33, Act 13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14).
See Westcott and Hort., Introd. 211, 212.

37. (Ev. 69, Act 31, Apoc. 14. Fifteenth century.) The well-
known Leicester codex. Contains a good text.

47. Bodleian. Roe 16. (Eleventh century.)

67. (Act 66, Apoc. 34. Eleventh century.) At Vienna. The
marginal corrections (67**) embody very early readings,
akin to those of M (supra). See Westcott and Hort,
Introd. 212.

Versions.

The OLD LATIN of this Epistle is transmitted in the Graeco-
Latin uncials D E F G, the Latin of which is cited as defg.
d has a text independent of D, but in places adapted to it ;
e approximates more to the Vulgate ; g is a Vulgate text except
in Romans and i Corinthians, where it is based on the Old Latin,

INTRODUCTION lix

f a Vulgate text with Old Latin admixture. The Greek text of
each of these MSS. has to some extent influenced the Latin.

The Epistle is also contained in

x (Ninth century.) Bodleian ; Laud. Lat. 108, E. 67, a thrice-
corrected text, having much in common with d.
m (Ninth century.) At Rome; the Speculum pseudo-Augustin-

ianum.
r (Sixth century.) The Freisingen MS., now at Munich.

The two last named contain fragments only.

On the Vulgate, Egyptian (Bohairic or Coptic and Thebaic
or Sahidic),* Syriac, Armenian, and Gothic, reference may be
made to Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. Ixvi sq. As to the
Syriac, it should be noted that the later (or Harclean) Syriac
has some more ancient readings (Westcott and Hort, Introd.
p. 156 sq.); we have not, for St Paul s Epistles, any Syriac
version older than the Peshito. Also, the high antiquity
formerly claimed for the Peshito was founded mainly upon the
quotations from it in St Ephraem ; but these now prove to be
untrustworthy, being due to assimilation in the printed text
of this Father.

ILLUSTRATIVE READINGS.

We will now consider some readings (taken at hazard except
as regards their generally interesting character), which will illus
trate the mutual relations of the documents for the text of this
Epistle. We omit all reference to E and F, as being secondary
(as mentioned above) to D and G respectively.

It must be remembered that the documents, while furnishing
merely the external credentials of a reading, have already been
subjected to a classification on the basis of innumerable readings
as to which no serious doubt exists ; the combination of external
evidence as to antiquity with * internal evidence (i.e. considera
tions of transcriptional probability, and of latent as opposed to
superficial inferiority) has reached a result in which modern
critical editors are as a rule agreed. Those MSS. or groups of
MSS., which are most frequently ranged in support of the un
doubtedly right readings, are naturally deserving of special con
sideration where the reading v&primafade less certain.!

Such a group is K B. These two fourth-century MSS.,
although in part written by one hand, are copied from quite

* On the so-called Bashmuric version and its kindred, see Scrivener,
Introd. (ed. 4), vol. ii. pp. 101-106, 140.

t The readings discussed below are treated independently of the notes on
the several passages ; in a few cases the view taken differs from that expressed
in the notes.

Ix INTRODUCTION

distinct originals. The text of X has clearly been affected by
influences foreign to anything in the ancestry of B. The text
of their common ancestor must have been of the very highest
antiquity, and the test of many indisputable passages shows also
that its antiquity must have been antiquity of type, not of date
only. Apart from the small classes of primitive corruptions
and of * Western non-interpolations, the combinations X B can
only be set aside on the most cogent grounds ; our Epistle
contains few, if any, passages where such grounds can be
shown.

Typical Syrian Readings.

In such passages as (i) vi. 20, where C 3 D bc K L P, Syrr.,
Chrys. add the words which follow V/AO&gt;V, we have a typical
Syrian reading, and the shorter text is supported by K B in
common with the vast preponderance of MSS. and versions.
A similar example is (2) the inversion of eos and Kvpios, in
vii. 17, in K L, the later Syriac, and later Greek Fathers. This
was probably due to the desire to place eo? first in order, over
looking the decisive fact that K/&lt;X^/cev calls for eos rather than
6 Kupios (v. 15 and elsewhere). In (3) iii. 4 0-ap/a/coi, (4) viii. 2
ctSeveu for eyvoDKeyai, eyva&gt;/&lt; for lyvw, the case is the same, X B,
with an ample host of allies, ranged against a text which gained
later currency but which lacks early attestation.

Typical Western Readings.

The case is somewhat different in the next instances to be
mentioned, where the reading unsupported by X B has some
early currency, mainly Western in character. Such cases are
(5) iii. i (rapKLvoL&lt;s, NAB CD* 17, 67**, Clem. Orig., where
D c G L P, Clem. Orig. (in other places) read o-ap/a/cots. Here
the latter reading may be classed as Western ; but P, which
supports it, joins the great uncials in (6) v. 3 in support of
a-apKiKOL against D* and G, which have &lt;rap/aVoi. The latter
reading is purely * Western ; P elsewhere (see below) frequently
represents a non-Western text.

Affinities of P.

An example of this is (7) viii. 7 where we have X A B P 17,
67**, and the Egyptian and Aethiopic Versions supporting o-wry-
0eia against the Western and Syrian cnwetS^o-ei. The same
holds good of (8) xii. 2 ore (see note there). Another passage
where P joins K B (and 17) against a Western reading (adopted

INTRODUCTION bd

in the Syrian text) is (9) ix. 2 /xov Trj&lt;s, where D G K L (and
Latin MSS., apostolatus met) have T^S e^s (A omits this
verse).

One more interesting example of this class of variants is the
ternary variation in vii. 29, which it is worth while to set out in
full

(10) vii. 29 eoriv TO AoiTToV, K A B D* b P 17 Copt. Syr. Arm.,
Eus. (in one place) Ephr. Bas. Euthal. (D omits

^ TO.) ^

TO AotTTov eoriV, D c K L, Eus. (another place) Chrys.
ecrrtV AOCTTOV eariV, G 67**, d e f g m Vulg., Orig. Tert.
Hieron. Aug.

The attestation of the first reading clearly outweighs that of
either of the other two. The second is clearly a Syrian
reading, the third as clearly Western, D here preserving
the non-Western reading, and P once more siding, against the
Western reading, with K B. This, however, is not always the
case. In (n) xvi. 23 the omission of X/HO-TOV, X B 17, f, some
MSS. of Vulg. Goth., Thdt., is probably right, though K c A C D
G K L M P, e g, some MSS. of Vulg., the versions generally, and
most patristic quotations, follow the tendency to insert it (so far
more natural than its omission, if found). But the insertion (in
view of the combination K c A C L P, Euthal.) may be * Alex
andrian rather than Western.

Possible Alexandrian Readings.

So far our instances (with the possible exception of the last)
have been cases of the excellence of the text supported by the
combination K B.

We will next consider some few possible examples of Alex
andrian editing.

(12) iv. 6 (add after yeypairrai) foovciv, X C D c L P Syrr. Copt.

Arm. Goth., Greek Fathers, Euthal.
om. K A B D* G, Latin MSS. and Vulg., Orig.
Latin Fathers.

This is certainly an addition not Western, but pre-Syrian.
It corresponds with the character assigned by WH. to the
Alexandrian touches.

(13) ix. 9 Kij/woo-eis, B* D* G, Chrys. Thdt.

&lt;/&gt;i/*oWs, K A B 3 C D 2 and 3 K L P al. omn., Orig.
Chrys. Euthal.

Ixii INTRODUCTION

This is the first example we have taken of B differing from V.
and prima facie this might seem a clear case of the slight
Western element present in B, in St Paul s Epistles. But the
Alexandrian witnesses are ranged on the side opposed to B, and
we must remember that &lt;i/Atocreis is in the LXX source of the
quotation, and the assimilation of the text to its original would
be more natural, as a correction, than the introduction of a
variant. (The versions of course are neutral here.)

(14) xv. 51 Wi^s /*&gt;, K A C 2 D c G K L P, f g Vulg. Copt. Syr. 1 **

Ephr. (?) Greek Fathers, Euthal.
(om. ;aeV) B C* D* d e Arm. Aeth. Syr. pri Greek MSS.
known to Jerome.

The //.eV, if (as probable) not genuine, illustrates once more
the significance of the combination X A L P, Euthal. ; it has
the character of an Alexandrian touch. But it seems to have
been read by both Ephraem in the East and Tertullian in the
West.

(15) x. 9 Xpto-roV, D G KL, Vulg. Syr. prietposttxt Copt., Marcion

Iren. Chrys., etc.

, K B C P 17, etc., Syr.P^^Copt. * Arm. Aeth.,
Dam., etc.

A, Euthal.

There is no question but that Xpia-Tov is of inferior and
Western attestation, eov looks like, and may possibly be, an
Alexandrian correction (assimilation to Ps. Ixxvii. 18, LXX).

(r.6) ix, 15 ouSeis, K*B D* 17, de Sah. Basm., and early Latin
Fathers.

OV0CI? //.ij, A.
T15, G. 26.

Iva TIS, K c CD bc KLP, f Vulg., many Greek and
Latin Fathers.

(All MSS. except K read KCVWCTCI here, the later cursives only
reading KCVCOO-^ with most late Greek Fathers.)

The reading Iva. TIS, adopted by the Syrian text, is apparently
pre-Syrian in origin ; it lacks the full Alexandrian attestation, but
on the other hand it bears every mark of an editorial touch. If
pre-Syrian, it is Alexandrian rather than Western.

(i 7) xi. 24 /cXw/Aevov, N c C 3 D b c G K L P, d e g Syr., Euthal. Greek

Fathers (Opwrrofji. D*).

om. N* A B C 17, 67**, Ath. Cyr. Fulg. (expressly).
tradetur, f Vulg., Cypr.

INTRODUCTION Ixiii

Here P sides with the Western witnesses in what is clearly a
Western interpolation (cf. Gal. i. 18, ii. 14 TreVpos).

The two last cases are on opposite sides of the border line
which distinguishes readings of the Alexandrian type from other
inferior, but pre-Syrian, readings.

Western Element in B.

We will next give an example or two of the Western
element in B (see above on ix. 9)

(18) ii. i /Mvo"njpiov, K* A C Copt. (Boh.), Amb. Aug. Ambrst.,

etc.
fjMprvpLov, tf c B D G L P, Latin and other verss., Cyr.-

Alex.

This is a doubtful case, as the readings hang somewhat evenly
in the balance, and the attestation of papr. is perhaps not ex
clusively Western. But if WH. are right in preferring /AV&lt;TT.,
B may here betray Western admixture. The reading is one of
the least certain in this Epistle.

(19) xi. 19 (post Lva) Kat, B D 37 71, de Vulg. Sah., Ambrst

(om. KOI) KACD bc GKLP fg, Syr. Copt. Arm.,
Orig. Epiph. Euthal. Chrys., etc.

Tertullian, Cyprian, and Jerome apparently are to be counted
on the side of omission, as well as G. But the reading of B,
which is of little intrinsic probability, is clearly * Western in its
other attestation.

(20) xv. 14 (after TTUTTIS) fytwi/, K A D bc G K L P, defg Vulg.

verss.
/, B D* 17 67**, Sah. Basra. Goth.

The bulk of the Western authorities are here against B ; the
latter probably preserves a very ancient, but not original, reading,
possibly an early itacism (see below on xv. 49).

(21) In xiv. 38 the reading of B dyvoemo, supported by the
correctors of K A D, and by K L, Syr. Arm. Aeth., Orig.
against K* A* I)* G*, Basra, and the Latin Versions, with
Orig. in one place, is no doubt correct, as also in xv. 51
where ov has been transferred to stand after the second
irai/res in N C G 17. B here has the support of P as well
as K L and Greek MSS. known to Jerome.

In (22) x. 20, omission of TO. etfvry, B has Western support only;
but the case is probably one of * Western non-interpolation.

Ixiv INTRODUCTION

Singular Readings of B.

There remain to be noticed a few singular or sub-singular
readings of B which may not impossibly be right in some: cases.

(23) xiii. 4 (after 17X01) 17 dyaTnj, KACDGKL, degm Syr.,

Orig. Cyr. Cypr.

om. B 17, etc., f Vulg. Copt. Arm. By no means
improbable.

(24) viii. 8 7re/tHcro-evo/x0a, B, Orig. (all the rest o//.ev). But for

the quotation in Orig., which shows the reading te be
very ancient, we might have set it down to the scribe
of B. The same is true of

(25) xiii. 5 TO fjui eavnfc B, Clem. pacd . The rest, including

Clem. strom , have TO, eavrqs. The latter is probably right,
but the reference in Clemflaed. shows that the variant is
of high antiquity.

(26) xv. 49 &lt;ope o-o/u,/, B 46, Arm. Aeth., Thdt. and a few Fathers.

The weight of evidence, and transcriptional probability, is
here wholly on the side of K and all other MSS. against B.

The above examples (13, 14, 18-26) show that where K and
B are ranged against one another it is necessary to deal with
each case on its evidential merits, but that B is rarely to be set
aside without hesitation.

Combined Witness of^Bin disputed Readings.

We will lastly take some passages where K and B are again
at one, and probably right, though they are less clear than those
mentioned at the outset.

(27) xiii. 3 Kavx^o-w/xat, KAB 17, Boh., Ephr. Hieron. (and

Greek MSS. known to him).

C K, d e f g m Vulg. verss., Orig. Ephr.
Meth. Chrys., etc.

D G L, Bas. Euthal. Cyr. Max.

The latter reading is Western in its attestation, while
has the important indirect (but quite clear) support of Clem.-
Rom. 55, a witness of exceptional antiquity. Transcriptional
probability is, moreover, on the side of

(28) vii. 34 (before /tc/xepio-rat) *&lt;u, N A B D* P 17, 67, f Vulg.

Syr post c opt ? Euthal and Early Fathers.
om. D C GKL, degm, Chrys. Thdt. Dam. Amb.
Ambrst. Hieron.

INTRODUCTION Ixv

There can be no doubt that this omission is Western and
Syrian.

(29) vii. 34 (after pcpep.) /cat, K A B D a G K L P, d e g Vulg., Meth.

Eus., etc.
om. D*, some copies of Vulg., Latin Fathers.

The omission is here purely Western and of limited range.

(30) vii. 34 (after ywi;) 17 aya/xog, K A B (C is lacking) P 17, Vulg.

Copt., Euthal. Hieron. (and Gk. MSS. known to).
om. D G K L, d e f g m fuld. Syr. Arm. Aeth., Meth.

This omission again is clearly Western.

(31) vii. 34 (after irapObo?) y aya/x,os, K A D G K L, defg fuld.

Syr. Arm. Aeth., Bas. Latin Fathers.
om. B P, several mss. Vulg. Copt. Basm., Eus.
Hieron. (with reasons).

Reviewing as a whole the evidence (28-31) bearing upon this
verse, the /cat both before and after /Ae/xepicrrai must be admitted

as thoroughly attested. The omission of 17 aya/zos after fj
inferior in attestation to its presence (additionally attested by N A)
in both places. This latter reading, again, is clearly not original,
but conflate; its support by N A, Euthal. may point to an
Alexandrian origin. Jerome, on the evidence before him,
believed the reading fj y. ^ ay. /cat % irapO. to be what St Paul
actually wrote apostolica veritas. Moreover, the apparent diffi
culty of this reading explains the early transference of r/ aya/zos
from after ywy to follow irap6cvo&lt;s. [The unmarried woman is
generic, including widows; the virgin (under control) is the
special case whose treatment is in question.] Mepcpurrai, both
in number and in sense, fits ill with what follows it. The
question of punctuation, as to which the MSS. give no help,
must follow that of text. The crucial points, on which N B are
agreed, are the /cat in both places and the genuineness of 17 ay.
after rj yvvrj.

Our last example shall be the d/wyV, xvi. 24.

(32) xvi. 24 d/x^V, NACDKLP, de vg clem verss., Chrys. Thdt.

Dam.

om. B M 17, fgr fuld. tol, Euthal. Ambrst.
G has yeveOiJTW yevfOyru) (sic).

The MSS. support d/^v conclusively at the end of Galatians,
Rom xvi. 27, and at the end of Jude. Elsewhere, in view of the
strong liturgical instinct to add it where possible, the witness of
even a few MSS. is enough to displace it. The other leading

Ixvi INTRODUCTION

uncials, in varying combinations, add it at the end of most of the
Epistles, and some MSS. in every case. It is noteworthy that
(except in Galatians, Romans, Jude) B, wherever it is available,
is the one constant witness against this interpolation. The one
exception to this in the whole N.T. is at the close of St Luke s
Gospel, where the d/xTJv must be a very early addition.

Our Epistle, to judge by the external evidence, was in wide
circulation long before the "Apostolus" was circulated as a
collection of letters ; certainly we have earlier and wider traces of
its use than we have of that of the companion Epistle. It must
accordingly have been copied many times before it was included
in a comprehensive roll or codex. The wonder is that the text
has suffered so little in transmission ; one possibility of primitive
corruption (xii. 2) is, for an Epistle of this length, slight indeed.

VIII. COMMENTARIES.

These are very numerous, and a long list will be found in
Meyer. See also the Bibliography in the 2nd ed. of Smith s
Dictionary of the Bible, i. pp. 656, 658 ; Hastings, DB. i. p. 491,
iii. p. 731 ; Ency. Bibl. i. 907. In the selection given below, an
asterisk indicates that the work is in some way important, a dagger,
that valuable information respecting the commentator is to be
found in Sanday and Headlam on Romans in this series, pp.
xcviii.-cix.

Patristic and Scholastic : Greek.

*t Origen (d. 253). Some fragments have come down to
us in Cramer s Catena, vol. v. (Oxf. 1844), in the Philocalia
(J. Arm. Robinson, Camb. 1893); additional fragments of great
interest are given in the new and valuable recension by Claude
Jenkins in the Journal of Theological Studies, January, April,
July, and October 1908 ; and C. H. Turner comments on these,
January 1909.

*t Chrysostom (d. 407). The Homilies on i and 2 Corin
thians are considered the best examples of his teaching. \ They
show admirable judgment, but sometimes two or more interpreta
tions are welded together in a rhetorical comment. He generally
illuminates what he touches.

*t Theodoret (d. 457). Migne, P.G. Ixxxii. He follows
Chrysostom closely, but is sometimes more definite and pointed.

*t Theophylact (d. aftt-r 1 1 r8). Migne, P.G. cxxv. He follows
J They have been translated in the Oxford Library of the Fathers.

INTRODUCTION Ixvii

the Greek Fathers and is better than nearly all Latin com
mentators of that date.

Oecumenius (Bp. of Tricca, end of tenth century). Migne,
P.G. cxviii., cxix. The relation of his excerpts to those of Theo-
phylact is greatly in need of further examination.

Patristic and Scholastic : Latin.

f Ambrosiaster or Pseudo-Ambrosius. He is the unknown
author of the earliest commentary on all the Pauline Epistles
that has come down to us. He is now commonly identified
either with Decimius Hilarianus Hilarius, governor of Africa in
377, praetorian prefect in Italy in 396, or with the Ursinian
Isaac, a convert from Judaism (C. H. Turner, Journal of Theo
logical Studies, April 1906). His importance lies in the Latin
text used by him, which " must be at least as old as 370 ... it
is at least coeval with our oldest complete manuscripts of the
Greek Bible, and thus presupposes a Greek text anterior to
them." Ambrosiasters text of the Pauline Epistles is " equivalent
to a complete fourth century pre- Vulgate Latin codex of these
epistles (Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 196).

f Pelagius. Migne, P.L. xxx. Probably written before 410.

Pseudo-Primasius. Migne, P.L. Ixviii. A revision of
Pelagius made by a pupil or pupils of Cassiodorus.

Bede (d. 735). Mainly a catena from Augustine.

* Atto Vercellensis. Migne, P.L. cxxxiv. Bishop of Vercelli
in Piedmont in the tenth century. Depends on his predecessors,
but thinks for himself.

* Herveius Burgidolensis (d. 1149). Migne, P.L. clxxxi. A
Benedictine of Bourg-Dieu or Bourg-Deols in Berry. One of
the best of mediaeval commentators for strength and sobriety.
He and Atto often agree, and neither seems to be much used by
modern writers.

Peter Lombard (d. 1160).
t Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274).

Modern Latin.

Faber Stapulensis, Paris, 1512.

Cajetan, Venice, 1531.

t Erasmus, Desiderius (d. 1536).

*t Calvin, John. Quite the strongest of the Reformers as a
commentator, clear-headed and scholarly, but too fond of finding
arguments against Rome. His work on the Pauline Epistles
ranges from 1539 to 1551.

t Beza, Theodore (d. 1605), Paris, 1594.

Ixviii INTRODUCTION

Cornelius a Lapide, Antwerp, 1614. Roman (Jesuit).

* Estius, Douay, 1614. Roman (sober and valuable),
f Grotius, Amsterdam, 1644-1646.

*f Bengal, Tubingen, 1742; 3rd ed. London, 1862. Fore
most in Scriptural insight and pithy expression.

*t Wetstein, Amsterdam, 1751, 1752. Rich in illustration.

English.

t H. Hammond, London, 1653, "The father of English
commentators." Historical.

f John Locke, London, 1705-1707. Historical. 1
Edward Burton, Oxford, 1831.
T. W. Peile, Rivingtons, 1853.

C. Hodge, New York, 1857. Calvinist.

t C. Wordsworth, Rivingtons, 4th ed. 1866.

* F. W. Robertson, Smith & Elder, 5th ed. 1867.
*t H. Alford, Rivingtons, 6th ed. 1871.

P. J. Gloag, Edinburgh, 1874.

* A. P. Stanley, Murray, 4th ed. 1876. Picturesque and
suggestive, but not so strong in scholarship.

T. T. Shore in Ellicotfs Commentary, n.d.

J. J. Lias in the Cambridge Greek Testament, 1879.

* T. S. Evans in the Speaker s Commentary, 1881. Rich in
exact scholarship and original thought, but sometimes eccentric
in results.

D. Brown in Schafs Commentary, 1882.

F. W. Farrar in the Pulpit Commentary, 1883.
*t J. A. Beet, Hodder, 2nd ed. 1884. Wesleyan.

* T. C. Edwards, Hamilton Adams, 1885. Very helpful.

* C. J. Ellicott, Longmans, 1887. Minute and strong in
grammatical exegesis. Perhaps the best English Commentary on
the Greek text (but misses Evans best points).

W. Kay (posthumous), 1887. Scholarly, but slight.
Marcus Dods in the Exposif^s Bible.

* J. B. Lightfoot (posihumous), Notes on i.-vii. 1895.
Important.

* G. G. Findlay in the Expositors Greek Testament, Hodder,
1900. Thorough grasp of Pauline thought.

* J. Massie in the Century Bible, n.d.

W. M. Ramsay, Historical Commentary in the Expositor, 6th
series.

New Translations into English.
The Twentieth Century A T ew Testament, Part II., Marshall,

IQOO.

INTRODUCTION Ixix

R. F. Weymouth, The N.T. in Modern Speech, Clarke, 2nd
ed. 1905.

A. S. Way, The Letters of St Paul, Macmillan, 2nd ed. 1906.

* W. G Rutherford (posthumous), Thessalonians and Cor
inthians, Macmillan, 1908.

German.

Billroth, 1833 ; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1837.

Riickert, Leipzig, 1836.

Olshausen, 1840 ; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1855.

J. E. Osiander, Stuttgart, 1849.

*t De Wette, Leipzig, 3rd ed. 1855.

G. H. A. Ewald, Gottingen, 1857.

Neander, Berlin, 1859.

* Heinrici, Das Erste Sendschreiben, etc., 1880.

*t Meyer, 5th ed. 1870 ; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1877. Re-
edited by B. Weiss, and again by * Heinrici, 1896 and IQOO;
again by J. Weiss, 1910.

Maier, Freiburg, 1857. Roman.

Kling, in Lange s Bibelwerk, 1861 ; Eng. tr., Edinburgh,
1869.

Schnedermann, in Strack and Zockler, 1887.

H. Lang, in Schmidt & Holzendorff ; Eng. tr., London, 1883.
Thin.

* Schmiedel, Freiburg, i. B., 1892. Condensed, exact, and
exacting.

* B. Weiss, Leipzig, 2nd ed. 1902. Brief, but helpful. Eng.
tr., New York and London, 1906; less useful than the original.
Also his * Textkritik d. pauL Briefe (xiv. 3 of Texte und Unter-
suchungeri), 1896.

* P. Bachmann, in Zahn s Kommentar, Leipzig, 1910.

Also Schafer, 1903; Bousset, 1906; Lietzmann, 1907;
Schlatter, 1908.

French.

E. Reuss, Paris, 1874-80.

*f F. Godet, Paris, 1886 ; Eng. tr., Edinburgh, 1888. Strong
in exegesis, but weak in criticism.

General.

The literature on the life and writings of St Paul is enormous,
and is increasing rapidly. Some of the works which are helpful
and are very accessible are mentioned here.

but INTRODUCTION

Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St Pa*l.

Farrar, Life and Work of St. Paul.

Lewin, Life and Epistles of St Paul ; Fasti Sacri.

R. J. Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles, 1892; Tht
Testimony of St Paul to Christ, 1905.

J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays.

Hort, Judaistic Christianity ; The Christian Ecdesia.

H. St J. Thackeray, The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary
Jewish Thought, 1900.

Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller, 1902; Pauline and other
Studies, 1906.

Ropes, The Apostolic Age, 1906.

Weinel, St Paul, the Man and his Work, Eng. tr. 1906.

Pfleiderer, Paulinism, Eng. tr. 1877.

Du Bose, The Gospel according to St Paul, 1907.

W. E. Chad wick, The Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, 1907.

A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of St Paul, 1 909.

Cohu, St Paul in the Light of Modern Research, 1911.

Baur, Paulus (ed. 2), 1866 (still worth consulting in spite of
views now obsolete).

Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus, 1880; Einleitung in
die Korintherbriefe, 1901.

Rabiger, Kristische Untersuchungen uber I and 2 Kor., 1886.

Weizsacker, Apost. Zeitalter, 1886.

Holtzmann, Einleitung in das N.T., 1892.

Julicher, Einleitung in das N.T., 1894; Eng. tr. 1904.

Krenkel, Beitrdge z. Aufhellung d. Geschichte und d. Briefe d.
Apostels Paulus, 1895.

Zahn, Einleitung in das TV. T., Eng. tr. 1 909.

Hastings, DB., articles , Baptism ; Lord s Supper ; Paul
the Apostle ; Resurrection ; Tongues, Gift of; Greek
Patristic Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles (vol. v.).

Ency. BibL, articles, Baptism ; Eucharist ; Spiritual Gifts.

Ency. Brit, (nth ed., Dec. 1910), articles, Apologetics
(p. 193), Apostle, Atonement (pp. 87 5 f.), Baptism (pp.
368 f.), Christianity (pp. 284 f.), Church History (pp. 334 f.),
Corinthians, Eschatology (pp. 762 f.), Eucharist.

The apocryphal letters between St Paul and the Corinthians
have been edited by Harnack in his Geschichte d. altchrist.
Litteratur, 1897, and also in Lietzmann s excellent Materials for
the use of Theological Lecturers and Students, 1905. See also
Moffatt, Intr. to the Lit. of the N.T. (pp. 129^).

THE FIRST
EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS

I. 1-3. THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION.

Paul, a divinely chosen Apostle, and Sosthenes our
brother, give Christian greeting to tlie Corinthian Church^
itself also divinely called.

1 Paul, an Apostle called by divine summons equally with
the Twelve, and Sosthenes whom ye know, 2 give greeting to
\he body of Corinthian Christians, who have been consecrated
to God in Christ, called out of the mass of mankind into the
inner society of the Church to which so many other Christian
worshippers belong. 3 May the free and unmerited favour of
God, and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him,
be yours ! May God Himself, our Heavenly Father, and the
Lord Jesus Messiah, grant them to you !

The Salutation is in the usual three parts : the sender (v. j ),
the addressees (v. 2), and the greeting (v. 3).

1. K\TJTOS. Elsewhere only Rom. i. i. As all are called to
be ayioi, so Paul is called to be an Apostle : see on v. 2, and note
the same parallelism, Rom. i. i, 6. In O.T. the idea of K\f)&lt;ri&lt;-
is often connected with prophets.*

Sid OeXrjfxaTos 0eou. As in 2 Cor., Eph., Col., 2 Tim. ; ex
panded, with emphasis on his divine call to the exclusion of any
human source or channel, in Gal. i. i. Sua ipsius voluntate
nunquam P. factus esset apostolus (Beng.). Per quod tangit
etiam illos, quos neque Christus miscrat^ neque per voluntatem Dei

* Cf. Isa. vi. 8, 9 ; Jer. i. 4, 5. See W. E. Chad wick, The Pastoral
Teaching of St Paul, p. 76.

2 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 1, 2

praedicabant (Herveius Burgidolensis), viz., the self-constituted
teachers, the false apostles.

Zwo-OeVirjs. He was not necessarily the amanuensis, for Tertius
(Rom. xvi. 22) does not appear in the Salutation. In Gal. i. i,
a number of unnamed persons are associated with the Apostle.
Nor need this Sosthenes be the Corinthian Jew (Acts xviii. 17)
who was the chief of the synagogue (superseding Crispus the
convert?) and perhaps leader of the complaint before Gallio.*
If the two are identical, S. himself had (i) subsequently become
a Christian, (2) migrated from Corinth to Ephesus.

6 doe\&lt;f&gt;&lt;fe. A Christian : xvi. 1 2 ; 2 Cor. i. i ; Col. i- i ;
Philem. i ; Rom. xvi. 23 ; Heb. xiii. 23. The article implies
that he was well known to some Corinthians. Deissmann (Bible
Studies, pp. 87, 142) has shown that dSeA&lt;oi was used of
members of religious bodies long before Christians adopted it
in this sense. It is remarkable that Apollos is not named as
joining in sending the letter (xvi. 12).

A D E omit K\r}r6s. Xpwrou iT/o-oO (B D E F G 17, Am.) is to be pre
ferred to Ii?&lt;roO X/&gt;. (X A L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) : see note on Rons.
i. i. Contrast vv. I, 2, 4 with 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, where Ktfpioj is added.

2. TYJ eKK\T]cria TOU GeoG. The genitive is possessive: x. 32,
xi. 1 6, 22, xv. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. i ; Gal. i. 13 ; etc. Cf. Deut. xviii. 16,
xxiii. i ; etc. As Chrysostom remarks, the expression is at once
a protest against party-spirit ; the Church of God, not of any
one individual.

TTJ ouo-T). See Acts xiii. i.

Tjyiao-peVois lv Xp. *l. The plural in apposition to the col
lective singular throws a passing emphasis upon the individual
responsibility of those who had been consecrated in baptism
(vi. n) as members of Christ. The perfect participle indicates
a fixed state.

K\T)TOIS dyiois. Called by God (Gal. i. 6; Rom. viii. 30,
ix. 24 ; etc.) to the Christian society through the preaching of
the Gospel (Rom. x. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 14). See note on Rom,
i. 7 and separate note on ayiot; also Chadwick, Pastoral
Teaching, pp. 96, 98. The active *aAeu/ is never used of the
human instrument, but only of God or Christ. Admonet Cor-
inthios majestatis ipsorum (Beng.).

ow iracri. This is generally connected simply with -nj
iKK\7](ria, as if St Paul were addressing the Corinthian Church
along with all other Christians. But this little suits the in-

* Chrysostom identifies Sosthenes with Crispus, and assumes that he was
beaten for having become a Christian. Both conjectures are very improbable.
That he headed the deputation to Gallio is very probable, and that he is the
Corinthian Jew is also very probable.

L 2, 8] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 3

dividual character of this Epistle, which (much more than
Romans, for example) deals with the special circumstances of
one particular Church. It is therefore better, with Heinrici,
to connect the words with ycXr/rots dyt ois (contrast 2 Cor. i. i).
Euthymius Zigabenus takes it so. St Paul is not making his
Epistle Catholic, nor is he "greeting the whole Church in
Spirit," but he is commending to the Corinthians the fact that
their call is not for themselves alone, but into the unity of the
Christian brotherhood, a thought specially necessary for them.
See xiv. 36. Throughout the Epistle it is the Corinthians alone
that are addressed, not all Christendom.

TOIS emicaXoujA^ois. This goes back to Joel ii. 32, and
involves the thought of faith, the common bond of all. See
Rom. x. 12, 13. Here, as there, St Paul significantly brings in
the worship of Christ under the O.T. formula for worship ad
dressed to the LORD God of Israel. To be a believer is to
worship Christ.

iv iravrl TOTTW. Cf. 2 Cor. i. ib; but it is hardly possible to
read into the present expression the limitation to Achaia. This
consideration confirms the view taken above of the force of trw
Traa-L K.T.A., in spite of the parallels given by Lightfoot of Clem.
ad Cor. 65, and the Ep. of the Church of Smyrna on the death
of Polycarp, /cat 7rao~ais TCUS Kara, Travra TOTTOV T^5 dyias KO.I KaOo-
\ucfjs /c/cA.?7orias Trapoi/aaig. Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 14; I Thess. i. 8.

aura)? ical fjjjiwj . Connected either with TOTTW or with
Kvpi ov. The latter (AV., RV.) would be by way of epanor-
thosis; our Lord rather theirs and ours. In itself fjfjLw is
general enough to need no such epanorthosis : but the thought
of the claim (v. 13) of some, to possess Christ for themselves
alone, might explain this addition. The connexion with TOTTW
(Vulg. in omni loco ipsorum et nostro) is somewhat pointless, in
spite of the various attempts to supply a point by referring it
either to Achaia and Corinth, or to Ephesus and Corinth, or to
Corinth and the whole world, or to the Petrine and the Pauline
Churches, etc. etc. He may mean that the home of his con
verts is his home; cf. Rom. xvi. 13.

B D* E F G place Ty otfo-p tv Kop^0y after Tjyta^vots tv X/). Iijffov.
KAD 2 ^LP, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. place it before. A omits
XpiaTov. N 8 A* D 3 E L P, Arm. Aeth. insert re after avruv, probably for
the sake of smoothness. Such insertions are frequent both in MSS. and
versions.

3. x&lt;*P l s "H 1 ^ KC " ip^. This is St Paul s usual greeting,
the Greek x a ^P LV combined with the Hebrew Shalom, and both
with a deepened meaning. In i and 2 Tim., and in 2 John 3,
eXeos is added after x^P^. St James has the laconic and
secular ^CU /DCIV (cf. Acts xv. 23). St Jude has

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 4-9

KCU ayd-rrr). In i and 2 Pet. we have x^P ts vp^v KOI
flptjvr), as here. The fact that grace and peace or * grace,
mercy, and peace is found in St Paul, St Peter, and St John,
is some evidence " that we have here the earliest Christian
password or symbolum. Grace is the source, peace the con
summation " (Edwards). The favour of God leads naturally to
peace of mind. Enmity to God has ceased, and reconciliation has
followed. Quae gratia a non offenso ? Quaepax a non rebellato ?
asks Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 5). See on Rom. i. 5 and 7.
In Dan. iii. 31 [98] we have as a salutation, clpyvr) V/MV Tr\rj6vv-
9cr). See J. A. Robinson, Ephcsians, pp. 221-226. In 2 Mace.
i. i we have x al/ P tl/ eipyvyv ayaQrjv, and in the Apoc. of
Baruch Ixxviii. 2, " mercy and peace." Such greetings are not
primarily Christian.

I. 4-9. PREAMBLE OP THANKSGIVING AND HOPE.

/ thank God continually for your present spiritual con
dition. Christ will strengtlien you to the end according to
Divine assurance.

4 I never cease thanking God, because of the favours which
He bestowed upon you through your union with Christ Jesus,
6 whereby as immanent in Him ye received riches of every kind^
in every form of inspired utterance and every form of spiritual
illumination, for the giving and receiving of instruction. 6 These
gifts ye received in exact proportion to the completeness with
which our testimony to the Messiah was brought home to your
hearts and firmly established there ; 7 so that (as we may hope
from this guarantee) there is not a single gift of grace in which
you find yourselves to be behind other Churches, while you are
loyally and patiently waiting for the hour when our Lord Jesus
Christ shall be revealed. 8 And this hour you need not dread,
for our Lord Himself, who has done so much for you hitherto,
will also unto the very end keep you secure against such accusa
tions as would be fatal in the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 This is a sure and certain hope: for it was God, who cannot
prove false, who Himself called you into fellowship with His Son
and in His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord ; and God will assuredly
do His part to make this calling effective.

This Thanksgiving is a conciliatory prelude to the whole
Epistle, not directed to a section only (v. 12), nor ironical (!),

I. 4, 5] THANKSGIVING AND HOPE 5

nor studiously indefinite (Hofm.), but a measured and earnest
encomium of their general state of grace (Acts xviii. 10), with
special stress on their intellectual gifts, and preparing the way for
candid dealing with their inconsistencies.

4. euxapiorw. Sosthenes seems to be at once forgotten ; this
important letter is the Apostle s own, and his alone : contrast
fVYapio TOVfJitv, I Thess. i. 2 } wcnrep ow Trarr/p 7ri viois ev^apicrret
oV av vyiaivwo-tv, rov avrbv rpOTrov or av fiXeirr] SiSao-KaAos rovs
d/cpoaras TrAovroiWas Aoyu&gt; cro^ta?, ev^apicrrtt TTCIVTOTC Trepi avraiv
(Orig.). With this Thanksgiving compare that in 2 Mace. ix. 20
(AV.). See also Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 168.
St Paul s tv^apia-Tu is uttered in full earnest : there is no irony, as
some think. In the sense of thanksgiving, the verb belongs to
Hellenistic rather than to class. Grk. (Lightfoot on i Thess. i. 2):
TravTore as in i Thess. i. 2 ; 2 Thess. i. 3.

rfj \dpiri T. 6. T. 8o0eu7T). Special gifts of grace are viewed as
incidental to, or presupposing, a state of grace, i.e., the state of
one living under the influence of, and governed by, the redemp
tion and reconciliation of man effected by Jesus Christ ; more
briefly, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. viii. 9 ; cf.
VTTO \dpw, Rom. vi. 14). The aorists (SoOcicry . . . e7r\ovTio-6v]Te
. . . epej3au!)9r)) sum up their history as a Christian community
from their baptism to the time of his writing.

TV Qef fj.ov (X 1 A C D E F G L P, Latt. Syr. Copt. Arm.) ; N* B, Aeth.
omit fjiov. A* and some other authorities omit roD 6cou after xdpirt.

5. on iv irarrt. Cf. 2 Cor. viii. 7&gt; &lt;5o~7rep ev iravri 7repio"CTVTe
TriVrei Kai Xoyw KOL yvwcret. The two passages, though doubtless
addressed to different situations, bring out strikingly by their
common points the stronger side of Corinthian Christianity,
Xoyos and yvcuo-ts, both true gifts of the Spirit (xii. 8), although
each has its abuse or caricature (i. ly-iv. 20 and viii. i f.).*
Aoyo? is the gift of speech, not chiefly, nor specially, as manifested
in the Tongues (which are quite distinct in xii. 8 f.), but closely
related to the teacher s work. It was the gift of Apollos
(Acts xviii. 24). The Xoyos o-o^m? is the gift of the Spirit, while
o-o^ta Xo yov cultivating expression at the expense of matter
(v. 17) is the gift of the mere rhetorician, courting the applause
(vanum et inane o-o0o&gt;g !) of the ordinary Greek audience. St
Paul, according to his chief opponent at Corinth, was wanting
in this gift (2 Cor. x. 10, 6 Aoyo? e ov0en7/xeVos) : his oratorical
power was founded in deep conviction (v. 18, ii. 4, iv. 20).

* St Paul does not hesitate to treat yvfixris as a divine gift (xii. 8, xiii. 2,
xiv. 6), and this use is very rare in N.T., except in his Epistles and in 2 Pet.
When St John wrote, the word had worse associations. This is the earliest
use of it in N.T. In the Sapiential Books of O.T. it is very frequent.

6 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [L 5-7

St Paul " loses sight for a moment of the irregularities which
had disfigured the Church at Corinth, while he remembers the
spiritual blessings which they had enjoyed. After all deductions
made for these irregularities, the Christian community at Corinth
must have presented as a whole a marvellous contrast to their
heathen fellow-citizens, a contrast which might fairly be re
presented as one of light and darkness " (Lightfoot). This
Epistle contains no indication of the disloyalty to the Apostle
which we trace in 2 Cor., especially in x.-xiii.

irdat] yywo-ei. See 2 Cor. xi. 6, where St Paul claims for
himself eminence in the true yvokns, and also i Cor. viii. i f.

6. Ka0(us. It introduces, not a mere parallel or illustration,
but rather an explanation of what precedes : inasmuch as ; v. 7 ;
John xiii. 34, xvii. 2. But i Thess. i. 5 (quoted by Lightfoot)
is less strong.

TO fAapru pioy TOU Xp. The witness borne [by our preaching]
to Christ ; gcnitivus objecti. Cf. xv. 15. Origen takes it of the
witness borne by the Scriptures to Christ, and also of the witness
borne by Christ, who is the apxfacLpTvs through His death.

ef3ef3cuw0T). Either (i) was established durably (fic/BaiMo-ei,
v. 8) in or among you (Meyer) ; or (2) was verified and estab
lished by its influence on your character (2 Cor. iii. 2); or
(3) was brought home to your deepest conviction as true by the
witness of the Spirit (ii. 4).* This last is the best sense.
B* F G, Arm. have TOU QeoO for TOU XptaToD.

7. wore ufAas fir) uorepeurOcu. With the in fin., oxrre points to
a contemplated result ; with the indie., to the result as a fact
(2 Cor. v. 16; Gal. ii. 13). What follows, then, is a statement
of what was to be looked for in the Corinthians as the effect of
the grace (v. 4) of God given to them in Christ ; and there was
evidently much in their spiritual condition which corresponded
to this (xi. 2 ; Acts xviii. 10).

uorepciaOcu. Feel yourselves inferior ; middle, as in xii. 24.
The active or passive is more suitable for expressing the bare
fact (2 Cor. xi. 5), or physical want (2 Cor. xi. 9; Phil. iv. 12);
while the middle, more passive than the active and more active
than the passive, is applicable to persons rather than things,
and to feelings rather than to external facts. The prodigal
began to realize his state of want (vo-Tpeur0ai, Luke xv. 14), while
the young questioner appealed to an external standard (TI ITI
ut; Matt. xix. 20).

Cf. Rom. i. n, where it is in context with
as here with cpaiwOai. Philo uses the word

* Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 104 f.) thinks that the meaning of "a legal
guarantee," which /3e/3ctta&lt;rtj has in papyri, lies at the basis of the expression.

L 7, 8] THANKSGIVING AND HOPE 7

of divine gifts (De alleg. leg. iii. 24), and in N.T., excepting
i Pet. iv. 10, it is peculiar to Paul. It is used by him (i) of
God s gift of salvation through Christ, Rom. v. 15, vi. 23 ;

(2) of any special grace or mercy, vii. 7 ; 2 Cor. i. u; and

(3) of special equipments or miraculous gifts, as that of healing,
xii. 9 ; cf. xii. 4 ; Rom. xii. 6. Here it is by no means to be
restricted to (3), but includes (2), for the immediate context,
especially v. 8, dwells on gifts flowing from a state of grace.

cnreKSexopiVous. As in Rom. viii. 19. For the sense cf.
Col. iii. 3 f . ; i Pet. i. 7 ; i John iii. 2, 3 ; and see Mapav d#u,
xvi. 22. In this reference, of waiting for the Advent, the word
is always used of faithful Christians (Gal. v. 5 ; Phil. iii. 20 :
Heb. ix. 28).* Character Christiani veri vel falsi revelationem
Christi vel expectare vel horrere (Beng.).

diroKciXuil/ii/. See Rom. viii. 19 ; i Pet. i. 13. Quite need
lessly, Michelsen suspects the verse of being a gloss.

8. os Kal |3e{3auu&lt;rei. Origen asks, TI S y8e/?atot; and answers,
XP^TTOS I^trovs. The os refers to TOV Kvpi ov rjfj,. I. Xp. ; cer
tainly not, as Beng. and others, to eo? in v. 4. This remote
reference is not made probable by the words ev 777 tj^pa T. K.
jj/x,. *I. Xp. instead of simply ev rf) rj/x. avrov. We have Christ s
name ten times in the first ten verses, and the solemn repetition
of the sacred name, instead of the simple pronoun, is quite in
St Paul s manner; v. 3, 4; 2 Cor. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. i. 18. Cf. Gen.
xix. 24, which is sometimes wrongly interpreted as implying a
distinction of Persons. The Kat points to correspondence on
His part, answering to e/?e/3aio&gt;0r7, a7rKSe;(o//,eVovs, in w. 6, 7.

Pepaiwaei. Cf. 2 Cor. i. 21, and, for the thought, Rom.
xvi. 25 ; i Thess. iii. 13, v. 24. If they fail, it will not be His
fault.

Iws r^Xous. The sense is intenser than in 2 Cor. i. 13 ;
cf. eis e/cetV^v rr?v ij/xe pav (2 Tim. i. 12). Mortis dies est uni-
cuique dies adventus Domini (Herv.).f

dyeyicXrJTous. Unimpeachable, for none will have the right
to impeach (Rom. viii. 33 ; Col. i. 22, 28). The word implies,
not actual freedom from sins, but yet a state of spiritual renewal
(ii. i2f. ; Phil. i. 10; 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Rom. viii. i). This pro-
leptic construction of the accusative is found in i Thess. iii. 13,
v. 23 ; Phil. iii. 21. Connect eV rfj ij/xepa with

* " As though that were the highest gift of all ; as if that attitude of ex
pectation were the highest posture that can be attained here by the Christian "
(F. W. Robertson).

f The doctrine of the approach of the end is constantly in the Apostle s
thoughts : iii. 13, iv. 5, vi. 2, 3, vii. 29, xi. 26, xv. 51, xvi. 22. We have ?u&gt;$
rAous in 2 Cor. i. 13 with the same meaning as here, and in I Thess. ii. 16
the more common es r^Xos with a different meaning. See Abbott, Johannint
Grammar^ 2322.

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [L

iv 7$ 7)[J,{p$ (SAB CLP, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) rather than 4w
B

(D E F G, Ambrst.). B omits

9. The confident hope expressed in v. 8 rests upon the faith
fulness of God (x. 13 ; i Thess. v. 24; Rom. viii. 30; Phil. i. 6)
who had been the agent, as well as the source, of their call.
With BC ov cf. Heb. ii. IO, and also e aurou KCU 81 avrov /cat cis
avTov TO, Travra, Rom. xi. 36. Ata with genitive can be applied
either to Christ or to the Father,* but c ov would not be applied
by St Paul to Christ. " Wherever God the Father and Christ
are mentioned together, origination is ascribed to the Father
and mediation to Christ" (Lightfoot, who refers especially to
viii. 6). By St Paul, as by St John (vi. 44), the calling is specific
ally ascribed to the Father.

ts KQivwioLv. This fellowship (Rom. viii. 17; Phil. iii. zof.)
exists now and extends to eternity : it is effected by and in the
Spirit (Rom. viii. 9 f.) ; hence jeoivovi a (TOV) Trvev/naros (2 Cor.
xiii. 13; Phil. ii. i). Vocaticstis in sodetatem non modo apostolorum
vel angelorum, scd etiam Filii ejus J. C. Domini nostri (Herv.).
The genitive TOV viov is objective, and " the Koivtovia row viov
avrov is co-extensive with the /facnAeia TOV ov " (Lightfoot).

D* F G (not d f g) have ixft oC instead of 5t o5.

After this preamble, in which the true keynote of St Paul s
feeling towards his Corinthian readers is once for all struck,
he goes on at once to the main matters of censure, arising, not
from their letter to him (vii. i), but from what he has heard
from other sources. In the preamble we have to notice the
solemn impression which is made by the frequent repetition
of * Christ Jesus or our Lord Jesus Christ. Only once (v. 5)
have we avrds instead of the Name. And in the beginning of
the next section the Apostle repeats the full title once more, as
if he could not repeat it too often (Bachmann).

I. 10-VI. 20. URGENT MATTERS FOR CENSURE.
I. 10-IV. 21. THE DISSENSIONS (ZxiVfiara).

10-17. Do be united. I have been informed that there
are contentions among you productive of party spirit. It
was against this very thing that I so rarely baptized.

10 But I entreat you, Brothers, by the dear name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, into fellowship with whom you were called by
* See Basil, De Spiritu, v. 10.

I. 1O] THE DISSENSIONS 9

God Himself, do be unanimous in professing your beliefs, and
do not be split up into parties. Let complete unity be restored
both in your ways of thinking and in your ultimate convictions,
so that all have one creed. n I do not say this without good
reason: for it is quite clear to me, from what I was told by
members of Chloe s household, that there are contentions and
wranglings among you. 12 What I mean is this; that there is
hardly one among you who has not got some party-cry of his
own ; such as, " I for my part stand by Paul," " And I for my
part stand by Kephas," "And I stand by Apollos," "And I stand
by Christ." ls Do you really think chat Christ has been given to
any party as its separate share ? Was it Paul who was crucified
for you ? Or was it to allegiance to Paul that you pledged
yourselves when you were baptized? u Seeing that you thus
misuse my name, I thank God that not one of you was baptized
by me, excepting Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and my
personal friend Gaius. 16 So that God has prevented anyone
from saying that it was to allegiance to me that you were pledged
in baptism. 16 Yes, I did baptize the household of Stephanas,
my first converts in Achaia. Besides these, to the best of my
knowledge, I baptized no one. 17 For Christ did not make me
His Apostle to baptize, but to proclaim His Glad-tidings : and
I did this with no studied rhetoric, so that the Cross of Christ
might prevail by its own inherent power.

In these verses (10-17) we nay e the facts of the case. The
Apostle begins with an exhortation to avoid dissensions (v. 10),
then proceeds to describe (n, 12) and to show the impropriety
of (13-17) their actual dissensions. Quorum prius salutem narra-
verat, postmodum vulncra patcfecit (Herv.).

10. TrapcucaXw 8e. But (in contrast to what I wish to think,
and do think, of you) I earnestly beg. napa/caAeu/, like
7rapaiTo/xat (Acts xxv. n), suggests an aim at changing the mind,
whether from sorrow to joy (consolation), or severity to mercy
(entreaty), or wrong desire to right (admonition or exhortation).
The last is the sense here. The word is used more than a
hundred times in N.T.

dSeX^ou Used in affectionate earnestness, especially when
something painful has to be said (vii. 29, x. i, xiv. 20, etc.). It
probably implies personal acquaintance with many of those who
are thus addressed: hence its absence from Ephesians and
Colossians.

10 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 10, 11

Sid, TOU oyofAdTos. We should have expected the accusative,
for the sake of the Name. The genitive makes the Name the
instrument of the appeal (Rom. xii. i, xv. 30; 2 Cor. x. i):
cf. lv ovofj-aTLj 2 Thes. iii. 6. It is not an adjuration, but is
similar to Sta T. wpiov Irjcrov ( i Thess. iv. 2). This appeal to the
one Name is an indirect condemnation of the various party-
names.

Iva. This defines the purport rather than the purpose of
the command or request, as in Matt. iv. 3, CITTOV Iva 01 XiOoi ourot

aproi

TO auro Xe yTjTc. The expression is taken from Greek political
life, meaning be at peace or (as here) make up differences.
So Arist. Pol. III. iii. 3, Boiorrot Se KCU Meyapr}? TO avro AeyovTes
r)&lt;rvxaov, and other examples given by Lightfoot ad loc. Cf. TO
avro &lt;f&gt;povw (Rom. xv. 15 ; Phil. ii. 2), and see Deissmann, Bible
Studies, p. 256. The Trai/Tes comes last with emphasis. St Paul
is urging, not unison, but harmony. For his knowledge of Greek
writers see xv. 34 ; Rom. ii. 14; Acts xvii. 28.

JATJ tf. * That there may not be/ as there actually are : he
does not say ycvrfrai.

axtajjuxTa. Not schisms, but dissensions (John vii. 43,
ix. 1 6), clefts, splits ; the opposite of TO awo Xeyr/TC Travrt?.

KaTTjpTicr)aei/ot. The word is suggestive of fitting together
what is broken or rent (Matt. iv. 21). It is used in surgery for
setting a joint (Galen), and in Greek politics for composing
factions (Hdt. v. 28). See reff. in Lightfoot on i Thess. iii. 10.
Cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 1 1 ; Gal. vi. i ; Heb. xiii. 2 1 : apte et congruenter
inter se compingere (Calv.).

w&gt;t . . . yp(fw Nos is temper 1 or frame of mind,
which is changed in /xcTavoia and is kindly in cwota, while yv^M
is judgment on this or that point. He is urging them to give
up, not erroneous beliefs, but party-spirit.

11. e8r]Xw0T]. Not was reported, but was made (only too)
evident. The verb implies that he was unable to doubt the
unwelcome statement. In papyri it is used of official evidence.
For dScX^ot see on v. 10.

u-n-6 Tuy X\6r]s. This probably means by slaves belonging
to Chloe s household. She may have been an Ephesian lady
with some Christian slaves who had visited Corinth. Had they
belonged to Corinth, to mention them as St Paul s informants
might have made mischief (Heinrici). The name Chloe was
an epithet of Demeter, and probably (like Phoebe, Hermes,
Nereus, Rom. xvi. i, 14, 15) she was of the freedman class
(see Lightfoot, ad loc.}. She is mentioned as a person known
to the Corinthians. There is no reason to suppose that she

I. 11, 12] THE DISSENSIONS II

was herself a Christian, or that the persons named in xvi. 17
were members of her household. Evidence is wanting.

eptSes. More unseemly than crxtcr/xaTa, although not neces
sarily so serious. Nevertheless, not o-^iVftaTa, unless crystallized
into cupeo-eis, but epiSes, are named as * works of the flesh
in Gal. v. 19, 20, or in the catalogues of vices, Rom. i. 29-31 ;
2 Cor. xii. 20 ; i Tim. vi. 4. The divisions became noisy.

12. Xe yw Sc TOUTO. Now I mean this : but perhaps the
force of the Sc is best given by having no conjunction in
English; I mean this. The TOVTO refers to what follows, as
in vii. 29, xv. 50, whereas in vii. 35 it refers to what precedes,
like cum; in ix. 3.

IicaoTos. This must not be pressed, any more than in
xiv. 26, to mean that there were no exceptions. No doubt
there were Corinthians who joined none of the four parties.
It is to be remembered that all these party watchwords are on
one level, and all are in the same category of blame. Cham
pionship for any one leader against another leader was wrong.
St Paul has no partiality for those who claim himself, nor any
respect for those who claim Christ, as their special leader.
Indeed, he seems to condemn these two classes with special
severity. The former exalt Paul too highly, the latter bring
Christ too low : but all four are alike wrong. That, if such
a spirit showed itself in Corinth at all, Paul, the planter, builder,
and father of the community, would have a following, would
be inevitable. And Apollos had watered (Acts xviii. 27, 28),
and had tutored Paul s children in Christ. His brilliancy and
Alexandrian modes of thought and expression readily lent
themselves to any tendency to form a party, who would exalt
these gifts at the expense of Paul s studied plainness. "The
difference between Apollos and St Paul seems to be not so
much a difference of views as in the mode of stating those
views : the eloquence of St Paul was rough and burning ; that
of Apollos was more refined and polished" (F. W. Robertson).*

Kt]&lt;|&gt;a. Excepting Gal. ii. 7, 8, St Paul always speaks of
Kr7&lt;as, never of Ilerpos. He was unquestionably friendly to
St Paul (Gal. ii. 7-9; and vv. 11-14 reveal no difference of
doctrine between them). But among the Jewish or devout
Greek converts at Corinth there might well be some who
would willingly defer to any who professed, with however little
authority (Acts xv. 24), to speak in the name of the leader of
the Twelve. "His conduct at Antioch had given them all
the handle that they needed to pit Peter against Paul " (A. T.

* It is a skilful stroke that the offender s own words are quoted, and each
appears as bearing witness against himself. What each glories in becomes
his own condemnation ; K rov &lt;rr6^caT6j &lt;rou.

12 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 13

Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul, p. 187). There is no
evidence, not even in ix. 5, that Peter had ever visited Corinth.
It is remarkable that, even among Jewish Christians, the Greek
Peter seems to have driven the original Kephas (John i. 43)
out of use.

XpioroG. The Christ party may be explained in the light
of 2 Cor. x. 7, 10, n, and possibly xi. 4, 23 (compare xi. 4 with
Gal. i. 6), where there seems to be a reference to a prominent
opponent of St Paul, whose activity belongs to the situation
which is distinctive of 2 Cor. From these passages we gather
that, when 2 Cor. was written, there was a section at Corinth,
following a leader who was, at least for a time, in actual
rebellion against St Paul. This section claimed, in contrast
to him, to belong to Christ, which was virtually a claim that
Christ belonged to them and not to him ; and this claim seems
to have been connected with a criterion of genuine Apostleship,
namely, to have known Christ in the flesh, i.e. during His life
on earth. Doubtless the situation in 2 Cor. goes beyond that
which is presupposed in this Epistle. But eyo&gt; Se Xpto-roi) here
must not be divorced from the clearer indications there. Those
who used the watchword of Christ were probably more
advanced Judaizers than those who used the name of Kephas,
to whom they stood related, as did the anti-Pauline Palestinian
party (Acts xxi. 20, 21) to Kephas himself. The parties at
Corinth, therefore, are the local results of streams of influence
which show themselves at work elsewhere in the N.T. We
may distinguish them respectively as St Paul and his Gospel,
Hellenistic intellectualism (Apollos), conciliatory conservatism,
or the Gospel of the circumcision (Kephas), and zealots for
the Law, hostile to the Apostleship of St Paul. These last
were the exclusive party.* See Deissmann, Light from the
Anc. ast, p. 382.

We need not, therefore, consider seriously such considera
tions as that eyco Sc X/HO-TOV was the cry of all three parties
(Rabiger, misinterpreting /xe/xepio-rai) ; or that St Paul approves
this cry (Chrysostom, appealing to Hi. 22, 23); or that it is
St Paul s own reply to the others ; or that it represents a
James party (in which case, why is James not mentioned?);
or that it marks those who carried protest against party so far
as to form a party on that basis. In iii. 23 St Paul says v/w-cis
8e Xpurrov most truly and from his heart; that is true of all-.

* The conjecture that the original reading was yw S Kpfoirov is not very
intelligent. Could Crispus have been made the rival of Paul, Apollos, and
Peter ? Could Clement of Rome have failed to mention the Crispus party,
if there had been one? He mentions the other three. And see w. 13
and 14.

I. 12, 13] THE DISSENSIONS 13

what he censures here is its exclusive appropriation by some.
To say, with special emphasis, / am of Christ, is virtually
to say that Christ is mine and not yours.

In Acts xviii. 24 and xix. I, K, Copt, have Apelles/ while D in
xviii. 24 has Apollonius. The reading Apelles seems to be Egyptian,
and goes back to Origen, who asks whether Apollos can be the same as
the Apelles of Rom. xvi. 10.

For a history of the controversies about the four parties, see Bachmann,
pp. 58-63.

13. p.ejxe piorai. The clauses are all interrogative, and are
meant for the refutation of all. Does Christ belong to a
section ? Is Paul your saviour ? Was it in his name that you
were admitted into the Church? The probable meaning of
(xe/ne pio-Tcu is has been apportioned, i.e. given to some one
as his separate share (vii. 17; Rom. xii. 3; Heb. vii. 2). This
suggestion has been brilliantly supported by Evans. To say,
Is Christ divided ? implying a negative answer, gives very
little point. Lightfoot suggests that an affirmative answer is
implied ; * Christ has been and is divided only too truly. 1 But
this impairs the spring and homogeneity of the three questions,
giving the first an affirmative, and the other two a negative
answer. It amounts to making the first clause a plain state
ment ; In that case the Body of Christ has been divided.
Dividitur corpus, cum membra dissentiunt (Primasius). Si mem
bra divisa sunt, et totum corpus (Atto Vercellensis). This mean
ing is hardly so good as the other.

fit) riauXos eoraupw0T) K.T.\. To say cyw HavAov would imply
this. To be a slave is aAAov cTwu, another person s property
(Arist. Pol. I.). A Christian belongs to Christ (iii. 23), and he
therefore may call himself SovAos I^o-ov Xpwrrov, as St Paul
often does (Rom. i. i, etc.) : but he may not be the SovAos of
any human leader (vii. 23; cf. iii. 21 ; 2 Cor. xi. 20). St Paul
shows his characteristic tact in taking himself, rather than
Apollos or Kephas, to illustrate the Corinthian error. Cf.
ix. 8, 9, xii. 29, 30.

ig TO oKOfjia. He takes the strongest of the three expressions :
the ci? (Matt, xxviii. 19; Acts viii. 16, xix. 5) is stronger than
eTrt (Acts ii. 38, v.l.} or V (Acts x. 48). Into the name
implies entrance into fellowship and allegiance, such as exists
between the Redeemer and the redeemed. Cf. the figure in
x. 2, and see note there. St Paul deeply resents modes of
expression which seem to make him the rival of Christ. JNon
vult a sponsa am art pro sponso (Herv.). At the Crucifixion we
were bought by Christ ; in baptism we accepted Him as Lord
and Master : crux et baptismus nos Christo asserit (Beng.).
"The guilt of these partizans did not lie in holding views

14 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 13-15

differing from each other: it was not so much in saying this
is the truth, as it was in saying this is not the truth. The
guilt of schism is when each party, instead of expressing fully
his own truth, attacks others, and denies that others are in
the Truth at all" (F. W. Robertson). See Deissmann, Bible
Studies^ pp. 146, 196; Light from the Anc. East, p. 123.

It is difficult to decide between trip ii^v (K A C D 2 E F G L P, pro
vobis Vulg.) and irepl vpuv (B D*). The former would be more likely to
be substituted for the latter, as most usual, than vice versa. But -rrepl is
quite in place, in view of its sacrificial associations. See note on Rom.
viii. 3.

14. euxapicrruj. A quasi-ironical turn ; What difficulties I
have unconsciously escaped.

Kpunroi . One of the first converts (Acts xviii. 8).* Ruler
of the synagogue.

r&lt;uoi&gt;. Probably the host of St Paul and of the whole
Church at Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23), but probably not the
hospitable Gaius of 3 John 5, 6. This common Roman prae-
nomen belongs probably to five distinct persons in the N.T.
The Greek preserves the correct Latin form, which is sometimes
written Caius, because the same character originally stood in
Latin for both G and C. Crispus, curly, is a cognomen.

After evxapio-Tu, K ACDEFGLP, Vulg. add r$ Qe$, while A 17,
Syrr. Copt. Arm. add T$ 0ey /*ou a very natural gloss. K* B 67,
Chrys. omit.

15. Iva fuq TIS eiiTT]. The iva points to the tendency of
such an action on the Apostle s part among those who had
proved themselves capable of such low views : compare Iva
in Rom. xi. n ; John ix. 2. Their making such a statement
was " a result viewed as possible by St Paul " (Evans, who calls
this use of Iva " subjectively ecbatic "). Thus the sense comes
very near to that of WO-TC with the infinitive (v. 7). In N.T.,
Iva never introduces a result as an objective fact, but its strictly
final or telic force shows signs of giving way (v. 10), a first
step towards its vague use in mod. Grk. as a mere sign of
the infinitive. Those who strive to preserve its strictly telic
sense in passages like this (as Winer, Meyer, and others) have
recourse to the so-called Hebraic teleological instinct of refer
ring everything, however mechanically, to over-ruling Providence.
In vii. 29, if the time is cut short, this was done with the

* "Most of the names of Corinthian Christians indicate either a Roman
or a servile origin (e.g. Gaius, Crispus, Fortunatus, Achaicus, xvi. 17;
Tertius, Rom. xvi. 22 ; Quartus, Rom. xvi. 23 ; Justus, Acts xviii. 7) " (Ency.
Bibl 898). It was because of the importance of such converts that the
Apostle baptized Crispus and Gaius himself. We do not know whether Gaius
was Jew or Gentile ; but the opposition of the Jews in Corinth to St Paul
was so bitter that probably most of his first converts were heathen.

I. 25-17] THE DISSENSIONS 1$

providential intention that those who have wives should be
as those who have none : and in John ix. 2 the sense would
be that if this man sinned or his parents, the reason was that
Providence purposed that he should be born blind. While
refusing to follow such artificial paradoxes of exegesis, we
may fully admit that Providentia Dei regnat sacpc in fcbus
quarum ratio postea cognoscitur.

tpa7TTl&lt;rOi)Te (K A B C*, Vulg. Copt. Arm.) rather than l/Sdrrura
(C 8 D E F G L P). RV. corrects AV.

16. epdimaa 8e icat. A correction which came into his
mind as he dictated : on reflexion, he can remember no other
case. Possibly his amanuensis reminded him of Stephanas.

Ire^am. The name is a syncopated form, like Apollos,
Demas, Lucas, Hermas, etc. It would seem that Stephanas
was an earlier convert even than Crispus (xvi. 15). Achaia
technically included Athens, and Stephanas may himself have
been converted there with the Irepot of Acts xvii. 34; but his
household clearly belongs to Corinth, and they, not the head
only, are the first-fruits of Achaia, which may therefore be
used in a narrower sense.

XonroV. The neut. sing. ace. (of respect) used adverbially;
quod superest (Vulg. caeterum) : TO A.OITTOI/ is slightly stronger.
See Lightfoot on Phil. iii. i and on i Thess. iv. i. Cf. iv. 2 ;
2 Cor. xiii. n. St Paul forestalls possible objection.

17. ou yap &iroTi\i JAC. This verse marks the transition to
the discussion of principle which lies at the root of these 07(10--
fjiara, viz. the false idea of &lt;ro&lt;f&gt;ia entertained by the Corinthians.
The Apostle did not as a rule baptize by his own hand, but by
vTnjplraL. Perhaps other Apostles did the same (Acts x. 48).
See John iv. i, 2 for our Lord s practice. Baptizing required no
special, personal gifts, as preaching did. Baptism is not dis
paraged by this ; but baptism presupposes that the great charge,
to preach the Gospel,* has been fulfilled; Matt, xxviii. 19;
Luke xxiv. 47 ; [Mark] xvi. 15 : and, with special reference to St
Paul, ix. 16, 17; Acts ix. 15, 20, xxii. 15, 21, xxvi. 16. AW&lt;r-
TL\ev = sent as His curoo-ToAos.

OUK iv ao4&gt;ia Xoyou. See note on v. 5. Preaching was St
Paul s great work, but his aim was not that of the professional
rhetorician. Here he rejects the standard by which an age of
rhetoric judged a speaker. The Corinthians were judging by

* The translation of evayyeXifrffQai varies even in RV. ; here, preach
the gospel ; Acts xiii. 32, xiv. 15, bring good tidings ; Acts xv. 35, Gal.
i. 16. 23, preach ; I Pet. i. 25, preach good tidings.

The old explanation, that missionary preaching requires a special gift,
whereas baptizing can be performed by any one, is probably right.

16 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 18-24

externals. The fault would conspicuously apply, no doubt, to
those who ran after Apollos. But the indictment is not
limited to that party. All alike were externalists, lacking a
sense for depth in simplicity, and thus easily falling a prey to
superficialities both in the matter and in the manner of teaching.
Dfoangile n est pas unc, sagcsse, Sesf un salut (Godet).

Zm pj KeKwOfj. To clothe the Gospel in cro&lt;ia Xoyov was to
impair its substance: *evow, cf. ix. 15; Rom. iv. 14; 2 Cor. ix.
3, and cfc KCVOV, Gal. ii. 2 ; Phil. ii. 16. In this he glances at the
Apollos party.

I. 18-111. 4. THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE.
(i) I. 18-11. 5. The False Wisdom.

18-31. The message of the Cross is foolishness to the
wonder-seeking Jew and to the wisdom-seeking Greek : but
to us, who have tried it, it is God s pozver and Gods wisdom.
Consider your own case, how God has chosen the simple and
weak in preference to the wise and strong, that all glorying
might be in Him alone.

18 To those who are on the broad way that leadeth to destruc
tion, the message of the Cross of course is foolishness ; but to
those who are in the way of salvation, as we feel that we are, it
manifests the power of God. 19 For it stands written in Scripture,
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of
the discerning I will set at nought. 20 What, in God s sight, is
the Greek philosopher? What, in God s sight, is the Jewish
Rabbi ? What, be he Jew or Gentile, is the skilful disputer of
this evil age ? Did not God make foolish and futile the profane
wisdom of the non-Christian world ? 21 For when, in the provi
dence of God, the world, in spite of all its boasted intellect and
philosophy, failed to attain to a real knowledge of God, it was
God s good pleasure, by means of the proclaimed Glad-tidings,
which the world regarded as foolishness, to save those who have
faith in Him. 22 The truth of this is evident. Jews have no
real knowledge of the God whom they worship, for they are
always asking for miracles ; nor Greeks either, for they ask for a
philosophy of religion : 23 but we proclaim a Messiah who has
been crucified, to Jews a revolting idea, and to Greeks an absurd
one, **But to those who really accept God s call, both Jews

I. 18] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 17

and Greeks, this crucified Messiah is the supreme manifestation
of God s power and God s wisdom. 25 For what the Greek
regards as the unwisdom of God is wiser than mankind, and
what the Jew regards as the impotency of God is stronger than
mankind.

26 For consider, Brothers, the circumstances of your own call.
Very few of you were wise, as men count wisdom, very few were
of great influence, very few were of high birth. 27 Quite the
contrary. It was the unwisdom of the world which God specially
selected, in order to put the wise people to shame by succeeding
where they had failed ; and it was the uninfluential agencies of
the world which God specially selected, in order to put its
strength to shame, by triumphing where that strength had been
vanquished; 28 and it was the low-born and despised agencies
which God specially selected, yes, actual nonentities, in order to
bring to nought things that are real enough. 29 He thus secured
that no human being should have anything to boast of before
God. 30 But as regards you, on the other hand, it is by His will
and bounty that ye have your being by adoption in Christ Jssus,
who became for us wisdom manifested from God, wisdom which
stands for both righteousness and sanctification, yes, and redemp
tion as well. 81 God did all this, in order that each might take
as his guiding principle what stands written in Scripture, He that
glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

The Gospel in its essence makes no appeal to appreciation
based on mere externalism. Divine Wisdom is not to be gauged
by human cleverness (18-25). The history and composition of
the Corinthian Church is a refutation of human pretensions by
Divine Power (26-29), which, in the Person of Christ, satisfies
the deeper needs and capacities of man (30, 31).

18. 6 \6yos. In contrast, not to Xoyo? oro^t a? (v. 5, ii. 6),
but to &lt;ro$ia. Ao you (v. 17); the preaching of a crucified
Saviour.

The AV. spoils the contrast by rendering the wisdom of
words 1 and the preaching of the Cross. The use of oxx/ua in
these two chapters should be compared with the Jytov
Trvev/m in the Book of Wisdom (i. 5, ix. 17), irvevfia cro&lt;ias
Cvii. 7), etc. St Paul had possibly read the book. We have in
Wisdom the opposition between the o-fyia and the 7n/eO/xa 01
4-vxTI or ero^ia (i. 4, ii. 3, ix. 15).

TOU oraupou. "This expression shows clearly the stress

f 8 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 18. 19

which St Paul laid on the death of Christ, not merely as a great
moral spectacle, and so the crowning point of a life of self-
renunciation, but as in itself the ordained instrument of salvation"
(Lightfoot). Cf. Ign. Eph. 18.

TOIS [Lev diroXXufxeVots. For them who are perishing (dativus^
commodt), not In the opinion of those who are perishing
Chrys.). Compare carefully 2 Cor. ii. 16, iv. 3 ; 2 Thess. ii. 10.
The verb (John iii. 16) is St Paul s standing expression for the
destiny of the wicked (xv. 18). The force of the present tense
is axiomatic, of that which is certain, whether past, present, or
future: DITTO TOV reAovs ras KaTrjyopias riflei? (Theodoret). The
idea of predestination to destruction is quite remote from this
context : St Paul simply assigns those who reject and those who
receive the Word of the Cross to the two classes corresponding
to the issues of faith and unbelief; and he does not define
1 perishing. It is rash to say that he means annihilation ; still
more rash to say that he means endless torment. Eternal loss
or exclusion may be meant.

uwpia. See on v. 21 and 2 Cor. iv. 3.

rots Se o-w^ojjieVois. It is not quite adequate to render this
to those who are in course of being saved. Salvation \s the
certain result (xv. 2) of a certain relation to God, which relation
is a thing of the present. This relation had a beginning (Rom,
viii. 24), is a fact now (Eph. ii. 5, 8), and characterizes our
present state (Acts ii. 47); but its inalienable confirmation
belongs to the final adoption or aTroXvrpoxm (Rom. viii. 23 ; cf.
Eph. iv. 30). Meanwhile there is great need for watchful
steadfastness, lest, by falling away, we lose our filial relation to
God. Consider x. 12, ix. 27 ; Gal. v. 4; Matt. xxiv. 13.

fj|uv. * As we have good cause to know. The addition of
the pronoun throws a touch of personal warmth into this side
of the statement : ( you and I can witness to that. *

Surojus ecu lanV. See Rom. i. 16. Not merely a demon
stration of God s power, nor a power of God, but God s
power. The contrast between Swa/xis (not &lt;ro&lt;ia) eot&gt; and
popio, belongs to the very core of St Paul s teaching (ii. 4 , cf. iv.
20). Wisdom can carry conviction, but to save, to give illumina
tion, penitence, sanctification, love, peace, and hope to a human
sou^ needs power, and divine power.

19. Y e YpaT"-cu Y &lt;p. Proof of what is stated in v. 18, i.e. as
regards the failure of worldly cleverness in dealing with the things
of God. By ye ypaTTTcu, used absolutely, St Paul always means

* Both Irenaeus (I. iii. 5) and Marcion (Tert. Marc. v. 5) omit the fifuv,
and Marcion seems to have read 5iW/us nal &lt;ro&lt;t&gt;la GeoO forty. To omit the
Wi, is to omit a characteristic touch ; and to insert K al (ro&lt;j&gt;la rather spoils
the point.

I. 19, 20] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 19

the O.T. Scriptures; v. 31, ii. 9, iii. 19, x. 7, xv. 45; Roro. t

17, ii. 24, iii. 4, 10, etc.

diroXw Tt\v &lt;ro(|&gt;i ai&gt;. From Isa. xxix. 14 (LXX), substituting
for Kpv^w, in accordance with St Paul s usual freedom
of citation.* The Prophet, referring to the failure of worldly
statesmanship in Judah in face of the judgment of the Assyrian
invasion, states a principle which the Apostle seizes and applies.
Possibly dfleTrJo-co comes from Ps. xxxiii. 10.

&lt;rvv&lt;riv. Worldly common sense (Matt. xi. 25). It has its
place in the mind that is informed by the Spirit of God (Col. i. 9),
and the absence of it is a calamity (Rom. i. 21, 31). On onWris
and o-o&lt;ia see Arist. Eth. Nic. VI. vii. 10.

dOeTrjffO). The verb is post-classical, frequent in Polybius
and LXX. Its etymological sense is not * destroy, but set
aside or set at nought, and this meaning satisfies the present
passage and the use in N.T. generally.

20. iroG ao&lt;jx&gt;s ; A very free citation from the general sense
of Isa. xxxiii. 18 (cf. xix. 12): St Paul adapts the wording to his
immediate purpose. The original passage refers to the time
following on the disappearance of the Assyrian conqueror, with
his staff of clerks, accountants, and takers of inventories, who
registered the details of the spoil of a captured city. On the
tablet of Shalmaneser in the Assyrian Gallery of the British
Museum there is a surprisingly exact picture of the scene described
by Isaiah. The marvellous disappearance of the invading host
was to Isaiah a signal vindication of Jehovah s power and care,
and also a refutation, not so much of the conqueror s scribes,
as of the worldly counsellors at Jerusalem, who had first thought
to meet the invader by an alliance with Egypt, or other
methods of statecraft, and had then relapsed into demoralized
despair. St Paul s use of the passage, therefore, although very
free, is not alien to its historical setting. See further on ii. 9
respecting examples of free quotation. For TTOV; see xv. 55;
Rom. iii. 27. The question is asked in a triumphant tone.f

The wise is a category more suitable to the Gentile (v. 22),
the scribe to the Jew, while the disputer no doubt suits
Greeks, but suits Jews equally well (Acts vi. 9, ix. 29, xxviii. 29).
This allotment of the terms is adopted by Clement of Alexandria
and by Theodoret, and is more probable than that of Meyer and

* He quotes from Isa. xxix. in Col. ii. 22 and Rom. ix. 20. Our Lord

quotes from it Matt. xi. 5, xv. 8 f.

t He may have in his mind Isa. xix. 12, iroG elcriv vvv ol croQol &lt;rov ; and
Isa. xxxiii. 18, wov el&lt;rir ol ypa/nimaTiKoL ; irov daiv ol o-v^ovXevovres ; No
where else in N.T., outside Gospels and Acts, does 7/)a^^arei5s occur.
Bachmann shows that there is a parallel between the situation in Isaiah and
the situation here ; but rov cu wj/os TOVTOV goes beyond the former.

2O FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 20, 21

Ellicott, which makes o-o&lt;& generic, while ypa/x/xarcvs is applied
to the Jew, and o-w^r^rrjs to the Greek. But it is unlikely
that St Paul is here making an exact classification, or means any
one of the terms to be applied to Jew or Gentile exclusively.

OWT]TT]TTJS. A a7ra Xeyo /xevov, excepting Ign. Eph. 18, from
this passage.

TOU alamos TOU TOU. This is certainly applicable to Jews (see on
ii. 8), but not to them exclusively (Gal. i. 4 ; Rom. xii. 2). The
phrase is rabbinical, denoting the time before the Messianic age
or age to come (Luke xviii. 30, xx. 35). This aiwi/, the state of
things now present, including the ethical and social conditions
which are as yet unchanged by the coming of Christ, is fleeting
(vii. 31), and is saturated with low motives and irreligion (ii. 6 ;
2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2). As auoi/, "by metonymy of the
container for the contained," denotes the things existing in time,
in short the world, 6 cu&lt;W ovros may be rendered * this world ;
hujus saeculi quod totum est extra sphaeram verbi cruds (Beng.).
See Grimm-Thayer s.v. auov, and the references at the end of the
article; also Trench, Syn. lix. The genitive belongs to all
three nouns.

ouxl eu.upai eK ; Nonne stultam fecit (Vulg.), infatuavit (Tertull.
and Beza). Cf. Rom. i. 22, 23, and Isa. xix. ii, xliv. 25, 33.
The passage in Romans is an expansion of the thought here.
God not only showed the futility of the world s wisdom, but
frustrated it by leaving it to work out its own results, and still
more by the power of the Cross, effecting what human wisdom
could not do, not even under the Law (Rom. viii. 3).

TOU KOO-JULOU. Practically synonymous with TOV cuwi/os TOVTOV
(ii. 12, iii. 1 8, 19): but we do not find 6 /cdoyxo? 6 /xeXXtov, for
KOO-/XOS is simply the existing universe, and is not always referred
to with censure (v. 10; John iii. 16).*

After JC&T/MW, K 3 C 3 D 3 E F G L, Vulg. Syrr. Copt, add roi/rov.
K* A B C* D* P 17, Orig. omit. It is doubtless an insertion from the
previous clause.

21. eireiSr] y(p. Introduces, as the main thought, God s
refutation of the world s wisdom by means of what the world
holds to be folly, viz. the word of the Cross, thus explaining
(ydp) what was stated in vv. 19, 20. But this main thought
presupposes (eVetSrj) the self-stultification of the world s wisdom
in the providence of God.

Iv TTJ cro&lt;Jna TOU GeoG. This is taken by Chrysostom and
others (e.g. Edwards, Ellicott) as God s wisdom displayed in His

* St Paul uses /c&lt;5&lt;r/ios nearly fifty times, and very often in I and 2 Cor.
With him the use of the word in an ethical sense, of what in the main is evil,
is not rare (ii. 12, iii. 19, v. 10, xi. 32). See Hobhouse, Bampton Lectures,
PP. 352 f-

I. 21, 22] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 21

works (Rom. i. 20 ; Acts xiv. 17), by which (eV quasi-instrumental)
the world ought to have attained to a knowledge of Him. But
this sense of oxx/ua would be harsh and abrupt ; and the order of
the words is against this interpretation, as is also the context
(1/j.wpavcv, fvftoKrja-cv 6 eo s). The wisdom of God is here
God s wise dealing with mankind in the history of religion,
especially in permitting them to be ignorant (Acts xvii. 30;
Rom. xi. 32 ; cf. Acts xiv. 16 ; Rom. i. 24). So Alford, Findlay,
Evans, Lightfoot.

OUK eyyo). This applies to Jew as well as to Greek, although
not in the same manner and degree. "The Pharisee, no less
than the Greek philosopher, had a o-o^ta of his own, which stood
between his heart and the knowledge of God" (Lightfoot). See
Rom. x. 2. The world s wisdom failed, the Divine foolishness
succeeded.

u8oKT)o-ei&gt;. Connects directly with yap. The word belongs
to late Greek : Rom. xv. 26; Gal. i. 15 ; Col. i. 19.

8ia rf]S jJ-wptas TOU K^puyfAaros. Cf. Isa. xxviii. 9-13. Krjpuy/xa
(Matt. xii. 41) differs from /ojpvis as the aorist does from the
present or imperfect : it denotes the action, not in process, but
completed, or viewed as a whole. It denotes, not the thing
preached (RV. marg.), but the proclamation itself (ii. 4;
2 Tim. iv. 17); and here it stands practically for the word of
the Cross (v. 18), or the Gospel, but with a slight emphasis
upon the presentation. Kypvo-o-cw, which in earlier Greek meant
to herald, passes into its N.T. and Christian use by the fact
that the Good-tidings proclaimed by Christ and His Apostles
was the germ of all Christian teaching (Matt. Hi. i, iv. 17).
The foolishness of preaching is a bold oxymoron (cf. v. 25),
presupposing and interpreting v. 18. In N.T., /uopia is peculiar
to i Cor. (18, 23, ii. 14, iii. 19).

TOUS moreuoiTas. With emphasis at the end of the sentence,
solving the paradox of God s will to work salvation for man
through foolishness. The habit of faith (pres. part.), and not
cleverness, is the power by which salvation is appropriated (Rom.
i. 17, iii. 25). He does not say rot*? Tricrrei cravTas, which might
mean that to have once believed was enough.

22. eireiSrj. This looks forward to v. 23, to which v. 22 is a
kind of protasis : Since while Jews and Gentiles alike demand
something which suits their unsympathetic limitations we, on
the other hand, preach, etc. The two verses explain, with refer
ence to the psychology of the religious world at that time, what
has been said generally in w. 18, 21. The repeated KOLI brackets
(Rom. iii. 9) the typical Greek with the typical Jew, as the lead
ing examples, in the world in which St Paul s readers lived, of

22 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 22, 23

the dTToAAv/zevoi, the KOO-//OS and its wisdom. In a similar way
the opposed sects of Epicureans and Stoics are bracketed by St
Luke (Acts xvii.) as belonging, for his purpose, to one category.
By the absence of the article (not the Jews, the Greeks, as
in AV.) the terms connote characteristic attributes rather than
denote the individuals. There were many exceptions, as the
N.T. shows.

arjfxeta airoGaiK. Matt. xii. 38, xvi. 4; John iv. 48. The
Jewish mind was matter-of-fact and crudely concrete. " Hebrew
idiom makes everything as concrete as possible " (R. H. Kennett).
There were certain wonders specified as to be worked by the
Messiah when He came, and these they asked for importun
ately and precisely. The Greek restlessly felt after something
which could dazzle his ingenious speculative turn, and he passed
by anything which failed to satisfy intellectual curiosity (Acts
xvii. 1 8, 21, 32).* Lightfoot points to the difference between
the arguments used by Justin in his Apologies addressed to
Gentiles, and those used by him in his controversy with Trypho
the Jew.f See Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 393.

The AV. has require a sign. L, Arm. have er^eioj . Beyond question
&lt;ri7/xe?a (N A B C D, etc.) must be read : ask for signs is right. B. Weiss
prefers ff-rj^fiov.^.

23. Xpioroy eo-TaupwfxeVoi^. A crucified Messiah (ii. 2 ;
Gal. Hi. i). We preach a Christ crucified (RV. marg.), the
very point at which the argument with a Jew encountered a wall
of prejudice (Acts xxvi. 23, d Tra^ro? 6 Xpto-ros. Cf. Gal. h. 21,
v. n). The Jews demanded a victorious Christ, heralded by
o-^/xera, who would restore the glories of the kingdom of David
and Solomon. To the Jew the Cross was the sufficient and
decisive refutation (Matt, xxvii. 42; cf. Luke xxiv. 21) of the
claim that Jesus was the Christ To the first preachers of Christ,
the Cross was the atonement for sin (xv. 3, n). On this subject
the Jew had to unlearn before he could learn ; and so also, in
a different way, had the Greek. Both had to learn the divine
character of humility. Christ was not preached as a conqueror
to please the one, nor as a philosopher to please the other : He
was preached as the crucified Nazarene.

le^atf 8e jxuptay. The heathen, prepared to weigh the pros
and cons of a new system, lacked the presuppositions which
might have prepared the Jew for simple faith in the Christ. To
him, the Gospel presented no prima facie case ; it was unmean-

* Graios, qui -vera requirunt (Lucr. i. 641).

f See also Biblical Essays, pp. I5of., and Edwards ad loc.

% Yet he interprets it in a plural sense. Eichhorn more consistently inter
prets it of a worldly Messiah, Mosheim of a miraculous deliverance of Jesus
from crucifixion.

I. 23-25] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 23

ing, not even plausible : he was not, like the Jew, bent on
righteousness (Rom. ix. 3o-x. 3). Compare Cicero s horror of
crucifixion (Pro Rabir. 5), Lucian s reference to our Saviour
(De mort, Peregr. 13) as rov di/cor/coAoTricr/xevov eKetvov &lt;ro&lt;/&gt;t(7TiJv.
and the well-known caricature, found on the Palatine, of a slave
bowing down to a crucified figure with an ass s head, inscribed
AAea/Aevos 0ov (re/Serai.

A few authorities (C 3 D 3 , Clem-Alex.) have "EXX^o-i instead of (0ve&lt;riv.
Orig. seems to have both readings.

24. aurots corresponds to fjfuv in v. 18, as rots icX^-rots to rots
rro)o/xeVois : to the actual believers in contrast to other Jews
and Gentiles. The pronoun is an appeal to personal experience,
as against objections ab extra.

Xpior6i&gt;. This implies the repetition of eo-ravpco/AcVov. It is
in the Cross that God s power (Rom i. 16) and wisdom (v. 30,
below) come into operation for the salvation of man. God s
power and wisdom show themselves in a way which is not in
accordance with men s a priori standards : they altogether tran
scend such standards.

Whether St Paul is here touching directly the line of thought
which is expressed in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel is very
doubtful. He may be said to do so indirectly, in so far as the
doctrine of the work of Christ involves that of His Person (Col.
i. 17-20, ii. 9).*

25. TO jxwpbc TOU 0eou. Either, *a foolish thing on God s
part (such as a crucified Messiah), or, better, * the foolishness of
God (AV.), in a somewhat rhetorical sense, not to be pressed.
God s wisdom, at its lowest, is wiser than men, and God s power,
at its weakest, is stronger than men. It is quite possible to
treat the construction as a condensed comparison ; than men s
wisdom, than men s power (Matt. v. 20; John v. 36). So
Lightfoot, Conybeare and Howson, etc. Infirmitas Christi
magna victoria est (Primasius). Victus vicit mortem, quam nullus
gigas evasit (Herv.). Mortem, quam reges, gigantes, et prindpes
superare non poterant, ipse moriendo vicit (Atto).

Throughout the above passage (17-25) we may note the
close sequence of explanatory conjunctions, yap (18, 19, 21),
7mS?j (22), on (25). Without pretending to seize every nuance

* "This means that Christ stands for God s wisdom upon earth, and exer
cises God s power among men. Such a view implies a very close relation
with the Godhead. But it should also be noted that this is still connected in
St Paul s mind with the Mission that has been laid upon Jesus, rather than
regarded as the outcome of His essential nature " (Durell, The Self -Revelation
of our Lord, p. 150). On the order of the words Bengel remarks that we
recognize God s power before we recognize His wisdom.

24 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 25, 26

of transition, or to call the Apostle to stringent account for every
conjunction that he uses, the connexion of the successive clauses
may be made fairly plain by following it in the order of thought.
The ydp and on, going from effect to cause, present the sequence
in reverse order. In following the order of thought, however, we
must not forget that proof is sometimes from broad principles,
sometimes from particular facts. The order works out somewhat
as follows :

The Divine Power and Wisdom, at their seeming lowest, are
far above man s highest (25); for this reason (22-24) our Gospel
a poor thing in the eyes of men, is, to those who know it, the
Power and Wisdom of God. This exemplifies (21) the truth
underlying the history of the world, that man s wisdom is con
victed of failuse by the simplicity of the truth as declared by
God. This is how God, now as of old, turns to folly the wisdom
of the wise (19, 20), a principle which explains the opposite look
which the word of the Cross has to the aTroXXv/xei/oi and the
&lt;7&lt;i)o/xevoi (18) : and that is why (17) my mission is to preach
OVK ev &lt;ro(j&gt;La Xoyov.

As a chain of explanatory statements, the argument might
have gone straight from v. 1 8 to v. 22 ; but St Paul would not
omit a twofold appeal, most characteristic of his mind, to Scrip
ture (19, 20), and to the religious history of mankind (21), the
latter being exhibited as a verification of the other.

Texts vary considerably as to the position of iar\.v in the first clause of
v. 25, and also in the second clause. In the second, K* B 17 omit
and it is probably an interpolation from the first.

26. jSXeireTc ydp. An unanswerable argumentum ad hominem,
clinching the result of the above passage, especially the compre
hensive principle of v. 25. The verb is imperative (RV.), not
indicative (AV.), and governs TT)V /cX^o-iv directly. It is needless
subtlety to make r. K\. an accusative of respect, Behold with
reference to your call how that not many, etc.

TV KXTJaiK ujuiuj . Summon before your mind s eye what took
place then ; note the ranks from which one by one you were
summoned into the society of God s people ; very few come from
the educated, influential, or well-connected class. With /cXrJrm
compare /cXr/rot, w. 2, 24 : it refers, not so much to the external
call, or even to the internal call of God, as to the conversion
which presupposes the latter : Trdvrwv avOpuTruv Kc/cX^eVwv oi
VTraKOva-aL /3ovXr)0lvTS K\rjTol wvo[J,d(r6r]crav (Clem. Alex. Strom. I.

p. 314). See on vii. 20, and Westcott on Eph. i. 18.

L 26-28] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 25

dSe\&lt;|&gt;oi. As in v. 10, the affectionate address softens what
might give pain.

cm ou iroXXoi. A substantival clause, in apposition to /cA^o-tf
as the part to the whole : they are to behold their calling, 5
specially noting these facts which characterized it. From not
many we may assume that in each case there were some : but
x. 5 warns us against interpreting ov TTO\\OL as meaning more
than very few.

Kara aapica. This applies to Swaroi and cvyeveTs as well as to
tro&lt;ot . Each of the three terms is capable of a higher sense,
as euyevets in Acts xvii. ii ; each may be taken either (i) as a
predicate, not many of the called were wise, etc. ; or (2) as
belonging to the subject, the predicate being understood, * not
many wise had part therein ; or (3) like (2), but with a different
predicate, not many wise were called (AV., RV.). The last is
best.

Some of the converts were persons of culture and position j
Dionysius at Athens (Acts xvii. 34), Erastus at Corinth (Rom.
xvi. 23), the ladies at Thessalonica and Beroea (Acts xvii. 4, 12).
But the names known to us (xvi. 17; Rom. xvi.) are mostly
suggestive of slaves or freedmen. Lightfoot refers to Just. Apol.
ii. 9 ; Orig. Cels. ii. 79.*

27. Ta jiwpa. Cf. Matt. xi. 25. The gender lends force to the
paradox : rous &lt;ro^&gt;ovs leads us to expect TOVS tcr^upov?, K.T.A., but
the contrast of genders is not kept up in the other cases.

e leXefciTo. The verb is the correlative of icA^o-is (26), but
here, as in many other places, it brings in the idea of choice for
a particular end. Thus, of the choosing of Matthias, of Stephen,
of St Paul as a O-KCVO? e/cXoyr/g, of St Peter to admit the first
Gentiles (Acts xv. 7). The emphatic threefold ccA.c aro 6 0o
prepares the way for v. 31. See iv. 7 and Eph. ii. 8. The
Church, like the Apostle (2 Cor. xii. 10), was strong in weak
ness.

28. e ou0ej&gt;T]fxeVa. See on vi. 4 ; also 2 Cor. x. 10.
here only.

col rot fAT) orra. Yea things that are not. The omission of
the KOL (N* A C* D* F G 17) gives force to the (then) "studi-

* A century later it was a common reproach that Christianity was a
religion of the vulgar, and Apologists were content to imitate St Paul and
glory in the fact, rather than deny it. But the charge became steadily less
and less true. In Pliny s famous letter to Trajan, he speaks of multi omnii
ordinis being Christians. See Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christi
anity, bk. iv. ch. 2 ; Lightfoot, Clement, I. p. 30. Celsus, who urges this
reproach, would not have written a serious treatise against the faith, if people
of culture and position were not beginning to adopt it. See Glover, Conflict
of Religions in the Roman Empire, ch. 9.

26 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [I. 28-30

ously unconnected " and hyperbolical TO, fj.rj ovra : but the KCU
(N 3 B C 3 D 3 E L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is quite in St
Paul s style. The /AT} does not mean supposed not to exist/ but
4 non-existent, py with participles being much more common
than ov.

KaTapyrjoT]. The verb means * to reduce a person or thing to
ineffectiveness, to render workless or inoperative, and so to
bring to nought. It is thus a stronger word than Karaurxyvr),
and is substituted for it to match the antithesis between ovra
and fj,r] ovra. It is very frequent in this group of the Pauline
Epistles. Elsewhere it is rare (2 Thess. ii. 8 ; 2 Tim. i. 10;
Luke xiii. 7 ; Heb. ii. 14) ; only four times in LXX, and very rare
in Greek authors. Cf. Kcvwflf?, v. 17, and Kevcoo-ei, ix. 15.

Instead of TO, ayevrj rov Kfofj-ov, Marcion (Tert. Marc. v. 5, inhonesta et
minima] seems to have read rd ayevij /ecu TO, \dx iffTa

29. OTTOJS JAT] Kau)(i]&lt;7T|Tai irdaa o-dpf. For the construction see
Rom. iii. 20 ; Acts x. 14. The negative coheres with the verb,
not with 7rtt&lt;ra : in xv. 39 (ov -n-aa-a crap) the negative coheres
with Trao-a. Houra o-ap is a well-known Hebraism (Acts ii. 17),
meaning here the human race apart from the Spirit ; that all
mankind should abstain from glorying before God. *

6i/winoi&gt; TOU 06ou. Another Hebraic phrase. Non coram illo
$*din illo gloriari possumus (Beng.).

In His presence (AV.) comes from the false reading tv&iriov afrrou
(C, Vulg. Syrr.). The true reading (K A B C 8 D E F G L P, Copt. Aeth )
is a forcible contrast to irdaa o-d/&gt;.

30. e auTou 8e ufjicis eorre. But ye (in emphatic contrast) are
Hh children (another contrast). This is their true dignity, and
the 8e shows how different their case is from that of those just
mentioned. The wise, the strong, the well-born, etc. may boast
of what seems to distinguish them from others, but it is the
Christian who really has solid ground for glorying. Some would
translate * But it proceeds from Him that ye are in Christ Jesus,
i.e. your being Christians is His doing. But in that case v/ms
&lt;rr (note the accentuation) is hard to explain : the pronoun is
superfluous : we should expect simply ei/ Xpio-rw I^o-ou la-re.
Moreover, the sense given to e avrov is hard to justify. It is
far more probable that we ought to read v/x" s e " T ( W H., Light-
foot, Ellicott) and not v/xets eo-rc (T.R.). The meaning will then
be, But from Him ye have your being in Christ Jesus. The

* Renan (S. Paul, p. 233) gives icavx&lt;io/j.ai as an instance of the way in
which a word gets a hold on the Apostle s mind so that he keeps on repeating
it : un mot Fobstdc ; il le ramtnc dans une page a tout propos ; not for want
of vocabulary but because he cares so much more about his meaning than his
style \v. 17). f/. v. 31, iii. 21, iv. 7, v. 6, ix. 15, 16, xv. 31.

I. 30] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 27

addition of ev Xp. I. shows that more is meant than being His
offspring in the sense of Acts xvii. 28. By adoption in Christ
you are among things that really exist, although you may be
counted as nonentities : in this there is room for glorying (iv. 7;
Eph. ii. 8f.). This is the interpretation of the Greek Vathers,
probably from a sense of the idiom, and not from bias of any
kind.*

Ss eyen^OT]. This shows what the previous words involve.
Not who is made (AV.), nor who was made (RV.), but who
became by His coming into the world and by what He accom
plished for us. He showed the highest that God could show to
man (v. 18, ii. 7), and opened the way to the knowledge of God
through reconciliation with Him.

&lt;ro&lt;fua Tjfiii . This is the central idea, in contrast with the
false o-o&lt;/&gt;ia in the context, and it is expanded in the terms which
follow. For the dative see vv. 18, 24.

d-rro Geou. The words justify e aurov and qualify lyevrjOrj . . .
fifjuv, not cro&lt;ia only. The O.TTO points to the source of ultimate
derivation. See Lightfoot on i Thess. ii. 6.

SiKcuocrunr) re ical . . . diro\uTpw&lt;rts. The terms, linked into
one group by the conjunctions, are in apposition to o-o&lt;t a and
define if (RV. marg.) : the four terms are not co-ordinate (AV.,
RV.).f Lightfoot suggests, on not very convincing grounds,
that re. KCU serve to connect specially SIKCUOO-WT? and dyiacr/uos,
leaving aTroAirrpwo-is "rather by itself." The close connexion
between Sue. and dy. is, of course, evident (Rom. vi. 19), Si*,
being used by St Paul of the moral state founded upon and flow
ing from, faith in Christ (Rom. x. 4, 10, vi. 13 ; Gal. v. 5 ; Phil,
iii. 9), and dy. being used of the same state viewed as progress
towards perfect holiness (v. 2 ; i Thess. iv. 3-7). By righteous
ness he does not mean justification : that is presupposed and
included. Righteousness is the character of the justified man
in its practical working. This good life of the pardoned sinner
is to be distinguished from (a) God s righteousness (Rom. iii. 26,
by which we explain Rom. i. 17), and from (b) Righteousness in
the abstract sense of a right relation between persons (Acts x, 35,
xxiv. 25).

KOI diroXuTpuo-is. Placed last for emphasis, as being the
foundation of all else that we have in Christ (Rom. v. 9, 10,
viii. 32; cf. iii. 24). Others explain the order by reference to
the thought of final or completed redemption (Luke xxi. 28 ; Eph.

* See Deissmann, Die ncuftstamcntlichc Formcl "in Chris to /esu.
Chrysostom remarks how St Paul keeps "nailing them to the Name ol
Christ."

f It was probably in order to co-ordinate all four that L, Vulg. Syrr. Copt.
,lrm, have %)uv before &lt;ro0ta.

28 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS {X 3O, 31

i. 14, iv. 30). Redemptio primum Christi donum est quod inchoatur
in nobis, et ultimum perfiritur (Calv.). The former is better, but
it does not exclude the latter.

31. IW Ka6ws Y e YP a7rrctu Cf. n - 9 We have here a case
either of broken construction, a direct being substituted for a
dependent clause (ix. 15), or of ellipse, a verb like yeV^rat being
understood (iv. 6, xi. 24; 2 Thess. ii. 3; Gal. i. 20, etc.).

6 Kauxwjju-yos. A free quotation, combining the LXX of Jer.
ix. 23, 24 with i Sam. ii. 10, which resembles it. Jer. ix. 23, 24
runs, fj.r] Kav^d(rOii) 6 ero&lt;/&gt;os ev TT} &lt;ro&lt;ia avroO KCU /AT) Kav
to-^vpos tv rfj Icr^yi CLVTOV KCU jit?) Kav^dcrOa) 6 TrAovcrios eV TU&gt;
auroa), a.AA 17 ev TOVTOJ Kav^acr^w 6 /cav^di/jtei/o
yivioo-Aceiv on eyw et/xt Kvpios 6 TTOIUJV eAeo?. In i Sam. ii. 10 we
have Swaro? and Swa/m for lor^vpos and tcr^i with the ending,
ytvojcTKetv TOV Kvptov Acat TrotcZi/ /cpt/xa feat StKaiocrw^v ti/ /A^CTCO rr^s
y^s. The occurrence of the wise and * the strong and the
rich (as in v. 26 here) makes the quotation very apt.

Clement of Rome (Cor. 13) quotes the same passage, but
ends thus ; dAA rj 6 Acav^w/^evos iv Kvpi a) Kav^acr^w TOV eK^reiv
aurov /cat Troiti.v KpCfjta KCU $LKaio(rvvr)v, thus approximating to
St Paul s quotation. Probably he quotes the LXX and un
consciously assimilates his quotation to St Paul s. Lightfoot
suggests that both the Apostle and Clement may have had a
Greek version of i Sam. which differed from the LXX. For a
false glorying in God see Rom. ii. 17, and for a true glorying,
Ecclus. xxxix. 8, 1. 20.

Bachmann remarks that this is one of the remarkable quota
tions in which, by a free development of O.T. ideas and expres
sions, Christ takes the place of Jehovah ; and he quotes as other
instances in Paul, ii. 16, x. 22 ; 2 Cor. x. 17 ; Phil. ii. ii ; Rom.
x. 13. Hort s remarks on i Pet. ii. 3, where 6 Kv pios in Ps. xxxiv.
8 is transferred by the Apostle to Christ, will fit this and other
passages. " It would be rash, however, to conclude that he meant
to identify Jehovah with Christ. No such identification can be
clearly made out in the N.T. St Peter is not here making a
formal quotation, but merely borrowing O.T. language, and
applying it in his own manner. His use, though different from
that of the Psalm, is not at variance with it, for it is through the
XpT/oTtmys of the Son that the xPW T Tr l ; ^ the Father is clearly
made known to Christians." The Father is glorified in the Son
(John xiv. 13), and therefore language about glorifying the Father
may, without irreverence, be transferred to the Son; but the
transfer to Christ would have been irreverent if St Paul had not
believed that Jesus was what He claimed to be.

Deissmann (New Light on the N.T., p. 7) remarks that the

IL 1] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 29

testimony of St Paul at the close of this chapter, "as to the
origin of his congregations in the lower class of the great towns,
is one of the most important historical witnesses to Primitive
Christianity." See also, Light from the Anc. East, pp. 7, 14,
60, 142.

II. 1-5. The False Wisdom (continued).

So I came to you and preached, not a beautiful philosophy ,
but a crucified Christ. I was a feeble, timid speaker ; and
it was not my eloquence^ but the power of God, that converted
you.

1 And (in accordance with this principle of glory only in the
Lord) when I first came to Corinth, Brothers, it was as quite an
ordinary person (so far as any pre-eminence in speech or wisdom
is concerned) that I proclaimed to you the testimony of God s
love for you. 2 For I did not care to know, still less to preach,
anything whatever beyond Jesus Christ; and what I preached
about Him was that He was crucified. 3 And, as I say, it was
in weakness and timidity and painful nervousness that I paid my
visit to you : 4 and my speech to you and my message to you
were not conveyed in the persuasive words which earthly
wisdom adopts. No, their cogency came from God s Spirit and
God s power ; 6 for God intended that your faith should rest on
His power, and not on the wisdom of man.

1. K&lt;xyw. And I, accordingly. The KOI emphasizes the
Apostle s consistency with the principles and facts laid down in
i. 18-31, especially in 27-31. His first preaching at Corinth
eschewed the false cro&lt;i a, and conformed to the essential character
of the Gospel. The negative side comes first (vv. i, 2).

l\Qu&gt;y. At the time of his first visit (Acts xviii. if.). We
have an analogous reference, i Thess. i. 5, ii. i.

d8e\&lt;|&gt;oi. The rebuke latent in this reminder, and the affec
tionate memories of his first ministry to souls at Corinth (iv. 15),
combine to explain this address (i. 10, 26).

TJXSok. The repetition, eX^wi/ Ti-pos v/xas . . . rjXQov, instead of
rf\0ov Trpos v/xas, is not a case of broken construction, still less
a Hebraism. It gives solemn clearness and directness to St
Paul s appeal to their beginnings as a Christian body.

Ka0 uirepox rji . Most commentators connect the words with
KarayyeAAoov rather than rj\6ov. Compare Kara Kparos (Acts xix.
20), KO.& vircpfioXrjv (i Cor. xii. 31). Elsewhere in N.T. v

3O FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [U. 1, 3

occurs only i Tim. ii. 2 ; cf. virepi^uv^ Rom. xiii. i, etc. Pre
eminence is an exact equivalent.

\&lt;5you r\ ao&lt;J&gt;uxs. See on i. 5, 17.

KaTayye XXwi/. The tense marks, not the purpose of the visit,
for which the future would be suitable, but the way in which the
visit was occupied. The aorists sum it up as a whole. Lightfoot
suggests that dyyeAAav after verbs of mission or arrival (Acts xv.
27) is commonly in the present participle, as meaning to bear,
rather than to deliver, tidings. But this does not always suit
KarayyeXVeiv in N.T.; see xi. 26; Acts iv. 2; Rom. i. 8; Phil. i. 17;
and dyycAAeiv, uncompounded, occurs only John xx. 18, with
cbrayy. as V.I.

jAapTu pioK. He spoke in plain and simple language, as be
came a witness (Lightfoot). Testimonium simpliciter dicendum
est : nee eloquentia nee subtilitate ingenii opus est, quae testem sus-
pectum potius reddit (Wetstein). Cf. xv. 15; 2 Thess. i. 10;
i Tim. ii. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 8. The first reference is decisive as to
the meaning here.

TOU 0eou. genitivus objecti as in i. 6. The testimony is the
message of God s love to mankind declared in the saving work
of Christ (Rom. v. 8; John iii. 16); it is therefore a ^uxprvpio*
T. eov as well as a /xapr. T. Xpio-rov. There is, of course, a
witness from God ( i John v. 9), but the present connexion is
with the Apostolic message about God and His Christ.

D E F G L P, Vulg. Sah. Aeth. Arm. AV. RV. marg.)
is probably to be preferred to pvarfpiov (K*AC, Copt. RV.). WH.
prefer the latter ; but it may owe its origin to v. 7. On the other hand,
fj,apr. may come from i. 6.

2. ov yap Kpim TI elSeVai. Not only did I not speak of,
but I had no thought for, anything else. Cf. Acts xviii. 5,
XCTO TO? Aoyw, * he became engrossed in the word. For
of a personal resolve see vii. 37; Rom. xiv. 13; 2 Cor. ii. i.
Does the ov connect directly with tKpiva or with TI etSeVat, as
in AV., RV. ? The latter is attractive on account of its incisive-
ness ; I deliberately refused to know anything. But it assumes
that OVK e/cpiva = eKpiva ov, on the familiar analogy of ov ^/xi .
Apparently there is no authority for this use of OVK iKpiva: OVK ew,
as Lightfoot points out, is not strictly analogous. Accordingly,
we must preserve the connexion suitable to the order of the
words ; * I did not think fit to know anything. He did not
regard it as his business to know more. Ellicott remarks that
u the meaning is practically the same" : but we must not give to
a satisfactory meaning the support of unsatisfactory grammar.

TI eiSeVcu. Not quite in the sense of eyvw/ceVat TI (viii. 2),
to know something, as Evans here. In that case et /ATJ would
mean but only. But TI simply means anything whatever.

2 31 THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 31

XpierroV. As in i. i ; contrast i. 23. In the Epistles
of this date, Xpto-ros still designates primarily the Office ; Jesus,
the Anointed One, and that (not as King in His glory, but)
crucified.

Kal ToGrot OT&lt;xupwfAfcVoi&gt;. The force of KOI TovTov is definitely
to specify the point on which, in preaching Jesus Christ, stress
was laid (6 Xdyos T. o-ravpov, i. 1 8), the effect being that of a
climax. The Apostle regards the Person and Work of Jesus
the Messiah as comprising in essence the whole Gospel, and
the Crucifixion, which with him involves the Resurrection, as
the turning-point of any preaching of his work. This most vital
point must not be forgotten when considering w. 6 f. below.

TI elStvai (BCP 17) is to be preferred to Mhu n (KAD FGL).
D 2 L ins. TOU before eidtvai n.

3. Kdyw. He now gives the positive side in what fashion he
did come (3-5). As in v. i, the ey&lt;6 is emphatic; but here the
emphasis is one of contrast. Although I was the vehicle of
God s power (i. 18, ii. 4, 5), I not only eschewed all affectation
of cleverness or grandiloquence, but I went to the opposite
extreme of diffidence and nervous self-effacement. Others in my
place might have been bolder, but I personally was as I say.
Or else we may take v. 3 as beginning again at the same point
as v. i ; as if the Apostle had been interrupted after dictating
v. 2, and had then begun afresh. Lightfoot regards /cdyw as
simply an emphatic repetition, citing Juvenal i. 15, 16, Et nos
ergo manum ferulae subduximus^ et nos Consilium dedimus
Sullae.

i&gt; daOeyeia. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 29, xii. 10. The sense is general,
but may include his unimpressive presence (2 Cor. x. 10) and
shyness in venturing unaccompanied into strange surroundings
(cf. Acts xvii. 15, xviii. 5), coupled with anxiety as to the tidings
which Timothy and Silvanus might bring (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 13).
There was also the thought of the appalling wickedness of
Corinth, of his poor success at Athens, and of the deadly hostility
of the Jews to the infant Church of Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 5,
13). Possibly the malady which had led to his first preaching
in Galatia (Gal. iv. 13) was upon him once more. If this was
epilepsy, or malarial fever (Ramsay), it might well be the recurrent
trouble which he calls a thorn for the flesh (2 Cor. xii. 7).

eV 4&gt;6j3w Kal eV TpojAw iroXXw. We have &lt;f&gt;6/3os and rpo/xos com
bined in 2 Cor. vii. 15 ; Phil. ii. 12; Eph. vi. 5. The physical
manifestation of distress is a climax. St Paul rarely broke new
ground without companions, and to face new hearers required
an effort for which he had to brace himself. But it was not the
Gospel which he had to preach that made him tremble : he was

32 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 3. 4

c not ashamed of that (Rom. i. 16). Nor was it fear of personal
danger. It was rather "a trembling anxiety to perform a duty."
In Eph. vi. 5, slaves are told to obey their masters /xera &lt;o/?ov K.
rpo/xov, which means with that conscientious anxiety that is
opposed to 6&lt;f&gt;@aXfjLo$ov\ia (Conybeare and Howson).* No
other N.T. writer has this combination of &lt;j&gt;6j3o&lt;s and rpo/xos.
Some MSS. omit the second ev.

YeK6pTji/ -rpos ujjias. These words are probably to be taken
together, exactly as in xvi. 10; I was with you. The sense of
becoming in the verb, and of movement in the preposition, is
attenuated. My visit to you was in weakness, preserves both
the shade of meaning and the force of the tense. Cf. 2 John 12;
i Thess. ii. 7, 10.

4. KCU, 6 \6yo9 IJLOO. See on i. 5, 17. Various explanations
have been given of the difference between Aoyos and K^p-uy/xa,
and it is clear that to make the former private conversation,
and the latter * public preaching, is not satisfactory. Nor is the
one the delivery of the message and the other the substance of
it: see on i. 21. More probably, 6 Adyos looks back to i. 18,
and means the Gospel which the Apostle preached, while
is the act of proclamation, viewed, not as a process
is), but as a whole. Cf. 2 Tim. iv. 17.

OUK tV iriOois &lt;ro(f&gt;ias Xoyois. The singular word 7ri#d&lt;j or
vcido?, which is found nowhere else, is the equivalent of the
classical 7ri$ai/ds, which Josephus (Ant. vm. ix. i) uses of the
plausible words of the lying prophet of i Kings xiii. The only
exact parallel to Triads or imdo? from ireiOu* is &lt;iSo? or ^eiSo? from
fatSofjuu, and in both cases the spelling with a diphthong seems
to be incorrect (WH. App. p. 153). The rarity of the word has
produced confusion in the text. Some cursives and Latin
witnesses support a reading which is found in Origen and in
Eus. Praep. Evang. i. 3., iv ireiOol \av0p&lt;airivi]$] &lt;ro&lt;/&gt;ias A.dya&gt;v, in
pcrsuasione sapientiae \humanae] verbi, or sermones for sermonis ;
where 7rei0ot is the dat. of vcM. From this, iv irtiBol oxx/uas
has been conjectured as the original reading ; but the evidence
of N A B C D E L P for ev Triflot? or 7m#ot? is decisive ; f and while
&lt;ro&lt;^ta? Xoyots almost certainly is genuine, avdptanrivvp almost
certainly is not, except as interpretation.

The meaning is that the false o-o^ia, the cleverness of the
rhetorician, which the Apostle is disclaiming and combating

* Three times in Acts (xviii. g, xxiii. n, xxvii. 24) St Paul receives en
couragement from the Lord. There was something in his temperament which
needed this. In Corinth the vision assured him that his work was approved
and would succeed. He not only might work, he must do so (ix. 1 6).

t It is remarkable that the word has not been adopted by ecclesiastical
writers.

n. 4] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 33

throughout this passage, was specially directed to the art of
persuasion : cf. 7ri#avoAoyt a (Col. ii. 4).

d-n-oSei^ei. Not elsewhere in N.T. It has two very different
meanings: (i) display or showing off (cf. iv. 9 and Luke
i. 80), and (2) demonstration in the sense of stringent proof.
The latter is the meaning here. Aristotle distinguishes it from
o-uXXoyto-/xos. The latter proves that a certain conclusion follows
from given premises, which may or may not be true. In d?ro-
8eits the premises are known to be true, and therefore the
conclusion is not only logical, but certainly true. In Eth. Nic.
i. iii. 4 we are told that to demand rigid demonstrations (O.TTO-
Settees) from a rhetorician is as unreasonable as to allow a
mathematician to deal in mere plausibilities. Cf. Plato Phaed.
7; C- Theaet. 162 E.* St Paul is not dealing with scientific
certainty : but he claims that the certitude of religious truth
to the believer in the Gospel is as complete and as objective
equal in degree, though different in kind as the certitude of
scientific truth to the scientific mind. Mere human ao^ia may
dazzle and overwhelm and seem to be unanswerable, but assensum
constringit non res ; it does not penetrate to those depths of the
soul which are the seat of the decisions of a lifetime. The
Stoics used a.7roSetis in this sense.

nreu jjiaTos K&lt;X! Surajxews- See on i. 18. The demonstration
is that which is wrought by God s power, especially His power
to save man and give a new direction to his life. As it is all
from God, why make a party-hero of the human instrument?
Some Greek Fathers suppose that miracle-working power is
meant, which is an idea remote from the context. Origen
refers Trvcu/xaro? to the O.T. prophecies, and Swa/xews to the
N.T. miracles, thus approximating to the merely philosophic
sense of a.7ro8eiis. And if Swa/xews means God s power, TTVCV-
uaros will mean His Spirit, the Holy Spirit. The article is
omitted as in v. 13 (cf. Gal. v. 16 and Phil. ii. i with 2 Cor.
xiii. 13). See Ellicott ad loc. The genitives are either sub
jective, demonstration proceeding from and wrought by the
Spirit and power of God, or qualifying, demonstration con
sisting in the spirit and power of God, as distinct from per
suasion produced by mere cleverness. The sense of
is well given by Theophylact : d/op^ro) rm Tp6Vu&gt; TTIOTIV
rois O.KOVOVO-LV. YOT the general sense see i Thess. i. 5 and
ii. 13; our Gospel came not in word only, but also in power
and in the Holy Spirit ; and ye accepted it not as the word
of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also

* In papyri, d7r65etts is used of official evidence or proof. Bachmann
quotes ; dir65eitj Sous TOV iir\.aro.&lt;sQo.i lepariKa. ypdfjL^ara (Tebt. Pap. ii, 291,
40.

34 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 4-6

worketh in you that believe. St Paul s appeal is to the strong
conviction and deep practical power of the Gospel. Not that
strong conviction is incompatible with error: there is such
a thing as e^pyeia TrXdvr;?, causing men to believe what is false
(2 Thess. ii. n); but the false cro&lt;i a engenders no depth of
conviction. Lightfoot quotes Longinus, who describes St Paul
as TrpwTOV . . . TTpoioTa/xevov Soy/xaros avaTroSeiVrov meaning
philosophic proof, whereas St Paul is asserting a proof different
in fcmd. "It was moral, not verbal [nor scientific] demonstra
tion at which he aimed." This epistle is proof of that.

bvepwirlvris (KACLP, Copt. AV.) before &lt;ro0ias is rejected by all
editors.

5. tvo. This expresses, either the purpose of God, in so
ordering the Apostle s preaching (Theodoret), or that of the
Apostle himself. The latter suits the e/cpim of v. 2 ; but the
former best matches the thought of v. 4, and may be preferred
(Meyer, Ellicott). The verse is co-ordinate with i. 31, but
rises to a higher plane, for TTIOTIS is more intimately Christian
than the KCM^O-IS of the O.T. quotation.

p) T} iv &lt;ro&lt;J&gt;ia di/Gpwir&m The preposition marks the medium
or sphere in which faith has its root: cf. iv TOVTW Trio-re^ei/
(John xvi. 30). We often express the same idea by depend
on rather than by rooted in ; that your faith may not
depend upon wisdom of men, but upon power of God. What
depends upon a clever argument is at the mercy of a cleverer
argument. Faith, which is at its root personal trust, springs
from the vital contact of human personality with divine. Its
affirmations are no mere abstract statements, but comprise the
experience of personal deliverance ; olSa yap &lt;5 TreTrurrevKa (2 Tim.
i. 12). Here the negative statement is emphasized.

(ii.) II. 6-III. 4. The True Wisdom.
II. 6-13. The True Wisdom described.
To mature Christians we Apostles preach the Divine
Wisdom, which God has revealed to us by His Spirit.

6 Not that as preachers of the Gospel we ignore wisdom:
when we are among those whose faith is ripe, we impart it.
But it is not a wisdom that is possessed by this age; no,
nor yet by the leaders of this age, whose influence is destined
soon to decline. 7 On the contrary, what we impart is the
Wisdom of God, a mystery hitherto kept secret, which God
ordained from before all time for our eternal salvation. 8 Of

H. 6j THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 35

this wisdom no one of the leaders of this age has ever acquired
knowledge, for if any had done so, they would never have
crucified the Lord whose essential attribute is glory. 9 But,
so far from any of them knowing this wisdom, what stands
written in Scripture is exactly true about them, Things
which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered
not into the heart of man, whatsoever things God prepared
for them that love Him. 10 But to us, who are preachers of
His Gospel, God has unveiled these mysteries through the
operation of His Spirit ; for His Spirit can explore all things,
even the deep mysteries of the Divine Nature and Will. n We
can understand this a little from our own experience. What
human being knows the inmost thoughts of a man, except
the man s own spirit within him ? Just so no one has attained
to knowledge of the inmost thoughts of God, except God s own
Spirit. 12 Yet what we received was not the spirit which
animates and guides the non-Christian world, but its opposite,
the Spirit which proceeds from God, given to us that we may
appreciate the benefits lavished upon us by God. 13 And what
He has revealed to us we teach, not in choice words taught
by the rhetoric of the schools, but in words taught by the
Spirit, matching spiritual truth with spiritual language.

6. Io4&gt;iai&gt; 8e XaXoGjAei&gt;. The germ of the following passage is
in i. 24, 30 : Christ crucified is to the /cA^roi the wisdom of
God. This is the guiding thought to be borne in mind in
discussing St Paul s conception of the true wisdom.* There
are two points respecting X.aX.ov/jiv. Firstly, St Paul includes
others with himself, not only his immediate fellow-workers,
but the Apostolic body as a whole (xv. n). Secondly, the
verb means simply utter : it must not be pressed to denote
a kind of utterance distinct from Xoyos and /ojpuypx (v. 4),
such as private conversation.

lv TOIS reXeuns. It is just possible that there is here an
allusion to the technical language of mystical initiation ; but,
if so, it is quite subordinate. By reAciot St Paul means the
mature or full-grown Christians, as contrasted with vrjinoi (iii. i).f
The word is used again xiv. 20; Phil. iii. 15; Eph. iv. 13.
Those who had attained to the fulness of Christian experience

* See ch. x. in Chad wick, Pastoral Teaching, pp. 356 f., and note the
emphatic position of &lt;ro0/cw.

t This sense is frequent in papyri and elsewhere. Initiated would be

36 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 6

would know that his teaching was really philosophy of the
highest kind. The ev means, not merely in the opinion of,
but literally among, in consessu ; in such a circle the Apostle
utters true wisdom.

It is quite clear that St Paul distinguishes two classes of
hearers, and that both of them are distinct from the dTroAAv/aevoc
of i. 1 8, or the Jews and Greeks of i. 22, 23. On the one
hand, there are the reXeiot, whom he calls lower down irvevpa-
TIKOI (v. i3-iii. i); on the other hand, there is the anomalous
class of o-a/DKivoi, who are babes in Christ. Ideally, all Chris-
tians, as such, are Trj/ev/xaTi/coi (xii. 31; Gal. iii. 2, 5; Rom.
viii. 9, 15, 26). But practically, many Christians need to be
treated as (ws, iii. i), and to all intents are, o-a/o/avot, v^irtot,
if/vxu&lt;oi(v. 14), even crap/a/coi (iii. 3). The work of the Apostle
has as its aim the raising of all such imperfect Christians to
the normal and ideal standard ; &lt;W Trapacrnyo-w/Aev iravra. avOpu-
TTOV reXetov ev Xpiorw (Col. i. 28, where see Lightfoot). St Paul s
thought, therefore, seems to be radically different from that
which is ascribed to Pythagoras, who is said to have divided
his disciples into reAeioi and vrjirioi. It is certainly different
from that of the Gnostics, who erected a strong barrier between
the initiated (reXeioi) and the average Christians (^iicoi).
There are clear traces of this Gnostic distinction between
esoteric and exoteric Christians in the school of Alexandria
(Eus. H.E. v. xi.), and a residual distinction survives in the
ecclesiastical instinct of later times (Ritschl, Fides Implicita).
The vital difference is this: St Paul, with all true teachers,
recognizes the principle of gradations. He does not expect
the beginner at once to equal the Christian of ripe experience ;
nor does he expect the Gospel to level all the innumerable
diversities of mental and moral capacity (viii. 7, xii. 12-27;
Rom. xiv.). But, although gradations of classes among Christians
must be allowed, there must be no differences of caste. The
wisdom is open to all; and all, in their several ways, are
capable of it, and are to be trained to receive it. So far as
the Church, in any region or in any age, is content to leave
any class in permanent nonage, reserving spiritual understanding
for any caste, learned, or official, or other, so tar the Apostolic
charge has been left unfulfilled and the Apostolic ideal has
been abandoned.

The 8c is explanatory and corrective; Now by wisdom I
mean, not, etc.

TOU alamos TOU TOU. See on i. 20.

ouSe T&V dpxorrom It is quite evident from v. 8 that the
3.PXOVT& are those who took part in the Crucifixion of the Lord
of Glory. They, therefore, primarily include the rulers of the

II. 6, 7] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 37

Jews. Peter says, KCU vvv, d8eA&lt;oi, oloa ort Kara ayvotav e7rpaare,
wo-TTfp /cat ot ap^ovTe? v/x,&lt;Jov (Acts iii. 17); and if St Luke is
responsible for the form in which this speech is reported, the
words may be regarded as the earliest commentary on our
passage. But Pilate also was a party to the crime : and the
rulers of this dispensation includes all, as well ecclesiastical
as civil.

Some Fathers and early writers, from Marcion (Tert. Marc.
v. 6) downwards, understand the apxovTe? TOV aiwi/os TOVTOU to
mean demons , cf. /coo-yao/cpaTOpcts TOV O~KOTOV? TOV atwvos TOVTOU
(Eph. vi. 12). Perhaps this idea exists already in Ignatius;
c /\a$ev TOV ap^ovra [T. atou/os] TOVTOV ... 6 0aj/aro? TOV Kvpiov.
See Thackeray, The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary Jewish
Thought, pp. i56f., 230 n. But this interpretation is wholly
incompatible with v. 8, as also is the very perverse suggestion
of Schmiedel that St Paul refers to Angels, whose rule over
certain departments in God s government of the world belongs
only to this dispensation, and ceases with it (/caTapyov/xevwi/),
and who are unable to see into the mysteries of redemption
(Gal. iii. 19; i Pet. i. 12). See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 5.

Toik KaTapyoujieVwi/. See on i. 28. The force of the present
tense is axiomatic. These rulers and their function belong to
the sphere of Trpoo-Kcupa (vii. 31 ; 2 Cor. iv. 18), and are destined
to vanish in the dawn of the Kingdom of God. So far as the
Kingdom is come, they are gone. Yet they have their place
and function in relation to the world in which we have our
present station and duties (vii. 20, 24, 31), until all pass away into
nothingness.

7. dXXa XaXoufxei/. The verb is repeated for emphasis with
the fully adversative aXXd (Rom. viii. 15; Phil. iv. 17); But
what we do utter is, etc.

0eoG ao(f&gt;iay. The eov is very emphatic, as the context
demands, and nearly every uncial has the words in this order.
To read o-o^tW eov (L) mars the sense.

Iv fAuoTTjpiw. We may connect this with XaXov/i,ei/, to charac
terize the manner of communication, as we say, to speak in a
whisper, or to characterize its effect while declaring a mystery.
Or we may connect with cro^iav : and this is better, in spite of
the absence of T-rjv before h /xvo-T^pia&gt; (see Lightfoot on i Thess.
i. i). The wisdom is eV /avo-T^piw, because it has been for
so long a secret, although now made known to all who can
receive it, the ayioi (Col. i. 26) and icAqrot.

Assuming that /xapTvpiov is the right reading in v. i, we
have here almost the earliest use of /AVO-T^PIOV in N.T. (2 Thess.
ii. 7 is the earliest). See J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 234-240,

38 FIRST fJPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [H. 7

for a full discussion of the use of the word in N.T., also Westcott,
Ephesians, pp. 180-182.

ri]v diroKKpu|J4Jie nr]i . For the sense see Eph. iii. 5 ; Col. i. 26 ;
Rom. xvi. 25. The words are explanatory of lv /xuo-T^pi w. The
wisdom of God had been hidden even from prophets and
saints (Luke x. 24), until the fulness of time: now it is made
manifest. But it remains hidden from those who are not pre
pared to receive it; e.g. from Jews (2 Cor. iii. 14) and the
aTroAAu/xevoi generally (2 Cor. iv. 3-6). This contrast is followed
up in vv. 8- 1 6.

r\v n-powpio-ei 6 0e6^ To be taken directly with the words
that follow, without supplying a.7roKa\vij/ai or any similar link.
The wisdom is Christ crucified (i. 18-24), fore-ordained by
God (Acts iv. 28; Eph. iii. n) for the salvation of men. It was
no afterthought or change of plan, as Theodoret remarks, ,but was
fore-ordained awOev KCU e apx*)**-

els 8oai&gt; TjjAom Our eternal glory, or complete salvation
(2 Cor. iv. 17; Rom. viii. 18, 21, etc.). From meaning opinion,
and hence public repute, praise, or honour, Sda acquires in
many passages the peculiarly Biblical sense of splendour,
1 brightness, glory. This glory is used sometimes of physical
splendour, sometimes of special excellence and pre-eminency ;
or again of majesty, denoting the unique glory of God, the
sum-total either of His incommunicable attributes, or of those
which belong to Christ. In reference to Christ, the glory may
be either that of His pre-incarnate existence in the Godhead,
or of His exaltation through Death and Resurrection, at God s
right hand.

It is on this sense of the word that is based its eschatological
sense, denoting the final state of the redeemed. Excepting
Heb. ii. 10 and i Pet. v. i, this eschatological sense is almost
peculiar to St Paul and is characteristic of him (xv. 43 ; i Thess.
ii. 12; 2 Thess. ii. 14; Rom. v. 2; Phil. iii. 21, etc.). This
state of the redeemed, closely corresponding to the Kingdom
of God, is called the glory of God, because as God s adopted
sons they share in the glory of the exalted Christ, which consists
in fellowship with God. This glory may be said to be enjoyed
in this life in so far as we are partakers of the Spirit who is the
earnest (appafiuv) of our full inheritance (2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5;
Eph. i. 14; cf. Rom. viii. 23). But the eschatological sense is
primary and determinant in the class of passages to which the
present text belongs, and this fact is of importance.

What is the wisdom of which the Apostle is speaking ? Does
he mean a special and esoteric doctrine reserved for a sel^t
body of the initiated (reAeioi) ? Or does he mean the Gospel,
the word of the Cross, as it is apprehended, not by babes in

II. 7, 8 THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 39

Christ, but by Christians of full growth? Some weighty con
siderations suggest the former view, which is adopted by Clement,
Origen, Meyer, and others ; especially the clear distinction made
in iii. i, 2 between the yaAo, and the /3p&lt;o/xa, coupled with the
right meaning of iv in v. 6. On the other hand, the frequent
assertions (i. 18, 24, 30) that Christ crucified is the Power and
Wisdom of God, coupled with the fact that this Wisdom was
fore-ordained for our salvation (see also o-too-cu in i. 21), seem
to demand the equation of the wisdom uttered by the Apostle
with the /xwpia rov /cT/puy/zaros, and the equation of eov arcxfrcav
in ii. 7 with eov o-o^tav in i. 24 (cf. i. 30). These considera
tions seem to be decisive. With Heinrici, Edwards, and others,
we conclude that St Paul s * wisdom is the Gospel, simply.
With this Chrysostom agrees ; o-o&lt;iav Ae yei TO jojpuy/xa KOL rov
rpoTrov Trjs o-a&gt;T?7pias, TO Sia TOV oravpov o-&lt;o#/}vai* TeAeious Sc TOI&gt;S

But the yaXa and the /3pw/xa of iii. 2, and the distinction
between TeAeioi and vrjirLoi eV Xpicrra&gt;, must be satisfied. The
TeXetot are able to follow the unsearchable riches of Christ and
manifold wisdom of God (Eph. iii. 8, 10) into regions of
spiritual insight, and into questions of practical import, to which
V^TTIOI cannot at present rise. But they may rise, and with
proper nurture and experience will rise. There is no bar to
their progress.

The wisdom of God, therefore, comprises primarily Christ
and Him crucified ; the preparation for Christ as regards Jew and
Gentile ; the great mystery of the call of the Gentiles and the ap
parent rejection of the Jews; the justification of man and the
principles of the Christian life ; and (the thought dominant in the
immediate context) the consummation of Christ s work in the &lt;5oa
fj/jiuv. The Epistle to the Romans, which is an unfolding of the
thought of i Cor. i. 24-31, is St Paul s completest utterance of this
wisdom. It is /fyw/xa, while our Epistle is occupied witK things
answering to yaXa, although we see how the latter naturally leads
on into the range of deeper problems (xiii., xv.). But there is
no thought here, or in Romans, or anywhere in St Paul s writings,
of a disciplina arcani or body of esoteric doctrine. The /Spoo/xa
is meant for all, and all are expected to grow into fitness for it
(see Lightfoot on Col. i. 26 f.) ; and the form of the Gospel (ii. 2)
contains the whole of it in germ.

8. T]i&gt; ou&eig . . . ZyvuKev. The TJV must refer to o-o(iW, which
wisdom none of the rulers of this world hath discerned.

el ydp. Parenthetical confirmation of the previous statement.
Had they discerned, as they did not, they would not have cruci
fied, as they did. It is manifest from this that the ap^ovTcs are

4O FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IL 8, 9

neither demons nor angels, but the rulers who took part in
crucifying the Christ.

TOI&gt; Ku pioi/ TTJS &OT)S. Cf. Jas. ii. i ; Eph. i. 1 7 ; Acts vii. 2 ;
also Ps. xxiv. 7 ; Heb. ix. 5. The genitive is qualifying, but the
attributive force is strongly emphatic, bringing out the contrast
between the indignity of the Cross (Heb. xii. 2) and the majesty
of the Victim (Luke xxii. 69, xxiii. 43).*

9. dXXd. On the contrary (so far from any, even among the
great ones of this world, knowing this wisdom, the event was)
just as it stands written. There is no difficulty in understanding
yeyovi&gt;, or some such word, with Ka0ws yiypa-rrran. But the con
struction can be explained otherwise, and perhaps better. See
below, and on i. 19.

& 64&gt;6aXp,6s OUK etSey. The relative is co-ordinate with vjv in
v. 8, refers to o-o&lt;x, and therefore is indirectly governed by
XaXov/jiev in v. 7 (so Heinrici, Meyer, Schmiedel). It might (so
Evans) be governed by ctTreKaXv^ev, if we read T^/UV Se and take
v. 10 as an apodosis. But this is awkward, especially as a does
not precede KaOus ye ypaTrrai. The only grammatical irregirarity
which it is necessary to acknowledge is that a serves first as an
accusative governed by elSev and r//&lt;owei/, then as nominative to
dve/?77, and once more in apposition to oo-a (or a) in the accus
ative. Such an anacoluthon is not at all violent.

em KapSia^ ... OUK &ve$i\. Cf. Acts vii. 23; Isa. Ixv. 17;
Jer. iii. 16, etc. Heart in the Bible includes the mind, as
here, Rom. i. 21, x. 6, etc.

oo-a. In richness and scale they exceed sense and thought
(John xiv. 2).

T]ToifAa0-ei&gt;. Here only does St Paul use the verb of God.
When it is so used, it refers to the blessings of final glory, with
(Luke ii. 31) or without (Matt. xx. 23, xxv. 34; Mark x. 40 ; Heb,
xi. 1 6) including present grace ; or else to the miseries of final
punishment (Matt. xxv. 41). See note on So a, v. 7. The ana
logy of N.T. language, and the dominant thought of the context
here, compel us to find the primary reference in the consumma
tion of final blessedness. See Aug. De catech. rud. 27 ; Const.
Apost. VII. xxxii. 2 ; with Irenaeus, Cyprian, Clement of Alex
andria and Origen. This does not exclude, but rather carries
with it, the thought of present insight into Divine things
(Edwards). See on v. 10, and last note on v. 7.

* Crux scrvorutn supplidum. Eo Dominum gloriae affecerunt (Beng.).
" The levity of philosophers in rejecting the cross was only surpassed by
t ne stupidity of politicians in inflicting it " (Findlay). The placing of T. K. r.
56?/s between oik &v and the verb throws emphasis on the words ; they would
never have crucified the Lord of Glory : cf. Heb. iv. 8, viii. 7 ( Abbot, Johan-
nine Gr. t 2566).

H. 9] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 41

rots dyaTrojan auTOf. See Rom. viii. 28-30. Clement of
Rome (Cor. 34), in quoting this passage, restores rots vTro/xeVovcm/
from Isa. Ixiv. 4 in place of rots dycra-wcm/. This seems to show
that he regards the /caflws ytypaTrrai as introducing a quotation
from Isaiah.

We ought possibly to read 8&lt;ra ^Totfj-acrev with ABC, Clem-Rom.
But A j)Tot/j.a&lt;rev is strongly supported (K D E F G L P, Clem-Alex. Orig.
Polyc-Mart.). Vulg. has quae with d e f g r.

The much debated question of the source of St Paul s quota
tion must be solved within the limits imposed by his use of /cantos
ycypaTTTcu. See on i. 19 and 31. The Apostle unquestionably
intends to quote Canonical Scripture. Either, then, he actually
does so, or he unintentionally (Meyer) slips into a citation from
some other source. The only passages of the O.T. which come
into consideration are three from Isaiah, (i) Ixiv. 4, OLTTO rov
cuon/os OVK rj K o v &lt;r a //, e v ouSe 01 otfoOaXfjiol f]/j.&lt;jjv e T 8 o v eov
TrXr/v (rov KCU TO. epya crov, a Trooyo-eis rot? vTro/xeVovtriv eXeov (Heb.
1 From eternity they have not heard, they have not hearkened,
neither hath eye seen, a God save Thee, who shall do gloriously
for him that awaiteth Him ). (2) Ixv. 17, /cat ov py Tre\6y
avrujv ?rt TTJV KdpSiav (observe the context). Also (3) lii. 15,
as quoted Rom. xv. 21, a passage very slightly to the purpose.
The first of these three passages is the one that is nearest to the
present quotation. Its general sense is, The only living God,
who, from the beginning of the world, has proved Himself to be
such by helping all who trust in His mercy, is Jehovah ; and it
must be admitted that, although germane, it is not very close to
St Paul s meaning here. But we must remember that St Paul
quotes with great freedom, often compounding different passages
and altering words to suit his purpose. Consider the quotations
in i. 19, 20, 31, and in Rom. ix. 27, 29, and especially in Rom.
ix. 33, x. 6, 8, 15. Freedom of quotation is a vera causa; and
if there are degrees of freedom, an extreme point will be found
somewhere. With the possible exception of the doubtful case
in Eph. v. 14, it is probable that we reach an extreme point here.
This view is confirmed by the fact that Clement of Rome, in the
earliest extant quotation from our present passage, goes back to
the LXX of Isa. Ixiv. 4, which is evidence that he regarded that
to be the source of St Paul s quotation. At the very least, it
proves that Clement felt that there was resemblance between
i Cor. ii. 9 and Isa. Ixiv. 4.

Of other solutions, the most popular has been that of Origen
(in Matt, xxvii. 9) ; in nullo regulari libro hoc positum invenitur,
nisi in Sccretis Eliae Prophetae. Origen was followed by others,
but was warmly contradicted by Jerome (in Esai. Ixiv. 4 : see also
ProL in Gen. ix. and Ep. Ivii. [ci.] 7), who nevertheless allows

42 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 9

that the passage occurs not only in the Apocalypse of Elias, but
also in the Ascension of Esaias. This, however, by no means
proves that the Apostle quotes from either book ; for the writers
of those books may both of them be quoting from him. Indeed,
it is fairly certain that this is true of the Apocalypse of Elias ;
unless we reject the testimony of Epiphanius (Haer. xlii.), who
says that this Apocalypse also contains the passage in Eph. v. 14,
which (if St Paul quotes it without adaptation) is certainly from
a Christian source. And there is no good reason for doubting
the statement of Epiphanius. The Apocalypse of Elias, if it
existed at all before St Paul s time, would be sure to be edited
by Christian copyists, who, as in the case of many other apoca
lyptic writings, inserted quotations from N.T. books, especially
from passages like the present one. The Ascension of Esaias,
as quoted by Epiphanius (Ixvii. 3), was certainly Christianized,
for it contained allusions to the Holy Trinity. It is probably
identical with the Ascension and Vision of Isaiah, published by
Laurence in an Ethiopic, and by Gieseler in a Latin, version.
The latter (xi. 34) contains our passage, and was doubtless the
one known to Jerome ; the Ethiopic, though Christian, does not
contain it. See Tisserant, Ascension (Tlsaie, p. 211.

On the whole, therefore, we have decisive ground for regard
ing our passage as the source whence these Christian or Chris
tianized apocrypha derived their quotation, and not vice versa.
Still more strongly does this hold good of the paradox of " over-
sanguine liturgiologists " (Lightfoot), who would see in our
passage a quotation from the Liturgy of St James, a document
of the Gentile Church of Aelia far later than Hadrian, and full
of quotations from the N.T.*

Resch, also over-sanguine, claims the passage for his col
lection of Agrapha, or lost Sayings of our Lord, but on no
grounds which call for discussion here.

Without, therefore, denying that St Paul, like other N.T.
writers, might quote a non-canonical book, we conclude with
Clement of Rome and Jerome, that he meant to quote, and
actually does quote very freely and with reminiscence of Ixv. 17
from Isa. Ixiv. 4. He may, as Origen saw, be quoting from
a lost Greek version which was textually nearer to our passage
than the Septuagint is, but such an hypothesis is at best only a
guess, and, in view of St Paul s habitual freedom, it is not a very
helpful guess.

The above view, which is substantially that of the majority of
modern commentators, including Ellicott, Edwards, and Lightfoot

* Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome, I. pp. 389 f., n. pp. io6f. ; Hammond,
Liturgies Eastern and Western, p. x. Neither Origen nor Jerome know ol
any liturgical source.

n. 9, 10] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 43

(to whose note this discussion has special obligations) is rejected
by Meyer-Heinr., Schmiedel, and some others, who think that St
Paul, perhaps per incuriam, quotes one of the apocryphal writings
referred to above. It has been shown already that this hypo
thesis is untenable. For further discussion, see Lightfoot,
S. Clement of Rome^ I. p. 390, and on Clem. Rom. Cor. 34 ;
Resch, Agraphd) pp. 102, 154, 281 ; Thackeray, St Paul and
Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 240 f. On the seemingly
hostile reference of Hegesippus to this verse, see Lightfoot s
last note in loc.

These two verses (9, 10) give a far higher idea of the future
revelation than is found in Jewish apocalyptic writings, which
deal rather with marvels than with the unveiling of spiritual
truth. See Hastings, DB. iv. pp. 186, 187; Schiirer, f.P., n.
iii. pp. 129-132; Ency. Bib. i. 210.

10. rjjuy ydp. Reason why we can utter things hidden from
eye, ear, and mind of man : Because to us God, through the
Spirit, unveiled them, or, For to us they were revealed by God
through the Spirit. The fjfuv follows hard upon and interprets
rots dyaTruio-iv avToV, just as fjfuv on TOS oxo^o/u.ej ois (i. 18) : cf.
fjfuv in i. 30 and fjpuv in ii. 7. The f^uv is in emphatic contrast
to the rulers of this world who do not know (v. 8). God
reveals His glory, through His Spirit, to those for whom it is
prepared. See note on v. 7 j also Eph. i. 14, 17 ; 2 Cor. i. 22.

If Se be read instead of yap, we must either adopt the awkward
construction of a o&lt;0aAjuos K.T.A. advocated by Evans and rejected
above, or else, with Ellicott, make 8e introduce a second and
supplementary contrast (co-ordinate with, but more general than,
that introduced by dAA.d in v. 9) to the ignorance of the
apxovTes in v. 8. On the whole, the " latent inferiority " of the
reading 8e is fairly clear.

direicdXuvl/ey. The aorist points to a definite time when the
revelation took place, viz. to the entry of the Gospel into the
world.* Compare the aorists in Col. i. 26 ; Eph. iii. 5.

TO yap weufia. Explanatory of 8ta TOV Tn/eiyAaTos. The cra&gt;o-
aevot and the dyaTroivTes TOV eoV possess the Spirit, who has, and
gives access to, the secrets of God.

epaui/a. The Alexandrian form of epcwa (T.R.). The word
does not here mean searcheth in order to know, any more than
it means this when it is said that God searches the heart of man
(Rom. viii. 27; Rev. ii. 23; Ps. cxxxix. i). It expresses "the

* Is it true that "revelation is distinguished from ordinary spiritual in
fluences by its suddenness " ? May there not be a gradual unveiling ? Revela
tion implies that, without special aid from God, the truth in question would
not have been discovered. Human ability and research would not have
sufficed.

44 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 10, U

activity of divine knowledge " (Edwards) ; or rather, it expresses
the activity of the Spirit in throwing His light upon the deep
things of God, for those in whom He dwells. Scrutatur omnta,
non quia nesaf, ut inveniat, sed quia nihil relinquit quod nesciat
(Atto). For the form see Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch.,
p. 81.

TO, j3d0T]. Cf. O /3dOo&lt;; TrXovrov Kat o-o&lt;ta9 KCU yvcotreujs eov
(Rom. xi. 33), and contrast TO. ftaOea TOV ^arava, a&gt;s Ae yovo-iv (Rev.
ii. 24).*

riiuv ydp (Band several cursives, Sah. Copt., Clem- Alex. Bas.) seems to
be preferable to i]fuv 5t (KACDEFGLP, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.,
Orig.), but the external evidence for the latter is very strong. Certainly
a.TT K d\v^ev 6 0e6s (K A B C D E F G P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is
preferable to 6 666s air. (L, Sah. Orig.). After H-rerf/uaros, K 3 D E F G L,
Vulg. Syrr. Sah. Arm. Aeth. AV. add auroO. K* A B C, Copt. RV. omit.

11. Tig yap otScf dyGpuirw. This verse, taken as a whole,
confirms the second clause of v. 10, and thereby further explains
the words Sia TOV Tn/eu/xaros. The words dvOpw-n-wv and avOpwirov,
repeated, are emphatic, the argument being a minori ad majus.
Even a human being has within him secrets of his own, which
no human being whatever can penetrate, but only his own spirit.
How much more is this true of God ! The language here
recalls PrOV. XX. 27, &lt;o&gt;s Kvpt ov TTVOT] di/0pco7rw, os epawa ra/xeta
KoiXtas. Cf. Jer. xvii. 9, 10. The question does not mean that
nothing about God can be known ; it means that what is known
is known through His Spirit (v. 10).

to. TOU di/Opcjirou. The personal memories, reflexions, motives,
etc., of any individual human being; all the thoughts of which
he is conscious (iv. 4).

TO iryeujm TOU dv0p. TO Iv UUTW. The word Trvev/xa is here used,
as in v. 5, vii. 34; 2 Cor. vii. i ; i Thess. v. 23, in the purely
psychological sense, to denote an element in the natural con
stitution of every human being. This sense, if we carefully
separate all passages where it may stand for the spirit of man as
touched by the Spirit of God, is not very frequent in Paul. See
below on v. 14 for the relation of Trvtvfjia to i/^x^.

OUTWS Kal K.T.X. It is here that the whole weight of the state
ment lies.

eyyuKei/. This seems to be purposely substituted for the
weaker and more general oTSei/. For the contrast between the
two see 2 Cor. v. 16; i John ii. 29. "The eyvwKcv seems ta
place Ta TOV eov a degree more out of reach than ol/ does TQ
TOV avOpuTrov " (Lightfoot, whose note, with its illustrations from
i John, should be consulted). This passage is a locus classicus

* Clem. Rom. (Cor. 40) has irpoSriKuv obv rifjuv &VTUV TOVTWV, KCU
s deias

II. 11, 12] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 45

for the Divinity, as Rom. viii. 26, 27 is for the Personality, of the
Holy Spirit.

el JJLTJ. But only, as in Gal. i. 7, and (probably) i. 19;
cf. ii. 1 6.

TO iri/eufjia TOU 0ou. St Paul does not add TO eV avrw, which
would have suggested a closer analogy between the relation of
man s spirit to man and that of God s Spirit to God than the
argument requires, and than the Apostle would hold to exist.

A 17, Ath. Cyr-Alex. omit avdpuiruv. F G omit the second roO av0pu-
irov. F G have tyvw, while L has oWev, for ZyvuKev (K A B C D E P,

Vulg. cognovit}.

12. rju.eis 8 See on ^/z&gt; in v. 10: we Christians.
ou TO Trveupa. TOU KOO-U,OU . . . dXXd. An interjected negative
clause, added to give more force to the positive statement that
follows, as in Rom. viii. 15. What does St Paul mean by the
spirit of the world ?

(1) Meyer, Evans, Edwards, and others understand it of
Satan, or the spirit of Satan, the KOO-/AOS being "a system of
organized evil, with its own principles and its own laws " (Evans) :
see Eph. ii. 2, vi. n; John xii. 31 ; i John iv. 3, v. 19; and
possibly 2 Cor. iv. 4. But this goes beyond the requirements of
the passage : indeed, it seems to go beyond the analogy of N.T.
language, in which KOO-^OS has not per se a bad sense. Nor is
the wisdom of the world Satanical. It is human, not divine ;
but it is evil only in so far as the flesh is sinful : i.e. it js not
inherently evil, but only when ruled by sin, instead of being
subjected to the Spirit. See Gifford s discussion of the subject
in his Comm. on Romans, viii. 15.

(2) Heinrici, Lightfoot, and others understand of the temper
of the world, "the spirit of human wisdom, of the world as
alienated from God " : non sumus instituti sapientia mundi (Est.).
On this view it is practically identical with the avOpwirivr] &lt;ro&lt;ta
of v. 13, and homogeneous with the ^poV^/xa TT}S o-ap/&lt;os of Rom.
viii. 6, 7 : indeed, it may be said to be identical with it in
substance, though not in aspect. In both places in this verse,
therefore, Trvefyux would be impersonal, and almost attributive, as
in Rom. viii. 15; but there the absence of the article makes a
difference. Compare the 7n/et)/&gt;ta cTepov o OUK eAa/fere in 2 Cor.
xi. 4. On the whole, this second explanation of the spirit of
the world seems to be the better.

eXdpofjLey. Like a.7rKd\v\f/v (v. 10), this aorist refers to a
definite time when the gift was received. " St Paul regards the
gift as ideally summed up when he and they were ideally included
in the Christian Church, though it is true that the Spirit is
received constantly" (Lightfoot). Cf. xii. 13.

46 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [H. 12, 13

TO weujia TO eic TOU OeoG. The gift rather than the Person ol
the Spirit, although here, as not infrequently in Paul, the dis
tinction between the Personal Spirit of God (v. n), dwelling in
man (Rom. viii. n), and the spirit (in the sense of the higher
element of man s nature), inhabited and quickened by the Holy
Spirit, is subtle and difficult to fix with accuracy. The Person is
in the gift, and the activity of the recipient is the work of the
Divine Indweller.

Iva, t8wp.K. This is the result to which w. 10-12 lead up.
The words reproduce, under a different aspect, the thought in
rjfMv aTrcKd\v\l/v o eos, and give the foundation for v. 13, a /cat
XaXov/xev.

TCI . . . xoLpwrQlvra, TJ|UUI&gt;. The same blessings appear suc
cessively as Soai/ fjfjiwv (v. 7), ocra fjTOifJLacrev K.T.X. (v. 9), and Ta
Xapio-fleVra (v. 12). The last perhaps includes " a little more of
present reference " (Ellicott). The connexion of thought in the
passage may be shown by treating vv. n and 12 as expanding
the thought of v. 10 into a kind of syllogism; major premiss,
None knows the things of God, but only the Spirit of God;
minor premiss, We received the Spirit which is of God; con
clusion, So that we know what is given us by God. The
possession of the gift of the Spirit of God is a sort of middle
term which enables the Apostle to claim the power to know, and
to utter, the deep things of God.

After roO K6a/j.ov ) D E F G, Vulg. Copt. Arm. add Totrov. K A B C L P,
Syrr. Aeth. omit.

13. d Kal XaXoGjxev. This is the dominant verb of the whole
passage (vv. 6, 7 : see notes on fjv, v. 8, a and oo-ct, v. 9). The
KCU emphasizes the justification, furnished by the preceding
verses, for the claim made ; * Which are the very things that we
do utter. The present passage is the personal application of
the foregoing, as vv. 1-5 are of i. 18-31.

SiSaKTots dKGpamivTjs o-ocfuas. Taught by man s wisdom.
We have similar genitives in John vi. 45, SiSa/cro! eov, and in
Matt. xxv. 34, evAoyr^eVoi TOV Trarpos. In class. Grk. the con
struction is found only in poets ; /caV^s SiSaKra (Soph. Elect. 343),
SiScucTat? av6p(!)7r&lt;DV dperats (Pind. Ol. ix. 152). Cf. i. 17.

SiSaicTois -nreujjiaTos. See on v. 4, where, as here and i Thess.
i. 5, 7rkevju,a has no article. The Apostle is not claiming verbal
inspiration ; but verba rem sequuntur (Wetstein). Cf. Luke xxi.
15 ; Jer. i. 9. Sapientia est scaturigo sermonum (Beng.). Bentley,
Kuenen, etc. conjecture ev dSiSa/cTois Trvev/xaTos.

nveufAoriKoIs TTreujAcmica avvKpivovres. Two questions arise
here, on the answer to which the interpretation of the words
depends, the gender of wev/AaTiKots, and the meaning of o-w-

H. 13] THE FALSE WISDOM AND THE TRUE 47

*pu/c,v. The latter is used by St Paul only here and 2 Cor. x. 12,
where it means to compare. This is a late use, frequent from
Aristotle onwards, but out of place here, although adopted in
both AV. and RV. text. Its classical meaning is to join
fitly, compound, combine (RV. marg.). In the LXX it has
the meaning to interpret, but only in the case of dreams
(Gen. xl. 8, 16, 22, xli. 12, 15; Judg. vii. 15; Dan. v. 12,
vii. 15, 1 6). We have, therefore, the following possibilities to
consider :

(1) Taking Trvev/xaTtKois as neuter; either,

(a) Combining spiritual things (the words) with spiritual

things (the subject matter) ; or,
(/?) Interpreting (explaining) spiritual things by spiritual

things.

This (ft) may be understood in a variety of ways ;
Interpreting O.T. types by N.T. doctrines.
Interpreting spiritual truths by spiritual language.
Interpreting spiritual truths by spiritual faculties.
Of these three, the first is very improbable; the third is
substantially the explanation adopted by Luther; und richten
geistliche Sachen geistlich.

(2) Taking Tri/ev/xaTi/cot? as masculine ; either,

(y) Suiting (matching) spiritual matter to spiritual

hearers; or,
(8) Interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual hearers.

In favour of taking Trj/ev/xartKois as neuter may be urged the
superior epigrammatic point of keeping the same gender for both
terms, and the naturalness of TrvevjuariKots being brought into
close relation with the &lt;rw- in o-vj//c/oiVoj/res. These considera
tions are of weight, and the resultant sense is good and relevant,
whether we adopt (a) or the third form of (/?). As Theodore
of MopSUCStia puts it, 810, TWV TOV Tn/ev/xaros a7roSei ea&gt;j/ TTJV TOU
Trvev/xaros SiSaavcaAiav Trtorrov/xe^a.

On the other hand, in favour of taking irvevfjiaTiKOLs as mascu
line, there is its markedly emphatic position, as if to prepare the
way for the contrast with ^U^IKOS which immediately follows, and
which now becomes the Apostle s main thought. This considera
tion perhaps turns the scale in favour of taking Trvcv/xaTiKois as
spiritual persons? Of the two explanations under this head, one
would unhesitatingly prefer (8), were not the use of awKpiveiv in
the sense of interpret confined elsewhere to the case of dreams.
This objection is not fatal, but it is enough to leave us in doubt
whether St Paul had this meaning in his mind. The other
alternative (y) has the advantage of being a little less remote
from the Apostle s only other use of the word. In either case,
taking irv. as masculine, we have the Apostle coming back " full

48 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 13, 14

circle " to the thought of v. 6, ev rots reAei ois, which now receives
its necessary justification.

Before concluding the discussion of the true wisdom, the
Apostle glances at those who are, and those who are not, fitted
to receive it.

After Tr^aros, D 3 E L P, Aeth. AV. add aytov. X A B C D* F G 17,
Vulg. RV. omit.

H. 14-111. 4. THE SPIRITUAL AND THE ANIMAL
CHARACTERS.

Only the spiritual man can receive the true wisdom.
You CorintJdans cannot receive it, for your dissensions show
that you are not spiritual.

14 Now the man whose interests are purely material has no
mind to receive what the Spirit of God has to impart to him : it
is all foolishness to him, and he is incapable of understanding it,
because it requires a spiritual eye to see its true value. 15 But
the spiritual man sees the true value of everything, yet his own
true value is seen by no one who is not spiritual like himself.
16 For what human being ever knew the thoughts of the Lord
God, so as to be able to instruct and guide Him ? But those of
us who are spiritual do share the thoughts of Christ.

iii. 1 And I, Brothers, acting on this principle, have not been
able to treat you as spiritual persons, but as mere creatures of
flesh and blood, as still only babes in the Christian course.
2 1 gave you quite elementary teaching, and not the more solid
truths of the Gospel, for these ye were not yet strong enough
to digest. 3 So far from being so then, not even now are ye
strong enough, for ye are still mere beginners. For so long as
jealousy and contention prevail among you, are you not mere
tyros, behaving no better than the mass of mankind ? 4 For
when one cries, I for my part stand by Paul, and another, I by
Apollos, are you anything better than men who are still
uninfluenced by the Spirit of God?

14. \|/UXIKOS &e a^Opwiros. This is in sharpest contrast to
Trveu/xart/cots (v. 13), for i/a&gt;xi/&lt;o s means animal (animalis homo,
Vulg.) in the etymological sense, and nearly so in the ordinary
sense : see xv. 44, 46 ; Jas. iii. 1 5 ; Jude 1 9 (I/O^IKOI irvcv/xa OVK

II. 14, 15] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 49

The term is not necessarily based upon a supposed
1 trichotomous psychology, as inferred by Apollinaris and others
from TO TrvVfj.a Ka.1 17 ^v^r) KOL TO cr6j/xa in Thess. v. 23 (see
Lightfoot s note). It is based rather upon the conception of
\lrvxn as the mere correlative of organic life. Aristotle defines it
as Trpwrry evreXe^eta crw/xaros &lt;VCTIKOV opyaviKOv. In man, this
comprises m/eC/wi in the merely psychological sense (note on
v. u), but not necessarily in the sense referred to above (note
on v. 12). See, however, v. 5; Phil. i. 27 ; Eph. vi. 17; Col.
iii. 23 ; i Pet. iv. 6. In Luke i. 46, 1/^77 and 7n/ev//,a seem to be
synonymous. The \jruxi ranges with vovs (Rom. vii. 23, 35 ;
Col. ii. 1 8), in one sense contrasted with &lt;ra p, but like o-dp in
its inability to rise to practical godliness, unless aided by the
7rve{5/ia. We may say that i/or^ is the energy or correlative
Of crap.

Although, therefore, \l/vxn is not used in N.T. in a bad sense,
to distinguish the animal from the spiritual principle in the
human soul, yet I/O^IKOS is used of a man whose motives do not
rise above the level of mereiv human needs and aspirations.
The if/vxLKos is the unrenewed man, the natural man
(AV., RV.), as distinct from the man who is actuated by the
Spirit. The word is thus practically another name for the
o-ap/a/co q (iii. i, 3). See J. A. F. Gregg on Wisd. ix. 15.

ou Several. Not is incapable of receiving/ but does not
accept, i.e. he rejects, refuses. Aexco-0at= to accept, to take
willingly (2 Cor. viii. 17 ; i Thess. i. 6, etc.).

on iri/eufxaTiKws draKpiVerai. The nature of the process is
beyond him ; it requires characteristics which he does not
possess. The verb is used frequently by St Paul in this
Epistle, but not elsewhere. It is one of the 103 N.T. words
which are found only in Paul and Luke (Hawkins, Hor. Syn.
p 190). Here it means judge of, sift, as in Acts xvii. n of
the liberal-minded Beroeans, who sifted the Scriptures, to get at
the truth : Dan. Sus. 13, 48, 51.

15. 6 8e ir^eufjiaTtKos. The man in whom Tri/ev/xa has its
rightful predominance, which it gains by being informed by, and
united with, the Spirit of God, and in no other way. Man as
man is a spiritual being, but only some men are actually
spirit aal ; just as man is a rational being, but only some men are
actually rational. Natural capacity and actual realization are
not the same thing.

dmKpiVei fxey Trdrra. He judges of everything, sifts every-

* Cf. Juvenal (xv. I47f.)&gt; Mundi Principio induhit communis conditor
Hits Tantum ammas, nobis animum qitoqut. See Chadwick, Pastoral J^each-
in S&gt; P- 153-

50 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [II. 15, 16

thing, i Thess. v. 21 ; Phil. i. 10; contrast Rom. ii. 18. The
whole Epistle exemplifies this principle in St Paul s person (vii. 25,
viii. i, x. 14, xi. i, etc.). Aristotle, in defining virtue, comes back
to the judgment formed by the mature character : ws av 6 &lt;p6Vi/xos
optWev (Eth. Nic. ii. vi. 15). Judgeth (AV., RV.) does not
luite give the meaning of what is expressed here : examines is
nearer to it.

auros 8e UTT ovSei/os dmKpiyerai. This perhaps means by no
non-spiritual person (cf. i John iv. i). It does not mean that
the spiritual man is above criticism (iv. 3, 4, xiv. 32 ; Rom.
xiv. 4). St Paul is not asserting the principle of Protagoras,
that the individual judgment is for each man the criterion of
truth \ TTOVTUV /xerpov avOpwTros, TWV /xev ovrtov ws OTTI rwi/ Se pr)
OVTOIV ws OVK eo-rt. He is asserting, with Bishop Butler, the
supremacy of conscience, and the right and duty of personal
judgment. But it is the spiritual man who has this vantage-
ground. The text has been perverted in more than one
direction ; on the one hand, as an excuse for the licence of
persons whose conduct has stamped them as unspiritual, e.g. the
Anabaptists of Minister; on the other, as a ground for the
irresponsibility of ecclesiastical despotism in the mediaeval
Papacy, e.g. by Boniface vm. in the Bull Unam sanctam, and by
Cornelius a Lapide on this passage. The principle laid down bv
St Paul gives no support to either anarchy or tyranny ; it is the
very basis of lawful authority, both civil and religious; all the
more so, because it supplies the principle of authority with the
necessary corrective.

&vaKpLvrai. l Is judged of, * subjected to examination.
See on iv. 3, 4, 5, ix. 3, x. 25, 27 ; also on Luke xxiii. 14. Ava-
Kpns(Acts xxv. 26) was a legal term at Athens tor a preliminary
investigation, preparatory to the actual /cpio-ts, which for St
Paul would have its analogue in the day (iv. 5). Lightfoot
gives examples of the way in which the Apostle delights to
accumulate compounds of /cpiVa&gt; (iv. 3, vi. 1-6, xi. 29-32 ; 2 Cor.
x. 12 ; Rom. ii. i). By playing on words he sometimes
illuminates great truths or important personal experiences.

K* omits the whole of this verse. A C D* F G omit yv after dvaKplvei.
irdvTa (K 1 B D 2 E F G L) is to be preferred to TCL irdvTa (A C D* P).

16. TIS y^P eyvw. Proof of what has just been claimed for
the TTvcvfjiaTLKos i he has direct converse with a source of light
which is not to be superseded by any merely external norm.
The quotation (rts . . . avrov) is from the LXX of Isa. xl. 13,
adapted by the omission of the middle clause, /ecu rt? avrov
a-vvpovXos iyt.vf.ro ; This clause is retained in Rom. xi. 34, while
os ow/^ao-ei avrov is omitted. The aorist (lyi/w) belongs to

II. 16-HI. 4] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 51

the quotation, and must not be pressed as having any special
force here ; hath known (AV., RV.). On the other hand, the
immediate transition from vovv Kvptov to vow Xpicrrov as equivalent
is full of deep significance. Cf. Wisd. ix. 13 ; Ecclus. i. 6 ;
Job xxxvi. 22, 23, 26; and see on Rom. x. 12, 13.

vouv Kupi ou. The vovv (LXX) corresponds to the Hebrew
for 7rveu//.a in the original. In God, vovs and Trvev/jia are identical
(see, as to man, on v. 14), but not in aspect, vovs being suitable
to denote the Divine knowledge or counsel, Trvev/xa the Divine
action, either in creation or in grace.

os ffuy|3i|3acrei auToV. The relative refers to o-vvfiovXos in Isa.
xl. 13. As St Paul omits the clause containing o-w/:?ovAos, the
os is left without any proper construction. But it finds a kind
of antecedent in TIS ; * Who hath known . . . that he should
instruct (RV.). 2w/3t/3aeiv occurs several times in N.T. in its
classical meanings of join together, conclude, prove ; but in
Biblical Greek, though not in classical, it has also the meaning
of instruct. Thus in Acts xix. 33, where the true reading
(K A B E) seems to be &lt;rvvc(3i/3acra.v AAe avS/oov, Alexander is
primed with a defence of the Jews, for which he cannot get a
hearing. This meaning of instruct is frequent in LXX. In
class. Grk. we should have eV/3i/3aeu/.

TQfxeis 8e vouv Xpio-ToO \o^.ev. We have this by the agency of
the Spirit of God ; and the mind of the Spirit of God is known
to the Searcher of hearts (Rom. viii. 27). The mind of Christ
is the correlative of His Spirit, which is the Spirit of God (Rom.
viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6), and this mind belongs to those who are His by
virtue of their vital union with Him (Gal. ii. 20, 21, iii. 27 ; Phil.
i. 8; Rom. xiii. 14). The thought is that of v. 12 in another
form : see also vii. 40 ; and 2 Cor. xiii. 3, TOV ev e/xot AaAoiWos
Xpto-rov. The emphatic ^/xets (see on i. 18, 23, 30, ii. 10, 12)
serves to associate all Tri/cu/mri/coi with the Apostle, and also all
his readers, so far as they are, as they ought to be, among 01
(i. 1 8).

We ought probably to prefer Xpiorov (N A C D 3 E L P, Vulg. Syrr. Copt.
Arm., Grig.) to Kvpiov (B D* F G, Aug. Ambrst.). X/HcrroO would be
likely to be altered to conform with the previous Kvpiov.

III. 1-4. In following to its application his contrast between
the spiritual and the animal character, the Apostle is led back to
his main subject, the (rxwr/xaTa. These dissensions show which
type of character predominates among his readers. The passage
corresponds to ii. 13 (see note there), and forms its negative
counterpart, prepared for by the contrast (ii. 13-16) between the
spiritual and the animal man.

52 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [III. 1, 2

oj, d8e\&lt;f&gt;oi. See on i. 10 and ii. i.

ws ir^eu/xaTiKoi?. Ideally, all Christians are Trvev/xaTt/cot (xii. 3,
13 ; Gal. iv. 3-7) : but by no means all the Corinthians were such
in fact.* Along with the heathen, they are in the category of
i/ruXiKoi or o-ap/a/coi, but they are not on a level with the heathen.
They are babes in character, but babes in Christ ; and, apart
from the special matters for blame, there are many healthy
features in their condition (i. 4-9, xi. 2).

dXV ws aapKivois. The word is chosen deliberately, and it
expresses a shade of meaning different from o-ap/a/cos, placing the
state of the Corinthians under a distinct aspect. The termination
-tvos denotes a material relation, while -t/cos denotes an ethical or
dynamic relation, to the idea involved in the root. In 2 Cor.
iii. 3 the tables are made of stone, the hearts are made of flesh
(see note on dv$pu&gt;7ri/os, iv. 3). Accordingly, &lt;rap/aVos means of
flesh and blood, what a man cannot help being, but a state to
be subordinated to the higher law of the Spirit, and enriched and
elevated by it. We are all o-ap&gt;aVoi (u&gt; tV o-ap/a, Gal. ii. 20), but
we are not to live Kara crrfp/ca (xv. 50; Rom. viii. 12 ; 2 Cor.
x. 2, 3). The state of the vrJTrios is not culpable in itself, but it
becomes culpable if unduly prolonged (xiii. 1 1, xiv. 20).

There are two other views respecting o-ap/aVos which may be
mentioned, but seem to be alien to the sense. Meyer holds that
the word means wholly of flesh/ without any influence of the
spirit (John iii. 6). In the o-ap*iKos, although the flesh still has
the upper hand, yet there is some counteracting influence of the
spirit. This view makes the state of the o-ap/ct/&lt;o? an advance
upon that of the o-ap/aVos, and is really an inversion of the true
sense. Evans regards o-apKtVo? as a term free from any reproach.
It is " the first moral state after conversion, in a figure borrowed
from an infant, which to outward view is little more than a living
lump of dimpled flesh, with few signs of intelligence." This is
an exaggeration of the true sense. Cf. Arist. Eth. Nic. m. ix. 2.

&lt;rapKlvois (K ABC*D* 17) is the original reading, of which &lt;ra/&gt;/a/coij
(D 8 E F G L P) is obviously a correction.

2. y6\a, ufxdg eiroTio-a, ou jSpwjxa. Cf. Heb. V. 1 2, where (rrcpea
Tpo&lt;&gt;7 takes the place of /?po&gt;//,a. The verb governs both sub
stantives by a very natural zeugma : it takes a double accusative,
and the passive has the accusative of the thing (xii. 13). The yaXa
is described ii. 2, the ^pw/xa, ii. 6-13, and the distinction corre
sponds to the method necessarily adopted by every skilful teacher.
The wise teacher proves himself to be such by his ability to
impart, in the most elementary grade, what is really fundamental

* Cf. yevw/j-eda TTvev/MtTLKot, yei&gt;d&gt;/Jicda vabs rAetos ry Oey (Ep. of Barn.
iv. ii), a possible reminiscence of this and v. 16.

IIL 2, 3] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 53

and educative what is simple, and yet gives insight into the full
instruction that is to follow. The milk, or 6 TT}S dpx*?* rov
XpurTot) Aoyos (Heb. vi. i), would be more practical than doctrinal
(as ii. 2), and would tell of temperance and righteousness and
judgment to come before communicating the foundation-truths
as to the person and work of Christ. Christ Himself begins in
this way; Thou knowest the commandments ; Repent ye, for
the kingdom of God is at hand. The metaphor was current
among the Rabbis, and occurs in Philo (see Lightfoot s note).
The aorist eTrdYicra refers to a definite period, evidently that
which began with the rj\6ov of ii. i, viz. the eighteen months of
Acts xviii. ii.

ouirw yap eSuVaafle. For ye had not yet the power. The
verb is used absolutely, as in x. 13.* This use is not rare in
LXX, and is found in Plato, Xenophon, etc. The tense indi
cates a process. This process was one of growth, but the growth
was too slow.

D E F G L, Arm. Aeth. AV. insert xa.1 before ov pp&na. K A B C P,
Vulg. Copt. RV. omit.

3. dXX ouSe en vuv 8uyaa0. The new verse (but hardly a
new paragraph) should begin here (WH.). B omits I, but the
omission may be accidental. It adds force to the rebuke, but
for that reason might have been inserted. The external evidence
justifies its retention. The dAXa has its strongest ascensive
force ; * Nay, but not yet even now have ye the power (vi. 8 ;
2 Cor. i. 9 ; Gal. ii. 3). The impression made by this passage,
especially when combined with w. 6, 10, ii. i, and d/couVrat in
v. i, is that St Paul had as yet paid only one visit to Corinth.
The apTL in xvi. 7 does not necessarily suggest a hasty visit
already paid. The second visit of a painful character, which
seems to be implied in 2 Cor. xiii., may have been paid after this
letter was written. Those who think it was paid before this letter,
explain the silence about it throughout this letter by supposing
that it was not only painful, but very short.

oirou yap iv UJAII/. The adverb of place acquires the force of
a conditional particle in classical authors as here : cf. Clem.
Rom. Cor. 43. In Tudor English, where is sometimes used for
whereas. But here the notion of place, corresponding to ev
vplv, is not quite lost ; seeing that envy and strife find place
among; you. Cf. Ivi in Gal. iii. 28.

T)\OS Kal e pis. Strife is the outward result of envious feeling :
Gal. v. 20; Clem. Rom. Cor. 3. There is place in Christian
ethics for honourable emulation (Gal. iv. 18), but }Aos without

* Irenaeus (IV. xxxviii. 2) has ov5 ya.^ ydtivaffde paardfeiv (from John
xvi. 12), and his translator has nondum cnim potcratis escam perctpere.

54 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 3, 4

qualification, though ranked high by Aristotle* (Rhet. ii. n),
is placed by the Apostle among works of the flesh. Lightfoot
gives other instances of differences in estimation between heathen
and Christian ethics.

ou)(t o-apKiKoi eo-Tc ; See above on o-apKiWt, and cf. ix. 1 1 ]
Rom. xv. 27. Here, as in 2 Cor. i. 12, crap/a^oi means con
formable to and governed by the flesh, actuated by low motives,
above which they ought by this time to have risen.

Kara civQpuTrov irepnraTeiTe. Walk on a merely human level
(xv. 32; Gal. .i. n, iii. 15; Rom. iii. 5): contrast Kara eov
(2 Cor. vii. 9-1 1 ; Rom. viii. 27). This level cannot be dis
tinguished from that of the I/O^IKOS avOpuTros (ii. 14). nepiTrareu/,
of manner of life, is frequent in Paul and 2 and 3 John, while
other writers more often have di/ao-Tpe &lt;/&gt;eu/ and dvao-rpo(/j : cf.
6pOoSo7rovv (Gal. ii. 14), TropevecrOaL (Luke i. 6, viii. 14) and see
vii. 17. Cf. Jn. xii. 35.

D* F G have crapKlvoi for vapKiKol. D E F G L, Syrr. AV. add KCL]
Sixoffraa-iai after fyus. K A B C P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. RV. omit.
See Iren. IV. xxxviii. 2.

4. OTO.V yap Xe yir] TI. For whenever one saith : each such
utterance is one more verification (yap) of the indictment.t Cf.
the construction in xv. 27.

eyou jaeV . . . erepos 8e. The /*ei/ and the Se correspond logi
cally, although not grammatically. St Paul mentions only himself
and Apollos by name (cf. iv. 6), because he can less invidiously
use these names as the point of departure for the coming analysis
of the conception of the Christian Pastorate (iii. 5~iv. 5).

OUK ayOpw-iroi care; Are ye not mere human creatures?
They did not rise above a purely human level. The expression
is the negative equivalent of o-apKwcoi in the parallel clause,
negative, because implying the lack, not only of spirituality, but
even of manliness. The lack of spirituality is implied in the
whole context, the lack of manliness in the word itself, which
classical writers contrast with avrjp. In xvi. 13 this contrast is
implied in di/Spi^eo-fle. See Ps. xlix. 2 and Isa. ii. 9 for a similar
contrast in Hebrew. The Corinthians were avOpw-n-oL in failing to
rise to the higher range of motives ; and they were o-ap/a/cot in

* He contrasts it with envy, which is always bad and springs from a mean
character ; whereas the man who is moved by emulation is conscious of being
capable of higher things. Wetstein distinguishes thus ; 77X05 cogitatione,
(pis verbis, Si-x.ovTa.alau opere.

t Abbott renders, * In the very moment of saying ; by uttering a party-
cry he stamps himself as carnal ; so also in xiv. 26 (Johan. Gr. 2534). There
is here nothing inconsistent with i. 5-7. There he thanks God for the gifts
with which He had enriched the Corinthians. Here he blames them for the
poor results.

HE. 4] SPIRITUAL AND ANIMAL CHARACTERS 55

allowing themselves to be swayed by the lower range, a range
which they ought (In ydp) to have left behind as a relic of
heathenism (vi. u, xii. 2).

" In all periods of great social activity, when society becomes
observant of its own progress, there is a tendency to exalt the
persons and means by which it progresses. Hence, in turn,
kings, statesmen, parliaments, and then education, science,
machinery and the press, have had their hero-worship. Here,
at Corinth, was a new phase, * minister-worship. No marvel,
in an age when the mere political progress of the Race was felt
to be inferior to the spiritual salvation of the Individual, and to
the purification of the Society, that ministers, the particular
organs by which this was carried on, should assume in men s
eyes peculiar importance, and the special gifts of Paul or Apollos
be extravagantly honoured. No marvel either, that round the
more prominent of these, partizans should gather" (F. W.
Robertson). Origen says that, if the partizans of Paul or
Apollos are mere avflpcoTroi, then, if you are a partizan of some
vastly inferior person, BrjXov on owen ovSe avflpwTros ei, dXXa KOI
Xftpov r\ avtfpwTros. You may perhaps be addressed as yewTJ/xara
e xioVaji/, if you have such base preferences. Bachmann remarks
that, although the present generation has centuries of Christian
experience behind it, it can often be as capricious, one-sided,
wrong-headed, and petty as any Corinthians in its judgments on
its spiritual teachers and their utterances.

We should read OVK (K* ABC 17) rather than the more emphatic, and
in this Epistle specially common oi/xl (D E F G L P), which is genuine in
v. 3, i. 20, v. 12, vi. 7, etc. And we should read frvdpuiroi (K* A B C D E F G
17, Vulg. Copt. Aeth. RV.) rather than vapiciKol (K 3 LP, Syrr. AV.).
i (iv. 3, x. 13) is pure conjecture.

We now reach another main section of this sub-division
(i. lo-iv. 21) of the First Part (i. lo-vi. 20) of the Epistle.
St Paul has hitherto (i. i7~iii. 4) been dealing with the false and
the true conception of o-o^ta, in relation to Christian Teaching.
He now passes to the Teacher.

HI. 5-IV. 21. THE TRITE CONCEPTION OF THE
CHRISTIAN PASTORATE.

(i.) General Definition (iii. 5-9).
(ii.) The Builders (iii. 10-15).
(iii.) The Temple (iii. 16, 17).

(iv.) Warning against a mere human estimate of the Pastora 1
Office (iii. i8-iv, 5).

56 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [III. 5

Personal Application of the foregoing, and Conclusion of the
subject of the Dissensions (iv. 6-21).

III. 5-9. General Definition of the Christian Pastorate.

Teachers are mere instruments in the hands of God, who
alone produces the good results.

5 What is there really in either Apollos or me ? We are not
heads of parties, and we are not the authors or the objects of
your faith. We are just servants, through whose instrumentality
you received the faith, according to the grace which the Lord
gave to each of you. 6 It was my work to plant the faith in you,
Apollos nourished it; but it was God who, all the time, was
causing it to grow. 7 So then, neither the planter counts for
anything at all, nor the nourisher, but only He who caused it to
grow, viz. God. 8 Now the planter and the nourisher are in one
class, equals in aim and spirit ; and yet each will receive his own
special wage according to his own special responsibility and toil.
9 God is the other class ; for it is God who allows us a share in
His work ; it is God s field (as we have seen) that ye are ; it is
God s building (as we shall now see) that ye are.

The Apostle has shown that the dissensions are rooted, first)v,
in a misconception of the Gospel message, akin, in most cases,
to that of the Greeks, who seek wisdom in the low sense of clever
ness, and akin, in other cases, to that of the Jews, who are
ever seeking for a sign. He goes on to trace the dissensions
to a second cause, viz. a perverted view of the office and function
of the Christian ministry. First, however, he lays down the true
character of that ministry.

6. TI oui&gt; ecruy; A question, Socratic in form, leading up
naturally to a definition, and thus checking shallow conceit
(v. 1 8, iv. 6) by probing the idea underlying its glib use of words.
What is Apollos ? i.e. What is his essential office and function ?
How is he to be accounted of? (iv. i). The two names are
mentioned three times, and each time the order is changed,
perhaps intentionally, to lead up to li/ ciViv (v. 8). The ovv
follows naturally upon the mention of Apollos in v. 4, but
marks also a transition to a question raised by the whole matter
under discussion, a new question, and a question of the first
rank.

The word is used here in its primary and general

5-7] CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIAN PASTORATE 57

sense of servant. * It connotes active service (see note on
vTTTypeVr?? in iv. i) and is probably from a root akin to SIWKW (cf.
pursuivant ). See Hort, Christian Ecclesia, pp. 202 f.

81 &v emoreuaciTe. Per quos, non in quos (Beng.). The aorist
points back to the time of their conversion (cf. xv. 2 ; Rom. xiii.
n), but it sums up their whole career as Christians.

KCU CKCIOTW ws 6 Ku pios eSuKec. As in vii. 17 ; Rom. xii. 3.
The construction is condensed for eKao-ros u&gt;s 6 K. e Sw/cev avro~
It may be understood either of the measure of faith given by the
Lord to each believer, or of the measure of success granted by Him
to each Sta/coi/os. Rom. xii. 3 favours the former, but perhaps
6 eos yvgavtv favours the latter. We have eKacrros five times in
vv - 5~ : 3- God deals separately with each individual soul: cf.
iv. 5, vii. 17, 20, 24, xii. 7, n. And whatever success there is
to receive a reward (v. 8) is really His ; Dens coronat dona sua,
non merita nostra (Augustine). It is clear from the frequent
mention of eos in what follows that 6 Kv/otos means God, and it
seems to be in marked antithesis to

We should read T L in both places (K* A B 17, Vulg. d e f g Aeth. RV.),
rather than rts (C D E F G L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. AV. ). D- L, Syrr. Arm.
Aeth. place IlaOXos first and ATroXAws second, an obvious correction, to
agree with vv. 4 and 6. D E F G L, Vulg. Arm. Copt, omit tanv after
T. 5t. D 2 L P, Syrr. AV. insert d\\* ij before Sidjcow. K A B C D* E F G,
Vulg. Copt. Arm. RV. omit.

8. e yoj ({&gt;uTeucra K.T.\. St Paul expands the previous state
ment. .Kaith, whether initial or progressive, is the work of God
alone, although He uses men as His instruments. Note
the significant change from aorists to imperfect. The aorists
sum up, as wholes, the initial work of Paul (Acts xviii. 1-18) and
the fostering ministry of Apollos (Acts xviii. 24-xix. i): the
imperfect indicates what was going on throughout , God was all
along causing the increase (Acts xiv. 27, xvi. 14).! Sine hoc
incremento granum a primo sationis momento esset instar lapilli :
ex incremento statim fides germinat (Beng.). See Chad wick,
Pastoral Teaching, p. 183.

7. eorii TI. * Is something, est aliquid, Vulg. (cf. Acts v. 36 ;
Gal. ii. 6, vi. 3) ; so Evans ; quiddam, atque adeo, quia solus, omnia
(Beng.). Or, eWi/n, is anything (AV., RV.).

Nos mercenarii sumus, alienis ferramentis operamur, nihil
debetur nobis, nisi merces laboris nostri, quia de accepto talento
operamur (Primasius).

* " There is no evidence that at this time SiaKovia or diaKovelv had an
exclusively official sense" (Westcott on Eph. iv. 12) ; cf. Ileb. vi. 10.

t Latin and English Versions ignore the change of tense ; and the difference
between human activities, which come and go, and divine action, which goes
on for ever, is lost.

58 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [HI. 8, 9

o\X" 6 av^dvuv 0e6. The strongly adversative aXXd implies
the opposite of what has just been stated ; but God who giveth
the increase is everything? See on vii. 19, and cf. Gal. vi. 15.
To refer iiroTicrev and 6 TTOTI^WV to Baptism, as some of the
Fathers do, is to exhibit a strange misappreciation of the con
text. See Lightfoot s note, cos is placed last with emphasis ;
but the giver of the increase God.

lv elo-iy. Are in one category, as fellow-workers; conse
quently it is monstrous to set them against one another as rivals.
As contrasted with God, they are all of one value, just nothing.
But that does not mean that each, when compared with the other,
is exactly equal in His sight. The other side of the truth is
introduced with Se.

IKCUTTOS 8e. * Yet each has his own responsibility and work,
and each shall receive his proper reward. The repeated tStov
marks the separate responsibility, correcting a possible misappre
hension of the meaning of *v : congrucns iteratio^ antitheton ad
l unum (Beng.). The latter point is drawn out more fully in
w. 10 f.

9. 0eoG ydp. The yap refers to the first half, not the second,
of v. 8. The workers are in one category, because they are eov
crwepyoc. The verse contains the dominant thought of the whole
passage, gathering up the gist of vv. 5-7. Hence the emphatic
threefold eov. The Gospel is the power of God (i. 18), and
those who are entrusted with it are to be thought of, not as rival
members of a rhetorical profession, but as bearers of a divine
message charged with divine power.

0eoG o-ui/epyoi. This remarkable expression occurs nowhere else:
the nearest to it is 2 Cor. vi. i ; the true text of i Thess. Hi. 2
is probably SKXKOVOV, not a-wtpyov.* It is not quite clear what
it means. Either, fellow-workers with one another in God s
service ; or, fellow-workers with God. Evans decides for the
former, because " the logic of the sentence loudly demands it."
So also Heinrici and others. But although God does all, yet
human instrumentality in a sense co-operates (oVa eTro^o-ev 6 eos
per avrwv, Acts xiv. 27), and St Paul admits this aspect of the
matter in 17 x-P L&lt;s T0 ^ 60 ^ r ^ v */ xot/ &gt; xv&gt; I0 &gt; an( ^ * n ^wepyoiWes,
2 Cor. vi. i. This seems to turn the scale in favour of the more
simple and natural translation, fellow-workers with God. f
Compare TOVS crwepyovs /xov eV Xptcrro) Iryo-ov (Rom. xvi. 3), which

* In LXX ffvvepy6s is very rare ; 2 Mac. viii. 7, xiv. 5, of favourable
opportunities.

f Dei enim sumus adjutorcs (Vulg.); Etenim Dei sumus administri (Bzza.);
Dcnn wir sind GotUs Mitarbeiter (Luth.). In such constructions, &lt;rvv&lt;uy-
naXbirbs fJ-QVy &lt;rvv5ov\oi avrov, crvt&gt;{K5r)fj.os ^/xcDv, the ffvv- commonly refers to the
person in the genitive : but see ix. 23.

III. 9] CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIAN PASTORATE 59

appears to show how St Paul would have expressed the former
meaning, had he meant it

0oG yewpyioy, 0eou oUoSop^. The one metaphor has been
employed in vv. 6-8, the other is to be developed in w. 10 f.
St Paul uses three metaphors to express the respective relations
of himself and of other teachers to the Corinthian Church. He
is planter (6), founder (10), and father (iv. 15). Apollos and the
rest are waterers, after-builders, and tutors. The metaphor of
building is a favourite one with the Apostle. On the different
meanings of ot/coSo/&gt;oj, which correspond fairly closely to the
different meanings of building, see J. A. Robinson, Ephesians,
pp. 70, 164: it occurs often in the Pauline Epistles, especially in
the sense of edification, a sense which Lightfoot traces to the
Apostle s metaphor of the building of the Church. Here it is
fairly certain that yecopytov does not mean the tilled land (RV.
marg.), but the husbandry (AV., RV.) or tillage (AV. marg.)
that results in tilled land, and that therefore ot/coSo//.?; does not
mean the edifice, but the building-process which results in an
edifice. The word yewpyiov is rather frequent in Proverbs ;
elsewhere in LXX it is rare, and it is found nowhere else in N.T.
In the Greek addition to what is said about the ant (Prov. vi. 7)
we are told that it is without its knowing anything of tillage
(e/ceiVa&gt; ycwpyi ou prj i&gt;7rapxvTos) that it provides its food in
summer. Again, in the Greek addition to the aphorisms on a
foolish man (Prov. ix. 12), we are told that he wanders from the
tracks Of his own husbandry (rovs aoms rov tStov yecopytov 7re7rA.a-
vr/rcu). In Ecclus. xxvii. 6 it is said that the c cultivation of a
tree (yewpyiov v\ov) is shown by its fruit. The meaning here,
therefore, is that the Corinthians exhibit God s operations in
spiritual husbandry and spiritual architecture; Dei agricultura
estis, Dei aedificatio estis (Vulg.).* It is chiefly in i and 2 Cor.,
Rom., and Eph. that the metaphor of building is found. See
also Acts ix. 31, xx. 32 ; Jude 20; i Pet. ii. 5, with Hort s note
on the last passage. In Jer. xviii. 9, xxiv. 6, and Ezek. xxxvi. 9,
TO we have the metaphors of building and planting combined.

HI. 10-15. The Builders.

I have laid the only possible foundation. Let those who
build on it remember that their work will be severely tested
at the Last Day.

w As to the grace which God gave me to found Churches, I
have, with the aims of an expert master-builder, laid a foundation
* Augustine (De cat. rud. 21) rightly omits the first estis*

60 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [III. 10

for the edifice ; it is for some one else to build upon it. But,
whoever he may be, let him be careful as to the materials with
which he builds thereon. u For, as regards the foundation, there
is no room for question : no one can lay any other beside the
one which is already laid, which of course is Jesus Christ.
12 But those who build upon this foundation may use either
good or bad material ; they may use gold, silver, and sumptuous
stones, or they may use wood, hay, and straw. But each
builder s good or bad work is certain to be made manifest in the
end. For the Day of Judgment will disclose it, because that
Day is revealed in fire; and the fire is the thing that will as
suredly test each builder s work and will show of what character
it is. 14 If any man s work the superstructure which he has
erected shall stand the ordeal, he will receive a reward. 15 If
any man s work shall be burnt to the ground, he will lose it,
though he himself shall be saved from destruction, but like one
who has passed through fire.

St Paul follows up the building-metaphor, first (v. 10) dis
tinguishing his part from that of others, and then (11-15) dwell
ing on the responsibility of those who build after him.

10. Kara TI\V \dpiv K.T.\. The necessary prelude to a refer
ence to his own distinctive work (cf. vii. 25). The grace is
not that of Apostleship in general, but that specially granted to
St Paul, which led him to the particular work of founding new
Churches, and not building on another man s foundation (Rom.
xv. 19, 20).

ds ao&lt;j&gt;os apxiTeVruy. The same expression is found in LXX
of Isa. iii. 3, and o-d^os is frequent of the skilled workmen who
erected and adorned the Tabernacle (Exod. xxxv. 10, 25, xxxvi.
i, 4, 8). It means peritus. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. vi. vii. i) says
that the first notion of o-o^ia is, that, when applied to each
particular art, it is skill; Phidias is a skilled sculptor.* See
Lightfoot ad loc. APXITSKTUV occurs nowhere else in N.T.

OefjieXioi 0T]Ka. The aorist, like e ^ifrevo-a (v. 6), refers to the
time of his visit (^Xflov, ii. i) : B^Kiov is an adjective (sc. XtOov),
but becomes a neuter substantive in late Greek. In the plural

* This use of &lt;ro&lt;f&gt;6s is more common in poets than in prose writers.
When &lt;ro&lt;j&gt;6s became usual of philosophical wisdom, 5etv6s took its place in
the sense of skilful. Herodotus (v. xxiii. 3) uses both words of the clever
and shrewd Histiaeus. Plato (Politicus 259) defines the tpxirtKruv, as
distinct from an pya&lt;rTtK6s, as one who contributes knowledge, but not
manual labour. Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 6) interprets it here as depalator

iplinat divinae, one who stakes out the boundaries.

in. 10, 11] THE BUILDERS 6l

we may have either gender ; ol 0e/xeAioi (Heb. xi. 10, Rev. xxi.
14, 19), or TO. fle/xe /Vta (Acts xvi. 26 and often in LXX). No
architect can build without some foundation, and no expert will
build without a sure foundation. Cf. Eph. ii. 20.

aXXos 8e. The reference is not specially to A polios : The
superstructure I leave to others. But they all must build,
according to the rule that follows, thoughtfully, not according K&gt;
individual caprice.

TTWS 5 iroiKooojj.ei. Refers specially, although not exclusively,
to the choice of materials (vv. 12, 13). The edifice, throughout,
is the Church, not the fabric of doctrine ; but cTrotKoSo/xetv refers
to the teaching both form and substance which forms the
Church, or rather forms the character of its members (Gal. iv. 19).

(K*ABC* 17) is to be preferred to r^ei/ca (K 3 C 3 D E) or
(L P). D omits the second 5 There is no need to conjecture
for the second TroiKo8o/j.ei (all MSS). In vii. 32 the balance
of evidence is strongly in favour of TTWS

11. OefxeXtoy yap. A cautionary premiss to v. 12, which con
tinues the thought of the previous clause : Let each man look
to it how he builds upon this foundation, because, although (I
grant, nay, I insist) none can lay any foundation Trapa rov Ket//,evoi&gt;,
yet the superstructure is a matter of separate and grave responsi
bility. e/x.e A.iov stands first for emphasis. There can be but
one fundamental Gospel (Gal. i. 6, 7), the foundation lies there,
and the site is already occupied. By whom is the foundation
laid? Obviously (v. TO), by St Paul, when he preached Christ
at Corinth (ii. 2). This is the historical reference of the words ;
but behind the laying of the stone at Corinth, or wherever else
the Church may be founded, there is the eternal laying of the
foundation-stone by God, die * only wise architect of the Church.
See Evans.

Compare the use of Kei^v-rj of the city that is already there, and Ti64a&lt;ru&gt;
of the lamp which has to be placed (Matt. v. 14, 15).

05 imv ITJO-OUS Xpioros- Both name and title are in place,
and neither of them alone would have seemed quite satisfying .
see on ii. 2. He is the foundation of all Christian life, faith,
and hope.* In Eph. ii. 20 He is the chief corner-stone,
aKpoyawcuos, the basis of unity : cf. Acts iv. 1 1 . It is only by
admitting some inconsistency of language that the truth can be
at all adequately expressed. There is inconsistency even if we
leave Eph. ii. 20 out of account. He has just said that he laid
the foundation in a skilful way. Now he says that it was lying
there ready for him, and that no other foundation is possible.
Each statement, in its own proper sense, is true ; and we need
* See Lock, St Paul, the Master-Builder, pp. 69 f.

62 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [III. 11, 12

both in order to get near to the truth. As in Gal. i. 8, Trapd
means besides, not contrary to, at variance with.

I?7&lt;7oOs Xpto-r6s (X A B L P Sah. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) rather than X/H&lt;rr6s
Ii7&lt;roCs (C 3 D E, Vulg.). Several cursives have Ivjirovs 6 X/&gt;.

12. et 8e TIS K.r.X. The various kinds of superstructure
represent various degrees of inferiority in the ministry of the
after-builders, i.e. according as they make, or fail to make, a
lasting contribution to the structure. With regard to the whole
passage, three things are to be noted :

(1) The metaphor is not to be pressed too rigidly by seeking
to identify each term with some detail in the building. This
Grotius does in the following way : proponit ergo nobis domum
cujus parietes sunt ex marmore, columnae partim ex auro partim
ex argento, trabes ex ligno, fastigium vero ex stramine et culmo ;
all which is very frigid.* The materials are enumerated with
a rapid and vivid asyndeton^ which drives each point sharply
and firmly home.

(2) The wood, hay, stubble do not represent teaching that
is intentionally disloyal or false (auros Se a-w^o-erai), but such
as is merely inferior.

(3) The imagery alternates between the suggestion of teaching
as moulding persons, and the suggestion of persons as moulded
by teaching (Evans), so that it is irrelevant to ask whether the
materials enumerated are to be understood of the fruits of
doctrine, such as different moral qualities (Theodoret), or of
worthy and unworthy Christians. The two meanings run into
one another, for the qualities must be exhibited in the lives of
persons. We have a similar combination of two lines of thought
in the interpretation of the parable of the Sower. There the
seed is said to be sown, and the soil is said to be sown, and in
the interpretation these two meanings are mingled. Yet the
interpretation is clear enough.

Xpuaiov, dpyupioi . As distinct from xP v&lt;T &s and apyvpos,
which indicate the metals in any condition, these diminutives
are commonly used of gold and silver made into something, such
as money or utensils; as when by gold we mean gold coins,
or by silver mean silver coins or plate (Acts iii. 6 ; xx. 33).
But this is not a fixed rule. See Matt, xxiii. 16 and Gen. ii. n.

Xi0ous Tijuous. Either costly stones, such as marble or
granite, suitable for building, or precious stones, suitable for
ornamentation. Isa. liv. n, 12 and Rev. xxi. 18, 19, combined

* It is perhaps worse than frigid. Obviously, it would be unskilful to
use both sets of material in the same building ; Origen regards v\a as worse
than x6/&gt;ros, and x&lt;5pros than KctXd/x,?/, which can hardly be right. See Chase,
Chrysostom, pp. 186, 187.

HI. 12, 13] THE BUILDERS 63

with the immediate context ( gold and silver ), point to the
latter meaning. It is internal decoration that is indicated.

Xopiw, KaXdfXTjc. Either of these might mean straw or dried
grass for mixing with clay, as in Exod. v. 12, /caAa/^v eis a^vpa,
stubble instead of straw ; and either might mean material for
thatching. Romuleoque recens horrebat regia culmo (Virg. Aen.
viii. 654). Luther s contemptuous expression respecting the
Epistle of St James as a right strawy epistle was made in
allusion to this passage. Nowhere else in N.T. does KaXdfjaj
occur.

After tori r. Oe^iov, N 3 C 3 D E L P, Vulg. AV. add rovrov. K* A B C,
Sah. Aeth. RV. omit. We ought probably to read -^pvaiov (K B) and
dpytpiov (tf B C) rather than xp vff ^ v and dpyvpov (A D E L P). B, Aeth.
insert /ecu after

13. eKctorou TO cpyoc. These words sum up the alternatives,
standing in apposition to the substantival clause, ct 8e TIS . . .
KoXdpriv. Individual responsibility is again insisted upon : we
have l/caorros four times in w. 8-13.

r\ yap Tjjjie pa STjXwaei. The Day (as in i Thess. v. 4;
Rom. xiii. 12: Heb. x. 25), without the addition of Kvpiov
(i Thess. v. 2) or of Kptb-eus (Matt. xii. 36) or of CKCLVTJ (2 Thess.
i. 10; 2 Tim. i. 12, 18, iv. 8), means the Day of Judgment.
This is clear from iv. 3, 5, ubi ex intervallo, ut solet, clarius
loquitur (Beng.). The expression * Day of the Lord comes from
the O.T. (Isa. ii. 12 ; Jer. xlvi. 10 ; Ezek. vii. 10, etc.), and perhaps
its original meaning was simply a definite period of time. But
with this was often associated the idea of day as opposed to
night : * the Day would be a time of light, when what had
hitherto been hidden or unknown would be revealed. So here.
And here the fire which illuminates is also a fire which burns,
and thus tests the solidity of that which it touches. What is
sound survives, what is worthless is consumed.

*v Trupl diroKa\uirTTai. The nominative is neither TO c/yyov
nor 6 Kvpios, but f) fjfiepa. The Day is (to be) revealed in
fire (2 Thess. i. 7, 8, ii. 8; Dan. vii. gf. ; Mai. iv. i). This is
a common use of the present tense, to indicate that a coming
event is so certain that it may be spoken of as already here.
The predicted revelation is sure to take place. See on a-n-oKa-
AvVreTtu in Luke xvii. 30, Lightfoot on i Thess. v. 2, and Hort
on i Pet. i. 7, 13.

St Paul is not intending to describe the details of Christ s
Second Coming, but is figuratively stating, what he states without
figure in iv. 5, that at that crisis the real worth of each man s
work will be searchingly tested. This test he figures as the
fire of the Second Advent, wrapping the whole building round,
and reducing all its worthless material to ashes. The nre,

64 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [HI. 13-15

therefore, is regarded more as a testing than as an illuminating
agent, as tentatio tribulationis (August. Enchir. 68), which by its
destructive power makes manifest the enduring power of all
*-hat it touches. There is no thought in the passage of a penal,
or disciplinary, or purgative purpose; nor again is there the
remotest reference to the state of the soul between death and
judgment. Hie locus ignem purgatorium non modo non fovet
sed plane extinguit, nam in novissimo demum die ignis probabit.
. . . Ergo ignis purgatorius non praecedit (Beng.). The ev sug
gests that fire is the element in which the revelation takes place.
At the Parousia Christ is to appear ev TTV/DI c^Aoyo s (2 Thess. i. 8)
or ev &lt;Aoyl TTV/DO S (Is. Ixvi. 15). In the Apocalypse of Baruch
(xlviii. 39) we have, "A fire will consume their thoughts, and
in flame will the meditations of their reins be tried \ for the
Judge will come and will not tarry." But elsewhere in that
book (xliv. 15, lix. 2, etc.) the fire is to consume the wicked,
a thought of which there is no trace here. There are no wicked,
but only unskilful builders; all build, although some build
unwisely, upon Christ.

KOI IKCIOTOU. Still under the OTU It is better to regard TO
epyov as the ace. governed by So/a//.ao-et, with avro as pleonastic,
than as the nom. to mv. A pleonastic pronoun is found with
good authority in Matt. ix. 27; Luke xvii. 7; and elsewhere:
but the readings are sometimes uncertain. To take avro with
Trvp, the fire itself, has not much point. In all three verses
(13, 14, 15), TO epyoi/ refers, not tc a man s personal character,
good or bad, but simply to his work as a builder (12).

N D E L, Vulg. Sah. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit aur6, but we ought
probably to read it with A B C P 17 and other cursives.

14. jaei/ei. It is doubtful, and not very important, whether
we should accent this word as a future, to agree with KaTaKcujo-eTcu
and other verbs which are future, or /xevet, as a present, which
harmonizes better with the idea of permanence: cf. /xeVei in
xiii. 13.

fuaeoy. Compare v. 8 and Matt. xx. 8 : in ix. 17, 18 the
reference is quite different. The nature of the reward is not
stated, but it is certainly not eternal salvation, which may be
won by those whose work perishes (v. 15). Something corre
sponding to the ten cities and five cities in the parable may
be meant ; opportunities of higher service,

15. Kcn-aKar|o-6T(H. This later form is found as a v.l. (AL) in
2 Pet. iii. 10, where it is probably a collection of the puzzling
eupe^o-erat (K B K P). In Rev. xviii. 8 the more classical Kcmx-
Kav^o-erai is found. The burning of Corinth by Mummius may
have suggested this metaphor.

HI. 15J THE BUILDERS 65

T)jjuw0r|o-Tai. It does not much matter whether we regard
this as indefinite, He shall suffer loss (AV., RV.), detrimentum
patietur (Vulg.), damnum faciet (Beza), or understand TOV /jucrOov
from v. 14, He shall be mulcted of the expected reward. In
Exod. xxi. 22 we have CTTI^/XIOV r7/xt(u$^&lt;reTcu. The avros is in
favour of the latter.

aurbs 8e o-wOrjaeTcu. The avrog is in contrast to the /uo-0o s :
the reward will be lost, but the worker himself will be saved.
If ^/xtw^o-erat is regarded as indefinite, then auros may be in
contrast to the Ipyov : the man s bad work will perish, but that
does not involve his perdition. The o-w^rycrerat can hardly refer
to anything else than eternal salvation, which he has not for
feited by his bad workmanship : he has built on the true
foundation. Salvation is not the /uo-0o?, and so it may be
gained when all /uio-tfos is lost. But it may also be lost as
well as the /xto-009. The Apostle does not mean that every
teacher who takes Christ as the basis of his teaching will neces
sarily be saved : his meaning is that a very faulty teacher may
be saved, and * will be saved, if at all, so as through fire. See
Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xxi. 21, 26.

OUTWS Be us 8ia irupos. But only as one passing through fire
is saved : a quasi-proverbial expression, indicative of a narrow
escape from a great peril, as * a firebrand pluckt out of the fire
(Amos iv. 1 1 ; Zech. iii. 2). It is used here with special reference
to the fire which tests the whole work (v. 13). The Sta is local
rather than instrumental. The fire is so rapid in its effects
that the workman has to rush through it to reach safety : cf. Si
vSaros (l Pet. iii. 20), and SnyA.$ojaev Sta TTV/DOS KOI vSaros (Ps.
Ixvi. 12). To explain o-w^o-erai Sta Trvpos as meaning shall be
kept alive in the midst of hell-fire is untenable translation and
monstrous exegesis. Such a sense is quite inadmissible for
o-iaOrja-tTai and incompatible with OVTWS ws. Moreover, the fire
in v. 13 is the fire alluded to, and that fire cannot be Gehenna.
Atto of Vercelli thinks that this passage is one of the things
hard to be understood alluded to in 2 Pet. iii. 16. Augustine
(Enchir. 68) says that the Christian who cares for the things of
the Lord (vii. 32) is the man who builds with gold, silver, and
precious stones, while he who cares for the things of the world,
how he may please his wife (vii. 33), builds with wood, hay,
stubble.

III. 16-17. The Temple.

St Paul now passes away from the builders to the Temple.
The section is linked with vv. 10-15 both by the opening words,
which imply some connexion, and by the word vacs, which is
5

66 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 16

doubtless suggested by the building of w. 9 f. (cf. Eph.
ii. 20-22). On the other hand, it is quite certain that there is
a change of subject : avros &lt;ra&gt;0?y(reT&lt;u (v. 15) and (f&gt;6epel TOVTOV o
eo s are contradictory propositions, and they cannot be made
to apply to the same person, for fyOeipew cannot be attenuated
to an equivalent for t^^iovv (v. 15).

The subject of the cr^to-^aTa still occupies the Apostle s mind,
and he seems to be thinking of their ultimate tendency. By
giving rein to the flesh (v. 3) they tend to banish the Holy
Spirit, and so to destroy the Temple constituted by His presence.

16. Ousc otSare; Frequent in this Epistle, and twice in
Romans; also Jas. iv. 4. As in v. 6, vi. 16, 19, the question
implies a rebuke. The Corinthians are so carnal that they
have never grasped, or have failed to retain, so fundamental a
doctrine as that of the indwelling of the Spirit*

mos 0eoG eare. Not a temple of God, but God s Temple.
There is but one Temple, embodied equally truly in the whole
Church, in the local Church, and in the individual Christian ;
the local Church is meant here. As a metaphor for the Divine
indwelling, the vaos, which contained the Holy of Holies, is more
suitable than UpoV, which included the whole of the sacred en
closure (vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 21). To converts from
heathenism the vaos might suggest the cella in which the image
of the god was placed. It is one of the paradoxes of the Christian
Church that there is only one vaos eov and yet each Christian
is a vaos : simul omnts unum templum et singula templa sumus,
quia non est Deus in omnibus quam in singulis major (Herv.).
Naos is from vaiW, to dwell.

Kal TO weG|j.a. The Kat is epexegetic. Both Gentile and Jew
might speak of their vaos eov, but, while the pagan temple was
mhabited by an image of a god, and the Jewish by a symbol of
the Divine Presence (Shekinah), the Christian temple is mhabited
by the Spirit of God Himself.

Iv ufui&gt; oiKet. In you hath His dwelling-place. In Luke
xi. 51 we have ot/cos, where, in the parallel passage in Matt.
xxiii. 35, we have vaos. Tore ovv /xaA-io-ra eao/xetfa vaos eov, cav
eaurous Karao-Kevacrw/zev TOU Ilvev/xaros TOV ou (Orig.).

* On the very insufficient ground that Kephas is not mentioned in vv. 5
and 6, but is mentioned in v. 22, Zahn regards w. 16-20 as directed against
the Kephas party. He says that St Paul knows more than he writes about
this faction, and fears more than he knows (Introd. to N. T, i. pp. 288 f.).

See on v. i for the resemblance to Ep. of Barn. iv. ii. Ignatius (Epko
15) has rdvra oftv Trotw/xey, ws ai/roO v ^Iv KCLTOIKOVVTOS, Iva. Hjfjiev avrov vaol
leal afrr&s iv rinlv 0e6f.

HI. 16, 17] THE TEMPLE 67

It is not easy to decide between tv V/MV olicei (B P 17) and olicei tv V/JL IV
(tfACDEFGL, Vulg.). The former is more forcible, placing the
permanent dwelling last, with emphasis.

17. ei TIS . . . &lt;f&gt;0ipi . . . 4&gt;0epeZ. The AV. greatly mars the
effect by translating the verb first defile and then destroy.
The same verb is purposely used to show the just working of the
lex talionis in this case : one destruction is requited by another
destruction. The destroyers of the Temple are those who banish
the Spirit, an issue to which the dissensions were at least tending.
Here the reference is to unchristian faction, which destroyed, by
dividing, the unity of the Church : a building shattered into
separate parts is a ruin. In vi. 19 the thought is of uncleanness
in the strict sense. But all sin is a defiling of the Temple and is
destructive of its consecrated state.* We have a similar play on
words to express a similar resemblance between sin and its
punishment in Rom. i. 28; KaOw&lt;s OVK eSoKi /xcurav rov cov *x lv
v 7Tiyvu&gt;cri, TrapeSoo/cev avrovg 6 eos ets a.SoKiju,ov vovv. And there
is a still closer parallel in Rev. xi. 18 ; Sta^^eipai rovs Sia^Qeipov-
Tas TYJV yfjv. Neither tfrOeipetv nor Sia0(9a pav are commonly used
of God s judgments, for which the more usual verb is aTroAAiW
or ctTroXXwai : but both here and in Rev. xi. 18 &lt;/&gt;0ei pe/ or 8m-
&lt;f&gt;6ipLv is preferred, because of its double meaning, corrupt
and destroy. The sinner destroys by corrupting what is holy
and good, and for this God destroys him. We have &lt;J&gt;Ocipctv in
the sense of corrupt, xv. 33 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; Rev. xix. 2.

&lt;f&gt;0epei TOUTOV 6 0e6s. The Vulgate, like the AV., ignores the
telling repetition of the same verb : si quis autem templum Dei
violaverit, disperdet ilium Deus. Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 6)
preserves it : si templum Dei quis vitiaverit, vitiabitur, utique a
Deo temp It ; and more literally (De Pudic. 16, 18) vitiabit ilium
Deus. But neither ^Ocpel here, nor oAetfpos in i Thess. v. 3, nor
o\0pov atwvioi/ in 2 Thess. i. 9, must be pressed to mean anni
hilation (see on v. 5). Nor, on the other hand, must it be
watered down to mean mere physical punishment (cf. xi. 30).
The exact meaning is nowhere revealed in Scripture ; but terrible
ruin and eternal loss of some kind seems to be meant. See
Beet s careful examination of these and kindred words, The Last
Things, pp. 122 f.

ayios eoriy. It is holy, and therefore not to be tampered
with without grave danger. Both the Tabernacle and the
Temple are frequently called ayios, and in the instinct of archaic
religion in the O.T. the idea of danger was included in that of

* Thl; is a third case, quite different from the two cases in w. 14, 15.
A good superstructure wins a reward for the builder. A bad superstructure
perishes but the builder is rescued. But he who, instead of adding to the
edifice, ruins what has been built, will himself meet with ruin.

68 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 17, 18

holiness. See Gray on Num. iv. 5, 15, 19, 20, and Kirk
patrick on i Sam. vi. 20 and 2 Sam. vi. 7 ; and cf. Lev. x. 6,
xvi. 2, 13.

oii-iye s core up,ets. It has been doubted whether vao? or ayios
is the antecedent of omi/es, but the former is probably right :
which temple ye are (AV., RV.).* The relative is attracted
into the plural of tyxeis. Edwards quotes, TOV ovpavov, ovs Sr)
TrdXovs KaXovviv (Plato, Crat. 405). The meaning seems to be,
The temple of God is holy ; ye are the temple of God ; therefore
ye must guard against what violates your consecration. As
distinct from the simple relative, on-u/es commonly carries with
it the idea of category, of belonging to a class ; * and this is what
ye are, and such are ye : cf. Gal. v. 19, where the construction
is parallel.

&lt;S&gt;0epeI (N A B C, d e f g Vulg.) rather than &lt;f&gt;8dpei (D E F G L P, Am.)
where the difference between Greek and Latin in bilingual MSS. is remark
able : see on iv. 2. TOVTOV (X B C L P) rather than avr6v (A D E F G).

III. 18-IV. 5. Warning against a mere * Human Estimate
of the Pastoral Office.

Let no one profane God s Temple by taking on himself
to set up party teachers in it. Regard us teachers as simply
Christ s stewards.

18 1 am not raising baseless alarms ; the danger of a false
estimate of oneself is grave. It may easily happen that a man
imagines that he is wise in his intercourse with you, with the
wisdom of the non-Christian world. Let him become simple
enough to accept Christ crucified, which is the way to become
really wise. 19 For this world s wisdom is foolishness in God s
sight, as it stands written in Scripture, Who taketh the wise in
their own craftiness ; 20 and in another passage, The Lord
knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain. 21 If this
is so, it is quite wrong for any one to plume himself on the men
whom he sets up as leaders. For yours is no party-heritage;
it is universal. 22 Paul, Apollos, Kephas, the world, life, death,
whatever is, and whatever is to be, all of it belongs to you;
23 but you you belong to no human leader; you belong to
Christ, and Christ to God. Between you and God there is no
human leader.

* We find the same thought, on a lower level, even in such a writer as
Ovid (Epp. ex Ponto, II. i. 34) ; quae templum pectore sempc* habet.

III. 18] HUMAN ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 69

IV. l The right way of regarding Apollos, myself, and other
teachers, is that we are officers under Christ, commissioned to
dispense the truths which His Father has revealed to us in Him,
just as stewards dispense their masters goods. 2 Here, further
more, you must notice that all stewards are required to prove
their fidelity. 3 But, as regards myself, it is a matter of small
moment that my fidelity should be scrutinized and judged by you
or by any human court. Yet that does not mean that I constitute
myself as my own judge. 4 My judgments on myself would be
inconclusive. For it may be the case that I have no conscious
ness of wrong-doing, and yet that this does not prove that I am
guiltless. My conscience may be at fault. The only competent
judge of my fidelity is the Lord Christ. 5 That being so, cease
to anticipate His decision with your own premature judgments.
Wait for the Coming of the Judge. It is He who will both
illumine the facts that are now hidden in darkness, and also
make manifest the real motives of human conduct : and then
whatever praise is due will come to each faithful steward direct
from God. That will be absolutely final.

The Apostle sums up his case * against the o-^tV/nara, com
bining the results of his exposure of the false wisdom, with its
correlative conceit, and of his exposition of the Pastoral Office
(18-23). He concludes by a warning against their readiness to
form judgments, from a mundane standpoint, upon those whose
function makes them amenable only to the judgment of the Day
of the Lord.

18. MrjSels eauToi&gt; e|airaT&lt;4Ta&gt;. A solemn rebuke, similar to
that of fjirj irXavao-Oc in vi. 9, xv. 33, and Gal. vi. 7, and even
more emphatic than that which is implied in OVK otSare (v. 16).
He intimates that the danger of sacrilege and of its heavy penalty
(vv. 1 6, 17) is not so remote as some of the Corinthians may
think. Shallow conceit may lead to disloyal tampering with the
people of Christ. That there is a sacrilegious tendency in faction
is illustrated by Gal. v. 7-12, vi. 12, 13; 2 Cor. xi. 3, 4, 13-15,
20 ; and the situation alluded to in Galatians may have been in
the Apostle s mind when he wrote the words that are before us
words which have a double connexion, viz. with w. 16, 17,
and with the following section. St Paul is fond of compounds
with e/c: v. 7, 13, vi. 14, xv. 34.

ei TIS 8oKi o-o&lt;|&gt;o5 emu. Not, seemeth to be wise (AV.),
videtur sapiens esse (Vulg.); but, thinketh that he is wise (RV.),

70 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [HI. 18, 19

sibi videtur esse sapiens (Beza). He considers himself an acute
man of the world, quite able to decide for himself whether Paul,
or Apollos, or Kephas is the right person to follow in matters of
religion. We have the same use of So/cet in viii. 2, x. 12, xiv. 37.
Excepting Jas. i. 26, t TIS SOKCI is peculiar to Paul; and there
the AV. makes the same mistake as here, in translating seem
instead of think. Here e^aTrarciTO), and there aTrarwv, may be
regarded as decisive. It is the man s self-deceit that is criticized
in both cases : his estimate is all wrong. See J. B. Mayor on
Jas. i. 26. It is perhaps not accidental that the Apostle says e?
rts . . . tv vfjLLVj and not et TIS v/xwv. The warning suggests that
the self-styled &lt;ro&lt;os is among them, but not that he is one of
themselves : the wrong-headed teacher has come from elsewhere.
ev UJJLII/ Iv TW alow TOVTW. We might put a comma after iv
vfjuv, for the two expressions are in contrast; in your circle,
which has the heavenly wisdom and ought to be quite different
from what is in this world and has only mundane wisdom.
The latter is out of place in a Christian society (i. 20, 22, ii. 6, 8).
Epictetus (Enchir. 18) warns us against thinking ourselves wise
when others think us to be such ; /x^Sev fiovXov &o/ceu&gt; cn-tc
KCIV So^s TKTIV ctvat TIS, aTricrm creaimS.

Cyprian (Test. iii. 69, De bono patient. 2) takes tv r$ al&vi roiVy with
fjuitpbs yevtaOu : mundo huic stultus fiat. So also does Origen (Cels. i. 13 ;
Philoc. 1 8); and also Luther: der werde ein Narr in dieser Welt. This
makes good sense ; If any man thinks himself wise in relation to you
Christians, let him become a fool in relation to this world : but it is not
the right sense. It is cro0&lt;5s, not /iwp6s, that is qualified by tv ry al&vi T. :
If any man thinks himself wise in your circle I mean, of course, with this
world s wisdom. From tv vfjuv, in a Christian Church, it might have
been supposed that he meant the true wisdom, and he adds tv T. at. r. to
avoid misunderstanding.

Let him drop his false wisdom, the conceit
that he has about himself: i. 18-20, 23, ii. 14.

!W Y^TJTCU &lt;ro&lt;|&gt;6s. So as to be brought unto all riches of
the full assurance of understanding, unto full knowledge of the
mystery of God, even Christ (Col. ii. 3).*

19. He explains the paradox of the last verse by stating the
principle already established, i. 21, ii. 6.

irapa TW 0ew. Before God as judge; Rom. ii. 13, xii. 16;
Acts xxvi. 8. Although //,o&gt;pos is common in N.T. and LXX,
jjuapia occurs, in N.T., only in these three chapters; and, in
LXX, only in Ecclus. xx. 31, xli. 15.

6 Spaao-ofjiet os K.T.\. From Job v. 13 ; a quotation inde
pendent of the LXX, and perhaps somewhat nearer to the

* Cf. Oval ol ffvveroi eaurots Kal tv&iriov eavr&v ^TKmJ/iOvey : Barnabas
(iv. ii) quotes these words as ypa&lt;p^.

III. 19-21] &lt; HUMAN ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 7 1

original Hebrew. Job is quoted rarely in N.T., and chiefly
by St Paul; and both here and in Rom. xi. 35, and in no other
quotation, he varies considerably from the LXX. Like 6 TTOIWV
in Heb. i. 7, 6 SpaoW/xevos here is left without any verb. It
expresses the strong grasp or grip which God has upon the
slippery cleverness of the wicked : cf. Ecclus. xxvi. 7, where it is
said of an evil wife, 6 Kparwv O.VTYJS ws 6 Spacrcro/xevos o-/cop7ri ov :
and Ecclus. xxxiv. (xxxi.) 2, the man who has his mind upon
dreams is ws SpaoW/xevo? o-/as. The words in Ps. ii. 12 which
are mistranslated Kiss the Son are rendered in the LXX,
&lt;$pacur0e TrcuSeia?, Lay hold on instruction. The verb occurs
nowhere else in N.T., and in the LXX of Job v. 13 we have 6
KaraX apfidv w v.

irwoupyia. * Versatile cleverness, readiness for anything in
order to gain one s own ends. Craftiness, like astutia (Vulg.),
emphasizes the cunning which Travovpyia often implies. The
LXX has Iv &lt;pov?Jo-ei, a word which commonly has a good
meaning, while Travovpyta almost always has a bad one, although
not always in the LXX, e.g. Prov. i. 4, viii. 5. The adjective
iravovpyos is more often used in a better sense, and in the LXX
is used with &lt;poVi/xos to translate the same Hebrew word.
Perhaps cleverness would be better here than craftiness
(AV., RV.). See notes on Luke xx. 23 ; Eph. iv. 14.

20. Kupios Yivcjoxei. From Ps. xciv. 1 1, and another instance
(i. 20) of St Paul s freedom in quoting : the LXX, following the
Hebrew, has uvflpwTrwv, where he (to make the citation more in
point) has &lt;ro&lt;j&gt;w. But the Psalm contrasts the designs of men
with the designs of God, and therefore the idea of o-o&lt;/&gt;os is in the
context.

SiaXoyio-jxou s. In the LXX the word is used of the thoughts
of God (Ps. xl. 6, xcii. 5). When used of men, the word often,
but not always, has a bad sense, as here, especially of questioning
or opposing the ways of God (Ps. Ivi. 5 ; Luke v. 22, vi. 8 ; Rom.
i. 2 1 ; Jas. ii. 4).

21. wore filets icaux&lt;a0w. Conclusion from vv. 18-20. The

connexion presupposes an affinity between conceit in one s own
wisdom and a readiness to make over much of a human leader.
The latter implies much confidence in one s own estimate of the
leader. Consequently, the spirit of party has in it a subtle
element of shallow arrogance. We have wore, so then, with
an imperative, iv. 5, x. 12, xi. 33, xiv. 39, xv. 58. Outside this
argumentative and practical Epistle the combination is not very
common ; very rare, except in Paul. It seems to involve an
abrupt change from the oratio obliqua to the oratio recta. It
marks the transition from explanation to exhortation.

/2 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [ill. 21, 22

*v d^pwirois. To glory in men is the opposite of glorying
in the Lord (i. 31). The Apostle is referring to their wrong-
headed estimation of himself, Apollos, and others (as in iv. 6),
not to party-leaders boasting of their large following. Leaders
might glory in the patience and faith of their disciples (2 Thess.
i. 4), but not in that as any credit to the leaders themselves.
All partizan laudation is wrong.

irdvTa. y&p ujj.uy ecmV. * You say, I belong to Paul, or, I
belong to Apollos. So far from that being true, it is Paul and
Apollos who belong to you, for all things belong to you.
Instead of contenting himself with saying We are yours, he
asserts that and a very great deal more ; not merely Travres, * all
servants of God, but irdv~ a , all God s creatures, belong to them.
Yet his aim is, not merely to proclaim how wide their heritage is,
but to show them that they have got the facts by the wrong end.
They want to make him a chieftain ; he is really their servant.
The Church is not the property of Apostles; Apostles are
ministers of the Church. Quia omnia vestra sunt, nolite in
singulis gloriari ; nolite speriaks vobis magistros defenders,
quoniam omnibus utimini (Atto). Omnia propttr sanctos creata
sunfj tanquam nihil habentes ct omnia possidentcs (Primasius).

The thought is profound and far-reaching. The believer in
God through Christ is a member of Christ and shares in His
universal lordship, all things being subservient to the Kingdom
of God, and therefore to his eternal welfare (vii. 31 ; Rom. viii.
28 ; John xvi. 33 ; i John v. 4, 5), as means to an end. The
Christian loses this birthright by treating the world or its
interests as ends in themselves, i.e. by becoming enslaved to
persons (vii. 23; 2 Cor. xi. 20) or things (vi. 12; Phil. iii. 19).
Without God, we should be the sport of circumstances, and the
world would crush us, if not in * life, at least in death. As it
is, all these things alike * are ours. We meet them as members
of Christ, rooted in God s love (Rom. viii. 37). The Corinthians,
by boasting in men, were forgetting, and thereby imperilling,
their prerogative in Christ. There is perhaps a touch of Stoic
language in these verses ; see on iv. 8. Origen points out that
the Greeks had a saying, Tlavra TOV o-o&lt;oG mV, but St Paul was
the first to say, EEavra TOV aytov e&lt;mV.

22. etre . . . etrc . . . eire. The enumeration, rising in a
climax, is characteristic of St Paul (Rom. viii. 38) : the iravra. is
first expanded and then repeated. We might have expected a
third triplet, past, present, and future ; but the past is not ours
in the sense in which the present and future are. We had no
part in shaping it, and cannot change it. In the first triplet, he
places himself first, i.e. at the bottom of the climax.

IIL 22, 23] HUMAN ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 73

The transition from Kephas to the KOOT/XOS is, as
Bengel remarks, rather repentinus saltus, and made, he thinks,
with a touch of impatience, lest the enumeration should become
too extended. But perhaps alliteration has something to do
with it. This Bengel spoils, by substituting Peter 3 for Kephas.
The world is here used in a neutral sense, without ethical
significance, the world we live in, the physical universe.

eiT OJT) cire Qdvo,To$. If Kocr/xo? is the physical universe, it is
probable that wrj and Odvaros mean physical life and death. They
sum up all that man instinctively clings to or instinctively dreads.
From life and death in this general sense we pass easily to eVeo--
Twra. It is by life in the world that eternal life can be won, and
death is the portal to eternal life. In Rom. viii. 38 death is
mentioned before life, and eveo-rumx, and /xeAAovra do not close
the series.

eire eVeoTuTa eirc jxeXXorra. These also ought probably to be
confined in meaning to the things of this life. They include the
whole of existing circumstances and all that lies before us to the
moment of death. All these things are yours, i.e. work together
for your good. It is possible that /u,eAA.ovra includes the life
beyond the grave ; but the series, as a whole, reads more con
sistently, if each member of it is regarded as referring to human
experience in this world.

For vfj.wv, u/xeis, B and one or two cursives read four, T^ets. After
iffiuv, D 2 E L, f g Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm. add tariv.

23. ujaeis Se XpioroG. These words complete the rebuke of
those who said that they belonged to Paul, etc. They belonged
to no one but Christ, and they all alike belonged to Him.
While all things were theirs, they were not their own (vi. 20,
vii. 23), and none of them had any greater share in Christ than
the rest (i. 13). Christians, with all their immense privileges, are
not the ultimate owners of anything. There is only one real
Owner, God. On the analogy between Xpio-rov here and
KatVa/3os= "belonging to the Emperor" in papyri see Deissmann,
Light from the Anc. East, p. 382. Cf. xv. 23 ; Gal. iii. 29,
v. 24.

XpioTos 8e ecu. Not quite the same in meaning as Luke
ix. 20, xxiii. 35 ; Acts iii. 18; Rev. xii. 10. In all those passages
we have 6 X/oiords TOV eov or avrov. Here Xpurros is more of a
proper name. The thought of the Christian s lordship over the
world has all its meaning in that of his being a son of God
through Christ (Rom. viii. 16, 17). This passage is one of the
few in which St Paul expresses his conception of the relation of
Christ to God (see on ii. 16). Christ, although eV /Aop^r; eov
(Phil. ii. 6, where see Lightfoot and Vincent), is so

74 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 1

derivatively (Col. i. 15, where see Lightfoot and Abbott): His
glory in His risen and exalted state is given by God (Phil. ii. 9 ;
cf. Rom. vi. 10), and in the end is to be merged in God (see on
xv. 28). Theodoret says here, ov^ w? KTICT/ZO, eov, uAA a&gt;s vtos
rot) eou. There is no need to suppose, with some of the
Fathers and later writers, that St Paul is here speaking of our
Lord s human nature exclusively ; there is no thought of separat
ing the two natures ; he is speaking of * Christ, the Divine
Mediator in His relation to His Father and to His many
brethren. See many admirable remarks in Sanday, Ancient and
Modern Christologies, on the doctrine of Two Natures in Christ,
pp. 37, 50, 52, 90, 165, and especially p. 173 ; see also Edwards
and Stanley s notes ad loc.

IV. 1. OUTUS TjfAasXoYie a9a&gt;. The thought of iii. 5 is resumed,
and the reproof of the tendency to glory in men is completed
by a positive direction as to the right attitude towards the pastors
of the Church. The Corinthians must regard them ut ministros
Christi, non ut aequales Christo (Primasius). The ovrcos probably
refers to what follows, as in iii. 15, ix. 26. The was certainly
refers to all who are charged with the ministry of the New
Testament or Covenant (2 Cor. iii. 6). But we get good sense
if we make oiW refer to what precedes : Remembering that
we and everything else are yours, as you are Christ s, let a man
take account of us as men who are ministers of Christ. This
throws a certain amount of emphasis on ry/xas, the emphasis being
removed from ovratf : but ^/xas may receive emphasis, for it is
the attitude of the Corinthians towards the Apostle and other
teachers that is in question.

a/0pwTTos. Almost equivalent to TIS (xi. 28), but a gravior
dicendi formula. This use is rare in class. Grk.

uirqpfras. Substituted for Sia/covot in iii. 5. The word origin
ally denoted those who row (epeWeiv) in the lower tier of a
trireme, and then came to mean those who do anything under
another, and hence simply underlings. * In the Church, St
Luke (i.2) applies it to any service of the word ; later it was used
almost technically of sub-deacons. See on Luke iv. 20, and
Suicer, s.v. St Paul uses the word nowhere else.

oiKoyopjus. The oi/coj o/xos ( en/cos and ve/xetv) was the respons
ible head of the establishment, assigning to each slave his duties
and entrusted with the administration of the stores. He was a
slave in relation to his master (Luke xii. 42), but the r6y&gt;o7ros or
overseer (Matt. xx. 8) in relation to the workmen (see on Luke

* St Paul is probably not thinking of the derivation ; Christ is the pilot ;
we are rowers under Him. By XpwroO he may mean not of any earthly
master.

IV. 1-8] HUMAN ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 75

xii. 42 and xvi. i ; in the latter place, the OIKOVO/XOS seems to be a
freeman). God is the Master (iii. 23) of the Christian household
(i Tim. iii. 15), and the stores entrusted to His stewards are the
mysteries of God. These mysteries are the truths which the
stewards are commissioned to teach (see on ii. 7). Between the
Master and the stewards stands the Son (xv. 25 ; Heb. iii. 6),
whose underlings the stewards are. See on otxovo/xtW in Eph.
i. 10 and Col. i. 25.

2. wSe. Here, i.e. on earth and in human life, or perhaps
in these circumstances. See on i. 16 for XOITTOV.

JtjTCLTai K.T.X. The AV. cannot be improved upon; It is
required in stewards that a man be found faithful. See on i. 10
for this use of Iva : the attempts to maintain its full telic force
here are too clumsy to deserve discussion : see further on v. 2,
and compare cvptOy in i Pet. i. 7.

mores. Cf. Luke xii. 42, xvi. 10; Num. xii. 7; i Sam. xxii.
14: the meaning is trustworthy. To be an ot/covo/ios is not
enough.*

&8c (K A B C D* F G P 17, e Vulg.) rather than dt (D 8 E L). In
Luke xvi. 25 there is a similar corruption in some texts, ^reirat (B L,
defg Vulg. Copt. Syrr.) rather than ^retre (X A C D P and F G -771 e).
Here, as in &lt;f&gt;6epei (iii. 17), d e f g support the better reading against DEFG.
l.,achmann takes cD5e at the end of v. I, an improbable arrangement.

3. cjjiol 8e. The Se implies contrast to something understood,
such as I do not claim to be irresponsible ; inquiry will have to
be made as to whether I am faithful ; but (S) the authority to
which I bow is not yours, nor that of any human tribunal, but
God s.

els eX^xioroV corn . It amounts to very little, it counts for
a very small matter. Cf. eis ovSlv XoyicrOfjvai (Acts xix. 27).
He does not say that it counts for nothing. "I have often
wondered how it is that every man sets less value on his own
opinion of himself than on the opinion of others. So much
more respect have we to what our neighbours think of us than to
what we think of ourselves " (M. Aurelius, xii. 4).

Iva, dmKpiOw. To be judged of, or to be put on my trial,
or to pass your tribunal (see on ii. 14, 15). The verb is
neutral, and suggests neither a favourable nor an unfavourable
verdict. The dominant thought here, as in ii. 14, 15, is the
competency of the tribunal. The clause is almost equivalent to
a simple infinitive, the Iva defining the purport of a possible
volition, whether of, for, or against what is named. He does

* Chadwick, The Pastoral Teaching of St Paul, p. 164 f. He does not
say be judged trustworthy, but * be found actually to be so. In i Pet. iv. 10
every Christian is a steward.

76 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 3, 4

not mean that the Corinthians had thought of formally trying
him, but that he cares little for what public opinion may decide
about him.

TJ uiro dyOpanriiTjs TJpe pas. The phrase is in contrast to 17
fjfjLfpa (iii. 13), which means the Day of the Lord, the Lord s
Judgment-Day. That is the tribunal which the Apostle recog
nizes ; a human tribunal he does not care to satisfy. He may
have had in his mind the use of a word equivalent to * day in
the sense of a court, which is found in Hebrew and in other
languages.* Daysman in Job ix. 33 means arbitrator or
umpire : compare diem dicere alicui. From dies comes dieta =
diet ; and hence, in German, Tag= diet, as in Reichstag,
Landtag. Man s judgment (AV., RV.) gives the sense suffi
ciently. Jerome is probably wrong in suggesting that the
expression is a Cilicism, one of St Paul s provincialisms.
Humanus dies dicitur in quo judicant homines, quia erit et dies
Domini, in quo judicabit et Dominus (Herv.). Atto says much
the same.

dXX ou8e efxauTof dcaKpipu. Nay, even my own verdict
upon my conduct, with the knowledge which I have of its
motives, is but a human judgment, incompetent definitely to
condemn (i John iii. 20), and still more incompetent to acquit. f
" We cannot fail to mark the contrast between this avowal of
inability to judge oneself and the claim made in ch. ii. on
behalf of the spiritual man, who judges all things. Self-know-
ledge is more difficult than revealed truth " (Edwards) : Ps.
xix. 12.

4. ou&ey yap ejuiaurw owoiSa. * For (supposing that) I know
nothing against myself, Suppose that I am not conscious of
any wrong-doing on my part. The Apostle is not stating a fact,
but an hypothesis ; he was conscious of many faults ; yet, even
if he were not aware of any, that would not acquit him. No
where else in N.T. is the verb used in this sense (see Acts v. 2,
xii. 12, xiv. 6): it means to share knowledge, and here to
know about oneself what is unknown to others. It expresses
conscience in the recording sense. As conscience can condemn
more surely than it can acquit, the word, when used absolutely,
has more frequently a bad sense, and hence comes to mean to
be conscious of guilt : nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa

* Aesch. in Ctes. p. 587 ; EJs rpta ^pr) Siaipelrat i) i)fJ.tpa, Srav daly
irapav6fj-(av ds rb diKa.ffT-ripi.ov, where i) -rj^pa means the time of the
trial.

f We might have expected dXX ovdt at/rds tpavrbv avaKphu), but the
meaning is clear. He does not base his refusal to pass judgment on himself
on the difficulty of being impartial. Such a judgment, however impartial and
just, could not be final, *nd therefore would be futile.

IV. 4, 5] HUMAN ESTIMATE OF PASTORAL OFFICE 77

(Hor. Ep. i. i. 61) illustrates the same kind of meaning in the
Latin equivalent. See on 77 /cat, Rom. ii. 15. The archaic I
know nothing by myself (AV.) has caused the words to be
seriously misunderstood. In sixteenth-century English by
might mean against, and means against here. Latimer says,
" Sometimes I say more by him than I am able to prove ; this is
slandering" (i. 518). Jonson, in the Silent Woman, "An
intelligent woman, if she know by herself the least defect, will
be most curious to hide it" (iv. i), which is close to the use
here. T. L. O. Davies (Bible Words, p. 81) gives these and
other examples.*

dXX OUK eV TOU TW. Nevertheless, not hereby, But yet not
in this fact, * not therefore. This eV TOVT&lt;O is frequent in St John,
especially in the First Epistle and in connexion with yu/oWeiv
(John xiii. 35 ; i John ii. 3, 5, iii. 16, 19, 24, iv. 2, 13, v. 2), but
also with other verbs (John xv. 8, xvi. 30). The OVK is placed
away from its verb with special emphasis; sed non in hoc (Vulg.),
non per hoc (Beza). Without difference of meaning, Ignatius
(Rom. 5) has dAA. ov TT a p a rot To SeStKauojuai.

8e8iKaLwp.au Am I acquitted. The word is used in a
general sense, not in its technical theological sense. To intro
duce the latter here (Meyer, Beet, etc.) is to miss the drift of the
passage, which deals, not with the question as to how man
is justified in God s sight, but with the question as to who is
competent to sit in judgment on a man s work or life. St Paul is
not dealing with the question of his own personal justification
by faith, as though he said I am justified not by this, but in
some other way : he is saying in the first person, what would
apply equally to any one else, that an unaccusing conscience does
not per se mean absence of guilt.

6 8e dmKplVwv jxe Ku pios orii&gt;. But he that judgeth me is
the Lord, i.e. Christ, as the next verse shows. The Se goes back
to ouSe yu,avTov dva/cpiVu&gt;, what intervenes being a parenthesis ;
not I myself, but our Lord, is the judge.

5. wore. With the imperative (see on iii. 21), So then.
jjtrj TI KpiVere. Cease to pass any judgment, or Make a
practice of passing no judgment (pres. imper.). The TI is a
cognate accusative, such as we have in John vii. 24. As far as
I am concerned, you may judge as you please, it is indifferent
to me; but, as Christians, you should beware of passing any
judgment on any one, until the Judge of all has made all things
clear. All anticipation is vain.

irpo KaipoG. Before the fitting time, or the appointed

*^The use is perhaps not yet extinct in Yorkshire. " I know nothing by
him" might still be heard for " I know nothing against him,"

78 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 6

time, when ot ayiot rov /cooyxov Kptvovcrtv (vi. 2). Kaipos has
no exact equivalent in English, French, or German. Cf. Matt,
viii. 29.

Iws &v eX0Tj. The addition or omission of av after 2o&gt;g in the
N.T. is somewhat irregular, and this fact precludes any sure
generalization as to particular shades of meaning. In later
Greek the force of av is weakened, and therefore the difference
between its presence and absence is lessened. Here, not the
coming, but the time of it, is doubtful ; * till the Advent, when
ever that may be. See Milligan on 2 Thess. ii. 7, where there
is no av, and Edwards here. In Rev. ii. 25, a.\pi ov av r|oo, it is
doubtful whether r/w is fut. indie, or aor. subj. At the Day of
Judgment they will take part in judging (vi. 2, 3), with all the
facts before them.

05 Kal &lt;}&gt;umo-i. Who shall both throw light upon, shall
illumine, lucem inferet in (Beng.). But the difference between
bringing light to and c bringing to light is not great. The KO.L
is probably both, not also ; but if also, the meaning is, will
come to judge and also will illumine, which is less probable.
&lt;um o&gt; points to the source of the revelation.

TCI Kpuirra TOU OXOTOUS. Abscondito. tencbrarum (Vulg.); occulia
tenebrarum = res tenebris occultatas (Beza). The genitive may be
possessive or characterizing, the hidden things which darkness
holds, or the hidden things whose nature is dark. The point
is, not that what will be revealed is morally bad, although that
may be suggested, but that hitherto they have been quite secret,
hidden, it may be, from the person s own conscience.

Kal &lt;j&gt;a^pwo-et. Two things are necessary for an unerring
judgment of human actions, a complete knowledge of the facts,
and full insight into the motives. These the Lord will apply
when He comes; and to attempt to judge men without these
indispensable qualifications is futile arrogance. &lt;E&gt;avepoo&gt; points
to the result of the revelation.

Kal Tore 6 limbos. And then, and not till then, the measure of
praise that is due will come to each from God. * He will have
his praise (RV.), what rightly belongs to him, which may be
little or none, and will be very different from the praise of
partizans here. We have the same thought in 2 Cor. x. 18;
Rom. ii. 29 ; and Clem. Rom. reproduces it, Cor. 30. Compare
/uo-009, iii. 14, and 6 /u&lt;r0os, Rom. iv. 4, and see Hort on i Pet.

i- 7&gt; P- 43-

diro TOU 0eoO. At the end, with emphasis ; the award is final,
as a-n-o intimates ; there is no further court of appeal : and it is
from God that Christ has authority to judge the world (John
v. 27). Cf. 2 Esdr. xvi. 62-65. With /caoTo&gt; compare the fivefold
I/ccur-ros in iii. 5-13.

IV. 6-21] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 79

D E F G, Aug. omit the fo before Kat. D omits the TOU before 6eou.
The conjecture of vir6 for airb before rou GeoO has no probability of being
right. Christ is the wpiff/J-tvos fnrb rov Qeov KpiTrjs (Acts x. 42) : cf. /i^XXet
Kplveiv T))V olKovfjilvrjv tv dvdpl $ fapiaev (Acts xvii. 31): so that the judg
ments pronounced by Christ are cbrd roO 0eov.

IV. 6-21. Personal Application of the foregoing Passage
(III. 5-IV. 5), and Close of the Subject of the Dis
sensions.

My aim in all this is to correct party-spirit and conceit.
Do compare your self-glorification with the humiliations of
your teachers. This admonition comes from a father whom
you ought to imitate. I really am coming to you. Is it to
be in severity or in gentleness ?

6 These comments I have modified in form, so as to apply to
myself and Apollos, without including others, for you certainly
have made party-leaders of him and me. And I have done this
for your sakes, not ours, in order that by us as examples you
may learn the meaning of the words, Go not beyond what is
written ; in short, to keep any one of you from speaking boast
fully in favour of the one teacher to the disparagement of the
other. 7 For, my friend, who gives you the right to prefer one
man to another and proclaim Paul and Apollos as leaders?
And what ability do you possess that was not given to you by
God? You must allow that you had it as a gift from Him.
Then why do you boast as if you had the credit of acquiring it ?
8 No doubt you Corinthians are already in perfect felicity ; already
you are quite rich ; without waiting for us poor teachers, you
have come to your kingdom ! And I would to God that you
had come to the Kingdom, that we also might be there with you !
But we are far from that happy condition. For it seems to me
that God has exhibited us His Apostles last of all, as men
doomed to death are the last spectacle in a triumphal procession :
for a spectacle we are become to the universe, to the whole
amphitheatre of angels and men. 10 We poor simpletons go on
with the foolishness of preaching Christ, while you in your
relation to Him are men of sagacity. We feel our weakness ;
you are so strong as to stand alone. You have the glory, and
we the contempt. n Up to this very moment we go hungry,
thirsty, and scantily clothed ; we get plenty of hard blows and

8O FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV 6

have no proper home; 12 and we have to work hard with our
hands to earn our daily bread. Men revile us, and we bless
them ; they persecute us, and we are patient ; they slander us,
and we merely deprecate. 13 We have been treated as the scum
of the earth, the refuse of society, and are treated so still.

14 1 am not writing in this tone to put you to shame : you are
my dearly loved children, and I am showing you where you are
wrong. 15 For you may have any number of instructors in Christ,
yet you have not more than one father : for in Christ Jesus it was
I, and no one else, who begat you through the Glad-tidings
which I brought you. 16 1 have, therefore, the right to beseech
you to follow my steps. 17 And because I wish you to follow my
example, I have sent Timothy to you ; for he also is a child of
mine, dearly loved as you are, loyal and trusty in the Lord, and
he will bring back to your remembrance the simple and lowly
ways which I have as a Christian teacher, not only at Corinth,
but everywhere and in every Church. 18 Some of you boastfully
declared that my sending Timothy meant that I did not dare to
come myself; so they would do as they pleased. 19 But I do
mean to come, and that soon, to you, if the Lord pleases ; and
I will then take cognizance, not of what these inflated boasters
say, but of what they can do. Have they any spiritual power ?
20 For the Kingdom of God is not a thing of words, but of
spiritual power. 21 Which is it to be then ? Am I to come to
you rod in hand, or in love and a spirit of gentleness ?

After a brief, plain statement of his purpose (6, 7) in the
preceding exposition of the Pastoral Office, the Apostle severely
rebukes the inflated glorying of his readers (8-13), and then, in
a more tender strain (14-16), but still not without sternness
(17-21), explains the mission of Timothy, the precursor of his
own intended visit.

6. TauTa 8e. * Now these things, viz. the whole of the
remarks from iii. 5 onwards, the Sc introducing the conclusion
and application of the whole.

dSe\4&gt;oi. As in i. 10, iii. i.

jxeTeax^aTiora. I put differently, transferred by a figure ;
lit. altered the arrangement (o-x^a). The Apostle means
that he used the names of Apollos and himself to illustrate a
principle which might, but for reasons of tact, have been more
obviously illustrated by other names. In LXX the verb is
found once (4 Mac. ix. 22), in N.T. in Paul only; of false

IV. 6] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 8l

apostles fashioning themselves into Apostles of Christ, like
Satan fashioning himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. xi. 13-15) ;
and of the glorious change of our body of humiliation (Phil,
iii. 21). The meaning here is different from both these, and the
difference of meaning in the three passages turns upon the
implied sense of o-^/Aa in each case. See Lightfoot ad loc. and
also on Phil. ii. 7 and iii. 21 ; Trench, Syn. LXX. ; Hastings,
DB. ii. p. 7. In the present passage there seems to be a
reference to the rhetorical sense of o^/-"* ( =figurd) to denote a
veiled allusion. The meaning here will be, * I have transferred
these warnings to myself and Apollos for the purpose of a
covert allusion, and that for your sakes, that in our persons you
may get instruction. The /xeracrx^ *rr/*os, therefore, consists
in putting forward the names of thoso not really responsible for
the oracrcis instead of the names of others who were more to
blame.*

lv fip.lv fxd0T)Te. May learn in us as an object-lesson, in our
case may learn. They could read between the lines.

TO JULY) uirep a ylypairrai. The article, as often, has almost the
effect of inverted commas; the principle or the lesson
" Never go beyond," etc. The maxim is given in an elliptical
form without any verb, as in ne sutor ultra crepidam : cf. v. i,
xi. 24; 2 Pet. ii. 22. Here, as elsewhere, some texts insert a
verb in order to smooth the ellipse. By a yey/aa-Trrat the Apostle
means passages of Scripture such as those which he has quoted,
i. 19, 31, iii. 19, 20. It is possible that there was a maxim of
this kind current among the Jews, like /x^Sev ayav among the
Greeks. It is strange that any one should suppose that
a yc ypaTTTai can refer to what St Paul himself has written or
intends to write, or to the commands of our Lord.f It was
perhaps a Rabbinical maxim.

Iva, fit) K.T.X. This second Iva introduces the consequence
expected from fux^re, and so the ultimate purpose of /xere-
o-x^/xciTio-a, viz. to avoid all sectarian divisions. The proposal to
take Iva. in the local sense of where, in which case, l wobei?
may be safely dismissed. Even in class. Grk. this sense of Iva
is chiefly poetical, and it is quite out of keeping with N.T.
usage and with the context here. It is less easy to be certain
whether fa&LovaOt is the present indicative, which would be very
irregular after tva, or an irregularly contracted subjunctive.
Gal. iv. 17 is the only certain instance in N.T. of Iva. with the

* That there was no jealousy or rivalry between St Paul and Apollos is
clear from iii. 6, 8-10, xvi. 12. It is possible that it was the factious conduct
of his partizans that drove Apollos from Corinth (Renan, S. Paul, p. 375).

t Rudolf Steck would refer this to Rom. xii. 3 ; an extraordinary con
jecture.

82 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 6, 7

present indicative; but some of the best editors admit it in
John xvii. 3 ; Tit. ii. 4 ; i John v. 20. The double Iva is Pauline \
Gal. iii. 14, iv. 5.

The sense is an expansion of glorying in men (iii. 21):
party-spirit, essentially egoist, cries up one leader at the expense
of another leader. Some take IvJ? and erepou, not as leaders, but
as members, of the respective parties. This is not the probable
meaning. To cry up a favourite leader of your own choosing is
to betray an inflated self-conceit. See on v. 18. With els vTrcp
TOV vos maybe contrasted otKoSo/xcire 19 TOV Iva (i Thess. v. u),
where the opposite cause and effect are indicated, the union,
which results from mutual edification. Here vn-ep means on
behalf of or in favour of. We have a similar use of virep and
Kara in Rom. viii. 31. See Blass, 45. 2.

For tv rifuv, D 17, Copt, read tv fyuv. virkp S, (N A B C P 17) is to be
preferred to inrip 6 (D E F G L). After ytypairrcu, K 3 D 3 L P, Syrr.
Copt. Arm. AV. insert &lt;f&gt;poveiv to avoid the ellipse: N*ABD*EF A G,
Vulg. RV. omit. Some editors propose to omit rb [AT] virtp d ytypairrai as
a marginal gloss. The sentence is intelligible without these words, but a
gloss would have taken some other form. The &lt;j&gt;poveiv may come from
Rom. xii. 3.

7. TI S y^P &lt;T SiaKpiwi ) The yap introduces a reason why
such conceit is out of place ; For who sees anything special in
you ? The verb has a variety of meanings (see Acts xv. 9 and
on o-wKpiVeiv in ii. 13), and these meanings are linked by the
idea of * separate in one sense or another : here it means to
distinguish favourably from others. Who gives you the right to
exalt one and depress another ? No one has given you such a
right : then do you claim it is an inherent right ? Tu, qui
amplius te accepisst gloriaris, quis U ab co qui minus accepii
separavit, nisi is qui tibi dedit quod alteri non dedit ? ( Atto).

TI 8e ex t s o " IC eXajSes. The 8e adds another home-thrust,
another searching question. Let us grant that you have some
superiority. Is it inherent? You know that you have nothing
but what you have received. Your good things were all of them
given to you. Origen suggests that the question may mean,
Why do you pretend to have a gift which you have not received
from God? But he prefers the usual interpretation. The
question is a favourite one with Cyril of Alexandria, who quotes
it nine times in his commentary on St John.

cl 8e KCH 2Xa{3es. But if thou didst receive it. The *&lt;u
throws an emphasis on !A.a/?es, and ei KOI represents the insist
ence on what is fact (2 Cor. iv. 3, v. 16, xii. n), while KCU ci
represents an assumed possibility ; but it is not certain that this
distinction always holds good in Paul.

It has been urged that the usual interpretation of !Aa/? as

IV. 7, 8] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 83

1 received from God, the Giver of all good gifts is not suitable
to the context ; and that the Apostle means that such Christian
wisdom as the Corinthians possessed was not their own making,
but came to them through ministry of their teachers. But, after
iii. 5-7, 21 (cf. xii. 6, xv. 10), St Paul would not be likely to make
any such claim. The main point is, whatever superiority you
may have is not your own product, it was a gift ; and St Paul
was much more likely to mean that it was God s gift, than any
thing derived from himself and Apollos.

The question which he asks strikes deeper than the immediate
purpose of this passage. It is memorable in the history of
theology for the revolution which it brought about in the
doctrine of Grace. In A.D. 396, in the first work which he
wrote as a bishop, Augustine tells us : " To solve this question
we laboured hard in the cause of the freedom of man s will, but
the Grace of God won the day," and he adds that this text was
decisive (Retract. H. i. i ; see also De divers, quaest. ad Simplici-
anum, i.). Ten years before the challenge of Pelagius, the study
of St Paul s writings, and especially of this verse and of Rom.
ix. 1 6, had crystallized in his mind the distinctively Augustinian
doctrines of man s total depravity, of irresistible grace, and of
absolute predestination.

The fundamental thought here is that the teachers, about
whom the Corinthians gloried, were but ministers of what was
the gift of God. The boasting temper implied forgetfulness of
this fact. It treated the teachers as exhibitors of rhetorical skill,
and as ministering to the taste of a critical audience, which was
entitled to class the teachers according to the preferences of this
or that hearer. EAa/?es here coincides with 7ri&lt;rrevVaT in iii. 5.

8. The Apostle now directly attacks the self-esteem of his
readers in a tone of grave irony. You may well sit in judgment
upon us, from your position of advanced perfection, whence you
can watch us struggling painfully to the heights which you have
already scaled. Haec verba per ironiam dicta sunt : non enim
sunt affirmantis, sed indignantis^ et commoti animi. Illos quippe
regnare^ saturates et divites factos, in quibus superius diversa vitia
et plures errores redarguit (Atto). It spoils the irony of the
assumed concession to take the three clauses which follow as
questions (WH.). That the three argumentative questions
should be followed by three satirical affirmations is full of point.
Six consecutive questions would be wearisome and somewhat
flat.

TJSr] KKopeorjo.eVoi eor^, rJSr] eirXounqaaTe, x w P*-S ^fAwv ejSacriXcuaaTC.
The RV. might have given each of the three clauses a note
of exclamation. Some give one to the last, and it covers the

84 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 8

other two. It is evident that the three verbs form a climax, and
the last gives the key to the allusion. These highly blessed
Corinthians are already in the Kingdom of God, enjoying its
banquets, its treasures, and its thrones. The verbs stand for
the satisfaction of all desires in the Messianic Kingdom
(Luke xxii. 29, 30; i Thess. ii. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 12). The attitude
of the 7T&lt;vcriu)/x.ei/(H amounted to a claim to be already in
possession of all that this Kingdom was to bring. They have
got a private millennium of their own. Like the r/S?; in the two
first clauses, x^P^ f)i*-&lt;*&gt;v is emphatic. Without us, who taught
you all that you know of the Gospel, and who are still labouring
to enter the Kingdom, you are as Kings in the Kingdom.
1 Without us does not mean without our aid/ but * without our
company. The contrast is between the fancied beatitude of the
Corinthians and the actual condition of the Apostles. The
Corinthians pose as perfected saints ; their teachers are still very
far indeed from perfection.*

In TrXovretv and /focriAeueu/ we have a coincidence with the
language of the Stoics, as in iii. 21. There rravra v^v lo-riv has
parallels in Zeno and Seneca; emittere hanc del vocem, Haec
omnia mea sunt (De Benef. vii. ii. 3). But, whether or no
St Paul is consciously using Stoic expressions, there is no
resemblance in meaning. The thought of victory over the
world by incorporation into Christ is far removed from that of
independence of the world through personal avrapKeia. Here
again we have the difference between the true and the false
&lt;ro&lt;/&gt;t a.

Kal o&lt;j&gt;\&lt;5i ye ef3aori\uaaTe. In this late Greek this un-
augmented second aorist has become a mere particle, an
exclamation to express a wish as to what might have happened,
but has not, or what might happen, but is not expected. Hence
it is followed by the indicative without av. In LXX it is often
followed by the aorist, as here, especially in the phrase o^cXov
aTreflavoyuei/. In 2 Cor. xi. i and Gal. v. 12, as here, the wish
has a touch of irony. The y emphasizes the wish ; As far as
my feelings are concerned, would that your imaginary royalty
were real, for then our hard lot would be at an end.

ira . . . owpcwnXeu aujAei . In ironical contrast to X&lt;D/HS
You seem to have arrived at the goal far in front of us

* Chrysostom points out that " piety is insatiable." A Christian can
never be satisfied with his condition ; and for those who were as yet scarcely
beginners to suppose that they had reached the end, was childish.
Bachmann quotes the well-known Logion preserved by Clement of
Alexandria (704 ed. Potter, and found in a somewhat different form in
Oxyrhynchus papyri ; ou TrawreTcu 6 T)T&V e?ws 8u&gt; evpy, evpuv 8 0a/A|8?7&lt;reTcu,
6afj,^deh 8i j8a&lt;ri\ei/&lt;ret, /3a&lt;n\ei5&lt;ras 3l ^irapaTratfeTcu. See Deissmann, Light,
p. xiii.

IV. 8, 9] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 85

poor teachers : indeed I wish that it were so, so that we might hope
to follow and share your triumph. The only other place in
N.T. in which &lt;rw/?ao-iAev eii/ occurs is 2 Tim. ii. 12, where it is
used of reigning with Christ.

9. SOKOJ ydp, 6 eos . . . direSeifei/. For it seems to me,
God has set forth us, the Apostles, as last. There is a great
pageant in which the Apostles form the ignominious finale, con
sisting of doomed men, who will have to fight in the arena till
they are killed. St Paul is thinking chiefly of himself; but, to
avoid the appearance of egoism, he associates himself with other
Apostles. Perhaps a7re Seiev is used in a technical sense ; placed
upon the scene, made a show of, exhibited ; or, possibly,
nominated, * proclaimed, as if being doomed men was an
office or distinction : cf. cSeovro airoSciai TWO. avroov pao-iXca.
(Joseph. Ant. vi. iii. 3). This latter meaning increases the
irony of the passage. In 2 Thess. ii. 4, dTroSei/cviWa seems to
be used in this sense.

ws ImOawmous. The adjective occurs nowhere else in N.T. ;
but in LXX of Bel and the Dragon 31 it is used of the con
demned conspirators who were thrown to the lions, two at a time,
daily ; T-&V crriftu ariW crw/zara Svo. Dionysius of Halicarnassus
(A.R. vii. 35), about B.C. 8, uses it of those who were thrown
from the Tarpeian rock. Tertullian (De Pudic. 14) translates it
here, veluti bestiarios, which is giving it too limited a meaning.
Cf. lOrjpiojjLaxyo-a, xv. 32. Spectaiidos proposuit, ut morti addictos
(Beza).*

on Oe aTpoy eyeni6T]p.ei&gt;. Seeing that we are become a
spectacle ; explaining exhibited (or nominated ) us as doomed
men. Here Oiarpov = 0e aju.a : the place of seeing easily comes
to be substituted for what is seen there, and also for 01 tfearcu, as
we say the house for the audience or spectators. Cf. 0earpio-
/xevoi, spectaculum facti (Vulg. both there and here), Heb. x. 33.

TW Koo-fxw. The intelligent universe, which is immediately
specified by the two anarthrous substantives which follow :
angels and men make up the KOO-/ZOS to which the Apostles are
a spectacle. See on xiii. r. It is perhaps true to say that,
wherever angels are mentioned in N.T., good angels are always
meant, unless something is added in the context to intimate the
contrary, as in Matt. xxv. 41 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7 ; Rev. xii. 7, 9, etc.
Godet remarks here that of course les mauvais ne sont pas exclus,
and this is also the opinion of Augustine and Herveius.

* The Epistle contains a number of illustrations taken from heathen life ;
here and vii. 31, the theatre; the idol-feasts, viii. 10, x. 20; racing and
boxing in the games, with a crown as a prize, ix. 24-27 ; the syssitia, x. 27 ;
the fighting with wild beasts, xv. 32.

86 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 9-11

Strangely enough, Atto supposes that St Paul means evil angels
only. The Apostle thinks of the ayyeAoi as wondering spectators
of the vicissitudes of the Church militant here on earth (cf.
Eph. iii. 19; i Pet. i. 12). Origen thinks of them as drawn to
the strange sight of a man still clothed in flesh wrestling with
principalities and powers, etc.

After doKu ydp, N 3 B s D E L P add 8n : N* A B* C D* F G omit.

10. Tjfieis p-wpoi ufxets Se 4&gt;p&lt;mjAoi. Est increpatio cum
ironia (Herv.). The three antitheses refer respectively to teaching,
demeanour, and worldly position. The Apostles were fools on
account of Christ (2 Cor. iv. u; Phil. iii. 7), because it was
owing to their preaching Christ that the world regarded them as
crazy (i. 23; Acts xxvi. 24). The Corinthians were wise in
Christ, because they maintained that as Christians they had
great powers of discernment and possessed the true wisdom ; Sid
in servos ) kv in consortes convenit (Beng.) : ravra Xeywv eipawKajs
TrpoerpcTrev aurou? yei ecr$ai &lt;povi //,ovs Iv Xpi&lt;7T(3 (Orig. ). Cf. X. 15.

UJJLCIS eySo^oi, rjfxels Se aTifioi. The order is here inverted, not
merely to avoid monotony, but in order to append to ^/xeis
an/Aoi the clauses which expand it. Chiasmus is common in
these Epistles (iii. 17, viii. 13, xiii. 2 ; 2 Cor. iv. 3, vi. 8, ix. 6,
x. 12, etc.). "Ei/Soo5 is one of the 103 words which are found
only in Paul and Luke in N.T. (Hawkins, Hor. Syn. p. 191).

11. axpi rrjs apn wpas. Their dn/ua is without respite, and
is unbroken, up to the moment of writing. This is emphatically
restated at the end of v. 13 : privation, humiliation, and uttt:
contempt is their continual lot.

yujj.ciTeu ofiet . We are scantily clothed ; ev i/^x" *ai yv/xvo-
rrjri (2 Cor. xi. 27). The word generally means to go light-armed
(Plut., Dio. Cass.) ; it occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX,
Cf. Jas. ii. 15, where yv/Ws means scantily clad.

KoXcuJn6fAe0a. We are buffeted, are struck with the fist
The verb is late, and probably colloquial (i Pet. ii. 20; Mark
xiv. 65 ; Matt. xxvi. 67). The substantive KoAa&lt;os is said to be
Doric = Attic KoVSvAos. The verb is possibly chosen rather than
Sepetv (ix. 26 ; 2 Cor. xi. 20), or TVTrretv (Acts xxiii. 2), or virtDind-
c/ (ix. 26, 27), or KovSvXt^av (Amos ii. 7; Mai. iii. 5), to mark
the treatment of a slave : velut servi ; adeo non regnamus (Beng.).
Seneca, in the last section of the Apocolocyntosis, says that
Caesar successfully claimed a man as his slave after producing
witnesses who had seen the man beaten by Caesar flagris, ferulis,
colaphis. In 2 Cor. xii. 7 the verb is used of the ayyeXos ^arava,
buffeting the Apostle.

Are homeless, have not where to lay oui

IV. 11-13] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 8?

head (Matt. viii. 20; Luke ix. 58). The verb occurs nowhere
else in N.T. or LXX, but is used by Aquila for ao-reyos in Isa.
Iviii. 7. It certainly does not mean instabiles sumus (Vulg.), but
nusquam habemus sedcm (Primasius). The Apostles fugabantuf
ab infidelibus de loco in locum (Atto) ; eXawo/ze#a yap (Chrys.).
Their life had no repose ; they were vagrants, and were stigmatized
as such.

yvpvi.TeiJOtJt.cv is accepted by all editors, L alone reading yvftvijTctofitv.
Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch., p. 81.

12. K&lt;mia)fAi&gt; Ipy. T. iSuus x P a ^- Again and again he
mentions this (ix. 6 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7 ; i Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ;
cf. Acts xviii. 3, xx. 34). See Knowling on Acts xviii. 3, Deiss-
mann, Light, p. 317, and Ramsay, St Paul&gt; pp. 34-36. He had
worked for his own living when he was at Corinth, and he was
doing this at Ephesus at the time of writing. He must maintain
his independence. Graviter peccat, et libertatem arguendi amittit,
qui ab eo aliquid accipit, qui propterea tribuit ne redarguat (Atto).
The plural may be rhetorical, but it probably includes other
teachers who did the like. Greeks despised manual labour ;
St Paul glories in it.

XoiSopoujxEfoi euXoyoujxeK, SiWKOfxeyoi dycxojacOa. He is perhaps
not definitely alluding to the Lord s commands (Matt. v. 44;
Luke vi. 27), but he is under their influence. Here again, Greek
prejudice would be against him. In the preliminary induction
which Aristotle (Anal Post. n. xii. 21) makes for the definition
of /AeyaXoi/ruxia, he asks what it is that such /xeyaXoi/^v^oi as
Achilles, Ajax, and Alcibiades have in common, and answers, TO
pi) dve xeo-flai v/3pto/Ai/oi. In his full description (Eth. Nic. iv.
iii. 17, 30), of the high-minded man, he says that he Trd^irav
oXiywpijorei the contempt of others, and that he is not /Av^o-i/ca/cos ;
but this is because he is conscious that he never deserves ill, and
because he does not care to bear anything, good or ill (and least
of all ill), long in mind. Just as the Greek would think that the
Apostle s working with his own hands stamped him as /?avauo-os,
so he would regard his manner of receiving abuse and injury as
fatal to his being accounted /KeyaXdi/a^os ; he must be an abject
person.

13. 8u(r4&gt;T)fjioufxet ou In i Mac. vii. 41 the verb is used of the
insults of Rabshakeh as the envoy of Sennacherib, but it is not
found elsewhere in N.T.

jrapaKaXoG|j.ev. We deprecate, obsecramus (Vulg.). The
verb is very frequent in N.T., with many shades of meaning,
radiating from the idea of * calling to one s side in order to
speak privately, to gain support. Hence such meanings as
1 exhort, entreat, * instruct, comfort. Exhort is certainly

88 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 13, 14

not the meaning here, as if insulting language was requited with
a sermon ; yet Origen and Basil seem to take it so. To give the
soft answer that turns away wrath (Prov. xv. i) may be right, but
it is not a common meaning of TrapaKoAeiv. Tyndale and other
early versions have * we pray, which again is not the meaning, if
pray means pray to God. *

is irepiKaOapjuiaTa. The uncompounded /ca$ap/xa is more
common in both the senses which the two forms of the word
have in common. These are (i) sweepings, rubbish, and, (2)
as in Prov. xxi. 1 8, scapegoats, i.e. victims, piacula^ lustramina,
used as expiationis pretium, to avert the wrath of the gods. At
Athens, in times of plague or similar visitations, certain outcasts
were flung into the sea with the formula, Trepu/^/xa i^cov yevov
(Suidas), to expiate the pollution of the community. These were
worthless persons, and hence the close connexion between the
two meanings. Demosthenes, in the De Corona^ addresses
Aeschines, w KaOap^a, as a term of the deepest insult. It is not
quite certain which of the two meanings is right here ; nor does
the coupling with wepti/ny/io settle the matter, for that word also
is used in two similar senses. Godet distinguishes the two words
by saying that Trepi/caflap/xara are the dust that is swept up from
a floor and Trcpu/^/xa the dirt that is rubbed or scraped off an
object. Neither word occurs elsewhere in N.T. On the whole,
it is probable that neither word has here the meaning of scape
goat or ransom (aTro/Xu rpwo-is) : and in Tobit v. 18 Trepu/^a
is probably refuse (AV., RV.). See Lightfoot on Trepfyij/xa
(Ign. Eph. 8), and Heinichen on Eus. H.E. vii. xxii. 7, Melet.
xv. p. 710, who shows that in the third century 7rep6i//7?/xa &lt;rov
had become a term of formal compliment, your humble and
devoted servant. See Ep. Barn. 4, 6.

TOU KOCTJAOU . . . TtoLvrw. Whatever the meaning of the two
words, these genitives give them the widest sweep, and TTOLVTIOV is
neuter (AV., RV.), unless the meaning of scapegoat is given
to

(N* A C P 17) rather than ^Xao-^^ou/zei/oi (NBDEF
G L). The internal evidence turns the scale. It is more probable that
the unusual dv&lt;r&lt;f). would be changed to the common [3\acr&lt;f&gt;. than vice.
versa.

14. OUK ei&gt;TpeTri&gt; ufxas. The severity of tone ends as abruptly
as it began (v. 8). Aspera blandis mitigat, ut salutaris medicus.

* Plato (Crtto 49) puts into the mouth of Socrates; "We ought not to
retaliate or render evil for evil to any one, whatever evil we may have suffered
from him. . . . Warding off evil by evil is never right." But returning good
for evil goes far beyond that.

t Tertullian and the Vulgate transliterate, peripsema ; Beza has sordes,
Luther Fegopfer (Auswurf) t

IV. 14, 15] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 89

These sudden changes of tone are much more common in Paul
than in other N.T. writers. The section that follows (14-21),
with its mingled tenderness and sternness both alike truly
paternal, forms a worthy colophon to the whole discussion of the
cr^icr/xara. The root-meaning of ei/rpeVeij/ is perhaps to turn in,
and so to make a person hang his head, as a sign, either of
reverence (Matt. xxi. 37; Luke xviii. 2, 4; Heb. xii. 9) or of
shame, as here (cf. Ivrpo-n-ri, vi. 5, xv. 34). In these senses it is
frequent in late writers, in LXX, and in Paul. The participle
expresses the spirit in which the Apostle writes ; not as shaming
you, not as making you abashed. What he had written might
well make them hang their heads, but to effect that was not his
purpose in writing; he wrote to bring home to their hearts a
solemn fatherly warning.

kou0Twi . The duty of a parent, as appears from Eph. vi. 4.*
Excepting in a speech of St Paul (Acts xx. 31), vovBerciv and
vovOto-ia do not occur in N.T. outside the Epistles of St Paul,
and they cover all four groups. Nov^erai/, to put in mind, has
always a touch of sternness, if not of blame ; to admonish, or
warn. We have vov^ereiV TOVS /ca/&lt;aJ5 Trpacra-oi/ras (Aesch. Pr.
264), and vov#Teu/ KovSu Aois (Aristoph. Vesp. 254). Plato
(Gorg. 479a) combines it with KoXd&iv. See Abbott on Eph.
vi. 4 and Col. i. 28.

vovderuv (N A C P 17, RV.) rather than vovOeru (B D E F G L, Vulg.
AV.);^but the evidence is not decisive. Lachm. and Treg. prefer

15. lav ydp. The reason for his taking on himself this duty ;
If, as time goes on, ye should have in turn an indefinite number
of tutors in Christ, yet ye will never have had but one father.
The conditional clause, with a pres. subjunct. and ar, in the
protasis implies futurity as regards the apodosis. As there is but
one planting and one laying of the foundation-stone (iii. 6, 10),
so the child can have but one father.

iraiSaywyous . . lv Xpioru. The words are closely con
nected. Without eV X/DKTTW to qualify it, TraiSaywyovs would have
been too abrupt, if not too disparaging. There is no hint that
they have already had too many. The TraiSaywyos (Gal. iii. 24)
was not a teacher, but the trusty slave who acted as tutor or
guardian and escorted them to and from school, and in general
took care of those whom the father had begotten.^ He might be

* Cf. TOVTOVS ws Tar??/) vovderuv tSoKipacras ( Wisd. xi. 10), and vov6eTr)&lt;Tft
Slicaiw us vioi&gt; aya-n-riaew (Pss. Sol. xiii. 8). Excepting Timothy (v. 17 ;
2 Tim. i. 2), St Paul nowhere else calls any one TKVQV a.ya.Tr-rjTov. Spirituals
paternitas singularem necessitudincm ct affectionem conjunctam habet, prat
omni alia propinquitate (Beng.).

t See Ramsay, Galatians, p. 383 ; Smith, Diet, of Ant. ii. p. 307. The
same usage is found in papyri.

90 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 15-17

more capable, and even more affectionate, than the father, but
he could never become father. The frequent ei/ Xptoru) gives
" the ideal sphere of action " (Ellicott).*

d\X* ou iroXXous ircrrepas. Still (viii. 7) not many fathers.
The verb to be understood must be future, for the possibility of
/xvpi oi TrcuSaycoyoi is future : however many these may be, yet ye
will not have (or, have had) many fathers.

iv yap Xpiorw I. The whole process, first and last, is ev
That was the sphere, while the Gospel was the means
TOV cvayy.). The two pronouns, eya&gt; v/xas, are in emphatic
proximity; whoever may have been the parent of other Churches,
it was I who in Christ begat you. The thought is that of cyw
f(j&gt;VTfvcra (iii. 6) and of 0e/ze Aiov Wr)t&lt;a (iii. 10), while the TraiSaywyoi
are those who water the plant, or build the superstructure.

16. irapaicaXw o5y. Therefore, as having the right to do so,
I call upon my children to take after their father. Si filii estis,
debitum honorem debetis impendert patri^ et imitatores cxistert
(Atto). Cf. i Thess. i. 6, 7, ii. 7, n.

pipiTou fiou yiyecrOe. Show yourselves imitators of me ; by
your conduct prove your parentage. Here and xi. i (see note
there), imitators rather than followers (AV.). The context
shows the special points of assimilation, viz. humility and self-
sacrifice (vv. 10-13). In Phil. iii. 17 we have O-VV/U/A^TTJS. The
charge is not given in a spirit of self-confidence. He has received
the charge to lead them, and he is bound to set an example for
them to follow, but he takes no credit for the pattern (xi. i).

17. Am TOUTO. * Because I desire you to prove imitators of
me, I sent Timothy, a real son of mine in the Lord, to allay the
contrary spirit among you. Timothy had probably already left
Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), but was at work in Macedonia, and
would arrive at Corinth later than this letter (Hastings, DB. i.
p. 483). It is not stated in Acts that Corinth was Timothy s
ultimate destination, but we are told that the Corinthian Erastus
(Rom. xvi. 23) was his companion on the mission. It is not
clear whether tTrcfjuj/a is the ordinary aorist, I sent or have
sent, or the epistolary aorist, I send. Deissmann, Light, p. 157.

TfKvov. Child in the same sense as eyeWr/o-a (v. 15). St
Paul had converted him (Acts xvi. i), on his visit to Lystra
(Acts xiv. 7 ; cf. i Tim. i. 2, 18; 2 Tim. i. 2). This aya-n-rjTov
KOI TTto-rov re/cvov was fittingly sent to remind children who were
equally beloved, but were not equally faithful, of their duties
towards the Apostle who was the parent of both. The first

* Findlay quotes Sanhedrin, f. xix 2 j "Whoever teaches the son of big
friend the Law, it is as if he had begotten him."

t See Deissmann, Die neutcstamentliche Formel "in Christo Jesu."

IV. 17-19] APPLICATION OF FOREGOING PASSAGE 91

os gives the relation of Timothy to the Apostle, the second his
relation to the Corinthians; 6 dScA^os (2 Cor. i. i) gives his
relation to all Christians. His sparing this beloved child was
proof of his love for them; i Thess. iii. i, 2.

dmjin^crei. X.y6r]v Se ai/run&gt; 6 Xoyos Karrjyopti (Orig.). They
had forgotten much of what St Paul had taught them in person

1 KttT^T (xV. 2).

rots 68ou s JJLOU. The real Apostle had been superseded in
their imagination by an imaginary Paul, the leader of a party.
His ways are indicated :. 17, ii. 1-5, iv. 11-13, lx " J 5 22 &gt; 2 7-

Ka0ws imn-axoG eV irdo-fl eic. Exactly as everywhere in every
Church. There is a general consistency in the Apostle s
teaching, and Timothy will not impose any special demands
upon the Corinthians, but will only bring them into line with
what St Paul teaches everywhere. This is one of several passages
which remind the Corinthians that they are only members of a
much greater whole (see on i. 2). They are not the whole
Church, and they are not the most perfect members. On the
other hand, no more is required of them than is required of
other Christians.

After 5ti TOUTO, K A P 17 add avr6 :K*BCDEFGL omit, fwv TKVOV
(KABCP 17) rather than rtnvov pov (D E F G L). After iv X/&gt;tcr7&gt;,
D* F G add Iij&lt;rou : A B D 3 E L P omit.

18. fls fifi epxofjieVou 8e JJLOU. Some of them boastfully gave
out ; Timothy is coming in his place ; Paul himself will not
come. The Se marks the contrast between this false report and
the true purpose of Timothy s mission.

e&lt;J&gt;u(riw9T]o-at ri^es. Vitium Corinthiis frequens, inflatio (Beng.);
v. 6, 19, v. 2, viii. i.* The tense is the natural one to use, for
St Paul is speaking of definite facts that had been reported to
him. He cannot use the present tense, for he is ignorant of the
state of things at the time of writing. But by using the aorist he
does not imply that the evil is a thing of the past, and therefore
are puffed up (AV., RV.), inflati sunt (Vulg.), may be justified.
There is nothing to show whether he knew who the T/es were
(cf. xv. 12; Gal. i. 7). Origen suggests that 6 0eo-7rno&lt;; IlavXos
does not mention any one, because he foresaw that the offenders
would repent, and there was therefore no need to expose
them. They are probably connected with the more definite
and acrimonious opponents of 2 Cor. x. i, 7, 10, xi. 4, where
a leader, who is not in view in this Epistle, has come on the
scene.

19. eXco o-ojiai 8e raxews. He intends remaining at Ephesus

* The verb is peculiar to Paul in N.T., and (excepting Col. ii. 1 8) is
peculiar to this Epistle.

92 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [IV. 19-21

till Pentecost (xvi. 8). His plans, and changes of plan, and the
charges made against him about his proposed visit, are discussed
in 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, 23.

lav o Ku pios 0eXrj&lt;nr). A solemn touch; cf. xvi. 7 ; Jas. iv. 15.
It is impossible, and not very important, to decide whether 6
Kvpios means our Lord or the Father. Our Lord has just been
mentioned ; on the other hand, in connexion with 0e Aeiv or
#e A.r;/xa, God is commonly meant. We have a similar doubt
i Thess. iii. 12.

Y^wcrojj.(H ou T. Xoyoc . . . dXXa T. Surafuy. Their words I
shall ignore ; they proceed from persons whose heads are turned
with conceit ; but their power I shall put to the proof. This,
as Godet remarks, is the language of a judge who is about to
conduct a trial. * The power certainly does not mean that of
working miracles (Chrys.); but rather that of winning men over
to a Christian life. In ii. 4, 5 we had the antithesis between
Ao yos and Swa/us in a different form.

For T&V ire(j)V(riufj.ti&gt;wv, L has rbv TT&lt;f&gt;v(n6/j.vov : some cursives and
Origen support the reading, but no editors adopt it. Before these words
F inserts O.VT&V.

20. f] {3aonXei a T. GeoG. This expression has three meanings
in the Pauline Epistles: (i) the future Kingdom of God, when
God is all in all (xv. 28); akin to this (2) the mediatorial
reign of Christ, which is the Kingdom of God in process of
development; and so, as here (and see Rom. xiv. 17), we have
(3) the inward reality which underlies the external life, activities,
and institutions of the Church, in and through which the
Kingdom of Christ is realizing itself. In the externals of Church
life, word counts for something, but power alone is of
account in the sight of God.* By power is meant spiritual
power: see on ii. 5.

21. iv pd{3Su&gt;. Exactly as in i Sam. xvii. 43, &lt; Zpxy ITT e^c
tv pa/3Su) i&lt;al XiOois ; and 2 Sam. vii. 14, eXeyo&gt; avrov Iv pa/3Su&gt;
KCU eV a^ats : where the Iv means accompanied by or pro
vided with. Cf. Heb. ix. 25, eV af/xan aXAorpta). To lift up
his hand with a sling-stone, eVa/oai x^P a 6&gt;I/ ^V &lt;r&lt;f&gt;ev&ovr)&lt;s
(Ecclus. xlvii. 5). Abbott (Johan. Gr. 2332) give s examples
from papyri. The idea of environment easily passes into that
of equipment. Cf. Stat. Theb, iv. 221, Gravi metuendus in hasta ;
and Ennius, levesque sequuntur in hasta. The rod is that of
spiritual rebuke and discipline; cf. ov &lt;cio-o/x,cu (2 Cor. xiii. 3).
It is strange that any one should contend, even for controversial
purposes, such as defence of the temporal power, that a literal

* See Regnum Dei, the Barnpton Lectures for 1901, pp. 47-61, in wnicD
St Paul s views of the Kingdom are examined in detail.

V. 1-13] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 93

rod is meant. But cf. Tarquini, Juris eccles. tnst. p. 41, ipth ed.
An allusion to the lictor s rod is not likely.*

\6w. Deliberative subjunctive ; Am I to come ? It is
possible to make the verb dependent upon fe Aere, but it is more
forcible to keep it independent (AV., RV.). Cf. cViyaeVw/xev rrj
ajjiapTia ; (Rom. vi. i).

fv ajoLTry. The preposition here is inevitably ev, and it was
probably the antithesis with ev ayd-n-rj that led to the expression
fv pa/3Su&gt; here, just as the bear-skin led to Virgil s Horridus in
jaculiS) the rest of the line being ct pelk Libystidis ursae (Aen.

v - 37)-

imufAcm re TrpauTTjTos. Either the Spirit of meekness. i.e.
the Holy Spirit, manifested in one of His special gifts or fruits
(Gal. v. 23), or a spirit of meekness, i.e. a disposition of that
character (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 13). The latter would be inspired by
the Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 5). The absence of the article is
in favour of the latter here. Contrast TO TrveC/xa rfjs dAi^ct a?
(John xiv. 17, xvi. 13) with Trvev/xa &lt;ro&lt;jEt as (Eph. i. 17), and see
J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 38, 39, and the note on 7rvev/u.a
dyiwcrvV^? (Rom. i. 4). Had the Apostle meant the Holy Spirit,
he would probably have written eV ro&gt; irv. 1-77? irp. By Trpavrr/s is
meant the opposite of harshness or rudeness. Trench, Syn.
xlii., xliii., xcii. ; Westcott on Eph. iv. 2.

(ABC 17) rather than TrpaoT^ros (K D E F G P). In Gal.
v. 23, K joins A B C in favour of irpavT-r)*. In Eph. iv. 2, K B C 17 sup
port TrpavTijs, in 2 Cor. x. i, S B F G P 17 do so, in Col. iii. 12, K A B C P
17. Lachmann, following Oecumenius and Calvin, makes iv. 21 the
beginning of a new paragraph : it is a sharp, decisive dismissal of the
subject of the

V. 1-13. ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE.

There is a case of gross immorality among you&gt; and
your attitude towards it is distressing. Have no fellow
ship with such offenders.

1 It is actually notorious among you that there is a case of
unchastity of a revolting character, a character so revolting as
not to occur even among the heathen, that a man should have
his step-mother as his concubine. 2 And you, with this monstrous
crime among you, have gone on in your inflated self-complacency,
when you ought rather to have been overwhelmed with grief,

* This has been suggested by Dr. E. Hicks, Roman Law in the N.T.
p. 182. But the rod as a metaphor for correction is common enough (Job
ix. 34, xxi. 9; Ps. Ixxxix. 32 ; Isa. x. 5, etc.).

94 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 1-13

that it should have become necessary that the person who was
guilty of this dreadful offence should be removed from your
midst. 8 As for my view of it, there must be no uncertainty.
Although absent in body yet present in spirit, I have already
pronounced the sentence, which I should have pronounced had
I been present, on the man who has perpetrated this enormity.
4 In the Name of our Lord Jesus, when you are all assembled
in solemn congregation and my spirit is with you armed with
the effectual power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have given sentence
that such an offender is to be handed over to Satan for the
destruction by suffering of the flesh in which he has sinned, so
that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord. 6 Your
glorying is not at all to your credit. Do you really not know
that a very little leaven affects the whole lump of dough ? 7 You
must entirely cleanse away the old leaven, if you are to be (as,
of course, as Christians you are) as free from leaven as a new
lump of dough. You are bound to make this new start for
many reasons ; and above all, because Christ, our spotless
Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed, and therefore everything
which corrupts must be put away. 8 Consequently we should
keep our feast, not with leaven from our old lives, nor yet
with leaven of vice and wickedness, but with bread free from
all leaven, the bread of unsullied innocence and truth.

9 1 said to you in my letter that you were not to keep
company with fornicators. 10 I did not exactly mean that you
were to shun all the fornicators of the non- Christian world, any
more than all the cheats, or extortioners, or idolaters. That
would mean that you would have to go out of the world
altogether. n What I meant was, that you were not to keep
company with any one who bears the sacred name of Christian
and yet is given to fornication, or cheating, or idolatry, or
abusive language, or hard drinking, or extortion; with such a
man you must not even share a meal. 12 Of course I did not
refer to those who are not Christians ; for what right have I to
sit in judgment on them? I confine my judgments to those
who are in the Church. 13 Do not you do the same ? Those
who are outside it we leave to God s judgment. Only one
practical conclusion is possible. Remove the wicked person
from among you.

The Apostle now comes to the second count of his indict

V V ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 95

ment. It is not merely that a particularly flagrant case of
immorality has occurred. That this should happen at all is
bad enough. But what makes it far worse is the way in which
it is taken by the community. Their morbid and frivolous
self-conceit is untroubled. They have shown no sign of proper
feeling: still less have they dealt with the case, as they ought
to have done, by prompt expulsion (w. 1-5). In view of the
infectiousness of such evil, they ought to eliminate it, as leaven
from a Jewish house at the Passover (6, 7) ; for the life of the
Christian community is a spiritual Passover (8). His previous
warning has been misunderstood. It means that for grave and
scandalous sins a Christian must be made to suffer by isolation ;
and this, in the case in question, must be drastically enforced

(9-13)-

The passage is linked to the section dealing with the axicr/toTa
by the spiritual disorder (TO ^vtrtco^vai) which, according to
St Paul s diagnosis, lies at the root of both evils. Inordinate
attention to external differences, and indifference to vital
questions of morality, are both of them the outcome of self-
satisfied frivolity. But the passage is more obviously linked
with ch. vi., and especially with the subject of iropveia which
occupies its last portion (vi. 12-20).

This indictment, following upon iv. 21 without any con
necting particle, bursts upon the readers like a thunder-clap.

1. *0\ws. Not c commonly (AV.), but actually (RV.).
The word means altogether, most assuredly, incontrovert-
ibly ; or, with a negative, at all. Such a thing ought not to
be heard of at all (exactly as in vi. 7 ; cf. xv. 29), and it is
matter of common talk : oA.o&gt;s nulla debebat in vobis audiri scor-
tatio ; at auditur oAws (Beng.).

dicou exou iv UJUK. The fv VJJLLV grammatically localizes the
report, but in effect it localizes the offence : it was among them
that the rumour was circulating, because in their midst the sin
was found: unchastity is reported [as existing] among you.
The report may have reached the Apostle through the same
channel as that which brought information about the factions
(i. n), or through Stephanas (xvi. 17). The weight of the
Apostle s censure falls, not upon the talk about the crime
within the community, but upon its occurrence, and the failure
to deal with it.

iropj/eia. Illicit sexual intercourse in general. In Rev. xbt ?
as in class. Grk., it means prostitution: in Matt. v. 32, xix. 9

96 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V.I, 2

it is equivalent to /zoi^ a, from which it is distinguished Matt.
xv. 19 and Mark vii. 21 : cf. Hos. iii. 3; Ecclus. xxiii. 23, where
we have tv iropveia fjiOL\vOrj.

Kal ToiauTTj. And of so monstrous a character as does not
exist even among the heathen. The ovSe intensifies eV TOIS
201/eo-iv, and aKouerai is not to be understood : is not so much
as named among the Gentiles (AV.) is wrong, based on a
wrong reading. Cf. novum crimen et ante hunc diem inauditum
(Cic. Pro Lig. i. i) ; and scelus incredibile et praeter hanc unam in
hac vita inauditum (In Cluent. 6), of Sassia s marriage with her
son-in-law, Melinus.*

wore yuyaiKci rim TOU irarpos ex 611 * The placing of TWO.
between ywcuKa and Trarpos throws emphasis on to these two
words (Blass, Gr. 80, 2). Chrysostom suggests that St Paul
uses ywaiKa rov Trarpo s rather than ^rpvLav in order to emphasize
the enormity. More probably, he chooses the language of
Lev. xviii. 8. The Talmud prescribes stoning for this crime.
Cf. Amos ii. 7 ; Lev. xviii. 8. The woman was clearly not the
mother of the offender, and probably (although the use of
TTopveta rather than JJLOL^LOL does not prove this) she was not, at
the time, the wife of the offender s father. She may have been
divorced, for divorce was very common, or her husband may
have been dead. There is little doubt that 2 Cor. vii. 12
refers to a different matter, and that 6 dStK^^ei s there is net the
offender s father, but Timothy or the Apostle himself. As
St Paul here censures the male offender only, the woman was
probably a heathen, upon whom he pronounces no judgment
(v. 12). The ZX LV implies a permanent union of some kind,
but perhaps not a formal marriage: cf. John iv. 18. Origen
speaks of it as a marriage (ya^os), and ex w i used of marriage in
vii. 2 ; Matt. xiv. 4, etc. In the lowest classes of Roman society
the legal line between marriage and concubinage was not sharply
denned.

After tdvefftv, K 8 L P, Syrr. AV. add jfco/wtferat : K*ABCDEFG
17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit.

2. KCU ujjiets. The pronoun is emphatic ; * you, among whom
this enormity has taken place and is notorious, you are puffed
up. He does not mean that they were puffed up because of this
outrage, as if it were a fine assertion of Christian freedom, but
in spite of it. It ought to have humbled them to the dust, and
yet they still retained their self-satisfied complacency. WH.,
Tisch., Treg. and RV. marg. make this verse interrogative ; * Are
ye puffed up ? Did ye not rather mourn ? But the words are

* There is also the case of Callias, who married his wife s mother.
Andocides (B.C. 400), in his speech on the mysteries, asks whether among
vhe Greeks such a thing had ever been done before.

V. 2, 3J ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 97

more impressive as the statement of an amazing and shocking
fact: ovxi is not always interrogative (x. 29; Luke xii. 51, xiii.
3, 5, xvi. 30; John ix. 9, xiii. 10, n). Their morbid self-
importance, which made them so intolerant of petty wrongs
(vi. 7), made them very tolerant of deep disgrace.

lirevQr\&lt;ra.Te. Mourned, as if for one who was dead.

Ivo, ap0fj. The Iva indicates, not the purpose of the mourning,
but the result of it, contemplated^ its normal effect (see on i. 15).
A proper Christian instinct would have led them to have expelled
the guilty person in irrepressible horror at his conduct.

6 TO epyoi/ TOUTO irpdas. Qui hoc facinus patravit (Beza).
The language is purposely vague, but the context suggests a bad
meaning : 7rpaas (not 7roir?&lt;ras) indicates a moral point of view.
The attitude of the Corinthian Christians towards such conduct
is probably to be accounted for by traditional Corinthian laxity.*
It is said that the Rabbis evaded the Mosaic prohibitions of
such unions (Lev. xx. 1 1 ; Deut. xxii. 30) in the case of prose
lytes. A proselyte made an entirely new start in life and cut
off all his former relationships ; therefore incest, in his case, was
impossible, for he had no relations, near or distant. It is not
likely that this evasion of the Mosaic Law, if already in exist
ence, was known to the Corinthians and had influenced them.

L has 4ap6v for & P 8fj (KABCDEFGP); and B D E F G L P have
TTOivJcras for irpdas (t&gt; A C 17, and other cursives). It is not easy to decide
in this latter case, and editors are divided. Compare 2 Cor. xii. 21 ; Rom.
i. 32, ii. 1-3.

3. tyw jxey Y^P- For /, with much emphasis on the pronoun,
which is in contrast to the preceding v/xets : my feelings about
it are very different from yours. The yap introduces the justifi
cation of Iva apO-fj, showing what expulsion involves. St Paul
does not mean that, as the Corinthians have not excommunicated
the offender, he must inflict a graver penalty : this would be
punishing the offender for what was the fault of his fellows. He
is explaining what he has just said about their failing to remove
the man. No 8e follows the /xeV : the contrast which par marks is
with what goes before (v. 2), not with anything that is to follow.
The correlation of /xev . . . Se is much less common in N.T.
than in class. Grk. In some books per does not occur, and in
several cases it has no Se as here: i Thess. ii. 18; Rom. vii. 12,
x. i, etc. See Blass, Gr. 77. 12.

&lt;XTTWI&gt; TU&gt; acSpan. Although absent in the body. Again a
contrast : you, who are on the spot, do nothing ; I, who am far
away, and might excuse myself on that account, take very serious
action. Origen compares Elisha (2 Kings v. 26).

* What Augustine says of Carthage was still more true of Corinth ;
circumstrepcbat me undiquc sartagojlagitiosorum amorum (Conf. iii. i).

98 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 3, 4

His own spirit, as in v. 4 : cf. v. 5 and ii. u.
In Col. ii. 5 we have a similar utterance, but there crdpg takes
the place of o-w/xa. It is the highest constituent element in
man s nature, and his point of contact with the Spirit of God.

r]8r) KeKpiKa ws Trapwi&gt; TOP K.T.\. Either^ have already, as if
I were present, judged the man ; or, have already, as if I were
present, decided with regard to the man ; or^ have already
come to a decision, as if I were present : with regard to the
man, etc. In the last case, which is perhaps the best, TOV . . .
is governed by TrapaSovvcu and is repeated in TOV

Before dirdv, D 3 EFGL, AV. insert ws : NAB CD* Pi 7, Vulg.
Copt. Aeth. RV. omit.

4. Iv TW 6y6jA&lt;xTi K.T.X. Here we have choice of four con
structions. Either, take lv TW wo/urn with crvvaxOevTwv and crvv
ry Svva/Ai with TrapaSowcu, or both with a-uva^^evTcov, or both
with TrapaSowai, or kv TU&gt; OVO /A. with TrapaSoweu and crvv rfj 8vv.
with o-wax^ vTwv. If the order of the words is regarded as
decisive, the first of these will seem to be most natural, and
it yields good sense. Lightfoot adopts it. The Greek com
mentators mostly prefer the second construction, but neither it
nor the third is as probable as the first and the fourth. It is
not likely that either o-wax^eWwv or TrapaSowai is meant to have
both qualifications, while the other has none. The fourth con
struction is the best of the four. The solemn opening, ev TW
ovo/x-aTt TOV Kvptov Irjcrov, placed first with emphasis, belongs to
the main verb, the verb which introduces the sentence that is
pronounced upon the offender, while o-uv rrj Swa/x,eiT. K. ^/zwv "I.
supplies a coefficient that is essential to the competency of the
tribunal. The opening words prepare us for a sentence of grave
import, but we are kept in suspense as to what the sentence will
be, until the conditions which are to give it validity are described.
Graviter suspensa manet et vibrat oratio (Beng.). We translate,
therefore ; With regard to the man who has thus perpetrated
the deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ you being
assembled and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ
to deliver such an one to Satan. The rov TOIOVTOV is not
rendered superfluous by the preceding TOV . . . KaTe/oyao-a/xevoi&gt; :
it intimates that the Apostle is prepared to deal in a similar way
with any similar offender.

* Evans thinks that ws ira.p&v does not mean * as if\ were present in the
body, but as being really present in the spirit. His spirit had at times
exceptional power of insight into the state of a church at a distance : oik ws
elirev (Orig.).

7. 4, 5] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 99

After 6v6fj.a.Ti T. Kvplov, B D E F G L P have w&v, and it is probably
genuine, but X A and other witnesses omit, and it might easily be inserted
fr

from the next clause. P and some other witnesses omit the second
After first Irjaov, X D 8 E F G L P, Vulg. Syrr. add Xp^rroG : A B D*, Am.
omit. After second Iijo-oO, D 3 F L add Xpurrov : N A B D* P, Vulg. omit,
AV. inserts Christ in both places ; RV. omits in both.

5. irapaSoOmi T. T. TW laram. This means solemn expulsion
from the Church and relegation of the culprit to the region
outside the commonwealth and covenant (Eph. ii. IT, 12),
where Satan holds sway. We have the same expression i Tim.
i. 20. It describes a severer aspect of the punishment which
is termed atpetv IK ^teVov (v. 2) and iaipiv c VJJLWV (v. 13).
Satan is the apxwv TOV KOCT/AOV TOVTOV (John xii. 31, xvi. n), and
the offender is sent back to his domain ; ut qui auctor fuerat ad
vitium nequitiae, ipse flagcllum fieret disciplinae (Herv.). St Paul
calls Satan the god of this age (2 Cor. iv. 4), an expression
which occurs nowhere else ; and a Christian, who through his own
wickedness forfeits the security of being a member of Christ in
His Church, becomes, like the heathen, exposed to the malignity
of Satan (i John v. 19) to an extent that Christians cannot be.

eis oXeOpoy -ri]s o-apKos. There is no need to choose between
the two interpretations which have been put upon this expres
sion, for they are not mutually exclusive and both are true.
The sinner was handed over to Satan for the mortification of
the flesh, i.e. to destroy his sinful lusts ; TO &lt;^poV^/xa TT}S o-apKo s
is Origen s interpretation. This meaning is right, for the punish
ment was inflicted with a remedial purpose, both in this case
and in that of i Tim. i. 20 : and the interpretation is in harmony
with the frequent Pauline sense of &lt;rap (Rom. viii. 13 and Col.
iii. 5), as distinct from croj/*a. But so strong a word as oAe$pos
implies more than this. Unto destruction of the flesh includes
physical suffering, such as follows spiritual judgment on sin
(xi. 30; Acts v. if., xiii. n).* The Apostle calls his own
thorn for the flesh an ayyeXos Sarava (2 Cor. xii. 7 ; cf. Luke
xiii. 1 6). We have the same idea in Job, where Jehovah says to
Satan, I8ov TrapaStSw/xt OTOL avrov (ii. 6). And in the book of
Jubilees (x. 2) demons first lead astray, and then blind and kill,
the grandchildren of Noah. Afterwards Noah is taught by
angels how to rescue his offspring from the demons. See
Thackeray, St Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 171.
Here the punishment is for the good, not only of the community,
but also of the offender, upon whom the suffering inflicted by
Satan would have a healing effect.

Iva, TO weGp,a. The purpose of the suffering is not mere

* Renan, Godet, and Goudge regard the expression as meaning sentence
of death by a wasting sickness. Expulsion is not mentioned here ; hence th
*harp command in z/. 13.

100 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 5

destruction ; it is remedial, Iva croiOf). Cf. avros t
(iii. 15). Here TO Tn/ev/za, as the seat of personality, is suggested
by the context instead of ai/ro s.* As in 2 Cor. vii. i, TO Tn/ev/xa
is used in contrast to fj crup^, and as the chief and distinctive
factor in the constitution of man, but as not per se distinctive of
a state of grace. Strong measures may be needed in order to
secure its salvation. See Abbott, The So?i of Ma?i, pp. 482, 791.

iv TT] rjfxepa T. Kupiou. i. 8 ; 2 Cor. i. 14 ; i Thess. v. 2, etc.

It is sometimes assumed that, while the Corinthian Church
was competent, by itself, to expel an offender (v. 2), it was by
virtue of the extraordinary power given to St Paul as an Apostle
that the delivery to Satan was inflicted. There is nothing in the
passage to prove this ; and the yap in v. 3 rather points the other
way. Why should St Paul inflict a more severe punishment
than that which the Corinthian Church ought to have inflicted ? f

It is still more often assumed that the sequel of this case is
referred to in 2 Cor. ii. 5-11, vii. 12. It is inferred from these
passages that the Corinthian Church held a meeting such as
the Apostle prescribes in this chapter, and by a majority (2 Cor.
ii. 6) passed the sentence of expulsion, whereupon the offender
was led to repentance ; and that the Corinthians then awaited
the Apostle s permission to remit the sentence, which permission
he gives (2 Cor. ii. 10). This view, however, is founded on two
assumptions, one of which is open to serious question, and the
other to question which is so serious as to be almost fatal. The
view assumes that 2 Cor. i.-ix. was written soon after i Cor.,
which is very doubtful. It also assumes that 2 Cor. ii. 5-1 1
and vii. 1 2 refer to this case of incest, which is very difficult to
believe. 2 Cor. vii. 12 certainly refers to the same case as
2 Cor. ii. 5-11, and the language in vii. 12 is so utterly unsuit
able to the case of incest that it is scarcely credible that it can
refer to it. See Hastings, DB, i. p. 493, in. p. 711, and iv.
p. 768; G. H. Kendall, The Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 63,
71 ; Goudge, p. 41 ; Plummer on 2 Cor. vii. 12.

F has avrbv for rbv TOLOVTOV. After TOV Kvplov, N L add Ir)&lt;rov, D adds
Ir/croO XptcrroO, A F M add TJJJL&V I^crou X/HtrroO : B has simply TOV Kiyjt oi ,
which may be the original reading, but TOV Kvpiov I-rja-ov is not improbable ;
so AV., RV., WH. marg.

* airb TOV KpeLrrovos 6vou.dcras 6\ov TOV avdpuirov acjT-rjpiav (Orig. ). There
was no need to add the i/ i/x 7 ? and the crw/xa. The penalty is for the good of
the community as well as of the offender. A shepherd, says Origen, must
drive out a tainted sheep that would infect the flock.

t The resemblance of this passage to various forms of magic spells and
curses is sometimes pointed out. The fundamental difference is this, that all
such spells and curses aim at serious evil to the persons against whom they
are directed. The Apostle aims at the rescue of the offender from perdition
Moreover, he desires to rescue the Corinthian Church from grave peril.

V. 6, 7] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE IOI

6. Ou KaXoy TO Kau xTjjma uplii . Not seemly is your boast :
it is ill-timed, and it is discreditable to all who share in it.*
Where a revolting crime is bringing disgrace and peril to the
community, there can be no place for boasting. St Paul does
not mean that the subject of their glorying, the thing they glory
in (e.g. their enlightenment, or their liberty) is not good ; but
that in such distressing circumstances overt glorying is very
unsuitable. As Evans elaborately points out, /cau ^Ty/xa is not
materies gloriandi, but gloriatio (Beza, Beng.), or (more accur
ately) gloriatio facta^ boasting uttered. f So also in 2 Cor.

V. 12.

fiiKpa u p). The jjitKpd comes first with emphasis, and hence
implies an argument a fortiori-, if even a little leaven is so
powerful, if even one unsatisfactory feature may have a septic
influence in a community, how much more must a scandal of
this magnitude infect the whole life of the Church. The simile
of leaven is frequent in the N.T. See Gal. v. 9. Here the
stress of the argument lies less in the evil example of the offender
than in the fact that toleration of this conduct implies con
currence (Rom. i. 32) and debases the standard of moral
judgment and instinct. To be indifferent to grave misbehaviour
is to become partly responsible for it. A subtle atmosphere,
in which evil readily springs up and is diffused, is the result
The leaven that was infecting the Corinthian Church was a
vitiated public opinion. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 6 ; also the charge of
Germanicus to his soldiers as to their treatment of insubordinate
comrades : discedite a contactu, ac dividite turbidos (Tac. Ann.
i- 43)-

Both here and in Gal. v. 9 we find the reading SoXot for fv/io? in D
with corrunipit in Vulg. and other Latin texts.

7. eKKaOdpare T&lt;\V IT. ^UJULTJC. A sharp, summary appeal: Rid
yourselves of these infected and infectious remains of your
unconverted past, even as a Jewish household, in preparation
for the Passover, purges the house of all leaven (Exod. xii. i5f.,
xiii. 7). This was understood as a symbol of moral purification,
and the search for leaven as symbolizing infectious evil was
scrupulously minute, e.g. with candles to look into corners and
mouse-holes for crumbs of leavened bread. Zeph. i. 12 was
supposed to imply this. The penalty for eating leavened bread

* Some Latin texts omit the negative, making the statement sarcastic
(Lucif. Ambrst. and MSS. known to Augustine). The ou may easily have
been lost owing to the preceding Kvpiov or Xpio-roP.

f If he had meant materies gloriandi, he would probably have said that
they had none, OVK ZX T Ko-^x^f^ - Like OVK tirawQ (xi. 17, 22), otf Ka\6v
is a reproachful litotes.

102 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 7

during the feast was scourging. On compounds with * see on
iii. 1 8, and cf. 2 Tim. ii. 21.

TT)f iraXaiay up?i . It was their acquiescing in the scandal
which revealed the presence of a remnant of heathen corrup
tion. The summons to thoroughly purge away all sinful taints
cuts deep into the corporate and individual conscience. Each
knows the plague-spot in himself. The verb occurs again
2 Tim. ii. 21, and nowhere else in N.T. ; also Deut. xxvi. 13.
With TroAcuav here cf. TraAatos av#pw7ros, Rom. vi. 6 ; Eph. iv. 22 ;
Col. iii. 9. Ignatius (Magn. 10) says, virfpOecrOe ovv rrjv KCUO/I/
v/jir)v rrjv Tra.Xa.Lu6 civ av /cat cVo^iVaa-av. By the evil leaven which
has become stale and sour he means Judaism. Note the ovv.

Iva. TJre veov &lt;f&gt;u pajjia. That you may be a new lump of
dough, i.e. may make a new start in sanctification free from
old and evil influence.* Cf. olvov veov (Matt. ix. 17), and see
Trench, Syn. 60. There is only one &lt;upa//,a, only one body
of Christians, just as there is only one loaf (x. 17). See on
Luke xii. i for the evil associations connected with leaven :
yeyovev eic &lt;f&gt;{)opas avrr) KCU &lt;f&gt;6ipci TO &lt;vpa/Aa (Plutarch). See
Hastings, DB. in. p. 90.

K&lt;x0ws core c^ujjioi. This is the proper, the ideal condition
of all Christians. Ye are unleavened, having been baptized
and made a /caiv?) /m o-ts in Christ (2 Cor. v. 17; Eph. iv. 24;
Col. iii. 10), and are becoming in fact what you are in principle
and by profession (vi. n). St Paul habitually idealizes,
speaking to Christians as if they were Christians in the fullest
sense, thus exemplifying Kant s maxim that you should treat a
man as if he were what you would wish him to be.

It is utterly wrong to take av/Aoi literally ; ye are without
leaven, because (it is assumed) they were at that moment
keeping the Passover, (i) In the literal sense, av//,os is used
of things, not of persons. (2) The Corinthian Church consisted
almost entirely of Gentile Christians. (3) The remark would
have no point in this context. But the imagery in this passage
suggests, though it does not prove, that St Paul was writing
at or near the Passover season (cf. xvi. 8). See Deissmann,
Light, p. 333.

KCXI yap TO irdcrxa f\n&v cTuOrj. Directly, this is the reason
for the preceding statement ; You are av/4oi, purified from the
leaven of your old self, by virtue of the death of your Saviour.
Indirectly and more broadly, this is a reason for the practical
summons at the beginning of the verse: It is high time for

* The Vulgate has the curious rendering, ut sifts nova conspcrsio. This
rare substantive is found, with the same unexpected meaning, twice in
Tertullian (Marcion. iv. 24, Valtnt. 31), in the sense of a lump of dough,
and once in Irenaeus (v. xiv. 2), probably as a translation of &lt;t&gt;6pa/j.a,.

V. 7, 8] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE IO3

you to purge out the old leaven ; for the Lamb is already slain
and your house is not yet fully cleansed : you are late ! See
Deut. xvi. 6; Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 7.* The rjpuv serves to
link the Christian antitype to the Jewish type.

Xpioros. Even Christ ; last for emphasis, like 6 Kpww
(Rom. ii. i) and 6 TraTpidpxys (Heb. vii. 4). The force of the
Apostle s appeal is in any case obvious, but it gains somewhat
in point if we suppose him to have in mind the tradition which
is embodied in the Fourth Gospel, that Christ was crucified on
the 1 4th Nisan, the day appointed for the slaying of the paschal
lamb. We may say that the Pauline tradition, like the Johannine,
makes the Death of Christ, rather than the Last Supper, the
antitype of the Passover, but we can hardly claim St Paul as
a definite witness for the i4th Nisan. f On this difficult subject
see Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, p. 146 ; Hastings, DB.
i. p. 411, DCG. n. 5 ; and the literature there quoted.

Nor, again, can this passage be claimed as evidence for the
Christian observance of Easter, although such observance would
probably be coeval with that of the Lord s Day. As in Mark
xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 7, n ; John xviii. 28, Trao-^a is here used of
the paschal lamb, not, as commonly, of the paschal supper or
of the paschal octave.

without connecting particle (X* A B D E F G, Vulg. Copt.
RV.) rather than e/c/ca^cipare ofo (N 3 CLP, Aeth. AV.). On still stronger
evidence, inrcp V/AUV must be omitted after rb Traced vp&v. Cursives have
eOtdt) for ervdr). Did Ignatius (see above) have oZv in his text ?

8. wore. With cohortative subjunctive as with imperative,
see on iii. 21.

eopTa^wfici . " Our passover-feast is not for a week, but for
a life-time " (Godet), on iras 6 xpoVos copras etrri Kaipo? rots
X/oio-Tiavots (Chrys.). The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., but
is frequent in LXX. I?7o-oi)s 6 Xpio-ro s ea-riv -rj via. v/xr/ (Orig.).

cv UJAT]. See on iv. 2 1 for this use of h.

KdKias ical ironqptas. Trench, Syn. II, makes *a/aa the
vicious principle, irovripta its outward exercise. It is doubtful
whether this is correct. In LXX both words are used indiffer
ently to translate the same Hebrew words, which shows that to
Hellenists they conveyed ideas not widely distinct. In the
Vulgate both malitia and nequitia are used to translate both
words, malitia being used most often for /ca/aa, and nequitia for
for which iniquitas also is used. Malice may trans-

* In Mark xiv. 12 the AV. has * kill the Passover, with sacrifice in
the margin^; in Luke xxii. 7, kill, without any alternative ; here * sacrifice,
with slay in the margin : the R. V. has sacrifice in all three places.

t On the general relation between the two traditions see J. Kaftan,
Jesus u. Paulus, pp. 59-69.

104 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 8, 9

late KOLKLOL in most places in the N.T., but not in Matt. vi. 34,
where Vulg. has malitia (!), nor in Acts viii. 22, where it has
nequitia. It is noteworthy that pravitas is not used for either
word. Luke xi. 39 shows that Trovrjpfa may mean thoughts or
purposes of wickedness; cf. Mark vii. 22. The genitives are
genitives of apposition.

du fxois. Perhaps unleavened bread (AV., RV.) is right,
with reference to the unleavened cakes eaten at the Passover ;
ITTTO. r)/mtpa&lt;s au/m e Secr$e (Exod. xii. 15). But au//.a is very
indefinite ; unleavened elements. Origen refers this to i. 2.

eiXiKpu/ias. The word is a crux as regards etymology, but
it seems to mean transparency, limpid purity, and hence
ingenuousness.

d\T)0eias. In its wider sense, rectitude, integrity ; cf.
xiii. 6; Eph. v. 9; John iii. 21.*

toprd fa/lev (X B C F G L, d e Vulg.) rather than ^opT^o^v (A D E P).
F has Tropvelas.

9. "EypavJ/a u^iy ev rfj e luoroXfj. Pursuing the main purpose
of the passage, viz. to rebuke their indifference respecting moral
scandal, the Apostle corrects a possible misapprehension of his
former directions; or at any rate he shows how what he said
before would apply in cases more likely to occur than the one
which has just been discussed. I wrote to you in my letter,
in the letter which was well known to the Corinthians, a letter
earlier than our i Corinthians and now lost. It is true that
-ypa\l/a might be an epistolary aorist (Gal. vi. n ; i John ii. 14)
referring to the letter then being written. But cV rfj cVioToA^
(cf. 2 Cor. vii. 8) must refer to another letter. Rom. xvi. 22 ;
Col. iv. 16; i Thess. v. 27 are all retrospective, being parts of
a postscript. In this letter he has not given any direction
about not keeping company with fornicators ; for a summons
to expel a member who has contracted an incestuous union
cannot be regarded as a charge not to associate with fornicators.
It is evident that here, as in 2 Cor. x. 9 f., he is making reference
to an earlier letter which has not been preserved. So also Atto ;
non in hac epistola sed altera : and Herveius ; in alia jam epistola.
Some think that 2 Cor. vi. i4-vii. i may be part of the letter
in question. See notes there and Introduction to 2 Corinthians
in the Cambridge Greek Testament. Stanley gives two spurious

* It is possible that these two words are meant to prepare for what
follows. Perhaps the Apostle saw that there had been some shuffling and
evasion about the injunction in the former letter. They said that they did
not understand it, and made that an excuse for ignoring it. How St Paul
heard of the misinterpretation of his earlier letter we are not told. Zahn
suggests the Corinthians letter, of which he finds traces even before vii. I
(Introd. to N.T. p. 261).

V. 9, 10] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE 105

letters, one from, the other to, St Paul, which are not of much
interest, but which have imposed upon the Armenian Church
(Appendix, p. 591 f.).*

JJLTJ (rwa.va.i).iyvu(jQa.i. Lit. not to mix yourselves up together
with : ne eommisceamini (Vulg.). This expressive combination
of two prepositions with the verb occurs again in a similar con
nexion 2 Thess. iii. 14; also in the A text of Hos. vii. 8. Cf.
2 Thess. iii. 6.

10. ou irdirus. Not altogether, not absolutely, not in
all circumstances. It limits the prohibition of intercourse with
fornicators, which does not apply in the case of fornicators who
are outside the Christian community. The Apostle is not
repeating the prohibition in another form, which would have
required ^ as before. The ou = not, I mean, or I do not
mean. The meaning is quite clear.

TOU KOO-JAOU TOU TOU. * Of the non-Christian world.

?j TOLS TrXeoyeKTcus. Or here is equivalent to our any
more than.

TOLS irXeoi/eKTcus KCU apirafiK. These form a single class,
coupled by the single article and the /cat, and separated from
each of the other classes by TJ. This class is that of the
absolutely selfish, who covet and sometimes seize more than
their just share of things. They exhibit that amor sui which is
the note of this world, and which usurps the place of amor
De^ until TrXeove^a becomes a form of idolatry (Eph. v. 5).

eiSuXoXcxTpcus. In the literal sense; x. 14 ; i John v. 21.
This is the first appearance of the word (Rev. xxi. 8, xxii. 15),
which may have been coined by St Paul. In Eph. v. 5 it is used
in a figurative sense of a worshipper of Mammon. The triplet
of vices here consists of those which characterize non-Christian
civilization ; lax morality, greed, and superstition. The last, in
some form or other, is the inevitable substitute for spiritual
religion.

eiret w(f&gt;eiXeTe apa. Since in that case you would have to ;
cf. vii. 14. Ew implies a protasis, which is suppressed by an
easy ellipse ; since, were it not so, then, etc. "Apa introduces

1 subjective sequence, while ow introduces an objective one.
O&lt;/&gt;et\T is in an apodosis, where the idiomatic imperfect marks

* There is little doubt that a number of the Apostle s letters have perished,
especially those which he wrote in the early part of his career, when his
authority was less clearljr established, and the value of his words less under
stood ; 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17. See Renan, S. Paul, p. 234.

Ramsay points out the resemblance between this passage (9-13) and

2 Thessalonians, which guards against misconception of his & teaching that
nad arisen owing to the strong emphasis which he had laid on the coming of
the Kingdom (Pauline Studies, p. 36).

106 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 10, 11

the consequence of a state of things that is supposed not to exist ;
and the av which is usual in such an apodosis is commonly
omitted with such verbs as oKpeiAere, eSet, KOL\OV r)v, etc.

en TOU KOO-JJIOU e\6eiy. This for most people is impossible ;
but at Corinth in St Paul s day it was well for Christians to see
as little of the heathen world as was possible. In x. 27 he does
not forbid the presence of Christians at private entertainments
given by heathen, but he implies that they ought not to wish to
go to them.

oil irdvTus (N* A B C D* E F G 17, Vulg.) rather than ical
N D S LP, Arm. Aeth.). The yet in AV. seems to represent ical. na.1
&piratv (X* A B C D* F G P 17, Aeth) rather than 4) Apira^iv (N 3 D 3 E L,
Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Arm.), an alteration to conform to ij on each side. AV.
has or, RV. * and. ufalXere (K A B* C D E F G L 17, Latt.) rather than
6&lt;t&gt;cl\eTe (B 8 P, Chrys. Thdrt.), another mistaken correction, the force of
the imperfect not being seen.

11. vuv 8e YpH/a. But, as it is, I wrote (RV. marg.), not
* But now I write (RV.). The latter is grammatically possible
and makes good sense, but it is unlikely that ey/aa^a is in v. 9
historical, of an earlier letter, and here epistolary, of the present
letter. The vvv is logical, not temporal, now you see, now
you understand that the earlier letter meant something different.
Had the Apostle meant the vvv to be temporal and the verb tr.
refer to the present letter, he would have written ypd&lt;j&gt;&lt;a t as in
iv. 14. He has stated what the earlier letter did not mean (ov
7rai&gt;Tu&gt;s), and he now very naturally states what it did mean.*

i&v . . . rj. The form of protasis covers all cases that may
come to light: see on iv. 15. Almost all editors prefer # to ^
before TTO PVOS.

6fOfAa6fieyos. Any who bears the name of a brother,
though he has forfeited the right to it. He is called a brother,
but he really is a iropvos or, etc. Some early interpreters take
6Vo//,ao/Aevos with what follows ; if any brother be called a
whoremonger, or be a notorious whoremonger. The latter
would require ovo/xao-ro s, and we should have a^eX^o s TIS rather
than TIS dSeA^o s. Evidently dScX^ds and ovo^a^o /xevos are to be
taken together. He is called a Christian, and he really is a
disgrace to the name ; that is a reason for shunning him. But if
he is a Christian and is called some bad name, that is not a
reason for shunning him : the bad name may be a slander.

Tr\6o^KTT]s. There is no good ground for supposing that,
either here, or in v. 10, or anywhere else, irAeovcVnys means
sensual (see on Eph. iv. 19). The desire which it implies is
the desire for possessions, greed, grasping after what does not
belong to one.

* Abbott, Johan. Gr. 2691, gives other examples.

V. 11, 12] ABSENCE OF MORAL DISCIPLINE IO7

Stanley would give this word also the meaning
of sensual. But there is no improbability in Corinthian converts
being tainted with idolatry. Origen says that in his time the
plea that idolatry was a matter of indifference was common
among Christians serving in the army. Modern experience
teaches that it is very difficult to extinguish idolatrous practices
among converts, and Chrysostom may be right in suggesting
that the Apostle inserts c idolater in his list as a preparation for
what he is about to say on the subject (viii. 10, x. 7, 14 f.). The
Corinthians were evidently very lax.

Xoi Sopos. Origen notes with what very evil people the XotSo-
pos is classed : ^XtKOts /ca/cot? TOV Xot Sopov &lt;Twr]pi0^r)(rv. The
word occurs vi. 10, and in LXX in Proverbs and Ecclus., but
nowhere else. Chrysostom (on vi. 10) says that many in his day
blamed the Apostle for putting XotSopoi and peOvaot into such
company. Matt. v. 21, 22; i Pet. iii. 9.

jxe Ouo-os. Rom. xiii. 13. In Attic writers applied to women,
men being called /uetfvortKof, irapoiviKot, or TrapotVioi. Cf. opyrj
/u.eyaA.77 ywr) /xe flucros (Ecclus. xxvi. 8) ; but elsewhere in LXX it is
used of men (Ecclus. xix. i; Prov. xxiii. 21, xxvi. 9). It some
times means intoxicated rather than given to drink. The
ju,e0vo-os and the XoiSopos are additions to the first list.

P)8e CTUKeaOicii/. An emphatic intimation of what he means
by ny avvavafjLLyi vo-Oai. Cf. Luke xv. 2 ; Gal. ii. 1 2. The
Apostle is not thinking of Holy Communion, in which case the
prjSt would be quite out of place : he is thinking of social meals ;
Do not invite him to your house or accept his invitations. But,
as Theodoret points out, a prohibition of this kind would lead to
the exclusion of the offender from the Lord s Table. Great
caution is required in applying the Apostle s prohibition to
modern circumstances, which are commonly not parallel. The
object here, as in 2 John 10, is twofold : to prevent the spread of
evil, and to bring offenders to see the error of their ways. In
any case, what St Paul adds in giving a similar injunction must
not be forgotten ; Kai fir) ws e^Opov fjyeLcrOe, dXXot vovOeTtlrc 69
aScX^oV (2 Thess. iii. 15). Clement of Rome (Cor. 14) says of
the ringleaders of the schism, xp^o-Tevo-w/xetfo, avrots Kara ryv
v&lt;nr\ay^y(.av /ecu yXvKVTfjTa TOV Troi^aavros ^as, perhaps .n
reference to Matt. v. 45, 48.

vvv (N S ABD 3 EFGLP) rather than vvvl (N*CD*D a ): the more
emphatic form might seem to be more suitable. Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Aeth.
Goth, support # against $ before irbpvos. For /A^, A has /tij and F has

12. TI ydp jxoi TOUS w Kpiyeif ; For what business of mine
is it to judge those that are outside? Quid enim mihi (Vulg.) ;
Ad quid mihi (Tert.); Quid mea interest (Beza). Gives the

IO8 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [V. 12, 13

reason why they ought never to have supposed that he ordered
them to shun the company of heathen who were fornicators : the
meaning given in v. n is the only possible meaning. The phrase
TOVS eco (i Thess. iv. 12; Col. iv. 5) is of Jewish origin. Jews
applied it to Gentiles ; our Lord applies it to Jews who are not
His disciples (Mark iv. n); St Paul applies it to non-Christians,
whether Jews or Gentiles. In i Tim. iii. 7, where he speaks of
non-Christians judging Christians, he uses 01 Zu9f.v. The
expression states a fact, without any insinuation of censure.
How could they suppose that he claimed jurisdiction over heathen
and placed a stigma upon them for heathen behaviour ? Epictetus
(Enchir. 47) tells those who are continent not to be severe upon
those who are not, or to claim any superiority.

ou)(l TOUS eaw ufxeis Kpti/ere ; rous ecrco and {yzets are in emphatic
juxtaposition: Is it not those that are within that you judge?
They are your sphere of jurisdiction. The present tense is
axiomatic, stating what is normal. The proposal to put a
colon at ov^t and make Kpivere an imperative ( No; judge ye
those who are within ) is unintelligent. Ov\t is not an answer to
rt; and the sentence is much less telling as a command than as
a question. Ov\f is one of the words which are far more common
in Paul and Luke than elsewhere in N.T.

13. 6 0eo9 KpiVei. The verb is certainly to be accented as a
present : it states the normal attribute of God. And the sentence
is probably categorical ; But them that are without God judgeth.
This is more forcible than to bring it under the interrogative
oi&gt;xi) l Is it not the case that you judge those who are within,
while God judges those who are without? But WH. and
Bachmann adopt the latter.

edpaT TOV Tro^pcm A quotation from Deut. xvii. 7, bringing
to a sharp practical conclusion the discussion about the treat
ment of TTopvtia, and at the same time giving a final rebuke to
them for their indifference about the case of incest. The offender
must be at once expelled. Origen adds that we must not be
content with expelling the evil man from our society ; we must
take care to expel the evil one (rov irov^pov} from our hearts. Note
the double e: the riddance must be complete. See on iii. 18.

Vulg. Arm. Copt. Aeth. take Kpivei as a future, ^dpare (S A B C D*
F G P, Vulg.) rather than Kal ^apeire (D 3 E L), or KO.I ^dpare (17). The
verb occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is very frequent in LXX.

VI. 1-11. LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS.

The Apostle passes on to a third matter for censure, and in
discussing it he first treats of the evil and its evil occasion (1-8),

VI. 1-11] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS ICQ

and then, in preparation for what is to follow, points out that
all unrighteousness is a survival from a bad past which the
Corinthians ought to have left behind them (9-11).

1-8. The Evil and its Evil Occasion.

How can you dare to go to law witJi one another in
heathen caurts f If there must be suits, let Christian judge
Christian.

1 The subject of judging brings me to another matter. Is it
possible that, when one of you has a dispute with a fellow-
Christian, he takes upon himself to bring the dispute before a
heathen tribunal, instead of bringing it before believers. 2 Or is
it that you do not know that, at the Last Day, believers will sit
with Christ to judge the world ? And if the world is to be judged
hereafter at your bar, are you incompetent to serve in the pettiest
tribunals ? 3 Do not you know that we are to sit in judgment
on angels? After that, one need hardly mention things of daily
life. 4 If, then, you have questions of daily life to be decided,
do you really take heathens, who are of no account to those who
are in the Church, and set them to judge you ? 5 It is to move
you to shame that I am speaking like this. Have things come
to such a pass that, among the whole of you, there is not a single
person who is competent to arbitrate between one Christian and
another, but that, on the contrary, Christian goes to law with
Christian, and that too before unbelievers? 7 Nay, at the very
outset, there is a terrible defect in your Christianity that you
have lawsuits at all with one another. Why not rather accept
injury? Why not rather submit to being deprived? But, so
far from enduring wrong, what you do is this ; you wrong and
deprive other people, and those people your fellow-Christians.

The subject of going to law before heathen tribunals is linked
to the subject discussed in the previous chapter by the reference
to the question of judgment (v. 12, 13).* The moral sense of a
Christian community, which ought to make itself felt in judging
offenders within its own circle, ought still more to suffice for

* There may be another link. In v. 10, u St Paul twice brackets the
wbpvos with the TrXecW/cTTjs, and he now passes from the one to the other. It
was desire to have more than one had a right to (7rAeoj"rfa) which led to this
litigation in heathen courts. See on Eph. iv. 19.

1 10 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 1

settling disputes among its members, without recourse to heathen
courts, whose judges stand presumably on a lower ethical level
than Christians. But there is no real argumentative connexion
with the preceding section. The Apostle has finished two points
in his indictment, and he now passes on to another.

The Apostle s principles with regard to secular and heathen
magistrates are perfectly consistent. In Rom. xiii. he inculcates
the attitude of a good citizen, which is not only obedience to law,
but the recognition of the magistrate as God s minister. This
carries with it submission to the law as administered by the
courts, and acceptance of the authority of the courts in criminal
cases. St Paul had had experience of the protection of Roman
Justice (Acts xviii. i2f., xxv. 16), and he himself appealed to
Caesar. But to invoke the courts to decide disputes between
Christians was quite another matter ; and he lays it down here
that to do so is a confession of the failure of that justice which
ought to reign in the Christian Society. Obey the criminal
courts, but do not go out of your way to invoke the civil courts,
is a fair, if rough, summary of his teaching.

1. ToXjia TIS UJJLWV. We know nothing of the facts, but it is
clear from v. 8 that the Apostle has no merely isolated case in
view : roAfxa grandi verbo notatur laesa majestas Christianorum
(Beng.); Rom. xv. 18. The word is an argument in itself;
How can you dare, endure, bring yourself to ?

irpayfia. In the forensic sense ; a cause for trial, a case,
Joseph. Ant. xiv. x. 7.

TOC ercpoi/. Not another (AV.), but his neighbour (RV.),
his fellow (x. 24, xiv. 17 ; Rom. ii. i ; Gal. vi. 4).

Kpt^crOai. Middle ; go to law, seek for judgment Cf.
KpiOrjvai (Matt. v. 40; Eccles. vi. 10). The question comes
with increased force after v. 12, 13. It is no business of ours
to judge the heathen : and are we to ask them to judge us ?

em TUV dSiicwu. Before the unrighteous. * The term is
not meant to imply that there was small chance of getting justice
in a heathen court ; St Paul s own experience had taught him
otherwise. The term reflects, not on Roman tribunals, but on
the pagan world to which they belonged. He perhaps chose the
word rather than a-n-Ca-Tiav, in order to suggest the paradox of
seeking justice among the unjust. The Rabbis taught that Jews
must not carry their cases before Gentiles, and we may be sure

* Augustine (De doct. Christ, iv. 18) seems to have read virb T. AS. He
has, judicari ab iniquis et non apud sanctos. Vulg. has apud with both
words, as also has Augustine, Enchir. ad Laurent. 78.

VI. 1,2] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS lit

that it was in the Greek majority at Corinth, and not in the
Jewish minority, that this evil prevailed.* Greeks were fond 01
litigation, &lt;iA.o8i/coi (Arist. Rhet. 11. xxiii. 23), and as there were
no Christian courts they must enter heathen tribunals if they
wanted to go to law. See Edwards. For ri see 2 Cor. vii. 14;
Mark xiii. 9 ; Acts xxv. 9.

KCU ouxl cirl T&V dyiwi . He does not mean that Christian
courts ought to be instituted, but that Christian disputants should
submit to Christian arbitration.

2. TI OUK oi8&lt;xT. Such conduct was incompatible with prin
ciples which ought to be familiar to them. He first asks, How
can you be so presumptuous? Then, on the supposition
that this is not the cause of their error, he asks, How can
you be so ignorant ? The rf introduces an alternative explana
tion. The formula OVK oiSare occurs five times in this chapter
(2, 3&gt; 9&gt; l6 19 ; cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 5, etc.).

ot ayiot joy K6ap&gt;i&gt; KpiyoGaiy. Here, no doubt, the verb should
be accented as a future; contrast v. 13. It is in the Messianic
Kingdom that the saints will share in Christ s reign over the
created universe. Judge does not here mean * condemn, and
x the world does not mean the evil world. It is only from the
context, as in Acts xiii. 27, that KpiVeiv sometimes becomes
equivalent to /cara/cptVetv, and 6 KOO-/XOS frequently is used without
any idea of moral, i.e. immoral quality; cf. iii. 22. Indeed, it is
not clear that Kpivovo-w here means will pronounce judgment
upon ; it is perhaps used in the Hebraic sense of ruling. So
also in Matt. xix. 28. This sense is frequent in Judges (iii. 10,
x. 2, 3, xii. 9, n, 13, 14, etc.). Wisd. iii. 8 is parallel; They
shall judge the nations and have dominion over the peoples ;
also Ecclus. iv. 15. St Paul may have known the Book of
Wisdom. Cf. the Book of Enoch (cviii. 12), "I will bring forth
clad in shining light those who have loved My holy Name, and

1 will seat each on the throne of his honour." The saints are to
share in the final perfection of the Messianic reign of Christ.
They themselves are to appear before the Judge (Rom. xiv. 10 ;

2 Tim. iv. i) and are then to share His glory (iv. 8 ; Rom. viii. 17 ;
Dan. vii. 22; Rev. ii. 26, 27, iii. 21, xx. 4). The Apostle s
eschatology (xv. 21-24) supplies him with the thought of these
verses. He is certainly not thinking of the time when earthly
tribunals will be filled with Christian judges, f

KCU ei iv ujAty KpiP6T(u 6 K. The /cat adds a further question,

* To bring a lawsuit before a court of idolaters was regarded as blas
phemy against the Law.

t Polycarp quotes the question, Know we not that the saints shall judge
the world ? as the doctrine of Paul (Phil. 1 1).

112 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 2, 3

and presses home the bearing of the preceding quesiion. The
eV VIMV is less easy to explain ; among you, in your court, in
your jurisdiction, may be the meaning. Or we may fall back
on the instrumental use of eV. Like /cpiVere in v. 12, icptVerai
expresses what is normal. The heathen are to be judged by
you ; they are in your jurisdiction. How incongruous that you
should ask to be judged by them !

dydioi core KpiT^piW eXaxiorui . Are ye unworthy of the
smallest tribunals ? So in RV. marg. Cf. Jas. ii. 6 ; Judg.
v. 10 ; Dan. vii. 10, 26; Susann. 49: also //.r/ tpxtvOu eVi
/cpmjptov tOviKov (Apost. Const, ii. 45). In papyri, ot Vt rcuv
Kptrr/ptW means those who preside in tribunals. The meaning
case or cause is insufficiently supported. Avatos is found
nowhere else in N.T.

D 8 E L, AV. omit ^f before ok oftare.

3. The thought of v. 2 is repeated and expanded. To say
that Christians will judge angels restates will judge the world
in an extreme form, for the sake of sharpening the contrast.
"AyycXot are the highest order of beings under God, yet they are
creatures and are part of the Kooyxos. But the members of
Christ are to be crowned with glory and honour (Ps. viii. 6), and
are to share in His regal exaltation, which exceeds any angelic
dignity. He judges/ i.e. rules over, angels, and the saints
share in that rule. The words may mean that the saints are to
be His assessors in the Day of Judgment, that angels will then
be judged, and that the saints will take part in sentencing them.
If so, this must refer to fallen angels, for it is difficult to believe
that St Paul held that all angels, good and bad, will be judged
hereafter. But he gives no epithet to angels here, because it is
not needed for his argument ; indeed, to have said * fallen angels,
or evil angels, would rather have marred his argument As
Evans rightly insists, it is the exalted nature of angels that is the
Apostle s point. You are to judge the world. Nay, you are to
judge, not only men, but angels. Are you unable to settle petty
disputes among yourselves? St Paul s purpose is to emphasize
the augustness of the judging to which members of Christ are
called.* To press the statement in such a way as to raise the
question of the exact nature, scope, or details, of the judgment
of angels, is to go altogether beyond the Apostle s purpose.
Thackeray (St Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 152 f.)
has shown from Jude 6, Wisd. iii. 8, and Enoch xiii.-xvi. that

* Godet remarks that Paul ne veut pas designer tels ou tels anges ; il veut
reveiller dans Ftglise le sentiment de sa competence et dc sa dignity en lui
rappelant que des fares d une nature aussi tlevte seront tin jour soumis & sa
jurisdiction. See also Milligan on I Thess. iii. 13, and Findlay here.

VI. 3, 4] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 113

there is nothing in this unique statement to which a Jew of that
day would not have subscribed. See Abbott, The Son of Man,
p. 213.

(jLT)Tiy piwriKd. The yc strengthens the force of the WTI,
which is that of a condensed question ; need I so much as
mention ? Nedum quae ad hujus vitae usum pertinent (Beza) :
quanta magis saecularia. The clause may be regarded as part
of the preceding question (WH.), or as a separate question
(AV., RV.), or as an appended remark, to say nothing at all of
things of this life (Ellicott). The adjective occurs Luke xxi. 34,
but is not found in LXX, nor earlier than Aristotle. Following
the well-known difference in N.T. between (3io&lt;s and o} (see on
Luke viii. 43), /2iomKa means questions relating to our life on
earth on its merely human side, or to the resources of life, such
as food, clothing, property, etc. Philo (Vit. Mas. iii. 18), Trpos
ras /Jiom/cas xpetas vjnfiperciv. See Trench, Syn. xxvii. ; Cremer,
Lex. p. 272; Lightfoot on Ign. Rom. vii. 3.

is written by different editors as one word, or as two
or as three. Tregelles is perhaps alone in writing ^ TI ye.

4. piwTiKa Kpirrjpia. Tribunals dealing with worldly
matters. The adj. is repeated with emphasis, which is increased
by its being placed first. That is the surprising thing, that
Christians should have /Siom/ca that require litigation.

jAey 05^. Nay but, or Nay rather. The force of the
words is either to emphasize the cumulative scandal of having
such cases at all and of bringing them CTTI run/ dStKwr, or (if
Ka0ire is imperative) to advise an alternative course to that
described in v. 2.

lav 2xT]T. This form of protasis (cf. iv. 15) requires a future
or its equivalent in the apodosis. Here we have an equivalent,
whether we take KaOi&Tf. as imperative or interrogative. If you
must have such things as courts to deal with these petty matters,
then set, etc. ; or do you set? Is that your way of dealing
with the matter ? It is intolerably forced to put a comma after
, make it an accus. pendent, and take kov ^x r i T w ^ tn

TOUS eou9enr]fi,eVous f rrj KK\T)(rta. If Ka^t^erc is imperative,
then these words mean those in the Church who are held of no
account, i.e. the least esteemed of the Christians. The Apostle
sarcastically tells them that, so far from there being any excuse
for resorting to heathen tribunals, any selection of the simplest
among themselves would be competent to settle their disputes
about trifles. Let the insignificant decide what is insignificant.

If KaOc&Tf is indicative and the sentence interrogative, then
these words mean, those who, in the Church, are held of no
8

1 14 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 4, 5

account, viz. the aSixoi of v. i. The meaning is the same if the
sentence is categorical.

Both constructions are possible, and both make good sense.
Alford, Edwards, Ellicott, Evans, and Lightfoot give strong
reasons for preferring the imperative, as AV. In this they
follow a strong body of authorities ; the Vulgate, Peshito, Coptic,
and Armenian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, Beza, Calvin,
Estius, Bengel, and Wetstein. To mention only one of the
arguments used ; it does seem improbable that St Paul would
call heathen magistrates those who, in the Church, are held ot
no account. He has, it is true, spoken of the heathen in
general (not the magistrates in particular) as d&Kot : but here he
is speaking of those who preside in the heathen tribunals. And
if he wanted to speak disparagingly of them, is those whom
Christians despise a likely phrase for him to use ? The Vulgate
renders, contemptibiles qui sunt in ecclesia, illos constitute ad
judicandum ; but the Greek means contemptos rather than
contemptibiles. Augustine also has contemptibiles , but he renders
TOUTOVS Ka0iT, hos collocate.*

Nevertheless, Tischendorf, WH. and the Revisers support a
considerable number of commentators, from Luther to Schmiedel,
in punctuating the sentence as a question. It is urged that the
Apostle, after the reminder of w. 2, 3, returns to the question of
v. i ; Will they, by going outside their own body for justice,
confess themselves, the appointed judges of angels, to be unfit
to decide the pettiest arbitrations ? f

We must be content to leave the question open. The
general sense is clear. The Corinthians were doing a shameful
thing in going to heathen civil courts to settle disputes between
Christians.

irpos evrpoir^v upy Xy- * I say this to move you to shame ;
see on iv. 14. As in xv. 34, the words refer to what precedes,
and they suit either of the interpretations given above, either the
sarcastic command or the reproachful question ; but they suit
the latter somewhat better. Only here, and xv. 34 does
fvTpoTrr) occur in N.T., but it is not rare in the Psalms.

5. OUTWS OUK eia K.T.X. Is there such a total lack among you
of any wise person that you are thus obliged to go outside ?

* It is evident that Katf^ere is a word which is more suitable for constitut
ing simple Christians as arbitrators than for adopting heathen magistrates,
already appointed, as judges of Christians.

f There is yet another way, suggested by J. C. K. Hofmann and
accepted by Findlay ; Well then, as for secular tribunals if you have men
that are made of no account in the Church, set these on the bench ! The
punctuation does not seem to be very probable.

With the use of TOMTOM here we may compare TOUTOVS in xvi. 3 and
in 2 Thess. iii. 14.

VX5-7] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 115

Or, So is there not found among you one wise person ? The
ouTO)s refers to the condition of things in the Corinthian Church :
Chrys., Toa avT jy o~7rdVts dvSpa&gt;v &lt;rwTaiv Trap v/xtv ; it is now
commonly admitted that Ivi " is not a contraction from o/e&lt;rn, but
the preposition / or ew, strengthened by a vigorous accent, like
CTTI, Trapa, and used with an ellipse of the substantive verb "
(Lightfoot on Gal. iii. 28; J. B. Mayor on Jas. i. 17): translate,
therefore, is not found.

SiaKpimi dm plvov TOU d8eX&lt;f&gt;ou aurou. A highly condensed
sentence ; to decide between his fellow-Christian meaning to
act as arbitrator between one fellow-Christian and another. We
want ova /LteVov a$e\(f)ov KOL TOV dS. aurov, like dva /xecrov e/x,ov /cat
&lt;rov (Gen. xxiii. 15). J. H. Moulton (Gr. p. 99) suspects a
corruption in the text, but dictation may account for the ab
breviation : TU&gt;V dS&lt;-A&lt;oii/ avrov is the simplest conjecture. The
compound preposition ava peo-ov is frequent in papyri. As the
Lord had directed (Matt, xviii. 17), the aggrieved brother ought
to tell it to the Church. *

Both here and in xv. 34 there is difference of reading between Xyo&gt; and
XaX&lt;2. Here X&lt;fya&gt; (N D E V G L P) is to be preferred to XaXtD (B, with C
doubtful), tvi (X B C L P) rather than Icriv (D E F G). oWeis (ro06s
(X B C 17, Copt.) rather than ovdt els &lt;ro&lt;j&gt;6s (F G P) or &lt;ro06s oidi els (D 3 L)
or &lt;ro&lt;j&gt;6s without ov8e ets or ovdeis (D* E, Aeth.). For rou d5eX0oO some
editors conjecture T&V a.8e\&lt;f&gt;uv.

6. dXXa d8eX4&gt;os K.r.X. We have the same doubt as that
respecting /xTJrtye /?iom/&lt;a (v. 3). This verse may be a con
tinuation of the preceding question (WH., RV.), or a separate
question (AV.), or an appended statement (Ellicott). In the
last case, dAAa is Nay, * On the contrary.

Kal TOUTO. This is the climax. That there should be dis
putes about pLUTiKa is bad; that Christian should go to law
with Christian is worse; that Christians should do this before
unbelievers is worst of all. It is a scandal before the heathen
world. Cf. *a! TOVTO (Rom. xiii. n; 3 John 5) and the more
classical KCU ravra (Heb. xi. 12), of which Wetstein gives
numerous examples.

7. T]&T] ptv ovv. Nay, verily there is at once, there is to
begin with, without going any further : /uev ow, separate, as in
v. 4, and with no Se to answer to the /ueV.

oXws- Altogether, i.e. no matter what the tribunal may be :
or generally, under any circumstances, i.e. no matter what
the result may be.

A falling short of spiritual attainment, or of

* Cicero (Ad Fam. ix. 25) writes to Papirius Paetus, Noli pati litigare
) et judiciis turpibus conflictari.

Il6 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 7

Christian blessings, a defect (RV.), or possibly *a defeat.
They have been worsted in the spiritual fight. Origen here
contrasts rjTTao-Oai with VLKO.V* Cf. Isa. xxxi. 8, ot 8t veai/ur/coi
rovT&lt;H i5 TjrrrjfM. In Rom. xi. 12 the meaning seems to be
defeat (see note there), and these are the only passages in the
Bible in which the word occurs. See Field, Otium Noruic.
iii. 97.

Kpifiara. Elsewhere in N.T. the word means decrees or
* judgments, but here it is almost equivalent to Kpinqpia (v. 4) :
matters for judgment, lawsuits.

jie6 laurel. Literally, with your own selves. It is pos
sible that this use of /xc# ecumov for /xer dAA?jA&lt;oi/ is deliberate,
in order to show that in bringing a suit against a fellow-Christian
they were bringing a suit against themselves, so close was the
relationship. The solidarity of the Church made such conduct
suicidal. But the substitution occurs where no such idea can be
understood (Mark xvi. 3).

There are passages in M. Aurelius which are very much in
harmony with these verses. He argues that men are kinsmen,
and that all wrong-doing is the result of ignorance. Those who
know better must be patient with those who know not what
they do in being insolent and malicious. "But I, who have
seen the nature of the good that it is beautiful, and of the bad
that it is base (cuVxpoy), and the nature of him that does the
wrong, that it is akin to me, not so much by community of
blood and seed as by community of intelligence and divine
endowment, I can neither be injured by any of them, for no
one can fix on me what is base ; nor can I be angry with one
who is my kinsman, nor feel hatred against him" (ii. i). "On
every occasion a man should say, This comes from God : this
is from one of the same tribe and family and society, but from
one who does not know what befits his nature. But I know ;
therefore I treat him according to the natural law of fellowship
with kindness and justice" (iii. n). "With what are you so
displeased ? with the badness of men ? Consider the decision,
that rational beings exist for one another, and that to be patient
is a part of righteousness, and that men do wrong against their
will"(iv ;3 ).

d8iicei(70e, diroorepeicrOe. Endure wrong, endure depriva
tion. The verbs are middle, not passive.

* He says that the man who accepts injury without retaliating
while the man who brings an action against a fellow-Christian r/rrarat. He
is worsted, has lost his cause, by the very fact of entering a law-court. Simil
arly, Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 14, which is a commentary on this section ;
"To say then that the wronged man goes to law before the wrongdoers is
nothing else than to say that he desires to retaliate and wishes to do wrong
to the second in return, which is likewise to do wrong also himself."

VI. 8] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 117

fjd-r] iv otv (N 3 ABCD ELP, Aeth.) ; omit ofo (N* D* 17, Vulg.
Copt. Arm. ). The oftv is probably genuine. A omits tfAws. The eV before
iifuv has very little authority ; est in vobis (Vulg.).

8. dXXci, ujxcis. * Whereas you, on the contrary. The em
phatic pronoun contrasts their conduct with what is fitting.
1 Not content with refusing to endure wrong (and as Christians
you ought to be ready to endure it), you yourselves inflict it,
and that on fellow-Christians ; a climax of unchristian con
duct. Matt. v. 39-41 teaches far otherwise; and the substance
of the Sermon on the Mount would be known to them. The
sentence is not part of the preceding question.*

D transposes d5i/rerre and dTroo-repetre. For TOUTO, L, Arm., Chrys.,
Thdrt. have raOra, perhaps to cover the two verbs.

9-11. Unrighteousness in all its forms is a survival from
a bad past, which the Corinthians ought to have left
behind them.

Evil-doers, such as some of you were, cannot enter the
Kingdom.

9 Is this wilfulness on your part, or is it that you do not
know that wrong-doers will have no share in the Kingdom?
Do not be led astray by false teachers. No fornicator, idolater,
adulterer, sensualist, sodomite, 10 thief, cheat, drunkard, reviler,
or extortioner will have any share in God s Kingdom. n And
of such vile sort some of you once were. But you washed your
pollutions away, you were made holy, you were made righteous,
by sharing in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the
gift of the Spirit of God.

These three verses conclude the subject of w. 1-8 by an
appeal to wider principles, and thus prepare the way for the
fourth matter of censure (12-20). The connexion with vv. 1-8
is definite, although not close. The Corinthians have shown
themselves dSi/coi, in the narrower sense of unjust, by their
conduct to one another (dSt/cetre, v. 8). They need, however,
to be reminded that dSi/ao, in any sense (see note below) excludes
a man from the heritage of God s Kingdom. The Apostle goes
on to specify several forms of a&Wa which they ought to have
abandoned, and finally returns to the subject of 7ropva.

* It is remarkable that in six verses we have four cases in which there is
doubt whether the sentence is interrogative or not ; w. 3, 4, 6, 8. In this
last case the interrogative is very improbable. See also on v. 13.

Il8 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI.

9. $ OUK oi&are. See vv. 2 and 19. There is an alternative
implied. [Is it from a reckless determination to do as they
please regardless of the consequences,] or is it from real ignor
ance of the consequences ? In either case their error is disas
trous.

aSiKoi. The word is suggested by the previous dSt/ceiTe, and
this should be marked in translation ; f ye do wrong . . . wrong
doers shall not inherit No English version preserves the
connexion ; nor does the Vulgate, injuriam facitis . . . iniqui :
but Beza does so, injuriam faritis . . . injusfos. Now the word
takes a wider meaning; it is wrongdoing of any kind, and not
the special kind of being unjust in matters of personal rights,
that is meant ; and here the Apostle passes to a more compre
hensive survey of the spiritual state of his readers, and also to
a Sterner tone : eis aTraAr/i/ KaraKAet ec, rrjv TrapcuVeo-iv (Chrys.).
The evil that he has now to deal with is the danger of Gentilt
licentiousness.

6eou paaiXcuxi . When St Paul uses the shorter form, God s
Kingdom (v. 10, xv. 50; Gal. v. 21), instead of the more usual
f) fias. rov 0. (iv. 20 ; Rom. xiv. 17^2 Thess. i. 5 ; cf. Eph. v. 5),
he elsewhere writes fias. eov. Here eov is placed first, in order
to bring aSi/coi and eov into emphatic contrast by juxtaposition :
wrong-doers are manifestly out of place in God s Kingdom.
Cf. 7rpo&lt;ro)7roi/ eos avOpwirov ov Aa/x/Jai/ei (Gal. ii. 6). To inherit
the Kingdom of God is a Jewish thought, in allusion to the
promise given to Abraham ; but St Paul, in accordance with his
doctrine of grace, enlarges and spiritualizes the idea of inherit
ance. He reminds the Corinthians that, although all Christians
are heirs, yet heirs may be disinherited. They may disqualify
themselves. In iv. 20, the Kingdom is regarded as present.
Here and xv. 50 it is regarded as future. It is both : see
J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus, p. 24; Dalman, Words^ p. 125;
Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 576.

Mf) irXamo-ee. See on Luke xxi. 8. The verb is passive,
Do not be led astray, and implies fundamental error.* The
revisers sometimes correct the deceived of AV. to led astray,
but here and xv. 33 they retain deceived. The charge is a
sharper repetition of 17 OVK otSare. Some Jews held that the
belief in one God sufficed without holiness of life. Judaizers
may have been teaching in Corinth that faith sufficed.!

* Origen illustrates thus; "Let no one lead you astray with persuasive
words, saying that God is merciful, kind, and loving, and ready to forgive
sins."

f Duchesne thinks that there is nothing in I or 2 Corinthians " to lead to
the conclusion that the Apostle s rivals had introduced Judaizing tendencies
in Corinth" (Early Hist of the Ckr. Church, p. 23). That can hardly be
maintained respecting 2 Corinthians, and is very disputable about this Epistle.

VL 9-11] LITIGATION BEFORE HEATHEN COURTS 119

The order of the ten kinds of offenders is unstudied. He
enumerates sins which were prevalent at Corinth just as they
occur to him. Of the first five, three (and perhaps four) deal
with sinners against purity, while the fifth, idolaters, were
frequently sinners of the same kind. Of the last five, three are
sinners against personal property or rights, such as are censured
in v. 8. All of them are in apposition to aSiKoi, an apposition
which would seem quite natural to Greeks, who were accustomed
to regard SIKCUOCTWT; as the sum-total of virtues (Arist. Eth. NIC.
v. i. 15), and therefore dSi/aa as the sum-total of vices (ibid. 19 :
see on Luke xiii. 27). Several of these forms of evil are dealt
with in this Epistle (w. 13-18, v. i, u, viii. 10, x. 14, etc.) :
cf. Rom. i. 27 and iii. 13; Gal. v. 19, 20; i Tim. i. 10.*

For GeoG /ScuriXe/cu , L, d e f Vulg. have the more usual /3a&lt;r. 0eoO. D*
has ovdt throughout vv. 9, 10. ov fdOvaoi. (N A C P 17) rather than ovrt
p.td. (B D 3 E L). L P insert ov before K\r)povo/jt.rj(rov&lt;ru&gt; at the end of
v. 10.

11. Kal return Ti^cs rJT. And such dreadful things as these
some of you were? While the neuter indicates a horror of what
has been mentioned, the TU/CS and the tense lighten the sad
statement. Not all of them, not even many, but only some,
*re said to have been guilty ; and it is all a thing of the past
f. ^T in Rom. vi. 1 7.

dXXdt. The threefold But emphasizes strongly the contrast
between their present state and their past, and the consequent
demand which their changed moral condition makes upon them.

d7reXouo-acr0. Neither ye are washed (AV.), nor ye were
washed (RV.), nor ye washed yourselves (RV. marg.), but
1 ye washed them away from you, ye washed away your sins ;
exactly as in Acts xxii. 16, the only other place in N.T. in which
the compound verb OCCUrs ; dvcurras /^armo-ai /cat ciTroAovcrai ras
apapTLas arov. Their seeking baptism was their own act, and
they entered the water as voluntary agents, just as St Paul
did. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 21.

TjY""0T)Te, e8iKcuw0Y)T. The repetitions of the aorist show
that these verbs refer to the same event as d7reAovVa&lt;r#. The

* There is a manifest reproduction of w. 9, 10 in Ign. Eph. 16 ; also in
Ep. of Polycarp, 5. On the general sense of the two verses see Sanday on
St Paul s Equivalent for the Kingdom of Heaven, JTS. July 1900, pp. 481 f.

Aristot. (Eth. Nic. vn. iv. 4) says that people are called /j.a\a.Kol in
reference to the same things as they are called d/c6Xa&lt;7roi, viz. Trepi raj
(rw/iari/cas d.iro\av&lt;reis : Plato (Rt.p. viii. 556 B) irp6s i)8oi&gt;ds re Kal X^Trax.
Origen here gives the word a darker meaning. See Deissmann, Light, p. 150.
He gives a striking illustration of the list of vices here and elsewhere, derived
from counters in an ancient game. Each counter had the name of a vice or a
virtue on it ; and in the specimens in museums the vices greatly preponderate
(pp. 320 f.).

120 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 12-2O

crisis, of which their baptism was the concrete embodiment,
had marked their transition from the rule of self to the service
of God (consecration), and from the condition of guilty sinners
to that of pardoned children of God (justification). Neither of
the verbs here is to be taken in the technical theological sense
which each of them sometimes bears : cf. ayiot (i. 2) and rfyiatrrat
(vii. 14). Here eSiKatco^re forms a kind of climax, completing
the contrast with aSi/coi (v. 9). The new life is viewed here as
implicit in the first decisive turn to Christ, which again was
inseparably connected with their baptism. Cf. Rom. vi. 7.

cV TW 6y6|Acm T. K. I. Xp. As in Acts ii. 38, x. 48 ; cf. cis TO
oV., Acts viii. 1 6, xix. 5. Matt, xxviii. 19 is the only passage in
which the Trinitarian form is found. See Hastings, DB. i.
p. 241 f. This passage is remarkable as being an approach
to the Trinitarian form, for eV TU&gt; Ilve^/mri is coupled with in
the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and TOV eov is added ; so
that God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit are all
mentioned. But it is doubtful whether this verse can be taken
as evidence of a baptismal formula. Godet certainly goes too
far in claiming it as implying the use of the threefold Name (see
on Matt, xxviii. 19). But it is right to take ev rw oVo/mri K.T.\.
with all three verbs. Cf. "saved in His Name" (Enoch, xlviii. 7).

BCPi7, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. insert riftuv after TOV "Kvplov:
N A D E L omit. It is not easy to decide. N B C D* E P, Vulg. Copt.
Arm. Aelh. insert XpitrroO after Ir)&lt;rov : A D 3 L omit. The word is pro
bably genuine. In both cases the evidence of C is not clear : there is
space for the word, but it is not legible.

VI. 12-20. THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION IN THE
LIGHT OF FIRST PRINCIPLES.

Christian freedom is not licentiousness. Our bodies were
not made for unchastity. The body is a temple of tlie
Spirit.

12 Perhaps I may have said to you at some time ; In all things
I can do as I like. Very possibly. But not all things that I
may do do me good. In all things I can do as I like, but I
shall never allow anything to do as it likes with me. 1S I am
not going to let myself be the slave of appetite. It is true that
the stomach and food were made for one another. Yet the)
were not made to last for ever : the God who made them will
put an end to both. But it is not true that the body was made
for fornication. The body is there to serve the Lord, and the

VL 12-20] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 121

Lord is there to have the body for His service : 14 and as God
raised Him from the dead, so will He also raise us up by His own
power. 15 Is it that you do not know that your bodies are members
of Christ ? Shall I then take away from Christ members which
are His and make them members of a harlot ? Away with so
dreadful a thought ! 16 Or is it that you do not know that the
union of a man with his harlot makes the two to be one body ?
I am not exaggerating ; for the Scripture says, The two shall
become one flesh. 17 But the union of a man with the Lord
makes the two to be one spirit. 18 Do not stop to parley with
fornication : turn and fly. In the case of no other sin is such
grievous injury done to the body as in this case : the fornicator
sins against his own body. 19 Does that statement surprise you ?
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit,
who makes His home in you, being sent for that very purpose
from God ? And, what is more, you are not your own property,
but God s. He paid a high price for you. Surely you are
bound to use to His glory the body which He has bought.

12-20. St Paul now passes to a fourth matter for censure.
He has already taken occasion, in connexion with a specially
flagrant case of iropi/cia, to blame the lack of moral discipline
in the community. He now takes up the subject of iropvda.
generally, dealing with it in the light of first principles. The
sin was prevalent at Corinth (v. 9, vii. 2; 2 Cor. xii. 21), and
was virtually condoned by public opinion in Greece and in
Rome. Moreover, the Apostle s own teaching as to Christian
liberty (Rom. v. 20, vi. 14) had been perverted and caricatured,
not only by opponents (Rom. iii. 8), but also by some emanci
pated Christians at Corinth itself. The latter had made it an
excuse for licence. He proceeds now to show the real meaning
and scope of Christian liberty, and in so doing sets forth the
Christian doctrine of the body as destined for eternal union
with Christ.

12. irdrra pot c^eariy. These are St Paul s own words (see
on x. 23). They may have been current among the Corinthians
as a trite maxim. If so, the Apostle here adopts them as his
own, adding the considerations which limit their scope. More
probably they were words he had used, which were well known
as his, and which had been misused by persons whom he now
proceeds to warn. Of course, Trdvra is not absolute in extent :

122 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 12

no sane person would maintain that it was meant to cover such
things as Tro/oveia and justify Travov/oyia. It covers, however, a very
great deal, viz. the whole of that wide range of things which are
not wrong per se. But within this wide range of things which
are indifferent, and therefore permissible, there are many things
which become wrong, and therefore not permissible, in view of
principles which are now to be explained.

jxoi e&lt;rni&gt;. Saepe Paulus prima persona singulari eloquitur^
quae vim habent gnomes ; in hac praesertim epistola^ tf. 15, vii. 7,
viii. 13, x. 23, 29, 30, xiv. n (Beng.). The saying applies to
all Christians. On its import see J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus^

PP- 5 X &gt; 5 2 -

dXV ou irdrra cru[A&lt;f&gt;pi. Liberty is limited by the law of the
higher expediency, i.e. by reference to the moral or religious life
of all those who are concerned, viz. the agent and those whom
his conduct may influence. In this first point the Apostle is
possibly thinking chiefly of the people influenced.* We have no
longer any right to do what in itself is innocent, when our doing
it will have a bad effect on others. Our liberty is abused when
our use of it causes grave scandal.

OUK eyw ouo-iao-0rjcrojjLai uiro TI^OS. This is the second point ;
really included in the higher law of expediency, but requiring to
be stated separately, in order to show that the agent, quite apart
from those whom his conduct may influence, has to be con
sidered. What effect will his action have upon himself? We
have no longer any right to do what in itself is innocent, when
experience has proved that our doing it has a bad effect on our
selves. Our liberty is abused when our use of it weakens our
character and lessens our power of self-control. St Paul says
that, for his part, he will not be brought under the power of
anything. The ov/c is emphatic, and the eyw slightly so, but
very slightly : the ey&lt;o is rendered almost necessary by the pre
ceding /tot. We must beware of using liberty in such a way as
to lose it, e.g. in becoming slaves to a habit respecting things
which in themselves are lawful. The nvos is neuter, being one
of the Traj/ra.

The verb ovo-iaeiv is chosen because of its close connexion
with extern through eou&lt;ria : it is frequent in LXX, especially in
Ecclesiastes ; in N.T., vii. 4 and Luke xxii. 25.! This play on
words cannot be reproduced exactly in English ; perhaps * I can
make free with all things, but I shall not let anything make free

* In x. 23 f., where St Paul again twice quotes his own Trdvra pot
he is certainly thinking chiefly of the people influenced.

t Nowhere else does the passive occur. But in late Greek the rule that
only verbs which have an accusative can be used in the passive is not observed.
See Lightfoot on doyftaTtfrffQe (Col. ii. 20).

VI. 12, 13] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 123

with me may serve to show the kind of thought : mihi res non
me rebus submittere conor.

These two verses (12, 13) are a kind of preface to the subject
of Tro/jveia, to show that it is not one of those things which may
or may not be lawful according to circumstances. It is in all
circumstances wholly outside the scope of Christian liberty, how
ever that liberty may be denned. While many things are lawful,
and become wrong only if indulged (like the appetite for food)
to an extent that is harmful to ourselves or to others, fornication
is not a legitimate use of the body, but a gross abuse of it, being
destructive of the purpose for which the body really exists.

13. TO, Ppojfxara . . . TOIS j3po5fxaaiK. It is quite possible that
some of the Corinthians confused what the Apostle here so
clearly distinguishes, the appetite for food and the craving for
sensual indulgence. " We have traces of this gross moral con
fusion in the Apostolic Letter (Acts xv. 23-29), where things
wholly diverse are combined, as directions about meats to be
avoided and a prohibition of fornication" (Lightfoot). The
Apostles, who framed these regulations, did not regard them as
on the same plane, but the heathen, for whom they were framed,
did. St Paul makes the distinction luminously clear. Not only
are meats made for the belly, but the belly, which is essential to
physical existence, is made for meats, and cannot exist without
them. There is absolute correlation between the two, as long as
earthly life lasts : but no longer, for both of them will eventually
be done away. When the crco/xa ceases to be \I/V\LKOV and becomes
7n&gt;ev/AtmKoj&gt; (xv. 44), neither the /3/Dw/xara nor the /coiAta will have
any further function, and therefore * God will bring to nought
both of them.

rd 8e &lt;rwji.a ou rfj iropyeia. No such relation exists between
the crw/jM. and Tropj/ei a as between the KoiAi a and ySpw/xara. The
supposed parallel breaks down in two essential particulars,
(i) The o-w/xa was not made for Tropvefa, but for the Lord, in
order to be a member of Christ, who lived and died to redeem
it. (2) The o-w/xa is not, like the KoiAi a, to be brought to nought,
but to be transformed and glorified (Phil. iii. 21). The * bodv
is contrasted with flesh and blood (xv. 37, 50), and the KoiAta
belongs to the latter, and has only a temporal purpose, whereas
the body has an eternal purpose. So far, therefore, from
iropveta standing to the body in the same relation as meats to the
belly, it fatally conflicts with the body s essential destiny, which
is membership with Christ.

It is possible that in selecting the relation between appetite
and food as a contrast to iropvfia St Paul is indirectly discourag
ing Judaistic distinctions of meats, or ascetic prohibitions of flesh

124 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 13, 14

and wine. No kind of food is forbidden to the Christian. But
even if there had been no Judaizers at work in Corinth, and no
tendency towards asceticism, he would probably have selected
the relation between ySpoj/xara and KoiAi a for his purpose. The
argument is still used, " If I may gratify one bodily appetite,
why may I not gratify another? Naturalia non sunt turpia.
Omnia munda mundis"

Kal 6 Kupios TW o-wfAdTi. A startling assertion of perfect corre
lation : quanta dignatio ! (Beng.). The Son of God, sent in the
likeness of sinful flesh, has His purpose and destiny, viz. to
dwell in and glorify the body (Rom. viii. 23) which is united
with Him through the Spirit (y. 17); and it is lawful to say that
He is for it as well as it for Him.

14. 6 8e ecos. This is parallel to 6 Se eos in v. 13, and puts
the contrast between the two cases in a very marked way. In
the case of the /coiXta, and the /fyco/wxra to which it is related,
God will reduce both of them to nothingness. In the case of
the troj/xa, and the Kvpios to which it is related, God has raised
the Kvptos, and will raise up the &lt;ro&gt;//,a of every one who is a
member of Him. The contrast between the two cases is com
plete. On the other hand, the close relationship between the
Lord and all true Christians is shown by the doubled conjunc
tion; /cat TOV Kupiov . . . KCU ^/xas. See Sanday (The Life of
Christ in Recent Research, p. 132) on the view that it was St Paul
who deified Christ.

The change from the simple (r/yeipcv) to the compound verb
(eeyepei) has perhaps little meaning. In late Greek, compounds
do not always have any additional force, and the difference is
not greater than that between raise and raise up. The com
pound may be used to mark the future raising as not less sure
than the one which is past, and it is well to mark the difference,
as RV. does. AV., with raise up for both, ignores the change,
as does Vulg., suscitavit . . . susritabit, and Iren. int. (v. vi. 2).
The compound occurs only here and Rom. ix. 17 in N.T. ; in
LXX it is very frequent. See on f^aTrardrw, iii. 18.

8td TTJS Suvdjxews auTou. This may qualify both verbs, but is
more appropriate to e^yepei. There was need to remind the
Corinthians of God s power, in order to confirm their belief in
their own future resurrection (xv. 12); but no one who believed
that Christ had been raised needed to be reminded of that : cf.
Matt. xxii. 29. It is worth observing that St Paul does not take
any account of the quick who will not need to be raised.
Contrast xv. 51 ; i Thess. iv. 15 f. ; Rom. viii. u.

eeye/)et (N C D 8 E K L, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Aeth. ) is probably to be pre
ferred to ej-eyelpei (A D* Q, d e suscitat), or to 3frtjycipev(B, Am. suscitavit}.
(P) may be regarded as supporting either of the first iwo, of which

VI. 14, 15] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 125

may be safely set aside. It is possible that B has preserved the
original reading, for no intelligent copyist would alter eeyepei into e^^yetpev,
but an unintelligent one might assimilate the second verb to the first. If
tr)yeipej&gt; is regarded as original it may be explained as referring to spiritual
resurrection to newness of life, or possibly as referring to our resurrection as
comprised potentially in that of Christ : God both raised the Lord and (by so
doing) raised up us. But it is unlikely that the Apostle would have obscured
the certainty of the future resurrection of the body by using language which
would have encouraged Hymenseus and Philetus (2 Tim. ii. 17, 1 8). Qui
dominum suscitavit, et nos suscitabit (Tert. Marc. v. 7).

15. OUK oiSare K.T.\. He presses home the principle that the
body is for the Lord. By virtue of that principle every Christian,
and every one of his members, is a member of Christ. The
higher heathen view was that man s body is in common with the
brutes, TO o-w/xa KOIVOV TT/DOS ra oia, and only his reason and
intelligence in common with the gods (Epict. Dissert. I. iii. i)
but the Christian view is TO o-w/xa /xeAos TOV X/OIO-TOV.* Epictetus
speaks of both God and gods, and in popular language calls God
Zeus. In this chapter he speaks of God as the father of men
and gods ; but, at the best, he falls far short of Christian Theism.
The Christian view, which first appears here, is developed in
another connexion in xii. and in Rom. xii. See also Eph. iv. 15,
1 6, v. 30.

apas oSV. The AV. misses a point in translating, Shall I
then take the members of Christ? The RV. has, Shall I then
take away the members of Christ? Aipeiv is not simply, to
take, which is Xap/Sdveiv, but either to take up, raise (Acts
xxvii. 17), or to take away (v. 2 ; Eph. iv. 31 ; Col. ii. 14; and
nowhere else in Paul). The verb is very common in Gospels
and Acts ; elsewhere rare in N.T. The Apostle assumes that
union with a harlot, unlike union with a lawful wife, robs Christ
of members which belong to Him. Union with Christ attaches
to our body through the spirit (v. 17), and sin is apostasy from
the spiritual union with Christ. This is true of all sin, but
is a peculiarly direct blow at the principle TO o-w/^a TW
Quantum flagitium esf, corpus nostrum a sacra ilia con-
junctions abreptum ad res Christo indignas transferri (Calv.). As
Augustine remarks (De Civ. Dei xxi. 25), "they cannot be at
once the members of Christ and the members of a harlot."

iroiTJaw. It is impossible and unimportant to decide whether
7ronjo-a&gt; is deliberative subjunctive ( Am I to take away . . . and
make? ) or future indicative ( Shall I take away? etc.). The two
aorists would mark two aspects, simultaneous in effect, of one and
the same act. But the future harmonizes better with /AT) yevotro.
AV., RV., Alford, Edwards, Ellicott, B. Weiss prefer the future.

* Origen says, fJt^Krj r6re ylverat Xpurrov, flre TT&VTO. /caret rbv a&rov \6yov

126 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 15, 16

jif) ylvono. Like OVK oiSarc, this expression of strong dissent
is frequent in this group of the Pauline Epistles (Romans, ten
times ; Galatians, twice ; and here). Elsewhere in N.T., Luke
xx. 1 6. It is rare in LXX, and never stands as an independent
sentence: Gen. xliv. 7, 17; Josh. xxii. 29, xxiv. 16; i Kings xx.
[xxi.] 3. It is one of several translations of the same Hebrew,
another of which is iXecos (i Chron. xi. 19 ; 2 Sam. xx. 20 ; Matt.
xvi. 22). Neither /AT) yeVoiro nor tAccos is confined to Jewish and
Christian writings : the former is frequent in Arrian, the latter is
found in inscriptions. In Horn. Od. vii. 316 we have ^ TOVTO
&lt;J&gt;\ov Au irarpl yeWro, of detaining Ulysses against his wish.
Cf. Di meliora. Here it expresses horror.

After ret ffd/uuiTa there is the common confusion between v/muv (X s B C D
E F G K L P, Latt. ) and T^WJ/ (K* A). &pa (P and a few cursives) or ij 8.pa
(F G) cannot be regarded as more probable than dpas (K A B C D E, etc.) ;
yet Baljon adopts it : &pas has much force, not only in marking the grievous
wrong done to Christ, but also in showing the voluntary, and even deliberate,
character of the act.

16. T] OUK oiSare. Again (v. 2) we have this reproachful
question. The Apostle proceeds to corroborate the TTOITJO-OJ
TropvrjS fJL\rj of V. 15.

d KoXXw/iecos. The word may come from 7rpoo-Ko\\a&lt;r0ai in
Gen. ii. 24, as in Eph. v. 31, or possibly from Ecclus. xix. 2, I
KoAAoo/xcvos Tro pi/ais To/X/xrypoVepos larai. Both the simple and the
compound verb are frequent in LXX ; in N.T. the compound is
very rare. In both, only the passive, with reflective sense, is
found. In N.T. the usual construction is the simple dat., as
here. In LXX the constr. varies greatly, and there (2 Kings
xviii. 6 ; cf. Ecclus. ii. 3) we have KoXXaa-Ocu ru Kvpi w, as here, to
express loyal and permanent adherence, resulting in complete
spiritual union. This is placed in marked contrast to the
temporary physical union which is so monstrous. The verb is
frequent in Ep. Barnabas (ix. 9, x. n, xix. 2, 6, xx. 2).

eo-orrat ydp, (j^o-iy, ot Su o ets a. fi. The subject to be under
stood with &lt;j&gt;r)o-Lv must always depend upon the context. The
word may introduce the objection of an opponent (2 Cor. x. 10).
In Heb. viii. 5 we must understand * God. Here we may do
the same, or (what amounts to the same) supply 17 y/3a&lt;/j. The
177-77 i n xv - 2 7&gt; an d the Xe yei in 2 Cor. vi. 2, and Gal. iii. 16, and
Eph. iv. 8, are similar. In each case there is divine authority
for the statement The quotation is direct from the LXX,
which has 01 Svo, as in Matt. xix. 5 ; Mark x. 8; Eph. v. 31,
although it is not in the original. For flv at cts = yiVecr&u there
is perhaps no exact parallel in N.T., although the expression is
frequent; xiv. 22 ; 2 Cor. vi. 18 ; Eph. i. 12; Heb. i. 5, viii. 10;
etc. In most of these cases ets may mean to serve as. It is

VI. 18] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION

manifest that here no distinction is to be drawn between
and

18. &lt;j&gt;uyT -ri]v iropvciav- Do not stop to dispute about it :
make a practice (pres. imperat.) of flying at once. So also of
idolatry, which was so closely allied with impurity, x. 14. The
asyndeton marks the urgency. Cf. i Thess. iv. 3.

nav dfjidpTTijjLa K.T.\. The difficulty of this passage lies in the
distinction drawn between e/cros T. o-oo/xaros, the predicate of
every sin that a man doeth, and efc T. iStov o-oyux, as marking the
distinctive sin of the fornicator. Commentators differ greatly
as to the explanation of eVros T. o-w/xaros, which is the specially
difficult expression. But the general meaning of vv. I3b-i8 is
plain. The body has an eternal destiny, TO crw/xa TW Kvpi w.
Fornication takes the body away from the Lord and robs it of its
glorious future, of which the presence of the Spirit is the present
guarantee (cf. Rom. viii. 9-11). In v. 18 we have the sharply
cut practical issue, Flee fornication. Clearly the words that
follow are meant to strengthen the severitas cum fastidio of the
abrupt imperative : they are not an anti-climax. Any exegesis
which fails to satisfy this elementary requirement may be set
aside; and for this reason the explanations of Evans, Meyer,
and Heinrici may be passed over.

It is obvious that CKTO S and ek are related as opposites. The
meaning of either will help to determine the meaning of the
other; and the meaning of ts T. tStov o-oi/xa d/xapraj/ct is fairly
certain. For d/xapraveti/ efc, by the common usage of secular and
Biblical Greek, means to sin against. 1 It cannot mean sin in,
or sin by means of] or involve in sin. What then does to
sin against one s own body mean ? The axiom, TO crw/xa TW
Kvptw, KCU 6 Kvpios TW o-u/um, answers this question. To sin
against one s own body is to defraud it of its part in Christ, to cut
it off from its eternal destiny. This is what fornication does in a
unique degree.* While fornication is ets TO tSiov &lt;r., other sins
are CKTO? TOV &lt;r. The one phrase is the opposite of the other.
What St Paul asserts of fornication he denies of every other
sin.

In what sense does he deny of all other sins that they are sins
against a man s own body ? If pressed and made absolute, the
denial becomes a paradox. He has just told us (vv. 9, 10) that

* Alford puts a similar view somewhat differently. The Apostle s
assertion is strictly true. Drunkenness and gluttony are sins done in and by
the body, and are sins by abuse 0/"the body, but they are introduced from with
out^ sinful in their effect^ which effect it is each man s duty to foresee and avoid.
But fornication is the alienating that body which is the Lords, and making
it a harlot s body ; it is not an effect on their body from participation of things
without, but a contradiction of the truth of the body, wrought within itself."

128 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS [VI. 18, 39

there are many sins which exclude their doer from the Kingdom,
and which therefore deprive the body of its future life in Christ.
Obviously, he is here speaking relatively, and by way of com
parison. All other sins are CKTOS TOV a-., in the sense that they
do not, as directly as fornication does, alienate the body from
Christ, its Life and its Goal.

This explanation gains in clearness if we compare the words
Of Our Lord (Matt. xii. 31), Trao-a a/xapri a /cat /SAaox^/zt a afaOij-

&lt;TTCU TOIS dv#pO)7rOlS* 17 Se TOV IIvV/XaTO5 /SAttCT^/Aia OVK a(f&gt;0T?)(rTai,

JC.T.A. There too the language may be comparative. We know
abundantly from Scripture that there is forgiveness for every
sin, if rightly sought. In the first clause the Saviour does not
proclaim an absolute indiscriminate amnesty for every other sin :
any sin, unrepented and unabsolved, is an alvviov d/xaprr//^
(Mark iii. 29). Neither clause is to be pressed beyond its purpose
to an absolute sense. But sin against the Spirit is so incom
parably less pardonable than any other, that, by comparison with
it, they may be regarded as venial. He who sins against the
Spirit is erecting a barrier, insuperable to a unique degree, against
his own forgiveness. In like manner, the words eYros TOV o-.
eo-Ti are not absolutely nor unconditionally predicated of every
sin which a man doeth :* they merely assert that other sins
" stop short of the baleful import of sensual sin " with its direct
onslaught on the dominant principle, TO o-wjua TW Kvpuo. Cf.
Hos. vi. 6, * I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, which does not
mean that sacrifice is forbidden, but that mercy is greatly
superior. Luke x. 20, xiv. 12, 13, xxiii. 28 are similar. Cf. ix.
10, x. 24, 33.

19. $ OUK otSare. Or, if you cannot see that unchastity is a
sin against your own body, are you ignorant that the body of
each of you is a sanctuary (John ii. 21) of the Holy Spirit (Rom.
viii. ii ; 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; 2 Tim. i. 14)? What in iii. 16 he stated
of the Christian community as a whole, he here states of every
member of it. In each case he appeals to facts which ought to
be well known, as in vv. 2, 3, 9, 15, 16, v. 6, ix. 13, 24; Rom.
vi. 19, xi. 2. Excepting Jas. iv. 4, the expression is peculiar to
these Epistles. Note the emphatic position of ayi ov : it is a Spirit
that is holy that is in you. In the temple of Aphrodite at
Corinth, Tropvcca was regarded as consecration : the Corinthians
are here told that it is a monstrous desecration (Findlay).
Epictetus (Dis. ii. 8) says, " Wretch, you are carrying God with
you, and you know it not. Do you think I mean some god of
silver or gold ? You carry Him within yourself, and perceive not
that you are polluting Him by impure thoughts and dirty deeds."

* On cap in relative sentences see Deissmann, Bible Studies ; pp. 20 1 f.

VI. 19, 20] THE SUBJECT OF FORNICATION 129

ou IXCTC diro 0. The relative is attracted out of its own case,
as often. Not content with emphasizing holy, 7 he gives further
emphasis to the preceding plea by pointing out